HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1995-01-04
TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ~
TOWN OF TIBURON
1101 TIBURON BLVD.
REGULAR MEETING
MEETING DATE:
CLOSED SESSION:
MEETING TIME:
JANUARY 4, 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) Slate Name and Address; (3) Stata Views Succinctly; (4) Umit Presentations to 3 minutes; (5)
Speak Directly into Microphone.
an 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
en...re accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title IIJ
===============================================
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPOINTMj:NTS TO COMMISSIONS. BOARDS, COMMITTEES
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) minutes. Matters requiring action
will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Stafffor consideration and/or placed
on a future Council meeting agenda.
D. COUNCIL, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE REPORTS
. MARIN COUNTY HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE JPA MEETING
DECEMBER 19 (Councilmember Nygren)
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion
and which will probably be approved by olle motioll ullless separate action is required on a particular item.
Any member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for
discussion.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #1036, November 16, 1994
2. INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORTS (October and November 1994)
3. SECTION 125 PLAN (Authorize Entering Into Agreement)
4. TOWN ENGINEER SERVICES (Approve Agreement between Town and
County of Marin)
5. HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION (Add Mission Statement & Revise
Functions - Resolution)
6. CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACf OF 1989
(Adopt Multi-Jurisdictional Non-Disposal Facility Element for Marin County
and Its Cities - Resolution)
.
.
MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
CORINTHIAN ISLAND STAIRS
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
K. ADJOURNMENT
. TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS (Mayor Thompson)
. TOWN COUNCIL 1995 GOALS & OBJECfIVES (Mayor Thompson)
J. COMMUNICATION.s
13. Setting Date for Joint Town Council, Planning Commission and Design Review
Board Workshop
12. ABAG Mobile Police Training Unit (March 29 . April 17, 1995)
I. STAFF AND TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
11. ANNEXATION POLICY AND PROCEDURES (Consider Overlay Zones -
Resolution)
10. TOWN ADMINISTRATION COMPUTER PROGRAM (Equipment
Replacement)
H. NEW BUSINESS
9. APPEAL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION (AP. #58-261-35;
Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Boosalis, 102 Mount Tiburon, New Residence;
Appellants: Howard & Diane Zack)
G. PUBLIC HEARING
8. DONAHUE BUILDING LEASE (Authorize Lease to Landmarks Society)
7. NEW TOWN CENTER DOWNTOWN PLAN PROPOSAL (Presentation of
Report by Special Ad Hoc Committee Consisting of Schematic Designs, Cost
Estimates and Financial Feasibility)
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Nygren called the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
to order at 7:35 P.M., Wednesday, November 16, 1994 in Council Chambers, 1101
Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ginalski, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf, Nygren
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Ewing,
Town Engineer Bala, Police Chief HerIey,
Planning Director Anderson, Finance Director
Stranzl, Town Clerk Hennessy
B. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS BOARDS. COMMITTEES
There were none.
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Bruce Abbott, Greenwood Beach Road, stated he was astounded at the strength of an
attack on one of the Councilmembers at a previous meeting who had expressed
independent thought; urged Council to work together.
Ralph Hockley, Mara Vista Court, recognized Tiburon Blvd. as a state highway but
suggested a Deer sign be posted.
Motion:
To adjourn meeting in memory of James Guelff, San Francisco Police
Officer, who was killed in the line of duty on November 13, 1994. Officer
Guelffs two children, Laura and Landon, are residents of Tiburon.
Ginalski, Seconded Thayer
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
Moved:
Vote:
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
1
.
D. TOWN PERSONNEL ACTIONS
APPOINTMENT OF TOWN ENGINEER - SlAV ASH MOHAMMADI
The Town Manager stated it was his pleasure to make a formal appointment of Siavash
Mohammadi as the new Town Engineer; noted that the Town has benefitted
tremendously from the efforts of Stan Bala.
Stan Bala thanked the audience for the standing ovation and noted how he installed the
turn-around at Paradise Drive so people can slow down and see the Bay.
The Mayor welcomed Mr. Mohammadi.
INTRODUCE NEW POLICE OFFICER - STEVE HOV ANESIAN
The Police Chief introduced Officer Steve Hovanesian, who had previously worked for
the Town and was returning after a tour of duty in the Army.
COMMENDATION FOR POLICE OFFICER - MIKE MOURGOS
The Police Chief read the Commendation to Officer Mike Mourgos for saving the life
of an elderly woman when responding to a 911 call.
Lou Brunini, former Supt. of Public Works, offered his commendation for Officer
Mourgos' assistance years ago.
E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE ORAL REPORTS
CECILIA PlACE (Status Report by Ecumenical Association for Housing)
Town Attorney reviewed letter from EAR explaining why the number of units might
have to change in order to receive funding. The item will be returned in January.
THE HILARITA
Hank Bruce, Town's representative stated the Tiburon Ecumenical Association and
Hilarita Residents Association have formed a new Hilarita Tiburon Ecumenical
Association, a non-profit corporation, which is now empowered to purchase The Hilarita.
HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION
Chairman Braff presented a draft of a Walking Tour Brochure. The Mayor thanked the
Commission for the time and energy they have devoted to this project.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
2
.
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: To approve the Consent Calendar consisting of the following items:
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #1032, October 19 as amended; #1033, November
2, 1994
2. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION (Town Engineer Stan Bala)
3. INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT (September 1994)
Moved:
Vote:
Thompson, Seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. NEW POLICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITY (Future Program Options)
The Mayor thanked those in attendance who worked on Measure "I".
The Town Manager reviewed the Staff report; suggested an advisory ballot on March 7;
suggested Council conduct public hearings and discuss bond alternatives; subject to the
direction of the advisory ballot, emphasized the importance of the Council working
together and determining appropriate funding mechanism.
Councilmember Ginalski suggested Staff meet with Mark Pressman and change ballot
wording; asked Staff to provide analysis of different revenue streams, Le., Certificates of
Participation, leases, real estate transfer taxes; requested an immediate meeting on the
downtown plan; listen to the proposal and analyze whether it can be done or not;
suggested a multi-prong attack; bring Measure I up-to-date; look at financing options and
look at downtown proposal.
Councilmember Thayer supported Mark's remarks; stated downtown project was voted
on and defeated five years ago; stated what he has seen is a warmed-up version of the
old plan; noted the time and money in the current plan which has been reduced in size
to meet objections expressed in the June election; stated paper circulated in his
neighborhood opposing Measure I; stated it was unfortunate misinformation circulated
instead of informed discussion; strongly supported a workshop or special session quickly
so that the downtown plan can be put on the table; he opposed Measure B five years
ago; stated let's look at the so called proposal and put it on the table and examine it
once again; not convinced they need an advisory ballot; not in favor of an advisory
ballot; stated the Council can look at the downtown plan and decide after public
hearings and hopefully all five Councilmembers will abide by that decision.
Vice-Mayor Thompson stated he was sad and depressed after the election; basically
agreed with options Councilmember Ginalski suggested; thought there were four options,
go right back on the ballot for a special election or general election; Certificates of
Participation funded through general revenue tax and look at greater financial
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
3
consequences of roads and open space bonds; look at no tax alternative whether it be
downtown, Ned's Way or Blackie's Pasture; need advisory process because the smallest
objection will kill 2/3 vote; need to leave elements of division behind them and move
toward a process of final closure; supported Certificates of Participation two years ago;
the Council has spent over $300,000.
Councilmember Wolf supported an advisory ballot; disagreed that the downtown
proposal was the same as Measure B; stated it was dramatically different in many ways;
to try to push this proposal through in the timeframe for a March election is counter-
productive; suggested aiming for June ballot measure; couldn't see herself supporting
Certificates of Participation because they require a new revenue stream; noted
Proposition 13 requires a 2/3 vote for a special tax; stated the downtown plan can be
accomplished without a tax.
Mayor Nygren stated it was very important the Council work together; roads, open space,
Blackie's Pasture, etc. need to be addressed; noted in 1989-90 a Utility Tax was passed
to fund the whole picture and unfortunately that was not pursued; not in favor of an
advisory ballot; not comfortable offering downtown option without knowing if it is a
feasible option; knew there were questions about an easement from the school district;
questioned what would the Council do if voters approved it and it was not a viable
option; would like to hear the plan first; if it is a workable plan, then offer it to the
public; stated the downtown plan does not include a police station; thought the Police
EOC is number one; asked when will the plan be done; suggested using existing funds
and build the Police and Administration portion and not build the meeting room and
Recreation Department offices; stated Belvedere is considering moving a house near
their Corp Yard to house the Recreation Department; wanted to add that thought to the
options; liked idea of considering March election; would like to hear about downtown
plan by next week; would like to consider revenue stream; an advisory ballot was not an
option as far as she was concerned.
Councilmember Ginalski wanted to get various strategies and options out on the table.
Dick Hinkel, 2 Malvino Court, Co-Chair of Build It Now Committee, stated when
discussing the election some people stated they didn't want a tax for any reason; some
preferred "downtown"; some people have a negative impression of Town administration;
stated nobody on their Committee gives a damn where we build it as long as we build
it; it is not a question of downtown or uptown; with respect to an advisory ballot, thought
it would be a waste of taxpayers money; might be a strategy for those people who have
a bent for downtown; it is hard to say people don't want it there; Ned's Way is a
bonafide certified do it now plan; had a known building, two ballots, over 100 public
meetings and didn't see purpose an advisory ballot would serve; didn't think there was
time to get a definitive plan together; agreed as a Committee unless the entire Council
is united it probably won't happen if it has to go to the voters; Committee would love
to see this downtown issue incorporated into a structured process in which the Town is
represented.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
4
Tim Harris, 68 Marinero Circle, stated there were two facets to Measure I; one the
assessment, the other an alternative plan was sort of on the table; stated virtually every
small Town has had a Town Hall downtown; suspect it might have turned off voters.
Larry Smith, former Mayor, speaking for and representing a number of former
Councilmembers and Mayors who couldn't be present; stated they had met and there
was a real consensus of what they thought the Council should do and that is to make
sure there is a process in place; that there is enough time and the March ballot is not
enough; the June ballot is probably the space the Council can operate in; the process is
for the benefit of the citizens of Tiburon; the Council is very informed and in some cases
very opinionated; public needs to know what is the downtown plan; it is instant finance
if the public can buy into selling part of the Ned's Way property; the plan needs to be
flushed out; acknowledge a person or persons who will advocate the plan; answer
concerns; examine apples to apples; all five Councilmembers have to get behind an
option if it is going to fly; if the Council can't do that then they thought an advisory
ballot was necessary and let the public chose what direction to go; their focus is to find
an alternative that is to be one that will deliver an office for our Town employees.
Kirk Hanson, former Mayor, stated he met with eight former Mayors and
Councilmembers, Mr. Hinkel, Mr. Heckmann and the Town Manager that morning;
stated it was important that all five Councilmembers recognize the fact all of them and
nine other Councilmembers are trying to figure out how to get a Town Hall; process
started in 1981; stated former Councilmembers all have very different thoughts; the key
is they meet as great friends; the five of you have not exhibited that since the April
election; no more name calling; you have to stop throwing darts; wanted to remind them
where they were in July; they had just lost a vote for Measure M; in that July meeting,
there was a 3-2 vote and the five of you endorsed it; you need to respect the differences
of opinion; all five of you have to be behind something to get it to the next step; stated
their group respected the fact that Mayor Nygren and Councilmember Thayer are low
growth proponents; an option where we would not have to go to the people and have
a tax puts them in a very difficult position because it means selling part of Ned's Way;
it is incumbent upon the Council to keep your minds open and not have any subversion
behind the scenes; the Town lost Measure M and Measure I and spent $300,000; stated
Councilmembers Thompson and Wolf have been allotted $5,000 to pursue an alternate
plan; they feel the Council should give these people a chance; see if the Town can build
Town Hall and a Police Department without spending public money; you have a hard
time turning that down.
Bruce Ross, former Mayor, emphasized with proponents of Ned's Way site; understand
making a transition is going to be very difficult; he had faith in them; thought they could
do; stated Larry Smith outlined the greatest, most succinct statement of how to proceed;
it is on tape; have it typed out.
Nat Marans, 40 year resident, heavily involved in Town Hall; sale of Ned's Way has been
on the agenda for ten years; someone wants this property; we don't have a negative; we
have a positive; missed by 21 votes; Council has a mandate by 2/3 of the people in
Tiburon that says we want Ned's Way for a Town Hall; cost has gone up because interest
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
5
rates have gone up; while saving $1 million on the original development, it cost $1
million in higher cost; reviewed precinct vote; everyone is missing the point; we won, we
did not lose; it gives you a mandate to go ahead with the project the public wants; we
have $1.2 million, plus now; admire Mayor Nygren's idea to build it now; the downtown
plan has no validity; it is not central; start doing Certificates of Participation; you have
the right to do it; wasn't active on the last Measure but Mr. Hinkel stated the
Committee was interested in downtown and that's not true; you have the right to follow
the mandates of the people.
Pat Kellet Small, 44 Meadowhill, knew 2/3 was very difficult; 2600 voted for Measure
I; there are 5500 registered; make sure everyone understands there is a fair process and
get the people to come out and vote; do not feel people voted for the site; think they
were voting for the cost factors; think people feel a no tax alterative should be explored;
agree with the previous Mayors that the options need to be explored; Measures M and
I have been defeated; what bothers her when she comes to the Council meetings, she
doesn't see the Council working together; even comments tonight show division;
suggested the former mayors work with the Town Council.
Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, people voted for the site and amount of tax, but
basically thought because there's an immediate need; what she has found missing in the
discussion tonight is how long will the Council consider the downtown plan; thought
Advisory Committee's come up with a better product; Measure M took two years; think
you have got to put time frame on finding out if this is a workable plan; we need a Town
Hall now.
The Council discussed time frame for March ballot; cost estimate to build the
Administration and Police portion of the Ned's Way proposal without Council Chambers
and Recreation Department; look at alternative financing; gather information on
downtown option and have meeting as soon as possible; time frame for June ballot.
The Town Manager noted the Town had to spend approximately $8,000 for ADA
improvements and another $15,000 to $20,000 in deferred maintenance; Staff needs input
on the budget.
The Mayor summarized the discussion as (1) explore all avenues simultaneously; (2) aim
for June ballot which has a mid-February deadline, (3) whole Council has to hear
downtown solution, (5) $5,000 already budgeted. The Mayor stated she wanted to know
appraisal figures; how much a Police building would cost; how much the land downtown
will cost; want to know how much the Ned's Way administration and police building
would cost and how much limited circulation there would be.
Bruce Ross volunteered to lead Committee on the Downtown Plan, gather information,
and put information in a format with enough legitimacy and veracity so that Council can
take testimony. Council set January 4 as public hearing date for Downtown Plan.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
6
5. BLACKlE'S PASTURE (Request Appropriation for Additional Site Plan and
Grading Preparation)
Councilmember Wolf excused herself because her residence is within 300'.
Councilmember Ginalski reported on the meeting with Barbara Salzman, Marin
Audubon Society, Ann Thomas, Environmental Forum and representatives of the POSC
where they discussed Blackie's Pasture and Blackie's Brigade Program; the general
theme was a willingness to work together and move towards consensus; heard report
from Mr. Smith and Ms. Salzman regarding a reconfiguration of the Williams Plan.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Barbara Salzman, representing Marin Audubon Society, agreed the meeting was pleasant
and productive and consensus was to seek a compromise plan; if the Town could provide
funding for an alternative, Marin Audubon would be willing to carry through if the new
plan met the criteria of habitat values; alternative plan would allow some more space
for use on the north side of the channel; Phillip Williams estimates between $2,500 and
$5,000; stated money would have to go through Marin Audubon with specified meeting
times and not open ended; want to continue to work with Blackie's Brigade; wanted to
proceed with the current Phillip Williams Plan and make some minor adjustments;
suggested leaving Blackie's Grave as an island or creating a peninsula.
Larry Smith, Blackie's Brigade, stated the Brigade Plan has been approved by the
Council and regulatory agencies; waiting for permits to be issued; will start the grading
and parking; it became clear to those in favor of a salt marsh that the Brigade's plan
wasn't going to physically interfere -with whatever final plan for the marsh; his
understanding was to ask the Town to underwrite the viability of a salt marsh on the
other side of the creek and feasibility in the meadow area and determine whether we
had several options in front of us; then come to grips with what you want to do; then
Audubon has to raise money; don't know whether it is a couple of months or years; think
Ms. Salzman realized the amount of grading planned is minuscule to avoid pooling; issue
is whether the Council wants to spend $5,000 to find out if there are alternatives to the
salt marsh.
Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, asked whether the Council has already decided there
will be a salt marsh or are you at the stage to determine whether to get funds for a salt
marsh.
Councilmember Ginalski responded that there is a large enough area to have both; idea
is to go forward with limited funding to have engineer look at what we have and see if
it can be modified so that there could be a pasture and a marsh.
Ms. Brunini suggested if there is a salt marsh, it should be in front of the homes at
Greenwood Beach Road and not in Blackie's Pasture. Ms. Salzman responded she could
not be involved in a marsh in front of the homes.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
7
Randy Greenberg endorsed Philip Williams and urged Council to provide funds.
Ellen Rony, speaking as an individual and not as a Parks & Open Space Commissioner,
stated the reason they are coming back to Council is not to question the viability of the
Philip Williams Plan; problem is the interim plan is inconsistent with the Williams Plan
and want to make sure if the Town doesn't find funds to come up with an
accommodation, then she urged the Council to go ahead on the existing plan and make
sure no work goes on in that area that is inconsistent.
Ann Thomas, Environmental Forum, Co-Sponsor of application for funding for a marsh;
wanted Council to understand they would not get a range of alternatives, but one
alternative.
Vice-Mayor Thompson stated the Town doesn't have funds to implement the whole
Blackie's Pasture Plan; the Brigade organizes parking and general clean-up; wants to see
a marsh too; problem is there are different ideas of what form the marsh would take;
his concern with the Williams Plan is that it doesn't address changes in the beach, or
issues of the reeds and new marsh being created; want assurances of what the Town can
do if the marsh is a failure; stated this is a highly used area; need to look at current
activities; look at just widening the existing creek.
Ms. Salzman stated she would write out criteria that tells Philip Williams what the Town
wants; a marsh that allows for more space to the north with the same habitat value.
Vice-Mayor Thompson stated he was willing to authorize the funds; focus is to find other
funds to fund this project.
Councilmember Ginalski stated it was an opportunity for the Town to come together and
share the property; this is a redesign of a technical nature.
Councilmember Thayer stated he would agree with the majority; didn't want to spend
another dime on Blackie's Pasture; the Town has spent over $100,000; strongly supported
the volunteer efforts of the Brigade.
Motion:
To authorize Town to expend amount not in excess of $3,500; the project
will be directed through Marin Audubon Society who will meet with the
aforementioned groups and delineate a proposed plan to bring to Mr.
Williams; Plan to be completed within six weeks.
Ginalski, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Ginalski, Thompson, Thayer, Nygren
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Wolf
Moved:
Vote:
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
8
H. PUBLIC HEARING
6. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING RECORDS (Amend Ordinance, 1st Reading)
The Town Attorney reviewed the Staff report; noted one change on page 4, 1st
paragraph, deleting words "...the deficiencies listed as mandatory which are not corrected
and reinspected prior to sale of the property".
In response to Mayor Nygren, the Town Attorney stated application fee of $150 is
already in place.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Bob Holmes, Director of Governmental Relations for Marin Association of Realtors,
stated they had number of conversations and meetings; don't feel there were any
problems as far as realtors were concerned; still feel no such ordinance should be
enacted; any decision to correct deficiencies should be up to the property owner;
questioned why Tiburon wants to do this. Mr. Holmes stated he heard two references
tonight that the Council will be looking at Property Transfer Taxes again; we will oppose
that again as they have in the past; asked Council to set aside part of the $1.2 million
they currently have for Town Hall to add to the legal fund.
Ralph Hockley, Mara Vista, opposed change.
Ann Ross, 16 Reed Ranch Road, supported changes.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Ginalski stated he didn't take well to veiled threats or threats;
guaranteed Mr. Holmes that if it is the Council's will to do a Property Transfer Tax it
will be done legally; thought it improper for him to bring it up at this point.
Motion:
Moved:
Vote:
To read by title only.
Thayer, Seconded by Wolf
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
The Mayor read AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
TIBURON REPEALING CHAPTER 13A OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13A REQUIRING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
REPORTS ON THE RESALE OF BUILDINGS.
Motion:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve first reading of the aforementioned ordinance.
Thayer, Seconded by Wolf
AYES: Ginalski, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf, Nygren
NOES: None
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
9
.
7. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SER VICE RATE INCREASE (Thirteenth Amendment
to Agreement - Set New Rates for 1994-95 - Resolution)
The Finance Director reviewed the Staff report; proposed rate increase of 1/2 of 1 % for
refuse collection and recycling surcharge raised from $1.87 to $2.28; the franchise
agreement will come back to the Council in January.
AI Bianchi, attorney representing Mill Valley Refuse Service, expressed appreciation to
the Town Manager, Finance Director and Staff who were zealous in protecting the
Town's interest.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Motion:
Moved:
Vote:
Motion:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve the thirteenth (13) amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement.
Thayer, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
To approve Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Authorizing an Increase in the Surcharge Rate Levied by Mill Valley
Refuse Service, Inc. for Residential and Commercial Curbside Recycling
Operations
Thayer, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
I. NEW BUSINESS
9. PARENlE PROPERTY (A. P. #38-111-16, Antonette Drive; Consider General
Plan & Zoning Ordinance Amendments)
The Planning Director reviewed the Staff report; proposal is to amend the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance for lO-acre property located on Antonette Drive; property
currently zoned RPD and the Parente family is requesting two changes to the land use
regulations as follows: (1) change the General Plan land use designation from L to ML
which would allow the property to potentially be subdivided at a density of up to 1.1
du/acre, and (2) rezone the property from RPD to RO-I (Residential Open, one acre
minimum), the latter does not require approval of a Precise Development Plan.
Staff recommends that the Council encourage the applicant to withdraw the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment applications because of significant
inconsistencies with the established objectives, policies, and procedures of the Town as
expressed in the Tiburon General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends, if the
applicant declines to withdraw the application voluntarily, that the Council adopt the
draft resolution denying the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments.
11/16/94
TOWN COUNCIL MINUlES #1036
10
.
Antonio Parente stated they have owned the property for fifty years; interested in
keeping quality of any development; noted ABAG and Green Point Alliance advocate
limited densities within city limits to take full advantage of city services.
John Flitner, husband of one-third owner, stated the purpose of their request is included
in the September 23, 1994 letter; stated property is surrounded by one acre zoning;
sewer is available, water is available or can be brought in; noted Tiburon is required by
the State to provide low/moderate housing and it is his understanding that Tiburon has
not met the goal of 385 units; stated the relevance of housing goals is the lower the
density the less chance to reach goals. Mr. Flitner stated he felt the Parente Family
were entitled to be treated like everyone else and thought their proposal was reasonable.
Bob Martin, civil engineer, stated he found no two acre lots within a 500' radius and
approximately 30 parcels. The Planning Director stated the fundamental distinction
between planned district and standard RO-l zoning is you tend to have lots placed in
the best area; two acre analogy doesn't hold up.
The Mayor, Vice-Mayor Thompson and Councilmember Thayer agreed with the Staff
report. Councilmember Ginalski recommended the Council adopt by reference page 2
of the Staff Report giving the reasons for denying application. Councilmember Wolf
noted there were no compelling reason to reverse the General Plan or the Staffs
recommendation; urged the Parente family to withdraw their application.
The Mayor stated the Council totally agreed with the facts and findings of the Staff
report, and asked the applicant to withdraw the application.
Mr. Flitner denied the request.
Motion:
Moved:
To adopt Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Denying General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments Proposed for
the Parente Property (A.P. # 38-111-15)
Thayer
Councilmember Ginalski suggested refunding any unused portion of the $1,725 fee paid
for this application.
Councilmember Thayer amended motion accordingly.
Motion:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Denying General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments Proposed for
the Parente Property (A.P. # 38-111-15) and refund the unused portion
of the application fee.
Thayer, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
11
.
10. VISTA TIBURON (Compliance with Tentative Map & Tree Mitigation Measure)
The Mayor excused herself because her residence is within 300' of the project.
The Planning Director reviewed the Staff report.
Council, Rob Ham, Vista Tiburon, and Dave Bracken, Deputy Town Engineer, reviewed
the Tentative Map and discussed tree removal, erosion, and winterization.
The Planning Director noted the arborist will give direction regarding tree removal.
8. CIRCULATION ELEMENT - (Adopt Amendments to Present General Element -
Resolution)
The Planning Director reviewed the Staff report which added the entrance to the
Belvedere Tennis Club, lines 4-6, page 19 and description of bicycle routes (page 27).
Randy Greenberg suggested page 23, line 16, be removed; page 26, line 23, proposed
adding "...users is currently non-designated but is encouraged at the Mar West Parking
lot and Boardwalk by signage; page 11, line 13, C-e "parking for Angel Island should be
included in the plan.
Mayor Nygren suggested: page 18, line 8, delete "In the reparation of this Element" and
insert "the following are several potential improvements"; page 19, add methodology to
improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on Paradise Drive; page 24, the Planning Director
unable to find a comparison for Tiburon.
Councilmember Ginalski stated his concern that this Circulation Element was based on
the Hopper Traffic Report and suggested this information be noted. The Town Attorney
suggested the reference be left out.
Motion:
To adopt Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Adopting Amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan as
amended.
Thayer, Seconded by Ginalski
AYES: Unanimous
NOES: None
Moved:
Vote:
The Mayor noted a meeting scheduled with CAL/TRANS on December 7 at 3 P.M. to
discuss Tiburon Blvd. improvements.
The Town Attorney noted the longitudinal crack on Paradise Drive will be examined and
patched where necessary. The Town Engineer noted bicycle wheels are too narrow and
not fit for our highways; the Town needs to go on record that riders assume the risk;
narrow tires are designed for a speed track; they are dangerous on the bicycle path.
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
12
.
John Nygren, Paseo Mirasol, suggested stripping on the concrete portion to indicate bike
portion. The Town Engineer responded there was too much stripping on Paradise Drive.
J. COMMUNICATIONS
11. Grand Jury Final Report - Homelessness in Marin County, dt'd. 10/26/94
Informational
K. STAFF AND TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
12. Set Workshop to Draft Newsletter Questionnaire - Item continued.
L. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon,
Mayor Nygren adjourned the meeting at 11:55 P.M. in memory of James Guelff, San
Francisco Police Officer who was killed in the line of duty on November 13, 1994 sine
die.
MAYOR KAREN NYGREN
ATTEST:
THERESE M. HENNESSY, TOWN CLERK
TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES #1036
11/16/94
13
.
..
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-0956
FAX (415) 435-2438
TOWN COlJNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING:
JANUARY 4,1995
FROM:
FINANCE DIRECTOR
'ITEM NO:
tb
SUBJECT:
MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT
OCTOBER 31. 1994
1. TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency Amount Rate Maturity
State of California
Local Agency Investment Fund $6,089,810 5.243% Liquid
L.A.I.F.
Federal Agency Issues
G.N.M.A $ 985 12.000% 04-14-2014
Total invested: $6,090,795
2. TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency Amount ..., Rate Maturity
State of California
Local Agency Investment Fund $876,288 5.243% Liquid
L.A.I.F.
Total invested:
$876,288
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 arc 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:
I'
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
IISS TIBURON BOULEVARD . TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-0956
FAX (415) 435-2438
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING:
JANUARY 4.1995
FROM:
FINANCE DIRECTOR
ITEM NO:
02
SUBJECT:
MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT
NOVEMBER 30, 1994
1. TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency Amount Rate Maturity
State of California
Local Agency Investment Fund $6.089,810 5.380% Liquid
L.A.I.F.
Federal Agency Issues
G.N.M.A $ 980 12.000% 04-14-2014
Total invested: $6,090,790
2. TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency Amount Rate Maturity
State of California
Local Agency Investment Fund $870,288 5.380% Liquid
L.A.I.F.
Total invested: $870,288
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 arc 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
December 14, 1994
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 4, 1995
FROM:
TOWN ATIORNEY
ITEM NO.
..3
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO CAFETERIA BENEFITS PLAN UNDER
IRS SECTION 125
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
Since 1991, the Town's Memoranda of Understanding (MOD's) with both bargaining units
have contained a provision that the Town would look into exploring a cafeteria benefits plan
for its employees under Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code. Such a plan allows
participating employees to pay for health insurance premiums, medical expenses, day care
costs and other items with pre-tax dollars. Depending on the individual employee's tax rate,
this can represent a substantial savings at no cost to the Town.
Staff, based on a recommendation from IEDA (our labor negotiators), has contacted an
outside administrator regarding implementation of such a plan. This administrator, Benefits
Store, Inc., has met with staff and with a great number of Town employees to explain how
the plan works and the costs. Staff has met and conferred with both unions and presented
language to amend the MOU's to provide for this plan.
ANALYSIS
Implementation of the plan requires three separate actions by the Council. The first action
is to approve amendments to the Town's MOD's with MAPE and TPA (the plan will also
be available to all non-represented employees but no MOU action is required). Under this
agreement, the Town would be responsible for the annual $300 administration fee and each
participating employee would be responsible for the $5.00 per month processing fee. The
agreed upon language is attached as Exhibit 1.
The second required action is to adopt a resolution authorizing adoption of a cafeteria plan.
The resolution attached as Exhibit 2 was prepared by the Plan administrator and contains
all of the provisions necessary for the IRS.
The third required action is to enter into an agreement with Benefits Store, Inc. to
administrate the plan adopted by the Town. With respect to the cost of implementing the
plan, the Finance Director estimates that this cost would be more than offset by savings to
the Town in FICA and other payroll taxes.
.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council: 1) approve the amendments to the MAPE and TPA
MOU's (attached as Exhibit 1); 2) adopt the resolution authorizing adoption of the cafeteria
plan (Exhibit 2); and 3) authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement with
Benefits Store, Inc. (attached as Exhibit 3).
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MAPE AND TPA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 1994
FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF IRS SECTION 125 CAFETERIA PLAN
-----------
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 24.3 of the MOU (this is the number in the MAPE MOU but the
language is identical in both MOU's) the Town makes the following proposal regarding
implementation of an IRS Section 125 cafeteria plan.
1. Section 24.3 would be deleted.
2. A new Section 7.6 would be added to read as follows:
"'!be Town shall offer for all employees, on a strictly voluntary basis, the option to
participate in a cafeteria style benefits plan under Section 125 of the Internal
Revenue Code. Every employee shall be allowed to elect to participate in the plan
annually. The Town shall select the administrator of the plan. The Town shall pay
all annual administrative fees for the administrator with the exception of the $5.00
per month processing fee charged per employee, which shall be paid by each
participating employee."
~xVG_~
Robert B. Ewing - !
APPROVED:
DATE:
1~/7/'ltf-
I /
Mz:,--cl,-fYlc ~t
HEIDI MCVEIGH
DATE:
/SJ.)7/t14
, I
ht,:/.;,.f' ...J.
BENEFITS STORE, Inc.
5801 Christie Avenue, Suite 553
Emeryville, CA 94608
(510) 655.1700 . FAX 655-1799
P,O. Box 68
Orinda, CA 94563
APPENDIX A
RESPECTIVE RESPONsmn..ITIES UNDER CAFETERIA ( FLEXIBLE) BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION:
Regarding the respective responsibilities of the Employer and Administrator, I would note that
the employer continues to perform those duties as required under their current benefit programs.
