HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-06-03TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
Week of May 27 -June 3, 2011
Tiburon
1. Update - Nicholas Nguyen - Del Mar Valley Undergrounding Assessment
District - Service Connection Diagrams and Update of Schedule of Activities
2. Email - Garrett Todd - Cost of Refuse Collection in the Town of Tiburon
3. Letter - Judy Arnold - Renew Agreement for Joint Participation in CDBG
Program
4. Email - Harvey Rogers - Progress Report for May 2011 at Blackie's Garden
5. Application to Planning Commission - Scott Hoppe
ALrendas & Minutes
6. Agenda - Design Review Board - June 2, 2011
7. Minutes - Planning Commission - April 27, 2011
8. Minutes - Design Review Board - May 19, 2011
9. Action Minutes - Planning Commission - May 25, 2011
10. Action Minutes - Design Review Board - June 2, 2011
11. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - June 8, 2011
Regional
o
a) Save the Date - Annual Moose Feed -12/9/11
b) Request for Support - Angel Island Immigration Station
c) Request for Support - Helen Vine Detox Center (The Vine)
d) Comcast California - Reprint of February Issue
e) Public Notice - Rezoning & Strawberry Community Plan Amendment
Agendas & Minutes
f) None
* Council Only
Date: May 24, 2011 DIGEST
To: Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding District Members
Subject: Del Mar Valley Undergrounding Assessment District - Service Connection
Diagrams and Update of Schedule of Activities
Each property owner has the responsibility to install vacant conduits from your home to your property line
where the service connection boxes will be located. The respective utility companies will "wire" the vacant
conduits at the end of the project. To assist you building your private service utility laterals, enclosed is a
revised private property diagram (referred to as R-Sheet) showing where your property's underground power,
telephone and cable lines are to enter connection boxes at or near your property boundary.
The location of the connection boxes are driven by the utility companies (PG&E, AT&T and Comcast) and are
not readily relocated as they have a "domino effect" if moved. Please contact the Town (Nick Nguyen at 415-
435-7388, or e-mail at nnguyenL_r ci.tiburon.ca.us) prior to June 8"' if you have a question regarding the R-sheet.
The contractor you hire to construct the service laterals should be able to understand the diagram.
The following is our current project schedule:
• Finalize all maps Mid June 2011
• Bid Project June 17, 2011
• Bid Opening July 14, 2011
• Council award of construction project to a contractor July 20 or Aug. 3, 2011
• Contract executed End of August 2011
• Property owners should be contracting for service laterals and get Building Permits August onwards
• Begin construction of joint trench Sept. 2011
• Complete construction of joint trench Feb 2012
• Utility companies' conversion period begins March 2012
• Complete utility companies' conversions and remove overhead lines Oct 2012
*Note that between August and November 2011 you should be installing your service laterals.
Enclosed as a courtesy is a list of contractors we've had dealings with in the past. The Town does not endorse
any of them. Also enclosed are specifications from the utilities to construct the laterals. A Building Permit is
required; the base permit fee is $217. The Building Department can be reached at 415-435-7357 to apply.
The Town will need to know your contractor and schedule. The Town and the utilities must inspect each
utility trench prior to backfill. Additionally, you must have your electrician available on "PG&E conversion
day" to snake the active power service conversion from overhead to underground. The Town will work with
PG&E to provide property owners adequate notice of the intended date of conversion.
Our project coordinator, Mr. Al Petrie, will be available to assist homeowners through the overall process. If
you have project questions after June 8, 2011, please contact him at 707-974-9193, or at alp(a-),csgengr.com.
Best Regards,
Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer
Attachments: Property R-Sheet, List of Contractors, Utility Cover/Clearance Requirements & Specifications
Del Mar Valley Undergrounding Assessment District
LIST OF ELECTRICAL, GENERAL, OR ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS
*Contractors that participated in previous utility underground project or have recently
worked in the Town of Tiburon. We are not suggesting anyone in particular, but merely
providing the list as a courtesy.
1. Randy Vignola, Republic-Seimens, (415) 884-3000
2. Dave Dennis, MB Electric, (707) 792-8100
3. Maggiora & Ghilotti, (415) 459-8640
4. WB Electric, (415) 898-1400
5. Robin Cantaruti, Cantaruti Electric, (415) 577-5199
6. WK McLellan, (415) 884-3000
7. Tennyson Electric, (925) 606-1038
8. St. Francis Electric, (510) 639-0639
9. Ryan Strong, Ghilotti Bros, (415) 454-7011
10. Massa Construction, (415) 459-0400
11. Ted Wray Builder, (415) 435-5776
12. Petersen-Mullin, (415) 846-6492
13. John Blythe, (415)-302-0344
14. Ed Wise Electric, (415)-892-5902
15. Ed Scott Electric, (415)-850-9744
16. Dan Hadley, Hadley Contractors, (415)-789-2012
17. Linscott Engineering Contractors, (415)-492-1755
Town of Tiburon
CONDUIT REQUIREMENTS
COLOR: PG&E, Telephone and Cable conduit to be white in color. PG&E conduit to
include red 3-inch wide "'PG&E Electric Line Conduit" plastic marking tape.
WORKMANSHIP: Conduit shall be homogenous throughout and free from voids,
cracks, inclusions and other defects, and shall be as uniform as conunercially practicable
in color. density and other physical characteristics.
MARKING: PVC conduit shall be marked in accordance with the latest revisions of UL
651 and NEMATC 2. Thee shall be traceably; to plant location, country of origin, date,
time, shift. and machine of manufacture. The markings shall be legible and permanent.
SIZES:
PG&E - 3" ID Schedule 40 or better
Cable - 2" ID Schedule 40 or better
Telephone - 2" ID Schedule 40 or better
MINIMUM SWEEPS:
Vertical - 24" 90 degree sweep towards service panel must have 24" minimum
ground cover to final grade. Conduits to be capped.
Horizontal - 36" Maximum of two (2) - 90 degree horizontal sweeps. See PG&E
Greenbook.
COVER, BEDDING, STAKES & PI.JLL LT.NE/BOWES:
1) See belour Minimum Cover and Clearance requirements. PG-&E Greenbook standards
govern. When the joint trench just involves electric power, telephone and cable,
minimuin cover and clearance requirements can be net with 30" deep and 18" wide
trench.
2) Two (2.) inch sand bedding required in bottom of trench.
a) Place wooden stake at end of capped conduit extension into public right of way. Stake
to extend more then. 6" above existing ground.
