HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 1999-11-03
/l1 AJ/c;f
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
November 3,1999
7:30 P.M.
None
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 of the agenda to matters not already on this agenda, other
than items on the Consent Calendar, The public will be given an opportunity to speak on each agenda item
at the time it is called, Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Matters requiring action will be
referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on a
future meeting agenda,
D. COUNCIL, COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
1) RICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY - (Council member Thompson)
2) MCCMC LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE - (Councilmember Matthews)
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require
discussion and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on
a particular item, Any member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of
an item for discussion.
3) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - No. 1173 - October 6, 1999 - (Adopt)
4) TOWN HALL - SPRINT PCS SITE AGREEMENT - (Amendment)
5) TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE - Minutes of October 14, 1999 Meeting - (Accept)
6) CITIZEN OF THE YEAR - Commendation for John Kern - (Adopt Resolution)
7) AMICUS REQUEST: Utility Cost Management v. East Bay MUD, A087191 Court of
Appeals, First Appellate Dist (Division Five) - (Approve)
".
F. NEW BUSINESS
8) DEDICATION TO SPECIAL EDUCATION EVENT - (Consider June 2000
Fundraiser)
9) 1999 DOWNTOWN PARKING COUNTS - (Report & Recommendation by Planning
Director)
10) MCCMC LOBBYIST CONTRACT - (Renewal for 2000)
G. PUBLIC HEARING
ll)APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION - Approval of Second
Residence at 160 Solano Drive, AP No, 59-142-12 - (Margaret May, Applicant;
Leslie & Maxine Hembree, 172 Solano Drive, Appellants)
H. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
12) BLACKIE'S PASTURE STORAGE AREAS - (Oral Report)
I. ADJOURNMENT - (To Tuesday, November 9,1999)
Future Town Council Meetin/ls
-November 9, 1999 - Swearing In of Council-Elect
-November 17, 1999 - Regular Meeting
-December 1, 1999 - Regular Meeting
-December 15, 1999 - Holiday Party
Future A rlenda Items
--Amendment to Mirajlores - 2 Mirajlores Lane, AP No, 39-271-21 - (Applicant, Davood Sadeghi) - (November 17)
--Downtown Ferry Dock Realignment Project - (Status Report) - (November 17)
--Scenic Easement at 8 Indian Rock Court - Request for Removal - (November 17)
--Precise Development Plan - 375 Taylor Road - Extension afTime - (November 17)
--County-wide Regulation of Firearms - New Chapter ofTiburon Afunicipal Code/lntroduction of Ordinance -
(December 1)
~
11!0. 3-
ii,
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
DuArT
CALL TO ORD
Mayor Bach ed the r~gular meeting 0 e Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:35 p,m.
on Wedn ay, October 6, 1999, in To n Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
Califo
A. S
At 7:15 p,m" Council interviewed Bill McLaugWin, 36 Old Landing Road, for a vacancy on the
Design Review Board,
B. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNClLMEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth,
Planning Director Anderson, Town Engineer
Schwartz, Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi,
Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
C. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Mayor Bach presented Certificates of Achievement to Girl Scout Troop No. 77 from Bel Aire
School for their attendance at the Council meeting and efforts to complete their merit badges in
government and citizenship.
Mayor Bach also read a letter from Madge LEngan, 28 Apollo Road, into the record:
"Dear Mr, Mayor: Through you I am addressing the Town Council meeting of October 6, 1999,
under part C. Public Questions and Comments: this should not take more than a minute to read,
if someone would be so kind? It is not possible for me to attend meetings personally.
Dear Sirs: Will you please tell me what in heaven's name is going on at Blackie's Pasture?
All summer long trucks and equipment and men have dug here, dug there, laid pipe, blocked
paths, mounded dirt and generally made life dusty and miserable for the locals and a few ducks,
Now they are gone, The place looks like it has been run over by a tornado--no worse: it looks
like an empty, uncared-for inner city lot Tire marks, truck paths, markings for more, and so flat
and scuffed that bicyclists are practicing wheelies there and raising more dust Not even weeds
are growmg,
And there sits Blackie, the symbol of your town, with his neck bashed in,
Town Council Minutes #J173
October 6, 1999
Page 1
~.
The parking lot is filled with dirt The creek is choked with weeds and debris, and even Blackie's
grave looks like some old western movie where the bleak wind blows,
Welcome to Tiburon!
Doesn't anyone care? Or is there another plot online we have not been told of yet?
Thank you.
Madge L Engan
28 Apollo Road
Tiburon, CA 9420
10/5/99"
Mayor Bach said he agreed with the sentiment expressed in this letter. He also noted that Public
Works Superintendent Iacopi was on top of the situation and had asked CAL/TRANS to remove
the piles of dirt in the overflow parking lot
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
1) NEW TffiURON POLICE STATION -
A Certificate of Substantial Completion
B, Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
2) VISTA TffiURON SUBDIVISION - Accept Public Improvements - (Resolution)
3) ABANDONING A PORTION OF A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT - 60 Reedland Woods
Way - (Resolution)
4) DESIGNATION OF "ROUND HILL TERRACE" AS PRIVATE STREET - (Adopt
Resolution)
5) SHORELINE CLEAN UP - September 18, 1999 - (Resolution of Appreciation)
6) PARCEL MAP - 2336-2338 Mar East Street - Knowles & Sherry Hall, Owners and
Applicants - Consider Acceptance of Parcel Map for Two-unit Condominium Conversion; AP
No. 59-194-91
Vice Mayor Gram asked that Item No, 1 be removed from the Consent Calendar, as it was
unclear what action was to be taken by the Council on this item,
Regarding Item No, 5, Councilmember Thompson gave special recognition to Brian Sullivan, who
had acted as the Coordinator of the Tiburon Shoreline Clean-up program for many years,
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve Consent Calendar Items 2 through 6, above,
Hennessy, Seconded by Gram
AYES Unanimous
Town CounciLHinutes #1173
October 6, 1999
Page 2
".
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7) MAIN STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROCEEDINGS - (Adopt Resolution)
A Preliminarily Approving Engineer's Report
B, Authorizing Town Engineer to Advertise for Bids & Set Bid Opening Date - (November
10,1999)
C. Setting Public Hearing Date - (December 1, 1999)
Town Attorney Danforth said Council had previously a Resolution ofIntent to form the Main
Street Assessment District. The purpose of the district was to finance improvements on lower
Main Street that would facilitate wheelchair access to current inaccessible properties and also
improve the appearance of the street. She said the project was the culmination of the settlement
of a lawsuit that had involved certain downtown property owners and later, the Town of Tiburon,
Danforth said the Town Engineer now sought Council's approval to advertise for bids for the
project and set the public hearing date for formation of the Assessment District, at the same time
approving [by resolution] his preliminary report.
Mayor Bach had a question about the assessment for parcel Assessment Number 15, whose
owner was no longer living. Planning Director Anderson said that was how the property
appeared on the County Assessor's list, but that it was a moot point since the assessment was $0,
Council concurred that the preliminary cost of the project, as stated in the Town Engineer's
report, seemed accurate, Town Engineer Schwartz noted that he had estimated conservatively,
and if the project cost less, refunds to individual assessments would be made.
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and Directing
Actions with respect to the Town of Tiburon Main Street Assessment District.
Gram, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Unanimous
MOTION:
F. PUBLIC HEARING
8) ZELINSKY P ARK/RAILROAD MARSH FLOODPLAIN PROJECT - Located behind the
Belvedere-Tiburon Library Building & Tiburon Town Hall (1501 & 1505 Tiburon Boulevard)
- Ordinance Establishing Processing Procedures - (1 ~ Reading)
Planning Director Anderson said the purpose of the project was to recognize the Zelinsky family
for their contribution ofland upon which the Town Hall and Library were built. He said that
Council, after hearing a description of the project at its September 15, 1999 meeting, had directed
Staff to prepare an ordinance which would exempt the project from the usual conditional use
permit process in the Zoning Ordinance and designate the Council as the review body for the
project.
Mayor Bach opened and closed the public hearing, There was no public comment.
Town Council Minutes #1173
October 6, 1999
Page 3
".
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read Ordinance by Title Only,
Thompson, Seconded by Matthews
AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Bach read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Establishing
Planning Procedures for the Proposed Zelinksy ParklRailroad Marsh Floodplain Project located
on Town of Tiburon-owned land behind the Tiburon Town Hall and Belvedere-Tiburon Public
Library Buildings at 1501 & 1505 Tiburon Boulevard (Portions of Assessor Parcel Nos, 58-171-
62 & 85)."
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To pass first reading of above Ordinance,
Hennessy, Seconded by Thompson
AYES: Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
9) APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 430 Ridge Road - (Appeal of
Decision to grant variance for remodel of single family residence) - AP No. 55-212-04; Mark
Garay, Applicant; Fred & Casey Hannahs, Appellants - Continuedfrom August 18, September
1 & September 15, 1999 - (Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal- Letter from Hannahs'
Attorney John Sharp, dated September 29,1999)
Item noted.
G. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
None,
H. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Bach
adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p,m" sine die,
MOGENSBACH,MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes #1173
October 6, 1999
Page 4
".
Whalen & Company, Inc.
Sprint pes Project Office
3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 245
Pleasanton, CA 94588
main office (925) 730-3941
Greg Sarab Project Manager
mobile (510) 541-3810
office (925) 730-3960
fax (925) 730-3999
13 October 1999
Robert L. Kleinert, Town Manager
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
OCT 1 4 1999
IIe~JfJ'1
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re Amendment to PCS Site Agreement
Letter to Planning Director
Sprint PCS site FS04xc400 - Tibnron Town Hall
Dear Mr. Kleinert:
Please find, enclosed, four copies of the Amendment to pes Site Agreement. As discussed, you need to
attach these to the 8-1/2 x 11 size drawings I provided last week with the previous draft of the
Amendment I understand that the Town Council will hear this matter on the evening of October 20, and
once authorized, you will sign and return to me the four original copies of the Amendment and drawings,
Today, we also talked about Sprint PCS's desire to upgrade its electrical service at the Site. This involves
requesting and receiving new separate service from PG&E, and installation ofa meter. We appreciate
your expression of support for this upgrade, In terms of construction, it would be preferable to place the
meter adjacent to the PPC Cabinet attached to the outdoor enclosure, subject to your approvaL
. . .
1 have also enclosed a letter to Scott Anderson, Planning Director, Town ofTiburon, explaining the
project and requesting his signoffthat no zoning process is required. I would appreciate if you would
forward the letter to Mr. Anderson.
The proposed upgrades to this site will greatly improve the quality of Sprint PCS' s services in Tiburon.
On behalf of Raj Raikar and everyone at Sprint, I thank you for your willingness to work with us,
Please contact me at (510) 541-3810 if! can provide any additional information.
Sin~'Od~~
G (
Or ;:;? . oject Manager
Whalen & Company, Inc, (representing Sprint PCS)
(Page 1 of I)
ii.
Site Name: Tiburon Town Hall
Cascade Number: FS04xe400
AMENDMENT TO PCS SITE AGREEMENT
Tenant: Snrint Spectmm L.P, ("SSLP")
Owner: Town of Tiburon ("Owner")
Property Address: 1505 Tiburon Blvd.. Tiburon, California 94920
Commencement Date ofPCS Site Agreement: June 25,1997 (the" Agreement")
Previous Amendment Commencement Date: June 25, 1999
Current Rent: $30,000 per vear
Additional considemtion for relocation and use of existing PPC Cabinet and installation and use of Growth Cabinet:
$2.400 per vear
Owner and SSLP hereby agree that Exhibit B-1 of the Agreement is hereby:
Supplemented by Exhibit I hereto, to the extent that Exhibit I reflects the additional lease area to provide a location
for the relocated PPC Cabinet and means of connecting it to other SSLP equipment at the Site;
SSLP is granted additional lease area which is hereinafter included within the Site
under the Agreement for the purpose of SSLP relocating and using the existing
PPC Cabinet, and installing and opemting one (I) additional growth cabinet
(mdio equipment), the installation, opemtion, repair, replacement and removal
of which is to be governed by the tenus of the Agreement, and is hereby approved
by Owner. When SSLP completes construction of its PCS facility, now and in the
future, there will be a total of:! mdio equipment cabinets, Upon completion of
construction, SSLP will restore a111andscaping and other portions of the Site that
may have been disturbed thereby to its preexisting condition,
Commencing on the first day of the month following the installation of the growth cabinet, SSLP will increase the
!!!!!!!!J!! rent paid under the Agreement by $2,400 per vear. If rent is paid annually, SSLP will make a pro-mted
payment for the balance of the current lease year,
SSLP may tenninate this Amendment by giving ten (10) days notice to Owner and making payment to Owner of any
payments due under this agreement Owner shall be entitled to a prorated rent in the event that this Amendment is
terminated in mid-Lease year, Upon tennination of this Amendment, SSLP shall remove the growth cabinet from
the Site and return the PPC Cabinet to its current location, Upon such tenuination, Owner shall retain all sums paid
under this Agreement (unless tenuination is due to Owner's failure to have proper Ownership of the Property or
authority to enter into this Agreement). In tlle event of tennination of this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect, subject to any other amendments that may be in force, as to its original rent, terms and
conditions,
Except as specifically set forth herein, all of the tenus and condition of the Agreement, as previously amended, shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect
This Amendment is effective on the later execution date of either party, as set forth below,
SSLP: Sprint Speetmm L.P., a Delaware Partnership
Owner: Town of Tiburon
By:
By:
Robert L. Kleinert
Michael Todd
Its: Regional Director of Site Development - West Region
Its:
Town Manager
Date:
Date:
Approved as to Form:
Tiburon Town Attorney Date
"'.
Whalen & Company, Inc.
Sprint pes Project Office
3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 245
Pleasanton, CA 94588
main office (925) 730-3941
Greg Sarab Project Manager
mobile (510) 541-3810
office (925) 730-3960
fax (925) 730-3999
13 October 1999
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Via FedEx
Re Verification of no zoning application required
Sprint PCS site FS04xc400 - Tiburon Town Hall
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Please recall our discussion last Wednesday in our meeting with Bob Kleinert, Town Manager, and the
Town Attorney, At that time, I showed you drawings of the current proposed upgrade project and
described the work to be completed. You concluded that this project does not appear to require a zoning
application.
I have enclosed a set of drawings for the project. The following facts are relevant:
The antenna upgrade has previously been approved through zoning;
The additional radio cabinet is simply a piece of electronic equipment to be installed;
The PPC Cabinet is to be relocated from the current interior location to a new exterior location inside
the existing enclosure housing the building's backup electrical generator.
By your signature below, you confirm that adequate information has been provided for you to determine
the required zonin process, and that no zoning application is required:
(0 - J4-cr~
Date
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Town ofTiburon
Please return a signed copy of this letter to me at the above address. Contact me at (510) 541-3810 if! can
provide any additional information.
Thank you,
eg ara , roject Manager
Whalen & Company, Inc, (representing Sprint PCS)
(Page 1 of 1)
~~.
=iiiijiiI'" t.
-~.
'ioII~ CHAllOT 0AIVl:. SUll, 100
f'UASN<~.",g.~
~..w'" ..~_"OO
nlUaON TOWN HAlL
I'S04XC4OO
l:.o~ T'BU~O~ f<AI..L
T1SUIlON, c.. ~.no
_'''COUNTY
r"'~ "~:>~:/99 II
~"'C'" c~ ZONING ~
~R[V=o.t.rr,=OI:SCRIPno...=ilY~
.
mt
<Ill
Sprint pes SM
TIBURON TOWN HALL
FS04XC400
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
TIBURON, CA 94920
...__.....__-.I[.._~__IoULl>..
~....""''''-,_............_''-,
"'-"XPJ(lI......L.<aoL~...-.n....,.......
=,...:::.':~~'G..-r__
'DUlIOoo__ ~_m"'"""""
t==~J' ~===::;
_..,.,.., 4""""_ao:
._~-...' ..""--.",.
CODE COMPLIANCE
....-...." .-.m......._....._..._I'1
'_~_-.I'I~(.......,.,..T
~~~....-..".......-~PCS
I
.
I
ARCH.lTECT;
0....--.....-......
""""-""""'.''''
~,""..-
COO"'CT .."""'......
~ (U,).......,,,. ,,,,,.
STRUCTURAL, ENGINEER:
iiu;;;-.-...~
~,""",::,?r,..""
000,,,,, ............:
""""'" m'l'''-''''
ELEc::TRICA1-E~QlfI!EEf!:
0.:;:"""""""""""""",
.-"-""""..,,,.
~'''''''';':""o
- 1"'1'"-'''''
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT/LESSEE
.....,;.c,.----
............-......,..
~.,.-"".....
......_._.........~w'""'.
_ ,n>l__""
PROPERTY INFORMATION
~- tifY<>'.......
;;: ~~..'}:
~~~~L/
'- i~
I r--
~ I \
"!'- ..~
~~~. "LeM.XD"""
'{~ '"
I
VICINITY MAP
't{
\N\"T
,OJ'
1
'"
~c,
PROJECT TEAM
-""''''''"''''"'- ...""....
"""""~...... .
~-
.....,....-.0
,.....-.0_, "I'
H-"., """_,B_",
~ ..""......... =':...';""~~""
";<;'" "m.."""","
PROJECT SUMMARY
rr.Sprint. I
1I.~_,::",oo I
~Plt.<5N<IOI<,c.g.~
P<IOJECT...rOflWOnOt<,~
~ nlUllON TOWN HALl
F504XClOO
1~"aUIlOl<BlW
Tl8l.flOH. CA ~.uo
n'~'m"'::':~
J 9/24/99 I
~"'cm '00 ZONING ~
~EV.,=o.o.rr,=tJ<Scllrl'TlON' sY._
~
~~
:=PlANS Pft.EI'IoFIED flY'
DElTA GROUPS
IMGIHUIING. INt.
--
.....--.....'"
~....:'" ----
D
[G::
~~CEN$URE
~:1'
l----- \ \
\-- "
, \
, '
,~ \
i~ I,i
, "
" '\
I
~ --, '., \
~ '1'\
, \\~
- \
""""'" w....("r '
__.~"'(J..[ \'
.. __~ h
, ~
~_ ~r=" \ \,
. -::::-:::..- 3\~
.. "'~-- \
~~''''._~ \
_____~\---~: r/~ \
-\\------\
-----------1,
.."""",,,...
.----,iJ.~.-- -----
(;a;CI'I,lLw",-"
==
'",""""UN'
.--1""'_Pcs
: ,....._""'t>o
I
I.
r~~;~,~,"""
,--~-~-J-------.I1
--
"'"
__u____u__________ __ --u---..oP€io..,...----u_ _____
I
i
i
i
i
!
,
!
I ,__ - -- - - --
1:lnT,
. I
~)--
\: (E)CLCCKTOwtR.
\ ,!
, ,
I"
I",
Ill-
III'!I
\ 'I 'I!~
\11, Ii'
1\ I!
I Ii
I \
I L
'\'\
,
"
L_______~.:_':'"
i
.
\
II ~
II;
~
.;
::,
'"
'"
~
~
,.
""
~
'''TI
:Sl..f' \N\
[~~"::J
A1
o""'"",..~
/
,'"
;;';'-1~,
-
SITE PLAN
,-Sprint.
-~"
~C><o\IlOTDlW[,5UITE100
P\.Ll5N<lOl<.CAi<I!lI$
~"M~'::':"" HALl
F504XClOO
l~Slll!lillOt<a,w
n6URON. C\ ~'!i20
lIWlJNCOUI<TY
~w_"' ";/~:/99 II
~"~O CO" ZONING ~
RfV,=tlAl[,=':5CIllPT101<,_flY;~
....RCASlNET
...C.....ICOl"OOl.l
(() SPIllNT [Q~'P"E'"
Cl81N!;TS
-~'"~. ='-1
"""'"~~." r_
N(lIrC_""'W)--
SPRlHlPCS
PANEL ANIENms
E"S'llNG D""""---- OlSTING 0""""'-
""'EN..... i ...-rEN.....
E..STIN\;C.....RO\IED)l (E)ClOCKTOW(R- I'
~%I':CS ; I I
.~,~" r /1
I~
N(lIr(APPRO\IED,n
SPR,..-rPCs
p.....n.....TE~
L;
g~~~~ {APPROVED)----'--..J
PCSPANEl
--
\
\.
\\
"
~"''''24P.. \NI'
<lIS.., \,uI'T\
"'" m" EA PLAJ
EQUIPMENT AR N
KEY PLALAYOUT
/ EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
II ~ 'NTENNA
,,"m.~","~
A2 ..~'"
-
..'
/
-
PLAN VIEW
:::. ~ :;." I 3 I EQUIPMENT AREA PLAN
,-
ELEVATION VIEW
ANTENNA LAYOUT
I
\
:::. ~ ."""!,,"",, 14 I KEY PLAN
1/5"
I
I
"'
I
ILL
,;+-
~,
i{:-:.:701mln
~~~~~~~~.1T~:'
\
- _:_-~~~~~~~-~
- ,
'. II
"-~-- -- ---1
--:cJ
I
"'In
I
I
L.
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
~.Sprint. -1
-~-
'MJC><OtI01_.W,:~'~ II
P\LASM<rOl<_c.og,~~
~"M~::':WN HALl
F504XClOO
I~O~ nBU~o:. ElI.VO
n8\.lRON,c.o.9'9Zll
n'~~"' ",::,~C"" I
J 9/24/99 I
~""".oo ZONING ~
~R[V.,=~TE_OESCRIPTlO"=1lY~
--.- '~-~-"~~~~ I
:
,
,
I I
, I I
J..L
~~:::~'~~~~~~ ~~~. \ "_~. ,.~"O
.. '",oo"'-w==/ .......",_.,
~:~, 'I __,::,__- '00'''<
_~c)1 1___.=-"''"''.::;,.....
:(~~r---
1 ~q
.......:: ~LJ
FTD 'I mjim' 1m II:'
CJ] -, [0".; 'lWJ OJ U:l'
I !: -.', . ,
~-""
(~''''''-~
",,,,,.,.! \
"''''-_0
,
,
&19IZ</wlzON'NC;
;::P~SPflEPNl[08Y
i DElTA GROUPS
INGltlUlltlG. Itlt.
--
,..."'.-.--.!
,'"
IN.'TT.
ELEVATIONS
NU..SER,_RfVISlOtl..
A3 ..~'"
--,
.. _ _____.e.e'....::.:... I
-- I
,
j
1
,""_-..-,-
~~':It".;:,:.D,:;:\
Ii
::::"-:0.,,-:::':: ~1[IT7RI1C91
....It' 'O.A1"'T~' ~lli.QI
BEl
F,:""'___""-
i ioo"[I
In,I,r,.I"'-.'.
--'-LJtlf----n! ! c_ ! -
~'2..f~"""'~
WEST ELEVATION
~.
.....T
NORTH ELEVATION
~s .
.-., gmt, I
'611lClWlOTDO/fI/[,SU'TEIOO I
P,~'ON.CA~4~ I
~PRW~CllNrOR""J'ON
nlURON TOWN HAll I
F504XC400
lS0ST'lltJRONBt.YO
nSU_C09'920
_'HCOUNTY
~'~"''' "';~~:/99 II
ISSUEDrOR
~"~ om Z ~~~~.~'" J
--~";'".&-..."fi"~
''''''0 TO
."""0.00<1""".
-_.~
- (;;;;;;;0-......;;;,,;;:..--------- ---+----~
"'IT"" .
""'=, I
I j J J
j" 11
1 I I
II '
il1J: '
-.J '_
""'''"''''0'"'0\_
:;E,:t ",:::'
L1.19/24/99 1~~~rOR !',
~I.N<SPfl[PAR[D8Y:_
DElTA GROUPS
lNGlttEWNG.. tNe.
--
,.....__-ow
=~
""'oT.~i:
<;'1;1.." l""IT\~~
::SHmTiTi7
SOUTH ELEVATION
:=.s.ONSULTANT
1lY'_CH'
"""'~""-
f1~"
LE
.....-llCENSURI
......
. . .
'....T
,""-""''''
,.o.OSUot
;~
_~ i
n'
I
,
ELEVATIONS
__ TO...""""".
"""",,,,,,-,
[~'T"O
,~,..c
'\
~SHE[1NUo.lBER:=R~
A4 "~5
.~
-
EAST ELEVATION
".
Whalen & Company, Inc.
Sprint PCS Project Office
3875 Hopyard Road, Suite 245
Pleasanton, CA 94588
main office (925) 730-3941
Greg Sarab Project Manager
mobile (510) 541-3810
office (925) 730-3960
fax (925) 730-3999
13 October 1999
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Via FedEx
Re Verification of no zoning application required
Sprint pes site FS04xc400 - Tiburon Town Hall
Dear Mr, Anderson:
Please recall our discussion last Wednesday in our meeting with Bob Kleinert, Town Manager, and the
Town Attorney, At that time, I showed you drawings of the current proposed upgrade project and
described the work to be completed. You concluded that this project does not appear to require a zoning
application.
I have enclosed a set of drawings for the project. The following facts are relevant:
The antenna upgrade has previously been approved through zoning;
The additional radio cabinet is simply a piece of electronic equipment to be installed;
The PPC Cabinet is to be relocated from the current interior location to a new exterior location inside
the existing enclosure housing the building's backup electrical generator.
By your signature below, you confirm that adequate information has been provided for you to determine
the required zonin process, and that no zoning application is required:
(.0 -/4-11
Date
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Town ofTiburon
Please return a signed copy of this letter to me at the above address. Contact me at (510) 541-3810 if! can
provide any additional information.
Thank you.
~inc ,
eg ara , roject Manager
alen & Company, Inc, (representing Sprint PCS)
(Page I of I)
~M.S-
TOWN OF TIBURON
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
REpORT
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
The Members of the Tiburon Town Council
Chief Peter G. Herley, Chairman, Traffic Safety Committee
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING -10/14/99
October 29, 1999
On October 14, 1999, a meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee was held. Below is a summary of the
meeting and the Traffic Safety Committee's recommendations
In attendance were the following:
.
Chief Peter Herley, Chairman
Lt Tom Aiello
IIV Schwartz, Town Engineer
Scott Anderson, Planning Director
Tony lacopi, Superintendent of Public Works
Sergeant David M_ Hutton
Sam Barnett, 50 Peninsula Rd" Belvedere
Jane Barnett, 50 Peninsula Rd" Belvedere
Jeri Johnson
Larry Harman, 27 Mara Vista Court
Christine Berry, 9 Owlswood
.
Ian Pearson, 170 Rock Hill
Wayne Snow, 100 Jefferson
Don Maskell, 115 Rock Hill
.
.
.
.
.
.
Item #1 - "One-WaY" road frontinll new Police facility or return to "Two-WaY."
This item was brought to our attention by the Town Manager, who requested Traffic Safety Committee's
recommendation if the access road in front of the new police facility should be left as "One-Way," The road
was originally designed as a "Two-Way" road and was deemed to go back to a two-way road. after the
completion of the facility, The Town Manager wanted to know if the one-way configuration is more effective
and safer for traffic to flow through the area.
Recommendation: The access road should remain ''''One-Way'' until a determination is made on the impact
of traffic flow during the building of the senior housing, We also feel that current one-way movement and
traffic flow is much better controlled and a safer system for all concerned. The road is far too narrow for two-
way traffic and creates a dangerous situation.
Item #2 - No "Rillht Turn on Red" at intersections -131 and Ayenida Miraflores and 131 at Lyford Dr.
Item tabled at the request of the party concerned - could not attend a future Traffic Safety Committee meeting
(This particular issue has come to our attention on numerous occasions and each time it has been rejected.
The Traffic Safety Committee feels that this is not a viable answer to the traffic problem. The School District
concurs with our opinion on this issue. The "No Right Turn on Red" sign would create a severe back-up of
vehicle traffic on Lyford Drive as well as the intersection at Avenida Miraflores.)
Item #3 - Establish bus stop at 662 Hilary Drive
",
Recommendation: The Traffic Safety Committee recommends aaainst placing a bus stop in the area of 662
Hilary Drive due to the displacement of on-street parking, noise, and emission problems. We would like to
have the input of the neighbors who will be affected -- particularly those who are adjacent to the site proposed
by the individual requesting the bus stop, If the neighbors agree to the bus stop, they can formulate a petition
from all concerned and we will revisit the issue.
