Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agenda 2019-09-04
\� TO\.N.,N O!N'N 01= T1,13UR0N Tiburon Town Council .� hiburon To��,�n Nall September 4,2019 1505 �1-ibu -on l3oule��ard S�ecial Meetin« 6:45 P.M. ' Tiburon, CA 94920 1 c Regular lvleeung— 7:30 P.M. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING—6:45 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fraser,Councilmember Thier,Councilmember Wclner,Vice Mayor Freclericlzs, A layor Kulik CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Pul:Suant to Government Code Section 54956.3) Property: 500 Tiburon Boulevard,Tiburon,California;APN's 055-093 06,07,08. 09 Agency Negotiators: Greg Chanis,Benjamin Stock Negotiating Parties: Town of Tiburon and Richardson Bay Sanitation District Under Negotiations: Price and terms for possible property acquisition. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant ExposuI-e to 1__iti;ation Pursuant to Paragraph (2)of Subclivision (d)of Gu\crnmcnt Cudc Section 54956.9 ADJOURNMENT— to rc«ul a-mceth REGULAR MEETING—7:30 P.M. CALL TO OWER AND ROLL CALL. Cuuncih��cmber l-1"ascl_,Councilmember Thier.Councilmember NVelner,Vicc N favor Fredericks, y layor kulik ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note howcvcr, that the Town Council is not able to undertalzc extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission,Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Plcasc limit your comments to three (3)minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Tosv n Cotmcil unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council,public or staff to rcmove an item for separate discussion and Consideration. if you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the A/I v1 r and do so at this time. CGI. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of August 21, 2019 special and regular meetings (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. 2000 Paradise Drive—Adopt resolution approving the Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town of Tiburon and 2000 Paradise Drive (Caprice Reseaurant) for valct service (Department of Public Works) CC-3. Investment Summary—Adopt investment summary for month ending July 31, 2019(Department of Administrativc Services) CC-4. 2020 Various Streets Project — Award design contract to Pavement 1-ngineering Incorporated (PH) (Department of Public Works) CC-5. 490 Ridge Road — Adopt resolution partially granting appeal of Design lZe\,ics\, Board approval subject to additional conditions (Community Development Department) CC-6. Grand Jury Response — Approve Toswn's response to i1,11-in County CM] Grand Jury Report titled: AIarin's Telecom Discovrect(Office of the Town Manager) PUI3LIC IIEARINGS P1-1-1. 130 Rancho Drive — Consider approval of an application for amendment to the Cypress 110110 Precise IDcvcloprncm Plan for an additional 297 square feet of floor arca to be constructed Within the c.xisdng footprint of a single-family residence and to create a nese secondary building ens°elope;Resolution (Community Development Dcpartncnt) Applicants: N/lichacl Heckmann Owners: Eric and Katc Nlorsc Assessor Parcel No.: 034-393 03 PH-2. Unmanned Aerial Systems ("UAS") Regulations — Consider municipal code amcndmcros that ss'ould regulate operation of UAS (commonly known as drones) — Introduction and first I—Cadim, of ordlnclllce ACTION ITEMS AIL. Parking Agreement-Consider approval of a Parking Lot Operation Agreement between The Tovtm and ACV Argo Tiburon, and adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Tiburon Police Department to regulate the parking of vehicles on an Off-Street Parking Facility TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests-August 23&30, 2019 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAII_AI3ILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's wehsitc, www.townoftiburon.org. Upon request, the Town Nvi11. provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written recluest, including your name, mailing address,phone number andbrief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days bclorc the meeting. Requests should he sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the ahove address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you May be limited to raising only those .issues you or sim1cone else raised at the Public Hcaring(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondcicc delivered to the Town Council at,or prior to, the Public 1]earing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA \Vh,ilc the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times arc assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. c-1 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING —7:00 P.M. On Angust 21. 2019. the Council held a special meeting as follows: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL COunCllmember Fraser_ COunCllmen her Thier, Councilmember Weiner, Vice Mayor Fredericks, Mayor Kulik CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2)of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: (One potential case) ADJOURNMENT—to regular meeth REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. Mayor Kulik called the regular meeting ofthe Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday.. August 21, 2039, in Town Councrl.Cha�nbers, ]505 �hiburon Boulevard, Tiburon. California. ROLL CALL I"RESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Kulik. "Thier. Welner ABSLNT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chams. Town Attorney Stock- Chief of Police Cronin. Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes. Senior Planner O'Malley, 'fown Clerk Stefani ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICA'T'IONS Shahrou Tavakoli said a fawn had recently been impaled on her neighbor's \-vrought iron Fence and expressed concern about the dangers of low fences with spikes. She requested the Council consider a ban and require existing fences that have caused a death be demolished. Pmlc 1 of 6 Town C'oonci/,llimttcs X14-2019 DRAFT _9Ugusl21, 2019 Chester Judah said he is familiar with similar deer incidents and agreed that spiked tences should not be permitted in Tiburon. Another resident questioned how fences with spikes are approved, given Tiburon's strict planning and building requirements. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN STAFF Chief of Police Cronin introduced new Police Officers Sean Christopher; Michael Blasi and William "Forrest" Condit. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes—Adopt minutes of Au 0u f?, 2019 special sand regular meetings (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Local Emergency—Adopt resolution continuing the�'declaration of a local emergency related to damb age caused b February 2019 storms (Office" Town Mana«e1) y y CC-3. Fee Waiver—Authorize fee ware for Town fees associated With the proposed Chamber of Commerce visitor center proiect_(Comin6nity:.Development Department) CC-4. Grand Jury Response—Approve TOW'111's response to'Marill'_County Civil Grand Jury Report: School Resource Officers Revisited(Ofllce of the Town Manager) CC-5. Corporation Yard Project_-Award contract for the Corporation Yard predesign project to Griffin Structures (Departnient of Public Works) CC-6. Vistazo'West Washout Repair Project—Avi+6rd contract for the Vistazo West Washout Repair Project to Hillside Drilling,:Inc. and 'arrthorize budget amendment in the amount of$132..405 (Department of Public Works) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1-6, as written. Moved: Thier. seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ku1ik, Thier, Welner ABSENT: 1-raser PUBLIC HEARINGS P11-1. 490 Ridge Road —Consider appeal of Design Review Board's approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review to expand an existing deck for an existing single-family dwelling. with a Variance for excess lot coverage (Community Development Department) Senior Planner O'Malley said the Design Review Board had approved a 48 square loot upper deck level expansion in June 2019. She reminded the Council that an appeal had been previously granted earlier this year to deny an application for a deck expansion of203 square feet with a 7011'17 Cot1i7ci1,A1inutes 414-2019 DRAFT _ iigics[ 21, 2019 request for variance for excess lot coverage. She said staff found the current application to be a substantial change from the original design but would still require a variance for excess lot coverage. She said the Design Review Board was able to support the variance findings and approved the application. O'Malley reviewed staffs analysis of the appellant's five grounds for appeal. Appellant Presentation Alessandro Beraldi summarized the history of the project and previous appeal hearing. Fle said the Council's direction and recommended compromise to 'square off the deck was cleat-but that direction was not followed by the applicant in their subsequent application. Mr. Beraldi questioned the Design Review Board's revi� ,ofthe applicatio t and said the required variance findings for excess lot coverage were improperly found by the Board. He argued that the applicant's property is already fully developed,and the applicant's lot coverage is the highest of other comparative lots in the area. Further, he argued'that several variances had already been granted for the property and he was opposed to the`incremental creep". Mr. Beraldi then summarized his analysis',pfthe;required variance findings and believed they could not be sufficiently made to merit a varjaaee 6,y-16e Board or the Council. I le emphasized there are no special circumstances or physiealjia►•dships'applieable to this lot and believed granting another variance for this property world be a grant of=special privilege. Ile recommended the Town Counc l grant its'appeal'. and emphasizcd that the required variance findings cannot be made. He'sard bis family mad 'Oertain assumptions about the nearby development of horne'swhen he purchased his property and expressed concern that the approval of this variance-would expose hi,s:pr•operty to risk of limited development potential, thus negatively impacting his property.uahre. He concluded his presentation" by stating that he would continue to be supportive of the ori-inal compromise agreed on during the last appeal hearing. Applicant Presentation Stephen Schwartz, applicant, SU'himarized the reasons for the previous variances on the property. I-le noted that each one was not contested and had no impact on the sUurounding) neighbors. He said the appellants were invited over to review the application several times but were not agreeable to additional compromise. Mr. Schwartz said the appellant had asked him to sign a document that would put a restriction for future development on his deed in perpetuity, which his legal counsel advised strongly against. He believed the contested 24 inches would have no impact on the fntUrC: development of the appellants property, and signing this document would in fact add an unnecessary hardship to the Future sale of their home and lower their property value. Page 3 of 6 Toirn Coll77Ci1 A11i17Zfles 414-2019 DRAFT Ai-gzist 21, 2019 Mr. Schwarz said the Board approved the variance because the findings could be made. and many other properties had been granted variances for excess lot coverage. Ile argued there would be no grant of special privilege and summarized his analysis of the required variance findings. Mr. Schwartz said any privacy and noise concerns should be relieved by the fact that this expansion would move their main seating area further away from the appellant's property. He also noted that this expansion would not create any additional protected views. Mr. Schwartz explained that he purchased the home after moving from the East Coast and did not realize how difficult it would be to make small changes to his,prQperty. He expressed' disappointment that the Design Review Board found his application siifticient. but the appellant, who he said cannot even see his property, is claiming that a minimal additional will make future+. development of his property difficult. Public Comment There was none. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Beraldi referred to the transcript of the.Design.Reyiew Board meeting in which the Board members discussed the lack of hardship on the,property:"Of the referenced deed document. he said his support would have been and act of goodwill,andshould be on record. I-le explained the record,,fthe;Desgn Review Board shows an improper application and analysis of the variance findings, andarguedthat a variance should not be granted just because it is small. Ile said the developnieit is in the direction of his`,property, and therefore does impact his property. Mayor Kulik asked Mr. Beraldi to ekpah&6n his,�ption on future development of his property. Mr. Beraldi said lie does not like the addition because it is not needed. but was a«reeable to the suggested `squaring Off- COMPI-011liSe out of respect for the Council. Applicant Rebuttal,, Mr. Schwartz reiterated that a small addition of24 inches would not impact the appellants property and created no,additional views. He believed the findings could be made. and had been made by the Design Review Board. He said this approval would have a large impact on his family's life and enjoyment oftheir property. Mr. Sclwwartz.said he has worked hard to develop his property well to tit in with the neighborhood, and the trees on his oven property are the appellant's main source of'privac\ at all. Ile did notthinl< the expectation for complete privacy for was realistic. given the close orientation of all homes in the neighborhood. Council Deliberation Mt,,.�4 of 6 TOwn Council Alimacs #1-1-2019 DRAFT Az(gtust 21. 2019 COUnCllmember Welner believed the findings for the variance could be made, and this application would not be injurious to other properties in the area. He believed the proposal was within the spirit of the Council's original suggestion. He said he would respect the Design Review Board's decision and would vote to deny the appeal. Colmcilmember Thier did not believe the findings for the variance could b,c njade <She was in favor of partially granting the appeal, but allow the application to move,, aid"vttli;t_he initial `squaring, off compromise. i. Vice Mavor Fredericks agreed with Thier, and liked the idea of allov,�ing the application 'oxnoue forward with the `squaring off compromise. She did not beli�!e'ilie variance findings could be made for the existing application, and said this application`coul"d create a negative impact on the appellants. She noted that the appellant had agreed to tlf `sc(uaring of cosi promise. ` Mayor Kulik noted that the application, however small_�does:requii 'a jai-lance and he could not make the required findings to grant the variance. Ile agreed Aatthe'Llhimate request was not significant, but the findings could not be made. He expressed cisappQintment that the lack of compromise between the appellants and aplcants had resulted in ascond appeal hearing. The Council and staff discussed a subject tc . tlditional approval conditions. Welner disagreed and rerterateil isposition'. �� „� Mayor Kulik noted that the application, howey x stb", f "does requlie a variance and he said he also could not make thhdings to gran the variance for excess lot coverage. He agreed that the uItmaak ri quesfTs nipt significari t the findings could not be made. He expressed disappotfient that the la0k of compig1se between the appellants and applicants has resulted in a scc�nd'appeaJ heal lug . The Council a�i`d staff discrtsc a parttai ga�tttn6 of the appeal subject to additional approval conditions. Welner dtsgh-t. dd='and reiterated his position. MOTION. To direct`stafIo bring back a resolution partially granting the appeal ofthe l &sign RevN. Bard's decision. subject to additional conditions of approval n�odtfy ng the app rived plans. Moved: Fredcrtcs, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES, i Fredericks, Kulik, Thier NAYS:.: Welner ABS CNT: Fraser TOWN COUNC I2IJPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Puge J of 6 Toirn C'oiincil:llimaes =-14-2019 DRAFT Azigzzst 21. 2019 None. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council oftlie "Town 6f`riburon, lUC yct KulI adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. 4 C N DAVID 1<ULIK. MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK lkl K , 3 00 ,z '. r y,. Page 6(?f'6 T mw Council Alinules H14-2019 DR_PY Augztw 21, 2019 Town Council Meeting TOWN OF TIBURON September 4. 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 2 Tiburon. CA 94920 Vol To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town of Tiburon and 2000 Paradise Drive. Revie.ved By: >i : Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attornev SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town of"Tiburon and 2000 Paradise Drive for the use of a portion of the public parking lot at the intersection of Paradise Drive and Mar West Street as a drop off and pick up valet service location. The site is located at 2000 Paradise Drive, and is Marin County Assessor Parcel No. 059-172-46. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS) 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town of Tiburon and 2000 Paradise Drive for Valet Service. 13ACKGIZOUND On March 19. 2019. Jerry Dal Bozzo, owner of Caprice Restaurant. submitted an Encroachment Permit Application for 2000 Paradise Drive in Tiburon. The applicant is seeking permission to use a portion of the public parking lot at the intersection of Paradise Drive and Mar West Street Lis a drop off and pick up valet service location for the restaurant. Staff reviewed the proposal and determined the Encroachment Permit Application could not be Processed in accordance with section D.1 and D.2 of Town Council Resolution No. 45-2014. This resolution does not grant staff the authority to issue the encroachment permit lot- this purpose. Staff notified the applicant of their decision and requested documentation to support their lIncroachment Permit for reference to the Town ConllCll for consideration. The applicant delivered documentation to the Department of Public Works on April 19. 2019 1`61- the orthe Town Council to consider approving their Encroachment Permit. The Legal Notice vvas published in the ARK on July 3, 2019 and mailed out to property owners \,\ithin 300' of 2000 Paradise Drive. TOWN or TIBURON PAGE I or 2 On .July 17. 2019, a Public Hearing was held at Town Council 1-or the proposed valet services at 2000 Paradise Drive. At the conclusion of the Public I learin-, the ']'own Council supported the valet service with conditions to be set forth in the Memorandum of Encroachment and directed staff to return at a future meeting to adopt a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Encroachment at 2000 Paradise Drive for valet service. That resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project; it would be exempt pw•suant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Encroachment between the 'town of Tiburon and 2000 Paradise Drive for Valet Service Exhibit(s): 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Memorandum of Encroachment. Prepared By: David O. Eshoo, Associate Engineer "4'Ov, v OFTim lz(-)y llm:t�. 2 co. 2 EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT-2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 19-032 TO APPLICANT WHEREAS, the Town's Municipal Code contains regulations regarding encroachment permits for work proposed in Town streets, street right of ways and other Town interests in real property (including easements) "Title V. Chapter 19; WHEREAS, said Chapter 19 establishes definitions and procedures for the review, issuance, conditioning and revocation of encroachment permits, WHEREAS, the Town Council shall review and act upon encroachment permit applications entailing the construction of buildings, car decks, carports, garages or other long term encroachments of a substantial nature and on encroachment permit applications that would have a substantial adverse effect on vehicular or pedestrian circulation, or on public health and safety. WHEREAS, the encroachment permit at issue entails a long term encroachment and may have a substantial effect on vehicular circulation. and is subject to review by the Town Council; WHEREAS, the Town, at its discretion. may revoke any encroachment permit at any time; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Encroachment Permit 19-032, requesting an encroachment on the public street outside 2000 Paradise Drive for providing valet services to the applicant's business, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and form a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon grants Applicants Encroachment Permit 19-032 subject to the conditions provided in the memorandi.nn of encroachment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon finds that the issuance of the encroachment permit does not violate 'town policy and that the issuance of such encroachment permit would serve the public safety or \velfare of the Town in the following ways: 1. The valet service will provide a safe location \vhere patrons can drop their vehicle off in a safe location that will not impede other traffic: 2. That the valet service does not conflict with other nearby uses and businesses; 3. That the business wishes to be a good neighbor and will ensure employees only utilize Page 1 qf2 7'mi-n Council Resolzaionz No. Drafi-2019 the public right of way in conducting the valet service: 4. That signage will clearly indicate that the parking lot remains open to public parking so as to not indicate that the parking lot has been privatized; 5. The location of the valet service has been sufficiently cut-tailed to not unreasonably impede traffic; 6. The benefits of providing the valet service improves business opportunities in the waterfront area: The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council held on August 21, 2019 by the followin<7 vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DAVID KULIK, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: L,EA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Page 2 oft Town Council Resolution No. Drufi-2019 EXHIBIT 2 TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS This MEMORANDUM OF ENCROACI-IMENT PERMIT CONDITIONS is made and executed at Tiburon, California,. this __day of 20 by 2000 Paradise LLC _ ("Owner"). RECITALS I. Owner is the owner (or owners) of that real property located at 2000 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, California. 2. On March 19, 2019. Owner tiled with the Town ofTiburon, a municipal corporation ("Town"). an application for encroachment permit for a valet parking service described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Owner proposed to conduct the valet service operation on the public right-of-way or other Town-owned land specifically in the public parking lot at the corner of Paradise Drive at Mar West. 4. On Town granted a revocable encroachment permit (No. EPI 9-032)) (--Permit") to Owner allowing the valet service operations subject to conditions of approval. The Permit and its conditions of approval ("Permit Conditions") are attached hereto as Exhibit 13 and incorporated herein by reference. The Permit Conditions require. among other things, that Owner maintain a safe, clean and serviceable area and that Owner remove said valet service at Owner's sole expense if the Town requests such removal. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE TOWN'S GRANT OF THE PERMIT, OWNERS ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: I. The Permit does not Durant the Owner any permanent rights to the encroachment. 2. The Town mai revoke the Permit V-vithout cause. and all improvements are instal led at the Owner's risk. Upon receipt by Owner of a written notice from the Town request11l'(1 Ov,ner to remove said valet service, Owner will, exclusively at Owners cost and expense and within ten (10) days from receipt of said notice. remove or cause to be removed said services. Owner shall indemnify. defend and hold harmless the Town and its officials. employees. aoents and contractors. from any claims, losses. damages or other liabilities that may arise fi-om the removal 1 Only X4839-7997-9933 v i Final us;1„/IQ from said improvements. The obligation to defend is separate and distinct from the ONigation to indemnify and hold harmless and shall apply even if neither the Town nor Owner is found liable for the aforesaid claims, losses, damages or other liabilities. The Town. in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys will all attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the applicant and/or owners. 3. Owner certifies they have on file a certificate of insurance as required by Town. Such insurance shall be primary and provide coverage for all liability assumed by the applicant and shall be provided by the Owner in minimum amounts as required. The "Town ofTiburon, its departments, agents, officials and employees shall be named as additional insureds. It is the sole responsibility of the Owner to maintain coverage in force for the term of the valet permit and to name the Town as an additional insured. Said coverage shall be primary and failure to conform to the above requirements shall not waive any responsibility of the Owner. Ten-day written notice of-change or cancellation of the policy shall be served on the Director of Public Works Office. 4. O\vner certifies they shall maintain a liability with a limit of not less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for automobile physical damage, or an endorsement to the Owner's commercial general liability policy for automobile physical damage. 5. Owner certifies they have on file an Indemnity Agreement as required by Town. The Owner shall be responsible for and indemnify the Town from all claims, demands. expenses or liability including but not limited to personal injury and property damage arising out of or related to valet services performed by the Owner under the permit. arising out of the failure on the Owner's part to perform valet services under the permit. arising from or caused by the structures 01- encroachments rencroachments placed in, on or under the Town's right-of-way. If any claim of such liability is made against the Town. its officers or employees. Owner shall defend. indemnify and hold the Town harmless from such claim, including claims alleging-, the nc,-ligence ofthe Town. its officers and employees. The Town, in its sole discretion_ may tender the defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys will all attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the applicant and/or owners. 6. Owner certifies they have delivered notice of the application in accordance with the requirements set out by the Town. This includes notification by the Owner of the proposed valet parking, zone to the Planning Commission and the required adjacent business owners. 