HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2007-11-07
TO\~!N OF TIBlJRON
Tiburon T o\vn I-Iall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Council
November 7, 2007
7:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. ... Closed Session &: at
end of regular meeting
AGENDA
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION - (6:00 p.m.)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(a))
Town of Tiburon v. Sylvia; Sylvia v. Town ofTiburon
County of Marin v. Martha Company
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(b))
Significant exposure to litigation
(One Case)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Section 54957)
Title: Town Manager
Title: Town Attorney
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - (7:30 p.m.)
Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Berger, Councilmember Smith, Vice Mayor
Slavitz, Mayor Gram
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this
time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended
discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to
the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future
Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless
a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for
separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item,
please seek 'recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time.
1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt October 17,2007 Minutes (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi)
2. Town Investment Summary - Accept September 2007 Report (Director of
Administrative Services Bigall)
3. Marin Emergency Radio Authority - Appoint Chief of Police Cronin to replace Town
Manager Curran on Board of Directors (Town Manager Curran)
4. Commendation - Adopt Resolution Commending Diane Smith as Citizen of the Year
(Town Manager Curran)
ACTION ITEMS
1. Holiday Tree - Request by Chamber of Commerce for contribution to purchase Holiday
Tree (Town Manager Curran)
2. "Late Mail" Policy - Consider Adoption of a Written Town Policy regarding "Late Mail"
(Director of Community Development Anderson)
3. Reed Ranch Road Acceleration Lane - Award of Contract to Ghilotti Bros. and budget
amendment (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen)
4. 275 Diviso Street - Authorize Town Manager to enter into negotiations to obtain public
access over a portion of property located 275 Diviso Street owned by Mr. A vi Ron (Town
Manager Curran) - adjourn to closed session at end of meeting
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Consider appeal of Design Review Board's
decision to deny a request for Site Plan and Architectural Review to construct additions
to an existing single--family dwelling, with variances and excess lot coverages
(Associate Planner Tyler)
Property Address:
Assessor Parcel No:
Applicant/Appellant:
9 Burrell Court
034-- 302--05
Firuze Hariri
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
. Recommendation regarding cancellation of November 21 and December 19,2007 regular
meetings
WEEKLY DIGESTS
. Town Council Weekly Digest - October 19,2007
. Town Council Weekly Digest - October 26,2007
. Town Council Weekly Digest - November 2, 2007
ADJOURNMENT - to closed session
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Section 54956.8)
Property: Portion of 275 Diviso Street
APN #059--071--51
Agency negotiator: Town Manager
Negotiating Parties: Town of Tiburon and A vi Ron
Negotiation:
Price and terms of payment
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
ADJOURNMENT - to December 5,2007 regular meeting
GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435...
7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing at the
public counter located at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, and at the
Belvedere... Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall (1501 Tiburon Boulevard)
during normal business hours prior to the Council meeting.
In addition, agendas, minutes and staff reports are posted on the Town's website,
www.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Any documents produced by the Town and distributed to a majority of the Town
Council regarding any item on this agenda, including agenda...related documents
produced by the Town after distribution of the agenda packet 72 hours in advance of
the Council meeting, will be available for public inspection at Town Hall, 1505
Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920.
Closed session and privileged documents are not subject to these requirements.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability--related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing
address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and
preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above
address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action( s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing( s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing( s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda,
it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda.
C' ('- /
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gram called the regular meeting of the Tiburon'Town Council to order at 7:40 p.m.
on Wednesqay, October 17, 2007, in ,'.Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth,
Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Director
of Community Development Anderson, Planning
Manager Watrous, Director of Public Works/Town
Engineer Nguyen, Police Captain Hutton, Town
Clerk Crane Iacopi
Prior to meeting in regular session, the Town Council conducted a closed session, as follows:
CLOSED SESSION - (6:45 p.m.)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Section 54957)
Title: Town Manager
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT
Mayor Gram said that the Council conducted an employee performance evaluation in closed
seSSIon.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Allan Littman said that he would like to speak on the issue of development application fees, an
item scheduled later on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt October 3, 2007 Minutes (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi)
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
October 17, 2007
Page 1
2. Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District - Appoint representative to Marin
County Visitor's Bureau Board of Directors (Town Manager G:urran)
Town Manager Curran asked to remove Item No.2 for further discussion.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Consent Calendar Item No.1, as written.
Slavitz, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Unanimous
ABSTAIN: Smith
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Belvedere- Tiburon Library Expansion Project - Consideration of ordinance exempting
project from Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and establishing streamlined review for
processing future zoning permit applications - Second Reading and Adoption of
Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson)
Property Address: 1501 Tiburon Boulevard
Assessor Parcel Nos: 058-171-93,94 and a portion of 058-171-62
Director of Community Development Anderson recommended that the Mayor Gram conduct a
public hearing and in particular, to hear any new testimony on the matter.
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing. There was no public comment and the hearing was
closed.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read the ordinance by title only.
Berger, seconded by Slavitz
AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Gram read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending the
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) by adopting an ordinance
establishing streamlined town review and decision-making procedures for the Belvedere- Tiburon
Public Library expansion project."
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt the ordinance, as written.
Slavitz, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz & Smith
Councilmember Berger added his comments. He said that for those people who said that the
town was somehow "cutting the library some slack," it simply was not true. He wanted to
reassure those people that all of the issues about which there were concerns, such as parking, had
been thought about and would continued to be discussed and public input would be sought
during the application process. He said that the zoning ordinance would not be "skirted."
October 17, 2007
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
Page 2
2. Pine Terrace ADA Path Improvements - Recommendation to Approve Plans and
Negative Declaration and Authorize Town Manager to Authorize Project Bids subject to
final CAL/TRANS design approval (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen &
Director of Community Development Anderson)
(Continued from October 3, 2007)
Director of Community Development Anderson gave the report. He said that at the last Council
meeting, some issues of traffic safety related to school and soccer drop-offs and pick-ups in the
Pine Terrace area had been raised.
Director Anderson said that another issue that had been raised was the existence of a lease over
private property over which a portion of the path crossed. Anderson said that staff had concluded
that there was a small element of risk involved in the termination of the lease, however, he said
that, in Staff s opinion, the importance of the path to the community outweighed this risk.
Anderson recommended that the Town Council take any public comment and adopt the
resolution approving the project and taking related actions. Anderson noted the receipt of a late
mail letter from Pine Terrace resident Doris Dantes. Town manager Curran distributed copies of
this e-mail letter to the Town Council, along with a copy of her response to the e-mail.
Mayor Gram said that he had read the lease which stated that the property must be used as open
space. Town Attorney Danforth said that the public path was a fully compatible accessory use.
Mayor Gram asked whether the property owners were tenants in common or a partnership. Ms.
Danforth said that she was not aware of a signed agreement among the owners of the 12 lots that
would make then a partnership in the legal sense.
The Town Attorney added that while it was legally possible for the property owners to cancel the
lease, she concurred with Mr. Anderson's comments that the danger of leaving the path in its
current condition was a higher risk. Danforth recommended that the town undertake the
improvements on the path in order to maintain it for public safety and the avoidance of liability
purposes.
Councilmember Berger asked whether there was an overriding interest by the town to obtain the
property by eminent domain. Town Attorney Danforth said that it was an option, as the popular
path was used to access other public areas such as the multi-use path and McKegney Green. She
added that removing the paved path would not ameliorate the traffic problems in the area.
Mayor Gram opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment and the
hearing was closed.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt the resolution as submitted.
Fredericks, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimous
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
October 17, 2007
Page 3
3. Hourly Rate Update - Consideration of Resolution setting forth an Hourly Billing Rate
Schedule for Processing of Development Applications (Director of Community
Development Anderson)
Planning Manager Watrous presented the staff report, noting that the resolution was an
outgrowth of the finance subcommittee's meetings on the subject, with the input of staff and a
paid consultant. He said that the proposal contemplated "fully allocated" rates for the review of
certain development applications. He said that these rates took into account the actual time spent
by Town staff plus fringe benefits and overhead; they would also included the ancillary time
spent by the Town Manager and Town Attorney who are often consulted on various applicatio~s.
Watrous said that this method was a more accurate cost recovery formula; he said that the Town
would reserve the right to charge additional fees for the Town Manager and Town Attorney when
there was considerably more time than usual spent by these two officials. He cited the example
of the many hours spent by the Town Manager and Town Attorney on the Congregation Kol
Shofar application and appeal hearings.
Watrous said that there would be no increase in the initial filing fees for development
applications at this time.
Mayor Gram asked about the actual billing procedures and whether the charges would be against
the initial fee deposit and whether the applicant would pay in advance once the fees were drawn
down. He asked whether accounting and time-keeping procedures were in place.
Director of Administrative Services Bigall said that the town currently billed in advance for large
development applications and kept separate lines items for them in the general ledger. She said
that the planners were informed when the balances grew low in order to take appropriate action.
Director of Community Development Anderson said the resolution called for applicants to enter
into signed agreements with the Town for this purpose. He said that the agreements would be
modeled after the ones used in other Marin cities, such as San Rafael and Novato.
Councilmember Fredericks asked what percentage of the proposed billing rates represented
overhead. Planning Manager Watrous said that approximately 40% of the fees shown in the
study represented overhead.
Councilmember Berger asked whether staff was able to give an estimate of hours to applicants.
Planning Manager Watrous said that for smaller applications, such as conditional use permits,
staff had a good idea of hours that would be spent and was able to provide that information.
However, he said that for the more complicated applications, it would be very difficult to do so.
Councilmember Berger asked whether the "normal" time spent at the counter working with
applicants was already paid by Town fees.
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
October 17, 2007
Page 4
Mr. Watrous said that the "normal" time spent researching an application, working with
applicants, writing reports, and time spent with neighbors was generally covered.
Director of Community Development Anderson said that any "controversial" project tended to
take up more time; Councilmember Berger asked whether there was a danger of opponents taking
advantage of applicants by abusing the process in this way. Director Anderson agreed that it was
possible to use the cost of staff time as a "tactic" In opposing projects, but that the line between
"use" and "abuse" was difficult to distinguish.
Councilmember Smith asked 'what would happen if the Town was forced to act on a
controversial project in order to be consistent with the streamlining procedures under CEQA, and
funds had run out.
Director Anderson said he did not recall any applicant refusing to pay his processing bills from
the Town. In the event that did occur, the Town would withhold any trailing entitlements, such
as building permits, until the bills were paid. Also, he said that a developer's balance had never
dropped below zero dollars; in any event, the Town would not issue a permit with an unpaid
balance.
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing.
Allan Littman requested that Council give the matter of increased fees "careful consideration."
He said that the staff report said that the fees would not apply to "simpler" projects, however, he
said that a description of the projects they would apply to was not contained anywhere in the
resolution.
Mr. Littman said that it would be helpful for the public to know to which application types these
new fees would be applied. Planning Manager Watrous listed several types of applications for
which the town collected an initial deposit amount-subdivision maps, precise development
plans and amendments, zoning amendments, general plan amendments, lot line adjustments, etc.
Mr. Littman also said that it bothered him to charge separately for certain applications and thatin
a community of Tiburon's size, there should be a "commonality" of services. He said that the
townspeople paid staff salaries and overhead and that it appeared that this was a matter of
"double-billing. "
Mr. Littman recommended that Council delay adoption of the resolution until further
consideration could be given to these matters.
Mayor Gram closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Smith agreed that there was no definition of "development applications" and
what exactly the fees applied to in the draft resolution.
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
October 17, 2007
Page 5
Director of Community Development Anderson said that the Community Development
Department fee schedule did list all of the permit types and denoted which ones relied on a filing
fee deposit rather than a fixed fee. He said the new billing rates would apply only to non-fixed
fee applications.
Councilmember Smith asked whether that schedule could be attached to the resolution.
Smith also said that he agreed with Mr. Littman that the proposed rates were indeed higher than
the current hourly rates of staff but that he understood the complexity of the rate-setting process,
having recently gone through it in his own business.
Vice Mayor Slavitz said that he was comfortable using the analysis prepared by the Town's
consultants in this instance.
Director Anderson proposed adding. language to action section of the Resolution such that it
would read as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby adopt the Hourly Billing Rate Schedule for Specified Town of Tiburon
Personnel When Processing Development Applications, attached hereto as Exhibit A, said
Hourly Billing Rate Schedule to become effective sixty (60) days from adoption of this
resolution, and to be applicable to all application types listed in the most recently adopted Fee
Schedules for the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department,
which application types are shown as "Initial Deposit" required. All applicants for permits that
maybe subject to the hourly rate fees adopted by this Resolution shall be required to enter into
agreements with the Town for the payment of said fees. Town Department Heads and their
designees are hereby authorized to negotiate and execute said agreements on behalf of the
Town, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt the resolution, as amended above.
Slavitz, seconded by Fredericks
AYES: Unanimous
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District - Appoint representative to Marin
County Visitor's Bureau Board of Directors (Town Manager Curran)
Town Manager Curran said that the staff report contained a recommendation from the Lodge at
Tiburon to appoint its general manager to the MCVB advisory board. In addition, Ms. Curran
said that the Chamber had submitted a "late mail" recommendation to appoint Chamber staffer
Chris Koehler. She recommended that the Council appoint both women to represent the Tiburon
Tourism Business Improvement District on the MCVB board.
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
October 17, 2007
Page 6
Councilmember Fredericks asked whether the Lodge was already a member of the Chamber of
Commerce and therefore could provide representation for that group. Ms. Curran said that while the
Lodge did indeed belong to the chamber, it did not regularly attend its meetings. She said that the
purpose of the TTBID was to promote tourism within the town and that there was no preclusion
against multiple representatives on the county board.
Moved:
Vote:
To appoint the Lodge General Manager Michaela Winn and Chamber of
Commerce staff member Chris Koehler to the MCVB advisory board to represent
the TTBID.
Slavitz, seconded by Berger
AYES: Unanimous
MOTION:
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Fredericks gave a brief update from the RAPC on some findings concerning
overflight noise and proposed mitigations.
Vice Mayor Slavitz said that he had received positive reports fromjoggers about the new DG paths.
Mayor Gram asked when landscaping and signage would be installed. Director Nguyen said that it
would be in time for the grand re-opening, but Town Manager Curran noted that a firm date had not
been set.
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
Town Manager Curran distributed information from the League of California Cities concerning a
conference call the next day.
Curran also said that there would be a meeting hosted by Carole Migden's office on ferry service at
the Town Council Chambers on October 23.
WEEKLY DIGESTS
. Town Council Weekly Digest - September 21,2007
. Town Council Weekly Digest - September 28, 2007
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Gram
adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
October 17, 2007
Page 7
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes #21 -2007
October 17, 2007
Page 8
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
T own Council Meeting
November 7, 2007
Agenda Item:C c: - ~
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Administrative Services Department
Subject:
Investment Summary - September 2007
~/
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Government Code Section53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a
report regarding the Town's investment activities.
ANAL YSIS
The Town of Tiburon currently invests all idle funds for the Town and the Redevelopment
Agency in the California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). Below illustrates the funds on
deposit with LAIF at month end, September 30, 2007:
Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
Town of Tiburon Local Agency $17,607,645.82 5.2310/0 Liquid
Investment
Fund (LAIF)
Redevelopment Agency Local Agency $1,017,865.48 5.2310/0 Liquid
Investment
Fund (LAIF)
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No financial impact occurs by adopting the report. The Town continues to meet the priority
principles of investing - safety, liquidity and Yield in this respective order.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
Move to accept the September 2007 investment summary
Exhibits:
Prepared By:
None
Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
November 7,2007
Agenda Item: -c? (- ,/ -)
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Office of the Town Manager
Subject:
Appointments to Town Boards, Commissions & Committees -
~. . J E" mergency Radio Authority
~
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
The Town has had representation on the Marin Emergency Radio Authority Board since the
formation of the JPA in 1998. The Board meets on an as-needed basis now that the MERA
system is up and running.
The Town Council appoints one representative and an alternate to the board; currently, Town
Manager Curran is the representative and Vice Mayor Slavitz is the alternate. Town Manager
Curran was appointed in January 2007 to replace Chief Matt Odetto upon his departure from the
Town. Now that Chief Michael Cronin is firmly in place, the Town Manager recommends that
he replace her on the MERA board.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council appoint Chief Michael Cronin to be the Town's representative
to the MERA board.
Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk
TOWN OF TIBURON
l50S Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
T own Council Meeting
November 7, 2007
Agenda Item: e- c - i
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Office of the Town Clerk
Subject:
Adopt Resolution for 2007 Citizen of the Year Diane Smith
~
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
Diane Smith has been named Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce 2007 Citizen of the
Year. At the celebratory luncheon on November 7, 2007, Mayor Gram will present a
proclamation to Diane on behalf of the Town. That proclamation in resolution form is attached
for Council's consideration tonight.
RECOM-MENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution commending Diane Smith as Tiburon
Peninsula Chamber of Commerce 2007 Citizen of the Year.
EXHIBIT
Resolution
Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk
RESOLUTION No. xx-2007
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMENDING DIANE SMITH UPON HER RECEIPT OF THE
TIBURON PENINSULA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
2007 CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD
WHEREAS, Diane Smith and her husband Larry moved to the Town of Tiburon from
Minnesota in 1965 and decided that this was a great place to live and raise a family;
WHEREAS, Diane became involved in many of the community organizations on the
Tiburon Peninsula which are dedicated to preservation of the past and promotion of a bright
future, including the Belvedere- Tiburon Landmarks Society, the Heritage & Arts Commission,
and the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, Diane is known especially for her talent as a photographer, and in
addition to her work for the Ark newspaper, she is the "official photographer" of the Town
Council whose portraits have been displayed in the Town Hall Lobby since the grand opening in
1997 ;
WHEREAS, Diane's other community projects include producing the Chamber of
Commerce newsletter, the American Association of University Women's newsletter, and the
Landmark's Society newsletter; in addition, Diane contributes her photographs for use in the
Town of Tiburon News; and
WHEREAS, Diane continues to impress everyone she meets with her spirit of
volunteerism, her work ethic, and her willingness to take on any assignment and perform any
task; and
WHEREAS, Diane, her husband Larry, their three children and seven grandchildren
are an integral part of the community and it is because of people like them that the Town of
Tiburon is such a special place to live.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Tiburon does hereby
commend Diane Smith for her selection by the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber ?f Commerce as its
2007 Citizen of the Year, and extends its sincere best wishes to her in all her future endeavors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on November 7,
2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
TOM GRAM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
November 7, 2007
Agenda Item: 4- .-;-- I
-1-
,l ..,--1---
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Office of the Town Manager
Subject:
Recommendation Regarding Request from Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of
c~ce for $7,500 to Purchase a Reusable Holiday Tree
Reviewed By:
INTRODUCTION
The Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce approached the Town Council on October 3,2007
requesting $7,500 to fund three-quarters of the purchase ofa $10,000 twenty-foot lighted
artificial tree for the Fountain Plaza. The remaining $2,500 has been requested and pledged by
the Belvedere City Council. At the Town Council meeting of October 3, the Council asked the
Town Manager to return at a subsequent meeting with a recommendation on the Chamber's
request. In particular, the Manager was directed to consider this request in the broader context of
Town funding for the Chamber throughout the year.
History of Funding
Since 1989, 10% of the revenues the Town collects from its Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) on
the Lodge at Tiburon are provided to the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber does not receive
any share of the Water's Edge Hotel TOT. The Chamber also receives funding from the Town
for various special events on a case by case basis, as well as in-kind support for special events. A
summary of this funding is presented below:
Year Source or Purpose Funding Comments
2005 Transient Occupancy Tax $24,405
Octoberfest 2,000
2006 Transient Occupancy Tax $8,572 Lodge at Tiburon remodel period
Unreimbursed Police support for FNOM* $3,000
Octoberfest $2,000
2007 Transient Occupancy Tax $34,228
Art Festival (loan) $2,000 Recently reimbursed per agreement
Friday Nights on Main $3,500
Unreimbursed Police support for Art Festival $1,211 Belvedere contributed $1,000
Unreimbursed Police support for FNOM $6,360 Belvedere contributed 25% or $2,120
TOWN FUNDING TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
*Because FNOM straddles two fiscal years each summer, the information has been allocated into calendar years.
This chart does not reflect in-kind assistance such as that provided by the Public Works Department.
Staff asked the Chamber to provide a breakdown of how its $34,000 in annual TOT funding is
spent. The following information was offered:
Purpose Amount
Administrative fee of 30%* $10,200
December holiday event, including tree $10,000
Advertising $6,600
Visitor's Bureaus fees (3) $3,500
Restroom contribution $2,600
Newsletter $1,800
TOTAL TOT $34,000
* While the use of TOT to cover administrative costs is clearly permissible, no particular percentage was called
out in the resolution that created the Chamber's TOT allocation.
Chamber Proposal
Last year the Chamber purchased a 20' real tree for the Fountain Plaza, paid for it to be
erected, strung with lights and removed, and also paid for other decorations for the downtown.
The Town provided substantial in-kind services to assist in erecting, stabilizing and removing
the tree, and provided the electricity for the lights. The Chamber has been researching options
and has concluded that it would be advantageous to purchase a reusable tree with a
maintenance contract covering erection, removal and storage. Since the artificial tree has
built-in LED (light emitting diode) lights, it will not need to be outfitted with lighting every
year and the energy cost of approximately $150 will be markedly reduced.
The Chamber has proposed that the Town and the City of Belvedere share the $10,000
expense for the purchase of the reusable tree. In return, the Chamber pledges it will assume
the annual cost of the tree maintenance contract of $1 ,800/year as well as set aside $1,000
annually into a "tree reserve" account to replace the tree when its anticipated useful life of 10
years is complete. They have gone on to say "The Chamber will assume this annual cost
without requesting any continuing contribution from either Tiburon or Belvedere" and
characterize this as a "one-time" investment.
DISCUSSION
It would appear from the Chamber's report on its use of TOT and from the health of its overall
budget that it could fund the tree without the assistance of the Town and that doing so would
be in keeping with the overall mission of the Chamber to promote business activity in the
downtown. However, the funding of a $10,000 tree is a significant expense, especially if it is
to be absorbed entirely in one year, and the Chamber's offer to pay for the management of the
tree as well as its replacement offers a path out of the annual budget question of who will pay
what for at least this aspect of holiday decor.
Ultimately, it is entirely a policy judgment as to whether the Town should fund this expense
rather than expect it to be paid out of the substantial annual TOT funding the Chamber
receIves.
Some alternatives for consideration are below:
1. Full Funding.
Provide $7,500 to fully fund the request for the tree. Enter into an agreement that
stipulates the Chamber will use its future TOT for:
a) Payment of annual maintenance contract
b) Annual contribution of at least $1,000 into a reserve fund for tree replacement in
approximately 10 years
c) Provision of other downtown holiday decorations such as festive lighting, plants or
banners
The agreement would also memorialize the Chamber's pledge that in return for this
funding it will not seek future funding from the Town for holiday decorations.
2. Partial Funding.
Give $5,000 to the Chamber to help underwrite the cost of the tree. Require the same
agreement as described above.
3. Assist with Cash Flow Through Advance of TOT.
Assuming the Chamber can produce $2,500 for the tree this year, provide $5,000 to pay
for its purchase but recover this sum by withholding $2,500 from each of the next two
years Chamber TOT allocation.
4. No Funding.
Based on the Chamber's good financial health and the substantial TOT it receives from
the Town, let the Chamber fund this on their own as an appropriate use of TOT to draw
business to the downtown.
In light of the substantial one-time cost of the tree and the Chamber's willingness to pledge'
ongoing maintenance, staff believes either Alternative #1 or #2 above is justifiable and
reasonable as an approach. Regarding Alternative #2 staff believes it is reasonable in that
even with the Chamber contributing $2,500 to the remaining balance for the tree, this
approach will still result in a lesser cost to the Chamber than last year and substantially
low'ered costs in the future once the tree is purchased. It also seems a reasonable partnership
with the Chamber, especially in light of the additional funding and substantial in-kind services
the Chamber receives from the Town throughout the year.
For either Alternative #1 or #2, staff recommends the Town enter into an agreement (Exhibit
A) to memorialize the Chamber's commitment to fund the ongoing maintenance and
replacement reserve into the future. The Town would continue to pay for the electricity to
light the tree and provide some collateral support when the tree is going up and coming down.
i
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Depending upon the Council's determination, a budget amendment in the amount of$7,500 or
$5,000 may be required to fund this request. Funds would be appropriated from unallocated
General Fund reserves.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council elect which alternative it wishes to pursue between
fully funding the request ($7,500) or funding two-thirds of the request ($5,000) and then:
1. Move to approve a budget amendment to appropriate either $7,500 or $5,000 from
unallocated General Fund reserves; and
2. Provide this sum to the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce for the purchase of
a reusable holiday tree upon the condition that the Chamber enter into the attached
Agreement, as may be further negotiated and executed by the Town Manager, for the
provision of, tree maintenance, replacement funding, holiday decorations and related
pledges.
Exhibits:
Prepared By:
Agreement
Peggy Curran, Town Manager
EXHIBIT A
AGREEMENT TO FUND HOLIDAY DECORATION
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into this day of ,2007, by
and between the TOWN OF TillURON, a municipal corporation ("Town") and the
TIBURON PENINSULA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ("Chamber"), a profit agency
formed to promote and preserve the quality of life in the Town.
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to a resolution approved by the Town in 1989, the Chamber receives 10% of
the Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT") the Town receives from the Lodge at Tiburon,
which funds are intended to be used by the Chamber for the promotion of business
activity and tourism within the Town.
B. Toward this mission, the Chamber has historically installed and maintained seasonal
holiday decorations between Thanksgiving and the New Year
C. The Chamber has asked the Town to provide special one-time funding for the 2007
holidays to purchase a reusable holiday tree for the downtown. The Town is willing to
do so, provided that the Chamber agrees to and acknowledges the limits of the Town's
obligations.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE BASED UPON THE FOREGOING RECITALS
AND THE COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW, THE PARTIES
HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Aereement to Fund a Holidav Tree. The Town will contribute
$ towards the acquisition of a reusable holiday tree and will provide
electricity for lights on the tree each year it is erected.
2. Maintenance Costs. The Chamber shall erect and remove the tree each
year and shall be responsible for all annual maintenance and installation costs for the
holiday tree, including, without limitation, installation, removal and storage.
3. Replacement Account. The Chamber will create a "tree replacement
reserve account" and contribute a minimum of $1,000 per year into this account
thereafter, beginning January 1, 2008, to fund replacement trees in the future when the
tree purchased pursuant to this Agreement comes to the end of its useful life.
4. Other Holidav Decorations in the Downtown. The Chamber will
continue to provide annually, either directly or indirectly though contributions from
merchants and other private parties, other suitable holiday decorations in the downtown
such as festive lighting, plantings, flowers and banners.
1
5. No Continuin2 Contributions. In return for the Town's substantial
contribution as set forth in this Agreement, the Chamber agrees it will not request or
expect any further contributions from the Town with respect to this or any future holiday
tree or other holiday decorations. The Chamber pledges to use a portion of the Transient
Occupancy Tax it receives annually from the Town to fund its obligations under this
Agreement in lieu of seeking additional contributions from the Town.
6. Indemnifv and Hold Harmless. The Chamber will indemnify, defend
and hold the Town, its agents, employees and officers harmless from any claims, losses
or other liabilities arising from the installation and maintenance of this or any future
holiday tree.
7. Modifications and Amendments: This Agreement may be modified or
amended only by a written instrument signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be
executed as of the date indicated next to the authorized signatures of the principals,
members or officers of each of them, as appear below.
TOWN:
CHAMBER:
By:
Its:
By:
Margaret A. Curran
Town Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ann R. Danforth,
Town Attorney
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
November 7, 2007
Agenda Item: AI- 2
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor & Members of the Town Council
From:
Community Development Department
Subject:
Recommendation by Director of Community Development: Consider
Adopt~on of a Written Town Policy Regarding "Late Mail"
~..
Reviewed by:
BACKGROUND
The Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board have at times expressed
concern and frustration over the volume of late-arriving correspondence for items under review at
their meetings. This so-called "late mail" is often submitted at, or just prior to, the start of a
meeting, often too late to be considered by the reviewing authority without a continuance of the
item. The Town Council has directed staff to draft a written policy regarding late mail for its
review and possible adoption.
ANAL YSIS
Categories of Late Mail
Staffhas identified three (3) categories of late mail, as follows:
Type 1: Mail that is received after completion of the written staff report on an agenda item,
but before the packet is distributed to the reviewing authority.
Type 2: Mail that is received after the packet has been distributed to the reviewing
authority, but is received during Town business hours prior to the meeting.
Type 3: Mail that is received after the close of business on the day of the meeting, or at the
meeting itself.
Type 1 mail is stamped as "Late Mail", but is included with the agenda packet that is distributed
to the reviewing authority.
Type 2 mail is stamped "Late Mail" upon receipt and is provided to the reviewing authority by
one or more methods. For example, a copy may be faxed or e-mailed to reviewing authority
members upon receipt (or as soon as practicable thereafter), or a photocopy of the late mail may
simply be provided at the start of the meeting to the reviewing authority members. This late mail
policy focuses on the distribution, review, and consideration of Type 2 late mail.
Type 3 mail is, by default, distributed directly to Council members at the meeting provided that
sufficient copies are available, or can be made at that time, for distribution.
Draft Policy
The draft policy is attached as Exhibit A. The intent of the policy is to establish a process,
complete with a cut-off time, which would require correspondence to be received by the Town in
a timely fashion in order for it to be considered by the reviewing authority. The policy would
clearly sate that correspondence received on an agenda item after the cut-off date is unlikely to be
read or considered in deliberations on that item; and that the reviewing authority will be under no
obligation to read or consider that correspondence. Interested persons would have the
opportunity to make verbal comments on an item at the meeting, or send a representative to do so.
Regular meetings of the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board are
held on Wednesday for the former two bodies, and on Thursday for the Board. Staff reports are
generally made available to the public no later than 5:00 PM on the Friday before each meeting.
In order to allow some time for the public to read and consider the staff report and develop
written comments, the draft policy establishes a cut-off time for late mail at regular meetings of
no later than 5 :00 PM on the Monday prior to the meeting. If Monday (or Monday and Tuesday)
are Town-recognized holidays, the deadline would be extended to the following day at Noon.
This process will typically allow Council members and Planning Commissioners over 48 hours to
read the correspondence, and allow Design Review Board members 72 hours. The Parks & Open
Space Commission (POSC) members would have only 24 hours to review any late mail, but late
mail has not historically been an issue for the POSC.
These provisions would also apply to special and adiourned meetings when sufficient lead time
exists to implement these provisions. If sufficient lead time does not exist, the Town Manager
shall exercise discretion in applying a reasonable cut-off time for late mail.
On controversial projects, for which large amounts of late mail could reasonably be anticipated,
Town notices shall clearly communicate specific dates and times by which mail must be received
to be considered at that meeting. This modified late mail procedure was used, apparently with
success, during the use permit hearings for the Kol Shofar Synagogue expansion.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is expected from adoption of this policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Take any public comment on this item.
2. Move to adopt the policy
Exhibits:
Prepared By:
Draft Late Mail Policy
Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Z -
Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
EXHIBIT A
LATE MAIL POLICY OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
(Effective --/--/2007)
The following policy shall be used by the Town Council and its standing boards and
commissions, and by staff of the Town of Tiburon, in the identification, distribution and
consideration of late mail.
DEFINITION
"Late Mail" is defined as correspondence or other materials that are received by the Town after
completion of the written staff report on an agenda item, in such a manner as to preclude such
correspondence or other materials from being addressed in or attached to the staff report as an
exhibit.
IDENTIFICATION OF LATE MAIL
All late mail received by Town Staff in advance of a meeting shall be marked "Late Mail" and
shall be date-stamped or marked with the date of receipt by the Town. Latemail received at a
meeting shall be marked as "Received at Meeting" with a date-stamp or handwritten note.
POLICY
For regular meetings of the Town Council and its standing boards and commissions:
(l) All late mail that is received on an agenda item prior to distribution of the agenda packet
to the reviewing authority shall be stamped or marked as "Late Mail" and shall be
distributed to the reviewing authority with the agenda packet.
(2) All late mail received on an agenda item before 5:00 PM on the Monday prior to the
meeting shall be date-stamped and marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing
authority as soon as practicable. Such mail shall be read and considered by the reviewing
authority whenever possible. If the Monday, or Monday and Tuesday, prior to the
meeting are a Town-recognized holiday, the deadline shall be extended to the following
day at Noon.
(3) Any late mail received on an agenda item after the deadline established in paragraph (2)
above shall be date-stamped, marked as "Late Mail" and distributed to the reviewing
authority as soon as reasonably possible, but may not be read or considered by the
reviewing authority. There should be no expectation of, nor shall the reviewing authority
have any obligation to, read or consider any such late mail.
These provisions shall also apply to special and adiourned meetings when sufficient lead time
exists to implement these provisions. If sufficient lead time does not exist, the Town Manager
shall exercise discretion in establishing a reasonable cut-off time for late mail.
For controversial items or at any meeting where a high volume of correspondence is anticipated,
Town staff shall have the option to require an earlier late mail deadline, provided that the written
public notice for any such item clearly communicates the specifics of the early late mail deadline,
and the deadline corresponds appropriately to any earlier availability of the agenda packet.
Pursuant to state law, copies of all late mail shall be available in a timely fashion for public
inspection at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon.
Draft 10/18/2007
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
November 7, 2007
Agenda Item: A-.1~~ 3-
STAFF REP()RT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Department of Public Works
Subject:
Recommendation to Award the Reed Ranch Road and Tiburon
Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project to Ghilotti Brothers Inc.
And Approve Budget Amendment of $57,000
~/
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
On July 18, 2007, the Council authorized staff to advertise and seek bids for the construction of
the Reed Ranch Road and Tiburon Boulevard Intersection Improvement project. The project was
posted and advertised as required by the State of California's Public Contract Code. In addition
to the required advertising notice, the Town sent notices inviting bids to construction trade
publication plan rooms, and bids were opened on August 16, 2007.
The Town received five bids:
. Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. in the total amount of $11 0,635,
. Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc. in the total amount of $118,811,
. Ghilotti Construction Co., Inc. in the total amount of$124,759,
. W.R. Forde in total amount of$177,474, and
. JA Gonsalves & Sons in the total amount of$179,843.
The Engineer's Estimate was $95,159 for the project. The bid summary sheet is attached for the
Council's review.
The improvements include the installation of an acceleration lane for east-bound motorists
turning left onto Tiburon Blvd from Reed Ranch Road by eliminating portions of the center
median and installing new landscaping when complete and miscellaneous traffic control signs.
Staff has reviewed the bid proposals with other jurisdictions across the Bay Area and found them
to be consistent. The low bidder, Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. is a qualified contractor with a valid
Contractor's License, and is responsive to the contract specifications with reasonable references.
If the project is approved by Council, the following general timeline can be established:
Town Council Meeting
. Contract documents could be executed by the end of November.
. A preconstruction meeting could be scheduled the first part of December.
. Construction could potentially start by the middle of December or first part of the new
year.
. With twenty (20) working days allocated for this project, all work could be completed by
January, 2008, barring weather delays through the winter.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff budgeted $90,000 for FY 2007-08; at that time the project engineering had not been
completed nor was the project bid. Based on the recent low bid, a 15 percent contingency to
address Caltrans' encroachment permit conditions, any approved unforeseen work, and remaining
engineering and construction management fees ($19,330), $147,000 will be needed to complete
the project. As such, an additional $57,000 would need to be appropriated. Funds are available in
the State Gas Tax Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
. Move to approve the award of a construction contract for the Reed Ranch Road
and Tiburon Boulevard Intersection Improvement project to Ghilotti Brothers, Inc.
in the amount of$110,635, plus 15 percent for contingency, or $16,595.
. Move to approve an additional appropriation of $57,000 to complete the project.
Exhibits: Bid Summary Sheet
Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer
TO\\'N OF TIEl TRON
Page 2 of 2
,,0
C > ("II
em~
=Cal
,Qe<C
j::=O
-.or:
o j:: e
Can
~0.E
~~j::
U
.E
c:i ,...
(j 0
c: 'Ot
o ~
U cD <(
2 > 0 N
1;)<( N
l5 = ~ :;;;
(j .Q 0 co
=:CO:::IO
.Q(!)E~
:ccocoo
(!)~CI)t:-
U
.E
=
.Q
:c
~u55~
c: Ul co
co .0 Qj co
co[J)~~
5 :J co 'Ot
.5> Q 0::: ~
Ol 10 c: ..,
~:g~~
c;
0)
'Ot
0)
c;
0)
'Ot
0)
U
.E <(..-
u5 (j C;
en >- ,...
e.oQj~
[J)8~1O
~~~~
g~~~
~
l\)
,s
;n
~
(I)
(I)
c:
'5,
~
~
<(
:::E
:::E
::>
(J')
Cl
......
CO
S
e
Q)
E
Q)
>
e
Q.~
.E ~
5 eD
~
U 1;)
Q) :J
f Ol
S ~
.E >.
'C co
CIS "0
o l!?
0::: :J
.c.c
U t-
e c:
~ 0
'C E
Q) ci.
Q) 0
0::: 0
;;N
> c;,
in .~
e (I)
o a.
~ 0
.Q"O
i=iij
E c:i
~ z
(ij
(5
t-
E
~
000000000
000000000
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 000 0 'Ot 10 0 N
'Ot 0 0 'Ot 10 CO 10 0 ..-
oeD eDari arieD
..-
~~~~~~~~~~
0000000000000
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
o 0 ~ 0 ID 0 ~ ~ MOO 0 ~
g~~~~~~a;~~gg~
eDM ari N eD.,fNoti
..- M N
...
~ ~
N
-
o
Cl)
Ol
co
a.
~~~~~~~~~~
~
it
.c
::::>
o 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ...t 0 0 ~ ~ a; a; ID ~ a; 0 0 0
oOOOO..-,...ONOCONIO 1000
'Ot00'Ot1O NO..-'Ot 00
oeD eD ari .,fN
..-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(ij
(5
t-
E
~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~
00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID ID 0 ~ ~ MOO ~ ...
ggggg~:gg~g~~~~~~a;~~g..-~
~ariNeDari ari~~; ~ N ariNri~
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
it
.c
::::>
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
o 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
g g g g g ~ ~ g g g g g ~ a; a; ID ~ a; ~ g ~
1000010 NO NN 0..-
~ariNeD ari NM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(ij
(5
t-
E
~
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
10 0
~
0000000
0000000
a;oo...tooo
C;gg~~g~
ariNMeD ari.,f
..-
~~~~~~~~~~
0000000000000
000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ~ 0 ID 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~
re~g~:;~~a;~~~g~
M~ ~ N .,f MO
..- N ...
...
~ ~
~
it
-
.c
::::>
00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
000 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 a; 00..- 0 0 ~ 0 M 0 N 0 0 ID ~ 0 ~ 0 0
ggc;gg"-~g"-CO~gM..-..- "-M~g
~ariNM ari ri
..-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
~
E
~
888 8 8 8 8 8 8 888 8 8 8 8 ~ 8 8 8 g ~
~ g g g g ~ g g ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~
Nee C 10 ~ ~ C N co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~
~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
ct
C C C C C C C C C C C ceo ceo C C C C
C C C C C 10 C C C C C ceo 10 10 10 C C C C
oooooMoo~oooo~~~M~~oo
~888~ ~8 ~~~~ N~8
~~~~ ~ ~
.....
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c:
o
U
$
o
a:
'i'
.Q
Qj
t.
Cl) 1;)
a. 0
.L: a.
US Cl)
01:>>
It: c:
Cl) ~ co@.
g> ~Ul~.=c: ~
.S E S. c: .2 Ol Ol E
... ..." co 1;) Ci5 c: Cl) c:
Q ,*wc: co Cl):Ooo
fnE >-~~g.~~-g~
~~ ~g~~g~~~
>- ~ .~ ~ U E t- ~ ~ ~ ~
;~~~28~Bg>~~
i ~:o IE ~ -g ~ 0 .~ ~ -g
~~~~8~&&G&&
<( C/) CI) CI) C/) u.. <( C/) u.. >-
ill ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill ~ C/) 0
Q)
:E
-
"E
co
:J
o
'Ot
...... ,..... ~ ...... ...... co N ......
10
Cl)
~
c:
o
o
i'ji'
~ ~ ~
-5 -5 -5
g>.E.E.E
:i2
m:!-:!-~
::E Cl) Cl) Cl)
"E .g. .g. .g.
Cl) US Ci5 Ci5
E 0 0 0
~IEIEIE
~8!.~~~
ai~~~~
Cl).!!!.!!!.!!!co
~a.a.a.c..lii
Coo 0 0 E
.0 E E E E Cl)
-.:: (I) Cl) (I) Cl) >
:J .c .c .c .c co
(j t- t- t- t- a.
i:i
iii
S
o
t-
Q)
>
u
Cl)
c;::
~
e -5
2 0:"3 Cl)
!::-_ -(I) ::E c:
Cl) Q) .~ :::i
~ g B
::E 0 "0
o g
~ ~
:J (ij
~ 1;) ._L:....
t- .E
;;(~
Q) a.
a. Q)
~g>
$@.
~ c:
o Ol
l5 w
(j Q)
_ "0
(ij .in
.c "0
a. co
l/) 0
<( 0:::
c: <(
{!. ill
u.. u.. u.. u.. u.. <( u.. C/) CI)
~CI)~~~illC/)~~
!!!
'<
~
=:3
fI)
&
"0
i:ii
ci:
g:
:g ~ ~ M ~ 'Ot 0 ~ M
N..-N NCOCOM
,... ,...
..- ~
..- N M 'Ot 10 co ,... co 0) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
N
'0
N
Q)
C)
III
a.
N a a 0 a a a a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a 0
a; a a 0 a a a a a a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a 0
Q) '0 ci ci ci ci ci '<i ci ci Il'.i '<i ci c:i ci ci ci ci ex:) cD cD ci ci M
Ci5 f- a a a a a co a 0 N 10 a a 10 a a 0> v ('t) "'" a a ....
,~ a a a ~ 10 0> q co vo "'" ~ co T'"" V "'"0 q T'"" 10 a a ell)
c "0 E T'"" ci .n .n T'"" N M T'"" N T'"" ci N T'"" T'"" cD ,...- .n a)
0 a:: ~ T'"" T'"" T'"" co N ....
CJ) 0 'I""
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..,.
.E ~ co
I/) C 10 <0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
~ 0 LL 10 a a 0 a a C! a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
a; "8 v N ~ ci ci ci ci ci ci ci Il'.i 0; ci ci Il'.i Il'.i Il'.i Il'.i ex:) ex:) ex:) ci ci
ts 0> co T'""
I/) cD 'c a a 0 a a 10 a T'"" co a a "'" N V a a
c 2 I/) <( a. ~ a 0 a ~ v q ('t) 10 a a
0 1;) 0 U 10 ci .n .n ,...- .n
" en N - T'"" T'"" N
c cO 'c T'"" T'""
c:( 0 a ~ ::::>
a c-
() III 0
-; T'"" Z t:::- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
T'""
a a a a a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0
a; a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0
'0 ci ci ci ci ci ex:) ci ci Il'.i ci Il'.i ci ci ex:) ci N Il'.i cD Il'.i ci ci ..
f- a a a a a a a a N 10 co a a co N ('t) 10 ('t) 0> a a ....
10 a a a 10 v co a co "'" co 0> 0> 10 ('t) v. co T'"" "'" 10 a ....
I/) E M .n .n .n M N .n M ci as M -oi cD .n ...:
Q) ;; T'""
m ~ T'"" T'"" T'"" N N ('t) T'"" ....
co 'I""
'0 V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..,.
0 0>
I/) u5 co a a 0 a a a a a a a a 0 a 0 a 0 a a 0 a a
I/) <(
<( ('t) a a a a a a a 0 a a a 0 a a a a a a a a a
>- U ('t) ~ ci ci ci ci ci N ci c:i Il'.i Il'.i Il'.i ci ci ~ '<i '<i Il'.i ex:) Il'.i ci c:i
Q) Q) 0>
"E Ii) -0 J, it a a a a a N a 0 T'"" N co a 10 ('t) a a
c 10 a a a 10 ('t) 0 T'"" T'"" ('t) 10 a
0 c 0 N M .n .n .n M .n cD .n
LL Q) -
:r: E S 'c T'"" T'"" N
c:: v -5 ::::>
s: co ii: e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0>
i:i
"i' i:ii
c .Q :i "i' S
J9 0 Q) ~
U C- ~ .Q ~ 0
c Q) f-
G) ~
E 0 Q) 1;) >-
0. c- o Q) .r. .r. -5
G) ~ Q)
> 'I:: a. 0) (.) (.)
~ 0 Q) U5 Q) c .E .E .E >
Q. "'" E (.) Cl c :i2 ~ ~ ~ ts
<( .5 a If: c 0 ~ Q)
::E a Q) ~ III ~ () 1;) ~ Q) Q) Q) c;::
N ~ ;? c- o. 0. ~
::E C) ~ ~ c 0
c cD III C 'I:: '1:: 'I:: e
:::::> 0 c I/) c Q) Q) a. Ci5 U5 Ci5 .r.
:;::: T'"" '~ E c c .S:? 0) C) E 0. Q) Q) Q) ~ (.)
If) C) III 1;) U5 c E "S
u 1;) Q) U5 Q) c >- Cl (.) (.) (.) ~ Q)
Cl G) :J Cl 1;) a: III Q) :0 U ,2 t:. c Q) IE IE IE ~ c
r! C) III a. .LJ m ~ > III III III ~ :::i
..... :J E >- ~ ~ 0 "0 :J "0 Q) ~ III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0- ~
CO S <( f) 5 CJ) 'ii) (5 c > ~ a. ~ :c
E <( c E "0 III ~ C (.) u
.E >; Ci5 e ,!!:! III :r (.) CO g ,S:? ,S:? (.) III C
~ C Q) 0 "0 >< 0) 1;) 1;) ~ ~ 0 "0
" III C C C 0 a. .r. c 0 W c U5 I/) :J
ftI "0 ~ ,2 E f- a:: III a. 0 Q) III III III III U 0 en
0 l!? 0 :>. III m 0 U >- u Q) 0- a. a. a. a. c ~
~ ; () 0 Q) ~ 0) Q) III "0 >- Q) "0 C
0: :J 5 E t:. 0 0 0 0 ~ ,2
.r. ~ (.) () > ~ c > ~ a; 'ii) E E E E E
.c f- (.) " 0. IE I/) "0 0 '~ 0 "0 .r. "0 .LJ ~ :J ~ m
u I/) ftI E :0 c E 0 E III 0- III ~ ~ ~ Q) x ~
III III Q) Q) 5
c c Q) 0 Q) 0 0 Q) Q) Q) 0 I/) 0 .r. .r. .r. .r. III Q) I/)
~ 0 Cl 0: f- ~ ~ U ...J a:: a:: U a:: a:: <( a:: u f- f- f- f- a. f- .E
E c
'C Q " 'c <( en CJ) CJ) en LL <( en LL >- 0 <( LL LL LL LL LL <( LL en en
c > N G) ci. ::::> w ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J W ...J en U f- W ...J CJ) ...J ...J ...J W CJ) ...J ...J
m G) G)
0 ~ 0: a ~
.. G) a
~ C - N E v 10 co 0> co ex> "'"
.Q e <C ,; v a C;; "'"
j:: 0 > C, III T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" co N T'"" 10 co a ('t) "'" ex> co 10 T'"" ('t) T'"" T'""
~ in c :J 10 N T'"" N N ('t) T'"" T'""
- .Q C 'c a
0 j:: 0 c Q)
c .. 0 0.
II) .. 0 E
~ ~ = c:i "'" co a T'"" N ('t) V 10 co "'" co 0> a N
Q .Q ,g "0 ~ Z T'"" N ('t) V 10 co 0> T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" T'"" N
0 II)
~ - j:: j:: in
~
><
J!i
:s
U)
&
'tl
ii'i
0:.
g:
~1 ~.~~~~~ R\\
Il11 NOV - 6 Z007 W
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
Michael and Philippa Beaumont
7 Burrell Court
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tel:415-383-4552
Cell:415-652-8373
Fax: 415-383-4493
TOW'N COUNCIL
LA TEMAIL # ;;)#- /
MEETING DATE 11- 7-.cJ-
Laurie Tyler
Planning Division
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon~ CA 94920
November 5, 2007
Dear Ms. Tyler:
Tiburon Town Council Meetin2 (November 7.. 2007)
reo
Anneal of DRB Decision to Denv Pronosed Remodel of 9 Burrell Court
In lieu of being able to attend the Tiburon Town Council meeting concerning the above-
referenced matter~ I would like to submit the points set forth in this letter for your
consideration. This letter supplements the prior correspondence that we have already
submitted over the past year regarding the 9 Burrell Court project.
1. Clarification of our oosition.
a. Notwithstanding comments attributed to us to the contrary, our position on
the project is that, while the architectural design is much improved, the
scope of the project continues to fail to meet DRB guidelines on technical
grounds.
b. As has been extensively documented and demonstrated, we continue to be
concerned by the significant impact of this project on (i) our existing
privacy (the new second story will look directly into our master bedroom
and master bathroom, as well as overlook our pool area) and (ii) our
existing views. We communicated a request to the applicant's architect on
or about September 6, 2007 that two key design elements be modified: (a)
the master bathroom window be changed to opaque glass and (b) the new
vegetation screen between our home and the applicant's home be at an
initial height of not less than 18 feet (i.e. continuous foliage at 18 feet).
We have seen no design changes that would indicate that the applicant
would accommodate our request.
2. Princioal Issues.
Although design improvements have been made under the guidance of the
current architect, this project remains highly divisive. Further, this project has
been going on for over a year and has been rejected in three DRB sessions (close
1
to unanimously), leading to fatigue and much frustration on all sides.
On Burrell Court, we believe that four of the five neighbors most directly
affected by the project either are openly resisting the project, or have expressed a
lack of support to members of the DRB, the applicant or the applicant's
architect(s) over the past year. On Reed Ranch Road, we understand that the two
neighbors most directly impacted by the proposed remodel have expressed, or
continue to express, resistance to the project.
For our part, we acknowledge the progress and efforts of the project's new
architect, Michael Heckman, who has made much progress from a design
standpoint. However, the overall scope of the project has made his task difficult.
It is the scope of the project which we feel results in its failure to meet DRB and
Town of Tiburon guidelines. Specifically:
a. Vertical scale: the vertical scale of the proposed project is such that it
creates significant privacy and view issues for neighbors. No house on
Burrell Court is a true, "above-grade" double story (including 7 Burrell
Court). 9 Burrell Court, as proposed, would be the first true "above-
grade" double story in the 47+ years of Burrell Court's existence. All of
the other homes on Burrell Court have addressed additional space needs
by using split-level designs or by building a second floor below grade (i.e.
downhill).
b. Violation of design guidelines: the proposed remodel, while having good
design merits in isolation, clearly violates numerous provisions of the
Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings (as set forth in
much of the prior correspondence and the minutes of the last three DRB
meetings). We believe that this is a significant issue that, defacto, cannot
be addressed by the current, conventional, two-story design.
If you should require further input or clarification from us, please do not hesitate to
contact me at any time. We greatly appreciate your hard work and effort on behalf of the
Town of Tiburon and we look forward to a final resolution of this matter.
Yours sincerely,
(
l~~
Michael Beaumont
glui0~ Lf~I-~
Philippa eaumont
2
TOWN OF TIBURON
.;x 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Nleeting
November 7, 2007
Agenda Item: /#_ /
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Community Development Department
Subject:
9 Burrell Court; Recommendation to Deny Appeal of the Design
Review Board's Decision to Deny a Site Plan and Architectural
Review Application for the Construction of Additions to an Existing
Single-Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Front Yard
@ and Excess Lot Coverage
Reviewed By:
PROJECT DATA
OWNER:
APPLICANT/ARCHITECT:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
FIRUZE HARIRI
MICHAEL HECKMANN, ARCHITECT
9 BURRELL COURT
034-302-05
20633
14,731 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
BACKGROUND
On September 20,2007 the Design Review Board denied a Site Plan and Architectural Review
application to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced
front yard setback and excess lot coverage, on the property located at 9 Burrell Court. The
property owner of 9 Burrell Court has appealed the Board's decision.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is currently improved with a single-story dwelling which contains three
bedrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen, and two-car garage. The proposed project would
include expansion of the living area of the home at the rear of the dwelling, and conversion of the
existing garage into an additional bedroom, bathroom and laundry room. A new two-car garage
would be constructed in front of the existing garage.
'rO\\'n C'()tlncil
November 7, 2CHi7
In addition, a partial second story would be constructed at the center of the home, which would
include a master bedroom suite, terrace and an extra bedroom. The interior of the home would be
slightly reconfigured with the proposed improvements. Expanded decking at the rear of the home
and an additional terrace off the family room are also proposed.
The proposed additions would result in a gross floor area of 3,464 square feet which is below the
maximum gross floor area ratio for a property of this size (3,473 sq. ft.). As the proposed
additions would result in lot coverage of3,257 square feet (22.1 %), which exceeds the maximum
permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district (15%), the applicant requested a variance for
excess lot coverage.
The proposed expansion of the home would result in an approximately 19 foot 5 inch front yard
setback. As the required minimum front yard setback in the RO-2 zoning district is 30 feet, the
applicant requested a variance for reduced front yard setback.
REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board first reviewed the application on April 5, 2007. During the meeting,
several neighbors on Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road objected to the proposal. The
neighbors believed that the project would result in a looming structure over Reed Ranch Road,
and a home which would appear out of character with the existing neighborhood conditions. The
neighbors also argued that the addition of a partial second story would enhance the existing view
to the south for the applicant, at the expense of neighbors around Burrell Court, who would suffer
a loss of views.
The Board identified numerous policy inconsistencies with the proposed project design, and
requested that the applicant work more closely with the neighbors to address the concerns. The
Board concluded that the applicant was not inclined to revise the proposal or work with the
neighbors. The Board continued the item with the recommendation that there were other design
solutions to gain additional floor area without adding a partial second story. The Board indicated
that it would consider granting a larger lot coverage variance in order to achieve such a solution.
The Design Review Board considered revised drawings on August 2, 2007. Revisions from the
previous submittal included an overall reduction in exterior lighting, elimination of the small
terrace located at the front of the home (north), and elimination of several of the windows on the
west elevation, intended to address noise and privacy concerns of adjacent neighbors. The partial
second story was shifted 4 feet back to the north, to discourage what was previously regarded as a
"looming" effect on the neighbors along Reed Ranch Road. The proposed gross floor area
increased from 3,428 square feet to 3,464 square feet; and the proposed lot coverage decreased,
from 22.6% to 22.1 %.
During the meeting, several neighbors reiterated objections to the potential view impacts of the
addition and questioned the project's consistency with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. The Board concluded that the house design appeared to have been relatively
unchanged and needed to be further modified to lower the roofline, possibly by excavating below
the existing foundation. The application was continued to the September 6, 2007 meeting.
'lh)!\
'10\\'n (()uncil
November 7,
Revised plans were reviewed at the September 6, 2007 Design Review Board meeting.
Modifications included a reduction in the overall roof height of the proposed second story
addition by one foot, and a change in the roof design from a gabled roof to a hipped roof with a
flat portion at the center. The landscape plan was also modified to include larger specimen trees
to screen the proposed addition from the adjoining property at 7 Burrell Court. The applicant
indicated that the property owner did not want to excavate beneath the home due to potential
noise impacts from traffic along Reed Ranch Road, and the lack of light available to the
excavated space.
Project neighbors again raised concerns regarding the proposed project, including the applicant's
disregard for the option of excavating to achieve the additional floor area. The Board determined
that the partial second story,' although shifted back four feet from the previous proposal, would
still appear massive from both Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road, and would be inconsistent
with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Several neighbors were concerned about view blockage;
however the Board determined that these neighbors were not losing views from a primary living
space. The Board also determined that the project appeared relatively unchanged from prior
submittals, and reiterated that the applicant should explore either the excavation alternative or
consider pulling the addition toward Burrell Court at the lower level, thereby increasing the lot
coverage but substantially addressing the objections to the project.
The Board asked the applicant if he desired a continuance to return with revised drawings, but the
applicant requested that the Board vote on the project as presented. The Board voted 3-0 to deny
the applications, with Boardmember Teiser abstaining. The property owner, Firuze Hariri filed a
timely appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1).
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
There are four grounds on which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based. These grounds are discussed
below.
Ground #1: The Design Review Board's determination that the proposal would be out of
character with the existing neighborhood is inconsistent with how the
surrounding neighborhood actually appears.
Staff Response: Only one home on Burrell Court has a visible second story. Other homes in the
vicinity appear as single-story designs, although some have second stories below grade, un-
noticeable from the street level, due to the topography of the site. A few homes have partial
second stories, which were built at the time that the homes were initially constructed.
The Board determined that the home would appear inconsistent with the surrounding
neighborhood in part because the subject property was in a prominent location at the end of a cul-
de-sac, and therefore more readily visible from both Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road. In
addition, the one-story home on the subject property creates an open visual feel at the end of the
cul-de-sac, which would be compromised by a partial second story. The addition would also
result in minor view blockages of other hillside dwellings for the surrounding homes on Burrell
Court, and appear massive when viewed from both Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road. The
Board's determination was consistent with the guiding principles in the review of applications,
R()\
h
'Town (~t)uncil
November 7. 20t17
specifically in relation to site layout (Zoning Ordinance Section 16-4.2. 7 b) and neighborhood
character (Section 16-4.2.7 c).
Ground #2: The Design Review Board's determination that the proposed improvements
could be excavated into the hillside to reduce effective bulk is counterintuitive
in this case because the downhill neighbor would be impacted. Additionally,
excavation would result in extremely dark and uninviting living spaces not
suitable for everyday living quarters, which would be contradictory to the
Hillside Design Guidelines.
Staff Response: Numerous homes in the vicinity have excavated living space, with lower living
areas on the downhill side which have sufficient daylight. Hillside Design Guideline Goal 1,
Principal 9 discusses how excavation of living space results in reducing effective bulk while
providing energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces. The illustration clearly
indicates that storage areas, closets, billiard rooms, etc, and not bedrooms, living rooms, etc,
could be situated further into the hillside.
The Design Review Board recently approved an application at 2 Warren's Way, down the street
from the subject property. In this project, excavation was used as an alternative to gain additional
living area, instead of building a second story which would have also appeared massive and out
of character with the neighborhood, as well as resulting in view blockage.
Ground #3: The Design Review Board placed an undue emphasis on the location of the
property at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Staff Response: The Board reviews each application based on the physical characteristics of the
site in relation to the existing surrounding environment. Each application is reviewed on a case-
by-case basis, and based on each individual setting, which is consistent with the guiding
principles in the review of applications (Zoning Ordinance Section 16-4.2.7 (b)). The physical
setting of the subject property at the end of the cul-de-sac makes this a more visually prominent
site. The Design Review Board determined that the proposed second story addition would be
inappropriate at such a location.
Ground #4: The Design Review Board neglected to recognize that the applicant addressed
the concern of mass and bulk through Goall, Principle 3 of the Hillside
Design Guidelines, by shifting the partial second story four feet (4') to the
north to create more "vertical and horizontal articulation" of the home.
Staff Response: The applicant attempted to address the bulk and massive appearance of the
dwelling by shifting the partial second story to the north. However, shifting the addition would
infringe additionally on the privacy for the adjacent neighbor at 7 Burrell Court. The Board
determined that although these changes were helpful, the revisions did not substantially address
the mass and bulk impacts that would be caused by the second story addition at this prominent
location.
"l(()\
CONCLUSION
'I'own ('()tlncil
November 7.
The Design Review Board adhered to the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Guiding Principles
for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of the project. The Board determined that
the partial second story addition would result in a visually pronounced structure, appearing
massive from both Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road. The Board discussed design alternatives
with the applicant which would properly comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines and address
the concerns of the neighbors, and stressed the idea of excavation into the hillside. The applicant
said he had considered alternative design solutions, and requested an up or down vote on the
project as submitted. The Board denied the application both on the basis that the project was
inconsistent with design review principles and guidelines, and that insufficient evidence had been
provided to grant the variance requests. Staff notes that the appeal makes no attempt to refute the
Board's denial of the two variance applications.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and
2. Direct Staff to return with a Resolution denying the appeal, for adoption at the
next meeting.
Exhibits:
"t
,I~W"""
C-Y"~
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Notice of Appeal from Firuze Hariri
Photographs from the surrounding neighborhood of 9 Burrell Court
Letter dated October 22, 2007 from Spencer and July Bloch
Letter dated October 10, 2007 from Pete Petri
Goal 1, Principle 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines
Goal 1, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines
Minutes of the September 20, 2007 Design Review Board meeting
Design Review Board Staff Report dated September 20, 2007
Resolution No. 2007-05
Minutes of the September 6, 2007 Design Review Board meeting
Design Review Board Staff Report dated September 6, 2007
Letter dated September 4, 2007 from Michael & Philippa
Beaumont
Letter dated September 4,2007 from Spencer Bloch
Minutes of the August 2, 2007 Design Review Board meeting
Design Review Board Staff Report and Supplemental Materials
dated August 2, 2007
Email and Letter dated July 18, 1007 from Michael Beaumont
Letter dated July 25, 2007 from Spencer Bloch
Minutes of the April 5, 2007 Design Review Board meeting
Design Review Board Staff Report and Supplemental Materials
dated April 5, 2007
Letter dated January 16, 2007 from Pedersen Associates
Planning Division Notice of Action dated October 30,2002
R()\
Prepared By:
'rO\Vll ('()uncil
November 7, 2CH)7
22. Letter dated November 3,2003 from Planning Division
23. Letter dated February 6, 2007 from Michael & Philippa Beaumont
24. Letter dated February 12,2007 from Ramon & Benita Truman
25. Letter dated February 13,2007 from Eric & Barbara Roberts
26. Letter dated February 14, 2007 from Spencer Bloch
27. Letter dated February 26, 2007 from Christopher Wand
28. Letter dated March 9,2007 from Christopher Wand
29. Email dated March 30, 2007 from Michael Beaumont
30. Photographs taken from 7 Burrell Court by Michael Beaumont
Associate Planner Tyler
'R()\
TOWN OF TffiURON
NOTICE OF APPEAL
APPELLANT
....-. It I ,:
Name: 1-, ((Ale.. nan n
Address:*q. 'BlA(reJI eOur~ 1d~urO()1 CA Of4Q2o
.
Telephone: 4(t?- ClZI. 5B09 (Work) (Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED ~ /
Body: ')1 f Ii )-, rY' II } -t ~ )1/ if / L .
./
Date of Action: ()tJ..D be ( 1 I 7.fX) t
Name of Applicant: F,'rtAce.. t-lan"l' ,
Nature of Application: R r W7 17 d-R /~
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
11 ,'YI ) -I
o ~VI
s ~ J
Last Day to File: (f)d
Fee Paid: S-O-D t3
/ 2()D 7.
f
Date Received:
Date of Hearing:
January 2004
/fJ 7
nlr.!,~~--k:fi ?fvr'
EXHIBIT NO. I '~! ''). C ' I/? -- L'
ffl.lcf-~ c <411A ,L~K
() t.f'- /) t. 0,,) 7-
'/fl iF' 6~1e ~'F~Li ~?-
Vcf 17 ( l()O]-
'15) Q ~ ~ ~ ~ W~ fill
Jru OCT - 1 2007 l!JJ
'WWN CLERK
:fGWN OF :nSURON
Body: Tiburon Design Review Board
Date of Acti?n: September 20, 2007
Name of Applicant: Firuze Hariri
Nature of application: Site Plan and Architectural Review
Grounds for Appeal: "
This appeal is submitted on the grounds that the September 20, 2007, decision
by the Tiburon Design Review Board ("ORB") denying Applicant's application for
Site Plan and Architectural Review approval (APN 034-302-05), was based on
findings insufficient to support the denial. Furthermore, that the findings relied
upon were not supported by substantial evidence in the record, thereby
rendering the denial an abuse of discretion on the part of the ORB.
The ORB determined, in Resolution 2007-05, that the proposed project would be,
"out of character with the existing neighborhood conditions." Extensive
photographic evidence submitted with this appeal demonstrates that the
proposed improvements are actually perfectly compatible with the surrounding
structures, including the house located directly next door to the subject
property.
The ORB expressed concern that, "the proposed improvements are not
excavated into the hillside to reduce effective bulk." The Town of Tiburon
Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings ("Guidelines"), Goal 1, Principle 9,
suggests the use of, "underground spaces to reduce bulk." Excavation into the
hillside in this case is counterintuitive, and would result in impacts on the downhill
neighbor which were sought to be avoided by Applicant.
Page 10 of the Guidelines states that below-grade rooms are best suited for
uses such as, "shops, billiards, storage, halls, closets, etc." These suggested uses
recognize the fact that subsurface development results in extremely dark and
uninviting spaces not suitable for everyday living quarters. Based on the project
goals here, excavation is therefore not appropriate.
Other important factors make below-grade plans unworkable in this situation.
The most relevant being the location of the neighboring downhill property on
Reed Ranch Road. A successful effort was made to involve this neighbor in the
selection and design of landscaping and privacy screens on the down-slope
portion of the subject property. Subterranean development would not only
EXHIBIT NO. I
p~. zcl3
make these mutually agreed upon improvements impossible, but would push
the footprint o.f the house into an area that would have a far greater impact in
terms of pro<<imity and sightlines, negatively effecting this homeowner's
property. The fact that below-grade development is unsuitable for this project,
coupled with the cited deleterious impact on the downhill neighbor in
comparison to the proposed plans, it was inappropriate of the ORB to deny the
application based on lack of excavated space.
Additionally, the ORB focused on the fact that the project property is located at
the end of a cul-de-sac and therefore subject to heightened scrutiny. This
discriminatory treatment is not warranted under state law or any Town of Tiburon
policies, and actually fails to recognize mitigating factors regarding this property
location. First, when driving down Burrell Court, due to the curvature of the road,
it is actually the neighboring two-story home that is most prominent. Second, the
subject property is significantly set back from the roadway, thereby greatly
diminishing its visibility.
Finally, the ORB addressed the "bulk and mass" of the proposed improvements
while referring to Goal 1, Principle 1 of the Guidelines. One of the ways the
Guidelines suggest an applicant may overcome concerns regarding bulk and
mass. is the employment of methods further described in Goal 1 , Principle 3,
which suggests that projects "reduce effective mass with vertical and horizontal
articulation." Here, the property owner and architect have specifically altered
the proposed plans by setting the second story back an additional four feet
from the downhill side of the house. This articulation breaks up the structure and
results in a significant reduction in the appearance of mass. Furthermore, as
shown in the accompanying photographs, many of the surrounding homes lack
any such articulation whatsoever and appear as monolithic structures. The
proposed variation from these "walled" houses should be a welcome addition
to this area of Tiburon.
In conclusion, this appeal should be granted on the grounds that the findings in
the ORB denial resolution are conclusory and fail to identify how the evidence in
the record could possibly lead to a denial in light of the specific facts.
A de novo review of the evidence will demonstrate that the facts support
findings that this application for Site Plan and Architectural Review should be
granted.
EXHIBIT NO. I
ffl.~J3
,,-,
~
--'
-~
.....)
,~
o
.~
EXHIBIT NO. 2
e. 2dP Cf
'.
EXHIBIT NO. 2
ffl' ~.,.o cr
EXHIBIT NO. 2J't
~~.4
2
EXHIBIT NO. sell,!
~.
. ':a~.
,~
fffI
2
R, XHIBIT NO. , aJ
'" ~ . 0
-J2
EXHIBIT NO. 2
~. 7~ cr
EXHIBIT NO. 2
{j. ~ cPq
J
EXHIBIT NO. 2
~ . 'I cP'1
October 19,2007
Members of the Town Council and Ms. Laurie Tyler
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Bl.
Tiburon, CA 94920
[D) ~~~~W~ fm
.mJ OCT 2 2 2007 W
re: Appeal of rejected proposed addition to 9 Burrell Court
Dear Members of the Town Council and Ms. Tyler:
l~OWN CLERK
J"DWN OF .:J;JBURON
The aesthetics of the neighborhood and privacy considerations are the major objections to
this proposal. To these we would add fairness, reasonableness, and lack of necessity.
1) Aesthetics: Ms. Hariri's house is on the Reedlands' ridgeline above our home at 54
Reed Ranch Road. We favor protecting ridgelines from protruding building profiles. The
two houses to the west of hers have low-profile flat roofs which lend an unobtrusive and
more natural look to the area as it blends into Ring Mountain a couple of houses away. The
ambience of any neighborhood does not only include the water-side views. Her proposal
would effectively create a three-story edifice, sticking out like a sore thumb, and looming
over her downslope neighbors.
a) The DRB and all who have commented on it considered this proposal out of
character in the neighborhood. Yet, at the original hearing, after the DRB offered specific
guidelines for a plan that would be looked upon more favorably that involved building
below rather than above her house, the applicant's representative stated that they have no
interest in that. And they have not budged in any substantive way.
b) Amongst the stated reasons for this project was enhancing her view. I climbed a
step ladder on her front deck and the view will not be enhanced by building up. The fact
that it is more expensive to build under the existing structure is absolutely irrelevant. No
one is requiring Ms. Hariri to add to her house. There has been no demonstrated need to
build up that justifies altering the quality of life in a long-established neighborhood.
2) Privacy: The applicant's architect and one DRB member felt that privacy is not a
significant consideration for our home because of distance and vegetation. That is
debatable when looking up at the story poles from our outside living area.
3) Fairness, reasonableness, and necessity:
a) When faced with similar objections to a similar proposal, another neighbor (N.
Roberts) separated by one house on the Reed Ranch Road side of Ms. Hariri's home,
agreed to add under her home. There may have been a view easement involved, but is it
fair that the situation be any different for this proposal?
(Recent articles in a local paper, one of which is enclosed, have questioned what
happens to the inventory of smaller homes like these two, if all are granted variances and
end up being much larger. Unfortunately, a bad precedent was set in this town long before
the current council was seated. It is still worth considering the wisdom of granting so
much opportunity to overdevelop one's property, especially in the absence of demonstrated
need. )
EXHIBIT NO. 3 -
~
2
b) The prior owners of Ms. Hariri' s house had never requested more than topping
our trees to satisfy their view requirements. Last year, Ms. Hariri approached us and later
the Trumansabout trees interlering with the full, unobstructed view she wanted and now
enjoys. We accommodated her immediately, and in ways about which we have personal
reservations--cutting down trees. Yet, now when the proverbial shoeis on the other foot,
and her plans compromise our environment, she has just thrown a couple of bones our way
(i.e., minimal shifting on the lot, one-foot lowering of roof, more vegetation).
4) One last matter may require comment, since one DRB member observed for the record
that some of us who objected to this proposal did not attend all their hearings. If this is in
any way relevant to your deliberations, please consider the following: First, it takes more
time and effort to write <it succinct letter than to speak at a meeting. We attended the first
hearing, at which others spoke effectively, obviating the need to repeat what everybody
understood about this proposal. We reviewed all proceedings, submitted letters for all
three hearings, and sent copies to Ms. Hariri. Second, some of us have competing
obligations. Third, no substantive changes were ever made that addressed the DRB' s
unanimous, unambiguous, and unequivocal response at the initial meeting. Ms. Hariri' s
stated and demonstrated absolute indifference to the DRB recommendations and the
objections of the neighborhood made denial of her proposal non-controversial.
Ms. Hariri and her representatives may be operating on the premise that 'If you keep
coming back long enough, you'll wear everybody else down and get what you want' --no
matter how unnecessary or inappropriate. We hope you will not go along with that.
Sincerely,
~~ u.J ~~
ClL_ t/ ~
~y'IBIoch
H. Spencer Bloch
54 Reed Ranch Road
Tiburon, CA 94920-2083
cc: Ms. Firuze Hariri
EXHIBIT NO. .3
ffl.Zc:II3
(.L~I.l:.1. . J1(..J;) lUll. t''CIIO)!"otl U..L.~I't1Ul\l ~uc.u(..uu ~""..."...".. "'+'1"~" IIV t'.................".......l ......!+...".......~u ..........u \d) .......!......"........:U .........'u t"'" ...'I~..._..t'--~ "'V -. - .',..- - - ;...- ---
, 'If"
;1 ()..I~ .v
~~ (/3/dr
\ '
A space
MARIN VOICE
not a housing
. .
crISIS
ANEW REPORT by the Pew
Charitable Trust's Economic
Mobility Project shows that
American men make less today than
their fathers did 30 years ago.
Economic inequality is growing and
it is having a substantial effect on the
ability of the average person having the
kind of quality of life, in family time and
security that Americans enjoyed in the
past.
What is also clear is that the afford-
ability of housing is dropping across the
country.
In light of this information, we must
view the campaign by the Marin Com-
munity Foundation against "NIMBY -
ism" as unfortunate. The foundation
will not produce positive results by call-
ing names. Increasing housing simply
to increase density will not promote
opportunity or affordability.
Also, the foundation's focus and the
cause of this attack is simply wrong.
We do not have a housing crisis in
Marin - or in California. We have a,
space crisis. This is made clear every
time there is a recession or a significant
reduction in employment as after the
1987 stock market collapse or the dot-
com collapse. At these times, people
move in with friends or rent rooms in
houses with strangers or family. We
then hear of a crisis in the housing mar-
ket due to oversupply.
When times are good, people want
more space. Not only do we fmd a tight
housing market but pressure on small
units on large parcels to be renovated
and enlarged or replaced with McMan-
sions.
Our appetite for size is causing the
crisis in housing. We see it every day
around us where small one- and two-
.J
HleCOlO CAlDARARO
N iccolo Calda-
raro is a former
Fairfax town
councilman. He
teaches anthro-
pology at San
Francisco State
University.
bedroom, affordable houses in every
town and city are being enlarged or de-
stroyed to make way for bigger homes.
Homes in which people raised a fam-
ily of two or three children in 1,000
square feet are giving way to homes for
two people (if it is not a second home for
a single family) of3,000 or 5,000 square
feet.
Big houses need more low-paid work-
ers to act as nannies, gardeners, etc.,
causing more transit demands for work-
ers out of cOWlty.
lithe Marin Community Foundation
wants to make Marin's housing more
affordable, it should lobby for a morito-
rium on the destruction of single-family
dwellings or the remodeling of such
homes. We do not need more housing
- just more efficient use of existing
housing and land.
The Marin CommWlity Foundation
seems to believe that more density is
better.
This also is true of our local build-
ers and real estate lobby. They push
"green building" as if it were an answer
to more building, but as Jane Powell
noted in her article in the Chronicle's
Sunday magazine, this can hardly be
the answer, because demolishing 10,000
square feet of old buildings wipes out
the environmental benefit of recycling
2,688,000 aluminum cans.
No matter how many "green" prod-
ucts are used to build a house, the de-
struction of our small housing stock is
. rapidly making our housing inventory
more expensive.
Studies have found that the denser
the population, the less healthy the
environment. In a comprehensive study
of cities the world over, the United
Nations' Habitat study, "State of the
World's Cities" published in 2006 dem-
onstrated that people living in cities
were no better off and sometimes worse
that those living in rural areas when
compared to a bank of health criteria.
Mike Davis' new book, "Planet of
Slums," argues that the expanding cit-
iesand suburbs leave little space for
social interaction and produce crowded,
poorly serviced living areas ripe for vio-
lence and crime.
Daily we see our quality of live eroded
by more cars, more waste, more de-
mands on water and more pollution
from services for more people in Marin
County. People are the problem.
So I, for one, am proud to be called a
NIMBY - "Not In My Back Yard."
Let's consider that the county and its
towns limit development to simply the
replacement of existing housing, that
all housing footprints be frozen as they
are and that all units be rehabilitated
as they are sold to accommodate less
energy use.
The Marin Community Foundation
could subsidize rehabilitated housing
for low-cost workers and our housing in-
ventory would have a chance to balance
to the economic needs of the county.
"Vl-lIBIT NO. ~
PO- g~3
F. Pete Petri
14 Tara View Drive
Tiburon, California 94920
RECEIVED
OCT 1 0 2007
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
October 7,2007
Dear Tiburon Town Council:
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed project at #9 Burrell Court in
the Town of Tiburon. As neighbors of the property on which the
improvements are proposed, I thought it is important to inform the Council
that since this design does not interfere with any of the neighbors' views in
the neighborhood; we support the proposed remodeling and addition of a
second story to this property. Accordingly, we urge the Council to consider
approving the project plans as submitted for the addition to #9 Burrell Court.
,
Thank you for considering our opinion during the Council's hearing on this
matter.
EXHIBIT NO. 4
I: '
:c ~im
0, .
::a )c' '
N10"
OCZ'
Z~
.... "_.
..tt ·
....-.
r-:: ~A
-< 'Ill
· ,....,~i
me;>
!: -a z;
z...., " I
-.^
a:.z y#
C iii ,t:=
~~
c,~.a '
.;; m .1Il
.... c!:
~-Z
z6n1 ;
n z- ''''',
m V"
DiQ '.'
m.m
-1)(..
~ '0"
,m
men
zm
C
n-l
;0
Z"
G)'~
mm
(I)'~
O'~
-n".
. '-u
"::a "
....0
~ .
z')('
mi '
I~
-n....
,Om
~....
><
::a
........
_.0
,n "TI
em
....
,'~m
....-1
-<
Om
Z::a
0)-1
-nn
m~
m....
.......
:c<
0"
::ac,.)
NO
o-n
zm
....m
~-I
....
r-
<-
I
I;i
I
I
\
\
f
I
l
\ (
.'
~ 5 i_
)< ~ ' ,
, " r)
I_< ro
. ~rn -;J
1\l ~ \.T \
N-:-!~ ./
~,' t"',?: /
:r p ,,- /
- r- '
-y ~ ~- /
~:- 'l. - '
OJ
'Q
C')~ ~
-
w
."
~w
;
i
I
(
,
I
I
t
t
~
I
J
I
,/
l
I
'.
I\
('")'
^Si\J
OI~
'3> {\\
(t~
U\T. --
~Ji
'\
<(1\
ll'"-\\
Lr
~~
r~LL
lJim
r:C)
r"
~:v
.<
I.
L
r
\-
.
{l\01~
:rCl\j
~ ~- {l'
c_?=~
-lC..
~ \J -..-
Im.l
- t.~
--i t'--h
~~5
\Pro.......
{l1lV~
m~U.
11(l\~
\\ I (\l
ro~u
~ C'_
-\ ~ \'~
<~rn
(R ...
. -=-I lJr
cp<
{lid'--
~~
~r-
.\}
{\l
17-
,<:J
1--(
I~
1rold. -u,
! (- f'\. 1\J
j!{\\15 K
!I.-o
(\I, jI_ r
~T~ [ll
,r Ul
, lro "
1,- k
!{ll ~
, l~ ~
~-t \}
I~ ,- ,
~I}>
}l f~
'~fro
lh1 m
I')> x,
I]: ~
ie-II-
l-ul~
, '0\
t31~
1J>ltl
10- -u
l~ly
I().'!:I:..
Ie r{
Iii 1>-
'"II?
iP'~
C'I:'l
1- (ll
Ir,J:S
1'0-
-Il>
FT- r-
r~l-
~II
~i?
II_1 (}
I 1-
LiI
~L~
!'-lr
NI{1t
1()1"U
i:[ r--
~I)>
I lI_
'Y I!"
I,II'
!u \)
J,ll
h._I '
iro
110
~i
l,~
Ir-
S-
EXHIBIT NO.
. '.' .
~"U37J <: I.~
(ll "' 0 K: ~ I..
~f:~ I r-~
r.. f\l [t:]1
?Va ~
~ ~tJI ro ~ i11
lTltTl~ F rF
zP~ ~ ~ ~
(Jt h]-~ ~ m~
I ~ U. > "if ~
c.P lV >- ,.)
u I~ ro ~:~.
Pl~(1 t- m~
l'1 -f f11 r~ (;;! ~
N ~ 7'J )- · )\) ,", '
o ~ O:r. ~ / '<,\\
z, f:i,~\" , . ~{\1 /// ~::~'
ZZ(/l)>....~ '
m-t {--, \
3: .\
f)N> ro
o 0-< R / ' .,
~ 2: IV . Q1 ~
",r.. J (ll~
(i) '\)
\)\1
~Qi
~r_
}>or
a"}:.
m
I~
-
~~.aJ
:II 2J C'
mm .
:.-:.-:D:
o mo
:DOZ
:D :
~<D.:;
r-om
cr-(D
~C_"
",Eg,
nm '
OU) Z~ .
o "
~,.G):
:II:D C,
~,o6t
-i:m . ,
tI) r- '
- '.
01%" :
Om ;
~tn,.. .
,CD '
m
b' - .
~
G)
:a
:.
o
m
o .'
;II
~
o
:a
m ~.
~
:.
-<
CD
m:
o
m
o ,,'
c "
'Q
....
m
o
'"II
::D
o
E
..
,.,..
~
CS
~
:.-
CD
,..
riI
CD
c
-6
z
. 'G)
c
l
C.
().
(\1
G
U
ro
.)>
a
U.
V
....
o ""D
(D.
.
~c.
t:.u
('- I..
~,
c-
~ ~ ~- (} ~;"',
~(ll-~
:r.~I))-
u cm ~ c
---'m:I
~-\ i\:) l>- ..., )>--
Q rn rn lP"
, r_~
:C, ..... c- r, .
---~T r
I7\1~)>~
~ ~ ,-:
... ~i\) I~
\~~~
, "D 1':5 -.....,
.. /~'~~.
.
C:'
It'
u~
{llr
j\\'-l
~~
~n!
'-1-1
C.
I~
oj
....
ro
(}
1--(
I~
EXHIBIT NO. -6
IIIQI~ ~
\0 ~u:r.
-IL~
~J~~
~l m
{'-1m -D
(II -n ~;
-:ll '
tl-m(U
,~x
I'~,I<, '~,
~l{\1 ~
~I~~
l{- c.
IJC I::L
~ '
t-o U
Ii\) (ll
~~
<~
_ iU
a()
(11L:..
1m I
i',~r~
~'~~,I:;
,m
~ r
cntJ
I
t..ll <
l~ <..
l~~
Hi)
I}' t1I
II..
10 ~
lm.~
1~1~
It? I~
1110
!511~
l\ll >
~I~
l~8
If It"\..
lrl):
ir1r-
r~
I
MINUTES #16
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20,2007
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chair Frymier.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Doyle, Vice-Chair Frymier, Boardmembers Corcoran, Glassner and Teiser
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Associate Planner Tyler, Assistant Planner Phillips, and Minutes Clerk Harper
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Associate Planner Tyler noted that the application for 490 Ridge Road is being continued to the
October 18, 2007 meeting.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
/1.
9 BURRELL COURT
HARIRI, RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
There was no public comment.
Boardmember Teiser stated that he had abstained at the previous meeting on the vote due to the
uncertainty of Mr. Beaumont's and Mr. Truman's support for the project, who were not in
attendance, and Boardmember T eiser said he would have supported a continuance. He said the
applicant did not want a continuance and the vote of the Board was to deny the application.
Boardmember Glassner said at issue was also the fact that the applicant had come before the.
Board several times, the neighbors continued to have many issues, and the applicant continued to
ignore the Board's recommendations, which he felt was the driving force for denial.
Chair Doyle said the Board tries to provide the best input to make things better and to move
forward and does not want to repeatedly consider items when applicants completely disregard
the requests of the Board.
Vice-Chair Frymier confirmed with staff that the Board would be adopting a resolution of denial
and the applicant could choose to appeal the matter to the Town Council She expressed hope that
the applicants would return with a revised project.
ACTION: It was MIS (GlassnerlFrymier) to adopt the resolution denying the project at 9
Burrell Court. Vote: 5-0.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #16
9/20/07
1
EXHIBIT NO. 7
TOWN OF TIBURON
rx; 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Design Review Board Meeting
September 20, 2007
Agenda Item: D 1
STAFF REPORT
To:
Members of the Design Review Board
From:
Associate Planner Tyler
Subject:
9 Burrell Court: File No. 20633
Adoption of a Resolution Denying a Site Plan and Architectural
Review Application for Additions to a Single-Family Dwelling with
Variances for Reduced Front Yard Setback and Excess Lot Coverage
Reviewed By:
SUMMARY
On September 6, 2007, the Design Review Board considered a request to approve a Site Plan and
Architectural Review application for additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with
variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, on property located at 9 Burrell
Court. After considering the application, the Board directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying
the application. The requested resolution has been prepared and is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Design Review Board adopt the attached resolution denying a Site
Plan and Architectural Review application for additions to an existing single-family dwelling
with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage.
Exhibits:
1.
Draft Resolution
Prepared By:
Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner
EXHIBIT NO. <3
RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-F AMIL Y DWELING
WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS LOT
COVERAGE, AT 9 BURRELL COURT
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-302-05
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. On November 15,2006, the Town of Tiburon received an application for Site Plan and
Architectural Review for the construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage
(Application #20633) on property located at 9 Burrell Court.' The application consists of
the following:
1. Application Form and supplemental materials received November 15,2006 and
July 11, 2007; and
2. Site plan, floor plans, section drawings and elevations prepared by Ali Majlessi,
Designer, received November 15,2006 and January 16,2007;
3. Site plan, floor plans, section drawings and elevations prepared by Michael
Heckmann, Architect, received July 11,2007 and August 27,2007.
B. The Design Review Board held duly-noticed public hearings on April 5, 2007, August 2,
2007 and September 6, 2007, and heard and considered testimony from interested
persons.
C. The Design Review Board reviewed the submitted plans for the proposed project in
accordance with Section 4.02.7 of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles in the
Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications), 16-4.3 (Variances) and the
Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. The Design Review Board finds, based upon
application materials and analysis presented in the April 5, 2007, August 2, 2007 and
September 6, 2007 Staff Reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the
proposed improvements would result in a visually pronounced structure which would
appear massive from both Burrell Court and below the subject site along Reed Ranch
Road, as well as appear to be out of character with the existing neighborhood conditions
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2007-05
September 20, 2007
1
EXHIBIT NO. ~
both on Burrell Court and within the surrounding neighborhood.
D. The Design Review Board reviewed the submitted plans for the proposed project in
accord~ce with Goal 1, Principles 1 and 9 of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines.
The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented
in the April 5,2007, August 2,2007 and September 6, 2007 Staff Reports, public
testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the proposed improvements are not excavated
into the hillside to reduce effective bulk, and that other design alternatives exist to gain
additional living space to better comply with the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines.
E. The Design Review Board reviewed the submitted plans for the proposed project in
accordance with Section 16-4.3 of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Findings for Variances).
The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials, public testimony, as
well as visits to the site, that insufficient evidence exists to support the findings for the
requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. Granting the
variances would result in a project which would be injurious to other properties in the
vicinity, based on the proposal to add a partial second story to the structure which would
be out of character with the existing neighborhood conditions and too visually prominent
due to its location at the end of the Burrell Court cul-de-sac.
Section 2. Denial.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby deny the proposed application for Site Plan and Architectural Review and
Variances for the reasons set forth above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town
of Tiburon on September 20, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
BOARDMEMBERS:
DOYLE, CORCORAN, FRYMIER, GLASSNER AND
TEISER
NONE
NONE
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
BOARDMEMBERS:
BOARDMEMBERS:
F~~N ~
TIBURON DESIGN RE JEW BOARD
ATTEST:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2007-05
September 20, 2007
2
EXHIBIT NO.---L
~.~Z
MINUTES #15
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
The meeting was opened at 7:01 p.m. by Chair Doyle.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Doyle~ Boardmembers Corcoran, Glassner and Teiser
Absent: Vice-Chair Frymier
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Dan Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler, Assistant Planner
Phillips and Minutes Clerk Harper
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous noted that the item for 544 Silverado Drive was continued to the
September 20, 2007 meeting. He also noted that Kol Shofar synagogue has submitted their
application for expansion and staff will most likely schedule a special DRB meeting for the item
due to the high attendance at previous Town meetings.
D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
=)1.
9 BURRELL COURT
EXCEPTION
HARIRI, ADDITIONSN ARIANCE/FLOOR AREA
On April 5 and August 2,2007, the Design Review Board reviewed an application
for the expansion and additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with
variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. During the
meetings, several of the adjacent neighbors on Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road
objected to the proposal, which included adding a partial second story to the home.
Concerns raised included that the subject property already had a view to the south,
and the addition of a second story would not only enhance the view, but result in a
looming structure over Reed Ranch Road, block views for neighbors around Burrell
Court, and create a home that would look out of character with the neighborhood.
The application was' continued in both instances, with direction that the applicant
work more closely with neighbors to come to a better solution to expand the
residence. At the August 2 meeting, it was the consensus of the Design Review
Board that the house design appeared to have been relatively unchanged and
needed to be further modified to lower the roofline, possibly by excavating below the
house. The application was continued to the September 6 meeting. Revisedplans
have again been submitted for the project.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #15
1
9/6/07
EXHIBIT NO. IOk:{
~.(~
Michael HecKmann, architect, described the revised plans for the project, including
the reduction in the overall roof height of the second story addition by one foot, and
modifications to the roof design from a gabled roofline to a hipped roof with a flat
portion at the center. He noted changes made to the proposed landscape plan which
would increase the size of screening trees to be planted from 24 inch box specimens
to 36 inch box trees. He, said they abandoned the idea of shifting additional square
footage under the house due to noise impacts from Reed Ranch Road and the lack of
light available to such excavated space. He felt that the neighbors' major issues had
been addressed. He summarized conversations with Mr. Truman and Mr. Beaumont, and
believed the neighbors now supported the application. Mr. Heckmann presented photographs of
other homes in the vicinity and compared the proposed design with other similar dwellings. He
stated that Mr. Beaumont requested to make the master bath window obscure glass; and install
the two Oleander trees with an 18 foot height, with the understanding that if the applicant could
fulfill these two requests, Mr. Beaumont would approve of the request.
Boardmember Corcoran noted that Mr. Beaumont's letter of September 3 did not talk at all about
the window, but did describe a number of outstanding issues involving blockage of views and
two-story design. Mr. Heckmann responded that he spoke with Mr. Beaumont on September 4
and confirmed comments made by him.
Boardmember Glassner questioned how changing the roofline and trees addressed massing and
bulk issues. Mr. Heckmann replied that he felt that the design was within the context of the
existing neighborhood and that the changes proposed provided an appropriate solution.
Boardmember Glassner referred to the Board's previous recommendation to excavate and lower
the house and reduce massing, adding that he felt the issues identified in Mr. Beaumont's letter
of September 3 were significant. Mr. Heckmann reiterated his discussion with Mr. Beaumont.
Mr. Heckmann stated that excavation was not warranted as it would result in living space which
would be dark and would be impacted by noise from Reed Ranch Road. He felt that the scale
achieved by the addition was appropriate, good-looking and worked well for the neighborhood.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Christopher Wand noted that 9 neighbors who had previously objected to the application had not
offered any written approval of the revised plans. He felt that it was optimistic that Mr.
Beaumont would approve of the second floor. He said Mr. Truman could not attend the meeting,
and read Mr. Truman's comments into the record requesting changes to the height. He disagreed
with the applicant's negative characterization of excavated space, and suggested large picture
windows, skylights, and sun tubes could be used to bring light into such space. He asked
whether approval of the design would run with the property if the house was sold and asked the
Board to approve a home that conforms to the Hillside Guidelines.
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #15
2
EXHIBIT NO. JO
~. 2;4
9/6/07
Boardmember Teiser noted the Hillside Guidelines protect primary views and confirmed that Mr.
Wand's primary yiews were more toward Mt. Tamalpais, away from the subject property.
In response to~a question from Boardmember Corcoran, Mr. Wand stateq that his views across
the subject home were of a hill above Trestle Glen and then Mt. Tiburon in the distance.
Mr. Heckmann showed a photograph of the view from Mr. Wand~s front deck and said that his
main views are from another part of the house. Mr. Heckmann reiterated Mr. Beaumont's
agreement to the proposal, given compliance with his two outstanding requests, but noted that
they would most likely need to identify a tree that would be 18 feet tall when planted.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Boardmember Teiser stated that he understood the concerns raised by the Board regarding this
project. He found it incongruous that Mr. Beaumont and Mr. Block submitted correspondence
but were unable to attend meetings and confirm their concerns. He said that he visited Mr.
Wand's house, whose primary views were to the west and away from the subject home. He noted
that Mr. Beaumont's has a two-story home, yet objects to a second story addition, and that his
views are from the upper story master bedroom and bathroom and are not primary views. He
stated that his biggest concern was the impact on Mr. Truman and from Reed Ranch Road, and
that Mr. Truman appears to now be satisfied. He agreed that the house was in a prominent
location at the end of the cul-de-sac location but he was perplexed as to how to decide on the
application.
Boardmember Glassner felt there were some view issues from Burrell Court, but that the main
issue was that the second story still appeared to be massive when viewed from Reed Ranch
Road. He stated that the design appears to be relatively unchanged and he preferred something
be done with excavation or spreading out floor area on the property, possibly with a lot coverage
or setback variance. He was concerned that relatively little progress had been made on the
proj ect.
Boardmember Teiser agreed that bringing the house forward toward Burrell Court could help
and that the Board might consider granting a lot coverage variance to do so.
Boardmember Corcoran asked whether the landscaping approved 6 months ago had been
installed at the front stucco wall area. Mr Heckmann replied that nothing had yet been planted.
Boardmember Corcoran stated that this was the same discussion that has been held regarding this
application since April. He stated Design Review Board must be consistent with the design of
the homes in the neighborhood. He cited Goal 1, Principle 1 of the Hillside Guidelines, which
states that buildings should be cut into the hillside to reduce visual bulk. He agreed that many
properties in the area have expanded in the last couple of years, and that some have expanded
below. He agreed that light can be an issue, but if one wants light, one should not necessarily
buy a hillside home. He felt the neighbors and the applicant needed to work together, but little
progress had been made. He noted that the previous approval for a stucco wall at the front of the
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #15
3
EXHIBIT NO. J 0
~ · acJl4
9/6/07
house called for shrubs to be planted, and he felt that planting the shrubs would have been a good
gesture to the neighbors.
BoardmemberDlassner stated that the solution to this project is not to plant taller trees, but to
make the second story smaller.
Chair Doyle said he had no problems with the design originally and still did not, except that the
house is at the end of the view corridor on this cul-de-sac. He stated that the applicant was
instructed to work with neighbors on identifying other approaches but this was not done, and
although some things were changed, the suggestions of the Board were mainly ignored. He said
that he would like to see solutions that spread area out on the lot in a different way, possibly with
just the master bedroom upstairs. He noted that the other two-story houses in the area do not
have the same effect as this design and he requested other options be pursued.
Planning Manager Watrous recommended that if the Board was interested in continuing the item,
it should confirm with the applicant whether or not they are willing to make such changes.
Chair Doyle asked if the applicant was willing to look at other options or would rather have
Board deny the application. Mr. Heckmann requested the Board vote on the project tonight and
said they have looked at other solutions.
ACTION: It was MIS (Corcoran/Glassner) to direct staff to prepare a Resolution denying
the application to be brought back at the next meeting for approval. Vote: 3-0-1 (Teiser
abstained).
2.
23 OLD LANDING ROAD
HARLE, NEW DWELLING
The application to construct a new single-family residence at 23 Old Landing Road
was first reviewed at the July 19, 2007 Design Review Board meeting. At that
meeting concerns were raised by several neighbors along Old Landing Road about
the visual prominence of proposed house design, particularly when viewed from the
roadway below the site. The neighbors felt that the two-story design and size oft;he
house would be inconsistent with the rural character of the Old Landing Road
neighborhood. The Design Review Board shared some of these concerns, and
recommended that the upper floor be reduced in size to decrease the visual mass of
the house. The application was continued to the September 6, 2007 meeting to give
the applicants time to address these concerns. Revised plans have now been
submitted.
Jonathon Harle, owner, said plans for the house design had been revised and two
meetings had been held with neighbors. He said that the master bedroom was
moved from the second floor to the first floor of the house, with a guest room now to
be situated to the rear of the second floor. The sides of the second floor have been
moved in from those of the first floor and the ridgeline of the house has been
lowered 2 feet, 9 inches. They also redesigned all pitches to be hip roof sections,
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES #15
4
EXHIBIT NOieo ~4-
9/6/07
TOWN OF TIBURON
~ 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
. ,f Tiburon, CA 94920
Design Review Board Meeting
September 6, 2007
Agenda Item: D 1
ST \FF I{EP()I{'I
To:
Members of the Design Review Board
From:
Planning Manager Watrous
Subject:
9 BurreD Court; File #20633
Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an
Existing Single-Family Dwelling With Variances for Reduced Front
Yard Setback and Excess Lot Coverage
(Continued from August 2, 2007)
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2007, the Design Review Board reviewed an application for the expansion and
additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and
excess lot coverage, on property located at 9 Burrell Court. During the meeting, several of the
adjacent neighbors on Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road objected to the proposal, which
included adding a partial second story to the home. Concerns raised included that the subject
property already had a view to the south, and the addition of a second story would not only
enhance the view, but result in a looming structure over Reed Ranch Road, block views for
neighbors around Burrell Court~ and create a home that would look out of character with the
neighborhood.
Overall the Board was not in favor of the proposed project, and determined that if so many
neighbors surrounding the property objected, then the applicant needed to work more closely with
the neighbors to come to a better solution to expand the residence. At the time, the applicant was
not inclined to revise the proposal or work with the neighbors. The Board continued the project,
with the recommendation that there were other solutions to gain additional floor area without
adding a partial second story, and perhaps a larger excess lot coverage variance to do so.
Revised plans were submitted and reviewed by the Design Review Board on August 2, 2007.
Major revisions from the previous submittal included an overall reduction in exterior lighting,
elimination of the small terrace located at the front of the home (north), and elimination of several
of the windows on the west elevation, to address both noise and privacy concerns of the adjacent
neighbors on Burrell Court. The partial second story was shifted 4 feet back to the north, to
discourage what was previously regarded as a looming effect on the neighbors along Reed Ranch
Road. The proposed gross floor area increased from 3,428 square feet to 3,464 square feet, and
the proposed lot coverage decreased, from 22.6% to 22.1%.
EXHIBIT NO. I \
Design Review Board Meeting
Septernber 6,2007
At the August 2 meeting, several neighbors again raised objections to the potential view impacts
of the addition arid questioned the project's consistency with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood...' It was the consensus of the Design Review Board that the house design appeared
to have been relatively unchanged and needed to be further modified to lower the roofline,
possibly by excavating below the house. The application was continued to the September 6
meeting.
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The overall roof height of the
second story addition has been reduced by one foot, and the roof design has been modified from a
gabled roofline to a hipped roof with a flat portion at the center. The floor plans appear to be
unchanged, with a floor area of 3,464 square feet which is the same as previously reviewed.
Minor changes have been made to the proposed landscape plan which would increase the size of
screening trees to be planted, either increasing from. 15 gallon size to 24 inch box trees, or from
24 inch box specimens to 36 inch box trees.
The lot coverage and front yard setback proposed as part of this project remain unchanged, again
necessitating variances for excess lot coverage and reduced front yard setback.
ANALYSIS
The changes made to the project plans since the August 2 Design Review Board meeting appear
to be relatively minor. The basic concept of the proposed second story addition has not been
modified, although the roof changes would result in a modest reduction in the overall visual mass
of the addition. These revisions do not appear to comply with the direction of the Board at both
the April 5 and August 2 meetings to more substantially reduce the overall mass of the second
story addition.
The applicant has previously pointed out that other two-story homes are present in the vicinity,
most notably the adjacent residence at 7 Burrell Court. However, the Design Review Board has
previously indicated that the prominence of this house at the end of the Burrell Court cul-de-sac
would make an upper story at this location more visually pronounced for the residents of this
street and more massive when viewed from Reed Ranch Road below. As noted in prior Staff.
reports for this application, the mass and bulk of the proposed addition would appear to be
inconsistent with the principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines which encourage additions to
cut into the hillsides to reduce visual bulk.
Zoning
With the exception of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot
coverage, the project appears to be in conformance with the remaining development regulations
of the RO-2 zoning district.
Variances
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make all of the following findings
required by Section 16-4.3 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
TOWN OF TIBURON
Page 2 of 6
Design I~eview Board Meeting
September 6,2007
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance wiU
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in
the same or similar zones.
Front Yard Setback:
The proposed expansion of the home would push the entry area into the 30 foot front yard
setback, resulting in a 19 foot 5 inch front yard setback at this location. The home is
situated towards the end of a cul-de-sac and has a circular front yard, which results in a
curvilinear front yard setback line. This is a special circumstance applicable to the
property.
Lot Coverage:
The home is situated on a lot that is below the minimum lot size for the RO-2 zoning
district. Combined with the topography of the lot, this creates a difficult site in which to
work with. It is not unusual to see lot coverage requests on substandard parcels.
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.
Front Yard Setback:
Other homes located within cul..de-sacs commonly run into front yard setback issues
because the setback line is curvilinear.
Lot Coverage:
Properties in the vicinity of the subject property, specifically on Burrell Court and along
Reed Ranch Road, have previously been granted variances for excess lot coverage.
Therefore, it is not uncommon for this type of variance request.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
Front Yard Setback:
The existing home is already located within the front yard setback, so it would be an
unnecessary hardship to allow a small section of the entryway to encroach additionally
into the setback.
Lot Coverage:
Due to the existing topography and orientation of the home and surrounding homes,
adding floor area as a full second story to the house to gain additional living space would
impede on possible viewsheds from 7 Burrell Court, and would also increase the mass and
bulk of the structure. The applicant has opted to convert the existing garage into usable
space at the lower level at the front of the property where it is concealed.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
TO\\TTN OF TIBURON
Page 3 of ()
Design Review Board ,Meeting
September 6, 2007
Front Yard Setback:
Granting the front yard setback would not be detrimental or injurious to other properties
because most of the homes along Burrell Court appear to be located within the front yard
setback..
Lot Coverage:
The proposal indicates a partial second story. If the home was proposed with a full
second story and the existing garage was left unconverted, this may result in additional
view blockages for the neighboring residence.
Prom the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings
for the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. However, the
proposal would appear to be inconsistent with the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. If the
partial second story were relocated below the existing structure on the south side of the site, as
previously encouraged by the Design Review Board, there would be a reduction in the mass and
bulk of the home, while maintaining existing viewsheds for both the owner and adjacent
neighbors.
PUBLIC COMMENT
As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the project since the August
2, 2007 Design Review Board meeting.
CONCLUSION
The revised project design has not been substantially changed from the design presented at the
August 2 Design Review Board meeting, and does not appear to reflect the direction of the Board
to modify the basic project design. If the Design Review Board determines that additional
modifications should be made to the project design, more specific design direction should be
given to the applicant. If the applicant is not willing to make the changes necessary to address
these issues, the Board should consider denial of the application due to its inconsistency with the
principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section
4.02.07 (Guiding Principles), 16-4.3 (Variances) and the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, and
determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. The Design Review Board should choose one of the
following options:
1. Continue the application to a future meeting, giving the applicant specific direction to
return with a revised project design consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines;
OR
2. Approve the project, if findings can be articulated for the requested approval, with the
attached conditions of approval; OR
3. Direct Staff to return with a resolution denying the application, for adoption at the
next meeting.
TOWN OF TIBURON
Page 4 of 0
Deeign Review Board Meeting
September6,2007
Exhibits:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Conditions of Approval
Supplemental Application Materials
Design Review Board Staff Report dated April 5, 2007
Design Review Board Staff Report dated August 2, 2007
Minutes of the April 5, 2007 Design Review Board meeting
Minutes of the August 2, 2007 Design Review Board meeting
Submitted Plans
Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
To\\"N OF TIBURON Pd8e 5 of 0
Design Review Board }/leeting
September 6,2007
EXHIBIT 1
CONDnnONSOFAPPROVAL
9 BURRELL COURT
FILE #20633
1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become
null and void unless' a building permit has been issued.
2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of
Tiburon on July 11, 2007, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any
modifications to the plans of August 27, 2007, must be reviewed and approved by the
Design Review Board.
3. Plans submitted to the Building Division 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 Division 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 Planning Division 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 Planning Division approval is
not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal.
4. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to
defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or
liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of
attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge.
5. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a
building permit for this project.
6. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted and no lights shall be placed in the wells.
7. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must
be down light type fixtures.
TOWN OF TIBURON
Page 6 of 6
Latest Changes to 9 Burrell Court
Plans dated 27 Aug 07
The current plans have been revised in response to public comment and comment
by members of the Design Review Board at the last meeting of 2 Aug 07.
1. The overall height of the structure has been lowered again for a total
reduction of two feet. The proposed upper level is now very close in scale to
the two story section of the house next door at 7 Burrell Court. Our current
two story section is about 22 feet from grade at the perimeter compared with
about 24 feet at 7 Burrell Court. Our upper level which faces the street is
about 36.5 feet in length compared with 38 feet at 7 Burrell Court. In
addition, our roof profile is a lower-scaled, hipped roof instead of a gabled
roof as currently built at 7 Burrell Court. Finally, the adjacent single story
elements at each side of the Hariri residence provide transition elements to a
smaller scale instead of appearing as a square, two story box.
2. The landscaping tree sizes have been upgraded in two key areas. The
oleander trees planned for privacy screening for the neighbor at 7 Burrell
Court have been increased from 15 gal can to 24" box. The New Zealand
Christmas trees planned for visual screening for the neighbors on Reed
Ranch Road have been increased from 24" box to 36" box.
All the revisions noted in the "Synopsis of Changes" dated 23 July 07 still apply.
We have contacted the neighbors at 7 Burrell Court and 56 Reed Ranch Road and
to date have only heard from the owner of 56 Reed Ranch Road who approved of
our changes.
WE AGAIN STRONGLY ENCOURAGE ALL THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEMBERS TO VISIT THE SITE AND CONTACT MICHAEL HECKMANN (435-
2446) OR MS. HARIRI (420-8300) TO SCHEDULE A CONVENIENT TIME TO
MEET ATTHE PROPERTY.
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT WITH YOUR REVIEW ON SITE, IT WILL BE CLEAR
THAT NO ISSUES OF VIEW OR PRIVACY EXIST AND OUR SOLUTION HAS
REDUCED THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT TO BE COMPARABLE TO OTHER
NEIGHBORING HOMES.
Michael and Philippa Beaumont
l~ lE M~\~ # ~ Ti~:r:.,~~ C:~20 SFP 0 4/1
Tel:415-383-4552
Cell:415-652-8373
Fax: 415-383-4493
Design Review Board and
Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920 September 3, 2007
Dear Mr. Watrous:
Proposed Remodel of 9 BurreD Court:Third DRB Meeting:
In lieu of being able to attend the third meeting of the DRB regarding the subject property, I would be
grateful if you could provide this letter to the members of the DRB ahead of the September 6, 2007
meeting.
We have continued to have very limited contact with the Applicant and her advisers regarding their
proposed remodel, but understand that revised plans have been submitted again. In spite of statements
that were made in the August 2 meeting, the Applicant still has not addressed our concerns and we have
no "agreements" with the Applicant and her advisers.
While some design changes may have ostensibly been made in the right direction (e.g. smaller windows
facing us on the second floor), we feel that no amount of incrementalism - and no number of
presentations to the DRB and its staff - can alter the fact that:
1. A two story house is proposed next to us on what is already the orime real estate site on Burrell
Court. This proposed remodel materially changes (i) the privacy we currently enjoy in our home
and in our garden and (ii) existing slot views we enjoy (especially in the winter) of the Tiburon
Ridge and Angel Islandl. For example, where we now see the ridge and Angel Island, we will
instead have a view into the master bathroom and upper floor (and all that this entails on a daily
basis) of 9 Burrell Court.
2. The character of the Burrell Court cui de sac is altered considerably, as already noted by some of
the DRB members. The proposed remodel changes the stable, largely single-story real estate
dynamics that have been in place for over 30 years on Burrell Court (and were presumably
I We disagree with the statement that our views are merely "just views of homes on other hillsides", as stated in the
minutes of the August 2, 2007 meeting. This is a misleading characterization and akin to stating that the homes at
the top of Gilmartin "just have views of homes on the Sausalito ridge". At issue here is the simple fact that our
distant views of the ridge and Angel Island will be replaced with a +/- 150 foot close up ofa new second story. This
seems a patently unfair outcome and, as noted previously, merely a transfer of value and aesthetics from one
property owner to another without compensation.
EXHIBIT NO.
12
planned as such). Moreover, as the DRB is aware, all of the homes on Burrell Court that have
true second floors have them downslope - including 7 Burrell Court. (Note that 7 Burrell Court is
on the back side of the view lots on Burrell Court; it was originally built over 30 years ago with a
split level upper floor - not a true second floor).
3. On top of the intrusion into our privacy and views, the house is now proposed to be four feet
closer to us. We assume that this requires additional front yard setbacks - beyond those
originally required in the March 2007 DRB presentation.
4. The proposed alteration has at least three direct violations of the Town of Tiburon Design
Guidelines for Hillside Dwellinfts. Including subsections of the guidelines, there are arguably
additional violations. ' We fail to see how any of the incremental design changes have yet
addressed these violations in a substantive way. Reducing the roof height in 12" (or less)
increments does not, it would seem, address this matter. We all continue to deal with a new
second story on the top of a hillside (especially when viewed from Reed Ranch road) - no matter
what incremental changes are made to the roof line by the Applicant's architect.
We urge the ORB to continue to consider the remodel of 9 Burrell Court seriously, in spite of the fatigue
that may be setting in. We note that many of us - including those who can no longer follow this project
as it changes - are fatigued with an incrementalist approach to addressing what was an outright rejection
of the design in March 2007, and a further rejection in August 2007. In spite of the incremental changes
that have been made to address neighbors' concerns, from a macro perspective the overall scale and scope
of the 9 Burrell Court proposed remodel is largely unchanged after all these months.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions.
Yours sincerely,
~ ;Xb~~
Michael and Philippa Beaumont
EXHIBIT NO.~
09/04/2007 11:01 FAX 4152569641
REGINA WIDMAN MD
@001
H. SPENCER BLOCH
54 Reed Ranch Rd.; California 94920..2083
Ii I~"\
LAlEMAIL # J>-J I:;)i: ~rp 0 41!tfl7
Telephone: (415) J~-2~
111\
II II
il II
!I Ii
tJ
FAX TRANSMISSION
Number of pages including this one: 1
Fax TO: (415) 435-2438
Date: Sept.. 4, 2007
Fax FROM: (415) 381-5203
TO: Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon'
A TT: Ms. Laurie Tyler and Mr.. Dan W strous
Re; Proposal for Additions and Variances to 9 BUITeH Court (F. Hariri)
F},Je#: 20633
Dear Members of the ORB:
1) At the original presen~tion of this proposal, ,after hearing unanimous
recommendations from the DRB that they build down not Up. the applicant's
representative SUited that they have no interest in that. And this is what seems to be
happening.
2) W'ben faced with'similarobjections to a similar proposal, another neighbor (N.
Roberts) separated on the Reed Ranch'Road side of Mrs. Hariri's home by one house,
agreed to add under her hwne. Should the'situation be any different fur this proposal?
3) The fact that it is more expensive to build undet' the existing structure is absolutely
irrelevant. No one is requiring the a~licant to add to 'her hou~. The view will nQJ; be
enhanced by building up. If Mrs~ Hanri is not satisfied with the ambience of her present
home" she has the option of finding a more suitable domicile, without compromism; the
aesthetics and privacy of her current neighborhood This' seems especially the case if
something other than necessity is the motive for this proposal.
4) The applicant's architect and one DRB member felt that privacy is not a significant
consideration for 54 Reed Ranch- Road, because of ,distance and vegetation. That is
debatable 'when looking up at ,the story poles from our outside 1ivin~ area. But even
granting ,this, that is only one-half of our Objection. The other half IS the aesthetic effect
of a structure that will loom over the ridgeline no matter how much, shifting is done.
The three Reed Ranch Road neighbors below Mrs. Harirj's home, Mrs. Shapiro, the
T.ruman's, and ourselves, have lived in our homes for a total of more than 120 years. That
gives us DO more right than someone who moved here yesterday to have our wishes
accOmmodated. But this proposal is felt to be out of character-by much if not most of the
o'eighborhood. As sUch, it does seem reasonable that the applicant give more serious
consideration to our views than their response to date of throwing us a bone (Le., minimal
shifting on the lot, one-foot lowering of roof, more vegetation).
I hope we are not now witnessing a situation in which 'If you do little enough long
enough, youll get what you wantl--no matter how urmecessary or inappropriate.
*~ f0nA
EXHIBIT NO. 13
MINUTES #13
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2007
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chair Frymier.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Vice-Chair Frymier, Boardmembers Glassner and Teiser
Absent: Chair Doyle and Boardmember Corcoran
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Dan Watrous and Associate Planner Tyler
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous stated that the applications for 42 Claire Way and 1910 Straits View
Drive were continued to the August 16, 2007 meeting.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
430 RIDGE ROAD
HANNAHS/GARAY, APPEAL RESOLUTION
.Planning Manager Watrous acknowledged receipt of correspondence and said Boardmembers
could adopt the Resolution ifit accurately reflected the direction given to Staff. Boardmembers
Glassner and Teiser indicated that the resolution accurately reflected the direction given to Staff.
ACTION: It was MIS (Teiser/Glassner.) to adopt the Resc;>>lution Granting the Appeal
of a Planning Division Decision to Approve a Site Plan and Architectural
Review Application
for Modifications to a Single-Family Dwelling Currently Under
Construction. Vote: 3-0
E.
OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
>2.
9 BURRELL COURT HARlRI, ADDITIONSN ARIANCES
On April 5, 2007, the Design Review Board reviewed an application for the expansion and
additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and
excess lot coverage, on property located at 9 Burrell Court. Concerns raised included that the
subject property already had a view to the south, and the addition of a second story would not
only enhance the view, but result in a looming structure over Reed Ranch Road, block views for
neighbors around Burrell Court, and create a home that would look out of character with the
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/2/07
EXHIBIT N6.~
neighborhood. The Board continued the project, with the recommendation that there were other
solutions to gain additional floor area without adding a partial second story, and perhaps a larger
excess lot coverage variance to do so.
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The proposed project would
include expanding the living areas of the home at the rear of the dwelling, and conversion of the
existing garage into an additional bedroom, bathroom and laundry room. A new two-car garage
is proposed in front of the existing garage. Variances are again required for reduced front yard
setback and excess lot coverage.
Michael Heckmann, architect, presented the Board with photographs, an aerial view of the
property and surrounding neighborhood. He said they have held discussions with the owners at 4
& 8 Burrell Court and he described the issues for these owners and the owners of 5 & 7 Burrell
Court. In response to these concerns, he stated that vegetation has been added between the two
homes, changes were made to the northwest upper level windows and the upper level outdoor
terrace was removed. He described other changes made, including minor window changes,
removal of the upper level balcony, and installation of privacy landscaping. He noted indicated
surprise at the issue of adding a second story, considering the height of the neighbor's own two-
story home. He said that the house has almost no view down into the 54 Reed Ranch Road
property because of the distance and vegetation. He noted that they met with owners of 56 Reed
Ranch Road in early July and again days later at which time the plans had been modified based
on his suggestions to improve landscaping and fencing.
Mr. Heckmann presented the project in context with the surrounding neighborhood and said
there are a number of upslope houses which were similar to the proposal. He said that
excavating space below the house would be extremely expensive excavation for a lower level
and would result in rooms that would be very dark with limited options for light and ventilation.
He stated that he looked at other alternatives than what was presented to the Board at the last
meeting, but it seemed that the overall layout was very good and architecturally the design was
well-received. Therefore, modifications have been made while preserving the initial concept.
Mr. Heckmann said they have worked hard to make the process inclusive of the neighbors and,
in the spirit of compromise, have modified their proposal accordingly. He believed their solution
was the right approach and had addressed the issues raised by neighbors.
Pete Pedersen, landscape architect, said on Reed Ranch Road they pulled the trees back up on
Reed Ranch Road, and changed the species from a Magnolia to a tree that grows no higher than
35 feet. He said that they have proposed privacy screening between the two properties, using a
Oleander tree which rarely got to 20 feet, and a dwarf Red Maple proposed for the front along
the street.
Vice-Chair Frymier questioned if the neighbors (Beaumonts) were agreeable to the Oleander
trees. Mr. Pedersen said he was not sure as they were out of the country and not present, but he
understood they were concerned about height and preferred an Evergreen tree. He noted the
Oleander would grow to 12-15 feet and he felt it was a great tree for the area.
TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/2/07
2
Vice-Chair Frymier referred to front yard setbacks and asked why 9 feet was needed from the
property line into the setback. Mr. Heckmann said the configuration begins with the stairway
close to the front "door and that the curvature of the cul-de-sac created an issue for all of the
homes in the vicinity. He noted that the fIrst level of the original house ~as even closer to the
street and they had removed it from the project.
The Vice-Chair opened the public hearing.
Ray Truman said the proposal to change from a chain link fence to a black wire fence was
satisfactory. He said that they still object to the view from the two decks down to them on Reed
, Ranch Road, as the proposed 15-20 foot tall tree was not entirely satisfactory to them. He also
noted that Dr. Bloch has sent a letter indicating his displeasure of changes made to the height of
the structure facing Reed Ranch Road.
Christopher Wand stated that he was speaking on behalf of the 9 neighbors who signed a petition
opposing the project. He stated that a lot of the second story area could not be seen from their
front deck right now, but become more apparent in the winter as the trees change. He was
pleased with the landscaping changes. He said at the last meeting the applicant was instructed to
consider excavation and contact the neighbors, and he said he was never contacted. He felt the
existing home had the best view on the street and asked the Board to consider substantial
changes to the second floor. He added that the project did not address glare or lighting from the
western side.
Mr. Heckmann acknowledged the fencing change and noted that they had modified the
landscaping as suggested and were willing to install larger plant materials to get more immediate
effects. He did not believe the excavation concept would improve the relationship to the
Truman's home and he felt that landscaping would be eliminated to provide for a basement
room. He noted that at the last meeting, the Board had voted unanimously to continue the project
to another meeting and they have gone back and reviewed the original concepts. He described
the views fromMr . Wand's deck as minimal' at best. He felt they were on the right track with the
project and have done a good job in providing the kind of home the owner wanted when she
bought the property several years ago, when she was told a second story could be added to the
property.
The Vice-Chair closed the public hearing.
Boardmember Glassner felt the architect made significant strides in the landscape plan, but felt
the house design appeared to have been relatively unchanged. He noted the story poles did move
but the height and bulk had not changed. He said the Board continued the proj ect, asking for
design changes and encouraging excavation into the hillside to lower the roofline and this had
not been done. He said it appeareg there were still significant issues with the Beaumont's and
the Block's and to a lesser degree, the Truman's and felt more needed to be done with
excavation, reducing bulk and minimizing view issues.
Boardmember Teiser stated that he could support the project. He said that his biggest previous
concern was the impact on the Truman's and moving the house back from the street reduced the
TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/2/07
3
looming effect. He did not believe the Bloch's had a privacy issue, and felt the Beaumont's
privacy issues had been addressed. He said that there was a significant improvement to the mass
when viewed from the Wands' house and that the addition would not affect views of the Bay or
Golden Gate ~ridge, just views of homes on other hillsides.
Vice-Chair Frymier said she wanted to support the project, but could not. She stated that she had
not seen much of a structural difference to the house. She noted that the addition had been
shifted a bit toward Burrell Court, but she would have liked to seen the second story become less
horizontal and bring the roof down further. She agreed that excavation would result in dark
bedrooms. She suggested either decreasing the size of the second story or increasing the size of
it and bringing it down. She stated that Mr. Wand's photographs were somewhat
misrepresentative.
Boardmember Glassner instructed the applicant to work with the roofline, possibly spread out
some of the second story living area, look again at excavation, and work on the roofline to
address the Beaumont's and the Bloch's concerns.
Planning Manager Watrous recommended the item be continued to the September 6, 2007
meeting if this was amenable with the applicant. Mr. Heckmann said he felt the roof was barely
visible even if lowered, that the roof edge could only been seen from the street and the bulk on
the house was from there down. He said if the project dropped one foot and reduced in width by
a couple of feet, it would not make much of a change, but he agreed to work on the additional
changes and return to the Board.
ACTION: It was MIS (Glassner/Frymier) to continue the proposal to September 6, 2007
Design Review Board meeting. Vote: 3-0.
F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
3. 42 CLAIRE WAY CLAWSON NEW DWELLING CONTINUED TO 8/16/07
4. 4935 PARADISE DRIVE HANSON, ADDITIONS/VARIANCES
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an
existing single-family dwelling on property located at 4935 Paradise Drive. A new living room,
office and storage area would be added to the front of the house. A new bedroom would be
added to the rear of the house, along with expansions of an existing bedroom and bathroom. A
swimming pool and spa would be installed in the rear yard, and other exterior improvements
include a new trellis, a barbecue and patio, and several small wooden fences and wood or
concrete retaining walls. Four new skylights are also proposed to be installed. Variances are
requested for excess lot coverage and reduced front yard setback.
Kylee Acidera, architect, said the request involved an extension of the house to
include a master bedroom suite and an additional bedro~m and bath, a living space,
office, additional interior and exterior storage. She said the intent of the project was
to increase the size of the home but maintain the current interior/exterior facades,
TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #13
8/2/07
4
TOWN OF TIBURON
\~ 1505 Tiburon Boulevard
/ Tiburon, CA 94920
~
~~
Design Review Board Meeting
August 2, 2007
Agenda Item: E2
STAFF REPORT
To:
Members of the Design Review Board
From:
Associate Planner Tyler
Subject:
9 BURRELL COURT; FILE #20633
Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an
Existing Single-Family Dwelling With Variances for Reduced Front
Yard Setback and Excess Lot Coverage
(Continued from April 5, 2007)
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2007, the Design Review Board reviewed an application for the expansion and
additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and
excess lot coverage, on property located at 9 Burrell Court. During the meeting, several of the
adjacent neighbors on Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road objected to the proposal, which
included adding a partial second story to the home. Concerns raised included that the subject
property already had a view to the south, and the addition of a second story would not only
enhance the view, but result in a looming structure over Reed Ranch Road, block views for
neighbors around Burrell Court, and create a home that would look out of character with the
neighborhood.
Overall the Board was not in favor of the proposed project, and determined that if so many
neighbors surrounding the property objected, then the applicant needed to work more closely with
the neighbors to come to a better solution to expand the residence. At the time, the applicant was
not inclined to revise the proposal or work with the neighbors. The Board continued the project,
with the recommendation that there were other solutions to gain additional floor area without
adding a partial second story, and perhaps a larger excess lot coverage variance to do so.
PROPOSAL
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. As noted in the prior staff report,
the existing dwelling is single-story and contains three bedrooms, a living room, dining room,
kitchen, and two-car garage. The proposed project would include expanding the living areas of
the home at the rear of the dwelling, and conversion of the existing garage into an additional
bedroom, bathroom and laundry room. A new two-car garage is proposed in front of the existing
garage.
EXHIBIT NO. IS-
F~_c V:~C'\"V T~cja'rcl
2.l()U?
In addition to the expansion of the home and conversion of the garage, a partial second story is
proposed at the center of the home, which would include a master bedroom and bathroom, terrace
and an extra bedroom. The interior of the home would be slightly reconfigured with the proposed
improvements.;.' Expanded decking at the rear of the home and an additional terrace off the family
room are also proposed.
The proposed structure would create a gross floor area of 3,464 square feet which is below the
maximum permitted floor area for a parcel of this size (3,473 sq. ft.). The proposed structure
would create a lot coverage of 3,257 square feet (22.1 %) which exceeds the maximum permitted
lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district (15%). The applicant is again requesting a variance for
excess lot coverage.
The proposed expansion of the home would result in an approximately 19 foot 5 inch front yard
setback. The maximum front yard setback in the RO-2 zoning district is 30 feet. The applicant is
again requesting a variance for reduced front yard setback.
The fa<;ade of the home would include stucco siding, white trim and clay roof tiles. A color
materials board will be available at the Board meeting for review.
ANAL YSIS
Design Issues
The existing home is designed to take advantage of views of San Francisco, Belvedere and the
bay. The site is relatively flat but begins to slope downward to the south at the rear of the
property. The project site is situated at the end of Burrell Court and above Reed Ranch Road.
The surrounding homes are mostly single-story, with the exception of the residence at 7 Burrell
Court.
Major revisions from the previous submittal include an overall reduction in exterior lighting,
elimination of the small terrace located at the front of the home (north), and elimination of several
of the windows on the west elevation, to address both noise and privacy concerns of the adjacent
neighbors on Burrell Court. The partial second story has also been shifted 4 feet back to the '.
north, to discourage what was previously regarded as a looming effect on the neighbors along
Reed Ranch Road. The proposed gross floor area has increased from 3,428 square feet to 3,464
square feet, and the proposed lot coverage has decreased, from 22.6% to 22.1 %.
Concerns have been raised by the adjacent neighbor at 7 Burrell Court regarding the potential for
privacy impacts. A detailed letter was received by the property owner of 7 Burrell Court
explaining the potential impacts and is attached to this report. The main concern for the property
owner of 7 Burrell Court is that the 4 foot shift of the second story would move the addition
closer to their home and would continue to impede on views of the Tiburon Ridge from a second
story master bedroom suite, as well as create privacy impacts for the master bathroom and
outdoor pool/patio area.
Currently, mature landscaping exists between 7 Burrell Court and the subject residence; however
there are pockets or slot views through the trees over the existing structure. The applicant
-r (":\ ~ ,~,
1. (i_l .:'
r~.C\Jjc"\\..; I;(1~:t rei
2, ~?()(}?'
addressed the potential privacy issue by proposing to plant two Oleander trees which are
evergreen and can grow to a height of 20 feet between the larger existing trees. This would aid in
screening the proposed second story and maintain privacy between residences; however, this
would also have the potential to block existing views of the Tiburon Ridge from within the
master bedroomlbathroom suite. Staff was unable to again access into the home at 7 Burrell
Court to view the story poles to determine the extent of view blockage, as the property owners are
currently out of the country.
Additionally, the previous plans indicated palm trees along the front of the subject property. The
revised proposal now indicates Japanese maple trees, which are deciduous and can grow to a
height of 20 feet. In addition, the previous proposal indicated Magnolia trees along Reed Ranch
Road, which have been changed to New Zealand Christmas Trees and have been stepped further
up the hill from the street, to aid in screening the residence from the neighbors along Reed Ranch
Road. Deer fencing would also be shifted up the hill, away from Reed Ranch Road, to allow for
foreground landscape screening to create a more aesthetically pleasing appearance from Reed
Ranch Road.
Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines
The following portion of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to evaluate the
hillside design of the house as proposed:
. Goall, Principle 1 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that a building should be cut
into the hillside to reduce effective visual bulk. Prom below the property at Reed Ranch
Road, the home would not appear as massive with the proposed 4 foot shift of the partial
second story and incorporation of the second story terrace. However, when viewing the
story poles from further away along Tiburon Boulevard, the home would appear to stick
out amongst the other hillside homes, creating a bulk issue.
. Goall, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that to reduce effective bulk
and provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces, underground or below
grade spaces should be excavated into the hillside. If the proposed second story living
areas were relocated beneath the home, this would preserve existing viewsheds and reduce
the mass and bulk of the home from below the subject site and further away.
. Goal 3, Principle 7 (a) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that view protection is.
more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling (i. e. living room, dining room,
family room, great room, kitchen, and decks associated with these rooms) than for less
actively used areas of a dwelling (i.e. bedroom, bathroom, study, office, den). The
residence at 7 Burrell Court would only have potential view blockages from the master
bedroom suite which faces south.
Zoning
With the exception of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot
coverage, the proj ect appears to be in conformance with the remaining development regulations
of the RO-2 zoning district.
i (. ~\-\,,.,..
Variances
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make all of the following findings
required by Section 16-4.3 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
:
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.
Front Yard Setback:
The proposed expansion of the home would push the entry area into the 30 foot front yard
setback, resulting in a 19 foot 5 inch front yard setback at this location. The home is
situated towards the end of a cul-de-sac and has a circular front yard, which results in a
curvilinear front yard setback line. This is a special circumstance applicable to the
property.
Lot Coverage:
The home is situated on a lot that is below the minimum lot size for the RO-2 zoning
district. Combined with the topography of the lot, this creates a difficult site in which to
work with. It is not unusual to see lot coverage requests on substandard parcels.
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.
Front Yard Setback:
Other homes located within cul-de-sacs commonly run into front yard setback issues
because the setback line is curvilinear.
Lot Coverage:
Properties in the vicinity of the subject property, specifically on Burrell Court and along
Reed Ranch Road, have previously been granted variances for excess lot coverage.
Therefore, it is not uncommon for this type of variance request.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
Front Yard Setback:
The existing home is already located within the front yard setback, so it would be an
unnecessary hardship to allow a small section of the entryway to encroach additionally
into the setback.
Lot Coverage:
Due to the existing topography and orientation of the home and surrounding homes,
adding floor area as a full second story to the house to gain additional living space would
impede on possible viewsheds from 7 Burrell Court, and would also increase the mass and
bulk of the structure. The applicant has opted to convert the existing garage into usable
space at the lower level at the front of the property where it is concealed.
Rc\'iC\.\ B(1;\rd
2.2,()(17
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
Front Yard Setback:
Granting the front yard setback would not be detrimental or injurious to other properties
because most of the homes along Burrell Court appear to be located within the front yard
setback.
Lot Coverage:
The proposal indicates a partial second story. If the home was proposed with a full
second story and the existing garage was left unconverted, this may result in additional
view blockages for the neighboring residence.
From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings
for the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage. However, the
proposal would appear to be inconsistent with the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. If the
partial second story were relocated below the existing structure on the south side of the site, there
would be a reduction in the mass and bulk of the home, while maintaining existing viewsheds for
both the owner and adjacent neighbors.
Public Comment
As of the date of this report, one letter has been received from the property owner of7 Burrell
Court in opposition to the project.
CONCLUSION
The revised proposal has not changed considerably from the previous proposal reviewed by the
Board. As of the date of this report, only one neighbor has submitted written concerns regarding
the revised proposal. Staff would recommend that the Board visit the subject site and
surrounding neighborhood to view the story poles, and determine the extent of the impact of the
proposed partial second story addition from both Burrell Court and below the subject site on
Reed Ranch Road. If the Board determines that additional modifications should be made to the
project design, more specific design direction should be given to the applicant.
RECOMMENDA TION
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section
4.02.07 (Guiding Principles), 16-4.3 (Variances) and the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, and
determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board agrees with Staffs conclusions, the
application should be continued with the applicant encouraged to return with a revised project
design consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines. If the Board wishes to approve the
project, findings should be articulated for the requested approval, and Staff would recommend
that the attached conditions of approval be applied.
Exhibits:
Prepared By:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Conditions of Approval
Application and Supplemental Materials
Goall, Principle 1, Goal 1, Principle 9, and Goal 3, Principle 7(a)
Staff Report and Minutes of the April 5, 2007 Design Review
Board Meeting
Letter dated July 18, 2007 from Michael Beaumont
Submitted Plans
Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner
,lUll )ii117
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
o Conditional Use Permit
o Precise Development Plan
o Secondary Dwelling Unit
o Zoning Amendment/Prezoning
o General Plan Amendment
o Change of Address
o Design Review (ORB)
o Design Review (Staff level)
o Variance
o Floor Area Exception
o Sign Permit
o Tree Permit
o Tentative Subdivision Map
o Final Subdivision Map
o Parcel Map
o Lot Line Adjustment
o Certificate of Compliance
o Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: 4 I7vilZlZel-L-- ~iR:,
PARCEL NUMBER: 0'7'''+ - '302 -05
PROPERTY SIZE: 14: 713 ~ I
ZONING: RO - L I
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
M 5F I KLt LE t-V-\ rzt R.. ,
CJ B(..IR.Rf?~~ CCTllt<.T
(+1 Ii) 4:20 - t-~ 3C<:)
CITY/STATE/ZIP i1l3UI~N U\ <14cl~
FAX I
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) tv{,tC'rIAEL t-tf:~'l<tv\ANN
MAILING ADDRESS: /2.(') MA((\j ~~-,- CITY/STATE/ZIP llSl.lRCN LA (j,.q:ctL
PHONE NUMBER: (4/5) 4~7-.z..+4-~;'" FAX (4-1'7) 477--2e/7~
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER:
MAILING ADDRESS:
~At'vlL:::' Aj ~PPI--IC'ANT I
I, "
Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
~ A I7v/. -CICN TO C==NTKY I {:=--v'i=-L-
- NEvJ L'IPPER. Ll;:-VE~L"
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make
application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with
the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for
defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless
from any costs, claims or Ii bilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of
attorney's fees a . h suit from the third party challenge.
....
*Signature:
Date: 11 :rIA L- {.:-7
*If other than owner, must have letter from owner
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION
Application No.: 20603 GP DesiQnation Fee Deposit yrr:e..[f; .~.
Date Received: -;7//1 /07. I Received Bv: Receipt #~C
Date Deemed Complete: 7 Lt6)D/ By: I-rc.
ActinQ Body: n~p, Action: [R{7;pol Date: Q/61cn
Conditions of Approval or Comments:
MINOR ALTERATION SUPPLEMENT
JUL 1 37nnl
Please fill in the information requested below:
PU'\;,:"
-ro\/\/ 1',;:
1. Briefly describe th,.e proposed project (attach separate sheet as needed): A'VD \l1o~-"-~~'ot=.
&Cl\a... 41$6\.. PT'. 1'0 L-<<'\U"EtL- L...f:\S E~ Al>pmo"" 01=' q (Q ~ cs,a, ~,&.9 MoE\U
\,). P ftt p... L::E ~"E\.... I ~'i.O ~ q\tI ~ C5 G\ '\ -5 &i. l=T.. 'ft'-oM G.A ~615:
2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-1.5(1)*): ~t, '1~ \ SQ.. fi-
Zoning: Ro... 2..
3. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.):
Existing S\~c.c.\r~ F~'''h~~ ~c;\D"""'C!.
Proposed r\o C,"~tl~1!
4.
Yards
(Setbacks from property l f'J '- t:;, \\ 2'--0 \\ \ ~ ,_ ~ \1
line)(Section 16-1.5(y)*
Front ft. ft. ft. ft. 80 ft.
Rear 4~l.. ~ \' ft. ' '1" ft. ~ ,'.. 8" ft. ft. 2)% --26ft.
(0-
" .., '.. 2:>"
Right Side ., '. ~ ft. 0 ft. ft. ft. /~ ft.
Left Side '1 ~ ,," ft. 0\ \' ft. \ '1 '- 0" ft. ft. /S ft.
Maximum Height t " 5 '- Ci> 11 '2. ., '- CO "
2'1"0 ft.
(Section 16-5.6.7)* ft. ft. ft. 30 ft.
Lot Coverage '2. ~ 9!> .'1 ~ c;S.\?I ;'2?' 2 2M, 6~
(Section 16-5~6.8)* sq. ft. sq. ft sq. ft. sq. ft. / sq.ft.
Lot Coverage as \~.~7 .".'\ 1? j 22..\ P VAR
Percent of Lot Area ok 0/0 , \ ok 0/0 Ok 6LXJd
Gross Floor Area lC, \ 0 \9J~4 ~G4 2164 3~73. 1
(Section 16-1.5(f))* sq.ft. sq. ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. I sq. ft.
*Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 16 (Zoning).
SUPPLEMENTAL ApPLICATION FORM FOR MINOR ALTERATION TOWN OF TIBURON JUNE 2006
PAGE 3
JUL 11 7on7 ~
Town of Tiburon · 1505 Tiburon Boulevard · Tiburon, CA 94920 · P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 . www.tiburon.org
COMMUNITY D.EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division (415)-435-7390
www.tiburon.org
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards would
result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships must
be caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site. Please refer to Section 4.03 of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance (Section 16-4.3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) for additional information regarding Variances.
WHAT VARlANCElS) ARE YOU REOUESTING?
Condition
Zoning Existing Your Magnitude
Ordinance Condition Application Of Variance
Requirement , Proposes Requested
.?O' I "7~' . ,
ttJ-7 '.;z,,Z
Front Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Left Side Yard Setback
Right Side Yard Setback
Lot Coverage
'7%
t7-W'%
z:2j~'
7/:,
Height
Parcel Area
Per DwellingUnit
Usable Open Space
Parking
Expansion of
Nonconformity
Other (Please describe):
I\PPLlCATION FOR VARIANCE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Rev. 05/02
Page 1
EXHIBIT NO. /~
Synopsis of Changes to 9 Burrell Court
(Response to neighbor issues are attached)
Plans dated 23 July 07'
JUL ? j 111111
1. Lower level:
A. Bar at living room is eliminated
B. Powder room at entry has been relocated under stairway
C. Kitchen/ family room has been reconfigured and dining room size reduced.
2. Upper Level:
A. Entire upper level shifted 4 feet away from Reed Ranch Road and height reduced
by 12 inches to reduce scale and mass from both streets, and qownhill neighbors
including 56 Reed Ranch Road.
B. Windows on northwest (Burrell Court) side of building have been reduced in
size at master bath, stairway, and upper landing to preserve the privacy of neighbor
at 7 Burrell Court and diminish night light visible from 6 Burrell Court.
C. Exterior terrace over front entry has been replaced by a tile roof to preserve
privacy for neighbors at 6 Burrell Court and 7 Burrell Court and to allow for canopy
at front door.
D. All windows facing west neighbor at 8 Burrell Court eliminated.
3. Landscaping:
A. Two new trees adjacent to property line at 7 Burrell Court have been changed to
evergreen trees with a maximum height of 20 feet. To preserve privacy to
garden/pool area and master suite.
B. Palm trees at street frontage of Burrell Court have been changed to Japanese
Maple.
C. Magnolia trees at street frontage at Reed Ranch Road have been changed to
New Zealand Christmas which is an evergreen tree with maximum height of 20
feet, and have been shifted uphill to better screen the new residence from Reed
Ranch Road and the downhill neighbors at 56 Reed Ranch Road.
D. The deer fence along Reed Ranch Road has been redesigned with a more
visually pleasing square metal mesh to be painted dark green and relocated away.
from Reed Ranch Road to allow for foreground landscape screening for a better
appearance from Reed Ranch Road and the downhill neighbor at 56 Reed Ranch
Road.
4. Elements incorporated prior to last meeting:
A. Total quantity of exterior light fixtures has been reduced.
B. Height of trees at 7 Burrell Court- 20' height to protect privacy.
C. Lower level crawl space has only proposed at a limited area with head room.
We plan to leave it alone and retain crawl space.
WE URGE ALL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS AND PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS
TO VISIT 9 BURRELL COURT ALONG WITH ALL PROPERTIES PARTICULARLY 7 AND 5
BURRELL COURT. MS. HARIRI AND MR. HECKMANN ARE VERY INTERESTED IN
MEETING WITH THEM AND ARE AVAILABLE ANYTIME, PARTICULARLY ALL DAY
SATURDAY, JULY 28, 2007.
EXHIBIT NO. IS-
1
Response to Letter from Owners of 4 Burrell Court
1. As they noted, their "home is not as impacted as many others." The main
comments seemed to be based on elements noted by other neighbors and no
impact specific to this residence was mention and we, therefore, presume that the
project has no negative impact on this property.
Response to Letter from Owners of 5 Burrell Court
1. The applicant's need for an additional level is consistent with other 2-story
homes in this area such as her next-door neighbor at 7 Burrell Court as well as 4
Burrell Court and 54 and 56 Reed Ranch. Therefore, the second story is not unique
in the Reedlands or any other neighborhood in Tiburon.
2. The proposed improvements to the residence at 9 Burrell Court are over 200 feet
away from 5 Burrell Court and will not affect views from any living areas or create
any loss of light.
3. The exterior lighting has been greatly reduced in quantity and will be shielded
downlights.
4. The Mexican Fan Palms have been replaced with Japanese Maple Trees for a
more pleasant, textured foliage visible from the street. The existing magnolia in the
entry garden of 9 Burrell Court is healthy and will be preserved and protected
during construction.
5. The telephoto photographs submitted as being taken from 5 Burrell Court present
distorted views which are not from primary living areas and the vantage point can' .
not be verified. It is imperative that the Design Review Board Members view the
project from this property and any other objecting neighbors to fully assess that the
proposal will have no impact.
~onse to Comments by Owners of 8 Burrell Court
1. We have eliminated all upper story windows on the south side in response to
their objections regarding a potential privacy issue relative to their privacy.
EXHIBIT NO. I~ 2
Response to Letter from Owners of 7 Burrell Court
1. Privacy has been preserved for master suite and pool garden by reduction of
glass on the proposed house facing west, and by the planned installation of
evergreen trees at the gap in existing property line vegetation.
2. The 7 Burrell Court master suite is predominantly north-facing with its largest
windows on that north side. The high windows facing east are clearstory windows,
not picture windows. The master suite is NOT a primary living area and so does
not carry the same importance in view issues. The neighbor's existing trees in this
direction have been allowed to grow up into this supposed view and the owners
have never approached the owner of 9 Burrell Court to trim her trees. (See attached
photos)
3. The addition on the Hariri house will have no impact on the light available to 7
Burrell Court with over 115' distance between the buildings.
4. The landscaping in the pool garden of 7 Burrell Court will not be impacted at all.
5. The proposed landscaping along the property line of 7 Burrell Court will
preserve the privacy which is the primary impact to be mitigated.
6. The capability to construct a second story is the main reason Ms. Hariri bought
this property and any views available to a second story have always been the right
of any property owner of 9 Burrell Court to develop.
EXHIBIT NO. IS-
3
~onse to Owners of 54 Reed Ranch Rd.
1. The proposed residence is not on the ridgeline but appears t~at way from the
vantage point of this property owner.
2. The current project does not have a view into the house at 54 Reed Ranch Road,
Our observation that their outdoor living areas are on the east side of their house-
not facing Reed Ranch Road. The proposed landscaping will mitigate any minor
issues of that nature that might occur due to the removal of the diseased elm trees.
He also has the option to install his own vegetation to better protect his privacy.
3. Even though the former proposal may have appeared massive, the height
reduction and shift of the upper level to the west mitigates any issues in this regard.
~onse to Letter from Owners of 56 Reed Ranch Rd.
1. The lower deck will extend out toward Reed Ranch Road but extensive tree and
shrub screening will preserve the privacy to 56 Reed Ranch Road.
2. The mass and bulk of the upper story as perceived by the owners of 56 Reed
Ranch Road has been mitigated by reducing the height and shifting it to the west by
4 feet.
3. All the existing tree stumps on this east slope will be removed and the entire
hillside will be planted with dense, screening shrubs and trees.
4. There are many two-story homes which are upslope of the street in the
Reedlands and the combination of building terracing and landscaping will provide
a successful and beautiful residence in harmony with the neighborhood.
EXHIBIT NO. /~
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mike Beaumont [mhb@IGPEquity.com]
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:54 PM
. Laurie Tyler
Dan Watrous
9 Burrell Court Remodel and Second Story Addition
PL/". .
l 1''-'\ ':, ",' ,"
\. I i'd', i
. _" 'Ii <, j '.:. ".'
.;'--~'':~Dill'.....~_<:.... .,":' ..
JUl '/ R Inn7
Laurie Tier
m
9 Burrell Court
RemodeLLetter.. .
Dear Laurie:
I understand that the DRB meeting
now scheduled for August 2, 2007.
country at that time.
In lieu of attending the meeting
DRB. Please accept our apologies
covering the revised application for 9 Burrell Court is
Unfortunately both my wife and I will be out of the
I have attached a letter addressed to Dan Watrous and the
for not being able to be present.
In this letter, we point out that, in our view, the revised design has not addressed the
issues identified at the April 5th DRB meeting, nor has it addressed the reservations
expressed by the members of the DRB. Astonishingly, the scope of the project is largely
unchanged from the overall design that was unanimously rejected at the April 5th, 2007 DRB
meeting. Moreover, from our standpoint, additional second floor window area has been
added, and the house has been moved approximately 4 feet closer to us. Both of these
changes serve to compound the privacy concerns we have. Considering the hours of work put
into dealing with the applicant's project by all concerned and affected (neighbors, town
staff and DRB members) over the last year, I was taken aback by the latest submission.
I do not see how the new design has made any attempt to address the concerns of any of the
neighbors, nor .do I see how it has addressed any of the issues expressed by the members of
the DRB. In our case, I am somewhat incredulous that the applicant has, arguably,
worsened our situation with the proposed redesign. This comes despite numerous visits by
your staff, all of the DRB members, the applicant (who also took photographs from our
Master Suite on her visit to validate the impact of the proposed design) and, lastly over
a year of interaction on this project. Since the April 5th DRB meeting we have had only
one visit by the applicant's team, in the form of a single meeting with her new architect.
At that visit, he requested our approval for the largely unchanged scope and design of the
project. We questioned him at some length on the reasons for there being no substantive
changes. We have had no communication since then, but did exchange phone numbers.
If you have any questions on the this email or the attached letter, please do not hesitate
to contact me. I can always be reached via my assistant, Michelle, at the numbers shown
below.
Many thanks,
Mike Beaumont
Michael Beaumont
Industrial Growth Partners
100 Spear Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-882-4550
Fax: 415-882-4551
email: rnhb@igpequity.com<mailto:rnhb@igpequity.com>
web: www.igpequity.com <http://www.igpequity.com>
EXHIBIT NO. 16
1
Michael and Philippa Beaumont
7 Burrell Court
Tiburon, CA 94920
~1 n,S rr,"v r?~i:-'(;'7~>~>'-"-'-T~~\ i
/L:J !1-~ U', Ii '1'~1 /' p \!
, i ill
~ 1I p LJ~tUL "I R 7 n n~;'J !!!J I
,"".. TC:~~!.:.. (~:!' } i ~ i
~_'k'~"l!>o.O........;.;.:;
Tel:415-383-4552
Cell :415-652-8373
Fax: 415-383-4493
Design Review Board and
Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
July 18, 2007
ProDosed Remodel of 9 Burrell Court r'NBC'')
and
ImDact on 7 Burrell Court r'SBC'')
To Dan Watrous and Members of the Design Review Board:
We regret that we will be unable to attend the schedule ORB meeting on August 2, 2007 as we will be
out of the country. We submit this letter in lieu of attending the meeting.
Since the April 5th ORB meeting regarding 9 Burrell Court, we have had one meeting with the new
architect of the project at 9 Burrell Court. Our current understanding of the scope of the project is
that it is largely unchanged from the previous project. We are surprised at this outcome, since the
previous design was unanimouslv reiected by the ORB (see Attachment 1). Further, while there
appeared to have been some confusion about consenting neighbors at the April 5th meeting, we
understand that all but one neighbor withdrew support for the project prior to the April 5th meeting.,
either verbally or in writing.
The principle changes described to us as of today's date are as follows: (i) the roof line is
approximately one foot lower; (ii) the house is approximately four feet closer to 7 Burrell court; and
(iii) there is a new, larger window on the west side (Burrell Court) of the house.
Unfortunately we feel compelled to raise the following objections to the revised design:
1. The scope of the revised design'is not materially different from the previous design. The
scope of the second floor addition (that was the subject of much debate at the April 5th
meeting) is largely unchanged.
2. The one-foot lowering of the roof line, while appreciated, is largely offset by the house being
pushed four feet closer to our home at 7 Burrell Court. This design change consequently has
not alleviated the problems identified in the previous ORB meeting.
EXHIBIT NO.
/6
Page 1 of 10
3. Pushing the house four feet closer to 7 Burrell Court magnifies- not diminishes - the privacy
issues that were addressed in our letter dated February 3rd, 2007 and at the April 5th ORB
meeting. We view this as a significantly adverse change.
4. Pushing the house four feet closer to Burrell Court further increases the needed setback
variance beyond the 500/0 variance already requested.
5. The new, larger western-facing window in the center of the new second story is noticeably
larger than in the previous design. This also magnifies - not diminishes - the privacy issues
that we had previously raised.
We continue to raise the main objections which were laid out in our letter to the DRB dated February
3, 2007. Principally these are as follows:
1. A second story on the 9 Burrell Court house will remove the existina orivacv of our Master
Suite. The modified 9 Burrell court property will have direct views into our master bedroom,
dressing area and master bathroom. Our Master Suite will, as a result, have to be "shuttered" in
order to preserve our privacy in the daytime, as well as at night.
2. A second story on the 9 Burrell Court house will eliminate the existina orivacv of our
swimming pool/backyard area. The addition of a second story on the 9 Burrell Court house
establishes a large structure that drastically changes the character of our pool area. Like our
master suite, our pool area is a maior feature of our house.
3. A second story on the 9 Burrell Court house will eliminate existina slot views we enjoy of
the Tiburon Ridge and Angel Island from our Master Suite. These easterly views from the
Master Suite are the only such views that we have (see Attachment 3). In winter these views are
significantly greater than in the summer-time.
4. The 9 Burrell Court landsca~ina olan does not vet resolve the issues that result from
the remodel of 9 Burrell Court. The proposed landscaping impacts us in three ways: (i) it will
reduce existing slot views of the Tiburon ridge and Angel Island; (ii) it will reduce morning
sunlight in our pool area, thereby reducing the utility of the pool and its surroundings; and (iii) it
will adversely impact decades of landscaping in our pool area, such as existing apple trees,
Australian tree ferns, magnolias, redwoods, yellow-woods, hydrangeas and other plants. Our
home has almost 'showcase' landscaping, which has been installed over the last 40 years at
considerable cost. This landscaping has taken into careful account the layout, situation, elevation
and proximity of the 9 Burrell Court house.
5. The proposed remodel requires two sianificant construction variances for (i) excess lot
coverage (300/0 variance) and (ii) reduced setbacks (500/0 or more variation, given new location
relative to previous design).
6. 10 or more violations of the Tiburon Desian Guidelines for Hillside Dwellinas (Attachment
2). These include:
i. Not cutting into the hillside to reduce visual bulk
ii. Not terracina the buildina using the existing slope
iii. Buildina on the crest of knolls (as seen from the Reed Ranch perspective)
iv. Not increasina the intearation of the dwellina and the site
v. Locatina a buildina so that it interferes with the views of adiacent orooerties.
vi. Creatina view blockaaes - even of slot vIews
Page 2 of 10
In short, the scope of the proposed remodel of 9 Burrell Court, de facto, takes privacy, views,
aesthetics and value away from 7 Burrell Court and simply transfers them tb 9 Burrell Court. We
believe this is a patently unfair outcome.
We continue to feel that the owners of 9 Burrell Court continue to have viable alternatives to the
proposed addition of a full second floor. These options would also almost fully alleviate the violations
of the Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings:
1. Remodel within the existing home envelope to provide more usable space.
2. Utilize space beneath the existing garage to gain additional floor space.
3. Expand the home partially down the hillside on the eastern side of property (as all of the
other homes on Burrell Court have done - see below) .
Each of these options satisfies the need for additional room and functionality, yet none of them come
at the much greater expense and impact of a second floor on the surrounding properties on both
Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road. Importantly, none of these options would violate the guidelines
set forth in the Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings.
As additional background, we note that, without exception, each home on Burrell Court that has a
true second story has constructed such second story downhill (i.e. below the grade of the top of the
Burrell Court hill). This includes 7 Burrell Court, the upstairs of which is, in fact, a split-level and not a
full second story. (We also note our belief that 7 Burrell Court was originally built in its current
configuration over 40 years ago. At the April 5th DRB meeting it was erroneously stated by the 9
Burrell Court applicants that the upper level was a subsequent addition. 7 Burrell Court's only full
second story is, like the other homes on Burrell Court, below grade.)
Lastly, we echo some of the prior sentiments expressed by some of the members of the DRB and
those present in the audience on April 5th, 2007. Since the overall scope of the redesign is largely
unchanged, these comments seem to still have relevance, as paraphrased below:
. The addition would be out of character with the more visually peaceful nature of Burrell Court.
. There is a history of neighbors not being allowed to build second stories on this street (Burrell
Court).
. A second story addition on this street is "a slippery slope".
. This house (9 Burrell Court) was the original model home on Burrell Court, sited to have the
preferential and sweeping views of the Bay and the City that it still has today.
. The project looms over Reed Ranch Road. A second story would be completely out of
character with the rest of the neighborhood. The project was characterized as massive,
making a gargantuan statement.
. The applicant appears to be seeking more views at the expense of the neighbors.
In conclusion, we continue to request that the sentiments expressed in this letter receive serious
consideration by the DRB. However, in view of our inability to attend the August DRB meeting (and
only in view of this), in the event the DRB should elect to permit the project to proceed
notwithstanding the issues raised in this letter, we would request the changes set forth below, at a
minimum. This should not be viewed in anv wav as an endorsement of the oroiect in any form. nor is
Page 3 of 10
it a siena I ot" anv kind to the ORB that we feel the oroiect should oroceed on this or anv other basis.
We continue to feel that the oroiect. as currentlv orooosed. fails on technical merits. We have not
aereed to these modifications to the oroiect with the aoolicants.
1. Opaque bathroom window on second floor bathroom facing 7 Burrell Court Master Suite and
pool area (alternatively remove window to northern side of structure).
2. Reduction of size of second floor stairwell window to original, more normal size.
3. Elimination of French doors and balcony on upper floor facing 7 Burrell Court master suite and
pool; replace with a normal sized window.
4. Agreement with 7 Burrell Court on suitable privacy landscaping, subject to minimum 15
vertical foot initial coverage.
Yours sincerely,
Michael and Philippa Beaumont
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 10
ATTACHMENT 1
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF PREVIOUS DRB MEETING
April 5th, 2007
(bold highlighting added)
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ray Truman stated that he was concerned with a loss of privacy. He stated that the story
poles are different from when they were earlier invited to look at the site and he has therefore
rescinded his previous acceptance of the proposal. He asked the Board consider changes to
lessen the impact on his privacy, possibly including plants or trees to make the project less
intrusive.
Christopher Wand stated that he had no objection to the floor area, but objected to the
second story. He showed an aerial photo of Burrell Court taken in 1960 and explained
that this house was the original model home, with sweeping views of the Bay and the
City. He reviewed the history of neighbors not being allowed to build second stories on
this street and urged the applicant to build downhill or expand the house towards Burrell
Court and move the garage.
Scott Hochstrasser stated they would like the opportunity to continue to work with the
neighbors; thought building living space underneath was a much different project than the
proposal; noted #7 has a second story; suggested that perhaps they could lower the roof line.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
In response to a question from Boardmember Teiser, Planning Manager Watrous stated
building the second story would not necessarily create a precedent for the applicant to have a
view over their neighbor's future possible second story additions. He noted that the currently
proposed upstairs area does not include primary living areas, and therefore views from thes.e
rooms would not be so strongly protected by the Hillside Guidelines.
Boardmember Corcoran stated he had a lot of trouble with this project. He noted that
neighbors have strong concerns about landscaping and privacy. He characterized a
second story addition on this street as "a slippery slope," adding that it would not be fair
to allow this project to add upstairs when others have been unable to do likewise. He felt
that adding a second story was as difficult as adding space underneath the house. He said that
the trees to be planted along Reed Ranch Road would address the privacy issues. He said that
the project needs more work and more discussion with the neighbors. He noted that adding
floor area without a second story would also address the privacy issues. He also noted
that the second story would not significantly improve the views for the house.
Page 5 of 10
Boardmember Glassner stated that it is not only an issue of size and bulk, but noted that the
palm trees can grow into problems. He said that he was concerned that although the
neighbors suggested excavating for the floor area the applicant is reluctant to do so.
Boardmember Teiser stated that he could not support the project at all. He felt that the
privacy issue could be solved, but thought that the project looms over Reed Ranch Road.
He said that the second story would be completely out of character with the rest of the
neighborhood. He stated that the applicant was seeking more views at the expense of the
neighbors and he would rather see the applicant ask for more lot coverage to reduce the bulk
of the addition.
Boardmember Frymier agreed withBoardmember Teiser's comments about supporting
more lot coverage as opposed to height. She characterized the project as massive, stating
that the palm trees and story poles make a gargantuan statement. She said that the
addition would be out of character with the more visually peaceful nature of Burrell
Court.
Chair Doyle stated that he thought it was a beautiful house, but when every neighbor on the
block states that this would take away views then an applicant needs to be willing to try
different approaches. He said that he was not inclined to approve a project when the applicant
is not interested in working with the neighbors. He said that an applicant has to be open to
suggestions, possibly involving increased lot coverage. He noted that the architect has talent
and can find other ways to add more floor area.
MIS, Teiserl Frymier (passed 5-0) to continue the item to the May 3, 2007 meeting.
Page 6 of 10
ATTACHMENT 2
SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS OF TOWN OF TIBURON
DESIGN GUIDLEINES FOR HILLSIDE DWELLINGS
Principle Principle Violation Impacts Town of
!i. Tiburon
Design
Guideline
Reference #
VARIANCE #1 Excess lot coverage EST. 30% Legal matter
VARIANCE
VARIANCE #2 Reduced front-yard Est. 50% Legal matter
setback VARIANCE
(NOTE: UNDER
REVISED PLANS AS OF
7/18/07 THE FRONT
YARD SET BACK IS
POSSIBLY MORE
IMP ACTED THAN THE
PREVIOUS DESIGN BY
APPROXIMATLEY 4
FEET
REDUCE Cut building into hillside to Reed Ranch G1/P1
EFFECTIVE BULK reduce visual bulk. Road
2 Terrace building using Reed Ranch G1/P2
slo e. Road
4 Increase integration of Reed Ranch G1/P4
dwellin and site Road
9 Excavate underground or Burrell G1/P9
below ground ,rooms to Court and
reduce effective bulk Reed Ranch
Road
11 Do not build on crest of Reed Ranch G2/P 10
knolls. Site buildings so Road and
they don't stand out. Burrell
Court
PRESERVE Locate new dwellings so SBC and G3/P1
ACCESS TO they interfere minimally Burrell
VIEWS with views of adjacent Court
dwellings homeowners
Page 7 of 10
1 Do not locate dwelling on SBC G3/Pl
; highest point of property if
~
in so doing it will obscure
view of another dwelling
3 Views should preserved as SBC G3/P3
much as possible; not
everyone can have a
panoramic view [comment:
or double existing panoramic
view?l
3 Slot view is just as SBC G3/P3
important to the person
who owns it as the 360
de2ree panoramic view
7 Partial view blockage SBC G3/P3
should be avoided
whenever possible
Page 8 of 10
ATTACHMENT 3
IMPACT OF 9 BURRELL COURT REMODEL ON MASTER SUITE VIEWS
(Note: winter views in the fITst photograph utilize the original story poles which were one foot higher.
However, the new design is now four feet closer to the home at 7 Burrell Court and the proposed second
floor has been shifted to the left of the original story poles shown in the first photograph. As a result, the
impact the proposed new July 2007 design is arguably now worse as a result of the increase proximity to
our home coupled with greater view blockage.
Original story poles; orange line is estimated. Additional structure was proposed to the left, in
addition to garage being eX,tended directly towards 7 Burrell Court (garage story poles not visible in
this photo).
Page 9 of 10
New story poles are further to left in new design, and obscure additional view. Orange line is
estimated based on one foot lower roof line in new design. Note that this was a foggy day;
consequently the additional distant views evident in the first picture are obscured. Foliage is
present in this view that is not present in winter. Proposed 9 Burrell court second floor will, we
believe, have direct views into the existing Master Suite and dressing area of our home at 7 Burrell
Court. Comments from previous photo regarding additional proximity (four feet) of new
construction to our home still apply.
Page 10 of 10
KA~~ SUl~ W-lbLbo..J.q, -1 ~~~'-'- Ct>tltt..T
~
o
z
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
c
LATE MAil # E- L
)7
JUL 2 5 ?nn7
July 23, 2007
Ms. Laurie "Tyler, Associate Planner, and Members of the Design Review Board
Tiburon Planning Department
1505 Tiburon Bt
Tiburon, CA 94920
re: Proposed addition to 9 Burrell Court
Dear Ms. Tyler and Members of the Design Review Board:
We attended the previous ORB hearing of Mrs. Hariri's proposal. A copy of the letter We
submitted for that review is appended. Having looked at the present plan, we are at a loss
to identify any substantive changes and thus to comprehend the rationale for another public
hearing. None of the reservations/objections addressed at the earlier review 8re mitigated in
the new proposal. The ORB's response at the first hearing was unanimous, unambiguous,
and unequivocal. Moreover, the Board offered quite specific guidelines for a plan that
would be looked upon more favorably. There is little evidence that those suggestions have
been considered, much less taken seriously. Utilizing different land-use planners andlor
architects do not change those recommendations. .
Perhaps the applicant is operating on the premise that if you keep coming back long
enough, you'll wear everybody else down and get what you want (which has been known
to happen)~ If so, I hope the DRB will not see fit to comply. For, if effected, Mrs.
Hariri's house will loom over her downslope neighbors on Reed Ranch Road. Such
intrusion on others' privacy and '~uglifying" the Reedlands ridgeline with what will
effectively amount to a three-story structure is not necessary given the option of building
beneath the main floor. Her view will not be enhanced by building up.
Two last points:
1) Another neighbor (N. Roberts, 2 Warrens Way), separated on the Reed Ranch Road
side from Mrs. Hariri's house by one home, recently presented a similar proposal. That
homeowner found a solution that avoided the same privacy and aesthetic problems that this
plan presents.
2) A general consideration: Recent articles in a local paper have questioned what happens ,
to the inventory of smaller homes like these two, if all are granted variances and end up
being much larger. Unfortunately, a bad precedent was set in this town long before the
current ORB was seated. Still, it is worth wondering about the wisdom of granting so
much opportunity to overdevelop one's property, especially in the absence of any
demonstrated need to do so.
Sincerely,
~~~
L1L 1J~.
~dY &lOCh
H. Spencer Bloch
54 Reed Ranch Road
cc: Mrs. Firuze Hariri
EXHIBIT NO. /7
The Chair opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was
closed.
Each Boaromember supported the project and commended the Sch09l District for
working with the neighbors.
MIS, Frymier/Teiser (passed 5-0) to determine that the project is categorically
exempt from the provisions of CEQA and approve the application subject to the
conditions of approval as set forth in the Staff report.
=;> 4. 9 BURRELL COURT HARIRI, ADDITIONSN ARIANCES
The application is for the expansion and additions to an existing single-family dwelling.
In addition to the expansion of the home and conversion of the garage, a partial second
story is proposed at the center of the home, which would include a master bedroom and
bathroom, terrace and an extra bedroom. Expanded decking at the rear of the home and
an additional terrace off the family room are also proposed. The proposed structure
would create a lot coverage of3,332 square feet (22.6%) which exceeds the 15.0%
maximum lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district. The proposed expansion of the home
would result in an approximately 21 foot front yard setback which would be less than the
30 foot minimum front yard setback in the RO-2 zone. The applicant is requesting
variances for excess lot coverage and reduced front yard setback.
Scott Hochstrasser stated that he agreed with the staff report. He showed pictures of
views between neighboring properties and noted that there is distance and vegetation
between the homes. He stated that the applicant also proposes to add landscaping on his
property. '
Ali Majlessi, architect, described the project design. He noted that a neighbor objected to
a loss of privacy and in response they had reduced the number of windows.
In response to Boardmember Corcoran, Mr. Hochstrasser stated that excavating below
the house for an addition was never a major consideration.
Pete Pedersen, landscape architect, described the growth characteristics of the palm trees
proposed to be planted in front of the house and the magnolia trees that would be planted
along Reed Ranch Road. He stated that the applicant's intent is to maintain the trees to
be good neighbors, and are still working with neighbors regarding what would be planted
between 9 and 7 Burrell Court.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Ray Truman stated that he was concerned with a loss of privacy. He stated that the story
poles are different from when they were earlier invited to look at the site and he has
therefore rescinded his previous acceptance of the proposal. He asked the Board consider
changes to lessen the impact on his privacy, possibly including plants or trees to make the
project less intrusive.
TIBURON D.R.B.
4/5/07
EXHIBIT Np. 18
Christopher Wand stated that he had no objection to the floor area, but objected to the
second story. He showed an aerial photo of Burrell Court taken in 1960 and explained
that this house was the original model home, with sweeping views of the Bay and the
City. He reviewed the history of neighbors not being allowed to build second stories on
this street and urged the applicant to build downhill or expand the house towards Burrell
Court and move the garage.
Scott Hochstrasser stated they would like the opportunity to continue to work with the
neighbors; thought building living space underneath was a much different project than the
proposal; noted #7 has a second story; suggested that perhaps they could lower the roof
line.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
In response to a question from Boardmember Teiser, Planning Manager Watrous stated
building the second story would not necessarily create a precedent for the applicant to
have a view over their neighbor's future possible second story additions. He noted that
the currently proposed upstairs area does not include primary living areas, and therefore
views from these rooms would not be so strongly protected by the Hillside Guidelines.
Boardmember Corcoran stated he had a lot of trouble with this project. He noted that
neighbors have strong concerns about landscaping and privacy. He characterized a
second story ~ddition on this street as "a slippery slope," .adding that it would not be fair
to allow this project to add upstairs when others have been unable to do likewise. He felt
that adding a second story was as difficult as adding space underneath the house. He said
that the trees to be planted along Reed Ranch Road would address the privacy issues. He
said that the project needs more work and more discussion with the neighbors. He noted
that adding floor area without a second story would also address the privacy issues. He
also noted that the second story would not significantly improve the views for the house.
Boardmember Glassner stated that it is not only an issue of size and bulk, but noted that
the palm trees can grow into problems. He said that he was concerned that although the
neighbors suggested excavating for the floor area the applicant is reluctant to do so.
Boardmember Teiser stated that he could not support the project at all. He felt that the
privacy issue could be solved, but thought that the project looms over Reed Ranch Road.
He said that the second story would be completely out of character with the rest of the
neighborhood. He stated that the applicant was seeking more views at the expense of the
neighbors and he would rather see the applicant ask for more lot coverage to reduce the
bulk of the addition.
Boardmember Frymier agreed with Boardmember Teiser'scomments about supporting
more lot coverage as opposed to height. She characterized the project as massive, stating
that the palm trees and story poles make a gargantuan statement. She said that the
addition would be out of character with the more visually peaceful nature of Burrell
Court.
Chair Doyle stated that he thought it was a beautiful house, but when every neighbor on
the block states that this would take away views then an applicant needs to be willing to
try different approaches. He said that he was not inclined to approve a proj ect when the
TIBURON D.R.B. 5
4/5/07
EXHIBIT NO. }8 _
applicant is not interested in working with the neighbors. He said that an applicant has
to be open to suggestions, possibly involving increased lot coverage. He noted that the
architect has talent and can find other ways to add more floor area.
MIS, Teiser/ Frymier (passed 5-0) to continue the item to the May 3, 2007 meeting.
5. 2270 PARADISE DRIVE MARTINEZ, ADDITIONN ARIANCEfFLOOR
AREA EXCEPTION
The applicant has submitted a request to extend the garage of a previously approved new
single-family dwelling located at 2270 Paradise Drive. The proposed expansion would
extend to within 12 feet of the front property line, in lieu of the 15-foot front yard setback
required in the R-2 zone. Therefore, a variance is requested for a reduced front yard
setback. The gross floor area of the residence would increase by 102 square feet to a total
of 3,225 square feet, which would exceed the floor area limit of 2,833 square feet by 392
square feet; therefore a floor area exception is required.
Bruce Ross, on behalf of the architect, asked the Board to approve this minor adjustment
of previously approved plans.
The Chair opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was
closed.
Boardmembers Teiser stated that this is a minor adjustment, and thathe had talked to the
impacted neighbors who do not object to the request.
Boardmember Corcoran noted that the expanded garage would still be further back from
the street than the existing garage on the site. ,
Boardmember Glassner stated that this was a thoughtful addition.
Chair Doyle said that this was a great addition to a beautiful house.
MIS, Frymier/Corcoran (passed 5-0) to determine that the project is categorically
exempt from the provisions of CEQA and approve the application subject to the
conditions of approval as set forth in the Staff report.
6. 16 SOUTHRIDGE EAST EHSAN, ADDITIONSN ARIANCES
BoardmemberCorcoran recused himself from this item.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to
an existing single-family dwelling which would include a lower level guest suite,
expansion to the main level bedroom and entryway, a new upper level master suite, and
improvements to the terrace on the lower and main level. The lot coverage on the site
would increase by 315 square feet (2%) to a total of3,261 square feet (22.0%), which is
greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. The proposed
addition would extend to within 7 feet 4 inches of the side property line, in lieu of the 15
TIBURON n.R.B.
4/5/07
6
EXHIBIT NO. ~~
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM-E4
............ .............. ........... ....
TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: ASSOCIATE PLANNER TYLER
SUBJECT: 9 BURRELL COURT; FILE #20633
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH
VARIANCES FOR REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND EXCESS
LOT COVERAGE
MEETING DATE: APRIL 5, 2007
..... .................... ........ ..... .............
PROJECT DATA:
OWNER:
APPLICANT/ARCHITECT:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
FIRUZE HARIRI
DESIGN TECH
9 BURRELL COURT
034-302-05
20633
14,731 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
MARCH 5, 2007
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in
Section 15301.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted drawings for the expansion and addition to the existing single-
family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, for the
property located at 9 Burrell Court.
The existing dwelling is single-story and contains three bedrooms, a living room, dining room,
kitchen, and two-car garage. The proposed project would include expanding the living areas of
the home at the rear of the dwelling, and conversion of the existing garage into an additional
bedroom, bathroom and laundry room. A new two-car garage is proposed in front of the
existing garage.
EXHIBIT NO.~
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . ..,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In addition to the expansion of the home and conversion of the garage, a partial second story is
proposed at the center of the home, which would include a master bedroom and bathroom,
terrace and an extra bedroom. The interior of the home would be slightly reconfigured with the
proposed improvements. Expanded decking at the rear of the home and an additional terrace
off the family room are also proposed.
The proposed structure would create a gross floor area of 3,428 square feet which is below the
maximum permitted floor area for a parcel of this size (3,471 sq. ft.). The proposed structure
would create a lot coverage of 3,332 square feet (22.60/0) which exceeds the maximum
permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zoning district (150/0). The applicant is requesting a variance
for excess lot coverage.
The proposed expansion of the home would result in an approximately 21 foot front yard
setback. The maximum front yard setback in the RO-2 zoning district is 30 feet. The applicant
is requesting a variance for reduced front yard setback.
The fa9ade of the home would include stucco siding, white trim and clay roof tiles. A color
materials board will be available at the Board meeting for review.
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The existing home is designed to take advantage of views of San Francisco, Belvedere and the
bay. The site is relatively flat but begins to slope downward to the south at the rear of the
property. The project site is situated at the end of Burrell Court and above Reed Ranch Road.
The surrounding homes are mostly single-story, with the exception of the residence at 7 Burrell
Court.
Concerns have :been raised by the adjacent neighbor at 7 Burrell Court regarding view
obstructions and privacy impacts. The proposed second story would impede on views of the
Tiburon Ridge from a second story master bedroom suite, as well as create privacy impacts .for
the master bathroom and outdoor pool/patio area. A detailed letter was received by the
property owner of 7 Burrell Court explaining the potential impacts and is attached to this report.
Currently, mature landscaping exists between 7 Burrell Court and the subject residence;
however there are pockets or slot views through the tree's over the existing structure. The
proposed terrace on the second story on the north side of the home would appear to look
directly into the master bathroom at 7 Burrell Court, as well as provide views of Mount
Tamalpais to the north for the owner. It is recommended that the Board visit the property at 7
Burrell Court to better understand the potential impacts the proposal may have on this neighbor.
Exterior lighting can be aproblematic component of any design proposal. The exterior lighting
plan submitted, detailed on sheet A9.1, indicates an excessive amount of recessed light fixtures
surrounding the exterior of the home. Too much exterior lighting can lead to unnecessary light
pollution for adjacent residences and make the home stand out against the hillside from a
April 5, 2007
page 2 of 7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. .... ................. ...... .......................
distance. It is recommended that the Board consider a reduction in the amount of exterior
lighting.
The landscaping plan indicates a row of Magnolia "Samuel Sommer" trees at the rear of the
property, along Reed Ranch Road. This type of tree is classified as an "undesirable tree" by the
Tiburon Tree Ordinance because they are fast growing, and can reach a mature height of 35' +
feet. In addition, Fern Pines are proposed adjacent to the neighbor at 7 Burrell Court, which can
grow to a height of 60' if not maintained. Currently, Fern Pines exist in the same location. It is
recommended that .the Board evaluate whether or not these types of trees are acceptable for
the locations proposed.
An application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the placement of the stucco wall at the
front of the property was approved on October 30, 2002, which included a condition of approval
requiring the installation of low shrubs or climbing vegetation in front of the wall. The property
owner planted palm trees after receiving the approval, the species of which were considered an
undesirable tree. Several of the adjacent neighbors complained about the palm trees, and
Town Staff advised the property owner that they needed to be removed because they were
undesirable and also because they were located within the public right of way without an
encroachment permit. The property owner removed the palm trees after receiving the letter
from staff. A copy of the notice of action and letter sent to the property owner are attached for
reference.
The landscape plan indicates Mexican Fan Palm trees proposed at the front of the property,
adjacent to the existing stucco wall. The proposed species of palm trees would have the
potential to grow to a height of twenty feet tall, which is not considered a low shrub. A condition
of approval has been included with this application requiring the substitution of the palm trees
for low shrubs or climbing vegetation, to coincide with the previous fence approval condition of
approval.
The southeast elevation depicts a door and window below the main level, which may be used as
storage area or crawl space. Staff advised the applicant to provide more information regardfng
this area to determine whether or not this would be additional floor area. The drawings indicate
enclosed crawl space. Staff was unable to gain entrance to the home to determine if this area is
used as crawl space or habitable space.
Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines
The following portion of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to evaluate the
hillside design of the house as proposed:
· Goal 1 , Principle 1 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that a building should be cut
into the hillside to reduce effective visual bulk. From below the property at Reed Ranch
Road, the home would appear massive, even though it is slightly stepped with the
incorporation of the second story balcony. When viewing the story poles from further
away along Tiburon Boulevard, the home would appear to stick out amongst the other
hillside homes, creating a bulk issue.
April 5, 2007
page 3 of 7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
· Goal 1, Principle 9 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that to reduce effective bulk
and provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces, underground or
below grade spaces should be excavated into the hillside. If the proposed second story
living areas were relocated beneath the home, this would preserve existing viewsheds
and reduce the mass and bulk of the home from below and further away. The subject
home currently has views from the existing decking to the south, and while they would
not have the additional decking above on the proposed second story to obtain a larger
view, they would not lose all of their views without the additional higher elevation
decking.
· Goal 2, Principle 6 (c) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that to control window
placement for sun, privacy and view, avoid placing windows where they will tllook right
into" someone else's home. The proposed partial second story would be at the same
elevation as the" second story at 7 Burrell Court. The proposed terrace would face the
master bathroom window at 7 Burrell Court. Additionally, the proposed second story
master bathroom window would face the master bedroom window at 7 Burrell Court.
· Goal 3, Principle 7 (a) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that view protection is
more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling (i.e. living room, dining room,
family room, great room, kitchen, and decks associated with these rooms) than for less
actively used areas of a dwelling (i. e. bedroom, bathroom, study, office, den). The
residence at 7 Burrell Court would only have potential view blockages from the master
bedroom suite which faces south.
Zoning
With the exception of the requested variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot
coverage, the project appears to be in conformance with the remaining development regulations
of the RO-2 zoning district.
Variances
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make all of the following findings"
required by Section 16-4;3 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
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.
Front Yard Setback:
The proposed expansion of the home would push the entry area into the 30 foot front
yard setback, resulting in a21 foot front yard setback at this location. The home is
situated towards the end of a cul-de-sac and has a circular front yard, which results in a
curvilinear front yard setback line. This is a special circumstance applicable to the
property.
April 5, 2007
page 4 of 7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . a- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lot Coverage:
The home is situated on a lot that is below the minimum lot size for the RO-2 zoning
district. Combined with the topography of the lot, this creates a difficult site in which to
work with. It is not unusual to see lot coverage requests on substandard parcels.
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.
Front Yard Setback:
Other homes located within cul-de-sacs commonly run into front yard setback issues
because the setback line is curvilinear.
Lot Coverage:
Properties in the vicinity of the subject property, specifically on Burrell Court and along
Reed Ranch Road, have previously been granted variances for excess lot coverage.
Therefore, it is not uncommon for this type of variance request.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
Front Yard Setback:
The existing home is already located within the front yard setback, so it would be an
unnecessary hardship to allow a small section of the entry porch to encroach additionally
into the setback.
Lot Coverage:
Due to the existing topography and orientation of the home and surrounding homes,
adding floor area as a full second story to the house to gain additional living space would
impede on possible viewsheds from 7 Burrell Court, and would also increase the mass
and bulk of the structure. The applicant has opted to convert the existing garage into
usable space at the lower level at the front of the property where it is concealed. .
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
Front Yard Setback:
Granting the front yard setback would not be detrimental or injurious to other properties
because most of the homes along Burrell Court appear to be located within the front
yard setback.
Lot Coverage:
The proposal indicates a partial second story. If the home was proposed with a full
second story and the existing garage was left unconverted, this may result in additional
view blockages for the neighboring residence.
April 5, 2007
page 5 of 7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the
findings for the requested variance for excess lot coverage. However, the proposal would
appear to be inconsistent with the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. If the partial second story
were relocated below the existing structure on the south side of the site, there would be a
reduction in the mass and bulk of the home, while maintaining existing viewsheds for both the
owner and adjacent neighbors.
Public Comment
To date, several letters have been received from the surrounding neighbors in opposition to the
project.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section
4.02.07 (Guiding Principles), 16-4.3 (Variances) and the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, and
determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board agrees with Staff's conclusions, the
application should be continued with the applicant encouraged to return with a revised project
design consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines. If the Board wishes to approve the
project, findings should be articulated for the requested approval, and Staff would recommend
that the attached conditions of approval be applied.
EXHIBITS:
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Application and supplemental materials
3. Staff level Notice of Action dated October 30,2002
4. Letter from Staff to Firuze Hariri dated November 3,2003 re: removal of trees
5. Goal 1 , Principle 1, Goal 1 , Principle 9, Goal 2, Principle 6(c), and Goal 3, Principle 7(a)
of the Hillside Design Guidelines
6. Letter dated February 6, 2007 from Mike and Phillipa Beaumont
7. Letter dated February 12, 2007 from Ramon and Benita Truman
8. Letter dated February 13, 2007 from Eric and Barbara Roberts
9. Letter dated February 14, 2007 from Spencer and Judy Bloch
10. Letter dated February 26, 2007 from several adjacent neighbors
11. Letter dated March 9, 2007 from Christopher Wand
12. Submitted plans
April 5, 2007
page 6 of 7
1~/3a/2005 15:23
141533~?0373
DESIGt4 TECH
PAf3E 1::1 J.
11
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAN'O DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
IYf.-F;QF AePL,ICATJQ!!
" Oondttlol1al USll) Permit
o Frechu. Development Plan
,0 Secondary Dwelling Unit
o Zonlrlg Amendrnent/Prezoning
o GMeral Pl2lnAmenumem
o Ohal'lge of Addren
o Design r{e'lfew (ORE!)
o Design Review (Staff level)
o Variance
o Floo(Area. Exception
o Sign Permit
o Tree Permit
IT ::_~_~~.\_.'>l- -"."~li.~.---...~
o Tentativ. SubdMsion i~irr--'".~
o Final Subdivlsion Map'
a Parc.'l'vlap
o Lot Una .o.djustment
o Certificate of Compiiar!ce
o Other______
-----
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: _____~___.
PARCEL NUMBER:
__PROPERTV' SIZE: ____
ZONING:
OWNER OF PR,OPERTY:
MA!L1NG ADDRESS: _
PHONE NUMBER: _____._.
_~_CITYJSTArElZ'p ___
_._FAX _______~__
APPLICANT: (Other than Proparty Owner) _____.____.___
MAILING ADDRESS: ___________
PHONE NUMBER: ____________...__ ..___FAX
I
I. .
:
ARCHfTECT/DESeGNeRlENGINEER:_~___
MAILING ADDRESS: __ '___
--._--_._._-~
; 1
PI...e indiest. withlJ!n eaterlsk (*) pel"$ons fo whom Town correspond811ce .hould b. sent,1
I
I
BR,IEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach s&p.rate sheGt if needed): .--------1-.
.- '---'-'-~----_. . .. . !
-..,----.---~---- --------------t-
-------'---~.--..-----".--________1.._._
!
Il the undersigned owner (or author-ized agent) of the property herein described. herEtby ma.ke appliCc7i1don
for approval of the plans submitted and made a pa.rt of this application in accordance with the provtsi6ns
of the Town Municipal Codel and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correot to the b~st
Qf my knowledge and belief. . i
, understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my prinoipal). Therefore, if the l o~
grants the approva'. with or w~hout conditions. and that aotlon is chaHenged by a third pal1y, I will 'be
r9$pOnsible for defending aga.inst this ohallenge, I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for
defense at the request of the Town and elso agree to defend, Indemnify and hord the Town harmless
from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, incaudlng, without limitation, any award of
attorney's fees that might result e third p rty challenge.
Date: .----e____
EXHIBIT NO.~q
j\jH',/
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
o Conditional Use Permit
o Precise Development Plan
. 0 Secondary Dwelling Unit
o Zoning Amendment/Prezoning
o General Plan Amendment
o Change of Address
.. Design Review (ORB)
o Design Review (Staff level)
"Variance 'X Z
o Floor Area Exception
o Sign Permit
o Tree Permit
o Tentative Subdivision Map
o Final Subdivision Map'
o Parcel Map
o Lot Line Adjustment
o Certificate of Compliance
o Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS:
PARCEL NUMBER:
9 Burrell Court
034-302-05
PROPERTY SIZE: 14731 s. f .
ZONING: R-O"- Z
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
Firuze Hariri
9 Burrell Court
415-435-1288
') 49 20
CITY/STATE/ZIP Tiburon, CA
FAX 4 15 - 9 21- 0 2 3 7
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER: DESIGN TECH
MAILING ADDRESS: 150 Gate 5 Rd., Suite 204, Sausalito, CA 94965
Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
Addition of 748 Sq. ft. on the qround floor, creation of a new
963 sq. ft. as a second floor, and expansion of existing deck by
266 sq. ft.
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application
for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions
of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (orthat of my principal). Therefore, if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for
defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless
from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of
attorney's fees that might result from tbe third party challenge.
*Signature: / >~--2" ~',7 /~ / . -- ------
~ ./ /
Date:
I L/{/((
*/f other than owner, must have letter from owner
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION
Application No.: 20633 GP DesiQnation /~I - .A-tdMm [F.(IS~ee Deposit .2!~; {'{a. 00
Dale Received: /I:s- Received Bv: <,,-T (Aecelp!# ~66
Date Deemed Complete: --1. . By: )~
ActinQ Body: Date:
Conditions of Approval or Comments:
Resolution or Ordinance #:
HIBIT NO.
N9V
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division (415)-435-7390
www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards would
result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships must
be caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site. Please refer to Section 16-4.3 of Chapter 16
(Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances.
WHAT VARlANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING?
Condition
Zoning
Requirement
Existing
Condition
This
Application
Proposes
Magnitude
Of Variance
Requested
Front Yard Setback
30 '
17' to Bldg.
10' to Front
Same
Rear Yard Setback
__Eor~h
Le-fi-STde Yarcr-SetoaClZ--- ------------------------.
Right Side Yard Setback
Lot Coverage
15%
15%
20%
5%
Height
Parcel Area
Per Dwelling Unit
Usable Open Space
Parking
Expansion of
Nonconformity
Other (Please describe):
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
TOWN OFTIBURON
Rev. 08/06
Page 1
EXHIBIT NO.~
DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION! 1f1011M
Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): ~-l{(;:~:r 0:.1 ; [~l CI N _J
1. Briefly describe the~proposed project: Addi tion of 855 s. f. to firs t floor,
reduction of 107 s.f. from garage. Addition of 963 s.f. as a
new second floor.
2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-1.5(1)*):
14,713
Zoning:
RO-2
3. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, co.mmercial, etc.):
Existing Sinqle Family Residential
Proposed Same
4. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround or maneuvering areas.
Same number of covered parking spaces. Driveway reduced but adequate
turnaround and maneuvering area.
Yards 17' to Bl g. 17' to Bldg.
(Setbacks from property 10 ' to 8' to Front
Front Porch
line )(Section 16-1.5(y)* Porch ,.
Front 2.( ~.
ft. ft. ft. ft. 3(:i ft.
Rear 46 ft. 12 ft. 34 ft. ft. ?c/x. ft.
Right Side 15 ft. N/A ft. Sarre ft. ft. /~ I ft.
Left Side 15 ft. N/A ft. Same ft. ft. /-S- / ft.
Maximum Height ft.
(Section 16-5.6.7)* 22 ft. 6.5 ft. 28.5 ft. ., /\ ft.
-' \....,'~'
Lot Coverage 1610 2465 1st floor + 818 ~57 '2. 206. 9~
442 gar. + 150 De~ Addi tional
(Section 16-5.6.8)* 154 , _ sq. sq.ft. sq.ft. I sq.ft.
Lot Coverage as 3'
Percent of Lot Area ok 5 ok 20 ok /S- Ok
Gross Floor Area t. 3428 + {X, t/1
442 0/1-
v I
DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM TOWN OF TmURON
JUNE 2006
EXHIBIT NO.~
Date: 5/9/2006
Town of Tiburon
Planning Department
1155 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, Ca 94920
RE: Addition & Renovation
9 Burrell Court
Tiburon, Ca 94920
We hereby declare that we have reviewed architectural drawings that were presented to
us by Ms. I-Iariri and have no objections to this project.
x-b~~------ &
1\.1r. Eric Tepper
# 6 Burrell Court
x -- -- -- - - &
Mr. Eric Rober..
# 4 ??W;
X----:-------~- :------------------ &
Mr. R. Petri
# 8 Burrell Couti
~'J1 tA?
1/ .. ,.. ^
//, J ^ \,
xl f1Z1J{/:-~}~fC:~A TE: .?.~J:~~
Ms. Lynne Steinbach
&
x-------------------------------- DAT~: ---------------
Ms. Philipa Baunlont
" / 1
'---- DATE: -~~ _Jc1__? ')
X--------------------------------DATE: --;>-~-~~-~~~ ..,("
EXHIBIT NO.~
2
MR & Mrs. Tholnpso
61 Read Ranch Road
/Jttj4i#~~;{ 7 ~ ". .
~}~~-7(!r~?
7l; >4, .)tI~-'J t;:, v'Cj h "V j;/-( C /f ,,~
)(----------------------------------- ~ )(-------------------------------- l)}\T~: ----------------
Mr. & Mrs. Bloch
54 Read Ranch Road
X-~~& x~~- DATE: _?_~__!~~.-L~ool,.
Mr.& Mrs. R..'1 (V'; 0 f-i 'T~'u MAN
5' ~ ~E b",,::> ~ At--! Cl\ ~e t\:1i)
EXHIBIT NO.J!l-
I.
I I
\ ! I .' \I
\,
JAN I G 2007
A~..!'- '..'C.
.: I ,'( . .>'.
!',Ii. ,1 .:,\~;,
J::1:17\T , " :,' ", ,
'JL":'il:;~~
.. "'" \~ .
Email * Slhllpa(~aOLcom * 42 Glen Drive, Suite B * Fairfax, CA 94930 USA * Tele (415)459-6224 * Fax 459-5810
SCOTf L. HOCHSTRASSER
IP A Inc.
MEMO-
TO:Ali, Design Tech.
FROM: Scott L. Hochstrasser
RE: Variance Findings - # 9 Burrell Court
DATE: 1-11-07
Project Description:
The project includes a remodel of an existing home and garage. There are two elements of the
proposed remodel that result in need for a variance. First, the plan includes conversion of and
existing two car garage to living space and development of a new garage results in the need for a
lot coverage variance of 5% to a total Lot Coverage of 200/0 where the Town Code for the R-O
Zone District limits the maximum coverage to 150/0. Secondly, the plan will increase ever so
slightly the existing front yard variance for a porch and portion of the remodeled building
including a roof deck and new trellis. The front yard building wall setback would remain at17
feet from the property line and the porch setback would change from the 10 foot setback that now
exists to 8 feet from the property line. Accordingly, the setback variance needed simply confirms
the existing situation at the building wall (17 ft from property line) but would permit the front
porch trellis to extend an additional 2 feet beyond the existing porch. The Town Code requires a
front yard setback of 30 feet from the property line
Porch Front Yard Setback Variance Findings of Fact
1. The subject property is located at the circular end of a cul-de-sac. The rear of the property
also has frontage on a 60 foot road right of way. The lot is a double road frontage
property. The property shape is a trapezium, where none of the boundary lines are equal,
and the frontage is curvilinear following a cul-de-sac. The rear half of the site has steep
down slope resulting in placement of the existing buildings on the property forward of the
slope and into the front yar9. resulting in a building and porch variance. The front yard
setback arks in a curvilinear line following the cul-de-sac resulting in a very restrictive
front yard setback area. Clearly this was discovered when the existing house was
developed and a variance for the building wall and porch were granted at that time.
Accordingly, any remodel over the existing building footprint also requires that a front
yard setback be granted. Strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the owner
of privileges enjoyed by other single family residential properties in the neighborhood
with the same zoning. As noted (see plan sheet C-1), the existing house has a front yard
variance for the building wall and porch and the changes planned would not increase the
1
EXHIBIT NO.~
use of the area or substantially, only by 2 feet... The improvements are for architectural
interest and design consistency with the remodel and permit redevelopment of the
existing building consistent with what others enjoy.
2. Other properties, for example a neighboring property at #6 Burrell Court in August 2005,
have been granted variances to permit relief from strict application of the Zoning Code.
The original development of the subject property enjoyed a variance for the front porch
for many years. No substantial change (+2 ft additional encroachment in the front
setback) is planned for the porch. In fact the Town has granted many setback variances in
the R-O zone district. The proposed variance would not be a grant of special privilege
that has not already existed on the subject property. Others in the immediate vicinity with
the same or similar zoning requirements enjoy remodeled homes with variances.
3. It would be a hardship on the owners not to permit them to enjoy the redevelopment and
continued use of an existing building and porch that do not meet front yard setbacks.
The living space and porch was permitted with the original development and it required a
variance. The owners, consistent with Town land use policy, are utilizing existing
building space and footprint for remodel and to expand their living area. Rather than
making new building bulk, mass and height and footprint at the front yard setback the
owners are utilizing the existing area so as not to impact adjacent neighboring property.
Recycling existing building lot coverage is encouraged by Town policy to limit resource
use, save energy and to minimize disruption in an established neighborhood. The front
porch variance is necessary only to allow replacement and minor changes to the front of
the existing building. The existing building already encroaches on the front yard setback.
4. Actually the front porch variance would be consistent with what has existed on the
property for many years without recorded incident of injury to neighboring property or
general public health and welfare. The additional 2 feet of porch, and remodel of the
existing potion of the building that encroaches on the setback would still allow ample
front yard area for emergency service access, and delivery service. Accordingly, the
setback variance for a new porch and redevelopment of existing building will not have
detrimental impacts on public welfare or be injurious to other property in the vicinity.
Lot Coverage Variance Findings of Fact
1. The subject property is located at the circular end of a cul-de-sac. The rear of the property
also has frontage on a 60 foot road right of way. The property shape is a trapezium, where
none of the boundary lines are equal, and it has a curvilinear frontage and steep down
slope. The site characteristics resulted in placement of the existing building inside the
front yard setback. Strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the owner of
privileges enjoyed by other single family residential properties in the neighborhood with
the same zoning. The existing house has a garage which would be converted to living
space. The property owner elected to avoid a full second story over the house to gain
living space to show respect for the existing neighboring properties, and not block their
views, invade their privacy or reduce their sunlight. The plan reduces building bulk, mass
and volume by using the existing building lot coverage and adding one story garage lot
2
EXHIBIT NO.-11-
coverage... The choice of building up over the entire existing house or making more lot
coverage in a one story garage was made out of respect for surrounding neighbors and in
order to meet Town design policy and guidelines.
2. Others:in the R-O zoning district enjoy lot coverage variances, fo~ example #6 Burrell
Court was granted a lot coverage variance in August 2005. The increased lot coverage is a
result of the applicant's proposal to construct a new one story two car garage in the front
yard. Others in single family residential neighborhoods have not been asked to give up
covered parking in exchange for increased living area. The planned remodel balances lot
coverage and a partial second story addition to reach floor area needs of the owners while
respecting the established neighboring developed character. No special privilege is
requested beyond what is not enjoyed by others in the same R-O zone district.
3. Physically the site characteristics, lot size, shape, slope, double road frontage and
placement of the existing building development guides and drives the need for a lot
coverage variance. The prope'rty owners could make the floor area increase proposed
without a lot coverage variance with a full second story but they elected not to. The sole
purpose for the lot coverage variance is to allow for the additional construction of new
covered parking that is lost when the exiting covered parking is converted to living area.
4. Granting the proposed lot coverage variance, 5% increase over what strict application of
the zoning code permits, will not impact the public adversely because all of the lot
coverage in on private property well away from the public rights of way. Secondly, the
proposed variance is proposed to balance the public interest in views and privacy between
the neighboring properties. The applicant has elected to balance the need for additional
living space with the neighboring interests and elected to balance the plan with less
second story building addition. With a partial second story addition and new lot coverage
for a one story garage the plan is balanced between going up and spreading out. The plan
is intended to benefit the property owner by adding additional living space while avoiding
adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbors. Keeping the additional floor areas to
existing building bulk and mass with only slight change with a second story and shifting
floor area to the lot coverage for covered parking balances the project with private interest
and protection of the surrounding public. Accordingly, the remodel is designed to balance
the building development of second story living space and ground coverage for a one
story garage and maintain community character and preserve privacy and values of
neighboring property. Accordingly, the plan will not result in injury to others properties
and or be detrimental to public welfare.
3
EXHIBIT NO.~
.~
Pedersen Associates
Landscape Architecture
Peder Jens Pedersen, ASLA
24 H Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
4154562070
4154562086 F
CA Reg. No. 2300
HI Reg. No. 7273
www.pedersenassociates.com
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
J/\I{ I ') 2DOl
Daniel Watrous
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Brian Klein, Pedersen Associates ~-
January 4, 2007
Site Plan and Architectural Review Application #20633
Hariri Residence
9 Burrell Court, Tiburon, CA
Assessor's Parcel 034-302-05
The following is in response to your November 30, 2006 letter regarding the application
submi tted for the above referenced property. Weare enclosing a copy of the letter as
well as two sets of revised plans and our responses to items in the letter. Our numbered
responses correspond to the item numbers in your letter.
1) Plans have been revised and clouded (#2 DRB resub) to indicate the diameter of all
proposed trees to be removed. The tree in question Magnolia "Samuel Sommer" has a
mature height of 30'-0" -40' -0" per Sunset Western Garden Book. Please review the
enclosed supplemental before and after photomontage for simulated mature growth of
the tree. The Fern Pines shall be maintained to provide privacy for the neighbor. There
is an existing tree of the same genus direct! y adjacent to the new plantings.
3) Proposed location of all fences have been clouded (#2 DRB resub). Detail #2/L-1
(Deer Fence) has been added and clouded.
For items 2,4 and 5 please refer to the Architectural submittal.
Thank you - and please feel free to contact us with any questions.
EXHIBIT NO. 20
Page 1 Of~6
~.I
~..
--<,;~ .
-. ~->....
~-:. '
t; ',; .'
~~.#~
Ivlagnolia planting
nvo doors dmvn
Reed Ranch Road
30' -0" Tall I\1agnolia
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
TREE CONDITIONS EXHIBIT NO. 20 _
~ .-z;n;-
BEFORE
AFTER - Trees @ 25' -0" tall
EXHIBIT NO. 20
eq.3006
BEFORE
=;;sF~"~~:~~,,:'?';-~t....
~.'- ~-~
A FTFR - Trees (il) 2.S' -0" ta 11
((j .4~
EXHIBIT NO. to
I
I.~."
c
MAGNOLIA
NAME
M. fraseri
(M. auriculata)
M. 'Galaxy'
M. grandiflora
SOUTHERN
MAGNOliA,
BULL BAY
M. g. 'D. D.
Blanchard'
M.g.
'Edith Bogue'
M. g. 'Little
Gem'
M. g. 'Majestic
Beauty'
M. g. 'Russet'
M. g. 'Samuel
Sommer'
M. g. 'San
Marino'
Mtignolia
~
OQ ,-s-oP6
rV 2{)449
EXHIBIT NO.
i
1
I
.
I
f
i
I
f
i
i
)
!
I
I
!
i
~~f;w.'"r:.',/"'-
~ 1r . 11: . . ., . .. .. . .. " << .. ... {I. .\J " ,. ~, !/'- ~ ."" .. ~
Foliage generally resembles that of related yews (Taxus), but leaves of the
better-known species are longer, broader, and lighter in color. If a male
plant is growing nearby, female plants bear fruit after many years, produc-
ing small, fleshy fruits rather than COnes. Grow well (if slowly) in most
soils, but may develop chlorosis where soil is alkaline or heavy and damp.
Some botanists divide the plants into three genera (Afrocarpus, Nageia,
Podocarpus); where they apply, new names are given in parentheses.
P. elongatus. For plants sold under this name, see P. gracilior
P. faleatus (Afroearpus faleatus). Tree. Zones 8, 9, 14-24; H2.
Slow-growing native of South Africa. Differs from P. gracilior in nativity,
small botanical details. For uses, see P. gracilior.
P. graeilior (Afrocarpus elongatus, Nageia falcatus). FERN PINE.
Tree, often grown as espaliered vine or even in hanging baskets. Zones 8,
9,13-24; HI, H2. From eastern Africa. To 20-60 ft. tall, 10-20 ft. wide.
Among the cleanest, most pest-free trees for street, lawn, patio, garden;
good as big shrub, as hedge, in container.
Method of propagation determines growth habit. If grown from seed,
plants are upright even when young (and stay that way); these plants are
usually sold as P. gracilior. In youth, they have branches set somewhat
sparsely with glossy dark green leaves 2 - 4 in. long, 1Jz in. wide. With age,
they produce 1-2-in., soft grayish green to bluish green leaves that are
more closely spaced on branches. Stake seedling plants until a strong
trunk develops.
If grown from cuttings or grafts of a mature tree, plants have the
smaller, more closely set leaves just described, but they have very limber
branches and are often reluctant to make strong vertical growth. These
more willowy plants, suitable for espalier, hanging pots, or growing as
vines along fences, are often sold as P. elongatus. Given staking and tying,
P. elongatus types eventually become upright trees, though their foliage
mass persists in drooping for some time.
P. henkelii. LONG-LEAFED YELLOWWOOD. Tree. Zones 8,9,14-24;
HI, H2. From eastern and southern Africa. Handsome, erect tree grows
slowly to 30-50 ft. tall, 15-20 ft. wide. Bears masses of drooping, shiny
green leaves, pointed at both ends. Young plants have leaves 5-7 in. long,
1J3 in. wide; on older plants, leaves are much smaller, to 1 ~ 2 in. long, a
little over I/S in. wide.
P. latifolius. YELLOWWOOD. Tree. Zones 8, 9, 12 (warmest parts),
13-24; HI, H2. From eastern and southern Africa. This is the true yellow-
wood, an important timber tree in Africa. Resembles P. henkelii in most
details. Leaves taper only toward tip.
P. maerophyllus. YEW PINE. Shrub or tree. Zones 4-9, 12-24; HI,
H2. Native to eastern China, Japan. Generally narrow and upright; to
15-50 ft. tall, 6-15 ft. wide. Bright green leaves 4 in. long, 1fz in. wide.
Good as a street or lawn tree, screen, large shrub; limber enough to
espalier. Easily pruned as clipped hedge, topiary. Does well in tubs. Very
heat tolerant.
P. m. maki. SHRUBBY YEW PINE. Slower growing and smaller than
species-to 8-15 ft. tall, 2-4 ft. wide. Dense and upright, with leaves to
3 in. long, 1/4 in. wide. A choice shrub; one of the best container plants for
outdoor or indoor use.
P. nagi (Nageia nagi). Tree. Zones 8, 9, 14-24; HI, H2. From Japan,
where it reaches 80-90 ft. tall. In California, more commonly seen at
15-20 ft. tall, 6-8 ft. wide. Pendulous branchlets; leathery, smooth, dark
green, sharp-pointed leaves 1- 3 in. long, IJz -11Jz in. wide. Grows upright
in youth without staking; plant in groves for slender sapling effect. Makes a
decorative foliage pattern against wood or masonry background. Excellent
container plant.
P. nivalis. ALPINE TOTARA. Shrub. Zones 4-9, 14-17. From New
Zealand. Broad, low-growing, spreading plant that eventually reaches
2 - 3 ft. high, 6 -10 ft. wide. Branches are densely clothed with dark olive
green, 1/4 - 3f4 -in.-Iong needles like those of yew. Attractive as ground
cover or in large rock garden.
P. totara. TOTARA. Tree. Zones 8,9,14-24. From New Zealand. In its
native environment, this tree reaches 100 ft. tall. In California, more com-
mon size is 25-30 ft. tall and 18-25 ft. wide. Dense and rather narrow.
Stiff, leathery gray-green leaves to 1 in. long, pointed at tips. General
appearance like that of yew.
podocarpus-poba
~ ' . I
PODOPHYLLUM
Berberidaceae
PERENNIALS
~ ZONES VARY BY SPECIES
:~ . PARTIAL OR FULL SHADE
.., REGULAR TO AMPLE W.t.\TER
~ ALL PARTS (EXCEPT RIPE FRUIT) ARE POISONOUS
IF INGESTED
PodophylJum
hexandrum
Odd-looking yet striking plants, these herbaceous barberry relatives
grow from thick underground rhizomes that send up stalks crowned
with large, umbrella-shaped, deeply lobed leaves. Shoots with a single leaf
are barren; those with two leaves bear a single 2-in.-wide flower (set
between the leaves) in mid- to late spring. Blossoms are followed by juicy,
2-in. berries; these are edible when fully ripe (poisonous until that stage) but
can have a powerful laxative effect. Make attractive, slowly spreading decid-
uous ground covers for shady areas with moist, organically enriched soil.
P. hexandrum. Zones 4-7,14-17. From Himalayas, western China. To
2 - 21Jz ft. high, I1Jz - 2 ft. wide. Dark green, brown-mottled leaves to 10 in.
wide are divided into three or five lobes; each lobe is further divided.
White or pink flowers are followed by bright red berries.
P. peltatum. MAY APPLE. Zones 1-7. From eastern North America. To
1-1% ft. high, 1 ft. wide. Foliage is bronze when new; mature leaves are
shiny dark green, to 1 ft. wide, divided into five to nine lobes. White flowers
followed by bright yellow berries. Spreads fairly fast in its preferred rich,
moist soil. Dies back completely in late summer.
PO D RANEA ricasoliana
PINK TRUMPET VINE
Bignoniaceae
EVERGREEN VINE
~ ZONES 9,12,13, 19-24; H1, H2
:~::~ FULL SUN OR PARTIAL SHADE
Q . MODERATE TO REGULAR WATER
. th Afri li h Podranea ric~olia1Ul
Native to Sou ca. Spraw ng growt to
20 ft.; must be fastened to its support. Glossy dark green leaves con-
sist of two to five opposite pairs of 2-in. leatlets plus one tenninalleatlet.
Blooms in spring or summer, when tips of new growth produce loose clus-
ters of 2-3-in.-wide, red-veined pink flowers shaped like open trumpets.
Grows slowly when young, then speeds up as it matures. Likes heat, good
drainage. Use on posts, arbors, trellises, walls, trunks of high-branching
trees. Thin out any tangling growth in winter. Light frosts may cause leaves
to drop; heavier frosts may kill vine to the ground, but regrowth is almost
certain as long as soil doesn't freeze.
POHA, GROUND CHERRY
Solanaceae
PERENNIAL
~ ZONES H 1, H2; ANYWHERE AS ANNUAL
:~: FULL SUN
. REGULAR WATER
From Brazil, but naturalized at higher elevations
Poha
throughout Hawaiian Islands. Known botani-
cally as Physalis peru viana and closely related to tomatillo (P. ixocarpa)
and Chinese lantern plant (P. alkekengi). Bushy plant with heart-shaped,
irregularly toothed, somewhat velvety green leaves to 21Jz -6 in. long. As a
perennial, it can reach 6 ft. tall and 4 ft. wide (needs support); as an
annual, it is more likely to grow I1Jz - 3 ft. high and wide. Plant produces
small, bell-shaped spring flowers that are whitish yellow with brown spots
in the throat. After the blossoms fade, the enlarged calyx fOnDS a loose,
~.6c1' _5~<
EXHIBIT NO. LO
Town of Tiburon · 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon, CA 94920. P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 · www.tiburon.org
PLANNING DIVISION
NOTICE OF ACTION
SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION
Firuze Hariri
9 Burrell Court
Tiburon, CA 94920
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
ADDRESS: 9 Burrell Court
APPLICANT/OWNER: Harari
FILE NO.: 702167
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace existing wood fence in the front yard with a six
foot stucco wall. Two iron gates would be installed; one for pedestrians, one for
vehicles.
ACTION: Approved with conditions
1. The proposed stucco wall shall not exceed a height of 5' 4".
2. The applicant shall install low shrubs or climbing vegetation in front of the
proposed wall. The location and type of vegetation shall be reviewed by the
Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit.
NOTE: THIS DECISION APPLIES ONLY TO THE ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN "PROJECT
DESCRIPTION" DESCRIBED ABOVE. PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR PLAN CHECK
SHALL BE IDENTICAL TO THOSE APPROVED BY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF. 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. THE APPLICANT SHALL ALSO SUBMIT AN ATTACHED LIST OF THE PROPOSED
CHANGES FOR STAFF TO REVIEW.
Tom'Gram
Mayor
}eff'SJavItz
Vice Ma,yor
Al i~e',Fred e,rii: ks
C ou'riciiiIl'eDlh e r
",:"J::.,
. . . ... ".'.::.- ...,'....'..,. . .
Miles Berger
Councilmember
EXHIBIT NO. 21
Town of Tiburon · 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tibufon, CA 94920. P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438. www.tiburon.org
From the office of Associate Planner Lynch! 415.435.7397
Tiburon Planning Division
Jeff Slavin
Mayor
Alice Fredericks
Monday, November 03, 2003 Vice Mayor
Firuze Hariri
9 Burrell Court
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE:
VEGETATION PLANTED A! 9 BURRELL COURT
Dear Ms. Hariri,
It has come to the Town's attention that a row of palm trees has been planted in
front of the newly constructed fence on your property. It is my duty to inform you
that the species that was planted, Washingtonia robusta, is considered an
undesirable species according to the Town's Tree Ordinance. A tree permit is
required prior to the planting of an undesirable species of tree. For your
information, any species of tree that grows more than three feet per year and is
capable of reaching a height of over 35 feet is considered undesirable. Height
and growth patterns are determined by the Sunset Western Garden Book.
In addition, an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works would
be required in order to plant such large trees in this location. According to your
approved plans, the area in which the trees have been planted are within the
public right-of-way.
In order to come into compliance with Town Ordinances, please either remove
the palm trees or submit a tree permit application and an encroachment permit
application. Please proceed with one of these options by November 21. 2003,
or further code enforcement procedures will ensue.
I should remind you that the conditions of the design review approval state that
low shrubs or climbing vegetation shall be planted in front of the new fence, for
the purposes of visually screening the fence. The approved construction
drawings for the project clearly state that low shrubs will be planted in front of the
fence. In order to receive a final inspection from the Building Division, the
approved type of vegetation must be installed.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me at (415) 435-7397.
Sin~IY, .~
, ~, r'~..'.l=--
..,-, \ :'-'\ . f .
Bnan-t:yilch, .Associate Planner
Miles Berger
Councilinember
Tom Gram
Councilinember
Andrew Thompson
Council member
EXHIBIT NO. 22
Michael and Philippa Beaumont
7 Burrell Court
Tiburon, CA 94920
,
I l. L.J
,,", "'(\('~
- .) t. ~ If
Tel:415-383-4552
CeIl:415-652-8373
Fax: 415-383-4493
Design Review Board and
Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
February 3, 2007
Impact of Proposed Remodel of 9 Burrell Court (''NBC'')
on 7 Burrell Court ("SBC")
A. Principal Obiections
1. A second story on the NBC house will remove the existin2 Drivacv enjoyed by SBC, in
particular the privacy of the SBC master suite. The master suite has two, large picture
windows and views that will be directly impacted by the NBC second story. As shown in the
body of this letter, the master suite is a maior feature of the SBC house.
2. A second story on the NBC house will eliminate the existin2 privacy of the SBC
swimming poollJacuzzilbackyard area. The NBC second story will have a clear view
directly down into our swimming pool/Jacuzzi/backyard area, which is currently private. The
views and privacy of this area will be irreversibly impacted by the proposed NBC remodel. .
3. A second story on the NBC house wiD eliminate existin2 slot views enjoyed by SHC of the
Tiburon ridge. This has been a pre-existing feature of SBC for decades. The SBC master
suite, which is predominantly east facing and is a maior feature of the house, will be
irreversibly impacted by the NBC remodel.
4. A second story on the NBC house will reduce mornill2 sunli2ht and ambient Ii2:ht in our
backyard/pool area in the mornings. Further, a second story on NBC, with added windows,
French doors and a balcony, will potentially reflect evening sunlight into the upstairs rooms
of SBC in the afternoon.
5. SBC has almost 'showcase' landscaping, installed over the last 30 years at considerable cost,
that has taken into careful account the layout, situation and proximity of the NBC house. The
scope of the proposed NBC remodel will unwind the Drivacv and aesthetic benefits
resultin2 from decades of extensive and careful investment in IandscaDin2 at SBC.
EXHIBIT NO. 23
9 Burrell Court Remodel_Letter to DRB_ 00020307Vl 1
6. The NBC landsC8pint! Plan does not resolve the issues raised in this letter. For example,
while the proposed new trees might deal with the privacy matters raised herein, they will
have the opposite effect of reducing views, reducing ambient light and irreversibly impacting
the exijting SBC landscaping (such as existing fruit trees).
7. A second stOry addition on the NBC house will unfairlv and opoortunisticalIv enrich the
owner of 9 BurreD Court at the expense of the owners of SBC, as well as at the expense of
the Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road neighborhoods. The NBC house already has world-
class, un-impeded views of the Tiburon Ridge, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco and
Belvedere Island J A, second story addition onto the NBC house will double the existing,
panoramic views of NBC, while at the same time reducing the value of SBC and surrounding
homes, in absolute and relative terms. Furthermore~ based on a review of the NBC plans, the
addition of a second story will provide expansive new views - in this case in a westerly
direction towards Mount Tamalpais. The benefits of these new views - on top of the existing
world class views - accrue entirely to the owners of NBC. By definition, these benefits (to
the home valuation and appeal of NBC) are derived at the expense of SBC, the other homes
on Burrell Court, as well as the homes on Reed Ranch Road that are impacted by the second
floor addition to NBC.
B. Additional Facts and Detail Behind Obiections
In 1998 we purchased our home at 7 Burrell Court. Among the principal considerations in our
purchase of SBC were the following points:
1. SBC is an extremely private property. Few properties in Tiburon match the privacy
of SBC. It is on a double cul-de-sac, has extensive privacy fencing and landscaping,
and enjoys a secluded layout.
2. The swimming pool area is unusually private and is an important feature of SBC. It
has privacy fencing and extensive landscaping on all sides, yet has good ambient
light and sunlight conditions in part due to the low profile of the surrounding homes
and the careful selection of trees over many decades. Our extensive use of the
swimming pool and Jacuzzi area, all in a private setting, was a major consideration in
our purchase of the property and will be for any future buyer.
3. Notwithstanding its privacy, SBC has - and has always had - upstairs views of the .
Tiburon Ridge. These upstairs views are the only substantive views the house has.
The views enjoyed by SBC were an important consideration in our purchase of the
property and will be for future buyers.
4. The Burrell Court neighborhood was fully developed at the time of our purchase of
SBC and no open lots existed for additional construction that might impact the utility
and views of the property. SBC's extensive landscaping has been built up over many
years (over 30 years) at great cost to ensure its appeal and privacy. The pre-existing
views and pre-existing privacy of SBC in an already established area resulted in a .
premium price on the property in our 1998 purchase of SBC.
The master suite ofSBC is predominantly east-facing and is a maior feature of the house. The
eastern outlook from the master suite is the most private, the most expansive and the most
1 According to the flyer for the sale of the house in 2001, the NBC house is "located on a private cul-de-sac with
unobstructed views of Mt. Tam, San Francisco and the Bay." Further, "a wall of glass with sliding doors lead[ s] to a
private deck, great for entertaining and enjoying the view".
9 Burrell Court Remodel_Letter to DRB _ 0OO20307V 1 2
appealing outlook from the entire house. The master suite has views of the Tiburon ridge. The
proposed second story addition to the NBC house directly and unequivocally unwinds the privacy
and view benefits of the Master Suite and detrimentally impacts the value of SBC.
Further highlighting the uniqueness and importance of the upstairs of SBO is the layout of the
downstairs area of the house. The downstairs faces, for the most part, in a northerly direction
and has limited views. (In fact, depending on the season of the year, from most of the downstairs
area there are no views, other than a limited view of Ring Mountain from certain vantage points
within the house.) The absence of views from the downstairs ofSBC further elevates the
importance the pre-existitlg views of the Tiburon Ridge that the upstairs of the house offers. As
already noted, the NBC second story addition will irreversibly alter the most important views
enjoyed by SBC, noticeably diminish the privacy and appeal of the upstairs of SBC, and therefore
the negatively impact the utility, appeal and value of SBC.
The pool area of SBC is - by any measure of any home in Tiburon - a unique feature of SBC. It
is currently extremely private. There is limited or no ability to see into pool area from
surrounding properties on any side of the house, especially during the summer months. In
particular, the closest house (NBC) has no view of any consequence into the pool area. The pool
area has extensive landscaping to ensure its privacy. It is a highly attractive feature of the
property and significantly enhances the aesthetic value of the house. The addition of a second
story on the NBC house establishes a structure that not only removes the privacy of the pool area,
but also drastically changes the character of the 'pool area. It replaces the eastern view from the
pool of landscaping, greenery and sky, with a direct view of the new superstructure of the
proposed NBC second floor addition. It eliminates the privacy of the pool and Jacuzzi area, since
the new NBC second story and balcony will look directly down into the SBC pool area. It also
negates and unwinds years of landscaping efforts aimed at ensuring the privacy of the pool area.
As a consequence, the proposed NBC second story addition will change the character, aesthetics
and utility of the pool area of SBC and, thereby, the value of the house.
We have reviewed the landscaping plans and, as noted above, we believe that there is no simple
landscaping solution as suggested by the NBC plans. A landscaping plan that addresses our loss
of privacy will have the opposite effect on our views. Conversely, a landscaping plan that
addresses our view concerns, will not address our privacy issues. We have other concerns, such
as (i) the impact of the proposed landscaping on the existing fruit trees, tree ferns, magnolias,
redwoods, yellow-woods and other plants in the SBC pool area. The growth and survival of
these trees and plants will be directly impacted by the proposed NBC landscaping plans?
The proposed remodel of NBC will, as noted above, result in NBC generating new and expansive
views to the west and of Mount Tamalpais. Although this is speculative, we believe that this is
the principal reason for the new, western facing, upstairs balcony that is shown in the plans. As
already noted, these new western views of Mount Tamalpais are in addition to the doubling of the
already expansive eastern views enjoyed by NBC of the Bay, Tiburon Ridge, San Francisco and
Belvedere Island. As a result, NBC will have pre-emptively obtained rights to the management
and control of these new, westerly views. These new rights come at the expense of each and
2 We note that, in 2003, a new fence with electric gates was constructed around the front of the NBC property. To the
best of our knowledge, the new fence is not in compliance with the DRB and/or permitting conditions that were issued
at the time. Low shrubs or climbing vegetation were not planted in front of the fence, as required. Palm trees were
planted but then removed, and no further plantings took place.
9 Burrell Court Remodel_Letter to DRB_ 00020307VI 3
every current owner of properties to the west of NBC on Burrell Court. This is a patently
inappropriate and unfair outcome.
Lastly, based on a review of the initial plans, we note that the NBC remodel will result in a
second story that will be lighted at night. The plans also call for extensive' new exterior lighting
around the periphery of the house. The total number of exterior lights that impact SBC is twelve.
We raise concerns about the new light pollution that will result from both sources.
C. Violations and Potential Violations of the Town ofTiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside
Dwellings~ Variances Needed to Secure Approval.
Based our review of the above noted guidelines and the file correspondence, we note the
following violations andlor potential violations:
Principle Principle Violation Impacts Town of
!l Tiburon
Design
Guideline
Reference #
VARIANCE #1 Excess lot covera2e Le~al matter
VARIANCE #2 Reduced front-yard Legal matter
setback
~'r: ~~ ('I '" f.'" . ',. " ~ ~;t~
r ~ \-'j I- , r . - . , . ; .(~J .'.;;t;~
REDUCE I Cut building into hillside to Reed Ranch GI/PI
EFFECTNE BULK reduce visual bulk. Road
2 Terrace building using slope. Reed Ranch GI/P2
Road
4 Increase integration of Reed Ranch Gl/P4
dwelling and site Road
9 Excavate underground or Burrell GI/P9
below ground rooms to Court and
reduce effective bulk Reed Ranch
Road
REDUCE 6 Control window placement SBC G2/P6
ENVIRONMENTAL for sun, privacy and view
IMPACT
9 Acoustic privacy (new SBC G2/P9
garage location)
II Do not buOd on crest of Reed Ranch G2/PI0
knolls. Site buildings so Road and
they don't stand out. Burrell
Court
PRESERVE 1 Locate new dwellings so SBC and G3/Pl
ACCESS TO they interfere minimally Burrell
VIEWS with views of adjacent Court
dwellings homeowners
9 Burrell Court Remodel_Letter to DRB _ 00020307VI 4
1 Do not locate dwelling on SBC G3/Pl
highest point of property if
in so doing it will obscure
.. view of another dwelling
2 Plan landscaping so it does SBC G3/P2
not grow into view blocks
3 Views should preserved as SBC G3/P3
much as possible; not
everyone can have a
panoramic view [comment:
or double existing panoramic
view?]
3 Slot view is just as SBC G3/P3
important to the person
who owns it as the 360
degree panoramic view
7 Partial view blockage SBC G3/P3
should be avoided
whenever possible
7 Blockage of center of view is SBC G3/P3
more damaging than
blockage of side of view
D. NBC Options and Alternatives
The owners of NBC have viable alternatives to the proposed remodel and addition of a
second floor. We believe that the Town ofTiburon and the Design Review Board should
consider these alternatives before any consideration be given to the addition of a second story in
light of the irreversible impact that the current plans will have on (i) SBC, (ii) Burrell Court and
(iii) the homes that are impacted on Reed Ranch Road:
1. Remodel and update existing home to provide more usable space.
2. Utilize space beneath the existing garage to gain additional floor space.
3. Expand home down the hillside on the eastern side of property. This option will have the
least impact on the neighborhood.
We note that, given the already expansive views enjoyed by the NBC house, the principal
physical benefit of the proposed second story addition to NBC is the additional floor space the
second floor provides. Each of the options listed above satisfy the need for additional physical
floor space, yet do not come at the greater expense of several surrounding properties on both
Burrell Court and Reed Ranch Road and, in particular, at the expense of SBC.
9 Burrell Court Remodel_Letter to DRB_ 00020307Vl 5
E. Other Matters That Impact the DRB Review
We note the following:
1. The current story poles are two dimensional and are located only on one side of the
house. Three-dimensional story poles, on all sides of NBC, will more accurately project
the impact of the second story addition, in particular on other homes on Burrell Court and
on Reed Ranch Road.
2. We note that the landscaping plans provide photographs showing the impact of the new
landscaping on the Reed Ranch Road side of NBC, but no such impact photographs
relating the Burrell Court side of the property. We believe that the Burrell Court impact
is at least as important as the Reed Ranch impact.
3. The landscaping plans call for Mexican Fan Palms on Burrell Court, two of which will be
planted underneath and existing Chinese Elm. It seems highly improbable that the palms
will grow underneath another tree.
4. We would like to discuss further the issue raised by Mr. Watrous in his letter dated
November 30, 2006, regarding the use of Podocarpus gracilor in the landscaping plans.
Yours sincerely,
~
Michael Beaumont
~
;{> . ippa Beaumont
9 Burrell Court Remodel_Letter to DRB_ 0OO20307VI
6
Ramon & Benita Truman
56 Reed Ranch Road
Tiburon, CA 94920-2083
Mr. Dan Watrous - Planning MGR
Tiburon Design Review Board
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
February 9, 2007
Subject:
Proposed additions to Hariri Home
#9 Burrell Court
Assessor's Parcel #034-302-05 (LT)
Dear Sirs:
My wife and I are seriously concerned with the additions Mrs. Hariri is seeking approval for. Last
summer the applicant invited my wife and I to come see for ourselves what changes she proposed frOtn
her deck which looks directly into our upstairs bathroom and kitchen window below of our home.
Story poles had been erected on the north side of the roof and did not appear to be too imposing on our
property at the time. After we had signed her form offering no objection, we then were told she also
intended to extend her deck on the south side out another six or eight feet. That we did. object to as it
loomed out and looked directly down on our yard and was more obtrusive.
This past week we noticed more story poles being placed on the .smd.h side of the roof and these appear
much higher and imposing on our privacy. We therefore rescind our acceptance and are alarmed as to
why this was not presented last summer. We never would have gone along with this much larger
addition.
When the applicant first purchased this home some years ago, she removed several mid-height trees
that partially blocked the view between our residences. The several stumps are still there on her
hillside. We had hoped she would plant something to replace the trees and make it less obtrusive.
That never happened.
Two years ago at Mrs. Hariri's request we had the Town of Tiburon remove a large cypress tree that
blocked her view of the bay from her deck. The tree was located on the edge of our property within the
town's easement and stairway do~ to Belveron West, but the limbs extended well over the side of our
property. Our next door neighbor did as requested and had the big tree removed.
~~
Now it appears we are facing an obstruction of sizable proportion, far beyond what we were initially
told. There are no homes in the Reedlands of this imposing height and we conclude it is just too
obtrusive to be acceptable. We therefore ask that your Board decline the proposal or ask for
considerable changes to lessen the impact to our privacy.
EXHIBIT NO. 24
W'~\ '-rr~~?(\ ~=-;-l~ ~\.iT:-~ --\, .
\' i )~, ': ;' d , '. ; J --c' L
iJ 'I \ : F ['~ ~ 2 2007
l"_ e'L", 'c,""~"'i''';;'''~'.J
1- U', ,,; ; , :: H.l I. JI '. i ,) I Iv I
TClVJi\i OF TiCUiiO['1
Ramon and Benita Truman
Eric and Barbara Roberts
4 Bunell Court
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-383-4020
L.
Design Review Board and
Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
F ebrumy 11, 2007
Imoact of Prooosed Remodel of 9 BurreD Court
We have already signed a letter, prepared by Christopher Wand of5 Burrell Court ("the Wand
letter"). In addition, we would like to add the following.
We had previously indicated our support of, or more specifically, our neutrality concerning the
proposed construction of 9 Burrell Court by signing a form at the request of Ms. Hariri, the
owner of 9 Burrell Court. However, we reached that decision before the plans were finalized,
before receiving an accurate description of the landscaping and before any story poles were in
place. Now that we are aware of the plans and have seen the story poles, we feel compelled to
withdraw our prior support and submit this letter as well in addition to being a signatory to the
Wand letter.
While our home is not as impacted as many others, we note the following violations or potential
violations in addition to the items set forth in the Wand letter:
Principle
Principle Violation
!1
Impacts
Town of
Tiburon
Design
Guideline
Reference #
REDUCE Cut building into hillside to Reed Ranch Gl/Pl
EFFECTIVE BULK reduce visual bulk. Road
2 Terrace building using slope. Reed Ranch Gl/P2
Road
4 Increase integration of Reed Ranch Gl/P4
dwellin and site Road
9 Excavate underground or Burrell G 1 /P9
below ground rooms to Court and
reduce effective bulk Reed Ranch
Road
REDUCE 6 Control window lacement Various G2/P6
EXHIBIT NO. 2S-
~1a43
ENVIRONMENTAL for sun, privacy and view Burrell
IMPACT Court
homes
" 9 Acoustic privacy (new garage Various G2/P9
location) Burrell
Court
homes
11 Do not build on crest of Reed Ranch G2/P 1 0
knolls. Site buildings so they Road and
don't stand out. Burrell
Court
PRESERVE 1 Locate new dwellings so they Burrell G3/Pl
ACCESS TO interfere minimally with Court
VIEWS views of adjacent dwellings homeowners
1 Do not locate dwelling on Various G3/Pl
highest point of property if in Burrell
so doing it will obscure view Court
of another dwelling homes
2 Plan landscaping so it does Various G3/P2
not grow into view blocks Burrell
Court
homes
3 Views should be preserved as Various G3/P3
much as possible; not Burrell
everyone can have a Court
panoramic view [or double homes
their existing panoramic
view]
3 Slot view is just as important Various G3/P3
to the person who owns it as Burrell
the 360 degree panoramic Court
view homes
7 Partial view blockage should Various G3/P3
be avoided whenever possible Burrell
Court
homes
7 Blockage of center of view is Various G3/P3
more damaging than blockage Burrell
of side of view Court
homes
We believe that there are alternative designs that could reduce or eliminate many of the above and we
urge you that you ask the owner of 9 Burrell Court to consider those.
Finally, as discussed more fully in the Wand letter, we believe that the proposed landscaping and
the proposed outdoor lighting will severely impact the amount of light on Burrell Court and our
home during daylight hours, particularly the morning and Will be the source of light pollution
during the nighttime.
EXHIBIT NO. 2~
(O.2efl3
We urge you to consider the issues raised by this letter, the Wand letter and by other
communications .you will undoubtedly receive from residents of Burrell Court and Reed Ranch
Road.
o tOll consideratt!J L I Wd!
/ ~ i1 uJ/JUf
Bar ara Roberts /
EXHIBIT NO. 2?
m. ~cr3
February 11, 2007
Ms. Laurie~ Tyler and Members of the Design Review Board
Tiburon Planning Department
1505 Tiburon B1.
Tiburon, CA 94920
re: Proposed addition to 9 Burrell Court
Dear Ms. Tyler and Members of the Design Review Board:
Several months ago, Mrs. Firuze Hariri invited us to review plans for an addition, to view
story poles, and hopefully to sign off on the proposal.
Our reservations involved aesthetics and privacy. Her home is on the Reedlands ridgeline
above ours at 54 Reed Ranch Road. We favor protecting ridgelines from protruding
building profiles. The two houses to the west of Mrs. Hariri's accomplish this with low-
profile, flat roofs. Regarding the matter of privacy, we thought that our elm tree would at
least partially screen our outdoor living area from being viewed from the addition.
Mrs. Hariri's stated reasons for this project included enhancing her view. Since we
removed a large tree and cut back others that were intruding into her view, (for which she
shared the costs), her home has enjoyed an unobstructed view which will not be enhanced
by building up. But, her reasons for building are not our business, and we did not think
the addition as we understood it would affect us inordinately. So, at that time we told her
that although we would not sign off on her plans, we would not oppose them.
Recently we received the Town's notice for the hearing, and we noticed new story poles on
the existing roof. These seem much taller than those present when we met with Mrs.
Hariri. They suggest a much more massive and intrusive addition than we had realized.
I'm sure that neither Mrs. Hariri nor her architect were trying to deceive us. We must not
have adequately understood what she was describing. But unfortunately, the difference in
the story poles now and then is so great that it conveys the impression of a bait and switch.
In any event, if we had seen the current poles at that time, we would have told Mrs. Hariri
that we opposed the addition. Moreover, since that time the elm tree which protects our
privacy has become diseased. It is being treated, and we understand that it can survive.
But if it dies, I think that the privacy of our outside living area will be significantly
compromised by the proposed addition. That of itself may not justify denying a project.
But if other neighbors have similar reservations about the impact of this proposal, then
perhaps it should be reconsidered.
it ')I. if]"
. I.
i.. _ ~ ,
Sincerely,
~~
H. Spencer Bloch
54 Reed Ranch Rd.
Tiburon, CA 94920-2083
~t/~
Judy H. Bloch
cc: Mrs. Firuze Hariri
EXHIBIT NO. 26
February 25, 2007
Daniel Watrous, Planning Manager
and Design Review Board
Town ofTiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, Ca 94920
..J
RE Hariri
9 Burrell Court
Dear Mr. Watrous and Members of the Design Review Board:
We live at 5 Burrell Court, two houses away from the applicant at 9 Burrell Court.
We do not object to the applicant's request for a floor area ratio exemption on the first
floor and the down-slope in the potentially huge sub-area. We do however, strongly
oppose the owner's request to erect a second story on a small cottage style building.
This would block multiple views and sunlight as well as intrude on the privacy of many
homes on Burrell Court. This is against neighborhood eharacter and without precedent.
More important, it violates Tiburon's "Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings".
Development History
The Reedlands subdivision was carefully designed so that all homes enjoyed some views
of prominent features. The first home built on Burrell Court in 1960 has the best view of
San Francisco, the Bay and the Tiburon Peninsula to the soutbeast. This is the applicant's
house at 9 Burrell. There are eight other homes on Burrell Court. None of these homes
has as good a view of San Francisco, the Bay, Angel Island and the Tiburon Ridge as the
applicant already commands from her home at the end of the cul-de-sac.
It is also noteworthy that seven of the nine homes on Burrell court rise only one story
above street level. The two multiple story homes were built that way originally. Also the
homes on the street have undergone major remodeling, but none has involved the
addition of a second story, or a larger footprint on the lot. Pennit me to elaborate.
The home at 1 Burrell has just been remodeled. No new floor area was added. A new
second floor would have offered a magnificent view of Ring Mountain and a brand new
partial San Francisco view, but this was not attempted by the owner.
The home at 2 Burrell was remodeled several years ago. No new floor space was
requested.
EXHIBIT NO. 27
ffl.l~
The home at 3 Burrell was seismically upgraded and brought up to code four years ago.
No new flOOf. space was added, nor was a new second story requested which would have
given the home a brand new San Francisco city view and would have doubled their Ring
Mountain ~iews.
The home at 4 Burrell was remodeled several years ago. No new floor space was
requested, nor was a second story attempted that would have easily doubled their already
magnificent views of San Francisco and the Bay.
Our home at 5 Burrell is being remodeled currently. We did not add any new floor space
or request an additional second story above the street level which would have also given
us a brand new San Francisco view and doubled our view of Ring Mountain and Mount
Tamalpais.
The remodel of the home at 6 Burrell has just been completed. No new floor area was
added, no extra story was requested in spite of its magnificent view of San Francisco and
Sausalito that a second story would have captured.
The home at 7 Burrell Court was remodeled a few years ago. No additional floor area
was requested.
Now the applicant at 9 Burrell who already enjoys the most panoramic view on the street,
is coming to you and requesting not only a substantial enlargement of her floor space, but
also that she be permitted a second story addition, something no one else on the street
has.
This proposed raising of her house would obliterate the San Francisco and Bay views,
inboard views of several noteworthy hills as well as early morning sunlight from many of
the homes along Burrell Court.
The applicant's house at 9 Burrell is currently a cottage-like dwelling, set back from the
street, modest in height, and situated at very end of the cul-de-sac. A second-story
addition would transform the entire cul-de-sac by its looming and dominant character.
The wall-like structure the applicant proposes to erect would end our views of Sugar Loaf
and Stewart drive hills from two bedrooms, our sitting room and front deck at 5 Burrell.
It would block winter morning sunlight from entering two bedrooms and a bathroom and
the dining deck.
It would obscure the views of inboard hills and winter sunlight enjoyed by the home at 4
Burrell court.
It would block views of Sugar Loaf and Stewart Drive from the entryway and patio at 3
Burrell Court.
2
It would obliterate the views from the bedrooms at 7 Burrell Court as well as block the
inboard view~ of Sugar Loaf and Stewart Drive hills and winter sunlight from the living
room as w~ll as 100m over and intrude on the privacy of the pool area.
It would block the inboard views of Sugar Loaf and Stewart Drive hills from the
bedrooms and its windows and balcony would look down upon and intrude on the
privacy of the pool area of the home at 6 Burrell Court.
The new structure as proposed will loom up as a monolithic wall at the top of the hill
above the homes at 54 and 56 Reed Ranch Road.
The profusion of proposed chimneys are view-blockers and will direct pollution into the
windows of the home at 7 Burrell Court and the homes all along Burrell Court whenever
the wind comes from southeast, which is most of the winter.
The exterior lights proposed are excessive. The applicant has already installed large open
coach lights, not shown on any plans filed with the town, along the front of the house and
top of the recently added wall. When lit, these now bathe the end of the street in a harsh
glare and shine in neighbors' windows. Another row of them against the night sky will
make the house look like a cruise ship.
Landscaping:
"Mexican Fan Palms", as noted on the applicant's landscaping plan, grow to a hundred
feet or more (see attachment).
These are more appropriate for Los Angeles than Tiburon and would block the same
views and sunlight as previously mentioned. A more reasonable landscaping alternate for
the front of the house would be the replacement of the several magnificent mature plum
trees in front of the home at 9 Burrell which were removed when the faux stucco wall
was installed. These plums, according to the landscaping plan filed with the Town, were
to be replaced with similar plum trees. Mexican fan palms appeared in their place and
eventually were removed after neighbors objected. Several one-gallon flower plants were
plopped into the holes recently that marked where the once magnificent plum trees once
stood.
The large magnolia tree that is shown on the plans as a "screen" to the attempted new
floor level is spindly and is, in fact, dying. If the second story is granted to the applicant,
the tree's likely removal will mean an unrestricted view of Mount Tamalpais for the
applicant, but the neighbors will suffer a head-on view of the applicant's new addition
with the reflected glare of the setting summer sun coming back at them.
I apologize for the length of this letter, though it reflects the great number of reasons to
deny a second story at 9 Burrell Court. I understand tbe applicant secured a 'sign-off'
from some neighbors before her actual plans were officially submitted to the Planning
Department, but we are attaching a post-submission list of nine objecting neighbors.
3
Mexican Fan Palms - Cold Hardy Palm Trees
http://www.sunpalmtrees.comlCold-Hardy-Palm-Trees-Mexican-Fa...
Home
Cpld Hardy Palm
I Contact Us ~
Palm Trees
Quick Links
Home In Texas
Our Services
Careers
Cold Hardy
Palm Trees
True Date
Palms
Canary Island
Date Palms
Texas Sabal
Palms
Mediterranean
Fan Palms
California Fan
Palms
Windmill
Palms
Pindo Palms
Sago Palms
Mexican Fan
Palms
Queen Palms
Palm Trees
Pictures
True Date
Palms
Canary Island
Date Palms
Texas Sabal
Palms
Mediterranean
Fan Palms
California Fan
lof2
Palm Tree Picture
Gallery
Palm Tree
Resources
Mexican Fan Palms - Cold Hardy Palm Trees
(Washingtonia robusta)
Mexican Fan palm trees are cold hardy to 18 degrees (lower
depending on the age and growth of the cold hardy palm tree),
Mexican Fan palm trees can grow up to 100 feet tall. The following Is
detailed Information on the cold hardy Mexican Fan palm.
f;""-'''-~-'"''~-~'.'---'-'~''''-''--'''''--'''~'-'--'-'~',.-".....""."......~".. . --<_. . '~i"-'.'
IlMexlcan Fan palm trees :!
Ii :1
ii(Washlngtonla robusta) have many il
!I:
! I fine attributes Including salt i i
! ' , ~
i I resistance and fast rate of growth. i i
!iCold hardy Mexican Fan Palms :\
!! have tall slender trunks topped
~ I
! i with crowns of large fan-shaped
II
l! evergreen fronds.
Ii
IICold Hardy Mexican Fan
II
Ii Palms Overview
Ii
Ii Soaring to over 100 ft (30.5 m),
! i this skyscraper of the palm world
liis a striking sight. Mexican Fan
:1
I i Palms have:
ii
!
II
ii
I!
Ii
r
"
~ !
~ !
~ !
i;
Ii
!'
Ii
~ !
Ii
Ii
II
ii
ii
I
it
i
'I
. A gray trunk ringed with !
closely set leaf scars although :
usually at least part of the
trunks remain covered with
dead leaves that hang In a
thatch.
. The solitary trunks, about
10-12 In (25.4-30.5 em) In
diameter, bulge at the ground
and become slender as they
EXHIBIT NO. 27
rj. ~/+
2/11/2007 1:05 PM
Mexican Fan Palms - Cold Hardy Palm Trees
http://www.sunpalmtrees.com/Cold-Hardy-Palm-Trees-Mexican-Fa...
Palms
Windmill
Palms
Pindo Palms
Sago Palms
Mexican Fan
Palms
Queen Palms
approach a crown of large ,
palmate leaves with gracefully'
drooping leaflet tips.
i Cold Hardy Mexican Fan
i Palms Description
i Large, rapid growing, and hardy all
i describe the Mexican Fan Palms.
I Native to the riparian washes and
i gullies of Northern Mexico, Baja,
i Southern California and Arizona
I Mexican Fan Palm trees are very
i
! drought and salt tolerant once
! established. Adapted to a wide
I range of soli types, and climates.
i This species easily hybridizes with t
I the California/Desert Fan Palm
i
i (Washlngtonla 1I111ers) and a wide
ivarlatlon In phenotypes (outward
i appearance and growth
i
j characteristics) occurs under
!
! cultivated conditions.
i Mexican Fan Palms Usage
i This Is a spectacular palm for
i landscaping large areas. Mexican
i Fan palm trees are also frequently
i seen guarding the entrances to
I
t upscale housing developments
! and standing In regiments along
i boulevards.
Palm Trees
Resources
About Palm
Trees
Basic Palm
Trees Needs
Cold
Hardiness
Zones
Description
Cold
Hardiness
Zone Map
Palm Trees
Comparative
Summary
Frequently
Asked
Questions
Palm Trees
Discussion
Boards
Website Links
Contact
Mexican Fan Palms < Cold Hardy Palm Trees < Sun Palm Trees
2006 Sun Palm Trees
2of2
EXHIBIT NO. Z7
~. -S-c;P14
2/11/2007 1 :05 PM
Now that true and official plans have been submitted for Design Review
and story poles are in place, the following neighbors voice their
objectioq to the addition of a second story to the home at 9 Burrell
Court:
Name ,Signatur Address
.1?l"'-1 \ 'tS \J e~vv'el ~\ . . ,gJ , '. II
0\' , ~\li-r k..- W D.. '1.A C:P I " 5 '1> i.A I {e \ \ (. -\ ·
-G/~Z---l4l~- ~- -- --- -------(rg-:;;;~7rL_E~---
_Plt1li~___~JiJL____ ; --- _ .' L____tl!!1lr::JLc..t--__
~AM\)~ f.. T~\.lt-l\ ~ 's:?(, ~(O ~.E-<G9 ~.A~<:.t\ A..C~l>
~;~if;~S~JjA~~-:r~-~-{~i~-i:J7;=-~!:.?~0
_%k\.i.m.:__~_f.rnl~____~___.:t:___~!'~~,--___
~R-\ c \~Pe-tZ- fi~Tlilf>f)e~ 6 5U'~L,L <-wuR-T
~~_ _ _~_ __~____________~_t.L~If~ 1f> ~
-,,-Ict~ ftc.- ,.-vi r{))arreu;;' VJ7
---~~~~--.---~~-----------------------------------------------------
,.7;;sef( Fb-e"" 2- '~u..\I'l't U LO--'-I.;rt-
-----------------~------------------------------.--------------------------.------~.-----.---------------
-------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_._-------------~----
-------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------.-------------
------------------------------------.-----.--------------.------------------------------------.--..---------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
EXHIBIT NO. 27
~.6aPI4
'"
tD
Q.
..,
o
(1)0
c 3
1>><
... --
-tD
2 :e
,...
o
m
DI
(I)
I:
..~~
'....
i:~' "
;;.
.' ~
t
, ~.
->'-
1
~~" "<( . . ';{~"t,~i'\\;. v.
hi"':' a: ." \,'i;~ff:/~
'},,;S:\li. . L ',Xl. .'iF !!"
.."\ ~ ~J:;.i:.:U:,J\'r.' ;;,'1' "
ij';"";., i,ie/;l;'....
') ,;.f: '~7;i/., .,.,'. ~JH:~, .
k?(,:"','t;;. . . .. i' ii'"
~'.'; '''''li fo ,y': "',,k
; \:';;},;..,,;/" .i" ,,'1 \.
'i; tM :f::'Yi':'''';;:;'~;;~~ ;:t::;;;:;: ci' i:;. ,,:
'\?::~' !;,l;:Y;A(j~~~X~:~.>/ :~jb;;t;~1D\,,":.:l }(,-.:
~'.-'~:~'0;)~'r;~,::,;:".:,I!;..., ..:,).~ 'f",*~! · .....01";;;:.2 Ir:;r:::'~';:
,,,";" "",:> ' ,.' ", ,,'i,";)"""
".;. ',: .'.' i;' "Ct.::> ..,2"';:""
H' y.' .j, .d"" ,',y." :",:.;,':;'"
2t":""-'~"':"""i;:~i"}}]~;':}:';"D'~"":'}; ,\C",.... ;";,' :,,,,:,,;; "?i.' ';,e"':". \/+.: {~+.
~ '. '~ .>,~". i" ..", , i'.~ .. i......
'l!;Z""1!i;r;i ..<'i ';" i' '" '0 ,i' ';> ,..< ..
"" ~,,,i~;';, :i<'~;~ ;i;~)i';li~"'?;i.. 'if"'''' ;,:~.:i~:ii
" i..,,,,,:;;;'!i't;; ",":'/\:''''.:",,', ;/:,' , · 'i,..":'.'
0' ;';~:;' "iC'io' "" ':"';'i"('iiii't: id, d~~i/:t;i:\1;i [:'L.:,\."..:<.L
";:-~k~Jj ('Y;i:_'-':):,,\~:':" ....~.~.:i;.,~,,,;G.f/~~ .....':-'~.'ii t~2
,f: ~,it, li;f;"c;,a';;""; .' ."t /.';
.i. .'...> ,t,i,'y,..;:, . "i ".f' ci" ',,'
,',Ii;,,, ~.;.' .g"t;.i;';i,3;~(;:;;'I,;" ... ". ,,,, ';'.., ..~;i.,:
:~;/j:?>, "~;i~Ji/r0'<". ,"F'" '1,"2;:":(0,, ., ,,/', ",,;,';:
" " "i" ' i""" .ii, "'.';'> t'. ' t' ,,>. ,:,'i":
ii" ........ v. ,,,,,,','i. <ii",
'j,..\i~; . ,i i,e",i" '" S." ";',,, "." i ""
. .,:ii'.,' . S'.i' ,i',"i" ie".,',' ' ",,;!iii
C\, :' "}'.'rty . F""" ' .w"" 'i',,; '<.!tw'
Ii T"'~;'iii:;}.i;,;i;i:ji",:'ir i"".:!i'.' i
....C.'y.;::""..'" ;"i,. "
.' i'.,,",'" '"n . ,'" ,,,,. "" i I'
":";;;/1;;'.;;",,,,, ,;'......,0 :" 'ie" ' '" ; '" J. ,.;,~;
/:;:i;:,);l~i:"Z{' .:.,,,,1;::";" """,~ j,;
'.el,'.;"!"" '''';"i,!;i'JiW, .. '..i.. ';;J;,,;"f1~,/i,...j',ir' '~",j,',:':;:g,; >,
.';.{".....,,<;,,::'/'.">.<...........^>~~~f.~e;,{.;~cQ' jot';;!!':;: ,~;~", /;'i.'[.'t '!'
.( . ,;;r,i:~fi,i.~q ,}<' t, ,'.;;:}~". ~/) .?'tt,! ,,' ", ,;
~~; "',;, {"~'j"';~'t~ <.~~"'~~ ." <~>'!"~~~"~l i,:'">.,,}~r;;;";;c")}j'~'J:.(.<{./..
.. ;: '." ,y ,,6' !,"%i',.
" " ." .. .,., " "..
;t,'" ",?,",';;},' .
>,t;, .f;,';,' .. " ',1,..',';;';;1' ,'t';
.",. ie'" ;\;,.,"'....C ,.'", ei",,',Lt;, 'f>""':;
;,,;;:;:;; .,N . iiFi;;,' 'l;;" ,~';~; ;1'"" ..i! . "{U;;''1P:;,';',
.c. ...i", ,'" ""r,!,,;,?:;;,;;5-'';' ;:'1' ?i;"':' U'i" '",f,:;.)"';
K ;..;r,{Jj . ....{Iif.!" 4:' :,"';.;;;\.;:,";,.l;ji'.~*!i..~;.;;
,n",,' .' ';" "'2i",";,~;f:'l,;!,;il.',j?; .?i S,
, ,...., ;';,~i:ff; ';{;l.' "[,,,i .:;;.:;,,:,;. ,j;;;;,!";, "
"./'.'\. ,Vi' '. i/", ;, Ti';,r/'/, ;;'.:t.'{'}J,;
:,,:.<' ~f:;:;i'::,:;';'tf"ii't:::';i i~'~;;; ",'t,;, :T:";' i .... ",,~J:f :r:.-.:,./;.';;>j
;?zil;~~" ,j ,;;-.~l;J.;;,,;'<~t:f{3;l'i/; .,,'I/);'
'. '., . ";":":;"<:'J;"if;:~{\;}r .} i ,J" ..:'"" ;.,i' ,;;. i, ,,}f""':; '" ;')~;;;; ,,;, ":.' .);)
i'. .,/\ ':"~~",~~']6~!;e7;eT o,;it.4";';' ",)!''!;;.!'" '.if,'
;;;,..,",':", "K' .?i:"P",;;;' "~ii'"~ 7~':i:""~'<"~~""~';:~}";jt) ':;,;:, :'
r ~.~.,.';> :,[;/P ;'j;~':~f": lit .... .;,.,": ::;,,';)"'," . 'C,,;,,'; '. .'
.;," ,J',';" "X,;i{,,/,.1.
1:.,J;;;;t}i,5', '" ~;;;;::.2t.;";; ~ji;:~~'{':~~':
i"""''''' ...., ,::$,,YiJ;;g:r,,,tf%,;~,;,,;"i",:J .
. ;~;.;ii; ""ii;,,';;' :/.f',;;;":.$iif'..f;."H,i,:}:
. '. ..J" if )';J~;~,'r0f';:;;;\5:~i~;i.
.' . ;,;",! :'~;;~kj;:,.;r;#;;;y;S,..;JJ~;i;';:t.,; ;,';~l
C;ii.: "it:!..: ;;fi";"\,:~;,.~i';t}'
['~:[~1 ",;~j.!~,:;F/ "\'.:, i.~~;:,~"'~ 3Z ~~~!r}..~;,:.~':~;;~:;~;,;.,f;J;1Ff!::.:i.'';.i/.~r
:~) ~!::' "',>:H<.;i,:'" <",: ..'.' ""0.""",.:,..'1'"'''' ...;.'~:"<
:.' ; .".',.... ., .,.; 'f","" , SF ',' ,;
" . .",,' . ""',....,'" ',,' .,. d ",. '.N.' '''Ce "!:};';,
c:i;1 "":'.:/'''.,.'.' .', ,,' .." ""'?"'i:,f't"" '" "/:1r;:~il;""" ~'''<;
t.. ., '. . "'~, '.; ;/.,.6;:~(,";!~~?-(i:;;>:",\";: ,.,;"~f:k !'~~ ,;.,;~:
. ," .",<", ""'/J; "," ',,)!";;
:::;"",..1'" ';:,>i....:,,;;'.'..,:.,.;: · i . ";.,,Ef' ,
'i:~:f;1~( .""';J:;,/t.i:,i[;'~;f4;..::.~~:~:;;~t,;'(; ;""'; ,~, ::,!i;;''''
.;,/' , ',' .,.,'f'" ,;," ,.
/T' :"iP't":, '"L,,:,: " ",':'iY:'~-;'j" .." " ,oJ ?C', h .,"
'L, ,; ,:: ,..,,, ::,,"'"
" ~. " ..." '." ;;.,:,;,' '1;"'. ;,f
;' t:Jfl.. i\,.';<!: L; ,,; ,~i{ t\"'"';'{;{'I';;4'I"';~"';;:
. -,. ,if. ff,l f,';;;" '" .,. """',*,~i"",
,'~ t"" p"'",';
"J ,,'" L' y.,.,.; ""
'~"i>.""'f' ", . ii' ;'i' '.",x"
::~., 'l,';iJ' .':,<,;;,,,~,,,;;!,,,'''':''i .. lII! n '.; :,....,".1~':...;i;;jtij:..:;).;;.,..
M':+;";"":;" :,..:",,::';:,."'?:': ...,NXfi":';...
:.l1',..,i~'.U:'.>.:' ;Ji/;'....';.";.,;u'...:; ::'if:" :\c:r}('~;:
:..::;:.,>;;;::<,,::;:;': ;t::>/ Wi,ijFi ,,;.;:,/Jy,~;;.;i.;D).<:' .,
. '''o,,':/:',!,',i;P;'e',::';
::h
.......
I.'
.,'
~~:f';~"L;~.(".'.'.',
I,." .: ,.,'
-, -:>-.':-,;:.:.~'\
:.":'-'", ::.).~~~:.:.} ,':,"
; - - --';~',.: '.~. :"'. .'
...~
!i;;,.
~..
';"""27
:~. 'LjC$.':;;':'.:'." i c~, ...."'."..'1.. . (;I:'" "4
'. "'~.'c
,:' ,~'t~~:....~;;,-
'~"""'~"';,< ..o~
-'~". ::;...Il.....L:~.; L!:.", ,J:......~""1'..
~,
.....
-. ,.::?-
'....1/)
~ .~..:.~,...,
..~, .J? .,
;' '. ../....,....._. c -!.c'
\ .. ." ...7"'-:
,40- I'., '
.\4' . ,j ~'
'.'i' .
EXHIBIT NO. 27
PB .(2.clI4
rt
--
/
/ .
.,,~
/
\
~
'\
).
"
~.:::;
~b
r'
:~;;\
Cl,\
'(:
.4
.~"
.~'l
g. ,
\
March5, 2007
Daniel Watrous, Planning Manager
Design Review Board
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, Ca 94920
RE Hariri
9 Burrell Court
Dear Mr. Watrous and Members of the Design Review Board:
We live at 5 Burrell Court, two houses away from the applicant at 9 Burrell Court.
These 6 photographs and sight line map illustrate the view blockage that the proposed
second story addition and palm trees at 9 Burrell Court would have on the views from the
dining room, front deck, entryway as well as 2 bedrooms of our home at 5 Burrell Court.
Besides blocking early morning sunlight the attempted second story would obliterate our
view from these rooms and the deck of 3 distinct geographical features: Mount Tiburon,
the hill above Stewart Drive and the hill and open space above Trestle Glen Boulevard.
This view blockage is clearly proscribed and remedied in the following pages of the
Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings:
G 1 Pages 1 through page 6 is a catalog of what is wrong with the proposed second story
addition and offers clear guidance as to the solution; excavating into the hillside.
In addition, the garage could be located under the house with a driveway off Reed Ranch
Road which would provide even more opportunity for the home's expansion without
raising the roof level.
Additional guidance is found on GI page 9, G2 page 7 18, G3 Page 734.
Thank Yau
''\ '
au. \Wl'&~ W (e (( 4
Christopher Wand
EXHIBIT NO. Zg
Page 1 of2
LATE MAil # E 4
[D) ~~~~w~ ~
~ MAR30Z007 ~
Laurie Tyler
From: Mike BeaumC?nt [mhb1 @comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, 7March 29, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Laurie Tyler
Cc: Dan Watrous
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Laurie -
I understand from Philippa that you were here this week as part of your due diligence on the 9 Burrell Court
remodel. Thank you for taking the time to look at the potential impact that this project will have on our house.
We still believe that the remodel should be rejected, as proposed, for the following reasons:
1. Impact on the privacy of our Master Suite, which is a major feature of our home
a. In effect, we will have to live with our blinds angled on the picture windows, particularly in the
winter time when foliage is at a minimum.
2. Impact on the privacy of our swimming pool area, which is also a major feature of our home
a. The almost total privacy of the pool area will be lost.
3. Impact on our view of the Tiburon Ridge and Angel Island from the Master Suite
a. These views of the ridge and Angel Island are the only such views from our home. The loss of these
views is material.
4. Inability of the proposed landscaping to resolve the issues presented by the proposed remodel
5. Impact of the proposed remodel on decades of "showcase" landscaping - at significant cost - at our home
6. Substantial construction variances of 500/0 and 300/0 for excess lot coverage and setbacks, respectively.
7. Over 14 design guideline violations.
8. The sheer visual "bulk" of the proposed remodel and its impact on both Burrell Court and Reed Ranch
Road.
9. The pre-emptive acquisition of westerly views - and the rights to control those views - that would result
from the remodel.
a. We feel that this is a particularly unfair and one-sided outcome, that sets a very bad legal
precedent.
10. The owner already has world-class views that no property on Burrell Court can match
11. The remodel in not in keeping with the design and low profile of the rest of the homes on Burrell Court.
12. The proposed landscaping remains controversial in terms of plant selection.
13. The owner has at least 3 viable alternatives, as outlined in my letter to the DRB dated 2/3/2007. .
Lastly, I note that the remodel has been in progress (at least in concept) since June, 2006. In the intervening 10
months, we have seen several fairly significant reworkings of the design, and at least 3 sets of story-poles. We
have also been through 3 reschedulings of the DRB meetings - the latest one now being on April 5th, 2007. I am
not confident that this process of continuing changes will end - even if ORB approval were to be obtained. From
our standpoint, as neighbors, this has been a very frustrating project to try to address, especially given the
magnitude of the long-term impact of the proposed remodel on the aesthetics and value of our home, as well as
on the other homes on Burrell Court. I am confident that other owners on Burrell Court have lost track of this
project, in view of the total elapsed time, the large number of continuing changes to the design, changes to the
story-poles, and continuing changes to the ORB scheduled meetings.
I have also taken the liberty of re-sending to you and Oan our letter to the-ORB dated February 3rd, 2007. I am
hopeful that this will provide reference material as you complete your due diligence on the 9 Burrell Court project.
Best regards,
EXHIBIT NO. A
3/30/2007
.-.~
1~
... . ti
~.
~