Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-02-14TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of January 31-February 4, 2011 Tiburon 1. Letter - Peggy Curran - Response to Grand Jury Request for Information on Marin County First Responders dated January 18, 2011 2. Memo - Scott Anderson - Design Review Board Training Update 3. Email - Kiki Pescatello - CVS Store 4. Email - Harvey Rogers - Progress Report Blackie's Garden 5. Letter - Firuze Hariri - 9 Burrell Court - Development Status 6. Email - Seeking Reappointment - Ric Postle to Heritage & Arts Commission Agendas & Minutes 7. Agenda - Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency - February 7, 2011 8. Agenda - Planning Commission - February 9, 2011 Regional a) Comcast California - December 2010 Agendas & Minutes b) None * Council Only DIGEST Office of the Town Manager (415) 435-7383 January 28, 2011 Ms. Monica Heilman, Foreperson Pro tem Marin County Civil Grand Jury 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 San Rafael, CA 94903 Re: Response to Grand Jury Request for Information on Marin County First Responders dated January 18, 2011 Dear Ms. Heilman: Attached is your questionnaire with responses from the Town of Tiburon. If you have further questions on these responses, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MARGA A. CURRAN Town Manager cc: Town Council Town Attorney Town Chief of Police 2010-2011 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Questionaire on Marin County First Reponders - Police What is the population of residents served by your department? 5900 Does your departmenet have residency requirements for First Responders? If so, what are they? 1.) Fully Trained Police Officers in your department How many: (number) -does your department employ? - are on duty at any time? reside in Marin County? 2- - reside outside of Marin County? ( 1 2.) Trainee Police How many: - does your department employ? - are on duty at any time? - reside in Marin County? - reside outside of Marin County? (number) 3.) Volunteer Police How many: - does your department have? - are on duty at any time? - reside in Marin County? - reside outside of Marin County? 4. Dispatchers (number) How many: (number) - does your department have? are on duty at any time? - reside in Marin County? - reside outside of Marin County? Please return this questionaire, by first class mail, no later than January 31, 2011 t1,- "ft~ i I Ilk 'Zarin County Ci,\7il Grand _J ury Disaster Preparedness Volunteer Training Questionnaire Please provide the following information to the Marin County Grand Jury by first class mail, no later than January 31, 2090: 1. Does your agency have a written disaster preparedness plan and is it on your website W J ® r 2. When was your emergency disaster preparedness plan last updated? 3. In the event of a disaster or emergency, what role will trained disaster preparedness volunteers have in your community? 4. Provide a list of all volunteer disaster preparedness training programs that are offered by your agency. ~ ~ : ~f: 1-7 5. In the event of an emergency or disaster, does your agency plan to utilize any PN~c emergency/disaster trained volunteers and, if so, how? 4crs'i C- C or*-ro 6. In the event of an emergency or disaster, how will your agency contact emergency/disaster trained volunteers in your district? M~A<S SF-AZZI:~ 8)1-!( N L"e'-A 1_,~ 1 d a LS ~z t--~' qUL-L t\j \J ~ r-4' M A-, L 7. Which cities, agencies, districts, or the County of Marin do you collaborate with to provide any disaster preparedness volunteer training? vl~ COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING (CERT) 1. Does your agency offer CERT, or CERT equivalent training? r M 2. What is your source(s) of funding for the CERT program? ts--) I A 3. Do you consider the CERT training to be a valuable tool for residents of Marin County? ~ E,'--.) a-WO-X- C-Cy4',Af,& 0 t,~N k Tj ~F- S 4. In 2010 how often did your agency offer the CERT (or equivalent) program classes? 5. How many classes were cancelled? 6..-How° has your agency promoted the CERT program? 7. How many of your residents have completed the CERT training in your district? I Y~AP L-. 8. Do you maintain a database of those who have completed CERT training? y 9. Does your agency currently collaborate with other cities, agencies, districts, or the County of Marin to provide CERT training? ALL $ t r ► 10. Does your agency intend to participate in the ONE CERT program that the San Rafael a. Office of Emergency Services is implementing in 2011? GET READY MARIN TRAINING (GRM) 1. Does your agency offer GET READY MARIN training classes, and how often were they given in 2010? 2. What is your source(s) of funding for the GET READY MARIN program? 