7. O\vner acknovylcdges they shall resubmit the application for valet parking to the Department of Public Works for review within ten (10) days ofany changes or 2 onh x-1839-7997-99,, 1 069',5-000 1 1 incl 08 1� 1') additions. The Applicant/Owner shall pay the the for such review. The Applicant or Owner shall also submit any other information that the Department reasonably determines is necessary to review the resubmitted application or permit. Applicant/Owner acknowledges that the following represents a change or addition in inl-ormation: a. The number or type of downtown businesses served or to be served by the Owner or adjacent business owner. b. Twenty (20) percent or more increase in the square footage of indoor and outdoor floor area used by the public of the footage of indoor and outdoor floor area used by the public of the business served or to be served by the Owner. or twenty (20) percent or more increase in the seating capacity of each, theater, bar or restaurant or business that has or is allowed to have live entertainment that is served or to be served by the Owner. c. Ile location of the proposed valet parking zone in the right-of-way. or a twenty (20) percent or more increase in the size of the valet parking zone. or any increase in the number of public parking spaces to be used for the valet parking zone. A The location ofthe public or private parking spaces proposed for storing patrons' vehicles and attendants' vehicles. e. The contract to use privately owned parking spaces for storing patrons' vehicles. E The hours of operation. A twenty (20) percent or more increase in the number of vehicles to be parked during the peak hour of operation on a typical day or in the number of parking spaces needed for storing vehicles. S. The Owner certifies they shall provide one 0) parking station for each valet parking zone. a. The valet parking station shall be a removable lectern, cabinet or other structure as approved by the Town with space for waste disposal. and space to provide locked storage for keys, licenses, contracts. maps and other documents required for providing valet parking. W The valet parking station shall be located as approved on the diagram submitted by the Owner for the valet parking permit. oAK 44H3079 M33 N Find OXA 5 19 c. The valet parking station shall bear a sign, as approved by the Town the name and phone number of the Owner, the name of each business served by the Owner and the charge, if any, for the valet parking. No Sign other than the one required to be mounted on the valet parking station shall be permitted on the valet parking station. 9. The Owner certifies that employees of the Valet service will stay on the public right of way during their going to and fi-om the dropping of cars. 10. The Owner certifies that signage used in conjunction with the Valet service will clearly indicate that the lot is open to the public. 1 1. The Owner certifies that any signage, including the size and location, for the Valet service is subject to review by the Director of Community Development. 12. The Owner certifies that the podium used for providing the Valet service will be on wheels and along with any signs, will be stored out of public view when not in use. 13. The permit that is the subject of this memorandum of encroachment shall be reviewed by Town Council 180 days following commencement of operations of the Valet service. The Town, at its sole discretion, may decline to review the permit at that time. The Applicant or Owner shall submit any information that the Town reasonably determines is necessary to review the resubmitted application or perm it. 14. The Town shall have discretion to revoke this encroachment permit at any time. This encroachment permit does not grant applicant any permanent right to perform work in or use the area subject to the encroachment permit. 15. Only if required by the valet parking permit, Owner acknowledges that they may have directional sio nage for the safe operation of the valet parking zone as approved by the Town. The Owner acknowledges that they are responsible for providing the sionage. Owner certifies they shall obtain written approval from the owners) of property where a sign is to be located if it is required by the terms of the permit to provide a directional sign indicating the correct and safe approach to the valet parking zone. 16. Owner certifies that each attendant shall be over the age of eighteen (18) years and possess a valid driver's license that is not suspended, revoked or cancelled. 17. Owner Lick nowledues that at all times durin- the hours of operation specified in the valet parking permit: a. The valet parking station shall be operated by the number of attendants specified in the valet parking permit. f W,93 5-000 I I final USII�,1') b. The attendants shall refi-ain from consuming alcoholic beveraoes or controlled substances. 18. Owner certifies they shall allow the inspection of premises and records. a. Copies of the following doCLImentS shall be available at the valet parking station during the hours of operation specified in the valet parking license: the valet parking permit; the certificate of insurance and indemnification form required; the written authorization to use private parking spaces for valet parking; the approved drawing of the valet parking station; the approved diagram of the valet parking zone showing the location of the valet parking station, the valet parkin« zone, the removable signs, if any, and the removable cones, the location of the parking spaces used to store patrons' vehicles and routes to the parking spaces; and a current roster of all attendants. including their names, addresses, phone numbers. dates of birth and driver's license numbers. b. Copies of the receipts given to patrons for the three (3) most recent months of operation shall be available for inspection by the Town at all reasonable times. c. The Owner shall allow police officers and other city agents to inspect the valet parking station, the valet parking zone and all the records required during the hours of operation specified in the valet parking permit. 19. Owner certifies they shall operate valet parking operations only durin1-1 the hours of operation as approved by Town COUncil. a. The placement of the valet parking station. signs.. and cones only durin(? the how-s of operation. b. D11611LI the hours of operation, no parking shall be al lowed in the valet parkinl-) zone. c. The valet parking zone and valet parking station shall be operated to minimize any impediment to normal traffic and pedestrian llovv. d. The valet parking zone and valet parking station shall be operated in Cl litter-free manner. e. The valet parking zone shall be operated to avoid unsafe conditions.. including obstruction of traffic flow, patrons' stopping. opening doors OAK-,4839-7997-993,\I U69 i�-11001 I:in,il 08%1 19 or disembarking outside the valet parking zone. or reckless driving by attendants. f. The valet parking zone shall be operated to avoid illegal parking by patrons awaiting valet parking. g. Patrons' vehicles and attendants' vehicles shall be stored only in the parking spaces approved in the permit. h. If, at any time, a vehicle stops outside the valet parkin- zone. the driver shall be requested to move into the valet parking zone or move on. 20. Owner certifies they shall not provide valet parking to vehicles stopped outside the valet parking zone. 21. Owner certifies they shall remove all litter fi•om all parking spaces (and their immediate vicinity) that are used for storing vehicles.. and ti-om the valet parking zone and its immediate vicinity, at the end of the hours of operation each day. 22. Applicant acknowledges that a valet parking permit 1S NOT transferable or assignable by the Owner. 23. 111 consideration of the Town of Tiburon granting this valet encroachment permit, to the full extent permitted by law, Owner, and all other persons usingacting, working or claiming through this permit shall jointly and severally pay. indemnify. defend and hold harmless the Town of Tiburon, its ToWn Council and Toxvn Board. commissions, officers, agents, employees. and consultants from and against ann and all claims, actions, suits, or proceedings against the Town of Tiburon, its Town Council and Town Board. commissions. officers. agents. employees. and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside. declare void. or annul the approval(s) of the permit, or for alle-ed damages_ loss. expenses. penalties, fines or other matters (together with all attorney fees.. court costs. and the cost of appcllate proceedings), arising out of or in connection \nith this permit. including without limitation, claims, liability, harm or damages caused ill part by the Town of Tiburon or anyone for whose mistakes, errors.. omissions or negligence Owner or the Town may be liable. Owner agrees that it shall have no recourse hatsoever against the Town, its officers, agents. boards and commissions. agents or employees for any loss. costs. expenses. or damages arising out of any provision or requirement of the Town because of the enforcement of any provision or requirement ofthe Town because of the enforcement of the permit requirements or because of defects in am ofthe relevant Chapters of the Town Municipal Code. or this permit as a result of any dama«e that may result from the Towns exercise of its authority under this permit or applicable provisions of law. The Town shall promptly notify the applicants and/or owners of any action. The Town. in its sole discretion. man tender the 6 onl;;4839-7997-0933 v 1 0693 -OOU 1 1 final 08 1 v 19 defense of the action to the applicants and/or owners or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys will all attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the applicant and/or owners. 24. Upon the failure of Owner to comply with any of the Permit Conditions. the Town may declare said valet service to be a public nuisance and may take such action as may be authorized by law to abate said nuisance. In addition. the Town may use any and all other remedies authorized by the Town's Municipal Code or state law. 25. The Permit Conditions are covenants and servitudes running with the land and shall be binding upon Owner and successors, assignees. executors. administrators and personal representatives thereto. OWNER(S): Signature'`: Print Name: Signaturet Print Name: Notarization of signature required 7 OAK 4-1839-79117-9933 069„-ouu 1 [This document to be recorded at the County of'Marin Recorder's OffceJ EXHIBIT A Application for Encroachment —TOINT ()I 'rIBII R(. N .[;N(,ROACIIA4il N I I').I�1iI`I'AI'I'IACATI(}N. ., F , th,l, $i,,i. Ca J7 .,.,.._C- c tt;. -S C!!ER-1 I t V lire ANIEA't€ADDRES,11 THE tJNPERSIG7.Hl HFRfBYAPPi If'SFORPE-RMISSION TG PEtRFGRt THE FQLLI]A�-,NG DF5CR,1BFDWQFI AND/;R. O tIJERWISEENCROACH ON A LOCAL i-FNC.Y RIGHT-OF-'WAY-ROVI}: DESCRIPTION OF NVORK OR E CROACHNIIJtiT I.tnclude pl n,3 or wketel* — ClIC4.;"111 1(.1,11 al,ph fo the I>r.,jcr.-�t and pioo(4.0n vsiittt,&,cril-.iion Eli k wcr isl.pwv.Iti,Cit ❑ '.'CC--li(),i IkK=5Ct9j1Td�?I!2 _ .1 .1 .1.1. Road Surf,.{e Type: ❑ Asphalt _ � crcrct ❑ Inlet-- "t`ienc:Iting ❑ Yus (❑ ;;, t :ll^m [;° l: Sullu r il'iitltC{.Eet;:lrs�RI:1:1 �� }'�; ❑ 'iv ., Appliont agteoe thaS al,l—01'Will be perf smed In ccorY{ nee with th,t-I- reguIMkm,, (jetiefal crmditioo:i of€I5+ToYJn of Tibtif'on Drpartmrrtt of Public Wnrhs and-m i` MoQ1 iPal Cvdc. All work;IMI be subitct to Fn ilc tiao and appwv'at by the Dapar&neltt 0 P,dalic Mirk,. o.ptlli:n.st%m l irlds Jy,d;,f- i)nu fi r,W O'c Tman of Tiburon,is oalPiCers,aQlnits, and nipl"ess harmless I,=yny mut ai,claims;-a,err liatdi r ".c?.dirty,but nrt linstnd to,Iingatioa coax and attorney's t"C,,which the Local Aq ,cy alp ificur as dke t R a4 al- ani oil claims and suit,for persmnal miury, Property dap-c,,,.pr inverse rfl &—Iho. Fly raascn r.{app=licant; clfjnr Z inten'9t.;'*of rr±crpachmc.I. ;w1t fized 6y thi,;pE,mil,No Wort,Oad COntrr ri 'u_;hl DL n it i5 iSS J"d. Irl 11.3-tfhh{•� ae .0 , , -?;'k,'(;ANT ..L.-:,t ".:: _...... ;era`t.vll 'i c; n;o d::rlhl i.... J I.'.'il i' 8 OAK=4539-7997-9933 1 0693 1�-0001 Final,IS'I x/19 �' r k& oil 0 r« a / p rawa`4la k 4 % � �. pHfkp[}S [kFill f r`LET '" PALET �HEHE RC .y � � � .r "� WINm . lot S j,A f ea s - � o r s v J HL_ DROP OFF AND PICK UP ROUTE FOR CAPRIC_F_STA RANT � x PiCK LID LOCATIIll N qJ T PARKING LOT CWRICE F � 't x �..�,. �'•` Y?��`��,>3 Via,�h.-r 0 EXHIBIT B Permit Conditions f 1 EP No. 19-032 Lo:ation of Wore 2000 Paradise Drivy Town of Tiburon Department of Public Works ENCROACHMENT PERI IT i A COPY OF HIS PERMIT BE O'N-S1 i L AT At TIMES RU.,1EMBER TO CALL FOR INSPECTION TO: Jerry Dal Bozzo 2000 Paradise Drive Tiburon CA 94920 Issue Date July 31,2019 In compliance with your request ofEaly 31,2J19 and subject to all the terms,conditions and restriction written or printed as General Provisions and Special Conditions on any part of this form anti referenced attachments,PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED FOR: Valet Parking Service At;2000 Paradise Drive,Tiburon,CA 94920 All work shall be done in accordance with attached conditions Memorandum of Encroachment and the folfowring Special Conaitien(s}: 1. All conditions specified in Memorandum of Encroachment. 2_ Valet Service will be from 6prn to 101arr Sunday thru Saturday, 3, There will be a 180 day rev ev,,of this encro achmer-J for one year f 4, Town Council shalt have the right to revoke this enrroachrrent at any t rne. i I f This permit shill br considei J valid roti to the-lint of it heir tJ revoked by T arvn Council. i i i DPW c Fshoo Associa!e Engineer A,-P.# 059-172-45 (JtpaYtnt�ni;rP..l 3iG.:'bftis,1�4i til TGJ:Gfi � _� �-� 1�-'5 tibur9n Blvd.llbuaxo CA 04920 Flic-le t476j.115-73`,!, 11 OAK'4539-7997-9933 el 0693 -14001 Final 08/1 x/19 Town Council Meeti110 TOWN OF TIBURON September 4. 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 3 "Tiburon. CA 94920 . ® . IN 1 To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Accept the July 2019 Investment Summary 4/ Reviewed By: X;�.; n/a Gre-Chanis.Town Manauer Benjamin Stock,"Town Attorney SUMMARY Staff provides the Town Council a monthly report on the Town's investment activity. This report is for the month ended July 31, 2019. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for Jull 2019 BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601.. staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Towns investment activities for the period ended July 31, 2019. ANALYSIS July 2019 Agency Interest Investment Amount Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency Investment S24,049,020.73 2.379°/, Liquid Fund (LAIF)— I3eginning Balance as of 07/01/2019 Total Ending Balance as of 522,796,979.28 07/31/2019 The total invested at the end of the prior month was $24.049,020.73, therefore: the Town's investments decreased by $1.252.041.45. Annual payments to the Town's unfunded liability. assessment bonds. and several .IPAs "cre made in Jule for a total of$1,113,807. Interest for the second quarter of calendar year 2019 is $147.958.55. TOWN OP TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 Attached as Exhibit l to this report is the Town's Public Agency Retirement Services July 2019 Statement for its Section 1 15 Irrevocable "hrustS for Other Post-Employment Benefits and Pension. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing—safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that acceptance of this investment summary is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the Investment Summary for July 2019 Exhibit(s): 1. PARS Section 115 Trust Account activity for July 2019 Prepared By: Suzanne Sweitzer. Director of Administrative Services TG�O" or T1131 }zi)N -- 1�a€�t: 2 m 2 EXHIBIT 1 .ttzE.t`',ri tf RE I II,:_MIA l I t FAA I£ , 101i'NOP 71C31jXp11' Account Report for the Period P/I RSPost-EIrtploYntettt Rertefrts Trust 7/1/2019 to 7/31/2019 Greg Chanes /1[IG i Towel L TOWN MANAGE-HI) ) Town of Tiburon TOWN OF"Tls3E,i(if7P:, 1505 TIbur011 I31Vd. f iburon,CA 94920 Itccount SIImmaty Beginning Bal:use as Ending of Balance ns of Source 7/1/2019 Contribotmos Earnings h;xpensO's 1)istributim" Tnansfers 7/31/2019 0Pr6 .521342.111.86 $0.00 $13,188.01 $488.00 S0.00 30,00 $2.355,111.87 PENSION 31,328.258.5"7 $0.00 $4,383.54 $276.72 SOAR) $0.00 51,332,365.3,9 Totals 53,670,670.43 .50.00 $17,571.55 $764.72 50.00 S0.00 .53.687,477.26 Investment Selection Source OPEB Balanced Index PLUS PENSION lgoderately Conservative Index PLUS Investtttent Objective Source. 'Ilic dual«oak of 111c Balmiccd S ratcgy are growill ofprincipal and income.While dividend and interest income arc oin imporlant componcut of 0111JI the ohiectivc:s total return,it is e�pccled that capital appreciation will comprise a larger porlion of the total retum.The porltialio Avill be allocated between equity and fixed income invcstuwnls. I he dual Iznikk of the iModerate h 1'onset vative Stn ate,are Current ine0111e and moderate capital appreciation.The major portion of the assets Is PLNSION coranained to income-producing Seourities.Market 11uc-tuati0uS should be ccpected. In vestment Return AnnuaL�cd Rclurn Source I-1lonth 3-!MonthsI-)'cat ELcars SScars I0-Years P la n's Inc cp tion llatc OPI�.IS OSU".b I.S'0;� 5.501116 - PENSION 0.1 2.014L 6.6255 7/10/'1/18 Inlnrnv it n id";'c I B.mk.l ivac, r PARS. :pct 1 1)1C I n !: No lieu(,u,.;,,w— ihyI-,:Val Paa I f mma xt I-_w,,I, r:1 1..,nLv IN, t i="rdi i.i.. n nui ,11,cI the deduetwo of,ipphcable ices Teich c)"IJ reduce rcionI III I(.nibll on s 1"-n I rc -,blr hw I xibie l In'cu—nI R,o!" .A on aaliird .vc:tarsi ,,h.',..tIII-not:+HIc�i i ,..,'1 ci l.rioi10 he,than one te:i multiplied of divided I aJ.c.t co np. L e 01-1-r Acro' i h'fl.m c,mc i.tt h,n c„f n. SJ t f.r pion.l i i:.cc and Im,-nem 11 m; enx•nt lie ii. -_,.,—:..o A o-k, t .,_..:.Srr. ui.A�•� i.t t?�xh,C,A 43!1(,(1 .5011.5.4 O.b 3G9 Pas n.t2;io.Cje t�,,tl n_;ri,. Town Council Meetin1_y TOWN OF TIBURON September 4. 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard A�0enda Item: CC - 4 Tibru-on, CA 94920 in zq 13 s i, ® . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department or Public Works Subject: 2020 Various Streets Design Award 4 Reviewed By: � i �%�.. Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock.Town Attorney SUMMARY The FY 2019-2020 CIP included $200,000 for the design of the Annual Pavement Preservation Program. Staff has negotiated a proposal from Pavement Engineering Incorporated (PEI) for the design of the paving. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Authorized the Town Manager to enter into a contract with PEI for design work on the 2020 Various Streets Project. 13ACKGROtiND Every three years the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTC) Binds an evaluation Of the To%vil's roads. "This evaluation is used to select projects for the ToN-vn's Annual Pavement Preservation Program. The last evaluation was completed in March 2019. Based on this. the fol lowing-, road seoments have been selected for treatment. Staff notes that these road se«ments includes Hawthorne and Rock Hill which will be paved as part of the Hawthorne undergroundi110 District ifthat project (-Yoe to construction. STREET START END PCI TREATMENT BARN ROAD BAY VISTA END 22 TI-IICK OVERLAY CORTE LAS CASAS REED RANCH CUL DE SAC 47 THICK OVF.RI_.AY I JAW'I'IIORNE DRIVE EAST END ROCK FALL 41 THICK OVERLAY I IAW'l'l IORNE DRIVE ROCK BILL WEST END 20 "THICK OVERLAY INDIAN ROCK COURT REED RANCH CUL DE SAC 31 THICK OVERLAY ROCK I-IILL DRIVE TIBURON DEL MAR 32 TI-IICK OVERLAY KAREN WAY BLACKFIELD CUL DE SAC 63 THIN OVERLAY S'I'LWAR'I' DRIVE SILVERADO 1'ENAYA 58 'l'HIN OVERLAY STEWAR-I' DRIVE TENAYA ROSEVILLE 65 THIN OVERLAY TOWN or Tait aoN PAGE 1 or 2 BACCHARIS PLACE CYPRESS HOLLOW END 65 DIGOUTS RENTON COURT I-IACIENDA CUL DE SAC 62 DIGOUTS BLACKFIELD DRIVE CECILIA AV KAREN WY 68 DIGOUTS BUCKWI TEAT COURT BLACKFIELD END 67 DIGOUTS CORTE PALOS VERDES REED RANCH CUL DE SAC 57 DIGOUTS RANCHO DRIVE CECILIA CUL DE SAC 65 DIGOUTS ROCK HILL DRIVE DEL MAR CUL DE SAC 60 DIGOUTS TURTLE ROCK COURT TRESTLE GLEN CUL DE SAC 62 DIGOUTS VIA CAPISTRANO FRONTAGE BLACKFIELD 64 DIGOUTS VISTA TIBURON VIA LOS ALTOS CUL DE SAC 51 DIGOUTS The FY2019-20 CIP budget included funding in the amount of$200,000 for design of the Town's Annual Pavement Preservation Program. ANALYSIS The design work is described in the attached proposal (Exhibit 1). The not-to-exceed cost for the design is $174,450. PEI is a recognized leader in the design of pavement repair and is used by other local municipalities including Larkspur. PEI performed the Town's last pavement evaluation and provided expert assistance in the recent 2018 Various Streets project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt fi-0111 the requirements of the California E.,nvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project. it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION StafFrecommends that the Town Council: 1. Authorized the Town Manager to enter into a contract with PEI for des](-)n work on the 2020Various Streets Project. Exhibit(s): 1. Streets Design Proposal from PEI Prepared By: Patrick Barnes,Town Engineer I "m -\ ()I: 1,113t RG > I'm1i. 2 m 2 EXHIBIT 1 p FIUE " "I ` jy t� 39 h I u C a I cl 0 0 0 '-9"i 0 July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Patrick Barnes Director of Pudic Works Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Subject: Town of Tiburon — 2020 PS&E Street Design Project Dear Patrick: Per your request, we are submitting our proposal for a full PS&E package for 2020 street list design. The limits of each road segment are identified in the attached street list. Cour scope of work for this project is outlined below. SCOPE OF WORK TASK 1 — PROJECT ADMINISTRATION This work includes a kick-off meeting with Tiburon staff to confirm the project's scope of work, schedule, budget and availability of project documents; review project goals; discuss format of deliverables; and clarify the responsibilities of each party. Progress meetings will be arranged to review the work at critical stages. For this project we are recommending that we meet at the 00% stage after the pavement evaluation is finished and we can review and confirm the final treatments and conceptual level budget, at ti€e % stage to review and confirm the final documents and collect comments. We anticipate three (3) meetings with Town of Tiburon staff. Constant communication between the project manager and Tiburon staff is part of our app oach and will help ensure a successful project. AX 2 -- SITE INVESTIGATIONS The purpose of this task is to gather and confirm all necessary information, either from field measurements or existing archives to facilitate the design and development of the proJect's contract documents. We nave separated the anticipated investigation and survey items below and provided a det�iled explanation of the expected wore. Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 IVIP1 9-302A Page 2 Task 2A —Measure Field Quantities and ADA Ramp Assessment PEI will physically walk each of the project streets to measure and record all pertinent field quantities, including the location of existing striping, pavement markers and paint markings; location of underground utility covers; limits of paving transitions, digouts, and other pavement repairs; and the total area of pavement to be resurfaced. This information will be compiled into the bid schedule. , As part of our field review, PEI will evaluate the need for curb and gutter on streets where those improvements are currently missing. Specifically, we will identify where the installation of new curb and gutter will improve drainage and prevent erosion. PEI will present our findings to the Town to determine if any new curb and gutter should be replaced. If we identify any concrete repairs or tree root damage during our field reviews, we will note it and bring it to your attention to determine if the repairs should be added to the contract. PEI has identified twenty-four (24) curb ramp locations associated with the project street list that will be evaluated for ADA compliance. PEI will assess these ramps to determine their compliancy with ADA regulations. Non-compliant ramps will be tallied and included in our concept level budget. Task 2B — Monument Perpetuation State Business and Professions Code Section 8771 requires that a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer legally authorized to practice land surveying reference the monuments any time a street, highway, right-of-way or easement is improved, constructed, reconstructed, maintained or resurfaced. If a monument is relocated, it must be reset into the surface of the new construction and recorded with the County Surveyor's Office; otherwise, monuments must be retained or replaced in their original positions upon completion of the work. The local government agency that has jurisdiction over the project property also must be involved in the monument identification and preservation process. PEI will assist the Town of Tiburon with compliance with Section 8771 by performing a records search to locate any potential recorded survey monuments within the street limits. Our surveyor will prepare a written report that PEI will review with the Town to determine which monuments might potentially be disturbed during construction and how to perpetuate them. ZAShared\R Drive\Admiri\Text',Marketiria\Proposals\,Proposals2019\MP19-302 Tiburon\MP19-302A.docx Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Page 3 At the Town's request, PPI can also provide a service to tie-off the existing monuments prior to construction and establish new monumentation after construction. PEI will provide an additional proposal for these services at the Town's if needed. Task 2C— Pavement Evaluation PEI will perforin pavement evaluation services including deflection testing, coring and analysis on the project streets requiring rehabilitation. This type of analysis will eliminate the guesswork and ensure than an optimum rehabilitation approach is identified. In addition, PPI has found that adequate cores and deflection data is invaluable during both the design and construction phases of the project. Our experience suggests that gathering this additional data helps produce designs that can last longer than average approaches, resulting in additional savings to the Town. The deflection analysis will be performed in general accordance with California Test method 350 (CTM 350). Deflection tests will be performed at 100-foot maximum intervals in each lane (minimum 10 tests per lane). On narrow roads (with parking), PEI will only deflection test one lane. Coring will be performed at 500-foot maximum intervals over the street segment (minimum two cores per street segment). To assist with the analysis, our core samples will determine the full structural section (AC & AB). We also will collect a sample of the native soil to determine the R-value. Traffic control will be provided using a vehicle mounted warning lights. Pugging will be provided as needed. The Town of Tiburon will provide the traffic index for each street. rehabilitation options to be investigated will include pulverization and resurfacing, milling and filling, conventional asphalt concrete overlay and RHMA overlays. The deflection testing and coring data for each street will be included in the project development binders; however, no formal deflection testing report will be prepared. Going straight from the raw analysis and data to design saves considerable design funds. In addition to the tasks listed above, PPI will coordinate with Town staff to obtain the following information: Parcel data for right-of-way, subdivision maps, corner records, monument data * Facility maps from utility agencies Other available design data such as drainage facility maps, traffic data, Town standards, front-end specifications, etc. �uwa Z.