The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2012-09-05 (2)TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor & Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Office of the Town Attorney Tiburon Town Council Meeting September 5, 2012 Agenda Item: P//-- / Recommendation to Adopt an Updated Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project Redevelopment agencies throughout California were abolished effective February 1, 2012 and successor agencies now fulfill certain requirements and roles formerly performed by those redevelopment agencies. Among those responsibilities is the adoption and periodic updating of an Implementation Plan for Redevelopment Project Areas. As the Town of Tiburon is the successor agency to the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, the Town is responsible for updating of the Implementation Plan for its solitary redevelopment project area. The Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project was last updated in 2007 and runs on a five-year cycle. The Implementation Plan sets forth the programming to fulfill those affordable housing production and other requirements as set forth in redevelopment law. ANALYSIS Staff has prepared a draft update of the Implementation Plan (Exhibit 2) covering five fiscal years. Reflecting the policies and programs of the Town of Tiburon's General Plan, the Implementation Plan calls for affordable housing to be constructed at sites in Downtown located within the Project Area or at other sites already identified in the Housing Element as affordable housing sites. However, the number of affordable units required to meet the Project Area's affordable housing production requirements (6.5 very low income units) is substantially smaller than the number of affordable units required to be addressed in the Housing Element. In other words, the Project Area's affordable housing unit responsibility constitutes a small subset of the larger Town of Tiburon requirements as set forth through the separate Regional Housing Needs Determination process mandated by the State and administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The Implementation Plan calls for the development of at least 6.5 units of very low income housing units at any or all of the sites listed in Appendix C, which is the affordable housing sites list from the adopted Tiburon Housing Element. Funds potentially available for this purpose would be the approximately $1.5 million held via a cooperative agreement between the Town of Tiburon and the Housing Authority of the County of Marin, as well as separate housing in-lieu funds (if necessary) held by the Town in the amount of approximately $1.1 million. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS Adoption of the Implementation Plan is statutorily exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing on the draft Implementation Plan update. 2. Adopt the Resolution (Exhibit 1) adopting the updated Implementation Plan. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Draft Implementation Plan (2012) for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Developmen4AC Ann Danforth, Town Attorney RESOLUTION NO. XX-2012 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON (ACTING AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY) ADOPTING AN UPDATED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Section 1. Recitals. WHEREAS, the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") is vested with responsibility pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California) (the "Law") to implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project area (the "Project Area"); and WHEREAS, redevelopment agencies in California were abolished by operation of law effective February 1, 2012, and the Town assumed the role of "successor agency" to the Agency and the Agency's affordable housing function; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33490 of the Law, the Agency had adopted and periodically updated its Implementation Plan for the Redevelopment Project (the "Implementation Plan"), the most recent update having been adopted in 2007; and WHEREAS, the successor agency's staff has prepared a draft 2012 update of the Implementation Plan and has duly noticed and advertised its availability for public review; and WHEREAS, the successor agency has determined that the adoption of the Implementation Plan is statutorily exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the successor agency has determined that the Implementation Plan is consistent with the Town of Tiburon General Plan and specifically with its Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the successor agency has conducted a public hearing pursuant to Section 33490(a) of the Law to obtain and consider public testimony regarding the proposed update of the Implementation Plan for the Project Area. Section 2. Adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tiburon Town Council, acting in its capacity as the successor agency to the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency that: 1. The updated 2012 Implementation Plan is hereby adopted. 2. This Resolution shall take immediate effect from and after its passage and approval. F77HIBIT NO. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 --1--12012 PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on , 2012 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE-IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2012 --1--12012 2 DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Covering Fiscal Years through 2015-16) Town of Tiburon (As Successor Agency to the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency) Adopted --/--/2012 Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 1 EXHIBIT NO. 91 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae PART I. INTRODUCTION & ORGANIZATION 1 A. ORGANIZATION 1 B. INTERPRETATION 2 PART II. GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 3 A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 3 B. PROJECT AREA STATUS ..........................................................................................3 PART III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES 4 A. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW (CRL) AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS 4 B. HOUSING FUND REQUIREMENT 5 C. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND PLAN.......... 8 D. REPLACEMENT HOUSING REQUIREMENT 12 APPENDIX A: TERMS & DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................13 APPENDIX B: MAP OF PROJECT AREA .................................................................................14 APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF SITE INVENTORY FROM HOUSING ELEMENT ...............15 i Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 2 PART I INTRODUCTION & ORGANIZATION The California Community Redevelopment Law (the "CRL") requires each redevelopment agency administering a redevelopment plan to prepare and adopt a five-year Implementation Plan. The. principal goal of the Implementation Plan is for an agency to plan for and implement its general redevelopment programs in a manner directly related to eliminating blighting influences. In addition, the affordable housing component of the Implementation Plan provides a mechanism for a redevelopment agency to monitor its progress in meeting both its affordable housing obligations under the CRL and the affordable housing needs of the community. The Tiburon Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") adopted its initial Implementation Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") in August, 1994, focusing primarily on the Agency's plans to meet certain affordable housing obligations. (The initial Implementation Plan was referred to as the Agency's "Housing Compliance Plan.") The Agency's most recent Implementation Plan was adopted in 2007, and is superseded by this 2012 Implementation Plan. In 2011, the California Legislature radically altered the landscape of redevelopment by the adoption of AB xl 26. This law abolished redevelopment agencies in California effective February 1, 2012. On January 18, 2012, the Town of Tiburon became the "successor agency" to the Agency and assumed the Agency's general responsibilities, including adoption of the Implementation Plan. The Town also specifically assumed the Agency's affordable housing function. Through the updated Implementation Plan, the Town can provide the community with an updated vision of redevelopment project's goals, objectives and programs, focusing on the fulfillment of the Redevelopment Project Area's affordable housing obligations, which are its only remaining obligation. This updated Implementation Plan covers fiscal years 2011-12 through 2015-16, the five- year period required under the CRL. The updated Implementation Plan provides updated goals, objectives and proposed programs for the next five fiscal years. A. ORGANIZATION This updated Implementation Plan addresses the following information: Specific goals and objectives for the five-year planning period related to meeting the Project Area's Affordable Housing Production Requirements. Programs and expenditures planned for the five-year planning period related to meeting the Project Area's Affordable Housing Production Requirements. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 3 An explanation of how the goals, objectives, programs, and expenditures will assist in meeting the Affordable Housing Production Requirements. Other information related to the provision of affordable housing, as discussed in Part III below. This Implementation Plan utilizes tenns with specified meanings. The definitions for the defined tern-is, as designated by initial capital letters, may be found in Appendix A. B. INTERPRETATION This Implementation Plan is intended to provide general guidance for the implementation of the Project Area's programs and activities. It is expected that particular constraints and opportunities, not fully predictable at this time, will arise in the course of undertaking the programs and activities described in this Implementation Plan over the five-year planning period. Therefore, the Town intends to use and interpret this Plan as a flexible guide, and intends that the specific programs and activities, as actually implemented, may vary in their precise timing, location, cost, expenditure, scope, and content from that set forth in this document. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 4 PART II GENERAL REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In November 1983, the Tiburon Town Council adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"), establishing an approximately 55- acre redevelopment project area (the "Project Area") in Tiburon, as depicted in Appendix B. The Project Area includes, but is not limited to, the 38-acre former Southern Pacific Railroad property (now known as the Point Tiburon development), the land between Lyford Drive and Ned's Way (including but not limited to the Reed Union School District lands), and portions of Tiburon Boulevard and properties along it adjacent to the former railroad property. The purpose of the Redevelopment Plan was to eliminate blight and to stimulate private redevelopment of the downtown area, particularly through participation in the Point Tiburon development and provision of affordable housing as mandated by the CRL. The Redevelopment Plan was administered by the Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"), and provided for allocation to the Agency of property taxes attributable to the growth in assessed valuation of property in the Project Area above the assessed valuation existing at the time the Redevelopment Plan was adopted ("Tax Increment Revenue"). B. PROJECT AREA STATUS On November 21, 1983, in connection with adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency entered into a Fiscal Agreement with the local taxing entities that receive property taxes from the Project Area, including the County of Marin, the Marin Community College District, the County Superintendent of Schools, the Reed Union School District, the Tamalpais Union High School District, the Tiburon Fire Protection District, and the Tiburon Sanitary District. The Project Area bonds were paid off in approximately 2003, roughly twenty years after Redevelopment Plan adoption, and the Tax Increment Revenue collection ceased at that time. Blight in the project area was eliminated. At this point in time, the Redevelopment Plan's remaining obligation is limited to the production of the remaining increment of very low income housing required under the CRL for the sole Project Area that was established. As noted above, the Town of Tiburon has assumed Agency's affordable housing fuction. All future references in this document to "agency" shall connote the Town, acting as the successor agency and in exercise of theAgency's affordable housing function, unless otherwise specified. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 5 PART III AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITIES California Community Redevelopment Law emphasizes the role of affordable housing activities within the overall redevelopment program. This role includes undertaking activities that will assist in "increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing". A. CRL AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS The CRL requires the housing component of this Implementation Plan to include: ■ The amount available in the Housing Fund and estimates of both deposits into and expenditures from the Housing Fund during the five-year planning period. ■ The number of new, rehabilitated, or price-restricted housing units to be assisted during the five-year planning period. ■ If existing affordable housing will be removed as a result of redevelopment activities, a list of proposed sites for the replacement housing that is required to be produced. ■ Specific information related to the Affordable Housing Production Requirement, total population (8,962), and the number of persons under 65 years of age (7,064) as reported in the most recent United States Census (2010). ■ The Affordable Housing Production Plan for the Project Area, showing how the Project Area's Housing Production Requirement will be met. ■ An explanation of how the goals, objectives, projects, and expenditures set forth in the Implementation Plan will implement the affordable housing requirements of the CRL. There are three basic statutory obligations under the CRL with respect to affordable housing. 1. Housing Fund Requirement. The requirement to deposit and expend specified percentages of Tax Increment Revenue (generally, 20% of total Tax Increment Revenue each year) for the provision of affordable housing. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 6 2. Affordable Housing Production Requirements. Specified minimum percentages of new or substantially rehabilitated housing units in the Project Area are to be available at a specified affordable housing cost. 3. Replacement Housing Requirement. The requirement to replace housing units removed from the housing stock as a result of redevelopment activities. Paralleling these three requirements, Section B of this Part III addresses the Housing Fund Requirement; Section C contains the Affordable Housing Production Plan to meet its Affordable Housing Production Requirements; and Section D discusses the Replacement Housing Requirement. B. HOUSING FUND REQUIREMENT This section describes the goals, objectives, proposed programs and proposed expenditures for the Agency's affordable housing program during the five-year planning period. In 2003, the Agency ceased depositing Tax Increment Revenue into its Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund (the "Housing Fund"). Since that time, the accumulated principal balance and accruals of interest have been the revenue sources available to complete the Agency's affordable housing program. As described in further detail below, the Agency transferred the funds to the Marin County Housing Authority in 2011, where they continue to draw interest. This section focuses on the use of the Housing Fund, beginning with a discussion of the legal requirements for the Housing Fund and including a summary of the funds contained in and to be deposited in the Housing Fund during the five-year period covered by this updated Implementation Plan. This section then outlines the Agency's goals and objectives for its affordable housing program, and concludes with the Agency's program strategy for affordable housing, including proposed expenditures and affordable housing production estimates for the five-year period. 1. The Housing Fund Requirement. a. Basic Requirement. With limited exceptions, the CRL requires there be set aside in a Housing Fund at least 20% of all Tax Increment Revenue generated from the Project Area for the purpose of increasing, improving and preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing. This requirement was met throughout the time that Tax Increment Revenue was collected, and the emphasis is now on programming the expenditure of remaining Housing Funds to complete the housing production requirements of the Project Area. The CRL also requires that said Housing Funds be encumbered or spent for affordable housing programs in a timely manner, so as to avoid building up an excess of unused and unencumbered money in the Housing Fund (known as an "excess surplus"). During its lifetime of Tex Increment Revenue generation, the Project Area did not incur an "excess surplus" situation. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 7 b. Assisted Households. Under the CRL, Housing Fund monies must be "targeted" to certain income levels. Housing funds are required to be spent to assist very low income, low income, and moderate income households, generally defined as: Very Low Income incomes at or below 50% of area median income, adjusted for family size Low Income incomes between 51 % and 80% of area median income, adjusted for family size Moderate Income incomes between 81 % and 120% of area median income, adjusted for family size According to the Housing Element of Tiburon's General Plan, the community's regionally-determined housing needs numbers and the proportions for the five housing income categories is as follows: Income Category Number of Units Needed Percentage Extremely Low Income 18 15.5% Very Low Income 18 15.5% Low Income 21 18.0% Moderate Income 27 23.0% Above Moderate Income 33 28.0% Thus, approximately 49% of Tiburon's need for housing in the four affordable income categories is for housing affordable to either extremely low income, very low income or low income households, while the balance of the need is for housing affordable to moderate income or market-rate households. In compliance with the goal of the CRL, the Project Area has targeted its Housing Fund assistance to provide affordable housing to income categories in proportion to these identified needs, provided that the Project Area's remaining very low income production requirements, as discussed below, are fulfilled during the process. C. Affordable Housing Cost & Duration of Affordability. Housing assisted with Housing Fund monies must be "available at an affordable housing cost". For housing assisted by Housing Funds, the following affordable housing cost definitions apply: Income Level Rental Housing Ownership Housing Extremely Low Income Less than 30% Less than 30% Very Low Income 30% of 50% 30% of 50% Lower Income 30% of 60% 30% of 70% Moderate Income 30% of 110% 35% of 110%, but no less than 28% of actual income Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 8 The first percentage means the percent of income that can be spent on housing costs. The second percentage means the percent of area median income. The CRL also requires the placement and recordation of affordability controls on any new or substantially rehabilitated housing assisted with Housing Fund monies. In the case of new or substantially rehabilitated rental housing, controls must be placed on the assisted housing units requiring them to remain affordable for the longest feasible time but not less than 55 years. For owner-occupied housing, the units must remain affordable for the longest feasible time, but not less than 45 years, although a shorter duration is permitted under limited circumstances. According to statutory definition, the "longest feasible tune" requirement includes, but is not limited to, a period of unlimited duration. As described below, the Project Area's assistance has complied with these affordability and duration requirements. 2. Funding for Affordable Housing Activities; Status of Housing Fund. The Project Area deposited the required 20% of gross Tax Increment Revenue in its Housing Fund in each fiscal year that such revenues were collected subsequent to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1983. As a result, there was no deficit in its Housing Fund deposits. In March, 2011, with the impending dissolution of redevelopment agencies by operation of AB x-1 26, the Agency, and the Housing Authority of the County of Marin (Housing Authority) entered into a cooperative agreement by which the Agency transferred its Housing Fund monies, totaling $1,525,856.45, to the Housing Authority for the purpose of completing the Agency's Affordable Housing Production Requirements. No additional revenues, other than accruing interest, are anticipated into the Housing Fund during the five year period of this Plan. It is anticipated that the entire Housing Fund will be expended in meeting the Project Area's Affordable Housing Production Requirements. 3. Goal and Objectives of Affordable Housing Activities. Development of this affordable housing program has been guided by the goals and objectives of the Town's Housing Element, the legal requirements for affordable housing mandated by the CRL, and available resources. Based on these factors, the Project Area's affordable housing goal and objectives for the five-year planning period are as follows: Goal 1. Assist in the development of new affordable housing units, emphasizing the housing needs of very low income units to fulfill the Project Area's CRL requirements. Objective 1. Assist in the redevelopment of any of the sites listed in the Housing Element's Summary of Site Inventory (Appendix C), which are located in the Project Area boundaries, to provide the units necessary to accommodate the Project Area's very low income requirement (6.5 additional units). These sites include the 1555 Tiburon Boulevard site Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 9 (parking lot), the 1535 Tiburon Boulevard site (Chase Bank), the 1601 Tiburon Boulevard site (Bank of America), and the 1199 Tiburon Boulevard site (Reed School unused portion). Objective 2. Assist in the development of affordable units at the other site listed in the Housing Element's Summary of Site Inventory, which is located outside the Project Area, to provide the units necessary to accommodate the Project Area's very low income requirement, either separately or in combination with Objective 1 above. This site is the currently unused portion of the Cove Shopping Center located at 1 Blackfield Drive. The estimated timetable for the production of the housing units described above is construction by the end of the 5-year timeframe of this Implementation Plan (FY 2015- 2016). Goal 2. Work with the Housing Authority to use the funds from the Housing Fund, as set forth in the cooperative agreement, in a timely and cost-effective manner, to complete the Agency's Affordable Housing Requirement, and provide additional affordable housing units if possible. C. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND PLAN This section constitutes the Affordable Housing Production Plan of the Agency as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33490(a)(2). This section begins with a summary of the legal components of the Affordable Housing Production Requirements, followed by a quantification of the Agency's past and anticipated future Affordable Housing Production Requirements. This section concludes with a description of the Agency's proposed strategy to meet the limited portion of its Affordable Housing Production Requirements that has not already been satisfied. 1. The Affordable Housing Production Requirements. The CRL imposes two Affordable Housing Production Requirements on the Agency: one requirement relates to new or substantially rehabilitated housing developed by the Agency itself anywhere in the community; and the second requirement relates to new or substantially rehabilitated housing developed within the Project Area by any entity (private or public) other than the Agency. Housing receiving Agency financial or land assembly assistance but owned and developed by a private entity or another government entity (such as a housing authority) falls within the second requirement. Before describing these two requirements quantitatively, a brief refresher about nomenclature is in order. The terms "very low income household", "moderate income household" and "affordable housing cost" have the same meanings in the context of the Affordable Housing Production Requirements as in the context of the Housing Fund Requirement described in Section B above. (Please refer to the definitions provided in Section B and in Appendix A.) A "substantially rehabilitated unit" is one whose post-rehabilitation value exceeds its pre-rehabilitation value by at least 25%. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 10 Specifically, the Affordable Housing Production Requirements are as follows: a. Agency-Developed Housing Anywhere in the Community. Fifteen percent (15%) of all new and substantially rehabilitated housing developed by the Agency anywhere in the community must be available for occupancy at an. affordable housing cost to moderate income households. An additional fifteen percent (15%) of all new and substantially rehabilitated housing developed by the Agency anywhere in the community must be available for occupancy at affordable housing cost to very low income households. b. Housing Developed In Project Area By Others Than The Agency. Nine percent (9%) of all new and substantially rehabilitated housing developed within the Project Area by private or public entities (other than the Agency) must be available for occupancy at affordable housing cost to moderate income households. An additional six percent (6%) of all new and substantially rehabilitated housing developed within the Project Area by private or public entities (other than the Agency) must be available for occupancy at affordable housing cost to very low income households. Housing Fund monies may be used to meet the Affordable Housing Production Requirements. To qualify as a unit that fulfills a portion of the Affordable Housing Production Requirement, a unit must be deed restricted to remain affordable to the applicable income category (moderate income or very low income) for the longest feasible time and in any event for a period that continues through the expiration of land use controls under the Redevelopment Plan. (If the unit is receiving Housing Fund assistance, a longer duration of affordability may apply, as discussed in Section B above). 2. Quantification of Affordable Housing Production Requirements. a. Agency-Developed Housing. As of the date of this Implementation Plan, the Agency has not itself developed any housing in Tiburon. The Agency has no plans to develop any housing itself in the future, since affordable housing can much more efficiently be developed by experienced for-profit and non-profit developers than by the Agency. Consequently, the Agency does not have, and does not expect to incur, any Affordable Housing Production Requirement for Agency-developed housing. b. Housing Developed In the Project Area By Others. As of the date of this Amended Implementation Plan, the only newly developed housing units in the Project Area since the adoption of Redevelopment Plan are the 155 condominium units in the Point Tiburon development and the 25 units at Chandlers Gate on Ned's Way (both privately developed). As of the date of this Implementation Plan, no housing units in the Project Area have been substantially rehabilitated since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. A newly developed Agency-assisted private housing project outside the Project Area boundary, which is allowed one-half credit under State law, has been constructed at Cecilia Place. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 1 1 The Project Area has some sites that the Town has designated for mixed-use commercial/residential development. These sites include the 1555 Tiburon Boulevard site, the 1535 Tiburon Boulevard site, and the 1601 Tiburon Boulevard site. No rehabilitation of existing housing in the Project Area is contemplated during the timefrarne of this Plan. In summary, the total number of "new and substantially rehabilitated" housing units that have been undertaken in the Project Area to date is 180 units; consisting of the 155-unit Point Tiburon development and the 25-unit Chandlers Gate development, both of which are private- sector projects. This Implementation Plan incorporates the Tiburon General Plan Housing Element projections of 55 total units for the sites listed in the Summary of Site Inventory that are located in the Project Area. Adding the 55 projected units from these two sites to the 180 units already constructed yields 235 total units. Consequently, the Agency's total Affordable Housing Production Requirement for housing developed in association with the Project Area is as follows: Moderate Income Units: 235 total units x 9% = 21.2 units Very Low Income Units: 235 total units x 6% = 14.1 units The Agency's Affordable Housing Production Requirement for Project Area housing is 21 moderate income units and 14 very low income units. 3. Strategy for Meeting the Project Area Affordable Housing Production Requirements. This subsection describes the strategy by which the Agency has met, or plans to meet, the Project Area Affordable Housing Production Requirement quantified above. (No strategy for Agency-developed housing is required since no Agency-developed housing has been, or is anticipated to be, undertaken in the community.) a. Moderate Income Units. Twenty (20) of the condominium units in the Point Tiburon development (within the Project Area) assisted by the Agency have been deed restricted by the Town for occupancy at affordable housing cost to moderate income households for at least the minimum period required by the CRL. In addition, eight (8) units in the Cecilia Place development have been deed-restricted by the Agency for availability at affordable housing cost to moderate income households for 99 years after completion of the development, thereby far exceeding the minimum period required by the CRL. The Cecilia Place development is outside the Project Area. However, under the current provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b)(2)(A)(ii), the Agency may obtain one unit of credit toward its Project Area Affordable Housing Production Requirement for each two units of deed-restricted new affordable housing developed outside the Project Area. On this basis, the eight (8) units of affordable moderate income housing developed and deed-restricted in the Cecilia Place development are worth four (4) units of credit to the Agency. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted -4-42012 Page 12 The Agency has caused a total of twenty-four (24) units of affordable moderate income housing twenty units at Point Tiburon and four units at Cecilia Place) to be developed toward its Project Area Affordable Housing Production Requirement for moderate income housing. In comparison, the Agency's total obligation over the entire life of the Redevelopment Plan is projected to be only twenty-one units of moderate income housing, as calculated above. Therefore, the Agency has already met and exceeded its anticipated life-of-the-Redevelopment Plan requirement for production of affordable moderate income housing in the Project Area. b. Very Low Income Units. Four (4) units in the private-sector-developed Chandlers Gate development have been deed restricted for occupancy at affordable housing cost to very low income households for at least the minimum period required by the CRL. In addition, the Agency assisted the private sector in the development of seven (7) new housing units in the Cecilia Place development that are deed-restricted by the Agency for long-term (99 year) affordability to very low income households. Because these units are located outside the Project Area, they count on a "two-for-one" basis under current Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b)(2)(A)(ii) to yield three and one-half (3.5) units toward the very low income portion of the Agency's Project Area Affordable Housing Production Requirement. Since, as calculated above, the very low income housing production requirement throughout the entire life of the Redevelopment Plan is projected to be fourteen (14) units, the Agency has achieved seven and one-half (7.5) very low income units and has a remaining Project Area Affordable Housing Production Requirement of six and one-half (6.5) very low income units. The Agency intends to achieve the production of these remaining units through the following strategy: (1) As detailed in Section B, the Agency proposes to use Housing Fund money, in collaboration with the Housing Authority, to assist in the development of sites in the Project Area listed in the Housing Element's Summary of Site Inventory (Appendix C), to provide at least 6.5 very low income units. Since these sites are in the Project Area, all affordable units will count fully toward the remaining Project Area Affordable Housing Production Requirement. (2) As detailed in Section B, the Agency proposes to use Housing Fund money to assist in the development of the Cove Shopping Center site, either separately or in conjunction with sites described in paragraph (1) above, to provide the required number of very low income units. Since this site is not in the Project Area, the Agency would receive only one- half credit for affordable units produced. Using the above sites, the Agency should have sufficient Housing Fund monies, in combination with available Town of Tiburon House In-Lieu Fund monies, to fulfill the remaining very low income unit obligation before the end of this Implementation Plan timeframe. Additional affordable units beyond those described above shall be pursued as part of Tiburon's General Plan Housing Element goals, policies, and prograins. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 13 D. REPLACEMENT HOUSING REQUIREMENT In general, when residential units housing low and moderate income persons are destroyed or taken out of the low-and moderate-income market as part of a redevelopment project, a redevelopment agency must replace those units within a specified time in accordance with a plan adopted following public review. The Agency has incurred no replacement housing obligation under the CRL to date. The Agency is not likely to incur a replacement housing obligation for this Project Area. However, should the Agency obtain funds from developers or other sources, and should these funds be used in a manner that results in the removal of dwelling units from the affordable housing stock, the Agency will meet all CRL requirements, including the preparation of a specific replacement housing plan prior to removal of such units. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--!201? Page 14 APPENDIX A: TERMS & DEFINITIONS "Affordable Housing Requirements" or "Affordable Housing Production Requirements" means the requirements of the CRL that specified percentages of low and moderate income housing be produced. "Agency" means the Town of Tiburon, being the successor agency to the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, unless otherwise specified. "CRL" means the California Community Redevelopment Law as embodied in Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. and which governs the practice of redevelopment in the State. "Housing Fund" in general means the proceeds from the 20% of Tax Increment Revenue generated from the Project Area that was collected during the lifetime of the Project Area and is now held by the Marin Housing Authority through a cooperative agreement with the Town of Tiburon as successor agency to the Redevelopment Agency. "Housing Fund Requirement" means the requirement to make deposits into and expend funds from the Housing Fund to produce affordable housing as required by the CRL. "Moderate Income Household" means, generally, households with incomes not exceeding 120% of area median income. "Project Area" means the specific geographical area within which the Agency has initiated a Redevelopment Project pursuant to the CRL. Appendix B provides a map of the Tiburon Project Area. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the Tiburon Redevelopment Project adopted on November 28, 1983. "Tax Increment Revenue" means that portion of property tax revenues generated by increases in assessed value within the Project Area and received by the Agency after the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. "Town" means the Town of Tiburon. "Very Low Income Household" means, generally, households with incomes not exceeding 50% of area median income. Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted --/--/2012 Page 15 APPENDIX B: MAP OF PROJECT AREA ~Q APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF SITE INVENTORY FROM HOUSING ELEMENT Range of Realistic i Infra- Location Zoning General Plan Designation Acres Density Units Capacity sting Ex structure Din-site Possible {2007• Uses Capacity Constraints 2014} Neighborhood 1555 Tiburon CommereialWfordahle Housing Vacant Boulevard NC! AH© Oveday (up to 0.31 FAR and 15.3 1.00 12.9 20.7 13 to 20 20 Parking .it Yes None unitslgross acre: 20.7 unitsigross acre with density bonus) Neighborhood Chase Bank 1535 Commercial/Affordable Housing Existing Existing Tiburon Boulevard NCI AHO Overlay (up to 0.31 FAR and 15.3 0.73 12.9-20,7 9 to 15 0 Bank (not Yes Building and units/gross acre; 201 unitsigross available) Use acre with density bonus.) Neighborhood Bartle of America Commercial/Affordable Housing Existing Existing 1601 Tiburon NCI AHO Overlay (up to 0.31 FAR and 15.3 0,57 12,9-20.7 7 to 11 0 Bank (riot Yes Building and Boulevard unitslgross acre; 20.7 unitstgross available) Use acre with density tons) Cove Shopping Neighborhood Vacant par; Center 1 CommerciallAffordabie Housing Drainage Blackftsid Drive NCI AHO Overlay (up to 0.31 FAR and 15,.3 0,60 12.9 - 20.7 81o12 12 Shopping Yes Channe? (can (portion) unitsjgross acre; 20.7 units gross Center be mitigated) acre with density bonus) Reed Elementary Ven7 High Density School 1199 T b B l RMP I A O ?:t esidentiailAffordable Housing Slope 7 - 1 1 i uron ou evard . -1 Overlay (up to 1$.4 duiaCre, L4.$ 1.$0 12.4 - 24a 8 12 to 37 35 Vacant Yes acres are (upper vacant duiacre with density bonus) developable, portion) SUBTOTAL FOR SITES OVER 20 UNITS PER ACRE 49 - 95 67 Second Units Va rio€ S. Residential Varies Varies 12 ' Developed/ Yes Varies Vacant Single Far}i<y VarioLs Residential Varies Varies 96 96 Developedf Yes; Varies Vacant TOTAL CAPACITY 157203 169 Tiburon Redevelopment Project Area Implementation Plan DRAFT Adopted -4-42012 Page 17 To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Tovc7n Council Meeting September 5, 2012 Agenda Item: H Subject: 440 Ridge Road: Dual Appeals of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for the Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling, With Variances for Excess Lot Coverage and Excess Fence Height, and a Floor Area Exception; Ridge Road, LLC, Owner; Lynn and Mark Garay, and Fani Hansen and Angela Danadjieva, Appellants; File #21204; Assessor's P e o.059-082-21 Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Address: 440 Ridge Road Assessor's Parcel: 059-082-21 File Number: 21204 Property Owners: Ridge Road, LLC Applicant: Holscher Architecture (Architect) Appellants: Lynn and Mark Garay Fani Hansen and Angela Danadjieva Lot Size: 22,096 Square Feet Zoning: RO-2 (Single-Family Residential-Open) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Flood Zone: X BACKGROUND On June 7, 2012, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new single-family dwelling, with variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height, and a floor area exception, on property located at 440 Ridge Road. The owners of the adjacent properties at 430 Ridge Road (Lynn and Mark Garay) and 450 Ridge Road (Fani Hansen and Angela Danadjieva), hereinafter referred to as "appellants," have filed separate timely appeals of the Board's decision. The appeals are attached as Exhibits 1 & 2. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10 f PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 440 Ridge Road. The subject site is currently developed with an existing two- story dwelling that would be demolished as part of this project. The main floor of the house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, den, powder room, a master bedroom suite and one additional bedroom and bathroom. The lower floor would include a recreation room, two more bedrooms, three more bathrooms and a storage room. A two-car garage would be attached to the main level. A swimming pool and spa would be located in the southern portion of the lot. Eight skylights are proposed to be installed. The exterior of the proposed house would include light grey shingle siding with off-white, green and stone trim. The roof would utilize dark grey slate shingles. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,438 square feet, which is 228 square feet greater than the floor area guideline for a lot of this size. A floor area exception has therefore been requested. The house would cover a total of 4,358 square feet (19.7%) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. A variance for excess lot coverage is therefore requested. New solid wood fencing, generally ranging in height from 4.5 to 6 feet, would extend around the perimeter of the lot, with driveway and pedestrian gates in front. The fence would have a height of 7 feet, 8 inches along a 22.5 foot long portion of the shared property line with 430 Ridge Road. As the maximum fence height allowed along the property line is 6 feet, a variance is also requested for excess fence height. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board first reviewed the application on April 19, 2012 (see minutes and staff report packet attached as Exhibits 3 & 4). At that meeting, the neighboring property owner at 430 Ridge Road objected to the design of the proposed house when viewed from below and the location of the proposed swimming pool close to the property line. The owner of the home at 450 Ridge Road raised concerns with the visual mass and potential view impacts that could be caused by the two-story portion of the proposed house. The Design Review Board shared many of these concerns and encouraged the applicants to redesign the two-story portion of the building, relocate or shield the swimming pool and consider an overheight fence along the property line shared with 430 Ridge Road. The application was continued to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans for the proposed house. The two-story portion of the building was moved back 21 feet, 10 inches from the previous project design. The lower floor was reconfigured to place two bedrooms and two bathrooms beneath the terrace to the rear of the main floor. The swimming pool was moved 10 feet further from the rear property line, to a point 20 feet away from the property line. The applicants also modified the original fence design to include the overheight fence section along the shared property line with 430 Ridge Road and the request for a fence height variance. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 10 "3l.'pi,L'.IT1Y7cr 5, 2012 At the June 7, 2012 meeting (see minutes and staff report packet attached as Exhibits 5 & 6), the neighboring property owner at 430 Ridge Road requested that the fence height be increased to 10 feet along the shared property line to address potential privacy concerns. The owners of the home at 450 Ridge Road raised concerns about potential view, sunlight and privacy impacts caused by the two-story portion of the house. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised house designs and determined that the house fit into the scale of the property and the neighborhood. The Board determined that the proposed fence height was adequate to address any potential privacy concerns from the home at 430 Ridge Road and that the house would not result in substantial view or privacy issues for the home at 450 Ridge Road. The Design Review Board voted 3-0 to conditionally approve the project. On July 18, 2012, both sets of appellants filed timely appeals of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL Appeal of 430 Ridge Road (Lynn and Mark Garay) There are two (2) grounds upon which the first appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1: The Design Review Board acted on incomplete applications and disregarded the appellants' objections to the project. In so doing, the Design Review Board abused its authority and discretion and violated the Tiburon General Plan, the California Environmental Quality Act, California Government Code and the Hillside Design Guidelines. Staff Response: The appellants submitted ten (10) separate a-mails or letters to the Town regarding this application (Exhibits 10-13, 15-17, 27-28 & 30), each of which was distributed to and considered by the Design Review Board. Mr. Garay also spoke at the June 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting and acknowledged that Boardmembers had visited his property. At and before the April 19, 2012 meeting, the appellants objected to potential privacy impacts they believed would be caused by the proposed additions. In particular, the appellants felt that the upper level deck and windows of the proposed house would allow residents to look into the outdoor shower and spa located of 430 Ridge Road. At that meeting, the Board empathized with these concerns and encouraged the applicant to request a variance for excess fence height to propose a fence over 6 feet in height for a limited length along the shared property line. The applicant submitted revised plans indicating a 7 feet, 8 inch tall wooden fence along a 22.5 foot long portion of the shared property line. The appellants indicated that the fence would not fully address their privacy concerns and requested that the fence height be increased to 10 feet. The Design Review Board determined that the 7 foot, 8 inch fence would adequately screen the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 10 property and suggested that the appellants could plant vegetation that would grow above the height of the fence if they desired additional privacy. In its deliberations, the Board commented at length on the potential privacy impacts that the project could have on the property at 430 Ridge Road, made specific recommendations for privacy improvements at the April 19, 2012 meeting, and detennined that the revised project design adequately addressed this issue. Staff concludes that the Board did not "disregard" the appellants' objections to the project. The appellants have previously contended that additional information was necessary for the review of this application. The appellants requested that the story poles be marked to indicate the floor elevations, floor plate and window sills and tops. The appellants also requested section drawings with specific view angles from proposed decks and windows. The Town has never required such story pole markings or this level of specificity in section drawings to determine that an application is complete. The appellants have contended that the project would require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for the removal of a Pine tree on the site and the presence of serpentine rock on the property. The appellants have contended that the Pine tree to be removed provides nesting habitat for owls and hawks. The applicants submitted a letter (Exhibit 19) from a certified arborist indicating that the tree is diseased and a letter from the previous property owner (Exhibit 21) stating that the tree has never been a nesting place for owls or hawks. Serpentine soils are found on many properties on the Tiburon Peninsula, including much of the Hillhaven neighborhood that contains the subject property and the appellant's property. Serpentine soils often contain naturally occurring asbestos that has the potential to become airborne during site grading. This issue has been the subject of review in several environmental impacts reports (EIRs) prepared for projects in Tiburon. In one such EIR, a geotechnical engineer summarized that "significant levels of asbestos are not commonly found in the serpentine encountered in Marin County" and suggested only that the soil be tested for asbestos prior to construction or when the site is graded. Another EIR found a form of asbestos that was exposed when the rocks were pulverized during laboratory testing, but determined that such pulverization would not occur during normal residential construction or grading. In determining whether an application is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, the Town reviews each project on a case by case basis, but also attempt to snake determinations that are consistent from one project to another. Based on the Town's experience with home construction across the Tiburon Peninsula, the Town has consistently found that single-family residential construction projects do not pose a risk of significant environmental impact if the builder complies with the requirements of the California Air Resources Board regarding asbestos- related issues. The appellants, have not provided any evidence to the contrary to explain why the subject property should be treated differently than other single-family residential construction. It should also be noted that the recent construction of the appellants' home, with similar soil conditions, was found to be categorically exempt from CEQA. The appellants have also contended that the project design would be inconsistent with the direction of the Hillside Design Guidelines to "step" a home into the slope of the lot. Goal 1, TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 10 Principle 2 of the Hillside Design Guidelines encourages projects to "terrace [the] building using the slope." !4 , i,~ ~y;7 kt~ • fit. !~^.'~:'~"'~A4".`~' CDL~E '70 o° Xr. 154..,-WN ~ r 047 yn. S .r' !z17-15 'H1V 4 afir`. • tel. L. ".3''_ La1 _ ~'1 -~"t t H • ,ate'<;'~. `^'iT c` The Design Review Board determined that the revised house design appropriately worked with the slope of the lot. Ground #2: The action of the Design Review Board was unclear and based on an incomplete record. The Board did not specify which application it voted upon or specify the suggested conditions of approval. Staff Response: On June 7, 20121 the Design Review Board clearly approved the revised plans dated May 29, 2012. The Board discussed whether to approve the plans indicating a 7 foot, 8 inch tall fence along a portion of the shard property line with 430 Ridge Road or whether to approve a shorter or taller fence in that location. The motion to approve the plans as submitted approved the 7 foot, 8 inch tall fence shown on those plans and specified the adoption of the draft conditions of approval attached to the staff report. Appeal of 450 Ridge Road Wani Hansen and Angela Danadiieva) There are twelve (12) grounds upon which the second appeal (Exhibit 2) is based: Ground #1: The Design Review Board acted upon an incomplete application. Staff Response: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 10 The appellants have previously contended that that the submitted plans need to "indicate horizontally (in plans) or vertically (in sections) its environmental impacts on the adjacent existing properties." The appeal does not indicate any other reasons as to why the application would be considered incomplete. The Design Review Board determined that the information presented on the revised plans and by the applicants was sufficient to make an informed decision on the application. Ground #2: The Design Review Board accepted misleading information in evaluating the application. Staff Response: The appeal does not indicate which "misleading" information was submitted that the Design Review Board accepted in evaluating the application. The appellants submitted five (5) separate e-mails or letters to the Town regarding this application (Exhibits 20, 25-26 & 31-32) which detailed their concerns regarding the project. One letter (Exhibit 25) included visual simulations of the proposed house design that superimposed a drawing of the Golden Gate Bridge onto photographs of the view from the Appellants' property, which provided a misleading representation of the existing views from 450 Ridge Road and the potential view impacts that would be caused by the proposed house. Ground #3: The Design Review Board did not consider the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act in making its decision. Staff Response: As noted in the response to Ground #1 of the other appeal, the Design Review Board properly reviewed the subject application in accordance with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act in making its decision on this application. Ground #4: The Design Review Board did not make the appropriate findings for the requested variances. Staff Response: At the June 7, 2012 meeting, the Design Review Board indicated their agreement with the staff- drafted findings for the requested variances and floor area exception as set forth in the staff report (Exhibit 5). In particular, the Board determined that the granting of the variances for the proposed house would not be. injurious to the neighboring property owners, as the revised house design would not result in substantial view, privacy or sunlight impacts on these neighbors. Ground #5: The Design Review Board did not consider the massing of the building and the excess lot coverage, floor area, height and hardscape associated with the project. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 10 Staff Response: At the April 19, 2012 meeting, the Design Review Board agreed with the appellants about the visual mass and potential view impacts that could be caused by the two-story portion of the proposed house, and encouraged the .applicants to redesign the two-story portion of the building. On June 7, 2012, the Board was satisfied that the revised project addressed these concerns and represented an appropriate house design for this property. The Board indicated that it could make the findings necessary to approve variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height and a floor area exception. Hardscape surfaces, such as patios and walkways, do not require Site Plan and Architectural Review approval, and therefore the Design Review Board did not discuss the amount of hardscape proposed for the site as part of this project. Ground #6: The Design Review Board did not consider the option plan prepared by the appellants. Staff Response: On June 7, 2012, the appellants submitted a late mail item to the Town that included an alternative project design prepared by the appellants, both of whom are architects. At the meeting that evening, the appellants presented this alternative design to the Board. The Town's late mail policy states that for any mail received after the Monday before a meeting, "there should be no expectation of, nor shall the reviewing authority have any obligation to, read or consider any such late mail, and therefore such late mail may not become part of the administrative record for the item before the reviewing authority." The alternative project design was not submitted until the day of the Design Review Board, and therefore the Board was under no obligation to consider these plans. Further, it is the Design Review Board's responsibility to evaluate plans submitted by an applicant, not to choose among different plans or consider plans submitted by someone other than the applicant. The Board determined that the revised plans submitted by the applicant adequately responded to concerns raised by the Board at the previous meeting, and could be approved as meeting the Town's requirements. The Design Review Board was not obligated to consider the appellants' plans or determine whether or not the applicant's plans were superior to the appellants' plans. Ground #7: The Design Review Board did not review documents that raised objections to the application. Staff Response: The appeal does not indicate which documents were not reviewed by the Design Review Board. As noted above, the appellants submitted (5) separate e-mails or letters to the Town regarding this application that detailed their concerns regarding the project. The Design Review Board read and considered all correspondence regarding this project before making a decision on the application. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 10 Ground #8: The staff report incorrectly stated that no objections were filed for the application. Staff Response: The staff report for the June 7, 2012 meeting (Exhibit 5) stated that since the April 19, 2012 meeting, as of the date of that report, the Town had received no letters regarding this application. The appellants submitted four separate e-mails or letters to the Town (Exhibits 25-26 & 31-32) that were received on June 4 or June 7, 2012, after the preparation of the staff report. This correspondence was forwarded to the Design Review Board as late snail for the application. Ground #9: The Design Review Board did not consider the privacy, sunlight and tree and vegetation removal impacts on the appellants' property. Staff Response: The minutes of the April 19, 2012 meeting indicate that the Design Review Board commented on privacy and vegetation issues in its discussions of the potential impacts of the proposed house on the home at 450 Ridge Road. The Board directed that changes be made to the house design to address these concerns. At the June 7, 2012 meeting, the Board again discussed the potential privacy impacts and vegetation between the two sites and determined that the revised project design would not result in substantial privacy impacts on the neighboring home. The appellants discussed concerns over potential sunlight impacts on their property at both Design Review Board meetings. The applicants presented sunlight studies at both of these meetings that thoroughly analyzed these potential impacts and concluded that the proposed house would have minimal effect on the sunlight on the home at 450 Ridge Road, and that the proposal to remove trees along the shared property line would actually increase sunlight available to the neighboring residence. Ground #10: The Design Review Board did not address the full range of subjects required. Staff Response: The appeal does not indicate which subjects were not addressed by the Design Review Board. As noted in the response to Ground #3 above, the Design Review Board properly reviewed the subject application in accordance with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Hillside Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act in making its decision on this application. Ground #11: The Design Review Board approved a project design that increased the floor area, lot coverage and building height above the amounts requested in the original application. Staff Response: The original house design considered at the April 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting included 4,190 square feet of floor area, lot coverage of 4,140 square feet (18.9%) and a TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 10 1. Own (_ouncil MeCtl[10 'itTi:enl.Her 5,24112 maximum building height of 26 feet, 1 inch. The plans approved by the Design Review Board at the June 7, 2012 meeting had 4,438 square feet of floor area, lot coverage of 4,358 square feet (19.7%) and a maximum height of 25 feet, 9 inches. However, the revised plans also moved the two-story portion of the house back 21 feet, 10 inches from the previous project design. The lower floor was reconfigured to place two bedrooms and two bathrooms beneath the terrace to the rear of the main floor. The swimming pool was also moved 10 feet further from the rear property line. The Design Review Board concluded that these revisions resulted in a better project design that addressed the concerns raised by the Board at the April 19, 2012 meeting. Ground #12: The Design Review Board did not visit the site at 450 Ridge Road to evaluate potential privacy impacts. Staff Response: Boardmembers are encouraged but not obligated to visit each site, and attempts to gain entry to a particular site are not always successful for a number of reasons. In such instances, Boardmembers may make use of photographic and other evidence presented, or use site visits to portions of the site or nearby sites that are accessible, in order to evaluate an application. In this case, the appellants provided photographs of the story poles viewed from their property, which the Board used to help evaluate the potential impacts of the project. The minutes of Design Review Board meetings often do not indicate whether individual Boardmembers visited sites, and Boardmembers do not always indicate at meetings whether or not a site visit was made. The minutes of the June 7, 2012 meeting indicate that at least one Boardmember visited the home at 450 Ridge Road to view the story poles for the revised project design, but do not provide information with respect to site visits by other Board members. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act in its review of this project. The Board determined that the proposed house design was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Board evaluated the potential impacts from the appellants' residences and determined that these concerns were minimized by the revisions made to the house design. The Board determined that the information presented by the applicant was adequate to make an informed decision on the application. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeals in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 8), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intentions to either grant, partially grant or deny each of the appeals; and 3) Direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution addressing each appeal for consideration at the next meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 10 EXHIBITS 1. Notice of appeal from Lynn and Mark Garay 2. Notice of appeal from Fani Hansen and Angela Danadjieva 3. Design Review Board staff report dated April 19, 2012 4. Minutes of the April 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 5. Design Review Board staff report dated June 7, 2012 6. Minutes of the June 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 7. Notice of Action and adopted conditions of approval 8. Appeal procedures 9. Application form and supplemental materials 10. Letter from Mark Garay, dated April 2, 2012 11. Letter from Mark Garay, dated April 4, 2012 12. Letter from Lynn and Mark Garay, dated April 5, 2012 13. Letter from Lynn and Mark Garay, dated April 16, 2012 14. Letter from Donna Grant, dated April 16, 2012 15. Letter from Mark Garay, dated April 18, 2012 16. Letter from Mark Garay, dated April 19, 2012 17. Letter from Lynn and Mark Garay, dated April 19, 2012 18. Letter from Ann Prell, dated April 19, 2012 19. Letter from Robert Morey, dated April 13, 2012 20. Letter from Angela Danadjieva, dated April 16, 2012 21. Letter from Scott Hannahs, dated April 16, 2012 22. Letter from Martin Rabbett, dated April 18, 2012 23. Letter from Todd Hannahs, dated April 19, 2012 24. Letter from Lisa Lowell, dated June 3, 2012 25. Letter from Fani Hansen, dated June 4, 2012 26. Letter from Angela Danadjieva, dated June 4, 2012 27. Letter from Lynn and Mark Garay, dated June 4, 2012 28. Letter from Lynn and Mark Garay, dated June 5, 2012 29. Letter from Lisa Lowell, dated June 6, 2012 30. Letter from Lynn and Mark Garay, dated June 6, 2012 31. Letter from Fani Hansen, dated June 7, 2012 32. Letter from Angela Danadjieva, dated June 7, 2012 33. Approved plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager I S: IAdministrationlTovvn CouncillStaff Repor-ts120121September 5 Drafts1440 Ridge Road appeals report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 10 1-0 TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tihnron, CA 94920 Phone -115--135-7373 !9'iyiy. ci. tibifron. Co. its APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages if necessarty)) Name:` Mailing Address: Telephone: J-) ( S y r-):~ ~ \ 0 C?Work) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): ACTION BEING APPEALED (Home) Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: c) 10--) Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: c~ L - ~ I Name of Applicant: Type of Application or Decision: u'k-(-( Ir, Ct C~.51 LYfc S S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ) (Attach additional pages if necessary) s~ A-ktAov f2 G~ t A STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: .z Fee Paid: Jt U / 2 Date Appeal Filed -Il U r--t_) 4 Receipt No. Date of Appeal Hearing: '-X6 l NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-applicant S: '„9dministration!FornisWotice of Appeai form revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised March 2010 EXHIBIT NO. -P, 1 CF-- 2 iiwk EXHIBIT «A„ Lynn and Mark Garay, the owners of 430 Ridge Road, Tiburon, ("appellant") hereby appeal the decision of the Tiburon Design Review Board ("DRB"), on the applications of 440 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21204. 1. The appellant incorporates herein as though fully set forth each and every document and communication, previously filed, or transmitted as a part of the record of this application, the various recorded comments to it, and the exhibits and testimony generated at the various DRB hearings. 2. The DRB erred in acting upon incomplete applications, and in disregarding the objections to this project which were filed in this record and were incorporated herein. In so doing, they abused their authority, and discretion, disregarded the law, both substantive, and procedural, including but not limited to Tiburon General Zoning Ordinance, the California Environmental Quality Act, California Government Code, Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines,. There was no evidence, or insufficient evidence in the record to support the DRB decision. 3. The action of the DRB was inadequate, improper, vague and ambiguous, based upon an incomplete record, is not clear in defining what specific factual findings they were voting on, approving, or making. The They did not delineate which of the several pending applications they were voting on, and did not specify which conditions were being imposed as to any approvals that they purportedly voted on. 4. Appellants adopt all other basis for appeal that are filed by others appealing these approvals. 5. Applicants reserve the right to supplement this notice and provide more detailed briefing and exhibits to the Town Council, once the DRB minutes have been adopted and the full file is available for review and copying. EXHIBIT NO. I 2 GPZ TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 U'bPl1'. ci. ll hill-011. ca. its APPELLANT(S) , (Attach additional pages if'necessw-i) Name: R/U4'1F Mailing Address: , • a• 6eX q6 7 1 y,j~;k" " I e~4-4 g4q20 Telephone: FAX and/or e-mail (optional): (Work) l La w~~~9_P_j P--- A~ Af SAr. t1,,0M (Home) ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: rMA/ AF 1CN AobFvlow Bo1Ap Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: ? 201-7-- A PA-,0T-r; Name of ApphQwitw Type of Application or Decision: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) iAl STAFF USE ONLY BELOH' THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: 6-1~ Fee Paid: 30yd- Receipt No. Date Appeal Filed: Date of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $ 00 initial deposit for applicant and S-300 flat fee for non-applicant . 2, - S: IAdmiliistratiorilForlnsWolice of~lppeul fa•m revised 3-9-20J(l.doc EXHIBIT N1 Rouisedblarch 2010 P, l OF 91 June 18, 2012 To Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal of the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board's decision on June 7, 2012 regarding the construction of a house at 440 Ridge Road, Tiburon, CA Dear Members of the Town Council, On June 7, 2012 the Tiburon Design Review Board (DRB) approved the Applications for construction of a new two storey house at 440 Ridge Road in Tiburon. Our grounds for appeal are that DRB and Town report: 1. Acted upon incomplete applications. 2. Accepted misleading "facts", critical for evaluating a proposal. 3. Did not consider Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines and the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act. 4. Did not consider the requirements for Variance application and mandatory findings of Section 16-52.030 (E); Variances are provisions for offsetting hardship's that arise from exceptional con- ditions that pertain to properties that do not conform to the general characteristics of neighboring properties. In the case of 440 Ridge Road lot, this lot is large and can easily accommodate struc- tures that are governed by applicable zoning ordinances. 5. DRB did not consider the • Massing of the building, size and scale • Excess lot coverage, • Excess Floor Area Exception, • Excess Height • Excessive impermeable, hardscape land coverage 6. DRB did not consider the Option Plan even though the applicant expressed interest in imple- menting it. 7. Omitted to review documents filed with Town of distributed objections. 8. Accepted Town's report that incorrectly stated that "No objections were filed" 9. Did not consider the negative impact of the proposed development on adjacent sites such as • Deprivation of Privacy and Sun blockage • Removal of trees and vegetation 10. DRB did not address the full range of subjects required. 11. DRB accepted a revised proposal that increased floor area, land coverage and building height above those filed in the application for variances 12. DRB members did not visit 450 Ridge Road to see the story poles and the significant pri- vacy issue that the development imposes on 450 Ridge Road property. See attached exhibits illustrating above grounds, 7 pages. Respectfully submitted by: ev'lg Fani D. Hansen, AIA, LEED AP,BD+C, CARE, Architect, Owner Angela Danadjieva, UTA PO BOX 868 TIBURON CALIFORNIA 94920 P:415435-5767 F:415435-4240 WWW.HANSENARCHITECTS.COM EXHIBIT NO. -2- 2 vF `1 s~ t N O N N N b!J '.C O d' N O O ^ N ^ C~ v1 W ~ N O N , c~ ~ 00 ~lJ Z G ,W ~V Q t 1N z Q I=4 V W ~I<w IM ~ M O ~ N W N f'• • r: _O i T N O O `n O N ~ N 00 CT3 00 ry - ~ o OI_ ~ O =5 ~ O O I(i ,Z V„ ;w C .2 Iu Q w Ln IZ ~w Qm 0 z G4 W W O a V CAS N O N "d 4J E 7~ . r, O d' O 0 RZ e~ a~ bA 0 PERO .4 W c~ o •POO .PEA Z~ 0 0 a~ as °n ITT c~ c~ 0 a 0 0 a ~v z G F- iU IQ z N Q wg QIa Q. OCA- E-~ w O v PL~ N O P4 O ,It "It O O 0 0 t 0 c ;..4 4 .PRO V 0 ~w•y1 • POI A . Poo Po .P U Z I~ I ,w IQ w o ~ Qoo ~ m lmF- 01- NIz 11's H ~y W V C~ 3 N O N bA '.d O d' r~ V 1 O P1 V V V V • POO I 0 0 N v 1 rl O U Z V-1 ~G I~ i= W n Q Ws ~!n o =!z~ 0,<52 M 7 , Y ~10 t4* Q "`rte,, I ~P gi ' d ti 4r' i j E ~I 'T .-4 ;0-4 V"', K° 6 PLO f: y O~ O ANN) O ~ .ONE( N ~ ~ II o 7J OPM4 AN. ~ NY Vol ,-N A I 4.- 5 a~ lu Z I It Iw I~ i~ Q Z Iw tA z I = ~ws ,Z a m N 0 w ~o C ,W z F: I t^ w y c IoP a~1 PON* V1 r leis + ~ rar r yl 41 f r•Q r low El PENA c, # Piz ~c w TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting April 19, 2012 Agenda Item: 1 440 Ridge Road; File #21204 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Single- Family Dwelling, with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage ADDRESS: 440 RIDGE ROAD ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 059-082-21 FILE NUMBER: 21204 PROPERTY OWNERS: RIDGE ROAD, LLC APPLICANT: HOLSCHER ARCHITECTURE (ARCHITECT) LOT SIZE: 22,096 SQUARE FEET ZONING: RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-OPEN) GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: MARCH 14, 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 15303. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 440 Ridge Road. The subject site is currently developed with an existing two-story dwelling which will be demolished as part of this project. The main floor of the house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, den, powder room, a master bedroom suite and two additional bedrooms and bathrooms. The lower floor would a recreation room, bathroom and storage room. A two-car garage would be attached to the main level. A swimming pool and spa would be located in the southeast corner of the lot. New solid wood fencing, ranging in height from 4.5 to 6 feet, would extend around the TOWN OF TIBURON E HIBIT NO. ~3 PAGE 1 OF 9 perimeter of the lot, with driveway and pedestrian gates in front. Seven skylights are proposed to be installed. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,190 square feet, which is 19 square feet less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would cover a total of 4,140 square feet (18.9%) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. A variance for excess lot coverage is therefore requested. A color and materials board has been submitted and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The exterior of the proposed house would include light grey shingle siding with off- white, green and stone trim. The roof would utilize dark grey slate shingles. ANALYSIS Design Issues The subject property generally slopes down from Ridge Road. The existing house is situated on a relatively level area at the center of the lot. The existing driveway slopes down from the center of the lot. The rear of the site has a moderate slope downhill away from the building location. The proposed house design is roughly L-shaped, with a predominantly one-story center portion of the house and a two-story leg of the house along the eastern (left) side of the lot. The ridgeline at the center of the house would not extend substantially higher than the roofline of the existing house to avoid view impacts for the homes uphill and across the street. The project was originally scheduled for the April 5, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. Prior to that meeting, the applicant installed story poles on the site and determined that the two-story portion of the house would have extended substantially into the views for several neighboring residences, and may have blocked views of the Golden Gate Bridge from one or more homes. The applicant asked for a continuance and revised the project design to shorten the two-story wing of the house. The proposed house would be primarily visible from the following properties: • 430 Ridge Road. This neighboring house sits adjacent to and directly downhill from the subject property, on the same side of Ridge Road. This neighboring house is oriented away from the proposed house, with few windows facing uphill toward the house. The adjacent property also includes a swimming pool, spa and outdoor shower facing the proposed house. The spa is currently screened by a privacy wall and only a corner of the pool is visible from uphill. The outdoor shower is located on the side of the house and is unscreened, making it unlikely that it is intended to be used for anyone other than those using the pool and spa. These areas would be most visible from the windows of the proposed main level master bedroom suite which would allow views down into the property, albeit from a location approximately 60 feet from the southern property line. TOWN QE TIBURQf'+t PAGE Z! QE 9 EXHIBIT NO. ~ The spa is approximately 80 horizontal feet from the nearest portion of the proposed house. The project proposes to construct a 6 foot tall solid wood fence along the shared southern property line with 430 Ridge Road. The landscaping plan also calls for installation of a privet hedge that should grow to 10 feet in height. These screening elements should minimize any views of the neighboring outdoor living spaces from the proposed house. Expectations of complete privacy from nearby homes are unrealistic in a suburban environment where each property has expansive views that often include those of other properties. 450 Ridge Road. This adjacent home is situated to the east and closer to Ridge Road than the proposed house location. This residence has extensive windows at the southern end of the building that capture a panoramic view stretching from the East Bay across Angel Island and San Francisco to the Golden Gate Bridge. The southernmost portion of the proposed house, including the two-story element containing the master bedroom suite, would appear to intrude into the far right side of the view from the living room of the adjacent residence, but would not intrude into views of the Golden Gate Bridge. Several of the main floor windows would face the neighboring home, creating some potential privacy impacts. Several mature pine trees along the eastern side of the subject property which currently screen the location of the proposed house would be removed, opening up more views of the new building. 460 Ridge Road. A new home was recently approved on this nearby on the other side of 450 Ridge Road. It appears that the revisions to the southern end of the proposed home would protect views of the Golden Gate Bridge from this new dwelling. The new building would intrude into the far right side of the panoramic views from the approved house. The following principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines should be used in evaluating the potential view impacts from neighboring homes: Goal 3, Principle 7 (A) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "view protection if more important for the primary living areas of a dwelling (e.g. living room, dining room, family room, great room, kitchen, and decks associated with these rooms) than for less actively used areas of a dwelling (e.g. bedroom, bathroom, study, office, den)." The proposed house would appear to intrude into the views from the living room of the home at 450. TOWN OF TIBUR®N ]E PAGE 3 OF 9 XI~II3I'T NCB. ~40 -„4 Goal 3, Principle 7 (D) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "blockage of important object in the view (Golden Gate Bridge, Belvedere Lagoon, Sausalito, Angel Island) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known landmarks." The proposed house would possibly not block views of the Golden Gate Bridge or other important objects from the homes at 450 and 460 Ridge Road. Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." The proposed house would block only a small portion of the panoramic view from the neighboring dwellings at 450 and 460 Ridge Road. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 EXHIBIT N0. E The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles for the proposed house from the homes at 430, 450 & 460 Ridge Road to fully evaluate its potential view and privacy impacts. The applicant proposes to remove a large existing pine tree from the center of the site. The owners of 430 Ridge Road have objected to its removal, citing its potential owl and hawk habitat and its scenic character. This tree has been substantially trimmed at lower elevations over the years, but the upper reaches of the tree projects into the water views from a number of Hillhaven neighborhood homes uphill from the site. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone, with the exception of the requested variance for excess lot coverage. The notices distributed for this application requested a maximum lot coverage of 17.6% as indicated on the original plans submitted with this application. The modifications made to the project design by the applicant have increased the requested lot coverage to 18.9%. The Design Review Board may review and comment upon the findings necessary to grant the requested variance, but may not take action on the variance until adequate notice has been given of the modified variance request. In order to grant the requested variance, 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 similar zones. The subject property is surrounded by numerous homes in the Hillhaven subdivision which have maintained historic views over the roofline of the original home on this lot. This location and its surroundings would make it difficult to design a two-story home on this site without substantially intruding into the views of these neighboring residences and create special circumstances that would deprive the owners of this property of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. TOWN OF TisURflN ~ PAGE S OF 9 iH~BI1 NO. 2. 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. Numerous other properties in the RO-2 and similar zones have been granted variances for excess lot coverage, particularly for additions that retain a predominantly one-story home design. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. As noted above, the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement for this property would either require the construction of additional second story areas for a future home that would intrude into views for nearby homes. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or iniurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not substantially project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, the Town has received one letter regarding this application from the property owners of 430 Ridge Road. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and continue the application to a future meeting to allow appropriate noticing of the variance request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Letter from Lynn and Mark Garay, dated April 5, 2012 4. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 9 EXHIBIT NO. MINUTES #5 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2012 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Johnson and Tollim Absent: Boardmember Chong Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS Sandra Smith said she would most likely not be able to stay to the end of the meeting for the last item on the agenda which is 687 Hawthorne Drive, and submitted a letter detailing her comments on the project. C. STAFF BRIEFING - None D. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 1. 440 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21204; Ridge Road LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new two-story dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,190 square feet. The house would have lot coverage of 17.6% in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-21. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 460 Ridge Road. The main floor of the house would include a living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, den, powder room, a master bedroom suite and two additional bedrooms and bathrooms. The lower floor would a recreation room, bathroom and storage room. A two- car garage would be attached to the main level. A swimming pool and spa would be located in the southeast corner of the lot. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,190 square feet, which is 19 square feet less than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would cover a total of 4,140 square feet (18.9%) of the site, which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. A variance for excess lot coverage is therefore requested. David Holscher, architect, said that the proposed house would be 15 square feet smaller than what is allowed and would be one of the smaller new homes in the neighborhood. He said that they increased the lot coverage to 18.9% but kept the square footage exactly the same, keeping the driveway, garage, and main part of the house in the same location where it currently exists, lowering the house into the site about 5 feet, and they moved back the bedroom wing so it would not block the neighbors' views of the Golden Gate Bridge and preserve air and light. He said that they would not be excavate and would use the site in its natural state, and the house would follow the grade of the hill. He presented elevations showing the previous location of the building and the proposed design of the house. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #5 EXHIBIT NO. 4/19/12 Mr. Holscher said that the large Monterey Pine tree would be removed, and they had a letter from an arborist stating that the tree is dying. Mr. Holscher said that the tree is too large to be near numerous homes and it could fall during a storm. He said that the site is difficult because of its closeness to neighbors and neighbors' views and he pointed out that the house would be stepped back 35-40 feet away from neighbors. Mr. Holscher showed the proposed landscape plan, noting that there would be three layers of screening along the property line, and he thought that it would be a mistake to construct a 10 foot fence. He showed an aerial view showing the view of the neighboring house of the Golden Gate Bridge which would not be impeded by their plans. He showed results of a lighting study done on December 1St which is one of the lowest light days, and the impact on lighting would be at a minimum. He then showed the same study done on June 1 st and pointed out the existing garage is the only building that would shadow the neighboring house. The public hearing was opened. Fani Hansen said that she is an architect and neighbor and shared two photos of the site; one view from her home currently and one showing the new development in the same view. She also showed photos taken from the interior of her house with the view of the Golden Gate Bridge and with and without the proposed house. She said that all architects should empower each other and not take views away from each other. She said that her sister has tried to work with the neighbors to come up with a good solution. Angela Danadj ieva hoped that the neighbors would help come up with a solution that everyone will like. She said that she was surprised when she saw the story poles and said that the applicant shortened them after talking with her. She handed the Board a list of the potential impacts of the project. Paula Little said that she fully endorsed the project and thought that a lot of thought and effort had been put into it. She said that it was well-designed and well-situated on the property, and if situated any higher or any further to the west it would impact her views. She acknowledged that the house would impact her but she appreciated the fact that they would not block her view and build a large mansion. She believed that a diseased and dying tree is not a landmark and the tree obstructs her view. She said that Mr. Garay had indicated there had been a proposal for an 8 foot fence at her home and this is not true, as the DRB in 1997 approved only a 7 foot fence. She welcomed the project and felt that the design was the best it could be. Jim Malott said that he is familiar with the site. He noted that he wrote the Hillside Design Guidelines and said that the building violates a number of those guidelines to the detriment of the adjacent building. He said that the house would take over the angular view of the adjacent house, does not step up the hill well, the steep roof adds to the mass of the building, and the downhill side includes large gables. He said that he hated seeing something like this done because it was unnecessary and that a great house could be built on this site without affecting the neighboring building. Chair Kricensky asked for clarification of the bedroom floor which appeared to be 4 feet above the existing grade, and Mr. Holscher said that it would be 4 feet above grade in that location. Vice-Chair Emberson asked if the serpentine soil is preventing good landscaping growth on the site. Mr. Holscher said he believes that is a watering issue because the property has been vacant for some time. The public hearing was closed. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #5 4/19/12 EX,111BIT NO, Boardmember Tollini said that from a design standpoint he was reminded of one of his favorite homes in Tiburon and he thought that the proposal was a terrific design. He was concerned about the effect of the west bedroom wing on the Garay's property. He said that he visited the Garays' home and he did not find it so large that it would be offensive but it raised concerns. He also had an issue with the massiveness of the building when viewed from the rear yard of 450 Ridge Road, and to some extent from indoors, as shown in the photos. He did not think that that issue could be adequately softened with landscaping. He also had minor issues involving protecting privacy with a taller fence, but he did not think that that concern was enough to alter the project significantly. Boardmember Johnson echoed Boardmember Tollini's comments regarding the bedroom wing and the wing closest to 450 Ridge Road. He said that he visited the home at 430 Ridge Road. He felt that the design was great and an interesting design for the site, but some things could be altered, potentially stepping the wing down, to lessen the impact on the two neighboring properties. He said that the proposed location of the pool was essentially right next to the bedroom of 430 Ridge Road. He suggested pulling the pool away from 430 Ridge Road and would like to see refinements in those key areas. Vice-Chair Emberson said she is also concerned with the pool and asked where the pool equipment would be located. Mr. Holscher replied that it is reflected in the landscape plan and located to the back of the property. Vice-Chair Emberson voiced concern from noise generated by the pool equipment, thinking that the pool would be intrusive for the neighbor, and suggested requiring a taller fence for the neighbor at 430 Ridge Road. She also suggested lowering the height of the building, perhaps by stepping it down. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers' comments. He agreed with Mr. Malott's continents as well and said that the influences on the neighbors should be taken into account. He said that the house at 450 Ridge Road looks like it was purposely nestled down into the site whereas the current project looks like it would be sit on the site. He felt that the elevated floor level of the bedroom bothered him, as it would be very prominent from 430 Ridge Road. He thought that a taller fence in the corner area would make a large difference to protect the bedroom privacy of the neighbor. Boardmember Tollini agreed and suggested a fairly limited stretch of taller fencing in that area. He said that landscaping would help but something solid would be more helpful in protecting privacy and blocking noise. He said that the gabled roof exacerbated the wings and created a "pointy" house. He suggested looking at alternatives in the design of those two wings. Boardmember Johnson suggested moving the location of the pool more to the middle of the property so it would have less of an impact on the neighbors at 430 Ridge Road. Vice-Chair Erberson agreed that the pool should be moved. Chair Kricensky suggested that the height and the bulk were the main issues he saw for the bedroom wings. He said that in concept the project would step down the hill, but it did not step down enough in critical areas to avoid affecting neighboring homes. Boardmember Johnson agreed with Chair Kricensky and said that the house was starting high and staying high instead of stepping down the hill. Boardmember Tollini said that he understood that it is less than ideal to have steps in the house, and acknowledged the challenge of the graded site. Chair Kricensky suggested that there are alternatives to address these issues, and Boardmembers agreed. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson) to continue 440 Ridge Road to the May 17, 2012 meeting. Vote: 4-0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #5 4/19/12 EXHIBIT N0. _q - TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Members of the Design Review Board Planning Manager Watrous Design Review Board Meeting June 7, 2012 Agenda Item: 1 440 Ridge Road; File #21204 Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Single- Family Dwelling, with Variances for Excess Lot Coverage and Excess Fence Height and a Floor Area Exception (Continued from April 19, 2012) The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 440 Ridge Road. The subject site is currently developed with an existing two-story dwelling which will be demolished as part of this project. This application was first reviewed at the April 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the neighboring property owner at 430 Ridge Road objected to the design of the proposed house when viewed from below and the location of the proposed swimming pool close to the property line. The owner of the home at 450 Ridge Road raised concerns with the visual mass and potential view impacts that could be caused by the two-story portion of the proposed house. The Design Review Board shared many of these concerns and encouraged the applicants to redesign the two-story portion of the building, relocate or shield the swimming pool and consider an overheight fence along the property line shared with 430 Ridge Road. The application was continued to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed house. The two-story portion of the building has been moved back 21 feet, 10 inches from the previous project design. The lower floor has been reconfigured to place two bedrooms and two bathrooms beneath the terrace to the rear of the main floor. The swimming pool has been 14 feet from the rear property line. The floor area of the proposed house has been increased from 4,190 square feet to 4,438 square feet, which is 228 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested for the project. The revised project design has also increased the lot coverage of the proposed house from 4,140 square feet (18.9%) of the site to 4,358 square feet (19.7%), which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. A variance for excess lot coverage is still therefore requested. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. ~ PAGE 1 OF 7 In addition, the applicants now propose to construct a 7 foot, 8 inch tall solid wood fence along a 22.5 foot long portion of the shared property line with 430 Ridge Road. As the maximum fence height allowed along the property line is 6 feet, a variance is now requested for excess fence height. ANALYSIS Design Issues The changes to the project design appear to respond appropriately to the direction given by the Design Review Board at the April 19, 2012 meeting. The reduced length of the two-story portion of the house would pull that wing of the building substantially further from the home at 430 Ridge Road and would lessen the visual mass of the house when viewed from the property at 450 Ridge Road. The relocated swimming pool would lessen conflicts between this outdoor living area and the rear yard for 430 Ridge Road. The increased fence height along the shared property line with 430 Ridge Road would appear to screen the house and rear yard of the subject property from view from most of the rear yard areas of the neighboring lot. The applicants and adjacent property owners have been working together to reach a mutually satisfactory fence design but, as of the date of this report, do not appear to have reached an agreement. As summarized in the previous staff report, Town staff believes that expectations of complete privacy from nearby homes, or from all portions of a rear yard, are unrealistic in a suburban environment where each property has expansive views that often include those of other properties. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone, with the exception of the requested variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height and a floor area exception. In order to grant the requested variances, 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 similar zones. The subject property is surrounded by numerous homes in the Hillhaven subdivision which have maintained historic views over the roofline of the original home on this lot. This location and its surroundings would make it difficult to design a two-story home on this site without substantially intruding into the views of these neighboring residences and create special circumstances that would deprive the owners of this property of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. j 2. 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. Numerous other properties in the RO-2 and similar zones have been granted variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height, particularly for additions that retain a predominantly one-story home design and to address potential privacy issues. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. As noted above, the strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement for this property would either require the construction of additional second story areas for a future home that would intrude into views for nearby homes. The strict application of the maximum fence height requirement would expose the neighboring home at 430 Ridge Road to potential privacy impacts. These building limitations and potential privacy impacts would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant that cannot be remedied under the strict application of the zoning requirements. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not substantially project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed fence would help reduce potential privacy impacts for the home at 430 Ridge Road. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances. 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 Hillhaven neighborhood contains many homes that have substantial two-story elements. Many of these neighboring homes have more substantial visual mass than that demonstrated by the proposed house design. The proposed house would therefore be compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 7 E nHIBIT NO. 5 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 house is proposed to be located on a relatively level portion of the site, with sloping areas above and below the building location. Most of the proposed lower floor would be excavated below the terrace on the site. The two-story element of the house has been reduced in depth to better confonn to the contours of the site. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested floor area exception. PUBLIC COMMENT Since the April 19, 2012 meeting, the Town 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 continue the application to a future meeting to allow appropriate noticing of the variance request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Supplemental application materials 3. Design Review Board staff report dated April 19, 2012 4. Minutes of the April 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting 5. Revised plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4OF7 EXHIBIT NO.-S-- MINUTES #8 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF JUNE 79 2012 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson and Boardmember Johnson Absent: Boardmembers Chong and Tollini Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous reported that the July 5, 2012 meeting is scheduled to be held as planned; however, staff is discouraging items requiring substantial public comment. D. OLD BUSINESS 440 RIDGE ROAD: File No. 21204; Ridge Road LLC, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new two-story dwelling. The new dwelling would result in a total floor area of 4,438 square feet, which is greater than the 4,210 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would have a lot coverage of 19.7% in lieu of the maximum 15.0% lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. A 7 foot, 8 inch fence is requested in lieu of the maximum fence height of 6 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 059-082-21. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 440 Ridge Road. The subject site is currently developed with an existing two-story dwelling which will be demolished as part of this project. This application was first reviewed at the April 19, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, the neighboring property owner at 430 Ridge Road objected to the design of the proposed house when viewed from below and the location of the proposed swimming pool close to the property line. The owner of the home at 450 Ridge Road raised concerns with the visual mass and potential view impacts that could be caused by the two-story portion of the proposed house. The Design Review Board shared many of these concerns and encouraged the applicants to redesign the two-story portion of the building, relocate or shield the swimming pool and consider an overheight fence along the property line shared with 430 Ridge Road. The application was continued to allow the applicant to address these concerns. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed house. The two-story portion of the building has been moved back 21 feet, 10 inches from the previous project design. The lower floor has been reconfigured to place two bedrooms and two bathrooms beneath the terrace to the rear of the main floor. The swimming pool has been 14 feet from the rear property line. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 EXHIBIT NO. 6/7/12 The floor area of the proposed house has been increased from 4,190 square feet to 4,438 square feet, which is 228 square feet greater than the floor area ratio for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested for the project. The revised project design has also increased the lot coverage of the proposed house from 4,140 square feet (18.9%) of the site to 4,358 square feet (19.7%), which would be greater than the 15.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the RO-2 zone. A variance for excess lot coverage is still therefore requested. In addition, the applicants now propose to construct a 7 foot, 8 inch tall solid wood fence along a 22.5 foot long portion of the shared property line with 430 Ridge Road. As the maximum fence height allowed along the property line is 6 feet, a variance is now requested for excess fence height. David Holscher, architect, reviewed changes made to the project. He said that they moved the large master bedroom suite to the other side of the house, moved back the playroom 22 feet 9 inches, and installed a trellis to respond to the concerns of the residents of 430 Ridge Road. He said that they removed the roof points, with only the main gable remaining. He said that they plan to install a 5-foot solid fence as per the neighbor's request. He said that they propose a hedge, fence, and then the house in that area, which is a very typical side yard. He said that there would be no view blockage. He showed computer generated depictions of the shadows that would be created by the house and the trees and showed there would be significantly less light blockage. He said that the primary view from 450 Ridge Road is of Angel Island, and showed that they would not impede any views. He stated that the deck was removed and the doors of the master bedroom would now go to the middle of the site and not to the edges. He said that the master bedroom was pulled back 5 feet 9 inches and the story poles were no longer noticeable from the Garay's house. Phoebe Holscher, architect, said that they lowered the plate height 1 foot, changed the gable to a hip and a 5:12 pitch, moved the pool up the site and moved the poolside patio across the site to the east side. She said they moved the poolside patio 29 feet, and it would now be 52 feet away from the property line. She said that the only thing between the pool and the neighbor's property would be screening. She stated that the poolside patio would be used infrequently, contrary to Mr. Garay's comments. She said that Mr. Garay proposed a monolithic wall that would be excessive and overbearing and they are trying to protect privacy for both parties. She presented three depictions of the proposed retaining wall at different heights and stated that a fence higher than the 7 foot, 8 inch proposed fence would block views of the Golden Gate Bridge. She said that they worked very hard to accommodate and address Mr. Garay's concerns and believed that they have met these concerns very effectively with a 7 foot, 8 inch fence. She said that they are requesting the variance for Mr. Garay and not for themselves, as they would prefer a 6 foot fence. Lisa Lowell, applicant, said that they have redesigned the house 3 times over the past few months, including 3 sets of story poles. She stated that they redesigned the roof and pulled in the pool, and she thought that they had done everything they were asked to do at the last meeting. She stated that two weeks ago Mr. Garay was happy with all of the changes they had made. She said that they worked with him to try to decide on the acceptable height of the fence Mr. Garay requested a 7 foot 8 inch fence, which she believed would be very high, but they agreed to do so. She stated that a few days ago she received an e- mail requesting a fence with minimum height of 9 feet 7 inches, which she felt would be an unacceptably tall fence. Ms. Lowell said that the neighbor at 450 Ridge Road is an architect and designed a possible home for the lot. Ms. Lowell said that they took as much as they could in their redesign from her suggested design, which she liked, but felt that the driveway was technically infeasible because of the steepness and hairpin turn. She said that they are willing to plant landscaping to screen the view of the house from the neighbor's patio, which currently has a view of trees. She said that it is unfair to say one does not want a TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 EXHIBIT NO. 2 6/7/ 12 view of the house when looking back from the edge of the lot, and she thought that landscaping could address that concern. The public hearing was opened. Mark Garay thanked the Board for their time to inspect the properties and understand the context of the two homes and the two lots. He said that one thing that had not been mentioned was the unusual topography between these two properties. He stated that a 10 foot fence may seem out of context, but when considered in the context of a situation where there is a 6 foot differential between the two lots, the 10 foot fence becomes a 4 foot fence, and he thought that that was very important to consider. He said that the project currently presented was an overwhelming improvement over what was previously presented and he looked forward to having the applicants as neighbors. He said he wanted the project done in a way so the neighbors would not give up privacy. He stated that the two primary remaining issues were the fence height at the front of the house, and the fence height at the back of the house around the pool spa. He said that a 6 foot fence at the front would result in a fence 2 feet above the floor level of the house but would create sufficient screening. He said that the photographs presented by the applicant were all taken from a surface level position. Fani Hansen said that she is an architect and thanked the applicant for listening to her ideas. She showed a photo showing the configuration of the land, and stated that this property is one of the largest lots in the area. She said that her goal was to diminish the negative impact on all sides and preserve the views. She listed several concerns: size and scale, land coverage and height, removal of trees and vegetation, relation to adjacent sites, privacy, views and sun blockage. She described the requested lot coverage as substantial and said that it would impact privacy. She said that she would like to ameliorate the sunshine blockage and preserve privacy by shortening the east wing length by 25 feet and reducing the height by 4 feet. Angela Danadjieva said that when she saw the first building proposal it was an L-shaped building and extended through the whole lot. She said that she was shocked when she saw it, as it would have blocked 150 feet of sunshine on the south exposure of her house. She said that sunshine is most important for her, followed by privacy, and then by protection of views and she was very concerned about losing sunshine to her property. Ms. Holscher described the relative sizes of the homes in the area and pointed out that the size of the proposed residence was similar to the size of neighboring homes. She described the view corridor from 450 Ridge Road as very broad, with the principal view of Angel Island. She stated that the proposed residence would be in the side yard view, which is not the principal view. Ms. Holscher responded to Mr. Garay's comments and said that the photos were taken from a platform at the level of the proposed floor level. She also pointed out that the photos depict a lower fence than 10 feet and it would already block views. Ms. Lowell said that Mr. Garay asked them to trim the foliage so he could see the fence and they did so. She pointed out that when the foliage grows back there will not be a view issue. She said that anyone who stands in the location of the wall would notice it is a 10 foot wall. Fred Lowell asked if there was an obligation for an applicant to build fences, and questioned whether the neighbor could come before the Board and build a fence. Vice-Chair Kricensky said that it is the Board who asks for the fence and not the applicant, and if the Board felt the fence was required, the Board would be asking them to build it and not the neighbor. Planning Manager Watrous added that if a fence was added to an application to address a specific issue, it would have to be constructed as part of the house. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6/7/12 EXHIBIT N0. 6~ 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 envirom-nent 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 snake appropriate findings for the variances TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6/7/12 EXHIBIT N0. 62 4 Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P. 415.435.7373 E 415.435.2438 - wA-A'.ci.iiburon.ca.us NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION On June 7, 2012 the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following action: Granted Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances for excess lot coverage and excess fence height and a Floor Area Exception, located at 440 Ridge Road (File #21204). (X) Approved as submitted Approved with conditions Denied as submitted Continued to Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval or other requirements. The following materials are attached and should be retained for your records: (X) Approved plans Appeal provisions of the Town Revised conditions of approval No attachments 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, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 440 RIDGE ROAD FILE #21204 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 confonn with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on February 8, 2012, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of May 29, 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 pen-nit 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. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner (minimum 25%) and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 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 TOWN OF TiBURON PACE 5 OF 7 ~a HABIT NO. ~ 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. The project shall comply with the requirements of the California Fire Code to the satisfaction of the Building Official. The Tiburon Fire Protection District recommends the flowing conditions of approval: a. 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 b. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2. 10 C. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of the Tiburon Fire Protection District and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. CFC 304.1.2 d. The access gate shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet. The gate shall be operable using the Fire District's "Knox" key system. CFC 503.6.2 e. The solar system shall comply with the requirements of Section CFC 605.11. 10. All requirements of the Marin Municipal Water District shall be met. 11. The applicants shall obtain any necessary sewer pennits from Sanitary District No. 5 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. 12. 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 pennanent 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. An encroachment pen-nit will be required for the driveway approach. b. All encroachments, such as driveway approaches, sidewalks, mailboxes, small drainage facilities and short-height landscaping, need to be processed TOWN OF TIBURON EXEILIBI 1 NO. PAGE 6 of 7 . Q. 3 OF C( through a standard Public Works encroachment permit application with plans or schematics for review. Unless the encroachment is minor or routine in nature, a permit shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Encroachment that must be recorded by the property owner with the County of Marin. 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. T©Wf+B OF TIBURON PAGE ~ OF 7 EXHIBIT NO. `~7 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 determined 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 171 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 making 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. 8 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 form 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 2 EXHIBIT NO. e 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 3 EXHIBIT NO. SCHEDULING OF APPEALS 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 ti EXHIBIT N0. ~ 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-leaking 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, 20101 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. RECEWED TOWN OF TIBURON FEB 0 8 2 0! 12 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PLANNIN& [WISION O Conditional Use Permit O Precise Development Plan O Secondary Dwelling Unit O Zoning Text Amendment O Rezoning or Prezoning O General Plan Amendment O Change of Address TYPE OF APPLICATION Design Review (DRB) esign Review (Staff level) VVariance 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 Adjustment O Condominium Use Permit O Certificate of Compliance O Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: !4c) FKgE 2p PROPERTY SIZE: ;?-2, 016 PARCEL NUMBER: o~q -a~2- 2► ZONING: OWNER OF PROPERTY: CzID ~1?~CD 1-a-C~ MAILING ADDRESS: ux 9'~7 CITY/STATE/ZIP -ft~~sN ?Jo PHONE NUMBER: FAX APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) - MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: t~a AX 415- - F. nwt?~ ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER: -W~ v - A~ . MAILING ADDRESS: I~So~ Yt~l -D Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): I, 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 Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct 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 party, 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 migl~rf result from the third party challenge. *Signature: Date: Z - Z-- *If other than owner, must have letter from owner BIT NO. 'I P. t t~F q Project Data : Add rtes: 440 Ridge Road, Tiburon CA. APN : 059-082-21 Building Code: 2010 CMC, CPC, CEC, CFC Planning Code : Town of Tiburon Zoning: RO-2 Lot Size: 22,096 sq. ft. Type of Construction: Type VB Occupancy: R3 Existing Max. Height: 24'-0" t Proposed Max. Height: 26'-0" FLOOR AREA Floor Area Existing Proposed Allowed Main Floor 978 sq.ft. 3102 sq.ft. Lower Floor 1669 sq.ft. 1336 sq.ft. Garage 441 sq. ft. 576 sq. rt. 600 sq. rt. Total (excluding garage) 2647 sq.ft. 4438 sq.ft. 4210 sq.ft. F.A.R 12% 20.09% 19.050/0 Lot coverage 2190 sq.ft. 4358 sq.ft. 3314 sq.ft. Lot coverage % 9.90/0 19.72% 150/0 SETBACKS Existing Proposed Required Front 431-7" 301-0" 301-0" Left side 12'-8" 15'-0" 151-0" Right side 201-11" 151-4" 15'-0" Rear 112'-10" 73'-2" 251-0" EXHIBIT NO. ct 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 16-4.3 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances. WHAT VARLANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING? Condition Zoning Existing Requirement Condition This Application Proposes Magnitude Of Variance Requested 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): T-8" HEIGHT MAX. FENCE @ SIDE PROPERTY BETWEEN 440 & 430 RIDGE (551-0" LENGTH MAX.). ZONING REQUIREMENT: 6-0" APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON Rev. 08/06 Page 1 EXHIBIT NO, 'f P, 3 0 q o o N mm~ 1--~ 0 U N 2 C.D w z ~ ¢ g a L 4J O LL 00 CA m Gl L Q L O O LL B m 3 O Q m GJ L Q L 0 _O LL 0) oo m L 0 u 4.0 0 X 0 00 t0 L 0 u O J CD N .in 4a O C O M i m a E 0 v to O L 3 a~ C ~ N = L to Z Q d O M O w oo to m lq ci, Ln LD N W r-I N oo M O O N N N In N T-1 N N 'd N d M M N -qF N -f v-4 d r- Ln 19T N M 01 Lo N C Ln oo R* Lr~ -CF N ca C, M 00 Lo O O O O O O O r- M e-1 r- LO r- ^ N rl r-1 o0 01 01 N N T-4 N ri r-I 00 M 0) r- 01 00 M lD N Q1 M 00 Ln co 00 n Rt N O M N d m d d O O Ln 00 O lD l"1 N N r-I Ln I}' 0) e-1 ,t N oo ui o O o 1 N 6 N N N N N N e-i N N N m 0 oc a, ao 3 3 °C C C m m m . F f° 0 0 0 oc oc oc C c a to - w - to - 0 0 ~ 0 o a y 0 0 0 2 tw Lo Ln 1 L- c) Ln o 01 oo Lo 00 00 r-+ r -i Ln m 0 Z F--4 W Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Mark M. Garay [garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:01 AM To: 'David Holscher' Cc: Dan Watrous Subject: 440 Ridge Gentlemen, As you are aware we are the neighbors to the above property residing at 430 Ridge Road. I understand from David Holscher, that the DRB agenda item regarding the above referenced property has been withdrawn and a revised application will be filed and set for the next available DRB hearing. I am concerned about timing of any such DRB hearing as my family and I have plans to be out of town through the 15th and will require adequate time to review consider and respond to any such revised application. As you may be aware, next week is the Spring break for this school district. Kindly advise as to whether this item may be postponed, by the applicant or by Planning, to a future date to allow us time to consider and respond ? Sincerely, Mark M. Garay Tel: 415 399-0100 Cell: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 EXHIBIT N0. I D- A i) /I n 1 1 Page 1 of 2 Dan Watrous From: Mark M. Garay [garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:48 PM To: 'Lynn Garay' Cc: Dan Watrous Subject: RE: Marking of story poles Dear David, I am sorry that we have a misunderstanding about this. You certainly will recall that I asked for the poles to be marked last time and this time shouldn't be any different. Please check your spam filter and your "info" mailbox. I sent it from my cell phone at around 4:30. Whatever the problem is we need the story poles marked. I suggest a spray can with string and a long pole. Viewing the new position of the building still evokes the same concerns. You are welcome to come over and see it from my side. I hope you recall that I said that pulling the building back and having the privacy wall would help to mitigate the problem. The reason for the story poles is to better depict the change and based upon the new poles we still have a very serious problem and concern. I am just finishing up a long letter to you and DRB since we are out of town next week, I need to put my concerns on the record. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay, Managing Member Paladin Funding, LLC Paladin Pacific. LLC Tel: 415 399-0100 Cell: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Email: mark@paladinfunding.com Web: http://www.paladinfunding.com Web: http://www.paladinpacific.com From: Lynn Garay [mailto:lgaray@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:31 PM To: Mark Garay Subject: Fwd: Marking of story poles Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: David Holscher <david@harch.com> Date: April 4, 2012 2:31:43 PM PDT To: " Igaray@ix.netcom.com" <Igaray@ix.netcom.com> Cc: "dwatrus@ci.tiburon.ca.us" <dwatrus@ci.tiburon.ca.us> Subject: RE: Marking of story poles Dear Mark, EXHIBIT N0J ( P or 1 OF 4/4/2012 Page 2 of 2 You did not request yesterday that the story poles be marked by orange paint nor did you email me any request for the new story poles. We thought moving the story poles back 26'-11" would alleviate the issue. Last time you only requested moving the story poles back 15'-0"and you stated that change would make the design of the main residence satisfactory- in fact you mentioned "great." Respectfully David Holscher From: Lynn Garay [mailto:lgaray@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:16 PM To: David Holscher Cc: garayllc@pacbell.net; dwatrus@ci.tiburon.ca.us Subject: Marking of story poles Dear Dave, We requested from you yesterday at your office and by email, that the new story poles (that I see are being installed now), be marked with orange paint to indicate the windows and deck door top and bottom as you had done for us on the prior story poles. This is important so we and DRB could better understand the angle of view and the privacy concern we have. I see that this request has been disregarded on the poles erected thus far. I don't know why it was refused as it will be much more cumbersome and costly to mark those points once they are erected. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay Dan - please make this part of the file BXI-ITIBIT NO. I I 2-v -2- 4/4/2012 Lynn and Mark Garay 430 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920, Tel: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Email: garayllc(a),pacbell.net April, 5, 2009 Re: DRB New Residence Application 440 Ridge Road, Tiburon Dear Mr. Holscher, We have reviewed the newly placed story poles, which unfortunately do not have markings showing window top and bottom as had been requested. We see where you have pulled the structure to the west, or but it has not solved the problems discussed below. We are writing this note to you and your client, and the DRB, as our preliminary objection to the application for 440 Ridge Road. We are genuinely concerned and disturbed by the proposed plan, and believe it will seriously impede on our privacy and diminish our property value. We are departing on a long planned trip for the kids spring break, and will not be here next week. We wanted to communicate our concerns as early as possible so that your client may be able to seriously consider them prior to the scheduled DRB hearing the week following our return. Given the short timeframe after our return, we will not have much time to discuss and resolve our differences. If at all possible, I would appreciate moving this item voluntarily to the following agenda so that we can continue to tray and work out a reasonable compromise. As you and I have both seen it is likely that the DRB will do so in any event. The homes in the Hillhaven area were originally sited in such a fashion that each maintained their view over the home below, while not intruding on the privacy of the homes below. Your proposed plan to relocate a two story portion of the building site at 440 Ridge Road over to the east, violates that original planning scheme. The result is that the new structure would now be over 30 feet above and to the side of 430 Ridge Road and in fact be looking down and into our bathroom window, outdoor shower and spa areas. Conversely it also appears that unless they had their window coverings drawn, we would be looking up through the glass doors of the proposed second story east bedroom deck of 440 Ridge, and they would lose privacy as well. A two story structure should not be placed at this location. This is a flawed plan and should be 1 EXHIBIT N0. L I & - `I Page 1 of 2 Dan Watrous From: Mark M. Garay [garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:48 PM To: 'Lynn Garay' Cc: Dan Watrous Subject: RE: Marking of story poles Dear David, I am sorry that we have a misunderstanding about this. You certainly will recall that I asked for the poles to be marked last time and this time shouldn't be any different. Please check your spam filter and your "info" mailbox. I sent it from my cell phone at around 4:30. Whatever the problem is we need the story poles marked. I suggest a spray can with string and a long pole. Viewing the new position of the building still evokes the same concerns. You are welcome to come over and see it from my side. I hope you recall that I said that pulling the building back and having the privacy wall would help to mitigate the problem. The reason for the story poles is to better depict the change and based upon the new poles we still have a very serious problem and concern. I am just finishing up a long letter to you and DRB since we are out of town next week, I need to put my concerns on the record. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay, Managing Member Paladin Funding, LLC Paladin Pacific. LLC Tel: 415 399-0100 Cell: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Email: mark@paladinfunding.com Web: http://www.paladinfunding.com Web: http://www.paladinpacific.com From: Lynn Garay [mailto:lgaray@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 4:31 PM To: Mark Garay Subject: Fwd: Marking of story poles Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: David Holscher <david@harch.com> Date: April 4, 2012 2:31:43 PM PDT To: "lgaray@ix.netcom.com" <lgaray@ix.netcom.com> Cc: "dwatrus@ci.tiburon.ca.us" <dwatrus@ci.tiburon.ca.us> Subject: RE: Marking of story poles Dear Mark, EXHIBIT NO.- [ Pt I OF2- 4/4/2012 Page 2 of 2 You did not request yesterday that the story poles be marked by orange paint nor did you email me any request for the new story poles. We thought moving the story poles back 26'-11" would alleviate the issue. Last time you only requested moving the story poles back 15'-0"and you stated that change would make the design of the main residence satisfactory- in fact you mentioned "great." Respectfully David Holscher From: Lynn Garay [mailto:lgaray@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:16 PM To: David Holscher Cc: garayllc@pacbell.net; dwatrus@ci.tiburon.ca.us Subject: Marking of story poles Dear Dave, We requested from you yesterday at your office and by email, that the new story poles (that I see are being installed now), be marked with orange paint to indicate the windows and deck door top and bottom as you had done for us on the prior story poles. This is important so we and DRB could better understand the angle of view and the privacy concern we have. I see that this request has been disregarded on the poles erected thus far. I don't know why it was refused as it will be much more cumbersome and costly to mark those points once they are erected. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay Dan - please make this part of the file E LIBIT NO. z0C2- 4/4/2012 Lynn and Mark Garay 430 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Email: garayllc(a-),pacbell.net April, 5, 2009 Re: DRB New Residence Application 440 Ridge Road, Tiburon Dear Mr. Holscher, ,77' We have reviewed the newly placed story poles, which unfortunately do not have markings showing window top and bottom as had been requested. We see where you have pulled the structure to the west, or but it has not solved the problems discussed below. We are writing this note to you and your client, and the DRB, as our preliminary objection to the application for 440 Ridge Road. We are genuinely concerned and disturbed by the proposed plan, and believe it will seriously impede on our privacy and diminish our property value. We are departing on a long planned trip for the kids spring break, and will not be here next week. We wanted to communicate our concerns as early as possible so that your client may be able to seriously consider them prior to the scheduled DRB hearing the week following our return. Given the short timeframe after our return, we will not have much time to discuss and resolve our differences. If at all possible, I would appreciate moving this item voluntarily to the following agenda so that we can continue to tray and work out a reasonable compromise. As you and I have both seen it is likely that the DRB will do so in any event. The homes in the Hillhaven area were originally sited in such a fashion that each maintained their view over the home below, while not intruding on the privacy of the homes below. Your proposed plan to relocate a two story portion of the building site at 440 Ridge Road over to the east, violates that original planning scheme. The result is that the new structure would now be over 30 feet above and to the side of 430 Ridge Road and in fact be looking down and into our bathroom window, outdoor shower and spa areas. Conversely it also appears that unless they had their window coverings drawn, we would be looking up through the glass doors of the proposed second story east bedroom deck of 440 Ridge, and they would lose privacy as well. A two story structure should not be placed at this location. This is a flawed plan and should be i ~ EXHIBIT NO. reconsidered. The original design, and house built at 440 Ridge Road, entailed a two story tiered and terraced structure that stepped down into the hillside, was located above the car port of 430 Ridge so as to not create privacy issues, for either property, and preserved from most rooms in the house, the incredible 180 degree view of 440 Ridge. The current proposed expansion and relocation, not only compromises these panoramic views for 440 Ridge, but more importantly, results in a new two story home that will loom over, and be looking down on our outdoor shower, spa, bathroom window, and pool area, the outdoor areas that we use most frequently, and where, for obvious reasons, we find ourselves most personally vulnerable to privacy concerns. It also places the most active and noisy uses in the house in close proximity to our bedroom. We have at this point identified preliminarily a number of serious concerns with such a plan which include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Privacy - As you know, there is a substantial change in grade between these two properties. The hill drops toward our home. Depending on where you finally place the home, the change in grade would add an additional 8-12 feet of elevation to your clients home, and thereby result in the visual line of sight from their second story windows and deck being well over 30 feet above our floor elevation. The structure actually appears to be 40 feet high from our elevation. The proposed house looms over the most commonly used, and most intimate outdoor areas of our home, places us in a fishbowl and creates an unacceptable intrusion on our privacy. The location of a two story structure at this weast portion of the lot is inappropriate. Your design should reduce the building to a single story, or push the building further to the west so as to not impose on 430 Ridge, or for that matter on 450 Ridge. The bulk and height of the proposed structure are just too massive in relationship to our property below. This is an unusual context between these properties, due to the flag lot of our property, where the back yard of your clients property abuts what has been designated the left side yard of our property (13 ` setback), and therefore brings the structures closer than they otherwise would be. You and your client have visited our site and observed the point of view from our property at the east portion of the lot where our bedroom, bathroom, outdoor shower, and spa are located looking toward your clients proposed new house. With the exception of the time we were in construction, we have used this shower every day since 1995. We trust your client can appreciate our concern. When we discussed privacy concerns, you stated that there will be 10 feet of landscaping between the properties to create a privacy barrier (your plans reflected this proposed mitigation). You and your client seemed sensitive to this very obvious issue, and I appreciated that. I explained to you that we are not comforted by a landscaping solution since we have been informed by arborists that the entire area between our properties is mostly rock and it is Serpentine (you have confirmed this when we discussed excavation). They have stated that landscaping will not grow in this condition and even if it does it is vulnerable to the copper leaching from the Serpentine which over time will kill it. Additionally, it is not good practice to rely exclusively on planting for privacy concerns as that can be changed, neglected, or even removed by this or a future owner after the completion of the project. We requested a 10 foot BIT NO. L masonry "good neighbor" privacy wall between the two properties which you said would be considered. You could treat your side as you wish and we would stucco our side to match the house. Such a wall would serve two purposes - provide privacy as well as attenuate sound from your client's pool area. Your client should also consider that the wall could be used to back fill against on their side of the property which now slopes and thereby create an attractive flat entertaining area for their use. This type of mitigation is not uncommon, and in fact we would be willing to contribute to the cost of that good neighbor wall. We realize that this will require a variance for the 10 foot wall, but believe that due to the unusual grade issues of these lots, and the way the setbacks are described and calculated, a variance would be justified and approved. At our latest conversation, I was disappointed to learn that your client does not agree to such mitigation since as you put it, she wants to keep the view from her pool. There is no view from the proposed pool area looking directly south. The view is looking south east and that is not constrained. Further, you are aware that there is no entitlement for a pool view under the Tiburon view ordinance, and there could be no view if her mitigation proposal of 10 foot planting is genuine. This objection to the privacy wall makes no sense at all. Please have her reconsider her position on this problem. Please also not that the neighbors around this site have all excavated into the rocky hillside to accommodate the views and privacy of others around them. You should carefully consider such an approach here to soften the size and bulk of the planned house. I believe based upon sighting up at the unmarked story poles that even with a 10 foot wall, it would still be inappropriate to build two stories at this location. You would still need to drop the floor plate of the upper level, by at least 2 feet to possibly establish privacy at our shower and spa. We would need to further study such an approach if that is the direction your client selects. The very flat south elevation of the building, the east facing deck that looks right down on us, and the size and placement of the south window all present a problem. The upper floor is the most intrusive portion of the proposed house as it relates to our privacy concerns. This portion of the house should be single story, or located further to the west of the property, or to the North. However, responding to your current proposed location, please consider the following ; while there is certainly a need to bring light into the bedroom, it should be accomplished through creative design, perhaps with a combination of a modest change in grade, skylights and a horizontal window as is depicted in Goal 2. Principal 5. (attached) of the Tiburon Design Guidelines For Hillside Homes, ("Guidelines"). Framing the window in this fashion would do a great deal to preserve privacy and still allow the view to be captured. Please also consider Goal 3. Principal 6. Maximizing both view and privacy. Placing a deck on the second story bedroom almost 40 feet above our property, will by necessity create a serious privacy issue. Please reconsider this part of the program. If a deck is to be considered at all, please refer to (attached) Principal 6. of the Guidelines (maximize both view and privacy). You could do away with the deck and put a horizontal window in its place, capturing view and preserving privacy. We would 3 IBIT NO. Z appreciate it if you could consider Terracing the building, (single story at the east portion) and breaking up the monotonous two story flat elevation, as is suggested by Goal 1. Principals 1, 2, and 10, of the Guidelines, terracing, reducing effective mass, and avoiding single form solutions. As drawn, the elevation increases the oppressive feeling of this large structure looming over us. 2. Noise - The plan proposes a pool and pool equipment very close to our bedroom. Please consider Goal 2. Principal 9. Of the Guidelines. If the heritage tree issue can be dealt with, you may be better off having the pool as an attraction in front of the house with a spectacular view above our drive court area where there would be no noise concern. We have not seen what you propose for noise mitigation of the pool equipment that will be located proximately to our bedroom. As we showed you and your client when you visited, we spent a great deal of money excavating and building a concrete vault to house our equipment and to mitigate noise for us and our neighbors. I am anxious to see your plan in this regard. Again, the masonry good neighbor wall that we have requested in the paragraph above would partially attenuate and mitigate such noise. 3. Environmental concerns - There is a striking pine tree in the back yard of 440 Ridge Road with a trunk diameter of 115 inches. This tree is not only a heritage tree due to its size, but also a landmark in that it defines and locates Hillhaven from most perspectives. It is visible as a marker from Town, Sausalito, and even Strawberry. This tree has been there for over 50 years and in fact, as I understand it, has survived a Marin Superior Court litigation filed by the Freemons against the Hannahs, where the Hannahs prevailed and were able to protect the tree. Now it seems after Mr. Hannahs death and the property having been purchased by the Freemon family, the tree is in jeopardy again. The Town policy is to preserve heritage trees, and this one in particular deserves careful review and consideration. This tree is also an important habitat resource in that it is a nesting area for owls and for hawks, and should be protected. While you have stated that the tree is dying, we have had different feedback from an arborist who said the tree can survive for decades to come. We would ask the Town to commission an independent arborist opinion, to be paid for by the applicant, regarding the condition of the tree and its expected life span, and review carefully whether this tree should be preserved and protected. 4. Excess Lot Coverage - We are opposed to granting excess lot coverage. The current home is at 9.9%. A lot coverage ratio of 15% is allowable. The new proposed plan seeks a significant increase over the existing lot coverage and an excess lot coverage beyond the 15% which is allowable. The site is rectangular and of sufficient size, with a reasonable grade for the Hillhaven area, so that there are no unusual factors that would justify the granting the excess lot coverage. In fact it is the excess lot coverage that is resulting in large part in the applicant pushing the building site to the east and creating the problems and concerns about which we complain. 4 EXHIBIT NO.-[ Z P, ~4 U-- ~ 5. Design issues - The existing wood fence on the west boundary of the property is an eyesore. It is failing and rotting in parts, the top cap is coming away, and your proposal to keep it as a part of the new project is unacceptable. A new fence that is esthetically acceptable to both property owners and DRB should be designed and erected as a part of this proposal. Once your plans are more clearly defined we will be able to further comment on some of the landscape and hardscape elements that will be visible from our property. 6. Health concerns - We would like to know how much excavation of the Serpentine material (which is a known carcinogen) is proposed and what health and safety considerations will be implemented to protect the neighbors? We have not yet had the opportunity to neither see the story poles with marking for the windows and balcony door as requested, nor receive a set of the proposed revised plans. We reserve the right to supplement our concerns once we have had a chance to study those. We requested from you yesterday that the new story poles, be marked with orange paint to indicate the windows and deck door top and bottom as you had done for us on the prior story poles. This is important so we and DRB could better understand the angle of view, view arc, and the privacy concern. I see that this request has been disregarded. I don't know why it was refused as it will be much more cumbersome and costly to mark those points once they are erected. We also believe it is important for all concerned that as a part of this application, you prepare a sections of the hillside, showing the topographical grade differences, that depict the angle of view from the east deck and windows (depending on window sizes and locations) to the south of the proposed home down to our property. Such a study would disclose how the grade difference between the properties, and the proposed two story structure, escalates the privacy problem and how a 6 foot fence is inadequate to mitigate that concern. With the aid of that section DRB and your client would be better able to understand our concern and to consider the appropriate mitigation or plan modification. We welcome a meeting with you and your client at a mutually convenient time should they have further interest in modifications to this application to address our issues and concerns. Z : -~IBIT NO. s -P. -5 atz- Ct Sincerely, Lynn and Mark Garay Tel: 415 399-0100 Cell: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Attached: Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines (excerpts) Cc: DRB, members, file 6 F-K-1-I1BIT NO. 12- P. be 7 CL J_S r - LLl i ~ i j i 1 'I1 ! r I'. f ♦t 1 l ar i t f f j 1 I ~ 1 ~ I { I 1 l i i L .t ' om {L f l , I-IN 'V 1 l I~ - ti { 1 r\j i O H H r CV) W m cc CL V a 0 a c~ w f) V W ~U X ;W z ~ o Q > w 1 3 ~U, Wd ZLL p W I~ } {.3 w ZO CL , ^ VI WS ~ O Zz 03 (w m t f- N INA i t `'fr Jfr t / j , 111 ,i N-1 ~ - LL `J 111-~ r~ ~v I l_ I? n c~ fly tom,/ o { W I---i a ;Z w Q z W z Fo in /l ~V-! CIL! S i. ✓LJ 1 1), j ILY; tl t O LL o; J. tl~ C } - 2 V 31~, :J {l~ u~ t~ i U1 `J ~ tL i IA31 ~-I L LD 'k r ~n _ L _o I a L'_) L.: I 1 r I ~ r , f cam,:1 ► r of vI i6 lu > t1._ fi ~U LLLl tl ~ CL cV L1.1 1L 1 c; t ~ tll ` , r1 ~~,z Q Lv I I i O _o ~C N CL r v M LL O a .Q -Ul m zz a .uj w W ,w U. w O U. M U) ~ U LIJ w z z •4.~ Ct W a 0- z rC Y U~ WW C fz 00 tr O ~ti mm h: Lynn and Mark Garay 430 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Email: garayllc apacbell.net April 16, 2012 Re: DRB New Residence Application 440 Ridge Road, Tiburon Dear Mr. Holscher (and applicant), The Town provided me with a copy of the reduced drawings which did not contain the sheet that was filed with the Planning drawing set which depicted our spa and east building corner. Can you please send me a PDF set of the plans which include that sheet so that I can be sure that I am reviewing the most current set of submission documents ? Please also let us know if there is any lighting planned in the ceiling or soffit of the covered porch area on the south west of the building. There is not enough detail in your plans to determine that, and if in fact there are such down lights planned, they would be shining down on us and be very intrusive. Your elevation A2.1 shows six unshielded lights that will present problems. Lastly, we again repeat our request to have your story poles marked with window heights. Additional comments to the revised plan: Health and safety concerns When we met at the site and discussed the possibility of excavation, you stated that the soil conditions had been found to be almost entirely serpentine rock. Can you please provide me with a copy of the soils report? As we are all aware, that serpentine rock is known to contain asbestos at varying levels. Has the rock at the site been tested for asbestos content, and if so what did the test results indicate? If it is helpful, please note that if you are not certain whether your asbestos waste is hazardous, you must have it tested (Cal. Code Regs., Title 22. Section (66262.11(b)(2) by a laboratory certified by the California Department of Health Services. Can you ~~NHIBIT NO. 1,3 ~ , c br-q provide some clarification on how much excavation will be conducted, and in what parts of the property? In recent years a great deal of new information has developed about serpentine rock which is known to contain asbestos. None of the information is comforting. The consensus is that this material poses a serious health risk and needs to be dealt with cautiously, since excavation breaks up the rock and makes the asbestos friable. Those fibers invade the house, and when inhaled have been found to be connected to the development of cancers of various forms even 20 years later. This asbestos bearing serpentine rock poses a serious long term risk to human health, and particularly to children who are more vulnerable. As you are aware we have two young girls. I am enclosing for your review, and for you to pass on to your clients, some materials which discuss the potential health risks and hazards associated with asbestos bearing serpentine rock. I am sure that your consulting engineer can provide further feedback to you regarding this hazard once they have sent samples for testing. I trust that neither your client nor you are inclined to ignore the moral responsibility and potential legal liability of disturbing asbestos bearing materials without the proper testing of the material including a safety plan for excavation and appropriate mitigations. While the Town Staff, in issuing their Preliminary Environmental Determination, has chosen to proceed without a request for soils report and further testing, and irresponsibly ignore this serious risk without any investigation whatsoever, please be assured that I will not do so and will take all actions available to protect my family. Please let me know what your client's plans are in this regard. Privacy We once again ask your client to be considerate of our privacy. As you are aware, our home is modern in style and execution and has floor to ceiling glass on the east and south elevations and floor to ceiling slotted glass on the north elevation http://www.ebooks.trendsideas.corn /Book649 . We have made great efforts and have gone through significant expense to design a home that has been well recognized in publications and has won the 2009 Grand Award - Builders Choice http://www.builderonline.corn /design/garay-house. aspx . The extensive use of glass makes it particularly vulnerable to privacy intrusion by the design this application proposes. The proposed plan must be considered in context to the surrounding homes. As presented, it begs for revisions and/or mitigations to allow such a plan to proceed while having these two homes exist in harmony. East portion of the proposed development: As noted in sheet A0.2 of the plans, eye level is at 308., while our property is at 298. - 300. You are aware that we have an outdoor shower and spa there which we use on a regular basis in our birthday suits. Assuming the 6 foot fence that your client proposes, there is a clear 2 foot line of sight into our most intimate areas of use (including our master bedroom), from your client's yard and pool areas. I have 2 EX-HIBIT NO. 13 ~ b1 P z v,c-- Y attached an annotated version of your sheet AO.2 which using your survey numbers demonstrates this condition, as well as some photographs that show this intrusion. Is that really the kind of intrusion of privacy that she feels is appropriate? Please discuss with her reconsidering a higher good neighbor privacy wall that we would agree to contribute to. In the alternative, please consider the mitigation of dropping the elevation of the yard space by 2 feet. West portion of the proposed development: Your plan extends what appears to be the covered porch area of the living room right up to the 15 foot side yard setback line. It should be pointed out that while side yards usually back up to each other, in this context your client side yard abuts our front yard and entry. While I appreciate that building to the setback is a matter of right, it needs to be tempered with other considerations. I urge your client to note that there is a huge difference in grade between our two properties at that location 16 feet) and that bringing the structure that close to our entry makes the roof loom 45 feet above our entry. It feels very intrusive and oppressive. The planned LR porch will be looking right into our children's bathrooms. Can you please have her consider either shortening that porch or pushing it back somewhat? Fence In addition to the privacy wall requested above at the eastern portion of the property, due to the severe change in grade between the two properties, we would like to see at a minimum a 6 foot fence along the balance of the property to help improve the privacy. As you are aware, relying on landscaping is not good practice. Subsequent owners may have a different point of view about planting and maintenance, and the success and health of the plants can be an issue, particularly in the serpentine laden soil that we have to contend with. Lighting Since the house is above us from every perspective, light pollution is a concern. Your client's sensitivity to this concern is requested. There should be no overhead lights since those will shine down on us. Your elevation shows light fixtures on the building that have visible lenses that will be seen by us and pollute the nighttime experience. We would request that all light fixtures have shades so as to not be directly shining in our direction, or perhaps up lighting the building where exterior lighting is required. Noise Can you please provide further information on where the pool and spa equipment (which can be noisy) would be located and how you plan to attenuate the noise. Our bedroom is very close to the proposed pool site. Design Guidelines For Hillside Dwellings In our previous letter to you, which is a part of this file, we have pointed out the various failures of this plan to comply with the Hillside Guidelines and incorporate those comments herein and again ask that your client reconsider this plan. 3 F %HIBIT NO. t3 P 3 t--y Ecology The pine tree that your client seeks to remove is a "Protected Tree" with 115 inch trunk circumference. It is a scenic resource and often a nesting site for hawks and owls. Why do you not show the removal on your plans, and on what basis does your client justify removing this tree? I hope that your client will see her way clear to working these serious issues out without the need of intervention by the DRB, Town Council, or the courts. I believe that with some flexibility and creative design input from you, she can have her project while we can go on with our health not jeopardized, and our privacy preserved. You are both welcome to come to our home to view the new story poles and meet to resolve these serious issues and concerns. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay Enc. cc. Planning, DRB EXHIBIT NO. 13 4 P, 4 OF`f Dan Watrous LATE MAIL # From: Donna Grant [donna-grant@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:20 AM -IJ REG7 To: Dan Watrous Subject: 440 Ridge ~t . • L • r., r.a a.. PLANNING DIVISION Dan I have recently spoken with Lowell about her project on 440 Ridge Road. She stated that she wanted to remove the large pine tree on the property. I would be very grateful is this is approved as the tree blocks my view of the Angel Island shoreline. I am sure that it also affects other properties in this vicinity. Sincerely Donna Grant 1823 Lagoon View Tiburon, CA 94 920 EXHIBIT NO. 19 Page 1 of 2 r' Dan Watrous PLANNING DIVISION From: Mark M. Garay [garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:00 AM To: (Tiburon Design Review Board) Bryan Chong; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Linda Emberson; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Greg Johnson; (Tiburon Design Review Board) John Kricensky; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Mike Tollini Cc: Dan Watrous; Connie Cashman Subject: Proposed Conditions - Site Visit Scheduling - 430 Ridge Road Attachments: 440 Ridge Road application. proposed conditions.doc Dear DRB members, In connection with the 440 Ridge Road application, attached please find our proposed conditions and mitigations for your consideration. Ms. Emberson has had an extensive visit at the site, taking measurements and carefully viewing conditions from both sites. We very much appreciate her serious involvement. We have not heard from any of the other members regarding scheduling a visit. We would much appreciate knowing when you wish to come by. I had previously written that I will be available all afternoon today, but have to take my father to the doctor between 3:15 and 4:30. Before or after that time would work as would any time tomorrow. It is best if you call my mobile phone 722-0100. Thank you, Mark M. Garay 430 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 415 722-0100 Please note that we would very much appreciate your visiting our home to observe the impacts of the proposed project at 440 Ridge Road. I am available most of the day today until 7, tomorrow until 6, and Thursday until 5. 1 work from a home office so I can be available on short notice but would appreciate a courtesy call or email from each of you as to when you would expect to visit. We have two young daughters so there is some degree of scheduling commitments that we are subject to. The earlier you can notify us of your expected visit the better we will be able to accommodate your timing. Although I expect that Staff will provide you with a hard copy tomorrow, I am enclosing herewith an attached email containing a supplemental letter that was sent yesterday with exhibits attached. This should provide a more complete picture, supplement the prior letter, and inform you of our concerns which we think will become obvious when you visit our home. Thank you, Mark M. Garay EXHIBIT NO. [ oFq 4/18/2012 R EC EiiVE LiATcl. aC DIV SION 440 Ridge Road application N tea conditions of approval and mitigations: We respectfully request that the Design Review Board, consider and implement these suggested conditions for the above referenced project. Environmental 1. Focused EIR - asbestos hazard, air quality - we need to understand these implications before approving the project. 2. Scenic and biological resources, protected pine tree - the tree should be preserved. Privacy 1. New 6 foot wood fence around the perimeter of the property, with the exception of a 45 foot section at the south east property line that is contiguous to the Garays. That portion of the property has substantial grade differences with the applicant property that would result in privacy intrusion into the Garay bedroom, shower, and spa. The applicants survey shows the Garay home is at 299 while the primary entertaining areas and lower floor elevation of the 440 Ridge plan are at 304. There is at minimum a 4 foot difference between the properties which results in a 6 foot fence topping out at 306., only providing 2 feet of effective screening. A person of normal height would be able t look right over the top of the 6 foot fence when they stand at elevation 304. 2. At that portion of the property, either; a. 10 foot masonry privacy wall that will provide screening and noise attenuation, the cost of which will be shared by the applicant and the Garays, or b. 10 foot wood fence, in sections, stepping down the hill following the natural grade, or c. 8 foot wood fence which will step down the hill or run with the grade at the option of the Garays. There is precedent for granting a variance for an 8 foot fence to protect privacy at 420 Ridge Road, next door, or d. The applicant will continue the 304. Grade to that portion of the property line and build a short retaining wall to support the backfill and then install the 6 foot fence they propose at that new 304. Grade. '.HIBIT 1 0.1___.. 1 T, z UP y As to all of the above suggested conditions, if a variance is required, it is supported by the unique nature and topography of these properties and by the fact that other properties such as 420 Ridge Road have enjoyed such variances. The applicant has graciously agreed, that in the event a wood fence is erected, we may at our expense attach boards or cladding on our side to provide consistent with our architecture and aesthetics. We would like to have that confirmed. Noise The location of the pool equipment has not been identified, but we would like a condition that places it at least 50 feet from the property line we share, and if possible encloses it so that there will be a diminished noise concern. Light pollution Sheet U0.1 of the plans provides for 19 lights that would be visible to us and create pollution at night. The lights are of two categories; 1. Eliminate recessed lighting in porch - Recessed lighting in the porch in front of living room. That structure is pushed right to the setback and looms over us. We would always be looking up at the ceiling and the recessed lights would shine down on us. Those lights should be eliminated. 2. Change exterior light fixture choices and installation heights -The ten exterior lights are shown to be mounted high on the building with exposed bulbs that would be very visible to us. The condition should impose an acceptable sconce fixture type where the bulbs would not be visible to us from below. Alternatively, the fixtures should be sconces that shine up and down and be required to be mounted at around 4 feet so the could still provide light for the building but not impose on us. Hillside Guidelines Reduce east building to single story - A terraced approach should be considered that would result in the east portion of the home that is now two story with the bedroom above to become one story to avoid the impact to 430 Ridge and 450 Ridge. Alternatively, the lower story should be excavated into the hillside to drop the overall building mass and height. While somewhat more costly, it is more consistent with the Guidelines and was in fact done at both 450 Ridge as well as at 430 Ridge. 2 ; ".LIIBIT NO. L5 3L) r=Y Reduce size of living room porch - The covered porch of the living room should be pulled back 5 feet from the current location that comes right up to the setback. It is looming over and intrusive to 430 Ridge road, and appears to also create the prospect once the driveway landscaping is trimmed to look into the bedroom of 420 Ridge Road. The entire project should be pushed further north on the site - By pushing the structure north there would be no view imposition on the uphill neighbors and a much more compatible site plan for the neighbors at 420, 430, and 450 Ridge, who I believe would all support a variance for such a solution if that were required. Variance for excess lot coverage No comments re provided at the present time since no application is pending Process Should the decision on this application be continued, the applicant should be required to mark the story poles at the bottom indicating where the floor elevations will be, and at the upper portions showing where the floor plate is and where the window sill and head will be located. This is important so that both the interested parties and the DRB will be able to accurately evaluate the possible impacts. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay 430 Ridge Road EXHIBIT NO.-15- 3 \ I L4 U 4 Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Mark M. Garay [garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 9:15 AM To: Dan Watrous LATE MAIL # RtCEWED r- PLANNING DIVISION Subject: FW: 440 Ridge Road DRB application Attachments: CalEPA.PDF; AO.2.pdf; BR.JPG; 8BR.LR.JPG; Holscher.2.DRB.041612.pdf.doc Please not the email below that was sent to you with exhibits to be made a part of the file and to be provided to the DRB members. You confirmed this morning that the exhibits were not printed out and made a part of the file and they were also not distributed by you to the members of the DRB. A second email will follow with some photographs that are large files. Mark M. Garay, Managing Member Paladin Funding, LLC Paladin Pacific. LLC Tel: 415 399-0100 Cell: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Email: mark@paladinfunding.com Web: http://www.paladinfunding.com Web: http://www.paladinpacific.com From: Mark M. Garay [mailto:garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 2:36 PM To: 'David Holscher' Subject: 440 Ridge Road DRB application Dear David and Dan, Attached please find our "late mail" with exhibits to be printed out added to the file and distributed to the DRB members. Please let me know if for any reason this cannot be done today since there is an obvious timing concern with the hearing Thursday and the DRB members needing to tour the properties prior to that date. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay Tel: 415 399-0100 Cell: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 1.~14_HTIBIT NO. ~t [ or-- 10 4/19i?n1 9 NaturaHy-Occurring Asbestos General Information California Environmental Protection Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally-occurring fibrous minerals found in Agency many parts of California The most common type of asbestos is chrysolile, but other types are also found in California Serpentine rock often contains chrysotile asbestos. Serpentine rock, and it's parent material, ultramafic rock, is abundant in the Sierra foothills, the Air Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. Serpentine rock is typically grayish-green to Resources bluish-black in color and may have a shiny appearance. Board • Asbestos is commonly found in ultrarnafic rock, including serpentine, and near fault zones. 10011 St. The amount of asbestos that is typically present in these rocks range from less than 1% up sacmmento. CA to about 25%, and sometimes more. Asbestos is released from ultramafic and serpentine (916) 322-2990 rock when it is broken or crushed. This can happen when cars drive over unpaved roads or driveways which are surfaced with these rocks, when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations. It is also released naturally through weathering and erosion. Once released from the rock, asbestos can become airborne and may stay in the air for long periods of time. • All types of asbestos are hazardous and may cause lung disease and cancer. Health risks Contacts: to people are dependent upon their exposure to asbestos. The longer a person is exposed General to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a health Information: problem. Asbestos-related disease, such as lung cancer, may not occur for decades after Jerry Martin breathing asbestos fibers. Cif smoking increases the risk of lung cancer from (916) 322-2990 asbestos exposure. Health Information: • Other sources of asbestos are in man-made products. The most common sources are Jim Aguila heat-resistant insulators, cement, furnace or pipe coverings, inert filler material, fireproof (916) 322-8283 gloves and clothing, and brake linings. Asbestos has been used in the United. States since Control the early 19Ws; however, asbestos is no longer allowed as a constituent in most home Information: products and materials. Many older buildings, schools, and homes still have asbestos Richard Boyd containing products. Therefore, laws are in place to protect citizens when these buildings (916) 322-8285 are renovated or demolished. Monitoring Information: • There are many laws pertaining to asbestos. The Air Resources Board adopted two Jeff Cook statewide control measures which prohibits the use of serpentine or ultramafic rock for (916) 322-3726 unpaved surfacing and controls dust emissions from construction, grading, and surface Indoor mining in areas with these rocks. There may be additional or more stringent laws Asbestos: concerning asbestos in your area - please contact your local air pollution control district for Information: farther information. Dorothy Shimer (916) 327-8693 For further information please see: Fact Sheet #1: Health Information on Asbestos Fact Sheet #2: School Advisory for Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Fact Sheet #3: Ways to Control Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Dust Fact Sheet #4: Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Around Your Home Fact Sheet #5: Monitoring for Asbestos i (0 01/02 l '~k OBIT ISO . -p- 2 Z>F- (b NNW California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board 10011 St. Sacramento, CA (916) 322-2990 Fact Sheet #1 Health Information on Asbestos Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, federal, and international agencies. It was identified by the Air Resources Board (ARB) as a toxic air contaminant in 1986. Asbestos minerals belong to either the serpentine mineral group or the amphibole mineral group. The most common type of asbestos found in California is chrysotile, a serpentine mineral; other types include tremolite asbestos and actinolite asbestos which are amphibole minerals. State and federal health officials consider all types of asbestos to be hazardous. No safe asbestos exposure level has been established for residential areas. The risk of disease depends upon the intensity and duration of exposure. Exposure to low levels of asbestos for short periods of time poses minimal risk. Asbestos fibers can penetrate body tissues and remain in the lungs and the tissue lining of the lungs and abdominal cavity. The fibers that remain in the body are thought to be responsible for asbestos-related diseases. The illnesses caused by asbestos may not be observed for Contacts General Information: Jerry Martin (916) 322-2990 Health Information: Jim Aguila (916) 322-8283 Control Information: Richard Boyd (916) 322-8285 Monitoring Information: Jeff Cook (916) 322-3726 Indoor Asbestos: Information: Dorothy Shimer (916) 327-8693 twenty or more years. The most common serious diseases caused by asbestos are listed below. Asbestosis: Asbestosis is a non-cancerous lung disease related to diffuse fibrous scanting of the lungs. This disease has occurred in people heavily exposed to asbestos in the workplace and in household contacts of asbestos workers. Asbestosis can cause progressive shortness of breath and coughing. Lung cancer. Lung cancer is a relatively common form of cancer which has been linked to smoking and a variety of occupational exposures. Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of lung cancer for those people exposed to asbestos. Mesothelioma: Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity. Almost all cases are linked to prior occupational asbestos exposure. Most of the information on health effects comes from studies of people who were regularly exposed to high levels of asbestos in the workplace. Workplace exposures are higher and much more likely to cause disease than non-workplace exposures. Questions regarding health effects should be directed to your local air pollution control district, Mr. Jim. Aguila of the ARB staff at (916) 322-8283, or Dr. Melanie Marty of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment at (510) 622-3154. ,a.C-TIBIT INTO. 01/02 a lq~ 7~- California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board 10011 St. Sacramento, CA (916) 322-2990 Contacts: General Information: Jerry Martin (916) 322-2990 Health Information: Jim Aguila (916) 322-8283 Control Information: Richard Boyd (916) 322-8285 Monitoring Information: Jeff Cook (916) 322-3726 Indoor Asbestos: Information: Dorothy Shimer (916) 327-8693 Fact Sheet #2 School Advisory for Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Why is there a concern with the use of ultramafic or serpentine rock material? Serpentine and it's parent material, ultramafic rock, often contains asbestos. TAtramafic rock material has been used in some areas for surfacing unpaved roads, parking lots, playgrounds and other open areas; therefore, some schools and day-care centers may currently have areas surfaced with this material. Children attending such schools or day- care centers may be exposed to asbestos fibers through various school activities. What has been done to reduce exposure to asbestos from ultramafic rock? In June 2000, the Air Resources Board (ARB) updated a regulation prohibiting the use of ultramafic rock (including serpentine rock) that contains asbestos for surfacing applications subjected to vehicular, pedestrian, or non-pedestrian use, such as cycling and horse-back riding. A school advisory was also released in 1990 and 1999. A second regulation was adopted in 2001, requiring construction, grading and surface mining activities to control dust emissions when they take place in areas with asbestos containing rocks or soils. Where is ultramafic and serpentine rock found? Uliramafic and serpentine rock is found in many parts of California and is especially abundant in the Coastal Ranges, the Klamath Mountains, and Sierra foothills, where it is commonly exposed near faults. How can you determine if you have ultramafic or serpentine rock? If there are areas surfaced with crushed rock or gravel, an identification of the material should be made. Serpentine rock is often glassy in texture, and usually ranges in color from pale green to bluish black, but it is most commonly dark or dull green. Serpentine often contains veins of chrysotile asbestos, which appears from beige to white. Some green-colored rock is greenstone and may be mistaken for serpentine rock. If you are unsure, a registered geologist can identify ultramafic and serpentine rock. What should you do if school areas are surfaced with ultramafic or serpentine? If ultramafic or serpentine rock is found on school grounds, it should be tested, using ARB Test Method 435, to determine if there is asbestos present. If asbestos is found, you should consider implementing one of the appropriate mitigation methods listed in Fact Sheet 93. If you need assistance in locating a laboratory to conduct bulk sample analysis, please call the ARB's Monitoring and Laboratory Division at (916) 322-3726. Whom should you contact if you have any questions? Questions regarding this advisory should be directed to Mr. Jerry Martin at the ARB Public Information Office at (916) 322-2990. A few of the local air pollution control districts (districts) in the State have adopted more stringent laws concerning asbestos - please contact your local district for further information. 01/02 EXI-11BIT NO. ( P, q Gf= I v rI California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board 10011 St. Sacramento, CA (916) 322-2990 Contacts: General Information: Jerry Martin (916) 322-2990 Health Information: Jim Aguila (916) 322-8283 Control Information: Richard Boyd (916) 322-8285 Monitoring Information: Jeff Cook (916) 322-3726 Indoor Asbestos: Information: Dorothy Shimer (916) 327-8693 Fact Sheet #3 Ways to Control Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Dust • Shown below are ways to control asbestos dust from construction projects and roadways. These control actions will not eliminate asbestos, but offer options to reduce release of airborne asbestos fibers from various activities. Construction Proiects and Roadwavs Dust Source Mitigation Measure Application Frequency Relative Effectiveness' Excavation Water wetting as needed 2-3 Excavate during calm penods when ssible 1 Mobile Water wetting of roads surfaces as needed 2-3 Construction Equipment Rinse vehicles / equipment as needed 3 Wet loads of excavated material each load 3 Cover loads of excavated material each load 2-3 Wet and cover loads each load 4 Exposed Waxer wetting as needed 3-4 Ultcamafic or Serpentine Cover with 6 to 12 inches of non-asbestos material end of project 4 Areas Wind breaks / berms where needed 1-2 Chemical sealants / dust suppressants 3 mos. - 1 yr. 3 Vegetative reclamation end of project 3 Asphalt cement paving as needed 4 Roads Water wetting as needed 3-4 Speed control always 1-3 Wind breaks / berms where needed 1-2 Cover with 2 to 4 inches of non-asbestos rock as needed 3-4 Chemical sealants / dust suppressants 3 mos. - 1 yr. 2-3 Single-coat chip/seal as needed 4 Triple-coat chip/seal as needed 4 Petroleum sealants as needed 4 Asphalt cement paving as needed 4 1. Subjective rating where: 1 = least effective, and 4 = most effective 01/02 EXHIBIT NO. 1(v P. 5 0r-l b - Pall MAMMM= non E-).. California Environmental Protection Agency i Air. Resources Board 10011 St. Sacramento, CA (916) 322-2990 Contacts: General Information: Jerry Martin (916) 322-2990 Health Information: Jim Aguila (916) 322-8283 Control Information: Richard Boyd (916) 322-8285 Monitoring Information: Jeff Cook (916) 322-3726 Indoor Asbestos: Information: Dorothy Shimer (916) 327-8693 Fact Sheet #4 Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Around Your Home This fact sheet is intended to provide information for homeowners who may have naturally- occurring asbestos sources, such as dust from unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic or serpentine rock, near their homes. Other sources of asbestos dust from ultramafic or serpentine rock include disturbed rock deposits on your land, or nearby construction, quarrying operations, and mines. This fact sheet does not address asbestos from asbestos-containing products used or found in the home. Any action to minimize dust generation from naturally-occurring asbestos sources will generally help to reduce your exposure. First identify the location of ultramafic rock (including serpentine) or faults on your property. If you are unsure whether the rock is ultramafic, a registered geologist can be contacted. Some suggestions to consider to reduce dust generation include: • paving over unpaved walkways, driveways, or roadways which contain ultramafic or serpentine rock; • having crushed ultramafic or serpentine rock in yards/gardens covered with soil; • having family members and guests remove shoes at the door to reduce track-in (a major entry route of outdoor asbestos fibers); • keeping windows and doors closed on windy days and during periods when nearby ultramafic or serpentine rock may be disturbed., such as during construction; • using a wet rag to dust, as opposed to a feather duster; and • using washable area rugs on your floors. If you are concerned about asbestos in your home, you may consider contacting a qualified expert to have your home tested We recommend that you contact a certified asbestos consultant and/or a certified analytical laboratory. You can obtain a list of these certified consultants and laboratories by calling the Air Resources Board's Monitoring and Laboratory Division at (916) 322-3726. Collection of samples can be expensive. Analytical costs for bulk samples and air samples can be found in Fact Sheet #5. If you choose to remove any asbestos found in your home, it is recommended that you contact a qualified professional with training in asbestos removal. These professionals use special equipment such as high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter vacuum cleaners, which are designed to remove the smaller asbestos fibers. Normal home vacuum cleaners are typically not designed to capture these tiny fibers and may only scatter them throughout the house. However, if the source of asbestos in your home is from naturally-occurring asbestos, unless those sources are controlled, the asbestos may return. Fact Sheet #3 addresses ways to control asbestos dust from exposed serpentine areas, construction projects, and roadways. EXHIBIT NO. I ( 01/02 T', oflU California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board 10011 St. Sacramento, CA (916) 322-2990 Contacts: General Information: Jerry Martin (916) 322-2990 Health Information: Jim Aguila (916) 322-8283 Control Information: Richard Boyd (916) 322-8285 Monitoring Information: Jeff Cook (916) 322-3726 Indoor Asbestos: Information: Dorothy Shimer (916) 327-8693 Fact Sheet #5 Monitoring for Asbestos Note: The costs quoted in this Fact Sheet are approximate only for sample analysis and do not reflect the costs to obtain a sample or deliver the sample to a laboratory. How can you test for asbestos content in bulk material? To determine the percent of asbestos for a rock pile or a gravel surface such as roadways and parking lots, use Air Resources Board (ARE) Test Method 435. The method calls for collecting an unbiased sample of material from several locations of a pile or surface, combining those samples, and then crushing the composite sample. A portion of the sample is then analyzed using polarized light microscopy to determine the percentage of asbestos in the bulk sample. Laboratories doing the analysis should be certified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST/NVLAP). The analytical costs is approximately $50 to $100 per sample when results are desired within 72 hours. How can you test for asbestos in the ambient (or outdoor) air? A sampler consisting of a pump and cassette holder containing a filter is used to determine the amount of asbestos in the ambient air. Asbestos in the air is trapped onto the filter as air is drawn through the filter. The filter samples are analyzed by counting the number of asbestos fibers on the filters using transmission electron microscopy (ref. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 763). The concentration of asbestos in the air is determined by relating the amount of asbestos trapped on a filter to the volume of air pumped through the sampler. Analytical cost ranges from $50 to $100 per sample for results within 72 hours. For samples to be comparable to each other it is important to use an appropriate sampling method. In addition, laboratories doing the analysis should be certified by the NIST/NVLAP. If you need further information regarding a sampling method or certified laboratory, please contact the Monitoring and Laboratory Division of the ARB at (916) 322-3726. How can you test for asbestos in the workplace? NIOSH Method 7400 can be used to estimate the asbestos concentration in the workplace. This method requires a small battery operated pump to collect samples on a filter cassette. Analysis is done by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) which does not differentiate between asbestos and non-asbestos fibers. Method 7400 is appropriate only for measuring asbestos indoors. Analytical cost is about $10 to $30 per sample for results within 72 hours. How can you test for asbestos in your home? See Fact Sheet #4. Where can I get a list of laboratories who can perform bulk and ambient analyses? Please contact the Monitoring and Laboratory Division of the ARB at (916) 322-3726 for the list of laboratories that do this work. 01/02 11a -'HIBIT NO. ~v Li c \1 I 1 ~ I A.P. 059-082-23 - 1 C 430 I l: T~. Y~ fy G 3¢A~ X/i. -11BIT NO. P. Lo LXI-IIBIT NO. 1 (5) ~1 tj i~ l O 11 0 v V a w Lynn and Mark Garay LATE MAIL# 430 Ridge Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel: 415 722-0100 Fax: 415 399-1616 Email: garayllc(a-),pacbell.net RECIVEC APR` V ! C: PLANNING DIVISION April 19, 2012 Re: Supplemental Late Mail In further reviewing the plans and the story poles, we again request that the story poles be marked to show floor elevation and window bottom and top. While we did not understand this before since the story poles are not marked, we have determined that the applicant proposes to raise the entire building floor elevation 4.5 feet from the existing floor elevation. This approach is unnecessary and in contravention of the Hillside Guidelines. It is also inconsistent with the historical effort by all the adjoining neighbors to keep their properties low by excavating and tucking them into the hillside as suggested by the Guidelines. The proposed plan results in a monotonous and massive structure raised well above the lower lot where we live (that already has a huge grade change with the 440 Ridge property) and creates a looming oppressive structure. Of particular concern is Bedroom #1. That structure is raised 4.5 feet above current building floor and rises 14 feet, being positioned right up to the setback line. This bedroom size is 12 by 24. It is not the master, and there is no need to have it have 10 foot ceilings after being elevated 4.5 feet, and have be so wide. The height should be reduced, and the south wall should be pushed back 6 feet from the setback, which will still allow for an ample secondary bedroom of 12 by 18 feet. The height can easily be reduced by having a few steps at the hallway that leads to the bedrooms and bringing them down to the original elevation of the home, 4.5 feet below where it is now proposed. Please refer to Principal 6. of the Guidelines (maximize both view and privacy). We suggest terracing the building, and breaking up the monotonous raised elevation, as is suggested by Goal 1. Principals 1, 2, and 10, of the Guidelines, terracing, reducing effective mass, and avoiding single form solutions. As drawn, the elevation, excessive height and proximity to the setback line, all increase the oppressive feeling of this large structure looming over us. Your consideration of this supplemental late mail and our earlier communications is appreciated, Sincerely, Mark M. Garay 430 Ridge Road EXHIBIT NO. 1-7 1 Dan Watrous From: Sent: To: Subject: Larry Prell [LPRELL@AOL.com] Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:32 PM Dan Watrous April 19, 2012 LATE MAIL # April 19, 2012 Dan Watrous Planning Department Manager Tiburon Town Hall 1155 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, Ca 94920 Regarding 440 Ridge Road Lisa Lowell and Family RECEIVED A , i j ` , i 91 PLANNING DIVISION Dear Mr. Watrous, planning department staff and Design and Review board members, My husband Larry Prell and I reside at 455 Ridge Road positioned directly behind 440 Ridge Road with a view corridor directly above the roof line. Currently the existing structure and purposed story poles outlining a new dwelling are seamlessly noninvasive and our view remains in tact. Hence, any relocating of this purposed project in the form of pushing the new dwelling back towards the uphill and/or expanding the 2 story addition would definitely change our outlook. Therefore, it is with pleasure that we support Lisa Lowell and her family and welcome this new home to Hill Haven. And if the new structure requires the removal of the giant view blocking pine tree we'd consider that a bonus! Very sincerely, Anne Prell 455 Ridge Road 435-9609 717-9404 Sent from my iPad EXHIBIT NO. MARIN TREE SERVICE, INC. Specializing in Tree Preservation 415-472-7105 April 13, 2012 Lisa Lowell 201 Golden Gate Avenue Belvedere, CA 94920 Subject: Pine Tree Removal at 440 Ridge Road LATE MAIL # I RIB" C PLANNING DIVISION On Wednesday April 10, 2012 1 examined a Monterrey Pine (Pinus radiata) at 440 Ridge Road in Tiburon. The tree is 36" DBH (Diameter at breast height) and stands alone in the center of the back yard within an uncultivated landscape. The tree has pine pitch disease, a fungal canker organism, causing branch die back throughout the upper canopy. There is no known prevention or cure available at this time. This disease will gradually cause the death of the tree. The lower portion of the trunk shows a Red Turpentine bark beetle infestation that has been ongoing for the last 3-4 years. Vectors such as this destroy the vascular circulation of the tree and will lead to its mortality. This Pine dominates the space in which it is growing and will compete for light and nutrients with the cultivation of any new landscape plants. It also blocks the view for this home and some neighboring homes. The severe pruning required to restore the view from this site would hasten the mortality of the tree. Monterrey Pines are also on the Fire Department's list of pirophytic trees. Removal of this tree is recommended to make room for the cultivation of a non-invasive, healthy, and attractive landscape. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, i Robert Morey Certified Arborist #176 EXHIBIT NO. 19 Robert Morey 34 DeLuca Place, Suite M Certified Arborist #176 San Rafael, CA 94901 www.marintrees.com Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 April 16, 2012 Dear Dan, Ewe V AID F',' PLANINING DIVISION Thank you for the set of Design Review drawings of the proposed new development at 440 Ridge Road. We appreciate also your visit to check the environmental impacts (shown visually with the story poles) that the proposed development creates to our 450 Ridge Road property. After review of the set as well the poles indicating the proposed building - here are our comments: 1 / The proposed development design set is not complete. It does not indicate horizontally (in plans) or vertically (in sections) its environmental impacts on the adjacent existing properties. 2 / The jetting of the new proposed building volume to the East creates negative environmental impacts to the existing 450 Ridge Road property. Those are not possible to mitigate: * SUNSHINE BLOCKAGE The East building volume blocks the sunshine during the afternoon for our Living Room and Master Bedroom as well as the outdoor spaces --the San Francisco view terraces and landscaped areas * VIEW BLOCKAGE The East building volume blocks Golden Gate Views for the interior upper living sitting room. It blocks the views to Sausalito hillsides from the exterior garden with the rolling fog and spectacular sunsets. * PRIVACY ENCROACHMENT The East building volume takes away the privacy of the Living Room, Master Bedroom, terraces and the entire south /east open space of 450 Ridge Road property. * NEGATIVE IMPACT ON BOTH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SPACE The 440 Ridge Road property's East building volume is located on a much higher elevation than the existing living room on 450 Ridge Road. It impacts negatively both the main interior and exterior spaces. LATE Main # The LLS Proposal for 440 Ridge Road property is not acceptable for theBXHIBIT NO. Z 0 owners of 450 Ridge Road property. ( ulp Z We invested around 2 Millions in excavations, retaining concrete walls to depress the building's volume around 30 feet bellow street level to not roar the neighbors Bay views We expect our neighbors to avoid the negative impacts of their new development to our existing property. I contacted the owners ---and so far the owner of 440 Ridge Road property, Lisa Lowell was respectful to our plea. We are working with her on layout changes of her development, including the location of the East building volume. Her proposed development impacts her negatively and deprives her from morning sunshine and East Bay views. In other words Dan we are trying to workout a solution with Lisa that will be beneficial to the owners of both 440 and 450 Ridge Road. We need time for it. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Sincerely, Angela Danadjieva, UTA 450 Ridge Road, Tiburon Representing the owners of 450 Ridge Road EXHIBIT NO. 2 v L or 2 FEE LATE MAIL # Dear Mr. Holscher, PI+RNNING DIVIS10t%4 I was forwarded a letter to you fi-om a Mark Garay about the property at 440 Ridge Road. That property being owned by my family for 57 years, 1 am familiar with the circumstances surrounding development in the area. I am also familiar with Mr. Garay and his serial permitting issues. Specifically I would like to address item 3 in his letter. The pine, a Monterey Pine, he refers to was planted as a seedling by my father in 1957 and is currently about 55 years old. The pine is in no way a native tree to the area and was one of a large number of pines purchased by my father and planted by the Armitages, Esplins, Wests, and Hannahs families. These were mostly Stone pines, Canary pines and Monterey pines. It has gone through various growth and trimming stages over the years. The tree has impacted views of other residences in the area and my father accommodated these problems by allowing trimming and view windows consistent with protecting the health of this pine. All such arrangements were discussed and arranged in a neighborly and friendly fashion with perhaps the exception of dealings between my father and Mr. Garay. Particularly frequent were the arrangements between Mr. Harold Feemon and my father to trim that tree and other trees at 440 Ridge Road. These were never litigated or done in any fashion other than friendly agreement by handshake. I would like to emphasize that it is a complete misstatement and erroneous to imply that there was any litigation between the Freemon and Hannahs families. This is untrue and any understandings that Mr. Garay has to the contrary are misinformed and false. Having recently observed that tree in the last couple of weeks, it is in an unhealthy state with many brown branch ends and dead needles. I don't recall seeing it in worse shape over the years. Though trees are slow to die, it looks like it is on its way out but could take several years to finally expire. Mr. Garay has never in the 15 years that he was a neighbor to my parents ever expressed appreciation for that tree or concern about its health. A similar aged Monterey pine near by the road near the front of the property was removed many years ago due to the same problem. That tree has never been a nesting place for either hawks or owls. There have been a few small song bird nests over the years but no large raptors have ever nested in that tree, preferring more dense foliage than offered by that well trimmed pine. I have seen hawks perch in it occasionally as they do on any high area while hunting. There may have been owls in that tree occasionally but such occurrences were rare and did not include roosting or nesting. I hope that this information clarifies and corrects the misstatements by Mr. Garay. Yours Truly, r Dr. Scott Hannahs, Director of DC Field Instrumentation and Facilities Distinguished University Scholar, Florida State University National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, Florida State University http://sthmac.ina<,net.fsu.edu 1800 E. Paul Dirac Dr., Tallahassee FL 32310, (850)644-0216/FAX 644-0534 ENHIBIT NO. 2-( LATE MAIL # I MARTIN RABBETT 465 RIDGE ROAD TIBURON, CA 94920 r F°~° 11 ED a P F. PLANNING DIVISON 4.18.12 Tiburon Design Review Board c/o Dan Watrous As residents directly affected by the proposed project at 440 Ridge Road we support the project. The new home is perfectly situated as designed. A second story would certainly impinge directly upon our view and we would be against that options. Also, removing the infected pine tree would be beneficial, open up the view plane, and I support its' removal as well. Sincerely, Martin Rabbett 889 5415 EXHIBIT NO. 2-'2,- Hotmail Print Message 440 Ridge Road From: Hannahs Todd (thannahs@earthlink.net) Sent: Thu 4/19/12 6:00 PM To: dwatrous@dtiburon.ca.us Cc: Freeman Lisa (Ilowellhere0a msn.com) Dear sir, LATE MAIL Page 1 of 2 #1 RECEIVED PLANtJlly"13) DIVIS10N I am writing on behalf of the current owners of the property at 440 Ridge Road. My parents lived on that property from 1956 until my father passed away in 2010. I grew up in that house, and I am familiar with the situation regarding the relationship between 430 Ridge Road and 440 Ridge Road. Relations between these two properties were easy and largely uneventful until the arrival of Mr. Garay. As I am sure the city is well aware, Mr Garay has spent a considerable amount of time in the last 15 years either seeking changes to agreed-upon permits or in construction that has gone on longer than was expected. On more than one occasion he has sought and received alterations for previously agreed-upon conditions in the midst of on-going construction. Mr Garay sought repeatedly to build as close to the property boundary with 440 Ridge Road, and as high as he could possibly get the city to agree to. Having sought and received these special considerations, he now wants to compound that special treatment by arguing that the current owners must give up their legitimate rights in order to accommodate the situation Mr. Garay has created. Having chosen to buy the property in front of my parents' house, he then compromised their view of the bay by building higher. Having been granted permission to build closer to my parents' property than previously agreed, he now complains that the new property owners are too close. He appears to be an example of "being granted an inch and taking a mile". Each new concession by either his neighbors or the city seems to be the starting point for the next round of requests for special treatment. Granting Mr. Garay's many and varied requests does not appear to satisfy him. Perhaps a better strategy would be to indicate that enough is enough. EXHIBIT NO. Z3 iP_ t ar z httn://snl34w.sntl 34.mail.live.com/mail/PruztMessages.aspx?cpids=3cface75-8a84-11 el -a... 4/19/2012 Flotmail !Tint Message Sincerely, Todd Hannahs thannahs(Dearthl1nk.net EXHIBIT NO. 23 P. .2- 0 f- 2 LATE MAIL# Design Review Board Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 440 Ridge Road Dear Members of the DRB: Lisa Lowell 440 Ridge Road P.O. Box 256 Tiburon, CA 94920 June 3, 2012 w= We are trying to build a relatively modest home at 440 Ridge Road that blends in well with the neighborhood. I have spoken to eight neighbors about our plans-six of whom, located uphill from the site, are enthusiastic about the house and happy that we plan to remove the large and dying Monterey Pine that blocks their views. The issues before us stem from concerns previously raised by two adjacent neighbors, Mark Garay at 430 Ridge Road, and Angela Danadjieva at 450 Ridge Road. 430 Ridge Road We have now redesigned the house three times and erected three different sets of story poles in order to allay the owner's concerns for 1. ) loss of privacy to his secondary outdoor entertainment area (the pool deck) and 2.) view of our proposed house "looming" over his entrance. Mr. Garay advised us that he was satisfied on issue #2 by our having moved the house 5 feet away from the setback, lowered the roof height, and re-designed the roof. As to the first issue, on Friday, May 25, Mr. Garay advised us that he would be satisfied by the construction of a 7' 8" fence, in a design that matched his house, along the southwest border of our property, in an area we measured and marked with tape. While the proposed 7'8" fence completely blocks the view from our lower lot of any portion of Mr. Garay's outdoor pool area, it also negatively impacts our own view of the Bay. On the basis of his request we applied for a variance for the 7'8" fence. On Monday, May 28, Mr. Garay notified us that even a 7'8"`fence height is no longer high enough and that 97' would be the minimum height acceptable to him. EXHIBIT NO. Zq The problem we have faced these past months is that each time we try to comply with Mr. Garay's requests, a new set of demands are raised. Given the vagaries of our neighbor at 430 Ridge Road, we will agree to erect a 6' fence. 450 Ridge Road Ms. Danadjieva believes our proposed house will cast a shadow on hers-which it will not (please refer to the shade study presented at the last DRB meeting); the shade is cast by the large pine trees at the property line, which Ms. Danadjieva did not want us to remove for the purpose of illustration. Ms. Danadjieva's primary complaint is that our proposed house is visible from her patio, though it is set back into the trees that are currently there, and does not block her view of the Bay at all. We can't move the house uphill as she requested as it would make off-street parking impossible because of the steep grade to the road. We can't lower the building height because we need to see over Mr. Garay's very high house. It is unreasonable to complain about merely seeing a neighbor's house from the outside of one's own: we are willing to camouflage the house by trees strategically placed. In sum, we have made fundamental and substantial changes to our design in three different iterations and complied with every feasible demand by our neighbors at an additional cost of thousands of dollars. The impact of our house on their homes is negligible, and though they may have grown accustomed to the existing small, uninhabitable cottage on our lot, we should be allowed to replace it with a modern, up to code modest home and retain our view therefrom. Best wishes, il'lyx d6k4_~ Lisa Lowell EXHIBIT N0. 2q P , 2 LYr-- z LATE MAIL # I June 4, 2012 Town of Tiburon Mr. Dan Watrous and Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 440 Ridge Road, Tiburon, CA Design Review, New single- family dwelling, scheduled for review on June 7, 2012 Dear Dan, ~.Jt it ,t We received the revised drawings for the proposed development at 440 Ridge Road,dated May 28, 2012. The revised proposal does not mitigate the harsh, negative environmental impact to the existing 450 Ridge Road Property. Please invite the Design Review Board members to visit our property at 450 Ridge Road to see the negative environmental impact that the plan creates. We proposed an option to Lisa Lowell, the owner of the 440 Ridge Road lot that meets Lisa Lowell's and our needs. Per Lisa Lowell's evaluation and quote: " I did like your idea very much" We request that the meeting on June 7, 2012 be rescheduled to another date so that we have time to work out a solution that satisfies all. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Fam D. Hansen, AIA, LEED AP,B+C, NCARB Architect P.O.Box 868, Tiburon, CA 94920; (415) 794-6401 0207/ Design Review, June 4, 2012.doc EXHIBIT NO.-'Z. 5 P t C)r L* 4 a v - .r s r, t yv~ ~ G y~ Y ~l F- LI) LLI z ~se 0 LU 0 {--4 0 L n w U- 3: LU j V ~V Q W w Y~ 4~ e N a ACA WiYG U UJ V) w 0 0 L, 00 Y I 0 U- ui I V V M W LU uj Q LU w z d 0 E-+ F---1 t LIJ ~ d O E~ p4 California Geological Survey - rTeologic Map of the San Francisco - Sar Tose Quadrangle Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT NO. 2 (P. (r~, O F r.,://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/RGM/sfsj/sfsj.html 4/18/2012 Connie Cashman LATE MAIL # Za From: Dan Watrous Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:04 PM To: (Tiburon Design Review Board) Greg Johnson; (Tiburon Design Review Board) John Kricensky; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Linda Emberson, (Tiburon Design Review Board) Mike Tollini Cc: Connie Cashman; 'David Holscher' .r Subject: FW: 440 Ridge Road r' 4aar, Importance: High More later mail for 440 Ridge Road... L'- Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon (415) 435-7393 From: Angela Danadjieva [maiIto: projects@dkassociates.corn Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 3:56 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: Fw: PLEASE REVIEW Importance: High Dear Dan, I got the set of revised drawings for the proposed 440 Ridge Road new development. The revision is shown partly with visual poles on the site --as the newly planned trellis extending from the East volume of the proposed building needs to be indicated also on the site with poles. We are disappointed looking at the revision as by numbers the lenght of the east volume has been reduces from a lenght of 109ft to 97 feet ( including the newly introduced trellis) yet in fact the harsh environmental negative impactsto the existing 450 Ridge Road Property are not mitigated. * SUNSHINE BLOCKAGE The proposed revised east building volume blocks the south sunshine for our Living Room , Family Room , Master Bedroom - as well of our outdoor spaces including the Living room main San Francisco/ Golden Gate view terrace. * PRIVACY ENCHROCHMENT The proposed revised east building volume eliminates the privacy for our main living spaces --the Living Room , the Family Room, the Master Bedroom as well of our outdoor spaces . Practically the east volume eliminates the privacy of our residence. * VIEW BLOCKAGE The existing forestlike view of the Living Room , Family Room and Master Bedroom will be replaced with the view of the proposed building wall measuring 109 feet long along the south side of our residence which is not acceptable for us. 6/4/2012 EXHIBIT NO. ccrz Therefore the proposed revised plan is not acceptable for the Danadjieva family . We proposed an option of her plan to meet hers and ours needs Lisa Lowell the owner of the 440 Ridge Road lot said quote that "she likes the idea" Therefore we suggest the meeting on June 7 to be contined to another date so that we have time to work out a solution thast satisfies both parties . Also Dan we would appreciate if you and the Design Committeee members re visit our property on 450 Ridge Road to see the negative environmental impacts that the revised plan creates Thank you for your attention on this isuue Sincerely Angela Danadjieva UTA Designer of the 450 Ridge Road house EXHIBIT NO. 2 C),Z, t-- 6/4/2012 LATE MAIL # Mark & Lynn Garay,_ 430 Ridge Road Tiburon RECEIVED California 94920 garayllc(a-)-pacbell. net sk f r:: 415 722-0100 W, PLAN,NiH'\'~"2 DIVISION Re: Opposition to Site Plan and Variance applications of 440 Ridge Road We request that all of our prior communications regarding this proposed project be made a part of this record as though fully set forth again herein. After weeks of negotiations and visiting each other's sites, I thought we had an agreement. Unfortunately, we are still 22 inches apart. The difference for the applicant is a loss of a small slot view of a neighbors pine tree, our house deck and oak tree from their second story den, looking down, which otherwise has a sweeping view of the Golden Gate bridge, San Francisco, Angel Island and the East Bay, and a small sliver of Bay from the pool area. The difference for us is the loss of our privacy in the main part of our pool area where we entertain and lounge frequently. Balancing these two concerns should lead to a self evident conclusion that the fence should be raised an additional 22 inches. The applicant's opposition to setting the fence height at the upper tape shown on the photographs is just plain ridiculous considering that there is no loss to them and a serious impact on our privacy. Please see photographs to follow: EXHIBIT NO. 2.7 PC OP OUR POOL AND SPA AREA - I am attaching photographs #1 through #4 taken from the applicants property, and #5 and #6 taken from our property with captions below. The upper yellow tape is the indication of where we want to see the fence top, which is about 22 inches above where they have indicated it with the lower tape. The red tape on the ladder represents a person on our property. # 1 TAKEN FROM APPLICANT VIEWING PLATFORM REPRESENTING SECOND STORY DEN EXHIBIT N0. 2 R 2- op # 2 STANDING ON THE FUTURE DECK # 3 STANDING ON THE FUTURE DECK FURTHER EAST EXHIBIT NO. Z-7 3 0F- PROPERTY) EXHIBIT NO. 27 T, 4 Lsl~- 6 #4 STANDING AT FUTURE POOL (LADDER RED TAPE REPRESENTS A PERSON ON OUR 11 ji ~y # 5 THE YELLOW TAPE AT THE UPPER LEFT REPRESENTS EYE LEVEL FROM THEIR DEN AS SEEN FROM OUR SIDE OUR FRONT ENTRY - HERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4 FOOT FENCE AND WE WANT SCREENING WITH A 6 FOOT FENCE FROM THEIR WINDOW WHICH IS INDICATED BY THE YELLOW RIBBON IN THE PHOTOGRAPH BELOW. EXHIBIT NO. 27 # 6 YELLOW RIBBON MARKS THEIR WINDOW AS VIEWED FROM OUR ENTRY. THE FENCE POSTS THAT ARE VISIBLE ARE 4'6" 440 Ridge Road application - Suggested conditions of approval and mitigations: We respectfully request that the Design Review Board, consider and implement these suggested conditions for the above referenced project. Environmental 1. Focused EIR - asbestos hazard, air quality - we need to understand these implications before approving the project. 2. Scenic and biological resources, protected pine tree - the tree should be preserved. Privacy 1. New 6 foot wood fence around the perimeter of the property, with the exception of a 45 foot section at the south east property line that is contiguous to the Garays. That portion of the property has substantial grade differences with the applicant property that would result in privacy intrusion into the Garay bedroom, shower, and spa. The applicants survey shows the Garay home is at 299 while the primary entertaining areas and lower floor elevation of the 440 Ridge plan are at 304. There is at minimum a 4 foot difference between the properties which results in a 6 foot fence topping out at 306., only providing 2 feet of effective screening. A person of normal height would be able t look right over the top of the 6 foot fence when they stand at elevation 304. 2. At that portion of the property, either ; a. 10 foot masonry privacy wall that will provide screening and noise attenuation, the cost of which will be shared by the applicant and the Garays, or b. 10 foot wood fence, in sections, stepping down the hill following the natural grade, or c. 8 foot wood fence which will step down the hill or run with the grade at the option of the Garays. There is precedent for granting a variance for an 8 foot fence to protect privacy at 420 Ridge Road, next door, or EXHIBIT NO. 2-7 d. The applicant will continue the 304. Grade to that portion of the property line and build a short retaining wall to support the backfill and then install the 6 foot fence they propose at that new 304. Grade. As to all of the above suggested conditions, if a variance is required, it is supported by the unique nature and topography of these properties and by the fact that other properties such as 420 Ridge Road have enjoyed such variances. The applicant has graciously agreed, that in the event a wood fence is erected, we may at our expense attach boards or cladding on our side to provide consistent with our architecture and aesthetics. We would like to have that confirmed. Noise The location of the pool equipment has not been identified, but we would like a condition that places it at least 50 feet from the property line we share, and if possible encloses it so that there will be a diminished noise concern. Light pollution Sheet UO.1 of the plans provides for 19 lights that would be visible to us and create pollution at night. The lights are of two categories; 1. Eliminate recessed lighting in porch - Recessed lighting in the porch in front of living room. That structure is pushed right to the setback and looms over us. We would always be looking up at the ceiling and the recessed lights would shine down on us. Those lights should be eliminated. 2. Change exterior light fixture choices and installation heights - The ten exterior lights are shown to be mounted high on the building with exposed bulbs that would be very visible to us. The condition should impose an acceptable sconce fixture type where the bulbs would not be visible to us from below. Alternatively, the fixtures should be sconces that shine up and down and be required to be mounted at around 4 feet so the could still provide light for the building but not impose on us. Hillside Guidelines Reduce east building to single story - A terraced approach should be considered that would result in the east portion of the home that is now two story with the bedroom above to become one story to avoid the impact to 430 Ridge and 450 Ridge. Alternatively, the lower story should be excavated into the hillside to drop the overall building mass and height. While somewhat ~IHIBIT N0. z '7 CF more costly, it is more consistent with the Guidelines and was in fact done at both 450 Ridge as well as at 430 Ridge. Reduce size of living room porch - The covered porch of the living room should be pulled back 5 feet from the current location that comes right up to the setback. It is looming over and intrusive to 430 Ridge road, and appears to also create the prospect once the driveway landscaping is trimmed to look into the bedroom of 420 Ridge Road. The entire project should be pushed further north on the site - By pushing the structure north there would be no view imposition on the uphill neighbors and a much more compatible site plan for the neighbors at 420, 430, and 450 Ridge, who I believe would all support a variance for such a solution if that were required. Variance for excess lot coverage Conditions are self imposed and have not been met. Staff simply conjectures and presents no evidence to support their conclusions. Sincerely, Mark M. Garay 430 Ridge Road EXHIBIT NO. 'Z-? F• ~5 0 C Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous From: Mark M. Garay [garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:36 PM To: Dan Watrous; bchong@internap.com; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Linda Emberson; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Greg Johnson; (Tiburon Design Review Board) John Kricensky; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Mike Tollini Cc: garayllc@pacbell.net Subject: 440 Ridge Road - opposition - supplement late mail Attachments: CCF06052012_000OO.pdf To The Tiburon DRB, Attached please find a drawing showing the actual dimensions on the story poles that you can see at the property. The dimensions are measured from the higher yellow caution tape which is the fence height required to partially protect 430 Ridge pool and spa areas. As you will note from your site visits, this controversy is based upon the applicant's desire to protect a sliver of water from an otherwise 180 degree view that they have from their pool deck. Given the addition of 24 inches on the fence, a decent amount of privacy can be safeguarded for the 430 Ridge property, at no view impairment to the home at 440 Ridge that this application proposes. It is not any view impairment from the home or it's gracious entertaining decks that is claimed. We have provided photographs that clearly support that there is no such intrusion. It is losing a sliver of water when viewed from the infrequently used far end of the pool deck that is the basis of the applicant's refusal to protect their neighbor. When weighing the relative benefits and hardships here, please be mindful that the Tiburon Hillside Ordinance does not, recognize view protection from pool areas. It focuses correctly on significant obstructions of Bay Area monuments from the dwelling and even then only from ceremonial rooms. This project should be denied unless the applicant makes provisions to protect the 430 Ridge neighbor's privacy, by accepting the attached drawing dimensions, and agrees to a 6 foot fence between the 430 Ridge courtyard and the home that looms above it at the western portion of the project. We thank you for your understanding and consideration. Sincerely, Mark and Lynn Garay EX.1-11BIT NO. 26 Up 2- 6/6/2012 ,y iT i r r, 1 j, '.J Yr r i 't +t i. I J V y T O P' i LATE MAIL # Design Review Board Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Members of the DRB: i'J I would like to respond to the first and second supplement late mail from Mr. Garay, received by the Town on June 6th. Mr. Garay incorrectly claims that our opposition to his requested 9'10" fence is based on a desire to "protect a sliver of water from an otherwise 180 degree view." While it is true that the wall would impair the view substantially, the nearly 10' wall looms over the lower site and patio, projecting upward like an excrescence while one is seated at the proposed patio. I invite the members of the DRB to sit at the red chair located on the proposed patio. The height of the fence Mr. Garay requests is approximately 2 feet lower than the Berlin Wall. Allowing a wall of that size in its proposed location is as preposterous as it sounds. Mr. Garay was satisfied with a 7'8" fence two weeks ago (already quite a high fence) when we applied for a variance for a fence of that height. The 7'8" fence blocks 100% of his pool area from our lower lot, and everything but a few square feet of the outer pool deck (his secondary outdoor entertainment area.) All primary outdoor entertainment areas in front of his house, as well as the house itself, are 100% private. It is unreasonable to expect that walking to the edge of one's lot and looking uphill, one will not see another house. In fact, Mr. Garay currently clearly sees the house at 450 Ridge Road from the same pool deck.. (Please see his picture # 5) The wall he requests would block the view of that house. Mr. Garay has built his house extremely close to the property line (please see attached picture) and having done so, should have a reduced expectation of privacy. At Mr. Garay's request, and in good faith, we trimmed several bushes in front of the property line in question to give Mr. Garay a better view of the proposed fence height. The trimmed bushes have now revealed the few square feet about which Mr. Garay now complains. In a year that bush will again block the view of 100% of the area in question. We are happy to let existing vegetation grow as a privacy barrier until new vegetation matures. I understand the argument that trees are not permanent-but most people prefer trees as barriers to walls, and are thus incentivized to maintain them. Lisa Lowell 440 Ridge Road P.O. Box 256 Tiburon, CA 94920 June 6, 2012 Z~ EXHIBIT NO. P. i G, We have been negotiating in good faith with Mr. Garay for months, and each time we reach an agreement, that agreement becomes the floor for the next round of demands, each round becoming more and more unreasonable. Mr. Garay stated on May 25 that the 7'8" fence was satisfactory to him, as were our design changes to minimize the impact of the house on his front entrance. The variance request for the 7'8" fence is for Mr. Garay's benefit only. Best wishes, Lisa Lowell EXHIBIT NO. 'Z I P. Z be3 Hotmail Print Message `,3 c) V, t 4 6G~ a S lT-~=- F~- x c-~- v A,-n 0 IMG_0023.JPG 6/6/12 8:08 PM P Y EXHIBIT N0. Z-9 P. 36)i:~ 3 http://sn134w.snt134.mail. live .com/mail/PrintMessages.aspx?cpids=...8530e,m&isSafe=true&FolderlD=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001 Page 2 of 8 Page 1 of 1 Dan Watrous LATE MAIL From: Mark M. Garay [garayllc@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 9:25 PM To: 'Mark M. Garay'; Dan Watrous; bchong@internap.com; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Linda Emberson; (Tiburon Design- Review Board) Greg Johnson; (Tiburon Design Review Board) John Kricensky; (Tiburon Design Review Board) Mike Tollini Subject: Opposition to 440 Ridge Road Site Plan and Variance Application late mail regarding fence above 430 Ridge Entry Attachments: CCF06062012_000OO.pdf Chairman and members of the Tiburon DRB, This note and attachment addresses the proposed and requested fence height along the southern property line of 440 Ridge Road above our entry. Kindly make this note and attached exhibit a part of the file and record. As we have stated we are seeking to maintain our privacy and not have the new home loom over us and not have their windows exposed to our view each time we enter our home. This objective is easily accomplished at no expense or loss to the applicant, by agreeing to a 6 foot fence between our properties, in the areas other than the ones where a 9 foot 9 inch fence has been requested. The applicant has not seen fit to trim the trees between the properties and place story poles for the fence because doing so would undermine their argument that a lower fence is required. However, the true facts cannot be obfuscated. The proof that there is no view impediment to the applicant is objective in nature and it is a simple mathematical exercise. The following computations use the applicant's drawing and topological information. There have always been and still are plants that height creating a sense of privacy. In reviewing the applicants plans, and plotting out the topographic elevation numbers, one can see that the main floor of the proposed new 440 Ridge house is at 314. The grade at the fence line between 440 and 430 Ridge Road fluctuates from east to west, rising from 304-310. That is between 4 and 10 feet below the floor level of the proposed home. At the worse possible point along the fence line, where the grade is at 310, with the floor elevation at 314, a 6 foot fence would result in a structure 2 feet above the floor level. That fence can easily be looked over without obstruction of any view either standing at 5 feet or sitting. At that point along the property, the view is captured from a window that is designed for a sight line of about 5 feet above the floor level. Therefore, at the worse possible point along the property line, a 6 foot fence would result in an ample unencumbered view line of sight, 3 feet above the top of fence. The applicant's AO.1 sheet is attached as a PDF file with the numbers annotated to support the foregoing computations. There is no negative impact to the applicant by providing a 6 foot fence. We thank you for your consideration, Mark and Lynn Garay EXHIBIT ISO. G 6/7/2012 7 ~ r~ 7. -f 77-7 i LATE MAIL #~l Mark & Lynn Garay 430 Ridge Road Tiburon California 94920 g arayllc(a~pacbell. net 415 722-0100 Re: Opposition to 440 Ridge Site Plan and Variance Application - Late Mail, Second Supplement - Photographs To the Chairman and members of the Tiburon DRB, Attached please find some supplemental photographs which should be made a part of the record and are provided for your consideration. The applicants site has a sweeping 180 degree view which will be even more dramatic when they remove the tree in the corner of the property. Please note again that there is absolutely no view blockage to the applicant, as defined by the Tiburon Hillside Guidelines, or as any reasonable person would consider. Sincerely, Mark and Lynn Garay # 7 TAKEN FROM FUTURE POOL CABANA - GRADE WILL ACTUALLY BE HIGHER IMPROVING VIEW, SEE #9 BELOW. TOP TAPE LINE REFLECTS FENCE REQUESTED BY 430 RIDGE ROAD v.I3I'T NO. 1), 3. op~q # 8 TAKEN FROM GRADE OF POOL DECK AREA # 9 TAKEN SHOWING GREEN STAKE OF POOL CABANA LINE OF SIGHT ~ v ,HIBIT NO. 14OF- LATE MAIL#/ June 7, 2012 Town of Tiburon Attn. Mr. Dan Watrous and Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 ter. Re: 440 Ridge Road, Tiburon, CA Design Review for proposed development dated May 28, 2012, scheduled for review on June 7, 2012 Dear Dan, The attached drawings clarify the proposed development, dated May 28, 2012, in the contexts of community connectivity and development density. The proposed development, its overall size and scale, hardscape land coverage, height, removal of trees and vegetation, relationship to adjacent sites, their privacy, their views and sun blockage needs correction. The need for variances for excessive lot coverage and height require public review. Our joint goal is to preserve and conserve existing natural areas and to develop a solution that satisfies all. At present we are reviewing the plans with the owner of the 440 Ridge Road property, Lisa Lowell, to resolve concerns. We request that the Design Review Board, in its effort to promote orderly development and the preservation of the unique character of the Town, consider the above and reschedules the review to a later date so that the owner has time to respond to suggestions, option plan changes, and other concerns. Thank you, Sincerely, Fam D. Hansen, AIA, LEED AP,B+C, NCARB Architect P.O.Box 868, Tiburon, CA 94920; (415) 794-6401 0207/ Design Review, June 7, 2012.doc EXHIBIT NO. 3 1 P. ( C)F 3 N U O U N O N 00 N cl E O N N bA "d 0 Two O d- r4/~w) ~ V1 O O ' i h W 1~1 4-o O ~M O ON W O h c~ L h N O O O iu ~Z iU ;Q w z Q W g ®laH- O ~ K I S , 0 a~ O O IlJ IZ .W 'ice Q iz Lu Ln Z Q LU ~oZ 0 i<m niol- K E-{ G- ~l ~n Page I of Anaela Danadiieva From: "Angela Danadjieva" <projects@dkassociates.com> To: <dwatrrous@ci.tiburon.us> Cc: "Fani Hansen" <fani@hansenarchitects.com> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 7:40 AM Subject: RESPONSE TO THE REVISED PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 440 RIDGE ROAD PROPERTY To the Tiburon Planning Manager Dan Watrous and the Members of the Design Review Board Concerning : PROPOSED REVISED PLANS (JUNE 7TH,12) FOR THE 440 RIDGE ROAD DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS TO THE TOWN OF TIBURON FROM ANGELA DANADJIEVA - ADJACENT NEIGHBOR AND DESIGNER OF THE QUOTED PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIONS MAJOR NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO 450 RIDGE ROAD RESIDENCE PERSISTS SINCE THE DELIVERY OF THE FIRST SET OF DRAWINGS The revised plan still violate for the 450 Ridge Road property-the main environmental element for healthy living - by MINIMIZING LIGHT AND SUNSHINE - for the existing Living Room, Family Room , Master Bedroom and Main View Terrace through the proposed 87 feet long facade running adjacent to the southwest facade of the 450 Ridge Road property. Additionally the wall of the facade eliminates for the Danadjieva family the privacy of living as well replaces the forested hillside views with a building wall. Mitigation with trees of the proposed 440 Ridge Road East Wing building wall is not acceptable at this point as neighbors of the 450 Ridge Road property have numerous times entered the property - removed and / or remodeled trees and shrubs from its grounds without notification. SUGGESTIONS General To ameliorate the sunshine blockage to the 450 Ridge Road property two changes of the revised 440 Ridge Road property need to occur: * The length of the East wing building overlooking the Bay has to be shorten with minimum 25 feet * The height of the East wing building has to be decreased with 4 feet . Option Plan To make this change possible and beneficial for both neighbors of the 440 and 450 EXHIBIT NO. :Z) Z- P. 10 P 22 6/7/2012 Page 2 of 3 Ridge Road we offer for consideration the Option Plan - acceptable for the Danadjieva family as it ameliorates the negative environmental impacts to their 450 Ridge Road residence by reducing the east wing from 87 to 44 feet length ( see enclosed plan ) This reduces the blockage of sunshine and interference of privacy to the existing 450 Ridge Road residence. The Danadjieva family is asking also for the reduction of the East Wing height with 4 feet - to not allow for losing the southern sunshine for its main spaces - the Living Room, the Family Room, the Master Bedroom and the San Francisco view terrace of the residence. See enclosed section. More - we suggest the owner of 440 Ridge Road property to consider the Option Plan because it also improves the 440 Ridge Road environmental as well as its functional needs. The owner, Lisa Lowell of the 440 Ridge Road property said that she did like the idea of the Option Plan yet she is in pressure to advance the project and technically not sure that the proposed by the Option Plan ramp to the garage can work. FYI the ramp shown on the Option Plan is around 65 feet long and compensates a difference of 8 feet slope height therefore no problem with ramp feasibility. Here the summary of the Option Plan benefits * acceptable by the 450 Ridge Road owners * should be considered by the owner of 440 Ridge Road property - as by reducing the East Wing length to 44 feet the proposed 440 Ridge Road Living Room gets panoramic view while now the East Wing screens it. * by reducing the length of the East Wing the morning shadow to the proposed 440 Ridge Road building is eliminated * the rotation of the 440 Ridge Road garage and driveway shown on the Option Plan replaces the proposed big hard paved parking area in front of the residence with soft green landscape. As there is an Option Plan available to ameliorate the negative environmental impacts for both 450 and 440 Ridge Road properties we propose the Town of Tiburon and the Design Review Board to allow time for continuum on the subject in order both 440 and 450 Ridge Road property owners to have time to find the best design solution for their mutual interest. In case that the Option Plan gets ignored we like to stress that we like to ask: * The East Wing length be reduced with 25 feet * The height of the East Wng to be reduced with 4 feet * To build 4 ft high stone wall along the East Wing wall * Not to remove the 2 existing big pine trees along the East Wing * To remove the windows of the East Wing building that interfere with the 450 Ridge Road privacy * Paint the building in dark color to blend with the natural setting Thank you for your attention and cosideration Si ce ely, Angela Danadjieva, UTA EXHIBIT 3 2. Designer - 450 Ridge Road Residence NO. 'Z. a-- 2- 6/7/2012