Those duties include: enrollment, eligibility, premium payment, add/delete/status change
notification, program material distribution, minor questions! answers.
The Administrator performs those duties generally associated with the program. They include:
providing all forms required ( master copies) , initial enrollment assistance, data entry of initial
and on-going enrollment information, program information entry (initial/updates), information
coordination/verification with the proper department/contact person, on-going information
processing, including claims receipt, review, determination, entry, response functions, monthly
and annual reports, including reports on check reimbursements, summaries of premiums, health
expenses, dependent care by individual, category, monthly/pay period and YTD, response to both
telephone and written inquiries, adherence to ERISA procedures including grievance, material
distribution and other requirements and 5500 Tax Form preparation.
Forms and Reports include:
1) Plan Document Proto-type
2) Summary Plan Description
3) Board of Directors Resolution
4) Monthly Reports
- Check Reimbursement Report
- Withholding Perior Summary of Plan Participants
- Year to Date Summary of Plan Participants
- Year to Date Claims Status of Participants
5) Annual Employee Statements
h-/"';b;f 3
BENEFITS STORE, Inc.
5801 Christie Avenue, Suite 553
Emeryville, CA 94608
(510) 655-1700 . FAX 655-1799
P.O. Box 68
Orinda, CA 94563
CAFETERIA BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
The Benefits Store, Inc. agrees to provide administrative services for Cafeteria Benefits
(as described in the attached materials). The employer agrees to provide supplemental
services ( as described in the attached materials).
/ The administrative charge for this service shall be based upon the following schedule:
1) Annual Set-up Fee $ 300
2) Monthly Employee Fee $ 5
(Minimum $50/mo.)
This service is offered to clients of the Benefits Store, Inc. only, and may be canceled
upon written notice received 30 days in advance of the annual renewal date.
Employer Signature
Date
The Benefits Store, Inc.
Date
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING ADOPTION
OF A CAFETERIA DEPENDENT CARE/MEDICAL
REIMBURSEMENT PLAN FOR ALL EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, (hereinafter "Town")
wishes to authorize the adoption of a Cafeteria Dependent Carel Medical
Reimbursement Plan for the benefit of the Town's employees; and
WHEREAS, this Plan is intended to comply with the provisions of Sections
79, 105, 106, 125, and 129 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon that:
1. Effective February 1, 1995, each eligible employee of the Town shaH
have the option,in accordance with the following provisions of this Plan, to receive
from the
Town, in lieu of an equal amount of said employee's then current salary or wages,
reimbursement for dependent care/medical care expenses.
Eligible dependent care/medical care expenses shaH be those incurred on or
after 12:01 a.m., February 1, 1995, by or for such eligible employee, his/her spouse
and any dependent child (within the meaning of Section 152 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended) of such employee; provided, however, that in no event
shaH the amount of dependent care/medical care expenses allowed to any such
eligible employee (including spouse and dependent children) exceed $30,000 in any
one calendar year ($5,000 dependent care/maximum).
2. The term "eligible employee" as used herein. shall mean each full-time
employee of the Town as of February 1, 1995, and each new employee of the Town
after such employee has been in the employ of the Town for ninety (90) days, but as
to each such new employee only as to medical care expenses incurred from and after
the date he/she had become an eligible employee.
3. "Employment Related Dependent Care Expense" means an
"employment-related expense," as defined in Section 21(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code. As of the date hereof, this means an amount paid for expenses of a
Participant for household services or for the care of a Qualifying Individual, to the
extent that such expenses are incurred to enable the Participant to be gainfully
employed, within the meaning of Section 21(b) (2) of the Code, for any period for
which there are one (1) or more Qualifying Individuals with respect to such
.
Participant; provided, however, that (1) if such amounts are paid for expenses
incurred outside the Participant's household they shall constitute Employment
Related Dependent Care Expenses only if incurred for a Qualifying Individual who
is a Dependent under the age of thirteen (13) for whom the Participant is entitled
to an exemption under Section 151(e) of the Code or for a Qualifying
Individual who regularly spends at least eight (S) hours per day in the Participant's
household; and (2) if the expense is incurred outside the Participant's home at a
facility that provides care for more than six (6) individuals who do not regularly
reside at the facility, the facility must comply with all applicable state and local laws
and regulations, including licensing requirements, if any; and (3) that Employment
Related Dependent Care Expenses of a Participant shall not include expenses paid
or incurred for service provided by (i) a child of such Participant who is under
the age of nineteen (19) or (ii) an individual who is a Dependent of such Participant
or such Participant's spouse.
4. The term "medical care expenses," as used herein, means, (i) amounts
paid for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease,
including, but not limited to, hospital and nursing services, and laboratory, surgical,
dental and other diagnostic and healing services, or for the purpose of affecting any
structure or function of the body, including, but not limited to, such items as eye
glasses, orthopedic shoes, braces and similar items or for transportation primarily
for and essential to the foregoing, and (ii) contributions paid for any group medical
plan which the Town may adopt or for any other medical insurance plan which
any eligible employee of the Town may othernise personally pay. Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, however, the term "medical care expenses "shall not
include any such expenses othernise reimbursed by insurance or any other Plan
carried by the employee or other Plans through the Town. Medical reimbursement
payments under this Plan shall not include payments for permanent injury or loss
of a bodily function nor shall it include wages or payments in lieu of wages during
a period of illness or injury.
5. To receive reimbursement pursuant to this Plan, an eligible employee
shall present to the Town satisfactory proof of such medical care expenses and
thereby makes an affirmative election to receive said reimbursement for medical care
expenses in lieu of salary or wages owing or to be owed said eligible employee of an
amount equal to said reimbursement. Reimbursement for any medical care expenses
shall be made either by direct payment by the Town of such medical care expenses
or by reimbursement to such eligible employee for such medical care expenses, the
gross salary or wages owing or to be owed such eligible employee shall be reduced
by an amount equal to said reimbursement.
6. If any claim for reimbursement by an employee under this Plan is
wholly or partially denied, notice of denial shall be promptly given to the employee
setting forth (i) the specific reason or reasons for denial of the claim, (ii) a specific
reference to the pertinent provisions of this Plan upon which the denial is based,
(Hi) a description of any additional material or information necessary for the
employee to perfect the claim, if applicable, along with an explanation why such
material or information is necessary, and (iv) an explanation of the review
procedure under this Plan. Within 120 days after an employee's receipt of a denial
of a claim under this Plan, or such later time as takes into account special
circumstances, such employee shall file a written request with the Town Council that
it conduct a review of such denial. The Town Council shall deliver a written decision
of the claim within 60 days after receipt of such employee's request for review. Such
decision shall set forth specific reasons for the decision and specific references to the
provisions of this Plan upon which the decision is based.
7. Each eligible employee of the Town shall be given a copy of this Plan
upon first becoming eligible.
8. This Plan shall remain in effect until amended or revoked by the Town
Council, and written notice of any such amendment or revocation shall be promptly
given to eligible employees.
9. This Plan is for the exclusive benefit of eligible employees of the Town
and for their eligible family members. It is intended that this Plan shall be a plan
qualified within the meaning of Sections 105 and 125 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended, and the Town Manager and Finance Director of the Town
are authorized and directed to take any and all actions and so any and all things
necessary or appropriate to fully effectuate the provisions and intentions of this
Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon held on 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
THERESE M. HENNESSY, TOWN CLERK
5!
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AND THE COUNTY OF MARIN FOR THE
PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
This Agreement dated
by and between the Town of Tiburon
County of Marin (hereafter "County").
(hereafter
,
"Town")
1995, is
and the
WHEREAS, the Town is required to appoint a Town Engineer and
is in need of engineering services to be provided on a contract
basis; and
WHEREAS, the County is capable of and desires to provide these
engineering services for the Town on a contractual basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. provision of Town Enqineer Services
a. The County and Town shall agree on a registered civil
engineer on the County's staff to serve as Town Engineer for the
Town of Tiburon. The person selected for this position shall be
officially appointed to the position by the Tiburon Town Council.
b. The scope of work for the person selected as Town
Engineer cannot be precisely defined, but shall generally include:
consultation and technical support for Town officials and employ-
ees; attendance at Town Council, Commission and Committee meetings
as needed; representation of the Town at meetings of other
agencies, such as CalTrans; serve as Town Traffic Engineer; all
required duties under Subdivision Map Act; review of land use
applications; assist in preparation of annual street maintenance
and Capital Improvements budget; other civil engineering duties as
required.
c. The person selected as Town Engineer shall provide 50
hours of service per month to the Town, approximately 30 of which
will be worked during office hours at Tiburon Town Hall. The
remaining hours shall be worked at times and locations deemed
appropriate by the Town Engineer.
d. For these 50 hours of service, Town shall pay County
$2,800 per month. For any hours of service beyond the first 50,
Town shall pay County at the rate of $65 per hour.
2. provision of Other Enqineerinq Services
The Town may require engineering services other than those
provided by the Town Engineer. Examples include design of
improvements or surveying. When such services are required, the
Town reserves the right to obtain such services from the County or
from other private engineering firms. At the request of the Town,
the County shall provide bids or estimates for any such jobs. When
such jobs are awarded to the County, this may be done through a
work order or other notice acceptable to both parties.
3. Review of Aqreement
At six (6) months and twelve (12) months after execution of
this agreement, the parties shall review the agreement to evaluate
the level of service provided, hours, fees, etc.
4. Termination
After the first six (6) months of this agreement, the
agreement may be terminated by either party upon giving thirty days
written notice to the other party. In the event the Agreement is
terminated, County shall be paid for all work done prior to the
effective date of the termination.
5. Assiqnment
Neither party shall assign or subcontract any of the rights or
obligations of this Agreement.
6. Indemnification
Pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, County agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless Town from any liability imposed for
injury (as defined by Government Code section 810.8) occurring by
reason of anything done or omitted to be done by County employees
in connection with any work done pursuant to this agreement.
7. Notices
All notices required by this Agreement shall be in writing and
shall be delivered in person or by mail to the Town Manager of the
Town of Tiburon or the Director of the Marin County Public Services
Agency.
8. Entire Aqreement
This writing constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties relating to the services to be performed. No modification
of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until such
modification is evidenced by writing signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
on the date listed above.
TOWN OF TIBURON
Town Manager
COUNTY OF MARIN
County Administrator
s
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
JANUARY 4, 1995
FROM:
JANET BRAFF, CHAIR
HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION
SUBJECT:
M1ENDMENTS TO RESOLUTIONS 2417 & 2746
BACKGROUND
On November 26, 1990, the Town Council adopted Resolution
No. 2746 amending Resolution No. 2417, changing the size
and composition of the Heritage & Arts Commission membership
from 7 to 5 people, and the term from 2 to 4 years.
The Commission would also like to more succinctly state the
purpose and goals of the Commission. Accordingly, the reso-
lution has again been updated and a mission statement has
been included, and certain paragraphs have been combined or
rearranged for clarity.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council review the rev~s~ons made by the
Commission and adopt a resolution amending Resolutions
No. 2417 and 2746.
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution No. 2417
2. Resolution No. 2746
3. Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING
TIBURON PENINSULA HERITAGE & ARTS
COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Town desires to assist and encourage citizen
participation in the cultural and artistic life of the
Community and
WHEREAS, the Town has provided initial financial assistance for
the pursuit of cultural and related artistic endeavors on
the Tiburon Peninsula.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the MISSION STATEMENT of the
Heritage and Arts Commission is:
TO PRESERVE THE TOWN'S UNIQUE HISTORIC
CHARACTER AND TO ADVANCE THE ARTS IN THE
COMMUNITY.
To achieve this, the Commission shall have, but not be
restricted to, the following duties:
A. To recommend the appropriate selection, placement,
modification and maintenance of art and historic ob;ects
on the Peninsula for protection, enhancement or
perpetuation as such, under Tiburon Municipal Code,
Chapter l3B, as amended by Ordinance No. 129 on
January 16, 1973.
B. To recommend street names having historic significance
for newly constructed streets in Tiburon.
C. To review and make recommendations on the request of
any group interested in artistic displays at Town
facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the
Town.of Tiburon does hereby create a Tiburon Peninsula Heritage
and Arts Commission.
A. This Commission shall be composed of five (5) members
appointed by the Town Council who shall serve for a
term of four years and shall be subject to removal by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the Town Council.
The terms of office of Commission members should be
staggered in a manner determined by the Town Council.
.
B. Of the five (5) members, at least three (3) shall be
residents of the Town of Tiburon, one (1) may be a
resident of the City of Belvedere, and one (1) may be
a resident of the unincorporated area of the Tiburon
Peninsula.
C. The Commission shall elect its own officers, which shall
be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson, and shall
adopt such regulations as it may deem necessary or
appropriate for the conduct of its affairs.
D. The Town Manager or his designated representative
shall serve as staff to the Commission and as liaison
between the Commission and Town Council. The Commission
shall act in an advisory capacity to the Town Council on
all matters pertaining to the arts.
E. The Commission shall meet on the last Tuesday of each
month.
F. The Commission shall prepare a report evaluating all
phases of the Commission's program and community parti-
cipation which shall be submitted to the Council annually
on June 30th for their review and consideration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon held on January 4, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
THERESE M. HENNESSY, TOWN CLERK
.
.'
l
L
[
F
(' RESOLUTION NO. 2417 ( ,
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING TIBURON
PENINSULA HERITAGE AND ARTS COMMISSION
.'
WHEREA&, the Town desires .to assist and encourage citizen "
participation in the cultural and artistic life of the community,"
and
..
..
....
WHEREAS, the Town has considered the needs of the community
for increased opportunities for cultural and artistic growth and
achievement, and
WHEREAS, the Town has provided initial financial assistance
for the pursuit of cultural and relited artistic endeavors on the
Tiburon Peninsula.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town COuncil of the
" Town of Tiburon does" hereby create a Tiburon 'Peninsula Her i tage ':,:
and Arts Commiss~on.
A. This Commission shall be composed. of seven (7) members
appointed by the ,~own Council who shall serve for a ~.erm of two "
years and shall be subject to removal"by the affirmative vote 'of
a majority of the Town Council. The terms of office of
" Commission members shall be staggered in a manner determined by
the Town Council.
"
B. Of the seven (7) members, at least four (4) shall be
residents of the Town of Tiburon, at least one (1) shall be a
resident of the City of Belvedere', and one (1) or two ,(2) may be
a resident of the unincorporated area of the Tiburon Peninsula~
C. The Commission shall elect its own officers, which shall
be a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson, and shall adopt such
regulations as it may deem necessary or appropriate for the
conduct of its affairs.
D. The Town Manager or his designated representative shall
serve as staff to the Commission and as liaison between the
Commission and the Town Council. The Commission shall act in an
advisory capacity to the Town Council on all matters pertaining
to the arts.
E. The Commission shall meet on the second Tuesday of each
month, at 8:00 P.M., in the Town Hall Conference Room.
F. The Commission shall prepare a report evaluating all
phases of the Commission's program and community participation
which shall be submitted to the Council annually on June 30th for
their review and consideration.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the basic objectives and goals
of the Commission are as follows:
1. To preserve and advance the cultural and historic
heritage of the Tiburon Peninsula community.
!J. t5 f. 'J
I
I
I
\
I
{~
(
RESOLUTION NO. 2746
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2417 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
TIBURON PENINSULA HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Town established the Tiburon Peninsula Heritage & Arts
Commission on November 5, 1986, and
and
WHEREAS, membership was set at seven (7) members for two year terms,
WHEREAS, the Commission requests that membership shall be reduced to
five (5) members, and terms extended to four (4) years,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon does hereby amend Resolution No. 2417 to reflect:
a.
Of the five (5) members, at least three (3) shall be residents of the
Town of Tiburon, at lease one (1) shall be a resident of the City of
Belvedere and one (1) may be a resident of the unincorporated area
of the Tiburon Peninsula.
b.
That each member shafI be appointed for a four (4) year term.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon on November 26, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Friedman, Coxhead, Thayer,
Kuhn, Logan
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
/
THERESE M. HENNESSY, TOry CLERK
.\- - ..
6,
,.1;_..
.J;~'
1
,J
. ..>~~.~.:~.~''''.''--''-.''
....
WASTE MANAGEMENT
October 10, 1994
[Ri~~~UW~lQ)
utl1 2 2 1994
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dee Johnson
Deputy County Administrotor
'.';;,.
.",.
'. .. ) ...: ~ '
, ,
.~
Mr, Bob Kleinert
Town Manager
. Town ofTiburon
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: The Final Draft ofthe Non-Disposal Facility Element - Request for Council
Adoption
Dear Bob:
In 1992 AB 3001 amended AB 939 to include a more complete description of the
nondisposal facilities that each jurisdiction will utilize to reach their diversion mandates.
AB 3001 requires each city, town, and county to prepare and adopt Non-Disposal Facility
Elements which describe the non-disposal facilities an agency will use to comply with the
Integrated Waste Management Act, .
At the September 26, 1994, meeting of the AB939 Local Task Force, the Final Draft
Multi-Jurisdictional Non-Disposal Facility Element was adopted and requested to be
forwarded to the cities, towns, and county for adoption, This final draft has preliminary .
approval from the California Integrated Waste Management Board, However, it is
required that each city, town, and the county adopt the Multi-Jurisdictional Non-Disposal
Facility Element, before the California Integrated Waste Management Board will give us
final approval,
As a result of the recent reorganization of the Local Task Force and the formative
organization of the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority, the
Multi-Jurisdictional Non-Disposal Facility Element is behind schedule in submittal to the
Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board,
10 N. San Pedro Rd" Suite 1022. San Rafael, Ca 94903-4155. (415) 499-6647. (415) 499-6910 FAX
(il
.
.,
Enclosed is the Final Draft Multi-Jurisdictional Non-Disposal Facility Element and a draft
resolution for your use in adopting the Multi-Jurisdictional Non-Disposal Facility Element.
Over the next several days we will be in contact with you to provide any assistance you
may need with this item. Either myself or Michael Frost, our waste management planner,
. will be available to attend your council meeting and make a brief presentation of the
. element, if you desire. .
It is important that this Non-Disposal Facility Element, now adopted by the Local Task
. Force, move along as rapidly as possible through the city, town, and county adoption
process.
. If you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
me or Michael at 499-6647. Thanks, as always, for your assistance.
DJlmf
.
. ,
< .,.
",-..
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING THE MULTI-
JURISDICTIONAL NON-DISPOSAL FACIUTY
ELEMENT FOR MARIN COUNTY AND ITS CITIES
WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Act)
requires each city to prepare, adopt and submit to the county in which it is located,
a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous
Waste Element (HHWE) (Public Resources Code Sections 41000 and 41500); and
WHEREAS, in 1992, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 3001
which amended the Act to require each city to prepare, adopt and submit to the
county in which it is located, a Non-Disposal Facility element (NDFE)1 and
WHEREAS, each city council in Marin County, including this city council,
sanitary district and the County Board of Supervisors entered into a Joint Powers
Agreement in 1993 to jointly prepare, administer, and implement the Marin County
Multi-Jurisdictional Integrated Waste management Plan, and
WHEREAS, the attached Final Draft of the Multi-Jurisdictional Non-Disposal
Facility element for Marin County an\l its cities was adopted by the AB939 Local
Task Force at their meeting on September 26, 1994.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon hereby:
(1) Adopts the section of the Final Multi-jurisdictional Non-Disposal
Facility Element for Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill
Valley, Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon
and the unincorporated area of Marin County that are applicable to
this Town; and
(2) Authorizes submittal of these adopted Elements to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon on 1995 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
THERESE M. HENNESSY, TOWN CLERK
f..
...
J
,1,.
f
I
.
l1'
FINAL DRAFT
'.
Multi -Jurisdictional
Nondisposal Facility Element
for Marin County and its Cities
including
Belvedere
Corte Madera
Fairfax
Larkspur
Mill Valley
Novato
Ross
San Anselmo
San Rafael
Sausalito
TiI;mron
and the
Unincorporated Area
of Marin County
October 1994
Marin County
Office of Waste Management
* PRINTED ON RECYCLED rAPER
.
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NONDISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT FOR
THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND ITS CITIES
(
~
SECTION
. PAGE
Executive Summary ---------------------------- 1.
City of Belvedere -----------__
3.
Town of Corte Madera ------
4.
Town of Fairfax ----
5.
City of Larkspur --------------_______
---- 6
.
City of Mill Valley -----------__
-------- 8
.
City of Nova to
-----------
9.
Town of Ross -----------------
---- 13
.
Town of San Anselmo ---------------______
15.
City of San Rafael ---------------------------------------- 17.
City of Sausalito ----------------------------- 19.
, Town ofTiburon ---------------------------------- 22.
~, Unicorporated Area of Marin County ----------------------------- 23.
.
.
r
OJ
f
I.'
FINAL DRAFT
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
.+",
. ~'~'.;lf.
oT"('
._~~y~~>'..
"."1
'-",
. '~i: ~
California Public Resources Code (pRe), Sections 41730 et seq, require every California city and
county to prepare and adopt a Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE) for all new Nondisposal
Facilities, and any expansions of existing Nondisposal facilities, which will be needed to
implement local Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs). A Nondisposal facility is .
defined as any solid waste facility required to obtain a state solid waste facility permit except a
disposal facility or transformation facility (pRC Section 40151).
.To address this statutory requirement, Marin County and its Cities entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to jointly prepare and implement the County Integrated Waste
Management Plan (CIWMP). The MOU designated the County as the lead agency for this effort.
Since that point of time, Marin County, its Cities, and its waste franchising special districts, under
the provisions ofTitle 1, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article 1 (Section 6500 et seq.) of the Califomia
Government Code, entered into a Joint Powers Authority (JP A) to jointly prepare and implement
the CIWMP for Marin County and its Cities. Thus, this Element is a joint document prepared for
the unincorporated areas of Marin County and the incorporated cities and towns of Belvedere,
Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafae~ Sausalito,
and Tiburon by way of the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers
Authority.
This NDFE identifies the utilization of transfer stations and material recovery facilities (MRF s) as
Nondisposal facilities necessary to implement the County of Marin and its cities waste diversion
goals. Tables 1-1 through 1-27, attached, identifY the Nondisposal facilities the County of Marin
and its cities intend to utilize to implement its SRRE and meet the solid waste diversion
requirements ofPRC Section 41780. This multi-jurisdictional NDFE will be appended to the
multi-jurisdictional SRRE at the time of the five year revision.
MARIN'S NON-DISPOSAL FACILITY SYSTEM
There are two non-disposal facilities utilized in the diversion of materials in Marin County. The
first and the principle source of waste diversion for Marin County is Marin Recycling and
Resource Recovery Center in San Rafael which recovers substantial amounts of materials from
curbside collection, drop-off, Cal. Redemption, debris boxes, and self-haulers. The second non-
disposal facility utilized in Marin County is Marin Sanitary Transfer Station which excepts waste
from Marin Sanitary's residential and commercial accounts and has a 0% material recovery rate.
In addition, to give a more complete representation of on-going Marin County diversion practices
other facilities that are not defined non-disposal facilities under PRC Section 40151 have been
included in this element as allowed by Califomia Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 18752 [d].
Table ES-l lists, by jurisdiction, the non-disposal facilities used, the amount of material diverted
by the facility, and the total amount of diversion for that jurisdiction.
1
.,.:;.,.
=
!.S ~~~
,!... cooo
......;.0\0\0
is '" <t"
c!c!o
",\l:i
0\ co
<t"1O
<t" <t"'
oC!o
\0-0\
-N",
"'coco
"'cot'-
00
-.i\l:i
1010
ION
N' v:i
j ~!~
oC!o
\0-..0
- N '"
'" CO '"
'" CO'IO
0",C!00
-.ia\-\l:i\l:i
\0'1")\00000
\ON(7\M\O
NIO"'''''<t"
'"
...
o '"
'"
lil '';:: ..,
~.- u
e:= '"
= ~ ;:l
Z~
---N-VNNNM_
m~
=
c
:::
f.l
...
."
'"
'C
=
..,
o
'OJ
> ~
o 0
Z~
~
- '"
~~
1;j 1;j
<f.l<f.l
..,
'"
E
o
g = e-
~ e 8 =
=",'" ..s . ~ =
._ ....., 0
<f.lf-o....u
e!
'"
..,
~ CIS
..,::El<!
"''''of!....
2: 1:: ... "-
'" 0 'OJ '"
l!lU~....l
,.,.,::":,,,:,?
2
o
r-:
N
'"
00
-
e
00
t'-
"'f'
..;
e
...
C! c
- 00
- lO
- ~
'" c
o r-:
o c
~ gg
- e
...
o c
o c
'"
r-:
'"
co
v:i
-
c
C
~
",
c\
~
o
r-:
0\
'"
c
r-:
~
",
..;
-
o
N
t'-
c
00
:a
t'-
t'-
Oi
-
co
Eo<
...
:5!
FINAL DRAFT
~
~ !:l
~ ;i:
~1
~1
.~ ~ "S!
~;i: a
'Ei t\ 0
J! ~ ~
....Q 0
.15 g
~ ~ '~
1ti ~
..... .S
~ k> ~
.~ ~ '>;
~.:::: 1::
.~ ~ ~
~.. ll:::
!:l ..
~ 1; ~
.~ ';::
a ~ s
'I:; Ii: 'i:
~~ ~
'Ei'" "S!
~~ el
~ .:::: ::
~ ~ ~.~
~..{i..
...; Sl ,~
~ '" s.t:::I
li~l
ooC)~t:
.15 ~ {:l --.:
~ "= ;i:.~
";'~ ~l ~
~ "l::l ~ ;S:.,.,
... .0_ "S!;5
.5~~aE
~ ~~ 1 ~
~ ~ .~ ~ ~
s.,.."I:s.,
Q t: .. a ::
~~10::-!5
.15 ~.~ ~ ~
I:;::~~::
~.g'1:l~.Sl
:::~t:~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
::::: ..... ;:i. s .....
--.:t:::I'Ei.t::t:::I
~N M"
-":''-0. '-0.
..;
.,
::::
,~
U
~
.~
\
.
i.;
~
~
.
Type offacility
.'
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent the facility
t
Percent of Belvedere's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
\'
.
.
FINAL DRAFT
City Of Belvedere
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the City of Belvedere sent
approximately 1,368 tons of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 34.3% of the
wastes generated in the City of Belvedere during 1993. Of this
material diverted 484 tons (16.8%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recycIables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 246 tons (8.5%) is inerts; 225 tons (7.8%) is wood and
yard waste sent for incineration and 32 tons (1.1%) is wood and
yard waste composted.
3
FINAL DRAFT
Town of Corte Madera
Type of Facility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of Corte
Madera's total waste
stream diverted from
disposal at the facility.
.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JPA In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
.
.
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafae~ CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12/31/93, the Town of Corte Madera sent 6,031
tons of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 32.2% of the
wastes generated in the Town of Corte Madera during 1993. Of
this material diverted 1,927 tons is (15.9%) residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 969 tons (8.0%) is inerts; 886 tons (7.3%) is wood and
yard waste sent for incineration and 127 tons (1.1%) is wood and
yard waste composted.
4
FINAL DRAFT
Town of Fairfax
.
oJ
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
.
Percent of Fairfax's total
waste stream diverted
from disposal at the
facility .
.'
.
.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12/31/93, the Town of Fairfax sent 5,573 tons
of material to MRRRC.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 42.9% of the
wastes generated in the Town of Fairfax during 1993. Of this
material diverted 1,205 tons (12.9%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 1,399 tons (15.0%) is inerts; 1,227 tons (13.1%) is
wood and yard waste sent for incineration and 175 tons (1.9%) is
wood and yard waste composted.
5
FINAL DRAFT
City of Larkspur
Type offacility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of Larkspur's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
.'
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,OOO-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. CMdboMd and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
.
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1101193 to 12/31/93 the City of Larkspur sent 7,080 tons of
material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 35.5% of the
wastes generated in the City of Larkspur during 1993. Of this
material diverted 1,285 tons (8.6%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 1,596 tons (10.7%) is inerts; 2,131 tons (14.2%) is
wood and yard waste sent for incineration and 304 tons (2.0%) is
wood and yard waste composted.
.
.
6
.
.
.
.
FINAL DRAFT
City of Larkspur
Location
1060 Anderson Drive.
San Rafael, CA 94901
, .
7
FINAL DRAFT
City of Mill Valley
Type offacility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of Mill Valley's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
.
,
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the City of Mill Valley sent 13,271
tons of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 42.1 % of the
wastes generated in the City of Mill Valley during 1993. Of this
material diverted 2,755 tons (13.2%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 2,972 tons (14.2%) is inerts; 2,708 tons (12.9%) is
wood and yard waste sent for incineration and 387 tons (1.8%) is
wood and yard waste composted.
.
l
8
.
.
,
0)
FINAL DRAFT
City of Novato
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of the City of
Novato's total waste
stream diverted from
disposal at the facility.
.
.
California CRINC is a large scale certified glass processor that
processes materials collected through curbside and commercial
recycling programs. The center also operates a certified
California Redemption Center and a recycling drop-off for the
public.
1942 Fairway Drive
San Leandro, CA 94577
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the City of Nova to sent 140 tons of
material to the facility. Material was from the Hamilton Air
Force Base residential curbside collection program.
California CRINC diverted from disposal < 1 % of the wastes
generated in the City of Nova to during 1993. The diverted
material consisted of 140 tons of glass from residential curbside
collection.
9
FINAL DRAFT
City of Novato
Type of facility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of Nova to's total
waste stream diverted
from disposal at the
facility.
.'
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
.
,
565 Jacoby Street
City of San Rafael, CA 9490 I
From 1101193 to 12/31193, the City of Nova to sent 21,232 tons
of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 13.6% of the
wastes generated in the City of Nova to during 1993. Of this
material diverted 4,913 tons (10.2%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 791 tons (1.6%) is inerts; 749 tons (1.6%) is wood and
yard waste sent for incineration and 107 tons (0.2%) is wood and
yard waste composted.
,
l
10
"
"
g
'r
FINAL DRAFT
City of Novato
Type of facility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of the Novato's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
Novato Recycling Center is source separated recycling facility
that operates as a drop-off center. The Recycling Center also
operates a state-certified buyback center and a household
hazardous waste recycling project for lead acid batteries, waste
oil, and latex paint, funded by the Marin County JP A
7576 Redwood Blvd.
Novato, CA 94945
From 1101193 to 12131/93, the City of Nova to sent 979 tons of
material to the facility.
Novato Recycling Center and it's associated drop-off locations
diverted from disposal 2.0% of the wastes generated in the City
of Nova to during 1993. The diverted material consisted of979
tons of residential and commercial drop-off and buyback
recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and plastic).
. .
11
FINAL DRAFT
City of Novato
West County Recycling Center processes materials collected
through curbside and commercial recycling programs. The center
also operates a certified Califomia Redemption Center and a
recycling drop-off for the public. '.
Location
Foot of Parr Blvd.
Richmond, CA 94801
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the City of Nova to sent 164 tons of
material to the facility. Material was from the Hamilton Air
Force Base residential curbside collection program.
Percent of the Novato's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility. .
The West County Recycling Center diverted from disposal < 1%
of the wastes generated in the City of Nova to during 1993. The
164 tons of material diverted was residential curbside collection
recyclables (newspaper, aluminum and tin cans, and plastic)
,.
12
-
-,_.--,.,.~._.__.- - ...---.-- -....-.--.
.
Type of facility
"
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
\
Percent of Ross' total
waste stream diverted
from disposal at the
facility.
.'
.
