HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2011-08-03TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1.505 Tiburon. Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
AGENDA
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Council
August 3, 2011
Meeting time - 7:30 p.m.
Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor
Fraser, Mayor Slavitz
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this
time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended
discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to
the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future
Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless
a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for
separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item,
please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time.
1. Town Council Minutes -Adopt minutes of the July 22 special meeting (Director of
Community Development Anderson)
2. League of California Cities - Appoint delegate to represent Town of Tiburon at annual
Business meeting of the League of California Cities (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 65 Reed Ranch Road Appeal - Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a site
plan and architectural review for construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling at 65 Reed Ranch Road (Planning Manager Watrous) - continued from July 6, 2011
• James Parsons and Andrea Hong, Owners
• Jeffrey Wong, Applicant
• Dan Mihalovich, Appellant
• Assessor Parcel Number 038-301-35
2. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan - Consider actions related to the Alta Robles
Precise Development Plan and prezoning applications for the eventual subdivision of
52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling into 14 single-
family residential lots; consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Planning Manager Watrous)
• Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants
• Address: 3825 Paradise Drive
• Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301.01
3. Water Conservation Ordinance - Consider amendments to Title IV, Chapter 13E (Water
Efficient Landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to incorporate latest Marin
Municipal Water District (MMWD) regulations (Director of Community Development
Anderson) - introduction and first reading of ordinance
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT
WEEKLY DIGESTS
• Town Council Weekly Digest -July 22, 2011
• Town Council Weekly Digest -June 29, 2011
ADJOURNMENT
GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
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 Town Clerk at (415) 435-
7377. 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 agenda 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 minutes are posted on the Town's website,
www.ci.tiburon.ca.us.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing
address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and
preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above
address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these 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 Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council 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 Town Council agenda.
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Slavitz called the special meeting (field trip) of the Tiburon Town Council to order at
Noon on Friday, July 22, 2011, at 3825 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Collins, Fraser, O'Donnell, Slavitz
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Fredericks
Town Manager Curran, Director of Community
Development Anderson
Councilmember Collins, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Fraser, Mayor Slavitz
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
BUSINESS ITEM - FIELD TRIP AT 3825 PARADISE DRIVE
1. 3825 PARADISE DRIVE: Field trip to review story poles, project drawings and
photo simulations 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
Community of Development Director Anderson led the Council, applicant representatives, and
interested members of the public on a field walking tour of the Alta Robles project site to
review story poles that have been erected for each proposed residence and to review site plans,
drawings, and photo simulations of the project. The Town Council asked questions and
received information and clarification regarding the project application and the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Town Council Minutes #16 -2011 July 22, 2011 DRAFT Page I
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz
adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
S.- Wministration IT~ CouncilWinutes1201117-22-11 MINUTES field trip).doc
Town Council Minutes #16 -2011 July 22, 2011 DRAFT Page 2
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Office of the Town Clerk
Town Council Meeting
August 3, 2011
Agenda Item: C
Designation of Voting Delegate(s) to League of California Cities Annual
Conference
The League of California Cities' Annual Conference is scheduled for September 21 through 23 at
Moscone Center in San Francisco. In order to vote on matters at the Annual Business Meeting,
the Town Council must appoint a voting delegate. The Town's delegate, along with the
representatives from other cities, will consider and take action on resolutions that establish
League policy. According to the League's bylaws, a city may appoint a voting delegate and up to
two alternates.
Councilmember Fredericks has served as delegate in previous years and has volunteered to serve
in this capacity this year, if no one else steps forward to be appointed. If the Council approves of
her appointment, the item can be adopted on consent; if there is additional interest, the item
should be pulled from the consent calendar for further discussion and action.
Whoever is chosen as the Town's voting delegate(s) must be available to attend the Annual
Business Meeting (at the closing General Assembly), scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Friday,
September 23.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
I) Appoint Councilmember Fredericks (by adopting this report on Consent Calendar) to
represent the Town of Tiburon as its voting delegate at the Annual Business Meeting
of the League of California Cities; or
2) If the council desires to appoint a different delegate, or up to two alternates, the item
should be pulled from the Consent Calendar and the appointments considered as an
action item.
,~ueast i. _'~'I I
Exhibits: League of California Cities 2011 Annual Conference Voting Procedures and
Appointment of Delegate Form
Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk
LE 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 9581LEAGU4
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
OF CALIFORNIA www.cacities.org
CITIES
Annual Conference Voting Procedures
2011 Annual Conference
One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to
League policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city
council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are
identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee.
Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may
pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration
area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they
will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at
the Business Meeting.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates
(or alternates), and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to
the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a
resolution.
Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's
voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be
transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to
another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.
6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card
will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special
sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the
validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the
Business Meeting.
OFEAGUE
CITIES
CITY:
2011 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to the League office by Friday, August 26, 2011.
Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in
the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting
delegate and up to two alternates.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must
be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an
alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action
taken by the council.
Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business
Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and
alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be
obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.
1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:
Title:
2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
N
Title:
3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name:
Title:
PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE
AND ALTERNATES.
OR
ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to
designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).
Name:
Mayor or City Clerk
(circle one) (signature)
Date:
Please complete and return by Fridav. AUeust 26 to
Phone:
League of California Cities FAX: (916) 658-8240
ATTN: Mary McCullough E-mail: mccullom@cacities.org
1400 K Street (916) 658-8247
Sacramento, CA 95814
E-mail
V otingnelegateLetter l l doc
To:
From:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
August 3, 2011
Agenda Item: ,
10P
Subject: 65 Reed Ranch Road: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review
Approval for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family
Dwelling; James Parsons and Andrea Hong, Owners; Jeffrey Wong,
Applicant; Dan Mihalovich, Appellant; File #711011; Assessor's Parcel
No -301-35 (Continued from July 6, 2011)
Reviewed By: 1
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2011, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review
application to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 65
Reed Ranch Road. The neighboring resident at 67 Reed Ranch Road, hereinafter referred to as
the "appellant," has filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council.
On July 6, 2011, the Town Council held a public hearing on the appeal. At that time, Council
dismissed the appellant's concerns regarding privacy, grading and the changes to the walkway
and driveway. However, it was the consensus of the Council that the proposed additions would
look too massive when viewed from Reed Ranch Road and that the amount and/or area of the
windows proposed for the additions were excessive.
The Council continued the application and directed the applicant to revise'the project plans to
address these remaining issues, and made the following specific suggestions on how to
accomplish this:
1. Modify the garage roofline;
2. Move windows on the west side of the addition to the east side;
3. Eliminate the west-facing bedroom windows or move these windows to the front
of the bedroom;
4. Eliminate the hallway windows; and
5. Design interior light fixtures to shine on the floors and stairs and not onto
windows.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
ANALYSIS
The applicants subsequently submitted revised project plans that include the following changes:
1. The roofline of the garage above the two easternmost spaces has been lowered by
6 inches.
2. The larger hallway windows on the west side of the building have been replaced
with smaller windows.
3. The row of 8 small windows on the upper level guest bedroom facing the street
has been replaced with 3 larger windows.
No changes have been made to the windows on the west side of the upper level of the addition.
The plans do not include any information about interior lighting fixtures, although this
information is generally not included in plans at the Site Plan and Architectural Review level, and
can be addressed through conditions of approval.
CONCLUSION
The revised plans appear to be somewhat responsive to the Town Council's direction at the July 6,
2011 meeting. The change to the garage roofline would somewhat reduce the visual massiveness
of the addition when viewed from the street. The smaller hallway windows would reduce any light
that might be visible from the home at 67 Reed Ranch Road.
In order to approve the revised plans, which are different than those approved by the Design
Review Board, the Council would need to partially grant the subject appeal, with a condition of
approval specifically approving the revised plans. If the Town Council determines that these
modifications are insufficient to comply with the direction given at the July 6, 2011 meeting, the
Council may wish to direct staff to prepare additional conditions of approval to address the visual
scale and lighting issues.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council:
1) Take testimony that is limited to the revised project plans;
2) Indicate its intention to partially grant the appeal and make any further modifications to
the project plans as deemed necessary; and
3) Direct Staff to return with a resolution to that effect for adoption at the next meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Town Council Staff report dated July 6, 2011
2. Minutes of the July 6, 2011 Town Council meeting
3. Letter from Dan Mihalovich, dated July 9, 2011
4. Letter from James Parsons and Andrea Hong, dated July 25, 2011
5. Revised plans
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting
1505 Tiburon Boulevard July 6, 2011
Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item:
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: 65 Reed Ranch Road: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review
Approval for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family
Dwelling; James Parsons and Andrea Hong, Owners; Jeffrey Wong,
Applicant; Dan Mihalovich, Appellant; File #711011; Assessor's Parcel
No. 038-301-35
Reviewed By:
PROJECT DATA
Address:
65 Reed Ranch Road
Assessor's Parcel:
038-301-35
File Number:
711011
Property Owners:
James Parsons and Andrea Hong
Applicant:
Jeffrey Wong (Architect)
Appellant:
Dan Mihalovich
Lot Size:
18,729 Square Feet
Zoning:
RO-2 (Two-Family Residential)
General Plan:
Medium Density Residential
Flood Zone:
X (outside 500-year flood event)
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2011, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review
application to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 65
Reed Ranch Road. The neighboring resident at 67 Reed Ranch Road, hereinafter referred to as
the "appellant," has filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicants requested approval for the construction of additions to an existing single-family
dwelling on property located at 65 Reed Ranch Road. The property is currently developed with a
two-story dwelling and detached two-car garage.
The existing detached garage at the northeast corner of the lot would be demolished. A new two-
story addition would be constructed. The lower floor would include a new three-car garage and a
workshop space to the rear. A doorway and hallway area would be situated between the
workshop space and the exterior wall on the western side of the lower level. The upper floor of
TOWN OF TzBURON I PAGE 1 OF f
EXHIBIT NO. IL
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 entry 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.
The proposed addition would increase the lot coverage by 10 square feet to a total of 2,676 square
feet (14.3%), which would be less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage for a lot of this size.
The project would replace the existing 484 square foot garage with 1,436 square feet of garage
and living space, resulting in a calculated floor area of 3,867 square feet, which is 6 square feet
below the 3,873 square foot floor area ratio guideline for a lot of this size. Overall, the project
would result in an increase of 952 square feet of floor area over the size of the existing house and
e
garage.
REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
March 17, 2011 Meeting
This application was first reviewed at the March 17, 2011 Design Review Board meeting. The
original project design proposed to construct a new garage to be attached to the existing house
and included 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. The existing
two-car garage on the site was to remain.
At that meeting, the owners of the adjacent home to the west at 67 Reed Ranch Road (appellants)
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 was also
concerned with the potential removal of vegetation along the western side of the property that
would screen the addition from the neighboring residence. The Board suggested that the height of
the addition possibly be reduced, that the applicant consider other less sensitive locations for the
addition, and that 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.
April 21, 2011 Meeting
The applicant submitted revised plans that replaced the proposed addition with a revised design
that 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 two-story addition that
would be 24 feet, 6 inches in height. The lower level of the addition would include an attached
three-car garage and a workshop space to the rear. A doorway and hallway area would be situated
between the workshop space and the exterior wall on the western side of the lower level. 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 entry deck in front of the
house. The upper level would connect to the interior of the main level of the house at the family
TOWN OF TIBURON I PAGE 2 OF 6
EXHIBIT NO,
room. The revised project design reduced the proposed lot coverage by 108 square feet and
reduced the proposed floor area by one square foot from the previous application.
At the April 21, 2011 meeting, the consensus of the Board was 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 windows. The Board gave direction to the
applicant on modifications that could possibly 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. On May 4, the applicant requested a continuance to the May 19, 2011 Board
meeting and the application was not heard at the May 5 meeting.
May 19, 2011 Meeting
The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans which narrowed the monitor section of the
proposed upper floor addition and reduced its height by 6 inches to a height of 24 feet. The
number and area of the windows on the western side of the addition, facing the home at 67 Reed
Ranch Road, were reduced. Minor changes were made to the overall dimensions of the proposed
addition, most amounting to changes of less than one foot. The roof design of the upper floor was
modified to connect more seamlessly with the roofline of the existing house. The revised project
design had the same floor area as the previous design, but increased the lot coverage by 10 square
feet to a total of 2,676 square feet (14.3%), which was less than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage
for a lot of this size and 98 square feet less than the original application.
At the May 19, 2011 meeting, the consensus of the Design Review Board was that the project
revisions had adequately addressed the Board's previous concerns. In order to ensure that the
walkway leading to the front entry would be properly screened from the home at 67 Reed Ranch
Road, the Board added two conditions of approval to the project that required that grading be
minimized to preserve the existing trees along the western side of the property, and that two (2)
36-inch box native trees be planted to screen the top of the entry walkway.
The Board voted 4-1 (Boardmember Kricensky opposed) to conditionally approve the project
with the additional conditions of approval. On May 31, 2011, the appellants filed a timely appeal
of this decision (Exhibit 1).
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
There are four (4) grounds upon which the appeal is based:
Ground #1: The bulk, height and overall size of the project design are excessive for this
property.
Staff Response: The subject property includes a portion of the old Northwestern Pacific Railroad
right-of-way at the rear. The total size of the lot for purposes of calculating the floor area ratio
and other zoning regulations for this property includes the combined size of the original lot within
the Reedland Woods subdivision and this portion of railroad property. The neighboring properties
and 61 & 63 Reed Ranch Road also include portions of the old railroad right-of-way.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6
EXHIBIT NO. t
The Design Review Board discussed the issue of the total floor area of the project (only 6 square
feet below the floor area ratio for a lot of this size) and whether the requested floor area was
artificially inflated by the inclusion of the area of old railroad right-of-way. It was the consensus
of the Board that the size of the project bore a reasonable relationship between the size and scale
of improvements and the size of the property, as required by Section 16-52.020 (H[4]) of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Guiding principles in the review of Site Plan and Architectural
Review applications).
The existing house and proposed addition are sited on the original lot of the subject property, with
the rear of the original lot and the old railroad right-of-way left as an open rear yard. Many homes
in Tiburon are sited to the front of the lot, leaving the rear yard open for private recreational use,
in a manner similar to the project design. Such a design does not necessarily represent an
overbuilding of the front of the property, although each project design must reviewed on its own
merits to determine if the height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable
relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity, as required by Section 16-52.020
(H[3]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance.
In its deliberations, the Board compared the visual scale of the proposed addition to other
residences in the vicinity. The Board required changes to the project design at the April 21, 2011
meeting to lessen the overall height and visual mass of the proposed addition. These changes
were made and it was the consensus of the Board that the revised project design was consistent
with the visual pattern of other homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
Ground #2: Adequate information was not presented regarding the excessive grading
required for the project.
Staff Response: The floor level of the new three-car garage would be approximately 3 feet, 3 inches
lower than the level of the existing two-car garage. The stairway leading up to the front entry of the
house would be increased from 10 steps to 15 steps, representing an increased height of approximately
2 feet, 6 inches. The amount of grading necessary to accomplish these elevation changes would be
minimal and cannot accurately be characterized as excessive or resulting in a huge cut.
The Design Review Board's only concern regarding the potential grading on the site was for the
protection of the existing trees along the western side of the site that provide privacy screening
between the applicants' and appellant's homes. At the May 19, 2011 meeting, the Board added a
condition of approval to the project that required that grading be minimized to preserve the
existing trees along the western side of the property. This should adequately protect the trees and
preserve their ability to screen the addition from the appellant's residence.
Ground #3: Adequate information was not presented regarding changes to the walkway
and driveway on the site.
Staff Response: The existing front entry to the house is accessed by a series of stairs that lead up
to the southern side of a raised landing in front of the front door, with the bottom of the stairs
facing the street. The front entrance to the house would remain unchanged, but the landing in
front of the entrance would be reconfigured. The existing stairway would be replaced by a new
TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT PAGE 4 OF 6
N0.
stairway that would lead from the western side of the raised landing and curve to the north. The
bottom of the stairs would still face the street, but would be moved approximately 15 feet to the
west, closer to the appellant's home.
The appellant has raised concerns that a new retaining wall might be necessary or that an existing
berm might be removed as part of the project. Based upon the change in grade shown on the
plans, any future retaining wall would be less than 42 inches in height, and therefore would not be
subject to design review approval. The Design Review Board emphasized the retention of the
mature screening trees, rather than a berm, for protection of the appellant's privacy.
In an e-mail submitted subsequent to filing the appeal, the appellant contends that additional
information, including story poles for the proposed walkway, is necessary to understand the
changes to the stairway and entry to the house. The Design Review Board noted that the front
entry to the house would remain unchanged, with a raised landing at the same level and in the
same general location as the current landing. Therefore, the Board determined that the presence
of the existing landing gave them a clear understanding of the revised entry improvements.
During the Design Review Board's review of this application, the appellant raised concerns about
potential privacy impacts arising from the relocated stairway. The appellant's letter to the Board
dated May 16, 2011 (Exhibit 17) includes photographs of the approximate location of the
stairway taken from several windows of the appellant's home.
In general, potential privacy impacts from entry stairways are less than from other more heavily
used outdoor areas, such as decks or patios, as such stairs are typically used to get a person
quickly in and out of the house. The proposed entry stairs would be located approximately 26 feet
from the appellant's house, with substantial mature vegetation along the western side of the
property to screen views of the stairs. To further ensure the effectiveness of this privacy
screening, the Design Review Board added two conditions of approval to the project intended to
preserve the existing landscaping and requiring that two 36-inch box native trees be planted that
would screen the top of the entry walkway.
The precise location of the proposed driveway is not clearly shown on the submitted plans.
However, the location of the proposed three-car garage in relation to the existing two-car garage is
indicated on the plans. The Design Review Board determined that the width of the proposed
driveway was not out of character with its surroundings, as other homes in the vicinity have three-
car garages.
Ground #4: Existing and proposed landscaping may be inadequate to provide privacy
screening.
Staff'Response: At the March 17, 2011 meeting, the Design Review Board determined that the
original project design was too close to the appellant's home and had the potential to result in the
removal of screening vegetation along the western side of the property. The Board required that
the addition be moved away from the appellant's property to reduce its visual bulk when viewed
by the neighbor and to protect the existing landscaping. As noted above, the Board added two
conditions of approval to protect the existing vegetation and require additional screening trees to
address these potential privacy impacts. The amount of landscaping to be provided between the
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE S OF 6
EXHIBIT NO.
two homes would be more than adequate to provide appropriate privacy from the fleeting views
of people walking up and down the stairs leading to the front door.
CONCLUSION
In reaching its decision on this project, the Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding
principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review in determining that the project bore a reasonable
relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property and a
reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. The Board closely
examined the potential privacy impacts of the project on the appellant and imposed additional
conditions of approval to ensure that existing and proposed landscaping would screen the front
entry stairway from the appellant's home. The Board determined that the information presented by
the applicant was adequate to make an informed decision on the application.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council:
1) Take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure;
2) Indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and
3) Direct Staff to return with a resolution to that effect for adoption at the next meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Notice of Appeal and attachments
2. Appeal procedures
3. Application and supplemental materials
4. Design Review Board Staff report dated March 17, 2011
5. Design Review Board Staff report dated April 21, 2011
6. Design Review Board Staff report dated May 19, 2011
7. Minutes of the March 17, 2011 Design Review Board meeting
8. Minutes of the April 21, 2011 Design Review Board meeting
9. Minutes of the May 19, 2011 Design Review Board meeting
10. Letter from Dan Mihalovich and Judy Stern, dated March 7, 2011
11. Letter from Dan Mihalovich and Judy Stern, dated March 8, 2011
12. Letter from Lori and Mark Horne, dated March 11, 2011
13. Letter from Christopher Wand, dated March 14, 2011
14. Letter from Dan Mihalovich, dated April 17, 2011
15. Letter from Dan Mihalovich, dated April 18, 2011
16. Letter from Susan and Rich Sundberg, dated April 19, 2011
17. Letter from Lori and Mark Horne, dated April 20, 2011
18. Letter from Dan Mihalovich, dated May 16, 2011
19. Letter from Riley Hurd, dated June 28, 2011
20. Photos submitted at Design Review Board meetings
21. Approved plans
Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
Towru OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF fi
EXHIBIT NO.--L-
agreed with personal liberties, smoking is a scourge on our society and he is happy to be able to
limit its health impacts on others.
Councilmember Fredericks added that the ordinance is not intended to be punitive but rather to
protect the health of non-smokers, especially children. One provision in the ordinance is a
promise by the Town to provide educational materials, which will be easily accomplished
through such groups as Smoke Free Marin.
Mayor Slavitz agreed, thinks this is a momentous occasion, and said the ordinance relates
directly to health.
Mr. Richardson clarified that the ordinance covers anything that anyone burns to put into their
lungs and is combustible, such as tobacco-like product, spice, other plant or burnable materials.
Councilmember Collins commended the work of the subcommittee, staff and Attorney Danforth
for their work on the ordinance.
MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only, as amended, as follows:
Section 28-8(2) to read, "private vehicles not located in the common area of a
multi-unit residence"
■ Section 28-5(c) on page 7 of the ordinance to read, "Smoking is prohibited in all
public events, and at the events or functions for which the Town has issued a
Special Event Permit,"
■ Add the words "lease extension" in all instances after references to "lease
renewal".
■ Cotinine is actually a metabolite and not a metabolic.
Moved: Fraser, seconded Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
MOTION: To pass first reading of the Ordinance amending Title VI, Chapter 28 (Smoking
and Tobacco Regulations) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, waiving all further
readings
Moved: Fraser, seconded Fredericks
Vote: AYES: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz
2. 65 Reed Ranch Road Appeal - Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a
site plan and architectural review for construction of additions to an existing single-
family dwelling at 65 Reed Ranch Road (Planning Manager Watrous)
• AP No. 038-301-35
James Parsons and Andrea Hong, Owners
Jeffrey Wong, Applicant
Dan Mihalovich, Appellant
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011
Page 6
EXHIBIT NO.
Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report, stating the project involves request for
construction of an addition to an existing single family dwelling at 65 Reed Ranch Road,
demolition of an existing attached garage at the northeast corner of the lot, and construction of a
new, two-story addition. The lower floor will include a new, 3-car garage and workshop space to
the rear, and the upper floor will include a guest bedroom and a model train room.
The application was first reviewed at the March 17, 2011 DRB meeting. At that time, the
addition was located further to the west and closer to 67 Reed Ranch Road. The owners of that
property, [appellants] raised objections to the project regarding the proximity and visual mass
and bulk of the proposed addition, along with the potential noise and privacy impacts. The Board
shared many of the concerns, particularly regarding the visual mass of the building and its
proximity to the home at 67 Reed Ranch, suggested that the height of the addition be reduced, for
the applicant to consider a less sensitive location for the addition, and to be more properly
attached to the main building.
The applicant submitted revised plans which relocate the addition over to the east away from the
home at 67 Reed Ranch Road. This revision was reviewed at the April 21, 2011 DRB meeting at
which time the Board felt the project was generally responsive to the previous concern, but still
had issues with the overall height and mass, particularly the monitor section above the upper
floor addition. The Board continued the hearing to allow the applicant time to re-design the
addition.
The re-designed project was then reviewed at the May 19, 2011 DRB meeting. The applicant
submitted revised plans which narrowed and reduced the height of the monitor section of the
upper floor addition. The consensus of the Board was that the applicant had adequately addressed
the Board's concerns and also assured the Board that the walkway leading to the front entry
would be properly screened from the home at 67 Reed Ranch Road. The Board added two
conditions requiring that grading be minimized to preserve the existing trees along the western
side and that 2, 36" box native trees be planted to screen the top of that walkway. The Board
voted 4-1 to conditionally approve the project, and on May 31, 2011 the Mihalovichs filed a
timely appeal of the decision.
The appeal is based on 4 separate grounds:
1. The bulk, height and overall size of the project design are excessive for this property.
The subject property includes a portion of the old Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way
at the rear and the total size of the lot for purposes of calculating FAR and other zoning
regulations includes both the size of the original lot and the railroad lot. The Board discussed
the issue of the total floor area, but felt that overall, the size of the project was a reasonable
relationship between the size and scale of the improvements and size of the property. The
existing house and addition are sited on the original lot of the property with the old railroad
right-of-way left open as a rear yard. Although this design does not necessarily represent an
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 7
EXHIBIT NO. -2-.
overbuilding to the front of the property, each project design must be reviewed on its own
merits and the Board compared the visual size and scale to other residences in the vicinity
and found it was consistent with the visual pattern of other homes in the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. Adequate information was not presented regarding excessive grading required for the
project.
The floor level of the new garage would be approximately 3'3" lower than the level of the
existing 2-car garage and therefore, staff believes the amount of grading necessary to
accomplish these elevation changes would be minimal and should not be characterized as
excessive. At the May 19th meeting, the Board added the condition of approval that grading
be minimized to preserve existing trees along the western side of the property to screen the
addition from the appellant's residence.
3. Adequate information was not presented regarding changes to the walkway and driveway on
the site.
The existing front entry of the house is accessed by a series of stairs leading up to a raised
landing in front of the front door, and this front entrance would remain unchanged but the
landing would be reconfigured with a new stairway that would lead from the western side of
the raised landing and curve to the north. The appellant has raised concerns that the new
retaining wall might be necessary or that an existing berm might be removed, but the DRB
emphasized that retention of the mature screening trees rather than the berm would protect
the appellant's privacy.
The appellant has requested additional story poles for this walkway, but the Board noted that
the front entry of the house would remain unchanged with the raised landing at the same level
and the same general location of the current landing. In general, the Board felt the potential
privacy impacts from the entry stairways would be relatively minimal. Staff notes the entry
stairs are generally used less heavily than other outdoor areas like decks or patios and not
considered to be an area where there are considerable privacy concerns as a general rule. The
proposed entry stairs would be approximately 26 feet from the appellant's house and the
Board required not only to preserve the existing landscaping but 2 other native box trees be
planted to screen this walkway.
4. Existing and proposed landscaping would be inadequate to provide privacy.
The Board took actions to protect landscaping to protect the appellant's privacy and at a very
first meeting, moved the addition further away from the property to protect this privacy.
In conclusion, Mr. Watrous stated that staff believes the DRB acted appropriately in applying the
guiding principles for the site plan, architectural review for protecting privacy impacts of the
neighbor, and for reviewing the relationship of the size and scale of improvements with other
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 8
EXHIBIT N0. 2
buildings in the vicinity. The Board felt it had adequate information to make an informed
decision on the application. Staff recommends the Council take testimony on the appeal, indicate
its intention to deny the appeal, and direct staff to return with.a resolution for adoption at the next
meeting. He noted that DRB Boardmember Emberson is present, and provided a brief overview
of the appeal hearing procedures.
Mayor Slavitz questioned and confirmed with Mr. Watrous that there are hillside guidelines that
talk about general placement of structures on properties, but none for heavily loaded garages in
the front. Mr. Watrous explained that the issue of whether the project was front-loaded was
discussed by the DRB and they looked at other areas beyond the immediate surrounding area.
They found a number of newer homes with similar front facing garages, particularly in the
Preserve area.
Councilmember Fredericks said what she noticed in particular, about the houses on that side of
the street and different from houses across the street, is that they are narrow and long and there is
not as much of a front yard setback. She asked if there are any existing 3 car garages on that side
of the street, and Mr. Watrous said he was not sure whether there are in that immediate stretch of
road.
Councilmember Fredericks asked if there were other projects before the DRB that include lots
with newly acquired railroad right-of-way. Mr. Watrous stated yes; there are a few lots in Bel
Aire that ended up with a piece of the old railroad right-of-way because it had to go through zone
changes. The Council made a specific requirement for these lots that the right-of-way would not
be used in the overall calculations for floor area. They did not think, particularly in Bel Air, that
it would make sense to have much larger houses on those smaller pieces. In other applications
around the town it has been factored into the overall FAR calculations.
Councilmember Fredericks questioned whether this was because of the constraint and
characteristics of the Bel Aire neighborhood. Mr. Watrous said it was because the Council had an
opportunity to act on this specific item; this is unusual with the railroad right-of-way pieces, but
there are other properties that have acquired land as part of lot line adjustments, and they have
always been calculated as part of the overall lot size for purposes of calculating FAR.
Councilmember Fredericks said this is a peculiar configuration of the lot, as it is narrow and
long, which she'thinks constrains the addition. She asked if there were any projects in that area
with this sort of configuration. Mr. Watrous said most of these homes were built in the 1970's
and 1980's and there are only a handful of properties that have this additional railroad right-of-
way.
Director Anderson added that this particular property and a few like it in the vicinity had
acquired the railroad property as soon as it became available in the early 1970's, and there was
no real Town opportunity to have any input on zoning limitations of any kind for the former
railroad portions. He said the Bel Aire neighborhood acquisition was much later and the Town
was able to have some control with what happened.
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 9
EXHIBIT NO. 2
Mayor Slavitz opened the hearing and asked for the appellant's presentation.
Dan Mihalovich, 67 Reed Ranch Road, appellant, said he is speaking on behalf of his family and
shared interests of some neighbors, as well. He thanked the Council and DRB members for
taking the time to review correspondence on file, for coming to his house and to view the story
poles together. He thanked the Parsons' legal counsel for drafting their letter to the Council of
June 28, 2011 which helped him articulate his response regarding the appeal, which supplements
his presentation tonight. He set forth the following 7 points about the appeal:
1. He is not anti-development or opposed to Parsons proceeding with a tasteful renovation.
2. While everyone will take a fresh look at the proposed project, some disputes have lasted
months, and he questioned why there is opposition. He said certain neighbors are opposed
to the massive scale and looming design at the street front of Reed Ranch Road. He does
not believe the proposed scale is necessary, appealing or consistent with the community.
The applicant is trying to push through the design and construction of a 2 story shop and
part of a 3 car `garage' which is uncharacteristic of any home in the neighborhood facing
the street of similarly sized lots.
3. The other main component of the new structure is the large train room and he questioned
why neighbors must be imposed upon by such a large structure. Numerous zoning
ordinances will be violated, and he articulated the list of such ordinances in his memo to
the Council.
4. As a condition for the Council to deny the project, he asked the Council to confirm why
he must prove that the DRB made a mistake or its decision based on faulty or incomplete
information. Mayor Slavitz responded that this is a de novo hearing and the Council is
forming its own opinions.
5. As late as last night, Mr. Mihalovich said he was finding errors in the architect's drawings
which he was unaware of during visits by the Council around the property. He feels the
architect's drawings are misleading and incomplete, and should not serve as the basis for
approval, but only for denial. On final review, he found that the story poles were not
accurately placed by a significant margin.
6. The architect's drawings do not describe the cut in the earth required for the project nor
appropriately portray elevations after the cut is made. Elevations after the cut are not
shown in the area of the walkway from the new front stairs. He noted that after the DRB
voted to"approve the project, it now contains reference to the specific size of the cut as
3'3" and, "any future retaining wall would be less than 42 inches in height." He stated
these two metrics were not available to DRB members at the third session when the
project was approved.
7. If the drawings submitted and representations by the architect are found in error, he asked
how the Council will you trust the applicant's information going forward. Regarding the
story poles, he noted the architect's drawings are at 1 /4'" scale unlike the drawings
received from staff. He referred to the site plan showing the measurements of the height
of the story poles, stating that the tallest set of story poles is at 119'9-1/4". He pointed out
on the plans the elevation of the flat roof above the monitor. The plans before the Council
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 10
EXHIBIT NO.
show the architect's north elevation with a new garage level as listed at 99.15' . The
architect's measurement for the highest roof level is at 23'10.5" above the garage floor
and therefore misstated the elevation. It should not be .120.03' but rather 123.02' which is
3 feet higher and well below the story pole constructed at 119'9-1/4".
Unlike the street view version submitted by the Parsons' architect, the more complete
version still shows the dashed lines to indicate the curb, but more accurately now portrays
the cut in the earth required and its impact on the existing trees and neighbors' lots.
The new garage height measures 17' tall, 1 foot taller than what he indicated in the appeal
and memo he sent. At this height, one could create 2 stories, and indeed, he feels this is a
2-story tall garage.
Regarding elevations, Mr. Mihalovich said on the revised proposed north elevation
drawing, he has taken the existing grade shown by the architect and sketched it in heavy
dashed lines. The architect erred in this drawing, since the correct measurement using a
3.2' cut shows the dashed line below his. The elevations also prove that once the cut is
made, all mature Chinese Elm trees in the cut area will have to be removed unless the
Parsons construct a 3 foot retaining wall which has never been shown in the drawings. He
said one can begin to discern that the grading and proximity of the proposed walkway at
about 10 feet from the Chinese Elms, and said this is precisely where the Parsons'
original expansion was proposed to take place and where every DRB member instructed
the Parsons was not the place to build improvements, as it represented an invasion of his
privacy. The building is too close to his property, as well as the walkway.
Regarding mass of light, he said it is not just the mass of the development at the front of
the house that is offensive. Given the scores of windows both in the 17' tall garage shop
area and the rest of the structure, the building addition will pollute them and neighbors
with light. If light is needed in the garage, he asked to require interior light fixtures and
reduce the windows to 1 or 2. He said there are now 26 windows facing his property, 7 of
which are from the garage, plus the garage side door which should be removed, as there
are already 3 doors assigned plus the 3 front doors facing the street. The 5 windows that
face his house at the same ground level only serve to light an interior corridor behind the
new front stairs which will also add to light pollution towards their bedrooms. The
proposed east elevation is in contention for the most offensive light pollution. This is the
view most of the public will see whenever driving down Reed Ranch Road, and he
believes there is far too much mass and light. He feels it is ironic that the Town heavily
restricts exterior lighting while at the same time, considers allowing construction of such
a polluter.
Regarding resolution of what should be, while not attempting to redesign the Parsons
home Mr. Mihalovich suggested an expansion as unanimously recoinmended by the DRB
to be spread between the front and rear of the home. The Parsons should continue to
develop their plan starting with the relocation of the existing garage so it aligns as per the
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 11
EXHIBIT NO. Z
current plans with the existing house. The 2 car garage should remain and have normal
garage height built on current grade. Expanding it to the front would allow the front entry
stairs to remain in their current location. Assuming all construction at the front of the
house remains on current grade, the Parsons could maintain their current garden, trees,
and not spend additional funds on engineering, grading, drainage, and retaining walls.
Efforts should be made to remain within the envelope of the current house. A variance
may be needed to expand the house to the rear, but it would be accepted much more
favorably by neighbors and would be more fitting in the community.
Another more elaborate idea would be that since he,knows the project is all about the
shop and 3 car garage, he suggested the Parsons move out for awhile in favor of tearing
down most of the house, rebuild with a setback 3 car garage and train room on the lower
level and main house upstairs and to the rear. This would enhance views of Mt.
Tamalpais and maintain the front garden as is.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked for clarification on height discrepancies. Mr. Watrous deferred
to the architect, stating his review of the story poles indicate that they are at 123.1' and elevations
show a high roofline of 123.1'. He added that as a policy, the Town does not require story pole
certification by a surveyor for additions; only for new homes.
Jeffrey Wong, Architect, recounted how he arrived at the approved project, stating that the
original proposal planned to keep the existing garage intact and to construct an addition,
including a new garage, at the westerly side yard setback. After much discussion with the DRB at
that first hearing and, in light of concerns expressed by the appellant, they revised their proposal.
They returned to the next meeting with a completely new proposal to address concerns. The new
design came about after the Parsons agreed to significant concessions toward the overall design,
specific features and details, the manner in which they would be able to use their completed
home, their view of Ring Mountain, and other concessions. They were respectful of input by the
DRB and, accordingly, he made changes to the proposal.
The plan relocated the proposed addition as far to the other side of the 75 foot wide property as
possible from the westerly side yard setback to the easterly side yard setback. This would require
additional expense, demolition of the existing garage, and loss of views. They presented the new
version and it was agreed that the appellant's issues had been addressed and only a couple of
minor concerns --remained.
At their third and last DRB meeting where there was no other public comment they presented
some final design adjustments, including a shorter and narrower roof monitor. They agreed to
accept landscape screening and tree protection and were able to arrive at a design good for the
DRB, the community, and the Parsons.
Regarding the appeal, Mr. Wong pointed out that the grading required in their approved proposal
accomplishes a lower garage floor level 3 feet lower than the existing garage. The site and
landscape plans presented at each of the DRB meetings showed clearly their intention and ability
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 12
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
to grade for the new garages without harming the 6 existing Chinese Elms which the Parsons
have nurtured for years. The elms will anchor the new front yard landscaping and their
professional land surveyors, Larry Stevens Associates, have verified they will be able to execute
their agreement to the DRB condition to safeguard the trees.
