Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agd Pkt 2012-08-15 (2)
To the Tiburon Town Council, .:;r~`p --OW N CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON I am writing to support the appeal of 2310 Mar East against the variances issued to 2308 Mar East at the June 7 2012 Design Review Board meeting. I feel that a dangerous precedent is being set when variances to the zoning ordinance are being granted to one property at the expense of another. As a long time resident of Mar East street as well as in my professional capacity, I am well aware of the importance and value of privacy, view, and light on Mar East. The granting of a variance that would deprive a neighbor of any of those three elements is troublesome not just for everyone on Mar East, but for every resident of Tiburon as well. When one purchases a home, it is reasonable to expect that that the local elected leaders will enforce the laws that were written to protect our property values and quality of life in our homes. If that is not the case, then the question of "where does it end?" must be asked. Because of the visibility of this situation, I fear that others would feel empowered to overdevelop at the expense of others, and in so doing begin a decline of many qualities of life in Tiburon that are so dear to us all. Once the decline starts, it will be impossible to stop. 1 t I support the appeal of 2310 Mar East, and ask the Town Council to do the sa e. Thank you, 0 1 Page 1 of 1 D E C El W Diane Crane lacopiy ` From: Dan Watrous TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:04 PM To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council) Cc: Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson; Diane Crane lacopi; Heidi Bigall; 'Deirdre McCrohan'; 'Deirdre McCrohan' Subject: Fresh & Easy Appeal Dear Town Council, The representatives for Fresh & Easy Market have informed me that they have withdrawn their Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the store at 1 Blackfield Drive and no longer intend to pursue a store at this location. Therefore, the appeal scheduled for Wednesday night has been removed from the agenda. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Sincerely, Dan Watrous Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 8/14/2012 Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:59 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW: Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours From: Jill Sperber [mailto:jilisperber@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:02 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours I AW '1'0V,VeN CLERK 1-0VVN_0F TIBURON Dear Dan, Please add my name to the list of neighbors, joining the Dunns and Weins, etc. who are advocating for reasonable delivery time windows for Fresh & Easy to minimize noise and traffic at the Cove. Thank you, Jill Sperber 171 Leland Way 8/14/2012 Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:52 AM To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council) Cc: Diane Crane lacopi; Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson Subject: FW: Fresh and Easy Appeal for change in delivery hours More late mail for the Fresh & Easy appeal... Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (495) 435-7393 _ From: Golden, Suzanne [mailto:Suzanne.Golden@ucsfinedctr.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:49 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: daren.wein@mlegalgroup.com Subject: Fresh and Easy Appeal for change in delivery hours August 14, 2012 To Dan Watrous: J ? p r-y kbG f 0V N CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON I am a resident of Bel Aire and live at 357 Karen Way. I would like to express my vote against any change in delivery hours for the Fresh and Easy Market. I feel that any lengthening of the time frame for deliveries would negatively impact the quiet of our residential neighborhood as the sound of back-up beeping, loud motors and the slamming/sliding of delivery truck doors, would be disruptive. The prolongation of delivery hours would also negatively impact the flow of traffic at Blackfield and Tiburon Boulevard due to the need for an 18 wheeler delivery truck (which can be as long as 8o ft) to back up from Blackfield and thereby entirely blocking the street during this process. Thank you for adding this letter to the packet to be included on Wednesday August 15, 2012 Town Council Meeting Agenda for the Fresh and Easy Appeal for longer delivery hours. Suzanne Pressley 357 Karen Way Tiburon, Ca. 94920 415-381-2867 8/14/2012 Page ] of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:59 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW-. Oppose proposed Fresh and Easy expanded delivery hours From: jkgoto@comcast.net [mailto:jkgoto@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:55 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Oppose proposed Fresh and Easy expanded delivery hours Dear Mr. Watrous- FOW N CLERK OWN OF TIBURON We live in the Bel Aire neighborhood and are writing in support of our neighbors to maintain the delivery hours for the grocery store in the Cove Shopping Center which we understand has been 7am-11 am since the 1970's. We welcome Fresh & Easy to the neighborhood and look forward to its opening, but there is no reason why delivery hours that have worked for every other grocery store for 30+ years should be increased. The proposed delivery hour expansion to 7am-5pm daily is a 10 hour window that replaces the original 4 hour window. We feel this is unreasonable; it is a 150% increase. It will not only negatively impact those residents who live behind the grocery store with the backup beeping noise of trucks, but all of us who live in the Bel Aire neighborhood, as we all need to use Blackfield Avenue to exit the neighborhood. We understand that the delivery trucks need to back in to the alley behind the grocery store, but are not in favor of them potentially hindering traffic 10 hours a day. We regret we are unable to attend the Town Council Meeting on Wednesday, but please let it be known that we are in support of maintaining the longstanding 7am-11am delivery schedule for Fresh & Easy. Respectfully submitted, Freeman & Janice Goto Wong 30 Claire Way Tiburon 8/14/2012 Page 1 of 1 ' f. k..is ~ 7~ r1 i! W1 Diane Crane lacopi el From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:02 AM I-0WN CLERK I OWN OF TIBURON To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW: Neighborhood Resident's Comment Regarding Fresh and Easy Delivery Hours From: Cleveland Justis [mailto:cqustis@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:03 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Neighborhood Resident's Comment Regarding Fresh and Easy Delivery Hours Dear Mr. Watrous, My wife Rachael and I are writing to voice our concern about the recent decision of the Tiburon Design Review Board to expand the allowable hours for delivery to the proposed Fresh & Easy market at the Cove Shopping Center. As long-term Bel Aire neighborhood property owners and residents we are very supportive of Fresh and Easy coming to Tiburon and the Cove Shopping Center. However, we are concerned about the impacts that the greatly increased delivery hours could have on our neighborhood and the families living close to the market. Several of our neighbors have raised important concerns about the noise and other impacts likely to be generated by the increased delivery hours. The quality of life for our residents and property values of our neighborhood would likely be adversely impacted if this greatly increased operating schedule were to be implemented. We appreciate that the town is hearing the appeal of the DRB's devision in a timely manner and we urge you to maintain the delivery schedule which has been the operating norm for many years at the location. Due to prior commitments we are not likely to be able to attend the meeting on 8/15 but please record this email as a strong voice of support for our neighbors who oppose an increase in the delivery hours for Fresh and Easy. Thanks for your time and careful attention to this important matter. Please feel free to contact us is you need additional information from us. Sincerely, Cleveland and Rachael Justis 322 Karen Way, Tiburon 8/14/2012 Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:02 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW: limit Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours V 4 X012 TOWN CLERIC TOWN OF TIBURON From: Grover Wilson III [mailto:groverwilson3@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:24 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: limit Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours I have lived in the Bel Aire neighborhood since 1993. 1 am writing to respectfully ask the Tiburon Town Council to limit delivery hours for Fresh & Easy trucks to 7 AM to 11 AM. Thank you. Grover Wilson III 329 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 8/14/2012 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:02 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW: Fresh & Easy -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Ratto [mailto:jjratto@acacia-capital.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:53 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: dgwein@yahoo.com Subject: Fresh & Easy Dan, DF, ,1+ Z TOWN CLERK TOWS! OF TIBURON We will no be able to attend the meeting to discuss the proposed Fresh & Easy delivery times. We look forward to having the store open in the near future and would suggest that the truck delivery times be scheduled to not create a hardship for the homes backing the shopping center. Late night truck traffic would adversely effect the neighborhood. Thank you for addressing this matter. Regards, Jeff Ratto 139 Leland Way Jeff J. Ratto Vice President Acacia Capital Corporation (415)745-0222 jjratto@acacia-capital.com www.acacia-capital.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:10 AM - L-J To: Diane Crane lacopi y 4 Subject: FW: Fresh & Easy Appeal L0i i TOWN CLERK .....TOWS! OF TIBURON From: Adam Heher [mailto:adamheher@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:05 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: dgwein@yahoo.com Subject: Fresh & Easy Appeal Mr. Watrous: I understand the Tiburon Town Council will hear the appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to expand the delivery schedule for Fresh & Easy THIS WEDNESDAY NIGHT, August 15th, beginning at 730PM. Unfortunately, I will be out of town on business, but I wanted to write to support the appeal. There is no reason to expand the delivery window that has been in place for so many years. We live at 75 Pamela Court and can hear the delivery and garbage trucks that service the shopping center. Expanded hours of delivery would be a nuisance to our neighborhood and would ultimately lower the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Regards, Adam Heher mobile 415-215-5050 8/14/2012 Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:02 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW: limit Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours yEU . FOWN CLERK f OWN OF TIBURON From: Grover Wilson III [mailto:groverwilson3@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:24 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: limit Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours I have lived in the Bel Aire neighborhood since 1993. 1 am writing to respectfully ask the Tiburon Town Council to limit delivery hours for Fresh & Easy trucks to 7 AM to 11 AM. Thank you. Grover Wilson III 329 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 8/14/2012 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:02 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW: Fresh & Easy -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Ratto [mailto:jjratto@acacia-capital.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:53 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: dgwein@yahoo.com Subject: Fresh & Easy Dan, D ESE IVE AU G TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON We will no be able to attend the meeting to discuss the proposed Fresh & Easy delivery times. We look forward to having the store open in the near future and would suggest that the truck delivery times be scheduled to not create a hardship for the homes backing the shopping center. Late night truck traffic would adversely effect the neighborhood. Thank you for addressing this matter. Regards, Jeff Ratto 139 Leland Way Jeff J. Ratto Vice President Acacia Capital Corporation (415)745-0222 jjratto@acacia-capital.com www.acacia-capital.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:10 AM To: Diane Crane lacopi Subject: FW: Fresh & Easy Appeal From: Adam Heher [mailto:adamheher@gmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:05 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: dgwein@yahoo.com Subject: Fresh & Easy Appeal A ~ Cs Au U U L ~.'J i TOWN CLERK 1.OWNO F TIBURON _ Mr. Watrous: I understand the Tiburon Town Council will hear the appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to expand the delivery schedule for Fresh & Easy THIS WEDNESDAY NIGHT, August 15th, beginning at 730PM. Unfortunately, I will be out of town on business, but I wanted to write to support the appeal. There is no reason to expand the delivery window that has been in place for so many years. We live at 75 Pamela Court and can hear the delivery and garbage trucks that service the shopping center. Expanded hours of delivery would be a nuisance to our neighborhood and would ultimately lower the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Regards, Adam Heher mobile 415-215-5050 8/14/2012 Fable Castro 270 Cecilia Way Tiburon Ca 94920 August 14, 2012 Ms. Alice Fredericks Town of Tiburon Ms. Fredericks: hope you are well. 7 114 2012 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON Please allow me to describe some of the concerns I have regarding Fresh and Easy and my property at 270 Cecilia. I hope you will understand that I cannot attend meeting tonight, but my wife Gladys will be representing 270 Cecilia. Let me give you a list of thoughts that are good material that we may need to use in order to avoid problems with who ever takes over the market space. Over the years, I have had quite a few incidents with the delivery vehicles behind the fence and I even had the police intervene once. 1. - On Saturday and Sunday, my wife and I try to have breakfast and lunch in the garden, but the lack of privacy is terrible because the truckers or drivers can see the backyard from the truck. cabins. 2. - At the same time, those 2 days are kind of special for rest and relaxation, but the noise from the delivery trucks and voices from people delivering and receiving is also terrible. I - Due to the type of delivery dock they have, trucks need to park diagonally sometimes to reach the concrete area and delivery doors; this action blocks the driveway, but also some trucks damage the fences on our side. Two supermarkets had had to pay to repair my fence. We finally replaced the fence with stronger posts. 4. - Blocking the driveway has bee a problem before too because other trucks have to either wait or turn around to find another exit, thus causing more traffic, more fumes, more noise. b_ - The delivery trucks are often left running while the deliveries are made, even tough there is a lave that does not allow that. The smell of diesel, suit and noise are very uncomfortable, especially for children and older people that live in that area. 6. - Most of the above items can be avoided if the deliveries are done in the back of the building, where there is much more room and in reality they should use that area that was actually designed for that; somehow the prior tenants have opted not to use. I thought about these problems for a long time and it is important that they are addressed. The value of the properties situated like ours decreases and we need to disclose these matters when we sell. There a possibility that if we do not disclosed to a buyer that we could be a big liability to face. I thought about requesting from the owner's of the shopping center that a S" high concrete block sound wall be constructed, so that the properties are not affected by these problems. This is now a normal practice where houses are next to shopping centers, roads and freeways. The values of properties are now more important because of all that has transpired with real estate recently; consideration should be given by our neighbors to reach a permanent solution. The above described does not mean that I am opposed to a businesses moving in, but these issues have been ignored by the City, the shopping center owners and somehow by the property owners. I realize that we could be a problem neighbor for this corporation, but I would like them to give some thought to my concerns, my property and my life- I also need to nform you that I do not give up. Yours,Trul y , Pablo astr, Page 1 of 2 Diane Crane lacopi From: Dan Watrous LATE MAIL,O None Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 9:01 AM To: allTC (Tiburon Town Council) Cc: Diane Crane lacopi; Peggy Curran; Scott Anderson Subject: FW: Cove Shopping Center - Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours Attachments: Legal Disclaimer Late mail for Fresh & Easy... Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager TOWN CLERK Town of Tiburon TOWN OF TIBURON (495) 435-7393 From: timothy.cahill@ubs.com [mailto:timothy.cahill@ubs.com] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 4:28 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: joannie_00@yahoo.com; dgwein@yahoo.com Subject: Cove Shopping Center - Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours Dan, As long time residents of the Bel Aire neighborhood adjacent to the Cove Shopping Center, we are very excited about the recent developments that have been going on at the center including the opening of Peet's and the announcement that a Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market plans to re-open the vacant grocery space in early 2013. Although we are supportive of the Fresh & Easy concept and welcome them to the neighborhood, we are very concerned about the proposed extension of the current long-standing allowable delivery hours. As I'm sure you can appreciate the presence of delivery trucks pose a number of potential issues including safety, health, environmental and noise pollution concerns and every effort should be made to limit that trucking activity to a reasonable time schedule. The existing posted delivery hours have stood the test of time for over thirty years and have served both the neighbors and the previous grocer operations without issue. As I'm sure you've been hearing from our fellow neighbors, this concern is not limited to those residents that abut the center's service delivery area, but rather, is a sentiment that is shared by virtually every resident of the. Bel Aire neighborhood. During next week's hearing on this matter, we strongly implore the City of Tiburon to listen to the Bel Aire neighbors and reinstate the current center's delivery hours. Fresh & Easy touts itself as the "Neighborhood Market" and hopefully, by listening to its neighbors and adapting to the current delivery hour limitations, they live up to that moniker. Feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Enjoy your weekend. Best regards, Tim, Joannie and Timmy Cahill 121 Leland Way 8/13/2012 Page 2 of 2 Tim Cahill I Executive Director UBS Global Asset Management I Real Estate US 455 Market Street Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 415 538-4820 Cell: 415 816-9737 timothy.cahill, r.ubs.com Please Consider the environt7Yent before priritiri this iness'ap e. 8/13/2012 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting August 15, 2012 1505 Tiburon Boulevard b ` Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: ~ l To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 1 Blackfield Drive: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for the Construction of Exterior Alterations to an Existing Commercial Building; The Cove Shopping Center, Owner; Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Markets and Nadel Architects, Applicants; Darren Wein, Jennifer Rasmussen, Lynde Selden, Kyle and Ann Mary Belek, and Murray and Tiffany Dunn, Appellants; File #712054; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-212-18 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcels: File Number: Property Owner: Applicants: 1 Blackfield Drive, Suite k 034-212-18 712054 The Cove Shopping Center Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Markets Nadel Architects Appellants: Darren Wein, Jennifer Rasmussen, Lynde Selden, Kyle and Ann Mary Belek, and Murray and Tiffany Dunn Lot Size: 3.9 Acres Zoning: NC (Neighborhood Commercial) General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Flood Zone: AE (Subject To 100-Year Flood) BACKGROUND On June 21, 2012, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a different grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market) on property located in the Cove Shopping Center at 1 Blackfield Drive. A group of Tiburon residents (Darren Wein, Jennifer Rasmussen, Lynde Selden, Kyle and Ann Mary Belek, and Murray and Tiffany Dunn, hereinafter referred to as "appellants'') have filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision to the Town Council. The appeal is attached as Exhibit 1. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval for the construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a different grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market) on property located in the Cove Shopping Center at 1 Blackfield Drive. The commercial building on the subject site has been previously occupied by various different grocery store/markets, most recently Delano/IGA Market, and is currently vacant. The following improvements would be constructed as part of this application: • The entry would be modified with a new entrance at the center of the building, eliminating the two existing entrances on either side of the center of the building. A new handicapped accessible ramp would be leading to the new entrance, and the two existing ramps would be removed. An existing awning above the entrance would be removed. Two new parking spaces would be installed in the location of the existing handicapped ramps, and one new parking space is proposed at the rear of the building. Three existing parking spaces would be removed to make room for shopping cart corrals and for better truck access to the rear of the site. • The existing loading docks on the rear of the building would be removed and replaced with new ramps, along with a mechanical lift. • Four (4) new pieces of mechanical equipment would be installed on the rooftop. The proposed project would not increase the floor area or lot coverage or the existing building. With the exception of the entry modifications, the exterior appearance of the existing building would remain unchanged. The project would repaint the existing building a light beige color, with green and brown trim. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board reviewed the application on June 21, 2012 (see minutes and staff report packet attached as Exhibits 2 & 3). Prior to the meeting, the applicants asked Town staff if there were restrictions on the delivery hours. Staff informed the applicants that delivery hours are usually established through the conditional use permit process. The Cove Shopping Center was constructed in the 1950's, prior to the incorporation of the Town of Tiburon. The County of Marin did not issue any conditional use permit for the grocery store in the center, and various grocery stores have occupied this space since that time. Staff had previously determined that the proposed grocery store use did not require a conditional use permit as this was a use-for-use change that would not substantially intensify the use of the space. On the day of the Board meeting, staff was contacted by a neighboring resident (Darren Wein, one of the appellants) who asked about the delivery hours for the proposed store. Mr. Wein TOWN OF TYBURON PAGE 2 OF 6 informed staff that there was a sign on the back of the building posting delivery hours. Staff visited the site and found a small sign on the wall near the loading dock limiting delivery hours to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Staff informed Mr. Wein that the Board would be told that extended delivery hours would not be permitted without first obtaining a conditional use permit. Staff drafted a condition of approval for the project which read as follows: "Delivery hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., seven days a week. Any modification to extend these hours is not permitted without approval of a conditional use pen-nit." At the June 21, 2012 meeting, staff raised the issue of the recommended additional condition of approval. Staff stated the opinion that the Design Review Board could extend the 11:00 a.m. end time for the delivery hours somewhat, noting that historically, complaints by neighboring residents about truck deliveries have focused on nighttime noise impacts. The applicant's representatives requested that the Board extend the permitted delivery hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week. One neighboring resident spoke in opposition to the extended delivery hours, citing potential noise impacts. The Design Review Board discussed the requested delivery hours and determined that the previous delivery hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. were not realistic, but that the requested hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. were too long. The Board determined that delivery hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. would more closely align with a common workday and would prevent noise from occurring while neighbors are having dinner. One Boardmember also noted that in this compromise, the applicants must realize how close the building is to residences, and that the residents have to realize that they bought homes next to a grocery store. The Design Review Board voted 4-0 to conditionally approve the project as amended. On July 12, 2012, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are five (5) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The Design Review Board was not the proper body to decide on an operational aspect of the store. Staff Response: The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance designates the Planning Commission as the review authority for conditional use permit applications. In most instances, hours of operations for a use are reviewed by the Planning Commission during its review of a conditional use permit. In instances where a conditional use permit is not required, the Design Review Board has, on occasion, specified hours of operation or other time limits as a condition of approval for a Site Plan and Architectural Review application. As Town staff had previously determined that a conditional use permit was not required for the proposed grocery store to occupy a building that has historically been occupied by the same use, the Design Review Board had the authority to impose specific hours of TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6 operation on the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for this store, provided that no substantial intensification of use occurred. Section 16-52.020 (A) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Site Plan and Architectural Review - Purpose) states that "the purpose of Site Plan and Architectural Review is to ensure that the design of proposed construction and new land uses assists in maintaining and enhancing the Town's distinctive character." Subsections 1 and 6 state that the Site Plan and Architectural Review process: Ensures that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood; 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable Town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. These code sections provide the Design Review Board the ability to amend or establish delivery hours as a means of ensuring compatibility with surrounding land uses. If the Town Council believes that the Design Review Board is not the appropriate review authority for deciding the delivery hours for this store, or that the extended delivery hours constitute a substantial intensification of use, the applicant may be required to submit a conditional use permit application for review by the Planning Commission to address the delivery hours. The decision by the Planning Commission could be appealed to the Town Council if any party disagrees with the delivery hours established by the Commission. However, the Council is the ultimate decision-making body for this matter, and need not refer this item if it does not so desire. Ground #2: The Design Review Board decided on the extended delivery hours without providing constructive notice to the community. Staff Response: Staff acknowledges that the process by which the store delivery hours were discussed and determined by the Design Review Board was poorly handled. Staff made a good faith effort to attempt to respond to applicant and resident inquiries about the subject in the absence of any previous documented permits or conditions of operation for the grocery store use on the site. However, the subject was presented to the Board for discussion without adequate opportunity for review and comments by the applicant and neighboring residents prior to the meeting. Staff notes that mailed notices generally do not include the level of detail that would include a reference to discussion about specific operational hours. Ground #3: The Design Review Board created a new provision in a conditional use permit, which is outside the scope and expertise of the Board. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6 Staff Response: As noted above, there is no conditional use permit in place for a grocery store at the subject location. The ability of the Design Review Board to amend or establish delivery hours to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses is discussed under Appeal Ground #1 above. Ground #4: The signage posting the previous store delivery hours should preclude any increase in delivery times of future grocery store tenants. Staff Response: There is no indication as to when the sign indicating the delivery hours for the grocery store at the back of the building was installed or whether the sign accurately reflected the delivery hours for any of the previous grocery store tenants at this location. Even if the sign accurately represents the past delivery hours for prior stores, the sign does not represent an enforceable regulation of the Town, as currently no permits or conditions of approval that regulate delivery hours or other operating characteristics for the grocery store use on this site. The delivery hours depicted on the sign, if accurately reflective of historic use, are more appropriately used as a presumed baseline for previous operations in discussing the appropriate delivery hours to be established for the proposed grocery store. Ground #5: The Design Review Board failed to consider the noise caused by back-up beepers for delivery trucks. Staff Response: The minutes of the June 21, 2012 meeting indicate that the Design Review Board discussed noise from delivery trucks as a general topic. A review of the audio recording for the meeting indicates that two different Boardmembers made references to sound from "trucks backing up" and "beeping from backing up." The Design Review Board was clearly aware that noise from delivery trucks takes many forms, including engine idling, the sound of refrigeration units, and backup beepers. In addition to the grounds for the appeal, the appellants have made the following requests: 1. That the hours of operation be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., as shown on the sign on the back of the store; 2. If changed, the hours should extend to no later than 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 3. Any delivery trucks to this store should be prohibited from sounding its reverse beepers and instead have a store employee act as a silent spotter for trucks backing up. As part of the review of the subject appeal, the Town Council may determine the appropriate delivery hours for the grocery store. Back-up beepers are required by State law for larger commercial vehicles, including most vehicles that deliver to grocery stores. These trucks can be fitted with a switch that temporarily disconnects the beeper. If the beeper is not used, an employee must be present to act as a spotter to guide trucks backing up. However, it would be TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 6 1., lwi difficult to force every delivery truck for this grocery store to install such a switch, and impractical to require that these trucks disconnect their back-up beepers at this location and then reconnect the beepers for deliveries elsewhere. CONCLUSION Although the process by which the store delivery hours were discussed and determined by the Design Review Board was atypical, the Board had the authority to impose delivery hours for this use. In reaching its decision on this project, the Design Review Board considered the noise characteristics of delivery trucks and the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood and determined that limiting delivery hours to daytime would be appropriate for this store. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 5), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intentions to either deny the appeal or partially grant the appeal and modify the approved delivery hours. 3) Direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution addressing the appeal for consideration at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of appeal 2. Design Review Board staff report dated June 21, 2012 3. Minutes of the June 21, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 4. Notice of Action and adopted conditions of approval 5. Appeal procedures 6. Application form and supplemental materials 7. Letter from Ghazaleh Jamei, dated June 17, 2012 8. Letter from Thom Calandra and Maura Thurman, dated July 11, 2012 9. Letter from Candace Washing, dated July 11, 2012 10. Letter from Thom Calandra and Maura Thurman, dated August 4, 2012 11. Letter from Tom Knauer, dated August 4, 2012 12. Letter from Cynthia Perry, dated August 5, 2012 13. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager S: IAdministration7own CouncibStaff Reports 120121 August 15 DraftsTresh & Easy appeal report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6 PLANfdl:1 TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Pholle 415-435-7373 ww"I''. cl. t iburoll. ca /is APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessar)) Name: 2 (!V Mailing Address: oZ7!+ C e ( Lill ) A- I i8o4QxJ) C4 ! 20 Ccll ~l _ Telephone: 41S -7 5~ `2k,24- (Work) 415 -39,0-67277 FAX and/or e-mail (optional): "16 1P 0 U , L ✓►'1 ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: t?S ► rev.lew 6CL4 Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: -j-U k Name of Applicant: Type of Application or Decision: 6~" GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) ~e~ cQ ~l acU ~e~~ STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: Fee Paid: 4&Z)• 60 Receipt No. Date Appeal Filed: 712/ 2 Date of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant EXHIBIT NO. S: lAdniinistrationlFol-mslNotice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc , OF Q Revised Alarch 2010 Pr Daren Wein & Jennifer Rasmussen, 274 Cecilia Way Lynde Selden, 258 Cecilia Way Kyle and Ann Mary Belek, 65 Harriet Way Murray and Tiffany Dunn 50 Harriet ay- r , July 2, 2012 -k~!, X71:: To the Tiburon Town Council: pLANt 11 This is an appeal of the decision made by the Tiburon Design Review Board (DRB)at its meeting held on June 21St regarding delivery hours allowed to Fresh & Easy in conjunction with its occupancy of the grocery store space at the Cove Shopping Center previously held by Delano's Markets. During its June 21St meeting, the DRB decided that Fresh & Easy (F&E) could conduct deliveries at its to-be constructed loading bays behind the store from 7AM-SPM, 7 days/week. The decision was made with minimal deliberation at the meeting and concerned a topic that was not announced to the public prior to the day of the meeting. Most importantly, the decision was made without any discussion of the facts and issues set forth below and resulted in a 150% expansion of the existing delivery window. As a result, this appeal is filed on behalf of the above named Bel Aire community residents, all of whom reside at properties that sit immediately adjacent to The Cove Shopping Center and will thereby be directly and significantly affected by the decision regarding delivery hours. Background Facts: - According to The Tiburon Town Planning Manager, Dan Watrous, the Conditional Use Permit covering occupancy and use of the grocery store space of the Cove Shopping Center was created in the 1960's and up through the occupancy of Delano's Markets (which ended in 2010), never included any limitations on delivery hours. As a result, somewhat unbelievably, delivery hours have been established and "policed" by a form of good neighbor coexistence among the Bel Aire neighborhood residents and the merchant tenants in the grocery store space. - On the morning of June 21St, Daren Wein contacted Dan Watrous to see if anyone had raised the issue of acceptable delivery times regarding the F&E project in advance of the DRB meeting where F&E's construction plan would be reviewed. Dan Watrous explained that the issue had not been raised by F&E or any other Tiburon residents and therefore was not on the agenda for the meeting. He suggested that if Daren Wein wanted the issue reviewed by the DRB, he needed to write a letter to the DRB prior SPM that day. - Daren Wein sent an email to Dan Watrous (attached hereto as Exhibit A) ahead of the 5PM deadline explaining the preferred position on the topic. This position was based on a sign posted to the wall above the existing loading bay behind the Cove grocery store that announced delivery hours were limited to 7AM-11AM. This sign has been in its current position for at least the five years that Daren Wein has resided at 274 Cecilia Way (and judging by its appearance, has likely been attached to the wall for much longer than that). - Shortly after receiving Daren Wein's email, Dan Watrous made an on-site visit to the Cove Shopping Center where he viewed the existing delivery time sign behind the EXHIBIT NO. ~ grocery store. As a result of his visit, he emailed Daren Wein (see Dan Watrous's email attached as Exhibit B) informing him that the 7AM-11AM delivery schedule would be added to the DRB meeting agenda as the established delivery window for the Conditional Use Permit. The topic of delivery schedule was added to the DRB agenda (Attached as Exhibit C) on the afternoon of June 21St, just prior to the 7PM meeting. At the DRB meeting, F&E representatives requested delivery hours be set from 7AM-7PM, 7 days/week. At the DRB meeting, DRB members deliberated briefly and quickly determined that a "fair" delivery window would be 7AM-SPM. This is an increase of 150% over the only delivery schedule guidance available to any of the parties. Positions with respect to the appeal of the DRB decision: - The DRB was not the proper municipal body to decide an operational aspect of F&E's prODosed occupancy of the Cove Shopping Center: - The DRB erred in its decision to increase the delivery window by 150% for the proposed F&E rg_ocery store because it unlawfully decided the issue without providing proper constructive notice to the community: - The DRB erred in its decision to increase the delivery window by 150% for the proposed F&E grocery store because it created a new provision in the Conditional Use Permit which is outside the scope and expertise of the DRB: - The DRB erred in its decision to increase the delivery window by 150% for the proposed F&E grocery store because existing signage on the wall of the grocery store should act as an estoppel against any increase in the delivery times of future grocery store tenants: - The DRB erred in its decision to increase the delivery window by 150% for the proposed F&E grocery store because it failed to include in its deliberations the fact that delivery trucks will be required to back up and sound reverse alarm beepers which ring at decibel levels that are far in excess of allowable decibel ranges for the property and the surrounding neighborhoods Explanation of positions: The DRB was not the Droner municipal bodv to decide an operational aspect of F&E'sproposed occupancy of the Cove Shopping Center: o The DRB is charged with reviewing design and structural aspects of new and remodeled buildings in Tiburon. In certain cases, issues like the loss/addition of parking spaces, etc., may be reviewed by the DRB. o Operational issues of businesses like hours of operation and delivery schedules are. matters that should properly be reviewed and deliberated by the Tiburon Planning Commission. o In the current case, the delivery issue was not on the agenda for the DRB meeting until hours before the meeting began. o Notwithstanding the DRB's overall lack of experience in reviewing operational matters, even if they had such experience, they did not research EXHIBIT NO. 3 61 c? the issues associated with an increase in delivery times sufficiently to know what the result of their decision would be. The DRB erred in its decision to increase the delivery window by 150% for the proposed F&E rg ocery store because it unlawfully decided the issue without providing proper constructive notice to the community: o According to Tiburon Planning Manager, Dan Watrous, Daren Wein was the first person to raise the issue of delivery schedule on the morning of June 21. Prior to that date, the issue had neither been considered by the Town of Tiburon nor raised by F&E. o Daren Wein sent an email stating his request for delivery schedule limitations at 11:33AM on June 21. o Dan Watrous sent a reply to Daren Wein at 11:56AM indicating that he had received Daren Wein's email and had also visited the Cove site where he saw the delivery schedule sign attached to the building. He wrote, I will be happy to tell the Board that any expansion beyond those hours will not be permitted without a conditional use permit o At 3:43PM, Dan Watrous sent Daren Wein an email with an electronic copy of the Staff Report that the DRB produced in anticipation of the June 21 DRB meeting. Up until that time (barely 3 hours before the beginning of the June 21 meeting), the Staff Report did not include any mention of delivery hours. The new version of the Staff Report included the following sentence on line 15 of the Conditions of Approval: "Delivery hours shall remain unchanged from the previously posted hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., seven days a week. Any modification to extend these hours is not permitted without approval of a conditional use permit." o Inclusion of the delivery schedule onto the Staff Report and the Conditions of Approval just 3 hours before the meeting should be considered lack of constructive notice to the public as it did not give the community any time to consider how the issue would affect it. The DRB erred in its decision to increase the deliverv window by 150% for the proposed F&E grocery store because it created a new provision in the Conditional Use Permit which is outside the scope and expertise of the DRB: o In the current matter, delivery schedules are not mentioned in the Conditional Use Permit for the commercial space that F&E intends to occupy. Therefore, the fact that the DRB was the municipal body to CREATE new operational policy under the Conditional Use Permit is a violation of the DRB's powers. The Planning Commission should have reviewed this matter and created any new operational requirements under the Conditional Use Permit. The DRB erred in its decision to increase the deliverv window by 150% for the proposed F&E grocery store because existing signage on the wall of the grocery store should act as an estoppel against any increase in the delivery times of future grocery store tenants: EXHIBIT No. OF o At the DRB meeting, DRB members quickly determined with virtually no deliberation that a "fair" delivery window would be 7AM-5PM. On at least one occasion, DRB members stated that anyone who purchased a house adjacent to the Cove Shopping Center had to know that deliveries (and the accompanying noise)- were going to be a fact of life for them so long as they lived so close to a shopping center. However, the building in question currently has a sign in the loading area that has been there at least five years (since Daren Wein moved into 274 Cecilia Way) requiring that deliveries to be limited to a 7AM- 11AM window. o Delano's dutifully observed the 7AM-11AM delivery limitation while a Cove tenant and thereby set the neighborhood's expectation regarding acceptable delivery times. o F&E should also be required to observe those same delivery hours because an increase in delivery time would unfairly alter the established custom in the neighborhood and adversely affect the enjoyment of all adjacent neighbors' land use. o In addition, any expansion of the delivery schedule would also negatively affect property values for all those landholders whose property is adjacent to the Cove Shopping Center as their use and enjoyment would be impacted by additional noise, smoke, diesel fumes beyond those previously allowed. The DRB erred in its decision to increase the delivery window by 150% for the proposed F&E grocery store because it failed to include in its deliberations the fact that F&E delivery trucks will be required to back up to make their deliveries and will therefore sound their reverse alarm beepers in the process. Reverse beepers will ring at decibel levels that are far in excess of allowable decibel ranges for the Cove property as well as the surrounding neighborhoods o When Delano's was the tenant in the Cove space, delivery trucks used a different loading bay than the bay that F&E intends to use. In fact, the DRB approved F&E's plans to build a new loading bay for fresh food delivery along the northern corridor of the building at the June 21 meeting. 0 18-wheel "big-rig" trucks will make the fresh food deliveries for F&E to the new loading bay. o As stated by F&E representatives at the June 21 meeting, F&E big rig trucks will need to back into the new loading bay to make their deliveries. F&E trucks will therefore need to sound their back-up beepers every time they make deliveries to the site. o Delano's trucks, as result of their size and the location of the old loading bay, never had to back up to make deliveries and therefore never sounded any reverse alarm.beepers. o The fact that F&E trucks will need to back up to make their deliveries raises two issues: Issue #1- Big Rigs that back up create a loud beeping sound that is rated between 97-112 decibels. This decibel range is in far excess of the allowable noise production for the Cove property. Indeed, at the DRB meeting, the DRB ruled that F&E will need to construct EXHIBIT 1010. l ~,5bP1~ additional housing to mute noise coming from large air conditioning units that will produce noise in excess of 65 decibels (the maximum level for the property). • The issue of the decibel violation inherent in F&E's big rig's back up beeper was not considered by the DRB. • Note- Noise aside, the Issue of a change in the method of delivery trucks (reverse loading versus forward loading) is also a change in operations that should be reviewed by the Planning Commission for purposes of safety, noise, diesel fumes, etc.) ■ Issue #2- F&E stated that its big rig trucks will deliver fresh food seven days/week to the store. That means that, under the DRB's decision, trucks will back up and sound their beepers at 97-112 decibels 365 days/year behind all adjacent neighbor's houses. This is essentially a guarantee F&E will violate current noise ordinances every day of the year once it begins operations. • Currently, Tiburon Town ordinances forbid the use of power gardening tools on weekends (including blowers, lawn mowers and hedge cutters) because of the noise pollution they produce. I have personally been visited by the Tiburon Police when my gardener worked on a Sunday with those tools and I was ordered by the police to cease working with the tools. Most leaf blowers are rated between 73-78 decibels. Most hedge trimmers are rated between 81-98 decibels. Most lawn mowers are rated between 90-100 decibels. It is therefore nearly impossible to understand how a guaranteed noise of greater than 97 decibels (that of the big-rig's back up beeper) which is louder than the decibel level of power tools which are already outlawed, would be allowable at the same location. • The issue of delivery schedules is important to the neighborhood because of the noise that deliveries will produce. Noise that is greater than noise that is prohibited by existing town code cannot be allowed or circumvented by the DRB in its approval of a Conditional Use Permit. o In an effort to bifurcate the issue of timing and noise, the neighborhood would consider a compromise where F&E trucks were either ■ not allowed to back up at all during the 7AM-11AM window; or, ■ if the trucks did back up, they would not be allowed to sound their beeper, but instead would comply with OSHA requirements by having an employee spotter on hand at all times. - Harm to residential neighbors o The DRB's decision changed the "existing" delivery schedule from 7A-11A to 7A-SPM. This is a 150% increase in the delivery window. During these EXHIBIT N0. I- P, 60(7 additional 6 HOURS/day, neighbors can expect significant noise, which in some cases may well exceed current allowable decibel levels. o The DRB's decision does not only affect enjoyment of the adjacent properties, it also will almost certainly affect their property values. Any future buyer of these adjacent properties will know of the publicly recorded delivery hours which are far greater than what they used to be. o The addition of the F&E store to the community will likely increase property values for the neighborhood at large, but if delivery schedules and noise issue are not reviewed by the Town Council, and resolved in a manner that takes into account the residential neighbors' needs, properties adjacent to the Cove will actually likely suffer decreases in value. Request for Outcome: o The above named residents request that the delivery hours of the proposed F&E grocery store be limited to the existing delivery hours stated on the signs attached to the store itself- 7AM- 11AM. o In no event should the delivery schedule increase by more than 50% or 2 hours over the current 7AM-11AM schedule. o Furthermore, the residents request that any delivery truck delivering goods to F&E be prohibited from sounding its reverse beeper siren and that F&E be forced to maintain its OSHA compliance regarding safe delivery protocols by having a store employee act as the silent spotter. Finally, please note that I, Daren Wein, did not speak during the public comment session of the DRB meeting on June 21. I had a death in the family that day and arrived at the DRB meeting after that portion of the agenda. If I had been there though, it likely would not have mattered since the time limit on public comment would have limited my ability to cover all these issues and perhaps more importantly, the DRB did not even know what F&E's requested delivery window was until after the public comment period was completed. Only after the public comment period did F&E convey that they wanted a daily window of 7A-7P. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Daren Wein (on behalf of the above named residents) EXHIBIT NO. T. -7 oF-47 Daren Wei From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dan ETmB~Tpf Daren Wein <daren.wein@mlegalgroup.com> Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:33 AM dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us Daren Wein; 'Jennifer C. Rasmussen' Request for limitations on Fresh & Easy Use permit As a follow up to our phone conversation a moment ago, please find below my requests regarding the use permit that is being deliberated tonight for the Fresh & Easy grocery store slated to go into the Cove Shopping Center. Background: - My family and I own and live at the house at 274 Cecilia Way. Our back fence is directly behind the loading bay for the grocery store that Fresh & Easy ("F&E") will inhabit. - My house's side yard and fence run immediately adjacent to the foot path that connects the back parking lot/loading area of the grocery store to Cecilia Way. The path in question begins at the Southeast corner of my property and terminates at the crosswalk of Cecilia Way which is at the Northeast corner of my property. - We lived in this house when Delano's was a tenant in the building and have experience living with a grocery store as a neighbor. - We are looking forward to having a new grocery store in the Cove but are concerned about two specific issues. Concerns: - We are concerned that the store will conduct loading/deliveries behind our property at inappropriate hours. (Note: the building had a sign on the loading bay wall when Delano's inhabited the space restricting delivery hours on Monday through Saturday. The sign prohibited Sunday deliveries.) - We are also concerned that trash that is a natural and predictable by-product of the loading/unloading activity in the area will blow down the path to Cecilia Way resulting in our having to clean up a mess that is not our making. Suggested Solutions (which we request be included as part of the Store's conditional use permit): - Require that deliveries to F&E be restricted to the following days/hours o Monday-Friday: 7AM- 2PM o Saturday: 8AM-12PM o Sunday- No Deliveries allowed Require that F&E take responsibility for the cleaning of the entire described footpath behind the store and adjacent to 274 Cecilia Way on a weekly basis. I recognize that tonight's deliberation concerns the design review portion of F&E's application. If this is the wrong forum to take up these matters, please attempt to incorporate these requests into the remainder of the permitting process. The concerns listed above are very real and will almost certainly play out once the store becomes operational. I would like to address them with clear instructions prior to F&E's opening date. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the numbers listed below. Best regards, Daren Wein EXHIBIT NQ 1 ' 6 or-- n Shareholdr r Mletfal Grc,up 100 Larkspur Landing, Suite 100 Larkspur, CA 94939 Office: 415-398-0797 EXHIBIT N0. P. q of-- o Daren Wein 'E~q CT From: Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:56 AM To: Daren Wein Cc: Jennifer C. Rasmussen Subject: RE: Request for limitations on Fresh & Easy Use permit Dear Mr. Wein, Thank you for your message, which will be forwarded to the Design Review Board. I just went out to the site and the delivery hour sign by the loading dock says 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. I will be happy to tell the Board that any expansion beyond those hours will not be permitted without a conditional use permit. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Dan Watrous Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: Daren Wein jmaiIto: daren.wein@mlegalgroup.coml Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:33 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Daren Wein; 'Jennifer C. Rasmussen' Subject: Request for limitations on Fresh & Easy Use permit Dan: As a follow up to our phone conversation a moment ago, please find below my requests regarding the use permit that is being deliberated tonight for the Fresh & Easy grocery store slated to go into the Cove Shopping Center. Background: - My family and I own and live at the house at 274 Cecilia Way. Our back fence is directly behind the loading bay for the grocery store that Fresh & Easy ("F&E") will inhabit. My house's side yard and fence run immediately adjacent to the foot path that connects the back parking lot/loading area of the grocery store to Cecilia Way. The path in question begins at the Southeast corner of my property and terminates at the crosswalk of Cecilia Way which is at the Northeast corner of my property. We lived in this house when Delano's was a tenant in the building and have experience living with a grocery store as a neighbor. We are looking forward to having a new grocery store in the Cove but are concerned about two specific issues. Concerns: - We are concerned that the store will conduct loading/deliveries behind our property at inappropriate hours. (Note: the building had a sign on the loading bay wall when Delano's inhabited the space restricting delivery hours on Monday through Saturday. The sign prohibited Sunday deliveries.) EXHIBIT NO. P , j0 bF l-~ We are also concerned that trash that is a natural and predictable by-product of the loading/unloading activity in the area will blow down the path to Cecilia Way resulting in our having to clean up a mess that is not our making. Suggested Solutions (which we request be included as part of the Store's conditional use permit): - Require that deliveries to F&E be restricted to the following days/hours o Monday-Friday: 7AM- 2PM o Saturday: 8AM-12PM o Sunday- No Deliveries allowed - Require that F&E take responsibility for the cleaning of the entire described footpath behind the store and adjacent to 274 Cecilia Way on a weekly basis. I recognize that tonight's deliberation concerns the design review portion of F&E's application. If this is the wrong forum to take up these matters, please attempt to incorporate these requests into the remainder of the permitting process. The concerns listed above are very real and will almost certainly play out once the store becomes operational. I would like to address them with clear instructions prior to F&E's opening date. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the numbers listed below. Best regards, Daren Wein Shareholder Mlegal Group 100 Larkspur Landing, Suite 100 Larkspur, CA 94939 Office: 415-398-0797 EXHIBIT NO.- 2 t OF r? TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting June 212012 Agenda Item: 2 ~t~ iT C To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous 1 Blackfield Drive; File #712054 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of Exterior Alterations to an Existing Commercial Building ASSESSOR'S PARCELS: FILE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANTS: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE 034-212-18 712054 THE COVE SHOPPING CENTER FRESH & EASY NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS NADEL ARCHITECTS 3.9 ACRES NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FLOOD ZONE: AE (SUBJECT TO 100-YEAR FLOOD) DATE COMPLETE: MAY 309 2012 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a new grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market) on property located in the Cove Shopping Center at 1 Blackfield Drive. The commercial building on the subject site has been previously occupied by various different grocery store/markets, most recently Delano/IGA Market, and is currently vacant. E X IIBIT NO. t ~9 (Z-oc--(? TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6 IN'Sign Revin-v Board Mectin-; )uric ?1, -)01? The following improvements would be constructed as part of this application: The entry would be modified with a new entrance at the center of the building, eliminating the two existing entrances on either side of the center of the building. A new handicapped accessible ramp would be leading to the new entrance, and the two existing ramps would be removed. An existing awning above the entrance would be removed. • Two new parking spaces would be installed in the location of the existing handicapped ramps, and one new parking space is proposed at the rear of the building. Three existing parking spaces would be removed to make room for shopping cart corrals and for better truck access to the rear of the site. The existing loading docks on the rear of the building would be removed and replaced with new ramps, along with a mechanical lift. • Four (4) new pieces of mechanical equipment would be installed on the rooftop. The proposed project would not increase the floor area or lot coverage or the existing building. With the exception of the entry modifications, the exterior appearance of the existing building would remain unchanged. A color and materials board for the project has been submitted and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The project would repaint the existing building a light beige color, with green and brown trim. ANALYSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the NC zone. Design Issues The front of the proposed market is visible only from the interior of the shopping center. The entry modifications would create a more centralized entrance for the store and would make the entrance easier to find than the current side entrances to the building. Most of the parking lot modifications appear necessary to accommodate the revised entry design and improve circulation on the site. However, the application proposes to remove two parking spaces in the center of the parking lot for a shopping cart corral, where it appears that only one space needs to be removed for this purpose. Staff recommends that this parking space be preserved and not eliminated. EXHIBIT NO. ~ 1 ~ o>r l7 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 6 Dcsi,n R.cv eNv Board M.cctinc, )unc 21, 2012 As a part of updating the existing building to meet the needs of the new grocery store, the applicant proposes to install a new condenser, a compressor and two new HVAC units on the roof of the building. The maximum noise rating for these units ranges from 71.3 dBA to 94 dBA, which would exceed the normally acceptable maximum noise rating of 65 dBA. Wood and stucco shields are proposed to be installed to provide noise screening for this equipment. The applicant has submitted an analysis that indicates that the screens would reduce the sound levels by 42 dBA, bringing the equipment into compliance with the maximum noise requirements. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that the applicant conduct a noise study after the units are installed to determine if the screening is indeed adequate, and, if not, requiring installation of additional noise mitigations to assure compliance with the noise requirements. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, the Town has received no letters regarding this application. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Design Review Board agrees with Staffs conclusions, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Submitted plans EXHIBIT NO. lq OF (7 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6 Design R. vinN N-.)ard M.cctin ; )unc 21, --)012 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE FILE #712054 This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on April 30, 2012, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of June 11, 2012 must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Division for plan check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 4. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 5. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures. 7. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Southern Marin Fire Protection District: a. Provide a U.L listed key box as required by CFC Section 506 in conjunction with the Southern Marin Fire Protection District Standard 202. b. Provide a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided throughout the entire structure as per California Fire Code Section 903.3 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. (s ~F c Desi_;;r; RuNJ \..N! Board N-kctim, JUn.e 21., 2 012 and the Southern Marin Fire Protection District Ordinance 2011/11-18. C. Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the County Building Department/Southern Marin Fire Protection District for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinkler system design and installation shall conform to the provisions of the County Building Department/Southern Marin Fire Protection District and N.F.P.A. Standard(s) 13. d. Commercial fire sprinklers and alarm systems shall be monitored 24/7 for fire and trouble by an approved U.L. Central Station. e. Premises identification (address) shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Fire Code Section 505.1. f. Provide an approved fire detection system in accordance with CFC Section 907 and standards as established by the National Fire Protection Association. Said system must be connected to the headquarters of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District through an approved U.L central monitoring station. g. Provide emergency exit signs within the walk-in refrigeration unit in accordance with CFC Section 606.7. h. Provide portable fire extinguishers in accordance with CFC Section 906 and CCR Title 19 Division 1. 8. All requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met. 9. The applicants shall obtain any necessary sewer permits from the Richardson Bay Sanitary District and pay all applicable fees prior to construction of a side sewer and connection to the sewer main. After connection to the sewer main but prior to commencement of discharge and prior to covering of the pipe, the District shall be contacted and allowed to inspect the connection for conformance to standards. 10. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the following, which shall be noted on building plan check plans: a. Any proposal that would encroach onto public right-of-way is not permitted. This would include fences, retaining walls and permanent improvements. Under special circumstances the Town may consider these encroachments. Should the applicant consider their case to be a unique circumstance their proposal should be clearly documents and resubmitted. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 6 WHIT NO. P, l& aF17 Dc~.Jn( , Review Board Mcctim, June 21, 2012 b. All encroachments, such as driveway approaches and landscaping, need to be processed through a standard Public Works encroachment permit application with plans or schematics for review. C. The public right-of-way shall be protected from damage during construction, or repairs shall be made to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Public Works Department. 11. The parking space shown to be removed to the north of the southerly shopping cart corral shall not be removed and shall remain as a parking space. 12. Within thirty (30) days of opening of the grocery store, the applicant shall conduct an acoustical study of the rooftop mechanical equipment to determine compliance with the Town of Tiburon policy regarding noise from non-residential uses. The study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review. If the Planning Division determines that the equipment is in noncompliance with Town noise policy, improvements shall be made to bring the equipment into conformance with this policy within thirty (30) days of such determination. 13. The project shall comply with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (13D), if the cost of the project equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure, before the start of construction of this project. 14. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale is prohibited. 15. Delivery hours shall remain unchanged from the previously posted hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., seven days a week. Any modification to extend these hours is not permitted without approval of a conditional use permit. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6 EV.HTBIT N0. P , ( ? 01= I? TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard f_ Tiburon, CA 94920 ~.4 To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Planning Manager Watrous Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Design Review Board Meeting June 212012 Agenda Item: 2 1 Blackfield Drive; File #712054 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of Exterior Alterations to an Existing Commercial Building ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCELS: FILE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANTS: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE 034-212-18 712054 THE COVE SHOPPING CENTER FRESH & EASY NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS NADEL ARCHITECTS 3.9 ACRES NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FLOOD ZONE: AE (SUBJECT TO 100-YEAR FLOOD) DATE COMPLETE: MAY 309 2012 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a new grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market) on property located in the Cove Shopping Center at 1 Blackfield Drive. The commercial building on the subject site has been previously occupied by various different grocery store/markets, most recently Delano/IGA Market, and is currently vacant. 02 TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. _ PAGE 1 OF 6 The following improvements would be constructed as part of this application: • The entry would be modified with a new entrance at the center of the building, eliminating the two existing entrances on either side of the center of the building. A new handicapped accessible ramp would be leading to the new entrance, and the two existing ramps would be removed. An existing awning above the entrance would be removed. • Two new parking spaces would be installed in the location of the existing handicapped ramps, and one new parking space is proposed at the rear of the building. Three existing parking spaces would be removed to snake room for shopping cart corrals and for better truck access to the rear of the site. • The existing loading docks on the rear of the building would be removed and replaced with new ramps, along with a mechanical lift. • Four (4) new pieces of mechanical equipment would be installed on the rooftop. The proposed project would not increase the floor area or lot coverage or the existing building. With the exception of the entry modifications, the exterior appearance of the existing building would remain unchanged. A color and materials board for the project has been submitted and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The project would repaint the existing building a light beige color, with green and brown trim. ANALYSIS Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the NC zone. Design Issues The front of the proposed market is visible only from the interior of the shopping center. The entry modifications would create a more centralized entrance for the store and would make the entrance easier to find than the current side entrances to the building. Most of the parking lot modifications appear necessary to accommodate the revised entry design and improve circulation on the site. However, the application proposes to remove two parking spaces in the center of the parking lot for a shopping cart corral, where it appears that only one space needs to be removed for this purpose. Staff recommends that this parking space be preserved and not eliminated. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBI T NO. - RAGE 2 OF 6 As a part of updating the existing building to meet the needs of the new grocery store, the applicant proposes to install a new condenser, a compressor and two new HVAC units on the roof of the building. The maximum noise rating for these units ranges from 71.3 dBA to 94 dBA, which would exceed the nonnally acceptable maximum noise rating of 65 dBA. Wood and stucco shields are proposed to be installed to provide noise screening for this equipment. The applicant has submitted an analysis that indicates that the screens would reduce the sound levels by 42 dBA, bringing the equipment into compliance with the maximum noise requirements. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that the applicant conduct a noise study after the units are installed to determine if the screening is indeed adequate, and, if not, requiring installation of additional noise mitigations to assure compliance with the noise requirements. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, the Town has received no letters regarding this application. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Design Review Board agrees with Staff s conclusions, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. Z Boardmember Tollini thought that this was a fair outcome and he thanked the applicant for their patience and for coming up with something that works. The other Boardmembers agreed and thanked the applicant for working this out. ACTION: It was M/S (Toll in i/Emberson) that the request for 10 Cibrian Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 2. 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE: File No. 712054; The Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market). The project would modify the existing entrance of the building, parking lot and loading docks and would install additional rooftop mechanical equipment for the new grocery store. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-212-18. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of exterior alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a new grocery store (Fresh & Easy Market) on property located in the Cove Shopping Center at 1 Blackfield Drive. The commercial building on the subject site has been previously occupied by various different grocery store/markets, most recently Delano/IGA Market, and is currently vacant. The following improvements would be constructed as part of this application: • The entry would be modified with a new entrance at the center of the building, eliminating the two existing entrances on either side of the center of the building. A new handicapped accessible ramp would be leading to the new entrance, and the two existing ramps would be removed. An existing awning above the entrance would be removed. • Two new parking spaces would be installed in the location of the existing handicapped ramps, and one new parking space is proposed at the rear of the building. Three existing parking spaces would be removed to make room for shopping cart corrals and for better truck access to the rear of the site. • The existing loading docks on the rear of the building would be removed and replaced with new ramps, along with a mechanical lift. • Four (4) new pieces of mechanical equipment would be installed on the rooftop. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Board was provided with revised conditions of approval. He stated that items D-G of Condition #10 were carried over from a different project and should be deleted. Staff also recommended that since the project is in a flood zone, a condition should require the project to comply with the flood damage prevention ordinance. He recommended Condition # 14, which would prohibit outdoor display of merchandise for sale. He stated that the current use has been a grocery store since it opened and the file does not have anything relating to hours of operation or delivery hours. He stated that neighbors notified staff that a sign on the back of the store indicating that delivery hours had for the previous grocery store had been from 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. only. He said that modification to extend these hours would normally require approval of a CUP. He said that staff would support extending the 11:00 a.m. time somewhat as noise impacts are generally created during the evening and suggested Board discussion on this point. EXHIBIT No. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 2 6/21/12 Vice Chair Emberson questioned if limits on hours on Sundays was also mentioned. Mr. Watrous said that the sign did not state that deliveries were restricted on any particular day. Boardmember Johnson asked what the delivery conditions are for the CVS store. Mr. Watrous stated that CVS had a new CUP since the use was changed and did not believe they were prohibited on Sundays, but said deliveries could not occur before 8:00 a.m. Schuylar Jackson, real estate director for Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, introduced Dan Scott, with Nadel Architects and said that they were available to answer questions about the store and design elements. Regarding delivery hours, Mr. Jackson said that it was imperative to be able to make deliveries every day because of their product line in the store. Regarding hours, he said that the 7:00 a.m. start would work for them, but they believed that ending at 11:00 a.m. was quite restrictive. He said that ideally they would like to be able to have flexibility for deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. which would allow their trucks as well as third party vendors to deliver goods. Boardmember Tollini questioned and confirmed that a separate sign application would return to the Board. Mr. Jackson described their intent to add their panel onto the main Cove Shopping Center panel, with a sign on their store. Vice Chair Emberson asked for specifications for outside lights and the color and materials board. Dan Scott stated that the packet shows a dark grey color for the light fixtures and clarified that lights would be LED downlights. The public hearing was opened. Ghazaleh Jamei voiced concerns with the mechanical equipment on the roof which call for up to 95 decibels, while the Town regulations limit noise to 65 decibels. She said that this would cause background fan noise and constant noise from the mechanical units operating 8-10 hours a day and this would keep them from being able to use their backyard. She said that the screen proposed for the front of the unit would almost double the height of the existing building at the edge. She said that the building was already massive and covers her entire backyard. She said that they have one small corridor of a view of the hills which would be lost with the proposed wall. She requested the Board require relocation of the mechanical units to the west side of the building and away from residences. She referred to trimming of trees and said that she paid for and planted large bamboo trees which do not lean on their property and do not want them trimmed. She added that the narrow road adjacent to their fence has been hit by trucks numerous times and she requested installing bollards to protect the fence. Murray Dunn said that he lives next to the shopping center and while the community is very excited to have a new supermarket, it was difficult for those people who live next door to support a 7 day-a-week, 12-hour delivery window. He said that their backyards border this area and it would create tremendous noise pollution. He also questioned noise impacts from the new scissor lift which would be installed which had not been discussed. Mr. Scott referred to the rooftop mechanical unit and said that after doing a study of this building and looking at how the roof is framed, it was challenging to place these units in any other location because of duct work inside the building. He described the interior framing of the building and the difficulties with placing the equipment elsewhere. He stated that the screen wall height had been raised 3 feet higher than the unit by recommendation of sound experts in order to mitigate the noise from the units. He said that they have designed the screen wall denser, using two layers of plywood, using sound dampening material between layers, lining the inside with sound absorbing materials, and raising the height of the wall to address sound energy which falls. He said that their sound expert was confident that the measures will TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 3 6/21/12 reduce sound to 65 decibels as required by the Town, and noted that the staff recommendation calls for the design be tested after construction. He said that if the sound measures fail, they will address it at that time. Regarding trimming trees, Mr. Scott said that they would only trim plant material back that crosses over the fence line and interferes with trucks. He said that Fresh & Easy conducted a test to see if trucks could get their vehicle on site, and was willing to install a sign for the driver to warn them of the tight turn to avoid hitting the fence. Vice Chair Emberson questioned and confirmed that there was room to install bollards along the fence. She asked if there was a quieter HVAC unit and asked if CVS had to dampen the sound of their compressors. Mr. Watrous said that CVS did not have to and it was a completely different roof structure. Mr. Jackson said that when the issue came up they discussed other types of HVAC units, but unfortunately there were none that would make any less noise than what was proposed. He said that they are including several mitigation factors up front to attempt to get the noise level down or below 65 decibels which will be tested. He said that if the units fail the test, they will add further mitigation efforts. He stated that they were constrained in terms of relocating the mechanical equipment because of the duct work. Boardmember Johnson asked if there were existing HVAC units on the roof. Mr. Scott said that there is a shack behind the building and they believe this is the compressor house, but they have no as-built plans. Mr. Jackson said that the shack is also over a public utility easement which would make it difficult to put something like an HVAC unit or compression unit over it. Chair Kricensky said one speaker asked about the sound from the scissor lift and questioned if it would cause noise impacts. Mr. Jackson said that the only time the lift would be used is when making deliveries. Mr. Watrous noted that the scissor lift has a 5 horsepower motor, so it was most likely pretty quiet. Boardmember Johnson asked and confirmed that most deliveries are done with large trailers and that they did conduct a test to ensure the trucks could maneuver in and out easily. Mr. Jackson added that they would propose putting additional signage to warn drivers of the fence instead of bollards which would cause damage to their trucks. Mr. Watrous asked if the applicant wished to address the recommendation about the one parking space next to the shopping cart corral which was Condition #11. Mr. Scott said that they conducted a study which showed that a truck driver could run over a car or get stuck in the drive aisle and block everybody. They recommended removing the space and they will relocate it. He said that the net number of parking spaces would therefore not be reduced. Mr. Watrous confirmed that there would be no net change, and the parking lot today has enough or more parking for the center from a code standpoint. Vice Chair Emberson voiced concern with circulation out of the center and the steps coming out of the front of the store which opens up to moving vehicles. Mr. Scott noted that that area is very open and would not be the only way down, as there would be stairs on either side which would not be blocked. Vice Chair Emberson questioned and confirmed landscaping is not being proposed in the plan; however, Mr. Jackson stated that they would not object to this. In addressing the 12-hour delivery window, Mr. Jackson stated that typically retailers want to maximize hours for delivery and that their standard delivery hours are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Knowing and taking TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 4 6/21/12 into account the proximity of neighbors, he proposed a 12 hour window until 7:00 p.m. and clarified that the store hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Emberson questioned if other boardmembers had concern regarding people walking out to the parking lot and safety issues. Boardmember Tollini said that he did not and thought that this would be an improvement over what currently exists and there are other ways of getting in and out. Mr. Watrous briefly described the Woodlands Market store entrance which leads people out to a one-way aisle which is narrower. Vice Chair Emberson voiced concern with the lack of landscaping. She suggested locating planter boxes or containers in front of the store and pointed out available space. Boardmember Tollini stated that while he supported greenery, there was a limited frontage and a lot of the space is taken up with the ramp. He would encourage hanging plants or pots, but did not believe it should be part of the design approval. Boardmember Johnson noted that there was opportunity for the entire center to add some landscaping and not for this particular applicant. Vice Chair Emberson pointed out the fact that there are a couple of bee hives in the back of the store and she asked that these not be destroyed, but relocated. Mr. Jackson agreed that these would be relocated. Vice Chair Emberson asked for ideas on the HVAC relocation. Boardmember Tollini said that as long as remediation techniques are used and it complies with the noise statutes, he thought that it would be better use of the space to put the units on the roof as long as the outcome will work. He said that the other alternative would be to put it in the front of the store which would hurt the aesthetics of the Spanish tile roof. Boardmember Johnson asked if the Town measures the noise levels. Mr. Watrous said that the owner would have to hire a qualified acoustical engineer to take measurements and present this to the Town for review. Vice Chair Emberson said that she supported installation of bollards to protect the neighbors' fence and did not think a sign would suffice, especially at night. In addition, she believed that the 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. delivery hours were too long a time to listen to delivery truck noise, and suggested it be changed to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Boardmember Johnson agreed, stating that the previous delivery hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. were not realistic, and that allowing hours until 5:00 p.m. would be more realistic and align the hours with those of other businesses in the center. Boardmember Tollini stated that a 5:00 end time would align with most peoples' expectations of a workday and would prevent noises from occurring while neighbors are having dinner. Chair Kricensky agreed, stating that the store must realize how close the building is to residences, and that the residents have to realize that they bought homes next to a grocery store. Chair Kricensky voiced disappointment with the size of the screen walls but did not believe they could be set back. He asked about the Board's feelings about requiring bollards, and Boardmember Tollini suggested strategically locating them in a couple of areas that would likely be impacted by trucks. Mr. Watrous suggested a condition of approval be added to state that safety bollards be installed along the fence to protect truck traffic to the satisfaction of Town staff. Boardmember Tollini said that he had no concerns about the tree trimming as it sounded as if trimming would only occur if it overhangs onto the center's property. He said that while he wrestled with the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 EXHIBIT NO. 6/21/12 HVAC and the new enclosures, in general, the location was probably about where they need to be and reducing the height of the screening would produce more noise. Vice Chair Emberson asked and confirmed that the colors presented were the company's colors. Mr. Scott presented a colored rendering. Chair Kricensky said that the screen walls call for a cream color and the backdrop would be the roof which would emphasize the walls more. He asked to replace the color of the screen walls with something that blends more with the roof color, and Mr. Watrous noted staff could condition this to match the color of the roof. Chair Kricensky asked that the applicant do everything possible to get the decibel level under 65 decibels, and Mr. Jackson said that they would try to bring noise levels down as low as possible. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 1 Blackfield Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, modified to delete Condition #10 D-G, adding a condition to require the project comply with the flood damage prevention ordinance; add a condition that prohibiting outdoor display of merchandise for sale; change Condition # 15 for delivery hours to be set at 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 7 days a week; add a condition for the applicant to install safety bollards at critical points to protect truck traffic at the satisfaction of Town staff, add a condition requiring that the HVAC enclosure/screen shall be painted to be similar to the color of the roof to be approved by staff, and add a condition that the applicant work with staff to install landscaping or planters near the front of the store. Vote: 4-0. 3. 33 REED RANCH ROAD: File No. 21214; Brett Mock, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks. The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and a lower story addition to an existing single-story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,284 square feet, resulting in a total floor area of 3,168 square feet. The additions would extend to within 21 feet, 3 inches of the front property line and 12 feet, 9 inches of the side property line, which are less than the respective 30 foot front yard and 15 foot side yard setbacks required in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-301-01. The applicant is requesting to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks on property located at 33 Reed Ranch Road. Currently the property is improved with a single-story dwelling. The proposal would incorporate a small addition at the back of the home and a second story addition above the existing lower level living room. The interior of the home would be slightly reconfigured as part of the project. The new lower level would include a living room, a combined kitchen and living area, two bedrooms, a bathroom, two guest bedrooms and bathroom, and a laundry room. The upper level would include a master bedroom suite and office. A new interior stairwell would service both levels. No work is proposed to the existing garage and no new color or materials are proposed for the exterior of the home. The proposal would add 1,284 square feet to the home, for a total gross floor area of 3,168 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (3,627 sq. ft.). The proposal would increase the lot coverage by 285 square feet, for total lot coverage of 2,169 square feet (13.3%) which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the RO-2 zone (15.0%). The existing dwelling is currently located within both the front and right side yard setbacks. The proposal to incorporate an addition above the existing lower level living room would continue to encroach into both the front and right side yard setbacks. The existing right side yard setback is 10' 4". The addition, at its closest point, would result in a reduced right side yard setback of 12' 9 3/4". The existing front yard TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #9 6/21/12 EXHIBIT NO. 3 Town of Tiburon • 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415-435-7373 E 415.435.2438 • v,,w,-w.c1.tiburon.ca.us NOTICE OF Jim Fraser DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION Mayor Emmett O'Donnell On June 21, 2012 the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following action: Vice Mayor Granted Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for construction of exterior Richard Collins Councilmember alterations to an existing commercial building for occupancy by a grocery store, . . located at 1 Blackfield Drive (File #712054). Frank Doyle CouncUmerr ber Approved as submitted (X) Approved with conditions Alice Fredericks Denied as submitted Coundmember O Continued to Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval or other requirements. The following materials are Margaret A. Curran attached and should be retained for your records: Town Manager O Approved plans O Appeal provisions of the Town (X) Revised conditions of approval O No attachments O Other- Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3 weeks following the meeting, and will be provided upon request. After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain a Building Permit from the Tiburon. Building Division for your project. Information on Building Permit procedures may be obtained by calling the Building Division at (415) 435-7380. For additional information regarding this application, please call me at (415) 435- 7393. Sincerely, Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager E HIBI'T Np. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE FILE #712054 (AS AMENDED AT THE JUNE 21, 2012 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING) 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on April 30, 2012, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of June 11, 2012 must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when submitted to the Building Division for plan check. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 4. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 5. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 6. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down light type fixtures. 7. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Southern Marin Fire Protection District: a. Provide a U.L listed key box as required by CFC Section 506 in conjunction with the Southern Marin Fire Protection District Standard 202. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO. 4 b. Provide a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided throughout the entire structure as per California Fire Code Section 903.3 and the Southern Marin Fire Protection District Ordinance 2011/11-18. C. Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the County Building Department/Southern Marin Fire Protection District for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinkler system design and installation shall conform to the provisions of the County Building Department/Southern Marin Fire Protection District and N.F.P.A. Standard(s) 13. d. Commercial fire sprinklers and alann systems shall be monitored 24/7 for fire and trouble by an approved U.L. Central Station. e. Premises identification (address) shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Fire Code Section 505.1. f. Provide an approved fire detection system in accordance with CFC Section 907 and standards as established by the National Fire Protection Association. Said system must be connected to the headquarters of the Southern Marin Fire Protection District through an approved U.L central monitoring station. g. Provide emergency exit signs within the walk-in refrigeration unit in accordance with CFC Section 606.7. h. Provide portable fire extinguishers in accordance with CFC Section 906 and CCR Title 19 Division 1. 8. All requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met. 9. The applicants shall obtain any necessary sewer permits from the Richardson Bay Sanitary District and pay all applicable fees prior to construction of a side sewer and connection to the sewer main. After connection to the sewer main but prior to commencement of discharge and prior to covering of the pipe, the District shall be contacted and allowed to inspect the connection for conformance to standards. 10. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the following, which shall be noted on building plan check plans: a. Any proposal that would encroach onto public right-of-way is not permitted. This would include fences, retaining walls and permanent improvements. Under special circumstances the Town may consider these encroachments. Should the applicant consider their case to be a unique circumstance their proposal should be clearly documents and resubmitted. TOWN OF TIBURON II .KHPAGE 5 OF 6 IBIT NO. difficult to force every delivery truck for this grocery store to install such a switch, and impractical to require that these trucks disconnect their back-up beepers at this location and then reconnect the beepers for deliveries elsewhere. CONCLUSION Although the process by which the store delivery hours were discussed and determined by the Design Review Board was atypical, the Board had the authority to impose delivery hours for this use. In reaching its decision on this project, the Design Review Board considered the noise characteristics of delivery trucks and the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood and determined that limiting delivery hours to daytime would be appropriate for this store. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 5), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intentions to either deny the appeal or partially grant the appeal and modify the approved delivery hours. 3) Direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution addressing the appeal for consideration at the next meeting. EXHIBITS Notice of appeal Design Review Board staff report dated June 21, 2012 Minutes of the June 21, 2012 Design Review Board meeting ~~Notice of Action and adopted conditions of approval l~ Appeal procedures Application form and supplemental materials 7. Letter from Ghazaleh Jainei, dated June 17, 2012 e-9:- Letter from Thom Calandra and Maura Thurman, dated July 11, 2012 Letter from Candace Washing, dated July 11, 2012 Letter from Thom Calandra and Maura Thurman, dated August 4, 2012 Letter from Tom Knauer, dated August 4, 2012 Letter from Cynthia Perry, dated August 5, 2012 14. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager S: IAdministrationlTown CouncillStaff Repoi-ts120121August 15 DraftsTresh & Easy appeal report.doc TOWN OF TIBUR©N PAGE 6 OF 6 EXHIBIT NO 4 r3 f r "A i s b. All encroachments, such as driveway approaches and landscaping, need to be processed through a standard Public Works encroachment permit application with plans or schematics for review. C. The public right-of-way shall be protected from damage during construction, or repairs shall be made to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Public Works Department. 11. Within thirty (30) days of opening of the grocery store, the applicant shall conduct an acoustical study of the rooftop mechanical equipment to determine compliance with the Town of Tiburon policy regarding noise from non-residential uses. The study shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review. If the Planning Division determines that the equipment is in noncompliance with Town noise policy, improvements shall be made to bring the equipment into conformance with this policy within thirty (30) days of such determination. 12. The project shall comply with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (13D), if the cost of the project equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure, before the start of construction of this project. 13. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale is prohibited. 14. Delivery hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., seven days a week. Any modification to extend these hours is not permitted without approval of a conditional use permit. 15. Safety bollards shall be installed along the perimeter property line fence to the rear of the building at critical points to protect the fence from truck traffic. The number, design and location of the bollards shall be reviewed and approved by Planning Division staff. 16. The approved rooftop equipment screens shall be painted to be similar to the roof color, to the satisfaction of Planning Division staff. 17. Applicant shall work with Planning Division staff to attempt to install landscaping and/or planters near the entry to the store. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6 RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has detennined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 175 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person snaking such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town" s web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 1 EXHIBIT NO.-!5 - 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal fonn filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 It EXHIBIT N0. 57 Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (f~ Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERA TION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 XIIJBIT NO. 49- SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS 1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORY POLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 4 EXHIBIT No. 5 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff- level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 0311712010 5 EXHIBIT NO. L,JN_N V 1Jh V hL,UY1V1_tiV 1 ,A.t'Y1_,1t. A I IUIN o Conditional Use Permit o Precise Developi-ner-it Plan o Secondary Dwelling 'Unit o Zoning Text Aimendinent o Rezoning or Prezoning o General Plan Amendment o Change of Address TYPE OF APPLICATION XDesign Review (DRB) o Design Review (Staff Level) o Variance(s) # o Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign. Permit o Tree Permit o Tentative Subdivision Map o Final Subdivision Map o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjust rent o Condon-iinium Use Permit o Certificate of Compliance o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: A& CA&I LD DR • PROPERTY SIZE: 3.7 . PARCEL NUMBER: 03 4 - 21 z - 16 ZONING: Nc TN& cmvA, smappoid► CROTalk, A CALIF. CAW. PROPERTY OWNER: A; c.K,lAl: t & S& PAA A. LAuruHt-iw , Me L auwWm Asr-, T&jtV c&s M&ILING ADDRESS: 9542 Mt SAJO1•tA AVA. LARI~CSRu~C C A 9 V CU el PHONE/FAX N[.'MBER: T. s~ Zoo E-MAIL: PaPt 2 IMM 5 HMt/1ti . c c~M F. 8")&91- (4o rot schry JAR o APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): sk mqir i ZACk MAILING ADDRES ti : ZM2 PARK PXAC.A _ 3-n W. -IL-1401 wtk~T A jC) 2 V 5 s PHONE/FAX NUABER: a Imfo s' E-MAIL. F. at o 3 Sl - t so i g~~ s . ca ARCITITECTr'DES1IuERlElti7GEEER•l!ML ,ARGJ~tT1r.~7_AA461 MAILING ADDRESS: 3333 A, CAM'QS8&Sg , ST A, 2-go, PM &fJ1 Y-.-,. AX 09010 PHON. E/FA.X NUMBER: 7 &oz 4 we 9goc~ E-MAIL: cl sce-~►-~~ ha cleig rf • co~ fi Irl 9 4 9 01 Please rndicame nrlth an asterisk persons to.whorn Torun correspondence should be sent. BPRirF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROXEC`I' (attach separate sheet if needed): - _S 9.1-_Ah -14 Arm • _ _ _ _ _ - I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plalas submitted and made a pant of this application in accordance with the provisions of the T otivn Mwaicipal Code, and I hereby certify that the info nation given is true and con ect to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town. grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third patty, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees that mig su fro n t third party challenge. Signature: Date: *If other titan owner, must have an authorization letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes of filing this application 14,AHIBIT NO. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE P, I D'F I v G PJfOCESSNG IIFCiRMATN DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM RECEIVED Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): Briefly describe the proposed project: S /aT7'ACN~p LAN JiNG DIVIsio 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-100.020(L)): A1PPao%4.. 13 loco 3. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing C.aA,l m A1R c iAL C R.oc.RR!1 Proposed 5:A/j C A10 4. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround or maneuvering areas. SA& A77A cWX0 - LL XW S'T fN - o C,A TO BE "COMPLETED-BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY ITEM EXISTING . P.ROPOSED :ADDITION PROPOSED : CAL- PER ZONE ANDIO.R AJERATION 'CULAT.ED Yards (Setbacks from property line)( (Section 16-100.020(Y)* ft, ft. ft. Front Rear 3G, ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Right Side b$ ft. ft. 8$ ft. ft. ft. Left Side 3 ! ft. ft. 31 ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height ft• ft (Section 16-30.050)* 3.S ft. ft. 3S ft. . Lot Coverage ~;i 8&1+ Sr°* (Section 16-30.120(B))* sq.ft. sq.ft sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area 3&f % % 34 % % % Gross Floor Area 44-0i 3T9 399 (Section 16-100.020(F))* sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. *Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16 (Zoning) TowN OF TIBURON DESIGN REVIE'W' SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM REV 71110 ~ v EXHIBIT NO. P 2 ~r ~e NRUEL BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION Remodel of the existing vacant grocery building at The Cove Shopping Center for 3333 E. Camelback Road Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market. Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85018 . Complete interior remodel to feature fresh produce, meat, dairy and T: 602.956.9900 F: 602.956.9901 bakery departments. www.nadelarc.com • Main store entry at the existing gabled canopy to be re-worked for easier, more inviting access and circulation. • The existing gabled entry element will be re-finished for a more contemporary appearance. • The entire market building will be painted Fresh & Easy's signature colors. • A new loading dock will replace the existing one. The new dock will utilize a scissor lift for unloading of tractor trailers. • The existing compressor shack is removed for a new dry service delivery (DSD) and exit ramp. This delivery area will be used by smaller trucks for delivery of vendor supplied items such as soda and bread. • A solid screen is added to conceal new roof-top mechanical units. The screen is treated and constructed to provide sound attenuation. • Install new site appurtenances: bike rack, cart corrals, trash bin, recycle center, trash receptacle and safety bollards. • The grocery use at this site was established and operated without delivery schedule restrictions. We request an extension of this condition. EXHIBIT NO. gAfresh & easy\12047-f&e-tiburon & blackfield\design\entitlements\des rev responses to comments\5-11-1 2\project description.doc R 3 tp (6 RECEIVED PLANNING DIVISM4 N 0 0 11 CHANGES TO PARKING / MANEUVERING AREAS Currently the site features 132 parking spaces. The proposed site plan 3333 E. Camelback Road shows one space removed for truck access and another removed for a Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85018 cart corral. As part of the entryway revisions, two switchback ramps are T: 602.956.9900 being removed. The two parking spaces removed are being added in F: 602.956.9901 www.nadelarc.com these locations. One of these is a handicap accessible space. One space is removed for delivery truck access at the southeast corner of the retail building adjacent, south, of Fresh & Easy. It is being relocated behind the same retail building. A striped area shown at the southwest corner of this same building is not an existing parking space. The area is being striped off for truck access safety. The truck circulation is unchanged with loading/unloading occurring at the new dock slab on the north side of the building. The new dock will utilize a scissor lift for unloading of tractor trailers. Dry service delivery (DSD) will occur by use of the new ramp shown at the east wall (in place of the existing compressor shack. This delivery area will be used by smaller trucks for delivery of vendor supplied items such as soda and bread. EXHIBIT N0. L4 Of=10 gAtresh & easy\12047-f&e-tiburon & blackfielcKadmin\104 general project information\misc\changes to parking.doc m N U U N 70 W p L p 0 ~ W cm p p C- U co a) 0 CZ En -0 CCU _ - C: 0) a •cz O - C\j ~ U) V, cz •U V) C~ QL O O -F-1 U) i... 4-1 cz CL U) 0- Y~ r` r z LLJ J tl V 4 CD E W c~ CM ) CIO co W 00 C: p (n CZ - - o a~ i ' C: O C: O p p p o 4--o 4-a . . . . . . . . . . . O Q w H cn I I i I/ ~V i O V O fF ..Aw r Q . } V k~. C` i L 1 r ^ W Cl) U cz O o w rm rm N 19 L a~ ~ - ~ I _ I Q5 ~ I II= I€ ` 1 f f 3 = f r ia 0 U cz U 0 J O) C i cz CL b N O r LL J L cn co E _C L a~ 0 r O r LL J 0 LU c") u~ ' _ Q CL t l gtf E ~i ~ ~ tf t .tl t ~ 1~ '1: tttS~E'ft¢ I ' a <o u W H I yC W LL Z z cu U O) C Q O ¢ L z cn O r J z 4L W_ F--1 Y X W QJ _O O • N _N O ~ r F 3 INM Y ~ Y 3 e Z. CL w f: N O Lou `r X W LL ~J Z Z x 0 Ccu C O ¢ O z r LL J Him, au~i• , xF1c 1 e i~ _d~fr E2~['i E ° _ FfC~ °Ft3 t sj:`~ x. ~ fft#3 p t F~;~ ..A ~ v7 L i.S o LU : Z CL co -C) T j h.. cu m m h 7 O N co ~ Q O) O O I~ ° )°na) o)°n~ 3 No`nyUc69 -j c N C O y E -W w N u) N d Z a'E0 c#~ Nam E- W N'O-0 UF6mHU0v- LL ¢ Z "J { E Z O X an ~l K O J NEW BIKE RACK 5 STATIONS - ITEM # 9925415378 RECEIVED PLANNING DIVISION FFR=DSI - 155.63 EACH 5 station bike rack, 31.5"'H x 26.5"D x 61" EXHIBIT NQ, DESCRIPTION Entri LED features a classic and stylish design with the added benefits of solid state lighting technology, offering outstanding uniformity and energy savings. Using Cooper Lighting's proprietary LED LightBARTI technology and AccuLED optical systems, Entri LED offers designers vast versatility in system design, function and performance. Use Entri LED for wall mount architectural lighting applications and egress lighting requirements. UL and cUL listed for use in wet locations. SPECIFICATION FEATURES Construction HOUSING: Heavy wall, one-piece die-cast aluminum construction for precise tolerance control and repeatability in manufacturing. Integral extruded aluminum heat sink provides superior thermal heat transfer in +40°C ambient environments. Housing and heat sink are designed to offer various options for down lighting, up lighting or a combination of both up and down. FACEPLATE / DOOR: One-piece, die-cast aluminum construction. Captive, side hinged faceplate swings open'0a release of one (1) flush mount die-cast aluminum latch on housing side panel. Door closure and seal is ensured through a robust and positive retention bale latch which upon closing can be heard through distinct sound. GASKET. One-piece molded silicone gasket mates perfectly between the door and housing for repeatable seal. Silicone wire way plug on housing back wall seals incoming electrical leads to prevent moisture and dust entry. LENS: Uplight lens is impact resistant, 5/32" thick tempered frosted glass sealed to housing with continuous bead silicone gasket. Downlight lens is LED board integrated acrylic over- optics, each individually sealed for IP66 rating. HARDWARE: Stainless steel mounting screws and latch hardware allow access to electrical components for installation and servicing. DIMENSIONS Optics DISTRIBUTION: Primary downlight distribution offers a choice of six (6) high efficiency AccuLED optical systems, featuring patented designs that maximize light collection and directional distribution onto the application region. Each optical lens is precision manufactured via injection molding then precisely arranged and sealed on the board media. Optional uplight LED distribution features a diffuse soft glow for enhancing architectural scenes or accentuating structural features. LEDs: High output LEDs, 50,000+ hours life at >70% lumen maintenance, offered standard in 4000K 275K) CCT and nominal 70 CRI. Electrical DRIVER: LED drivers are potted and heat sunk for optimal performance and prolonged life. Standard drivers feature electronic universal voltage (120-277V/50-60hz), greater than 0.9 power factor, less than 20% harmonic distortion and feature ambient temperature range of +40°C (104°F) down to minimum starting temperature of -30-C (-22-F). Shipped standard with Cooper Lighting proprietary circuit module designed to withstand 10kV of transient line surge. Options to control light levels, energy savings and egress capabilities (battery pack and separate circuit) are available. All LED LightBARS" and drivers are mounted to a primary mounting plate and are easily replaced by use of quick disconnects for ease of wiring. Mounting JUNCTION BOX: Standard with zinc-plated, quick-mount junction box plate that mounts directly to 4" J-Box. LightBARS mount facing downward. Fixture slides over mounting plate and is secured with two (2) stainless steel fasteners. Mounting plate features a one- piece EPDM gasket on back side of plate to firmly seal fixture to wall surface, forbidding entry of moisture and particulates. Optional mounting arrangements utilize a die-cast mounting adaptor box to allow for LED battery pack, surface conduit and through branch wiring. Entri LED is approved for mounting on combustible surfaces. Finish Housing is finished in 5 stage super premiumTGIC polyester powder coat paint, 2.5 mil nominal thickness for superior protection against fade and wear. LightBARSM cover plates are standard white and may be specified to match finish of luminaire housing. Standard colors include black, bronze, grey, white, dark platinum and graphite metallic. RAL and custom color matches available. Consult Outdoor Architectural Colors brochure for a complete selection. Warranty Entri LED features a 5 year limited warranty. CONDUIT MOUNT / BATTERY BACK BOX 73/4" [196 mm) 15 25132" 8 1/8" J [400 mm] [206 mm) COOPER Lighting www.cooPerlighting.com F~ 77 Rte` I p 1 1 " Yn,. t i.. 1279m m ] EXHIBIT NO. P! t ")1A 'I or- ID t ENC E NTR I LED ROUND CLEAN a 1-2 LightBARS Solid State LED wnmwm~ ARCHITECTURAL WALL LUMINAIRE DESIMIGN S C0 r,50R12QM CERTIFICATION DATA 40°C AmbientTemperature Rating U.L. and cUL Listed ISO 9001 IP66 LightBARS ARRA Compliant LM79 / LM80 Compliant ENERGY DATA Electronic LED Driver >0.9 Power Factor c20%Total Harmonic Distortion 120-277V/50 & 60hz, 347V/60hz, 480V/60hz -30°C Minim umTemperature SHIPPING DATA Approximate Net Weight: 16 lbs. (73 kgs.) -ISTEM a`u CEN71 F~E~ AVU092076 pc 2011-07-11 09:54:21 INVUE° f LIT - a J r`•' LLJ ^ 0;: -0 CIO LU a) co ) w co z v > rn _0 CL ' <o LL! p) (D a W; x ~o cc) ~N w ~ j~' 3 11 1 of ~ LL J U / S Cr) Q ~ ~ ~ C s l7 } ao m CL _ J A i 1 N~ z II tii Cl E ~v W co U tf} m : w ~1 its r C) in p s if ~I LL 0 j C*4 co -x -x D) p 'J 0 75 tU v U 3 J CA T `I t CO n. E Q .1 : w In Cr1 >C7 ~ f6 t0 ~ C7 a- a- 0 0 li 1 I 00 FD • LU W E CD cy) CV o Q ~ ~ Q t 0 0~ TD LO J (D ;n _m..........._.. N oZ Q Cl) u.r a v o m _..:.:0..._ o 0 x r o > _ ~,J Cti CCJ CO 1 O C) 9lw~tls J O 'a7 Co LA. Q CAE 4 C - CO M M v; • ® w m r`CJ LtJ t/J G U- i J I C it U n o O U Ca O m ' U Yd O "1~ "rCJ 04 o QI z C) i cri --71 LL. 4n C) _r ~ L c cc o J CO _CD £~k Co Z r- G E _ 4 co O o 0.,, f 1~ V ~ W rage 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Ghazaleh Jamei [gjamei@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 11:25 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Connie Cashman Subject: 1 Blackfield Dr., File # 712054 L# 2 v? Eif 5 )'Ot~ Dear Mr. Watrous, In regards to 1 Baackfield Dr., proposed improvements File #712054, we would like to inform you about following issues that are negatively affecting our home located at 75 Harriet WE, east side neighbor of the subject property. 