HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2013-05-15 (2)To:
From:
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Community Development Department
Town Council Meeting
May 15, 2013
Agenda Item:
Subject: Appeal of Building Official's Decision Requiring Undergrounding of Utilities
for a New Single Family Dwelling Currently Under Construction at 12
Apollo j Road
Reviewed By: '4 \ l Irv
PROJECT DATA
Address:
Assessor's Parcel:
Permit Number:
Property Owners:
Appellants:
Type of Project:
BACKGROUND
12 Apollo Road (Belveron East)
034-271-06
Building Permit #12-446
Kristina Wollan & Jonathan Lacey
Kristina Wollan & Jonathan Lacey
Demo Old SFD and Build New SFD
Tiburon has required undergrounding of utility extensions from newly constructed buildings for
nearly 40 years. The undergrounding requirement also applies to remodel projects where the
main electrical service is replaced or relocated. These Tiburon regulations followed on the heels
of state law requiring all new subdivisions to have their utilities placed underground for safety
and aesthetic reasons; and similar local regulations are common throughout urbanized areas of the
state. In Tiburon, a "hardship exception" process has been in place for remodel projects since the
outset, with the latest process approved by the Town Council in 1998. This process grants the
Building Official authority to grant hardship exceptions when certain criteria are met, including
high cost, unusually lengthy trenching, or trenching across streets. The exception application
process clearly applies only to remodel projects and is intended to provide relief when relatively
small projects, such as a main service panel replacement, could trigger out-of-proportion costs in
comparison with costs of undergrounding the utility extension. The hardship exception process
was never intended to apply to construction of a new building, where undergrounding costs
would constitute only a small fraction of the project cost.
The relevant Municipal Code Chapter is attached as Exhibit 1 and the Town's hardship waiver
application form and handout are attached as Exhibit 2.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6
A Ilk,
Project Description
On September 10, 2012, a building permit was issued to Ms. Wollan and Mr. Lacey to demolish
an existing house and build a new single family dwelling located at 12 Apollo Road. Work
commenced shortly after permit issuance and had proceeded without incident until April 10,
2013, when the Building Inspector made a follow-up visit to the site to verify progress on some
correction list items he had written two days prior and noticed that the main electrical service
panel had been installed. Upon inspecting the equipment, he noticed that provisions had been
made for an overhead electrical service utility connection rather than an underground connection,
which is standard for all new buildings and for renovation projects that do not qualify for a
hardship exemption. Upon asking the owner, Ms. Wollan, why her contractor did not
underground the service, she responded that "she had a waiver from Tarun" [the Town's Permit
Technician]. The Building Inspector told her that he was unaware that they had an approved
undergrounding waiver on file and that, even if they did, they would still have to install an
underground service sweep.
The following day, April 11, 2013, the Building Inspector researched the project files and found a
blank underground waiver form and no electrical calculations as required on the approved plans,
which are required to address the size and location of the new service panel. He then called the
owner, Mr. Lacey, and informed him that they (the owners or their contractor) had not completed
or submitted the underground waiver form that they had referenced.
On April 15, 2013, the Building Official became aware of the preceding events and visited the
site that day to conduct a requested insulation inspection and investigate the validity of certain
accusations leveled against the Building Inspector by the contractor. At that time, the Building
Official reiterated the need for them to submit the proper "paper work" for their new electrical
service; however, at that time, the Building Official had not had an opportunity to review the
entire project history and, because it had been more than seven months since he had approved the
project, was not aware that it was a new construction project until two days later when he
processed the underground waiver application (Exhibit 3) submitted by the owners on April 17,
2013. At that time, the Building Official determined that their project did not qualify for a
hardship exemption because it was a newly constructed building and not a remodel project, and
immediately informed the owners via e-mail.
Utility Undergrounding Requirements
Chapter 12A, Section 1(b) of the Tiburon Municipal Code requires as follows:
(b) Service to new or remodeled buildings. All electric and communication service
laterals, including cable television service, to any new residential or commercial
building or structure being remodeled when such remodeling requires the relocation
or replacement of the property owner's main electrical service equipment, shall be
placed underground from the main service facility within such building or structure
to a location designated by the supplying utility.
This requirement has been in effect since 1976. The Town currently allows for hardship
exceptions (also known as waivers) to be granted by the Building Official when certain "hardship
criteria" are met on remodel projects. These criteria were approved by the Town Council in 1998
OF T11:11ZION
'TO 1 C :c}uncil Vhc~ ,,giro
Ma~; 15, 2013
along with the Underground Waiver Application form on which they appear. As noted above, the
hardship exception application form applies exclusively to remodel projects. The criteria set
forth in the form are as follows:
1. The cost of undergrounding would exceed 10% of the cost of the remodel project.
2. The location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a
street, and trenching across a street would be required to perform the
undergrounding.
3. The location specified by the supplying agency is more than 150 linear feet from the
affected property at its closest point.
The above criteria, as integrated into the Underground Waiver Application, were submitted with
the staff report to Council dated July 7, 1998, (see Exhibit 4), along with the final version of
draft Ordinance 437 N.S., which was subsequently approved by the Town Council.
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
Appeal of owners of 12 Apollo Road (Jonathan Lacev and Kristina Wollan
The appeal form and supplemental materials (Exhibit 5) were filed on April 25, 2013.
Appellants generally assert that the hardship exception application was improperly denied and
that the denial is not supported by evidence in the record. A summary of their interpretation of
the record is provided. Staff has attempted to address the relevant points raised below.
Ground #1: The Design Review Board approved the building plans for "a new single-
family residence" at 12 Apollo Road. On August 30, 2012, the Building
Division approved the building plans and issued a Building Permit. The
permitted plans showed clearly the location of the new electric meter and
upgraded 200-amp electrical service panel.
Staff Response:
The Design Review Board has no oversight authority to approve, not approve, or require the
undergrounding of utilities for any building or structure in the Town of Tiburon. It is simply not
an issue that the Design Review Board addresses or reviews.
Sheets EMP and A4.2 of the approved building plans do reference a relocated electrical service
meter on the side of the garage; however, there is no indication on the plans or specifications
contained in the electrical notes specifying installation of an overhead service riser mast and
conductors. Furthermore, Sheet EMP of the approved plans (see Exhibit 6) has a conspicuous
notation stating "Contractor to provide and submit load calculations for sizing of electric panels
along with size to the Building Department prior to installation." Had this basic instruction,
which was required by the applicant's own design team, been followed by the contractor, any
potential confusion regarding undergrounding requirements would have been resolved earlier in
the process. As it was, the electrical panel had been installed inconsistent with the approved
permit drawings and without undergrounding efforts of any sort, even the installation of a sweep.
{[t.s
Ground #2: Following the Building Division's approval, the permitted plans we had
submitted were covered with the usual red stamps to remind the builder of
the Town's local Code requirements. There was nothing in the plans and no
comment, forms, or information provided from the Town officials regarding
undergrounding electrical requirements. The apparently usual Town stamp
"Relocation or Replacement of the Main Electrical Service Requires That the
Service Lateral Be Placed Underground" does not appear anywhere on the
documents. There was no note or discussion that an undergrounding conduit
sweep for future undergrounding would be required.
Staff Response:
It is true that the above-referenced stamp was inadvertently missing from the approved plans.
While such an omission is unfortunate, these stamps are meant as "reminders" of applicable
codes and regulations, and do not in and of themselves impose the regulations. It is common
knowledge that laws and regulations need not be posted in every location or in every instance for
them to be valid and enforced, or that each regulation is red-stamped on drawings. If that were
the case, the drawings would be illegible. A missing stamp is not a basis for not complying with
adopted laws of the Town, or for not following the designer's instructions written on the face of
the plans.
Further, in the appellant's letter dated April 17, 2013, addressed to the Building Official,
reference is made to a conversation in the summer of 2012 (before the permit was issued) with
the Building Permit Technician regarding undergrounding requirements and hardship exceptions.
Although it is not possible to verify the exact nature or level of detail involved in the
conversation, it is clear that the Town's requirement for undergrounding utilities was
communicated to the appellant and that they knew a process was required to be followed should
an applicant wish to pursue the possibility of not undergrounding their service. A thorough
reading of the application form, or a timely submittal of the application form, would have quickly
revealed the inapplicability of the waiver process to this new construction project. As it was, no
application was filed until an electrical panel had already been installed contrary to the approved
drawings.
Ground #3: Other recent "new construction" projects located in the Belveron East
neighborhood were not required to underground their utilities. These
projects include: 48 Mercury Avenue; 34 Mercury Avenue; 20 Juno Road;
31 Juno Road.
Staff Response:
Except for the project at 31 Juno Road, all of the above projects were applied for and
subsequently issued building permits as "addition and remodel" projects. Based on the table on
p. 3 of the appeal, appellants appear to be confusing the Design Review Board minutes
description of "new residence" with the subsequent building permit category, which can be
different based on the nature of the project.
For zoning ordinance purposes only, a project that crosses a 50% threshold of remodel work is
treated as "new construction" when reviewed by the Design Review Board. The distinction is
NI ..1')..'L 1.),
used primarily to eliminate zoning non-conformities when a truly substantial remodel project is
proposed. The zoning definition of new construction has no effect on the California Building
Codes as adopted by the Town Council and as enforced by the Building Division. For building
code purposes, the above projects with the exception of 31 Juno Road, will not be issued
Certificates of Occupancy as new dwellings because a significant part of the structure either rests
on or abuts pre-existing construction. They are remodel/addition projects.
The project at 31 Juno Road was a bona fide new construction project (from a building code
perspective) that was granted a hardship waiver in 2005 by a former Building Official. It would
be pure speculation at this point to assign a rationale for this determination; it was possibly made
in error confusing this address with another project. However, the current Building Official must
base his decisions on accurate interpretations of Town rules and regulations, and not on errors or
interpretative aberrations made by former staff members.
ANALYSIS
The Town's undergrounding policy is intended to promote public safety and to incrementally
reduce visual pollution in our neighborhoods. Undergrounding of electrical utility wires
completely eliminates the fire and electrocution hazards of fallen live wires due to storms, trees,
vehicular traffic, and so on. In fact, the overhead service lateral wires that run across roadways to
serve individual dwellings, as is the case for this project, are arguably the most hazardous
components of an overhead electrical service grid system because the point of connection to the
dwelling is controlled by the individual home owner and not the utility service provider.
Undergrounding also promotes a more esthetically pleasing environment within neighborhoods
and reduces unsightly visual impacts of overhead wires.
