HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2010-07-07 (2)Charles D. Reite
1496 Vistazo St. W.
Tiburon, CA. 94920
Phone/Fax 415-789-8663
Email charlesreite0att.net
July 5, 2010
Tiburon Town Council
c/o Dan Watrous
Planning Manager
Dear Mr. Watrous:
I have enclosed 6 copies of our objection in support of the
Appeal of Mr. & Mrs. Straub to the DRB approval of the
request to detach 1490 Vistazo St. W. from the other
attached units.
I would appreciate it if you could distribute them to the
Council members prior to the meeting on July 7. If you
have any questions please contact me at the numbers above
or my wife, Chris Koehler, at 415-948-8663. I plan to
speak during the public comment portion of the hearing.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Reite
TOWN COUNCL
PY
MAiI #
4 L
'A I
MEETING DATE 1, - -7-1&
R 0EDIV
JUL 0 6 2010
TOWN OF :3URON
~3UILOING DIvi~'wi
Tiburon Town Council
Comments in Opposition to
DRIB Approval of 1490 Vistazo
July 6, 2010
The decision of the DRB allowing the construction of a new single-family dwelling at
1490 has been appealed by the neighbors for hearing July 7, 2010. We are adjoining
property owners at 1496 Vistazo. We also object to the improvements as approved by the
DRB.
We certainly welcome improvements to the neighborhood which are in keeping with the
character and compatible with the existing neighborhood dwellings. However, the plans
as requested are totally out of character and in stark contrast to the existing neighborhood
and buildings. In addition, the proposed site placement encroaches on our privacy and
that of 1494 Vistazo. The DRB did not made any of the necessary findings required by
the Zoning Ordinance for such a significant change in the character of the Vistazo
Development nor do the facts provide a basis for any such findings.
There are other issues and problems raised by the requested proposal which should be
addressed prior to any approval, even though they may technically be beyond the
jurisdiction of the DRB. For example, there is a significant drainage of ground water
through an underground drainage system which will be directly under the proposed
detached structure which must be properly relocated or otherwise accommodated. Also,
the adjoining, attached unit will be affected and left exposed and; although the
conditions of approval make the applicant "responsible" for any structural or other
effects, there is no specifics of how that must be accomplished or even if it can be done
without detriment to the units at 1486 and 1482 Vistazo which is also part of the
structural integrity. Certainly there is no assurance that the applicant has the financial or
other ability to protect and indemnify the remaining units.
In short, the proposal involves much more than the simple construction of a single family
dwelling. The plan and design of the existing developments on Vistazo from 1470 to
1496 were designed and constructed to be compatible with each other and maintain the
maximum privacy of each of the units. The Vistazo Development was designed and built
in the early 60's before the evolution of Planned Unit Developments and the Common
Interest Communities which are common for such developments today. But there are
CC&R's for the Vistazo Development making it clear that there was an integrated design
and plan to lots 1-9 of Vistazo. That plan provided for and protected the view corridors
and privacy of the units. This is the first request in the nearly 50 year history of the
Vistazo Development to propose a radical change to that plan.
We are told that the reason for this radical change from the original design is to create a
seismically safe dwelling. But no compelling reason is given as to why it is necessary to
separate 1490 from the other two units to solve the seismic issue
However, an example of a perfect solution to the resolution of the identical problem is
seen at 1470 Vistazo, which has made a wonderful improvement to the Vistazo
Development. That solution without detachment is both seismically sound and totally
compatible with the adjoining units. There is no reason why that same approach cannot
be done with 1490 Vistazo to avoid an unwarranted change to the Vistazo Development.
That solution would also eliminate any of the privacy concerns and structural issues for
the other Vistazo units. Also the relocation of the groundwater drainage would not have
to be addressed.
The DRB has not made any findings as to how this radical departure from the planned
design of the Vistazo Development is compatible with the neighborhood and adjoining
units as is required by the Zoning Ordinance. To simply say that the exterior finishes and
slight height variance does not significantly change the character of the development
misses the point entirely. The proposed detachment of 1490 totally changes the character
of the neighborhood including view corridors and privacy issues. The assumption that
the mature trees will survive the massive digging and trenching for the foundations
outside of the original footprint of the existing dwelling to provide a privacy screen is not
based on any common sense or factual finding, only a hope.
The fact that the dwelling at 1490 has been uninhabited and allowed to become
uninhabitable is no basis to permit such a drastic change in the original design and plan
for the Vistazo Development.
The bottom line is that a proposal similar to the solution accomplished at 1470 Vistazo
would find no objections by anyone in the neighborhood. No sight lines would change,
no privacy issues would arise and a safe, sound and compatible dwelling would result
enhancing the entire neighborhood and maintain its unique character.
Charles Reite & Christine Koehler
1495 Vistazo St. W.
co, , Vonants _
and restri
or, ctions -
religion, sev > , if any, based.
national origin are deaoc l,.; , familial o status cep
the extent that s Cd unless an-~f , or
Chc UtL-r ai c Eil:, CC)Y^i 71i"t lo~ IS nv. u_ Only t0
c,cir: or the 1 aer
(p)) relate S
Rli tc I 111itedc3 tales
ill `'x licap• b
but d
HJF'
qns not .
persons.
i 1.6412
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO, VISTAZO
a subdivision in,the County
or Marin, State of California
WHEREAS, 'LESLIE SMITH is the owner of that certain
real property situated in the County' of Marin., State of Cali-
Pornia_, as shown on that certain map entitled "Vis'tazo" (in-.
cluding resubdivision of a portion of Marinaro Residence No.
1), filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the
County of Marin, May 1962 in Boob -of Maps Volume
at page /3 and
WHEREAS, It is desired and intended by the under-
signed to.transfer and convey all the separate lots shown on
said raap, subject to certain easements, restrictions, condi-
tions, servitudes, covenants and agreements as hereinafter
set forth, pursuant to' a -general plan or scheme of Improve-
ment relating to all- said -separate* lots shown upon said map;
NOW. THEREFORE, LESLIE SMITH, as owner, subdivider
and. declarant of_ard with respect to the -above referred to
real property does hereby declare that each separate lot
thereof- delineated on sald map of Vistazo is held and shall.
tie held, conveyed, hypothecated, leased, rented, used, occur
pied and' improved, subject to the following limitations,
easements, restrictions, conditi-o.ns, covenants, servitudes
and agreements, all in. furtherance of a.plan for the subdi-
v1sion and the sale of each lot therein, which are established
and agreed upon fo-r the purpose. of enhancing and protecting'
the value, use, dedl-rab.ility and attractiveness of said ' sub-
division and each separate lot thereof.
C.0 i
o -
1 569 FAGS 280
I - •1
COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS :
• I. All of the easements, restrictions, conditions,
covenants, servitudes and agreements•herein set forth, shall
affect all and each of the separate lots designated on said
map in- the manner hereinafter set forth and shall run with
and, against the land in each respective instance and the
owners thereof, or of array interest therein and are made for
the direct and mutual reciprocal benefit 'of each and every
separate lot shown on said map and the respective owners
'thereof or any interest therein and shall create servitudes
upon each of said separate. lot's shown upon said map in favor
of every other separate lot shown on. said map and shall create
- respective rights and. obligations.between the respective own-
era -thereof and shall create a privity of contract and estate
in each of them among the owners and/or grantees of all and
singular of each said separate lot shown on said map and bet-
ween each of their successors in interest and assigns, 'and
shall, as. to the owner of any such separate lot,_ his successors
in interest-and assigns, .operate as covenants running with
the. land for the benefit of every-other separate lot on said
map. and. their ,and each of their respective owners.
2.. Utility Easements.: Easements are dedicated and
reserved for the installation and maintenance of all public
utilities and, drainage facilities as the same are shown: and
delineated on said Ma
3. Restrictions on Use of Separate Lots:
a) There shall be only private, single family
residential dwelling structures built or maintained .on each
separate lot shown upon said map, except for Lot No. •1, up-
on which multiple.dwelling structures ma be
y placed.
b) As to Lots 2, 3, , 5, 6• and 7 as the ~same -
. _ . - a. - • ~ - ids I
o - _
. 800 l' 69 FA-GE 28f
are shown and delineated upon said map, no structure of any
type including any out-buildings, garages, carports or. TV
antennas, but excepting patios, swimming pools and cabs as
constructed adjacent to and.'as a part of the use of said
sxiasning pools and. landscaping, shall be built upon, kept
or maintained upon any portion of any of said lots southerly
of the- ten foot (.10t) public utl.a•ity• easement bearing ,South
67° Meat and South•510 57' 30` West as the. same is shown and
delineated upon, said map.. Provided, however, that as
to said
Lot 'No. there shall be no building or other structure of
any type save and except. landscaping,, within thirty five feet
(359) of any point on the Westerly:•:lifke of said lot and as-to
;
said Lot No-- 7, . there shall .be no building • or-•• other structure
of any-type, save and except landscaping, at any point East
of.--the ten foot (lO .drainage easement shown upon said-'
ap
bearing North 250 31-West_
c) As to : hots Nos. 8: aria 9 as tree same are shown ,
and delLneat.ed upon said map; no structure of any type includ-
iug any outbuildings, garages; carports or. TV antennas, but
.dxcepting patios, swimming pools and cabanas constructed ad-
Jacent to•and as a part of the use of said swimming pools
.and landscaping shall be built upon, kept or maintained upon any
portion of any of said lots Southerly of a line drawn through
the intersection of the courses set forth as -South 450 57'
.30" West 70.676 feet and South 100 36' West. 164. '00 . feet and
bearing -South 79° . 24 , East. Provided, -however, as. to Lot No.
9, there shall beano building or other, structure* of any. type
save and except landscaping, within the "common access and
utility easement" shown upon. said ma
. D, nor within nine feet
(90) of any point on the Easterly line of said -lot and as. to
Lot No. 8, there shall be.no -building or other structure of
-3- , - - -
, - _ iii •I f
s - -
~:f eo~I769 F~~~`'
any-type save and escep.t landscaping, within ten reet.(10*)
or the Southeasterly line' or the, x lght-or-way or V3stazo
West, as the same Is shown upon said map.
d) As to lot No. 1 asshoMrn upon said map -there
shall be do access across the Easterly and Southerly line
thereoY ror any type or vehicular traffic, 'upon the area
designated as the lands or SM= on said map, whether said
lands are retained in private ownership or Improved as a
private road,, or improved and dedicated and accepted as a pub-
lie road..
40 Dilig!Lnee - in . Building When the construction
or any residence. or. other structure has. once begun upon any
said lot, work thereon must be.prosecuted --diligently and it
must be compldted within a. reasonable time-
5_ care -or Premises : Now owner or any lot as
shown upon said map shall permit his or her-Mot to. remain un-
cared ror and no such owner shall permit the accunuil,ation or
debris or trash or permft other unsightly -objects to aceumm -
late ov-remain on his-or her lot.: Each lot -owner, at the
-earliest possible date following completion or.constructlon
upon any • said lot,- shall landscape, plant and in'staZl '.on said - `
lot,, such lawn, shrubs-.* vines.; -trees and gardensi as will serve
to : enhancLa the, beauty or the lot and said sUbd Lvision and
such owner shall -be responsible at - all` times for the -proper
care,. maintenance and good order of such planting' at his or
her own expense.
6. Enrorcement : Violation or .any. or. the restric-
tions, conditions,, covenants, servitudes or aa-reeme"ns hex-elm
contained 'shall give to the undersie;ned, his successors and.
assigns,, the right -to eater upon :the lot upon or -as to ,which
said violation or breach eiL ets and to sunm - ly abate of
BMK'1769 FQGE 2O3
remove at the expense of .the owner any structure, thiing or
condition that may be or 'e:cist thereon contrary to the pro-
. • • , _ .
visions hereof, without being deemed-guilty of trespass'.
The result of ever `
rs action or omission whereby :any re8tric-. '
tion, condition; covenant,, servitude or: agreement is: io
vla-
ted., iri whole or in part, is hereby declared- .to be. and con-
stitutes a_ nuisance and every remedy allowed by law against
the nuisance, eitr..er public. or private, shall be., applicable
against every such result. .Such. reme.die's' -shall be deemed
cumulative.and riot exclusive.- Any person entitled -to en-
force- provision of these restrictive covenants may 'do so
by proceeding at law or in equi-ty, either to.. restrain viola=
tions or' to recover. damages', for :such violatlons -In 'the event
such action • brought. to 'restrain the * violation or to recover.
damages is succes.sful', the :defendant shall pay as an attorn-
eys; Pee to the successful plaintiff, such amount as-the
court shall determine. to' be ' reasonable.
• . ? - 13mitation 'of Waiver., Failure _ to.. enforce any
pzrovis_ion or measure, of these restrict_ive.. covenants - by the un
dersigried, his successors , or assigns or by -any owner of inter-
est or record in and . lo.t subject to these. restric,tYve covenants
shall not -be deemed -A waiver. •of the right to do- so 'thereafter
or in connection with a similar violation *o.f so,.me other lot.
8. No zmjPairment -of Lien or. Mortgage : Nothing
• herein contained_shs''! ? impair or defeat the .lien of any more-
gage or deed of trust. The' title to any lot obtained- through
sale in satisfaction of any mortgage or deed. --of 'trust shall be
subject. ''to the
provisions hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
these restrictions the `day of May,. 96 .
AAA -
• Les11 th - 1
' ~ ICJ
Cocc.40S
Cc-)Le ccs o= 7tdc:- ccf g(
FDA 14`Lv Ltis- .Aac c.),s7,
0
5
.r
r,
a
w
W
y
r7
0
x
v
z
w
O
0
o0
a
w
w
0
x
A
W
0
a
0
~G
a
w
0
i
~ \ R
R \
4 \
t \
S \
r
M
f
w
t
r
i
S
F
s
Y
M
II
c
F
El El
.
_
0-1
~ ~ gyp'
}
•..ti
1
~ w
}
#
r
/
~ w
#
I
a
I
I
l
I
1
i
~
:
i
«
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
s
i
D '
_ W
v, 0
i'
n. ,
i
I ~
, I
I ~
I
I
'0
rte- -
I
I
I
V Oils l p.
-
. I
X ~
• I
W ,
o I
W ~
z I
J ~
I
I
I
• I
I
I
,1*
0
A z
w
U
w
0W
o x W
F-d
A
.
z
o
~
z
"
A
w
cq 0
w
z
0
H oC a
~
` 0
w A
w z
w
U
a
w
a
o
0
p
w
ca
`
lit
,
z
A
►r
w
0
z
0
H
w
I
M
0
\~p
It
III L)
0
0
iI
v~ 0
❑ ❑ G
i,
,
~Y
g
- p
w
/
w
,c../4
k
z
x
LLJ
s
I
I
I
I
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
w
0
0
0
0 w
c6w z
10
oz
IN
,
0
h
rl
a
w
oG
O
o'
rtm
o
~o
o
El El
W "
-
X
W
W
s O
i
i W
~ Z
i J
r
s
i
i
i
i
s
s
•
•
•
•
•
r
' i
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1
I
I
t
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
0
z
z
w
U
w
A
z
To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
July 7, 2010
Agenda Item:
Subject: 1490 Vistazo West Street; Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review
Approval for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling with
Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setback and Excess Building Height;
Danuta Shadduck, Owner; Larson Shores Architects, Applicant; Carl
and Brenda Bernheim Straub, Appellants; File #21003; Assessor's Parcel
058-223-14
Reviewed By: Z r,_
PROJECT DATA
Address:
Owner:
Applicant:
Appellants:
Assessor's Parcel Number:
File Number:
Lot Size:
Zoning:
General Plan:
Flood Zone:
BACKGROUND
1490 Vistazo West Street
Danuta Shadduck
Shadduck/Larson Shores Architecture
Carl and Brenda Bernheim Straub
058-223-14
21003
19,895 Square Feet
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
MH (Medium -High Density Residential)
X
On June 3, 2010, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review
application to construct a new single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard
setback and excess building height, at 1490 Vistazo West Street. The neighboring residents at
1494 Vistazo West Street, hereinafter referred to as "appellants," have filed a timely appeal of the
Board's decision to the Town Council.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants are requesting approval for construction of a new three-story single-family
dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setback and excess building height, on property
located at 1490 Vistazo West Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story
dwelling constructed in 1962 that is structurally attached to the adjacent dwelling at 1486 Vistazo
West Street. The existing residence would be demolished as part of this project.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7
The main level of the home would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook
and a two-car garage. The lower level would be a large office and bathroom. The upper level
would include the master bedroom suite, a laundry room, and an additional bedroom and
bathroom. Decks would extend off all three levels in the south east corner, and wrap around the
east side (left) of the structure, and would incorporate glass safety railings.
