Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board denies rear‑yard setback variance, approves lot‑coverage increase with conditions for 6 Saint Gabriel Court
Summary
Tiburon’s Design Review Board denied a requested rear‑yard setback variance for a proposed deck at 6 Saint Gabriel Court but approved a 155‑square‑foot lot‑coverage increase on the condition the new deck not extend past the westerly edge of the center portion of the existing deck; the project was found categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Tiburon Design Review Board on Dec. 4 denied a rear‑yard setback variance for a proposed deck at 6 Saint Gabriel Court but approved a 155‑square‑foot lot‑coverage increase, with a condition that the replacement deck not extend past the westerly line of the center portion of the existing deck. The board found the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The applicant told the board the current deck was declared structurally unsafe in a resale inspection and "must be fully removed and rebuilt," and said the encroaching portion of the replacement deck measures roughly 45 square feet — about 9% of the total deck area. The applicant said the rebuild is safety‑driven and that the use of cantilevered beams in the original deck means a full replacement with new footings will be required regardless of the final deck footprint.
Neighbor Hayden Pace, who lives directly below the proposed encroachment, opposed the variance in person and in a submitted letter. Pace told the board the deck "could easily be replaced the way it has been for decades" without a variance and raised privacy and sound concerns, saying the elevation difference makes mitigation difficult. "I can hear a normal conversation from that deck as is," Pace said, adding an expanded upper‑level deck would worsen noise and privacy impacts.
Board members who visited the properties said they sympathized with the applicant’s safety argument but were concerned about the downhill neighbor’s loss of privacy. Several commissioners suggested an alternative: relocate the added square footage inward so the same lot‑coverage increase could be achieved without granting the requested side‑setback variance. Planning staff clarified decks are counted as half their area toward lot coverage; the board noted the proposal adds 155 square feet of lot coverage (equivalent to 310 square feet of drawn decking under that counting method).
After discussion, a board member moved to deny the requested rear‑yard setback variance, approve the 155‑square‑foot lot‑coverage increase, and require that the new deck not extend west of the center portion’s existing northwest/southwest corner (the board had a volunteer annotate the plan to create a "do not cross" line for staff). The motion carried with all present voting in favor and none opposed.
Under the board’s direction, staff will work with the applicant to ensure the final drawings conform to the delineated limit and that the approved lot‑coverage increase does not exceed 155 square feet. The applicant said he preferred not to continue the item because rebuilding is time‑sensitive for safety and family use; the board’s condition allows the applicant to proceed if the relocation can be made consistent with the recorded line and the other findings required for approval.