Regarding assertions that the story poles are not correct, Mr. Wong said the same surveyors have
verified locations and heights of the story poles. The rows on the east and west facades are glass
blocked to provide natural light to the interior while minimizing spillage. He said the pathway is
25 feet from the western property line and 35 feet away when adding the setback of adjacent
neighbors.
Lastly, on the north elevation, Mr. Wong pointed out the line of the existing curve of Reed Ranch
Road, stating that whereas now the existing driveway slopes upwards, after grading the new
driveway will slope down to the new garage level. The widths of the proposed curb cut where the
new driveway will meet the street is 5 feet narrower than that which exists now, allowing a wider
planting area to further screen the house from the neighbors and screen the neighbor's homes
from the applicant. He then pointed out existing trees and the wider planting area, said visual
screening, privacy, and nighttime illumination all are issues that have effects both ways, and
noted that the Parsons also have a vested interest in these issues, as well.
Riley Hurd, III, legal counsel for applicant, directed the Council to the Town's code in addressing
calculation of floor area ratio, noting it is clear that the applicants are allowed to use all of their
lot. He said the appellant expressed concerns about a precedential effect of gigantic lots;
however, the Council established a maximum house size in this zone. Floor area ratio is a
guideline and not a guarantee, and the DRB still found it to be a project they could approve. They
could have made it smaller, but they approved the project. Also important to note is that the
garage will be further away from the street as opposed to what is there now. The path is not in the
setback but in the actual building envelope, and the appellant's home does not meet the current
side yard setback requirement as it is in 5 feet of the Parsons' property, and therefore, they only
have a 10 foot setback where 15 feet is required. This non-conformity was exacerbated when the
appellant decided to build a second floor in this encroaching area, add living space and windows
facing the Parson's property. His clients have had to work around this non-conformity by
sacrificing their own time and money to push it away from the appellant's own encroachment.
Mr. Hurd then r'tferred to vegetation and privacy and said it is the applicants who have been, and
will continue to be, responsible for providing all screening between the two properties. He stated
that the appellant has not one screening plant or tree in the area between the two homes, and the
Parsons vegetation is being used for the benefit of both. However, they are happy to provide this
benefit. Regarding the walkway and stairs, this is a single family dwelling and the intensity of use
is extremely low. Also very important is that in the new design, there is now interior access from
the garage to the home, requiring less people using the pathway. In closing, he noted the DRB
heavily modified the project in response to the appellant and he asked that the Council uphold the
decision of the DRB and deny the appeal.
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 13
EXHIBIT NO. 2
Vice Mayor Fraser cited the fact that there is a clear difference of opinion, perception, or reality
with respect to story poles. He feels there are compelling arguments on both side, and asked how
the Council can be convinced in what they saw is correct and what is represented in the drawings
is correct. Mr. Wong stated that, while not required, they had Larry Stevens Associates survey
the property to verify locations of the story poles and provided a certified document.
Councilmember Collins had the following questions to which he received confirmation from Mr.
Wong:
• The size of the glass blocks is 8x8 and 12x 12.
• Light will come in and go out of the glass blocks, which are fairly thick.
• The size of the floor area under the roof monitor is approximately 140 square feet.
• The purpose of the roof monitor is that it allows the integrity of the interior post and
timber design of the existing house to be maintained and to add an 8 foot high box next to
a room would destroy the character of the interior of the home.
• The height of the roof monitor is 12 foot ceiling height over the hobby room.
• There is one existing window at the top of the existing roof monitor.
• There is no retaining wall proposed in the project.
• The total height of the interior of the garage varies; it is 8 feet over the rear portion
considered the workshop area, 11 feet over the second garage, and 15 feet along the L-
shaped area.
• The dimensions of the entry deck are about 10 feet long, curved, by about 7.5 feet.
• The two panel doors facing the west coining out of the garage are solid wood with raised
panels.
• There is an interior closet on the ground level.
Councilmember O'Donnell questioned the need and necessity for a 3-car garage, as he did not
see many in the neighborhood. Mr. Wong replied that when he presented the project to the DRB,
within miles there were 10 properties that had more than 2 car garages, mostly on Indian Rock
which are newer homes.
Councilmember O'Donnell questioned where the connection will be between the garage and the
newly created living space, and what the total square footage of the proposed garage is. Mr.
Wong pointed out the garage space and interior space on the lower level, and Mr. Watrous
confirmed that the total square footage of the living space and garage is 1436 square feet, 600
square feet of which is separate with the remainder going towards the FAR. He confirmed it was
the full usage of the 600 square feet. Councilmember O'Donnell confirmed with Mr. Watrous
that the resulting FAR would be 3,867 square feet, plus the 600 square feet for the garage.
Councilmember Fredericks requested Mr. Wong address the windows on the west side that face
the appellant's bedrooms, and asked if there was a way to mitigate the light pollution into the
appellant's home. She said there was an appeal a few years ago and an architect on the Council at
the time felt interior lighting deign can go a long way to reduce light pollution. She confnned
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 14
`Z _
EXHIBI'T' NO.
with Mr. Wong the location of glass blocks versus windows in the plan, and the applicant's
desire to create visual interest and fenestration of the facades. In adding up all square footage on
each facade, each has between 30 and 50 square feet which is the size of an average patio door.
Councilmember Fredericks suggested the possibility for interior lighting and cited the new
technologies directing down lighting that minimizes light pollution. Mr. Wong said illumination
will not go beyond the building. He agreed that recessed lighting can specify direction to restrict
light to the domed area, and added that the windows on the side are garage windows and are only
minimally used during the night. The hobby room will be the most utilized because it is part of
the family room.
Mayor Slavitz said once in the garage, one level up is the guest bedroom and model train area.
He clarified with Mr. Wong that the floor level for the guest bedroom was below and behind the
fenestrations and is nested down into the garage to break up the plane. He stated that if the guest
bedroom and the model train area are on the same floor level and the monitor is only at the model
train room, he asked why it was needed at all. Mr. Wong said sooner or later, the design will run
into the existing roof and they will need to resolve how that works from the exterior design.
Mayor Slavitz clarified that the ceiling height is 9 feet in the guest bedrooms going up to 12 feet
in the model train area. Mr. Wong described their specific reasoning to do this so as not to make
the renovation look like an add-on and require rafters.
Councilmember O'Donnell stated the guest bedroom is nestled down in behind the garage, yet
the front of the garage it is rising up to almost 15 feet. He questioned why the architect could not
integrate the bedroom or a window looking out into the street so as not have such a large garage,
which would also require less grading. Mr. Wong said at the various DRB discussions, they tried
to reduce the apparent volume of the building envelope. They chose to step it in an array pattern
to minimize any angle that one could see it from any wall. If they brought the guest bedroom
forward, there would be a two-story high street frontage rather than what would appear as 15 feet
tall and stepped back.
Councilmember O'Donnell suggested a normal garage height and a graduated slope up to a guest
bedroom above the garage. What he said the architect could have done to break up the massing
and to eliminate a lot of light pollution in the front is to create a slope from the top of the garage
up until the bedroom. Mr. Wong agreed, but noted this was the style his clients were seeking.
Vice Mayor Fraser verified that the top monitor is above the train room and a portion of the
existing family room, which exists now.
Mr. Hurd stated that in addressing Councilmember O'Donnell's point, the DRB said politely to
the owner that the main residence is unattractive and they asked him not to match that style
again.
Councilmember Collins referred to the lower level and the windows facing the west and clarified
that the windows are 2 feet wide. The reason for having them there is to capture as much light as
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 15
2
EXHIBIT NO.
possible to light the hallway. Councilmember Collins suggested installing lighting in the hallway,
and Mr. Hurd said the Parsons want a net zero energy impact and build as green as possible.
Mayor Slavitz stated that because the windows are smaller, they may add up to the number of
normal sized windows in other homes in the area. He asked staff to comment on the amount of
glazing. Mr. Watrous noted staff does not usually calculate the amount of glazing as a percentage
of a wall. The DRB looks at it on a case-by-case basis. There are some areas where if windows
do not face any neighbors, it is solid glass. In other areas, if it is a privacy or light pollution issue,
they have asked that windows be lowered or eliminated. He said the applicant did adhere to
reducing the number of windows as requested by the DRB by the second and third meetings.
Vice Mayor Fraser referred to 3 car garages and asked if the Town has seen this number of
garages in new homes or modifications with these number of light boxes or windows. Mr.
Watrous stated staff does not calculate them but is seeing more attention being paid to trying to
maximize passive lighting approaches with green building principles.
Mayor Slavitz said, in recognizing that the final decision of the DRB was not unanimous, he
asked DRB Member Emberson to comment on the project.
DRB Member Linda Emberson explained that Boardmember Kricensky who is an architect, was
concerned about mass of the front of the structure and thought that by stepping it back it
mitigated some of the large mass. Originally the entire addition was next to the neighbors. The
DRB asked that it be moved to the other side which also mitigated privacy issues. Boardmembers
drove around the neighborhood and found large houses right on Reed Ranch Road, but the DRB
concurred that the applicant was not asking for an exception. They looked at both sides of the
issue and arrived at what they thought was a happy median.
Mayor Slavitz questioned whether there was discussion regarding number of windows.
Boardmember Emberson said she was not at the second meeting but by the third meeting the
number of windows had been reduced. The Board also agreed that the windows allowed passive
light and reduced energy usage.
BREAK
Mayor Slavitz called for a brief recess/break at 9:21 p.m., and the meeting then reconvened at
9:26 p.m.
Mayor Slavitz opened the public comment period. There were no public comments, and Mayor
Slavitz asked for rebuttal by the appellant.
Mr. Mihalovich reiterated that he believed it was productive to have the Council receive a copy
of the correspondence from Mr. Hurd and for him to have the ability to articulate, in writing, the
concerns as part of his appeal. He noted that the DRB instructed the Parsons to avoid massing of
the entire project at the front of the house at the first meeting, which was precisely what they did
not do by the second or third meeting, and there is still relatively the same mass of the project in
Town Council Minutes. #14 -2011 AN 6, 2011 Page 16
EXHIBIT NO. 2
the front. In speaking concurrently about this drawing and about the dissenting vote,
Boardmember Kricensky's concern was that the scale of the project was not fitting for this site
and the neighborhood. He asked the Council to verify that the measurements in the plan are
correct which are taken from the architect's drawings. He has proven that the story poles are not
in the right place. In fact, he said the building will be 3 feet taller than the story poles now
indicate.
Regarding 3 car garages, Mr. Mihalovich said he doubts there are 3 car garages for lots of this
size facing the street in the Reedlands, but acknowledged there are in the larger lots in Indian
Rock and other parts of Ring Mountain. Regarding the need for a 3 car garage, the applicant
wants the Council to believe the Parsons are quiet empty nesters, but said children move back
and sometimes people sell their houses after the project is approved and built. He voiced concern
with the Council having to approve a 3 car garage just because the Parsons have 4 cars for 2
people. Regarding the surveyor, if the Council is not convinced with the height and bulk of the
project, he questioned why the surveyor was not present. And, such a report would contradict the
architect's drawings.
Councilmember O'Donnell referred to the height of the top of the roof monitor and pointed out
that elevation is different than height. The architect has indicated that the elevation is 120'. The
height from the ground is at 23'l 0.5", and he questioned the discrepancy. Mr. Mihalovich
clarified that the difference between 99.15 and 120.03 is 3 feet. The story poles are at 119'9 1/"
which is on the architect's drawings. Mr. Watrous pointed out that staff shows the corner point at
123.1' and the appellant most likely has an outdated drawing.
Mayor Slavitz stated that regardless of the height of the story poles, Mr. Mihalovich would like a
2 car garage and not a 3 car garage. Regarding the guest room and train room, he clarified that it
was not a question of where it should go but the height and bulk of the project and the fact that it
is sitting out and towering at the front of the building. He added there are other neighbors who
have written several times voicing the same opinion.
Councilmember Collins confirmed with Mr. Watrous that the reduction of the height was at the
request of the DRB at the second meeting.
Mayor Slavitz called for the applicant's rebuttal.
Riley Hurd, counsel for the Parsons, referred to the grading diagram which he said is a bench cut
and not a grading plan., and a topographical survey was done. They are not grading within 9 feet
of the Elms on the other side of the property and this is the data Boardmember Kricensky was
looking for which is usually presented at the building permit phase. However, they have
presented it in order to address it in the appeal. Another important issue is the windows. While it
is right to be concerned about light pollution, in this case there will be a giant wall of vegetation
screening. He pointed out that the east facing windows coming from the appellant's house into
the applicant's property include a second floor office, guest bedroom and two bathroom
windows, and on the first floor, bedrooms and a bathroom. There have been no complaints from
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 17
EXHIBIT NO.
the Parsons since they have lived there from the standpoint of the appellant's home. Finally, the
DRB never asked them to go to the back of the property because there is a sewer easement and
also because of the slope of the lot. Mass would be added directly overlooking the appellant's
backyard and private spaces. Lastly, he thinks the 4-1 vote is telling and they have addressed the
one `no' vote through the topographical survey.
Councilmember Collins questioned and confinned that the reason there is no retaining wall is
because the slope of the street is going in one direction and it is not needed. Mr. Hurd added
there is no grade change at either property line.
Mayor Slavitz asked whether the front of the garages were at the same line as the existing
garages. Mr. Hurd replied that they will be further away from the existing garages and much
further away than the appellant's nearest improvements. He clarified they are about 30" further
back and wider on the right by another garage bay.
The public hearing was closed.
Councilmember O'Donnell stated he was on the DRB for several years and this is the most
difficult project he has seen. Part of his concern is that he does not like the design itself, as it
seems the design builds a mini-castle in front of another house. He also recognizes a person's
right to build and the fact that no variance is needed. Regarding the specific 4 points of the
appeal, he sees privacy as a complete non-issue because privacy is a two-way street. Both parties
can make accominodations for changes on their own property in a positive and negative way.
Regarding the issue of walkway and driveway, he does not see much of a problem or impact. He
also does not see any issues with grading. He does struggle somewhat with bulk and height, and
thinks it is odd to have a 15 foot garage in front of the house with so many windows, noting there
are 47 windows excluding the parapet at the top. He understands the DRB is trying to break up
mass and bulk but thinks the design feels like it creates two separate residences. He said he
would have stepped it back somehow above the garage into the bedroom area and limit the 15
feet interior garage height.
Councilmember Fredericks said that in the back of the home, height is determined by the
Parsons' desire to match the interior design of the roof beam. The trade-off is if the first element
is made lower, there will be more of a height jump to the second element. She agrees this is one
of the more difficult appeals because of the complexity of the design. She thinks lighting on the
west side can be taken care of by thoughtful choice of the kinds of lighting fixtures that beam
down and do not scatter light. Regarding the 3-car garages in front lots she saw none, but she did
see rather large structures close to the road along that side along Reed Ranch Road which were
very well screened by trees and vegetation. She thinks this is something people in this
neighborhood pay attention to, and given the proposed tree screening, even with a 3 car garage it
will have its mass mitigated. She also thinks the curve of the roadway will be a screen for part of
the height of the structure. .
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 18
Z
EXHIBIT NO.
Councilmember Fredericks said she recognizes there are many windows; however, the glazing on
the front windows is at an angle to the neighbor across the street which similarly has a monitor
design. Therefore, aside from a condition to limit the lighting. fixtures inside the house, she feels
the DRB got this absolutely right.
Councilmember Collins stated that philosophically, he believes an owner not asking for a
variance or FAR exception has a right to develop their property as long as it does not infringe on
somebody else and fits within the character of the neighborhood. He did not believe this design
fits the character of the neighborhood but is persuaded by the fact that owners should have a right
to do what they want to do. He could not vote to change the. plan for a 2 car garage, but would
like to see considerable mitigation with the downstairs hallway windows. He asked if the
stairway could be shielded in some way without losing the square footage and without losing
what the living room is intended for. He would like to see the size scaled down and some
mitigation to make it fit better within the neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Fraser said that in looking at grounds for appeal, he thinks the privacy issue is a non-
issue. He thinks the applicants have demonstrated their willingness to screen to whatever degree
necessary, and he expects the appellant can do the same thing. He thinks the walkway and
driveway are sufficient. He had been somewhat concerned about the grading issue and story pole
heights, and in moving forward the Council should condition the project to require the surveyor's
report as part of the record since it is a controversial point. Given the massing and bulk, he agrees
with Councilmember O'Donnell's comments about not liking the design. One area he is troubled
with is with lighting and windows and feels many homes approved over the last decade pollute
the sky and neighborhood. He agreed with comments as stated by Councilmember Collins
regarding the hallway that, while dark without windows, interior lighting could be installed.
Given the close proximity of neighbors, sensitivity should be given to the amount of light in the
evening, and he recommended the garage window area be minimized more with respect to
lighting.
Mayor Slavitz said he agrees with what has been said, especially Councilmember O'Donnell's
comments in that the brand new addition looks like two separate houses. The addition actually
emphasizes the mass and bulk of the addition, as the 3 garages and wall right above it is all the
same plane vertically. An alternative would be to step it back to make it look less massive. The
new monitor complicates the design and adds to the bulk. He would remove the windows, meet
the roof and simplify the design to remove some of the mass and bulk. He believes that the 3 car
garage is not compatible with the neighborhood and suggested stepping one back to look less
massive and more acceptable for the neighborhood. Regarding privacy, while green building is
encouraged, the downside is that too many windows create light pollution.
Councilmember Collins noted that the third garage is a workshop and if used at night, its lights
will be on. Mayor Slavitz agreed and questioned whether Councilmembers wanted the project
sent back to the DRB or not.
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 Jul), 6, 2011 Page 19
EXHIBIT N0._ 2
Councilmember Fredericks stated that given what the applicant is asking for and the problems
that it caused in bringing forward the appeal, she thinks the DRB acted appropriately. She also
has concerns with controlling lighting that faces bedrooms. .
Councilmember O'Donnell noted there are 9 large windows are right above the garage which he
feels are unnecessary. He likes the top roof monitor, thinks a linear plane has been created in
front of the house, and suggested the design step back a bit and be reduced down. The massive
design also takes the full FAR plus adds the 3 car garage and puts a large house on a narrow lot.
He thinks it should be redesigned to eliminate the mass, bulk and height issues. He did not have a
strong preference for or against the 3 car garage, but suggesited eliminating the 15 foot ceiling
with a slope to break up the mass.