Town of Ross
FINAL DRAFT
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Malin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the Town of Ross sent 3,623 tons of
material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 57.0% of the
wastes generated in the Town of Ross during 1993. Of this
material diverted 615 tons (13.2%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 898 tons (19.2%) is inerts; 1,007 tons (21.5%) is wood
and yard waste sent for incineration and 144 tons (3.1 %) is wood
and yard waste composted.
13
FINAL DRAFT
Town of Ross
Name of facility
Location
-
Marin Sanitary Transfer Station
"
1060 Anderson Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
~
.
~
14
~
...
,
.'
Town of San Anselmo
. FINAL DRAFT
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of San
Anselmo's total waste
stream diverted from
disposal at the facility.
.
Sims LMC Recyclers operates a recycling center and metal
salvage operation. The materials currently recovered at Sims
LMC Recyclers are: metal, tin, aluminum and HOPE and PET
plastics.
600 South Fourth Street
Etichmond,CJl 94804
From 1/01/93 to 12131/94, San Anselmo sent 6.5 tons of material
to the facility.
The Sims LMC Recyclers diverted from disposal < 1% of the
wastes generated in the Town of San Anselmo during 1993. Of
this material diverted 4.2 tons is aluminum and 2.3 tons is plastic
15
FINAL DRAFT
Town of San Anselmo
Type of facility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of San
Anselmo's total waste
stream diverted from
disposal at the facility.
.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
~
..
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the Town of San Anselmo sent 8,654
tons of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 40.8% of the
wastes generated in the Town of San Anselmo during 1993. Of
this material diverted 1,939 tons (12.6%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 2,113 tons (13.8%) is inerts; 1,932 tons (12.6%) is
wood and yard waste sent for incineration and 276 tons (1.8%) is
wood and yard waste composted.
\
16
FINAL DRAFT
City of San Rafael
.
Type offacility
.'
Facility capacity
Participating
Jurisdictions
Location
"
.'
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of San Rafael's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,OOO-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
544 TPD (source: Solid Waste Facility Permit)
permit # 21-AA-0005
Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley,
Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, Tiburon, and
the Unincorporated County
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12/31/93, the City of San Rafael sent 50,076
tons of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 43.9% of the
wastes generated in the City of San Rafael during 1993. Of this
material diverted 8,132 tons (9.9%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 12,108 tons (14.8%) is inerts; 13,756 tons (16.8%) is
wood and yard waste sent for incineration and 1,965 tons (2.4%)
is wood and yard waste composted.
17
FINAL DRAFT
City of San Rafael
Participating
jurisdictions
Estimated Diversion
Location
Facility Capacity
Marin Sanitary Transfer Station
~
The Cities of Larkspur and San Rafael. The Town of Ross and
areas of the unincorporated county.
~
0"/0 of material is diverted at Marin Sanitary Transfer Station.
1060 Anderson Drive
San Rafael, CA 94401
2,640 TPD (source: Solid Waste Facility Permit)
permit # 21-AA-0005
\
18
~
.'
"
.'
City of Sausalito
FINAL DRAFT
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of Sausalito's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
.
.
California CRlNC is a large scale certified glass processor that
processes materials collected through curbside and commercial
recycling programs. The center also operates a certified
California Redemption Center and a recycling drop-off for the
public.
1942 Fairway Drive
San Leandro, CA 94577
From 1/01/93 to 12/31/93, the City ofSausalito sent 426 tons of
material to the facility.
Califomia CRlNC diverted from disposa13.2% of the wastes
generated in the City of Sausalito during 1993. The diverted
material consisted of 426 tons of glass from residential curbside
collection.
19
FINAL DRAFT
City of Sausalito
Type offacility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of SausaIito's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
.
.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
,
\
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the City ofSausalito sent 5,201 tons
of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 25.7% of the
wastes generated in the City ofSausalito during 1993. Of this
material diverted 613 tons (4.7%) is drop-off, buyback and
commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and plastic);
1,334 tons (10.1%) is inerts; 1,259 tons (9.6%) is wood and yard
waste sent for incineration and 180 tons (1.4%) is wood and yard
waste composted.
.,
,.
20
City of Sausalito
FINAL DRAFT
West County Recycling Center processes materials collected
through curbside and commercial recycling programs. The center
also operates a certified California Redemption Center and a
recycling drop-off for the public.
~"
.'
Location
Foot of Parr Blvd.
Richmond, CA 94801
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the City of Sausalito sent 683 tons of
material to the facility.
Percent of SausaIito's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
The West County Recycling Center diverted from disposal 5.2%
of the wastes generated in the City of Sausalito during 1993. The
683 tons of material diverted was residential curbside collection
recyclables (newspaper, aluminum and tin cans, and plastic)
~
.
21
.
FINAL DRAFT
Town of Tiburon
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent ofTiburon's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
"
"
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the Town of Tiburon sent 6,933 tons
of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 37.7% of the
wastes generated in the Town ofTiburon during 1993. Of this
material diverted 1,796 tons (14.4%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 1,410 tons (11.3%) is inerts; 1,295 tons (10.4%) is
wood and yard waste sent for incineration and 185 tons (1.5%) is
wood and yard waste composted.
,
22
Unincorporated Area of Marin County
FINAL DRAFT
"
Type of facility
.
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of the
Unicorporated Area's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
~
.
Califomia CRINC is a large scale certified glass processor that
processes materials collected through curbside and commercial
recycling programs. The center also operates a certified
California Redemption Center and a recycling drop-off for the
public.
1942 Fairway Drive
San Leandro, CA 94577
From 1101193 to 12131193, the Unincorporated Area sent
72 tons of material to the facility.
California CRINC diverted from disposal < 1% of the wastes
generated in the Unincorporated Area during 1993. The diverted
material consisted of 72 tons of glass from residential curbside
collection.
23
FINAL DRAFT
Unincorporated Area of Marin County
Type of facility
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of the
Unincorporated Area's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
.
.
Larry's Material Recovery Facility processes materials collected
through curbside and commercial recycling programs. Larry's
also operates a certified California Redemption Center and a
recycling drop-off for the public.
. ,
7085 Gravenstein Hwy.
Cotati, CA
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the Unincorporated Area sent
approximately 1,397 tons of material to the facility.
Larry's Material Recovery Facility diverted from disposal
approximately 2.6% of the wastes generated in the
Unincorporated Area during 1993. The 1,397 tons of material
that was diverted consisted of: residential curbside, buyback and
commercial recyclables (cardboard, paper, glass, metal, and
plastic).
.1
\
24
FINAL DRAFT
Unincorporated Area of Marin County
..
'""
~
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
II
Percent of the
Unincorporated Area's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
f.
Marin Recycling and Resource Recovery Center (MRRRC) is a
material recovery facility which is owned and operated by Marin
Sanitary Service and is the principal source of waste diversion
activity in Marin County and its Cities. The MRRRC covers
approximately 136,000-square feet including a large tipping and
transfer floor and extensive waste processing activities.
The MRRRC processing center accepts material from the general
public and other haulers. Much of the material accepted is
landscape and yard waste from commercial generators and
demolition waste from debris boxes. Cardboard and other
recyclables are retrieved from a conveyor line which takes
residues to the transfer station for landfill disposal. MRRRC also
operates a household hazardous waste recycling project for
household and lead acid batteries, waste oil, and latex paint,
funded by the Marin County JP A In 1993 the average facility
recovery rate for all materials was 68%.
MRRRC also operates an attached large scale source separated
recycling facility. At the 23,360-square-foot recycling center
materials are sorted by magnets and blowers and hand picked
from conveyor lines. Bailing and further processing prepares the
materials for marketing. A state-certified buyback recycling
center is also located at the facility.
565 Jacoby Street
San Rafae~ CA 94901
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the Unincorporated Area
sent 22,675 tons of material to the facility.
The MRRRC diverted from disposal approximately 30.9% of the
wastes generated in the Unincorporated Area during 1993. Of
this material diverted 6,545 tons (12.1%) is residential curbside,
buyback and commercial recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and
plastic); 4,174 tons (7.7%) is inerts; 5,292 tons (9.8%) is wood
and yard waste sent for incineration and 755 tons (1.4%) is wood
and yard waste composted.
25
Unincorporated Area of Marin County
FINAL DRAFT
Location
1060 Anderson Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
26
..'
.,;"
.'".'!
",4\
} ,
. ',.
. :-.;
,.",
.;li
!
.'.i'
.'
.j
FINAL DRAFT
Unincorporated Area of Marin County
\
Type of facility
"
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of the
Unincorporated Area's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
lJ
r
~
Novato Recycling Center is source separated recycling facility
that prepares materials for marketing. The Recycling Center also
operates a state-certified buyback center and a household
hazardous waste recycling project for household and lead acid
batteries, waste oil, and latex paint, funded by the county.
7576 Redwood Hwy.
Novato, CA 94945
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the Unincorporated Area sent 109
tons of material to the facility.
Novato Recycling Center and it's associated drop-off locations
diverted from disposal <1% of the wastes generated by the
Unincorporated Area during 1993. The diverted material
consisted of 109 tons of residential and commercial drop-off and
buyback recyclables (paper, glass, metal, and plastic).
27
FINAL DRAFT
Unincorporated Area of Marin County
Type of facility
Sims LMC Recyclers operated a recycling center and metal
salvage operation. The materials currently recovered at Sims
LMC Recyclers are: metal, tin, aluminum and HOPE and PET
plastics.
~
"
J
Location
600 South Fourth Street
Richmond, CA 94804
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
From 1/01/93 to 12131/94, the Unincorporated Area sent 0.5
tons of material to the facility.
Percent of the
UnincoIporated Area's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
The Sims LMC Recyclers diverted from disposal < 1 % of the
wastes generated in the Unincorporated Area during 1993. Of
this material diverted .33 tons is aluminum and .19 tons is plastic
,\
\'
28
.
.
~
(
~
o
Unincorporated Area of Marin County
FINAL DRAFT
Location
Estimated amount of
waste sent to the facility
Percent of the
Unincorporated Area's
total waste stream
diverted from disposal at
the facility.
.
West County Recycling Center processes materials collected
through curbside and commercial recycling programs. The center
also operates a certified California Redemption Center and a
recycling drop-off for the public.
Foot of Parr Blvd. .
Richmond, CA 94801
From 1/01/93 to 12131/93, the Unincorporated Area sent
III tons of material to the facility.
The West County Recycling Center diverted from disposal < 1%
of the wastes generated in the Unicorporated Area during 1993.
The III tons of material diverted was residential curbside
collection recyclables (newspaper, aluminum and tin cans, and
plastic)
29
TOWN OF TIBJLRON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
JANUARY 4, 1995
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
ITEM NO:
7
SUBJECT: NEW TOWN ADMINISTRATION
AND POLICE FACILITIES
-----------------------------------------.-.---.-.-----------------------------------.----------------
I. BACKGROUND
At Council's November 16, 1994 regular meeting, former Mayor Bruce Ross
was appointed by the Town Council to form a Committee and formally
present a basic site plan and funding program for a proposed new downtown
Town Hall administrative facility and a new Police facility at Ned's Way.
Council requested Mr. Ross and his Committee to prepare the appropriate
information and present their report to the Council at its first regular meeting
in January 1995.
Chairman Ross subsequently established such Committee composed of former
elected and appointed officials Phil Bass, Larry Duke, Kirk Hanson, AI Kuhn,
Larry Smith and Jim Wilson.
The Committee's primary goal was to .review alternate downtown site plans
for Tiburon's new Town facilities and to select the most suitable site and
funding program for presentation to the Town Council and community.
During the month of December, Chairman Ross and/or Committee members
met with the following:
. Eric Glass (Glass Architects) -Police Building Design
. Jim Gillam (James Gillam Architects) - Town Hall Downtown
Design
. Peter Morris (Adamson Associates) - Cost Analysis of
Downtown Town Hall and Police Facility at Ned's Way
. Sia Mohammadi (Town Engineer) - Ned's Way/Tiburon Blvd.
Intersection Redesign
. Town Manager - New Police Building at Ned's Way
. Planning Director and Other Staff Members
II. COMMITIEE PRESENTATION
New Downtown Civic Center and Ned's Way Police Facility
1. Schematic Designs
2. Cost Estimates
3. Financial Feasibility Plan
4. Questions & Comments
III. FUTURE COMMITIEE ACTION
A During the month of January, the Committee will provide basic
informational presentations regarding the proposed plans and
associated costs to the following organizations: Reed Union
School District, New Library Committee, Chamber of
Commerce, Child Care Center, The Hilarita,
BelvederejTiburon Joint Recreation Committee, Landmarks
Society, Town Staff and interested Property Owners
Associations.
B. The Committee will conduct a community workshop on
February 4 to discuss and evaluate the differences in
comparison of the two (2) proposals for Tiburon's New Town
Center facilities. This workshop would be open to the public
and encourage community discussion in regard to the new
facilities. The workshop goals are to hopefully reach general
agreement, to achieve consensus and to provide the Town
Council with definite direction concerning a New Town Center
plan which everyone can support and work together towards
implementing.
EXHIBITS
1. Schematic Plans and Cost Information (to be submitted at meeting)
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 4, 1994
ITEM NO. g
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LEASE OF DOHAHUE BUILDING TO LANDMARKS
SOCIETY
FROM:
TOWN ATIORNEY
-~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
For some time now the Town and the Landmarks Society have been involved in negotiations
for the lease of the Donahue Building. The matter has been brought to the Council several
times for direction regarding term of the lease, etc. The ad hoc subcommittee comprised
of Mayor Thompson and Councilmember Nygren met with representatives of the Landmarks
Society on December 21, 1994 regarding the lease. At that meeting, both sides came to
agreement on the terms of the lease. As of the writing of this staff report, the final draft
of the lease has not been received from George Gnoss, attorney for the Landmarks Society.
We will provide copies to the Council as soon as it is received and additional copies will be
available at the meeting.
To summarize the basic terms of the lease, the Town will lease the Donahue Building to the
Landmarks Society for a term of 99 years at a rent of $1.00 per year. Landmarks will take
the building as is and will be responsible for all maintenance of and improvements to the
building. Landmarks will use the building as a museum with associated office uses for
Landmarks only. This use is consistent with the dedication of the building in the Point
Tiburon Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the lease.
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 4, 1995
AGENDA NO: 9
FROM:
JAYNI ALLSEP
CONTRACT PLANNER
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION TO APPROVE
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR
A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 102 MT.TIBURON
FILE #794132
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
KARl AND GUS BOOSALIS
DEAN DOVOLIS, AlA
APPELLANTS:
DIANE AND HOWARD ZACK
*****************************************************************
PROJECT DATA:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
LOT SIZE:
CURRENT USE:
58-261-35
R-01 - Residential Open Zone
Medium Low Density Residential
C
36,539 sq.ft.
Vacant
BACKGROUND:
This application was first reviewed by the Design Review Board
(DRB) on October 20, 1994. At that meeting, the Board voted to
continue the application in order to allow the applicant time to
consider ways in which the height of the proposed residence could
be reduced further in order to reduce the view blockage from the
Zack residence at 99 Mt. Tiburon (please see attached minutes of
the October 20th DRB meeting).
Revised plans were submitted and reviewed by the Board on November
17, 1994. The revised plans provided for a reduction in the height
of the residence ranging from six inches to one foot. Letters from
the project architect, Dean Dovolis, address the concerns/possible
modifications presented by the Zacks' consulting architect, Colleen
Mahoney, and outlines how the reduction in height was achieved
(please refer to attachments of the October 20th and November 17th
staff reports).
It should be noted that while all elevations of the house were
lowered to some degree, only story pole H's 9 (entry foyer), 23
(dining room/kitchen), 30 (great room) and the four chimney story
poles were adjusted to reflect the lower elevations.
At the November 17 meeting, the Board voted 3/2 to approve the
project, subject to the conditions in the staff report and
additional conditions which address exterior lighting, reduction
of the chimney structure and reconfiguration of the driveway
entrance (please refer to the attached minutes of the November 17,
1994, ORB meeting).
On November 30, 1994, Diane and Howard Zack, residents of 99 Mt.
Tiburon Road, filed an appeal of the Design Review Board's action
to approve the plans for 102 Mt. Tiburon Road. The grounds for the
appeal are listed in the attachment to the Notice of Appeal and are
discussed in the Analysis Section Below. It should be noted that
the 10-day appeal period was extended two days due to the
Thanksgiving holiday that was observed on November 24th and 25th.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting design review approval of a new single
family residence at 102 Mt. Tiburon Road. The proposed residence
has a floor area of 5,293 sq. ft. plus a 95.3 sq. ft. cabana and a
726 sq. ft. garage. The total calculated floor area (house,
cabana, and excess garage area) is 5,614.8 sq. ft. The Town's FAR
Guidelines permit up to 5,654 sq. ft. of floor area plus 500 sq. ft.
of garage space for this lot.
The proposed building coverage is 5,294 sq. ft. (14.5%). The
maximum proposed building height is 26.5 feet. Proposed exterior
materials include stained cedar shake siding with a stone base,
off-white wood trim, forest green window and door frames and a
slate roof (Echequren slate, China Green).
ANALYSIS:
Appellants' Grounds for the Appeal:
The grounds for appeal are contained in a letter attached to the
Zacks' Notice of Appeal. The letter focuses on the issue of-view
blockage and a request that the height of the proposed home be
lowered. The following are specific issues raised in the
appellants' grounds for appeal, followed by staff's response:
ISSUE 1. Proposed design would significantly mar from main
ceremonial rooms, views of the Bay Bridge, Alcatraz,
downtown skyline, Embarcadero and Angel Island.
RESPONSE: A fundamental goal of the Town's Design Guidelines
(hereafter referred to as "Guidelines") is "to preserve existing
views as much as possible and allow new dwellings access to views
similar to those enjoyed from existing dwellings." Applicants and
neighborhood residents must often compromise to obtain satisfactory
solutions to view blockage problems. (Goal 3, page 27)
The following Principals contained in the Guidelines are relevant
to the proposal and the issues raised in this appeal:
2-
.
Goal 3 - Principal 3: Views should be preserved as much as
possible wi thin reason. However, not everyone can have a panoramic
view. The neighborhood, developer and architect of a new dwelling
must work together to obtain the best solution between slot views,
view corridors and panoramic views.
Goal 3 - Principal 7: Partial view blockage should be avoided
whenever possible; however, as much as we dislike it, views from
existing dwellings must often be compromised by new dwellings or
additions in front of the existing structure".
The Guidelines acknowledge that view protection is more important
for major ceremonial rooms (living, dining and kitchen) than for
secondary rooms (bedroom, bathroom, family room). In addition, the
following important concepts with regard to view blockage are
contained in the Guidelines:
blockage of important objects is more difficult to accept than
blockage of other, less well known landmarks.
blockage of center of view is more damaging than blockage of
side of view.
a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the
smaller slot view.
ISSUE 2.
Applicant did not need the
meaningfully lower the height of
to the Zacks' concerns.
DRB's directi ve to
their home in response
RESPONSE: As indicated in the Background section of this report,
at the October 20th meeting, the DRB voted to continue the
application in order to allow the applicant time to consider ways
in which the height of the proposed residence could be reduced.
Two board members felt that the height of the residence was
acceptable as presented, and two board members felt that the height
of the residence should be reduced further (Board member Sadrieh
was absent). Since a majority of the board members present were
not in favor of approving the proposal as presented, the item was
continued.
The revised plans approved by the Board on November 17, 1994,
provided for a reduction in the height of the residence ranging
from six inches to one foot. As indicated by the minutes of the
November 17th meeting, as well as the 3/2 vote to approve the
application, a majority of the board members felt that it was not
necessary to further reduce the height of the proposed residence.
The two board members who cast the dissenting votes felt that the
house should be lowered an additional foot.
The subject of view blockage and what constitutes a "fair
compromise" and "satisfactory solution" are highly subjective
issues that the Design Review Board must often contemplate. Since
both of the properties in question enjoy expansive views, assessing
1.
the magnitude of the view blockage impact becomes even more
subjective. It is staff's opinion that each of the board members
reviewed the proposal with the goals and objectives of the
Guidelines in mind, and based their decision on what they felt was
a reasonable compromise with regard to view blockage.
ISSUE 3. The applicant is concerned about the impact surrounding
neighborhood trees will have on their views."
RESPONSE: When a proposal for a new residence is reviewed by the
Board, proposed, new landscaping is scrutinized to ensure that it
does not grow into "view blocks" for neighboring dwellings. The
trees referenced in the appellant's letter are mature trees that
were planted many years ago on various properties in the Mt.
Tiburon neighborhood. Staff appreciates the cooperative tree-
trimming efforts of the Mt. Tiburon neighbors in order to maintain
view corridors, and hope that they will continue. Further, it
should be noted that provisions of Homeowners Associations CC&R's
are not enforced by the Town.
ISSUE 4. Concern regarding other specific design elements (height
and mass of the chimney, height of the entry, clerestory
windows/impact on night view, exterior lighting, safety
of driveway access.
RESPONSE: with the exception of the height of the entry, the board
added specific conditions of approval to address these issues
(please refer to November 17th minutes and revised conditions of
approval). Revisions to the chimney structure and skylights are
required to be reviewed and approved by the Administrative Panel.
ISSUE 5. Conditions of approval include a requirement that maximum
ridge heights be verified by a licensed surveyor.
RESPONSE: A standard condition of approval for all new homes is
that prior to building inspection approval of the structure
foundation, the builder shall provide graphic documentation of the
"as-built" foundation heights and location by the project's
structural engineer or a licensed land surveyor. This is to ensure
that the building footprint and ridge elevations will conform to
the approved design review and building permit plans. It is
staff's opinion that this condition is adequate to ensure that the
residence will conform to the approved ridge heights.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be in conformance
with the development standards of the R-Ol zone, the FAR guidelines
specified by Section 4.02.07 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance, and
the General Plan. Furthermore, by conditionally approving the
design review application, the Design Review Board found that the
project substantially conforms to the Guiding Principles and site
Development criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance and the
Hillside Design Guidelines.
~
staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the decision of the
Design Review Board to conditionally approve the plans for the
proposed residence at 102 Mt. Tiburon.
EXHIBITS:
1. Notice of Appeal with Attachment, dated November 30, 1994.
2. Minutes of the October 20, 1994, DRB Meeting.
3. Minutes of the November 17, 1994, DRB Meeting.
4. October 20, 1994, DRB Staff Report.
5. November 17, 1994, DRB Staff Report.
6. Notice from Kari and Gus Boosalis, dated December 27, 1994.
7. Letter from Dean Dovolis, Project Architect, dated December
26, 1994.
8. Letter from Lois Moody, dated December 28, 1994.
9. Letter from Joyce and Fred Nicholas, dated December 19, 1994.
10. Letter from Bruce and Lois Moody, dated December 11, 1994.
11. Letter from Irving Moulin, dated December 19, 1994.
12. Letter from Reed Ranch Road Architectural Committee.
13. Letter from Vernon C. Watters, dated December 23, 1994.
14. Letter from Kari and Gus Boosalis, dated December 27, 1994.
15. Letter from Diane and Howard Zack, dated December 20, 1994.
16. Letter from Russell R. Pratt, dated December 22, 1994.
17. Plans Approved by Design Review Board, November 17, 1994.
2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
102 MT. TIBURON ROAD
FILE NO.794133
1. This approval shall be used wi thin two (2) years of the
approval date, or shall become null and void unless a building
permit has been issued or an extension is granted.
2. The development of the project shall conform to the plans date
stamped November 2, 1994, on file with the Town of Tiburon.
Any modifications to the approved plans must be reviewed and
approved by the Town.
3. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall
be placed in the wells.
4. All clerestory windows shall be tinted and fitted with fixed
louvers in order to control spillage of interior lighting at
night.
5. The applicant shall meet all requirements of other agencies
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an interim
landscape plan for the pool area shall be submitted for staff
review and approval. The landscape plan shall provide for
interim landscaping of the pool area, in the event that the
pool is not be constructed prior to occupancy of the home.
7. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval,
all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in
accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings
and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Department
field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
8. Prior to building inspection approval of the structure
foundation, the builder shall provide graphic documentation
of the "as-built" foundation heights and location by the
project's structural engineer or a licensed land surveyor.
The documentation shall be provided to the Tiburon Building
Department prior to the building inspection approval of the
structure foundation.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WERE ADDED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AT
THE NOVEMBER 17, 1994 MEETING:
The entrance lights be down-lit.
Swimming pool lights be reduced from four to two.
Landscape lights be reduced by 30%.
Peak skylights shall be eliminated or replaced with sloped
skylights away from Zacks (99 Mt. Tiburon).
The chimney shall be reworked/relocated to minimize the view
blockage.
The chimney and skylight revisions shall be reviewed and
approved by the Administrative Panel.
The driveway shall be located as far up the hill as possible.
.
r
r~
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF APPEAL
APPELLANT:
Name: ~ WrJAl <t-. j),1CU1L i:z:c~
Address: qcr HOVI1 i- Ti 0WVK I2d J
Telephone: y.- 3 5 --- ~ 1-0 l( (1lo;7elc)
,
(home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED:
J)esl~ Vl ~t/iw lOCl1 d-
)JOA). l'Tl 191 if
1300ScU(s- /0::2.
Nature of Application: ~v'Vro~4 UVAI
Body:
Date of Action:
Name of Applicant:
()1r ~
~:~
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:
Y/ff/~ ~ diltd~ !~
~-
Last Day to File: II I. ~O I C; 1-
I I
Fee ($300.00) Paid:
Date Received:
1t/2tJ/J1
Date of Hearing:
---mnBlTN"O.--L
.
[
('
99 Mt. Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
November 30, 1994
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Members of the Town Council,
We are writing to explain the basis for our appeal of the Design Review
Board's (DRB) November 17 decision to approve the proposed home at 102
Mount Tiburon Road.
-
We reside at 99 Mt. Tiburon Road and we are the only neighbor whose
view is severely impacted by the proposed residence. The proposed design
will significantly mar from our main ceremonial rooms the crown iewel
elements of our southern view of San Francisco: the Bay Bridge, Alcatraz ,
downtown skyline and Embarcadero and Angel Island. Our house was
expressly oriented to take advantage of these City views -- the kitchen,
living room, den and dining room are all positioned to face downtown San
Francisco.
Accordingly, we ask that the proposed home's height be
modestly lowered by 3 feet. This accommodation can be readily
arrived at by the applicant with no harm to them and yet, such a
slight modification makes an enormous permanent difference to
preserving our views and our property value.
As the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings state: "No single
item, with regard to his dwelling, is more precious to the
resident of Tiburon than his view." "Property owners must
remember that their proposed dwelling will have a substantial
impact on neighboring properties; this impact MUST BE
MINIMIZED in every way reasonably possible." Especially
relevant-te-this situation are these additional guidelines: "...view
protection is more important for major ceremonial rooms" as
well as-"hlockage of important objects in the view (such as Angel
Island etc.) is more difficult to accept than others." These
Hillside Guidelines provide the foundation for view preservation
in our town and are universally embraced by Tiburon residents.
-
ct,
(I
.
" I
In its initial hearing on this matter, the DRB expressed concerns about the
height of the proposed residence and its consequent impact on our view,
and issued a continuance. We feel the applicant did not heed the DRB's
directive to meaningfully lower the height of their home in response to our
concerns - they cropped only 6 to 12 inches in various locations. The
resultant reduction in our view blockage was marginal. Our architect,
Colleen Mahoney, herself a fonner DRB member, had made numerous
concrete suggestions (in both her submission to the DRB on November 3
and in her November 14 letter to the DRB) about how to lower the height
of the proposed home. Moreover, it was our impression at the November
17 hearing that the two architects on the DRB could also see that the
applicant's architect could utilize Ms. Mahoney's suggestions and take other
incremental steps that, in combination, would achieve the meaningful
height reduction we seek. These two architects dissented in a close 3 to 2
vote on the application. ~
We recognize the applicant is concerned about the impact surrounding
neighborhood trees will have on their views. Photos we submitted for the
record at the November 17 hearing, demonstrate dearly that lowering the
height of the proposed home by the 3 feet we seek makes an
indistinguishable difference to the quality of the applicant's view.
Furthennore, we have approached several key neighbors who have
graciously agreed to trim or window their trees which will enhance the
views of the applicant and ourselves. This phenomenon - trimming and
windowing trees -- is a cornerstone of our Mt. Tiburon CC&R's, under
which everyone in the neighborhood must live. Indeed, an ingrained facet
of our neighborhood culture is biannual tree cutting - everyone does it,
cooperatively and willingly.
Beyond the height of the horne, there are other specific design elements
which remain of deep concern to us: the height and mass of the chimney;
the soaring 18'6" height of the entry which represents uninhabitable living
space but which mars our view; the purely decorative clerestory windows
which will impair our night view; the excessive exterior lighting and the
driveway that needs to be reoriented to a safe location.
We recognize that a home will be built on this site. Our sole
desire is to minimize the impact on our view. We have
considerable concrete neighborhood support for our contention
that the most critical elements of our view have been seriously
harmed and that the Hillside Guidelines must be upheld to
preserve our marquis landmark views. If the applicant could
only undertake some combination of the many minor
<-
~
(,
(
modifications recommended by competent counsel, our concerns
would be met and their design would be preserved.
Finally, because our views are so precious to us, it is important that the
conditions for approval include a requirement that maximum ridge heights
be verified by a licensed surveyor.
We appreciate your consideration of our appeal.
Sincerely,
'm'UJLL+-~Ml ~
Diane and Howard Zack
~
.
..
~ Boosalis: 102 Mount Tiburon Road. New SFD
The applicant is requesting design review approval of anew single
family residence at 102 Mt. Tiburon Road. The proposed residence
has a floor area of 5,293 sq. ft. plus a 95.3 sq. ft. cabana and a
726 sq. ft. garage. The total calculated floor area (house,
cabana, and excess garage area) is 5,614.8 sq. ft. The Town's FAR
Guidelines permit up to 5,654 sq. ft. of floor area plus 500 sq.
ft. of garage space for this lot.
The proposed building coverage is 5,294 sq. ft. (14.5%). The
maximum proposed building height is 26.5 feet. Proposed exterior
materials include stained cedar shake siding with a stone base,
off-white wood trim, forest green window and door frames and a
slate roof (Echequren slate, China Green).
Dean Dovolis, Architect for the project, showed the original site
plan that was drawn by Architect Bruce Moody. Mr. Dovolis stated
that there was more view blockage with the previous plan. Mr.
Dovolis said that he changed the original plans by moving the house
over, thus reducing the view blockage, by moving the guest quarters
to the basement space and by lowering the roof pitches. He also
mentioned that he removed most of the cupolas from the plans. He
said that the light in the existing cupola will be controlled and
tinted glass installed to reduce the light impact. Mr. Dovolis
said that they have tried to mitigate as many impacts as they can.
He mentioned that the owners want to make more changes, but old
growth trees and a retaining wall are in the way.
Kari and Gus Boosalis, owners, said that they hoped to take
advantage of their optimum view. They also did not want to reduce
their number of cupolas. They have made the changes discussed by
their Architect, among others, in the spirit of cooperation and
compromise with their neighbors.
Contract Planner Allsep, said that Dan Catron, Associate Planner
met with Mr. Dovolis to discuss the setback requirements for this
lot. She said that this is a corner lot and is irregular in shape.
There is a provision contained in the Zoning Ordinance that allows
for front and side yard setbacks to be interchanged. She said that
a variance is not required for interchanging setbacks; but it is
subject to the Board's approval.
Acting Chairman Slavitz opened the public hearing.
Diane Zack, 99 Mount Tiburon Road, accepts the fact that their view
will be affected, but still feels that there will be major view
blockage from their main rooms, which will diminish their property
value. She feels that the chimneys are too high. She expressed
concern about the house being against a huge retaining wall and
about the major excavation that will be required. She stated that
the house is a lovely design and wants to corne to a compromise with
DRB 10/20/94 11
EXHIBITNO. 2.
