Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-04-08TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of April 4 - 8, 2011 Ti h» rnn 1. Letter - Sheriff Robert Doyle - Thanks to Chief Mike Cronin for Contributions of Time and Input to Oral Interview Position - Communications Manager 2. Letter - Marin Bd of Supervisors - Memorial to Honor Supervisor Charles McGlashan 3. Letter - Jim Wood - Peninsula Pride - Request for Contributions to Boulevard Week Removal 4. Office of Design Review - Monthly Report - March 2011 5. Yearly Recap - Design Review Submittals - March 2011 6. Information Release - Invitation to Join and Help Cleanup and Protect Marin for Earth Day - 3/16/11 Agendas & Minutes 7. Agenda - Design Review Board - April 7, 2011 8. Agenda - Planning Commission - April 13, 2011 9. Agenda - Special Meeting/Field Trip- Planning Commission - April 8, 2011 10. Minutes - Design Review Board - March 17, 2011 11. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - April 7, 2011 Regional a) News Release - County of Marin - Study: More Bikes and Feet on the Street b) Invitation - Celebrate International Compost Week - Novato Landfill - 5/4/11 c) Notice - PG&E - Proposed Modifications to the SmartMeter Program d) Western City Magazine - April 2011 e) Letter - Barbara Boxer - Community Development Block Grant Program f) Invitation - College of Marin - Meet The New President - Mr. David Wain Coon - 5/4/11 g) Invitation - College of Marin President's Breakfast - 5/3/11 Agendas & Minutes h) None * Council Only DIGEST / MARIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 145 , San Rafael, CA 94903 ROBERT T. DOYLE Sheriff TIMOTHY J LITTLE Undersheriff RECEIVED f~ 4 2011 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Margaret Curran, Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ms. Curran, AREA CODE 415 March 28, 2011 24-HOUR NUMBER 499-7233 FAX 5074 126 ADMINISTRATION 499-7250 CIVIL, 499-7282 On March 24, 2011, the Marin County Sheriffs Office conducted oral interviews for the position of Communications Manager. Chief Mike Cronin took time out of his busy schedule COMMUNICATION SERVICES ES to assist our department in the application process by being a part of the interview panel. 499-7243 Chief Cronin's valuable input regarding each candidate, as well as his insight into the COURTS application process, was constructive and professional. He represented your agency 499-7393 extremely well. EMERGENCY I appreciate the time Chief Cronin contributed to our department. Thank you for the SERVICES 499-6584 assistance he was able to provide. INVESTIGATIONS 499-7265 Sincerely, JAIL ' I I 499-6655 411 ~ 1VIAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE ROBERT T. DOYLE 8844878 SHERIFF PATROL 499-7233 RECORDS 499-7284 WARRANTS "In Partnership with our Communities" 499-7297 www.marinsheriff.org www.co.marin.ca.us Uiv"ST THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MARIN COUNTY OF MARIN 'S;/I- RECEIVED APR -4 2011 April 2, 2011 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON Mayor and Town Council member of Town of Tiburon: Re: Memorial to Honor the Life of Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council member: ADMINISTRATION BUILDIN 3501 CIVIC CENTER DR. SUITE 3 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94903-41 TELEPHONE (415) 499-73 FAX (415) 499-36 TTY (415) 499-617 w.co.marin.ca.us/b We would like to invite you to attend the public memorial honoring Marin County Supervisor Charles McGlashan, who died tragically on Sunday, March 27 near Lake Tahoe. Supervisor McGlashan represented District 3, which includes Mill Valley, Belvedere, Marin City, Strawberry, Sausalito, the Floating Homes, Almonte, Tam Valley and Tiburon. The event will take place Saturday, April 9, 2011 at the Marin Center Veterans' Memorial Auditorium at 10 Avenue of the Flags, San Rafael, CA. Doors will open at 10:30 a.m., with the program beginning promptly at 11:00 a.m. A reception will follow the ceremony. Parking will be available in the lots in and around the Marin Center or along Civic Center Drive. The celebration is open to the public. Given the volume of attendees expected, we will only be able to reserve seating for members of the Supervisor's family. Accordingly, we please ask that officials who wish to access seating plan to arrive early. Additional details about the event can be found through the County's website at: http://www.co.marin.ca.us. Updates will be posted there as necessary. If you have any questions on the event, please contact Mona Miyasato, Chief Assistant County Administrator at (415) 499-6358, who is coordinating public information for this event. Sincerely, JU-IWI Susan L. Adams, President Marin County Board of Supervisors PRESIDENT SUSAN L. ADAMS HAROLD C. ROWN SAN RAFAEL SAN ANSELMO VICE PRESIDENT CLERK VACANT STEVE KINSEY JUDY ARNOLD MATTHEW H. HYMEL MILL VALLEY SAN GERONIMO NOVATO mu".1GEST RECEIVE peninsula pride . APR TOWN MANAGERS OFFI(',. TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Peninsula Pride Supporter: Wow! Spring has sprung and the weeds along Tiburon Boulevard are sprouting. Each year (it's been four now), Belvedere and Tiburon residents pitch in around $3,000 total and I hire crews to cut back the weeds, if not remove them altogether. We will be "on the boulevard" Saturday mornings until the job is done. We pay a good wage and the guys more than earn it. It's part of the Adopt-A-Highway program that I joined in 2007 (Tiburon Boulevard is State Highway 133: Caltrans lacks funds for this work). A first target is to clean up the medians near Cove Center where California poppies are now blooming. Someone has already sprayed weed suppressant on both sides of Tiburon Boulevard Peninsula Pride had nothing to do with that! Regardless, we'll be able to do some nice work this year. If you enjoy a weed- and litter-free drive to and from town, send a check to Peninsula Pride, 1465 Vistazo W., Tiburon, CA, 94920. Your money will be at work within a weekend or two; expect immediate results. C ers, im Wood Jim Wood 1 1465 Vistazo Street West I Tiburon CA 94920 1 415.789.5032 jwood@marinmagazine.com y TOWN OF TIBURON A OFFICE OF DESIGN REVIEW MONTHLY REPORT MARCH 2011 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED 2010 ■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES 1 2 ■ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS 0 1 ■ MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS 4 1 ■ (not eligible for Staff Review) ■ SIGN PERMITS 4 0 ■ TREE PERMITS 3 9 ■ VARIANCE REQUESTS 2 7 ■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS 0 2 ■ EXTENSION OF TIME 0 0 STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500 square feet. 12 16 APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL 0 1 REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary DATE OF REPORT: April 4, 2011 DIGEST r' O cv M M M O c") co ti 00 m r (D Q M N co (0 M co N Ir- W Q Q z T" T F- N Q Cl) J F- a- w H U) H o D Q / ) C J W Z) Dui LL w Z 7 '7 t n t W Q a a U ui J CL CD n/ V- N Cpl I- ~ O O I~ N (0 _a W Q O co N O CN O m W LL O N O M M O Ul) Q N O O M c- O C) N w - - N w z Q p Q t- J Q 0 O Z H g W a z ? cn co ~ W W w a N U Q > a W U w a L w > W w LL cn n J w a Q o a O t- 5 €~Cgra ~z tcsrt NMARIN MUNICIPAL My Earth Day Marin Coalition FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Terri Fashing Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program March 16, 2011 (415) 499-6583 tfashin co.marin.ca.us www.myearthdaymarin.oro CLEANUP AND PROTECT MARIN FOR EARTH DAY San Rafael, CA - The My Earth Day Marin Coalition invites Marin County residents, visitors and businesses to celebrate Earth Day 2011 by joining hundreds of volunteers on Saturday, April 23 to clean and protect Marin's public places, wildlands and watersheds. Volunteers will remove litter from beaches, parks, and creeks; invasive plants from open space preserves and graffiti from public buildings and structures. The My Earth Day Marin Coalition is comprised of public agencies and volunteer programs including City of San Rafael, Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space, Marin County Community Development Agency, Marin Municipal Water District and the Center for Volunteer and Nonprofit Leadership of Marin. The Coalition promotes organized service projects throughout Marin. Volunteers are encouraged to sign up for a project at a particular site or, if they have a group they can host a new project site. Service projects will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at noon. Visit www.myearthdaymarin.org or call (415) 499-6583 for a list of Earth Day service projects. Litter cleanups are important because they keep our community clean and protect wildlife in our Bay and Ocean. Invasive plant removal and trail maintenance programs improve habitat for wildlife and reduce sediment that enter our creeks and impact salmon. Last September, more than 2,000 volunteers in Marin picked up over 8,000 pounds of trash and recyclables on Coastal Cleanup Day. The My Earth Day Marin Coalition is urging people to participate in a similar effort this spring in various service projects throughout the County. So, please join a local effort on Earth Day, and help preserve our beautiful and unique environment in Marin. 7• TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Regular Meeting Design Review Board April 7, 2011 7:00 P.M. d AM- Chairman Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson & Weller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Design Review Board on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Design Review Board 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 Design Review Board agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes. Any communications regarding an item not on the agenda will not be considered part of the administrative record for that item. STAFF BRIEFING (if any) OLD BUSINESS 1. 112 HOWARD DRIVE: File No. 21102; Rob Mickel & Marilyn Zimmerman, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to add 378 square feet to the home by expanding the garage and front entry of the home, and incorporate a larger kitchen at the rear of the home. The additions would increase the total floor area to 3,375 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio of 3,323 square feet. The additions would result in a lot coverage of 24.6% which exceeds the maximum permitted in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). The expansion at the front entry would further encroach into the front yard setback, for a total reduced front yard setback of 23'4" in lieu of the minimum 30' required in the RO-2 zone. APN 039-141-01 [LT] PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 4 MCCART COURT: File No. 711022; Bruce Lavine and Lisa Zimmerman, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct 864 square feet of additions to the main and upper floors of the existing house, convert existing living space into an attached garage, change the roof design and add 5 skylights. The additions would increase the total floor area to 3,592 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio of 3,408 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-171-22. [LT] Design Review Board April 7, 2011 Page 1 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting Design Review Board April 7, 2011 7:00 P.M. 3. 1915 STRAITS VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21101; John Jiang & Ning Lang, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct a 4,099 square foot house with a 3,612 square foot basement, along with an attached two-car garage, swimming pool, spa and new retaining walls and landscaping. The proposed lot coverage of 4,151 square feet (19.1 would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. APN 038-301-35 [DW] MINI TTFS 3. Regular Meeting of March 17, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Design Review Board April 7, 2011 Page 2 716 TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard April 13, 2011- 7:30 PM Tiburon, CA 94920 AGENDA TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION 41 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 Corrunission 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 NEW BUSINESS 1. END OF ANTONETTE DRIVE AND END OF PARENTE ROAD: PARENTE VISTA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PD #4): VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP APPLICATION (FILE #61002) FOR THE CREATION OF TWO LOTS ON A 10.2 ACRE PARCEL; Lionel Achuck, Owner; Tom Newton, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-111-16 [DW] OLD BUSINESS 2. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #20) FOR A 14-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES; (FILE # 30701); Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-12 and 039-301-01 [DW] (Continued from Januafy 26, 2011) Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 1 3. EXTENSION OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS---REFERRAL FROM TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW TIME EXTENSION ORDINANCE THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; FILE MCA-201 1-01 [DW] NAP-,JT TTFq 4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 23, 2011 ADJOURNMENT In Memory of Charles McGlashan Future Agenda Items Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion Project Revised Draft EIR (April 27) Tiburon Peninsula Club - CUP Annual Review (May 11) Review of Proposed Capital Improvement Budget (May 11) a041311 Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda April 13, 2011 Page 2 TOWN OF TIBURON A PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting---Field Trip Alta Robles Residential Project 3825 Paradise Drive, Tiburon Tiburon, CA 94920 April 8, 2011 -1:00 PM ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Division Secretary at (415) 435-7390. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all Planning Commission Agendas, Staff Reports, and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and Staff Reports are also available on the Tiburon website (www.ci.tiburon.ca.us) after 5:00 PM on the Friday prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on agenda items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Planning Commission attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Planning Commission agenda. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Frymier, Vice Chairman 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. Agenda - Planning Commission Special Meeting` April 8, 2011 Page 2 BUSINESS ITEM---FIELD TRIP AT 3825 PARADISE DRIVE 1. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: FIELD TRIP TO REVIEW STORY POLES AND REVISED (ALTERNATIVE #5) DRAWINGS AND PHOTOS IMULATIONS FOR THE ALTA ROBLES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSING 14 HOMES ON 50+ ACRES; Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021- 13 and 039-301-01. Planning Commissioners will be led by the applicant's representatives on a walking tour of the project site to review story poles that have been erected for each proposed residence and to review revised site plans and photo-simulations. ADJOURNMENT To the regular meeting at 7:30 PM on April 13, 2011 /00 MINUTES #4 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW. BOARD 4;~ is, MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2011 The meeting was opened at 7.00 p.m. by Chair Tollini. IN A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Tollini, Vice-Chair Kricensky, Boardmembers Emberson and Weller Absent: Boardmember Chong Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING - None D. NEW BUSINESS 1. 65 REED RANCH ROAD: File No. 711011; James Parsons & Andrea Hong, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling. The applicants propose to construct a 953 square foot addition including a new garage, laundry room, bathroom, & storage loft. APN 038-301-35 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling. on property located at 65 Reed Ranch Road. A new garage is proposed to be attached to the existing house and would include a laundry room and bathroom. A second story storage loft is also proposed with a new entry deck and stairs to connect the second story loft to the front of the home. Currently the property has an existing detached garage, which would be partially demolished and reconstructed with a new angled roofline. A wooden fence would extend along a portion of the western side property line adjacent to the new garage addition. A series of small trees on the western side of the lot would be removed to accommodate the proposed addition. The proposed additions would increase the lot coverage on the site by 664 square feet for a total lot coverage of 2,794 square feet (14.9%), which would be 15 square feet less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage for a lot of this size (2,809 sq. ft.). James Parsons, owner, said that they plan to live in this house long-term and the project is therefore meaningful to them. He discussed changes made to the plans after their original submittal, including lowering the front of the addition, reducing the roof mass and remodeling the existing garage. They felt that the recommendations in the staff report went further than expected and they cannot accept them because it would require removal of an integral part of the project. Mr. Parsons said that they take great pride that the current landscaping provides screening, and they will make that same commitment to the new structure. He distributed photographs taken that morning from the east side of their house looking toward the uphill neighbor and looking down the east side of the property as an example of the level of landscaping they would provide in screening the new construction. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 3/17/11 Mr. Parsons said that the primary purpose of the addition is the storage loft and garage. He said that the storage loft would be located at the back upper floor of the garage and provide storage for his N scale trains. He said that they currently do not have enough room to store vehicles, and having an additional garage would allow them to park in a more secure location. He said that he is also a woodworker and needs the garage for that hobby. He reassured the Board that his focus has always been the utilization of hand tools and he does not run larger power tools. He said that he personally experiences the noise and dust of those tools more than others in the neighborhood, and it was therefore in his own interest to manage the level of noise. He stated that this has never created a problem with a neighbor regarding noise and dust. Mr. Parsons said that their dogs are not left in the yard when they are not home, and no part of their yard ever has been or ever will be a dog run and that he took personal offense as the suggestion that they are creating a dog run. The said that hey plan to put in a 6-foot fence backed with mature trees between the properties. Jeffrey Wong, architect, said that they have addressed several issues in the staff report. First, they have agreed to replace the doors on the side of the garage with fixed glazing. Second, they will install pre- oxidized copper sheen roofing to eliminate any potential glare problems. He noted that the existing house is a two-story structure with a large street fagade, and the stepped construction would improve the visual impact of the structure. Mr. Wong stated that the visual impact on the community would be nominal, and what they are proposing is infilling and within the height of the existing structure. He noted that the addition was designed to be much lower than the existing house. He stated that the neighboring house was originally built as a single story home and underwent significant expansion in 2002 and now has excess floor area, lot coverage, and front and side yard setback encroachments. He said that more than one eighth of that house is located within the side yard setback. He said that the proposed project would be more than 23 feet from the neighboring house. He felt that any issue with the proposed project design being too large has more to do with other structure's proximity to the property line. He believed that they have applied the guiding principles and are presenting a good design. Mr. Wong said that before and after the expansion project on the neighboring house, its primary views are to the south and west, away from the current project. He said that if the current project is completed as proposed, the neighboring windows would still look into landscaping. He stated that both the guest bedroom and side office windows of the adjacent home are beyond the fagade of the storage loft and there would be no visual change from those windows. Boardmember Weller asked how the driveway would access the new garage. Mr. Wong said that they proposed a second new driveway that will enter from the street 8 feet from the side property line. Chair Tollini asked if the front of the proposed structure would be two stories, and Mr. Wong answered yes. He said that the plate height in the front would be 15 feet and it would be 8 feet above that to the low side of the loft. Chair Tollini questioned and confirmed that the plate height was proposed at 15 feet in order to provide enough space for his client to bring in wood to the garage, resulting in 10 to 11 feet of clearance. Chair Tollini asked the reason for the additions to be built separately, rather than clustered more closely together. Mr. Wong said that they were trying to attain a softer look and the proposed design would allow them to nestle the additions into the contours of the site. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 2 3/17/11 Dan Mihalovich said the east elevation of their house faces the pfoposed structure, have lived in the neighborhood for 23 years, and feel the proposed project is out of character with the neighborhood. The driveway, walkway, and second driveway covering the front of the house are not replicated by any other house in the neighborhood. He said his property is most affected, with impacts of light, views, privacy, and decrease in the value of their own property. He presented photos from their house and from the Parsons' site toward their home showing the views that will be completely blocked by the new structure. The new structure is only 8 yards away from their property. The staff report suggests alleviating their concerns by relocating the west facing doors to the south side of the building. However, these entry doors and garage door will be only 8 yards from their house, and he voiced concern about the noise from the Parsons' dogs and wood shop. Mr. Parsons said the photos taken from his house show an existing condition because of the way the houses step down the hill in the neighborhood. He questioned it being out of character when the building is within the building envelope. He said they are attempting to curve the driveways, and the majority of the driveways will be behind landscaping and not viewable from the street. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that he understood the desire to have a wood shop and he also liked the design of the project. However, he was concerned about the fit of the project with its surroundings. He said that this is really an 11,000 square foot lot with a portion of the old railroad property to the rear, and with that effective size the addition would have 25% lot coverage and would be 700 square feet over the lot coverage. He agreed with staff regarding the massing of the addition. He said that the taller addition on the downhill side of the lot would interrupt the flow of the buildings going up the slope. He felt that the addition could easily be brought up and the brought roof down. He understood having a hobby, but said that this is a residential neighborhood and the project should be kept at a residential scale. He said that the issues had more to do with the scale of the addition than with any potential view impacts. Boardmember Weller agreed and said that he also understood the interest in a hobby, but the hobby should not drive the design of a project. His concern was that the addition would look like just a box added to the house. He thought that the massing was also a concern. He was familiar with the neighborhood and was concerned that adding this mass at the street would be inconsistent with the setbacks of the other properties in the area. He said that the combination of the height and placement of the structure forward on the site would be inconsistent with the surrounding area and with the Town's design guidelines. Boardmember Emberson agreed that she liked the design, but felt that the addition could be moved to the other side of the site without a problem. She said that the mass and bulk facing the adjacent neighbor would be significant and would create a dark corridor. She pointed out the removal of many trees and she questioned if they planned to replant trees. Mr. Parsons said that they had removed 10 trees and moved them to the backyard. Boardmember Emberson voiced concern that the trees would not be replaced and she confirmed with Mr. Parsons that they would be planted. Boardmember Weller asked staff if the Board can adopt a condition of approval that trees are replaced with mature trees. Planning Manager Watrous said the Board can specify the size of the trees. Vice-Chair Kricensky suggested the requirement of a landscape plan. Chair Tollini said the new structure would really be a 21/2- story structure on the most sensitive part of the property. He said that the project would overbuild on the most visible part of the property and he agreed with Boardmember Emberson that the other side of the property would be less sensitive. He said that TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 3/17/11 staff's recommendation to remove the loft would not completely address his concerns about the height. He felt that the addition needed to be dramatically reduced in scale. He said that the impact on 67 Reed Ranch Road would be incredible and affect the entire lower floor. He said that the separated buildings created an artificially low lot coverage, but thought that the additions might as well be connected as far as mass goes since the separation cannot be seen and it would appear more built out. He said that he would still not be in support of the project if it came back as a one-story structure because of the issues mentioned. Boardmember Emberson agreed that reducing the structure to one story would not change her lack of support for the project. Vice-Chair Kricensky agreed that the lot felt overbuilt. Chair Tollini said that it appeared that the Board was in agreement regarding a continuance, and suggested that the height be reduced and other less sensitive locations should be considered. He said that he would also like to see more attached buildings. He said that he liked the design and understood what the applicant was trying to do, and he would like to see a revision that the Board could get behind. Boardmember Weller said that there have been problems in the past with separate structures and it might be better to have continuous structures to decrease coverage and density. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kricensky) to continue the application for 65 Reed Ranch Road to the April 21, 2011 meeting. Vote: 4-0. E. PUBLIC HEARING 2. 112 HOWARD DRIVE: File No. 21102; Rob Mickel & Marilyn Zimmerman, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to add 390 square feet to the home by expanding the garage and front entry of the home, and incorporate a larger kitchen at the rear of the home. The additions would increase the FAR for a total floor area of 3,387 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum FAR permitted of 3,323 sq. ft. The additions would result in a lot coverage of 24.6% which exceeds the maximum permitted in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). The expansion at the front entry would further encroach into the front yard setback, for a total reduced front yard setback of 23'4" in lieu of the minimum 30' required in the RO-2 zone. APN 039-141-01 The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage, with a floor area exception, on property located at 112 Howard Drive. The proposal would incorporate a larger kitchen area between the existing cabana and dining/living rooms at the rear of the home, as well as increase the depth of the garage, family room and entry area at the front of the home. The proposed additions would increase the floor area by 390 square feet, for a total gross floor area of 3,387 square feet. As the maximum permitted gross floor area for the property is 3,323 square feet, a floor area exception has been requested. The proposed addition would also increase the lot coverage by 378 square feet, for total lot coverage of 3,262 square feet (24.6%). As the maximum lot coverage in the RO-2 zone is 15.0%, a variance for excess lot coverage has been requested. The existing dwelling is currently located 4.2 feet within the front yard setback, for a reduced front yard setback of 25.8 feet. The proposed expansion at the front of the home would further encroach into the front yard setback a distance of 2.4 feet, for a new total reduced front yard setback of 23'4". As the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 4 3/17/11 minimum front yard setback in the RO-2 zone is 30', a variance for reduced front yard setback has been requested. Planning Manager Watrous announced that prior to the meeting but after the notices were sent out, staff determined that a portion of the project would project into the side yard setback. As no side yard variance was requested in the project, the DRB cannot act on it. He said that the project will be re-noticed for the April 7, 2011 meeting. He stated that the Board can comment on other aspects of the project at this meeting, but they cannot discuss the aspect of the side yard setback, in particular, because it has not been noticed for this meeting. Rob Mickel, owner, said that the home is in need of remodeling and that the interior flow problems that resulted from the last remodel have been the impetus for the current project. He said that there have been flow problems with two living rooms and a cabana in the back that is not used much. He said that they also have a very small garage space and no room for storage. He said that they hope to have minimal impact on the neighborhood. He described the changes on the front as modest and intended to break up the front so it is not so monolithic. He said that having the kitchen in the back would bring the flow of the home together. He said that there is a 5-step difference between the downstairs and intermediate levels and having the kitchen at the intermediate level would bring better flow to the house. Mr. Mickel stated that the roofline change would be very modest, 8-10 inches higher than the present roof, and well below the neighbor's view of the bay. He said that the main issues relate to the small lot and the variances this project necessitates. He said that they are concerned about privacy and views of neighbors into their backyard, living room, and bedroom. He said that part of this project began when their south side fence blew over in a windstorm. They had planned trees across there and they have not been installed; they want to mitigate any concerns about views and have been talking to neighbors about this issue. Michael Heckmann, architect, said that they have been working