4) Pull Line: t.-) be ok'?w -qu rte;- (%4) hi-ch plastic rope, No. 12, pull wire, weather proof pull
tapk or as providcd its. PG&E' Greenboo - Pull. Boxes. if needled, p-r utility stawidards.
"'LFAR I'
I r6114 z' M t.
MINIMUM
HORIZONTAL
CLEARANCE
H,
MINIMUM COVER
T
C
S
P
SIDEWALK/UNPAVED
STREET
L
(SIGNAL/SL)
12"
12"
1 "
3$1
24
3 D"
T
(TELEPHONE)
11,
12»
12,F
24,•
30"'
C
(CATV)
1"
1231
12"
24" '
30"
S
(ELECT. SECOND)
12"
12"
-
3"
24"
30"
P
(ELECT. PRIMARY)
24 "
30"
LEGEND
P G 8c E
F
7 7 E-7 PRIMARY SPLICE BOX
® TRANSFORMER PAD
® SUBSURFACE TRANSFORMER (FULL TRAFFIC COVER)
F57, E-5 PRIMARY SPLICE BOX
r- 3J E-3 SECONDARY SPLICE BOX
C2~ SECONDARY SPLICE BOX
LJ SECONDARY SPLICE BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER)
SBC
T8
T-8
SERVICE
BOX
FT 6--l
T-6
SERVICE
BOX
T5
T-5
SERVICE
BOX
T3
T-3
SERVICE
BOX
0
T-3
SERVICE
BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER)
®
T-2
SERVICE
BOX
T-1
SERVICE
BOX
COMCAST CABLE
0 B-36 TV SPLICE BOX
V- B-36 TV SPLICE BOX (FULL TRAFFIC COVER)
® B-48 TV SPLICE BOX
Ps POWER SUPPLY PAD MOUNTED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPERTY LINE
BOX SIZE
4'6" x 896" x 6'D
60"
x 62"
x 18"
3'X
5'X
36"D
3' x
5' x
3'6 " D
24"
x 36"
x 30"D
17"
x 30"
x 26"D
17"
x 30"
x 26"D
48" x 78" x 36"D
36"
x 60"
x 36"D
30"
x 60"
x 2499D
20"
x 42"
x 20"D
20"
x 42"
x 20"D
11"
x 30"
x 18"D
119$
x17"
x12"D
17" x 30" x 18"D
17" x 30" x 18"D
48" x 30" x 12"D
W/2-10" EXTENSIONS
4 OF 7,6 TOWN OF TIBURON SHEET
CSWST2 I I . `0 DEL MAR VALLEY TYPICAL LEGEND
CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING SHEET
45 Leveroni Court tel: 415.883.9850
Novato, CA 94949 fax: 415.883.9835 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT own
MAY 2DI 1 OF
Peggy Curran DIGEST 0940
From: Garrett Todd [toddagarrett@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:11 PM
To: Peggy Curran
Subject: Tiburon Refuse Collection Costs
Hello Peggy,
I am a resident of Tiburon living at 11 Via Paraiso West and have some real questions about the cost
of refuse collection in the town.
We have a second home in Sonoma and in 2010 paid $348 for the year. The cost in Tiburon in 2010
for the exact same service was $1,164. This is $816 more, or +234% more.
I would appreciate knowing why the Town of Tiburon is having their residents pay such a much
higher price for the same weekly service. And now, Mill Valley Refuse Service wants to have a price
increase of +13% on top of this already huge higher cost, versus Sonoma with Waste Management..
Does the Town competitively bid out for these services? If not, why not? Is Mill Valley Refuse the
low bid company? Can anyone explain why there is a huge price differential between these two
towns? I would hope the Town Council would not approve any increase until some of these points
are clarified.
Please send on my e mail to Mayor Jeff Slavitz, the other Town Council members, and also put it in
their packets of material for when they meet on this issue. which I think must be pretty soon as the
increase is supposed to go in to effect July 1.
The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Todd Garrett
415 435 9680
JUDY
A NOLD
SUPERVISOR
May 12, 2011
Mayor Jeff Slavitz,
CDBG Priority Setting Committee Representative
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mayor Slavitz:
DIGEST 30
RECEIVED
MAY 17 2011
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
Since 1975, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program has provided over $63
million to Marin County communities for housing, community facility, and public service
projects benefiting lower income people. In the 2010 funding cycle, CDBG provided $1.7
million for housing, community facility, and public service activities, and the HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME) provided an additional $1.2 million for affordable housing
projects. These programs have been uniquely effective in Marin because they combine a steady
stream of federal funding with local control over funding criteria and project selection. In short,
CDBG and HOME give us federal funds for important projects selected by the people of Marin.
Marin County qualifies for CDBG formula funding because cities and the county have, through
cooperation agreements, joined together to receive funding as an "urban county." These
agreements must be renewed every three years. The CDBG cooperation agreements will expire
this year, and in order for us to continue receiving funds for fiscal years 2012-2014, it is
necessary for each city and the county to renew their joint participation by formally executing a
new cooperation agreement by June 30, 2011. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) requires the county to inform each city that it may elect to be excluded
from the urban county, and any city which chooses to be excluded must notify both the county
and HUD in writing by
June 3, 2011. An election to be excluded will be effective for the entire three-year period for
which the urban county qualifies, unless the excluded city specifically elects to be included in a
subsequent year for the remainder of the urban county's three-year qualification period. Any
future change in election must be done in a manner and by a date to be specified by HUD.
If a city excludes itself from the urban county, programs within its borders will no longer qualify
for the CDBG funding which the urban county receives automatically on a formula basis each
year from the federal government. Unless it has central city designation, a city must have at least
50,000 population to qualify independently for a CDBG entitlement formula allocation directly
from HUD. While a city remains part of an urban county, it is ineligible to apply for grants
under the State-administered CDBG program. The State-administered CDBG program requires
a competitive application process that does not automatically provide funds on a formula basis.
Marin County Board of Supervisors • 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 329 • San Rafael, CA 94903
415.499.7331 • Fax 415.499.3645 • TTY 415.499.6172 • www.co.marin.ca.us/bos
Paid for by Friends of Judy Arnold, FPPC# 1277176
~ •vr
If a city remains with the urban county, it is automatically also a participant in the HOME and
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) programs if the urban county receives HOME and ESG
funding, respectively, and may receive HOME and ESG formula allocations only as part of the
urban county. HUD will permit urban counties and cities that are part of the urban county to
apply for State HOME and ESG funds, if the State allows.