\SharedlR Drive\Adri n`.'ert P,1<arKetinc`. o;osd':=1Rrct,nsals (i` ,.,.7';x_302 buron`.M" 19-302A.docx Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Page 4 This proposal excludes any electronic locating or potholing of underground utilities. Depending on the rehabilitation treatment selected for each road segment, this work may not be required. However, if full depth reclamation (FDR) is selected as the best rehabilitation option, then PEI can provide these services for an additional cost. TACK 3 -- PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES Task 3A — Concept level budget analysis After the site investigations and surveys outlined in Task 2 are complete, PEI will meet with the Town to review the gathered information. As part of the meeting, we will review preliminary cost information for each viable option for each street segment and a life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to assist the Town in selecting the most cost effective and constructible options for the project streets. As part of our meeting, PEI will also discuss any drainage issues that are observed to determine if/ how to implement the needed improvements. Task 3B — 60%, 95% and Final PS >E Submittals PEI will compile all field quantities collected from Task 2 into individual engineer's estimates by street segment and will provide a summary spreadsheet of the entire project. Using these quantities, along with the pavement evaluation data (Task 2C), PEI will meet with Town staff to determine the most cost-effective rehabilitation approach for each of the project streets. This meeting will be considered the 60% submittal. The 60% submittal will also include a review of the plans PEI has prepared for the base sheets. We will draft technical specifications and details for typical sections, transitions, conforms, digouts, and additional pavement work will be prepared. PEI will submit any portion of the maintenance work that requires further clarification in the form of drafted plan views, details, elevations, or cross sections, as is necessary. Where it facilitates the design, PEI will use aerial photographs to develop base sheets. This information will be submitted to the Town at the 95% design review. It is assumed that the existing striping will remain the same. Changes in the striping pattern will constitute a change in scope. After reviewing the 95% submittal, we will meet with Town staff to resolve any outstanding issues and will adjust the contract documents accordingly. A final 100% submittal will follow. Z:\Shared\R Drive\Admin\Text\Marketing\Proposals\Propcsals2019\MP19-302 1boron\MP19-302A.dou /1 _ Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 M P 19-302A Page 5 Task 3C— Curb Ramp Designs PEI will develop ramps designs for non-compliant ramps identified during the investigation phase of the project. Cour work will include field measuring the needed ramp locations to determine the estimated construction quantities and preparing estimates for inclusion in the project's bid schedule. If the ramps are complicated by steep slopes, existing utility boxes, pales or other obstructions, PEI will provide a more detailed design that will be included in the project plans. Detailed ramp designs will include localized topographic surveying. For this work, PEI has estimated that 13 ramps will only need quantities and 11 ramps that will require detailed designs. PEI will invoice for the ramp work on a time and material basis. Task 3 ® Deliverables The 60%will include a budget breakdown and LCCA for each of the project streets. The 95% submittals will include two sets of 11" x 17" plan sets as well as electronic format. Final approved drawing submittals will include two complete sets of full-sized hard copy paper plans and an electronic copy of the plans including a complete e- transmit of AutoCAD files with all x-ref and pen settings, and a PDF copy of all the drawing sheets submitted. Final specification submittals shall include one hard copy paper document bound and electronic copies in Mord and PDF format, x '�, r - i z During the bid period, we will be available to answer any specific questions from the Town concerning the design. ShOUld the need arise, we will prepare an addendum as required. In addition, we will also be available to attend a pre--bid meeting and for help with questions from the contractors during the bidding process. All fees for this task will be on a time and rnaterials bases. Task 5A — General Support Services During construction, PEI will be available to the Town's construction staff to attend construction meetings and respond to contractor questions concerning the plans Z:\Shared\R Drive\Adm n\-ext\Marketin \Proposa s\Pr:�posals2 l9`:v P n g � � [i 19-302 Tiburon'•,ty€- 19.,Q2A.docx Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 M P 19-302A Page 6 and specifications. If needed, we will be available to make site visits and respond to RFIs during the construction process. In addition, we can review design questions, submittals; and construction problems. We can assist the Town in processing change orders by providing written recommendations. PEI will provide these services on an as-needed basis. All fees for this task will be on a time and materials bases. Task 5B — Prepare As-Built drawings PEI will prepare as-built drawings from the red-line construction set prepared by the Towns selected CM firm for the 2020 Street Design Project. The as-build will be prepared in AutoCAD format. PEI will coordinate with the CM firm for any red- line clarifications. Excluded Work Our work excludes developing traffic control plans, locating underground utilities and providing testing or inspection services during construction. These services can be added to our scope at any time for additional fees. PEI will provide a proposal for any these services at the Town's request. Our plan is to have this project complete and ready for bid by the end of the year so the Town of Tiburon can bid the project during the winter months when the Town can expect to receive the most competitive bids. We will begin work as soon as we receive a notice to proceed. Our total estimated fee for performing this work will be $174,450. All work is subject to final negotiation with the Town of Tiburon. The attached proposal conditions will apply. Please feel free to contact me at {306} 781-2265 with any questions. Very truly yours; PAVEMPNT ENGINEERING INC. Joseph L' Ririe, P.E. Principal Engineer Attachments: Project Street List & Curb Ramp List; Estimated Fee Breakdown Schedule; Proposal Conditions PC: C File, M File, MP Files Z1Shared\R Drive\Admin\Text\Marketing\Proposals',Proposals2019\MP19-302'iburon\MP19-302A.docx r Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Page 7 PROJECT STREET LIST TOWN OF TI ON 2020 PE DESIGN PROJECT Heavy Barn Road Bay Vista End 283 Rehabilitation Corte Las Casas Reed Ranch Cul de sac 235 Heavy Rehabilitation Hawthorne Drive East End Rock Hill 360 Heavy Rehabilitation f Hawthorne Drive Rock Hill West End 1,160 Heavy Rehabilitation Indian Rock Court j Reed Ranch Cul de sac 800 Heavy Rehabilitation Rock Hill Drive Tiburon Del Mar 751 Heavy Rehabilitation .......... Karen Way Blackfield Cul de sac 1,936 Light Rehabilitation Stewart Drive Silverado Tenaya 532 Light Rehabilitation Stewart Drive Tenaya Roseville 650 Light Rehabilitation Baccharis Place Cypress Hollow End 640 HM Digouts Benton Court Hacienda Cul de sac 240 HM Digouts Blackfield Drive Cecilia Avenue Karen Way 1,025 HM Digouts Buckwheat Court I Blackfield End 400 HM Digouts --------------—-------___-__- Corte Palos Verdes Reed Ranch Cul de sac 588 HM Digouts ................... Rancho Drive Cecilia Cul de sac 800 HM Digouts ...................... Del Mar Cul de sac Rock Hill Drive 849 HM Digouts ................ ................. -----_-___-- ........................ Turtle Rock Court Trestle Glen I Cul de sac 1,839 HM Digouts Via Capistrano Frontage Blackfield 800 HM Digouts —----___-_------ --.. -- — -- - —' Vista -- ---- Vista Tiburon Via Los Altos Cul de sac 800 HM Digouts .......... Z:\5hared',1R Dr;ve,,,'Ndm in\-:extUMarketiiig�Propo.sal-\Proposa's2019,P,',,"t9-302 Tiburon'tMP19-302A.docx Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Page 8 CURB RAMP LIST TOWN OF TI EJ ON 2020 PS&E DESIGN PROJECT i Barn Road Bay Vista Drive N 0 No Ramp Needed Blackfield Drive Cecilia Way Y 2 Quantities Only Blackfield Drive Karen Way Y 2 Quantities Only Karen Way Blackfield Drive Y 2 Quantities Only Karen Way Claire Way Y 2 Quantities Only Karen Way Claire Way Y 2 Quantities Only Karen Way At Elementary School Y 2 Complicated needs survey Karen Way Leland Way Y 2 Quantities Only Corte Las Casas Reed Ranch Road N 0 No ramp needed Indian Rock Court Reed Ranch Road Y 1 Quantities Only Stewart Drive Silverado Drive N 2 Complicated needs survey ___._._.._....._._._._........................... -- - ------; Stewart Drive Sonora Court N 2 Complicated needs survey Stewart Drive Tenaya Drive N 1 Complicated needs survey Stewart Drive Auburn Court Y 2 Complicated needs survey Stewart Drive 1 Sierra Court Y 2 Complicated needs survey Stewart Drive Roseville Court N 0 No ramp needed y Z:\Shared\R Drive•Adr-,jn',Text�MarkehrylProposals',Proposeis20191MP19-302 Tiburon',MP19-302A.docx e Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Page 9 ESTIMATED FEE BREAKDOWN SCHEDULE TOWN OF TIBURON 2020 PS&E DESIGN PROJECT Position Rate Flours Total Senior Principal Engineer $240 32 $7,680 Assistant Engineer L $160 32 5,120 Estimated Task 1 Fee: $12,800 m Task 2A Measurement of Field Quantities arad3 AgDA Ramp Assessment for Compliance Assistant Engineer $160 24 W $3,840 Senior Engineering Technician $145 24 3,480 1 Engineering Technician $135 24 3,240 Estimated Task 2A Fee: $10,560 Task 213; Monument Perpetuation i Senior Principal Engineer $240 ' 1 I $240 Assistant Engineer $160 2 + 320 Geo-West 71040 Estimated Task 213 Fee: $7,6000 Task 2C Pavement'Evaluation(Deflection Testing and Coring} . _ Senior 24 Engineer Principal En $240 ' p g� $5,760 Assistant Engineer $160 24 3,840 E Senior Engineering Technician $145 24 3;480 1 Clerical $80 8 640 Dynaflect OperatorI $295 6 1,770 Asst. Dynaflect Operator $165 6 990 Dynaflect& Coring Crew Preparation $145 2 290 ( Coring Technician $240 10 j 2,400 Asst. Coring Technician $145 10 1,450 Laboratory Manager $160 7 1,120 Laboratory Technician $105 39 4,095 i Mobilization 3,570 �Traffic Control 4;000 _---_. __._.__.______ ......._..._.._. ....__.___ ._._.__.. Estimated Task 2C Fee: $33,405 Total Estimated Task 2 Fee: l $51,565 Z:\Shered\R Drive\Admin,'Text',tvlarketir)g''lPropose,s',Proposals201C,'•.MP10-302 Tiburon\MP 19-302A.docx r Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Page 10 Task 3A Concept Level Budget'Anaiy i"s Senior Principal Engineer $240 4 $960 Assistant Engineer $160 16 2,560 Senior Engineering Technician $145 8 1,160 j Engineering Technician $135 8 1,080 Estimated Task 3A Fee: $5,760 Task 3B' 60°fa, 95%and'F naI,PS&E SubMfttalg Senior Principal Engineer $240 32 $7,680 Assistant Engineer $160 56 8,960 i Senior Engineering Technician $145 120 17,400 Engineering Technician $135 80 10,800 Estimated Task 3E Fee: $44,840 Task 3C Curb Ramp Designs (36;Ramp } Senior Principal Engineer $240 l 11 j $2,640 Assistant Engineer $160 125 20,000 Senior Engineering Technician $145 125 18,125 Estimated Task 3C Fee: $40,765 Total Estimated Task 3 Fee: $91,365 Senior Principal Engineer $240 2 $480 i Assistant Engineer $160 10 ' 1,600 - _3 Estimated Task 4 Fee: m- $2,080 � z�W l Task 5AGeneral Support Services Senior Principal Engineer $240 20 i $4,800 lAssistant Engineer $160 ! 20 I 3,200 Estimated Task 5A Feer- $8,000 Task SB Prepare As-Built Drawings --- Senior Principal Engineer $240 4 $960; Assistant Engineer $160 48 7,680 -- - .. .........- --- ....- Estimated Task 5B Fee: $8,640 _ Total Estimated Task 5 Fee: ! $16,640 I F M : 'f „' 5,16 . a � ZAS€7ared\R Drive\admin\Text\MarketinclProposais\Proposals2019\MP19-302 Tiburon\MP19-302A.docx �.,.. Patrick Barnes July 20, 2019 MP19-302A Page 11 PROPOSAL CONDITIONS 1. Proposal is valid for thirty days from the date of the proposal. 2. All work shall be performed utilizing common methods and practices of the civil engineering profession. Reports and construction documents will be signed by a registered civil engineer. 3. Fees for Lump-Sum or Unit Price Proposals will be charged at the quoted price. The quoted prices include all laboratory testing costs. Fees for Engineering and Technical Services on a Time and Materials Basis will be charged at the applicable hourly rates of the current PEI Fee Schedule. 4. The proposal is based upon providing liability insurance with limits up to $2,000,000. 5. Payment: Invoices will be submitted at the completion of the work for Engineering Reports. Inspection fees will be invoiced on a monthly basis. All invoices are due upon receipt. Interest of 1-1/2% per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law)will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days, payment thereafter to be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid amount. Attorneys' fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount shall be paid by the client. If _.',Sha ed\2rive`Admm',Text','.larketing,Proposas\Proposals2019';N1P19;, 1 ihuron\. it .'•_"02k.dncx Town Council Meet11-1<0 TOWN OF TIBURON September 4. 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 5 Tibui-on, CA 94920 To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council 7 From: Community Development Department Subject: 490 Ridge Road: Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for the Construction to Expand an Existing Deck for an Existing Single- Family Dwelling, with a Variance for Excess Lot Coverage; Stephen Schwartz Owner; Cavi 1985, LLC Appellants; File Nos. DR2019-041 & VAR2019-006; Assessor Parcel No. 059-082-06 Reviewed By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY On August 21, 2019, the Town Council partially granted an appeal of the Design Review Board's decision on the project at 490 Ridge Road.This item is consideration of a Resolution memorializing that decision. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Ado pt the Resolution as part of the Consent Calendar. BACKGROUND On August 21, 2019, the Town Councjl held a public heanng on an appeal of the Desian Review Board's decision on this application. On .lune 20. 2019. the Design Revie\v Board approved a Site Plan and AI-chlteetul-al Review application with a Variance for excess lot coverage for the construction ofan upper level deck expansion for an existing single-family dwelling. After closing the public hearing, the Town CowIcil voted 3-I to direct staff to prepare a resolution partially «ranting the appeal for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. That resolutjon now comes before the Town Council for adoption. Tlie di-alt resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. No public comments have been received as of the writing of this report. ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. TOWN OF T1 B[ RON I t-, 1 OF 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town COullcil adopt this Resolution (Exhibit 1). as part of the Consent Calendar. Exhibit: 1. Draft Resolution partially granting the appeal Prepared by: Kyra O'Malley, Senior Planner ToNN Vts, I.1131 lw\ 11 v,r 2 or,2 EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PARTIALLY GRANTING AN APPEAL BY CAVI 1985, LLC OF THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTURCTION OF AN EXISTING DECK FOR EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE AT 490 RIDGE ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-082-06) WHEREAS, on June 20, 2019. the Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing,to consider a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (File Nos. DR2019-041 and VAR2019-006) filed by Stephen Schwartz (`Applicant') for the construction to expand an existing deck for an existing single-family dwelling. \vith a Variance for excess lot coverage, on property located at 490 Ridge Road; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the adjacent property owner at 480 Ridge Road opposed the application and raised concerns regarding privacy and noise impacts and that the variance findings cannot be supported. The Design Review Board reviewed the plans and determined that the expansion would be modest, would be 49 linear feet from the property line and unseen from the adjacent neighbor, the proposal was adequate to address the potential privacy and noise concerns fi•orn the home of 480 Ridge Road. WHEREAS, the Design Review Board made the required findings for the requested Variance, and voted 3-0 to approve the project: and WHEREAS, on July 1, 2019. owners Cavi 1985, LLC ("Appellants") of 480 Ridge Road tiled a timely appeal of the Design Review Board's decision, objecting to the potential privacy and noise impacts caused by the proposed deck expansion and asserting, that the findings for variance for excess lot coverage could not be made: and WHEREAS, on August 21. 2019. the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing, on a de novo basis, on the appeal. during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the application and the Design Review Boards review and decision on the application. At the conclusion of the public hearim). the Town Council voted 3-1 to direct staff to prepare a resolution partially granting the appeal and adding conditions of approval modifying the approved plans for the consideration of adoption at the next meetinL,. The Town Council found that if the project was revised to only alloNy a 28 square foot addition that would square off the bump out portion of the existing deck. the Council could make the necessary findings for pro_jeet approval. The project design as revised would need to have the bump out portion squared off for a 28 square feet addition, and as revised.. it would be consistent with the previous Town Council direction to not expand the project in close distance to the south side property and adjacent nei0hbor. and as the result would not create substantial noise or privacy impacts on the appellants home; and WHEREAS, the official record for this application is hereby incorporated and made part of this Resolution. The record includes. without limitation, staff reports, minutes, application materials, appeal materials. correspondence. and all comments and materials received at any public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Town COul1cll finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Enviromnental Quality Act per Section 15301 ofthe CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Town Council determined that the findings can be made for the requested variance for excess lot coverage as required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and as described below: 1. Because of special circinnslonces applicable to the property, including size, shape, topogrraphy, location, or sitrroitndings, the strict application of this Ordinance gill deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the satire or substantially the same zone. Due to the slope of the lot. there is limited potential for outdoor space as compared to other properties in the vicinity. The deck expansion as revised would allow for the applicant to have additional outdoor space. There are other properties in the area have more usable outdoor space than this property. 2. The variance will not constintte a ;rant of special privileges, inconsistent lnith the limitations upon olhcr properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantiallY the some zone. The 21.424 square foot property size of the subject property is larger than the 20.000 square foot minimum lot size in the RO-2 zone. Numerous other properties zoned R0-2 have been granted variances for excess lot covera-e. but generally for homes that are located on properties that are smaller than the minimum lot area. Other homes in the area, however, have more usable outdoor space than the subject property. This Variance request would allow tOr additional outdoor space on a sloped lot. 3. The strict application of chis Zonin, Ordrnrtnce mould resuh in practical diffict.dty or InInecessarl- physical hardship. .Self-created hardYhips tray not he considered cnnon, the factors that mi; access from the main level of the home to the main outdoor space area. Without the Variance. the applicant would need to expand the outdoor space down the hill. This would require construction of retaining walls and possibly the removal of foliage and grading of a sloped lot. This could result in a hardship for the property owner. 4. The rantin; of the roriunce irill not he detrhnentol to the public inelfcn•e or iglitrious to other properties in the vicinity. Allowing additional deck space as revised by the conditions of approval, would not be detrimental to the public welfare. The adjacent neighbor at 480 Ridge Road has expressed concerns about privacy. However, the Lipper level deck expansion of 28 square feet would be 49 linear feet fi-om the side property line and would he screened by mature vegetation along the side. Additionally. the adjacent neighbor has indicated that the revised project to only allow the additional 28 square feet would mitigate the impacts to the neighbor's property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein and form a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby partially grants the appeal of the Appellants and partially approves the Site Plan and Architectural Review application (DR2019-041 and VAR2019-006) for a deck expansion, as conditioned, for an existing single-family dwelling, `,y°ith a Variance for excess lot coverage, on property located at 490 Ridge Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the I own Council adds the following condition of approval to those imposed by the Design Review Board: 10. The upper level deck expansion shall be limited to squaring off the deck. This increase in size is limited to 28 square feet at the outer edges of the existing deck located to southeast and northeast of property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVI=:D that the Final and consolidated conditions of approval are attached as Exhibit "A" hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a reUUular meeting of the Town Council on September 4, 2019 by the followillo vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBF.RS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Town`Council Resolution No. DRAFT-2019 Sc ptember 4. 2019 Page 3 of 4 DAVID KULIK, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTES"h: LEA STEFANI_ TOWN CLERK I Town Council Resolution No. DRAFT-2019 September 4, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Town Council Meeting TOWN OF TIBURON September-4, 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - 6 Tibui-on. CA 94920 To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Consider approval of Town's Response to Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report Titled: Marin Telecom Disconnect ,r Reviewed By: � Gree Chanis.1-own Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY For this item. Council will consider approval of the Town's response to the 2018-2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report titled: ;11arin Telecom Disconnect. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Review and approve the proposed ►-esponse and authorize the Town Manager to sign and forward the response to the Marin County Civil Grand July. BACKGROUND On June 13- 2019. the Marin County Cis it Grand Jury released a report entitled: Marin Telecom Disconnect (Exhibit 1). The report includes numerous recommendations the Town must respond to, with the responses conforming to the format required by Penal Code section 933.05. ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption ofthis item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt fi-om the requirements ofthe California Envil-onn)cntal Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. Tow.N' or- TiBL'R0N PAGE I ort RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the Town COLHICH: 1. Review and approve the proposed response and authorize the Town Manager to sign and forward the letter to the Civil Grand July. F.xhibit(s): 1. 2018-2019 Marin County Civil Grand July Report:Marin Telecom Disconnect. 2. Draft response to 2018-2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury report titled: Marin Telecom Disconnecl. Prepared By: Greg Chanis.Town Manager EXHIBIT 1 2018-2019 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Marin /s Telecommunications Disconnect Report Date: June 6, 2019 Public Release Date: June 13, 2019 i I T T T ! A s a ! • t COUNTY OF MARDI ': Marin's Telecommunications Disconnect SUMMARY Marin has been short-changed by a lack of telecommunications leadership by county and municipal ofticials. Because of this, the public does not have countyvide ober to the home and has only limited ability to aggregate demand. Aggregation strengthens the ability to negotiate cost., coverage. and other contractual terms with telecom providers. Oli.ofticials have turned over network development policy to commercial network providers. resulting in a patchwork of network services that benefit the companies' profit-making priorities. Our Officials have not ensured that all county residents receive the best value in telecom services. Effective leadership that has technical expertise in telecom business, regulation, and technolo�oy is needed so that individuals. businesses, and government entities will better understand what is happening and what is possible, and choose what is best for all. Major telecom opportunities were missed by existing agencies. Few applications were made for available federal and state funds to provide high quality broadband internet access to unserved and poorly served areas such as West Marin and the Canal Area of San Rafael. The opportunities to use existing fiber optic networks to provide broadband for businesses and residents were ignored. The opportunity to negotiate favorable terms for countywide 5G (the next generation cellular technology) installations was ineffectively addressed. A detailed review of 5G deployment issues is not included in this report in part because federal law precludes health effects from being used to prevent installation of cell phone transmitting stations. The lack ofcountywide telecom leadership and coordination means that the various government entities did not and do not formally seek or use opportunities to plan and cooperate Nvith each other. The Marin TelecomIII Lmications Agency (MTA) was intended to provide leadership. coordination. and policy guidance in the county: however. it has abandoned these functions. With the N1TA's originally stated mission. interested parties could have expected that countvwidC leadership was being provided. However, the MTA's Board decided over a decade Ll to focus essentially on the collection and distribution of franchise fees and oversight of the Community Media Center of Marin and to ignore its policymaking leadership mission. Marin County needs competent and effective guidance on telecom. The Board of Supervisors Should set yip a commission or a public advisory group to monitor telecom activities and propose appropriate actions to best serve the telecommunications interests of Marin's residents. Hurin'.c 7"lecommitnic°alions Disconnecl BACKGROUND Through requests for investigation submitted by concerned members ofthe public and articles and opinion pieces in the Marin Independent Journal. the Marin Civil Grand Jury became aware that questions exist regarding the telecom111Lill ications services provided and the management of telecommunications by county and municipal agencies. APPROACH The Grand Jury used the following methods in developing this report: ■ Interviewing representatives from public and governmental agencies. consultants and citizens. ■ Attending public meetings of agencies and city councils. ■ Researching websites. ■ Examining documents. ■ Reviewing documentation provided with citizens' complaints. DISCUSSION TelecomIII inllcations is ever more important to the functions of"daily life. It is an essential medium affecting all sectors of the Marin community. Telecom technologies enable broadband transmission (capacity for sending high speed data over any medium). which can be in the form of coaxial cable, wireless radio, optical fiber, or satellite links. The deployment of telecommunications technology in the county has been handled by several government entities: in Marin General Services Authority (MGSA) is a .Joint Powers Authority which was created in 2005 by the cities, towns, and the County of Marin to administer various public services effectively and efficiently throughout the county in a uniform manner with minimal overhead expense. The MGSA owns most of the street light poles in the county and licenses what is mounted on them, for example, 5G cellular equipment. ® Information Services and Technology Department (IST) of Marin County (Ioverm»ent focuses on government computing and communication needs. IST creates and maintains the infrastructure that supports official county services delivered through the Marin Information Data Access Services (MIDAS), which links county government, libraries. cities. and other institutions together in a shared hi,-,h-speed network. ® Community Development Agency (CDA) protects public health and safety. preserves environmental quality, and plans sustainable. diverse communities. Amon�c, its responsibilities. the CDA controls the siting of cellphone towers within the county through land use regulation. June 6. 