diligently with the downhill neighbor to resolve issues. He stated that the house was built in 1963 and the Town was incorporated in 1964, and the zoning difference between the County and the Town resulted in houses in the neighborhood that did not comply with the zoning requirements. Mr. Heckmann said that they wanted to change the house from its suburban look into something more contemporary. He said that the vertical entry canopy would break up the long horizontal roof and give the entry more significance. He said that they would add a courtyard off of the family room. He found an example in Terra Linda of this design and shared a photograph of a similar enclosure. Mr. Heckmann explained that they have had discussions with the adjacent neighbor and are working to resolve the issues they have raised. He said that the neighbors mentioned the guard rail on the south side of the balcony, and they intend to retain the solid railing that exists from the previous remodel, thus ensuring privacy. He said that they have also addressed privacy issues by working on a landscape scheme, and he presented a sketch showing a row of trees to separate the two properties. He said that they also want to install trees along the separating property line adjacent to the fence. He said that he has talked to the Fire Marshal about positioning trees and the Fire Marshal approved these locations. He said that they would plant strawberry trees that would reach 10 to 12 feet in height and provide privacy between the two properties. He said that they hoped to install the trees very soon after receiving a response from the DRB so the trees can start growing before proceeding with other parts of the project. Chair Tollini said that he understood the hardship regarding the garage, but asked for clarification of the hardship for the family room and courtyard additions. Mr. Heckmann said that the plane of the building is TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 3/17/11 continuous for 85 to 90 feet, and the building needed something to resolve that tedium. He felt that that was an important design element to address. Boardmember Weller asked if there were any other hardships that would be remedied. Mr. Mickel answered that most of the time their cars are on the street and it would be nice to have some storage so they could get cars into the garage. He said that there was a hardship regarding the functionality and flow of the front room. He said that the kitchen space is moderately sized; both he and his wife are avid cooks and they are tripping over each other in the current space. He said that the additional floor area would really enhance the functionality of the home. Vice-Chair Kricensky asked if the railing glass would be opaque, and Mr. Heckman said it would be and one would not be able to see through it at all. The public hearing was opened. Joan Hess said she that said she understood that the Board cannot discuss the addition into the side yard setback that would face her property, the Board's decision would affect her property value and privacy. She thought that the overall design would be a significant improvement to the home, but she did not approve of the second story windows. She referred to a photo showing that her home has three bedroom windows on that side of the house. She stated that the Town had previously required a privacy wall on the upper deck of the subject house as well as minimum windows on that side of the house to protect the privacy of her residence. She said that her privacy in the middle bedroom would be compromised. She said that she and her neighbors are so close they can see each other in bathrooms and bedrooms, and they need to preserve the privacy between the two houses. She also felt that light pollution from the proposed window would affect her bedroom. She said that the trees required by the Fire District would have to be directly on the property line. She said that these trees would decrease the natural light and sky view for all three of her bedrooms and be detrimental to the vegetation on her property line. Mr. Heckmann said it is difficult to resolve issues raised by the neighbor when they cannot discuss issues related to the side yard setback variance, and he suggested the bay portion of the window was not as important as the window itself. He said that they could remove the bay window and just have windows on that side of the house. Planning Manager Watrous said they can discuss the windows if the bay window is removed from the application, therefore eliminating the need for the variance. Mr. Heckmann said that their objective was to make this a productive meeting, and therefore, they removed the request for the bay window and left only the window portion in their application. Chair Tollini confirmed that the bay window portion of the application had been removed. Rob Hess said that he was very disturbed by this project and felt like they were being rushed through this process. He said that they had only recently received plans for the project and he suggested any consideration of the window wait until next week after they have had a chance to discuss this project with the owners. He said that they would like to work out a solution, but he felt that the proposal would have a significant impact on their house. Boardmember Weller said that he had personally been involved in negotiating with a neighbor regarding _ improvements and he detected a neighborly sense between the two parties. He suggested that the applicant and Board be willing to continue this hearing entirely until the April 7, 2011 meeting so the neighbors can come to some agreement on a mutually satisfying solution. Planning Manager Watrous said TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 6 3/17/11 that there may be other issues related to the project design that the Board may want to address at this time so the applicant could address them before the April 7, 2011 meeting. Mr. Mickel said that they have been neighbors a long time and he would like to resolve this issue. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Emberson supported continuance of the application. She thought that the front of the property would look much nicer. She suggested that skylights provide a good deal of light and may be a solution instead of a window in the bathroom. She said that it would be easier for her to get behind these variances because the project is more of an infill. She could see the hardship of needing a garage that can fit two cars and liked the plan, but appreciated that the neighbors have some issues with the side yard. Boardmember Weller stated his preference for the parties to work out a solution on the window issue that satisfies both of them. He was concerned about privacy of the neighbors and suggested reducing the size of the bathroom window. He was not as concerned about the light issue, but more about privacy. If the neighbors cannot reach an agreement, he said that he would suggest reducing the size of the window or limiting the view through the window. He agreed with Boardmember Emberson that the lack of utility of the garage was a practical difficulty. He said that he had more trouble with the practical difficulty finding for the kitchen's modest size. Vice-Chair Kricensky agreed with staff's comments that there was sufficient evidence to support the floor area exception. Regarding the excess lot coverage, he felt that the kitchen was very substandard for this area and for this size of a house. He agreed that the small addition to the garage was necessary to make it more usable. He could make the hardship finding for lot coverage because the only other area to add on would be on a second story and that would not be an optimal solution. He said that placing the additions in the requested locations made more sense and would not impact anyone. He agreed with the applicant that the additions would make the house function better. Chair Tollini said that the proposed bathroom window would probably not be a problem if the neighbors' windows were not bedroom windows. He suggested the window did not need to go as low as proposed and suggested other solutions. He encouraged direct dialogue between the neighbors to resolve the window issue before the next DRB meeting. He also said landscaping should already exist and suggested planting the trees. He agreed with Vice-Chair Kricensky on the floor area exception findings, agreed that the garage is very shallow and creates a hardship, and that the lot size creates a hardship for lot coverage. He said that he would still like more information to make a decision on the hardship findings for the other additions into the front yard setback. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kricensky) to continue the application for 112 Howard Drive to the April 7, 2011 meeting. Vote: 4-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #3 OF THE 3/3/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Emberson) to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2011 meeting as written. Vote: 4-0. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #4 7 3/17/11 //,6 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard April 7, 2011 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #5r TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM Present: Chair Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky and Boardmember Chong Absent: Boardmembers Emberson and Weller Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Harper OLD BUSINESS 1. 112 HOWARD DRIVE: File No. 21102; Rob Mickel & Marilyn Zimmerman, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front yard setback and excess lot coverage and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to add 378 square feet to the home by expanding the garage and front entry of the home, and incorporate a larger kitchen at the rear of the home. The additions would increase the total floor area to 3,375 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio of 3,323 square feet. The additions would result in a lot coverage of 24.6% which exceeds the maximum permitted in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). The expansion at the front entry would further encroach into the front yard setback, for a total reduced front yard setback of 23'4" in lieu of the minimum 30' required in the RO-2 zone. APN 039-141-01 Approved PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 4 MCCART COURT: File No. 711022; Bruce Lavine and Lisa Zimmerman, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct 864 square feet of additions to the main and upper floors of the existing house, convert existing living space into an attached garage, change the roof design and add 5 skylights. The additions would increase the total floor area to 3,592 square feet, which exceeds the maximum floor area ratio of 3,408 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-171-22. Continued to 515111 3. 1915 STRAITS VIEW DRIVE: File No. 21101; John Jiang & Ning Lang, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to construct a 4,099 square foot house with a 3,612 square foot basement, along with an attached two-car garage, swimming pool, spa and new retaining walls and landscaping. The proposed lot coverage of 4,151 square feet (19.1 would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. APN 038-301-35 Continued to 515111 Action Minutes #4 4/7/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1 MINUTES 4. Regular Meeting of March 17, 2011 Approved ADJOURNMENT At 9:35 PM Action Minutes #4 4/7/11 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2 DIGEST CL% Media Contact: COUNTY OF MARIN NEWS RELEASE Craig Tackabery (415) 499-6582, ctackabery@co.marin.ca.us Study confirms more bikes and feet on the streets, again March 21, 2011 The County of Marin Department of Public Works recently completed its fourth annual count and survey to find out how many people are walking and biking in Marin County, as part of the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program. This effort collected data at 23 locations in the cities, towns, and unincorporated areas of the County. A summary report comparing the outcomes of the Fall, 2010 counts with those conducted in 2009, 2008, and 2007, and a previous count in 1999 is now available on the Walk Bike Marin webpage: htti2://www.walkbikemarin.org/resource library reports.php. The results of these counts show that weekday bicycling rates increased an average of 46 percent between 2007 and 2010 and 135 percent since 1999. During weekends, bicycling increased an average of 85 percent between since 2007 and 159 percent between 1999 and 2010. Weekday walking rates increased 10 percent between 2007 and 2010 while weekend walking rates increased 34 percent between 2007 and 2010. Supervisor Susan Adams, President of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, commented, "Seeing the increases in walking and bicycling confirms that our investments in walking and bicycling facilities are paying dividends in improving mobility and enhancing our communities." Public Works Director Farhad Mansourian added, "We are pleased to have the financial resources to be building these facilities that Marin residents and visitors are using." This data will continue to be useful as the remaining NTPP projects are completed and show the impact of the Pilot Project and other improvements to walking and bicycling facilities. The Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program is a federal transportation program which provides $25 million each to Marin County and three other communities in the Midwest to evaluate whether construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, along with educational and outreach programs, can encourage bicycling and walking as a means to reduce automobile trips. F: 7raf cWTPPIMediaiPress Releases Counts Report Press Release 3-11.doc DIGEST CELEBRATE I:NTERNATION COMPOST WEEK Tour Marin County's own OMRI-listed compost facility and discover the benefits of compost and mulch produced locally from 100% recycled materials. Stephen Andrews, a Bay-Friendly Gardening Coalition, UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Master Gardener instructor, and UC Berkeley soil scientist will lead a free hands-on workshop exploring compost and mulch applications. Learn how you can: • Cut Landscape Costs • Suppress Weeds Naturally • Prevent Storm Water Pollution • Reduce Water Consumption • Eliminate Chemical Fertilizers • Create a Healthier Environment When: Where: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 9 am - 11 am - Workshop 11 am - Noon - Compost Tour Redwood Landfill 8950 Redwood Highway Novato, CA 94945 Workshop is designed for elected officials, public works, parks & rec, procure- ment and facilities managers of municipalities and public agencies. RSVP via e-mail to earthcare@wm.com. Space is limited. Questions, call 415-892-2851, ext. 10. Free seminar is hosted by Redwood Landfill & Recycling Center and WM EarthCare, locally sourced and produced, 100% recycled compost and mulch. Visit www.wmeorthcore.com for more information. CARE DIGEST MARCH 31, 2011 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY: Proposed Modifications to the SmartMeter"A Program (A.11-03-014) What are the proposed modifications to the SmartMeterTm program application? On March 24, 2011, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed proposed modifications to the SmartMeterTm program in response to California Public Utility Commissioner Michael Peevey's request that PG&E provide a proposal that addresses certain customers' concerns about SmartMeterTm radio frequency (RF) communications. If approved, PG&E's modifications to the SmartMeterTM program would offer residential electric and gas customers the opportunity to choose to have PG&E turn off the radios in their electric and gas meters, thus maintaining the benefits and efficiencies of continued deployment of SmartMeterTM technology, while specifically addressing those customers' concerns about the RF signals from their meters. Participation would. be voluntary and participating customers would pay an additional up-front fee, along with a monthly charge in the form of a fixed fee or a rate adder to support this customized solution. Modifications to the SmartMeter7m Program & Costs If approved, customers who choose to participate in the modifications to the SmartMeterTm program would pay to have PG&E turn off their SmartMeterlm radio communications. Participation is entirely voluntary for PG&E's residential electric and natural gas customers, including bundled service, direct access and community choice aggregation customers. Customers will have some choice as to how rates and fees are structured, but in general terms they would pay a one-time up-front fee, plus a monthly charge in the form of either a monthly fixed charge or a per-kWh (or per-therm, if a gas-only customer) rate adder. In addition, customers would owe an exit fee when they move from or leave the premise. The up-front fee will vary depending on whether the participant chooses to pay the fee all at once or over a two- year period. Rates will vary depending on the -fee chosen and whether the participant wishes to pay via a fixed monthly charge or a volumetric (per-kWh or per-therm) rate adder. Rates are based on PG&E's unit costs to turn off the radio, manually read the meters every month, modify IT systems, provide information to customers on the program through call centers and other channels, and help reinforce the existing SmartMeterlm network to compensate for any degradation that turning off the radio causes. PG&E will provide an illustrative allocation of the proposed rate changes for customers who choose to participate in this program, in a bill insert to be mailed to directly to customers, beginning in mid-April. Rates will not change for customers who choose not to participate in this program. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDD/TTY (speech-hearing impaired), call 1-800-652-4712. Para mfis detalles Ilame al 1-800-660-6789; P% erff R % 1-800-893-9555. You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company SmartMeter Customer Choice Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. APR - 5 2011 c. The CPUC Process The California Public Utility Commission's (CPUC) Division of Ratepayer Advocates (D RA) and the Energy Division will review this application. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross- examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. If you would like to learn how you can participate in this proceeding or if you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the number of the application (A.11-03-014) to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's SmartMeter Customer choice application and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-noon, and on the CPUC's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/pucl.