Item #4 - Curb/pavement stripinQ and traffic/parkinQ enforcement policv (Rock Hilll
The residents of Rock Hill Dr, made recommendations to minimize the impact of parking and traffic problems
which have evolved with the activities at the Community Congregational Church, 145 Rock Hill Drive,
Recommendations:
. Red buffer zones to be painted by Public Works alongside the driveways. This should eliminate the
parking problems near the driveways,
. Hash markings for parking correctly in the cui-de-sac _ The zones and markings shall be initiated by the
church, which should hire an appropriate licensed contractor to design the placement of parking hash
marks as, approved by the Town Engineer.
. Periodically place the police radar trailer in the vicinity, to monitor and slow speeding traffic
. Letter from the neighbors to the Community Congregational Church, advising them of the concerns the
neighborhood has regarding the traffic and speeding. The school can then advise the mothers,
Item #5 - Request for "No ParkinQ" on Tiburon Boulevard. between Owlswood Road and Neds Way
The Traffic Safety Committee agrees that there is a line-of-sight problem when exiting Owlswood Road from
westbound traffic,
Recommendation: Defer to our Town Engineer to make the determination whatever is necessary to correct
the problem. His recommendations will then be given to CalTrans for implementation.
Item #6 - "No Turnaround" siQn , area of 2220 Vistazo East
Recommendation: The owner place on his private driveway a sign stating " Private Property -No
Turnaround. "
Item #7 - Review "One-WaY" siQnaQe at north end of Mar East
Recommendation: The sign at the above location should be replaced because it is faded and is not legible.
Item #8 - No parkinQ siQns at the end of the cul-de-sac - Mara Vista Court
Recommendation: This issue is strictly a neighborhood parking problem, as perceived by the resident. The
Homeowners Association should be contacted and advised of the situation by the resident.
2
".
Item #9 . ReQuest to use motorized skateboard in the Town
A request was made by a young resident of Belvedere that the Town of Tiburon allow the use of electric
scooters on the Multi-Use Path.
Recommendation: The Town of Tiburon should not and cannot circumvent State Law (California Vehicle
Code), which bans this type of vehicle on highways, multi-use paths, etc. Contact was made the California
Highway Patrol to affirm this position The young resident was advised to contact Assemblywoman Kerry
Mazzoni to seek her assistance and support in an effort to amend current State Laws.
Item #10 - ReQuest for new bus shelter at Tiburon Boulevard & Neds Way. south side of roadway
Recommendation: Recommend to Golden Gate Transit to replace the existing bus stop with a new shelter.
Item #11 - Paint red curbs on Reedland Woods Way frontinQ Kol Shofar
Recommendation: Already had been completed by Public Works.
Item #12 - LockinQ Qate at Round Hill and Gilmartin
A request was made by the homeowners at the end of Round Hill to have a key to the chain blocking the path
from that point to Gilmartin - that if it becomes necessary to have to flee, for whatever reason, the only means
of escape is currently trying to travei back down Round Hill to Lyford, etc,
The issue of the detrimental effect to overall community safety because of so many "Dead-End" (non-
connected streets) in Tiburon was discussed, One of the reasons the "Oakland Hills" fire was so tragic was
because it was very difficult for peopie to escape and for emergency equipment to have access because the
same type of conditions existed there which currently exist in Tiburon - that is, residents have difficulty
escaping should a fire or some other disaster occur because so many streets to not have some means of
connecting, This lack of access currently would cause extreme delays in emergency vehicles responding to
disasters!
Recommendation:
. Public Works should pave the short distance on the fire road between Round Hill and Gilmartin.
(This gives proper access to emergency vehicles, which currently is precarious).
. Place two poles at each end of the short fire road and provide a chains (gates) across the road, The
chains will be attached by two (2) locks. One lock would work with the key carried by police and fire for
fire roads and the other lock would work with a key provided to the residents who are near the road.
. Police Department should have a meeting with the local Homeowners Association to discuss the issue,
including trust that the controlled access will not be abused.
. Review other sites in Tiburon which the same reGommendation could be implemented to improve the
overall safety of the community.
3
RESOLUTION NO.
I/e~ ;V8 .
~
~.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OFTIrnURON
COMMENDING JOHN KERN UPON
HIS SELECTION BY TmURON PENINSULA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS
1999 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR
WHEREAS, long-time Tiburon resident John Kern who, along with his wife Jane,
generously contributed the beautiful clock faces to the new Tiburon Town Hall; and
WHEREAS, having witnessed the successful completion of said Town Hall, John Kern
then joined forces with Jim Wilson to contribute his time, energy, and expertise to the
construction management of the new Tiburon Police Station; and
WHEREAS, in coming out of retirement to work on this IO-month project, John Kern
hardly realized that it would turn into more than a year and a half of IO-hour days, sometimes 7
days a week; and
WHEREAS, having served as a U.S, Army Officer for over 31 years, "the Colonel, " as
John Kern is affectionately referred to by the Town Staff, has scarcely been swayed by the many
unforeseen obstacles that have been placed in his path throughout this project; and
WHEREAS, "the Colonel," in addition to his duties listed above, has taken the time to
get to know and work closely with Town Officials and Staff, amusing and regaling them with
many fabulous tales of his travels and adventures around the world; and
WHEREAS, John Kern always maintains a pleasant and professional demeanor in the
execution of his duties, no matter how mundane or unexpected,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon is pleased to adopt this resolution commending JOHN KERN upon his selection by the
Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce as 1999 Citizen of the Year, and to give him special
recognition on behalf of the Tiburon Town Council and Town Staff.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3cd day of November, 1999, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS:
AYES:
NOES:
MOGENS BACH, MAYOR
TOWN OF TffiURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
"..,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
L(.t?M ~, 7-z,
OFFICE OF THE CITY AnORNEY
LOUISE H. RENNE
City Attorney
KAREN DONOVAN
Deputy City Attorney
DIRECT DIAL: (415) 554-4645
E-MAIL:KAREN_DONOVAN@ci.Sf.CO.US
MEMORANDUM
PRIVilEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
ro)~@~~W~l
~ U OCT 27 1999 :
TOWN AiiORNEY'S OFFIC;;
TqWN 'IF TIEl~AQN
TO:
FROM:
California Cities and City Attorneys
Karen Donovan
Deputy City Attorney
October 22. 1999
DATE:
RE: Request to join as amicus in the brief in support of the East Bay Municipal Utilities
District in Utility Cost Management v. East Bay MUD
Along with the Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities, we are
requesting your City's participation as amicus curiae in the in a brief that this office is preparing
in support of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Respondent in Utility Cost
Management v. East Bay MUD, No, A087191 in the Court of Appeals, First Appellate District
(Division Five).
This case concerns the applicability of Government Code Section 66022 and a
corresponding provision of the Public Utilities Code, Section 14402, to judicial actions by
educational entities attacking the water and wastewater charges and fees which are established
by official enactment by public water and wastewater utilities in California and charged to those
utilities' customers. Utility Cost Management (UCM) is a firm consisting ofa lawyer and
accountants who specialize in reducing utility costs to their clients. UCM filed a claim and
lawsuit on behalf of the Berkeley Unified School District against EBMUD in 1997, arguing that
EBMUD's water and wastewater service charges failed to comply with the limitations set forth
in Gov't Code 954999.3. This Code section limits the capacity charges and "capital facilities
fees" that may be charged to school districts, the University of California, and other public
educational entities and state agencies in California. Several unified school districts and
Cniversity of California campuses have used the ambiguities in the statuto!"'} definition tp argue
that the Code provisions restrict not only the facilities fees and capacity charges that may be
charged to them, but also limit all other capital costs that may be included in the periodic water
and wastewater service rates that are charged to them. In the EBMUD case, UCM originally
argued that the BUSD was entitled to a refund of a large portion of the capital cost component of
the water and wastewater service rates paid since 1986.
Government Code 966022 and Public Utilities Code 914402 set forth the procedures that
public utility customers should use to challenge a decision by a water or wastewater district to
adopt or amend certain fees and service charges for water and sewer service, Government Code
966022 states:
(a) Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul an
ordinance, resolution, or motion adopting a new fee or service charge, or modifying
or amending an existing fee or service charge, adopted by a local agency, as defined
CiTY HALL. ROOM 234. I DR. CARLTON B_ GOODLETT PLACE' SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102-4682
RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700, FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4763
<:!Oclime,,'2
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
DATE:
PAGE:
RE:
Memorandum
Privileged & Confidential
California Cities and City Attorneys
October 22, 1999
2
Request to join as amicus in the brief in support of the East Bay Municipal Utilities
District in Utilitv Cost Management v. East Bay MUD
in Section 66000, shall be commenced within 120 days of the effective date of the
ordinance, resolution, or motion,
Gov't Code 966022(a).
There are important policy reasons for having a relatively short statute oflimitations for
these types of challenges. Government Code 966022 is one of a wide variety of statutes
designed to ensure stability and finality to governmental fiscal decisions and to deter delayed
raids on the public treasury. Public agencies do not accumulate profits, and as a result, the
legislature has recognized that belated claims for monies that have been collected and spent will
penalize not only the agency, but also the public, Ifrate payments must be refunded on demand,
up to twelve years after payment, a public utility like the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission has few options for satisfying these untimely claims. The agency cannot reallocate
costs disproportionately to other customers, because this is prohibited by State and local law.
Likewise, if services are curtailed or necessary projects are delayed, the agency could potentially
violate State and Federal environmental and health and safety laws. By establishing a relatively
short time limit for raising challenges to the rates and charges, the legislature sought to prevent
these significant problems.
EBMUD filed a motion for summary judgment in the UCM case, arguing that the 120
day statute oflimitations in Gov't Code 966022 and Public Utilities Code 914402 barred UCM's
claims because the lawsuit was filed more than 120 days after the effective date of the last Board
of Directors resolution raising the water and wastewater rates. In response, UCM asserted that
neither Gov't Code 966022 nor Public Utilities Code 914402 applied to the claims in its suit.
UCM originally argued that suits challenging utility rates pursuant to Gov't Code 954999, et.
seq. were not governed by any statute of limitations. Alternatively, UCM argued that either a 3-
or 4- year general statute of limitations applied to the claims.
The Superior Court of Alameda County agreed with EBMUD's position and grar:lled
EBMUD's motion, ruling that a 120 statute of limitations applied to the claims. UCM
subsequently appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals, First Appellate District.
We are preparing a brief that will support EBMUD's position and emphasize the
important policy concerns for applying a relatively short statute oflimitations to agency
decisions regarding water and wastewater rates and charges. The California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) plans to join on the brief. In addition, the Legal Advocacy Committee of the
California League of Cities urges all California cities to consider joining on the brief. If your
city agrees to join, please complete the enclosed form and return it to our office, via fax or mail,
before October 29, or call me directly. If you are unable to respond by October 29 because you
must secure a decision of the governing body of your city, please notify us. It may be necessary
to notify the Court of your joinder by letter after the brief is filed.
If you have any questions or would like any additional materials, please contact me.
O(>~o'.','..2
".
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
r
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Town Council
Town Manager
Special Education Event
November 3, 1999
BACKGROUND
The past two (2) years the Town of Tiburon has permitted the use ofMcKegney Green for a
major volunteer fund raising event (Dedication to Special Education), with no cost or impacts to
the Town, The event is normally scheduled for the first weekend in June, and held on Saturday
night.
The initial 1998 program had the sponsorship of Wells Fargo Bank, Fair Isaac and the Marin
County Office of Education, The latter provided the volunteers and were the benefactors of the
event for special education purposes.
The 1999 program sponsorship consisted of Wells Fargo Bank, ABC-KGO Channel 7, Francis
Ford Coppola & Niebaum-Coppola Winery, and the Marin County Office of Education.
The event organizers provide the Town with appropriate insurance, indemnification and bonding,
There have not been any significant problems in the past, and the event organizers have returned
McKegney Green in good condition, The event normally attracts 500-600 participants, Parking
is provided and well organized in the Blackie's pasture area, with shuttle service from there to the
tented located area on McKegney Green, The tents are normally put up 3 or 4 days prior to the
event, depending upon the weather, and are taken down the day following.
PROPOSAL
The Dedication to Special Education organizers are now requesting the Town's approval for a
similar event the first weekend of June 2000, The sponsorship at this time includes Wells Fargo
Bank, ABC-KGO Channel 7, Francis Ford Coppola, Niebaum-Coppola Winery, AT&T Cable
and possibly additional sponsorships. It would again have the participation of the Marin County
Office of Education, including parent and teacher volunteers,
This year there has also been strong interest expressed by the Reed Foundation, in association
with their annual (RUSD) Reed Regatta, to possibly utilize the same tented facilities the Friday
night prior to the Special Education event for their annual fundraise!. There are significant
community benefits for this joint sharing offacilities, and again with guarantees to the Town
concerning the property and facilities,
j
At this time, the event organizers are requesting the Town Council consider their request, and
perhaps give conceptual approval, subject to the Parks & Open Space Commission comments and
recommendation,
R. L. Kleinert
Town Manager
RLKshm
;;
TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 11/3/99
ITEM NO.: /
FROM:
SCOTT ANDERSON, ~
PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
DOWNTOWN FEE PARKING LOT COUNTS FOR 1999
BACKGROUND
As part of the ongoing monitoring of parking capacity in Downtown
Tiburon, the Town Council directed in 1995 that annual summertime
parking counts be conducted for the four major pay-parking lots.
For the fifth consecutive year, weekend counts of the four major
pay parking lots in Downtown Tiburon were performed from the
first weekend in May approximately through Labor Day weekend in
September. These counts are conducted in the mid-afternoon on
Saturday and Sunday, which are the busiest times based on
previous studies.
FINDINGS
1. The number of cars parked in the three major lots dropped
somewhat in 1999 according to the counts. The average
number of cars in the Main Street lot dropped from 196 in
1998 to 178 in 1999. The Point Tiburon average dropped from
250 in 1998 to 218 in 1999. The now fully paved Beach Road
lot average dropped from 102 cars in 1998 to 89 cars in
1999. The lightly used Tiburon Boulevard lot, adjacent to
Town Hall showed an average increase from 27 cars in 1998 to
38 cars in 1999. This lot holds approximately 80 cars.
Numerical comparisons of the five years worth of parking
counts are shown on Exhibit 1. The counts for 1999 are
tabulated on Exhibit 2.
2. The number of times that individual parking lots reached
capacity dropped dramatically in 1999.
3. As in previous years, at no time during the parking counts
of 1999 did all four parking lots become full at the same
time. The Tiburon Boulevard lot was not seen full even
once, and the Beach Road lot was seen full only once.
4. Even the busiest lots (Point Tiburon and Main Street) were
seen full substantially less than half of the days counted.
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
1013199
1
z,
5. The capacity reduction of the Tiburon Boulevard parking lot
from 120 spaces to 80 spaces due to construction of the
Belvedere-Tiburon Library and Town Hall, does not appear to
have had an adverse impact on Downtown parking supply.
6. The 1999 counts provided little new information, except to
demonstrate that annual variation can be expected.
The staff reports and analyses for the 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998
fee parking lot counts are available from Staff upon request.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Town Council consider discontinuing parking counts until
there is a demonstrated need to begin them anew. The counts cost
the Town approximately $500 annually.
EXHIBITS
1. Comparison of Downtown parking counts for 1995-1999.
2. Spreadsheet of 1999 Downtown Tiburon parking counts.
\scott\pkgcnt4.rpt.doc
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
1013199
2
.
'"
'"
n
o
3
-c
!!i
-c
~
'"
l>CI> l>CI> <1"1] <1"1] -l> ..., r-
<c: <l> :rm )>m z< ~ 0
mz m..., l>:ll "1]:ll r-m m ...,
~~ ~~ z<1 )><1 ~~ CI> <1
Glm <1m l>
Gl-< GlO mZ -z Gl "
~..., c: "1]
m ml> ..., m l>
-< r-
<1 r- <1
l> ::;
:ll -<
'"
en ~
~ '"
~ "" U< "" '" '"
CD "' CD ~ a U<
N w ~
"'
w '" "" CD W CD "' s:
U< en "' '" 0 a a '" )>
:ll ()
, ~ ::;; 0
~ '" "' s:
~ '" ... ... ~ CD "' m
'" "' '"
0< ... . '" a a "" "tI
..., )>
r-
+ w ~ 0 ;0
'"
'" '" 0 ... '" CD '" ..., 1ii
CD "" ;e. "' "" 0 0 '" 0
.:'; - Z
... "' 0
w w ... CD W CD '"
en '" "' "' CD a a '" ."
~ 0
CD 0
~ ~ w ~ ~ '"
'" 0 ~ ~ "' :::r:
CD ... "' en 0 U<
Z
~ en ~ -I
CD U< ~ "' CD 0
'" CD ": ... "' m
'" w "' "' ~ a '" )> :::r:
<1
+ ~ :r Z
N ~ '" ~ ~ "' :ll "tI
a CD w ~ ... "'
"" CD " "' en en a "" 0 )>
)> ;0
0
, ~ r- 2S
~ ~ "" ~ "'
':l 0 a w 0 ... "' 0 Z
... "' '" '" ... a '" ..., G:l
~ ."
~ '" en ~ "' 0
':l CD ... CD ... "' ;0
a "' "' '" ~ 0 "'
....
'" ~ '"
~ ~ en - N '" '"
'" '" '" '" N ':l "' .!"
"" 0 W N '"
....
CD ~ s: '"
~ 0, - N "' '"
CD '" CD "" ':l "' )> F'
U< CD "' "' en '" '" z
CI> ....
+ '" ~ ..., '"
~ ~ CD en ~ N "' :ll '"
'" ~ "' '" '" ~ ':l '" m .;,;......
CD W W "" m
..., ....
- r- '"
'" ~ .:'; '" ~ '" "' 0 '"
0 '" "" '" ~ ':l "' ..., ())
'" CD U< '" en "" '"
)>
CD ~ Zc
~ ~ '" CD ~ N '" 0
"" "" "" ':l "'
'" '" "' U< CD CD "' ....
'"
~ '"
N '" '" N '" "' '"
w ~ U< W ~ :': "'
"" w "' a "" '"
~ "
N N J,. '" '" N "' 0
w 0 '" :: :': '" Z
'" U< "' '" a '" ...,
...,
+ ~ iii
N N ~ ~ N N "' c:
... U< a ... ~ ... "'
... N " N U< '" ~ "" :ll
0
~ Z
'" '" + ~ N N "' r-
~ '" '" 0 U< '" :': '" 0
0 "' ... a U< '" ...,
"' ~
'" '" '" '" "'
~ '" ... a ~ - :': '"
U< - "' "' CD a '"
~
e
N
U<
ii3
'"
EXHIBIT No.L
. ,Ill'
...
1999 DOWNTOWN TIBURON PARKING COUNTS
DATE HOLIDAY MAR BEACH MAIN ST POINT
OR EVENT WEST LOT ROAD LOT LOT TIBURON
Sat May 1 42 102 157 234
Sun May 2 18 80 168 133
Sat May 8 47 116 174 244
Sun May 9 Mothers Dy 40 124 177 249
Sat May 15 67 82 197 255
Sun May 16 75 132 194 255
Sat May 22 37 60 189 225
Sun May 23 38 73 182 .218
Sat May 29 44 64 174 178
Sun May 30 40 NA 190 221
Mon May 31 Memorial Dy NA NA NA NA
Sat June 5 47 47 135 176
Sun June 6 29 65 156 203
Sat Jun 12 32 74 185 196
Sun June 13 NA NA NA NA
Sat June 19 NA NA NA NA
Sun June 20 Father's Day NA NA NA NA
-
Sat June 26 38 107 193 232
Sun June 27 42 123 198 228
Fri July 3 4th Wkend 40 80 191 222
Sat July 4 17 49 129 185
Sun July 5 - - - -
Sat July 10 37 79 163 229
EXHIBIT NO.~
z.
Sun July 11 37 114 189 242
Sat July 17 30 84 179 225
Sun July 18 25 69 161 217
Sat July 24 30 76 188 221
Sun July 25 37 89 197 224
Sat July 31 32 73 190 234
Sun Aug 1 25 78 155 166
Sat Aug 7 21 67 197 253
Sun Aug 8 no count - - - -
Sat Aug 14 63 124 195 224
Sun Aug 15 22 168 173 224
Sat Aug 21
Sun Aug 22
TOTAL 1052 2399 4976 6113
AVERAGE 38 89 178 218
WP:99count. wpd
~
z
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECf:
November 3,1999
ITEM:
/V
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MCCMC LOBBYIST - CONTRACT RENEWAL, YEAR 2000
BACKGROUND:
This item is for Town Council approval of renewal of the professional services contract for the MCCMC
Lobbyist in calendar year 2000. The lobbyist represents the cities and towns of Marin by way of direction
from the MCCMC's Legislative Committee, In 1999 the lobbyist represented the cities' interests in
Sacramento with respect to many issues, including: excess ERAF property tax funding, binding arbitration,
the MERA lP A, and other fiscal and regulatol)' legislation. The current contract proposal extends provision
of this service for an additional year.
DISCUSSION:
In 1999, the cities and towns of Marin County, through the MCCMC, retained the services of Kenneth
Emanuels & Associates to provide lobbyist services for Marin's cities in Sacramento. The total cost of this
service was apportioned to member cities on the basis of population and assessed valuation. In 1999, the
Town paid a total of$I,689, the current contract proposal would cost the Town $2,049, an increase of$360.
The Town has currently allocated $1,600 in the Administration Budget for this item.
The current 1999 contract fee is $2,000 per month, or $24,000 annually, The lobbyist's contract proposal for
2000 requests $2,500 per month, or $30,000 annually. The increased cost reflects the lobbyist's estimate of
the scope of services required to serve MCCMC interests, The letter proposal also includes alternative cost
proposals based on reduced scope of services and lobbying support.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Town Council approve: (I) the current contract proposal and recommended apportionment of costs for
MCCMC Lobbyist Services, and (2) appropriate an additional $400 to fully fund Town costs in FY2000.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Materials - Proposed Contract Renewal for 2000 (October 15,1999)
Letter, Table of Alternate Contract Proposals, Apportionment of Costs
----~~
R. Stranzl ~
1
OCT 20 '99 15'36 FR TOWN OF CORTE MADERA 415 927 5087 TO 98974354
P.04/05
"'.
O<:.'t:.-'lS-99 02:41P Kenne't:.h Emanuels & '~As.s.oc:_ 9J.6 444 0303
P.oz
KENNE H
EMAN IS
f.d
.\ 'I' 11 "'....'i n c: I.., T I'!.~
L'.f;/IIL.\TP'1'.: "'U\"I :_\~,.
';IWf.J1:"C,\lf!:'I''l' Jt!LA In:,>...
October IS, 1999
Tony C~ Chair, Legislative Committee, MCCMC
Couw:il Member. Town of Ross
City Hall
P.O. Box 320
Ross, CA 94957
Dear Tony,
to JanlW)', Red Gould suggested that 1
the October 18 meeting cfthe MCCMC
Since my prof~ional service contract runs from Janu
propose a renewal for next y~ for your consideration
Legislativc Committee.
1 have enjoyed t<:pn:Senting you, the Legislative Co
Legislative session.
'!tee aad MCCMC during the 1999
Hip,lights oflhe year include:
. Successful restoration for one year ofS8.2 millpn of excess ERAF property tax for
Marin County and its cities and special districts
. S=ento meeting oflhe Legislation Commi ee on May 27 with Bob Giroux, Sen.
Bunon '! staff aide who is managing SB 402 (B n), the binding nitration legislation.
defeat ofSB 1200 (Poochigian) which ould have restricted citics' authority 10
regulate drive-through businesses;
onsored state budget ~uest wi!h Marin
encyradios cOllXlected to !he Marm
. Initial efforts by MCCMC to develop ajoin1ly
CoUItty school districts rOT funding desk top
Emergency Radio Authority
. Successful efforts by Sen.. President Pro Tem J
Marin County cities:
BUrton on behalf of the League and
passage of SCR 19 (Burton). calling fur State Air Resources Board study of the
health and environmental impacts of gas powered leaf blowers;
I , -1" ... '" If .. ~ T
..I : i"r. ~"". ,,~,:"','.\U'.:. ,
. \I.III'II'lI\ "'" .
-!:L. ".. ..-..
. I:',. '1\:, ". ,.,.
l
,':'1":-
:=n ~'~uWN CF CQRTE MADERA 4:5 927 5887 TO 989,74354
20 ~9 15:35 ,r,
e~
j
01 41P Kenneth EmanuQ1s & Assoc. 9~6 444 0303
0<::t-15-99 4'
defeat of three otherm= that wo d have m;tricted cities' authority to adopt
localleafblower ordinances.
\
. Enactmem of a state budget trailer bilI provisi II (AB 1662) that provides for
reimbursement to citie! for the costs of county booking fees. Marin County cities pay
among the highest booking fees in the state.
. February 24 MCCMC monthly meeting in S Anselmo at which I spoke on the outlook
for cities in the 1999 Legislative Session.
. Distribution of So updaIed "status oflegislation matrix ofbilIs on which MCCMC has
taIctn a position at the monthly Legislative C "ttee
However, I must indicate tbu given the leve! of fea
and fees that other COIlIrac:t lobbyists who l1:pI"CSCl1t 10
comparable work, the cutrent CDDtract fee of $2000 p
fur the scope of wed< you have ll:qUem:d,
Instead of my simply proposing an iDcn:ase on a "take 't or leave it" basis. Rod bas suggested
that I propose three different levels of service and th . corresponding fees. The a1tematives are
attached. I would be p leased to disC1lSs this with you' tIy at your conv=icnce and I will
place a phoue call to you this afternoon. Unfottunatel ,I wiII be on vacation next Monday,
I eharge my other public agency clients
govemment agencies charge for
month is substantially below the JDari;er
r look forward to continuing our Sacramento legislativ work together. I hope that one of the
alternative proposals is satisfactory to you and the Le latien Committee_
Sincerely,
^~
Kenneth Emanuels
KE:kc
ce: Rod Gould, City Manager
City of San Rafael
/~'!3
/"
'1
15:35 FR TOWN OF CORTE MRDERR 415 927 5087 TO 98974354
~.
..
c
'i:
o
0._
.. C
a: 0
en
"'~"l:l
.! ~ G1
OJ ~
"C.!:=
.. ." .,.
&. C OJ
~ nil a::
>-"
- ..
~ -
..-
:;
Cl
..
~
c,
E
"'-
:c E
~ E
1l 0
"'EO
c: '" .
"'E.!l
" C>
"'t:-Q:l
..cE!-..z
E~.2
g &"5
(JUg.
.::;: ~
.!!<.Jx
en (,) .!2
~~~
'w :a; ==
os: 'S: 6
~~::;;
. . .
- .
..
>t~.!! ~
" '"
"O::J c.o ~ ..
.. J!:m~ .. ~
.. "
.E .. -,.,.,. >-...
-;;; .:l..... .. ..
.. u ...~ " C-
o; 0 0 "'--
.. .. oJ .. .,
0 .. .0 ..
=>
a. <( .. cr
E .. c l':!
l1. "ii .., ai . ~ "
Ol g'm
1i " en e -=>-
c en -- ... 1:.g'
.. " ." iiiftl-:--
;,U .. ... to.,_:iau " =>
c::;: ~ .t; 5;Q.!!!,:m "'.10
Ou ~ c,J:l: c_ .. 6 ..
Uu :; ~ 1Il.3~"il! ~~
..
g'::; .. .c '" CD" S dim
c 0 = >- 11.0 .::.:: III
>. c- ml.E:-;; .. '"
.. u
.c ~o 'ij C>
.c ~-:Ja."6t c
0 >- 13 fn at .9~
..J .Cl .!<CUI.r-l
.. to.~.2:- '0 .,
." .!! 6
iii .. .E===c E
c .. )(-.-::2 "'-
~ " Em.. E 0 :::; '"
.!i a. ......... Eu
< e c.." W 0
l1. C(;~U
III
iii ."
E ~ f
'iC-,S
"r:a-
a- g
c. ::;
<t
.. -
Cl 0 ..
c~:!=:
.. C. .,
t= f'lI:>
<tU
o
-
..,u
c::;
ou
c.u
::;:
~
~Cl'l ~ UJ
:; o.!!