To continue to receive maximum CDBG and HOME funding, it is crucial that all the cities in
Marin renew their commitment to the CDBG program.
We will send the new CDBG cooperation agreements to city managers shortly. If you have any
questions or concerns, please contact me or Roy Bateman, Community Development
Coordinator, at 499-6698.
With your participation, the cities and the county can continue their impressive 37-year record of
cooperation and achievement in the use of Community Development Block Grant funds.
S' cerely,
dy old, Chair
'on y Setting Committee
Community Development Block Grant Program
cc: ,leggy Curran, Tiburon Town Manager
*
D114
Peggy Curran
From: Harvey Rogers [harvnan2@sprynet.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Peggy Curran
Subject: PROGESS REPORT FOR MAY AT BACKIE'S GARDEN
Hi Peggy
BLACKIE'S GARDEN
PROGRESS REPORT FOR MAY 2011
In May Tiburon Public Works completed revamping our irrigation
system (at no charge to us) It now works great.
We have had a lot of weeds to take care of due to the late rains .
We have had many volunteer weeding sessions.
Much much more is in bloom now. There will be many blooms starting
in other plants in July & continuing to frost. If any of you haven't seen our
garden for a while you are in for a pleasant surprise.
Submitted June 2 by HARVEY ROGERS
6/2/2011
Page 1 of 2
Diane Crane Iacopi Jeae
From: Diane Crane lacopi
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:00 PM
To: 'Scott Hoppe'
Subject: RE: Serving on the planning commission
Hi, Scott,
I just spoke with Miles Berger and told him of your dilemma and unfortunate disqualification (living JUST outside
the town limits).
There are some other commissions that don't have strict residency requirements - Heritage & Arts Commission,
Parks, Open Space and Trails (POST), and one that is being formed in the near future, Building Appeals Board.
If you are interested in any of these, I will let you know when there are pending vacancies.
Thanks again for your time and interest.
Diane Crane lacopi
Tiburon Town Clerk
From: Scott Hoppe [mailto:smarthausassociates@gmaii.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 20114:25 PM
To: Diane Crane Iacopi
Subject: Re: Serving on the planning commission
Hi Diane,
Thank you for the prompt response! I have completed the application, and look forward to meeting with
the Council.
Scott
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Diane Crane Iacopi <DCrane_(u~ci.tiburon.ca.us> wrote:
Yes. Here is the Vacancy Notice and Application. Residency in the Town
is a requirement.
Once I receive your application, I can schedule an interview either on
June 7 (a special meeting) or June 15 (regular Council meeting).
I expect the Council will make an appointment on June 15.
Best,
Dian Crane lacopi
Tiburon To\.Nin Clerk
-----Original Message-----
From: Smart Haus Associates [mailto:smartliausassociates(c-i.gmailcom]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:57 PM
To: Diane Crane Iacopi
5/31/2011
Page 2 of 2
Subject: Serving on the planning commission
Hello Diane,
I attended last night's meeting, and understand that there is going to
be a vacancy on the Planning Commission. As a member of the community
with experience in environmental consulting, land development, and
sustainable design, I think I would make a good candidate to serve on
the board. May I apply?
Scott Hoppe
415-378-5512
Sent from my Wad
Best Regards,
W. Scott Hoppe
sinaa haus associates
Direct: 415-378-5512
http //smarthaus_. ne
5/31/2011
TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMISSION BOARD & COMMITTEE
APPLICATION
The Town Council considers appointments to various Town commissions,
boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and
unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in
Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your
interest in serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or
experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of
this form and returning it to Town Hall. The application form can also be found
on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an
informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application
will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
Diane Crane Iacopi
Town Clerk
AREAS OF INTEREST
Please Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order
(#I Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING
DESIGN REVIEW
HERITAGE & ARTS
LIBRARY
PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS
JT. RECREATION COMMITTEE
. 2 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING
1
PERSONAL DATA
Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted;
Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, if necessary.
NAME: _ W. Scott Hoppe
Street & Mailing ADDRESS: 11 Salt Landing. PO Box 905, Tiburon, CA 94920
e-mail = scott@smarthausassociates.com
TELEPHONE: Home: 415.378.5512 Work: 877-652-7609 Fax No.
PROPERTY OWNERS [E ASSOC. (If applicable)
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) _2_ DATE SUBMITTED: May 26, 2011_
REASONS FOR SELECTING
YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST
[ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES, IF NECESSARY]
Please see attachment 1
APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS
AND EXPERIENCE
[ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES, IF NECESSARY]
Please see attachment 2
----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use
Date Application Received:
Interview Date:
Appointed to: _
(Commission, Board or Committee) (Date)
Date Term Expires:
S: dcrane: comm. app (4105)
2
Length of Term: _
TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Attachment 1
I would like to continue my efforts to improve the community where I live by serving
where my experience can best be of service. Having recently moved back to Tiburon, i
would like to serve on the Planning Commission and the Disaster Preparedness
Program.
Planning Commission
As a Marin native, growing up in our sublime natural environment was one of the
principle reasons why I studied locally to become a Geologist. I worked for a decade as
an environmental consultant, principally on remediation of hazardous waste sites, but
also on land use and wetlands issues on both coasts of the country. Concurrent with
and continuing onward from environmental consulting, I worked in Massachusetts and
Virginia to re-commission historic structures up to 200 years in age with a concentration
on historical preservation and revitalization of urban neighborhoods. I returned to
southern Marin County in 2006 to raise my two daughters, apply my real estate
development skills, and be an active member of the community which my family has
been a part of for some three generations. Currently, I am working to promote
sustainable home energy use and distributed generation of solar power.
Working for two decades in the field of environmental consulting, real estate
development, and renewable energy services over a diverse geographic region
provides me with a valuable perspective on land planning issues. I would like to lend
my perspective to the Planning Commission in order to preserve our natural
environment while developing our resources to their highest and best use. As land use
issues need to be addressed in the coming years, I think that having the perspective
that comes from my diverse work experience and exposure to the historic built
environment on a national level will make me a valued member of the Tiburon Planning
Commission.
Disaster Preparedness Program
I have always felt the compulsion to assist a friend in need, and sought to be prepared
for natural disaster when it strikes. I have responded to emergency releases from fuel
spills, and am trained in health and safety issues and first aid. Living at the far west end
of Tiburon, I may be of use if the Town does not currently have enough program
participants in the area.