1. The new roof top mechanical unit added to the north east corner of the project is too close to the residences on the east side, especially our house and back yard. This mechanical unit could be located at the west side of the building which is not facing residences. The constant noise of this condensing unit, particularly during warmer days of the year, can seriously interfere with the use of our back yard. This unit will most likely operate constantly during day and night therefore even in low dBA noise level creates an unpleasant background noise in our property. 2. The proposed screen around the HVAC unit mentioned above is shown approximately 11' tall on the plans. This almost doubles the height of the grocery store at its northeast corner, which will blocks the Tiburon hills view that we currently enjoy. This is the only view corridor that is currently not blocked by the mass of this shopping store. In recent years we have made sizeable investment on planting along our property line facing this building to screen the direct view to this already high building. This addition will adversely affect the view from our house and yard significantly. 3. There is a note on the plans regarding trimming trees along the property's east side. There is no clarification about the scope of this work for our reference. As mentioned above these trees are planted by us in our property to screen the view to the backside of this building and are very important to us. 4. The existing roof top fans of this grocery store have been creating constant background noise and noise reduction solutions shall be employed to eliminate this problem. 5. Delivery trucks occasionally hit our wood fence between our property and shopping center when pass through the narrow back road to the loading zone, installing bollards along the fence would eliminate this problem. Above items in 1 Backfield improvement application are adversely affecting our property and we appreciate planning department and commission attention to consider our request that applicants revise their proposal to eliminate these issues. Regards, Ghazaleh Jamei *7 EXHIBIT NO. 6/18/2012 Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Thom Calandra [thom.calandra@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:23 PM To: Dan Watrous; Laurie Tyler; Connie Cashman Subject: 80 Harriet Way: Appeal on Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours July 11, 2012 To: Dan Watrous, Planning Department, Town of Tiburon Greetings Dan, Connie Cashman informed us in a visit to Tiburon Town Hall today that you are on holiday. Please enjoy. My wife and I would like to add our names to the appeal for a planned Fresh & Easy supermarket. We live at 80 Harriet Way, next to Murray and Tiffany Dunn at 50 Harriet Way. We received notice of the hearing in the mail on the same day of the 8 p.m. hearing. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Our concerns: Any delivery hours outside 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. seem harsh to the entire cul-de-sac of Harriet Way and surrounding homes on Cecilia and elsewhere throughout the Bel Aire neighborhood. In addition, now that we are in our fifth year of owning 80 Harriet Way and living there, we point out that the cooling and heating machinery atop the supermarket roof is often in need of mechanical repair and can be quite noisy. Like a squeaky windmill. Finally, please allow us to register our concern about garbage pile-up by the former owner. Waste was often spilling from containers throughout the alley behind the former DeLano's supermarket. The raccoons especially were frequent customers. We have great respect for the Planning Department. We also regard the looming addition of Peet's in the Cove Shopping Center as a good litmus test for corporate entry into the Bel AIre neighborhood. We will be applauding any and all successes there. I am hopeful Fresh & Easy can listen to these and our neighbors' concerns. Best, Thom Calandra and Maura Thurman 80 Harriet Way Tiburon CA 94920 41 S 1 1 EXHIBIT NO. 7/17/2012 Page 1 of 2 Dan Watrous From: Candace Washing [candacewashing@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:58 PM To: Thom Calandra Cc: Dan Watrous; Laurie Tyler; Connie Cashman Subject: Re: 80 Harriet Way: Appeal on Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours I second all of this. Candace Washing Sent from my iPhone On Jul 11, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Thom Calandra <thom.calandra(&cYmail.com> wrote: July 11, 2012 To: Dan Watrous, Planning Department, Town of Tiburon Greetings Dan, Connie Cashman informed us in a visit to Tiburon Town Hall today that you are on holiday. Please enjoy. My wife and I would like to add our names to the appeal for a planned Fresh & Easy supermarket. We live at 80 Harriet Way, next to Murray and Tiffany Dunn at 50 Harriet Way. We received notice of the hearing in the mail on the same day of the 8 p.m. hearing. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Our concerns: Any delivery hours outside 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. seem harsh to the entire cul-de-sac of Harriet Way and surrounding homes on Cecilia and elsewhere throughout the Bel Aire neighborhood. In addition, now that we are in our fifth year of owning 80 Harriet Way and living there, we point out that the cooling and heating machinery atop the supermarket roof is often in need of mechanical repair and can be quite noisy. Like a squeaky windmill. Finally, please allow us to register our concern about garbage pile-up by the former owner. Waste was often spilling from containers throughout the alley behind the former DeLano's supermarket. The raccoons especially were frequent customers. We have great respect for the Planning Department. We also regard the looming addition of Peet's in the Cove Shopping Center as a good litmus test for corporate entry into the Bel AIre neighborhood. We will be applauding any and all successes there. I am hopeful Fresh & Easy can listen to these and our neighbors' concerns. EXHIBIT NO. 01 7/17001 Page I of 1 Dan Watrous From: Thom Calandra [thom.calandra@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 12:18 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Comment for record. August 15 hearing on Fresh & Easy delivery hours. Subject: 80 Harriet Way: Appeal on Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours August 4, 2012 To: Dan Watrous, Planning Department, Town of Tiburon Greetings. We would like to comment for the record on the appeal for a planned Fresh & Easy supermarket. We live at 80 Harriet Way, next to Murray and Tiffany Dunn at 50 Harriet Way. Our concerns: Any delivery hours outside 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. seem harsh to the entire cul-de-sac of Harriet Way and surrounding homes on Cecilia and elsewhere throughout the Bel Aire neighborhood. Yes, fresh produce is welcome. But at what price as measured by predawn decibel levels and dusk traffic at The Cove? In addition, now that we are in our fifth year of owning 80 Harriet Way and living there, we point out that the cooling and heating machinery atop the supermarket roof is often in need of mechanical repair and can be quite noisy. Like a squeaky windmill. Finally, please allow us to register our concern about garbage pile-up by the former owner. Waste was often spilling from containers throughout the alley behind the former DeLano's supermarket. Tile raccoons especially were frequent customers. We have great respect for the Planning Department. We also regard the addition of Peet's in the Cove Shopping Center as a good litmus test for corporate entry into the Bel Aire neighborhood. We will be applauding any and all successes there. We are hopeful Fresh & Easy can listen to these and our neighbors' concerns. The delivery hours appear to ensure that produce and other goods to be sold at this new grocer are fresh. Still, I know those early morning hours will make some of us here in Bel Aire uneasy. Any compromise will get great attention and gratitude. Best, Thom Calandra and Maura Thurman 80 Harriet Way Tiburon CA 94920 415 384-0661 EXHIBIT NO. 9/6/2012 Page 1 of I Dan Watrous From: Thomas Knauer [knauert89@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:18 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Daren Wein; Linda Fassig; Murray Dunn Subject: Fresh & Easy Delivery Hours Dear Dan, My family and I are residents of the Bel Aire neighborhood. We are excited and happy that Fresh & Easy is coming to the Cove Shopping Center, and fully support them as a new tenant. We believe, however, that it is important to consider the concerns of the neighborhood regarding delivery hours. It seems that it was given a too quick review and rubber stamp, without considering the impact on the neighborhood. Surely we can find a better way - allowing deliveries until 5PM, including weekends, will place a burden on the Bel Aire community. We are a close group, and really want to support Fresh & Easy, and work with them. I am asking that the hours used by previous tenants be implemented (I believe 7AM - I 1 AM). Thank you, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way EXHIBIT I I NO. 9/6/2012 Fresh and Easy store delivery hours Dan Watrous Page 1 of 1 From: Cynthia Perry [cynthiasps@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 10:22 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Fresh and Easy store delivery hours Dear Dan: I have a conflict on Wed Aug 15 so I will not be able to attend the town council meeting on this issue.. However I am concerned that the delivery hours have changed and expanded over what they were for the previous stores. I think 7 am to 11 am is fine. Extending that to 5 pm is too much and a change from what the homeowners here bargained for when they bought their houses. I really don't understand why the new store was given permission to accept deliveries all day long when the other stores were fine with the old hours for 30 years, and considering that the nearby neighbors, even as far as Claire Way, will be negatively affected. Best Regards, Cynthia Perry, 79 Claire Way, 383-3501 Cynthiasps@gmail.com EXHIBIT NO. I&- 8/6/2012 Town Council Meeting August 15, 2012 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 2308 Mar East Street; Recommendation to Either Grant, Partially Grant, or Deny Appeals of the Design Review Board's Decision to Approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application to Allow Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling, with Variances for Side Yard Setback and Excess Lot Coverage, and a Floor Area Exception Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: APPELLANTS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 2308 MAR EAST STREET PETER WILTON MOHAMAD SADRIEH MAGDALENA YESIL & JIM WICKETT DAVID KULIK 059-195-01 FILE NUMBER: 21116 LOT SIZE: 11,000 SQUARE FEET (DRY LAND = 29017) ZONING: R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: XIVE DATE COMPLETE: APRIL 11, 2012 BACKGROUND On June 7, 2012, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, located at 2308 Mar East Street. The approval included variances for reduced side yard setback, excess lot coverage and a floor area exception. The property owner of 2306 Mar East Street and the property owner of 2310 Mar East Street have each filed separate appeals of the Board's decision to the Town Council. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setback, excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception, on property located TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 8 It..i C'C`tlI"'„ WMV"t at 2308 Mar East Street. The property is improved with a two-story dwelling that overlooks Racoon Strait. The main level (street level) of the existing dwelling includes a dining room, lounge, kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom, a store room, a two-car garage and a large sun room. The lower level includes a bedroom and bathroom, the master bedroom suite, a laundry room, a storage cellar, and two decks. The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel. At the main level, the front entry walkway would be partially in- filled for a new interior stairwell with a small addition proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear of the dwelling at the main level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space, and a new larger deck would be constructed to extend off the existing rear deck. The right side deck would remain as is but include construction of a small walkway to access the new rear deck. A new exterior stair/walkway would be constructed from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. Lots that are partially tidal, such as the subject property, use only the portion of land above the mean high tide line in calculating gross floor area ratio and lot coverage. The portion of the lot above the mean high tide line is only 2,017 square feet. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zoning district (35.0%). Therefore, a variance was requested for excess lot coverage. The current dwelling has an existing gross floor area of 2,569 square feet. The proposal would increase the floor area by approximately 330 square feet, resulting in a total gross floor area of 2,900 square feet. As the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property is 706 square feet, the proposal would exceed the maximum by 2,194 square feet. Therefore, a floor area exception was also requested. The existing left side yard setback for the property is six inches (6"). The application proposes a minor kitchen expansion within the left side yard, which would extend the non-conforming setback of six inches (6") at this side of the property. As the minimum side yard setback in the R- 2 zone is eight feet (8'), a variance was requested to continue the reduced side yard. Proposed color and materials for the dwelling include: stucco siding in dark beige, gray window sashes, metallic grey facia, and oiled timber striping at the garage door. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board first reviewed the project on December 1, 2011. During the meeting, the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street spoke in opposition to the project, noting negative privacy, view, and lighting impacts due to the proposed kitchen addition/expansion and decks at the rear of the dwelling. Neighbors asserted that the location of the proposed deck expansions at both the upper and lower level would be in close proximately to the master bedroom of 2306 Mar East, in addition to lighting and glazing impacts on a secondary bedroom and outdoor patio at the front of the home. Neighbors also asserted that the kitchen expansion and deck additions would come closer to various rooms at 2310 Mar East Street, which would result in privacy, noise, lighting, odors and view infringements for that property. The Board voiced similar concerns, and ultimately left it up to the applicant to work out a compromise with the neighbors, as these impacts appeared to be substantial to both 2306 Mar East Street and 23 10 Mar East Street. The Board also struggled with making appropriate findings for the variances requested, and therefore continued the application in order to give the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors on modifications to the project, and reach an overall adequate compromise with the neighbors, in order to move forward. After the December meeting, the applicant requested several continuances for the application and subsequently ran up against a Permit Streamlining Act deadline. As such, the applicant was encouraged by staff to withdraw their application and resubmit a new application to allow for additional time to work on project modifications with the neighbors, and to re-start the clock for the Permit Streamlining Act. The applicant filed a new application with the Town on March 5, 2012. The Design Review Board considered the new application on May 3, 2012. The design of the home did not significantly change from the initial review of the project in December; however, the applicant had made progress towards addressing the concerns of the neighbors in reducing privacy, view and lighting impacts. Modifications included: • A reduction in the depth of the rear deck at the upper level from 12' to 9'6" with installation of an opaque glass horizontal screen on the west side of the deck, facing 2306 Mar East Street. • The entry door location had been modified so that the door would face Mar East Street instead of facing the dwelling at 2306 Mar West Street. • The highest strip of windows located above the proposed stairwell, which faces 2306 Mar East Street had been eliminated in an effort to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts on 2306 Mar East Street. • The exterior deck lights had been modified from soffit lights to low deck lighting, which would be installed one foot (1') above the surface of the deck, in an effort to reduce lighting impacts on 2306 Mar East Street and 23 10 Mar East Street. • A reduction in the width of the proposed lower deck from 12' to 5'l 0" with installation of a 5'3" obscure glass screen on the west side of the deck to provide privacy between the subject property and 2306 Mar East Street. • Elimination of the left side deck expansion and incorporation of a three foot (3') walkway to connect the existing left side deck to the proposed rear deck. • Elimination of the vertical support structures and the small deck in front of the proposed expanded kitchen at the upper level, in an effort to improve the view and reduce privacy impacts for 2310 Mar East Street. ALI(TWSt 1. 5. 1 A reduction in the size of the window proposed in the expanded kitchen to increase privacy between the subject property and 2310 Mar East Street. During the May 3rd meeting, the neighbors at 2306 Mar East Street and 23 10 Mar East Street continued to object to the proposal, noting remaining concerns regarding the amount of glazing and potential lighting impacts, in addition to privacy, noise and view infringements. The neighbors attempted to work with the applicant on modifications to the proposal and appreciated the changes made by the applicant, but determined that the applicant should not expand outside of the existing building envelope, as any expansions would surely result in privacy, noise, lighting and view impacts on their properties. The Board was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns, and agreed that more could be done to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts for 2306 Mar East Street, but ultimately determined that the project, as designed, would actually improve privacy for 2310 Mar East Street. The Board provided further direction to the applicant to modify the project, which included pulling the upper level deck back to align with the proposed lower level deck, reducing the amount of glazing at the entry area, and eliminating the horizontal screening system on the upper level deck and replacing it with a vertical screening system. In general, the Board recognized that there did not appear to be a way for all parties to be happy with the project, but explained that privacy is limited for decks and living areas in homes along Mar East Street. The Board also recognized that the project was challenging, but overall felt that the applicant should be permitted to expand outside of the existing building envelope, provided that the expansions were modest, which the Board believed the current proposal appeared to be. The Board continued the project, and directed the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and consider the additional design modifications it suggested. The Board considered revised plans on June 7, 2012, which included the following modifications to the proposal: • The proposed upper level deck had been pulled back to align with the proposed kitchen addition and lower level deck. • The horizontal privacy screen on the upper level deck was replaced with an option of either an obscure fabric "sail" or a metal louver screen, to be installed at a 45 degree upward angle on the west side of the deck. • The portions of the lower level deck closest to 2306 Mar East Street would include installation of a six foot (6') high obscure privacy screen. • Windows on the southwest elevation facing 2306 Mar East Street were further reduced in size. During the meeting, the neighbors at 2306 Mar East Street and 23 10 Mar East Street continued to object to the proposal, with both expressing remaining concerns regarding privacy, noise and lighting impacts. They also asserted that expansion of a non-conforming structure would be in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code. The Board disagreed with the neighbors, and stated that the applicant had made significant changes toward addressing the neighbors' concerns regarding privacy, noise and lighting impacts. The Board agreed that the metal louver screening concept would work better for privacy than the AUITUSt 15. 2012 fabric sail in helping to screen the master bedroom at 2306 Mar East Street. The Board determined that a "cookie cutter" zoning district had been imposed on this neighborhood, where a majority of homes are non-conforming to zoning standards, resulting in an unusual neighborhood with special circumstances. As the existing structure was much smaller and lacked useable deck space, the Board concluded that the applicant should have the ability to improve their property, in a modest fashion, and did not feel that the applicant should be punished because this was the last home to be expanded along this particular section of Mar East Street. The Board stated that it would be a hardship to the. applicant to be unable to expand the home modestly, when others in the vicinity had been permitted to expand, sometimes to a larger degree than the applicants' request. In addition, the Board determined that the zoning designation really did not fit the site, nor the Mar East waterfront vicinity in general. The Board approved the project on a 3-0 vote, with two Board members absent (Chong, Tollini). BASIS FOR THE APPEAL 1) Appeal of 2306 Mar East Street (Yesil/Wickett) There are two grounds upon which the first appeal (Exhibit 1) is based. The grounds are discussed below. Ground #1: The Excess Lot Coverage Variance and resulting Floor Area Exception should not have been granted, since the approved additions and deck expansions are materially detrimental and injurious, due to their negative privacy and lighting impacts. Staff Response: After several revisions, the Board determined that the applicant should be able to expand their home, as others have along Mar East Street, provided that the project was modest. The Board also stressed that the applicant should not be punished for being the last property on this section of Mar East Street to expand. Staff was able to make findings for the floor area exception, with which the Board agreed. However, Staff was unable to make findings for either of the variances requested. During deliberations, the Board articulated findings for both variances, noting that the true hardship on the applicant was the standards of the R-2 zone in an area (Old Tiburon waterfront) where properties largely do not conform to modern zoning standards. If the applicant were required to build to current zoning standards, the Board reasoned that the end result would be a dwelling that is not useable. It should also be noted that the Board expressed concern for the neighbors at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street, in terms of privacy and lighting impacts, but clearly explained that privacy is viewed very differently from one person to the next and also from one property to the next. The Board found that an expectation of a high degree of privacy along this particular section of Mar East Street would be unreasonable, in that a majority of these properties are located in such close proximity to one another, such that each dwelling is able to view a neighboring properties' outdoor spaces (i.e. balconies, decks, etc.) and oftentimes its indoor spaces. ~Sit t 1 { ,l1 1 t; . 'I D' , IT 1. 5 Ground #2: The granting of the Variance was in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code, which specifically guards against increasing non-conformity. Staff Response: Zoning Ordinance Section 16-62.020 defines a non-conforming structure as "a structure that was lan fully erected prior to the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance, but that no longer conforms to the standard of coverage, setbacks, height, distance between structures, or other prescribed regulations applicable under this Zoning Ordinance". The subject dwelling is a non-conforming structure because it does not comply with current setbacks or lot coverage standards for the R-2 zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits expansion of a non-conforming use, which is not the same as a non-conforming structure. The single-family dwelling use of the property is conforming. Expansion of this non- conforming structure as proposed is allowable, provided that a Variance to reduce the side yard setback to accommodate the building extension in a required yard area is granted. The board granted the variance. 2) Appeal of 2310 Mar East Street (Kulik) There are three grounds upon which the second appeal (Exhibit 2) is based. These grounds are discussed below. Ground #1: The Excess Lot Coverage and Reduced Side Yard Setback Variances should not have been granted, as they produce several adverse and injurious effects. Staff Response: See response to Ground 41 of the first appeal above. Ground #2: The granting of the Variance was in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code, which specifically guards against increasing non-conformity. Staff Response: See response to Ground 42 of the first appeal above. Ground #3: The Design Review Board approved the modification of a door that is located on our property, for which we did not grant our approval. Staff Response: The subject property includes a door to the left of the garage, which is actually located on the adjacent property of 2310 Mar East Street. This door is shown on the existing northwest elevation drawing, located on Sheet 5 of the plan set. The proposed northwest elevation drawing, located on sheet 10A, indicates that the door would be modified to match the proposed exterior colors/materials and overall architectural style of the proposed remodel of the subject property. However, the change to the proposed door is not specifically called out on any of the remaining drawings. Projects that receive approval by the Design Review Board are limited to improvements located only at the subject site, and do not include improvements on adjacent properties not controlled by the applicant. If the applicant wishes to modify this door as part of the overall remodel of the property, then the applicant would need the written approval of the owner of 2310 Mar East to do so. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board provided consistent and clear direction to the applicant each time the application was presented .to the Board. The Board determined that the project had been sufficiently modified to avoid unreasonable privacy impacts on neighboring residences, given the siting constraints and the different expectations for privacy in the Mar East waterfront area. Additionally, the Board in differing with the staff's recommendations, articulated findings to support the granting of both variances. The appellant for 2310 Mar East Street has requested that the Town Council conduct a de novo review of the project; however, it is at the Council's discretion whether or not this should occur. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Indicate its intention to either grant, partially grant or deny each of the appeals; and 2. Direct Staff to return with Resolutions regarding the disposition of each appeal for consideration at the next meeting. Exhibits: 1. Notice of Appeal from Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett 2. Notice of Appeal from David Kulik 3. Response to appeals from Peter Wilton 4. Application and supplemental materials 5. Design Review Board Staff report dated June 7, 2012 6. Design Review Board Staff report dated May 3, 2012 7. Design Review Board Staff report dated December 1, 2011 8. Minutes of the June 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 9. Minutes of the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 10. Minutes of the December 1, 2011 Design Review Board meeting IL . Design Review Board Notice of Action dated June 11, 2012 Exhibits for June 7, 2012 Design Review Board Meeting: 12. Supplemental packet submitted by the applicant for the June 7, 2012 DRB Meeting 13. Photographs of the revised proposal taken by Staff from 2310 Mar East Street 14. Letter dated May 22, 2012 from Mohamad Sadrieh Architects 15. Letter dated May 29, 2012 from Dr. Peter C. Wilton 16. Letter dated May 30, 2012 from David and Kathryn Kulik 17. Email dated May 30, 2012 from Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett 18. Email dated May 31, 2012 from Marsha Vargas Handley 19. Email dated May 3 1, 2012 from Marsha Vargas Handley Exhibits for May 3, 2012 Design Review Board Meeting: 20. Supplemental packet submitted by the applicant for the May 3, 2012 DRB meeting 21. Photographs submitted by the owner of 2310 Mar East Street at the May 3, 2012 DRB meeting 22. Email dated April 23, 2012 from Tom and Ashley Soevyn 23. Letter dated April 25, 2012 from Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett 24. Email dated April 25, 2012 from David Kulik 25. Letter dated April 25, 2012 from Rifkind Law Group 26. Letter dated April 26, 2012 from Christina D. Hansen Exhibits for December 1, 2011 Design Review Board Meeting and Subsequent Continuances: 27. Photographs submitted by Staff for the December 1, 2011 DRB Meeting 28. Email dated December 1, 2011 from Kerry Wilcox 29. Email dated December 1, 2011 from Marsha Vargas Handley 30. Email chain dated November 28, 2011 from Magdalena Yesil 31. Letter dated November 23, 2011 from Christina D. Hansen 32. Letter dated November 22, 2011 from Magdalena Yesil & Jim Wickett 33. Email dated December 5, 2011 from Mohamad Sadrieh regarding Permit Streamlining Act Extension 34. Notice of Continuance dated January 19, 2012 35. Letter dated January 26, 2012 from Mohamad Sadrieh requesting a continuance to the March 1, 2012 DRB meeting 36. Notice of Continuance dated February 16, 2012 37. Email dated February 16, 2012 from Peter Wilton requesting withdrawal of application Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner ''vx, % 1!k! I>tA TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 it -wl, ..cl.ttbttl-011.Ca,Its APPELLANT(S) . I (Attach additional pa-es if necessary) Name: - 1 GI ems-- cG S t r~ o,4 i ~(yl ~k 1 Mailing Address: ~j e_, M cA c ~ C~ 5 \ t . ~ to t j r C ft, a "-19 ~ v Telephone: T ~v G(Work) " 15 - 2 29 - S d G O (Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): t ' c' k e ' ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: a-\ e H CD, a 1 Z Name of Applicant: f" vV Yl Type of Application or Decision: A t-_> D - d 0 S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) 1~ d S e_ (4vtiCV_N P STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: Date Appeal Filed: Fee Paid: •W Receipt No. ' Date of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is %500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant S: lAdministrationlFormsWolice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised March 2010 EXHIBIT NO.~ al I CP3 To the Tiburon Town Council: h We are Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil of 2306 Mar East St., Tiburon. We are appealing Design Review Board's approval of plans for 2308 Mar East, Tiburon on June 7, 2012. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Excess Lot Coverage variance should not have been granted since the approved expansions and additions are materially detrimental and injurious to us due to their negative privacy and lighting impacts. Furthermore, the granting of this variance is in violation of the Tiburon Municipal Code, which specifically guards against increasing a non-conformity. The DRB said that Mar East is special and the "cookie-cutter" R2 Zoning does not work for our neighborhood and that the zoning does not fit the site. But there is no such exception for Mar East in Tiburon's Zoning laws today. In the variance granting process, the fact that Mar East is "special" is reflected by making Finding 1 to grant a variance, but is the first of four findings that all need to be present to grant a variance under the current law. The DRB also said that they felt comfortable granting the variances to the said project because other homes along Mar East had variances. The fact that other homes have variances represents Finding 2, and is the second of the four Findings for approval. In other words, having Findings 1 and 2 does not negate the need to accurately make Findings 3 and 4. Another factor that the DRB based their approval on was the fact the surrounding homes, including ours at 2306, had large decks and therefore 2308 should be allowed the variances to build the designed extensions and additions. But again, being consistent with other properties in the vicinity is only one of the four Findings for approving a variance (Finding 2). Findings 1 and 2 are necessary but not sufficient for the approval of the Excess Lot Coverage Variance and Mar East being "special" does not eliminate the need to accurately make Findings 3 and 4. The Staff Report created for the June 7th meeting on this topic stated that for the requested variances to be granted, all four findings required by the Section 16- 52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance had to be made and the Staff themselves could not make Findings 3 and 4 for Excess Lot Coverage. (Please see Staff Report pages 6 and 7, discussions under Points 3 and 4). We agree with the Staffs conclusions that Findings 3 and 4 needed to grant the Excess Lot Coverage Variance cannot be made and believe that the DRB's Findings for 3 and 4 were not correctly justified. We strongly disagree and object to DRB's statement that the approved design will not be injurious to us, will enhance our privacy, and that our environment would not be made worse by this project. This is not true. Finding 3. The approved design fills in an existing deck at the lower level by converting a significant portion of the deck into a bedroom and than adds a new deck that comes 5'10" closer to our master bedroom, creating injurious privacy and lighting impacts detrimental to our daily life. The DRB approved the design by stating that living on the water and not having decks is hardship. Even with that definition of hardship, we believe that eliminating a deck by filling it in fits the definition of a "self-created hardship", which is specifically not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, EXHIBIT NC t~t-l 2- ~3 the house currently has not one but two decks at this level and even after one ;deck is filled in, a second deck remains. We therefore agree with the Staff Report that Finding 3 on hardship cannot be made and that the project should be limited to the current building footprint and floor area, which the Staff Report states already greatly exceeds the limitations for a lot of this size (June? Staff Report pg. 6, point 3) Finding 4. The approved design significantly reduces the already limited privacy of our master bedroom and causes negative privacy and lighting impacts to our master and second bedrooms. Both new decks bring outdoor living noise and lighting 5'10" closer at two levels and are injurious to our master bedroom's privacy through noise and lighting. The visual screens do nothing to reduce the injurious effects of outdoor living noise to our master bedroom, significantly reducing our acoustic privacy. Nor do they reduce the injurious effects of lighting into our master bedroom from the two new decks. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the screens will work for visual privacy and not break in the harsh weather conditions. Both the Southwest elevation with its increased proximity to our house and its additional glazing and the rear decks have detrimental and injurious lighting, privacy, and noise impacts on us and therefore the granted variance is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. In the last sentence on pg. 6 the June 7 Staff Report states: "There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested, specifically for the physical hardship and injurious to neighboring properties findings." We believe the Planning Staff, who made multiple visits to our home to observe the injurious effect of the plan before the June 7thmeeting, are correct in their conclusion regarding Findings 3 and 4 and the DRB members, who did not visit prior to the June 7 meeting to see the impact of the revised design are incorrect in their conclusions regarding the design's injurious effects on our privacy. A justification used for the 2308 project was that we (at 2306) were allowed to expand our existing deck and dock when we rebuilt it four years ago. Unlike 2308, our deck expansion did not get closer to a neighbor's bedroom and living room. During that process, both adjacent homes were occupied. We worked with our neighbors prior to the Hearing to ensure our project was not injurious to them. Record will show that there were no objections from neighbors and in fact, one neighbor attended the hearing to speak in support of our project. In closing, the DRB stated that the R2 Zoning Ordinance does not fit and should not apply to Mar East because of its special circumstances. This thinking is a dangerous precedence to set. We believe that the Excess Lot Coverage variance was granted without following the,laws of the Town of Tiburon as they currently exist. We are appealing to the Tiburon Town Council to review the granting of Excess Lot Coverage and resulting Floor Area Exception for 2308 Mar East under the laws of the Tiburon Municipal Code and the Zoning Ordinance that applies to this project. We encourage you to visit our home to personally observe the injurious effect of the approved plan on us. Please contact us at 415-269-1899 or at ifwickett@gmail.com to arrange a time. Thank you. EXHIBIT NO. e-7 2 Q~ l r ! TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 41.5-435-7373 i nt ic.c7.11h7t1'017.Ca.11S APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessary)) Name: lJ l /(J l~L/lC Mailing Address: - AQ ZtE / L1 J ___KJ (Home) Telephone: (9b Z- ; 1_~(Work) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): /-0 1-.L Ir i:g2d r, , 6,nl" -Z 4!V ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: cS/~4-/1/C vc__~ , ~ZD Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: Zmji~ 7, 20/2. Name of Applicant: ,t? Get//L. " ~/~~f~/~/aaf~ •s/i~ J~/~ Type of Application or Decision: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) ************I:x******* * * * * STAFF USE ONLY BELOH" THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal:_ Fee Paid. 00 Receipt No. Date Appeal Filed: d// slz Date of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant S.'',Administratioi7lFoi-ms'iNotice ofAppeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised March 2010 EXHIBIT NO. a- 194 June 15, 2012 To the Tiburon Town Council: We are appealing the June 7, 2012 Design Review Board decision that granted approval for a project at 2308 Mar East. We feel that the Board abused their discretion and ignored specific and clear sections of our Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance in granting this approval. The project calls for two separate variances and a floor area exception to the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate a volume expansion of the subject property on Mar East. The expansion toward the water would include solid structures and cantilevered decks that would deprive us of privacy, views, and light. These adverse effects are injurious to our property by any objective standard, and as such are prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically: Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-52.030(E) details what criteria must be met for a variance to be granted. Subsection 4 states: "The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity" The variance for Reduced Setback produces several adverse and injurious effects: 1. On the lower level of our property, the variance puts an open-air deck eight feet from our main living room. The accompanying decrease in visual and aural privacy, as well as 100% blockage of a water-view window that faces the Sutro Tower, are directly injurious to our property 2. On the ground level, the variance places a kitchen eight feet from our master bedroom. The accompanying noise and odor will significantly degrade quality of life in this bedroom. These effects, as well as loss of light, view, and 100% blockage of a character- enhancing window with direct Golden Gate Bridge views, are directly injurious to our property 3. On the upper level, the variance places the same kitchen in the water view corridor of the living room and terrace. This upper level is itself a legal unit, and these effects decrease the rentability and quality of life of this unit, and are therefore injurious. Z EXHIBIT NO. 2 t,4 The variance for Excess Lot Coverage produces several adverse and injurious effects: 4. On the lower level of our property, the variance projects a deck 5' 10" further out from the existing structure, increasing angular visual penetration into our main living room. This significant privacy decrease can only be offset by using window treatments, which deprive the room of light and views of the Golden Gate Bridge, and is materially injurious. 5. On the ground level, the variance projects a deck 5' 10" further out from the existing structure, increasing angular visual penetration into our master bedroom. This significant privacy decrease can only be offset by using window treatments, which deprive the room of light and views of the Golden Gate Bridge, and is materially injurious. The Tiburon Municipal Code speaks very clearly to the increasing of non-conforming aspects of a use or structure: Section 16-62.030 (A)(2)(a) states: "No nonconforming use shall be moved, altered, enlarged, or extended in any way that would increase the nonconformity, unless the purpose of such change is to eliminate the nonconformity, and as otherwise set forth in subsection B. " Subsection B states: "The discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards of coverage, setback, height or any other standard prescribed in the regulations for the zone in which the structure is located shall not be increased." Our Municipal Code states in clear terms that what is being proposed is illegal according to the laws of our Town. This proposal does nothing to eliminate the nonconformity, and in fact exacerbates it at the expense of neighboring properties through the use of injurious variances. The Design Review Board justification, in granting the excess lot coverage variance, was that the Zoning Ordinance effectively does not apply on Mar East Street. The variance for reduced setback was never justified, or even discussed. We feel this is a grossly negligent abuse of discretion by the Board. This precedent of selective application of the laws of our Town is extremely dangerous to set. The Design Review Board members are not legislators, and their tasking is not to modify or ignore laws, but rather to enforce them. 'We recognize that laws must accommodate flexibility, but our laws do in fact make accommodations for flexibility. The standard for flexibility (variance) is that the effects must not be injurious to neighboring properties. 2 EXHIBIT NO. Z We agree with every Staff Report to date on this matter, where each report states: "There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the. variances requested. " Our property is unquestionably injured by this proposal, the Design Review Board did not enforce our laws in granting variances, and that is the basis for our appeal. As a point of order, the Design Review Board also approved the modification of a door on our property as part of this project. We have given no permission whatsoever to modify this door. As such, we are appealing that element of the approval. We are requesting a de novo review of the matter being appealed. Additionally, grounds to support this appeal include the entire administrative record presented to the Design Review Board, including but not limited to photographs submitted, and the grounds stated in our attorney's letter, dated April 25, 2012 Respectfully submitted, David and Kathryn Kulik 3 EXHIBIT NO. .4-C'P4 RECEIVED JUL 31 2012 Dr. Peter Wilton PLANNING DIVISION 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA. 94920, USA Telephone: 1-415-474-5151 e-mail: wilton tahaas.berkeley.edu Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council cc: Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Ms. Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner July 30, 2012 RE: 2308 Mar East, Tiburon Dear Mayor Fraser and Council Members: We are pleased to submit our response to appeals filed in relation to recent DRB approval of our application for improvements to our home at 2308 Mar East. We trust that you will find our response both thoughtful and reasonable. We look forward to discussing the response with you at the Town meeting on August 15 In the interim, we would invite and encourage you to visit our home to assess first-hand the merits of our application. Based upon observations from members of the Design Review Board throughout the review process, we believe an on-site inspection by the Council Members will greatly enhance understanding and appreciation of the merits of the proposed plans. Please contact us per the contact details below to arrange a visit at a time that best suits your respective schedules: Mr. Mohamad Sadrieh: (415) 331-0410 (office) or (415) 747-4137 (cell) Ms. Sono Zhang: (415) 320-6699 (cell) Dr. Peter C. Wilton: (415) 425-5151 (cell) Thank you in anticipation of your time and consideration. We look forward to discussing the matter further at the Council meeting on August 15. Sincerely, Dr. Peter C. Wilton, Ms. Sono Zhang EXHIBIT 0~~.2~ Dr. Peter C. Wilton 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA. 94920, USA Telephone: 1-415-474-5151 e-mail: wiltonCc~haas.berkele..edu Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council cc: Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Ms. Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner July 30, 2012 RE: 2308 Mar East, Tiburon Dear Mayor Fraser and Council Members: This letter is a response to appeals filed by Magdalena Yesel and Jim Wickert and David and Kathleen Kulik appealing DRB approval of our application for renovations at 2308 Mar East Tiburon. The response first provides a summary of our response, then outlines the history of our application, including adjustments made and attempts to collaboratively engage with neighbors throughout the review process, and finally addresses the matters specifically raised in the appeal. At the outset, we wish to state that it is our sincerest desire for the appeal to proceed in a collaborative and productive manner. However, in light of the legal posture adopted by one of the appellants, we have been compelled (entirely against our nature) to seek a formal review of the legal framework relating to the appeal. Our response should be read in conjunction with that review (attached). SUMMARY OF RESPONSE: We respectfully summarize our response by suggesting: The Design Review Board (DRB) has acted both responsibly and thoughtfully throughout the review process, reaching their findings after extensive and careful deliberation over a six month review process. All matters raised by the appellants in their appeals have been given full and unbiased attention by the Board. The suggestion of negligence and abuse of responsibility is a significant misrepresentation of the actual review process; • The DRB findings in support of the requested variances are consistent with the intent and requirements of the Town of Tiburon planning code; Page 11 L XHIBIT N0. nn 7Z • The DRB findings in support of the requested variances are entirely consistent with prevailing development along the Mar East parcel. No special exception is being made; • The design fully complies with the many refinements and adjustments required by the DRB arising out of the review process; • We have acted in both the spirit and the letter of the neighborhood consultation process throughout the review process; • As a result of the review process, the proposed improvements are both modest and reasonable; Accordingly, we respectfully request that the DRB approval be allowed to stand, and the process of improving our property, and the Mar East community, be encouraged to proceed in a welcoming and efficient manner. APPLICATION HISTORY: The residence in question was constructed in 1956, and has not been improved or renovated since that time. The property is in a state of disrepair and is in urgent need of improvement. As observed by the DRB, the property is one of the last remaining waterfront properties along Mar East to be improved. Our application for renovations at 2308 Mar East has undergone three separate reviews by the Tiburon Design Review Board: 1. December 1, 2011 2. May 3, 2012 3. June 7, 2012 During each of these reviews, both Board Members and neighbors have made many comments and suggestions concerning the proposed design, to which we have responded genuinely and collaboratively. As a result, per comments by both the Planning Department and the DRB, the proposed design is now extremely modest and in no way out of character with the prevailing environment. In essence, the design involves: (i) Finishing an existing unfinished storage room, thereby converting an existing two bedroom lower floor layout into a three-bedroom layout; (ii) Redesigning and relocating a tiny, existing, non-functional kitchen, resulting in an extremely modest fifty (50) square foot extension of the house envelope; (iii) Adding an extremely modest upper and lower exterior deck to allow access for maintenance, as well as enjoyment of the outdoor environment in a manner Page 12 EXHIBIT NO. ~ . 3 ~Z,6 entirely consistent with ALL other properties on the Mar East parcel; (iv) Otherwise updating the general exterior and interior layout of the home to improve both its structural soundness and overall community appeal. The proposed plans are now described by Planning Staff as "modest" and in the words of the DRB, are described as "thoughtful" and reasonable, affording the owners privileges that are no greater, and in many ways less, than the owners of other properties in the neighborhood. As expressed by the DRB, to deny the plans would create hardship by depriving the owners of rights enjoyed by all other homeowners similarly situated. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTATION PROCESS Throughout the review process, we have attempted to engage collaboratively with our neighbors across multiple meetings, both directly and indirectly through impartial intermediaries, in order to find a harmonious outcome. The essence of these discussions can be summarized as follows: a. Discussions with Mr. David Kulik, owner of 2310 Mar East: Mr. Kulik is a recent owner of 2310 Mar East, having purchased 2310 Mar East the day prior to our first meeting with the DRB in December, 2011. Mr. Kulik was aware of our plans before his decision to purchase 2310, having seen the story poles for the original design (which covered an area approximately three times larger than the current proposed design), and also having been advised of our plans by his real estate agent, prior to making his purchase decision. Nonetheless, in early December, 2011, as soon as we became aware of his impending purchase, and on numerous occasions since, we attempted to engage with Mr. Kulik in order to encourage his input into the proposed plans. Mr. Kulik has also twice been given the opportunity by the DRB to provide his input and public comment. Unfortunately, these discussions have not been productive, with Mr. Kulik consistently refusing to consider, or suggest alternatives to, any design which exceeds the current envelope of the existing residence. We are confident this is not consistent with the spirit of the neighborhood consultation process. b. Discussions with Ms. Magdalena Yesil, and Mr. Jim Wickert, owners of 2306 Mar East: Discussions with the owners of 2306 were initially highly collaborative, but regrettably over time have become less so. Ms. Yesil and Mr. Wickert have detailed many comments and suggestions, to which we have genuinely listened and responded. An inventory of these changes is detailed below. Unfortunately, discussions with the owners of 2306 have been a "moving target", with adjustments and concessions from earlier dialogues becoming the "baseline" for subsequent dialogues, each of which has become progressively Page 13 EXHIBIT N0. A 9 more arduous and inflexible. Nonetheless, in the opinion of the DRB, we have genuinely responded to, and addressed, the matters raised by the owners of 2306. ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANS AS A RESULT OF DESIGN REVIEWS & NEIGHBORHOOD CONSULTATION As a result of input from the Design Review Board, and our neighbors, the following adjustments have been made to the originally proposed plans. 1. Overall Deck Design and Size: As a context for the proposed deck plans, attached is a survey of all waterfront properties on the Mar East parcel. With the notable exception of 2308 (our property), all waterfront multi-story properties on the street have both an upper and lower exterior deck providing unencumbered views of the Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge. These decks are also uncovered, allowing for direct enjoyment of sun, light, and air movements. Immediately adjacent properties at 2310 and 2306 Mar East both have substantial unobstructed exterior decks, together with large docks, which afford the benefits described above as well as direct water access. In 2010, the existing deck and dock at 2306 Mar East was significantly expanded (by 700 square feet) to produce a new exterior space covering a total area of 1660 square feet. In contrast, the residence at 2308 Mar East currently has only a lower deck, significant portions of which are either covered by the existing home envelope or obstructed by adjoining property. Against this background, the following adjustments have been made. a. Deck Size: In response to comments by both the owners of 2306, and the DRB, the total area of the proposed upper and lower deck spaces have been reduced by almost two thirds, from 770 square feet to 280 square feet combined. As mentioned above, this compares with a recent (2010) deck addition at the immediately adjoining property of 2306 Mar East of 770 square feet, for a new total combined deck space at that property of 1660 square feet. Members of the DRB have acknowledged that the proposed deck addition is now no longer commensurate with the traditional definition of a deck (allowing for a regular dining table and chairs), but should instead be considered simply a "balcony". b. Deck Design & Location: In response to comments by the owners of 2306, an extension of an existing side deck on the lower level was removed, in order to provide Page 14 EXHIBIT NO. 3 fz) 5c-P-26 greater privacy and potential noise abatement. In response to comments by the DRB, a 3'x 9' section of the proposed upper deck on the south-east corner was removed in order to provide greater privacy, despite eliminating critical access for exterior maintenance of the property. Also In response to comments by the DRB, the depth of both the upper and lower decks was reduced so as not to intrude into the primary view spaces of either adjoining property. As a result, the depth of these decks is now generally 5' 10", rendering them as balconies rather than fully functioning decks. Planning Staff noted that the reduced size of the upper level deck lessens the potential privacy impacts from the decks for both adjacent residences. 2. Privacy Adjustments: As a context for the consideration of privacy issues, it should be observed that the residence at 2308 Mar East is set back from the Bay and other waterfront properties along Mar East further than almost any other property. One DRB member commented that the lot "is pulled back so far" that expansion is "a practical difficulty". Relative to the two immediately adjacent properties, after allowing for existing dwellings and docks that protrude into the Bay, the set-back of 2308 is significant (between 60-90 feet). This set-back significantly compromises privacy for all homeowners, including ourselves, allowing residents of 2310 and 2306 to look landward directly into our primary living space. The goal of the proposed plans is to significantly mitigate privacy intrusion for all involved by removing significant portions of existing glazing at 2308, extending slightly the existing envelope of the house (without intruding into primary view corridors), and by creating a horizontal privacy "blade" through the addition of a modest balcony. Notwithstanding the privacy enhancements of the proposed plans, the following adjustments have been made in response to input from neighbors and the DRB. a. The forward protrusion (depth) of the proposed decks has been reduced from 12' to 5' 10", despite comment from the DRB that "the further forward you go, the greater the privacy". Because of this design change, the proposed decks will no longer function as traditional decks permitting large social gatherings. Rather, they will serve as balconies for occasional intimate outside enjoyment. In the words of the DRB, the decks "will not be party central". b. Existing panorama windows on the south-east elevation of the residence have been removed entirely, to provide substantial increased privacy to Page 15 EXHIBIT NO. residents of 2310. c. The Bay-facing windows of the proposed kitchen extension have been reduced significantly (50%), despite the considerable loss of view from the primary living space of 2308, thereby increasing privacy for 2310. d. Significant use has been made of privacy screens on both the upper and lower decks, notwithstanding significant compromise to views from 2308, and notwithstanding a prevailing absence of such screens at other properties along Mar East. Planning Staff noted that opaque privacy screens on the lower deck, and louvered privacy screens on the upper deck fully address visual privacy impacts for the bedroom at 2306. 3. Lighting & Glazing In response to comment from residents of 2306, the following adjustments have been made to minimize potential light intrusion. a. Lighting on the proposed decks has been changed to down lighting not exceeding a height of two feet above the deck surface. b. Total glazing area on the south-west elevation (adjoining 2306) has been limited to an area not exceeding the existing glazing area. This has resulted in a reduction of glazing area on the primary view spaces of 2308 most proximate to the residence of 2306. RESPONSE TO MATTERS RAISED IN APPEALS BY RESIDENTS OF 2310 AND 2306 MAR EAST. As a context for our response to the Appeals filed against the DRB approval, we believe it is extremely important for Council to be familiar with, and consider, the zoning history relating the property. As pointed our elsewhere, 2308, 2310, and 2312 Mar East were at one time all owned by the same individual, Mr. Raymond G. Handley. 2308 was the first residence constructed on these lots, followed by 2312, and then 2310. Prior to the construction of 2310 Mar East (the property now owned by Mr. & Mrs. Kulik), the property line between 2308 & 2310 was located approximately 9' to the east of the dwelling at 2308, providing a conforming 8' side-yard setback along the eastern perimeter of 2308. In 1969, Mr. Handley filed an application with the Town of Tiburon to construct 2310, requesting a 6' side-yard setback to the east (adjoining 2312), and a zero side-yard setback to the west (i.e., adjoining 2308). Initially, the Town approved this application granting the requested variances, subject to conditions. However, in 1971, Mr. Handley withdrew his application, and filed a request for a lot line adjustment to the eastern boundary of 2310, moving the boundary 8' to the west; i.e., 8 Page 16 EXHIBIT NO, a 7,PA, feet closer to 2308. This lot line adjustment removed the need for a side-yard setback on the proposed residence at 2310. HOWEVER, THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IMMEDIATELY CREATED A SUB-STANDARD, NON-CONFORMING SIDEYARD AT 2308 MAR EAST. Upon being granted the lot line adjustment by the Town, Mr. Handley re-submitted his plans for a residence at 2310, which were subsequently approved. In granting the lot line adjustment, the Town explicitly acknowledged that the adjustment would create a sub-standard, non-conforming side-yard at 2308, requiring the need for an implied retroactive variance. In correspondence from the Town relating to this matter, the side- yard variance required by 2308 was explicitly granted by precedence (please see attached correspondence). We consider this history a material issue relating to our application, significantly mitigating the circumstances surrounding each of the variances requested, but particularly mitigating the side-yard setback variance. Had the lot line adjustment not been granted by the Town in 1971, 2308 Mar East would today be a conforming lot and the side-yard setback variance would not be required. Furthermore, we believe from reviewing Town records, that neither the Town nor Mr. Handley ever intended 2308 Mar East to be damaged or prejudiced from the resulting lot line adjustment. Now requiring strict adherence to current side-yard setback requirements would indeed do so. Against this background, we provide the following response to the appeals filed against the DRB approval. 1. APPEAL BY MS. MAGDALENA YESIL & MR. JIM WICKERT, RESIDENTS OF 2306 MAR EAST In their appeal, the owners of 2306 Mar East acknowledged that two of the four conditions necessary to grant the requested variances have been met. The owners are protesting the Board's finding of "hardship to the applicant (owners of 2308)", as well as the finding of "no injury to neighboring properties". At the outset, we would point out that DRB made findings that the application would not be injurious to the surrounding properties and there existed facts demonstrating practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the applicant. Further, the DRB noted that almost all properties in the surrounding Mar East area are non-conforming and have been granted variances. Our response to their appeal is as follows: 1. Hardship to the Applicant (Owners of 2308) As noted by the Board, 2308 Mar East is a significantly "prejudiced" property for many reasons, including: i. A historical lot line adjustment to the western boundary line of 2310 Mar East, granted by the Town of Tiburon in 1971, thereby creating a sub-standard, non-conforming side-yard at 2308, and Page 7 EXHIBIT NO. 3 now requiring a side-yard setback variance for the current application. ii. The significantly greater setback of the residence from the Bay, relative to other properties along Mar East; iii. The significant setback of the residence from the southern envelope of its two immediately adjoining properties; iv. The lack of usable upper and lower deck space affording unobstructed views of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge, and open access to sun, light and air movements, features enjoyed by every other waterfront property along Mar East; v. The lack of a functioning dock, affording access to the Bay for boating and other water-based recreation, a feature enjoyed by both immediately adjoining properties; vi. The lack of access for maintenance along its water-front edge. A significant portion of the house is set on piers rising 8-12 feet above the Bay floor, which at high tide is under water, and at low tide is typified by moss-covered boulders and a variety of marine growth. The main structure is a 2 story dwelling sitting atop the piers. The residence currently has no access for maintenance along its water-front edge. As a result, this portion of the house is significantly decayed. The use of ladders or scaffolding is impractical, extremely unsafe, and potentially injurious to the Bay eco-system. As a result, the residence is being denied all reasonable means to conduct proper maintenance and up-keep of the property; vii. The home's age and general condition, which significantly detract from the overall aesthetic and economic value of the property, and the surrounding community. In its review of the application, the Design Review Board noted these factors, and expressed the unanimous view that to deny the application would indeed create hardship for the applicant. 2. Non-injurious to Neighboring Properties: Privacy & Light Intrusion: The owners of 2306 have suggested intrusions of privacy and light from the proposed plans. These issues have been extensively and thoughtfully considered during discussions with Ms. Yesil and Mr. Wickert, with many adjustments to the design being made, as outlined above. Page 18 EXHIBIT NO. ~jr .gcP26 These issues have also been extensively and thoughtfully considered by members of the Design Review Board, who have unanimously found that: i. Expectations of complete privacy are unreasonable for any residence along the Mar East parcel; ii. Privacy for the residents of 2306 has actually increased through extensive adjustments to the design, especially the use of privacy screens, despite their adverse impacts on views from 2308 and their absence on other properties along the Mar East parcel; iii. Potential light intrusion is minimal, has been adequately addressed by adjustments made to the plan (including glazing limitations and the use of low-level down-lighting), and is less than that created by the residence at 2306. Notwithstanding the Board's findings on the current design, we have also proposed to Ms. Yesil and Mr. Wickert privacy solutions which provide total mitigation of view intrusion. Unfortunately, these designs have been rejected by the appellants. Square Footage: The owners of 2306 have suggested that the proposed design is too large for the surrounding community and that the increased square footage has been achieved through encroachment onto an existing lower deck. The proposed design allows for a modest family home that corrects significant design limitations of the existing residence, including a severely restricted, non-functional kitchen. Questions have been raised by our neighbors concerning the intended purpose of the home. While we find these questions intensely personal, we are nonetheless willing to share our intentions with Council for the purpose of this appeal. We purchased this home as our ultimate retirement residence and hope to spend the remainder of our useful lives there. We are hoping to start a family, and expect our children will grow up there. We both have disabled immediate family, whom we expect will visit or perhaps ultimately live with us, necessitating wheelchair-friendly single-level access and accommodation on the upper level. As a professor at UC Berkeley, I plan to use at least one room as a study to continue my research and writing. In light of these intentions, we do not consider the functional design or area of the house excessive. As a reference point on the actual area proposed, attached is an inventory of other properties in the immediate area showing the publicly reported square footage of each property. As shown by the attachment, the proposed residence is not significantly larger than other two-story homes in the community, including either immediately adjoining property. Page 19 EXHIBIT No. S to c-PA Indeed, a number of homes in the Mar East neighborhood are substantially larger than the proposed design. In numerous cases, the floor areas of neighboring dwellings exceed the total area of the parcel upon which they sit. However, it is important to note that the impacts of the proposed design on the existing home envelope are minimal, approximately 55 square feet associated with the proposed upper-level kitchen addition. All other area adjustments are incorporated within the existing covered porch area or entrance walkway of the current structure. The proposed design attempts to makes more efficient use of existing floor space, without increasing the envelope, by: i. eliminating unusable dead spaces; ii. providing direct access to each bedroom separately (currently this is not possible on the lower level, since access to the second bedroom downstairs is only possible via the existing master bedroom); iii. reducing the size of the existing master bedroom, despite compromising view and light access; As noted by the DRB, the proposed design is not out of character with other homes in the community. Concerning the suggestion that the design encroaches upon an existing lower-level deck, simply to replace it with a new deck, it should be noted that the current lower-level deck off the main bedroom does not fit the character of a traditional deck. It is not an open air deck. It is actually a porch covered by the upper living space of the residence. Hence, it allows for no access to the direct sunlight that would normally be expected from a deck. Notwithstanding this limitation, a major portion of this existing deck/porch is being retained in its current form in order to minimize the need for further extensions towards the Bay. Not extending the deck as proposed will fail to address the significant maintenance and lifestyle issues outlined above. Ms. Yesil and Mr. Wickert have suggested removing the roof of the existing envelope in order to create an open-air deck and provide the benefits enjoyed by other waterfront properties along Mar East. This would create three major hardships: It would impose a significant structural challenge to the design; ii. It would dramatically increase the cost of the proposed design; Page 110 EXHIBIT No. 3 ib. i CPA iii. It would significantly reduce the existing square footage of the house, denying us the opportunity to build a home in which we could retire or accommodate handicapped (wheelchair bound) relatives. Our need is to have single-level (no stairs) access to at least one- bedroom, one bathroom, a functional kitchen, and an open-plan living/dining room. This would not be possible if the existing envelope of the home was cannibalized in order to provide an open- air deck on either level of the home. 2. APPEAL BY MR & MRS. DAVID KULIK, OWNER OF 2310 MAR EAST As indicated above, Mr. & Mrs. Kulik have only recently become residents of 2310 Mar East, having purchased their property in late November, 2011. In making their purchase decision, the Kuliks were acting as fully informed buyers, having been aware since at least November 2011 of the risk of potential improvements at 2310, and knowing fully (from an inspection of the original story poles) that such improvements could potentially be much more extensive than the design finally approved by the Board. Mr. and Mrs. Kulik made their formal purchase decision the day immediately preceding our first appearance before the DRB. Notwithstanding this context, Mr. and Mrs. Kulik have had ample opportunity to provide input into the design across multiple forums since early December 2011, including: 1. Direct dialogue with ourselves, our architect, and an impartial intermediary across multiple face-to-face meetings, both in the presence of neighbors from 2306, and separately. On all such occasions, Mrs. Kulik has not been present, so we are unable to determine her views and opinions relating to the application; 2. Direct dialogue with Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, who have personally visited the Kulik property to assess and discuss first-hand the impacts of the proposed design; 3. At least two full hearings of the Tiburon Design Review Board, the first of which, on May 3, 2012, represented the first formal hearing of the proposed plan (the original plan submitted in December 2011 having been withdrawn to allow time to incorporate the initial feedback from the DRB). In effect, Mr. and Mrs. Kulik have had every formal and informal opportunity for their perspectives on the design to be adequately heard by the DRB. Indeed, it appears that the DRB has extensively and carefully considered the matters raised by the owners of 2310 in their appeal and have acted responsibly and thoroughly in reaching their conclusion. Throughout the review process, Mr. Kulik has failed to make any constructive suggestions for modification of the design, instead unilaterally insisting that the design is "illegal" and must be dropped in its entirety. We are confident this is not consistent with the community engagement process intended by the Town. Page 111 EXHIBIT NO. In light of this context, to suggest that the DRB has acted in "gross negligence" or "abusively" (as asserted by Mr. Kulik in his appeal) is an unfortunate and inappropriate misrepresentation of the review process. In this regard, we consider Mr. & Mrs. Kulik's request for a de novo review of the design to be unnecessary, unreasonable and potentially injurious to the applicant, causing further delays to the project for no apparent benefit. More important, we feel the Kuliks' decision to purchase 2310 with full knowledge of the risk of neighboring improvements represents a clear case of "moral hazard": i.e., acceptance of a known risk by the purchaser, for which others (i.e., the Town of Tiburon) are now expected to be responsible. As an analogy, this is equivalent to an individual knowing of an airport expansion plan, but proceeding to purchase a home adjacent to the airport regardless, and then protesting the plan and expecting intervention by others to abort the plan. Clearly, this is unreasonable and ignores the fact that any potential impacts of the plan on this owner, including view, privacy and economic impacts would have already been considered by an informed buyer. Nonetheless, we are pleased to respond to the matters raised in the Kulik appeal as follows: Reduced Setback Variance: This issue has been addressed extensively earlier in our response. The direct cause of the side-yard setback issue is the granting of a lot line adjustment to the owner of 2310 by the Town of Tiburon in 1971, the effect of which was to immediately create a sub-standard, non-conforming side-yard setback at 2308 Mar East. Our application, and the approval granted by the DRB merely continues the precedent formally approved by the Town under the lot line adjustment. On the specific matters relating to the side-yard setback raised in the Kulik appeal, we provide the following response. Proximity of Lower Deck to 2310: The proximity of the proposed lower deck to 2310 reported by Mr. Kulik (i.e., 8 feet) is factually inaccurate. Per the lot line adjustment referenced above, the current distance between the two properties at their closest proximity is approximately 9 feet. Further, as the property extends towards the Bay, this setback increases. As can be seen from the recorded plot map, and a recent survey conducted by a licensed surveyor, the lot line between the two properties begins to angle southwest, towards the Golden Gate Bridge, from a point directly at the south-east edge of existing dwelling: i.e., begins to angle away from the residence on 2310 at the south-east corner of 2308. To ensure the existing side-yard setback conforms to this lot line, both the proposed upper-level extension and the lower level deck are set further to Page 112 EXHIBIT NO 3 C~l the west than the existing dwelling, thus increasing the setback from 2310, compared to the existing dwelling. As a result, the proposed side- yard setback is actually larger than the current setback, approximating 10 to 1 I feet at the point referenced in r. Kulik's appeal. Further, the plan incorporates extensive privacy screening and glazing reduction along the eastern property line, the effect of which, in the opinion of the DRB, is to substantially increase privacy compared to the current environment. Such privacy screening is rare or non-existing among other waterfront properties along Mar East. Finally, the section of the lower deck referred to in this section of Mr. Kulik's appeal is again very shallow (5' 10"), more commensurate with a balcony than a deck. Since it is attached to the main bedroom, it is not intended, nor is it suitable for, high-activity use. The intended use is for occasional outside relaxation to enjoy the morning sun. Therefore, the suggested noise impacts are minimal. Concerning view impacts, this issue has been carefully considered by the DRB. The referenced view is from a narrow vertical window set well back from the proposed extension. As such, the primary encumberance on the view from this window is the existing dwelling, not the proposed improvements. The design continues an existing view easement between the two properties, explained further below. In the opinion of the DRB, since this is not a primary view space for 2310, the view impacts are not injurious. Finally, an equally important purpose of the lower-level deck is to provide maintenance access along the water-bound southern perimeter of the house. As discussed elsewhere, denying this deck will simply continue a long history of arduous, if not impossible, maintenance conditions, leading to continued neglect of the property. Proximity of Upper-Level Kitchen Extension: This issue, and our overall response, is similar to the above, only relating to the upper-level improvement. Hence, we will not repeat our general response to the side-yard setback variance issue. The same observations made in the previous section apply equally to this section of Mr. and Mrs. Kulik's appeal. Concerning the noise and odor, the kitchen has been carefully designed to ensure a greatly improved environment for the residents of 2310. First, existing panorama glazing along the eastern and southern sections of the upper level have been removed and replaced with conventional framing, creating a dramatic reduction in noise and view intrusion for both properties. Currently, this glazing allows unobstructed view and noise intrusion into both properties. In the opinion of the DRB, this aspect of the proposed design significantly improves privacy for the residents of 2310. Page 113 EXHIBIT No. 3 V'9- 14 (;P~lb Second, an existing stairwell in the south-east corner of the home, directly adjacent to the living spaces of 2310, has been removed. If retained, this stairwell would be one of the primary sources of noise intrusion for the residents of 2310. Third, the remaining windows along the southern fagade of the extension (i.e., facing the Bay) have been reduced from panorama windows to conventional counter-level windows, reducing likely noise and privacy intrusion even further. Fourth, concerning odor, the kitchen design places highly efficient and effective ventilation approximately ten feet to the west and north of the southeast corner of the design. This places the ventilation more than twenty feet away from the bedroom of 2310, a distance which would be allowable under conforming side-yard setbacks. Finally, concerning view impacts, this issue has again been carefully considered by the DRB. The referenced view is from a small porthole window inside an existing clothes closet on the lower level of 2310. In the opinion of the DRB, since this is not a primary view space for 2310, the view impacts are not injurious. View Intrusion, Upper-Level Residence at 2310: The appellants have claimed view intrusion to the living room and terrace of their upper-level duplex. This matter has been carefully reviewed by the DRB, which has found no injurious impacts from the proposed design. It is important to note three aspects the proposed design that support the Board's findings. First, when the Town of Tiburon granted 2310 its requested lot line adjustment in 1971, they required 2310 to allow for an eight foot wide view easement between the two properties, for the benefit of all neighbors. The proposed design fully conforms to this view easement, and in fact increases it. Second, in accordance with the parcel lot line, which angles away from the Kulik residence at the point of the proposed extension, the kitchen extension is set back (to the west) further than the existing 2308 structure. As a result, the extension allows for greater view access compared to the setback of the existing structure. Third, the views from this upper unit at 2310 are currently encumbered by the existing roof line of 2308, and have been so since the dwelling was constructed in the early 1970's. This is an existing limitation of the unit. However, in recognition of this view perspective, the proposed design significantly restricts the size of the extension, and significantly lowers the roof line of the extension relative to the existing 2308 structure by approximately 6 feet. Together, these design features mean that the Page 1 14 EXHIBIT NO. fjrc 1sd-A bulk of the proposed extension is simply not visible from the upper unit of 2310. Excess Lot Coverage: The residents of 2310 are also appealing a variance approved by the DRB for excess lot coverage. As noted by Planning Staff and the DRB, this issue pertains to virtually every waterfront property along Mar East, each of which sits on a tidal parcel severely restricting available dry land area upon which to construct a home. Strict interpretation of the lot coverage requirement would mean that nearly all waterfront homes along Mar East could either not be built, or need to be significantly reduced in size. Indeed, strict adherence to existing lot size requirements (35% lot coverage) would restrict the residence at 2308 Mar East to a maximum of 706 square feet. Notably, none of the existing homes along the Mar East parcel meet such a restrictive lot size requirement. The issue for consideration by the Town is therefore not whether the requested variance is exceptional, but more appropriately whether the lot coverage is reasonable in relation to surrounding properties, including immediately adjacent neighboring residences. In this regard, Town Planning Staff have described the proposed improvements as modest, and not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. This observation is supported by the attached inventory of other properties in the immediate vicinity, many of which are significantly larger than 2308. The proposed design increases the lot coverage by approximately 300 square feet, from 67.4% lot coverage to 71.1%. However, the bulk of this lot coverage increase falls within the existing footprint of the current structure. The actual expansion of the dwelling envelope is an extremely modest 55 square feet. As noted by the DRB, the residence at 2308 is set back further than any other waterfront property along Mar East, and especially so in relation to both 2306 and 2310. In this regard, it is our understanding that both residences adjoining our property exceed their required lot coverages. In particular, in addition to a 2,505 square foot three-bedroom residence, the property at 2306 Mar East has a deck covering a total of 1660 square feet. The residence at 2310 Mar East contains four bedrooms designed as two units, covering a total area of 2,766 square feet, and has a multi- level deck and dock protruding 60 feet into the Bay. Notwithstanding, significant modifications have been made to the proposed design resulting in: Page 115 EXHIBIT NO. 1b- 16 9A i. A 65% reduction in the overall size of the proposed upper and lower decks, from 770 square feet to a combined 280 square feet; ii. A reduction in the overall design and depth of the proposed upper and lower decks, from 12' to 5' 10", ensuring no intrusion into the primary view spaces of either immediately adjoining property. In light of these considerations, we respectfully submit that the DRB's approval of the excess lot coverage variance is entirely consistent with the prevailing development context and precedent for the Mar East parcel. In closing, we respectfully summarize our response by suggesting: • The DRB has acted both responsibly and thoughtfully in approving our application. The suggestion of negligence and abuse of responsibility is a significant misrepresentation of the actual review process; • The DRB findings in support of the requested variances are consistent with the intent and requirements of the Town of Tiburon planning code; • The DRB findings in support of the requested variances are entirely consistent with prevailing development along the Mar East parcel. No special exception is being made; • The design fully complies with the many refinements and adjustments required by the DRB arising out of the review process; • We have acted in both the spirit and the letter of the neighborhood consultation process throughout the review process; • As a result of the review process, the proposed improvements are both modest and reasonable; Accordingly, we respectfully request that the appeals be denied, and the process of improving our property, and the Mar East community, be allowed to proceed unencumbered. Thank you in anticipation. Sincerely, Dr. Peter C. Wilton Ms. Sono Zhang Page 116 EXHIBIT NO. C,~ -i7(-,P,76 EXHIBIT NO or-, - i 1~?A INVENTORY OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY MAR EAST, TIBURON For Development Application: 2308 Mar East, Tiburon Source: Public Records, MLS DWELLING SQUARE ADDRESS BDR/BTH FOOTAGE 5 Mar Centro 4/5 4,950 2344 Mar East 6/6 4,800 2120 Mar East 6/6 4,286 2024 Paradise 3/3 4,189 2105 Mar East 5/4.5 3,986 2457 Mar East 5/4.5 3,805 52 Linda Vista 4/3.5 3,472 2332 Mar East 3/4 3,460 2550 Paradise Dr 4/3 3,376 2514 Mar East 4/3 3,304 2485 Mar East 5/3.5 3,292 34 Linda Vista 4/2.5 3,243 36 Linda Vista 3/3.5 3,177 2102 Mar East 6/5 3,134 2030 Paradise 6/4 3,054 30 Linda Vista 3/3 3,013 2472 Mar East 3/4 2,981 2130 Mar East 3/3.5 2,979 2304 Mar East 5/3 2,969 2461 Mar East 4/3 2,952 2280 Mar East 3/2.5 2,913 2386 Mar East 3/3.5 2,881 2310 Mar East 4/4 2,766 2218 Mar East 3/2.5 2,756 2517 Mar East 4/2.5 2,750 2205 Mar East 3/2.5 2,741 2338 Mar East 3/2.5 2,710 2475 Mar East 4/3.5 2,686 54 Linda Vista 4/4 2,660 2343 Mar East 4/3 2,651 2101 Mar East 3/3 2,621 2540 Paradise Dr 3/2.5 2,620 2226 Mar East 2/3 2,614 2312 Mar East 2/2 2,608 2210 Mar East 3/3 2,604 2381 Mar East 3/2 2,595 2392 Mar East 4/4 2,545 2306 Mar East 2/2.5 2,505 EXHIBIT NO. 3 j~j .1l c- -26 2420 Mar East 3/3.5 2,437 2334 Mar East 5/3 2,414 2396 Mar East 3/3.5 2,397 2330 Mar East 2/3.5 2,366 2486 Mar East 4/3.5 2,363 2506 Mar East 3/2.5 2,334 2580 Mar East 3/3.5 2,290 2100 Mar East 3/3 2,276 2028 Paradise 3/2 2,225 2322 Mar East 2/2 2,169 2219 Mar East 4/2.5 2,155 2026 Paradise 2/2.5 2,145 2260 Mar East 4/3 2,134 2180 Mar East 3/3 2,056 2431 Mar East 4/3 2,051 2311 Mar East 3/2.5 2,050 2027 Paradise 3/3 2,001 2236 Mar East 3/3 1,991 2480 Paradise 3/2.5 1,990 2480 Mar East 2/3.5 1,964 2317 Mar East 1,862 2323 Mar East 2/2.5 1,851 2309 Mar East 3/2.5 1,792 2350 Mar East 3/2 1,784 2348 Mar East 2/3 1,770 2042 Paradise 3/2.5 1,743 2550 Mar East 4/2.5 1,725 2393 Mar East 2/2 1,690 2248 Mar East 3/3 1,654 2319 Mar East 2/2 1,433 2448 Mar East 2/2 1,428 2321 Mar East 2/2 1,360 2483 Mar East 2/1 1,350 2387 Mar East 2/1.5 1,314 2044 Paradise 2/2 1,283 2175 Mar East 2/1.5 1,272 2088 Paradise 3/2 1,100 2398 Mar East 1/2 968 2336 Mar East 871 2530 Mar East 2/1 736 EXHIBIT N0. 3 W W26 •r.., 4 a F W as _ • , . ro L n. r n r.. . ' ~t.r - r!y.. . ,,r'',.I' •r, .s , f r'I , , ~ ..'Y{ ,1/':f' 4'f, =J ,t,r t. !.1 f,~ 1 ap. fl. / ,t h $•.e ~,r ll -J , f ' t ~ t + i t t ii'l f. 'l. I. f,- > i ~J r, s• - t it )r. ,ly..- t rYJ ,{:1f.., I. fi• iPnr a ~ r.': +'.'i , r •I>.a ~:i ,.,rl 1 s-,: fJ. " I: ,r' 4 .f+~ I. I ! 1 ..I r 3~~ t I:4a tr¢ f c ~ ,t~ !ryr.u.t fir..: ~ ! r'V 3 tE; s l e { 'r t / PY?~'+ z t, ! 5• ~ r/ I ~ a s r 1 .r r 1 r r .R 71 7r a 7 I y 1 C)N tE° T~f Rte y, S 'FifT: = ' l &.l fZ. , >r.,.. 11r1 ~ f • •J S Ri ,:iJ nr : 3?:',f 1 ~i, .t„i r I I • .i..li... R ^'i r f ' i. ! J+ - t!t :Y i rs: 5sr .;s. - X.5 :s( ~ Y- .r. : .tt~ - I I,f J ~ 1_ is .i .L rr s 1 '.r /•rr,!. ; ..et v+.. -x r; .s;. Jam' ih't w 1! 5 , r r t 1. 47Y t ,r t 1 r r r r t i r ✓ fir ~r r I I t ,•',l; :qtr: ! t a/r i ^i ( - r, ~ f ~S„ f' r r" t P',f, 41 Ir / 'r :d May 3 ,f 972 7 Y a , t! -A I'Z *Ve✓'xa"- 4e ! r _ r It .t r 1 r :i • Y r ix x S rc~n dal of niA All rTO R L I r - r f S s ! : f a ° y r f ~ r t i 1t r i JL 1 t t I. ~ 5e~j. yyVdJ•~~ rr1 {~'=y ~w-w ) - I f!t rf. r ! I. ~.-,t' 6ja ...r' ',r a. n~..~►x~ --t~i~t=~~~~,~ ~:~~~~~~i'r~r~_ a~ ~h~ +~a►,~~~;i~~~ . t. 3 ,r r'- 1. - I ±e~'a i ,i s 7burn:."d noes.:: L y S .ti* > :`f I . .F . bV i ~Q,f ~).+sW~✓..yi yr, t t 5}~Y~er :a 1'icatio~e .axed~i ,11~rcxu~gl!+~~. pesrCet ~ the3~. bAt ldi` ::k"'a.: 'r:./•'sr 1i@: ~!`r t O a r r;.t -ba :.F. _are ui d .gig It a Care W r / - ~ ! h'.::~ 11 tr 7 JrV J t 1 ^ „ f ew r ! r / r J t• a, ,a it ~ + z ry , r , ;I , ' rr:'W. r'r dr S ~r~ e+d -•l~a~:°- ~i~ tie Th. "r - ni -tea ,rxar' .1nxi ry~.Ct}ryy~*~ di:'~~~'td a~cCI r:w p , ,,,x , I k.''sd and'~ge rw.+nt ranted. other; w rds } t,onh" r: + r. i'f r. fx'. t r t'3.. t .~c ~•lJ:_`r+•, a. .•C St P t• P f ~,a _ :1 ' i =r k• Af ,t. q f J. R R t7 T f .11 f 14. e `the''re#d e?ax~ued'>;i , r t41„..t{.itt '"f' / DIY f t „t, r•k v.l r. ::d ~.•r tr 'fr IY- tPlu cwt, xe:t~.v ' x 'r t y.4. 3' .a•' ,^L, y ,p.. y ...s!, t ' .1.: ! i.- • ;x :J;rr :•'r; r. `.r, rt •"i rl f „r_. >r,' _ r.rr d .or, r. - s . e 3 -s r' 'r' !t F , • / _•~r,5r, ^ ; rr _ e yr, • e ?.~zS P3 .~t v ~ I „'.L7 w~T~ ys ~yF 1p~ -gym■L-tai ahd asrben .fl. to >.y. :.'~tr~G.''.:,..1V Y+iF•+W~A.~if L7 `.A+rl.l Mi..r Fa -a~ .I.,a. - .,s • - rt, 1 .J rH° riE I 'i.V' ,k 'L7 ~ ~°'!E :.a.:~,. .:25. t :C r c~.:~a~~ the, C~~d=fib es trat~. •~~~:i1 - .r . - y 'L. - ' r :t Ew ir. i R att a`'r4n 'Ar•. i r~ r ..w y;~~ •~y~.~- ~~~x~y'r~'e fi. "~u 'a~€ :.~ri ;iurtte~.' ~.n~s r.. t i ;t I ti s ~ f ! F .x V~ .rt it I I'z 3"~. r { ''r"2' S •r .7, i " { 1 yy'' a V. I ` t ~ i F > r!✓ 1 L •e i': ) f I ' rti / i f': t. i 't ! ,j r l d' t I 'i K i4 - rr l ~e f Jtn rl , . Y _y - ( ~~S .~tj'S r J 4 r 9e, xs.r I ~ E? s y - r r f I F y Y1,, t", t.y 3 S t ) t,:r 5 j :tJ 'IV -t f0"•", i1'r~ f r t ~J chard'.G..: Y , ~•'s. { w } f. .r •,..•a•. Ar. xl r.. ,i -a r: r ,f .t r.. Q.J. 'L.-. rt. rtctar '.Q Q i3Ii1~ eveb r t+ Er ::.I n§ k J: ) F t} S r~:17' > t 4 J J i r ~ x € .r 'r y r - y., r f Far ~ > uar > _ - a , a . t y kf.f r;,' r-.~ ,,1 -4 i.! ,i , e 'rf, 4... r, i 't- -ri': •r•' ,r l,,> l 7, i.•..., Lr._ rr rs'' •4 , tI t er b..i.r f!~. „P't(. ''r•,+'T • ~~.:+r ' tJ zr e • k f •i i ~ !1~ r F j4 J. , r } 4. ..t f : :'d. r~' ,rt- .i l'r: -1 J ,!It Y J~fi f: ie ~ a, rh r t ! ~ 4t t a; ,r I e - r. + 9 ' J fi..` r r • t r,•'- I i - Ile W. i -r + f _ > _ f. {{r~F,~.J~..~~`~•~/.{~.~ s , a I. t: RICHARD S RIEDE EMAIL rrlede@rmm-law.com RIEDE & MASON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 200 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 94901 TELEPHONE (41 5) 454-9880 FACSIMILE (41 5) 454-6951 TERREL J. MASON EMAIL tmason@rmm-law.com RECEIVED J8 UL 3 0 2012 PLANNING Via Email July 30, 2012 Honorable Jim Fraser, Mayor Members of the Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal from DRB Decision Granting Variances (June 7, 2012) 2308 Mar East Street -Peter Wilton/ Mar East Properties, LLC Tiburon File No. 21116 Dear Mayor Fraser and Council Members: The undersigned represents Dr. Peter Wilton and Mar East Properties, LLC, the owner of 2308 Mar East Street, and the respondent to the appeals filed by neighbors, Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett (2306 Mar East Street) and David and Kathryn Kulik (2310 Mar East Street). As part of the appeal filed by the Kuliks, the residents of 2310 Mar East, the Kuliks incorporated by reference correspondence authored by attorney Leonard Rifkind, dated April 25, 2012, which was submitted to the Design Review Board ("DRB") for the May 3, 2012, hearing. Mr. R.ifkind's correspondence was written in support of the Kulik's opposition to Dr. Peter Wilton's ("Applicant") May 3, 2012, submission. The Applicant's plans submitted on May 3, have since been modified and approved by the DRB at its June 7th meeting. As elaborated in Dr. Wilton's letter to the Council (in response to the appeals), deck sizes have been reduced, window sizes have been reduced and privacy screening has been added. The DRB found that the plans (as revised) actually increase the privacy for the owners of 2310 Mar East, the Kuliks. The DRB further found that the impacts of the project were minimal and not injurious to the neighbors, and did not have significant impacts on privacy, noise and light. Nor does the plan as approved by the DRB block the Kulik's view from primary living space. Many of the observations and conclusions set forth in Mr. Rifkind's correspondence are now moot, contain hyperbole and are an exaggeration of the alleged impacts of the Wilton app ion. TTpon review of~the facts, th~RB did not find "`significant and material-impacts on the Kuliks' view and privacy". Moreover, the Wilton application was found to be a "modest" plan, in character with the neighborhood, and hardly consisted of "radically changing the exterior" (as Mr. Rifkind states at page 4 of his letter). EXHIBIT NO. S cx-, -2-z- :;P!6 RIEDE & MASON Hon. Jim Fraser, Mayor and Council Members July 30, 2012 Page 2 of 5 R-2 Residential Zoning Development Standards are Satisfied by Pending Application: Mr. Rifkind's correspondence contends that the pending application would not satisfy the R-2 residential zoning development standards as the existing residence is a non-conforming structure, and additions or expansions should not be allowed. This position is, of course, a strict and literal interpretation of Tiburon Code Section 16-62.030(A)2. (no non-conforming use shall be moved, altered, enlarged or extended in any way that would increase non-conformity, However, the variance procedure provides a method to mitigate against the strict or literal interpretation of a development standard that would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships to an applicant. The very purpose of a variance is to provide relief from the "strict or literal interpretation and enforcement" of development standards that causes "practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships". Section 16-52.030(A) I and 2. In the context of the Mar East neighborhood, most of the properties and residences located in the Mar East area are non-conforming, as they are located on tidal lots, which as a practical effect, reduces the size of the buildable lot. Almost all the residences on the Bay side of Mar East are non-conforming. As the DRB found, to deprive the Applicant of the ability to expand by strictly enforcing the development standards would be to penalize the Applicant as other properties have received variances. When the specifics of the variances requested are scrutinized, the actual changes or expansions are relatively minor and very modest: (1) Side Xard set back - Existing 6 inches; required 8 feet. The project merely requests a variance to continue the existing 6 inches. Observation: the existing lot line was the result of the Town's granting a lot line adjustment that created the current situation of a non- conforming lot, requiring the existing variance. (2) Lot coverage -Existing 67.4%; plan increases to 71.1%. Slight or modest 4% increase. R-2 Zoning District requires 35%. Observation: Applicant believes that none of the residences on Mar East conform to the 35% maximum lot coverage standard. (3) FAR - Existing 2600 square feet; plan calls for 2900 square feet, a modest increase of 300 square feet (approximately 10% increase). Permitted floor area, if strictly applied, would limit the FAR to 706 square feet. Observation: :done of the residences on Mar East are 706 square feet in size. The Applicant would submit that these "increases" are relatively insignificant, minor an in the terms of the DRB, "modest". Desip,n Guiding Principles are Satisfied by Pending Application: Tiburon Ordinance 16-52.020(H) sets forth the guiding principles for a site plan and architectural review. EXHIBIT NO, 3 . cP 6 RIEDE & MASON Hon. Jim Fraser, Mayor and Council Members July 30, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (1) Site plan adequacy - The Applicant submits that the project meets the guideline of "promotes orderly development of the community and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare". The project, as approved by the DRB, represents a modest expansion and is an improvement upgrade to the existing property and is in character with the neighborhood. (2) Site layout in relationship to adjoining sites - Applicant's plans were found to have minimal impact on neighbors' views, privacy, noise and light. Applicant's plans actually eliminate privacy concerns for 2310. By eliminating windows on the East facing portion of the property, the privacy for the owners of 2310 is actually increased. Design features such as screening, opaque glazing, and down-turned lighting mitigate light and privacy effects on the surrounding properties. The reduction in the size of the decks reduces potential privacy and noise impacts. Development Standards Are Satisfied by the Pending Application: Tiburon Ordinance Section 16-30, et seq. (1) Section 16-30.010 purpose - The modest expansion of the building envelope, as approved by the DRB, has been modified to mitigate the impacts on view, light and privacy of the surrounding neighbors such that the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties have been protected. (2) Section 16-30.020 applicability - The requirement that no buildings shall be converted, altered, moved, which are not in compliances or in conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is mitigated by granting of the three variances as the DRB made sufficient findings to substantiate the granting of the three variances. (3) Section 16-30.030(B) and (C) regarding setbacks - As set forth above, the existing setback variance of 6 inches is being maintained, and the variance application is to allow this variance to continue. The historical development of 2310, and the lot line adjustment granted by the Town creating a zero lot line, should be taken into consideration. Findings For Grant of Variances Were Made And Should Be Sustained: Tiburon Code Section 16-52.030(E) requires four specific findings. The Appellants concede that the findings were made for the first two required findings: Finding 1 (special circumstances exist where the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive Applicant of the privileges enjoyed by others); and Finding 2 (the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges). EXHIBIT NO. a-, - 7 A,--A 7 / RIEDE & MASON Hon. Jim Fraser, Mayor and Council Members July 30, 2012 Page 4 of 5 Thus, Finding 3 (strict application of the Zoning Ordinance results in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship) and Finding 4 (granting of variance shall not be detrimental to general welfare or injurious to other property) are the focus of the two appeals by the neighboring property owners. Before addressing the issue of the DRB's findings, a preliminary question must be addressed what are "findings"? Findings are "legally relevant subconclusions" that support an agency's ultimate conclusion. Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 516. The California Supreme Court in the Topanga case explained that the intended effect of findings is "to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusion". Id, at page 515. Next inquiry, what is the purpose of the findings? Findings serve a "public relations function" by demonstrating to the parties that the City made its decision in a careful, reasoned and equitable manner. Topanga Assn., Id. at page 517. Findings also "bridge the analytical gap between raw evidence" and an agency's ultimate decision. Id. at page 515. The next and most important inquiry--what were the findings of the DRB? The DRB focused on the requirements for Findings Nos. 3 and 4, and included: • "Cookie cutter" zoning has been imposed on the Mar East neighborhood and that although most lots seem large, only part of the lots can be built upon [due to tide lot restrictions] which results in most of the houses having floor area exceptions. • Noise impacts reduced by minimizing the deck to a 5 foot deck or balcony. • Addition of sliding glass doors on lower floor looking into a fence is not injurious to a neighbor. • In Mar East many of the homes are close together and there is no expectation of total privacy. • There is a "trade-off when someone chooses to live in this environment". • The subject lot is "pulled back so far" that it creates a practical difficulty. • No special grant of privilege to this Applicant because "every other home in the area has been granted a variance". • The plan does not significantly change the character of the building. • "Blanket zoning" of the Mar East area has caused the houses to be non-conforming. EXHIBIT NO. RIEDE & MASON Hon. Jim Fraser, Mayor and Council Members July 30, 2012 Page 5 of 5 • A 5 foot deck would be like a balcony, and, therefore, would not involve loud parties. • Screening completely eliminates the view of the next door bedroom. • The Applicant's proposal is modest because of the size of the house. • "Every house around it has decks it would be a hardship not to be able to enjoy a deck on the water when all of the neighbors enjoy such decks." • The project would not be injurious to other properties but instead enhances their privacy and residents in the neighborhood "live in a very open environment that would not be made worse by this project". • The subject property is smaller than neighboring houses and the request is small. The final inquiry-- are the findings adequate?. There must be substantial evidence in the record to support the required findings. Topanga Assn., Id., at Page 511. The Applicant submits that the DRB proceeded in a manner that included conducting three public hearings, considered the Staff Report, considered the neighboring properties' opposition to the project, considered the appropriate ordinances in light of the application, and reviewed photographs, plans and observed the subject property and the neighboring properties. The DRB evaluated the project over several meetings and required substantial modifications (all of which the Applicant followed and incorporated into revised plans). The DRB methodically evaluated the facts and made each of specific findings as required by the Tiburon Code relating to practical hardship (Finding 3) and injury to neighboring properties (Finding 4). The DRB found that if the Zoning Ordinance was strictly applied, a practical difficulty and hardship would befall the Applicant, and the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the general public or injurious to neighboring properties. The unanimous decision to grant the Applicant's request for three separate variances is supported by the findings and the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. For the foregoing reasons, the Appellants' appeals should be denied and the DRB's findings and decision to grant the variances should be upheld. Respectfully submitted, - RIEDE-&-MASON---- Jel J. M on cc: Dr. Peter Wilton Paul Smith, Esq. EXHIBIT NO. ~ 09 ~6 WA t~ Jx- TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION o Conditional Use Permit o Precise Development Plan o Secondary Dwelling Unit c Zoning Text Amendment o Rezoning or Prezoning o General Plan Amendment o Change of Address TYPE OF APPLICATION o Design Review (DRB) o Design Review (Staff Level) o Variance(s) o Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign Permit o Tree Permit IECEIVI D y r hAt, - b ; l ; IN` DIVISION PLANN Tentative Subdivision Map o Final Subdivision Map o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjustment o Condominium Use Permit o Certificate of Compliance o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION zo 17 S' F pF2,Y t.a4 ~ v SITE ADDRESS: 23CF5 P-1 AF?, Eay-f PROPERTY SIZE: 11,0ao S.F. PARCEL NUMBER: 0 5 ~ r ~ ~ - a 1 ZONING: f5 - 0- PROPERTY OWNER: Mr-__fr E-refz- W 1 i Tv MAILING ADDRESS: z3 c} MAR A~~ L") r- 01 f tr) ; PHONE/FAX NUMBER: 4--Z-G7 - s ! E-MAIL: APPLICANT (Outer ±han. Property Owne?:;:__r~ crI A n~ f~i~ !a v iZ ► ~!-j MAILING,yDDRESS.- 1 GtNT (u P~t7. Sc~ ITC- C-1 NiaSAt i T-o 4.1) & S Pfl0NE/FAX NUMBE-R: 41 c;- 33 - 'ate ! d E-MAIL: r'l c r+A/>~~vSN~ r E,-I Y>a~l~%c►, (cr7 ►iG AIZCIIITECT/DESIGNER/ ENGINEER _ Cj13nt f- PC, MAILING ADDRESS: Pl 0NEiFAX NUMBER: MAIL: Please indicate with an asterisk (k) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate street if'needed): ~x- _tkVq,T7G4 Tv -rHe t1/1A<_-r , gFr,, 0 TA 1P_eu, 14 Ar~»; nr),.t e'er c~.C' . ,Qr'Par'. FOP,. APP r Tic, 7ro "rte F ~r a nr2 , r/ e, m P P NTP- c..299 N0 1r4 G r1E -e- AK- eF ~n [rr:enr~r-1,x.1c; 1t4T17-r'r,,t?. F-Xrc',~ziOiZ 1. the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Munucipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of niy knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approva is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third pasty, I will be responsible for defending, against this challenge. 1 therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town. and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town ha,?nJess from any costs, claims ~ 4' ' s arising from. the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attornr-. ?at•mir lit s t roni the third party challenge. Signa T Date: *If other thin owner, rrrust hav, . rn ~ or.izatiorn letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control r~/'the prolmill, or premises for pnjrposes of flung this application DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION Application No.: ~l GP Designation: Fee Deposit: Date Received: Received By: Receip f J tv/~ c~/ I Date [teemed Complete: By: ~iS I Action Bodv: Action: Date: 011C- Condition.; of A) li•oval or Con ini1, tli: Resolution or Ordinance # 1~ - EXHIB~~' NO. ~ RECEI EP PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (415)-435-7390 www.ci.tiburon.ca.us APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships must be caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site. Please refer to Section 16.52.030 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances. WHAT VARIANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING? Condition Front Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback Left Side Yard Setback Right Side Yard Setback Lot Coverage Height Parcel Area Per Dwelling Unit Usable Open Space Parking Expansion of Nonconformity _ Other (Please describe): This Magnitude Zoning Existing Application Of Variance Requirement Condition Proposes Requested it r, K S r t rJ c r ~ ~ ~ c FI ,C c rl' r. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON Page 1 REV 06/10 EXHIBIT L~ NO. DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): TI+E 1. Briefly describe the proposed project: Lou&, ► t , A yy + ri &A Tw rrc~d /2 i- S, 10 C- A K L-5 RLl J91912 117 C4 1-D Or, i FLT _A nV r rr r 1-1 TO i7-f(F r TC i_ c=nt P OTF- Y CA 41714 C, dc= w 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-100.020(L)):( I I" o0o -IC -,,A '2C'r 7 V' LA 4 0 RECbVE6 3. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): MAR -5, L Existing r r,1 Q L E Ea fir= t f7 E 0 Ti PLANNING DIVISION Proposed h 4. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, turnaround or maneuvering areas. kD CAA 4 TO BE ;COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITION : -.PROPOSED CAL- PER ZONE AND/OR ALTERATION CULATED Yards (Setbacks from property line)( (Section 16-100.020(Y)* ft. ft, ft, ft. f ft. Front c dH;,r 4 ft. f 33. S ft. ft. ft. Rear j - ft• ~ - & Right Side ft. h/c C4,9w c, f ft. ft• ft. ft. rrq T~sft.,~ ft. ft. ft. Left Side G~ ft. A/Z EFpq Maximum Height cr~~~~,~ j ft. 30 ft. (Section 16-30.050)* ft. ft• ft. Lot Coverage * SCI-ft ,,b sq.ft. (Snrtinn 1 ti 1 ?0(tll ,,~7 sa _ft. s .ft. 1A Z . s. q•ft- Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area % % Gross Floor Area Z S 9, S j 3 C , 7 CG' 3 ~U6 (Section 16-100.020(F))* sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. *Section numbers reter to specltlc provisions or aeTinnions in the ir)uren MUNUIPd1 \.IUUI= ,aY«l IV TowN OF TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM REV 7/10 EXHIBIT NO. v' E D1 RICHARD PEARGE, EIRE CHEF 1679 TI URO N BOULEVARD, T BURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 TELEPHONE (41-51 -435-7200 FAX: (415) 435-7205 TO: TIBURON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Mar. 26, 2012 FROM: Ron Barney, Fire Marshal RE: 2308 Mar East Street The proposed addition to and remodel of the residence at 2308 Mar East Street shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District: 1) The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2 2) Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10 Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans. Cc: file EXHIBIT NO. Ar 6.4 cf'5- MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169 www.marinwater.org June 18, 2012 Service No. 14401 Laurie Tyler Town of Tiburon Planning Dept 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon CA 94920 RE: WATER AVAILABUTY - Single Family Dwelling Assessor's Parcel No.: 059-195-01 Location: 2308 Mar East St., Tiburon Dear Ms. Tyler: The above referenced parcel is currently being served. The purpose and intent of this service are to provide water to a single family dwelling. The proposed remodeling of the existing structure will not impair the District's ability to continue service to this property. Compliance with all indoor and outdoor requirements of District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation is a condition of water service. Indoor plumbing fixtures must meet specific efficiency requirements. Landscape plans shall be submitted, and reviewed to confirm compliance. The Code requires a landscape plan, an irrigation plan, and a grading plan. Any questions regarding District Code Title 13 - Water Conservation should be directed to the Water Conservation Department at (415) 945-1497. You can also find information about the District's water conservation requirements online at www.marinwater.org. Should backflow protection be required, said protection shall be installed as a condition of water service. Questions regarding backflow requirements should be directed to the Backflow Prevention Program Coordinator at (415) 945-1559. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (415) 945-1531. Very truly yours,n Joseph Eischens Engineering Technician JE:mp cc: Town of Tiburon Building Dept EXHIBIT NO. recycled recyclable V To: From: Members of the Design Review Board Community Development Department Design Review Board Meeting June 7, 2012 Agenda Item: 2 Subject: 2308 Mar East Street; File No. 21207; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks and Excess Lot Coverage, and a Floor Area Exception Continued from May 3, 2012 Reviewed By: BACKGROUND This application was previously reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 1, 2011. During the meeting, the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street spoke in opposition to the project, noting potential privacy, view, and lighting impacts. The Board also voiced similar concerns, and encouraged the applicant to work out a compromise with the neighbors, as these impacts appeared to be substantial to both neighbors. The Board struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances requested, and continued the application in order to give the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors on both modifications and an adequate compromise, in order to move forward. Since the December meeting, the applicant requested several continuances for the project and ran up against a Permit Streamlining Act deadline. As such, the applicant withdrew the application, and subsequently filed a new application to re-start the clock for the Permit Streamlining Act. The Board reviewed the new application at the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, at which time several modifications were made to the project between the December and the May 3rd meeting, in order to respond to both the Board and the neighbor's concerns. At the May 3rd meeting, several neighbors spoke in opposition to the project, including the owners of 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The neighbors noted remaining concerns regarding the amount of glazing and lighting impacts, in addition to privacy, noise and view infringements. Overall, the Board was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns, and agreed that more could be done to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts for 2306 Mar East, but ultimately felt that the project, as designed, would improve privacy for 2310 Mar East. Regardless, the Board provided further direction to the applicant to modify the project, which included pulling the upper level deck back to align with the proposed lower level deck, reduce the amount of glazing at the entry area, and eliminate the horizontal screening system on the upper level deck and replace it with a vertical screening system. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10 l c~t5 NO. 5, EXEIIT TOWN OF TIBURON 9:zc 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 In general, the Board recognized that there did not appear to be a way for all parties to be happy with the project, but explained that privacy is limited for decks and living areas in homes along Mar East Street. The Board recognized that the project was challenging, but overall felt that the applicant should be permitted to expand outside of the existing building envelope, so long as the expansions were modest, which the current proposal appeared to be. The Board continued the project and directed the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and consider the design modifications provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. The main level (street level) of the home includes a dining room, lounge, kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom, a store room, a two-car garage and a large sun room. The lower level of the home includes a bedroom and bathroom, the master bedroom suite, laundry room, a storage cellar, and two decks. The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel to the home. At the main level of the home, the front entry walkway would be partially in-filled for a new interior stairwell, and a small addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear at this level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space and a new larger deck would extend off the existing rear deck. The side deck would remain the same but include a small walkway to access the new rear deck, and a new exterior stair/walkway would be incorporated from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. Tidal lots, such as the subject property, use the area above the mean high tide line (dry land), in determining gross floor area ratio and lot coverage. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1%) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zoning district (35.0%). A variance has therefore been requested for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,194 square feet for a parcel of this size (2,017 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. In addition, the existing left side yard setback is 6 inches. The application proposes a minor expansion within the left side yard, and would continue the non-conforming setback of 6 inches at this side. As the minimum side yard setback in the R-2 zone is 8 feet, a variance has been requested to continue the reduced side yard. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 10 (,t) ~ 2`P& EXHIBIT NO. Proposed color and materials for the dwelling include stucco siding in dark beige, gray window sashes, metallic grey facia, and oiled timber striping at the garage door, fencing and foundation skirt. A color/materials board will be available for review at the board meeting. ANALYSIS Design Issues The applicant has submitted revised plans which intend to respond to both the neighbors' and the Board's concerns regarding privacy and lighting impacts. The following modifications have been made to the proposal: • The proposed upper level deck has been pulled back to align with the proposed addition and lower level deck. • The horizontal privacy screen on the upper level deck has been replaced with two options: either an obscure fabric "sail" or a metal louver screen, both installed at a 45 degree upward angle. • The portions of the lower level deck which are closest to 2306 Mar East now include a 6 foot high obscure glass privacy screen. • The windows on the southwest elevation have been further reduced in size. Staff has viewed and taken photographs (Exhibit 5) of the story poles for the revised project design from the homes at 23 06 & 2310 Mar East Street. The reduced size of the upper level deck would lessen the increase in potential privacy impacts from the decks for both adjacent residences. The appearance of the project would be unchanged from the uppermost and lowermost levels of the house, as well as from the hallway and the porthole window in the hall closet. The opaque privacy screens should address visual privacy impacts for the bedroom at 2306 Mar East Street. However, the angled privacy screen on the upper deck would likely be subject to occasional high winds experienced along this coastline and the "sail" option, in particular, would be unlikely to withstand the elements for any length of time. Both neighboring property owners are still concerned about potential acoustical privacy impacts caused by residents or guests using the new or expanded decks. The owners at 2310 Mar East Street continue to be concerned about privacy impacts from extending decks further out from the building, as the project would eliminate some existing privacy impacts from upper level windows that the neighbors now address with drapes or shades, and create new potential privacy concerns that would need to be addressed by additional lengths of window treatments. These owners are also concerned about the expansion of the lower level deck to a location much closer to their home. The Design Review Board is strongly encouraged to view the revised story poles from the homes at 2306 & 2310 Mar East Street to assess the potential privacy impacts of the revised project design. Hillside Design Guidelines The following portions of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines should be used to evaluate the design of the house as proposed: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 10 EXHIBIT N0. • Goal 2, Principle 6 states that window placement should be controlled for sun, privacy and view. ' t1'alw ~✓iGw ~ rte' A tCA- j J~ 113 4/ ~ i/ " . A a, HG~:~~~GY ~';Cv~L. ~ttl"\ "1:+3~ ~'j1.~rtiv ,.A.j 111 i ' ova Windows proposed on the southwest elevation would still have the potential to result in privacy and lighting impacts on 2306 Mar East Street. • Goal 2, Principle 9 states that acoustic privacy is important to all residents, and that dwelling should be planned with active spaces and possible noise pollution sources screened or controlled to prevent a nuisance to neighbors. ~r 0 1 l V~~ ~ i "Ni ~Y M / •A k-ID, The utilization of the expanded decks at both levels of the dwelling would likely increase the occurrence of noise for the neighbors located at 2306 Mar East and 23 10 Mar East. TOWN OF TIBURON l~ M" s e A M PAGE 4 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. cv~ .,A fcy 9 • Goal 3, Principle 6 states that privacy and views are sometimes in direct conflict. There must be compromise between conflicting objectives of existing dwellings and new ones. Views are very important but so is privacy. Pre-thinking solutions to this problem is important. h{j, e;ell&'F~4-i ow The proposal to expand the decks on the upper and lower levels would improve views for the subject property, but would result in additional privacy infringements, than what currently exist. Section 16-52.020(H) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines guiding principles which are to be considered by the Board in reviewing site plan and architectural review applications. The second principle discusses the need to review the relationship between the proposed improvements, and the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, and location of noise generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and area, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. Therefore, in reviewing the subject application, the Board should consider whether or not there would be a reasonable relationship between the proposed improvements and the dwellings located on the adjacent sites at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street, particularly in regard to potential privacy impacts. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, in addition to a floor area exception. In order to grant the requested variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO,._._,2 OCA. s&Yl The subject site slopes steeply downward towards the bay and is extremely narrow (45 feet in width), similar to many of the properties in the immediate vicinity. The existing structure is constructed partially below the mean high tide line and over Raccoon Strait. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Granting variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage would not constitute a grant of special privileges, as a majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site have requested and been granted multiple variances in order to build more adequately sized dwellings, than what would normally only be permitted, due to the small dry land areas of each parcel. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. The strict application of this ordinance would result in an unnecessary physical hardship if the applicant were required to push the kitchen addition in from the side property line, when there would still be an adequate separation between the neighboring dwelling unit at 2310 Mar East. However, staff is unable to make this finding for the requested variance for excess lot coverage, as the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would not create an unnecessary hardship, but would only limit the applicant to a current building footprint and floor area that already greatly exceeds the limitations for a lot of this size. At the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, several Boardmembers expressed opinions that the subject property is at a disadvantage compared to other properties in the vicinity, due to its position further landward than most other nearby homes and the lack of outdoor decks at the rear of the building. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. It would appear that granting both the reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage variances could be detrimental and/or injurious to the neighboring properties at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street, if the deck expansions and extensions and addition were permitted, due to the potential for view, privacy and lighting infringements. At the May 3rd meeting, several Boardmembers expressed opinions that expectations of privacy for homes along Mar East Street are less than can be expected in other parts of Tiburon, due to the close proximity of structures and outdoor living spaces for homes in this neighborhood. There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested, specifically for the physical hardship and injurious to neighboring properties findings. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 10 5 EXHIBIT NO. 6 v~ In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Design Review Board must make the following findings as required by Section 16-52.020(I[4]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed additions would not substantially alter the visual size and scale of the dwelling, as the proposed additions are minor expansions to existing living areas, currently located either at the rear of the dwelling and covered by the existing roof of the structure, or at the right side of the property, which would not be visually prominent. Therefore, the visual size and scale of the dwelling with the minor additions as proposed would remain compatible with the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms. The proposed additions are minor and would not substantially alter the appearance of the dwelling. While the small expansion to the new kitchen area at the left rear corner of the dwelling would further encroach on the bay, this encroachment would be minor and the overall minor additions to the dwelling would continue to be compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. From the evidence provided, Staff believes there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested floor area exception. However, projects which request both a floor area exception and an excess lot coverage variance are generally viewed as a fundamental overbuilding of the lot, and are usually not supported. This dwelling currently exceeds lot coverage and floor area ratio limits for the R-2 Zone. CONCLUSION The applicant has made several attempts to modify the project in order to reach a compromise with the neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East; however, the neighbors remain opposed to the overall project, due to potential view and privacy infringements that would likely result from the project as proposed. This area along the waterfront on Mar East Street is a unique setting, in which dwellings are located exceedingly close together, while still designed to take advantage of views to the east, south and west. A majority of these properties have decks, balconies, docks and piers extending out over the water from the main structure, in addition to an abundance of windows, glass doors, and glass railings in order to take advantage of these views. Privacy is viewed very differently from one property to the next, and does not solely include views into primary living areas. Privacy is also defined by noise and lighting impacts. The neighbors located adjacent to the subject property have expressed remaining opposition to the project, in that it would still result in expanded opportunities for outdoor noise generation, an TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. 5 a-, 7ePK increase in lighting which could impact nighttime views, as well as provide new outdoor areas in which to view into their living areas. The Design Review Board must determine whether the project has been sufficiently modified to avoid privacy impacts on neighboring residences, given the siting constraints and the different expectations for privacy in the Mar .East neighborhood. If the Board can make such a determination, this should be reflected in articulated findings to support the requested variances. If the Board cannot make such a determination, direction should be given to the applicant to further modify the project design, or the Board should recommend denial of the application. Public Comment As of the date of this report, letters have been received regarding the subject application from the property owners at 2306 & 2310 Mar East Street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board review the project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 16- 52.020(H) (Guiding Principles) and Section 16-52.030(E) (Variances) and Section 16-52.020(I) (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines), and determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301; and 1. Determine whether modifications made to the project have addressed privacy, view and lighting impacts on the adjacent neighbors, and articulate clear findings for the requested variances, specifically for the physical hardship and injurious to neighboring properties findings; and 2. If the board determines that impacts to the adjacent neighbors at 2306 and 2310 Mar East would still remain, and that findings for the variances cannot be articulated, then staff would recommend that the Board either continue the project and provide direction to the applicant on how best to remedy these impacts and variance requests, or deny the project, and direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. 3. If the board determines that the project would be consistent with the principles of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Hillside Design Guidelines and articulates clear findings for the variances requested, it is recommended that the Board approve the project, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Exhibits: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Supplemental Materials from the Applicant 3. Minutes of the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board Meeting 4. Design Review Board Staff Report dated May 3, 2012 5. Story pole photographs 6. Letter fi-om David and Kathryn Kulik, dated May 29, 2012 7. Letter from Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil, dated May 30, 2012 8. Submitted Plans Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner Daniel Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. fD. S'-f8 1 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard .J r Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Associate Planner Tyler Design Review Board Meeting May 3, 2012 Agenda Item: 3 Subject: 2308 Mar East Street; File No. 21207; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setback and Excess Lot Coverage and a Floor Area Exception Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 2308 MAR EAST STREET OWNER: PETER WILTON APPLICANT: MOHAMAD SADRIEH ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 059-195-01 FILE NUMBER: 21116 LOT SIZE: 119000 SQUARE FEET (DRY LAND = 29017) ZONING: R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X/VE DATE COMPLETE: APRIL 11, 2012 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Section 15301. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. The main level (street level) of the home includes a dining room, lounge, kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom, a store room, a two-car garage and a large sun room. The lower level of the home TOWN OF TIBURON P AGV OF 8 EXHIBIT NO. includes a bedroom and bathroom, the master bedroom suite, laundry room, a storage cellar, and two decks. The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel to the home. At the main level of the home, the front entry walkway would be partially in-filled for a new interior stairwell, and a small addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear at this level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space and a new larger deck would extend off the existing rear deck. The side deck would remain the same but include a small walkway to access the new rear deck, and a new exterior stair/walkway would be incorporated from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. Tidal lots, such as the subject property, use the area above the mean high tide line (dry land), in determining gross floor area ratio and lot coverage. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zoning district (35.0%). A variance has therefore been requested for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,194 square feet for a parcel of this size (2,017 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. In addition, the existing left side yard setback is 6 inches. The application proposes a minor expansion within the left side yard, and would continue the non-conforming setback of 6 inches at this side. As the minimum side yard setback in the R-2 zone is 8 feet, a variance has been requested to continue the reduced side yard. Proposed color and materials for the dwelling include stucco siding in dark beige, gray window sashes, metallic grey facia, and oiled timber striping at the garage door, fencing and foundation skirt. A color/materials board will be available for review at the board meeting. BACKGROUND This application was previously reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 1, 2011. During the meeting, the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East spoke in opposition to the project, noting negative privacy, view, and lighting impacts. The Board also voiced similar concerns, and ultimately left it up to the applicant to work out a compromise with the neighbors, as these impacts appeared to be substantial to both neighbors. The Board also struggled with making appropriate findings for the variances requested, and continued the application in order to give the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors on modifications and an adequate compromise in order to move forward. Since the December meeting, the applicant has requested several continuances for the project and ran up against a Permit Streamlining Act deadline. As such, the applicant withdrew the application, and subsequently filed a new application to re-start the clock for the Permit Streamlining Act. EXHIBIT NO. 6 fo .2A The overall intent of the application before the Board is very similar to what was previously reviewed in December, with the exception of several modifications, which the applicant has outlined in a letter to the Board. ANALYSIS Design Issues The applicant has submitted plans which intend to respond to the neighbors' concerns regarding privacy, view and lighting impacts. The following modifications have been made to the proposal: • The rear deck has been reduced in depth from 12' to 9'6". An opaque glass horizontal screen would be installed on the west side of the deck, facing 2306 Mar East in an effort to reduce privacy impacts. • The entry door location has been modified so that the door faces the street instead of facing 2306 Mar West, in order to reduce privacy impacts. • The highest strip of windows located above the proposed stairwell, which faces 2306 Mar East have been eliminated, in an effort to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts on 2306 Mar East. • The exterior deck lights have been modified from soffit lights to low deck lighting which are to be installed 1' above the surface of the deck, in an effort to reduce lighting impacts on 2306 and 2310 Mar East. • The proposed lower deck has been reduced from 12' to 5'10". A 5'3" obscure glass screen would be installed to provide privacy between the subject property and 2306 Mar East. • The side deck expansion has been eliminated and replaced with a 3' walkway. • The vertical support structures and the small deck in front of the proposed expanded kitchen have been eliminated, in an effort to improve the view for 2310 Mar East. • The window in the proposed expanded kitchen has also been reduced in size to increase privacy between the subject property and 2310 Mar East. The modifications made by the applicant would appear to address some of the concerns voiced by the two adjacent neighbors; however, some privacy and view impacts would still remain for these neighbors. In particular, Staff believes that the horizontal screen on the upper deck and the 5'3" screen on the lower deck would not provide adequate privacy for the bedroom at 2306 Mar East, as taller residents would still be able to look over these screens. Staff recommends that the Board visit the site and adjacent homes at 2306 and 2310 Mar East, to consider the modifications made and the remaining potential impacts in reviewing the subject application. EXHIBIT NO. 6 Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, in addition to a floor area exception. In order to grant the requested variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. The subject site slopes steeply downward towards the bay and is extremely narrow (45 feet in width), similar to many of the properties in the immediate vicinity. The existing structure is constructed partially below the mean high tide line and over Raccoon Strait. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Granting variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage would not constitute a grant of special privileges, as a majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site have requested and been granted multiple variances in order to build more adequately sized dwellings, than what would normally only be permitted, due to the small dry land areas of each parcel. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. The strict application of this ordinance would result in an unnecessary physical hardship if the applicant were required to push the kitchen addition in from the side property line, when there would still be an adequate separation between the neighboring dwelling unit at 2310 Mar East. However, staff is unable to make this finding for the requested variance for excess lot coverage, as the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would not create an unnecessary hardship, but would only limit the applicant to a current building footprint and floor area that already greatly exceeds the limitations for a lot of this size. 6 EXHIBIT NO. ')AA 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. It would appear that granting both the reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage variances could be detrimental and/or injurious to the neighboring properties at 2306 and 2310 Mar East, if the deck expansions and extensions and addition were permitted, due to the potential for view, privacy and lighting infringements. There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested. In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Design Review Board must make the following findings as required by Section 16-52.020(I[4]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed additions would not substantially alter the visual size and scale of the dwelling, as the proposed additions are minor expansions to existing living areas, currently located either at the rear of the dwelling and covered by the existing roof of the structure, or at the right side of the property, which would not be visually prominent. Therefore, the visual size and scale of the dwelling with the minor additions as proposed would remain compatible with the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms. The proposed additions are minor and would not substantially alter the appearance of the dwelling. While the small expansion to the new kitchen area at the left rear corner of the dwelling would further encroach on the bay, this encroachment would be minor and the overall minor additions to the dwelling would continue to be compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. From the evidence provided, Staff believes there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested floor area exception. However, projects which request both a floor area exception and an excess lot coverage variance are generally viewed as a fundamental overbuilding of the lot, and are usually not supported. Public Comment As of the date of this report, 3 letters have been received in opposition to the subject application. EXHIBIT NO. m . 5 c4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board: 1. Review the project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(H) (Guiding Principles) and Section 16-52.030(E) (Variances) and Section 16-52.020(I) (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines); and 2. Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301; and 3. Determine whether modifications made to the project address privacy, view and lighting impacts on the adjacent neighbors. If the board determines that negative impacts to the adjacent neighbors at 2306 and 2310 Mar East would remain, then staff would recommend that the Board either continue the project and provide direction to the applicant on how best to remedy these impacts, or deny the project, and direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting. If the board disagrees with staff's recommendation, then staff would recommend approval of the project, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Exhibits: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Application and Supplemental Materials 3. Minutes of the December 1, 2011 Design Review Board Meeting 4. Design Review Board Staff Report dated December 1, 2011 5. Email dated April 23, 2012 from Tom and Ashley Soevyn 6. Letter dated April 25, 2012 from Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett 7. Email dated April 25, 2012 from David Kulik 8. Letter dated April 25, 2012 from Rifkind Law Group 9. Submitted Plans Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2308 MAR EAST STREET FILE NO. 21207 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. Construction shall conform with the application and plans dated by the Town of Tiburon on March 5, 2012, or as amended by these conditions of approval and plans of April 2, 2012. Any modifications to the plans must receive Design Review approval. 3. Project elements shown on construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be essentially identical to those project elements shown on drawings approved by the Design Review Board. The permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying on construction drawings any and all changes to project elements. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the construction EXHIBIT NO. ~~A To: From: Members of the Design Review Board Associate Planner Tyler Design Review Board Meeting December 1, 2011 Agenda Item: 3 Subject: 2308 Mar East Street; File No. 21116; Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks and Excess Lot Coverage and a Floor Area Exception Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 2308 MAR EAST STREET OWNER: PETER WILTON APPLICANT: MOHAMAD SADRIEH ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 059-195-01 FILE NUMBER: 21116 LOT SIZE: 11,000 SQUARE FEET (DRY LAND = 29017) ZONING: R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: H (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X/VE DATE COMPLETE: NOVEMBER 10, 2011 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Section 15301. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. The main level (street level) of the home includes a dining room, lounge, kitchen, a bedroom and bathroom, a store room, a two-car garage and a large sun room. The lower level of the home includes a bedroom and bathroom, the master bedroom suite, laundry room, a storage cellar, and two decks. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 rJF 8 "N HIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel to the home. At the main level of the home, the front entry walkway would be partially in-filled for a new interior stairwell, and a small addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear at this level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space and a new larger deck would extend off the existing rear deck. The side deck would also be expanded at the rear, and a new exterior stair/walkway would be incorporated from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. Tidal lots, such as the subject property, use the area above the mean high tide line (dry land), in determining gross floor area ratio and lot coverage. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zoning district (35.0%). A variance has therefore been requested for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,194 square feet for a parcel of this size (2,017 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. In addition, the existing left side yard setback is 6 inches, and the right side yard setback is 4 feet. The application proposes minor expansions within both side yard setbacks, and would continue the non-conforming setbacks of 6 inches on the left side and 4 feet on the right. As the minimum side yard setbacks in the R-2 zone are 8 feet, variances have been requested to continue the reduced side yards. Proposed color and materials for the dwelling include stucco siding in dark beige, gray window sashes, metallic grey facia, and oiled timber striping at the garage door, fencing and foundation skirt. A color/materials board will be available for review at the board meeting. ANALYSIS Design Issues The existing structure is located on a steep lot and is cantilevered over Raccoon Strait, with views of the East Bay, Angel Island, San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. According to recent flood hazard maps, this property is a tidal lot and is therefore located within a flood hazard zone. Staff has reviewed the proposed project in relation to the Town's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance (Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 13D), and has found that the project would not require any additional elevation above the base flood elevations, nor require special construction materials or methods. However, if the cost of this proposal equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction, then this project would need to comply with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance. The existing structure is located in close proximity to the neighboring dwelling units on either side of the property, as the majority of dwelling units located along Mar East Street are constructed in this fashion. The adjacent dwelling to the east at 2310 Mar East Street currently projects further out to the south over the water. The dwelling to the west, at 2306 Mar East EXHIBIT N0. 7 V5 2 CP 6 Street, also projects further out, but is at a different angle than the subject dwelling, most likely to gain more direct views of San Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge. The proposal would incorporate a small kitchen addition on the main level of the home in the eastern rear corner, where an interior stairwell and sunroom currently exist. This minor addition, combined with the new rear decking at the same level, would continue a non-conforming left side yard setback of 6 inches. Even though the left side yard setback would remain at 6 inches, there would still appear to be an adequate separation between the subject structure and the neighboring two-family dwelling to the east at 2310 Mar East Street. As of the date of this report, it is difficult to determine whether the proposed addition and deck expansions would extend into the views toward the Golden Gate Bridge from the primary living areas of these neighboring homes. If so, the project would be inconsistent with Goal 3, Principle 7(d) of the Hillside Design Guidelines (illustrated below) which states that "the blockage of important objects in the view is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known landmarks." As part of the lower level new expanded rear deck, the existing right side yard deck would also be expanded, and a new exterior walkway would be constructed along the right side of the dwelling for overall improved exterior circulation. This proposed expansion of the existing right side deck would also continue a non-conforming right side yard setback of approximately 4 feet. It should be noted that both the main level and lower level proposed decks at the rear of the dwelling would have a similar depth dimension, and the main level deck would be covered with the installation of a new roof overhang. However, the right side deck expansion would extend opposite the master bedroom of the . neighboring dwelling to the west at 2306 Mar East Street. These neighboring residents have raised privacy concerns due to the proximity of this expanded deck to the west-facing window for this bedroom. These neighbors have also raised concerns about the amount of lighting on the rear decks, the removal of a tree adjacent to the western side of the building and the potential use of the side yard area near the front of the lot. Staff does not foresee any design issues with the enhanced interior improvements and proposed minor floor area additions to the structure. Improvements to the color and materials and proposed new windows and doors throughout the dwelling would not appear to negatively impact the adjacent neighbors or surrounding neighborhood. However, the proposed rear decks on both the main level and lower level could have the potential to result in both view infringements and privacy impacts on the adjacent dwellings to the east and west. In addition, the installation of EXHIBIT NO. 7 jzj -~C-4 exterior recessed LED down lights in the overhangs of each rear deck may also result in lighting impacts on the adjacent neighbors. Staff recommends that the Board visit the site and adjacent homes and consider these improvements and potential impacts in reviewing the subject application. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the remaining development standards for the R-2 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variances for both reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, in addition to a floor area exception. In order to grant the requested variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. The subject site slopes steeply downward towards the bay and is extremely narrow (45 feet in width), similar to many of the properties in the immediate vicinity. The existing structure is constructed partially below the mean high tide line and over Raccoon Strait. These are special circumstances applicable to the property. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Granting variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage would not constitute a grant of special privileges, as a majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site have requested and been granted multiple variances in order to build more adequately sized dwellings, than what would normally only be permitted, due to the small dry land areas of each parcel. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance. The strict application of this ordinance could result in a practical difficulty if the applicant is required to push the deck expansions and extensions in from the side property lines, if the expanded decks provide an adequate separation between the neighboring dwelling units. This would also apply to the small kitchen expansion in the left rear corner of the dwelling. However, there would be no practical difficulty in pulling the proposed deck EXHIBIT NO. 7 ..4 C." 6 expansion on the right side of the property back to the required setback line to provide more appropriate separation from the master bedroom of the adjacent residence at 2306 Mar East Street. The proposed deck expansions could also be reduced in size to avoid increased lot coverage without creating a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. It would appear that granting both the side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage variances could be detrimental and/or injurious to the neighboring properties at 2306 and 2310 Mar East, if the deck expansions and extensions were permitted, due to the potential for view, privacy and lighting infringements. There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested. In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Design Review Board must make the following findings as required by Section 16-52.020(I[4]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed additions would not substantially alter the visual size and scale of the dwelling, as the proposed additions are minor expansions to existing living areas, currently located either at the rear of the dwelling and covered by the existing roof of the structure, or at the right side of the property, which would not be visually prominent. Therefore, the visual size and scale of the dwelling with the minor additions as proposed would remain compatible with the existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms. The proposed additions are minor and would not substantially alter the appearance of the dwelling. While the small expansion to the new kitchen area at the left rear corner of the dwelling would further encroach on the bay, this encroachment would be minor and the overall minor additions to the dwelling would continue to be compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. From the evidence provided, Staff believes there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested floor area exception. However, projects which request both a floor area exception and an excess lot coverage variance are viewed generally as a fundamental overbuilding of the lot, and are usually not supported. E XIIBIT NO. eo~ 5 c`6 Public Comment As of the date of this report, the Town has received one letter from the neighboring property owners at 2306 Mar East Street and has received verbal objection from the residents at 2310 Mar East Street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board: 1. Review the project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(H) (Guiding Principles) and Section 16-52.030(E) (Variances) and Section 16-52.020(I) (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines); and 2. Determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301; and 3. Determine whether the proposed rear decks at both the main level and lower level would negatively impact the adj acent dwellings in terms of views, privacy and lighting. If the board determines that negative impacts would occur, then Staff recommends that the Board continue the application, with direction given to the applicant to modify and or reduce the size of both the main and lower level rear decks. If the Board disagrees with Staff's recommendation, then findings should be articulated for the requested variances, and Staff would recommend that the application be approved, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Exhibits: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Application and Supplemental Materials 3. Letter from Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett, dated November 22, 2011 3. Submitted Plans Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner EXHIBIT NO. 7 The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Johnson commended the applicant for addressing the feedback provided by the Board and neighbors. He said that he did not see a view or privacy issues from 450 Ridge Road after visiting the site that day. He said that some of the images with the house superimposed on the site were slightly misleading, and that adding vegetation and the fence would help a great deal. He thought that perhaps raising the sill heights for the furthermost windows along that side might help. He said because of the sensitivity of this project he drove around the entire neighborhood, which he characterized as not a wooded environment and an area where one tends to see parts of other houses because of the topography. He said that this project had gone a long way to preserve privacy for 430 Ridge Road. He said that the house fit into the scale of the property and the neighborhood. He supported a 6 foot fence between 430 and 440 Ridge Road and felt that that would more than adequately screen the area with the planned plantings. He said that there would be some visibility from the new house but because of the angle one would look right past the patio toward the view. Vice-Chair Emberson agreed with Boardmember Johnson and pointed out that there was no solution that would make everyone happy. She said that it is an unusual expectation to not see any other houses. However, she felt that a 7 foot 8 inch fence was a good faith effort that would good a long way. She added that once vegetation is planted there the screening would go over that height. She pointed out that people will be unlikely to congregate in the location of the fence. She said that the view of the house from 450 Ridge Road would be blocked by the pittosporum hedge. She said that she could easily make the findings for the requested variances and the floor area exception and agreed with staff's findings. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers and stated that the applicant had done a lot to bring the house back and address the issues brought up at the last meeting. He said that Tiburon is not "out in the country" and houses are going to be built nearby. He was amazed that an architect would design a house to capture a view knowing that neighboring houses would be built. He supported the 7 foot 8 inch fence and stated that Mr. Garay has the opportunity to plant something that would grow above it. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 440 Ridge Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3-0. 2. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21207; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches of the left side property line, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03. This application was previously reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 1, 2011. During the meeting, the adjacent neighbors located at 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street spoke in opposition to the project, noting potential privacy, view, and lighting impacts. The Board also voiced similar concerns, and encouraged the applicant to work out a compromise with the neighbors, as these impacts appeared to be substantial to both neighbors. The Board struggled to make appropriate findings for the variances TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 4 6/7/12 l G4 EXHIBIT NO. requested, and continued the application in order to give the applicant additional time to work with the neighbors on both modifications and an adequate compromise, in order to move forward. The Board reviewed the new application at the May 3, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, at which time several modifications were made to the project between the December and the May 3rd meeting, in order to respond to both the Board and the neighbor's concerns. At the May 3rd meeting, several neighbors spoke in opposition to the project, including the owners of 2306 and 2310 Mar East Street. The neighbors noted remaining concerns regarding the amount of glazing and lighting impacts, in addition to privacy, noise and view infringements. Overall, the Board was sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns, and agreed that more could be done to reduce the amount of glazing and lighting impacts for 2306 Mar East, but ultimately felt that the project, as designed, would improve privacy for 2310 Mar East. Regardless, the Board provided further direction to the applicant to modify the project, which included pulling the upper level deck back to align with the proposed lower level deck, reduce the amount of glazing at the entry area, and eliminate the horizontal screening system on the upper level deck and replace it with a vertical screening system. The Board continued the project and directed the applicant to continue to work with the neighbors and consider the design modifications provided. Mohammed Sadrieh, architect described the changes to the project. He said that the size of the downstairs deck had been reduced and will now function more like a balcony than a deck. He said that they also reduced the amount of glass facing 2306 Mar East, which would have the same amount of glass as the existing upper floor. He said that the lower deck glass screen had been raised to 6 feet and the screen facing 2306 Mar East had been changed from a horizontal shelf to a screen. He said that the screen would start at the base of the deck and will extend out 5 feet. He said that one option would be to have two sails and provide a soft an organic feel, and another option would be to have aluminum louvers. He said that a vertical screen that would extend up to 5 or 6 feet, whether louvered or solid, would destroy views of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge from the deck and from all vantage points from the upper floor. He said that the currently proposed screen would provide greater privacy than currently exists. Peter Wilton, owner, said that the main issues were the size of deck, privacy screen, and amount of glazing on southwest elevation. He said that they had addressed all of those concerns with changes to the project. He said that they reduced the top deck to 113.8 square feet, a 58% reduction; eliminated the lower side deck; and reduced the lower deck to 280 square feet, which would be more like a balcony than a deck. He mentioned that his neighbor added a 770 square foot deck, and the one he was proposing was very modest. He stated that privacy would actually deteriorate if the deck was pulled back. He presented photos of the existing view of 2306 Mar East from the deck and superimposed images of the louvered or sail shade privacy screen. He said that sail screens are attractive and are built to withstand winds of 80 miles an hour. He showed a view of 2306 Mar East with the privacy screen as viewed from the kitchen and said that it would provide total privacy. He said that they reduced the window in the kitchen by 40% to provide more privacy, and reduced the sizes of windows on the southwest elevation to the existing area of the glazing on that elevation. He said that light intrusion on the neighbors from these windows would be very unlikely. He said that they tried to think about this very creatively and showed renderings of the neighboring property with alternative privacy screen solutions. He said they have proposed to pay for a screen of their bedroom of their design, and so far those offers have been declined by the neighbors. He described the existing structure as very old and dilapidated and said that they are going to greatly improve the property which will benefit the neighborhood. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6/7/12 EXHIBIT NO. f . Z C~F4 Magdalena Yesil said that the Design Review Board previously suggested clerestory windows in the entry to reduce the lighting infringement to their courtyard and their second bedroom. She said that the lower level sliding glass door should be converted to a solid door to reduce lighting infringement to her property. She said there are two existing decks at the lower level totaling about 400 square feet that are completely functional. She questioned why the applicants could not take advantage of the existing decks instead of filling in the existing deck. She characterized the houses on Mar East as bungalows on the water with small bedrooms and baths. She said that her house has 3 bedrooms and they share 1 shower. She said that allowing a design with 4 large bedrooms and 4 large bathrooms would create an exception. She asked that the lower level deck be eliminated, and felt that the proposed privacy screens would do nothing for the noise and light pollution. She believed that alternative locations for the deck exist that would not infringe on their privacy and bedrooms. David Kulik said that what was being proposed was illegal according to the laws published by the Town. He pointed out a gate was proposed on his property and requested it be removed from the project. He said that they would have to close their curtains further to protect their privacy. He said that the kitchen would be 8 feet from his master bedroom and said the smells and sounds would affect the lifestyle of his home. He said that a wall would be turned into an open air deck which would be 8 feet from his living room window and they would be able to hear every conversation on each other's property. He said that 2308 Mar East is a nonconforming structure and he read parts of the municipal code stating that nonconforming units cannot be increased in size or altered in ways that are detrimental to the public welfare. He said that they agree with the staff report that there is insufficient evidence to support findings for the variances requested. He requested the Boardmembers state specific findings for each variance. Mik Flynn said that she thought that it was very easy to think the applicant was being fair, but she thought that it was forgotten that they were starting from a completely unreasonable position. She felt that there ware a lot more negatives than positives for the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood regarding this project. Mr. Wilton stated that what they were asking for was very minimal relative to the changes made at 2306 Mar East just two years ago. He considered the light pollution to be very minimal. He said that they had tried to negotiate with 2306 Mar East many times and he hoped for some stability in their discussions. He stated that any legal issues would be determined more appropriately outside the forum. He said that Mr. Kulik knew that the shared easement had been acquired by the previous owner. Mr. Sadrieh said that the Board should keep in mind that all properties on that waterfront are probably nonconforming, and to make a decision solely based on that issue would condemn all future development in the area to what is already built. He said that since this application was so modest he thought that it would place a procedural straightjacket on anyone who wanted to do any development on that street. Boardmember Johnson asked if most of the houses are nonconforming. Planning Manager Watrous said that most of the houses on Mar East are nonconforming to some extent. Vice-Chair Emberson asked how many other homes in the area have asked for variances, and Planning Manager Watrous answered that quite a few because it is difficult to expand a home in that area without requesting a variance. The public hearing was closed: Vice-Chair Emberson thought that a "cookie cutter" zoning has imposed on a neighborhood that is intrinsically very special. She said that most lots in the area seem huge but only a part of the lot can be built upon, which causes most of the houses to have floor area exceptions. She said that she could make the findings for the variances and exception. She pointed out that next door there is a 1,000 foot deck and she thought that not many people would go out on the 5 foot deck to create a problem. She said that the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6/7/12 EXHIBIT NO. 3 V cF sliding glass doors at the bottom look onto a fence and would not be injurious to the neighbor. She believed that there is a tradeoff when someone chooses to live in this environment. She said that the project would be a change for everybody and that is why everyone is upset by the project. She said that telling an applicant that is at a disadvantage because it is pulled back so far that they cannot expand is a practical difficulty. She said that the request would not grant a special privilege because every other home in the area has been granted a variance. Boardmember Johnson agreed with Vice-Chair Emberson that the findings can be made. He said that the applicant listened and had significantly reduced the size of the deck and was not significantly changing the character of the building. He thought that this was a very challenging site He was troubled by the nature of some of the comments and lie did not think that this property should be "punished" because it was the last to be expanded. He loved the concept of the sail privacy screen but he would not do it at this location. He thought that the louvered privacy screen would work but was unsure whether the louvers should be angled or vertical and suggested that was something the applicant could finalize with staff. Vice-Chair Emberson asked Ms. Yesil if she was interested in the privacy screens suggested for her home. Ms. Yesil said she likes to watch the sun rise over Berkeley and the screens would eliminate that view. Chair Kricensky said that the blanket zoning of the area caused the houses to become non-conforming. He said that the houses on either side have improvements with very large decks. He said that the 5 foot deck would be like a balcony and would not involve loud parties, and the screen would completely eliminate the view of the bedroom next door. He said that he could support the project because of all of the changes they had made and he thought that they should have the ability to improve their property. Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Board had adequately discussed the finding that the change in privacy would not be injurious to the surrounding properties. He said that he would like to hear more discussion on the finding for practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Vice-Chair Emberson said that the "cookie cutter" R-2 zoning works when one is in a landlocked situation but does not work in this neighborhood because everything is nonconforming. She said that the proposal was modest because of the size of the house. She said that every house around it has decks and she thought that it would be a hardship not to be able to enjoy a deck on the water when all of the neighbors enjoy such decks. She said that the only direction to expand on the site was seaward. She said that the project would not be injurious to the other properties but would instead enhance their privacy, and stated that residents in this neighborhood live in a very open environment that would not be made worse by this project. Chair Kricensky said that there are many houses that have been improved and expanded. He stated that this house is smaller than the neighboring houses and the request is small. He said that the hardship was that they would not be able to expand their house when others in the neighborhood have done so. Boardmember Johnson said that the hardship and practical difficulty was that the zoning does not fit the site. He stated that in other communities such as Newport Beach you are allowed to build 50-60% lot coverage because a large portion of the property is over water. ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Emberson) that the request for 2308 Mar East Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, with the additional condition of approval that the louvered design of the privacy screens will be reviewed and approved by Planning staff. Vote: 3-0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6/7/12 EXHIBIT NO. ~ 9 ~q' within 12 feet, 6 inches of the left side property line in lieu of the 20 foot minimum side yard setback allowed in the RO-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-121-14. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an addition to an existing two- story single-family dwelling on property located at 139 Hacienda Drive. An existing open deck on the upper level of the front of the house would be enclosed into a new solarium. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 80 square feet to a total of 4,498 square feet, which is less than the 69327 square foot floor area ratio for this site. The addition would not increase the current lot coverage on the site. The proposed addition would extend to within 13 feet, 6 inches of the western (left) side property line. As a 20 foot side yard setback is required in the RO-1 zone, a variance is requested for reduced side yard setback. Judith Thompson, owner, said that they wish to infill an existing deck and the issue that brought them to the DRB is that the house and deck were built in the setback. There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Emberson said that the project was fairly simple and she saw no problem with it whatsoever. She said that it is not close to anyone. Boardmembers Johnson and Tollini agreed. Boardmember Tollini said that the only reason it needs to be looked at by the DRB was because of the variance, and he agrees with staffs findings. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) that the request for 139 Hacienda Drive is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4-0. 3. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21207; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches of the left side property line, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel to the home. At the main level of the home, the front entry walkway would be partially in-filled for a new interior stairwell, and a small addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear at this level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space and a new larger deck would extend off the existing rear deck. The side deck would remain the same but include a small walkway to TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 5/3/12 EXHIB' NO.,._5 access the new rear deck, and a new exterior stair/walkway would be incorporated from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1%) which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zoning district (35.0%). A variance has therefore been requested for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,194 square feet for a parcel of this size (2,017 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. In addition, the existing left side yard setback is 6 inches. The application proposes a minor expansion within the left side yard, and would continue the non-conforming setback of 6 inches at this side. As the minimum side yard setback in the R-2 zone is 8 feet, a variance has been requested to continue the reduced side yard. Mohamed Sadrieh, architect, said that they made numerous changes to reduce the impact of the project on adjacent homes. He said that they reduced the rear deck from 12 feet to 9 feet, 6 inches. He said that there would be opaque glass screening between the property and 2306 Mar East. He stated that the screen would be field tested and adjusted to be sure it provides appropriate screening. He said that their intent was to be sure no one standing on the deck can view the bedroom window of the neighboring house from any location. He said that in the previous design there were vertical support structures that had been removed. He said that they also removed the deck off the kitchen in order to preserve neighbors' views; had increased privacy for neighboring properties by reducing the kitchen window size and by switching the entry door location so it would face the street; had changed all exterior deck lights to be low shielded lights only one foot above the floor surface so they will not be visible from neighboring properties; had reduced the highest strip of windows; and they replaced the expansion from the bedroom with a three-foot walkway. He said that they adjusted the walkway into the lower level to provide an opening for the existing bay tree to protrude. Mr. Sadrieh said that these changes were difficult to visualize and he hoped that the Boardmembers could come to see them, but unfortunately only one member was able to visit the site. He asked if the other Boardmembers could come at a later date to ensure that the steps they are taking would dramatically improve the privacy situation. Peter Wilton, owner, said that the prevailing structures are all supported by multi-level decks with views of the Golden Gate Bridge. He stated that his property is very far back from other properties and showed aerial photos depicting the locations. He said that he was asking for a design that would be consistent with prevailing homes on the street. He said that his property has a lower deck that is partially obstructed by the neighboring house and does not allow view of the Golden Gate Bridge. He showed photographs of other neighboring houses and pointed out the large docks. He said that his own property has significant privacy issues from the adjoining properties, as do most of the properties on the street. He stated that they kept privacy issues in mind as they designed the kitchen pop-out addition, and he showed before and after views of 2310 Mar East from that area. He said that the addition would add a good deal of privacy and the deck would be the minimum size and fit completely with the prevailing structures. He then showed before and after views of 2306 Mar East from the addition and pointed out the increased privacy. He said that they tried to preserve views of neighboring properties and pointed out the views from 2306 Mar East would not be impacted. He said that the kitchen addition would not protrude into the view of 2310 Mar East and this would be one of the very few decks on the street with any privacy screening. Mr. Wilton said that they had multiple meetings with the neighbors to find resolution and the discussions were very constructive with Ms. Hansen. He said that they were not as successful with Mr. Kulik. He said that they were requesting to go beyond the building envelope because neighboring properties have TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 6 5/3/12 EXHIBIT NO-__q_~ j,-n. 2CP6 massive expansions and they thought that this would be consistent. He also said that there is a maintenance problem with the stucco on the outside because of the location over the water. He said that he bought the house for his retirement and wanted to be able to live on the top floor. He said that the existing kitchen is only 50 square feet and there is not enough space to keep it within the existing building envelope. He pointed out that they had story poles on the property prior to Mr. Kulik purchasing the neighboring property. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if a pier was proposed. Mr. Wilton said that the original drawings included a dock, but they removed the dock out of respect for privacy. The public hearing was opened. David Kulik said that they purchased their property in 2011. He stated that his attorney reviewed the staff report and felt that there may be some CEQA issues even though this is a single-family dwelling. He said that the lot lines on the plans may not be accurate based on a survey that the trust holding both of these properties had previously done. He stated that one man owned both of these properties from the late 1960s until 2009 and he built 2310 Mar East around 2308 Mar East. Mr. Kulik stated that the addition would significantly impact the value of his property. He said that it was acceptable to renovate the 50- year old structure, but not to push out into the bay. He said that there was substantial value that could be added by developing within the building envelope. He felt that the expansion of the property would add value to 2310 Mar East but would take value away from his own property, and their quality of life would be significantly impacted. He said that this house is the largest investment his family has ever made and they counted on the DRB to protect their investment. Mr. Kulik then presented photographs of the view that would be impacted by the project. He said that his property is three stories and all views would be affected by the expansion. He showed photographs of the water views being impacted from various areas in the house and said that the privacy impact would be significant. He said that he could not support anything that would allow views into his home of his children. Boardmember Johnson asked what room the first photograph was taken from. Mr. Kulik said that it was taken from the terrace from a seated position. Jim Wickett said that when they appeared in December they had not yet been invited inside the property. Since then they had been able to go inside twice and have had numerous meetings with the applicant and his architect. He said that residents of Mar East live in very tight quarters and the remodel of any of the properties runs the risk of being at the expense of the neighbors. He said that allowing expansion beyond the building envelope also runs the risk of setting a precedent. He said that the houses on the street were built in order to protect neighboring views and privacy and they were depending on the DRB to protect that. He agreed with staff's recommendations and said that the project should either be denied or continued with clear direction to the applicant. He disagreed with the applicant that his house is disadvantaged because of a smaller deck. Mr. Wickett made the following requests: On the southwestern addition he requested that the applicant stay within the building envelope of the existing house and not come out 9 feet closer to his house. He would like to see all new windows facing his house limited to the existing square footage of glass and be tinted privacy glass. He said that lie cannot rely on the Acacia tree to provide screening. The new glass door and window facing their home should be moved to face Angel Island and not his house. He said that the design would add three new glass doors on the lower level and they would like those to be solid doors instead of glass to minimize impact on his bedroom. On the back southeast addition, he said that the proposed upper and lower decks and kitchen addition would have a significant impact on his master TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 7 5/3/12 EXHIBIT NO. CP bedroom and the proposed screens would not solve the privacy problem. He said that the letter from the previous tenants sums up the situation well and showed that there was already a privacy issue before the proposed addition. He said that any extension of the home toward the water would bring the house closer to his master bedroom and he was therefore opposed to any addition. If necessary, he said that he was willing to continue to work with the applicant and hoped that they could come up with a thoughtful design that respects his needs. Arthur Greenberg said that he lives across the street from the house on the non-water side of Mar East. He was concerned that any type of modification to the house would not impact his view of the bay. Vice- Chair Emberson asked if he can see the story poles. Mr. Greenberg said that he can see the story poles from the walkway of the front of the house. At this point he was uncertain whether the addition would impact his view of the water. He was concerned that the roofline would go closer to the bay and obstruct his view of the water and he also wanted to be sure awnings and privacy screens are not put up that obstruct his view of the water. Jonathan Wu said that residents have chosen to live in Tiburon because of its beauty and have all invested financially in it. He said that story poles that take away views can make a person go crazy, and he empathized with the neighbors' feelings. Mik Flynn said that she lives two doors down from the project. She said that she would not be personally impacted by the project, but entered her neighbors' homes to see how it would affect their property and lifestyle. She completely agreed with staff's recommendations and asked the Board to help everyone be good neighbors. Mr. Wilton said that the letter from the previous tenants was somewhat malicious. He said that he has lived in that property for 4 months and had the architect live in the property for a week to appreciate the issues involved. He said that they had been careful to keep the rooflines at ceiling level to allow sunlight and prevent them from obstructing any views. He added that Christina Hansen, who wrote another letter, was also a tenant. Chair Kricensky said that some of the correspondence addressed an additional issue between the property and 2310 Mar East. Mr. Wilton said that that is a separate issue and relates to the stairs between the properties, and Mr. Kulik has requested that they no longer use those stairs. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said that this was one of the most difficult projects the DRB has dealt with in recent memory. He characterized the project as a modest request in a highly sensitive area. He said that there was a fundamental disconnect between what the neighbors and the applicant mean by privacy. He said that this was an extremely thoughtful design that has tried to solve views from every aspect of neighboring properties. He said that he would like to see less literalism in the privacy discussion by the applicant because the new expansion would still affect and be seen by neighboring properties. He said that when neighbors discuss privacy they are thinking about what the house looks like from their properties and where windows are located, but what the neighbors are really concerned about is whether a deck is right outside the master bedroom window, not whether the average American can see over a privacy screen. He said that seeing a house a lot closer to primary living space seems like an invasion of privacy. He said that he could not see using the incidental windows as a justification for preventing a modest expansion. He agreed that the house is disadvantaged, as it is the last one to expand and he was sympathetic to all neighbors and the applicant. He said that some changes were in order, specifically, the screens needed to be increased in height in order to feel more meaningful. He felt that the neighbor's TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 5/3/12 EXHIBIT NO. `I a cP6 glazing request toward the southwest exposure was reasonable and he suggested moving toward clerestory windows rather than full height windows. Boardmember Johnson agreed with Boardmember Tollini that this was definitely a difficult project to analyze. He said that the aerial photographs were helpful and showed that it is the last one to make a change. He said that the neighboring properties are of similar lengths and right next to each other. He stated that this is an area where privacy is a very individualized term. He said that if the homeowners were to tear down the house and rebuilt it in the same location there would still be privacy issues. He said that much of the living in this area is outdoors and it is not a private area. At the same time, he said that he understood the neighbors' concerns. He felt that there were still some refinements to be made, but he thought that the project had come a long way from the first meeting. He said that he leaned toward approving the project because he thought that some of the issues were not as severe as represented. Vice-Chair Emberson said that the horizontal privacy screen would be nothing more than "a place to set drinks." She thought that they had made a lot of changes to the project. She said that some of the glass could be reduced on the southwest elevation, and she would feel more comfortable with it if the decks were brought more in line with each other, though she acknowledged that that may make the decks unusable. She said that when one lives on this street one might expect that there will be neighbors looking next door. She said that opaque glass would let light in and be a better solution than using wood. Boardmember Tollini agreed that the horizontal privacy screen would look bizarre and not function to provide privacy for neighbors. Chair Kricensky said that it would provide privacy, and when he stood in the location it did screen the neighbors. Boardmember Tollini acknowledged that it would provide privacy in a literal sense. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she would like to see it go up higher. Chair Kricensky asked staff if most houses in this area are nonconforming in setback, floor area ratio, and lot coverage, and Planning Manager Watrous said yes. Chair Kricensky asked if this property is any more out of the ordinary than most of the houses on the street. Planning Manager Watrous said they had not done a survey, but his gut feeling is that it is not any more inconsistent with zoning requirements than others in the area. Chair Kricensky agreed that this project is extremely difficult. He said that all of the houses in the area have two decks and look at each other, and that is the nature of this type of development. He said that he could understand why the owner would like to have a deck to enjoy the nice weather. He thought that the addition would be modest, but felt that it would impact the neighbors and he struggled with whether the impact would be too much. He pointed out that from the living room the owner would sacrifice some of his view to solve the neighbors' privacy problem. He said that there was quite a bit of glass on the entry side that could be reduced to reduce light pollution. Chair Kricensky said that it sounded like the only design acceptable to the neighbors was to not build out past the existing building envelope. Vice-Chair Emberson suggested moving back the upper deck as a possible solution. Boardmember Tollini said that it would not be usable if the deck were reduced in size. Planning Manager Watrous said the kitchen is currently very small, and he suggested that the house does not need to be a four bedroom,home if it is a retirement home, and the other bedroom could free up the space to reconfigure the interior. Vice-Chair Emberson suggested letting the house expand out but reduce the deck by a few feet. Boardmember Tollini said that that would solve the issue he was most concerned about from 2310 Mar East, but there would still be screening issues for 2306 Mar East. He said that bringing the deck back would make it smaller, and Vice-Chair Emberson said that the outdoor space is cold and foggy and may TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 5/3/12 EXHIBIT NO. q 6.h`t not be used as much anyway. Vice-Chair Emberson felt that this was a minor reconfiguration that could be done inside in order to bring the deck in. She said that they would still have incredible views and neighbors would not be happy, but it would bring the homes more in line. She recognized that there was no way for everyone to be happy with the project. Boardmember Tollini said that he was not comfortable categorically saying that they cannot move beyond the building envelope, adding that this would be a mutual sacrifice situation. He described one proposal for the deck to bring it in line with the lower deck, and the other proposal to leave it as is but add a vertical screen that would come up to the railing. He said that this would help more with literal privacy and he felt that one of these options needed to happen. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she did not think anyone could expect their deck in this area to be private space. She said that she would push for a slight reconfiguration of the upstairs and push back the deck. Boardmember Johnson recommended reducing the deck without the reconfiguration because it could open up a much larger construction project. Chair Kricensky said that he was unsure that the deck would be usable at that size. Planning Manager Watrous pointed out that one of the advantages of a smaller deck is that it would allow the owner to maintain the property. If it was a less usable outdoor space, then there would be less opportunity for people to be outside on it invading privacy. Boardmember Johnson summarized the changes the Board was requesting: Move back the deck on the upper the level so it is in line with the kitchen, reduce glazing at the entry, eliminate the horizontal shelf and raise the lower level deck screen. He suggested a slatted system for the upper deck that would allow the view through but also create privacy for the neighboring master bedroom. Boardmember Tollini said that he did not see the project as a view issue. Boardmember Johnson said that the views are not from primary spaces and pointed out that one was from a closet. He also said that when people are in the bedroom sleeping the curtains are going to be drawn. Chair Kricensky said that this project would actually create more privacy for 2310 Mar East, and the other Boardmembers agreed. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) to continue 2308 Mar East Street to the June 7, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4-0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #5 OF THE 4/19/12 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Tollini requested the following changes: Page 4, paragraph 10, line 5: "...and a flat structure" should be revised to "...and a flat site". Page 7, paragraph 2, line 1: house>" should be corrected to "...house." Page 9, last paragraph, last line: "...not include many windows..." should be revised to "not many windows in the gables..." Chair Kricensky requested the following change: Page 10, paragraph 2, line 3: "He said that the front addition would elevate the house since it would be a two-story element in an area of one-story houses and the gable would accentuate the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 10 5/3/12 EXHIBIT NO. ~q ~ W6 about the height of the master bedroom. He said that it would be unlikely that Mr. Reynolds would have a 30 foot tall home below the site. He mentioned that the existing site is so overgrown that it was difficult to assess the privacy impact. He pointed out living in Tiburon is not a remote area and neighboring properties will be noticed. He said that interaction between houses can be addressed with landscaping, including some planting by the neighbors. Vice-Chair Emberson believed that a one foot reduction in building height was not a lot to ask and would make the neighbor happy. She said that the house would be gorgeous when it is built. She felt that the glazing might still be a problem and she would like to see it reduced a bit, but commented that everyone needs to give and take to make this work. Chair Kricensky said that looking at surrounding influences is a good thing to do when planning a site, and he thought that the applicant had done a good job addressing concerns. He said that sacrificing a bedroom was a good solution. He said that he had seen louvers installed for windows and they do work. He agreed that the wall at the stairwell needed an architectural element but suggested the window could be smaller. He noted that there was a verbal agreement on the one foot reduction in height at the prior meeting and he thought that one foot would make a difference for the view from the neighbor across the street. Planning Manager Watrous said if the Board wishes to reduce the height by one foot they could make it a condition of approval. For the stairwell window, he suggested specifying a percentage to reduce the size. The consensus of the Board was to reduce the building height by one foot and modify Condition of Approval No. 12 to reduce the window size by 30%. Chair Kricensky and Boardmember Tollini both noted that they agreed with the staff report on the findings needed for the floor area exception. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson) that the request for 460 Ridge Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional conditions of approval that the highest point of the house be reduced by one foot and the text of Condition #12 be revised to state that the size of the front stairway window shall be reduced by no less than 30%. Vote: 4-0. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 3. 2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches and 4 feet, respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No..034-271-03. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception on property located at 2308 Mar East Street. Currently the property is improved with a two-story dwelling which overlooks Raccoon Strait. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES # 17 12/1/11 EXHIBIT NO, The proposal would incorporate small additions throughout the structure as part of an overall interior and exterior remodel to the home. At the main level of the home, the front entry walkway would be partially in-filled for a new interior stairwell, and a small addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling for an expanded kitchen. A new deck would extend off the rear at this level. At the lower level of the home, the existing rear deck would be partially converted to additional bedroom space and a new larger deck would extend off the existing rear deck. The side deck would also be expanded at the rear, and a new exterior stair/walkway would be incorporated from the front of the property to the side deck for improved functionality. Tidal lots, such as the subject property, use the area above the mean high tide line (dry land), in determining gross floor area ratio and lot coverage. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,434 square feet (71.1 which greatly exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-2 zoning district (35.0%). A variance has therefore been requested for excess lot coverage. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,900 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio by 2,194 square feet for a parcel of this size (2,017 sq. ft.). Therefore a floor area exception has been requested. In addition, the existing left side yard setback is 6 inches, and the right side yard setback is 4 feet. The application proposes minor expansions within both side yard setbacks, and would continue the non- conforming setbacks of 6 inches on the left side and 4 feet on the right. As the minimum side yard setbacks in the R-2 zone are 8 feet, variances have been requested to continue the reduced side yards. Mohammad Sadrieh, architect, said that the property is currently unoccupied and the owners live out of town. He said that the plans were presented to neighbors late and they had not had enough time to discuss concerns with neighbors. He said that he would like to work with neighbors more and come back at a later date with changes. Mr. Sadrieh said that the current residence was built in 1956 and is in need of renovation. He said that they would change the footprint to allow for three bedrooms and a study. They propose to convert the existing lower level to a bedroom and bathroom and the kitchen, second bedroom, and stairs would be expanded. He said that they would add a new deck to the main living area on the upper ground floor entry level. He said that they were attempting to improve the view and lower the height of the front of the structure. He said that the project would dramatically improve the overall appearance of the property by including new extensive landscaping. Mr. Sadrieh said that it would be premature for him to make changes until they have had the chance to meet with neighboring properties to see the view impacts. He said that they would be glad to discuss the placement of windows to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution. He also said that the lighting on the deck could be moved to the wall and located two feet higher than the existing deck surface. He noted that there also was a suggestion to reduce the size of the decks, but he felt that both decks provide the only outdoor space adjacent to living space and they intentionally kept the decks modest. He said that they would like to work with neighbors to find a way to provide privacy without blocking their own view of the Golden Gate Bridge. He said that they have discussed retaining an existing tree that provides privacy and screening, and they intend to amend their landscape plan to retain that tree and also add other plantings to provide color. He said that the side yard is a dark space surrounded by walls, and would only be used as a landscape area and not for outdoor use. He said that an existing fence in that area provides excellent screening, and they would be glad to discuss any additional screening measures. The public hearing was opened. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 7 12/1/11 j/'y EXHIBIT N0. N.2- cPA Jim Wickett said that he serves with the California Coastal Commission and he appreciates what the Board does as a community service. He stated that Mar East Street is going through a generational change and new owners are moving in as original owners are passing away. He said that many of the houses are on the water or over the water, yet very close together. He stated that through good design privacy has been maintained. He said that being on the water creates a special situation for lighting where even small lights reflect on the water and at night when looking toward Angel Island it is pitch black, and one light can ruin the whole view for the entire neighborhood. He said that noise is also a big factor and people are very careful about noise in the neighborhood. He said that he was excited to have a new neighbor, but his goal is to share the neighborhood without giving up privacy. Mr. Wickett added that the greatest violation to privacy would be from the right corner deck that would place the neighbors within feet of his master bedroom. He noted that the new corner deck would violate the setback requirements and could be removed without affecting views. He said that the rear addition extending past the current footprint of the house was overly aggressive and he would like to see the addition cut back significantly. He stated that both decks would see into his master bedroom and right onto his bed. He suggested privacy screens that would allow the applicant to enjoy views without infringing on his privacy. He would also like to see lighting minimized. He said that his house is about 25 feet lower than the entry to the applicant's house and privacy is provided by a tree. He was glad that they will keep the tree, but said he was unclear how that will be accomplished since a deck is proposed in that area. He suggested reducing the deck to a walkway in order to keep the existing tree. He said that changing the functionality of the house to the stairway would convert that area into a lighted space, and he suggested using privacy glass and reducing the size of windows in that area. He requested any lighting utilize low voltage lights and be placed at floor level to reduce light impact to neighbors. Vice-Chair Emberson asked where the lights are situated on Mr. Wickett's deck. Mr. Wickett said that the only lights on the deck are on the floor, with the tops of the lights covered, and the lights only shine down. Marsha Handley, trustee of the Hanley Trust, said that her parents built the house 2310 Mar East. She thought that the expansion was significant and she had concerns. She said that views of the Golden Gate Bridge were particularly important to her family because her grandfather helped build it. She said that the extension of the house significantly would affect the view both from upstairs and downstairs. Peter Wilton, owner, said that he has a similar home in Sidney, Australia, and he would like to see all of the neighbors happy. He said that the home is very old and has had no work since it was built in 1956. He said that the house is recessed far back from the other houses and they are trying to gain some access to outdoor space with a modest deck large enough for a table and a few chairs. He said that he would like to find a solution with neighbors and come back to the Board. The public hearing was closed. Vice-Chair Emberson said that she liked the remodel and felt that it would enhance the neighborhood. She agreed with the neighbors that the right corner deck could be removed without impacting the use of the deck. She said that the decks look pretty large from the neighbor's house and she would like to see some negotiation on the size. She also agreed that perhaps over the front entry the windows could be minimized so they would not intrude on the neighbor's privacy. She also liked the solution to use privacy glass. Boardmember Tollini stated that he had not visited the site and felt that it was clearly necessary to visit this site to have a meaningful understanding of the impacts. He saw some logic in being able to push the house out to the same degree as others, but said that that would not necessarily mitigate privacy and view TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 12/1/11 l~ EXHIBIT NO. ixA. ~ 4-4 impacts. He said that the view impacts on the adjacent properties appeared to be substantial. He was hopeful that the neighbors would be able to work together to come up with solutions. Boardmember Johnson said that working with neighbors over the next few weeks would arrive at a collaborative solution, and he would like to leave the neighbors to work together and work out solutions. He hoped for a solution that would strike a balance with the neighbors. Chair Kricensky said that he visited the houses on either side and felt that once the neighbors have a chance to get together and discuss the project, they will come up with solutions. He said that Google Earth clearly shows the view impacts and that the applicant's house is recessed quite a bit. He also felt there was too much glass at the entry. He asked if the deck in front of the kitchen will be used, and Mr. Wilton said that it may not be used. Chair Kricensky said that the structure enclosing the decks could block views as well and asked that to be given some consideration. He also said that the graphics on the plans could be better and recommended enhancing the graphics to make it easier to read. Boardmember Johnson suggested it would be helpful to show an existing elevation and proposed elevation on the same page to be able to better compare the two. Boardmember Tollini pointed out that the variance finding that none of the other properties in the vicinity would be affected detrimentally is not usually a sturnbling block, but the closeness of the houses in this area may make that finding difficult to make. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini) to continue 2308 Mar East Street to the January 19, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4-0. 4. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Amalfi West, LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4.548 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04. - CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15, 2011 G. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #16 OF THE 11/03/11 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Boardmember Tollini corrected a typographical error on page 5, paragraph 2, and line 2: "the planes" should be revised to "the plans". ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Johnson) to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2011 meeting, as amended. Vote: 4-0. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 9 12/1/11 EXHIBIT NO._ _L__ cr, A (?A Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P 415.435.7373 F 415,435-2438 - NAnAr%v.ci.tiburon.ca.us PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION Mr. Mohamad Sadrieh 1 Gate 6 Road, Suite G Sausalito, CA 94965 Notice Date: June 11, 2012 On June 7, 2012, the Tiburon Design Review Board conditionally approved the following project located at 2308 Mar East Street: Consideration of Design Review for construction for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. File# 21207 Please refer to the attached conditions of approval. Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally avaiiable within 3 weeks following the meeting, and will be provided upon request. There is a ten (10) day appeal period of any decision made by -the Design Review Board. To appeal this decision, the prescribed form shall be filed in with the Town Clerk, accompanied with the appropriate fee. Appeals will be forwarded to the Planning Commission or Town Council for review. A Building Permit must be obtained for this project. Please inquire at the Building Division for additional information regarding the Building Permit process (415- 435-7380). Sincerely, Laurie Tyler` Associate Planner EXHIBIT NO. fir . 1dl-3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2308 MAR EAST STREET FILE NO. 21207 *As Amended at the June 7, 2012 DRB Meeting 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. Construction shall conform with the application and plans dated by the Town of Tiburon on March 5, 2012, or as amended by these conditions of approval and plans of May 21, 2012. Any modifications to the plans must receive Design Review approval. 3. Project elements shown on construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be essentially identical to those project elements shown on drawings approved by the Design Review Board. The permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying on construction drawings any and all changes to project elements. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the a construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawings, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating whether these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require additional Design Review approval. All such changes that have not been explicitly approved by the Town are not "deemed approved" if not highlighted and listed on construction drawings. Construction of any such unapproved project elements is in violation of permit approvals and shall be subject to Stop Work Orders and removal. 4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies, specifically the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 5. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner (minimum 25%) and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 6. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down-light-type fixtures. 7. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. EXHIBIT NO.-U- r-A, z 3 , 8. A construction sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The.sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall be posted at the commencement of work and shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 9. All requirements of the Director of Public Works/Town Engineer shall be met. An encroachment permit shall be filed and issued with the Town of Tiburon Public Works Department, for all work to be conducted within Town right-of-way, or Town-owned land, as defined in Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 10. All requirements of Marin Municipal Water District shall be met, prior to issuance of building permits. 11. A copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of Action" including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project shall be copied onto a plan sheet at the beginning of the plan set(s) submitted for building permits. 12. The project shall comply with the following requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District: a) The structure shall have installed an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2 b) Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10 13. The project shall comply with the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (131)), if the cost of the project equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure, before the start of construction of this proj ect. 14. The final design of the louver screen system at the upper level deck shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning division, prior to issuance of building permits. EXHIBIT NO, 1 EXHIBIT N0. ~ ~ D n3 o rD D N~ r*j n ~ Q- w ~ r,.3 0 ton co N 0 QO N - ~ < m rD (on ~ c o cr C)7 3 c ~u ton 0~' cn p ~ ~ O ~ O EXHIBIT N0._L_ pb . 2cP 99 C 1 0 ru rD D~ rD CL n ~ Do 0 ~ -Q U mil I ' O L n ( w 1 v 1 O ~ O ~ V O Ul O Oo tiO O Con FI s° y ~ Z a r ~ F N JiTf" I s a I f• I [ ly ~ V~ r t f--~- 4 D X-- •s ~c 0 r I (D w CL son V ■ em+ Ll 7 O O O -h S I~ i i i 1 a i o i /r _ I I is i A _ W bo u n _ ■ 1 f -h rD I~ \ '.i~ 05 \\t ~'E6 I Oo IV Ln o O O --h F / r r k x 0 -ti rD C:L 44 I._A C C n p . ~ O C N D 3 M C. 3 M rf vi n w D 3 m 3 r~ n D O C M o ■ n 77 PU V) c cr 3 I C IMFUN RESIDENCE MAO MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS ars)1AkEASTEi1REi 1 GAV 6 RD., BLDG. A, SUITE G y Tvurrnu.wc SAUSAUTO. CA 94965 a 4IS•331A410 NO.-. . ,r a A r--i 0 o rot ro rD ~ n 0 D r Di o u1i c ~W N) sz o ~ co co v~ O coo ~ a a> o ~ ul 00 00 ff 8c CL -Ti U, CIO r- [^L, O r L. o s o : O -h rD U l n N " F+ O ~ OR ~ O -h „ I R R 3 < rD N :3 D C 3 3 3 cn O I Y r ~ O sv CD o r D n :3 w ~ D con 3 c rD ~ 3 3 rD P+ CL L C 5 II NTLTONRMENCE tas~G ~w ~r,, MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS nun xt c.. wa 1 GATE 6 RD., BLDG. A. SLTTE G SAUSALITD, CA 91963 415.331-0410 EXHIBIT NO. I2 ffl. .ceZQ -1 - ri I I , t r ~ ' / V I T` N n 0 3 a v- m 0 fD n D a o' EXHIBIT NO, 12- f~.50p-aq D n3 o ~ PQ ~ ~ rD Oo rr $20 pu m N rSr ~ N r-r em+ 3 cn ~D -c O t^ r* ~ 0 O ~ O EXHIBIT No. 12 iz-.6 cf a-~q ~ y 1 f 5t j f • Y _.r. ti A r r^ ' R ~a tears' m . 'Si ; ~ ~ _ _ . 1 1 •1 ■ r 1 g6 ir"' - ~ 1 4 s 0 1 , i t y ~ ' Mme t ~ . CL i • 1 1' 'j f ~ ..fir. ►i r ~1 . - - i .z W o 1 1 i - .'1 ( 1 Ta 1 ! N t 5 7 1 1 ! t. 1• } 1 r. r l ' W ' 1 M f 1 I I ! 1 I 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 0 1 11 ~ 1 1 1 1 t i 7 1 1 1 1 ~ t ~ 1 1 e~ 11 } Y l 1 ~ 1 [pp / 1 } ~r 6 i 1 1 1 I 1 • } ~ t 1 f 1 _ _ - _ r vi! IH.Rk1'4:-1 ~I.~I~yFtlf H idit 11114" 1", ~y EXHIBIT NO.. IZ e, ?0paq p w 40444- c ~P1Mjn•.. F a.' 'r , , { f ry i { `y m x CA t~ rC rD ~ O O N Ow 3~ Q O Qo Nrn w w o cn 00 rot co 0 3 EXHIBIT N0._L"7,, f~~& C?a5 G ,r t O t 7 x K~4 ~n rD 0 h N ~ w o n owl con 0 c- 3 c- < W 0 O < O N 3 O ti N W 0 co IT NO. IZ ~Jc . 9 W-39 4 fDO nN ~ W o 't o LA 3 0, r 3 O~ ~ O ^ O ~ w o N W O 00 EXHIBIT NO. I Z JT~.000~3q tZ A { w JYR I ~V. Pti N W O 0) f 4- ! (i ~ i f ! r I v J' ~p 66 I . 0 \ sa 1 ~c ` m~~ I Lf j / l` 1 hu j ! 3 ~ ~II GC~~~ \ f 99 ~p i " , III i1 <-j' / h C t~ rD M rD M n o 77 X u z t r r WILTON r~~rosfx ~y, r~hJ MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS 1 GAIL 6 RD., BLDG. A., SLnr>• c nn~av,ca wrm f{ SAIlSAI1TQ. CA 94965 w 415431-0410 0 N c: W rm+ con O c 3 cr C 3 v~ (D 0 W ~ O N W O 00 EXIMBIT NO. l2 ft. 11 d-201 rte.: m CL m La x m o o C o ~ rD o DN rD w n p N -mh MM% w O O3 Oo EXHIBIT NO. 11 G fD O N W O r -t+ o 0 < 3 ~ rn <o n -o n 0 O rD N rD rp ~ Q 0 fD n N W O Oo EXHIBIT NO. M e- ►;6 cpaa G r" O rD C. -v n V) n MMI rD rD CD O +01 N W O 0) "ON O 3 m CL La rD O -h -v Owl O 73 O rD C. 0 N l1 77 N W O 00 EXHIBIT NO. 1Z, M, Awag 0 N W O r o ~ o 3 fD m CL n -00 La < o W "h ma Mw% ~ o n ~ (D O (D N N CD ~ N n 77 N W O 00 EXHIBIT NO. 1Z fb. ~~-~aq G 6 . a x rD O- N W 0 - O S 03 m CL CL rD LQ -v CD o < n O 70 n O OWN (A M (-D (D rD n 77 N W 0 00 EXHIBIT N0. I Z fe.16 c P89 G (D O -h N W O "on Cn O gu. 3 con rn f D r~ O ton -h n ~ D O O ~D n N W O co EXHIBIT NO.- I'- w j~j . 17 Aa9 r V) Aj . V) S A~ CL rD n rD rD G N O -y, N W O O 3 m a. c~ r~ 0 O O r~ D n N W O Oo EXHIBIT No. IZ e .-18- a ~ I f q L q 3 c o ~ N 3 3 C ~ R I ~ D t 0 (A ti i t i ~ l ~ IF. ~ 41 i L 9 Wit ' X11 i v1 , ~ o -n O rD 13 M CL 3* L C rc0 p*j ~ w o rD M V) o C: 3 3 o' ~ p rD w ~ v O N W O M .f `AEU N(S r►,~ras~ Fl Mr M~~ MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS EXHIBIT N0. IZ muoav. nm 1 GAfli 6 RD, BLDG. A., SURE G 3 SA 1440. CA 9A965 ^ E 415-33.331-0A10 73 o p (A -h rD N Q W 7C O rD O EXHIBIT NO. IZ fb .?c ce as o fD 0 0 N -h (D N CL W T~ O r-r' al m o 3 EXHIBIT NO. I Z f:8 -ztce 99 r r 4~ 1 I S R L "o ~1 pr. JI ib!bi'~: i I 1! e g F W r,J fMGG laoYJ~X~ ~LP'i. . 1 ? g g 111LTDNRFSIDENCE MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS MNI IIMT:Tlt[f ~ muantc. vn I GATE 6 RD., BLDG. A_ Sl,'17E G F SAUSALRD, CA 94965 4IS-331-0410 I I e I~' P ❑ I II , 318" C t. I I i I i D Pu 0~ 3 n V 0 c: h 0 ((DD 0 (A LA M rD -v o n n MM% rD rD XHIBIT NO. IZ MMI O cry a m - n O ~ rD < rD M CL ~ o V V, :3 n EXHIBIT No. IZ p5 . zz CP35 Z a e ~ 1 I rn rn r~ O v~ = Z ~ S • Y M M ~w fv, j: ~I I V) p r+ rn gu rn rD ry 4~ { y' p , a •s ~g~ Ia. ti l I i l 1 O C o O * =3 R _ w suxaccinvlce tr,~r eY r.~tsv6rr~e.l MQHAMAD SADRIEH ARCMTE( 78 g rye IOAU6Ftt BLDG. A_VAM ~S 1 MUSAFITA CA 94W. aF4311 0iFA . 0 p p I~ ~ D c 3 rD p n C N p V) EXHIBIT No. 12, o4t.z4-ce3q -00 _ gu, O 0 o~ O A~ 0 I - L- a- ~Y ~ A a L,n c -l is i I } } IJ 9 ~n w~ K Pi T 0 0 t- C. 3 ~ La O r-r C N N e-t m M ^C 0 m S S V f ` r Z O r-r C N to r-r m rD ^^C rt 0 - o Nt,.7tsti Rsx,ncai~ 40hpo-5w I ~r f1Js MQHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITE(TS I GATE 6 RD.. BLDG A.. SLITTE G n~utr~ .weo SAUSAL.110. CA "US 415•S)L-0~f6 n ~er rD O L, D c r~ 3 L 0 ^ o C ~ W un EXHIBIT NO. 12c- ~ ti; y~ ~ M1 ,x Al tt~~ l ~d.~~.`~S" - M ~I.N i yt tan ;ice tC~i } . I K 3 i. ~5 F ~W ~ R 1` l \ .`T*iw+ ~ ' : f y ~ tter.. 1 .'yR _ iiR"' ~ . ~ r ~ 2o- .:t-• ar. ~ ^ ~ ~ 'l ~ ~ ky'4,. a, 1 Ir, i - t rt Q'A „i ~e T +r-r .wf ~ ~ I ~ - Al ~ 1+" ~ t tl~i • IN, . 1. h,. h'Fa--.,,. - -.s, ~ _ r TZ•,~~-~ ~y _ ~ ~ , t , L . . .a r ` - i ~ f r i y _ = ~.Y~ , f , T frd Y EXHIBIT NO. 12 m W.A~la . w: a a t - 4~ '~.i~~ 'fir ~ ! 7 y,., a 4~ ~'•i~ r + r r 0 n r+ OO VlO 0-0 C O ~ N S rD (D Z r.t (D rn ru O o~ ~v O N EXHIBIT N O.-JL . P,A,27oPaa ,r EXHIBIT NO. Z fb'2&dag D n3 o ~ D N ~ rsj rot fD 3 o Q* o N ~ 0 ton cr cr n q m O N cn,-r (D N Q ~ 0 ma MEN N O. EXHIBIT NO 0A - 21 loci k k a 'f~: kg's p D r+ M PL) M EXHIBIT N0. l z f~ • ac CPaq D r* rD rt rD -v n v) O c rt O O mn N W O EXHIBIT NO. 17, P,q .at cpaa D m x 0 rr rD ?j f"f -v n V) 0 0 0 N W O C'1 EXHIBIT N0. Z to . 92ces9 D o(D y ~ N um) r-r ~p rt (D co n MEMMEM r+ 0 C: pu ~ w N ~ mmmm~m m 70 QO C: V)'o ~ O 3 s~ s 3 am soma o' EXHIBIT NO. 17.- A, - a3 cpal EXHIBIT N0. l2 m x cn' P+ ca V) n MON rD EXHIBIT NO. 12- ,z zca-2 a MMI O 73 O cn (D I t!1 rt 70 I 0 C C rD CD cn r+ CD M =3 rD N w N rr W D O =3 0c) m EXHIBIT NO. IZ c*. Z4 daa O O { Y O < E rn rD 2~ pu cn rn ~ t4 i (D N O 00 t; JOEL MERL (n t r EXHIBIT NO. IZ _ a, 67 aag r O O N rD Q. I ~ e-t O rD 3 r-P <rD I N W O Oo m f-t EXHIBIT NO. 12, ~p S O ~ (D ~ ~ O O ~ EXFIIBIT INTO. 12 ,f, :2 Q -40-20 V~,„: . ~ H 1~ N (W ~ CZ a iW 1-~ C 9 bd -A y O I W MORAMAD S ADRIEH ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING PLAT ~'NING 0l V/s/ F 0~ May 21, 201 2 Dear Members of the Design Review Board: In response to suggestions made at the last Design Review Board meeting, %ve have made the following modifications: A. The upstairs deck has been reduced from 9'-6" wide to 5'-10" wide, to be in line with the kitchen projection. This space will be more like a balcony than a deck, with space only for a cafe table and chairs, B, The amour-tt of glass on the wall facing 2306 has been reduced. hi this proposal, the proposed lower floor has the saine amount of glass as the existing lover floor. The proposed upper floor has the same amount of glass as the existing upper floor. This reduction is primarily in the glass at the stairwell. C. On the lower deck, the glass screen has been raised from 5'-3" to 6'-0". The privacy screen at the deck facing 2306 Has been changed from a, horizontal shelf to a diagonal screen. This semen will be supported on either side by an aluminum support, starting from the base of the deck and extending out 5'. We are proposed two options for the screen, One option would be to have two ..sails" span the 5' screening area. This would have a very soft and organic appearance and would look good near the water. The material' allows sir through and is very durable, (Sheet 100) Another option would. ix-- an aluminum slotted screen, the same color and material as the supports avid the deck metal. (Sheet 10A) I GATE 6 ROAD, S[,W,, A, ,SUITE t,,:. 55AUSAL170, CALIFORNIA 94965 * 415-337.04'10 & 415-331-118 (RAX) a OBIT N0. to .tOFz Members of the DesiM11 Reviinv &,a.rd Mav 2Y, 201.2 Page 2 We have spent many hours at tie site mocking up alternatives for this screen, A vertical screen that extends up 5-e or b', louvered or solid, would destroy the views on the hay and the bridge from. not only the deck, but from all vantage points in the upper ;floor. Extending the screen into the deck area also completely eliminates its screeming ability. The only way to understand the angles and the type of screen that can provide total privacy for the neighbor while maintaining city views for Mr. Wilton is to see it for yourself from the house. Once again, we ask that all interested parties please contact us and we will show you the mock-ups. We can be available almost any time, anti seeing the effectiveness of this screen that we are proposing can only be appreciated by being in the building. 'thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this proposal. Best wishes ,e r Mohamad Sadrieh 201, r $RIDGEFVAY, SUITE, 20 • SAUSAL ITO. CALIFORNIA I9965 • 415-3$1-04.10 EXHIBIT NO.~~ M. 2-C?z Dr. Peter C. Wilton 2308 hfar .East, YYburon, CA. 94927, USA Telephone: 1-4lS-474-5151 e-mail., wi1knOhaa9b§rkeleywill PLANNING DIVISIU-4 Mr. Dan Watrous, Planning Manager Me. Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board May 29, 2012 RE: 2308 Mar East. Tiburon Dear Dan, Laurie, DRB Members Further to the suggestions of the Design Review Board at the meeting on May 3, we have further modified the plans for the proposed renovations at 2308 Mar East. A ropy of the proposed plans Is attached, Specifically, in accordance with the recommendations of the Design Review Board, the revised plan; 1. Reduces the size of the upper deck to align with the proposed kitchen extension, thereby providing greater privacy to the residents of neighboring property; 2. Limits glazing on the south west elevation to an area not exceeding the total area of existing glazing; 3. Redesigns the privacy screen on the western side of the deck, ensuring privacy to the residents of neighboring property whilst at the same time preserving our vlews of the Golden Gate bridge, Together with the many earlier substantial modifications to the proposed plan, we trust these changes will address the concerns of the Planning Division and the Board, and enable you to confidently approve our application. As is required, we have modified the story poles on the site. Based upon observations from Chairman Krioensky at the last DRB meeting, we believe an on-site inspectlon by the Board will greatly enhance understanding and appreciation of the meats of the proposed plans. Accordingly, we strongly urge all Members of the Board to visit the site of their convonlence. P'lOnse contact any of the following to arrange a visit at a time that best suits your schedule: EXHIBIT NO.~ Mr. Moharnad Sadrish: (415) 331-0410 (office) or (415) 747-4137 (cell) Ms. Sono Zhang; (415) 320-6698 (oell) Dr. Peter D. Wilton; (415) 425-5151 (cell) Thank you in anticipation of your time and consideration. We look forward to discussing the appiication further at the Design Review Board meeting on June 7. Sinoarely: Dr. Peter C. Wilton EXHIBIT NO.~~ ~tj. 2,-l Z E' VEH J, V r r.4 29 May 2012 "MSION Members of the Design Review Board: We are writing to again voice our objection to the proposed project at 2308 Mar East. As has been discussed in great detail, the impacts to our privacy, light, and views by this project are severe and adverse. Each legal unit of our legal duplex property will incur a substantial injury were this project, as presently designed, to be approved. We understand that 2308 Mar East is a legal nonconforming structure. The proposed project calls for two separate variances and a floor area exception. These variances would serve to expand the nonconforming elements of 2308. The purpose of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance is to reduce, not increase a property's legal non- conforming status. The legal protections against this are clearly delineated in our Town's Municipal Code as follows: 1. For the variances, Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Section 16-52.030(E) details what criteria must be met for a variance to be granted. Subsection 4 states: "The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity" Our property is unquestionably injured by any objective standard. Our property will enjoy less privacy, light, and views from any expansion of the existing building envelope. We also understand that the magnitude of injury or impact is left to subjectivity, but regardless, as this project requires two variances, that subjectivity does not apply. Our property would be injured, and the variances should not be granted. We urge the Design Review Board Members to consider the Staff Report dated May 3, 2012, which concluded findings cannot be made to grant the variances requested. Specifically, the Staff Report stated: "There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested. " 2. For the expansion of the nonconforming structure, Tiburon Municipal Code, Section 16-62.030 (A)(2)(a) states: "No nonconforming use shall be moved, altered, enlarged, or extended in any way that would increase the nonconformity, unless the purpose of such change is to eliminate the nonconformity, and as otherwise set forth in subsection B. " ~VHIBIT NO. /6 a~31 - l cfZ Subsection B states: "The discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards of coverage, setback, height or any other standard prescribed in the regulations for the zone in which the structure is located shall not be increased." No other fact is as relevant as this. Our Municipal Code states in clear terms that what is being proposed is illegal according to the laws of our Town. This proposal does nothing to eliminate the nonconformity, and in fact exacerbates it at the expense of neighboring properties. We want to make clear that we are not opposed to development for development's sake. The owner of 2308 has every right to develop his property. However, that right to develop is limited by applicable zoning requirements. It is unfortunate that the owner of 2308 purchased a property that has significant legal limitations, but those are not capricious or subjective limitations being demanded by us, they are the law. What other properties in the vicinity have in terms of decks is irrelevant. Subjective judgments and opinions concerning the severity of the impact of the design are irrelevant. The facts of the nonconformity, the necessity of variances to increase that nonconformity, and the injury those variances would cause to neighboring properties, are the elements legally germane to this situation. Our request is that the Design Review Board applies the law in considering this matter. We invite all members of the Design Review Board to visit our property before the June 7th meeting. Sincerely, David and Kathryn Kulik EXHIBIT NO. 16 0.zCez Page i or s Dan Watrous From: Magdalena Yesil [my_yesil@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:01 PM To: Dan Watrous; Laurie Tyler Cc: Jim Wickett; Magdalena Yesil Subject: Our letter to the Design review Board regarding 2308 Mar East May 30, 2012 Dear Members of the Design Review Board, The Planning Staff Report written for the May 7th meeting on 2308 Mar East stated the following regarding granting the variances the applicant is requesting: "The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. It would appear that granting both the reduced side yard setback and excess lot coverage variances could be detrimental and/or injurious to the neighboring properties at 2306 and 2310 Mar East, if the deck expansions and extensions and addition were permitted, due to the potential for view, privacy and lighting infringement. There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested. " In the same report, the Staff also said the following, on granting the variance for excess lot coverage: "However, staff is unable to make this finding for the requested variance for excess lot coverage, as the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would not create an unnecessary hardship, but would only limit the applicant to a current building footprint and floor area that already greatly exceeds the limitations for a lot of this size. " The same Staff Report also stated the following regarding the floor area exception: "However, projects which request both a floor area exception and an excess lot coverage variance are generally viewed as a fundamental overbuilding of the lot, and are usually not supported. " In addition, we quote from the minutes of the DRB meeting on December 1, 2011 on 2308 Mar East. On page 9: "Board-member Tollini pointed out that the variance finding that none of the other properties in the vicinity would be affected detrimentally is not usually a stumbling block, but the closeness of the houses in this area make that finding difficult to make. " During the May 7th meeting, the Design Review Board did not engage in discussion regarding these specific conditions for the granting of variances requested by 2308 Mar East but rather focused on design elements. We believe that granting the excess lot coverage variance for 2308 will be highly detrimental and injurious to us due to the privacy impact, both visual and acoustic, and lighting infringements. We therefore request that the requested variances be denied as a 5/30/2012 is. 1Cp 3 EXHIBIT NO, 1Z Page 201J matter of law. In the event that the Board concludes that they can legally grant the variances, we would respectfully request the following mitigation measures be incorporated into the design at 2308 Mar East. Southwest Elevation Top Floor: Consistent with the DRB suggestions at the May 7th meeting, we request that the window at the entry be a clerestory window, keeping only the top strip of glass and eliminating the lower 2nd strip of glass. Southwest Elevation Lower Floor: We request that the sliding glass doors be converted to either a single solid wood door or a single Dutch door to reduce the increased illumination thus lighting infringement at night into our second bedroom. Rear Deck Lower Floor: This proposed new expansion of the lower deck and its connector to the existing side deck is at the same level as our master bedroom, bringing our neighbors within about 30 feet of our master bed. We believe that this is a major violation of the privacy of our master bedroom since privacy cannot be defined simply as visual privacy, thus this privacy violation cannot be remedied with an obscure glass panel. Privacy encompasses other aspects such as acoustic privacy and lighting. Bringing people, their conversations, their activities, and their ability to hear us within about 30 feet of our master bed is highly injurious to us and our property and is detrimental to our lifestyle. We strongly disagree that the proposed design gives our master bedroom increased privacy, as was stated by the Applicant in the May 3rd meeting. We therefore ask that NO expansion/extension be granted at the lower level at the rear of the structure.. We suggest that the current existing decks be uses as the decks at that level. Rear Deck Top Floor: The current design places the kitchen at the eastern end of 2308 and the new deck at the end closest to our master bedroom. Thus when our neighbors and their guests are on this deck, they will be on the side closest to our bedroom, which creates real privacy issues for us. The people, their conversations, noise and activity will be concentrated near our master bedroom and master bed. As mentioned above, maintaining privacy for our master bedroom should not be just limited to visual privacy but should also maintain the other elements of privacy such as acoustic and lighting. We are being asked to live with the infringements to our privacy that this upper deck will create for many years to come, on a daily and nightly basis. We want to stress that the proposed new upper deck with screens does NOT create more privacy for our master bedroom than currently exists. It fact, it very significantly reduces the limited privacy we currently enjoy. We appreciate the attempt to create some visual privacy but we believe the proposed designs do not solve our privacy problem created by the new proposed living room deck. Furthermore, the proposed screens are not an inherent element of the architecture in the sense that they are not part of the major beams of the house thus they can be unscrewed and easily removed after the final inspection. We also feel that both of the proposed screen versions, the sail and the louvered, will be quickly damaged in the high winds and severe weather we experience on the water at Mar East, especially at the designed angel, since there will be limited support for the suspended structure. Even if not removed by the residents, the screens will most likely be broken and/or eliminated in part or whole by nature in a fairly short period of time after construction. At the 5/30/2012 EXHIBIT NO. 4b.2 CC- 3 Page 3 of 3 proposed angle, they also run the risk of becoming a flying hazard unless they are built out of very heavy construction material and secured by significant bolts to large timbers or heavy metal posts. Considering all aspects of privacy, not just the visual but also the acoustic and lighting aspects, we strongly believe that a design that puts an entertainment deck/balcony in such close proximity to our master bedroom and master bed is highly injurious to us and our property and is very detrimental to our established lifestyle. We request that this upper level deck be eliminated from the design and urge the Design Review Board to ask the applicant to consider an alternative location for outdoor living and entertainment space. We would like the Design Review Board to consider the injurious impact of the proposed design to our home and daily life, to take our damages into consideration when discussing the granting of the variances requested, and to address the injury we will sustain if these variances are granted. We will be available on Wednesday June 6th after 5:30PM and all day on June 7th for site visits. We encourage each of you to visit our home and see the injurious effects of the proposed design we have tried to articulate in this letter. To set up a time, please contact us via email at my_yesil@yahoo.com or at the following numbers: Cell 650-400-4080 or home 415- 889-5060. Thank you for your time and consideration, Jim Wickett and Magdalena Yesil 2306 Mar East St. Tiburon, CA 94920 5/30/2012 EXHIBIT N0. 17 e5. ';'e 3 ,aur;QTV1e, LATE MAIL #.om From: Marsha Vargas Handley <mvargas@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:33 PM To: Laurie Tyler Subject: 2308 Mar East Street, Tiburon a e.e Pi ANi\EN >Dear Ms. Tyler, >>It has just come to my attention that the Design Review Board is again meeting to discuss the proposed remodel of 2308 Mar East on June 7, 2012. >>I own 2312-14 Mar East and want to again object to the approval of the proposed remodel that would extend the current footprint of 2308 twelve feet out which would have a serious impact on the view from my property as well as reduce the side yard setback to only 6 inches which I consider to be unacceptable for the neighborhood. I wish to state my objection to this plan. >>Sincerely, >>Marsha Vargas Handley »140 Maiden Lane, San Francisco, CA 94108 »415-307-7292 ~ XHTBIT NO. 1 --LL' Laurie Tyler LATE MAIL# Z From: Marsha Vargas Handley <mvargas@mindspring.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:35 AM To: Laurie Tyler Subject: Fw: 2308 Mar East Street, Tiburon = - Dear Ms. Tyler, I was just informed that the proposed remodel of 2308 Mar East has reduced the extension of the building from 12' to 5'10" which would still have a serious impact on the view from my property so wish to state my objection to this plan. Marsha Vargas Handley Owner, 2312-2314 Mar East -----Forwarded Message----- >From: Marsha Vargas Handley <mvargas@mindsPnng.com> >Sent: May 24, 2012 9:33 PM >To: Ityler@ci.tiburon.ca.us >Subject: 2308 Mar East Street, Tiburon >body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}» >>Dear Ms. Tyler, >>>It has just come to my attention that the Design Review Board is again meeting to discuss the proposed remodel of 2308 Mar East on June 7, 2012. >>>I own 2312-14 Mar East and want to again object to the approval of the proposed remodel that would extend the current footprint of 2308 twelve feet out which would have a serious impact on the view from my property as well as reduce the side yard setback to only 6 inches which I consider to be unacceptable for the neighborhood. I wish to state my objection to this plan. >>>Sincerely, >>>Marsha Vargas Handley >>>140 Maiden Lane, San Francisco, CA 94108 >>>415-307-7292 1 EXHIBIT NO.- Iq MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS ARCHHECIURE AND PLANNING R `E Air)R 2 3 2 d' April 15, 2012 PLANNING DIVISION Dear Members of the Design Review Board: We have made the following changes to our design to reduce the impact of this addition to your homes: , UPPER FLOOR: 1. We hate reduced the rear deck from 12' to 9'-6". There will be an opaque glass horizontal screen f&,ing 2306 Mar East. This screen will be designed to block the view of anyor3e standing on the deck to be able to look into the bedroom window at 2306 Mar East. This screen will be field tested and adjusted to do the job. The reason for this particular design for the screen is that it allows for view ; fi•oin Tvir. L1lilton's home while providing screening for the bedroom window. In addition, the glass guardrail facing 2306 Mar East will be opagae glass, to provide additional privacy from people seated on the deck. 2. We have removed the vertical support structures and the small deck in front of the kitchen, in order to improve the view for 2310 Mar East. We have also reduced the window in the kitchen facing the water by half. In doing so, we would increase C-ie privacy between 2306 and the Wilton house dramatically because the kitchen pop-out would provide screening between the two homes. 3. We have switched the entry door location so that it faces the street instead of facing 2306 Mar East. "1 GATE 6 ROAD, BLDG A, SUTTE G • SA, '3ALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965 • 415-3331-0,110. 415-331-316:3 (FAX) EXHIBIT NO. Zl~ f6 - [ CKZ Members of the Design Review Board April 15, 2012 Page Two 4. We have changed all the exterior deck lights to be low, shielded, and V above the floor surface. 5. We have removed the highest ;;trip of windows at the st.aimtell facing 2306 Mar East. LOWER I-I OOR: 1. We have reduced the lower deck expansion from 12' tc) 5'-l o". 2. We have eliminated the side de :k expansion and replaced it with a 3-' walkway, so that Bedroom. 3 would have access to the front deck. 3. We have provided a 5'-3" high obscure glass screen to provide privacy for the bedroom at 2306 Mar. East. 4. We have adjusted our walkway at the lower level to provide for an opening so that the existing bay tree will not be impacted. It is very difficult to visualize these changts Lmtil you see them with the story poles from inside the Wilton home. I woul, l like to invite all Board members to visit the home and look at the screening that we are proposing. Please give me a call and let me know when you would like to get in the house so that we can alert the tenants. We hope these improvenieJAs meet with your approval. Sincerely, Mohamad Sadrieh EXHIBIT N0. 20 f6. z9-'qz Dr. Peter C. Wilton 2308 Mar East, Tiburon, CA. 94920 - Telephone: 415-425-5151 e-mail: Wilton ti`haas.bei-kelev-edit April 16, 2012 Tiburon Design Review Board Re: Proposed Renovations, 2308 Mar East Dear Design Review Board Members: Thank you for the opportunity to submit revised plans for our home at 2308 Mar East. At our initial meeting last November, 2011, you and others in attendance at the meeting provided many valuable suggestions for enhancements to our proposed design. On the basis of this feedback, we have made substantial changes to the proposed design that we feel address all issues raised at that meeting. We look forward to detailing those changes during our presentation on May 3. A summary is provided in the accompanying material. In the interim, we believe our proposed design dramatically enhances the privacy of both our adjoining neighbors, and ourselves, in a way that can only be fully appreciated by a visual inspection of the view and story poles from the interior of our property. In the interests of a fair and balanced review of the proposed design, we invite, and strongly encourage, individual members of the Design Review Board to visit o, ur property and see first-hand the positive privacy impacts of the proposed design. To this end, we would be happy to make ourselves available for an inspection of the property, at your convenience. Please feel free to coordinate this visit either through the Tiburon Planning Department, through our architect, Mr Mohamad Sadrieh (415-331- 0410, or 747-4137)or by contacting us directly per the details above. Thank you in anticipation of your consideration and support. We look forward to a productive discussion at the Design Review. Sincerely, Dr. Peter C. Wilton EXHIBIT NO. ZjQ e, -Z 6124z, N 4=J Q W ~ ~ L ~3 C 00 0 ~ ~ M N EXHIBIT NO.-D..,^ e-4 cmz N E j4-1 O 'L- 0 m V L i 4-J S c 4-J O 0 4-J .O LA 4- LA CZ Ln 4-A IV - W ~C M > 4-J 4-J M J O - cif +-J 4- ~ -O 4-- ~ -O +.1 ~ Q Q V J in s s L. ~ to S V aJ V ~ SWOON -0 Q. ~C S ~-C-C V; 4-0 0 E 4-J 4- - O 4=J 4=J co V O a~ a) O M I-- 0 4 M~ O 4-J 4--J c~ O c: ccS - 4- LA cu Ln to Li 4-J O 3 M tA 4-J > Q a~ L > i - L aJ 0 0 4-J -0 •V M W W ~ L- a) V s "O - C)) 4-J tA CL C:) 4-J ' I V i 4, czV) 0 V - LA M W L = w tA L- N aJ E (lj LL.J V) -C ctS _a 4v M 4-+ {J a~ 4- L ( 0 Q L a w 00 O 4-J Q Q t. O cn p cn 4-J 00 0 C) EXHIBIT NO. ZD a- 6 WAZ W ■ C J O I- o cn ~ CZ w > CL EXHIBIT NO.-jQ-- j5 .4 Paz c O w 4--7 • V W i c~ W 4-J V L 4-J L/) V 4J ■ W L EXHIBIT NO. 20 fb- 7 044a c O L W% 4-J L) m W i c~ W L 4-J V 4-J V) W D ■ n~ W L EXHIBIT NO. ZC1 fa . 4? X42 4-1 Ln m w c~ N r--I M N O M N a-+ V v D e~0 ry'l rl"i EXHIBIT NO.,Z e.goA42 W i O M N V 4J EXHIBIT NO.-X-- x, 10 CF4z a 0 x w V rCi a t/'1 f~ W 00 0 m r**4 i E 4J DC 4- 00 O O M 4-J as-1 N o 4- 0 -0 O i ~ LU rZ V i O sM 4--0 2•- E(,o?O Oo 4- M >.N u ca E to ~ 1 4 Q. N 0,70 w - ~ ~ LA 4-J to 0 to M ~.o~_0 4-J~4 cn Ln 4-J u O Ln X fE ui O i 4- cti s CO O c~ V M N O @ 4-J O Co > ~ i o M N - co 0 4- O " M " . - cu E 0 4- O O u O s IV 4-J O Q M Ln O 4-J 0 O QO -0 -0 ~ 0 QO 4-1 r--q 4- o (A 4-J c~ E •N E O O E u V 0 ~ E ~ 4 J - V X 4_ O O 0 4- C E ~ C O L 0 0 ~ N Q y... Ln W O EXHIBIT NO.-- Z~ fa 11 op,47- i v ~C ~ V V~ ~ W i E O > ~ O ~ co O M M N N ca 4- kjo O C) M ~ N EXHIBIT NO. j:b - aCF-44y EXHIBIT NO. 20 ,o-12cp4z T 4-J L Q O L d. V cn EXHIBIT NO.,2,0_ V ~s O o O 4-J u 4-1 -o v) aj V) ~ o, o Loom 4=J (z E 4-J ml Vn rz W LU ' C:> N O W C 2 O L co M "Q ' O x ~ ~ j O, y Q rn v CZ W ~ E 4- N 0 n " °J cl ~ V O V 4-J c: >c - ~ rmmi O ~ 4-J CL > M ft :3 > ~ 4-1 4-J ~LA 4-J ~CULA o O - Q 0 o >..-l a~ 4-J E O EXHIBIT NO, p°j• 15'cr-}2 0 m N N i O E-- 4J If • -3 ~ ~ :a3~.I i~.lH'Y` 1a31"ill It ~ i~l'(.~;t'I•liitti _ - _ . L L Yw .i ~ e [ A 11 i 1 i E li Y i 1. a r~ 1 • k• s •l i ' 4 x'•.16 ; i 1lo i ~ 1 1T1 ' • ra Y t r i e 9 1 • 1 i a 1 e • 1 l a ..,,J Y s e 1 1 1 i i a 1 1` - i e [ • Y - a Y e [ y YY ~L• 1 1 1 t 1 Y 1 a S 1 1 1 a J ~Y11111 1 Y.. [r ~i la 1 ~~11 iAt 1 11 a li 1 r L i , 1 .1 1 51 v , 1 • j ^1• EXHIBIT NO. X ~ , 14 C94z 0 M N O v 41 O Q O 0 m 0 (3) Ln X w EXHIBIT NO.JO_ 0 M N N f~ 0 41 i If f1 ~1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 'k..~..~.~.~.~.~~.~>~a' f~~F~i~~ ~ l.~4~ti15' I~~iCl - .1 - i ~ r.l^. sr•.. ~ C , n t 1y e Y i ' 19 1 i ~'ti M ~ e t I 1 _ ~ f 1 ~e 1 1 ~ 0 1 ' 1 e r v i - 1 1 1 1 ~ ! ! Y Y 1' 1 1 1 e 1 f ~ a ~ e - •t 1 1 11 1 ° ~ t f A 6a ! 1• 1 , y i, 1 y 4 , , e" ' 1 ~ , t a 11 • t53 ~ i 1 .t ~ Y f Ii ~ • . "}i • L• r ° rrl 1 AP WAIL 1~".,~..«-•.._~r~._..~ a •a.._~ , 1 ~r q M ~ d. v L &HIBI 1Y fl u• 4 6 . l oP`FZ W O M N O E O O Me cn ■ ■ E O O m N 4- O 4J x W Ilk- L 71 -4 V1 P~j EXHIBIT N0. _ 1o - ICI co"4y FSP% O M N O E O O DC J E O 4- C) M N 0 3: N 4J N O Q. O EXHIBIT NO. O m N i c~S O F- 41 ' tai a' 1 ••f h:l _ ~J.a3 tl .}Eli' 113MIJtiY 11MO11t`ilk V {6 1 l _ ~ f ,,,1 ` ' AI I 1• f L j ~~4 1 Y •i ; Y • h `Y~1 r, J ill irRx rI fl - a1 S ( m i 11 hl S to *22 n h si, I 1 1~ f ~ h q~ f Jl~ y.L ~b i ~ y.~,a. ••LL • • v f i 1 1 1 1 1 if 1 1 i 1 f i e • ra•_ I d ~ f 1 e _ ~ 1 _Y 1 I h i tJ y 4 h { 1 I f 1 1. f 1 a h 1 h/ f 1 I If f ~ f= J: lY ML~~R~rf [ e e . f i t•a 1 f 1 1 = 1 • A A Y B f a 1 1 1' f e / A 1 1 f l h 1 i + 4 a69 I a e,~ 1 A • y e 1 .I i .1 V 1 t~ Ir' x~J EXHIBIT NO. Z~2 cc-40- W O M N O E O O J E O L. 4- r n N 4- O 4J LA W EXHIBIT NO. D 15 - Z2-&4Z 00 O M N O E O O DC J E O O r-i M N 0 3 a~ v 0 0 a. EXHIBIT NO.- 20 j6 .za aR9z a-J 00 L N M 0) Ln 0) 4-J X O 4J ~s V) c~ 4 O .U ~ > O Ln v W i C: S cn -1-j L- • E E 00 r O Os (V M a-' (jo kloo N 4J O CD u > m V) 4- o i O o 4-J 4-J 4-J ~ CL ~ 0. ~ C. 0 CL) a) (v _0 4v ai = L 0-0 o 0 L) ~ I-' • > EXHIBIT NO. Z2 lD O M N i O I- a~ 9 1 1 Y lr{ i ~ 11 Y e 1 e r ~ 1 tl. ! ~e OR e 1 1 ! e 1 f A el e e OR , 1. t 1 1 ! ! e r G+ i ! r Now 1 1 Y e e 1 •`4i a /9 w 1 1 ~ 1'ae r e 1 ' 1 r M~l 1 n I 1 1 1 ~1 I r i' ! e II 6, 1 r IS 1 OR }ro 1 ! f etI 1 t. slel l I 1 e i le ~!Y sy j ~ S ~ ~ t LQI CL s 1 V- Vm y _ I T. OR: . •~I,ri EXHIBIT N0. ib'2~c42 W O M N O E O O c Lo, cm E O klo O M N O cn Ln . I W 5 6 t'JJ r F k! ~ I 1f 1 r, ! y w Ly~ r ry; ~a ! tr s J% K~ 1k ,~f w Y 4 r3 n i "f vu 4~ ? EXHIBIT NO. X Fj. 26 0rl42 00 O M N O E O O c LOO J E O i 4- O M N O N N O Q O EXHIBIT NO._,~2 15.27cF4Z- m O > I 4-J 4-J (1) u 4-J 0 L 4-+ Q s V) L- E 4-J Ln 4) 1 0) W O., 0 :3 O Q 4-1 cn _ p c~ C: m •c,o a~ L- O w C ~ Q0 L- L s i O. 4...r r~ L O Ln E o 4-J N ai O c~ O LA sue, E ~sw 4-J U 4J ca ° fz Oa O > 0 4-J s •-4-J LA > 4-J W O > m ~V V N Q. .-J o m ~ u CL i Ln s EXHIBIT NO._~..~ (b • 26 C?4Z O W W i ctt v rloo O v 4-1 Ln m W i W 0 m N EXHIBIT NO. X 0 :4-J a~ w a~ cn V) x w EXI-1IBIT N0._..,~ ,o,w cmz 0 4-J W w L W rvoo W 0 r 0 In. EXHIBIT NO. 20 { l ca ,42 0 W W i c~ DC 4.. O 4-J W L. W 0 M N EXHIBIT N0. (b - 97- cP4Z- L. W o C))~ co > V) UT - w W E)KHIBIT N4. a. ~z cgqz p i V) . O 4mi Z a ` L = W EXHIBIT NO. F5. &4 oP-4-z- a) s c 0 >W. a) 0 a, c w c x III LJJ L G 00 0 m N N i E (J DC 00 O m N 0 0) CL O au O Z V 4~ ~ L- 4-J os s ay ~s Q. ca co O , 4- 0) O Z 4 Oa) s ~ +J 4-J Q) 00~ oo N O~ c a _ .~C 'O 0 V) _0 a~ Qryl) ) 4-J X 4- 0 O Ln M O ~ N DO dJ 4- O V) Ln Q) Q) 4-J rvoo • ~ E p E a O 4-J L V 07.- Ln 4-J .0 a--+ S V Ln y- c: Ln Q s cn O tjo ~Ln Mo 4-J C: Ln M ~ M N 4-J Q -Ln O Ln 4-J~ 0 Ln o cu Ln 0- -0 s N ~ EXHIBIT NO. R, afG-a-4z Ln ~ V'1 L. ■ L 1•- - M L. L Q) > d-+ (U L- 4-J V LA 4-J p 00 :3 -0 4° 0 u 0 C: c. to (V 4-J 0 v u 4- 0) L- 4-J U ai E 3t f 4=J O 4=J 4-J a) W a) 0 4- O Q O~ a) E (v L) u fz (V E - C~ > C: 0 4-J " 4-0 x (L) H 4-0 0 4- x c: 4-J a) CC O E LA cCf C~ 00 Ce (V C: 'N LA 0 00 CL) o " ~C s E 0 4=J C) 4-J :3 rn . 4-J tA M C: C: 4- " s cuoo 4 j w N V -O V 0 x > uj cn ~ 4-J ~ Ln x > O O - 0 _ 4-J I cn cn ■ M to V u F"' m Q ~ ~ O EXHIBIT NO. 6. U cF4y 4- i 0 as ~C V cm .u O V > D_ 4-J • .E-J -0 s.. _O M V v~ co vii > > 4-J C) 4- 0 u :3 L- CL 4 s 0 4=J ~ O c u Cn rz o a) MLA C~ CL 4- a) as 4J W -0 Ln M ~ ~ C > > u - - - 4-J @ 0 0 cd 4=J C~ L cu 4-0 4-1 :3 C 4-1 M tA Ln Ln i M l' W E cz c- (L) E 4-J x o cn 0 0 4- s- ~ cn c 4-1 c: CU 00 cn c Loo cu • - a C: (1) rd 4=J C) -C 0% 0 M = ~ ■ E w 4--J u O X O LA E C: - W 4_ - O O ctS au 4-J U- c5 0 u E -C u w O• .s cn ~.n 0 4-J LA c~ X Q (v o E.~~Ew Ln 0 0 " 4.+ m = . cv a E Ln EXHIBIT NO. Z2 6.3?aF42 O 0 O . O p N i V o ~ 4-J CL) c O 4-0 > (V Ln O O w c • - c- o6 4-j u a O O C) 4-J m cti v r1i -Fz 4.- ~ 4-J Q C~ 4=J 0 _0 LA CL) %W 4-J Q cu 4-+ s 4- vi Q'' O i. _ 4,j O •-=3 W ' ' > O v ~•tA 4 ~ > V > 4--j a--j > a) > 4,.j 0 W E L- Ln -C V) L-1 LLJ 4-J 00 x O C -O c 4 tA 0) 4--j 4=J C) L. l~ 4-J m O c~ cU O vi E O L s M i (L) 4-- O (V ft. O vii 4- O ~ W V O u oC p ~ W O~ > 00 CU -0 V N C 4- rz O EXHIBIT NO. M izl. Z;fsce-42- EXHIBIT NO.X J STAIRS 300 SQ, FT, 30 SQ4 F7, TOTAL 3020 SQ. FT. DECK & PIER AREAS ITEM EXISTING ~ NEW ADDITIOWl DECK PIER PLATFORM BOAT LIFE TOTAL AREA 7L. 2 SQ. FT, 4 495 SQ. FT. E:j AREA AREA 720 SQ. FT. 258 SQ. FT, 820 SQ. FT, 235 SCI, FT. 90 SQ. FT. 30 SQ. FT. 90 SQ. FT. 30 SQ. FT. 957 SQ. FT. 11660 SQ. FT. 1703 SQ. FT. y ; ~s i3t ~r v -s- r a - - r o„ 04~1. 9 400. PN 05 - vLn i:l.t Ff; i ~ } Y , KY - t t„C 4 ,A RESIDENCE AREA r ~~y r, 3z 2 9 BAYSIDE HIGH OVERALL THE BONE STAIRS TOT AL 2690 SQ. FT. 2690 SCI. FT, 550 SQ. FT. 300 SQ. FT. 900 SQ. FT. 30 SQ. FT. 3020 SQ. FT. 30 SQ. FT. 4170 SQ. FT, fRiT NJ.j,0. ~5 • g2 ck?-qZ TRTT NO. , EXHIBIT NO.~ 21 (xu• 2 EXHIBIT NO. 2-1 A.,; 915 i EXHIBIT NO._~~.. @y.kOKs EXHIBIT NO. Y' I f5.5d'6 EXHIBIT NO. 211 6,b C~~; Z y 4 EXHIBIT NO.21~ EXHIBIT NO.._.._. ar~. ~scf Fs Laurie Tyler From: Ashley Soevyn <ashsoevyn@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:32 AM EFiVE - To: Laurie Tyler Cc: David Kulik; Magdalena Yesil; Thomas Soevyn APR C Subject: 2308 MAR EAST PROPOSED PLANS PLANNING DIVISION To the Tiburon Planning Department and Design Review Board This e-mail serves to voice our views on the proposed expansion of the structure at 2308 Mar East. We recently lived at 2308 for over 6 months. From experience, we believe that 2308 and its adjacent neighbors have little privacy in the way the buildings currently stand, with views from 2308 into both neighbors' bedrooms. Any expansion of the 2308 structure will only make this situation worse. The proposed project adds square footage by expanding the building envelope and adding decks that will be extremely intrusive to the neighbors at 2306 and 2310 Mar East. An expansion of 2308 footprint would significantly take away from the minimal privacy that currently exists, reducing the quality of life for all the occupants of 2306, 2308, and 2310 Mar East. Tom and Ashley Soevyn 14 TI31T NO. 21 V Magdalena Yesil/Jim Wickett APR 2 ~ L U ►a~ 2306 Mar East Street PLANNING DIVISION Tiburon, CA 94920 April 24, 2012 Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board RE: Building Plans for 2308 Mar East Street Dear Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, We are the owners of 2306 Mar East, and adjacent neighbors to the west of the proposed remodel. When we made our comments at the December meeting regarding this project, we had not had a chance to visit 2308 Mar East to see the impact of the proposal on our property. Since then, we have been able to visit the project site twice and have met with the owner and architect of the project five different times. In these meetings, we believe we worked with the owner/applicant to point out our concerns regarding specific design elements. We are very disappointed that after five different meetings, spent pouring over the proposed plans and pointing out specific changes that would satisfy our needs, the proposal in front of you has not incorporated these changes. Instead, the proposal has taken the approach of calling out the neighboring buildings on Mar East and pointing to "inequities" for 2308. Specifically, the proposal points to our property getting approval for a significant deck extension in the year 2008. We would like the Board to know that prior to submitting our proposal for our deck extension, we worked to accommodate every single change our neighbors asked for. Thus when we came in front of the Design Review Board, we had the support of all our neighbors, and some neighbors even took the time to come to the DRB meeting to speak in favor of our deck project. The minutes of that single DRB meeting where we received approval would reflect this fact. We would have liked that be the case for this project. Our objections to the proposed development to 2308 Mar East include the increased glazing on the Western side, which reduces the privacy and creates night-time light pollution to our second bedroom, and the Southern (rear) deck extensions, which significantly interfere with the privacy of our master bedroom. The proposed screen does not meet our needs, and furthermore can create sanitary issues with birds and be a hazard in high wind conditions. We invite you visit our home to personally see the impact of this project on our home. We will be available all day on May 1, 2 and 3~d to accommodate your schedules. We can be reached at 415-889- 5060(house), 650-400-4080(cell) or my yesila ,yahoo.com. Thank you for your time, Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett EXHIBIT NO. L Laurie Tyler From: David Kulik <kulikl@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 8:20 AM r_a To: Laurie Tyler k", FE - L Cc: Len Rifkind t- r F`f .'f Subject: Opposition:to the Proposed Project at 2308 Mar East RR 2 pLAINNING DIVlal010~ To Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner, Town of Tiburon: Laurie, I am writing to express our objection to the proposed project at 2308 Mar East. My wife Kathryn and I are the owners of 2310 Mar East, and I have visited the Town Hall to see the latest version of the 2308 plans. The proposal is destructive to the value and enjoyability of our property, and we completely oppose the project. Since January of this year, we have given considerable time and effort to accommodate three separate and pre- coordinated meetings with Peter Wilton, his partner, and his architect. The purpose of these meetings was to review the plans for renovating 2308, and to voice any concerns about the impact of the project on the neighboring properties. The main issues I raised at each of these meetings have not been addressed in any meaningful way. This latest proposal has no material difference whatsoever from what has previously been discussed. We have not been contacted about these latest plans, and at this point I feel it is safe to assume that Peter Wilton is proceeding without consulting us any further. As a result of these recent events, we have retained Mr. Leonard Rifkind Esq. as our legal representative. He will be submitting a letter to you, for inclusion in the staff report, that will professionally address our concerns. Additionally, I will address our concerns in person at the Design Review Board meeting on May 3rd. In the interim, I am requesting that all members of the Design Review Board visit our property prior to May 3rd. I will make myself available with minimal notice this weekend and next week to accommodate the visits. Please contact me by email or phone to coordinate. Thanks in advance to you, the Staff, and the Board Members, Sincerely, David Kulik kulikl@mac.com 858-245-1530 EXHIBIT NO. 94 RIFKIND L,4W 13ROUP April 25. 2012 VIA U.S. NI AIL VIA EA4AIL: It-v1er(cr'ci.tiburon.ca.us John Kricensky, Chair. and members of the Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Property Address: 23)08 Mar List File No. 211 16 Application ffor: Architectural Revie~N, Approval, Setbacks, Lot Coverage, Floor Area Exception Applicant: Moharnad Sadrieh A1•chitects Owner- Dr. Peter C. Wilson ZoninLj: R-2 Our Clients: David and Kathryn Kullk ;a' Variances for Reduced Side Yard Dear Chair Kricensky and members of the Design Revie~\, Board: OLIr firm represents David and Katliryn (:Katie j KLIli.k, owners of flit adjacent property to tile exist located at 2310 Mar East. The Kuliks oppose any, exterior expansion to the South East and North East elevations of the proposed remodel to 2308'Nilar .Gast.. Specifically the Kuliks oppose the nemv Sipper and lower decks and expansion of new cantilevered lie\i- ~rojLctions and structures to the rear or soutlicast elevation that will create slgniflcant and material privacy, view and light impacts to the Kulik's home at 2310 Jklar East. I xisting Application 131oclis NVorld Criss Vim?s -ancl Light, "Ind Creates Privacy Impacts to 6 t.1 the Master Bedroom at 2310 11/Iar East. A. 2308 INIar• Last Building Envelope Expansion and Decl. Projections Towards the ~1 atet• Cannot Change Witliout Creating, Major I'rivac-y, View and Li-ht Impacts to 2310 Mar East. Applicant contends that 2308 Mai- East footprint is sect brick father from the ptopert.. line than ~lcl,joininI- neighbors at 2306 and 23 10 'filar East. respectively, and sliould be entitled to expand towards the ater. Am, such expansion would be create sionif icant view. priNacy and light impacts to 2310 \~Iar last. Existinr views of the bav ivoLlld be significantly reduced from the kitclien a.ncl living? 1,00111. Existing vie~vs of the EXHIBIT NO. --*7 o&` Chair Kricensky and members of the Design Review Board April 25, 2012 Page 2 of 7 city skyline and Golden Gate Bridge South Tower would be eliminated from the outdoor terrace. Views from various smaller windows facing west at 2310 Mar East would also be eliminated. Views of the beach, and water's edge from the Master Bedroom and Living Room would be eliminated. Other views greatly impaired or eliminated include Tiburon Point, Lyford Tower, and Belvedere Island. Historically, the three properties, 2308, 2310 and 2312, were all owned by the same family. 2310 and 2312 were designed and built by the family, taking into account the sight lines for all three structures. In building and designing 2310 Mar East, the last of three buildings to be constructed, it was designed and placed so that it too would have views of the bay, bridge and city skyline, yet maximize the privacy for all three structures. For example, the southwest corner of 23 10 Mar East corner has a 45 degree angle, not a 90 degree angle, which would have created more interior space and view, to preserve privacy at 2308 Mar East. Accordingly, the pending application for 2308 Mar East disrupts this carefully designed scheme by building towards the water, virtually eliminating certain views of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge, and further creating significant privacy impacts, where people standing on the proposed new deck on the upper level at 2308 Mar East could look directly into the master bedroom and living room of 2310 Mar East. Every inch that 2308 Mar East expands to the south towards the water impacts the privacy, view and light to 2310 Mar East. B. Alleged Privacy Impacts to 2308 Mar East Are From Water Level Docks, Not Attached Decks. Applicant contends that both 2306 and 2310 Mar East existing ivater level docks adversely affect 2308 Mar East owner's privacy, but does not explain how an expansion of the residence at 2308 towards the water will reduce such alleged privacy impacts. C. View, Privacy and Light Impacts to 2310 Mar East Are Significant. Applicant's contention that "no solid structures intrude into the existing primary upper and lower view spaces" of 2310 Mar East is false. Specifically, the proposed design will allows persons on the new upper floor deck to look straight into the Master Bedroom at 2310 Mar East. Second, the new cantilevered building projections proposed for the rear elevation will block 100% of the view out the existing port hole window in the Master Bedroom closet, which looks directly at the Golden Gate Bridge, as well as partial blockage of an existing window in the Master Bedroom, and 100% blockage of a window in the downstairs Family Room. The overall cantilevered expansion towards the water of the existing application has the obvious effect of simply placing opaque barriers in front of some of the most desired views in the world now enjoyed by the Kuliks at 2310 Mar East. D. Exterior Maintenance Can Be Achieved Within the Existing Building Envelope at 2308 Mar East. The Kuliks have no opposition to a plan that creates new decks at 2310 Mar East within the existing building envelope. It is the expansion of that building E KHIBIT NO. 25 f 'r~. ZR~& Chair Kricensky and members of the Design Review Board April 25, 2012 Page 3 of 7 envelope, particularly to the south and east elevations that are repugnant to the Kuliks. E. Existing Square Footage of 2308 Mar East is Sufficient. Applicant contends that he cannot re-design the existing structure within the existing 2,569.57 square feet of gross floor area. We suggest almost 2,600 square feet is more than sufficient to create modern living requirements within the existing building envelope. While certainly it is understandable that the owner may wish to expand the existing gross floor area, subject to zoning standards, which this plan does not do-- requiring two variances, excess lot coverage, reduced setback, and a floor area exception--it should not come at the peril of one's neighbor, who paid a premium for a world class view, and who has reasonable expectations based upon the Town's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that remodels will not grossly affect existing views, privacy and light. F. Collaboration. The Kuliks remain ready and willing to reach a neighborly accommodation on this pending design review issue. They have met at least three times with the applicant and owner and have not seen any substantive changes to the design that they oppose--expansion towards with water with structures, decks and cantilevered building projections that block existing views, affects privacy, and blocks light are not open for negotiation. R-2 Residential Zone Development Standards Not Satisfied by the Pending Application. The existing residence presently exceeds various development standards, which may be legal non-conforming because the residence was purportedly built in 1956, but in no event should design review approval be granted to a project that requires two variances, excess lot coverage, and a floor area exception. Bottom line, design review approval should not be granted to allow a residence to be expanded further exacerbating its non-conforming status. A. Front Yard. 15 feet set back required. Existing 1 foot. Proposed 1 foot. Does not comply with R-2 development standards. B. Side Yard. 8 feet set back required. Existing 6 inches (expands into this area), left side, 4 feet right side. Does not comply with R-2 development standards. C. Height. 30 feet required. Existing 31 feet. Does not comply with R-2 development standards. D. Lot Coverage. 35% Dry Land Portion. Existing 67.9%. Proposed 71.1 Does not comply with R-2 development standards. E. Floor Area Ratio. Exceeds FAR by approx. 2194 sq. ft. EXHIBIT N0. L5 a, 2, S-8 Chair Kricensky and members of the Design Review Board April 25, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Design review guiding principles support denial of the application. Guiding principles in the review of applications. TMC sec. 16.52.020(H). In reviewing applications for site plan and architectural review, the review authority shall consider the following principles as they may apply. The following guiding principles are applicable here: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Comment: Applicant is proposing to modify the door that is on the Kulik's property as part of the application. Kulik's have granted no easement or access of any kind to the door and stairs leading to the water as depicted on the proposed plans. A copy of the Applicant's boundary survey is attached as Exhibit A. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise- generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. Comment: As noted above ad nauseum, the proposed application does not honor or give consideration to the Kuliks' reasonable expectations of view, privacy and light. Further, the application proposes side yard setbacks of only six inches and four feet, where a minimum eight feet is required, which defeats all sense of space and separation. Where the existing building envelope fails to comply with development standards it should not be permitted to expand further. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. Comment: The proposed application changes neighborhood character by radically changing the exterior building envelope in a high density R-2 Zone towards the bay, blocking views, impacting privacy, and decreasing light. EXHIBIT N0. Z Chair Kricensky and members of the Design Review Board April 25, 2012 Page 5 of 7 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code chapter 16C (recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. Comment: The proposed application does not comply with several R-2 zoning standards and requests further exceptions and variances. The following zoning provisions are applicable: Development Standards. TMC. Sec. 16-30.010. Purpose. The provisions of division 16-30 are intended to ensure that the construction of new development and the establishment of new and modified uses contribute to the maintenance of a stable and healthy environment, that new development is harmonious in character with existing and future development, and that the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties are protected, as established in the general plan. [Emphasis added]. Comment: Expanding the building envelope that impacts, views, light and privacy defeats the Kulik's ability to enjoy their home. TMC. Sec. 16-30.020. Applicability. No buildings or structures shall be erected, reconstructed, moved, converted, or structurally altered in any manner, nor shall any buildings, other structures, or land be used for any purpose or in any manner other than as permitted by and in conformance with the general plan and this zoning ordinance. Comment: Here, ive have a remodel project that is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance as noted and design review approval should not be granted. TMC Sec. 16-30.030 (B). Purpose. This section provides standards for the use and minimum size of setbacks. Setbacks provide open areas around structures for: visibility and traffic safety; access to and around structures; access to natural light, ventilation and direct sunlight; separation between incompatible activities; and space for privacy, landscaping, and recreation. Setbacks can also provide a sense of low density, spaciousness, and aesthetic pleasure. TMC Sec. 16-30.030(C). Setback requirements. Unless exempted in compliance with subsection E. below, all structures shall conform with the setback requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special setbacks established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance, except as otherwise provided by this section. Comment: Because of the noncompliance tivith the K.K.HIBIT NO. 25 V '~,5CS Chair Kricensky and members of the Design Review Board April 25, 2012 Page 6 of 7 set back requirement, no further expansion of the building envelope should be permitted that adversely affects the Kuliks' light, air, view, and privacy. TMC Sec. 16-62.030 (A)(2)(a). Restrictions on nonconforming structures and uses. No nonconforming use shall be moved, altered, enlarged, or extended in any way that would increase the nonconformity, unless the purpose of such change is to eliminate the nonconformity, and as otherwise set forth in subsection B. (Nonconforming structure). This provision shall include structures containing nonconforming uses. Comment: The existing structure is presumably a legal non-conforming use. The proposed application seeks to expand that non-conforming structure by enlarging it in contravention of the referenced code, except as provided in TMC Sec. 16-62.030(B), none of which provisions are applicable. Hillside Design Guidelines. Goal 3, Principle 7(d). The proposed application would violate this principal by blocking the view of the Golden Gate Bridge. Findings for Variances for Cannot Be Made. Section 16-52.030(E) requires four specific findings to be made to support the two variances, and floor area exception. Specifically Findings (3) and (4) provide: 3. The strict application of this zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance; and [Comment: The proposed deck expansions can easily be reduced in size to avoid increase in lot coverage ivithout difficulty]. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Comment: Deck extensions and extensions or cantilevered building projects without dispute will be injurious to the Kulik's major views, privacy and light. Lacking sufficient findings, no variances should be granted. ;WHIT N0. 25 fA, 6 CM Chair Kricensky and nienlbcrs of the Design R.ei;iew Board April ?5. ?01 Paoc 7 of 7 Conclusion. The Purposes of the "I'ovv.n of Tiburon Design Review process are to promote orderly development; preserve the unique visual character of the Town, and determine compliance with tllc 'fown's 'Zoning regulations. Additions and/or alterations to existing buildings are reviewed for consistency with the aesthetic character- of the neighborhood and to ensure proper relation to their sites and adjacent uses. The pending application imposes material and significant impacts to the views, privacy and fght enjoyed by the huliks at 73 10 Mar East in violation of zoning developinent standards. Hillside design guidelines, and shou.1d not be approved as designed.. Because this application seeks both a lot Coverage vzi.riance. for which findinE,s cannot be made, and a floor area exception, indicative of overbuilding, the proposed application should be denied. Sincerely- RIFKIND AW G P By' VL' t~ Leonard A. Riflind LAIL'f14- Encl. cc: clients E X,011 I B I T N0. 25 g~,7CFfs 9 (h~ t rb J 7 t ~ p 'P 4 ;z~ l/ q ,1 ~ a, v zl t h 4 ! ~y( 01 S E,,I-IIBIT NO. ja • a-cea CfL/ [~i z`-l~l~ ICJ , l-Z.lr,/1.6E'./L 2012 April Town of Tiburon / Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California, 94920 LATE MAIL #--~:3 RECEIVED r` L U PLANNING DIVISION Attn: Dan Watrous & Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Re: Concept Drawings for 2308 Mar East Street / transmitted via email: dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us Dear-Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, The intent of this letter is to qualify my earlier judgments on the alteration and addition proposals for 2308 Mar East. I wrote a letter to the Town of Tiburon, dated November 23, 2011. At the time, I was a tenant of 2310a Mar East, the neighboring property to the northeast of the site in question. I am familiar with the issues of privacy relative to this neighborhood, and in particular, the issues related between the properties of 2308 and 2310. I of course was an occupant with personal interests. I was also a friend of the late Margery Nevers, who used to live at 2308. We shared many good times together at 2308. Since my earlier letter, Mr. Peter Wilton had invited my advice as a building designer to look at his proposed plans and help mitigate the sensitive issues amongst the neighbors through design ideas and discussions. I was happy to be of help. The opportunity allowed me to look into the plans and issues in more detail and more objectively. The owners of 2306 offered up their time to openly discuss their concerns with 2308, which was helpful. The current owners of 2310 simply stated that they would not agree to any extension beyond the existing fagade, regardless of any solutions to deal with the privacy issues. 2308 has notoriously dealt with a lack of privacy. I was reminded that Mrs. Nevers would always draw her shades on the northeast side of the building, to allow for her own privacy as well as her neighbors. On a recent visit to 2308 with Mr. Wilton, looking out to 2310 from the living room, I was reminded of her sensitivities again. Needless to say, Mr. Wilton has the same concern and a great interest in his own privacy. There must be a way to ensure increased privacy for all parties with an architectural solution. While I cannot take responsibility for any part of Mr. Wilton's design proposal, I can see clearly by reading the drawings that the revisions in the designs do indeed make a concerted effort to alleviate some privacy issues. The articulation of the fagade, particularly the solid Eastern corner is a considerable improvement to this problem. This should be noted. My earlier letter was in a different context in response to a different design. I recognize that Mr. Wilton's proposal isn't an easy one for some neighbors involved. This should be respected. It should be noted as well however, that the proposal is an attempt to celebrate the value and pleasures of a property, just as everyone appears to do in this neighborhood full of views, and generally, throughout this town. The proposed upgrade of the existing building is clean and sophisticated. This is appropriate for this neighborhood. I believe that through courteous relations, engaged brainstorming, and open conversations with all interested parties, a solution can benefit all. Mr. Wilton's revisions do move in that direction, and it is my intention to have that noted. I do hope that this is of help to the board and all parties involved. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Christina Hansen Scott P.O. Box 218 / Tiburon, California / 94920 christina a christinallansen.com / 415.272.7926 EXHIBIT NO. 2~ n Q~ ~v olce 14 EXHIBIT NO. 27 J EXHIBIT NO. 27 & 2- cs~ ~4 EXHIBIT N0._Z7 Psi, 3 c1j. GN - EXHIBIT N0. 27 45.4 CH4 -,a, G~CC L L M C s EXHIBIT NO. 07 ID .5 cP[dr s EXHIBIT NO. 77 48. ~ cP A EXHIBIT NO. 2 +5 - 7 cP lo' J i T EXHIBIT Np, ro. 8d?K EXHIBIT NO. gl ja -9a' 1~ PP EXHIBIT No. lo (t,- U'u-11 ~Olo LAffel(-- I C/ 'A I J~Avqa EXH.IBlT NO,-f-7 ;VA •II&t,4 EXHIBIT NO. Z M- veptl I po~~ ~ C f o)~ EXHIBIT NO.-JZ~ x.13 cp if boo- ~G ems EXHIBIT NO. Z7 41b - KoeVq Laurie Wer From: Wilcox, Kerry <kwilcox@audubon.org> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 20114:47 PM To: Laurie Tyler Cc: Langston, Brooke Subject: Chairman John Kricensky, regarding tonight's public hearing of the Tiburon Design Review Committee: Regarding tonight's public hearing of the Tiburon Design Review Committee. Chairman Kricensky, We would like to enter the following statement for your consideration: Consistent with our mission to conserve and protect natural ecosystems in California, Audubon California does not support any projects that negatively affect bay habitats such as eelgrass beds and waterbird/shorebird roosting and foraging sites. Sincerely, Kerry Wilcox Sanctuary Manager Richardson Bay Audubon Center & Sanctuary 376 Greenwood Beach Rd Tiburon, CA 94920 Ph (415) 388-2524 x101, Fax (415) 388-0717 richardsonbay.audubon.org RECEIVED DEC 01 2C PLANNING DIVISION -~76 EXHIBIT NO. ,a,,.,a,v1a. I ATF MAIL 9 5 From: Marsha Vargas Handley <mvargas@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 20113:36 PM RECEIVED To: Laurie Tyler Subject: 2308 Mar East, Tiburon - DEC 01 PLANNING DIVISION Dear Ms. Tyler, It has just come to my attention that the Design Review Board is meeting tonight to discuss the proposed remodel of 2308 Mar East. I own 2312-14 Mar East and until today did not realize that the proposed remodel would extend the current footprint of 2308 twelve feet out which would have a serious impact on the view from my property. I wish to state my objection to this plan. Sincerely, Marsha Vargas Handley 140 Maiden Lane, San Francisco, CA 94108 415-307-7292 1 EXHIBIT NO.-,7q Page 1 of 7 Connie Cashman From: Dan Watrous Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:36 AM To: allDRB Cc: Laurie Tyler; Connie Cashman Subject: FW- 2308 mar east project Late mail/invitation from a neighbor of 2308 Mar East... Daniel M. Watrous ?i Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: Magdalena Yesil [mailto:my_yesil@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:08 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Jim Wickett Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project Hello Dan, Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I wanted to encourage you/planning staff and the members of the Design Review to come by our house prior to the Dec 1 meeting. Both we and the neighbors at 2310 Mar East are willing to accommodate visits. We plan to be home almost all day Wednesday and all day Thursday. Our home number is 415- 889-5060 and my cell is 650-400-4080. Pls. share this information with the DRB members for them to contact me and come over. Please let me know if there is anything, else I can do to aid the process. I plan to stop by your office tomorrow mid-afternoon to get copies of any additional information that is in the application file and ask for clarification on a few points. Thank you for your help, Magdalena and Jim On Wed, 11/23/11, Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> wrote: From: Dan Watrous <dwatrous@,)ci.tiburon.ca.us> Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project To: "Magdalena Yesil" <my_yesilla~yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 11:34 AM Magdalena, 11/2 9/2011 EXHIBIT NO. A~,4'- IA Page 2 of 7 There are other application materials in the file. Feel free to come by Town Hall and we can make copies of them for you. Dan Daniel M. 14latrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: Magdalena Yesil [mailto:my_yesil@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 11:26 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Jim Wickett Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project Hi Dan, Besides the drawings and the two page letter dated Sept 14, 2011 that you gave us on Monday, are there any other materials that were submitted to the town on this project? If so, I would like to swing by your office and pick up copies. Thank you for your help, Magdalena On Tue, 11/22/11, Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> wrote: From: Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> Subject: RE: 2 308 mar east project To: "Magdalena Yesil" <my_yesil@yahoo.com> Cc: "Jim Wickett" <Jim. Wickett@rovicorp. com> Date : Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 4:10 PM Dear Magdalena, E .K.IIBIT NO. 11 /29/201 1 6, 2-A Page 3 of 7 Thank you for your letter, which will be forwarded to the Design Review Board. Sincerely, Dan Watrous Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: Magdalena Yesil [mailto:my_yesil@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 20114:05 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Jim Wickett Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project Dear Mr. Watrous, Per your request, attached please find our letter to the Tiburon Design Review Board for the hearing on the 2308 Mar East project on Dec 1 meeting. You may also have the faxed version with our signatures and if so, we prefer you use the signed copy for the file. Have a great Thanksgiving, Magdalena Yesil On Tue, 11/22/11, Dan Watrous <dwatrous@,ci.tiburon.ca.its> wrote: From: Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project To: "Magdalena Yesil" <my_yesil@yahoo.com> Cc: "Jim Wickett" <Jim.Wickett@rovicorp.com> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 1:16 PM Dear Ms. Yesil, We will forward your request to the Design Review Board. 11/29/2011 EXHIBIT NO. 59 A.bOF6 Paue 4 of 7 Sincerely, Dan Watrous Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: Magdalena Yesil [mailto:my_yesil@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 11:50 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Jim Wickett Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project Hello Mr. Watrous, Thank you for your assistance on the telephone. We would very much like to ask for a site plan to be created that fully shows the outline of our property in relation to the 2308 project, since we believe that is critical to the evaluation of this application by Design Review Board members. Please let us know if there is a formal process to request a site plan to be part of the Design Review package. Thank you again, Magdalena Yesil EXHIBIT NO. a~) 11/29/2011 f5,4A Page of '7 On Tue, 11/22/11, Dan Watrous <divatrous@.ci.tiburon.ca.us> wrote: From: Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project To: "Magdalena Yesil" <my yesil@yahoo.com> Cc: "Jim Wickett" <Jim.Wickett@rovicorp.com> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 8:44 AM Dear Ms. Yesil, I called the project architect and reminded him that they need to put the story poles very soon or risk having the project continued to the December 15th meeting. I'd be happy to answer your questions. The best time to call would probably be between 10:00 and noon today. My direct number is (415) 435-7393. Sincerely, Dan Watrous Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: Magdalena Yesil [mailto:my_yesil@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 20119:03 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Jim Wickett Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project Hi Dan, We wanted to let you know that we are working on our letter and hope to get it in to you tomorrow evening. 11 /2 9/2011 EXHIBIT NO. S~ .5~P6 Page 6 of 7 No story poles went up today and we are confused about a few points on the plans. Is it possible to call you tomorrow to ask you our questions? When is the best time to call? Thank you, Magdalena Yesil 2306 Mar East 650-400-4080 On Fri, 11/1.8/11, Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> wrote: From: Dan Watrous <dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us> Subject: RE: 2308 mar east project To: "Magdalena Yesil" <myyesil@yahoo.com> Date: Friday, November 18, 2011, 9:21 AM Dear Magdalena, I'd be happy to meet with you on Monday at 8:30. Please meet me at Town Hall. Dan Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 -----Original Message----- From: Magdalena Yesil [mailto:myyesil@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 9:10 AM To: Dan Watrous Subject: 2308 mar east project Hello Dan If you are available on Monday morning at 8:30, we and potentially the folks living at 2310 mar east would like to meet with you. Thank you, Magdalena Yesil 650-400-4080 11/29/2011 E-KI-IIBIT NO.-X-- 'fa .6,6 2011 November 23 Town of Tiburon /Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California, 94920 Attn: Dan Watrous & Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board transmitted 4 pages via email: dwatrous@ci.tiburon.ca.us & mail Re: Concept Drawings for 2308 Mar East Street, dated 04/11/2011 Dear Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, I am a tenant of 2310a Mar East, the upper unit of the duplex situated adjacent and northeast of the alteration and addition proposed for 2308 Mar East. I have been a tenant here since January of 2007. I will keep my letter brief, as I understand that the owners of the property, the Milla and Raymond Handley 1992 Trust, will be representing their interests independently. Having recently acquired and reviewed the proposed plans (dated 04/11/2011, received from Planning on 11/17/2011) on file, I would like to address a few points. These points would be of obvious concern and possible threat to the value and enjoyment of this property should aspects of the proposal be approved. As I have been here for some years, I am also familiar with the present virtues of the lower unit (2310b) and will point out issues relevant to any occupant there. My intent is to offer up observations, prior to the Staff Report submission and the Design Review Board Meeting, so that they can be given proper attention. This is for the sake of the tenants of this duplex as well as the owners of the property, whom I understand have not yet received any copies of the proposal or drawings to date. Observations from tenant perspective: General: Arguably, the existing building is in need of repair and alterations. The proposed redesign appears to upgrade the property significantly and modernize the existing Mediterranean home into a contemporary structure. The alterations to the northwest (street) facade could well enhance the neighborhood in general. Concerns from the prospective of 2310 Mar East primarily relate to the 12' addition that is proposed to extend outward from the southeast facade over the existing rocky beach and water. I will classify these concerns as 'Views', `Privacy', and 'Other'. The effects of the projection are evident from the photographs included. Views: Relative to 2310a Cupped: Existing views of the water would be significantly reduced from kitchen and living room. Existing views of San Francisco City front and the Golden Gate Bridge South Tower would be eliminated entirely from the outdoor terrace. 2310a Mar East / Tiburon, California / 94920 christina@christiiiahansen.coin / 415.272.7926 LATE MAIL # 3. EXHINT N(1.3I ~i" J/ ~i/L/ C.S1..11.(C% IZIL/l iC/L present view from terrace Relative to 2310b Clower): Existing views of the bay would be eliminated entirely from various smaller windows throughout the unit. Existing views of the beach and water edges would be largely reduced in most tidal situations from both the Master Bedroom and the Living Room. Tiburon Point and Lyford Tower and much of Belvedere would also be eliminated from view (see photos below and under concern "Privacy." 2310a Mar East / Tiburon, California / 94920 christina[a cliristinahansen.col7] / 415.272.7926 EXHIBIT NU. 31 .I-- A altered view from terrace altered view from living room altered (eliminated) view from other southwest windows Privacy: Relative to 231ObClower): Privacy is already a major issue for tenants of the lower unit in both the Living Room and the Master Bedroom. When window treatments are used cleverly, one can enjoy a little privacy and still maintain some water and city views to- the south. Any extension to the present building volume at the southeast far ade would essentially eliminate privacy to these sensitive living and sleeping areas. rE..._ h , Ai ~r x• 231 Oa Mar East / Tiburon, California / 94920 christiiia@cliristinallansen.coin / 415.272.7926 v~l EXHIBIT NO. M, ~ cr"4 altered view from master bedroom altered view from master bedroom altered view from living room altered view from living room Other: Relative to both 2310a and 2310b: • The setback requirements may be in violation at the proposed extended kitchen and deck areas at the east corner of the building. Please confirm. • Lighting on deck areas may be a sensitive issue, depending upon location, fixture type, quantity and use. Please consider. The value of life on Mar East is largely predicated on views and privacy. When these virtues are threatened, it is natural to be concerned. There may be many design solutions to mitigate these concerns, which also allow the owner of 2308 to make the most of his investments. I certainly hope that they can be considered and explored for everyone's best interest. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Christina Hansen Scott cc:/ Peter Scott 2310a Mar East / Tiburon, California / 94920 christina c1 cllristinahansen.com / 415.272.7926 EXHIBIT NO.- 9 i lc Magdalena Yesil/Jim Wickett 2306 Mar East Street Tiburon, CA 94920 November 22, 2011 Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board RE: Building Plans for 2308 Mar East Street Dear Members of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, We are the owners of 2306 Mar East, and adjacent neighbors to the west of the proposed remodel. The letter that was submitted to you on this project back on Sept 14 stated that adjacent neighbors were provided copies of the proposal and had not stated any concerns. To set the record straight, the first time we received any plans for this project was Friday November 18. Therefore, we have only had a couple of days to review the plans and thus, this letter may be incomplete and have errors of understanding of the proposed plans. With the above caveat, on the urging of the town planning staff, we are writing to you to state our concerns regarding the submitted plans in the short period we have had to review them. Our goal is to support our new neighbor's desire to improve his house and enjoy the beautiful views while maintaining our privacy that we currently have, continue our enjoyment of views, and ultimately to maintain our property value. Our neighborhood standards of privacy are high and we believe they need to be respected in the new design at 2308. We would like to call your attention to the following elements of the proposed design as it impacts our house: 1. Privacy of our Master Bedroom Our master bedroom faces south and also east with views of Berkeley and the East Bay. The location of doors and closets are such that there is only one wall for the bed to be placed against. Our master bedroom bed faces directly towards the picture window facing east, towards 2308. Currently, the master bedroom enjoys privacy and views of the East Bay. Actually, the master suite of the house was designed specifically to take advantage of this view. Any expansion of windows facing us and the proposed decks, both at the upper and the lower levels look directly into our bedroom and will seriously degrade the quality of our life and privacy of our master bedroom. We believe these decks can be redesigned either by great reduction in size and by the addition of privacy walls that will still provide 2308 views of the Golden Gate Bridge and Bay, while allowing us to maintain our privacy in our master bedroom and our enjoyment of the views without having to keep our picture window covered at all times. 2. Lighting--The current design has an overhang over the decks with permanent lighting in the overhang. Lighting around the water on Mar East can have a significant impact to the neighborhood since lights reflect over the water, thus significantly brightening up the surroundings, and thereby impairing night views. The lights on the upper deck, while installed in the soffit of the awnings will expose their bare sources to our bedroom views creating ExIB~T No. 32- 'n excessive glare that will further degrade our views. Given the position of our master bedroom, we will be significantly affected by the proposed lighting on the new decks. Solution to Points I and 2: Keeping the windows in the current locations and sizes. On the decks, reducing the size and projection of the upper and lower decks, eliminating the new corner deck addition that is in violation of the setback and is closest to our master bedroom, constructing privacy screens on the southwestern sides that will still allow Golden Gate views, but not allow one to see into our bedroom. Lighting solution may be minimizing the lighting at the lower level deck and eliminating the deck overhang at.the upper level. 3. Privacy of our Inner Courtyard and Second Bedroom--The plans propose new construction onto the side yard facing our property bringing 2308 closer to the property line, adding stairs and a bank of new windows, changing the location of the entry door, and providing a lower level side deck. Our house is designed with a private courtyard at a lower elevation than 2308 and a bedroom with a wall of windows that looks into the courtyard. The new design moves the windows that look down into our courtyard and bedroom closer to the property line, reducing our privacy significantly even without increasing the window size or height as proposed. Thus our courtyard and second bedroom are vulnerable to loosing their privacy by the new construction. Currently, the side yard has a tree that provides significant privacy and separation between the two homes. Elimination of that tree and addition of large new windows around the entry door and along the side towards the water will significantly expose our private inner courtyard and second bedroom, resulting in a major loss of privacy that we enjoy today. We would like the new design to ensure that the privacy of our inner courtyard and bedroom are maintained. Solution to Point 3: The current privacy tree may be salvaged by turning the the ground level side-deck into a walkway which incorporates the tree. Furthermore, designing replacement windows that are reduced in size and height to make up for their new location closer to the property line, using glass block/privacy glass that allows light while blocking views of our bedroom/courtyard, and designing privacy screens along main entry. 4. Use of Side Yard --We are unclear as to where the new side sliding doors at the lower level open up to. Since currently that side yard is unused, we would like to better understand the new owner's usage plan and its implications for this side area adjacent to our property. It is not the variances per se that are the source of the problems. They are however the symptoms. Rather the extensions of deck space, their proximity to our master bedroom, the large unobstructed views into our living spaces that mean that the increase in value of this design is created at the unnecessary and unfair expense of our property and that of our neighbors. We hope that this letter will help the Design Review Committee members input to the design our concerns. We believe that a design solution for 2308 can be reached that respects our privacy and continues our enjoyment of our home, while allowing our new neighbor to make changes, improve and enjoy the home he purchased. Sincerely yours, Magdalena Yesil and Jim Wickett EXHIBIT N0. ~ mn , 2cf Z Laurie Wer From: Mohamad Sadrieh <mohamadsadrieh@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 05, 20116:56 PM To: Laurie Tyler Subject: Re: 2308 Mar East Permit Streamlining Act We gladly accept. Thanks Mohamad Sadrieh 415-331-0410 DEC 0 t; 2011 PLANNING DIVISION From: Laurie Tyler <ltyler _ci.tiburon.ca.us> To: mohamadsadrieh(a-),yahoo.com Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 1:23 PM Subject: 2308 Mar East Permit Streamlining Act Mr. Sadrieh, Please respond to this email to accept a 90-day extension to the Permit Streamlining Act, in order to continue review of the project located at 2308 Mar East Street. Thank you. Laurie Tyler. Associate Planner Town of Tiburon 415.435.7397 Its ler l&ci.tiburon.ca.us WA Think of trees before you print please. 1 EXHIBIT N0. ~3 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Design Review Board Community Development Department NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE Design RevieM7 Board Meeting January 19, 2012 Agenda Item: I 2308 MAR EAST STREET; FILE NO. 21116 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks and Excess Lot Coverage and a Floor Area Exception; Assessor Parcel Number: 0034-271-03 Staff recommends that this item be continued for the following reason(s): No story poles have been erected/no certification received Requested information has not been received Item not properly advertised The applicant has requested a continuance to: X Other: The item has been continued to February 16, 2012 Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner EXPIIBIT NO.616/11' RECEIVED SAN 2 5 201? PLANNING DIVISION MOHAMAD SADRIEH ARCHITECTS A RrHITF_CTURE AND PLANNING -77~a, c, / 41 D.G , Gs, re STI~o~c- -7? ! I ~li~G S► IA~WOF7-f N ct I/2611,2 l 6 3 o g ~7~•z t G4 t -Fr--,C, Lj) 5 / r t GATE SIX ROAD, BLDG. A, SUITE G • SAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965 • 415.331-0410 EXHIBIT NO- q S To: From: Subj ect TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Members of the Design Review Board Community Development Department Design Review Board Meeting February 16, 2012 Agenda Item: I 2308 MAR EAST STREET; FILE NO. 21116 Site Plan and Architectural Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setbacks and Excess Lot Coverage and a Floor Area Exception; Assessor Parcel Number: 0034-271-03 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE Reviewed By: Staff recommends that this item be continued for the following reason(s): No story poles have been erected/no certification received Requested information has not been received Item not properly advertised The applicant has requested a continuance to: X Other: The item has been continued to March 1, 2012 Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner EXHIBIT NO.~_ Laurie Tyler From: Peter Wilton <wilton@haas.berkeley.edu> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:13 PM To: Dan Watrous; Laurie Tyler Cc: Mohamad Sadrieh RECEIVED Subject: 2308 Mar East Dear Dan, Laurie: PLANNING DIVISION Further to our discussions this afternoon, we would like to officially withdraw our application for a Design Review and Planning Approval on our property at 2308 Mar East, Tiburon. We intend to continue discussions with our neighbors concerning our plans, and intend to submit a new application in time for the design review board meeting on March 15. Our architect, Mohomad Sadrieh, will contact your office shortly to submit a new application. Thank you in anticipation of your support. Sincerely, Dr. Peter C. Wilton Dr. Peter C. Wilton Haas School of Business University of California Berkeley, CA., USA, 94720-1900 Tel: +1-415-474-5151 Cell: +1-415-425-5151 EXHIBIT NO. c~- 05/16/2008 00:36 4154355255 M DICKINSON PAGE 01/01 Mark Dickirls()rl 2,'-)'22 M,11- Eitst St.* `1'11AII-o 1. CA 9,19 00 Photlc: Vi:i-52:56) •1 ia: 43:5-,52,I).i 1;-\~l:ail: ++cllti's+;'{t:~'cr>tncrt~t.tt~t LATE MAIL# P11-z RECEIVED 08 August 2012 I ouric: vlcr Associale Planner Town Of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ms. rhvlcr: P1_ANNINC3 D1VI$10N We are writing to express our grave concern over die DRB's 3-0 vote ill favor of approval for 2308 Mar East St, parcel #059- 195-0 1, and ask that it be overturned in the uncoiling appeal. This sets a dalhgerous precedence for our street in regards to privacy and die interpretation of "injurious" as it applies to the criterion for variances. Several comments were made during the 07.1une 2012 meeting that were gross generalizations. Vice Chairman Emberson stated that EVERY home in the area has been granted a variance. This is simply NOT the case, as our home does NOT include a variance. Ms. Emberson also stated, "dial the project would not be injurious to other properties but would instead increase their privacy." On what basis can she make this claim? Chairman Krieensky stated that the decks would not be used for parties. How can lie possibly know such a thing? We can tell you teat a 5-foot 10-inch deck can he quite an infringement on privacy. Our ininhediate neighbors have decks that are smaller Ilhart those proposed at 2308 Mar East, and when they crhtert<un it is a serious infringement on our privacy, as light and noise filter directly into our master bcdroonh. All of us purchased our homes widi a view of die bay and sur7-ounds-and a degree of privacy. To inadvert.cntly dismiss this privacy infringement as "non-injurious" not only causes undue damages to the inhnhediate neighbors but also potentially leaves die rest of the neighborhood up for grabs. Where sloes it stop? Wbat about others who have been turned clown in the Past? Will they be able to apical if t1lis new precedence is yet:' Respectfully DL Mark & Shathlni 1)io l:uhsoih 2:322 Flab- F,,L.St St L TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Date: August 8, 2012 To: Members of the Town Council From: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner Subject: 2308 Mar East Street Appeal Attached is a letter from Rifkind Law Group, dated August 8, 2012 and an associated presentation packet submitted by Mr. David Kulik, an appellant of 2308 Mar East Street. These attachments were received after the staff report was prepared; therefore, it is considered "late mail" but is still part of the appeal to the Town Council. AU - ~s 2012 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON LAW OFFICES LEONARD A. RIFKIND T H0t,9AS C. TAYLOR, JR. 'OF CFILINSFI-- August 8, 2012 VIA HAND DELIVERY RIFKIND LAW GROUP -K3 DRAKE'S LANDING R04 D, SUITE 260 GREENGRAE, CALIFOPNIA 9,4904 TEL (41 5) 785-7988 e FAX (41 5) 7SS-7976 WV✓V.PIFK1kJr)1_4,VVi PCDL!R.ccnn Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Property Address: 2308 Mar East File No. 21116 Application for: Architectural Review Approval, Setbacks, Lot Coverage, Floor Area Exception Applicant: Mohamad Sadrieh Architects Owner: Dr. Peter C. Wilson Zoning: R-2 Our Clients: David and Kathryn Kulik REAL ESTATE LAND USE BUSINFss LAw ESTP:T"E PLArJI'JING RECEIVED PLANNING DIVISION Variances for Reduced Side Yard Dear Mayor Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council: Introduction. Our firm represents David and Kathryn (Katie) Kulik, owners of 2310 Mar East, located immediately adjacent and to the east of the applicant's property. On June 7, 2012, the Town's Design Review Board (DRB) granted design review approval for the pending application at 2308 Mar East Street. While the Kulik Family would like very much to be neighborly and compromise to meet the apparent needs of the applicant to expand the existing residence, they cannot support any exterior expansion towards the southeast elevation of the proposed remodel to 2308 Mar East because it will cause real and significant, impacting privacy, blocking views and decreasing light to their home. The Kuliks recognize the legitimate need by property owners to improve and remodel homes, but not when the existing residence at issue here is legally non-conforming' and the proposed expansion increases that non-conforming status in direct derogation of the Town's Municipal Code 16-62.030(A)(2)(a), and (B). Further, the proposed application will be directly 1 The existing structure at 2308 Mar East Street fails to comply with existing R-2 Zoning Development Standards. It does not comply with front and side yard setbacks, height, lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. The proposed application increases the non-conformity with relation to side yard setbacks, lot coverage and FAR. Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon August 8, 2012 Page 2 of 7 injurious to the Kulik Family because the expansion of proposed remodel will allow a direct line of sight into the Kulik's master bedroom, family room, dining room and kitchen areas. Rather, the Kulik Family urges the Town Council to require the applicant to comply with the requirements of the applicable R-2 zoning district, without granting the requested variances and FAR Exception sought in the pending application. Specifically the Kuliks oppose the new upper and lower decks and expansion of new cantilevered new projections and structures to the rear or southeast elevation that will create significant and material privacy, view and light impacts to the Kulik's home. Please see the PowerPoint slides depicting the impacts to privacy, blocking of views and decreasing of light, accompanying this letter. While the Town's DRB granted architectural review approval, the DRB failed to make any kind of findings that would support the necessary variances and FAR exception required for the pending application. DRB's findings included statements that "R-2 zoning does not apply on Mar East Street," and such an application in "Huntington Beach, California would be approved." Obviously, such comments are not relevant and would not withstand legal scrutiny. Fortunately, the Town Council can consider the pending application de novo and determine fairly and equitably based upon objective facts the existence of privacy, light and view impacts to the Kulik's property. Bottom line, as set forth below, findings cannot be made to support architectural review approval requiring the granting of the two variances and an FAR exception under the existing and applicable R-2 Zoning Standards. Historical Background. In the early 1970's, the Handley Family acquired the existing structure at 2308, and the substandard lot at 2310 Mar East. Handley also owned 2312 Mar East. Hence in the early 1970's, the Handley property jointly owned all three properties at 2308, 2310 and 2312 Mar East. As the Handley Family proceeded to pursue approval for 2310 Mar East, neighbors objected on grounds of views, access to the water and compliance with setback requirements. The originally shaped lot was quite narrow and sandwiched between 2308 and 2312 Mar East. The Handley's withdrew the application for development on 2310 Mar East, originally approved in 1969 with a variance, and obtained a lot line adjustment approved by the Town (then City), resulting in a zero lot line for 2308, and the ability to build a new duplex on 2310 without the need for any variances. Hence, 2310 Mar East was designed and built by the Handley Family taking into account the sight lines for all three structures at 2308, 2310 and 2312 Mar East that they owned. In building and designing 2310 Mar East, the last of three buildings to be constructed, it was designed and located so that it too would have views of San Francisco Bay, Golden Gate Bridge and the City skyline, yet maximize the privacy to be enjoyed by the occupants of all three structures. A copy of the City Council's 1973 denial of an appeal of design review approval for 2310 Mar East, along with a chronological history is attached as Exhibit A. An example of the Handley's considering the view and privacy impacts on 2308 Mar East at the time of building Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon, August 8, 2012 Page 3 of 7 2310 Mar East included modifying the southwest corner of 2310 Mar East to a 45 degree angle, not a 90 degree angle, which would have created more interior space and view, to preserve privacy at 2308 Mar East. .In summary, as 2310 had to be built without the need for additional variances, the same should hold true today for 2308 also to be remodeled without the need for variances or exception to the applicable R-2 zoning requirements. See Exhibit B. Accordingly, the pending application for 2308 Mar East disrupts this carefully designed scheme at 2310 Mar East by building out towards the water, virtually eliminating certain views of San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate Bridge, and further creates significant privacy impacts, where people standing on the proposed new deck on the upper level at 2308 Mar East will be easily able to look directly into the master bedroom and main floor living areas of 2310 Mar East. Significantly, every inch that the 2308 Mar East application seeks to expand to on the southeast elevation towards the water impacts the privacy, view and light to 2310 Mar East, creating impermissible injury to the Kulik Family. Other Precedent Setting Variances. In 1985, a variance was grated for a one (1) foot side yard setback at nearby 2248 Mar East. Here applicants seek two side yard variances of four feet on the West and expanding into a zero lot line on the East. The variance at 2248 Mar East was granted in large measure because Tiburon Board of Adjustments and Review made a finding that "No views or privacy will be affected as a result of the variance request and the exception is not inconsistent with the R-2 zone." Copy attached at Exhibit C. The main point being that here in contrast the Kulik Family will be injured through serious impairment of their privacy, light and views. Impacts. As depicted in the accompanying PowerPoint presentation, the proposed application creates significant impacts by allowing views directly into the master bedroom, kitchen, dining and family room areas of 2310 Mar East. While some impacts presently exist because of the close setting on Mar East Street, such impacts should not be permitted to be radically increased at the expense of the Kulik Family. The PowerPoint pictures definitively and objectively document these new impacts, providing the information that requires the Town Council to deny the pending application. Variance Findings Cannot Be Made. TMC Section 16-52.030(E) requires four specific findings to be made to support the two variances, and floor area exception. Specifically Findings (3) and (4) cannot be made to support the pending application: 3. The strict application of this zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances. A self-created hardship results from actions taken by Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon August 8, 2012 Page 4 of 7 present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a variance; [Comment: The proposed deck expansions can easily be reduced in size to avoid increase in lot coverage without difficulty]. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. Comment: Deck extensions and extensions or cantilevered building projections without dispute will be injurious to the Kulik's privacy, views, and light. Lacking sufficient findings, no variances should be granted. Specifically, the requested side yard setback variance would produce several adverse and injurious effects: On the lower level of 2308 Mar East, the requested variance moves an open air deck from 20 feet distant to only eight feet distant. The accompanying decreases in visual and audio privacy, as well as 100% blockage of a water-view window that faces Sutro Tower are directly injurious. The side yard setback variance requested places the proposed new kitchen only eight feet from the Kulik's master bedroom. The accompanying noise and odor will significantly degrade quality of life in this bedroom. These effects, as well as loss of light, view, and 100% blockage of a character-enhancing window with direct Golden Gate Bridge views, are directly injurious to their property The side yard variance request places the proposed new kitchen pop-out in the direct water view corridor of the living room and terrace of the second duplex unit at 2310 Mar East, decreasing the rentability and quality of life of this unit, and is therefore injurious. The variance for Excess Lot Coverage also produces several adverse and injurious effects: 1. On the lower level of the Kulik property, the variance projects a deck 5' 10" further out from the existing structure, increasing angular visual penetration into our main living room. This significant privacy decrease can only be offset by using window treatments, which deprive the room of light and views of the Golden Gate Bridge, and is materially injurious. 2. On the ground level, the variance projects a deck 5' 10" further out from the existing structure, increasing angular visual penetration into our master bedroom. This significant privacy decrease can only be offset by using window treatments, which deprive the room of light and views of the Golden Gate Bridge, and is materially injurious. The Proposed Application Impermissibly Increases a Non-conforming Use. TMC Section 16-62.030 (A)(2)(a) states: "No nonconforming use shall be moved, altered, enlarged, or extended in any way that would increase the nonconformity, unless the purpose of such change is to eliminate the nonconformity, and as otherwise set forth in subsection B." Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon August 8, 2012 Page 5 of 7 TMC Section 16-62.030(B) states: "The discrepancy between. existing conditions and the standards of coverage, setback, height or any other standard prescribed in the regulations for the zone in which the structure is located shall not be increased." These sections make clear the pending application violates the Town's Municipal Code. The pending application increases non-conformity of the structure at 2308 at the expense of neighboring properties through the use of injurious variances. DRB's rationale in granting the requested variances, was that the R-2 Zoning Standards do not apply on Mar East Street? This is a completely erroneous finding as the current zoning on Mar East Street is in fact R-2. DRB never even discussed or articulated any findings to support the granting of a variance for reduced side yard setbacks. DRB's approval improperly allowed the increase of a non-conforming use. Moreover, every Staff Report presented to the DRB concluded, "There would appear to be insufficient evidence to support the findings for the variances requested." We concur. We trust the Town Council's de novo review of the pending application will uphold the appeal based upon the facts stated. Design review guiding principles support denial of the application. Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications. TMC sec. 16.52.020(H). In reviewing applications for site plan and architectural review, the review authority shall consider the following principles as they may apply. The following identified guiding principles are applicable here: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Comment: Applicant is proposing to modify the door that is physically located on the Kulik's property as part of the application. Kulik's have granted no easement or access of any kind to the door and stairs leading to the water as depicted on the proposed plans. A copy of the Applicant's boundary survey is attached as Exhibit D. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. Comment: As noted above ad nauseum, and as set forth in the PowerPoint Slides, the proposed application does not honor or give consideration to the Kuliks' reasonable expectations of privacy, view and light. Further, the application proposes side yard setbacks of only six inches and four feet, where a.minimum eight feet is required, which defeats all sense of Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon August 8, 2012 Page 6 of 7 space and separation. Where the existing building envelope fails to comply with existing development standards, it is legally nonconforming, it should not be permitted to expand further. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bear a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. Comment: The proposed application changes neighborhood character by radically changing the exterior building envelope in a high density R-2 Zone towards the bay, impacting privacy, blocking views and decreasing light. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform to the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), Comment: The proposed application does not comply with several R-2 zoning standards and requests further exceptions and variances. The following zoning provisions are applicable: Development Standards. As is evident from the Tiburon Municipal Code sections cited below, the pending application does not satisfy any of the applicable development standards. Previously, we noted the application does not comply with the applicable zoning standards for the R-2 Zone. Additionally please note: TMC. Sec. 16-30.010. Purpose. The provisions of division 16-30 are intended to ensure that the construction of new development and the establishment of new and modified uses contribute to the maintenance of a stable and healthy environment, that new development is harmonious in character with existing and future development, and that the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties are protected, as established in the general plan. [Emphasis added]. Comment: Expanding the building envelope that impacts, views, light and privacy defeats the Kulik's reasonable ability to enjoy their home. TMC. Sec. 16-30.020. Applicability. No buildings or structures shall be erected, reconstructed, moved, converted, or structurally altered in any manner, nor shall any buildings, other structures, or land be used for any purpose or in any manner other than as permitted by and in conformance with the general plan and this zoning ordinance. Comment: The pending application proposes a project not in compliance with the zoning ordinance as noted and design review approval should not be granted. TMC Sec. 16-30.030 (B). Purpose. This section provides standards for the use and minimum size of setbacks. Setbacks provide open areas around structures for: visibility and traffic safety; access to and around structures; access to natural light, ventilation and direct sunlight; separation Mayor Jim Fraser and Members of the Tiburon Town Council Town of Tiburon August 8, 2012 Page 7 of 7 between incompatible activities; and space for privacy, landscaping, and recreation. Setbacks can also provide a sense of low density, spaciousness, and aesthetic pleasure. TMC Sec. 16-30.030(C). Setback requirements. Unless exempted in compliance with subsection E. below, all structures shall conform with the setback requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special setbacks established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance, except as otherwise provided by this section. Comment: Because of the noncompliance with the set back requirement, no further expansion of the building envelope should be permitted that adversely affects the Kuliks' privacy, views, air, and light. In addition, the Town has adopted a set of Hillside Design Guidelines that apply to the pending application. Goal 3, Principle 7(d). The proposed application would violate this principal by blocking views of the Golden Gate Bridge. Conclusion. The purposes of the Town of Tiburon Design Review process are to promote orderly development; preserve the unique visual character of the Town; and determine compliance with the Town's zoning regulations. Additions and/or alterations to existing buildings are reviewed for consistency with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and to ensure proper relation to their sites and adjacent uses. The pending application imposes material and significant impacts to the privacy, blocks views and decreases light enjoyed by the Kulik Family at 2310 Mar East in violation of zoning development standards, hillside design guidelines, and should not be approved as designed. Because this application seeks both a lot coverage variance, and a floor area exception, the combination is presumptively indicative of overbuilding, and the proposed application should be denied. Very truly RIFKIND AW GROUP By: J\ ) 1 11(,4 na A. Ifkind LAR/fw Encl. cc: clients Exhibit "A" This item has been continued from the City Council meeting of December 11, 1972. The following decisions have been made relating to the application of Mr. Handley for construction of the duplex at 2310 Mar East: 1. The Board of Design Review on August 29, 1972, approved plans for the bull- r ding in accordance with the criteria of Interin Ordinance No. 62 N.S. 2. The Board of Design Review on November 28, 1972, approved } plans for the pier 3 which is part of the project and located within the "k" zone.. 3. The Board of Adjustments on December 18, 1972, heard an appeal of Gerry Coles l:. et al regarding the determination of average front yard setback. The Board'"s; action was to uphold the staff decision and affirm that the setback had been- properly determined. The action before the City Council is to uphold or deny the appeal of the Board of Design Review in their approval or the duplex under Ordinance 62 N.S. The intent and criteria for approval is excerpted as follows: f "...to prohibit large structures which obstruct the views of nearby property and which are not compatible with the established scale of the neighborhood. It is not the intention to place an unreasonable handicap on applicants where site r conditions are so difficult as to prevent the flexibility provided for in this I ordinance." Action of the Board of Design Review as is further stated "...shall be limited to consideration of the compatibility with the established scale of the neighborhood and to the preservation of views from adjacent and other affected building sites, whether developed or undeveloped".;::;..;:•. SUBJECT : January 8, 1973 CHRONOLOGICAL REVI??I•l OIL ACTIONS RE-1diTED TO HANDLEY DUPLEX 11/25/69 File No. 26923 - Application by Ernie Nevers for Variance, 6' Last side, 0' I-lest side. 12/15/69 File PTo. 26923 -.Variance approved with condition that open ce on adjacent lot to the v4st be preserved by a vied easement (Resolution No. 82) 10/30/70 File No. 67006 - ApplicG2i... by Iiandley for let line adjustment in order to place required viers easement on. the property of the variance. 11/20/70 File No. 67006 - Tentative approval of lot line adjustment. 12/4/70 File No. 77007 - Application by Handley for Design Review. 12/15/70 File No, 26928 expires. 12/22170 File No, 77007 - Design Review action continued due to pending appli- cation for Variance renewal. 12/30/71 File No. 27027 - Application for renewal. of Variance 26928. 1/18/71 File No. 27027 - Variance action continued at request of applicant. 1/19171 File No. 77007 - Design Review action continued. 2/16/71 File No. 27027 & 77007 - Variance and Design Review action continued to allot? time for redesign. 3/15/71 - File No. 27027 - Variance - No action, redesign incomplete. 3/16/71 File No. 77007 - Design Review continued. 3/17/71 Rough sketches revic:-i by staff with finding that redesign had elim- inated naed for Variance. - 4 5/5/71 File No. 67006 - Lot line nc;ustment approved by Planning Director and City engineer. 5/7/71 File No. 67005 Lot lire adjustment recorded. 8/16/72 File No. 77219 - Re-application by Handley for Design Revie:r. 8/29/72 File No. 77219 - Design Review approval. 9/13/72 File No. 77219 - Design approval appealed by G. Coles, G. Falk, J. Lindeman, W. 2lorel ouse & C. Bowles. 9/25/72 File No. 77219 - Council considered appeal and continued hearing with referral to Board of Design Review for consideration of proposed pier. 10/25/72 File No. OF, 77219 - Referral of Council continued by Board of Design Review for additional information concerning bay bottom in vicinity of proposed pier. 11/27/72 i Appeal filed by G. Coles, J. Morris, J. Lindeman, R. Freeburg & D. LaMott re decision of Director of Coomm. Dev, concerning average setback. z 11/28/72 File No. 77219 - Pier approved by Board of Design Review. 12111/72 File No 77219 - City Council continuation of Appeal from Decision of Board of Design Revie-Y pending results of Appeal before Board of Adjustre nts re: average setback. 112/18/72 Board of Adjus`nents, by Resolution 7#167, confirmed the decision of the D irector of Co=unity ..,evelopnent concerning method of computin g average setback. PVS:JE File No. 7-2?.9 Y Exhibit "B" It is my understanding that Mr. Handley has applied to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission for a permit to construct a duplex on the said parcels. Mr. Handley informs me that prior to your approving his application, you require some evidence that his proposed building has been approved by the City of Tiburon. 1 a Exhibit "C" TIBliRO'L,71 B A R.D' OF ADjUSTMEINETS AND REVIEW AGENDA SUMMARY TO: BOARD OF ADJ€JS;PKE'N S [?AND REVIEW FROM: Michael Crabtree, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Design Review and. variance - Addition LOCATION: 2248 Mar East OWNER: Raymond Randley (321-3040) APPLICANT: Same ARCHITECT: Hank Bruce (485-9118) ZONING: R-2 VARIANCE. REQUESTED: Condition Sideyard (Kes•t ^Z.r+ur*rs. Zrn.~n. Ordin.ance• Requirement 6G 59 Requested Up To: l` r hi s item ;N-as continued from September 5, 1985. Details of the original proposal are contained in the attached staff report- At the previous hearing of this matter, the Board felt that more information should be provided on the proposed boat davit and that a mock up of tie davit was needed. The Board also felt: that the proposed boat 'landing should be sca? -ed. backer in line 'with, t1he existing deck above. Ibe. applicant has now submitted revised: drawings. cs directed, the boat landing has been scale3 back and now projects approximately 1' beyond the deck above. The proposed spiral staircase has been eliminated and the applicants now propose to expand the decking on the west side: of the residence and provide a stairwTay, down to the boat landing. The sideyard setback in the. R-2 Zone is 8:1 although decks and stairways may protrude 2' into the r y F red zetb ck. However, the proposed new decking and stairway as well as a por-t-i-On of the !:.::,at landing ~/-i.ll be within. 5' of the side property .line: and a variance is therefore required. I he applicant has also provided more detail on the proposed davit. The davit ozill he 71 nigh and will be metal painted' brcoen or black. A mock up of -the davit has been erected for tine review and the area of the proposed newa decking and stairway, has beer r,:7-ped OFF_ to. _he situ ,an ire clbtaine`:3' b+,r contactingb Hadlev at 38:3-583. j P F: s„ " =n-e 15 required, it ;:_,ppears ',-hat the !revised. tit sal. _ i11 _.?•.r.:" -,t 2246 ..1. s 41-ha•n' the ..c, - us riro or f''_':^ :.h rh rr'!e l _:t da, Will -~:~ui trr1lvtion. Star:_ ls ri, i.r concern ~,,,:O» d be I -~.t •Y 1 , 4: '1 - ~ he ;t? STi.r ~afGL JrJ 't tQ1"c-~C i. ray t .t r'~ , .-r? t cr" ~.I h ;h MEETING: Oc to'ber 3, 1985 ITEM NO.., 3 F 1i-E !PTO'... 28454 This Application REPORT DATE: September 26, 1985 rte, NNY14 s~f Lray nog to; r s-`rl i tre size cf t.e havit Is reIatixW sm a I.. TO i• as a so ehzs is that a boat will be stored b suspending it from, the boat davit, in rQhid h case the visual impact 'r,oull be ?increased,. The card may therefore Gvish to attach conditions to the use- of &je• boast davit should it find the prcpos•al satisfactory. Ln termus of the proposed vakannce, staff believes. the request is minimal and that the find naigs can, be made. :=-COt/5E.N~ AT10?4, staff recommends that the Board review the proposed plans, visit the site and view the mock Tup of the boat davit, and consider testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing. if the Board finds the proposal satisfactory, the Boa'rd's approval should contain the follo /i,ng condi tions 1. All necessary permits hall be obtained from E UK: prior to- issuanCE of a building permit. y 2. The boat davit shall be u- ed only for purposes of boat transfer R arnd shall not be used for storage fy iL Hdd:itional ly fi the Board should make the findings necessary to grant the variance 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, not resultin , from any act- of the owner or applicant, apply to the prope&Ql and not generally to other propertie:,_ in the vicinity and the stare: ZC '1 e k ice variance request is minimal and the location of the proposed deck -mod s tairi a v, is the most logical to provide: access to the new boat landing. 2.. The exception does not constitutes a special priv ._ege inconsistent frith. the limitations Turn: other properties in the vicinity and the same zone Other properties in the P v-2 Zone have been granted variances when necessary for purposes of access- 3. The exception is the mini. necessary for the reasonable use of the property; Less variance than that requested, would not provide safe and reasonable access to the, proposed boat landing.. 4. The exception is: not nj 's'tows to. the neighborhood, inconsistent v1th: the intent of t`ra? s. ordinance and with. the purpose for su T-i, zone No. vieti.s or Privacy will be affected as a result of the variance rec-piest and the exception in not incousistent with the-R-2 Zone. w: erd 7P =T1f i. Riaduce'd Plans . Staff Report dated August 3G X 190 3. Minutes uep em er 5, 1985 c: Hardie,, 500 El Camino Real, Pao Alto C 94306 L=';nice r P.O. Eox 5231 Tiburon, CA 9492G Exhibit "D" az~ -14 4 J f i 9 r a r i LA i L IWAIL Laurie Tyler From: Marsha Vargas Handley <mvargas@rnindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:04 PM RE~~~~~® To: Laurie Tyler Subject: 2308 Mar East Tiburon AUG 10 2012 Attn: Tiburon City Council Dear Council Members, I own 2312-14 Mar East and want to again object to the approval of the proposed remodel that would extend the current footprint of 2308 which would have a serious impact on the view from my property as well as reduce the side yard setback to only 6 inches which I consider to be unacceptable for the neighborhood. I wish to state my objection to this plan. Very truly yours, Marsha Vargas Handley 1 LATE MAIL #.~Y-z August 10, 2012 Laurie Tyler Associate Town Planner Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ms. Tyler, J. Scott Briggs Inayke 8• briggs 2304 Inar East Tiburon, Ca 94920 y AU6 10 ?o PLANNING DIVISION We are writing to express great concern over the granting of several variances by the DRB to permit an intrusive expansion of the living area at 2308 Mar East. According to the minutes of the DRB meeting, Vice Chairman Emberson stated that "every home in the area has been granted a variance". This is simply not true. We do not have a variance nor have ever sought one. It is true that we all live quite close together on Mar East which is why all of us have always worked with our neighbors to make sure there is no "injury" to our properties. Apparently Mr. Wilton has made much of the expansion of Yesil/Wickett deck, but it should be pointed out that they consulted with their affected neighbors prior to construction, made the requested modifications and thus gained our approval. Mr. Wilton's neighbors are not, and have never been, unreasonable about their expectations of privacy or maintaining their views and we feel the town should pay attention to the apparent universal dismay over the DRB decision. In addition, we are concerned by the precedent being set by a bare quorum of DRB members apparently reinterpreting zoning rules and dismissing the findings by staff that the variances are insupportable. Respectfully, Scott & Mayke Briggs 2304 Mar East .Ai L,r tiiL Laurie Tyler From: Marsha Vargas Handley <mvargas@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:04 PM ~~C~~~~® To: Laurie Tyler Subject: 2308 Mar East Tiburon AUG 10 201? Attn: Tiburon City Council Dear Council Members, I own 2312-14 Mar East and want to again object to the approval of the proposed remodel that would extend the current footprint of 2308 which would have a serious impact on the view from my property as well as reduce the side yard setback to only 6 inches which I consider to be unacceptable for the neighborhood. I wish to state my objection to this plan. Very truly yours, Marsha Vargas Handley 1 LATE MAIL#.~% August 12, 2012 David Schwartz 15 Corinthian Ct #21 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon Mayor Jim Fraser and the Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 itUu 14 2012 TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON I am writing as a concerned Tiburon resident and property owner and in support on the appeals of the recent Design Review Board action regarding 2308 Mar East. The basis for the Design Review Board's decision is disturbing to me. It appears like all an applicant need do to get away with extraordinary requests for exceptions is to ask for 200% of what they want, continue to bring the proposal the Design Review Board enough and cut back their proposal to appear to be accommodating, before the board decides to just move it along. In the minutes, the Board seems to create rationales for their findings by citing the plan for 2308 Mar East as necessary because of the nature of the Mar East neighborhood and because the applicant appeared to be accommodating to its neighbors. Whereas discussions of variances are appropriate in many cases, one of the greatest charges of the Design Review Board is to help protect neighboring property owners from suffering damage to their properties with changes to proposed new and expanded construction. Absent of creating enduring loss of value and enjoyment of one's property, there may be the case that exceptions to current zoning codes are justified. In a waterfront and view community such as Tiburon, the protection of one's view, light and privacy is the hallmark of the charges to the Design Review Board. In the case of the proposed construction at 2308, all three aspects of view, light and privacy are violated. The impact is severe and irreversible to the neighbors. My main concern lay with the precedent being set in this case. Specifically, I have concerns about the effect on property values in Tiburon if Buyers perceive Tiburon as the "wild West" of zoning laws. How can anyone who is considering buying a property, especially with a view, supposed to feel about their purchasing in this community if a Design Review Board can approve a project which jeopardizes the very three items they are charged with preserving (those of view, light and privacy)? Conversely, how is a Seller of a property with a gorgeous views supposed to market their valuable asset? Will they now need to disclose to a Buyer, "enjoy the view while it lasts"? I have personally been in the home at 2310 Mar East, and in fact, I was involved in the sale of the property in my capacity as a real estate broker. I am familiar with the views and the spatial relationship of 2310 and 2308 Mar East. The proposed and approved project will harshly effect 2310 Mar East. At the time of the sale there were discussions of the proposed renovation of the property at 2308 Mar East, and this was properly disclosed to the Kuliks. The Kuliks were directed to speak to the Planning Department of Tiburon who, after showing the Kuliks the current zoning requirements, opined that the proposed project was so out of character and compliance with current zoning, it could not be supported. What, as citizens of this community, are we supposed to rely on from our Civic Leaders? Please protect our community and uphold the appeal as presented by the owners of 2306 and 2310 Mar East. R ectfully, vid Schwa z LATE MAIL # Of z mmm~ Karerr I lardesty 15150 Tiburon Blvd., '-')cite 217 Tiburon. C'alifi)rnia 949210 ALr~ust 12. 2012 Tiburon Mayor. Jim Fraser. and the Tiburon J'o\,\n Council 1501) Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 RECEIVED AUG 13 2 012 PLANNING -nIUISION Re: Appeal of the Desi on Revie\,v Board Appro) al of th e l..xpara Sicrn of* 2308 Mar East. 1 have, been a resident ofLyf'ord`s Cove since 1987.1- and have sold real estate in Marin County, with a partic;ul<ar 1:ocu; on the 'f iburon Perainsula, since That tira'ac. I chose the xvaterfront tov~m of Tiburon. in which to raise xnv children ratter <i great. deal of research. I came here from Newport Beach and had :peen the coastal cities o1'0range County develop fi-cm ch rrmin4o seaside to_ vns into a har,eri Im dc: lopniertt that changed the character of' the coo r-trnunit:ies it) an extremely net-,trt.ive wtv, . '.l he v. eckend I left to move to Tiburon there Nvas a feature article in tlae Los Angeles Times entitled, 'Newport Bench _ Dallas by the Sera.- My move to Fihuron vas made Nvith a conf;dCraee that the scar-axe thin(l) could not happen here. And for the n7ost pr-art. it hc-as not. I attribtate the watchful CVC caf'OUr planning department and prior design revi.m hoards for keeping the character of the Community and being sensitive to issuer that tivould have a tacygratit-e impact Cara individl.i als or the to~,Nn as a vk iole. Because of" what I have experienced in the past I am especially concerned about the findings of the Design Reviek Board as the pertaain to the proposed project at 230 Mar Fast. I have extensive Knowledge of the propcrties located at -2-3 )08 and .1310 klar Fa- t. and Mar I ast as a whole. I represented the Handley Trust in the sale ofthe property at 2-310 Mar East, Also. %4 argery Nc;v°ers, Nvho resided at 2308 until her death. was <a close friend. I spent rnanv hours in tier home over the last years. tilat was the owner who soled. the property to Rayrarc>rad I Irtndlc: \ and tile[) shaved oil LIS ra tenant. My experience of" the horn was that it tvas spaciotas but dated. The lcw ei. deck=s prat idcd 01.1t,'."Ide space to enjoy the water anti the properties to either sid(a did, nc_a( feel intrusive. Also). the litre c31' si0it from 1308 died not intrLacle uparn the livitaU arc;tas oI'2310 and 2306. As the listing agent of 2310 r spent a great deal of'tinie at the property. When the first set ol'story pole; \,v a s erected I was shocl;ed at the destrLlctiora ()f vievV1;, fi=ght and prMACY that the proposed expansion ti~ould entail tsar 2 ~ 10. It ape<}rs tile strr:atc (-)N of the mN'ners o1'2 08 has been to cask 6or the moon so that their- final request does neat seem outra m)uS. They appear- to he ractirt~.' in the spirit of compromise ~Nhen, ill fact. any expansion of 2308 is, in rrry opi_n_ion, irajLrrioLls to the owners of 2 71 a. I met with a member of the I)es4,1n Review Board at 23 10 when these stotA, poles went tip. A comment was made by this board member that people who live on 1 Tarr East cannot expect privacy. I"his sentirraent was main reheated in a sL1bsegLte nt Meeting. I beg to differ. In the last thirty years I haNT been in naany ofthe houses on the waterside of Mar Last \khen they have been can the market. I am arly\,aays ani a`ed how they views are maxir»ized and gre.at.thotig ht has gone into maintaining privacy, even can very small lets. In the last two years I have been involved as a broker in fiaur wales on the water on Mar Flast. 1 represented the sellers of the properties at 2310, 2248 ain(] 2180. 1 also represented the buyer oJ' 210 Mar E'aast. Because of, this activitV l have filet rraany prospective buyers w=ho are interested in Maas Fast. Views and privacy are of Litmost iniport<ance and top the list of wli at is desirable. If the expansion of 2 08 is alloNved I have grave concerns. The value} and marketability of ) 310 Mar Fast w°i ll he negatively affected. Bx Uarnt:.ing the variances recently approved by the DRf3 a dangerous precedent is scat. ()race the horse is € ut rrf'thL: barn therey is raga oinsg b ack. t_)t er Iirlie the character and c h<,Arni ()f M ar f'tast coil Id he severe) y damaged. The zoninty ordinances are rrn the books to protect all of the residents (A-Ftburon. The decision of the 1)1113 flies in the face of these standards. The J'Cact that there is consistent. objection to this project. by many neighbors is c \,i(iczacc that nacre are concerns that go #:ar- beyond dais paarticul :ar proJect. I respectfully request that the Tilicrr-ar1 l OV r) t:'01,11161 strpl-1011s the objections of not only the owners ()J'2'1 10 and 2106, but other horneeowners on Mar k ast. and grant the Appeal cif the owners cat . 10 and 2306. F csp -ctt' HV, 1 aarerz Z. I lcarc tv Cc: Laurie Tyler