..;:z.z::=
EO."
CD..!!: c:r
'<0 III C
""....-
'i~
1I.r::. ..
0-..
C.c,,-
o 0
,t:;:
.~
<:>
~
B
'"
o
Z
o
Z
<:>
<:>
<:>
N
II>
c,
E
"'-
:2 E
~ E
'" 0
.cu
E .
" ..
CD E '0
C> _ ..
tS!!:...J
.91 ~ .2
.64)'t:
.010
~ ~ ~
ou"
uoJ!!
w:! ~
"5=,s
...!! c:
....J > "
,.,~::O
. . .
8.a
-g~
.Cl~
~8.
OI_
l::: ..
0; '"
c:, 6-
.. I!'
>-
P. (12,12l5
c
0
"'-
:J
e
0
E
'"
C>
c
'"
,!!!
~
:~
>
..
-
0
E 7;l
:J
E ..
]; "
cr
::;;; '"
..
..
g.
"3
E
.
'"
..
>-
<:>
<0 -
..s- -Sa
.... "'-
::;)
'"
N
B
<:>
N
..
"
>-
c-
o
..
.. ..
" I!'
>-c
;S
~
<:>
<:>
"<
N
...
<:>
<:>
<:>
....
...
OCT 20 '99 15: 34 FR TOWN OF CORTE MADERA 415 927 5087 TO 98974354 P. 01/05 .
10/13/99 MON 12: 06 FA.! 415 459 2242 CrTI SAN RAFAEL ___ CORTE llADERA 14!I002
1999-00
MCCMC LOBBYIST
APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS
1999.00 Costs
2,299 S 196 601.387,641 $
8,911 S 760 1,107,145,011 $
7,157 $ 610 537.484,634 $
11,897 $ 1,015 1,352,997,002 $
14,009 $ 1,195 1,733,409.678 $
46,488 $ 3,964 3,903,113,128 $
2,281 $ 195 539,551,346 $
12,395 $ 1,057 1,065.446,026 $
54,010 S 4,606 5,163,459.200 $
7.780 S 664 1,281,137,842 $
SRCommom; MCCMC lOBBYIST2.xls
.~
~.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA NO.:
If
FROM:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO
APPROVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING AS A CONDOMINIUM UNIT
(160 SOLANO A VENUE)
MEETING DATE:
NOVEMBER 3, 1999
APPELLANTS - LES AND MAXINE HEMBREE
APPLICANT - MARGARET MAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DA TE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
160 SOLANO A VENUE
59-142-12
799098
11,391 SQUARE FEET
R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C
JUNE 25, 1999
JUNE 25, 1999
BACKGROUND:
On September 16. 1999, the Tiburon Design Review Board granted Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval for the construction of a second single-family dwelling on property located at
160 Solano Avenue, Les and Maxine Hembree, the property owners of the adjacent home at 172
Solano Avenue, have now appealed this decision to the Town Council.
TlHliRON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
NOVE~tBER 3. 1999
I
~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family
dwelling on property located at 160 Solano Avenue. The house would be the second dwelling
unit on the property, and is proposed as part of a plan to condominiumize the ownership of the
property,
The proposed house of 1.660 square feet would have two stories oflivable area, and an overall
height of23 feet The lower floor would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, two
bedrooms and two bathrooms. The upper floor would include a master bedroom suite. A large
deck would extend off the lower floor living room and dining room, The new unit would be
located behind the existing single-family dwelling which is located toward the front of the
property, A two-car detached garage and laundry room would be located to the north side of the
existing house, toward the front property line,
REVIEW BY THE BOARD:
The Design Review Board first reviewed the project (File #799098) at its August 5, 1999
meeting. At that time, the Board received concerns regrading the proposed house from a number
of surrounding property owners, summarized as follows:
The owners of 172 Solano Avenue (Les and Maxine Hembree) wished to protect
views toward Raccoon Straits, Angel Island and the East Bay from their deck and
living room.
The owner of the vacant parcel above the site (Rolf Eiselin) wished to keep the
maximum elevation of the proposed house low so that future construction on his
own property would not have to be constructed at higher elevations, possibly
creating view impacts for homes above on Centro East Street
The owner at 2250 Centro East Street (Robert Ellsberg) desired the required rear
yard setback for the subject property to be maintained to keep an adequate
separation between his home and the proposed house. -
The owner at 2205 Paradise Drive (Robert Hamilton) wished to have landscaping
on the subject property maintained to insure privacy from the proposed house,
At the hearing, the Board members indicated that they had visited the site and had viewed story
poles for the proposed house from the Hembrees' home, The Board indicated that the proposed
house would appear to block a portion of the view from the Hembrees' deck, and that a one-story
plan for the proposed house had not been sufficiently explored by the applicant The Board
continued the hearing, with direction to the applicant to prepare additional information, including
TIBlJRON TOW:\I COlT;\JCIL
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 3, 1999
2
~.
a more thorough examination of a one-story alternative, and to address some of the concerns
raised by the neighboring property owners.
The second hearing for this project was held on September 16, 1999, Prior to that meeting, the
applicant had hired a new architect, who had prepared revised two-story plans for the proposed
house, along with a conceptual one-story plan and another conceptual two-story plan, Compared
to the previously submitted plans, the submitted revised plans indicated that the second story
would be shifted 4.5 feet to the rear, the roof revised to create a single peak, and the previously
proposed chimney for this second story relocated from the northwest corner to the northeast
corner of the structure, Story poles were erected for the revised two-story plan,
The conceptual one-story plan indicated compliance with the necessary zoning setbacks and lot
coverage for the property, but would have brought other living areas closer to several of the
neighboring residences than the two-story configuration. These plans were reviewed with the
neighboring property owners at 2250 Centro East Street and 2205 Paradise Drive, who both
indicated that this plan was unacceptable due to increased privacy concerns. The applicant also
indicated that this design would reduce the necessary privacy separation between the existing and
proposed homes on the site, The conceptual two-story design would have moved the second
story portion of the proposed house 2.5 feet further to the rear, but would have encroached into
the rear yard setback by 2,5 feet at two points, The neighboring property owner at 2250 Centro
East Street objected to this projection into the required rear yard setback.
The Design Review Board reviewed these plans at the September 16. 1999 meeting, The Board
determined that the one-story plan would help the Hembrees at the expense of other surrounding
neighbors. and would place the new house in a "fishbowl" among the adjacent two-story
structures, The Boardmembers viewed the revised story poles from the Hembrees' deck, and
determined that the revised two-story plans were a significant improvement from the previously
reviewed plans, The Board indicated that the proposed second story area would only block a
peripheral portion of the panoramic views currently enjoyed from the Hembrees' deck, and would
be consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines, The Board also indicated that the photographs
of the story poles submitted by Mr. Hembree were misleading, and that a two-story structure
would be more consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood than a one-story
house,
The Board voted unanimously (3-0) to approve the plans subject to the conditions of approval
contained within the Staff report, with the added condition that the proposed second story
chimney be replaced with a gas fireplace fixture, On September 27, 1999, the Hembrees filed a
timely appeal of the Board's decision,
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL:
There are two grounds up?n which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based:
Tim TRON TO\\.'7\ CO! 'NClL
STAFF REPORT
:\lOVEl'vtBER 3. 1999
3
Ground #1 The Design Review Board did not adequately consider the full impact of the
view blockage from the Hembrees' property,
Staff Re,\ponse: The members of the Design Review Board, along with Staff, visited the
Hembrees' property to view the story poles on at least two occasions, The first inspections
viewed the story poles erected to reflect the proposed plans presented at the August 5, 1999
Design Review Board meeting, The second inspections viewed the story poles for the revised
plans presented at the September 16, 1999 Board meeting,
The Boardmembers determined that there was a clear difference in potential view impact between
the originally submitted plans and the revised plans which were approved by the Board. The
original plans would have blocked the views of the East Bay and much of Angel Island from the
deck of the Hembrees' home. At the August 5, 1999 meeting, the Board indicated that these
potential view impacts were unacceptable, and directed the applicant to address these and other
concerns raised at the meeting,
The revised plans moved the second story portion of the proposed house 4,5 feet to the rear,
away from the Hembrees' residence The roofline was also modified to create a single peak.
further lessening the mass of the second story area when viewed from above. The Board noted
that these design changes were a significant improvement over the previously submitted plans, and
lessened the potential view impacts from the Hembrees' deck to a small portion of the East Bay,
which was already partially blocked by trees on other nearby properties,
The Design Review Board reviewed Goal 3, Principles 7 (A, B, C & E) of the Hillside Design
Guidelines (Exhibits II, 12 & 13) in evaluating the subject plans, The view impacts which would
have been caused by the originally submitted plans was similar to that deemed unacceptable by the
illustration of Principle 7 (B); accordingly, the Board directed the applicant to modify these plans,
The view impacts caused by the revised plans more closely resembled the illustration of acceptable
impacts for Principle 7 (C), and were therefore approved by the Board, The Board's evaluation
of the potential view impacts of the revised plans as a peripheral change to a panoramic view is
consistent with Principle 7 (E),
The Boardmembers examined the potential view impacts from the Hembrees' property on_ two
occasions, As indicated by the minutes of the August 5 and September 16. 1999 meetings
(Exhibits 9 & 10), the Board heard testimony from the Hembrees and their representative, and
eXplicitly discussed the potential view impacts of the proposed house on the Hembrees' residence.
The Board's direction that the applicant modify the originally submitted plans was, in part, a
reflection of the potential impacts of the new house on the Hembrees' views, Based on this
information, it is clear that the Board adequately considered the potential view impacts of the
proposed house from the Hembrees' property,
Ground #2 The story poles which were erected did not accurately represent the proposal
reviewed by the Design Review Board at the September 16, 1999 meeting.
rIBl'R{)]\i TO\V;-"; C<)l~CIL
STAFF REPORT
NOVE/l.lBER 3, 1999
4
3i
Staff Response: The applicant has submitted a story pole certification letter (Exhibit 32) from the
applicant's civil engineer which states that the erected story poles were in conformance with the
submitted plans, There is no visual evidence to indicate that these story poles do not accurately
represent the plans reviewed by the Design Review Board at the September 16, 1999 meeting.
The appellant's representative has submitted a letter (Exhibit 33) requesting the installation of one
additional story pole, tape or rope to be strung between several poles, and additional information
regarding the story poles for this project. As of the date of this report, the applicant has indicated
that they will attempt to comply with these requests prior to the Council hearing.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the Design Review Board followed the guidelines for Site Plan and
Architectural Review applications and the Hillside Design Guidelines, and appropriately applied
the guidelines in its review of this project. The potential view impacts which the proposed house
would cause for the appellants were evaluated and determined to be not significant. The story
poles appear to have been erected in conformance with the plans reviewed and approved by the
Design Review Board.
RECOMMENDA nON:
Deny the appeal and direct Staff to return with a Resolution memorializing the action
EXHIBITS:
t. Notice of Appeal dated September 27, 1999
2, Application form, dated June 17, 1999
3, Supplemental materials, dated June 17, 1999
4, Conditions of approval
5, Staff Report of the July 15, 1999, Design Review Board meeting
6, Staff Report of the August 5, 1999, Design Review Board meeting
7 Staff Report of the September 2, 1999, Design Review Board meeting
8, Staff Report of the September 16, 1999, Design Review Board meeting
9, Minutes of the August 5. 1999, Design Review Board meeting
10 Minutes of the September 16, 1999, Design Review Board meeting
It. Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
12, Goal 3, Principles 7 (B & C) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
13, Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
14, Letter from Rolf Eiselin, dated July 3, 1999
15. Letter from Robert Hamilton, dated July 6, 1999
16, Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated July 6, 1999
17, Letter from Robert Ellsberg, dated July 7, 1999
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAfF REPORT
NOVEMBER 3.1999
5
'"'.
IS, Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated July 2S, 1999
19, Letter from Colleen Mahoney, dated July 29, 1999
20, Letter from Bernard Schoenberg, dated August 2, 1999
21. Letter from Diane Lynch, dated August 3, 1999
22. Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated August 4, 1999
23, Letter from Lyford's Cove - Old Tiburon Homeowners Asso.;;iation, dated August 5,
1999
24. Letter from Robert and Cynthia Ellsberg, dated August 24, 1999
25, Letter from Robert Hamilton, dated August 25, 1999
26, Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated September 3, 1999
27, Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated September 9, 1999
2S, Photographs submitted by Les Hembree, dated September 10, 1999
29. Letter from Robert Hamilton, dated September 11. 1999
30, Memo from the applicant, dated September 16. 1999
3 \, Letter from Margaret May, dated September 20, 1999
32, Story pole certification letter from OJ Scranton Surveying, dated October 7, 1999
33, Letter from Michael Heckmann, dated October 20, 1999
34. Letter from Ann Green, dated October 27. 1999
35, Plans dated October 27, 1999
TIHCRO;\i TOWN cm ,'Nell.
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 3. 1999
6
EM;
...--
cc '%:'
RECEIVED
sCSEP: 2 7~rg99
TOWN MANAGERS OFFlC;
1iUIflJ~ltilll~F,ICE
TOWN Oi'fIilD'RON
TOWN OF TIEURON
NOTICE OF APPEAL
APPELLANT
Address:
l rs (/I! a..A /Y1 am ~ He 11'/ h-f
/7:! )0/4116
1(1 q~ 70. (Work)
S4il1f?
(Home)
Name:
Telephone:
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body Prslfl-i
11m!.; ~"t#1
q!tt/qq
. ,
Date of Action:
Name ofApplicam !v1i1'1.I!;lU<Ei Miff
Nature of Application 5m~j Rl-flltnLt. ill 160 ~tJ/r:in;,
GROCNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
viii! l'Mpl1(J t'l View b1iJcKl11e o~ 0.lf+/~.' rt>I/t"re al /7J.
(Olfll1D fIb!- t1j~tuItM, llJfJJId,,.d hi .bp.(lfl. RtvrilAj fMr),
> I p ~( I. h rJtLLlI'(i~1t f'e"le 11 -rh ~ ~!t -
1A.J- DtJi~" R~Yllw g(}~,J ,'-> SGI "6..ht;" It flt/qq,
Last Day to File:
1- J. "f--'11
cJ.,. (: rr (3l/ (,
Date Received:
. lll3Jii '
7-.;)7-97 (~
-f.o Iu ~.( ~
Fee ($300.00) Paid:
Date of Hearing:
EXHIBIT NO.
January 1996
T~Wc
,
TYPE OF APPLICATION JUN I 7 1999
0 Conditional Use Permit ~ Design Review (Major) 0 Tentative Subdivisiorf~G DEPARTMENT
i OF TiBURON
0 Precise Development Plan 0 Design Review (Minor) 0 Final Subdivision Map
0 Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variance 0 Parcel Map
0 Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 Lot Une Adjustment
0 Zoning Text Amendment 0 Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance
0 General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver 0 Other
SITE ADDRESS:
PARCEL NUMBER:
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
(~O !;Vf"",,-o AtK.
05''''1 - /4J- - /;;...
PROPERTY SIZE:
ZONING:
11139/, ;1.7 /;zJ
If-;;....
"" OWNER OF PROPERTY: ~"<V'f. t ;'1 ""'1
MAILING ADDRESS: I C.20 ~("'-' ,Av-i ,
CITY/STATE/ZIP: !t"'~h, C-1'1
PHONE NUMBER: '-I/,,'-{3<;-'1QC\,;;J.- FAX
k APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) ~cu-, Rc r-I<e. J- V...l'wes Dcwl!.
MAILING ADDRESS: ,:2330 Pcv\o.-ei\'~ .:t1" A
CITY/STATE/ZIP: /;bu,t'Or<. CA q'fq )..0
PHONE NUMBER: 'II, 7f<1. O,)5~ FAX '-li~ 1!?f-1;L3o
of: ARCHITECTmESIGNERfENGINEER: "bv.,.cI 1J",ISC(,.Lr
MAILING ADDRESS: /)~O T, bvcrCh e ivd. ,
CITY/STATE/ZIP: &Iveciue., CA q'f'J ~Q
PHONE NUMBER: 'Ii' 43,-SOl/i FAX 'II) 'I),-C3iJ--
Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRll'TION1 OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach-,separate sheet if needed):
",)A c. ';'2."=, "'" .cc.. f/..e.,c!C"1c(" i. c,-,,-z,
j Cl.rC1 "'i?
J
To
<;." 41/' +2-r-,
r, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described. hereby make application for
approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town
Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best <>f my knowledge and
belief.
I understand that tlle requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions. and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the
request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs. claims or
liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result
from the third party challenge. "
:"-,,,'RFi'r.'Aint-i:r
EXHIBIT NO. h
10,
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TlBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.13i3
FAX (415) 435-2438
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 1999
Design Review Board (415) 435-7397
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW
p~..:,r'IN:~'IG ~ ::::~r' i !\,1HT
Tn',:-,;,:']:JF "-',21,,:'1[:1
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PRo.TF.CT DATA LIST:
TO 8E COMPLETED 8Y APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY
ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED ACTUAL REQUIRED
ANDIOR ALTERATION TOTAL
Parcel Area 1\\,3912-1 11,39\21 I
sq.ft. C sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
No. of Dwelling Units \ I I
I ,
Parcel ArealDwelling I I
,~'~,\.-:l-7 ~ / a 6 I
'. NIA ':)',c, '
I Yards I is" ft. I I
Front .:.:-~ ft. 15' ft. I ft. ft.
Rear - --- ft. I ft. I
-,,- ~ - -- I
/c.c: ft. .L-~ ..L-:::> ft. ft.
Right Side I ~S ft. I G ft. I
Q ft. ft. ft.
u
Left Side ft. I
3(; -; ft. B 9- ft. ft. ft.
'--'
Height 22~-4 '.
2G '-\-. 2.G ~
Building Coverage \GIS, \ 3612\ I
Area Covered sq.ft. 2057 sq.ft sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
Percent of Parcel
\-'r \ % NIA 32,2 % % %
Floor Area \4/ \ 1(,,2"7 30"1*
Net Floor Area sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
Floor Area Ratio \ 70
(FAR) \:2\ j" N/A '2-t
Parking Spaces 4-
Number Provided \ .3
Dimensions of :3
Spaces "1x20 q x;2.o J "Ix 2.0 I "I x 2.0 4-"Ix2.o YI- !1\T ()
~. y, {{5F 3
,
PLEASE PROVIDE TIfE FOLLOWING INFORMA TTON:
1. Briefly state the reason for proposed project.
. \
le~ I (I QV1C.(' .
----
Ie
c.d~
c\
S ec.On d
2. Lot area in square feet:
1[''';, <I ! . t._-7
J
3.
Proposed use of site:
Existing "'.::, : ""1
'-.J
Proposed I ~,o
l2" .-C"",,,,lv
I \
d c.-I(- II,' "-"J 'S>
--.J
G e~ e II: -J 'i
....J
4. Individual and total square feet of living areas and accessory buildings,
Existing \ 411 '"00 .-C+,
.
Proposed 30 cr 4 SCf ' f-- T.
,
5, Percentage of total site to be covered by:
ON GRADE BUILDING:
Existing
Proposed
/ I '
\ '.::- I':), i
;:::'/-----Jj
I ~ .I L.
::::. C-i,
s'" .
e
--
, .
PARKING:
Existing
Proposed
-~ -
...-/.1""'-.:....
"-,
-r-
l'"""""(, L' .-
L Gee?
OTHER PAVED AREAS (ACCESS TO PARKING, TURNAROUNDS, ETC.):
Existing
Proposed
,-,
~--'Y .L-i-
~ '-'r . , .
J ~
/ ,f P
../ ~v
S'l' ++,
LANDSCAPING:
Existing
Proposed
'.; Cl /0
[4- (/ (",
DESIGN REviEW APPLICATION
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
EXHIBIT NO. 3,
t ' p. l-CF ~
~.
6. Building height and number of stories:
Existing 1-- "'7.(-0 r--.r
'7 ' '
Proposed ':::> -" r--r
, ,I
'/ ( /'
L ..::::> - C.J
1 I I
'7.2--'-4"
7.
Number of off-street parking spaces: j,
COVERED:
Existing
Proposed
.;
C
L
OPEN:
V
i
L
8. Surrounding land use:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vv r ! c:.,.c
,>, 1=":1'/.
,---" I
l/"..:? ~"c
,
Z; , 'r-: 0
9. Project scheduling and phasing:
/., -,'_ I'
L ,;:.> 11 5 ; ( ./ C 1 ",tl
-'-D
(:'I~:,Y1Cnce
2 ':..~ C C' ,
'::;U'>-lr-1""! pr
10. If residential: Total number of living units
Range of sale prices or rents
-
v
/
---, /'1' c-::
'~' '--/,-"
II, If commercial or industrial:
Net rentable floor area
Number of occupants
Estimated employment per shift
12. If applicable, describe provisions for:
Water service
Fire protection
Storm drainage
Sewage disposal
Other Utilities
13. Any other peninent information (attach additional sheets if necessary):
DESIGN REvIEw APPUCATION
3
TOWN OF TIBURON
EXHIBIT NO. ~
f. f. 3CF3;
",
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
160 SOLANO A VENUE
FILE #799098
(AS REVISED AT THE 9/16/99 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING)
l. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless a building permit has been issued,
2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of
Tiburon on June 17, 1999. or as amended by these conditions of approval Any
modifications to the plans of September 8, 1999. must be reviewed and approved by the
Design Review Board,
3, The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a
building permit for this project.
4, All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells,
5, All exterior lighting fixtures must be down light type fixtures to be reviewed and approved
by Planning Department Staff,
6, Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from a
licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to M,M,W,D,
landscape regulations, as required by Town Council Ordinance,
7, Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval, all landscaping and irrigation
shall be installed in accordance with approved plans, The installation of plantings and
irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection prior to the issuance
of occupancy permits Prior to planting of landscaping, Planning Department StafLshall
review and approve all trees proposed for the site to insure appropriateness with
surroundings and prevention of view blockage,
8, Prior to underfloor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be
required Required documents shall include graphic documentation locating the building
on a site plan and including specific dimensions from property lines and other reference
points as appropriate, and elevations relative to sea level of the foundation walls and slabs
No inspections will be provided until the survey results have been verified,
TIEURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
5
EXHIBIT NO..L
'P, (DF Z-
~
9 The project shall comply with the following requirements of the following requirements of
the Tiburon Fire Protection District:
a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler
system in accordance with NFPA standard 13-0 (UFC 1003).
b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all
sleeping areas (UBC 1210),
c, Approved spark arresters shall be installed on chimneys (UFC 110 I).
d, A greenbelt shall be provided by cutting and clearing all combustible
vegetation within 30 feet of the structure (UFC 1103),
10, The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met
a A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed,
b A copy of the building permit shall be submitted,
c, Appropriate fees shall be paid,
d, The structure's foundation shall be completed within 120 days of the sate
of application,
e The applicant shall comply with the District's rules and regulations in effect
at the time service is requested
f All landscape and irrigation plans shall be designed in accordance with
District Landscape Ordinance #385, Prior to issuing a new irrigation water
service, the applicant must receive District approval regarding the project's
working drawings for planting and irrigation systems,
I I The applicants shall obtain a sanitary connection permit from the Sanitary District #5 for
all plumbing fixtures to be installed at this address,
12, All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met.
13 The fireplace for the second story master bedroom shall be a gas fireplace,
TIEURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 16. 1999
6
EXHIBIT NO.-L
?. z-oP2.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGE:"IDA NO.: D S-
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
160 SOLANO DRIVE; FILE # 799098
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A
SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLTh'G AS A
CONDOMINIUM UNIT
JULY 15, 1999
APPLICANT - DA VID HOLSCHER (ARCHITECT)
PROPERTY OWNER - MARGARET MA Y
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE :"lUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONll~G:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DA TE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADLINE:
160 SOLANO DRIVE
, 59-142-12
799098
11,391 SQUARE FEET
R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C
JUNE 25, 1999
JUNE 25, 1999
SEPTEMBER 23,1999
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
as specified in Section 15303,
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
I
JULY 15, 1999
EXHIBIT NO. 5
p, (OF S-
<
,
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family
dwelling on property located at 160 Solano Drive. The house would be the second dwelling unit
on the property, and is proposed as part of a plan to condominiumize the property,
The proposed house would have two stories of livable area, and an overall height of 23 feet. The
lower 1100r would include a family room, kitchen, office. one bedroom and one full bathroom,
The upper 1100r would include a master bedroom suite and a study. A large deck would extend
olf the lower 1100r family room, and a smaller deck would extend off the upper 1100r master
bedroom at the southeast corner of the house, A two-car detached garage would be located to
closer to the front property line,
The proposed structures would increase the lot coverage of this parcel to approximately 3,672
square feet (322%) of the lot, which is less than the 35,0% maximum lot coverage permitted in
the R-2 zone, The total 1100r area would increase to 3,094 square feet, which is less than the
maximum floor area ratio 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 exterior walls of the house would utilize a dark green wood finish, with
black, white and medium green trim. Asphalt shingles are propqsed for the roof, although no
color samples have been presented for the roof materials
.-\:\'AL YSIS:
Zoning
Stalfhas reviewed the proposal and finds itto be in general conformance with the development
standards for the R-2 zone with regard to setbacks, lot coverage and height limits,
Design Issues
The subject property slopes to the south, A small single-family home is located at the southwest
corner of the site The proposed second dwelling would be located toward the rear of the parcel,
on the uphill portion of the site, The garage would be located in the front portion of the property,
uphill from the existing home,
Two parcels are located uphill from the subject property, A duplex (170 & 172 Solano Drive) is
located adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. A vacant lot extends uphill from the
northeast corner of the subject property to Centro East Street. Two separate condominium units
are located to the east of the site (2250 Centro East Street uphill, and 2245 Paradise Drive
downhill, respectively), Another single-family residence (2205 Paradise Drive) is located downhill
to the south of the subject property,
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JULY t5, 1999
2
EXHIBIT NO. 5'
? 'Z oF 5"'
The applicant has communicated with the various property owners on and around this parcel to
attempt to design the house in a manner which would result in the fewest impacts on the residents
involved, The following concerns were raised in the process of designing the second dwelling
unit:
The owner of the subject property wishes to maintain the privacy of the existing
house on the site by keeping a landscaping buffer and appropriate separation
between the existing and proposed homes,
The owners of 172 Solano Drive wish to protect views toward Raccoon Straits,
Angel Island and the East Bay from their deck and living room.
The owners of the vacant parcel above the site wish to keep the maximum
elevation of the proposed house low so that future construction on their own
property would not have to be constructed at higher elevations. possibly creating
view impacts for homes above on Centro East Street.
The owners at 2250 Centro East Street wish the required rear yard setback for the
subject property to be maintained to keep an adequate separation between their
home and the proposed house,
The owner at 2205 Paradise Drive wishes to have landscaping on the subject
property maintained to insure privacy li'om the proposed house,
The location of the proposed house would appear to be appropriate to maintain appropriate levels
of privacy with the surrounding homes to the south and east. including the existing house on the
site, However, the second story portion of this house, as illustrated by the story poles on the site,
would appear to result in significant view impacts for the uphill home at 172 Solano Drive, The
views of the East Bay and much of Angel Island from this homes would be blocked by the
proposed second story area, The Board is encouraged to view the story poles from this adjacent
home
The second story area of the proposed house would seem to attempt to capture views for the
proposed home at the expense of the existing uphill house, The proposed construction appears to
be in conflict with the following sections of the Hillside D~sign guidelines for the home at 172
Solano Drive:
I, Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) states that "view protection is more important for major
'ceremonial' rooms (living, dining, kitchen, deck) than for secondary rooms
(bedroom, bathrooms, family room, etc)," The views from the deck and living
room appear to be impacted by the proposed second story area,
2, Goal 3, Principle 7 (B) states that the "horizon line is [the] most sensitive part of
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JULY 15, 1999
3
~
EXHIBIT NO,
p,'3 of- S-
[the] view, then foreground, then middleground, Ifpossible, avoid cutting horizon
line of a neighbor's view" The proposed second story area would interfere with
the view of the horizon line from the uphill home, and is very similar to that
illustrated for this principle in the guidelines,
3 Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view
blockage than the smaller slot view," The uphill home currently has a slot view
framed by other structures and vegetation on either side, The proposed second
story area would remove approximately half of the existing slot view from this
neighboring residence.
