The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Digest 2009-02-06 ~ v TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of February 2 -6,2009 Tiburon 1. Letter - Town Manager - Support Contract for Angel Island Ferry Service 2. Letter - Scott Anderson - Easton Point - Notice of Preparation & EIR Scoping 3. Letter - Scott Anderson - MMWD Desalinization Project Draft EIR 4. Monthly Report - Design Review - December 2008 5. Yearly Recap - Design Review Submittals - 2008 6. Invitation -Emergency Services VIP Open House - February 28,2009 * Agendas & Minutes 7. Minutes - Design Review Board - January 15, 2009 8. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - February 5, 2009 9. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - February 11,2009 Regional a) Letter - Helene B. Marsh - 5035 Paradise Drive Appeal on 2/18/09 * b) Western City - February, 2009 * c) Great Age - Newsletter - Winter 2009 * d) Letter - Willdan - Offer of Engineering/Geotechnical Services etc. * e) Invitation - Tribute to Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron - February 21 2009 * f) Invitation - Judge 27th Annual Burke Speech Tournament - May 16, 2009 * g) Conference Announce.- LCC 2009 Legislative Action Days - 4/15-4/16/09 * Agendas & Minutes h) None * Council Only Town ofTiburon · 1505 Tiburon Boulevard · Tiburon CA 949"0 · P. 415 435 7373 F 415 435 2438 · . "b , ....". " ". WWW.Cl.t1uron.ca.us February 3, 2009 ()/GI:: 8l- Ali -t Ms. Ruth Coleman Director, Department of Parks and Recreation State of California 1460 - Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Dear Ms. Coleman: The Town of Tiburon is aware that the State Department of Parks and Recreation is in negotiations with Ms. Maggie McDonogh, operator of the Angel Island Ferry service, for a new long-term contract. The McDonogh family has been operating this service for two generations now. The Town urges you to ensure that a contract is successfully negotiated and executed. Service to Angel Island, which is within the incorporated Town limits of Tiburon, is a critical component to the success of our downtown. Visitors and locals bound for Angel Island State Park patronize downtown Tiburon en route 'to the Park, helping local businesses thrive. We believe there is a mutually beneficial synergy between Angel Island and downtown Tiburon: visitors experience both destinations in one outing, with the combination increasing the appeal of each. The Angel Island Ferry also serves as an emergency resource for the community and the Park. When the Angel Island fire erupted several months ago, Ms. McDonogh and her staff tirelessly shuttled people and supplies to and from the island to help battle the fire and evacuate island visitors. In the event of an earthquake or other major disaster, we have no doubt that this ferry service would be invaluable to the community as water routes may be the only ones left to us if our two access roads become blocked. Finally, the state's own analysis of the Angel Island service concluded that Tiburon is not only the most logical connection point for A.I. ferry service but it is the only one that meets all the criteria set forth in the document. I, Maggie McDonogh a willing partner in this venture, and her company is uniquely qualified for this service in that they have been providing it for close to 50 years. No party has more experience than Ms. McDonogh in this arena. 'lot We thank you for your consideration of this issue. It means a great deal to Tiburon to see this service continued and solidified through a new long- term contract. We look forward to continuing our role as the "Gateway to Angel Island". Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any service in this effort. Our Town Manager, Peggy Curran, can be reached at 415-435-7383 if you require additional information or have any questions we can answer. z~ Alice Fredericks Mayor cc: Tiburon Town Council 2 Town ofTiburon · 1505 Tiburon Boulevard · Tiburon, CA 94920 · P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 · www.ci.tiburon.ca.us Community Development Department February 5, 2009 Christine Gimmler, AICP Senior Planner Marin County Community Development Agency 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 308 San Rafael, CA 94903 · ()IG~ ~8-,. RE: EASTON POINT (MARTHA COMPANY) NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND EIR SCOPING COMMENTS Dear Ms. Gimmler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and project scoping notice for the Easton Point project. The Town of Tiburon offers the following comments on project NOP and EIR scope. Notice of Preparation The NOP notice states that the Town of Tiburon did not "certify" either the 1996 or the 2001 "Draft EIR's" prepared for earlier project applications submitted for this site. While this is certainly true, it should be made clear that Draft EIR's are never certified, and that neither Draft EIR proceeded to the preparation of "responses to comments" phase or to release of a Final EIR that could be considered for certification. For those reasons, and due to the considerable passage of time since their preparation and changes in circumstances on the Tiburon peninsula, neither DEIR should be relied upon for