3. How does your agency promote the GET READY MARIN program? \Nke)s FVF~ &W 1~ C-'> V-,te5~" o~- PAa37-~j 2 4. How many participants have completed the GET READY MARIN program in your district in 2010? R 't 5. Does your agency intend to offer GET READY MARIN program classes in 2011? When and how often? (u1 F Please send your information by first class mail, no later than January 31, 2011, to: Marin County Grand Jury 2010-2011 Room 275 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 Thank you very much. Marin County Civil Grand Jury Disaster Preparedness Training Questionnaire December 2010 3 Town of Tiburon MEMORANDUM , TO: Town Council FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Design Review Board Training Update DATE: February 2, 2011 The purpose of this memo is to provide the Town Council with an update on the status of Design Review Board (DRB) member training. In January, Town staff sent to the DRB a memorandum entitled "Legal Responsibilities of the Design Review Board Members in Considering Design Review and Variance applications". On February 1, 2011, a two-hour formal DRB training session was facilitated by Janet Ruggiero, a highly-regarded Northern California planner and my well-respected colleague (brief bio attached). Mrs. Ruggiero used an interactive training approach with the Board, supplemented by a 36-page Power Point presentation tailored by Town staff to suit local needs and issues. The Legal Responsibilities memo was also discussed at this training session. By all accounts, the training exercise was successful and provided valuable insights for the DRB members. A similar Power Point presentation will be prepared by Town staff for the Planning Commission members, focusing on their specific duties and responsibilities. Town staff will continue its ongoing training effort with the Board and the Planning Commission. Next up is a training refresher for the DRB members on making detailed variance findings. This training was last provided to the Board approximately two years ago, but with some Board turnover since that time is once again appropriate. Attachments: 1) Brief bio of trainer 2) Legal Responsibilities memo 3) Cover sheet and Program Overview slide from Power Point presentation JANET M. RUGGIERO, FAICP Janet Ruggiero, a native Californian, received a Bachelor of Science in Social Sciences from the Santa Clara University and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning from San Jose State University. She has worked for Yolo County, the City of Woodland, and the City of Mountain View. She recently retired from the City of Citrus Heights, having served as the Community Development Director for ten years. She was inducted in April 2000 as a Fellow in the American Institute of Certified Planners. She has served as District VI Board Member to the National American Planning Association, and as President and Vice-President Legislation for APACalifornia.She is currently serving as the Vice-President for Public Information for the APACA Board. APACA has awarded her a Distinguished Service Award. She also received the Distinguished Service Award from National APA. She is a member of California Planning Roundtable. She has also served on the League of California Cities Board of Directors. She has done extensive work on state legislation especially in the area of housing. She is currently serving on a nonprofit housing board, Friends of the Mission in Woodland. She is also doing pro bono work for the Sacramento Valley Section of the American Planning Association California organizing Planning Commissioner training for the region. She is also working with the De La Salle Institute in Napa coordinating Board training and Board oversight of the eleven Boards of Trustees of the schools within the Christian Brothers San Francisco District. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS IN CONSIDERING DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Introduction The purpose of this memo is to advise you of the legal requirements that must be met in connection with your review and decision-making on design review and variance applications. This memo also describes the parameters of permissible discretion within which you will be called on to exercise your personal judgment in fulfilling your legal responsibilities. The Design Review Board is primarily charged with the responsibility for acting on applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review (a.k.a. design review) in Tiburon. The Board acts on all but very minor design review applications, which are handled at the staff level. Design review applies to almost any structure or major physical improvement, new or existing, that an owner may propose to build on his property. The Board's job, put simply, is to decide whether a proposed project is consistent with the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines. The Zoning Ordinance gives the Board a substantial amount of discretion; however, the Board is bound by the legal constraints discussed in this memo. Board members should review the Town's design review regulations fiorn time to time during their tenure. In particular, Tiburon Municipal Code sections 16-52.020(H) through 16-52.020(J) set forth specific guiding principles of review that Board members must consider in acting upon a design review application. A copy of these sections is attached for your ready reference. These sections refer to the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, which are other tools regularly used by the Board in its evaluation of applications. Procedural Requirements Each application that the Board decides must go through a formal review process; the Board holds a public meeting, considers public testimony and other evidence and snakes findings. Town staff must provide appropriate notice to the applicant and nearby property owners before the Board can hold a public meeting and act on an application. Occasionally, the Board will need more than a single meeting to adequately consider and reach a decision on a particular application. Planning staff will prepare a report on the application for you and recommend whether the Board should approve, conditionally approve, continue, or