TOWN OF TIBURON
COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION
Attachment 2
Applicable Qualifications and Experience to Serve on the Planning Commission
I hold a BS degree in Geology from Sonoma State University, as such I am familiar with
our geologic setting, geomorphology, slope stability, environmental, and other pertinent
historical land use issues.
have worked as an environmental consultant for a decade principally investigating
historical releases to the environment, but also evaluating storm water management,
wetlands preservation, land use restrictions, and other land development issues.
I have re-commissioned historic structures up to 200 years in age as the Principal of a
real estate re-development business. The portfolio included re-commissioning of a
commercial building in the historic seacoast City of Newburyport, Massachusetts to
increase office capacity, refurbishment of multi-family in a blighted neighborhood
adjacent to an abandoned mill site, rebuilding of a historic row-house in Richmond,
Virginia that was otherwise slated for demolition, and establishment of an urban
enterprise to bring commerce back to a historic neighborhood.
I have developed real estate in conformance with Marin's hillside design guidelines and
participated in the design review process in the town of Tiburon for a parcel of land on
Corinthian Island that was plagued with serious site constraints to achieve an
approvable design.
am currently working to promote sustainable energy use for residential home owners
in the PG&E service territory as the Principal of smart haus associates, a company that
provides free energy audits to home owners and will install home area networks as part
of our national effort to create the smart grid.
I believe the culmination of my environmental, real estate re-development, and
sustainable design experience make me an ideal candidate to serve on the Tiburon
Planning Commission.
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 /00
Design Review Board
June 2, 2011
7:00 P.M.
~¢k
.:f ?1*
4
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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
1. 111 TAYLOR ROAD: File No. 711003; Westley and Jojo Stauffer, Owners; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling. The applicant
proposes to construct a new 5,449 square foot, three-story house with 780 square feet of
garage space on a currently vacant lot. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-071-04. [DW]
2. 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 711041; Zelinsky Properties LLC, Owners;
Armstrong Development Properties LLC, Applicant; Site Plan and Architectural Review
for construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building. The applicant
proposes changes to a commercial building to establish a drug store and pharmacy, with a
future retail tenant. Exterior changes include a new drive-through pharmacy and canopy,
parking lot modifications, two new walls, landscaping, light and storefront changes.
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-88 & 89. [DW]
MINT TTF Q,
3. Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011
ADJOURNMENT
Design Review Board
June 2, 2011
Page 1
7,
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES NO. 1009
April 27, 2011
Regular Meeting
Town of Tiburon Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
Chair Frymier called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Chair Frymier, Commissioners Corcoran and Tollini
Absent: Commissioners Doyle and Kunzweiler
11Q"'~ A*&
14
0;k
Staff Present: Planning Manager Watrous, Community Development Director Anderson and
Minutes Clerk Levison
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING:
Vice-Chair Corcoran reminded the public of the following upcoming events:
• April 30th - Salmon Release at Blackie's Pasture
• May 7th - Walk Your History
OLD BUSINESS:
1. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE #30701; ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON APPROXIMATELY 52 ACRES; PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT #20; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01
Planning Manager Watrous presented a brief staff report, noting that the conditions of approval,
as modified by the consensus of the Commission at the April 13th meeting, were included as
Exhibits 1 and 2. He also noted that the Commission specified no building heights for Lots 2, 3,
and 4. Those listed in the table on draft Exhibit 2 were estimates based on surrounding homes
and he said that the Commission should indicate whether those were appropriate or specify
something different.
Vice-Chair Corcoran referred to Finding K(5) of the resolution, which describes a reduction in
residential use areas on Lots 5 and 6, but was not specific. Mr. Watrous referred him to
Condition 3(b) of Exhibit 1 of the resolution which, in turn, refers to Sheet SP-30. He confirmed
that staff believed the reference to SP-30 to be sufficient.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 27, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 PAGE I
Chair Frymier referred to Condition of Approval No. 29, which speaks to the removal of junk
materials, and said she that found it to be rather open-ended. Mr. Watrous explained that this was
a fairly standard condition for precise development plans that would be conducted during
installation of the subdivision improvements. He said that staff was not aware of any specifics
that needed to be addressed as part of this application and this was intended to clean up the site
from older improvements that are no longer necessary.
Chair Frymier opened the public hearing.
Scott Hochstrasser, representing the applicant, stated that the resolution under consideration
represented a defective decision of the Commission. He said that the resolution lacked the
required facts and evidence to demonstrate a meaningful change between what the applicant
submitted and the Commission decided.
Chair Frymier closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tollini respectfully disagreed with the applicant, stating that the changes required
by the Commission would have significant and meaningful impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood, views, and the project's compliance with the Town's General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. She referred to Finding K(4) and said her rationale was also based on General Plan
Policy OSC-12, and to add that policy reference to the finding. She requested removal of the
brackets surrounding "except Lot 1" in Condition of Approval No. 7 and said she had no strong
feelings with regard to maximum building heights for Lots 2, 3, and 4.
Vice-Chair Corcoran stated that he could support the resolution.
Chair Frymier requested clarification on the height alternatives for Lots 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Watrous
stated that the original application indicated Lot 2 with a maximum height of 23 feet 6 inches,
and Lots 3 and 4 with a maximum height of 29 feet. He said that at one point staff recommended
reduced heights of 16 feet for Lots 2 and 3. He noted that Lot 4 in its new location is a fairly
interior lot and staff did not feel it appropriate to place a restrictive height limit on this lot. The
Commission agreed that Lots 2 and 3, which the Commission did not reduce in overall square
footage, could remain at the originally proposed height and determined that a 25 foot height limit
was appropriate for Lot 4.
Chair Frymier extended her compliments to staff on their application of the Commission's
direction at the prior meeting. She too respectfully disagreed with the applicant's assertions
regarding the Commission's decision.
ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to adopt the resolution, as amended, recommending
conditional approval of the Precise Development Plan to the Town Council. Motion carried: 3-0.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 27. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 PAGE 2
NEW BUSINESS:
1. 1501 AND 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD: ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON A
REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RDEIR) FOR THE
PROPOSED BELVEDERE-TIBURON PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION
PROJECT; FILE #S GPA 2008-02, MCA 2008-14,40801 AND 30804; Assessor
Parcel Numbers 058-171-92, 93, 94 and a portion of 058-171-62
Community Development Director Anderson presented the staff report, stating the Library
Expansion Project's DEIR was prepared and released in June 2010. When the Response to
Comment document was being prepared, it became clear that recirculation of certain portions
would be required. The Town's consultant prepared an RDEIR that updated and revised certain
sections of the original DEIR and those sections are the focus of comments tonight for this item.
