Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2021-06-16 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon Town Council June 16, 2021 Regular Meeting 5:00 P.M. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE On May 18, 2020, the Marin County Public Health Officer issued a legal order directing residents to shelter at home until further notice. The order limits activity, travel and business functions to only the most essential needs. Additional information is available at https://coronavirus.marinhhs.org/ Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California, the Town Council meeting will not be physically open to the public and all Council Members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the meeting by following the meeting live at: Audio/Video Webinar: https://zoom.us/j/96897143222 Webinar ID: 968 9714 3222 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 968 9714 3222 Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting using Zoom are linked on the Town’s website and to this agenda. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to the Town Clerk by email at comments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Council meeting will be distributed electronically to the Town Council and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received after the start time of the Council meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item, will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at www.townoftiburon.org. REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Ryan, Vice Mayor Welner, Mayor Thier 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 however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake 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. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for June 2, 2021 special and regular Town Council meetings (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. November 2, 2021 Special Municipal Election – Adopt resolutions a) calling a special election on November 2, 2021; b) requesting consolidation of election services with the County of Marin; and c) providing that the cost of printing the candidate statements shall be borne by the candidate (Department of Administrative Services) CC-3. Vacancies on Town Boards & Commissions – Announce special vacancy on the Belvedere Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee (Department of Administrative Services) CC-4. Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Board of Trustees – Approve Reed Union School District’s appointment to the Belvedere Tiburon Library Agency Board of Trustees (Department of Administrative Services) CC-5. Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District – Adopt Resolution of Intention to levy assessments for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 (Office of the Town Manager) CC-6. Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District (LLD) – Adopt resolution approving the Annual Engineer’s Report, declaring intent to levy and collect assessments within the Cypress Hollow LLD, and setting time and place for Public Hearing (Department of Public Works) CC-7. Tiburon Police Officers Association – Approve Memorandum of Understanding and authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement (Department of Administrative Services) CC-8. 5 Main Street – Adopt a resolution that would approve a Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town and 5 Main Street for valet service (Department of Public Works) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 281 Karen Way – Consider appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling with a Variance request for reduced side setback (Community Development Department) Owner/Applicant: Lisa Evers Appellants: Eileen McHale, Mary and Charles Barnes, Jill Sperber, Pru and Fred Star Address: 281 Karen Way Assessor Parcel No.: 034-122-05 PH-2. 2021-22 Municipal Budget and Capital Improvement Program – Hold Public Hearing and consider adoption of a resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Municipal Budget and Capital Improvement Program and Gann limit appropriations limit and if necessary, adoption of a continuing resolution for the FY 2020-2021 Municpal Budget (Office of the Town Manager/Department of Administrative Services) ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District – Consider adoption of 2 Resolutions of Necessity that would initiate proceedings to acquire easements by eminent domain at 2 properties within the District (Department of Public Works) AI-2. Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District – Consider approval of a possession and use agreement to possess and use property at 730 Hawthorne Drive (Department of Public Works) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT 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. AVAILABILITY 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 website, www.townoftiburon.org. Upon request, the Town will 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 request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above 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 someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While 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 are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. Page 1 of 5 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #10-2021 DRAFT June 2, 2021 TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR & SPECIAL MEETINGS DRAFT MINUTES Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California and the County Public Health Department’s May 18, 2020 Shelter-in-Place Order, councilmembers attended this meeting by teleconference. Members of the public were invited to participate in the meeting by live-streaming the meeting on the Town’s website and submitting comments to comments@townoftiburon.org to be included in the public record for the meeting. REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 P.M. Mayor Thier called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 2, 2021. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: One Vacant Seat PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Palmer, Director of Administrative Services Creekmore, Director of Community Development Tasini, Senior Planner Fong, Town Clerk Stefani CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATIORS Property: (500 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA) Town Negotiator: (Town Manager and Town Attorney) Negotiating Parties: (Richardson Bay Sanitation District) Under Negotiations: (Concerning price and terms of payment) ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION No reportable action. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Pru Starr spoke in favor of allowing lot coverage variances in the Bel Aire neighborhood instead of allowing second stories to be added to homes and requested a list of Bel Aire lot coverage variances granted over the years be made available to the public. DR A F T CC-1 Page 2 of 5 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #10-2021 DRAFT June 2, 2021 Mindy Canter spoke about landscape screening of a pathway and creek between the Cypress Hollow and Bel Aire neighborhoods. She felt the screening needs to be preserved and maintained by the residents and the Town. PRESENTATIONS P-1. Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for May 19, 2021 special and regular Town Council meetings (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for May 25, 2021 special Town Council meeting (Department of Administrative Services) CC-3. Vacancies on Town Boards & Commissions – Announce pending vacancy on the Design Review Board (Department of Administrative Services) CC-4. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending April 30, 2021 (Department of Administrative Services) CC-5. Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District – Adopt resolution ordering the annual Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (Department of Public Works) CC-6. Transportation Authority of Marin – Adopt resolutions accepting Measure A and Measure AA funds from the Transportation Authority of Marin to be used toward the 2022 Street Paving Project (Department of Public Works) CC-7. Slow Streets – Adopt resolution authorizing the Town Manager to close lower Main Street for 6 weeks beginning Friday 6/18/2021 – Sunday 8/1/2021 (Office of the Town Manager) CC-8. Mill Valley Refuse Service – Authorize the Town Manager to execute an amendment to existing franchise agreement with Mill Valley Refuse Service that would extend the deadline for exercising an extension to the agreement (Office of the Town Manager) CC-9. AT&T Agreement – Authorize the Town Manager to execute a construction agreement with AT&T for work associated with the Hawthorne Undergrounding Project (Department of Public Works) Vice Mayor Welner and Councilmember Ryan pulled Consent Calendar Items No. 8 and 9, respectively. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items No. 1-7, as written. Moved: Thier, seconded by Fredericks DR A F T Page 3 of 5 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #10-2021 DRAFT June 2, 2021 VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: One Vacant Seat CC-8. Mill Valley Refuse Service – Authorize the Town Manager to execute an amendment to existing franchise agreement with Mill Valley Refuse Service that would extend the deadline for exercising an extension to the agreement (Office of the Town Manager) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar No. 8, as written. Moved: Welner, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: One Vacant Seat CC-9. AT&T Agreement – Authorize the Town Manager to execute a construction agreement with AT&T for work associated with the Hawthorne Undergrounding Project (Department of Public Works) Councilmember Ryan stated he had a material property interest within the undergrounding district and would recuse himself from this item. MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 9, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Welner VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Thier, Welner RECUSED: Ryan ABSENT: One Vacant Seat ADJOURNMENT – to special meeting SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD – 6:01 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: One Vacant Seat PRESENT: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: Barringer, Berger, Crescini, Kim ABSENT: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: Chong PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Community Development Tasini, Senior Planner Fong, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. DISCUSSION ITEMS DR A F T Page 4 of 5 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #10-2021 DRAFT June 2, 2021 DI-1. Joint Meeting with the Design Review Board – Discuss and review the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of the Design Review Board and discuss possible ideas to ensure design review process continues to serve residents effectively. Public comment was received by: Marti Andrews spoke in opposition to favoring second stories in their neighborhood instead of allowing lot coverage variances. Pru Starr spoke in opposition to second stories in their neighborhood and requested transparency about the granting and denying of variances. Brian Brown spoke in opposition to second stories in their neighborhood. Carolyn Shadan felt zoning should be changed to prohibit second stories in their neighborhood. Noy Perlman expressed frustration about lot coverage variances to expand single story homes being granted previously but not anymore. Cynthia Perry said she conducted a survey of the neighborhood and most objected to second stories and felt it is unfair that lot coverage variances are no longer being given to allow single story expansion instead. Joseph Starr spoke in favor of granting more variances for single story expansion to prevent second stories being added in the neighborhood. Mindy Canter spoke in opposition to favoring second stories in the neighborhood and in favor of granting more variances for single story expansion. No action taken. ADJOURNMENT – TO SPECIAL MEETING SPECIAL MEETING – 7:45 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: One Vacant Seat PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Town Clerk Stefani CLOSED SESSION DR A F T Page 5 of 5 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #10-2021 DRAFT June 2, 2021 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) Claims filed by Yema Khalif and Hawi Awash on January 25, 2021, on file with the Town Clerk’s Office ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Thier adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK DR A F T TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Adopt Elections Pertaining to November 2, 2021 Special Municipal Election Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Town Council will adopt the necessary resolutions to call a special municipal election to be held in the Town of Tiburon on November 2, 2021 to elect one short-term Town Councilmember. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends the Town Council adopt the following resolutions by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar: a) Calling a special municipal election on November 2, 2021. b) Requesting consolidation of election services with the County of Marin. c) Providing that the cost of printing the candidate statements be borne by the candidates. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2021, the Town Council directed staff to take the steps necessary for the Council to call a special election on November 2, 2021 for Tiburon voters to elect a short-term Town Councilmember to fill Councilmember Kulik’s recently vacated seat on the Town Council. The Town must notify the Marin County Registrar of Voters of the Town’s intention to conduct a special municipal election on November 2, 2021 for the purpose of electing a councilmember by the adoption of various resolutions. The adoption of this item also authorizes the Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Election in local media, which serves to inform Tiburon voters of a local election and the upcoming filing period to become a candidate. This year, the nomination period to become a candidate begins on July 12, 2021 and ends at 5:30 p.m. on August 6, 2021. ANALYSIS Tonight, the Council is asked to adopt three resolutions: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-2 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 1. The first resolution (Exhibit 1) officially calls for a special municipal election to be held in the Town of Tiburon on November 2, 2021 to fill one short-term seat on the Town Council. 2. The second resolution (Exhibit 2) requests the Board of Supervisors consolidate this election with any other elections being conducted by the County of Marin. This is the normal practice of all cities in Marin County. 3. The third and final resolution (Exhibit 3) requires that the cost of printing the candidate statement in the upcoming election be borne by the candidate. This is the Town’s regular practice. FINANCIAL IMPACT The County of Marin Registrar of Voters estimates this election will cost the Town approximately $8.00 - $12.00 per registered voter ($53,600 - $80,400). CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. 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 pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the following resolutions by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar: a) Calling a special municipal election on November 2, 2021. b) Requesting consolidation of election services with the County of Marin. c) Providing that the cost of printing the candidate statements be borne by the candidates. Exhibit(s): 1. Draft Resolution – Call Special Municipal Election on November 2, 2021. 2. Draft Resolution – Request Consolidation of Election Services with County of Marin 3. Draft Resolution – Printing Candidate Statement Costs Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk EXHIBIT 1 Page 1 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2021 DRAFT 06/16/2021 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ORDERING AND CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE TOWN OF TIBURON ON NOVEMBER 2, 2021 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING ONE COUNCILMEMBER BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, that it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Date of Election - Offices to be Filled. A special election is hereby called and ordered to be held in the Town of Tiburon, State of California, on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, for the purpose of electing one Town Councilmember, to fill one vacancy for the remainder of the term of Town Councilmember David Kulik. Section 2. Procuring and Filing Nomination Papers. Nomination papers may be procured from the Town Clerk and shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than 5:30 p.m. on the eighty-eighth day before the election, or August 6, 2021. Nomination papers may not be circulated prior to July 12, 2021 and must be filed no later than 5:30 P.M. on August 6, 2021. Section 3. Time When Polls Are Kept Open. The polls shall be opened at 7:00 A.M. of the day of said election and shall be kept open until 8:00 P.M. in the evening of the same day, when the polls shall be closed, subject to the provisions of Section 10242 of the Elections Code. Section 4. Certification of Vote by Council. The Council shall meet at its usual meeting place on the first available date following the canvass of the vote by the County Registrar of Voters to certify the election and install the newly elected officer. Section 5. Publishing Notice of Election. The Town Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation a Notice of Election which will include the date of election, hours the polls open and close and the offices to be filled. Page 2 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2021 DRAFT 06/16/2021 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on June 16, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT 2 Town Council Resolution No. xx-2021 DRAFT 06/16/2021 Page 1 of 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. xx-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PROPOSING THAT AN ELECTION BE HELD IN ITS JURISDICTION, AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE WITH ANY OTHER ELECTION CONDUCTED ON SAID DATE, AND REQUESTING ELECTION SERVICES BY THE MARIN COUNTY ELECTION DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, it is the determination of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to call a special municipal election on November 2, 2021 at which election the issue to be presented to the voters shall be: To elect members to the Town Council Number of Short-Term Positions = 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin is hereby requested to: 1) Consolidate said elections with any other applicable election conducted on the same day; 2) Authorize and direct the Elections Department at District expense, to provide all necessary election services and to canvass the results of said election. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to file a copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on June 16, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: __________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT 3 Page 1 of 1 Town Council Resolution No. xx-2021 DRAFT 06/16/2021 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. xx-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PROVIDING THAT THE COST OF PRINTING AND HANDLING THE CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CANDIDATE AND PAID FOR AT THE TIME NOMINATION PAPERS ARE FILED WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the California Election Code provides that candidates for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency, including any city, county, or district, may prepare a candidate’s statement of qualifications, which statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate’s education and qualifications; and WHEREAS, the amount for printing 200 words has been estimated by the County of Marin to be $200 for each typed candidate’s statement of qualifications in the November 2, 2021 election; and $500 for the English and Spanish candidate’s statement; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the event a candidate wishes to avail himself/herself of the right to prepare a candidate’s statement of qualifications, that the cost of printing will be borne by the candidate and not by the Town of Tiburon; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the estimated cost of $200 (or $500) for printing candidate’s statements of qualifications shall be paid for in advance by the candidate at the time Nomination Papers are filed with the Town Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on June 16, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Announcement of Special Vacancy on the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee (“The Ranch”) Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Erin Burns has submitted her resignation from the Ranch Board, effective immediately. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Announce the special vacancy on the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee (“The Ranch”). BACKGROUND Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007 (Appointments Procedure) requires that the Mayor announce special vacancies that have occurred on Town boards, commissions and committees at the earliest possible Town Council meeting. ANALYSIS Ranch Board member Erin Burns has announced her resignation from the Ranch Board, effective immediately (Exhibit 1). The Notice of Special Vacancy (Exhibit 2) was posted today, 6/16/2021. The application period will close at 5:00 P.M. on July 8, 2021. The Council will be required to interview all new applicants for the position before an appointment is made. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-3 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 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 pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council announce the special vacancy on the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee by adoption of this report on the Consent Calendar. Exhibit(s): 1. Letter of Resignation from Erin Burns 2. Notice of Special Vacancy – The Ranch Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk EXHIBIT 1 From:Erin Burns To:Lea Stefani; Jessica Hotchkiss Subject:Resignation from Ranch Board Position Date:Friday, May 28, 2021 3:19:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Jessica and Lea, It is with a heavy heart that I must submit my resignation position on the Ranch board, due to personal reasons. It has been a pleasure to serve for the last few yearsand I am so appreciative of Jessica's commitment to the low-income families inTiburon. I look forward to partnering with Jessica on projects in the future. Best regards, Erin Burns EXHIBIT 2 SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE On Town of Tiburon Boards, Commissions & Committees June 2021 BELVEDERE/TIBURON JT. RECREATION COMMITTEE Statutory Authority: Joint Powers Agreement between City of Belvedere and Town of Tiburon Term: Four Years Purpose: The Committee is formed under a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Belvedere and Town of Tiburon and is comprised of an equal number of Belvedere and Tiburon residents, a Reed Union School District Trustee, a member of each city council. The purpose of the Committee is to oversee the Joint Recreation Department mission to provide quality recreational and educational programs that inspire and enrich the lives of children and adults in the community while maintaining a self-supporting agency. The Committee meets monthly and serves as a policy-setting and advisory board to both the Belvedere City Council and Tiburon Town Council. Qualifications: For this opening, applicants must be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the interest, desire, and time available to serve for a four-year term, including attendance at regular meetings and other activities. A vacancy has occurred as follows: Appointee Date Appointed Date Resigned Term Expiration 1) Erin Burns March 2016 May 28, 2021 2/28/24 ********* Interested residents can contact Tiburon Town Clerk Lea Stefani at (415) 435-7377 or lstefani@townoftiburon.org for more information. Applications are available at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, or online at www.townoftiburon.org. Deadline for Applications = July 8, 2021 at 5:00 P.M. (Position open until filled) Notice posted at Town Hall Published in the Ark newspaper on June 16 & 23, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Request from Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Board of Trustees to Confirm RUSD Appointment to the Board of Trustees Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Council will confirm the Reed Union School District appointment to the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Board of Trustees. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Confirm Reed Union School District’s appointment of Niran Amir to the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Board of Trustees by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar. BACKGROUND The Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency Board of Trustees is made up of 3 appointees from Tiburon, 3 appointees from Belvedere, and one appointment from the Reed Union School District (RUSD). On June 8, 2021, the RUSD Board of Trustees unanimously approved the reappointment of Niran Amir to another term as the RUSD representative on the Library Agency Board of Trustees (Exhibit 1). The Library’s Joint Powers Agreement states that the RUSD appointment must also be approved by the Tiburon and Belvedere Councils. Ms. Amir is able to attend meetings, but not vote, until her appointment is confirmed by the Tiburon Town Council and Belvedere City Council. ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this item. CLIMATE IMPACT TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-4 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. 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 pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council confirm Reed Union School District’s appointment of Niran Amir to the Belvedere Tiburon Library Agency Board of Trustees by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar. Exhibit(s): 1. Letter from RUSD Confirming Niran Amir’s Appointment Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk EXHIBIT 1 - CiJ REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 277 A Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 tel: 415.381.1112 fax: 415.384.0890 www.reeds chools. org Board of Trustees: A. J. Brady Jacqu elin e Jaffee Sherry W angenheim Liz E. We bb Afsan eh Zolfagh ari Dr. Nancy Lynch Superintendent Carlos Estrella C h ief BusinessOffi cial June 9, 2021 The Town of Tiburon To whom_ it may concern: I am pleased to report to you that the Board of Trustees of the Reed Union School District unanimously approved the re-appointment of Ms. Niran Amir as the District's representative to the Belvedere Tiburon Library Agency at their regular meeting on June 8, 2021. Ms. Amir expressed interest in continuing to represent the interests of the Reed Union School District, its children, and its families and the Board of Trustees is looking forward to working with Ms. Amir in this capacity. Thank you for your efforts to move Niran's re-appointment through the process. Sincerely, Nancy Lynch, E:d . D. Superintendent RUSD Missio n and Visio n: Eac h student will be cha lle nged and inspired to reac h their fu lles t intellec tual, so cial-e motio nal a nd creative potentia l to positively imp act the world. .Tea"o"'. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Recommendation to: Approve the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (TTBID) Advisory Board Annual Report, Adopt Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and set a Public Hearing date. Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Council will be considering approval of the Annual Report from the Advisory Board of the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (TTBID) and considering adoption of a Resolution of Intention to levy the assessment for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Finally, Council will set the date for the required Public Hearing on the matter for July 21, 2021. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Consider approval the TTBID Advisory Board Report. 2. Adopt the Resolution of Intention 3. Direct staff to set the required Public hearing on the matter for July 21, 2021. BACKGROUND The Town created the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (“TTBID”) in 2007 to fund a marketing program to promote tourism. The TTBID raises funds by imposing assessments on the lodging establishments in the Town, who receive a special benefit from the tourism industry. The state law governing the TTBID is the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Section 36500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code (the “Act”). The TTBID Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) is the governing body of the TTBID. The Act requires the Advisory Board to prepare an annual report (AB Report) for the Town Council containing the following information: 1. The improvements and activities to be provided for the upcoming fiscal year, i.e., the business improvement program. 2. An estimate of the cost of the business improvement program for that fiscal year. 3. The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-5 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 4. The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. 5. The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part. The AB Report sets the TTBID’s program, which is subject to Council approval. The Advisory Board met on June 9, 2021 and approved the AB Report attached to this staff report as Exhibit 1. If the Council approves the report, either as submitted or with changes, the program will be implemented during the next fiscal year. To fund the program, the Council must levy the TTBID assessments by (a) adopting the Resolution of Intention attached to this report as Exhibit 2; (b) holding a public hearing to hear any protests from the assessed businesses; and (c) if there is no majority protest, adopting a resolution confirming the report and levying the assessments. ANALYSIS Advisory Board Report The AB Report recommends the Town use the TTBID assessments to continue and expand upon the activities conducted during the past fiscal year. The Town would use the TTBID assessments to fund a marketing program, in consultation with the TTBID beneficiaries – the Town’s lodging establishments – and other interested parties. In Fiscal Year 2021-22, the TTBID program will continue to be implemented by Destination Tiburon, a non-profit public benefit corporation established in 2014. As explained in the report, staff anticipates that the TTBID will begin Fiscal Year 2021-22 with a surplus of $175,081 from the prior fiscal year and raise approximately $150,000 in assessment revenue during the upcoming fiscal year. In addition to assessment revenue, the TTBID anticipates receiving $37,500 from the Town of Tiburon, which is a portion of the Transient Occupancy Tax collected by the Town. Staff anticipates the TTBID will expend approximately $180,000 in Fiscal Year 2019-20, with any surplus funds carried over to the next fiscal year (2022--23). Resolution of Intention and Related Actions The Act requires that the Council annually levy the TTBID assessments. The first step in this process is for the Council to adopt a Resolution of Intention, which does the following: • Declares the Council’s intention levy the assessments during Fiscal Year 2021-22. • Describes the proposed activities and improvements authorized by the Town’s ordinance, Chapter 7A of the Municipal Code, and any substantial changes to those activities and improvements. • Fixes the time and place for a public hearing on the proposed assessments and states that written and oral protests may be made. The attached DRAFT Resolution of Intention (Exhibit 2) includes all of the statutorily required actions. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 If the Council decides to proceed with the TTBID process and adopts the Resolution, staff will mail and publish notice of the July 21, 2021 public hearing as required by State law. After holding the public hearing and considering public testimony, the Council would determine whether there was a majority protest. Assuming there was not, the Council could adopt a resolution confirming the report and levying the assessments. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff does not expect any additional financial impact as a result of adopting the recommended actions. The Town will continue funding the TTBID program from the TTBID assessments and a portion of the TOT tax collected. 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 pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Consider approval the TTBID Advisory Board Report. 2. Adopt the Resolution of Intention 3. Direct staff to set the required public hearing on the matter for July 21, 2021. Exhibit(s): 1. Annual Report of the TTBID Advisory Board 2. DRAFT Resolution of Intention Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager EXHIBIT 1 TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT To:Mayor and Members of the Town Council From:TTBID Advisory Board Subject: Date: Report of the TTBID Advisory Board report TTBID Funding and Program; Recommendation to Approve Report June 1, 2021 I.BACKGROUND The Tiburon Town Council (the Council) formed the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (“TTBID”) in 2007. The impetus behind that action was the request from Town’s two hotels, the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water’s Edge,to join the Marin County tourism promotion effort, which is administered by the Marin County Visitors Bureau (“MCVB”). The TTBID originally imposed assessments of 1% of gross hotel revenue. In 2011, the Town raised the amount of the assessment from 1% to 2% of gross hotel revenue, also at the hotels’ request. Initially, the Town contracted with MCVB to administer the Town’s TTBID program. In 2013, the Town re-directed the funds to a locally based business improvement effort that would focus on the specific attractions of the Tiburon peninsula.In 2014, Destination Tiburon, a nonprofit public benefit corporation was formed to implement the TTBID program. The Town must also comply with the procedural laws governing business assessment districts. Those procedural laws require an annual assessment process that begins with the TTBID Advisory Board’s (the Board) preparing this report for the Council approval. II.TTBID Program A.Procedural Requirements. The Town created the TTBID in 2007 pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Section 36500 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code (the “Act”). The Act requires the Board to prepare an annual report containing the following information: 1. The improvements and activities to be provided for the upcoming fiscal year, i.e., the business improvement program. 2. An estimate of the cost of the business improvement program for that fiscal year. 3. The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 EXHIBIT 4. The amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. 5. The amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part. The Council must review this report and approve it either as submitted by the Board or with changes. Approving the report is the first step in the process of imposing assessments for the new fiscal year. B.Tourism Business Improvement Program. 1. Improvements and Activities The TTBID consists of a broad-based destination marketing campaign to raise Tiburon’s profile as a premiere location for vacations, conferences,meetings and other events. This campaign is directed both at leisure tourists and at travel, event and conference professionals. FY2020/2021 can be typified by an intense period of strategic development and marketing planning combined with incredibly productive phases executing the plan. Specific activities in the fiscal year beginning in 7/1/2020 and ending 6/30/2021 consist of: •Offer information on Covid-19 resources and maintained a Covid-19 pandemic sensitive marketing planning. •Photography, Video, collateral, print advertising,eBlasts, Facebook and Instagram strategy and content •Bring together a Tiburon Experience Network, a group of local service and experience providers who can provide services to meeting participants. •Create individual familiarization Trips for Travel Writers and Influencers to deliver the unique Tiburon experience. •Update Leisure Traveler website (DestinationTiburon.org)with new content designed to motivate the target with unique Tiburon experiences, and to include crowd-sourced content, including a new monthly blog dedicated to new changes coming to town. •Renewed distribution of collateral materials in the Consumer channel: Tiburon Guides are distributed to guests at Tiburon hotels. These are designed to drive traffic to local businesses and attractions. Digital advertising distributed at the Ferry Building in San Francisco and California Welcome Centers throughout the Bay Area. •Continue to nurture and develop partnerships with industry associations and marketing partners to maximize existing members and customers. •In conjunction with the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce the build out of a new Welcome Center in downtown Tiburon 2. Estimated cost of the TTBID Program for Fiscal Year 2021-22. The Board expects program expenditures during Fiscal Year 2021-22 will be approximately $175,000. Any sums remaining would be carried over to the program for Fiscal Year 2022-23. TOWN OF TIBURONPage 2 of 3 EXHIBIT ] 3. Method and basis of assessment The basis for the assessment will not change. When the Town created the TTBID, the MCVB recommended that the Town calculate the assessment level as a percentage of gross receipts, indicating that the benefit to the assessed businesses would be commensurate with those receipts. Both of the Town’s lodging establishments supported that level of assessment. The Town deferred to the joint expertise of the MCVB and the hotels. The hotels continue to support the 2% of gross receipts assessment and the Advisory Board accepts their judgment. 4. Surplus or deficit revenues carried over from prior fiscal year. The Board expects the TTBID will enter Fiscal Year 2021-22 with a surplus of $175,081 carried over from the prior fiscal year. In the upcoming fiscal year we anticipate total renewal of $187,500. This estimated revenue figure is the combined total of an anticipated $150,000 in assessments related to the TTBID and an additional $37,500 from the Town of Tiburon. Based on these revenue projections and the estimated expenses noted in Section 2, the TTBID expects to carry over a surplus of approximately $187,500 to Fiscal Year 2022-23. The Board anticipates FY2021-22 will be a productive year, with the new welcome center and Tiburon positioning given the current social climate.At the close of FY2022/23, marketing will continue and the focus of the organization will be getting back to hosting groups, meeting planning events and hotel stays. 5. The Amount of Contributions from non-TTBID Sources. The Town contributed approximately $15,000 during the present fiscal year and, as noted in Section 4 above, expects to contribute an increased amount in Fiscal Year 2021-22. At this juncture, the Board does not anticipate any other contributions from outside sources. However, the Board recommends exploring participation from local merchants that could benefit from tourism promotion activities. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no additional financial impact to the Town, other than the contribution noted in Section 5 above. The Town will continue to collect the 1 % administrative allowance as provided by law. All remaining funds would be expended on the TTBID program without further contributions from the Town. RECOMMENDATION The TTBID Advisory Board recommends that the Tiburon Town Council: 1. Hear public testimony and make any desired changes to the Advisory Board Report; and 2. Move to approve a Resolution Approving the Report and take such other actions as are necessary to set the assessments for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for a public hearing. TOWN OF TIBURONPage 3 of 3 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 2 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING THE TTBID ADVISORY BOARD REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS ON LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE TIBURON TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Section 36500 et seq., authorizes cities to establish parking and business improvement areas for the purpose of promoting tourism; and WHEREAS, in 2007, the Town formed the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (“TTBID”), to levy a one percent (1 %) assessment on lodging establishments within the Town’s borders; and WHEREAS, in 2010, at the request of the Town’s two lodging establishments, the Lodge at Tiburon and the Water’s Edge Hotel (“collectively, “Town Hotels”), the Town increased the TTBID assessment to two percent (2%) and WHEREAS, the TTBID Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) approved its annual report on August 12, 2020, which report sets forth the legally required program and budget information (“Annual Report”). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby resolves, determines, and finds as follows: Section 1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct. Section 2. The Town Council hereby approves the Advisory Board Report and declares its intention to continue levying and collecting assessments within the Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (“TTBID”), whose boundaries are the Town’s borders, during the 2020-2021 fiscal year; Section 3. The Town will use the TTBID funds to finance and administer marketing programs to promote mid-week and off-season overnight lodging business, to promote the Town as an overnight tourism destination, and to fund projects, programs, and activities that benefit lodging establishments within the TTBID, including management and visitor services, all as set forth in this Resolution and the Advisory Board Report on file with the Town Clerk Section 4. The assessment is proposed to be levied on all lodging establishments, existing and future, at a rate of 2% of gross room rental revenue. The assessment is proposed to be this percentage for the following reasons: a. An assessment based on percentage is most fair to lodging establishments because it will cost smaller, lower service level and perhaps more inexpensive Page 2 of 3 lodging businesses less money than it will cost larger, perhaps higher service level and higher room rate lodging businesses. b. Benefits received by the assessed lodging businesses are likely to be proportional to their assessment, depending upon programs implemented. c. An assessment based on percentage will result in revenues that rise and fall in reflection of greater and lesser business in an overall up or down tourism market and world economy. d. An assessment based on percentage is direct, and easy to understand and calculate. Section 5. New hotels within the boundaries will not be exempt from the levy of assessment pursuant to Section 36531. Section 6. Except where funds are otherwise available, the lodging business assessment will be levied annually to pay for all improvements and activities within the TTBID, specifically lodging-related and visitor services. These include, but are not limited to, web-site construction and maintenance, highlighting the assessed hotels, providing visitor information to promote mid-week and off-season overnight lodging; Management/Alliances/Board of Directors; Research; Sales in Target Markets, and Administration & Personnel. Section 7. The time and place for the public hearing on the proposed levy of assessments is set for 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2021. The public hearing will be conducted via Zoom. Section 8. At the public hearing, the oral and written testimony of all interested persons for or against the levy of the TTBID or the extent of the TTBID area, the types of businesses to be assessed, or the furnishing of specified types of improvements or activities will be heard. Section 9. Any interested party may make a written or oral protest against the TTBID or any aspect of thereof. However, in determining whether there is a majority protest against the TTBID, the Council will only count written protests from persons or entities that would be subject to the proposed assessment. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a written description of the lodging business in which the person signing the protest in interested, sufficient to identify the business and its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the County of Marin or Town of Tiburon as the owner of the lodging business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or evidence of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. Written protests should be mailed to the Town Clerk, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920. Section 10. If, at the conclusion of the public hearing on July 21,2021, there are of Page 3 of 3 record written protests by the owners of the lodging businesses within the TTBID that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire TTBID, no further proceedings to levy the TTBID assessments shall occur. New proceedings to levy the TTBID assessments shall not be undertaken again for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding of the majority written protest by the Tiburon Town Council. If the majority written protest is only as to an improvement or activity proposed, then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the TTBID. If there are no written protests by owners of the lodging businesses within the TTBID that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total proposed assessments, the Council will consider a resolution confirming the Advisory Board Report and levying the assessments. Section 11. Further information regarding the proposed Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District (TTBID) may be obtained from Greg Chanis, Town Manager, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920, telephone (415) 435-7373. Section 12. The Tiburon Town Council supports the establishment of the TTBID within the legal process set forth above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on June 16, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: __________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Adopt A Resolution Approving the Annual Engineer’s Report, and Declaring Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments within the Landscape and Lighting District in the Cypress Hollow Subdivision and Setting a Time and Place for Public Hearing Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Adopt A Resolution Approving the Annual Engineer’s Report, and Declaring Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments within the Landscape and Lighting District in the Cypress Hollow Subdivision and Setting a Time and Place for Public Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Annual Engineer’s Report and Declaring Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments within the Landscape and Lighting District and Setting a Time and Place for Public Hearing BACKGROUND On July 3, 1990 the County of Marin established a Landscaping and Lighting District in Cypress Hollow. The County of Marin received assessments from the parcels therein for the purpose of operating and maintaining the following areas with the Cypress Hollow Subdivision: (1) landscaping and irrigation of the 25-foot sewer sanitary easement on the east boundary, (2) entry landscaping and irrigation of the 30-foot storm drainage easement in the southwest boundary area, and (3) ownership and maintenance of the park site. In 1998, the residents of Cypress Hollow petitioned and received approval from the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation from unincorporated Marin County into the Tiburon Town Limits. Subsequent to that annexation, the Tiburon Town Council and the Marin County Board of Supervisors passed a joint resolution transferring jurisdiction of the Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District to the Town of Tiburon. The resolution also transferred TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-6 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 the financial resources and documentation associated with operation, maintenance, and funding to the Town. Based on this resolution, the Town of Tiburon has maintenance responsibility for: 1. The 25-foot sanitary sewer easement landscape and irrigation on the east boundary; 2. Entry landscaping and the 30-foot storm drainage easement on the southwesterly boundary and irrigation system; and 3. Ownership and maintenance of the park site. Since 1998, the Town of Tiburon has continued the operation and maintenance activities of the Cypress Hollow Landscaping and Lighting District and assessed the residents the cost thereof. ANALYSIS In order to proceed with the renewal of the assessments, the Town prepare an Engineer’s Report for the upcoming fiscal year for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay for the costs of the improvements described in the report. The Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 has been prepared and is included as Exhibit 1. The Fiscal Year 2021/2022 assessments for the District will remain the same as the Fiscal Year 2020/2021 assessments which is $378 per parcel per year. The amount of the assessment has not changed since Cypress Hollow incorporated, and the Town took over maintenance from the County in 1998. The following table summarizes the estimate of costs from the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 includes the following estimate of costs for the district. Item Annual Cost Annual Maintenance Services (Contract) $14,000 Services (Labor) - (1) Materials & Supplies $5,000 Water $3,000 Subtotal Annual Maintenance $22,000 Reserve Contribution (2) Major Tree Trimming ($6,000 / 4 years) $15,000 Major Park Rehabilitation ($60,000 in 2029) --- Subtotal Reserve Contribution $0 Annual Subtotal $37,000 Town Contribution (General Fund) $20,368 Annual Assessment $16,632 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 Fund Analysis Estimated Beginning Fund Balance (7/1/2021) $8,238 Estimated Revenues $16,632 Estimated Expenditures ($16,632) Estimated Ending Fund Balance (6/30/2022) $8,238 (1) Town is not currently tracking and billing Staff time spent on maintenance activities in the District. (2) Major periodic maintenance activities anticipated are listed below The LLA requires the Town Council to order the Engineer’s Report, approve the annual Engineer’s Report, adopt a resolution declaring its intent to levy and collect the assessments and setting the time and place for a public hearing, notice and hold a public hearing, and finally adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment for the landscape and lighting district. Staff is requesting that the Council take action at this meeting to adopt a resolution approving the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 and set the time and place for the public hearing as 5 pm on Wednesday July 21, 2021 at the location of the regular meeting of the Town Council. Following adoption of this resolution, Staff will notice the public hearing. On July 21, 2021, the Council will hold the public hearing and consider confirming the diagram and assessment for the landscape and lighting district. If the Council confirms the assessment, then Staff will finalize the engineer’s report and complete the necessary paperwork and submit to the County assessor’s office. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District assessment is necessary to offset some of the costs of maintaining and improving the facilities in the district. Without this source of funding, these costs would be paid for solely from the General Fund. The table below shows prior year expenditures and assessment revenues. Description 2017/18 Actual 2018/19 Actual 2019/20 Actual 2020/21 Estimated 2021/22 Budget Contractual Services / Staff $14,000 $14,000 $173 $14,093 $14,000 Landscape Grounds & Materials $1,538 $9,793 $17,144 $4,473 $5,000 Tree Maintenance -- -- -- -- $15,000 Water $951 $1,400 $2,808 $2,933 $3,000 Expenditure Total $16,489 $25,193 $20,124 $21,500 $37,000 Assessment Revenue $16,489 $16,544 $16,610 $16,632 $16,632 Excess / (Shortfall) -- ($8,649) ($3,514) ($4,868) ($20,368) Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 As listed in the table above, any excess funds are held in the Cypress Hollow Restricted Fund to be used for special or significant rehabilitation or maintenance work, and shortfall amounts are either funded from the Cypress Hollow Restricted Fund balance or funded from the General Fund. In additional to routine annual maintenance activities, special tree trimming is needed about every four years at a cost of at least $15,000, and the park infrastructure needs renewal about every 20 years. In 2009, the Town spent $40,000 rehabilitating the park area. 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 pursuant 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 Annual Engineer’s Report and Declaring Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments within the Landscape and Lighting District and Setting a Time and Place for Public Hearing Exhibit(s): 1. Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 2. Resolution Approving the Annual Engineer’s Report and Declaring Intent to Levy and Collect Assessments within the Landscape and Lighting District and Setting a Time and Place for Public Hearing Prepared By: Steven Palmer, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer David O. Eshoo, Associate Engineer EXHIBIT 1 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Draft June 10, 2021 Landscaping and Lighting District, Cypress Hollow Town of Tiburon Marin County, California Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District – Cypress Hollow Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Intent Meeting: June 16, 2021 Public Hearing: July 21, 2021 Draft June 10, 2021 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Draft June 10, 2021 Landscaping and Lighting District, Cypress Hollow Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District – Cypress Hollow Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 The undersigned hereby submits the enclosed report as directed by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon. Steven V. Palmer, PE Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Town of Tiburon, Marin County, California Date I hereby certify that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on the ________ day of June, 2021. Lea Stefani, Town Clerk Town of Tiburon, Marin County, California I hereby certify that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the Town Council of the Town of Tibruon, Marin County, California on the ________ day of July, 2021. Lea Stefani, Town Clerk Town of Tiburon, Marin County, California Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Draft June 10, 2021 Landscaping and Lighting District, Cypress Hollow 1. INTRODUCTION The Town of Tiburon (Town) annually levies and collects a special assessment in the Cypress Hollow area in order to provide and maintain improvements within the area. The Landscaping and Lighting District in Cypress Hollow (District) was formed in 1990 by the County of Marin to provide and continue the operation and maintenance of public improvements installed as part of the development that benefit the properties with the District. In 1998, the Cypress Hollow subdivision was annexed into the Town, and the Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District was transferred to the Town of Tiburon. The District was formed and assessments have been levied annually pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (1972 Act). This Engineer’s Report has been prepared pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 4 of the 1972 Act (Streets and Highways Code Section 22565 et seq). This Report includes a description of the improvements to be maintained and services, and an estimate of the costs to maintain and service the improvements, a diagram for the District, and the proposed annual assessments for Fiscal Year 2020/2021. The Report apportions the costs to each lot or parcel in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received from the maintenance of the improvements. 2. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The Town levies and collects assessments from the parcels in the District to maintain and service the landscaping improvements and associated appurtenances located within the public right of way, public lots, and dedicated easements. The improvements maintained and serviced within the District are the following areas within the Cypress Hollow development: 1) Landscape maintenance within the 25-foot sewer sanitary easement on the east boundary. 2) Entry landscaping and irrigation at the intersection of Cypress Hollow Drive and Bay Vista Drive. 3) Landscape maintenance within the 30-foot storm drainage easement in the southwest boundary area. 4) Maintenance and service of the park site located at the intersection of Cypress Hollow Drive and Rancho Drive. The improvements installed, maintained and serviced generally include but are not limited to: landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, grass other ornamental vegetation, irrigation systems, hardscapes and fixtures, ornamental structures and facilities, curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving, drainage, electrical facilities, playground equipment, shade structures, play courts, public restrooms, and paseos/trails. District funds are used for the maintenance and servicing including, but not limited to, labor, electrical energy, water, materials, contracting services, administration, reserve, and other expenses necessary for the satisfactory maintenance and servicing of these improvements. Maintenance and servicing also includes cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, other solid waste; and pest control; the cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti; and the replacement of facilities. Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Draft June 10, 2021 Landscaping and Lighting District, Cypress Hollow 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS The estimated costs for the operation, installation, maintenance, and servicing of the facilities for Fiscal Year 2021/2022 are shown below. The cost estimate includes anticipated water and electricity use, materials, contract services, labor costs, and annual carryover costs. Item Annual Cost Annual Maintenance Services (Contract) $14,000 Services (Labor) - (1) Materials & Supplies $5,000 Water $3,000 Subtotal Annual Maintenance $22,000 Reserve Contribution (2) Major Tree Trimming ($6,000 / 4 years) $15,000 Major Park Rehabilitation ($60,000 in 2029) -- Subtotal Reserve Contribution -- Annual Subtotal $37,000 Town Contribution (General Fund) $20,368 Annual Assessment $16,632 Fund Analysis Estimated Beginning Fund Balance (7/1/2021) $8,238 Estimated Revenues $16,632 Estimated Expenditures ($16,632) Estimated Ending Fund Balance (6/30/2022) $8,238 (1) Town is not currently tracking and billing Staff time spent on maintenance activities in the District. (2) Major periodic maintenance activities anticipated are listed below 4. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT The 1972 Act requires that the net amount to be assessed may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits received by each lot or parcel. Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Draft June 10, 2021 Landscaping and Lighting District, Cypress Hollow The Method of Apportionment is based upon the relative special benefit derived from the improvements and conferred upon the real property within the District over and above the general benefit conferred upon the real property within the District or to the public at large. Landscaping, planting, shrubbery, trees, grass and other ornamental vegetation, irrigation systems, hardscapes and fixtures, ornamental structures and facilities, curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving, drainage, electrical facilities, playground equipment, shade structures, play courts, paseos/trails, and appurtenant facilities, if well maintained, confer a particular and distinct special benefit upon real property within the District by providing beautification, shade and positive enhancement of the community character, attractiveness and desirability of the surroundings, and easily accessible outdoor recreation opportunities. Additionally, these amenities contribute to a specific increase in property desirability to parcels within the District. To apportion the estimated costs of the District during any fiscal year, each of the parcels within the District is deemed to receive equal special benefit from the improvements. The assessment per parcel is calculated by dividing the total assessment amount by the total number of parcels within the District to determine the annual assessment amount per parcel. 5. PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022 The Fiscal Year 2021/2022 assessments for the District will remain the same as the Fiscal Year 2020/2021 assessments which is $378 per parcel per year. The amount of the assessment has not changed since Cypress Hollow annexed into Tiburon and the Town took over maintenance from the County in 1998. The assessment calculation is shown in the table below. Total Annual Assessment $16,632 Number of Assessed Parcels 44 Annual Assessment per Parcel $378 6. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM An assessment diagram for the District is included on the following page. The parcels within the District consist of all lots, parcels and subdivisions of land within these boundaries as described in this Report and shown on the Marin County Assessor's parcel maps. The lines and dimensions shown on the Marin County Assessor's parcel maps for the current year are incorporated herein by reference and made part of this Report. The following diagram shows the boundaries of the District for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. This diagram along with the Assessment Roll incorporated in this Report constitutes the District Assessment Diagram for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM FY 2021/2022 Page 4 of 5 Annual Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Draft June 10, 2021 Landscaping and Lighting District, Cypress Hollow 7. FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022 ASSESSMENT ROLL The Fiscal Year 2021/2022 assessment roll for the District is shown in the following table and will be forwarded to the County upon completion of the public hearing process. APN ADDRESS AMOUNT APN ADDRESS AMOUNT 034-012-56 220 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-01 10 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-012-57 110 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-394-02 20 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-02 10 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394-03 30 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-03 20 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394.04 40 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-04 30 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394-05 50 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-05 40 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394-06 60 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-06 50 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394-07 70 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-07 60 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394-08 80 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-08 70 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394-09 90 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-09 80 Cypress Hollow $378.00 034-394-10 100 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-392-10 145 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-11 60 Baccharis Place $378.00 034-393-01 110 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-12 50 Baccharis Place $378.00 034-393-02 120 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-13 40 Baccharis Place $378.00 034-393-03 130 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-14 30 Baccharis Place $378.00 034-393-04 140 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-15 20 Baccharis Place $378.00 034-393-05 150 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-16 10 Baccharis Place $378.00 034-393-06 160 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-394-18 185 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-393-07 170 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-395-01 35 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-393-08 180 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-395-02 45 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-393-09 190 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-395-03 55 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-393-10 200 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-395-04 65 Monterey Drive $378.00 034-393-11 210 Rancho Drive $378.00 034-395-05 75 Monterey Drive $378.00 EXHIBIT 2 Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 06/16/2021 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING THE ANNUAL ENGINEER’S REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENT TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT IN THE CYPRESS HOLLOW SUBDIVISION AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, on July 3, 1990 the County of Marin established a Landscape and Lighting District in Cypress Hollow; and WHEREAS, the County of Marin received assessments from the parcels therein for the purpose of operating and maintaining the following areas: (1) landscaping and irrigation of the 25-foot sewer sanitary easement on the east boundary, (2) entry landscaping and irrigation of the 30-foot storm drainage easement in the southwest boundary area, and (3) ownership and maintenance of the park site, all as part of the Cypress Hollow Development; and WHEREAS, in December 1998 the Town of Tiburon annexed the Cypress Hollow Area, and in April 1999 accepted the Grant Deed from the County of Marin for the Cypress Hollow Public Park; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon, after completing annexation of the parcels in the Cypress Hollow District, stated its intention and continued the operation and maintenance activities of the Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District; and WHEREAS, The Town Engineer has prepared and filed with the Town Clerk and Town Council the annual Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2021/2022, to which reference is hereby made for a full and detailed description of the existing improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district, and the proposed assessments. WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to more forward with proceedings to levy the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 assessments. NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED, as follows: Section 1. The Fiscal Year 2021/2022 assessments for the District will remain the same as the Fiscal Year 2020/2021 assessments. Section 2. The Town Council approves the annual Engineer’s Report and declares its intention to levy and collect an assessment for Fiscal Year 2021/2022. Section 3. Notice is hereby given that on the 21st day of July 2021, at the hour of 5:00 pm, or soon thereafter, in the regular meeting place of the Town Council is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public hearing when and where all interested persons shall be heard on the question of the levy and collection of the proposed assessments. Written protests may be filed with the Town Clerk at any time prior to the conclusion of the hearing. A written protest shall state all grounds of objection and shall contain a description sufficient to identify the property owned by the protesting person or persons. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, on June 16, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 06/16/2021 2 _________________________________ HOLLI THIER MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council June 16, 2021 CC-6: Cypress Hollow LLD Late Mail Requests for Copies: Lea Stefani, lstefani@townoftiburon.org Dear Tiburon Town Council, I’m happy to see a continuing assessment for Cypress Hollow Landscape and Lighting District. This letter is to point out the importance of maintaining the dense screening in the 25-foot sewer sanitary easement on the east boundary of Cypress Hollow. Periodically, the letter below has had to be sent out to maintain awareness of this protected area. It is my hope that the Town will maintain and replenish the dense screening in this area. Sincerely, M.Canter 167 Blackfield Dr. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Approve Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Tiburon and Tiburon Police Officers Association (July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2024) Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Terms and conditions of a three-year Memorandum of Understanding between the Tiburon Police Officers Association (TPOA) and the Town of Tiburon RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Approve Memorandum of Understanding Between the Town of Tiburon and Tiburon Police Officers Association (July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2024) BACKGROUND The most recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Police Officers Association (TPOA) will expire on June 30, 2021. Beginning in mid-April, the Town’s negotiating team met with representatives of the TPOA to confer on the terms of a successor MOU. The Town and TPOA have tentatively agreed on a three-year contract which covers the terms and conditions of employment of Unit members from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. ANALYSIS The Town’s major focus when negotiating with the TPOA was to keep base and specialty pays consistent with the Town’s administrative policy for setting salaries. The Town used Marin County local agency salary data provided by Koff & Associates to determine average base pay and specialty pay rates when negotiating new rates. The Town also desired to keep its specialty pays set at a flat dollar amount versus a percentage-based amount. With the exception of shift differential pay, specialty pay rates are consistent for the entire three- year term of the contract. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-7 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 The terms and conditions that were tentatively agreed upon and incorporated into the exhibit Memorandum of Understanding are: FINANCIAL IMPACT Salary Increases Proposed: July 1, 2021 $500 one-time bonus; 1.5% sworn; 2.5% PSAs July 1, 2022 2.75% sworn; 3.0% PSAs July 1, 2023 2.75% sworn & PSAs Longevity Pay Effective July 1, 2021, the rates for longevity pay will increase as follows: Current Proposed 5 years of service $155/month $155/month 10 years of service $170/month $190/month 15 years of service $215/month $235/month 20 years of service $255/month $285/month Education Incentive Pay Effective July 1, 2021, education pay will increase as follows: Current Proposed POST Intermediate/AA/AA $225/month $245/month POST Advanced/BA/BS $325/month $375/month POST Supervisory/MA/MS $325/month $375/month Specialty Pays Effective July 1, 2021, specialty pay will increase as follows. Current Proposed Motorcycle Officer $250/month $300/month Investigator $250/month $300/month Bilingual Pay $125/month $150/month Field Training Officer $27/shift $28/shift Shift Differential Current: $250/per month Proposed: Effective July 1, 2021, shift differential pay will increase to $300/month. Effective July 1, 2022, shift differential pay will increase to $350/month. Effective July 1, 2023, shift differential pay will increase to $400/month. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 Compensatory Time Current Accrual Limit: Sixty (60) hours Proposed: Compensatory accrual limit shall not exceed eighty (80) hours. Retirement Health Savings Account (RHSA) – New Program January 1, 2022 Town is to establish a Retirement Health Savings Account (RHSA) program by January 1, 2022 and contribute $100 per month per employee, subject to the terms of the RHSA program. Employees who are eligible to receive Paid Medical at Retirement per TPOA MOU Section 7.7 are not eligible to receive Town-paid RHSA contributions. FINANCIAL IMPACT Total Cost Year 1 COLA $ 25,640 Signing Bonus 7,500 RHSA 8,400 Accruing Fringe 4,800 Education Pay 5,160 Shift Differential 3,600 Longevity Pay 4,740 Specialty Pay 1,200 Bilingual 900 Field Training 130 Holiday Pay 3,315 CalPERS 10,563 FICA 895 Medical 14,646 Dental 2,089 Life 1,440 YEAR 1 TOTAL $ 95,018 Total Cost Year 2 Year 1 $95,018 COLA 44,776 RHSA 16,800 Shift Differential 3,600 Holiday Pay 2,903 Medical 15,744 Dental 2,246 CalPERS 9,612 FICA 932 CUMULATIVE 2 YEAR TOTAL $191,631 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 Total Cost Year 3 Years 1 & 2 $191,631 COLA 45,435 RHSA 16,800 Shift Differential 3,600 Holiday Pay 2,011 Longevity 1,020 Medical 16,925 Dental 2,414 CalPERS 7,174 FICA 711 CUMULATIVE 3 YEAR TOTAL $287,720 Cumulative Annual Costs: $574,368 Transfer to GF EE Compensated Leave: 15,886 TOTAL: $590,255 CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. 