HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2010-11-19OWN'"
TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of November 15 -19, 2010
Tihir rnrn
1. Notice - Tiburon Fire Protection District - Intention to Adopt Fire Prevention
Code, Ordinance #124
2. Notice from Boardwalk Market re Continued Service through April 2011
Agendas & Minutes
3. Minutes - Hilarita/Tiburon Ecumenical Assoc. - October 11, 2010
4. Minutes -Design Review Board -November 4, 2010
5. Action Minutes -Design Review Board -November 18, 2010
Regional
a) News from Mai-in Conservation League - November/December 2010
b) Service Matters - ABAG Newsletter - November/December 2010
c) Memo - LCC - Proposed Association of Orange County Division
Agendas & Minutes
d) None
* Council Only
DIGEST
TIBURON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1679 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920 11 IE
- Fry
415-435-7200 7
E~ENOV 1.52010
;k~~
PUBLIC NOTICE F1NANCE'LFA T
TOWN OFTIP_ 3`
Board of Directors of the Tiburon Fire Protection District
Notice of Intent to Adopt Fire Prevention Code
Ordinance #124
Notice is hereby given that on December 8, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. , or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Headquarters Fire Station,
1679 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California, the Board of Directors of the
Tiburon Fire Protection District will hold a public hearing to consider the
adoption of Ordinance #124, with certain deletions, amendments and
additions to the 2010 California Fire Code, based on the 2009 edition of the
International Fire Code, and Appendix A of the 2009 International Wildland-
U rban Interface Code.
Copies of said Codes and of proposed Ordinance #124 are on file with the
Clerk of the Board of Directors at 1679 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California,
and are open to public inspection. Proposed Ordinance #124, adopting the
2010 California Fire Code would prescribe regulations for the safeguarding
of life and property, to a reasonable degree, from the hazards of fire and
explosion within the limits of the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Dated: November 12, 2010
Barbara Clifford, Clerk
Board of Directors
Tiburon Fire Protection District
PUBLISH TWICE:
11/24/2010
12/1/2010
NOV 19,2010 15:50 BOARDWALK MARKET 14154351139 Page 1
j 0
NOVEMBER 19, 2010
"HAPPY BOARDWALK UPDATE"
Thanks to Councilman Jim Fraser and Mayor
Dick Collins, we were able to reach an
agreement with Woodlands Market
allowing us to stay through April 2011.
Also special thanks to Belvedere Land Co.
for allowing the change.
Needless to say we are ecstatic!!!!!!
The HILARITAMBURON ECUMENICAL ASSOCIA ON
100 Ned's Way - Tiburon, California 94920
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING amended
Minutes of October 11. 2010
Officers:
President - Keith Lester
Vice President - Charles Quick
Secretary - Barbara Garcia-Romero
Treasurer - Dennis Leary
E EST
(aka Hilarito-TEA or H-TEA)
•
DIRECTORS PRESENT: The Hilarita Residents Association (HRA):
Mary Ann Alvarado, James Hardy, Dorothy Larson,
Cathomas Ford - HRA President - ex-officio
Community Congregational Church (CCC)
Keith Lester
St. Stephen's Episcopal Church (SSEC)
Barbara Garcia-Romero; Michael Peters
Westminster Presbyterian Church (WPC)
Dennis Leary; Richard Leonards, Charles Quick
Town of Tiburon Representative - Carolyn Grey
Community-At-Large
DIRECTORS ABSENT: HRA- Loretta Bromberg, Michael Burns, Phillip Ramirez*
• = excused Anne Brown - SSEC; Liz Jones*-CCC; Nuria (bars*-Community-At-Large
OTHERS PRESENT: Loren Sanborn, Sr. Vice President, The John Stewart Co. (JSCo)
Noelle Simmons & Dru Babcock, Co-Managers, The Hilarita (JSCo)
Tony Gourd - Maintenance Supervisor
A QUORUM IS 7
1. MEETING CALL TO ORDER
RECE'
NOV I / 1U;U
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
President Lester determined that a quorum was present and called for order at 7:30 PM in the Community
Resource Center of The Hilarita Apartments.
2. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13.2010 MEETINGS
The President called for approval of the September 13, 2010 minutes. There being no comments, it was:
M/S/P (C. Quick/R. Leonards) that the Board approve the September
13, 2010 minutes as presented. Unanimous.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION
-This session is confidential and not to be discussed outside of this meeting
J.Hardy - this Session is not in accordance with the By-Laws; the Executive Committee does not have
HRA representation.
President Lester - it was my thought that we would move the JSCo report to the Executive Session
unless there was an objection.
4. The JOHN STEWART COMPANY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT
A - Loren Sanborn, JSCo, reported that:
1. Linda Tilton, Director of Property Management, has undergone a second surgery. She is to
undergo both radiation and chemotherapy and will be rehabilitating for 4-5 months. Ms. Sanborn advised
that she will be filling in for Linda during this time. She passed on Linda's "thank you" for the flowers and
cards.
< 1 >
2. she will be away November 5 through November 25. She assured this Board that the November
report will be distributed to the Directors as usual and that the Office staff will provide data in her
stead at the November H-TEA Board Meeting.
s
3. the Cal Trans application for the eucalyptus tree removal will be submitted this week. Bids for the
removal of the trees is going out. We have been in touch with the tree guy regarding the replacement
trees.
4. HRA has received quarterly interest earned on the security deposits. The next distribution is
scheduled for November.
In discussion:
J.Hardy - HUD requires that money be put into account, and an opt-out for the tenants.
L.Sanbom - everything could be prorated. HUD defers to whatever the local ordinance is, and
neither Marin County nor Tiburon has a policy on this issue.
D.Leary - I question whether there is an ordinance or policy. Need to sign up for.
D.Larson - signing up is with the lease.
President - does not need to go to the HRA. Do we proceed to have the opt in/opt out?
D.Larson - this is a transparency issue.
President - we have procedure for this to maintain transparency.
L.Sanbom - there are some files with forms in question but we will go through and update this with the
tenants.
C.Ford - HRA would write to the tenants and ask that the refund be donated to the HRA.
L.Sanbom - will work with Cathomas Ford.
5. Linda Tilton has received a number of letters from a tenant demanding documents and the work has
been enormous. Recently another letter was received which demanded that we "clean house" of
staff, and the tenant told at least one vendor his negative thoughts of the maintenance on-site. In
another letter we were asked that the H-TEA not be told.
J. Hardy - called a Point of Order - this letter was not addressed to you.
L.Sanborn - no, it was addressed to Jack Gardner the President of JSCo, and he passed it on to me.
The fear is that these actions could result in what is considered a hostile work environment which
we have duty to prevent as employer. To the extent Board members exceed their authority there
could be serious consequences that result in suits against the Board. My concern here is that if
the actions are seen as beyond the scope of duties of a Board Member there could be a reserva-
tion of rights and the denial of insurance'coverage. If this occurred it would put every member at
financial risk personally.
President - read aloud a page enclosed with the JSCo report citing "speak for the board only when
authorized to do so".
L.Sanbom - JSCo will take direction from the Board.
6. President Lester advised that a Letter of Censure dated October 11, 2010 was sent to Mr. James
Hardy by registered mail.
J.Hardy - no individual can censure another Director.
President - any one individual can censure another Director.
C.Quick - Executive Committee met to discuss the situation.
J.Hardy - this is an avenge Letter of Censure; no HRA representative on this committee; this is
invalid; has to be word of this action.
L.Sanborn - but everyone heard of this and what was to be discussed this evening.
J.Hardy - Loren Sanborn does not dictate and control what the HRA does.
President - Loren Sanborn was clarifying report; Letter of Censure because your actions regress
each and every one of us and is likely to be liable for a Director who is off course This is a very
serious situation.
J.Hardy - called a Point of Order - you cannot discuss this matter.
< 2 >
President - needs to be clarified that your refusal to operate as a member of the H-TEA Board but rather as
an independent individual violates clearly described policy governing. Directors are empowered
to act as H-TEA Directors when seated for an approved agenda or ones having a specific purpose.
When we have a Director questioning an approved agenda at a meeting, we are all placed at risk,
there could be suits, damages. Behooves Board member account without it being on agenda.
C.Ford - why not approve JSCo report.
J.Hardy - 3rd paragraph Article 12, every Director shall have access to all.
C.Quick - no restriction what so ever. Taking individual action on that material beyond his authority. That
may allow someone to press a claim. Circumscribed, not to use unilaterally.
C.Ford - can we (HRA) call for a resolution to modify Bylaws? Will we be able to?
President - went over Policy, change wasn't necessary.
D.Leary - no difference in Bylaws.
C.Quick - now by regulations, laws are necessary on how this will happen, part of the Bylaws.
President - access is not in question.
L.Sanbom -1997 & 1998 person needs them; should be willing to pay for archive retrieval. Mr. Gardner
would not handle this.
C.Quick - seek legal representation, and we can immediately address against person.
J.Hardy - requested document, did not provide them; asking for documents.
President - read the Letter of Censure; you used documents you received which are not in agreement of
the policy and this is back to our liability.
D.Leary - and any documents given to J.Hardy; the request was large, and JSCo provided about 90%.
C.Quick - execution of duty; avoid frivolous use of funds as getting documents in archival storage which is
in response of Court Order; discuss and state what the interest is and reach an agreement and if
not liking result, they have a right to go to the D.A. or Attorney General. Before any more docu-
ments are furnished, find out for what purpose.
M.Peters - suggest item go to Committee.
J.Hardy - took 10 days, 70% were of no use; how management performing, if we find something is a
problem such as redwood mulch not all redwood; why not done properly carelessness.
President - discuss these with Committee involved.
T.Gourd - followed dispersal up and down the hill; will again inspect.
C.Quick - look through documents for description.
D.Larson - did see delivery and it looked like pine not redwood chips.
President - Letter of Censure making clear that this Board is not going on with what should be in
Committee and the Board is drawing a line here. We did take steps in light of what was a difficult
problem.
C.Ford - moved to table to November as agenda item, and cost of documents retrieval. J.Hardy seconded.
D.Leary - should prepare cost of request; serious matter.
L.Sanbom - Mr. Hardy can pay for it himself.
C. Grey - approve tabling.
President - we need to know if we are open to liability on issues.
L.Sanborn - data could be leaked creating hostile work environment.
C.Quick - individual action of independence and Board, is not appropriate; not OK loss of insurance and
not OK if at risk.
M.Peters - J Hardy should have a chance to defend himself.
B - Noelle Simmons and Dru Babcock, Co-Property Managers, reported that:
1. MOR: going through each file of documents. Restructuring to make it easier to find for future MOR
inspections. Checking on annual recertifications and have about 75% done.
In discussion:
D.Leary - will these files now be consistently kept current?
President - they have created matrix for all documents for each file.
4. CORRESPONDENCE & ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were none.
< 3 >
5. HRA - The HILARITA REPORT
Meets every third Monday of the month at 730 PM in the Esther Mg man Community Center
Cathomas Ford, HRA President - no HRA report. She did say that a bulletin has been posted to let
tenants know that the repair work is still in progress on the deck but that there is access to the laundry.
8s SECRETARY'S REPORT
Barbara Garcia-Romero advised that on behalf of this Board, flowers and card have been sent to Linda
Tilton with wishes for her speedy recovery.
7. TREASURER'S REPORT
Dennis Leary reported that the Board's checking account balance remains the same.
8. ON-SITE COMMITTEE REPORT
Meets fourth Thursday of the month at 6:00 PM or as needed. Committee: Anne Brown, -c. Loretta Bromberg, Michael Bums, Carolyn
Grey, Nuna lbws„ Richard Leonards
Anne Brown (absent) - no report.
U._ 5WILUINGS & GROUNDS COMMITTEE REPORT
Meets quarterty or as needed. Committee: Charles Quick-c Mary Ann Alvarado„ Dorothy Larson, Michael Peters, Phillip Ramirez
Charles Quick advised that an e-mail was sent to the Directors regarding the September 27th B & G
Committee meeting. The items covered at that meeting require approval or not, and he asked that the
Directors contact him with their response via e-mail.
A number of Directors stated that they did not use e-mail. Mr. Quick asked that they then write to him or
telephone him.
10. COMMUNITY TRAINING & SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT - CLC
Meets the first Friday of the month at 6.'00 PM or as needed Committee: Barbara Garcia-Romero-c, Anne Brown, Dennis Leary
Barbara Garcia-Romero advised that the Tutorial Program began today. At present, 34 students have
enrolled. The Center has a temporary Coordinator until such time as Brian returns.
11. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
- This report is proprietary and not to be discussed outside of this meetina
Meets as needed. Committee: Dennis Lea►y~c, Dorothy Larson, Michael Peters
Dennis Leary - no report.
12. OLD BUSINESS
C.Ford - wants discussion of the Tiburon construction going up.
C.Quick - will be more traffic into afternoon; may require additional signage; Ned's Way is a public way.
D.Larson - HRA to seek use of facilities.
L.Sanborn - have been offered five ballet lessons to tenant children.
President - suggest Cathomas and Noelle take advantage of the use of the facilities.
13. OPEN FORUM
[Protocol: each speaker has three minutes; if there are subjects not covered in the allowed time, to wait until all
others have spoken before resuming your comments. All questions and replies are to be directed to the President.]
There was none.
There was none.
14, NEW BUSINESS
< 4 >
16. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next Board of Directors meeting will be called to order at 7:30 PM on November 8, 2010 in the
Community Training & Services Center of The Hilarita Apartments.
COURTESY CALL.- Please remember that a quorum is required to proceed on any `action' item. If you
will be unable to attend this meeting, please phone President Lester [456-6659] or the Recording
Secretary [381-2556], or contact either via e-mail. Thank you.
• Absences: Bylaws ARTICLE 6 Section 6.05, with Board discretion, permit no more than three (3)
consecutive or four (4) non-consecutive meetings to be missed without justification.
17. CALL FOR ADJOURNMENT
President Lester called for adjournment and there being no objections, the meeting adjourned at
8:51 PM.
2010 Board of Directors Meeting Calendar: (second Monday of each month except May and August)
• Annual Meeting/Elections -January 11, • February 8, • March 8, • April 12, • regular business meeting &
annual walk around -Saturday May 15 at 9:30 AM, • June 14, • July 12, • August - customarily no
scheduled meeting, • September 13, • October 11, • November 8, and, • December 13.
H-TEA Recording Secretary - 10/2010
attachment(s):
minutes distribution
• H-TEA Board of Directors
• JSCo
approved minutes distribution:
• Sponsor Churches: Community, St. Stephen's, Westminster
• EAH • Mann Housing Authority • Belvedere City Council • Tiburon Town Council • Loren Sanborn, JSCo
• H-TEA Secretary files • BRA files
< 5 >
Jil*
MINUTES #17 1
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2010
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Tollini.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Tollini, Vice-Chair Kricensky (7:05 p.m.), Boardmembers Chong, Emberson and
Weller
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous announced that the item for 680 Hawthorne Drive was continued to the
November 18, 2010 meeting. The annual Town Council/DRB Planning Workshop will be on Tuesday,
November 9, 2010.
Chair Tollini announced that the item for 2312 Spanish Trail would be heard as the final item in tonight's
meeting.
F. OLD BUSINESS
2. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 709044; Colleen Mahoney, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The
applicants propose to construct a 1,072 square foot second story addition to add a larger master
bedroom suite, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a laundry room, and a guest suite for the existing
dwelling. Four new skylights would be installed. APN: 055-191-18
CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 18, 2010
D. NEW BUSINESS
3. 211 ROUND HILL ROAD; File No. 21018; Charles and Millie Froeb, Owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a
variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct a 1,054 square foot addition
to the lower level of the house to create three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a family room, laundry
room and wine room. As the maximum lot coverage in the RO-2 zone is fifteen percent (15.0%),
a variance is required in order to construct addition that would expand the lot coverage on the site
to 17.6%. APN: 058-111-21
The applicant is submitting a request to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a
variance for excess lot coverage, on property located at 211 Round Hill Road. The existing dwelling is a
two-story structure. The proposal would demolish the existing lower floor of the house, which currently
contains two bedrooms and one bathroom, and construct a new lower floor containing 3 bedrooms, two
bathrooms, a family room, laundry room and wine room. A new green deck and an expanded terrace
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17
11/4/10
would be constructed on the upper level above the lower level addition and patio, and a new trellis would
be constructed above the upper level terrace. A new bocce ball court and fire pit would be constructed
adjacent to the lower level. The driveway turnaround area adjacent to the garage would be expanded and a
new trash enclosure constructed. A variance for excess lot coverage has been requested.
Lorissa Kim, architect, noted that the project description did not include one room, stating that the project
would include three bedrooms, one bathroom, family room, laundry room, wine room, and a guest
room/office. She stated that dark wood siding would be added to make the house darker in color.
There were no public comments.
Boardmember Chong said that he visited the site and noted that the additions would be in the back of the
home and fit well with the existing site. He agreed with the findings made by staff regarding the variance.
Boardmember Weller said that he also visited the site and agreed with Boardmember Chong that the
addition would have no effect on anyone but the applicants. He stated that the variance was warranted.
Boardmember Emberson also agreed with the findings, but voiced concern about excessive outside
lighting. Ms. Kim volunteered to review the lighting plan again and make possible changes.
Boardmember Weller concurred, stating that he would like to minimize the effect on the lighting on
surrounding properties.
Chair Tollini agreed and pointed out the property below is relatively close. He was surprised that a good
deal of the lawn was being built on. He agreed with staff's findings, particularly the hardship
determination for the variance.
ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Emberson) that the request for 211 Round Hill Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, with the additional requirement that staff review the lighting plan and work with the applicant
to reduce the effect of lighting on surrounding properties. Vote: 4-0-1 (Kricensky abstained).
4. 12 APOLLO ROAD; File No. 710116; John Zeitz and Susan Travis, Owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling. The
applicants propose to construct an 814 square foot addition to the front of the house to add one
bathroom and reconfigure the floor plan of the existing dwelling. The roof would be removed and
replaced by with a new roofline that would increase the overall ridgeline height by 1 foot, 3
inches to a maximum height of 14 feet, 10 inches. APN: 034-271-06
The applicant is submitting a request to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on
property located at 12 Apollo Road. The existing dwelling is a one-story structure. The proposal would
expand the front of the house and reconfigure the existing house to provide additional space for all rooms
of the dwelling and add one bathroom. The entry of the house would be moved to the center of the
building and new windows would be added to all four sides of the house. The roof of the house would be
removed and replaced with a new roof that would increase the height of the house by 1 foot, 3 inches to a
maximum height of 14 feet, 10 inches. Several dormers would be added as part of the new roof.
Susan Travis, owner, said that they have lived in their home for 15 years and it is very small. She said that
they would like to make it more comfortable by adding a new roof that is three inches higher and a
bathroom. She said that the neighbors were relieved to find out the addition did not include a second story
and are supportive of the project.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17
11/4/10
There were no public comments.
Boardmember Emberson said that she visited the site and noted that there is a house across the street that
has had similar modifications, which she believed was the correct way to design the increase floor area.
She was glad that there were no objections from neighbors.
Boardmember Weller agreed and said that this was a sensitive application. He had no objections to the
proposal and thought that it was consistent with the neighborhood.
Boardmember Chong said that it was nice to see a well-done one-story addition in this neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Kricensky agreed with the other boardmembers that this was a modest, well-done proposal.
Although the roof would rise a little, he felt that this was necessary for the modifications of the house and
did not affect any of the neighbors.
Chair Tollini agreed and said that the project was an easy one to get behind because it was modest and
there were no objections from neighbors.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Weller) that the request for 12 Apollo Road is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, and the approving the request, subject to
the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 5-0.
E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #17 OF THE 10/7/10 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Weller) to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2010 meeting as
written. Vote: 3-0-2 (Kricensky and Chong abstained).
F. OLD BUSINESS
2312 SPANISH TRAIL: File No. 710021; Bill and Joy Norris, Owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a detached two-family dwelling, with a detached two-
family exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback. The applicants propose to
construct a 1,180 square foot detached dwelling below the existing house on the site, along with a
new two-car garage and a new parking deck. The parking deck would extend beyond the front
property line into the Spanish Trail right-of-way, which would not comply with the 15 foot
minimum front yard setback in the R-2 zone. APN: 059-201-32
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new detached two-family
dwelling and two parking structures on property located at 2312 Spanish Trail. A detached Two-Family
Dwelling Exception and a variance for reduced front yard setback are also requested. The property is
currently developed with a single-family dwelling, a parking structure and two detached storage sheds,
one of which would be removed as part of this project.
This application was first reviewed at the July 15, 2010 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting,
several neighboring property owners raised concerns about potential view and privacy impacts from the
proposed house, parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and whether the application was
consistent with the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units. The Design Review Board shared
some of these concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of a detached two-family dwelling on this site.
It was the consensus of the Board that a more modestly proportioned house moved further up the hill
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17
11/4/10
might be acceptable. The application was continued to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed
dwelling.
The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans for the project that included the following changes
that were reviewed by the Design Review Board at the October 7, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, several
neighbors again objected to the proposed project and felt that the application would be inconsistent with
the guidelines for detached two-family dwelling units and incompatible with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood. The consensus of the Design Review Board was that, as designed, the project
did not meet the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling exception. The Board suggested that the
proposed dwelling needed to be better articulated, possibly stepped into the hillside and/or moved uphill
on the site. The applicant proposed eliminating the garage structure on Vista Del Mar and the Board felt
that that would help reduce the visual mass of the project. The application was again continued to allow
the applicant time to further redesign the project.
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The roof of the front porch had
been removed from the proposed second dwelling and the entry stairway leading up from Vista Del Mar
has been relocated to the eastern side. The previously proposed two-car garage along Vista Del Mar had
been eliminated and replaced with a two-car parking pad. With the exception of the aforementioned
modifications, the floor area, height and location of the dwelling on the site remain unchanged. The new
two-car parking deck was still proposed to be constructed within the street right-of-way at the front of the
site accessed from Spanish Trail.
Chair Tollini requested the applicant and the public limit comments to what had changed since the last
meeting. He also noted that there was an argument after the October 7t" meeting, and requested the
discussion remain civil tonight.
Roger Hartley, designer, said he hoped the Board was willing to consider the detached unit because of the
size of the structure that would be needed to make it an attached unit. He said that they have previously
moved the building four feet into the hillside and now have removed a portion of the roof structure of the
porch area and the previously proposed garage structure. He stated that removing the existing garage
represented a 30% reduction of mass compared to the previous proposals. He said that by removing the
parking structure and leaving it as an existing flat space with a wall behind it, they had essentially moved
the project up the hill approximately 30 feet. He stated that eliminating the porch roof had the effect of
moving the structure another nine feet up the hill. He said that the corner of the building would now be in
line with neighboring houses.
Boardmember Emberson asked what substantive changes had been made to the structure besides the
removal of the garage, as the only change she saw was the removal of the roof over the porch. Mr.
Hartley said that they had not changed the floor plan and cannot do much more unless they change the
building to a one-bedroom cottage.
The public hearing was opened.
Jerome Bernal said that he lives next-door to the site and could empathize with the applicants because his
house was the most recent addition in the neighborhood. He said that when he did his remodel, he had to
dig into the hillside to protect privacy of neighbors and safety in the neighborhood. He thought that the
building would be extremely tall and he hoped that the Board would be consistent with the decisions of
previous Boards. He said that Spanish Trail is a very narrow street and he sees cars constantly having to
back up to get out of the way of traffic going the other way. He would like to see the character of Old
Tiburon retained. He felt that adding a detached unit would add density to an already dense area.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 4
11/4/10
Richard Wodehouse said that he was concerned with the criteria the Board needed to evaluate to approve
the exception for the detached building. He said that he is a builder and knows the dangers of setting a
precedent for an exception. He said that the closer the new building moves to the existing house, the more
it would impact his own house. He said that right now he views mostly vegetation, but if the house is
moved up the hill it would block part of his view of the bay and possibly affect his privacy. He said that
his living room is in an unusual location and the project would impact him more than the neighbors
whose back yards are impacted by the project.
Dennis Schwakopf referred to the staff report and said that he agreed with its conclusions.
Shelley Brown said that she also agreed with the last three staff reports that this project should be denied
and the exception not be granted.
Celia DeMartini, representing Ann DeMartini, said that she also agreed with the staff report and did not
think that the exception should be granted. She did not believe that the building had been moved back
enough to be truly in line with her mother's building.
Robin Moore said she concurred wholeheartedly with the staff report.
Phil Bartlett said he has been on review boards like the DRB and he knows how to look at story poles and
drawings. He described the elevation changes on the site and felt that where there is this much of a change
and a through lot with two street frontages, there was no other choice but to build two separate houses. He
characterized the 1,100 square foot structure as a very small house and felt that attaching a second unit to
the existing house would create a much larger structure and impact views and privacy more. He said that
the Aureguy project is right across the street from him and is very similar to this project, and he felt that it
is very beautiful.
Sue Zimmerman said that she completed a study of 20 homes in the area including 11 duplexes. She was
concerned about the precedent that would be created by allowing the building of the detached dwelling.
She stated that several of the duplexes are in need of being torn down and if those are replaced by
detached homes there would be up 9 lots so developed in the area. She stated that the Board must be
absolutely truthful to the findings to avoid this change in the neighborhood, asked not to set a precedent
for future, similar requests, and believed the problem to be one of neighborhood character.
Boardmember Emberson asked Ms. Zimmerman if she would approve of the project if the addition was
attached, and Ms. Zimmerman said she would support the project if it were attached to the existing
building.
Gene Aureguy said that the ordinance allows two buildings and good planning dictates that use of the
land. He said that it does not make sense to attach the building to the existing structure the project as
proposed would add to the value of all of the properties in the neighborhood. He said that his buildings
were approved by the DRB and the Town Council because it was seen as more beneficial to build two
buildings instead of adding to the existing one. He felt that small building design was more in line with
the texture of the Old Tiburon neighborhood.
Bill Norris, applicant, said that this has been a long process and he thought that the project had come a
long way and they have addressed the issues that concerned staff. He said that they would construct an
off-street parking deck requiring a variance, but he thought that it would help Spanish Trail to have
another off-street parking area. He said that they had lowered the roof and reduced the project by 900
square feet. He stated that he has experience restoring older homes and has gone before Boards such as
the DRB in other communities and that all of his previous projects increased neighbors' property values
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 5
11/4/10
immensely. He stated that the new 1,100 square foot cottage would be much better to look at from
neighboring properties than his older garage.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Emberson said she did not think the question was whether the cottage was a nice design,
but whether the Board can make the criteria to grant the exception for two separate units. She said that the
lot is an adequate size to support two separate units. She believed that there are physical conditions on the
lot that make it difficult to attach the unit to the older house, because an attached unit would feel like a
bunker with hills on either side of it. She felt that it would be impractical to place a second unit next to the
existing house at the narrowest part of the lot. She hoped that the house would not be so rectangular and
could somehow be more articulated so that there would be less mass visible at the street level. She said
that the current design did not address the prior direction of the Board to lessen the visual mass of the
house. She thought that it was possible to meet the criteria for two separate detached units, but she was
unsure whether the proposed unit was the right detached unit for this lot.
Boardmember Weller said that he could not find that there was a practical difficulty for attaching a
second unit, but he thought that the applicant could demonstrate the site planning superiority of the
detached dwelling unit. He understood the importance of precedent, but the narrowness of the lot and the
fact that it spans two streets is a different circumstance than some other lot with access from only one
street. He did not think that this would set a precedent for lots that do not span two streets. He noted that
the Board did not have an alternative design for an attached unit and he could only speculate as to what
might be possible with a one structure solution. He said that an attached unit might affect views somewhat
for the uphill neighbor, but added that simply looking at a rooftop was not the end of the world. He
disagreed with Boardmember Emberson that nothing had been done to change the proposal since the last
meeting. He commended the applicant for having heard what the DRB said regarding the mass and bulk
and eliminating the garage. He said that the Board also suggested that moving the structure back would
mitigate the effects on the neighbors and he was disappointed this was not done. He said that he could not
conclude that two detached units would reduce visual impacts compared to two attached units and he
could not support this particular proposal.
Vice-Chair Kricensky said there were a series of individual issues to be addressed. One was analyzing the
site with existing residences around it and how they would be impacted by the structures. Another was the
design of the structure, and another was the parking issue. He said that there are physical conditions
existing on the lot that make it impractical or difficult to build an attached unit, as there would be no
access or windows for the existing lower floor of the house. He said that the views of the neighbors on
both sides create a whole matrix of influences that create the potential for the site to be a candidate for
two buildings. He felt that if the existing house was demolished, a new structure likely would be built on
the lower portion of the lot. However, he felt that the applicant had not clearly demonstrated to the
Boardmembers or the neighbors of the property what would happen with alternative attached building
designs that could appease some of the neighbors. He said that the site lends itself to two units, but he
said he could not approve it without a clear argument showing why it does not work to connect the units.
Boardmember Chong suggested looking at the exception first before looking at the project design. If the
lot was a blank slate and they were comparing two dwellings versus one, he felt that there were three
places where a dwelling could be placed. One would be down by the garage which would create a large
street presence, a second would be a house squeezed into the existing residence, and a third would be
somewhere in the center. He stated that the uphill neighbor would be most impacted by far by any change
to this lot which could sit directly in that neighbor's view of the Golden Gate Bridge. In comparing the
three single-structure options to the two-structure option, he thought that the two-structure option made
sense and would impact neighbors the least. He said that the street presence of the project improved
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17
11/4/10
without the garage. He liked the porch roof of the cottage, but he understood that some compromises
needed to be made. He felt that two structures seemed appropriate for this lot and that he could find
reasons for each of the criteria to support the exception.
Chair Tollini said that the parking deck on Spanish Trail was a good solution for the property. He thought
that removing the garage was a significant positive step. However, he said that he had the same issue with
the project as before, which was seeing way too much house on a site where two structures are
discouraged by the Town's ordinance. He noted that the criteria for a detached two-family dwelling
exception talk about visual impacts and not just view impacts. He said that the proposed house still
appears to be very wide and tall and he did not understand why it had to look this big for a 1,100 square
foot house. He stated that there still needed to be a substantial redesign of the house to make it less
impactful. He agreed with Vice-Chair Kricensky about the potential for a second detached unit on the
property. He said that he understood the potential of setting a precedent, but felt that this type of project
could be permitted on difficult lots in the neighborhood.
Boardmember Emberson said that the 1,100 square foot building looked larger because of its rectangle
shape.
Vice-Chair Kricensky said that removing the porch cover actually increased the mass of the building and
a more stepped project design would look more like a cottage when viewed from the street. He
emphasized that the applicant needed to demonstrate why an attached second unit would not work. He
said that if the applicant successfully demonstrated that then the Board could look at the design of the
second unit.
Boardmember Emberson pointed out it is difficult for the applicant to design a house and show how it
does not work. Vice-Chair Kricensky noted that it was common to request an applicant to prepare
alternative project designs.
Boardmember Weller said it is unfortunate but the ordinance requires the Board to make it difficult for
the applicant and the Board is compelled to request information on why it would be difficult to build the
attached unit.
Boardmember Chong said that he would rather see a house of this style in that area than a more modern
design, which could result in another set of issues brought up by neighbors that would need to be
addressed.
Chair Tollini stated that he would not want to see a tiny stucco house on this lot, but the house design
needed to reflect the compromise necessary to build on this site. As much as he liked the style of the
house in Old Tiburon, he felt that it did not work for this particular site. He noted that the last lot in the
neighborhood is always the most difficult to be built upon.
Chair Tollini said that the Board appeared to be generally in consensus that it was possible to approve two
separate dwellings on this site in terms of the ordinance requirements. Boardmember Emberson agreed
that the project met the criteria for two detached homes. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that he could
potentially support two structures but the applicant needed to demonstrate the difficulty of an attached
structure. Boardmember Weller referred to the criteria which states that the applicant must demonstrate
why an attached unit will not work and he said that the Board had not received sufficient information in
order to draw such a conclusion.
Chair Tollini summarized that the Board was asking for additional information about an attached unit at
the next meeting, as well as a redesign of the unit so that it would appear visually smaller.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17
11/4/10
Chair Tollini said that he would be in favor of restoring the porch roof because it would reduce the visual
mass of the unit. Boardmember Weller said that the applicant needed to be cognizant of the neighbors
who objected to the extension of that fagade. Chair Tollini said he would like to see a reworking of the
height and width seen from the street and he would strongly encourage moving the footprint of the
building.
Planning Manager Watrous suggested having the applicant come forward to state whether they
understood the request. He also noted this was the last chance to amend the project and it sounded like
some substantial changes need to be made in order to make that successful.
Mr. Hartley stated that he understood what the Board was requesting, but he needed some time to discuss
whether they are willing to do it with the applicant. He said that the Board appeared to be asking for a
different house, but his client likes this house. He was concerned about Vice-Chair Kricensky's comments
and felt that he was being asked to prove a negative that the attached house is a bad solution. He asked
how many different bad solutions they needed to present.
Vice-Chair Kricensky replied that the Board was not necessarily requesting a design, but rather showing
why it does not work. He said that it could be a disaster to create an attached structure on that site. Mr.
Hartley said he could model another building but he was unsure what would be sufficient to prove that it
is a bad design. Chair Tollini said this requirement is dictated by the ordinance, and in the absence of that
requirement this was not something that the Board would need.
Mr. Hartley questioned what would be deemed as proof, and Boardmember Emberson suggested a three-
dimensional drawing with more detail. Chair Tollini said that the drawing needed to be thoughtful and
feasible and could include some sort of rendering or anything that would help the Board make its
decision. He said that the Board appeared to agree that it would be possible to support two structures on
the lot but they needed the information demonstrating why the attached unit would not work.
Boardmember Weller said that the Board needed something that would show a reasonable alternative to
the two structures that would allow them to conclude that that alternative would pose a practical difficulty
when compared to a two-structure design.
Vice-Chair Kricensky said that there is a set of existing factors on the site that would make it difficult to
construct an attached unit, and he suggested that the applicant detail through those factors. Boardmember
Weller said that he recognized the applicant had done this to some extent, but he suggested that the next
proposal include a specific comparison to the single structure alternative. Mr. Hartley agreed to create a
three-dimensional plan and provide more information about the alternative.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Emberson) to continue the application for 2312 Spanish Trail to the
December 2, 2010 meeting. Vote: 5-0.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17
11/4/10
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard November 18, 2010
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES # 18
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD`
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM
Present: Chair Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson &
Weller
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting
OLD BUSINESS
1. 680 HAWTHORNE DRIVE: File No. 709044; Colleen Mahoney, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling.
The applicants propose to construct a 1,072 square foot second story addition to add a
larger master bedroom suite, two bedrooms, one bathroom, a laundry room, and a guest
suite for the existing dwelling. Four new skylights would be installed. APN: 055-191-18
Withdrawn
NEW BUSINESS
2. 191 BLACKFIELD DRIVE; File No. 710119; Matthew and Jennifer Powell, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-
family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 940 square foot addition to the
rear of the house to add a master bedroom suite family room and expand an existing
dining room and kitchen. APN: 034-111-02 Approved 5-0
3. 118 LYFORD DRIVE; File No. 21019; Sam Huang and Cindy Cao, Owners; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with
Variances for reduced side yard setback, excess lot coverage and excess building height.
The applicants propose to demolish an existing single-family dwelling on the site and
construct a new 4,515 square foot house. The house would extend to within 6 feet of the
eastern side property line, which is less than the 15 foot side yard setback required in the
RO-2 zone, necessitating a Variance for reduced side yard setback. As the maximum lot
coverage in the RO-2 zone is fifteen percent (15.0%), a Variance is required in order to
construct addition that would expand the lot coverage on the site to 16.9%. The house
would have a maximum height of 32 feet, 6 inches, which is taller than the maximum
building height of 30 feet, necessitating a Variance for excess building height. APN: 058-
272-07 Approved 5-0
Action Minutes # 18 11 / 18/10 Design Review Board Meeting
Page 1
MINUTES
4. Regular Meeting of November 4, 2010 Approved 5-
ADJOURNMENT At 7:35 PM
Action Minutes #18 11/18!10 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2