.'
the owners, but the current plan needs to change.
Howard Zack, 99 Mount Tiburon Road, said that the primary view from
their major ceremonial rooms will be obscured by this home, as
proposed. He stated that the story poles went up at the last
minute and that the chimney story poles only went up six days ago.
He said that they recently hired Colleen Mahoney, Architect, and
asked that she work with Mr. Dovolis with the goal being to reduce
the impact on their view. Mr. Zack said that their plan is to
request that a variance for the building envelope be required,
require them to lower the grade of the house and to reduce the
height of the trees, which he says is a normal request in this
neighborhood. He mentioned that the Chus, the Moulins and the
Moodys agreed to reduce the height of their trees. Mr. Zack read
from the CC&R's for Mt. Tiburon regarding trees and view
preservation. He mentioned that the pictures taken from their
living and family rooms that were handed out to the Board had been
enlarged and cropped.
Colleen Mahoney, Architect, said that she met with the Zacks and
determined that there would be substantial impact to the Zacks.
She stated that there would be loss of important views and impacts
on the value of their property. She mentioned that there would be
light impacts out of the clerestory windows. She said that the
downhill neighbors need to be cooperative in trimming their trees.
Ms. Mahoney requested Staff to check the FAR, as she said that
there is approximately 880 square feet of storage and mechanical
space that has not been accounted for in this application, which
makes the house over 7,000 square feet in size. She said that
suggested modifications that collectively would help reduce the
impact of this home on the Zack residence would be if the Board
could make the findings to move the house in the northeast
direction, eliminate the cupola, lower the ceilings, consider
relocating the fireplaces and chimneys, create steps down from the
bedroom wing to the entry foyer, subsequently dropping all of the
other grades, and further reducing the pitch of the roof. She
stated that, collectively, a 4' 5' reduction is possible,
allowing the Zacks to regain all of their views, with the exception
of Angel Island.
Boardmember Woo asked Ms. Mahoney if the Boosalis' have seen this
proposal and she replied that so far she has only briefly spoken to
Mr. Dovalis about it.
Russ Pratt, 95 Mount Tiburon Road, asked if the Boosalis' would be
willing to move their driveway so that it is not directly across
from his driveway and Mr. Dovalis stated that he did not see a
problem with doing that.
Bruce Moody, 88 Mount Tiburon Road, feels
unreasonable request to ask him to cut some of
said that the Zacks have a good view already.
that it is an
his trees, as he
Mr. Moody stated
DRB 10/20/94 12
-
that Mr. Dovalis is doing a very good job at trying to mitigate
these problems. He fears that if they push the proposed house
further into the hill, the trees behind the house would be
destroyed.
Boardmember Bennett asked Mr. Moody if his trees have ever been
trimmed and he replied that they have not. Mrs. Moody stated that
one of the trees is a Digger Pine, which she would like left alone,
and the other tree is a Heritage Monterey Pine, which could
possibly be thinned. She is against topping the trees.
Roy KUklinsky, 106 Mount Tiburon Road, said that he would also like
to see the trees behind the proposed house preserved.
Contract Planner Allsep stated that she received a call from Rudy
Caval check on behalf of Mrs. Akhdar, 101 Mount Tiburon Road, who is
ill and unable to attend tonight's meeting. Contract Planner
Allsep suggested to Mr. Cavalcheck that someone should come to the
meeting to express Mrs. Akhdar's three concerns which are removal
of any trees on the Boosalis property, possible view impacts if the
house is shifted east and proximity of the house if it is shifted
east.
Acting Chairman Slavitz asked Contract Planner Allsep to respond to
Ms. Mahoney's question about the FAR. Contract Planner Allsep said
that on the site summary sheet, it is noted that 1,212 sq. ft. of
basement area is not included in the FAR calculations. She said
that she alerted the architects early on that if it is considered
habitable space, it is included as FAR. She said that the
Boosalis' intent was only to use it as mechanical and storage area.
She said that she spoke with the Building Inspector and he said
that, in similar situations, there is a requirement that the floor
height be raised so that there is no more than a 7' ceiling height
and this is to be shown on the construction drawings. She said
that if the Board is concerned about this, it can be made a
condition of approval in terms of the FAR and the Board agreed that
it should be made a condition of approval. She said that the
habitable space has been calculated correctly and the basement
space was not included in the FAR for the above stated reason.
Kari Boosalis, owner, stated that Mr. Chu approves of their plans.
She said that Staff did not require that they erect chimney story
pOles, but they voluntarily agreed to do so. She said that they
will have one view, while the Zacks have a panoramic view. She
said that the Zacks knew that this lot would be developed one day.
Gus Boosalis, owner, stated that
the Zacks have given nothing.
right to develop their property
they have compromised a lot, while
He said that his family has the
to maximize the value of it.
Mr. Dovolis, Architect, said that the Boosalis' have given up a lot
in order to please their neighbors. He said that they have
DRB 10/20/94 13
.
.
incurred more expense
as much as they can.
height.
than anticipated. The house has been lowered
He stated that they cannot lower the floor
There being no further comments from the public, Acting Chairman
Slavitz closed the public hearing and brought the issue before the
Board.
Boardmember Bennett said that the Boosalis' have done a wonderful
job in cooperating with the neighbors. She asked Mr. Dovolis if
there is any way that the skylights in the peaks could be moved to
the flat area facing away from the Zacks. He said that he would
prefer to leave it for equal light, but he would be willing to
compromise a little. She asked him if the clerestory windows would
have louvers and he replied that they would.
Boardmember Woo asked Mr. Oovolis if the clerestory windows will be
tinted and he replied that he will use office building tinting,
which is fairly dark glass.
Boardmember Bennett said that Mr. Chu asked that an eight foot
hedge be planted along Mt. Tiburon Road. Mr. Dovolis said that
they would plant that hedge.
Acting Chairman Slavitz said that he commends the neighbors and the
Architects for their cooperation. He said that he visited the
Zack's property and he feels that any home built on this site would
effect some of the Zack's views. He said that the Boosalis' have
a right to build on their property. He supports this project. He
wants to see the driveway moved, so that it is not right across
from the Pratt's driveway.
Boardmember Berger echoes Acting Chairman Slavitz's comments. He
stated that there is no legal easement for views. He would like to
see the neighbors share the views. He said that little changes in
design make significant effects.
Boardmember Woo agrees with Boardmember Berger. She said that
there will be significant view blockage for the Zack's with this
house, as proposed. She said that she is impressed with the
negotiations between all parties involved and the way this has been
documented. She also wants to see some reduction in height of the
house.
Boardmember Bennett said that she likes the design. The cupola
does not impair the Zack's views, as much as the rest of the house
does. She said that she would like to see the skylights on the
peaks facing the Zack's house removed. She said that she would
also like to see the storage space with a 7 ft. height limit. She
would like Mr. Oovolis to see if there is any fine-tuning that can
be done as he indicated. She said that if he cannot make any more
reductions, he can come back before the Board with the same
ORB 10/20/94 14
.,
drawings.
Acting Chairman Slavitz said that there is not enough support among
the Boardmembers to approve the project.
Mr. Dovolis asked if he could hold back on completing the working
drawings and the Board agreed that he should not start the working
drawings until there is an approved project. Mr. Dovolis asked if
he could submit overlays of his proposed changes, should he make
any, and the Board agreed.
Contract Planner Allsep asked the Board, for the benefit of the
applicant, if there were any other issues other than reducing the
height or the view issues that it wanted him to address. Acting
Chairman Slavitz requested that he address the driveway placement.
Boardmember Bennett wanted him to address the skylights.
Boardmember Berger suggested that Mr. Dovolis concentrate on
addressing the big picture items. Slavitz requested that the story
poles be adjusted to reflect the most current plan, either by
cutting or painting them.
The Board offered a continuance of this item to November 3, 1994.
The Board unanimously approved the continuance.
AYES: Acting Chairman Slavitz, Boardmembers Bennett, Berger
and Woo
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman sadrieh
DRB 10/20/94 15
.>
(
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
(
MINUTES NO. 119 OF THURSDAY NOVEMBER 17, 1994
VENUE: 1101 TIBURON BLVD. TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER:
There being full quorum the Chairman called the regular meeting of
the Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Mr. Mohamad Sadrieh
Mr. Jeff Slavitz
Ms. Diana Bennett
Mr. Miles Berger
Ms. Evelyn Woo
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Boardmember
Boardmember
Boardmember
EX-OFFICIO: Ms. Irene Borba
Ms. Jayni Allsep
Mr. Tarun Sanghvi
Assistant Planner
Contract Planner
Minute Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The chairman invited the members of the public for comments on any
issue not on the agenda. There ~eing none Chairman proceeded to
the next item.
DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING:
There was none, except that Ms. Irene Borba announced the
continuation of 7 Upper Cecilia Way to December 1, 1994.
OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD:
;>/<
THE BOOSALIS RESIDENCE
102 MOUNT TIBURON
NEW SFD
-i
The applicant is requesting the Board's approval of a new single
family residence at 102 Mt. Tiburon Road. The proposed residence
has a floor area of 5,293 sq. ft. plus a 95.3 sq. ft. cabana and a
726 sq. ft. garage. The total calculated floor area (house, cabana,
and excess garage area) is 5,614.8 sq. ft.
The proposed building coverage is 5,294 sq. ft. (14.5%). The maximum
proposed building height is 26.5 feet. Proposed exterior materials
include stained cedar shake siding with a stone base, off-white
wood trim, forest green window and door frames and a slate
roof(Echequren slate, China Green).
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
DRB
EXHIBIT NO. 3
1
.'
(
(
THE BOOSALIS RESIDENCE
102 MOUNT TIBURON
NEW SFD
(CONT.)
The proposal was reviewed at the October 20th Board meeting. The
applicant was directed by the Board to consider ways to reduce
height in order to reduce the view blockage.
The Chairman called upon the applicant
requested the presenters to limit
information only.
to make the presentation and
the presentations to new
Mr. Bob Huff,for the owner (Mr. & Mrs. Boosalis), briefed the Board
their(the Board's) concerns from the previous meeting have been
addressed. The new proposal suggests considerable reduction in
height, more than inches as suggested by the Board.
The Architect Dean Dovolis briefed the Board stating numerical
values in height reduction at several high points of the building
and added, this has been accomplished by reducing the roof pitch,
wall heights, lowering floor elevation and increasing risers. The
Architect reported reduction in height between 7 and 13 1/2 inches
and reduced width of fireplace by 20 inches.
The Architect proposed to correct the light pollution from the
skylights by installing fixed wooden louvers and tinted glass.
In regards to offsetting the driveway the Architect proposed to
address the issue during construction when actual field condition
would give a better idea in positioning the driveway, and concluded
his presentation.
In Answer to the Questions from:
Boardmember Bennett, about putting the skylights away from Zack's
view the Architect responded , fixed wooden louvers would correct
the impact.
Boardmember Slavi tz, about moving the driveway and the chimney
height, the Architect responded, he would be able to move the
dri veway to some extent however, complete offset would not be
possible due to the slope and the existing fire hydrant and the
chimney height was at the code minimum.
Boardmember Woo, about the difference between installing fixed
louvers in the skylights instead of blocking those sides. The
Architect explained, the fixed louvers will give symmetric effect
of light penetration, which he preferred.
Chairman Sadrieh, about the number of fireplaces served by the
Chimney stack, posing view blockage and whether the fireplace in
bedroom #5 had to be a wood-burning fireplace. The Architect
commented he has already reduced the width by 1'8" and will strive
for further reduction after consulting with the Structural
Engineer.
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
DRB
2
(
(
THE BOOSALIS RESIDENCE
102 MOUNT TIBURON
NEW SFD
(CONT.)
Boardmember Bennett, on the lighting at the entrance being down
lights, swimming pool lights being reduced from 4 to 2, and 30%
reduction of landscape lighting, the Architect responded. that those
changes could be accomplished.
Boardmember Woo, about swimming pool light intensity, the Architect
responded, 100 watts and added it was at the minimum to achieve the
desired result.
Mr. Bob Huff presented photographs to
and briefed the Board, indicating
compromised considerably.
illustrate the view corridor
that the Boosalis's have
Mr. Gus Boosalis briefed the Board, the lot was purchased for the
view. He had advised his Architect to compromise with the
neighbors which he has and in so doing they have lost a
considerable portion of view and incurred additional expenses.
At this time Chairman Sadrieh opened the public hearing.
Mr. Howard Zack, of 99 Mount Tiburon, briefed the Board he would
like to maintain his precious views of the downtown corridor, Bay
Bridge and Alcatraz since they affect the value of their home. He
said the applicant's home contravene the hillside guidelines and it
is too high. He added, if the proposed house takes into account
the suggested minor modifications and since the neighbors have
agreed to maintain their trees to the minimum, this should solve
all concerns. The pictures were" presented to support the point.
Mr. Zack emphasized the importance of CC&R's.
Ms. Diane Zack briefed the Board, in consulting with a lighting
consultant, the fixed louvers in the skylights could be problematic
if the louvers were not placed at correct angle and paint may add
to the impact if not of proper type and color. So the solution
proposed does not address their concern.
Ms. Colleen Mahoney, representing Mr. & Mrs. Zack stated the
revised plans did not adequately address the view blockage issue.
The height reduction by 3 to 4 feet is still the issue. She also
suggested that the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings be
observed. The pictures were presented to illustrate the view
impacted, and continued to explain how a 3 or 4 feet drop would
completely eliminate the problem. Ms. Mahony commented that the
clerestory windows would impact the Zack's night view, and that the
chimney structure ould be monsterously imposing.
Mr. Russel Pratt of 95 Mount Tiburon Road, commented on the
placement of the driveway and also commented the lot is subjected
to CC&Rs and design guidelines for Hillside Dwelling and the
applicant should adhere to the regulations and requirements, just
as the rest of the neighborhood has had to do.
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
DRB
3
(
(
THE BOOSALIS RESIDENCE
102 MOUNT TIBURON
SFD
(CONT.)
Mr. Bruce Moody commented that compromise is necessary and added
the Boosalies have presented a reasonable proposal and the Zacks
will still have a considerable view. The house is well within the
envelope.
Mr. Bob Huff commented dropping the house by 3 feet will have no
views left for the Boosalises. The Boosalises have done enough to
address the view blockage and have made substantial cutbacks in
value of their house and views.
Chairman Sadrieh ended the public hearing and brought the issue
before the Board for comments.
Boardmember Slavitz commented, the applicant has compromised a lot,
minimized the view blockage, the Zacks still have a fantastic view
of the city and supports the revisions to exterior lighting
recommended by Boardmember Bennett.
Boardmember Berger commented, applicant has addressed the view
concerns but had hoped to see the house lowered 2 feet as discussed
in last meeting and it was lowered one foot. He still felt that
the house being lowered two feet would be reasonable.
Boardmember Woo commented the applicant has been reasonable and
added except for the skylight which she would like to see
eliminated or moved away from the Zacks, she could approve the
project as proposed.
Boardmember Bennett echoed what Boardmember Slavitz and Boardmember
Woo had commented and added, chimney be streamlined and the peak
skylights deleted. The house need not be lowered. She would
approve the proposal with changes to exterior lighting.
,
Chairman Sadrieh commented the chimney poses major view blockage
therefore, he suggested that the fireplace in Bedroom #5 be
eliminated or changed to a gas fireplace in order to reduce the
size of the chimney stack and skylights be placed away from the
Zacks. He explained why he thought the house should be lowered an
additional foot.
Boardmember Bennett moved to approve the project with conditions in
staff report and the following conditions:
The entrance lights be down lit.
Swimming pool to have two lights instead of four.
Landscape lights to be reduce by 30%.
The peak skylights be eliminated or replaced with sloped
skylights away from the Zacks.
The chimney be re-worked and relocated to minimize the view
blockage.
The chimney and skylights issues be returned to administrative
pane I .
The driveway be located as far up the hill as possible.
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
DRB
4
...' .,'
(
(
THE BOOSALIS RESIDENCE
102 MOUNT TIBURON
SFD
(CONT.)
Boardmember Slavitz seconded the motion.
AYES: Bennett, Woo, Slavitz.
NOES: Sadrieh, Berger.
YEE 7 UPPER CECILIA
OLD BUS BEFORE THE BOARD:
Due to the unavaila ' ity of the requ d information the subject
matter is conti d to the next regular Bo meeting.
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
DRB
5
MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
E-3
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
OCTOBER 20, 1994
AGENDA NO: E-3
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
JAYNI ALLSEP, CONTRACT PLANNER
102 MT. TIBURON ROAD; FILE #794133
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR
A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
DEAN DOVOLIS, ARCHITECT
GUS AND KARI BOOSALIS
*****************************************************************
PROJECT DATA:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
LOT SIZE:
CURRENT USE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
058-261-35
R-01 - Residential Open Zone
Medium Low Density Residential
C
36,539 square-feet
Vacant
October 11, 1994
October 13, 1994
ACT DEADLINE: January 13, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in section
15303 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3 project).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting design review approval of a new single
family residence at 102 Mt. Tiburon Road. The proposed residence
has a floor area of 5,293 sq.ft. plus a 95.3 sq. ft. cabana and a
726 sq. ft. garage. The total calculated floor area (house,
cabana, and excess garage area) is 5,614.8 sq. ft. The Town's FAR
Guidelines permit up to 5,654 sq. ft. of floor area plus 500 sq. ft.
of garage space for this lot.
The proposed building coverage is 5,294 sq. ft. (14.5%). The
maximum proposed building height is 26.5 feet. Proposed exterior
materials include stained cedar shake siding with a stone base,
off-white wood trim, forest green window and door frames and a
slate roof (Echequren slate, China Green).
EXIflBIT NO. l-/
.
ANALYSIS:
.,
A number of letters have been submitted and are attached for your
consideration. Diane and Howard Zack, 99 Mt. Tiburon, the
neighbors who are most affected by this project, have submitted a
letter identifying their concerns. In addition, a letter has been
submi tted by architect Colleen Mahoney, who has reviewed the
architectural plans for the Zacks. After receiving the letter from
the Zacks, staff went to view the story poles from their residence.
Mrs. Zack was concerned that there were no story poles erected to
represent the proposed chimney, which would be prominent in their
vi~w. ' Staff agreed that story poles should be erected for the
chimney, and contacted the Boosalises to request story poles for
the chimney due to its prominent location. The Boosalises agreed
to have the additional story poles erected.
Staff would like to point out that the plans reviewed by the Zacks
are an earlier version than what is attached to this report.
Although there are few significant differences, the plans provided
to the Zacks show a higher chimney height than currently proposed.
The story poles that are to be erected for the chimney will
represent the chimney height currently proposed, which is lower
than what is shown on the plans given to the Zacks.
The project architect has provided a letter which outlines the
history of developing the plans for the Boosalis residence and also
addresses the Zack's concerns.
In addition, it has been suggested that the Boosalis residence
could be shifted to the northeast, further out of the Zack's view.
Staff would like to point out that this modification would likely
require a Variance.
Because the property is a corner lot and has frontage along three
sides, the Zoning Ordinance allows setbacks for front and side
yards to be interchanged, if approved by the Board. However" any
setback less than 20 feet would require a Variance.
The yard (setback) requirements for the RO-1 zone are as follows:
Front yard:
Side yards:
Rear yards:
30 feet
20 feet
20% of the depth of the lot, up to 25 feet.
Staff has reviewed the proposal ,and found it to be in conformance
with the RO-1 zoning regulations, the FAR guideline specified by
section 4.02.07 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance, and the General
Plan. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning
Ordinance Sections 4.02.06 (Guiding Principles), 4.02.08 (Site
Development Criteria), and the Hillside Design Guidelines.
2.
,
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board finds the design acceptable and in conformance with
the Town's Design Guidelines, then staff has no objection to the
approval of the project. If the Board wishes to approve the
project, ,Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval
be applied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Conditions of Approval.
2. Application dated September 22, 1994.
3. Letters from Dean Dovolis, dated October 12, 1994.
4. Letter from Gus and Kari Boosalis, dated October 13, 1994.
5. Letter from Diane and Howard Zack, 99 Mt. Tiburon, dated
October 12, 1994.
6. Letter from Bruce Moody, Mt. Tiburon Architectural Committee,
dated October 11, 1994.
7. Letter from Irving Moulin, dated October 12, 1994.
8. Letter from Celine Hu and George Chu, 75 Mt. Tiburon, dated
October 14, 1994.
9. Letter from Colleen Mahoney, dated October 13, 1994.
10. Plans date-stamped October 5, 1994.
3
'.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
102 MT. TIBURON ROAD
FILE NO.794133
1. This approval shall be used wi thin two (2) years of the
approval date, or shall become null and void unless a building
permit has been issued or an extension is granted.
2. The development of the project shall conform to the plans date
stamped October 5, 1994, on file with the Town of Tiburon.
Any modifications to the approved plans must be reviewed and
approved by the Town.
3. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall
be placed in the wells.
4. The applicant shall meet all requirements of other agencies
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval,
all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in
accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings
and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Department
field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
6. Prior to building inspection approval of the structure
foundation, the builder shall provide graphic documentation
of the "as-built" foundation heights and location by the
project's structural engineer or a licensed land surveyor.
The documentation shall be provided to the Tiburon Building
Department prior to the building inspection approval of the
structure foundation.
.
.'
FOR STAFF USE \
DATE RECEIVED: q,ILf.C)}jUj~
RECEIVED BY:~e :
FEES RECEIVED: illoOO :
RECEIPT NO: cy;Yh
CASE NO.nCJL.\ 1':3?;
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND DESIGN REVIEW
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 TIBURON BLVD., T1BURON, CA 94920
(415) 435.'13"l7
SITE ADDRESS: lCl? M,"",llnr 'T'i'hnrrln 'T'inl1l"'("\n r""lifnl"'nii=l
Pleas!: indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom corn:spondence sbonld be senL
OWNER OF
PROPERTY: Gus and Kari Boosalis
PHONE: (4l5) 38l-0278
MAILING ADDRESS: 58 Tooside Wav, Mill Vallev. California 94941
* APPLICANT: Dovolis Johnson & RUCl9ieri, II/HQNE: (612) 871-6009
(Other Than Owner)
ADDRESS: 1121 East Franklin Avenue. Minneaoolis, Minnesota 55404
ARCHITECT:
DESIGNER:
ENGINEER: Of''' n Dovo 1 i s
PHONE:
(612) 871-6009
Dovolis Johnson & Ruggieri. Inc.
ADDRESS: ll21 East Franklin Avenue. Minneaoolis. Minnesota 55404
PARCEL NO.: 38" 38-201 J~
5'g_ :l.l,ol - 35
ZONING:
RO-l
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
Single family house with attached garage. one story with ?artial
bas~ment, one cabana buildina. on 36,539 Sauare foot site.
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property berein described. hereby make application
for design review of the plans submitted and made a part of tbis application in accordance "ith the
provisions of the Town Ordinance and I hereby certify that tbe infonnation given is true and correct to the
best .,f my knowledge and belief,
- ::;) . 2 0
/ ;'};.;
,,,;.00 d l101"
91' 9/Q4
(Date)
"',
7. Number or orr-streer parK~ng ~paces:
. .
.'
.'
COVERED
Existina
Proposed
Vacant
Three
OPEN
Existino
Proposed
Vacant
Five
8 .
Surrounding land use: North
Residential
South
Residential
East
Residential
West
Residential
9. Project scheduling and phasing:
One Phase
IO. If residential:
total number of living units One
range of sale pr ices or rents N/A
II. If commercial or industrial: N/A
net rentable floor area
number of occupants
estimated employment per shift
12. If applicable, describe provisions for:
water 3ervice Marin Municioal Water District
fire protection Mount Tibruron Fire
sto:~ drainage Municiaoal System
sewase disposal Municioal System
other utilities
13. Any other pertinent information:
(att2ch additional sheets if necessary)
-
page 3
,...
.-
.:L
~
" :PI~~se provide the following information:
'1.
BriefLy, reason for, proposed project:
Single family house with attached qaraqe. one story with
partial basement. one ci'lhi'ln'i'l hllilr1ing
,"
2. Lot area in square feet:
36.539
3. Proposed use of site:
Existina
Proposed
Vacant
Single Family House
4. Individual and total square feet of living areas and accessory buildings~
Existing
Proposed
Vacant
House
Lower Level
Upper Level
Garaqe
Cabana
by:
820.7
4,472.8
726.0
95.3
5.
Percentage of total site to be covered
ON GRADE BUILDING:
Existing
Proposed
5:294.1 Square Feet (14.5%)
Vacant
PARKING:
Existing
Proposed
Vacant
1 n4.11 h ~'Jn::.lrp Fppr (FL1%)
OTHER PAVED AREAS (ACCESS TO PARKING 1 TURNAROUNDS, ETC.)
Existing Proposed
Vacant 3.732.0 Sauare Feet (10.2%)
LANDSCAPING:
Existing Proposed
Vacant 24.466.3 Square Feet (67.0% )
6. Building height and number of stories:
Existing Proposed
Vacant One stray, Maximum 26'-411
page 2
.
HJ/J,..j/t:l4:
l.j'o()
DOvOLlS
vOHNSQl\J
& RUGGIERI
, " f" () I( " 0 t.\, ! ~ D
An equal ':!oportunity eornployeor
1121 E.Jst Fr.;lnkiin
."'1il~J~(',1r',~1I;(" '\1r.....3~~n4
;.'j, ''''llll-;:i.hIJIJ')
\""0""""""
. "n :"'",""",~
....
'O'til:: IJIl 1/4ti
LJ,J&R ARCH! TECTS
~009
OClCber 12, 1994
Town ofTiburon
Attn: Jayni Allsep
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
RE: Response to the Zack letter ccnceming thc Boosalis home at 102 Mount
Tiburon.
I am "Titing in respop.:;e to Diane and Howard Zack's letter dated October 12,
1994 concerning their vicw corridor as rclat::s to the Boosalis house and other
issues concerning this house. On October 11, I had a one and onc-halfhour
conversation with Diane discussmg the issues contained in her letter. We
discussed what r can and cannot do regarding the Boosalis house and the r;:asollS
behind them. I am notitying you of these issues so th.'\.t thc Design Board is aware
of all issues concerning the Boosalis house.
Response to Point if 11 L.Jwer the grade.
We have alrcad;i I'~we;ed lbe house considerably at:
Liv1n1O Room - by 4 feet (view loss 50%)
Dining Room. by 2 feet (vie",,'!oss 25%)
Roof Pitch from 5: 12 to 4: 12
Gar.lge - by 1 foot 6 inches
Eliminated all cupdas - sayed 3 feet of height
Built 6 foot retaining wall and eliminated two trees to keep the house
grade elevation as low as possible at the north end
If I lower cl:e grade of the house any further, it will require elimination of all trees
on lbe aorth s,de of the site, ;:'1 ~ fooe retaining "'.lll, more internal :rtai.rs,
.;onsidet.lble expense in excavatioo and Joss of all view from the great room.
I h:!ve complIed wilh the Tiburon Design Guideline's including Principle #3 on
p~e G3, P3, 29. s~ieing oifa comer \iew, Principle #7B 00 page G3, P7, 34
blocking only the sid. of the view and, es~ially, Principle 7D and E. on page
G 3, P7 35 by taking enl, a comer of a panoramic view in consideration of the
Zacks views. To do more wculd render the lot unbuildable.
Rcsponu ro Point #2: ,V,,,. SeJbacll
I have moved the house over 5 feet aiready by using the irregular lot size
crd;n:lIlce (setback ;educoo to 20 feet). I could move the house oWr an additional
5 feet to the cast. but this wou:d require a variance ,0 a J 5 foot side yard setback.
Th.s w0uld be amenable if such a varian~ is possible.
10/13/94 13~5g
'B'61Z 371 1746
DJ "R ARCH I TECTS
~1)10
Response to Point #3: Control Night Light from Skylights
Weare planning to use dark tinted Slass and to install wood louvers to control any pctentiallight
pollution along with careful control of interior lighting at skylight areas.
Ifyoti wish to discuss these items further, please call me at 381-0278 or (612) 871-6009. I will
cominue to work with Mr. and Mrs. Zack and Mr. and Mrs, Boosalis to reaclI thc best possible
solution.
Sinc..-rely,
5--
De:Ul J. Do otis
DJD/ch
DOC:9421113
October 13, 199-+
TOII'n orTiburon
Design Re\'ie'.I' Beard
1101 Tiburcn Boule\'ard
Tiburon, CA 9-+920
Re: Boos",lis Residence
102 j\[ount Tiburon
Dear Board:
As per my discussion Idth Jayni. I ha\'e asked my engineer and
builder to pu: up ,,1n addition",l swry pole ror the fireplace I\'hich i\Jr.
,,1l1d j\!rs, Z"Kk rFcquested, I ha\'E~ also brought i'lr. and i\lrs, LKk a
coiored rendering or the ele,..",tion or our house facing their home.
We are thrilled .1nd proud or purchasing our lot on top or j\lount
Tiburon. We ha,..e I\'orked ror fi\'e ye,,<.rs :0 finally decide I\'here I\'e
cac call home, HOI\' rortun",te I\'e ",re, Gus and I ha\'e I\'orked \'ery
closely Idth our .1n:11itect and neighbors to design a home that I\'ill
be best suiced ror the neighborhood or j\[;)unt Tiburon keeping in
mind the Z.Kk's \'ie"'. keeping :he house in the same style ,,1S the
e:\.istir:g homes. "md m.1int",inir:g ,,1'> much open space as possible, Vie
did this at the request of the neighbors. 'vVe ha\'e I\'orked \'ery hard
to m.',ke e\'eryone luppy abour our ne\\ home J,nd ha\'e been
e,,1rnbt in achiEo\'ing nur neighbors guals. We 11.,\'02 conrerred and met
Idth the i'lr, and ~,lrs. bck and i'lr. .1l1d :,1rs. Pratt se\'eral times
cOiKerning the design of our neil' home. 1 h",\'e just recently met
C11,,1r., Schre\'er, Fred and Jo\ce ,\fichobs, "md RO\' and C,,1rla, On
. '. -
Wednesd"lY. (l,,'tuber 12 t11 1 s:upped by ,,1. fel\ neighbors to imroduce
mysdf ,,1nd:ny tl\O l:hlldren \\iili.1m .1nc Phoebe. I ",Iso met \\ith
Di.111E= Z",ck for fony fi\'"" mir:.utes to re'..iel\' her ,:oncen;s. Gus .,nd I
\\ouLi 100'e w he,,1r f:-om :..ou Ilith :,ny questicns, concerns or
comments. 'I'Ve 11opt: you 11,,1'''2 found our design, pbcement or t:le
home J,:-.d (.\e:-.1:1 sensiti\'it;' to th'.:: neighbcrs .1pprcpri,,~te, I m,,1y be
re~lched ~;.t 3 ~~ 1-(i2 '7" 8. \\ie. look ~'on\"~lrd to o\.:.r upcoming meeting.
r\ll the best.
';:'ll""rc 1 '
-' .~ C c.~\ ,
f..:._lri ~u-;.d C~us Buo~~,.lis
5.'; -:-()pside W",;' ~[ill \.,!ley, c.-\ :)-+9-+1
OCT 1 4 1994
OCT 12 '34 09: 24 415 4:?~6704 SF.. CALR
! \
/-',1/1
r
99 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
October 12, 1994
Tiburon Design Review Board
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon. CA 94920
BY FASCIMILE
Dear'Members of the Design Review Board,
We are v.riting with respect to the proposed Boosalis home at 102 Mount Tiburon Road. Our home
is directly across the street from the Boosalis home. We are the only resident in the neighborhood
whose Bay a.1d city views will be dire:t!y 'mpacted by their house.
Upon the erection of the slory poles on the site. it is clw to us t.l-tat r""te home, as drawn, would
'-'Teate significant view blockage of our main views from our primarj living areas: the den, the
dining room ar.d the hving room. '
We believe that the impact on our view would be suhstantia!ly reduced - and there would be 1lQ
accompanying dimunition of tile Boosalis's own views. if the following steps were taken:
1. Lower the grade of the site. 'DIe sire is on a hill that affords the Boosalis family unobstructed
panora:nic Bay views. Their views would be unaltered if the grade was lowered; however, our
views would be largely spared.
2. Move the setback for the home to L'1e northeast -- toward the hill which borders the site. This
eff&tively shifts the home sufficiently eastward such that, once ag:.tin, our view is largely spared
and their views are wholly presence.
3, Beyond these strucrural me~sures, we have a related concern about our night views.
Specifically, we recommend elimin:J.ting Ll1e >k,lights :!lo.t face our home and block.ir..g or changing
in some fashion the clerestory windows t,'1at face our home. As propo;.ed, :!lese skylights and
clerestory windows will signifcantly impair our night view,
We invite each OIVOli to visit OUI home:he ....eekend of October 15-16 or L'1e we.:k of October 1'7
as part of yot.:: preParation for the October 20 hear'.ng, at wl'.:ch L'tis m.atter wii! be discus:;ed.
Please call my office (332-26:t6i or home (~35-6'704) to arrange a !:ouse visn: if you reach"
machine, please leave word about your availability,
We look forward to working with _'vir. & Mrs. Boosalis and the Town, to reach a mutually
agreeable outcome,
Irume 3lld How2Id Z3ck
---
-.-.---
Sincerely, I /i
^ ~ ,J; tC:;:f!J~~'~/r{~,.,
--1j "
,~
OCT 1 2 1994
OCT 1 . 1994
~~<r~-~
Sincerely,
Our only comments are in support of the proposed
planting screen along !\It. Tiburon Rd, If this ne\\' planting of
trees and shrubs pro\'ide a continuous \'isual screen with al1
established minimum height of about 8 feet or so, similar to
the larger e:-.:isting shrubs. the:, should afford sufficient
prhacy to both the Boosalis lot and our dri\e\\ay entry, thank
you.
We are the neighbors to,the south of the Boosalis
residence, across from l'-It. Tiburon Rd. We ha\'e rede\\ed the
files and dra\\'ings for this proposed residence.
Dear Committee ~,Iembers,
Re: Design Re\'ie\\' of Proposed Boos:liis Residence
102 tilt. Tiburon Rd-:-
Desian Review Board
'"
Town of Tibmon
Octo bel' 14, 199-+
Celina Y r1U end Seorge H, Chu
75 Maune Tiburon Road
Tiburon, California 94920
Colleen \1ahoney, ..\IA
r,o, Box 1053 . Tiburon, CA 94920 . 41;,4);,6677 '" FAX 415,43;,b878
c~~
I I
Colleen Mahoney Architect AlA
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, Thank you for your
consideration,
I have been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Howard Zack to evaluate the impact of the
proposed residence at 102 Mount Tiburon. I have visited their property to view the
story poles and I have reviewed the architectural plans. There are numerous concerns
which must be addressed before the Board approves these plans. From the family
room, dining room, and outdoor poolside terraces the proposed residence has a very
negative impact on the views of the Bay Bridge, the downtown San Francisco skyline,
the embarcadero, a portion of Angel Island and all of Alcatraz Island, Most if not all of
the views of these areas will be significantly impacted and in some cases lost all
together. Of additional concern are the clerestory windows above the foyer cupola and
the skylights above the hall/ dining area and great room. The illumination at night will
be imposing on the foreground of the Zack's view. Lastly, the proposed chimney will
be imposing in the view. Because there are no story poles for the chimney it is not clear
just how imposing it will be, but it likely that it will obstruct even more of the San
Francisco downtown skyline,
It is my opinion that the Boosalis's and their architect Mr, Dean Dovolis need to work
with the Zack's to address these issues, There are numerous ideas which can be shared
to mitigate the view problems. The Board may be able to make the findings for a
variance to push the house further up the hill and further out of the Zack's view, the
entry foyer, dining and great room floor levels should be lowered to drop the roof lines,
the skylights and clerestory windows could be re-evaluated. It is clear that the Zack's
and the Boosalis families look forward to being good neighbors. It would be a good
idea to continue this application so that they are given adequate time to work together
to address these concerns to their mutual benefit.
Dear Members of the Board,
RE: Proposed Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
October 13, 1994
Town of Tiburon
Members of the Design Review Board
"
MAHONEY ARCHITECTS
1994
OCT 1 4.
~-
:
- ,
W A L K E R & MOO D Y A. I. A.
2666 HYDE STREET' SAN FRANCISCO CA 94109 . 415885 0800 . FAX 415 885 1009
Town of Tibur-on
Design Review Boar-d
1101 Tibur-on Blvd.
Tibur-on, CA. 94920
Ootober- 11, 1994
Re: Boosal is Residence
102 Mt. Tibur-on
Dear- Boar-d,
I have r-eciewed the dr-awings dated 9-19-94 for- the Boosalis
r-esidence and find them aoceptable.
Mr-. and Mr-s. Boosalis and their- ar-chitect have been extr-emely
consider-ate of the neighbor-s' oomments and have modified the
or-iginal dr-awings to acoomodate their- conoer-ns. I am especially
pleased with the ar-ohitects effor-ts in r-eduoing the height and
visual impact of the str-uotur-e by substituting skyl ites for- the
oupolas or-iginally shown as well as lower-ing the floor- elevations
and r-oof slope.
Ver-y tr-uly your-so
\SA- ~-~
Br-uoe E. Moody
Chair-man
Mt. Tibur-on Ar-chiteotur-al Super-vision Committee
cc: Mr-. & Mr-s. Boosalis
OCT 1 3 1994
Irving V, Moulin
October 12, 1994
Design Review Board
Tcwn of Tiburon
1101 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Boos>,lis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
Dei',r Board:
I was deli9hted when I saw the clans for the proposed
home on Lot 39.
The design is excellent and the resulting home will
uograde any neio"borhnorl,
Sincerely
1 fu'
tc;q. ~' ,
"=Y '" ('-Gc-z.c;;~
J~T 1 3 1994
~n \1 n \J nIT i bur 0 n. T i b II r f") n CA 94920.1 ,12
D()..OLlS
JOHNSON
& RUGGIERI
. 1. -: i-' .. " 0 II. ~ f ; C>
!on &QUal {,poortunity ~1l'PIOY-9'
'1':~ ~"l"~ :r:~,'""lkl:n
~ rf":(,,~ l!: ,-,Ii .;,,'..\,....' :':;...0":
;"'l..,. ,(,i.:1l};"].i')I)tiO
,,,' ._,~ ..:
'",-,.-1'
October 12, 1994
TOINll ofTiburon
Ann: Jayni Alls~p
J 155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tib1.:ron, California 94920
RE: Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
Dear Mrs, A!lscp and the Tiburon &:'\;ew Board:
We arz "Tiring to make the Board aware of the pr~ss we followed to
accommodate the needs of the lack fumily and of O1.:r close ccmmunicatior. with
tie Zacks and their neighbors concerning the Boosalis home at 102 Mount
Tiburc;n, The follovving is a brief history of the process we 101l0wed:
July 15: Received work ;lreviously completed on the Boosalis house, the
Tiburon Dc;;ign Guidelines. the W:Ilker and Moody Architects sirc plan for the
5.000 square foot house th.11 elimiroted 80% of the Z3Ck's view (Exhibit A)
and the Obcrkamper and Associate site plan fer a 6,000 square foot house
which c]imir~;uj 70% of lack's view (ExhibIt B).
AU;;'Jst 12: Met "1ili lr~e 3crba to k~'11 the "eighbors ccncerns and history
of the Mount Tiburon area,
August: 2' ~l<t with Diane and Howard Z;>ek to discuss their =cern.s a.r.d
observe t!Jelr view corridOr, R.;jcc:ed previous work (Moody and
Ocerbmpcr) as Incompatible witl: Zack's needs lftervisiting their home,
..\ug'ost 1-l: Pr.sonted now pr~]i.m.ir.a..") sit~ plan and elevations to Diane ;md
Howar-.1 lack :w.: ~1r, and MIS, Prom. Iheir neighbors, (Exhibit C) and waiked
the sit.:: to .:;how :~::OU\. wd potemial height.
Th~y ',me ~.pp:ecio!ivc of the dcsi~ b'Jt W~ discussed the following:
I. Lvwtr ~~e house: This wa;; ;u;.;omplished by !Qwering the roof pitch :rom
5 12 to ~, :: and Jropping the ele-.'ation of the family room 4 feet and
dillng room bv ~ rb:t, This did result in 50% vie;v loss from the great
room and 25')'~ view lOss from C:1C dining room/kirchen,
2, ~ove hous~ ~1rt..1er to the north=: This was a=mplished by mC<.'ting
,,~th Dan CutTon oft.~e CItY cfTiburon and using an irregular loe
.x"llTption, -"10\ ed the bOllse 5 teet to thc northeast but at ccnside,:lble
,;cst increase ~~ grading .lJld retaining walls,
3, Elirnin= guest b<:droom :lbove garage: This ",-as accomplished by
locating this area in the basement.
August 15: ~l~t "ith Bruce Moody to re\iew the plans, His reaction w-..s
positive
lV/ .1.j/';j"i
.1.j:~L.
.O'O.1L i:51J,. 1/'10
LJ';~I'( AJ'\t...nllCI...,l.)
1i!J<:l<:lZ
. September 1 - Octobcr 1: S"bmitled re\ised plans to Diane and Howard Zack, Mr, and Mrs,
Pratt, Bruc'f Moody. the Mount Tiburoll Neighborhood Association and the City of Tiburon,
, We discussed the foUmv1ng points with the Zacks and others ol'er the following four \veeks:
(Exhibit D)
t. Eliminate aU cupola except ovcr the entry, This "115 accomplished by rcplacing cupola
with tinted skylights (Exhibit E and F),
2, Reduce elevation of garage: This W"..s accomplished by lowering thc garage floor elevation
by 1 foot 6 inches
3, Lower and reduec the mass at the chimney: Tnis was accomplished by rooucing the
chimney to California Code minimum,
~, Commitcd to a slate roof to blend in .Nith the environment and to reduce glare,
October II: Discu~sed "itb Diane Zack the follow1ng conccrns about the Boosalis house:
1. Lowcr the grade o:'the site: This has already b""n accomplished, We cennot go an)'
lowcr because all of the tp::cs wauld be ,ost at nor-.h end of site and would require an 8 foot
reuining waU,
2, Move house further tc, the northe.'l.>t: This can only bc accomplished. ifTibu1'OU grants
a \'anance to a 15 fcot setback at the side yard.
3. Conc.:rn o\'er iigilt pojJuti~n :,1U::"(O the s:,.,..ylig,z.'1ts J.'1C clcsr:::tory viindows:
Tois '~a.s axomplished oy eliminating the clearstory over the dining roem and using
heavil:- tinted glass on olhers,
We "ill continue to worl< with 'lIe lad,s and conccrned neighbors to keep improving on our
dcsiQ;n, If YOU haw an" concerns. pl=e call me:u 381-0273 or (612) 871-6009,
-, ,
Tnank you icr your coo.sider:ltivn of r.~is matte.,
;gO' J: s;
Dean J. Dov~i'J-:''AL~
Dovoiis Johnson & Rug.gieli, Ine
DJD/ch
DOC:9421112
-
~"'-f0/l3/94
,
\..h"_
13:53 'Zi'612 871 1746
I5,J&R ARCHl rECTS
--
[QJ003
EXHIBIT A
.,
/
"
"-
."
'-,
'................
'.......,
"
,
'-.......
".........
"
"
',,-
" '........
....:...... ~-~ -...-
-......,.
".,/ ,r--r
/"--\-_., ~ ;.
.-:.........---. ' -
/,,"- " ".,
: I -...
./ 1'/ ...
. ';::--;;'"
,l. / --- \ .,~, ,_:_,' -,..~;. '\
~_~ '...~-- -I"
/.......i j .(~ '. " \');~::,;;, \
/ ' ..____. A/ ...~:. - "'':''i.;:.''~'' .
~)_ .--- -' ~14~
- I -.-.-...,.--,..-. ~ ,.\:,
I ,~..' ,., '
I " ____ .' ":1;I.J ... u,- \
I ~ ,~"J:;' .r"'" ""N"
\' ;' ' ::;~.~.~:~. ':; ::-,,:..> \
I' "\ ~,~i -'~ -'.... \ >~.".-i,----------------
,:, . \ ---- \
.'\,;/.c--- .-:-~ \ \
\\ "~ O'" , ~~7F
~ .,-
'j ,.'.
~" '
-.......... '.
,
.:)
~
~--,--
".
-~!,
,-
.~.
.'
'.
."~
..........
"
-,
'"
~'
-'...---..
e
a.)
v"
,-Ii ..
~jl '# ./
<l-- -,
- \
. ._-\.,...
i
\
-."
,
\'
,
\
-..-'... ,
..'
\ 0
\ ,
\~.../
I
\ "
,
"-'".-'''''
-"
\" /
,.\
\
\
"
\
,
"A'
'x \
.'
..-'"
':- -1 ~ 1.'
'; -~..-.'
~
l\:J/l;J/'d"!
1,j:o.j
'0'01:'::: tj/1 1/40
U.J~K AKU111t.Vr::;'"
,---- --. -----,---.' "-f4.J'fjl'i<j-'-'-
EXHIBIT B
"
_......-...;.....:.0_
:. ~-1-~.,~
:,o;!Il~
'I
"
,
....-. .,'
~'
;,.1 .'
... ,-, / .. .' .~:.;j--;;:--
..' ,7 ' "''''''''''-''' ~t:~~
, '/ <;"'., -,-, '.-
,..~---=--:----- " '" '. .)'{;'::~;-- '!~~:. .. '..... .
/;"'::'_""'~ .;, ..~~"''''' \:'.., ~.' -r.... ~..:_ !O::-'" ..:~-___\_.:.._____.-'~
.,,',,;.~ '~:'l__ \\..... ----........-.-_
,,)ij.',;./f:~I".'~~~~~ ~_ .___~~- .. -- ../ ::~~~.----~~_=-_
'" ..,.:.~ ----"- _ -- _ _ -----:--', ~~~:'...=: _.'-
..1' ",1 ' ' ' '.. --__ '
';'---f'~'-'o~~ '..,' , --,--:--:-~,~.\;;,..-
.......-.,. --- '~".,..'" ,;.,
d" . ''';- -'._ " " ,!'
,;; " . . ----- . ~. ..
; ., ----..-/ :..~ -'_ --i7.
iT' .,/" \<:- j,' '--->.;~,
"jo'. f~ /( , " /.,/j\ ",'
, t{ .../'~ / ......./ '"Y ',> '\;~ '.
r- "1" -"~-'-'---./ /'./' ~/ ---,--:~:" '
r )> \I' ... -t'--_.. ... / .A~ ./- - ~'.';.
;p j' --.: !< _. ///\r:./,....
..,I. ..- ~~A, ~ <( ) ~::.
^ ~\~ ~..-/ ...... '>-,..J::~_,____--_.,,'/
I '\.- I / \ / \ ..___..... :;\
-."-.:". - '" ./ ..:.:' \, /...../\_~, ..',.....-..-, .-, ,-' '- --
~ .:,~, ~~-' - ~..~~'---./'1 \~---;j" / \;-,~' ,-'~- '., ",,-" '(",1:":';
'~ " ~ ",----:-, / '. ,', 'Y' ---.. , ""'
,\ .' ___':<J " \ \""!,! I. ..- ---;.0._ ,..~'
\----;'\' ,,,, ' /', " , . ..
\ "~\"':::~:,.'. . '\/, '.~-~_:. ;"~, ....
" '\l-'< '~,..,---~ ' /.
" ,\., --~~ ....-;../ / \....
,. , ~,. ~ ~-
, 4r)' ,
>~~::.,.
".;,-. '...'.. \, --"~\
';, ',," ,\,.-
".. ,,"' ""........ \. I '~'"
'" .. -~ ..-'-'
;;~..;;~~-- .:;;~ "\"
'-"..". ~
'. ,..:!;-~. ::\1 :<<:
......~. .\ .
..:~);-.... "~I
.....~- ....
",
~.~ e
......,
,!,,'-'
~': ,~.
".,.
~
"
./"
\,..
A'
"' ,".
:,/" ...'
, /': .../
'.' I .....
'~\y
"
':'"
.~ '.
\
,
\
',' :.~~~~)
.:~ .,
\..........
\....~.
" --'::--...
'...,\ ~
',: '..t;:;;:".., '~
~~.. ... ,,~. ~,~ "''>''
~ ....
..:;:,.~'....'-~
''-1 .,.. ,"". --,-
CJ ,;~ .......... ~:j,
l: A , '..".!::~~"...
'....""l" 4.. ...!..:--_
-:'14 '':'~~
'":>
,r!., ::';rQ~J".\.::: =-:...~~-=".f'l;.
.",.:,
1... '-'/
)' ~'
~
/
,~"~.. ~ ,'.. ,I'" ~<J 'fT.'O.. "
..," -,- ~ \'\ - ,)I, ,''lo.... 0
,..,.- --, -:- ~"~;p \, \ "" z.~-J:-~~{<;;'.) '-'i
~::-",.-'- 'w.- ..-x? 't...,:--..( ::",(C'~ ';. /1"-
\ /../w....:' -.". .~.:</,;~"" . . ~\\ '\ '- :~, . ;'00....'1/
:~,i,:;;;":,, ',' )1\"".' <i!'\ \\ ..<, " )/
/_,t;,;~-'- ./'" ~ . , 1.
\t';it,'?~r};\ \<::':~,', ...
//f':--.:,_::~t;,:t~~;~'_"" ,\ \ '\: "i;Sj,~~~
//\. . - '\,::~:, '~:'::"'-':;~:~~:~;'~-:-,:-~.,:. .... .., ~,: . "..~:;.~j;?" " , ~,~,:'~~~"":(h)'\~:i~~:P.:~_.~,.
.:'.:',:~I.~:;".'.:,:;' ':':,\ . 4" ":' \;
/, .. ", '~" -v:;:j1.!::>~; \ \,
'.,; ~ .':.>~r ~~ \ "'.\
.. \_. '. "'.' / ..~. .\ r;,;...... '\',
\ ," .. ~ .~...... ........~:-. \, "\
',' :/ '. .-'\.','. ' '~'~":~?;;~~~;;:'"i~" ,_~,.A~:",-,~1~~{.. \' ':"'\~'...."
y' '~~~ .....>'(!!_.':f.:, . _.'~:--_ .... \ ,', \,\
...... ,'. /;'/ ,~' ~~"", . .;;'.~. ;;:~'r;'.", ....;'i::~~...:. .,- \"
-"--"'-<~"- 'II.. . U.'" ~... .......'\\~. "'-";,. .-'\., ' \ \.
. " "'\,)\:, i~ V\"~~~~j~:~ "~- : ,;;;4f.mi:.:~,: ' \ \.
\~-' ' ", '.. ,.~""'\, "~'- "'"~..~. .~. .,;4,''-' \
, /C~)\~l~~rv~~,~~:~~~\?' ~~\~' ,.~
,.',:',;.",','-'~,',~,.~,;"',),~,',\~,;...,~,,.~,,:,':..'"~,~>\:'.,, -~~"; ";;g;,:>f\.,,~,:\::,' , ,).-,. '~~' '; t .;"" -'''<~\ '-~":<: :~;;k!.~. ,.~-:l:' \,
,,y ,,';,..' ";....",:>.::;-...;.,'\\ ,\. .~;~ ,t . ~ .':\$.~~......r .*\: ....;.r.)l:::1t.:\ .
., ..' ... :;.;.7~Y';(:\~;\\ . ;:;i.': ,.~. \~~..~'.:';;:::;<t\. .: :. ~':.:~,.;:-):.A\.~ " "\" ,
,'II:! '., :....::,.:..,.._-...{.';:{~~:.:.".'~::.:,\?.<\\ ',,). :~: . ;~:.:J.. :,:,,~ ...~..:;.r:"\.......~;...~~r\,.'(l.~.. .
..../ ~'1 . ,~\.::? ::..,' ".. '>J.\,;..f>~~":""::"\'r~~,''',,\, "if;', '~.' "...(."~~\........~...._~~:~......... .~...:~:~ ;.~~, ' /...
\.'-'~.~' . -.-::' ".".~f::~.::.\-,~. :<,:.:,;~~,;.)::"" . <::,::1;: A":~.,?4~ ;~:::;:: -.~. '"_ _' ...,'.... :...~r~:..".. .,' \ _. . .::..../-, '_, :-:y: y}:. "~.'..;;~:' '~:'/
' .1-f::...' \\\\,;..-(..:~.....,- "'~:::r~"'J..-....;:<;-..i,..~. ..~,,'<" .AX' .........;,3 "'''~' A"":.r-r'= -'sl/'.'
"......' ..-:~\ f. ';,\,:\':d':~', ','''.'~h(;'''' d - --......:.:.1-., ,\.:v'\.... -, ~,,~v '-\r,(,\.''(<{:.""?,'':,'' \1/ .
\a,~,~~'....-:"~ ;"~'~ >,/~~t.~,-:...~,~'~" .,,,\~~~~.~~:.-' ,: <. ';. "'0\ ,', .. '-:"::\V~;;";':'.'., ~~-t..- '':/\~'''~~ ',jt~'::~,,,, .<~~ )'
\\? "I "",\'X" .."\ /. \\ 4P ,~...,,~,,"\,...~,
....., ..:;" ./,'
'1-. .....:;...;~ .,"~ ,', .'
'......-.- .'~' \\ 'r' ~>
,:,--... .",.".
" '
'.
\: ,c,'> ....;. .:, ~"
'\ C~;:). \ 'C,:;..o',',o.;;..,-.-,. .'::....... \ ..,'. ..,....<<.,.',,'_.~.. ,.,.....J.\
0-:'~:' -:~rj~","t,~,,';,v~~? ;.~~~s;; ~:~\:,"-' ...~;::>'_:::.,>~:'."./)>.,;,': ,.,'~:c,~ ^ ,-
..~ _ ,~ ');"l:",'.',' ~ . .. ~ /.
,/~..::.;':' /
"-~;/ "/;<;"~ / .. , ~.~ ::- :
'>:::,-,::~:,":,,<,,<<,,:;_:,~,~):,:-e / ) .~:>,~) _
..' , "'''
,~//"",....
/ '...
/ l7'.?-::;:-~.
f""'..
;. - . .~" :. :
,.,.: .
"
"€'
-
~
'-"
\ '
'." ;:::.
~:.~~., :.:..,. ...
.~:~~:~i.
//~P.i~
....'. ..-:'{.t ':'./'0':'.).
"),?d
O'<~
~\,..
.,..\
-
'C
.
~
\J
"
........~'....
;':'.
.'
.~ .
........
.' ...~
..
/
/'
..
" .
-
'/
.-
"
/
/
-' .-.',....
/
....
..;,.,.
.-
/1
/
/
.
EXHIBiT C
,
I
/
~..--~'.:" -;
~tl.J",.I.~W
f" ':
..,. ,...:
" '7., .~ ~r^;'-
';', C-l-"(Ii't", / -"
,.,' - . ,'^'. .,.,; ,
~,~\~,':-," =~~:t:.;,;,,:,,;, ,.','..,~t ,....~."",.,,_',.:,,'_._.~',,..~".'.,', "." ,:.,'"/,,',,,', ,', ,"',:~~_~,~: " '~":':"""""~"'i:''''V: ,," ,"".,'.".,',,'~,. .,' . .'" ,.: ' . ',:-- :1~/_~~'
/ //"(...... ,'",.,/.",': ,,:," .' ,.c.l;~e((~\ttf,~'.:~;)^'
,.' .. .",...,~--' ~, '" j
, J ,.",."~.,;,~.~#.,,;c .-"",""'~P ,..",...
.. " -....f . .,..".- . - -.......--'- .'~ ,., -
"",~",~,~"., .. ...cc. ,,,,,-'""',,;A. ''5.,.~"'C:,,;.,,j' , ..
....~_ .m ... " ,., "..r' ."..,
-- ,'~ '.. "'/,,,.' ',.. .,-
l, '='l ,.., '" .--,,-l .-
r .,..... ' ~,' '" (.. "
II "'" f ~-' :;, \.y~tj-.;;;.
!L 'J' ," ..,,;,.. ,. '. ~j, \f'''. ~~.~. j:
::==0 1_ ._- .. ---!..., _n. j' ,', . "'t, \t"~~'1""
I I I' - ':, ' ,.. ' ,.,
'~ _ II ,.' " "'" ." ;''''--,
'. " , . , '." ~ ....' ."
'l.., F-." """ ""',. ~,.. ''''r'
.~;"~= ..'J:.~r~.,\~;<
~' ""1U _--'=~, /:<::"~=;lr-""'I'n,._.._,.(,_J... ;'0':""')[<'
":<:--1 -==- ;'r5""1~,~;~"::,~, '-[::~~ - ':;-11>,~;.~\~'~'
,.~_:I '....
L ' I -.: i"
.; . ,: <tE~; c.,.,,~\:
.~. ' . ,
"','_,~::,'" ~ ,\ tt.-- L!!_.J . \
',._ I ",,1)'-'''' I ,,'
:'..;,d --'- ~'"m-~"_~.~,"':., - . ~
',7:~-"; I, -/ - -,J;:'~~' <'i'~" ...-
::-,.:.__-" . + ' :;,,'.... ;,_...6~~:-~ '\ r
.-~-~ ;i"~-':'~~;;)C
J "I'" '''''-' ._-==,---~"=,="",,
~'".:..-
10/13/94
13:55
'B'612 871
1746
,.,.....--..- .... -
olii
"
----
-'
//
,
.'
.~"
I
I
I,;,
"
,I
'-.'
/
i
il
I
II
.~
;'
-:. ~ ~
" '~......:'.
.,oi ;.'
, {~t':--'
...l..:....,.J
"';----
o. r~ .
l~---:.-----=.o
---.
,
I
-.-
" - -.::'::.-"
,.EJ .0-
:'~Fi}"
,..::c;} ,
.......". ..
";
ii,
\
-~.. --
;i~J
".-.:-~ -
_:::...t~"."
'..;o~. ."'-
'0"_",,"..""
'"..
,
~.;
.-
""'::~
,
. c-;::~~.,
~'~::!~:!_'~I_:'.~.~ ..
......
....
'.
,
.~ ~
......
-
\
D,J&R ARCHl TECTS
~
IiII006
EXHIBIT 0
. ~l'
__0"
.
~....--_.-~.-.
...-JI',-
.""
~..
.'
.~~
..'
J-:"-"
'..,
..:",
"
"
"
,.,.:.
. "~~""""
:~:,
i.
'~
....'.'
"-
,
..~
'. ~
......~..'(/~ ~;~/
';"'.....
'.'.
...'.
,.
",,'i-:.~~':~ '.
-,'
-
-,'
NO
~
f)S/
../.
.... ~
.o,,:{~ "".. ,. .
" ~':'::";~
':-0: ....
~.:}"j.:;".:,
" ...,
'i_;>..<.' ,..r ~.-
. ...-:,):. -,
......,..
......~
~:----,.. '
,..".~ -,~ ;.~,-
../.lvf)
O~
:~":":.
......
..~'. ....,~..,
'.
:',
.'
-"
'.
w..J
I-
-
O':l
-
:c
><
u.J
.................
.'
U.O.l.L, 0/1
114ti
I
,
It
:l~
...
'\;
I
1
;1
-.. fEl
/ ( I , ~,
\~ - --.J
\'U~'~ ,
nr~
\~iI r--'1
I II .---1, '
.I Ii II - I I i
/ I I i I I
i ill ii
\ I ' : I
II II 'i
II "
:, IILL
,,~I'I~ I
" i '! I:
'I '. II'.. :
' ,I:
... I Iii,
"I"~
:-,; I
.-
~!
;.
~~
r:~
~
-;
D.J&R ARCHI TEeTS
~
"
:'j
-
<3
'n
/';:,
'"-"
1d.J007
It !I\
.r."j.
:~ ~'$
~1
I",
I"
I:
':,
ii
" I
, ,
, I
. ~
an,~
tl.....'.
(li'I~
..~
~
~
~
Ii
...
r
I
t
.
.
;1
F
f
I,
.'
~
~ i,
<
~
~
:;:;
n
~
.
.t
i
"
=
Cl
:~
i~
~.~
'.
"
oM
"
:+
! "'~.
'.
j ~!
, ..
--
10/13/94 13: 57
I
'3'612 871 1746
DJ&R ARCHl TECTS
~1)08
ill;;?' "..--\
~ ; 1,1 - ,-,=
B~ ~! li! ='=='~~::: ,
. --------,
"
~
r.
u.. ! 1 H.
I ~
II ,I \. I
~, .: II
" & !!
-'
CO
-
:I:!
X
Wi
--
--
\\
',\
\\
\\.
\-
J ,
\!
;UII "
i ill. I! :,
I I" '
/ ,i, i I :
, ," 'I '
I,~
~\ ~,I:I ill\'- I ! Ii' , I
i \. '!ii! i I I
IL,!"
\ ,Iii:: i '
I" I
~ .1'1 ! '
", ,I! ,I
ur---
--.....'" '.-'.
~
,
o
-
'.
.
:,,;
,-
'-'
.
..
-.--, ~..,
--."' I jl
J:)HJCla $f'lV$0Q4 . .,;1
"'~I3~~PIJ
i:i~j,i
iU~I'~
'" "
,
<
I
~,l
~-
'. ,.~
.,,~,
l,~' ','
~ ,~
Ii
.. ,
'I i
, :
'I
,
, ,
U
I!
Ii
,~
J~
~
,
I-
j
.
,
,
f,
,
.
Ii
!
"
"
..
-,
',~'-l'
;"/
<
>
..
:l
I ,
~ ,
~
"
:~ :)
,',
" ~ :
'. .-
"
\1
~
, ,
'H
:.~
~
~
""
~
. ':;~',};~.,;t;),:;:
i.,.., ';D xl :e;",
," ,.." ,.. ,~'Al.
,,-<t, ,,"'0' ,'.. ',...,,' .,,'
..,."'..,',.:,' ,,,,,.., ""c',',J"'""
-",'0',:' _', _', :-"\>I>,',"!
"'f'",:"" .. ':"i',"; "-~~""'!:'~'ir_:,-/~:
'I,; '-" ' "",-~;-i:''!'<'-~:-'H{-'i'~
i _ At
'~l!
'('!~~h::~-~
....' "':"'''',. ".-',,- '"
"\ ',,' \'::";:'>~:f,t',:i.,~;,;i',:M~Z~;,f,I:,;::~Z:'">_;,,,,: ,:';'
".,.-~;t;',,-":f_'~'<i ~>lff.iJ'~~" ("_','~;"~" '
;,-' ',:~4l~~~;;.~?:~~'::';.~2\':~~t,~~'~~'~~i~~~j" '
, '>'jr\~~\~;~:~,::'::':".),~~,~:,;,'~<.l:\~~~~~
REVIEW BOARD, ' '.,:~:/""
" . f j, i, :':<;}~:" ,:;~~~.,~t~I~\'\;;
REPORT
'?~~f;;!' "
.,>', ,
1994
"C;;S",'
;" ';?;~Jt',;.~: ~'1:'~ ,,';\; i ;t,"~J~- ,rr":'-"
','", '~~:t~[;-t_1','.~
, .il/'
;f':':
I
j
t
l
I~ ,,'
~,'e :'>:,;-o'!~
'; '",:::,;""
~, ,>, ','!:';
!;,;-t ..