Although the Town's hardship exception application process does not apply to new construction,
if it did it is unlikely that the Building Official would have approved the request because the
owners were not able to show that the project met the hardship criteria. The estimate for
undergrounding as submitted did not exceed 10% of the total project cost, the point of connection
is less than 150 linear feet to the main service, and although the point of connection is across the
street, this fact does not in and of itself constitute a hardship for this project because it does not
cross a major thoroughfare resulting in complex and expensive logistical concerns requiring
traffic diversion, and the owners were already required to trench half way across the street to
install a new gas service line and could have consolidated this process with the electrical
undergrounding had they addressed the undergrounding issue earlier in the construction process.
CONCLUSION
Staff concludes that the relevant facts in the record support the decision of the Building Official.
The project at 12 Apollo Road clearly constitutes a "new construction" project under any
definition used by the Town of Tiburon.
The word "remodel" appears four times on the Underground Waiver Application form, including
the large-font heading: "UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILTIES REQUIRMENTS ON
REMODEL PROJECTS: HARDSHIP EXCEPTIONS."
m n c.ou ( AI mct.i.1110,
May 15" 201.3
A review of the Town forms addressing this issue clearly indicates that the conditions as
stipulated on the waiver form were the basis of the Town Council's 1998 approval of the current
hardship exception application process, with both the letter and intent of the process applying
only to remodel projects. Therefore, the Building Official lacks the authority to approve a
hardship exception for the construction of a new single family residence.
Even if the project were a remodel project, it would not likely be granted a waiver by the
Building Official based on the above analysis.
No application for hardship exception was received by the Town until after the electrical service
panel had been installed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Follow the appeals policy procedures (Exhibit 7) for presentation time limits and
public comment on appeal items; and
2. Deny the appeal on the basis that new construction projects, as opposed to remodel
projects, do not qualify for hardship exceptions to the requirement for undergrounding
set forth in Section 12A-1(b) of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
3. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution to that effect for consideration of adoption at the
next regular meeting.
4. Should the Town Council conclude differently and choose to grant the appeal, staff
recommends that the Town Council revisit the undergrounding waiver ordinance and
hardship waiver process and criteria, and direct staff to schedule that item on a future
agenda.
EXHIBITS
1. Chapter 12A of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
2. Undergrounding hardship exception application and handout.
3. Application for Hardship Exception filed April 17, 2013.
4. Town Council packet materials from July 7, 1998.
5. Appeal form and supplemental materials received April 25, 2013.
6. Sheet EMP of the approved building drawings (excerpt).
7. Appeals procedure (relevant excerpt).
S: Udministrationl Town CouncillStaff Reports12013IMay 15 drafts112 Apollo Road UnderGrounding Appeal report.doc
-
12A-1
Chapter 12A
UNDERGROUND UTILITY
DISTRI CTS-EXTENSIONS *
Sections:
12A-1
Underground installation-
Required.
12A-2
Same-Exceptions---Generally.
12A-3
Exception for hardship.
12A-4
Same-Same-Existing
facilities.
12A-5
Violations.
* As to telecommunications regulations, see ch. 9 of this Code. As
to underground utility districts generally, see ch. 12. As to building
regulations generally, see ch. 13. As to streets and sidewalks
generally, see ch. 19.
12A-1 Underground installation-
Required.
It is ordered by the town council that:
(a) Generally. All new extensions of existing
utility distribution facilities, including but not limit-
ed to electric, communication and cable television
lines, hereafter constructed or installed in the city
shall be placed underground.
(b) Service to new or remodeled buildings. All
electric and communication service laterals, includ-
ing cable television service, to any new residential
or commercial building or structure being remodeled
when such remodeling requires the relocation or
replacement of the property owner's main electrical
service equipment, shall be placed underground
from the main service facility within such building
or structure to a location designated by the supply-
ing utility.
(c) Responsibility for arrangements; compliance
with applicable provisions. It will be the responsibil-
ity of the applicant for electric, communication or
similar or associated service to make the necessary
arrangements with the utility companies involved for
the underground installation of wires and facilities
required for such new extension or service, all in
accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and
tariffs of the respective utility or utilities, on file
with the state public utilities commission. (Ord. No.
177 N.S., § 2)
12A-2 Same-Exceptions-Generally.
The following installations shall be exempt from
the provisions of section 12A-1:
(a) Any municipal equipment or facilities in-
stalled under the supervision and to the satisfaction
of the town engineer.
(b) Poles or electroliers used exclusively for
street lighting.
(c) Overhead wires attached to the exterior sur-
face of a building by means of a bracket or other
fixture and extended from one location on the build-
ing to another location on the same building or to
an adjacent, accessory building within seventy-five
feet and on the same lot or parcel as such building,
such buildings being mutually accessible without
crossing any public street.
(d) Poles, overhead wires and associated over-
head structures used for the transmission of elec-
trical energy at nominal voltages in excess of thirty-
four thousand five hundred volts.
(e) Antennae, associated equipment and support-
ing structures used by a utility for furnishing com-
munication services.
(f) Equipment appurtenant to underground facili-
ties, such as surface-mounted transformers, pedestal-
mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and
concealed ducts.
(g) Temporary poles, overhead wires and asso-
ciated overhead structures used or to be used in
conjunction with construction projects or which are
installed and maintained for a period not to exceed
ten days, in order to provide emergency service.
(Ord. No. 177 N.S., § 3)
12A-3 Exception for hardship.
Where the enforcement of the provisions of sec-
tion 12A-1 would result in undue hardship, applica-
tion for exceptions from the provisions thereof may
be made in the following manner:
(a) Written application shall be filed with the
Town of Tiburon building official. Application
82
TJBIT IST4-~---
177
12A-3
forms shall be available from the Tiburon building
division.
(b) Such application shall include all information
necessary to properly apprise the building official of
the circumstances which require such exception. In
instances where an exception is being sought from
provisions of section 12A-1(b), the application must
demonstrate how the project would qualify for a
hardship exception under specific criteria adopted by
the town council, such criteria being attached to the
application form.
(c) The building official shall grant or deny such
application.
(d) The decision of the building official may be
appealed to the town council within ten calendar
days. (Ord. No. 177 N.S., § 4; Ord. No. 346 N.S.,
§ 2; Ord. No. 437 N.S., § 2(A))
12A-4 Same--Same-Existing facilities.
The provisions of section 12A-1 shall not prohibit
the maintenance and operation of existing overhead
facilities, nor prohibit the connection of underground
service lines to existing overhead utility distribution
equipment. (Ord. No. 177 N.S., § 5)
12A-5 Violations.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to violate any
provision or to fail to comply with any of the re-
quirements of this chapter. Any person violating any
provision of this chapter or failing to comply with
any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of an
infraction and shall be subject to penalties pursuant
to section 36900 of the Government Code, as
amended. Each and every day that any violation of
this chapter continues, is committed or is permitted
shall be regarded as a new and separate offense. The
remedies provided in this section shall be cumula-
tive and not exclusive.
(b) Any violation of the provisions of this chap-
ter is declared a public nuisance and shall be subject
to summary abatement as provided by law. (Ord.
No. 177 N.S., § 6; Ord. No. 437 N.S., § 1(B))
83
UNDERGROUND WAIVER APPLICATION
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS:
PROPERTY USE:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
O'W'NER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
ZONT,4G:
FAX
APPLICANT: (If other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STAT8/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX
Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom correspondence should be sent.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1. COST OF REMODEL PROJECT
2. FORMAL ESTIMATE OF COST TO PROVIDE NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICE
(Attach bid)
3. FORMAL ESTIMATE OF COST TO PROVIDE NEW SERVICE WITH OVERHEAD LATERAL
(Attach bid)
3. SITE PLAN OF AFFECTED PROPERTY WITH A SCALED DRAWING SHOWING THE
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND THE LOCATION OF THE NEAREST POWER POLE.
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for
approval of this application in accordance. with the provisions of the Town Ordinances, and I hereby certify that
the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
S ignature:
(If other than owner, must have signed letter from owner.)
Date:
waivund.app l U/yd NO. r ""T'"
TOWN OF TIBUROIP4
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD • TIBURON • CALIFORNIA 94920 • (415) 435-7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES REQUIREMENT ON
REMODEL PROJECTS: HARDSHIP EXCEPTIONS
If you are.undertaking a remodel project on your residence or commercial building, you.. may be
required to "underground" all cables and wires leading from your main electrical service panel
to a utility pole specified by the utility company unless you qualify for a "hardship exception."
The Town's requirement for undergrounding of utilities on remodel projects is as follows:
REQUIREMENT (MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 12A-1(b))
"Service to new or' remodeled buildings. All electric and communication. service laterals,
including cable television service, to any new residential or commercial building or structure
being. remodeled when such. remodeling requires the relocation or replacement of 'the
property owner's main electrical service equipment, shall be placed underground from the
main service facility, within such building or structure to. a location designated by the
supplying utility. "
However, Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code enables the Town to grant "hardship
exceptions," also called ".waivers" of the undergrounding requirement. The Town Council has
adopted. the criteria under which a hardship exception may be granted by the Town of Tiburon
Building Official, as set forth in the policy below:
TOWN POLICY:
Pursuant to Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, hardship exceptions to the requirement
for undergrounding set forth in Section 12A-1(b) may be granted by the Building Official if aU
of the following conditions exist:
1. The cost of undergrounding would exceed 10 % of the cost of the remodel project.
2. The -location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a
street, and trenching across a street would be required to perform the
undergrounding.
3. The location specified by the supplying agency is more than 150 linear feet from the
affected property at its closest point.
As a condition of granting the exception, the Building Official will require all new or relocated
main electrical service panels to be installed with an underground conduit fitting and sweep. This
will make future undergrounding cheaper and easier.
Underg.frm 7/98
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
TOWN OF TIBURON
E~[~DERGROUND WAIVER APPLICATION
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: p-40 Ito 644 PROPERTY USE: 4
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: O`{ ZONING:
.e. 4 .i.lT'h~. 1. 1 w I~ r► i
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
APPLICANT: (If other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
$~['~'IfsJiR
PHONE NUMBER: FAX
Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom correspondence should he sent. APR 17 2013
TOWN OF 118UR0R'
PLEASE PROVIDE TEE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: BUILDING elvlSION
3'F.
1. COST OF REMODEL PROJECT
2. FORMAL ESTIMATE OF COST To PROVIDE NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICE
(Attach bid) 6414 C 70 CIO0 -P'
3. FORMAL ESTIMATE OF COST TO PROVIDE EVSI SERVICE WITH 2 RHEAD LATERAL
(Attach bid) 41200
3. SITE PLAN OF AFFECTED PROPERTY WITH A SCALED DRAWING SHOWING THE
PROPERTY BOUNDAIPES AND THE LOCATION OF THE N T, POW SR~POO
~,n,,,~;}Icd ~tals •!o t,,,aF•sl~,a~ q ~,,lto a~xoss s~+~`ect' ~
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for
approval of this application in accordance. with the provisions of the Town Ordinances, and I hereby certify that j
the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature. Date:1
•(If other than o er, must have s>ig r from owner.)
I.
__,.-'iu•N.! 2C'_` in•~?~Li:.iliy$:•F.nv}'4`h?h t'^ •Cr..
AK I
• 2• i' , ) Fw,P~ r~ T . -
y vi W i Y\ } Cv'M xLT R :T~..R•< }
hh
AppticatipriV~o.~ x... w•y~:.>~~
^ { • •K
:D •.y~^•~Vv
ate Eec~elva::.:; . ^y{ c gD
•Actiori:ENl~r3
:Conditio's4f Approval or comments: ~!-f~i
waivund.app 10198 - .
~ : > Fie $~D~.:UO~ ~
a :004E fey-?~ `i~l/~,1~•Y xTv
Page 13 of 15
P pp
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver _
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities April 25, 2013
Ifni
D C
V
April 17, 2013 ~
Vs,
TOWN CLERK
Mr. Fred lustenberger, C.B.O. TOWN OF TIBURON
Building Official
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Undergrounding of Utilities Waiver Application for 12 Apollo Rd.
Dear Fred:
In response to your request last week (and encouragement to respond quickly), attached is
our Underground Waiver Application although it is incomplete. I am hopeful that you will grant
an exception based on the specific condition present, pursuant to Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code:
2. The location specified by the supplying agency Is located on the opposite side of a
street, and trenching across a street would be required to perform the undergrounding.
While we await your decision, we will do as you have instructed and adjust the main electrical
panel to accommodate a 3" underground conduit. If your department can provide any drawings
or specifications for this conduit and sweep, we would appreciate it (we will need to make two
90-degree bends to exit the garage wall before entering the ground, and want to be absolutely
sure It satisfies the local Code). Our structural engineer has confirmed that the required cut in
the garage wall will be OK (email sent to you separately).
As I mentioned on Monday, April 15'', I would like to reiterate that I did discuss the
undergrounding requirement with your assistant, Tarun Sanghvi, last summer as we were
waiting to be granted our permit. Tarun showed me a document detailing the Hardship
Exceptions rules, noting that If the power pole was across the street, we would qualify for an
exception. After our discussion, I believed that we were exempt since the power pole Is across
the street (at 9 Apollo Road, approximately 95 feet from our new meter location - see aerial
photo below). 1 was not aware after that conversation that 1 needed to fill out a formal Waiver
Application.
I am distraught because I made a good faith effort more than eight months ago to
address the undergrounding issue. 1 am very worried about the potential added costs to our
project at this late date. We were permitted to proceed with our work with a complete set of
building documents, which include no mention of the underground conduit fitting and sweep, or
required waiver application. The added expense of the gas lateral street trenching that Is
occurring this week (which was not part of PG&E's original plan) was not included in our original
budget. If I had thought we might be required to underground all of the utilities, elements of
our approved plans would have been altered to accommodate such added expense.
Page 14 of 15
n
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver Aei LU '
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
TAW iV CLERK April 25, 2013
Tow
The initial verbal estimate provided to me in 2012 by PG&E to underground the electric
was approximately $20,000. 1 have asked our PG&E project manager, Chris Giese, to determine
the cost to produce a formal estimate. Generally, PG&E requires a $1,000 engineering deposit
to do such estimating since It will require many hours of work to calculate and write a formal
proposal (this deposit can be applied toward the future contract work), which can also take
time. From the time they began work in February on estimating our gas reconnection contract,
it took 3-4 weeks to receive a formal written proposal, and two months to get the actual work
done.
If you grant us an exception based on Section 12A-3 of the Code in advance of our
getting a formal proposal from PG&E, you would save us $1,000 in engineering fees, plus the
significant added project costs of time delays (and rent), which at this stage Is critical for us.
Thank you,
Kristina Wollan & Jonathan Lacey
415.533.9859
Attachments: Waiver Application
Page 15 of 15
Map of 12 Apollo wkh pok location noted amm street at 9 Apollo
(Approved Site Plan Sheet AU does not show the areas across the
TowN of TiBURON
STAFF REPORT c
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 7/15/98
To: TOWN COiJNCII.
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR!~t
Subject: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12A OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING WAIVERS (HARDSHIP EXCEPTIONS) FOR
UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES
Date: JULY 7, 1998
BACKGROUND
In May, 1998, the Town Council reviewed the criteria under which waivers for undergrounding
utility requirements associated with remodel projects are granted. The Town Council adopted
new criteria intended to streamline and simplify the hardship exception application and review
process.
As a follow-up implementation measure, the ordinance governing hardship exceptions should be
revised to reflect the changes to the application and review process.
Staff has prepared the appropriate text revisions (see Exhibit 1). The current ordinance is
attached as Exhibit 2 for comparison purposes.
The primary thrust of the ordinance amendments are:
1. To shift application review and approval responsibility to the Building Official. Currently,
the Planning Director and Superintendent of Public Works are required to reach a joint
decision for approval or denial of applications. Prior to 1989, only the Planning
Commission could approve a hardship exception!
2. To reference in the ordinance the criteria recently adopted by the Town Council to assess
hardship exception requests on remodel projects (see Exhibit 3).
3. To make violations of the ordinance provisions an infraction instead of a misdemeanor.
Please note that this change is being made throughout the Municipal Code.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
7/15/98
1kIIDIT NO.
RN ECONBIENDATION
1. Hold a public hearing on the matter.
2. Move to read the ordinance by title only.
3. Hold a roll call vote on first reading of the ordinance.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft ordinance.
2. Current Chapter 12A of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
3. Adopted criteria and information sheet dated 5/98.
\municode\chap 12a.rpt
Tiburon Town Council Staff Report 7115148 2
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING PROVISIONS OF
CHAPIMR 12A OF THE TIBURON MIMCMAL CODE
REGULATIlNO DTSJHJ TS---
The Town Council of the Town. of Tiburon does ordain as follows:
Section,L EindingL
A. The Town Council has held public heo ings on . 1998 and
1998, and has received public testimony on this matter.
B. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the
adoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
C. The Town Council finds that the repeal and adoption actions made by this Ordinance are
necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
D. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent
with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and
regulations of the Town of Tiburon.
E. The Town Council finds that this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. Amendment
(A) Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 12A-3. Exception for Hardship.
Where the enforcement of the provisions of Section 12A-1 would result in undue
hardship, application for exceptions from the provisions thereof may be made in
the following manner:
(a) Written application shall be filed with the Town of Tiburon Building Official.
Application forms shall be available from the Tiburon Building Division.
Town Council Ordinance No. N.S. Effective --/--/98 Page 1
EXHIBIT NO.. (
(b) Such application shall include all information necessary to properly apprise the
Building Official of the circumstances which require such exception. In instances
where an exception is being sought from provisions of Section 12A 1(b), the
application must demonstrate how the project would qualify for a hardship
exception under specific criteria adopted by the Town Council, said criteria being
attached to the application form.
(c) The Building Official shall grant or deny such application.
(d) The decision of the Building Official may be appealed to the Town Council
within ten (10) calendar days.
(B) Section 12A-5 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 12A-5. Violations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply
with any of the requirements othis chapter. Any person violating any provision of
this chapter or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty
of an infraction and shall be subject to penalties pursuant to Section 36900 of the
Government Code, as amended. Each and every day that any violation of this
chapter continues, is committed or is permitted shall be regarded as a new and
separate offense. The remedies provided in this section shall be cumulative and
not exclusive.
Any violation of the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared a public nuisance
and shall be subject to summary abatement as provided by law.
Section Sev rability.
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town
Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
Swtion 4. Effective Date"
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the date of passage,
and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the
Town Council Ordinance No. N.S. Effective --/--/98 Page 2
ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least
once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the 'T'own of Tiburon.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on , 1998, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council
of the Town of Tiburon on , 1998, which was noticed pursuant to Government
Code Section 50022.3, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCELNIEM 3ERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCMb E_UMERS;
HARRY S. MATTIIEWS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
lmunicodelchap12A. ord
Town Council Ordinance No. N.S. Effective -./--/98 Page 3
CILA PTr R 124L
UNDERGROUND L'I-.ILrrY DLSTMC7S--
EX MINISiO S,#
sec:doas:
12Ar1.
i; nde.*"tovnd inssailarioa.
Reguked.
11A-'
Same Fx-ceptiow-Genermay.
12.'3.
Same-Same---Rsrdship.
12A-4.
Samee--Same----Existing
facit±es.
I Z -3. '
V101adons.
'.4s to cammmunity antenna te'.evision. serf cit. 9 of :his Cada.:A.s
W und=vauad atllity districts pnc.Jly. sr cit. 1' .as to build-
ing -gulations 3e;te:3lly, se; w. 13.As :o utility ser-rir. ; eg im.
rnencs far certain buildings, sr_ 3 13-i. As to residential
devetapment mview. sr- c!L 16B. -As to strr~3 and sid AWks
1=C=UV. sr ch. 19.
Se. 12A-1. Underground instaliadoo-
Required.
Its he. ebv ordered' by the town council that
(a) Generally. All ne x emensions of existing
utiliv dis bution fac cities, including but not
lighted to, electric, communication and cable
tell e-fisiou lines, hereafter. conswucted or in s-&2 11 ed..
in the cry shall be placed underground.
(b) Service to aew or remede:ed buildings. All
elec.-mic and communication sc-vice later:31s.
including cable television serrice, to any hew
residential or commercial binding or smac:ure
being remodeled when such remcdeung requires
the re:ec ation or replacement of the proper
owners main elec-ical service equipment, shall
be piaced underground from the main serrice
fac•;liri within such building or structure to a
location designated by the supplying utility.
(c) Responsibility for arrr=;ements: com-
pliant with applicaole provisioas. It will be the
respons" ility of the applicant for elec-me, eom-
munlcatiion or similar or associated service to
make the necessarv arrangements with the utility
companies involved for the underground
insraiIarion of wires and facilities required for
sir. c? ~ 1
such aeW ax=sion or s=/ic-,., all in acccrdaacs
with the applicable rules, regulations and thins
of the respe dve utility or uQ3lties4 on rue with
the Slate public utlfIQes commission. (Ord. No.
177 V.S., 12.)
Sec. 12k2. Same-E. cepdons~
Generally.
The following insalIalions shall be a xenapt
from the provisions of se=ion I:Z
(a) Any municipal equipment or facffities
insralled under the superrision and to the satis-
fhe-don of the town eng:nern
(b) Poles or e?e=olle:s used exctusive?v for
sti err iig'^.riag. .