conclusions regarding adequacy of topical impact analysis, alternatives analysis, or mitigation measure effectiveness, nor should background information be considered reliable except in the most obvious and extreme circumstances. Repeated references to these earlier draft documents in the project application submittal is misleading and disingenuous to the extent that it leads a reader to conclude that any level of disposition had been achieved by Town decision-makers with respect to project impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures. The Town's records indicate that several serious and outstanding environmental issues remained unresolved at the time that both prior project applications were either withdrawn or processing was ceased by the applicant, following public release of each Draft EIR document. EIR Scope Comments by Topical Impact Areas Air Quality The EIR should address project and cumulative greenhouse gas impacts, climate change issues, fugitive dust, asbestos-containing soils on the site, and other potential air..,quality-related health and safety impacts, including those from construction vehicles. J. Alice Eredericks Mayor Mi~;~^~~i~~ger Vie ~ior D~C:iPQllins cO~h~il~~.~ber -,,,..' :<',.,..~~ . . . .. "'; '.:.:',;~_/~::lt - . . ToPii:S~t~in CourrcQfuember ~ >>~. . . . '.'<(,;. :~..- ....\. .'. . . . :l-,.,? ' ',~ Marga:~e To-W-rt urran .~er ';- -;~:,: ' -';\". ,; Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Page 2 of 8 Noise -t The EIR should address health and safety-related and quality of life impacts from construction noise, which is likely to be long-term and on-going for many years. This includes not only on-site activities such as slide repair, installation of subdivision improvements, and home construction, but also off-site impacts associated with the coming and going of project-related vehicle trips during and after construction. The EIR should discuss mitigation measures that could separate phases of project and home construction into discrete blocks of time and/or units and avoid the continual, ongoing noise impacts associated with standard custom-home development on individual lots. Visual and Aesthetic The EIR should require both photo-simulations from multiple vantage points and selective use of story-pole representations of specific lots to assess potential visual impacts on this highly exposed ridge-top property. The proposed water tank alone (being shown on the highest elevation of the property on a steeply sloping ridgeline area) represents a potentially significant visual blight given its immediate adjacency to public open space land on the ridgeline. The previous 2001 DEIR analysis found significant and unavoidable visual impacts associated with a lesser-scale development (20 units proposed adjacent to Hill Haven). The visual impacts from the earlier proposal appear to be significantly less than visual impacts that would be created by the current application. The DEIR should evaluate mitigation measures such as relocating the water tank to a lower and less-visible location, under-grounding the water tank (at least partially), limiting the size and height of homes, and carefully controlling the color and materials palettes for homes and other improvements. Project development alternatives should provide a reasonable range of lot layouts that would avoid or reduce visual impacts, including minimizing visual impacts from placement of development within the ridge and upland greenbelt zone on the property. Geology & Soils The EIR should discuss the health and safety impacts of not requiring repair or improvement of identified landslides that could inflict damage upon persons or property on or off the project site should a landslide event occur. The land development process provides the safest, most logical and most appropriate opportunity to reduce or eliminate safety hazards associated with landslides by requiring their repair or improvement during installation of the subdivision improvements. Implementation of a relatively weak landslide repair policy on a parcel of land with numerous landslides with the potential to affect down-slope properties, persons, and improvements should be evaluated in the EIR as a health and safety issue, with a discussion of balancing the potential for loss of human life and property damage with impacts associated with repair and/or improvement of landslides to a reasonable factor of safety. Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Page 3 of 8 The EIR should provide realistic estimates for the amount of cut, fill, and earth movement associated with the project through completion of-tall homes and yard spaces. The EIR should avoid assuming that excavated earth will simply be off-hauled by individual lot builders at some future point in time. Given the propensity for builders to avoid expensive off-haul of excavated earth in favor of "spreading it around" a building site, or for "retaining" it on site through use of retaining walls, the EIR should analyze secondary impacts of these practices, including on hydrology, biology, water quality, special-status plants and animals and their habitat, and noise, air quality (dust) and visual impacts. Potential impacts of these