Vice Mayor Fraser said he thinks the applicant clearly responded to the direction given by the
DRB. He suggested and confirmed with Mr. Watrous that the Council could direct the applicant
to further tweak the project and return to the Council. If the Council feels there is specific
direction, it could ask the applicant to eliminate the hallway windows and/or the top row of the
larger windows along the garage to address lighting and window issues. Mr. Watrous added that
applicants have limited lighting in certain areas to down light fixtures on the interior and there is
the ability to address specific additional conditions of approval which could be included in the
resolution. If there are other more detailed revisions to the design, and the Council would like to
see them, direction could be provided to the applicant, the hearing could be continued and
revisions brought back.
Mayor Slavitz suggested that the Council could also give specific enough direction and have the
revisions reviewed and approved by staff. Mr. Watrous agreed but asked for more clarification in
the form of a motion so staff has adequate direction for compliance at the building/plan check
process.
Councilmember Fredericks said she was comfortable with staff reviewing the lighting, but she
thinks a longer discussion would be prompted if the structure is changed to be scaled back,
especially given the varying heights inside the garage area.
Councilmember O'Donnell suggested slanting the varying height from th&top level to where the
garage doors are so the 15 windows become 4 windows, similar to a dormer.
it
Ms. Danforth offered that eliminating windows on the west side would be helpful in mitigating
impacts on neighbors at 67 Reed Ranch Road, which could be simple fix as could be the lighting
design condition described by Mr. Watrous. If something more is required to reduce the actual
size of the garage addition, she would be hesitant to have the Council elaborate on it tonight
unless the architect describes something the Council could sign off on. Otherwise, the most
effective thing to do would be to continue the meeting and return the project.
Mr. Watrous approached the Council and provided an example to reduce down the 15 foot
section of the garage and angle it.
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011 Page 20
EXHIBIT NO. 2
Mayor Slavitz offered that the project could be continued to the next date certain, which is
August 3, 2011.
Mr. Watrous clarified with the Council their desired changes to the project; the taller garage
roofline to be brought down to meet the second lower plane. Instead of it being flat, it could
slope up. Councilmember O'Donnell suggested also decreasing some of the lower windows and
increasing the upper window in the guest area to capture views.
Councilmember Collins noted there are 4 windows facing the west in the garage. He suggested
these be eliminated and moved to face the east on the blank wall. He also stated there are 2
windows in the guest bedroom. If these were pushed out and reversed to the front side, the west
side would be mitigated dramatically.
Mr. Watrous confirmed the direction of the Council to recommend that the applicant: 1) modify
the garage roofline, 2) move windows on the west side of the addition to the east side; 3)
eliminate the west-facing bedroom windows or move these windows to the front?of the bedroom;
4) eliminate the hallway windows; and 5) design interior light fixtures to shine on the floors and
stairs and not onto windows.
The Council asked that the revisions be made and returned to the Council at its August 3, 2011
meeting.
MOTION: To continue the public hearing to August 3, 2011.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded O'Donnell
Vote: AYES: Unanimous
3. Mill Valley Refuse Service - Further consideration of the proposed Mill Valley Refuse
Service rate increase (Town Manager Curran; Director of Administrative Services Bigall)
- continued from the June 15 regular meeting
Director of Administrative Services Bigall gave the staff report, stating the item was continued
from the Council's June 15, 2011 meeting wherein the Council received a presentation and
considered a proposed rate increase by Mill Valley Refuse Service (MVRS). She said the
application is prepared by April 1St for a July Pt effective date and based on MVRS's projection
of revenues and expenditures a 13.61 % increase is requested to provide MVRS with a fair rate of
return. At the June 15t" date, the new franchise agreement was not in effect, which calls for some
other services and an increase to the agreement the Town receives. Therefore, the effective
[prorated] increase becomes 15.88%.
The Council requested MVRS return with several items, which she outlined:
• Exhibit 1 through 4 include 4 years of audited financial statements;
Exhibit 5 is a quick comparison she prepared comparing those 4 years of audited financial
Town Council Minutes #14 -2011 July 6, 2011
Page 21
EXHIBIT NO. Z.
Page I of 2
Dan Watrous
From: Dan Mihalovich [dan@thespaceplace.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 5:37 PM
JUL 1 1 2011 k
To: Mayor, Jeff Slavitz
Cc: Dan Watrous
p G. k A A y $
Subject: Tiburon Town Council Appeal - Follow Up Letter Re 65 Reed Ranch Road, from Dan Mihalovich
Attachments: Scale Drawing_Proposed North Elevation _Corrections. pdf; ATT00001.htm
Re: Tiburon Town Council Meeting / July 6, 2011 / Appeal of 65 Reed Ranch
Road Application
Dear Mayor:
Please extend my sincere thanks and a copy of this letter to all Council
members and Staff for all of your efforts and considerable focused energy at
this week's meeting.
By your own admissions, this has been a challenging project for the Council
to take on, and we appreciate what you are doing.
As we look forward to the August 3rd follow up meeting, we know that Staff,
the Parsons, their architect and attorney will be busy in preparation.
I thought it would be productive to highlight a few points from the comments
of Council members at the hearing and make a few suggestions---while there
remains ample time between now and August 3rd:
e We greatly appreciated the support from Council members to reduce the
number of windows facing our house to the west. While there was little
or no support to relocate the walkway from its close proximity, one of the
Council members suggested that perhaps there is a way to "privatize"
the new front stairs, so that they are more shielded from looking directly
into our bedrooms than merely by greenery (landscaping which may
become temporary or later removed by a new owner). We would
welcome such change. I would like to reiterate our request to remove
the garage door at the west of the building (this is the 6th of 6 doors to
the garage). We remain concerned about noise pollution from the shop.
• We know from several comments from various Council members that
there remains a question about the validity, in this community, of a 3-car
garage. We remain opposed to the bulk of the project, conceived by the
3-car garage and believe it will look like a fire station---with primarily
building structure across the front of the property.
EXHIBIT NO. %3
7/11/2011 l CF 3
Page 2 of 2
With reference to the marked-up, 1/4" scale drawing I provided to the Council
members (copy attached), I have a few quick comments.
o Although the Parsons' lawyer stated, "That is not our drawing", it
clearly is their architect's drawing which shows an overlay of his existing
elevation and grade vs. his proposed elevation and grade.
o We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water", with respect to this
drawing, since it illustrates the visual effect of the cut on this site. The 6
foot person drawn in at the garage door is dwarfed by this new building.
o I must apologize for my miscalculation Qf the story pole height, since I
mistakenly used the Session 2 set of the architect's drawings versus from
the third and final TDRB session drawings. Again, though, the story pole
calculation mistake does not invalidate the balance.of the drawing.
• The Parsons architect represented to the Council that a surveyor's report
confirms the proper story pole locations and projected cut and~elevations. He
confirmed to the Council that the surveyor's report suggested that no retaining
walls will be required once the cut is made, nor any changes required at either
of the neighbor's connections to the Parsons property. I would like the Council
to request a complete copy of the surveyor's report, and further request that
the Parsons' architect provide a detailed elevation drawing derived from the
surveyor's report so that all of us will know what the ground level and terrain---
across the front of the building---will look like. This should not be a perspective
drawing from the curb at the street, but rather should show the existing grade
and proposed grade---a side to side section, ten feet back from the front of the
building. This will help all of us understand "the cut". I believe these are
reasonable requests, especially since the surveyor's report is already in the
Parsons' hands.
• Finally, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the same suet of scaled
drawings and surveyor report that the Council receives. It is in everyone's best
interests too view full scale drawings. I believe that the Council will have to
direct the Parsons to share this information with me.
I look forward to your reply and, once again, greatly appreciate your and the
Council's judicious handling of this matter.
With kindest regards,
EXHIBIT NO. 3
P. 6T= 3
7/11/2011
,
i ~
CV
•
t
I
1
1
~ i i
f 111
~y
'to
l
~i .j
Il
151 L~ r
1
-
,I,
i
f
1l
w
T ,
i
I I ~
~
~ I
;
~
~ ~ t 1C i
l I
ti
1 k'' f V.
ui
jI
;
111
]L■
I
` w
j--
~i
140~g
O
HM
H
W
To: Tiburon Town Council
Re: Remodel of 65 Reed Ranch Road
Date: July 25, 2011
M°
JUL 2 5 2011
pp YP < F
We look forward to our opportunity, at the August 3rd meeting, to share with the Council how we are
responding to your recommendations. At the July 6di meeting there were two remaining issues which
we were asked to address: The amount of windows facing the west, and the height of the first level of
the garage structure. The re-submitted plans address both of these issues.
First, we estimate that the plan approved by the Design Review Board has approximately the
amount of glass facing our neighbor at 67 Reed Ranch Road as his large remodel has face ousame
r
project. However, in response to the Town Council's recommendations, we have reduced the glass
full 30% on the west side of the project. It is also important to note that our current upstairs 1meby a
low voltage down spotlights. The identical track system will be used in the new structure to lighting is
consistency with our current low impact lighting system. maintain
Secondly, we have addressed the east garage roof. As Councilmember Alice Fredericks observed, this new structure to the existing structure there are certain heights (roof lines' floor levels) i
which one must work. Our design has always been based on creating two gentle curves while focusin
on stepping the structure back and inward to minimize its visual effect. The two gentle curves at the g
front of the building are an important visual feature which substantially softens the rectangular
structure of the existing building. Aligning the monitor with the ceiling heights of our second box
and aligning floor,
the first and second story floor levels creates the building envelope. Within the building
envelope, the goal is to then proportion each area in relationship to the other areas. We looked at
several alternative plans prior to accepting the submitted reduction of the east garage roof. We feel
this provides the maximum reduction in front height while not making the second story pro
t rude
unattractively. Further, this maintains a very important design element which aligns with our intended
use of the new project. As one can note from the story poles - the new structure will be further from t
street and only slightly taller than the current garage. m the
We look forward to showing you these two final changes on August 3rd as the final step in our
long
process through the three rigorous Design Review Board meetings and the two Town Council
meetings.
Unfortunately, we also feel the need to use this letter to respond to the issues our neighbor continues
raise, which have been discussed and resolved at both the three Design Review' Board meetin to
our last meeting in front of the Town Council. gs, and
Privacy screening - we accepted a condition of approval at the Design Review Board to
plant
two mature trees specifically placed to provide privacy screening. This is our long-term
retirement home and we have no desire to have someone looking at us from a bathroom window
- the screening will be both legal and sufficient to provide us with the privacy we desire. It is
notable that 100% of the landscape screening has been done by us, on our Property,
to mitigate the imposition on our privacy of the large windows which were instalour effort
massive remodel eight ears in weir
y ago. We would welcome any effort by our neighbor to provide
visual screening on his property as an adjunct to our efforts.
Three car garage - as was discussed by the Design Review Board members, a community
is
not defined by a 1960's development and doesn't stop at one side of a street or another bu
rather encompasses the complete eclectic neighborhood as it has grown and developed over the
years. As noted at both Design Review Board and the Town Council meetings, three car garages
EXHIBIT NO.
j oe2- _
are not unusual in the immediate neighborhood, there are 10 three car garages within a third of a
mile of 65 Reed Ranch Road. Further, as the Design Review Board noted, the development
trend is toward three car garages as the removal of cars parked on the street is in fact a desirable
neighborhood improvement.
Grading - Given our experience in responding to comments from our neigh bor over the
five months, it is no surprise to us that he continues to suggest that we 'lie' past
therefore demands further proof of this often discussed item. At the May 19th bout our project and
Board we accepted a condition that our grading plan must be designed to Design Review
protect our Chinese
Elm trees (concern about the mature trees was the only grading concern). Upon receivin
approval from the Design Review Board, we scheduled professional surveyor L g
begin the work the Town will require for the full satisfaction of this condition ' Stevens to
grading permit. The preliminary site survey has been done. This confirmed for sothat the issuing a
grading will be well away from the tree roots, allowing us to fully and easily conform with the
condition of approval. Further, despite installing the story poles correctly, when we heard of
allegations being voiced (now known as completely incorrect), we received field co
of the location and hen hts of the sto nfrmahon
g ry poles. As we knew, and as is easily verified by how they
must connect to the existing roofline and the visible stepping of elevations, they were and are
correct. Despite all of these concerted efforts, the appellant continues to circulate a drawing that
in no way represents our plan for grading the property. We would ask that the Council disre and
this unfounded and inaccurate representation. g
Retaining walls - this project has never (under any proposal) had any changes in elevation, nor
any retaining walls, at either property line. The only discussion about a retaining wall occurred
in our neighbor's hose, prior to our submitting the first plan to the Design Review Board, while
discussing how different fence configurations (six foot fence versus four foot fence on top of
two foot retaining wall) might enable our neighbor to better install screening plants.
a Drawings - we would like to remind our neighbor that the drawings we submit to the Town
Tiburon remain the personal copyrighted roes of
not for our neighbor's personal use. If he wishes to of Blue Mountain Design and are specifically
documents
produce his own materials at his own expense. We have no for public use, he must
his continued use and inaccurate manipulation of our material. and will not provide approval for
We are sorry that our fully conforming project has consumed so much of the Town Council's tim
we have also invested significant time and money in continually responding e, as
modifications. I hope that on the 3rd of August you will see that once again positively have ely to the requested
comments and integrated them into our further concessions, which will hop y a e~lly allow all accepted of your
move forward. us to
We appreciate your support and thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Q14
James S. Parsons and Andrea L. Hong
EXHIBIT NO. 14
? . -z C) P2--
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
August 3, 2011
Agenda Item: J
11
Alta Robles Precise Development Plan (PD #20); 3825 Paradise Drive;
File # 30701; Final Environmental Impact Report, Precise Development
Plan, and Prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on approximately
52 acres; Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01
~141 -
PROJECT DATA
Project Name:
Address:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
File Number:
Lot Size:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Current Use:
Owners/Applicants:
Flood Zone:
State Clearinghouse Number:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Alta Robles Residential Development
3825 Paradise Drive
039-021-13 and 039-301-01
30701
Approximately 52 acres
PD-R-a (Rabin) and PD-R-i (SODA); (Planned
Development-Residential; maximum density 0.4 du/ac)
Rabin - RPD (Residential Planned Development);
S.O.D.A. - No Tiburon zoning, located outside Tiburon
town limits; County Zoning is RMP-0.4
Rabin - Single Family Residential; SODA - Undeveloped
Irving and Varda Rabin, et al
X (Outside 500-year flood event)
2007072104
Irving and Varda Rabin, et al, have submitted applications for precise development plan and
prezoning for a 14-unit residential project on 52 acres of land. The subject property consists of
two contiguous parcels: the 20.95 acre SODA property and the 31.26 acre Rabin property. The
SODA property is located in an unincorporated portion of Marin County within the Town of
Tiburon's Sphere of Influence, and is currently undeveloped. The Rabin property is currently
developed with one single-family residence and several ancillary structures and is located within
the Town of Tiburon, with a street address of 3825 Paradise Drive.
The proposed project, as originally submitted, involved the eventual subdivision of the 52 acres
into 14 single family parcels (one existing residence to remain and 13 new residences to be
constructed) and three open space parcels totaling 18.69 acres.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11
TOW11 COLHICll Mcctin"T
AL111LIst 3, 2011
Precise Development Plan
The Precise Development Plan seeks approval for 14 residential lots, comprised of
• 1 lot for an existing single family home; and
• 13 lots for thirteen new single family homes
• 3 parcels (Parcels A, B, & C) are voluntarily offered to be protected by open space
easements held by the Town of Tiburon
• Residential use areas, height limits, floor area maximums, representative home designs
and footprints, and other zoning parameters would be established
• Design guidelines would be adopted
Prezonina
The application proposes prezoning the SODA property to RPD (Residential Planned
Development) consistent with the Tiburon General Plan designation (single-family dwellings at
0.4 dwelling units per acre or less) and consistent with the Town's zoning on theaadjacent Rabin
property. The RPD zoning (Section 16-21.020 (F[1]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code) proposed
for the SODA property is "intended to protect and preserve open space land as a limited and
valuable resource without depriving owners of a reasonable use of their property for residential
purposes." The proposed single family residential use is a Permitted Use (Section 16-21.030) in
the RPD zone. Maximum density for the land shall be established by a Precise Development Plan
approval pursuant to the requirements of Section 16-52.060.
The 20.95 acre SODA property is currently outside the Town's corporate limits, but within
Tiburon's Sphere of Influence. The applicants intend that this parcel be annexed to the Town for
development pursuant to the Town's adopted policies. The Marin Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) would be the decision-making body for the annexation application;
however, the Town's EIR must address any environmental impacts associated with the
annexation request and the Town must hold public hearings on, and approve the prezoning prior
to action by LAFCO. The Town's General Plan calls for annexation of this property to the Town
and the Town Council has twice voted its desire to see the SODA property development plan
processed through the Town, rather than the County of Marin, and the property annexed.
Subdivision
Although an application for subdivision cannot be submitted at this time, the eventual subdivision
configuration would result in 17 subdivision lots, as shown on the Precise Development Plan
Maps. These are:
14 single-family lots;
3 open space lots (A, B, & C)
Preservation of Scenic and Natural Resources
Extensive land area is proposed as permanent private open space by offer of open space easement
or other restriction.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 11
Town COLIIICII \ CCMICT
AU(TU.~t 3, 2011
• Private Common Open Space areas (Lots A, B, & C), are voluntarily offered for
permanent open space and resource conservation. These lots constitute 18.69 acres or
35.8% of the total land area. A public trail easement is proposed across a portion of Lot C
that would complete the Tiburon Ridge walking path in the vicinity. This is a major public
benefit of the project, given that the Town was recently required by court order to close a
portion of Hacienda Drive to public access.
• Private Open Space, lands proposed in individual private lot ownerships on the 13
proposed new lots, is voluntarily offered for permanent protection through scenic and
resource conservation easements. These areas include 9.51 acres or 18.2% of the total
land area.
• Private Space (Rabin Private Zone), comprising land surrounding the existing residence at
3825 Paradise Drive (Lot 1), is proposed to be maintained for private resource
conservation, open space, and private recreational use. This area includes 11.8 acres or
22.6% of the total land area. A public trail easement discussed above would cross part of
the Private Space.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
A Draft EIR was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, including the CEQA Statutes (Public Resources Code § § 21000-21178.1), CEQA
Guidelines, and relevant court decisions. The Draft EIR (DEIR) identified two significant
unavoidable ("SU") impacts of the project that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-
significant level through mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. These SU impacts were: 1)
that project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity; and
2) that the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site
when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space [see Exhibits 5.8-4 and 5.8-5(a), and (b) in the
DEIR].
In addition, the DEIR indicated that implementation of the proposed project, in combination with
other anticipated future projects at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula, would result in the
following unavoidable cumulative impacts:
ii
• Additional vehicle trips at the Tiburon Boulevard / Trestle Glen Boulevard intersection.
• The addition of vehicle trips to U.S. Highway 101.
• Construction noise.
• Wildlife habitat and connectivity impacts.
• Visual impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources
Due to these unavoidable impacts, approval of the project or any of the "development
alternatives" studied in the EIR would require that findings of overriding considerations to be
made at the time of project approval.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 11
TO W11 COLHIJI MCCtin,T
I
AUcTLIst 011
Alternatives
In addition to discussing potential off-site project locations, the EIR also studied the "No Project"
alternative, wherein no new units would be built on the site. The EIR also analyzed a
development alternative with 8 new homes, with all new development kept on the SODA parcel
and terminating the fire road at a hammerhead prior to the environmentally challenging crossing
onto the Rabin property, directly below and to the east of the Rabin residence. This alternative
eliminates the proposed homes on the Rabin property that would be accessed by the project
roadway after crossing onto the Rabin property. The DEIR also studied a modified version of the
applicant's project (13 new homes) incorporating DEIR-identified mitigation measures into the
design.
During the public review period of the Draft EIR and at the September 23, 2009 Planning
Commission meeting, several members of the public and the Planning Commission expressed
concern for the need to evaluate an additional alternative to the project. In response to those
concerns, staff met with the applicant team to discuss an additional project alternative that would
reduce project grading, retaining walls, and environmental impacts in the areas of biological
resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and visual quality. After careful review of the DEIR
findings as well as the comments received on the Draft EIR, the applicant's team developed
Alternative 4. This alternative built upon the revised site plan evaluated in the Draft EIR
(Alternative 3), plus added landslide stabilization and grading revisions.
The alternatives thus covered the full range of the number of units (0 to 13) that could be
constructed along what appears to be the sole realistically feasible means of vehicular access to
serve new development on the site, while attempting to reduce significant environmental impacts
in the process. Staff is of the opinion that while numerous permutations involving the selective
elimination of one or more lots within that range of units exist, those permutations would not
provide a meaningful environmental distinction that could not be reasonably ascertained within
the current range of alternatives before the Commission.
On February 24, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public meeting to hear and consider the
recommendation of the Environmental Coordinator as to whether "significant new information"
that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public comment period. At
the close of that hearing, the Planning Commission determined that no "significant new
information" that would require recirculation of the DEIR was received during the public
comment period" and directed the consultant to complete the response to comments and prepare
the Final EIR.
The Final EIR concluded that while the revised project (Alternative 4) would reduce the degree of
certain impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the proposed project, such impacts would remain
significant and in need of mitigation measures. The Alternative 4 project design would still result
in significant unavoidable temporary construction noise impacts and visual impacts when viewed
from the Town's Middle Ridge open space area. The updated studies are included in the Final
EIR and did not result in any significant new information or the discovery of any previously
unidentified significant environmental impacts.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 11
TONVII COMM] MM111C,
AL111uSt 3, ?(~11
On January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and adopted Resolution
No. 2011-04 recommending certification of the Final EIR to the Town Council and also adopted
a resolution recommending approval of prezoning for the SODA parcel.
MERIT REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 26, 2011 Meeting
The Planning Commission first considered the merits of the Alta Robles Precise Development
Plan at its January 26, 2011 meeting. The staff report for that meeting included the following
recommended modifications to the project to reduce significant impacts on the environment
and/or to better achieve consistency with General Plan policies:
1. Elimination of Lot 4 due to its violation of Tiburon Ridge vertical setback policy.
2. Reduced floor area for Lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 to a maximum of 4,500 square feet, with
600 square feet of garage space. 0
3. Limiting the homes on Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6 to predominantly one-story designs, with
only a partial second story, and reducing the height of the home on Lot 7 from
three stories to two stories.
At the January 26th meeting, a majority of the Planning Commission expressed concerns about
the Precise Development Plan that focused on the following issues:
• Consistency with rid eg line policies. The project design was inconsistent with
General Plan policies regarding protection of Significant Ridgelines. Policy OSC-
12 states that "development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines.
Setbacks shall be based on an evaluation of the following characteristics: local and
regional visual prominence, ability to connect to existing or potential open space,
potential to act as a neighborhood separator, views of and views from, length,
height, presence of trees, presence of unusual physical characteristics, highly
visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive habitat, special silhouette or
back-drop features, difficulty of developing or accessing, and integrity of the
ridgeline land form." The Commission concluded that more effort needed to be
made to locate the future homes to preserve the visual integrity of the ridgelines.
• Neighborhood compatibility. The project design was inconsistent with General
Plan policies regarding consistency and compatibility with the character of
surrounding neighborhoods. General Plan Policy LU-13 states that "neighborhood
character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of
buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural
characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction
projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible." The
size and scale of the proposed homes were inconsistent with the development
pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly those homes in the Seafirth,
Acacia Drive and Norman Way neighborhoods.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11
To it C oMICl1 Mc ting
AuC;ust 2011
• Lack of chances presented by Alternative 4. The modifications to the original
project proposed by the applicant's Alternative 4 project design did not appear to
make substantial changes to the development pattern of the project and did not
materially improve ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility.
The Commission suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of reducing the number, size
and height of the proposed homes and better cluster the dwellings on the site to achieve improved
consistency with General Plan policies. The Commission also requested clarification on how the
Town could ensure that future homes constructed on the site would closely resemble the
conceptual house designs prepared by the applicant. The public hearing was continued to allow
the applicant time to address these issues.
April 13, 2011 Meeting
The applicant subsequently submitted a revised alternative project design (Alternative 5) that
included the following changes from the previous Alternative 4:
➢ Lot 4 was moved from its previous location within the vertical Tiburon Ridge
setback to a location within the previous Lot 1 (the location of the existing house
on the site) and adjacent to Lot 2. The size of Lot 4 increased from 0.75 acres to
1.03 acres, and the residential use area increased in size from 0.40 acres to 0.57
acres. The previous site of Lot 4 became part of the "Rabin private zone" of Lot 1.
➢ Portions of Lots 2 & 3 (0.25 and 0.26 acres respectively) along the roadway
frontage of each lot were eliminated from the residential use areas and became
private open space. These spaces set residential improvements back from the
roadway.
➢ A small (approximately 450 square foot) portion of Lot 6 was eliminated from the
residential use area of the lot and became private open space.
➢ The submittal materials included calculations on the fagade surface areas based on
the conceptual house designs for each lot. The submitted table on Sheet SP-03B
indicated that 36.39% of all building fagade area for the proposed homes would be
below grade and not visible.
Alternative 5 included no other changes to the previous 14-unit Alternative 4 project design. The
number of lots and the maximum floor areas and building heights for homes on each lot remained
the same.
Prior to the meeting, Staff prepared and distributed a memo (Exhibit 16) that provided additional
information and analysis regarding the project's relationship to the two Significant Ridgelines
located on the project site and additional comparative information on surrounding neighborhoods.
The analysis was based upon a review of Alternative 4, prior to the applicant's submittal of
Alternative 5 and assumed inclusion of the project modifications recommended in the January 26
staff report. The memo contained detailed analysis of the relationship of the individual proposed
house locations to both Significant Ridgelines from various viewpoints analyzed in the EIR. The
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 11
Town C OL111 it Neill
,Au11_1u.st 3, 2oii
memo also included additional analysis of the house sizes in the neighborhoods surrounding the
project site.
The memo listed numerous possible project revisions that were intended to produce a level of
improved policy consistency in an attempt to meet the expectations expressed by the Planning
Commission at the January 26 meeting. In combination with measures already set forth in
Alternative 4, the draft Mitigation Monitoring Program, and in the January 26 staff report, the
memo listed the following measures to increase consistency with General Plan policies regarding
protection of Significant Ridgelines:
1. Eliminate Lot 4
2. Reduce the visible size and height of homes on Lot 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7
3. Ensure wall and roof colors on the other visible homes (Lots 2-6) that would
minimize contrast with their surroundings.
4. Eliminate Lot 8; or relocate the Lot 8 building site to a portion of Lot 1 north of
Lot 2; or reduce the Lot 8 floor area maximum to 4,500 square feet with a 600
square foot garage and 25' maximum height limit and darken the roof color.
5. Reduce floor area maximums on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet and reduce the
maximum height of both homes by 3 feet; require a greenish exterior color that
better blends with the evergreen foliage backdrop.
6. Require a flatter roof on the Lot 11 house and darken the color of the roof.
7. Homes on Lots 11 and 12 must be conditioned/deed restricted so as not to increase
visibility along the ridgeline from what is depicted in the photo-simulation.
8. Ensure the roof on Lot 12 is "earth covered" and appears as undisturbed
topography, as proposed in KAO drawings of the Precise Development Plan, in
order to minimize visual disruption of the ridgeline.
9. Reduce floor area maximum on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet.
10. Eliminate Lot 13; or relocate the Lot 13 building site to Lot 11 and reduce both
homes on that site to floor areas of 4,500 square feet maximum with 600 square
feet of garage and a 22' maximum height limit; or reduce the Lot 13 floor area
maximum to 5,000 square feet with 600 square feet of garage and a maximum
height limit of 22' and require wall and roof colors that minimize contrast.
The memo also listed the following measures to increase consistency with General Plan policies
regarding neighborhood consistency and compatibility:
1. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 8 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square foot
garage.
2. Reduce floor area of homes on Lots 9 and 10 to 6,000 square feet.
3. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 12 to 6,000 square feet.
4. Reduce floor area of home on Lot 13 to 4,500 square feet with 600 square feet of
garage.
The memo also included a "menu" of possible project revisions to the Alternative 4 project
design (Exhibit 17) that created a checklist of the measures noted above.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 or 11
Town Council MCCtin(T
AMTLISt 2011
To address the Commission's concern that the architectural design of homes built on the
individual lots in the future would be consistent with the conceptual designs included in this
precise development plan, staff recommended the inclusion of the following condition of
approval:
"House Designs. Individual house designs submitted for Site Plan and Architectural
Review approval shall closely resemble the conceptual designs shown in the above-
referenced drawings prepared by KAO Design Group, as revised pursuant to conditions of
approval contained herein, or otherwise will require an amendment to this Precise
Development Plan. In reviewing these design review applications, Town staff and the
Design Review Board are directed to disallow changes, except for a reduction in house
size, to the conceptual house designs and to the house locations, that would: a) materially
increase the project's visibility from off-site; b) have materially greater impacts on views
from other homes in the subdivision; c) substantially increase the heights of retaining
walls; or d) result in substantially more grading without off-setting reductions in views
and visual impact, while not materially increasing environmental impact."
At the April 13, 2011 meeting, the Commission used the provided checklist as a tool to make
recommendations about appropriate revisions to the project design, but also identified additional
revisions that went even further toward increasing consistency with General Plan policies. During
the Commission's deliberations, staff tallied the recommendations of individual Commissioners.
The following revisions from the provided checklist were each recommended by a majority of the
Commission for the reasons stated below:
1. Lot 8 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 6 and its
proximity to serpentine bunchgrass and Marin Flax plant habitat.
2. Lot 9 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5.
3. Lot 10 would be eliminated due to its location on Significant Ridgeline 5.
4. Lot 13 would be eliminated due to its visual massiveness when viewed from
Paradise Drive, the Seafirth Estates area, and Acacia Drive, consistent with the
direction of General Plan Policies LU-13 and OSC-12.
5. The residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 would be reduced in size to minimize
impacts on serpentine bunchgrass habitat, consistent with the direction of General
Plan Policy OSC-26, which states that "to the maximum extent feasible, and as
required by federal and state laws, development and construction shall not affect
special status species or special communities."
6. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5 and 6 would be reduced to 4,500
square feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase
compatibility with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent
with the direction of General Plan Policy LU-13 and to reduce visual impacts
identified in the EIR. The maximum building height for these homes shall be
limited to 16 feet to lessen the visual massiveness of these homes when viewed
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11
TON\11 COLHIC l \ CCMICT
ALI~USt 2011
from nearby public open space, consistent with Mitigation Measure 5.8-1. The
Commission did not find it warranted to reduce the applicant-proposed floor area
or height of homes on Lots 2, 3 or 7, and found the relocated Lot 4 location, size
and height acceptable.
7. The maximum allowable floor area for Lot 12 would be reduced to 6,000 square
feet, with an additional 600 square feet for garage space, to increase compatibility
with the size of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, consistent with the
direction of General Plan Policy LU-13.
8. The private open space on the northern portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7, across the
roadway from the residential use areas, would be incorporated into the Lot "A"
private common open space, to increase the protection of sensitive plant habitat,
consistent with the direction of General Plan Policy OSC-26.
The Planning Commission unanimously directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending
approval of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan to the Town Council with the revisions
noted above. On April 27, 2011, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-10 (Exhibit 4)
recommending approval of the revised project to the Council.
Staff believes that the focus of Town Council review will likely be on the project revisions made
by the Planning Commission to the applicant-proposed Alternative 5 during the merits review
hearing held on April 13, 2011, as summarized above. The Town Council field trip scheduled for
July 22 will be structured around this concept.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed the Alta Robles project for consistency with
goals and principles of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. In particular, the Commission
placed a very strong emphasis on General Plan policies related to ridgeline protection and
neighborhood compatibility.
Staff had suggested a host of project revisions to Alternative 4 that focused on reducing the size
and height of homes to increase consistency with ridgeline protection and neighborhood
compatibility policies, using relocation or elimination of lots as a final option. The Commission
found the lot eli 'urination option to be a more effective tool to achieve policy consistency that the
size and height reductions alone. The Commission recommended its changes to the project
design and number of lots in order to achieve sufficient compliance with these policies after it
concluded that the applicant's revisions did not make substantial changes to the development
pattern of the project and were not substantially responsive to the direction provided at earlier
meetings by the Commission. The changes to the project design recommended by the
Commission enhance ridgeline protection, achieve greater consistency with several General Plan
policies, and make the size, number and location of the remaining ten (10) dwelling units on this
project more compatible with the pattern of development in surrounding neighborhoods.
Staff recommends that the Town Council certify the Final EIR for the project. The Council
should then begin deliberations on the Precise Development Plan, using the Planning
Commission's recommendations for a revised ten-lot project design as a starting point for these
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 11
deliberations. Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to return with a resolution
containing any project modifications that the Council deems to be appropriate, for adoption at a
future meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Hold a public hearing on this item and close the public hearing;
e
2. Adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) certifying the Final EIR;
3. Begin deliberations on the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning, and if
appropriate, direct staff to return with a density-specific prezoning ordinance, as well as
resolutions conditionally approving a Precise Development Plan, adopting a Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and making any necessary CEQA findings of fact and findings of
overriding considerations consistent with the contemplated project approval.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft resolution certifying the Alta Robles Final EIR. t,~- /7
2. Draft ordinance prezoning the SODA property
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-10
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-04
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-05
6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 23, 2009
7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 24, 2010
8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 26, 2011
9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 13, 2011
10. Minutes of the September 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting
11. Minutes of the February 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting
12. Minutes of the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
13. Minutes of the April 13, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
14. Minutes of the April 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
15. Consistency Analysis with the Tiburon General Plan and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
16. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Planning
(previously provided to the Council)
17. Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report prepared by Nichols Berman Environmental Consulting (previously
provided to the Council)
18. Draft Alta Robles Architectural Design Guidelines, dated 3/6/2007
19. Applicant Alternative 5 narrative memo, dated April 1, 2011
20. Applicant memo on photosimulation changes, dated April 6, 2011
21. Applicant response to April 13, 2011 staff report, dated April 13, 2011
22. Memo on Additional Analysis of Secondary Ridgeline Policies and Neighborhood
Consistency and Compatibility Policies, dated March 23, 2011
23. Menu of possible project revisions to Alternative 4
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 11
24. Letter from Steven Sockolov and Susan Snyder, dated January 11, 2011
25. Letter from Carol and Norman Traeger, dated January 12, 2011
26. Letter from Alexander Anolik, dated January 13, 2011.
27. Letter from Barbara and Jeffrey Farber, dated January 14, 2011
28. Letter from Jeff and Suzanne Appleman, dated January 15, 2011
29. Letter from Barry Moss, dated January 17, 2011
30. Letter from Don Abramson, dated January 17, 2011
31. Letter from Michael and Marcia Rubenstein, dated January 17, 2011
32. Letter from Ronald and Rhea Brown, dated January 18, 2011
33. Letter from Robert Wolfe, dated January 19, 2011 t
34. Letter from Dan and Gina Waldman, dated January 19, 2011
35. Letter from Katie Vogelheim and John Hansen, dated January 20, 2011
36. Letter from Marilyn and Peter Siewert, dated January 21, 2011
37. Letter from Nona Dennis, dated January 21, 2011
38. Letter from David and Kimberley Brody, dated January 22, 2011
39. Letter from Randy Greenberg, dated January 23, 2011
40. Letter from Douglas Currens and Jan Maisel, dated January 23, 2011 a
41. Letter from Ed and Christa Keeling, dated January 23, 2011
42. Letter from Eva Buxton, dated January 23, 2011
43. Letter from Jack Sholl, dated January 23, 2011
44. Letter from Murray Zucker, dated January 24, 2011
45. Letter from Roberta Zucker, dated January 24, 2011
46. Letter from Theo Koffler, dated January 24, 2011
47. Letter from Marvin Moskowitz, dated January 24, 2011
48. Letter from Doug Dossey, dated January 25, 2011
49. Letter from Kathrin Dellago, dated January 25, 2011
50. Letter from Leonard and Ruth Yaffe, dated January 25, 2011
51. Letter from Jan Gullett, dated January 25, 2011
52. Letter from Barbara Pattton, dated January 25, 2011
53. Letter from Jeff Schottenstein, dated January 25, 2011
54. Letter from Lawrence and Nancy Goldberg, dated January 26, 2011
55. Letter from Julie and Seth Jacobs, dated January 26, 2011
56. Letter from Bee Kilgore, dated January 26, 2011
57. Letter from Annette Gellert, dated January 28, 2011
58. Letter from Dana and Richard Steele, dated January 31, 2011
59. Letter from Mark Goldstein, dated April 7, 2011
60. Letter from Randy Greenberg, dated April 12, 2011
61. Letter from Jerry Riessen and Joanna Kemper, dated April 12, 2011
62. Letter from Barry Wootton, dated April 13, 2011
63. Letter from Katie Vogelheim and John Hansen, dated July 12, 2011
64. Alternative 5 drawings and photosimulations, prepared by Ken Kao, Architect and CSW/
Stuber-Stroeh
Additional correspondence regarding the Draft EIR is on file and is available for review at the
office of the Planning Division.
Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager
\shared\Administration\Town Council\Staff Reports`2011\August 3 drafts\Alta Vista PDP.report.doc
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 11
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
To:
From:
Subject:
Reviewed By:
BACKGROUND
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
August 3, 2011
Agenda Item: P11
Amend Title IV, Chapter 13E (Water Efficient Landscape) of the
Tiburon Municipal Code; (Ordinance, First Reading)
1 11
The Town initially adopted a Water Conservation chapter of its Municipal Code in 1990, which
focused on reducing water requirements for landscaping through an emphasis on use of drought-
tolerant plants. Subsequent changes in State law mandating enhanced water conservation
rendered those initial Town regulations inadequate. In early 2010, the Town repealed Chapter
13E (Water Conservation) of the Tiburon Municipal Code and adopted a new Chapter 13E
(Water Efficient Landscape) in order to meet the new and stronger provisions. The method used
by the Town to achieve compliance was to "adopt by reference" the latest Marin Municipal Water
District (MMWD) water-efficiency regulations, which met the more stringent state requirements.
In 2011, newly-adopted state regulations went into effect that imposed additional water-
efficiency restrictions on permits issued by local agencies. In response, MMWD amended its
water efficient landscape regulations in December 2010. The proposed Town ordinance would
have the Town amend its current water efficient landscape regulations by adopting (again by
reference) the latest MMWD regulations.
ANALYSIS
The primary change to the latest MMWD regulations (as they affect the Town) is that the size
thresholds for afflicted landscaped area that trigger a water-efficiency review have been reduced.
These changes are as follows:
(1) For public agency projects and private development projects, the affected landscape area
triggering a water-efficiency review would drop from 2,500 square feet to 1,000 square
feet.
(2) For new construction and rehabilitated landscapes that are developer or contractor-
installed in single family, two-family and multi-family residential projects, the affected
landscaped area triggering a water-efficiency review would drop from 2,500 square feet to
1,000 square feet.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3
5
iv, II ~._t31.€3 . . !!k_4.li_kijw
}
d
(3) For new construction and rehabilitated landscapes that are homeowner-provided in single
family, two-family, and multi-family residential projects, the affected landscape are
triggering a water-efficiency review would drop from 5,000 square feet to 2,500 square
feet.
The requirements would apply only if a design review approval or a building permit is required
from the Town in association with the work. The Town procedure will stay essentially the same.
For applicable projects, applicants to the Town will be required to submit landscape plans in
compliance with the current MMWD water-efficient landscape regulations. Design Review
permit approvals shall include a condition of approval that includes the following:
a) The final landscape and irrigation plans must comply with the current water efficient
landscape requirements of MMWD;
b) The construction plans submitted to the Town for the issuance of a building
permit/grading permit must be pre-approved by MMWD with the submitted plans
stamped as approved by MMWD;
C) The building permit application must be accompanied by a letter from MMWD approving
the landscape and irrigation plans;
d) If the MMWD-approved plans substantially differ from the Town-approved plans, these
differences may require additional review through the Town's design review permit
process and/or a revision to the Town's permit;
e) The applicant is responsible for contacting MMWD for all inspections, approval and sign-
off on installation. Upon approval, MMWD shall issue a Certificate of Completion,
which must be submitted to the Community Development Department before building
permit final sign-off or a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Town.
The Town's ordinance would continue to designate MMWD, the local water provider, to
implement, enforce, and monitor the requirements of the ordinance, as is permitted under state
law. MMWD staff specialists possess the technical knowledge to achieve compliance with the
state codes regarding water-efficient landscaping and irrigation. The adoption-by-reference of
MMWD regulations is the same approach used by the other municipalities in southern and central
Marin County, and has the benefits of providing uniformity of application and consistent
standards, while at the same time meeting stringent state, requirements for water savings.
The draft ordinance is attached as Exhibit 1, and the Town's current Water Efficient Landscape
regulations are attached as Exhibit 2. MMWD Ordinance No. 421 is attached as Exhibit 3.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
This project is categorically exempt under section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines and is also
exempt under the general rule set forth in Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council hold first reading of the Ordinance. Because the Town
is adopting another agency's regulations by reference, the procedure set forth in state law is
slightly different than is typical for adoption of local ordinances. The required procedure for
eventual adoption would be as follows:
1. The Town Council should hold a public hearing and consider any testimony at this meeting.
2. The Town Council should introduce and hold first reading of the Ordinance. The procedure
is to move to read by title only and carry the motion; then read the title and hold a roll call
vote to pass first reading.
3. If first reading is completed, the Town Council should continue the item for a second public
hearing and consideration of second reading and adoption at the September 7, 2011 Town
Council meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Ordinance.
2. Current Chapter 13E (Water Efficient Landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
3. MMWD Ordinance No. 421.
Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner
0,111.,
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AMENDING TITLE IV, CHAPTER 13E (WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE)
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE MARIN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (MMWD) ORDINANCE NO. 421
REGARDING WATER CONSERVATION
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Town Council has held public hearings on and
and has heard and considered any public testimony on this
matter.
B. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required# by law attendant
to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
C. The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are
necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, and are
necessary to comply with state law.
D. The Town Council has found that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance
are consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other
adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon.
E. The Town Council finds that this project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15308 of
the CEQA Guidelines because these regulations constitute an action by a
regulatory agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or
protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures
for protection of the environment. The Town Council further finds that this
project qualifies for an exemption under the General Rule section 15061(b)(3)
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 2. Amendment.
Title IV, Chapter 13E of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows:
A. Section 13E-1 is amended to read as follows:
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective -1-12011
EXHIBIT N0._J._
Section BE-1. Purpose and Authority.
As mandated under State Government Code Section 65595(c), certain new
construction and rehabilitation projects that include landscape. and irrigation
improvements are required to comply with water-efficient landscape requirements
and monitoring of water usage for irrigation. The purpose of this chapter is to
comply with this state mandate regarding water-efficient landscaping. For the
purpose of administering this State mandate, the Town of Tiburon will herein
adopt by reference Marin Municipal Watex District (MMWD) Ordinance No. 421
(Water Conservation), and any amendments or successors thereto, and designate
MMWD, the local water provider, to implement, enforce, and monitor its
requirements. The MMWD ordinance contains provisions that include but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) The application and monitoring of a "maximum applied water
allowance" that is established for applicable projects.
(2) The review of required landscape and irrigation plans,
specifications and supportive documents prepared for applicable projects
for compliance with water-efficient landscape restrictions, including
limitations on the type and amount of landscape materials and plant
species.
(3) The review, inspection and approval of landscape and irrigation
that is installed for applicable projects to ensure compliance with the
approved landscape and irrigation plans and specifications.
(4) The post-installation monitoring of water usage for irrigation by
applicable projects.
B. Section 13E-2 is amended to read as follows:
Section BE-2. Adoption by Reference of Marin Municipal Water District
Ordinance No. 421.
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.2, Marin Municipal Water
District Ordinance No. 421, including amendments and successors thereto, is
hereby adopted by reference and shall be in full force and effect within the Town
of Tiburon. Said Ordinance No. 421 shall be applicable to projects that are
subject to the water efficient landscape requirements set forth therein, which
projects include, without limitation:
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12011
2
(1) New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency
projects and private development projects with a landscape area equal to
or greater than 1,000 square feet requiring a building or landscaping
permit, plan check or design review; and
(2) New construction and rehabilitated landscapes that are developer
or contractor-installed in single family, two-family and multi-family
residential projects with a landscape area equal to or greater than 1,000
square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design
review; and
(3) New construction and rehabilitated landscapes that are
homeowner-provided in single family, two-family, and multi-family
residential projects with a total project landscape area equal to or greater
than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscaping permit, plan
check or design review.
(b) For the purpose of administering these regulations, the Towti of Tiburon
hereby designates MMWD, the local water provider, to implement, enforce, and
monitor the requirements therein.
(c) Town review of applicable projects shall be processed as follows:
(1) Projects requiring approval of a Site Plan and Architectural
Review (a.k.a. Design Review) permit. When an applicable project is
subject to Site Plan & Architectural Review approval pursuant to Title IV,
Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, the landscape and irrigation
plans required by and submitted with this permit application shall be
designed and prepared to comply with the provisions and requirements of
the applicable MMWD regulations adopted by reference herein. The
process for application review of applicable projects and compliance with
applicable MMWD regulations shall be as follows:
a. The application and plans submitted to the Town shall be
designed in accordance with MMWD Ordinance 421 and any
amendments or successor ordinances thereto;
b. The permit approval shall include a condition or conditions
that include the following:
1. The final landscape and irrigation plans must
comply with the current water efficient landscape
requirements of MMWD.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12011
3
2. The construction plans submitted to the Town for
the issuance of a building permit/grading permit must be
pre-approved by MMWD with the submitted plans stamped
as approved by MMWD.
3. The building permit application must be
accompanied by a letter from MMWD approving the
landscape and irrigation plans.
4. If the MMWD-approved plans substantially differ
from the Town-approved plans, these differences may
require additional review through the Town's design review
permit process and/or a revision to the Town's permit.
5. The applicant is responsible for contacting MMWD
for all inspections, approval and sign-off on landscape and
irrigation installation. Upon approval, MMWD shall issue
a Certificate of Completion, which must lie submitted to the
Planning Division before building permit final sign-off or a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Tiburon
Community Development Department.
2) Projects requiring a Building Permit and/or Grading Permit only.
When an applicable project is not subject to a Site Plan and Architectural
Review permit but is required to secure a Building Permit and/or Grading
Permit pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code,
such permit(s) shall not be issued until the applicant has secured, in
writing, MMWD approval of the landscape and irrigation plans confirming
compliance with MMWD Ordinance No. 421 and any amendments or
successors thereto.
(d) Inspections and Post-Installation Monitoring and Enforcement. MMWD
shall be responsible for:
(1) Inspecting and approving all landscape and irrigation installed for
applicable projects prior to project permit final and/or occupancy; and
(2) Monitoring water usage for installed landscapes to ensure
compliance with MMWD Ordinance No. 421 and any amendments or
successors thereto. All enforcement actions for ordinance non-compliance
or violations shall be administered by MMWD.
C. Section 13E-3 is amended to read as follows:
13E-3. Designation of Marin Municipal Water District for Enforcement.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12011
The Marin Municipal Water District, as the Town's local water provider, is
hereby designated as the implementing and enforcement agency for provisions of
Ordinance No. 421 and any amendments or successors thereto.
D. Section 13E-4 is amended to read as follows:
13E-4. Availability of Copies.
Three (3) copies of Marin Municipal Water District Ordinance No. 421, and any
amendments or successors thereto, shall be kept on file for public review in the
office of the Tiburon Town Clerk.
Section 3. Severability.
Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
this Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof except that part or provision so declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance is to take effect and be in force at the expiration of thirty (30) days from
and after its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, the
same, or its legally required equivalent, shall be published with the names of the members
voting for and against the same at least once in a newspaper of general circulation
published in the Town of Tiburon.
This Ordinance was first read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon on , 2011, and was adopted at a regular meeting of
the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 2011, which was noticed
pursuant to Government Code Sections 6066 and 50022.3, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS:~~
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective -1-12011
5
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
S: WdministrationITown Counc&Ordinances120111Water Conservation Ordinance revised 2011.doc
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. XXX N. S. Effective --1--12011
ORDINANCE NO. 521 N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
REPEALING TITLE IV, CHAPTER 13E (WATER CONSERVATION) OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE IV, CHAPTER 13E
(WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE) AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (MMWD) ORDINANCE NO. 414
REGARDING WATER CONSERVATION
The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
A. The Town Council has held public hearings on March 3, 2010 and March 17,
2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony on this matter.
B. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant
to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
C. The Town Council finds that the repeal and adoption actions made by this
Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and
welfare, and are necessary to comply with recently-enacted state law.
D. The Town Council has found that the repeal and adoption actions made by this
Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan
and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon.
E. The Town Council finds that this project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15308 of
the CEQA Guidelines because these regulations constitute an action by a
regulatory agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or
protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures
for protection of the environment. The Town Council further finds that this
project qualifies for an exemption under the General Rule section 15061(b)(3)
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in
question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Section 2. Title IV, Chapter 13E of the Tiburon Municipal Code Repealed.
Title IV, Chapter 13E (Water Conservation) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby
repealed.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N. S. Effective 0411612010
1
EXHIBIT N4.__2._.,
Section 3. Title IV, Chapter 13E of the Tiburon Municipal Code Adopted.
A new Title IV, Chapter 13E of the Tiburon Municipal Code pertaining to Water
Efficient Landscape is hereby adopted as follows:
CHAPTER 13E
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE
13E-1. Purpose and Authority.
Effective January 1, 2010, certain new construction and rehabilitation projects that
include landscape and irrigation improvements are required to comply with water-
efficient landscape requirements and monitoring of water usage for irrigation, as
mandated under State Government Code Section 65595(c). The purpose of this
ordinance is to comply with this state mandate regarding water-efficient landscaping. For
the purpose of administering this State mandate, the Town of Tiburon will herein adopt,
by reference, Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Ordinance No. 414 (Water
Conservation) and designate MMWD, the local water provider, to implement, enforce,
and monitor the requirements of this ordinance. The MMWD ordinance contains
provisions that include but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The application and monitoring of a `maximum applied water allowance"
that is established for applicable projects.
(2) The review of required landscape and irrigation plans, specifications and
supportive documents prepared for applicable projects for compliance with water-
efficient landscape restrictions, including limitations on the type and amount of landscape
materials and plant species.
(3) The review, inspection and approval of landscape and irrigation that is
installed for applicable projects to ensure compliance with the approved landscape and
irrigation plans and specifications.
(4) The post-installation monitoring of water usage for irrigation by
applicable projects.
.l
13E-2. Adoption by Reference of Marin Municipal Water District Ordinance No.
414.
(A) Pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.21 the Marin Municipal Water
District Ordinance No. 414, including all current amendments thereto, is hereby adopted
by reference and shall be in full force and effect within the Town of Tiburon. Said
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N. S. Effective 0411612010
2
Ordinance No. 414 shall be applicable to projects that are subject to the water efficient
landscape requirements set forth therein; which projects include, without limitation:
(1) New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency projects
and private development projects with a landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500
square feet requiring a building or landscaping permit, plan check or design review; and
(2) New construction and rehabilitated landscapes that are developer-installed
in single family, two-family and multi-family residential projects with a landscape area
equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan
check or design review; and ,
(3) New construction landscapes that are homeowner-provided and/or
homeowner-hired in single family, two-family, and multi-family residential projects with
a total project landscape area equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet requiring a
building or landscaping permit, plan check or design review.
(B) For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the Town of Tiburon hereby
designates MMWD, the local water provider, to implement, enforce, and monitor the
requirements of this ordinance.
(C) Town review of applicable projects shall be processed as follows:
(1) Projects requiring approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review (a.k.a.
Design Review) permit. When an applicable project is subject to Site Plan &
Architectural Review approval pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal
Code, the landscape and irrigation plans required by and submitted with this permit
application shall be designed and prepared to comply with the provisions and
requirements of MMWD Ordinance No. 414. The process for application review of
applicable projects and compliance with MMWD Ordinance 414 shall be as follows:
(a) The application and plans submitted to the Town shall be
accompanied by evidence from MMWD that the plans and all supportive information and
worksheets have been received for review by MMWD;
(b) The applicant shall forward a copy of MMWD's comments,
recommendations, and determinations regarding the submitted drawings; applications
shall not be considered "complete" by the Town before such comments from MMWD
have been received by the Town;
(c) All MMWD comments and recommendations on plans and
supportive materials submitted to the Town shall be incorporated into the Town's review
and action on the Site Plan and Architectural Review permit either as a condition of
permit approval or through plan revisions completed prior to permit action.
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N. S. Effective 0411612010
3
(d) Prior to issuance of a building permit and/or grading permit to
proceed with construction and landscape installation, the applicant shall provide written
verification of final plan approval from MMWD.
(2) Projects requiring a Building Permit and/or Grading Permit only. When
an applicable project is not subject to a Site Plan and Architectural Review permit but is
required to secure a Building Permit and/or Grading Permit pursuant to Title IV, Chapter
13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, such permit(s) shall not be issued until the applicant
has secured, in writing, MMWD approval of the landscape and irrigation plans
confirming compliance with MMWD Ordinance No. 414.
f
(D) Inspections and Post-Installation Monitoring and Enforcement. MMWD shall be
responsible for:
(1) Inspecting and approving all landscape and irrigation installed for
applicable projects prior to project permit final and/or occupancy; and
(2) Monitoring water usage for installed landscapes to ensure compliance
with MMWD Ordinance No. 414. All enforcement actions for ordinance non-compliance
or violations shall be administered by MMWD.
13E-3. Designation of Marin Municipal Water District for Enforcement.
The Marin Municipal Water District, as the Town's local water provider, is hereby
designated as the implementing and enforcement agency for provisions of Ordinance No.
414.
13E-4. Availability of Copies.
Three (3) copies of Marin Municipal Water District Ordinance No. 414, having been
adopted herein by reference, shall be kept on file for public review in the office of the
Tiburon Town Clerk.
13E-5. Penalties and Enforcement.
(A) Any violation of the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared a public nuisance
and shall be subject to summary abatement as provided by law.
(B) Any person violating provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction
and shall be subject to penalties pursuant to Section 36900 of the California Government
Code, as amended, and Title VI, Chapter 31 of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
(C) Each and every day that any violation of this chapter continues, is committed or is
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N. S. Effective 0411612010
permitted to continue shall be regarded as a new and separate offense.
(D) The remedies provided in this section shall be cumulative and not exclusive.
Section 4. Severability.
Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
this Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof except that part or provision so declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5.
Effective Date.
This Ordinance is to take effect and be in force at the expiration of thirty (30) days from
and after its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, the
same, or its legally required equivalent, shall be published with the names of the members
voting for and against the same at least once in a newspaper of general oirculation
published in the Town of Tiburon.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on March 3, 2010, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, which was noticed pursuant to Government
Code Sections 6066 and 50022.3, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell
None
Slavitz
RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 521 N. S. Effective 0411612010
MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO. 421
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT CODE ADDING ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE DISTRICT'S WATER
CONSERVATION PROGRAM PURSUANT TO WATER CODE SECTION 375 BY
ADDING, AMENDING AND REPEALING CERTAIN SECTION OF TITLE 13
ENTITLED "WATER SERVICE CONDITIONS AND WATER CONSERVATION
MEASURES."
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MARIN
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt another element of the
District's water conservation program pursuant to Water Code Section 375. The instant element
addresses both indoor and outdoor water use. Conservation within the District's service area
continues to be necessary. The current element includes revisions that are necessary to meet the
2010 California Green Building Standards, improve the effectiveness of the District's water waste
prevention program and increase efficiency standards. The Board of Directors views this
conservation program as a fundamental and necessary step in its on-going efforts to reduce overall
water use District wide.
SECTION 2. Section 13.02.020 is amended to read as follows:
13.02.020 Water waste prohibitions. No customer of the district shall make, cause, use or
permit the use of potable water from the district for residential, commercial, industrial,
agricultural, governmental or any other purpose in a manner contrary to any provision of this
section.
(1) Prohibited Nonessential Uses Applicable to All Consumers. It is unlawful for any
person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or political entity to use water from the district
for the following nonessential uses:
(A) The washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking lots and all other
hard-surfaced areas by direct hosing, except as may be permitted by current regulations pertaining
to urban water runoff pollution prevention as defined by the Marin County Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program and other controlling agencies;
(B) The escape of water through breaks or leaks within the consumer's plumbing or
private distribution system for any substantial period of time within which such break or leak
should reasonably have been discovered and corrected. It shall be presumed that a period of
forty-eight hours after the consumer discovers such a leak or break, or receives notice from the
district of such leak or break, whichever occurs first, is a reasonable time within which to correct
such leak or break;
(C) Non-recycling decorative water fountains.
(D) Restrictions on Irrigation. Irrigation shall not be conducted in a manner or to an
extent that allows water to run off or overspray the areas being watered. Every consumer is
required to have his/her water distribution lines and facilities under control at all times to avoid
water waste.
Ordinance 421 Page 1
EXHIBIT NO.
(E) Any excess water runoff flowing onto the public right of way at a rate of 1 gallon
per minute or greater not caused by storm water or naturally occurring groundwater, is prohibited.
(2) Restrictions on Reverse-Osmosis Units. The installation of reverse-osmosis water
purifying systems not equipped with an automatic shutoff unit is prohibited.
(3) The following are prohibited for new connections:
(A) Single-pass cooling systems for air conditioning or other cooling system
applications unless required for health or safety reasons;
(B) Non-recirculating systems for conveyer carwash applications. (Ord. 387 § 1, 1999;
Ord. 332 §1, 1992; Ord. 316 §2 (part), 1991).
SECTION 3. The Following Specific Provisions of Section 13.02.021 entitled Water
Conservation: Normal Year Water Conservation are amended to read as follows:
A. Section 13.02.021 (2) Definitions, Section (R) is amended to read as follows:
R. High-efficiency Fixture(s): High efficiency fixtures shall, at a minimum,
meet the current requirements of the Water Sense labeling program and those
of the California Department of Water Resources and the District.
1. High-efficiency Irrigation Controller: An electronic device that controls
the amount of time and frequency of operation for an irrigation system
and adjusts automatically to compensate for the seasonal plant water
requirements at the site (commonly referred to as weather-based
irrigation controllers).
2. High-efficiency Irrigation System: An irrigation system connected to a
water service where the overall distribution uniformity (how evenly
water is distributed across the irrigated landscape area) is a minimum of
71 % and the volume of water used is consistent with seasonal plant
requirements as defined by the District.
B. Section 13.02.021 (2) Definitions, Sections (S), (X), (Z), (HIS, (LL), (TT), (ZZ), (FFF),
(JJJ), (MMM), (RRR) and (TTT) are amended to read as follows:
S. High volume irrigation: An irrigation device or system that delivers water to
the landscape in a spray, stream-like, or flooding manner from above-ground
irrigation nozzles with output expressed in gallons per minute (include many
bubblers and micro-spray devices).
X. Invasive Plant Species: species of plants not historically found in California
and/or that spread outside cultivated areas and can damage environmental or
economic resources as determined by Cal-IPC (www.cakipc.org) and the
District.
Z. Irrigation Efficiency (IE): a calculated measurement of the amount of water
beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency
is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system
characteristics and management practices. The minimum average irrigation
efficiency for purposes of this chapter is 0.71.
Ordinance 421 Page 2
HH. Low volume Irrigation: Irrigation devices, commonly called drip or point-
source irrigation, with output measured and typically expressed in gallons per
hour (gph), that apply water directly to soil in the plants root zone.
LL. Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA): for design purposes, the
upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscape as
determined by the District.
TT. Plant Factor: a factor specified in WUCOLS that, when multiplied by
reference evapotranspiration (ETo), estimates the amount of water used by
specified plants.
e
ZZ. Property Owner: A person or entity that owns or has the financial authority
or control over the property to comply with the requirements set forth in this
chapter.
FFF. Residential Customer: The person(s) or entity with an existing water service
connection for a residential property.
JJJ. Sprinkler Head: a high volume irrigation device that deliverg
water to the landscape through a spray nozzle.
MMM. Submeter: a separate meter that is located on the private side of the water
system and is plumbed to measure all water that flows only through the
irrigation system. This meter is to be used by the owner to monitor irrigation
water use and will not be read or maintained by the District.
RRR. Water Budget: an allocation of water based on plant water needs, used to
determine the billing tiers for customers with dedicated landscape irrigation
meters, for example.
TTT. Weather Based or Sensor Based Irrigation Control Technology: uses local
weather and landscape conditions to tailor irrigation schedules to actual
conditions on the site or uses historical weather data.
C. Section 13.02.021 (3) entitled "Requirements for All Services" is amended to read as
follows:
(3) Requirements for All Services.
A. Pressure Regulation. A pressure-regulating valve shall be installed and
maintained by the consumer if static service pressure exceeds 80 pounds per
square inch (psi), and be set at a maximum operating pressure of 60 psi at the
regulator outlet. The pressure-regulating valve shall be located between the meter
and the first point of water use, or first point of division in the pipe, and pressure-
relief valves and other plumbing safety devices shall be installed as required by
local codes. The operating pressure requirement may be waived if the consumer
presents evidence satisfactory to the District that high pressure is necessary in the
design and that no water will be wasted as a result of higher pressure operation.
Ordinance 421 Page 3
B. Interior Plumbing Fixtures. All plumbing installed, replaced or moved in any
new or existing service shall be high-efficiency fixtures and shall meet the
following minimum requirements:
1. High-efficiency Clothes Washers: Residential or commercial clothes
washers that meet the current highest water efficiency standards as defined
by the District. The General Manager shall have authority to grant a
variance from the requirements of this section based upon financial
hardship.
2. High-efficiency Lavatory Faucet: The maximum flow rate shall not exceed
1.5 gallons per minute (gpm) at a pressure of 60 pounds per square inch
(psi) at the inlet, when water is flowing.
3. High-efficiency Shower Head: The manufacturer shall specify a maximum
flow rate equal to or less than 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm), at a pressure of
60 pounds per square inch (psi) at the inlet, when water is flowing.
4. High-efficiency Toilet: Any WaterSense listed toilet rated at an effective
flush volume of no greater than 1.28 gallons.
5. High-efficiency Urinal: The average water consumption shall not exceed
0.25 gallons per flush (gpf).
C. Pool Covers. Pool covers are required for all new outdoor swimming pools.
(Ord. 385 § l (part), 1999); Ord. 326 § 1(part), 1991).
D. The Opening Paraeraah only of Section 13.02.021 (4) is amended to read as follows:
(4) Non-Residential Interior Plumbing Fixtures. All plumbing installed, moved or
replaced in any new or existing service shall be high-efficiency fixtures and shall meet
the following minimum requirements:
E. Section 13.02.021(5) is amended to read as follows:
(5) Water Efficient Landscaping
A. After January 1, 2011, this chapter shall apply to all of the following:
1. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency projects
and private development projects with a landscape area equal to or greater
than 1,000 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check
or design review;
2. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are developer or
contractor-installed in single-family and multi-family projects with a
landscape area equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet requiring a
building or landscape permit, plan check, or design review;
3. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are homeowner-
provided in single family and multi-family residential projects with a total
Ordinance 421 Page 4
project landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a
building or landscape permit, plan check or design review.
B. This chapter shall not apply to:
1. Registered local, state or federal historical sites;
2. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation
system;
3. Mined-land reclamation projects that do not require a permanent irrigation
system; or
4. Plant collections, as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the
public.
Note: Authority Cited: Section 65595, Government Code. Reference: Section
65596, Government Code.
C. Landscape Design . For each landscape project subject to this chapter
applicants shall submit a landscape design plan in accordance with the following:
1. Amendments, Mulching and Soil Conditioning: A minimum of 8" of non-
mechanically compacted soil shall be available for water absorption and
root growth in planted areas.
2. Incorporate compost or natural fertilizer into the soil to a minimum depth of
8" at a minimum rate of 6 cubic yards per 1000 square feet or per specific
amendment recommendations from a soils laboratory report.
3. A minimum 3" layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces
of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers or
direct seeding applications.
4. Plants.
(a) Selected plants shall not cause the Estimated Total Water Use to
exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (see calculation in
Appendix A).
(b) Plants with similar water use needs shall be grouped together in
distinct hydrozones and where irrigation is required, the distinct
hydrozones shall be irrigated with separate valves.
(c) Low and moderate water use plants can be mixed, but the entire
hydrozone will be classified as moderate water use for MAWA
calculations.
(d) High water use plants shall not be mixed with low or moderate water
use plants.
(e) All non-turf plants shall be selected, spaced, and planted appropriately
based upon their adaptability to the climatic, geologic, and
topographical conditions of the project site.
Ordinance 421 Page 5
(f) Turf shall not be allowed in the following conditions: Slopes
exceeding 10%, planting areas 8 feet wide or less, street medians,
traffic islands, planter strips adjacent to hardscape, or bulbouts of any
size.
(g) Invasive plants as listed by the Cal-IPC are prohibited. Weedy
species, listed as invasive in California at (www.cal-
ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php) shall not be planted. Please check the
species you might be thinking of planting against these lists, broken
out by plant type. Exemptions may be granted on a case by case basis
if District staff determine that tie proposed location, species, size,
number of plants, and other cultural methods are not likely to cause
harm to the watershed ecosystem.
(h) Fire Safe Landscape Practices. The requirements in this chapter are
intended to support, and be in compliance with, all local and State
requirements related to Fire Safe Landscaping practices, including,
but not limited to, requirements for Wildlife Urban Interface zones as
specified by the local authority.
(i) Identify any applicable rain harvesting, graywater, or catchment
technologies (e.g. rain gardens, cisterns, etc.). Applicants are
encouraged to employ alternative irrigation techniques as appropriate,
and where permitted by law.
(j) Identify location and installation details of any applicable stormwater
best management practices that encourage on-site retention and
infiltration of stormwater. Appropriate stormwater best management
practices are encouraged in the landscape design.
5. Water Features.
(a) Re-circulating water systems shall be used for water features.
(b) Recycled water shall be used when available and approved for use
onsite.
D. Irrigation Design Plan.
1. For each landscape project subject to this chapter applicants shall submit an
irrigation design plan that is designed, and installed, to meet irrigation
efficiency criteria as described in Appendix A (MAWA) and in accordance
with the following:
(a) Irrigation systems with meters 1 %2" or greater require a high-flow
sensor that can detect high flow conditions and have the capabilities to
shut off the irrigation system.
(b) Isolation valves shall be installed at the point of connection and before
each valve or valve manifold.
Ordinance 421 Page 6
(c) High-efficiency controllers, weather-based, or other sensor based self-
adjusting irrigation controllers shall be required.
(d) Rain sensors shall be installed for each irrigation controller.
(e) Pressure regulation and/or booster pumps shall be installed so that all
components of the irrigation system operate at the manufacturer's
recommended optimal pressure.
(f) Irrigation systems shall be designed to prevent runoff or overspray
onto non-targeted areas, and wherever overhead irrigation is located
directly adjacent to hardscape areas, where runoff water flows into the
curb and gutter; all spray heads shall be setback a minimum of 24"
from hardscape edges.
(g) Low volume or bubbler irrigation is required where plant height at
maturity will affect the uniformity of a high volume overhead spray
system.
(h) Minimum 24" setback of overhead spray irrigation is" required where
turf is directly adjacent to a continuous hardscape area where runoff
water flows into the curb and gutter.
(i) Slopes greater than 15% shall not be irrigated with an irrigation
system with a precipitation rate exceeding 0.75 inches per hour (or
lower if appropriate for site conditions as determined the District).
This restriction may be modified if the irrigation designer specifies an
alternative design or technology, as part of the Landscape
Documentation Package, and clearly demonstrates no runoff or
erosion will occur. Prevention of runoff and erosion must be
confirmed during the irrigation audit.
(j) A single valve shall not irrigate hydrozones that mix high water use
plants with moderate or low water use plants.
(k) Trees shall be placed on separate irrigation valves except when
planted in turf areas.
(1) Sprinkler heads, rotors and other emission devices on a valve shall
have matched precipitation rates.
(m) For all irrigation systems, coverage to sustain plant material in a
healthy condition and provide irrigation efficiency shall be required.
Head-to-head coverage is required for high volume spray systems
unless otherwise directed by the manufacturer's specifications.
(n) Swing joints or other pipe protection components are required on
above-ground irrigation piping.
(o) Check valves shall be installed to prevent low-head drainage.
Ordinance 421 Page 7
E. Separate District landscape water service meters shall be required for all new
landscapes, other than single-family and two-unit residential landscapes, for
which the irrigated area is equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet.
1. A private submeter shall be required for all rehabilitated landscapes, other
than single-family and two-unit residential landscapes, for which the
irrigated landscape area is equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet.
2. A private submeter shall be required for all points of connection on single-
family and two-unit residential sites for which the irrigated landscape area
is equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet.
F. Documentation for Compliance. The following documentation is to be presented
to the District at each of the three steps of review defined below. This
documentation shall be required for compliance with this chapter. 13.02.021
1. STEP 1: DESIGN REVIEW. For those landscape projects that require
Design Review, applicants shall submit the following documentation to the
District:
(a) Completed Appendix A, Maximum Applied Water Allowance
(MAWA)
(b) A landscape planting design plan that accurately and clearly identifies
and depicts new and existing trees, shrubs, groundcovers, turf, and
any other planting areas; plants by botanical name, common name,
and plant factor; plant sizes and quantities; property lines, new and
existing building footprints, streets, driveways, sidewalks and other
hardscape features; pools, fountains, water features.
(c) An irrigation design plan drawn at the same scale as the planting
plan that:
(i) Accurately and clearly identifies and depicts irrigation system
point(s) of connection;
(ii) Accurately and clearly identifies and depicts irrigation system
components, e.g. controller, pipe, remote-control valves,
sprinklers, rain shut-off device, check valves, pressure
regulating devices, backflow prevention devices, and other
required devices
(iii) Includes the Hydrozone Table (See Appendix B).
(iv) For the efficient use of water, grading of a project site shall be
designed to minimize soil erosion, runoff, and water waste. A
grading design plan drawn at the same scale as the planting
design plan shall be submitted as part of the Landscape
Documentation Package. Items 1(a-e) below are required for all
projects.
Ordinance 421 Page 8
(1) The project applicant shall submit a landscape grading plan
that indicates finished configurations and elevations of the
landscape area including:
(a) height of graded slopes:
(b) drainage patterns:
(c) pad elevations;
(d) finish grade: and
(e) stormwater retention improvements, if applicable.
(2) It is highly recommended that, when site conditions allow,
project applicants consider grading so that all irrigation and
normal rainfall remains within property lines and does not
drain on to non-permeable hardscapes.
The grading design plan shall contain the following
statement: "I have complied with the criteria of this chapter
and applied them accordingly for the efficient use of water in
the grading design plan" and shall bear the signature of a
licensed professional or contractor as authorized by law.
(d) For homeowner-provided projects, a completed Homeowner's
Irrigation Design Statement, Appendix B, which describes irrigation
methods and design actions that will be employed to meet the
irrigation specifications of this chapter, may be submitted in lieu of
the irrigation design plan.
2. STEP 2: COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION. Upon installation and
completion of the landscape, applicant shall submit Appendix D, the
Certificate of Completion.
The certificate shall be accompanied by an irrigation audit that contains the
following:
(a) Operating pressure of the irrigation system.
(b) Distribution uniformity of overhead irrigation.
(c) Precipitation rate of overhead irrigation.
(d) Report of any overspray or broken irrigation equipment.
(e) Irrigation schedule including:
(f) Plant establishment irrigation schedule.
Ordinance 421
(i) Regular irrigation schedule by month including: plant type, root
depth, soil type, slope factor, shade factor, irrigation interval
(days per week), irrigation runtimes, number of start times per
irrigation day, gallons per minute for each valve, precipitation
rate, distribution uniformity and monthly estimated water use
calculations.
Page 9
(ii) An irrigation maintenance schedule timeline shall be attached to
the certificate of completion that includes: Routine inspections,
adjustment and repairs to the irrigation system, aerating and
dethatching turf areas, replenishing mulch, fertilizing, pruning
and weeding.
3. STEP 3: FINAL INSPECTION. A final inspection shall be performed by
District staff to verify compliance with this chapter. Once the completion
form is received, the District will conduct an inspection to check for proper
installation and operation of all landscape and irrigation elements per the
approved plan; however, the District reserves the right to perform site
inspections at any time before, durin.g, or after irrigation system and
landscape installation and to require corrective measures if requirements of
this chapter are not satisfied. If corrective measures are necessary, the
District will set the water budget to zero until corrective measures are
completed.
Advanced notice is required for all inspections. Inspections can be
requested for either morning or afternoon during regular business hours.
Final approval shall not be completed until the landscape inspection is
approved. An extension of the approval process, to complete landscape and
irrigation installation, shall be requested and shall be approved District
staff.