deny the proposal. Staff may include a proposed resolution with the staff report, especially if the item is controversial or staff anticipates an appeal. Legal Responsibilities of Design Review Board in Considering Design Review and Variance Applications - 1 - By law, the Board must make specific findings before granting or denying a design review permit. After the Board concludes its consideration of each design review application, it makes its decision by a motion that adopts findings as set forth in the staff report, resolution, or as formulated by the Board at the meeting. If the Board decides to approve the application, the motion to approve should also include by reference any conditions to that approval. The motion, staff report, or draft resolution should include proposed findings and conditions. If the Board wishes, it may instruct staff to prepare and return with a resolution based upon the findings articulated during the public meeting. The Board would review that resolution at its next meeting, direct staff to make any needed changes, and adopt it by motion. The single most important legal constraint on the Board is the findings requirement. These findings must be sufficient to enable the parties to detenmine whether and on what basis they should appeal the decision and/or eventually seek judicial review. In the event of an appeal or subsequent judicial review, the findings made in reaching the decision are critical to inform the Town Council or a reviewing court of the basis for the agency's action. Stated simply, it is legally necessary that you articulate how you arrived at your decision and exactly what facts and evidence you took into consideration in arriving at it. The findings necessary to grant or deny design review must comply with the design review guiding principles specified in Section 16- 52.020(H), and other relevant sections of the Municipal Code. In conducting the public meeting required, staff recommends the following simple format: The Chairman calls an item as listed on the agenda and requests a staff report or briefing; the public meeting is declared open; applicant and his representatives are invited to address the Board; the public next is invited to address the Board; rebuttal by the applicant and any person or persons opposed is then penmitted; the public testimony portion of the meeting is declared closed; Board discussion next occurs and a determination is made on the application. The Board may set reasonable time limits for speakers; the agenda contains the general speaking time limit rules. Any written matter (drawings, letters, reports, exhibits, wall graphics, etc.) brought to the meeting or referred to by any person addressing the Board should become part of the "administrative record" with any Late Mail items being considered pursuant to the Town's adopted Late Mail Policy, which is attached to each Board agenda. The "administrative record" is of crucial importance in case of judicial review, not to mention Town Council review on any appeals on the application. A reviewing court will scrutinize the record and determine whether substantial evidence in the record supports the public agency's findings and whether the findings made support the agency's decision. Design Review and Variances The Board will frequently encounter applications for both design review and variance as part of the same project. Frequently, the Board will encounter an application for a design review approval combined with applications for one or more variances. Design review pen-nits and variances are separate legal entitlements, with very different requirements. Legal Responsibilities of Design Review Board in Considering Design Review and Variance Applications -2- Approval of design review does not constitute a grant of a variance. These two discretionary functions of the Board are completely independent land use entitlements and ought not to be confused. One may be granted or denied without the other. Before approving such combined applications, the Board must make two separate sets of findings pursuant to two separate sets of criteria set forth in the Municipal Code. Regardless of whether you vote to approve or deny the requests, the findings must be made for the legal reasons stated earlier. On occasion, the need for a variance may disappear as the application is modified through the review process. A variance is a permit that the Board may issue to a property owner to construct something or engage in some action not otherwise permitted under the Town's zoning regulations. Variances can, for example, relax or modify otherwise-applicable setback, height and lot coverage restrictions. State law prohibits granting a "use" variance. When considering a variance application, the Board should consider whether, on the evidence presented, it can make the necessary findings as specified in Section 16-52.030 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, attached for your ready reference. If the Board cannot make the findings, it must not issue the variance. Please note that the Municipal Code provides that deviations from floor area ratio guidelines, set forth in Section 16-52.020(I), are considered through an "exception" process that is distinct from a variance and requires significantly different findings for approval. Please remember one important point: even if a proposed structure meets all Municipal Code requirements and requires no variances for height, setback, lot coverage, etc., it