practices on both public and private open space adjoining proposed lots should be analyzed in the EIR. When spreading excavated earth, especially during home construction and yard improvements, open space boundary lines are often ignored (either unintentionally or intentionally) and once the area is disturbed, the environmental damage is done and complete restoration is difficult if not impossible to attain. Biological Resources The site is known to, among other things, contain protected species and special-status plants and may provide habitat for red-legged frogs. The extent of Marin Dwarf flax shown on application drawings is far smaller than that identified for the 2001 DEIR by the independent EIR biologists, which area extended far beyond Parcel B and into currently proposed Lots 1,23, and 7. The EIR should address this discrepancy and err on the conservative side as to the potential physical range of Marin Dwarf Flax, which can vary its range from year to year depending on climatic conditions. The EIR should seek to limit disturbance of serpentine bunchgrass, which apparently extends along the Hill Haven boundary for up to several hundred feet into the Easton Point site stretching from Mountain View Drive to Straits View Drive. The EIR should also address impacts on the closed-canopy coast live oak woodlands from development of lots 25-28 and 32-34, as well as impacts to red-legged frogs found in Keil Pond from development of these lots and their infrastructure. The 2001 DEIR had concluded that a strategic removal of lots in this cluster would reduce impacts of the red-legged frog to a less than significant level. The EIR should also address the issue of sudden oak death syndrome (SODS), as it appears to be already decimating the oak trees currently on the property. The EIR should avoid under-estimation of potential visual impacts of the project should existing mature trees continue to die off as a result of SODS. Hydrology and Water Quality The EIR should analyze the adequacy of drainage facilities (existing and proposed) and trace this adequacy down all the way to San Francisco Say where the runoff journey ends, covering all of the numerous drainage swales, pipes, inlets, outlets, trash racks and dissipaters along the way. Necessary upgrades to existing facilities should be identified and the secondary impacts of those upgrades evaluated in sensitive areas such as those near Keil pond. Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Page 4 of 8 The potential impacts of the project on seeps and springs in the project vicinity should be addressed in the EIR. The Supplemental Groundwater Inwestigation by Questa should be independently reviewed for adequacy by the EIR hydrological consultant. In addition, seeps and springs in the Railroad Marsh drainage (potentially affected by Lots 1-4, 7-9, 20 and 35-38) do not appear to have been addressed in the Questa investigation. Potential impacts on these groundwater sources, that possibly feed the County of Marin Wildflower Preserves near Old St. Hilary Church as well as the Railroad Marsh, should be evaluated in the EIR. The EIR should evaluate potential water quality impacts on Keil Pond and other sensitive water areas from grading and other construction-related activities resulting from the project. Transportation and Traffic The EIR should evaluate impacts on all signalized and all stop-controlled intersections between Solano Street @ Paradise Drive and the State Highway 131 @ Southbound U.S. Highway 101 off-ramp. The Town of Tiburon will make available its traffic model for such purposes, as well as recent traffic and intersection analyses for other projects on the Tiburon peninsula. The project would contribute substantial traffic to the Tiburon circulation system and will constitute a cumulatively considerable impact on the level of service operation at intersections, especially at the Tiburon Boulevard/Trestle Glen Boulevard intersection. The EIR should discuss appropriate pro rata monetary contributions by the applicant to maintaining acceptable levels of service along Tiburon Boulevard. The EIR should meaningfully discuss and evaluate project-related traffic impacts to the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon and Hill Haven neighborhoods. Previous Draft EIR's (never certified) have consistently underestimated the safety hazards and noise impacts on these neighborhoods. Moreover, the 1996 DEIR analyzed a project that would have constructed only six (6) lots with vehicular access through Hill Haven and Old Tiburon neighborhood streets (excluding Paradise Drive). The 2001 DEIR analyzed a project that would have twenty (20) lots with vehicular access through Hill Haven and Old Tiburon neighborhood streets (excluding Paradise Drive). The current project proposes 500/0 more lots (a total of 30) with vehicular access through Hill Haven and Old Tiburon neighborhood streets (excluding Paradise Drive). Mitigation measures proposed in the 2001 DEIR, which consisted of regulating parking and dumpsters and placing a yield sign at Ridge Road) were thoroughly inadequate to address safety issues resulting from the project. The EIR should evaluate the effect of existing Town of Tiburon limitations and/or prohibitions on large construction vehicles using Hill Haven and Old Tiburon neighborhood streets to access the project site. The EIR should fully evaluate bicycle and pedestrian safety impacts from the project, on Paradise Drive and on neighborhood streets. Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Page 5 of 8 Due to the lengthy duration of project construction, the EIR should evaluate construction-related traffic safety and noise impacts through the Old Tiburon and Hill Haven neighborhoods as non-temporary (non-short-term) impacts. The Easton Point property has approximately 1.1 miles of public street frontage along Paradise Drive, a narrow winding of roadway frequented by bicyclists. The EIR should evaluate the impacts of the frontage improvements that will be required by the County as part of the project and the secondary impacts of installing such improvements. Portions of unincorporated Paradise Drive are in a relatively poor condition of maintenance, according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's pavement management indexes. The County of Marin has indicated that funding for Paradise Drive maintenance is not likely to meaningfully increase in the foreseeable future due to a lack of funding sources, and will continue to be an ongoing and potentially worsening problem. Construction traffic, including heavy construction vehicles, will further batter this public road and all other streets upon which construction traffic will travel in order to develop the project. The EIR should evaluate project-related damage to Paradise Drive and other public streets and suggest funding mechanisms for the long-term maintenance of frontage improvements and roadway surfaces and infrastructure, including a developer assessment district applying to any new homes within the project, or possibly the formation of a county service district. As such County-collected fees would not normally be applied to Town of Tiburon-maintained streets, the EIR should discuss methods by which the developer would make whole any Town of Tiburon streets that are damaged or degraded as a result of the project. Public Recreation & Trails Aspects of the project (water tank, lots and roadways) appear to eliminate trails on the property that are currently used by the public, some heavily. The EIR should analyze whether these trails will be lost, re-routed, and/or replaced by others, evaluate the potential impacts of those physical changes to the site. Public Services & Utilities Fire Suppression The EIR should carefully evaluate potential fire flow and pressure requirements serving the very large homes that are proposed at high elevations on the property. It appears that the proposed location of the water tank on the highest reaches of the property is solely for the purpose of enabling homes to be built on the ridgeline. One visual blight impact spawns others, when both should be avoided through thoughtful crafting of project alternatives. Emergency Evacuation Routes The project appears to have no viable secondary means of emergency access, traversable by ordinary passenger vehicles, in the event Ridge Road or any other of the existing narrow, winding roadways leading down to Paradise Drive or Tiburon Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Page 6 of 8 Boulevard become impassable. None of the project roadways interconnect in a meaningful way that would allow for improved emergency evtlcuation. The EIR should evaluate the lack of adequate emergency evacuation routes as a health and safety impact. Water Supply The EIR should analyze long term water supply availability for the project as well as the adequacy of water pressure for domestic and fire-suppression purposes. The EIR should scrutinize the safety and other environmental impacts of the proposed location of the water tank on a steep slope at the highest property elevation. Sanitary Sewer Service The EIR should evaluate impacts associated with provision of public sanitary sewer service to all lots. This includes secondary effects of installing new sewer lines in Paradise Drive and impacts on existing sewer lines in Hill Haven that may be inadequate, deteriorated, or unable to withstand the additional load caused by the project. Cultural Resources The EIR for a project of this magnitude should engage potentially affected Native American tribes in consultation over any appropriate treatment of human remains, cultural resources, and for a sacred sites evaluation. Alternatives to the Project Town has previously submitted a site plan alternative to the County, in a letter to David Zaltsman, Deputy County Counsel, dated September 4,2007. The Town requests that this development alternative be evaluated in the EIR. Additionally, the EIR should evaluate a wide range of alternatives that would seek to reduce environmental impacts of the project, including: ~ No project alternative and consideration of off-site project locations ~ Alternative vehicular access to most lots (not through Hill Haven streets) ~ Alternative lot locations keeping lots out of the ridge and upland greenbelt zone ~ Reduced density alternatives that accomplish most of the applicant's objectives or that could be voluntarily agreed to by the