Further complicating the second story issues are the concerns raised by Rolf Eiselin, the owner of
the vacant uphill lot. Mr. Eiselin has requested that the height of the proposed house be lowered
by at least 4 feet to prevent the proposed house from creating view impacts on the home( s)
proposed to be developed in the future on the vacant lot. Without such an adjustment, the future
homes may need to be raised to higher elevations to capture views from this uphill site. which
could have a domino effect of creating view impacts for homes uphill from the vacant lot on
Centro East Street, Although it is difficult to speculate on the precise nature of future
development on this adjacent parcel, it appears that the second story area of the proposed house
could result in view impacts for future neighboring residences uphill from the subject site
It would appear to be possible to redesign the proposed second dwelling unit to a one-story
conliguration which addresses many of the concerns raised by the property owners involved with
this project A one-story design would eliminate many of the potential view concerns of the uphill
neighbors, Additional 1100r area could be created on the ground level of the house without
extending into the rear yard setback, although this could necessitate a request for a variance for
excess lot coverage, Elforts could be made to provide screening, using a combination of fencing
and vegetation, that would open up acceptable views from the proposed house while still
providing adequate privacy screening for the other home on the site and the downhill neighboring
residences Staff recommends that such an alternative design be explored by the applicant prior to
a decision being made by the Design Review Board on this application.
Condominium Findings
An application has been made to approve the subdivision of this property into two condominium
units Section 4.0602 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that such applications involving
new construction "shall first be referred to the [Design Review] Board for its analysis and
recommendations pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Section 402,00, Site Plan and
Architectural Review." Section 2.05,01 (2) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that two
dwelling units may be allowed in separate buildings "if approved by the Board because of factors
such as terrain, lot size, lot configuration, or other physical considerations in order to reduce
visual, environmental, or other impacts,"
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Jt:LY 15, 1999
4
EXHffiITNO. 5
?, L{ Of5
<
,
A second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the existing house would be situated lower on the
site and would reduce potential view concerns for existing and future uphill residences However,
such a location would create significant privacy impacts on the existing residence on the site, and
for the lower neighboring homes at 2205 & 2245 Paradise Drive, The configuration of this lot
surrounded by existing homes. as well as the sloping topography of the site, would tend to make a
two-building design more appropriate for this property,
Public Comment
To date, Staff has received written comments from Rolf Eiselin (owner of the uphill vacant lot),
Robert Hamilton (2205 Paradise Drive). and Maxine and Les Hembree (172 Solano Drive) Staff
has also spoken with Robert Ellsberg (2250 Centro East Street). Copies of the letters are
attached, and the commems have been summarized elsewhere in this report,
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4,02,06
(Guiding Principles) and 4,02,08 (Site Developmem Criteria), as well as the Hillside Design
Guidelines, Staff recommends that the Board carefully review the design of the proposed project
and determine if additional modifications are required to comply with these regulations, If the
Board wishes to appro.ve the project. Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval
be applied
A TTACHME","TS:
Conditions of approval
') Application and supplemental materials dated May 12, 1999
3 Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
4 Goal 3, Principle 7 (B) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
5 Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
6 Letter from RolfEiselin, dated July 3, 1999
7 Letter trom Robert Hamilton, dated July 6, 1999
8 Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated July 6, 1999
9 Plans dated May 28, 1999
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
JULY 15, 1999
5
EXInBIT NO. S
r, <; 6~S-
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA NO.:
Eb
FROM:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
SUBJECT:
160 SOLANO A VENUE; FILE # 799098
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A
SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AS A
CONDOMINIUM UNIT
(CONTINUED FROM JULY 15, 1999)
MEETING DATE:
AUGUST 5.1999
APPLICANT - DA VID HOLSCHER (ARCHITECT)
PROPERTY OWNER - MARGARET MAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family
dwelling on property located at 160 Solano Avenue, The house would be the second dwelling
unit on the property, and is proposed as part of a plan to condominiumize the property
Plans were originally submitted for review at the July 15. 1999 Design Review Board meeting,
The Staff report prepared for that meeting identified a number of potential concerns which had
been raised by several surrounding property owners regarding the proposed project. The
applicant requested a continuance to revise the project to respond to these concerns, The project
was then continued to the August 5. 1999 Board meeting,
ANAL YSIS:
Design Issues
The applicant has submitted revised plans for the project. The second story portion of the
proposed house has been reconfigured and shifted to the east by 8 feet, 6 inches, The roof pitch
TIBUROl\ DESIGl\ REVIEW BOARD
STAfF REPORT
AUGUST 5. 1999
EXHIBIT NO.JQ...
'f. L Dr '3
ii,
has also been lowered, reducing the height of the proposed house by one foot.
The revised second story configuration addresses the potential view impacts from the neighboring
residence at 172 Solano Avenue. As noted in the previous Staff report, the original design of the
proposed house would have removed approximately half of the existing slot view from this
neighboring residence, The revised plans would greatly reduce this view impact, and would
interfere with only the side portion of the view from the deck of this neighboring home, The
revised design would seem to match the acceptable view obstruction illustrated under Goal 3,
Principle 7 (C) of the Tiburon Hillside Guidelines, which states that "blockage of center of view
[is] more damaging than blockage of side of view," The neighboring property owners (Les and
Maxine Hembree) will be out of town for this public hearing, but the Board members should
attempt to view the revised story poles from this residence,
The revised plans reduce the height of the proposed house to address the concerns of the uphill
property owner, although this neighboring property owner had previously requested a 4 foot
height reduction, No other changes were made to the setbacks of the proposed house, The
adjacent property owner at 2250 Centro East Street has reviewed the revised plans and has
verbally indicated a qualified support for the revised plans to Staff,
The revised plans seem to address many of the concerns raised in the previous Staff report for this
project. The Board should visit the site and surrounding properties to evaluate the revised story
poles, and should carefully review the potential view and privacy impacts of the proposed house
on neighboring residences.
Condominium Findings
As previously mentioned, an application has been made to approve the subdivision of this
property into two condominium units, Section 4,06,02 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states
that such applications involving new construction "shall first be referred to the [Design Review]
Board for its analysis and recommendations pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Section
40200, Site Plan and Architectural Review," Section 2,05,01 (2) of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance states that two dwelling units may be allowed in separate buildings "if approved by the
Board because of factors such as terrain, lot size, lot configuration, or other physical
considerations in order to reduce visual, environmental, or other impacts,"
A second dwelling unit attached to the rear of the existing house would be situated lower on the
site and would reduce potential view concerns for existing and future uphill residences, However,
such a location would create significant privacy impacts on the existing residence on the site, and
for the lower neighboring homes at 2205 & 2245 Paradise Drive, The configuration of this lot
surrounded by existing homes, as well as the sloping topography of the site, would tend to make a
two-building design more appropriate for this property,
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAfF REPORT
AUGUST 5.1999
2
EXInBIT NO.~
e, '2 ~3
....
Public Comment
As of the date of the writing of this report, Staff has not received any written comments regarding
this project since the July 14, 1999 meeting.
RECOMMENDA nON:
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4,02.06
(Guiding Principles) and 4.02.08 (Site Development Criteria), as well as the Hillside Design
Guidelines, Staff recommends that the Board carefully review the design of the proposed project
and determine if additional modifications are required to comply with these regulations, If the
Board wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval
be applied,
.-\ TTACHMENTS:
Conditions of approval
1 Goal 3, Principle 7 (C) of the Hillside Design Guidelines
3 Revised Plans dated July 27. 1999
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 5. 1999
,
J
EXHIBIT NO. &>
?- 3 c:F3
"
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA NO.: J) 5'"
FROM:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
SUBJECT:
160 SOLANO A VENUE; FILE # 799098
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A
SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AS A
CONDOMINIUM UNIT
(CONTINUED FROM JULY 15. 1999)
MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 2,1999
APPLICANT - DA VID HOLSCHER (ARCHITECT)
PROPERTY OWNER - MARGARET MAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family
dwelling on property located at 160 Solano Avenue, The house would be the second dwelling
unit on the property, and is proposed as part of a plan to condominiumize the property,
This request was first heard at the August 5, 1999 Design Review Board meeting. At that
meeting, several neighbors raised concerns regarding the potential view and privacy impacts of the
proposed house The Board then continued the application to the September 2, 1999 meeting to
allow the applicant time to further examine a one-story alternative for the house, discuss
alternatives to the chimney height and location, provide a landscaping plan and an exterior lighting
plan, and address other comments with respect to issues of the neighbors.
Since the previous meeting, the applicants have hired a new architect to prepare conceptual plans
for a one-story house, and have met with the neighboring residents regarding this revised design
As of the date of this report, the applicant is still revising the conceptual house plans and has not
yet erected the revised story poles for the project. The applicant is therefore requesting a
continuance to the September 16, 1999 Board meeting,
TIBLRON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2. 1999
EXHIBIT NO. '7
p. l of 2--
RECOMMENDATION:
....
It is recommended that the public hearing for this application be continued to the September 16,
1999 Design Review Board meeting,
TIBl:RON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
2
SEPTEMBER 2.1999
EXHIBIT NO. I
Y. 'Z- C5F 2-
z
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA NO.: D \
FROM:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
SUBJECT:
160 SOLANO A VENUE; FILE # 799098
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A
SECOND SL'lGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AS A
CONDOMINIUM UNIT
(CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 2, 1999)
MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
APPLICANT - HANK BRUCE (ARCHITECT)
PROPERTY OWNER - MARGARET MAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single-family
dwelling on property located at 160 Solano Avenue, The house would be the second dwelling
unit on the property, and is proposed as part of a plan to condominiumize the property
This request was first heard at the August 5. 1999 Design Review Board meeting, At that
meeting, several neighbors raised concerns regarding the potential view and privacy impacts of the
proposed house The Board then continued the application to the September 2, 1999 meeting to
allow the applicant time to further examine a one-story alternative for the house, discuss
alternatives to the chimney height and location, provide a landscaping plan and an exterior lighting
plan, and address other comments with respect to issues of the neighbors, The applicant then
requested a continuance to September \5. 1999 to allow additional time for the new architect to
prepare conceptual plans for a one-story house and meet with the neighboring residents regarding
this revised design.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 16. 1999
1
EXHIBIT NO. <6
f. (tEL(
"',
ANAL YSIS:
The applicants have hired another architect who has now submitted revised two-story plans for
the proposed house, along with a conceptual one-story plan and another conceptual two-story
plan Compared to the previously submitted plans. the submitted revised plans indicate that the
second story has been shifted 4.5 feet to the rear. The roof has been revised to create a single
peak. The previously proposed chimney for this second story has been relocated from the
northwest corner to the northeast corner of the structure, A new skylight is now proposed on the
west side of the second story roof, along with "solatube" skylight on the east side of this roof
Other changes which have been made to the previous design include an extension of the lower
floor to the front by 8 feet along the northern side of the lot The first floor wooden deck
proposed for the southern side of the house has also been slightly revised. The resulting floor
area for this revised plan would be 1.660 square feet. which is slightly larger than the 1.497
square feet proposed under the previous plans, but still less than the maximum floor area
permitted for a lot of this size,
The story poles which have been erected for these revised plans indicate an improvement to the
view impacts which would be experienced from the deck and living room of the adjacent home at
I T2 Solano Avenue. owned by Les and Maxine Hembree, However. the proposed second story
area and relocated chimney would continue to block a portion of the East Bay views from these
ceremonial rooms,
The conceptual one-story plan indicated compliance with the necessary zoning setbacks and lot
coverage for the property. but would bring other living areas closer to several of the neighboring
residences than the two.story contiguration. These plans were reviewed with the neighboring
propertv owners at 2:!50 Centro East Street (Robert and Cynthia Ellsberg) and 2205 Paradise
Drive (Robert Hamilton), who have both indicated that this plan is unacceptable due to increased
privacy concerns The subject property owner has also indicated that this design would reduce
the necessary privacy separation between the existing and proposed homes on the site, The one.
story design would clearly reduce the potential view impacts on the neighboring home at 172
Solano Avenue
[n addition to these plans, the applicant's architect has prepared another conceptual two-story
design, This design would move the second story portion of the proposed house 2.5 feet further
to the rear, but would encroach into the rear yard setback by 2,5 feet at two points. The portions
of the proposed structure which would extend into the rear yard would include a first floor
mechanical room, and portions of the closet and bathroom for the upstairs master bedroom suite,
The Ellsbergs. owners of the adjacent property 2250 Centro East Street, have previously objected
to any encroachment into the rear yard setback facing their home. However, the portions of the
conceptual design which would extend slightly into this setback would not have any large
windows, and therefore should not create any significant privacy impacts on this neighboring
TlBURON DESIGN RE\1EW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 16. 1999 2
EXHIRIT NO.1i-
f, 7- DPe{
li
residence, This plan would also pull the second story area further out of the view lines for the
Hembree home,
The revised plans also include a new series of exterior lighting fixtures One of the proposed
wall-mounted fixtures does not appear to be a downlight, and should be evaluated for
appropriateness by the Board,
The Design Review Board is encouraged to review the different submitted plans and attempt to
determine the which plans, or portions of plans, if any, are preferable for this project. If the
conceptual two-story design is preferred, a variance would be necessary due to the encroachment
into the required rear yard setback Such a request could not be approved at this meeting, as no
public notice has been given for a variance request as part of this application, If the Board feels
that findings could be made to support such a request, the application should be continued and a
variance application could be publicly noticed for the October 7, 1999 Board meeting.
Condominium Findings
An application has been made to approve the subdivision of this property into two condominium
units. Section 4 06 02 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that such applications involving
new construction "shall first be referred to the [Design Review] Board for its analysis and
recommendations pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Section 4.02,00, Site Plan and
Architectural Review" Section 20501 (2) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that two
dwelling units may be allowed in separate buildings "if approved by the Board because of factors
such as terrain, lot size, lot contiguration, or other physical considerations in order to reduce
visual. environmental, or other impacts." As stated in the previous Staff report, the configuration
of this lot surrounded by existing homes, as well as the sloping topography of the site, would tend
to make a two-building design more appropriate for this property
Public Comment
Since the August 5. 1999 Board meeting, Staff has received written comments from Robert and
Cynthia Ellsberg (2250 Centro East Street), Robert Hamilton (2205 Paradise Drive), and Maxine
and Les Hembree (172 Solano Avenue), Copies of the letters are attached, and the comments
have been summarized elsewhere in this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4,02.06
(Guiding Principles) and 4,02,08 (Site Development Criteria), as well as the Hi\1side Design
Guidelines If the Board wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached
conditions of approval be applied.
TIBL'RON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 16. 1999 3
EXHIBIT NO. '6
P. '3 opL.f
....
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Conditions of approval
2, Minutes of the August 5, 1999 Design Review Board meeting
3, Letter from Robert and Cynthia Ellsberg, dated August 24, 1999
4, Letter from Robert Hamilton, dated August 25, 1999
5, Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated September 3, 1999
6 Letter from Maxine and Les Hembree, dated September 9, 1999
7 Revised and conceptual plans dated September 9, 1999
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAfF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 16. 1999
4
EXHIBIT NO. tr
, e. c..t Or-<-(
....
-.
6. . 160 Solano Avenue May; New Second Dwelling Unit
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new single
family dwelling and detached garage on property located at 160 Solano Avenue. The
house would be the second dwelling unit on the property, and is proposed as part of a
plan to condominiumize the property,
David Holscher. architect representing the applicant, stated that they took the plan to the
neighbors, They are proposing a 1,482 square foot house with open beam ceilings and an
open deck, The second story has the master bedroom, The windows have been kept high
for privacy, They have changed the roof on the proposed garage and reduced its height
bv 6 inches, They used cedar siding with a seaside motif The pine trees are scheduled to
be removed and replaced with an undetermined species. They are in the process of
putting together a landscaping plan, The neighbors' concerns were about view blockage
and going into the rear setback. The main issue is the view of Angel Island and the East
Bay hills from the deck at 172 Solano Avenue, Based on the neighbors' concerns, they
then reduced the height of the proposed house by 9 feet and moved the second story 8
feet.
In response to Chair Beales, Mr. Holscher explained that the chimney in the great room
has been reduced by 8 inches,
Chair Beales asked the architect to comment on Staffs recommendation that it is possible
to build a single story unit. r,,!r. Holscher responded that they looked at that possibility
but his clients want the two-story separation of the living and sleeping areas,
[n response to Boardmember Snow, Mr. Holscher said that all lighting would be low
voltage downlights
Maxine Hembree, 172 Solano Avenue, stated that the proposed building takes away a
portion of their views from their deck. and every room of their house would be impacted
bv the project. Their view of the East Bay would be totally blocked and the fireplace
would also block a portion of their view of Ayala Cove, She presented a series of
photographs that indicate the potential view blockage. She would like a plan that is
acceptable to everyon~,.
Colleen Mahoney, architect representing the Hembrees of 172 Solano Avenue. asked if a
one-story scheme has been investigated, She provided a site plan that she prepared that
showed a one-story building that would not impact the neighbors, She also provided a
section drawing with a flat roof plan, Although this is a preferred approach, she noted
that there are times that flat roofs can be used to reduce potential view problems, If the
house were lowered to an elevation of 106 or I Q7 feet, the applicants would still have
outstanding views but would not block the views of their neighbors, She stated that she
reviewed other condominiums in the vicinity and that all 27 nearby units are connected or
attached, and only one two-dwelling structure is two stories. There is no place to provide
any landscaping because of the narrowness of the side and rear yards. The two
significant pine trees are scheduled to be removed. When the trees are r~mrfi~O. q
p. {ee{
TIBURON DRB
MINUTES OF 8/5/99
APPROVED
9
~.
.
of the house will become a bigger issue. The chimney will impact her client's view of
Ayala Cove, Her client is concerned with the height of the house and perhaps that can be
resolved by a lowered floor level, lowered pitch on the roof, or flat roof
August Strotz, 2070 Centro East Street, representing the property owner of the vacant lot
located above the project. said that the architect has tried very hard to design the project
based on the clients wishes but he concurs with Ms, Mahoney's comments about the
project He believes efforts have been made to lessen the impact to the uphill neighbor,
and he would like continued etforts to be made on the project.
Mr. Watrous explained that there is a concurrent application before the Planning
Commission for a request for the condominium. The first step is to go before the Design
Review Board for design approval. The condominium line is not part of the Design
Review Board discussion and may be modified by the applicant and/or the Planning
Commission.
Delores Davis, applicant, stated that according to the Tiburon Guidelines, the East Bay is
not listed as an "important object" whose view is to be protected. They have tried to be
sensitive to everyone and have moved the house over to protect some of the Hembrees'
views. and the Hembrees now have the entire view of Angel Island, At the request of
another neighbor they lowered the house and are removing the pine trees so the neighbor
will have a better view, They would excavate the house location and have lowered the
roof pirch, They do not like a flat roof for aestheric reasons, and a flat roof also requires
excessive maintenance, At the request of the Elsbergs, they have applied for no variances
and have removed a deck from their master bedroom, They did explore a one-story plan
but it would create additional issues with the neighbors and they preferred the bedroom
on the second story She was trying to strike a balance with the neighbors' concerns
Robert Elsberg, 2250 Centro East Street, stated that he had been approached by the
architect He told the architect that his number one concern was maintaining a 25 foot
setback. which the architect has agreed to do, He was concerned about the stairs in the
rear and that although they have been pushed back, they still go somewhat to the side,
He would prefer the French doors on the side bedroom to be replaced with a window or
the stairs turned in the opposite direction He would also like the stairs made of concrete
rather than wood bec;;use of the noise factor. He would like to see the landscape plan
because he has nice water views and is concerned about the height and density of th-;
landscaping, It appears that the project is being angled toward his property and the
applicant's deck could look into his bedroom, and he would therefore like it angled a
little more to the right
In response to Boardmember Smith, Mr. Elsberg stated that he is opposed to a single
SlOry project because it would be more of an impact on him and the way the windows are
designed they do not look down into his property
:'vIs, Mahoney commented that she is also concerned about the landscape plan. Her client
has had to prune trees that are on the applicant's property
TlEURON DRB
MINUTES OF 8/5/99
EXHIBIT NO. 9
p_ 20?-Y
APPROVED
10
Chair Beales commented that the photographs that were presented were enlightening and
also misleading. He agrees the Hembrees' view from the porch would be impacted. but
sitting on the sofa in their living room. the peripheral view would not be significantly
impacted, There are other issues about the second story and the mass. and a one-story
solution has not been thoroughly investigated. Perhaps a one story house could be built
within the setbacks and still maintain a view, There also may be lot coverage issues but
in some cases a lot coverage vanance has been granted to protect the neighbors. He
EXHIBIT NO. CJ
f 3cr- y
Bob Hamilton, 2205 Paradise Drive, stated that no one talked to him about the project.
He has no view impacts but he is concerned about the drainage problems,
Jim London, 2205 Paradise Drive, said he is also concerned about the drainage issues and
concurs that the stairway off the back deck should be concrete rather than wood for sound
protection, He referred to a past project by the Atwoods, noting that there were several
issues that were addressed by that project because of concerns by the neighbors, and a
wood burning tireplace was not allowed because of environmental reasons, This proposal
includes two tireplaces and he would like them to be gas and not wood burning. He
would also like some privacy landscaping added to buffer his patio when he is outside
Margaret May, owner and applicant. stated that in 1993, the proposed design for the
Atwood house was two stories and it completely blocked her view of Angel Island and
that was why she opposed the project. She stated that 8 of the 9 houses in the
surrounding neighborhood are two story houses, and it seems reasonable to build a two-
story house as long as it meets the Tiburon Design Guidelines, which this project does,
The Hembrees' view of the East Bay would be blocked and only a small portion of Angel
Island would be blocked, The Hembrees only received their view of Angel Island a year
ago when a grove of poplar trees was removed
Boardmember Smith stated that he does not like this application as it currently stands,
The project looms too close to the Hembree property The chimney is looming as well
and smoke trom the chimney would end up on the Hembree deck He thought there
might be a possibility of a one story solution. He has heard about opposition to a one
story plan trom Mr. Elsberg, but was not convinced that the architect has reviewed all the
options The proposed project will be very intrusive with regard to views as well as
privacv The lot directly above the structure will clearly be impacted in its primary view
corridor even though the lot has not yet been developed, He also wanted the French
doors changed and the house angled more to the right.
Boardmember Snow stated that it was nice to see there have been adjustments but he is
concerned about the project, There is no landscaping plan or lighting plan. He takes
issue when a master bedroom is taking away from the view from someone's living room,
even though it may be a slot view, He wanted the chimney lowered and would like to
hear more about a ga~ fireplace as opposed to a wood burning fireplace. He would als,?
like more information on the possibility of a roof with a lesser slope, He stated that witn
the detached building, the second unit should be the best it can be and should be sensitive
to the neighbors, There is too much bulk and mass, He would also like the architect to
address the issue of the steps
TIBURON DRB
MINUTES OF 8/5/99
APPROVED
;0
11
'i>
:
wanted a thorough analysis of a one-story plan to demonstrate if it is possible. He also
wanted a landscape plan, There will be a greater impact of the mass of the building with
the pine trees being removed.
lVl/s Smith/Snow, and unanimously passed (3-0), to continue the application to the
September 2, 1999 meeting to allow the applicant time to provide a landscaping plan, an
exterior lighting plan, take a good look at a one story alternative, discuss alternatives to
the chimney height and location, and address other comments with respect to issues of
the neighbors.
EXHIBIT NO....:L..
~, L{ OF i
TlBURON ORB
MINUTES OF 8/5/99
APPROVED
12
..
TOWN OF TffiURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Chair Beales. Boardmembers Snow and Smith
ABSENT:
Boardmember Howard
EX-OFFICIO:
Senior Planner Watrous and Associate Planner Theriault
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one spoke during this time,
c. . DiSCUSSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
Senior Planner Watrous noted that the appeal for 430 Ridge Road has been
continued to the October 6th Town Council meeting. while the appellant and the
applicant are still attempting to negotiate a solution,
D. UNFINISHED BUSJj~ESS
1. 160 Solano Avenue May, Second Single-Family Dwelling
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new
single-family dwelling on property located at 160 Solano Avenue, The house
would be the second dwelling unit on the property, and is proposed as part of a
plan to condominiums the property
This request was first heard at the August 5, 1999 Design Review Board meeting.
At that meeting. several neighbors raised concerns regarding the potential view
and privacy impacts of the proposed house, The Board then continued the
application to the September 2, 1999 meeting to allow the applicant time to
further examine a one-story alternative for the house, discuss alternatives to the
chimney height and location, provide a landscaping plan and an exterior lighting
plan, and address other comments with respect to issues of the neighbors, The
applicant then requested a continuance to September 16, 1999 to allow additional
time for the new architect to prepare conceptual plans for a one-story house and
meet with the neighboring residents regarding this revised design.
Hank Bruce, architect representing the applicant, presented a revised landscaping
plan and a color board. He eXplained that the design is the result of much time
and etIort working with the applicant and the neighbors. Most of the concerns
have been addressed. He stated that this is a reasonable and acceptable proposal.
TIBURON DRB
9/16/99
APPROVED
EXHIBIT NO. lo
p, {DFCp
....-.~
;0.,
!VIr, Bruce explained the changes made to the plans since the last meeting, The
garage has been pulled back from the road. The entrance has not changed, but the
walk has been extended to enter centrally to the house which provides a better
internal circulation. They have also changed the location of the retaining wall to
allow for additional planting, This entry now would be tucked back into the hill
and completely shielded, They are mitigating the intrusion of the east side of the
second story by moving this area over 4\12 feet. Additionally, they have changed
the roof to a single point roof. This means a considerable lessening of mass and
bulk. The bedroom on the first floor has been moved slightly, There was some
concern on the part of the neighbors that still remain, One fireplace will become a
gas fireplace, which would eliminate one chimney Mr. Ellsberg was concerned
about two windows that face his house, and they are willing to use obscure glass
or change the proportions of the windows. This proposal responds to the site
conditions and the neighboring residences in a very satisfactory fashion,
At the last meeting, the Board requested that a one-story scheme be explored,
They have done that as well as produce an alternative two-story plan as a variant
on the basic scheme The revised two-story plan would move portions of the
house into the rear yard setback by 2 feet 8 inches, The result of this design
would be that the Hembrees would have even less obstruction of the view of the
east bay, but this is not the applicants' preferred design,
In response to Boardmember Smith, Mr Bruce stated that the skylight is a very
minor element that will provide light to a very dark bathroom. The proposed
lights are the ones the applicants like the best. but they would be willing to switch
to downlights,
In response to Boardmember Snow. Mr, Bruce said that they are proposing one
gas fireplace and one woodburning tireplace, The surveyor verified the story
poles and noted that one pole is actuall y one foot three inches higher than the
chimney height actually will be, Also. the proposed trees have been selected not
to block the views, only to create a green waiL The pathway was moved slightly
away, but they did move the retaining wall further Moving the wall allowed for
the planting screen,
Delores Davis, applicant, said the scheme they are in favor of is the two-story
design presented tonight. After much exploration they have decided that a one-
story scheme would not work on this property, The proposed two-story house
looks small next to the other properties, She felt it would feel like living in a fish
bowl around everyone else if they had a one-story house. Based on her
understanding, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ellsberg also did not prefer the one-story
plan because of privacy issues and the house spreading out on the site, She would
have a hard time capturing a view from her living room and dining room even
with the two-story approach because of the shrubbery on the adjacent property,
The current proposal places the house exactly between the Ellsberg and Hembree
homes,
EXHIBIT NO. [(Y
f. 2- uF ("
TlBURON DRB
9/16/99
APPROVED
2
~,
Les Hembree. 172 Solano Avenue, said that he disagrees that the path has not
moved and commented that he did not have much more to add from the letter he
submitted on September 9th to the Board. He noted that all three plans seem the
same with regard to the lower level. He agreed that the upper floor has been
moved but they have extended the second story 5 feet to the south and he loses
some of his bay view because of the extension of the bedrooms, He presented
photographs taken from his deck that represent the effect of the changes and the
impact on him, He was still concerned about the height of the story pole that
represents the chimney, He said that they should investigate redrawing the
condominium line, which could alleviate some of the problem, He has a real
problem with the two-story plan, He would like to see a reconfiguration of the
second story and would also like the height dropped by three feet.