2019 Marin COunty Civil Grand JLII'vPare 2 48 ,Warin's Tc lc connnzmiccrlions Disconnecl ■ The Marin Telecommunications Agency (MTA) was established in 1998 to negotiate, collect and d1SbLII-Se cable tv franchise fees and Public. Education and Government (PEG) fees, and to coordinate telecommunications issues for its members. It is a joint powers authority (.IPA) that consists of Marin County and all the cities and towns in Marin, except Novato and Larkspur, which have separate cable franchise a0 reements. Its purpose, as published on the MTA website, is described as follows: The mission of the MTA is to be the key policy-inoking and coordinating, body related to teleeonnnunications»utters in Marin. This is in line frith the core values that hove defined the MTA throughout its history of mooting ovoilobility, accessibility, affordability and public inclusion in the advancement and enhoncennent of teleconimunications infrastructure and serviees in 111larin.l The MTA also established the Community Media Center of Marin (CMCM), which operates Marin TV. Created with PEG fees, CMCM is a non-profit corporation with its own board of directors, and is responsible for Marin County's non-commercial public access, educational and governmental cable channels. For example, residents can watch broadcasts of their town council and board of supervisors meetings on the CMCM government channel. It also provides residents with access to communication technologies, media training, and the latest digital tools to create original content for cable TV and online media. None of these government agencies, individually or together. Inunctions to ensure that Marin"s residents, businesses, schools and county government enjoy the greatest benefit fi-om tclecom service providers and their technologies. MTA's Changing Role The MTA's role as the "key policy-makin,o and coordinating body related to telecolT1Ill 1111icatlolls matters in Marin," has changed. In September 2006. California enacted the Digital Infrastl'UctLIl"e and Video Competition Act of 2006 (D1VCA). This IcLislation removed local bargaining power and mandated that the cable industry pay local goverm»ents a 5% Franchise fee for alloy-vin() cable franchisees access to the public right of way and a 1°% PEG fee to fund public access broadcasting. DIVCA was intended to even the telecom playing field and close the digital divide.'` Cable subscribers pay these fees as a percentage of the monthly bill they pay to the cable providers. They are based on only that portion of the providers bill attributable to basic tier cable TV services, not the wi-fi, Internet. and othcr sery ices portions of tlIC service handle. The precise portion ofthe bill allocated for basic cable TV service among all the services provided is "\ruin I_d�cun�numictuiui,�.1__nr� .,alcuin 7elecomm�micaiions.Igencr.Accessed 17 Mai 2019. "\ ui ,1 ldl_yin_. Caliti)rnia Pithlic Uidilies Commission.Accessed 17 Mm 2019. June 6. 2019 Marin County Civil Grand JLIrV Pau)e 3 of 8 'War-in's Telec•onmrz. ucalions Disconnect proprietary information, so the exact total of fees paid by all subscribers in each jurisdiction is only verifiable by independent auditors. As a consequence of DIVCA, the MTA changed its direction and focused primarily on the collection, distribution and auditing of the fees collected fi-om Comcast. AT&T. and Horizon Cable TV. Essentially, the MTA's broader strategic role was reduced to monitoring and collecting streams of income from the telecom industry and receiving cable and internet complaints. Its mission of providing telecom policy leadership has not been carried out. The individual members of the JPA (the towns, cities and county) have expressed no interest in paying any portion of their income for telecom policy purposes, preferring instead to maximize distributions to the JPA members' general funds. As for handling complaints, the MTA's consumer support consists of offering a link on its website to connect consumers directly to the complaint pages ofthe websites of AT&T, Comcast, and Horizon and providing an MTA general complaint form on a separate page on its website. As a test, the Grand Jury sent in a consumer complaint to the MTA on its general complaint form, and, to date, no response has been received. After deductions for overhead and professional costs. the MTA distributes the net proceeds of the fi-anchise fees to the general funds of its constituent government members, and it uses the PEG fees to fund the capital costs of public access broadcasting by CMCM. The MTA budget covers hiring an outside accounting firm to audit the fees due from the cable franchise companies and the costs of running an office with a part time executive director and some clerical support. The overall cost of running the MTA amounts to over $200.000 per year, a significant expense for MTA's largely ministerial role. Even these limited functions of the MTA are unlikely to survive into the future because the continued payment of these fees by the cable companies is unlikely to last. With the availability of broadband streaming services. consumers are now "cutting the cord.- so the payment of franchise fees is declining and is likely to eventually cease altogether. Additionally, the cable companies are challenging their- obligation to pay the franchise tees at all, claiming that it is anticompetitive compared to other non-cable providers. such as DirecTV and DISI 1. Added to all of this, cable providers may be able to offset some of the amount paid to the MTA because the FCC has ruled that providers may" charge entities like Nelarin TV for use of the providers' facilities to distribute the entities' content. The future of this income stream to local uovernments is in jeopardy which brings even the diminished function of the MTA into question. June 6. 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 8 I'larin's Teleconmuiiicalioiis Disconnecl Detrimental Results and Missed Opportunities As a result of the lack of coordinated and properly supported oversight. the county has not taken advantage of important opportunities: ■ Each municipality has negotiated separately with telecom providers and the potential benefits of a proactive strategy and aggregation have been lost. For example, cities are separately engaging legal counsel in determining local rules for deploying 5G technology. Additionally. there is no coordinated strategy for investigation of the use, benefits, detriments or installation of this technology. ■ Exclusive use of six strands of optical fiber alongside the SMART tracks was offered to Marin County, including its schools. to service its telecom needs free for 10 years by SONIC, but these fibers have sat idle for several years. ■ Only a few attempts were made belatedly by the MTA or any other agency to connect the existing Skywalker Ranch broadband fiber network to underserved communities in West Marin. (Although Nicasio and Bolinas were able to connect to this network recently, it was only through the auspices of a different entity).' ® The MTA made no application for Obama-era funds specifically dedicated to the delivery of broadband to underserved and unserved areas, such as the Canal area of San Rafael and West Marin.' California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) fiends were also available, though again, the MTA for the most part. did not apply for them.6 The MTA tools no advantage of these opportunities. offered no strategy to the cities and towns of Marin, and provided no oversight of telecommunications services for Marin County as a whole. Unlike the City of San Jose that, as an example of proactive telecom planning, negotiated agreements for 5G cellular deployment with Verizon. Mobilitie and AT&T to ensure service to all areas of the city so that redlining (not providing service to less profitable areas) was prevented. Additionally, the vendors will be contributing to a $24M Digital Divide Fund for San Jose over the next decade that will support programs and initiatives for residents \t/ho lack access to broadband internet services.7 'Avants. I'vIaeaic."SI: l:anch I3)1o,ldh;IIl, ill I.i Io 'I,�v" A;iIv d,. Pauh. IS Juk 2016. Evans. Bcau A ,a< <3 i n's i t n, ti„� � u x�1 Point Rcies l.ioht.25 Jun. 2015. ... . Ace Im"tm, a i,� .�,� r.,;�,i.a,. lill�llt�l .A«� \cmonal Telecomm nicaions and Inibimation.Idmim,;ir(mon.27 Sep. 2010. " '*(-�lilnin!a A n l)"C"! ti.,i\ici� I ui ki(( V\,I �tn.n., ; i, .uz,� nii I n,m (( i' Inn �.1). Grams Office. Accessed 17 - - Mav 2019. Jo-"::1 llmmcr� S 12. Inli �,n it Cin' Jose, IS.Iu). 201S. June 6. 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jur\' Page 5 of 8 .11617-in's Telecomrnimiculions Disc0171ec1 JPA Structural Limitations JPAs exist in special obscurity because their directors are elected to other coLmcils or boards from which they are assigned to serve on .IPA boards. The MTA is an example of this. Its members the County of Marin. and the cities and towns of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax. Mill Valley, Ross. San Anselmo, San Rafael. Sausalito and Tiburon —each appoint one of their council members to the MTA board. No council candidate campaigns on issues related to a JPA because their election to a city or town council does not guarantee appointment to any specific JPA board. As a consequence, it is 1,mlikely that JPA board members would have telecolllYL)Lill ications expertise, and in fact, they do not. Possible Solutions What can the county do to ensure that future telecom opportunities and benefits are not missed? What organization would be suited to oversee the provision of the best telecom services (such as broadband internet. television programming. 5G, or future telecom technologies) in the best possible way? Whatever form it takes, the county needs competent guidance and leadership in technical, business and regulatory matters regarding telecom. Simply allowing market forces to determine telecom deployment without government intervention will produce service area gaps that leave less populated communities without connection as has occurred in the more remote areas of Marin County. Dense population areas are more profitable for telecom providers because they can get the highest returns on the costs of extending their infi-astructure and siting their equipment. To address these issues. the Grand Jury proposes that a citizen advisory commission be created to monitor and address telecom matters for the whole county. The commission should be made LIP of members of the public who have the interest and expertise to provide advice on telecom issues. June 6. 2019 Marin County Civil Grand .Jury Page 6 of S 17a1171's Te1cC0777M7119iCG1io17s Discomiecl FINDINGS F I. Neither the County nor any of its agencies is providing strategic leadership or advice for telecommunications services such as broadband internet access or 5G, leaving Marin poorly served. F2. Each municipality has been obliged to negotiate separately with 5G and fiber to the home telecom providers. so the potential benefits of aggregation have been lost and some communities remain unserved or underserved. H. The MTA has chosen to abandon its policy making and coordinating mission, so the MTA serves no strategic or advisory function to the county. F4. Currently, the main function of the MTA which is to collect and distribute cable franchise and PEG fees to its members. could be efficiently performed by the MGSA. F5. CMCM is a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation which is governed by its own board so it could operate without MTA oversight. F6. The MTA has applied for few of the available Federal or CPUC grants, and it has missed opportunities to access existing fiber networks, all of which has caused Marin County to fall behind the levels of telecom service provided to other areas in California. F7. The MTA's income is declining and may be eliminated altogether; as a result, the MTA will have no function and is likely to disband or it will need to be funded by its constituent municipalities or from some other source. F8. The county could benefit from strategic guidance and leadership in technical. business and regulatory matters regarding telecommunications for its businesses and residents. June 6. 2019 Marin Count\, Civil Grand Jury Pagc 7 of 8 _llarin's Telecommunicalions Disconneci RECOMMENDATIONS Rl. By December 31, 2019. the Board of Supervisors should appoint a citizen's advisor}" committee that will provide advice and information on teleconvilLill ications services and policy. The Grand Jury recommends that citizens with telecommunications expertise be appointed to the committee. R2. The MTA's franchise fee collection and disbursement responsibilities should be moved to the MGSA. R3. MTA's responsibilities for CMCM should be terminated. R4. The MTA should be dissolved. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grand juty requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: ■ Marin County Board of Supervisors (RI, R2, R3, R4) ■ Marin Telecom III Lill Icat]oils Agency Board of Directors (R2, R3, R4) ® Belvedere City Council (R2. R3, R4) ■ Corte Madera Town Council (R2. R3, R4) ■ Fairfax Town Council (R2. R3, R4) ■ Mill Valley City Council (R2. R3, R4) ■ Ross Town Collncll (R2. R3, R4) ■ San Anselmo Town Council (R2. R3, R4) ■ San Rafael City Council (R2, R3, R4) ■ SaLlsalito City Council (R2, R3, R4) ■ Tiburon Town Council (R2, R3. R4) The governing bodies indicated above should be aNs-are that the comment or response of the governin�a body must be conducted in accordance ss ith Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to the notice. agenda and open meeting requirements ofthe Brown Act. The following) individuals are invited to respond: ■ CIO. County of Marin ■ General Mana(_,cr. Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Note:At the time this report\\os pre pal-cd ill finrmaIion vvas ay aiIahICat the\\ebsites listed. Reports issued by the Cis it Grand.I w-v do not identik indi\iduals intcrviev\ed.Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand.Im not contain the name of nn\ person or lacts leading to the identitc o(an\ person\\ho provides inlinmation to the Civil Grand lurc.'I hC Calilimtia State Leeislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of \\itnC,s identities to ernanu-age full candor in testinlom in Grand.lure investigations b\ prolectim2 the privacy and conlidentialit\ ofthosc\vho participate in am Civil Gland.Iun imestigation. June 6, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Pa�,e 8 01-8 EXHIBIT 2 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Town of Tiburon Report Title: Marin Telecom Disconnect Report Date: June 6, 2019 Public Release: June 13, 2019 Response By: Town of Tiburon RECOMMENDATIONS • Recommendations numbered _NA_have been implemented. ■ Recommendations numbered: —NA—have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. ■ Recommendations numbered: NA require further analysis. ■ Recommendations numbered: _2,3,and 4 will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. Date: September 4, 2019 Signed: Number of pages attached: 2 1 Office of the Town Man(tger Town of Tiburon September 4, 2019 The Honorable Kelly Simmons Pat Randolph, Foreperson Judge of the Marin County Superior Marin County Civil Grand Jury Court 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 Post Office Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94903 San Rafael. CA 94913-4988 Re: Response to Grand Jury Report Marin Telecom Disconnects Dear T lonorable Judge Simmons and Mr. Randolph: This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Civil Grand Jury Report dated June 6, 2019 (Marin Telecom Disconnect). The Report directs the Town to respond to Recommendations R2, R3, and R4. RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS The Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends the following: R2. The MTA's franchise fee collection and disbursement responsibilities should be moved to the MGSA. Response: This recommendation i+,il1 not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The possibility of MGSA taking on the responsibility for fee collection and disbursement has been explored by the MTA Board several times in the past, most recently when the Cxecutive Officer of the MTA retired in 2018. At that time. it was determined that shifting the responsibility to MGSA would not result in sWmificant financial savings. However, at the same time, MTA did make organizational changes resulting in a reduction staffing and reduced administrative costs. R3. MTA's responsibilities for CMCM should be terminated. Response: This recon7menda0on iri11 not be implemented because it is not warrowed or is not reasonable. The longstanding connection between MTA and CMCM is anchored by 2 important interrelated elements: (1) The Digital Access Provider Agreement betvwccn the MTA (Representing the 10 member entities and CMCM). and (2) The DiLital Infrastructure and Competition Act o1'2006 (DIVCA). These elements combined result in commitments. obligations and responsibilities \yhich cannot simply be abandoned. These include provisions in the MTA contact "ith CMCM to manage the exclusive provision of public, education and government channels. with the MTA retaining ownership of the capital equipment used to establish the broadcast and transmission capabilities at each municipality. R4. The MTA should be dissolved. Re,V)ons'e: This reconvnendcrlion>>>ill not be implemented because it is not urarrunled or is not reusoncrble. "The MTA continues to play an important role in the collection and disbursement of ii-anchise fees, as well as vital oversight of CMCM. In addition, throughout its existence. MTA has closely monitored the regulatory environment on behalf of member agencies. With the Federal Communications Commission currently considering significant changes in this arena, this aspect of MTAs responsibilities is more important than ever. The MTA Board, and its member agencies, are aware of the rapidly changing environment. Over the years, the MTA Board has responded to change by periodically reviewing various Options for restructuring and has adopted prudent organizational changes as a result of these reviews. The Town is confident this process will continue in the futln-e Sincerely. Greg Chanis Town Manager s TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Nlccting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard September 4, 2019 y(` . Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda item: PH- I To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 130 Rancho Drive: Request to Amend the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan (PD#45) to Increase the Maximum Floor Area and Create a Secondary Building Envelope for Lot 12; Eric and Kate ;Morse, Owners; Michael Heckmann, Applicant; File No. PDPA2019-001; Assessor Parcel No. 034-393-03 Reviewed By: r Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attornev SUMMARY Town Council is considering an-amendment to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan 045) to increase the maxinunn floor area and create a secondary building envelope for an existing single-family dwelling for Lot 12. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Hold a public hearing on this item; 2. Adopt the draft Resolution reaffirming that the project exempt from CEQA and conditionally approving the Precise Development Plan amendment for Lot 12 of Cypress Hollow Subdivision. PROJECT DATA Address: 130 Rancho Drive (Lot 12, Cypress Hollow Subdiv ision) Assessor's Parcel Number: 034-393-03 File Number: PDPA2019-001 Lot Size: 9,574 square feet Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development) Precise Plan: Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan (PI) #45) General Plan: M (Medium Density Residential) Current Use: Single-Family Residential Owners: Eric and Kate Morse Applicant: Michael Heckmann Flood Zone: X (Outside 500-Year Storm Event) Complete Date: July 15, 2019 PSA Deadline: September 15, 2019 Town OF TIBUROI 'PAC J.of 5 SUMMARY The project is the proposed amendment to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan for property located at 130 Rancho Drive. The property owner proposes to increase the maximum floor area permitted and create a secondary building envelope for this lot (Lot 12). On August 14, 2019. the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2019-09 (Exhibit 2) recommending to the Town Council that the Precise Development Plan amendment be approved. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The single-family residence on this property was originally constructed with a floor area of 2,964 square feet (30.9 percent floor area) and a 754 square foot garage. The property owners wish to convert undeveloped space with the existing mass and bulk of the house, beneath the garage into a 297 square foot guest suite adjacent to the main floor level of the ]ionic. The proposed addition would increase the floor area of the house to 3,261 square feet.. resulting on a floor area ratio of 34 percent. As the resulting floor area would exceed the 30 percent maximum floor area permitted for this property, the applicant is requesting to amend the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan to increase the maximum permitted floor area ratio to 34 percent. In addition, the applicant proposes to establish a 320 square foot secondary building envelope on the south side of the property for the purposes of installing an elevated deck and exterior stairway. No expansion or reduction in the size of the primary building envelope is proposed. Elie secondary building envelope would have a depth of 5 feet and a length of 64 feet, I inch to allow for the construction of the proposed improvements. The proposed secondary building envelope would be 7 feet from the side property line. This area currently contains lawn area and an at grade exterior stairway. 13ACKGROUND The Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan was originally approved in 1988 by the Marin County Board of Supervisors. County Resolution No. 88-252 (Exhibit 5) currently governs this precise development plan and states that the floor area ratio for each parcel "shall be a maximum of 30%. Garage space does not count toward the floor area allowed under the precise development plan. The precise development plan also established building envelopes for each lot. Multiple amendments to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan have peen approved to increase the maximum floor area hinit and to establish secondary building ens elopes for the various lots since the subdivision was annexed into Tiburon in 1999. The house size limitations in the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan \\crc established prior to annexation into Tiburon, and prior to the Toy-vn's adoption of floor area ratio limits in all residential zones. House size limits were placed on certain precise plans in both the County and in Tiburon in the early 1980's, as a precursor to current floor area limitations estahlished Town- wide in 1990. Current practice for the Town is that a precise development plan approval must specify floor area limits on all lots within a development. For comparison purposes, under the To\vn's current "default'' floor area ratio standards, the subject property would be allowed a maximum floor area of 2.958 square feet for the dwelling, Plus an additional 600 square feet for garage space. The floor area ratio provided under the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan would allow 2.872 square feet of floor area for this home. The 3,261 square foot total area requested by this amendment would exceed the Cypress Hollow floor area maximum by 389 square feet: and would also exceed the Tiburon default 1`1001- area loorarea maximum for a lot of this size by 303 square feet. Nine amendments to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan have been approved to increase the maximun1 floor area limit for various lots since this subdivision was annexed into Tiburon in 1999. These amendments are: 40 Monterey Drive,. 50 Monterey Drive, 60 Monterey Drive, 70 Monterey Drive, 110 Rancho Drive. 120 Rancho Drive. 170 Rancho Drive, 70 Cypress Hollow Drive and 20 Baccharis Place. The review of these requests is summarized in the August 14, 2019 Commission staff report (Exhibit 3). Two properties have been approved for the establishment of secondary building envelopes since 2014. The two locations are 55 Monterey Drive and 145 Rancho Drive. Bother were for secondary uses, such as swimming pools and walls taller than 42 inches in height. ANALYSIS The floor area requested in this application would be situated within the existing footprint of the originally constructed house. The addition would not appear to impact the adjacent neighbors and would not increase the mass and bull< of the existing residence as the guest suite would be contained within the existing exterior walls. The proposed addition would exceed the maximum floor area currently permitted by the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan and the default Tiburon Floor area ratio for a lot of this size by 389 square feet and 303 square feet, respectively. The proposed secondary building envelope for this lot would be on the southern portion of the property. The proposal includes adding a second elevated deck within the primary envelope with a small portion of the deck attached to an exterior staircase situated in the secondary building envelope. The majority of the property is screened by heavy mature vgctanon, especially on the south side adjacent to the closest neighbors at 120 Rancho Drive. TI1C proposal would not appeal- to create any privacy or noise impacts on the adjacent neighbors. Many of the nearby homes have rear decks that expand off the home. The subject property already has an elevated deck that expands off the living room and this proposal would create second deck with an exterior staircase for access off the existing master bedroom. REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application at its August 14, 2019 meeting. There was no public comment. The Planning Commission supported the proposed request and found it was in conformance with the overall intent of Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan and the Tiburon General Plan as the proposal Would continue to have adequate space between each lot and the addition would be consistent \.vith the neighborhood character. The Commission voted 4-0 adopting Resolution No. 2019-09 recomnnendiii- approval of the amendment to the Town Council. Draft meeting minutes of the August 14, 2019 meeting are attached as Exhibit 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has preliminarily determined the adoption of this item is categorically exempt fi-on1 the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On August 14, 2019, the Planning Commission as part of it review of the project and recommendation to the Town Council; deemed the project to be exempt from the CEQA pursuant to the Class 1. To the extent fiu-ther analysis is required, staff recommends that the Town Council reaffirm that the application (Proposes Project) is exempt fi-om CEQA pursuant to the same Class I categorical exemptions, and that no exception to the exemptions apply. Class I Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines§ 13301 Exislinu Facilities) The proposed project consists of a minor addition underneath an existing garage and the second deck and stairway over the existing footprint and in similar location as an existing stairway for an existing single-family dwelling, which the property is within an established neighborhood in an urban area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA Guidelines§ 13300.2) l:urther- none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no evidence that the Project will result in any adverse environmental impacts and the Project does not involve any unusual circumstances or historical resources. Indeed_ the proposed project would not significantly impact any environmental resource. In addition. there is no evidence that any significant cumulative impacts would occur. Specific supporting details regarding the project site include the following: (a) According to the California Department of"transportation. there are no scenic highways in Marin C01-111ty. (b) According to the California Department of "toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Tov-vn of"I-iburon. (c) The str1,101-11-e is not a historical resource because 1) the str1-10111-e is not listed on the Town of Tiburon's Local Historic Landmarks list: 2) the structure i, not listed on the California Historic Resources list: 3) the structure is not listed on the 1\ational Register of Historic Places: and (4) there is no evidence that the sU-ucture meets any of the criteria for listing. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon to grant Precise Dei elopment Plan amendments in the Cypress Hollow subdivision. There are numerous examples that Have been granted for, including 55 Monterey Drive. 145 Rancho Drive. 120 Rancho Drive and 170 Rancho Drive. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hear1110, on this item 2. Adopt the draft Resolution (Exhibit 6) finding the project exempt fi-om CEQA and conditionally approving the application. EXHIBITS I. Application form and supplemental materials 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019-09 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 14. 2019 4. Draft minutes of the August 14. 2019 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Marin County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 88-252 6. Draft Resolution 7. Submitted plans Prepared By: Kyra O'Malley. Senior Planner EXHIBIT 1 I�. A,: �T �I I i AT r s l l \.�-% 1 O Corraitronal Use Penult o Dusrgn (DRB) O l cntatlVe Subdl,`tson !'✓lap xPrecise Development Plat? tQ �jejj4 p, DesiEn 'Review(Stmt'Level) o Final Subdivision�,,iap o Accessory Dwelling Unit c Variance (s)o Par! N/a" o Zoning Text Amendment o 1=Ioor Area Ixceptiorr o Lot Line Adjustment o Rezoning or Prezoniny o Tidelands Permit o Condominium Use Permit o General Plan Amendment o Sign Permit o Junior Accessory Drwellima o Temporary Use Permit o Tree Permit o Other APPLICANT T REQUIRED INFORMATION TION SITE ADDR-ESS: [-�) 0 W,CA 0 pp- • P.l= OPERTY SIZE;: `IrV"7 (" PARCEL NUMBER: 0 - 9'b - Ob ZONING: p-,� � PROPERTY OWNED~~: I c 4- 11--10 P,!: M.AII_.ING ADDRESS: (�© CZ- 4C H-a' p -- (7/�, 14-9-2-0 P�IF.ONE/FAX NUMB : 5 lb C,9. 9®3 b E-MAIL: �����vtb�5� �� ec�cotA�j APPLICANT (Other than Property - MATLIN(T ADDRESS: i3iR CI-1dT ,C'Ill) ,SIG,NEP<iENG1NEGtff v MAILING ADDRESS: _r1f3Ulct4 BLY D. --- ---------- PI-ICNE/i AX i'q_jN11IPER:415 35• �4+C, E-MAIL: - +35. Prte'(dse ineticae )tit/I ni CIstei-islf ("')pef"'polls to whom Town he seia. BitIEI' l�ISCRI A IOM O. I'ROPOd,FED PROJECT (aMich sepal- rte sheet if ueerle(l). c ov-v T c�.moi.- j l N f'o t�yI L �-r �l�t1'—p- AA t) }� ------ ---------------------- 0 &Iyeahn p pvo F eH . I, the undersigned owner Q ;wthorized agent) of the property holeirl described, her'l)y nial<(" al2iflicaition i ol approval of the plebs set mitted :aid Rode a part of this applivatioi-ii in accordance ,vidi the pro,.,isicinsofthe lov,:;l t%,Iunicipai Codc, all(! I heleby ce!lilfy -.-.hat the intonation given is true and correct to the best of knowledgc and be HeE I Woolard flat the requested approval ifor benefit that of lily' principal). Thcr;ztoie, if 11w 1'o"vn glalis the approval, "Th or widiciurt conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, 1 will he defending against this ch&kngV vvith dic defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. I thoid,ore agree to accept this respousibly for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and held the Town haunless from any costs, claims -ii liabilities mkitig froth the app-oval, including; withoutInhuliolL aq! �� award of attorney's fees l t 11-'at t resj$llhom, Me r,third paIly chl, nn Illeggge. Signature(required):* )ate: I understand that die properly involving IN permit request may be sub�jeci: to deed restrictions called Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), or similar instruments that may restrict the property S USC and development. These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT enforced by the Town of Tiburon. Consequently, development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when granting permits. I am hereby advised to demi-r-ri he if fl .peaty .S subject to deed restrictions and, if so, contact be appropriate 'e homeowners association or affe ted part about the P"m to proceeding with the application. proposed """ Followingthis procedure Zvi I n in ize t otonnal for d es and Possible litigation. isa--l"'1111-lit-111,1011--I)Ilrll Signature(required):' Date: 0 If other than owner, you mast submh an authorization letter from the owner or show evidence of de facto control qfthepropero,orprenikeybrIplay)oSes Qffi-ling this application. NOTICE TO APPLICXNITS Pwalwit to Wfoloh Govarimcm Codc Seaton ON!applicants may request to receive notice from;the Tom of Tiburon of any gerimil (non-parcci-specific),proposals to adopt or anicrid the General Phinamikig DAmme,Specific P&q or an ordinance al%ng AWAg 01 grading permits. If you Vsh to rmehm such nonce, dmi you may nizim a written request M Be Director of Community Development to he included on -.i luailing lis", for Such purposcs—uld must specify �,!iich type,of proposals you wish to rcccivc notice upon. 1-110 written[tell rcqucst must also syd, the &ngo of time you ME to rucke such notices OL and you mug provide W Be Two a supply of mmpK nVaUmsed envelopes to facilitate liotiFicanor., \pplicants shall be responsible for maintaining the supply or arch etivoqns to Hy it"Ir UN duration of the time period requested for rer.:ivin uch noti-.Cs. The notice will also provide the maws of We qqmsal MW We date of any public hearing-s flicicon which hp.i c hccil scr Hic Tw%!) �%ill determine "Tether a pl-ops1l is wmambly relavo to your poWhig amW=&n, and send Be ;Ace on War NAY &A notice 20 be updated at least cvwy ix wc6s unless Mae I no almlige to die cmwms of Be nonce that would reasonably affect ,our appiicanal. Requests should he nlailcci to: Town of Tiburon j Community Dowlapmam Department -Q , I'la"ing Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 HQ4354390(Tel) (4I5)435A438(F:ix) wwu'.townnftihurnu.or� ,y DO 1'�;,OT WRITt', 13FLOW THIS LIME DITAIZI-NIFNTAL PROCESSINGINFORMA110N Al3plic:ation No. DR-DO/ CP Designation: Fee EWPOW Elate Wceived: Ikeecived By:jV0 Receipt 'i,:- W61 IR 0(7AS Z., Date Deemed A"I'All" 13y: Acting Bod,,: Acdon: Date: Conditioiis of Approval or Cofnnitnlls: Resolution Or 01-dinal"Cep, INNOR ALTERATION SUPPLEMENT Blease f,ll in the Information requested beio`•o.l. 1. Briefly describe the proposed project(attach separate sheet as needed): CO-W Ei-T sc" — ---- ------ 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 13 i00.020iL)y: 14 zoning: 3. Square footage of Landscape Area: — 1J. 4. Impervious Surface Area Calculations (in square feet) & Grading Estimates (in cubic yards): a) Existing Impervious Surface Area: _ b) Completed Project Impervious Surface Area: c) Land Area (in square feet) to be disturbed/cleared during construction: _ d) Amount of Grading or Earth Movement involved (total in cubic yards): 5. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing 'S R( L_F_ t stn�Qy-`�tt . Proposed ti ►t e: --- - 6. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces,tui jrouncJ�grmane'ul%eiing areas. `— ,-- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED CAL- PER ZONE AND/OR ALTERATION CULATED Setbacks from property line (Section 16- 100.020(Y)) ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Front Rear ���� -- ft tt ft. ft. -- ft. ft. Right Side '�Z_ ft. ft. I'�-i ft. i ft. ft. Left Side (O ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. j Maximum Height (Sectiorl3 00 0i ftft. ft. ft ft. ------------- Lot Coverage i (Section 1G30.120(B))' sq.ft. sq.ft sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft Lot Coverage as Percent of Lc•:. "',rea j % i 11 % % ! Gross Floor Area -- —•-- ___ O(Section 16- d_1r c . . I. sc. . sq.ft. ;q.ft.t. 100 c20(r I Section numccis left; to speci is pcm icrs or definitions in the Tiburon fvlur icipal Code, Tit, Chapter K (zoning) -: �' 111 0- � ` x y a WUIWI IN 0 Cs)..�...,t_� Y��.x�F'}s 3..1C-'��t: ._�•_�vs�x.. ., I': 130 Rancho Dr. OBJECTIVES OF NEW SECONDARY BUILDING ENVELOPE Currently, the only access to the garden from the upper level main living areas is by going through the lower level bedrooms. The addition of the deck and the stair connecting it to the garden below is important as an alternative access. This house's back garden is a beautiful outdoor green area which is an important feature of this property but is only visible instead of being readily accessible from the family room, dining area, kitchen, and breakfast area. Locating the stair to the side instead of the rear allows a design with only one short stair run halfway down and then taking advantage of the stairs at grade. If the stair was to the rear of the house, both stair runs would have to be elevated which would have a much more obtrusive, visual impact. The side location is most integrated design concept and keeps the single stair run as close to the house as possible without blocking the outlook from any lower level windows. OBJECTIVES OF ADDITIONAL LOWER LEVEL GUEST SUITE The conversion of the existing, tali crawl space below the garage would provide a functional use of an existing built area without increasing the lot coverage. For a family of five, this additional space with a bathroom can also have alternate uses as a children's playroom. Many neighbors in this area have been able to improve similar crawl spaces for these same kind of uses. 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel 41 5.435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 heckmannarchitects@earthlink,net .: www.heckmannarchitects.com t.. "t Regarding Project Address: Project Description: 'J I have reviewed the following item(s): ❑ project proposal plan set ❑ photographs ❑ cut sheets ❑ other documents (specify: prepared by � i� dated I have no objection to the proposed improvements as shown in the above- ref'creiiced documents. ❑ I do not support the project as shown in the above-referenced documents. Other comments: n My nflme IS L`;{; l {} U 7 (��� and I own the nelghbol lllO pT0()erty Lit: I understand this document is a PLibli ( 'Cord. i y Nly slgnatLlrG: 4 ' 1. Today's date: 1 r"' � y\ Regarding Pro icciAddress: Pro�uctDescription: l ---'- �---- -- '------ I have reviewed the following item(s): project proposal LJ plan set LJ photographs [] cut sheets [] other documents (wp���f�� ` '� �-___�___________-___ prepared by �^!\ /4 �DL'�� ' 4 S_ and dated LJ I have no ob�jcctioo to the proposed improvements as xbuwo in the above- referenced documents, [l \ donot support the project uxobovvoio (hcabovn-ruh:rcuccddoourncotx Other comments: K4y 'is: _----- and Invvothe ncigbbudoOynYpedy luoJco / �hs� '' lodsy'ndutc: o� n[vo � � EXHIBIT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 09 A RLSOI,UTION OF VIE PLANNING CO\NllSSION OF "l-II1.� "TOWiN OF TIBURON R1 COivlilll NDING 10 111 "I-OXVN COUNCIL APPROVAL, OF AN CYPRESS HOLLOW PRI:CIS1 DEVELOPMENT PIAN (PD ,,'45) FOR PROPT:RTY LOCATED AT 130 RANC1-10 DRIVE ASSESSOR PARCEL, NO. 034-393-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of"Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town has received and considered an application filed by Eric and Kate Morse for an amendment to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan to increase the maximum floor area permitted and establish ra secondary building envelope for Lot 12 of the Cypress Ffollow Subdivision. "The subject property is developed with existing single-family residence, and is commonly known as 130 Rancho Drive. The application consists of the following: L Application form, dated April 24, 2019 2. Site Plan and floor Plans, received August 6, 2019 The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes, without limitatioi the staff reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearing. B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 14,2019.and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. C. The Plaiming Commission has loon d Omt the p ojcct is exempt Iiom the regdrements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15301 and 153033 of the CI_:QA Guidelines. D. The Planning Commission finds. based upon application materials and analysis presented in the August 14. 2019_ staff report. as well as visits to the site and testimony received ham the applicant. that the projecq as cond 6mod. is consistent with the requirements of the Ubwan Zoning Ordinance reganling precise: development plan amend-mans and is compatible w6h the overall intentions ofthc Cypress Ilollow Precise Development Plan. The requested increase in floor area does not substantially alter the visual mass and bulk of the existin( home.The request secondary building envelope wouki improve the ability to fully utilize the rear yard without resulting in any impacts on the adiacent homes and open space and would continue to be consistent with the nci,(jhborin�, properties. 1113URON PL,ANNIA(;C'(?\.i\91SS;OS IN)I.0 IIO". A(7 _'019-09 ljgkj;i I-1,2019 i I . Tice Planning Commission finds that the project,as conditioned is consistent with the goals and policies of the ON= General flan. Policy LU 1-5 of the Land lis, FACIncnt states that "remodels,_ tear-down/rebuilds, and new construction shall be compatible with the design. size, and scale oh existing dwell& s in the surrounding neighborhood." 'file proposed project, as conditioned, would involve construction within the existing footprint of the house in a nu neer similar to that approved for numerous otherhomes in the Cypress Hollow neighborhood.Police IAK5 of the Land Use Element states that new development shall be in harmony with adjacent neiC7hborhoods and open space. The new development is underneath an existing garage and the deck and stairway is in a similar location as an existing roofiine of the home and at-grade stairway. The improvements would be in harmony with the other homes and the open space and Policy LU 12_ which states that'`Neighborhood character; which is defined by the predominant architectural styles,type of buildings, building heights,mass,setbacks,landscaping,and natural characteristics, shall be of material consideration and preserved in all construction projects including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible.' The proposal is consistent with the architectural styles and neighborhood character. Mv1y of the homes have exterior decks in the rear yard. F. The proposed project, as conditioned, does not substantially add to the mass and bulk of the existing house nor change the structure's relationship to the contours of the property. The structure is still consistent �Nith the surrounding neighborhood and does not result in privacy concerns for nearby residences_ This project therefore is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Section 2. Appoval NOW,TIIEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan to the Town Council,subject to the fbllowing conditions: I_ Condition of Approval No. 3 (C)omarin County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 89052 shall be amended to read as follows: "The FAR, shall be a maximum of 30`Yo: except that greater area is permitted for the lbllowing lots: <�. Lot 33 (70 h/lon(crcy Drive)if attained entirelyV N011in undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house, as <gencrally. depicted on drawings dated 10/1/99_ prepared by tilarshall Balfe (4 sheets a h. I_ot 10 (170 Rancho Drive) Tattained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bull: of the appro,ed house, as generally depicted on dra"Vys dated U40000,prepared by Adioncy Architects(4 sheets 1; C. Lot 7 (70 Cypr,ss 1 lollow Drive), as gcncrall� depicted on drawings 11131_ RON I'I_;ANNIN(i(.ONIMISSIO.N" RK��)L1_;110\V'() ?019-09 1u;�u>l 1 1,2019 2 dated =4i 1 S% M 1_ prepared by Geoffrey Butler _architect (6 sheets), approving the garage conversion and limiting the deck enclosure so that the total floor area of the house does not exceed the Town of Tiburon default floor area ratio for this property;_ d. Lot I 1 (120 Rancho Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of'the approved house, as generally depicted on drawings dated 9/14/2002, prepared by Jklarshal I3alfe (6 sheets); e. Lot 35 (50 Monterey Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bull, of the approved house_ is generally depicted on drawings dated 1/28/2004, prepared by Kichard Esieb (5 sheets); C Lot 26(20 I3accharis Place)if attained entirely within Undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house, as generally depicted on drawings dated 11/8/2005, prepared by Richard F,steb (6 sheets); g. Lot 36(40 Monterey Drive)ifattained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house, as generally depicted on drawings dated 7/6/2006, prepared by NJohamad Sadrieh (7 sheets)." ll. Lot 10(1 10 Rancho Drive)if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bull: of the approved house. as generally depicted on drawings dated 8/14/2012_, prepared by Holscher Architecture (3 sheets)." i. Lot 34 (60 \Monterey Drivc), if attained entirely \-within undeveloped <pace with the existing mass and bulk of the approved house.as generally depicted on drawings dated 10/17/2016. prepared by Larson Shores Architecture -+ Interiors (10 sheets)," i. Lot 12 (1 i0 Rancho .Drive) as g_enerall, depicted on drawings dated 1)8/06/2019. prepared by Heckmann Architects (6 sheets). 2. This approval Vall in no Away, alter other provisions of the Cypress hollow Precise Development flan not specifically described herein. 3. phis Precise D,velopment Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or bu Un<g pen rids have been issued pursuant to this appro\al. A time extension may be granted if such request is filed prior to the expiration date. 111WRON JT ANNIN(j COMMISSION MAULU MN NU 201!1 N Aueusi I-1,MN i 4. Ile secondary building,envelope shall be utilized only (or construction of-deck and exterior staircase as im"m in the plans on lie Wh this application. Other additions or structures shall be prohibited v-yithin the secondary building envelope area. PASS13)AM ADOPITI)at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on ,wgmt 14, 2019_ by the IbHokng vote: AYES: COMNMISSIONERS: AtNCR, DEFEVFR, WILLWMS. WOODWARD NOI_;S: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONFRS: TSAI ANIEL AMIR. CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission AIMST: SUN L ON, SL(CRE`I ARY_- - H11,M t)N PL,VA'VING CO.M AWd ,,ION WAOIJ "I10A NO A) Aupm It TH9 4 EXHIBIT 3 C. C7\�1�T C}1= ihURC7N Planning Comm�mission \-leCtin< .[ibui_on boulevard Au us 14, Fill) Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item:PH-3 `.'�- `-r ✓ ug, ri ice_t ' 2 r W .. To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Lyra O'Malley, Senior PIanner Subject: 130 Rancho Drive; Tile No. PDPA2019-001; Request to Amend the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan (PD 445) to Increase the Maximum Floor Area and create a secondary building envelope; Eric and late Morse, Owner; Michael Heckmann, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-393-03 PROJECT DATA Address: 130 Rancho Drive (Lot 12, Cypress Hollow Subdivision) Assessor's Parcel 'umber: 034-393-03 Tile Number: PDPA2019-001 Lot Size: 9,574 square Meet Zoning: RPD (Residential Planned Development) Precise Plan: Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan (PD 945) General Plan: M (Medium Density Residential) Current Use: Single-Family Residential Owners: Eric and bate Morse Applicant: Michael Heckmann Flood Zone: X (Outside 500-year storm event) Complete Date: duly 15, 2019 PSA Deadline: September 15, 2019 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the proposed amendment to a precise development plan (the Cypress IJollow Precise Development Plan) for property located at 130 Rancho Drive. The property owner proposes to increase the maximum floor area permitted and create a secondary building, envelope for this lot (Lot 12), which is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, with an attached two-car garage. The single-family residence on this property was originally constructed with a floor area of 2,964 square feet (30.9% floor area) and a 754 square foot garage. The property oN ners wish to convert undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the house, beneath the garage, into a 297 square foot guest suite adjacent to the main floor level of the house. The proposed addition would increase the floor area of the house to 3,261 square feet, resulting on a floor area ratio of 34.0%. As the resulting floor area ratio would exceed the 30% maximum floor area permitted TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6 for this property, the applicant is requesting to amend the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan to increase the maximum permitted floor area for this property to 34.0 %. In addition. the applicant proposes to establish a 320 square feet secondary building envelope on the south side of the property for the purposes of installing a deck and exterior stairway. No expansion or reduction in the size of the primary building envelope is proposed. The secondary buildinLI. envelope Nwould have the depth of 5 feet and a length of 64 feet_, 1 inch to allow for construction of the proposed improvements. This area currently contains lawn area and an at grade exterior stairway. BACKGROUND The Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan was originally approved in 1988 by the Marin County Board of Supervisors. County Resolution No. 88-252 (Exhibit 2) currently governs this precise development plan and states that the floor area ratio for each parcel `'shall be a maximum of 30%." Garage space does not count toward the floor area allowed under the precise development plan. The precise development plan also established building envelopes for each lot. Multiple amendments to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan have been approved to increase the maximum floor area limit and to establish secondary building envelopes for various lots since this subdivision was annexed into Tiburon in 1999. The house size limitations in the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan were established prior to annexation into Tiburon, and prior to the Town's adoption of floor area ratio limits in all residential zones. House size limits were placed on certain precise plans in both the County and in Tiburon in the early 1980's, as a precursor to current floor area limitations established Town- wide in 1990. Current practice for the Town is that a precise development plan approval must specify floor area limits on all lots within a development. For comparison purposes, under the Tovvn's current "default" floor area ratio standards, the subject property would be allowed a maximum floor area of 2,958 square feet for the dwelling, plus an additional 600 square feet for garage space. Thefloor area ratio provided under the Cypress Hollow Precise Development flan would allow 2,872 square feet of floor area for this home. The 3,261 square foot total area requested by this amendment would exceed the Cypress Hollow floor area ratio by 389 square feet: and would also exceed the Tiburon default floor arca ratio for a lot of this size by 303 square feet. Nine properties have been approved since 2000 to amend the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan to increase the maximum allowable floor area. The following approved properties are shown in the table below: Address year- As Current Approved New Apprm,ed � I Approved Constructed FAR Pea-centage hiving Space- � FAR undet-neath garage 40 Monterey 2006 3,213 SF 13,818 35.2% � Playroom Dr. SF 50 Monterey 2,664 3,115 Sh 3,531 33.8% Playroom, storage Dr. SF ! 60 Monterey Dr 2016 -- 1 3.072 SF 3,712 -i 35.7% i Den, StUd . I3atlu'oom i i 70 Monterey 2000 3,100 SF 3,750 32.3% Pla��room office Dr. SF I 10 Rancho Dr. 20I2 2.678 SF 2.854SF 31.5%----- Office 120 Rancho Dr. 2002 2,567 SF 2,607 33% Exercise and Play SF Rooms ----- ----- -------- -- 170 Rancho Dr. 2000 2.840 SF 3,420 34.2% ; Bedroom. Bathroom 1 70 Cypress ; 2001 2,611 SF 2,981 32.5% Office, Family room Hollow Dr. SF Expansion 20 Bacclharis P1. 2006 2,452 SF 2,718 33% Library. bathroom The nine previously approved applications included qualifying language noting that special circumstances were considered in the approval of requests, including findings that additions were located within the existing walls of the houses, and did not result in any increase in mass and bulk to the existing residences- that the additions would not increase the intensity of use of the residences; or that the additional floor area requested by these applications did not significantly exceed the maximum floor area currently permitted by the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan. Two properties have been approved for the establishment of secondary building envelopes since 2014. The two locations are 55 Monterey Drive and 145 Rancho Drive. Both were for the secondary uses, for example a swlnllnlnO pool and walls that are taller than 42 inches. PROJECT SF.TTING a �a 4 ,G' ss -:,.".o--,✓Park y-, x: h �i` A� �_ 1,30 Ranch--,Drive 7M C i+ f4. The subject property is located on Rancho Drive, near the intersection of Cecilia Way and Rancho Drive. The property slopes downward from the street. The majority of the homes on Rancho Drive have garages on the street level with the rest of the homes at lower levels following the slope. These homes were constructed with undeveloped crawlspace beneath the garage space. The property abuts to an open space with mature vegetation. ANALYSIS ProLcct Design The floor area requested in this application would be situated within the existing footprint of the originally constructed house. The addition would not appear to impact the adjacent neighbors and tivould not increase the plass and bull: of the existing residence. The proposed application would be generally consistent with the findings made for approval of the prior amendments to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan. The guest suite addition would be contained within the existing exterior walls of the residences. The proposed addition would exceed the maximum 11001- area currently permitted by the Cypress Hollow Prevised Development Plan and the default Tiburon Floor area ratio for a lot of this size by 389 square feet and 303 square feet. respectively. The proposed secondary building envelope for this parcel would be on the southern portion of the property_ The proposal includes adding a second deck within the primary envelope with a small portion of the deck situated in the secondary envelope and an exterior staircase that would extend off the deck. The majority of the property is screened by heavy vegetation, especially on the south side adjacent to the closest neighbors at 120 Rancho Drive and would not appear to create any privacy or noise impacts on the adjacent neighbors at 120 I:ancho Drive, 140 Rancho Drive, and 119 Blackfield Drive. Many of the existing homes have rear decks that expand off the home. The home already has a deck that expands off the living room and this proposal would create a second deck off the existing master bedroom. Compliance with the Cypress hollow Precise Development Plan and General Plan The proposed projcct has been reviewed for consistency with the Tiburon General flan and with the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise development plan amendments. The project appears to be consistent with the overall intent of the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan. The requested increase in floor area would not alter the visual mass and bulk. The building envelopes established by the Development Plan were designed to allow adequate space for the development of each parcel, while providing a buffer between the building and nearby residences and open space. The request would allow the owner to have an elevated stairway from a deck in the rear- and side yard. The stairway would be in the same location as an existing at-grade stairway. Even with the secondary building envelope, there would still be a 7 foot setback from the nearest side property line. For comparison, the nearby homes in Bel Aire have a 6 foot side setback requirement. However, to insure that other structures are not later proposed within the secondary building envelope, staff recommends that improvements within the secondary building envelope be located to those shown on the plans submitted as part of this application. Land Use Element Policy L.0-5 states that "pelf deve1OJ)H7e1?1 s11a11 he in harniorry lrilh w ucenl neiohborhoocls awl open spaces. " As noted previously, establishing a secondary building envelope along the southern side of the property would not appear to create a negatively impact on the surrounding properties. The new addition would be completely underneath the existing garage and would be in harmony with other homes in the neioliborhood. Land Use Element Policy 1U-12 states that "Neighborhood charocier. iMich is defined by the predominant ti-7)e of bztildings, b uil(lin hei;ht.s�, nur.ss, setbacks, landscaping. and nantral characteristics, shall be of material consideration c177(1 preserve(l in cell consvructio17 projects including remodels and additions, to the nzaximwn extent%easible. " The proposal would be consistent with the architectrural styles and neighborhood character. N2any of the homes have exterior decks. but the majority of them only have one deck, not two. 1-he Planning Commission shall determine that the secondary building envelope would continue to be consistent with the neighborhood character. Land Use Element Policy LU-15 states that "Remodels, tear-dolr-tvi-ebuilds. and nen construction shall be compatible with the design, size, and scale of existing dlrellings in the szrrrounding neighborhood. " The proposed construction would be within the existing footprint of the house, which ,vould be similar to the numerous other homes in the Cypress Hollow net<-hborhood. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Stall recommends that the Planning Conunission determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class I categorical exemptions, and that no exceptions to the exemptions apply. Class I Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guiclelines§ 15301 —Existing Facilities_' The proposed project consists of a minor addition underneath an existing garaoe and the second deck over the existing footprint for an existing single-family dwelling, which the property is within an established neighborhood in an urban area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions ((-'EQA Guidelines§ 15300.2) further, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. There is no evidence that the Project will result in any adverse environmental impacts and the Project does not involve any unusual circumstances or historical resources. Indeed, the proposed project would not significantly impact any environmental resource. In addition, there is no evidence that any significant cumulative impacts would occur. Specific supporting details regarding the project site include the following: (a) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. (b) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. (c) The structure is not a historical resource because I) the structure is not listed on the Tovvii of"fiburon's Local Historic Landmarks list; 2) the structure is not listed on the California Historic Resources list; ,l the structure is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places-, and (4) there is no evidence that the structure meets any of the criteria for listi112- It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon to grant Precise Development Plan amendmerts in the Cypress Hollow subdivision. There are numerous examples that have been granted for, including 55 Monterey Drive. 145 Rancho Drive, 120 Rancho Drive and 170 Rancho DrI e. I1 13LIC CO-NUNII+✓NT As of the date of this report, no correspondence has been received regarding the subject application. FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED The Planning Commission's action on this project would be in the form of a recommendation of approval to the Town Council or denial by the Commission. A Commission denial could be appealed to the Town Council, while a recommendation for approval would be automatically forwarded to the Town Council. If the precise development plan amendment is approved by the Town Council. the proposal would require Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and the necessary building permits. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this application: 2. If the Commission concludes that the proposed amendment would be consistent with the intent of the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan, the Commission should consider the draft resolution (Exhibit 3) recommending approval of the amendment to the Town Council, and Exhibits: 1. Application and Supplemental Materials 2. County of Marin Resolution No. 88-252 3. Draft Resolution d. Submitted Plan EXHIBIT I In the long-term, the loss of one residence is minor and the Commission has approved 2 ADUs in the area, increasing the housing supply. 3 The home is already being used as a single-family ]ionic. 4 There have not been many conversions similar to this. The last was in April and extensive 5 conversations were held regarding statistics on the number of single- versus multi-family 6 residences. Staff had researched and fOLInd the following occurred over the past 30 years: 7 o 8 condo conversions of two-family units, some of which were already occupied. 8 o Since 2010 there have been three approvals. 9 o For single-family ]ionic statistics. total units in Tiburon amount to 4,029 units. 10 o Single detached units total 6.637 units 1 I o Single-attached (condos) total 384. 12 o For duplexes and small apartment buildings there are 370 duplexes and small 13 apartments, 624 larger apartments, and 14 others such as mobile homes, etc. 14 o In considering 624 residences in the larger apartments and 370 in duplex and 15 small apartments, this is almost 1,000 units which are multi-family out of 4,029. 16 17 ACTION: M/S (Defever/Williams) to adopt the attached Resolution approving the Conditional 18 Use Permit to convert a two-family home to a single-family home and finding that the project is 19 categorically exempt from CFQA. Vote: 4-0. 20 21 PH-3 130 RANCHO DRIVE: an Amendment to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development 22 Plan (PD #45) to increase the maximum floor area and create a secondary building 23 envelope for an existing single-family dwelling; File #PDPA2019-001; Eric and Kate 24 Morse, Owner; Michael Heckmann, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 034-393-03 25 26 Ms. O'Malley gave the staff report and an overview of the request for amendment to the Cypress 27 1 follow Precise Development Plan to increase the maximum floor area and create a secondary 28 building envelop for an existing home. She noted stafi'would recommend adding a condition that 29 no primary resident would be allowed in the secondary building envelope. She noted that 9 30 properties have been approved to enlarge the floor area. ranging from 31% to 35% and she 31 referred to the Table on page 2 of the staff report. 32 33 She explained that floor area per the zoning code is 10% of lot area plus 2.000 square feet and 34 this would equal a maximum floor area of 2.958 square feet plus a 600 square foot garage. The 35 proposal of 3,261 square feet would be 389 square feet over the Precise Plan and about 303 36 square feet over the Tiburon's default FAR. 37 38 Both nearby neighbors have voiced support and staff finds both requests are consistent with the 39 Precise Development Plan. the General flan and it would not add volume. mass or bulk, and the 40 second building envelope would continue to create a buffer between the spaces. would not 41 encroach on any open space and would not interfere with nearb\ neighbors. 42 43 Staff recommends the Commission determine the project is categorically exempt from CFQA 44 and adopt the resolution recommending approval to the Town Council. 45 46 Commissioners posed the following questions to staff. 1-11WRON PLANNING COMMISSION /W(;US'F 14. 20191\11\1�'II S MY 1096 PAGI: 7 1 2 Asked and confirmed that setbacks in the Cypress I-lollow Precise Development Plan are 3 re(,Uulated by the building envelope so they vary. This project has a setback of 12 feet and 4 the request is for a 7 foot setback. 5 6 Chair Amir called upon the applicant for a presentation. 7 8 Michael Heckmann, Architect, introduced homeowner Kate Morse and explained the property is 9 down-sloped that has the condition of upper level livin(, spaces. lower level bedrooms, and to get 10 to the plain outdoor space people must (10 throuh bedrooms. 11 12 lie explained that they reviewed options in how they might locate a stair towards the rear of the 13 house, but if this were done they would be utilizing Outdoor space for the family and for play for 14 the children. 1f the stair was at the back of the house. it would shield and make darker some of 15 the spaces, including the plaster bedroom and plaster bathroom. It would lastly create a large, 16 intrusive element on the property. Because of the slope they had an opportunity to have a 17 landing and have the first run of the stair meet the slope. 18 19 They believe that with the 546ot envelope for approval tonight, they have a generous stair that is 20 safe for the family and is a light, metal, open structure. It is offset a bit because of foundation 21 conditions, and there is no addition of plass or bulk to the house and does not impact neighbors. 22 The neighbors are supportive and feel it is a positive change to the home. 23 24 25 Commissioners posed the following questions to the applicant: 26 0 Asked to explain photographs and what could be seen looking at various areas. 27 28 Mr. Heckmann provided a comprehensive explonation of the .site elan. 29 30 • Questioned if the wooden stairs are proposed to be replaced x\ith wider stairs. 31 32 Mr. Heckmann pointed to the ex isving stairs and stated the} plan to put a landing off of 33 the deck, have a stair rzrn that meets those stairs. Then, one Mould come (Imam to the )4 ;rade there mill be an offset and then 1he'v conlinile on ,rade to go to the back garden. 35 The only other access to the garden WO.s thron,h the master bedroom or 11io children's 36 bedrooms. 37 38 Chair Amir opened the public comment period. and there were no speakers. ;9 VCommissioners voiced the following comments and support Of�the project: 42 • The plan is sensible and while the FAR is increased. it does not change the plass or bulk 4> Of the StrUctUre. 44 • The secondary building envelope does not impair the buffer zone between the houses and 45 is fairly minor with a 7 foot setback. 46 • The project IS without Opposition and is in harmony with the neighborhood and land uses. T1 1111R0X 111ANNING CONIMISS10N AUGus r 14.2019\11M 1090 IIAGF 8 1 • Confirmed that Condition No. 4 in the resolution limits improvements for the secondary 2 building envelope to those shown on the plans. 3 • Cited written neighborhood support. 4 • The project is a small chan')e for a lot of utility for the homeowners and will serve to 5 access the rear yard. 6 • The request is reasonable and supported by neighbors. 7 8 ACTION: M/S (Williams/Woodward) to adopt the draft resolution, recommending approval of 9 the amendment to the Town Council, re-affirming the project is categorically exempt from 10 CEQA, and concluding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the Cypress I l Hollow Precise Development Plan. Vote: 4-0. 12 13 ADJOURNMENT 14 15 The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. to the August 28, 2019 Planning 16 Commission meeting. 17 18 19 20 DANIEL AM1R, CHAIR 21 Tiburon Planning Commission 22 ATTEST: 23 24 25 26 SUNG KWON, SECRETARY 27 1IBURON PLANNING COMMISSION U(It s 1 I-4. 2019 MIND I Ls NO. 1096 PAGE 9 EXHIBITS J111Jl Ll1_L11C1J..t l�{A..�j _s43J _ C1111A1 t)_I_lJ L1 L1 t_1YL.1! --IAL�lr L'�:,U LV 1 YVL C1 LCA U _ .IC I,C.:1i.:. , SLhpulated Settlement Case No. 140135 of a_F,L Cal" '1.[2 lTli;11U1 Cl',)i.i]L IUCI 11/30/88 'I-hc deletic shovm by Overs"LTVJng �sud the z ns by x)ld t-ype, R1Tv COi✓N"I'Y BO."RD Or SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 88-252 A RESOLUTION GRANTENG Tl-IF APPEAL OF THE CYPRESS HOLLOW P:1?RTN-LRSHIP AND APPROVING THE E CYPRESS.- HOLT OW DEVELOPMENT PL-AN. AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR ASSESSOR'S PP_RCEL NOS. 34-153-15, 34-012-34, 35, 37 and 51. 1. WHERE-AS on August 15, 1988 the Marin County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve with conditions the Cypress Hollow Master Plan and voted to approve the Cypress Hollow Development Plan dad Vesting Tentative Map; and II. WHFRE.AS on August 23, 1988 the Marin County Board of Supervisors certified the Cypress Hollow Environmental Impact Report and approved the Cypress Hollow Master Plan with several changes to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission; and III. W-F-EREAS the Cypress Hollow, a California limited partnership, filed a timely appeal on August 25, 1988 requesting that the Board of Supervisors amend the approval of the Cypress Hollow Development Plan/VestL--ig Tentative Map to bring it into conformance with the Cypress Hollow Master Plan as approved by the Board of Supervisors; and IV. WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed public hearing on September 13, 1988 to consider the appeal by Cypress Hollow; and V. 'WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors, after conducting a public hearing and considering the administrative record concurs in the following f i1-hdings made by the Plaiinirig commission: a. teat, based on the recommended Draft EIR, the proposed project incorporates all necessary environmental mitigations in the modifications and conditions contained herein and meets all the County's public health and saf ety standards for design, and it will not have a signii icant effect e ton the environment or substantially or avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat, and will not cause public health or safety problems-, and b. that, based on the modifications and conditions contained herein, the Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map ire in substantial accordance with the %-laster Plan as recommended to the Board of Supervisors; and c. that the proposed project, with t .e modifications and conditions contained herein, is consistent with the policies of the Marin Countywide Plan, particularly Housing Policy A-3, Transportation Policy B-3, and the urban Services Area Policies, and the Visual Qualitv policies with respect to Wooded Hillsides given the proposed mitigations of removing one rot, reconfiguring building envelopes to move development away from the rets ined eucalyptus trees, the increased cl stering of the house sites, a reforestatio- program for the designated non-development portions of upslope lots, and the retention of several significant tree specimens by reconfiguring the lots along Ranc::o Drive; and P I�1XHIBIT NO. d. that tine proposed project, including the proposed design and improverr.ents, with the modilications anu conditions contained herein, is consistent With the policies of the Strawberry Community Plan; and e. that the site is physically suitable for the type of development and density of -E 44 units single-family residences, given conditions of approval of the Master Plat: and this approval of the Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map, because the project is infill development in an area of single-family homes with available urban services from the County and service districts; and it is consistent with all County development policies and standards; and f. that the proposed project will not conflict with existing easements acquired by the general public at large for access through or use of the property within the subdivision because no such easements exist on the property, and because the public will gain riCD ght of use of an improved public park area of approximately .49 acres as a result of the conditions of approval of the Master Plan; and g. that all the required findings necessary to approve a Vesting Tentative Map pursuant to Marin County Code Section 20.32.220 can be made; and VI. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is appropriate to revise the Cypress Hollow Development Plan/Vesting Tentative Map to reflect the changes in the Planning Commission's recommended conditions of approval made by the Board of Supervisors in approving the Master Plan which changes included: a. the restoration of the lot adjacent to the proposed public park (Parcel A) which had been recommended for deletion by the Planning Commission; and b. the deletion of two lots from the downhill side of Rancho Drive leaving twelve lots abutting the existing homes on Blackfield Drive; and c. reduction in the height :imits of several lots downslope from the Rancho Drive extension; and VTI. WHEREAS the Board of Supe-visors finds that with the revisions, the Cypress Hollow Development/Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the Master Plan approved by the adoption of Ordinance #2980; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVF,D, the Marin County .Board of Supervisors approves the Cypress Hollow Development Plar; and Vesting Tentative Map subject to the following conditions: Planning DeRartment 1. The Cypress Hollow Developme t Plan/Vesting Tentative Map is hereby approved subject LO the following: a- Thi apprevaY shad not be eensdered in zeree aad e€t Hess arid uPt 1 tre Ey press He440w EIP is eert fled and the Maste= Plan :s approved by she Beard of Supervlso.s. a. Except as modified by the Master Plan conditions of approval and the conditions of this Development Plan/Ves ing Tentative Map approval the final map and subsequent development and use of the property shall be consistent with the applicant's submitted plan set (Exhibit "A'-' "V" to the Master Plan), application text (Exhibit "B" -2- EXHIBIT NO. Q. 2 of t to the 1,,laster Plan), the c-'_:eFna 've s:ce Dan (Exh ' P}aF.� "e ;y S� Y —C 71eF, a: }and�P_apti?h }aP r - t "fir' to the ':-Ias-ue P'3a77 and the lanQSCapi.ng D lans for two adjacent DrODer ties (Exhibits "Er' and "F" t0 the iv`.'aster Plan). - e t?eFe are d seFeDane es ameFi- he exh±b s- TK gad r Sha bt , oee The lot numbers on the Final Map shall be the same as those shown on Exhibit "r" 1T 7i, 2. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the County requires as a condition of this tentative map approval that Cypress Hollow, a California Limited Partnership, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Marin County or its agents, officers, and employees from. any claim, action, or proceeding against the County or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside void, or annul, an approval of the County concerning the Cypress Hollow subdivision, which action is brought in a timely manner. The County of Marin shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and the County shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the County fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County. 3. The Architectural Development Standards contained as Exhibit "F" in the application text for Cypress Hollow Subdivision (Exhibit "B" of the Cypress Hollow Master Plan) is hereby incorporated into this Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map approval, with the following change A. .Additional Development Standards for Lot 10 through �3 21 1) Building Height. The maximum allowable building height for houses shall be 26 ft. above natural grade for Lots$ 10 to 17 and 28 ft. for Lots 18 to 21. Natural grade shall mean the final rough grade after the subdivision improvements are in place. New "f iii" slopes resulting from street improvements shall be graded at a three to one slope (horizontal to vertical). In addition, no portior of a house structure shall be higher than 16 ft. above the top-of-curb elevatioi' at the front of the lot for Lots 10 to 17 and 18 ft. for Lots 18 to 21. These are the maximum heights to be permitted, and in evaluating the individual house designs through the Design Review process, the height should be less than tl:e maximum wherever practical to the extent consistent with other objectives such as minimizing grading, maintaining architectural interest and variety, and allowL-I(r a house size similar to others within the subdivision. House designs should inco porate features that facilitate reducing overall height. Features to be considered include, but are not limited to, stepped floor plans and detached garages. 2) Mass and Bulk of Structures. inhere possible, cantilevered floors, decks and chimneys shall be utilized to reduce the skirt heights of walls on the downhill side of the house. In addition, walls on the downhill (rear) side of the structure shall be "undulated" to provide "relief' and architectural interest to the house when viewed from below. Long uninterrupted rear walls shall be prohibited. Major roof planes of the house shall generally be parallel to the nat�ral slope of the Iot. Architectural elements such as bay windows, roof dormers, greenhouse windows, and chimneys are encouraged to add architectural variety to house structures. At the rear of the house exterior decks shall not extend beyond the rear building envelope line. In addition, all second floor exterior walls (except chimney walls) shall be a minimum of rive feet (5') from the rear development -3- E=BIT NO. cd—j � o'�-� envelope line. The maximum finish floor elevation of the second floor at tie rear (east) wall shall not be greater than shown below for the res;ective lots above finished grade: a) Fourteen feet (14') for Lots 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16; b) Sixteen feet (16') for'Lots 12, 13, and 17; and c) Eighteen feet (18') for Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21. B. Building envelopes. The house structure, garage and all accessory buildings or structures shall be located entirely within the "building or development envelope" area defined for each lot, except that roof overhangs, chimneys, exterior balconies or Similar architectural appendages may project two feet beyond the building envelope line. 'Phis shall not include any enclosed portion of the house structure. The building envelopes are approved as shown on Exhibit "V" to the Master Plan with the following exception: 1) For Lot 45 44, the development envelope setback from the northerly property line shall be increased to 30 feet. However, retaining walls may be placed outside the development envelope, to within 20 feet of the northerly property boundary. C. Floor Area Ratio: The FAR shall be a maximum of 30" . D. Nlaxiinum Lot Coverage The maximum lot coverage requirements are deleted. E. The building envelopes shall be shown on the final map, or recorded on the property through a separate instrument. 4. A11 utilities within the subdivision and extended to the subdivision shall be underground. 5. Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall submit proposed driveway maintenance agreements for Lots 22, 23, 24, and for lots 41 40 through »5 4.4. Such agreements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department and Department of Public Works and shall be recorded with the Final Map. 6. A minimurn of 4 of -street parking spaces shall be provided for Lots 22 to 24 and 40 to 4U 4-4. While independently accessible spaces are preferred, two of the parking spaces may be provided as tandem spaces where independently accessible spaces cannot be provided without substantially constraining the house location and design or causing extensive grading. 7. The change in paving and entrance design at Cypress Hollow Drive and Bay Vista Road as shown on Sheet 8 of Exhfbi-lu "A the o ' l r�inaIly submitted Landscape Plan is ex,,res��y prohibited. S. All conditions of M:aster Plan, Development Plan and Tentative Map approval shall be complied with prior to recordation of the final map, or, where appropriate, the required r. -4- EXHIBIT NO.�� Lnprovements small be financially secured throllQ"h postinglVitl t e COUIV DriOr to r ecor dation a Certificate of Deposit, Letter of Credit, cr other COuntV aDDFOVed instrument of credit. o. A11 conditions of Master Man approval are incorporated by reference as conditions of Development PlaniTentative Map approval. 10. Design Review shall be required on all single family lots within the subdivision.lt�5-1,� 11. Final landscape and irrigation pians shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to recordation of the Final Map. 12. The final_ map shall contain notes or shall be recorded with documents that clearly set out the -maintenance obligations of individual lot owners kith respect to the drainage way along the westerly property boundary and the landscaping within the non-development private open space easements. This includes Lots 21, 29, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 and Parcel L. 13. As offered by the appl}eaat and approved as past er th:s appreFal As agreed to by the Town of Tiburon, Marin County and Cypress Hollow, a California Limited Partnership in the settlement of Case No. 140135 in California Superior Court, prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall establish a $51,000 fund and pFepese the gFeee8uFes and supere:sing eat-ity, saeh as the Town et Ti tiFea er Bel Aire lmpreyernent Asseeiatiea for providing the funds to the property owners of the 17 lots along Black-field Drive that abut the Cypress Hollow subdivision for installation of screening landscaping in their rear yards. The pr-eeeduFes and supeFFisiflg ageaey as pFepese.d by the app eaat steal, be s-clb edea to the Feview and appFezal e€ the Planning Di-feeteF- =n the eve.Tit no app eariate eflti--ty is w144}ng to aeeept the FespeRSib l-ty of supeFvising !Ehe eLpend.ture of the f imd prier te. FeeeFdatieFi of Final Map, the deve-lepef shall be Fespensi Ie to pay the ev,:1ers er the 1 r lets al-eng Blaefield Drive 'that abut the dewmslepe lets alaflg the pfeposed Ranehe DF:ve extension, alse kBewA as A-P- Nes 034-17141 to 07 and G024-11- 1-01 to 18; up to 53 800 per let as Fe mbursemeat ref expenses iAeuFFed ixsta4i-nc sereeniag laxdseafang in their eaF yards wh:eh expenses clay inelude landse-apiag desing; lafidseapiAg ee;�t:ae` ag and ii-stallatien; eF eest of plaAt aia'tefials: the developer Sha.' �3e respensible to flishiur-se rFem the So1-,-900 fund fen fe:uibursemeAt elaimed in writing feF f7ve �� years rFeai reeordatien of F�Fial Map: Distribution of the Fund shall be made as determined by the Town of Tiburon- Upon funding of the Fund, the Town shall notify in vrriting each owner of the Blackfield Homes advising each owner of the availability of the Fund for purposes of screening landscaping and the procedures for obtaining a portion of the Fund The procedures for distribution of the Fund shall be as follows~ A. Any owner of any of the 17 subject lots who proposes to install screening landscaping in his/her rear (western) yard may apply by letter to the Planning Director of the Town for authorization to proceed pursuant to an agreed budget_ B. After authorization by the Town and upon proof of installation satisfactory to the Planning Director of the Town, the Town shall reimburse the applican+;Downer for such landscaping cysts actually incurred (including landscaping d(-_sign, landscaping contracting and installation or cost of plant materials) in an amount up to (but not exceeding) the budgeted amount for each lot owned by the appldcant/ow-ner. As wmpen_ ation to the Town for administering the Fund: 1) upon recordation of the Final Map for the Project, Cypress Hollow shall pay to the Town of Tiburon the sum of FIVE: THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00); and 2) interest received on the Fund shall become unrestricted funds of the Town of Tiburon s earned_ In the event the Fund rl -5- H HHIT INTO. --'-j T, 'Y or-9 has not bin exhausted within five (5) years after the date of funding and after the Town of Tiburon's good faith efforts to contact all of the o,.vDers of the Blackfieid Homes who have not re-ceived payment under this procedure, any sums remaining in the Fund shall become unrestricted funds of the Town_ DePart;Ilen.t of Public Works i 4. Prior to the submission of improvement plans and recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall complete hydrologic/hydraulic analysis of the relevant watershed which defines any existing and/or expected drainage deficiencies and identifies potentia: mitiga-tion measures shall be submitted. 15. The improvement plans shall include a detailed grading and drainage plan that incor-L�orates the following design guidelines as mound appropriate by the applicant's professional engineers and concurred in by County staff: A. All cut and fill slopes should be inclined no greater than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless specif ically approved by a qualified soil engineer. B. During site grading, no grading, vehicle parking or storage of construction materials shall be allowed under the drip line of trees to be retained. C. Slopes shall be graded such that a naturally contoured appearance results. Graded slopes shall be rounded and final g-raded into the existing terrain. Bench or cut pad building sites shall be discouraged. Bench cuts will only be allowed when they provide substantial design benefit such as reducing house height on slopes. Any bench cutting shall blend into the existing contours and shall not be permitted simply to provide outdoor living areas. It is the intent of this condition to require structures to be c-",storn designed to fit the topography and minimize grading, house massing and height. D. Discharge project runoff into small drainages at frequent intervals to avoid buildup of large, potentially erosive flows. E. Reduce disturbed areas to the minimum necessary for construction. F. h eep storm water runoff velocities low. G. 1,.eep slope lengths and gradients to a minimum. 11. L,esign developed area to increase the "time of concentration" (time for �vater to pass ever the site) through grading, detention areas, enerD7 dissipators and maderate. flow velocities. 16. The applicant shall be responsible to undertake the follow ng drainage improvements. A. Fursuant to the hydrologic/hydfaulic analysis and the applicable recommendations of t-e geotechnical consultant, channel stabilization n;easures shall be performed for t:-7e unnamed drainage way along the westerly side of the property. B. ursuant to the hydrologic/hydraulic analysis relevant to the "West Ditch" drain�,.ge s-.-stem and the Tiburon Boulevard culvert and Cecilia 'Way culvert crossing, _he applicant shall: �'XHIBI`�' NO, , -6- r' � = 9 1) Pay $60,000 to the Flood Control District „A in-lieu o= unaertal::nr off-s;—to drainage work; and 2) Provide to Flood Control District no later than April 15, 11989, plans, specifications, and estimates for construction of the box culvert for the West Ditch at Cecilia Way. 17. All grading and site preparation shall be pefformed under the direct obse;ration of a aualified soils engineer. Provide slope reconstruction as determined appropriate usina, terraced excavation covered by compacted fill, buttressed and subdrained. 18. immediately after grading, each building site shall be checked for e::pansive soils. Where expansive soils are found, they shall be replaced with non-expansive em-meered fill prior to building construction. Alternative solutions to correctmg expansive soil conditions may be recommended by the applicant's professional engineers and may be substituted subject to approval by Department of Public Works. 19. For development on each individual lot, additional subsurface investigations and engineering analysis shall be performed to develop recommendations regarding site grading and other items related to building foundations and site specific drainage as project plans for housing construction are developed. 20. The slide area located in the northerly portion of Lot 29 shall be reviewed by a geotechnic consultant to determine if any additional measures are necessary to insure protection of the surrounding area from possible slide reactivation. Any required measures shall be implemented through improvement plan construction. 21. The Vesting Tentative Map small be revised =1-e shows a non-access easement for the following areas: A. the south easterly lot lines of lots 31 to 40 39 so that access to these lots is from .Monterey Drive only; 3. the northerly lot line of Parcel K; the easterly lot line of Lots 23 aad 30 22 and 23 along Rancho Drive; D. the entire north westerly side of Monterey Drive (includes lot lines in Lots 40, 41, 42, 43; and 49 44, and Parcel L) except for approxi.nately 100 feet of frontage for Lot 4.1 immediately northerly of the shared driveway access; the rear property lines of Lots 1-7 and 9 where these lots abut the remainder Parcel B. 22. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of the following traffic control improvements: A. a "Tee Intersection" warning sign on the easter;: approach on Bay Vista Drive prior to the intersection of Bay Vista Drive and Cypress Hollow Drive. 3. a stop sign at the west end of Cypress Hollow Drive. C. A stop sign at the south end of Monterey Drive. �r -7- EXHIBIT N0. ` D. S r!Ding a C1011b1_G yellow line On BcV ViSta Dr ive in the v1CiriitjJ Of `e e irate r SGCtOn O: Cypress i10110W Dr1V2 araC Ba ' 'iSta Drive, The exact lOCation and extent Of striping shall be approved by the County Traffcr,mineer �. The paving Section of Bav Vista Drive shah be widened to 30 feet from where it currently narrows and northerly past the new, intersection of Cypress ll�:ollow Drive. The extent of the widening shall be deterrfined by the County Tra`fic engineer, but shall be generally Iimited to the subdivision boundarvY along Bay vista Drive. These traffic improvements shall be shover. on the improvement plans and shall be subject to final review and approval by DPW prior to recordation of the Final 11--D. 23. Prior to or in conjunction with the improvement plans for the subdivision, the applicant shall prepare detailed erosion and sedimentation control plans for tine constriction Deriod and permanent erosion and sedimentation control plans for the period after const action X or review and approval by the County and Flood Control District. The construction erosion and sedimentation control plans shall include the following design guidelines as found appropriate by the applicant's professional engineers and concurred in by County staff: A. Avoid open face cuts and extensive clearing/grading operations during the critical wet weather period of the year (commonly mid-October through mid-March). B. Keep runoff away from disturbed areas during construction. C. Stabilize "disturbed areas" as quickly as possible, either by vegetative or mechanical methods. D. Trap sediment before it leaves the site with such techniques as check dams, sediment ponds, or siltation basins. Construction on the site shall be done in compliance with the approved construction erosion and sedimentation control plan and the perinanent erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be incorporated into the subdivision improvement plans. 2^. In conjunction with the erosion and sedimentation control plans required in Condition k'_93, the applicant shall provide a model construction erosion and sedimentation control pian for development on individual lots. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and Department of Public Works and shall be incorporated to the extent appropriate on individual lots as conditions for Design Review approvals within the subdivisions. 25. P.emove channel debris to restore the origin .l drainage channel located in the southwest portion of the subdivision to provide for unimpeded drainage flo�,v. 26. Prior to issuance of building permits for residential and accessory structures, all applicable school district fee requirements shall be complied with. Alto Richardson Bay Fire Protection District 27. The development plans for house construction on individual lots shall fulfill the following design requirements: n -8- TINT I�7Q.`= — Vvh --`gyp 91-01,11)d ti �. e!e the ave.c ce . Slope Oii an`,' S:C]e Or a sti-acture PXCE eQS 1 )n d three. iooC �rlde hard surface path sitiall be provided. B. Where the Slopeofa lot exceeds 361 , hard surface SteDS shall be provldeC. C. Spark arrestors shall be provided ;opening riot. larger than 1j2 inch (iron mesh)i. Tree branches shall be kept 10 feet au�a�� ram fire place chimney outlets. D. Provide smoke detectors. The detectors shall receive their primary, power from the building wire (commercial source). Each house shall have the street address clearly posted in numbers that contrast to their backgrounds. F. Class A fire resistant roofing mate ials s;;all be used far all structures. Pacific Bell 28. A 10 foot wide public utilities easement shall be provided within the proposed road rights- of-way. hdarin Murnicipal Water District 29. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall enter into a pipeline extension easement with Marin Municipal Water District and shall guarantee necessary project improvements and water service for all proposed residential lots. 30. Low flow water fixtures shall. be utilized in all house construction. Richardson Bav Sanitary District 31. Prior to recordation of Final Map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with Richardson Bav Sanitary district to provide for the extension of the sanitary sewer facilities and provision of sewer connec-ions for the Cypress Hollow Subdivision. PPASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of lvlarin, State of California, on the l3th day of S- wit: ptember 198$ by the following vote to- ---._-, .AYES: Supervisors: Gary Giacorn; ni, Bob Stockwell, Harold Brown, Al Aramburu NOES: Supervisors: None ABSENT: Supervisors: Bob Roumiguier CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: COUNTY OF MARI_- Margaret Council Clerk of the Board EXHIBIT NO, w�� EXHIBIT 6 RECORDING REQUESTED RETURN TO: "TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD TIBURON. CA 94920 RESOLUTION NO. Draft- 2019 A RESOLUTION OF TI-IE"TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CYPRESS HOLLOW PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #45) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA AND CREATE A SECONDARY BUILDING EVELOPE ON PROPERTY AT ]30 RANCHO DRIVE (LOT 12) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-293-03 Section I. Findings. WHEREAS. the Town of Tiburon has received and considered an application filed by Kate and Eric Morse to amend the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan (PD 445) to increase the maximum floor area and establish a secondary building envelope permitted for Lot 12 of the Cypress Hollow Subdivision, located at 130 Rancho Drive; and WHEREAS, the Precise Development Plan application consists of File #PDPA2019-001, on file with the "Down of Tiburon Community Development Department. Materials from that application include but are not limited to the following: 1. Land Development Application form and project description, dated April 24. 2019: and 2. Project plans (6 sheets) prepared by Michael Heckmann, Heckmann Architects. dated June 19. 2019 WHEREAS. on August 14. 2019 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the approval of this application to amend the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan: and WHEREAS. after receiving public testimony and considering the application at that hearing, the Planninu Commission adopted Resolution No. 2019-09 recommending to the Town ColIllCll that the Precise Development Plan Amendment be approved; and WHEREAS. on September 4. 2019. the Town Council held a public hearing on this application and after hearing all testimony and revie,,ving all documents on the record. the ToNvii Council concurred with the findings made by the Planning Commission and found that the proposed precise development plan amendment to increase the rn3uaoN' 1oeyN cot! maximum floor area and create a secondary building envelope permitted for the property located at 130 Rancho Drive would be consistent with the overall intention of the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan and the policies contained within the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan: and WHEREAS, the Town Council has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15301 and 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. NOW. Tl-IEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the requested amendment to the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan. subject to the following conditions: 1. Condition of Approval No. 3 (C) of Marin County Board of Supervisor-s Resolution No. 88-252 shall be amended to read as follows: "The FAR shall be a maximum of 30%; except that greater area is permitted for the following lots: a. Lot 33 (70 Monterey Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house. as generally depicted on drawings dated 10/1/99. prepared by Marshall Balfe (4 sheets); b. Lot 16 (170 Rancho Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house, as generally depicted on drawings dated 1/4/2000, prepared by Mahoney Architects (4 sheets); C. Lot 7 (70 Cypress Hollow Drive), as generally depicted on drawings dated 4/18/2001, prepared by Geoffrey Butler Architect (6 sheets). approving the garage conversion and limiting the deck enclosure so that the total floor area of the house does not exceed the Town of Tiburon default floor area ratio for this property; d. Lot 11 (120 Rancho Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house. as generally depicted on drawings dated 9/14/2002. prepared by Marshal Balfe (6 sheets); C. Lot 35 (50 Monterey Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house. as generally depicted on drawings dated 1/28/2004, prepared by Richard Esteb (5 sheets); f. Lot 26 (20 Bacchans Place) if attained entirely within undeveloped space v-vithin the existing mass and bulk of the approved house, as generally depicted on drawings dated I-HURON TO\�N COUNCII. RI SO ] U I ION NO DRAF I-2019 SEP ITMBER d.2019 2 1 1/1/2005, prepared by Richard Esteb (6 sheets): g. Lot 36 (40 Monterey Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bull( of the approved house, as generally depicted on drawings dated 7/6/2006. prepared by Mohamad Sadrieh (7 sheets)." h. Lot 10 (110 Rancho Drive) if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bull( Of the approved house. as generally depicted on drawings dated 8/14/2012. prepared by Holscher Architecture (3 sheets)." i. Lot 34 (60 Monterey Drive), if attained entirely within undeveloped space with the existing mass and bull( of the approved house, as generally depicted on drawings dated 10/17/2016. prepared by Larson Shores Architecture + interiors (10 sheets)." j. Lot 12 (130 Rancho Drive) as generally depicted on drawings dated 06/19/2019. prepared by Heckmann Architects (6 sheets). 2. "This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Cypress Hollow Precise Development Plan not specifically described herein. 3. The approved secondary building envelope for the property at 130 Rancho Drive shall be amended as reflected on the Site Plan, prepared by Michael Heckmann. dated .lune 19. 2019, attached as Exhibit"A." 4. The secondary building envelope shall be utilized only for construction of deck and exterior staircase as show on the plans on file with this application. Other additions Or structures shall be prohibited within the secondary building envelope area. 5. This Precise Development Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued Pursuant to this approval. A time extension may be granted if such request is tiled prior to the expiration clate. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on September 4. 2019. by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 000NCIL.M1 M13ERS: ABSENT: 000NCII.MI:M131:RS: I IBURON'"I OWN col V'CII. R[So ] IT I ION NO DRAT I-2019 S1 1)ITNIBER 4_2019 3 DAVID KULIK, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI. TOWN CLERK 11131lRON l-O\\N COI V IL I:ISOLLITION No DRQ'LT-3017 SLfP'11=,113LR 4.2019 4 Town Council Meetin�(I TOWN OF T113URON September 4. 2019 1505 'Fiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: PH - 2 Tiburon. CA 94920 To: Mayo and Members ofthe Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Unmanned Aerial System ("UAS"), or Drone, Regulations Amendment to recently adopted ordinance Reviewed By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock,"Town Attorne SUMMARY The Town Council will consider first reading of an ordinance that would amend a recently adopted ordinance that regulates operation of Unmanned Aerial Systems, commonly known as drones, in the vicinity of local public schools, publicly permitted events, and emergency operations. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Hold a public hearing and consider any testimony. 2. If appropriate, make any modifications to the ordinance. 3. Make a motion to read by title only and carry the motion; then read the title of the ordinance, and hold a roll call vote to pass the first reading, waiving any additional readings. 4. If passed for the first reading,the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. BACKGROUND On April 19. 2019. the Town received a letter fi•om the Reed Union School District requesting the Town Council to consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the use of Unmanned Aerial Systems. commonly known as drones.. over school campuses during moors of operation and school sponsored events (Exhibit 1). The Council discussed the matter at their May 15. 2019 meeting.. and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for consideration that would satisfy the Districts request. The COuncll also directed staff to consider other appropriate regulations adopted by other cities in California. On June 19. Staffs-Cturned \yith a draft ordinance. Council reviewed and considered the draft ordinance. and ultimately adopted it with certain modifications. On or about .lulu 31. 2019. the Town of Tiburon received a letter fi-om the National Press Photographer's Association (NPPA) expressing concern that the ordinance was preempted by regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and violated the first TOWN or Ti13URON PAGF 1 or 4 amendment ofthe United States Constitution by prohibiting the taking of photographs from the public space using a drone. Subsequently, representatives of the local publication The;Irk. also wrote to the Town expressing concern for restrictions on photography. ANALYSIS Following receiving the concerns from the NPPA and The Ark, Town staff reviewed the ordinance to evaluate the concerns raised. Preemption Although the FAA is the exclusive authority for regulating airspace, a recent court decision notes that does not preclude states or municipalities from passing valid regulations. (See Singer I,. Town ofNewton (2017) 284 F. Supp. 125, 129)(hereafter"Newton").) The regulations. thus, leave room for municipalities to enact valid regulations which are not otherwise preempted by federal regulations. Here, the Town has reviewed the ordinance and found that the ordinance does not conflict with federal regulations. The letter fi-om the NPPA cited the Newlon case as the sole reason the Towns ordinance was preempted. However, in Neirlon, the City of Newton, Mass. enacted an ordinance which regulated drones that included a number Of requirements and restrictions on operating drones, including registration requirements, bans On use below 400 feet over private property without permission. ban On use "beyond the visual line of sight of the operator," ban on use interfering with a manned aircraft, ban on use over Newton private property without permission, and banning surveillance or invasion of personal privacy. The court ultimately found the ordinance was preempted, because, in part, the two altitude restrictions (prohibiting flying over private property under 400 feet and the second prohibiting flying over public property at any height) were preempted. The court noted that the unlimited height restriction strayed into navigable airspace, which was preempted. And additionally, noted that the two height restrictions together combined to all but ban using drones in the Town of Newton, which the court said, "thwarts" the FAA's and Con<rress' objective to integrate drones into the national airspace. and thus such a scheme vvas preempted. The Town of Tiburon's ordinance does not suffer from these same deficiencies. In Tiburon. there is no restriction 1-e«arding flying over private property at any height. Further. the Town-s ordinance prohibits the flying of drones up to 400 feet only above a school and then only during school hours. Such a restriction leaves ample opportunity for drone use. First Amendment and Photography Using Drones. The rights of free speech, press- and assembly are not absolute, and have been traditionally reUulatcd in certain well-defined fields. With respect to a non-public forum (such as a school). local governments may impose reasonable time, place. and manner restrictions on fundamental rights. like the freedom of speech or press. that are content neutral. Courts have held that valid content-neutral time. place and manner regulations are acceptable as long as the\, are designed to serve a substantial government interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues Of WILL III Lill lcat1011. Tovv v of 1,113t Imv (,r-1 The test determining whether a regulation that restrains such rights is valid is: 1. Is the re<rulation content neutral? 2. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest'? 3. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative channels of communication? 1:first the re(Yulation is content-neutral as it only restricts capturing photooraphs of students at school durin1-1 school hours. Second. we must identifv the governmental interest, and then evaluate if the regulation is narrowly tailored to that. I-lere, the Town had received a letter from the Reed Union School District in response to an event where a drone hovered over the school for 20 minutes. The School District was concerned with the safety of its students, not only in the event of a crash, but also regarding the lack of knowledge of who was operating the drone and for what pLu-pose(s). The Ordinance has the al I-important interest of keeping students at the school safe fi-om unauthorized photography and potential violence, the importance of which is highlighted by the number of tragic, violent events that have taken place at schools in recent years. Additionally. drones can cause a distraction, which takes away from the purpose of a school, which is educating kids. Thus, the Ordinance has a government interest in the safety of those at school and promoting an educational environment fi-ee from outside distractions. "These are substantial government interests. The next issue is to determine if the regulation is narrowly tailored to those interests. I lere, the Ordinance only restricts operating drones, that are on school grounds (or 400 feet above). and only during school hours or events. Further, the prohibition on capturing images of students on public school grounds is limited to "knowingly and intentionally" capturing such images. This restriction is narrowly tailored to the important interest protecting children from potential harm from unnamed persons flying drones taking pictures of kids while at school. Additionally. that the ordinance is restricted to just school hours is significant. It is not the pictures of the school necessarily to be protected. but of the children and their movement. Due to these time restrictions, the Ordinance is narrowly tailored. Third. the Ordinance leaves open ample opportunities for taking such photographs. As noted by the Arlt. the Ordinance does not prohibit a person fi-om taking pictures from the public ri(_hts-of= \vay. e.(Y., streets and sidewalks. Additionally, a person wishing to photograph the school can do so both before and after school hours, and all winter, spring, and summer breal<s. Amendments While reviewing the Ordinance, it was determined that some modifications could be made which would reduce the likelihood of such a challenge and maintain the purpose the Ordinance N-vas adopted to combat. The modified ordinance proposed here strikes regulations 25-4(c)(6 - 8). These provisions restricted takin( offor landing a drone near permitted events, emergcncy vehicles in operation. or in a manner that interferes with police. fire. or other emergency responses. There have not been incidents which would trigger the need for these regulations. and therefore. at this point. staff is recommendina that they be removed. T_O\\ O1=.T [13i fro\ 1'l(J; 3 O1 4 Additionally. the Town wishes to create additional clarity regarding what is restricted with taking photographs of a school using a drone dtu-ing school IIOui-S. The proposed modification clarifies that this restriction covers students from being photographed by drones. Simply put. the Town wishes to protect against individuals using drones in a manner that might lead to student's harm. Here, the additional modifications to the ordinance results in an improved ordinance that remains content neutral, which is even more narrowly tailored to advancin(.), the substantial interest of school safety and prohibiting disruptions. And further, continues to leaves open ample alternative Channels of communication. Staff recommends the Council consider amendments to the adopted Ordinance. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt fi-0111 the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town COuncil: 1. Hold a public hearing and consider any testimony. 2. If appropriate, make the suggested modifications to the Ordinance. 