F. Section 13.02.021 (12) entitled "Penalties and Violations" is repealed in its entirety. A
new Section 13.02.021 (12) is enacted to read as follows:
(12) Forms. The following forms shall be submitted as described in this chapter:
Appendix A, Maximum Applied Water Allowance; Appendix B, Homeowner's
Irrigation Design Statement; Appendix C, Hydrozone Table; Appendix D, Certificate
of Completion. (Ord. 414 §2, 2010)
Ordinance 421 Page 10
Appendix A
Maximum Applied Water AYow"ce
The follo%%ing calculations nil help you determine your site specific water budget and establish a planting nix that «9 allow you to meet your water
budget. Your Estimated Total Water Use must be less than your Mw immm Applied Water Allowance.
1.) W W
MA`i'A = (ETo) (0.62)[(0.6x LA) + (0.4 x SLA)]
Where:
ETo = Annual Net Reference Evapotranspiration ('inches)
0.6 = ET Adjustment Factor
LA = Landscaped Area (square feet)
0.62 = Com•ersion factor (to gallons per square foot)
SLA = Portion of the landscape area identified as Special Landscape Area (square feet)
04 = the additional ET adjustment factor for Special Landscape Area (1.0 - 0.6 = 0.4)
A.) Net Evapotranspiration Calculation
.................................J
/Anmral Ero
..............(Ann............. Ra..ir{/kllj x -25 = Ra...-.....................
ual IEffactne i
Net Evapotranspiration Calculation = Annual ETo - Effectn a Rauifail =
B.) Adjusted Landscape Area Cacmlation
x 0.6 =
(Landscaped Area) A ustment Factor
x 0.4 =
/Special LandscapedAreaj i nt Factor
Sum of Adjusted Landscape Area =
MAWA = x 0.62 x =
tifwtMesJaec
A.) Net Evapotranspiration Calculation
Net Evapotranspiration Calculation = Annual ETo - Effective RainfaIl =
B-) Adjusted Landscape Area Calculation
x 0-3 -
Zow avatar use plant s0j
x0-6 =
(.Ifodlrata water use plant sgRj
x 1.0 =
/Hugh avatar use plant sgj?j
Sinn of Adjusted Landscape Area =
ETWU = x 0.62 x =
I tion Efficiency Factor
Percent of total lands Irrigated nods Drip
0-25% VI
26-50% 0-75
51-75% 0.80
76-100% 0.85
Ordinance 421 Page 11
Appendix B
Homeowner's Irrigation Design Statement
The intent of this statement is to provide the homeowner with an alternative method for
conceptualizing the irrigation design. A signed, written statement shall be submitted to the
District as part of the design review process, and shall include the following elements:
❑ Accurately and clearly describes the types and locations of all irrigation system point(s) of
connection;
❑ Accurately and clearly describes the types and locations of all irrigation system components by
valve zone, including high-efficiency irrigation controller, pipe, valves, high and low volume
irrigation devices, rain shut-off device, check valves, pressure regulating devices, backflow
prevention devices, and all other irrigation devices reqqired by the District.
❑ A completed hydrozone table, Appendix C.
❑ A description of plant species irrigated in each valve zone by scientific name, water use
of each plant species as High, Moderate, or Low water use according to WUCOLS
(Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) , and plant height at maturity for each
plant. Plant height is not necessary where drip or bubbler will be used.
❑ A statement signed by the homeowner that includes the following certifying language:
"The irrigation system will be installed as described in this statement, and in compliance
with the requirements of the District".
Ordinance 421 Page 12
Appendix C
Hydrozone Table
This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and it is a required element of the Landscape
Documentation Package. Please complete the hydrozone table(s) for each hydrozone. Use as many
tables as necessary to provide the square footage of landscape area per hydrozone.
Hydrozone* Zone or Irrigation Area % of
Valve Method** (Sq. Ft.) Landscape
Area
Total 100%
Summa H drozone Table
H drozone*
Area (S q. Ft.
% of Landscape Area
High Water Use
Moderate Water Use
Low Water Use
Total =
100%
*Hydrozone
HW= High Water Use Plants
MW=Moderate Water Use Plants
LW=Low Water Use Plants
**Irrigation Method
MS=Micro-spray
S=Spray
R=Rotor
B=Bubbler
D=Drip
O=Other
Ordinance 421 Page 13
Appendix D
Certificate of Completion
This certificate is filled out by the project applicant, landscape architect and/or landscape contractor
upon completion of the landscape project.
Part 1. Proiect Information Sheet
Date
Project Name
Project Address
Name of Project Applicant
Telephone No.
Fax No.
Title
Email Address
Company
Street Address
City
State Zip Code
Proaerty Owner or his/her desienee:
Name
Telephone No.
Fax No.
Title
Email Address
Company
Street Address
City
State Zip Code
"Uwe certify that I/we have received copies of all the documents within the Landscape Documentation Package and that it is our
responsibility to see that the project is maintained in accordance with the Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule."
Property Owner Signature
Part 2. Landscape Architect and/or Landscape Contractor/Installer
Date
Landscape Architect Name
Telephone No.
Fax No.
Title
Email Address
License No. or Certification No.
Telephone No.
Company
Street Address
City
State Zip Code
Landscape Contractor/Installer Name
Telephone No.
Fax No.
Title
Email Address
License No. or Certification No.
Telephone No.
Company
Street Address
City
State Zip Code
"Uwe certify that the work has been completed in accordance with the ordinance and that the landscape planting and irrigation
installation conform to the criteria and specifications of the approved Landscape Documentation Package. Additionally, the
landscape audit and irrigation maintenance schedule have been completed as required and are attached to this certificate showing
that the system meets the efficiency requirements used in the Estimated Total Water Use calculation"
Landscape Architect Signature
Date
Landscape Contractor Signature Date
Ordinance 421 Page 14
G. Section 13.02.021 (13) is repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 4. Section 13.02.060 entitled "Enforcement" is amended to read as follows:
13.02.060 Enforcement.
(1) Any customer violating the regulations and restrictions on water use set forth in this
chapter shall receive a written warning for the first such violation.
(2) Upon a second violation, the following enforcement process shall be implemented by
the District:
(A) The customer shall receive a written warning describing the nature of the second
violation and the required corrective action(s).
(B) Upon receipt of the written warning for the second violation, the customer shall
have a 15 calendar day period in which to implement the corrective action(s) and shall notify the
District when the corrective actions have been completed.
(C) District staff will conduct a site visit to verify that the corrective action(s) are
complete and satisfy the requirements in this chapter.
(3) If the customer fails to complete the required corrective action(s), and notify the
District within the 15 calendar day period, the District shall issue a Notice of Violation by certified
mail or personal delivery at least 10 calendar days before imposing a $250 fine on the customer's
water bill. The notice shall inform the customer that he/she may appeal the impo§ition of the fine
to the District's General Manager by filing a written appeal within 7 calendar days of the date of
the letter. Any Notice of Violation not timely appealed will be final. Upon receipt of a timely
appeal, a hearing on the appeal will be scheduled and the District will mail notice of this date to
the customer at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The General Manager's decision is
final. Pending receipt of a written appeal or pending hearing pursuant to an appeal, the District
may take appropriate steps to prevent unauthorized use of water as appropriate to prevent waste.
This notice and hearing procedure shall not apply to those water waste situations charged as
misdemeanors.
(4) Failure by the customer to pay the fine and correct the violation, may cause the District
to install a flow restrictor to be installed in the service. If a flow restrictor is placed, the cost of
installation and removal specified in Section 11.32.020 of this code shall be paid by the violator.
(5) Any willful violation occurring subsequent to the issuance of the second written
warning may constitute a misdemeanor and may be referred to the Marin County district attorney's
office for prosecution pursuant to Section 13.02.080.
(6) The district may also disconnect the water service in accordance with Section
11.28.030 of this code. If water service is disconnected, it shall be restored only upon payment of
the turn-on charge fixed by the board of directors under the provisions of Section 11.08.130(2) of
this code. (Ord. 387 §1, 1999; Ord. 316 §2 (part), 1991).
SECTION 5. Section 13.03.031 is added to Title 13 to read as follows:
13.03.031 Increasing a Service's Water Budget. Requests to increase a service's Water
Budget, as a result of an entitlement purchase or transfer, or where the service's water budget is
less than the service's water entitlement shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Mixed-use Non-Residential Services:
(A) Interior Fixtures. Interior Fixtures shall meet conditions as stated in District Code
Section 13.02.02.
(B) Irrigated Landscape Areas. A minimum 3" layer of mulch shall be applied on all
exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas or creeping or rooting groundcovers.
Rain sensors shall be installed for each irrigation controller. Irrigation system shall be adjusted to
minimize runoff or overspray onto non-targeted areas.
Ordinance 421 Page 15
2) Dedicated Irrigation Services. The following items shall be completed by the applicant
according to the requirements in District Code Section 13.02.02:
• A landscape water budget calculating both MAWA & ETWU requirements.
• A landscape hydrozone table.
• A minimum 3" layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of
planting areas except in turf areas or creeping or rooting groundcovers.
• Rain sensors shall be installed for each irrigation controller.
• Irrigation system shall be adjusted to minimize runoff or overspray onto non-
targeted areas.
• Backflow prevention equipment shall be installed and tested as required by the
District.
Upon determining the service meets the requirements for both indoor and outdoor
water use, and based on the current water efficiency standards established by the District, the
service may be eligible to increase the annual water budget as calculated by staff, but in no case
shall the budget exceed the services entitlement. Requests to increase a service's water budget
may be made once per calendar year.
SECTION 6. Findings of Necessity: The Board of Directors, after considering all of the
information and testimony presented at its December 15, 2010 meeting regarding this ordinance,
finds as follows:
1. Historic and Current Water Supply Overview
A. Water is a finite and precious resource.
B. The District's water supply currently remains limited to water captured in its seven
reservoirs; water transported from the Russian River via the North Marin aqueduct;
and recycled water produced at the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Plant (for
a variety of non-potable purposes). About 73% of the District's water supply
comes from its reservoirs, 25% from the Russian River through the North Marin
aqueduct and 2% from recycled water. Although options to increase the District's
water supply are being evaluated, the implementation of any preferred alternative
will take several years. For the last many years, water demand is outpacing water
supply. The Board recognized that imbalance in July 2000.
C. In 2005, the District, via its Urban Water Management Plan, evaluated its current
water supply against its current and future estimated demands and projected deficits
of 700 acre feet in 2005; 3,700 acre feet in 2010, 5,300 acre feet in 2015, 6,400 acre
.,feet in 2020 and 7,400 acre feet in 2025.
D. In response to this supply - demand imbalance, the Board, over the last eight years,
has been exploring alternative water supply sources. A San Francisco Bay
desalination pilot plant project was constructed and operated in 2005. A Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating a desalination facility has been
certified by the Board. On August 19, 2009, the Board selected a 5mgd expandable
to 15 mgd desalination plant as the preferred alternative, approved that project and
directed staff to pursue the permitting process to determine whether the
desalination project was feasible. In approving the desalination project, the Board
was mindful of the fact that there are many "off roads" and future opportunities for
public in put before construction of the plant commenced and that project approval
was a necessary next step begin the permitting stage of the project which will assist
Ordinance 421 Page 16
in determining the desalination project's feasibility. Currently the desalination
project is on "hold," as demand has dropped over the last 18-24 months.
E. Over the last several years, the Board has been exploring whether additional
conservation strategies could alleviate the water supply deficit. In January 2006,
the Board received a report from Maddaus Water Management that evaluated the
costs and benefits of various conservation activities. The Board then authorized a
$1,240,000 conservation program to reduce water use for outdoor irrigation.
F. In June 2007, District staff updated the agency's Water Conservation Master Plan
("Master Plan"), which was presented to the Board and which the Board reviewed
and approved. District staff projected additional water savings from various
conservation programs as a means to reduce the supply - demand imbalance. In
fiscal year 2007-2008, the Board increased funding for water conservation
programs to $1,867,000 to launch a new water programs including a high-
efficiency toilet rebate, a Bay Friendly Landscape program, commercial high-
efficiency urinal and direct-installation toilet and school education programs.
G. The Master Plan indicated that the District's customers were responding positively
to the agency's new conservation strategy. It noted that the then-new high-
efficiency toilet rebate program started in January 2007 had issued more than 300
toilet rebates over the first 3 months. By comparison, the Master Plan noted that
other larger Bay Area water agencies had completed only 150-300 high efficiency
toilet rebates in all of 2006.
H. The Master Plan noted that the District's high-efficiency clothes washer program
continued to issue rebates for an average of 1,200 washers each year, after 12 years
in operation and more than 9,000 rebates.
1. After review of the alternative programs outlined in the Master Plan, the Board
authorized $2,459,000 in funding in fiscal year 2007-2008 for expanded water
conservation programs. That funding anticipated expansion of programs in leak
detection, rebates and other water-conservation incentives.
J. Based upon rainfall patterns for the District, very little rainfall occurs from May to
October each year. In recent years, the overall summer peak-period has found
water use averages about twice winter use. Outdoor water use is more
discretionary than interior water use. Some reductions in water use can be achieved
by reduction in the demand for water for exterior uses.
K. As a result of Conservation Assistance Program (CAP) consultations with single-
family residential customers concerning water use inefficiencies, District staff
learned that typically 15%-30% of water used for irrigating (water use outside the
home) is wasted and the most typical cause of the waste is excess irrigation.
L. In 2007, the 7 % of the District's consumers consuming the largest volume of water
consumed 22% of the District's water in the summer months. In the winter months
the 2% of customers consuming the largest volume of water consumed 9% of the
water.
Ordinance 421 Page 17
M. Although the District's Conservation Program has made significant strides, more is
necessary.
N. After almost twenty years of innovative and aggressive conservation efforts, more
needs to be accomplished. The water conservation program required by this
ordinance is necessary to conserve additional water for beneficial use and to
preserve the District's water supply.
II. Current Conservation Measures.
A. The purpose of this ordinance is to meet the 2010 California Green Building
Standards (CALGreen Code), effective Janpary 1, 1011, improve the effectiveness
of the District's water waste prevention program and increases efficiency standards
for interior and exterior water use.
B. Key elements of these ordinance revisions include a reduction in the square-foot
requirements for landscape plan review on commercial and residential properties, a
requirement for residential customers to install high-efficiency clothes washers
when replacing a non-efficient clothes washer, streamlined water waste prevention
program procedures and increased water efficiency requirements for mixed-use and
dedicated irrigation customers requesting increased water budget allocations.
C. Effective January 1, 2011, CALGreen Code requires every newly constructed
building or structure in the state to meet new efficiency standards, including water
efficiency. The new water efficiency standards apply to both indoor appliances and
outdoor landscape irrigation, and generally require a 20% reduction in water use
compared to current Title 24 regulations. In addition to the mandatory 20%
reductions, the CALGreen Code recommends Tier 1 & Tier 2 measures that
achieve even greater savings.
D. The CalGreen Code strengthens the landscape efficiency standards in the
Department of Water Resource's Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and
incorporates the EPA WaterSense program, graywater standards, alternative water
sources such as rainwater, and other sections of the state Water Code.
E. The mandatory provisions of the CALGreen Code require plan reviews for new
construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency projects and private
development projects with a landscape area equal to or greater than 1,000 square
feet; require plan reviews for new construction and rehabilitated common area
landscapes which are developer or contractor-installed in single-family and multi-
family projects with a landscape area equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet and
require separate District landscape water meters shall for all new landscapes, other
than single-family and two-unit residential landscapes, where the irrigated area is
equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet.
F. Additional voluntary revisions to Title 13 have been included which require plan
reviews for new construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are homeowner-
provided in single family and multi-family residential projects with a total project
landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet, require a private sub-
meter for all points of connection on single-family and two-unit residential sites for
which the irrigated landscape area is equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet,
Ordinance 421 Page 18
encourage rain harvesting, graywater, or catchment technologies (e.g. rain gardens,
cisterns, etc.) as appropriate, and where permitted by law and encourage on-site
retention and infiltration of stormwater.
G. Additional provisions prohibit any excess water runoff flowing onto the public
right of way at a rate of 1 gallon per minute or greater not caused by stormwater or
naturally occurring groundwater, impose a $250 fine for violations of the
conservation Code sections, to be placed on customer's water bills, following
appropriate notifications, warnings, and hearing procedures and require that when
customers replace non-efficient clothes washers, they replace them with high-
efficiency clothes washers at residential and commercial properties.
H. Provisions of this ordinance require additional conservation measures before a
customer can increase a service's water budget, for non-residential mixed-use and
irrigation services including:
• Upgrading interior fixtures to meet the Code's efficiency standards;
• Applying a minimum of 3" layer of mulch, install rain sensors, and adjust
irrigation systems to minimize overspray and runoff for all irrigation services;
and
• Calculating a landscape water budget using the district's MAWA and ETWU
worksheets; completing a hydrozone table; and demonstrating that the backflow
prevention equipment at the site meets District requirements for sites with
dedicated irrigation services.
1. The Board of Directors determines that this conservation program is a fundamental
and necessary step in its on-going efforts to reduce overall water use District wide,
especially discretionary summer water use for irrigation.
J. Mindful of the fact that water use doubles during the normally warm summer
months and that in any given year the District's reservoirs store a two year supply
of water, the Board determines that it reasonable and necessary to expand its
conservation effort along the lines described in this ordinance to further preserve
and conserve the District's water supply.
K. Careful water management requires the implementation of a host of water
''conservation at all times, not just in times of drought.
L. Article X Section 2 of the California Constitution declares that the general welfare
requires that water resources be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which
they are capable and that the waste, unreasonable use or unreasonable method of
use of water be prevented, and that conservation of such waters is to be exercised
with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people
and the public welfare.
M. California Water Codes Section 375 authorized water suppliers to adopt and
enforce a comprehensive water conservation program to reduce water consumption
and conserve supplies.
Ordinance 421 Page 19
N. The adoption and enforcement of the water conservation program contained in this
ordinance is necessary to manage and conserve the District's water supply and
ensure the sustainability and reliability of the same while preventing water waste.
0. The Board finds this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 7. Environmental Determination: This project has been reviewed for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for an exemption under the General
Rule section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 8. Severability: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, portion or part of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such section shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code. The
Board of Directors hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections subsections, clauses, phrases, parts or portions be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 9. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be effective on the day of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January 2011 by the following vote of the Board:
AYES: Directors Behar, Gibson, Koehler, Russell and Quintero
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
President, Board of Directors
ATTEST:
Secretary, Board of Directors
Ordinance 421 Page 20