applicant ~ Alternatives including smaller and/or lower homes more consistent with the pattern of surrounding development ~ Alternatives that require physical and temporal clustering of construction efforts to reduce duration of noise and traffic safety impacts ~ A Public Open Space alternative Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Page 7 of 8 Mitigation Measures -t The EIR should consider imposing the following general types of mitigation measures, with the understanding that additional detail will possible as the project proceeds through the process environmental and development review processes. Visual impacts Minimizing the square footage and height of homes and improvements Relocating the water tank Relocating lots off the ridge and upland greenbelt zone Biological impacts Smaller homes and residential use areas clustered to minimize serpentine grassland and Marin Dwarf flax populations, especially in the vicinity of Lots 1-7 and 20 Smaller homes and residential use areas clustered to minimize oak woodland and red- legged frog impacts in the vicinity of Lots 25-28 and 32-34 Traffic and Noise impacts Proposing alternative project designs that limit project-related traffic impacts on Hill Haven and Old Tiburon ~eighborhood streets Finding alternative means of bringing construction-related materials to the project site Requiring the applicant to contribute toward meaningful street improvements in the most-severely affected neighborhood street areas to reduce safety hazards Requiring physical and temporal clustering of project construction (including building of homes on individual lots ) to limit the duration of noise and traffic safety impacts stemming from construction traffic, as well as fugitive dust impacts upon surrounding neighborhood areas For safety reasons, limit the length, width, and/or weight of vehicles used during all project-construction phases, including home construction on individual lots Geology & Soils impacts Limit building footprint and building envelope (residential use area) to reduce grading and ground disturbance Christine Gimmler, Senior Planner Page 8 of 8 Hydrology & Water Quality impacts -t Minimize ground disturbance and potential impacts on groundwater by approving smaller homes and residential use areas clustered to minimize these impacts in the vicinity of Lots 1-4, 7-9, 20, and 34-38 Minimize water quality impacts on Keil Pond by requiring smaller homes and residential use areas that are clustered in the vicinity of Lots 25-28 and 32-34 Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to contact me at (415) 435-7392 if you have any questions. Very trUlY. YOU. rs, a ~ ~~15YVU Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Cc: Town Council Digest S:\Planning\Staff Folders\sanders()n\Letters\martha county 2008 NOP letter. doc DIG 'Iown ofTibumn · 1105 Tibumn Boulevard · 'libumn, CA 94920 · P. 415,435.7373 E 411.431.2438 · WWW.ci~.1"" Community Development Department February 4, 2009 . I .~ 0 f 1/ e ~. .~~:.~IM' ~o~ ~~~. r"~~~':t v"~;:::-=~''O ('....;=~.....o.. .'/'. O~I\I-;;--;~c.' ~. T . 3 .- .... -tot Dain Anderson Environmental Services Coordinator Marin Municipal Water District 220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera, CA 94925 Alice Fredericks Mayor Miles Berger Vice Mayor RE: TOWN OF TIBURON SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS ON MMWD DESALINIZATION PROJECT DRAFT EIR Dick Collins Councilrnernber Dear Mr. Anderson: Tom Gram CounciJmember The Town of Tiburon is in receipt of your agency's response to our comments on the DEIR for the above-referenced project. The Town has also received a copy of the comment and clarification letter from the Marin County Open Space District (MCOSD) dated February 4,2009. Jeff Slavitz Councilrnember Margaret A. Curran Town Manager Town Staff agrees with the comments set forth in the February 4, 2009 MCOSD letter and requests that written clarifications to these questions be provided. Of special note is the MCOSD Comment L-8-9, which states that since the EIR did not consider the environmental effects of alternative site locations for the Ridgecrest A Tank, future additional environmental review may be required. The Town concurs with this MCOSD comment and reiterates its disappointment with the inadequacy of the alternatives analysis for this portion of the project, as set forth in our earlier comment L- 12-2. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft response to comments for this project. Please feel free to contact me at 415-4357392 should you have any questions. iJ~u~ Scott Anderson Director of Community Development Cc: Town Council Digest S:\Planning\Staff Folders\sanderson\Letters\MMWD desalinization tank deir comment letter2.doc TOWN OF TIBURON I Cf I L'~c.:i) I" OFFICE OF DESIGN REVIEW MONTHLY REPORT -t DECEMBER 2008 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED 2007 ~ NEW SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCES ~ ~ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ AL TERA TIONS ~ ~ MINOR ADDITIONS/ AL TERA TIONS ~ (not eligible for Staff Review) ~ SIGN PERMITS ~ TREE PERMITS ~ ~ V ARIANCE REQUESTS ~ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS ~ EXTENSION OF TIME o o 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 7 1 3 2 o o STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500 square feet. 8 11 APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL o o REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary DATE OF REPORT: January 8,2009 DIGEST 1""; jJ I- 4C .... ..... N "'l:t ..... 