3. Make a motion to read by title only and carry the motion: then read the title of the ordinance. and hold a roll call vote to pass the first reading. waiving any additional readings. 4. If passed for the first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the neat regular meeting of the Council. Exhibit(s): 1. Letter fi-om Reed union School District I DRAFT Amendments to Ordinance Prepared By: Lea Stefani. Town Clerk ,t.mv oto" 'tt t Im\ _I EXHIBIT 1 REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 277 A Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 tel: 4-15.381.1112 fax: 415.384.0890 %vWW.ree(is Clio oIS.org Board of Trustees: A J. Brady Amy Jacobs Dana Linker Steele �eaC'- Sherry Wangenheim Afsaneh Zolfaghad Dr. Nancy Lynch April 19, 2019 Superintendent Carlos Estrella Mr. Greg Chanis and Tiburon Town Council Members Chief Business Official 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920 Dear Mr. Chanis and Tiburon Town Council Members, I write today to inform you that on April 16, 2018, the Reed Union School District Board of Trustees unanimously agreed to have District representatives approach the Town of Tiburon to request that Council members consider the passage of a drone ordinance prohibiting the use of drones over school campuses during hours of operation and school sponsored events. The reason for this request is in response to an incident that occurred on March 21, 2018. A drone was observed flying over the front parking lot of Reed School for approximately 20 minutes while students were at lunch recess. The drone flew at various altitudes which means it provided a clear view of the students on the playground. This activity is very concerning for many reasons including but not limited to, we do not know the identity of the person responsible, nor their intent or purpose for flying over the school while in session. As we place a high priority on the safety and security of students and staff, this is perceived as an intrusion and a possible danger to those we are charged to protect. We are seeking a Town Ordinance that would prohibit this type of activity from happening at schools located in the Town of Tiburon. We look forward to engaging with the Town of Tiburon staff and Council members to discuss this possibility and would welcome participation in drafting an ordinance that would benefit the safety and security of our students and staff as well as the community at large. Respectfully, AJ Brady, RUSD Board President Nancy Lynch, RUSD Superintendent RUSD Mission and Vision Fad) student Will be challenged and inspired to n"Idl her o[ his fullest ilvi�llc(lual social-emolional and creative potential to positively inipm,t the vVoIld. EXHIBIT 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 583 N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER 25-4 TO THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE IMPOSING SAFETY REQUIREMENTS ON THE OPERATION OF MODEL AIRCRAFT AND TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS CONSISTENT WITH CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION RULES ON THE OPERATION OF BOTH MODEL AIRCRAFT AND CIVIL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS), COMMONLY KNOWN AS DRONES. DRONES AND UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS Section 1—Contents 25-4 (a) Purpose 25-4(b) Definitions 25-4(c) Local Regulations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 25-4(d) Exemptions 25-4(e)Violation; penalties 25-4(a) Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the operation of Unmanned Aircraft, commonly known as drones, which can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to persons on the ground, or which present concerns for the safety of individuals at a school or otherwise impede providing a safe education environment. Imposing community-based safety requirements on the operation of Model UAS and imposing restrictions on the operation of both Model UAS's and Civil UAS's consistent with Federal Aviation Administration rules is necessary to mitigate such risks and to protect the public from the hazards associated with the operation of Unmanned Aircraft. 25-4(b) Definitions "Civil UAS" shall mean an Unmanned Aircraft or Unmanned Aircraft System operated by any Person for any purposes other than strictly hobby or recreational purpose, including, but not limited to, commercial purposes or in the furtherance of, or incidental to, any business or media service or agency. "Drone" refers to any UAS. "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administration. "Model UAS" shall mean an Unmanned Aircraft or Unmanned Aircraft System operated by any Person strictly for hobby or recreational purposes. Page 1 of 4 Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.583 N.S. Effective Date xx/xx/xxxx "Person" shall mean natural person,joint venture,joint stock company, partnership, association, club, company, corporation, business trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee of any of them. "Public UAS" shall mean an Unmanned Aircraft or Unmanned Aircraft System operated by any public agency for government related purposes. "Unmanned Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft without a human pilot onboard, that is controlled by an operator on the ground, and is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. "Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)"shall mean an Unmanned Aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, any communication links and components that control the Unmanned Aircraft. 25-4(c) Regulations The following shall apply to the operation of any Model UAS or Civil UAS within the Town of Tiburon: 1) No person shall operate any Model UAS or Civil UAS within the Town of Tiburon in a manner that is prohibited by any federal statute or regulation. 2) Excluding takeoff and landing, no person shall operate any Model UAS or Civil UAS within the Town of Tiburon closer than 25 feet to any individual, except the operator or the operator's helper(s). 3) No person shall takeoff, land or operate any Model UAS or Civil UAS while under the influence of alcohol or any other drugs, intoxicating compound or any combination thereof. 4) No person shall knowingly and intentionally operate any Model UAS or Civil UAS on the grounds of, or less than 400 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying, a public school facility in the Town of Tiburon during school hours or school events, without the written permission of school officials. 5) No person shall knowingly and intentionally operate any Model UAS or Civil UAS to record, transmit or capture images of students on public school grounds in the Town of Tiburon during school hours or school events without the written permission of school officials. 6) Ne person shall takeeff, lapd er operate any Model WAS er Civil WAS yAthiA fA----r hundred (490) feet of any publiely permitted events without pFier ;ietifieatieR and autherization of the Town E) TibLire R. Page 2 of 4 Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 583 N.S. Effective Date xx/xx/xxxx 7) Ne persGR shall takeGff, land e�eperate any Medel WAS or Civil WAS within four hHHdred (400) feet of any emergency ehiele that iS ratin .,4h lights anal/eF 8) No persen shall takeoff, land or E)peFate any Madel WAS er Civil WAS i.vlthin feur hundFed (400) feet of any active law eHfareemeRt er emeFgeney FespeRse incident On a ManHer that 25-4(d) Exemptions This chapter shall not apply to any Public UAS, or UAS weighing less than 0.55 pounds. 25-4(e)Violation; penalties In addition to other enforcement means available to the Town, any Person violating this Chapter is subject to fines and confiscation of the UAS by the Tiburon Police Department or other local, state or federal law enforcement agency operating on their behalf. Section 2—Severability Should any section, clause, or provision of this Ordinance be declared by the courts to be invalid,the same shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or parts thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid. Section 3—California Environmental Quality Act The Town hereby determines that that this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act review under Title 14, section 15061(b)(3) as there is no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Furthermore, this ordinance will not cause a direct or indirect physical change to the environment and is therefore exempt pursuant to Title 14, Section 15378(b)(2) and (3) of the California Code of Regulations. Section 4—Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code Section 36937, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the 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 Town of Tiburon. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on September 4, 2019, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 3 of 4 Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. 583 N.S. f ffective Date xx/xx/xxxx DAVID KULIK, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK DATE: Page 4 of 4 Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.583 N.S. Effective Date xx/xx/xxxx "Down Council Meetin0 ZD TOWN OF TIBURON September 4. 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: Al - Tiburon. CA 94920 ® . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Councjl From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Consider appro%al of a Parking Lot Operation Agreement between The Town and ACV Argo Tiburon, and adoption of Resolution authorizing the Tiburon Police Department to regulate the parking of vehicles on an Off Street Parking Facility Reviewed By: Greg Clmnis.Town Manager Benjamin Stock,Town Attorney SUMMARY For this item, CoUnCll will consider approving and authorizing the Town Manager to sign, a Parking Lot Operation Agreement with ACV Argo Tiburon related to management of ACV owned parking lots on Beach Road and Tiburon Boulevard, and consider adoption of a Resolution authorizing the Tiburon Police Department to regulate the parking of vehicles on an off-street parking facility RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Approve, and authorize Town Manager to sign Parking Lot Operation Agreement and Adopt draft Resolution. BACKGROUND Parkin-, in the dowi-itown area of'] iburon is important to all residents as well as the numerous commercial establishments located downtown. As a result, the Town has an interest in supporting of licient parking policies, despite the fact the Town does not own any of the downtov n parking lots. ACV Argo Tiburon (ACV) owins a number of downtown properties, including parking lots located on Beach Road and Tiburon Boulevard. Exhibit 1 shows an aerial viewof the location of the 2 lots. With the Belvedere/Tiburon Library expansion project about to begin. parking, in the vicinity of Down I-lall and the Library is of particular interest. ACV and the Town staff have developed a dralt Parking Lot Management Aoreement for the operation of the 2 ACV owned lots. The draft a, reement is attached as Exhibit 2. TOWN OF TIBt:RON'� --- PAGE I or 3 ANALYSIS Under the proposed agreement, the Town would provide routine maintenance of the 2 lots. This maintenance would consist of periodic cleaning/sweeping of the lots as well as routine maintenance of the landscaped areas adjacent to the lots. This maintenance work would be completed by existing Public Works staff. Any major repairs required would be the responsibility of ACV including; repaving/striping, light pole repair/replacement and repair/replacement of the pay machines located at the lots. In addition to this routine maintenance, the Town would also enforce all applicable parking and traffic regulations within the lots, and would retain any revenue generated by this enforcement activity. Currently; the Police Department has 3 Police Service Aide's who provide parking enforcement in Town. Chief Cronin has determined we will be able to integrate this additional work into the existing schedule, resulting in no additional resources being needed to complete the additional Nvork. Council must approve the draft Resolution attached as Exhibit 3 for the police to have the authority to enforce parking regulations in on off street parking facility. In exchange for providing these services, the Town would receive the following benefits: • 12 parking spots at no charge for employee parking at the lot located on TlbUtl-on Boulevard. The To\vn currently pays for this parking, and under the planned fee schedule provided by ACV, the total value of these 12 spaces would be $10,080 per year. • Ability to install up to 4 electric vehicle charging stations. The Town would establish the fee structure for use of the chargers, and any fees collected through the use of these stations would be retained by the Town. • Ability to utilize the lots for special events up to 5 times per year, and to establish the parking charges for use of the lots during those events. • ACV would establish an hourly (short term) parking program for use of the lots. Currently, only a daily charge is offered at both lots. ACV has provided a proposed fee schedule for the lots which is attached as Exhibit 4. Under this schedule. the first 30 minutes of parking would be fi-ee at the lot located on Beach road, and the first hour would be fi-ee at the lot located adjacent to Town Hall on Tiburon Boulevard. ACV Would be fully responsible for the collection of parking fees and would retain 1000/0 of the fees collected. FINANCIAL IMPACT We anticipate no additional staffing resources will be necessary to fulfill the Towns obligations Under the aurcement. The 'I own will have an estimated $10.000 reduction in expenses as a result of receivimu 12 Park ingspots at no charge. and will generate an undetermined amount of additional revenue throu<rh parking enforcement activity. my x or T][it tzox 11 v<<t: 2 or 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Approve, and authorize Town Manager to sign, the Parking Lot Operation Agreement and Adopt draft Resolution. Exhibit(s): 1. Aerial view of ACV Parking Lots 2. Draft parking Lot Management Agreement 3. Draft Resolution d. Planned ACV parking fee schedule Prepared By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager .1 m\ 'N ol.-i_lBt lio, P 3 or 3 "" �, �< ,<� �� +ss•' zea , '. ':.' ES _ BEACH , ROAD LOT zzz .' ���� fils'yT/� Fk.� i�.� ` p G�3 �"ffi "°9 � ,�'t:: a_..:y gL �S �`'• p •l+" 910 tj F TIBURON , BLVD LaT ..,... ._.... f l p< ✓..' ..e.. $ °` ... .. E - U r w�uagxIATA, � f T ,' -„, , z ., OYJN HALL <,' B LIBRARY e CHASE a - + a k ofA ��- a sem, tw BANK M ^ MAW— Y PARKING LOT OPERATION AGREEMENT This Parking Lot Operation Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this day of September, 2019, by and between ACV ARGO TIBURON. LP, a California limited partnership ("Owner") and the TOWN OF TIBURON, a California municipal corporation and general law Town ("Town"). WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of those certain parking lots being operated on property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated hcrein by reference as if fully set forth (collectively "Propert),"); and WHEREAS, Owner desires to contract with the "Down and the Town desires to continue to allow parking on the Property on the terms and conditions set forth below. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: I. Operation. Owner hereby designates the Town as Owner's agent with respect to the operation of the parking lots on the Property, which operation shall be limited to the specific duties and responsibilities set forth below. This Agreement shall not be construed as giving rise to or constituting a partnership, joint venture, or other similar arrangement between Owner and the Town, nor shall the parties be liable for any financial obliOations incm-red by the other except as expressly set forth below. 2. Term and Termination. A. Term. Except as set forth below. the term of-this Agreement shall be for a period of five (5) years commencing on the date hereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice at any time after the first annual anniversary date hereof. B. Termination. Notwithstanding the above, however. this Agreement may be terminated upon any of the following: (1) If the Town fails to pay any amounts due to the Owner hereunder for a period of five (5) days after written notice that the same is past due is delivered to the Town: (2) By either party in the event of any default or breach by the other party of this Agreement which continues for a period of thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice of such breach (or if such breach cannot be cured within said thirty (30) days.. if the party commences efforts to cure such default or breach within said thirty (30) days and diligently pursuCs such cure to completion no later than thirty (30) days thereafter): (3) In whole or in part by Owner upon thirty (30) days written notice in the event Owner obtains entitlements to change the use of al I or any part of the Property. OAK_��18-0137-9997 0 (4) With respect to all or any portion of the Property, upon thirty (30) days' written notice by either- party in the event of the demolition or destruction of the Property, any portion thereof and/or improvements located thereon: or (5) Whenever the parties shall mutually agree in writin��. 3. Duties and Authority of Town. The Town's duties and authority pursuant to this Agreement are limited to those matters set forth below: A. Operation. At the Town's sole expense. Town shall operate and enforce all applicable Town parking and traffic regulations applicable to the Property and shall be entitled to retain any revenue collected in connection with such enforcement ("Enforcement Revenue"); provided, however, that the Town shall indemnify, defend and hold Owner harmless from any liabilities, losses, claims, costs, demands and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of or relating to the enforcement 01`such regulations. B. Maintenance. At the Town's sole expense. the Town shall be responsible for providing periodic sweeping, landscape maintenance. and reasonable equipment repair on the Property (collectively "Routine Maintenance"). Should the Property require any other maintenance other than Routine Maintenance, the Owner will be obligated to provide such maintenance as provided in Section 4.D. C. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. At the Town's sole expense, the ]'own may install up to four (4) electric vehicle charging stations in locations approved by Owner, and the Town shall be entitled to retain any fees charged by the Town for the use of such stations. The Town shall be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of such stations. D. Special Events._ Not more than five (5) times per year and upon not less than ten (10) days written notice to Owner (which notice shall include the parking charges for such event), the Town may establish charges to be imposed for parking at the Property (or any portion thereof) for special events lasting not more than twelve (12) hours each. E. Indemnity of']'own. The Town shall release. indemnify.. defend and hold Owner and Its partners, employees, officers. agents. successors and assigns harmless 1Tom and against any liabilities, losses, claims, costs. demands. orders. charges. liens. judo?ments and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees and costs) whatsoevcr, arising out ofor related to the acts or omissions ofthe Town and/or am, breach b\ Tovwn under the terms ofthis Agreement. TONVN OF TIBURON—ACV ARCO TIBURON. LP PARKING LOT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT OAK#-4815-0137-9997 a1 F. indemnity of Owner. The Owner shall release,. indemnify, defend and hold the Town and its employees, officers, agents.. successors and assigns harmless fi-om and against any liabilities. losses. claims. costs, demands. orders. charges. liens. judgments and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees and costs) whatsoever, arising out of or related to the acts or omissions of the Owner and/or any breach by the Owner under the terms of this Agreement. 4. Owner's Duties. Owner shall: A. Subject to the Town's rights pursuant to paragraph 3.D above, determine the reasonable charges to be imposed for parking at the Property; provided, however, that Owner, in addition to reserving the right to offer daily or long term parking, shall offer an hourly parking charge foi-use of the lots. B. Owner shall collect and retain for the account and benefit of Owner all parking fees generated fi-0111 users of the Property. C. If Owner establishes a program for long-term parking (i.e., weekly, monthly, or such other periods as Owner may determine), Owner shall issue parking passes to the purchasers thereof ("Parking Pass Program") and provide the Town with a list of the pili-chasers (including the license plate numbers 01' such purchasers' vehicles) and a schedule showing the duration of such passes. D. At Owner's sole expense, Owner shall be responsible for any major repairs and/or maintenance to the Property, other than Routine Maintenance (such as striping and repaving the parking lots, installing new landscaping. lighting repair or replacement, pay machine(s) repair or►-eplacement). 5. Compensation. In addition to the Enforcement Revenue, and ►-egardless of whether Owner establishes Parking Pass Proo i-am. the Torun shall be entitled to twelve (12) parking passes for the Town's employees which will permit the holders of those parking passes to park at the Property without charge between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (holidays not included). The Town shall provide Owner with a list of the employees and the license plate numbers of their vehicles). 6. Miscellaneous. A. Notice. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing and if personally delivered or sent by .pdf lile. facsimile transmission._ certified mail or overnight courier scrvice. and addressed as follows: J TOWN OF TIBURON-ACV ARCO TIBURON. LP PARKING LOT MANAGEMENT AGREEjIENT OAK Frjas 1 s-o 137-9997 0 Town: Town of Tibiln-on Attn: Greg Chanis. Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon CA 94920 Email: gchanis(i�townoftiburon.org Owner: ACV Argo Tiburon.. LP 465 First Street West. Second Floor Sonoma, CA 95476 Attn: General Counsel Email:I)v\\y rr acs enturcS.com. b\ ick a acventures.com B. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto: provided, however. that the Town may not assign its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of Owner. which consent may be granted or withheld in Owner's sole discretion. C. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties. It may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in writing signed by the party against whom any modification, waiver, chan�pe or discharge is sought There are no representations, agreements, or arrangements, oral or written, between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. D. Severability. In case any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be or become invalid or unenforceable in certain circumstances, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or of such provision in other circumstances, shall not in any way be affected or impaired. E. Waiver. No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other breach, whether of the same or any other covenant, term or condition. Subsequent performance of any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any preceding breach re(4ardless of' the other party's knowledge of the preceding breach at the time of subsequent performance. nor shall any delay or omission of either party's exercise of any right arising from any such default or affect or impair the party's rights as to the same or future default. G. Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart and delivered in person or sent by .pdf file. facsimile transmission. certified mail or overnight courier service. 4 TOWN OF TIBURON--ACV ARGO TIBURON. LP PARKING LOT MANAGE\,IEN"I' AGREE\,11:N"I OAK 1/48 18-0137-9997 v I �.Sl�l9lllll/"L'.S 011 fOI/011'119�f�LltiC'� J TOWN OE TIBURON-ACV ARGO TIBURON. LP PARKING LOT MANAGENIENT AGREENIEN I' OAK 1,4815-0137-9997\I IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties have eXecuted this Agreement effective as of the date set forth above: OWNER: ACV ARGO TIBURON. LP A California limited partnership By: ACVA Tiburon. LLC Its General Partner By: Name: `I'itle: MANAGER: "TOWN OF TIBURON By: Name: Title: 6 TOWN OF TIBURON'-ACV ARGO TIBURON. LP PARKING LOT MANAGEM N I- AGRFF II NT OAK T44818-013,7-9997\I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, APPROVING THE TIBURON POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REGULATE THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON AN OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITY WHEREAS. pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22519, local authorities may by ordinance or resolution prohibit. restrict or regulate the parking, stopping or standing of vehicles on any otfstreet parking facility which it owns or operates; WHEREAS, pursuant to agreement between the Town of Tiburon ("Town") and the ACV ARGO TIBURON. LP. a California limited partnership ('Owner"), the Town and Owner are entering into a contractual arrangement (the "Agreement") whereby the Town and Owner jointly operate and regulate the off-street parking lots located on Beach Road and Tiburon Boulevard (adjacent to Town Hall and the Tiburon/Belvedere Public Library), and more particularly described in Exhibit A (the "Parking Lots"); WHEREAS. Owner will be establishing a program for long-term parking (i.e., weekly, monthly. or such other periods as Owner may determine), issuing parking passes to the purchasers thereof("Parking Pass Program"), providing the Town with a list of the purchasers (including the license plate numbers of such purchasers' vehicles), creating a short term hourly parking program (Short Term Parking Program") where passes for limited duration are purchased from a pay station machine located on-site, and providing a schedule posted on site showing the cost and duration of passes for both the Parking Pass Program and the Short Term Parking Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. "Town Manager is authorized to execute the terms of the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein to this Resolution. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22519, the Town shall operate and enforce all applicable Town parking and traffic regulations applicable to the Parking Lots. SECTION 3. The Town Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. The fore-oing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council held on September 3. 2019 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: OAK t:-4831-9483-331 i t I DAVID KULIK, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANL TOWN CLERK OAK`-1831-948;-;?I5 cI A Cfc C; 'V l:\'1•YI Yi]:Ci TO: All Customers of the Tiburon Blvd.and the Beach Parking Lot RE: Future Changes to the Parking Lots Please be advised that Ownership is changing the daily rates in September. Customers are to purchase their parking tickets at the Pay Station. Daily, multi-day and monthly passes are j available through the pay station. Credit Card will be the only form of payment accepted. Please note, no longer are we able to provide storage or overnight parking of vehicles unless you are visiting Angel Island and purchased a multi-day parking pass. Multi-Day passes are available at the pay stations. Beach Lot Pricing Tiburon Lot Pricing Daily $10.00 Daily $8.00 Monthly $70.00 Monthly $70.00 30 Minutes—1 Hour $3.00 First Hour FREE 1Hr-2Hr $4.00 1-3 Hrs $3.00 2Hr—3Hr $5.00 3-5 Hrs $5.00 3Hr-4Hr $6.00 S-8 Hrs $7.00 4Hr-5Hr $7.00 5Hr— 6Hr $8.00 6Hr-7Hr $9.00 For any questions please contact Property Management/ACV Argo Tiburon at (415) 435-1640. 42 Main Street, Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-1640 II i