The three areas identified as requiring revision and recirculation were biological resources,
transportation/parking, and alternatives sections. The other topical impact areas of the project
were adequately addressed in the original DEIR. The Response to Comments will address the
comments made to those latter sections in the original DEIR, as well as responding to comments
received tonight on the three recirculated sections described above.
The key findings of the RDEIR were that the original DEIR had underestimated the biological
impacts of the project on the marsh and the sensitive species that use or inhabit it, and that
without creation of a larger buffer between the development and the marsh, there would be
significant and unavoidable biological impacts. The RDEIR also concluded that parking impacts,
which were originally identified as being significant and unavoidable, could be reduced to less
than significant levels with certain mitigation measures. With respect to alternatives, a new
Alternative D was developed that included shrinking the project and creating a larger space
between it and the Town Hall building. That alternative served to reduce visual impacts to the
extent that the remaining views to the ridge would be expanded over the original project design,
and it also reduced biological impacts to less than significant levels with mitigation, according to
the RDEIR. The project and all the development alternatives studied would still result in
significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, consistency with an adopted air quality plan, and
temporary noise and ground borne vibration increases due to construction.
Director Anderson noted that staff has received very few comments to date on the RDEIR. The
public comment period will remain open until May 9th. Staff anticipates the RDEIR issue will
return to the Commission at its May 25th meeting, at which the Commission will consider the
issue of whether recirculation is required based on the new comments received on the RDEIR.
Assuming that no recirculation is required, the consultant will then prepare the Final EIR. The
Final EIR and project merits will return to the Commission for hearing this summer.
Chair Frymier opened the public hearing.
Deborah Mazzolini, Belvedere-Tiburon Library Director, said the Library is very appreciative
and is grateful for the community interest and comments received to date. All comments have
been helpful in focusing on a building design that the community can both love and respect.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 27. 2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 PAGE 3
Connie Pierce, Cove Road, expressed concerns related to general view blockage from Tiburon
Boulevard and specific view blockage of Old St. Hilary's Church from her home. She shared
general requests for clarification about the project, to which Mr. Anderson invited her to contact
him the following day.
Ms. Mazzolini said she would also be happy to meet with Ms. Pierce.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair Frymier closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chair Corcoran thanked the applicant-for their responsiveness to the comments received.
He said he had only brief oral comments, and would submit more detailed comments in writing.
He had questions about the role of the biological monitor during the mitigation process,
specifically inquiring about consultant selection and payment. He wanted to ensure a certain
degree of independence for this role and thought it should be addressed in the EIR. He referred to
a suggestion in the RDEIR that spoke to the potential modification of General Plan Policy OSC-
20, which establishes setbacks or buffer zones from wetlands. He cautioned against any
modification of the policy and stated his belief that that the current policy language provided
sufficient flexibility to make the findings without an amendment if infeasibility could be
demonstrated. He noted that the language of the RDEIR states that the photo simulation of
Alternative D on p. 109 of the RDEIR shows reduced window area and lighting impacts, but the
image depicts the second story addition being almost completely obscured by trees. He requested
a new photo without the trees, which would be more in line with the description of Alternative
D.
Commissioner Tollini said she did not necessarily believe Alternative D to be the
environmentally superior development alternative. She thought that a combination of
Alternatives C and D might prove more suitable for that purpose. She said Alternative D does
not go far enough in its project revisions to mitigate impacts to her satisfaction, and tries to walk
the line by either ignoring or revising certain parts of the General Plan. She stated that amending
General Plan Policy OSC-20 as a mitigation measure for the project is not consistent with the
Planning Commission's repeated affirmations of the General Plan as the Commission's
"Constitution". She noted that on p. 111 of the RDEIR, the definition of "wetland" is being
ignored and urged that the General Plan definition be used rather than developing another to suit
the needs of the project. She wanted to see an option that better respects the 100 foot buffer from
the Marsh wetlands, uses the General Plan definition of wetlands, and better complies with
General Plan Policies OSC-20 and OSC-29 for discussion at the merits phase of review. She
disagreed with the conclusion on p. 108 that "all aesthetic impacts of this alternative [would be]
reduced to a less than significant level, and felt that the RDEIR discussion was not honest with
its view impact discussion. She acknowledged that certain aspects of the discussion would be
more appropriate during the merits phase, but said she strongly opposed a General Plan
amendment to the wetlands setback policy.
Chair Frymier concurred with the prior comments by Commissioners and said she could not
support a General Plan amendment for this project with respect to Policy OSC-20. The
mitigations for biological impacts fall short, particularly in light of the goals and policies of the
General Plan. She suggested that the traffic analysis may also be insufficient, noting there was no
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 27, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 PAGE 4
discussion on the new businesses potentially coming into town, and disagreed that the traffic
generation levels identified are less than significant.
The Commission and staff discussed the concept of blending alternatives already identified in the
EIR to come up with yet another, which is within the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR,
and which could be taken up at the merits phase of review. Mr. Anderson cautioned that
proposing an entirely new and significantly different alternative at this point would require
recirculation of the RDEIR. He explained that any conceptual project design falling within the
range of alternatives that have been analyzed, as well as enhancements to already proposed
mitigation measures, would not require recirculation and could be discussed at the merits stage
of review. He also suggested that the idea of blending alternatives could be addressed in the
Response to Comments, in terms of discussing how such a blending might occur.
The Commission was clear in its position that granting a General Plan amendment for purposes
of avoiding biological impacts of the project was inappropriate, but agreed that any actual policy
consistency discussion would properly take place at the merits phase of review.
Mr. Anderson noted that while the project and all development alternatives propose General Plan
amendments, the Commission has the authority to approve a project with the finding that it does,
on balance, further the goals and objectives of the General Plan without being consistent with
each and every policy. He also noted that while General Plan Policy OSC-20 would not
necessarily require amendment in order to approve the project, the re-designation of a portion of
the project site from Open Space to Public/Quasi-Public would require such an amendment.
Chair Frymier noted that the General Plan clearly states its support for a Library expansion of
some kind.
Mr. Anderson also noted that a prior approval was granted for a library expansion several years
ago, and at the time the General Plan policy regarding the 100-foot wetlands setback did not
exist and was not an issue.
MINUTES:
2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of April 13, 2011
Commissioner Tollini requested the following amendments to the Minutes:
• Page 2, last paragraph- "...described a previously distributed a memo..."
Vice-Chair Corcoran requested the following amendments to the Minutes:
• Page 8, second paragraph - replace "encompass" with "place"
• Page 8, third paragraph, second to last sentence - "He also said he would like the
Town..."