may still not meet the criteria for design review approval. As noted above, the guiding principles for design review applications are different from other criteria for approval in the Municipal Code. Design review applicants sometimes argue that the Board should approve their project because it does not require a variance. However, such projects may be entirely inappropriate under Tiburon's design review regulations. Accordingly, if you conclude that you cannot snake the necessary design review findings based on the evidence before you, you can and should deny the design review application on that basis. Precedent Previous or similar design review approvals and/or grants of variances do not compel present approvals. A property owner seeking design review and/or a variance may sometimes argue that the approvals should be granted because similar approvals have in the past been approved by the Town for projects in the same area. This argument may continue with an assertation that to deny their design review application or their request for a variance would be unfair and discriminatory. You may legally disregard such arguments, as each application is distinct and separate as a general rule. The fact that the Board, or Council on appeal, has previously granted a variance on a property does not compel you to grant a variance for the application before you at the time; if you cannot make the necessary findings, you should deny the application, regardless of what may or may not have occurred with previous applications. Legal Responsibilities of Design Review Board in Considering Design Review and variance Applications -3 - Similarly, design review approvals or denials in the past concerning other properties, even ones closely located to that of the applicant, do not compel you to act similarly now. You must always be guided by an individual separate examination of the proposal made by the applicant, tested against the legal requirements as currently specified in the Municipal Code. You must apply the standards and criteria in existence at the time the application is before you. The fact that structures similar to the proposed structure were built legally in the past is no reason to pen-nit such a structure to be built now. Circumstances change, and it is the present-day standards, criteria, guiding principles and surrounding conditions that must guide your deliberations. Past design review decisions may have one limited point of relevance, however. Under the Municipal Code, the Board must consider, among other things, compatibility with existing development and neighborhood character. Neighborhoods can change over time. Accordingly, the Board may decide, for example, that a block that formerly consisted only of one-story dwellings is now compatible with a proposed two-story structure that would have been out of character in years past. In these uncommon situations, the Board is still not bound to follow prior decisions, but should consider the new application on its own merits in the context of the neighborhood's existing character. You need not be wedded to the past in your deliberations about whether a particular house or other structure meets the currently applicable criteria for approval. Finally, don't be reticent to deny an application if you are unable to make the necessary findings for approval. Just be certain to recite your reasons for not being able to make a particular finding so that the record is clear. Public Support or Opposition Public support or public opposition to a proposed project is legally irrelevant insofar as approval or denial of an application is concerned. Every applicant deserves your open, individual, unbiased assessment as to the worthiness of his or her application for design review, variance, or any other land use entitlement that you may hear. Not infrequently, vigorous public debate will occur concerning a particular application. Many people may appear and speak in support of or against a project. Still others may write, call, or otherwise attempt to "lobby" you. Design review and variance applications should not be granted or denied on the basis of public opinion, controversy, or the mathematically greatest number in support or opposition to an application. The fact that an overwhelming and vocal majority oppose a project is not a legal reason to deny it. Conversely, the fact that no one opposes a project is not a legal reason to approve it. As always, you must individually weigh the proposed project against the criteria set forth in our Municipal Code, and individually snake the necessary findings therein required. Legal Responsibilities of Design Review Board in Considering Design Review and Variance Applications -4- Personal Taste and Judgment There is a significant role for personal taste and judgment in design review. The guiding principles contained in Section 16-52.020(H) are designed to allow you to exercise your best judgment of which projects are appropriate in their proposed settings and which are not. Certain of the design review criteria are purposefully vague and general in nature to permit some degree of flexibility by the Board (and Council on appeal) in reviewing projects. Your job would be easier if the Municipal Code provided clear objective signposts to assist you, but your use of personal judgment is often inevitable in the course of deliberations. On occasion an applicant will assert that his judgment on an aesthetic issue is as good as that of the Board