TO: Design Review Board

FROM: Brian Lynch, Associate Planner

SUBJECT: 2024 Tiburon Blvd.; file #702047

MEETING DATE: July 18, 2002 REVIEWED BY: DMW

APPLICANT/OWNER: Chong Cook

PROJECT ARCHITECT: Edward Hardin

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e).

HISTORY

The project site is currently being developed with a single-family residence. Initial design review approval was obtained for the residence on September 27, 1990. Building permits have been issued for the project, but the residence has not yet received a final inspection. Since the original permit was issued, the applicant has requested several design changes throughout the construction process. Most of these design changes have received the appropriate approvals and permits from the Town.

More recently, on November 8, 2001, the applicant submitted an application for Staff-level Site Plan and Architectural Review for additional minor alterations to the residence. The project description as stated by the applicant was, "existing single family residence at 2024 Paradise Drive. Drawing[s] are being submitted to show conformance with design review guideline reflecting minor changes."

The submitted plans indicated a number of changes that had not previously received Design Review approval. When reviewing the application, Staff extrapolated a more specific project description which was, "new entry doors, a new heater room on the lower level, and the replacement of the existing stucco on the building façade." The application including the above description was approved with conditions by Staff on December 10, 2001.

In March of 2002, it was brought to the Town’s attention that a 2’ glass railing was being erected on top of an existing stucco wall on the south side of the residence. This feature of the project was not part of any previous Design Review application, and was also specifically disallowed by the permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The subject property is in the jurisdiction of the BCDC because it is within the 100 foot shoreline band. During conversations with multiple Town officials, the applicant was informed that Design Review approval and a building permit was required to install the glass railing. The applicant was also informed that the glass railing would not likely be approved by Design Review Staff as long as it remained in non-compliance with the BCDC permit.

The Town issued a pre-citation notice on March 15, 2002 for the erection of the glass railing without the benefit of Design Review approval or a building permit. The notice indicated that fines would ensue on April 1, 2002, if the glass was not removed. On April 1, 2002, Town Staff noted that the glass railing had not been removed, so an administrative citation was issued. The fine has been accruing daily since April 1, 2002.

On April 8, 2002, the applicant submitted a Staff-level Site Plan and Architectural Review application specifically for the glass railing in question. Staff accepted the application, proceeded with the standard review process by sending out a courtesy notice, and made a decision to deny the project on April 29, 2002. The applicant is appealing Staff’s decision on this most recent application.

REVIEW BY STAFF

The application for the glass railing was reviewed for completeness, and courtesy notices were sent on April 19, 2002. During the review period for the project, Staff examined the historic records for the project. It is clear that the intention of the Design Review Board was to maintain the integrity of the view corridor across the subject property as much as possible. The construction of visual and physical barriers on bay-front properties has been discouraged by the Town in the past, and Staff believes that this ideal should be maintained.

In addition, the BCDC permit for the subject residence contains conditions of approval specifically addressing the 21-foot view corridor that lies across the property, and also contains a map clearly identifying its location. The conditions state that, "the permitees may construct a railing facing the street in the view corridor no higher than three feet."

The existing stucco wall around the roof deck on the south side of the residence is currently three feet above the level of the street, and is within the view corridor. Any additional railing on top of the existing stucco wall would not be permitted by BCDC according to the above condition. For these reasons, Staff denied the application for the glass railing.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

The Appellant has cited two grounds upon which the appeal is based (Exhibit #6):

Ground #1: The glass railing is essential to prevent very serious injury which could occur if a person were to fall over the wall.

Staff Response: Building Official Bloomquist has stated that the glass railing is not a required safety feature according to the Uniform Building Code. The application labels the glass as a "windscreen", an added feature which is not a necessary part of the construction. As the railing is not required for safety purposes, Staff reviewed the aesthetics of the subject railing, and determined, as described above, that the glass railing could impair the view corridor across the subject property which is inconsistent with the goals of the Town and BCDC.

Ground #2: The glass railing impedes intentional or accidental entry into the house through a skylight on the floor of the deck on the south side of the residence, which gives direct access to the house.

Staff Response: There are other home security options that can be pursued to avoid this perceived risk. The applicant does not have to rely on the glass railing to solve this access problem.

PUBLIC COMMENT

A letter from Nathaniel Marans, of 2312 Spanish Trail Road, received July 8, 2002, states that the application should be denied and the illegal additions be removed.

A letter from Agnes B. Davis, of 2002 Paradise Drive, received July 11, 2002, states that the "after-the-fact" nature of this project is not an isolated incident for this property, and the glass railing should not be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board receive public testimony, and review this project with respect to Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review. If the Board finds that the design of the project is inconsistent with the Guiding Principles, and is inconsistent with the conditions of approval of the BCDC permit, then it is recommended that the Board direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the appeal.

1.    Notice of Appeal and supplemental materials.

2.    Application and supplemental materials dated April 8, 2002.

3.    Courtesy and approval notice dated November 29, 2001, and December 10, 2001.

4.    Courtesy and denial notice dated April 19, 2002 and April 29, 2002.

5.    Letter from BCDC, dated August 6, 2001.

6.    Letter from Nathaniel Marans, dated July 8, 2002.

7.    Letter from Agnes B. Davis, dated July 11, 2002

8.    Plans prepared for the project.