• Page 10, 6th bullet point - "...giving the Town the ability, but not the obligation,..."
• Page 11, 8th paragraph - change "principal" to "principle"
• Page 11, 8th paragraph - "...the Town has a generous three-year Design Review
approval... TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 27,2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 PAGE 5
ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Tollini) to approve the minutes of April 13, 2011, as amended.
Motion carried: 3-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
CATHY FRYMIER, CHAIRMAN
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY (ACTING)
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - APRIL 27, 2011 MINUTES NO. 1009 PAGE 6
S
Auk
MINUTES #8 `TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF MAY 199 2011
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Tollini.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Tollini, Vice-Chair Kricensky, Boardmembers Chong, Emberson and Weller
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING - None
D. OLD BUSINESS
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
On March 17, 2011 the Design Review Board reviewed an application for construction of an addition to
an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 65 Reed Ranch Road. The project proposed to
construct a new garage to be attached to the existing house and include a laundry room and bathroom. A
second story storage loft was also proposed with a new entry deck and stairs to connect the second story
loft to the front of the home. At that meeting, the owners of the adjacent home to the west at 67 Reed
Ranch Road raised objections to the proposed project. They were concerned about the proximity and
visual mass and bulk of the proposed addition, along with potential noise and privacy impacts.
The Design Review Board shared many of these concerns, particularly regarding the visual mass of the
building and its proximity to the home at 67 Reed Ranch Road. The Board suggested that the height of
the addition possibly be reduced, that the applicant consider other less sensitive locations for the addition,
and more be done to properly attach the addition to the main building. The Board continued the
application to the April 21, 2011 meeting to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposed addition.
At the April 21, 2011 meeting the Design Review Board reviewed revised plans for the project. The
proposed addition was moved to the east, away from 67 Reed Ranch Road. The existing detached garage
at the northeast corner of the lot was to be demolished and replaced with a new three-car garage, with a
workshop space at the rear of the garage. The upper floor of the addition would include a guest bedroom
and a model train room. The upper level of the addition would be situated at the same level as the existing
deck in front of the house. The upper level would connect to the interior of the main level of the house at
the family room, with an interior stairway leading down to the lower level of the addition. The workshop
space would be separated from the western side of the addition by a doorway and hallway area. It was the
consensus of the Board that the project was generally responsive to the previously raised concerns.
However, the Board still had issues with the overall height and visual mass of the proposed addition,
particularly the "monitor" section above the upper floor addition, and the amount and/or pattern of
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
5/19/11
windows. The Board gave direction to the applicant on modifications that could possible address these
concerns and continued the application to the May 5, 2011 meeting to allow the applicant time to once
again redesign the proposed addition. Revised plans have now been submitted.
Jeffrey Wong, architect, thanked the Board for their general support and encouragement. He said that the
revised plan reduced the height and width of the monitor, reduced the glazing, and streamlined the
connection between the monitor and the house. He said that the hobby space had been reduced by, 10
square feet and they added the area to the garage. He said that the total floor area of the proposal had not
changed and the project was still fully conforming to the zoning requirements. He said that the monitor
and the structure below were narrowed in width by 10%. He added that they had lowered the monitor by 6
inches and removed 6 inches of daylight openings. He said that the current design proposed shorter
windows, reducing the total daylight openings by 40%. He felt that this would address the nighttime light
emissions from the monitor. Mr. Wong distributed photographs of the interior of the house to show the
height of the ceilings and existing interior space. He said that by integrating the monitor over the family
room they would be able to protect the existing interior style of the house. Mr. Wong distributed a
drawing of the structure showing the level changes of the windows on the structure.
Chair Tollini asked if the original submission documents included a landscape plan, and-whether the plan
had changed to accommodate the changes in the design. Mr. Wong answered that there is a landscaping
plan and that none of the landscaping on the western side of the lot will be affected. He said that the
fencing proposed in the original submission had been removed from the current proposal. He stated that
one of the cherry trees by the walkway near the street would remain, and the other would be transplanted
by the new wall. He said that small Japanese maples would also be planted. He stated that there would be
some changes in the interior of the landscape plan, but no change on the western side and periphery of the
site. He said that the driveway would be narrowed, which would increase the possibility of additional
screening in that area. In response to a question from Chair Tollini, Mr. Wong stated that the mature elm
trees would remain.
Boardmember Chong asked if the coast live oak would be removed, and asked if it would be possible to
retain this tree. Mr. Wong said that the oak tree was proposed to be removed because of the new walkway
in that area, but the tree could be retained.
Vice-Chair Kricensky asked for clarification of where the grading will be, given the new driveway and
walkway. Mr. Wong said that they would grade as possible in the vicinity of the existing trees along the
western property line.
There was no public comment.
Chair Tollini said one of the items of concern discussed in the last meeting was the orientation of the
stairway leading to the front entry and the neighbors' concerns with privacy. Mr. Wong stated that the
new entrance deck would be in the same location as the current entrance. He said that the location where
the stairway would attach to the entry deck looks into the neighbors' backyard. He stated that in order to
see into the neighbor's master bedroom and bathroom windows, one would have to be almost all the way
up the stairs and turned around.
Chair Tollini asked if the coast live oak tree that is currently there proposed for removal would be
replaced with another plant or tree to block the view of the neighbor's master bedroom and bathroom. Mr.
Wong said that his client had worked very hard in the past several years to plant landscaping that protects
privacy, and it would be in their own interest to replace the tree with a large specimen tree to protect their
own privacy. He said that they had no issue with planting mature trees.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 2
5/19/11
Chair Tollini questioned and confirmed with Mr. Wong that the applicant would be amenable to a 24 or
36 inch box tree as a condition of approval.
Boardmember Chong asked if it was possible to keep the coast live oak, as it provides screening of the
higher portion of the deck. Mr. Wong answered that their preference would be to replace it with a mature
tree.
The public hearing was closed.
Boardmember Weller commended the applicant for making changes that satisfied the concerns about
lighting and integration of the addition to the existing house. He favored adding a condition of approval
requiring that a mature tree be planted to shield the house to the south from the stairway. He characterized
the project as an improvement and did not think that the design would create any kind of a precedent for
the neighborhood.
Boardmember Chong stated that the redesign addressed most of his concerns. He said that he visited the
house at 67 Reed Ranch Road and felt that privacy is a relative issue. He suggested rather than reorienting
the stairway the live oak should be replaced with one or more large mature trees.
