Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2013-11-15TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST Week of November 11 -15, 2013 Tiburon 1. Letter — Jon Rankin — Charging Stations for EV — Further Suggestions 2. Yearly Recap — Design Review Submittals — October 2013 3. Monthly Report — Design Review — October 2013 Agendas & Minutes 4. Minutes —Design Review Board —October 17, 2013 5. Action Minutes — Design Review Board — November 7, 2013 6. Agenda — Belvedere /Tiburon Library Agency — November 18, 2013 Regional a) Notice of Public Meeting — Draft Tiered Program EIR — Road and Trail Management Plan b) Notice PG &E Gas Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan Update (A13 -10 -017) Agendas & Minutes C) * Council Only Jon P. Nankin Attorney -At -Law November 08, 2013 Tiburon Town Counsel Attention: Jim Fraser Frank Doyle 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, Ca 94920 Re: Charging Stations Dear Mr. Fraser and Mr. Doyle, DIGEST � RECEBVVE � NOV 12 2013 TOFT�I URQNi� It is my understanding that my letter to the Town Manager on the subject of EV charging stations has been passed along to all council members. Please include the installation of these devices as an integral part of the downtown parking plan which is presently in development As previously noted there should be EV charging stations located in Balckie's Pasture the installation of which need not wait for the finalization of the above referenced plan. Yours truly, JON P. NKIN 80 Main Street, Suite Q - Tiburon, CA 94920 0 415/435 -5822 " cli LO LLJ LO N Ul CD Lo 0 N U) LLI D C14 IL LU co 2 LCI Ljl�F-- [iZ 2E I U5 -1 . 1. —k:—j " TOWN OF TIBURON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DESIGN RE171EW MONTHLY REPORT OCTOBER 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: ■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES r ■ MAJOR ADDITIONS /ALTERATIONS ■ MINOR ADDITIONS /ALTERATIONS • (not eligible f07- Staff Reviem) • SIGN PERMITS ■ TREE PERMITS e ■ VARIANCE REQUESTS ■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS ■ EXTENSION OF TIME DIGEST jo NUMBER SUBMITTED 2012 2 1 2 0 2 3 1 1 7 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS: Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500 square feet. 5 13 APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOV4'N COUNCIL 1 0 Suzanna and Nikita Bell appeal from Design Review Board denial of a request to construct a new single- family dwelling at 26 Apollo Road REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Caslunan, Planning Secretary DATE OF REPORT: November 11, 2013 y D,�G l3 T MINUTES #17 TIBURON DESIGN REVEW BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2013 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Chong. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Emberson and Kricensky Absent: Boardmember Tollini Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Goldstein B. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous amiounced that the Town Council denied the appeal for 2308 Mar East by a vote of 3 -2. He noted that the denial of 26 Apollo Road had been appealed and was scheduled for the November 20, 2013 Town Council meeting. He stated that a Design Review Boardmember should plan on being in attendance to answer any questions. The Boardmembers discussed who would best represent both sides of that issue and Boardmember Kricensky agreed to attend the Council meeting. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS 1. 200 DIVISO STREET: File No. 21322; Todd Werby and Nonie Greene, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback and a Floor Area Exception. The project would expand an existing detached carport, add a new driveway and make minor exterior alterations to the existing house. The project would increase the floor area of the carport to 611 square feet ad increase the lot coverage to 3,646 square feet (28.6 %) of the site. The expanded carport would extend to within 2 feet of the north side yard property line, which is less than the 8 -foot minimum side yard setback in the R -1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059 - 132 -10. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling with variance for reduced side yard setback and a floor area exception, on property located at 200 Diviso Street. There would be minor modifications to the exterior of the single family dwelling, including a new raised canopy over existing steps in the rear of the house, new at -grade steps and landscaping planters near the front entry of the home. The proposal would expand the existing carport to the side by 226 square feet for an additional covered parking space. The existing car court in front of the carport would be replaced with at- TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10/17/13 grade precast pavers on gravel and concrete and would connect to a new driveway entry made of the same materials as the car court. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 3,646 square feet (28.6 %), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -1 zone (30.0 %). The proposed carport would be a total of 611 square feet, which would be over the maximum allowed of 600 square feet for garage /carports. Therefore, the extra eleven square feet would result in a gross floor area of 4,046 square feet, which is above the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (3,274 square feet). The applicant requested a floor area exception. The carport currently is 2 feet, 10 inches (2'10") from the side property line. The proposal would encroach an additional 10 inches into the side yard, for a reduced side yard setback of 2 feet. As the minimum side yard setback in R -1 zone is 8 feet, the applicant has request a variance for reduced side yard setback. Michael Heckmamz, architect, explained that there have been periodic upgrades on this property over the years that have never addressed the initial impression from the street. He said that their primary objective was to create a more appealing entrance with additional protection for cars in the form of a carport. He stated that the variance was due to the carport which was very low in scale and the neighbor had approved of the project. There were no public comments. Boardmember Kricensky thought that the project was a modest upgrade and made sense. He agreed with the staff report on the reasons for allowing the variance. Vice Chair Cousins agreed and thought that the project made perfect sense. Boardmember Emberson also agreed with the staff findings for the variance and approved of the project. Chair Chong noted that he had stopped by the property and thought that the project would have minimal impact and also agreed with the findings in the staff report. ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Kricensky) that the request for 200 Diviso Street is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4 -0. 2. 131 LAS LOMAS LANE: File No. 21324; Mary and David Lundgren, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with Variances for reduced side yard setbacks. The project would enlarge two bedrooms a kitchen and living room on the main level and add a half bathroom, office and nook to the lower level of the house. The project would increase the floor area by 719 square feet to a total of 1,586 square feet of living space. The lot coverage would increase to 1,325 square feet (19.8 %) of the site. The additions would extend to within 2 feet of the south side property line and within 6 feet of the north side property line, which would be less TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 2 10/17/13 than the 8 -foot minimum side yard setback in the R -2 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 121 -06. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling with variances for reduced side yard setbacks, on property located at 131 Las Lomas Lane. As part of the interior remodel to the home, the proposal would add 719 square feet to the home. This addition would add a half bath, office, and nook to the lower level and enlarge the two bedrooms, kitchen, and living room. A new skylight would be added above the kitchen on the roof. The existing front entry /sunroom would be converted into a covered porch on the main level and a covered patio on the lower level. In addition, minor improvements throughout the property would be added, including a new 6 -foot wooden fence on the sides of the property and a 6 -foot deer fence along the rear of the property. A new entry canopy connecting the house to the new at -grade patio would be added in the rear of the house. The proposal would result in a gross floor area of 1,586 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted gross floor area ratio for the property (2,339 square feet). The proposal would result in lot coverage of 1,325 square feet (19.8 %), which is below the maximum permitted lot coverage in the R -2 zone (35.0 %). The project would involve additions within 6 feet of the north side property line and within 2 feet of the south side property line. As an 8 -foot side yard setback is required in the R -2 zone, Variances are requested by the applicant for reduced side yard setbacks. Michael Sands, architect, explained that the project would involve modest additions to the existing home, both in the front and rear. He said that by extending the house in the front and rear, they were not requiring variances beyond what was currently in existence. He said that the addition would match the existing materials and colors, and the exterior lighting would be shielded downlights. The public hearing was opened. Bill Lukens commended the architect on the design and felt that it would conform to the character of the neighborhood. He appreciated the downlighting but was concerned about off - street parking. He said that off - street parking for two cars was required for many homes in the neighborhood and this home had only one space. He said that he would like to see adequate off- street parking for this property. Mr. Sands said that he was surprised by the comment regarding the parking issue, as it had not been brought up before. He said that there did not seem to be anything in the Zoning Ordinance that would require an additional parking space in this case but he could understand the necessity on other projects in the neighborhood. He said that if he was required to provide more off - street parking, it would increase the budget considerably and he hoped that would not be the case. Vice Chair Cousins asked about the driveway of the property to the west and if it cut across the owner's property. Mr. Sands confirmed that the uphill neighbor utilized the driveway and said TIBURON D.R.S. MINUTES #17 10/17/13 that the only opportunity to create additional parking on this site would be to dig into the hillside at a considerable expense. Chair Chong asked the Planning Manager about the history of off - street parking requirements. Planning Manager Watrous confirmed Mr. Sands' analysis that the zoning ordinance did not require bringing parking into compliance for home additions. He stated that other applicants may have chosen to add parking in the past but more parking is not required at this time. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Emberson said that she did not get a chance to visit the property but in looking at the plans, found it easy to make the findings for the variance. She said that it would be an unnecessary hardship to require a second parking space as the lot was very steep and they could not easily put in another retaining wall. Vice Chair Cousins visited the property and questioned the design proposal for a large window looking out at a very narrow gap. Mr. Sands explained that the owner wished to reuse an existing window rather than discard it. Vice Chair Cousins thought that the design was nice and would improve the space. Boardmember Kricensky agreed and said that it was a very narrow lot. He said that it was understandably difficult to provide parking for more cars without cutting into the hill. He also agreed with the staff report and findings. Chair Chong said that he visited the site and he thought that the addition was reasonable. He noted the clarification from the Planning Manager regarding the parking issue and said that even though more parking would be nice, he could not see how it would work. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Kricensky) that the request for 131 Las Lomas Lane is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and approving the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 4 -0. Boardmember Cousins recused himself from the following application. 3. 88 ROLLING HILLS ROAD: File No. 21318; James To, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling, with a Variance for excess building height. The house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, four bedrooms, four bathrooms, an office, a laundry room and a two -car garage. The house would have 4,922 square feet of floor area and cover 3,193 square feet (1.3 %) of the site. A portion of the house would have a maximum height of 39 feet, which would exceed the maximum height limit of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 058 - 121 -32. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new three -story single - family dwelling on property located at 88 Rolling Hills Road. The main level of the house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, one bedroom, one bathroom and an office. The lower level would include a master bedroom suite, two additional bedrooms, one more TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 4 10/17/13 bathroom, and a laundry room. A two -car garage would be situated at an upper level above the main level of the house. Two skylights would be installed above the garage and entry. An elevator would connect all three floors of the house. The floor area of the proposed house would be 4,922 square feet, with 618 square feet of garage space, which would be less than the 8,000 square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The house would cover a total of 3,193 square feet (1.3 %) of the site. A portion of the proposed house would have a maximum height from grade of 39 feet. As the maximum building height is 30 feet, a variance is requested for excess building height. Zac Rockett, project designer, said that the property was roughly a 6 -acre, undeveloped lot with a building envelope that had prior approvals for a single- family home. He said that even though the lot was large, the client had chosen to build a more modest, 4,922 square foot home, which constituted 1.3% lot coverage. He said that they met with the upslope neighbors who have not voiced concerns. He stated that the primary objectives of the home design were to utilize primary views and connect the home to the landscape. He said that they chose the flattest spot on the site to locate the house and would utilize dark, natural tones to blend the building into the hillside and not stand out from far away. Mr. Rockett explained the necessity for a height variance due to the steepness of the property and restriction on the driveway slope but said that the view from street would be of a one -story structure with a two -car garage. Mr. Rockett discussed the landscape plan and said that they would need to remove eight trees but were able to preserve many others. He said that they retained an arborist and they met with the landscape architect about preserving multiple trees. He said that the original landscape plan was more robust but due to strict guidelines from the Fire District, they were required to minimize plantings for fire safety. Mr. Rockett addressed concerns that were received regarding the home's height by stating that the story poles did not appear visible from upslope. He believed that one story of the home would be visible from upslope and said that the closest neighbors did not express any dissatisfaction with the plans. The public hearing was opened. Miles Berger spoke on behalf of Allan and Jeff Rappaport, stating that his clients were happy with the architecture and design but were concerned with the removal of the eight oak trees. He requested that the applicant provide more robust screening and more native plantings and replace the removed oak trees removed at some ratio. He said that the removal of the trees could affect the chann and character of the rolling hills. He said that they would like to see a condition of approval requiring a new landscape plan that staff could approve without another public hearing. Boardmember Emberson noted that the Fire District was requiring a lot of the landscape decisions in terms of reducing the amount of plantings that they would like. Mr. Berger replied that he heard the applicant mention the shrubs but he did not hear about the issue of the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 5 10/17/13 replacement trees. He thought that the applicant could work with the Fire District over the size of the trees. Rita Burgess commended the owner and architect on a nicely designed home on a difficult site. She said that she was concerned over the precedent that would be set by this new home. Nichole Rowles clarified that the precedent that Ms. Burgess referred to was about the height of the building. She said that she had no issue with this particular project but would not want all homes to be nearly 40 feet tall. She said that she was also concerned about construction staging on this road, as there is a blind curve that is difficult to navigate and there is no room for construction trucks to be parked. The Boardmembers noted that construction concerns would be under the purview of the Building Division and should be addressed with them. Mr. Rockett responded to the concerns addressed. He reiterated that one of the trees of concern was one that was identified for preservation and they would be taking extremely cautious measures in order to keep it alive. He said that the challenge would be with the Fire District requirements for spacing and height of vegetation, as the severity of the slope presented a fire hazard and was a constraint. He said that they were open to continue the conversation but hoped that this issue would not hold up the approval process. He stated that the height variance was a direct response to the slope of the lot and precedence should