Speaking on behalf of Mr. Hamilton, 2205 Paradise Drive, Mr. Hembree stated
that Mr. Hamilton has no objection to the two-story plan as long as the building is
at least 10 feet from his propeny line, He was concerned about a wraparound
deck but it appears that all the plans have the same deck, with a slight variation,
He was also concerned that the as house moves down the lot he would be looking
at 8 feet more of house, but Mr. Hembree said he did not feel Mr. Hamilton would
be losing his view of Angel Island, Raccoon Straits and San Francisco Bay
Roben Ellsberg, 2250 Centro East Street and 2245 Paradise Drive, said that a few
vears ago a house was built to the east of his property and it eliminated the sun to
two of his bedrooms On his Paradise Drive home. the neighbor was allowed to
build a driveway The only privacy they have is on the west side The master
bedroom is located on that side and near the construction site, It is very important
to him to have a 25 fOOl setback on the west side property line, At the last
meeting he was opposed to the wood stairs and the Board suggested concrete
stairs, Now the stairs on the south side of the property have been brought closer
to his propeny and ingress and egress is closer to his home. The previously
designed upstairs windows were so high that you could not look out of them
facing the east side The windows currently proposed are lower and they can look
right into his living room and entertainment area, The plan being proposed
tonight is positive but it has been pushed more into his direction. He would like
to see the deck pushed back to the 25 foot propeny line and see the stairs returned
back to their original location, There are story poles on the site and he assumed
that the story pole furthest east would be the end of the house but he was informed
by the architect that it should not be there He would like story poles placed at the
accurate height and at the corners at his side of the property so he has a fair
indication of how close the structure is and how high it will be.
TIBURON DRB
91l6N~
:VIr Ellsberg noted that the owner said she would be willing to work with him on
the landscaping to mitigate some of his concerns He liked plan number I, which
is the two-story plan because it moves the house away from him. tucks the bulk
away from the view corridor. allows for more open space, and presents a better
look from his house. The one-story plan comes down the hill farther and closer to
his house and rear master bedroom, The rear deck is raised about 5 feet in height
EXHIBIT NO.
APt. -n 3 p
.-"l'ivtll:u .
[0
? or0
~
and he does not want that brought closer to the master bedroom, The one-story
plan would expose more roof The current two-story plan is acceptable although
it has gone backwards a little bit, but the applicant is willing to work with him,
Deborah Wear, 2223 Centro East Street, stated that if the house is tucked further
into the hill it would affect her. The first house plan was not quite so massive,
The story poles seem to indicate that the bulk of the house would be in the middle
of the lot. She is in favor of a lower roofline, perhaps a one-story house She
would like to see a compromise for all the neighbors,
Gus Strotz, 2070 Centro East Street, representing the property owner directly
above the site, stated that the current plan is moving in the right direction. A one-
story scheme would be beneticial to all concerned, Either the one-story plan or
two-story plan would be acceptable to him,
Colleen y[ahoney, architect representing the Hembrees, stated that the current
plan does not include a section drawing that demonstrates the rear retaining wall,
the fence, or plate heights, They have not seen a color or materials board and they
cannot support the application without such They have not had an opportunity to
review the current landscape plan She felt a one-story plan would be the most
beneficial to all in the neighborhood, and she felt that this option was not
thoroughly studied It is critical that a gas tlreplace be used to reduce the
prominence trom the Hembrees' deck The height still has not changed even
though the hips have been placed on the roof The upper 1100r still obstructs the
view of the corner of Angel Island, the east bay and the shipping lanes The
Hembrees are asking for their views to be carefully considered She would like a
little more study given to the design. including how the master bathroom is laid
out and possible modifications to the circulation space, They object to the
location of the walkway because of noise and privacy, An alternative would be to
create a more central entry to pull the walkway further from the property line,
Mr. Bruce responded to the comments, stating that the height of the roof has not
changed but the bulk has changed, The photographs submitted by Mr. Hembree
are misleading and hard to judge They are talking about views from a deck that
is in the rear yard setback The panoramic view would still be there, with the
exception of the east bay portion. With regard to Mr. Ellsberg' s comments, the
house does seem to be moving in his direction but it is only a small portion of the
second 1100r, As far as the stairs and access to the yard, it does not matter where
the access is to the yard, people still have the ability to use their rear yard. He did
not provide a new building section drawing because there was an extensive
section done previously and they did not change the relationship of the house to
the grade, They did study a one-story plan, but based on the response they
received their neighbors, they felt a two-story scheme is reasonable With regard
to the walkway, the noise etfects would remain the same.
Boardmember Smith stated that the one-story plan seems to help the Hembrees at
the expense of the Hamiltons and ElIsbergs, He agrees with the applicant's
TIBURON ORB
91l6N9
EXHIBIT NO.
APPROVED
(0
t'. '-l if l.:>
-+
".
suggestion that the one-story solution has its own problems, and would place
them in a fish bowl. He felt that the revised two-story plan is in compliance with
the Hillside Design Guidelines, The views that are blocked are relatively
peripheral. and not in the primary view corridor. He believed that the revised
two-story plan is a significant improvement although there are a couple of issues
on the table tonight. A gas fireplace would be a help and there are issues
regarding lighting. but he could support the revised two-story plan,
Boardmember Snow stated that he is wrestling with the amount of ceremonial
views the applicant is taking away trom the neighbors, He has sympathy for the
neighbors regarding the privacy issues, The gas fireplace is a great alternative,
Maybe there could be some kind of alternative design in the area of the master
bedroom to angle the corner of the second story He supports the two-story
design, and a one-story would be like living in a fish bowl. The two-story design
could create a better character in the neighborhood,
Chair Beales stated that this plan is an improvement. and the second story has
been pulled back, Mr Ellsberg is worried about the 25 foot setback, but his house
is very close to the property line, This project respects the 25 feet setback but as a
practical matter. this is the back yard and people are allowed to use their yard
The stairs go to the yard and they are entitled to access their yard, With regard to
the entry walkway along the property line, the Hembrees' entry is also along the
property line There is planting proposed as well as a fence along this propertv
line, and there is no reason for any disturbance to occur The photographs
submitted show part of Angel Island being obscured from the deck: however. this
is a peripheral view impact, and there is a panoramic view from the Hembrees'
house, New homes should nO! be drastically changed to protect a peripheral view,
There are problems with the lighting, He could understand the wall mounted
lights by the garage, but downlights would be appropriate elsewhere on the
property, and could be reviewed by Staff, Changing the roof line to a peak from a
solid ridge helps He could not see the story poles looking from Centro East
Street because the trees mask them, As it now stands, he is leaning to support this
application,
Boardmember Smith stated that the two proposed trees appear to be located on
portions of the property that would minimize their potential view impacts,
Chair Beales stated that one of the trees seems to be against Mrs, May's home and
without seeing a cross section it may well be that the tree would never block the
water Views, The other tree is lower on the property and probably will not be a
problem
Boardmember Snow wanted to discuss the re-configuration of the second story in
the area of the master bedroom, Mr Bruce stated that they already have really
tight interior spaces and it would be difficult to recontigure the space,
TIBURON ORB
9/l6/99
APPROVED
EXHIBIT NO. (0
f' S 6F(",
5
-"'~ - ..~-'
'i'.
NUs SmithlBeales and unanimously passed (3-0), to approve the revised two-story
plan based on the findings and conditions as set forth in the staff report and with
the added conditions that the second story northeast fireplace be a gas fixture, and
the lighting and landscaping shall be reviewed by Staff,
TIBURON DRB
9/16/99
APPROVED
EXHIBIT NO. (b
f. C. !)(' (c,
6
:
}-
_.1
Tu!< ~\L~ d~
~-5U) ~ f\ ~\}:'!' -{
\ \ -, ,->- r<( .'\'"
ll..;}>- '-, ~_ -0 -0 "IlL
,.~-..J ill r-'\...._, .J.. III T..A'
n.j! 1- -f;-r:-j :x ~ Q::. Q! >/::--
~; -{I .f1'r--.J ./ -< <' "I .J -1-
! -..} ~ -- "- -V -<: l- - ,
, ~! < :.1'~ R: :$ " c 3 ~ S
~I '- ..L ~ 'iJ"'- T ~k.L
, ! ..(\ \- \- -..'l T .{ {l -L l-
~I.s ~ ~ ~ ill ~ t \J ..{
I'T X ~ -{IT"" u! ill (j :2
~1-.1 ill ~ -<:' ill Q .,J ~ C'
lUl-Jill <' - -T '2 ~ T --<
>1 ill-=ul1 "r- tU -- \- (j -=- J ~
illl?l-~~t{>~~ -< B
Ii Q 11. ~ \- ~ ,~ ~ I- T <:v
.@11_~~~3 {1~~ 1 ~ ~
:Z,IT:S:ul-" r:.. ill,&
./'\-::-~ :/ 1--== ill ('J ':S.I'-./
Q. -{l <;:l,I ill " {\ T ~ \lJ
wXl1..~ill <l-~ ,j$-
_ ~ ulI~~~~ill~ ~
~ ~~.;j'--NSill ~%
Z lJT~ -::- ~ l.L:J ~ JI~I
<;y. (j ill (' --<( '-i ..{ }-
I.q \L ~::.\, ~ J J ..:r " -<-I ~
3 C .J'ii'> <-3.
.0 3Q ~T-:J \ll~ill ~ d
::5 ill <~ -< {l > g ~ ~ rr
<;:::''::2~ ~~UlN~ ~~
-::t: II (j u.I .;:y Q! ().:J
{)'~[1'It1J 'r--- I T~
"'~-~'~<'T;.L~ ;:
~!;2~.:T ~ t'J ill }- Q; ~ ~
y'_..J-__'-llly_J ~ICJ
..J 1--.3 .J :J \-- ~ -..I: ;?l :..J -' 11L
~' " rtl ~ - ... L_ W ~ ~ h-
--,>1 Q ~ '/' <: 1L I.L
~I / \\1-" ~1'I -<. ill ..{
\1) Q,~ -> Cs Q. ill tiJ ~ -:r
~15~~u)~~ili~ ~~
> <'T::> ~..:r - -< >oF
_\ :{ :>- ~ ill 5 &-.r ~ .. ~~.J
.{ 'I & T -:L >11 .- -- '-J lit III
0..J t-l--->.() ;}..{ {:5 -J: ~
~::JQ\:}l'\. ::.r~Y..{ ~
:i. <lU~l~IU~~~ '<' \'-T
~ -<(l r- _~ _n'-J -) .;) ill .
.. -{l~ y. 1.: ~ ~ -1 IJ ill:r ('..
~~~~{\UlQ\Q~ ~~ ~
III ('v"'\:Y ~.J .l;lll ~ C':< ~ ill
--.J ltl Q -< ~ \- '" ~ Ill")o ~
Q > ~ <. Q ~ ~ - > J ,,- '"
. ~ .U} IS ill 4: ill -:} ~ > ill ~:t ~
I ~ ~ :5' 't--..J ..J \J III > :> - ts
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:.l: ~ "L (S
.~l~.~'f!-?= .'55 ~I-_~E._..( Q ~
~. - -..---- -
-..,.,:--~-".....-
.... 'j
l?- ('l
C') ('l
; ~.-~-,
""> 4
ILl ill
<;::t", 0
-..::1 ~
~~ I z-
::J rl~! T E-4
~Cl ~ -
~ ~'
1-7 I , I b i \-
-(' le- I ' ~ ~
,l J':
Q~ I -. ' &)-
W'ol
uJ ~l-
,'1 ,""
Cl~ r' ~ - --1
, b \l.l--
<;.L..J I I -11:
C)~ I
/ ~...{
<;:<l--1 h>
Q.~ . -1w'
I .
{): . ,...
~,
ill I
)-,
en
w
z
-
'..J
-1:: UJ
" E
l- - ;j
:J Cl
~ '
~}-' ~
:S. \-- _
'_.1 (I)
\-;- -n UJ
cl~: c
~>-
~-- Z
"-I...J'O
. ,
a: .,
;j
a:l,
- --.
. F.-_
5:
\1)
>-
ill:"
Q!:?
~~
'-IN
:J-:-
Q! ,)
I-T
{I>
Q...l
III
-{lV
1J:'l
n -J
" "'- <:)
"...l
~&
I \
I, 1
(/~
I) \
I I
l,~ \
(I
.
~I
\\\'\
'~
~ --~._..---.,.. ,~,_..--.._-,,.. ",_.".. ~... .,._.,="",. ~-'''''.
--....~ ~........ .-- ._-..........-...-. .
.
,
..u ~I
T WI
-) )-1
~
~
tD
<;:y
Ci
:f
~
~
,,-
,>
ll_
'0
Q!
ill
/iJ: ~
I
ill
-J
IL
{J
\\1
.,:)-
~
---l
~
-l
1;Q <::)!
~ I
L _ -
- .~-:,.
='-~_:!: ~~_::'.=~:: ~.- -~_:"" ..
;\
L
:J
.0
~
\,
,"J
ill!
_ II
~R~I
_/
-<..
~-l
-.,
Ell
-J::'
I '
( /
1'''-
"<
Q~
T'\ll
,:J, >
~
--0~i'
uJl~
Q-i,(j
'"'" I "
iLl\\.
-.1:
7: ~-
\1)-
-..1: ill
. \ T
~ -< {)!
-1\1. \UI
~I () rl
lL ill
'0
I
1----
CY
~f5
iUN
><;::{
-~
l-I
.(1
'T \-
_-J
~T
\-
~~.
~~
~~
lll~
~ C'
" .J ill
T-l
Q'&
N-
--{\
Q!-0
~.~
:,;~:~l f
- .-- .. -
....
:W ~
CD
:;'"'-- --
-- --:;--.
-... -
._~""""'.__'...."4_,_....
<
~
III
..;:-
.~
i
" I
'JJ_
\l..
C>
\)j
Q
..(l
tL
<:J
111
0'
<(
y.
~
~'
...J
&
L
..{
"I
. ;----'
i \'
"I ~
~ I'Ll
~, '
"""
,=/ '-
(I '
'\
,
(
f- \-
'1-----
II~'
I: I '
l I I '
"-L:.s:--- -=--
-,.............-..><---............
_.'''''''',.'', "0....:.'" .
-'
,... ~
Cl. '
'I:l'
(') CO)
:0,.-
~
~3
::Jill
~>
-::lll
f,Y, ~
~ut
'"'g.
fr1~'
~~
<;)..
(J
s:'>I
~,
.
~I
d
Z
8'
"-- ......
-e
.~
J:;:l
I,
3 (fJ
11\' w
lll- Z
<.::!>-
-:.JIL .~
\--7 (\ w--
~Q!' 9
~ III ::)
\-_\-:- 0
-{IT Z
ill
~ ',}, ~ .
{\ {). (fJ
I:)~ w
Q..,j o.
~ C}.
~_J Z
~<Q 0
a:
::)
m,
-
~.
!~
ill J1}!
~- ~)i
c: ~J!
c:t -<l:
I
~\.;,I
run
~\-
~:J "
T <.J .{1
illlLY!
Q :LI~I
-1''''-
~-"-I
..;)ill~
0Q.J.,0
5 Clc(1
ill ~ ...J i
- {I I
.~ 0 ~' {)!
~T ill,
T Y. )-!
_.....' I I
:V ...J
\-. .-J
",lll.lW
ffi~',.
Jl.:>
<.2
()..:t"
\- ,,"
-i ~ 11l
-{ - ~I
l- 4: ,..
N-{\~I
Q:J\D
~4:-I
~ {l~
-- I ILl
, ~ \},
'~ I
' tL ~- ill
() 4: .J'I
~...J4
III "'!
.( ~~~I
:::LW"i
.v Q &i
.3 Ilil
&3:I
. . \l2j'~ ~!
~~,~I
T:
-'-I
.(1
-,--1
-,
i--~
.~
~I
-.Ji
:QI
~i
), roi
\0 ~I
, "L:J 17 '\- I
e,,~ ;)jJ1 ~
i '0 \ I ~I
I , ., {
I j L
I I <i
~/\I_ _ .0. ~
f"- \, ;d,; ~
I ",\~ l\J
Iii ~ >-:;;.
/EJ il ..J>
(\/ l ~uJ
,I I \ ~ >
I \ ~
'-L- ~ --i !;} '\:\
I
,4:{l
~
\\lQ!
Qill
-5
~.(~ (l'
. ~ wi
,Ul{l )-
, ill I
'I'
h
~
/ "~
( /
" /
-L-
\
!
I
I
,- . ~
/
/
/ I.. .
( / "
J( /
( "0
~r-
I")
_,_I~
LI-S
-{i}--
'.If;--
_l,"\
T!~
\U'.,j
T-J
\-<t
. !
!
-{l
I
\--
!~
1-
I~
,Ill
>
I:r.
.~
IlL
.
'-
,.,...
T'-4
i / .
~"'-J
&
l :
~,
~
'E-i
I-i
~
r.1
,.., ~.
, ,. a.
_ II
(') co
,_0
a:
o
CD
:c:
!:2
w
z
w
:c:
...
a:
o
Ll.
:::e
w
..I
CD
o
a:
Co
...
Z
et
,. u
~
z
!:2
III
et
III
W
III
::l
et
U
!::
..."\
, '
-:::s:'
~}--
<v
1.L --
\=-:c
~uY
&>
.
.
_0
w
...
-.u
,(/,)w
, Ll.
,WLl.
, " zet
-Ill
..J-
UJ .,.
c~
5>
Ll.
o
z~
"0
-...
(/,)z
Wet
c:c:
...
,Zw
oa:
0:0
;:):i
;col:
.-,'
....~
--'
.:"
~I
, -
--.--
-
ROLF EISELlN
1868 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRI'/:=
T1EURCN, SA 9'~2:1J
USA
~
f..l1S) .l~JS_1 ~:J.~
< till 7.7.99
from 7.9.
to 10.5.99 >
RES. L.A COTE so
~110"lCRG:OS
3:"':~~2c
.....~ -.. -,..--
..'~.' I.':
.~,::;C:~]-~':-: :~: -0 ~'.:
--_-.,~----- . - -., ._----
-;;:''';;J'::;, ::~-::_ .\ - ~ -::.~,
~._)'i::~S. _--::.'.- 3'Y-:=?:_..:..'!C
tel. + 1 415 435 1198
fax + 14154351238
tel. +4121 801 7077
fax + 41 21 801 7036
~E('. ~nfl::::r>
n ......:-~..!J-\f:..,.,w
JUl 6 1999
?L,:,"jr'::,"fG ~~;';;'.'_':"'ii::', ~
Wi/'r.: c.: ';81};:;:,",'
Tiburon, 7.3.99
to:
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Att'n: Mr. Dan Watrous, Sr.Planner
re:
Second Residence, 160 Solano Street, Tiburon, CA 94920
project by David Holscher, Architect, Tiburon
owner: Margaret May, 160 Solano Street, Tiburon
proposal:
keep height of second residence to maximum the height of the first residence
(126 It above sea level)
reason:
the proposed height to elevation 130 It would Intolerably obstruct the precious
water view from the adjacent uphill building site (parcel 59-142.02).
I would be forced to build higher on that lot and, in turn, would then obstruct
the water view of other neighbors uphill,
request/suggestions:
to lower the second residence to elevation 126 It could well be achieved by
some or all of the following means:
. lower the whole building
- use 8 It ceiling heights on both floors instead of 9 It ceiling heights
- use a flat roof instead of a pitched roof design.
The neighbor house to the east is flat roofed, and several others in the
neighborhood. (Flat roofs are the least obstructive).
respectfully submitted,
Yv!
( _,- 1-
L-~"""
Rolf Eiselin
owner of parcel 59-142-02
Tiburon residence: 1868 Mountain View Drive
EXHIBIT NO..l:L
'i'
July 6 1999
'R"" r. ~:;':,~' ~ r""'i,
3 C"\"J'~_.'; '.;&" _,~....:
i\[r. Scott Anderson
Tiburon Planning Director
Tllwn OfTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, Ca, 949:0
JUl 6 1999
pl.:..~nJi;\;!~ '~'cS'.-:.2 ;:HU
TO",VN .~,~ i :Di~:RC~l
Dear Scott
This letter is in reference to the planning of I bO Solano Drive, Parcel "io 59-14:-!: Because of
commitments J can not attend the meeting Here are mv concerns for the building of this lot.
Drainage - Grade and slope lot to run towards pre-existmg creek A way from existing housing
Including rain spouts
, Ltilities --\11 utilities should be accessed trom Solano including sewage, cable, electric. phone.
gas. ete
o Height of existing hedge 8.: trees - [,isting height 10 be maintained for privacy
4 Construction - \\'ork onlv during hours ofSam-5pm i\lon-Fri \'0 holidays or \'veekends
:\0 Amplified music on site
5 Stairway on outside porch - move stairs to east side of porch or south east corner
6 Proximity to existing house at 160 Solano Drive - Seems too close to home there
i Shift pitch of Garage to match pitch of ne\,,, construction of main house
[fyou have any questions, please feel free to call me,
Sincerely,
Robe 'lton
2205 Paradise Drive
Tiburon, Ca, 94920
EXHIBIT NO. /5
2205 Paradise Drive, 1iburon, CA 94920 . Phone (415) 435-3480 . Fax (415) 435-9646 . bobh@wco.com
~.
Phone: 415 789 9670
FA..'X: 4157898854
email: hembree@earthlink.net
Tuesday, July 6, 1999
~".. C,'1"" 1'\ rc: 1"\
['.,'-=1 Li~'ltJ.,_~1
I .:..:-" ,~.....;---
T01N~! 0;: 1EIJnJN
Tiburon Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
iUL
.....^"\
- 1'3'1';'
C2?)..i=:T~.~~~'~~ ~~. ,~~'~
C....... ~'\H ~~i'l'l (-'~,:-. '. --...:.::;~ I
'\'.i;'V;~'~;Wi..jj! ...:.-J__...l'
Members of the Design Review Board:
The purpose ofthis letter is to respond to the request for "consideration of Design
Review approval for construction of a second single-family dwelling as a condominium
unit" at 160 Solano Drive. The meeting of the Design Review Board is scheduled for July
15, 1999, This letter partiaily identifies our concerns about the project, upon which we
wUl elaborate at the Board meeting.
:\Iy wife and I live at 172 Solano Drive, where we have resided for eleven years.
Our property is the next lot up the hill from the project being considered on Solano,
Sometime after the middle of June, we met with :\Iargaret :Vlay, property owner.
and Dave Holscher, architect on the project. They told us of their plans for the project.
which required a setback variance to allow for the location of the house in the Northeast
corner of the property. Even then, we expressed our concerns about the height of the
building and the effect of the project on our views of the East Bay, but that we needed to
see the story poles to fully appreciate the impact on us. In addition, we asked the
architect what happens if they don't get the variance, He said, "We wUl get the
variance. "
The story poles went up on July 1, 1999. It was obvious the developers had -
dropped the idea for a setback variance. This meant that the house would be located ten
feet further to the west, further impacting our views. We picked up a copy of the revised
plans that same day, and set about securing the services of an architect to assist us in
reading building plans; understanding our rights; and determining what might we do to
make this project work best for everyone concerned. We have not had any inquiries
seeking our reaction, concerns, or thoughts from Mrs. May, the architect, or the potential
home owners since then.
Some of our concerns about this project are:
1. the loss of the views (including the East Bay, Angel Island, Ayala Cove,
and Raccoon Strait) from our primary living areas and deck. We moved from a much
EXHIBIT NO. (0
p, f CP 2-
..
nicer home in San Rafael to be near the Bay, because we enjoy watching the
freighters and tugs in the East Bay shipping lanes, the fishermen anchored off the
point of Angel Island, the sailboats as they move up and down Raccoon Strait and the
weekend party traffic in and out of Ayala Cove. In addition, being early risers, we
particularly enjoy our coffee while watching the sunrise over Berkeley, We had
rented a home on Mar East prior to moving to San Rafael (where we stayed nine
months), so we knew what we were missing. We would lose all or a significant part
of all these pleasures if this project is allowed to proceed as proposed.
2. the height and closeness of the structure to our deck and house. The
corner of the house is about 16 feet away from our deck and the top about 13 feet
above it. If you are sitting in our deck chair, you have to look up at about a 45 degree
angle to see the sky above the house. ,Vhen we enter or leave our front door, we feel
a jolt even from the story poles, We can't imagine what it would be like if a house
were there.
,3. the loss of privacy on our deck and in our living areas. Due to the height
of the proposed house. the owner of the lot (zoned R-2) directly behind the subject
house would be forced to build further back on his lot and, or have to build a taller
bUilding resulting in direct views into our deck and living area.
We understand that this is a particularly difficult property with which to work.
However, it seems there are opportunities for options that might help the situation. For
example, if there were a variance into the rear yard, and, or a relocation of the
condominium property line, there would be more building area available.
We invite the members of the Design Review Board to personally visit us at your
convenience - in the evening, on the weekend. whenever, Our number is 789 9670.
By copy of this letter, we are requesting a full-sized set of prints from the
architect so that we can accurately evaluate the impact of the proposed project and
consider alternatives for it.
Thank you for your consideration. Please call if you have any questions.
IJ(~~
:\tIa.xine Hembree
~~
Les Hembree
cc: Dave Holscher, Architect
EXHIBIT NO. fro
P. 2 Dp- L
IJ1TE- /tJf}1 L
#J)S-
"'.
-
REef"" ,.-..~
- ~ ~",:' t.:J
Robert and Cvnlhia Elsberg
...
2250 Centro East Street. Tlburon, Califomia 949:20-1947. U.S.A
JUl 8 1999
PL~tJ:\Ii:'~'G~::-" ,:-ro,'{,', T
h,,',')-; .
':"
July 7.1999
Town ofTiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon. CA 94920
Attn.: Mr, Dan Watrous. Sr. Planner
Subject: Second Residence. 160 Solano Street. Tiburon, CA
My wife and 1 are the o\Vners of the two residences directly next door to and east of the proposed
new unit. The addresses are 2245 Paradise Drive and the one we reside in, 2250 Centro East.
We have met with the architect Mr. David Holscher and the owner Ms, Margaret May and
addressed our concerns \V1th them. Our number I concern is to maintain at least the
minimum 25 foot rear setback between the proposed unit and our property line. They have
agreed to this and submitted their plans accordingly, The master bedrooms of my two residences
are near the propeny line of the proposed unit; Further when exiting the proposed unit to enter
their yard area, they walk toward our property line bringing foot traffic even closer. Noise and
privacy are serious concerns to us.
The proposed master bedroom deck is immediately next to our livingroom deck where we
entertain frequently.. I would recommend that a screen be built at the east side of their deck to
give us both some privacy,
Working with the town and neighbors, we built our Centro East residence well into the ground
and added a flat roof to help others preserve views. We built within the Tiburon guidelines of
setbacks and height. A few years ago, a new residence was built at 2260 Centro East immediately
to our east. The residence was built from the ground up and now towers over our residence
eliminating a lot of sun that we previously enjoyed.
EXHIBIT NO. L7
{>. I OF Z-
!j
Our residence has many windows facing west toward the proposed unit and enjoys the mid and
late afternoon sun. We do not want to lose the sun on the west side of our residence in addition
to the east side already lost. In conclusion, we request at least the minimum rear setback offered
by the architect and owner and not allow excessive height for the building to preserve our privacy,
reduce noise and allow sunlight.
Sincerely,
r~/f t1J~'f(
Robert S, Elsberg, Ij
(415) 435-4374.
EXHIBIT NO. lr
~. '2 oF2-
LATE MAIL , ~0
~.
Phone: 415789 9670
F A..'X: 415 789 8854
email: hembree@earthlink.net
~,....cr="'." ::{-o~:--"I
~.' _':=.". '_:0.' I "I __,
If'':l~-.!::'J''~.:.~.; -_::-,
TO"'" c"',- -,,,.,,- .-"
. \:}j\.ll.,j I ;......(,.,C.-'l.~
Wednesday, July 28,1999
llll 2 '1
,c"". ~r
!ff}
Tiburon Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
c::--
C,-. . - -" ,-'
"\. ,-, :......: '. ':'_'_ ~~..."::.'~ I
...........:,;..i...."
Members ofthe Design Review Board:
This is our second letter in regard to the consideration of the construction of a
condominium at 160 Solano Drive. Since our fIrst letter, the initial proposal was
abandoned and a new set of plans has been prepared and a new set of story poles erected.
Although the new plans are an improvement over the fIrst set, we still fInd them
objectionable due to the retention ofa second story. This letter updates the concerns
raised in our fIrst letter. Again, we will elaborate further in the Board meeting.
Our main concerns:
1. The new plans still significantly impact our East Bay view and part of
Angel Island. Our existing East Bay view is partially blocked by a house which was
built about 2-3 years ago, and the argument might be made that since part of our view is
gone, why not take the rest. Of course, our attitude is that we would like to keep what
little we have. (At the time this house was built we were on a two year work assignment
outside the Town, and were not able to protest its construction.) Although this view
might appear to be of a secondary nature, what we see are the Berkeley hills at sunset;
the ferries, tugs, freighters and tankers crossing San Pablo Bay; the low lying fog as it
snakes it way across the East Bayshoreline toward the Sacramento River; and of course,
the sailboats beginning their tack up Raccoon Strait.
2. Height and closeness of the structure to our deck and house, In the last.
letter we mentioned the jolt we get when we exit or enter our front door from just seeing
the story poles. We still do, even with the new plans. Even though the top portion has
been moved back somewhat, the overall effect is still imposing and creates privacy
issues, The lower level of the house is now about fIfteen feet from our deck and the upper
level about twenty.four feet. The top has been dropped one foot.
3. Loss of privacy on our deck and home due to the second story. If this
project is permitted to proceed with a second story, it will not only force the owner of the
lot above this project to build higher and further up on his lot, it will give him the
EXHIBIT NO, t ~
f, i- OFZ-
precedent to do so. Such a structure or strucures would inevitably result in direct views
onto our deck and into our living area.
4. Property Depreciation. Of course, although we can't quantify it at this
time, we are concerned with the potential depreciation in our property values due to the
loss of privacy and views.
Again, we realize this is a difficult property with which to work. However, at the
Board meeting, our architect will present the outline of a plan for the construction of a
single story home on the subject premises. This plan would assume the approval of some
lot line variances and relocation of the condominium line. It would provide the new
owners with "good views" that would minimally invade the views and privacy of
surrounding neighbors, including Mrs. May.
The issue in this matter is not whether some one should be allowed to build on
this property. This issue is whether they should be able to build in such a fashion that
they take the views of existing homeowners for their themselves. This is especially true
when, with a little give and take by all parties, a very nice one story home can be
constructed which will provide good views and sufficient privacy for everyone.
Although we will be providing photos of the story poles at the meeting, it is
essential that you personally see the views from our deck and den in order to fUlly
appreciate the impact ofthis project upon our views and privacy. We urge you to come
by at your convenience. Our number is 789 9670. Our address is 172 Solano Drive.
Sincerely,
1K~~ ,;i~
Maxine Hembree
Les Hembree
EXHIBIT NO. l6
? l if L
LATE MAIL , ECo
~,
RECEIVED
MAHONEY ARCHITECTS
AUG 2 1999
PlANNI~lG DEPARTI',1ENT
TOWN OF TlBGRON
July 29, 1999
Town of Tiburon
Members of the Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: 160 Solano Ave., Tiburon - Second Residence
Dear Members of the Board,
I have been retained by Les and Maxine Hombree to assist them in reading plans and
understanding plans and, as their representative I have reviewed the plans dated
6/29/99 of Holscher Architecture which were withdrawn from the design review
process and the current plans dated 7/23/99 before you.
We have numerous concerns with the proposed project and a number of suggestions for
the applicants to consider. A few of our questions/ concerns include:
1) Has a one-story scheme been considered?
2) How many multi-unit projects in Old Tiburon are detached vs. attached?
3) The two-story scheme pushed tight to the setback line forces Mr. Eiselin to
plan to build higher up the hill which will further impact the Hembrees as
well as impact the neighbors above. -
4) Removal of the two pine trees so close to the property line will allow for no
landscape buffer or screening of the proposed two-story mass.
5) The chimney for the family room fireplace is dead center on the Ayala Cove
view from the Hembrees' main living areas.
6) The rear retaining wall is only 30" in height. Certainly the height of this
wall could be increased; the floor levels lowered (slab on grade); floor to
floor height reduced; and a flat roof considered.
EXHIBIT NO. lcr
Colleen Mahoney, AlA ?, \ ~ L--
p,O, Box 1053 . Tiburon, CA 94920 . 4]5.435,6677 ... FAX 4]5,435,6878
~
Letter to Design Review Board
Re: 160 Solano Ave
Page 2
7) The Hembrees will lose precious views of the East Bay, the shipping lane on
the Bay, part of Angel Island, the cove at Ayala Cove - all from their
primary ceremonial rooms - which flies in the face of the hillside guidelines.
8) There are issues of privacy and mass.
9) Why is this "condominium line" so arbitrarily set? Why can't it be adjusted
towards Ms, Mays allowing more buildable area on the lot?
10) The lower lot area is virtually unused and yet has terrific views,
We will submit additional concerns at the meeting Thursday evening, August 5th.
Sincerely,
0, (I /^
/ 1/------P' v
e-... (..- v
Colleen Mahoney
Architect, AlA
/
,
EXHIBIT NO. [q
P. Z-DFZ
LAll.'-TE- (P
,
~,
I.,Q"W OFFICES
BERNARD J. SCHOENBERG
BERNARD ..J. SCHOENBERG
2:;5 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 525
MELISSA GILL PAUl-SaN
SAN F"RANCISCO. CA 94104
TELEPHONE
[4151392.-0433
August 2, 1999
R... '""f""-' -~~
,,_I! j'~ ~ 'i? ;.,..J :,
" ....w,.,,:>':.~; -'Ii -......"......"'
Tiburon Design Review Board
] 505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
AUG
3 1999
PL...:."::,'
T,- ; J
I write to you on behalf of my neighbors, Leslie and Maxine Hembree, whose house
address is at 172 Solano Street, Tiburon I, Bernard Schoenberg, and my wife live at
2306 Mar East Street in Tiburon, The Hembree's are friends of ours and we visit each
others houses frequently, I was shocked at my last visit to the Hembree's, to see the
house (160 Solano) next to them proposing to build a two to three story house, Why
can't they build this house right next door to their existing house and keep it one story"
This would not block any neighbors views, it would not create a precedent for other
houses to go up on adjacent vacant lots in this area ,AJlowing something to be built that
would block off views of the Hembree's and others will certainly create an unpleasant
scene in the neighborhood that I have lived in happily for so long,
I implore you not to allow this structure to be built Whatever is approved, please keep it
low so that it does not block otT the views of others
s;~!
Bernard J. Schoenterg
cc: Leslie and Maxine Hembree
EXHIBIT NO. 20
~
Diane Lync.h · 1'71 ~olano ~lTeet · Tiburon. ealiiornia 94920
LATEIAl, Ef,
August 3, 1999
Town of Tiburon
Building Department
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: May property, 160 Solano St.
To whom it may concern:
I am concerned about the parking impact that will result from the
proposed second house in this backyard. Solano Street has parking
only on that side of the road and because of the scarcity of
parking on Centro East the street is frequently parked solid with
construction workers' vehicles all day which is inconvenient for
anyone coming to the neighborhood to visit.
Ideally, if construction is allowed, the driveway for BOTH units
should be from a sole, single width driveway cut to minimize loss
of parking. The way it is currently shown is probematic because
it's not clear whether there will be space for a car to park
between the driveways so we could potentially lose two parking
spaces.
It seems to me that the town should consider the implementation of
permit parking down here, similar to that on Mar West and other
old Tiburon streets. Contractors should be required to park all
vehicles on site or rent space and shuttle workers.
Thank you.
~~
EXHIBIT NO. 2--(
August 4,1999
~.
~. ;4-:El1-;f\
fJ' -. Cr:: \,\" ,,-;:",,-_../
" ..'J~-
... ,j...., F~.. ':\1
' ~'->>"- -1'~J'
.. --l'_~n. I
TG"!" iJr ::'"'
J'."~ l'~
:~UG
;If::::-~q
.j !I,f'
- .-.......
..', (.....('
_" '''~1~~':'::~:''l G::'J-i::..Cr~'~.1;.>~1
C, '..\"""i.,;-\~II
.......l....
Town of Tiburon
Members of the Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: 160 Solano Ave., Tiburon - Second Residence
Dear Members of the Board,
Les and Maxine Hembree surveyed the properties in their immediate neighborhood to
specifically look at the manner in which the zoning has been interpreted and
implemented regarding multiple units on a single property. Out of 27 properties ALL
units are combined or connected, and only 1 in 27 is two story. We are very concerned
about the precedent of detached units being presented; concerned about multi-story
proposals which impact uphill neighbors; and the possibility that Ms. May already has
two units in her residence which may have an impact on the square footage
calculations as well as the CC&R's development rights. Please carefully look at the
pattern of development in the neighborhood. Thank you.
The following list represents the properties:
185 - 187 Solano
2240-2242 Paradise
2270 Paradise
2280 Paradise
2305 A & B Centro E.
170-172 Solano
2223-2227 Centro E.
2217-2219 Centro E.
2195 A & B Centro E.
2175-2177 Centro E.
2145.2153.2155 Centro E.
Les and Maxine Hembree
2 units
2 units
3 units
3 units
2 units
2 uni ts
2 units
2 units
2 units
2 units
3 units
27 units total
EXHIBIT NO.ZZ-
P. I cF '2-
2
,t)
\d t;
", :..J
,
~~~ i=
~~-i ~~
~ -:i :'l
-~~-
- "1
/
i-
Z
~j
~3 ~~~
j-=; .=1
.:.~ ~:,..
"""'
""
:?'"
~ ,
._;:.~
--
--
_.; 2.:.\
- -"
~ ~~j
~-j
(~
'.
-.j
W
~,
i-
f
i
f
,
,
I
I .
, '""' \
' ,
.J-+, \
~
'-I
....
'-<
~
\J\
Q
III \
\J' ,_
\j t i
\L""-
au
cl..\-
~\J\
ill
ill,
-L
-w
O~
i:J
\- ~1
7'r.
~~
~~
I
cr-
~
\
n__~
-...I
()
.:r
~
-
I
\
\D
J\
~
4.!
Cl
F
'!J.
~
t)
~
N rJ
('\J ~
0 (\J
Z c..-:-
~
S
~
rx1
....
LATE MAIL # 0
-.~(","",
. '-r,.---i<:>
.. {,
"IJ "1' LyfOl"d's Cove - Old Tiburon
-~--..::' " ," F'i" _J Homeowners Association
-r '... ' 4 ,
; .....A ~ ~--:llt: /{
..." f;: -/ .( ~~~.11
. . ~< Il.. '\ - .
August 5, 1999
Design Review Board
Town ofTiburon
RE: Proposed building on 160 Solano
Dear Board Members
The Lyford's Cove Old Tiburon Homeowners Association (LCOTHA) is in receipt of
correspondence from Les and Maxine Hembree of 1 T2 Solano. They are directly impacted by the
proposed project on the above referenced property.
The Board ofLCOTHA does not wish to second guess your decision which will be a hard one,
balancing the effect of this project on all of the neighbors. However. we wish to express our
interest in seeing that these kinds of decisions are not made disregarding the interests of property
O\iliners like the Hembrees who do not have extensive views,
The hillside guidelines do maintain that for properties with a panaoramic lliew, midview blockage
is less acceptable than a peripheral blockage of the view. However, the guidelines also state that
when a view is limited. a similar amount ofliiew blockage is to be weighed more heavily for a
limited view (smaller slot lliew) than for a panoramic view.
The Hembrees do not have a panoramic view from their primary living area. Thus the proposed
peripherallliew blockage can be as disruptive to them as a center view blockage to a property
owner with more of a panoramic view. The Hembrees feel that this view blockage is even more
onerous because their lliew will be replaced by a solid high wall, blocking even a view of the sky
from one side of their deck. -
We urge the DRB to continue to weigh the extent of the lliew available when considering the
extent of view blocked. It is a difficult balancing issue the town will see more of as the options
tor expansion dwindle and inbuilding increases, inching smaller slot lliews out of sight.
7-rnrunro
Alice Fredericks
President
Lyford's Cove Old Tiburon Homeowner's Association
EXHIBIT NO. 1-3
,
8-25-;999 1 57P'i
FRO~ SFDOJ 415+929+2102
Q.2
.
Robert _ CYDIhia EIsb8rg
...
22:0 ::~1'0 Ea5t street . TiblJron, California 94e2J..1947 . USA
REC~" '-D
.;--, .'. - -'..... ~
"'->.. '.i II....
AUG 2 5 1999
PlAN~,if;;G IJEP,qPTMENT
TOvm OF T)BU,~ON
August 24. J 999
Town of Tiburoo
Design Review Board
I~O~ riburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Attn.: MI. Dan Watrous, Sr, Planner
Subject: Second Residence, 160 SoLano Street, Tiburon. CA
My wife and I are the owners oflbe two residences direC1ly next door to and east of the proposed
ne.; unit, The addresses are 2245 Paradise Drive and the one we reside in. 22~() Centro East.
We attended the recent design review board meeting to discuss the proposed second unit, We
indicated that we approved of the footprint of the second un.it as it was back ioto the hill away
from the bay. When asked by one oftbe members of the board ifwe preferred a two-story
building located as proposed or a one story one that would be placed more southemly on the lot
toward the water, we clearly stated a two-stor; building away from the water. We had several
suggestions for improvement of the two story plans and had since received indication that the
owner of tbe new unit would be ~ to accept some of the requests
I me now been shown a sketch of a potential ODe story building that moves the buildiog
considerably down the hill toward the Waler , " This is a major change of plan in the "'rong
direction. It moves the building more into the view corridor of my upp~r house and OlUc,h closer
to the master bedroom of the 2245 Paradise Drive residence. Noise and privacy would be
severely impacted. , ' T'nere will be more roofwith roof pipes to look onto from our upper
residence. The proposed unit deck will be almost up to the hedge of the 220~ Paradise Drive
property and wrap around to the east facing our property which moves the direction for
entertainmPnt from the south to the east in our direction again jeopardizing noise and privacy.
The height of the ODe story roof will reduce the height of the chimney causing other problems to
us.
In conclusion, the newest proposal negatively impacts both of my properties compared to the
EXHIBIT NO. z-lf
~. ltF-2--
2-25-1999 1. 58P'.j
FP~N SFDO~ 415-929+2102
0'3
~
original plan. It would be difficuh to believe that the owners of2205 Paradise Drive will not find
the newest pl.m a setback. I wou.ld find it hard to believe that even Ms, May in her existing
residence at 160 Solano would.find this a better placement for the proposed second unit,
Unfortunately. my wife and I will be out of state during the upcoming design review board
hearing I will be r"Presented by tbe architectural firm of 0 Robert Holm, 1004 Irwin Street, San
RaL1el Their telephone number is 415 456-5008. Please provide them with any plans or
correspondence. A member of their firm will represent us at the bearing. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
~~~b1}~
435-4374
EXHIBIT NO. '"Z-- Y:.
~. '2- OF Z--
~.
August 25, 1999
1"'l;: ....!=I\n::f1
n I-I\",,-_! . '-. ,..'
AUG 2 5 1999
rvlr, Dan Watrous
Town Of Tiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
PLP.Jm!~jG L;=r~?ir,~E-r~
TOWN ',J~ n~t!S(:: j
Dear Dan:
Subject: 160 Solano Street, Tiburon Ca., Second Residence
I am the owner of 2205 Paradise Drive, I have attended the past meetings about the
above address desil:,'Il review board meeting, It was last discussed about the
revision of the two story home, We have made improvement suggestions to help the
home to be built.
Now 1 have seen the plans for a one story unit in that same location, The changes
that I have seen are not acceptable, It is too close to my property line. A loss of
privacy to all neighbors and an increase of noise would be there due to closeness to
homes. This plan shows no concern to myself and the neighbors. The second level
was much better than the latest proposed, I don't want their deck on my property
line'
The new design does not show an improvement to the neighborhood. It is much too
close to all properties I
I will not be able to attend your next meeting to discuss tills home. If you wish to
discuss my feeling towards this property, please call.
EXHIBIT NO. '2--5
2205 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 . Phone (415) 435-3480 . Fax (415) 435-9646 . bobh@wco.com
'i,
Phone: 789 9670
FA..'\:: 789 8854
email:hembree@earthlink.net
Friday, September 3, 1999
RECEIVED
SEP 3 1999
Mr. Hank Bruce
Architects
23B Main Street
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLh:~I,;i>;G ~X::,':'RT:,..1E\)r
rl}NiJ iJF i!8UP-.JN
Dear Mr. Bruce:
We have briefly reviewed the drawings provided us yesterday of the one-story
and new two-story plans you have prepared for the project at 160 Solano Avenue. We
wanted to get to you as soon as possible to give you an early opportunity to respond to
our concerns. This is by no means a comprehensive response.
There appears to have been no studied effort to respond to the directions of the
Design Review Board at the August 5th meeting. Following are examples of quotations
by Board members taken from the Board meeting minutes and how your plans address
the Board's concerns.
One StOry Plan
.....a one-story solution has not been thoroughly investigated. Perhaps a one story
house could be built within the setbacks and still maintain a view. ... wanted a thorough
analysis ofa one-story plan to demonstrate if it is possible." And from the resolution
passed by the Board .....take a good look at a one story alternative.....
*
the drawing provided us consists of only one page. There are no
elevations and other documentation_
*
they do not consider redrawing of the condominium lines and
reconflguring Mrs. May's deck, both items discussed in the Board
meeting, but not reported in the minutes. Both of these items could
alleviate the pressure on the exterior setbacks.
*
although the drawing was presented to the adjacent neighbors as early as
August 24, they were not made available to us until September 2nd. Is this
a thorough effort to consider a one-story plan?
EXHIBIT NO. 2-(P
~, I bFY.
~.
While addressing the issue of the one-story plan. we would like to comment on the
letters from Mr. Elsberg and Mr. Hamilton. both received by the Board on August 25th.
Both of these letters express as their main concerns about the one-story plan. the noise
and loss of privacy. We think it is important to point out that while the closest point
from our house and the proposed house would be 18 feet. the distance from the Elsberg's
would be 36 feet and the Hamilton house 48 feet.
Now let's take a look at the new two-story plan and how it addresses the Board's
concerns.
Chimnevs
.. ...The chimney is looming as well and smoke from the chimney would end up on
the Hembree's deck." .....wanted the chimney lowered and would like to hear more about
a gas fIreplace as opposed to a wood burning fIreplace." And the resolution calls for
.. ...discuss alternatives to the chimney height and location....'.
*
the plans simply don't acknowedge the chimney issue
*
the plans add a new chimney on the Hembree's side of the second story
Privacv
..... The proposed project will be very intrusive with regard to views as well as
privacy."
Not only do the new plans not improve on the privacy issue.
*
they move the house nearer the Hembree's
*
they move the entry to the back of the house directly off the Hembree's
deck
*
they move the walking path from the garage and the street
next to the Hembree's fence dividing the two properties. putting it about
twelve feet from the Hembree's home.
Bulk and Mass
.....the project looms too closely to the Hembree's property." .....There is too much
bulk and mass." "There are other issues about the second story and the mass..."
EXHIBIT NO. '2h
p_ 2. OF '-{
11',
*
there has been no change in the height of the second story
*
while the new plans do move the second story four and one-half feet to the
East, they do not materially affect the bulk and mass issue.
Views
.....takes issue when a master bedroom is taking away the view from someone's
living room.....
*
even with the shift of the second story, the new plan fully obstructs the
Hembree's East bay view from their deck and living room
*
it is still the master bedroom that is blocking this view
House Orientation
.. ...the house angled more to the right.....
*
not addressed in the new plan
Although not directly related to the one-story and new two-story plans discussed
above, there is another item that needs to be explored. We are concerned that in the
square footage ofliving area reported by Margaret May in her application does not
include a living area in the basement, which we believe to be occupied by her daughter.
This living area at one time was a self-contained living area, which Mrs. May planned to
rent out. In fact, she inquired as to whether one of our sons would be interested and
showed the area to Mrs. Hembree. Our request of you is that, as her architect, you verifY
whether there is an additional living unit downstairs and what the square footage is.
(The Town planners do not have the personnel to perform such a task.) And related_to
this, we request as part of the approval process, a statement be made to the effect that
there will never be more than two living units on the property in perpetuity,
We look forward to receiving the landscaping and lighting plans and hopefully a
revised look at the new two-story plan and a serious consideration of the one.story
option. Would it be possible for you to provide us with what approach you might take
and when you might respond as soon as possible?
EXHIBIT NO. zjp
~, ") DF- L{
,.,
Phone: 415 789 9670
FA-X: 4157898854
email: hembree@earthlink.net
September 9, 1999
C-.'.""o
RE t.:J';C
Tiburon Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
SEP 9 \999
PLAi-iNING DEP,~RTME:lT
leVil1 OF Ti8UFWl
Subject: Proposed Condominium Project at 160 Solano Drive
Members of the Design Review Board:
We met with the applicant and their new architect, Hank Bruce, on September 2,
at which time they presented us with some new plans for the subject project. One was a
plot plan for a one story house and the other a plot plan and elevations for a two story
house. At fIrst, we were hopeful that progress had been made in a positive direction
toward resolution of this difficult project. After inspection of the plans, we were sadly
disillusioned. There appears to have been no studied effort to respond to the comments
and directions of the Design Review Board at the August 5th meeting.'
First, let's consider the newly proposed two story plans and how they address the
Board's concerns.
Chimnevs - The new plans retain the chimney in approximately the same location
as the prior plans, and, in fact, add another chimney on our side of the second story.
Privacv . Not only do the new plans not improve on the privacy issue, they
worsen it by:
*
moving the house to within 16.5 feet of our home,
.
moving the entry to the back of the new house some 20 feet from our deck,
. moving the walking path leading from the garage and the street next to
our fence, placing it about 12 feet from our and our renter's living rooms, as well
as taking up precious space for a landscape buffer between homes.
Mass and Bulk. While the new plans move the second story four and one-half feet
to the East, they do not materially improve the bulk and mass problems. No
provisions bave been made to lower the height of the second story. A fIreplace
EXHIBIT NO. 2-7
Ii'. JoF3
~
has even been added to the second story on our side to further create an even
more looming presence and adding more smoke to blow toward our home.
Views - Even with shift of the second story, the new plan still fully obstructs our
East bay view from our deck and part of our living room.
One of the key issues the Board asked the applicant to address was to thoroughly
investigate a one-storY solution. We do not believe a thorough investigation of a one
story solution has taken place. We think their one story solution investigation proceeded
as follows: Some time prior to August 24th, neighbors Elsberg (to the East) and Hamilton
(to the South) were shown either a sketch or a preliminary layout of a one story plan.
This plan obviously alarmed Elsberg and Hamilton because they immediately wrote
letters to the Board condemning the plan. And apparently, based on Elsberg's and
Hamilton's reactions, the applicant considered the one story plan investigation complete
and drew up a somewhat detailed two story plan. They presented this plan to us on
September 2nd. They also gave us a one page layout of a one story plan dated September
1st. , over one week after meeting with Elsberg and Hamilton.
,We have many concerns with this approach:
1. Why were we not consulted until one week after Elsberg and
Hamilton? We are by far the most affected of all the neighbors by this
development.
2. Were Elsberg and Hamilton shown the same one story plan that we
were? And were they also shown the two story plan presented to us? The
improvement in the two story plan over the one story plan on Elsberg and
Hamilton is marginal. For example, the one story house in actually farther from
the Elsberg's than the two story plan - being 33 feet versus 36 feet respectively.
For Hamilton, the difference is 48 feet for the one story versus 53 feet for the two
story. The difference in the noise level at 48 and 53 feet is hardly discernable.
In addition to the above concerns about the one story question, the one story plan
given us makes no consideration for redrawing the condominium line and/or
reconfiguring Mrs. May's deck. These were both items discussed in the August 5th
Board review (although not properly recorded in the minutes).
In summary, we do not believe the applicant has responded to the directives and
concerns of the Board as expressed in the August 5th Board meeting. Neither have they
attempted to develop a plan in concert with all the neighbors, rather they have chosen a
strategy of "divide and conquer". We stated in our last letter to you that "with a little
EXHIBIT NO. 1--7
P. 2 OF3
~.
EXHIBIT NO. "Z--~
r, IOFz.....-
~.
give and take by all parties, a very nice one story home can be constructed which will
provide good views and sufficient privacy for everyone." We are ready to work with all
parties concerned towards this end.
We feel it is essential that you personally see the views from our deck and den in
order to fully appreciate the impact of this project upon our views and privacy. We urge
you to come by at your convenience. Our number is 789 9670. Our address is 172 Solano
Drive.
Sincerely,
~\~~
Maxine Hembree
d-/~~
Les Hembree
cc Dan Watrous
EXHIBIT NO. "Z7
P. "3o-F-.!J
EXHIBIT NO. 28-
f. 2-cP:?--
i "IE MAIL Jy \
~
September 11, 1999
RECEIVED
TOWN OF TlBURON
SiP, 1 3 1999
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
l'vlr. Dan Watrous
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, Ca 94920
Dear Dan
Subject 160 Solano Street. Tiburon, Ca, Second Residence
1 will not be able to attend the city meeting this week so T thought T would send you my thoughts,
T will be out of town,
As owner 01'2205 Paradise Drive 1 have concerns on the any building, but after seeing the one
and two story situation, 1 will abide with a one story if the patio, deck area is at least 10 feet from
the true property line, Understand the clump of trees and fence do not represent the true property
line' It is back at least three feet from the fence, My privacy is most important to me, no noise,
and no one bothering any trees that are already there, They stay'
Next concern is drainage I It must be shown to me before T sign off to any building,
These two concerns are 1, Backing off of deck area from property line, 2. Drainage
If these two concerns are to my liking 1 will say yes to one or two story building,
T have to see a neighbor to understand what is going on. NO one has even asked what I liked
since the entire project began, This is not right'
These are my concerns, Please feel free to call me for thoughts,
Jl~2,
EXHIBIT NO.Z.cr
2205 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920 . Phone (415) 435-3480 . Fax (415) 435-9646 . bobh@wco.com
RECclVl:1J
TOWN OF TIBURON
SEP 1 6 1999
LATE MAIL 'ill..
DEPARTM8Itll3ll8in: (parcel 59-142-<l2 - Directly behind propenyl
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
. Excavated the whole building to lower the height,
. Lowered the ceiling heights to 8 ft.
. Lowered roof pitch - did not use a flat roof because it is high maintenance and not aesthetically
pleasing. The Design Review Board also shared this thought.
. Peak of roof only is at 129 ft. above sea level. All other comers are at 126 ft. above sea level
(requested height of Mr. Eiselin),
Robert Hamilton: (2205 Paradise Drive)
. Moved stairs off of the deck to the side of the house away from propeny line (concerned with noise
issues).
. Designated shrubs along fence/propeny line to remain. Will keep at height to preserve privacy
concerns.
. Although I am not really sure why this concerned Mr. Hamilton, he mentioned in his first letter that he
thought the pitch of the roof shonld be change to the opposite direction. We did change the pitch to his
recommended direction. It probably was an aesthetic issue,
. Stayed with the two-story plan after reading concerns in his letter dated August 25. 1999, Mr,
Hamilton was concerned with the loss of privacy and increase of noise due to the fact that the single
story house wonld come down to the propeny line dividing the two properties.
Robert and Cvnthia Elsberg: (2250 Centro East S1. and 2245 Paradise Dr,)
. Stayed out of 25 ft, setback (main concern - stated in letter dated July 28, 1999),
. Changed stairs entering rear yard from first floor bedroom to stone, Mr. Elsberg asked for removal or
a change to concretelhard material (noise concerns),
. Removed deck and doors from the Master Bedroom (privacy issues because our Master Bedroom is
across from their deck),
. Continued to keep main deck at front of house and did not wrap around toward the Elsberg property
because of noise and privacy concerns.
. Stayed with two-story plan after reading concerns in letter dated August 24. 1999, The E1sbergs are
concerned with loss of open space being replaced with unaesthetic roofs and roof pipes. Also.
concerned with noise and loss of privacy to both the Centro East propeny and the Paradise Drive
propeny.
. Discussed landscaping recommendations on September 13, 1999 with Mr. Elsberg and agreed that no
large trees will be planted in rear setback area due to possible view blockage.
Les and Maxine Hembree: (172 Solano Drive)
Chimney:
. "the new plans retain the chimney in approximately the same location as the prior plans. and in fact.
add another chimney on our side of the second story" - The chimney on the second story is not on the
side of the house, it is in the center of the roof - 48 feet away from the Hembree house. Also, the
fireplace on the first floor has been moved dO\m on the lot, lowering the chimney. I believe when Mr.
Beales asked Dan Watrous if there was an ordinance against wood burning fireplaces, Dan answered
"no" and he also made it a point to note that the chimney location blended into a row of poplar trees
off in the distance and did not significantly impact the Hembree' s view of Augle Island.
Privacy:
. "moving the house within 16.5 feet of our home" - The house has always been that distance away
from their home. We flopped the main entrance to the back of the house and put a bedroom where the
entrance used to be, We have moved the house slightly toward the ganlge. but that is only because we
have taken so much square footage off of the second floor and it needs to be placed somewhere else.
This room does not come up high enough to block any views of the Hembrees and is, in fact, a better
solution to the entry location becluse it is a third bedroom and will r.uely be used.
EXHIBIT NO. 30
p, lOF)
~
. "moving the entry to the back of the new house some 20 feet from our deck" - The new entry is
exactly the same distance from the Hembree's deck that the old entry was - 20 ft.
. "moving the walking path leading from the garage and the street next to our fence, placing it about 12
feet from our and our renter's living rooms, as well as taking up precious space for a landscape buffer
between homes" - The walkway in the previous plan was also along the fence line. Also, the retaining
wall has been moved in, creating a 3 '-6" area to add additional landscaping. The Hembrees also have
a very high fence and hedging existing in that area (approx. 14 ft.), which already creates a very big
buffer. (The existing fence and hedge is actually on Ms. May's property).
Mass and bnlk:
. "while the new plans move the second story four and one-half feet to the East, they do not materially
improve the bulk and mass problems, No provisions have been made to lower the height of the second
story" - We have moved the second story an additional 4'-6". cut the building into the hillside,
lowered the ceiling heights to 8' -0", and changed the pitch of the roof. All of these items are used to
effectively reduce the visual bulk of a structure (Goal I - Tiburon View Guidelines). The comers are
now all at 126 ft. above sea level and only the pitch is at 129 ft. above sea level. We feel that all of
these issues have materially improved the bulk and mass issue. The hack corner of the second story in
now approx, 30'-0" away from the Hembree's deck and approx. 40'-0" away from their house. The
front corner is approx. 42'-0" away from the deck and 52'-0" away from their house. We feel that the
second story is now placed at a happy medimn between the Hembree and Elsberg properties (the
second story is approx, 31' -0" away from the Elsberg's deck and 34' -0" away from the Elsberg'
house).
Views:
. "even with the shift of the second story, the new plan still fu1ly obstructs our East bay view from our
deck and part of our living room." - Again, although we have moved the house, at this time. four and
one-half feet. the total taken off of the second story from the beginning cfthe project has been 15'-9
\1,". We have done this to pr.eserve the fu1l Angel Island and East Bay views from the Hembree's
living room. dining room and kitchen and to minimize the impact from their deck (Deck is built on 25
ft. rear yard setback). We have followed the recommended Tiburon view guidelines and "would
interfere with only the side portion view from the deck of this neighboring home, The revised design
would match the acceptable view obstruction illustrated under Goal 3, Principle 7 (C)." (Quote from
Dan Watrous -letter dated August 5. 1999.
. "takes issue when a master bedroom is taking away the view from someone' s living room." - We have
been in the Hembree's living room and would not agree that the view from that location is being
impacted. As stated earlier, they have a fu1l view of Angel Island and the East Bay and let's not forget
about the view over the front of Ms. May's house toward the city. The Guidelines talk about a fu1l
panoramic series of pictures, however no one has taken this part of it into consideration. Also, we
realize that the master bedroom is impacting the East Bay view from the Hembree's deck and that Mr,
Snow mentioned this because the Master Bedroom is not considered to be a primary ceremonial room.
However, what we questioned why this was an issue because according to the guidelines the East Bay
view is also not considered to be an important object in the view (Goal 3, 7 (D).
One-story solution:
. We were asked by the board to "explore" a one-story solution. We feel that we have thoroughly done
this and have come to the conclusion that this is not the direction that we would like to proceed with.
Although the neighbors have voiced their concerns over the one-story solution, Sean and I have made
this decision because of our own concerns, Anyone who has visited the properly I hope has also
viewed it from all of the properties and not just the Hembrees. Our main concern with the one story
solution is that we feel we would be living in a fishbowl because of the way the lot is situated between
all of the surrounding properties. In fact, after visiting with Mr. EIsberg, we noticed that our two-story
solution looks small in comparison with some of the surrounding properties. I can only imagine the
effect of having a one-story plan and always being looked down upon by Mr. Elsberg, their neighbors
to the East, the Hembrees and the Eislens, should they choose to develop their property, Also, our
two-story plan has been lowered to equa1 the pitch of Ms. May's house, even though it is on a higher
point of the lot. I realize that the Hembree home is a single story, but I feel I must conect Ms.
Mahoney from the previous meeting. She stated that out of 27 nearby condominimn units in the area
all 27 are connected or attached and only one two-dwelling st:rUCtUIe is two stories. 1bis fact is not
EXHIBIT NO. 30
f- Z if S
1--
'li
true and without doing a thorough search I can name three properties that I am familiar with that prove
her statement inmrrect. The Elsberg property, their neighbor to the East and a property at 2298
Paradise Drive. Also, if Ms, Mahoney troly did a walk around the neighborhood, she would notice that
a one-story plan is not the norm. In fact, all of the neighbors attending this meeting, with the e:,<ception
of the Hembrees live in a two or more story home. The point I am trying to make is that we are not
coming in here asking for something that is unreasonable. We feel we have designed a modest home
and have tried to work with all of the neighbors to come up with the best solution for everyone.
The other issues that concerned us with the one-story solutions were as follows:
. The one-story plan would take up more open space and would push the home South and West. As
it stands now, we will be at the mercy of Mr. Hamilton to capture a view from our living and
dining areas because of the fence, sluubs and the redwood tree growing in the comer of their
property. The lower we go on our lot. the larger this problem becomes. We would be looking
directly into their fence.
. Privacy and noise concerns - We would now be pushed closer to all of the surrounding homes and
have heard concerns from the neighbors about these issues. Again, we feel that the second story
creates a privacy buffer from the surrounding properties and would find it very difficult to solve
these concerns with a one-story plan. The neighbors have asked us to keep the home pushed to the
Nonh of the lot as far as possible and this is obviously only attainable with a two-story plan.
. Aesthetic concerns - While visiting with Mr, Elsberg, we walked out on the deck and looked at
the story poles. I realized that he and other neighbors would be looking down at a series of roofs
and roof pipes as mentioned in his letter dated August 24, 1999. We discussed how a one-story
plan would look "funny" (for a lack of a better word) in this location. All of the homes
SWTounding it are two-stories, with the exception of the Hembrees, whose house would also look
down upon ours because of the higher location above sea level and how high it is built up from the
ground
EXHIBIT NO. 30
?... '3 or]
3
----'--
~
RECEIVED
TOWN OF TI8URON
SEP 2 8 1999
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
160 Solano Street
Tiburon
September 20, 1999
A TTN Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
Dan Wa~ Sr. Planner
Re: Minutes 8/5/99
Proposed 2nd unit
160 Solano St. Tiburon
For the record I would like to make a correction in the minutes from the meeting
August 5,1999 page II - with respect to the Hembree's East Bay View, I stated at the
8/5/99 meeting that the East Bav view Not Angel Island, as stated in the minutes, was not
available when the Hembree's purchased their property at 170 and 172 Solano Street
eleven years ago, In fact, that view became available late last fall (1998) when
homeowners at 2290 and 2280 Paradise Drive cut down a very tall stand of Poplars
between the two property lines, A similar stand and height still remains between 2270
and 2252 Paradise Drive,
In the minutes it states that I said these Poplars blocked Hembree~ view of Angel
Island - in fact I stated that the trees blocked the Hembree's entire view of the East Bay
including the shipping lanes.
In the 24 years I have lived here at 16Q Solano Street that view of the East Bay
has not existed for us. Please note this correction to the minutes,
Thank you,
Margaret C. May
Property owner
160 Solano Street
Tiburon, CA 94920
'~J'~~' '/11
/ EXHIBIT NO. 31
~,
..~... D.J SCRANTON SURVEYING
~ 845 Olive Ave., Suite 208
-
'wi Novato, California 94945
, (415) 897-2663
October 7, 1999
RECE;VED
OCT 8 1999
PL~N~I!j\JG 1]~!";~P:i'/lE:\IT
TC".'I'il OF i~,SURC:I'i
Planning Department
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
Re: Story Pole Verification
A.P.N.59-142-12
160 Solano Street
Dear Planning Department:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that on behalf of my client Dolores
Davis that I have staked and verified seven story pole locations and heights for
the above cited lot according to the architectural plans prepared by Hank Bruce,
AlA. dated September 8th, 1999. Attached to this verification letter is a portion
of the Hank Bruce drawing which shows the seven story poles staked in the field
and subsequently verified by me. None of the remaining story poles depicted
upon the plan were staked. A review of the attached drawing shows the
following seven story pole heights:
Poles labeled one through four: elevation of 126 feet
Pole labeled five (ridge apex): elevation of 129 feet
Pole labeled six (chimney): elevation of 131 feet
Pole labeled seven (chimney): elevation of 121.9 feet
Should you have further questions please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
espectfully submitted,
~
Dougla . Scranton
California Licensed Surveyor
No. 5379 License Renewal 6/30/00
DJS/ds
cc: Dolores Davis
Hank Bruce, AlA
EXHIBIT NO. 32-
P. (6F,-
Boundary. Parcel Maps . Subdivisions . Construction Layout . Topography
m<p (/
r5 I.
"ij ~,~ ~
?d me'" <p m."
m r<?d -m --<.V""
m- m "
Z -(/ 1)
m",:<GI", AlQ--n
'_"0 'p. ziJ~'<' \\' I'~
~~ ~jg lJm-nO"'O
'"~ -!p. f!~oiTI~~
Allll~~()m
9p.lIPp.\J
;t:.Ifli1l<~
.\>>p.p.m
'" . Z
\>> '" ere,
0' t::jll m~
~~~~ \J
<nil> m
~SJl R
,,-----Ul
o 4
\
\,
~
"'\
--- .~-- \
---~--
-s-bry 'PO \.-e.
Y-/2L \ t= ,CC\,\O"""
\630 ~OLA).JD J:>.W
I I I
i...--=t - '::... S
r I mcp
,.;
()
~~
II i
,!
, I
, I
I,
II
I
I I I I I:
I
~ ;:TI ~ !
, I ~()
- ' , \J
II II
J~ 1:1 ~ R '
; -- --< ~ 7\ ij
, 'I \--... l>-
I ..A.. ---
'w- \~\-___
L "I~"
,.;
I ,,~
I ~~
~ I'~
~ m
" I
m" () J
r Q --e-
~,
"m
~
~
)
,~.'
, !
j~~ \,\
!~
4
(4\J5) 8q.,~2-G;lCO~
OJ 5C~A}J'\Cu 5~y€::"n-.l6
a4e; oL \ Ve. AVt; +f '2D t
t---lcVA,o ) CA qa6?<1 s
'i
L
I I
m", ~
,~
m -~ ,- I
""
~ mz
r-l 1l --
mAl i" ~
:<--<. m
.
r ,
-m
~rii I, 1
r l
..~l
--,
T
! U1
II ! \]I ~
E
/ -1 .J ...
r 1<...>0 2
" v, _ "
\ Ul~~ E
~ ~
!
G
!
~
-,r ~
I ()
,-
m
'I
-------------..
-,
<l'
E III Oi
1'= -I ~
rp'
Z
~
\
\
\
\
,
~
>"
"".-'
" ~".
..-.-----.-
...-
...-
...-
...-
, .,;/
i1I
_ n.,_.,
~fl&(~~,:; ."';;};;\;,,';~;1,~i~f~l~{~11tll!#'''::I~
':~7Mi.eAAE['i@:;H.ECkMANNji'[~l~~wi~!;;;!\~~f,B~2r
Architecf e. Plan(1~r:.
-;".' ,
October 20, 1999
Town ofTiburon
Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Attn.: Dan Watrus
RECEIVED.
TOWN OF TlBURON
ocr 2 1 1999
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Re: 160 Sola.'1o Avenue
Dear Dan;
I have been retained by Les and Maxine Hembree at 172 Solano to provide architectural
consultation in presentation of their appeal of the Design Review Board decision on the
above referenced property.
In orde~ for the Town Council to effectively review and render a decision on the proposed
residence, we wouid request the following of the applicant:
I. Reset all and/or confinn the location and height of the story poles described on
the site plan sheet #A-1.0 by Hank Bruce Architects.
2. Install a colored tape or colored rope line between the points indicated on the
enclosed mark-up aftheir roof pian.
3. Secure certification by a licensed surveyor that the story-poles accurately
describe the proposed residence,
.., Indude an individual number for each story-pole for referencing by all
interested parties.
5. Install one additional story-pole at the center !ugh point of the proposed upper
floor arched bay to the South as this is a factor in the review of this project.
1624 Tiburon Blvd.
Fax 415-435-2875
Tiburon, CA 94920
Fan 415-435-2446
33
EXHIBIT NO, ,
r- \ 61"'-3
> ."
. -~ ~- -.." -;Jt~ '?' ~ ~'-i~ ~f"~t~~r:" .:"~.I,~";'~~~'.'-J:_~"" '~.: ':; $ ~-!:jI~i~t~:'?~J,~:..:~jl./::;~~:}~,~:~i::~}~' ~';;": '--"4:- ,'-_,: >~.: " ';.:;;,~;.:-./.j" _~'.
:'"j ~:~. - };:!~.~~. 't,~$J~ "f.1~f'~,,~i?~c}~;tri!~{'f..~~~~ ~.' J ~~~1ji;}}t.t~:~~1~~;~i; ';E~ l:,::' ',' '~',:"!',_:~,~,,'~,.,_'~,,'.::_,,~,'-,,'~)::.,,,,:':,:f...,_~,:,.....,:_t..:',~.'~,.'...,.,,~,f.;,,~.J~,,:,..:;:.,:,::,~,\:.",_~,:-~.~-.,:_".:!
y,' ..:-.d,.:'':;!;6",{)~ ~ {""';'"'!;j!-"'-= ....{, "'~ ';:"i'~'rj~\~,f -;'~~~m' :V~. W;j;l./~'4 i...r;:~,~~~6,l;.~-~'i"~1u-r"_"'},,,, .,,:' '". " , ~" , " _"
-.. ",,--,~~,,~....,o;.'" ....~~~'";~ ~"...,.....::..,.J.i""'-r~,.""'~tI}... """_'" "C~"'''''~'ro_'~~'''~:'''~~'''_''''';-_,,_,_,,-
,,~, " ~- , ;;.\ " h~ '':'.~' -!.. ",' .'-...'.- ~~4.;."t.'.!, {:'>, ~~ J':... '" ~ ',f .~';." .~.: L_-r?~ <::~f~'''').''-' -r"" ~~~ ,,' :; ~ _ { ,
~'1:"'r, '.; ....1 ~~';.:i~t'~Z~ ~~1 ;,~~ ~d~e:,P;~~'::~! .t~~.'t~~~~~6~~~~!. {~t:i.Z~;~;;f~~~'FJ.{~~..~~~;~~~,~;':?:t:ib' '1-: ,,,:~,: , ,~ ^: ,'~"" : ~_... ' . c _ '.~.
~. . "~,""_":-::-.',,:,,.uese"~es an 'connectmg'lapes;u JO-<l'''''mst"""" ,as 'soon: 'lis 'pOSSl e m"orderto ~;:.~,~ "
. . '", "6~hrtj;~~~ih~i6~~"J~t:~~Y;,~~6i~~!~~~~&i~i~~~2~;,~'",'.-'::.e, ,;.;- '<>'
",'
'i
. ,~':-'-
.,. Regaid~:~ '
"
'.
.)vjQ
Michael D. Heckmann
MDH/km
EXHlBITNO. 33
'. .' - ,
P. ZDF-3
....
I
I
I
M ., CJlttLl,o∾
i ~l+I'-U.~
.,,' HA1U
C)
"E EN
.~
,r;/c ---
////
.~
.~
-----
~-
- E)ffiIBW -NO.:33
P 3 of'3
:i-,
Nt-
14'
.J
( ) n
I
50[.A TUBE. .
f:---
C!-4IMNE,
STORY POLE-.J
EL,IU..
tt D
lL:1G!-4t. ..'
Jill fT ~ \..'-
if J.fa
r C!-4IMNb
LIVING
ELEv.= 1"'''
5TORT POLE
~ EL ~4
NiW
. cnoi'.1'
['
.
'"
,,\>"'-\
'VI (7V
~+ V~
~~. .
0~~' 't' /
--------
5TORj POL
/'~ EL. \2"."'!~
U
<ll
I STORY POLE
CL ""~ _
1---
___ .--.l
~
Z
-
WOOD DECK
ELEv.' ,,*,.8'
I
-to I
"5'<,
-~r~,'.
_ _ t NEW LAllN ~~A
I -- i
.
/1
/
~EWeb~qq
TOWN OF TIBURON
OCT 2'11999
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~SCL\~~~ ~~eY G\-\~ S1~
~Ce., \C\b~'~ ~'c~~ ~~~ ':v'~ ~
See-\&'\Q ~~ ~~\eS;'s \l\~
~ '\\~s.~~ <iX \'\ ~~,::-~"<--W\\o~ \l.)~\.
"oe...c,~~ ~ ~-e \?\(C)"<'-'=-"J '2- c;;,~~ Ctll) r
~~~~~\fa~. ..
'~-e~ C)-{\e....~ ~"2-J ~ ~1'y\S.
~~~~.' 'R~ 0'<\ ~d\\..b0
~~ ~~ \-.~ ~~~' ~\
y'\.\) O'0e ~~ \n~c-~
~~~~I~~~~Sd~~
~ A6\~c;,-", \~c.c,D~~~\S:?
~~ 1:\ ~e. 02;~~'S\\..,SI\C\ \\ 'lCJ / \12 \j..~.~\ex.
~~~~~~ ~\~Q)r:.\I:\~
,-,\\ ~~\C~CL ~ ~ &~'f\..D UJ
ot~~;~-cis \J\~\)~~ ~ ~~
~~ ~\ Ur\ ~ Qeo..~~~ ~ ~~XiD.
~\w\~~\~~'(\~~~~ ~
\\P~~ . ~e~~~~C&\/
.:.- ~ ~ciJ.- &.~V\ \
;; 0 ~5?< m~~~
~{\ &0'<nY\
(\~'" CoI...\..X\.6L
'('e-
\ tot> 'So\cmc:::,
EXHIBIT NO..1.:L
P. (DF2.
V:>\S.~~.~~\e( \.s~'y'0~c:..e~
~~~~~~-~~~~~
~ \i..~~~~ "
\~~ t\OO\)~ ~~~~
\<.N;1):J'{\ ~ \}..' . ~ ~\\~ "e..S'\d~S,
1-..D~12 ~~\S\\\~s'"
~ \'
C~~~&C2\C~
\ ~o c;o\<::0{\D
u.:~s: f ~I#
':0<:'
'~-~H__.\" \\ :.\ '- \.0
.~ ~:::::'r'&5\~0"\\.-r G.~~\ ~~\g~- \a~ '\ \O....iS___
~.--( \,,~ ~~ \0 e.\\(~':( Q
"
EXHIBIT NO. 3Y
~, "2 CF Z-.
~" -.,
,
,,,~.r
''''t'
" __J
J" .'
;_ ,..f,
'\.
, iJ~.': ," '
J~, '"
~:;". .:!<
....,.
':i~
., '- ."'"
f'~
)>' -'~
~
:~.~.,
':J'-;';
".:'"
, ,.4.. ti~...
,/J
"f. ... .
.i'iru " ,;"~J:
John E. Sharp
.Judith Austin .Brown
SHARP & BROWN, LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Attorneys At Law
Glendale Federal Building
630 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 310
San Rafael, California 94903
(415) 507-1400
LATE MAIL #~
Facsimile (415) 507-1408
em ail sbI400@pacbell.net
October 29, 1999
Diane Crane
Tiburon Town Clerk
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
OCT 2 9 1999
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURCN
Re: 160 Solano, Tiburon
Dear Diane:
t
As we discussed, I am enclosing a submittal in support of the appeal pertaining to
160 Solano, For the information of the Council members, they may access the Hembrees'
deck, from which the impacts of the project are most easil Viewed, by entering the
em ree prope a 0 ano ong e east Side of the house, an wa mg un the
stairs to me deck, Mr. Hembree Will leave the gate open,
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate a facsimile copy
of Wednesday night's agenda at your convenience,
Very truly yours,
p'Wk(S~r
John E, Sharp
JES/brd
Enclosure as indicated
K:\SBl09801l-dc.doc
".
John E. Sharp
Judith Austin Brown
SHARP & BROWN, LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Attorneys At Law
Glendale Federal Building
630 Las Gallinas Avenue, Suite 310
San Rafael, California 94903
(415) 507-1400
Facsimile (415) 507-1408
email sb1400@pacbell.net
October 29,1999
Mayor Mogens Bach and Members
of the Town Council
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
OCT 2 9 1999
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TISURON
Re: 160 Solano. Tiburon. Appeal of Design Review Approval;
Appellants: Leslie and Maxine Hembree
Dear Mayor Bach and Members of the Town Council:
This office represents Appellants, Les and Maxine Hembree with regard to their
appeal of the above-referenced design review approvaL The appeal was filed by Mr. and
Mrs, Hembree on September 27, 1999, Mr, and Mrs, Hembree reside at 172 Solano,
immediately adjacent to the subject property, Please include this correspondence as well
as all prior correspondence by or on behalf of Mr. and Mrs, Hembree in the
administrative record, Please provide the undersigned with and all agendas, notices and
or staff reports pertaining to the appeaL
Enclosed please find the following:
1, Letter of this date from Michael D, Heckmann AlA, an Architect retained by
the Hembrees to address design concerns as more specifically set forth in his letter. As
more particularly explained below, the design problems identified by Mr. Heckmann
evidence the fact that the Town's design parameters have not been met, and that the
Design Review Approval should be overturned,
2, Two pages of photographs dated September 10, 1999, depicting the subject
property with story poles (which, as more specifically set forth below, have been
inaccurately placed) and depicting the impact ofthe proposed project on the Hembrees, as
viewed from their deck and living area,
3, Correspondence dated October 18, 1999 and October 28, 1999 from Michael
Heckmann to Town Staff regarding story poles,
i..
SHARP & BROWN, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Mogens Bach and Members
of the Town Council
October 29, 1999
Page 2
STORY POLES:
As set forth in Mr. Heckmann's correspondence pertaining to story poles
certification of the accuracy of the story poles has not been provided as to most of the
poles, Furthermore, certain of the uncertified story poles are those which are necessary in
order for the impact on the Hembree property to be correctly understood, Given the
sensitivity of the project and its obvious elimination of a significant portion of Mr, and
Mrs, Hembrees' view to the east, any action on this project should be postponed until the
Council is satisfied that the story poles have been placed and taped so as to adequately
represent what will be a long range impact on the quality of life at the Hembree residence,
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE
REQUIREMENTS
As noted in the staff report to the Design Review Board dated August 5,1999,
both the town zoning ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines are applicable to the
subject project. In addition to Design Review pursuant to the referenced zoning code
provisions and Hillside Design Guidelines, the applicant seeks condominium approval.
(Although it appears from the Staff Report of August 5, 1999 that Design Review
Approval is required prior to the processing of a condominium conditional use permit
application, Chapter 16 94,06,00 et seq, of the Town Code provide additional design
standards for condominium applications, which are pertinent to this appeal, and which are
addressed below, The Hembrees reserve the right to submit such arguments and evidence
as may be applicable in conjunction with any future condominium use permit
application),
Again, although condominium use permit issuance is not currently before the
Town, it is notable that Tiburon Town Code Chapter 16 94,06,03(d) and (e) both require
attention to proper location in relation to the community and land uses, adequate size and
shape of the site and consistency with existing structures and height size, scale bulk and
character. The analysis set forth below with regard to design and hillside standards, and
that contained in Mr. Heckmann's letter all establish that the standards required under
Chapter 16 94,06,03 are not met.
With respect to specific zoning ordinance standards as set forth in the Town's
Design Review Ordinance (Tiburon Town Code Chapter 16 94,02 et seq,) the following
observations, are offered in support of the Hembrees' appeal.
~.
SHARP & BROWN, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Mogens Bach and Members
of the Town Council
October 29,1999
Page 3
Section 4,02,01, the purpose clause of the Town's design review ordinance,
references preservation of the Town's unique visual character, and related matters, as well
as preventing the erection of structures which are unsightly and detract from the aesthetic
character of the neighborhood or which are not properly related to their sites and adjacent
uses, As more particularly identified in the accompanying correspondence from Michael
Heckmann of this date, approval of the project as conceived, and, particularly, its second
story, operates directly contrary to the purposes referenced above, In fact, at the first
design review hearing, the Board's reaction was to ask the applicant to consider
redesigning the project as a one story structure, The applicant's insistence on pursuing a
two story project creates impacts most graphically depicted in the enclosed photographs,
and described in Mr, Heckmann's attached letter, Clearly, the impact of the elimination
of the Hembrees' view of Angel Island and points east is not consistent with the purposes
set out in 94,02,01,
Furthermore, the criteria set out in 94,02,07, Guiding Principles in the Review of
Applications, with specific reference to subsections (a), (b) and (c) cannot be achieved by
the project as currently designed, Again, reference is made to Mr. Heckmann's
correspondence, which can be summarized as establishing that the project does not
properly relate to its site, (94,02,07(a)), clearly does not attend to view considerations
from the Hembrees' property (94,02,07(b)), or that the height, size and/or bulk of the
proposed project is reasonable in relation to the character of the Hembrees' property,
(94,02,07(c)), Of particular application to this proposed project is that portion of
94,02,07(c) which discourages second story additions,
HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES
With regard to the design guidelines set forth in the Town's document entitled
"Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings", the staff report of August
5, 1999 relied upon Goal 3 Principle 7C of said Guidelines, a copy of which is attached
for your reference, together with Principles 7B, D and E all of which have some
applicability to this appeal. Note that the page containing Principles 7D and E states "if
more than 10% of view is affected, it causes a significant problem for the neighbor",
Applying said principles to the proposed project, it is clear that more than I 0% of the
Hembrees' view is eliminated, including all of their view of the East Bay and Angel
Island, Furthermore, an accurate reading of Principle 7C reveals that the drawing
...
SHARP & BROWN, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Mogens Bach and Members
of the Town Council
October 29, 1999
Page 4
designated "NO" most accurately compares to circumstances as they would exist at the
subject site if the project were approved as proposed,
CONCLUSION
In summary, the applicant's proposal does little or nothing to protect views
enjoyed by the Hembrees from their existing living areas, including their deck. Again, as
identified in Mr, Heckmann's enclosed correspondence, the quality oflife from the
Hembree property will suffer, in contrast to the protection intended to be provided by the
criteria of 94,02,07 and the Town's Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. As such,
the project fails to meet the criteria of 94,02,07, and fails to properly employ the Tiburon
Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings, Mr. and Mrs, Hembrees' appeal should be
granted and the proposal as presented should be denied,
On behalf of Mr, and Mrs, Hembree I reserve the right to submit such further
materials, testimony and argument as may be appropriate up to and including at the time
of the hearing on the appeal. Thank you for your attention to these matters,
jI~IYZ~Z~
John E, Sharp
JESlbrd
cc: Les and Maxine Hembree
Michael Heckmann
K:\SB\0980\1-mayor.doc
~.