The proposed structure would result in a lot coverage of 2,215 square feet (11.1 which is
below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zoning district (30.0%). The proposed
structure would create a gross floor area of 3,921 square feet, which is below the 3,989 square
foot floor area ratio guideline for a lot of this size.
The existing dwelling is an "end unit" that is structurally attached to the adjoining dwelling at
1486 Vistazo West Street and is one of three homes structurally attached to each other even
though property lines divide the units. This is a highly unusual development pattern in the sense
that structural steel members cross the property lines to provide support for the dwellings. The
existing house adjoins the side property line, resulting in a zero side yard setback on the right side
of the property. The proposed house would be physically separated from the adjacent house, with
a side yard setback of three feet, two inches (3' 2") in lieu of the eight foot (8') minimum
required in the R-1 zone. Therefore, a variance for reduced side yard setback has been requested.
The height of the proposed house would be thirty seven feet, nine and one eighth inches (37'9
1/8"), which would exceed the maximum building height of thirty feet (30') by seven feet, nine
and one eighth inches (7'9 1/8"). Therefore, a variance for excess building height has also been
requested. The existing house on the site has a height of thirty-seven feet, four inches (37'4").
REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
May 6, 2010 Meeting
At the May 6, 2010 Design Review Board meeting, several neighboring property owners raised
concerns about structural and drainage issues associated with the project. Although the Board
shared these concerns, it recognized that these issues are addressed by the Public Works Director
and the Building Official through the building permit process and are not within the purview of
the Design Review Board.
At the meeting, the owners of the adjacent residence at 1486 Vistazo West Street asked for more
information about what the side of their home would look like once the applicant's dwelling was
no longer attached to their house. The appellants raised concerns about potential privacy issues
from new windows facing toward their home at 1494 Vistazo West Street and questioned whether
several trees that provide screening between the two homes would be removed or remain after
construction of the new house.
At the meeting, it was the consensus of the Design Review Board that the potential privacy
concerns were minimal and would be addressed by the remaining mature trees between homes.
The Board expressed concern that the exterior appearance of the adjoining dwelling at 1486
Vistazo West Street not be damaged by the separation of the existing house on the subject
Town of TIBURON PAGE 2 of 7
property. The Board found the design of the proposed house to be generally acceptable, but
asked the applicant to provide more detailed building elevations showing what the adjacent
residence would look like after the subject house was demolished. The Board also recommended
that the applicant more fully explore the structural aspects of the proposed project to ensure that
necessary structural elements would not result in changes to the appearance of the building. The
application was continued to the June 3, 2010 meeting to give the applicant time to prepare the
revised plans.
June 3, 2010 Meeting
The applicants submitted revised drawings for the project that did not change the building
footprint or the floor plans for the house. The plans included exterior elevation drawings for the
adjoining house at 1486 Vistazo West Street, indicating that the resulting newly-visible side of
that residence would be finished with materials matching the existing exterior materials of the
building.
At the June 3, 2010 meeting, neighboring residents again raised concerns about structural and
drainage issues that could arise from the project. Staff noted that although structural components
of a project are generally not within the purview of the Design Review Board, the Town Building
Official had preliminarily reviewed the revised plans and would require that a complete
engineering assessment be performed for the adjoining homes at 1482 & 1486 Vistazo West
Street prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed project. The applicant would be
responsible for all work necessary to ensure the structural safety of the adjoining residences at
1482 & 1486 Vistazo West Street as a result of separating the existing house on the subject
property from the adjoining dwellings. Staff noted that any future changes to the exterior of the
proposed house design that may occur as a result of addressing the structural challenges of this
project would need to be reviewed through the Design Review process and the Board encouraged
Staff to bring any substantial project design changes back before the Design Review Board for
further review. Staff also noted that drainage issues are also not generally within the purview of
the Design Review Board and have been reviewed by the Town Public Works Department, which
would continue to monitor potential drainage issues through the building permit process.
The appellants again raised concerns about potential privacy impacts that could result from new
windows facing their home and the potential removal of several trees that are currently located
between the two dwellings. The Board determined that the potential privacy impacts were
minimal due to the remaining trees on the site, the distance between the two homes, and the
secondary nature of the proposed windows that would face the appellants' residence.
The Board voted (4-0) to conditionally approve the project. On June 14, 2010, the owners of the
neighboring home at 1494 Vistazo West Street filed a timely appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1).
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
There are eight (8) grounds upon which the appeal is based:
TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 3 OF 7
Ground #1: Only one Design Review Boardmember visited the site and no Boardmembers
viewed the sight lines between the subject residence and the appellants' home
from inside the subject dwelling.
Staff Response: The minutes of the two Design.Review Board meetings do not clearly indicate
which Boardmembers visited the subject property or other homes in the neighborhood. The
existing house on the site is unoccupied and suffers from severe mold concentrations such that it
could not be safely entered by the public. The comments of several of the Boardmembers,
particularly Vice-Chair Tollini, indicate an understanding of the physical relationship between the
subject house and the appellants' home, and of the windows and trees on the submitted plans.
These factors were used by the Board in its evaluation of the potential privacy affects of the
proposed house on the appellants.
Ground #2: The Design Review Board made subjective determinations regarding
potential privacy impacts without regard to a community standard.
Staff Response: Privacy is, by nature, a subjective condition. The Design Review Board has
consistently informed residents that expectations of complete and total privacy from a
neighboring property are unreasonable in the suburban environment of Tiburon. The Board
recognizes that privacy is a "two-way street," understanding that residents generally want privacy
for themselves and are therefore unlikely to place themselves in a position where they are staring
into neighbors' windows only to have the neighbors stare back in return. The Board pays
attention to the specific details of each application, including the types and uses of rooms whose
windows face a neighboring home and the potential for existing and proposed vegetation to
provide an effective long-term visual screen between properties.
For the subject application, the Board considered the fact that the proposed house and the
adjacent homes are all oriented to the south to capture views toward San Francisco, and do not
generally face other nearby residences. The windows on the side of the proposed house are
secondary in nature and are not intended to capture views from primary living areas. The trees to
remain on the site are large and situated 10 to 20 feet from proposed construction areas, reducing
the likelihood that the trees would be damaged or destroyed during project construction.
Ground #3: The Design Review Board did not specifically determine what elements of a
revised project design would be reviewed by Planning Division Staff and what
elements would be referred to the Design Review Board for review.
Staff Response: At this time, the applicant has not prepared complete structural plans for the
project, as such plans are not required at the time of Design Review approval. It is possible that
the applicant will need to make changes to the exterior design of the proposed house to comply
with Building Code requirements for the structural integrity of both the subject house and the
currently adjoining dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West Street. It is possible that some of these
exterior changes may be minor and not particularly visible from other properties, including minor
modifications to the support structures beneath the buildings. However, it is also possible that
structural requirements could result in more substantial changes to the overall design of the
proposed house.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7
Changes to a project design sometimes occur during the building permit review process.
Planning Division Staff reviews all building permit plans for compliance with the approved
Design Review drawings. Staff will usually administratively approve inconsequential changes
that are found to be consistent with the intent of the approved Design Review plans. If the
building permit plans include more substantial design changes that could affect neighboring
property owners, Staff will require additional Design Review approval.
At the June 3, 2010 meeting, the Design Review Board discussed the possibility of future
changes to the exterior design of the proposed house that could occur once more detailed
structural plans are completed. The Board directed Staff to carefully review such changes and to
use discretion in determining whether revised plans could be approved administratively or would
need to be referred to the Design Review Board for further review. Although the hypothetical
nature of any future design changes makes it difficult to predict what types of exterior changes
may be made to the proposed house, Staff understood that any changes that could involve privacy
or view concerns addressed by neighbors (e.g. window changes, large structural supports,
roofline changes, etc.) should be referred to the Board, while more innocuous modifications (e.g.
minor support elements, smaller or eliminated windows, etc.) could be reviewed by Staff.
Planning Division Staff will use its discretion in reviewing any future design changes; those that
would have the possibility of affecting neighboring property owners will be referred to the
Design Review Board for review.
Ground #4: The Design Review Board modified and/or ignored recorded restrictions on
the property.
Staff Response: A recorded drainage easement extends across the subject property. The
easement contains a storm drain that captures runoff from uphill properties and transports water
downhill from the site. The proposed house would be built across this easement. The applicant
proposes to reroute the drainage to a different location on the site.
The applicant has reviewed the preliminary drainage design for this project with the Tiburon
Director of Public Works. The Director has expressed confidence that the drainage on the site
can be revised as proposed without negatively affecting any drainage on this or surrounding
properties. Any new construction project is required to make off-site drainage function as well,
or better than, it performed prior to construction. As previously noted, drainage issues are not
within the purview of the Design Review Board and are controlled through the subsequent
building permit process. However, the proper design and relocation of the drainage system
should be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for
the project, and Staff recommends an added condition of approval to that effect to clarify that the
drainage issue will be properly addressed through the building permit process.
Ground #5: Contradictory evidence was presented regarding which trees would be
retained to provide privacy screening to the appellants' home. The Board
was cavalier in its treatment of the appellants' privacy concerns.
Staff Response: There are five large mature trees that are located to the east of the existing house
on the subject property. These trees currently provide screening between the existing house and
appellants' home. The submitted plans indicate that the two trees closest to the proposed house
TOWN OF TiBURON PAGE 5 OF 7
would be removed, while the other three trees would remain. At the June 3, 2010 Design Review
Board meeting, the appellants' questioned which trees would remain on the site. The applicant
indicated that two trees would be removed and three trees would remain, as shown on the
submitted plans. The Board determined that the remaining trees would maintain adequate
privacy screening between the proposed house and the appellants' home.
The minutes of the June 3, 2010 meeting show that all four Design Review Boardmembers
discussed the potential privacy impacts on the appellants' home before making a decision on the
application. The Board discussed the vegetation, window placement and orientation of the
proposed and neighboring homes in assessing the potential privacy affects of the project.
Ground #6: The project design approved by the Design Review Board disrupted the
continuity of design and view lines established for the homes in this
neighborhood.
Staff Response: The project design is not identical to the design of the existing house on the site,
which shares a common design appearance with the other residences in this subdivision that were
all constructed at the same time. The Design Review Board acknowledged that the proposed
house would signify a change in the design appearance of this neighborhood from the uniform
appearance resulting from the original construction of these single-family attached homes in
1962. However, the Board determined that the proposed design was compatible with and would
not represent a substantial change to the visual character of other homes in the vicinity.
The proposed house would have the same general orientation on the site as the existing dwelling,
with primary living areas facing to the south. The footprint of the house would extend slightly
beyond the footprint of the existing house, but would not intrude into the viewlines for the
appellants' home. The proposed removal of one of the trees on the site would appear to open up
a portion of the peripheral views from the appellants' home.
Ground #7: The amount of time allotted for residents to speak at the Design Review
Board meeting is arbitrary and does not allow for rebuttal of statements.
Staff Response: It is the practice of the Design Review Board to allow the applicant up to twenty
(20) minutes to make a presentation. After the applicant has spoken, other residents are allowed
to speak, but are encouraged to limit their comments to three minutes. After all residents have
spoken, the applicant is allowed time to respond to or rebut statements made by the residents.
The Board then closes the public hearing and deliberates on the merits of the application.
The Board always encourages residents to submit letters or other printed materials to provide
additional details on any concerns about a project design. The appellants submitted written
materials and photographs prior to and at both Board meetings. The Board generally does not
allow residents time to rebut statements made by the applicant during the rebuttal period, in order
to avoid a continuing back-and-forth dialogue and in order to provide a sense of structure to the
public portion of the meeting.
Ground #8: The professions of the current Design Review Boardmembers are inconsistent
with the historical makeup of design professionals on the Board.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 7
1-(1\\ „ Comicil Mcctill"
)ul\, 7, 2010
Staff Response: The Design Review Board currently consists of an architect, two attorneys and a
software executive. Section 16-60.020 (B) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states only that "the
Board shall consist of five members, at least one of whom should be a professional architect."
The composition of the Design Review Board conforms to the Municipal Code.
CONCLUSION
The Design Review Board applied the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its
review of this project. The Board determined that the proposed house design was compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood. The Board evaluated the potential privacy impacts from the
appellants' residence and determined that these concerns were minimized by the house design,
the remaining trees on the site and the distance between the two homes. Structural and drainage
concerns arising from the project were correctly deemed to not be in the purview of the Design
Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council:
1) Take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure;
2) Indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and
3) Direct Staff to return with a Resolution to that effect for adoption at the next meeting,
including an added condition regarding the design and location of the drainage easement
and facilities to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
EXHIBITS
1. Notice of Appeal
2. Appeal procedures
3. Application and supplemental materials
4. Design Review Board Staff report dated May 6, 2010
5. Design Review Board Staff report dated June 3, 2010
6. Minutes of the May 6, 2010 Design Review Board meeting
7. Minutes of the June 3 2010 Design Review Board meeting
8. E-mail from Carl Straub, dated May 2, 2010
9. E-mail from Carl and Brenda Bernheim Straub, dated May 3, 2010
10. Letter from Steve and Dorinda Sears, dated May 3, 2010
11. E-mail from Carl Straub, dated May 31, 2010
12. Approved plans
Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
\shared\Administration\Town Council\staffreports\2010Vuly 7 Drafts\1490 Vistazo West. appeal.report. doc
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 7
APPELLANT
TOWN OF TIBURON nI ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ D
~nl
NOTICE OF APPEAL U V JUN 14 2010
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
~1"~~%
Name:
Address: ,AC,4
AAYY\
Telephone: A \E ta'-'s 6,-IS-7 (Work) C .1 (Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body: A
0 1 , Lm~
Date of Action:
Name of Applicant: ar n c.~ c~c~ ~x ( 6
Nature of Application: ~ r
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
Last Day to File: (C Date Received:
r
Fee Paid: 1 Date of Hearing: ~ 19-k ~~U
January 2004
T,
EXHIBIT NO.
t cell
Appeal from the Design Review Board Findings
Shadduck Residence Variance hearing Held on June 3, 2010
File Number 21003
Brenda Bernheim Straub and Carl Straub ("Appellants") respectively appeal from the
June 3, 2010 decision of the Design Review Board to approve a height and setback
variance to allow a single family residence to be built at 1490 Vistazo W. Tiburon, CA .