not be a concern for other lots with different topography. He stated that construction staging would occur on site and not in the roadway. Boardmember Emberson stated that the landscape plan lacked a woodland -like nature and said that she preferred plantings that were native to the environment. Mr. Rockett responded that they were open to work with the landscape architect for plantings that were more consistent with the Oak woodlands setting. The public hearing was closed. Planning Manager Watrous commented that he had drafted a condition for approval that would read, "Additional planting, including oak trees and /or taller vegetation more consistent with oak woodlands habitat, shall be planted on the uphill side of the driveway, subject to approval of Planning staff and the Tiburon Fire Protection District." Boardmember Kricensky commended the designer and owner on working with a very difficult site. He felt that this would be a nice looking house with a well thought out design that worked with the constraints of the site. He noted that the height would not set a precedent and that every site was different. He said that this was an extremely steep slope with a garage that had to be sited based on the influences of the property. He felt that the house and utilization of the flat spaces was well done. He said that the vegetation along the driveway could be problematic, as he had never seen a retaining wall work well that close to an oak tree and he thought that perhaps there were other alternatives. He strongly encouraged working with the landscape architect to do TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 6 10/17/13 whatever was necessary to preserve the biggest tree as it would be a highlight for the house for a long time. Boardmember Emberson agreed and thought that this would be a great house. She said that the additional height was due to a necessary elevator and would not impact anybody else. She said that she was could make the variance findings as described in the staff report. She thought that it would be important to include the condition of approval that Planning Manager Watrous had drafted to incorporate more of a natural, woodsy look to the landscaping. Boardmember Kricensky agreed, but also thought that the area next to the driveway was a small spot in the overall scheme, with five acres of the lot to remain untouched. Chair Chong said that his initial reaction was that the height was going to be an issue, but once he visited the site the height did not bother him. He said that the height would not set a precedent and he agreed with staff's findings for the variance. He said that this was a beautiful home and he was less inclined to dictate details on landscaped areas that would only be seen by visitors of the homeowner. He said that he understood the desire to maintain a wooded feel but if they were able to save the oak tree, he was only concerned with what would be required in the event a tree did not survive. Planning Manager Watrous said that if the landscape plan was approved, the oak tree would have to remain. In the event it was removed, a tree permit would be required that would likely require replacement trees to be planed at a 3:1 ratio. James To, owner, stated that he was most concerned with saving the oaks and not holding up the process. He said that he would agree to the additional condition as long as it did not slow down the process and he was willing to work with staff. ACTION: It was M/S (Einberson/Kricensky) that the request for 88 Rolling Hills Road 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 requiring that additional planting, including oak trees and /or taller vegetation more consistent with oak woodlands habitat, shall be planted on the uphill side of the driveway, subject to approval of Plamling staff and the Tiburon Fire Protection District. Vote: 3 -0 -1 (Cousins recused). Boardmember Cousins rejoined the meeting. 4. 2240 CENTRO EAST STREET: File No. 713070; Margo and Douglas Zucker, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single - family dwelling. The house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, three bedrooms, three bathrooms, powder room, laundry room, wine cellar and a two -car garage. The house would have 3,289 square feet of floor area and cover 3,823 square feet (29.6 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 059- 142 -02. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 7 10/17/13 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two -story single - family dwelling on property located at 2240 Centro East Street. The property is currently vacant. The main level of the house would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, one bedroom, one bathroom, a powder room and a laundry room. The lower level would include two additional bedrooms, two bathrooms and a wine cellar. A two -car garage would be attached to the main level of the house. Five skylights would be installed. The house would cover a total of 3,823 square feet (29.6 %) of the site, which is less than the 35.0% maximum lot coverage in the R -2 zone. The floor area of the proposed house would be 3,289 square feet, with 594 square feet of garage space, which would be 4 square feet less than the 3,29' ) square foot floor area ratio for a lot of this size. The exterior of the proposed house would include light beige stucco and cedar plank siding. The materials for the proposed flat roof have not been specified. A color and materials board has been submitted and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. Douglas Zucker, applicant, said that he had tried hard to evaluate and consider the views that the surrounding properties enjoy while designing this house. He said that the new home would not be too close to any of the neighbors, had proper setbacks, was within the FAR limits and would not require any variances. He acknowledged that retaining views was paramount and he provided photographs of the view from three adjoining houses with an illustration of potential blockages from the new home. He said that the two -story home would have the main living spaces on the first