MICHAEL D_ HECKMANN AlA
Architect · Planner
October 28, 1999
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
Attn: Town Council
Re: 160 s~ano Ave,
Mayor ~ Members of the Town Council;
I have reviewed the proposed residence at 160 Solano Avenue particularly, as it affects the
residence at 172 Solano Avenue, owned by my clients, Les and Maxine Hembree. There
are a number of issues relative to view blockage that have a major impact on my client's
residence,
I, The second story master suite - This second story element of the proposal does not
constitute a design sensitive to the neighbors and should be eliminated, This structure is
orJy 20 feet from the Hembree's living room and 19 feet from their outdoor deck and
positioned in the view the Hembree's have, and should be allowed to maintain, to the East
Bay, Not only is the view blockage significant, but the proximity of such an imposing bulk
would create an undeniable negative impact upon M!-, and Mrs, Hembree's property,
2, The living room roof - This roof extends much too high into the Hembree's view
virtually eliminating their view from Ayala Cove to the eastern end of Angel Island, This
roof combined with the design of the structure is inconsistent with the to,,"'I1'S design
objectives which require lowering the roof to preserve this element of the Hembree view
must be lowered to preserve this element of the Hembree view
3, Lower level west bedroom and escollonia rubra hedge - These two elements together
create a view blockage from the Hembree's residence in their main view toward Angel
Island, Since we have no assurance that the bedroom roof was accurately represented (
the storypoles were not verified) and it appears that the same roof extends up higher to the
north than the storypole indicates, we would reserve judgment on this element until
storypoles have been verified, The hedge plantings which can achieve a mature height of
15 feet should be substituted with another shorter plant species, The Hembree's
experience of non-cooperation when requesting landscaping trimming on the neighbors
property requires that any landscaping be low enough to provide assurance that it will not
encroach into views, The Hcmbrees are open to other assurances that a low level of
landscaping will be maintained,
1624 Tiburon Blvd.
Fax 415-435-2875
Tiburon, CA 94920
Fan 415-435-2446
z.
4, Two proposed trees - The impact of the arbutus unedo (mature 16 feet) and the
persimmon tree (mature height 20 feet) we would also reserve judgment on until a
storypole has been placed for each, Any lower substitution would be desirable,
We are confident upon your site visit that you will also see that major elements of this
proposal require modification, The Hembree's view (both from standing and seated
positions) is severely compromised and deserves greater consideration,
We look forward to the applicant providing a solution that responds to these issues and
allows them to achieve some of their major objectives at the same time,
Regards
~~
-
Michael D, Heckmann
MDH/km
lU/~b/1~93 15:57
4154352875
HECY:MANN ARCHITECTS
PAGE 01
".
MICHAEL D_ HECKMANN AlA
Architect · Planner
October 20, 1999
Town of Tiburon
PIarminS Department
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
TiburoD, CA 94920
Attn.: Dan WatnIa
Re: 160 Solano Avenue
Dear Dan;
I have been retained by Lcs and Maxine Hembree at 172 Solano to provide t.rehitcc:tulal
eoDBUltaUQO in p~~rion of their appeal. of tho Design Review Board dceiaion on the
abovo rcfeteaced property.
In order for the Town Council to effectively review and render a decision on the proposed
residence, we would request the folloWingoftbct applicani:
}, Reset III mdlor conibm the l^CatlQD and heisht of the story poles described on
the lite plan sheet t#A~ 1.0 by Hank Bruce Architlldll.
2, InataD a colored tape or colored rope line between the points indicated on the
eneIosed mark-up of their roof plan.
3 Secure certification by a IiQCOW;l auveyor that the story-polOI . aecurateIy
describe the propoMd nsidonc:e.
4, Include an individual number tor each story-pole for re&:r~ by aU
interested partiCII,
5, Install one additional story-pole at the center bish point of the ptopo.ed up!*'
tloor arched bay to the South &I this is a fictor in the review ofthiJprojcct.
'1624 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, CA 94920
Fax 415-435-2875 Fan 415-435-2446
10/28/1399 15:57
4154352875
HECKMANN ARCHITECTS
PAGE 82
".
-'
'--'
These poles and connecting tapes need to be installed as soon as possible in order to
comply with the 1 Q..day lead. time required by the planning ordinance.
Regards,
Michael D, Heckmann
MDHIkm
10/28/1999 15:57
4154352875
HECKMANN ARCHITECTS
PAGE 03
z,
.
I
I _,'
M ~ ""'1L1"~'
I S~.
.,,' HA1U
~'
Nt.
- - -----
,YE (f.
''''INE
I"ClE (
~'
~~
!:EN
r
(
\
~~
L1vlNe;i
ELEy,~ lli'J1'
6fOR'r. P6lE'
ELI2~;
u
..,
I "".,. ""'-E
t~.rt'~
-~
!!'.
.-- ,
....,.1---.-
v
~~~
~~$
h.~~
~r.j;
::::....------
---
,~
,--- --
-~::::~_.--.
"
Z
WOOO ClEeK
EL.Ev,. I_B' I
I
....
~-
4',S_ ,
~ ----------------------..
,
""
NEW LAlLN AIli!:A
I
<II
N
I
,
,
-1'
~ i
~!
-t
- .
tD
c:
:J:J .
o 0>~
Z r- i\J
'(j \)
'0 \' \5
m ~~
tn, {\1
C5 ;~u
z;:I.u-
C) ~--\
c: 111 i\S
_ "'C
o \}~
~ It C'.
_ <"-
~ >~ro
tn ~
c:i).
(0) (0)
~ 'tJ
..,.
I
I
)
I
...., (
i
, I
iJ
1..=
/ ;::.
, "'
':::l
Is
!_n r=T
, -
! ~
-1>\\'
I '
I !
! \
~ \,
cr.. rf'
;~ I~
'~
Ii'-
1$=
I_I.'-
(\1
\J
II
\-
ITI
:L.
--i
\11
lC.
~
<-
/"
C.
1-( -~
,\11 L
10- T.-
--\
:r..
y-
I
~
,
C>
('
7"-
)>-
s::
\U
\.)
\1
0-
V
l\l
\J
\l
~1~
'>..
'-
CJ
11
-ir \
4-i...:' \
'-/ \
;:..1
r-:-":-.., : ~ '! i
4;-<:::J" "':!1 i
", " I
/
i I
JJ~/---rT'\-
, , ) ......
.,..: I I / I
<.-- , /
'- 'I'
-,1..,. I I
'--\..,,'~ J
(.. ---)
/
.~
w
i>::
>-
\.)
AS
(l1
-
4
~,- ~
k'~ ~
~
if -...,
~) ~
...... ""
..
!-(
'10'
Iv-
".
II
I\:J
I
-
-iJ)
\\.
"\)I:.
. ~ <;J
~I~
~N
('5>C)
,I
ro,r- ,
~I~
~I~
v3:
('.C;
c:.v-
--\--\
-\
-a-
T (\1
\:, :::c
- U-
T '::'1
\:)-
F::.<
N'ru
C)\S
TY'
- I'U
L --1
T~o
\\'I~
~!ftl
)-1;>:
I _
r:
T!- ;
""',-
n' 1""'-
-- CI
1'-1.....
_''''' 1_
,i
"'-i~
;\". ~.
"-""'.,J
r-. I;,
VI''''
~1~.":'
u -.
'U
<,~
n.: I~-(~
",>,U
<...1 .
. ;-~
1,,-
- ..
:1.:
,- ..
, .
1--.
r<
!-~
10
,1 -
i\TI,
" ~
."
~;'.)
~
'J
C
L
iJ
.
,::::!
:jim:
c:
~:U'
o .
::110,
mz.
~o
>om
zen
...-
0"
~z
o
."
<
--
m
=Em
-r-
Ul_
~~tt,'
!\
(")
>0
c:
Ul
m
Ul
>0
Ul
i5
z
:ji
C'5
>0
Z
-i
"'Cl
::II
o
III
r-
m
~
."
o
::II
-i
:z:
m
z
m
C>
:z:
III
o
::II
.
:<~
.\U L..
<-\
"' -
~\l
~3:
-'\-"{
r.
.... --:-
\:
C)
Co) Co)
en
"tJ
"'I
^,
I )
I I
I
~
i
-=-,-"t
\:l.L
}>ID
\":I.
r-G
mG
_fL
r
--\,
Lf
0-.1'
I_
-\
f=+-
110
.
\1
~,
<Ii \
(11
~
ll',
--t]
::D
()-,
. I
!)
~'" ~
, .
, .
kJ
J;-I_~
('"p:.
r-il1'
\U:-L
\;.-
-1 ('.
--(i)- '\
TIC
r
--- f' )
/ "./.
It
/ \
, / )
,)' ;
I
/
/
!-< (} ~
l~ ~~-
\II 0
i\J(l\
-~
~~
~\J
-t):
~.>-
~~
"S
'i\l
Z
}
I..
)>
~
~
W
\S
,
~
\:l
7'0
r~
I~
~
eo
,r-
I~)
If-
7'
I>
~~.
,
..1_
I~
1/
,r
!_L
~
,I..
;01
I
i
1
/
\
,
)
/
/
i
!
\
\
-/' '\
/ '
, / 7 \
~ -:i-, / )
';J /
(\
-{
(11
~
~.
rI
I~
r-11\yO
I.,,,, .
~ir '.
IT< \Y
! 111' r
'~, \)
! \.T i C5 ('-
;n(U'i"C
!\JI'C~
iC'-'\i!
i~l\ 11'
i\,;7\)
,-, 5; \I
I {1\ - ,
I ".1 " ,
r;.':'\.
''\J '-,
1\\ I. -
I ._
jl\}0->
-", ~-
iTcet
i':\i 0- ,-..;;
1K.y.--{
,-> \' J:'
I' ~ T
(1t \'i - ;;-
I ~"
,,:~()
- is'
.,::Tc
^'. ::; 'i\'
W(1l\,-
~rJ
\ -
I (..~_
II'\I.
II.I)- -\
QI.r..
:z 0 W
I~
j - (t ,
ire \\l
17'~ :E
,If.
j011?G 0
>\11~
j}>l\.... \
""i\'.U
'......!~ \1\
I"....' '''T
10-1~ . -
. ,C': s;.
If - Y:
(.: \ -\
I, rn
r-r;.....) --,.
: \J t...\.l
I '0
:> ',":'
i \_ \J
lc. ~
I \ (-,-,-
!f'T"1 \.1"
I~~I-'
, .
I-~
10/28/19~9 15:02
4154352875
HE:K~11AHN ~RCHI TEeTS
~~GE 02
",
lATE MAIL ,
MICHAEL D_ HECKMANN AlA
Architect · Planner
October 28, 1999
RECr"."'--'
...F s..~ J ~:. ,(,... J
Town ofTiburon &
Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
fax # 435-2438
OCT 2 8 1999
PLANN\~.!G Di~C'-^"""
TOVvN OF
RE: 160 Solano Ave
Dear Dan;
Thanks for forwarding a copy of the 5torypoJe cenificalion Jetter from Douglas Scranton
dated October 7, 1999, The content of the letter is wholly inadequate in addressing the
view issues relative to 172 Solano Avenue, That this project was processed and approved
with only 7 of 23 storypoles verified for accuracy is astonishing and a clear disregard tor
adherence to standard procedure as dictated by the to\.Vll' s planning guidelines,
All storypoles depicting significant landscape plantings as well as the garage, the lower
level west bedroom, and the Iivingroom roofs must be repositioned and verified, Since the
applicant has shown no response to nlY original request of October 20, 1999, I strongly
recommend that this item be continued to a future town council meeting beyond
November 3rd, This will allow the applicant to provide the basic documentation and
storypole installation required of all proj..,cts, especially, lmportant when substantive issues
of view blockage exist,
Thank you tor your assistance in this matter
Regards
Michael D, Heckmann
cc: Hank Bruce
HBfkm
1624 Tiburon Blvd,
Fax 415-435-2875
Tiburon, CA 94920
Fan 41S-43S-244h
~..
ei
"'=
",.c:
"2
;!<(
Q)
.<:
~ II
ol!Q)O
4. V::)N
~:gi~
:5 =~ 01
illl2 '-l
~.!2u
qj >."J z
3;:O()',
(l<::\l)oc2:
'0 ~O jjlll.,
8~~i='-l
Jl
w.
ITE PLAt-.!
So"
AS NOTED
Drawn By I.Checked
ADD. H.cS,
Dote 8 6EPT., ~ l'
g",,,
~c ~ c ~
.
"1ft,;
'"
,
0"
]~~
0;;"';':
<<
~'-'.,
~<,g
~l~
""!,,,~
EXHIBIT NO. 3S-
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 1999
PLANNiNG OEPA,RTMENT
TOWN OF TlBURON
/
~~'-\ I~~~,
---::'~('\-'-o
.......... \ ,
" \
\
\
,
/)
DeCK
nnn
,
-........ /
.~~~~~I ./ /h'
;/--1
! (~~
I I
/1! ItJ
/ {~~
, II?
Iii
<.<
Ijl; I
_J r I/V'
/I f
i~
I/!f
/f#
(f
'i
:!
!'!
Cj
/
:;/,::"~,
/
,_A_A_"
~
7
/,
';
/
~
,.,
""'E
~
~ i
L
~ .
.
EXISTING ~&IDENCE
160 8OLINO A\9IJE
~ ! i
I '
I
~ I
I
I I '
""L.--._~~/ / I '
" it '
/ _/ / I
I Q ,
____=. I- _ _ . , i
., . ~ """ _ _.~) [) /ll j
nJ , ..- '
- ----...
_~".,".,. r !-----'-----"""""" 'i .
,I - I
. I =._ _",.;:'- ,- --- - i
!! -=--~----77----- I' I f II -------'
I" · " _n ..
,. .. - ,-" ~ ,
I - I
,---:;=--=-- '
, e1.....-'---- '
_~\ ~___ ~N%'22'''''''-1.
", . o;;~1.63'
ITlI][ ",.,.,,-
(
IOClOPP06T - /
- -- :.....'- -71"- ~FO>'
....---/ 1,\ 0
...4-1;' ,.--/ I \
::-- I \
(E) I \
, \
\ '
! ,.
,
/
/J
;jJ
{)
;
!?
"
!'!
Q
DeCK
I
I
I
J
1___
""TRY
GAIQDEN
.....""""~
~
Ii
~ li
;
EXISTING IC!E&IDENCE
"I6>e &oI..ANO AVEN.E
~.18'
--- - - - ~;_2:e.ei..:E-14e>j&'- --
~-
ID 2 <I II - .
n..s--J
6CAU!, lJ&""t'-ID"
I
,
,
I
,
,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NSe."22'OO"EJb1h3'
.~.-.-\', ~ "'-1"--"" -7~-----.----. --
EXl$TlNGI'ENCELIJoE \.', .' ",......:;1 / I -----------~_ /
," ", -, ~',-' ~ -~
ill lI"JOJDO[l! n!
---------- --~,.-
-------------->--
===========~=:t
\
.,
~
--
01
~~
"',.,.
~t' ,-.:
: 0
~ "",\ ~I
'" ...
:. ~ r-I
:1'1 ~~ ",
'Qljl
i~1 f~1
:'2, . '2,
'I <0 I
{
: I
!(fU
U
I
1-__
ONE STORY SCI-lEME FLAN
..
,
iL
I ''''
. --
,
A-U
eNTRY
o;$ARDEN
,
:"
\.
STORY FLAN
---
1-'
-.--
..
___I
2
I
,
: =~~;~~:
.----;. loZl_r ----.
:: n ~__ I
t~ t' ' "
: r E)~ :~
~,j Q I ,-
i r\ i ~ :
, . I r
: :?I I I
: iljl ~ ", '
i~1 ~ ~I '
. i~ ..:ll :
: :z, ~. '-
M-1.. ! '2, ,
: : I ~ ' '
" '
i: I
, ,
, ,
: : l
i l( If"
, ,
, ,
1t-' :
, ,
:: I
iil.L
: :1
: :li
, ,
: :
, ,
: :
,
I
, :
"'~'j.f;WAY
I
I
I
L____
,
1-n
AL TERNA TE
I'"~
2
A-I.
..
-l
TIBURON, CA
~.e-4$T Ibe> OOLANO Ave
- ~--f~~___
~\ .
~
,
.
o
,
~2)g
OM
i';~;
'13<3",
~11
N""~
...
~!
",.c:
;2
"'C
",,.~\eI!~VE
I
F!OOF'05ED I
114~SF
""
."
8FT31N
""
,."",
l!6)'!l'!#
51TE DATA
EXISTING
114l'3l>SF
""
,."
&FT31N
!>ZFT11N
"'"13 SF
.......
..."
ZONE R-2
ITEM REQUIRED
LOT AREA ,~ SF HlH.
FR::JN'rrAlllO se:t&!<CK 1!> F1' MIN.
N 610EYAMD 6FT MIN.
S &lDEY ARD 8 FT HlH.
lOiEolloR'rAR:> &ElBACK ~ Cl'1.0T CflIDTI..l
TO 3 FT. MAX.
Lot~ ~"~.8eFHAX
TOTAL FLOOfi! AREA ~.:I1INl'f) Sl' (1-lCUSE)
~6P(~)
.,.., ..
~WIOTI-I -'l0FtI'fl),L
12
~~=i:
ct ~~]JJLLq
MOLNTt:D LI~T ilIALL DOIlN LlGI+-lT
ecAU!:, I In" "1'-".
ftL[,=."""
~
g
r"1 [];... (Q)~"".
TIP. DECK LIUl-IT TYF. STEP 1..1GI-lT
-;\EXTEfi!IOF< 1..1"'I-IT6
A-I
"
R""~ions
6
6
6
6
~
.<:
~ tl
~o Q
~ Ii ~ N~
~\'l,,<P.
__tJ"<tN
s;q<P:!
mil! <I.';'
~.!2u1fl
ti :>."1:z' Q
3~()()"
(h:<Il 0.(>:
\'j~QiBll.,
~l)~_<I.
Oil! t-
~
<J)
l'lU&
Ire PLAN
f
!J
I
'Y
^'
~
;J
DECK
f
'tI
i
'P
"
!!!
;;J
"""""'"
RI!l"'LACE(IVIllC>OOI'&lC!!
WtNEW6'1-I1C>>'I~1'&HCE!~-
--
DECK
~]e'
EXI5TINGl ~51DENCE
(E~ ENTRY
<>AIODEN
~---
(N)Ia::lODf'ENCE
6'HKoI-IWfZ'~_
LATTlCI!:~
$AN Rl1BR CLEANClUT
Ii
~ !
2 .
. ;
;
EXISTING RESIDENCE
l6e) 8OLANO A\I!!N,I!:
6ECQOfIiLooR~.-4"'9F
i'~TI'Loof;:AIEA" IIN.3 SF
!:lECKAl'lEA" ,"VSf'
OO.Ie.'
--
N5>ao22'€)(Z)"E
RETANlNGo
....,
-----
~1$1'lltS~lNE-\,
A
n
tew ". wooo
FIM::E AM:) GATE
'---1--
""
I
I
,
1y.,IIIAY
Ll
I
I _u
-Lu
,"",
Ate NOTED
DraM By Check$<!
ADD. f-i.c.s.
Date 8- SEFT., '9'9
"'...
~c~ o@
.
~."""""
,,:2.4 & I
~-0' .
~-
EXI5TING Fi!E5IDENCE
ROOF PLAN
v
51TE
,
A,
I)
ro
.
o~
q;~";,'
~(J;';'?
,-
.~u_~
~B2
rn5~
~~~
ve
~j
",.f:
d'
:is.c
~r
~
J,-
f
I!
~ Iii!
~ ~!
I
~i
,1 I
11
-8-
'+
i J
If
~"
d
\
\...np,T'RELLlS
''''''
~
I
I
.
~
i
I
I
I
f
6
6
6
6
~
5
L ~ Q
~ i ~ N~
~"\l"<P'
_ _ tJ"tN
:5=.i<P~
\))12 <t <P
~ ~ 2 l)~
Ii :>~Z
3 iIU () () ..
(l <l) Ik' z:
1l Q;all.,
3~~i=<t
~
<JJ
m.
t~ PLANS
ecALE, V4" ~ r...,'
.u,~
~!
'.~
nrH ; rL-l
L..--J. ~ ~~
, ,
, ,
I I
, ,
I I
~,__J
""
L~;;t:r"-=
-~--G~-
, , ,
, ; ~~~"
~TNU.I&LIGHT
,
,
1"'~li
-I
--l
1
..,
ir- I ,~" ,-
lL_-L_lLj i
Fffil !
lJ1j;---' ' I, h
, I \ 'I
ii, I II
, Iv 'I
, I'
I j:
<<" ::; 1
C> r~n_"n
'1
'-
, ,
q
~:
i:
Ii
, , ,
--H3---}-
w:
~
, ,
-iV~
"
~
~'-4'
"~'Fl. I J'
t., J'~-' L_
~-',J
r ,ill
I, , I I
"+_~'m~
L_--7~ L
""""" --
""" ,
/LIGHT/'~~
~1
I ,
~
I
I
14'-4"
li
,.,
r
~
~',,~
J1'-ij>
n_n__
, ,
, ,
el'YL.fGl.IT"L____J,
. ~)~--
//!Y12
~,",-
"
r
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--
l__
I
f------------l==
rA
- I',
~\.-l
~---nEv:
----J71i
[/'--11
.
.
1____ ~."t'7-.~
------~--
'"
,
,I'
I ,t:~=~==:
,'i,----
"----
: [j.u__
I
.
~--
""""'''''
l"l'lEVICU$8CI-llil'&.
'""""'''''''''
--,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L__
-------------1
I
;
1
Sc\1le
A6 NOTCD
Dr"wnBY~""k$<l
A.DD. _ _ .c.e.
..
~:~!!!'"
~.#l~'
""-II)"
l2EQ;
J6.'o"" __ t
::::::::::::::::-:-~-~~::~-:J~
-
I
--"
Dote 8 SEPT.,
.."
Ikc~D@
"
-------------~--
n~-0"
~
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
flCALE,- W". 1'."..
~~
SECOND FL~ FLAN
:;;,~"r...
~-
-
..
.
"" ,
~~
Eli .'
.",
'"- ."
~l! o.
"'> ~!
.~
:r<C ~~
I'
I
I
R~s !
-;C:-'
L I
L
L
L "
!,
III
.<:
~ U
~i Q
~ ~ ~~ fH
~., hc:.l5:
~ l >"':! I"
<t <1:';' ~,
ill 0 d) [,
E~ "uQ!!
e>~:i v
3" 0 0"
Cl ~<l) 1112;:
.,~~,po..
" -I)!Q<i T
Srl-!
" '
0).
,
TItle
ELEvAT1ClN5
~"NOTED I ;
Drown ~YI+-Checl(ed Ii
AP.D. I-LCB.
Date & 6EFT., ~
"'M' ,
~c3)D(Q) ,.
. t
--------,
,
I OUTLINEOf'
/ ~yroussc..IEHE
, "
r
,
I
,
tf)'I' 2' "
2 NORTH ELEvATION ""~ 1
~ ~;'~~l'-'"
If II
{f)'1' 2' "
;D50UTH ELEVATION ""~ I
SCALE,1/l4'.I'-4'"
,,,.,SnEv......
----
{1)'I' 2' " 0' r 2' 4'
A:BUJE5T GARAGE ELEV,t:V<'.!,,q ~ SOUTH GARAGE ELEV. i"'~ I
:;w- 6CAl.Et- V4".I'"","
..........Jll.EYDI03 ...........~
,
-----T---~
0'1' 2' 4'
/"~ I
~'''y~~I'-'''
COFFeR ""'"
lIJOOCIl..ATTlCE
EA5T ELEVATION
D' I' 2' 4'
/"\.JI
:;_~~V::"I'.r
b
A=i
ON
e'r 2' L_-4'~__
l';A5T GARAGE ELEv. i"'~ I
SCALE, v.....r-D"
......,...~-""'"
.
A~
I It;
t- ,
ell ~
oc_ "
..:<:2 I
c:f
~c( ~
Revision.
r,-------
6
6
~-----~
~-
6
V
.<:
~ II
-0 G
Q ~ II",,,,
4- ~lP-;-
~_OJd,;;
:'if' -
q ,
(j) q"'
~~~(j~
Qj).'!>z'
3" Q Q "
oQdlll'2;
~Ugi~
3rt-
II
dl
TIt!e
AND5CAFE
Scale
A5 NOTED
o.-aw~ By j~CheCked
ADD. H.Ce.
Oate 16 5EPT., ~
"'...
[be ~ 0(0)
"
-~. -~
ZONE R-2 SITE DATA
ITEM ~QUIRED EXISTING F'f~.oFoseD
..01 AREA ~ !f' HN T14~~ SF
~ ARt:> eE'TeACK P.; FT HlN. '3 Ft
NSIOEY.AIl!O I!>FTHIK. :3C>Fl'
SSIDEYAM> 8FTHIN. &!'T3lN
rEAR"( ARD eE1!lACK ,"'" 0' LOT DEFT\< 50' FT 1 IN
T02~Ft.1"'lAX.
LOT ~ 3&"'_39\!IIio.8 6F MAX lhU 6F
TOTA.l...I'L~A.REA _02,"",llF(~> 14"W1SF
~el"(GAfIUtGe)
....,,,
.oI0FtHlN. 14FT
,>A
",.,
8FT)1N
",.,
nBSF
3b3~ SF-
TIBURON. CA
---~~"'~
~!_-
f'~\!:!IEPft\ve:
VICINTIY MAP
" 'Aa~ ~ ~ ~ Q 'Aa~
ElH/~. Il (-:::\~/-.,..~ ~,~~'...~.i. M. ~ @-\ ~"",u."
___ nll&H '.-J I I ~"'I )
'GRADE _ -.-/ I i II -
WF'. ~ECK L~T WF'~ STEF' ~"""T ~YF' wAcL F~ ~ '" TTI" rJLUS
~EXTERIOR LIG,..m; MOUNTED LI","T DC<LN LI"'"T
A-I
"
",.,
=~T
f
I
I
~
eE>:~TH:1o~
, T1IlEE TO REMAIN
'"
? ~CO'tER,
'-. ROeEMAItY
-WlNTANA f
e.z.OAI&T
Fl~,
~ LAV,olNpLLA
"-~
~OCCA.ILl6
!!OllNACl!A
~-"
(DI~)
1!o-2"FT..H.4~1TY
(CAN at;;~)
'"
'i
!)
'I
'J!
"
'"
,:
DECK
I.OTIl!IP""
L
/
I
DECK
e.-&I'1'.
EXISTING: RESIDENCE
I'L~~
CAMELL.IAS JAI"ORItlCA
,-,.....
~
.,~
SAN$l!U.ER.CU!!ANOiJT
~
. .
~ M
~ ;
.
.
EXI5TlNGc 1C2E&IDENCE
\f>e&r::L!NoA-.e&JE
5l!C<::II<CFi.OORAl'EA. 0436 ~
!<IR6TFLOOR.4II!I!A. ~8f'
DSCKAIEA. !>1Def'
EXISTING RESIDENce
14018'
.,," I,~TE~
~D" -
~-
1:3".18'
--
N&cVn'iZW"E
"
","TAINING
r-UAAU...
'--~:..~~
,
~115 --,
\ .'
~~~ ;;;;o:.;?;;'D~w.o:l::
'" l!LEY.'~'
~l"",,~.~'!4'eeF\
"...1&' I
I
--ll-{N)6'UAOOO
-: \ FeNCE 'GATE
. \
\
"
'-.
'"
LANIJ>SCAPE PLAN
----ii.'
Q
: 1-\ :1
"]'- re)~
, .
i~, "<,, ~
: ~i '~il
I I I :3
: :31 ~ ~,I
::" . 8
i i!>l ~ '"I
: :~ J-~ ~ I
:ii'\1 mo' ~~.3' L
'zJc----_---!--.Z11!: I
"~ '\ 1 .
! I -----j-+
, / I I
: I 1
'(~)C~D"'I~WAY __
J 1 L----f-
. .
\L',~l_
!--
,
,...
l~~,~