and he should be pennitted to follow his own tastes on his own project. This argument has no legal merit even though the applicant's aesthetic judgment may in fact be excellent. The Board is responsible to use its own best aesthetic judgment to assure that new construction conforms to the Town's aesthetic values, which are expressed in the design review regulations. The most beautifully designed structure imaginable may be inappropriate in the wrong setting. The design review process is calculated to preserve and enhance community values. Through use of a properly written design review ordinance such as exists in Tiburon, and by modifying it from time to time to accurately reflect current community concerns, Tiburon can direct aesthetic and architectural standards subjectively and on a broader scope than state law or other sections of the Municipal Code would otherwise allow. The design review criteria and guiding principles are and should be unique to Tiburon. In the future these criteria and principles may change, and you may be instrumental in effecting such a change. In the meantime, however, it is hoped that this memorandum will prove helpful to the Board members charged with the important responsibilities of regulating the design of the projects to be built in Tiburon in the years ahead. Tiburon Town Staff December 2010 Attachments: 1) Municipal Code Sections 16-52.020(H) through (J) (Design Review excerpts) 2) Municipal Code Section 16-52.030 (Variance findings) S:• PlanningOesign Review7mining0esign Review Considerations nreino 2010 final.doc Legal Responsibilities of Design Review Board in Considering Designs Review and Variance Applications - 5 - ATTACHMENT 1: EXCERPT FROM SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SECTIONS 16-52.020 (H) - (J) H. Guiding principles in the review of applications. In reviewing applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Review Authority shall consider the following principles as they may apply: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the cominunity, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise- generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio (See Subsection 1. below). 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of Title IV, Chapter 13E (Water Efficient Landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution;. yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. 1.1. Green building. For residential covered projects, as set forth in Section 16- 90.020 (Covered Projects), the project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation, and the overall project appears to meet or exceed the applicable green building standard for compliance as set forth by resolution of the Town Council. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by Article II (Zones and Allowable Land Uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [Recyclables Collection Area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this Zoning Ordinance. 1. Floor area ratio guidelines. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Subsection is to provide a community yardstick for appropriate residential size and scale, measured in gross square footage, in relation to the overall size of property on which the improvements are proposed. It is the intent of the Town to reasonably apply residential floor area ratios with regard to specific site characteristics and the surrounding pattern of development. The floor area ratio (FAR) guideline is intended to discourage overbuilding of property, as often occurs with "tear-downs" and extensive remodel/additions on infill sites, and with first-time residential construction. The floor area ratio guideline for a lot is not intended as a target to be achieved, but is intended to indicate a reasonable maximum. The Town may authorize less than the maximum square footage indicated by the floor area ratio guideline when necessary to achieve compatibility with surrounding development, to maintain the neighborhood character, or for other good cause. 2. Calculations. Floor area is calculated using the definition contained in Article X (Definitions) under "Floor area, gross." Floor area ratio includes accessory buildings as well as any main building. 3. FAR guidelines. Residential development standards are as shown in Table 2-2 in Section 16-21.040 (Residential Zones Development Standards). FAR guidelines for single-family and two-fanuly residential zones (R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2, and RPD) are shown in Table 5-2 below. Table 5-2 - Floor Area Ratio Guidelines R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2, and RPD'_Zones Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum 35% of the property area, plus an additional 600 sq. ft. of Less than 7,500 sq. ft. garage or carport ft. through 60,000 sq. ft. 500 sq 7 10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an . , additional 600 sq. ft. of garage or carport 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or More than 60,000 sq. ft. carport. R-3 and RMP Zones - Zone Gross Floor Area Maximum .60, unless otherwise specified in a Precise R-3 Development Plan or equivalent permit .30, unless otherwise specified in a Precise RMP Development Plan or equivalent permit Notes: 1. Unless otherwise specified by Precise Development Plan or equivalent permit. a. Examples. The following are some examples to illustrate the floor area ratio guideline concept: (1) Example No. 1. A 7,400 square foot lot generally could achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of 2,590 square feet (.35 x 7,400) of gross floor area, not including up to 600 sq. ft. of garage or carport. (2) Example No. 2. A 10,000 square foot lot generally could achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of 3,000 square feet ((.10 x 10,000) + 2,000) of gross floor area, not including up to 600 sq. ft. of garage or carport. (3) Example No. 3. A 20,000 square foot lot (approximately half- acre) generally could achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of 4,000 square feet ((.10 x 20,000) + 2,000) of gross floor area, not including up to 600 sq. ft. of garage or carport. (4) Example No. 4. A 40,000 square foot lot (approximately one acre), generally could achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of 6,000 square feet ((.10 x 40,000) + 2,000) of gross floor area, not including up to 600 sq. ft. of garage or carport. (5) Example No. 5. A 60,000 sq. ft. lot (and any lot larger in size) generally could achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of 8,000 square feet of gross floor area, not including up to 750 sq. ft. of enclosed garage space, provided that the lot is at least 60,000 sq. ft. in area. 4. Floor Area Exception. Residential construction in excess of the floor area guidelines may be granted through a floor area exception if the following findings are made: a. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood; and b. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms. J. Design review guidelines. In reviewing applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Review Authority shall also apply goals and principles, as appropriate to the project, set forth in the Hillside Design Guidelines, Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook, and any other guidelines adopted by Council, copies of which are available from the Planning Division. S: PlanninglDesign Revieia,ITi-aininglDesign Review memo Attachment I.doc ATTACHMENT 2: VARIANCE SECTION OF TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE Section 16-52.030 - Variance A. Purpose and authorization. Where a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of certain requirements herein would cause practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives herein, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission are empowered to grant Variances according to their respective permit review authority. (See Sections 16-60.020 [Design Review Board] and 16-60.030 [Planning Connlnission]). 2. The above-mentioned practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions on the site or in the inunediate vicinity; or from population densities, street locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the site. Cost to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation may be given consideration, but shall not be the sole reason for granting a Variance. The Review Authority may grant Variances to the regulations prescribed by this Zoning Ordinance, in compliance with the procedures prescribed in this Section, with respect to fences, walls, screening, landscaping, site area, width, setbacks, coverage, height of structures, distances between structures, usable open space, off-street parking and off-street loading, frontage on a public street or other quantitative standard. Use Variances are prohibited. 4. When a proposed project requires the granting of a Variance or Variances in conjunction with another entitlement, the Review Authority shall review both simultaneously and shall attempt to eliminate the need for a Variance by reasonable modifications to the project. B. Application and fee. The application for a Variance shall be made in compliance with the provisions of Section 16-50 (Application Filing and Processing). The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. C. Information required. Lists of information and materials which are normally necessary for a complete Variance application are available from the Planning Division. The Director may require additional information, plans, drawings, or other documents if needed to enable a determination as to whether the circumstances prescribed for the granting of a Variance or Variances exist, or to assist in making the findings prescribed in Subsections E. and F. D. Public hearing and notice required. A public hearing as prescribed in Section 16-64 (Public Hearings) shall be held to consider every application for a Variance. Notice shall be given in compliance with Government Code Section 65091 and as otherwise required in Section 16-64.030 (Notice of Hearing). E. Findings by Review Authority. In order to approve or conditionally approve an application for a Variance, the Review Authority shall, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, make all of the following findings: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Zoning Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; 2. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone; 3. The strict application of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self- created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a Variance; and 4. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating the existence of any special circumstances. The Review Authority must find that facts and evidence exist in support of the findings. F. Findings for Variances from off-street parking or off-street loading regulations. 1. In addition to making the findings required by Subsection E. above, where the application is for a Variance from regulations for off-street parking or off-street loading, the Review Authority shall also make the following findings: a. Neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site or the uses of the sites in the vicinity reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation; b. Granting of the Variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner- as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets, or other private property, or on open space; and c. Granting of the Variance will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of this Zoning Ordinance. 2. In compliance with Government Code Section 65006.5, a variance may be granted from parking requirements in order that some or all of the required parking spaces be located offsite or that in-lieu fees be provided instead of the required parking spaces, if both the following conditions are met: a. The variance will be an incentive to, and a benefit for, the nonresidential development. b. The variance will facilitate access to the nonresidential development by patrons of public transit facilities. G. Action by Review Authority. Upon making the findings required hereunder, the Review Authority may approve an application for a Variance as submitted or as modified. If the Review Authority cannot make the findings required hereunder, the Review Authority may deny the Variance. A Variance may be revocable and may be granted subject to such conditions as may reasonably be imposed. H. Appeals. The action may be appealed in compliance with the provisions of Section 16-66 (Appeals). 1. Expiration of Variance. 1. Any Variance that is approved with an associated Zoning Permit shall expire and become null and void at the same time as the associated pen-nit shall expire. For Variances without an associated Zoning Permit, the Variance shall expire and become null and void three years after its effective date unless it has been exercised. 2. A Variance, once exercised, runs with the land unless revoked. J. Cause and procedure for revocation. Upon written notice to the holder of a Variance, and a public hearing, the Review Authority may revoke or modify any Variance, on any one or more of the following grounds: 1. That the approval was based on false information submitted by the applicant; 2. That the Variance granted is being or recently has been exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; or 3. That circumstances have changed in a manner that renders the continuation of the Variance to be inconsistent with Town regulations or policies, or inappropriate or incompatible with surrounding development. S: IPlanninglDesign Revievv7rainin,- Design Review memo Attachment 2.doc ~h } W 0 L.L z z D Q O m W 1 W clolmo z W 0 Z O D m H 0 N LOO*-* cz ct L 4) V) L CL IOL V Q 0 L oC v L (d O m 3 N N C ~ b0 La 0 4) cqd > N 0-1 E 0 O a~ E - U O a ~ C cz ~ O m oC J N b~0 br0 N O ~ 0 O O ~ Q E ~ O u.I v) 3• From: KikiTib@aol.com [mailto:KikiTib@aol.com] DIGEST Sent: Sunday, January 30, 20113:51 PM To: Diane Crane Iacopi Subject: Our New CVS store Dear Ms Curran and the Tiburon Town Council, I was happy to hear that you favored the CVS store. We really do need a pharmacy and a store that will have a broad range of medical and health supplies - They fewer reasons that we HAVE to go down Tiburon Blvd. the better-therefore less traffic. I hope you can continue to encourage this project - and your voice will be heard over those that are worried about a light on at night - Thanks for the newsletter.. Kiki Pescatello (Carolie) 87 Sugarloaf Dr, Tiburon. 2/1/2011 Page 1 of 1 Peggy Curran DIGEST From: Harvey Rogers [harvnan2@sprynet.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:35 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: PROGRESS REPORT BLACKIE'S GARDEN FROM HARVEY Hi Peggy PROGRESS REPORT FOR BLACKIE'S GARDEN In January, 2011 we had 4 work sessions consisting of planting new plants, weeding (mainly Cress but other weeds too), some light pruning, discussions on improvements for the near future. I made more plant markers (for the new plants) in both Latin & English. Those are made on the computer & must be printed in laser ink (otherwise if by ink jet they fade & only last about 9 months) We set up a new work session for February 3rd for the first of 4 or 5 major pruning sessions for Feb. & March. Submitted Feb. 1, 2011 by HARVEY ROGERS 2/1/2011 DIGEST , vow 5 1* January 30, 2011 Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 9 Burrell Ct - Development status Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council: This letter is in regards to the home I own at 9 Burrell Ct in the Town of Tiburon. Specifically, I am writing to address the lengthy process I went through in order to try and remodel my home and the toll that process has ended up taking on my development plans. My attempts to remodel date back to February 2006, when I engaged an architect in order to draw up plans for an updated home. These plans were fully code compliant, yet, after lengthy consideration, were denied by the Design Review Board. This denial came after the DRB sent us back to the drawing board many separate times, each time without specific direction as to what it was they wanted to see. After this denial, I was forced to engage an attorney and file an appeal for your consideration. While the Council ended up eventually granting my appeal and overturning the DRB's erroneous decision, irreversible damage had already been done. The many months of the pre-submittal, DRB, and Council appeal processes coincided with the collapse of our Country's economy. Accordingly, after my long fought battle for an approval that should have been granted in the first place, I was then unable to obtain financing for a project in which I had invested a great deal of time, money, and emotion. Please be aware that at the outset of the application process, I had already secured financing for the project. Were it not for the totally unnecessary back-and-forth with the DRB and the eventual appeal, this would have been a fully financed project; it instead became one the banks would no longer consider. Because of the Town Code, I am told I am unable to seek an extension of my hard-fought Design Review approval and will now be forced to let my approvals lapse after all this considerable work. This is devastating to me. z Other cities and towns have granted blanket extensions to pending permits in light of the economic conditions currently faced. Please be aware that not all in Tiburon are immune from these conditions. I would ask that you please inquire with staff about my permits and do what you can to allow them to be extended. If this does not occur, I would like the record to reflect the reasons for the lapse of these permits in case I ever have the financial ability to re-apply in the future. Thank you for your consideration of this important Regards, GY ~ A ' Firuze Hariri Hand delivered RECEIVFC` JAN 31 2~i TOWN of TIBURC BUILDING DIW/► - Diane Crane lacopi From: Fredric Postle [gopostle@msn.coml Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:24 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Diane Per your Jan 12 inquiry, I definitely want to serve another term as H&A commissioner. Thank you, Ric Postle Page 1 of 1 D D FEB -1 2011 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 2/1/2011 02/03/2011 10:39 FAX 4157892650 BEL-LIB-LIBRARY REGULAR MEETING BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY Monday, February 7, 2011 Regular Meeting 6:15 PM Belvedere-Tiburon Library 1501 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California 0001 ;b Iwo, P r tit y.. ...O,.A AGENDA CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL OPEN FORUM This is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the Board of Trustees on any matter that does not appear on this agenda. Upon being recognized by the Chair, please state your name, address, and limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant a more lengthy presentation or Board consideration will be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. STAFF, BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Chair's report - Bill Kuhns (2 minutes) 2. BTLF report - Meat!ier Cameron (5 minutes) 3. Library Director's report - Deborah Mazzolini (10 minutes) 4. Financial Statement for January 2011 (5 minutes) 5. Committee reports (5 minutes) Program Committee calendar, Film Series; Art Committee CONSENT CALENDAR - 2 minutes The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Board, its staff or the public may request removal of an item for discussion. 6. Approval of minutes of January 10, 2011 7. Approval of warrants dated and in-house check registers TRUSTEE CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of Trustee Considerations is to list items for discussion and potential action. 8. Building Program Expansion update and Draft EIR (20 minutes) Glenn Isaacson 9. Budget development for FY 2010 COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. Monthly calendar 12. Schedule of FY 2011 meeting dates 13. Children's Services Goals and letter sent to schools NOTICE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The following accommodations will be provided, upon request, to persons with a disability: agendas and/or agenda packet materials in alternate formats: special assistance needed to attend or participate in this meeting. Please make your request at the office of the Administrative Assistant or by calling (415) 789-2660. Whenever possible, please make your request three days in advance. TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard February 9, 2011- 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Frymier, Vice Chair Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Kunzweiler, Commissioner Tollini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Testimony regarding matters not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports Director's Report PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 700 TIBURON BOULEVARD: ANNUAL REVIEW OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITY (BELVEDERE TENNIS CLUB), FILE #10503; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-201-36 [DW] 2. 20 VISTA TIBURON DRIVE: APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF INCOMPLETENESS FOR A TREE PERMIT TO REMOVE EIGHTEEN (18) EUCALYPTUS TREES FROM COMMON OPEN SPACE PROPERTY; Vista Tiburon Precise Development Plan (Planned Development #12); Vista Tiburon Homeowners Association, Owners and Appellants; Assessor Parcel No. 038-450-24 [DW] ADJOURNMENT Future Agenda Items Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report (Feb. 23) Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (March 9) Congregation Kol Shofar; Review of Conditional Use Permit (March 23) a020911 Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 2011 Page 1