floor with additional bedrooms on a lower level. He said that he designed a tipped roof in order to minimize the house's intrusion from the homes above. He stated that the site currently had no trees but he created a robust landscape plan to ensure privacy for all. Chair Chong opened the public hearing Tina Nevers said that she was concerned about the design of the house and its impact on her home and the neighborhood. She thought that the new home would block 60% of her view in general and would completely block her view of Lyford Cove. She felt that the new home was massive and would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood through view blockage and light intrusion. She hoped that the project would be rejected and the Board would require lowering the roofline and the building scale in order to fit into the norm of the neighborhood. Mustafa Abuhalawa agreed with Ms. Nevers, saying that this was a clever design but very tall and would not fit in with the neighborhood. He said that it would affect his home as it would be close and visible from his living room and master bedroom. David Kirchhoff said that he had been asked to speak by neighbors who could not attend the meeting. He stated that their concerns were that the new home was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood due to its massing and scale, its height and view blockage. He requested that the Board continue the project and recommend an overall lowering of the house so TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10/17/13 that it would be more consistent with other rooflines in the neighborhood and not obstruct water views. Bob Elsberg said that he met the applicants and thought that the model was nice and appreciated the effort to separate the new house from his home. He was concerned about the height of the story poles, however. He said that he had to sink his own house down and he still had a nice view and thought the owners could do the same. He said that the landscaping plan appeared to include bushes with a maximum height of four feet and he thought that those plants would not provide adequate screening for the lower levels of his home. He was also concerned with noise from a pump that was proposed for irrigation. Grayson Davis said that when they built their home, there was a request to lower the building and they happily complied. She said that she loved the model but felt that it did not relate to the neighborhood. She said that everyone was shocked about the height of the story poles, the massing, and the huge wall of glass. She said that the house would not follow the terrain of the site. She suggested lowering the ceilings and lowering the house into the site, but thought that the large amount of glass was still a concern. She said that she had a creek on her property and would not want water diverted from her yard and was unclear about the "diverter" that was mentioned in the drawings. David Peterson stated that he went through a similar process a few months back and appreciated that the Boardmembers made the effort to visit his property. He hoped the Boardmembers would visit his neighbors" site as well and trusted their judgment and the due process. Diane Lynch said that she appreciated that the owners did not seek variances for setbacks or FAR and really loved the corral for the garbage cans. She thought that the home design needed modification, as it was inconsistent with the spirit of the houses of old Tiburon. Her biggest concern had to do with parking on Solano Street, as it is very limited. She suggested a two -hour limit on- street parking with resident parking stickers. Mr. Zucker stated that most of the concerns had to do with blocking water views and not so much views of other houses, adding that some of the complaints were from homes with little water view impacts. He said that he would be happy to visit the different neighbors to see their views firsthand. He thought that if his home were sunk down he would have no view at all. Regarding the building massing, he said that the home would be situated 52 feet from the rear property line and he did not think that the house could be moved further back to lessen the mass of its appearance. He noted that there would be one parking spot on the street for neighborhood use. He stated that he planned on using natural materials of cedar and stucco in different volumes that would reduce massing and appear very natural. He said that the proposed diverter could be removed from the plans. He said that he was attempting to reduce water usage by diverting rainwater and supplementing with creek water but that may not be allowed, so he would stick with rainwater diversion from the roof. Chair Chong asked if there were any previous project designs that Mr. Zucker may have considered that would have had less of an impact on views and from the street. Mr. Zucker said they never looked at a strictly one -story design even though they would mainly reside on the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 9 10/17/13 main floor and incorporate an elevator to the lower level. He said that they were primarily motivated to design around the view. He said that it was also important to theirs to have as much volume in the rooms as possible in terms of height. He felt that this was a very straightforward layout and said that they looked at different rooflines before settling on the tipped design. He felt that the story poles misrepresented the actual size due to the roof design. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Cousins said that he shared the neighbor's concerns about the mass and scale. He said that this home would tower over the homes on either side and below and would block views from above. He said the project was inconsistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines regarding views and cutting into the hillside. He thought that additional steps should be taken to respect other views and that the parapet at the height of the garage all around the house adds to the building height. He believed that the house would still have good views at a lower elevation. He thought that the ceiling heights were excessive and should be reduced, as 14 foot ceilings were unacceptable when a house blocks views. Boardmember Emberson agreed and said that a homeowner is not entitled to uninterrupted views and that there is always a tradeoff with neighbors' views. She understood that more volume would be desirable but the owner could still have a beautiful house with lower levels that would have less of an impact on neighbors. She agreed that neighbors will lose some views, but she felt that this house would block views too much, including views of Ayala Cove and Angel Island. She suggested a lower ceiling height, especially in the lower level of the home. She noted that any solar panels on the roof would block even more of the neighbors' views. Boardmember Kricensky stated that he understood the influences of the site dictating the design but other property owners have had to compromise, lower ceiling heights, and adapt architectural style to maintain views and neighborhood character. He acknowledged that there were borrowed views across the site and most people understand they cannot expect to maintain all the water view, but there are radial views across the site due to the curve in the road. He said that he was taken aback by the massing and thought that the house was out of scale and not tucked down as low as it could be. He said that the ceiling heights could be lowered and although the building articulation was fine, the house would be too tall. He stated that the house would have quite a bit of glass in front that could affect the nighttime views of uphill neighbors. Boardmember Emberson agreed about the glow and felt that the glazing on the front and back was excessive. Chair Chong said that the architecture was very well done with the use of materials, the windows, overhangs and the reflecting pool and he felt that this was a beautiful and unique design. He said that the three dimensional model was very helpful and he appreciated that effort. He said that this would be a very large home and he thought there would still be great views if it was dropped several feet. He said that other homes in the area took out some view but this home looked like it would block quite a bit, including parts of Angel Island. He suggested that the house needed a large change to lessen the impact on the neighbors. He agreed that there was also too much glass that would be lit up at night and he suggested eliminating some of the glazing. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 10 10/17/13 Boardmember Emberson said that the main living area deserved a phenomenal view but in the spirit of fairness, the applicants might consider sacrificing some of the views from the lower level. Chair Chong reiterated that the main issues of the Board were to lower the building height and reduce the glazing on the street side. In discussing the diverter, Mr. Zucker agreed that he would remove it from the plans. ACTION: It was MIS (Emberson/Cousins) to continue the request for 2240 Centro East Street to the November 21, 201' ) meeting. Vote: 4 -0. F. APPROVAL OF MINUTES #16 OF THE OCTOBER 3, 2013 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING Planning Manager Watrous requested page numbers be added to the minutes. Boardmember Emberson requested the following changes: Page 1, D -1, paragraph 1, second line: "...Review Board directed to staff to prepare..." Page 2, E -2, paragraph 3, third line: "...of wall framing � to be removed..." ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins / Emberson) to approve the minutes of the October 3, 201' as amended. Vote: 3 -0 -1 (Kricensky abstained). H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 11 10/17/13 TOWN OF TIBURON Action Minutes- Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard November 7, 2013 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:00 P.M. ACTION MINUTES #18 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL At 7: 00 PM Present: Chair Chong, Vice Chair Cousins, Boardmembers Tollini and Kricensky Absent: Boardmember Emberson Ex- Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Assistant Planner O'Malley, and Minutes Clerk Rusting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None STAFF BRIEFING (if any) None PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS I BLACKFIELD DRIVE: File No. 51310; The Cove Shopping Center, Inc., Owner; Sign Permit to consider amendments to an approved sign program for a commercial shopping center. The sign program would allow additional sign area for an existing freestanding sign and additional wall signs for tenants in a building that rears onto Tiburon Boulevard. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 212 -18. Approved 4 -0 2. 587 VIRGINIA DRIVE: File No. 21325; Ryan Aytay, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review construct additions to an existing single- family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced side yard setback and a Floor Area Exception. The project would convert existing crawlspace beneath an existing dwelling into 1,220 square feet of living space, which include two bedrooms, one bathroom, family room, and a wine cellar. The project would result in a gross floor area of 3,000 square feet, which is above the maximum permitted 2,769 square foot floor area ratio for the property. The addition would extend to within 6 feet of the side property line, which would be less than the 8 foot minimum side yard setback in the R -1 zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 055- 091 -03. Approved 4 -0 Design Review Board Action Minutes November 7, 2013 Page 1 3. 2 INDIAN ROCK COURT: File No. 713096; Keith and Alisa Stimson, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling. The project would add a new bedroom, bathroom and media room and expand the existing living room and decks, along with other exterior alterations to the house. The project would increase the floor area of the house by 959 square feet to a total of 3,571 square feet and increase the lot coverage to 4,490 square feet (15.7 %) of the site. Assessor's Parcel No. 038 - 400 -20. Approved 4 -0 4. 