Vice-Chair Kricensky said he was still concerned about the grading and the landscaping. He also voiced
concern that the allowable floor area ratio on this lot was inflated because it included what used to be a
separate lot. He said that the building massing was exaggerated by the tall ceiling plate at the front of the
garage. He was unsure whether the addition would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He
said that new screening trees would help, but the project would represent a change in the openness of the
front deck that might create a privacy problem. He found the design to be a pleasant change, even if it did
not necessarily match the existing house.
Chair Tollini shared some of Vice-Chair Kricensky's concerns. He agreed that the floor area ratio for this
property was tricky because the entire building area was near the street, but did not think that this was an
abuse of the FAR. He did not think that the project was necessarily inconsistent with the neighborhood,
stating that this is a neighborhood with homes that have significant street presence. He said that he spent a
lot of time on the deck gauging the potential impact of the planned stairs on the neighbors' privacy. He
said the amount of vegetation in that area and the significant distance between the proposed stairs and the
neighbor's home are factors in limiting the privacy impacts. He felt that the privacy issue could be solved
with landscaping. He did not think that the stairway needed to be reoriented, but recommended a
condition of approval requiring that landscaping must be planted in that area to protect privacy. He
acknowledged that both neighbors value privacy and he wanted to minimize the grading near the
walkway.
Boardmember Emberson said that she found houses with significant visual presence on the street. She
thought that the design would improve what is seen from the street and she did not think that the addition
would look out of place. She was concerned about the grading, and she hoped that that could be a
condition of approval along with requiring a specimen of live oak tree to be planted along the stairway.
She noted that the location of the entry deck was not proposed to change.
Chair Tollini was uncertain whether one could purchase a three-foot box coast live oak. Planning
Manager Watrous said the 15 gallon oak trees tend to grow faster even though they are smaller when they
start, and larger trees might grow slower. Chair Tollini suggested that the coast live oak may not grow as
fast. Planning Manager Watrous said a 36 inch box coast live oak is a fairly large tree. Boardmember
Emberson said she would like to see a native species of tree.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
5/19/11
Chair Tollini summarized the issues and said that a condition of approval for minimizing grading was
raised by three different Boardmembers. Vice-Chair Kricensky said he is concerned about the grading
only on the west side from the existing house.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Weller) that the request for 65 Reed Ranch Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, and the following additional conditions of approval: 1) grading shall be minimized to preserve
the existing trees along the western side of the property, and 2) two (2) 36 inch box native trees shall be
planted to screen the top of the entry walkway from the neighboring home at 67 Reed Ranch Road. Vote:
4-1 (Kricensky opposed).
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
2. 19 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 21105; Michael and Catherine Soper, Owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a
Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicant proposes to construct additions to add a family
room to the rear of the house and expand the garage to the front of the house to accommodate a
new laundry room. The additions would increase the lot coverage on the site to 33.1 which
would greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel
No. 034-262-22.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one-
story single-family dwelling on property located at 19 Apollo Road. A new family room would be
constructed to the rear of the existing kitchen. The existing two-car garage would be expanded toward the
front to allow room for a new laundry room. A new covered entry would be added to the front of the
house.
The proposed additions would increase the gross floor area of the house by 491 square feet to a total of
1,874 square feet, which is less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The proposed additions
would increase the calculated lot coverage on the site by 455 square feet to a total of 2,269 square feet
(33.1%), which is greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-1 zone. A variance is
therefore requested for excess lot coverage.
David Holscher, architect, said that this was a standard Belveron addition. He said that they are requesting
a lot coverage variance because in that neighborhood it is important to keep the structure low. He said that
they have talked to all of the neighbors and have received only positive feedback.
There were no public comments.
Boardmember Emberson said that the project seemed like a great solution for this neighborhood and that
many other houses in the immediate vicinity have gone over lot coverage. She said that because the
property is smaller than the minimum lot size there is a special circumstance that necessitates the variance
for lot coverage. She stated that numerous other properties in the area have been granted similar variances
to avoid having a second story. She said that three percent was minimal excess lot coverage and she
thought that the project as a whole would enhance the neighborhood.
All of the other Boardmembers agreed with Boardmember Emberson and with staff's findings. Chair
Tollini said this type of project had been done numerous times in this neighborhood, and that building up
on a substandard lot is often difficult.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 4
5/19/11
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Kricensky) that the request for 19 Apollo Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 5-0.
3. 110 LYFORD DRIVE: File No. 711046; Elizabeth and Brian Wilhelm, Owners; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of an addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The
applicant proposes to convert 600 square feet of existing garage space and remodel-405 square
feet of existing garage/storage area on the lower level of the house, into two bedrooms, one
bathroom and a playroom. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-232-04.
The applicant is proposing to construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling located at 110
Lyford Drive by converting the existing garage into living space. Currently the property is improved with
a two-story dwelling. As part of a remodel of the existing lower level storage areas, the 600 square foot
garage would be converted into living space and incorporated into the remodel of the existing storage
areas. The remodeled lower level would include two bedrooms, a playroom and a bathroom. A new
covered porch would also be constructed at the lower level. No major improvements are proposed for the
main level of the home, with the exception of new windows and doors, a new gas fireplace in the den, and
the installation of a cupola above the breakfast nook.
The proposed additions would increase the floor area by 600 square feet, for a total gross floor area of
4,472 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area for the property (4,499.9
square feet). The proposed covered porch would increase the lot coverage by 200 square feet, for total lot
coverage of 3,072 square feet (12.3%), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2
zone (15.0%).
David Holscher, architect, said that this is a garage area that would be converted into a living area. He
said that the house is currently a two-bedroom house with a large amount of garage space. He said that
there would be a new chimney and they would make it as low as possible while keeping it within code
Chair Tollini asked if any lighting was specified for the cupola. Mr. Holscher said that no lighting was
planned for the cupola.
There were no public comments.
Boardmember Chong said he visited the site and it does have a lot of room for parking on the driveway.
He said that the project was consistent with the Town's policy for garage and carport conversions and it
would not affect any neighbors.
Vice-Chair Kricensky agreed with Boardmember Chong and with staff's findings for the variance.
Boardmember Emberson said that this would be a great improvement and have barely any impact on
views.
Boardmember Weller said that he agreed with everything said but that he planned to vote against the
application because there would be no garage. He believed that in the future a garage will be requested to
be constructed as a result of this garage conversion.
Chair Tollini said that he liked the design of the project. He said that his main concern was the intrusion
into the viewshed for the home at 112 Lyford Drive, but he with that neighbor and she was very happy
with the project. He said that it would be a subjective determination to state that this request would
necessitate a garage in the future.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8
5/19/11
Boardmember Chong said that he could see Boardmember Weller's point about the garage and that it
could set up a request for a variance to build a garage. He said that staff does an excellent job
documenting projects and their history, and he was comfortable that staff will do a good job bringing
these facts to the discussion if a garage is requested in the future.
ACTION: -It was M/S (Kricensky/Emberson) that the request for 110 Lyford Drive -is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 4-1 (Weller opposed).
F. STUDY SESSION ON VARIANCES AND FINDINGS
Planning Manager Watrous said that the Board has had recent training on variances and staff has brought
this study session to the Board as a refresher. He summarized the staff report and information from the
Town Attorney regarding variance findings. He emphasized that each finding is a statement that must be
supported by objective evidence. He said that if the Board agrees with staff's findings on the variances,
then they can simply state that; if not, then they would describe their rationale and disagreement. He said
that the Board must focus on specific physical characteristics of the site and that sometimes the
neighborhood characteristics can help justify the variance.
Boardmember Emberson requested clarification of the similarity of lots as justification. Planning
Manager Watrous said that something unusual about the property must be used as evidence for granting
the variance. He said that if most of the homes in a particular neighborhood have the same situation, then
that can be used as such evidence.
Planning Manager Watrous said that practical difficulty and hardship should not be made merely because
other neighbors have bigger decks or rooms and it cannot be based on the applicant's desires at the time,
but rather should focus on the characteristics of the property. He said that staff wants to see the Board
continue to take this seriously and continue to wrestle with the findings when granting variances.
Boardmember Weller said it is important to distinguish between different areas of the Town. Planning
Manager Watrous agreed and that this can depend on lot-by-lot scrutiny because the topography of the
Tiburon varies so much across different areas. He said that the Town Council in some ways prefers the
Board to review variance requests instead of changing the zoning requirements to allow the Board to
scrutinize each lot and proposal on an individual basis.
Chair Tollini said that the zoning criteria itself should be reviewed because there are several
neighborhoods that do not fit the type of zoning that was assigned to their lots. He said that it would be
helpful if there were a gradient, such as an RI -A designation, to accommodate these differences. Planning
Manager Watrous said that that was done in the Bel Aire neighborhood because of specific setbacks in
that area. He said that having an understanding at the Board level of the development patterns of the
individual neighborhoods allows the Board to make decisions on a lot-by-lot basis.
Boardmember Chong pointed out most of the projects in Belveron would have to come before the Board.
Boardmember Emberson questioned why a variance is even necessary in that neighborhood when it is
always the same variance request. Boardmember Weller responded that things can change and the
building materials and design should be discussed.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6
5/19/11
Planning Manager Watrous said the Board in recent years has turned away more variances than previous
Boards have in the past. He also noted that there are also a lot of inquiries about variances that never
reach the Board because staff informs applicants that they cannot make the findings.
Chair Tollini said that the determination of hardship is usually the focus of a discussion whenever the
Board reaches inconsistent results regarding a variance. He asked if there was any ability to create
hardship guidelines to aid the Board in making such determinations. Planning Manager Watrous said they
have not done that in the past but it was an intriguing idea as advisory guidelines.
Boardmember Weller suggested studying the history of findings made for variances and categorizing
them as examples. Chair Tollini said he would like to see it be more than a survey, with descriptions of
some hypothetical situations.
MOTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Weller) to direct staff to prepare a document describing guidelines for
determination of hardship, including prior findings, definitions, and examples of what qualifies and does
not qualify as evidence of hardship. Vote: 5-0.
G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE 515111 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
ACTION: It was M/S (Kricensky/Emberson) to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2011 meeting as
written. Vote: 5-0.
H. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 7
5/19/11
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Planning Commission
May 25, 2011 - 7:30 PM
ACTION MINUTES
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:30 PM
Chairman Frymier, Vice Chair Corcoran, Commissioner Doyle, Commissioner Kunzweiler,
Commissioner Tollini All Commissioners Present
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There Were None
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
NEW BUSINESS
1. 1501 TIBURON BOULEVARD: DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER
RECIRCULATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE REVISED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RDEIR) FOR THE BELVEDERE-
TIBURON PUBLIC LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT; FILE #GPA 2008-02;
R2008-01; 30804 & 40801; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency and Town of
Tiburon, Owners; Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency, Applicant; Assessor Parcel
Numbers 058-171-92, 93, 94, and a portion -of 058-171-62 [SA] No Recirculation
Required (5-0)
2. 669 HAWTHORNE DRIVE; AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT; FILE #11104;
Daryl Smith, Owner/Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 055-191-11 [DW]
Approved (5-0)
Tiburon Planning Commission Action Minutes May 25, 2011
Page 1
3. REVIEW OF DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET FOR
CONSISTENCY WITH THE TIBURON GENERAL PLAN [SA] Found
Consistent with General Plan (5-0)
MINUTES
4. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Regular Meeting of April 27, 2011
Approved as Amended (5-0)
ADJOURNMENT At 8:25 PM
Tiburon Planning Commission Agenda May 25, 2011 Page 2
TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard June 2, 2011
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES #9
TIB
URON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.-00 PM
Present: Chair Tollini, Vice Chairman Kricensky and Boardmember Emberson
Absent: Boardmembers Chong and Weller
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous and Minutes Clerk Rusting
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
1. 111 TAYLOR ROAD: File No. 711003; Westley and Jojo Stauffer, Owners; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling. The applicant
proposes to construct a new 5,449 square foot, three-story house with 780 square feet of
garage space on a currently vacant lot. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-071-04. Approved 3-0
2. 1599 TIBURON BOULEVARD: File No. 711041; Zelinsky Properties LLC, Owners;
Armstrong Development Properties LLC, Applicant; Site Plan and Architectural Review
for construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building. The applicant
proposes changes to a commercial building to establish a drug store and pharmacy, with a
future retail tenant. Exterior changes include a new drive-through pharmacy and canopy,
parking lot modifications, two new walls, landscaping, light and storefront changes.
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 058-171-88 & 89. Continued to 7/7/11
MINUTES
3. Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011 Approved 3-0
ADJOURNMENT At 9:15PM
Action Minutes #9 6/2/11 Design Review Board Meeting
Page 1
//a
NOTICE OF MEETING E-,
CANCELLATION
THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8. 2011
HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
WILL BE THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY