HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2000-06-07
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
{/~'>,J:/-Y-
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BLVD.
MEETING DATE:
MEETING TIME:
CLOSED SESSION:
INTERVIEWS:
June 7,2000
7:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
7:15 P.M.
PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all
points of view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always Address the Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Lim~ Presentations to 3 minutes; (5)
Speak Directly into Microphone.
I. INTERVIEWS - Richard Schotte, 7:15 p.m.
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. ROLL CALL
B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
1) No. 01-00 - February 16,2000 - (Adopt)
C. NEW BUSINESS
2) CHANDLER'S GATE (Formerly "Ned's Way Garden Homes") - (Agreernent
Regarding Issuance of Grading Permit to Taylor Woodrow, Inc. for Commencement
of Work on Senior Housing Project at Ned's Way site located behind 1155 Tiburon
Boulevard)
D. ADJOURNMENT
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
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
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.
I) 1864 CENTRO WEST - Modification of Design Review Approval & Request for
Variance for as-built Deck and Retaining Walls - AP# 59-061-37 - (David & Diane
Williams, Applicants) - (Adopt Resolution)
2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - #1190 - May 3,2000 - (Adopt)
3) AMICUS REQUEST - Friends of Sierra Madre, et al. v. City of Sierra Madre, et at. -
(Cal. Supreme Court No. S085088) - (Approve)
4) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As of April 30, 2000 - (Accept)
5) PT. TlliURON COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 1985- I - Special Tax Levy
FY 2000-2001 - (Adopt Resolution)
6) GANN LIMIT (Article XIII B Appropriation Lirnit) - FY 2000-2001 - (Adopt
Resolution)
7) 141 & 151 T AYLOR ROAD - Parcel Map for 2-Lot Subdivision; Doug & Britt
Engel, Owners; AP #38-071-14 & 19 - (Adopt Resolution)
8) CHANDLER'S GATE - (Formerly "Ned's Way Garden Homes") - (Agreement
Regarding Issuance of Grading Permit to Taylor Woodrow, Inc. for Commencement
of Work on Senior Housing Project at Ned's Way site located behind 1155 Tiburon
Boulevard)
F. NEW BUSINESS
9) A VENIDA MIRAFLORES MEDIAN STRIP LANDSCAPING - (Consider Request
by Del Mar Valley POA for Portion of Town Water Meter Allocation)
G. PUBLIC HEARING
10) 36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST - Appeal of Conditions of Approval of Design Review
Board Decision Regarding after-the-fact Construction of a Deck and exterior
alterations to an existing single-family dwelling and application for a Variance
Request - Lalita Waterrnan, Appellant - (AP #34-311- I I)
II) DOWNTOWN AREA STREET PARKING REGULA nONS -
a) Amend Chapter 23 of Town Code to Allow implementation of regulations
pertaining to certain new and existing Downtown Parking, Loading &
Unloading Zones, Curb Colors and Signage associated with the Main Street
Reconstruction Project - (Urgency Ordinance)
12)FY 2000 - 2002 PRELIMINARY TWO- YEAR TOWN BUDGET - (Introduction &
Overview)
H. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
I. ADJOURNMENT
Future Af[enda Items
--Department Operating Budgets FY 2001-2002 -June 13, 2000 (AdjaurnedMeeting)
--Capital Improvement Program FY 2001-2002 -June 21,2000
--Redevelopment Agency Budget Plan - June 21, 2000
--Appeal of Design Review Board Decision re: Relocation of Sports Court, Fence and Lighting - 20 Tanjield Drive
- (Ron & Grace Elijah, Applicants/Appellants) - June 21, 2000
-Adoption of Two-Year Municipal Budget Plan - FY 2001-2002 -July 5, 2000
DATE OF MEETING:
June 7. 2000
No. 6. 2000
DATE POSTED:
June 2. 2000
NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING
CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will
hold a Closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated
below:
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Section 54957.6)
NAME: {!,'ChllrZ.J -r- 57::J101f'i-
MAILING ADDRESS: ;::0 80x /02. 7 77Z..,UK
TELEPHONE: Home: 7Y9-S-~S2Work; Fax No. 7?9-0],
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (Ifapplicable) 11:// IIA{/~I'/
TlBURON RESIDENT: (Yea...) .2 DATE SUBMITTED: .r!z.,r/dO
.:r: MOVE'; 7'Q -';/."A!OH /16..., yr- ;z ~ Go~.r /I 0 19)1E~ '" ~A~IEJF''<' &) C11/"~
:50 t!f~1'l.r ~ I',./AN~E ::z:: $i$'lf!.v~tI eN"'" I!M/f~If:!VAf;"N t{,/I1,t-t/r..r,'6,y /JV,4
1!C1i>tMu,..; I:"" f11/f.rrAcl.".u.1fJ It,,^, r /,'1",,/ t;('E~I!f. /lYc /1.-./ /N-rJFA!cfr
/,v ~/AN"",'Nq /1-v..f "'$.;,,,,, -<,v,e"; N>LJ,OW'...." ~ T Er"Jt','E/lI'~f.
if v v v
~ h",,J 50"'''' tls.,,et!' 1; /''s,{s7'i-..: /,M-,y,'N ,0,," 'A!EJ"'<'/rJ '0 1"I,v./
FrA!"s ,:"" P1-'1;"bu.
8",.1.; ;,,{ HA''''- e f<)E-eE /Y.7i-/ e<'4'-'SE TWVKJ-,,"/,~ P;""AoV't'e
:r fi7o-t .I'Y",\f'rkA!e- .6",w h,;~/ r/l"iw",ulJ' j.1!f
"
Et<',';IVt'& /
....: /YEt<! he'u.!
r /r~J. o.""-<ti,:.,,
10 to< 1/
/
---------- T own Hail Use ----------------------------
_ Date Application Received:
5' - 2("- 00
Interview Date:
1- ;.r ~
_ Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
_ Date Term Expires:
Length of Term:
jrn 12/95
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
.
(C': ~O .
~O
t.,
f
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNlA 94920 . (415) 435.7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
RECEIVED
COMMISSION. BOARD & COMMITTEE MAY 25 2000
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
A P P L I CAT ION TOWN OF TIBURON
The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions,
boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen
vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local
governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in
serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and
returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and
informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year.
Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
&A
Robert L. Kleinert
Town Manager
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
I PLANNING PARKS & OPEN SPACE
3 DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION
HERITAGE & ARTS Z DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
1- BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY
RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE
1
I
...~ ~ OF--r'l)
/:,.~v.
'0 1>
r~ .,.~O
- ~I r~\€ ,-: ..-
v<. J .: .,.
//- ; T, ~...,'"
~ 0",' .' -."
folIA \~(.... "'.
.
.
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF UNSCHEDULED
VACANCY
ApplIcation Period: April 2000
(Interested Residents can call 435-7377 for an application)
PLANNING COMMISSION -
(Statutory Authority: Section 3.04 of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance)
Purpose:
The Planning Commission reviews and acts on applications for Conditional
Use Permits, Secondary Dwelling Unit Use Permits, Minor Subdivisions,
Lot Line Adjustments and certain other required applications. The
Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the Town Council
regarding Zone Changes, Zoning Text Amendments, Precise Development
Plans, Major Subdivisions, and amendments to Master Plans and the
Tiburon General Plan. Decisions ofthe Commission are final, unless
appealed to the Town Council.
Qualifications:
Applicants must be residents of the Town ofTiburon and have the interest,
dedication and time commitment to prornote the general welfare of the
community through proper interpretation and implementation of the
Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
The unscheduled vacancy on the Planning Commission occurred as follows:
I)
Appointees
Lisa Klairmont
Date Appointed
February 1999*
Date Resiened
March 2000
Term Exvires
February 2003
"(Original appointment - October I995)
Extended Deadline for Receipt of Applications = Mav 15. 2000**
"" [Extended]
-Notice Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Be/lI'ib Library
-Courtesy copies to Tiburon Town Council/Staff/Commissioners
-Notice Faxed to The Ark & Marin Indeoendent Journal
!!-M-#/
TIBURON
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Gram called the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the Town ofTiburon to
order at 7:40 p.m. on Wednesday, February 16, 2000, in the Council Chambers at 1505
Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: Bach, Hennessy, Thompson, Matthews, Gram
EX-OFFICIO:
Executive Director Kleinert, Town Attorney
Danforth, Planning Director Anderson,
Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi, Town Clerk
Clerk Crane Iacopi
B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
I) #-03-99 - September 15, 1999
MOTION: To Approve Minutes #03-99 of September 15, 1999 as presented
Moved: Hennessy, Seconded by Bach
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
C. BUSINESS MEETING
2) NED'S WAY SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT - (Approve Agreement with Ned's
Way LLC for Demolition of Old Town Hall & Police Facilities at 1155 Tiburon
Boulevard)
Town Attorney Danforth said Ned's Way Garden Homes, the developer of the Ned's Way
Senior Housing Project, had requested permission to begin demolition at the project site
during the week of February 21. She said that the proposed Demolition Agreement
contained provisions over and above the existing Disposition and Development
Agreement, and that approval of said Agreement would also trigger issuance of an
encroachment permit by the Town.
In response to a question from the Board Chair Gram, Planning Director Anderson said
that erosion control would be made a condition of the encroachment permit.
Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi said the lower area had a silt fence, but Chair
Gram said the site should also have construction fencing. Boardmember Bach concurred
and said a chain link should be installed to secure the area. Superintendent Iacopi agreed.
Redevelopment Agency Minutes #01-00
February 16, 2000
Page I
MOTION:
To approve the Demolition Agreement with Ned's Way Garden
Homes LLC subject to the addition of a chain link fence to secure
the construction site.
Matthews, Seconded by Bach
AYES: Unanimous
Moved:
Vote:
D. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business of the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency,
Chair Gram adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m., sine die.
TOM GRAM, CHAIR
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Redevelopment Agency Minutes #01-00
February 16, 2000
Page 2
TOWN OF TIBURON
ST AFF REpORT
ITEMNO RDA'2 f( 7C ?)
MEETING DATE: 6/7/2000
To: TOWN COUNCIL & REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
Subject: 2-98 NED'S WAY: CHANDLER'S GATE PROJECT (FORMERLY NED'S WAY
GARDEN HOMES) GRADING AGREEMENT WITH NED'S WAY GARDEN
HOMES, LLC; ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-151-35
Date: JUNE 1,2000
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC, developer of the senior housing project at Ned's Way, is
requesting permission to begin grading of the site coincident with the end of the school term at
Reed Elementary School. It is critical that grading begin as soon as school lets out (June 16) so
that the noisiest and most disruptive of construction activities can be completed over the summer
vacation.
Ideally, the grading activity would have occurred subsequent to recordation of the final
subdivision map, approval of the improvement drawings, and transfer of the property title to the
developer. The improvement drawings, final subdivision map, and building permit drawings were
submitted to the Town for review a few weeks ago, but final approval of these drawings (and
subsequent transfer of property title) will not be possible prior to the end of the school term.
Since the Redevelopment Agency will still own the site upon commencement of grading, the
developer will need an encroachment permit. Furthermore, a Grading Agreement is being
finalized that clarifies that the grading work is subject to applicable provisions of the Disposition
and Development Agreement for the project. The Grading Agreement (Exhibit 1) contains
indemnification, insurance, and monetary security provisions. These provisions must be to the
satisfaction of the Acting Town Attorney The Grading Agreement is very sirnilar to the
Demolition Agreement that the Board of Directors approved in February 2000 to allow removal
of the buildings on the site during a school vacation week.
Tiburon Town COIlf/eil & 'l'ihurofl Redevelopme11f .--lge//cy
Sla./l Report
6/7/2000
I
RECOMMENDA nON
That the Board of Directors approve the Agreement subject to any modifications required by the
Acting Town Attorney and authorize the Executive Director (Town Manager) to execute it on
behalf of the Redevelopment Agency.
EXHffiITS
I. Draft Agreement
\redevel\nedsgrading agreerpt.doc
Tiburon Town Council & Tiburon Redevelopment Agency
Staff Report
6/7/2000
2
JUN. -01 DO-Hll . 5-
\ORR.S & NORR.S W. C
'EL i 9259343665
P 002
o d,9!9 i /lr ~r;:;l
I;, , /Ll\
W L.!J\j
GRADING AGREEMENT
..
This Grlldinl;l Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on this _ day of June, 2000, by
and between Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Ned's")
and the Tiburon Reqevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic (the "Agency").
Reeltals
Ned's and the Agency are parties to thaI certain Disposition and Development Agreement
for Ned's Way Senior Housing Development, dated June! 7, 1998 ("DDA"). TIle parties now
desire to provide for Ned's grading of the Property (as the "Property" is defined in the DDA)
prior to the closo of escrow for Ned's acq1.lisition of the Property under the DDA.
Accordingly, the parties hereby agree as follows:
^Ireement
1. The J\gency hereby grants Ned's pernlission to enter the Property for the pl.lrpose
of grading the Property according to the Site Improvement Plans created by Irv Schwanz and
Associates, dated MllY 4, 2000, and submiUed to the Agency on MllY 15, 2000 (the
"Improvement Plans"), Il copy of which 15 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein
by this reference: provided, however, that prior to entering the Property or per forming any
grading work thereon, Ned '5 shall obtain all encroaciunent penn it from the AgencylTown of
Tiburon, in substantially the [oml attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Encroachmellt Permit") and
any llecessary arllding permit from the Agency and/or the Town ofTiburon. Ned's shall perform
all grading work in compliance with llnd according to the Improvement Plans, the terms llnd
conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Encroachment Permit, and llJIY grading permit issued
to Ned's.
2, Prior to enlllrlng the Property to perfonn any llrading work, Ned's shall provide to
tile Agency proot; rellsonably acceptable to the Agency, that Ned's has fulfilled all of the
insurllJ\ce requirements set fOl1h in Section 8.4 of the DDA.
3. ~ed's shall indelTU1ity, defend and hold Ilarmless the Agency, the Town of
Tiburon, llJ\d its employees, officers, agents and represenllltives from llJId against all clairns,
actions, cllltSes ofaction, damages, expenses, costs, obligations, injuries, controversies and
lillbilities that arise out of or relate to Ned's, or Ned's contractol'S', agents' consultants' and
representatives', entry onto the Properly and theu- performance of any grading work and/or work
related thereto.
-00700CIi/17l!675-1
1
EXHIBIT NO, I
,Jt\ -0, OO:~Hil
58
\ORR:S & NORR,S I G.
"EL ,9259343665
P 003
4. Ned's shall cond~lct alld perform its grading work on the Property only during
normal working hours, shall perf 01111 the grading work in a good and workmanlike manner, and
shall properly dispose of all of the soil, materials, and debris from the grading work in
accordl\l1ce with CaJifomill and local law. All grading work shall be perfOnlled between June
19,2000 and August 18,2000
5. NoUling in this Agreement, nor Ned's grading of the Property prior to the close of
escrow, shall obligate the Agency to waive any of the conditions of closing in the Agency's
favor set forth in Article 3 ofthe DOli.. Ned's tmderstands and agrees that it performs the
gradina work with the risk that one or more of the conditions may not be fulfilled and that the
Agency's obligatiol1 to convey the Property to Ned's remains contingent upon fulfillment of all
of the conditions set forth in Article 3 of the DDA.
a. Jn the event that Ned's does not close escrow on the Property by the
deadline therefor set forth in the DDA (as extended, if at all, in accordl\l1ce with the terms of the
DDA), Ned's shall, within thirty (30) days of the Agency's written request to Ned's therefor,
completely restore the Property to the condition that the ?roperty was in prior to any grading
work performed by ~ed's under this Agreement, the Encroachment Permit, and any grading
permit issued to Ned's. To secure Ned's perfomlance of its obligation to restore the Property to
its pre-grading condition, ~ed's het<lby agrees that, in the event that Ned's does not complete
allY and all WOrK reqllired to restore the Property to its pre-grading condition within the thirty
(30) day period set forth above, the Age:lcy may \lse and/or apply Bome or all, as necessary, of
the Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) that Ned's has deposited with the Agency as a dust and
debris deposit to pay for the completion of restoring the Property to its pre-grading condition;
provided, however, that, if Ned's has proceeded in good faith to complete the restoration work
within the thirty (30) day period. then, at least two (2) working days before the Agency applies
or uses any of the deposit for restoration work or performs any restoration work on the Pro perry,
the Agency shall notify Ned's in writing of the Agency's detennination of the nature, scope, and
the estimated cost and time needed for completion ofthe restoration work that the Agency has
determined remains to be done Ned's shall, within twenty-foUT (24) hOl1r3 ofits receipt of the
Agency's notice, inform the Agency ill writing whether Ned's shall perform the work Bet rorth in
the Agency's notice. If Ned's fails to respond to the Agency's notice within the 24-hour period
or declines to complete the restoration work set forth in the Agency's notice, the Agency may
apply and use the deposit funds to pay for the work set forth in its notice. Upon the Agency
completing and/or paying for the Work required to restore the Property to its pre.grading
condition, the Agency shall provide Ned's with an accounting of the costs the Agency incurred
to complete the restoration work and shall refund to ~ed's the remainder of the $20,000 deposit.
6. Except as sel forth in this Agreement, Ned's grading work On the Property shall
be llovemed by the DDA, the lmprovement Plans, the Encroaclunent pelTllit and any grading
permit issued to Ned'.. All capitalized terms set forth in this A~ee1l1ent, unless defined herein,
shall have the sanle meaning as set forth in the DDA.
T007oo05l'72675-1
2
r,.
r
i
W
_._.....l
JUN. -0. OOiTHlJ1 12 59
NORR:S & NORRIS I C,
Executed on the date first written above.
NED'S WAY GARDEN HOMES, LLC
a California limited liability company
By: TAYLOR WOODROW HOMES, INC.
a California corporation
Managinll Member
By:
Its:
By: NW DBVELOPMENT PARTh'ERS. LLC
a CuJifomla limited liability company
MiUlalling Member
By:
Its:
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
a public body, corporate and politIC
By:
Its:
T007oo05l17:2675-1
3
7EL 19259343665
P 004
~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
ITEM NO.:
I
FROM:
PLANNING DIRECTOR ANDERSON ~
SUBJECT:
1864 CENTRO WEST STREET; FILE # 299050
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR
AFTER-THE-FACT CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK
MODIFICATION AND RETAINING WALLS, WITH A
VARIANCE FOR EXCESS WALL HEIGHT
MEETING DATE:
REPORT DATE:
JUNE 7, 2000
JUNE 1,2000
APPLICANTS - DA VID AND DIANE WILLIAMS
PROPERTY OWNERS - SAME
BACKGROUND
This item was removed from the Consent Calendar of the Town Council agenda of May 17, 2000,
and continued to the next meeting at the request of Mayor Gram. The reason for the continuance
was that the Williams' were in contact with their neighbors at 1868 Centro West Street (Eagans)
regarding a possible amicable solution to the as-built deck.
Staff spoke with Mrs Williams on June I, 2000 to receive an update on progress toward
resolution of the deck issue with the neighbors. Mrs Williams reported that Mr. Eagan had not
yet had an opportunity to meet with the Williams' to discuss and view the as-built deck.
Staff advised Mrs. Williams that the matter should be resolved prior to the Town Council
meeting, and that any form of approval of the as-built deck by Mr. Eagan should be in writing if a
personal appearance at the meeting were not possible.
Staff has modified the draft resolution (Exhibit I) to reflect that the denial of the as-built deck
would be without prejudice to a resubmittal without fees, provided that the affected neighbors are
in support of the as-built deck. Otherwise, the resolution is unchanged in substance from that
reviewed at the May 17, 2000 meeting.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 7, 2000
I
The Staff Report from the May 17,2000 meeting is attached as Exhibit 2.
RECOMMEND A nON
I. Receive an update from the affected parties regarding the deck.
2. Receive input from any interested persons regarding the resolution.
3. Adopt the resolution after making any desired revisions.
EXHmITS
I. Draft Resolution (revised 6/1/2000).
2. Staff Report from May 17, 2000 meeting.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 7, 2000
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR AN AS-BUILT RETAINING WALL AND
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN AS-BUILT DECK
EXTENSION AT 1864 CENTRO WEST STREET
(APN 59-061-37)
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows:
Section I. Findings.
A. On June 6,1995, the Marin County Superior Court issued a peremptory
writ of mandate requiring the Town to set aside its findings related to an
application for construction of two dwelling units located at 1860 and 1864
Centro West Street. The resulting settlement stipulated that all required
approval of plans for the project be heard directly by the Town Council
and not by the Design Review Board.
B. On January 7, ] 996, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 3143
granting conditional Site Plan & Architectural Review approval for two
dwelling units located at 1860 and 1864 Centro West Street.
C In 1999, during construction of the residence at 1864 Centro West Street,
the Town became aware of discrepancies between the approved drawings
and construction in the field, those being deviations associated with a deck
and retaining wall. Applicants subsequently filed for after-the-fact approval
of the deck and retaining wall requiring site plan and architectural review
approval and a variance for excess wall height.
D. The Town Council held duly noticed public hearings on the applications on
April 5, 2000 and May 3, 2000, and heard and considered all testimony,
both oral and written, from interested persons. At the conclusion of the
meeting, the Town Council indicated its intent to approve the as-built
retaining wall, but deadlocked on any and all motions to approve the as-
built deck extension. The Town Council directed staff to prepare a
resolution formalizing these actions for its adoption.
E. In granting the variance for excess height of the retaining wall, the Town
Council makes the following findings relative to Sections 4.03 .05(a)
through (d) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
TOWN OF TIBURON
RESOLUTION NO. _m
--i--/2000
Page I
reu. (,/1/ ),000
EXHIBIT NO, {
(a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The Town Council finds that due to the unusually soft soils conditions
experienced by this project, that acted to directly increase the necessary
finished height of the retaining wall, special circumstances exist that
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the same vicinity and zone.
(b) The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar
zones.
The Town Council finds that the excess height of the retaining wall was
caused by the existence of the unusually soft soils and the need to excavate
to a deeper level than would normally occur during the construction of
retaining wall. Granting of the variance due to these unusual physical
condilions would not constitute a grant of.\pecial privilege.
(c) The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered
among the factors which might constitute special circumstances A self-
created hardship results from actions taken by present or recent owners of the
property which consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed
as the basis for an application for a variance.
The ](JWn Conncilj/nds thai a strict application of the 6foot height limitfor
a retaining wall would result in a practical difficulty or hardship due to the
additional depth of excavalion (and the resulting higher retaining wall)
caused by the presence of unusually soft soils to a greater depth than
normally found in the vicinity. The Town Council filf.ther finds that the
unusually soft soils were not a self-created hardship but existed on the
property as a result of circumstances unrelated to any activities of the
applicants.
(d) The granting of the variance or adjustment will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity.
The Town Council finds that the excess height of the retaining wall above 6 feet
does not constitute a detrimellt to the puhlic welfare or injurious to other
property in that suhstantially all of the excess height is due to unusual soils
conditions that required over-excavation to establish proper footings for the
TOWN OF TIBURON
RESOLUTION NO. ----
..;--/2000
Page 2
rev. c,(. {:::/Ooo
walls, and that backfill can be placed against the lower side of the wall to reduce
the apparent effects of the excess height to de minimis levels. In addition,
applicant has provided a letter dated March 11, 1999 from a registered
professional engineer stating that the structural aspects of the wall are adequate.
(F) In granting Site Plan & Architectural Review approval of the as-built retaining
wall, the Town Council finds that the application is consistent with the purposes
and guiding principles of Section 4.02 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
(G) The Town Council finds that the project is consistent with the goals and objectives
of the Tiburon General Plan and in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and
other applicable regulations.
(H) The Town Council finds that the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council approves the
applications for an as-built retaining wall located at 1864 Centro West Street subject to
the following conditions
I. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, accurate as-built drawings (site
plan, elevation, and section drawings) of the project shall be shall be prepared by a
qualified professional and submitted for review and acceptance by the Planning &
Building Department as to quality and readability.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a landscape plan shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Director. Said plan shall focus on
plantings to partially screen and ameliorate the visual appearance of the
retaining walls.
3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, permittee shall submit a cash
deposit or other security acceptable to the Town sufficient to ensure the
installation of the retaining wall landscaping and its maintenance for a period not to
exceed one year following certification of its installation by the Planning Director.
4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, any and all fill placed on the
downhill side of the retaining wall on the rear property line (ie. off-site fill) must
meet the following conditions
a. Provide written permission from the owner of the property on which the fill
is to be placed.
b. Provide drawings from the soils engineer showing the volume offill, the
means of keying in the fill, the method of compaction, and the means of
TOWN OF TIBURON
RESOLUTION :'\10. ---.
.-/--/2000
Page 3
('e>o..), '(, {.ls.:>o
erosion control.
c. Provide a final letter of approval from the soils engineer stating that the fill
has been placed in accordance with his recommendations and requirements
per the approved plans
5. This approval of the as-built retaining walls shall be valid only so long as the
building permit for the remainder of the project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
that a motion to approve applicants request for as-built approval of a deck extension not
previously granted Site Plan & Architectural Review approval resulted in a deadlocked
vote (2-2) and, in the absence of additional motions to break the deadlock, constitutes a
denial of the request pursuant to Section 3.08.04 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Said
denial is made without prejudice to a reapplication in the event the affected neighbors
support in writing the as-built deck location Said application would be initiated at the
staff review level and processing fees waived.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town ofTiburon on the _ day of June, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS
THOMAS GRAM, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
\scolt\ l860cent.res3 .doc
TOWN OF TIBURON
RESOLUTION NO. ----
.-/--i2000
Page 4
('{!I.J, (,~ (;},goo
. ., ~~, v,; ~", " .
.~;t{.,~\~;f4
",,"_,-~'?~t~~':
~"-:V~:~l~.:~.~
.-. . ~~'~;~
'n~,S(H.i '110" ....;f,~ .- :-.;;'~
TO~. P.X "J;'!"Q1JJ,~QN ,;,:" "',~ N <1.,;"",,0,
.\"I'flnVl' " . Dl" 'C\""'1i'~:,>/" H~R " '. . ',; ,.,' ';'; "', '.;p,,' ......\l! .\:'0<1). .~.
. ST A.FF:'REPORTijR '\?~~~ ~\,;:;',~:~ A~!~TLT'DE~,f;': ~.
'..' . ';:"'~l....~::'I,:i''''\' t i';~.\ cr;-.;" RJ ',. r..~. ". ,..Eto, . :' ,".ct.f' .
" . i.. 7~ 5'1-;)6, .3-\ '. ."7 :rU~:!
TO: TOWN COUNCIf,---'" ITEM NO.: ..:)j J';;-;..?
-,"-"~,-.-'
>, .
, -""'~"'-l' '_-
WHEREAS., t'p_LANN.~g.l)~qORA~DERS()!'l~e a~ fOI1o~',&;>
/-<..'
SUBJECT:..,', I E."';-']) 1864 CENTRO WEST STREET; FILE # 299050
,.w..____. .... SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR
.\ Onl.:"AFTER-THE-FACT CONSJ'RUCTlON OFA l)E.CK,Jtn'V
'-0' MODIFlc:ATION AND RETAINING WALLS,~.IT~ ~ ~n
.~" VARIANCE FOR EXCESS WALL HEIGHT, '" 1:.0 n"';
FROM:
".',,,.
MEETING DATE:
MAY 17,2000
APPLICANTS - DAVID AND DIANE WILLIAMS
PROPERTY OWNERS - SAME
----------
---
BACKGROUND
'--" .
At its meeting of May 3, 2000, the Town Council directed Staff to prepare a resolution of ,..
approval for the variance and site plan and architectural review applications relative to the as-built
retaining wall. The Town Council deadlocked on any and all motions regarding approval of the
as-built deck extension. By operation of law, the request for the as-built deck extension was ,
therewith denied.
The resolution (Exhibit 1) that has been prepared reflects both of these actions. It also includes
appropriate conditions of approval for the as-built retaining wall. :.' ...i '(,::,!'\)'i'i,
:l_l!'~ I
RECOMMENDATIOr-i.:. .
::-::'
".'" ""';il;:~ ....-,!\. ::.f:h-e
.,'.:;: !j:: ~ ':;'Lw~':...:~lt
. >,~,..... -"t:: ::f'.c :.:~'>
r<" .
Adopt the resolution. ...
__ . ~:'.: 7 '~:, 1
EXHmlTS
:._'::",~ ,.,.-:i:t -i1C T~ ~..~:\
f,
,. I ;,' ~,
-, "'~ J~(;)
1. Draft Resolution.
r" .~. '
. ~ ..,'-"'
i i ~,,": I.,
T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MAY 17.2000
1
:L
EXHIBIT NO, .'
:' ~ ;. \. ../, -,,~-
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
~
DRAFr-F2
.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gram called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:38 p.m.
on Wednesday, May 3,2000, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Thompson
Matthews
PRESENT EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth,
Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner
Watrous, Finance Director Stranzl, Superintendent
of Public Works Iacopi, Acting Chief of Police Lt.
Aiello, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If anv)
Mayor Gram said there was no closed session.
C. PUBLIC OUESTlONS AND COMMENTS
None.
D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS
None.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
I) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As of March 31,2000 - (Accept)
2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - #1188 - April 5, 2000 - (Adopt)
3) AMICUS REQUEST - Associated Home Builders of Northern California v. City of Napa
- California Court of Appeal No. A090437; Appeal from Superior Court Judgment
rejecting challenges to Residential Inclusionary Ordinance - (Approve)
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3 above.
Bach, Seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Matthews
F. PUBLIC HEARING
4) 1864 CENTRO WEST - Modification of Design Review Approval & Request for
Variance for as-build Deck and Retaining Walls - AP No. 59-061-37 - (David & Diane
Williams, Applicants) - Continuedfrom April 5. 2000
Town Council A1inutes #1190
May 3, 2000
Page 1
Mayor Gram said the item had been continued from the April 5 hearing because Council did not
have enough information to determine whether the retaining wall in question was, in fact, too tall.
Senior Planner Watrous gave a brief report and said the Building Official, Mr. Bloomquist, was
present to answer any questions concerning how the Town measured the height of the existing
wall. Watrous said the higher [remaining] portions of the wall had not yet been poured. He said
that a diagram prepared by Planning Director Anderson that was contained in the Council packet
showed that the existing wall was clearly higher than the approved plans. He said that portions of
the wall measured from finished or natural grade were more than six feet.
Mr. Bloomquist said the retaining wall measured nine feet from the footing to the top of the wall.
He said that material from an adjoining property had been removed and that if Mr. Williams
replaced it, the height of the wall measured from grade would be less.
Councilmember Hennessy asked whether a natural grade was established at the time the plans
were approved. Building Official Bloomquist replied that the surveyor said the wall would be at
grade if Mr. Williams added back earth.
Councilmember Bach said that even though the fill created an "artificial slope" it looked to him
that it followed the natural slope. Mr. Bloomquist commented that one neighbor said the grade
had been changed (with the construction)
Mayor Gram, while noting that he was not commenting on the safety of the soil, asked
Councilmember Bach whether it looked to him like the filled area followed the existing slope
within a few inches of each other.
Building Official Bloomquist said another issue would be whether the neighbor would agree to let
Mr. Williams place or keep the soil there.
Vice Mayor Thompson asked whether the Building Official agreed with the surveyor's
measurement of the wall to grade. Planning Director Anderson clarified that the surveyor noted
that the wall was six feet above natural grade at one specific point.
Mr. Bloomquist also said that the Building Inspector who inspected the job prior to the pour was
unfamiliar with the project. He said the plans showed the curved portion of the wall to be six feet
and the straight portion of the wall having [incremental] elevations of two, four and six feet, but
that was not the case with the existing wall.
During public hearing, David Slate, 1855 Centro West, said the whole matter was "a gigantic
sleight of hand" He further said that adding or removal of the material was without [the
neighbor's] approval, and that it wouldn't stay on such a rocky slope. He asked why Council
didn't hire or consult with an independent engineer to determine the facts, and what gave someone
the right to have a level backyard on a steep hillside? He further wanted to know who was going
to be responsible for [potential] failure of the wall and [downhill] property damage?
Town Council Aiinutes # 1190
May 3, 2000
Page 2
Mayor Gram said the Council could not ascertain the safety of the wall but that since a licensed
structural engineer had signed off on it, it was presumed to be safe. He asked Mr. Slate whether
he had seen material being added [adjacent] to the wall.
Mr. Slate said he was not aware of it but assumed it had been done since it was not mentioned at
the last meeting. He said the grade looked the same to him and that the slope did not look any
different.
Councilmember Hennessy asked Mr. Slate whether he had spoken with his neighbor, Jeff Kaiser,
concerning the addition of some sort of mitigating landscaping to the wall. He said they had
discussed some issues but had not agreed on anything. Mr. Slate said that if the Council granted a
variance for the wall to Mr. Williams, he thought they should also ask for a permanent bond to
cover any [future] property damage.
Mayor Gram directed to applicant, Mr. Williams. to keep his remarks to any new information and
noted that he had explained his position well during the last meeting. He asked Mr. Williams
whether any material had been added to the site since the last hearing.
Mr. Williams said no, but that the written material presented to Council still misconstrued his
project.
Vice Mayor Thompson said the wall looked taller than six feet to him.
Mr. Williams said the initial plans showed some areas that were nine feet, but that they had agreed
to reduce the wall to six feet and had come up with a new plan. He said that the height of the
existing wall was no more than six feet. As to the issue of the fill, Williams' only comment was
that a variety of people had worked on the project over time.
Councilmember Hennessy asked if an engineer had certified the retaining wall. Mr. Williams
replied that it had been designed and inspected by an engineer, and that it got taller "going down."
Hennessy asked whether there was an engineer's license stamp on the plans. Mr. Williams said
yes, adding, "we had to re.engineer it as it got taller" and was tied into the house to make it safe.
He also said that the curved portion was part of the wall strength, as well as the terracing plan.
Councilmember Hennessy asked whether the aforementioned engineer's documents were on file
with the Town. Building Official Bloomquist answered affirmatively.
Town Attorney Danforth said a secondary issue was whether the grade had been lowered, and
said that the Town's ordinance required measurement from the lower of natural or artificial grade.
Councilmember Hennessy asked whether it had been determined whether the wall was no more
than six feet.
Town Councillvfinutes # 1190
May 3, 2000
Page 3
Senior Planner Watrous said the surveyor had detennined that the wall was six feet above grade.
Planning Director Anderson commented that was the case only because the Building Inspector
stopped the final pour.
Vice Mayor Thompson asked if the pour had now been finished and whether it was now aU right.
Building Official Bloomquist commented not if the Town applied the three-foot rule to the
portion where the [two] walls met.
Vice Mayor Thompson asked how much soil had been put back onto the site. Building Official
Bloomquist said that since the wall was nine feet from the top of the foot, he estimated that 2-1/2
to 3 feet had been put back.
Thompson said the question was whether to have a nine-foot wall or put a bunch of soil back in a
neighbor's backyard.
Mayor Gram closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Hennessy said that in the interest of moving the matter forward, she would move
to approve the existing wall without a variance because the three-foot policy mentioned by Staff
was not in writing and therefore the applicant could not be expected to adhere to it. She also said
that Mr. Williams should put soil back onto the site if the neighbors agreed.
On the issue of whether or not to grant a variance, Planning Director Anderson said what the
surveyor measured was one point of the wall, and that a significant portion of the approved plans
showed a two-foot wall rising to six-feet in the center which was not what currently existed at the
site.
Councilmember Hennessy's motion died.
Councilmember Bach said he agreed that the wall was not built according to plan, but he also said
that he thought the contours and existing elevations did not match on the plans. He said the
contours showed the existing elevation to be 80 feet with the wall to 86 feet.
Building Official Bloomquist concurred that it was a steep slope which fell away, and that Mr.
Watrous had contended that Mr. Williams had added soil to lower the [appearance of the] wall
height.
Councilmember Bach painted a scenario in which the applicant removed soil, built a wall that was
now around six feet high, even though it was intended to be two or four feet high, and asked
whether that was wrong if the soil was being replaced.
Senior Planner Watrous said that from a Code standpoint, the wall, measured from the footing
was technically nine feet tall, but visually it was now around six feet to six feet four inches.
Town Council Alinutes # 1/90
May 3, 2000
Page 4
Vice Mayor Thompson said he thought the grade had been changed and that the wall was over six
feet. He reviewed the history of the project and said that even though the Town had fought the
project due to its mass and bulk, the Court approved the plans. At this point in time, Thompson
said, he did not think that rebuilding or restoring the grade was in the best interests of the
neighbors due to the physics of the hillside. He said that some landscaping could perhaps cover
the wall and it might be better to leave it as it was, and that further mitigation could be achieved
by reducing the size of the deck.
Mayor Gram said that technically speaking, Staff was correct, but that practically speaking, the
wall was now six feet from grade. He said he would vote to approve the wall as built as long as
the soil at the base did not wash away. He also said a variance would be required due to the
technical aspect of measuring the wall.
Building Official Bloomquist suggested that a soils engineer supervise the filling and that it be
made a condition of approval.
Planning Director Anderson said reasonable conditions could be imposed as part of a variance.
On the issue of the as-built deck, Senior Planner Watrous said the overall area of the deck was
close to plan but angled differently which reduced the amount of separation with the neighboring
house.
Mr. Williams acknowledged that they changed the deck design on the plans but did not highlight it
because "it would have been confusing" and therefore it went to plan check and was approved by
Staff. He said that when the neighbor complained about it during construction, the contention
was made that they had "snuck it through," which was not so.
In response to a question from Councilmember Hennessy, Senior Planner Watrous said that Staff
did not catch the change on the plans and were not aware of it until they received a letter from the
Egans [the affected neighbors] At that point, Staff asked the Williams to apply for a
modification.
Mayor Gram re-opened the public hearing.
Susan Ashton, 1846 Centro West, adjacent to the Williams' northern unit, acknowledged that
Council's "hands were tied," but wondered what set of plans were being used and whether they
were actually approved. She said she had lived at 1846 Centro West since 1958 and had attended
all of the prior hearings on the matter. She said the Williams' houses "loomed over us" and said it
was "a shame" how Council was handling the matter now.
Ms. Ashton said that the trails below the Williams' property were wet due to an existing drainage
problem below the wall area.
Councilmember Hennessy said that if the deck on the original plans were built it would be four
feet closer to the Egans.
Town Council A-1inutes # 1190
May 3, 2000
Page 5
Mayor Gram asked if the Egans were present and/or whether Town Staff had heard from them on
this matter.
Vice Mayor Thompson said he would like to redesign the deck but did not know whether the
Town could do so.
Council member Hennessy said that since Staff did not catch the change upon approval, the deck
should be left as built.
Mr. Williams commented that during the [1995] Town Council hearings, they were told to just
submit changes in writing and not on the plans. He said that building the original deck would
required adding a lot of posts to hold it up which would be more obtrusive, and it would stick
forward to the neighbor more.
Mayor Gram commented that the architect and applicant were responsible for showing changes
on the plans and that he would vote to bring the deck back into conformance with the original
plans. However, he noted that the Egans were not present to comment.
MOTION
Moved
Vote:
Motion failed.
MOTION
Moved:
Vote:
To approve the deck as-built.
Hennessy. Seconded by Bach
AYES: Bach, Hennessy
NOES: Gram, Thompson
ABSENT: Matthews
To Direct Staff to return with a Resolution of Findings regarding the Retaining
Wall for Council approval.
Thompson. Seconded by Hennessy
AYES: Unanimous
ABSENT: Matthews
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5) DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET ACCESSffiILlTY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT -
(Finalize New Regulations pertaining to Certain Downtown Parking, Loading &
Unloading Zones and Signage)
Planning Director Anderson gave the Staff report, which consisted of an outline of proposed
parking and loading zones and accompanying visual presentation.
In the downtown area, Anderson said the yellow zone in front of Guaymas Restaurant would
remain intact for commercial [truck] loading and unloading up to 20 minutes, and for [ferry]
passenger loading and unloading up to 3 minutes. He also said the parking area beyond that on
Paradise Drive would be changed to a white zone for additional passenger loading and unloading.
Town Council Minutes #1190
May 3, 2000
Page 6
Anderson said that buses carrying ferry passengers would be required to load and unload across
the street in the red bus zone in front ofPt. Tiburon Plaza. Lt. Aiello of the Tiburon Police
Department said this was particularly important because the buses were now using the yellow
zone or stopping in the intersection in front of Guaymas.
On Main Street itself, Anderson noted that the curb on the South side of the street was painted
red and was painted yellow on the North side except for the two-vehicle turnout across from the
new Water's Edge Hotel. This turnout would be painted green and would be designated a five-
minute parking zone. Anderson said certain amendments would be needed to the Town's
Municipal Code in order to accomplish this. Council directed Staff to return with such
amendments.
In discussing the new green zone, it was suggested that the bellmen from the hotel be "deputized"
to enforce' the five-minute designation. On a more serious note, Lt. Aiello said that the TPD was
in the process of hiring a new parking enforcement officer for the downtown area.
Finally, it was noted that the yellow curb designation on Main Street was previously posted for
truck loading and unloading during the morning hours between 6 and lIon weekdays and until
10:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
After taking public testimony from Mrs. Robert Trieber, Mrs. Della Santina, and Mr. Ramon
Zambrano, Council adopted the proposals. as presented.
H. NEW BUSINESS
6) TOWN AUDIT REPORTS - FY 97/98 & FY 98/99 - (Accept)
Town Manager Kleinert gave the report, which included a number of recommendations by the
auditors for management practices. Council asked whether they had been implemented. Kleinert
indicated that they had
I. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
7) AIRPORT NOISE & LOW-FLYING PLANES - Report Regarding April 24 Public
Hearing by SFO Airport Officials at Marin County Civic Center - (Town Manager)
Town Manager Kleinert said he had attended the April 24 meeting. He recommended that
Tiburon be represented at future meetings. Council appointed Councilmember Matthews to be its
representative.
During public hearing, Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, and Jim Fitzgerald, a resident of Bel
Aire, spoke in favor of monitoring the expansion of the San Francisco airport and increased flights
over Tiburon.
8) CURRENT VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS, COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS _
A. Planning Commission
B. BicycleIPedestrian Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
C Heritage & Arts Commission
Town Council A/inutes # 1190
May 3, 2000
Page 7
The Town Clerk announced the three vacancies. Council agreed to not re-interview former
applicant Valerie Castellana for the Heritage & Arts Commission vacancy.
J. COMMUNICATIONS
9) A VENIDA MIRAFLORES MEDIAN STRIP LANDSCAPING - (Letter from Del Mar
Valley Property Owners Association Board of Directors to Town Council, dated April 26,
2000)
Town Manager Kleinert said the matter would be brought back to Council once the status of the
Town's current water meter allocations were determined.
K. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Gram
adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m., sine die.
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes #1190
May 3, 2000
Page 8
LOUISE H. RENNE
City Attorney
:JIe~-#3
OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY
KATE HERRMANN STACY
Deputy City Attorney
CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DIRECT DIAL: (415) 554-4617
E-MAIL: KATE_STACY@ci.sf.co.us
TO ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS
May 4, 2000
fD)~@~~W~rm
lIlJ MAY - ~ 2000 UV
Re:
Friends of Sierra Madre. et al. v. Citv of Sierra Madre. et al.
(Cal. Supreme Court No. S085088)
TOWN ATr::;'~:3Y'~ r::FICE
TOWN c;,: rj~". ',';N
Dear City Attorney:
In the above case, the California Supreme Court will decide an issue of crucial
importance to all cities and counties: Whether the submission of a ballot measure to the voters is
exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") when the
submission to the voters is by the legislative body rather than by a signed voter petition. The
City and County of San Francisco will be filing an amicus curiae brief in the above appeal in
support of the Appellant City of Sierra Madre. This is a request that your city join in the brief.
We urge you to join in this brief. Not only is the Court of Appeal decision legally
deficient, as a policy matter the decision could significantly hinder your public agency's ability
to sponsor initiatives, and may even call into question the legality of initiatives that have already
been approved by voters in your jurisdiction.
In Sierra Madre, the city council submitted to the voters for their enactment an ordinance
that removed 29 properties from the City's historic registry. The Court of Appeal for the Second
District ruled that the City Council's initiation of a ballot measure constituted a discretionary
approval of a project that required review under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code
Regs. 9915000 et seq. (the "CEQA Guidelines"), exclude from the definition of "project" "the
submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or particular community." (CEQA
Guidelines section 15378(b)(3).) The Court of Appeal interpreted this exclusion very narrowly,
limiting it to ballot measures initiated only by voter petition.
The amicus brief will argue that the Court of Appeal decision leads to unworkable results
for cities and counties, is not supported by CEQA, and is contrary to the Elections Code and the
right of initiative.
First, the decision will lead to impractical burdens on cities and counties. The decision
would delay and irreparably harm the ability of council-sponsored initiatives to get to the voters.
While voter-sponsored initiatives may go on the ballot without CEQA review, council-sponsored
initiatives would have to undergo CEQA review prior to being submitted to the voters. As a
CITY HAll' 1 DR. CARUON B. GOODlm PLACE. ROOM 234 SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNIA 94102-0917
RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 . FACSIMilE: (415) 554-4757
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Page 2
May 4, 2000
result. city councils will not be able to respond to a voter-sponsored initiative with a counter-
proposal of its own.
The decision also calls into question the status of pending or previously approved
initiatives. Voters across the State have approved numerous rezonings, general plan
amendments, development proposals or bond issues that are now at the implementation stage.
The validity of those measures is now in question and cities and counties can expect litigation
challenging them. Finally, the Court of Appeal's decision will lead to unnecessary waste oflocal
resources by requiring environmental review for projects that may never be approved by the
voters. CEQA review now regularly occurs after the voters have approved a measure and before
a local agency exercises its discretionary authority to consider a project allowed by the new law.
Second, we will argue that the Court of Appeal's decision misinterprets CEQA. CEQA
Guidelines gI5378(b)(3), originally adopted in 1973, states that the submittal ofa proposal to a
vote of the people is not a "project" under CEQA. Section 15378(b)(3) does not distinguish
between submittal of a ballot measure by the voters or by the local agency. Since 1987, the
legislature has twice rejected legislation that would require CEQA review prior to placing anv
measure on the ballot. See DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 794-95 (1995).
Further, the decision to submit a ballot initiative to the voters is not a project as
contemplated by CEQA. Under Pub. Res. Code section 2 I 065, "project" means any activity that
may cause direct or indirect physical change to the environment, and is "directly undertaken by
any public agency."! The electorate is not classified as a "public agency.,,2 Because ballot
measures are not projects undertaken by public agencies, CEQA review is not required.
The Court of Appeal's decision is also contrary to case law interpreting section
15078(b)(3). Local agencies have regularly relied on both the CEQA Guidelines and case law to
submit numerous ballot measures to the voters. Lee v. City of Lompoc (1993), 14 Cal.AppAth
1515 ("Lee"), relied on section 15378(b)(3) to hold that submittal ofa ballot measure by the city
council was not a project under CEQA. Lee very clearly held that city council-sponsored ballot
measures, like voter-initiated measures, are not projects under CEQA. 14 Cal.AppA'h at 1523-
24.3 Even if some legislators in the City of Sierra Madre hoped to escape CEQA review by
putting the measure on the ballot, the courts should not examine the motives of individual
legislators and should not use those motives as the basis for their decisions.
lCal. Pub. Resource Code !l21065(a).
2See Cal. Pub. Resource Code !l21063.
3 See also, Stein v. City of Santa Monica. (1980)110 Ca1.App.3d 458 (placing a voter-sponsored rent control
measure on the ballot not subject to CEQA). Citizensfor Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56
Ca1.App.41h 1199 is nol inconsistent with this result. There. the court held that the city council's submittal of a
zoning amendment was not a project under CEQA, but submittal of a development agreement for ratification was.
The amicus brief will discuss these cases to clarify the application of CEQA to iniliatives sponsored by a legislalive
body.
N;\L,O.NDUSE\($TACy\'sIERRA \JOINDER.llR
CTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Page 3
May 4, 2000
Finally, San Francisco's brief will address the importance of the initiative process itself
and argue that it should not be subordinated to CEQA. California courts have regularly held that
they must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the exercise of the power of initiative. The
Elections Code does not require or contemplate CEQA review before placing an initiative on the
ballot, nor does it provide for a post-election challenge based on compliance with CEQA.
The Legal Advocacy Committee of the California League of Cities urges all California
cities to join in San Francisco's brief. In addition, the California State Association of Counties
will join in the amicus brief on behalf of all California counties. If your city agrees to join,
please complete the enclosed form by June 23 and return it to our office. There is no cost to your
city to join. If you are unable to respond by June 23 because you must secure a decision of the
governing body of your city, you may still join in the brief by returning the form to us after June
23. It may be necessary to notify the Court of your joinder by letter after the brief is filed.
Please feel free to call Susan Cleveland or me with any questions or suggestions. Susan
can be reached at 415-554-6769 and I can be reached at 415-554-4617.
Very truly yours,
LOUISE H. RENNE
City Attorney
Kate H. Stacy
Deputy City Attorney
N:\I.ANOUSE\K:S1ACY\SIERRA \JOINOeR.LTR
TffiURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Subject:
June 7, 2000 Item:
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MONTIIL Y INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT-
AS OF TIlE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 2000
CONSENT # i
Meeting:
To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
Institution! Agency
Invcstment
Amoun/.
Intercst Rate
Maturilf
Statc of California Local Agcncy 56.069,032 6.014% Liquid
Invcstmcnt Fund
(LAIF)
Total Invcstcd: $6,069,032
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution! Agency
Invcstmcnt
Amount
Intercst Ratc
Maturity
Statc of California Local Agcncy 5588,695 6.014% Liquid
Invcstmcnt Fund
(LAIF)
Bank of America Other 50
Total Invcstcd: 5588,695
Notcs to tablc infonnation:
StaI.c of Califania Local Agency Invcstment Fund (LAIF): The intercst mc rcpTcscnls thc cffcctivc yicld for the
month rcferenccd abovc. Thc Statc of California generally distributcs invcstment data reports in thc third wcck
following thc month ended. (As rcccivcd May 15. 2000)
Acknowlcdgment: This sunmary report accuratcly rcflccts all poolcd invcstmcnls of thc Town of Tiburon and
the Tiburon Redevclopmcnt Agency, and is in confonnity with Statc laws and the Invcstmcm Policy adoptcd by
thc Town Council. Thc invcstment program hercin summarizcd providcs sufficient cash flow liquidity to mect
ncxt imatcd cxpenditurcs.
mancc Dircctor
cc: Town Trcasurcr
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 7,2000 Item:
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
POINT TffiURON COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 1985-1
SPECIAL TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL (& TAX) YEAR 2000/2001
ADOPT RESOLUTION
5"
BACKGROUND
This item is for annual adoption of the Special Tax rates to be levied on the commercial and
residential parcels in the Point Tiburon Community Facilities District.
DISCUSSION
The State Government Code requires local agencies to provide by Resolution for the annual levy
ofthe Special Tax if the rate will be unchanged or reduced from current levels. Action to levy the
Special Tax is required by August 10th of the tax (fiscal) year, by which time parcel tax data is to
be filed with the County Auditor-Controller and Tax Office. Special Tax proceeds are applied to
the debt service requirements of the bonds of the Point Tiburon Community Facilities District.
The Levy represents the net amount required to fund debt service of the bonds following
consideration of other sources of funds - annual Redevelopment Agency contribution of $472,500
to the District, and investment earnings accruing on the contribution; less uses of funds - debt
service requirements, fiscal agent and financial fees.
REDUCTION IN SPECIAL TAX LEVY
The proposed total Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 will be $126,300, which
represents a $2 318 or 1 8% reduction from the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Levy ($128,618).
A residential property owner will see hislher annual Special Tax reduced from $753 to $741: The
owners of the Commercial Plaza will have their tax reduced from $27,010 to $26,283. The
Special Tax rates are projected to stay at this general level (and decline slightly) until maturity of
the bonds in 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
Town Council adopt the attached resolution establishing the Special Tax Levy in the Point
Tiburon Community Facilities District for Tax Year 2000-2001.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Establishing Special Tax Levy, 2000-2001
(Exhibit A. Attached)
R. St"'"', P;~,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX RATE
FOR THE PROPERTY TAX YEAR 2000-01
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1985-1
POINT TIBURON DEVELOPMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 355 N.S., passed and adopted by Town
Council on August 1, 1990, ordained that the Town, pursuant to Government Code Sections
53328 and 53340, levied a Special Tax on the property within Community Facilities District No.
1985-1 for the 1990-1991 tax year and for all subsequent years; and,
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Government Code Section 53340 the Tiburon Town Council
may provide, by resolution, for the levy of the Special Tax in the current tax year or future tax
years at the same rate or at a lower rate than the rate provided by ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the Finance Director has estimated that sources of funds (annual contribution
of the Redevelopment Agency, and accrued investment earnings) less uses of funds (provision for
annual debt service, fiscal agent charges, and reserve for delinquencies) requires a total Special
Tax Levy in the amount of$126,300 (Residential share at $100,017, and Commercial at $26,283)
for fiscal and tax year 2000-01.
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, that the Town Council authorizes the tax year 2000-01
Special Tax levy in the amounts shown on Exhibit A attached, and the Finance Director is to
prepare the Special Tax roll and provide all necessary information to the Marin County Auditor
and Tax Collector in order to effect proper billing and collection of the Special Tax referenced
within Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on June 7, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCn.. MEMBERS:
COUNCn.. MEMBERS:
COUNCn.. MEMBERS:
BY:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Replaces Tiburon Resolution No. 3331, May 19. 1999
EXHIBIT A. (FOR RESOLUTION NO. )
ESTABLISHING THE SPECIAL TAX LEVY OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1985-1
- POINT TffiURON DEVELOPMENT -
TAX [& FISCAL YEAR] ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
MARSH'
58-440-01 $741.00
58-440-02 $741.00
58-440-03 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-04 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-05 $741.00
58-440-06 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-07 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-08 $741.00
58-440-09 $741.00
58-440-10 $741.00
58-440-11 $741.00
58-440-12 $741.00
58-440-13 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-14 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-15 $741.00
58-440-16 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-17 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-18 $741.00
58-440-19 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-20 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-21 $741.00
58-440-22 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-23 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-24 $741.00
58-440-25 $741.00
58-440-26 $741.00
58-440-27 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-28 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-29 $ _0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-30 $ 0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-31 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-32 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-33 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
58-440-34 $_0.00 Below Market Rate Unit
Replaces Tiburon Resolution No. 3331. May 19. 1999
LAGOON' 59-390-47 $741.00 59-380-38 $741.00
59-390-48 $741.00 59-380-39 $741.00
59-390-01 $741.00 59-390-49 $741.00 59-380-40 $741.00
59-390-02 $741.00 59-390-50 $741.00 59-380-41 $741.00
59-390-03 $741.00 59-390-51 $741.00 59-380-42 $741.00
59-390-04 $741.00 59-390-52 $741.00 59-380-43 $741.00
59-390-05 $741.00 59-390-53 $741.00 59-380-44 $741.00
59-390-06 $741.00 59-390-54 $741.00 59-380-45 $741.00
59-390-07 $741.00 59-380-46 $741.00
59-390-08 $741.00 BAYSIDE' 59-380-47 $741.00
59-390-09 $741.00 59-380-48 $741.00
59-390-10 $741.00 59-380-01 $741.00 59-380-49 $741.00
59-390-11 $741.00 59-380-02 $741.00 59-380-50 $741.00
59-390-12 $741.00 59-380-03 $741.00 59-380-51 $741.00
59-390-13 $741.00 59-380-04 $741.00 59-380-52 $741.00
59-390-14 $741.00 59-380-05 $741.00 59-380-53 $741.00
59-390-15 $741.00 59-380-06 $741.00 59-380-54 $741.00
59-390-16 $741.00 59-380-07 $741.00 59-380-55 $741.00
59-390-17 $741.00 59-380-08 $741.00 59-380-56 $741.00
59-390-18 $741.00 59-380-09 $741.00 59-380-57 $741.00
59-390-19 $741.00 59-380-10 $741.00 59-380-58 $741.00
59-390-20 $741.00 59-380-11 $741.00 59-380-59 $741.00
59-390-21 $741.00 59-380-12 $741.00 59-380-60 $741.00
59-390-22 $741.00 59-380-13 $741.00 59-380-61 $741.00
59-390-23 $741.00 59-380-14 $741.00 59-380-62 $741.00
59-390-24 $741.00 59-380-15 $741.00 59-380-63 $741.00
59-390-25 $741.00 59-380-16 $741.00 59-380-64 $741.00
59-390-26 $741.00 59-380-17 $741.00 59-380-65 $741.00
59-390-27 $741.00 59-380-18 $741.00 59-380-66 $741.00
59-390-28 $741.00 59-380-19 $741.00 59-380-67 $741.00
59-390-29 $741.00 59-380-20 $741.00
59-390-30 $741.00 59-380-21 $741.00 PLAZA'
59-390-31 $741.00 59-380-22 $741.00
59-390-32 $741.00 59-380-23 $741.00 59-161-07 $16,183.00
59-390-33 $741.00 59-380-24 $741.00 Building 13.
59-390-34 $741.00 59-380-25 $741.00 59-161-12 $10,100.00
59-390-35 $741.00 59-380-26 $741.00 Building 14.
59-390-36 $741.00 59-380-27 $741.00 59-161-10 $_0.00
59-390-37 $741.00 59-380-28 $741.00 Parking Lot
59-390-38 $741.00 59-380-29 $741.00
59-390-39 $741.00 59-380-30 $741.00 TOTAL LEVY:
59-390-40 $741.00 59-380-31 $741.00
59-390-41 $741.00 59-380-32 $741.00 Residential $100,017.00
59-390-42 $741.00 59-380-33 $741.00 Commercial $ 26,283.00
59-390-43 $741.00 59-380-34 $741.00 Total: $126,300.00
59-390-44 $741.00 59-380-35 $741.00
59-390-45 $741.00 59-380-36 $741.00
59-390-46 $741.00 59-380-37 $741.00
Replaces Tiburon Resolution No. 3331, May 19. 1999
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Meeting:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 7, 2000
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
ARTICLE XIII B. APPROPRIATION LIMIT, FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001
Item:
"
BACKGROUND
This item is for adoption of the Gann Limit for Fiscal Year 2000/2001
Proposition 4., approved by California voters in November 1979, established and defined annual
revenue appropriation limits on all government entities. Proposition 4. became effective in Fiscal
Year 1980-81, however the calculations to determine the annual limit are carried from a Fiscal
Year 1978-79 base year. Proposition 4. was modified in 1990 with the passage of Proposition
Ill; Modifications included slightly changed annual adjustment factors, further identification of
the types of outlays which are excluded from the limit, and provision for the exclusion of
emergency outlays from the limit. Implementation legislation provides that Town Council shall, at
a regularly scheduled meeting, or a noticed special meeting, establish by resolution the amount of
appropriation subject to limitation. The State is to be provided with informational forms with the
filing of the Annual Statement of Financial Transactions no later than ninety (90) days after the
start of the fiscal year.
DISCUSSION
The appropriations limit is the calculated dollar amount which limits the Town's ability to receive
. and appropriate proceeds of taxes. Such revenues may include: Property Taxes and ERAF
Rebates, Sales Taxes, Real Property Transfer Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, Business
License Taxes, State Motor Vehicle Fees, Off-Highway Taxes, certain Rental Income, Other
Revenues and Rebates (excluding Redevelopment Agency Fees), a share of Investment Earnings,
and transfers of funds from other funds into reserves of the General Fund.
The limit is calculated by adjusting the previously adopted limit by factors which include: (1) the
State of California Per Capita Income Growth, and (2) the Town's Population Growth. The State
Department of Finance provides figures for both adjustment factors. The limit may be further
adjusted if cities bear the costs oflegislated fees for the transfer of responsibility. The County,
through SB 2557, established fees for the collection of property taxes and for booking prisoners.
Cities may adjust their limit by the estimated amount of these fees.
As indicated previously, the estimated appropriations limit is calculated by adjusting the prior year
limit with the State-provided factors for income and population growth, and including adjustments
for assumed fees and transfers of responsibility. The general calculation is provided in the
following table.
Tiburon Town Council. June 7. 2000
Page I
GANN LIMIT ADJUSTMENT CALCULATIONS
Amount
I Previously established limit, July I, 1999 $4,204,110
2 Adjustment Factors
---per capita personal income 1.0491
---population growth 1.0123
3 Multiplier, for adjustment to limit (1.0453 x 1.0123) 1.0620
4 Subtotal new limit: (1) x (3) $4,464,781
5 Add: legislated pass-through fees
---County property tax collection 20,000
---County booking fees 5,000
6 Revised limit, July 1,2000 $4,489,781
RECOMMENDATION
Town Council adopt Town Council adopt the included Resolution accepting the annual
adjustment factors, and establishing the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 Town appropriation limit pursuant
to Article XIII B. of the State constitution.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
State Department of Finance, Per Capital Income Factor.
State Department of Finance, Population Data Factor.
Resolution Establishing Article XIII B. Limit, 2000/2001
-----
~~
R. Stranzl
Tiburon Town Council, June 7, 2000
Page 2
STATE ~ CAlIFORNIA
GRAY 0A1IlS. G<>wncr
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
STATE CAPITOL. ROOM 11~
. SACRAMENTO, CA !l!i814-4llll8
May 18, 2000
Dear Fiscal Officer:
PRICE AND POPULATION INFORMATION
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
The California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2227, mandates the Department of Finance to transmit
an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction uses their
percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2000, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living,
or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2000-2001. Enclosure I provides the
change in California's per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population
percentage change factor to calculate the 2000-2001 appropriations limit. Enclosure II provides city and
unincorporated county population percentage changes, and Enclosure IIA provides county and incorporated
areas population percentage changes. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state
institutionalized populations and military populations, as noted.
POPULATION PERCENTAGE CHANGE FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. Consult the Revenue and Taxation
Code, Section 2228, for the various population options available to special districts to assess population
change in their district. Article XIII B, Section 9 of the State Constitution exempts certain speci.u districts
from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. Special districts required by law to calculate their
appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. No State agency reviews the
appropriations limit.
POPULATION CERTIFICATION
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. Revenue and Taxation Code 11005.6
mandates the Department of Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current
certified population with the State Controller's Office. The Department of Finance will certify the higher
estimate to the Controller by June 1, 2000.
Address questions about the price and population data to the Demographic Research Uitit at (916) 323-4086.
Sincerely,
B. TIMOTHY GAGE
Director
Enclosure
EXHIBIT NO. I
May 18,2000
Enclosure I
~.
(
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their
cost-of-living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their
governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal
income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the
percentage changes to be used in setting the 2000-2001 appropriation limit are:
Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year
(FY)
Percentage change
over pnor year
2000-2001
4.91
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in
California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a
1999-2000 appropriations limit.
2000-2001:
Per Capita Change = 4.91 percent
Population Change= 1. 73 percent
Per Capita converted to a ratio:
4.91 +100 = 1.0491
100
Population converted to a ratio:
1.73+100 = 1.0173
100
Calculation offactor for FY 2000-2001:
1.0491 x 1.0173 = 1.0672
Enclosure II
Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions r>
January 1, 1999 to January 1 .2000 and Total Population January 1, 2000
Im.L
County Percent Chanae - PODUlatlon Minus exclusions - Poaulatlon
City 1999-2000 1-1-t11 1-1.00 1-1-2000
MARIN
BELVEDERE 1.05 2.294 2.318 2.318
CORTE MADERA 1.28 8.989 9.104 9.104
FAIRFAX 0.94 7.121 7.188 7.188
LARKSPUR 0.95 11.838 11.950 11.950
MILL VALLEY 1.09 13.962 14.114 14.114
NOVATO 3.98 46.295 48.127 48.952
ROSS 1.18 2.285 2.312 2.312
SAN ANSELMO 1.05 12.340 12.470 12.470
SAN RAFAEL 1.50 53.941 54.752 54.752
SAUSALITO 1.08 7.751 7.835 7.835
T1BURON 1.23 8.794 8.892 8.892
UNINCORPORATED 1.41 63.241 64.132 69.784
COUNTY TOTAL 1.82 238.841 243.194 249.671
(*) Exclusions indude residents in state mental institutions. federal military installations. and state and federal correctional Institutions.
Pagel
EXHIBIT NO.
.:L
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING
AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 200012001
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE xm B. OF THE CONSTITUT10N
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Article XIII B. of the Constitution of the State ofCa1ifomia provides that
total annual appropriations subject to exceed the appropriations limit of such entity ofgovemment
for the prior year adjusted for changes in the cost of living and population, except as provided for
in Article XIII B; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIII B. of the Constitution of the State of California, the
Town Council of the Town of Tiburon deems it to be in the best interests of the Town ofTiburon
to establish an appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2000/2001; and
WHEREAS, the previously established limit for Fiscal Year 1999/2000 was $4,204,110,
and the State Department of Finance has determined that the 2000 Per Capita Personal Income
Factor is 4.91 %, and the 2000 Population Change Factor is 1.23%; the Finance Director estimates
that legislated pass-through fees of the County will be $25,000; the Finance Director of the Town
of Tiburon has determined that the an appropriations limit in the amount of$4,489,781 shall be
established for Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
that an appropriations limit in the amount of$4,489,781 is established for Fiscal Year 1999/2000
pursuant to Article XIII B. of the Constitution of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on June 7, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
BY:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Replaces Tiburon Resolution No. 3284, June 1998.
EXIITBrr NO.~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 61712000
1
To: TOWN COUNCIL
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
Subject: PARCEL MAP FOR ENGEL MINOR SUBDIVISION (ONE PARCEL INTO
TWO LOTS AT 141 AND 151 TAYLOR ROAD)
Date: JUNE I, 2000
BACKGROUND
On September 8, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Map for this minor
subdivision. The subdivision would create two building sites on 3.15 acres of land on Taylor
Road located opposite the Bond Lane intersection with Taylor Road (see Exhibit 1). The
applicant has proceeded to fulfill the required conditions of approval on the Tentative Map. The
Parcel Map finalizing the minor subdivision is now before the Town Council for approval.
ANALYSIS
The Town Engineer and Planning Department Staff have reviewed the parcel map and found it in
conformance with the approved Tentative Map. No offers of easement or dedication are
proposed for this subdivision. A copy of the Parcel Map will be available for review at the
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
Acceptance of a Parcel Map is a ministerial action and is exempt from CEQA.
RECOMMENDA nON
That the Town Council adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 2) approving the parcel map and
authorizing its recordation
EXHIBITS
J. Vicinity Map.
2. Draft Resolution.
engcl parmap rpt.doc
TiburDn Town COIlf/cil
Staff Report
6/7/1000
.,.
I
I
I
v
:(
l
--
Subject Property
3.15 acres
~
~
.;:,!~ITNO.-L
::;'":.:.3''',.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A PARCEL MAP FOR THE
ENGEL MINOR SUBDIVISION AT I4! AND !S! TAYLOR ROAD
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 38-071-13 & 16)
RECITALS
The property owners, Douglas and Britt Engel. have submitted a Parcel Map proposing
the subdivision of a 3.15 acre parcel otT Taylor Road into two lots. The Planning
Commission approved the Tentative Map for this subdivision on September 8, 1999.
The submitted map has been examined by the Town Engineer and returned to the Town
Clerk as required in Section 14.36 of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance.
The Town Engineer and Planning Department StatThave determined that the map is in
substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map adopted by Planning
Commission Resolution No. 99-16, and that all required conditions of approval have been
met.
APPROV AL
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon does approve the map entitled "Parcel Map, Lands ofD. B. Engel" (2 sheets).
prepared by D. J. Matteson, Civil Engineer, dated April 2000, and does direct that said
map be duly recorded with Marin County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town ofTiburon on ,2000 by the following vote:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS:
THOMASGRAM,MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
cngel pannap res. doc
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
--/--/2000
EXHIBIT NO. ~
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 7, 2000 ITEM: ~
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
A VENIDA MIRAFLORES MEDIAN STRIP LANDSCAPING - Consider Request
of Del Mar Valley POA for Portion of Town Water Meter Allocation
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
This item is for consideration of the request of the Del Mar Valley Property Owners Association (POA)
for a reallocation of a portion of the Town's water allocation to the service located in the Avenida
Miraflores (from Del Mar School and north) median strips. The overall purpose is to provide water for
landscape maintenance of the median strips that are located on Avenida Miraflores. The property owners
have proposed a cooperative arrangement wherein the Town and POA would share costs and
responsibilities in the following manner:
PROPERTY OWNERS
Water service connection fee - $1,750
Service activation fees - $4 50
Landscape materials
Gardening services
TOWN
Reallocation of water (I)
Regular bi-monthly water usage fees
(1) The POA proposes that the Town shift a portion of its unused water allocation (0.333 Acre Feet) to
Avenida Miraflores, enabling the POA to avoid a one-time MMWD Allocation Fee of $6, 150.
TOWN W A 'fER ALLOCA nONS
At this time it appears that the Town does not have sufficient excess water that may be reallocated to
Avenida Miraflores. . The Town very recently received from MMWD a report that outlines our current
water allocation and usage At this time we use approximately 95% of our allocated water. The
Superintendent of Public Works is concerned that there are additionailandscaping needs (e.g. Main
Street, Zelinsky Park, Blackie's Pasture) that may require a reallocation of our limited water resources,
or a purchase of additional entitlement from MMWD.
RECOMMENDATION:
This item be continued pending further study of Town water allocation and usage requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter, POA to Town Council & Town Manager, dated April 26, 2000
R. Str~
1
DEL MAR VALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIA r/ON
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
April 26, 2000
To:
Tom Gram, Mayor
Terry Hennessy
Andrew Thompson
Mogens Bach
Harry Matthews
Bob Kleinert, Town Manager
"...."...-~''\"~D
~_'~ '- '1';'-" ,.,' -
:j ~':':'-"'--:~'; ;,,: ,7 i~.:l.-J
AH~ 2 8 2000
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF T!BURGN
RE: Landscape maintenance
A venida Miraflores median islands
There are four town-owned median strips along A venida Miraflores from Tiburon Boulevard up to
Francisco Court. There are currently 3 meter locations, ranged along the 3 uppermost islands.
The actual meters were removed during the drought in the 1970's. The 4th lowest island was
recently created when the Public Works Department cut through the strip and the existing water
pipes to create a new crosswalk to the school driveway.
After considerable discussion with MI'vfWD and the Town Public Works Director who has neither
a waler truck, staff or budget to maintain these strips, we would like to propose the following
cooperative venture between the DMVPOA and the Town of Tiburon.
We would like 10 reactivate the Town's existing meter box locations and we will pay for the
MI'vfWD service connection fee of approximately $1750. In addition, we will pay the one-time
additional charge of $150 per meter. These fees will cover the cost of installing and activating the
3 new meters. In addition to the homeowner's annual planting and pruning, we will hire and pay
for a gardener to weed and clean out the strips at least twice a year.
According to MMWD we need about 1/3 acre-foot of water per year to take care of all 4 median
strips. We request that the Town ofTiburon allocate 1/3 acre foot of water back to us from the
town "pool". This waler would come from an allottnent that was taken back by the Town during
the 1970's drought. This transfer of water from the town pool would enable us to bypass MMWD
water allocation fee in the amount of$6150, a financial burden our limited budget will not bear.
We would also ask that the Public Works Department reconnect the water lines between the lower
3rd and 4th median strips.
Recognizing the constraints and demands on the Town's budget, we feel this is a cooperative and
reasonable solution 10 a long-standing problem. These median strips are an important landscaping
element for all homeowners in the Del Mar Valley and the Town of Tiburon
We respectfully requesl thai this malter be placed on the Town Council Agenda at the earliest
possible date. Since there is considerable interest by all our homeowners in this project, we would
appreciate knowing the agenda date as soon as possible so we can notify everyone. If you have
any questions or would like to take a tour of the neighborhood, please feel free to call either of us
or the President of our association, Joan Wilson.
~
Valerie W. Bergmann
JTI\~,:~\J
Ted Wray /
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
TO:
TOWN COUNCIL
ITEM NO.: .I 0
FROM:
ASSOCIATE PLANNER THERIAULT
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IMPOSED ON
APPROVED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
AND VARIANCE APPLICATION AT 36 SOUTHRIDGE
DRIVE WEST
MEETING DATE:
JUNE 7, 2000
APPLICANT/APPELLANT - LALITA WATERMAN
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DA TE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
DRB ACTION DATE:
APPEAL FILED DATE:
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST
034-311-11
200008
19,250 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
MARCH 14,2000
APRIL 6, 2000
APRIL 6, 2000
APRIL 17,2000
BACKGROUND:
On April 6, 2000, the Tiburon Design Review Board ("Board") conditionally approved a Site Plan
and Architectural Review application for modifications (including as-built modifications) to a
previously approved plan for a residential remodel and addition project at 36 Southridge Drive
West. The application included a request for a variance for excess lot coverage. The variance
request was made in an effort to amend lot coverage data which was incorrectly calculated for the
remodel additions previously approved and to legalize the lot coverage of a deck built contrary to
the plans previously approved by the Board.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
ST ArF REPORT
JUNE 7, 2000
1
The Board reviewed the merits of the proposal and approved several of the requested
modifications, but conditioned the approval to limit the variance for additional lot coverage to the
area of several room additions to the house. The Board denied the variance for the excess lot
coverage created by the as-built deck, and required the applicant to remove all portions of the
deck built more than three feet above grade (the portion of the deck that is calculated as lot
coverage per the Town Zoning Ordinance) The applicant has filed an appeal of this decision to
the Town Council.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REVIEW:
The applicant is requesting approval for legalization of house additions and a portion of an
elevated deck that had been misrepresented as not requiring a variance when approved by the
Board in 1998. The applicant is also requesting after-the.fact approval for several other
modifications to the project that were not approved by the Board prior to their construction.
1998 Design Review Application and Design Review Board Approvals:
On February 23, 1998, a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #298005) was filed
for the "reconfiguration of dining, laundry, kitchen; addition of family room & powder room to
maximize views" Staff determined that the application required a variance for excess lot
coverage, which was submitted by the applicant on March 5, 1998. The site plans submitted as
part of this application showed an existing deck and an on-grade patio adjacent to the house,
along with several proposed room additions. However, the elevation drawings submitted show a
proposed deck extension, without clearly indicating the relationship of the deck to the existing or
finished grade on the site,
The Design Review Board considered this request at the March 25, 1998 meeting. The minutes
of that meeting (Exhibit 4) indicate concerns regarding the proposed deck. Boardmember Doane
asked the project architect about the separation between the deck and the grade on the site.
According to the minutes, the architect responded that "the deck is 18" above grade and it will
not be viewed from below The grade off the deck to the break of the hill is about 2' -3'." The
Board unanimously approved the request shortly thereafter
A review of the tape recording of the Board meeting amplifies this discussion somewhat. The
tape indicates that Boardmember Doane asked several questions regarding the proposed deck
extension, indicating he was concerned with the view of the deck's underside. Mr Hunt replied
that the underside of the deck will not be seen from below due to the break in the hill. Mr. Doane
asked for the height from the deck to the existing grade. When Mr Hunt indicated that the deck
would be 2 feet above the grade of the hill, Me. Doane stated that the elevations make the deck
appear to be higher Mr Hunt explained that that an existing hedge wrapping around the corner
of the slope blocks views of the deck; that there is a steep 21 slope below this area; and that the
break in the hill shortens the view from below. Boardmember Beales noted that there were no
neighbors in attendance The entire hearing on this project lasted approximately 7 minutes
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
J1.JNE 7, 2000
2
The applicant applied for and received building pennits for the deck and room additions based on
the plans approved by the Board A building perrnit was issued on September 4, 1998, and
construction began on the project in late 1998 or early 1999.
1999 Design Review Application:
On June 22, 1999, a Staff level Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File #299033) was
filed to "increase size of deck and add pantry from garage to kitchen." This application was
subsequently amended to include the legalization of a skylight built without prior approvals. This
application was approved by Staff on July 28,1999. On August 16,1999, Staff realized that the
requested construction under this application included additional lot coverage for the site, and
therefore required a further variance for excess lot coverage. Staff notified the applicant that the
Site Plan and Architectural Review application had been approved in error, and asked that
construction cease on the property until this issue was resolved On August 23, 1999, a
complaint from a neighbor revealed that footings had been poured for the deck extension without
the permission of the Building Inspector. That same day, a Stop Work Order was issued by the
Building Inspector, indicating that no further work was to be performed until Design Review
approval was obtained
On September 2, 1999, the Design Review Board held a hearing on the application for the deck
extension and pantry addition Concerns were raised by several neighboring property owners
regarding various aspects of the project, including objections to the deck extension approved in
1998. The Board continued the application to the December 2, 1999 meeting, with direction to
the applicant to provide additional information on the proposed construction and landscaping
measures to mitigate any potential concerns of the neighbors.
On September 7, 1999, the Town received a letter from the applicant withdrawing this
application. Staff notified the applicant that all construction on the site must conform to the Site
Plan and Architectural Review and Variance plans approved in 1998 or be removed. The
applicant continued construction on the deck addition.
2000 Design Review Application and Review by the Design Review Board:
On December 7, 1999, the Building Official notified the applicant that the elevation of the new
deck, as constructed, was not in conformance with the plans approved by the Town, and that
sliding glass doors had been added and stairs relocated without Town approval. A Stop Work
Order was issued until the construction complied with the approved plans or Design Review
approval was obtained for these modifications.
On December 14, 1999, Staff discovered that the data sheet included with 1998 Site Plan and
Architectural Review and Variance application did not include the lot coverage created by the
deck extension. While the application data sheet conformed to the architect's description of the
TlBURON TOWN COUNClI.
STAFF REPORT
JL'NE 7, 2000
3
deck as made to the Board in 1998, it clearly did not reflect the as-built construction All portions
of deck areas that are three (3) feet or more above grade are to be included in the lot coverage
calculations for a property (Section 5.06.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance). As the variance
for excess lot coverage granted in 1998 did not include the 101 coverage created by the deck
extension, the deck extension as built did not have all its required permits. On February 14, 2000,
the applicant filed Site Plan and Architectural Review and Variance applications (File #20008) to
legalize the excess lot coverage created on the site and other as. built improvements to the
property.
The Board heard the item at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 6, 2000, and received
testimony from the project architect and from several property owners who reside in the area of
the subject property The architect indicated that the information contained within the 1998
application was incorrect for both lot coverage and floor area for the additions and the deck
extension. As reflected in the minutes of this meeting (Exhibit 8), Boardmembers Beales and
Snow, both of whom were present at the March 25, 1998 meeting, indicated that they were not
aware that the 1998 application entailed construction of any deck areas substantially above grade
level.
After hearing all testimony, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to grant a variance for excess lot
coverage for the area of the room additions which were improperly calculated. and to approve
several other requested as-built exterior modifications including skylights, door, window and
chimney alterations, The Board further added a condition of approval that the variance for the as-
built deck was not approved, and that all deck area over three (3) feet above grade, as defined by
the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, must be removed. On April 17,2000, Ms. Waterman filed a
timely appeal of this decision.
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL:
There are four primary grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit I) is based:
Ground #1
The decision by the Design Review Board was not based on evidence in the
record.
Staff Re.\ponse The Staff Report (Exhibit 7) presented to the Design Review Board for the April
6, 2000 meeting included a chronology of events (Exhibit 10) related to this property, information
on the 1998 application, and letters of support from nearby residents. The Board also considered
written and verbal testimony from nearby property owners at the hearing, along with a delailed
presentation by Ihe architect representing the applicant The decision to require removal of the
portions of the deck was based on factual evidence presented on behalf of the applicant, testimony
from affected neighbors, and personal field observations of the as-built construction by
Boardmembers. This information gave the Board a clear picture of the actual conditions on the
site and the effects of the deck extension on surrounding property owners. The Board's decision
was therefore based on substantial evidence contained in the record for this project.
TIBURON TOWN COL'NCIL
STAFF REPORT
JCNE 7. 2000
4
Ground #2
T/1e Board was improperly influenced by a Town Official.
Staff Response: Mr. Andrew Thompson is a Town Councilmember who is also a private
property owner (18 Southridge Drive East) whose property is impacted by the as-built deck. As a
private citizen, Mr. Thompson has a right to speak at a public hearing regarding development that
affects his property. At the April 6, 2000 meeting, Mr. Thompson identified himself as a private
citizen while speaking during the public hearing. While the Board considered Mr. Thompson's
testimony in its review of the application, the Board also reviewed the Staff Report, the Zoning
Ordinance, the "Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings," Site Plan and
Architectural Review Guidelines, the history of developmenl on the site, and several other
neighbors' comments in addition to performing field investigations of the subject property and
surrounding properties prior to making its decision. There is no evidence that the Board was
improperly influenced by Mr. Thompson's position as a Town Official.
. Ground #3
The denial of the variance for the deck area violates the applicant's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the California Fair
Housing Act.
Staff Re,lponse Town Attorney Danforth has indicated in a letter dated May 1, 2000 (Exhibit 9),
that she does not believe that either the Fair Housing Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act
apply to this appeal. Acting Town Attorney Sharp will be available to address such issues at the
Council meeting.
The Board was aware of Ms, Waterman's disability at the time of its decision and had received a
copy of a letter from her doctor citing her need for adequate exercise area. There is no indication
that the applicant has exhaustively examined other options that are available to address the need
for exercise area which would comply with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and would not require
a variance. For example, the applicant could remove the as-built deck and restore the flat patio
area which previously existed on the site. Access ramps to flat portions of a site are also
commonly used to provide handicap access to flat walking surfaces Another option would be to
grade a level exercise area on a portion of the site. The applicant has also not indicated how
returning the house to the conditions that existed when she purchased the property would fail to
meet the special needs related to her disability.
The Board determined that existing lot coverage for the property, which already exceeded the
maximum allowed within the RO-2 zone, represented a reasonable level of development for this
site. The Board determined that substantial and compelling evidence had not been presented to
support the findings for a variance for the elevated deck. The applicant has not demonstrated that
the denial of the deck extension effectively eliminates all reasonable handicap access to the rear of
the property
TlBliRON TOW;.J COL'NClI.
STAFF REPORT
Jl'NE 7, 200n
5
Ground #4
The applicant already received approvals from the Town to build the deck.
Stajj Response The record shows that the 1998 design approval for the deck was made in error
based on inaccurate application information supplied by the applicant and upon verbal
misrepresentations made to the Board. Approvals that are based on inaccurate information, even
if given unintentionally, may be deemed null and void. Furthermore, a variance approval was
never secured for the portion of the deck greater than three (3) feet above grade. When the
Board reviewed an accurate application resubmittal, its decision was to deny that portion ofthe
project.
RECOMMENDA nON:
Staff is recommending that the Town Council deny the appeal and direct Staff to return with a
resolution memorializing the action
EXHIBITS:
1. Notice of Appeal dated April 17,2000 (with one page attachment)
2, Notice of Design Review Board Action for April 6, 2000 (with conditions of approval)
3. Staff report from the March 25.1998 Design Review Board meeting
4. Minutes of the March 25, 1998 Design Review Board meeting
5. Staff report from the September 2, 1999 Design Review Board meeting
6. Minutes of the September 2, 1999 Design Review Board meeting
7. Staff report from the April 6, 2000 Design Review Board meeting
8 Minutes of the April 6, 2000, Design Review Board meeting
9. Letter from Town Attorney, dated May 1,2000
10. Chronology for 36 Southridge Drive West
11. Application and supplemental materials
12. Submitted Plans (Copies of plans submitted for the 1998 and 1999 applications are
available in the Town records and will be available at Town Hall prior to and at the June 7,
2000 Council meeting)
Tc200008appeal.doc
TIBURON TOWN COLNC[[.
ST:\Fr REPOIU
Jl''NE 7. ZOOO
6
TO\'VN Of TlBl~ON
Ja~. 14 2000 11;47R~ P2
CC '. ';..(0
tLx./tS"O
AECEa1fED
APR 1 7 2000
PHONE NO. :
GXHIBITNO,~)
E'ROM :..
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN GF T1SURON
Al'PELLAN'l:
Name:
Lc.l:i. ta ,.ato>rman
Address: 36 Sou,:h::-idge weH, 'fiburcn, Ga. 94')20
Telephone: (41~) 381-4467
~
(Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body: nn~; ~ Q01ri pT.7 'Rr;:n~ri
Date of Action:
A,:n:il (;. 2000
N=~ of Applicant:
Lalica i,.;AtCnl.:==.:t
Katur: of Applicstion:
GROl.~S FOR APPEAL
(Attach additiooal pages, if necessaT'j)
Spo A.ttacb.ed
.
'1-/1-00
5"-3 -00 IiV'"
f)-I7-~ ".
)If ;Uf? ~1'I(.M..lrq
~~ TW r~ ~ bt. ())f-&j.
~ .. 4 c-...,..l., ~tJf) ,
LOlSt Day to File: + 11--tJ"O DaLe ReI;eivcd:
Fee ($300.00) Paid: clJ( 1F :1-7(5 Date of Hearing:
J~l9?6 (~&t.e. cr ~)
F;i<Ot1 . .
Ff'ONE riO. :
Jar.. 14 20C0 11: 4:r:;~1 P3
ATIA.CHMENr TO WA.TERvIAN APPEAL
GROlThiDS FOR A'PPRA.L
1. Denial of the variance was an abuse of di3cretion b~C'':'l11~e it wa>; not
supported by findings in the rel:ord. None of the findings required by
California Government Code ~ 6~906 were audre.st:U iv. Ihe Notice of
Decision.
2. Denial of the vtll'iance was nOt supported by substantW evid~nr." in lh~
record,
3. The Desi~ Review Board was improperly influenc.."'Cl by To'il<'D. Council
Member Andrew Thompson, who contacted suff prior to the hearing
and appearcd mt the hearing in opposition :0 the variance and the Design
Review application.
do Tl1e denial of the variance, and the conditions of approv:;.l placed on the
Design Review applicaTion, violate the appellant's rights unc.e:: (1) Title
II, of the Amcncans With Di5abilitic~ ,\ct (42 use ~ 12131-
12134), (2) Tne Fair Housing Amendmer.ts A~t of 1988 (42 use
3604 (f)). (3) Section 504 of L1e Rehabilitatlun Act (l9 use ~ 794). an.:l
(4) The California Fair Housing Act (Government Cooe ;1 12900 et
seq.), In denying the varia.!lCe and placing conditions on the Design
Review appli~aliQlItha: limit the height of the de~k and raili.'lg3 to 3 feel
above grade, me town has discriminated against appellant ar:dior failed
to make 'reasonable accom:nodatioDS" to afford a pe:son witb a
handicap equal oppo'rtl1l'lity t.o u.~e a..'1d elljoy a dVlenh~g. Appe.!lam will
be unable to utilize her deck if it i5 lowered to 3 f~t above gr:.cde and
has no railings (above 3 feel above glade).
5, The town is estopped from denying approval of the '1arianc~ and placing
conditions of approval on the Design Rev;..", application hecause the
town issued Design Review and building permit approvals for the declc
and t.b.e owners subsequently relled OIl those penllil:> to thell dC'..rimc:nt.
The previously approved plans prope:rly indicated the shape and height
of the deck relative to grade. The [own inspected and approved the deck
numerous times. The deck has been fully constnlcrO!Ci m a cost
exceeding $30,000.
6. Appellant reserves the right to present additional grounds to support the
appeal at the hearing on the appeal. The lIIinut~ and tape recording of
the Design Review Board he3Iing were l.mavailahle at the time the appeal
was filed.
TOWN OF TIBURON
.,~o, """:'
.. 0
o <
- .
("" ',- ' , ".. ' , ,:: ~'
"": " ,"..
, .
~'",;'~"',,,' ".'" '..
EmmIT NO. 2..
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373
FAX (415) 435.2438
NOTICE OF
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION
On April 6, 2000, the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following action
Granted Design Review approval for modifications to an approved plan (requiring a variance for
excess lot coverage) to the existing single family home located 36 Southridge West (File
#200008)
Approved as submitted
./ Approved with conditions: This approval is contingent on the
applicant's adherence to the specified conditions of approval. Please
review the attached conditions carefully to avoid code enforcement
proceedings.
Please note that the as-built awnings discussed during the Design
Review Board hearing on April 6, 2000 are not considered a part of
the current application but do require design review according to
Town Ordinance and must, therefore, be applied for separately. An
application for Staff level design review is attached.
Denied as submitted
Continued
Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval
or other requirements. The following materials are attached and should be retained for your
records:
./ Approved plans
Appeal provisions of the Town
No attachments
./ Other-Conditions of Approval
Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3 weeks following the
meeting, and will be provided upon request.
~ After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain (or amend) a Building
Permit from the Tiburon Building Department for your project. Information on Building
Permit procedures may be obtained by calling the Building Department at (415) 435-7380.
For additional information regarding this application, please call me at (415) 435-7397.
Sincerely,
&.;~~
Emi Theriault
Associate Planner
c.... '
l.' "
~~\. j, +<<, c,-- ,~..I ~""R,<: k.. C~-:C~~-te, For"....
+-1._.'+ 1-\..,< -~-.". i~'-d.,k,t';
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
36 South ridge West
Fll..E #200008
l. This approval shall be used within 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 February 14,2000, or as amended by these conditions of
approval. Any modifications to the plans last revised January 31, 2000 must be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
3. No decks over three feet from grade are approved with the current application. The
height of the deck and railings shall be determined according to the definition of
structure requiring design review as indicated in the Zoning Ordinance. No
variance for the area oflot coverage (increased by deck additions) is approved with
the current application. All deck area (including railings) over three feet from grade
must be removed immediately.
4. The applicant must meet all requirements of the Town Engineer and all other
agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.
5. All skylights shall be tinted or bronzed and no lighting shall be placed in the wells.
6. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to
those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the
approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly
identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan
check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on
the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted
and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design
Review Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are
approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been
explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are not
approved. Construction that does not have Design Review approval is not valid and
shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.
EXHIBIT NO.~
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
a'S
AGENDA NO.:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST; FILE # 298005
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A VARIANCE FOR
EXCESS LOT COVERAGE
APRIL 2, 1998
APPLICANT - HUNT HALE & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECT)
PROPERTY OWNERS - LALITA WATERMAN
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADLINE:
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST
34-311-11
298005
19,250 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C
MARCH 25, 1998
MARCH 25, 1998
MAY 24, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
as specified in Section 15301.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRlL 2, 1998
Page 2
PROPOSAL:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for remodeling and additions to an existing
single-family dwelling on property located at 36 Southridge Drive West. The property currently
contains a predominantly one-story single-family residence. The proposal involves the
construction of three additions to the house. A larger addition would extend the kitchen and add
a nook off the rear of the house. Two other smaller additions to the front of the house would
relocate the laundry and dining rooms and add a powder room The total floor area for the house
would increase by 315 square feet, from 2,855 square feet to 3,170 square feet.
The proposed additions would also increase the lot coverage on the site by 315 square feet,
bringing the total lot coverage to 3,783 square feet, or 19.7%. As the maximum lot coverage
allowed in the R0-2 zone is 15%, a variance is requested.
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The house is situated on a relatively flat portion of the lot, below the level of the street. The front
of the house is over 100 horizontal feet and nearly 20 vertical feet from the front property line.
The house is only marginally visible from the street, and is situated at a different level from most
of the surrounding homes in this neighborhood.
The additions to the front of the house would enclose areas under the existing roof overhangs
without adding any additional roof area. The addition to the rear of the house is blocked from the
view of the homes to either side of this property by the bulk of the existing house. This addition
would extend the existing roofline at this portion of the house, and would only be slightly visI'ble
from the residence to the rear of the site, which is situated well below the level of this property.
This residence currently covers 18.0% of the lot, and is already in excess of the 15.0% lot
coverage maximum allowed for the R0-2 zone. This situation is not uncommon to homes in the
Reedlands neighborhood, many of which were developed with higher lot coverages under Marin
County standards prior to annexation to the Town ofTiburon. Numerous other variances have
been granted in this neighborhood for excess lot coverage for homes wishing modest expansions
such as the proposed additions to this house.
The proposed additions would match the existing house in color and materials. The additions
should blend in with the existing design of this house, as well as with other homes in the
neighborhood which have constructed additions in the past.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
srAFF REPORT
APRIL Z. 1998
Page 3
Zoning
Staffhas reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards
for the R0-2 zone with the exception of the previously noted variance for lot coverage.
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make the findings as required by
Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Staff suggests that the following findings may
be made in support of the requested variance:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The street frontage and topography of this property create special circumstances
not generally applicable to other lots in the vicinity. Most other parcels in this
neighborhood have substantial frontage along the street, while this lot has only 32
feet of street frontage. The portion of the parcel which is developed with the
house is situated at a level in between the levels of the other homes along this
street and those to the rear of the property.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with
the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar
zones.
As previously stated, this portion of the Reedlands neighborhood contains many
parcels that have received variances for excess lot coverage, primarily due to the
construction of many of these homes under Marin County standards prior to
annexation to Tiburon. The minor increase in lot coverage proposed by this
project (from 18.0% to 19.7%) would not be inconsistent with the privileges
granted to other homes in this neighborhood.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
An addition of this size could easily be accommodated by a second story without
exceeding the lot coverage standards. However, such an addition would be much
more likely to result in view impacts on surrounding residences than the proposed
additions, which would barely be visI'ble from neighboring homes. Forcing the
property owner to construct an addition which would likely create significant view
T1BURONDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRlL 2,1998
Page 4
impacts for nearby residents, when the proposed additions clearly have no such
impact, would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The proposed additions would be only marginally visible from surrounding
properties and would not result in any view or privacy impacts for neighboring
residents. Such additions would generally not prove to be harmful to surrounding
properties.
From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings
for the requested variance.
Public Comment
To date, no comments have been received from the public regarding this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design
Guidelines, and if the Board makes the required findings for the requested variance, then Staff
recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Conditions of approval
2. Application dated February 23, 1998
3. Site plans and elevations
lepOrts'db29800S.rpt
TIBURONDESlGNREVIEW BOARD
5rAFF REPORT
APRIL 2, 1998
Page 5
CONDmONSOFAPPROVAL
36 SOUTHRlDGE DRIVE WEST
FILE #298005
1. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless a building permit has been issued or an extension granted.
2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of
Tiburon on February 23, 1998, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any
modifications to the plans of February 23, 1998, 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 other than those approved by the Design Review Board must
be down light type fixtures.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 2. 1998
;
/
/
/
/
f'
.'f
-- .
~.
EXHIBIT NO.2
36 Soulhrldge Drivo We,t
W.term.n. AddIUons/V.ri.nce
The applicant is requesting Desigr. ReVIew approYal for remodeling and additions to an existmg smgle
family dwelling ("\n property locat~d at 36 Southridge Driye West The property currently contains a
predominantly one stary sir.gle famlly resida\~. The proposal involves the construction of :hree additions
te the house. A larger addition would Gxtend the kitchen and add a nook off the rear of the house. Two
other smaller additions to the front of the house would !"el0cate the laundry and d.ining rooms and add a
powder room. The total f:oor""", far the house wouk increase by 315 square feet. from :,855 sqUllre feet
te 3,170 3quare :eet
The proposed additIons would also merease the lot co,'crage on the site by 315 square feel. bTlnging the
tetallot coycrage to 3.783 square feet. or 19,7"0, .o\>:he maximum lot coverage allowed ,n the RO-: zene
i3 1 ~o_'o" a variance IS requ~sted
Thck Hunt, architect r<]1reScnllng the applicant. stateo that the bulk of the additIOn is ta add a tamily room
off th::: kitchen and :-emcde! the kitchen. There is no change to the roofline and no \'iew blockage tc the
neighbors. Tncy are 19king for a variance :or lot C0'r'crage because the lot is sub:standard Tha: is not
abnormal in th.e neighborhood There ,$ still a substantial amount of '{pace left fer FAR hut they did nOt
'Want to add an upper story hecause: it wO;Jid cre3te view blockage
)
L'1 response to 3can:lmcI!1ber Doane, l\{: ~lID[ stated that the deck !s 18"'.aco\'e ;;rude and it W111 net be
viewed from below. The gradt' oftth~ deck:o thl!' brea~ of the hill i'i about '::'-3'
Boarcrnerr.ber Eeales stated th~ addnion IS within the exi::;ti:1g raoflme and the varian~e 1::1 consi,>t~t i\'ltn
tne n~ighbcrhood
Boarcmen:ber Dal G2110 could :>uppcrt ~he applicati~~n. n.oting ~hat she did not think the a.J.dJlOn 'Yl11 be
see~
~if:) H:,:ward'Beaks, and unammou~:y ::3.'ised (.:i-i)), t~, approre the aprhcatwr!. b~ed an :he flIldlngs and
condi~:ons a:s set fur:h 1:1. the 'j:aff re?ort.
TIB lJRON DRB
4;:/9~
8
EXIDBITNO. S
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. -B-
,
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
EMI THERIAULT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST: Fll.E #299033
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A DECK
EXTENSION, RETAINING WALL AND A PANTRY SHED WITH A
VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
ARCHITECTIDESIGNER-DICK HUNT
PROPERTY OWNER-LALITA WATERMAN
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADLINE:
36 SOUTHRIDGE EAST
034-311-11
299033
19.250 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
JULY 28,1999
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
NOVEMBER 1, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2,1999
I
Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e).
BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL:
This item was first reviewed by Staff. The applicant submitted a Staff level application for a deck
extension and pantry addition on June 22, 1999. Staff was unaware of the excess lot coverage
already on the property and inadvertently approved the application with a condition requiring
landscaping which would provide privacy screening for the neighbors located downslope, Mr. and
Mrs. Silcox of 14 Southridge East. Before the Building permit was amended and approved, Staff
caught the error, notified the applicant immediately and scheduled the item for review before the
Board.
In addition to the deck extension and pantry addition, the applicant is requesting approval for a
retaining wall to hold soil which was excavated from the subject property during construction and
placed on site at the location above the retaining wall shown on submitted site plan.
The deck extension and pantry would bring the total lot coverage to 4,170 square feet which is
more than the maximum of2.887 square feet lot coverage allowed for a parcel of this size in the
RO-2 zone. The floor area for the subject property would not change due to the proposed
application because the pantry addition complies with the Building Departments requirements for
non-living area.
Staff has requested for the applicant to erect storypoles and ribbon to demarcate the deck area
prior to the September 2, 1999 meeting date. The applicant has agreed to erect the poles/ribbon
prior to the weekend of August 28-29, 1999.
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The applicant has submitted drawings detailing the deck extension, pantry addition and retaining
wall. The applicant did not submit full sets of plans for the Board to review, however.
Photocopies of selected parts of the plan are attached. Staffwill direct the applicant to bring full
size and reduced sets of plans to the September 2, 1999 meeting for the Board and the Public to
review. Staff also has one file copy available for review.
According to the submitted plans, the deck extension would only add 30 square feet lot coverage
However, the public has expressed concerns regarding privacy issues, mass and bulk concerns,
current and potential construction noise issues and the merits of further lot coverage on this
property which is currently approved for 21.2 % lot coverage while IS % lot coverage is allowed
in this zone.
During Staff's own review of the project, Staff recognized that the topography of the subject
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2.1999
2
property could create the potential for excessive mass and bulk due to the deck extension.
(Although the site plan indicates an adequate distance for the deck from the property line, the
property in the deck extension area actually has a steep drop-off If the site plan were represented
in a three-dimensional fashion, the property line would appear to be just a few feet from the edge
of the deck). During the review, the Silcox family telephoned and visited Staff to express their
concerns regarding the deck extension and requested alternative solutions. The Staff approval
included a requirement for privacy screening.
The soil deposit area may create a problem due to potential soil erosion Staff has submitted the
item to the Town Engineer for review of the retaining wall/backfill proposal. No elevation
drawings of the proposed retaining wall have been submitted.
The pantry addition should not create an impact for neighbors, as it would be tucked into the
general area of the existing building footprint and would not create view blockage, mass or bulk.
Staff does not foresee any other design issues with this project.
Variance
In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make the findings as required by Section
4,03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the following findings were used for a
recent lot coverage variance approved by the Board in March of 1998 for the remodel which the
Mr and Mrs Waterman are currently having constructed. Staff would respectfully suggest that
the Board review these findings to determine if they support of the current variance request:
l. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The street frontage and topography of this property create special circumstances not
generally applicable to other lots in the vicinity. Most other parcels in this neighborhood
have substantial frontage along the street, while this lot has only 32 feet of street frontage.
The portion of the parcel which is developed with the house is situated at a level in
between the levels of the other homes along this street and those to the rear of the
property.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with
the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
This portion of the Reedlands neighborhood contains many parcels that have received
variances for excess lot coverage, primarily due to the construction of many of these
homes under Marin County standards prior to annexation to Tiburon. The minor increase
in lot coverage proposed by this project (from 19.7% to 21.7%) would not be inconsistent
with the privileges granted to other homes in this neighborhood.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2.1999
3
"
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
The additions would not result in view impacts on surrounding residences. Although the
topography of the site initially appears to add to an appearance of mass/bulk from the deck
extension, the neighbor down the hill with the greatest potential impact is separated from
the subject property by the expanse of Southridge East Street. Forcing the property
owner forfeit the proposed, minor additions to the plans approved in March of 1998
would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The proposed additions would be only marginally visible from surrounding properties and
would not result in any view or privacy impacts for neighboring residents Such additions
would generally not prove to be harmful to surrounding properties.
Staff requests the Board to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the findings
for the requested variance.
Public Comment
Staff has received severa] phone calls from neighboring property owners expressing concern
regarding this application. These include the residents located at 14 Southridge East, 8
Southridge, 44 Southridge West. 46 Southridge West, and the Reedlands Homeowners
Association Staff has received two letters from the public regarding this proposal. One letter is
from Susan Lincoln of 10 Southridge East, dated August 23,1999 and one letter is from Mr. and
Mrs Silcox of 14 Southridge Drive East, received August 26, 1999.
RECOMMENDA nON:
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.06
(Guiding Principles), 4.02.08 (Site Development Criteria) and "Design Review Criteria for Garage
Conversions". If the Board wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached
conditions of approval be applied.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Application and supplemental materials dated June 22, 1999
2. Original Staff approval and letter regarding the approval issued in error
3 Conditions of approval
4, Letter from Susan E. Lincoln, dated August 23, 1999
5. Letter from John and Colleen Silcox, dated September 25,1999 (received August 26, 1999)
5 Submitted plans received August 25, 1999 and copies from plans submitted July 27, 1999
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2.1999
4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
36 South ridge West
FILE #299033
1. This approval shall be used within 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 22, 1999, or as amended by these conditions of approval.
Any modifications to the plans last submitted August 25, 1999, must be reviewed
and approved by the Design Review Board.
3. The applicant must meet all requirements of the Town Engineer and all other
agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.
4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting.
5. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan for review by Staff according to the
recommendation made by the Design Review Board.
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Sl'AFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2,1999
5
EXHIBIT NO:
~
9. 36 Southridge Drive West Waterman, AdditionslVariance
The applicant submitted a Staff level application for a deck extension and pantry addition
on June 22, 1999 Staff was unaware of the excess lot coverage already on the property
and inadvertently approved the application with a condition requiring landscaping which
would provide privacy screening for the neighbors located downslope. Before the
building permit was amended and approved, Staff caught the error, notified the applicant
and scheduled the item for review before the Board.
In addition to the deck extension and pantry addition, the applicant is requesting approval
for a retaining wall to hold soil which was excavated from the subject property during
construction and placed on site at the location above the retaining wall shown on
submitted site plan.
Dick Hunt, architect representing the applicant, explained that the addition previously
approved gave them a lot coverage which was similar to other houses in the
neighborhood, and was allowed because the neighbors did not want the house to increase
in height. The application now requests a small additional amount of lot coverage They
want to add an extension to the retaining wall. add a storage room addition that cannot be
seen by anyone and add a deck extension that is over what was previously a concrete
patio The ceiling of the storage would be less than 7 feet in height.
In response to Boardmember Snow, Mr. Hunt said that the difference in height above
grade between the deck that was previously approved and the proposed deck at the
extreme edge is considerably more than 2 feet and might be up to 6 feet.
Susan Lincoln. 10 Southridge Drive East. said that she lives downslope from the house
and the extension is extremely larger than she anticipated. She objects to the 6 foot wall
and did not think the plantings would screen the wall. The deck extension would allow
people to look into her front yard and living room. The approved deck does not look
directly into her living room but does overlook her property. She is also concerned about
the privacy for her other neighbors.
Andrew Thompson, 18 Southridge Drive East, said that the retaining wall is replacing a
wall that is holding excavated soil that was not moved from the site. The wall should not
be approved until story poles could be put up. The deck extension should not be
approved and is contrary to the hillside guidelines. It creates a cantilevered section on the
hillside that sticks out from the slope and does not follow the contours of the site. The
deck takes away privacy for Ms. Lincoln and the Silcox's hot tub. The story poles that
were erected are not in the proper location. The shed should not be approved because
findings cannot be made for the lot coverage variance. The proposed skylight should not
be approved until it is clearly marked on the plans and until the neighbors have an
opportunity to review it. He is also upset that work has been done on the weekends
Darryl Divini. 44 Southridge Drive West, said that this project will significantly impact
his privacy and would also impact his privacy for his hot tub. The biggest impact would
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
9/2/99
APPROY~P
13
,
be the deck. All the other neighbors circulated their plans when they wanted to propose
changes but he has never seen any of the proposed changes that have already been
approved. He wants to make sure the story poles are placed properly on the site. One
neighbor asked for mitigated shrubbery but he did not know what that would do to his
view He is also opposed to construction taking place on the weekend.
Margaret Leung, 8 Southridge Drive East, said the existing retaining wall was placed
there sometime in April. There are other areas where "existing" is a vague term. She is
opposed to the retaining wall that would be at least 75 feet long and would like to see an
elevation for the wall. The deck area has been constructed in disregard to what is
allowable without Design Review approval. She would like to see a detailed plan of what
the project would look like after the project has been completed and would like to see
vegetation in front of the wall. She objects to the project as proposed.
Maxine Papdikis, 46 Southridge Drive West, was surprised at the extension of the house
without notice to the neighbors and she objects to the extension of the retaining wall.
Marge Baylor. 46 Southridge Drive West, said she supports the neighbors' concerns, and
also concerned about the integrity of the hillside.
Lalita Waterman. applicant, stated that she feels badly about what has occurred She
invited neighbors out if she knew they had questions. She asked the contractor to place
yellow ribbons on the story poles to show the difference between the new and old
proposals. None of the story poles have been moved. She did not think the patio
extension would impact Ms Lincoln's living room. She did not think that the issue of
working on the weekends belongs before the Board.
In response to a question by Chair Beales, John Waterman responded that the original
purpose of the retaining wall was to get a flat area and a little more outdoor space. If the
retaining wall area is approved, they will provide structural calculations on the wall.
Ms. Theriault stated that it is really unclear what deck area was previously approved and
what currently exists, Staff needs more information in that area.
Mr, Hunt said that they clearly noted on the plans any deck area that is above 3 feet in
height. The building permit drawings show the deck as an extension of the living room,
which was approved.
Chair Beales stated that having stood on Southridge Drive East, the deck clearly stands
out. The Silcox's privacy is aggravated by the new deck and therefore he cannot support
the new deck. The retaining wa:l is holding up excess dirt but any excess fill should be
taken offsite unless there is a plan for the area, including landscaping. He could support
the storage area.
Boardmember Howard said there was not enough information to approve the application
and this is a prominent site. The deck should be revisited and she would support a
continuance.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
9/2/99
APPROVEU
14
Boardmember Smith stated that he is concerned about the procedure as a whole. There
seems to be negative impact about the deck. The current deck already looms out and is
aesthetically unpleasing, and this condition would only be exacerbated by the requested
deck area. There seem to be many areas of the deck that exceed 3 feet in height above
grade and should be looked into by Staff. He did not know the height of the retaining
wall. It appears that the existing retaining wall is only holding the dirt material that could
be removed from the site. As a result, this application cannot be substantively addressed
tonight. He felt that a denial of the project may be more appropriate than a request for
continuance. He has no objection to the storage area.
Boardmember Snow stated that he does not remember a deck on the previous application
and only remembered approving a patio. Most decks in the vicinity are modest and this
proposed deck is out of character for the neighborhood. He was not even sure how it
could be mitigated with vegetation. He would like to see a better topographic map and
would want to see better exterior finishing on the proposed pantry addition. He is leaning
towards denial for the rest of the application
Boardmember Smith said he would want the applicant to provide elevations for the decks
as well as the retaining wall.
IYVs Beales/Smith and unanimously passed (4-0), to continue the application to the
meeting of December 2. 1999, to allow the applicant lime to provide documentation on
the design of the retaining wall, including erecting story poles; providing topographic and
elevations of what is shown as the "approved deck"; additional information on the
storage area; and landscaping proposals to mitigate any areas that are a problem.
Mrs Waterman stated that she would grant a Permit Streamlining Act time extension.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
9/2/99
APPROVED
15
,
,
EXHIBIT NO. 1-
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
ITEM NO. 63
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
EMI THERIAULT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST; FILE #200008
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR AN AS-BUILT
DECK, WITH A VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE
DATE:
APRIL 6, 2000
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER-DICK HUNT
PROPERTY OWNER-LALITA WATERMAN
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADLINE:
36 SOUTHRIDGE EAST
034-311-11
299033
19,250 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
MARCH 14, 2000
APRIL 6, 2000
JUNE 5, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e).
TfBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 6, 2000
1
BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL:
A chronology for recent development applications for the subject property has been generated by
Staff. Please review Exhibit 4.
Chronology Summary:
The applicant applied for a remodel for their existing residence in April of 1998 (File #298005).
The Board reviewed the proposal and approved the application. In June of 1999, the applicant
submitted a request to extend the length of a deck but withdrew the application after
neighborhood opposition arose (File #299033). Staff then discovered that the architect of record
had incorrectly calculated the lot coverage on the original application (File #298005) for the
remodel which included a partial description of a new deck. The site plan for the project did not
show the deck proposal, however, and the minutes of the Board meeting indicate that even
though elevation drawings showed a deck, that the Board did not understand that a new deck,
above 3 feet from grade, was part of the proposal. In addition, the data sheet submitted for the
application approved in 1998 had incorrect calculations for lot coverage and floor area.
Therefore, the variance for excess lot coverage was approved based on incorrect information as
supplied by the applicant. Staff subsequently deemed the deck approval null and void and the
applicant was required to reapply for the deck with a request for a variance for additional excess
lot coverage. A floor area exception was not required.
PROPOSAL:
The current application requests after-the-fact approval for a deck and a variance for excess lot
coverage. The application also requests approval for additional modifications to the previously
approved addition. The modifications include two as-built skylights which were included in the
(withdrawn) application File #299033 as well as relocation of doors, windows and a chimney.
The deck extension and additional modifications would add 431 square feet coverage for a total
lot coverage of 4,063 square feet which is more than the maximum of2,887 square feet allowed
for a parcel of this size in the RO-2 zone. A variance for excess lot coverage is, therefore,
requested. The application also requests after-the-fact approval to correct previous calculations
for floor area. The application requests 479 square feet floor area which is less than the maximum
of 3,925 square feet allowed in the RO-2 zone.
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The applicant has submitted drawings detailing the as-built deck, skylights and other modifications
mentioned above. The "proposed additions" shown on the submitted site plan are not part of the
current application but were approved on April 2, 1998 by the Design Review Board.
TIBURON DESiGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 6, 2000
2
Staff has conducted several field investigations of the subject property including review of the
application from the perspective of the subject property itself as well as from neighboring
properties. The deck primarily faces properties on Southridge East. Properties on Southridge
West are essentially unaffected by the deck addition due to its location toward the rear of the
subject property.
The topography of the subject property could create the potential for excessive mass and bulk
associated with the deck. A portion of the deck (particularly the east elevation) is not built into
the contour of the hillside but juts out over the curve of the hill. Although the site plan indicates
an adequate distance for the deck from the property line as determined on paper, the property in
the deck area actually has a steep drop-off If the site plan were represented in a three-
dimensional fashion, the property line would appear to be just a few feet from the edge of the
deck.
Staff does not foresee any other design issues with this project
Variance
In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make the findings as required by Section
403,05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The public has expressed concern regarding privacy
issues, mass and bulk concerns, current and potential construction noise issues and the merits of
further lot coverage on this property which is currently approved for 20.0 % lot coverage while
15 % lot coverage is allowed in this zone. The applicant is currently requesting additional lot
coverage for a total of 21. I % lot coverage.
The Board should review these findings to determine if they support the current variance request:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
Although a variance for excess lot coverage has been granted in the past for the subject
property, the substantial additional excess lot coverage already approved demonstrates
that the strict application of the this Ordinance will not deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Although the site has steep topography, the
majority of residences in the area also have steep topography. The lot is slightly smaller
than the 20,000 square foot area minimum for the RO-2 zone, but is consistent in size with
surrounding properties. (Exhibit 6). Therefore, it is possible that a finding for
substandard lot size may not apply in this circumstance.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with
the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
TIBURON DE.'>1GN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 6, 2000
3
"
This portion of the Reedlands neighborhood contains many parcels that have received
variances for excess lot coverage, primarily due to the construction of many of these
. homes under Marin County standards prior to annexation to Tiburon.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
The previous Design Review Board exercised considerable flexibility in granting excess lot
coverage for the subject property. Staff is unable, at this time, to demonstrate an
unnecessary hardship related to the physical aspects of the subject property given the
development already approved for the site.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The deck addition may result in some mass and bulk as well as privacy impacts on
surrounding residences.
Staff respectfully requests the Board to consider possible alternate findings for the requested
variance if it is determined that the Board can support the additional excess lot coverage request.
Public Comment
Both the Silcox family of 14 Southridge East and the Thompson family of 18 Southridge East
have telephoned and visited Staff to express privacy concerns related to the deck and requested
alternative solutions and/or removal of the deck area in question. Both of these families have spas
located in areas that are more visible from 36 Southridge West due to the deck addition. Existing
vegetative screening intended to protect the privacy of these residents is no longer effective due to
the extension and greater elevation of the deck as opposed to the previously existing on-grade
patio.
The property owners have submitted several letters from residents in the neighborhood who
support the current application. Of these contributions, one is from a resident who lives on
Southridge East-the area most likely to be affected by the proposed deck. (please review Exhibits
6 and 7).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.02.0 (Guiding
Principles). If the Board wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached
conditions of approval be applied.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 6, 2000
4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and supplemental materials dated February 14, 2000
2. Plans revised January 31, 2000 (various sheets submitted on different dates)
3 Conditions of approval
4. Chronology-36 Southridge Drive West
5. Excerpts from plans reviewed by Board for April 2, 1998 approval and Excerpts from current
application.
6. Assessor's Parcel Map of Southridge West and Southridge East subdivision area.
7. Letters of support signed by residents in the Southridge West and Southridge East area.
TJBURONDESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
APRIL 6, 2000
5
EXHIBIT NO. ~ -
E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
3. 36 South ridge Drive West Waterman, Deck/Variance
A chronology for recent development applications for the subject property has been
generated by Staff. The applicant applied for a remodel for their existing residence in
April of 1998 (File #298005). The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and
approved the application. In June of 1999, the applicant submitted a request to extend the
length of a deck but withdrew the application after neighborhood opposition arose (File
#299033). Staff then discovered that the architect of record had incorrectly calculated the
lot coverage on the original application (File #298005) for the remodel which included a
partial description of a new deck. The site plan for the project did not show the deck
proposal, and the minutes of the Board meeting indicate that even though the elevation
drawings showed a deck, it appeared to Staff that the Board may not have understood that
a new deck above 3 feet from grade was part of the proposal. In addition, the data sheet
submitted for the application approved in 1998 had incorrect calculations for lot coverage
and floor area. Therefore, the variance for excess lot coverage was approved based on
incorrect information as supplied by the applicant. Staff subsequently determined that
the applicant was required to reapply for the deck with a request for a variance for
additional excess lot coverage. A floor area exception was not required.
The current application requests after-the-fact approval for a, deck and a variance for
excess lot coverage. The application also requests approval for additional modifications
to the previously approved addition. The modifications include two as-built skylights,
which were included in the withdrawn application (File #299033), as well as relocation of
doors, windows and a chimney.
The deck extension and additional modifications would add 431 square feet coverage for
a total lot coverage of 4,063 square feet, which is more than the maximum of 2,887
square feet allowed for a parcel of this size in the RO- 2 zone, and a variance for excess
lot coverage is therefore requested. The application also requests after-the-fact approval
to correct previous calculations for floor area The application requests 479 square feet
floor area, which is less than the maximum of 3,925 square feet allowed in the RO-2
zone.
Dick Hunt, architect representing the applicant, apologized for even having this
application on the agenda. This project is before the Board because of the deck
miscalculations, and smaller changes made to the home during construction. Those
include the French doors and windows that have been flipped so the door would be on the
south side. They also added a skylight over the center of the roof. He provided a letter of
support from the neighbor most affected by the skylight. Last summer the skylight and
two other changes, which were never built, were approved at the Staff level. That
approval was subsequently rescinded when it was realized that the other parts of the
application would have expanded the size of the footprint, which led to the need to update
the variance. That matter was brought before the Board in 1999 and then was
TlBURON ORB
4/6/00
3
subsequently withdrawn. The third minor change was that the plans called for a false
chimney for the flue at the range in the kitchen. That was never built and therefore was
eliminated. This leaves an exposed flue, but that is not unusual for many homes. The
level of the deck has been built a foot higher than was presented to the Board in 1998.
The increased elevation was done because ofthe need to eliminate stairs for the applicant
who has health problems. There is a letter from Mrs. Waterman's doctor explaining her
inability to maneuver on stairs. The raised deck elevation does not exacerbate the
coverage problem.
Mr. Hunt explained that the footprint of the deck shown on the plan is as built. This is
exactly how it was represented on the elevation drawings presented to the DRB two years
ago. For some reason the deck was not shown on the site plan. He is not certain why it .
was not shown but there was no intent to hide the deck. He said tbat the deck was built
according to the approved construction drawings, which was confIrmed by the Building
Inspector and Associate Planner Theriault. He explained tbat the portion of the deck
inside the shaded area of the plans is built over an existing concrete terrace, but because it
is less than 36 inches above the initial grade, it does not constitute lot coverage. That has
also been confrrmed by Staff. The shaded area on the plan overhangs the area of the
existing concrete terrace anywhere from four feet to about six feet in the southward
comer. It is a 2-3 foot area of the deck that overhangs in the southerly direction and a
little more that overhangs in the easterly direction. That deck area should have been
added to the calculations in 1998 but mistakenly was not. They stated on the application
there would have been 315 square feet of new coverage. In reality there was 431 square
feet of new coverage. The excess of what was approved is 116 square feet, which is
1.1 % more than what was approved. He explained that there was no malice intended, it
was just 'a sloppy mistake due to rushing to get the plans done.
With regard to issues of view blockage, Mr. Hunt explained that none of the houses that
have expressed concerns have the Waterman house in their direct primary view across the
Bay. For some, there is no view of the Waterman house from inside their home; for
others, it is more of a peripheral view. Those houses that have the clearest view of the
Waterman house and deck are approximately 200 feet and further beyond.
With regard to privacy, Mr. Hunt stated the houses immediately below the Waterman
property do not have windows facing the Water'mans. The nature of the privacy is no
different with the new deck or the old terrace. He presented photographs taken at grade
and standing on the deck. The photographs were looking towards the Thompson. Silcox,
and Lincoln properties. He noted that the new railing actually provides a buffer between
the Waterman's kitchen and family room and the neighbor's homes.
With regard to massing, Mr. Hunt explained that just the shaded portion of the deck is
under consideration. He presented photographs that indicate similar decks within the
neighborhood. With regard to the fmdings for a variance for the deck, the April 1998
staff report stated: "... the minor increase in lot coverage would not be inconsistent with
lot coverage granted other homes.,." He noted that the one-percent increase in lot
coverage would still be in line with what was granted two years ago. Also, they actually
TIBURON DRB
4/6/00
4
..~
have substantially less floor area than allowed under the FAR ordinance and they could
have built the house in a different configuration. and in a way that could have bad a larger
outside deck with a two-story residence. This would have resuhed in primary view
impacts on the neighbors. He presented a time line describing the interactions between
the Waterrnans and the Town and a letter in response to a letter written by the Reedlands
Homeowners Association.
In response to Chair Beales, Mr. Hunt addressed the changes from the 1998 submittal.
He explained that not only was there an error in calculating coverage, there was also an
error in calculating floor area. There were two porches .and a portion of each should be
calculated in lot coverage. He overlooked that. They also added floor area under the
porch, some of which was calculated, and some is not. The large addition was mostly
calculated in the lot coverage, along with the reduction of a small porch that was
removed. The deck was not included in the previous calculation. The area of the shaded
deck is 264 square feet. One half of the portions of the deck 3 feet or more above grade
would be counted towards coverage, therefore the lot coverage created by the deck now
under consideration is 132 square feet. Because they slightly overstated the size of the
addition before, he actually overstated the coverage by 116 square feet, even though the
deck constitutes 132 square feet oflot coverage.
Boardmember Snow commented that in reviewing the minutes of the April 2, 1998
Design Review Board meeting, Boardmember Doane questioned the architect about the
deck height and if the deck would be seen. The minutes indicated that Mr. Hunt
responded to Boardmember Doane that the deck would only be 18" in height and could
not be viewed from below.
Mr. Hunt responded that he was not aware of the increase in deck height until the deck
had already been framed. He also reviewed the tapes of the meeting in question and he
did not get that exact sense from them There is a break in slope and typically such a
break in slope would help to hide the mass and bulk when viewed from below. He felt
that the bulk of the project, including the deck, is foreshortened by the break in slope.
Boardmember Snow said that when he visited the site he noticed that rectractable
awnings had been put up and questioned if there was approval for them He also noticed
that the deck appears to go beyond the first window casing, as shown on the plans, to the
second window, and that portion of the deck was built beyond what was approved.
Mr. Hunt stated that he was not aware ofthe area of deck in question.
Ms. Theriault stated that there is no approval for the awnings and it would require design
review.
Boardmember McLaughlin said he is not so concerned about views and privacy but more
concerned about mass. He has a problem relating to the curve of the deck and the
hillside. The deck appears to be very massive. The calculation of the height of the deck
TmURON DRB
4/6/00
5
would bave been done from the grade. The terrace is not built at the natural grade of the
hillside.
Mr. Watrous explained that the terrace was at existing grade at the beginning of the
project. Height measurements would be taken based on the interpretation in the Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of measuring height.
Mr. Hunt stated that the hedge that was there was very thick prior to the deck being built.
The removal of the hedge changed the appearance of the deck.
Boardmember McLaughlin asked if story poles were placed on the site in 1998. Ms.
Theriault responded that there were no story poles in 1998 but there were in 1999, for the
application that was withdrawn.
In summary, Mr. Hunt said that if he had accurately represented the deck in 1998, there
would be no discussion tonight. The deck that was presented in 1998 in the drawings has
not changed; it was just not calculated as lot coverage.
Andrew Thompson, 18 Southridge Drive East, said that the deck did not comply with
several of the Hillside Design Guidelines, because there are view impacts, the deck is
cantilevered, and there is too much bulk and mass. He stated that the 1998 approval has
been nullified because it had inaccurate information. The variance should not be
approved because none of the fmdings can be made. This lot does not have special
circumstances and does not have any more slope than other houses in the Redlands. The
deck is out of character with the community. There is no need for a cantilevered deck,
and it sticks out over the views. His yard no longer has privacy because of this deck. He
is also really unhappy about the addition. He said that if there had not been
misrepresentation to the Board in 1998, the addition would have been set back further
and the windows would have been removed. He does not want to live with the
consequences of this addition. He noted that he reviewed the tape of the 1998 meeting
and it indicates that the deck cannot be seen from below. He wants the deck denied and a
portion of the house moved back.
Susan Russell Marshall, 20 Southridge Drive East, said that the deck could be viewed on
Southridge East and it impacts her views. She recognizes that it is not their primary
view, but she does not want her view of the hillside impacted. The deck is out of
character and the cantilevered deck hangs over Southridge East. The 6 foot height above
grade is quite significant. It was interesting that the architect does not think this is much
of an intrusion. She felt that this variance deserves a lot of consideration.
Bill Osher, 22 Southridge Drive East, explained that he is not directly impacted by the
deck, but the deck is intrusive to the neighborhood and is clearly an eyesore. The
neighbors were surprised when the deck was built because it was much larger than they
ever thought it would be. He would expect there would be guidelines that are very clear
and he would like people to be very honest about their intentions. The neighborhood
should be included in the decision.
TIBURON ORB
4/6/00
6
Darryl DeVinney, 44 Southridge Drive West, stated that he is directly impacted by the
deck and extension to the house. He is upset how this has been played out over the last
two years. There were no story poles two years ago and the only time they realized what
was happening is when they saw the roofline. The windows now show light and are
visible into his house. He is not sure if the windows are approved. Now there is the deck
and an awning that was not improved. They see this deck and addition looking out ofthe
dining room and living room.
Susan Lincoln, 10 Southridge Drive East, concurs with her neighbors. There is a privacy
issue with her. The applicant's deck is hanging over her property and she is negatively
impacted.
In response to Boardmember McLaughlin, Mr. Watrous explained that the stop work
order was issued for the deck.
Boardmember McLaughlin said he is having a great deal of difficulty with the lot
coverage issue and cannot make the required findings for the variance. This is not a
substandard lot. There are no physical aspects of the property that would justify this
variance so he cannot approve the deck. The entire deck seems inappropriate. His
opposition is not just to the fact that it was raised, it is also based on the slope of the hill
and the impact to the residents.
Chair Beales said he was on the Board in 1998 and when he looked at the extension of
the family room addition, he was not aware of the proposed deck. The additional 110
square feet of lot coverage is the portion of the deck that is over 3 feet above grade.
From a historic standpoint, the Board fully understood the filling in of a porch at the
backside. If there had been story poles put up at that time, the neighbors would have
commented. However, there were no comments so the Board approved the application.
Boardmember Smith said he wanted to just look at the basic issue of the application
before him. He disagrees that the increase in lot coverage from 20 percent to 21.1
percent was not significant. That difference of 1.1 percent is what brought up the
neighbors concerns and therefore it is significant. He is unable to make findings 1,3, and
4 for the variance.
Boardmember Snow said that this really boils down to a design and character issue with
the neighborhood. His understanding of the previous meetings was that the deck was
only going to be at the present location on grade and none of the deck would loom out.
Therefore, the end result is not appropriate. The applicants were told not to continue
construction; last year when he went out to the site the deck was not fmished, but now it
is completed.
Boardmember Stroub said the history is quite long on this application. Some of the plans
were vague and inadequate. Based on the neighbor's objections the deck does not look
good and is too massive; especially the way it comes to a point. He could go along with
TIBURON DRB
4/6/00
7
the modifications to the house for the skylights but he would like the deck removed and
to return the terrace to the original configuration.
Boardmember Smith agreed with his colleagues. He is not concerned about the skylights
and chimney relocation and the door makes more sense in the proposed location.
Boardmember McLaughlin said he is tom but will probably support the window and door
change along with the skylight and chimney. It seems that it should be made very clear
to the applicant not to unilaterally make changes without prior approval. He could see
the advantage to the skylights and how they came to moving the chimney, but it does not
lessen for him the fact that it was not what was approved.
Boardmember Snow said that it is not uncommon for changes to take place during
construction and these changes made sense. He has no problem approving the three
minor items.
Chair Beales agreed with his colleagues, stating the other changes are very minor and
could probably bave even been approved by Staff. The issue about the lot coverage is
basically a privacy issue. The deck is massive and if the variance were denied, the mass
would be removed.
With regard to the measurement of grade, Chair Beales stated that grade should be
calculated from the earth and not from what is constructed on the grade.
Mr. Watrous explained that when making the motion, the Board can make a reference to
the Zoning Ordinance and then Staff can determine where the grade would be. He noted
that any portion of the deck that is less than 3 feet in height would not be considered in
lot coverage.
Mis Smith/Stroub, and unanimously passed (5-0), to accept the portions of the application
relating to the exterior modifications, including the skylights, door, windows and
chimney; and to deny the request for variance for excess lot coverage for the deck, with
all portions of the deck 3 feet or more above grade, as defmed by the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance, to be removed.
TIBURON DRB
4/6/00
8
Office of the Town Attorney
(415) 435-7370
-:r~O' ""c~
,':! t.,
.: 'i.~ ~ "~; .
,0.. . *..,,:
'7r''''>.;,' _i;" ,.~ ~':
~ 0",,..,... ,<' _
EXHIBIT NO. CJ
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
April 28, 2000
Ms. Lalita H. Waterman
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Variance for 36 Southridge West
Dear Ms. Waterman:
This is in response to your letter of April 26, 2000, to Town Manager Robert Kleinert and me. If
I understand your letter correctly, you wish to discuss a compromise regarding the Design Review
Board's action on your variance application for 36 Southridge West. However, you should be
aware that neither the Manager nor I have the authority to alter that decision. Only the Town
Council can reverse, modify or uphold the actions of the Board.
According to Planning Department staff, you have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision,
which the Council will' hear in due course. Any compromise solutions that you may wish to
advocate should be presented to the Council at the hearing on your appeal. I understand that you
may wish to obtain staff imput regarding such compromises in advance of the hearing. I
commend this approach as the most prudent means of insuring that the Council will be adequately
briefed on the modifications that you propose. However, the most appropriate person to review
and discuss such matters with you is the planner that is most familiar with your project, Emi
Theriault.
That said, if your attorney has specific legal concerns regarding your variance application, I would
be happy to discuss those concerns with him by telephone. You should know that I will be out of
the office on extended leave after Friday, May 5,2000. Accordingly, if your attorney wishes to
talk to me, please have him call me during the early part of next week. During my absence, John
Sharp of Sharp and Brown will be the Acting Town Attorney. Mr. Sharp's telephone number is
(415) 507-1400.
Very truly yours,
~~/~
Ann R. Danforth
Town Attorney
cc: Robert 1. Kleinert, Town Manager
Scott Anderson, Planning Director /
Emi Theriault, Associate Planner V
John Sharp, Acting Town Attorney, Sharp & Brown
EXHIBIT NO. 10
CHRONOLOGY - 36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST
2/3/98 Administrative Panel-level Design Review application submitted to add rooms
and expand deck for existing residence. The submitted site plan does not show deck
expansion, although the floor plans and building elevations clearly indicate deck
expansIon.
3/3/98 The application is found to be incomplete. A lot coverage variance is required,
along with necessary findings to be addressed and additional fees for hearing before
Design Review Board.
3/5/98 Additional fees are paid for Design Review application.
3/18/98 A letter is received from applicant's architect (Richard Hunt) related to required
variance findings.
3/25/98 The Design Review Application deemed to be complete.
4/2/98 The Design Review Board hearing is held on application. Richard Hunt makes a
presentation before the Board. He states that the bulk of the request has to do with the
proposed room additions. Boardmember Doane asks several questions regarding the
proposed deck extension, indicating he was concerned with the view of the deck's
underside. Mr. Hunt replies that the underside of the deck will not !xi seen from below
due to the break in the hill. Mr. Doane asks for the height from the deck to the existing
grade. When Mr. Hunt indicates that the deck would be 2 feet above the grade of the hill,
Mr. Doane states that the elevations make the deck appear to be higher. Mr. Hunt
explains that that an existing hedge wrapping around the corner of the slope blocks views
of the deck; that there is a steep 2: I slope below this area; and that the break in the hill
shortens the view from below. Boardmember Beales notes that there are no neighbors in
attendance. The Board unanimously approves the request. The entire hearing lasts 7
minutes.
7/16/98 An application is received for building permit for project.
7/20/98 The building plans are reviewed for compliance with Design Review approvals.
9/4/98 The building plans are approved for construction by the Building Department.
4/26/99 A neighbor complaint is received by Building Department regarding work being
done on the property at night and on weekends, work being done beyond the scope of the
permit, and an unstable retaining wall. An inspection by the Building Department
indicates a rubble retaining wall 44 inches in height has been constructed without
permits.
5/10/99 Another neighbor complaint is received by the Building Department regarding
unstable exterior walls.
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST CHRONOLOGY
I
5/11199 An inspection report prepared by Building Official Bloomquist requires the
applicant to remove a plywood retaining wall, concrete rubble walls and loose dirt or
apply for permits to install appropriate retaining walls.
6/22/99 A Staff-level Design Review application is received to "increase size of deck
and add pantry from garage for kitchen."
6/28/99 A courtesy notice is mailed to property owners within 100 feet of the site
regarding the Design Review application, indicating that a decision would be made no
earlier than 7/8/99.
7/13/99 Associate Planner Theriault calls the Watermans and referred them to a
concerned neighbor.
7/14/99 A re-roof permit for the property is approved by the Building Department.
7/20/99 The Building Department indicates that a skylight has been constructed which
needs Design Review approval.
7/22/99 Associate Planner Theriault calls Mr. Waterman with a neighbor's concern that
the neighbor's hot tub can be seen from kitchen window. Mr. Waterman is recommended
to plant shrubs that will soften the appearance of the deck mass. Mr. Waterman indicates
that a revised roofplan will be submitted showing the added skylight.
7/22/99 Associate Planner Theriault determines that Design Review application is
incomplete, and requires a roof plan showing the as-built skylight and a privacy screening
landscaping proposal.
7/27/99 A letter is received from Ms. Waterman describing proposed screening
landscaping to be installed on the property.
7/28/99 The Staff-level Design Review application is approved, with conditions
requiring screening landscaping with irrigation and that the pantry meet the Building
Official's requirements for non-livable area.
8/10/99 A complaint is received by the Building Department from a neighbor regarding
debris falling into street below the house and concrete being poured into the storm drain
system.
8/10/99 An inspection report prepared by Building Inspector Lindgren requires that dirt
and rocks that have fallen to Southridge Drive East must be picked up and the street
cleaned; that a temporary site fence must be installed to catch future rocks; that concrete
washed into street and gutter must be cleaned and no future concrete washing shall occur;
and the rubble retaining wall and loose dirt must be removed or a retaining wall with
drainage be installed after obtaining a building permit. .
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST CHRONOLOGY
2
8/13/99 An inspection by Building Official Bloomquist reveals that loose dirt, retaining
wall and rubble wall have not yet been removed, debris fence has not been installed on
the site, and the gutter has not been cleaned.
8/16/99 Associate Planner Theriault calls Mr. Waterman and directs him to stop work
immediately on work approved for Design Review on 7/28/99, as it has been discovered
that a variance is required for the increased lot coverage created by these additions. Mr.
Waterman indicates that holes have already been dug for the piers and requests
permission to pour these piers; he is referred to speak to either the Building Official or
Planning Director. Ms. Theriault calls Mr. Hunt to request lot coverage calculations.
8/17/99 Associate Planner Theriault sends a letter to Ms. Waterman indicating that the
Design Review application approved on 7/28/99 was approved in error and must be
reviewed by the Design Review Board. The request is scheduled for the 9/2/99 Design
Review Board meeting. The applicant is required to submit corrected plans and
additional application fees by 8/25/99.
8/23/99 Associate Planner Theriault receives phone call from neighbor who indicates
that footings have already been poured for deck extension. Building Inspector Lindgren
had given verbal permission to dig the holes, but had not given permission to pour
concrete.
8/23/99 The Town receives a letter from Susan Lincoln, 10 Southridge Drive East,
complaining about the construction on the subject property.
8/23/99 An inspection report prepared by Building Inspector Lindgren states that
applicant is told to remove rubble walls and loose dirt, as requested on 5/11/99. The
walls are to be removed by 9/3/99. Mr. Lindgren issues a Stop Work Order indicating
that no further work is to be performed until Design Review approval has been obtained..
8/24/99 Associate Planner Theriault contacts Mr. Hunt and reiterates that plans must be
submitted by noon of 8/25/99, and requests story poles with ribbons be erected.
8/25/99 Associate Planner Theriault contacts Ms. WateI1llllI1. who asks which neighbors
are complaining and the names of the Design Review Board and Town Council members.
Ms. Waterman calls later that day to ask about the maximum distance from the site
allowed for people who wish to object to the project; she is given the names of people
who have complained.
8/26/99 The Town receives a letter from John and Colleen Silcox, 14 Southridge Drive
East, raising objections to the Design Review application.
8/27/99 Building Official Bloomquist receives a letter from John Silcox, 14 Southridge
Drive East, complaining about construction on the subject property.
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST CHRONOLOOY
3
8/28/99 The Town receives a letter from David and Kimber McCreight, 40 Southridge
Drive West, indicating no objection to Design Review application.
8/30/99 The Town receives a letter from Ms. Waterman explaining the history of her
application and the reasons why the Design Review request should be approved.
8/31/99 Mr. Hunt notifies Associate Planner Theriault that the piers would be located at
the edge of the proposed deck, and is told that the submitted elevations do not match that
description.
9/2/99 The Town receives a letter from John Silcox, 14 Southridge Drive East, raising
objections to the Design Review application.
9/2/99 The Design Review Board holds a hearing regarding the application for deck
extension and pantry addition. Six neighboring residents speak in opposition to the
request. The unpermitted retaining wall and rubble walls are also discussed. The Board
votes to continue the application to the December 2, 1999 meeting, to allow the applicant
time to provide documentation on the design of the retaining wal~ including erecting
story poles, topographic information and elevations of the previously approved deck,
additional information on the storage area, and landscaping proposals to mitigate any
areas that could create problems.
9/7/99 The Town receives a letter from Ms. Waterman withdrawing her recent Design
Reviewapplication. Associate Planner Theriault sends a letter to Ms. Waterman
indicating that the application is deemed to be withdrawn. and stating that all construction
on the site must conform to the previously approved Design Review plans or be removed.
9/8/99 A courtesy notice is sent to surrounding property owners indicating that the recent
Design Review application has been withdrawn, and that all construction must conform
to the previously approved Design Review plans or be removed.
9/9/99 The Town receives a letter from Mr. Hunt attempting to answer questions
regarding the deck extension.
12/7/99 Building Official Bloomquist sends a letter to Ms. Waterman indicating that the
size of the new deck is in conformance with the approved Design Review and Building
Department plans, but that the elevation of the new deck is not in conformance with these
approved plans. The letter also states that unauthorized sliding glass doors have been
added at the living room and at the family room, and stairs leading to the deck have been
relocated. The construction of the deck at a higher elevation is deemed to be work
without permit and a $250 fine is imposed. A Stop Work Order will remain in effect
until the either the deck is lowered to the elevation shown on the approved plans or
Design Review approval is obtained for the revised deck elevation. relocated stairs and
new sliding glass doors.
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST CHRONOLOOY
4
12/14/99 Senior Planner Watrous discovers that the data sheet for the 1998 Design
Review application indicated that 315 square feet of floor area would be added to the
residence, along with a 315 square foot increase in lot coverage. This information
indicates that the increased lot coverage created by the deck expansion was not included ,
in the application. As the existing residence already exceeds the maximum lot coverage
allowed for this parcel, and a variance was required for the lot coverage created by the
room addition, another variance would also be needed for the lot coverage created by the
deck extension.
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST CHRONOLOGY
5
LAND
'~_' TOWN OF TIBURON ,J . RECEIVED%.,;J
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ' . ';;::,>",":,:,;;
FEB 1 4 2000 . .c;;:;~
TYPE OF APPLICATION PlA""ltlGD"""'b,r'21~t'!'!
. , .TOWNOF fluU;\iJ ,"""l
tI Design Review {ORBI 0 Tentative SubdivIsion Ma XHIB'I:i~i:T~,;.',:,,>l"'~.!'NO. I \ .
o Desig" Review (Stuff rav!'!l) 0 Final Subdivision Map "~ ~
. Varl.lIlea 0 P3rcol Map
o Sign Purmit 0 Lot Una Adjustmllnt
o Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance
o Underground Waiver 0 Other
j
o Conditional Use Permit
o
o
o
o
o
Pr~cjse Development Plan
Conceptual Master Plan
Rezoning/Prezonillg
Zoning Text Amendment
General Plan Amendment
:~
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: 36 Southridge West
PARCEL Nm1BEH.:
PROPERTY SIZE:
7./)NING:
19250 sq.ft.
~n-.:l.
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
Lalita & Rick Waterman
36 Southridge West
T~buron, CA 94920
415-381-4467
FAX
415-381-4467
',..,,,,,
i\PPLJCANT: (Other than Property Owner) Hunt Hale Jones Architects
MAILING ADDRESS: 636 4th Street
CITY/STATE/ZIP: San Francisco. C~ 94107
PHONE NUMBER: 415-512-1300 FAX 415-288-0288
..
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER: Hunt H<lle Jones Architects
MAILING ADDRESS: 636 4th Street
CITY/STATE/ZIP: San Francisco. C~ 94107
PIIONE NUMllER: 415-512-1300 FAX 415-288-0288
Please indicate ll'iilz all asl/!risk (*) persons ((I whom correspondence should be sellt.
IllUEF DESCIlWrION OF PROPOSE!) PROJlo:CT (atlach separate sheet if needed):
Approval of deck; Minor architectural chang~s to addition.
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described. hereby make application for
approval or the plans submiued and made a part of this application in accordance with lhe provisions of lhe TOWIl
Ordiuances. and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
bel~[ .
'-,.,'
1,:;;;~
. . ,.,,~
I unllerstand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the TQwn ,_';'~';/;
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is c.hallenged by a third party, I wiIi_~'.:.f~~l
responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense atJ~e,~~~
request of ~~eTowl1 and also agree ~ defend. indemnify.and hrnd the Town harmless from any coslS,daim.'o~~~d1'1
liabilities ar~mg from the approval, II1c1Ud;tng, lout limitatiOn, any award of attorneys fees that mIght resu}.t~:<..~r;
from the llurd party lallenge ~,~:: ,~~
s: I. ,,,,,,,,,,,,
~ - . ,j, : ~~~:~~
Signatu:e: . _ _ ___ _ Date: 2. (700 ~_~. \_,~.T',
(It oth r lhan OWII r, must have letter from owner) ,"_-"~!':~',::.:.~~~;.~
.c.::;.\~~::ti':~~t~
,~,~,,~,.
:~
Application No.: <2~l(s'
~::: ::::::d~oj:~~~). ~1'~T~V.d~Y:
Acting Body: ' 'Action:
Conditions of Appr.ov.al, or Comment:;:
'Ow
Fee Deposit;:"
Receipt, #
By:
'0: ."< ,_:'~)',:~L::~ ,;i,!:~.'~~.:~.-:.r.:~.'l'.,::.;
:' :::~~~;ili::G:~"j , .- ,- - -,
,;,," -, --'--:_:~~:\~~~.
~-n)"'L' ",:"::
e'1.l L ,~';;':,',~
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS UHE
DEPARTMENTALPROCESSING'INFORMATION
Design Review Application
Page 5 of8
RECEIVED
Existing FEB 3 2000
Proposed
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
. TOWN OF TIBURON
4. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround
or maneuvering areas. V\. ovt €
T hI ~ "(5, o..S rr J:~ () VL.-O ~ c..ve. ~ d CJ\-Q. ~ 'f( ~~
I TO BE COMP~TED BY APplicANT II STAFF USE ONLY
I ITEM IEj PROPOSED I PROPOSED I CAL-CULATED t:
ADDITION ANDIOR ZONE
AL TERA TION
Yards ~I . I .[
(Setbacks from property
line)(Section 1.05,25)* \5 ft.
Front V\.VY\e.
I Rear II z..=r ft. II Vl'~ ft. II 1.---=t- ft. II ft.l~
I Right Side II z.-'3 ft. II VI. tJ'v'-L. . ft. II z..~ ft. II ft.l~
I Left Side II 90 ft. II 0' ft. II ;4- ft. II ft.l~
Maximum Height ~I V'\ ~ ('^~~~: IC=;]I ft.IG
(Section 5.06.07)'
Lot Coverage i?b:~.11 4-3>\ sq.ft IlltO&1q.ft.11 I~
(Section 5.06.0S)" sq.ft. sq.tt.
Lot Coverage as 61 2. . Z-lf' %I~I %I~
Percent of Lot Area
%
Gross Floor Area :B:;-S" 1 '1")-'1 ~.ft'.11 'B ~ ~.ft.11 sq.ft.l~
(Section 1.05.06)"
sq.ft.
'Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST
This is a comprehensive list showing items that may be required. Should you require assistance in
determining which items are needed for your application, a member of the Planning Staff will assist
you.
SITE PLAN:
http://www.tiburon.orglGovemmentlDepartmentsIPlanning%2.../designJeview_application.ht1/27 lOa
'{,7.5
Ijc':',
~
HUNT HALE]ONES
ARCHITECTS
RECEIVED
FEB 3 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
February 2, 2000
Mr. Dan Watrous
Town ofTiburon
1155 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Application No. 298005
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, CA
Dear Dan:
Enclosed please find drawings and an application for design review at 36 Southridge West.
This application is being made in response to your recent letter noting that the previously
approved design review application and variance were based on incorrect data provided by
me in that application.
I carefully reviewed the plans and have concluded that I did not include decks and that I
misunderstood the method of calculating coverage resulting from porches in the previous
application. As such, I overstated the existing coverage by 164 square feet, and understated
the proposed coverage by 280 square feet. The relative increase in coverage was
understated by 116 square feet, or 1.11 % of coverage. This increase in square footage
results in deck area that is more than three feet above grade.
While this mistake was sloppy and unprofessional on my part, it was not done intentionally
nor with malice intended. As you will remember, when the Design Review Board approved
this application in April 1998, there was very little concern by the public or Board with this
application. We had no motive to misstate our calculations.
Also, please be aware that the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Waterman, had nothing to do with the
determination of the project data that was submitted. They had no knowledge of the errors
unil after the construction of the deck was completed. I am embarrassed to say that the
application I saw in the project file, at least in regards to coverage data, was completed in
my handwriting.
636 Fourth Street, San FrancISCo. CA 9'il03 . Phone: 415-512-1300 . Fax: 415-288-0288 . www.hunthalejones.com
Ltr. to Dan Watrous, Town ofTiburon - Re: Appl. No. 298005 - 36 Southridge West, Tiburon, CA
February 2, 2000
Page 2
The deck, as it is currently built, is primarily over a concrete terrace. The terrace was
previously used for outdoor living. Mrs. Waterman is a polio victim who has difficulty with
stairs, and as such it was important to bring this living space up to the existing level of the
home per her physician's recommendations. The deck extends beyond that concrete terrace
by four feet on the south side and two feet on the east side. The previously approved plans
properly indicated the shape and height of the deck relative to grade. Only the calculation of
coverage was incorrect. The deck does not block or significantly impact anyone's view and
has been approved 'as-built' by the adjacent neighbors (see enclosed letter).
We are also including in this application a number of changes made during the course of
construction. These include:
· A portion of the deck was raised by one foot so that it could become level with the
home's floor. This required the addition of two stairs from the new deck to the old
catwalk south of the Living Room. As I mentioned before, Mrs. Waterman is disabled
and this seems a reasonable accommodation.
. The previously approved doors on the east side of the Family Room and windows on the
south side have traded places in order to facilitate wheelchair accessibility to the deck.
· The proposed chimney for a cluster of flues coming from the top of the ridge over the
garage was not needed and has been deleted. A single, small diameter flue of the sort
not typically shown in any plans now comes out of the East side of the roof over the
garage.
I have chosen to alter the previously approved construction drawings for the purpose of this
submittal. The drawings are at a larger scale and more legible than the previous design
review submittal. I have left in place, notations of conditions that existed prior to the April,
1998 approval. Since this hearing is directly linked to that approval, I thought it would be
important to make clear the existing conditions at that time.
I am extremely sorry for the trouble my mistakes have put you and my client through.
Best regards,
Richard Hunt
Principal, Hunt Hale Jones Architects
Enclosures
TIle Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
401 DICnN'I'Il~"!>"'IAL WAY
SA."lTA ROSA, CALIFOR.'nA 95403-2192
Al<TlOCJl
nAV1lI
tA1MlllLD
PIIe>IImT
""""""
GIU#'/
RAYWAJID
"^"""""
llILl'11'AS
)lOt::ttAJH TU'ff
NAPA
NOV.u'O
()A1Ct.\NIl
tAU SIlAD!IANll!>
1"eTAU!:'4A.
PLEAaA.'l1'01<
JI.vICI&O COACiOV.\.
IUWJWOO" em
IIlClDC()lll)
.os&\'U.LE
~
..... I'JWOCl'llo:>
lWI ./OSS
...,. IOo\ZUL
M/CI'A c;t.AJL\
lIA.'l'L\lO&\
S. SACZuIBlI'lO
S, M" l'RAllClOlCO
STOCICl'ON .
V.11.IVO
YfAJ.Hf:T !;JWZta
.'l.t.:guS1: 19, 1339
RECEIVED
::"a.li La WQ..te!:'.~ltan
3'; Southr.:..d.g~ Nest
Ti~~ron, C~ 94920
FEB
3 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
RE:
:V!R#
r..;,LI?A WATSRlV1A.:,
034:! ; I '/'1
To Wcom it ~~y ~o~ce~~,
Lal:..ta j~ate=Tnar.. has b.::~n a -oa:.i..;n:. or mine !(H' '_bl::: l:t~i.. !our v~ar.s,
Si.\E:; has :f:.:-stpolio eY:1drOr,1c. I:. is a :leuromt:..3cula.-::" disease
(;.:1.ar.s-_c;':e~1.z~r.:.. oy pel''''''an=:n'C a:1.d prog~~3s:iv~ J.,-,,~;~ ~r ~L..:,:~nqtb. a.nd
:iLC:0ili:y
SFecifica~ly, Mrs ~a:er~a~ does haVE some l~oa~~me~~ wi~h r@spe~e
'.:0 mor,ility ~::'-:: t:t?:":' atill.':.Y t.~ a~..;:;u:"c;.ts .safel".... t.~_ro'l;.gh(;'.J.L ~1-=':'
':u:::-:::er.:. h01.1S8, :-Irs. Wa:.~~''1\an h~s hilc some Ea:'ls 3.nd 30'118 injur~es
-v,.~ -"e ~"'r-'" ~. -\:- 1."- t"'w y"'"r~ d"e t- 1:"~ d.' ~"i-u't" -l'w ;-
-: ~-: ......., .'__,-,- ~... v _ ,(.,..... ';1...";' _ .... . ~ ~ ,.., ...... _. ~ 1.1.... ~..... ~,- .1, 'S ,,,,- ..~
~avl~q :n n2gc:~at1~g S~~~~$ w~tn~~ t~e ~~m~~s of ~er a~sao11~:y.
}\.n o::::::'..lpa~,icJ~a:" ~~era.sist. was sent c~~~::. frcm :<a:.ser ?e::::.~:nana:r.t.e 1:.0
~valuate ::~r home a: 3 6 S<:u:.h~:'dg~ W.zost :."r., l':.l:'..lron. -:he ra,:iSo:~ ,C-:...:..::.
:h<; ,:;OTIs'J....,tati;;n ,va.s fo= the occupa:.:cnal cherafist tc give advice
\oJ:ch resp€:'::. to s"'~ety l'e-do!:s::.g;1 ot $eve:::al. ~,5pect: ct ct1e dwelli....g.
':':le of the :na:.n r~comrr~;ldatior.s was -:.he el:..~niI1at.iO:1 0: a~:l.. sr.ai:rs
on ~~e pre~i$es. r~ was also reco~m~~ded Chat all steps lead:ng cc
cte cu~doo~ deck ~o~nec~ed to the dwe:ling be e:imir.aced a~d tha~
the deck ~e a~largej. The id~a is to afford the pat~ent an a~ea
'..-here sl:e c:an ',ralX: safely and ir.creas~ her cardiovascular exercise
3T1d the::;eby ~aintaip her: l>:vel of r:1obility fer longer ~n n~r llte.
Tr",ese changes t.? ~e~~ nc::us~~ol:3. e:"~v:i.r~~n~erAL are :"bs:':)l\.l':elj" -:1e=es~a~'y
for her t:) :':lal:1tal.n n~'l- J.ev~: cf J.r..depende:1ce tho.: sr.e enJoys
today. - yo'.!. ha',e a:;.y que:3tic,ns or concerr.s, ];: l.ease don':'
~es:~f ~~ ~~)tact ~e.
~.esX ~"~/
"I. ~ '. D ~.,' ~ t f Ph ' , M d i
,~'c-::-... ~P!".=t~,. I!., _,' '_.::~.z:~', ~e9ar~men. c YS1Ga_ e cir..-a
D:,p_C:[':'I.at.e, Atnerlca~ 3oarc. cf Physicol ?'-!ed:,,':ine/R~ha=ilit.a':i(,!'I
K?:dd D:C3-19 9~ ?:08-2~-99
~.
t<Al~ PERMANENTE
......'....
c", wd::t>:m 1300c CO "~".:!
'1)o?i :NJHd
~.:!
rIl
o
'E
~.-
~ (,)
""00
S';j~
::t:J.::I:<
'"
g-
o
'"
'1
~
'"
..:
~
f-o
uo
'" Z
f-o -
- z
::c: z
u <
..: ....l
-< ...
'"
g-
~ N
~ 0
N N
M
v
< ~~' ]j
~ .9 15.
~ a c...::::
f-- 't: ~'O 3
U -;; ~ !l 8
a,~ ~ ~ I,.) 8 ~
~ '0 ~
... ..J U
o
N
~
s_ ,
~;;8
li~~!
i g~N
JF~
r;Hi
'"
g-
N *-
~ ~
~ 00
...; 00
i
i U
~
..
'"
'"
g-
M #.
~
o _
-t _
N
g-
~.,.~
.,.~'"
~ N
M
v
;::; >
e:s fl ]
~ 4-< ~s ~
o 0 15 <l:l 0
U ~ ---. O' u
o .=: ['l p.. f'"l 0
~ ] ~il g ~
G -~J2to _ a.l
]I ~ O::lo>~ f! 2
o 0 ~ 0 Il.l 0.- '-' 0
f-< p.., ~::r:ClU~ E- c..
>
o
U
~
1:
~
u
;;
ill
<~
",.,
~...
~
.
I
I
.
!.
\
\
,.,....
f
~
t;!
~l
g
~
~
@
\
~
".
oj.
~n~
'1-1
o '
~dit
~~r
ir
:
~.
.
@
~
~
~
I
t;!
~,
____h~'.
x:.:mua OHU:stXll
?
..;,I'
,.....
~;
U
n
L
---~ ---
.~ ; f 9
f ~, i-
~L~ ~ ~~
~ .!
jHd~
3
l:l.
~~
<n~
~
-
~
o
I
c
w
>
-
w
o
w
IX
>-
Z
WZ
= :20
= >-0:
= O::J
'" <(aJ
co 3J~
M au.
,,0
0: zz
c:t -s:
::E ~o
:Sl-
a..
I
.
.......
'" ~
a: [
f/l ::> 0
N
(]) f-< ~
U " .- ~ Z
~ ~:;;8 0
~.- '" Z .O'.....OQ ~ ;::
f-< - '2<-;,~ is
~ U - Z -=u~9 Q
- 0 ~g:::~ "
~ (]) :I: Z 8 ~N
f/l ~---
::s"; f/l U <: d:c'i f-<
::r.::::r.::< '" ...) "'I.t.:g----- -<:
<: 0.- ~~f~ ~
I- ~, n, . I, \ ! 1 ih ! l
~ ~ I I d i It !I ' l i . . i ,q iIIIM!!I!I" I' .
~\J.~!,! 1'! llll, II! II ;i, I ill !,Jll!i::Uhi!l'j!.h!!di
a z ~ J ~, ~, . 1 " H i ~~ ~ ~ t t1 ~l J: ~ . ~i H ~ ~A ~
~~,hlh hWil\i inl!, 1 H h dBLI!I!' I il'!1 ~Il dlillljlll!II!ll!i!!jlhl ~
~ ~ ~ 1111! llllll!l! Illl! 11!11 i Ill! !i111!!lli!lll!!111 iill! JIll! r.lill! I! I! 1!!I!iil!llllllliIW ~
1;,.~n".,?~o;1"~~':JQO+d'ltJlI;l~'iI[iv'}J.,~@]",.~;attOI"lI!,j,[]IIP'r.. ~o-!IH ~;~ri.' ~.~ ~~ri t w...
"
,
"
fl-,'I
.,-
I
I
C',G?
~
,,9,91
,,9 ,01
I
-~-----
I
I
I
"
,
't
I
[I
'\'
^
-
,
;;
II
I'
I
~!
~~
~1
II
\jot
'1
~~
~ .~
b
"
~
~
'"
"
,
>~
,~
O,.J
7
"
-""" . ,~
9~U-1
~
.,
--~i---
~
,:.
"!I
'x
~
o
V
"
~
~ t~~~-
$:r"""....,.;;r-,'"' _.,.3
~ 8'*7 ~:;c.(
"
n "
,
i1
ci '"
U
~ '" ::E
c 0
g 0
'"
i' 0
~ ~
::J
g
:I
J
~R
'"
.~ ~
':' I
" ~'
fr ~lJ
" ~
< ':i
~ 0
-------- i'"
0 ;'<l;:
r:: ~ "
<( , \
.. "I '" '
., g .. ,
;., , '" /11 'b~
, ~ '" '\,,~/ ----D
~ ~ > ~----~--
0 ~
~ ~ r- rr
, f1- 'j;;J
. ~~I I a-
-- -'~ ;JI]
'" ~ ..
t ~ .< -g 0. 0"
" , ~
,
,- + ,~ ----
I I ....
I
,,9-,9
/
"",14", '
IWJ
"
'I
,
;~} ;:
Cl; i I
nt:
o 'I
l- lliI
I"
t-~~
I
,
'"
.1.Ia~:;!S\"?J'X97 .t
I
I
j
,,')-,S
"L-,lo-I
"O-,J;:'
S"j-"',,7-,G;>
~ ! c....~? _______
-----...,_--/ "()...,o/ __________
....-..~~~~1
'i
-~
~'i"
;,.,
;.
~
,
;,.,
;<
t
'~
"
,
Q~
,
;,.,
...
-~
b
,
'"
..~
"
,
"
"
I
li
II
.1
III
I, ,
~I!I~ ,
~
:!!-6
I"
.~1--;G
.. _:.'-.' ',,~
"
'"
~
r
'.
,
:t
"
"
."
.,
~
r')
~ "1 <<" ~;: ~. 2
'< I~ ~ ~:) .j ^"
!- '-~'j:
Q
<r::
. . ~
jHd~
~
d il
Ii !l! !~
in 'I 'HI
,. i '
Illil'I'
I 'I' . ~11,
, ",1111 "I
! Ill' l! II!
! I i11Iil'!'l:
- 'I I, ~ ' "
~ h !~ ~ J
9 ." !, ~ II! .
_ I !,
"' I, i' ,': !" !!
~ ill;! II!! 11 pi
~ I!iili, 11;';1 i ! in
~ Illq,j Ii lill~ 1 ! d I
~ d,' 'il ;1 III 'I i i !ll
~ Ilf ii, '! lill~ '.Idl!
" all ill h illl"lljl~;
I)jl , ,I, n-,
IL _' ri 0;" ~.. ~. .. ..
!
,I
Iii!
. ill
! 1,111
I" IIPI/''l!
!" .,1 I..
',II Iii I ,Ill
~ ~ i P f~f1'
!li 1.1, 11!;I,
'll > I,! l l~l:
!;'I! I:ll! ::!!!~
ill'll, !,','l' H!lll
, \"11 '1'1"'1"
II"ll! 'i'., III il
!i~I:I!! hirb l,il;1
I: 1l;t:l rl" i
\fl U~~
I"
() . !l
~ ! !
~ IlII H! I!
~ Ilh'i I ! ! II II
~ lil1ill:!!! !i 11!!!i!11
~ (j l!mh ! !l! i l!il Ill!
lL D_~... ..~. .~.d~!~.t!i wll"" II"
I
OJ
o
~
<(
o
g
z
:s
0.-
c<
o
o
...)
""
_1
'"
'"
'" in
00 ::> II Ul
11) !- ,. Z
~ u <:> 2_ Ul'" 0
g. :;\ U~ f::
'" z Vl.~ ~oo
~.- ~~ U ~
~ U !- - ti<(-;,oo Ul
-11)0 - z .I:lU~9 on -.:t
9-00 :I: Z ps-~ 0'" "" 0
0-
u ...: ",'" ..- ~::~, ~-
::ct'\lCll Ji~ ~ ~ ~~ ~:;t, ;.
::c< '" ...J M :i <
...: ... r;~ ~ ..J t_ _...:. q. ,..:.-'-
~ 0..
'"
0 1 .!
0 ~U~B
'" l
I
I
I
i
I
I
~
~"l1
I
~
c=t
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
T-~'--I--- \
f-~-'=,-'-l --i
l' '" 'Ul I I
"g I
i;; '" I I '
~ <:l~~ @" I I
o !! ""... ~"I
__ i _ . i 1 j .' ..
~ - ----
"[,'_ ~C__-~]J
r---
'>.
,
'",
~
f]n
,,_--%1)11
"",-'-0
'!
',I
d~
,> ' ~
,
.
I
I
I
I
-L
IT]
.1
I
----
/
~~~~-<}<----
"'~
~
~
~
",
~~
---.........
----
f--
~,-01
WJ
.-----
J
z
S
-~~
f
~
L
Ci
'0
IL
Cl
i
~
...J
...
~
~
Cfl
(1)
~
~,....
~ U
"'(1)0
5~ ~
::r:::r:<
UJ
0.:
::>
I-
u<:>
UJ Z
I- -
- z
:c z
u -<
~ -l
-< ...
I'
11'~lr
'I:
, ~
or
-,
1
J
i 9
o
il
2_
~;goo
tf~~ ~
~U~9
tI') ''''ilZ
P;o~
~l~~
r;~f~
imr
L~
,
Ii
I
,
-:~
r
I
{]]
~ II r
-... !ill
/
,
II [0]
E~-j
ciJ
.;I-~
z
o
f::
-<
;;-
UJ
,..J
UJ
I-
Z
o
: r:::
~,
.1
J
:@-
~
I
"l-~ --f
; I~~ '~1
J~f:~A~j
I t 11---11
i [-.. .. r-~~ll
I, ' ' , '~'-c'~J
I' (F~1~i-Gl I
! ~ --~ ---, ---'--~ ~~~- .
rl:-~-'
L! ' ~~
E=;~~~I
, !:-J~ji
II[=_~_JI [-~1
'''''--I rC--'~l! I-il
-~_Il~oC-_ljll
--11' "lA,
~' [L~__, 'I <,,~,-" .,.~,' 'i
"~TI'- -n I'~i
J L~ ~~-- I ~!.
[II -- _._1 ~ "i
-I ~\,,'-:-CI_ _,",~._...~,__,. -~_,;__l'll
" .. ~ r"~_ ,. "_,.[
---, \ 1-,-~-'1 _~~..__,
II I 1~~_ -------.-
--=-~" k~-:;~
Cdt-~ I
----It='~
~~-j ~
IrJI
i~
d'r=
,! E lr,-,,','
11-~li -~~I
'D~:-
;TI"
ili ' ",
" ,Ii
li'l I :1 '1111
:111111:~j
:'11
ill
;I!I
III
'III:
I jj
, [-
!
'-f
"~
~.,~
-'\
E' ,...'~'1
I
rr==T,
I~~,'I'
~J
~, I'
~
lI)
~
V) ~ ~
5 ~
;::
"
'"
'"
'"
Q
-<
. ,8
1 ~... ~ or. _ ~
~ ~ . lI.__
T- _ _-.&
~ 'I
iUd~
l
! ~
i !
, ~
\l) \l)! f
IU IU: 1
o ~0~~
7 ! d 71 :
(5 , ~q ~!;t,!
,. ~il~~~,li'o.
IL , 1 d~~ ~~ !,\!'~i
Ii' ffi I . ~, 1 ,q j! ~ I Lid"
~ ~ ~ dq ~ ~;; ~ ~ ~! \!) ~l ~
~ ,:'l ~d!~d l:a;8.; 61q
~! .~"u , @,e'!", I~'
Z'l li'1nHj'~i'~i ~_ 11'
() ~~ 'c,~ ol~'i" '<{ ~l!
~ ~~ i::di~i,q,qnH ~~hi
ii'i ~! hH~BB~ot~", Ill"
J q"" ,"..1-
III [1 ~ ~... Ii:", ~ '"
///~,. ..
"/'
// !
-1
1[:-1
1,'!l,~-,l'l
I! 1'--:-
I'L"'--- '"
~".. .,:"
~i[1
!
I
I
I
~I
,,- ~
j
jf
~
\
\
\ " !
'. I ['iil.
,u[~_t
'~:;/]'i: 1
\ / I.'
L~.Ji
"
I
i H~
I
I
@
{3
\.i"
0,
-;j...
t,.
. '.
Jf 't5-j
h~
",~--~j }
.
~
z
o
~
;;-
"UJ
-l
UJ
~
~
C-_I~
[~_~I~~I
'L=..
j~~1
~
z
o
~
UJ
til
I-
""'
UJ
-l
May ~5, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I inspected the site at 36 Southridge West, Tiburon, in early March
~998. I .also inspected the concrete patio at the south (rear) of
the house. At that time, I was an Associate Planner for the Town
of Tiburon. Before my visit, I had looked at the plans that had
been submitted by Mr. Hunt, architect, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs.
Waterman, the owners. I was aware that a deck was to be built
above the existing concrete patio and that a portion of this deck
was to extend beyond this patio, south and east. I did not feel
that story poles were necessary as nobody's primary view would be
affected by the proposed deck and small addition to the house.
I saw Mrs. Waterman during my visit but she sat in the kitchen and
did not accompany me and her husband onto the concrete patio. Mr.
Waterman had mentioned his wife's disability when he came into the
Planning office on several occasions while he was looking for a
suitable house for her.
Irene T. Borba
EXHIBIT ~
,jj
~
::r l:CI S' E" ~ Z ~:;;; ~ ;; ;:. ~
;;"s n I'D .::-tD ~ l'tl ~ ...
__~=-:"=~t:5o;.:.."'=::'<'-"
"3;' ::r'< aq (i"e ::r~ ;:;.::"'~;: :t
_..? a g-t'll S'~ ~F-::..~ ~ ... ~ n
..:< ~ "9. g 5..11.~.o.."O : _. a. '" g.:p :J
. ::r;; c:; "'" s: s. ~:: :;l :::. ~ = rit:'
I'D -g: g"SX'_e'c.:;; i"":::, :::.:..
:E:E _:E='=''-<::::::=:::;::<'''::Z
f.: i'" i'" n :r;:"';; :2 :- .....'< ;:..::-:!.
= ; :E 0 0 .-01::; :. > =- ::. =<=. ::.
~::r=~g;:E.r6 ~(f=g;
.... __(,0 -'::J .....::::: (':: Ul --
~ (,0 J:J c......::::;..... =-~ :;g-:;:::
:2 3 ::: ~ ;; ~~ =-~~ ::: :r. I
.... 0 = r.o C") c; -.::. ~ .., ..... -'<: i
<-... .......,....--- ~~
~~~ ::~:<~;~; 5'-:' f~
~.., =.3"0 rA=!' ~ rtI ~ r; I =-::
e:E=r.oO==-=...U; 'T.;::;
:: ~ g,,~g:::'~~~ _ t; ~ ~.~
2 ;-.~ ;:r~::..='~ ~ s..as;:3 S
;::: ~ u; =-<< =--r.: = -5 -3'< (tl Q 1:1:1 -
-I":l.....;;;:p~-:: "'O:rc....O""::Ia;:
~;.l.:-[~.g ~ i.a :::&.~~ ~
"'g ;::::0.:: _ <":l (C:E~ C'D -3-.(ii.....cr.:
=,2..CIl :-=-= :...~:=::E s';:<<:r~
g :;'::;: _~::: =-6>0 5;,; to 0 I'D._
.....2":=-~..: -;:'tD ~ ~tD ~~-~ s:
C"":: - ~ =. =-:E ... - r.o III (II 0 ;:
r:: =::::;:;;:r. ;-'_== Q..:.e Q :Ilf"o..tIQ::
~::::: ::: ==- - :;r. = :' =- ~ 0..:. ~ 0 ....
~-rb~c:;;;:..;g:;,' =s'~~
~ ;~~.~~~~~~ ~a;g'~
;:"==::-:~'~~~ 5~' ~
~ ~ :; ~ - ~ =<<"0 ; '< ~~
~~~~;; ~~~~ s.~ ~~
~...:;--j;':; ~ :rg ~ ~5' ~ !.3
"'; = = -1Q ~ ::.(;";;:: "tl -=.~ Z ... ~~>
_ .., _ /'tl Q:l t:: 0 n 0 --oq Ctl 0 ~:r :::.=
-' =:;:: .......;........:D CD ::e c:: 0 ~ Ctl ~ CJI Q..
']'1:;'" _CSl -'t.n.... _.CSl 3 <: _"~_..
:: ~ ~ g ~ :::: g ~"O :r:' I'D ;.. ~ a ~ :r
..., -:.:-;; ~ ~ ~ a:. ~ @.: ::r ~ "0 0 CIa"'C CD CD
__~ ;'~='l"';i ~a 0 (;j.o.a ~ . :::"CI::
_ =-:: :''''0 ~ I:D t"') ::: ~ "CI CSl C'" < !.. 2.. ~
~ I'":: .- _ (l) (I: ;- t.n::l ~ 3 ii" ~ _ 0".
; ~ ;:; : a, o.::e 0.' (;."0 3 . -3" Q.. i'"
=;::=(t)-....o:O:a::s~"'z -._
- -:r.;::..(l):::l...~_:'...3.....:r (II O""Q.._
~:...=-~ i.~ ~ - 0 dI ~ N'!':: ~:s;
. ~...(l) -'l1l~;;'-c (11;:'(;'" ...~~
[f; :.: t.t: -~ t"')...., Ul .... _ ~
_. =. :r~ ~ m ~ 0 "0 g ~_ ;;-..
:J. !": .- '''- z _= _"'::1 -:D _ :D ~
_ _ _ - -.... ....... ~ ... _. -. t'D < -
=-;;=;::.r.c=~:cn -<:::IU) ...~=i
=-~:::~~:::"":::c:" .....:D& O::r=
S =~ii ==: =-=n c::: < a3-"s;
___. ,_(':10, 00.. . ,
o
o
(')
-
o
.,
OJ
:::l
Cl.
"0
o
0'
oo
c
:2
<.
o
.,
,
)
.
.
2
r
)
I
.
II
..
'" ---
;..:;:::-::; ;;
:7=-::=-..i
.. := ......
.-: -~=-r;';:;
.~.~~~2.~ ~
==-;::
rt: -
'< <: -
~
g;::'~
~
:::"":::
~~
;;;
~
~
:r.
=~
..-
.<:':-
~~
~
-~::.
~ ;; ~
~-= J:_::E":::"< -~~... 0
"":' ;f. = ~ _. =: :;.' r;' ~ C :=' '< Cir
i~_t;",~~.lHf.l! ~mmui ff
~.., ... _ _. ~ iT:: cS ~ ::e:; '" -
~ :;:',-: _ ZI't :; ::-= .='< = :':= ;::"':::1 (i'e 0 a
- __a;:::=~;;-~<=':':.r.~:ro;a.3 3
=-_~;;-.: _(':(I);::=;:;--:::Jg"'Et_t'D
~ =-::; __~_-._=--_.g::: ~:: SS'~ -.; ~ Q)
_ - -.: ~ :=.~ =- 3 .., :::I to
= --.t'D-<-'
~~.~ ~::::!": =- >~:., :~:! cS
___if._=;;- =(t;!Jl=
g ~~,i~k[ =5 ~~
-- -- e.3~~
~.~_g~i~;.: ~:::..~~
c
)
J
-
.
r
;;
w
""
~
;;;
~
~~
€:::' ::::
~rJ~j
~
_ _ ~~;;:~ a =--=
!": , _~. r: III :: CD 0 3' C
s-~=~=-~~....3~s:
Ci. ; :: ' :::: ..- =-":l =.-t'D
...:..-:- =m"-o:::"-'3
:::' =- = ~ fii I"Jl == III =:; I"Jl
-r~~ ~. .00;-;'
;t;if.r; =:;>z.....-::-::E
~ ~ ~~o~~ii'=-
:" (I) m - -,:;::. t'D
= ~ ='l"'::"'a.= ,",-c =
..::;;;... -- -'"
~.."='~ ~;::;"~::IE-3
:':_1":: =r:GIl =-=:r
__ _ __... r:=:::;;:0
=~ ~=-~;;;'aii -a
_ !": t'D _ =-= t'D
3,i~ ='l"'=-::.O"....~
..::: tt: ~!.3::~'eC'
-< ;.= '" ''':::
~ _ ~ S".O'c~ In~_
=- ::;.~ "..., '" In = ~
:::..=--=:::;-.....
fg-~;;:::!o-
- :IE - ~ ro -. C ....
~ ~;-= _.~rRlI"JlW
=~.;"'::l~ U);r=
-:-z=.-Oo.....
..- ~ ='tt1 -'-'0
;- s ; ~ ~ ;;;;."0 C
"'~ ::::-=-m,=..OtRl
.E =-:.:.._ Q..= ::=-
- "'''' _0
<='::!::"'S' :D
'::::.;;:;'< = 5r.E:
::,= (I) C :.C
r5 =..:~ ~grr.: ~
:='~=,mQ.C,Cl3
~-<::;~3i"tt1
'<:::==-(I)(":='
... - -'3;w:-.....
=:'=E:o~~
~ =- ......., .., m ""':l
;;<:~;'~:r
_ e -.. Ul. (II
~ ~'"
.. ~~
cr~.;:
.. ~ "
. ..
Zo..~
m g;-
EO'=
:!.t#1;:
g ;-~.
-~
..-
e.~3
?-tt1;;
3!2.
g~
--
~ ~
~~
" '"
~..
c.o..
'~Erf~-~'--
~-"
',::i:'i:~:
J
~
.
(
(
l
''f:;;..
""*,'>'
;i\
~_..--
(
,
~
S
(
,~
.J.~
~k,'~
--:::.-
It=
",1
.;;:;, .
CP 0"=0.;:' ::-O"Q."C (/) 0":;: ----rn"o ~,;." -C
~o~~~~~~o~~ ~~O~mo<-=
(/) ~ a> () en C S'03 en 3 =~3 ~ a.g-o 0 i'g-3:Z
~-OQ.lenSD(,C -"C=o=Q:lo:J~-~3111
~ ~.g.~ ~ U'l.cp-g orE ?"'<~"'O :I::n!.cn c'< 21
~_-.eno.a:.O~=3_r3- -:ToCtl",-~r-:a-
(Jl::r~Q.l Q.l;:'::rO(fJ::rQ.lCtlQ:lO<cn-:T-a~D:I""G
o a> -="'g ~Qin'(I) 0 a:.~ 3 (J) 5'"2.~~ 0 cct-<
a;9: ~S' . ::r~- g Q:ltliE0;:7Ct10..
:"lC? ,u;'~ --" CD _
::::r::r:c
~=j-.
<~.
CD:::: CD ""0
~3~O
S.Ctl3~
'::"30"0
"0 O'~ 0
"Oal:::l=
..!!?.rna.O
"0 m z'"
9..0, ~
O~3:CD
. n. m
:ro~r;
3.a::. :T
- 0",
,..~
" ..
~bC:Z~ ~~'"'O ~(jg: ~~.g:~~~"Oa3 ~-g.5'~~ffi;-~Zm ~
....... c: :::I !. Q . o~ ~. oCtl ::J . 00- -::I 0 ~ 3 g - CD Ql ~ - ~ -. ~ ~ CD - =. ~ ~ >
U'1-.a.:e,::- A3 ....:a otl'l:T C/J<~ oOcnl>>l>>::r~~<-,--:::-.o.....
. ~5!.O. -CD ---i.... m~U'JC:: -."0-<:. a> "O_;:lIr"(,Ccno~(l)::l=,.....iS=(")o
-....G):=l W'O~..... ""'0-'" :::alo!!~"""",O\"O(l)c.003Q.l""'otl'l~O~_O~O
S:m,::- (i UlUJ 0 ~ ~. (") (l) aI Ul :::Tol>> ........ ~ -0 -. ~ <tI....._ :11;'
~ ~~. 5 3 ~.!D -g ci sa::: a- ~ a; ~ Ul S; ~ .0 ~ S': 1; ~ 3 3 3. 5- ~ .~:$.; -g 2. ED
0')' _m.:...O_ en =G>(lJo_ en l>><(l)O"<_l>>....c.Y'o. Q.(.C2-=-'-
,,_... _ _ ..... 0 :::l m -':E :::I =C'l>> 0 N ::r 0 Q3 _ ::!". - ~ ..... en -< 0 :::l "C
::::::Z3"al 0 CD""'!; e",):J CtI;'"O ~o 0.0.... ocn al Q.-<:r-(l) 0 =.a; 3 0 (l) ~.3 0'2.
00 2!. -:::I CD a; CD CD . :J -::::::l al::' c: U; a> "C c. 3 =:I N (3 ~ :J (l) 0" 0 ~ (J).eo< ... 6"
!J? e=ae.c,,5'CD:e go.:cO' ~o."O_,_cnO_.alCDQ:I" l>>9.~<_.__m3
....._CD."Nf,D(")cn OCD'" o~_=:Ii:no....o.(fI?-_o:::J(l)~(l):::J~(IJ=mD)
c,.).....CD3o CDw m""O "fc-:::3 =c:O_w"'2.::::':"':E O"~a.a.S.Q:I_~o~=:::lQ.
-~~ m=~z3m .......-m ED OCDN::::r cn=<OQl alal3 0-::: l>> 0
f" ~e.o . _""0 N""Ct;j:::"'. "'C_oC1l3Q)alO\.... O(Jlc~t&)::l(l)<DCO::!
~~~gz ~5~ 7'~~g ~~3C:~ a.5?al O~(Jl<5.t05'=.~::
~ .......e.!!. - _0 ~~.. m::l-=:IO - 0. 3C:!2al -' ~a.::l
I 0 _ ~ '7:::1 ~ CD '? ~ (Jl ~ .
-
::I
-
o
3
I>>
..
-
o
::I
:>- 0
~ -c
~
c
~ <
Q'
" CD 0
=>.
":l .,
~ en
'"
~
~ r-+
ca -.
0
en
en
CD U)
c..
~ '<
CD 3
c
.,
0
~ -c
en
~ ...
0
CD
Q) 3
.,
0
c U)
r-+
Q) ;
en
<
C=5" n
d:.
3 C
en ...
Q)
(C c.
CD
- (I)
-.
3 n
"'C
~. m
~.
~ c.
(C
(I)
0-
0 U)
c..
'<
-
3 m
-. ar
~
c..
...
1JJ::;-~ ;;-:::
=Q5':<=.~=
:..:i ~ ::... ~
rmm
-,... '"'.....-.
Ulrtl,<<:-_-
~ :n .... (tl
~ ~. 2: -... -
-. Q -:-"I/J fi.';: ;;
~ -'Jl
L~_~g~ - -
w; 5:7 :~~
>-J '<=-::;::;::;' ;;C"'5"3 :;;r~-;~=;;'3 ::;:~=--3
~ := :; 0 ...:: ~ :: e: s crt: ---.J -, ~ .... C _ C Ui ~ :::r;; :::: ("J 0 .. ;:: I'D \'tI ::::r
(fJ ~""-"'lIi """"Jse(')<Ul::f.-__.C..._.-_....,_Q:l~o>
<""" ~ '":;: =-r.n ::l ="m = ::::r~ rD rD (') ..... (') :::.::f ""'1'- Ul;:":::-_ a.c ""I r'"
:::"'t"l ~ ('tI ~!rl 5'- S. ~;;cn o..t=i"g' 1i;-w ~ 0 ~'-1rc ;.__:-~ c:l
_:.;t"':(.O;::>~~=-:' ....... Ul-C1 _Ul::::r'_ ""l('tl-.... c:
rD ::: ('tl '< rtl ::l \'tI .... _. -..... ~..... e:!.. ~::::::::r .... tI) -= a>;:::::! ~
::: Ul ::: :2. ..., ::. = _ -:= :: ~ -r ::::r a; < _. c.. rD. =:: C'" (tl ~ ~ ~ ~ A:;)
:::. .- ~~ r:.. ~ € F1- = ~. n :; ::s rD ;:...., Q..:: '-< i6 ~ c:::: ~ 1JJ c:
c~=~~-~-~-~~~~~ _~=UlUl:::::=::;~E~=~
1JJ ..... _... -, (":l ..... r:: \'tI ~ :=- \'tI _::r C rD \'tI t"l 3 ..... -. = lJ'I:l ... 0 -
(':;= ';;;C:ll~......._ (') ='< ::lCD":- ;=tI)(tIc......'<.5
::; _::. t"l ::;.:::1 :::: ~. 55;;;:; <;:" ~ 2:!. (JQ ~ ~ ~ g. _at; ..... = :: "S
:="';:; ;;; S :::.,;.::::r =- 2: 0 = en ... CoO ~ 3 a. . ::::::1 = ;;:" -.-;:: c :; c::
=;:.. =- ~ c ~ (S" v. !" ::0' ~ I'D - ('tl _ ~ 0'" ('D < rD ;.::;';;: aq ~
=-- :- =-'-:E" - - r::r...,... = <..... ;- ::. - :::! _...., ('tI ... = :I) Z
::.; .-. __ :::::' (J: r.r. ... - C --('D:r _-::0:-0 (tI ... ('tI ..... _.
=-=-~a==.....~~rDUl\'tl~=~ ~ ncS= ~~5.~.
,.. ttl -- ~ :-' "':;; -= rtl :=" =- _. _ ... Sf s z.., - ~ -. - (tI ~::
;::; .... :::; ~ ::..; .=... =. ~.~ ~ 3 ~ &; ~ ~ a s ~ :; ~ ::. ~ ;:6 ~ c:; -= .
;:. =:... - c S.::: =, = rA Q) ;::.' =<< (tI'" Ct; ttI ~ IP.... ~ ~ CJl.... I
itl ~ : r.r. ~ :r. = ~ :: :=-<< ~ :::I :!?..... ~ ~ ~ x.:e -:c
'"-= 5:; -:~ _To; =. ;'.=; Q:l ~ ~ =;-c :;';;,= :.:=:;:..:....;-:1
~~__ o~~~7 ~~~~ ~;~~~3~~?~~~~
-I
~
(1)
....
(1)
5r
::l
o
()
c
....
(1)
~'~J
t
~-A.
rc
~
I .
€I
en.
n
I--' ·
rc
~
n
rc
~
:%:
-
ca
-
~
V'
::
..
.,
So L.l
-
= s:.
Co. '"
'" -{
'Cl
'"
=
Co. -
'" -:
=
- ""
c.. Ci
Cl
=
.,
!:
. <...l_~T
20 Southr~dge a..c
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
May 22, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Sirs:
Re: 36 Southridge West
We are neighbors of Mr. and Mrs. Rick T. Waterman who live at
36 Southridge West. We have no objection to their deck as it has
been built. Also, we have no objection to the interchange between
the easterly window and the southerly sliding glass door in their
breakfast nook area.
Sincerely,
~ d~Q 4~rcC,
Richar Setsuko amasaki
20 Southridge ~ W~.,...
Tiburon
)
EXHIBIT t/-
May 16, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Re: Lalita Waterman. No. 3427774
Lalita Waterman has been my patient for 20 years. Significant past
history is an acute attack of poliomyelitis at the age of two.
Ten years ago, Mrs. Waterman began experiencing severe muscular weakness
and painful cramps in her extremities. She had several falls with bone
fractures and demonstrated signs of progressive neurologic dysfunction. A
battery of tests showed that she was suffering from a motor neuron and
muscular degeneration that followed old poliomyelitis, commonly known as
postpolio syndrome, a disease for which there is no known treatment or cure.
The patient's neuromuscular deterioration progressed over the following
years and her physical impairments substantially impacted her routine daily
activities. Because of her lack of mobility, and concern regarding additional
fractures, a leg brace, cane, and wheelchair were prescribed.
Mrs. Waterman continues to fall and sustain injuries. On her most
recent visit. I learned that she had fallen out of the wheelchair a couple of
months ago while being wheeled down a ramp by an attendant.
This patient needs to maintain her level of mobility and cardiovascular
function as best as she can. She tells me that a neighbor would like her to
remove her wooden deck on which she gets some exercise and use a ramp instead
to access a concrete patio. In light of her medical history, I am deeply
concerned about the injuries she would sustain and the prognosis for recovery
as concrete would be less forgiving than linoleum or wood. The stress of
reconfiguring the present deck would pose a significant medical risk to my
patient and add to-her hardships.
Mrs. Waterman has difficulty steering her wheelchair around on flat
surfaces and does not have the necessary strength to safely steer, let alone
stop, a wheelchair going down/up a ramp. There is no doubt in my mind that a
ramp and a concrete patio are not medically viable options for my patient and
that the best ootion is for her to follow the recommendations of our
occupational t~~rapist and leave the. deck as is.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
lID
Richard Permutt, M.D.
Department of Internal Medicine
Former Assistant Physician-in-Chief
Kaiser Perrnanente
401 Bicentennial Way
Santa Rosa. Ca. 95403
EXHIBIT 3
Recipient: Lalita H. Waterman
Page -2-
Date: May 8, 2000
MRN#: 0342n74
Name: lalita H, Waterman
Should she suffer significant injury because of change in the deck surface, this also might
advance her decline in function from her current disability.
Again, let me reiterate that placement of a ramp in a case like this not only would NOT
be in the best interest of the patient, but may actually produce magnification of her
neuromuscular weakness and hasten her loss of function from her current disability.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kirk Pappas, M.D.
Chief of Department of Physical Medicine
Diplomate, American Board of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
KP:mad/D:OS-08-00rr:OS-09-00
EXHIBIT Z
.-.
~'"~.
t<AJSER PERMANENTE
Santa Rosa Medical Center
401 Bicentennial Way
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
May 8, 2000
Lalita H. Waterman
36 Southridge West
Tiburon California 94920
Patient: Lalita H. Waterman
Medical Record #: 03427774
Dear Ms. Waterman
The following information is submitted at your request to whom it may concern.
Lalita Waterman has been a patient of mine for five years. She has postpolio syndrome.
Please also see the letter that I wrote in support of her building of her deck in August
1999.
Please note that my opinion with respect to the deck has not changed. I have been able to
review the followup visit from her occupational therapist, Lauren Newman. Ms. Newman
has reviewed the deck and the current house situation with respect to Ms. Waterman's
current needs. The deck has been built to specifications necessary to accommodate her
disability.
As you will note from my previous letter, Ms. Waterman suffers from musculoskeletal
pain due to her postpolio sequelae. She has significant muscular weakness in the left side
of her body. She continues to have difficulty with falls at times. Also, because of the
weakness in her arm, she is unable to propel a manual wheelchair up and down ramps. In
fact, she had quite a difficult time moving her wheelchair up a very, very small incline to
our laboratory here for some laboratory work today.
It has corne to my attention that because of a mathematical error by the architect, there is
a possibility that the deck may have to be removed. It is my understanding that this error
led to the deck's size differing 2% from the architect's plans.
It is very unclear to me how, in view of this patient's current disability and the possibility
for further magnification of her disability with a fall or progressive weakness from
overuse, this deck could be removed because of a mathematical error. To me, acceptance
of a 2% mathematical error is very much a reasonable accommodation that would assist
this disabled patient to live independently for as long as possible within her current home.
EXHIBIT Z--
Vita....Janet H. Jhoun
Page 3
PUBLICATIONS AND ABSTRACTS: (continued)
2nd Annual Meeting, April 9-12, 1997, Chicago, Gait and Posture, 5(2):181
Chan, R.C., Jhoun, J.H. and Childress, D.S. (1997). A Simple Equation describing
Standing Balance. Abstracts of the North American Society of Gait and Clinical
Movement Analysis 2nd Annual Meeting, April 9-12, 1997, Chicago,
Gait and Posture, 5(2): 186.
Chan, R.C., Jhoun, J.R. and Childress, D.S. (1997). An Investigation of Tracking
Behavior exhibited during Balance and Standing. Abstracts of the 19th Annual
International Conference IEEEIEMB Society, Oct. 30- Nov. 2,1997, Chicago.
Jhoun. J.H. and Childress, D.S. (1998). Use of Diaphragm Transducers in the
Measurement of Pressures on Soft Materials. Medical & Biological
Engineering & Computing, accepted for September issue.
Chan, R.C., Childress, D.S. and Jhoun, J.R. (submitted to ASME Winter
Annual Meeting in Nov, 1998 at Anaheim, California.). Comparing Standing
Characteristics of Prosthesis Users and Normal Subjects using a Tracking Model.
Jhoun, J.H. (1997). Studies of Human Standing, Stepping and Gait Initiation.
Ph.D. dissertation at Northwestern University.
SPECIALIZED TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE:
Iniuries, Anatomv. Biomechanics & Federal Regulation - August 1998
Society of Automotive Engineers Professional Development Seminars
A three-day workshop presenting vehicle safety performance. Topics included injury
and anatomy; human tolerance and biomechanics; occupant protection; and testing as
well as federal rulemaking.
Vehicle Safety Restraint Svstems: Performance. Technologies. and Implementation Strategies
TOPTECi!> - August 1999
Society of Automotive Engineers Professional Development
A two-day topical, technical workshop (TOPTEC) presenting the latest developments
and ongoing research in vehicle safety restraint systems.
Accidentallniurv: Biomechanics & Prevention - October 1999
University of California School of Medicine, La Jolla, California
A two-day course presenting a state of the art review of the biomechanics of human
Injury
Nikon School ofPhotolITaohv - 2000
~IBIT }
Vitae - Janet H. Jhoun
Page 2
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE: (continued)
. Documented and submitted peer-reviewed research articles in applying
engineering science to biomedical research.
Northwestern University, 1993-1997, Doctoral Studies
* Ph.D. dissertation title: Studies of Human Standing, Stepping and
Gait Initiation.
* Investigated human movements concerning balance and locomotion.
* Assessed and analyzed specific gait patterns using principles of
biomechanics, physics and engineering.
* Conducted human testing.
* Numerically simulated/reconstructed standing and gait initiation tasks.
* Interpreted and elucidated data to deduce underlying mechanisms
and causal factors.
Northwestern University, 1989-1993, Master's Studies
* Master of Science Thesis: Pressure Measuring Transducers and Interface
Contact Stresses: Limb Prosthetic Socket Applications.
* Investigated transducers used in biomedical application oflimb
prosthetic interface pressures.
* Conducted mechanical testing that simulated transducer use
against human soft tissue.
* Reconstructed the experimental results via a computational model.
* Interpreted and specified the mechanical interaction between transducer
and semi-solid material under investigation.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
American Society of Biomechanics
PUBLICATIONS AND ABSTRACTS:
Jhoun, l.R., and Childress, D.S. (1997) Pelvic Obliquity during Gait Initiation.
Abstracts of the North American Society of Gait and Clinical Movement Analysis
EXHIBIT !
CURRICULUM VITAE - JANET H. moUN, Ph.D
Date of Birth:
1 May 1967
Place of Birth:
Seoul, Korea
Office Address:
59 Rickenbacker Circle
P.O. Box 2049
Livermore, California 94551-2049
Office Phone:
(925) 447-6495
(925) 447-6589
FAX Number:
EDUCATION:
Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University Evanston, 1997
M.S. Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University Evanston, 1993
B.S. Engineering, University of California, 1989
PRESENT POSITION:
Associate of Boster, Kobayashi & Associates, a consulting firm specializing in the
technical aspects of accident reconstruction and highway design. Typical assignments
involve application ofthe laws of physics and principles of biomedical engineering in
accident reconstruction, premises liability and injury causation.
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE:
Northwestern University, 1997-1998, Postdoctoral Fellow
* Northwestern University Prosthetics Research Laboratory & Rehabilitation
Engineering Program.
EXHltirr I
Thomas A. Boster, Ph.D., P.E.
Page 5
RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS/SPECIAL TRAINING: Cont'd
Member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Committee on Animations
Chairperson of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Committee on Private
Investigators
Chairperson of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Engineering) Awards
Committee
Staff Consultant (Past and Present)
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California
Advanced Research and Applications Corporation, Sunnyvale. Califomia
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
The Academy of Motorcycle Training, San Diego, California
The Oakland Police Department
EXHIBIT I
Thomas A. Boster, Ph.D., P.E.
Page 4
RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS/SPECIAL TRAINING:
Certified by the U.S. Government as an Accident Investigator
This special training was in preparation for allowing qualified safety personnel to
respond to accidents on short notice to determine cause and recommend future
procedures.
Chairperson of International Testing Committee (JOWOG-13) 1977 -1980
This group was composed of members from the United Kingdom and the United
States for the purposes of testing and information exchange.
Advisor to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
An informal position to supply current safety information on consumer products to
the Executive Director.
Group Leader at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
During a six year time period, this group of approximately 25 scientists and
engineers and numerous support people was responsible for diagnostic testing.
Member of the Mine Rescue Team
Trained and certified by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in mine safety.
Division Safety Staff Member at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Prime responsibility for safety in Land Z Divisions.
Counselor for Merit Badges (1970 -1979) Boy Scouts of America
Troop 935, Boats and Water Sports
Associate Advisor (1965 - 1968) Boy Scouts of America Explorer
Post 608, Electronics
Review and Editorial Consultant
For the Center for Occupational Research and Development (Technical Education
Research Center, South West) Waco Texas
Voting Member of The Canvass on Business and Institutional Furniture
Manufacturer's Association (BIFMA) and American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) specifications on office furniture.
Member of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Committee E-30
on Forensic Engineering.
El\\\~\\ 1
Thomas A. Boster, Ph.D., P.E.
Page 3
UNIVERSITY LEVEL COURSES TAUGHT:
Physical Science, College Physics, University Physics, Mechanics,
Thermodynamics, Electronics Laboratory, Nuclear Physics Laboratory, Electricity
and Magnetism, Atomic Physics, Solid State Physics, Nuclear Physics, Sound and
Optics.
BOOK PUBLICATIONS:
Dielectrics, 1973 (Multiple Authors) The Electrochemical Society
Advances in X-Ray Analysis, 1975 (Multiple Authors) Plenum Press
PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:
Over 70 publications or presentations have been completed in the following
journals, magazines, programs or bulletins.
Professional Safetv, Aoolied Ootics. Journal of Chemical Physics, Deoartment of
Enemy Accident Reoorts, American Journal of Phvsics, Reyiew of Scientific
Instruments, The Physical Reyiew, Bulletin of the American Physical Societv,
Nuclear Instruments and Methods, IEEE Transactions, Journal of Aoolied Phvsics,
Canadian Journal of Forensic Science, Proaram of the Human Factors Societv,
Caliarams, The State Bar of California Video Librarv, The Honk: The Official
Publication of the San Francisco Pond of the Honorable Order of Blue Goose
International, Newsletter of the American Societv of Mechanical Enaineers.
Newsletter of the Marin County Trial Lawvers Association, Bulletin of the California
Trial Lawyers Association, Newsletter of The Societv of Forensic Enaineers and
Scientists, Newsletter of the San Mateo County Trial Lawvers Association, Bulletin
of the American Board of Trial Advocates, Proaram of the Consumer Attorneys of
California, Proaram of the National Business Institute. Inc., Proaram of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences, Proaram of the CAL TRANS Leaal Diyision Tort
Conference, Proaram of the National Safety Council Conaress and Exoosition,
California State Court Reoorter, Central Coast Court Reoorter, Bulletin of the San
Francisco Trial Lawvers Association, Proceedinas of the United Nations 4th World
Conference on Safety (Amsterdam. The Netherlands), Proaram of the Joint Seminar
of the Association of Defense Counsel (ADC) and Association of Southern California
Defense Counsel (ASCDC) , Chicaao Bar Association's Youna Lawver Section.
Association of Trial Lawyers of America Annual Convention (International Meetina).
The International Association of Forensic Sciences.
EXH\BI1
Thomas A. Boster, Ph.D., P.E.
Page 2
REGISTRATION:
Registered Professional Safety Engineer
State of Califomia (13 July 1977)
Certificate Number SF 1397
Registered Professional Nuclear Engineer
State of California (12 January 1977)
Certificate Number NU 817
HONORS:
Danforth Associate 1968 - 1969
Elected Sigma Xi 1963
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP:
American Society of Safety Engineers
American Society for Testing and Materials
American Physical Society
Society of Automotive Engineers
Human Factors & Ergonomics Society
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow
The Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists (Charter Member)
LISTED IN:
Who's Who in the Safety Profession (1990)
American Men and Women of Science, 12th Edition
American Men of Science, 11th Edition
Personalities of the West and Midwest, 1972 Edition
Who's Who in the West, 14th Edition
Community Leaders and Noteworthy Americans, Volume 12
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Directory of Automotive Consultants
Southern California Directory of Experts and Consultants
Los Angles County Bar Association: Directory of Experts and Consultants
Who's Who in Leading American Executives
Consultants & Consulting Organizations Directory
EXH\Bn ,
CURRICULUM VITAE - THOMAS A. BOSTER, Ph.D., P.E.
Date of Birth: 28 September 1936
Place of Birth: Columbus, Ohio
Office Address:
59 Rickenbacker Circle
P.O. Box 2049
Livermore, CA 94551-2049
Office Phone:
FAX Number:
E-mail:
(925) 447-6495
(925) 447-6589
tomboster@aol.com
EDUCATION:
Ph.D. (Physics), Ohio University, 1966
M.S. (Physics), Ohio University, 1960
B.S. (Physics-Mathematics), Capital University, 1958
PRESENT POSITION: Since 1980
Partner of Boster, Kobayashi & Associates, a consulting firm specializing in the
technical aspects of accident reconstruction, highway design and injury
causation.
INDUSTRIAL AND ACADEMIC POSITIONS:
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory: 1968 - 1980
Senior Physicist
Group Leader
Division Safety Supervisor
Oklahoma City University: 1965 - 1968
Assistant Professor of Physics
Associate Professor of Physics (with tenure)
Ohio University: 1962 - 1965
Instructor
Northrop Corporation: 1960 - 1962
Electrical Engineer
EXHlBn I
"'", :.-
Mrs. Lalita Waterman
J 0 May 2000
page 2
and occupational therapist, the consequence of a fall may cause serious injuries. As stated by the
occupational therapist, the deck material is less slippery to help prevent falls and more absorbent
to minimize bone breakage given a fall.
The proposed accessible ramp drafted by Mr. Hunt, from the architecture fIrm of Hunt, Hale &
Jones Architects appears to comply with Uniform Building Code as we read it, but it is of no
utility. There is not enough room at the bottom of the continuous ramp comprising of three
switchbacks. It is in essence a "ramp to nowhere". From a safety standpoint a guardrail would
be necessary in order to prevent falls down the embankment. Mr. Hunt has blocked off an
emergency means of egress from the "living room", as described in the drawing. Given the
landing in that vicinity, glass as the material of the living room window and sliding glass door
would pose a potential safety risk. Furthermore from Mrs. Waterman's physical standpoint she
does not have sufficient muscle strength to meet the demands of walking with her cane or
controlling her wheelchair up and down the proposed ramp.
If you have any questions, or if we can provide further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
J~O-, ~
~cs-
Thomas A. Boster, Ph.D.
Janet H. Jhoun, Ph.D.
Enclosure
EXHIBIT I
Boster, Kobayashi & Associates
Consulting Engineers and Scientists
Telephone: (925) 447-6495
FAX: (925) 447,6589
e-mail: tomboster@aol.com
Fayette J. Brown
Patricia A. Frates
W, Deane Howland
Janet H, Jhoun
Frank A. Perez
Darius Russo
Thomas K Shelton
Ronald M. Shields
Anne M. Suter
Thomas A. Boster
Ted M. Kobayashi
Kenneth C. Berner
Clay A. Campbell
Gary M. Hesler
Michael J. Braun
Brad M. Wong
Thomas A. Braun
59 Rickenbacker Circle
P.O. Box 2049
Livermore. California 94551-2049
Michael G. Kreutzelman
Chief Operating Officer
10 May 2000
Mrs. Lalita Waterman
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mrs. Waterman:
An analysis from a safety engineering and a biomedicallbiomechanical engineering standpoint
was performed in regards to your deck at your home at 36 Southridge West in Tiburon. In
addition to the review of the materials listed below, an inspection of your deck area was
performed. Photographs and measurements of the deck area were taken on 7 May 2000.
Materials Reviewed
1. Letter addressed to Mr. Dan Watrous from Mr. Richard Hunt dated 2 February 2000
2. Accessible ramp study drawn by Mr. Hunt
3. ChoiceDek™ decking product documents
4. Report by Richard Permutt, M.D. dated 7 November 1995
5. Report by Kirk Pappas, M.D. dated 19 August 1999
6. Home assessment report by Lauren Newman, OTR dated 21 June 1999
7. Report by Lauren Newman, OTR dated 2 May 2000
Ooinions
In regards to the existing deck it is our opinion that there are no safety problems with this level
deck structure. The decking material called ChoiceDek™ is slip resistance with a good
coefficient of friction, as well as appropriate structural rigidity and aging characteristics. Dr.
Boster has first hand knowledge of this material as he has tested both Trex™ and ChoiceDek™
decking materials.
Mrs. Waterman has impairment 10 her neuromuscular system as a result of her post-polio
syndrome. In regards to her extremities she is mostly affected on the left side. She is prone to
falls given that her lower extremity musculature is weakened and easily fatigued in addition to
the impairment of her sensory proprioception. The sensory impairment and muscle weakness
causes difficulties in recovering from stumbles and falls. According to her treating physicians
fXHIBIT J
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
June 1,2000
Page 3
The denial of a variance in this case would violate due process and deprive Mr. And Mrs.
Waterman of rights and privileges enjoyed by others. 42 V.S.C. 1983.
For these reasons and for the reasons set forth in the May 10th letter, the Town
Council should grant this appeal and overturn the decision of the Design Review Board.
Sincerely,
NSIkz
Enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Waterman
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
June 1,2000
Page 2
error. To me, acceptance of a 2% mathematical error is very much a reasonable
accommodation that would assist this disabled patient to live independently for as
long as possible within her current home."
3. Kaiser Permanente Letter of Mav 16. 2000. Attached has Exhibit 3 is a
letter from Richard Permutt, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaiser Permanente,
Santa Rosa. Dr. Permutt has been Mrs. Waterman's physician for 20 years. His letter
discusses her medical condition and concludes that a ramp to the concrete patio would not
be a "medically viable option". He also states:
"The stress of reconfiguring the present deck would pose a significant medical
risk to my patient and add to her hardships. . . . the best option is for her to follow
the recommendations of our occupational therapist and leave the deck as is."
4. Hamasaki Letter of Mav 22. 2000. Attached has Exhibit 4, is a letter in
support of the project submitted by the owners of property at 20 Southridge West,
Tiburon.
5. Marin Independent Journal Article, July 1998. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a
copy of an article from the Marin Independent Journal, July 1998, describing "Post Polio
Syndrome".
6. Unsigned Declaration of Irene T. Borba. Attached as Exhibit 6, is an
unsigned declaration from Irene T. Borba, former Associate Planner for the Town of
Tiburon. Ms. Borba was the Planner at the time the original application was filed and
approved by the Town. The facts set forth in the unsigned declaration were obtained
from Ms. Borba, by Mr. Waterman and Mr. Hunt, in two separate telephone
conversations with her in May, 2000. As noted in the letter from Mr. Waterman to Ms.
Borba, dated May 22, 2000, she decided not to sign the declaration after speaking with
the current Tiburon Planning Director. Both Mr. Waterman and Mr. Hunt can attest to
the accuracy of the statements in the unsigned Borba declaration.
It is requested that the above-referenced Exhibits be entered into the record and be
considered by the Town Council as part of this appeal.
Finally, the Council should consider evidence in the record showing that other
similar variances have been granted in the neighborhood for excess lot coverage. As
stated in the April 1998 staff report, at page 2:
"Numerous other variances have been granted in this neighborhood for excess lot
coverage for homes wishing modest expansions such as the proposed additions to
this house. . . ."
..i"
~
RECEIVED
JUN 1 2000
950 NQRTHGATE DRIVE, SUITE 205
SAN RAfAEL. CALIfORNIA 94903
NEIL SORENSEN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAW OFFICES OF
TELEPHONE 415 499-8600
FACSIMILE 415 499-0140
June 1,2000
lATE MAIL # /0
Mayor Tom Gram and
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Waterman Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - File # 200008
36 Southridge West, Tiburon
Dear Mayor Gram and Members of the Town Council:
This letter supplements my letter to you of May 10, 2000, which set forth the
factual and legal basis for the appeal now pending before the Town Council relating to 36
Southridge West. Attached to this letter are various exhibits, which are described in
detail as follows.
I. Boster, Kobavashi & Associates Letter of Mav 10. 2000. Exhibit I is a
letter from Boster, Kobayashi & Associates, consulting engineers. Boster, Kobayashi has
performed a safety engineering and biomedical/biomechanical analysis of the deck and
home at 36 Southridge West, Tiburon. Their analysis has concluded that if the deck were
removed and a ramp constructed from the house to the concrete patio below, it would be
of "no utility" and unsafe. A ramp plan was attached as Exhibit 14 to my May 10th
letter.
2. Kaiser Permanente Letter ofMav 8. 2000. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a letter
from Kirk Pappas, MD, Chief of the Department of Physical Medicine at the Santa Rosa
Medical Center. Dr. Pappas has been Mrs. Waterman's physician for 5 years. In his
letter, Dr. Pappas documents the disability suffered by Mrs. Waterman and concludes that
a ramp would not accommodate her needs and would be detrimental to her health. He
also states:
"It is very unclear to me how, in view of this patient's current disability and the
possibility for further magnification of her disability with a fall or progressive
weakness from overuse, this deck could be removed because of a mathematical
~u ~'- uV .u -~lJ .....0...
J'. ........... """'",
DanyI DeVinney
44 Soult1ridge West
Tiburon, CA 94920
415388-9211
June 2, 2000
LitlE MAIL # /0
Town of Tiburon, Town Council
De9r Co<;ncil MemberS:
I am wnling this letter because I am unable to attend the Tiburon Town Council meeting on
Wednesday, J~ne 7, 2000 and I would like to ha~e my issues heard by the Town Council and entered
into the pub'c record.
I strenuously oppose granting Mrs. Waterman's request fO' approval for an as-built deck and olher
ex<.er10' alteratklns, that is, an ex post facto request for a vanance for excess lot coverage. I base this
opinion of two grounds. First, the deck has an impact on our view and privacy. Second, the h<lndling of
this project by the Waterrnans has been charactenzed by a fla~rallt disregard for the design reVlfffl
process and the spirit of neighbOrly coope-at'on.
My understanding is lhat Mrs. Waterman ;$ a legal professlOOal. As such she is not naive to the
process and nec8S$llry legal requirements imposed by the Town of Tiburon on building and
remodeling. f<urthermore, I beieve thet she has abused the process at every step.
The most recert example of lhls abuse is the completion of the deck at issue after vigorous
neighborhood objection ar,d dlsapprovai by the Town. It was clearly stated by the Town atlhe Design
Review Board meeting prior to the completion of the decK that the deck was not approved in any
fashion
Other abuses by Walermens InClude:
Attempting to build an even larger deck without prior approval from the Town. This included pouring
concrete footings for the unapproved deck, stopping only after the project was red tagged by the Town
Building Inspector
Submitting the or'ginal request for remodeling wilh the deck carefully hidden in such a way that the
neighbor>; were not property notified of exterior changes to the property because the official notice
focused only on changes to the inte'lor of the bu'Oin9. For example, the first page of the applicatkln
has no mention of a ceck. In fact toe any indication of a deck in the criginal oroposal is an ,3l11biguous
drawmg.
Invrtirg neighbor>; to review the "minot Interior alterations" to their property and then prodUCing a
document to be Signed, agreeing to all the as-built changes, inCluding the existing deck.
Installing an unapproved awning a_the deck at issue,
I invite all members of the Town Council to VlSit my property to v'teN the impact of the deck on our view
and pnvacy, I wit be available through Saturday, June 3. After that date please feel free to visit. My
w~e and lamuy Will be at horne,
Finally, I strong1turge the Town Council to deny the appeal fied by Mrs, Watet'man.
~' ,j '"
~)~( Q~
Darryl DeV,nfl8Y /
~i,;.> ..
"'::' ,,] Tel/fax: (415) 381-4467
'~i,.{'~~~:ii~~~f~::",J. .
~:.~~~~ .
~;"~ :. ': .
~ . ,..
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
. _.:. <,~~:.::. .-
. . >~:,! ~~J:~ .
.:,0.
May 22, 2000
~':'?;':;~;:':F,.
:.~..:
,-~,:._'
Irene Borba, Planning
City of Petaluma
11 English
. ".Petluma, Ca. 94952
.- \"-~<f';, :._ .-;- .-' -, . .;
. . . ;-.~,., ''':;'~
Department
....Dear Irene:
Just a few lines to thank you for your courtesy when I came to your
office last Monday. Knowing how busy you are, I appreciated the
time you took in reviewing the old plans with me and in talking
with me the previous Saturday. I was reluctant to disturb you at
home but did not know where to contact you during ~he week. I know
that Dick Hunt also appreciated your courtesy when he spoke to you.
As you know, I have taken a great deal of effort to find. and make
a safe environment for my disabled wife (of 30 years) as we plan to
spend the rest of our lives in this home, close to family and
longstanding friends. I am sorry that you have decided not to sign
.the statement after Scott Anderson told you that it had nothing to
do with our appeal and suggested that you not sign it.
Thanks again, Irene. Your courtesy and time were very much
appreciated. 1; enjoyed working with you when you were here at
Tiburon. Best wishes at your new location.
Sincerely,
A([? is)~
Rick T. Waterman
-
-
{-
..,--
EXHIBIT (p
~
LAW OFFICES OF
100 SMITH RANCH ROAD, SUITE 306
SAN RAFAEL, CAlifORNIA 94903
NEIL SORENSEN
TELEPHONE 415 499-8600
FACSIMILE 415 499~0140
May 10, 2000
HAND DELIVERED
RECEIVED
MAY 1 0 2000
Tiburon Town Clerk
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: 36 Southridl!e West
Dear Town Clerk,
Attached hereto are five binders for the Town Council hearing of May 17, 2000. One
binder is for staff and the other four are for the council members. We have not provided a binder
for councilmember Thompson because we are assuming that he will not participate in this item
because of the close proximity of his property.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Neil Sorensen
NS/wp
cc Mr. and Mrs. Watennan
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF 36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST
APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Neil Sorensen
Attorney at Law
100 Smith Ranch Road, Suite 306
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415) 499-8600
~
LAW OFFICES Of
100 SMITH RANCH ROAD. SUITE 306
SAN RAFAEL. CALifORNIA 94903
NEIL SORENSEN
TELEPHONE 415 499.8600
fACSIMILE 415 499.0140
May 10, 2000
Mayor Tom Gram and
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94520
Re: Waterman Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - File # 200008
Dear Mayor Gram and Members of the Town Council:
This office represents Rick and Lalita Waterman, the owners of the property at 36
Southridge West, Tiburon, California. The purpose of this letter is to set forth the factual
and legal basis for the appeal now pending before the Town Council relating to the
decision made by the Design Review Board on April 6, 2000. A copy of the Design
Review Board's Notice of Decision is attached as Exhibit I.
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Mr. and Mrs. Waterman are requesting that the Town Council overturn the
decision of the Design Review Board denying the variance because: (I) the decision was
not supported by findings of fact or the evidence in the record, (2) the denial of the
variance violates the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the
Rehabilitation Act and the federal and state Fair Housing Acts, (3) the Town is estopped
from prohibiting the deck because of past actions in issuing permits and inspecting the
work, and (4) the Design Review Board may have been unduly influenced in this matter.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In February 1998, the Watermans submitted an application to the Town to
remodel and add on to their existing house 1 The main purpose of the addition/remodel
was to add a family room, and make various other changes to make the home more
accessible to Mrs. Waterman who suffers from postpolio syndrome and is confined to a
wheelchair more than half of the time. See Exhibit 3. Prior to submitting the
I A detailed timetine and statement of facts is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is summarized in the Factual
Background above.
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10,2000
Page 2
application, the Watermans had met with adjacent neighbors and been informed that a
vertical addition (second story) to the house would be objectionable due to potential view
blockage. Accordingly, even though a vertical addition with an elevator would not create
a lot coverage problem and would avoid the need for a variance, the Watermans, in
deference to their neighbors, instructed their architect to design a horizontal addition to
the house.
The plans submitted with the application to the Town clearly showed that a new
deck was being added to the south side of the structure. Specifically, on page 2 of the
plans submitted with the application to the Town, in three places the plans specifY a
"New Deck Over (E) Patio". See Floor Plan, Rear Elevation ("south") and Left Side
Elevation ("east"), attached as Exhibit 4. The main reason for constructing a deck over
the existing concrete patio was to allow Mrs. Waterman access to useable outdoor living
area. The existing concrete patio, which is three feet or less below the main floor level, is
inaccessible to Mrs. Waterman.
In March 1998, the Associate Planner inspected the Waterman site. She walked
the property, including the concrete patio, and informed Mr, and Mrs. Waterman that
story poles would not be needed as nobody's primary view would be affected by the
proposed construction. She also noted that Mrs. Waterman was disabled and had to stay
behind in the kitchen rather than accompanying her down onto the patio.
In March 1998, the Town mailed a Notice of Public Meeting to property owners
in the vicinity of the Waterman residence advising them of the pending application. See
Exhibit 5. A notice of Public Hearing was also published in The Ark on March 18, 1998.
This notice clearly stated, "The existing residence has an 18% lot coverage and the
proposed addition would result in a 20% lot coverage". No objection was made by
anyone. On April 2, 1998, the Design Review Board approved the project by granting
Design Review approval and a Variance. In approving the Variance, the Design Review
Board made specific findings of fact that special circumstances existed with respect to the
Waterman property that did not exist with respect to other properties in the vicinity.
including the fact that the Waterman property had a narrow street frontage and steep
topography. The staff report and the Design Review Board also found that (See Exhibit
6):
"An addition of this size could easily be accommodated by a second story without
exceeding the lot coverage standards. However, such an addition would be much
more likely to result in view impacts on surrounding residences then the proposed
additions, which would barely be visible from neighboring homes. Forcing the
property owner to construct an addition which would likely create significant view
impacts for nearby residents, when the proposed additions clearly have no such
impact, would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant."
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10,2000
Page 3
On January 11, 1999, the Town issued a Building Permit for the family
room/remodel project, including the deck, Work on the addition/deck project started in
the spring of, 1999.
In June 1999, the Watermans made a separate application to extend the previously
approved deck, in an easterly direction, add a small pantry and for a small retaining wall
on the south side of the property ("Deck Extension Project"). On July 28, 1999, the
Town issued a Notice of Design Review Approval for the Deck Extension Project. See
Exhibit 7.
In early August 1999, the Waterman's structural engineer submitted a
"Foundation Plan" to the Building Department for the Deck Extension Project. These
drawings showed the deck approved in April 1998 at its current height. See Exhibit 8.
No objection to the plans was made by the Building Department.
On August 19, 1999, the Planning Department sent a letter to the Watermans
stating that "The Design Review Approval for the [Deck Extension Project] has been
issued in error". See Exhibit 9. Due to the mistake made by the Planning Department,
the $625 application fee was waived and the Watermans submitted a Design Review
application for the Deck Extension Project.
On August 23, 1999, the Building Inspector issued an "Inspection Report" for the
property advising the Watermans that "no further work on the deck extension" will be
allowed until the building permit is issued. The Inspection Report also states that "work
on the portion of the deck that has a permit is allowed". See Exhibit 10.
Although the Watermans eventually withdrew their design review and variance
application for the Deck Extension Project, the staff report prepared for the September 2,
1999 Design Review Board meeting recommended that the findings for a grant of
Variance could be made. See Exhibit 11.
Between August 1999 and December 1999, the Building Department inspected
the deck 6 (six) times and approved it each time. The deck was also inspected by the
Town Manager and Associate Planner on September 3, 1999, without objection.
On September 7, 1999, the Planning Department wrote to Mr. and Mrs. Waterman
and confirmed that the original deck had in fact been approved back in April 1998:
"Staff review of the historical files has revealed that, although the site plan did not
illustrate the deck installation over the existing patio, it was shown on the floor
plans and elevations. The original deck is therefore aooroved...." See Exhibit 12.
(Emphasis added)
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10, 2000
Page 4
Between September 1999 and early December 1999 when the deck was finished,
the Building Inspector visited the property three or more times. Each time the Inspector
visited, he measured the deck and made no mention that there was anything wrong with
the deck as it was being built. The deck was finished on December 6, 1999 at a total cost
exceeding $30,000. On December 9, 1999, the Building Department wrote a letter to the
Watermans which states in part (See Exhibit 13):
"The size of the new deck is in conformance with Design Review Plans approved
on April 2, 1998 and Building Department plans approved on September 4,
1998."
However, in the letter the Building Inspector alleged that the deck had been built 12 to 14
inches higher then the approved drawings, and further mistakenly alleged that
"unauthorized sliding glass doors have been added at the living room and the family
room".
On January 10, 2000, the Watermans received a letter from the Planning
Department advising that the calculations submitted by their architect as part of their
variance application approved in April 1998 were in error and that certain portions of the
deck would have to be approved by the Design Review Board or removed. Shortly
thereafter, the Watermans applied to the Town for approval of the deck as built. The
specific variance sought would allow an increase in lot coverage from the currently
approved 20.0% to 21.1 % because a portion of the deck is built more than three feet
above the ground.
III. DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE RELATING TO
THE DECK WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT
SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS OF FACT OR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD
In denying the variance for excess lot coverage, the Design Review Board failed
to make the findings required by State law (Government Code 9 65906) and failed to
make any findings whatsoever. This is contrary to California case law, As stated in
Topanga Assn. For a Scenic Community y, County of Los Angeles (1974) II Cal. 3rd
506,513-514:
"...we hold that the regardless of whether the local ordinance commands that the
variance board set forth findings, that board must render findings sufficient both
to enable the parties to determine whether and what basis they should seek review
and, in the event of review, to apprise the reviewing court of a basis for the
board's action."
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10,2000
Page 5
Findings are particularly important in this matter because in past actions relating
to this property, the staff and Design Review Board have made specific findings of fact to
support the grant of a variance. As noted above, when the Variance was originally
approved in April 1998, the staff and board found that special circumstances existed with
respect to the Waterman property, including its narrow street frontage and steep
topography, such that a variance from lot coverage requirements was appropriate. Again
in September 1999, the staff included in the staff report to the Design Review Board
findings to support the grant of a variance. See Exhibit II. It was only after the current
controversy arose and Councilmember Thompson became involved that the findings to
support a variance could not be made. Peculiarly, staff recommended approval of a
variance for 20% lot coverage in April 1998, a variance for 21.1 % lot coverage in
September 1999, but became unwilling to recommend approval of a variance for 21.1 %
in April 2000, many months after the construction had been completed. The action of the
Design Review Board with respect to the current application (made on April 6, 2000) is
contrary to the findings of fact and evidence in support of those findings adduced at prior
hearings.
In fact, the Waterman's lot does have a narrow street frontage (unlike others in the
neighborhood) and it is steep. Additionally, the layout of the house and the slope of the
lot restricts access to outdoor living area. Consequently, Mrs. Waterman cannot access
her concrete patio and a ramp from the house to the patio would not solve the problem.
See Exhibit 14. Moreover, the increase in lot coverage would be very small - from 20%
to 21.1 %, or approximately 280 square feet.
Moreover, as shown in the photographs attached as Exhibit 15, cantilevered decks
and houses are very common in the neighborhood; virtually every other house in the
vicinity has one. Also, a lot coverage of 21.1 % is not uncommon or by itself detrimental.
One of the neighbors opposing the Waterman's project (Silcox) has a lot coverage,
pursuant to a variance from the Town of 26.2%. At least six of the adjacent neighbors
have written to the Town in support of the application. See Exhibit 16. Accordingly,
there is clearly no detriment from this application.
IV. THE DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AND THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL PLACED ON THE DESIGN REVIEW VIOLATE THE
WATERMAN'S RIGHTS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES
ACT, THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
HOUSING ACT
It is now clear under decisions made by both the California appellate courts and
the federal appellate courts that zoning decisions or actions by a City are subject to the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 9 12131-65), the Rehabilitation Act (29 USC 9
794) and the federal Fair Housing Act (42 USC 9 3604). See Bay Area Addiction
Research and Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch (I990) 179 F. 3rd 725 (holds the A.DA
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10, 2000
Page 6
and Rehabilitation Act apply to zoning), San Diego Unified Port District v. Gallagher
(1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 501 (holds A.D.A. applies to zoning) and Trovato v. City of
Manchester (1997) 992 F. Sup. 493 (holds Fair Housing Act applies to zoning decisions
involving single family residences).
Moreover, Govemment Code S 12955 (The California Fair Housing Act) makes it
~amww: -
"(I) Discriminate through public or private land use practices, decisions, and
authorizations because oLdisability.... Discrimination includes, but is not limited
to, restrictive convenants, zoning laws, denials of use oermits, and other actions
authorized under the planning and zoning law..." (Emphasis added)
The language of the Federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA") makes it ~amw to
discriminate against "any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of
a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling"
on the basis of that persons handicap. Discrimination is defined to include refusing to
make "reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services" when
necessary to afford a person with a handicap equal opportunity to use and enjoy a
dwelling. 42 USCA S 3604 (f) (3).
"Courts interpreting the reasonable accommodation provision of the FHA have
ruled that municipalities must change, waive or make exceptions in their zoning
rules to afford people with disabilities the same opportunity to housing as those
who are without disabilities." Trovato v. City of Manchester (1997) 992 F. Sup.
493,497.
For example, the Court in Trovato held that the City of Manchester violated the A.D.A
and the Fair Housing Act, by refusing to grant a setback variance from the Town's
zoning ordinance to allow a homeowner with muscular dystrophy to create a parking
space within the front yard setback.
Moreover, as noted by the court in United States of America v. Village of
Marshall. Wisconsin (1991) 787 F. Supp., 872, 878:
"Accordingly, it is clear that Congress intended to limit the exercise of legislative
discretion where the effect was to discriminate against the handicapped and was
well aware of the extent to which it limited such legislative discretion."
In this case, the evidence clearly establishes that Mrs. Waterman suffers from a
disability and is confined to a wheelchair more than fifty percent (50%) of the time. See
Exhibit 3. It is also clear that the pre-existing concrete patio. was inaccessible to Mrs.
Waterman and could not be used as outdoor living space. Although various Town
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10,2000
Page 7
officials have suggested the construction of a "ramp" from the Waterman house to the
previous patio, such a plan is unworkable. As shown in Exhibit 14, a ramp built to code
would take up the entire patio and leave no outdoor living area for Mrs. Waterman to
enjoy. In order to provide outdoor living space and allow Mrs. Waterman to enjoy the
same opportunity of housing as those who are without disabilities, an elevated deck must
be constructed that is level with the floor of the house. According to Town officials, this
requires a variance from the coverage restrictions in the zoning ordinance. The Design
Review Board's denial of such a variance, and the imposition of a condition prohibiting
railings on any deck constructed, unlawfully discriminates against Mrs. Waterman and/or
fails to make "reasonable accommodations" to afford Mrs. Waterman the opportunity to
use and enjoy her dwelling, i.e. a deck or patio area. As seen in the photographs attached
as Exhibit 15, every other home in the neighborhood enjoys the use of a deck, patio or
other outdoor living space.
V. THE TOWN IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING APPROVAL OF THE
VARIANCE BECAUSE THE TOWN ISSUED DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE
AND BUILDING PERMIT APPROVALS FOR THE DECK AND THE OWNERS
SUBSEQUENTL Y RELIED ON THE PERMITS TO THEIR DETRIMENT
Mr. and Mrs. Waterman have done nothing wrong here. Prior to adding onto their
house, they consulted their neighbors and rather than add a second story to their house,
which potentially would block the neighbor's view, they agreed to take the harder and
more expensive route of applying for and obtaining a variance from lot coverage
requirements. They submitted plans to the Town which showed a proposed deck to be
built over their patio. The Town Design Review Board reviewed and approved the plans.
The plans were than submitted to the Building Department and a building permit was
issued for the project, which included the proposed deck. Subsequently, additional plans
were submitted to the Town, including structural drawings, that specifically showed the
height, size and location of the deck. During construction, the Town inspected the deck
numerous times. No objection to the deck was ever made until after the deck was
completed in December 1999, and after the Waterman's had already expended over
$30,000.
This is a classic case of vested rights and/or estoppel. As stated in Griffin v.
County of Marin (1958) 157 Cal. App. 2nd 507, at 511:
"Where a permit to build a building has been acted upon, and where the owners
has in this instance, proceeded to incur obligations and to in good faith proceed to
erect a building, such rights are than vested property rights, protected by the
federal and state constitutions."
California Courts have also invoked principles of estoppel even though a mistake
has been made regarding zoning requirements. In Anderson v. City La Mesa (1981) 118
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10, 2000
Page 8
c<iI. App. 3rd 657, the property owner applied for and obtained a building permit to build
their house within seven feet from the side property line. During construction, the City
inspected the house six times and approved the construction each time. Upon completing
the house, the property owner applied for a final inspection; however, the City refused an
occupancy permit on the grounds that the zoning ordinance required a ten foot setback.
The appellate court, in upholding the trial court's order requiring the City to issue a
variance and an occupancy permit, held that a government entity may be estopped where:
"the injustice which would result from the failure to uphold an estoppel is of
sufficient dimension to justifY any effect upon public interest or policy which
would result from the raising of an estoppel."
Accordingly, the Town is estopped from denying approval of a variance because
the Town issued all required permits and inspected the construction numerous times.
VI. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WAS IMPROPERLY INFLUENCED BY
COUNCILMEMBER ANDREW THOMPSON
The record in this matter shows that Councilmember Andrew Thompson, who
lives to the northeast of the Waterman property, has been actively involved in opposing
the grant of a variance. He appeared at the April 6, 2000 Design Review Board meeting
and spoke against the project. The Watermans have learned that Councilmember
Thompson has contacted planning staff numerous times to discuss the project. At the
conclusion of the April 6th hearing, Design Review Board member McLaughlin was
overheard to say to Mr. Thompson, "See I told you you didn't have to worry about the
letters they didn't even corne up". See Declaration of Tara Ann Waterman, Exhibit 17.
An impartial and unbiased tribunal is an important requirement of administrative
due process. Even the possibility ofunfaimess or bias is unacceptable. Mr. Thompson's
position as a Councilmember and his opposition to the project at the very least creates an
issue of bias or partiality on the part of Town staff and Design Review Board members.
This is especially true when prior to his involvement, Town staff was able to make the
findings for the variance, and after his involvement, staff was unable to make the
findings.
Mayor Gram
Members of the Tiburon Town Council
May 10, 2000
Page 9
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in this letter it is respectfully requested that the Town
Council grant the appeal and approve the variance requested by Mr. and Mrs. Waterman.
Sincerely,
~~
NEIL SORENSEN
NSIkz
Enclosures
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Waterman
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TlBURON BOULEVARD. TlBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (4i5) 435.1373
FAX (415) 435-2438
NOTICE OF
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION
On April 6. 2000. the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following action:
Granted Design Review approval for moditications to an approved plan (requiring a variance for
excess lot coverage) to the existing single family home located 36 Southridge West (File
#200008)
Approved as submitted
v' Approved with conditions This approval is contingent on the
applicant's adherence to the specified conditions of approval. Please
review the attached conditions carefully to avoid code enforcement
proceedings.
Please note that the as-built awnings discussed during the Design
Review Board hearing on April 6, 2000 are not considered a part of
the current application but do require design review according to
Town Ordinance and must, therefore, be applied for separately. An
application for Staff level design review is attached.
Denied as submitted
Continued
Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval
or other requirements. The following materials are attached and should be retained for your
records
../ Approved plans
Appeal provisions of the Town
No attachments
v' Other-Conditions of Approval
i\t(inutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3 weeks following the
meeting, and will be provided upon request.
....After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain (or amend) a Building
1:j\J 'oJ j:'~"
(
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
36 Southridge West
FILE #200008
1. This approval shall be used within 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 ofTiburon on February 14,2000, or as amended by these conditions of
approval. Any modifications to the plans last revised January 31, 2000 must be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
3. No decks over three feet from grade are approved with the current application. The
height of the deck and railings shall be determined according to the definition of
structure requiring design review as indicated in the Zoning Ordinance. No
variance for the area of lot coverage (increased by deck additions) is approved with
the current application. AU deck area (including railings) over three feet from grade
must be removed immediately.
4. The applicant must meet all requirements of the Town Engineer and all other
agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.
5. All skylights shall be tinted or bronzed and no lighting shall be placed in the wells.
6. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to
those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the
approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly
identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan
check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on
the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted
and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design
Review Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are
approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been
explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are riot
approved. Construction that does not have Design Review approval is not valid and
shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.
,-"". /
t'fIa.) ''\
,l\~H.~~
Permit from the Tiburon Building Department for your project. Information on Building
Permit procedures may be obtained by calling the Building Depanment at (415) 435-7380.
For additional information regarding this application. please call me at (415) 435-7397.
Sincerely.
&_~ t....-'I ~
Emi Theriault
Associate Planner
Cc
t...._~; T.~ "'. , r..i r-;:"Ic" ;~_.::.~-"...
+j' 7 11-
r~\ " .' ; ....-.., I
-, ~ l _-,1"'\ I
tArhb l \
CHRONOLOGICAL TIMELINE PREPARED ON 5/9/00 BY THE WATERMAN FAMILY
FOR APPEAL TO TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
Application for Variance - 36 Southridae West
1970: House built by Lydia Federoff.
9/25/97: House purchased by Watermans from Federoff.
Il/97: Watermans speak to adjacent neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Chiu
living at 40 Southridge West, about addition of a family room and
are told that there would be strenuous opposition to a vertical
increase in the house (due to interference with their primary
views), but that a horizontal addition would be OK.
1/21/98: Letter from Lalita Waterman to architect Hunt, ".. .be
sure that doorways are wide enough for wheelchair access".
2/23/98: Watermans submit application for design review of a
horizontal addition. Submitted plans clearly show deck to be
constructed largely over existing concrete patio. Plans are
approved and signed off by the two adjacent neighbors: Inesi at 32
Southridge West and Chui at 40 Southridge West.
3/3/98: Letter from Associate Planner (Irene T. Borba) to Hunt -
Application for Design Reveiw needs Variance.
3/98: Application for Variance is submitted by Watermans.
Early March, 1998: Associate Planner inspects site. She walks the
property with Mr. Waterman and states that no story poles are
required because nobody's primary view is affected, and that story
poles are not erected for decks. Associate Planner is aware that
Mrs. Waterman is disabled and is unable to accompany her around the
site, particularly not being able to negotiate the steps that lead
to the concrete patio.
3/18/98: Notice of Public Hearing is published in The Ark. This
Notice states, "The existing residence has an 18% lot coverage and
the proposed addition would result in a 20% lot coverage.
3/18/98: Letter from architect Hunt to Planning Department putting
Town on notice that Mrs. Waterman is disabled and has difficulty
with stairs:
"The addition consists largely of a family room, a space the
current home lacks, While the design complies with required
setbacks, allowable floor area ratio and height requirements, the
existing home is slightly non-conforming in regards to the lot
coverage limitation. Thus, the addition exacerbates this condition
a small amount.
1
....'1. 1. 1"''' Ii 2-
r:A_~1C; !
The lots on Southridge West are terraced in a manner which
homes look over one another to the bay views. The location of the
Waterman property is such that any additions above the existing
level, which are permissible by the zoning code, would be
undesirable to neighboring properties. Further, one of the owners
is disabled and has difficulty with staircases..."
3/20/98: Town of Tiburon mails out Notice of Public Meeting to all
property owners in the neighborhood regarding Waterman application-
- - ~ no obj ection is made by anybody. Staff Report recommends
approval of variance of 20%
4/2/98: Design Review Board hearing. No objection from neighbors.
Project approved. Variance is granted.
9/4/98: Plans are approved for construction by the Building
Department.
1/11/99: Building permit is obtained.
6/21/99: Home assessment visit by Kaiser's occupational therapist.
6/22/99: Application for easterly extension to deck, pantry
addition and retaining wall.
7/28/99: Watermans are given Notice of Design Review Approval of
application for deck extension and pantry. Also, skylights are
approved in writing upon condition that they are tinted and have no
lights in wells. In reliance on approval, Watermans incur
thousands of dollars in expenditures on structural engineer, soils
engineer, architect, steel piers, digging of holes for installation
of steel piers, etc.
7/28/99: Notice of Planning Department Action approving easterly
deck extension is mailed by Town to neighborhood. Nobody appeals
this decision.
7/99: After consultation with architect, window and sliding glass
door are interchanged in breakfast nook area so as to afford
wheelchair accessibility to the deck.
8/3/99: Framing of kitchen addition (with interchanged window and
sliding glass door) is approved by Field Inspector.
8/17/99: Some 3 weeks after Design Review Approval, letter from
Associate Planner stating that "the Design Review approval for the
deck extension/pantry addition has been issued in error." Nothing
is said about the previously-approved skylights. Watermans are
informed that a variance for excess lot coverage has to be approved
by the Design Review Board and a hearing is set on 9/2/99.
Planning Department waives the $650 additional filing fee.
2
'.:\ L';: II' -J 2-
. "', "c"\j
-.;~,., ;:i.jJ
8/23/99: Field Inspector issues Stop Work Order on deck extension.
"No further work on deck extension until a building permit has been
issued. Work on the portion of the deck that has a permit is
allowed."
8/27/99: Framing on permitted deck is approved by Field Inspector.
Despite strenuous objections from Silcoxes, Staff Report recommends
approval of variance of 21.1%
Late August 1999: Town Staff are contacted by Tiburon's Vice
Mayor, Andrew Thompson, residing at 18 Southridge East.
9/2/99: DRB hearing on application for deck extension/pantry
addition. Andrew Thompson attends and leads an opposition to the
Waterman application before Design Review Board members. DR Board
member, Carla, states that Mrs. Waterman did not "choose wisely" in
purchasing this property. Mrs. Waterman is very upset by these
hurtful and unwarranted remarks.
9/3/99: Deck is inspected by Town Manager and Associate Planner.
They both walk onto the largely-constructed deck (most of deck is
in place except for eastern extremity and railings) .
9/7/99: Letter from Associate Planner to Mrs. Waterman:
"Staff review of the historical files has revealed that,
although the site plan did not illustrate the deck installation
over the existing patio, it was shown on the floor plans and
elevations. The original deck is therefore approved. It is
important that the construction of the deck conforms exactly to the
approved Design Review plans (approved April 2, 1998) ..."
9/7/99 at 2:45p.m.: Letter from Mrs. Waterman to Associate Planner
withdrawing application for deck extension/pantry addition.
9/7/99 at 3p.m.: Field Inspector visits. He states that he has
been asked to measure the deck. He conducts his measurements and
states that they appear to be in conformance with the approved
plans.
11/15/99: Field Inspector inspects 5 additional easterly holes for
installation of piers for permitted deck. He makes no mention that
there is anything wrong with the deck as it is being built.
12/6/99: Construction of deck railings is completed See
Affidavit of Peter Kasson
12/6/99 at 3p.m.: Building Official visits. He states that John
Silcox and Andrew Thompson persist in their complaint that the size
of the deck as built is greater than the size shown on the approved
plan. Building Official measures the deck.
3
:-'f :..1 : /~.~ '0:' Z-
"-.... ..;.)...ll
12/9/99: Letter from Building Official received. He states:
"The size of the new deck is in conformance with Design Review
plans approved on April 2, 1998 and Bulding Department plans
approved on September 4, 1998". However, he states that the deck
has been built 12-14 inches higher than the approved drawings, and
"unauthorized sliding glass doors have been added at the living
room and the family room".
12/13/99: The alleged unauthorized living room sliding glass door
lS shown to the Field Inspector who acknowledges that it does not
look new. Field Inspector is also reminded that this sliding glass
door is shown on the original building plans of 1969 and, hence,
could not be a new door.
12/21/99: Letter from Mr. Waterman to Building Official advising
him that he is mistaken about the living room sliding glass door--
the old aluminum slider was in place at the time the house was
built. The 1969 plans submitted by the original owner to the Town
of Tiburon in conjunction with the construction of this house show
the sliding glass door at that location.
January 10, 2000: Watermans receive letter from Senior Planner
advising that architect Hunt was in error with his calculations for
the variance approved in April 1998, and that certain portions of
deck will have to be approved by DRB or torn down,
Late January 2000: Planning Staff intimate to Mr. Hunt that they
are receiving "political pressure"-- from the Town Councilman.
2/10/00:
filed.
Application for variance to approve as-built deck is
4/4/00: Staff Report is received by the Watermans. Peculiarly, it
recommends against granting the variance of 21.1%, contrary to its
two earlier positive recommendations for variancess of 20% and
21.1% in 4/98 and 9/99, respectively. Also, the Staff Report is
riddled with inaccuracies and statements calculated to mislead the
reader into falsely believing that the Watermans had proceeded with
construction of the 4/98-approved-deck in the face of a Stop Work
Order. The Staff Report fails to disclose that the architect's
errors were first brought to the attention of the Watermans long
after the construction of the deck was completed. The Staff Report
also fails to reveal that a Stop Work Order was never placed on
this deck until sianificant1v after its construction was completed.
4/5 and 4/6/00: Three of the five DRB members (Smith, Snow and
McLaughlin) come to inspect the site.
4/6/00: DRB
Application.
Waterman are
hearing. Andrew Thompson attends and opposes
Application for Variance is denied but Mr. and Mrs.
told that the skylights, interchanged window and
4
".... .>
:~ '( .,
\,...,:'i:.J,
, ~
L
..'. J
_, I
sliding glass door, and location of kitchen flue are approved. No
announcement is made or information provided regarding rights of
appeal. After the hearing, DRB member McLaughlin is overheard
making remarks to Andrew Thompson suggestive of bias.
4/14/00: Associate Planner tells Mrs. Waterman that the skylights,
interchanged window and sliding glass door, and location of kitchen
flue are approved irrespective of whether an appeal is filed and
irrespective of whether the appeal is successful or not. A
confirming letter is sent by Mrs. Waterman to the Associate
~lanner. No disagreement is expressed by the Associate Planner.
4/28/00: Home assessment by Kaiser's occupational therapist.
5/5/00: Mr. and Mrs. Waterman are informed that John Silcox of 14
Southridge East has installed awnings without Design Review
approval or a permit. It is also learned that the Silcoxes have
obtained a variance in excess of 26% for building an office for an
interior decorating business being operated out of their home--
which explains the frequency of large vans and delivery vehicles at
the Silcox home with their attendant noise and exhaust fumes. It
is further learned that the Silcoxes have obtained a variance to
encroach on normal setback requirements, and that they have built
huge cantilevered decks around their house which are prominently
visible from Blackie' s pasture. Mr. Waterman brings the unapproved
Silcox awnings to the attention of Town officials.
5/6/00: Notice of Hearing of the Waterman appeal to the Town
Council is received. The Notice states that there is a "request to
legalize an as-built deck and other exterior alterations". Mrs.
Waterman writes to the Associate Planner and inquires as to what
these "other exterior alterations" referred to are.. .No response
from the Planning Department.
5
tXP11?'l" Z
\.o..i...., ,~; i
0'
-Jr:;..~:i-:':Jj
Jl,2;tllCr,:, F.'Ei-.0.2/NEWM.::.h
P;}.GE 02
DI~~OND
.... I\E/iI\[)
Aprii 28, 2000
Lau'en Newman, OTR
Po. Box 1051
Santa Res.. CA 95-402-1051
(707) 525-9029
To Drs. Permutt and PappllS:
Kaiser Santa Rosa
401 Bicentennial Way
SamaRosa, CA 9S403.2192
Re: YourPatientL.'\l.ITAH. WATER!vlA..""
Kaiser :-10 3427774
I have seen tIllS patient many times over the last several years sillce she was fim referred to me by
Dr Pennun in May 1991. On April 28, :000, I returned to the patient's home to observe the
adaptations that had been made since my IMt visit on June 21, 1999, and to provlde additional
consultation for current and future needs. I have observed a further progressive loss of strength.
mobility and function in this once-active, remarkable, profCS5ionaJ woman, who new requires the
use fJfa wheelchair for at least SO% oCher waking day, for mobility.
On my previous visit on June 21, 1999, after eX2Jl1ining the premises, I had made several
recommendations to the patient and her husband, including the enlargement of the deck in an
ll8itern direction sc that she could havc 8 slightly larger lI1'ea to walk safely a:ld maintain the
rema.inins muscle strength she does possess. r had felt that the additional 6 feet of deck on the
easterly portion would maximize the patient's ability to manipulate her wheelchair independently
in this area. .-\1w, I had felt that this easterly pomon of the deck would be sheltered from the
wind and afternoon sun, and provide optimal place for ambulation. The present deck is smaller
than what I had rec=ended. However, the fest of my recommendations of the past few years
have been implemented.
Mr. Waterman and her husband have devoted a considerabie amount of time to re-designing parts
of the house to eliminate barriers as she requires a single story home ",ith no venations in flooring
heighUl, accc.ssible by wheelchair into and throughOUt the living areas. The patient also requires an
area to safely exercise so as to maintain the remaining muscle strength she does pOS5ells. Given
her priOf history of numerous falls and secondary fractures. a concrete surface would be
inadvisable,
On this last visit I noted a spon8Y linoleWD "Amtico" on the kitchen :loor as wcll.u a skid-
resistant "trek" on the deck to make these areas less slippery and morc absorbent of shock to
minimize bone breakase for the patient who falls frequently. It is my recommendation that:
- :,.:z
c..\n.JJI J
...::.;, .~":"'" ..:Jr.ij _..,,;J~
fJ I 'J25';j.J.;:j
~1t.:.lv~:h0 ?EHA3, r-.;Ei,lJM';;':,;
':";.::.L~l:. '1:;
1) II ~IIC" be built at the northern head of the deck to allow a place for her to sit in the course of
walking and CKerclsing.
2) a 1uuuI rail be placed on the edge of the deck railing to provide a hand hold to assiSt in
wallcin&. The height of this should be approximately that of the height of her cane, This work
should be done after the supports have been examined and !leCIlI'ed by a contractor.
J) A/I "--SellCJl call1te1epholte he within reach at all t\m~.
Accen within the house is nearly cou:plete, and ib very functional for all of the patient's daily
needs, Steps Iwlins to the front door have been eliminated and her access into the house is now
accomplished by double wide front doors opening from a level tiled enuyway that a vehicle is
placed in to allow for an accessible transfer. The patient does not have IICCess to other parU of
her driveway, yard, or mailbOlt due to the steep slope of the driveway and the rest of the property.
Mailbox, newspaper, and trash needs aT\l cared for by others.
I w impreSlled with the effort this family has gone through over the past few years in enlisting the
assistance ofm::dical professionals and specialty designers from all parts of the country (who have
first-hand experience in the needs of the hancIicapped). These high standards will continue with
the additional recommendations made.
Remarkable adaptations:
Kitchen cabinetry; Pulls accommodating for use with litrJted grasp and hand strength.
and with cane latch~ with less than 6# on magnetic ;lUll
Flooring: Linoleum that looks like tile, increased wood sub:t1oonng to absorb shock
Level . when surl'llCClI change
Decking material ll!1d surface: In case of adciitional falls, secondary injuries are minimiud.
Once agr.in, this has been an enjoyable opporrunity for lIle as an Occupational Therapist. I have
been able to see the fruits of thU family's labors come together in this mulriyear plan oflocating
and adapting a home to meet the needs ofMes. Watennan. The work needs to be completed as it
was originally planned.
Lauren Newman, OTR
1..,
3
1<'1
'8
'"
~
~
'.
't,
.t
J
J.
,
II ~~lIi
I!! 'i!1
jI~i
'I'"
,~
, ~
E~()
I
I (
I
t
1i:1
'~
~
"
~
~
'"
i
~..
L--:~,1
Ej
t~ :
j<2
'ffi
~
~
~
II
I!
.
I
.
I
"., 0
><
::.I.-~'
t:Li B
--.-"
~
III
'i i/
II
'1 /
I.
I Hilll ; ii!ili!i~i*il Ii 'I fIr; ~ > >P::P::
c ~
" I 1.11 llll,~'I. i~H >n ~ e!.S
i"l II z ~ O"r
I ! ! 1111 I I"jlll h~J z -
, - ~ n.R>
~~r z ~ *
! Ii I II! III on
'! . i ~ '"
" Ip'I'1 c
I ~
I Ii! m
,
,.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1.505 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBURQN . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Tiburon Design Review Board will hold a public hearing to
consider an application filed by Lalita Waterman for a Variance to exceed the 15 % maximum
lot coveraae of the RO-2 District The proposal is for a 315 square-foot addition to an existing
single family residence. The existing residence has an 18 % lot coverage and the proposed
addition would result in a 20% lot coverage. The proposal is located at 15 Southrid~e West
The Assessor Parcel Number of the property is 34-311-11.
The hearing will be held at the Town Council Chambers, 1101 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon.
CA. The Design Review Board will meet on Thursdav.April 2. 1998. The meeting will
begin at 7:00 P M
Information on the application is available for review in the Tiburon Office of Design Review.
Questions should be directed to Jayni Allsep, Design Review Planner. at (415) 435-7397.
NOTICE OF LIMITATION ON LEGAL CHALLENGES
Pursuant to Section 65009 of the California Government Code, please be advised that if you
challenge the Town's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
wrinen correspondence ddivered to (he Town at, or prior co. the pubiic hearing.
TO BE P{JBLISHED AS LEGAL IN THE ARK, WED~'ESDAY,MARCH 18,1998.
S
tlJH B \\
var.not
", '-' - -- '--- --"- '~'--'-
[;1 _"_' '-,'_'
;J < _' '~' 11'-. '. '~' - 1-. :~'....
TOWN OF TmURON
STAFF REpORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
b'S
AGENDA NO.:
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS
36 SOL'TBRIDGI: DRIVE WEST; FILE 1# 198005
SITE l"LA."! ftJ(!i ARCBITECTL'RAL RE\'tr:W FOR 'rID:
CONSTRUCTION OF.ADDmONS TO AN EXISTING
SINGLE-FA.'mLY RESIDENCE WITH A V ARlANCE FOR
EXCESS LOT COVERAGE
APRIL Z. 1998
APPLICANT - HUl'II'T HALE & ASSOCIATES (ARCHITECT)
PROPERTY OWNERS - LALITA WATER.1\oIAJ.'l
PRalEeT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILl NlJMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GE~li:RAL PLA......:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
ClQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STllEAMUNING
ACf DEADLIlIo'E:
36 SOUTHlUDGE DRIVE WEST
34-311-11
Z9800~
19,Z50 SQUARE FEET
RD-Z (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C
MARCH 2!, 1998
MARCH 2!, 1998
MAY 24, 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL DETI:RMINATION:
This proposal isexllIllpt from the provisions oftbc California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
as specified in Section J 530 1.
TIllUR.ON' DESIGN lUlYmW IlOAlW
.'IT /ITf IIEPOJCr
APRIL,. 1998
.... .;',I'r (p
.:.Ai11Dll
r,'-'I' :--"L:" _LI'~c:.,;;, hr::LM_ _J.,J.~.l.:"-....:~o-IJL':'::;'
~t"'r~ IJtl UU
'j; 56 rJo .1~iIJ4 F .US
1>a8e 2
PROPOSAl..:
The appliciIllt is req'l....m.g Design Review approval for rllDlOdeling 8lId additions to an existing
sing1e-ihmily dwelling on property located at 36 Soutbridge Drive West. The property clUTelltly
contains a predo......ontly one-story siDilo-family residence. The proposal involves the
ConstructioD of t!lrec additions to the house, A larger addition would extend the kitchen md add
a 11001 olithe rear of the house. Two other smaller additions to the frODt of tile house would
relocate the laundry lUId dining roOll1ll and add a powder room. The total floor area for the hou&e
would increase by 31S square foet, from 2,8S5 square feet to 3,170 square feet.
The proposed additions would also increase the lot coverage on the site by 31 5 squatc !<<t,
bringing the total lot cover_SO to 3,783 square feet, or 19.7%, As the maximum lot coverage
allowed in the RO-:;: zolle is 1 S%, a variance is requested,
.4.NA.T~~I..~:
Desien bllUes
The house is situated on a relatively flat pOr1ion of the lot, below the level of the street. The front
of the house is over 100 horizoDtal relit and nearly 20 vertical feet from the front property llne,
The hou&e is only marginally visible from the street, and is situated at a different level from most
oithe SUIIOUlI.ding homes in this neighborhood.
The additions to tbe front of the house would enclose areas under the existing roof avermgs
withaut adding any additiOllal roof llIea, The addition to the rear of the house Is blocked from the
view of tho homes to either side of this property by tile bulk of the existing house, This addition
would extend the existing roofline at this portion of the house, and would only be slightly visible
from the residence to the rear aithe site, which ;1 situated well below the level of Chis property.
This residence ClIl'reIItly covers 18,0% of the lot, and is already in excess of the 15,0% lot
coverage maximum allowed for the 1\0-2 zone. This situation Is not uncommon to homes in the
R.eedlands neighborhood, many of which wele developed with higher lot coverages under Marin
County standards prior to llIIJlexation to the Town ofTiburou. Numerous other variances have
been granted in this neighborhood fur excess lot coverage for homes wishlng modest ellpansWns
such IS the propo6Oci additioos to this house.
The proposed additiotIB would match the existing hlJuse in colar and materials, Thc additions
should blend in with the existing design of this bOUie, as wen IS with other homes in the
neighborhood which have constructed additions in the put.
..ll!URON Dll:l10l>l KIlVlllW BOARD
STAI'I'1lI!1'OIfr
Al'llILl.1998
&
- .
-' "
-.....;,. .W;'it._ ~','_I-l_ _0 ...._ -:"-":":":'-'..J_:"~
r-1r t"", ')0 '-"-'
:::) .:... I i1w. ')u.:J r. 'Jr.)
Page 3
ZoD.lDj
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards
for the &0.2 zone with the exception of the previously noted variance for lot coverage,
In order to grant the requested vllriances, th~ Board must make the findings as required by
Section 4,03. OS of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Staff soggests that the following findings may
be made in support of the requested variance:
1. JUcallu of sJNclal circu#l8ta/1CIt$ applicable to the proptn'ty, including size,
shape, topD81'flPhy, 10catlo/1, 01" s/lf7'O/lndi/1gs, the strict application of this
Ordinall"" will do4J'rivtl the appllcallt of prMlego enjoyed by other propmJu ill
the ,'icinity and in the stllrle or similar zones.
The street frontage and topography of this property creaTe special circumstances
not generally applicable to other lots in the vicinity. Most other parcels in this
neighbomood have substantial frontage along the street. while tills lot has only 32
feet of street frontage. The portion ofthl!l parcel which ~ developed ",ith the
housa is sltuaud at a level ill betwem the levels of the other homes alollg this
SllWt and thOSll to the rear of the property,
2. The va,.iQllce will not constitute a grant of special privileges, tllco,'1sistent with
the limiratlon upon ollter p1'OJH11les 1/1 the vicinity alld in the same or similar
!.Onn.
As previously stated, this portion of the R.eedlallds neishborhood contain$ many
parcels that have received variances for excess lot coverage, primarily due to thc
construction of many of these home$ WIder Marin County standards prior to
lUlIlexatioll to Tiburon. The minor increase in lot coverage proposed by this
project (ft-om 18,0% to 19,7%) would not be inconsistent with the privileges
granted to other homes in this neighborhood.
J. The atl'ict appl/cation of this Ordlllanc~ would mult in practical dlfflculty or
unneceS8fII'Y htu'dshlp.
An addition of this siz.e could eully be accommodated by a second story "ithout
exceeding the lot coverage standards. However, such an additiOll would be much
more likely to result in view impacts on SWTOunding residences than the proposed
additions. which would barely be visible from neighboring homes. Forcing the
property owner to construct an addition which would likely create .i8"if'lcut view
TllltJRONDESION ItllVlilW BOAJIJ)
!iT AJIJ' 1U!l'OR'I:
APlUI. :. 1998
'- :".. :..JJ':' ;.
"."';''1'&
- ... - - ~
_ _ ......J, -' _'_' -' .-'_....,-'
Mr r, :)1) WU
;i .':;'.,;, I ~ U . .... '..)..... .~. V r
Page 4
impacts for nearby residents, ",ien the proposed additions clearly have no SllC.h
impact, would create an 1lJIIIecossary hardship for the applicant.
4. Th, grll1ltUrll of the VllrilUlce wiN 11m be detrlnuntal tD the public wtll/tq, ()I"
injurious to urh., prqpmksl11 the vicilli1j1.
The proposed additions would be only marginally visible from 1i\lI1'0UIlding
properties and would not result in my view or privacy impacts for .neighboring
residents. Sucl1 addltiOD.ll would sener-ally not prove to be harmful to surrounding
prop etties,
From the evidence provided, Sla1fbelieves that there is sufficiCllt evidence to iUpport the findings
fur the requelled varilllce.
Public Comment
To date, no comments have been received from the public regardlng this proposal
RECOMMENDATION:
ICthe Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design
Guidelines, and if the Board makes the required findmgs for the requested variance, then Staff
recommends that the attached oonditions of appfoval be applied.
AITACHMENTS:
1. Couditiou~ "r approval
2. Application dated FebIUaI)' 23, 1998
3. Site plans and eievatiOl18
"llOllIldb29I00',lpI
TIBURONDI!SIONREVIIlW IlOAIlD
S'I' A111tll1'ORT
APIllL 2, 1998
..." I
&
Page 5
CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
36 SOUTHRIDGE DRIVE WEST
FILE tl9800S
1. I'his approval shall be used vvilhin two (2) years of the approval date, and shall beoome
null and void uss a building permit has been issued or an extension granted.
2. The dcvdopment of this project shall coDfo= with the application dated by the Town of
Tiburon OI1l'ebruary 23, 1998, or as IIDleIIded by these condi1ions of approval Any
modilkations to the plans of February 23, 1998, must be reviewed and approved by the
Design :Review Board.
3. The applicant must meet all requirc:ments of other age:n~'ies prior to the issuance of a
building pmmt for thisproject,
4. All skylights shan be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells.
5. All_mar lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design R.eview Board must
be down light type fixtlltes.
T1IlllKllN J)I!SIGN ltSVlllW 1!(.1AJW
STAFF Rl!?Ol<1'
Al'lUL 2. 1993
...",..:11\ V
. .
TQWN OF TIBURON
ISO.5 TlBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (41.5) 43$.7)1J
FAX (415) ~35.24J8
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION
ON ApPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Lalita Waterman
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, CA 94920
On July 28, 1999 the Town ofTiburon Planning Department took the following action regarding
property located at:
ADDRESS: 36 Southridge West APPLICANT/OWNER: Waterman FILE NO.: 799100
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Deck extension; pantry addition (no living area added).
o Approved as submitted
o Referred to the Design Review Board
X Approved with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall install privacy screening landscaping per submitted letter
dated July 23, 1999 and per notations on site plan.
2. The applicant shall install irrigation for the above-mentioned landscaping.
3, The skylight shall be tinted or bronzed and no lighting shall be allowed in the
wells.
4. The pantry addition shall meet the Town Building Official's requirements for
additions defined as "non-living area".
o Denied
~~--//
Emi Theriault, Associate Planner
CC
Hunt Hale Associates
475 Sansome Street, Suite 1820
San Francisco, CA 94111
Please remember to obtain a building permit prior to any construction and/or electrical
work. Thank you for your cooperation.
NOTE; PLEASE REFER TO THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TIlE ATTACHED PAGES REGARDING
DISPOSITION OF THIS APPLICATION AND APPEAL PROCEDURES. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
PLEASE CONTACT TIllS OFFICE AT 435-7397.
EXHlBlT
7
'"
~
'"
3~
o n... !l]
8~~.g;~
S! s: V1 t-
~~Og
gOij ~
g
Iii
5
~
,,~
Z
85
w!:<
0",
gf2
'"
5?
o
M
~
g
~~
(
~
<.5
Z
52
u
~
M
~
g
Ei r-
,,~
z"'ti
~~i
000
g~~
o
~~
"-~
gOi
~
'"
u
tn a~
~ ug
:z Be
~~}
~: .
.,
~
5vi
",!!,
u
.
. .
~.~
go
--I
'I BV')V1
t:::!o::':j
lj;wo
'" >:I:cc
~ ~~~
~
'"
'"
M
~
I'! .
'" 0 .
5'"
~I!'
~u
M.
CHO
.~qt~\. i ~J
, I
,:\'
"
;:'>,
~
i
/
oD
~
,.,
-'
oD
N 't:~,
'3 ~
g
~Q-z
E.jC_
/J
/
go
\ii(
ovi
~t3
M.
~",
go
z
~
"'I
'"
go.:
ffil=
~vi
~w
-~
3",
0.:
1=
w
~
'"
"t
~
~
1"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
---t.'):
, ,
(L
~
":..,.910
=1=
9:80:
.,
ci
o.
"'~
8_
3~
",0
F8:i
.~
~t:i
~'"
I
,/
<tx:J
....-
-
CC
-
::c
><
L.U
Z '0
I
0 o-
n
f- ';,...
U ~
W
Vl u
'"
,....
..--1.....
;:,~
"-0
Ww
-'"
E.2)
\
150S TIBURON BOULEVARD' TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (~I.s) 435-7313
FAX (415) 43S~2438
TOWN OF TIBURON
~j
PC,.-trr
~ I 2- \ [le\
.:v-_hJ ~llct)Ci9
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
August 17. 1999
Ms. Lalita Watenman
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A REMODEL AT 36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST, TOWN FILE NO
799100
Dear Ms WatemlaJ1 r:J:. G. L.. ~ iJ. tv'-
;) - I
/"
,-
As I mentioned in the telephone message I shared with your husband on August 16. 1999. I discovered.
during lhe building plan compliance check process. that the Design Review approval for the deck
extension/pantry addition has been issued in error. Unfortunately. the application did not request the
variance for excess lot coverage necessary for approval of this application and Staff inadvertently failed 10
detenmine that a variance was required. As I mentioned 10 your husband. you must stop work on th~ items
approved in the Notice of Design Review Approval, dated July 28,1999, immediately.
You previously received approval for an excess lot coverage variance for development on your property m
April of this vear. Therefore. lhe development of the subject propertY is already III excess of allowed lot
coverage and all Cuturc applications which propose additional lot coverage will require concurrenl Variance
applicalions.
Staff does not have the authority to approve development which requires a variance to the Zoning
Code. This item must be reviewed before the Design Review Board. In order to reduce the
inconvenience this situation poses, this item has been scheduled for the very next Design
Review Board meeting which meets at the Town Council Chambers at 7 p.m. on September
2, 1999. The Town Council Chambers are located at Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard.
The current plans do not adequately explain the proposed deck area. Please submit plans which
show the correct configuration of the entire proposed and existing decks. Due to the
misunderstanding regarding your proposal, the additional application fees of $625 have been
waived. Please submit 7 full size and 14 reduced copies of the proposed plans by 5 p.m. on
Wednesday, August 25, 1999 to avoid a continuance to a later date. The new file number for this
application is #299033.
,-
Thank you for your cooperation,
~_.
L
/<"
,.
Emi Theriault, Associate Planner
e'l! : D,e"- t-I...Wt
EXHl31 T 9
~I..
. .'
. ~.' . ,~:, .
',';',: .
:'~. . .
;/11
./'-'..-.
.1;."......',.
" '-'
",:".' ".
,
,l ~
~'!J. .i
:~j.t .
'-I...'
,:,;.
I
1
I
TOWN. OF TmURON BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1155 TIBURON BLVD., TIBURON CA 94920
.. PHONE (41$) 435-7380 FAX (415) 435-7395
.' . . '" . . .
----...
',~._'
,'..- ,
'0""
';\'1'- :
....r.,...:
. ,..,'
.-01.,:,:, _.
.r.'....
. INSPECTION REPORT
:~ - ADDRESS: '6 fa Sc ~l2.\l:l (,~ W(::s> r DATE @ " ~3 . '1/
'-I . APPROVED [ ] NOT APPROVED [ I
'AF~ 0
.,
':"
'>:
~
.'t
,'-;
.
...
',j}.,
,,:'
,..,
1
,~-'
'~
.of
~~l
't
:1-
..~.
-"
,'.
,
7
v ,
,^,~L.L.c, _
~!<\O,;;~/I\.~EA"~ ..p~I~'~) """",.~
--~~ . .,...I-+E::.SE: "vJ.. '. 't., . ~.
. =N 0 .. F u ~-ntE:-(C \JH ll<- rr-P,.J -:D ~~~E?\::D~
. =:BV)'~NC '\'~t........ \-r ~S 12____~\J__
,
~ . IA.XllL\L I SS0E:.l) O...)":D€;'c"~/ ?Of'l. (JPllfrr..v wio;PC/lJlAr(
. ~~ ~ON, ~~ /-fot-r:c:: ~~o]it. D~(JJL ,f4fT
f K-I ~/
1!i'. Inspector ;
,~~~,
If the rc;port is marked NOT APPROVED, a reinspection is required of the corrections noted
'j' before proceeding with the work.
..
l.~'
>
EXH18!T /0
.:;%~;:;.;t'.;jo;;., .
f:o-..".., ___.'__ '--',', ,.,.,.
'::~:.(~b1!;'};';" .
.-,-';
,--,
-'i'
.'ffowN<OF,~TmURON ..
" -, :-; " '.' ~ "-'-.. ~"..,: '-;'>'. . ~:;:" ' ,
STAFF,~~REpOR T~.',>
. ....... .::"'-,i, ,,;' -;>.:. ," 'r' ',.t,'.. -'-,'.:: L'" L': _c
'::,'
-
,
ITEM NO, .E.!3.-
TO: ..
FROM:
SUBJECT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
EM! THERIAULT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
36 SOUTHRIDGE WEST; FILE #299033
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A DECK
EXTENSION, RETAINING WALL AND A PANTRY SHED WITH A
VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE
. '... ~ ,.-
','.<,
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
.'- -,-
. .
'. ARCHITECT/DESIGNER-DlCK HUNT
PROPERTY OWNER-LALITA WATERMAN
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:' ;
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE: .
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA E.~EMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING ". .'
ACT DEADLINE: ....
36 SOUTHRIDGE EAST
034-311-11
299033
19,250 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
JULY 28, 1999
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
N()VEMBER 1, 1999
"
\~ "
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SfAFFREPORT
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
1
tAH~Bn II
,
"
,
.-'
Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303( e).
1- .
," '0'
;'(0'
.,.
.'
.' BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL:
" .
'.. -: -~,".' .
This item was first reviewed by Staff. The applicant submitted a Staff level application for a deck
extension and pantry addition on June 22, 1999. Staff was unaware of the excess lot coverage
already on theproperty and inadvertently approved the application with a condition requiring
. landscaping which would provide privacy screening for the neighbors located downslope, Mr. and
Mrs. Silcox of 14 Southridge East. Before the Building permit was amended and approved, Staff
caught the error, notified the applicant immediately and scheduled the item for review before the
Board. . . ,".; ';. _:
In addition to the deck extension and p~try 'addition, the applicant is requesting approval for a
retaining wall to hold soil which was excavated from the subject property during construction and
placed on site at the location above theretammg wall shown on submitted site plan.
The deck extension and pantry would bring the total lot coverage to 4,170 square feet which is
more than the maximum of2,887 square feet lot coverage allowed for a parcel of this size in the
RO-2 zone. The floor area for the subject property would not change due to the proposed
application because the pantry addition complies with the Building Departments requirements for
non-living area.
Staff has requested for the applicant to erect storypoles and ribbon to demarcate the deck area
prior to the September 2, 1999 meeting date. The applicant has agreed to erect the poles/ribbon
prior to the weekend of August 28-29, 1999.
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The applicant has submitted drawings detailing the deck extension, pantry addition and retaining
wall. The applicant did not submit full sets of plans for the Board to review, however.
Photocopies of selected-parts of the plan are attached, Staffwill direct the applicant to bring full
size and reduced sets of plans to the September'2, 1999 meeting for the Board and the Public to
review. Staff also has one file copy available for review.
According to the submitted plans, the deck extension would only add 30 square feet lot coverage.
However, the public has expressed concerns regarding privacy issues, mass and bulk concerns,
current and potential construction noise issues and the merits of further lot coverage on this
property which is currently approved for 21.2 % lot coverage while 15 % lot coverage is allowed
in this zone.
During Staffs own review of the project, Staff recognized that the topography of the subject
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SfAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2,1999
2
':"..\;;1311 /1
property could create the potential for excessive mass and bulk due to the deck extension.
(Although the site plan indicates an adequate distance for the deck from the property line, the
property in the deck extension area actually has a steep drop-off. If the site plan were represented
in a three-dimensional fashion, the property line would appear to be just a few feet trom the edge
of the deck). During the review, the Silcox family telephoned and visited Staff to express their
concerns regarding the deck extension and requested alternative solutions. The Staff approval
included a requirement for privacy screening.
The soil deposit area may create a problem due to potential soil erosion. Staff has submitted the
item to the Town Engineer for review of the retaining walllbackfill proposal. No elevation
drawings of the proposed retaining wall have been submitted.
The pantry addition should not create an impact for neighbors, as it would be tucked into the
general area of the existing building footprint and would not create view blockage, mass or bulk.
Staff does not foresee any other design issues with this project.
Variance
In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make the findings as required by Section
40305 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the following findings were used for a
recent lot coverage variance approved by the Board in March of 1998 for the remodel which the
Mr. and Mrs. Waterman are currently having constructed. Staff would respectfully suggest that
the Board review these findings to determine if they support of the current variance request:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The street frontage and topography of this property create special circumstances not
generally applicable to other lots in the vicinity.' Most other parcels in this neighborhood
have substantial frontage along the street, while this lot has only 32 feet of street frontage.
The portion of the parcel which is developed with the house is situated at a level in
between the levels of the other homes along this street and those to the rear cf the
property.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with
the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
This portion of the Reedlands neighborhood contains many parcels that have received
variances for excess lot coverage, primarily due to the construction of many of these
homes under Marin County standards prior to annexation to Tiburon. The minor increase
in lot coverage proposed by this project (from 19.7% to 21.7%) would not be inconsistent
with the privileges granted to other homes in this neighborhood.
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2,1999
,
J
"'-'i" -": II
, -
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
The additions would not result in view impacts on surrounding residences. Although the
topography of the site initially appears to add to an appearance of mass/bulk from the deck
extension, the neighbor down the hill with the greatest potential impact is separated from
the subject property by the expanse ofSouthridge East Street. Forcing the property
owner forfeit the proposed, minor additions to the plans approved in March of 1998
would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The proposed additions would be only marginally visible ITom surrounding propen:ies and
would not result in any view or privacy impacts for neighboring residents. Such additions
would generally not prove to be harmful to surrounding properties.
Staff requests the Board to detennine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the findings
for the requested variance.
J:/1
Public commenycp.e- ~
Staff has receivJd several phone calls ~m neighboring property owners expressing concern
regarding thi~pplication. These jD.~~ the residents located at 14 Southridge East, 8
Southridge,~Southridge West~outhridge West, and the Reedlands Homeowners
Association. Staff has received two letters from the public regarding this proposal. One letter is
from Susan Lincoln of 10 Southridge East, dated August 23,1999 and one letter is from Mr and
Mrs. Silcox of 14 Southridge Drive East, received August 26,1999.
RECOMMENDA nON:
The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.06
(Guiding Principles), 4.02.08 (Site Development Criteria) and "Design Review Criteria for Garage
Conversions". If the :B-oard wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached
conditions of approval be applied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application and supplemental materials dated June 22, 1999
2. Original Streff approval and letter regarding the approval issued in error
3. Conditions of approval
4. Letter from Susan E. Lincoln, dated August 23, 1999
5 Letter from John and Colleen Silcox, dated September 25, 1999 (received August 26, 1999)
5 Submitted plans received August 25, 1999 and copies from plans submitted July 27, 1999
T/BURON DES/GN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2, /999
4
,~,!. "" t I {
'... "'f ~T, .; 1
:i.../'\.. :'~' "
~ ,
. ,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
36 Southridge West
FILE #299033
1. This approval shall be used within 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 22, 1999, or as amended by these conditions of approval.
Any modifications to the plans last submitted August 25, 1999, must be reviewed
and approved by the Design Review Board.
3. The applicant must meet all requirements of the Town Engineer and all other
agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.
4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting.
5. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan for review by StalT according to the
recommendation made by the Design Review Board.
TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
5
:\::.1101T II
-}\,.,jJ
,
,
,
I
Ij
/
/
/
._,i~_ n~~n_ ~~.~~~-~~O-U~~~
.l. V.....;..O ,iU. U.I.<;. r. (,,1)
:'~uV u';' ;J',;l
OWN OF TIB URON
RECEIVED
UO, TlnURON IOUL1!V^~O . T"lBURON . CAI.IP'OiNIA :W9:0 . (4LS) U5.7313
FAX (415)4"-14)1
PLANNING AND BUILDTNG DEPARTMENT
SfP 1 3 1999
llUNT BALE TONES
^1<CHlTE\:TS S b 7 1999
eptem er, .
Ms, Lalita Waterman
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: A1'I'I.ICAlION FtlR SITF. ~LAN .~ ,\l,CHl11iCnij,AI. REVIEW Fl1l< ^ l.lECK EXTE>i.,;!UN, NRW
PANTRY AN!) RF..TAININO WAI.I. AT 36 S01:THRmUE WEST.
Dear M~. Watemlan:
The Town ofTiburon has on me an application for Site Plan &. Architectural Rcview for additions
to the existing residence and property located at 36 Southridgc West Staff has received your fax.
dated September 7. 199Q, which request~ a withdrawal oflhe application from rcvicw
It i~ Stairs understanding that you intend to remove the a~-built retaining wall and the soil which
was placed 011 your property without approva1s, The Building Otlicilll believes thaI you intend to
remove this soil/retaining wall by the end of this week. lflhis infonnation is incorrect, please
nalii)' Dean Bloomquist, Town Building Official. immediately.
With regard to the as-built ~kylight, you may chose one of three \lPtions: J) this item may be
approved over-the-counter if you can obtain signatures of all uphill neighbors on a set "fplans
showing the as-built skylight (please be sure to have thcm write thcir addre:;ses and phonc
numbers next to their signatures), 2) this item may be reviewed through a Staffleve! Design
Revicw applicatioll or 3) y()U may chose to remove the as.built skylight. Please inform Staff of
Y\lUr preferred alternativc by 5 p.m. on Friday, Septcmber 17, 1999 to avoid the building
citation/abatement process, for this item.
Staff review of the historical files haa revealed that, although the site plan didnol illustrate the
deck installation ()ver the existing patio, it was shown on the floor plans and elevations. The
original deck is, therefore, approved, It is important that the construction of the deck conforms
exactly to the approved Design Review plans (approved Apnt2, 1998). If you would likc to
review the approved Design Review plans to confirm what was approved, please feel free to visit
Town Hall and wc will share the files with you,
This application has been determined to be withdrawn. All fccs submitted for the application
have been utilized for Stalftimc spent, however, and no re~Jnd is possible at this time.
-'y'C11r1lT
CArl i i:l J
/2-
_ JONES ARCH.T TO
_ : 41 5-288-0288
NOV 03'99
lfyou hall8 any qucstions please call me at (415) 435-7397.
Sincerely, ~'
~, /t' ~
Emi Theriault
Associate Planner
J.~d 1vtJ1 Nr
p.,.w:J 10 I ~ ...fA 0(1 ~J..L 7f
o-j~
DL CjC; i.J ~-s ~3
J
18:45 NO.Old P.06
(~<:~f'k
/l-
TOWN OF TIB URON
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-
,
')"'~o' "~0"
v,.o;, ~o
-!,~.I: ' ' .::',..--
..'9 -
<. ...
~... ,. ..: ",'"
,::; 0 " ',;' ~
~"',... ,.." .....
1505 TIBURON BLVD., TIBURON, CA 94920
(415) 435-7380 FAX (415) 435-7395
Mr. and Ms. Waterman
36 Southridge West
Tiburon, CA 94920
December 7, 1999
Reference: 36 Southridge West--deck construction
Dear Mr. and Ms. Waterman:
In response to repeated complaints from neighbors that the construction of your new deck was not
in accordance with the approved plans, I reviewed the design review and building plans, and also
visited the site. I have the following observations:
I. The size ofthe new deck is in conformance with Design Review plans approved on April 2,
1998 and Building Department plans approved on September 4, 1998.
2. The elevation of the new deck is not in conformance with approved drawings:
. Approved drawings show the new deck elevation at the same level as the living room.
. The new deck has been built 12-14 inches (2 risers) higher than shown on the approved
drawings.
. Unauthorized sliding glass doors have been added at the living room and at the family
room.
. The stairs shown on the approved drawings (up 2 risers from the new deck to the small
deck on the southeast side) have been eliminated.
. Stairs from the deck at the level of the living room to the new, elevated deck have been
added, but do not show on the approved drawings.
Please note that the letter from your architect, dated September 8, 1999, stating that "Sheet DRl
dated 1-26-98, which includes a floor plan that portrays a new deck precisely as it has since been
constructed" is in error; the deck has not been built in conformance with approved plans.
Construction of the deck at a higher elevation than shown on the approved drawings is work
without permit and a $250 fee is hereby imposed per Municipal Code Section 13.3.
. ) f ;! l -.
^ ;. ~"l
~.\idIJ~ .
s
,
,
,
..
.-
i
i
TIBURON
G DEPARTMENT
,~~~~~OF ""0<-1>:
. Z
,.
<, '
~ ~f]" ,,-,'"
'ilIA ,.." ~~
1505 TIBURON BLVD., TIBURON, CA 94920
(415) 435-7380 FAX (415) 435-7395
A Step Work Order on the deck will remain in effect until you have either:
I. Lowered the deck te the elevation shown on the approved plans, or,
2. Obtained Design Review approval for the relocated stairs, new sliding glass doors, and deck
constructed at the higher elevation.
I appreciate your prompt cooperation.
Dean Bloomquist
Building Official
Cc Town Manager
Planning Department
Town Attorney
Andrew Thompson
10hn Silcox
"-. ~'.' -"
/3
. !'
\ .
~] l-'-~- ;~" i
,,'" ,.
. t.' - . l +i~ I
"~ ~
I !
$1 1 I.
~J I
, , 1~ I
~ ~ I
~. I , . ~ I
tl'- \i
~I , "it II
: I. \1 ....1
i I I
I 11\ /'--1
r~ I
r-- .
~ f r
~ II":
I 1Il
I I f
11 .
....- ' I
m \t ~ I
, . \
'.
,.
.--
i
;
EXHlBH If
IL
. t-- ,A -.
11.
14
Soun-t ~\D(,.IO:
~T
( SILCOX)
j
i
14
SOUTH(.(IDbE
EilS I
( SILeox-)
-
-
.~..
~ .
..;..----
- /...;>
-_;,~t (
.-.. ~
.:7--'~1
~ ,~ \
.-:-:x- .:l.=:;-'i!'\i \ d?)-Q-
E.~~
---L.- "
\ "......
,
,=\~-~ -'
;,.-- 3 c--~
1'- ~'i' 1, i .i l' l ~ l~
,Ci\illUII
-
IS
~
,
,~
~~ ,\ o~C'D
,J,_\~)t\L1 ~
Ec-S~
:.--c
~
.r--- :"").~~
',,---- '- - , /' "---
"-r IS
;:',\."JI1
.---'
~
-=-
- ,- ~
~ - ~\ .......,'--' -r- ,
-::::::A___l.: , ,1 \ \ C ~_
~~c-~
~'~'~"------
"
f
'1:
~
,',
~\~\ ..::::::;
--\ -
\ -
. 81T
... ~ 1,
.......'..l.1i
--
IS
-;
R-(:e.6
gd()C~
~d.
,....-
tAH\BH IS
_' c:',--\::" (:' 1- ;----:-\ Cj; -,
.-- \ /'. . "--
_ \ '--~----r-
[~'\ \ C_'~ C \~----~, .
---' ' ,='
-~~-J; :C).-=- ._~ \) "1,.
'-
:~)\JG\LC\( f:1 :p \~'*- (~
) ~=-\~d'-! r C
TV1~ j" '\
~ 1 '____ J ,
.-.~
, ~.____ .J.-
C~\ i ''\ \
\ .!;. _--C ,~~ =_- \
-\ - - ~
,_~ 'I -...
. "~11
- ,.I
""""o'.udiW
JS-
~.
+1..........
-.~ --. ~
-\j"~
~--~ --,-
\ ,-- '. '::--=::::-L-
~ '- ~..~~, '----
"
,01 I
IS-
.~
\< --e ed\ri'''''ldS
~
EXHIBIT /~
o
o
~
,~ " ~,~\\ \ '.,~
"', -'C::::_ C--\..._ ,I
\ ~.
l.'~' --,
1,-_\ _.,'
.
Ci\; j J i..; i
IS-
,
~.
,
..:-1.. 14oC.-'
~''''''-E
~
_ :./:::<.._+\ ~ ("-\
.;;~. \,' ~~
'Jl;ij1~,1~'"'i''''' . ~ . ~~
"';Ji'j':';' ,'J.,' ,'"'' c :.:-0-
';Z[t>~'d':!~~\;f;\!';;~~~f~\~ .
~"~
-~
, .
,-
::~\nJ.8~T
/5-
z~
S OUiA f.2.. \ oG.f
wG'S I
\
<
I \.
50 li nt1Z- \ lX>1E"
\
\
\
2.Lf
LU(3;S r
J ~
,. .... ;'\
L..... ~. 1 .....
-
IS
2'1
SOGl T7f f!!.., OGE
wFS"
2G.
/5-
~.' ,
EXHmIT No,L
40 Southridge West
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
January 9, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Sirs:
Re: 36 Southridge West
We are the immediate neighbors of
Waterman and live at 40 Southridge West.
their deck as it has been built.
Mr. and Mrs. Rick T.
We have no objection to
CB
,-
/0
'... .~
'i......:,~". . . -' .
<~
24 Southridge West
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
February l ' 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE TOWN JF TIBURON
Dear Sirs:
Re: 36 Southr~dge West
I am a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Rick T. Waterman who live at
36 Southridge West. I have no objEction to t~eir deck as it has
been built. Also, I have no object con to the interchange between
the easterly window and the southercy sliding glass door in their
breakfast nook area.
'~j'd~!Vj
24 SClthridge West
Tibur m
J)Avli)
S.H~K.R'1
"""J"'''l1.~' /1 A
': t.f'n4 ~ l~ i 'J l{/
C.^~d.L.1.t)
r
8 Southridge West
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
February 6, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Sirs:
Re: 36 Southridge West
I am a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Rick T. Waterman who live at
36 Southridge West, I have no objection to their deck as it has
been built. Also, I have no objection to the interchange between
the easterly window and the southerly sliding glass door in their
breakfast nook area.
incerely,
~~
uce Hall
8 Southridge West
Tiburon
, ..1' !~
c.J\r~ i.G J __
~.
~/southridge West
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
February 6, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Sirs:
Re: 36 Southridge West
I am a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Rick T. Waterman who live at
36 Southridge West. I have no objection to their deck as it has
been built. Also, I have no objection to the interchange between
the easterly window and the southerly sliding glass door in their
breakfast nook area.
Sincerely,
~~~ ~te
Richard and Sally Pascernack
39 Southridge West
Tiburon
~.-f~~fi
.: ,;~jr /~
L.j\~,l.~.4 ,
January 9, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Sirs:
Re: 36 Southridge West
We are the neighbors of Mr, anc Mrs. Rick
at 36 Southridge West. We have no objection
has been built.
Sincerely,
~C2h.J~"''..,..r.
. "1llllIlI
45 Southridge West
Tiburon, Ca. 94920
T. Waterman who live
to their deck as it
~
Roberc and Jeanie Austrian
45 Scuthridge West
Tiburon
. -',:" j:'/-
'~., . -.... 1 lP
, ., 1_", l
"'-" d. ; ) ,~" j
~
l.()....Southridge East
---Tiburon, Ca. 94920
January 15, 2000
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN AT THE TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Sirs:
Re: 36 Southridge West
I am a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs Rick T. Waterman who live at
36 Southridge West. I live at, and own, the home that is directly
across the street from them in an easterly direction. I have no
objection to their deck as ie has been built. Also, I have no
objection to the interchange between the easterly window and the
southerly sliding glass door in the~r breakfase nook area.
Sincerely,
<AJ~~G0
Georgann Fuller
16 Southridge Ease
Tiburon
E' ". I "''1.'''' /;-
(., I /(0
/\~:;:-_~ J
DECLARATION OF TARA ANN WATERMAN
I, Tara Ann Waterman, declare:
1. I am 22 years old and am the daughter of Rick and Lalita
Waterman. I graduated with honors from Stanford University in June
1999.
I plan to start medical school in the fall.
2. On April 6, 2000, I attended the Tiburon Design Review Board
hearing. I sat in the first row and was present during the entire
time that the Application of my parents was discussed. The hearing
lasted approximately one hour.
Upon its conclusion, my parents
exi ted the building along with their architect, Mr. Hunt, and
conferred with him on the ramp.
3. I, too, exited the building with my parents but began to feel
cold.
So, I returned to the foyer and sat on the couch.
I
observed Design Review Board member, Mr. McLaughlin, exit the
hearing room and head for Mr. Andrew Thompson who was standing in
the rear of the lobby.
I overheard Mr. McLaughlin say to Mr.
Thompson:
"See. . . I told you you didn't have to worry about the
let ters . . . they didn't even come up..."
At that point, Mr.
McLaughlin became aware of my presence in the foyer and he and
Andrew Thompson proceeded to speak in hushed tones.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
declaration is executed on April 7, 2000 at Tiburon, California.
JUOe ~ 1JA~MnaA------
Tara Ann Waterman
-'. '" "11
~~\.ijjO .
[7
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
J-M{ h-ccl~ 0/+100
:#/1
() ~6tA1cV OR.I)IIII AAlC~
Date:
ITEM NO.
.
MEETING DATE: 5/17/2000
TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DlRECTO~
DOWNTOWN AREA STREET PARKING REGULATIONS: URGENCY
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE
AND RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING AND/OR LOADING ZONES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAIN STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
MAY 12,2000
To:
From:
Subject:
BACKGROUND
The Main Street Reconstruction Project is nearing completion. Once completed, this project will
require changes to the parking and loading zones and regulations that previously existed on Main
Street and at adjacent locations along Tiburon Boulevard and Paradise Drive. The Town Council
recently directed Staff to proceed with implementation of the necessary modifications to parking
and loading zones.
The Tiburon Municipal Code currently contains provision regarding green, yellow, and white
zones that would probably not allow lawful enforcement of the time restrictions proposed for the
affected zones on Main Street, Tiburon Boulevard, and Paradise Drive The grand re-opening of
Lower Main Street is scheduled for May 13,2000 and a normal municipal code amendment
would not take effect until July 2000. In order to preserve the public peace, health or safety, state
law authorizes the Town to adopt an urgency ordinance that would go into effect immediately.
This is the course of action that Staff recommends the Town Council take with respect to parking
and loading enforcement on Lower Main Street and its vicinity.
ANALYSIS
An urgency ordinance (Exhibit 1) has been drafted that amends portions of Municipal Code
Chapter 23 (Exhibit 2) in such fashion that immediate enforcement of the proposed parking and
loading regulations would be possible. In addition, the urgency ordinance would repeal
provisions that are in conflict with the proposed regulations and zones. The urgency ordinance
would also make legal enforcement possible for the newly instituted 15-MPH speed limit on
Centro West Street.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Repart
5//7/2000
1
As a follow-up implementation measure, a draft resolution (Exhibit 3) has been prepared that
would establish and authorize the specific limitations on the parking and loading zones being
created on Lower Main Street and in its vicinity. The Town Council should carefully review the
wording in the Resolution, especially with respect to prohibiting buses in the Tiburon Boulevard
and Paradise Drive loading/unloading zones
RECOMMEND A nON
I) Following a public hearing, the Town Council should:
. Move to read the urgency ordinance by title only and pass the motion.
. Mayor reads ordinance by title only.
. Hold a roll call vote on adoption of the urgency ordinance (4/5 vote needed to pass).
2) :\elollt the Resolution e3tllbli,I,;"g a"d deslgnallng pad,;,,!; ""d leading ZOfles. ;J/7-/dO
EXHIBITS
I. Draft urgency Ordinance.
2. Chapter 23 of Municipal Code (applicable portions)
3. Draft Rc::sulullon. filer
\scott\main street curb markings rpt.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Repart
5/17/2000
2
f'@,f
c ~ tn_,
L '-......
, r=-,
-'~-r-
U
L_ ~'
ORDINANCE NO.
N.S.
"
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING PROVISIONS
OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULA TING MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
The Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does ordain as follows:
Section L
Findinl!s.
A. The Town has recently completed the Main Street Reconstruction Project, which
made major physical modifications to Main Street (including narrowing of the
travel lanes) that require modifications to parking restrictions, loading times and
places, and other traffic control devices in order that safe functioning of the street
and sidewalks for vehicles and pedestrians may be achieved with the modified
street.
B. In order to establish such safe functioning of the affected streets and sidewalks, the
Town Council has directed that specific time and use restriction zones and signs be
placed along Main Street and surrounding curb areas affected by the Main Street
Reconstruction Project.
C Current Municipal Code provisions of Chapter 23 are in conflict with certain
parking, loading, and curb marking controls necessary to create safe functioning of
the streets and sidewalk areas. These conflicts may render the parking, loading,
and curb marking controls legally unenforceable, and could endanger the public
safety through inability to properly police and enforce vehicle restrictions. Other
provisions being amended are to ensure traffic safety along Centro West Street by
adopting a reduced speed zone.
D. Therefore, this ordinance is an urgency ordinance for immediate preservation of
the public peace, health or safety within the meaning of Government Code Section
36937 or successor sections and shall go into force and effect immediately. The
facts constituting such necessity are described above.
E. The Town Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on May 17, 2000, and
has received public testimony on this matter.
F. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant
to the adoption of this urgency ordinance have been followed.
Town of Tiburon
Ord. No.
N.S.
Eni:di\'~ _/_12000
Page
1
EXHIBIT NO.-'-
G. The Town Council finds that the amendments made by this ordinance are
necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
H. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this ordinance are
consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan.
I. The Town Council finds that this project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2.
Amendment.
(A) Section 23-42, paragraph (a)(i) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(I) Green shall mean no standing or parking for a period of time longer than that
established by signs, curb markings, and/or other traffic control devices as may
be determined by the town engineer pursuant to Section 23-4(a)(6), or as
established by resolution of the town council. The specific time applicable to
any green zone shall be that determined by the town engineer or the town
council to be necessary and shall be marked by appropriate signs, parking
meters or curb markings.
(B) Section 23-42, paragraph (a)(2) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(2) Red shall mean no stopping, standing, or parking, whether the vehicle is
attended or unattended, except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or
sign posted as a bus loading zone, and as otherwise excepted in the California
Vehicle Code.
(C) Section 23-42(a)(3) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(3) Yellow shall mean stopping only for the purpose ofloading or unloading
passengers or freight for a period of time not longer than that established
by signs, curb markings, and/or other traffic control devices as may be
determined by the town engineer pursuant to Section 23-4(a)(6), or as
established by resolution of the town council. The specific time applicable
to any yellow zone shall be that determined by the town engineer or the
town council to be necessary and shall be marked by appropriate signs,
parking meters or curb markings.
Town ofTiburon
Ord. No
N.S
Eili;ctive _1_/2000
Page
2
(D) Section 23-42(a)(4) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(4) White shall mean stopping only for loading or unloading of passengers, or
for the depositing of mail in an adjacent mailbox, for a period of time not
longer than that established by signs, curb markings, and/or other traffic
control devices as may be determined by the town engineer pursuant to
Section 23-4(a)(6), or as established by resolution of the town council.
The specific time applicable to any white zone shall be that determined by
the town engineer or the town council to be necessary and shall be marked
by appropriate signs, parking meters or curb markings.
(E) Section 23-31(d) is hereby deleted.
(F) Section 23-31 U) is hereby deleted.
(G) Section 23-1, definition of "Central traffic district" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Central traffic district" means all streets and portions of streets within the
area described as follows: All that area bounded by, and including, Main
Street, Tiburon Boulevard, Beach Road, and Paradise Drive from its
intersection with Mar West Street to where it becomes Tiburon Boulevard.
(H) Section 23-1, the definition of "Traffic control device" is hereby added, to read as
follows:
"Traffic control device" means any device including, but not limited to,
stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad
warning approach signs, parking control signs, street name signs, lines and
markings on roadways and curbs.
(I) Section 23-28(e) is hereby added as follows
(e) Centro West Street between Esperanza Street and Diviso Street:
fifteen miles per hour. This segment of street is narrow and
winding with inadequate shoulders and restricted sight distance.
Section 3.
Severabilitv.
If any section. subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town ofTiburon hereby declares that it would have
Town of Tihul'on
OI'U. No.
N.S.
El1;'ctivo _/_/2000
Page
3
23-4
(3) To mark center lines and lane lines upon the
surface of the roadway to indicate the course to be
traveled by vehicles and may place signs temporari-
ly designating lanes to be used by traffic moving in
a particular direction, regardless of the center line
of the highway;
(4) To place and maintain distinctive roadway
markings as described in the Vehicle Code on those
streets or parts of streets where the volume of traffic
or the vertical or other curvature of the roadway
renders it hazardous to drive on the left side of such
marking or signs and markings. Such markings or
signs and markings shall have the same effect as
similar markings placed the State Department of
Public Works pursuant to provisions of the Vehicle
Code;
(5) To remove, relocate or discontinue the opera-
tion of any traffic control device not specifically
required by the Vehicle Code or this chapter when-
ever it is determined that the conditions which war-
ranted or required the installation no longer exist;
(6) To determine the hours and days during
which any traffic control device shall be in opera-
tion or be in effect, except in those cases where
such hours or days are specified in this chapter;
(7) To determine those intersections at which
drivers of vehicles shall not make a right, left, or U-
turn, and shall place proper signs at such intersec-
tions. The making of such turns may be prohibited
between certain hours of any day and permitted at
other hours, in which event the same shall be plain-
ly indicated on the signs or they may be removed
when such turns are permitted;
(8) To place and maintain signs giving notice of
one-way streets or alleys and parking along such
streets or alleys as may designated by the town, The
status as a one-way street shall not be effective
unless such signs are in place. Signs indicating the
direction of lawful traffic movement shall be placed
at every intersection where movement of traffic in
the opposite direction is prohibited;
(9) To place and maintain stop signs on each and
every street intersecting a through street or portion
thereof (as designated by the town council) and at
those entranccs to other intersections where a stop
is required. Stop signs shall not be erected or main-
tained at any entrance to an intersection when such
entrance is controlled by an official traffic control
signal. Every stop sign shall conform with, and shall
be placed as provided in, the Vehicle Code;
(10) To establish, designate and maintain cross-
walks at intersections and other places by "l'l"ul',i-
ate devices, marks or lines upon the surface of the
roadway with approl',iate signs directing pedestrians
to cross in crosswalks. Crosswalks shall be estab-
lished and maintained at all intersections within the
central traffic district and at other places within or
outside said district where it is determined that a
particular hazard to pedestrians crossing the roadway
exists;
(11) To maintain, by appropriate signs or by
paint upon the curb surface, all no stopping zones,
no parking areas, and restricted parking areas, as
deflDed and described in this chapter. (Ord. No. 423
N.S., ~ 2 (part))
13-5 Traffic safety committee.
There is established an advisory traffic safety
committee consisting of the town traffic engineer,
the chief of police as chairman, public works super-
intendent and planning director. It shall be the duty
of the traffic safety committee to suggest the most
practicable means for coordinating the activities of
all officers and agencies of this town having authori-
ty with respect to the administration or enforcement
of traffic regulations; to stimulate and assist in the
preparation and publication of traffic reports; to
receive complaints having to do with traffic matters;
and to recommend ways and means for improving
traffic conditions and the administration and en-
forcement of traffic regulations. (Ord. No. 423 N.S.,
~ 2 (part))
23-6 Traffic regulations apply to
person riding bicycle or Anim..l....
Every person riding a bicycle or riding or driving
an animal upon a highway has all of the rights and
shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the
driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except those
216
Chapter 23 23-19 Commercial vehicles using
private driveways.
MOTOR VEmCLES AND TRAFFlC 23-20 Riding or driving on sidewalk.
23-21 New pavement and markiDgs.
Sections: .23-22 Obedience to traffic barriers
Article I. General Provisions Regarding and signs.
Traffic Atlmini!<tration 23-23 Use of skateboards, coasters
23-1 Definitions of words and and similar devices regulated.
phrases. 23-24 Vehicles and horses probibited
23-2 Police atlmini!<tratiOD- Tramc on bicycle/pedestrian paths.
division. 23-25 Use of vehicles on multi-use
23-3 Anthority of police and fire path.
department oMclals. 23-26 When pedestrians must use
23-4 Town traffic engineer. crosswalk.
23-5 Traffic safety committee. 23-27 Operation of motorcycles on
23-6 Traffic regulations apply to unimproved roads.
person riding bicycle or
Anitn9lc. Article m. Speed Limits
23-7 Public employees to obey 23-28 Local speed limits established.
traffic regulations.
23-8 Exemption of certain vehicles. Article IV. Regulations for the Stopping,
23-9 Traffic control signs required Standing and Parking of Vehicles
for enforcement purpose. 23-29 Application of regulations.
23-10 Unauthorized painting of 23-30 Stopping or standing in
curbs. parkways prohibited.
23-11 Violation. 23-31 No parking areas.
23-32 Use of streets for storage of
Article II. Traffic and Driving Regulations vehicles prohibited.
23-12 Obedience to police or 23-33 Parking adjacent to schools.
authorized officers. 23-34 Parking on narrow streets.
23-13 Obstruction or interference 23-35 Parking on grades.
with police or authorized 23-36 Unlawful parking-Peddlers.
officers. vendors.
23-14 When Vehicles may be removed 23-37 Emergency parking signs.
from streets. 23-38 Parking paraIIel on one-way
23-15 Obedience to tra j, control streets.
devices. 23-39 Diagonal parking.
23-16 Signal controlled intersections 23-40 Parking commercial vehicles in
(right turns). residential districts.
23-17 Stop at through street or stop 23-41 Loading zones.
sign. 23-42 Curb markings to indicate no
23-18 Emerging from alley, driveway stopping and parking
or building. regulations.
23-43 Standing in any alley.
213
EXHIBIT NO. ~
23-1
23-44
2345
23-46
2347
Bus zones to be estabUshecL
Taxicab stands.
Repairing or greasing vehicles.
Washing or polishing vehicles.
Article V. Abatement and Removal of
Abandoned or Inoperative Vehicles
23-48
2349
23-50
23-51
23-52
23-53
23-54
23-55
23-56
23-57
23-58
23-59
23-60
23.61
23-62
23-63
Declared nuisance.
Definitions.
Abandonment-Presumption.
Exceptions to article.
Article supplemental to other
laWs.
Enforcement.
Right of entry of franchised
person.
Atlminil<trative costs.
Hearing on abatement-Notice
of hearing.
Conduct of hearing.
Removal of vehicle.
Notice of removal to be sent to
Department of Motor Vehicles.
Notice of costs sent to owner_
Costs to be collected as taxes.
Abandoning vehicle prohibited_
Failure or refusal to remove
violating vehicle.
Article I. General Provisions Regarding
Traffic Administration
23-1 Def"mitions of words and phrases.
The following words and phrases, when used in
this chapter shall have the following meanings.
Whenever any words or phrases used herein are not
defined, but are defined in the Vehicle Code of the
state of California and amendments thereto, such
definitions shall apply.
"Central traffic district" means all streets and
portions of streets within the area described as fol-
lows: All that area bounded by, and including: Main
Street, Tiburon Boulevard aad. Beach Road,
,
"Coach" means any motor bus, motor coach,
trackless trolley, or passenger stage used as a com-
mon carrier of passengers.
"Council" means the town council of the Town
of Tiburon.
"Curb" means the lateral boundary of the road-
way whether such curb be marked by curbing con-
struction, or not so marked; the word "curb" as
herein used shall not include the line dividing the
roadway of a street from parking strips in the center
of a street, nor from tracks or right of ways of pub-
lic utility companies.
"Divisional island" means a raised island located
in the roadway and separating opposing or conflict-
ing streams of traffic.
"Holidays" means the first day of January, the
third Monday of January, the twelfth day of Febru-
ary, the twenty-second day of February, the thirtieth
day of May, the fourth day of July, the flfSt Monday
in September, the ninth day of September, the
twelfth day of October, the eleventh day ofNovem-
ber, the twenty-fifth day of December, and Thanks-
giving Day. If the first day of January, the fourth
day of July, the ninth day of September, the twelfth
day of October, the eleventh day of November, or
the twenty-fifth day of December falls upon a Sun-
day, the Monday following is a holiday.
"Loading zone" means the space adjacent to a
curb reserved for the e~clusive use of vehicles dur-
ing the loading or unloading of passengers or mate-
rials.
"Official time standard" means standard time or
daylight savings time as is in current use by this
town.
"Parking meter" means a mechanical device in-
stalled within or upon the curb or sidewalk area,
immediately adjacent to a parking space, for the
purpose of controlling the period of time occupancy
of such parking meter space by any vehicle.
"Passenger loading zone" means the space adja-
cent to a curb reserved for the exclusive use of
vehicles during the loading or unloading of passen-
gers.
"Police officer" means every officer' of the
Tiburon police department or any officer authorized
214
(D) Section 23-42(a)(4) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(4) White shall mean stopping only for loading or unloading of passengers, or
for the depositing of mail in an adjacent mailbox, for a period of time not
longer than that established by signs, curb markings, and/or other traffic
control devices as may be determined by the town engineer pursuant to
Section 23-4(a)(6), or as established by resolution of the town council.
The specific time applicable to any white zone shall be that determined by
the town engineer or the town council to be necessary and shall be marked
by appropriate signs, parking meters or curb markings.
(E) Section 23-31(d) is hereby deleted.
(F) Section 23-31 U) is hereby deleted.
(G) Section 23-1, definition of "Central traffic district" is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Central traffic district" means all streets and portions of streets within the
area described as follows: All that area bounded by, and including, Main
Street, Tiburon Boulevard, Beach Road, and Paradise Drive from its
intersection with Mar West Street to where it becomes Tiburon Boulevard.
(H) Section 23-1, the definition of "Traffic control device" is hereby added, to read as
follows:
"Traffic control device" means any device including, but not limited to,
stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad
warning approach signs, parking control signs, street name signs, lines and
markings on roadways and curbs.
(I) Section 23-28(e) is hereby added as follows
(e) Centro West Street between Esperanza Street and Diviso Street:
fifteen miles per hour. This segment of street is narrow and
winding with inadequate shoulders and restricted sight distance.
Section 3.
Severabilitv.
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the
Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have
Town of TibuI'on
Onl. No.
N.S.
Ell\:ctivc _/_/2000
Page
3
passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or
phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4.
Effective Date.
Pursuant to authority of Government Code Section 36937, this ordinance is
adopted as an urgency ordinance and shall go into effect immediately upon adoption, and
before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the
ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at
least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town ofTiburon.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town ofTiburon by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
THOMASGRAM,MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST
DIANE L CRANE, TOWN CLERK
/municode/chap23 amend ord.doc
Town of Tiburon
Ord. No.
N.S.
En;'cllVe _'_12000
Page
4
provisions which by their very nature can have no
application. (Ord. No, 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-7 Public employees to obey traffic
regulatiODS.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the
operation of any vehicle owned by or used in the
service of the United States Government, this state,
any county or city, and it is unlawful for any such
operator to violate any of the provisions of this
chapter except as otherwise permitted herein or by
the Vehicle Code, (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-8 Exemption of certain vehicles.
(a) The provisions of this chapter regulating the
operation, parking and standing of vehicles shall not
apply to vehicles operated by the police or fire
department, any public ambulance or any public
utility vehicle or any private ambulance, which
public utility vehicle private ambulance has qualified
as an authorized emergency vehicle, when any vehi-
cle mentioned in this section is operated in the
manner specified by the Vehicle Code in response
to an emergency call.
(b) The provisions of this chapter regulating the
parking or standing of vehicles shall not apply to
any vehicle of the town department or public utility
while necessarily in use for construction or repair
work or any vehicle owned or operated by the Unit-
ed States Post Office Department while in use for
the collection, transportation or delivery of United
States mail.
(c) The foregoing exemptions shall not, however,
relieve the operator of any such vehicle from obliga-
tion to exercise due care for the safety of others or
the consequences of his willful disregard of the
safety of others. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-9 Traffic control signs required for
enforcement purpose.
No provision of the Vehicle Code or of this chap-
ter for which signs are required shall be enforced
against an alleged violator unless appropriate legible
signs are in place giving notice of such provisions
of the traffic laws. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-6
23-10 Unanthorized painting of cnrbs.
No person, unless authorized by this town, shall
paint any street or curb surface; provided, however,
that this section shall not apply to the painting of
numbers on a curb surface by any person who has
complied with the provisions of any resolution or
ordinance of this town pertaining thereto. (Ord. No.
423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-11 Violation.
Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter
shall be an infraction, punishable by a fine as pr0-
vided in Government Code section 36900. (Ord. No.
423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
Article II. Traffic and Driving Regulations
23-12 Obedience to police OP authorized
officers.
It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply
with any lawful order, signal or direction of any
peace officer, as defined in chapter 4.5 (com;r ~nc-
ing with section 830) of title 3 of part 2 of the
Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform
and is performing duties under any of the provisions
. of this code, or to refuse to submit to any lawful
inspection under this code. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2
(part))
23-13 Obstruction or interference with
police or authorized officers.
No person shall interfere with or obstruct in any
way any police officer or other officer or employee
of this town in their enforcement of the provisions
of this chapter. The removal, obliteration or conceal-
ment of any chalk mark or other distinguishing
mark used in connection with the enforcement of the
parking regulations of this chapter shall, if done for
the purpose of evading the provisions of this chap-
ter, constitute such interference or obstruction. (Ord.
No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
217
23-14
23-14 When vehicles may be removed
from streets.
The police department of this town may remove
or cause to be removed:
(a) Any vehicle that bas been parked or left
standing upon a street or highway for seventy-two
or more consecutive hours in violation of section
23-32 of this chapter;
(b) Any vehicle which is parked or left standing
upon a street or highway between the hours of seven
Lm. and seven p.m. when such parking or standing
is prohibited by ordinance or resolution of the town
and when signs are posted giving notice of such
removal;
(c) Any vehicle which is parked or left standing
upon a street or highway where the use of such
street or highway or a portion thereof is necessary
for the cleaning, repair or construction of the street
or highway or for the installation of underground
utilities or where the use of the street or highway or
any portion thereof is authorized for a purpose other
than the normal flow of traffic or where the use of
the street or highway or any portion thereof is nec-
essary for the movement of equipment, articles or
structures of unusual size, and the parking of such
vehicles would prohibit or interfere with such use
or movement; provided, that signs giving notice that
such vehicle may be removed are erected or placed
at least twenty-four hours prior to the removal;
(d) Any vehicle deemed abandoned or inopera-
tive pursuant to the provisions of article V of this
chapter or the Vehicle Code. (Ord. No. 423 N,S., 9
2 (part))
23-15 Obedience to traffic control
devices.
The operator of any vehicle shall obey the in-
structions of any official traffic control device
placed in accordance with this chapter unless other-
wise directed by a police officer or other authorized
emergency vehicle when responding to emergency
calls. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., 9 2 (part))
.
23-16 Signal controBed intersections
(right turns).
(a) No driver of a vehicle shall make a right tmn
against a red or stop signal at any intersection which
is sign posted giving notice of such restrictions as
hereinafter provided in this section.
(b) Appropriate signs shall be posted giving
effect to this section at any intersection where the
police department or the town finds that the making
of right turns against traffic signal "stop" indication
would seriously interfere with the safe and orderly
flow of ttaffic, (Ord. No. 423 N.S., 9 2 (part))
23-17 Stop at through street or stop
sign.
The driver of a vehicle shall cause the vehicle to
come to a complete stop at any stop sign erected
pursuant to resolution of the town council or at the
entrance to any intersection of railway or grade
crossing so designated by the town council. (Ord.
No. 423 N.S" 9 2 (part))
23-18 Emerging from aIley, driveway or
building.
The driver of a vehicle emerging from an alley,
driveway or building shall stop such vehicle imme-
diately prior to driving onto a sidewalk or into the
sidewalk area extending across any alley way or
driveway. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., 9 2 (part))
23-19 Commercial vehicles using private
driveways.
No person shall operate or drive a commercial
vehicle (as defmed in section 260 of the Vehicle
Code) in, on or across any private driveway ap-
proach or sidewalk area or the driveway itself with-
out the consent of the owner or occupant of the
property, if a sign or markings are in place indicat-
ing that the use of such driveway is prohibited.
(Ord. No. 423 N.S., 9 2 (part))
23-20 Riding or driving on sidewalk.
No person shall ride, drive. propel or cause to be
propelled. any vehicle across or upon any sidewalk
except over permanently constructed driveways or
218
when it is necessary for any temporary purpose to
drive a loaded vehicle across a sidewalk. (Ord. No.
423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-21 New pavement and markings.
No person shall ride or drive any vehicle over or
across any newly made pavement or freshly painted
markings an any street when a barrier sign, cone
marker or other warning device is in place warning
penons not to drive over or across such pavement
or marking, or when any such device is in place
indicating that the street or any portion thereof is
closed. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-22 Obedience to tralIIc barriers and
signs.
(a) No person, public utility or department in the
town shall erect or place any barrier or sign on any
street unless of a type approved by the town traffic
engineer.
(b) No person shall disobey the instructions,
remove, tamper with, or destroy any barrier or sign
lawfuIIy placed on any street by any department of
this town, by any public utility or other person
authorized by the town. (Ord. No, 423 N.S., ~ 2
(part))
23.23 Use of skateboards, coasters and
similar devices regulated.
(a) It is unlawful for any person upon a skate-
board, roIIer skates, or riding in, upon, or by means
of, any coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device to go
upon any roadway in the Town of Tiburon between
the hours of sunset and sunrise and on those road-
ways designated by the town traffic engineer as
being hazardous for such activity during daylight
hours and so posted after due public notice.
(b) The town traffic engineer has designated the
following streets are hazardous to subject activities,
and may designate others by properly posting:
Reed Ranch Road
B lackfield Drive
Hacienda Drive
Stewart Drive
Via Capistrano
Trestle Glen Boulevan:!
Porto Marino Drive
Geldert Drive
23-20
Avenida Miraflores RQlmclhill Road
Lyford Drive Mar West Street
Centro West Street Solano
Paradise Drive Main Street
Beach Road Tiburon Boulevard
Juanita Lane Centro East Street
. Mar East Street Diviso Street
Ridge Road Mountain View Drive
Lagoon View Drive Straits View Drive
(Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-24 Vehicles and horses prohibited on
bicycle/pedestrian paths.
(a) No person shall operate or drive any motor-
ized vehicle upon any portion of any bicycle or
pedestrian paths owned by the Town of Tiburon.
This prohibition shaII not apply to the Town of
Tiburon's official vehicles, or to emergency vehi-
cles, operated by public employees.
(b) No person shall permit or allow any horse to
enter any paved portion, exclusive of identified
crossing points, of any bicycle or pedestrian path
owned by the Town ofTiburon. (Ord. No. 423 N.S.,
~ 2 (part))
23.25 Use of vehicles on multi-use path.
(a) Permitted vehicles and devices. The following
uses shall be permitted only on the asphalt concrete
portion of that certain multi -use path owned by the
Town of Tiburon, and formerly the Northwestern
Pacific Rai1road Company right-of-way, more partic-
ularly described in those certain deeds conveying the
property to the Town of Tiburon, recorded in Book
2426, Page 99, and Book 2429, Page 428, of the
Official Records of Marin County:
(I) RoIIer skates or roIIer blades;
(2) Skateboards;
(3) Pedal-powered, nomnotorized bicycles or
tricycles with a width of not more than thirty-six
inches and used for recreational purposes;
(4) Baby carriages and stroIIers;
(5) Conveyances for disabled persons;
(6) Emergency vehicles;
(7) Department of public works vehicles.
219
23-25
(b ) Vehicles required to yield right-of-way to
pedestrians, Under all circumstances the rider or
operator of wheeled vehicles or devices which are
permitted uses on the multi-use path under subsec-
tion (a) of this section, shall yield the right-of-way
to pedestrians; due and proper care for the health
and safety of pedestrians shall at all times be exer-
cised by the rider or operator of such vehicles or
devices.
(c) Group riding. No more than two persons shall
ride or operate wheeled vehicles or devices side-by-
side on the multi-use path.
(d) Racing-Unsafe riding. It is unlawful for any
person riding or operating any wheeled vehicle or
device to race any other such vehicle or device or
person upon the multi-use path. It is also unlawful
for any person riding or operating any wheeled
vehicle or device to engage in any unsafe riding or
operating which endangers the health or safety of
any person, including the operator or such vehicle.
(e) Dangerous speed. It is unlawful for any per-
son to ride or operate any wheeled vehicle or device
on the multi-use path at an unsafe speed, or to en-
danger the health, safety or property of any other
person while riding or operating any wheeled vehi-
cle or device on the multi-use path, or to ride or
operate such vehicle or device on the multi-use path
in a reckless, wanton or careless manner so as to
endanger the health or safety of any person, includ-
ing such rider or operator.
(f) Applicability of traffic regulations. Every
person who rides or operates any wheeled vehicle
or device pennitted on the multi-use path shall have
all the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties
applicable to the driver of a vehicle under this chap-
ter except those provisions which by their very
nature can have no application to such persons.
(Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-26 When pedestrians must use
crosswalk.
No pedestrian shall cross a roadway other than by
a crosswalk in the central traffic district or at any
other intersection where a crosswalk exists. (Ord.
No. 423 N.S.. ~ 2 (part))
23-27 Operation of motorcycles on
UDimproved roads.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings respec-
tively ascribed to them in this section:
(1) "Motorcycle" means any motor vehicle other
than a tractor having a seat or saddle for the use of
the rider and designed to travel on not more than
three wheels in contact with the ground and weigh-
ing less than one thousand five hundred pounds.
Such term includes every motor scooter, with a
motor which produces less than fifteen gross brake
horsepower, and every bicycle with a motor at-
tached. For the purposes of this definition, a "motor
vehicle" is a vehicle which is self-propelled.
(2) "Unimproved road" means any road, right of
way, path, trail, clearing, graded area or land which
is not surfaced with cement, concrete, asphaltic
concrete, macadam or other similar material, or
which does not have a hard surface made up of
mixture of rock, sand or gravel bound together with
an artificial binder other than natural soil.
(b) (1) It is unlawful for any person to operate
any motorcycle, other than a publicly owned motor-
cycle, on, over or across any unimproved road with-
out having first obtained a pennit. Pennits shall be
issued by the town manager upon a determination
that the owner of such real property concerned, or
the person in lawful possession thereof, has consent-
ed, in writing, to the proposed motorcycle operation
and the appropriate fire officials concerned have
certified that such proposed operation will not create
any undue fire hazard by reason of the nature of the
vehicle or the proposed operation thereof.
(2) Each pennit so issued shall specify the effec-
tive dates for which the pennit is valid and shall
further specify the areas of pennitted operation. The
pennit is not and shall so state on its face, an ex-
pression by the town that such proposed operation
can be done with safety to the operator or other
persons or property, all of which risks are assumed
by the applicant or other responsible persons. This
section shall not apply to the owner or person in
lawful possession of the unimproved road.
220
(c) Any person whose application for a permit is
denied may appeal such decision to the town council
by filing a written notice of appeal within ten days
after notification by the town manager that such
permit has been denied. The town council shall
thereupon conduct a hearing on such appeal within
thirty days from the date of filing such notice of
appeal with the town clerk. The decision of the
town council shall be final and conclusive upon all
persons concerned. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
Article m. Speed Limits
23-28 Local speed limits established.
Pursuant to the authority of the Vehicle Code, the
following local speed limits, representing either an
increase or decrease from the prima facie speed
limit, are established. These local limits are based
upon engineering and traffic studies and are appro-
priate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic
in a reasonable and safe manner. The speed limits
established by this section shall be posted with
appropriate signs to give adequate notice of the
limit
(a) Trestle Glen Road, from its intersection with
Tiburon Boulevard to its terminus: thirty-five miles
per hour;
(b) Hilary Drive between Theresa Cowt and No.
650 Hilary Drive: fifteen miles per hour. This por-
tion of Hilary Drive has a grade in excess of ten
percent;
(c) East View Avenue and Tamalpais Avenue,
including all portions of those streets lying within
the corporate limits of the town: fifteen miles per
hour. These streets have a width ofIess than twenty-
five feet;
(d) Paradise Drive between Mar West and Mar
East: fifteen miles per hour. This portion of Paradise
Drive is narrow with inadequate shoulders and is
characterized by tight curves. (Ord. No. 423 N.S.,
9 2 (part))
23-27
Article IV. Regulations for the Stopping,
Standing and Parking of Vehicles
23-29 Application of regulations.
(a) The provisions of this chapter regulating the
stopping, standing or parking of a vehicle shall
apply at all times or at those times herein specified,
except when it is necessary to stop a vehicle to
avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance
with the directions of a police officer or official
traffic control device.
(b) The provisions of this chapter imposing a
time limit on standing or parking shall not relieve
any person from the duty to observe other and more
restrictive provisions of the Vehicle Code or other
ordinance of this town prohibiting or limiting the
standing or parking of vehicles in specified places
or at specified times. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-30 Stopping or standing in parkways
prohibited.
No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle
within any parkway. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-31 No parking areas.
No driver of any vehicle shall stop, stand, park
or leave standing such vehicle in any of the follow-
ing places, except when necessary to avoid conflict
with other traffic or in compliance with the direc-
tions of a police officer or other authorized officer,
or traffic sign or signal:
(a) Within any divisional island unless authorized
and clearly indicated with appropriate signs or mark-
ings;
(b) In any area where the town has indicated that
parking is prohibited by appropriate signs or red
paint on the curb;
(c) In any area where the town traffic engineer
determines that the parking or stopping of a vehicle
would constitute a traffic hazard or would endanger
life or property, when such area is indicated by no
parking signs upon the curb surfacc;
(d) No parking on the west and east side of Neds
Way for a distance of fifty feet north from its inter-
section with Tiburon Boulevard. The northeasterly
221
23-31
edge for a distance of five hundred feet; and one
hundred forty-five feet on the northwest portion of
Neds Way;
(e) In any area where the parking or stopping of
any vehicle would constitute a traffic hazard or
would endanger life or property;
(f) On any street or highway where the use of
such street or a portion thereof is necessary for the
cleaning, repair or constrUction of the street or high-
way or the installation of underground utilities or
where the use of the street or highway or any por-
tion thereof is authorized for a purpose other than
the normal flow of traffic or where the use of the
street or highway or any portion thereof is necessary
for the movement of equipment, articles or struc-
tures of unusual size, and the parking of such vehi-
cle would prohibit or interfere with such use or
movement; provided that signs giving notice of such
no parking are erected or placed at least twenty-four
hours prior to the effective time of such no parking;
(g) At any place within twenty feet of a cross-
walk at an intersection when such place is indicated
by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb
surface except that a bus may stop at a designated
stop;
(h) Within twenty feet of the approach to any
traffic signal, boulevard stop sign or official electric
flashing device;
(i) No vehicle shall be parked in any area of
''Blackie's Pasture Park" overnight, for storage, or
camping;
(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, on Sundays and state holidays, and between
eleven-thirty a.m. and three p.m. on Monday
through Saturday, no person shall at any time stop,
park or leave standing any commercial vehicle,
whether attended or unattended, on Main Street,
including any yellow loading zone, for the purpose
of loading or unloading freight or making deliveries
of any kind. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (pan))
23-32 Use of streets for storage of
vehicles prohibited.
No person who owns or has possession, custody
or control of any vehicle shall park such vehicle
upon any street or alley for more than a consecutive
period of seventy-two hours. For purposes of this
section. a vehicle must be moved at least one car
length every seventy-two hours or it shall be consid-
ered parked for that period of time. (Ord. No. 423
N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-33 Parking adjacent to schools.
(a) The town traffic engineer is authorized to
erect signs indicating no parking upon that side of
any street adjacent to any school property when
such parking would interfere with traffic or create
a hazardous situation,
(b) When official signs are erected prohibiting
parking upon that side of a street adjacent to any
school property, no person shall park a vehicle in
any such designated place. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2
(part))
23-34 Parking on narrow streets.
Every person who parks a vehicle on any street
shall so park the vehicle as to leave a space of at
least twelve feet of unimpaired roadway to the side
of the vehicle exposed to traffic for an unimpaired
distance of twelve feet to the front and twelve feet
to the rear of such space. Provided, however, that
where a painted centerline exists on any street, no
vehicle shall be parked within nine feet of such
centerline. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23.35 Parking on grades.
No person shall park or leave standing any vehi-
cle unattended on a highway when upon any grade
exceeding three percent without blocking the wheels
of such vehicle by turning them against the curb or
by other means. (Ord. No, 423 N.S., ~ 2 (pan))
222
23-36 Unlawful parking-Peddlers,
vendors.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section
no person shall stand or park any vehicle, wagon or
pushcart (including lunch wagons or eating cars)
from which goods, wares, merchandise or food are
offered for sale, barter or exchange, on any portion
of any street within this town except that such vehi-
cle, wagons or pushcarts may stand or park only at
the request of a bona fide purchaser for a period of
time not to exceed ten minutes at anyone place.
The driver of any vehicle making this type of stop
shall bring the vehicle to a complete stop and park
adjacent to the curb as required by Vehicle Code
section 22455. The provision of this subsection shall
not apply to persons delivering such articles upon
order of, or by agreement with a customer from a
store or other fixed place of business or distribution.
(b) No person shall park or stand any vehicle
used or intended to be used in the transportation of
property for hire on any street while awaiting pa-
tronage for such vehicle without first obtaining a
written permit to do so from the town traffic engi-
neer which shall designate the specific location
where such vehicle may stand. Such permits may be
revoked for cause, including parking in unauthorized
locations, by the town traffic engineer. (Ord. No.
423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-37 Emergency parking signs.
(a) Whenever the town traffic engineer, chief of
police or their designees shall determine that an
emergency traffic congestion is likely to result from
the holding of public or private assemblages, gather-
ings or functions, or for other reasons, the town
traffic engineer shall order temporary signs to be
erected or posted indicating that the operation, park-
ing or standing of vehicles is prohibited on designat-
ed streets and alleys during the time such temporary
signs are in place. Such signs shall remain in place
only during the existence of such emergency and
shall be removed promptly thereafter.
(b) When signs authorized by the provisions of
this section are in place giving notice thereof, no
person shall operate, park or stand any vehicle con-
23-36
trary to the directions and provisions of such signs.
(Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-38 Parking parallel on one-way
streets.
(a) Subject to other and more restrictive limita-
tions, a vehicle may be stopped or parked within
eighteen inches of the left-hand curb facing in the
direction of traffic movement upon anyone-way
street unless signs are in place prohibiting such
stopping or standing.
(b) In the event a highway includes two or more
separate roadways and traffic is restricted to one
direction upon such roadway, no person shall stand
or park a vehicle upon the left-hand side of such
one-way roadway unless signs are in place permit-
ting such standing or parking.
(c) The requirement of parallel parking imposed
by this section shall not apply in the event any
commercial vehicle is actually engaged in the pro-
cess of loading or unloading freight or goods, in
which case such vehicle may be backed up to the
curb, provided that such vehicle does not extend
beyond the center line of the street and does not
block traffic thereby. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-39 Diagonal parking.
(a) Whenever the town council designates a street
or portion of a street as diagonal parking zones and
signs or pavement markings are in place indicating
such diagonal parking, it is unlawful for the operator
of any vehicle to park such vehicle, except:
(1) At the angle to the curb indicated by signs or
pavement markings allotting space to parked vehi-
cles and entirely within the limits of such allotted
space; and
(2) With the front wheel nearest the curb within
six inches of such curb.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply
when such vehicle is actually engaged in the process
of loading or unloading passengers, freight or goods,
in which event the provisions applicable in section
23-36 of this chapter shall be complied with. (Ord.
No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
223
23-40
23-40 Parking commercial vehicles in
residential districts.
No person shall park any commercial vehicle
more than five hours in any residential district ex-
cept:
(a) While loading or unloading property and
more than five hours is necessary to complete such
work. or
(b) When such vehicle is parked in connection
with. and in aid of. the performance of a service to
or on a property in the block in which such vehicle
is parked and more than five hours is necessary to
complete such service. (Ord. No. 423 N.S.. ~ 2
(part))
23-41 Loading zones.
The town traffic engineer is authorized to deter-
mine and to mark loading zones and passenger
loading zones as follows:
(a) At any place in the central traffic district or
any business district;
(b) Elsewhere in front of the entrance to any
place of business or in front of any hall or place
used for the purpose of public assembly;
(c) In no event shall more than one-half of the
total curb length in any block be reserved for load-
mg zone purposes;
(d) Loading zones shall be indicated by yellow
paint upon the top of all curbs within such zones
and passenger loading zones shall be indicated by
white paint upon the top of all curbs in such zones.
(Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-42 Curb markings to indicate no
stopping and parking regulations.
(a) The town traffic engineer is authorized. sub-
ject to the provisions of this chapter and the Vehicle
Code, to place the following curb markings to indi-
cate parking or standing regulations. These curb
markings shall have the meaning as described be-
low.
(1) Green shall mean no standing or parking for
a period of time longer than twenty minutes. forty
minutes, one hour or two hours. at anytime between
nine a.m. and six p.m. on any day. The specific time
applicable to any green space shall be that deter-
mined by the town engineer to be necessary and
shall be marked by appropriate signs. parking meters
or curb markings.
(2) Red shall mean no stopping. standing or
parking at any time except as permitted by the Vehi-
cle Code. and except that a bus may stop in a red
zone marked or signed as a bus zone.
(3) Yellow shall mean no stopping. standing or
parking at any time between seven a.m. and six p.m.
on any day for any purpose other than the loading
or unloading of passengers or freight for not more
than three minutes or the loading or unloading of
materials for not more than twenty minutes.
(4) White shall mean no stopping. standing or
parking at any time between seven a.m. and six p.m.
on any day except Sunday and holidays for any
purpose other than loading or unloading of passen-
gers. or for the purpose of depositing mail in an
adjacent mail box for not more than three minutes
except as folIows:
(A) When such zone is in front of a hotel or in
front of a mailbox the restrictions shall apply at all
times;
(B) When such zone is in front of a theater the
restrictions shall apply at all times except when such
theater is closed.
(b) Permission herein granted to stop or stand a
vehicle for purpose of loading or unloading of mate-
rials shall apply only to commercial vehicles while
making deliveries or the delivery or pick-up of
express and parcel post packages and United States
mail and shall not extend beyond the time necessary
therefor. but in no event for more than twenty min-
utes.
(c) Permission herein granted to stop or park for
the purpose of loading or unloading passengers shall
include the loading or unloading of personal bag-
gage but shall not extend beyond the time necessary
therefor and in no event for more than three min-
utes.
(d) Within the total time limits above specified
the provisions of this section shall be enforced so as
to accommodate necessary and reasonable loading
224
or unloading but without permitting abuse of the
privileges granted.
(e) When the town traffic engineer as authorized
under this chapter has caused curb markings to be
plac.ed regulating the. permitted time or purpose of
stopping, standing or parking, no person sball stop,
stand or park a vehicle adjac.ent to any such legible
curb marking in violation of any of the provisions
of this section. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-43 Standing in any aIley.
No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for
any purpose other than the loading or unloading of
persons or materials in any alley. (Ord. No. 423
N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-44 Bus zones to be established.
The town traffic engineer is authorized to estab-
lish bus zones opposite curb spac.e for the loading
and unloading of buses or common carriers of pas-
sengers and to determine the location thereof. (Ord.
No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-45 Taxicab stands.
No person shall stop, stand or park a vehide
other than a taxicab, for any purpose in a designated
taxicab stand. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-46 Repairing or greasing vehicles.
No person shall construct or cause to be con-
structed, repair or cause to be repaired, grease or
cause to be greased, dismantle or cause to be dis-
mantled any vehicle or any part thereof upon any
public street in this town. Temporary emergency
repairs may be made upon a public street (Ord. No.
423 N.S., ~ 2 (part))
23-47 Washing or polishing vehicles.
No person shall wash, polish or cause to be
washed or polished any vehicle or any part thereof
upon any public street in this town, when a charge
is made for such service. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., ~ 2
(part))
23-42
Article V. Abatement and Removal of
Abandoned or Inoperative Vehicles
23-48 Declared nuisance.
(a) In addition to and in ac.cordance with the
determination made and the authority granted by the
state of California under section 22660 of the Vehi-
ce Code to remove abandoned, wrecked. dismantled
or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof as public
nuisances, the town council makes the following
findings and declarations.
(b) The ac.cumulation and storage of abandoned,
wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts
thereof on private or public property including high-
ways is found to create a condition tending to re-
duce the value of private property, to promote blight
and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire
hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating
a hazard to the health and safety of minors, to create
harboring for rodents and insects and to be injurious
to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore,
the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled
or inoperative vehicle or part thereof, on private or
public property including highways, except as ex-
pressly hereinafter permitted, is dedared to consti-
tute a public nuisance which may be abated as such
in accordance with the provisions of this artide.
(Ord. No, 423 N,S., ~ 2 (part))
23-49 DermitioDS.
For purposes of this artide, the following words
and phrases shall have the meanings set forth below:
"Abandonment" of a vehicle means allowing a
vehide to be left parked or standing upon a high-
way for a period of seventy-two or more hours
without moving the vehicle a distance equivalent to
at least the length of the vehicle.
"Highways" means a way or place of whatever
nature publicly maintained and open to the use of
the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway
indudes street.
"Inoperative vehicle" means a vehide that cannot
be moved under it own power or vehicle not cur-
rently registered with the Department of Motor
225
RESOLUTION NO.
fR'~m
l. ", ,-.,1,
, ". '\.
_-::.. L.. L-, L_j w
!;=1 '1~
u- U
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING CHANGES IN
PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the various parking zones in the
Downtown Area in light of the nearly-completed reconstruction and major modifications to Main
Street; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that various curb markings along
Main Street and its vicinity are in need of modification as a result of the street reconstruction; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23-42(a) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, the
Council may authorize by Resolution the establishment and designation of parking and loading
zones.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon that the following parking and/or loading zones are hereby established and designated:
I. The south side of Lower Main Street shall be a red zone for its entire
length.
2. The north side of Lower Main Street shall contain a green zone,
approximately 48 feet in length and located generally in front of20-28
Main Street. Said green zone shall allow 5-minute parking any time.
3. The north side of Lower Main Street shall contain a yellow zone,
approximately 95 feet in length in length and generally located in front of
30-38 Main Street. Said yellow zone shall allow loading and unloading
only of freight for a maximum of20 minutes, and of passengers for a
maximum of three (3) minutes, from 6:30 am to 11:00 am every day. No
parking, stopping, or loading shall be permitted any day outside of those
hours.
4. The south side ofTiburon Boulevard, in the vicinity of it er I us at
Paradise Drive, shall contain a yellow zone approximat 'tOD et in length.
Said yellow zone shall allow loading and unloading onl reight for a
maximum of20 minutes, and of passengers for a maximum of three (3)
minutes, any day. No buses shall be allowed to stop, stand, load or unload
passengers in said yellow zone.
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
/
---
1
EXHIBIT NO. 3
5. The south side of Paradise Drive, adjacent oreline Park and just east
of the turning circle at the Tiburon Bo var radise Drive terminus,
shall contain a white zone approximat y/OO fe t in length. Said white zone
shall allow passenger loading and unloa' or a maximum of three (3)
minutes any day. No buses shall be allowed to stop, stand, load or unload
passengers in said white zone.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED that the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
hereby rescinds all previously-adopted Resolutions, or portions of Resolutions, that are in
direct conflict with the foregoing.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
ofTiburon, State of California, held this _ day of 2000, by the following
vote:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
COUNClLMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
THOMASGRAM,MAYOR
TOWN OF T1BURON
ATTEST
I
DIANE L CRANE, TOWN CLERK
ClIrb markings.res.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution l\.lo.
2
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 7, 2000 ITEM: 12
TOWN COUNCIL
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001 & 2002 PRELIMINARY TO-YEAR TOWN BUDGET -
Introduction & Overview
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
This item is to introduce the draft/prelirniruiry Two-Year Town Municipal Budget Plan for the
Fiscal Years ending June 30, 2001 and 2002, respectively.
As in past years, at the first budget hearing the Staff presents a general overview of the draft
budget plan, including a general summary of planned operating, capital improvement, and debt
service expenditures; an overview of planned operating revenues and expenditures; and the state
of Town General Fund and Restricted Fund Reserves.
The elements of the budget plan are to be reviewed in accordance with the following schedule:
MEETING
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
adjourned meeting
Department Operating Budgets
Planned Department Capital Equipment Purchases
Wednesday, June 21, 2000
regular meeting
Capital Improvement Program
Debt Service Program
Redevelopment Agency Budget
Wednesday, July 5,2000
regular meeting
Adoption of 2- Y ear Budget Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
That Town Council accept the Town Manager's report and adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, June
13, 2000 for Public Hearings on the Department Operating Budgets.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Budget and Overview Materials to be provided at the Town Council Meeting.
R Stranzl ('jQ>
1