17 JUNO ROAD: File No. 21321; William and Marianne Pearson, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced rear yard setback. The project would add 692 square feet in the rear of the home to include a new family room, dining room, larger kitchen, larger living room, formal entry, laundry room, and a pantry, along with new skylights and a new outdoor fire feature. The proposal would result in lot coverage of 2,539 square feet (26.4 %) and a floor area of 2,152 square feet. The additions would extend to within 14 feet, 11 inches of the rear property line, which would be less than the 19 foot, 2 inch minimum rear yard setback for this property. Assessor's Parcel No. 034- 271-27. Approved 4 -0 5. 317 KAREN WAY: File No. 21326; Golnaz and Kayvan Kafayi, Owners; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a vehicle entry gate and modifying an existing fence for an existing single - family dwelling, with a Variance for reduced vehicle entry gate setback. The proposed vehicle entry gate would be situated within 4 feet of the roadway of Karen Way, which would be less than the 15 foot minimum required setback from a roadway for a vehicle entry gate. Assessor's Parcel No. 034 - 122 -11. Continued to 11/21113 MINUTES 6. Regular Meeting of October 17, 2013 Approved as amended 3 -0 -1 (Tollini abstained) ADJOURNMENT At 8:25 PM Design Review Board Action Minutes November 7, 2013 Page 2 REGULAR MEETING I', 3` BELVEDERE - TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY • Monday, November 18, 2013, 6:15pm Belvedere- Tiburon Library 1501 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL OPEN FORUM This is an opportunity for any citizen to briefly address the Board of Trustees on any matter that does not appear on this agenda. Upon being recognized by the Chair, please state your name, address, and limit your oral statement to no more than three minutes. Matters that appear to warrant a more lengthy presentation or Board consideration may be agendized for further discussion at a later meeting. STAFF, BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Chair's report — Ann Aylwin, BTLA Chair (2 minutes) 2. Library Director's report — Deborah Mazzolini (10 minutes) 3. Belvedere- Tiburon Library Foundation report (5 minutes) 4. Report on Financial Statements October 2013 (5 minutes) 5. Committee reports (5 minutes) CONSENT CALENDAR — 2 minutes The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Any member of the Agency may request removal of an item for discussion. 6. Approval of minutes of October 21, 2013 7. Approval of warrants dated October, 2013 TRUSTEE CONSIDERATIONS The purpose of Trustee Considerations is to list items for discussion and potential action. 8. Approval of annual audit for FY2012 -2013 9. Policy Update: Museum passes COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS 10. Monthly calendar 11. Schedule of FY 2013 meeting dates NOTICE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The following accommodations will be provided, upon request, to persons with a disability: agendas and /or agenda packet materials in alternate formats; special assistance needed to attend or participate in this meeting. Please make your request at the office of the Administrative Assistant or by calling (415) 789 -2660. Whenever possible, please make your request three days in advance. Page 1 of 1 MAR I N COUNTY PARKS PRESERVATION -RECREATION I' uT NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING DRAFT TIERED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ROAD AND TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN a.) On October 2, 2013, the Marin County Open Space District ( MCOSD) released the draft Tiered Program Environmental Impact Report (TPEIR) for its Road and Trail Management Plan (RTMP). The sixty -day comment period for the draft TPEIR ends on December 2, 2013. The Marin County Parks and Open Space Commission will hold a special meeting on November 19, 2013, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. to hear public comments on the draft TPEIR. Interested parties and members of the public may provide oral comments at that time. The Commission will be meeting in the Planning Commission Chambers (Room 328 — Administration Building) Civic Center, San Rafael,_ California. Please contact James Raives at (415) 473 -3745 or jraives @marincounty.org for more information. Any written comments should be sent to James Raives, Senior Open Space Planner, Marin County Parks, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 260, San Rafael, California 94903, and should not be sent directly to Parks and Open Space Commissioners. The deadline to submit written comments is 4:30 p.m. December 2, 2013. For more information about the draft RTMP or to download a copy of it or the draft TPEIR, please visit our website at http: / /www.marincountyparks.org /depts /pk /our - work/os- main - projects /rtmp. In addition, a copy of the draft TPEIR is available for review at Marin County Parks, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 260, San Rafael, California, 94903 Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and at the Marin County Civic Center Library and other public libraries throughout Marin County. Marin County Parks has copies of the draft TPEIR and RTMP available at no charge on compact disc or USB flash drive. Paper copies of these documents are also available for purchase. The RTMP will guide MCOSD's management of its road and trails, and would: • Establish and maintain a sustainable system of roads and trails that meet design and management standards • Reduce the environmental impact of roads and trails on sensitive resources, habitats, riparian areas, and special status plant and animal species • Improve the visitor experience The RTMP would apply to all 34 of the MCOSD open space preserves, which are primarily in the eastern urbanized corridor of the county, but there are several preserves in West Marin, including San Geronimo Valley and the Bolinas and Stinson Beach area. All public meetings and events sponsored or conducted by the County of Marin are held in accessible sites. Requests for accommodations may be made by calling (415) 473 -4381 (Voice/TTY /CRS dial 711) or by e -mail at disabilityaccess (aD_marincountV.orq at least four work days in advance. Copies of documents are available in alternative formats, upon written request. Marin County Parks, 3501 Civic Center Dr, Suite 260, San Rafael, CA 94903, www.marincountyparks.org November 13, 2013 4.) TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS 1 R NOTIFICATION OF FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S GAS PIPELINE SAFETY "GE- E33 ENHANCEMENT PLAN UPDATE (A13 -10 -017) Summary On October 29, 2013, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E) filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) presenting the results of its Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure Validation Project and records search, as well as updating its revenue requirements and rates associated with the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan, described below. About the program In Decision (D.) 11 -06 -017, the CPUC required all California gas transmission operators to file a Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Replacement or Testing Implementation Plan to pressure test or replace all in- service natural gas transmission pipelines that have not previously been pressure tested. PG &E filed its Implementation Plan on August 26, 2011, proposing a scope of work, revenue requirements and rates for the years 2011 -2014. PG &E's Implementation Plan includes a pipeline Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure Validation Project, which contains a comprehensive search of records including all pipeline strength tests and pipeline features data necessary to recalculate the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure of pipelines, and validation for all of PG &E's gas transmission pipelines. On December 28, 2012, the CPUC issued D. 12 -12 -030, approving PG &E's Pipeline Modernization scope of work and ordering PG &E to file an application after the completion of its Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure Validation Project and records search to present the results of those efforts, and update its authorized revenue requirements and rates. PG &E has completed its Validation Project. Consistent with the outcome of PG &E's Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure Validation Project, PG &E requests the authority to reduce its previously approved revenue requirements for 2012 -2014 by $52.7 million. How will PG &E's application affect me? Upon CPUC approval of this application, a typical residential customer using 37 therms per month would see an average monthly gas bill decrease of $.06 (or 0.13 %), from $44.87 to $44.81 based on rates in effect in 2013. A typical small business customer using 287 therms per month would see an average monthly gas bill decrease of $0.44 (or 0.16 %), from $266.68 to $266.24. Individual customers' bills may differ. PG &E's proposed revenue requirement reduction will not compromise the safety of PG &E's customers. PG &E's pipeline strength testing and replacement program remains a key operational commitment and priority for the company. PG &E proposes to reduce the scope of future work in light of records found, re- prioritization of certain activities and other information learned during the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure Validation consistent with the CPUC's decision. How do I find out more about PG &E's application? You can view PG &E's application and exhibits at pge.com /RegCases. Select "PSEP Update" from the Cases dropdown menu If you have questions about PG &E's application, please contact PG &E at 1- 800 - 743 -5000. For TDD/TTY (speech- hearing impaired), call1- 800 - 652 -4712. Para mas detalles Ilame al 1- 800 -660 -6789 -g '* M- R Zft 1- 800 - 893 -9555 If you would like a copy of PG &E's application and exhibits, please write to PG &E at the address below Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan Compliance Update P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 A copy of PG &E's application and exhibits are also available for review at the CPUC, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday— Friday, 8 a.m. —noon. PG &E's application (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc. How does the CPUC's decision making process work? The application will be reviewed through the CPUC formal administrative law process. The application will be assigned to a CPUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ presides over the proceeding, which may include evidentiary hearings often held in a proceeding to give parties of record an opportunity to present evidence or cross - examine witnesses. Members of the public may attend but not participate in these hearings. The hearings and documents submitted in the proceeding become part of the formal record that the ALJ relies upon in writing a proposed decision to present to the five - member Commission. Any CPUC Commissioner may issue an alternate decision. The proposed and any alternate decisions are acted upon at a CPUC voting meeting. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG &E's request, modify it or deny the application. If you would like to follow this proceeding or any other issue before the CPUC, you may utilize the CPUC's free and confidential subscription service. Sign up at: http : / /subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov. If you would like to learn how you can participate in this proceeding, or if you have comments or questions, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov /puc and click on "Public Advisor" from the CPUC Information menu. You can also: Email: public.advisor @cpuc.ca.gov Call: 1-415- 703 -2074 or 1- 866 - 849 -8390 (toll -free) Mail: Public Advisor's Office TTY 1-415- 703 -5282 or 1- 866 - 836 -7825 (toll -free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 If you are writing or emailing the Public Advisor's Office, please include the application number (A13 -10 -017). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned ALJ and the CPUC staff.