(c) Overhead wires arached to the ex er
surface of a building by means of a br-acke_ or
other a.;tw-, and extended from one location on
the building to another location on the same
building or to an adjacent accessory building
within seveurl'-live fee: and on the same lot or
parcel as such building, such buildings being
mutually accessible without crossing any public
..w
(d) toles, overhead wires and associated over-
head strscm= used for the transmission of 'e,-
tncal energy at nominal voltages in excess of
thirty-four thousand five hundred volts.
(e) Antennae. associated equipment and sup-
pcr:ing stnacmres used by a utilirt for furuis=a
c:?mmunic rtion services.
M Equipment appurtenant to under mound
facilities. sues as surface-mounter: transiorme'M
pedes-cal-mounted terminal boxes and meter
cabinets, and co nc:r led duets.
(g) Temporart poles, overhead wires and
associated overhead srrsctures used or to be used
in conjunction with contraction projer*s or
which are ins-,.alled and maintained for a period
not :o exc„°°dd ten days, in order to provide eme: -
gencr service. (Ord. Rio. 177 V.S.. § 3.)
S _.12A-3
Same-Same -Hardship.
Where the enforcement of the provisions of
se=on i? I would result in undue hardship,
74
r
0-
454'~- I? -3
application. for =c„-;don from the pmvmons
the=f =Y be made in the fallowing manna..
(a) wdm= applic oa shall be hied with the
dir=,or of communiry dvA_"opment and a capy
dhalt be provided the director of public words.
(b) Such application shalt inc;ude ail infor-
marion necesur'y to PrOPCIY appnse the direr.or
of cOmmunity cL-mlopment and the &=wr of
public works of the *~s- oa •
g arc"smsranc= which
require such exception.
(c) Tne direr-mr of public works and the plan.
ning direvor shall grant or deny sues apPlic:,dou
by joint', dere:-,.n ination. Their de ;-ision =y be
aPPesled to the town council. For Y
subdivision
developments, any exception must also be
apMved by the state public utilities compni.,-
non. (Ord. No. 1771•.S., § 4; Ord. No. 3A:6 _.5., §
2.)
Sec 122-4. Same-Same'.-Existing
fwmdes
The provisions of sermon 11-k- 1 shall not pro..
habit the maintenance and .operation of e.~c;sdng
overbend facilities, nor prohibit the conne=on
ofunde sound se^,ice lines to eXISIzng overhead
utility dis- ibution equipment: (Ord. No. 177
N.S., § 5.)
See.1-
' o• Violaaons.
It 'shall be unlawful for any person to violate
any Provision or to fail to comply with any o f ;,he
requirements of this chapten Any person violat-
ing any provision of this chapter or failing to
complY with any of its requirements shall be
domed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon pn-
vic;ion thereof. shall he punished by a fine aot
4McC'-dinS five hundred dollars or-by unpracn-
tnent not ruing six months, or by both such
fine and imprisonmgmt. Each such person shall
be deemed guilty of a serarate offense for match
day during any portion of w ich any violation of
any provision of this cbapter is committed, con-
tinued or perr fined by such person, and shall be
Punishable thc=for as provided by this se=*on.
(Ord. No. 177 N.S., § 6.)
75
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD • TIBURON • CALIFORNIA 94920 • (415) 435.7373
FAX (415) 435-7438
UNDERGROUNDING OF UT]I,ITIES REQUIIZEMENT ON
REMODEL PROJECTS: HARDSHIP EXCEPTIONS
If you are undertaking a remodel project on your residence or commercial building, you may be
required to `~mdergrounV all cables and wires leading from your main electrical service panel to a
utility pole specified by the utility company unless you qualify for a "hardship exception". The
Town's requirement for undergrounding of utilities on remodel projects is as follows:
REQUIREMENT (MLMCIPAL CODE SECTION 12A-1(b)):
"Service to new or remodeled buildings. All electric and communication service laterals,
including cable television service, to an.y new residential or commercial building or
structure being remodeled when such A modeling requires the relocation or replacement
of the property owner's main electrical service equipment, shall be placed underground
from the main service facility within such building or structure to a location designated
by the supplying utility. .of
However, Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code enables thiz Town to grant `hardship
exceptions", also called "waivers" of the undergrounding requirement. The Town Council has
adopted the criteria under which a hardship exception may be granted by the Town of Tiburon
Building Official, as set forth in the policy below:
TOWN POLICY:
Pursuant to Section 12A--) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, hardship exceptions to the
requirement for undergxounding set forth in Section 12A-1(b) may be granted by the Building
Official if = of the following conditions e..x st:
1. The cost of undergrounding would exceed 10% of the cost of the remodel project.
The location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a
street, and trenching across a street would be required to perform the
undergrounding.
3. The location specified by the supplying agency is more than 150 linear feet from
the affected property at its closest point.
As a condition of granting the exception, the Building Official will reg3&e all new or
relocated main electrical service panels to be installed with an underground conduit fittini '
and sweep. This will make future undergrounding,-cheaper and easier.
Un&r&ftm 5/98
EXHIBIT NO.
ro
G
APR 2 5 2013
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OFTIBURON
APPELLANT(S)
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
Name: MaA, tin 4C
TOWN OF
TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone 413-435-7373
www. ci. tiburon. ca. us
G
\j 9 Mailing Address: 40 Q04-41 t ~ 4q2-D
Telephone: (4f 5,S 33 q 9 5'q (Work) t ~0 ~1 S"~ (fie)
FAX and/or e-mail (optional): 6) 0 &Vk 1® a Wlft~t~ . GOwI MA [et
uaM.-,
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: rid i czct-0
Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: -Mori 1 18
Name of Applicant: ~Y_10)m -W 0 [ ~ 4.
Type of Application or Decision& Q.1/Vl a.,,(
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
IL U,4&-&tA el VV V"
Agri (i MNYK
V'C&tk~yk 11im 16PM
STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE
Last Day to File Appeal: Date Appeal Filed: 5 J
0_~, aL
log
Fee Paid: Receipt No. Z4 p ]at. Date of Appeal Hearing:
e
NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non-antilicant_
l S:4ldministrationlFormsWotice oJAppeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc
~ EXHIBIT NO.
■ ■
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
APPELLANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
The Underground Waiver Application for 12 Apollo Road was improperly denied, and that
decision is not supported by evidence in the record. The language in Section 12-A of the
Municipal Code, the criteria adopted by the Town Council and attached to the Waiver
Application, and evidence in the record support acceptance of the Waiver Application and
approval of the hardship exception. We ask that the denial of our Underground Waiver
Application be overturned, and that the hardship exception for the undergrounding
requirement be granted.
THE RECORD
On June 7, 2012, the Design Review Board unanimously approved building plans for a "New Single
Family Residence" at 12 Apollo Road (see Appendix H). On August 30, 2012, the Building
Department approved the building plans and issued a Building Permit. The permitted plans
showed clearly the location of the new electric meter and upgraded 200-amp electrical service
panel. We broke ground on the project for our family's new, structurally sound home on
September 13, 2012.
Following the Building Department's approval, the permitted plans we had submitted were
covered with the usual red stamps to remind the builder of the Town's local Code requirements.
There was nothing in the plans and no comment, forms or information provided from Town
officials regarding undergrounding electrical requirements. The apparently usual town stamp
"RELOCATION OR REPLACEMENT OF THE MAIN ELECTRICAL SERVICE REQUIRES THAT THE SERVICE LATERAL BE
PLACED UNDERGROUND" does not appear anywhere on the documents. There was no note or
discussion that an undergrounding conduit sweep for future undergrounding would be required.
(See Appendix C)
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013, seven months into the project, we were notified during a building
inspection that we were missing a required 3-inch underground conduit sweep to accommodate
future potential undergrounding. This was unexpected, new information to both the builder and
owner. This required the unsightly addition of a large metal conduit cutting through and out of
the garage shear wall, which could have been avoided with earlier notification of the
requirement. It was also very difficult to install the large conduit to PG&E's specifications
because the live gas line had already been installed and was running directly parallel to the
reinforced foundation footing, directly below the electric panel. Regardless of these challenges,
we worked promptly and diligently to safely install the conduit sweep to satisfy the Town's
requirement to accommodate future potential undergrounding, should it one day occur in
Belveron East. (See Appendix D)
• On Thursday, April 11th, Building Inspector, George Dailey, called us to report that he had
discovered incomplete paperwork in our building file regarding the undergrounding requirement.
We immediately went downtown to meet with George to discuss this apparent oversight, and
were presented with the Town's Underground Waiver Application. 1 told George that I had heard
Page 1 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
last summer that this requirement was generally waived if the pole was across the street. During
a subsequent inspection of our new construction project on Monday, April 15th, the Building
Official, Fred lustenberger, reiterated George's recommendation to submit the Hardship Waiver
Application ASAP to be considered for an exemption from the undergrounding requirement.
Based on these instructions, we submitted our application on April 17th with the most accurate
and complete information available at that time, and noted that the utility pole was across the
street and would require trenching across the street, as per the Town's criteria for hardship
exceptions (see Appendix A for map). The following afternoon, April 18th, our application was
denied based on the following reason: "Waiver does not apply to new construction." (See
Appendix G)
• Section 12A-1(b) of the Tiburon Municipal Code references specifically: "Service to new or
remodeled buildings." Section 12A-1(b) is printed in its entirety on the Underground Waiver
Application. (See Appendix B for more detailed Code language.)
• Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code states specifically:
"In instances where an exception is being sought from provisions of Section 12A-1(b),
the application must demonstrate how the project would qualify for a hardship
exception under specific criteria adopted by the town council, such criteria being
attached to the application form."
The Underground Waiver Application form sets forth the criteria adopted by the Town Council as
follows:
"TOWN POLICY: Pursuant to Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code,
hardship exceptions to the requirement for undergrounding set forth in section 12A-
1(b) may be granted by the building official if any of the following conditions exist:
1. The cost of undergrounding would exceed 10% of the cost of the remodel project.
2. The location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a
street, and trenching across a street would be required to perform the
undergrounding."
3. The location specified by the supplying agency is more than 150 linear feet from
the affected property at its closest point.
Trenching across Apollo Road (from 9 Apollo) would be required to perform the undergrounding
of services for 12 Apollo. PG&E estimated that the cost for PG&E to perform its work in
undergrounding the electric service would total from $20,000 to $25,000. However, this estimate
is not all-encompassing since we would have to perform significant work beyond what is included
in PG&E's scope, including undergrounding other utilities (e.g., AT&T, Comcast), and performing
additional work on the building envelop and site to accommodate the new underground feeds.
(See Appendix E for PG&E's rough estimate; a formal proposal and contract has been ordered but
was not available by the Appeal filing deadline.)
Page 2 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
• After surveying the 142 homes in the Belveron East neighborhood, and reviewing publicly
available building files for relevant projects defined as "New Construction" in the neighborhood,
we were able to determine the following:
1. Three "New Construction" and six "Remodeled" homes have undergrounded utilities. All nine
undergrounded homes are located on the same side of the street as the utility pole, and the
cost to underground averaged between $1,000 - $2,000.
2. Of the following four recent "New Construction" homes in Belveron East, none have
undergrounded utilities, and all are located across the street from a utility pole (see
Appendix F). All four "New Construction" projects were either granted waivers by Building
Department personnel, or did not have a waiver application or other undergrounding-related
paperwork in their publicly available building files when we reviewed them on Monday, April
22, 2013.
RECENT NEW CONSTRUCTION IN
.O ,
Address
Utilities Underground or Overhead"
Pole location
New or
Year
-
Remodel
Built
48 Mercury
OVERHEAD. No waiver application in file.
Across Street
New
2012
34 Mercury
OVERHEAD. Plans stamped
Across Street
New
2007
"undergrounding required." No waiver
application in file.
20 Juno
OVERHEAD. Plans stamped
Across Street
New
2006
"undergrounding required;" waiver
approved based on pole location.
31 Juno
OVERHEAD. Plans stamped
Across Street
New
2005
"undergrounding required;" waiver
approved based on pole location.
12 APOLLO
8130112 Approved plans not stamped
Across Street
New
2012113
(Appellant)
"undergrounding required." Waiver
Application denied 4118113 based on
project being "New Construction."
1. See Appendix F for photos.
2. See Appendix H for Tiburon Design Review Board Action Minutes showing each of the above properties'
DRB definition of construction.
Page 3 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities April 25, 2013
CONCLUSION
In light of the above facts and record, it would appear that the Tiburon Municipal Code and
hardship waiver criteria set forth by the Town Council applies to both new and remodel projects, and
supports a hardship exception for our new home at 12 Apollo. Further it appears that the decision to
deny our waiver application is not supported by statute or evidence in the record, or prior decisions
by Building Department personnel.
Our project at 12 Apollo is not significantly different than any of the above listed "new
construction" homes, especially 48 Mercury which was completed just six months ago. Considering
all the evidence in the record, we were extremely surprised and disheartened by the Building
Official's denial of our waiver application, which he emphatically advised us to submit at this very late
stage in the building process. Throughout the building process, we have made every effort to comply
with all Town requirements, and have appreciated the many constructive recommendations from
Building Department personnel. We are now suffering additional hardship as we work diligently and
in good faith to solve this outstanding matter, which is delaying us from moving back into our home.
After eight long months of "temporary living" with our 2- and 5-year-old daughters, we (and the girls
especially) are looking forward to finally settling back into our wonderful Belveron East community.
We ask that the denial be overturned, and the hardship waiver granted. Thank you for your
thoughtful consideration of our appeal.
74W
?Jona Lacey & Kristina ollan
ners, 12 Apollo Road
(415) 533-9859
Please see following pages for supporting documentation in Appendices A-H.
Page 4 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
Appendix A
Location of 12 Apollo relative to Utility Pole across the Street
Pole is approx. 80 linear feet (as the bird flies) from the new meter location for 12 Apollo
Page 5 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
Appendix B
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE:
12A-1 - Underground installation - Required.
(b) Service to new or remodeled buildings. All electric and communication service laterals, including
cable television service, to any new residential or commercial building or structure being remodeled
when such remodeling requires the relocation or replacement of the property owner's main electrical
service equipment, shall be placed underground from the main service facility within such building or
structure to a location designated by the supplying utility.
12A-3 - Exception for hardship.
Where the enforcement of the provisions of Section 12A-1 would result in undue hardship, application
for exceptions from the provisions thereof may be made in the following manner:
(a) Written application shall be filed with the Town of Tiburon building official. Application forms
shall be available from the Tiburon building division.
(b) Such application shall include all information necessary to properly apprise the building official
of the circumstances which require such exception. In instances where an exception is being
sought from provisions of Section 12A-1(b), the application must demonstrate how the project
would qualify for a hardship exception under specific criteria adopted by the town council,
such criteria being attached to the application form.
TOWN OF TIBURON UNDERGROUND WAIVER APPLICATION:
TOWN POLICY: Pursuant to Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, hardship exceptions to
the requirement for undergrounding set forth in section 12A-1(b) may be granted by the building
official if any of the following conditions exist:
1. The cost of undergrounding would exceed 10% of the cost of the remodel project.
2. The location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a street,
and trenching across a street would be required to perform the undergrounding.
3. The location specified by the supplying agency is more than 150 linear feet from the affected
property at its closest point.
Page 6 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
Appendix C
STAMPS TYPICALLY APPLIED TO PERMITTED BUILDING PLANS
Unfortunately, this stamp regarding the
undergrounding requirement was not applied to
any of the 12 Apollo approved building plan
pages. If it had been, we would have been able
to address it early in the process, thereby
avoiding much of the additional hardship we are
now enduring.
Page 7 of 15
12 APOLLO PERMITTED PLANS (below)
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
Appendix D
3" UNDERGROUND CONDUIT SWEEP
(Required by the Town on any new/upgraded service panel, to make
potential future undergrounding cheaper and easier)
Installation began April 19th
Not installed deep enough as of April 24.
Live gas line at 24" depth and reinforced
foundation footing is making the
installation very challenging.
The hole we had to cut in the garage
shear wall after learning about this
requirement.
Page 8 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities April 25, 2013
Appendix E
Preliminary Estimate Received from PG&E on April 18, 2013
(A Formal Estimate & Contract was ordered with the payment of a $1,000 non-refundable engineering
deposit on April 22, but was not available before the Appeal filing deadline.)
From: Giese, Christopher <CRGO@pge.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Subject: Electric Service for 12 Apollo, Tiburon
To: "kristina <kwollan@gmail.com> (kwollan@gmail.com)" kwollannalgmail.com
Hello Kristina,
After reviewing the information related to your project, I have a preliminary estimate for undergrounding your
electric service. At this stage, it would be too late to share the trench with your gas service line, which is being
installed tomorrow.
To underground your service, will require either an easement from your neighbor across the street, relocating the
existing service box at the pole across the street, or hooking up underground service from the pole 1 span down
away. As you may know, we only allow 1 riser per pole (to go from overhead to underground). The existing box
(for the pole across the street from your house) is located in your neighbor's front lawn. Cheaper than the other 2
options would be getting an easement from your neighbor. Keep in mind that on top of all our costs, there is 22%
ITCC tax for the government which we are required to collect.
Best case, assuming your neighbor wants to provide an easement for PG&E to serve you off his/her property, we
would need to tear up and replace, both gutters and both curbs, trench 80' and repave the street, pull cable, and
connect everything. Based on my experience as an Electric Estimator with PG&E, my preliminary rough
estimate is that this would cost between $20,000 and $25,000 to underground your service, versus swinging over
your temporary service overhead at no cost.
If you want a more accurate estimate, I would need to collect an engineering advance of $1000, to create a job# to
charge my time. If you ended up not undergrounding the service, this deposit would not be refunded, according
to our current guidelines. Otherwise the $1000 would apply to your bill.
I hope this helps. Please contact me if you have further questions.
Best,
Chris Giese
Electric Estimator
Pacific Gas & Electric
(415) 257-3334
PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy.
To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/
Page 9 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
Appendix F
NEW EAST BELVERON CONSTRUCTION
48 Mercury (2012)
34 Mercury (2007)
Page 10 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
20 Juno (2006)
31 Juno (2005)
Page 11 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities April 25, 2013
Appendix G
DENIED APPLICATION & CORRESPONDENCE
From: Fred Lustenberger <flustenberger@ci..tiburon.ca.us>
Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: Electric Service for 12 Apollo, Tiburon
To: kristina <kwollan@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Anderson <snderson@townoftiburon.org>, George Dailey <gdailey@townoftiburon.org>, Tarun
Sanghvi -,,-tsanghvi@townoftiburon.org>
Kristina:
After reviewing the Town's ordinance regarding utility undergrounding hardship exceptions, it appears
that your project does not meet the criteria for granting the undergrounding waiver because your
project involves the construction of a new dwelling; therefore, is not considered a remodeling project as
stipulated on the underground waiver application form.
In order to complete your project and receive a final sign-off, you must proceed with installing an
underground electrical service, which includes obtaining an encroachment permit from Public Works.
Once complete, the overhead service mast and conductors must be removed from the structure.
Should you disagree with this decision, you may file an appeal to the Town Council within 10 days
from today's date.
Should you have further questions or need any assistance in facilitating this requirement, please don't
hesitate to contact me at 435-7371.
Regards,
Fred Lustenberger,
Building Official
From: kristina [mailto:kwollan@gmaii.coml
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:30 PM
To: Fred Lustenberger
Cc: jonathan lacey
Subject: Fwd: Electric Service for 12 Apollo, Tiburon
Fred
Chris Giese @ PG&E was able to provide me a preliminary rough estimate of undergrounding our electricity (see
below). Let me know if you have any additional questions or need further information to help you evaluate our
application for the waiver.
Thank you,
Kristina Wollan
415.533.9859
Page 12 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
TOWN OF TIBURON
UNDERGROUND WAILER APPLICATION
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
SITE ADDRESS: p_ TZ1' /to PROPERTY USE: li
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:`(' ZONING: f? .
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS: I2 IIv
CITY/STATE/ZIP: ~.+%-u vL Gl `f raj
PHONE NUMBER: (4!s 5-5S--98S# -FAX
APPLICANT: (If other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
t_
d°~~6
PHONE NUMBER: FAX
Please indicate with an asterisk persons to whom correspondence should be sent. APR 17 2013
TOWN 0'r' I IBUROR'
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: BUILDING DIVISION
1. COST OF REMODEL PROJECT f :~6St ctz'
2. FORMAL ESTIMATE OF COST TO PROVIDE NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICE
(Attach bid) . -r-SD 4Ugji6w4 C, 4441 c ~?k, yt5a f )
3. FORMAL ESTIMATE OF COST TO PROVIDE NEW SERVICE WITH 0 RHEAD LATERAL
(Attach bid) -41200 a Se►vt- ~tmk-U) AriD R 4 !2
3. SITE PLAN OF AFFECTED PROPERTY WITH A SCALED DRAWING SHOWING THE
PROPERTY BOUNDAPES AND THE LOCATION OF THE NEAREST POWER PO E.
72wKi* A _f 66VIS 40 vl&5 z~ 1 PAD Ito dcxass Sliyo_* LAW -t- ~ k i s . S60 I F_n ~ kpv, f
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for
approval of this application in accordance. with the provisions of the town Ordinances, and I hereby certify that
the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature: Date:
(If other than o ner, must have sign r from owner.)
i
r .....:...:.:....r. t,.
v
P•.. TMENTAL`RROG
D ES:S IN rJ.N
E AR , ING' Ft3RfcIfAT[ -
:?4q: :'r:Y::.•1 .??C.: :'.•F. ii +ttv :.rPLi• nit+:
f,} ok'•>:90^'
Vii; :tf
,f.-•
fw
i.'•- i
t'
%A ilGat Ofl<:.'.O.x' t.a.: -::>.ts:~r'-...:.w...• „t:r,+. r•:-,;.;:::.•:>:
, ....>K:_'• •:.2n j.v ':G+i.. rfh}Y~.%~~: : ~,a~.fY.i,~:4fg>;, ~ ft$;: y-, v:~-'~
. L}~ .?k $'tA i Yr`:, `~./'ri v .i '.Y .'1. N,.Jt< : j
y
i:f••• 7
'i
,j . Zr
'a•'
iV•,''
ce au
:Date Race ~ . ' • -'e'i t~~`.
• ~ n . is -
Action: 0EN1E~l fM.z~lr.`:';_...t:.tT>€r7':.' $y<<
:Conditions of Approval or Comments: \t-barr. JE/f'?',r:>.</~<e'tE{.:
waivund.zpp 70198
Page 13 of 15
L~.
1 ~ ~ V
l~
~ ~ f
r
~ d
(zl ~
,
r ~
~ ~ ~
f
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities April 25, 2013
D
April 17, 2013 K. i ` ,j 13
TOWN CLERK
Mr. Fred Lustenberger, C.B.O. TOWN OF TIBURON
Building Official
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Undergrounding of Utilities Waiver Application for 12 Apollo Rd.
Dear Fred:
In response to your request last week (and encouragement to respond quickly), attached is
our Underground Waiver Application although it is incomplete. I am hopeful that you will grant
an exception based on the specific condition present, pursuant to Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code:
2. The location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a
street, and trenching across a street would be required to perform the undergrounding.
While we await your decision, we will do as you have instructed and adjust the main electrical
panel to accommodate a 3" underground conduit. If your department can provide any drawings
or specifications for this conduit and sweep, we would appreciate it (we will need to make two
90-degree bends to exit the garage wall before entering the ground, and want to be absolutely
sure it satisfies the local Code). Our structural engineer has confirmed that the required cut in
the garage wall will be OK (email sent to you separately).
As I mentioned on Monday, April 15', I would like to reiterate that I did discuss the
undergrounding requirement with your assistant, Tarun Sanghvi, last summer as we were
waiting to be granted our permit. Tarun showed me a document detailing the Hardship
Exceptions rules, noting that if the power pole was across the street, we would qualify for an
exception. After our discussion, I believed that we were exempt since the power pole is across
the street (at 9 Apollo Road, approximately 95 feet from our new meter location - see aerial
photo below). I was not aware after that conversation that I needed to fill out a formal Waiver
Application.
I am distraught because I made a good faith effort more than eight months ago to
address the undergrounding issue. i am very worried about the potential added costs to our
project at this late date. We were permitted to proceed with our work with a complete set of
building documents, which include no mention of the underground conduit fitting and sweep, or
required waiver application. The added expense of the gas lateral street trenching that is
occurring this week (which was not part of PG&E's original plan) was not included in our original
budget If I had thought we might be required to underground all of the utilities, elements of
our approved plans would have been altered to accommodate such added expense.
Page 14 of 15
~ E CE11 E
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver r,P.R L y LU13
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities -Tpw N CLERK April 25, 2013
TOW
The initial verbal estimate provided to me in 2012 by PG&E to underground the electric
was approximately $20,000. 1 have asked our PG&E project manager, Chris Giese, to determine
the cost to produce a formal estimate. Generally, PG&E requires a $1,000 engineering deposit
to do such estimating since It will require many hours of work to calculate and write a formal
proposal (this deposit can be applied toward the future contract work), which can also take
time. From the time they began work in February on estimating our gas reconnection contract,,
it took 3-4 weeks to receive a formal written proposal, and two months to get the actual work
done.
if you grant us an exception based on Section 12A-3 of the Code in advance of our
getting a formal proposal from PG&E, you would save us $1,000 in engineering fees, plus the
significant added project costs of time delays (and rent), which at this stage is critical for us.
Thank you,
Kristina Wollan & Jonathan Lacey
415.533.9859
Attachments: Waiver Application
Page 15 of 15
Map of 12 Apollo with pole location noted across street at 9 Apollo
(Approved Site Plan Sheet A1.1 does not show the areas across the
Town of Tiburon Building Division
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
415-435-7380 (Tel) 415-435-7395 (Fax)
www. ci. tiburon. ca. us
REQUIRED INFORMATION:
SITE ADDRESS
APPLICATION FOR UNDERGROUND WAIVER
PROPERTY USE
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER(S)
PROPERTY OWNER
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP
PHONE NUMBER
APPLICANT (lf other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP
PHONE NUMBER
ESTIMATED COST OF REMODEL PROJECT
FAX
FAX
E-MAIL
E-MAIL
FORMAL COST ESTIMATE TO PROVIDE NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICE (Attach Bid)
FORMAL COST ESTIMATE TO PROVIDE NEW SERVICE WITH OVERHEAD LATERAL (Attach Bid)
i;
ATTACH SCALED SITE PLAN OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWING THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND
THE LOCATION OF THE NEAREST AVAILABLE POWER POLE ACCEPTABLE FOR UNDERGROUNDING PER
THE UTILITY
I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make
application for approval of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Ordinances,
and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature:
(If other than owner, must have a signed authorization letter from owner)
Date:
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION (F
Application No.:
Date Received: Received By:
(Action:
Conditions of Approval or Comments:
Date:
OR TOWN USE ONLY)
Filing Fee $50.00
Receipt #
By.
Application for Underground Waiver 10/2010 Page 1 of 2
:TOWN OF TIBURON BUILDING DIVISION
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
415-435-7380 (Tel) 415-435-7395 (Fax)
www.ci.tiburon.ca.us
UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES REQUIREMENT ON REMODEL PROJECTS:
HARDSHIP EXCEPTION (WAIVER)
If you are undertaking a remodel project on your residence or commercial building, you may be
required to "underground" all cables and wires leading from your main electrical service panel to a
utility pole specified by the utility company unless you qualify for a "hardship exception." The Town's
requirement for undergrounding of utilities on remodel projects is as follows:
REQUIREMENT PER MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE III, CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12A-1(b):
"Service to new or remodeled buildings. All electric and communication service laterals,
including cable television service, to any new residential or commercial building or to any
structure being remodeled when such remodeling requires the relocation or replacement of the
property owner's main electrical service equipment, shall be placed underground from the
main service facility within such building or structure to a location designated by the utility."
However, Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code enables the Town to grant a "hardship
exception," also called a "waiver" of the undergrounding requirement. The Town Council has
adopted the criteria under which a hardship exception may be granted by the Town of Tiburon
Building Official, as set forth in the policy below.
TOWN POLICY:
Pursuant to Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, a hardship exception to the requirement
for undergrounding set forth in Section 12A-1(b) may be granted by the Building Official if gny of the
following conditions exist:
1. The cost of undergrounding would exceed 10% of the cost of the remodel project.
2. The location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a
street, and trenching across a street would be required to perform the
undergrounding.
3. The location specified by the supplying agency is more than 150 linear feet from the
affected property at its closest point.
As a condition of granting any exception, the Building Official will require all new or relocated main
electrical service panels to be installed with an underground conduit fitting and sweep. This will make
future underground cheaper and easier. Other reasonable conditions may be imposed.
S:IPlanninglFormslCurrent Formslunderground waiver 10-2010.doc
Application for Underground Waiver 10/2010 Page 2 of 2
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
April 16, 2013
Mr. Fred Lustenberger, C.B.O.
Building Official
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: Undergrounding of Utilities Waiver Application for 12 Apollo Rd.
Dear Fred:
In the interest of working toward an expeditious resolution of the incomplete
paperwork of which I was recently notified, I am attaching our Underground Waiver Application,
despite it still being incomplete.
As I mentioned briefly to you on Monday, April 151h, I would like to reiterate that I did
discuss the undergrounding requirement with your assistant, Tarun Sanghvi, last summer as we
were preparing to get our permit. I mentioned to him that my neighbor, Derek Burke (among
others in the neighborhood), was not required to underground and I wished to learn more
about our options. This was of great concern to me since the initial verbal estimate provided to
me by PG&E was $20,000. Tarun showed me a document detailing the Hardship Exceptions
rules, noting that if the power pole was across the street, we would qualify for an exception.
After our discussion, I then believed that undergrounding was a non-issue for us since the power
pole is across the street (at 9 Apollo Road, approximately 80 feet from our new meter location).
I was not aware at that time that I had to fill out a formal Waiver Application.
I am now quite distraught about the timing and manner in which this issue has suddenly
arisen - 7 months into our project. We were permitted to proceed with our work with a
complete set of building documents, which include no mention of the underground conduit
fitting and sweep, or required waiver application. I have spent many hours working to get our
temporary electric set up, gas shut off, and gas service reconnected (which will require street
trenching that is slated to occur this Thursday 4/18). The added expense of the gas lateral
trenching (which was not part of PG&E's original plan) was not included in our original budget.
If I had thought we might be required to underground all of the utilities, elements of our
approved plans would have been altered to accommodate such added expense.
I have asked our PG&E project manager, Chris Giese, to determine the cost to produce a
formal estimate to underground the electric. Generally, they require a $1,000 engineering
deposit to do such estimating since it will require many hours of work to calculate and write a
formal proposal (the deposit can be applied toward the proposed contract work). From the
time they began work in February on estimating our gas reconnection contract, it took 3-4
weeks to receive a formal written proposal, and two months to get the actual work done.
Page 14 of 15
12 Apollo Road: Appeal of Hardship Waiver
Application Denial For Undergrounding Utilities
April 25, 2013
As we are nearing the finish line of our project, and because this waiver application was
brought to our attention only last week, I am hopeful that you will grant an exception based on
the specific condition present, pursuant to Section 12A-3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code:
2. The location specified by the supplying agency is located on the opposite side of a
street and trenching across a street would be required to perform the undergrounding.
This would save us $1,000 in estimating costs alone, and many, many weeks of time (and rent),
which at this stage is critical for us. In the meantime, we will adjust the main panel to
accommodate the underground conduit (any drawings and/or specification for this conduit and
sweep would be helpful; it will need to make two 90-degree bends to exit the garage wall before
entering the ground).
Thank you,
Kristina Wollan & Jonathan Lacey
415.533.9859
Attachments: Waiver Application
Page 15 of 15
Map of 12 Apollo with pole location noted
(Approved Site Plan Sheet A1.1 does not show the areas across the
OP E/VS/I X T4 , (I-4 ?RGES)
TOWN OF TIBURON Action and Approved Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard June 7, 2012
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES 98
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7:00 PM
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
OLD 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 a 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.
Approved 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. Approved 3-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
3. 12 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 21210; Kristina Wollam and Jonathon Lacey, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants
propose to demolish more than 50% of an existing house and construct a new 2,302
square foot dwelling. The project would extend to within 16 feet, 7 inches of the rear
property line, which is less than the 19 foot rear yard setback for this lot. The project
would have a lot coverage of 36.9% in lieu of the maximum 30.0% lot coverage
permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-06. Approved 3-0
Action and Approved Minutes #8 6/7/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1
Chair Kricensky said that the blanket zoning of the area caused the houses to become non-conforming. He
said that the houses on either side have improvements with very large decks. He said that the 5 foot deck
would be like a balcony and would not involve loud parties, and the screen would completely eliminate
the view of the bedroom next door. He said that he could support the project because of all of the changes
they had made and he thought that they should have the ability to improve their property.
Planning Manager Watrous stated that the Board had adequately discussed the finding that the change in
privacy would not be injurious to the surrounding properties. He said that he would like to hear more
discussion on the finding for practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that the "cookie cutter" R-2 zoning works when one is in a landlocked
situation but does not work in this neighborhood because everything is nonconforming. She said that the
proposal was modest because of the size of the house. She said that every house around it has decks and
she thought that it would be a hardship not to be able to enjoy a deck on the water when all of the
neighbors enjoy such decks. She said that the only direction to expand on the site was seaward. She said
that the project would not be injurious to the other properties but would instead enhance their privacy, and
stated that residents in this neighborhood live in a very open environment that would not be made worse
by this prof ect.
Chair Kricensky said that there are many houses that have been improved and expanded. He stated that
this house is smaller than the neighboring houses and the request is small. He said that the hardship was
that they would not be able to expand their house when others in the neighborhood have done so.
Boardmember Johnson said that the hardship and practical difficulty was that the zoning does not fit the
site. He stated that in other communities such as Newport Beach you are allowed to build 50-60% lot
coverage because a large portion of the property is over water.
ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Emberson) that the request for 2308 Mar East Street is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, with the additional condition of approval that the louvered design of the privacy screens will be
reviewed and approved by Planning staff. Vote: 3-0.
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
3. 12 APOLLO ROAD: File No. 21210; Kristina Wollam and Jonathon Lacey, Owners; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances for
reduced rear yard setback and excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish more than
50% of an existing house and construct a new 2,302 square foot dwelling. The project would
extend to within 16 feet, 7 inches of the rear property line, which is less than the 19 foot rear yard
setback for this lot. The project would have a lot coverage of 36.9% in lieu of the maximum
30.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-06.
The applicant is requesting to construct a new single-family dwelling with variances for reduced rear yard
setback and excess lot coverage, on property located at 12 Apollo Road. Currently the property is
improved with a single-story dwelling. As more than 50% of the existing perimeter walls of the dwelling
will be demolished, the application has therefore been deemed a new single family dwelling.
The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 2,302 square feet, which is below the maximum
permitted gross floor area for the property (2,567 sq. ft.). The proposal would result in lot coverage of
2,708 square feet (36.9%) which exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-1 zone (30.0%).
The applicant has therefore requested a variance for excess lot coverage.
In addition, the minimum required rear yard setback for the property is nineteen feet (19'). The proposal
to add an expanded master suite at the rear of the home would encroach into the rear yard setback a
distance of two feet, six inches (2'6") for a reduced rear yard setback of sixteen feet, six inches (16'6").
Therefore a variance has been requested for reduced rear yard setback.
Action and Approved Minutes #8 6/7/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 8
z
Kristina Wollam, owner, thanked the Board for considering their plans. She said that they were trying to
keep the single-story house in keeping with the neighborhood And this has resulted in a smaller backyard
than they desire. She said that they feel incredibly lucky to be surrounded on every side by friendly
families with children the same ages as hers.
There were no public comments.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that the Board often hears proposals from the Belveron community and to
preserve the single-story nature of the neighborhood has often approved building into the setbacks. She
said that this proposal would do exactly that, and the house was tastefully done. She said that the garage
would be fairly close to the street but the main living area would be set back and she therefore did not
have a problem with it. She thought that it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and she could
make the variance findings.
Boardmember Johnson agreed with Vice-Chair Emberson and said that he also noticed the closeness of
the garage to the street. He said that he drove around the neighborhood and saw other examples of the
garage close to the street. He commended the applicant for designing a single-story home with
architecture in keeping with the neighborhood.
Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers and agreed with keeping the house to one story. He
said that the 15 foot setback can be a problem when a truck is blocking the sidewalk, but that would
require changing the setback for everything, and he said that most of the people in that neighborhood who
are expanding are using the 15 foot setback.
ACTION: It was M/S (Johnson/Emberson) that the request for 12 Apollo Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 3-0.
4. 40 DELAMR DRIVE: File No. 712029; Ashley Anderson and Jennifer Wang, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single family dwelling.
The applicants propose to construct a second story addition and attached to an existing single-
story house. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,412 square feet,
resulting in a total floor area of 4,399 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet of garage
space. Assessor's Parcel No. 055-211-29.
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one-
story single-family dwelling on property located at 40 Delmar Drive. The project would add a second
story to the house, containing a master bedroom suite, family room and one more bedroom and bathroom.
A new mudroom would be added to the first floor. An existing attached carport would be removed and a
new two-car garage would be added to a different section of the house. Nine new skylights would be
installed.
The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,412 square feet, resulting in a total floor
area of 4,399 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet of garage space, which equals the floor area
ratio for this site. The addition would increase the lot coverage on the site by 157 square feet to 3,762
square feet (15.7%), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone.
Ashley Anderson, owner, said that the house is close to meeting their needs but did not meet everything.
He said there is a lack of formal garage with tight access and small bedrooms. He said that they need to
fix the garage issue by adding a formal garage, and would also like an office and family room space with
more privacy. He said that he and his wife both work from home and need the office space. He hoped that
the materials they have chosen will be pleasing and blend into the hillside. He noted that they are not
asking for any variances or exceptions. He said that they know that the neighbors are sensitive to the
issues created by the second story, which he said would not affect their homes. He said that they also
received objections from homes that are not in the area. He said that they worked with their architect to
Action and Approved Minutes #8 6/7/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 9
3
TOWN OF TIBURON Action and Approved Minutes - Regular Meeting
Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard February 16, 2012
Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M.
ACTION MINUTES #3
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7.00 PM
Present: Chairman Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmembers Chong, Johnson
and Tollini
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting
OLD BUSINESS
2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling,
with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area
Exception. The applicants propose to construct several additions and expand existing
decks to the side and rear of the existing building. The additions and decks would extend
to within 6 inches and 4 feet, respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the
minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2 zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of
the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum 35.0% lot coverage permitted in the
R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of 2,900 square feet, which would
exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No.
034-271-03. Withdrawn
2. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Pari and Lopa Choksi, Owner; Site Plan
and Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling,
with a Floor Area Exception. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50% of an
existing two-story dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The new dwelling would result
in a total floor area of 4,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 4,548
square feet for a lot of this size. Assessor's Parcel No. 058-282-04. Approved 4-1 (Chong
opposed)
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS
3. 4 OLD LANDING ROAD: File No. 711134; Laureen Seeger and David Cohen, Owners;
Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-
family dwelling. The applicants propose to expand the existing family room, living room,
and master bedroom, and make minor landscape improvements, including a new cedar
trellis over the existing patio area and a new outdoor kitchen adjacent to the dwelling. The
225 square foot addition would increase the total floor area of the house to 3,998 square
feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 038-162-55. Approved 4-0-1 (Kricensky recused)
Action and Approved Minutes #3 2/16/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 1
9
4. 48 MERCURY AVENUE: File No. 21119; Derek Burke and Stephanie Alberti,
Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family
dwelling, with a Variance for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish
more than 50% of the existing dwelling and add to the front and rear of the house and
alter the existing roofline. The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by
1,036 square feet to a total of 2,065 square feet. The project would cover a total of 2,469
square feet (31.5%) of the site, which would be greater than the 30.0% maximum lot
coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-262-11. Approved 5-0
MINUTES
5. Regular Meeting of February 2, 2012 Approved (5-0)
ADJOURNMENT At 9:10 PM
MINUTES #3
TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2012
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice-Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Johnson and Tollini
Absent: None
Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Tyler and Minutes Clerk Rusting
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
C. STAFF BRIEFING
Planning Manager Watrous announced the item for 2308 Mar East Street had been officially withdrawn
but may be re-filed at a later date. He also announced two appeals were received on the CVS sign permit
application and they had been scheduled for the March 7, 2012 Town Council meeting. He requested a
member of the Design Review Board to attend that meeting, and Vice-Chair Emberson volunteered.
D. OLD BUSINESS
2308 MAR EAST STREET: File No. 21116; Peter Wilton, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural
Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for
reduced side yard setbacks and excess lot coverage, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicants
propose to construct several additions and expand existing decks to the side and rear of the
existing building. The additions and decks would extend to within 6 inches and 4 feet,
respectively, of the side property lines, in lieu of the minimum 8 foot setback required in the R-2
zone. The additions would cover 71.1 % of the dry land area of the lot, in lieu of the maximum
35.0% lot coverage permitted in the R-2 zone. The project would result in a total floor area of
2,900 square feet, which would exceed the floor area ratio of 706 square feet for a lot of this size.
Assessor's Parcel No. 034-271-03. WITHDRAWN
2. 91 SUGAR LOAF DRIVE: File No. 711085; Pari and Lopa Choksi, Owner; Site Plan and
Architectural Review for construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling, with a Floor
Action and Approved Minutes #3 2/16/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 2
s
Boardmember Tollini said that this application would preserve the neighborhood charm. He said that the
older, more modest proportions of the homes of Old Landing Road is what give them character and
charm. He said that the look and feel is dependent upon more modest proportions. He also stated that
there is a principle that there is a limit and one must live within those constraints. He looked at the
Planning Commission's condition of approval and said that it was abundantly clear to him that the project
would be compatible with the site and the neighborhood. He said that most of the lines of text in the
condition are about the exception and not about extenuating circumstances. He said that it was hard to
picture what the extenuating circumstances would be, as the only aspect of the project that would impact
the neighborhood at all was the enclosure of the porch. He thought that this was immaterial and he could
not say that the applicant had not demonstrated compatibility with the neighborhood. He stated that if this
had been requested with the application in 2008 he would have passed it then and thought that the intent
was that 4,000 square feet is acceptable as long as it did not significantly impact the neighborhood.
Boardmember Johnson said that he originally struggled with this project but after looking at previous
reports and reading the text in the staff report, he believed that a house up to 4,000 square feet can be
approved. When he visited the area the houses near the applicant's property filled more of the upper area
of Old Landing than the area down below. He said that the proposed additions would not have any impact
on the neighbors. He agreed with Boardmember Chong's comments about the wraparound porch and said
that the project seemed to be following the guidelines that have been put forward.
Boardmember Tollini thought that the house did a terrific job of looking a lot smaller than it really is and
is extremely well-designed. He said that the house would look very much in keeping with the
neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Emberson read from the report that 3,500 square feet is the maximum floor area unless it is an
"exceptional" design. Boardmember Tollini said that this design is exceptional because it would look so
much smaller from the street than it really is.
Planning Manager Watrous commented that "exceptional" design is an interpretation of the language in
the Planning Commission condition of approval. Vice-Chair Emberson pointed out that the house cannot
be seen from the street, they are allowed to go up to 4,000 square feet, no variance is being requested, and
no neighbors would be impacted.
Boardmember Tollini said that the 4,000 square foot design in 2003 was turned down and then passed at
3,500 square feet, and in reading the minutes, it showed that they were also discussing the impact on
neighbors and the size and mass of the house. He said that when the Board approved it later, there was
something about the second home design that made it unanimously more appealing, and he did not think
that was just because the square footage changed. He thought that the 2003 Board reached the right
conclusion at the time and that the original submission in 2003 was fundamentally less appealing than the
project currently before them.
ACTION: It was M/S (Chong/Tollini) that the request for 4 Old Landing Road is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval. Vote: 4-0-1 (Kricensky recused).
Chair Kricensky returned to the meeting.
4. 48 MERCURY AVENUE: File No. 21119; Derek Burke and Stephanie Alberti, Owners; Site
Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-f*pily.dwelling, with a Variance
for excess lot coverage. The applicants propose to demolish more than 50%0 of the existing
dwelling and add to the front and rear of the house and alter the existing roofline. The floor area
of the proposed house would be increased by 1,036 square feet to a total of 2,065 square feet. The
project would cover a total of 2,469 square feet (31.5%) of the site, which would be greater than
the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-262-11.
Action and Approved Minutes #3 2/16/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 8
L
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing one-
story single-family dwelling on property located at 48 Mercury Avenue. As the project will result in the
demolition of more than 50% of the floor area of the existing building, the application is being processed
as construction of a new single-family dwelling.
The floor area of the proposed house would be increased by 1,036 square feet to a total of 2,065 square
feet, which is less than the 2,783 square foot floor area ratio for this site. The house would cover a total of
2,469 square feet (31.5%) of the site, which would be greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage
permitted in the R-1 zone. A variance is therefore requested for excess lot coverage.
David Holscher, architect, said this is the typical story of a growing family in a small 1,000 square foot
home needing more space. He said that they wanted a modern open floor plan and wanted to enclose the
yard with a fence for their small children.
There were no public comments.
Vice-Chair Emberson said that when she originally saw the project; she was not sure how it would
possibly fit in with the Belveron neighborhood. However, when she drove up the street, she was surprised
by the eclectic nature of houses and this no longer bothered her. She asked about the location of the fence.
Mr. Holscher said that it would be behind an existing hedge, and she said that she had no concern.
Boardmember Chong said that he visited the site and liked the design. He said that if every house in the
neighborhood had a fence it might ruin the feel of the neighborhood, but with the existing hedge there is
already a divider.
Boardmember Johnson thought that the architecture fit with the neighborhood. He asked about the
exposed portion of the fence and wondered if it could be reduced to 4 feet in that area. Mr. Holscher
agreed that the part of the fence not behind the hedge could come down to 4 feet, and Boardmember
Johnson felt that this was a good solution.
Boardmember Tollini agreed with staff s findings on the variance. He said that very tall and solid fences
like this are antithetical to the feel of the neighborhood. While he appreciated that the applicants have
children, the majority of the yard is in the back and even with the hedge, he had a hard time approving a 6
foot fence in Belveron.
Vice-Chair Emberson asked how he would feel about a 4 foot fence, and Boardmember Tollini said that
he would feel better about it but would not like to see this as a trend in Belveron.
Chair Kricensky said that he liked the house and agreed with staff s findings. He said that he did not like
the fence and believed that it would affect the charm of Belveron. He said that fencing in the front yard
would not serve a purpose when there is a nice backyard. He said that there are some fences that are lower
in the neighborhood, but if the fence gets too high the neighborhood feeling is lost.
Vice-Chair Emberson changed her original position on the fence and agreed that it would significantly
affect the charm of the neighborhood.
Boardmember Johnson asked if the general consensus was to have no fence or a 4 foot fence. Vice-Chair
Emberson said that she was convinced that no fence was necessary. Boardmember Johnson suggested a
42 inch high fence. Planning Manager Watrous said the gate can be taller, but the fence itself would be
reduced to 42 inches in the front yard.
ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Johnson) that the request for 48 Mercury Avenue is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request, subject to the attached conditions of
approval, and the additional condition of approval that the front yard fence be reduced in height to 42
inches. Vote: 5-0.
Action and Approved Minutes 93 2/16/12 Design Review Board Meeting Page 9
ACTION MINUTES #21
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2005
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
A.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chair O'Donnell, Boardmembers Beales, Bird, Doyle
and Teiser
Absent - None
Ex-Officio - Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner
Krasnove and
Minutes Clerk Flanagan
B.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA)
C.
8
120 Juno Road Gallagher
Additions/Variance APPROVED
6.
1505 Tiburon Blvd. Town of Tiburon./Cingular Wireless
Facility/Equipment Enc. APPROVED
F.
MINUTES OF THE 11/17/05 D.R.B. MEETING -
APPROVED AS AMENDED
G.
ADJOURNMENT - 8:40 P.M.
MINUTES #21
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 2005
The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair O'Donnell
A.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair O'Donnell, Boardmembers Beales, Bird, Doyle and Teiser
Absent:
None
report.
5.
20 JUNO ROAD ALLAGHER, ADDITIONSNARIANCE
On March 3, 2005, the Design Review Board approved an
application for the construction of a new single-
family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks and
excess fence height. The subject project
has not changed from the previous approval; however, the
applicant discovered the need for an additional
variance for reduced front yard setback following the results of a
property survey. The previous plans had
been incorrectly drawn showing the front property line flush with
the roadway. The survey showed the
property line is in fact eight feet back from the roadway. Since
setbacks are measured from the property line
and not from the roadway, the previously-approved garage
location now requires the approval of an additional
variance.
Matt Richter, architect, discussed the project, and noted that many
houses in the neighborhood do not have
driveways long enough for approved parking. He said that the
garage would be 16.5 feet from the curb. He
16
ACTION MINUTES #16
TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2003
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
A.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Vice-Chair Teiser Boardmembers Beales, Figour and
Kunzweiler
Absent - None
Ex-Officio - Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner
Lynch and
Minutes Clerk Flanagan
B.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA)
C.
STAFF BRIEFING
D.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1.
761 Hilary Drive
St. Hilary Church Resolution of Denial ADOPTED
E.
NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
2.
31 Juno Road
Morgan
New Dwelling/Variances
3.
2299 Spanish Trail Forell
ONTINUED TO 10/2/03
Addition/Variance APPROVED
4.
21 Apollo Road
Spindler
Addition/Variance APPROVED
iz
potentially severe impacts of water runoff, drainage and erosion to
the adjacent property
at 750 Hilary Drive if there were a storm, as the fill appears to be
unstable. He stated that
he would have been happy to hear the presentation of the
applicant, but the applicant
chose to leave the meeting without making a presentation when it
became apparent that a
continuance might not be granted. Vice-Chair Teiser stated that at
that point of the
previous meeting, the Board had no choice but to make a decision
on the application.
MIS, Beales/Kunzweiler (passed 3-1, Figour dissented) to
adopt the resolution as
written.
E.
NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
2.31 JUNO ROAD MORGAN, NEW
DWELLINGNARIANCES
The application is requesting Design Review approval for the
construction of additions to
1-6
an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 31 Juno
Road. Several
additions to this house had been approved under a previous Site
Plan and Architectural
Review application. The additions proposed under the subject
application, combined
with those previously approved for this site, would result in the
demolition of more than
fifty percent of the existing house. Therefore, this application is
being reviewed for the
construction of a new dwelling.
The proposed additions would add 228 square feet of floor area to
the existing house and
garage, resulting in a total floor area for the house of 1,759 square
feet, with a 450-
square-foot garage; this is less than the floor area ratio for a lot of
this size. The proposed
additions would increase the lot coverage of this property by 228
square feet to a total of
2,396 square feet (28.1 which is less than the 30.0% maximum
lot coverage permitted
in the R-1 zone. The additions would encroach into both required
side yard setbacks,
111-11~11~1` '~`'rr 4.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA
TOWN OF TIBURON
DATE: 2/1/07
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD
MEETING TIME 7:00 P.M.
TIBURON, CA 94920
AGENDA NO.: #2
PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to
be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all
points of view, members of the audience should:
(1) Always address the Chair; (2) State name for the record; (3) State
views/concerns succinctly; (4) Limit presentation
to three minutes; (S) Speak directly into microphone and (6) All documents
submitted at the meeting must first be
submitted at the Staff table, to be entered into the record and retained by
the Town.
i
If an item is continued, it is the responsibility of interested parties to note
the new meeting date. Notices will not be sent
out for items continued to a specific date.
A.
ROLL CALL:
Chair Doyle, Boardmembers Beales, Frymier and Teiser
I
B.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA)
C.
STAFF BRIEFING
D.
OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
1.
1896 Mountain View Beaudan/Kawawa New Dwelling/Variance
E.
NEW BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
2.
14 Sutter Court
Singh/Dab Additions/Appeal
3.
463 9 Paradise Drive Rhodes
Additions
4.
116 Hacienda Drive Maier
AdditionsNariance/Floor Area Exception
5.
34 Mercury Avenue Parch
New Dwelling
APPROVAL OF MINUTES #1 OF THE 1/18/07 DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD MEETING
G.
ADJOURNMENT
"PLEASE NOTE THAT AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE
TAKEN OUT OF ORDER*
re S+ of ~Ge.
L) 6-2.4
coc -n>zo
m ~ m
-08
C
m
a... w
--4
X
mom--
-0 rf
-G) 0
M Cl7
X
C)
~
:r 0
m 3: 0 --1
~
z "V C/)
0
x
I T
CJ
t
C7
lv>"T1
`m
:EL
0
m
K) 0
--A m
O
C
m
`
0m
X00
{ 0 F-T cr(3z,),
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
175 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No.
2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council
Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing,
scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals.
APPEAL PROCEDURE
1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review
authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the
Town Council. Any person 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
E17XHIBIT No.
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 (fl 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
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.
(fl 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