The Appellants hereby incorporate into this appeal all evidence provided in either oral,
written or digital form to the Design Review Board and the Tiburon Planning Department
by applicant and others. In addition the appellant reserves the right submit additional
demonstrative evidence at the hearing. The Appellants have received an approval to take
additional photos from the applicant and to submit the photographs with the appeal, once
access can be obtained to the existing dwelling. Access is not currently available due to
the extensive highly toxic black mold and asbestos situation in the house which may not
be remedied for several weeks.
While there are numersous concerns with design and structure including existing health
hazards this appeal is limited to the privacy concerns raised regarding new single family
design as approved by Design Review Board. The privacy concerns of the applicant
were either ignored or trivialized by the Board based on a flawed decision process of the
Design Review Board. In particular:
1. Only one member of the Design Review Board visited the site and had limited
access to the master bedroom windows. No member went into the existing
Shadduck Residence looked at the view corridors to our bedroom windows as
currently built or as designed in the new residence.
2. There is no judicial, technical or factual basis to determine the privacy standards
used by the Board. The Board makes subjective determinations regarding privacy
based on personal views of the Board Members without regard to a community
standard.
3. There is no clearly defined statutory or regulatory basis for when the planning
department must bring an amended design plan back to the Design Review Board.
In the existing situation the design is highly dependent upon extreme structural
and geotechnical factors which could cause the design to be modified. In this
case any factors which were determinative in rejecting privacy should be brought
back to the Board.
4. The Design Review Board is modifying and ignoring legal and recorded
restrictions and covenants on the deeds which have existed since the creation of
the lots thus relegating the Appellants to civil action to enforce the benefits and
burdens of the lot restrictions.
6/14/2010
Bernheim Appeal
EXHIBIT NO.- I
zo_N
5. There was contradictory evidence based on two different reports from the Tiburon
Fire Department as to which trees would be retained in order to insure the privacy
of the appellant's residence. The tree barrier was the sole basis for determining
there was no privacy loss by 1494 Vistazo W. The Board made an arbitrary
determination which trees could be retained or moved in making their ruling on
privacy. It is important because based on the trees they thought could be retained
they incorrectly believe the privacy corridor could be maintained
6. The housing development was built prior to the existence of the Town of Tiburon
and has existed for over 40 years. The structures were designed to allow each
owner to have maximum view of the bay and at the same time not to have direct
line of site into another unit. The Design Review Board by allowing the
Shadduck design to proceed has disrupted original design and lines of sight. All
other modifications of the units have been in conformity with the existing
attached dwellings including seismic retrofits of previous remodels
7. Lastly the Appellants object to the lack of administrative process surrounding the
Design Review Committee. The amount of time an appellant is given is arbitrary
and caprious and does not provide for a rebuttal of statements made. In addition,
the committee is cavalier in its treatment of concerns of the neighbors in
maintaining there existing privacy. The rule should be that the existing privacy
lines of site should be maintained rather than just ignored based on Board
members personal view.
8. Historically, Design Review Boards consist of design professionals who are to
advise the planning department. Here the board consists of two lawyers, one
architect and a software executive.
9. We respectfully request that the Design Review Board findings be reversed until
the issue of privacy is either retention of actual trees, addressed in a revised
landscaping plan which will provide the tree barrier and/or a reduction of
windows on the east side of the building all of which would retain existing
privacy corridors.
6/14/2010 2 Bernheim Appeal
EXHIBIT NO.
P- ~ OF--(l
l~A
~L
Q~
2
U
fII
f~
U
fa
• Bra
v 1
E
0
W
J
0
0
N
M
Q1
O
~ N
0 (1)
O
N ~
E
L/'1 N
0 C:
E
~ L
I..J.. Q
0
•O E
V
J
O
0
Ln L40p) +J
tuo . O
C: ON c: 0
Lr) O -C: t~
i.
70
E
> C: O
O O O p
v ~ O C:
4- L. E
v m
p ~o O _
O Q -
4-J cn
cn • -
c: , V
U Ln 9~'
Q L - O
a~ - 4., 4-J .
Qr)
V 4-1 p c cn
' - -0
4-J
4 c~ -
> p 4-J V) 0.
CAA -
C- 00 4-J
4-J a)
auj Q) 4> >
v w C 0 .m-J
4-J
~ 0 U 4-J U
C) Q. ,
I I
E- Q Q
N
a-+
ca
E
C5
i f6
O c6
o C-
L
0 N ~ 4A
COO"
~ O
p 4- O
4-J 0 0.
L.
4=J a) 0
V) 4-J U
a) m
4-- Ln
N CIO
~ o
L
E SUMMER
COO`
ca
u ~ N
0 OR
COOO cu w cu
E 0
a~
o. m
0 -0 cu
w 4-J L. 0)
T) cu
OR o ai ~ v u m C~ o
0
z
MH
~c
r':.. s i,~s r y A d - Y i 4 6 V # ~'i w^ .f' ' '.R e.- W x
Ink
sue' r'_'; ;.at `e _
44
f{ -
a Ito,
re
k7
Y','4t'~.
f yF.
r
Y
i
low
.AW i s
Irk -
tf
1
r
a
t
erg'
F lF
t
3r ~ `
4
0
MMH
F-i
ft~ . ,~Fr
r
r~•~, #
/ l.. `37'Y
I
•,°~..~~`.rCl1]
..•~l,
l
-~..~f-
l ems.. ,
,
~
v q
_
y
`
w
11 iltk .J,.
•
f
r-- 1g113:~,t r 't
tr/(
~ W ~i' * ( E,~• \•4. \ \ ~ \ /
~ ~
t
•
Y Are
k r } Y
,!q /
,b r.r '•~t •
:Ke. 0.
x
-
t
l
+u t'Y J f , ~ '.q, i-1 i
i'• f- w Rj L /Y'^ . a iRs
! ~ 1`'S
, % 1
~ ill „i .
i~_..°
C.
a'
4 -
1" K 7i
.
f
1
•
1
1
~
~
r
Y
;tl Al J9
Wj
r
r
W
, -
-4
/q - Writ Y+
t<' m• _
c
v
4mJ
0
N
fB
N
C
0
L
4--
N
(6
m
U
fB
V
0
rmi
w e ~ r.
3
L R
s
Y
Y
Ly m
1
5 * R
vi t ,.Gad `Lnt
Pe. r a '
cn 0
6
1
j.
~H:
„
~
~,k
~ ~ fit,
V
0
E"'~
HMM
F-~
F~---I
s
c
O
(1)
~o
~
o
o
~
z
en
°1
X
~
W
x
O
L
0
i
Mimi
f
0
RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING,
RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND
SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES
WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various
commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with
respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878
and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to
update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March
171 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No.
2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council
Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing,
scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals.
APPEAL PROCEDURE
1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review
authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the
Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of
Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with
the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision
being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits.
If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business,
the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for
public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal
period filing date has passed.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010
EXHIBIT NO.
2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set
forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule.
(a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be
refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or
costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the
applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at
actual cost if outside consulting is required.
(b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with
no refund or additional billing required.
3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following:
(a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or
other applicable regulations; or
(b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of
discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not
supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper.
If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal
issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the
review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision.
4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal
form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address
grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form.
5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described
below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would
not apply.
(a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the
matter and then respond to Town Council questions.
(b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more
than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant
may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one
speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to
Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute
time limit.
(c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more
than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant
may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one
speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 2
2
EXHIBIT NO.
Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute
time limit.
(d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than
three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's
association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item
for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor.
(e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any
comments previously made at the hearing.
(f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any
comments previously made at the hearing.
7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin
deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public
testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council.
8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal,
it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the
findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The
decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if
the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may:
(a) Continue the appeal to a future date;
(b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further
hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and
unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or
(c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations
prior to further Town Council consideration.
9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice
of Decision to the applicant and appellant.
RECONSIDERA TION
If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant
new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have
been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due
to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to
prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption
of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on
the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the
motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and
if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010
EXHIBIT No. z
SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS
1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals
will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen
(15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager,
the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the
complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers,
agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to
establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the
appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will
promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date.
2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above
in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the
continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager.
3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town
Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal
appearance.
STORYPOLES
For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a
story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as
follows:
A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of
poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by
Planning Division Staff rior to installation of the poles and connections.
2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons,
caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a
distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions
and configurations of the proposed construction.
3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten 0 O) days prior to the
date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council.
4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of
the public hearing date.
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 4
EXHIBIT NO, 2__
5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final
decision by the Town Council.
APPLICABILITY
This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the
extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may
hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff-
level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different
deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on March 17, 20105 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz
RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 5
EXHIBIT NO. -'Z-
r.
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
O Conditional Use Permit ! Design Review (DRB) O Tentative Subdivision Map
O Precise Development Plan O Design Review (Staff level) O Final Subdivision Map
O Secondary Dwelling Unit ® Variance ?c Z, O Parcel Map
O Zoning Amendment/Prezoning O Floor Area Exception O Lot Line Adjustment
O General Plan Amendment O Sign Permit O Certificate of Compliance
O Change of Address O Tree Permit O Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: i A %p V % s-ra-Za WO *T ~ -rk* V-01-4 PROPERTY SIZE: 12ret 4,~fn
PARCEL NUMBER: a 223 t $ ZONING: R- l
OWNER OF PROPERTY: t71~`t~ ~P` (~CzI<Cr'I" StVtc~c~~r,
MAILING ADDRESS: 4.19 N-VA-V-xt-20 LIP- CITY/STATE/ZIP 6C-r-WMI-4*1 V log
PHONE NUMBER: irL 9 "A -42 -g I, 9 t FAX
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) n+e~v 0-
MAILING ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP
PHONE NUMBER: FAX
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER:
MAILING ADDRESS: 33 t5 kKxwD *y0:, p -,t NP cA ] -ts to
Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
T""e F?-,D1 EG"T is A GC' --s-t N 6- t-L= rA -&%1 L`-t
rz" t p e-wc-ii A -r I -A 6 o w cry-r-v w 'L°J T
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 liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of
attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge.
a
*Signature: Z"&&ea Date: ~ Al~
*If other than owner, must have letter from owner.
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
PAI T ENTAL'PROCESSiNCy f 6M At Application No ~GP Desiq0ati6n, r e Deposit ?
Date Received. =s R ceived By _ Rocei HIBIT N0.
Date Deetned Complete: i - By,
Acting Body: Action:" ;d,`t~V x y Dafet ~~1 -
Conditions of Approval or Comments: Resolution or Ordinance #
DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM
FOR NEW RESIDENCE OR OTHER MAIN BUILDING
Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed):
Use of Site (example: single family residential, retail, office, service, etc.):
Existing:
Proposed:
TO BE COM-PLETED:BY APPLICAN7r
STAFF USE- ONLY
ITEM
EXISTING
PROPOSED
CALCULATED
PER ZONE
(if existing
(reflects' proposed
building to be
construction)
demolished)
Yards
(Setbacks from property
line)(Section 16-1.5(y)*
Front
" ft.
c' ft.
ft.
ft.
Rear
ft.
7 Z S ft.
ft.
ft.
Right Side
ft.
VtW--%Cf ft.
ft.
ft.
Left Side
7 v ft.
7 b ft.
ft.
ft.
Maximum Height
(Section 16-5.6.7)*
<<
u
ft.
ft•
ft.
Lot Coverage
Z Z 14;
(Section 16-5.6.8)*
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
Lot Coverage as
1
Percent of Lot Area
%
%
%
%
Gross Floor Area
(Section 16-1.5(f))
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
i sq.ft.
Net Floor Area
(if office building)
Sq.ft.
Sq.ft.
Sq.ft
Sq.ft.
Section 16-5.8.4
Number of Parking
Spaces Provided
spaces
spaces
spaces
spaces
*Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 16 (Zoning).
EXHIBIT NO. 3 F 2 vF i ~
DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM: NEW RESIDENCE OR MAIN BUILDING TOWN OF TIBURON juNE 2006 5
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 VARIANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING?
Zoning
Condition
Requirement
Front Yard Setback
Rear Yard Setback
Left Side Yard Setback
Right Side Yard Setback
Lot Coverage
Height
Parcel Area
Per Dwelling Unit
Usable Open Space
Parking
Expansion of
Nonconformity
Other (Please describe):
This
Magnitude
Existing
Application
Of Variance
Condition
Proposes
Requested
3: r# u
~ltMls ~
~ IG?llYd~
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON Rev. 08106 Page 1
EXHIBIT N.O. 3
~ - 3
1490 Vistazo West Renovation - Findings for Variances
Background
• The long-time owner's objective is to re-construct the 1490 Vistazo residence for earthquake
safety. The existing residence is shown in PLATES 1-2; new residence rendering in PLATES 3-4.
• The existing 1490 Vistazo single-family residence is 47 years old-approved by Marin County
and built in 1963 before Tiburon was incorporated.
• The approved 1963 subdivision consists of eight properties on the downslope side of Vistazo
West (see PLATE 1). The 1490 Vistazo property is large at over 19,000 sq. ft.
• The eight properties are very unusual (PLATE 1 and PLATE 2)-approved as 'zero lot line' single-
family residences with the complexes having side-by-side walls and some common concrete
decks and steel beams.
• There is no owner's association for maintaining common components of the residences.
Owners are individually responsible for designs, engineering and code upgrades.
• Engineers have advised that the 1963 structural design does not meet any current engineering
codes, particularly for earthquake safety.
• PLATE 5 is a birds-eye engineering view of the concrete/steel components of 1490 Vistazo. The
existing residence does not have a concrete foundation that connects the existing concrete pads
that support the steel deck and steel columns-which allowed for differential settling (PLATE 5).
• PLATES 2, 5 and 6 show that the existing 1490 Vistazo is built on a platform up to 18' above
grade-with extreme cantilevers and supported only by free-standing, unbraced steel columns.
• No residences in the subdivision since 1963 have been seismically upgraded to meet building
codes for earthquake safety.
• Engineers have advised that parts of the 47 year old steel superstructure and concrete decks
need replacement due to corrosion and settling. Engineers further advise that a concrete
foundation is needed to tie all structural components together.
• Two variances are required for side yard setback and height. The variances are required for the
needed seismic upgrade only because over 50% of the exterior walls must be replaced. Steel
frames. are needed to carry seismic loads, but such frames cannot be fit within existing walls-as
can be seen in PLATE 6 -because the walls are not vertically aligned, and further because the
walls are not aligned with steel support beams/columns to carry loads to a foundation.
• PLATE 7 shows the needed engineering plan for a seismic upgrade.
o A foundation with new piers and grade beams is constructed;
o Existing floor levels are retained (for clarity, floors are not shown in PLATE 7);
o New piers are spaced apart from existing concrete pads to prevent disturbance; and
o New steel moment-resisting steel frames (blue color in PLATE 7) are constructed in new
walls without disturbing existing steel beams (in red in PLATE 7).
• The 1490 Vistazo engineering plan can be used as a model by other property owners at a later
date for seismic upgrades-when each owner decides to renovate for seismic safety.
IXI-IIBIT NO. ~
Specific Findings for Variances re: 1490 Vistazo West Renovation
1. Strict application of zoning regulations as to side yard set back and height would deprive the 1490
Vistazo owner of privileges enjoyed by all neighboring properties.
Side yard setback. As can be seen in PLATE 1 and PLATE 2, all neighboring residences have 'zero'
side yard setbacks, as the 1963 subdivision was designed and approved by Marin County as Single Family
residences with zero-lot line setbacks.
Many, if not all, of the residences in the subdivision have been extensively remodeled, and no
homeowners have faced any variance issues raised by the Town of Tiburon concerning the zero side
yard setbacks.
Height. PLATES 1 and 2 show that 1490 Vistazo and neighboring residences were constructed
under Marin County's 1960s zoning rules on platforms about 15'-18' off grade at the downslope side-
which results in overall building heights that exceed new zoning rules. The proposed 1490 Vistazo
renovation retains the same floor elevations and the same height as the existing house and neighboring
houses.
The proposed renovated 1490 Vistazo residence should be allowed to have its current height-
which matches the height of neighboring residences and thus will fit into the context of the neighboring
residences.
2. Granting of variances would not result in a privilege inconsistent with other properties.
Side yard setback and Height. In PLATE 1 and PLATE 2, it can be seen that neighboring
residences all have zero side yard setbacks and similar heights.
The owners of the proposed 1490 Vistazo renovation are not asking for a side yards or height
that is inconsistent with neighboring residences.
In fact, the proposed 1490 Vistazo side yard will increase the space between its neighboring
house which will provide increased fire and earthquake safety.
3. Strict application of zoning regulations would result in practical impossibility.
Side yard setback. PLATES 2 and 5 illustrate that the proposed 1490 Vistazo renovation includes
retaining parts of a steel beam platform in a side yard. It would be a practical impossibility to remove all
of the steel beam platform in the side yard.
Height. PLATES 1, 2 and 5 show that 1490 Vistazo and neighboring residences are wood-frame
structures on steel platforms above natural grade. It would be a practical impossibility to remove the
steel beam platform. The proposed 1490 Vistazo renovation will retain the same floor elevations and
the same height as the existing house and neighboring houses.
EXHIBIT NO. 3
5-UF I(o
4. Granting of variances would not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other property in the
vicinity.
As can be understood by comparing PLATE 1 and PLATES 3-4, the proposed 1490 Vistazo
renovation will have no adverse impacts on public welfare or on neighboring properties.
• The height of new 1490 Vistazo residence is the same as existing residence (see PLATE 3).
• No views of any neighbors will be affected. The new 1490 Vistazo residence is no higher than
the existing residence. The new 1490 Vistazo residence does not extend further downslope
than the existing residence (PLATES 3-4).
• The floor levels and roof level of the new 1490 Vistazo residence are consistent with
neighboring houses and fit into context of the neighborhood.
• As can be seen in PLATE 3, the mass of the house when viewed from the East is smaller than
newer houses on Lyford with similar size lots.
• The new 1490 Vistazo residence will meet new building codes for earthquake safety, which
benefits public welfare. The engineering solution for seismic upgrade design can be followed by
other neighboring properties built with 1960's structural engineering.
EXHIBIT NO. 3
fooF-l6
3
H
u N
c ~
•y N
GJ
~ N
c~
•G ~
m a,
U.
d ~
C a1
N ~
e~
N
N
u
= O
~ N
M
H ~
•E
m
LL ~
GJ 00
C
Vf N
M 00
it
e-4
N
Vf Gl
u
O
~ N
M
H ~
0: >
co
•E
m
W ~
d
M ~
1-4
W
QH
J
a
~ J
O
1'~
N
W
aF-
J
CL
H
MH
W
!r-i
M
W
aH
J
a
0
0
a~
ICT
W
H
a
cn
O
c
es
a~
LA
W
H
g
a
'lz.
N
MH
f-~-1
FH
H-~-I
w
a
IA
U
G1
W
W
H
g
a
1)
E-+
G4
N
a
E
i `
CJ r-
.CL _
In N
N
W
F-
5
CL
O
E-{
G4
(L
.0
t q OP A~
EXHIBIT N0. 3
" I 1 00
\ i I y I \ I i { i
11EiGH! 1
L RADE 96'-B' I
Lim M idiiiiii 1 I l.1' I Ij L 77 ly'~
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1<
1.a
Ton
I ~
L-~ 1
1
1 \I
\ 1
1 1 \
T7 i
I I! I I
I 1111
I
, /
1
1
0
I
1
LOT 8
\
1 LOT9
01.
y \ \
o-
\ S \
s NEW SITE PLAN
iLo scale: ule' = 1'-0"
\
PROJECT NORTH
T
I \
M EXISTING STRUCTURE
=EXISTING LOWER WALL
-EXISTINGSTRUCEXHIBIT NO
-NEW STRUCTURE / F (G
C ` !I (J r
EXISTING STRUCTURE
=EXISTING UPPER WALL
- EXISTING STRUCTURE
NEW STEEL
- NEW CONCRETE
- EXISTING STRUCTURE
_ EXISTING UPPER WALL
- EXISTING LOWER WALL
M EXISTING STRUCTURE
To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Members of the Design Review Board
Associate Planner Tyler
Design Review Board Meeting
May 6, 2010
Agenda Item: 3
Subject: 1490 Vistazo West Street: File No. 21003; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling with Variances
for Reduced Side Yard Setback and Excess Building Height
Reviewed By:
PROJECT DATA
OWNER: DANUTA SHADDUCK
APPLICANT/ARCHITECT: SHADDUCK/LARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE
ADDRESS: 1490 VISTAZO WEST STREET
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 058-223-14
FILE NUMBER: 21003
LOT SIZE: 19,895 SQUARE FEET
ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
FLOOD ZONE: X
DATE COMPLETE: APRIL 13, 2010
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 15303.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story single-family dwelling, with variances
for reduced side yard setback and excess building height, on property located at 1490 Vistazo
West Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling that is structurally
attached to the adjacent dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West Street. The existing residence would be
demolished as part of this project.
The main level of the home would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook
and a two-car garage. The lower level would be a large office and bathroom. The upper level
would include the master bedroom suite, a laundry room, and an additional bedroom and
TOWN OF TIBURUN PAGE 1 OF 8
EXHIBIT NO. __q
:l Vii. i.
bathroom. Decks would extend off all three levels in the south east corner, and wrap around the
east side (left) of the structure, and would incorporate glass safety railings.
The proposed structure would result in a lot coverage of 2,215 square feet (11.1 which is
below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zoning district (30.0%). The proposed
structure would create a gross floor area of 3,921 square feet, which is below the maximum
permitted gross floor area for a parcel of this size (3,989 sq. ft.).
The existing dwelling is structurally attached to the adjacent dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West, as
several homes in the vicinity are similarly attached to each other. This results in a reduced side
yard setback on the right side of the property. As the applicant intends to rebuild the home so
that it remains structurally attached to the adjacent dwelling, the setback would remain reduced,
resulting in a side yard setback of three feet, two inches (3' 2") in lieu of the eight foot (8')
minimum required. Therefore, a variance for reduced side yard setback has been requested.
In addition to the reduced side yard setback, the proposed dwelling would exceed the maximum
height of thirty feet (30'), by seven feet, nine and one eighth inches (7'9 1/8") for a total building
height of thirty seven feet, nine and one eighth inches (37'9 1/8"). Therefore, a variance for
excess building height has also been requested.
The color and materials would include stucco siding in a natural shade of beige, along with wood
siding stained a dark finish. Grey composition shingle roofing, and dark bronze fascia/trim are
also included. A color/materials board will be available for review at the board meeting.
ANALYSIS
Design Issues
The subject site is designed to take advantage of views spanning across the Town's open space of
downtown San Francisco to the Golden Gate Bridge. The site is steeply sloped from north to
south, which results in difficult terrain to build upon. The existing dwelling was constructed in
the early 1960's through the County of Marin, prior to the incorporation of the Town of Tiburon.
The subject dwelling to be demolished is situated at the end of a three dwelling cluster
development, where each home is structurally attached to the other. The applicant intends to
reconstruct a single-family dwelling that is seismically upgraded, as the existing dwelling is 47
years old and does not currently meet engineering/building codes for earthquake safety.
The plans indicate that the proposed structure would be located within the fifteen foot (15') front
yard setback. Section 16-30.030 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance allows for a reduced front yard
setback, when more than half the building sites along a street in one block have been improved
with buildings, and an average of the front yards in improved building sites can be determined.
The adjacent dwellings developed in "clusters" were built with zero front yard setbacks, mostly
due to carports. Therefore, a front yard setback variance is not required for the garage to be
located on the property line, which maintains the zero setback line in the front.
The proposed height of the structure would not visibly differ from the current structure height.
The current structure, and those surrounding in the "cluster" developments, were built to County
codes, which permitted constructing dwellings cantilevered over a hillside so that they were 15-
EXHIBIT NO.
, . 4 . 3
18 feet above the natural grade. In determining height for current Town zoning standards, this
results in a structure over 30 feet in height. The applicant intends to retain the same floor
elevations and height as the existing house, so that the new dwelling will still appear similar in
height with the adjacent attached dwellings.
The proposed dwelling would have a modern architectural theme with an abundance of glass to
bring natural light into the home. A lower (third) level is proposed, which none of the
surrounding "attached" dwellings have, as all are two story structures that are cantilevered
approximately eighteen feet (18') off the ground. The incorporation of the lower (third) level and
modern architectural theme would appear to result in an inconsistent design scheme in relation to
the surrounding properties. However, it should be noted that the proposed structure would not
project higher than what currently exists, nor would it project further south at the front of the
home.
It would appear that the proposed structure would not affect viewsheds for any of the adjacent
neighbors. Staff received a verbal concern regarding privacy from the adjacent neighbor at 1494
Vistazo West, to the east of the subject site. This adjacent neighbor was concerned that the
amount of glass proposed for the structure, in combination with the minimal distance between
their home and the subject property, could cause privacy issues, as each neighbor could view into
each others homes. Staff was unable to gain entry into the adjacent property at 1494 Vistazo
West to determine whether a privacy concern was warranted.
It should be noted that the legal notice for the variance for excess building height indicated a
height of 37'4", as shown in the information submitted by the applicant. The actual height of the
structure would be 37' 9 1/8". A corrected legal notice has been sent out; however, the Board
cannot take action on the project at this time, due to the incorrect legal notice.
Staff recommends that the Board visit the site and surrounding properties to determine the extent
of this proposal, and continue the project to the next Design Review Board meeting for action on
the project, due to the incorrect legal notice for excess building height.
Zoning
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development
standards for the R-1 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variances for reduced side
yard setback and excess building height.
Variance
In order to grant the requested variances for reduced side yard setback and excess building height,
the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) 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.
EXHIBIT NU.~___
Side Yard Setback: The subject dwelling was built under Marin County zoning codes which
permitted attached dwellings with zero setback lines. Due to the attached nature of the
dwelling to the adjacent dwelling, and need for this attachment to remain for any new
dwelling, the side yard setback would have to remain reduced on the right side. The
structural attachment to the neighboring dwelling is a special circumstance applicable to the
property.
Excess Building Height., The current dwelling and attached dwellings were built to County
code, which permitted cantilevered dwellings approximately fifteen to eighteen feet (15'- 18')
above natural grade, resulting in over height structures according to current zoning codes.
The subject site is steeply sloped and the existing dwelling utilizes structural steel platforms
that need to be retained for construction of a new dwelling, and also for the structural integrity
of the attached adjacent dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West. The existing structural steel
platforms combined with the steep terrain are special circumstances applicable to the
property.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
Side Yard Setback: Several of the homes along Vistazo West Street, are structurally attached
to each other and have reduced or zero side yard setbacks. Granting this reduced side yard
setback would be consistent with how the adjacent properties in the vicinity are sited on their
respective properties, due to their structural attachment to one another.
Excess Building Height: The attached cluster dwellings were built cantilevered
approximately fifteen to eighteen feet (15'- 18') above natural grade, which results in over
height structures according to current zoning codes. The proposal would maintain the same
overall height in order to maintain consistency with the adjacent dwellings in the vicinity.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
Side Yard Setback: Existing steel beam platforms which serve the subject property and the
adjacent dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West, must be retained as part of the construction of a new
dwelling. This is a practical difficulty which does not allow for the full eight foot (8') side
yard setback.
Excess Building Height: The proposed dwelling would retain the same floor elevations and
overall height as the current dwelling. The existing dwelling and attached dwellings are
wood-frame structures, built on steel platforms above natural grade. It would be a practical
difficulty to remove the entire steel platform, which also serves the adjacent attached dwelling
at 1486 Vistazo West.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other properties in the vicinity.
Side Yard Setback: Granting of the variance would not be detrimental or injurious to other
properties in the vicinity as it would increase the distance between the subject dwelling and
EXHIBIT NO.~_
the adjacent dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West from a zero setback line to three feet, two inches
(3'2"), which provides for increased fire and earthquake safety.
Excess Building Height: Granting of the variance would not be detrimental or injurious to
other properties in the vicinity as the height of the new dwelling would remain the same as the
current structure, which mimics the adjacent attached dwellings. The only noticeable
difference would be the infill of the lower (third) level.
From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings
for the requested variances.
Public Comment
As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Design Review Board:
1. Review the project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020 (H)
(Guiding Principles), Section 16-52.030 (Variances); and
2. Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303; and
3. Provide feedback to the applicant regarding the proposal and continue the project
to the next Design Review Board meeting, due to incorrect variance legal noticing
for excess building height. Staff has attached draft conditions of approval for
consideration by the Board.
Exhibits: 1. Conditions of Approval
2. Application and Supplemental Materials
3. Submitted Plans
Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner
EXHIBIT N0.
To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Members of the Design Review Board
Associate Planner Tyler
Design Reviev\7 Board Meeting
June 3, 2010
Agenda Item: 3
Subject: 1490 Vistazo West Street: File No. 21003; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling with Variances
for Reduced Side Yard Setback and Excess Building Height (Continued from
May 6, 2010)
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story single-family dwelling, with variances
for reduced side yard setback and excess building height, on property located at 1490 Vistazo
West Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling that is structurally
attached to the adjacent dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West Street. The existing residence would be
demolished as part of this project.
This application was first reviewed at the May 6, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that
meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential privacy issues and
the visual and structural effects of separating the subject house from the adjoining home. The
Board found the design of the proposed house to be generally acceptable, but requested additional
information on the appearance of the currently adjoining house once the subject dwelling has
been separated from it. The Board also recommended that the applicant more fully explore the
structural aspects of the proposed project to ensure that necessary structural elements would not
result in changes to the appearance of the building. The Board continued the application to the
June 3, 2010 meeting to allow the applicant time to address these issues.
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The revised plans include exterior
elevation drawings for the adjoining house at 1486 Vistazo West Street, indicating that the
resulting side of that residence would be finished with materials matching the existing exterior
materials of the building.
ANALYSIS
Design Issues
At the May 6, 2010 Design Review Board meeting, the Board expressed concerns that proposed
project should not create structural, drainage or exterior appearance issues for the adjoining
neighbor at 1486 Vistazo West Street. Although structural components of a project are generally
TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. J __PAGE OF 6
not within the purview of the Design Review Board, the Town Building Official has preliminarily
reviewed the revised plans. The Building Official will require that a complete engineering
assessment be performed for the adjoining homes at 1482 & 1486 Vistazo West Street prior to
issuance of a building permit for the proposed project. The applicant would be responsible all
work necessary to ensure the structural safety of the adjoining residences at 1482 & 1486 Vistazo
West Street as a result of separating the existing house on the subject property from the adjoining
dwellings. Any future changes to the exterior of the proposed house design that may occur as a
result of addressing the structural challenges of this project would need to be reviewed through
the Design Review process.
Several neighbors also raised concerns about drainage issues resulting from the proposed project.
These issues are also not generally within the purview of the Design Review Board and have
been reviewed by the Town Public Works Department, which shall continue to monitor potential
drainage issues through the building permit process.
The Design Review Board expressed concern that the exterior appearance of the adjoining
dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West Street not be damaged by the separation of the existing house on
the subject property. The applicant has submitted exterior elevation drawings for the neighboring
house with the revised plans for this project. The plans indicate that the house would be finished
with exterior colors and materials that would match the existing exterior of the neighboring home.
A condition of approval is recommended that would require the applicant to be responsible for
completing these exterior improvements consistent with the submitted plans.
The adjacent neighbor at 1494 Vistazo West, to the east of the subject site, previously raised
concerns about potential privacy impacts resulting from several windows of the proposed house
that would face toward the neighbors' home. At the May 6, 2010 meeting, the Design Review
Board felt that the potential privacy concerns were minimal and minimized by the existing mature
trees between the homes.
Zoning
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development
standards for the R-1 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variances for reduced side
yard setback and excess building height. As noted in the previous Staff report, Staff believes that
there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances.
Public Comment
Since the previous Design Review Board meeting no letters have been received regarding the
subject application. The neighboring property owner at 1486 Vistazo West Street has expressed
continued concerns over structural issues related to the proposed project.
EXHIBIT N-C
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Design Review Board:
1. Review the project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020 (H)
(Guiding Principles), Section 16-52.030 (Variances); and
2. Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303; and
3. Approve the application, subject to the attached conditions of approval.
EXHIBITS
1. Conditions of Approval
2. Minutes of the May 6, 2010 Design Review Board meeting
3. Submitted Plans
Prepared By: Dan Watrous, Planning Manager
EXHIBIT N0. '5
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1490 VISTAZO WEST STREET
FILE NO. 21003
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. Construction shall conform with the application and plans dated by the Town of Tiburon
on March 4, 2010 and May 25, 2010, as amended by these conditions of approval. Any
modifications to the plans must receive Design Review approval.
3. Project elements shown on construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for
plan check shall be essentially identical to those project elements shown on drawings
approved by the Design Review Board. The permit holder is responsible for clearly
identifying on construction drawings any and all changes to project elements. Such
changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the construction
drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to
the construction drawings, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division
Staff member indicating whether these changes have been reviewed and are approved,
or will require additional Design Review approval. All such changes that have not been
explicitly approved by the Town are not "deemed approved" if not highlighted and
listed on construction drawings. Construction of any such unapproved project elements
is in violation of permit approvals and shall be subject to Stop Work Orders and
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 in a non-reflective manner (minimum 25%) and
no lights shall be placed in the wells.
7. Guardrails approved as part of this application shall contain no horizontal elements
other than the top and bottom rails.
8. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board
must be down-light-type fixtures.
9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit verification from a
licensed landscape architect that the proposed landscape plan conforms to applicable
EXHIBIT NO. 5
MMWD landscape/water conservation regulations. Alternatively, a letter from MMWD
verifying compliance or an MMWD-stamped-approved set of landscape plans will
satisfy this requirement.
10. Prior to the issuance of final building inspection approval, all landscaping and irrigation
shall be installed in accordance with approved plans. The installation of plantings and
irrigation shall be verified by a Planning Division field inspection prior to the issuance
of occupancy permits.
11. Prior to under-floor inspection, a certified survey of the structure foundation will be
required. Required documents shall include: 1) graphic documentation accurately
locating the building on a site plan; 2) specific distances from property lines and other
reference points to the foundation as appropriate; and 3) elevations relative to mean sea
level of the foundation walls and slabs. No inspections will be provided until the survey
results have been verified.
12. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code
and the Tiburon Fire Protection District:
a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler
system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved
by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2
b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all
sleeping areas. CFC 907.2. 10
C. The replacement structure must be in compliance with CBC Chapter 7A.
d. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the
Tiburon Fire District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC
304.1.2
e. The placement of shrubs that will reach a mature height of 8' cannot be
placed under the existing pine trees unless the lower limbs are removed to
provide proper clearance from ladder fuels.
f. All dead wood must be removed from the existing pine trees to remain.
g. All existing bamboo shall be completely removed from the property.
13. The following requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met:
a. A High Water Pressure Water Service application shall be completed.
b. A copy of the building permit shall be submitted.
c. Appropriate fees shall be paid.
NO.
EXHIBIT
d. The structure's foundation shall be completed within 120 days of the sate
of application.
e. The applicant shall comply with the District's rules and regulations in
effect at the time service is requested.
14. A construction sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a
location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be
made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the
construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street
address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder
(company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and
emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all tunes). The sign shall be
posted at the commencement of work and shall remain posted until the contractor has
vacated the site.
15. All requirements of the Director of Public Works/Town Engineer shall be met. An
encroachment permit shall be filed and issued with the Town of Tiburon Public Works
Department, for all work to be conducted within Town right-of-way, or Town-owned
land, as defined in Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
16. The existing drainage inlet and pipe that appears to be in conflict with the proposed
remodeling must be addressed on plans submitted for building permits.
17. The public right-of-way shall be protected from damage during construction, or repairs
will be made to the satisfaction of the Town.
18. The project shall comply with the applicable green building standard for compliance as
set forth by resolution of the Town Council.
19. The applicant shall be responsible for all work necessary to ensure the structural safety
of the adjoining residences at 1482 & 1486 Vistazo West Street as a result of separating
the existing house on the subject property from the adjoining dwellings. A complete
engineering assessment of the homes at 1482 & 1486 Vistazo West Street shall be
prepared to the satisfaction of the Town Building Official and shall be submitted prior to
issuance of a building permit for this project.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing exterior finishes for the adjoining
house consistent with the elevation drawings submitted with this application.
EXHIBIT NO. 5-
Chair Chong agreed with the other Boardmembers. He suggested working on lowering the garage
addition a bit and eliminating the bell. He stated that the homes in that neighborhood are close together,
and the Board therefore cannot be as generous regarding setbacks and variances. He felt that some
redesign of the location of the bedroom could be done without impacting the neighbors.
Mr. Pedersen said that every house to the north of this house has a 3 foot setback or less. He said that this
is a unique lot with a triangular shape.
Chair Chong summarized that the Board could support the variance for the garage, but more work could
be done on the tower to minimize the impact, and the bedroom addition should be moved back to
eliminate the intrusion into the side yard setback. Boardmember Kxicensky said even 3 feet would make
a difference.
Mr. Pedersen said they worked very closely with the neighbor to the south who was completely in favor
of the project and the reduced setback. Mr. Pedersen stated that the reason they brought the project closer
to the side property line was to increase his view over the project.
Chair Chong said the purpose of the DRB is to look at the long term impact of the project on the
neighborhood. Vice-Chair Tollini said it would be helpful to hear from the next-door neighbor if he has
an opinion to present.
ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) to continue the application for 1980 Centro West Street to the
June 3, 2010 meeting. Vote 3-0.
3. 1490 VISTAZO WEST STREET: File No. 21003; Danuta Shadduck, Owner;•Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with variances for
reduced side yard setback and excess building height. The new structure would have a reduced
side yard setback of 3 feet, 2 inches in lieu of the minimum 8 feet, and would have a building
height of 37 feet, 9 1/8 inches in lieu of the maximum 30 feet. APN: 058-223-14.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story single-family dwelling, with variances for
reduced side yard setback and excess building height, on property located at 1490 Vistazo West Street.
Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling that is structurally attached to the adjacent
dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West Street. The existing residence would be demolished as part of this project.
The main level of the home would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook and a two-
car garage. The lower level would be a large office and bathroom. The upper level would include the
master bedroom suite, a laundry room, and an additional bedroom and bathroom. Decks would extend off
all three levels in the south east corner, and wrap around the east side (left) of the structure, and would
incorporate glass safety railings.
The proposed structure would result in a lot coverage of 2,215 square feet (11.1 which is below the
maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zoning district (30.0%). The proposed structure would create
a gross floor area of 3,921 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area for a
parcel of this size (3,989 sq. ft.).
John Shadduck, owner, said the chief objective of the project is to upgrade their house. He said that the
house is a single-family home approved by the county with common platforms. He stated that this type of
house often fails in an earthquake and the purpose of the project is to make their home safer. He
described how the steel beams connect this house and the neighboring homes and the problem with
constructing a new house with these constraints. He stated that the neighbors have concern about
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 EAHIBIT NO-__&_75 4
5/6/10
drainage and he assured the Board that they will put a new culvert within the easement. He felt this plan is
the only feasible way to build their house so it is earthquake safe and he felt that other houses built like
this should be upgraded in this way. He wanted to make every effort to maintain neighbors' views and
privacy. He stated that the house is behind some trees and there is not much glass on the side facing
neighbors.
Carrie Shores, architect, said that they wanted to be sure the massing of the project was in scale with
neighbors' houses. She said that a stucco finish and horizontal wood siding are intended to break down
the scale and give depth to the elevation. It is a challenging site and they reoriented the house to try to
maximize its functionality.
Boardmember Kricensky asked for clarification of the drainage easement. Mr. Shadduck said the street
was dedicated and accepted by the town, and all of the other easements are private and he is responsible
for the culvert.
Vice-Chair Tollini asked if an engineering solution has been explored for detaching from the adjoining
house as well as putting up the new structure. Ms. Shores said the steel beam that connects the structures
would remain in place. Mr. Shadduck said that there is no other solution and that they have explored all
of the possible options.
Boardmember Kricensky asked if the neighbor will be able to tie in to the steel beam in the future. Mr.
Shadduck said yes, that could be done.
Boardmember Kricensky said there are some areas that will be separated, and he asked if that will affect
the roof and drainage of the neighbor's house. Mr. Shadduck said that would be a part of the project.
The public hearing was opened.
Steve Sears said that he lives in the unit with the common wall to the subject house. He stated that the
residence appears to have been abandoned for the past 4-5 years and appears to be totally uninhabitable.
He said that the house is full of mold and dry rot and needs to be torn down. Since the home is attached
to his house with common walls upstairs and downstairs with a common roof and structural beams he is
concerned about issues that will be created by tearing down the unit. He wanted to know what will
happen to the structural integrity of his house when the attached portion is removed. He questioned why
the applicant is proposing to now spend millions of dollars on this project and suggested perhaps there is
an ulteri or motive. He noted that the other neighbor is currently in Europe, and he said their biggest
concern is that windows would face their house and affect their privacy. He said that there is a common
agreement that does not allow anyone to build on the drainage easement. His hope is that the house is
torn down with the least possible disruption to his home and that any damage is repaired in an acceptable
manner.
Charles Reite said that the whole street is composed of single-family residences starting with the end unit
on the downhill side of the street. He felt that the reorientation of the building would create privacy issues
with the neighbor's deck and entertainment area. He suggested the structural integrity could be improved
without the reorientation. He was happy to see the area improved, but felt that this project would totally
change the character of the development on the street. He said there is a lot of water running through the
culvert and he wondered how the Town Engineer would comment on this. He was concerned that this
would change the overall engineering structure of the other two units and questioned whether a better plan
could be devised.
EXHIBIT N0. (~P
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6
5/6/10
Ms. Shores clarified that the three major pine trees on the site that provide screening would remain. They
would also add one new tree to match the new trees the neighbors recently planted. She said that the
project attempts to strike a balance and stay within the footprint so as not to encroach on the neighbors.
Mr. Shadduck said that the plan is totally engineering-based and that they cannot seismically upgrade the
house without removing the building. He noted they are the first to figure out an engineering solution and
it is difficult to be the first one. He said that they attempted to retain the existing structure and put in the
frame for a new house but the only solution that would create a structurally sound house is for a new
structure. He pointed out that a previous neighbor cut down a lot of trees and they should therefore not be
concerned about privacy. He did not think that there was a huge privacy issue and the remaining trees
give quite a bit of privacy.
Boardmember Kricensky asked if the applicant spoke with someone at the Town about the culvert. Mr.
Shadduck said they talked to the Town Engineer about moving the easement and putting in a new culvert.
Dorinda Sears said that someone else built a new home on their street, and they promised to put in
plantings to hide utility poles but now those plantings are all dead. She wanted to know what would be
done if trees that are planted end up dying or do not fulfill expectations. She also asked to see plans that
show what her house would look like after it is separated from the other house.
The public hearing was closed.
Vice-Chair Tollini said that he always noticed this property because there is a roaring brook underneath
with a house built on top. He said that this project seemed to be theoretical in nature and there are a lot of
details to sort out regarding its effects on the other houses. He was surprised that someone would
undertake this project because even getting to a vacant site is going to cost a lot. He thought that
separating the houses would be a good thing for everyone in the long run. There are some concerns like
fire safety, but it would be easier to administer the houses if they are separated. He thought that this
would be an improvement for everyone involved. He said that the house design does not follow the
Hillside Guidelines too closely, but that is part of the existing condition. He felt that the building height
and the setbacks are probably acceptable. He said that there would be some impact on the privacy of the
neighboring property, but he also thought that there are some mitigating circumstances in that it is
relatively distant and there are some trees in between. He said that the main privacy impacts would be on
the outdoor areas and the indoor areas would not be as affected.
Boardmember Kricensky said that the project has an unusual history, with a building built on three
separate lots with no set of covenants to work out issues. He stated that the house obviously needs to be
upgraded and felt that all three homes are structurally deficient. He said that separating the homes would
be difficult, but he did not see any other way to do the earthquake retrofit that the owner desires. He
thought that some attention needs to be paid to the remaining side of the neighbors' house and needs to be
addressed with as much care as the house that is being built because an exterior wall is being created by
the separation. He was not concerned with the building height because the existing houses have the same
height. He said that it would be helpful if the plans showed the floor plans of the adjacent houses. He
thought that there needs to be some kind of security that ensures that the remaining neighboring wall will
be as sound as it is currently. He liked the architectural style but did not understand the differences
between the wood siding and the stucco. He thought that the drainage easement was being handled in a
way that would not adversely affect the neighbors. He was concerned about the privacy of the neighbor
facing the new windows because it would be a change from what is currently there. He did not want this
house to become a precedent so that every home in the area should have to look like this project if they
choose to do similar engineering upgrades.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 ~HIBTT N0.
5/6/10
Chair Chong said he first looked at this as a stand-alone project and that it took him a while to be
comfortable with the design. He was concerned with the fine line between Design Review and building
permit processes as far as the impact on the neighboring homes, as he had not seen a project where an
attached home was detached from the adjoining residences. He agreed that he did not want to see a string
of identical new homes along this street in the future.
Planning Manager Watrous said that the Town's building permit process requires one to construct the
project in a way that will not damage a neighbor's property. In this case, the applicant would have to
make sure through the building permit process that they are not creating structural or physical problems
for the neighbors. The only design-related element would be the new elevation of the next door house
when it becomes detached. He thought that it would be helpful to have drawings of what that would look
like. He said if it requires an application for design review for the adjacent house, the Town would likely
waive the fee requirements and process it.
Boardmember Kricensky asked if the Board can request such drawings, and Planning Manager Watrous
confirmed that the Board could request them.
Vice-Chair Tollini encouraged the owner to work with the neighbor and to show what the edge of his
house would look like.
Boardmember Kricensky suggested a condition of approval requiring that the edge of the neighbor's
house be properly finished. He also requested confirmation from an engineer indicating that the house
would still be as structurally sound as it currently is.
Vice-Chair Tollini said he does not see any access in the narrow area between the homes such as railing
and steps, and he would like to see that as part of the plan.
ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) to continue the request for 1490 Vistazo West Street to the June
3, 2010 meeting. Vote: 3-0.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #5 OF THE 4/15/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Page 2, third paragraph, "...and without the variances would result in an unusable area" should be
corrected to "Without the variance an unusable area would result."
ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Tollini) to approve the minutes of the April 15, 2010 meeting as
amended. Vote: 3-0.
F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 ~`"TBTT NO.
5/6/10
ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Kricensky) that the request for 1980 Centro West Street is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 4-0.
3. 1490 VISTAZO WEST STREET: File No. 21003; Danuta Shadduck, owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with variances for
reduced side yard setback and excess building height. The new structure would have a reduced
side yard setback of 3 feet, 2 inches in lieu of the minimum 8 feet, and would have a building
height of 37 feet, 9 1/8 inches in lieu of the maximum 30 feet. APN: 058-223-14.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story single-family dwelling, with variances for
reduced side yard setback and excess building height, on property located at 1490 Vistazo West Street.
Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling that is structurally attached to the adjacent
dwelling at 1486 Vistazo West Street. This application was first reviewed at the May 6, 2010 Design
Review Board meeting. At that meeting, several neighboring property owners raised concerns about
potential privacy issues and the visual and structural effects of separating the subject house from the
adjoining home. The Board found the design of the proposed house to be generally acceptable, but
requested additional information on the appearance of the currently adjoining house once the subject
dwelling has been separated from it. The Board also recommended that the applicant more fully explore
the structural aspects of the proposed project to ensure that necessary structural elements would not result
in changes to the appearance of the building. The Board continued the application to the June 3, 2010
meeting to allow the applicant time to address these issues.
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the project. The revised plans include exterior
elevation drawings for the adjoining house at 1486 Vistazo West Street, indicating that the resulting side
of that residence would be finished with materials matching the existing exterior materials of the building.
Carrie Shores, architect, said they have worked with the adjoining neighbors and documented their walls
and windows on the abutting property, showing plans for the existing elevation, where it is attached and
where it will be revised. She said the challenge with this project is that there are a lot of structural details
to resolve in how to support the adjoining house. She said that those are pieces that would be addressed
when the structure is built. She noted that they would not encroach or obstruct any of the neighbors'
views.
The public hearing was opened.
Steve Sears, owner of the adjoining residence, said he still thought the cart was being put before the horse
because not enough engineering had been done. He noted that the staff report recommended a condition
of approval requiring that the applicant fully explore structural aspects of the project, but he said that
there has been virtually no engineering done since the last meeting. He said that he was still concerned
about what the exterior of this house would look like after the subject house is demolished. He said that
there was no detail showing what his roof would look like and he asked that the applicant do more
engineering before the design is approved.
Carl Straub wanted to clear up some issues regarding mature trees on the site. He described a discussion
with the Tiburon Fire District about branches below the roofline that need to be removed, which would
impact his privacy. He said that the plans show planting one tree that, at maturity, will reach 45 feet, but
do not specify the size of the tree when planted. He said that the foundation of the building would be
within two feet of an 80-foot pine tree and foundation would impact those roots. He questioned the soil
stability with the tree removals. He said that he would love to see a new structure, but not one that faces
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 EXHIBTT NO. 4
6/3/10
all of the windows of his house or removes all of the trees that provide privacy. He was unsure if the
project requires review by the Corps of Engineer because of the creek that runs around their house and
feeds the marsh behind the building.
Chair Chong asked if the DRB evaluates impacts on drainage. Planning Manager Watrous said that
constructing a house is a two-step process including a design review phase and a building permit phase.
The building permit phase will include structural, drainage and soil stability issues that must be resolved
before a permit can be issued, but those issues are not under the authority of the Design Review Board.
He stated that any structural solutions that would result in exterior changes to the building would require
further design review approval. He noted that the draft conditions of approval state that if the Board
approves this project, the applicant will be required to conduct a complete engineering assessment of the
adjoining homes and determine what needs to be done and when in the process it will occur before a
permit is issued. Planning Manager Watrous said that the DRB specifically requested information as to
what Mr. Sears' house would look like when this project is complete, and it is up to the Board to
determine whether the applicant has provided enough information to make an informed decision.
Ms. Shores said that their intention is to allow the roof for Mr. Sears' home to hang over Mr. Shadduck's
property. She said that they were hesitant to include all of the structural issues until the structural team is
on board, but they could develop more detail about the overhang, if necessary.
John Shadduck, owner, said that they did not intend to remove the middle tree on the plans.
Chair Chong asked if he could walk the Board through the landscape plan as to what would be removed.
Mr. Shadduck said the lowest tree would be removed. He said that the middle tree on the plans may need
limbs removed. Ms. Shores stated that the willow tree would be removed, but they intend to keep the
remaining trees and only two of the five trees would be removed. She said that only one tree would be
added because of the Fire District requirements and the radius needed to separate from the trees that are
already there.
Chair Chong asked for additional comments from Mr. Sears. Mr. Sears reiterated that he would like to see
more detail, including what the roof would look like. He thought that the engineering of the project could
easily result in architectural details that would be different from the presented plans. He did not think that
there was enough engineering information to make a design review decision. He stated that there are gas
and electrical lines, and the meters are all in the same place under his house, and he wanted to know what
the utilities would look like.
Chair Chong asked about the process if the project engineering significantly changed the details of the
structures. Planning Manager Watrous said that any exterior changes that are different from the approved
plan will need to come back through a design review process. He said that in many cases such changes
can go through staff approval, but the Board may put in place a condition approval that any such changes
must come back through the Board for review and approval.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Weller said that this is a difficult project, but the Board is obligated to allow seismic
upgrades. He stated that most of the concerns expressed by the neighbors are not within the DRB's
purview. He was concerned about the structural and engineering issues, but the DRB is not the
appropriate forum for those issues.
Vice-Chair Tollini shared those concerns and stated that going through the design review process is just
the first step in a longer process. He said there are going to be issues that will come up as a result of ~7
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
6i3i10 EXHIBIT NO.
geotechnical work, engineering, etc. and design approval merely signals the beginning of the process. He
said that the project will have to go back through design review after any changes are made. He thought
that the neighbors' concerns about structural and drainage issues were absolutely valid, but from a design,
privacy and zoning standpoint, he could support the project.
Boardmember Kricensky said that he has faith that the Town Engineer will be sure the drainage and soil
stability issues are handled sufficiently, and if that changes the design, the project would come back for
review. He said that the Board should be focused on the privacy and screening issues, as well as the new
orientation of the house.
Chair Chong said that the elevation drawings for Mr. Sears' house are simplistic, but acceptable. He
trusted the Building and Planning Divisions to look for any changes to the exterior design, and he had
confidence that significant changes would come back to the Board for review. He was comfortable with
what vegetation is staying to provide a buffer. He thought the Board could add a condition of approval
that if another tree is removed, the project would comes back to design review.
Vice-Chair Tollini stated that the homes do not face each other, there was a substantial distance from the
Straub house, and the glazing on the east side was not excessive. He did not think that the house would
cause a substantial privacy impact other than on the neighbor's exterior deck. He said that the removal of
the willow tree was immaterial as there would be few windows in that area of the house.
Boardmember Weller said that although there would be a change in the configuration between the two
houses, he did not see a material change in the amount of visual access between the homes. He said that it
would be difficult to solve the structural problems of the house without removing some trees.
Boardmember Weller said the question was raised about access under the house and he asked if there is a
condition guaranteeing existing residents access under the existing remaining houses. Planning Manager
Watrous said the neighbors go on their own property currently to access that space, so moving the new
house will not make that situation worse. He said that the applicant must ensure that the structural aspects
of the neighbors' houses be as good or better as a result of this construction.
ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kricensky) that the request for 1490 Vistazo West Street is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the project, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 4-0.
E. NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
4. 698 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 710036; Antoine and Bedryl Saleh, owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a 497 square foot addition to an existing single family
dwelling. APN: 055-213-04.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition to an existing one-
story single-family dwelling on property located at 698 Hawthorne Drive. A new master bedroom suite
would be added to the left side and rear of the house, replacing a deck that currently extends across that
portion of the site. The existing family room would be expanded. A 302 square foot basement would be
constructed below the new master bedroom.
The proposed addition would increase the lot coverage of the site by 497 square feet to a total of 2,125
square feet (29.5%), which would be less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1
TIBL"RON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 EXHIBIT NO. 7
6/3/10
Page 1 of 1
Laurie Tyler
From: Straub, Carl [Carl. Straub@flir.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:01 AM
To: Laurie Tyler
Subject: drainage structure and easment and story poles
Carl Straub, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel, Commercial Systems
FUR Systems, Inc.
70 Castilian Dr.
Goleta, CA 93117
Direct: 805-690-7190 1 Cell: 805-252-96041 Email: Carl.Straub@flir.com
www.flir.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. This email and its files are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and
their content is the property of FLIR Systems, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose this communication. If you have received this email in error please notify the email
originator and then delete this email, its files and any copies.
This transmittal and any attached documents may contain technical data, the use of which is restricted by
the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. This data has been provided in accordance with, and subject to, the
definitions specified in Paragraph 120.17 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). By
accepting this data, the consignee agrees to honor the requirements of ITAR.
EXHIBIT NO.
P I I ()Fc~
5/3/2010
OF 9
Page 1 of 1
Laurie Tyler
From: Straub, Carl [Carl.Straub@flir.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:02 AM 1
To: Laurie Tyler
Subject: View of eastern side of current structure
Here are the picture showing existing eastern side of building. Note drainage structure in foreground
Carl Straub, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel, Commercial Systems
FUR Systems, Inc.
70 Castilian Dr.
Goleta, CA 93117
Direct: 805-690-7190 1 Cell: 805-252-96041 Email: Carl.Straub@flir.com
w% wJlir.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. This email and its files are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and
their content is the property of FLIR Systems, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose this communication. If you have received this email in error please notify the email
originator and then delete this email, its files and any copies.
This transmittal and any attached documents may contain technical data, the use of which is restricted by
the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. This data has been provided in accordance with, and subject to, the
definitions specified in Paragraph 120.17 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). By
accepting this data, the consignee agrees to honor the requirements of ITAR.
5/3/2010
EXHIBIT NO.
~3
UBIT NO
P; 4 V-F~
EXHIBIT N0. S
?,5o-I
Laurie Tyler
Yage 1 of 1
From: Straub, Carl Carl.Straub flir.com nv
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:02 AM
To: Laurie Tyler - }
Subject: Pictures from 1494 vistazo looking at 1490
Laurie,
Here are the pictures referenced in my email
Carl Straub, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel, Commercial Systems
FUR Systems, Inc.
70 Castilian Dr.
Goleta, CA 93117
Direct: 805-690-7190 1 Cell: 805-252-96041 Email: Carl. Straub a@flir.com
www.flir.com
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. This email and its files are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and
their content is the property of FLIR Systems, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose this communication. If you have received this email in error please notify the email
originator and then delete this email, its files and any copies.
This transmittal and any attached documents may contain technical data, the use of which is restricted by
the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. This data has been provided in accordance with, and subject to, the
definitions specified in Paragraph 120.17 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). By
accepting this data, the consignee agrees to honor the requirements of ITAR.
EXHIBIT N0. 6
5/3/2010
jJBIT No
p , .l bpo
XHIBIT NO
P S°F9
XHIBIT N0.
p q c)Fc
Page 1 of 4 LATE MAIL # 3
Laurie Tyler
From: Straub, Carl [Carl.Straub@flir.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:11 AM
To: Laurie Tyler
Subject: Fw: Opposition to Variance request for 1490 Vistazo W.
From: Straub, Carl
To: Ityler@ci.tiburon.ca.us <ltyler@ci.tiburon.ca.us>
Sent: Sun May 02 04:52:26 2010
Subject: Opposition to Variance request for 1490 Vistazo W.
Laurie,
I am forwarding this to you on Behalf of Brenda Bernheim
Laurie Tyler
Assistant Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon CA
94920
Dear Ms. Tyler
We are filing this objection to the proposed variance request for 1490 Vistazo W. Tiburon
California. (Lot 7 as shown on that certain subdivision map as filed of record and the attached
Declaration of Restrictions with respect to VISTAZO a subdivision in the county of Marin, State
of California recorded on Book 1569 page 279 on May 11, 1962. (Parcel No. 05822314) ("Lot
7") We have attached to separate emails pictures related to the drainage structure as built,
current views of the property and existing trees and lastly the state of the structure.
Specific Comments related to the Shadduck Renovation and request for height and
setback variances to Lot 7
Setback Variance Request
1. As requested The new structure would have a reduced side yard setback of 3
feet, 2 inches in lieu of the minimum 8 feet, and would have a building height of
37 feet, 9 1/8 inches in lieu of the maximum 30 feet. APN: 058-223-14. In order
to gain the setback as shown in the those certain set of plans would require the
new residence to be moved approximately five feet to the east.
2. The plans also show a drainage easement on the property as shown on A2.0.
From the existing pictures and Story boards the new structure would appear to
be within the existing easement. The drawings of the new residence do not
identify if this is the existing drainage easement or a newly located drainage
easement. However if you look at the pictures the existing drainage is within the
story boards and clearly within five feet of the house.
EXHIBIT N0.
5/3/2010 P. I OF Y
Page 2 of 4
3. The drainage easement is an active drainage easement and contains a buried
culvert and structure which has water running all year round. It is not just a
waste or storm water drainage.
4. Lot 7 contains a lot restriction recorded as part of the original subdivision. The
subdivision covenants and restrictions states in Paragraph 3. Restrictions on Use
of Separate Lots Paragraph B "and as to said Lot No. 7 there shall be no
building or other structure of any type at any point East of the ten foot (101)
drainage easement shown upon the map bearing North 25 3' West." The
drainage easement is for the benefit of all the lots in the subdivision including the
drainage from Lots to the North of Lot 7. The story poles as planted appear to
show the building over the top of drainage easement. The actual location of the
drains may be different than shown on the maps or drawings. See pictures sent
in subsequent emails. It is also my understanding that Lot no. 2 which as a 35
foot setback from the western lot line has not been able to extend its structures
when it went through the planning process. So there is precedent against
voiding restrictions on lots.
5. There is no need for the emergency lot variance since the lot will support a
residence based on a common wall design. The structure would not need the
material updates if the owners had not vacated the property for over five years.
There have been no statistics shown that the a 3.5 foot separation will provide a
better fire barrier than a properly engineered common fire wall. If fire setback is
important than he should setback the entire 8 feet. Essentially the variance
should be the common wall or maintain the 8 feet.
6. The drawings do not provide or show any type of access to that space which will
be quite steep. No stair structures are shown on the drawings.
7. Numerous remodels of homes have occurred all while maintaining the common
wall in the development. The Shadduck proposal attempts to take advantage of
years of neglect by claiming he is disadvantaged and needs a separation. He
can still build with an 8 foot setback and this would not cause a hardship. He just
has to build a smaller home.
8. In the alternative If this variance is granted the other homeowners in the
subdivision on lots 2 through 9 should be entitled to variances to allow them to
build detached residences which will essential void the code setbacks.
Based on the above we believe that the variance cannot be granted due the restrictions on the
Lot 7. As shown in Picture 0068 in subsequent email the existing drain is next to the existing
structure and inside the story poles. As such the proposed structure would have to be
extending into the existing easement. In addition the plans on T1.0 show an existing storm
drain (approximate) running under the existing structure. Based on the drawings as shown
that structure would have to be moved again disturbing the drainage easement. Lastly I am
not clear as to the source of the water that is routed though the drainage structure as it exists
today or whether it enters the sewer or the creek below the house. Water appears to run on
daily basis when there have been no storms or runoff. It is the belief of the residents that
natural spring runoff is carried through the drainage structure.