0 CD co CD 'l('"" 0 0 "'l:t C'? &0 l- e N N N ..... "'l:t CD ..... ..... C'? ('II l- <<:) I"- m ~ 0 T""" T""" N l"- T""" N 00 I"- 0 0) 0 T""" T""" T""" -q- N T""" T""" N N -t 0 .... W 0 0 ..... ..... ..... C'? ..... N ..... 0 0 e ..... ('II C ('II 0 ~ W 0 T""" T""" T""" ('t') I"- ('t') 00 0 0 N CO <::) > <::) 0 0 T""" T""" 0 0 N T""" CD 0 T""" N Z ..... . en ..J b CD en ~ ('t') T""" T""" 0 CD -q- N T""" 0 ('I') 0 - . :E t: I"- ('t') m w T""" T""" 0 0 N 0 N T""" 0 N :) .... m en . 3t C) ('t') N W ::::> T""" N T""" 0 ('t') N 0 T""" 0 N .- <( > W ~ ~ T""" 0 0 T""" L{) 0 T""" L{) 0 ('I') ::::> T""" N Z ..., C) . - en w w z , 0 0 T""" 0 L{) T""" 0 00 0 L{) ::::> T""" N Q ..., '. D- <C >- I"- L{) 0 ~ T""" T""" N T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" 0 N W ~ ~ 0:: -q- m 0. ('t') 0 ('t') 0 ('t') ('t') ('t') T""" 0 N I:t:: <( <( .W IX: >- ~ 0 N T""" ('t') ('t') T""" 0 I"- 0 ,..... T""" N m ('t') N W 0 T""" 0 T""" -q- T""" N T""" 0 N u.. Z ('t') l.C) .' <( T""" T""" T""" 0 CD 0 ('t') N 0 ('t') ..., en en := l- I- I- W l- I- i i en a. :> ...J ...J 0::: 0::: w w w 0::: <( <( W 0 0 0::: en LL 0::: w a. z >< ...J ~ en 0::: a. LL <( W 0 0 Z W <( W LL W t! Q. := .., z C) w Q2 0::: <( a. >- w <( 0::: ~ <( I- a. 0 I- Z :E i en l- LL en <( I- .... o o N 0::: w m :E w o w C J: C) :::J o 0::: J: I- en ...J <( I- o I- 0::: <( w ~ J: I- Z o :E ole 7~ MINUTES #1 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 2009 /)IG~ ..r\)- Q /;1 l1 -t The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Doyle. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Chong, Tollini, and Wilson Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner Phillips, and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous noted that two items were to be continued: 5 Rolling Hills is continued to the February 5, 2009 meeting, and 30 Pamela Court is continued to the March 5, 2009 meeting. D. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR ACTION: It was MIS (Tollini/Wilson) to elect Boardmember Chong as Vice-Chair of the Design Review Board. Vote: 4-0. E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 5035 PARADISE DRIVE MARSH, NEW DWELLING 5035 PARADISE DRIVE HELENE MARSH EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED LOT SIZE 21,071 S.F. NA NA FLOOR AREA 1,560 3,439 4,107 MAX LOT COVERAGE 8.8% 13.1 % 15.0% MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 14 ' 23' 6" 30' MAX SIDE YARDS 19' & 14' 20' & 15' 15' FRONT YARD 129' 135' 30' REAR YARD 76' 48' 25' V ARIANCES/EXCEPTION NONE TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/09 The applicant has submitted a request for construction of a new single-family dwelling on the property located at 5035 Paradise Drive. This application was first reviewed at the December 4, 2008 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the two adjacent neighboring property owners at 5045 Paradise Drive and 6 Cibrian Drive raised concerns that the proposed new home would impact views from their primary living space. The Boord concluded that views from the Scarpa residence along Cibrian Drive would not be substantially impacted by the proposed home but the slot views from the Borton residence along Paradise would be impacted and that the project needed to be revised in order to minimize this impact. The Board suggested the idea of lTIoving the location of the proposed home and lowering the height of the roof. T~e Board reviewed the proposal, but continued the project to give the applicant time to rethink and revise the proposal and to allow for additional dialogue between the neighbors. The applicant has since submitted revised plans for the new dwelling. Helene Marsh, owner/applicant, summarized changes in the design to address the concerns raised in the last Board meeting and said her attention has focused solely on the neighboring home to the west owned by the Bortons. She noted that the Board concluded at the previous meeting that the house would have no impact on the view of the neighbor on Cibrian Drive. She stated that they met with the Fire Marshal to determine how far back the house could go on the property and the revised design pushes the home to the furthest point possible without having to install a fire hydrant. She said that they hired a surveyor to determine the position of the neighbor's home and their architect designed a roof height that would allow the Bortons to retain their water views. She stated that the architect designed three different roof options and they chose the design that best preserved the neighbors' views even though it required significant excavation which results in substantial design compromises and expense. Louis Butler, architect, reviewed the changes made to the project to preserve the neighbor's views. He stated that they had moved the house back 6 feet on the site which results in a smaller back yard and moved the underground storage tanks. He said that the new design moved the house and several large windows away from the Bortons' views. He stated that they lowered and flattened the pitch of the roof, which lowered the ceilings in the rooms and relocated the solar panels, and that they lowered the foundation of the house over 2 feet. He stated that the revised design reduces some of their own view, requires large retaining walls, and results in digging into bedrock. Mr. Butler showed photographs that illustrated the difference in the story poles before and after these changes to the design were made. Planning Manager Watrous asked if the tree in the photograph was the fir tree shown to be removed in the landscape plan. Mr. Butler confirmed that this tree is proposed to be removed as part of this application. Boardmember Wilson asked how tall the house was on the side. Mr. Butler said the house starts roughly 6 feet below grade and goes 19 feet above grade. Ms. Marsh clarified that the grade of the lower floor was 6 feet below the grade of the Bortons' driveway and that they intend to screen that side of the house with plantings that grow above the wall. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/09 2 Greg Borton thanked the Board for their effort and attention. He said that he examined the new story poles and there is no question that there has been improvement. However, he felt that the changes made by the revised house design to address their concerns were minor modifications to the same, basic structure with a 4Y1 foot reduction on the eastern side. He said that the main problem is that there would still be a large, 6 foot wall that would block the view from his living area and have some economic impact on the value of his property. He said that although SOlne of the considerations voiced by the Board have been addressed, many options are still available to pursue. He stated that the photograph misrepresented the actual view from their kitchen. He stated that the 6- foot wall would be in the primary view of their house and the house would create privacy issues. He stated that he hired an appraiser who analyzed the new house and determined it would reduce the value of his home by $60,000, primarily due to view and privacy impacts. He offered to share the cost of a fire hydrant with the neighbor if it would allow them to move house back further on the property. Michael Heckmann, architect representing the Bortons, stated that the revised house design would still block views froln their kitchen and family room. He said that lowering the building by about 4 feet would preserve about half of the view to the east and he proposed that the project be lowered an additional 4 feet, which would reduce the building mass and window light pollution to an acceptable level. He said that the proposed 5 gallon shrubs would take many years before they are large enough to provide appropriate screening. He said that the forward position of the house causes many of the issues raised by the Bortons and he proposed shifting the building to the east away from the Bortons which would allow more landscaping in between the neighbors. He said that the house would affect views from every primary living area of the house and the proximity of the building and view issues have not been sufficiently addressed. Leigh Schuberth said that he believed the project affects all residents ofTiburon and voiced concern that it would set a precedent if the Board approved a project that affects a primary view. He stated that new construction offers more flexibility than working with an existing structure and that there are many options that have not yet been explored. Mr. Butler stated that the site is very steep, with a 19% slope and a natural flat bench that faces southeast that is the only area that allows sunlight to the house. He said that lowering the house another 4 to 5 feet would result in very high retaining walls. He explained that the house design is articulated so that it will not appear as a wall but as a broken plane. He said that moving the house the east would squeeze the driveway and require tall retaining walls and would not be an appropriate architectural solution to the problem. He stated that they have done their best to develop a natural relationship between the house and the site. Chair Doyle questioned the side elevation and how much would be seen above grade. Mr. Butler said the foundation would be 6 feet below the grade and the shrubbery would be planted above that. Ms. Marsh said they tried to address the view impact by proposing to remove the fir tree in the Bortons' view, but the Bortons wish the tree to remain. She said that removing the tree would dramatically open up their view. She said that lowering the house would cause them to excavate deeply into bedrock. She said that the windows on the side of the house facing the Borton's TIBURON n.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/09 3 were placed to allow light into the house because they had to sink the building so low into the ground. She stated that the windows would be high in the rooms and they have no desire to look in that direction since all of the views are on the other side of the house. The public hearing was closed. -t Boardmember Wilson said the applicant has spent a tremendous amount of time and energy revising the project. He said that he still loves the house but is not sure whether the neighbors ~ views would be impacted. He said that he looked at the story poles from the Bortons~ home and felt that their view would still be impacted from their kitchen and dining room, which are locations where they spend the majority of their time. He said that he appreciated the green building design elements but was tom over supporting the application. Boardmember Tollini said that he liked the environmental aspects of the home design. He said that he visited the Bortons' home and the impact has been dramatically lessened. He believed that the view itself was no longer the issue, but had more to do with the trees that frame the view. He said that the issues of mass and bulk and the large windows could be addressed with landscaping that could be reviewed by staffbut he encouraged plantings that are large enough initially to create the landscape as depicted in the design. He felt that there was not much else that could be done to the house design. Vice-Chair Chong said that he visited the site and the Bortons ~ home and the new version has improved the view. He thought that the only way to reduce the impact further is to create a one- story house, but the only additional benefit to the neighbors would be to increase their view of Paradise Cay. He said that he was not opposed to a two-story house, which makes sense on the sloped site. He said that significant changes have been made to the house design and he agreed with Boardmember Tollini that larger initial plantings in the landscape plan would help provide screening. He said that lowering the house would only pick up a sliver more of water view for the neighbors. Chair Doyle acknowledged people~s desire to preserve views~ but in his experience a lot of a new structure can be covered through landscaping. He said that the house has been significantly changed, moving 6 feet back and lowered 4 feet. He was unsure what else could be suggested to further change the design. He noted that the existing trees block a lot of the view and could be removed to improve the view. He supported the project, especially given how much the house has been dropped down. He added that given the slope of the lot and restrictions of the Fire District not much else could be done. Boardmember Wilson said the neighbor~ s house was there first and the applicant might not appreciate such a house going in next to his own home. He thought that the only possible compromise would be to make the front portion of the house a single story and then build the house more up into the hill, but this would compromise the architecture and flow of the house. He acknowledged that the applicant has already compromised a lot, but he still believed that the neighbors' views would be affected by this house. TffiURON n.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/09 4 ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Chong) that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional condition of approval requiring that enhanced landscaping with larger, more mature plantings, be installed along the western side of the site to be approved by Planning Division staff. Vote: 3-1 (Wilson voted no). -t 2. 5 ROLLING HILLS ROAD WESTERN LIABILITY INSURANCE, ADDITIONSN ARIANCES/FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION - CONTINUED TO 2/5/09 F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 30 PAMELA COURT SIMONSON, ADDITIONS - CONTINUED TO 3/5/09 G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE 12/18/08 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Wilson requested the following change on page 8, second to last paragraph: "hit" should be changed to "it". ACTION: It was M/S (Doyle/Chong) to approve the minutes of the December 18,2008 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4-0. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. TffiURON n.R.B. MINUTES #1 1/15/09 5 Br ACTION MINUTES #2 D1G1:Sr TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD THURSDAY, FEBRUARl; 5, 2009 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD A. ROLL CALL: Present - Boardmembers Chong, Tollini and Wilson Absent - Chair Doyle Ex-Officio - Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) C. STAFF BRIEFING D. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. 2. 1 Main Street 9 Main Street Caffe Acri Servino Ristorante Sign Permit WITHDRAWN Sign Permit WITHDRAWN E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 3. 5 Rolling Hills Road Western Liability Insurance AdditionsNariance APPROVED 4. 22 Mercury Avenue Dibble New Dwelling CONTINUED TO 3/5/09 F. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 5. 42 Reed Ranch Road Trusheim Additions/Variances/Floor Area Exception CONTINUED TO 3/5/09 G. MINUTES OF THE 1/15/09 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING - APPROVED AS AMENDED H. ADJOURNMENT - 7:50 P.M. 4 NOZ1;~~iL~~~~~NG l)iG~8l- -t THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2009 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25,2009 ..~ ~ SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY