Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1997-11-18 /W c);~ TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ADJOURNED MEETING TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BL YD. MEETING DATE: MEETING TIME: CLOSED SESSION: NOVEMBER 18, 1997 7:30 P.M. 7:00 P.M. PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all points of view, members of the audience should: (1) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Limit Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak Directly into Microphone. A. ROLL CALL B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any) C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Please confine your comments during this portion o/the agenda 10 malters not already on this agenda, other than items on the ConsenJ 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 (]) minllles. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee orStafffor consideration and/or placed on afuture meeting agenda. D. COUNCIL, COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 1) TffiURON BOULEVARD/BELVEDERE LAGOON DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS - (Andrew Thompson) E. CONSENT CALENDAR The purpose of the Consent Calendar IS to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will probab~v be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Tuwn Council, Town Staff. or the Puhlic may request removal of an item for discussion. 2) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - September 30, 1997 - (Accept) 3) TOWN COUNCIL SIGNATURE AUTHORITY - (Adopt Resolution) 4) MONTHL Y POLICE STAT1STICS - October, 1997. (Receive) 5) AMICUS REQUEST. Mifagra Ridge Partners, LId. V City of Pacifica - (Approve) F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6) "AMERICA RECYCLES DA Y"- Belvedere/Tiburon Recycling Committee Recommendations. (Adopt Resolution) 7) APPLICATIONS TO TOWN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES - (Determine Interview Schedule and Procedure) G. NEW BUSINESS 8) TOWN COUNCIL ORIENTATION - (Discussion and Status of Current Town Projects and Activities) H. PUBLIC HEARING 9) MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE - Establishment of the Marin Telecommunications Agency, Delegating Authority thereto, Assigning Existing [Cable TV] Contracts, and Repealing Conflicting prior Actions - (First Reading by Title Only) I. COMMUNICA TIONS 10) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM - (Application Information for 1998-99) J. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS K. ADJOURNMENT Future AfJenda Items --Flood Plain Improvements - (December 3) NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL DATE OF MEETING: November 18, 1997 No, 18-1997 Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq" the Town Council will hold a Closed Session, More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9a) Name of Case: Allen and Rose Finl!erhut v. Town of Tiburon, a Municioal Corporation; Tiburon Town Council: Terrv Hennessv. Jerrv Thaver. Mark Ginalski, Andrew TllOntoson. Nickv Wolf: and Does 1 throul!h 15. inclusive (Marin Superior Court Case No. 171918) TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: To: From: Subject: November 19, 1997 Item: 4Fc2 TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT - AS OF THE MONTH ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 TOWN OF TmURON Institution! Agency Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California $4,467,055 5.707% Liquid Local Agency Investment Fund Total Invested: $4,467,055 TffiURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Institution! Agency Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California $437,820 5,707% Liquid Local Agency Investment Fund Total Invested: $437,820 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 generally distributes data reports in the third week following the month ended, (Received October 29, 1997) 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: ~ G~--- Richard Stranz1, Finance Director November 3, 1997 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 18, 1997 TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION FOR ENDORSEMENT OF TOWN CHECKS (RESOLUTION) Item: 3 Meeting: To: From: Subject: Backeround: This item is administrative, and is for adoption of a resolution which indicates the Town Officials who have signature authorization for endorsement of checks of the Town ofTiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency. Discussion: Since previously adopted (February 1996) Mogens Bach, Tom Gram, and Harry Matthews have joined the Council and the Resolution must be modified and adopted again, and new signature cards provided to the Bank of America. Recommendation: Town Council adopt the attached Resolution which delineates signature authorizations for checks of the Town and Town Redevelopment Agency, Attachments: 1. Resolution (November 1997) ~2 _/ by: R. StranzI, Finance Director 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING AND ENDORSING OF CHECKS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF PAYMENT WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town ofTiburon to establish policies authorizing which employees and officials may sign and endorse checks and other instruments of payment on behalf of the Town, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Bank of America, Tiburon Branch, shall be the depository for all funds of the Town ofTiburon. Commercial accounts shall be established and maintained by and in the name of the Town ofTiburon and its Redevelopment Agency at the designated bank upon and subject to such terms as may be agreed to from time to time, 2, All checks, drafts and other instruments for payment from the Town's commercial General and Redevelopment Agency accounts in the amount of $2,500.00 or less, or relating to the Town's state and federal payroll tax obligations or PERS retirement or health insurance benefit obligations in any amount shall be signed on behalf of the Town by any two (2) of the following people: Town Manager Robert L. Kleinert, Finance Director Richard Stranzl, Town Treasurer, or any member of the current Town Council (Mogens Bach, Tom Gram, Therese Hennessy, Harry Matthews, Andrew Thompson). 3. All payrolVpayroll benefit checks shall be signed by the Town Manager, or in his absence, the Town Finance Director or Town Treasurer, or any member of the Town Council. 4. All other checks, drafts and instruments for payment shall be signed on behalf of the Town and its Redevelopment Agency by the Town Manager, Finance Director or Town Treasurer and by one member of the Town Council (Board of Directors of the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency). 5. All checks, drafts or other instruments for payment made payable to the Town of Tiburon may be endorsed for deposiJ by written or stamped endorsement in the name of the Town of Tiburon (Tiburon Redevelopment Agency) without individual signatures. 6. The Town Clerk is directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution to the Bank of America along with signature authorization forms which include signatures of the individuals currently holding the following positions: Town Manager, Finance Director, Town Treasurer, and Town Council members. The Town Clerk shall inform the Bank of America of any 1 changes in these positions and provide new signature cards when necessary. 7. The Bank of America is requested and authorized to honor, receive, certifY or pay any instrument signed or endorsed in accordance with this Resolution. This Resolution and signature authorization forms submitted by the Town Clerk shall remain in full force and effect, and the Bank is authorized and requested to rely and act thereon, until such time as the Bank receives written notice of any changes from the Town Clerk. As adopted this resolution replaces Resolution No. 3141 (1996) PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on November ---> 1997, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MAYOR Town ofTiburon ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK 2 Lk~ M.:t- Police Department 1 .~".,../of' T/€I ~ /';'~i, foy~.,~"", ~\ -"', /. ' ..,i'"I~ ',,,',te->,' .,," \~~/,/:_ -":;:'V-"o,<Oi ~ OIT"'-'A \~ ~ " TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: Members of the Tiburon Town Council Peter G. Herley, Chief of Police Statistical Overview - October, 1997 November 12, 1997 Attached is a monthly statistical overview of police activity for the month of October, 1997, and comparative statistics for the same month last year. Also included is a brief summary of various interesting incidents requiring police action. fl RL Y, CHIEF OF POLICE Tiburon Police Department Comparative Statistics October 1996 - October 1997 I 0/96 I 0/97 2Utd llitd 10/96 10/97 ~ llitd Part I Crimes II 12 133 128 ARRESTS Part II Crimes ..li .l2. .ill. .ill. TOTAL 47 34 457 383 Adult - Felony 0 I 9 21 Adult - Misdemeanor 16 12 142 87 Part I - Cleared 5 I 37 42 Juvenile - Felony I 0 6 8 Part II - Cleared ..li J.4. 111 .ill. Juvenile - Misdemeanor -L ....0.. JL ..lL TOTAL 31 15 250 216 TOTAL 18 13 173 127 Drunk Driving Arrests 7 4 41 26 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS 24 ~ Assault I 0 22 Robbery 0 0 I 0 Injury 3 3 16 13 Rape 0 0 2 0 Non-Injury .i. L .J.L .l.l. Homicide ...t. ...t. ...t. ...t. TOTAL 8 10 67 49 TOTAL I 0 25 24 CITATIONS ISSUED Moving 124 87 1154 658 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Parking 440 121. j092 Jill.. TOTAL 564 479 5246 4351 Burglary - Residential 3 0 12 6 Burglary - Commercial 0 0 4 9 ACTIVITY Burglary - All Other ..L -L ~ .l.O... TOTAL 4 3 23 3S Calls for Service 490 416 4790 440 I Theft - From Auto 0 0 17 4 PROPERTY Theft - Grand 4 5 29 30 Theft - Petty I 4 37 33 Property Stolen 12,828 6,397 218,558 119,685 Theft - GT A ..L ...t. ..L -L Property Recovered 8,990 1,030 23,188 23,534 TOTAL 6 9 84 69 TIBURON POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY RECAP October 1997 A Benicia resident reported his mother missing after he had not heard from her in over a week. She is a resident of Tiburon. Investigating Officers located her the next day by tracking down a taxi that had giver her a ride to Ross Hospital. A report was taken on a theft by fraud, A resident on Circle Drive reported that the apartment manager, who had his personal credit history from his rental application, had obtained credit fraudulently and charged over $12,000.00 against his credit. To date, we have learned that this suspect has 12 victims who have lost a cumulative total of just under $100,000.00. This case is currently under investigation. A TPC employee reported that she was being stalked by an old boyfriend, She told the Officer that she had dated a man only once in early 1996. Since that time he has persistently contacted her to continue the relationship. The subject was contacted and agreed to have no further contact with her. Officers responded to the rear deck of Sam's, where a patron who had been drinking heavily, had fallen into the water. The subject, who was unable to care for himself, was transported to Marin County Jail. A Hawthorne Drive resident fell asleep at the wheel, ran off the road and struck a utility pole on Tiburon Boulevard near Beach. Nobody was injured in this solo collision. Officers responded to a custody dispute on Janet Way, A recently divorced woman stated that persons were at her ex-husbands house, on Richardson Drive, that had no business being there. She was concerned about the welfare of her children. Marin County Sheriffs office did a welfare check on the children, who were fine. A woman reported having recently sold her home, and was missing a large amount of cash that had been in the house, The Officer responded and assisted her in reconciling what she had spent since the sale, and figured out that in fact nothing was missing! Officers responded to a report of a fight on Ned's Way. As the Officers arrived, three young men were seen running into the complex, Officers were able to locate the subjects, They had been drinking and practicing their gang fighting techniques, which had then gotten out of hand. One of the men was arrested for public intoxication, and one was cited for a probation violation. The other was reprimanded and released, Early one morning, a woman on Rolling Hills was heard screaming for help. Responding Officers learned from her that she had been fighting with her husband, who is somewhat senile. (Both subjects were extremely elderly). The husband agreed to go and was transported to the crisis unit to talk with personnel there. I A limo driver was stopped downtown for making a u-turn in front of the sign prohibiting it. It was then learned that his license had been suspended for failure to pay child support. (A new Law). This case has been sent to the DA's office for review, A Officer stopped a vehicle for a minor vehicle code violation. Before the Officer could tell the person why he was being stopped, the person told the Officer he was really sorry that the registration tabs on his vehicle did not belong to it. A registration check was run and it was learned that the vehicle had not been registered in over two years! The subject was arrested and released on a citation at the scene and the vehicle was impounded. Late one weeknight, an Officer saw a vehicle speeding out of Town. He attempted to stop the vehicle to warn him to slow down. Instead, the driver sped away and led Officers on a pursuit around the Strawberry Point peninsula. The driver crashed into the estuary on Seminary Drive, then proceeded to swim out into Richardson Bay. With assistance from Mill Valley, Sausalito, Marin County Sheriff's Office, and California Highway Patrol, the subject was eventually apprehended when he came out of the water in Sausalito. He was booked into Marin County Jail for felony evading arrest and a variety of other charges. The District Attorney's office enhanced his bail to $25,000.00 to ensure he would remain in custody to answer to the charges. He appeared in court earlier this week and pled guilty to the felony charges. He is being held at County Jail and will be sentenced early next month. On Halloween, Officers investigated a battery which occurred when a local employee guarding Belvedere Land Company property from vandalism alledgedly kicked a young juvenile during a confrontation. He also grabbed another juvenile and shook him. This case is being sent to the District Attorney's Office for review, Prepared by Sgt. Judd TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM Po/ice Department To: From: Subject: Date: Lieutenant Tom Aiello Sergeant David M, Hutton October Assist Outside Agency Statistics November 6, 1997 . . ;:;:..'~ OF r, ~"V'~ /0 . 1> I- ~',m"' -;' 0\ -()..(f>','-:~~ .:, 7/:<'- ':: ',' '~I,'..,.,'- / '-' "...... '" ~ "'0 :: ~.~;'- .,'" J?1\I1A \~(., " . . The following is an account of the Assist Outside Agency Statistics for our Department for the month of October 1997, as requested by the Town Council. The report is divided by watch. WATCH 1 Assist to Belvedere PD 6 Assist by Belvedere PD 13 Assist Marin County SO 2 Assist All Others 1 WATCH 2 Assist to Belvedere PD 6 Assist by Belvedere PD 4 Assist Marin County SO 2 Assist All Others 1 WATCH 3 Assist to Belvedere PD 6 Assist by Belvedere PD 5 Assist Marin County SO 2 Assist All Others 4 cc: Chief Herley ~-/P~ rf/ue y1cDo,<oCGH, HOLLA~m IX ;\LLEX .,~..ORCC':~S;;~~~c~~~RA"'O:J~ ';~7ll W1~ ~ , '- 1997 5 .~;p", ,~ 94612 '5"' ~-, ~ =:-t::_,-~ ,....ARCi-iETTA KENYON 51e' 1339-910..1. TOWN !.-1Ai~AGERS 'OFFICE"" ,,:., m. TCWN OF T/BURON " A"',"A 510 27,_g780 4,02 November 5, 1997 .", . 9599 J Re: Request to Join as an Amicus in the Court of Appeal Case of Milagra Ridge Partners. Ltd. v. City of Pacifica TO ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS: The Legal Advocacy Committee executive committee of the League of California Cities is urging cities to join in an amicus brief in support of the City of Pacifica in the above-referenced case currently pending in Division Five of the First Appellate District. The case involves a regulatory taking claim arising out of a successful referendum which invalidated the City of Pacifica's approval of a general plan amendment that would have allowed the development of a 66-lot subdivision. Appellant claims that the denial of the general plan amendment as a result of the successful referendum constituted a taking of its property. The lower court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and held as a matter of law that Milagra Ridge Partners' taking claim was unripe for review. Plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling. Briefing in the Court of Appeal was concluded on September 29, 1997. On October 14, 1997, Pacific Legal Foundation filed an Application to File a Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Milagra Ridge Partners, along with an amicus brief. The Court of Appeal granted Pacific Legal Foundation's request to file an amicus brief on October 28, 1997. The City has until December 1, 1997 to file a response to PLF's amicus brief. Ellison Folk of the firm Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger has agreed to prepare the amicus brief at the request of the executive committee of the Legal Advocacy Committee, The amicus brief will emphasize that property owners must submit at least one meaningful development plan that is consistent with the existing land use designations in order to ripen a takings claim. The brief will focus on the practical effects of a decision which holds otherwise, In the absence of a rejected proposal under the existing regulations, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine what was taken and the value of any take. The City has not had the opportunity to apply its regulations to the property in question. Although the successful referendum denied the property owner an anticipated redesignation of the property, it did California City Attorneys November 5, 1997 Page 2 not and could not provide any guidance as to how the City would apply existing general plan designations because Appellant has never made any application for development under these regulations. Without a final determination as to how a City will apply its regulations, it would be virtually impossible for a court to determine what beneficial use remains of the property and any value associated with that use. The amicus brief will focus on the importance of ripeness and the need to have a final determination as to the exact type of development that will be allowed on the property under the existing regulations. The amicus brief will also provide additional legal support for the principle that no taking claim can be stated for a failure to up-zone the property. Property owners have no vested right in existing or anticipated land use designations. The failure of the general plan amendment to take effect did not appropriate any valuable property rights of Appellant. At the crux of Appellant's claim is that it was deprived of an anticipated up-zone of the property to allow for more intensive development. This cannot form the basis for an unconstitutional taking claim. Finally, the amicus brief will also point out that Appellant's claim is merely a thinly veiled attempt to challenge the underlying general plan designations adopted permanently in 1988, While the claim appears to challenge the successful referendum, in reality it is the existing general plan designations which Appellant claims has denied it economic use of the property. Absent an application under existing regulations, any challenge to these underlying land use designations wO<lld be time-barred. This case is of major significance to cities in general because it could squarely address the question of ripeness in regulatory takings claims; in particular whether a taking claim challenging a successful referendum which merely rejects an anticipated redesignation of property can be considered ripe for adjudication. Moreover, this case could hold as a matter of law that a successful referendum cannot -support a claim for an unconstitutional taking, Finally, this case could provide valuable precedent to thwart future challenges to successful referenda by finding they are merely veiled attempts to challenge the underlying general plan designations and therefore are time- barred, These takings principles are all ones which have great significance to all cities facing regulatory takings challenges, We would be very grateful for your City's authorization to add its name to an amicus brief in support of the City of Pacifica in this important California City Attorneys November 5, 1997 Page 3 regulatory takings case. Enclosed is an "Authorization to Join Amicus Brief" which we would ask be returned at the address provided no later than November 26, 1997. Once again, thank you for your consideration of this request. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me at (510) 273-8780. Enclosure cc: JoAnne Speers !-IPA;f/o ~ TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN COUNCIL RECYCLING COMMITTEE "AMERICA RECYCLES DAY" NOVEMBER 18,1997 BACKGROUND In commemoration of the first annual "AMERICA RECYCLES DAY," (November 15,1997) the Recycling Committee presented a list of recommendations to the Town Council regarding policies on purchasing, source reduction, waste prevention, and recycling at the November 5, 1997 Town Council meeting, Members of the Recycling Committee were present and available for questions, At the recommendation of the Town Manager, the Recycling Committee was directed to meet with Superintendent of Public Works, Tony Iacopi, to specifically review items #10, and #12, At this meeting it was agreed that additional study would be needed to implement these recommendations, with the goal to implement by November 1998, The Recycling Committee will continue to discuss these issues with Public Works and report back to the Town Council with updates, RECOMMENDA nONS' As "America Recycles Day" is celebrated in November, the Recycling Committee recommends adoption of this resolution at the November 18, 1997 meeting, therefore establishing November as the month for annual reviews and updates of Tiburon's policies on purchasing, source reduction, waste prevention, and recycling issues, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCil.. OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON IN COMMEMORATION OF THE FIRST ANNUAL "AMERICA RECYCLES DAY" NOVEMBER 15,1997, AND ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL POLICIES REGARDING PURCHASING, SOURCE REDUCTION, WASTE PREVENTION, AND RECYCLING WHEREAS, the volume of municipal solid waste disposed of at Marin's landfills has not yet met the diversion goal of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (50% by the year 2000); and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon's participation in and promotion of source reduction, waste prevention and recycling programs can serve as a model to the community for reducing the volume of material entering the waste stream from the Tiburon Peninsula, thereby diverting refuse from landfills and reducing environmental impact and avoiding penalties; and WHEREAS, many of the materials that enter the waste stream can be recycled, reused, or incorporated into the manufacture of new products; and WHEREAS, the Town recognizes that for recycling programs to be effective, markets must be developed for products that incorporate postconsumer materials in their manufacture, are reusable, or are designated to be recycled; and WHEREAS, California State Law requires that local agencies buy recycled products if quality and price are equal to nonrecycled products, and allows local agencies to adopt purchasing preferences for recycled products; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Town Council that the Town of Tiburon adopts the following policies: 1. Prior to purchase of materials and supplies the Town shall take reasonable steps to determine whether the products being purchased contain recycled, reusable, or recyclable materials, 2, Preference shall be given in the purchasing of materials and supplies to products containing recycled, reusable, or recyclable materials, unless it can be demonstrated to the Town's satisfaction that these recycled products would not achieve the applicable performance standard, 3, A price preference, not to exceed fifteen (15) percent, may be given to recycled, reusable, and recyclable products, The preference percentage shall be based on the lowest bid or price quoted by the supplier offering non-recycled products, 4, When recycled products are used, reasonable efforts shall be undertaken to label the products to indicate that they contain recycled materials, for example: Town newsletters and reports to indicate "printed on recycled paper" 5, The Town shall undertake reasonable efforts to recycle materials, supplies, and equipment no longer needed by the Town, and to encourage its residents and commercial merchants to do the same, 6, The Town shall undertake reasonable efforts to avoid purchasing products with excess packaging and arrange return of delivery cartons to supply companies, 7, The Town shall encourage its residents, associations, clubs, and commercial merchants to purchase recycled, reusable, and recyclable products, and to increase their efforts to avoid purchasing products with excess packaging, 8, The Recycling Committee shall continue its efforts to educate and encourage its residents, homeowners associations, merchants, clubs, restaurants, and schools to practice source reduction and waste prevention, and to increase their participation in the local curbside recycling program, 9, The Town shall implement a waste prevention program within Town Hall, the Police Station, and the Public Works Department - serving both as a model for the community and reducing operating costs, e,g: discouraging avoidable or excess copying, encouraging two sided copying, pruning incoming and outgoing mailing lists, replacing disposable items with reusable materials, repairing rather than discarding, faxing and e-mailing whenever possible, 10, The Town shall provide collection receptacles for recyclables in the public areas ;iowntown and in its public parks and recreation areas, Current receptacles can be converted with steel liners that separate recyclables from trash or "recycle only" containers installed, This program will require further study in regards location and pick-up, with the goal to implement by November 1998, 11, The Town shall require that for all Special Event Permits, large & small, the group or sponsor of the event must provide a plan for recycling, The event sponsor must provide collection containers for recyclables, or arrange with Mill Valley Refuse to provide temporary containers & pick -up 12, The Town shall establish a policy within its Public Works Department whereby all landscape green waste is collected and stored separately from refuse, so that it can be diverted from landfill to the "green can" compost program, This policy will require further study in regards selecting a location for collection of green waste, with the goal to implement by November 1998 13, The Town will appoint an In-House Recycling Coordinator and an informal In-House Waste Prevention Committee to assess, establish and monitor waste prevention efforts, develop solutions, explore streamlining (paper trail) efforts in regards to review and approval processes, educate co-workers in waste prevention techniques, provide incentives, and encourage the behavioral changes and cooperation needed to prevent waste and increase recycling, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on November 18, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: THERESE HENNESSY, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE Town Clerk Ii:: AJo l J.--:ft'1v>- o.---L- TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN MANAGER TOWN CLERK TOWN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS - IMMEDIATE & PENDING VACANCIES November 18, 1997 Per your request, the following is a list of immediate and pending vacancies on Town Council Boards, Commissions & Committees: IMMEDIATE OPENINGS --PLANNING COMMISSION - (2) --RECYCLING COMMITTEE - (1) These vacancies have been posted and applications submitted, PENDING VACANCIES --PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION - (1) --TOWN TREASURER" --JT. RECREATION COMMITTEE" - (1) --DISASTER ADVISORY COUNCIL" - (1) --DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE" - (1) 'These openings have occurred due to the recent election, TOTAL IMMEDIATE & PENDING VACANCIES = 8 Also, attached is a copy of Town Council Resolution No, 3212 which details the procedure for making appointments to Town Council Boards, Commissions and Committees, . /7/~~. D.L. Crane Town Clerk Attachment r l L RESOLUTION NO. 3212 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A PROCEDURE GOVERNING APPOINTMENTS TO TOWN BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon appoints the membership ofa number of standing boards, commissions and committees, whose members are volunteers and serve at the pleasure of the Council; and WHEREAS, such standing boards, commissions and committees serve a vital role in the efficient administration of the Town; and WHEREAS, in order to encourage more persons to serve as volunteers on the Town's standing boards, commissions and committees, the Town wishes to adopt a formal procedure for the recruitment and selection of members of said standing boards, commissions and committees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon that the following procedure is adopted effective April 1, 1997 to govern the recruitment and selection of members to those regular and ongoing boards, commissions and committees whose members are appointed by the Council. 1. In December of each calender year, the Council shall adopt a Local Appointments List. The Local Appointments List shall contain the following information: A. A list of all appointive terms that will expire during the next calendar year, with the name of the incumbent appointee, the date of appointment, the date the term expires and the necessary qualifications for the position. B. A list of all boards, commissions, and committees whose members serve at the pleasure of the Council and the -necessary qualifications for each position, Town staff shall update the Local Appointments List as appropriate, The Local Appointments List shall be made available to the public and shall be mailed to Belvedere-Tiburon branch of the Marin County Library until such time as the opening of the Belvedere- Tiburon Library, after which the Belvedere- Tiburon Library shall be the designated recipient. 1 r l L 2, Effective January I, 1998, the terms of all members of all boards, commissions, and committees who serve for a fixed term shall expire on February 28 (or February 29 in the event of a leap year) of the year in which their term is currently set to expire and thereafter the terms of all members appointed to fill scheduled vacancies on such boards, commissions and committees shall commence on March 1 of their first year and terminate four years later, on February 28 (or February 29 in the event ofa leap year). 3. Effective January 1, 1998, scheduled vacancies on the Town's boards, commissions and committees shall be filled according to the following procedure: A. No later than January 2 of each year, the Town Clerk shall send a Notice of Pending Vacancies to the Ark and Marin Independent Journal newspapers with a request for publication. The notice shall describe the open positions that will become vacant on March I-of that year and any necessary qualifications for such positions and shall establish an opening and closing period for submission ofletters of interest and/or resumes. B, Within three weeks of the closing period set forth in the Notice of Pending Vacancies, the Town shall agendize applicant interviews before the Town Council. The applicants' letters of interest and/or resumes shall be included in the agenda packet. The Council may elect not to re-interview any applicant who has been interviewed for the same position within the past 12 months or the incumbent the expiration of whose term created the vacancy, After holding the interviews, the Council may, for each of the vacancies (i) elect to hold a second interview of one or more applicants before making a final appointment; (ii) appoint an applicant to the open position; or (iii) reappoint the incumbent the expiration of whose term created the vacancy, 4, Scheduled vacancies which occur prior to January 1, 1998 shall be filled according to the following procedure: A. Thirty days prior to the scheduled expiration of a term on a Town board, commission or committee, Town staff shall send a Notice of Pending Vacancy to the Ark and Marin Independent Journal newspapers with a request for publication. The notice shall describe the open position and any necessary qualifications for the position and shall establish an opening and closing period for submission ofletters of interest and/or resumes, B. Within three weeks of the closing period set forth in the Notice of Pending Vacancy, the Town shall agendize applicant interviews before the Town Council. The applicants' letters of interest and/or resumes shall be included in the agenda packet. The Council may elect not to re-interview any applicant who has been interviewed for the same position within the past 12 months or the incumbent the expiration of whose term created the vacancy, After holding the interviews, the Council may (i) elect to hold a second interview of one or more applicants before making a final appointment; (ii) appoint an applicant to the open position; or (iii) reappoint the incumbent the expiration of whose term created the vacancy, 2 r l L 5, In the event that an unscheduled vacancy arises on any board, commission or committee for which the Council has the appointing power, whether due to resignation, death, termination or other causes, the vacancy shall be filled by the following procedure: A. A Special Vacancy Notice shall be posted in the office of the Town Clerk and in the library designated to receive the Local Appointments List and shall be sent to the Ark and Marin Independent Journal newspapers with a request for publication, The Special Vacancy Notice shall describe the open position, any necessary qualifications for the positions, and set forth an opening and closing period for submissions ofletters of interest and/or resumes, The Special Vacancy Notice shall be posted no earlier that 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, B. Within three weeks of the closing period set forth in the Special Vacancy Notice, the Town shall agendize applicant interviews before the Town Council. The applicants' letters of interest and/or resumes shall be included in the agenda packet. The Council may elect not to re-interview any applicant who has been interviewed for the same position within the past 12 months, After holding the interviews, the Council may (i) elect to hold a second interview of one or more applicants before making a final appointment; or (ii) appoint one of the applicants to serve the remainder of the term of the member whose departure created the unscheduled vacancy, C, Final appointment to the board, commission or committee shall not be made by the Council for at least 10 working days after the posting of the Notice of Special Vacancy in the Town Clerk's office and in no event prior to the closing period set forth in the Special Vacancy Notice. 6, The Council may fill any vacancy on any board, commission or committee on a temporary, acting basis where it finds that such an appointment is required for the board, commission or committee to perform its duties, A person so appointed shall serve only so long as is required to make a final appointment under the procedures set forth in this resolution but shall be eligible to apply to fill the vacancy on a permanent basis, III III III III III III III III 3 r l L PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 19, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ginalski, Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Wolf THERESE M, HENNESSY Town ofTiburon 4 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO, 6 To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN COUNCIL TOWN MANAGER TOWN PROJECTS & ACTIVITIES STATUS November 18, 1997 I) MARTHAlEASTON PROPERTY- 49 units proposed for 1 25.acre parcel located at Tiburon Ridge (Hillhaven area) to Paradise Drive in the unincorporated area, Project is currently in the EIR stage, however, possible re-design of project is now under consideration by applicants, 2) TRESTLE GLEN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY - This is the former Cherry property located along Trestle Glen easterly of Bel veron, It comprises a total of 28 acres and is zoned for a maximum of eight (8) units There is currently some question regarding ownership of the property and the actual number of parcels (2-3), An application is on file for the lower 14-acre parcel. however, such application is incomplete at this time 3) GILMARTIN PROPERTY. This is the former Pinensky property located in the middle ridge area of Tiburon, and now owned by the Equinox Group, The property consists of five (5) acres and an application for two (2) unit~ has been filed and deemed complete, 4) TIBURON PENINSULA CLUB MASTER PLAN - The TPC indicates that they will file their revised master plan by the end of this calendar year. The plan basically proposes demolition of the older buildings on-site, rebuilding and extending development across Mar West onto Judge Field Realigning Mar West is also a consideration 5) BANK OF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY - This property is located along Paradise Drive and consists of 50 acres, It is zoned for five (5) residential lots and is currently located in the unincorporated area The property owners will possibly request waiver ofLAFCO's Dual Annexation policy, TOWN COUNCIL Page 2 November 18,1997 6) ROUNDHILL OAKS - The property consists of four (4) acres, and four (4) residential lots are being proposed, The EIR process is underway and the matter should come before the Planning Commission in January, 7) CYPRESS HOLLOW ANNEXATION - This area has expressed major interest in annexing to the Town, The Town Council has previously indicated its support for such annexation as the area adjoins Tiburon near Blackfield Drive, adjacent to the Kol Shofar property, Minimal service costs are anticipated, Town should submit resolution and application to LAFCO for annexation proceedings to commence, The estimated LAFCO fees for such annexation are approximately $7,000, It is recommended that the Town and affected property owners share this cost. 8) TOWN BUDGET & FINANCIAL STATUS- The Finance Director will present a status report regarding the revised 1997.98 FY budget. The Town Manager will provide a brief overview of the Town's fiscal status, 9) MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES - The Town Council may want to inquire of Staff the status of the following: Senior Housing Project, Elephant Rock Repairs, Police Dept. New Building and Relocation. Ferry Dock Realignment, Main Street ADA Improvements, Flood Plain Improvements, 10) OTHER OUESTIONS. COMMENTS OR CONCERNS R,L. Kleinert MARIN COUNTY CABLE RATE REGULATION JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY DATE: October 30,1997 t/fk ;f)O. L TO: FROM: Town/City Managers ~~91i>> ~n~~~wns of Marin ~~~1~e Joint Powers Authority SUBJ: Adoption of the Proposed Ordinance establishing a Telecommunications Joint Powers Agency RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that your Council adopt the attached ordinance establishing a Telecommunications Joint Powers Authority prior to the end of January 1998. SUMMARY: At the present time, the ten cities and the County served by TCI Cable Television Company each have separate but similar franchise agreements with TCI. The current Cable Rate Regulation Joint Powers Authority (MCCRRJPA) acts as a loose confederation of these local governments. The JPA shares staff to handle complaints about Cable Television, shares the cost of legal and other specialized consultants and regulates cable television rates, The JPA does not provide a unified authority concerning the cable television franchise agreements. The proposed JPA to be adopted by ordinance would provide a unified approach to all telecommunications technology, The proposed JPA would: . Place our local governments in the strongest possible bargaining position for the upcoming negotiations with our major cable television franchiser, TCI (expected to begin early 1998). . Expand the authority of the present JPA to allow member agencies to capture all revenue and ,authority over all telecommunications media including cable television. . Create an efficient and unified organization that will allow us to respond effectively in a rapidly changing regulatory and technological environment. . Continue to operate on a partnership basis in the best interest of Marin's cable T.V. ratepayers and telecom customers, The JPA as envisioned will minimize the possibility that Marin citizens will be offered a differential in service. . Continue to recognize the authority of local jurisdictions concerning antennae placement or other zoning issues, . Preserve the right of local governments to oversee the use of the public rights of way, The proposed JPA has been reviewed by the Marin County Cable Rate Regulation JPA in two executive sessions and two full board sessions, Extensive changes were made as a result of these reviews, The JPA was subsequently reviewed and further revised by a subcommittee of the Marin Managers' Association consisting of Doug Dawson and Rod Gould. Finally, the JPA was reviewed by a subcommittee of the Marin City Attorney's Group including, Allen Haim of the County Counsel's Office, Eric T, Davis, Dp.puty City Attorney for the City of San Rafael and Craig Labadie of McDonough, Holland and Allen, City Attorney for the City of Mill Valley, The staff of the MCCRRJPA is grateful for the careful reading of earlier drafts, Having undergone exte:1sive review and revision, the Ordinance is now ready for adoption, In order to be effective, the ordinance must be adopted in substantially the same form by the future members of the Authority --no later than July 1 st. DISCUSSION: The proposed jPA will remedy many of the problems that we have experienced under the current organization, These problems are: 1, Because the franchise agreements are made with eleven different agencies, they are cumbersome to administer. When the ownership of Via com transferred to TCI, it took four months for all of the franchises to be brought into conformity, Likewise, when federal law changed the authority allotted to local agencies, it took four months to change each franchise agreement. Since the jPA is staffed with limited paid staff these administrative hurdles are an expensive use of resources, 2. The eleven franchise agreements are substantially similar but differ in some important respects, Some of the franchise agreements have unique language concerning transfer of ownership, some franchises have unique language concerning extension of services and other service details and some have never been located, This is the type of problem that occurs when eleven different agencies are negotiating separate agreements even when there is a cooperative approach. 3. The separate agreements and lack of a centralized authority can play into a "divide and conquer" strategy by the cable provider. As we begin negotiations for the renewal of our cable television franchise agreement, it is important that we be in the strongest possible negotiating position. 4, The current joint powers authority is a single purpose agency which cannot respond to the changes in telecommunications technology, In the future, video may be provided by the telephone company or conversely, some services now provided by the phone company may be provided by the cable company, For example: Our cable provider, TCI currently has a test program in Fremont where they provide internet access and data transmission over cable television lines. Under our current arrangement, we will not be in a position to regulate these services or obtain franchise fees for such services. Our local governments need every legal revenue source available to us, Preservation of Local Authority: It should be noted that the jPA contains several provisions that maintain local authority. Authority over antenna tower siting is specifically reserved to local agencies and any action of the agency would be subject to local zoning authority. The agreement even goes so far as to give local agencies a voice in the operation of franchises as it affects their jurisdiction even ;f the agency withdraws from the jpA. If a particular type of telecommunications infrastructure is proposed for some but not all jurisdictions--those jurisdictions would receive revenues from that infrastructure, Additionally, nothing in the agreement restricts the right of cities to manage or lease telecommunications facilities owned by the jurisdiction, This provision protects cities who have made the investment in conduit or who may own other facilities such as a radio system, For ease of administration, the day to day activities of the jPA can be delegated to an executive committee but major issues such as adoption of the budget, initiation of litigation and the creation of indebtedness would require a quorum of the Board or at least six votes, The executive board consists of five members and the membership is distributed into geographic zones and requires that at least one of the "big" agencies be included. The paymef1t of cable franchise fees directly to local agencies will continue "as is" until the new franchise is adopted in two to three years, This can mean that an agency could refuse to pay dues if they were unhappy with an action of the agency but Marin cities have a history that demonstr<1tes 3 willingness to rise above differences and form effective partnerships with other local governments, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH MARIN TELECOMMUNICJ\TIONS AGENCY Introduction The rapid pace of development and deployment of new and existing forms of telecommunications facilities, coupled with economic power of the market entrants, de- mands a coordinated, regional approach to management of the public resources to be utilized by the providers. (pp. 1-2) Jurisdiction The proposed ordinance would create a county-wide JPA potentially including all jurisdictions in the County of Marin (up to 12 in all), (p. 3) The proposed JPA would have jurisdiction over all telecommunications facilities which occupy the public rights-of- way to any degree whatever, (p.4) It is intended that the JPA would enact a compre- hensive telecommunication ordinance and issue franchises to entrants pursuant to that ordinance. (pp. 4-6) The JPA's enactments would be subject, however, to land use or- dinances of the Constituent Jurisdictions and the Constituent Jurisdictions would ex- pressly retain jurisdiction over cellular tower siting, (pp, 7 and 12) Governance of the JPA The JPA would be govemed by a board of directors comprised of one represen- tative from each Constituent Jurisdiction, each with one vote. (p, 10) A quorum of the board would be six, ,(p, 13) However, in addition to the quorum requirement, certain major actions of the board (i.e, the enactment of an ordinance, the approval of a final budget, the initiation of litigation, and the creation or assumption of indebtedness) would require at least six affirmative votes, (p,13) The board could delegate certain of its responsibilities to an executive committee of the board comprised of five members, The five members would include (a) one rep- resentative from the County or the City of San Rafael, (b) two representatives from among the cities of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Sausalito or Tibu- ron, (c) one representative from among the cities of Fairfax, Ross or San Anselmo and (d) one representative from a Constituent Jurisdiction not otherwise represented on the committee, (p, 12) Existing Cable TV Franchises The Constituent Jurisdictions would each assign their existing cable TV fran- chises to the JPA, but until such existing franchises are renewed (in a single franchise) or otherwise materially modified, each jurisdiction would continue to receive its existing franchise fees from the franchisee directly and will be billed annually by the JPA for its proportional share of the JPA's expenses, (p. 15) THE BLEIER LAW FIRM 1.0ct-97 Page 1 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY New Franchises All new (or materially modified) cable TV franchises and all new franchises for other forms of telecommunications will be issued in the name of the JPA. (p. 4) Net franchise fees from all such franchises shall be paid to the Constituent Jurisdictions, (a) as to cable TV franchises, in proportion to the number of subscribers in the various ju- risdictions, and (b) as to all other telecommunications franchise, in proportion to the population of the affected jurisdictions. (pp, 15-16) Withdrawal Any Constituent Jurisdiction can withdraw from the JPA at any time upon the giving of not less than 14 months' notice (depending upon the timing of the notice with respect to the Agency's fiscal year). (p. 18) If the withdrawal occurs prior to the re- newal (or material amendment) of an existing cable TV franchise assigned at entry, those franchises will be re-assigned. (p, 18) However, upon withdrawal, any new (or renewed or materially amended) franchises will remain in the JPA for the balance of those respective initial terms and the withdrawing entity will have a limited right to con- tinue to participate in the JPA's decision-making relating to that franchise for the bal- ance of the initial term, (p, 18) The Old JPA The old cable JPA (with its very narrow "rate regulation" focus) will terminate upon the enactment of the new JPA. (p. 20) THE BLEIER LAW FIRM 1.0ct.97 Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING PORTIONS OF AND ADDING SECTIONS TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY, DELEGATING AUTHORITY THERETO, ASSIGNING EXISTING CONTRACTS OF THE TOWN OF TIBUORN AND REPEALING CONFLICTING PRIOR ACTIONS WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon is the Franchisor of that certain cable televi- sion franchise presently held jointly by Tele-Vue Systems, Inc" a Washington corpora- tion, Clear View Cable Systems, Inc" a California corporation, Marin Cable Television, Inc" a California corporation, and Cable TV of Marin, Inc" a California corporation, as Franchisee (hereinafter "TCI") which holds similar franchises from other public entities within the boundaries of the County of Marin; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon is a participant in that certain joint powers agency known as the "Marin County Cable Rate Regulation Joint Powers Authority", a California joint powers agency, ("MCCRRJPA") created and existing pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 6500); and WHEREAS, with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its on- going implementation by the Federal Communications Commission, there is an increas- ing reduction in distinctions between the various historical providers of telecommunica- tions services; and WHEREAS, the management of the local rights of way in terms of the demands of the, various and competing forms of telecommunications demands a regional approach; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon finds that such a regional approach to the de- mands of telecommunications can best be handled within the boundaries of Marin County by a joint powers agency having a broader mission and authority than that of MCCRRJPA; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the Town of Tiburon finds it necessary and desirable to revise and restate its delegation of authority to MCCRRJPA and to terminate MCCRRJPA to reflect the broader mission and authority of the new joint powers agency; NOW THEREFORE THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Rev 1 1/14/97 Page 1 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. Section 1, Chapter _' Sections _._.010 through _'_'_ are hereby added to the Tiburon Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE SUB-CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS _,_0010 Purposes. The purposes of this Chapter include, but are not limited to, the promotion of the general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Tiburon and the citi- zens of the Marin Community by: Establishing a master-plan for the franchising of telecommunications providers within the Marin Community; Establishing a regulatory framework for the administration of franchises in order to in- sure that the potential recreational, educational, social, economic, commercial and other advantages of telecommunications will in fact inure to the benefit of the Marin Community and the citizens thereof; Recognizing the right of local jurisdictions to manage, maintain and control the public rights-of-way with their jurisdictions; Implementing the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and Regulating the operations of Franchisees for the purpose of protecting and promoting the public health, peace, safety and welfare, The provisions of this Section shall not be deemed to confer any right upon a Franchisee which is not otherwise conferred by another express provision of this Chap- ter, _._.020 Definitions. As used in this Chapter the following terms, phrases, and words shall be ascribed the following meanings, unless the context indicate otherwise, The word "shall" is mandatory, and the word "may" is permissive, Words not defined herein shall be given their common and ordinary meanings, consistent with the context in which such words are used and the purposes of this Chapter, "Agency" shall mean the MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY as established herein, Rev, 11/14/97 Page 2 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. "Cable Television Services" shall mean "cable service" as that term is defined in Sec- tion 602(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 As Amended [47 U,S,C, 522(6)]. "Cable Television System" shall mean a "cable system" as that term is defined in Sec- tion 602(7) of the Communications Act of 1934 As Amended [47 U,S,C. 522(7)]. "Constituent Jurisdictions" shall mean the County of Marin and each of the Municipali- ties of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, Sausalito, San Rafael, and Tiburon which enacts this Chapter, "County" shall mean the County of Marin, "Encroachment Permit" shall mean a permit issued to a Franchisee by one or more of the County or the Municipalities, "FCC" shall mean the Federal Communications Commission and any legally appointed, designated or elected agent or successor thereof, "Franchise" shall mean and include any franchise, license, permit or other form of au- thorization, issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter or its predecessor pro- visions by which Telecommunications Facilities are authorized to be placed within or to occupy Streets, "Franchise Documents" shall, with respect to a Franchise issued by the Agency pursu- ant to the delegation of the provisions of this Chapter, mean the provisions of this Chapter, the map defining any Service Area for the Franchise as may be adopted by ordinance or resolution, the provisions of any request for proposals issued in connection with that Franchise, the provisions of the application for the Franchise submitted by the Franchisee (if accepted by the Agency), the provisions of any ordi- nance or resolution offering the Franchise, and the provisions of any certificate of acceptance by the Franchisee of the Franchise, "Franchisee" shall mean the party to whom a Franchise to place Telecommunications Facilities within the Streets is issued by the Agency pursuant to the delegation of the provisions of this Chapter and its successors and assigns, "Governing Body" shall mean, with respect to the County, the Board of Supervisors, with respect to a City within the Marin Community, the City Council, and with respect to a Town within the Marin Community, the Town Council. "Marin Community" shall mean the entire geographical territory of the constituent Juris- dictions, "Municipalities" shall mean each of the municipalities of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Rev 11/14/97 Page 3 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, Sausalito, San Rafael, and Tiburon which enacts this Chapter, "Ross Valley Jurisdiction" shall mean the municipalities of Fairfax, Ross or San Anselmo "South Marin Jurisdiction" shall mean the municipalities of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Larkspur, Mill Valley, Sausalito or Tiburon, "Streets" shall mean the surface of and the space above and below any street, road, highway, freeway, thoroughfare, parkway, sidewalk, bridge, court, lane, path, alley, way, drive, circle, utility right-of-way or any other easement which now or hereafter exists for the provision of public or quasi-public services (including recreational us- ages) to residential or other properties, and on which the Constituent Jurisdictions are expressly or impliedly authorized or empowered to permit use for the installation and operation of Telecommunications Facilities, "Subscriber" shall mean a lawful recipient of Cable Television Services from a Cable Television System, ''Telecommunications Facilities" shall mean any system of antennae, cables, wires, lines, towers, waveguides, or other conductors, converters, amplifiers, headend equipment, master controls, earth stations, equipment and facilities designed and constructed for the purpose of producing, receiving, transmitting, amplifying and distributing audio, video and other forms of electronic or electrical signals within the Constituent Jurisdictions, some part or portion of which occupies the Streets as de- fined herein and includes, but is not limited to, Telecommunications Facilities, com- munications satellite systems and related terminal equipment, and other modes of transmitting, emitting, or receiving images and sounds or intelligence by means of wire, radio, optical, electromagnetic or other means, "User" shall mean a lawful recipient of service which utilizes in whole or in part Tele- communications Facilities located in whole or in part in Streets, _._.030 Franchise Required. Except (1) as otherwise provided by this Chapter or (2) as otherwise expressly provided and authorized by the State of California or (3) as otherwise expressly provided and authorized by the United States, Streets within the Marin Community shall not be occupied by or used for Telecommunications Facilities except under a Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, Moreover, the Agency shall be the recipient of all "in lieu" fees paid by any operator of an "open video system" as that term is used in Section 653 of the Communi- cations Act of 1934 As Amended (47 US,C, 573), It is the intent of this provision to give the broadest possible application to the requirement of a Franchise to be issued by the Agency as is permissible under applicable State and federal law Rev 11/14/97 Page 4 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. _._.040 General Characteristics of Franchise. Any Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, shall be deemed to: Authorize utilization of the Streets for the public or quasi-public purpose of installing Telecommunications Facilities; Be nonexclusive, and neither expressly nor impliedly be deemed to preclude the issu- ance of subsequent and additional franchises to place Telecommunications Facili- ties within the Streets within the Marin Community; Be for a term prescribed by the Agency as issuing authority (including any optional re- newal term or optional extension) which shall not extend beyond December 31, 2027; and Include provisions for the payment of the maximum lawful level of franchise fees and, in the case of "open video systems" as defined in Section 653 of the Communications Act of 1934 As Amended (47 U,S,C, 573), the maximum lawful level of "in lieu" fees pursuant to Section 653(c)(2)(B)), Such a Franchise shall not be deemed to authorize or either expressly or impliedly permit the Franchisee, except with the consent of the owners, to provide or install Telecommunications Facilities upon private property, including, but not limited to apartment complexes, condominiums, mobile home parks and residential subdivision developments with private roads, provided that this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit a Franchisee from entering upon or utilizing private property as an incident to its use of the Streets to the extent entry or use is expressly or impliedly authorized by the right conferred by a Franchise issued by the Agency to occupy the Streets, Such a Franchise shall not be deemed to either expressly or impliedly restrain, restrict or delimit the authority of the Constituent Jurisdictions to exercise their police power authority over cellular telephone antenna and transmitter siting, Any Franchise for the provision of Cable Television Services by Cable Televi- sion Systems shall require the Cable Television System to report the number of Sub- scribers served thereby on a regular and periodic basis, _._.050 Franchise as Contract. A Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the Fran- chisee and the Agency, Each Franchisee shall be deemed to have contractually com- mitted itself to comply with the terms, conditions and provisions of the Franchise Docu- ments, and with all rules, orders, regulations, and determinations applicable to the Franchise which are issued, promulgated or made pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. The regulatory authority conferred by the provisions of this Chapter, including the power to issue regulations and to amend the provisions of this Chapter as reserved under Section _,_.270 below, shall constitute a reserved authority to the Agency un- Rev 11/14/97 Page 5 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. der any Franchise issued by the Agency, No Franchisee under any Franchise issued by the Agency shall have any right to restrain, restrict or delimit the right or power of the Constituent Jurisdictions to amend the provisions of this Chapter, _._.060 Franchise Areas. The Franchise Area for any Franchise issued by the Agency under the provisions of this Chapter shall be defined by the Board of Directors of the Agency, No Franchisee shall be authorized by the provisions of this Chapter to construct, install or operate Telecommunications Facilities within the Streets of the Marin Community outside its designated Franchise Area. _._.070 Utility Poles and Structures. No Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed to expressly or impliedly authorize the Franchisee to utilize poles or structures owned by any public or private utility which are or hereafter located within Streets, without the express consent of the utility, _._.080 Authority. With respect to the County and Municipalities enacting this Chapter, it is declared that this Chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority conferred by their charters, as applicable, and pursuant to the police powers conferred by Article X, Section 7 of the California Constitution for the promotion and protection of the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens within their respective Constit- uent Jurisdictions, _._.090 Future Incorporations! Withdrawals. It is hereby declared that the unified process for the administration of Franchises issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter is necessary for protection and promotion of the convenience and welfare of all of the citizens of the Marin Community, and that fragmentation in administration or right to administer such franchises resulting from the future incorporation of municipalities within the unincorporated area of the County or from the unilateral withdrawal of Con- stituent Jurisdictions from membership in the Agency would be detrimental to the con- venience and welfare and the purposes of this Chapter, Therefore, the incorporation of any municipality within the unincorporated area of the County or the withdrawal of any Constituent Jurisdictions from membership in the Agency (not resulting in the termination of the Agency) during the initial term of any Franchise issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall not operate to either divest the Franchisee of its authority to install or provide services through its Telecom- munications Facilities within the newly incorporated or withdrawing area or vest the newly-created municipality or the withdrawing Constituent Jurisdiction with any admin- istrative or other authority whatsoever respecting operations by the Franchisee under the Franchise, During such initial term, the Agency shall continue to administer the provisions of this Chapter for the benefit of the inhabitants of a newly incorporated or withdrawing area in the same manner as if the area had not been incorporated or if the Constituent Jurisdiction had not withdrawn except that the Net Franchise Fees alloca- ble to the newly incorporated area shall be paid to the newly incorporated jurisdiction Rev 11/14/97 Page 6 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. rather than to the Constituent Jurisdictions from which it was formed, Notwithstanding the foregoing, a duly appointed member of the governing body of a withdrawing juris- diction may continue to participate and vote in actions coming before the Agency after withdrawal which pertain solely and exclusively to a Franchise in which a Franchisee has installed and is providing services through at least a portion of its Telecommunica- tions Facilities, which are located within the jurisdiction of the withdrawing jurisdiction (such a Franchise hereinafter an "Affecting Franchise"), provided that nothing in this sentence shall authorize the member appointed by the withdrawing jurisdiction to par- ticipate or vote in any matters pertaining to or having an effect upon more than a single Affecting Franchise, In the event that a Constituent Jurisdiction should withdraw and that withdrawal should become effective before a cable television franchise assigned to the Agency as a part of its initial entry shall have been renewed, extended or otherwise materially amended, the Agency shall reassign said franchise and the Franchise Fees derived therefrom shall continue to be paid to the Constituent Jurisdiction which was the franchisor prior to the Effective Date, Upon expiration of the initial term of a Franchise, the provisions of this Chapter shall cease to be applicable to that portion of the Telecommunications Facilities and the operations by the Franchisee thereof within the municipal limits of any municipality which is incorporated subsequent to the commencement of the initial term or within the territorial limits of any Constituent Jurisdiction which has unilaterally withdrawn from membership in the Agency, The Marin Community shall not be deemed to include any area within the limits of a municipality incorporated after the date this Chapter becomes effective and prior to the filing of the certificate of acceptance of any Franchise, _._.100 Annexations. The annexation by a municipality which has either not enacted this Chapter or is not a member of the Agency of unincorporated area of the County during the initial term of any franchise issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall not operate to either divest the Franchisee of its authority to install or provide services through its Telecommunications Facilities within the annexed area or vest the municipality with any administrative or other authority whatsoever respecting operations by the Franchisee under the franchise. During the initial term, the Agency shall continue to administer the provisions of this Chapter for the benefit of the inhabit- ants of the annexed area in the same manner as if the area had not been annexed, Upon expiration of the initial term of a franchise, the provisions of this Chapter shall cease to be applicable to -that portion of the Telecommunications Facilities and the operations by the Franchisee thereof within any area which has been annexed by such a municipality, The Marin Community shall not be deemed to include any area annexed by such a municipality subsequent to the date this Chapter becomes effective and prior to the filing of the certificate of any franchise, _._.110 Ordinances - Police Power. All zoning and other land use ordinances, building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical codes, business license ordinances and Rev 11/14/97 Page 7 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. all other ordinances of general application now in existence or hereafter enacted by the Governing Bodies of the Constituent Jurisdictions (hereinafter "Ordinances") shall be fully applicable to the exercise of any Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, and the Franchisee shall comply therewith. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Chapter or a Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant hereto and those of any specific provision of the Ordinances of a Constituent Jurisdiction, the specific provisions of such Ordinances shall prevail. _._.120 Operability - Amendments. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be- come effective or operable unless said provisions are enacted in substantially identical form by (a) the County of Marin, (b) the City of San Rafael, and (c) at least six (6) of the remaining Constituent Jurisdictions and become fully effective therein on or before July 1, 1998, If the provisions of this Chapter are enacted in substantially identical form by (a) the County of Marin, (b) the City of San Rafael, and (c) at least six (6) of the remain- ing Constituent Jurisdictions and become fully effective therein on or before July 1, 1998, the provisions of this Chapter shall become effective and the Agency shall come into existence on July 1, 1998 (hereinafter "the Effective Date"), As to those Constituent Jurisdictions which enact the provisions of this Chapter after the Effective Date hereof, the provisions of this Chapter shall become applicable within the geographic bound- aries of each of the Constituent Jurisdictions upon the enactment of the Governing Body of each such Constituent Jurisdiction of the provisions of this Chapter in substan- tially identical form, From and after the Effective Date, no addition to, deletion from, alteration of the provisions of, repeal or other amendment of this Chapter shall become effective unless each amendment or repeal is enacted by the Governing Body of a majority of the Con- stituent Jurisdictions who are then members of the Agency, After enactment of the pro- visions of this Chapter by a Governing Body of a Constituent Jurisdiction, no addition to, del,etion from, alteration of the provisions of, repeal or other amendment of this Chapter enacted by the Governing Bodies of the other Constituent Jurisdictions shall become effective within the boundaries of any of said Constituent Jurisdictions unless and until such amendment is enacted by the Governing Body of the particular Constitu- ent Jurisdiction, _._.130 Right to Amend. Except as hereinafter provided, in the absence of an emergency, and without the consent of the Franchisee, the provisions of this Chapter shall not be altered or repealed as applied to a Franchise issued by the Agency for which a certificate of acceptance has been filed in compliance with the provisions of thereof and In advance of the effective date of the alteration or repeal. _ _.140 Franchisor. Any Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant to the provi- sions of this Chapter shall be in the name of the Agency as the franchisor, Any Fran- chise issued by any of the Constituent Jurisdictions prior to the Effective Date hereof shall be deemed to merge into and devolve upon the Agency as of the Effective Date Rev, 1 1/14/97 Page 8 0121 ORDINANCE NO. hereof pursuant to the provisions of Section _,_,260 of this Chapter and shall there- after be deemed to be in the name of the Agency as franchisor, provided that the cable television franchise issued by Novato to Chambers Cable of Southern Cal., Inc" an Oregon corporation, shall not be deemed to merge into and devolve upon the Agency except upon (1) the option of Novato or (2) the date upon which it comes under sub- stantially common ownership with the TCI Franchises issued by the other Constituent Jurisdictions and provided further that until such time as that Franchise shall have been renewed, extended or otherwise materially amended, the Agency shall direct the Fran- chisee to pay all franchise fees due thereunder directly to the Constituent Jurisdiction. _._.150 Communications with Regulatory Agencies. Copies of all petitions, appli- cations, communications and reports submitted by a Franchisee to the FCC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Public Utilities Commission or any other Federal or State regulatory commission or agency having jurisdiction in respect to any matters affecting construction or operation of Telecommunications Facilities within the Marin Community, also shall be filed simultaneously with the Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Agency, Copies of responses or any other communications from the regulatory agen- cies to a Franchisee relating to such matters shall likewise be filed immediately on re- ceipt with said Clerk, _._.160 Right of Intervention. The Agency shall have the right of intervention in any suit or proceedings touching upon Telecommunications Facilities within the Marin Community to any degree whatsoever and to which a Franchisee is a party, and the Franchisee shall not oppose such intervention by the Agency, _ _.170 Limitation of Actions. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Chapter, any judicial proceeding, whether for the recovery of damages or otherwise, brought for the purpose of adjudicating the validity of any provision of this Chapter or amendments thereof shall be commenced not later than thirty (30) calendar days fol- lowing the Effective Date hereof Any such judicial proceeding brought for the purpose of adjudicating the validity of any ordinance, resolution, rule, order, regulation, determi- nation or arbitration award of the Agency which purports to have been made pursuant to the delegation of the provisions of this Chapter or pursuant to the provisions of any of the other Franchise Documents shall be commenced not later than thirty (30) calen- dar days following date of enactment, adoption, issuance or making of such ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, determination or arbitration award, No judicial proceeding shall be commenced in violation of the limitations prescribed by this Section, The provisions of this Section shall not be applicable to any judicial proceeding, whether for the recovery of damages or otherwise, commenced by the Agency, County or Municipalities for breach or enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter or any reg- ulation, determination or arbitration award purporting to have been issued thereunder, _._.180 Changes in Law. Should the State of California or any agency thereof, the Rev, 11/14/97 Page 9 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. United States or any Federal agency or any State or Federal Court require either the Agency, County, Municipalities or a Franchisee to act in a manner which is inconsistent with any provisions of the Franchise Documents relating to any Franchise or withdraw or otherwise impair the authority of the Agency to act in respect to the provisions of the Franchise Documents relating to any Franchise, the Board of Directors of the Agency shall be authorized to determine whether a material provision of the Franchise Docu- ments is affected in relation to the rights and benefits conferred by the Franchise Docu- ments upon the Agency, County, Municipalities or the public, Upon such determina- tion, the Franchise Documents shall be subject to modification or amendment to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the full intent and purposes thereof in relation to the rights and benefits of the Agency, County, Municipalities or the public and in relation to such State, Federal or judicial requirement. The Board of Directors of the Agency may terminate a Franchise issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chap- ter if it determines after consultation with the Franchisee that substantial and material compliance with the Franchise Documents in relation to the rights or benefits of the Agency, County, Municipalities or the public has been frustrated by such a State, Fed- eral of judicial requirement. SUB-CHAPTER 2 AGENCY _ _.200 Establishment of Agency. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code, (commencing with Section 6500), there shall be established a separate and distinct public agency to be known as the MARIN TELE- COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (herein referred to as the "Agency"), _._.210 Membership. The Agency shall be formed by and consist of, as members, the Constituent Jurisdictions to the extent that such Constituent Jurisdictions shall have enacted the provisions hereof in identical form, _._.220 Board of Directors. All of the powers and authority of the Agency shall be vested in a Board of Directors which consists of up to twelve (12) members, one (1) each appointed by the Governing Body of each of the Constituent Jurisdictions in the Marin Community which shall have adopted the provisions hereof in identical form, The members so appointed must be a member of the Governing Body of that Constitu- ent Jurisdiction at all times during his or her service as a member of the Board of Direc- tors of the Agency, The terms of the appointment of each member shall be as estab- lished by the governing Body of that Constituent Jurisdiction, Each Constituent Jurisdiction shall be authorized to appoint an alternate repre- sentative to attend meetings of the Board in the absence of the member, and, during such meetings, vote and exercise all other powers of the member, Such an appoint- ment shall be effective when the Constituent Jurisdiction files with the Clerk of the Rev 11/14/97 Page 10 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. Board of Directors a written notice which identifies by name and residential address the alternate representative who has been appointed, Such alternate representatives shall serve at the pleasure of the Constituent Jurisdictions who appoint them, and such ap- pointments may be revoked by the filing of a written notice of revocation with the Clerk of the Board of Directors and reciting revocation of the appointment of a designated alternate representative, _._.230 Resignation of Members of Board of Directors. Any member of the Board of Directors may resign by giving written notice filed with the Clerk of the Board of Directors, The successor to the resigning member shall be selected by and shall serve at the pleasure of the Governing Body of the Constituent Jurisdiction which ap- pointed the resigning member, _._.240 Existence. The Agency shall not come into existence unless the provisions of this Chapter are enacted by the number and composition of the Constituent Jurisdic- tions specified in Section _,_,120 above and become fully effective therein on or be- fore July 1, 1998, If the provisions of this Chapter are enacted in substantially identical form by the number and composition of the Constituent Jurisdictions specified in Sec- tion __120 above and become fully effective therein on or before July 1, 1998, the Agency shall come into existence on July 1, 1998, _._.250 Purposes. The purposes of the Agency shall be as follows: To implement by ordinance, resolution, rule, order, regulation, and determination, the purposes of this Chapter as set forth in Section _,_010; To administer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Franchise Documents, any Franchise issued by the County or Municipalities prior to the establishment of the Agency as successor franchisor and irrevocable agent-in-fact for the Constituent Jurisdiction which initially granted the Franchise; To administer pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Franchise Documents, any Franchise issued by the Agency pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; To exercise any and all powers of the Constituent Jurisdictions which any of them could have exercised independently in relation to Telecommunications Facilities; To exercise any and all powers now or hereafter granted to joint powers agencies by the general law of California, including without limitation those specified in Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code, (commencing with Section 6500); and To exercise any and all other powers conferred by any Franchise Documents, Rev, 1 1/14/97 Page 110121 ORDINANCE NO. _._.260 Assignment and Merger of Existing Franchises. The Constituent Juris- dictions do, by the enactment hereof, merge, delegate, transfer, assign and grant, to the fullest extent allowed by law, all rights, benefits, duties and obligations as franchi- sor in any Franchise which was granted by the respective Constituent Jurisdiction prior to the Effective Date hereof, including by way of example and not by way of limitation the Franchise for cable television issued by the Town of Tiburon on or about March 1, 1984 and presently held by TCI as Franchisee, provided that any such merger, delega- tion, transfer, assignment and grant shall not affect to any degree whatever the duties and obligations of the Franchisee thereunder and provided further that until such time as that Franchise shall have been renewed, extended or otherwise materially amended, the Agency shall direct the Franchisee to pay all franchise fees due thereunder directly to the Constituent Jurisdiction, In the event that any such merger, delegation, transfer, assignment and grant would be deemed to affect the duties and obligations of the Fran- chisee, then in lieu of such specific merger, delegation, transfer, assignment and grant, the Constituent Jurisdiction shall be deemed, by the enactment hereof, to have irrevo- cably appointed the Agency as its exclusive agent and attorney-in-fact with respect to the rights, benefits, duties and obligations of that Constituent Jurisdiction as franchisor, _._.270 Delegation of Powers - Constituent Jurisdictions. The Constituent Juris- dictions do, by the enactment hereof, authorize, delegate and grant the Agency, to the fullest extent allowed by law any power common to the Constituent Jurisdictions, in- cluding without limitation, the power to enact ordinances, the power to adopt resolu- tions, the power to promulgate rules and regulations, even though such common power may not be exercisable by each such contracting party in the geographical area in which such power is to be jointly exercised, provided that nothing in the foregoing is intended to delegate to the Agency the powers of the Constituent Jurisdictions to regu- late the siting of cellular telephone antennas and transmitters In exercising the power to enact ordinances, the Agency is jointly exercising a power common to all of the Constituent Jurisdictions and is administratively implement- ing a legislative determination of the Constituent Jurisdictions that the management of the local rights of way in terms of the demands of the various and competing forms of telecommunications demands a regional approach, _._.280 Delegation of Powers - Agency. The Board of Directors of the Agency shall be authorized to form and appoint advisory and other committees of citizens, offi- cials or representatives of concerned interests, and delegate to each committee such powers and authority vested in it by the terms of this Chapter as it deems appropriate; provided that the Board of Directors shall reserve the right and authority by means of appeal or otherwise, to make the final decision upon any matter relating to issuance or termination of a Franchise issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter or the ad- ministration thereof upon which a discretionary determination is authorized or required, Nothing in the foregoing shall be deemed to prevent the Board of Directors from Rev, 1 1/14/97 Page 12 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. delegating powers to an administrative committee of the Board for the purposes of pro- gram development, policy formulation and program implementation (and such other and further purposes as may be allowed by law) pursuant to the provisions of government Code section 6508. In such an instance, the committee shall be composed of five (5) members of the Board as follows: (a) one (1) member representing the County of Marin or the City of San Rafael, (b) two (2) members representing South Marin Jurisdictions, (c) one (1) member representing a Ross Valley Jurisdiction and (d) one (1) member representing any Constituent Jurisdiction not otherwise represented on the committee. _"_"290 Agreement of Formation. The Agency shall be deemed to be created upon execution by each member thereof of an Agreement of Formation. Enactment of this Chapter constitutes approval by the Governing Bodies of the Constituent Jurisdictions of the terms of the Agreement of Formation. The Chairperson of the Governing Body of the County and the Mayors of the Municipalities, which shall have adopted this Chapter shall execute the following Agreement of Formation on or before the Effective Date AGREEMENT OF FORMATION MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Sec- tion 6500 et seq. Of the Government Code of the State of California by and between the County of Marin (herein referred to as "County") and the Cities of Belvedere, Lark- spur, Mill Valley, Novato, Sausalito and San Rafael, and the Towns of Corte Madera, Fairfax, Ross, San Anselmo and Tiburon, (the foregoing Cities and Towns are herein collectively referred to as "Municipalities" and the Constituent Jurisdictions are some- times herein collectively referred to as the "Constituent Jurisdictions") who do hereby mutual.ly agree as follows 1. Establishment. There is hereby created an organization known and denominated as the MARIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY, which shall be a public entity, sepa- rate and apart from the Constituent Jurisdictions. The Marin Telecommunications Agency (hereinafter referred to as "Agency") shall be governed by the terms of this Agreement, the terms of an ordinance enacted by each Jurisdiction which enters into this Agreement which is entitled "Telecommunications Ordinance", and is hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance", and by such rules as are duly passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Agency Notwithstanding the provisions of the introductory paragraph of thiS Agreement, It is specifically contemplated that some of the Municipalities may not execute this Agreement and participate in the formation of and become members of the Agency. Therefore, the Agency shall be formed by, as members, the Constituent Jurisdictions, provided that all of such Constituent Jurisdictions do so. Rev 11/14/97 Page 13 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. 2. Board of Directors. The Agency shall be governed by and the powers of the Agency vested in a Board of Directors, subject to its delegatory powers as set out in section _._280 of the Ordinance. The number of members of the Board of Directors, com- position thereof, and tenure of Directors shall be prescribed by section _._.220 of the Ordinance. Meetings of the Board of Directors and of such advisory or other committees as the Board may appoint, shall be governed by the provisions of the Ralph N. Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). The Board of Directors shall establish a time and a place for its regular meetings, which shall be held not less frequently than every six (6) months. A meeting composed of at least six (6) members of the Board shall constitute a quo- rum for the purpose of transacting business, and a majority of the quorum shall be necessary to approve any action of the Board provided that notwithstanding the foregoing the following actions shall require the approval of not less than six (6) members of the Board in recorded vote: (1) the enactment of an ordinance, (2) the approval of a final budget, (3) the initiation of litigation (not including the authorization of defense brought against the Agency and the initiation of a cross- complaint), and (4) the creation or assumption of indebtedness. No action taken by the Board of Directors shall be effective except by duly adopted motion receiving the votes of a majority of the Directors of the Board then pres- ent. The Board of Directors shall annually elect its Chairperson. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County shall serve as Secretary to the Board of Directors, unless the Board by resolution shall designate the Clerk of another Constituent Jurisdiction to so serve, shall be responsible for recordation of the official actions by the Board, and shall be the official custodian of all re- cords of the Board of Directors 3. Powers. The Board of Directors of the Agency shall be vested with the following powers: To employ in the name of ttie Agency such staff as the Board of Directors deems appropriate. Such staff shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. To make and enter into contracts in the name of the Agency as authorized by or in order to carry out the objects or purposes of this Agreement or the Ordinance, including, but not limited to, contracts with any Constituent Jurisdiction providing for provision by personnel of that Constituent Jurisdiction of services for the Rev 11/14/97 Page 14 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. Agency and reimbursement of that Constituent Jurisdiction by the Agency of the costs thereof; To acquire in the name of the Agency, take title to, hold and dispose of real and personal property; To incur in the name of the Agency debts, liabilities and obligations, which shall not constitute debts, obligations or liabilities of any of the member agencies; To accept in the name of the Agency grants, gifts and donations in the public inter- est to carry out the purposes and functions of the Agency; and To exercise such other powers as are expressly conferred by the provisions of this Agreement or the Ordinance. The Board of Directors shall also be authorized to sue in the name of the Agency. The Agency shall be subject to suit in its name. 4. Limitations. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 6509, the pow- ers of the Agency are subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising such powers of one (1) of the designated member agencies. For such purposes, the County of Marin is hereby designated. 5. Budqet. Prior to July 1 st of each fiscal year, the Board of Directors shall adopt a final budget. Rev 11/14/97 Page 150f21 ORDINANCE NO. 6. Payments. (a) Existinq Franchises. As to Franchises in existence prior to the Effective Date of the Ordinance which have been devolved upon the Agency pursuant to Sections _._.140 and _._.260 above, and which have not theretofore been renewed, extended or oth- erwise materially amended, the Franchise Fees derived therefrom shall, notwithstand- ing the assignment to the Agency, be paid to the Constituent Jurisdiction which was the franchisor prior to the Effective Date and the Constituent Jurisdiction shall thereupon be billed by the Agency for that Constituent Jurisdiction's allocable share of the Agency's budget for the applicable period. The Agency's budget shall be allocated among the Constituent Jurisdictions who are members of the Agency in the same pro- portion as the ratios which the total number of Subscribers in each of the Constituent Jurisdictions bear to the total number of Subscribers in the Constituent Jurisdictions which are then members of the Agency, as disclosed by reports as to numbers of Sub- scribers filed by said Cable Television Systems with the Agency. Such amounts billed to the Constituent Jurisdiction shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the billing date and shall be an enforceable contractual obligation of the Constituent Juris- diction to the Agency. (b) Aoency Cable Franchises. As to Franchises for the provision of Cable Television Services by Cable Television Systems which were granted by the Agency or renewed, extended or otherwise materially amended by the Agency, the Net Franchise Fees (the total franchise fees received by the Agency less the Agency's budget for the applicable period and reasonable r:3serves) shall be paid to each of the Constituent Jurisdictions who are members of the Agency in the same proportion as the ratios which the total number of Subscribers in each of the Constituent Jurisdictions bear to the total number of Subscribers in the Constituent Jurisdictions who are members of the Agency, as dis- closed by reports as to numbers of Subscribers filed by said Cable Television Systems with the Agency. (c) AQency Non-Cable Franchises (All Constituent Jurisdictions) As to Franchises which were granted by the Agency or renewed, extended or otherwise materially amended by the Agency, the Net Franchise Fees (the total franchise fees received by the Agency less the Agency's budget for the applicable period and reasonable reserves) shall be paid to the Constituent Jurisdictions who are members of the Agency In the same proportion as the ratios which the population of the unincorporated area of the County and incorporated area of the Municipalities bear to the total population of the Constituent Jurisdictions who are members of the Agency, as disclosed by the Fed- eral Decennial Census for 1990 for the period ending June 30, 2001, the Federal De- cennial Census for 2000 during the period commencing July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2011, the Federal Decennial Census for 2010 during the period commencing July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2021, the Federal Decennial Census for 2020 during any period after July 1, 2021. Rev 11/14/97 Page 16 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. (d) AQency Non-Cable Franchises (Less than All Constituent Jurisdictions) As to Fran- chises which were granted by the Agency and which substantially and directly affect less than all of the Constituent Jurisdictions, the Net Franchise Fees (the total franchise fees received by the Agency less the Agency's budget for the applicable pe- riod and reasonable reserves) shall be paid to the affected Constituent Jurisdictions who are members of the Agency in the same proportion as the ratios which the popula- tion of each affected Constituent Jurisdiction bears to the total population of the affected Constituent Jurisdictions who are members of the Agency, as disclosed by the Federal Decennial Census for 1990 for the period ending June 30, 2001, the Federal Decennial Census for 2000 during the period commencing July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2011, the Federal Decennial Census for 2010 during the period commencing July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2021, the Federal Decennial Census for 2020 during any period after July 1, 2021. (e) Allocation of AQency Budqet. For purposes of the foregoing calculations, the Agency's budget for the applicable period and reasonable reserves shall be allocated as between various types of Franchises in the relative proportions of the Franchise Fees derived therefrom Each distribution shall be accompanied by a statement by the Auditor of the Agency stating the amounts of all Franchise Fees received by the Agency for the distri- bution period, the dates of receipt, the amount of revenue required to finance the Agency Budget, and the population and/or subscriber ratios upon which apportionment of the distribution is being made. 7. Treasurer. The Treasurer of the County shall be the depository of funds of the Agency, and said Treasurer shall be the ex officio Treasurer of the Agency, unless the Board of Directors shall act by resolution to appoint the Treasurer of another Constitu- ent Jurisdiction or, to the extent provided by law, a certified public accountant, to that position. The Treasurer shall receive and have custody of and disburse Agency funds on the warrant of the Auditor and shall make disbursements authorized by this Agreement. The Treasurer shall invest Agency funds in accordance with the general law. All inter- est collected on Agency funds shall be accounted for and posted to the account of said funds The County (or other Constituent Jurisdiction as applicable) may determine rea- sonable charges to be made against the Agency for the services of the Treasurer, and the Agency shall include such costs in its annual budget. 8. Auditinq The Auditor of the County shall be the ex officio Auditor of the Agency, and shall draw warrants against the funds of the Agency when the demands are ap- proved by the Executive Director or other designee of the Board, unless the Board of Rev 11/14/97 Page 17 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. Directors shall act by resolution to appoint some other person, as allowed by law, to tnat position. At the close of each fiscal year, as provided in Government Code Section 6505, the Auditor shall make an audit. In the alternative, the Board of Directors may contract with a certified public accountant to make an audit of the accounts and reports of the Agency. The Auditor shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as are deemed necessary to account for and report on receipts and disbursements. The Agency shall keep such additional records and accounts which are deemed necessary to account for and report on sources of funds, expenditures, grants and programs as may be required by good accounting practices. The books and records of the Agency shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by representatives of the member agencies. The County (or other Constituent Jurisdiction as applicable) may determine rea- sonable charges to be made against the Agency for the services of the Auditor, and the Agency shall include such costs in its annual budget. 9. Term. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall terminate and the Agency shall be deemed dissolved on December 31, 2027. In the event that, at any time, the Board of Directors reasonably determines that it will no longer receive Franchise Fees under any Franchise then existing or reason- ably expected to provide sufficient revenues to pay its costs of administration and yet make the required payments to the Constituent Jurisdictions, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and the Agency shall be deemed dissolved on the date of that de- termination. 10.. Disposition of Assets Upon dissolution of the Agency, its assets shall be distrib- uted to member agencies in the same proportion as distributions to member agencies have most recently been made pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 6, above. Any real property owned by the Agency shall, in advance of dissolution, be conveyed by the Board of Directors to member agencies as tenants in common with proportional inter- ests equal to the proportion of distributions most recently made pursuant to the provi- sions of said Paragraph 6. 11. Debts. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the Agency shall not constitute any debts, liabilities or obligations either jointly or severally of the County or the Municipali- ties. 12. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by written contract approved by and executed in behalf of the Governing Bodies of each member agency. No Franchi- see shall be deemed to either expressly or impliedly be a party to this Agreement, a third party beneficiary thereof, or to have any interest which precludes amendment of Rev. 11114/97 Page 18 of21 ORDINANCE NO. the terms of this Agreement in any manner in which the Governing Bodies of the mem- ber agencies, in their discretion, may mutually agree. 13. Termination. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may only be terminated by the enactment of an ordinance in identical form by a majority of the of the Constituent Jurisdictions which are then members of the Agency specifying such termi- nation, each such ordinance adopted within no more than ninety (90) days of each other. Upon such action, the Agency shall be deemed terminated and its assets dis- posed of pursuant to Paragraph 10 hereof. 14. Withdrawal. Any Constituent Jurisdiction may withdraw from membership in the Agency upon notice in writing to the Agency and the other members of the Agency by the enactment of an ordinance on or before May 1 of any year specifying that such withdrawal shall become effective not earlier than the end of the next successive fiscal year, provided that the withdrawal of any Constituent Jurisdictions from membership in the Agency (not resulting in the termination of the Agency pursuant to Paragraph 13 above) during the initial term of any Franchise issued pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall not operate to either divest the Franchisee of its authority to install or provide services through its Telecommunications Facilities within the area of the with- drawing Constituent Jurisdiction(s) or vest the withdrawing Constituent Jurisdiction with any administrative or other authority whatsoever respecting operations by the Franchi- see under the Franchise. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a duly appointed member of the governing body of a withdrawing jurisdiction may continue to participate and vote in actions coming before the Agency after withdrawal which pertain solely and exclusively to a Franchise in which a Franchisee has installed and is providing services through at least a portion of its Telecommunications Facilities, which are located within the juris- diction of the withdrawing jurisdiction (such a Franchise hereinafter an "Affecting Fran- chise"), provided that nothing in this sentence shall authorize the member appointed by the withdrawing jurisdiction to participate or vote in any matters pertaining to or having an effect upon more than a single Affecting Franchise. During such initial term, the Agency shall continue to administer the provisions of this Chapter for the benefit of the inhabitants of a Constituent Jurisdiction in the same manner as if the Constituent Juris- diction had not withdrawn. In the event that a Constituent Jurisdiction should give timely notice of withdrawal and that withdrawal should become effective before a cable television franchise assigned to the Agency as a part of its initial entry shall have been renewed, extended or otherwise materially amended, the Agency shall reassign said franchise to the withdrawing entity, said entity shall resume administration of said fran- chise and the Franchise Fees derived therefrom shall continue to be paid to the Con- stituent Jurisdiction which was the franchisor prior to the Effective Date. 15. Reservation of Riqhts. The provisions of this Agreement shall not be so construed as to in any manner restrict or impair the power or authority of the Constituent Jurisdic- tions to independently manage the sale, leasing, management, transfer and/or other disposition of Telecommunications Facilities owned by the Constituent Jurisdiction Rev 11/14/97 Page 19 of21 ORDINANCE NO. within their own jurisdictional boundaries. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed to obviate the necessity of a Franchise issued by the Agency in connection with the use of such Telecommunications Facilities, 16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart. IN WITNESS HEREOF the parties have approved and executed this Agreement as follows. SUB-CHAPTER 3 MISCELLANEOUS _._.300 Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances and Actions. To the extent that any prior ordinance, resolution, rule, order, regulation, and determination of the Town of Tiburon may be deemed to conflict with any provision of this Chapter, it is hereby re- pealed pro tanto, provided that no person or entity shall be relieved by reason of such repeal of any regulation, supervision or restraint by the Town of Tiburon unless such regulation, supervision or restraint under said prior ordinance, resolution, rule, order, regulation, and determination of the Town of Tiburon shall have been theretofore transferred to Agency by reason of the enactment of this Chapter or otherwise. _._.310 Severability. If any part, section, subsection, or other portion of this Chap- ter or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconsti- tutional or otherwise invalid for any reason, such part, section, subsection, or other por- tion, or the proscribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provi- sions of this Chapter and all applications thereof not having been declared void, uncon- stitutioral or otherwise invalid, shall remain in full force and effect. _._,320 Termination of MCCRRJPA. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21.1 of the MCCRRJPA Agreement of Formation, the Town of Tiburon hereby consents, as of the Effective Date of this Chapter, to the termination of MCCRRJPA. Section 2. This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of Tiburon Town Council on November 18, 1997 and on December 3, 1997. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force, subject to the provisions of section _._.120, on and after thirty (30) days from the date of its passage. It is further directed that, before the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the date of its passage, a summary shall be published once with the names of the members of the Town Councilmembers voting for and against the same, said publication to be made in a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Marin. Rev 11/14/97 Page 20 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting thereof this _ day of , 199_, by the following vote, AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (SEAL) Attest: Clerk Rev 11/14/97 Mayor Page 21 of 21 INFORMATION ABOUT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME PROGRAM APPLICATIONS Iklvt AJo.. Ie CD Applications for 1998-99 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and HOME Program funds must be received in our office by Friday. December 12.1997 at 5:00 p.m. iI Please try to limit CDBG applications to two pages. ~ Faxed applications will not be accepted. Workshop We are sponsoring a workshop to provide general information on how to apply for grant funds from the CDBO and HOME programs. The workshop will be held at the following date and location: Thursday, November 20, 1997 7:30 p.rn. Board of Supervisors Chambers, Room 330 (Third Floor) Marin County Civic Center 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael (Please note the location! We'll be meeting at the Marin County Civic Center, not San Rafael CiJJ! Hall.) Cookies will be served! If you are unable to attend the workshop, you may call us for an individual consultation, either by phone or in person. We encourage applicants to talk to us about new proposals before they file applications. (Our phone numbers are listed in the "For More Information" section on the back of this page.) You may obtain CDBO and HOME informational brochures and application forms at the workshop, by calling us at 499-6268, or by visiting our web site at http://marin.org/mc/comdev/federal. If you call, specifY whether you're calling about the CDBO or HOME program or both, and whether you need an application or brochure or both. What is CDBG? The CDBO program provides federal grant funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to non-profit organizations and local governments for housing, cornmunity facilities, and public service projects serving lower income people. The workshop is designed to inform you about the types of projects eligible for CDBO funding and the process for applying for these grants, and to give you an opportunity to exchange ideas with other applicants and CDBO staff. Firm figures for the County's next CDBO grant are not yet available, but we expect that our 1998-99 CDBO funding will be approximately the same as the prior year. The 1997-98 CDBO funding level was: Funding Area Novato Planning Area San Rafael Planning Area Upper Ross Valley Planning Area Lower Ross Valley Planning Area Richardson Bay Planning Area West Marin Planning Area Countywide Housing Total 1997-98 CDBO Orant 1997-98 Amount $199,020 329,912 88,231 67,856 164,092 60,489 606,400 $1,846,000 What is the HOME Program? The HOME Program provides federal funding for housing rehabilitation, housing construction, acquisition of existing housing, and tenant-based rental assistance. In 1997-98, Marin County received $882,000 in HOME funds, and we expect to receive roughly the same level of fimding in 1998-99. In addition, because one oflast year's HOME projects has been cancelled, we expect to have $522,000 from last year's HOME grant available for reallocation. Because of the complexity of the HUD regulations governing the HOME Program, we will probably restrict fimding to only a few very large projects. We will provide general information on the HOME Program at the workshop. If you would like a HOME application or a brochure describing the HOME Program, you can pick them up at our CDBG workshop, call us at 499-6268, or visit our web site at http://marin.org/mc/comd~v/fed()ral. For More Information: If you have any questions about the workshop or any of oW- progr!J.lIls, please call Reid Thaler (499-6695) or JaneOrebic (499-6697) at the Marin County COrllmunityDevelopment Agency, Federal Grants Division. People with impaired speech or ~earing using TDD devices may reach us at 499-6172 or through the California Relay Service at 1-800-735-2929. Sign language interpretation and translation into languages other than English are available. If you need sign or other interpretation, please call our office at 499-6268, one week in advance of the workshop or meeting you would like to attend. In consideration of persons with environmental sensitivities, please do not wear perfume or other fragrances to the meetings. For transit information, call Golden Gate Transit at 455-2000 or TDD 257-4554. Housing Opport\lnities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPW A) Infonnation: For more information on the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program (HOPW A), contact Roy Bateman at (415) 499-6698. Visit Us on the Internet! The Marin County Community Development Agency has an Internet web site, and we will post the CDBG and HOME brochures and application forms there. Look us up at http://marin.org/mc/comdev/federal. For those of you who prefer to use a computer rather than a typewriter or pen to fill out your application, this may help. But please try to limit CDBG applications to two pages. fI ,.,. ..... .... .~ JI ~ g American sign language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 499.6172 (TOOl or 1415) 499.6269 (voice) at least 72 hour:in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Marin County Community Development Agency, Federal Grants Division 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 421, San Rafael, California 94903-4157 Telephone (415) 499-6268 - TDD (415) 499-6172 - Fax (415) 499-7880 K:\WORD"ICYCLE\9IWORKSH.DOC I CDA.RB To~ OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. I~ To: TOWN COUNCIL From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER Subject: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A CONSTRUCTION 01<' A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (2225 VlST AZO EAST) Date: NOVEMBER 5, 1997 APPLICANT/APPELLANT -THOMAS FRANKOVICH SlLMMARY: A hearing has beeu scheduled for an appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to deny a Site ptan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a single-family dwelling on property tocated at 2225 Vistazo East. The appellant has requested that this hearing be continued until January, 1998. In determining the date for the hearing, Staff used the policy for scheduling appeals adopted by the Town Council by Resolution No. 3218 (attached as Exhibit I). Section I of this resolution states: "Appeals will be heard at the Hrst regular Town Council meeting following 15 days after the close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of Staff; the appeal may be scheduled for the regular Town Council meeting following the above-described meeting based on the complexity of the matter, Staffavailability, and agenda availability." As the appeal period for this item closed on October 13, 1997, the next regular Town Council meeting following 15 days after is the November 5, 1997 meeting. TnwulifTihuroo ~'talr RqlOrt I l/SII) 7 t~~797029.upl Page 2 Section 2 of the resolution further states: "Requests for continuance from the date established above will be considered by Town Staff only in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific and that date is deemed acceptable to Town Staff" The appellant submitted a written request for a continuance to "the mid part of January," presumably the January 21, 1998 COIll1cil meeting. In conversations and correspondence with Town Staff; the appellant has indicated that the reasons for this request include travel plans and a need for adequate time to prepare for the appeal. Staff has determined that the amount of time requested for the continuance by the appellant is inconsistent with the Town's policy of scheduling and processing applications in a timely manner. Staff has therefore denied the request for a continuance and has schednled the appeal for the November 5, 1997 Town Council meeting. The appellant has requested that the Town Council consider his request for a continuance of the appeal. The Town Council has the authority to continue the item to any date which is reasonable. The Staff Report on the appeal has been prepared and is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Consider the appellant's request for a continuance of the hearing for this appeal and give direction on whether to I) deny the request and hear the appeal at the November 5, 1997 meeting, or 2) grant the continuance, with specific direction as to the date upon which the appeal shonld be heard. EXHffiIT: I. Town Council Resolution No. 3218 2. Letters from Thomas Frankovich aud Todd Cowan regarding the request for continuance T(Mt1 <)fTihun:v Statf Report 11/5/97 tc797029.apl ,/~ RESOLUTION NO. 3218 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A POLICY REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF APPEALS WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is both necessary and appropriate to adopt a policy concerning scheduling of appeals which are received by the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to scheduling of appeals: 1. Appeals will be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting following 15 days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of Staff, the appeal may be scheduled for the regular Town Council meeting following the above-described meeting based on complexity of the matter, Staff availability, and agenda availability. The determination of the hearing date will be made within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period, and the selected date conveyed to all parties to the appeal. 2. Requests for continuances from the date established above will be considered by Town Staff only in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific and that date is deemed acceptable to T own Staff. The request for continuance from all parties must be received by the Thursday preceding the scheduled appeal date 3. Personal attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is not required. In lieu of personal appearances, written comments or the sending of representative(s) is acceptable 4. This policy is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision- making bodies: other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time III III III Tiburon Town Council Resolution .Vo. 32/8 Adopted -'lay 7. 1997 1 / EXHIBIT NO. I If, f OF L PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon on May 7, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCll.MEl'vIBERS. GinaIski, Hennessy, Thayer, Thompson, Wolf NOES: COUNCll.MEMBERS: None ABSENT COUNCll.MEMBERS: None Cfh~ Yr/- f/Ie~ THERESE M. HENNESSY, I'v1A Y TOWN OF TIBURON LERK appeal.res Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 3218 AdoptedMay 7, 1997 2 ~ EXHIBIT NO. I fJ, L OF '2.-- THOMAS FRANKOVICH iii 415 673 2728 10/28/9"7 16:46 B :02/03 NO:134 Of' OOVNeEL 1'eTIIlA.",",-"", ~lIl!JItvTO &t\N F~OFFICIi: THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH A~......... rIQNlLv.w~1'lON ONE OANtEL ~ coum SUlTE'301e SAN FFVt.N0f800, CA.., QO.....S48O T'EI....eA<Wi .'&oen..ans TtX:I .'15-87'-4880 ~~ 4'M7.).21:M 10'OO&ANT~~lL.yg. au".. _ L.08 N<<JELJ!8. CH.~ 8COl!J7 ~ 31()..6M.ea,3 p~ .,o-cn-2728 October 28, 1997 VIa Fa 41$/43$-2438 and U.S. Mail Robert Kleinert, Town Manager ToWll of Tiburon I~O~ Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal of Desig" Rnkw BOOI'tI IhclsioftfDT SllIgIe Fturdly DWtf//tng LtJCtMd III 122J JIlJ*'tD Em. TIb_II T_ FIk ND 797019; PIlt'Cel No. OJ9--091-" Dear Mr. Kleinert; This is a follow-up to our conversation of this morning, October 28, 1997, whm:in I ~uestedof the Town (and the staff thereof) a continuance of the appeal of the Design Review Board decision for the single family dwelling located at 2225 Vistam East. A3 I indicated to you, I, through my architect, Todd Cowan, bad written Dan Watrous on October 10, 1997 requesting that the appeal be in mid-January of I 998. Mr. Cowan, who was going to be on vacation for a good portion of October, was assured that there would be no problem moving the date. Mr. Cowan spoke with Mr. Watrous on October 27, 1997 relative to Mr. Watrous's letter of October IS advising that we must go forward with the appeal on November ~tlI. It is my understanding that Mr. Watrous was not abte to provide an aoswer as to why this appcaI could not be heard in mid-January. To get to the point, we are appealing and relied upon Mr. Watrous's representations that this could be put over to mid-January, 1'998. PursUllllt to Mr. Cowan's representations to Mr. Watrous and my n:presentations herein, we are not prepared to go forward with the appeal on November S, 1997. I have reviewed Resolution No. 3218, which was forwarded to me by the Town and it indicates that at the sole discretion of the staff, the appeal. may be put over. Considering the fact that we asked, on October 10, 1997, that the appeal be put over until mid-January of 1998. considering this request and considering the fact that I am the appellant, I cannot see how there can be EXHIBIT NO. --z... P. l OPI THOMAS FRANKOVICH ii 415 673 2728 10/28/97 16:46151 :03/03 NO:13l, Robert Kleinert, Town Manager October 28, 1997 Page 2 prejudice to lIIIyone in granting this continuance. The only one who would be prejudiced by this hearing going forward on November 5, 1997 would be me. All you are aware, the house that I intend to build is not a spec house. Unlike many of the other projects that have gOlle up in Tiburon, this is a home that I intend to live in. Anyone looking at the plllnS thenuelves can ClUily make that determination. As the Town "staff" is comprised not only of the Planning Department. Town Management, and the Town Legal Staff, it would be greatly appreciated if you would accommodate my request as the appellant IIIId resident of the Town of Tiburon to move the appeal to mid-January, 1998. We anticipate and appreciate YOW" aUention to this matter and would appreciate a response in writing so as not to preclude any miS\lllderstandings. Should you wish to discuss this, please contact me immediately as time is of the essence. r remain, . - Very truly yours, ."".( - ., -~ - . Thomas E. Frankovich TEF/jem EXHIBIT NO. Z- _ .u P. 2-- 6F 7 ...._-_.~'....:.._...._-~-~~ - ----. ~-- .--.-.-....... .-.- _.'"""---~-----------_.-'-"-...~~.~- :..;..o....;.~ OF COUNSEL PETER A. NELSON PLEASE REPLY TO SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH A PROFESSIONAl.. LAW CClAPClAA llON ONE DANIEL BURNHAM COURT SUITE 3910 SAN FFlANCISCO, CA 941C9-5460 TELEPHONE 415-673-2733 100 415-673-4590 FACSIMILE 415-673-2726 10100 SANTA MONICA BlVD. SUITE 340 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 TELEPHONE 31Q-45B-9293 FACSIMILE 415-673-2728 October 28, 1997 Via Fax 415/435-2438 and U.S. Mail Robert Kleinert, Town Manager Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Request to Continue Appeal of Design Review Board Decision for Single Family Dwelling Located at 2225 Vistazo East, Tiburon Town File No 797029; Parcel No. 059-091-55 Dear Mr. Kleinert: Since I last spoke to you and wrote to you, I was called by Scott Anderson of the Town's Planning Department. He informed me that you requested that he call me. He asked me what my question was and I informed him aoout my request, both through my architect Todd Cowar. and myself, that the appeal of the Design Review Board's decision be put over until January. Mr. Anderson informed me that there would be no continuance for the sake of "efficiency of government." I explained to him that we had relied upon the assurances of Dan Watrous that this would be put over until mid-January, 1998, but Mr. Anderson insisted that the appeal must proceed on November 5, 1997. He again referred me to the policy regarding the scheduling of appeals. Considering the fact that this policy is discretionary, and considering that it is my own appeal and that the only party who can be prejudiced is myself, I can see no legitimate reason for not granting a continuance. I am requesting that you, as Town Manager, give due consideration to my request, as you are every bit "staff," and allow the appeal to be heard on its merits in mid- January, 1998. When I asked Mr. Anderson what possible prejudice there. could be to anyone, he simply informed me that this was for the "efficiency of government." He later added that it was to keep things moving. The Design Review Board serves a useful pwpose, as does the Planning Department, but it appears that this is becoming adversarial as opposed to frank and candid discussions regarding the merits of a single family dwelling. Again, I ask that you, as the Town EXHIBIT NO. L ~. 3 tk7 --'-,_______~_......__._~_____~____ _.~'_.~L_~___~_~_____. ~~_~__~~___..( Robert Kleinert, Town Manager October 28, 1997 Page 2 Manager, take it upon yourself to grant a continuance to mid-January, 1998. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. Again, to preclude any misunderstandings, I would appreciate a response in writing. I am sure that you are going to speak to the Town Attorney regarding this, but I think that given the fact that I have taken the time to set forth my position in writing, I should be extended the same courtesy. Thank you for your cooperation. I remain, c Very truly yours, J?~- q ""' ~- Thomas E. Frankovich TEF/jem cc: Scott Anderson (via fax & U.S. Mail) EXHIBIT NO. 2- ft 4ov7 ~ '.., ~~-- ----:~';ri~~..; ;.~ - - -, - - _.~ I/~':""'" .~ -"_.~--~."';';'-~_'-----"":""'''''~_'_-_-:''''~:'_:::''''--''- .'.. ~ -~, ' .,~ ~ ',.'- OF COUNSEL PETER A. NELSON PLEASE REPLY TO SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH A PROFeSSIONAl. LAW OORPOFlATION ONE DANIR BURNHAM COURT SUITE 391C SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109-5480 TELEPHONE 415-673-2733 TOO 415-673-4590 FACSIMILE 415-673-2726 10100 SANTA MONICA BLVD, SUITE 3<0 LOS ANGELES, CAL.IFORNIA 90067 TELEPI-IONE 31 Q-4S8~9293 FACSIMILE 415-673-2728 October 28, 1997 RECEiVED TOWN OF T13URON (iCT 2 9 1997 Via Fax 415/435-2438 and U.S. Mail Scott Anderson, Planning Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 0'"",' ~-',~r:.\'" O~ C.r'('\.'I".J...' I r COMMUNITY DE'JELOPMENT Re: Request to Continue Appeal of Design Review Board Decision for Single Family Dwelling Located at 2225 Vistazo East, Tiburon Town File No 797029; Parcel No. 059-091-55 Dear Mr. Anderson: This is to confIrm 'our telephone conversation of late this afternoon, October 28, 1997. As I indicated to you, the only thing that I am looking for in requesting a continuance of the appeal from t1:e Design Review Board's decision is that the Town CO\:1lcil makes its decision based upon the merits. As I explained to you, Todd Cowan, my architect, on October 10, 1997, requested that the appeal be put over from the November 5,1997 meeting to the mid-January, 1998 meeting. This was due to my not being in town during part of October and Mr. Cowan being on vacation. It was explained to Mr. Watrous that we needed time to prepare for the appeal. I also informed you that we needed time for the appeal and that was why the request was being made. Based upon the assurances of Mr. Watrous that L':e appeal could be pu~ ove~ to zr..id- January, 1998, we are prejudiced by your refusal to accommodate us by continuing the matter. The only party being prejudiced is myself. Again, I ask what prejudice could there be to the Town by granting our request for a mid-January hearing? As I informed you, it appears that the November 5 meeting was going to be for the purpose of a rush to judgment without a decision based upon all the merits of the appeal. Although Resolution 3218 states in part: "At the sole discretion of Staff, the appeal may be scheduled for the regular Town Council meeting following the above-described meeting based on complexity of the matter, Staff availability and agenda availability." That goes part and p&:cel.with "requests for continuances from the date established above will be considered by Town Staff only in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific and that date is deemed acceptable to the Staff.". Obviously, I am the party making the appeal and I EXHIBIT NO. '"2-- P, ~oF7 .'. :...... .~,~i;~'j Scott Anderson, Planning Director October 28, 1997 Page 2 cannot understand how this is not acceptable to you. It has always been my impression that planning departments and design review boards serve not only the Town as a legal entity but all of the citizens. Here, I am not a spec builder, but a resident, property owner and builder of my own home. I would think that under all of the circumstances, there is no legitimate reason not to allow a continuance. It would be greatly appreciated if you would reconsider your position and extend the same courtesy that I have extended to you in this letter and respond in writing regarding your position. May I please have your written response no later than 5:00 p.m., tomorrow, October 29, 1997? Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this matter. I remain, - Very truly yours, ---.L - - , /'" ~ ~ Thomas E. Frankovich TEF/jem EXHIBIT NO. ~ ~. Co cF 7 _ \!\l..lf (j,,\l A~D. AS10CIATES G..~e(\.dlUli:~ INC. ~ = October 28, 1997 !":lEif"~.'<D'-~"" n .~I;;;;.a '.1 C!'J TOWN OF TiBUr':;ON Dan Watrous Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 ()r.- :: i1 !"Q7 _' L" ,) \,/ '], D,..~, n-' '''''J- OF CI-'Mj"!lii:~l\ I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Tom Frankovich 2225 Vistazo East Dear Dan: I am writing this note to you with regard to your letter of October 15, 1997 to Mr. Frankovich. As you will remember, you and I spoke by phone on approximately October 9, 1997 regarding extending the appeal meeting to a mid January date. I told you I would be out of town and Mr. Frankovich would also be out of town and that we needed more time for the appeal. During that conversation you said this would not be a problem and suggested that we put the request in a letter, along with the application fee. This I did. You told me by phone today that you have this request letter in your file. Mr. Frankovich and I relied on the fact that the appeal would go over to mid January, per your comment. Would you please reconsider and give us a new date in January 1998 for the appeal to give us ample time to prepare for a Council meeting? Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please fax back your (707) 546-0101. -1 reply as soon as possible. Our fax number is Si.n~c/r e2y.; ~/ / I' A...! " . . 1 . ~ Todd Cowan, COWAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I TC/pp cc: Tom Frankovich EXHIBIT NO. '2.- P. 7 oF7 POBox 9021 . 2833 Dowd Drive SUite B. Santa Rosa, CA 95405. 707 546.1967 Mi./( '(.5"" 'j :2-'2l{~ v, f: TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. To: TOWN COUNCIL From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER Subject: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (2225 VIST AZO EAST) Date: NOVEMBER 5, 1997 APPLICANT/APPELLANT -THOMAS FRANKOVICH PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: DATE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMPTION: 2225 VIST AZO EAST 059-091-55 797029 41,739 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL-OPEN) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MAY 5,1997 MAY 5, 1997 BACKGROUND: On October 2, 1997, the Design Review Board denied a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a single-family dwelling to be located at 2225 Vistazo East. The owner of the property, Mr. Thomas Frankovich, has now appealed the Board's denial to the Town Council. Town ur Tihurm Stall' Rl-']lort 1115/97 tc797029.apl Page 2 PRO.JECT DESCRIYfION: The applicant requested Design Review approval for a new single-family dwelling to be constructed at 2225 Vistazo East. The proposed house would have two stories plus a garage on a lower level, and an overall height of30 feet. The main floor would include a living room, family room, dining room, kitchen, laundry, two bathrooms and one bedroom The upper floor would include a master bedroom suite, along with two additional bedrooms, a den and 2Y2 more bathrooms. A three-car garage would occupy the lower level, connected to the main floor by an elevator. A future swimming pool is proposed at the southern end of the site. Two 12,000 gallon water tanks are proposed to be installed toward the northern end of the property. The house was originally proposed to have a floor area of 6,668 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for a parcel of this size. The exterior design of the proposed house would have a Mediterranean theme. The stucco exterior walls were originally proposed to have a salmon colored finish. The site has a substantial slope down to Vistazo East, which creates potential visual impacts from the design of the house. The most prominent view of the proposed house would be from the homes below ou Vistazo East. The proposed home, however, would also be clearly visible from many of the residences in Old Tiburon. Access to the proposed house would be provided by a winding driveway up to the garage, bolstered by a series of retaining walls. As part of the approval of the subdivision creating this parcet in 1984, conditions were imposed that would require widening of the street in front of the property to 18 to 20 feet, construction of appropriate turning radius and turnaround, installation of a fire hydrant and construction of a cul-de-sac at the current easterly terminus ofVistazo East. However, Staff has discovered that these conditions were never recorded for this parcel, leaving the applicant unaware of these requirements when he purchased the property. The Interim Town Attorney has reviewed this situation, and has determined that these conditions are unenforceable d by the Town at this point in time.1Ifthe Tiburon Fire Protection District and/or the Town I ~ Engineer therefore conclude that improvements would be nece~~al:Y to insure adequate access for ~ public safety vehicles, then new conditions could be imposed on the approval ofthe residence. ' () - REVIEW BY THE BOARD: The project was initially reviewed by the Design Review Board at its May t5, 1997 meeting. At that time, the Board raised concerns about the size and colors of the proposed house, and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Board continued the item, with direction that the applicant prepare a detailed landscaping plan, make the colors of the house darker, and make efforts to address the mass and bulk of the building. (\()'I- ~ -- Tov.u <lfTibur<u ~'t31rR"'POlt 11/5/97 tc797029.apl Page 3 The applicant subsequently submitted plans showing more detailed landscaping, including vines that would be planted along some of the proposed retaining walls to bring the scale of the building down. A revised cotor palette proposed darker colors for the house. The water tanks were reduced in size and sunken 2 feet into the ground. No changes were made to the overall size and . desigt! of the house. . The Design Review Board reviewed these revised plans at its June 19, 1997 meeting. The ij,oard's concerns again centered on the size and ,cal" ,,[the nroposed hous<<<. The plans showing the landscaping and the retaining walls were incomplete, and were insufficient to determine the actual visual impacts which would be caused by the residence. The colors indicated on the rendering presented by the designer of the house were different than those submitted on the color and materials board. The Board continued the project to September 18, 1997, with direction to the applicant to provide additional information regarding the scale of the retaining; walls and how the house cOuJ<1 oetter fit ill WIth the fabnc of the Old Tiburon neighborhood. . The applicant again submitted revised plans. The proposed house was reduced in size by 15. .square feeti to a floor area of 6,653 square feet. Other changes included reducing the height of the garage, straightening the driveway, increasing the turnaround area in front of the garage, adding some roof articulation, and placing several coluIlllls along the northeast side of the house. Landscaping was increased around the water tanks, and the proposed trees were modified. As part of the September 18, 1997 repOlt, Staff prepared an analysis of31 parcels within 300 feet of the subject property (attached as Exhibit 8). The analysis revealed that the average size of the homes on these parcels was 2,577 square feet, and that 25 of these 31 homes are less than half the . size of the proposed house. The analysis also indicated that the floor areas of homes in this area - were an average of61.0% of their maximum permitted floor area ratio. In comparison, the floor area of the propo~ house is 99.7% of the maximum permitted F.A.R. for this parcel. ---- At the September 18, meeting, the applicant presented revised plans of the front elevations for the proposed house, including the retaining walls along the driveways. The Board asked about the details of the retaining walls, and the designer indicated that the plans did not accurately indicate the actual the dimensions of these walls or their appearance from the stree!. The Board indicated that they had reneatedlv asked the applicant to address the concerns ofthe B d and the surroundin nei borhood re ardin the mass and bulk f the roposed house. The only su stantive changes which the applicant had made in response to these concerns were to reduce the size of the house by t5 square feet (0.22%) and to offer to plant some vines to help screen the massive retaining walls along the front of the property. At this point, the plans provided still did not give the Board an accurate representation of the visual impacts ofthe proposed house. Town llfTihuroll StalrRLTh)rt 1115/97 tc797029.apl Page 4 At each of the Board meetings, neighboring residents and property owners had raised concerns about the proposed house. Most of the issues deatt with the incompatibility of the size and scale of the proposed house with the remainder of the Otd Tiburon neighborhood. Other concerns which were raised included potential drainage, traffic, and accessibility problems which would be caused by the proposed house. The Design Review Board concurred with the surrounding neighborhood regarding the size and scale of the proposed house. Dnring their deliberations, Board Chairman Howard read into the record a detailed analysis (Exhibit 9) of the issues presented by this application, and the concerns which led to her motion to deny this request. The Board ultimately determined that the proposed residence was incompatibte with the prevailing development pattern of Old Tiburon. Staff was directed to prepare a resolution denying this project. On October 2, 1997, the Design Review Board adopted the prepared resolution denying the subject application. BASIS FOR THE 'APPEAL: The appeal (Exhibit t) raises several issnes supporting the design of the proposed house. The first issue is that the subject lot "is one of the largest'in the neighborhood of smaller prdj'lerties." The previously described analysis of properties within 300 feet of the site indicates that this 41,739 square foot lot is larger than 28 of the 31 surrounding parcels. The average lot size of these parcels is 23,514 square feet, which is 56.3% of the size of the subject parcel. The size of homes on these smaller lots is another matter. As stated previously, the average size of these homes is only 61.0% of their maximum pennitted F.AR. If the scale of the proposed house to its parcel size was reduced to match this average F.AR. percentage, a 3.766 square foot hQ~ would be constructed on this site. The increased size of this lot does not automatically justifY the construction of a 6,655 square-root houseOil this lot, especially when compared to the sizes of the . homes built on other parcels in the vicinity. . . The appeal also attempts to rationalize the size of the house by stating that the applicant is "not asking for variances of any kind." On several occasions, Mr. Frankovich indicated to the Design Review Board that he purchased this parcel with the belief that he would be able to construct a house with the maximum permitted F.AR. Section 4.02.06 (d) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review) states that the Design Review Board, when analyzing the appropriateness of an application, shall consider the "height, size, or bulk of the proposed building in relation to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity." . The Board recognized that this parcel was in a transitional area between the smaller houses and lots of the Old Tiburonneighborhood and the larger homes and parcels of the area along Ridge Road above the subject property. TIle analysis of homes within 300 feet ofthe site was prepared to J ~ ~0:~~;a~:=:~~~z~no~h2~~;~a::~:~: ~:e~~~:g 2b5u~~~~~~:3 \h~::~~~:s~~:i~:;:~led ~ floor area of the proposed 6,655 square foot house. Therefore, even though no variances are i TO\VllllFTibmUl Stair RL'[HlI1 II/Sin tc797029.npl Page 5 required to construct a house of this size on the subject parce~ the Board found that the size of the-prQposed house was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. - .- ~ The appeal contends that, due to the steepness of this parcel, a 3,000 to 4,000 square foot house on this lot "would still have the same amount of retaining walls, same driveway problems, [and the] same mass and bulk problems." Placing a smaller house at the same location on the site would require the construction of a driveway and retaining walls similar to those associated with the proposed house. If the house was moved. closer to the street, the visual impacts from the driveway and retaining walls could be slightly reduced, although the views from the house would be lessened at this lower elevation. However, the suggestion that the mass and bulk of a 3,000 to 4,000 square foot house would be no different than that of a house approximately twice that floor area is difficult to comprehend. Clearly, a house could be designed with a size which is closer to that of others in the vicinity, with less visible mass and bulk than the proposed house. The applicant has not submitted any plans for a smaller house on this site to either prove this point or to follow the direction of the Design Review Board to address the concerns about the size and scale of the proposed house. Finally, the appeal states that the applicant is "doing everything to work with the Town of Tiburon... and with the neighborhood to help bring all of us together." One of the concerns of the Design Review Board was the applicant's lack of effort in addressing the potential mass and bulk problems caused by the design of the proposed house. Over the course of three meetings and four months of review, tlle only substantive changes which the applicant has made to address these issues have been to reduce the size of the house by a mere t5 square feet and to plant vines along some of the retaining walls. ~esDite repeated reauests by the Board, the applicant has still not resented tans accuratel de ictin th.' of the massive retainin walls proposed to be constructed on the site or to oth('mnop ,,,,h<ttantia y address the concerns about lhe mass and bulk of the proposed hOlloP Tll F"ggpot that the applicant is indeed "doing - everything" to resolve this matter ;0 0 dramati~ overstatement. In fact, the applicant's unresponsiveness in addressing the legitimate concerns of the Design Review Board and surrounding residents and property owners had much to do with the failure of this application to gain approval by the Board. It is clear that the Design Review Board complied with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to consider the "height, size, or bulk.ofthe proposed building in relation to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity" in reviewing this project. The proposed house is much larger than the vast majority of homes in the surrounding area, and is demonstrably incompatible with the character of the Old Tiburon neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and direct Staff to return with a Resolution memorializing the action. T O'^'n uf TihlUl1ll StaU"RLl101"t 11/5N7 tc797029.::tp1 Page 6 EXHffirrs: I. Notice of Appeal dated October 10, 1997 2. Minutes of the May IS, 1997, Design Review Board meeting 3. Minutes of the June 19, 1997, Design Review Board meeting 4. Minutes of the September 18, 1997, Design Review Board meeting 5. Staff report from the May t 5, 1997, Design Review Board meeting 6. Staff report from the June 19, 1997, Design Review Board meeting 7. Staff report from the September 18, 1997, Design Review Board meeting 8. Table analyzing house size, lot size and floor area ratios for houses within 300 feet of 2225 Vistazo East 9. Statement read into the record by Carla Howard, Chairman, Design Review Board, on September 18,1997 10. Design Review Board Resolution No. 97-1 denying Site ptan and Architectural Review for 2225 Vistazo East II. Site ptan and Architectural Review and application dated March 7, 1997 12. Letter from James and Sybil Reynolds, dated May 8, 1997 13. Letter from Rex and Janet Elder, dated May 12, 1997 14. Letter from Charles and Virginia Shalz, dated May 12, 1997 IS. Letter from Kell Bredsic Larsen, dated May 12, 1997 16. Letter from Betty and Lowell McKegney, dated May 12, 1997 17. Letter from Betty McKegney, dated May 12, t 997 18. Letter from Michael H. Schinner, dated May 15, 1997 19. Letter from Pamela 1.. Peterson, dated May 15, 1997 20. Letter from Madeleine Wood, Architectnral and Environmental Review Chair, Old Tiburon Homeowners, Dated May 28, 1997 21. Letter from Christopher S. Annstrong, dated June 2, 1997 22. Letter from Steve and lrene Denebeim, dated June t 3, 1997 23. Letter from David H. Heilbron, dated June 18, 1997 24. Letter from Virginia Shalz, dated September II, 1997 25. Letter from Sallie Bell Kelly, dated September 15, 1997 26. Letter from Richard D"')'er, dated September 15, 1997 27. Letter from Thomas E. Frankovich, dated September 16, 1997 28. Letter from Pamela 1.. Peterson, dated September 16, 1997 29. Letter from R.C. Hamer, dated September 18, 1997 30. Letter from Timothy D. Hayes, dated October 23, 1997 31. ptans dated September 9, 1997 Tov.n ofTihurun SlatfR<..Tll'lt IllY)? tc797029.apl TOWN OF TlBURON r:'<r:"'Jl"O"""n,/i-RI u"t~vCli'f.fC~ TOWN OF T,BU?ON NOTICE OF APPEAL OCT 1 0 1997 APPELLANT D=?ARTM~\TO:: C""'; ~o_ ~I. ''''iIT'' n-'- ,-. -~',," r-" ,""d."" "Ii I' U'."'-' V."" ~~, .. .... """ '. .... "I..-;" I I.' l:-~ <,; Name: Tom Frankovich Address: 586 Virginia Drive, Tiburon. CA 94920 Telephone: (415) 673-2733 (Work) (415) 435-9005 (Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: Design Re~iew Date of Action: 10/02/97 Name of Applicant: Torn Frankovich Nature of Application: Single Family Residence GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, if necessary) See Attached Last Day to File lDG7J'17 Fee ($300.00) Paid: Lollo\5"1 Date Received: LDI~l47 Date of Hearing: January 1996 -SXHT3IT NO.-L V. 1 oF:3 - == ~{1..[[ W[.ANO !S:OCIATES - (l.U~[~[~4~ ~c. -= '-: = - ~:;;;~~r',f~~ Ul';,&'.~'lT.iIl: v ~i::~::,' -I~'^':l"""-T.~.'''- . V\.'VI~ V;- E:H.;r:Oj\j ocr 1 0 1997 October 10, 1997 Dan Watrous Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 C::::":-"':"'~':::":7r":- _I nil i 10._,;\; ..,.,,~ C""';~~ (' '~!~':"'\r ~,~. to;-; ,..,,-. r-' '..... v....~;...kd I w~t ~':"'VI"':VlS.L j Re: Tom Frankovich 2225 Vistazo East Dear Dan: We are requesting a meeting for the mid part of January, 1998. Enclosed you will find the application and check. If TC/kc Enclosures cc: Tom Frankovich -.,y....-r.r,...,-T NO ) 1:j'I ,.~ ~-; ~ <""":'.J.-' ., ..L:.1L-"-'-.-:........_:-.i' . p. '2-- z;y:; 5 PO. Box 9021.2833 Dowd Drive Suite B. Santa Rosa, CA 95405.707/546-1967 - _ \El!..[f (LIT AND ASSOCIATES (lUi((5[u[~ ~NC. ~~:~~~ ~~~~ -;F'.=\' ;.. '-'. II ~ OCT 1 0 1997 D::::AhT[J.~~~T c:= C,..".!"JlN'i.....1 IU "1="<1=1 O~IW:;.:-I. i",i;..::~:U " I _" 1..:- L ~ _." Design Review denied our application to design a single family residence at 2225 Vistazo East. The differences between Design Review and the Owner is the mass and bulk questions, This lot is one of the largest in the neighborhood of smaller properties. We are not asking for variances of any kind. The project fits all height and size requirements. This lot is also on an average 45% to 48% slope. As Designers of this project, we have found that even a 3000 to 4000 square foot residence on this type of slope would still have the same amount of retaining walls, same driveway problems, same mass and bulk problems. Please understand that we are doing everything to work with the Town of Tiburon at all departments and with the neighborhood to help bring all of us together. We understand that we have maximum building size per lot area. We are basically at that with this project, but we feel it still works with size and scale. "'Q"'~~-~"""'-T ""JO l .L1~{Utl.~,'1 .1\1' . ~. 3 cz:; 3 PO. Box 9021 . 2833 Dowd Drive Suite B. Santa Rosa. CA 95405.707/546,1967 9. 2225 Vistazo East St Frankovich, "ew Single Family Dwelling (Taken out of order) Tne applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a single-family dwelling located at 2225 \'istazo East. The house will ha,'e two stories pius a garage on a lower level, and an overall hoight of 30 f;;e1. The main t100r will indude a living room. fanri.iy roonL dining room, kitchen. laundry. two bathrooms and one bedroolll. The upper floor will include a maskr bedroom SUIte. along WIth two additional bedrooms, a den and 2 '0 more bathrooms. ..\. three-car garage will occupy the lower level. connec'ted to the main t100r by an devator. ..\. fi.lture swimming pool is propo>ed at the southern end of the site. The structure will co\'er 6.630 square fed (15.9'0) of the lot. The house will have a floor area 01'6.668 5quar~ te~t which is the maximum allowed for a parcd of this size. The exterior walls of the house WIll utilize a salmon colored smcco tinish with a light ,gra,' trim. The roof will consist of blended brown colored barrel vault tile. \lr. Cowan, Archl1ect. e"1l1ained that tillS is a 6,600 square foot building on a veT) steep slope. He met with tile fire marshal and is working within the TOW11 Guidelines. He has not prepared a droinage plan yet, md is only asking for appro,,"l afme d~ign at this time. The story poles are up and ho\'e been marked. The building is below the 30' height and they are proposing two water tanks of approximately 20,000 gollons, which will b" partially submerg"d with landscaped around them The llllldscaping plan is being devdopcd now. There is a well on the site but it does not pump enough water to fight a fire. Although the tanks are not a reqlllrement of the Fire Departmmt they ar" for added ftre protection e,""n thoug." the house will b" sprinkiered. Thev are also proposing a swimming pool to b" built some time in the future. Pat ..\.rmitage. 460 Ridge Road, had questIOns regarding the water tanles lllle the futur" peol. Looking at th" property from his property. h" thought that ther" was a storv pole missing. ,He also thoug.ht that a dramage plan should be reqUIred ReX Elder. speaking on behalf of the Slliilz at 2180 Vlstazo East. stated that they have significant concerns about drainage and felt a drainage plan is required. They also had questions about traffic safety during construction. The road is very fragile md WIll not withstand any heavy truck traffic and requests that a road bond be required fer repair of the street Lastly. they want to see a construction plan that specrlies how the other iive properties will be able to get in and out ofth.ir homes during construction. Pam PetersoIL 510 Ridge Road. lives directly above the proposed project and was concerned about the installation of two-twenty thousand gallon water tanks. She understands that the owner has been through the \hlibu fIres and rmderstands why they feel the need for protection, however the topography, ';egeta1iOIL and fault lines in Tiburon ar" not the same as \lalibu and she feels this is overkill Mr. Frankovich has been very considerate of her concerns regarding the tanks and will work with her to minim~ their view but she is concerned aboUl the tanks~ the Fire Department is only 3 minutes aw.ay. If the Board approves the tanks. she would lih them submerged and a structure built over the TIBURON DRB 51! 5/97 8 )7:'"":T;~'T.-;"'I"7.'''~i ":',-;"/'\ "2, J..::..:..:~:,::...~.:_...:.,' ,,;,.'j'V"._ ? loP 3 . tanks. She is opposed to vegetation because it takes too long to grow and may not be maintained. She wond<Nd if thev could be relocated dsewhere 011 the property. There are very f~w tr~~s on th~ sit~. and the key is to k~"P the brush removed. Th~ pool could also be used lor fire safety rather than tanks. If thIS is to be pursued. she would like to see exactl,' where on the site and how high they will be. Jolm :\-Iadden, 2040 \'lSlaZO East speaking for himself and 011 behalf of the owners 01'2021 Yistazo East, is concerned about the storage of matcnal and equipment and would like to see that it is stored on ,ite during constmction. :Vfadeline Wood. 2336 Paradise Driv~. Chair of .-\rchii~ctuml Reyi~w Board for th~ Old Tiburc>n Homeowners .'\ssociation, stat~d that this is a major proj~ct in an old neighborhood wher~ there is history and tradition of smaller houses and cottagos. This will have a major impact. from up c1os~ as well as other vantage points all oyer the southern tipJf the peninsula. This project is way out of scale. Concerns se::rrJ to be the mass. bulk. drainage and displacing the open space that is there now that take the drainage now~ all the waw will have to be chann~led ,md will create a tremendolls now of water. This will affect ail of the properties below this project. The road will have to be widened to 20' to allow lor tire trucks: it is a country road nO\\I and not well paved AJso. the drawing does not give the whole picture. There will probably have to be bulkheads and a driveway which are not shown. She cited a slide that occurred on Paradise Drive in January. She is very conc<med and wants to go forward cautiously. She thought it was too soon to discuss the house at tI1js time before it is known that it IS f~asible and that the hillside could support such a ,trucmre. Robert PettiJOhn. speaking on behalf of:V!ichad Schirmer, 2220 Vistazo East, stat~d that he has done som~ drainage repair tor :\-[r. Schirmer and he can attest that there are drainage problems on th~ hillside. The 2' drainage pipe has a 90 degree angle and all the water coming off the hill goes through the pipe on :\.lr. Schumer.s property. The property seel!'.s vcry' unstable and there are many springs on the hill. .. T 0m Frankovich. applicant. slatod that h~ will b~ obcaining allllCl:ossary pennlts. including engineering permits for the project. ..!.Jl constnlcti0n materials and Yehicles will be k~pt ')11 a construction driveway that will be built on his property. Ther" is quit~ a bit of open space to the east and he has been through two fir~s: th~y mo\'~ very rapidly and h~ wants the wat<r tanks for immediat~ availabIlity of water. It is his intent to have r valves at the tep and bottom of the property. The tanks will Ix submerged, with about 4.-5" in height aboye ground and will be landscaped H" has 32-42 00 slope and his lot is not comparab!" to the r"ferenced property On Paradise Drive. He will have an adequate pump and hose to protect his property which would be a,'ailable to the neighbors if required Boardmember Beales recognized that the home is large. but the lot is big enough to handle it. They are not asking for variances or an FAR. exc"Ption, and are withul the guidelines of the Town. Perhaps the Mediterranean style design is not compatible with the neighborhood. Issues of drainage and roadway are engineering issues to be addressed. but outside the pur-iew of the Design Review Board. , TIBtiRON DRB 5/15.197 9 ;T~~:'~=.~~~=l:If'j"' I-TS". P. 2- 2.-~ ~ Commission~r Fytf~ stat~d that th~ colors are awfully bright and out of character with th~ n~ighborhood and th~ lighting se=ed too bright. She was struggling with th" character issu< of old Tiburon whlch has a certain kind of styk Boardmember Snow stat<d that drainage and soiis issues are oet of t~ir discussion. although if the soil will not accommodat< th~ strJctUR th~v will have to come back for recksign. He also has sinular concerns about th~ size and massing of the building and that it do<s not conform to the n~ighborhood. He also felt the building should be a darker color. He did not 1hink this hous~ was in conformance with other houses in old Tiburon. Although the lot IS lurge enough for thIS size house, it will be very massive. He would like to see the neighbors and the owner work together to come to an unckrstanding, Mr. C awan explained the lighting plan. There are wull sconces to light the sides of the buildings and soffit lighting under th~ porch area and some of the windows. Low lig.l-jting will 1x used along the stairs and low light landscaping, The lighting is used mainly for security. In response to the Board and the community, he agreed that the hous< 1S larger than oth~rs in the neighborhood, but they have a large lot. They do have a soils report on th~ site that indicates a solid. rocky soil. Vic< Chair Fyff< stated that she \\as conc<med about the wall under th< railing, indicating that sh< would like to see vines plamed to break up the mass. Mr. Cowan responded they ar" proposing ivy and vines and will pro,ide a more detailed landscape phm for the ne:..-r meeting. He was also wilJing to adjust the coler. :\oIr. Frankovich noted that there is a hous,; to the right and above, which is a French design and is approximat~!y the same light color as what he is proposing. Yice Chair Fyffe would like the stucco and tile made darker. She wanted to see how the tanks will blend and wanted a landscaping plan. With regard to bulk and mass, sh~ would like to see how the land~caping plans will address the mass, as well as any other ideas that .the architect can come up with to ftmher reduce the bulk and mass. The building should look more natural on such a prominent hillside, Boardmem1xr Beales stated that the tanks are not required although he understands the owner's desire for them. He wanted to know the height of the trees to make sure that there is no YleW blockage, and wanted a rooftraming plan, Boardmemb~r Snow :,tated that the tanks should be part of the landscape plan. !vis Fyffe, B~ales, and passed (3.0). to continue to the meeting to 6/5,97 to allow th~ applicant time to prepare a detailed landscaping plan. which includes th~ water tanks; the color of roof and trim should be made darker:. and see how the landscaping plan will address the mass and bulk of the buildings, or any other ideas that will ease the neighbor. s concerns. Absent: Howard. Doane . TIBl"RONDRB 5,10/97 to !7::r;~.,-r~;:rp j',,";9:n 2 .........___..._...___ 'n .... ~ ..../._~ p, 3~3 .:..~~~.__..- - -~_-...._._~'..'-_:",,_-,-::""~, --_........_-..."""--~.._.~. ~....""-:........~ .....-'-_.__...;~.....-- ..~_-_ ':-'~..:. '-. ._..---'-'~;.-................ --"-1.-.:..""-..-:-..... ""- urlURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINL ~S JUNE 19, 1997 Chair Howard called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Design Review Board to order at 7:00 p.rn., Thursday, June 19, 1997, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. A. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: EX-OFFICIO: Chair Howard, Boardmembers Snow and Doane, Boardmembers Beales and Fyffe Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Minute Clerk Chambers B. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one spoke during this time. C. DISCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING . 14 St. Bernard has been appealed to the Town Council and will be heard at the 7/2/97 meeting. D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 2225 Vistazo East Street Frankovich, New Single Family Dwelling This request was originally considered at the May 15, 1997 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed house, the proposed water tanks, landscaping and colors. The Board directed the applicant to: . Prepare a detailed landscaping plan, including efforts to conceal the water tanks and to visually reduce the mass and bulk of the building; . Make the colors of the roof and trim darker; and . Attempt to address concerns raised by neighboring residents and property owners regarding the mass and bulk of the building. Todd Cowan, Architect representing the applicant, explained that many details still have to be worked out with the Town Engineer regarding drainage and the roadway but they wanted to receive design review approval prior to proceeding with those issues. They have reduced the size of the water tanks to just below 12,000 gallons, and 7' in height. They wanted to bury the tanks about 4.6 :eet but were told by the manufacturer that they cannot bury them more than 2'. The water tanks will have retaining walls around them. As suggested by the Board, they are proposing a darker exterior color for the house and will plant creeping fig over the retaining walls to bring the scale of the building down. All setbacks and height requirements have been met. He could also add a trellis to the front retaining wall and plant additional landscaping and add arches with trellises to break up the aniculation. In response to Chair Howard, Mr. Cowan stated the height of the garage from slab floor to the roof height is 13.75' and that he could not bring up the entry to create less of a mass because of the slope of the driveway. In response to Boardmember Doane, Mr. Cowan stated that because of the slope of the driveway, the driveway retaining walls will be 5'-6' in height. Dave Heilbron, 2140 Vistazo East, was still troubled by the size of the project because it was out of keeping with the neighborhood and had concerns about the road. He did not understand how this project could go forward without a specific plan for the road widening, which could affect other driveways. Also, many old trees and greenery will have to be cut down for the road widening. He thought the road will intrude into his living space and take away the peace and enjoyment of his home. There should be a specific plan for the road prior to any design being approved. Ruth Stodder, Vistazo East, said that the house is at the junction of two narrow roads and she is concerned about the increase in traffic. 1T::;::.~I-'~,~"'i'l !',:.:r-.., 3 ~_.it.....~L-,-..-,~ .,1. .... ~ J. TIBURON DRB 6/19/97 p. l oF 3 Chris Armstrong, 2160 Vistazo _ast, questioned the road widening. It was his u... [Standing that the Town required the road to be widened to 10' for the development of2160 Vistazo East and was told by the Town Attorney that it was unlikely that the Town would take over the road once it was widened. Therefore, he wondered who would be responsible if there are problems with this road during development of this property. He encouraged the Board to look at the road and the house in tandem. Jim Reynolds, 2111 Centro East, stated that the structure was an eye stopper and not suitable for Lyford Cove. Most homes in theeir area are 2,000 to 3,000 square feet and this house would be massive. The concept is barsh, abrasive, out of scale, and does not blend in with the other houses in the neighborhood. Until these impacts are mitigated, he asked the Board to defer approval on the application. Lowell McKegney 2245 Vistazo East, spoke for his mother, stating that the house would be too large and that several drainage issues should be considered. Most of the building is concrete and a lot of excavation is required. He wanted to know the volume of earth that will be removed and the amount of concrete that will be required for the retaining walls. He also wanted information about lighting, the amount of construction vehicles and mitigation measures that will be required during construction. Steve Denebeim, 2188 Vistazo East, explained that he lives directly across from where the driveway will be and will have to see the entire project every time he leaves his house. He does like the new color but his main issue is the massiveness of the development. He was not opposed to the architecture but the houses on the south side of Vistazo East have modest homes, in the 2,000 square foot range. The roadway will have a tremendous impact on the site and there are many drainage issues to consider. With the condition that the roadway must be widened, he felt the neighbors have a right to discuss the driveway and retaining walls that are part of the driveway. There is a serious earth movement issue and this project will cause a lot of visual impact. He urged the Board to consider the house and driveway jointly. With regard to drainage, there is a tremendous flow downhill during the winter and he wanted to know what impact this project will have on his house. Tom Frankovich, applicant, stated that the site is approximately I acre and he is building the house within the Town guidelines. The neighbors should have known where the house would be situated based on the 10cal1On of the partial driveway. He explained that he has not been instructed by the Town to widen the road. He presented photographs of many large homes in the immediate area, including one directly above his site. He is willing to cover the retaining walls with creeping figs but thought some of the walls should show. The retaining walls on the driveway will all be covered in rosemary and creeping fig. He thought it was unreasonable to require him to build a small house on a one-acre lot. Boardmember Snow stated that the building mass and the fact that there was no landscape plan, was a great concern at the last meeting. The house is still larger than others in the neighborhood, but the landscaping makes the house look more acceptable. Although the house is large, it is within the FAR and other requirements of the Town. The Board is Unable to discuss roadway as part of its review. Boardmember Doane stated that the house in elevation looks to be twice the size it is because of the retaining walls. It is a Spanish house and there are many in Tiburan. The drawings do not have elevations and he was curious about the height of the retaining walls. He would want to see the grading plans or how many additional retaining walls may be required. He agreed that old Tiburon has many smaller homes although a large house could be built and not look out of character with the neighborhood, but this house was not the one. He felt more care should be taken in the design. The building is esentually L shaped and should run perpendicular to the hill. More care should be taken to looking at the grades. He also would like information on why the water tanks cannot be buried more than two feet. ~ Chair Howard wanted to see a landscape plan and more details of the design and site, including a driveway plan. Trellises and arches are a good start. She was also very concerned about the road issue, and wanted it to go to the body that is responsible for approval of the roadway. She noted that the color rendering was much darker than the color palate presented and that the rendering should be modified for the next meeting to reflect the true colors. Mr. Anderson explained that the road widening and a cui de sac were required by the Fire Department and the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer will hold a neighborhood meeting to get input from the neighbors. The driveway requirement was established when the subdivision was approved and the first property owner to develop would have to put in the improvements. The cost will then be split with the second property owner at the time the second lot is TIBURON DRB 6/19/97 "",;---~"~~. ~~ ".'~. 3 .J...:......_~_"-l_l__._ '_" ... I --".--:!'"_ P. '2-w 3 ._.'"-'-".... __ _ _~___ "."-___ ,_.'_~.~~..~._.,._-"--~_ .' .... .... .. . '-",- -..:.c.....;.;..~_,..._;.,_ _'e _ ._......_----:...~~~ .---- ------------~-_..-..._.__. .._~~.-- -- ~-- developed. He further explaine.... ..at if the conditions of approval for the subdi. >n were to be changed, and all neighbors were in support, the change would take place at the Planning Commission, not the Design Review Board. Mr. Frankovich stated that he was not aware that he was responsible for the road widening. Mis DoaneIHoward, and passed (3-0), to continue the application to allow the applicant time to provide information on: I) why the water tanks can't be buried more than 2'; 2) a grading plan; 3) a landscaping plan for treatment of the site, house, retaining walls and water tanks; 4) elevations that indicate how high the retaining walls will be; 5) complete plans that precisely explain the project as to how the entire site will be developed; and 6) a color rendering that is as close as possible to the color used on the palate. The main issues are the retaining walls and how the house will fit in with the fabric of the neighborhood. In response to staff, the applicant agreed to a ninety (90) day extension due to the Permit Streamlining Act. The application was continued to the meeting ofJuly 13, 1997. Absent: Fyffe, Beales TIBURON DRB 6/19/97 ~. ~.~~~."".~,-rn ~.-,) 3 1.".'( :..: .'-,',1 i'J- . -u----.-----r 3 C:;; '3 3 2. 2225 Yistazo East Frankovich, }'; ew Single Family Dwelling TIl~ applkant is req\l~sting Design R~vi~w approval for the constmctioll of a single- family dwelling located at 2225 Vistazo East. The house will have two stories plus a garage on a lower level, and an overall height 01'30 feet. The structure will cover 15.000 of the lot. The house will have a floor area 01'6,650 square feet (including garage space), which is nearly th~ maximum 6,674 square feet allowed for a parcel of this size. Two above ground water tanks are proposed to be installed on the hillside for fire suppression purposes. This request was origil12.llv considered at the May 15. 1997 Design Review Board meeting. and again at the Jun~ 19 meeting. Con"~ms '.\ere rais~d at both me~tings by neighboring reEidents, prop~Ity owners and th~ Board regarding th~ mass and bulk of th~ building. and how the proposed project tits in with the r~maind~r of Old Tiburon. At the most recent m~eting. the Board directed the appli~ant to pro\'id~ the following information: . \[ore information on why the water tanks cannot be buried more than 2 feet mto the hillside: . _:\ grading plan: . A landscaping plan for treatment ofth~ site. house. retaining walls and \vater tanks; . Elevations that indicate how high the rdaining walls will b~: . Compkte plans that precise!, explain the project as to how the entlIe site will be devebped: and . ..\. color rendering that is as close as possible to the color us~d on th< submitted pal em. T:le request has since been continued several times. most recentl,,- to the September 18 Board meeting. .\Ir. FrankOVIch, applicant. stated that he researched the diV1sion of!he property. In 1983 the property was divided into 2-one acre parcels and h" read the statem~nt of findmgs that constituted approval. In 198-1 the \'egative Declaration was approved with fil!dings. He stated that two houses were not inconsistent with other houses in the area. In S.i1l1I1lar\'. he said tlllt he is still within the 1 :0'0 allowed and his project is not inconsistent with the ordinance. He also wanted the Board to consider the topography A' the area. He presemed photographs of homes in the neighborhood that have similar sized homes. some that are very closely located together: and some homes that are very light in color. He thought thaI domsit\' was an issu~. Todd Cowan. architecl representing th" owner. stated that they tried to darken the color palette. They felt that landscaping could really help screen. H~ explained that the garage area was moved downslope and awav from the hause. whidl allows for a landscape pocket. In turn, they have shortened the staircase and shortened the retaining walls. It also gave a landscape buffer and will mitigate the heights. The highest point Df the 4 T:BLKO~, DRB 9/13.:97 H'"",---~T'lTT NO U .J..:.<.Ll...di.D.t 1.' .~ 'p. I of=- 7 retaining wall will not exceed 7 1, feet and no retaining "ails will be at the bottom of the driveway. 111ey also plan to plant the area with crimson jewel, bougainyillea and ivy. which will cover the retaining walls. 111e house has been stepped and the roofline is basically level with grade. Thev !fied to work carefully with the slope. In response to Boardmember Snow. Mr. Cowan stated that the plan presented is more of a contour plan. not a grading plan. Chair Howard asked when the actual heights of the retaining walls will be presented. :VIr. Cowan responded th:!t they are shown on the drawings. which have already been presented to staff. Boardmember Beales questioned why no dimer.sions were shown on the drawings. "-Ir. Cowan responded that he calculated it on the computer. and will ha\'e exact me:!surements prior to a building permit. He would be happy to verify the figures for the Board. :>'Ir. Frankovich presented a map and photographs of the surrounding homes. He said that' he immediate neighbor. Pam Peterson, at 51 oJ Ridge Road is now in support of the projec't ~cause her concerns about the water tanks and landscaping have been satisfied: Virginia Shalz, the adjacent neighbor at 2200 Vistazo East is in support of the project; Sally Kelly, at 1910 Straits View Drive. supports the projec't: Mr. Richard Dwyer. immediatdy above his properrv at 500 Ridge Road. indicates that he is also in suppert of the project. He speke with :>'Ir. Halpern at 2151 Vistazo East and he is not concerned about whal is being done: aCld Bob Hammer. 4 St. Bernard Lane. has "Tinea a letter of support of the project With regard to :>'Ir. Denebeim.s concerns, he will not look directly at his property. 111is lS a larg" lot with low density. Chair Howard a,ke::i if '.Ir. Franko\'kh would b" willing to reduc" th" square fl)otage. :>'Ir. Franko.-idl r,,"ponded that il depends on how much. He bought the lot with the .und"rstanding that he could have 1500 lot coverage. T~e hearing was opened to public testimon\'. Chr.i, .-\rmstrong, 2160 \"istazo East, stated that he has lived in the area for eleven years and the people on Straits Yiew DriVe do not communicate wnh those on Yistazo East. The proposed hOllSe is large but it is more a qnostion of how the Ihmse Ii ves v,;ith the lot. He would like to see details of the retaining walls and wanted more information on the drainage. He snpports Steve D~nebeim.s comments that the house is too large. Dave Hei1bron. 2! 40 Vistazo East. stated the project does not fit with the neighborhood and the projecr ha, not really changed from the tirst submittal. He quoted the st:1tT report that st:1leS "The size of the house is inconsiQe11l with the size and scale of other homes in this neighborhood..' He stated that the color was an improvement. 5 T!B1.:ROC; DRB 91397 ""x. '~~-"r "-0 .CJ..i [-;, it,~ ~ i \1,. .~--~'-..~ .... I' . P. 4 2- DF-7 Skv" D"n"b"im. 2188 Vistazo East, stat.:d that h" is still ~onc"m"d about th" visual impact on Vistazo East but did not oppos" th" archite~ture or th" ~olor of th" hous". Also, the downslope ofth" dri,'eway wh"re there are no retaining walls is positiv", H" was happy to s"e the roadway issues resolved. H" is now just ~on~erned about th" visual and retaining wall issu"s and wants them r"solved. Lowdl \kKegn"y, 2245 Vistazo East, stated for the re~ord that h" has not re~ei\'ed any money for the lot split. He asked t'Or clariiication on the deer len~e. He did 'lOt see much change in the design, in fact. with the minor modifications. it may impact his ',iew lrom the southeast more than before and would like to see some dimensions. He liked the lands~aping ~hang"s but would ~"rtainlv pref.:r to see the project scal"d dO\\11. In res pons" to YIr. McKegney. Mr. Cowan stated the de"r f"nce will be green w'ire and not visibk In response to a qu"stion by th" Board. \Jr. Cowan stat"d that the color r"nd.:ring pr"s"nted bv tit" appli~ant is not indicati"" of the actual seal" of tit" r<laining walls proposed. The pubhc heanng was closd, Chair Howard stated that this has b"en a very complex appli~ation. 111is project raises issues because It is bdween [wo ditfermt neighborhoods. She read a s'atrnlen: to the public as fellows: "'Regarding size. bulk and mass: Reflecting the will of this community. the Town of Tiburon has legally adopted the Guiding Principb for Sil~ Plan and Architectural Review This means that the prinCiple, stated within it are to be given cqual wcight :0 those Town ordinances which gO\'crn the maximwn floor area, h"ight and lot ~owrag" for a specific ,ite, The obligalion to de >0 appli", equally to thc Deslgn Re"iew Board. to the Town ,tatf and to :h" Town Council (should a d"ci,ioll bc appeakd). wh"n considering th" appropriat"ness of a proposed proj"ct to be built within the Town' s boundaries. It is. th"refore. thc will of th" Town of Thufon that the Design R.;\"i,,\\ Board. which s"rws at the pl"asur" of the Town COUl:C;,. r"yie\\' as stat"d in these Guiding Principl"s, the 'heIght, ,ize, or bulk of the proposed buildmg 111 relal10n to the character of ,,:;,sting buildings in the \"icinity. . "P.1e proposed home is to be built on a pared of land that is situated in a .transition area' lxtween two alr"ady,d.:veloped neighborhoods. considered for the purpose ofthi, review as .the vicinity.' This applicaticn's floor area is more than double that of over 8000 ofth" homes in the vicinitv. Therefore. in doing our duty 'oy following the guidelines as quoted above. th" Board must be sensiti\'e to whar - in the conte,:t of this "yicinity.. - is the exceptional square footage of the hOllS" prcposed. In addition. because of. as the applicant \Jr. Cov'an characterized it, the 'yery steeD slope' of this site. he proposes building e:-'1ensi,,< retainmg walls to proyide both a nat 6 TIBun" DRB ~W97 Ej(I-IIt<IT l.JO. 4 P. "3 D F 7 building sit~ for th~ house abov~ a flat sit~ for the garag~ and ~arport bdow. Additionally. the steep site will require more retaining walls to support a dri\'eway, which dimbs up some 28 feet from th~ street. Plus ther~'s also th~ additional visual impact of the 24' - wide fa~ade of a pair of 12'-wid~ wat~r tanks pla~ed side by side and e~l'osed 5. above ground level. The net result is that, in addition to the devations of a house and garage stacked on four levels ~i view'ed from below. the impact of the supporting stl"Uctures for the house and the driveway must abo be considered. These structures, as required by this steep site, would otherwise be nonexistent in a flat location elsewhere in town. making the bulk a less sensitive issue. ,-\.ccording to an estimate made at a recent meeting b\ a member of our Board who is also a fellow of the American Institute of Architects. Ihe net visual impact of these retaining walls could as much as double the presence of !h~ house on this site. TIt~rdore, again following th~ above-stated guidelines. the Bo:ll'd must also be sensitive to the appearanc~ of height (although the proposed house itself does not exceed the 30' limit) as well as the bulk of this house. Such s~nsitivity is espe~ial1v important becal,se of the ex~eptional . square footage wh~n censidered within the conte~n of this vicinity as noted above. On Mav 15, 1997, the appLcam made the fIrst presentation on this application before the Design Review Board. The anending members of the Design Review Board. having each visned the site and the sUlTounding area prior to this meeting. specifically expressed their con.c= during that meeting about both the size and the mass of this house in relation to its effect or. the chanCIer of Old Tiburon. .-\.t that meeting, Mr. Cowan suggested that landscaping devices such as 'vines and ivy' would address the bulk issue and promised that a detailed landscape plan would be prepared for the ne~1 meeting. The Board granted a continuance to June 5 to allow the applicant time to develop a more detailed response to how specificalh hnds.:aping ..ould resoh'e the bulk and mass issue. The proposal was subsequeatly continued at your request to June 19. On June 19. 1997. the occasion of the second presentation of this application before th~ Board. "-Ir. Cowan offered a decailed landscapmg proposal to the Board. However. Board members did not receiw a reduced copy m advance of this meeting, as is customary. .\0 advance cop\' would have enabled members to adequately evaluate the landscape material choices from the specific and complex standpoint of their effectiveness in reducmg the effect of this house's bulk. During the meeting. members of the Design Re\iew Board stated that their concerns about the bulk of the total application \Vere still tmresolved and that it was also necessary to be able 10 see elentions of how the retaining walls for lhe driveway up the hillside - Just brougln to th~ir anemion in the landscape plan - would also affect the overall mass and bulk of tile proposal. The applicant was additionally gi\'en the suggestion from sewral members of the Board that he look directly at the deSIgn of this house to find wavs to minimize its sizc and bulk on tile hillside. Again. a contmuance was granted so 7 TIBeRON ORB ~1 ;>:;97 Rl[~~I3IT IJiJ. '-I p, '# cR7 that this time the applicant would be able to prepare, among other things. a grading plan and devations that would indicate how high the retaining walls would be. As is stated in the minutes of that meeting. 'The main issues are the retaining walls and how the house will tit in with the fabric of the neighborhood.' The application was granted a 90-day e:-.1ension to the time limit imposed by the Pmrut Streamlining .-\.ct. The Board approwd this so that t!te applicant might have time to prepare a response to these still unresolved concerns. The applicant agreed to a continuance for the meeting ofJune 13. 1997. The proposal ,,":1S subsequently continued :1t the applicant's request to tonight's meeting. September 18. Tonight marks the third appearance before the Board on this item. We have rece1ved the landscape plan, which promiSes that 75% of the retaining and under-deck walls will be covered by \'ines in three Years. 111e exact propCosed loc:uion of these plantings is unspecified. TIlis is the only solution the upplicant has put forth to reduce the bulk aft!te proposed struCtuR The revised architectural plans we received in preparation lor this e\'ening indicate a' reshuffling of square footage from the !touse to the garage. vielding a net reduction of 15 square feet of fl00r area. This is less than 14'h 01- I % of a reduction in size from the original proposal of 6.668 square feet. TIlis is the only solution the applicant has proposed to reduce the size orthis structure. As the applicant" s site is defind as a .tra:tsitional sile' between two different neighborhoods. the lssue for our reviev.' of size tonight is best ..:onsidered in the stalistic<ll f,,;ew of neighboring properties which I requested of staff ?ri,)[ to this meeting. The results have been induded in the Staff Report which was completed for public reyiew as oflast Friday. September 12. Of the 31 homes within 300 feet of the applicant's propert\.. only one is slated to exceed the siu of this application. The house on this site does not dO so now. Howey<r, the 10.270 square foot application was granted to the owners 0f \960 Straits View Driye fOr the following reasons - none of which are analogous to - or supportiw of - the proposal before us: I. That site exceeds two acres and the building area is more jeyel than this .}ne; 2. The square footage is spread over four detached structures: 3. Tne retaining walls forthe dri\'ewav are uphill behind the house and are hidden from sight dOI"nhilL 4. The house and its dependencies are hidden from the street abo\',,: and 5. They are also ne3rtv Invisible from immediate neighbors as well as from the comrnunityat large. The second largest home in the area 1S the 4.768 square foot chateau the applicant presented on '1lay 15 in photos as an example of :1ppropriate neighborhood conte:-.1. Whlle ~vls. Kelly. the chateau's owner. supportS the anp!icalll's plans according to '11r. Frankovich's letter of September 16. her home is situated well above this site so that the building of th.e proposed home should haw nc eff"cr on tte enjo\ment of her property \yh~tso;;Yer. 8 TlBUi.O" DRB 918;>7 l~=:~I-II:~'=rI~ J>J"tC). L{ p. GU:-7 As th; staff report continues. the uext largest home out of the 29 remaining is 3.715 square feet - nearly 3,000 square feet smaller than the proposed residence. And out of the remaining 29 hOll~es, 25 have even less than balfthe tloor area of the proposed 6,655 square foot house - represdlling a considerable size disparity with most of titis vicinity any way you look at it. I would like the Board to consider three possible options we might PUrsll.; in our discussions en tonight's proposal: Oue might be tc. grant a conditional approval. This would be appropriate if you believe that we can fultJIl our duty as outlin~d in the Guiding Prineipl.;s by relying on landseapmg and color as both .;ffective and lasting solutions to the i"ues of siz.; and bulk. An approval might be offered conditional to the satisfactory review of' a more detailed, fully dimensioned set of plans which dearly indicates that the house is within Ihe maximum floor area ratio for this pm'cel.' as the staff report suggests. Additionall,. a conditional approval migill also be subject to a review of the specific ele\'ations of the driveway retaining walls. and their exact plantings (as well as the pr<>eise color rendering of the buildings. if still not done). .-\11L'ther option might be to grant a continuance. TItis would be designed to allow the' appllcant the time remaining on their e~1ension to search for further ways to t,,"eak this design With the goal of reduc;ng its bulk. on the hillside. Some ideas might be proposed such as breaking up the building into two or three structures. digging it further intc. the hillside. returnmg the arches 10 tlte deck waiL etc. TIle Board might al>o suggest an amount by which to reduce the square footage (if the applicant has expressed a \\dEngness 10 make the house sJr.ailer). Lastly. hov~'eY~r. you ir.ay wish to vote for a dcEial. TIus would be appropriate' if you bdie\'e that this application. as currenrly designed or even possible tweaked. is incapable of confonning in eirh;r size or bulk. to the character of eXIsting buildings in the '\'icinity.' l.'nder rhls option, the applicant ma\' agai'l go thr':lugh the design re\'iew proc;ss within the year as long as the new proposal is for a 'substantiallv different. project Oth;rwise ,he must ,,'ait a year before returning wilh an application. To ;xereise thIS option. we would state the reasons for the denial in the motion. We would also instmct staff L' retmn with a rC5olution at the ne\l meeting. which formaliZe, the reas()ns for our finding." In sunlmary, Chair Howard stukd that sh~ wa.:, net agalllst a big house but each house ,lwuld ha"e to fit into the neighborhood. The n.lOr plan cf this hous~ works gracefull\' but that is not part .)fthe design re\1e\\. 30ardmember Beales stat cd that he missed ,he Juue meeting hvwever. this is a large house .:.nd it \"uuld be diiJerent if it \\'zs on a t1~rtcr Jot and dsewhcre in Tiburon but he is also concerned about the compaJibility of this neighb.)rhocd. He questioned whether continuing the project would accomplish anY1hing. A. cOlld:liollal approval is of no \'alth~ and a1 this point he was incEned to Jeny the project. TlBlRO" DRB 9'18,'97 9 ~-:!'T"7'<:"r,-f'T'I p~^ -L ;' /' ,,-'-; ,.-.,.'1. \"',1/ _...:..1..:,,-.,__~1__......-,.1 J.."l""'" f, fD DF 7 Boardmember Snow commented that this project has taken a lot of time and thought. There have been some adjustments by the applicant for :his project but the topography of the lot is such that perhaps the massiveneSS can be reduced He cannot state an exact amount of square footage to be reduced. He looked at all the statis:ics and noted that the few houses on Straits View Drivo are located on the ridge. Old Tiburon has a character of its own and it is important not to change it. A continuanCe cannot accomplish much. Therefore he takes the position of denial. He hoped ll:1at if it comes before the Board again the applicant reaches out beyond just the adjacent neighbors to evaluate compatibility. ~,!s Howard'Beales, and unanimously passed (3-0). to recommend denial of the projeC': and to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the reasons stated in the meeting. The resolution should be brought back for the meeting of October 2, 1997. 10 T!BL"ROl'i DRB 9-1 ~ 97 V~r-::"iT"1."\~rr ;",,T() I I J.:.J.L~,-~L~:.:!.-_ J.. ,,_/. '-t f.7W7 E9 - - TOWN OF TmURON STAFF REpORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA NO.: E., SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS 2225 VISTAZO EAST; Fll..E # 797029 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING MAY 15, 1997 APPLICANT - COWAN & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECT) PROPERTY OWNER - THOMAS FRANKOVICH PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: Fll..E NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMYfION: PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT DEADLINE: 2225 VISTAZO EAST 059-091-55 797029 41,739 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL OPEN) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C MAY 5,1997 MAY 5, 1997 JULY 4,1997 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. PROPOSAL: TffiURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MAY 15, 1997 --~,---~-"'-',"'''r- 0-,-("" ~ D..d~_:=LL:..'_t l' .l ,,1~J. P. I ~'I Page 2 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a single-family dwelling located at 2225 Vistazo East. The house will have two stories plus a garage on a lower level, and an overall height of30 feet. The main floor will include a living room, family room, dining room, kitchen, laundry, two bathrooms and one bedroom. The upper floor will include a master bedroom suite, along with two additional bedrooms, a den and 21;2 more bathrooms. A three-car garage will occupy the lower level, connected to the main floor by an elevator. A future swimming pool is proposed at the southern end of the site. The structure will cover 6,630 square feet (15.9%) of the lot. The house will have a floor area of 6,668 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for a parcel of this size. Colors and materials samples have been submitted, and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The architect has indicated that the exterior walls of the house will utilize a salmon colored stucco finish with a light grey trim. The roof will consist of blended brown colored barrel vault tile. ANALYSIS: Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the R-l zone with regard to setbacks, floor area ratio and height limits. Design Issues The site.has a substantial slope down to Vistazo East. This parcel was created by a minor subdivision approved in 1984 (File #68305). As part of the subdivision, a geotechnical report was completed that covered general issues for the lot split. The Town Engineer has reviewed this report, and has detennined that a site-specific geotechnical report needs to be prepared at this time. This report would address any unstable areas on the site, along with any drainage constraints that would affect this development. The slope of the site creates potential visual impacts from the design of the house. The most prominent view of the proposed house would be from the homes below on Vistazo East. These homes, however, are oriented away from the subject site and have only a few secondary windows from which the proposed house would be visible. When viewed from above, the proposed house has a lower profile. The residents above the site along Ridge Road and Straits View Drive will primarily see the rear of the upper floor of the house, with the remainder of the house sloping away down the hill. From above, these residents TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Sf AFF REPORT MAY 15. 1997 To"----.~..,....-'r ." "0 ~ "'!;A.:-:L!..Ll_ J.'J' . ./ P2-~L( Page 3 will mostly see across the rooftops, rather than the bulk of the house itself The house would not diminish the primary views of these upper homes of San Francisco and Angel Island. The colors for the proposed house should be carefully examined with these potential views in mind. The Board should insure that the blended roof tile is muted enough to avoid any glaring shades for the expanse of roof area visible from the homes above the site. A more neutral color may be preferable for the stucco siding, to reduce the pink shades of the proposed salmon color. Access to the proposed house would be provided by a winding driveway up to the garage. As part of the approval of the subdivision creating this parcel, the Tiburon Fire District required construction of a 12 foot wide driveway with appropriate turning radius and turnaround, installation of a fire hydrant and construction of a cul-de-sac at the current easterly terminus of Vistazo East. The proposed driveway width and turnaround appear to be adequate for fire safety purposes, and should prevent vehicles from having to back down the driveway to the street, although the Town Engineer has required a minor modification to the turnaround area in front of the garage. The Fire Department may require that the driveway be grooved or otherwise improved for traction due to the slope of the access. The hydrant and cul-de-sac improvements were required to be installed at the time of this development as part of the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R' s) adopted as part of this subdivision. The minor subdivision also required the widening ofVistazo East to a width of 18 to 20 feet along the frontage of the two lots created. Landscaping on the property is proposed to be concentrated toward the front of the site. Most of the trees proposed are palms, with 12 such trees lining the driveway. Two olive trees and a large queen palm situated near the top of the parcel should be carefully examined for potential view blockage, as these trees will likely exceed the height of the proposed house at this portion of the property. Staff does not foresee any other design issues with this project. Public Comment Staff has received numerous inquiries-from neighboring residents regarding the proposed plans, including one letter. Concerns have been raised regarding the size of the proposed house, circulation, drainage and the exterior colors. RECOMMENDATION: The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.06 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MAY 15.1997 }I;=r~~II~:~=T ?T02 ~ P.'3~Lf Page 4 (Guiding Principles) and 4.02.08 (Site Development Criteria). If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design Guidelines, then Staffhas no objections to the approval of this 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 March 7, 1997 3. Memo from Stan BaJa, Town Engineer, dated December 17, 1985. 4. Copy of the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions adopted for this subdivision, dated December 5, 1985. 5. Memo from Tiburon Fire District, dated November 29, 1983. 6. Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Review from the January 5, 1984, meeting. 7. Letter from James and Sybil Reynolds, dated May 8, 1997 8. Plans dated May 6, 1997. TmURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT MAY 15, 1997 T;1"'''TTTTy,m rTo t;; ~-t, ,-:', --': ~ ,.-. ~ ~ \.. " _~.<...____4_.~_..... _.. " . P. t.f ~ '-( TOWN OF TmURON STAFF REpORT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA NO.: J) I FROM: SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS SUBJECT: 2225 VlSTAZO EAST; FILE # 797029 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONTlNlJED FROM TJJ'F, MAY 15. 1997 MEETING MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 1997 APPLICANT - COW AN & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECT) PROPERlY OWNER - THOMAS FRANKOVICH BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a single-family dwelling located at 2225 Vistazo East. The house will have two stories plus a garage on a lower level, and an overall height of30 feet. The structure will cover 6,630 square feet (15.9%) of the lot. The house will have a floor area of 6,668 square feet, which is the maximum allowed for a parcel of this size. This request was originally considered at the May 15, 1997 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, concerns were raised regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed house, the proposed water tanks, landscaping and colors:. The Board directed the applicant to: Prepare a detailed landscaping plan, including efforts to conceal the water tanks and to visually reduce the mass and bulk of the building; Make the colors of the roof and trim darker; and Attempt to address concerns raised by neighboring residents and property owners regarding the mass and bulk of the building. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT JUNE 19. 1997 1T:~(:-1T~T7 1',7.1") (p J2.:...._______ __. _ -i oV'. p, I DF3 Page 2 The request was originally continued to the June 5 Board meeting, but was further continued to the June 19 meeting to allow the applicant additional time to make the requested changes. ANALYSIS: The applicant has now submitted revised plans. The plans show more detail for the water tanks, indicating that the two 12 foot diameter tanks will be partially submerged underground. The 7 foot high tanks will project from 3 to 5 feet above grade. Revised color samples have been submitted. The stucco shades for the walls and trim are darker, with the walls in particular being less pink in color. A different colored blend of roofing tile is also proposed, which is darker than that originally submitted. The remainder of the plans remains unchanged. No revisions have been made to the landscaping plans to screen either the water tanks or the bulk of the proposed house, although the applicant has indicated that a revised landscaping plan will be presented at the Board meeting. No changes have been made to the overall design of the house as originally proposed. The applicant has indicated that no changes were made, as the property owner feels that the size and configuration of the proposed house are appropriate for a parcel of this size. Numerous residents and property owners at the May 15 Board meeting expressed feelings that the size and bulk of the proposed house are not in keeping with other homes in Old Tiburon. Section 4.02.06 (d) of the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review states that the "height, size, or bulk of the proposed building in relation to the character of existing buildings in the vicwty" shall be considered. Although the subject parcel is substantially larger than most other lots in this area, the size and visual character of the house should be carefully examined in comparison with the surrounding Old Tiburon neighborhood. Other neighborhood concerns have been raised regarding the widening of the street. No details have been submitted for these improvements, leaving nearby property owners to worry about the effects this widening would have on individual parcels. The details of the street improvements are not within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, and should not be addressed as part of the review of this application. The Town Engineer has stated that once the proposed street widening plans are submitted, a neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the details of these improvements. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT JUNE 19. 1997 E=~~~-~I~'='\~T IT0. G:, f. 1-~ "3 Page 3 RECOMMENDA nON: As the applicant has been generally unresponsive to the direction given by the Board at the May 15 meeting, the Board as a whole, and, specifically, the two Board members who were not present at the May 15 meeting, should carefully examine the submitted plans and give more specific direction to the applicant regarding changes to be made to address concerns with the design of this project. ATIACHMENTS: 1. Minutes from the May 15, 1997 Design Review Board meeting 2. Letter from Madeleine Wood, Architectural and Environmental Review Chair, Old Tiburon Homeowners, Dated May 28, 1997 3. Letter from Christopher s. Armstrong, dated June 2, 1997 4. Revised plans dated May 27, 1997. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT JUNE 19, 1997 .......~__....-____,-.~ "'I' -/""'\ ~ 'J' -{' ., i '-'~ ill""'J' J:I..i.::1.....C:_i..::.:>_t.,.. \1 . p, 30F 3 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA NO.: D2 FROM: SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS SUBJECT: 2225 VlSTAZO EAST; FILE # 797029 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 19. 1997 MEETING MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 APPLICANT - COW AN & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECT) PROPERTY OWNER - THOMAS FRANKOVICH BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a single-family dwelling located at 2225 Vistazo East. The house will have two stories plus a garage on a lower level, and an overall height of30 feet. The structure will cover 6,630 square feet (15.9%) of the lot. The house will have a floor area of6,655 square feet (including garage space), which is the nearly the maximum 6,674 square feet allowed for a parcel of this size. Two above ground water tanks are proposed to be installed on the hillside for fire suppression purposes This request was originally considered at the May 15, 1997 Design Review Board meeting, and again at the June 19 meeting. Concerns were raised at both meetings by neighboring residents, property owners and the Board regarding the mass and bulk of the building, and how the proposed project fits in with the remainder of Old Tiburon. At the most recent meeting, the Board directed the applicant to provide the following information: More information on why the water tanks cannot be buried more than 2 feet into the hillside; A grading plan; TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 J\:!l==-::TI=~;Xt~r I~~.(). I f. ta;; 5 Page 2 A landscaping plan for treatment of the site, house, retaining walls and water tanks; Elevations that indicate how high the retaining walls will be; Complete plans that precisely explain the project as to how the entire site will be developed; and A color rendering that is as close as possible to the color used on the submitted palette. The request has since been continued several times, most recently to the September 18 Board meeting. ANALYSIS: Revised Plans The applicant has submitted revised plans. The floor area of the proposed house has been reduced by 15 square feet, from 6,61):; square feet to 6,653 square feet. The height of the garage has been reduced, bringing this and all other portions of the proposed house into compliance with the required 30 foot maximum height. Other changes to the overall design of the house include straightening of the driveway, an increased turnaround area in front of the garage, some added roof articulation and the placement of several columns along the northeast side beneath a portion of the upper floor. The property owner has previously indicated that he feels that the size and configuration of the proposed house are appropriate for a parcel of this size, and therefore the revised plans make only minor changes to the overall dimensions of the house. The floor area within the gange has been increased by 297 square feet, with an indicated reduction of 312 square feet for the main and upper floors of the house. Staff is unable to confirm these revised area calculations. An examination of the revised upper floor area shows that the only apparent change from the previous plans is a reduction in the length of a portion of this floor by one foot, which results in a reduction of22 square feet of floor area, as opposed to the 67 square foot reduction indicated by the revised plans. If the project is to be approved, the Design Review Board should required a more detailed, fully dimensioned set of plans be submitted which clearly indicates that the house is within the maximum floor areas ratio for this parcel. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18. 1997 T~J~~-:i=~2,I(r J."Ta. 7 p. 20v~ Page 3 The revised plans show more detail for the water tanks, including a section drawing. More topographic information is presented on the site plans, although a detailed grading plan has not been submitted. The revised elevations do not clearly show any proposed retaining walls alongside the driveway. The elevations also show enhancements along the vertical planes of some of the walls facing the front of the property, which are intended to provide some visual relief to these otherwise blank surfaces. Detailed landscaping plans have been submitted, which include modifications to the previously submitted plans. The palm trees lining the driveway and the large queen palm tree have been replaced by 13 flowering plum trees. Nine olive trees are still proposed near the top of the parcel, including three around the water tanks. These trees should be carefully examined for potential view blockage, as these trees will likely exceed the height of the proposed house at this portion of the property. A color rendering of the proposed house has not yet been submitted, but should be present at the meeting for the Board to review. Size Analysis Section 4.02.06 (d) of the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review states that the "height, size, or bulk of the proposed building in relation to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity" shall be considered in the evaluation of applications. Although the subject parcel is substantially larger than most other lots in this area, the size of the house should be carefully examined in comparison with the surrounding Old Tiburon neighborhood. To assist in this analysis, Staff has prepared a table which examines the sizes of houses within 300 feet of the subject property. This includes not ouly homes in the Old Tiburon area below the site, but also houses in the area above the site. This recognizes that this parcel is, in some ways, a transitional property between these two areas. A total of31 parcels have been analyzed, with the size of the existing homes, lot sizes and permissible floor area ratios listed. The average house size of these homes is 2,577 square feet. The largest house in this area is 6,495 square feet (1960 Straits View Drive, which recently received approvals to expand to 10,270 square feet); the second largest is 4,768 square feet; no other house in this area exceeds 3,715 square feet in size. A total of 25 of these 31 homes are less than half the size of the proposed 6,655 square foot house. Most of the parcels in this area are also much smaller than the 41,739 square foot size ofthe subject property. The average lot size of these 31 parcels is 23,514 square feet. Only 3 parcels (including 1960 Straits View Drive) are larger than the subject lot. TffilJRON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18. 1997 E=:~~~I=~',::'Ii 1'7::J'. 7 f. "3 D~ ~ Page 4 As a result of the smaller size of the surrounding parcels, the maximum FAR. for these properties is correspondingly smaller. A more telling statistic may be the comparison of the actual size of the homes on these parcels compared to their allowable FAR. With the exception of one parcel at 2236 Vistazo East and the approved house at 1960 Straits View Drive, none of the other 30 parcels in this area has a house which is more than 90% of their allowable FAR., with an average of61% of the maximum FAR. The size of the proposed house would be 99.7% of the maximum F.AR. for this parcel. Of course, other property owners do have the ability to apply for additional area for their homes, or for exceptions to increase their floor area above the maximum permitted F.AR., and it is likely that many of the homes in this neighborhood will increase in size over time. It appears that the area surrounding the subject property can be characterized by the existence of smaller houses that do not maximize the size of the house on the parcel. This is particularly true for the Old Tiburon neighborhood, from which the proposed home would be clearly visible. The size ofthe proposed building, both in absolute size and in relation to the allowable area for a parcel of this size, is inconsistent with the character of the vast majority of existing buildings in the vicinity of this site. Required Street Improvements Much of the testimony from neighboring residents regarding the proposed house has involved issues related to the potential widening ofVistazo East required at the time that this parcel was subdivided. As stated on several occasions, this issue is not within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board, and should not be made part of the decision regarding this application. However, as a matter of information, the Town has determined that the conditions of approval requiring these off site improvements were never recorded, and are now considered to be unenforceable. The Town Engineer and the Tiburon Fire District will now review the proposed project to determine what improvements to this property should be required to address access concerns raised by the construction of the proposed home. Again, these issues do not affect the decision of the Design Review Board for this application. Permit Streamlining Act Concerns The applicant has granted the only allowed 90 day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act time frames. The Design Review Board must therefore make a decision on this project by October 2, 1997 (the date of the next Board meeting). The Permit Streamlining Act does not allow the Board to deny this or any other project simply because the Board has run out of time to make a decision. It does require the Board to make its decision to approve or deny this application based upon the required findings for Site Plan and Architectural Review. TmURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18. 1997 E~:~~==-~';,:f'~p l-,T(J. 7 .pI 4. oFe.) Page 5 RECOMMENDA nON: The Design Review Board has repeatedly directed the applicant to revise the plans for the subject property to either reduce the size of the house or make efforts to show how the design can be modified to reduce the mass and bulk of the structure. The lack of change to the basic design of the house through several revisions by the architect, along with the owner's statements that the feels that the size of this house is justified purely by the size of the parcel clearly indicate the applicant's refusal to comply with the directive of the Board. The size of the house is inconsistent with the size and scale of other homes in this neighborhood. Approval of these plans would not secure the principle of Section 4.02.06 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance to consider "the height, size or bulk if the proposed building in relation to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important." (emphasis added). Therefore, it is recommended that the Design Review Board deny this Site Plan and Architectural Review application for inconsistency with the guiding principles of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: I. Minutes from the June 19, 1997 Design Review Board meeting 2. Table analyzing house size, lot size and floor area ratios for houses within 300 feet of 2225 Vistazo East 3. Revised plans dated September 9, 1997. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 E=CI-:~I==:,T'r I~::). 7 p, 5 of:" s;- ANALYSIS OF HOUSE SIZES. LOT SIZES AND FLOOR AREA RATIOS WITHlN 300 FEET OF 2225 VlST AZO EAST House Max. House Sizel Assessor's Size Lot Size F.A.R. Max F.A.R. Address Parcel No. (Sq.Ft.) (Sq, Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) ( %) 2201 Centro East 59-141-16 1,294 8,632 2,863 45.2 2235 Centro East 59-141-13 2,600 12,348 3,235 80.4 1884 Mountain View 59-042-03 3,192 20,090 4,009 79.6 1895 Mountain View 59-022-04 3,433 21,714 4,171 82.3 1896 Mountain View 59-042-04 1,497 19,550 3,955 37.9 445 Ridge Road 59-042-06 3,715 21,296 4,130 90.0 450 Ridge Road 59-082-03 3,633 20,836 4,084 89.0 455 Ridge Road 59-042-07 2,636 22,082 4,208 64.5 460 Ridge Road 59-082-04 1,919 23,316 4,332 44.3 465 Ridge Road 59-042-05 1,687 22,220 4,222 40.0 480 Ridge Road 59-082-05 1,871 21,594 4,159 45.0 490 Ridge Road 59-082-06 2,499 21,424 4,142 60.3 500 Ridge Road 59-091-25 3,194 23,000 4,300 74.3 510 Ridge Road 59-091-24 1,704 20,640 4,064 41.9 601 Ridge Road 59-022-09 2,882 20,412 4,041 71.3 1910 Straits View 59-091-58 4,768 37,500 5,750 82.9 1930 Straits View 59-091-19 2,036 24,289 4,429 46.0 1940 Straits View 59-091-18 3,340 21,728 4,173 80.0 1960 Straits View 59-091-60 6,495 99,391 8,000 81.2 2120 Vistazo East 59-141-25 3,207 24,150 4,415 72.6 2131 Vistazo East 59-082-23 1,104 21,736 4,174 26.4 213 5 Vistazo East 59-082-08 2,33 t 21,318 4,132 56.4 2140 Vistazo East 59-141-04 3,123 16,223 3,622 86.2 2151 Vistazo East 59-082-07 2,231 42,640 6,264 35.6 2160 Vistazo East 59-141-22 2,315 7,778 2,778 83.3 2180 Vistazo East 59-141-2t 2,110 8,255 2,826 74.7 2200 Vistazo East 59-141-24 2,127 7,772 2,777 76.6 2220 Vistazo East 59-141-23 1,545 7,812 2,781 55.6 2236 Vistazo East 59-142-09 .'3,160 11,270 3,127 101.1 2245 Vistazo East 59-091-53 940 48,720 6,872 13.7 2245 Vistazo East 59-091-57 1300 29.200 4920 26.4 Average: 2.577.0 23.514.0 4.224.4 61.0% EXHIBIT NO. 8 Sep-17.97 07:12P caltourpubs#wh 415 789 0111 P.02 f-C/q) II'-'ID ke-of.--i) bY ~~D Cf.{C'fJ!Y') Thoughts on the Frankovich application. September 17.1997 Re: Size. bulk and mass: Reflecting the will of this community, the tovm of Tiburon has legally adopted the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review. This means that the principles stated within it are to be given equal weight to those town ordinances which govern the maximum floor area, height and lot coverage for a spedfic site. The obligation to do so applies equally to the Design Review Board, to the town staff and to the Town Council (should a decision be appealed), when considering the appropriateness of a proposed project to be built within the town's boundaries. It is, therefore, the will of the town of Tiburon that the Design Review Board, which serves at the pleasure of the Town Council, review as stated in these Guiding Principles, thp "heighT, size. or hulk of the proposed bllilrling in relation to tht> chatacter of pxisting buildings.in. thp vicinity." The proposed home is to be built on a parcel of land that is situated in a "transition area" betw'een two already-developed neighborhoods, considered for the purposes of this review as "the vicinity." This application's floor area is more than double that of over 80% of the homes in the vicinity. Therefore, in doing our duty by following the guidelines as quoted above, the board must be spmitivE' to what-in the context of this "vicinity"-is the exceptional square footage afthe house proposed. In addition, because of, as Ll1e applicant Mr. Cowan characterized it, the "very steep slope" of this site, he proposes building extensive retaining walls to provide both a flat building site for the house above and a flat site for the garage and carport below. Additionally, the steep site....111 require more retaining walls to support a driveway which climbs up some 28 feet from the street. Plus there's also the additional visual impact of the 24'- wide facade of a pair of 12'-wide water tanks placed side by side and exposed 5' above ground l~ve1. The net result is that, in addition to the elevations of a house and garage stacked on four levels as viewed from below, the impact of the supporting structures for the house and the driveway must also be considered. These structures, as required by this steep site, would othen..ise be nonexistent in a flat location elsewhere in town, making the bulk a less sensitive issue. EXHIBIT NO.~ P. I DP S- Sep-17~97 07:12P caltourpubs~wh 415 789 0111 P.03 Frankovich, page :: According to an estimate made at a recent meeting by a member of our board who is also a fellow of the American Institute of Architects, the net visual impact of these retaining .....alls could as much as double the presence of the house on this site. Therefore. again follo....ing the above- stated guidelines, the board must also be sensitive to the appearance of height (although the proposed house itself does not exceed the 30' limit) as well as the bulk of this house. Such sensitivity is especially important because of the exceptional square footage when considered within the context of this vicinity as noted above. On May 1'i 1997, the applicant made the first presentation on this application before the Design Review Board. }ola ltt:l1dsc3Fmg ~la:n aceoHl.F',nipo rhi, pr~rM'lI ~9r~, 9r at this llu,:etiRg. The attending members of the Design Review Board, having each visited the site and the surrounding area prior to this meeting, specifically expressed their concerns during that meeting about both the size and the mass of this house in relation to its effect on the character of Old Tiburon. At that meeting, ~1r. Cowan suggested that landscaping devices such as "vines and ivy" would address the bulk issue and promised that a detailed landscape plan would be prepared for the next meeting. The board granted a continuance to June 5 to allow the applicant time to develop a more detailed response to how speCifically landscaping could resolve the bulk and mass issue. The proposal was subsequently continued at your request to June 19. On Tune 1 Cl. 1997. the occasion of LlJ.e second presentation of this application before the board, Mr. Cowan offered a detailed landscaping proposal to the board. However, board members did not receive a reduced copy in advance of this meeting, as is customary. An advance copy would have enabled members to adequately evaluate the landscape material choices from the specific and complex standpoint of their effectiveness in reducing the effect of this house's bulk. During the meeting, members of the Design Review Board stated that their concerns about the bulk of the total application were still unresolved and that it VIoas also necessary to be able to see elevations of how the retaining walls for the driveway up the hillside-just brought to their attention in T:'""';-H"IPTT NO cr 1:'..",\..L. -'--'0. ~ . ". 2- DP :;;,- SQP-17?97 07:12P caltourpubs~wh 415 789 0111 P.04 Frankovich, page 3 me landscape plan-would also affect the overall mass and bulk of the proposal. The applicant was additionally given the suggestion from several members of the board that he look directly at t.l-J.e design of this house to find ways ro minimize its size and bull< on the hilIside. Again, a continuance was granted so that this time the applicant would be able to prepare, among other things, a grading plan and elevations that would indicate how high the retaining walls would be. As is stated in t.he minutes of that meeting uThP main issues are the retaining walls and how the house will fj t in with the fabri, of the neiah },orhood." The application was granted a 9O-day extension to me time limit imposed by the Pennit Streamlining Act. The board approved this so that the applicant might have time to prepare a response to these still unresolved concerns. The applicant agreed co a continuance for me meeting of July 13, 1997. The proposal was subsequently continued at the applicant's request to tonight's meeting. September 18. Tonight marks the third appearance before the board on this item. We have received the landscape plan which promises that 75% of the retaining and under-deck walls will be coyered by vines in three years. The exact proposed location of these plantings is unspecified. This is the onlv solution thE' applicant has put forth to reduce the bulk QfthE' propospd strllctufF The revised architectural plans we received in preparation for t.l1.iS evening inqicar€ a reshuft1ing of square footage from the house to the garage, yielding a net reduction of IS sq. ft of floor area. This is less than 1/4 of 1% of a reduction in size from the original proposal of 6,668 square feet. Thi.s is the only solution the applicant has proposed to [pduel' thl' si7E' of this structurE' As the applicant's site is defined as a "transitional site" between two different neighborhoods, the issue for our review of size tonight is best considered in the statistical review of neighboring properties which 1 requested of staff prior to this meeting. The results have been included in the Staff Report which was completed for public review as of last Friday, September. 12. EXHIBIT ~,:O,..l. p. '3 OF ~- SQP-17-97 07:12P caltourpubs~wh 415 789 0111 P.05 Frankovich, page 4 Of the 31 homes within 300 feet of t.'1e applicant's property, only one is slated to exceed the size of this application. The house on this site does not do so now. However, the 10,270 square foot application was granted to the ovmers of 1960 Straits View Drive for the following reasons-non@ of which arE' analoe:oll~ to- or supportive of- thi' proposal ht'forp us: 1. that site exceeds two acres and the building area is more level than this one; 2. the square footage is spread over four detached structures; 3. the retaining walls for the driveway are uphill behind the house and are hidden from sight downhill; 4. the house and its dependencies are hidden from the street above; and 5. they are also nearly invisible from immediate neighbors as well as from the community at large. The second largest home in the area is the 4,768-square-foot chateau the applicant presented on May 15 in photos as an example of appropriate neighborhood context. While Ms. Kelly, the chateau's owner, supports the applicant's plans according to Mr. Frankovich's lener of September16, her home is situated well above this site so that the building of the proposed home should have no effect on the enjoyment of her property whatsoever. As the staff report continues, the next largest home out of the 29 remaining is 3,7 IS sq. ft.-nearly 3,000 square feet smaller than the proposed residence. And out of the remaining 29 houses, 2S have even less than half the floor arf'a of the proposed 6,655 square foot house-representing a considerable size disparity with most of this "vicinity" any way you look at it. I would like the board to consider three possible options we might pursue in our discussions on tonight's proposal: One might be to grant a conditional approval. This would be appropriate if you believe that we can fulfill our duty as outlined in the Guiding Principles by relying on landscaping and color as both effective and lasting solutions to the issues of size and bulk. An apprQval might be offered conditional to the satisfactory review of "a more detailed, fully dimensioned set of plans which clearly indicates that the house is within the maximum floor areas ratio for this parcel," as the staff report suggests. Additionally, a conditional approval might also be subject to a review of the specific elevations of the driveway retaining walls, and their exact plantings (as well as the precise color rendering of the buildings, if still not done). Ej(tIIBIT NO. q P 4 cr::: ~ S~p-17-97 07:13P caltourpubs~wh 415 789 0111 P.06 Frankovich, page 5 Another option might be to grant a continuance. This would be designed to allow the applicant the time reII'.aining on their extension to sear("h for further ways to t'Neak this design with the goal of reducing its bulk on the hillside. Some ideas might be proposed such as breaking up the building into two or three structures, digging it further into the hillside, returning the arches to the deck wall, etc.The board might also suggest an amount by which to reduce the square footage (if the applicant has expressed a willingness to make the house smaller). Lastly. however, you may ....ish to vote for a denial. This would be appropriate if you believe that this application. as currently designed or even possibly tweaked, is incapable of conforming in either size or bulk "10. the ,haracter of exisrin~ buildings in the vicinity." Under this option, the applicant may again go through the design review process within the year as long as the new proposal is for a "substantially different" project. Otherwise he must wait a year before returning with an application. To exerC"ise this option, we would state the reasons for rhe denial in the motion. We would also instruct staff to return with a resolution at the next meeting which formalizes the reasons for our finding. EXHIBIT NO. q P. 5 OF S- RESOLUTION NO. 97-1 A RESOLUTION OF TIlE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF TIlE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMll.Y DWELLING AT 2225 VISTAZO EAST ASSESSOR PARCEL NO 59-091-55 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1 Findings. A. On March 7, 1997, the Town of Tiburon received an application for a Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a new single-family dwelling (Application #797029) on property located at 2225 Vistazo East. The application consists of the following: 1. Application Form received March 7, 1997 2. Site Plan, Elevations and Landscaping Ptan, prepared by Cowan and Associates, Carlenzoli and Associates, and Geared for Growing Landscape Services C. The Design Review Board held duly-noticed public hearings on May 15, 1997, June 19, 1997, and September 18, 1997, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. D. Applicant originally proposed to construct a 6,668 square foot residence on the subject property. At the May 15, 1997, meeting, concerns were raised by the Design Review Board and surrounding residents and property owners regarding the design, size and massing of the proposed house in comparison to the surrounding neighborhood. The Design Review Board directed the applicant to prepare a detailed landscaping plan, to make the color of the roof and trim darker, and to address the mass and bulk of the building. The request was continued to the June 19, 1997, meeting. E. At the meeting of June 19, 1997, the applicant presented a more detailed landscaping plan and a rendering showing darker C"olors for the proposed house. Concerns were again raised by the Design Review Board and surrounding residents and property owners regarding the size and scale of the proposed house, and its inappropriateness compared to the Old Tiburon neighborhood. The Design Review Board expressed concerns over the lack of information available in the submitted plans, which were found to be insufficient to properly analyze the proposed residence. After reviewing the plans, the Design Review Board directed the applicant to provide: 1) information on why the proposed water tanks cannot be buried more Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 97- 1 October 2, 1007 1 17;TT-TTP17 1\:-J.O L 0 ........_~...:......_....!. __ 1 ~ . P I DP3 than two feet into the ground; 2) a grading plan; 3) a landscaping plan for treatment of the site, house, retaining walls and water tanks; 4) elevations that indicate the height of the retaining walls; 5) complete plans that precisely explain the project as to how the entire site would be developed; and 6) a color rendering that is closer to the actual colors proposed for the house. Emphasis was to be placed in this information on the retaining walls and how the house fits in with the fabric of the neighborhood. The request was continued to the September 18, 1997, meeting. F. The applicant subsequently presented a revised plan that reduced only 15 square feet in the overall size of the proposed building. A colored elevation was presented at the September 18, 1997, meeting purporting to show the front view of the house and the proposed retaining walls; however, the architect for the project admitted that the drawing was inaccurate, as it did not reflect the true dimensions of the proposed retaining walls along the driveway which would be visible from the front of the site. G. The Staff report prepared for the September 18, 1997, meeting included a table analyzing the sizes of31 homes within 300 feet of the subject property. A total of25 of these 31 homes are less than half the size of the proposed 6,655 square foot house. H. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 4.02.06 (d) of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review), which states that the "height, size or bulk of the proposed building in relation to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity" shall be considered in the evaluation of Site Plan and Architectural Review applications. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the May 15, June 19 and September 18, 1997 Staff Reports, public testimony from surrounding residents and property owners, as well as visits to the site, that the size and bulk of the proposed house do not conform to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity of the subject property. The physical size of the proposed house is significantly larger than the majority of homes in the vicinity. The bulk and scale of the proposed house would be much larger than the predominant appearance of homes in the vicinity. Section 2. Denial. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby deny the proposed Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the reasons set forth above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town ofTiburon on October 2, 1997, by the following vote: Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 97.1 October 2, 1007 2 Tl:~,i"T-1T~"'frr 1\-.0 '..L .u~~__,_ 1 J . p. '2.A~ ~ lO AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: ~ ASSOCIATE PLANNER Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 97- 1 HOWARD, BEALES, DOANE NONE FYFFE, SNOW C9ic..,,.w... S(~~ 1H ~ ~1) CARLA HOWARD, CHAIRMAN TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DB797029.RES October 2, 1007 3 7""'fT1T):."'T 1'I,O 1.0 .~.L~..._........_.... 1.'1 . p, ~~3> i/' """" "'C>R STAFF USE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND DESIGN REVIEW TOWN OF TIBURON 1155 TIBURON BLVD., TIBURON, CA 94920 (415) 435- 13"77 DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY: FEES RECEIVED: .,f;ltDoo~' RECEIPT NO: 70.;1. CASE NO.: APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW SITE ADDRESS: tJ..Ut? "";15f..&z=O ~ 7;15(/<0;1 Please indicate with an asterisk to) persODS to whom correspondence shonld be sent. OWNER OF PROPERTY: -rt-!OfVJhS T!<BNbl/l c.r! PHONE: C41J:?) ~7~ - ~.;7~-7; J'iIA1LING ADDRESS: ()V'? ~/E.L "!3w;k.)I<1 UJufl, 7ur~ ~/C 1-7.f ,6. q4/o<'l-~ APPLICA.c'IT: ~ f ~. (Other Than Owner) PHONE: ho!) 1?~-lq0T ADDRESS: '2-EJ:>-;' Vcc...-'r.? Ui'v''E... ,~~ 1?, ~11>- R~, U. . 4G4GC7 , ARCHITECT: DESIGNER: ENGINEER: Co~ i-~. PHONE: (1C"11 ~4CP- \<q01 ADDRESS: 'Z.tJ'!?'; Vo..,...Jl? t:?,zN\Jf., SJ\TI'- 17, ? -r:. , CA. tJ'74<'t7 PARCEL NO.: ~ - 011- ~? ZONING: "'i2' 0 - t2- BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: ~/~ ~1 ~r:;;U.../...Jt... 1.41 ~ C1~f'L.- I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein descr; ed, hereby make application for design re! I~W Of the plans submitted an<I",made a part of this applic on i. accordance with the provisions ot the Town Ordinance and I bereby certify that the . tion given is true and correct to the , I i best of my knowledge and belief., / //1 l661 L l:J'ili .2 '&57 (Date) .... =~---~-n- JL 3:!.i. U-~ I ,- l'T' 1\T.O . .... _.....~-..--.'""'" ->l.. J.. ~~. . P. t Or:S- - Please provide t! ~ollowing information: 1. BrieJ~dJ reason Iar proposed pro;ect~ f~""7J ~ -41, 1"?"1 ~ 2. Lot area in square feet: 3. Proposed use of site: ExistinG Proposed 0tk.l~ ~ 141) "fZF.-;. 4. Individual and total square feet of living areas and accessory buildings. Existinq Proposed U77'" tft ("7<<' kr GJ,,~$. e Cfv/i- "J~ <;ld1".) 5. Percentage of total site to be covered by: ON GRADE BUILDING: Existinq Proposed \~~ PARKING: Existinq Proposed 11 ~ rp.1: 41. OTHER PAVED AREAS (ACCESS TO PA.RKDIG, TURNA.?OUNDS, ETC.) ExistinG Proposed '111h1f '. CI;. LANDSCAPING: ExistinG Proposed ;~ 176 (~z. 6. Building height and number of stories: ExistinG Proposed tZ q-,o"!-<1~ (?e.~ JEu::.'I.) page 2 T:1..,.-.,.......,..~-;r:n 1'1- ~(""\ II ,J, .< H ' >~. ,"' ,'" , ..l..:.J....~~..;..~l~_..:...J.. .... '1 ",,-,,:. f, z... t%= s- I. ~U~Ge~ C~ o~~-st=eec parKing spaces: .. COVERED ExistinG Proposed NIp, OPEN ExistinG Proposed 'r</p.. 8 . Surrounding land use: North _~41'r?~mu.--c... South ) East .- West 9 . Project scheduling and phasing: 10. If residential: total number of living units range of sale prices or rents 11. If commercial or industrial: net rentable floor area number of occupants estimated employment per shift 12. If applicable, describe provisions for: fire protection ~ ~I 01t Jj 5f~-1J<.L-~K water service storm dr:.a.i.-nage - 13. sewage disposal CJ~Ty ~ other utili ties '7~p,l.V" / \}J~ (-0((. 1rtfZ1 ~J '1 . . f t' 71O~J~ Any other pertlnent ln orma lon: (attach additional sheets if necessary) .;c i';. ;., ,~ ~ - page 3 , Il T.i,_1.-.7T.::r.....1 P1T'1\T{) ._--1.;....'L;',.;..~...;-'.:!.. "",. .1.. ~ ';",,/. p, ?J cF~ , , . ""<--:'''':h- TOWN OF TIEURON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH RECORDED COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PURPOSE Many properties in the Town of Tiburon are affected by Covenants, Conditions, and Rest,ictions (CC&R's) 0, by othe, recorded documents which limit various aspects of a p,ope,ty's use 0, appea,ance. This fo,m is designed to ensu,e that applicants a,e awa,e of any CC&R's 0, othe, documents ,eco,ded against thei, p,ope,ty, and that they have reviewed these documents for conformity prior to the submittal of entitlement applications to the Town of Tiburon. This procedure i3 intended for the benefit and protection of both the property owner and the Town of Tiburan. I, _______________________________ ya t?1? CavJ .A-l do he,eby affirm that I (owner or authorized agent) or the plan preparer (arc~itect, engineer, building designer, etc.) have read any and all Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC~?'s) and other documents recorded against my property which could affect this application and t~at the prepared plans conform to sai.d CC&R's and documents. f further acknowledge that if the Town of Tiburon is not a pa,ty to the CC&R's 0, othe, documents, it is not responsible for any failure an my part or an the part of my plan preparer to ensur2 that submitted plans conform to provisions of the CC&R's Q~ other documents. I, _____~~__~~;?__________ (owner or authorized agent) Co hereby affirm that there are no CC~R's or other documents r2corded against my p,ope,ty which may conflic~ with submitted plans. ------------------------------------------------------------ Staff Use Onl,! P,oject Add,ess'__~~~_Y0:J~_~~T______ EAR File No.,______________________________ Date Received:_____________________________ Received Ey,_______________________________ (OVER PLEASE) Ci')T1=--FT~TT 1\,T(\ II J2J_.>.:._L_._ . 1. < J. ? t.f a::; 5'" NOTE: IF THERE IS A HOMEOWNER'S OR PROPERTY OWNER'S GROUP ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Name of Homeowner's Association (if any): ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Association contact person and phone number: ------------------------------ ----------------- I, ____________________________ hereby affirm that I am not (owner or authorized agent) required to secure approval from a Homeowner's or property owner's group for the project for which I am applying to the Town. I, ____________________________ hereby affirm that I have (owner or authorized agent) secured the required approval from a Homeowner IS or property owner's group far the project ~or which I am applying tc the Town. "Da 02: __2=-~:_tL________. CC3.R's.frm 5/10/89 T;1"':TTTI'ni . om. 1\"'0.JL ~-j. ,', ,,-, -., ~ ~ '..'1: , _,_.... U'. ~ ..~__ _ .f. .L 'J . r, 5" of t;;' Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 May 8,1997 ,;1:')''''''_ .,_.".... - 7, ,7~ . ~ '., ',- ,..,1...."ll C'i.;'; i - 8 ., '.. ;-/ Re: Planned residence Thomas Frankovitch 2225 Vistazo East r-, 7'"-""1 f~_ ,:,~'A.:V 0- . .. ,.::;:, ? .~- '/l:Ju" o"r~;...:'.....,rtCN '-"",vQ D~ :>r. Ladies and Gentlemen: Upon review of the drawings for the subject residence at 2225 Vistazo East, we would like to express our opinions as follows: 1. Grossly ostentatious architecture which does not fit the existing, quiet subdued architecture in this area of Lyfords Cove. (It stands out like an ostrich in a chicken yard.) 2. Construction of a building this size set partially into the rocky hillside will generate much additional heavy traffic on Centro East, Diviso and Vistazo East accelerating the destruction of these roads already deteriorating from heavy traffic for which they were not designed. 3. The present marginal condition of V istazo East in the vicinity of 2225 will be reduced to rubble. 4. The sheer size and bulk of the structure planned for this location is a misfit which will dominate the landscape to the detriment of the beauty and serenity of this unique and modest section of Old Tiburon. It is much better suited to upper Gilmartin Drive with its imposing fayades. We therefore, respectfully request denial of a building permit on this property until the residence is redesigned to more harmoniously fit the site and surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, ~ ~ 5:... j. '-'- ~-"yt~ James and sjbil ReynolcWr - 2111 Centro East Street Tiburon, California 94920 pol "--> do '^"'" +- d..a... ~,"-:..o.... ~ ~+II'""U-<.. -\-~. k TI:XT-I:C"'IT NO....1:1 Ps, ~ . \ \...0.. l' \~*" S{-,;,r:'\ ~-t-~+ ~p. ~ ,-''-> :',1- ...'::.....- .'-1r- ~ ~ ~~lb ....el <..:o'::s ;:::;0::-.:.. t-~.;.!4 ConSlJllt:ng HydreUliC. inur. (4' 5) 461-0796 - Created: ,'v1oro.y,. i2. 19972;24 PM - Page 1 '12 -----------------------~- --------------------------------~---------------------------- Rex & Janet A. Elder 501 Via Ca~ltas Apartment 424 Greenbrae, CA 94904 May 12, 1997 MI'lI. Charles Shalz 3710 Random Lane Sacramento, CA 95825 Dear Viriinia. RU'l"n nn mv hnvimllill~n ?? Vl"hT'i hI?1 R(l Vi,rR7f1 Fh,r hnrl mil rnnurhi\7f' nf I'nllinl"l"rinn I teelthat. unless plans are laid now, the construCl1on of Mr. Frankovich's house, across from you, will impact your property due 10 drainage problems and due to the nature of the one lane road directly selVicing the six lots located on the single lane extension of the west end ofVistazo East. Specifically the concerns are as follows: Drainage The dlllinage facilities, if you can call them such, for the existing uphill drainage, collects the water either in the ditch on the uphill side of V istazo East Or ;1 runs off into the nonnally dry gully on the north side ofFrankov;lch's lot. Construction of the some 6<XJO ft.= house and of the extensive and steep roadway necessary to service this house will quite markedly change the nmoff pattern and rate. Placing the large areas of impermeable surfaces associated with the house 1ts~lf and the sclvice road will result in the concentration and "'pid runoff of all water striking these surfaces. At present the grassy hillside greatl)' retards and spreads out the runoff from these same areas. Without a well conc"ived drainage plan, and this will be especially true for the service road. )'ou can expect to have the present uphill VislazO East drainage ditch IOtally madequate. In point ()f fact, the present ditch requires constant maintenance to keep it from overflowing and plltting water across 2180 and your lot at 2200. In your case it floods your garage and down stairs living area. I might add that the water that escapes these two lots finds it way across the downhill lots located on the uphill side of Centl'O East. Any drainage that comes down the proposed service road cannot help hut overload the pres"nt Vislazo ditch and directly affect your property. One Lane Vistazo East This road will present major problems during constructIon. The road surface canm'l stand heavy truck traffic. especially during ,he rainy season. This portion ofVistazo East is maintained by the property o-...ners abutting it and 1t really consists of two application of aboUl 2 inches of the usual asphalt road surfacing material. The second layer was applied only after the first had quite hadly deteriorated. During the rainy season wet weather springs develop at random spots and at. tllOSe times even nonnal car traffic ca"""s the surface to push out and break up. HeJlvy trucks such as those used to deliver concrete will be hard on the road in any weather. The usual deterioration ia to have the uphill side of the road push into the uphill drainage ditch. So maintenance of the road and ditch during and at the end of constroction will be required. The second construction problem is maintaming trafti.;: to the olher five propertiils that have no other access. This has on occasioils also been a problem under nonnal T'----~~.,.r,.. "'-"" l3 .;.'~.:..:\...~:.'_.~_~~.::~ L1 J.\! '-.J~. p. t 002- ,'IA"-12-'9? MOfl 14:05 ID:BOX STOREII5 ARDEN TEL fiO: 916 481 0866 1:t827 P85 Con,uil tin. Hydrou II' ",.., - (<115) 48' -C7ge - Cr..ted: Mond.y. 12, 19972:24 PM - Pogo 2 of 2 ------------------------- .------------------------------------------------------------ . usage since there is essentially no parking except that provided off road at each individual lot Definitely provisions must be made to handle this problem. In your paI1icuJarcase your husband isoot well and you cannot have any extended delay in getting out, if needs be. I will be willing to attend the Board of Review meeting for you since Charles' health will not pCImit you to attend. Sincerely. Rex A. Elder .. -- ["7 l-;,.....;--_-:-r~Tr_!' ""Y_A :::> ~..:.:.._::~.:_~ __'. _ .l. ~j _'i. ~ ' 2-- l5? 2.- e...._ ;1 \ ':.... -:'--"""-'7' -"""r~'i->. ' ~ ~-< 'i.... .~~.,,;! .//;) , I. ...., J I / "'" P\.>!..~-. ,,".,)..<--.a ,) . /I ~~ ~ 7- .JZ.~rJ ,*,-:;..-..c~ . '," "';:1) . ~~~X::~;: ~ ' ~ ~--;.,.~~ :~---' La ?~ -<U/}..: "'. -v ~:u'1 kr-- ?-AAAJ/'l~, .~- . > ~~ .~ ~ >-/u/'-f!r~ -AI . . AI.. , A c........z. ~ e;; <!/!.. ~ /H' . _ ~~ .:<0 ~ ~.,.. I::..~.~/~~~ ~ f'~~~ (//l-r-:-4,., ~ '))~.~-' &,-,~/---;;c.~~.~",,-~ ~ . ;J -,1) -'-(T~ . /t'-t? R - --dA. '" '. ?? c : ~ ~ t.HA...,. ~ ~ ~~~ !L7C0d<~ ~~ '~~_<Z#~~_ A J~~/rr~;t- /~-r,( ~ ~~-Z.e-J.~~ ~~~, ..6J; ~~ ~ ...1~!-7 y~~ b ~ 2-fJ "'- - }--:P'J~ "-/~;:/-7c>-1'~ ~ _ . 1 0' U~ t/ ./ ;r ,1, - (I . . ~~ ~~J Il:-J d~/.rJ, A+ .Il. '.. I) ~ /--./.~, J ~ ~, "::7J1~ ~ '-T 7 .--A:Jy< ,~ , - ~,l._ ~ ~f.... r?". e-efL ~ c.:<:!-~~___.J . _ o h~ '0-.d2..~~ d"-/V-..- ~_ ~. ~ ~ /z;~~ E: \ ~:.,. >-,Yi-<:',..~ ~ ~ '--'-"~"7\J~ (i/ /7 j. ?,I / . W-/~ <-~ J-, -- '-~~ (;-er-~~ ~ ~~~ If .' ~ f..' :d. Q-f!~ /'n,.., 7! '~/;L-'..JZ~~...-/."-... /7 - ,1/ 1./2.-,: _ :d~ 0 ~ J?~J,- a ;4 b:T~ ~ . rl ('~ -d.-.."J '7~ct'----./.~~ ~1.~~ &.' _._ {/ n.J -:::z.I<-<- ~J -<2....~:jJ '_ 1-::/ # ~~/ '_.. ./,?! _ /J ;J~ 17 ,,? ". ~ C:--f\.d'-A.f..L.c.- ~ '~ ~ . - . A :{ .:?O C? 1~'D <"!.-T , T -' <. .t'. -<"-~~;tT-~~;~:T;P -:\.l.',-:r6' I' / .J..:J_J....:~......l._____~.A. ~ .~ P IOFL :'1;":;Y-l:-''37 !'ION 14:04 lD: EO>< STOREI:*5 ARDEH TEL 010'316 481 0866 1:;827 P0J .J" h /..) ~ /\Y~-(J" ./ '} - <....~~ //!L ~-<__ ~ (LA-;-. J ~v-. "";;-:h--L .~~ A /f--.-J ,- ~ /) C I ,J1 ~/U ~, /,h:-J...e~ ~i'h.":, ~~ j7..:'~ 71.sz~ d~-u '?$ ~<-<.--l rJ /<17" u ~~~ ?~ ~ //~ .l~~-o, /~~.~~ , <' r ~ ~~J -( ~/Jv.-. <2-(1 _ _ ~ ~~_/ ~ ""-' /~ (1<-~ ~T~ ~ ~~ ~'//d1........J!~ .L~~~c7 f'< " ~ ~.s;~ . ~~ ~ -<..-.4 ~~_ 0'4 A~L"'''''''''~ ~ ~ ~. ~ .J ~ 21......-<--1./ '?--~~: -c.../' 7-~ "/. " v, //._ _ , /1 ~ ..#''--0 - ",-ij,--.4--t~~..,.....-,,- ~~.,(. ~7 ' . f/) /. tl - I,..- ~,.. 4 /;r~~.==-:::-tf.-.~--t~~ .~ ~ /"1' " "--R.. ~ --I.P-.~.. ~ .~ '.z#"~ ?(;t;;vr . ...d;~~.c-~v~ . i~"~, '~. ~42(, =~~oo ~~;E J .~/- 01: A# ~'<:.J",-,.Jld-' / .3 7/ t:J K.a4./Y^,c'ir~. -<1 O.<A~,,~ C-._ ~ 7' S-8'-( Y V:'"'T7=-Tr""':'Trr 1\,'1 I <..{ -~_:~..-_:"_' ..." ..-, P2-OY"2... KELL BQED~IG W2~EN 21'20 Villl.ezo EMl. Tiburon CA 949'20 Phone!l'llX (415) 435-9100 e-mlli1: bredllit\@BOl.Com (~ /)?/l-/C. €9-- May 12, 1997 Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blyd. Tiburon ,CA 94920 Re: Planned residence 2225 Vistazo East File # 797029 MAY 1 3 1931 I ~, L.." Members of the Board, Having had an opportunity to review the plans for the building of the above residence, I like to express my concerns. Although no variances have been requested, the size, mass, color and landscaping combined with the very visible location on a hillside, will have a major detrimental impact on the character of this part of "Old Tiburon". The amount of excavation that is needed to accomodate such a large project causes concern over the effect it might have on the properties located downhill. The heavy construction traffic will put a severe strain on the small roads from Paradise Drive up to the site. Vistazo East cannot at present handle the additional heayy traffic without major inconvenience to the 19 families -living there. I ask that the building permit be denied until a revised plan is submitted, that better suits the site and reflects the oyerall character of the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely, ~~~ "'""YTT7n-T N"'n Ie- j~L~c~l.::,l . "'J.---L:2.- r"l':l 14 '<;1'7 12:08 PElHLJ1A ST~;) J:J FH~ ~-~62-L926 =. 1 E9 Tiburon Design Review Board 1 50 S Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, Caiifornia 94920 May 12. 1997 Re; Proposed Frankovitch residence 2225 Vlstazo East Dear Board '-'lembers. My mother, Betty ~cKegney, and lawn the adjoining property to the east of 2225 Vistazo East and will be impacted greatly by this proJect. Regrettably we have to attend a service out of town and won't be able to attend the meeting. We WGuld like the Board to consider the following: 1. The scale of the project IS inappropriate for the sIte. The lot is quite steep and will pose an engineering and grading nightmare. The logistiCS of getting all the equipment and material for a project this big down the smaller roads of this neighborhood and parking all the vehicles needed for construction will be an unnecessary inconvenience for all those who live along Vistazo East and the approaches. 2. The drainage problems have to be addressed before considering a project thiS large. The current culvert flooded last winter. 3. The requirements for widening Vistazo East and putting In a culdesac are extremely severe and should be shown on the site plan. 4. The story poles should be marl<ed on the site plan so we can V1sualize not just the height but also the breadth of the walls we have to look at. We ask that the project be denied untit it is scaled down and these issues are addressee!. Sincerely, ~"S M.c..,<~~_. Betty McKegney '-.XJ 2245 Vlstazo East Tiburon, Ca. 94920 ~.a.L Lowell McKegney 1 2 Laurel Ave. Petaluma, Ca. 949 S2 -7 ( '-t.ll'. brand fax tnlnamlltal memo 7f!m 101,.. to I "'-:z:. ~>J e; l1...~"-,-,,,~_~ ... . ~ .... ."\<:.'bV\e.. ... M' ... EXI..IIBIT NO.JitL ~ ;n1H~ ~q ~ May 15, 1997 2245 Vistazo East Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 435 -1512 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTENTION: Irene Borea RE: 2225 Vistazo East Dear Board Members: As a home owner on Vistazo East Street for many years, I wish to submit my concerns about the planned residence next door. The story poles indicate to me that the proposed structure is very large and dominates the hillside which I view from my windows. It would appear that it will be much larger than the other residences in the area. I welcome new neighbors and understand that large families require more space. However, this is a residenbce for one or two people is my understanding. I feel that the size and the scale of this residence in relationship to the other dwellings and the natural landscape is obtrusive. I am also concerned about the possible damage to the road while heavy equipment is brought in for the construction. This road is important to me that it be in a condition whereas fire trucks and other emergency vehicles can use it to protect our neighborhood in case of an emergency. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, ~///~1~ Betty McKegney ~9 by Donna Funicello PS. A death in the family prevents Betty Mckegney from being present at tonights meeting so she has asked that I sign this dictated letter from her. '=i'7T-"T-'Tm 1\.1" II n.,,-.___L.".c..l. L'i J.---L.4- ~RY-1S-1337 1a:33 /18<./~'" L~ MAIL- ~.al Ve-S/GN' REV/.=v./ :;::?G.:l"'t-~2:l cq - ,.1 - /c>,..jl\!_ ,::,F /, J;jt,..lR~"/ , .:5' H. I t:)?,. 6 ;4)( (4- /~-) 4-."':( .;:;-,= 2.-4 7U:S /2:L~ 7373 HtJ. y-15:,._./'9 9- ? ...Egom frf 1 ~ H& e L r/, 5C,I-J / R J'.-1 ~ R..oo_ 2221':).. ._\LISIAZ~ .FA!'I:J" // BIJ-'C.cU'/ . Ri~~.~~lH~.i) ?~,-:tFL ~9 ~ /4. / =-2. 3 . . ': ~" "I ':1- 1 .- ,';'1"" . . - - F' ." ~ !9.'A,'j\1 C;": i/8U -".10, .... :.:3 .::. ':.,-~..f1.9j". .....-...h~~ DE;""! _ooLcS I DE.N..C-_~ 1.":,-.2. S":. !?,4V Mt::M,I"Doo 7) R, "'# / a 4- I ' , /I/&r.>.E~I/ll.).6 /i.....J.... .~n~t:.3 , /-L.C LE-..L6,;O )_.21.. 7 - 1.3 S-? / ;' ..... -7"- .____ EAx . ..Lf&L:J_o.) 3~ - Jc>.33J ____ __ _ _--:5-..k!.H.JECI-:_oo. _.. F,RAi'1 /<C2_V/C.H VE,"Ii:;,!./ R';;V.LE,,,,/ "-0 ~""IlJ<;..,./i!.f.)r.7'" .4-1'/~16L...~"!!yc;,-e ,&ALYlILy: R~S/D'-:^/t':~, _ 7)"J.€:.,-?.BL>';iEc"-j~""'QCAT.J!f...{;L._ A-I..._ 2....2.2..5:. \/t..S...La:Zc>...L19~J.._...__n_ ..___ . . . _. . ;:; 5 c:: _~ ~,:j..a.R'-~_ 'p""'..l2 c~. L .. .J;"" 9 - 0 9...L...::-....5 S": _.___ ___ .. __. COP....L.6S : . .. N, HAM?- ~ rr _. ..E, /"1 t!.. J.< ~ CA AI .e, Y --..J:.. ._. -<: )..MH..Z.. J~RE'IN.OLJ)S --- .~.2LoY[)_~.. .. . --- :'TISVR.ON' _j)fiN 11l/ArI<,O.(.)5 SRP'--"VYNIE.R. . .1<.; . -t.-"J~SE..N.. __ :L, HAJ.P.ER..o./_... h__.. I~LH. 4 7)EI?HO..rr .. EX?dIBITNO. l~ f, lDF(P '1Hf-15-13S7 1,3: 33 =',J2 H/c~//1-~,- H, :5"'::'H/~Mc~ .:s" ~ 2. 4>~ <G r~4tYl'<o..VL4d,_2.ZZ 5"" VI$ rA ZO_...e:~~-;- .. C.C2N'~~~ 1'/:$ .I-1U:.!tLiVf.b...j7r .s::.H/.L~.M.#.&.. - ____.../.. 0._ J..' 19""..~pJ./~~~~.f.O w-' "f:.1-/.__~rl!l: :B/t. /LY.__P.~ _"-H6 S74JEP.dIU.. fl"'-E... _t!f:H.J).Rt.JN'''~~.__WA/e8:.'.._.m .__o./dE.. rI,J-.J_~/Pej.s" ,tiT ~~~~r: ~e.:scR.B~R..t;:J~ .. __ Rfi/N..l/t//t-TEI.<._.Z:>.a.,r;;u./~ 7H.E..._ kV/ ""T~R.J?,.,<!i.lN $ , ..____..Rq/lv w.t4T~Z Ri.lNaE..F' ..PRc:>/YJ. ../9:....N'Ew.8,€:5u:)c,.Ic:.~__ ..____ ._...._8..~pPj vX'lvew.4Y ;?-N])d~~4JAl.5._~HOI..N_1;) B~n__ _ co(.~ec.r#&> .. "'-"JnCL.. PIP.:.Z>__._.:!.,EPA-RA;64y. .To 7.'"H.... .~/7"Y ~F T,BV,,;!.Q..I!I......... __ S7'"c>/feh:l.....22R;;'IN .;$y~ r.e.mArm_C~H7go .$/~E..r._._m_... 1.0\/ A I;E:~ 7;...;J,J ,>t. .fHa 1..1.... Nor .aIL /H.L.aIAL.Eb .T&> ~R ~I1V. To l//.:f'TA z~ ..E1'f~1 .:s~~~rNtPlC. rp _7?z!E . IV "ri/ !? JA)_ --"ro/C,rn 2:J / 'rt;.H 10 rh'.~. c.~L.. ~ -rnle H/ L.i. ;5'~12t!! If i.nc 4:,]) ~/ 'T')(LA/14'41?-.-_. ~~'N'i.f.._.. __. o V If 'I,q %..0. 1E";If ~ /" . ;1.Tl'1-/E E T'" r .W E ...G!..::::Y . 0 FnTi1fl.l.J.fU:UY. --. O1;f;./;'lr&./,./~ -f-fl~ ..:rr~~Er:. J4PPRO"'l""'~T~.LY ."-10' _.~.i.z..O l/t.~r-4-%o .EGSI, E-4~r ~~ '/-7'/.:5 ./,""I'L'L'"""":- . rHe. _$:r~~$"I I ~ L!.v.e~E.IYT':;'y _...m.A,,/,,/-r4INE~ ;ofiVVt9:r~i.y BY -r.H~ rovR- ?"t:;.ap~):< 'y OU-)NEl{f_ I'-/~i. /..JZ>uv~ 22.20 \/1 $'}hZo.E" .4,Si, p~;-T~~n~T 7> ~.o 10 Ji'Ll...cl1.DJ. .L'l' .....1.0-- p, 2- rx:0 '1Ay'-lS-1397 1:.3:33 =',J3 .,..~-- ,., --,..-. -- ,- - .;$-7', "3 oP c:;;; . .--E...8.G.N/<!.Q.'<L.LC:.d.._ Z.z. .2 S- Vlj.r~~'" EA.:sT 1J.L:S..""HZ,~...E~~.~_,",-e.E. t9. QU.4 ~ ~/~.4. ~~/S.I<<(f..-- fl-li!!. !A-11 Y.re'/! I,t::: 72i.AE.. BJ4./N vJt'1-iE R. /~.. d~ y- ._~11:BJ<....LF"'" ,~.c,.c '7~'<"?P~t<:.t..y .\'\/..~"";4.vl'; ___ .oS?t::JJ I_mof'/€ y !. o.u'l $ r""4d...E&E.~';'H '"ZJR&.J"vS _____ A-Nn._.~t:'_d//i!ot.....Th' ~_~",,A,/ ~~;:: 2 LQ _ .. c..a..~8...(.Jc 7"<-0 AI o At"1" ~s.s. Ta_,L PI<O/?7. z ~ ~ 0 _ \/!~L~H &;4.:sL_._..... __--Ell/V :rh'L ~rI'iE~ErE...$'.1 DA.tdc..E:~.. ..N~ JE 1"J ~ Tot.:> s..- ._._-LZ'2A.IJljT.4L^/~"b.. .~. Z'----2S-._NC.r.... -r"-'>._BE:. A..:r.u~;;:O(./~~_ o . _e.O./.!Lsi/<t.l..c:._?:JcJ-J ..Tl?JJ.cI<$ ._lLJb.1.t. ])~ROY.n -.-- '_. VI.srA.:z..o E t9:SI. I4I\It.:L...L I k.E.J...y.. '...h~,--Z;A~... ~ E. X I ~r.1 !Y.t:;. D..R I v F-__W.& Y 5 '. -.L:ia.w.,..",.., LL _ 'TH I .$ ._lIt6-. COAL.T/.'<,::) I.. ~ E..tL_ y:fN.j)____WN,:;J_ W/"- L PIiY.' F~Jit. .-..... l?eR..'--.-{;.c E M..E.N_T2-.. .. /!:)... ::Z>~T.E.c.-r/nN..-Ego./'Y?._ 2l/:$"-C>-'L~_I.;,. ..$/L:>.../E~ A.,..;n .n];;O l,) ~Z> E:.R"'\" . R..oJ._'_ (,-..L~~o ~.LIJ_L t.. .0..- .__~ c.>s...E..J.. O_~__c. (;; /!i.S...:r ~iLc..ZL c N......ER. Om._;:}l3CJV~ - . ..,--....yT"nT'" N~ lO ~'-1,.:~;-.' ~ ';, t' ~' . j:r: '0 ___......__..__.. U. f., ~ OF0 ~~Y-1S-:~37 lJ:4J /'-"7;~""'~CI.- q, o/~;~r-?..c:"", ~.04 .:;f/l, 4- ~~ ~ _______J:-:.R.4N'/<.o I/ICI-(._.____.._____ .___. nZ 2 Z!C___.vc.~.T..;+~tP_ EA..s1' - --_._____c.~..:r7'1Z.f,.JC,_I':u,1 ':-..a/l..lr.h~,.I.(..,!..&.Z>_._..._.._...._ .___._.. - -----. .;$HQI,l'/-b Fj!'---'-'-'---" ~ ...:5 ~ IS: m 1 t:. .sr 2Qt::.::r.k!~1!!1.1.. ~4.s ItS.IV'.....- .... $J<r CYi..a.lit~z,., h'ILLS.L])E.. SLa~E ;9"r". m 1."l:J . ;-/e/~rr'r 1.$ ---,<iJ.L?E &.ox 1 N7 ;9 T6: ky.. _ 4, S- 10 ('i)~4.&ee_S)L - I #..E _$..r-.BvC rt./Rkl-.:z>...:~Ic:;,N -==..e.. rH.I..$ .$r-LE:EA__ __n_~-''''OP=' _ .\'\'~/'" t.._?,Rcal"t1!v.....yg~u/R.~ ._~..1.nl..-'-^-/$:L _ ...t2Z7r"$/ll. ~,~ e r ..rHA_N6.?<J Haf..}$E_ a"J&:Y S "-1l:iE...__. 2:'0 ~I IV' 7J-I4... H / LL 1 _ ...(.~_o.P"'" ~ P I Z. I ~<:; . _T"Jo:I~ <E.. .13':4C)JN'..J_ O.___::ri!! ....ve.R..~H/Ut.... :<:lE-" .:5epP?<.fI1r.IE / /",0'-: D -- - _____ I';> .rl:l~... .Ct ''y .fl:JALd t... -tY-€ _oN' CEA/rRo S"~-=::r::_.__. SL\^/=:12.. ~H'A'-t:. .N.QT_B~ 71E.1;)n 1/1.//",0 'rd~_ - ~Y.$.""'4!.~ 1:;.,= d~.~_g HlfiLPE.,e.n"; - Or WHICH.._ _ __ 22.2.0_Vt.$..714;ZO _EA.$_T' /.$.. .A:.,.c.."1-RT: C' __1__ . /../\/ 5 I. ~_~ 0 11./ A .R~al;).. _ BD./I/ J) .. B Y .12~_ v' e)-o peR.- .-.. --=roo . ...J:,C>l/€R. ~E.R.8-,Rj~.9L&ce:.~.eA/ 7" o..F V t$TA:.ZO e-a.sT" - S-rR.c~T ,4Nl/ .PR./_VATe DRIVE.. WA Y S . E""!....TTTD-'T11\.~n \~ -...-- ~ .<Lo._1..;)J J_ 1. 'he;. . (\J, 4 C(- t? ~AY-:5-1?97 13:40 /-/(C~h.t:/ /7_ ....JCrt/I<:/'"7e:.K "'.as :5#~ S- of ~ . .__E~.AJKQYIC_d'_h 2 225'" V IS.T _rtZ"CJ E /.J. <; / e D€I/EL(") ,o~8-_/_ 0 WNc~ rO.._.E.B.~..JLlDE... PI7~KING __h. ___AN i:) r..<.I..R.!JL.~.8...D UN/) $,O.4rE. . ~JV s,.r~ ____.___----E:.O R ~a..JtLs,.. RcL C_f.L C)...N., ..c_... PJ'L~~_l..v~_.ra. 9~ P~r IAI File 5.,.., -ro ....J:1::I..g--B....B.OVE,J_ a . "])EV?LOPJE/C:. / aW-va:.lt -r:~_ ~a..'^h.B...t;!~_d:L-I_P_. C1:?..N.TB...!!:t.__ _15p~a F.E. r::8.a M ~o N..5" T" ~ U ~"T 'oN ~~ . rH,4"- I r Z/OES /1.1 0 r EM.,. E~ ~.k !.~"T 1..I'hSi__l:!1{4t/.!L__ , ~...IeMS.._t'U:ollL.-..-C. L..Q4.-~f-__EL-<:~_Q D.....11:1. ~ M, o Rea,(./j.,ge pLAN-rJNG; o€..(':,R~..k'~D ~ove~ /0 SLfi.B..(...L_Lz..E.___S.~LL__~..I:"".Ee_C.-;:E D. .. By .s R.4f)..LAL~ . , /? ct,;)- U II< ~._ L G 1!!..12 ~c.A.E...LlY....4--,_c V e R IV"J_._ 1_ 1'R I ve. \.oVA.. y,____ , R ~ LRE._ . .L.A III D $'::'8 p...e..__~c HI r,;:~ .T_ rq . .Be. ~_t;)~s.~.1-.T.ANr "'O_T..LLJ.S. ___ .. o : '-;'~_~_'r.,..,_r.p ~_,..., ~ .-.-- "'1:" J-_1.I-~.~.J .\.~ .1....~1,' "-' .. _ _ _"..__ .L:J.~~,-.l.__,}..._._ 1.1.1J. p, 5 or:: b 1Rr-1S-1337 la:41 ~.J6 M/c,J(/1-;!;'- rI, .5CH/RHe/? -<:17' /" - /" ._....__ _.__..._.,. (jCl.._...Jf:lL:._..r:d_ .F"&t9,g.R~ VL4# ___ _"_'_ 22. z6::._V, S" rA.zoEA:rr 3.0_ De s..L(i'/y ._2._..PRoV..a:>.e _ .])8/V E\~.P1_'I Z>~TI'9J.L /___ .__ _...9_ _..P8aYID.~..... V!CLNj7:y-__..mI9P_~o_.$H.a.......L. Me.6/~BY_. __-'iN/) .__A..o';AC~NTP.I"1.RCE.L..s._ .,A/l./i:) ';..fo.4.JSe.~, ...TI71S --- . .7o_"B.e. J:...H.O. IN / tL..P. 1,...4.N...&^l./).._ E L E V-:AT/ o.N.....u.__ /I ...sC,t;L.E:... / .=-. 4Q___F.~Er_..... ____ ..... ...____ ----. -. . _..Exo. \/,' De. V./..cw.5 E80..-^1 Fa UR.._.])1 J<.,IZ':' Z-~o.,!o/ :S... .'- ... ___. IN SUFFICIENT .])E.TA-IL 7"0 .s:dQYV '.fY2?I4-~T_... .aN \//.:W$ A:N 7:>. ...LidNL/c;H.T .E80h1......$.I4-&rt_._.._ ..__ DIREC r lo.N'J /1/0,& Tl7'r" r:.4S.-r.,. .$ou-rJ:1 . ..!' W iE:.5r..., -.... I 5/ N ~~R..c.LY y.o.:.J.e..:5.7 . .....- -. 7 .. . V' .. __'n ...-_..__... ~~..~~~--- .. HI.:;H/9:~i- H, S~H I.RMt=~.... . M.J4j /5:, /9.9.7 ----~~-n-T "'-'0 l (;I ~_,. :1 ._j ~ ,__ ~ :-\.!, - 0 ~.L-~~_~_..;,-'...:I..._ .... '1 . ~. ~Ck (PDTi'll.. P.36 ~<:J\S"1 \q '1} Pamela ..... Peterson 510 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone: 435-1881 E9 L.KrE: AAl L Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Frankovich, New Single Family Residence at 2225 Vistazo East, Assessor's Parcel No. 59-091-55 Installation of Two 20.000 Gallon Water Tanks at the Residence As stated above, my concern with this project is that my property is located above Mr. Frankovich's at 510 Ridge Road and I will be looking directly at these two water tanks. I apologize for voicing my concerns at this late date but, quite frankly, I've been thinking about this and considering what my feelings are about it. Mr. Frankovich has been extremely considerate of my concerns regarding these tanks and has said he'll do whatever I would like to minimize their view. I appreciate his willingness to work with his neighbors and I am only putting this in writing to the Tiburon Design Review Board because I want to be on record as having concerns with this particular part of his building plans. The tanks are for water storage in case there is a fire and/or earthquake where the main water line breaks and nothing is available to fight fire. Mr. Frankovich has gone through the Malibu fire storm and wants to be prepared for that type of disaster here on his property. I can certainly appreciate his concerns and I suppose it might be argued that these tanks will be beneficial to me as well. However, these catastrophic events might occur once in our lifetime, if that, whereas the view of these tanks will be every hour of every day forever. Mv recommendations are as follows: That he not install them at all. If he wants an extra water supply, I suggest he drill a well to be used solely for fire fighting, if it is only sea water that will be pumped out. If the tanks are approved, I recommend: That there be only one tank installed. smaller, say 5,000 gallons and the tank(s) be sunk into the hillside as far as possible. Painted deep forest green, not camouflage as he has suggested. Covered over with an observation deck or some lattice structure to take them completely out of view. Plants will take too long to grow and who knows how they will be tended in the future EXI.-IIBIT NO. lCf 'r. IOF'L ,i'1') .,;ign Review Board R~. ...ankovich, New Single Family Residence at 2225 Vistazo East, Assessor's Parcel No. 59-091-55 Installation of Two 20,000 Gallon Water Tanks at the Residence Page 2 I would also like to see him mark very clearly or even paint out the exact diameter of the tank tops. T!us has not been done and it is impossible to get an idea of how they will look when installed. Please call me anytime to discuss the above. Thank you Sincerely yours, f~ ~:- Pam Peterson cc: Tom Frankovich Richard Dwyer Sallie Bell Kelly EXI-IIBIT NO. \<i: f>, 2J)~ 2--- Cc MAY 29 1997 Lyford's covel-r:QPi'~~~ii;~~ Homeowners Association M;,Y 28 , 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM MADELEINE WOOD, Chair, ARCHITECTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW , OLD TIBURON HOMEOWNERS RE; NEW RESIDENCE, 2225 VISTAZO E. MR. FRANKOVICH * Dear Board Members, The Frankovich proposal for a very large new house on a highly visible lot in the heart of Old Tiburon raises many issues of concern. * Numerous letters from nearby homeowners were presented to the Design Review Board on May 15, 1997. * Tiburon Town Code; 4.02.06; Guiding Principles, should be addressed. The house and accessory structures appear to be grossly out of scale with the neighborhood. The height, size and design of the building in its relationship to the character and size of existing buildings in the vacinity should be carefully analyzed. * In order to fully visualize the affects of the mass and bulk of the structure, the applicant should present drawings showing the full extent of the southeast elevation including HOUSE, DRIVEWAY and all RETAINING WALLS necessary to the driveway, pool and street widening on Vistazo. Landscaping should not be used as a design tool to solve problems. Water tanks are unprecedented on private open space and should be completely buried or eliminated due to severe visual impacts. The exotic palm trees are completely out of character. The house should be reduced in size and redesigned to harmonize with existing development in Historic Old Tiburon. Colors should blend with the surroundings to minimize visual impact. * * * * * 00,8 .KJ..E//ilct: T 5 '-c--17 ~ /,"::>cl'!" .s 0 ry' rrTT-TIPTT NTO 2..-0 ~.t.~._...... ~,_ . CHRISTOPHER S. ARMSTRO:'\G June 2, 1997 Tiburon Design Review Board Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 ,~, " - _.,~-- Re: Planned Residence 2225 Vistazo East Street (Parcel No. 59-091-55) Members of the Board: I write in respect of the Frankovich proposal for the construction of a new single family residence at 2225 Vistazo East Street (also known as the Assessor's Parcel No. 59-091-55) (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). I and my spouse, Judith R. Armstrong, are the community owners of the property known as 2160 Vistazo East Street which is located on the down slope side of Vistazo East Street in close proximity to the Property. At the close of the first meeting of the Design Review Board ("DRB") in respect of the Property, I and my neighbor, David Heilbron, who resides at 2140 Vistazo East Street, expressed our concerns to a spokesperson for the DRB in respect of a proposed widening of Vistazo East Street between the junction of the entrance to 2140 Vistazo East Street and the termination point of Vistazo East Street at the approximate point where the Property's new driveway would intersect Vistazo East Street. The portion of Vistazo East Street which would be affected by the widening is hereinafter referred to as the "Affected Portion". The first meeting (at wilieh the Fran:<o.ich matter was taken out of order by the ORB with the result I was unable to speak) was continued to June 5, 1997. I am advised that, on account of a failure by Tom Frankovich to timely submit additional plans, the next meeting has now been put over to June 19, 1997. I will not be in town on June 19. I have a strong inte'rest in being heard by the DRB in respect of the Frankovich application. I accordingly hereby formally request that the DRB put over its further consideration of the Frankovich application until the first meeting date in July. BACKGROUND The Affected Portion of Vistazo East Street is a 10 foot wide privately maintained road. To the knowledge of the undersigned, the Affected Portion has been in its 1':~~T-IIBIT NO. L I p. IOr-S Tiburon Design Revi Board June 2, 1997 Page 2 present state at least since the early 1950s when a land slip bisected Vistazo East Street between Diviso and Spanish Trail and a determination was made not to reopen the street as a through street. Sometime circa 1984 or 1985 (prior to the acquisition by the undersigned of his residence at 2160 Vistazo East Street), it is understood that the Town of Tiburon including the Town Engineering Department and the T.own Fire Department negotiated with a prior absentee owner(s) of the Property certain conditions for the subdivision and future development of the Property which included an undertaking by the owner (and presumably his (their) successors in interest) to widen the Affected Portion of Vistazo East Street from '10 feet to 20 feel (at the own.....s personal expense as cpposed to Town expense) contemporaneous with the construction of a new dwelling on the subdivided Property. I apologize if I have in any way misstated the aforesaid conditions. I have never personally had access to the written terms of the negotiated agreement, and I have reason to believe (based upon his previous comments to' me) that even the new successor owner of the Property, Tom Frankovich, might not have had knowledge of such conditions when he approached his immediate prospective neighbors earlier this year regarding his plans for construction of a dwelling on the Property. EFFECT OF A 10 FOOT ROAD WIDENING As is evidenced by old blueprints for my residence at 2160 Vistazo East Street which was constructed in 1968 on the downhill slope of the Affected Portion of Vistazo East, construction was premised upon a roadway 10 feet in width with the knowledge and approval of the Town of Tiburon. The width and pitch of the road determined the construction of a significant cement pier and ramp into the elevated second floor garage of my property at 2160 Vistazo East Street. The ramp currently rests on a leyel _I........... ~lc.i1i.:::. According to a professional survey of 2160 Vistazo East Street (filed in the County Records) which I had prepared in 1990 by Tronoff Associates, the center of the existing 10-foot roadway at the rlorthwest corner of my lot lies approximately one foot in the direction of my property on the down hill slope. Topographically, the land adjacent to the Affected Portion of Vistazo East in front of my residence drops away at a significant angle on the down slope side, and it rises at a significant angle on the up slope side. To widen the Affected Portion of the road by 4 feet (approximate) on the down slope side and by 6 feet approximate on the up slope side would have the following consequences: EXHIBIT NO. 2--1. p, ?. or 5" Tiburon Design Re\' Board June 2, 1997 Page 3 . Unless the height above sea level of the Affected Portion of the road in front of my residence were lowered by approximately one foot, the widening would create an unacceptable pitch onto the ramp of my driveway and would necessitate massive reconstruction of the access to my garage. . On the down slope side, the widening of the Affected Portion of the road both in front of my property and adjacent down slope properties would require the destruction of substantial shrubberies and trees (some of which have been in place for approximately two decades), and would require in front of my residence a concrete reinforced retaining wall or; the down slope side at least 2 feet in height above ground. . On the up slope side, a widening of the road by 6 feet across from my property would require a concrete reinforced retaining wall approximately 5 feet in height for the full length of the roadway across from my property (raising significant safety questions with respect to children who might play atop such retaining wall). . The subsurface elements of retaining walls both up slope and down slope would require dealing with numerous aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the existing roadway (water is within less than three feet of the surface in some places, and one house on the down slope side of the Affected Portion of Vistazo East is reportedly built around a major cistern from which clipper ships were provisioned with water during the summers of San Francisco's earlier history). . The wide(ling of the Affected Portion af the road would necessitate movement of power line poles, Marin Municipal Water pipes and junction boxes and might also affect underground cables to my residence at 2160 Vistazo East. WHAT COMPENSATING ADVANTAGES FOR A 10 FOOT WIDENING Presumably, the Fire Department envisions that a 10-foot widening would give greater accessibility for its trucks and equipment, but such greater accessibility (both for the Fire Department and for those of us obliged to use the roadway each day) would be partly if not fully compromised by the parking which would result along the Affected Portion of the roadway. Given that there is currently no parking permissible (or T.;1-r1=-1IT.{iT I\TO Z-i J2.1.L.\......4~ ~-'-" _~. "l . (l, '!. Or:-:y Tiburon Design Revi Board June 2, 1997 Page 4 possible) along the Affected Portion of the road in its current configuration, I submit that a much less ambitious widening of perhaps 6 to 8 inches on the down slope side and 1 Y:. feet on the up slope side would materially improve the situation for the Fire Department without the necessity of destroying my peaceable enjoyment of my property for as much as a year and permanently altering the ambiance and appearance of the property in a very negative fashion. FURTHER POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION It is highly unusual and possibly without precedent in Tiburon for the Town to in effect barter a right of subdivision for the undertaking of what would be public road construction save for the private status of the roadway in the current instance. If this were a matter exclusively between the Town and the owner of the Property who wishes to construct a six-car garage, this would be quite another matter (namely merely.a matter of the Town and the DRB imposing certain requirements regarding priyate driveway access to the subject Property). That is not, however, the case at hand. In essence, the Town is being asked to approve plans for a single dwelling and in return, as part of a previously negotiated private arrangement, the applicant for approval is going to undertake at his own expense roadway construction affecting numerous private properties. It is appreciated that the current Board had nothing to do with a transaction negotiated approximately 13 years ago, but that does not lessen the impression that the final approval for construction is part of a negotiated Quid pro QUO between the Town and a private property owner which raises very troubling questions when that private arrangement negatively affects numerous other property owners. A spokesperson for the DRB commented to me and to my neighbor, David Heilbron, on May 15 that the question of road widening was beyond the purview of the DRB. That should not, however, be the case if the Town is de facto treating the entire Affected Portion of the road as an extension of the private driveway of the subject Property. Given the extraordinarily intrusive nature of the road widening, at the very minimum the DRB should owe a duty to affected property owners on Vistazo East to require the submission of plans for road widening concurrent with the submission of plans for the building of a new r~sidence at 2225 Vistazo East Street in order to allow public comment on the effects and appearance of such road widening. In other circumstances, I have witnessed the DRB agonize over matters of esthetics and preservation of view which in sum come down to questions of taste (or lack thereof) and modest visual intrusion. With thanks to the Board for the countless hours it has devoted for such matters, I request the Board's time and consideration of the special ",,",~T,"")-T ,,-:-0 '2..1 JiJ..i~...:::.-:'..ll::J~ J.. ~ ~J. P. 4 Dr=- 5" Tiburon Design Re'" Board June 2, 1997 Page 5 circumstances implicit in the road widening which would necessarily accompany the construction of a residence on applicant FrankoYich's Property. With best regards. Sincerely yours, cc: Mr. Dan Watrous Ann Danforth, Esq. ~d 40472.01.SF (V8801 I.DOC) 06102197 1 :59 PM EXI.-iIBIT NO. 2-1 P.SDVS- -.- Llt-1E 1lJ/f/L Steue and Irene Denebeim 2188 Ulstazo East Street Tiburon, (8 94928 (415) 435-4422 ,~. ..."" "^'~"~ '"I'~ ^!.c"'"f':?t .""~ '<~ - .~ r Tiburon Design Review Board City Hail-Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 'j i.l.', ..::~: < o;~~ , 1,;;,..,,1/,.), "-,~.:,......\.,,i~~ '_')" CA. ....-'.f"':, 'V ..:;,-~-=-.... . '. June 13, 1997 Re: 2225 Vistazo East Proposal/Frankovich Ladies and Gentlemen: I want to express the concerns my wife, Irene Denebeim, and I have about the proposed construction of a residence at 2225 Vistazo East. Our house, 2180 Vistazo East, where we and our two children live, is directly across the road from the planned development. I attended the start of the first Design Review Board meeting at which the 2225 Vistazo East matter was considered, but was told that matter was last on the agenda and would not be considered before 8:00PM at the earliest. I went home and came back at 8:00 ready to state my concerns, only to be told that matter had been moved all the way up to the beginning of the meeting and had already been heard. I was denied the opportunity to be heard and am therefore submitting this letter to raise my concerns. My concerns: . The road on which we live is approximately 10 ft. wide. I understand that widening of the road by 8 to 10 feet is a precondition to the owner. of 2225 building on his property. Any such widening would require a tremendous reconfiguration of not only the hill on which that property sits, but perhaps the properties owned by us and my neighbors on the downside slope of Vistazo East. . A huge retammg wall would likely be required on the uphill side of the road to support the widened road. This will look terrible from my and my neighbors' vantage point and will create EXHIBIT NO. 2-2- p. I DP2- parking and access problems when people leave their cars against the wall. (How is fire truck access improved by widening the road if the width increase is negated by parked cars?) . Any significant (i.e., >1 ft.) widening of the road on the downhill side, where my and my neighbors' properties lie, would require cutting into the wood/concrete driveway structures of my property and my neighbors', necessitating new pitching of the driveways, new retaining walls to support the re-pitched structures, etc. I object to any road work cutting into -my property or requiring me to reconfigure my driveway structure, downside hill, etc. . The hill on which all these properties co-exist is filled with aquifers, and very careful engineering will be required to deal with the soil and drainage issues. Full soil engineer and related reports should be obtained before any Board or Town Engineer decisions on this are made. . Access during construction of whatever is ultimately approved is a major issue, as the road is the only access we have to our property. The road is in poor condition and is privately maintained by a few homeowners. A road bond should be required of the 2225 owner to ensure the full support of the road during construction and the full repair and replacement due to any damage caused during construction. . With any plans submitted for approval of the 2225 residence, the owner should be required to submit plans for the road widening, for drainage and hill support, for bonding against road damage, and for the effect on power and sewer lines. These are matters that all affected parties should be given the opportunity to review and comment on. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Very truly yours, rQ , --' Steven K. Denebeim 2 'i'7TJ.TPTT NO ?"7 .I:J.L~-...:..~~_v-'o .J.. . c.-<.-- . ,. t'. '2-- Or L cc.', 10,,",'" G:^5:^='" 2140 Vistazo East Tiburon, California 94920 ~- ,.~ I~A-~, m If/I - .' f'" ' . [FmL~ ~@[P>W c..... ~ _..:...... June 18, 1997 Direct: (415) 393-2177 dheilbron@mdbe.com Tiburon Design Review Board City Hall-Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 2225 Vistazo East ProposallFrankovich Ladies and Gentlemen My wife, Nancy Hei1bron, and I live at 2140 Vistazo East, and share our neighbors' concerns about the proposed construction at 2225 Vistazo East. (We also attended the first Design Review Board meeting to express our concerns; we arrived at 8:00, which we were told would be the earliest the matter would be heard, but of course it had been heard before then.) Weare, to start with, troubled by the size of the proposed stucture and its color. This is an understated neighborhood, and, we think, a huge pink home surrounded by palm trees simply does not fit in it. We don't want to obstruct progress, and would like to welcome a new neighbor to the neighborhood. But we do think that a project that changes the neighborhood's character and is out of keeping with the feel of it ought to be changed to be in keeping with it. We are extremely troubled by the proposed road. The Armstrongs and Denebeims have detailed several problems with it, and we agree chapter and verse with what they have said. We are not, however, engineers, and have seen no plan' as to how the road would be widened; obviously, we cannot address the specifics of a plan that does not exist. But frankly, we cannot imagine how the road could be widened substantially without uprooting old trees and eliminating hedges and greenery, without building unsightly retaining walls, without regrading driveways and impairing access to them, and without extravagant cost (not, we trust, to be paid by our neighbors or ourselves). We fear the road would peer into our living space from above it, and seriously intrude on it, our privacy and the quiet enjoyment of our home. EX"8:JBIT NO. 23. ~. I liP Z- June 18, 1997 Page 2 Surely this project should not be given the Design Review Board's imprimatur before plans for the most intrusive part of the project's design--the road--have been prepared, reviewed and approved. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, David M. Heilbron EXHIBIT NO. '2.-3 PI ~ DF2- THOMAS FRANKOVICH ii 415 673 2728 09/16/97 11:4615l :04/06~?:.!3~ S!:J-'-l~-":,,( ~I'(I t'" -'.., LV:~U?\ ::;'IUHt.;;:J HP(J)t:.N It:L NU;' <<.4t:J.l 1.1t"~o M.,),c:f !-t;.l.c! .0<. V _/~~- ") ~ , ~ - .....- ~ ~>,{Y' (.'''f/lei- VlllOINIA SHALZ 3710 Radom Lane SlUUIlcnto, CA 9SS64 September II, 1997 ... .... r.'" 1."0 Deli", Review Bo.rd [ Town COWlCiI a-bers E. .. Towaot'Tibunm It/.E"' 1505 TibW'OII Boue1va Tlburoa, CA 94920 Re: PIOJlO'eCI Sill,lc FIlDiI)' Residence at 22:i\S Vi.1aztl Eut To WhoaIlt May Contei'll: My huablnd and I - the owners dl~t1y lICl'Oll5 &om Mr. Fl1UIkovith'lI propoHd buildin& $ire. W. have no oppollitJon to the design plans submitted by Mr. FrMkovith \0 Iluild his home, PfOvldecl we m IUUl'ed that It willoot cause water dfa.inasc pl'llblmus to 0\11" PIOJ*tY. We also support Mr. F!'lUIkovlch:s.deslre to keep the VistlW> East road the way it Is lUld not widen it or man it a cul-d.sac. We.... that il 5hoW<1 remain a simple eountry road. ~crcly. 7JVicf.... -' 'V ..ji~ ~1n1a Sha1z dl FXBIBIT NO. 24 Sallie Bell Kelly 1910 Straits View Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 phone:415.435.3520 · fax: 415.435.9039 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. TIburon, CA 94920 RECEIVED TOWN OF TI8URON SfP 1 7 1997 COMMDEFA,'1TMENT OF UNITY DEVELOPMENT 9/15/'17 To Whom it May Concern, I am writing in regard to the proposed building at 2225 Vistazo East in Tiburon. I, Sallie Bell Kelly, residing at 1910 Straits View Drive, have no opposition to the proposed property development planned by Tom Frankovitch at 2225 Vistazo East. If there are any comments or questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above number. Thank you. 6iGlY~il ~ Sallie Bell Kelly cc: Tom Frankovitch ElliIBIT NO. 2-~ THOMAS FRANKDV1CH ii 415 673 2728 09/16/97 11 :46 DJ :06/06 NO:73~ Fr~." Re:::h..JWu0 En1~' I' e T =l'"l:':ne P~ONE NO. , "e7 ~46:) "" Se II fee7weeTeTeel..E LANe ,. :-.1. :;.r~'" '., """"" ., '~).I': .,~. """" ~~~.\'~~~;.~.~::.:.:~: ~'.' RRDWOOI EIIPJRE I~E OPEIlATIONS.INC. ., "ANTA "O:5A. CAl..l~OI'lN'''' 8C40;' TELe,.t10Nl! (707) l>4e.71.' September 15, ~~~7 O.sign RoviQW Doard 1505 T1bu~'U1l Blvd. Tib~ron. CA '.~20 S"bject;, Th. 'rom .......nl..<.>v1<::h house 81; ZZ25 V1staz;o Se.t .Dear N.ft1.b...... 1-:own ar.d ! tho bC>IQe directly IIlbov" M~. l"rankoviCl:1' 8 property, .upport the bU1l~1ng of hie home. (~~lY.. ~,' ~~r' :f!?~?' cO~PO~Gt9 Ceneral M.n.ge~ EXHIBIT NO. l(P VNOop,,"~ u.......~ '_'" THOMAS FRANKOVICH ii 415 673 2728 09/16/97 11:46 CP :02/06 NO:738 --.,. ...--., ..-. -- ~ jUA1L J)Z.- c- -- THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH 586 VIRGINIA DRI"!: TJIIURON, CA 94920 415/435-3200 September 16, 1997 Via Fu 4151435-2438 and U.S. Mail Dan Watrous. Senior Planner Town of Tiburon Plal1lling Department Design R/:view Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 2225 VIstuo East Dear Mr. Watrous: Please disregard my prior facsimile transmission to you of this mOrniIl8, September 16, 1997. Please include this letter and the letters of Virginia Shalz, Sallie Bell Kelly and Richard Dwyer for the Design Review Board's colUlideration. Although Mr. Dwyer did not state his address in his letter, he lives directly above me at SOO Ridge Road and supports the buil<li.ng of my home. A photograph of his hoUJe is enclosed. Ms. Shalz lives directly across from me at 2200 Vistazo East and has no opposition to my p1alUl as long as there is no drainage problem. Ms. Kelly, who also supports my plans, lives above me and to my east at 1910 Straits View in the beige/yellow French chateau. A picture of her home is enclosed. Please note that Mr. Irving Halpern, my neighbor directly on the west side of my property, at 2151 ViSlazo East, has told me that he has DO opposition to my proposed plans. Quote: "It's your property. Build what you want. You don't need a letter from me." Pam Peterson, who also lives above me at 510 Ridge Road. has no opposition to the plans. The only concern that Pam expressed was londscaping and submerging the water tanks. This we have done. Her home is directy behind my home and below a retainiDg wall. E'~2-r..npl.TT N' 0 -z, 7 '.L~~.......~ . . P IDP2- EXHIBIT NO. 2-7 p, 2 Cf- z.... TEF/jem Enclosures (via U.S. Mail only) ThOtnas E. Frankovich Very truly yours, _ ~?~'4&>--_?"""'~ We have made significant changes to oW' plans am met all of the requirements of the Town of Tiburon. Interestingly. the McKegneys, who own the vacant parcel to the east of the ravine which separates us and who originally subdivided the parcel into two one-acre parcels, chose not to put any CCRa with the land limiting the size and type of home to be built. If they, as sellers, were so concerned with What could be built, this certainly would have been an easy task for them. It is obvious that they wanted to sell the parcel for as much as they could get. It is morally offel1llive to me that after they have their money in hand. they would now call for greater restrictiolUl than those afforded by the Town. Dan Watrous September 16,1997 Page 2 09/16/97 11: 46.pi : 0~/06 NO: 738 _. _.~...- .- ii 415 673 2728 THOMAS FRANKOVICH . EXHIBIT NO. z-s:' &.-~~ Sincerely yo~rs.~ D~ f{#-~ Pamela L. Peterson ~ \ I f you have any questions please call me. Thank you. This letter is to advise the Board that after meeting with Mr Frankovich and discussing his revised plans. 1 no longer have any objections to the way these tanks will be installed and hidden from view and I have no other objections to his proposed new house construction at 2225 Vistazo East Mr. Frankovich has been vel) accommodating in taking my concern$ into consideration. He has reduced the size of the tanks considerably. Slink the tanks into the hillside and put the tank$ behind an upslope retaining wall. The top of the tanks will show about Ita 2 feet above the retaining wall but will then be completely hidden from view by the planting of bushes to hide the retaining wall and the portion of the tanks above the retaining wall. He will also cover the tank lids with a lattice covered with a flowering vine. My property at 510 Ridge Road is directly above the proposed new house to be built by Mr. Frankovich on Vislazo East 1 originally submitted a letter to the Design and Review Board objecting to the two water tanks he is planning on putting on his property. My objection was to looking down on two 20.000 gallon lanks above ground and their two lids Dear Design and Review Board: Re: New House Plans for Tom Frankovich Proiect. 2225 Vistszo East Tiburon Design and Review Town ofTiouron 1155 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 ; September] 6, 1997 Pamela L. Peterson 510 Ridge Road Tiburon. California 94920 (415) 435-1881 / I EXHIBIT NO. Z q ~qllgj9, P. 5, r AJECOeo TD f;?,>(CA.j5,(- f')/JY')~F Bc-::5f>O l..1:2 r I=iM Pr c.~-rJCo TO S rC11--lC... ( t--J Ffh/o r2.. 0 ~ IH t)" (' ieOJ"f" cr ) \D A-nE/JO WE v.5AClc 7-0 S;U--t00L^ fJl&HT AT O~C MA-<<. ,. 1'2e-v ) see r ~ '2.vJ I ewe-Q HIS ^ PfLofCF;,G[) (JlArJ AND C oN! /VI E1IJD Tl-hS De <) J6rJ FDtl ms G8AUll NL t-tol'l1G.. ~ 6/ STGfL MY MIL F;/-hK oV)CH .( 2 2'2 S \) I S 1)CJ -:z- () 2l4J--r: -=r' wANT lV GJPPOrbr vot'l.. f (2,{)f 6S90 H-o f\/) E) +r- p24'v1 ~ Bog ~eK Lf ~I. &v'~ L/hJe 10 : T , !3,utL-orJ 01::8 t Cs'f\.) f2ev I c~ & M!-D -.:r~ ~<,e'".~T;-.. ~ ~ ~ z-. ~ ~~~~l)~~ ~ ~~. .z-~ ~~ ~~~. J;'~>1-.R.!J ~ \../~ ~ ~ ~,Q ~ aLe ~ ~ c7~ d--r-e.... ~~ ~ ~~ ~____,"",_ _7 ~..,./ ~ ~ ~ ,z.. ~. ,-<..;U:-~LjlTr~o. 30/~~ ~/.?Z<5~CL.~~~ *~ ~ y~. h~/p.. ~~ ....~~.~--..-'<.':---~-.-:.---,...','--.:'._..\"-.~.~~--.wr-:~~~_--.-__.,...__h ~,. " ,__ ___"~"'._._",_.~_--;".__'~_'_ .... _ _ ., .'.....__ _ __. . ..z-~~~~---......- ~~~A;?~ ~~.~/~~~ K:.~/??P~~~.~~...; ~ ~ ~~ 7 ~ ~~ 7f'- ~ ~.~ ~tf! N~ocl?" 9 /Z.- ~4'4~f Q.... a~o~<..-12. ~~~ ~ .?A:t~~ u;o ~ J' .,.4 CJ /, A.."-t ~ ~ /,....J ~ L ~r- ,,~ ,r-~ II . r,!~'~",. -._ t/}. ... p, h ,-- ,~~~::v::~:,..'...c;;::I";n;.: /??1...., -c.x~ --??-1. VI/' ~ - Vi Ii r D:::'I':::' 7.:.. "'/". -. '-' O...../-"r ... I J~.:::rlJ /~ 9 -/~ ~". U/~ ~ .',.r?~ ~7-CJ91..fJ . ...z-;-?~ 4:..... ~ 7 ~ ///.$-:/'17 ~tP ~ -;{;- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~z;..- ~tp~... .. ~ ~ d<-.. ~ "->-.. ,..;"""'""4- ~... ~-< Q 4..~< /./..a,..\...- (V 22.2 [ yCAl4 C+. "I 2 7 1;<.) Timothy 0 Hayes 2217 Centro East Street Tiburon, California 94920 ~h~ .2J, /9f7 ""'''''IP'\~'~If_f/'': l1lii::~r;:;O \:;, e:t.J, 1"<C'^'IN "'l'-' "",...,. '_,,,,. vv, \....:, i l.;::'j",.jiiUI~ 1-"4 ..J f'.. 0 (J) I.q-.(J) N o ..- - <.0 Z >LDO:::: O..-W ~:::tt:::m ~ Zm2 ~ <(OW 0::::-:>1- "~ LL 0.. W if) < C; -, .U i l'...;l.. r- I,.:; \~ 0- ~ , I ~ ' .'1 : j ': -. it) r--'- ...... ''',0 ,-- (j, "l1 p~ .;~ () O. U,J Cf) r-..:.,~ i; fd. . .__..J r~ f for"~'; ::;-:f-- fl.: :~'. ll: I ~"": f..1 ~_ : ~ ", . , " ;': [f: ;.) r"",, , {) U \ \ I \ ~ " \ \ s.' N. ?'""v'-' ''''''i'd.. .' .. f '~'.. __ ,- ;,': \', '! 'I'. f' .., ., ........ i\ L:.~\l ~'\~ U'~ ~ "-, :3 ti d Wi 1\ IntlO<<f Ror 111 'Blt'3 'NomRU. 'JSl1 mUll .... ~ e:t!"~..,'~~lIl!.1IO!Jll!!'O' :::: ij)1 .-,- ~~i~ IJIlN sor Jt)JACDldU 1mI0IU0 ~~~~, ~I ~ :w:~oo :aUNDJIICl ~Of" --= - - III d' ,I . I , IoIIIH 11'1 ill II " I I, I I, 11 '\\ ,t\l \~i\ ! i\i III' it " 'I I 'II, \ ii' i! ,I ii II iil ~.. ,.,:,.,1 1111 ! II!I 1 Ij I I I' ".1;1 I'll I , I I ill~ ,tll'!l li!li I iHIlI" i" 111 ;tn\ iii ii I ~~~" ~ _I C!'J 1'1 ! I t I"~ " "I "III . " . a " , , , i~'~~~iil It, .' r- h..: n r !\Ib , ,Ill i! !d . .......,4.. .. , ,. (;1 S N, r, '1t.~r-'. d' ',':' "', . r', ,,' , \f;" /''(. ('.~'~ ':,.'"j' i'l. I: \.,Jv'i\~ _____..______ __u_.._ r- en Y'-~f"F3 tJ d ~ 0- W if) . ~ ,~ HI 0111 " ] ;~~, 0HHD - t111'10ll1' .or 1[~ ~;:~ .. IIIfN 801 'IO&:llUlIOO 3: III m 'I' '1l11 ; w > I I w l'iQil it! IIII t j I! a: 'd I1II z l!il · ili II ,'II I II 0 r .11'1 I ~i' j! .1 Ii !I iil U) w 1-... ""oJ ',11 I ! ,I!, f II , . 0 " I' ,I; I I '1' I hlllll III I I I , l I I i!!i II!I'I! !!!I! iii ii i i i j P! If~l~ II nUl 11 \ 1.:. --- '. 1'1 I I I " . a I il~r~~!~!I~! ' .. , lid . Iff II I ~ I (h.. !I r IJlI',1i1 !I,I: I 1111 'If f \ \5 l .. .. II 't" <I .. '" ~!II i! !d . ~~ V~ ro/== 0.16 2cJ 8 t-~ ~ ~{'l~ I---w~ 1-:-.\ tJ~, ,,-..1 t'''i J;:i.l \ \ \ I " \ i f-- ~ \) ~ If! 5' \) u- N ~ 1 2 N ~ I ~ " " \ HOII RII:n:afI1' SOf IIIYN Bot :.o.L1ft,1,N~ lil~ 1111 11.1 II IIII I III r.~ I ;, ~i 'Iii! db I I I I I I I I I I I ____.J i I I!t III " " I, Illill! li!I~l! 1 ..am 'Noanm 'LS'fJ: OZT.lSlA 1:2211 ~~~_.~~'O" ::=: .. ~ .-.- ~n!.1tl8:::: t,"! ~~~a~6'G;lGl~~ B! ~d - - IC)wmmr.I 1mI0IU. :ao.t NDlSlq ~ ,lilllP I', " bl'll' .~; l ! , II 1 ~_._- ( I I i 5 ~ ~ i I ~ ! __._~" }l II j-;.,-( ! -'-1"" I II i --.-.. ! . I ~ I j r I, ~ ~ ~ J~ ~ ~ i'- 0'> OJ ...... C) D Cl. Lu V) ; 01 ~dl -.-.--.- Cl Cl Cl ! 1 I ( IIII ~ J ~ t__.iilIiil1.~ ! ,II , '">1- c)- ,-> .11 ,:_._~ 0 E',~ '''''"j n)~ ~.".~ j..: . . ~. ; 1-,..1 I - '-~ 1:,-, .'''"! BOil 8S180OT Bot 1 ~~=_.__'C1.& === .-.- Ift~~~~::::: =_~, ~rotl~".,~ ::::: 'iu.~ - ClffroV\J\~~ -- - 'mY:) 'Nomm 'J.8ft OZl.lS1A valZ JIl)WD.NYU lmIOIU. :10.1 NDIIIU 11m( BOI :lo.L:mWrloa II l II , I I I I I I - I '\ , , , \ , , , , \ \ , \ \ \ \ , , , , , , , , , , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , , \ \ , \ , , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ --------, I I I I I I . ~ I I I I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ L_____________ II I I I I I I I I I I I ~ i I \ \ , , , , '. ------------, I I I I I I , , I I I I I -------------., I I I I I I I 1m t"- 0) U) C'.~ Q') c:.;, L,,- I..u (.-, ~. ; " ~ I :' - - t'('{- .~ o 1-> ........ f-j ....- E-'o...: l-l rq ~''''.j 1.,-,' I"L, ,,0{ t.. '~~ r:,~! \ ,'; RID InmInl .or IJIfN 80r :wlOl:lYl>>lOO r-----------, , , , , , I I L_________ I I I , , I I I I , I I ) , , , , , , , , , ( , I I r-----~---------------j I I I I I I I I , , I , , I , , I , I , I , I I I I , I I I J , , , , , , , , , , , , , , r-----J , ( I I I I I I , I , , l , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ') I I I , I I I , ) , , / , , , , , .....--------0/ - - - - -- - - - - - - -------- --- -- -"""" , " , , , , , , " 'I " ~ >nn:J 'Moanm '.I.ITI 0IlJ.IU. 1m JmAOItmIi BYJroIU, .....- fUl . !lIB~ . ~~=-.~~11.. === .-.- W~~:::=: :::==~~ , ~roro~ r\J I ~ _ y;;"", art. -- - - - 'f' CJ:l en .......- en C:l 0... lJ..1 f.l) ~I1HH)) - ,II ,a. - rf\...... -\i., o~ :;::; In t:.., ,--I ~ rf) ~",,,,t )...,....1 tL, ,I t........! r:":1 r'-l It --~-~ --......-......... --......-......... I , ! h ~I ___________~ I I : , ' L_________________J c c , 'I c .' BOlli 1 _alItHDt lION BOt :'OJ.:Jft.I.N~ r--------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I r r I L_, I I r r r r r I , I L_______-, .- n ~~ 'mY:) 'NOllfUlLL '.lBYI OZlJBlA gn. 'Iillili ICJwmmu SYJIO..... :&0.1 NDJBJ:II 1"-- (T. 0', .-- en b ('..\.. LU (I') ~~~...~'lta8'O" = ~.- /!'l~g~8~ =-~ . :r1~h""~~::: -:=: ';;JIIM at' \':'J\:)'\J\J\'Ji'J-- lflii: A.- d ~ i G H :1 3 w > w a: z o (J) w o -I ~l o t':-, jC.-::,~ E-., ~ I....j P:I~ ~-'1 hi. ,,' )--\.! "bo .. " i;>C.; ~il 1 . . _. r , r I ' . I I ., , r )1 I I S r r I r I I I , I OD B I r I I , r ; "'---", /1 " : rJ I \ I , , , , ......--... i~ r-------------- I , I : C I I r r r I I r ______________________________J c c " ~ i BOlli 1 'mf:) 'NOanm '.I.Im( O'RJBl4 gal lDIlaOT BOt JC)1AO.INl8i SYJIOIU. ~.o.I NOlSIa IImI lIor ,.......... 'I 'I []a ~~r ! I I , I I I , , , , , , , , , , , , , _____J~ i n (] OJ a ; , , I I I I I I I I I I I b OJ I I I I I I \ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) I I I I I I I I ) , , , , , , , , , '-________..J I I , I I I 1 I , I I I I I I I , I I I I L_____________-'-------------~, , , , , , , , , ~~~-.---cs. :=: .-.- ""/!'l(}g~r:):::: ='C1II\3 . f hmJI"~jr\r;1/!'l:::: ~ ;g._aft I\Y'\)UV~-= - . - ----, , I , , , I , I I I EJ " " -I l"'1::- S; II f"-..{ a En ~ !...,. '. ,", ". ~.., '\JJt' 1., 1.'" 1.,/ ~,: !..., " C' o .... CJ C o U. if ; lD U ;1 3: w > w a: z o (f) w o .'- en en ..- en = L.. W f./) 1 III uoO. ._ _"".._ :=;:o....~-_.~ :::::: .-.- ~g!}~::::: =....~. flint' J'rtM === ~~~In' \)'\Jl'l - - 111111 ; := H il ".aIr.) 'NOmllU. '.J.SlI: OZ'fJStl OlD BnBmrr sor Jl:)wmRU 1m(0IU. =104 NWIU IJmI 801 :I~OO 3: w > w a: z C (/) w o I " __.__ 11 I f ~ ~ i I ~ I __,_~ )1 II. 1-; I ~._;- i II i I-"-~ I J J I I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I I 5 I JI , , ~ -- .' i I ; I ; I -1.::::- Mill .CS ()l>o t.... ,:"":::'4 E-.c:. ,...., ("....-'1 ~'i f.., \..\ ~' , :~,t,J ~:'._;j ~ I I e '. " I I " 111111 1t)~J,~",,1mI01U. ~I ICUACDIllBI .,,,OIU. :SOl NDlBIQ o ',um 'NOanD& 'J.n'I OZl.I.Su. \lal 'UJr.) 'Noanm '.urn: 0'ZlJ.SU. cnl 1 I ! I I . , I I "iI"- en 0) ..- O'l c::- o. llJ ('.r) ~~~_._~'r:s. :::: .-.- ro~g!l8:::: ::==='~~, ~~M""r;1~:::: _ ~_aft\>J\'J'\)\Jl'J~J-- .-.: ~ ~ l ;1 ; ~ U :1 3 w > w a: z o (fJ w o '. -- l' ......... , .i ~ I ; I ~h~ .(:) I 0 I I---~, tr-' I I I"'-; I , h~ I I I '....1 I r/j I " I ~,...) I ,-, :5 ,.10, ~ ~,....; ill f \j I k'i , .~-. I I I I I , I U I I I I I I I H I H I I I j , . . I I . I l , , -- ,. .. I, I ,- 0 . . :1 ~ , , r" NY7d 9NI1NVld 'VJ I NO';,J'rlr;]ll 1':>V3 07. VIS/A sn'Z 3'JN301')'JeI H,)IIIO>lNV~:J IUt.SU'tot lotS. 'Y.)....... -l-S ~ '4'"l1'lil t-J HI A".u~ w.,.,...., DNL\\Olla 1I0~ mllVila f"- en en i ~.. r:u \ '11 Q ~ OJ 1: " l!l " C-' ~.~~d .- S ~ H i ~\ ~ en 5 . <iF!! ~ (, " ,~ ~ "I" '" ~ m );~ . X"~ l'v -" </,,0 I);' 1:::K . 2, ' ,~ .t--.'/[ V;V)II o~ j..~ /@I'...../\. .' ~(:\ i.v" ~ ~ ~ n ~ K"G 1) ( r ,j ,d I~', L~ ~ . ~~~~""'\ ~,;~ ~~ :L <<.. ~ ,I ~ 111<,.Pq ~lC ~ I~ . " , ,.. ~ :l"''' . . If..'\ . . . K ' ~ ~ PI B ,.l 0{ Q e . ~ ~. ~" j ~~~.~Lill' -~,:r> Q) ~ ~ ~~~ ~CJ~~~ ) ~ if- i..l<~ :)~~~~"'1,cly:i,,\, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , '-L/~ ''''':'-)..00'):> <T'~'\ &?rr7KJ-':;i~1 ~j~ H~, ~~h , D~ . Lt.;,.>.." . < <.,...,,< .' 10.'l0~~ . . \0y . . · ~ ~. ,,"'-\'~~_A'j.~W"')M'(-)~'--- ,\. , . 1;; <. (0 "'.X: -',' ,Gi .. ,,,,.'rf'r\:" -~ -;0 l . '-- ~I~ 'T, . .II@ .\l>" -\~ ('1. ~r.\,----(8 J " ~(.~ I~ ~ ~ ..7. ~)' ) ~7. ~ ~ '\, '",~ ..!.:" .!.. ~ - (JS'Z/~ ;:<D ( 01 ~"~ ~ .~C[) \y.{~~..:..~~ 3 \C:,~;'(3)k ~:~~~CfJ0 i\J IS::\ ~(n ~ .~~ .....~~ (j~ \"?8*)k*-*- ~N~Q-( 5~, ':J.)~ . "(' cD-vCD ~~~* /' ~ ~ (iJ : (. ~~,'>d' ~ ~ \~,~~@j~~ :j)~ >~~,: ~ ~ r . . ~CO) . lS1? iJ]) . "7'. C<""'~"7) l' . '- .; ~' : . ~ - ~0 &P \ 0 i~r ~~/-1 .~ k':\ #.~ ~ .~ .\'~IIlf#ID ~ ~ ::-; ~ .~ ~/ ~~ ~itgJ .W~@ tU ' .I.. ~\ · 'IN . . ~.~) ~ dW~r~ 1~) - /' ?fi~~, ~ !fi": ~ .\7,<~",""~~ ~ '~~~ (f)':l,<,JA~~~0' ,,:\~:~"~ \).. <' '?)~ ',< :-y~) l~ ~.) ~>G~J:? \ ..-;: \\ :. ~ 1./1 . )'~ (. b ,..),!>-: I. (j)f'\e'\ \ \. I I~V~, '>. . ~JQ :v, ) ~.">,~ .}V\'..~~ ~ .~~~ . 1\ l\ ( II ,-...,. ~ ~~ ~) "f~ <Ii ,\.' " ~\~ 161" f- * x -..... " c--.. ~ '-..-/ '-- '. . II, ~\V'j;:.. r'\ ,) ~ " ~ /' . , V \ 1" \\ \, ' M . & '\i-' tA Y,k,. \3)' J \t. ~.~.~ ,~I ;l. 'f \ \\ 1,?7 ') '] &- .)I(c:P.::1 0 '", . ".CoC' ..- ,f~) y(""'''\~ *- ~ \":, (',\ . ~~ Q C \\):( 1$)c:~:MI f ~:...: . '\..,\~~..;2~~~0\\JJ8 v / ~0p,~~, ~,\:?;'? \. ~ eJ J "\\,-0 I ii * <':P. I.r.-.. . . ~@.~ S ) \\ ill ~ -).:. 'k. *' *' \ 't \ I:; , '.~' @ '(" ~{l,~T-1i ~I )<~,,_ I ;:~-"f~~ ~ ( /' - ~~ ~~r;:)\~ ~ ~ ~ ~L *. \)\\' \(f '}~ >.., Q "I ~, ~ ~r<h:: .;i!}':j. I-N~{~) (' J I >:-\~~ i$) &~\ 0 r::~ ,?- ,(" Ii'" ' ~, c.:~\' ,)'C7 \? ~ r: ~ r \~ .~~ tq)f~ \ ~ '-.J'\\d~) ~~ V > * ' ~ 0 ~0 (Jt!fQ '~;'i-! I ~ -_~'~~l~)~\~i~i~V~ j)@O(j 'c--.~Gt ~ (~ . .~ '<v..\,)~~, S ~ ~(. -Jl,!'h,'slP1''S''''- .~s;;,@QC3, -7?l N ~\... \..I. \ f. \,- ',L Tim ~'~~t'~(lI .. W> ~/,c".."" """<:1. Jr.)~'<:L~~..Uf..U ~ 'f7 8 r \~ / f,.'l\f Un !"~~ r( eC;:: :':~I~f';:~~~01b 7:/ ~ .,~ .tb. . 0J 6 ci r @ ~ @ ~ a ~ c.b @ ~) ~@ ~ , ", ~ d ~ ~ @ ~ ~ ~ @ 1 'j ~ ~ '\- , l'J, . ~ \ / ;... \.) .j ~ / \ ~I~ ci .c 1:-:... 0 (--4 -.. E-, . 1-:-; 0.... n.l f."i /.,..; ;'-1..,: '.. A t ~ -; 1'''1 'lVE> 9 ~ ~ MI N01S08 'ItJ1 SnSSI:::>ON3H1tJVd 1d ,9~ X ,9~ XX ':::>0,8 :::>0 ,o~ 'lYE> 9 9 V3111ANIVE>n08 ,010E> '.:lIlV:::>, V3111ANIVE>n08 E>:::>8 mxm XX ,13M3rlfllltJ:::>, V3111ANIVE>n08 r:::>s ,9X ,~ XX :::>0,9 'lYE> 9 9 'E>n08 13M3r NOSlfIlltJ:::> S3NI^ 'lYE> 9 (: 3SIOVtJVd .:l0 OtJI8 3VNIE>3tJ VIZlll3tJ1S tJS ,9 X ,9 XX 3E>VS NV:::>IX3lf1l VH1NV:::>n31 VIA lVS lS ,9X ,9 XX 'lYE> ~ 9(: SnlVtJ1SOtJd SnNltJVlfIlSOtJ dtJ ,9X J XX :::>'O,~ 'lYE> ~ 8~(: AtJVlfIl3S0tJ 31VtJ1SOtJd 'lYE> 9 f:~ XVl.:l MOl13A ,3A VM MOl13A, lfIlnllflltJOHJ. MAd I ,vX ,~ XX ... _.u.._ - 1 ,L X ,g XX 'lYE> 9 9f: XVl.:l ONV1V3Z M3N ,tJ3NMOONnS, lfIlnllfllCJOHd ~~J~ ,8 X ,g XX 'lYE> 9 9~ 0E>V8lf1lnld 3dV:::> ,3dV:::> Tv AOH 0E>V8lf1lnld ,VX ,f: XX 'lYE> ~ f:v SSVtJE> NIV1NnO.:l 31V1N31tJO lfIln13SINN3d . +6~d i ,9X ,9 XX 'lYE> 9 9(: XV1.:l 03tJ/N33tJE> ..:l3IH:::> ItJOVlfIl, lfIlnllflltJOHd ,f: X ,f: XX 'lV'E> 9 H XVl.:l 03tJ .:ltJVMO ,A8VS 3ZNOtJ8,WD.!~f!QHd tj8d I ,V\In3tJndtJndOtJ1 V, lfIlnllflltJOHd Vd ,8 X ,8 XX 'lYE> 9 f:~ XV1.:l 03tJ V:::>11S3lf1l00 VNIONVN ON ,9 X ,g XX 'lVE> 9 9 008lf1lV8 A lN3AV3H ,V1:::>VdlfllO:::>, VNIONVN :::>N ,v X ,9 XX 'lYE> 9 6~ VNlaNVN 1JVdV\lO:::> XX :::>0,17 'lYE> 9 0(: 13AltJd .:lV31-XVM ,lfIlnNVX31, lfIlntJ1SnE>1l 11 ,VX ,8 XX 80,(:H f: 'lYE> ~ v~ VNV1NVl ,13SNnS E>NIOV3tJdS, VNV1NVl SSl ,9X ,(: ,9X ,9 XX -::)0,9 'lV'E> 9 (:9 33tJ1 V'31 ,MOlE> ASntJ, lfIlnlfllCl3dSOld31 E>Cll ,f: X ,f: XX 'lYE> ~ (;~ Cl30N3AVlV3S IIZ3Cl3d lfIlnlNOlfllll dl 9 X ,(; XX :::>0 ,~ 'lVE> ~ 6(; VNV 1NVl ,I.LL3.:1N08, VNV1NVl :::>1 SlVINN3~3d/S8n~HS r" r'o ~ U '1:~ en c- o. l1..i (/) M/1H '~3^3 '01030 30VdS 3ZIS 'A1t:> 3WVN NOWWOO 3WVN lVOINV 108 A3>l ,vx,e XX ':::>'0,17 'lYE> 9 17(: mON3AVl ,3:::>N3AOtld, 'V VlnONVAVl dVl ,8 X ,o~ XX ':::>'0,8 'lVE> 9 g(: MOllVlfIl 33t11 VtlOl.:l11N3E>t1nSSV VtJ31VAVl Vl ,(; ,(: XX 'lYE> ~ v~ tJ3>lOd MOl13A .:IClVMO ,01VlfIl 311111, VI.:IOHdIN>i lfIll>i IGH (: X ,(: XX 'lYE> ~ e9 AlllAVO OtJO,O Vl131S, SIllV:::>OCl3lf1l3H OSH ,9X ,8 XX 'lVE> 9 9 VIlVtlV 3S3NVdvr V:::>INOdvr VIS1V.:l r.:l ,ex J XX ':::>'0,(; 'lYE> ~ 8\7 ASIVO llVM NV:::>IX3lf1l SnNVI>iSNIAClV>f NOCJ3E>ltJ3 >i3 ,9X,\7 XX 'lYE> 9 v VtlI30VlfIl .:10 30ltJd lfIlnSOnlV.:llfllnIH:::>3 .:13 ,\7 x ,\7 XX 'lVE> ~ 9(: A llllHE>IN1tJO.:l V13E>3A S31310 AO t:/~ (: X J XX 8'O,W(: 'lYE> ~ ev t13MOl.:ll13S 31lHM ,VSlV, 'd VlnNVdlfllV:::> Vd8 mXJ XX ':::>'O,g 'lYE> ~ Le(: AtJtJ3StlV3S ,lSV.:lM01, tJ31SV3N010:::> 1:::> ,9X ,g XX 'lYE> 9 o~ VIll 3 lfIlV:::> ,NVlfIllr VNVH, 'S VIll3lf1lV:::> rH:::> ,9X ,\7 Xx ':::>'0,9 'lYE> 9 9 3S0tJ>t:::>OtJ 31lHM snOltJSAH SnlSI:::> H:::> ,9X ,(: XX ':)'0 ,g 'lYE> ~ ev VISH:::>n.:l NVIlVtl1SnV .' ,Sl138 A>tsno, V3t1t10:::> 80:::> ,9 X ,9 XX 'lYE> 9 9 VIll 3 lfIlV:::> ,Vtl1Vd031:::>, 'S VIll3lf1lV:::> :::>:::> ,ex,e XX ':::>'o,e 'lYE> ~ ge 31IN-3H1-.:l0-A 111 ,0nOl:::> lfIltl01S, snH1NVdVE>V :::>SV ,9X ,9 XX ':::>'0,9 'lYE> 9 oe V1INVZNVlfIl ,NNllfIl:::>lfIl 'H. SOlAHdV lS 01:::>tJ V lfIlHV SlVINN3~3d/S8n~HS ,0(: X 0(: XX XOS ,,17(: f:~ lfIlnld E>Nltl3MOl.:l VNVI3t1IlS SnNntld 8d ,9(: X ,9(: XX XOS ,,9(; (: 3AIl0 ,IINOS1IM, V310 MO ,oe X ,oe XX X08"V(: L 3AIl0 ,111H NVMS, V310 HSO ,9(: X ,9(: XX XOS,,\7(: 9 3AIl0 ,A1nV3S :::>I1S3rVlfIl, V310 SlfIlO ,g~ X ,8~ XX X08"v(: ~ 31dVlfIl 3S3NVdvr lfIln.lVlfIllVd Cl3:::>V dV S33tJl M/1H ~3^3 '01030 30VdS 3ZIS 'A1t:> 3WVN NOWWOO 3WVN lVOINV108 A3>l " V:J Nmmlll.l'J.SVtI OZV.lSIA S1:1:1: " " t1:JN:JGJStlllll:JIAO)lNVlld SLeI"B[B XBd BLBL "SLS ou04<1 -.! ::::f(l 1/ (j ) [ 'ON LtT'C"":F':i""73: _t .-...l: .Li. IS!1IUUld ONIMOllO 1I0d 0311V30