F,YTJT-RT T T.TO CI
5/3/2010 `r r 2- bt-- q
Yage .3 of 4
Height Variance
The height variance should not be granted as there is no need for variance and he will suffer
not hardship by staying with the height restrictions. It will impact my view and will destroy the
common roof line for the Vistazo development.
Other General Comments
While not exactly relevant to the variance request I believe it is important to put for the certain
facts on the record and reserve my right to comment further in future hearings not related to
the variance:
1. The residence has been unoccupied for over five years and is uninhabitable at
present. When other contiguous homeowners replaced roofing structure the
Shaddocks' would not participate There are termites throughout the house, structurally
the house is unsound. Ceilings are leaking and floors have holes in them. The owner
has let the house go without maintenance for over five years and I doubt that much
maintenance was done prior to that. It has impacted all of the homes on the property
but especially the Sears property. If the owner had maintained the residence as others
have on the street we would not be in situation where he is seeking to tear down the
structure and build a new one. Several properties in the subdivision have been
substantially remodeled and still remain as attached structures. I would welcome a new
structure within the existing footprint and location.
2. Mr Shadduck is seeking to detach his structure from the existing structure but he
cannot do so on a structural basis. His design shows maintaining existing support
beams for the other current attached structures. In my mind it is premature to discuss
variances without understanding structural impacts on existing structures. No structural
drawings have been presented nor has there been any discussion with neighbors as to
indemnity in event of catastrophic failure. Since all of the structures have a common
support structure Mr Shadduck should be required to bring up all dependent structural
support for all attached dwellings at a minimum.
3. As shown in the pictures attached the structure is currently hidden by trees from our
views. As proposed most trees on the structure will be cut down due to the new fire
regulation. However he can still build within the existing footprint and not have to
remove trees as they will be outside of the 10 foot setback. By expanding the structure
he has put the structure in closer proximity to the trees and using the new design to
remove the trees. The variance should be dependent on him replacing the trees with
similar height outside the perimeter.
4. Currently the structure has no windows on the eastern side of the structure which faces
my property and structure. As proposed the structure would be moved to face a more
easterly direction and place all decks and windows facing my property. See drawings L-
1, A3.0 AM and pictures submitted on other emails. Again I am not opposed to a
structure which would maintain my privacy and restrict the windows and decks on the
eastern side of the structure and stay within the original footprint. The subdivision was
designed such that the views are directed towards the bay in a westerly direction. The
decks structures are extremely limited on the current structure.
5. Recently the City passed an ordinance on gates prohibiting gates on the street. The
rationale was not to stop traffic on the streets while waiting for the gates to open. The
design calls for a street side garage where a car must stop traffic in the street to wait for
5/3/2010
EXHIBIT NO. ~
q
Page 4 of 4
the garage to open. I see no difference between garage doors which are on street
boundaries from gates on street boundaries.
6. Street parking will modified because of change in location of garage. Curbing will
need to be removed to allow for new access on the west of the property. Again no
thought is given to existing parking on the street.
7. Construction period. It is my understanding that the Shaddocks' have not engaged a
contractor and cannot predict the destruction and construction period and how it will
impact. There is a extensive parking on the street as well as traffic from fire trail
access. Construction over a large time frame will disrupt all use the street.
I believe I would support a new structure that is within the existing footprint, recognizes
the lot restrictions, and retains the existing privacy. We also recommend that any decision
should not be taken without inspecting the residence.
Sincerely
Brenda Bernheim
Carl Straub, Jr.
Vice President and General Counsel, Commercial Systems
FLIR Systems, Inc.
70 Castilian Dr.
Goleta, CA 93117
Direct: 805-690-7190 ( Cell: 805-252-96041 Email: Carl. Straubaflir.com
www.flir.com _
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. This email and its files are intended solely for the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed and their content is the property of FLIR Systems, Inc. If you are
not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication. If
you have received this email in error please notify the email originator and then delete this
email, its files and any copies.
This transmittal and any attached documents may contain technical data, the use of which is
restricted by the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. This data has been provided in accordance
with, and subject to, the definitions specified in Paragraph 120.17 of the International Traffic in
Arms Regulations (ITAR). By accepting this data, the consignee agrees to honor the
requirements of ITAR.
EXHIBIT NO. 4
P, 4 cry
5/3/2010
LATE MAIL# 3
Laurie Tyler
Assistant Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon CA
94920
Dear Ms. Tyler
This is with regard to the proposed Shadduck Renovation and variance request for 1490 Vistazo
West, Tiburon, California. (Lot 7 as shown on that certain subdivision map as filed of record and
the attached Declaration of Restrictions with respect to VISTAZO a subdivision in the county of
Marin, State of California recorded on Book 1569 page 279 on May 11, 1962. (Parcel No.
05822314) ("Lot 7").
We have several concerns with regard to the Shadduck Renovation:
Our property at 1486 Vistazo West adjoins the Shadduck property in that we share a common
wall between our two structures. The Shadducks are seeking to detach from our structure
while maintaining existing support beams. We believe it would be precipitous to consider
variances without first understanding what the resultant law-related and structural impacts
will be on our property.
• At present there are no structural drawings, so we lack data to determine structural
impact.
• At minimum the Shadducks should be required to bring up all dependent structural
support for all attached dwellings.
• Should the Shadducks be granted a variance on setback the rest of us on lots 2 through
9 should also be entitled to variances to allow us to remodel or replace should the need
occur for us to do so in the future. Thus, all code setbacks would be voided.
• There has been no discussion regarding the process and the costs to be incurred for the
repair and design of our roof line and wall. We seek assurances that if the Shadducks
are granted the right to detach, we are left with a good detail-at no cost to ourselves.
• There has been no discussion as to how the Shadducks will indemnify us against repair
responsibility caused by the detachment. Nor has there been any discussion with regard
to them indemnifying us from catastrophic failure.
If you were to grant the setback variance, the new Shadduck structure would have to be
moved approximately five feet to the east, which would put it directly above a recorded and
active drainage easement on the property for a culvert that directs rushing water as the result
of natural spring runoff year round.
• It appears that the Shadducks are planning to relocate the drainage structure. We are
wondering what the consequential effects will be to the entire neighborhood if this
culvert is disturbed.
EXHIBIT
The story poles as they sit may show that there is only a 3 foot variance from the present foot
print; however, this is only from the roof line. The new foot print would interfere with the
view we see from our downstairs window.
• We do not believe there is any need to change the footprint for the structure, especially
since doing so creates privacy and view issues impacting neighbors.
The drawings do not show any type of stair structure for us to have access to the space under
our structure. This is quite a steep incline and a subject of great concern and expense which
should not be excluded from immediate review.
We have a major concern with regard to the tear down. The property is riddled with termites,
perhaps even rats and mold hazards and we want to make sure that disturbing this mess will
not create a health risk.
• We think it should also be noted that the Shadduck property has been an eye sore
rotting away in this neighborhood for many, many years. Not once in the past 20 or so
years have the Shadducks ever so much as shellacked a sliver of wood. Their roof has
been leaking for many years, and in the face of this, for the past five years they have
left the property completely deserted. It is now uninhabitable.
Having said all of the above, we celebrate the opportunity to be rid of this eyesore.
Respectfully,
Steve and Dorinda Sears
Homeowners
1486 Vistazo West
EXHIBIT NO.
If2
P , 'Z- OF-
Page 1 of 1
LATE MAIL # 3
amm
To: Laurie Tyler
Subject: shadduck varian hearing 1690 vistazo w.
LAURIE
I AM SENDING YOU MORE DATA REGARDING THE SHADDUCK VARIANCE REQUREST. WHAT
HAS BECOME CLEAR IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF UNKOWN DATA AT SUCH AS LATE STAGE
OF THE HEARING. I ALSO FEEL THAT THERE IS OLD AND STALE INFORMATION AS WELL AS
NEW INFORMTION:
1. If you look at the slides you will see what we believe is the case is that the free flowing creek
above us flows down the street through the catch basin and regjoins the other creeks down the
hill and feeds into the marsh. No one has provided and overall environmental report.
2. The trees which are to be removed which I believe will be all trees were shown incorrectly last
meeting.
3. There has been no geotechnical report show as to the effects on he hillsides of removing the
trees
4. There has been no report shown on the impact of moving a storm drain that that no one in
government ever knew was there. The complex was created before the town of Tiburon existed
5. The storm drain and catch basin carry water all year round in proportion to what water comes
down from the creeks
6. The fire department report states that certain trees stay. However the fire department have not
visited the property since the story boards are up.
7. There needs to be a geotechnical and structural report buy the Shadducks which states what
happens to ground stability. after they remove tred and move the catch basin. We lose all
ground stability on a 75% grade r
The simple answer is that the house is unbuildable on the lot unless it statys with the four walls He is
the one that has let his house rot. I will call you later this wee as we are requeting that 100 ft trees with
the same coverage of the house as exists now. In addition such that there is no impact on open space
he should be required to fence all adjoining lots.
EXHIBIT
6/3/2010
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
July 7, 2010
Agenda Item:
P#102
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Establishing a
Streamlined Development Review Procedure for the Belvedere-Tiburon
Joint Recreation Committee's Ned's Way Project and Exempting the
Project from Certain Town Regulations; 600 Ned's Way; Assessor Parcel
No. 058-151-27
~j
The Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee (BTJRC) provides recreation programming
for the Town of Tiburon and City of Belvedere through a Joint Powers Agreement formed by the
two municipalities in 1975. One of the services provided by BTJRC is the after _school
enrichment program, which has been housed for many years at the Reed Elementary School, from
which nearly all of the program's children are drawn. Due to increasing enrollment at Reed
Elementary School, the BTJRC after-school program will be displaced from the Reed Elementary
School grounds beginning as early as autumn 2010. Since receiving word of the pending
displacement some months ago, BTJRC, the Town of Tiburon and City of Belvedere have
searched for suitable replacement locations on the Tiburon Peninsula. The two-acre Town-owned
Ned's Way site, located upslope from the Chandlers Gate senior housing project and across Ned's
Way from the Hilarita Apartments, was identified as the most promising location for
establishment of a facility to house this program, in part because of its location in walking
distance from Reed Elementary School. In addition, the site is being considered for the location
of the BTJRC staff offices and for other appropriate types of recreation programming.
The Town's practice in recent years is to adopt streamlined development review procedures for
public projects. The streamlined approach was used for the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library,
the Tiburon Town Hall and the Tiburon Police Station projects. The Town Council provided
direction to employ the streamlined approach for the Ned's Way project at its meeting on May
19, 2010.
DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
The proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) would do several things, as discussed below:
1. Exempt the project from provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Title IV, Chapter
16 of the Municipal Code)
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3
Discussion: Under current zoning regulations, separate conditional use permit and site
plan and architectural review approvals would be required prior to issuance of building
permits for the project. The ordinance would exempt the project from all provisions of
the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and create a Town review and decision-making process
vested solely with the Town Council. Courtesy referrals to any other reviewing body,
such as the Planning Commission or Design Review Board, would be at the option of the
Town Council. This procedure is the same used by the Town on prior major public
proj ects.
The proposed ordinance attempts to conserve scarce public monies and advance the
extraordinary public interest associated with this project by focusing and shortening the
review process and any associated appeal processes, not by relaxing standards or criteria.
To that end, the proposed ordinance states as follows:
In conducting its review and evaluation of the Project, the Town Council shall
utilize those standards and criteria that the Planning Commission and Design
Review Board would have normally applied absent the adoption of this
streamlined processing procedure.
The proposed ordinance clarifies that for purposes of compliance with state law, the Town
Council shall act as the Town's planning agency with respect to the BTJRC project.
2. Exempt the project from provisions of the Tiburon Encroachment Permit Ordinance (Title
V, Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code) and any policies adopted pursuant thereto
Discussion: Under current Municipal Code provisions, the project would require an
encroachment permit and would be subject to the Town's recently-adopted encroachment
permit policy (Town Council Resolution No. 16-2010). The ordinance would exempt the
project from all encroachment permit provisions of the Municipal Code and any written
policies derived from the encroachment permit chapter of the Municipal Code.
3. Establish the Town Council as the sole Town review authority for purposes of review
under the California Environmental Quality Act
Discussion: This provision clarifies that for Town of Tiburon CEQA review purposes
there will be no "advisory" body to the Town Council, and provides the Town Council
sole local CEQA review authority. The Planning Commission would typically act as the
"advisory" body to the Town Council for CEQA purposes and the Commission's CEQA
review would normally occur at the conditional use permit stage of review.
ANALYSIS
The Ned's Way Project itself is still in the conceptual design stages; a brief narrative description
of the project as currently envisioned is contained in the draft ordinance. Adoption of this
ordinance would position the Town Council to move swiftly with public review of the project
should it choose to pursue the project. Town staff has reviewed the proposed ordinance for
consistency with the Tiburon General Plan. While few goals, policies or programs are directly
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3
own ('mincA
on point to the adoption of this ordinance, certain ones are germane and staff finds the proposed
ordinance would be consistent with and implement General Plan goals and programs. These
include but are not limited to the following:
PR-B: To anticipate population growth and to plan for and provide funds for
the acquisition of adequate lands or installation of adequate facilities to
address future parks and recreation needs of the community.
PR-a: The Town shall continue to work cooperatively with the
Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee.
PR-b: Recreation programming should be responsive to and serve the needs,
interests, and desires of the entire community.
The approach is also consistent with past Town practice regarding major public projects, such as
set forth in the following General Plan policy and program regarding the public library:
Downtown Element Policy DT-35: Support an appropriate expansion of the Belvedere-
Tiburon Public Library adjacent to Zelinsky Park.
Downtown Element Program DT-u: Facilitate expansion of the Belvedere-Tiburon Public
Library by employing a streamlined permit review process typically used for major public
proj ects.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Tiburon Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on June 9, 2010 and
voted without dissent to recommend adoption to the Town Council. The Planning Commission
Resolution is attached as Exhibit 2 and minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Hold a public hearing on the ordinance and consider all testimony.
2. If the Council is prepared to do so, move to read by title only, waiving any additional
reading, introduce the Ordinance, and pass first reading by roll call vote. If first reading is
passed, the Ordinance will return for final adoption on a future consent calendar.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Resolution recommending adoption
3. Planning Commission Minutes of June 9, 2010
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development
S: IAdministrationITown CouncillStaff Reports 120101July 7 DRAFTSINed's Way streamlining report.doc
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING
PROCEDURES FOR THE BELVEDERE-TIBURON
JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE PROJECT AT 600 NED'S WAY AND
EXEMPTING SAID PROJECT FROM THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE (TITLE
IV, CHAPTER 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE), THE TIBURON ENCROACHMENT
ORDINANCE (TITLE V, CHAPTER 19 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE)AND FROM THE
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT POLICY ESTABLISHED UNDER TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 16-2010 AND ANY SUCCESSORS THERETO
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-151-27)
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT.
The Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee (BTJRC) is a joint powers agency
formed by the Town of Tiburon and the City of Belvedere that is primarily responsible for
providing recreation programming services for the two municipalities, one such program being
an after-school program for primary school-aged children, said program currently held on the
grounds of the Reed Elementary School.
The Reed Union School District recently provided formal notice to the BTJRC that as of
autumn 2010, the school's facilities will no longer be available for use by BTJRC to house the
after-school program. The BTJRC, Town of Tiburon, and City of Belvedere have engaged in an
extensive search for replacement facilities for the after-school program, preferably within
walking distance of the Reed Elementary School, from which comes most of the attendees in the
after-school program.
The Town of Tiburon owns a 2-acre parcel on Ned's Way, commonly known as 600 Ned's
Way and further identified as Marin County Assessor Parcel 058-151-27, which is within short
walking distance of Reed Elementary School has been identified as a possible location for the
installation of new facilities (the "Project") that could house, among other things, relocated
BTJRC after-school program facilities and BTJRC staff. While still in the early design stages and
subject to change, the Project could include modular buildings for BTJRC use, including but not
limited to the after-school program, BTJRC offices, and other programming. Associated
improvements could include an approximately 30-car parking lot with entry and circular turn-
around, outdoor play area, landscaping, fencing, and other ancillary items.
The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to streamline the permit review process for
the BTJRC project on the 600 Ned's Way property by exempting it from certain Town
regulations and consolidating review and approval processes with the Tiburon Town Council.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Effective --/--/2010 1
EXHIBIT NO.I
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
1. The Town Council finds that pursuant to the provisions of Tiburon's zoning
ordinance (Tiburon Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16), the Project would be
required to secure various land development permits, including but not limited to
conditional use permit approval by the Planning Commission, and site plan and
architectural approval by the Design Review Board (DRB), prior to the issuance of a
building permit. The Town Council also finds that pursuant to provisions of
Tiburon's encroachment ordinance (Tiburon Municipal Code Title V, Chapter 19),
the Project would require issuance of an encroachment permit and would be to subject
to provisions of Resolution 16-2010 establishing a policy for the issuance of
encroachment permits.
2. The Town Council finds it appropriate to adopt this Ordinance in order to establish a
streamlined development review process and decision-making procedure for the
Project for the following reasons: (1) the extraordinary public interest served by the
Project; (2) the project would meet applicable general plan goals and programs
regarding the BTJRC; (3) the need to preserve scarce public monies by minimizing
the expense required of public projects to comply with the Town's laws and
regulations while still meeting the intent thereof; and (4) the limited time-frame
available before the start of the 2010-2011 school year to establish alternate facilities
for the BTJRC after-school children's program.
3. The Town Council finds that the Ordinance is consistent with and would implement
General Plan goals and programs. These include but are not limited to the following:
PR-B: To anticipate population growth and to plan for and provide funds for the
acquisition of adequate lands or installation of adequate facilities to
address future parks and recreation needs of the community.
PR-a: The Town shall continue to work cooperatively with the
Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee.
PR-b: Recreation programming should be responsive to and serve the needs,
interests, and desires of the entire community.
4. The Town Council finds that similar streamlining processes have been adopted by the
Town for other major public projects, including but not limited to the Belvedere-
Tiburon Public Library building, Tiburon Town Hall building, and the Tiburon Police
Department building.
5. The Town Council further finds as follows:
(A) Notices of the public hearings on this matter were published in The Ark
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Effective 4420 10 2
newspaper on May 26, 2010 and on June 16, 2010, and other noticing,
including mailed notice, were provided as required by law.
(B) The Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public
hearing on June 9, 2010, at which testimony was received from the public;
and recommended adoption of the ordinance to the Town Council.
(C) The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2010, at
which it heard and considered public testimony on this item.
(D) The Town Council finds that the proposed ordinance would be consistent
with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan, as set
forth herein and in the Staff Report dated July 7, 2010.
(E) The Town Council finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the
objectives set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 3. EXEMPTION FROM ZONING ORDINANCE.
The Project shall be exempt from all provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance,
codified as Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. For purposes of compliance
with state law, the Town Council shall act as the Town's planning agency with respect to the
Proj ect.
SECTION 4. EXEMPTION FROM ENCROACHMENT ORDINANCE AND
POT ICTF.,
The Project shall be exempt from all provisions of the Tiburon Encroachment Ordinance,
codified as Title V, Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, and from all encroachment
permit policies authorized by and adopted thereupon, including without limitation, Town Council
Resolution No. 16-2010.
SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
Adoption of this ordinance has no potential to result in a significant impact on the
environment pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines and is therefore exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 6. REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES
ESTABLISHED.
Development applications for the Project shall be reviewed pursuant to the following
procedures:
(A) The Town Council shall hold one or more public meetings to review and,
if appropriate, approve or conditionally approve the site plan and architectural drawings
for the project. This review shall include, but not be limited to, the building additions,
landscaping, parking and other ancillary improvements. In conducting its review and
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Effective --/--/2010 3
evaluation of the Project, the Town Council shall utilize those standards and criteria that
the Planning Commission and Design Review Board would have normally applied absent
the adoption of this streamlined processing procedure.
(B) At any time during the process, the Town Council may, as deemed
appropriate, refer the Project to the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, or any
other Council-appointed Committee for that body's expeditious review and comment.
Any such referral shall be at the Town Council's sole discretion and such referral shall
not confer the role of "advisory" body upon the Board, Commission or Committee to
which the Project is referred for review and comment, and comments shall not be binding
on the Town Council.
(C) The Project shall be subject to review and compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Town Council shall be the sole review
authority for the Project and there shall be no "advisory" body to the Town Council for
CEQA purposes.
(D) Prior to any work on the site, the project sponsor must apply for and the
Town Building Official must review and issue any building permits required by law for
the Project.
SECTION 7.
SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town
Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 8.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage
and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage a copy of the ordinance shall be
published, with the names of the members voting for and against it, at least once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on , 2010 and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council
of the Town of Tiburon on , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Effective 4420 10 4
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
S: UdministrationlTown CouncillStaff Reports 12010Vuly 7 DRAFTSIneds way streamlining ordinance.doc
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Effective --/--/2010
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL, AMONG
OTHER ACTIONS, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL
CODE (CHAPTER 16, ZONING) IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING
STREAMLINED REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES FOR THE
BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE NED' S WAY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated, among other actions, zoning ordinance
amendment procedures to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, codified as Chapter 16 in Title IV of
the Tiburon Municipal Code, in order to adopt streamlined review and decision-making
procedures for the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee Ned's Way Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the adoption of the ordinance
establishing the streamlined processing procedures has no potential to result in adverse impacts
on the environment and is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061 [b(3)] of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on this matter was published in The Ark
newspaper on May 26, 2010, and other noticing was provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing
on June 9, 2010, at which it considered any testimony received from the public; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed ordinance would be
consistent with and would implement the relevant goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon
General Plan, as set forth in the Staff Report dated June 9, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed ordinance, specifically at
Section 6, is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the Town Council adopt the ordinance establishing streamlined review and
decision-making procedures for the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee Ned's Way
Project, said ordinance being set forth as attached Exhibit A, and incorporated herein.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-09 0610912010
EXHIBIT NO.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
Town of Tiburon held on June 9, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
Corcoran, Frymier & Tollini
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Kunzweiler
RECUSED: COMMISSIONERS:
Doyle
CAT , Y IER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
Tiburon 1 Vng Commission
ATTEST:
i
Y _ q
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Attachments: Exhibit A
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-09 0610912010 2
APPROVED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING DATE -1 (-'1 ~0
1. 600 NED'S WAY: CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL
REGARDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A
STEAMLINED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR THE
BELVEDERE-TIBURON RECREATION COMMITTEE NED'S WAY
PROJECT; Town of Tiburon, Owner and Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 058-151-
27
Commissioner Doyle recused himself because of his home's proximity to the site and left the
chambers.
Community Development Director Anderson presented the staff report, stating this is a
streamlining ordinance that would exempt the Joint Recreation project currently under study for
the Ned's Way location from several standard elements of the review process. The specific
elements that would be streamlined would be those contained in the Zoning Ordinance
(conditional use permit and site plan and architectural review), provisions of the Encroachment
Permit Ordinance, and any policies that have sprung from that. The Town Council has asked
staff to move forward with a streamlining ordinance that would create a Town review and
decision-making process, including CEQA review, vested solely with the Council. The Council
may, if it chooses, refer the project to any boards or commissions and Council will be using the
same criteria that the Board and Commission would normally use in their own review. Mr.
Anderson stated that staff finds the ordinance to be consistent with the policies of the General
Plan. It has been a practice of the Town to streamline major public projects, including the Town
Hall Building, the Tiburon Police Station, and the Library.
Commissioner Tollini asked if the expedited process would allow the site to be operational
before the next school year begins. Mr. Anderson said it could not be operational that quickly
and could not provide an estimated date. He said the Council is still gathering information on the
project, including what the total cost would be and if that is something they are willing to fund.
He said Belvedere and the Joint Recreation Committee are likely to assist with the cost, but it
will ultimately be an expensive project. He explained the ordinance simply puts the Council in a
position to act quickly if everything else falls into place.
Vice-Chair Frymier inquired after the origins of the ordinance. Mr. Anderson explained the
Town Manager presented the issue to the Council in May. The Council gave her the authority to
conduct initial studies regarding feasibility and cost, and also directed her to begin the
streamlining ordinance process.
Vice-Chair Frymier asked how this would affect the overall timeline. Mr. Anderson explained
that by consolidating these actions into one review by the Council, the risk of appeals is
removed. On an uncontested project, this ordinance may only save one or two months, but if
contested through appeals, a six-month delay could result.
Vice-Chair Frymier asked how the public felt about the streamlining associated with the other
projects. Mr. Anderson said there was no outcry from the citizenry over the previous ordinances.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 9, 2010 MINUTES NO. 998 PAGE 2
Vice-Chair Frymier opened the public hearing. N_
Joyce Larson said she lives at the Hilarita across Ned's Way from the site, stated her strong
concern regarding the potential for noise and her opposition to the project.
There being no one else present to speak, Vice-Chair Frymier closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tollini asked, and Mr. Anderson confirmed, that there would be opportunity for
public comment when this item goes before the Town Council.
Commissioner Corcoran thanked Ms. Larson for her comments. He assured her that the
Commission heard her comments, but explained that tonight's item relates more to what the
process will be than the project itself. He said he could support the ordinance, for all the reasons
outlined by staff, as well as the opportunity it provides for the Town's youth. He noted that
interest in and a need for increased childcare facilities is expressed in the General Plan. He
appreciated that the streamlined process would preserve some public monies by minimizing the
necessity for multiple hearings while still providing a public forum.
Vice-Chair Frymier also expressed her support for the ordinance. She said the need for additional
schooling and childcare opportunities have been vocalized for some time. She the growth of this
community, and that of Reed Elementary, are a compliment to what we are doing in this town.
She said she respects the Council for the decisions it will make regarding this site and
encouraged everyone to look at the other town projects that were developed through this process.
She said each public project was debatable in some way, and yet they are all now a wonderful
compliment to this community. She urged the public not to be too reluctant to support
appropriate growth and said she fully supports the decisions of the Council.
Commissioner Tollini stated for the record that she formerly served on the Joint Recreation
Committee Board.
ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to adopt the resolution recommending adoption of the
proposed ordinance. Motion carried: 3-0 (Doyle recused; Kunzweiler absent).
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
CATHY FRYMIER, ACTING CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING)
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JUNE 9, 2010 MINUTES NO. 998 PAGE 3
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Administrative Services Department bL
Town Council Meeting
July 7, 2010
Agenda Item:
-3
Recommendation to Approve a Resolution Continuing the Cypress Hollow
Lighting & Landscaping District Assessment for FY 2011
In 1998, the residents of Cypress Hollow petitioned and received approval from the Local
Agency Formation Commission for annexation into the Tiburon Town Limits. The area was
previously in unincorporated Marin County. The County of Marin had maintained and operated a
Landscaping and Lighting District in Cypress Hollow for the purpose of park and storm drainage
maintenance since the park was created in 1990. Since annexation, the Town of Tiburon has
continued the operation and maintenance activities of the Cypress Hollow Landscaping and
Lighting District and assessed the residents the cost thereof.
ANALYSIS
The California Streets and Highway Code require the Town to publicly notice the affected
residents annually in order to continue the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District. The
Town must provide the residents an opportunity to submit either written or oral protests. On May
11, 2010 the residents of Cypress Hollow were sent via U.S. mail service a notice of this
evening's public hearing. As of the writing of this report the Town has not received any inquiries
on the proposed assessment. There is no change in the amount of the assessment since
incorporation, which is $378 per year. The total annual assessment levy is $16,632.
The adopted FY 2010-11 Municipal Budget appropriates $20,450 in assessment funds towards
on-going maintenance and renovations at the Cypress Hollow Park.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The levy of the annual lighting and landscaping assessment provides a funding source for the cost
of Town maintenance of the park and any required improvements
ON') !1 OU
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing to hear any protests on the intent to levy the annual
assessment, and
2. Move to adopt the resolution continuing the Cypress Hollow Lighting and
Landscaping District for FY 2010-11
Exhibits: Draft Resolution continuing the maintenance and operation of
the Landscape and Lighting District in the Cypress Hollow
Subdivision for Fiscal Year 2010-11
Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON CONTINUING
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING DISTRICT IN THE CYPRESS HOLLOW SUBDIVISION
IN FISCAL/TAX YEAR 2010-2011
WHEREAS, the County of Marin has maintained and operated a Landscape and Lighting District
in Cypress Hollow, and received assessments from the parcels therein for the purpose of operating and
maintaining the following areas: (1) landscaping and irrigation of the sewer sanitary easement on the east
boundary, (2) entry landscaping and irrigation of the 30' storm drainage easement in the southwest
boundary area, and (3) ownership and maintenance of the park site, all as part of the Cypress Hollow
Development; and
WHEREAS, in December 1998 the Town of Tiburon annexed the Cypress Hollow Area, and in
April 1999 accepted the Grant Deed from the County of Marin for the Cypress Hollow Public Park; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon, having completed annexation of the parcels in the Cypress
Hollow District, herein states its intention to continue the operation and maintenance activities of the
Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District heretofore the responsibility of the County of Marin.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, as follows:
Section 1. The special assessment levy for the District in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 is
established as follows, for continued operation and maintenance District:
034.012.56220 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.01
10 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.012.57110 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.394.02
20 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0210 Cypress Hollow.
$378.00
034.394.03
30 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0320 Cypress Hollow
$378.00
034.394.04
40 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0430 Cypress Hollow
$378.00
034.394.05
50 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0540 Cypress Hollow
$378.00
034.394.06
60 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0650 Cypress Hollow
$378.00
034.394.07
70 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0760 Cypress Hollow
$378.00
034.394.08
80 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0870 Cypress Hollow
$378.00
034.394.09
90 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.0980 Cypress Hollow
$378.00
034.394.10
100 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.392.10145 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.11
60 Baccharis Pl.
$378.00
034.393.01110 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.12
50 Baccharis Pl.
$378.00
034.393.02120 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.13
40 Baccharis Pl.
$378.00
034.393.03130 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.14
30 Baccharis Pl.
$378.00
034.393.04140 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.15
20 Baccharis Pl.
$378.00
034.393.05150 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.16
10 Baccharis Pl.
$378.00
034.393.06160 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.394.18
185 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.393.07170 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.395.01
35 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.393.08180 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.395.02
45 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.393.09190 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.395.03
55 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.393.10200 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.395.04
65 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
034.393.11210 Rancho Dr.
$378.00
034.395.05
75 Monterey Dr.
$378.00
Total assessment charge to the parcels of the District: $ 16,632.00.
Section 2. The estimated District budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 provides for continuing
operating functions, and reserves funds for capital maintenance:
Contractual Services
Materials & Supplies
Capital Outlay - Facility Improvements
Amount
$12,000
3,450
5,000
Total Estimated Budget:
$20,450
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, on
the day of July, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI
TOWN CLERK
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
BY:
RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR
2