~~ "".{-;~
i:;".
*********************************************************
JAYNI ALLSEP, , CONTRACT PLANNE
'>'''#f'!~\W "
102 MT. TIBURON ROAD; FILE #794133
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
'!';'fi A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE";:"
" -.:r.'-'~2":':;:-f:;i' ..,,:'.\l\i;i*;;-,;.', ,,_"';~;';:'-:{'" "" {/,~ S,;',,:;~W~f~~\~', .
,} APPLICANT:, DEAN DOVOLIS ; ARCHITECT
;'':>OWNER:.GUS AND KARl BOOSALIS
~..>, ,], ;', ... 'r~i; ;:'~f1t';": .. , ~~~;:i);t_,-':-f': ~:/c
~:"~'~\t~~'~' :~;,,:, ,,~;',:2{~t~i~ ;'~,~~
BACKGROUND :!:."ij;.' ch'""i;f'~
J' -(~' ,~:,<~:;,,:0::~:2T':;'i~~i:',~::":<.';:~':~lt:"~~,l
This application was reviewed at the October 20th'Design Review
Board meeting. At that meeting, the Board voted to continue. ,the
application in order to allow the applicant time .to consider ,ways
in which the height of the proposed residence "may be' reduced
further in order to reduce the 'View. blockage' from the ,Zack'
residence at 99 Mt. Tiburon please. see. a,ttl:l:ched minutes of the
October 20 ORB meeting). i:.:"J.:~.'~lf:.)i:;,%~i;~';I";" "
",-,,,t,; ,;., ,.",1 ,r " .,.,':,?),-'t:7.'I'"
~";~;:":'.'-::'-"l)V;:~:;.,;;:~:~;;~\;';~r,;r~F:,;:" :<'.: .,;. ""F~ ': ' "
The applicant has submitted revised pians 'which show a reduction;.;
in the height of the residence ranging from six inches to one foot."~~,
.. " '",:"A'
The attached letter from proJect archl.tect,Dean Dovoll.s outll.nes ):
how,the height reduction was achieved." ,,;~\ttX:'
,!~'" ,,''- -"<,;/,::'->
It should be noted that while all elevations of the house have been
lowered to some degree, only story pole #'s 9 (entry foyer), 23
(dining room/kitchen), 30 (great room) and the four chimney story
poles have been adjusted to reflect the lower elevation, as the
project architect felt that these were the critical story poles
relative to view blockage from the Zack residence.
The project architect has also prepared a letter that responds to
the list of concerns/possible modifications presented by the Zacks'
consulting architect, Colleen Mahoney.
In addition to the height reduction, the driveway configuration
has been modified so that the driveway entry is off-set from the
driveway across the street, as requested by the neighbor.
"1
EXHIBIT NO. 5
-
1. Conditions of Approval.
2. Draft Minutes of the October 20, 1994, DRB meeting.
3. Letters from Dean Dovolis, dated October 21 and November 7,
1994.
4. Revised plans date-stamped November 2, 1994.
i
~ '.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting approval of
family residence at 102 Mt. TiburonRoad. The proposed residence
has'a floor area of 5,293 sq.ft. plus a'95.3 sq.ft.. cabarya and a
726 sq. ft. garage. The<total .calculated' floor 'area' '(house,'
cabana, and excess garage area) is' 5,614. a sq. ft .:'The Town I S,FAR'
Guidelines permit up to 5,654~q.ft"'of floor area pl~S500 sq.ft,
of garage;sfs~j";;1i~~~~~i,~'f;~,~~~t~;;;J:\'.:" '. ')F'f~i.~t?;i?"",'~~~~~~(i';:";i,'." ,'" .
The proposed bUl.ldl.ng coverage l.S 5,294 sq. "ft. ':'(14.5%). e
maximum proposed building height is 26.5 feet.':' Proposed exterior'
materials include stained cedar shake siding with a stone base;"
off-white wood trim, forest green window and door frames and 'a
slate roof (Echequren slate 'China Green).' ,'.
ANALYSIS:
'/.
'-;:i -"1>:-,,-:
As 'directed the plans, ,to':.
provide for a reduction l.n building height. The height reduction
ranges from six inches to one foot .~"As indicated in the attached,
letter , it is the applicant I s position that the proposedheight-:).
reduction is the most that can be achieved without compromising the'
design of the house. It is staff I s understanding 'that the Zacks',
, ,are reviewing the proposed revisions with. " their;;Xconsul ting:
archi tect, Colleen Mahoney, and will be submitting their comments"
,prior to the November 17th meeting .,., ' """,W\lJ
- '~,~""l,'" ~:~-~~,~i:{:/':'\~):t~:;1~ ii'~~~-"0_~,:.,;.':~;li~f;j~;"tjt:;.~:, ;,e:"':,{ , _" " ., __ '" " ,,"
Staff has reviewed the proposal and found it"to be'i.n:,conformance
with the RO-1 zoning regulations, the, FAR guideline 'specified by
section 4.02.07 of the Town I s Zoning 'Ordinance ,and ',the General
Plan. 'The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning
Ordinance 'sections 4.02.06 (Guiding Principles), 4.02.0a'(Site
Development, Criteria), and the Hillside Des.ign Guidelines .,;j,fi;~~J{cg,'
,>,-",-)",.{",,--, ',' '- ""t'~""~;;'-"'i ,.,:, ':!:.,q;,,"-,,","-~'~.J;':u'-,.',
(t,/t.:,>-,.~...;1'i<t'\:' ..::;~;t'i'~.:i':,';:,::~:~:.; :,\-..2'tir.Jjt:;tl'~'4~){'~~~: \f1t.::1 'I,," :"r.>' -'i;,,',""I'j""_i,' ,.,;tJitrJ.-$',y:';;:
" " , ,',' ,,' ,\ ;'>!'7,!/;(;.(';#~~~'~;J.:d'> ,.')i}li~l~f,~~;l);;';~f
the design acceptable and" in conformance"wi th
the Town's Design Guidelines, then staff has no objection to the'
approval of the project. If the' Board wishes to approve the
project, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval
be applied.
ATTACHMENTS:
2
3.
4.
5.
1.
wi thin two 2 )
approval date, or shall become null and void unless a building"
permit has been issued or an extension is granted.,~,t(>j,j1;"'"''
fy,,\;i.:: :>_;~f\-_,'_" .)~,;,):::J;; :,:, , " ' . ,', , ;, i '-_~f.;~0:!::';:::f 1:,':\ 'ii:,. _ ,.
The development of the project shall conform to the plans 'date
stamped November 2, 1994, on file with the Town of Tiburon.
Any modifications to the approved plans must reviewed and ).'
approved by the Town. .f'i:"\:~'YA;'; "~~Jf
. All skylights shall be bronzed or and no lights shall,
be placed in the wells .fi~V:Ji~~1&~, d 1 I " ,..,~, r?ir,;1
',j;:::;;, '. . -.'{ !.,>:JI; '-"~";f.~c.{~W~/" . ~ lJ '. !}."~~}:~'t~~
All clerestory w~ndows shall be t~nted and f~tted w~th f~xed
louvers in order to control spillage of interior lighting at ;
night 'd~f:;'I,\;'~:~,,,//!;~~f5'i' " ,;,\., ,i;;ca~:,. , :,'r'
. The applicant shall meet, all requirements of
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. .
6. Prior to the issuance of a' building permit, an
landscape plan for the pool area shall be submitted for staff
review and approval. The landscape plan shall provide '. for
interim landscaping of the pool area, in the event that ' the
pool is not be constructed prior to occupancy of the home
,--~.,'t
7. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval,
all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in
accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings
and irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Department
field inspection prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
8.
~;
Prior to building inspection approval of the structure
foundation, the builder shall provide graphic documentation
of the "as-built" foundation heights and location by the
project's structural engineer or a licensed land surveyor.
The documentation shall be provided to the Tiburon Building
Department prior to the building inspection approval of the
structure foundation.
-,
h
Boosalis:
rfl1 rR1 ~d~
102 Mount T1buron~Road New
L:,--:7
FD
. ~ ......
The applicant is requesting design review approval of a new single
family residence at 102 Mt. Tiburon Road. The proposed residence
has a floor area of 5,293 sq. ft. plus a 95.3 sq. ft. cabana and a
726 sq. ft. garage. The total calculated floor area (house,
cabana, and excess garage area) is 5,614.8 sq. ft. The Town's FAR
Guidelines permit up to 5,654 sq. ft. of floor area plus 500 sq.
ft. of garage space for this lot.
The proposed building coverage is 5,294 sq. ft. (14.5%). The
maximum proposed building height is 26.5 feet. Proposed exterior
materials include stained cedar shake siding with a stone base,
off-white wood trim, forest green window and door frames and a
slate roof~(Echequren slate, China Green).
Dean Dovolis, Architect for the project, showed the original site
plan that was drawn by Arch1tect Bruce Moody. Mr. Dovolis stated
that there was more view blockage with the previous plan. Mr.
Dovolis said that he changed the original plans by moving the house
over, thus reducing the view blockage, by moving the guest quarters
to the basement space and by lowering the roof pitches. He also
mentioned that he removed most of the cupolas from the plans. He
said that the light in the existing cupola will be controlled and
tinted glass installed to reduce the light impact. Mr. Dovolis
said that they have tried to mitigate as many impacts as they can.
He mentioned that the owners want to make more changes, but old
growth trees and a retaining wall are in the way.
Kari and Gus Boosalis, owners, said that they hoped to take
advantage of their optimum view. They also did not want to reduce
their number of cupolas. They have made the changes discussed by
their Architect, among others, in the spirit of cooperation and
compromise with their neighbors.
Contract Planner Allsep, said that Dan Catron, Associate Planner
met with Mr. Dovolis to discuss the setback requirements for this
lot. She said that this is a corner lot and is irregular in shape.
There is a provision contained in the Zoning Ordinance that allows
for front and side yard setbacks to be interchanged. She said that
a variance is not required for interchanging setbacks; but it is
subject to the Board's approval.
Acting Chairman Slavitz opened the public hearing.
Diane Zack, 99 Mount Tiburon Road, accepts the fact that their view
will be affected, but still feels that there will be major view
blockage from their main rooms, which will diminish their property
value. She feels that the chimneys are too high. She expressed
concern about the house being against a huge retaining wall and
about the major excavation that will be required. She stated that
the house is a lovely design and wants to come to a compromise with
ORB 10/20/94 11
the owners,
rR\ f6)
10) In,
but.,.the cul-rUt
to change.
Howard Zack, 99 Mount Tiburon Road, said that the primary view from
their major ceremonial rooms will be obscured by this home, as
proposed. He stated that the story poles went up at the last
minute and that the chimney story poles only went up six days ago.
He said that they recently hired Colleen Mahoney, Architect, and
asked that she work with Mr. Dovolis with the goal being to reduce
the impact on their view. Mr. Zack said that their plan is to
request that a variance for the building envelope be required,
require them to lower the grade of the house and to reduce the
height of the trees, which he says is a normal request in this
neighborhood. He mentioned that the Chus, the Moulins and the
Moodys agreed to reduce the height of their trees. Mr. Zack read
from the CC&R's for Mt. Tiburon regarding trees and view
preservation. He mentioned that the pictures taken from their
living and family rooms that were handed out to the Board had been
enlarged and cropped. .
Colleen Mahoney, Architect, said that she met with the Zacks and
determined that there would be substantial impact to the Zacks.
She stated that there would be loss of important views and impacts
on the value of their property. She mentioned that there would be
light impacts out of the clerestory windows. She said that the
downhill neighbors need to be cooperative in trimming their trees.
Ms. Mahoney requested staff to check the FAR, as she said that
there is approximately 880 square feet of storage and mechanical
space that has not been accounted for in this application, which
makes the house over 7,000 square feet in size. She said that
suggested modifications that collectively would help reduce the
impact of this home on the Zack residence would be if the Board
could make the findings to move the house in the northeast
direction, eliminate the cupola, lower the ceilings, consider
relocating the fireplaces and chimneys, create steps down from the
bedroom wing to the entry foyer, subsequently dropping all of the
other grades, and further reducing the pitch of the roof. She
stated that, collectively, a 4' 5' reduction is possible,
allowing the Zacks to regain all of their views, with the exception
of Angel Island.
Boardmember Woo asked Ms. Mahoney if the Boosalis' have seen this
proposal and she replied that so far she has only briefly spoken to
Mr. Dovalis about it.
Russ Pratt, 95 Mount Tiburon Road, asked if the Boosalis' would be
willing to move their driveway so that it is not directly across
from his driveway and Mr. Oovalis stated that he did not see a
problem with doing that.
Bruce Moody, 88 Mount Tiburon Road, feels
unreasonable request to ask him to cut some of
said that the Zacks have a good view already.
that it is an
his trees, as he
Mr. Moody stated
ORB 10/20/94 12
nl rDl Ii
that Mr. Doval J~' Jo~' at trying to mitigate
these problems ~He fcealJ at they sh the proposed house
further into the hill, the trees behind the house would be
destroyed.
Boardmember Bennett asked Mr. Moody if his trees have ever been
trimmed and he replied that they have not. Mrs. Moody stated that
one of the trees is a Digger Pine, which she would like left alone,
and the other tree is a Heritage Monterey Pine, which could
possibly be thinned. She is against topping the trees.
Roy KUklinsky, 106 Mount Tiburon Road, said that he would also like
to see the trees behind the proposed house preserved.
Contract Planner Allsep stated that she received a call from Rudy
Cavalcheck on behalf of Mrs. Akhdar, 101 Mount Tiburon Road, who is
ill and unable to attend tonight's meeting. Contract Planner
Allsep suggested to Mr. Cavaicheck that someone should come to the
meeting to express Mrs. Akhdar's three concerns which are removal
of any trees on the Boosalis property, possible view impacts if the
house is shifted east and proximity of the house if it is shifted
east.
Acting Chairman Slavitz asked Contract Planner Allsep to respond to
Ms. Mahoney's question about the FAR. Contract Planner Allsep said
that on the site summary sheet, it is noted that 1,212 sq. ft. of
basement area is not included in the FAR calculations. She said
that she alerted the architects early on that if it is considered
habitable space, it is included as FAR. She said that the
Boosalis' intent was only to use it as mechanical and storage area.
She said that she spoke with the Building Inspector and he said
that, in similar situations, there is a requirement that the floor
height be raised so that there is no more than a 7' ceiling height
and this is to be shown on the construction drawings. She said
that if the Board is concerned about this, it can be made a
condition of approval in terms of the FAR and the Board agreed that
it should be made a condition of approval. She said that the
habitable space has been calculated correctly and the basement
space was not included in the FAR for the above stated reason.
Kari Boosalis, owner, stated that Mr. Chu approves of their plans.
She said that Staff did not require that they erect chimney story
poles, but they voluntarily agreed to do so. She said that they
will have one view, while the Zacks have a panoramic view. She
said that the Zacks knew that this lot would be developed one day.
Gus Boosalis, owner, stated that
the Zacks have given nothing.
right to develop their property
they have compromised a lot, while
He said that his family has the
to maximize the value of it.
Mr. Dovolis, Architect, said that the Boosalis' have given up a lot
in order to please their neighbors. He said that they have
DRB 10/20/94 13
DOvOLIS
JOHN5OI'.J
& RUGGIERI
, ... ( c ~ ,. () II ,\ It,.)
k7
b
Ar. equal opoMunlty ~m~tl')y"'r
112i ::::tSI franklin
.....llnn(',irXJii5.'\>1!'. 55404
Ph. ,(.,12' [1";,l'I~U09
~:":"~Clt;lt
,it" ;"ar~'''t.;
..,--1;':'::"C--=
",,;,',':':-:1I,lP;
~vv.:..
r~
November 7, 1994
NOV
"I 1994
Town ofTiburon
Attn: Jayni Allsep
1155 Tiburon Boulcvard
Tiburon, California 94920
RE:Comments to concerns and modifications presented to Design Review
Board Octobcr 20th by Collccn Mahoney (in t1al1c,f) concerning the
Boosalis Residence @ 102 Mount Tiburon
1. Loss ofimfJ'Jr/ant views/rom primary rooms in the Zack Residence of the San
Francisco -.va/erjronl, the Bey Bridg~, Ihe SF downtown skyline, part of Angel
Island, and Aicarmz Island. The proposal doe". nm respond to the Tlhuron
Design Guidelines,
The design of lllc Boosalis rcsidence has been modified to mitigate any negative
impaet to the neighborhood, and espccially relating to the Zack's residence, The
proposal docs respond to the Tiburon Design Guidelines. I have highlighted the
items we ineorpcratcd in the design in a brieffoml using the Tiburon Design
Guidelines, A modified copy of these guidelines, shov.ing our responses, is
attached at the end of tllis le.....r. If you "ish a more in depth cxplanation please
can me or question mc ~ring my present:\tion,
2, Mass o/roo/lin..s in},regrowld blocking these Important views and loss of
property value Zack Residence due to loss 0/ imponant views,
Vv1lile some 105e of view from the Zac~ residence will occur with any house built
on this lot, every effort hus been m:J.de to minimize view obstruction. There has
bccn substantial loss of view from dIe Bocsalis r2sidcncc with the current design
to accommc<bte the Zack's concerns, The view blockagc involved form the Zu:k's
residence is oniy 4%, Vi~ws of dOv.nlO\\TI San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge
and the Bay have b~"'n maintained, Several of the modirications listed bdow'have
bccn incorporated into the design to mirwnize view blockage to the Zacks, wbile
actually impairing t.he Boosalis' view,
A, Maintained a 1 story design to minimize view loss.
B, Sloped house down hill to reduce impact,
C. Incorporolted use of high quality materials such as slatc roofing to minimize
impact and increase value,
D, R.:duce devation of house from 510'-0" down to 505'-8" exccpt for bedroom
wing and foyer, thus 50% 105. of view to the Boosalis' to maint:\in the Zack's
VIew,
E. Moved hous~ into hill @ $50,000. $100,000 expensc (Contractor's estimate)
lO numtain lack's view value,
F, Use low profile roof design (less than 4: 12) to keep view mainly unobstructed,
G, Buil<!ing 3. house of$2,000,OUO will help maint:\in real estate value ofthc
neighborhood, including the Zach's,
.
'i!JV',)",>
3, Impact of Ughl in foreground from clerestory wir.Jows in the entry foyer and skylights above
the hall/dining area and great room.<,
Night light will be controlled by fixed wood louvers and tinted glass in all foyers and skylight
areas ,
4. Need 10 have down hill neighbors trim their trees,
2 out of 3 neighbors refused to trim tlleir trees plus there are potentially beritage trees in the
Boosalis' view that cannot be trimmed,
5, Veri))' FAR. wllh large storage space (880,1' sq, ft.) with a 9'-0" ceiling hi, - isn't this a
variance for FAR7
F A..R is legal. The basement area will only bave a 7'-0" ceiling height,
Modifications
I, Would it be possible to make the finding for a rear and ,~ideyard variance to f'l~~h the house
back to reduce impact,
Rear and side ya:d variance is opposed by all adjoining property O\\'IIers or their
representatives,
2, Elimir.ate the e'11pol<l with ,he clerestory windows aUtogerher to reduce the height and
impact of the entry filyer,
Cupola is behind a tree from the Zou:k's view point and will be reduced 6" in height.
3, Eliminate the skylights facing the Zack's in the dining and grew rooms,
Skylight will have tinted glass MId fixed wood louvers,
4, Re!iJcate IhefireplaceiChimney 10 reduce impa<'1 on the lack's view,
Chimney has btXn reduced in height i'.l" and reduced ~~ width 1 '.R",
5. Add swps jrr-m the bedroom wing down 10 the el1lry foyer 10 drop the floor and roof
el.'Vations oj [he entry, dining and great rooms, Grade the site and drop the floor el~ation,..
Roofcle'lations have bu;n 'iropped l'..()" for Gre:lt Roolll, 10" for dining area and stair risers
incr=oo from 6" to 6 1/2" to achieve greater drop, Additional drop in elevation will tesult in
loss of windows due to conllict \\ith rocfin lower house ekvations and more difficulty in
fumrc handicap =ssibility,
19jVVLj;
6, Reduce Ihe pitch oflhe roof to reduce Ihe height of the entry, dining and great room.<, If
reducedfrom 4/12 to JIL21he roofwould drop appro", 6",
Pitch of roof reduced below 4: 12, This is below recommended pitch for slate or asphalt
shingles, Roof is at a mininlllUl and at risk of leaking if not carefully detailed and constructed.
7, Cooperate with the neighbors to top Ihe VIew-blocking trees in the foreground so that the
, floor elevallons can be dN'pped,
2 out of3 neighbors refuse to cut their trees; some ofthc trees may potentially be of heritage
species,
8, Reduce lhe floor 10 ".Iling height in the "guest suite "from 8'-LO"+ to 8'-0", reduce the depth
of the floor framing from I '-10"+ to 14", redl<ce the plate heights on fhe l<pper If:velsfrom
10'-0"+ or -10 9'-0", These together would reduce the overall height ]'-6",
Wall heights redu=l from 10'.0" to 9'-6", Bascment Guest Suite hcights to remain the same to
maintain open feeling since area was on 2nd floor and moved to basement to improvc Zack's
view,
9, Add all of the abow Sl<ggesiions togelher and the overall heighl of the rooft may be reduced
by 5 feet or more,
Overall reduction given the realistic options, struetur.:.l and planning limitations a safety
marginrangcs from 1'.0" -1'-3",
If you have any qucstions on 2n)' ofthcse items, plc$c give me ~ call, I am looking forward to
meeting with you again on November 17,
Sincerely yours,
I
~(-)'I' (:'-.
I I , ..
, '.
I ' -----..------'
I' ,
Dean J, Dovoli1 ~
Dovolis Johnsorr-& RUggieri, Inc,
DOC:942111t3
':~":<";;""~ /{;',
,.: , ~ l-~r:iI'
~ '<I~~
UJ :E !:'Vz
a..-
~< w~ ?
1IJ~!::/:l. 2i W
~c ~ ~ ~ ~
%zz .a' w
~ :J ~ ~ ~iiJtJ; ~
;l: Q O!!? ",2 W ::e
o w ~ ffl <~ '>- 0
-z w>crVc:
eIlZIllc:C; ll.
~< % I U1C1l
lr..J 01- o..~z 9
00.. t: = U -c:: 0
II. < 0 f:~..1 >
=g ~:::l 1Il!:l/:l. <
!::c:: c:~ ::>_0 0
3: ..J ~ 0 8l~ ~
w c:C:: _ W c::'5:> ~
.c.. - > ;>.:..
<::::l ~- O:lct Q
ul- C:I- o<;)c: ..J
l/)ct <: <: II. ll.
o % LLI Z z.,Jen :;
:: w w 101 O~Q c;:
ct III g; g; u;'Vo 101
~~ W > t:
<c:lUCQ<:CIl
0> 0
...
,
'],
-i.
X
../
.J
z.
/e
/"'. J,
~ ::J
""I :t.
] ] ~t I
i ~ ~ D.
eCJ~i~
1: '.a - 2 D
I- a
-a '-' 0: " -
w iI. ~
'-Jus>:;""';
~ ::I:V
o ....
101 ..I
oUl3:Z
~I Ul 0 III 2
_ ..J ::::: CI) I-
::lwc:rl ..I Ul < ct
J: :::l :l: 5 0
oowuu~
> ....z>f:w::>
~ =01-0:00
~ o..JU<l:Ul..Jzl-
II. Z :::l W ..I
II. c:l~C(..JO
w:lww....J:U
w;;;luw5::;;:
U c:lC(UNOO
=> C:;;;l--l..J
::;) l-c:cc:..JoJ
W::lwwOoo
c: u.... c: = II. II.
.. ('1/ M
...
/":\
/::\~
&0
0C1l
VI
w
'"
U
<
c:
<
oJ
::>
U
::
w
>
101
I-
<:
::>
o
w
o
<
w
o
>
o
c:
/:l.
l-
i
::i
'3
3r.
<Il '0
&_'
~\('
?
~,
en
I- CIl
:E ~
..J Z
1-1-::
::-0:
o~<:
.....1>
w
=<~
~
::I
~~
:~
VI' 02
II. ~
;!:: "
w VI
:; ~ ~
o ~ e
il~~
~ :; ~
u.:-
w ..,. w
> - 0:
101'"
~ ~ II.
"'I <: 0:
WI U W
g:1 ~ ~
t? ..
..I
< ~
o c::
o a.
~'
~~
31.\1
:::llll
C:J~ ~
W.II~
u'" -
:::l7. S
o-i
10116
<=0
oCl III
I- 5
CIlki=
W~:::l
U=>oJ
<:~o
::...~'"
ell
o ::;:
Z c:
:::l 0
o II.
<= w
Cl ..I
c: (:l
101 ;;;
C '"
...
;; 0
101 0
Ul >
:::l <:
... It) co .... cc:: ell 0
...
..J
<
o
Cl
.
Z
a:
n.
=b~
il~
gi
~~
en
J-
%
W
::E
w
..I
W
..I
<:
I-
z
o
N
a;
CIl 0 W
c: : >
:::l :: 101
o J- ..J
....
:: :;
r?
IQ ~
~ II
~ t
r7\~ ~
~ ~ ~
O~'0
'Z'-'
V :.::
l/) l/) ..J
...J :::l
..I c:l
< W
~ U
:::l
I- (:l 0
z Z 101
< Z c::
U <I: 0
..J I- ~
...J W Ul
- c:: ..I
J: _
Z 101 -
3: 0 0:
o c:: W
o :5 ~
Q Q :::
00101
> > l/)
ct <: ::>
II)
c:
o
II) m
:a:: :t:J;
U ,!2!11
on&:IlJ7
oJ '%\...)
III I-
11.:0 %
W <
- ....
>l-CIl
...%-
~UJC
O::<u.
>wo
<:u
O<CIl
......13:
o..w
00>
Z ...
o:<~
<CIl~
Ul:;..J
"'c..c
c>
z~;.-
< 0
..JWz
W
zc:o
<1-0
..I
c..<:Cl
N
:I:
!::~
:; 0
o
~J.
~..
C III
1-1 = "1.
ul :2 ~
< =~
~l ?;:
- l/) ;.-
...J .J z
<:: <: w
~ ;: :l:
z - ...
101 1010
"" I- c:
"" <-
z "" >
0; "" z:
"'I C W
>!;;: u..
z <: 0
W -
W ~ OJ
oC:
=-u.~
o w><
w en UJ
c:: ::l I-
N ...
~ ~.
o c:
,.. I"~
/7'\
~frr0
0~ '3 -~~
>-<. >
t:: II.
<
o IJ- IIlC 0
% (J 1Il~>--
:: ~ We I-
r- u- _
!!? wt....
x'2 z, z
W ~ 11.'1 <:
~ '" _~:::l
o ~ 0.10
~ t:: " :51;'-
> 11.,... ol!lO
tlJ ...J %
;: >- ~ -0
<:: ill :::l2>'~
o ?;: 5 ~< I- q,
Z<:,;u.:; ~
;:ClVo~<:,,->
CIl Z CIl c:: :::l '"
x-wwr.;.O z'"
Woe:.,. _
..J ~ - -
W-f-I:Co ::;:
>~u~~u. <
c: ~ '-"'~;: .c::
wWC:;'--<C1 II.
ell t::: ... ~0- ::
W v.I CIl (.) ::; 1:.1_'
C::. .
0.< co>
1'7
..I
<f\
ED
1010
...0 "
<3101 l
::<cc5
wl- III
...J III 1-
~1~ ~
., c:: V
I.l. W CI)
o > .J
Ull!;w <::
c::
~~ ffi
~j~ ~
x.<CI) :;:
I"'" -J UJ
....;< >
wt:ir
O-aw ~
c::".... U
<tit< 101
..I.::: ..J
~~
en > c:
:::l _ I
t-t-z
o :! 0
..,. _ 2:
.. W W
o CI) Ul
o :::l :::l
('1/ M
... III
?
<.
J
o
z
<::
>-
U
~ ff
o 0. ~
CI) c: J:
C O..!J
~~ ~~
@ ~ ~ 1
: ~ ~ ~
- ~ ..I
04 Q.l
f: ;;: ill.
<"" 0 ([
o 0
- - \
- (/) -
~ 101 ~ $
u. 5 ...J:5-.
% t- 0"-/
W U c:
w =:J ~ ==
= = :z:
u... o!:!:
VI III U >
<t III
Q
^1 3 ~iD'
~ ~~~~>:r~
~' 1~jrr ~l
1 v~ ~ > t ~
ii u '" II. ~ :E
>:2. f!<'II>o~w
"" Ill. -..I
~iw g c~ ~ ~ 5 '
> 0 c: Z ':> ::>~, c:
c:t' <: _ u. J- :> 0.
J...., c: - t) -< ....
/:l.~_ C 0 ~ W ILl W
o u... c:: II. > (:l
Z 0<0 <:
..I 101 ~ c: ..J:a::
<:Q:E...J O...Ju
;::E:: % o~:i ~ 0
!!!J!!! ; ~ 3:::;: CI) E
> ~>:: -!:!:.::.:: 3:
=-:t...J w C > U U tlJ
f-,,<-z 00-
olt- > :::l 'u....J ..I >
c;:j~I-OOClc;W
.., <:: U I: ::::;.- I- c:
N c..ILlOWOo:::l
- I-Wl-z..,.CIl
::: coo:z -<
x oc::owoow
< >c..u.uco::<
::s <":cOUcwu.:
to ,...
x
u.
c
-
-
-
2r;;,
~51
- -r::;:.
rfI ~<t
~j~
~f::J
'<...,' ~(ll
'" ~,
CI)..J ::>"'J
w..J ::<;<
c:: <: f:\J\ :a::
~ :: 00....' ~ '
<0 ::
W 101 c: .i/Q'
11.00"'2 w
oct u..f'-...i ~
... :I: '"
- (f.)'" (.)
:; .:=1", en
<UlOO..J 0
,?:::o~Zw %
c:::~ <
>W-'Jl< ..I
O::;l ~Q. W
ffi = u.: c::::
ZI-U <I-
w:r: <::Z..J W
w <::..J::l 0 :a::
(/) w 0. en en ct,
:::l ..: Q c.j:E
.:;:'
o
>-
0:
o
U.
en
LlJ
Z
..J
W
o
::)
"'c:
zc:
c;,':
-<::
enz
I.U<::
Ow
....
Z..
O~
O:z
:;)~
0::1<
~a:
,..,
ll:l
DOvOLIS
JOHNS()I'.J
& RUGGIERI
I N ~- 0 ~ jol () It ^ T : n
An 9qual opportunity tlmployer
1121 E<.l:-l Fr~mklin
,~"il1:'(';l!)()li~, ,'vt~ )5~O..
Ph. (61213il.6()()I.)
;'''''':''to,,,,\'
.,:"',"":'.l,,,},II>J
-I"~"""I"'"
"'-",,11','111'(10
"""'" vy....
October 21, 1994
Town ofTiburon
Attn: Jani AlIsep
1155 Tiburoll Boulcvard
Tiburon, California 94920
RE: Boosalis Residencc
J 02 Mount Tiburon
Dear Mrs, AJlsep & The Tiburon Review Board,
After much study, analysis and discussion with various oonsultants, I have found a way
to squeeze the "last water out ofthc rock" in getting additional height reduction from the
roof and chimney, This is thc bcst the house can do, unless I threw out the entire design.
The Boosalis' will not accept this, since the design of thc house has been universally
ac<:epted and praised by board membcr ;\.'1d neighbors alike, I am proceeding "ith
adjus-Jng story poles 9, 23, 30 and Il;.e 4 chimney poles, While all the elevations of the
house have changed only the critical pcle have bct;n physically reduced in hcight on the
site, Please take time to review the revised story poles,
1. Reduction of Grcat Room height by 1'-0" from elevation 524'-4" to 523'-4", (Pole
#30)
This was accomplished by reducing the rcofpiteh by 2", wall height from 10'.0" to 9'-6"
or 6". and lowering the floorelevarion from 506'.0" to 505'.8" or 4" by increasing the
stair risers from 6" to 6 1/2" thus a 1'_Oh total reduction.
2, ReductJOn of Dining Room/Kitehen height by 10" from elevation 526'.4" to 525'-6",
(pole #23)
This was accomplished again by reducing thc roof pilch by 2", "ail hcight from 10'0" to
9'-6" or 6", and lowering floor elevation from 50~'-o" to 507'-10" or 2" by increasing the
stlir risers from 6" to 6 1/2" thus il 10" tow reduction,
3, Reduction off.replace heig!li by 1'-1" and reducing the depth from 40" X 92" to 40"
x 72" or a. ]'..10" reduction in mass
4, Reduction of the enlry foyer height by 6" from devatioll 52~'.7" to 528'.1", (pole
#9)
5, Deductioa of 8" from <ntirc bedroom wing from elevation 528'.2" to 527'-6" (poles
#11,13.14)
Tnis was accompiished by reducing the roof piteh by 2" and reducing the ,,<tl1 height
from 10'-0" to 9'-6" Or 6" thus a 6" total reduction,
6, All remaining portions of the house and story poles are reduced by 8" due to the
reduction of the wall height from 10'-0" to 9'-6" or 6" and reducing the roof pitch by
2",
Additional reductions C;l!lnot bc made for the following reason.<,
I. The rocfpitch as proposed by this Ic;ttcr is 3,875;12. This is at the absolute
minimum pitch recommended by the slate roofing manufacturers, Any further
reduction in pitch would result in inadequate drainage and therefore slate shingles
could not be used,
2, Any lowering of the change in elevation between Lie Foyer & Dining and the Dining
& Great Room will cause a loss of windows and cause other portions of the roof to
raise, The diffcf<-nCi:s of 2'-2" putS thc soffit line at the top of the lower windows,
Any additional elevation eha.~ge ",'ill cause a loss of many corner windows in the
home,
3, Thc cxtcrior wall 3eight is now reduced to 9'-6', This can not go lower due to the
revisions listed abow, The lower the e,,-tcrior wall becomes the higher the roof is
raised in the transition areas between the Foyer, Dining and Great Room.
4, Additional stairs cannot bc addcd duc to the problems caused by the changed of
elevation, TI,e inclusion of any steps withi., the house hindered its handicap
acc.::ssibility on a long term basis. The Boosalis' have sacrificed by adding 8 steps
to their home a.lld C!O not wish to further separate their living areas and break up
their home,
I have endeavored to make tilis home work for tile Boosalis' and satisfy the Zach's needs
while still maintai.n.i.ng a high architectural standard, The Boosalis' home cannot afford
any additional loss of elevation or grade changes ,,'it."out sever:ly compromising the
livability of the home, structUral integrity, future resale, h:ul<licap accessibility and
aeSthetic qualities, A,s I proceed into contract documents, if I find additional methods to
reduce the scale of the house I will do so, If the board has any question or suggestions
please contact me at (612) &71-6009 or locally at (415) 381-0278,
Thank You, 1
D~~~"'~ 1
Dovolis Johnson & Ruggieri, Inc,
DOC:942111t2
(
SU6'11 nIl:::V rt I
NOVE*\6eR \'1,IQQ4
~ .H-iS-
THE
PRATT
COMPANY
(
November 17, 1994
Tiburon Design Review Board
Tiburon Town Hall
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Boosalis Application
Dear Members of the Board,
I believe there are a few important points to consider in this
matter:
1. While we appreciate the Boosalis' cooperative attitude, we
think there is a difference between their perception and the
communi ty perceptions. I think the applicants need to
understand that this neighborhood, The Mount Tiburon Home
Owners Association, and the Tiburon City have established very
clear guidelines for development, standards and rules for
design, elevation, and all other building elements - rules
which have been in existence for more than twenty years, rules
which have governed all of the neighbors and the entire
residential development on the hill. We have all built,
developed, improved, and maintained our homes while adhering
to those rules and standards. The CC&R' s and the City's
ordinances, in particular the "Hillside Guidelines", together
contain those standards and rules which apply to all of us.
My wife and I have lived on Mount Tiburon for nine years, and
to our knowledge, everyone who has built, remodeled,
landscaped, etc., has done so while adhering to those same
rules. The neighbors on our street cooperate every year in
trimming trees in order to preserve views, and any additions
or remodelings are all preceeded by consultation with, and
approval by, neighbors.
2. The applicant has come into this neighborhood with these rules
and neighborhood practices already in place. The land the
applicant has acquired is, practically, and legally subject to
all of those rules and standards. That lot which they have
purchased is not exempt from the rules and standards which
apply to the rest of the lots in the neighborhood - it does
not have an inherent or natural "right to be developed" in any
way the applicant wants.
When the Boosalis' purchased the lot it was, and remains,
clearly encumbered and constrained by the CC&R' s and the
City's ordinances, the "Hillside Guidelines."
425 Market Street, Suite 1010
San Francisco. CA 94105
Phone: 415/495-8710 Fax: 415/495-8797
RRP Development Co, Ine,
Real Estate Development
1626 N, Main Street
Salinas, CA 93906
Phone: 408/449-6672 Fax: 408/449-3255
.
c
(
3. The guidelines clearly set forth many rules regarding
development, etc.. The most important of these to the owners
of homes on the hill is the prerequisite of view protection.
As the guideline states:
"Property owners must remember that their proposed
dwelling will have a substantial impact on neighboring
properties; this impact MUST BE MINIMIZED in every way
reasonably possible." "No single item, with regard to
his dwelling, is more precious to the resident of Tiburon
than his view." "Roof lines and wall lines should be
considered carefully to avoid view problems."
4. In this case, it is clear that there is an obstruction of a
major view, and that obstruction violates the City's rules
regarding views. The applicant's response does not constitute
an effort to minimize the problem "in every way reasonably
possible" . ,
5. Based on the architect Colleen Mahoney's comments, and the
photos of the views from lower grade levels, the record
demonstrates a simple solution which does not cause pain, or
even inconvenience, to the applicant: Lower the floor grade,
and the roof line is likewise lowered. The applicant's view
will be the same; I have stood at both elevations in question,
and the view from either is excellent and unencumbered. As
Miles Berger said, in essence, at the last hearing, "the 500
,.foot elevation has a very good view."
\'1;',1'1',
," On this matter, the CC&R's and the City's rules clearly
support this position. Surely these rules do not allow an
applicant to "build-up " their grade level to enhance a view
at the expense of an existing neighbor's view. To firmly
apply these rules when there is a reasonable solution, such as
lowering the grade, is the correct action for this commission.
My main purpose in speaking is to ask that you adhere to, and
apply, those City rules and guidelines, in the same manner in which
we, as neighbors, have adhered to them, and that you continue to
enforce the protection of the view principle.
Thank you for your consideration.
Russell R. Pratt
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Zack
Tiburon.let
THE
PRATT
COMPANY
('
(
. .
1::>/
LAT€- /'14-1 G
~
~
November 17, 1994
Via Facsimile
Tiburon Design Review Board
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, California 94920
Re: Boosalis Residence Application
102 Mounl Tiburon
From, Gary and Chara Schreyer
Dear Members;
The applicant's propo~ed residence is a fine addition to the Mount Tiburon
community and a welcome neighbor However, there are a few issues that impact existing
homeowners that should be resolved to the mutual bencfit of all concerned residents, We
respectfully suggest that th", Design Review Board approval should ensure that:
!.Interior and lW"1dsc[jpe lighting does not intrude on neighboring views and/or the
subtle, undcrsH1.ted rural like ambiance of the area,
2,Appropriate landscaping is necessarj especially along Mount Tiburon Road to
aesthetically merge the home Vv~th the environment and to complete the scale of
the residence when viewed !Tom the road, This requirement is particularly
neceSSal"'j at the intersection of the driveways of homes on the west, southwest and
Mount Tiburon Road,
3, The Zack's view of downtown San Francisco, thc Bay Bridge, Aicatraz and
AngelIsland is maintained, Othervvise thi,~ would contravene the principle~
enumerated in the Mount Tiburon Hillside Guidelines, It appears that shifting the
home to the east or a relatively small amount of necessary excavation will not
diminish the BoosaJis's \.iew while at the same time it would preserve the Zack's
existing view,
NO" i 1 W:l4
Re~ectfi.Jlly,
tJlr 1 " Cft.c.~ 2,r.JvI1. 7<A-'6;i
Gary..&JCliara Schreyer B
83 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, California
---'
\ ,,~,
,
,
GWS/emh
President Mount Tiburon
Property OVvllers Association
,
t,
;-
DOvOlIS
JOHNSON
& RUGGIERI
I /'I C () ~ " ,) ~ '~ ~ ~ (J
An equal ~pportl,.lnity em ployer
n~l E~,;>l rr;~nklin
Minn(';)rclb, ,\~N 3)404
Ph, 'b12) B71-600Q
':;:~'~!.~r_;'~;''''6
, ,'''':l'~ ";1'1'
~'r :'>11'11:"1'
(
LATE Mflr I L
D -I
(
November 15, 1994
Town ofTiburon
Attn: Jayni AlIsep
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
RE: Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
Dear Mis, AIlsep & The Tiburon Review Board,
This letter is written to aller! you to errors in m} letter to you dared October 2 J, 1994, I
have identified the errors and would like to correct them at this time,
In item number I, the correct elevations should have stated 521'-10" dov.n to 520'-10"
(pole #30),
In item number 2, Ille conect elevations should have stated 523'-10. down to 523'-0"
(pole #23),
In item number 5, the correct elevations should havc stated 525'-7" down to 524'-11"
(Poles #11,13, 14),
I would like to point out that although the elevations stated would need to be
corrected, the changes or reductions in height which I represented arc still the sam.."
and that the corrected error in elevations are only in the Zack's favor.
If you have any qllcstiollS concerning this letter, please contact me at (612) 871-6009 Ot
locaUyat(415) 381-0278,
Thank You,
It Ci 1 ()
/~.! '1---
~ 1. Oovolis.! A]A"J
Oovolis Johnson~ Ruggieri, Ine,
00C:94211lt4
,i
\
~
~'
("
" ,
.,
(
MAHO~r.Y ARCHITECTS
~ovenlber14, 1994
Attn, Jayni AUser, Planning Consultant and
Members of the Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
Mr, and Mrs, Howard Zack retained my services for two primary purposes, One was to
interpret plans, elevations and story poles to advise the Zack's about the proposed
home at 102 Mount Tiburon. The second purpose was to act as a liaison to work with
Dean Dovolis the architect of the 1300salis Residence, I, spoke to Mr. Dovolis and I have
been available to cooper.lte and help come up with ideas to minimize the impact on the
Zack's important views of downtown San Francisco, the West end of the Bay Bridge,
and Alcatraz, Mr, Dovolis has made no effort at all to speak to me, The revised plans
are not responsive enough to the view blockage issue, They are also not responsive to
U,e Board,
I am sending this letter in response to Mr. Dovolis's letters of October 21 and November
7, I disagree that Mr. Dovolis that "this is the best the house can do" and I also disagree
that he would need to throw out the entire design, 1 also think that Mr. Dovolis is
incorrect when he states that the design of the house has been universally accepted by
the board members and neighbors, I think that Mr, Dovolis can make revisions which
will keep his design, make his clients happy, fit the site, and l'espond to the neighbors
legitimate concerns regarding view blockage,
I am very concerned "bout the information presenled by Mr, Dovolis - there are
discrepancies between what he states ill his letters and what he presents on his plans.
In the October 21 letter Mr, Do\'olis stales that]) story pole # 30 <It the great room has
been reduced from 524'-4" to 523'-4" and yct the pI"ns show this same pole at 520'-10",
Similarly, the same letter states that 2) story pule #23 over the dining/kitchen has been
reduced from 526'-4" to 525'-6" and yet thc plans show 523'. 1\11'. Dovolis reports 3) that
he has reduced the size of the chimney and from 40"x92" to 40"x72", My question is
why can't it be reduced to 30"x48" which n('('ommodates two 14 inch diameter flues?
Under item 4) Mr. Dovolis says that story pole 1/9 has been reduccd from 528' -i" to 527'-
1" and yet the plans show no such revision, Mr, lJovolis shows that he has lowered the
bedroom wing - how does this effect the v;cw from the Zack's - not at all! All of these
discrepancies are of concern to m~ and 10 the Zack's, Please ask that they be clanfled
ASAP,
--- '.
MT. Dovolb goes on to say that additioni\] reductions can nol be npde, Under Item 2" I
would like to know specifically which windows would be lost, 1 Cio not s(>c where tl115 :1
is it problem, Mr. IJnvolis says Innt he h,ls reduced Ihe plate heights to 9'.6" and I
NOV 1 4 1994
COlifill .I1uhlil1fY i~l!I
"
1',0 Uo,105J . Tih",,,,,, C\ ~191,1 . m. m,6677 A FAX 41),':,56878
(
( r
Town of Tiburon
Town Council
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
DEe 2 1 1994
Re: Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
Town Council;
IMPORT ANT!
January 3, 1995, Tuesday
11:45 1:45
102 Mount Tiburon
We have hired Adlite Crane to come to our home site Tuesday,
January 3, 1995 between the hours of 11 :45 AM to 1 :45 PM to allow
each Town Council member to be able to see our view from the
center of the great room. We will have a basket that will be brought
to the level of 505'8", which the Design Review Board has approved
for our finished floor in our great room, and to the level of 511' 1 "
which would be the maximum level permissible by the Tiburon
Building Ordinance.
We have also hired William Schroeder, a licensed land surveyor, to
verify each elevation for every Town Council member. In addition, I
have asked our architect, Dean Dovolis, to be available on site to
answer any questions or concerns.
We look forward to meeting each of you, and thank you for your
time and consideration.
Sincerely,
kdti awl J;k0 >>OCjtd1:?
Kari and Gus Boosalis
EXffiBIT NO. 1-
.'
.
DE:-29-1994 14:17
512 871 1745 p.J2/J4
[)(M)[JS
JOHN5()\l
& RUGGIERI
! N ( Q It '" (l II: ^ 1 I Ll"
v
AI1.qlk"lll)J:lPO~!Y f1l'1t~~
1121 E~st Franklin
M:nneapohs, MN .55404
Ph, [61l) 871,60W
^rdlitc(l'lrt~
Uri),ml'l,\(lI),'pt.;
lanUS(01pl:
,\(Clllt"'C.Uf.
DHR
December 26, J 994
DEe 2 9 1994
Tiburon Town COWlcil
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, California 94920
,;.-~'.:..:....c.-.;,;,----,-,,-.......,...
Dear Members of the Town Council:
I am writing in respouse to Mr, and Mrs, Zack's letter of appeal dated November 3D, 1994,
I would like to address their concerns and to elarify certain points that they have raised. I
have attached the Zack's letter and numbered the paragraphs for reference.
In respoDSo to the Zack'$ Dppeal
\, Paragraph #2; The Boosalis' design and layout was considerably compromised to
presel'\le the Zack's view. The BoosaEs' original floor level was entirely at elevations
510 and bas now been reduced to elevation 505,8 and 507,10 respectively with only the
bedroom wing and foyer rcmaining at elevation ~ J 0, lhis has reduced any view loss to
only 3% to 4% and only causes partial view bloekll8e of the Bay Bridge, Alcatr3Z &
Angellsland, totally prcserving the remaindcr of the San Francisco waterfront view,
2. Paragraph 113; We have lowcred the home height by five fee: alrc:ldy and in doing so
will incur considerable expense for excavation, in addition to a considerable loss of
view, The Boosalis' only have the opportunity of a slot view from their home, making
this loss more substantial, An additional 3'-0" drop as requcstcd by the Zacks could
mean a loss of existing trees along the bedroom wing, loss of some windows on south
and north elevations, additional excavation expense beyond the $100,000 required
already and elimination of 70% of their view from the great room, kitchen and dinilli
area.
3, Paragraph 114; The house desilll1 is an exceptional example of incorporating the
Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings, According to Mr, S1avi~, the Vice
Chairman of the TibufOn Design Review Board, he srated at the October 20th meeting
that the house design was a text book example of the prineiples stated on page 35 of the
Tiburon Design Guidelines, In addition, th: design incorporates nearly aU the
principles ranging from the home stepping with the grad:, low profile, varied furm, low
graduated retaining walls, r>arural materials and placement away for the Zack's view
sightlines, The design view impact on the Zack's bas been minimized in every way
possible at great expense to the Boosalis', The design upholds the definitions of the
Tiburon Hillside Guidelines,
EXHIBIT NO. ::r
['~,:-29-1334 14: 13
DJ&R
612 371 1745 P.03/04
,I
4, Paragraph 115: In the initial hearing the Design Review Board expressed praise that we have been
working so well with the neighbors, that they thought it was an excellent design, that it was
basically "there,' (Mr. Berger mentioned that it was a "true plan," that the applicant Iwl done a let
already and there was no "bogus" height in the elevations) and one member, Mr, Slavitz, cven
thought that we had gone too fur in meeting the needs of the neighbors, In the end, however, the
Board asked us ifwe could look at some additiooal way to reduce the height, though Mrs, Bennett
said if we could not, that we could come back with the same plan, The 6'.3 112" we eliminated from
the house plus the 213 reduction of the size and height of the chimney (height 12 112, length 3'.8") is
meaningful to the Boosalis' since it caused loss of floor elevatiOll, ceillni heights, a roof pitch below
manufacturer's standards and elimination of a fireplace, The ideas of Colleen Mahoney, the Zack's
design consultant, were instituted where practical, but some ideas were rejected due to their
, inlpracticability. At the sceond meeting in November, three Board mombcrs spoke strongly in favor
of the project lUld Mr, Slavitz again stilted that we have compromised too far, The two dissenting
votes suggesred the possibility ofa I'.()" reduction but were still ill favor of the design and the
quality of the home,
5, Paragraph 1#6: A three foot change in elevation makes extraordinary difference when the only view
available is a slot view, Lowering the house 3 '.0' would put the bedroom wing and foyer, the entire
north wall, belowacade, requiring eliminatioD of all existing trees and additional internal stairs,
The Boosalis' have already sacrificed S'.()" of height from their ceremonial rooms and will incur
$100,000 in additional excavation expenses, The additional request of 3'.0" is not physically or
aesthetically possible since it would render grcat loss of value and would be difficult to build,
The proposed tree cuttiDg helps all concerned but some ueighbors (Mr, Moulin WId Mr. Moody)
have stated there is no need to trim their trees and that heritage trees are also located on their
property To rely on exteusive tree cuttin& for views is risky since each neighbor defines degrees of
cutting or topping differently alld that trees will grow bacl< again and neighbors change, The
biannual tree cuttini culture of the Mount Tiburon neighborhood does not exist in full since some
neighbors have stated to us that they do not see the necessity of trimming their trees at this time or
in the near future,
6, Paragraph 1#7: The chimney height lUld mass has been reduced considerably via administrative
review (see attached sketch). The entry fo)'er is behind a tree at the point furthest awn)' from the
Zack's view and poses no view problem, The clearstory window will have permanent fixed louvers
which the Design Review Board approved and the night lighting and driveway location has bccn
review modified and approved by the Design Review Board, The two dissenting votes made no
mention of any of the above issues except the chimney,
7, Parngraph N8: Our plans were approved and praised by Mr, BnlCC Moody, the person in charge of
architectural review for the Mount Tiburon Neighborhood Associatiou, In addition, several
neighbors have signed the plans and/or have spoken in support of the proposed home at both
meetings, Only the Zacks and the Pratts have spoken liainst the Boosalis home, Even they have
spoken highly to the sensitivity ofthc design, The is DC> "considerable concrete neighborhood
support" against the Boosalis' home, but general agreement that the design is appropriate for the lot
and neighborbood,
We hav'C UDdertaken the miner modifications reconunended by the Zack's cOW1lJel as sbc"" by the
many revisioDS we have done to our plan to date, ranging from moving the house, lowering
elevations and floors by five feet and reducing chimney mass and roofpitclJ. We have preserved
their views and maIlltained the design aesthetics of the bonte,
D~_-n-B34 14: 5J DJil,R 512 371 1745
'MR.& MR~LACK'S LETTER a APPEAL
P.215'<33
99 Mt. Tib\U'On Road . PARAGRAPH NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO
Tlburon, CA 94920 THE NUMBERS IN MY LETTER
November 30, 1994 '
Tiburon to~ CouncU '
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
D~ar Members of the Town coundl,
We are writing to explain the basis for our appeal of the Design Review
Board's (DRB) November 17 decision to approve ,the proposed home at 102
MOW1.t Tiburon Road..
DEAN DOVOLlS
.
- ....
.
# 2 We reside at 99 Mt. Tiburon Road and we are the only neighbor whose
view is severely impa.cted by the proposed residence. The proposed design
will significantly mar from our main ceremonial rooms the crown Jewel
f!lf!ments of our southern view of San Francisco: the Bay Bridge, Alcatraz ,
downtown skyline and Embarcadero and Angel Island. Our house was
(- expressly oriented to take advantage of these CltY views .. the kitchen,
living,roorri, den and dining room are all positioned to face downtown San
Francisco.
#3 Accordingly, we ask tha.t the proposed home's height be
modestly lowered by 3 feet. This accommodation. can be. readily
arrived at by the applicant with no harm to them and yet, such a
slight modification makes an enormous permanent difference to
preserving our views and our propertY value,
# 4 As the Design Guidelines fOf Hillside Dwellings state: "No single
item," "with regard to his dwelling, is more precious to' the
resident of Tiburon than his view." .Property owners must
remember that their proposed dwelling will have a substantial
impact on neighboring properties; this impact MUST BE
MINIMIZED in every way reasonably possible." 'Especially
relevanHe-this situation are these additional guidelines: · ...view
protection is more important for major ceremonial r,ooms" as
well as--'-'bioekage of important objects In the view (such as Angel
lsland etc.) is more difficult to accept than others." These
Hillside Guidelines provide the foundation for view preservation
in OUf town and are universally embraced by Tiburon residents.
/-
D::::::.'-23-1334 1 ~ : 52
DE"
512 871 1746 ~.aS/03
'" '(
(
# 5 In its initial hearing on this matter. the ORB expressed concerns about the
height of the proposed residence and its consequent impact o~ our view,
and issued a continuance. We feel the applicant did not heed the ORB's
dlrective to meaningfully lower the height of their home in response to our
concerns, - they cropped only 6 to 12 inches in various locations. The
resultant reduction in our view blockage was marginal. Our architect,
Colleen Mahoney, herself a former, ORB member, had made numerous
concrete suggestions (in both her submission to the DRB on November 3
and in her November 14 letter to the ORB) about how to lower the height
of.the proposed home, Moreover. it was our impression at the November
17 hearing that the two architects on the DRB could also see that the
applicant's architect could utilize Ms. Mahoney's suggestions and take other
incremental steps that, in combination, would achieve the meaningful
height reduction we seek. These two architects cUssented in a close 3 to 2
vote on the application. .
#6 We recognize the applicant is concerned about the Impact surrounding
neighborhood trees \'oil! have on their views. Photos we submitted for the
record at the November 17 hearing, demonstrate clearly that lowering the
height of the proposed home by the 3 feet we seek makes an
indlstinguishable difference to the quality of the applicant's view.
Furthermore, we have approached several key neighbors who have
graciously agreed to trim or window their trees which will enhance the
views of the applicant and ourselves. This phenomenon - t:rimm.lng and
\\-'intjow1ng trees - is a cornerstone of our Mt. Tiburon CC&R's, under
which everyone in the neighborhood must live. Indeed, an ingrained facet
of cur neighborhoocl culture is biannual tree cutting . everyone does it,
cooperatively and willingly,
#7Beyond the height of the home, there are other specific design elements
which remain of deep concern to us: the height and mass of the chimneYi
the soaring 18'6" height of the entry which represents uninhabitable living
space but which mars our view; the purely decorative clerestory windows
which will impair our night view; the excessive exterior lighting and the
driveway that needs to be reoriented to a safe location.
#8 We recognize that a home will be built on this site. Our sole
desire is to minimize the impact on our view. We have
considerable concrete neighborhood support for our contentioo
that the most critical elements of our view have been seriously
harmed and that the Hillside Guidelines must be upheld to
preserve our marquis landmark views. If the applicant could
only undertake some combination of the many minor
,
DE:-23-1994 14:55
DJ3,~
(
. .
I
612 371 1745 ?,07/03
(
modifications recommended by, competent counsel. our concerns
would be met and their design would be preserved.
#9 FInally, because our views are so precious to us, it is lmpOrtM.t that the
conditions for approval include a requirement that maximum ridge heights
be verified by a licensed surveyor.
We appreciate your consideration of our appeal.
S~cerely,
~~+,~rul, ~
Diane and Howard zack ...
"
';1
~
D~'::-23-1334 14: 57
DE"
512 871 1745 P,08/2l8
.--
II
I" / ""
'" /
/
I' IIII!III
I
II 11111,1
Ii
rJI,il
1- CHIMNEY REDUCTION SKETCH (
t.
..........--...
r---- PEAK REDUCED
/ HEIGHT 12 1/2"
/ LENGTH 3'-8"
//
~
..........--...
I
, I
II
I /' 1\ i'i!
1/ Iii \I!II
I, I: I\]!.I
JK I i!.
\ "I /Iil
II \111 ' ; I: '
I' ,I' II
--'.J ~,
I
I,I
/ ! '"
I
,//
Ir
I'
I
i
I
--
I
j
TOTAl.. p.08
(
(
BuOSALIS-ZACK ArPKAL January 4,1995 Meeting
fPJ~~reu~~[Q)
- Ute 2 6 1994
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWN OF T/BURON
December 28, 1994
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Members of the Tiburon Town Council,
Bruce and I have lived at 88 Mount Tiburon since 1959.
when Mt. Tiburon was planned the view from the Zack lot was
expected to be toward Mount Tamalpais and Sausalito as two
houses would be built between that lot and the """'nte..l. San
Francisco view. Indeed, when the house was bui~t the view
was in a westerly direction. The first owners evidAntly
remodeled so as to include the San Francisco view. Recently
one lot was eliminated so that the Boosalis house will be the
only one in that area.
The Boosalis house is an attractive one and will be an asset to
Mt. Tiburon. I hope the Zacks will not cause the well-designed
house to be chopped off as they have the trees at 75 Mt. Tiburon,
caring only for every inch of view instead of the beauty of the
neighborhood. They have even topped a Monterey pine not on their
property to gain a northerly view. The Zacks' view is an expansive
one from Mount Tamalpais, Sausalito, Golden Gate and continuing
toward downtown San Francisco and is more than most of us have.
As our own trees were made an issue at the Board of Design Review
meetings, here is some information about them. within sight of
the Zacks and the Boosalis we have two Monterey pines, two Table
Mountain pines, a Jeffrey and a Scothh pine all planted in 1956.
We also have a finus sabiniana, the tallest of the group, planted
in the sixties. Five of these qualify as heritage trees as defined
in the Tiburon Tree Ordinance 1991 \more than 60" in circuniference
24" from the groundJ. The Zacks have requested topping but have
nO~~~3n unfriendly or insistent about this. Three? years ago
the~ooscured a corner of Angel Island and some of the bay. The
Digger pine is a very sparce tree and in no way can be topped
without it looking like a trunk with needleless branches. There
is a Deodar cedar near which also cannot be topped since it is
pyramidal. The lilontereys and Table Mountains possibly could be
thinned, but many trees are in a line including some on Huntington
property, so it would be difficult to g~in much. uur trees have
given us valuable wind and sun protection and provide shelter and
food for birds and gray squirrels.
Sincerely,
L?:::OO~
EXHIBIT NO. <6
(
(
Joyce and Fred Nicholas
98 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
~~CC~O\yJ~[Q)
DEe 2 2 1;94
TOWN MN~AGfiR'S OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
December 1994
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
Dear Tiburon Town Council;
'RECEIVED
DEe 2 8 199&
TOWN OF TIBURON
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT,
I have reviewed the Boosalises plans for their new residence, and
agree with the Tiburon Design Review Boards approval dated
November 17, 1994, as well as the approval from Bruce E. Moody,
Chairman of the Mount Tiburon Architectural Supervision Committee
as stated in his letter dated October II, 1994.
Sincerely,
~~~~w~
Dated the ~ day of 1) 0-" _ '~\
EXHmLT NO. 9
(}t
~
JI~
~l
f
(
(
Bruce and Lois Moody
88 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
December 1994
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
~~~,
~~,.-,
DEe 2 8 1994
1";'
Re: Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
~ -
.,'}
I _ " ,.u, ___'_
~_._---,-~..~
Dear Tiburon Town Council;
I have reviewed the Boosalises plans for their new residence, and
agree with the Tiburon Design Review Boards approval dated
November 17, 1994, as well as the approval from Bruce E. Moody,
Chairman of the Mount Tiburon Architectural Supervision Committee
as stated in his letter dated October 11, 1994.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Dated the II day of 'Ws
, <1f
EXHIBIT NO. 10
(
(
Irving Moulin
80 Mount Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
December 1994
b:::C;,
"." ~
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
DEe 2 8 1994
Re: Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon
Dear Tiburon Town Council;
I have reviewed the Boosalises plans for their new residence, and
agree with the Tiburon Design Review Boards approval dated
November 17, 1994, as well as the approval from Bruce E. Moody,
Chairman of the Mount Tiburon Architectural Supervision Committee
as stated in his letter dated October II, 1994.
Sincerely,
\__.:QGV,-,\ ( C(Ct~"'
,\
D~t;!the-L.a-aayoc--r2-I9' 4/,
.Lf- I I
EXIDBIT NO. II
P.01
Reed Ranch Road Subdivision
Architecture Review Subcommittee
Tibut'on Town Council
Tiburlln Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
ApplIcation fot' 102 Mount TibuIon
Dear Councllmembers,
I am writing on behalf of our Architectw'al Committee regardIng the appeal of the
application for development of J 02 Mount Tlburon, that the Council will be hearing on
January 4, 1995 We feel that you should reverse the approval C'fDeslgn Review, and
force the applicant to take appropriate steps to mitigate view obstruction of the existing
neighbors,
Our Architectural Committee has been very active III ollr role of enforCing TJburon view
ordtnances and our CC&Rs In matters that involve our subdIVision In this role, we work
tomaintain harmony in our neJghborhood, and keep many mattters and dIsputes from
reaching DeSign Review and Town Council Our guiding principles have always
included the requirement that all pOSSible reasonable accomodation be made in new
construction to not interfere with eXisting property In general, Jt IS a principle that
serves us well,
Several members of our subdiVision have acquamted me WIth the Issue of the proposed
building of 102 Mount Tiburon I have reviewed the property in question, and find that
there are many things the new homeowner could reasonably do to accomodate existing
homes'views, I am frankly quite surprised that Design Review approved such an
applicatIon (they certailnly didn't yield the first sC'vC'raltImes my home was considered'),
although I understand the vote was close, and the architects on the Board opposed the
proposed building
I am taking the tJme to write thIS because I belIeve strongly in the prinCIples of orderly
development, including accomodation ofvlC'ws When DC'slgn I{evlew strays from these
pnnciples. it is up to Town Council to correct the Situation, Please give this Issue all due
~'onsideration,
Smcerely.
~~
EXHIBIT NO. 12
Ian H Alunan CJ
~/u:..k"L(fr,.....~ tV""':'"
.
,
r
(
.
"
LAW OFFICES OF VERNON C. WATTERS
930 MONTGOMERY STR!:.E:T
PENT....OUSl!:
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94133
(41$1 3g;i!-0300
TEl..E:COPIl!::R (41$) 434.3983
December 23, 1994
~"
&,~7A..:-._ ".~..,t t
L.:....~~r;uf.;:;.;~(.'....,..i...,j
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
-
~I;C 2 8 1994
r~'-:-"-~l
r-~
C L..~ '...' ,
__, J
"-".
Re: Appeal of Design Review Board Decision,
November 17, 1994, approving residence
for 102 Mt. Tiburon proposed by
Gus and Kari Boosalis, Applicants
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This is written on behalf of our
Boosalis, in regard to the appeal of the
Review Board decision by the owners of 99
clients, Gus and Kari
above-referenced Design
Mt. Tiburon.
We submit that the Design Review Board decision should be let
stand because the appellants have failed to state reasons why the
decision resulted either from: 1) a failure to follow prescribed
procedures and consider prescribed guidelines, or 2) an error or
abuse of discretion. These are the only two bases on which an
appeal may be upheld. As set forth below, the Boosalises have
followed all prescribed procedures before the body to which the
Town Council has delegated the authority to perform design reviews
and have complied with the letter and spirit of all applicable
guidelines. Considerations of due process and the recognized
interest in providing reasonably expeditious and certain results
after meeting all specified requirements require the Town Council
to decline to uphold and appeal under these circumstances
(Government Code Section 65921).
The procedure for appeal and the standard of review for such
an appeal are set forth in Section 3.08.00 APPEALS, Subchapter 3.
Chapter 16: Zoning, Tiburon Town Code as follows:
"3.08.01. Filing.
Appeals shall be filed in writing with the Town Clerk on
a prescribed form, accompanied by the appropriate fee,
within ten (10) days following the date of the decision
being appealed.
EXHIBIT NO. 13
.
.
(
(
~
Town Council
Town of Tiburon
Re: 102 Mt. Tiburon
December 27, 1994
Page 2
The appellant shall state specifically the reasons why
the decision is not in accord with the ourooses of this
Ordinance, Q.I: the reasons it is claimed there was an
error or abuse of discretion such that the decision is
not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise
improper." [Emphasis supplied]
The first standard review referring to "the purposes of this
ordinance" must refer to Subchapter 4, ZONING PERMITS, of the Town
Code since the provisions of Subchapter 3 are purely procedural.
The purpose of design review is set forth in Section 4.02.00, ~
PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, of Subchapter 4, which provides:
"4.02.01. Purpose.
The purpose of Site Plan and Architectural Review is to
determine comoliance with this Ordinance and to oromote
the orderly develooment of the Town, the oreservation of
its unique visual character and the public health
safetv and welfare, by preventing the erection of
structures, additions and alterations thereto, which are
not properly related to their sites, adj acent uses,
traffic circulation in the vicinity, and by preventing
the indiscriminate clearing of property, excessive
grading, and the unnecessary destruction of trees and
shrubbery. " [Emphasis supplied]
Subchapter 4 goes on to set forth the procedures and
guidelines for achieving orderly development in considerable
detail, specifying the projects for which approval is required
(Section 4.02.02), which include a proposed new residence, the
guiding principles to be considered stated in very general terms
(Section 4.02.06), site development criteria to be considered
stated in very general terms and floor area ratios which are stated
in very specific terms (Section 4.02.07). The Design Review Board
is also directed to use two specific publications to aid in its
consideration of a proposed project, the Town of Tiburon Desicn
Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings and the General Desicn Guidelines
for New Construction and New Dwellinc (Section 4.02.09).
In other words, the puroose of the Ordinance is to ensure that
an orderly process is followed in which consideration is given to
certain guidelines. It does not mandate any particular result,
except to a certain degree with respect to floor area ratio. The
appellants here make no argument that the process was not fully
complied with. There were two hearings at which a great deal of
evidence was presented, there were major compromises both before
the first hearing and between the first and second hearing to take
.
(
(
"
Town Council
Town of Tiburon
Re: 102 Mt. Tiburon
December 27, 1994
Page 3
evidence was presented, there were major compromises both before
the first hearing and between the first and second hearing to take
into account guideline considerations and the full Design Review
Board was present and voted at the November 17, 1994 hearing. The
appellants just do not like the compromise that was ultimately
approved.
Since the purpose of the Ordinance has been met, the first
standard of review set forth in Section 3.08.01, the Town Council
should not overturn the decision of the Design Review Board unless
it finds the Design Review Board's decision was an "error or abuse
of discretion," the second standard of review set forth in Section
3.08.01. No such error or abuse of discretion appears here.
The following references are to the Tiburon Design Guidelines
for Hillside Dwellings. The interest of the owner of a proposed
new residence in obtaining access to views similar to those enjoyed
from existing residences is of equal dignity with the interest of
the owner of an existing residence in preserving views (Goal 3,
Preamble). Compromise is inevitable (Goal 3, Preamble). Existing
views can only be preserved within reason (Goal 3, Principal 3).
As set forth below, the Boosalis' proposed design is well
wi thin each applicable quantitatively stated guideline and they
have done much more than their share of the compromising to achieve
the general principles set forth in the guidelines.
The proposed residence is less than 25 feet in height, 5 plus
feet under the 30 foot height limit (Goal 2, Principal 13).
The proposed residence is located on the lot so as to minimize
inference with the appellants' views (Goal 3, Principal 1).
The proposed residence does not block the views from the
appellants' "ceremonial" rooms. The appellants' 180"+ panoramic
views from the primary "ceremonial rooms" along the front line of
their house are not affected. The complaint, at most, is that the
view from a den located at ground level at the south end of their
house (which appears to be related in function to the adj acent
swimming pool) is "marred" by the proposed residence. Note that
the guidelines contemplate that it may be necessary to compromise
views even from the "ceremonial" rooms. Existing homeowners must
accept such compromise as much as they may not like it (Goal 3,
Principal 7 Preamble). However, no such significant compromise is
needed here.
The proposed residence does not cut the horizon line of the
appellants' view (Goal 3, Principal 7B).
.
(
(
,
..
Town Council
Town of Tiburon
Re: 102 Mt. Tiburon
December 27, 1994
Page 4
The appellants' view is a wide panoramic view which can accept
more view blockage than a smaller view (Goal 3, Principal 7E).
Finally, note that the postulates of reason and compromise set
forth in the guidelines suggest that the appellants, who have the
high ground and nothing but a water tank behind them, should
themselves contribute to the preservation or enhancement of their
views by opening up the windows on their second story or even
putting a second floor on their den rather than demanding that the
Boosalis sink their house further into the ground at a much greater
cost and with a significant loss of view.
Finally, the appellants' appeal was filed late. The Design
Review Board rendered its decision November 17, 1994. The appeal
must be filed "wi thin ten (10) days." Section 3.08.01. The
general rule of construction is that a time limit stated in days
means calendar days with an extension for a holiday only if the
date on which the act was to be performed falls on the holiday. In
computing time, the first day is excluded and the last day is
included unless it is a holiday. See Government Code Sections 6800
and 6806. The tenth day here would have been November 27, 1994.
However, that is a Sunday so the appeal should have been filed
November 28, 1994. It was filed November 30, 1994, two days late.
We understand that the Town's staff has counted time differently on
occasion and accommodated late filed appeals, but it cannot do that
wi thout trampling on the due process rights of persons in the
Boosalis' position.
The Boosalises have two young children and are living in a
temporary rental residence waiting to get their new home built.
Having followed all the rules, they have a strong interest in
knowing that when a certain date passes, they have finally reached
the end of the process. For the reasons stated above, the decision
of the Design Review Board should clearly be left alone. If an
appeal such as this is upheld, there is really no purpose served by
the delegation of authority to the Design Review 80ard. The Town
Council will have to revisit every decision for someone who wants
just one more foot trimmed off a residence that is on the periphery
of their view.
Respectfully submitted,
VLMt-m (J.. lf~ 1;
Vernon C. Watters d'~
VCW:tv
140.01\boosalis\eiburon2.1tr
cc: Gus and Kari 800salis
)
(
(
.'
.\ "
KARl & GUS BOOSALIS
58 Topside Way
Mill Valley, CA 94941
415381-0278
December 27,1994
Town Council
TOWN OF TIBURON
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
,
I'
"
DEe 2 8 1994
;~.
U)
Re: Boosalis Residence
102 Mount Tiburon Road
. ~ ~ ~:_~,,"'~=~,;~J
l.-_-'-C__"_
- ~-,
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On January 4, 1995 you will hear the appeal Howard & Diane Zack of the Design
Review Board's approval of our home at 102 Mount Tiburon Road, We would appreciate
your consideration of the concessions we have made in its design as well as the concerns
we have as to the impact of those concessions,
Both Gus and I have living parents and a large, extended family, We intend to use
our home not only for ourselves and our children, but to accommodate visits from that
family, Gus' parents are 70 years old and, after they can no longer care for themselves,
this may also be where they reside, Many of the features we would like to have
incorporated into this home (such as handicapped accessibility) have been sacrificed out of
our concern for its impact on our neighbors,
Please consider the following:
1), When we purchased this lot, we received a design from Bruce Moody with
floor plan levels at elevation 510' that would have maximized the views from all levels of
the house, We voluntarily lowered the floor level to 505,8' to enhance the Zack's view,
with the resulting loss of over 50% of the view from our great room (our only ceremonial
room) and lowered the kitchen and dining area to 507,8', adding steps in the process,
2), We have removed cupolas from the great room, dining room and master
bedroom suite hallway which would have provided natural light and ventilation, as well as
being an important design element,
3), We have lowered the floor level of the garage with a resulting need for
stairs (at substantially increased cost), as well as moving the guest room away from the
garage (at the Zack's request), resulting in the complete loss of view from that room,
~XHIBIT NO...J.:i.
-j
,
(
(
~
4), The entire home has been moved to the East, into the hillside, resulting not
only in a significant loss of mature trees and the necessity of a six foot retaining wall, but
at an added cost of approximately $100,00000 (confirmed by two builders),
5), All roof pitches have been lowered to almost a flat pitch, resulting in a
borderline situation for the slate roof (or any other rooffor that matter) we selected to
enhance the appearance of the property,
6), We have eliminated a second fireplace in order to minirnized the profile of
the chimney which impacted the Zack's view,
We have purchased a beautiful view lot in Tiburon which Mr, Moulin had
previously saved as one of the "best in his development", This lot deserves a home that is
worthy of it, With great effort, we have developed a home that is respectful of our
neighbors and yet provides us with some degree of privacy, being surrounded on three
sides with streets, The home allows our bedroom to be near those of our 2 small children
and allows us the opportunity to entertain and join together as a family, Unlike the Zack's,
who have magnificent, panoramic views ofMt. Tamalpais, Sausalito and Richardson Bay,
as well as San Francisco (from the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate), our only view is that
of San Francisco,
In the past, this lot has been enjoyed by the some of our neighbors as open space,
many of whom hoped that Mr, Moulin would,gift the property to the Homeowners
Association, To properly utilize our view, our main floor should be at elevation 510' or
511', Realizing, however, that we should respect those neighbors and design a home that
would minimize its impact upon them, we have made many, substantive concessions,
The Zacks did not purchase our lot. However, the design they wish to impose on
this property would substantially deny any owner even a reasonable view, nothing like the
one they currently enjoy and which will remain after our home is built. Simply put, the
Zacks wish to use the Design Review process to maintain views from every room of their
home at the expense of their neighbors, With relatively minor changes to their home, the
Zacks could totally mitigate any impact that the construction of our home would have on
their views but, even if thev elect to do nothing. their views will remain vastly superior to
ours,
We appreciate your consideration,0
Sincerely,
~,'&/,kJ ~C2
Kari & Gus Boosalis
(
99 MI. Tiburon Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
December 20, 1994
Mr, Robert Kleinert
Town Manager
Town ofTiburon
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
BY FAX; 435-2438
Dear Mr. Kleinert.
r-'-l<,;:l~ UJ.
(
fr:
UO
tit
RECEIVED
DEe 2 B 1994
TOWN OF TlBURON
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT.
We are writing to inquire about the order in which agenda items are to be heard in the upcoming
Town Council meeting on January 4, 1995. ,
We are the appellant in a DRB case involving 102 MI. Tiburon Road and our aPPeal is slated to be
heard by Council on January 4. We realize thaI the mosl prominent matter that evening will be the
Council's ongoing Town Hall deliberations,
Our appeal centers around a proposed home which impllcts other neighbors, who also intend to be
at that January 4 meeting. We are writing to !\!quest, if at all possible. that our matter can be heard
before the Town HaIl matter is discussed, so that Mt. Tiburon residents can come __ and leave _
without having to be on hand for the duration of what is expected to be a protracted Town Hall
discussion, Our COncern is that if our matter is scheduled to be heard after the Town Hall, the hour
will be quite late and many of the interested neighborhood residents win not be able to remain
present, 10 air their concerns,
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
RespectfuIl y.
~/~~~
Diane & Howard lack.
EXHIBIT NO. IS-
',\ .
(
(
~~~~n'W~[g
DEe 2 3 1994
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
THE
PRATT
COMPANY
~
lIP
IjO
f,/O
(
"
December 22, 1994
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
" ,RE:;,Application
:~ri~5~;!t/i~,~:f~;gi~Z:~i\',;:~:'.,'.',.:!", .,',
",k'.i/-'~":T' :" Dear Members of
_ ''-''j.
For Tiburon Road - Boosalis
RECEIVED
DEe 2 8 199A
TOWN OF TIBURON
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT.
the Council,
"./"':'
I am writing to you in connection with the application of Mr. and
Mrs. Boosalis to build a home at 102 Mt. Tiburon Road across from
our residence at 95 Mt. Tiburon Road.
We support the appeal filed by Mr. and Mrs. Zack, 99 Mt. Tiburon ~
Road. We object to certain items of the approval, and support the
objections of neighbors to other aspects of the plans.
, ' ~
1. Driveway Location: We object to the location of the driveway
in that it is directly opposite our driveway entrance as well
as our neighbors' and the three driveways together will create
a substantial probability of an accident occurring. Our
neighbors and the Boosalis's both have young children, and the
driveway locations presents the chance that an accident will
occur. The proposed driveway location also represents poor
design from an aesthetic standpoint. The driveway can be
relocated to serve the applicant's needs.
The applicant's design establishes an elevation that raises
the house too high for the neighborhood. It is a massive
:structure and its foundation elevation creates a large mass
density in relation to the neighborhood. If the house were
lowered that mass density would not affect the neighbors as
much.
3. Most importantly the elevation of the house blocks primary
views, and that violates the CC&R's and the City's Ordinances,
in particular the Hillside Guidelines. This is the most
significant violation of the application, and is a clear basis
for remanding to the Design Review Board for a reduction in
the elevation of the entire residence.
425 Market Street. Suite 1010
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415/495-8710 Fax: 415/495-8797
RRP Development Co. loe.
Real Estate Development
1626 N, Main Street
Salinas. CA 93906
P~WNO:~t.9-3255
.
, ~ ,"",\,
(
(
',t, ,
'~'Y:\;;;\':;0;~,L"
.':.'. ,J'
,:'
"-'" ~,'-,'.' \ ,.
.'"\ " ," .'r'
:;':~::";';'~;""..";,:< j
, ~ '. '
.. Very specifically, upon review of the lot, the story poles,
':.' ".. and the views from the applicant's lot, there is no question
that an extremely attractive view is available ,to the
applicant from a lower elevation. In fact, the "applicants
could have relocated the house more to the east and have
. created an even more substantial view at the eastern section
'. of the lot. However, since they have chosen to spread the
house throughout the lot, they must be governed by the
j,Hillsi.:de Guidelines.
Ir:'
"
',',I
l"
"Property owners must remember that their proposed dwelling
will have a substantial impact on neighboring properties; this
,..,', ;':;' impact MUST BE MINIMIZED in every way reasonably possible."
,...,."?;::'~":,!~0,'j.f:;~No single item, with regard to his dwelling, is more precious
..,;:;:;,~i):,...:..:::I.'>:i';;..l:to the resident of Tiburon than his view." "Roof lines and
::;.;'Lr:':,;?:./C,'^/"', wall lines should be considered carefully to avoid view
",..,,',',.,' 'problems."
", "
,','."
q'
,
In this case, it is clear that there is an obstruction of a
major view, and that obstruction violates the City's rules ,"
regarding views. The applicant's response does not constitute
an effort to minimize the problem "in every way reasonably
possible" .
Simply put, an applicant cannot raise the elevation to create a
view, and thereby block a neighbor's view. Our objections rest
upon the principle that the neighborhood and all of the people
living within the neighborhood have adhered to and lived bv the
City Ordinances and the CC&Rs, and we must ask the Town Council to
enforce those same principles which have been in effect and
followed by the community for many, many years.
We appreciate your consideration of the foregoing.
.i,
ours,
'\~~'~ .
'".:",."
':~7;~r :', '.
THE
PRATT
COMPANY
-
December 30, 1994
[gi ~ cere: D ~[! [Q)
DEe 3 0 1994 ~:IS p.f
TOWN MANAGER'S OFFice
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: 102 Mount Tiburon Road
Dear Members of the Town Council,
We are the homeowners who are apppealing the recent DRB decision
on 102 Mt. Tiburon Road. We are writing to correct and refute a
number of glaring misstatements made by the applicant at 102
Mount Tiburon Road. We regret not being able to submit a more
comprehensive response, however we were away for the Holidays
and learned only yesterday of the applicant's various submissions to
you during the past week. In order to outfit you with an accurate,
albeit skeletal, perspective, below is a brief recap of some key issues.
1. The proposed home significantly mars from our main ceremonial
rooms the crown jewel elements of our primary southerly view to
San Francisco: the Bay Bridge, Alcatraz, downtown skyline,
Embarcadero and Angel Island. This is a far cry from the applicant's
assertion that their home has a "peripheral" impact on us and that
they have hewed to the letter of the Tiburon Design Guidelines for
Hillside Dwellings. While we acknowledge their attempts, the
applicant has fallen well short of honoring those Guidelines, which
state unequivocally, "blockage of important objects in the view (such
as Angel Island etc.) is more difficult to accept than others;" and
"Property owners must remember that their proposed dwelling Win
have a substantial impact on neighboring properties; this impact
MUST BE MINIMIZED in every way reasonably possible." This has not
occurred.
The applicant can readily accommodate our reQuest with no harm to
them and yet. such a slight modification makes an enormous
permanent difference to preserving our views and our orooert;y
value. Notably, the two dissenting votes in the DRB decision were cast
by professional architects who also believed the proposed design
could well withstand additional modifications and height reduction,
without harm to the applicant.
2. The applicant's contention that they have been so responsive and
willing to compromise and that they have cooperated throughout is
simply NOT the case.
The facts are otherwise. They claim to have "started" with a design at
elevation 510', done by architect Bruce Moody, upon purchasing the
lot. In fact, this was a pre-existing plan that Mr. Moody, as the son-
in-law of the seller of the lot (Mr. Irving Moulin), furnished to the
Boosalises as a courtesy at sale. This plan was never submitted to
Design Review for it was unworkable and would never have been
approved by Design Review. Nonetheless, the applicant insistently
returns to this hollow starting point every time they chronicle their
history of "compromise." In reality, they have only lowered the
house from their fIrst design submission to DRB, to the fmal
approval, by 6 to 12 inches.
Moreover, the impression of cooperation they have tried to convey is
misleading. For example, our architect , Colleen Mahoney, retained
by us to be a liaison to the applicant's architect, offered assistance to
Mr. Dovolis, immediately following the first DRB hearing. He never
contacted her to discuss the many constructive, minor suggestions
she furnished.
3. It is not true that the applicant's only view is that of San Francisco.
If you walk on their property you will see that they have a
sweeping, unencumbered magnificent view from San Francisco to
the Golden Gate Bridge and around to Sausalito and beyond. We
don't understand how they can claim they only have a "slot" view.
The applicant will enjoy commanding views from throughout their
home. The basis of our appeal -- to lower their home an addditional
3 feet - will NOT change the attractiveness of their views. Their
assertion that our percentage view loss will be negligible and theirs
will be enormous is exagerated and unquantifiable.
4. We have NEVER reoriented or remodeled our home to capture the
primary, southerly San Francisco view. We bought our home over 5
years ago on the heels of losing our home in San Francisco to the
1989 earthquake. That experience led us to structurally reinforce our
Tiburon home which included putting in a steel girder in our dining
room and adding shear wall reinforcement. Additionally, we
remodeled existing bathrooms and upgraded some existing windows.
Our home's footprint and layout is EXACTLY as we bought it. The
applicant's notion that we now remodel and reorient our home to
work around their view obstruction is lamentable.
5. The applicant's proposed home does NOT enjoy neighborhood-wide
support; on the contrary it has polarized the neighborhood. The 3
recent letters of support on the applicant's behalf include Irving
Moulin, the seller of the lot to the applicant, who did not identify
himself as such in his letter and Lois and Bruce Moody, the daughter
and son-in-law of the seller, Irving Moulin. All 3 of the letters come
from neighbors who live BELOW the proposed dwelling, who are not
impacted at all by this home. Those who live ALONGSIDE the
proposed home have a host of concerns, ranging from lighting and
night pollution, to an errantly placed driveway to view obstruction.
Separately, we understand the applicant will be providing a cherry-
picker viewing opportunity for you next Tuesday. If you avail
yourself of this site visit, in fairness we respectfully request that
you ask to see the view from elevation one foot, two feet and three
feet lower than the current Great Room and dining room approved
heights, 505.8 and 507.10 respectively. We feel confident that you
will see for yourself that our request to modestly lower the house is
reasonable and will not adversely affect the Boosalises view.
We bought our home with an eye to enjoying these Mt. Tiburon
environs for a lifetime with our growing family. We chose our
particular home expressly for its arresting City view. We always
recognized that one day a home would be built across the street, but
we never expected to encounter a design that would so impair our
primary view as this one does. -
Thank you for your consideration of upholding our appeal. We look
fOlWard to being with you on January 4. Best wishes for a Happy,
healthy New Year.
Sincerely,
~tS~
Diane and Howard lack
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING:
JANUARY 4, 1995
FROM:
FINANCE DIRECTOR
ITEM NO:
~o
SUBJECT: TOWN COMPUTER SYSTEM
Background:
This item is concerning replacement of computer equipment in Town Administration offices,
This item is continued to the meeting of January 18, 1995, further study and information,
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, ~~
PLANNING DIRECTOi('''
MEETING DATE: 1/4/95
FROM:
ITEM NO.:
1/
SUBJECT: PREZONING AND ANNEXATION -- CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A
POLICY FOR ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS
BACKGROUND
Town Staff has recently met with the Executive Director of Marin
County's Local Agency Formation commission (LAFCO) concerning the
future of LAFCO's Dual Annexation Policy.
According to the Executive Director, one major concern expressed
by both LAFCO boardmembers and by prospective annexees to the
Town is that development patterns in existing unincorporated
neighborhoods may not correspond to existing zoning districts in
Tiburon, especially with regard to setbacks and lot coverage
limits. Residents of existing developed properties are concerned
that their homes will become "legal non-conforming structures"
upon annexation to Tiburon. Non-conforming structure status can
have adverse insurance and mortgage/lending implications for
property owners.
The LAFCO Executive Director suggested that the Town adopt a
policy formally expressing its willingness to accommodate
existing development patterns upon annexation to the Town.
ANALYSIS
Tiburon has an established history of making such accommodations,
but there is no written policy formalizing this approach.
For instance, during the West Tiburon annexation of 1985, the
Town agreed to perpetuate the existing front and side yard
setbacks for the Bel Aire Estates Subdivision, even though they
matched no existing zoning district setbacks in the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance. The pre-existing setbacks were honored by the
Town, and Bel Aire Estates now has its own zoning district, R-1-
BA (see Exhibit 1).
Staff believes that a formal written policy regarding such
annexations should be developed and adopted by the Council. A
draft of such language is attached as Exhibit 2. Staff believes
that utilization of "overlay zones" may be the best method to
incorporate existing neighborhood setbacks into the Tiburon
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
1/4/95
1
, Tiburon Town Code Chapter 16: Zoning
SUBCHAPTER 2: ZONES: ESTABLISHMENT AND REGULATION
Section 2.03.00. R-l-BA Zone Reaulations.
The Bel Aire Single Pamily Residential (R-l-BA) Zone serves the
same purpose as the R-l Zone but is intended to reflect the
different front and side yard setbacks historically found in the
Bel Aire neighborhood of Tiburon. The principal uses, conditional
uses, and land and structure regulations for the R-l-BA Zone shall
be the same as the R-l Zone except that the following front and
side yards are required: .
."
Minimum Front Yard: 20 feet.
Minimum Side Yard: ' 6 feet.
':"1,:.,
:.. u c~
'~_' r^
Ordinance No. 360 N.S.
Effective 12/26/90
.
Page
EXHIBIT NO.
49
,(
'-,
(
t:-
,
Zoning Ordinance. Use of overlay zones to specify setbacks,
coverage or other development standards does not require the
creation of new zoning districts, which is time-consuming and
expensive for the Town. An example of an overlay zone would be
RO-2 (25/10), a zone with an RO-2 base, but modified with a 25
foot front-yard setback and a 10 foot side yard setback (in lieu
of the standard 30 foot front and 15 foot side yard setbacks in
the plain RO-2 zone).
RECOMMENDATION
That the Town Council review the draft policy language, make any
desired changes, and adopt the Resolution.
EXHIBITS
1. R-I-BA zone regulations.
2. Draft Resolution.
prezonin.rpt
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
1/4/95
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ADOPTING A POLICY WITH RESPECT TO
PREZONING AND ANNEXATION OF ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon does from time to time prezone
and annex into the Town unincorporated territory consistent with
the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan; and
WHEREAS, upon occasion, such unincorporated territory is
already developed into an established neighborhood with specific
development patterns (setbacks, lot coverage limits, etc.) which
do not match existing zoning district regulations in the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance, and could result in the creation of numerous
"non-conforming structures" which were previously conforming; and
WHEREAS, in such instances, the Town believes that the
promotion of the general welfare dictates that creation of such
non-conformities be avoided where reasonably possible, along with
any disruption of established development patterns which could
result from an ill-fitting prezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Town does not intend this policy to be so
broadly applied that it perpetuates clearly sub-standard setbacks
or other development criteria which are detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following policy concerning
prezoning and annexation of established neighborhoods:
"Where appropriate, the Town will make use of overlay zones
or other zoning techniques to ensure that prezoning and
annexation of existing established neighborhoods does not
result in excessive creation of non-conforming structures,
nor unreasonably disrupt the existing pattern of development
of such a neighborhood."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Town Staff is directed to
incorporate this policy into the Tiburon General Plan at the
first convenient opportunity.
EXHIBIT NO.~
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular
of the Town of Tiburon held on
following vote:
meeting of the Town Council
, 1995, by the
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
THERESE M. HENNESSY, TOWN CLERK
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
\scott\prezone.res
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
TO:
JANUARY 4, 1995
ITEM NO: /~
SUBJECT: ABAG MOBILE POLICE TRAINING UNIT
TOWN COUNCIL
FROM:
TOWN MANAGER
---------------------------------------.------------------------------------------------------------.-
The ABAG Plan's new mobile police training unit is currently scheduled to
be in Tiburon for police training from March 29 to April 17, 1995.
This training unit is the first in the Nation, and consists of four (4)
computerized driving simulators which will test police officer driving skills and
reactions while in a police vehicle in simulated "dangerous" conditions. The
training unit also includes a laser-activated firearms training system used to
improve a Police Officer's judgement when the use of weapon is required.
p.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
(1995)
I. STATE. LOCAL & REGIONAL AGENCIES
(Appointee & Delegate)
1. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
Nicky Wolf - Delegate
Mark Ginalski - Alternate
2. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AGENCY /CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
Karen Nygren - Delegate
Andrew Thompson - Alternate
3. ABAG
Andrew Thompson - Delegate
Mark Ginalski - Alternate
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTCOMMITfEE(CDBG)
Jerry Thayer - Delegate
Nicky Wolf - Alternate
5. RICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY
Andrew Thompson - Delegate
Nicky Wolf - Alternate
6. MARIN HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE IPA
Karen Nygren - Delegate
Nicky Wolf - Alternate
7. FIRE CONSOLIDATION STUDY
Jerry Thayer - Delegate
Nicky Wolf - Alternate
II. STANDING COMMITfEES
1. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION
Jerry Thayer
Nicky Wolf
2. PUBLIC SERVICES
Karen Nygren
Jerry Thayer
3. LANDS & DEVELOPMENT
Karen Nygren
Andrew Thompson
4. LEGAL
Mark Ginalski
Jerry Thayer
-
III. MCCMC APPOINTMENTS
Elected by MCCMC
1. Marin Economic Commission
Andrew Thompson
A.vpointed by MCCMC President
1. MCCMC Legislative Committee
Nicky Wolf
Appointed by MCCMC City Selection Committee
1. ABAG Executive Board
Andrew Thompson (Alternate)
2. LAFCO
Jerry Thayer
3. Marin County Transit District Board of Directors
Karen Nygren
4. CAL-ID Remote Access Network
Jerry Thayer
Town Appointments to MCCMC
1. CATV - Joint Powers Authority
Mark Ginalski
2. Hazardous & Solid Waste IPA
Karen Nygren
3. North Bay Division - LCC
Nicky Wolf
4. Marin Community Foundation
Karen Nygren
oj.
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
fJ.
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN STAFF
DECEMBER 28, 1995
FROM: MAYOR THOMPSON
SUBJECf: 1995 TOWN GOALS AND TEAM BUILDING
-----------.-.------------.-------.-----.-.--.......---------------------------.-..-..-----.------------------------------
Welcome back! I hope everyone enjoyed the holidays. Thank you for your vote of
confidence. This year should be an exciting one because we have so many opportunities as
well as pressing needs ahead of us. In order to make 1995 as productive and efficient as
possible, I would like to propose the following process for building Tiburon's 1995 common
goals.
First, I would like to reiterate my request that everyone bring to the January 4 Town
Council meeting their top five Tiburon priorities for 1995. I have already asked the Staff
to develop their own list of goals and begin preparing a preliminary draft agenda that covers
the year. Second, at the January 4 meeting, I would like to discuss the idea of using the
Town Retreat to build a common agenda that we can all get behind. Like any well run
organization, we need a vision that allows us to move forward together. Then, if you agree,
the Town Retreat would focus on a discussion of the draft agenda. Although it is impossible
to predict all the items thafwe will face during the coming year, this approach will help us
plan and prepare today for what we need to achieve tomorrow.
It is no mystery that the Town Hall issue has created some controversy and contention at
the Council meetings. This is sometimes a difficult part of democracy. However, I know
we have it in us to wipe the slate clean and move forward in a constructive tone in 1995.
Additionally, please find enclosed the Committee assignments for your review. Please call
me with any discrepancies or desired changes.
Finally, on the humorous side (and literally team building), I have heard that both Staff and
DRB are putting together teams to challenge the Council in the Tiburon Triathalon to be
held in August. Is there anyone else crazy enough to jump in the Bay with us?
Andrew Thompson
Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Boards
Commissions
Committees
Appointees