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 pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Move to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Police Association and authorize the Town Manager execute the Agreement Exhibits: 1. Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Tiburon and Tiburon Police Association 2. Redlined Memorandum of Understanding between the Town of Tiburon and Tiburon Police Association Prepared By: Suzanne Creekmore, Director of Administrative Services EXHIBIT 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE 3 SECTION 1. RECOGNITION 3 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS 4 SECTION 4. NO DISCRIMINATION 4 SECTION 5. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 5 SECTION 6. MEDICAL/DENTAL/LIFE AND LTD BENEFITS PLAN 5 SECTION 7. RETIREMENT PROGRAM 6 SECTION 8. HOLIDAYS 9 SECTION 9. SICK LEAVE 10 SECTION 10. LEAVE WITH PAY 12 SECTION 11. VACATION 12 SECTION 12. SALARY 13 SECTION 13. LONGEVITY PAY 14 SECTION 14. OVERTIME 15 SECTION 15. SPECIAL MEAL ALLOWANCE 16 SECTION 16. EDUCATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM 17 SECTION 17. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 17 SECTION 18. UNIFORM MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE 17 2 SECTION 19. SPECIAL PAY 17 SECTION 20. SAFETY EQUIPMENT 18 SECTION 21. HOURS OF WORK 19 SECTION 22. SENIORITY 20 SECTION 23. LAYOFF PROCEDURES 20 SECTION 24. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AND ACTION 21 SECTION 25. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 26 SECTION 26. FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 27 SECTION 27. CATASTROPHIC LEAVE 28 SECTION 28. FULL UNDERSTANDING, MODIFICATION, WAIVER 29 SECTION 29. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS 30 SECTION 30. MAINTENANCE OF BENEFITS 30 SECTION 30. PREVAILING RIGHTS 30 SECTION 30. MISCELLANEOUS 30 3 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF TIBURON AND THE TIBURON POLICE ASSOCIATION PREAMBLE This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, by and between the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Police Association the ______ Day of __________ 2021. The parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other items and conditions of employment of the employees in the Tiburon Police Department and have exchanged freely information, opinions, and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the employment conditions and Employer-Employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be presented to the Town Council as the joint recommendation of the undersigned for salaries, fringe benefits, and working conditions of all employees. This Memorandum of Understanding and following agreements shall not become effective until approved by the Tiburon Town Council and Tiburon Police Association. Section 1. Recognition 1.1 Association Recognition The Town recognizes the Association as the majority representative of the sworn and non-sworn employees of the Tiburon Police Department, excluding the classifications of Chief of Police, Police Captain, Secretary, Emergency Services Coordinator and Police Officer Trainee. The category of sworn police personnel represented by the Association includes the classifications of sergeant and patrol officer. All other police personnel represented by the Association are considered non-sworn. 1.2 Dues Deduction The Town shall, in a payroll deduction made twice each month, deduct the amount of Association dues or fees as specified by the Association and authorized by each affected employee in accordance with rules and regulations to implement the Employer-Employee relations ordinance. Said deductions are to be made without fee charged to the Association. The Association agrees to hold the Town harmless from any liability arising from such deduction. 4 Section 2. Association Represented Employee Rights 2.1 The Association has the right to represent its members before the Town Council or advisory boards or commission or the Town Manager or his/her designee with regard to wages, hours, and working conditions or other matters within the scope of representation. 2.2 The Association has the right to be given reasonable written notice of any proposed ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation, or amendment thereto, relating to matters within the scope of representation. 2.3 The Association has the right to reasonable access to employee work locations for officers of the Association and the officially designated representatives for the purpose of processing grievances or contacting members of the Association concerning business within the scope of representation. Access shall be restricted so as not to interfere with the normal operations of the Department, Town or established safety or security requirements. 2.4 Employees represented by the Association shall be free to participate in Association activities without interference, intimidation, or discrimination, in accordance with State law and Town policies, rules, and regulations. Section 3. Management Rights Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the rights of the Town include, but are not limited to, the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent department, commission, and boards; set standards of service; determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment and promotions; direct its employees; take disciplinary action; relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; maintain the efficiency of government operation; determine the methods, means and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted; determine the content of job classifications; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work, including contracting for specified services. The Town maintains the right to use qualified volunteers or reserves in the Police Department service, provided such use does not adversely affect wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Use of said individuals shall be in accordance with State law and Police Department regulations. Nothing contained within this Section is intended to, in any way, supersede or infringe upon the rights of the recognized employee organization as provided under State and Federal law, including, but not limited to, California State Government Code Sections 3500 through 3510, inclusive. Section 4. No Discrimination There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or legitimate Association activities against any employee or applicant for employment by the Town or by the Department or by anyone employed by the Department; and to the extent prohibited by applicable State and Federal law, there shall be no discrimination because of age. There shall be no discrimination against 5 any handicapped person solely because of such handicap unless that handicap prevents the person from meeting the minimum standards established. Section 5. Scope of Agreement 5.1 Term: This Agreement shall be in effect from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024. 5.2 Procedure for Meet and Confer: The Town, through its representatives, shall meet and confer in good faith with representatives of the Association regarding matters within the scope of representation, including wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, in accordance with the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The Tiburon Police Association shall submit their next contract proposal changes to the Town Manager by no later than March 1, 2021. The Town shall commence contract negotiations no later than 45 days following receipt of the contract proposal. Section 6. Medical/Dental/Life and LTD Benefits Plan For hospital/medical insurance the Town shall contribute a dollar amount equal to the CalPERS PHEMCA minimum. In addition, for active employees the Town will contribute the dollar amount of the Kaiser 2-party rate, less the CalPERS PHEMCA, towards an employee’s medical insurance plan. For dental insurance the Town will contribute the dollar amount equal to the employee family premium. For life insurance the Town will contribute an amount equal to the premium of the Town’s group $25,000 term life insurance policy. Part-time employees who work a regular schedule over 28 hours per week shall receive a prorated amount of this monthly allowance based on their full-time equivalence. 6.1 Medical/Hospital Insurance: The Town of Tiburon offers its employees and their dependents medical/hospital insurance coverage. A full-time employee may choose a plan from those offered through the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Health Benefit plans. If the full sum specified in Section 6 above is exceeded for group insurance cost of a given employee and dependents, then that employee shall pay the balance of the monthly cost via a special twice per month payroll deduction for all full-time employees and their dependents. An employee may opt out of health insurance coverage upon evidence that they can be/are covered under their spouse or domestic partner’s insurance. If an employee opts out of Town coverage they shall receive $400 per month which shall be credited to the employees 457 Deferred Compensation Plan. Health insurance is mandatory for all full-time employees. 6.2 Dental Insurance: The Town of Tiburon offers its full-time employees and their dependents a dental plan. Such insurance is mandatory for all full-time employees. 6.3 Life Insurance: 6 The Town of Tiburon offers a Twenty-Five Thousand Dollar ($25,000) life insurance policy. Such insurance is mandatory for all full-time employees. The Town also offers employees covered by this agreement additional life insurance above the mandatory $25,000 policy, up to a combined total of no more than $95,000. Participation is optional and at the employee’s expense. 6.4 Disability Insurance: The Town of Tiburon offers its full-time employees long term disability insurance. Such insurance is mandatory for employees in the sergeant and patrol officer classification and optional for all others. 6.5 Change in Employee Benefit Plans: From time to time, at its option, the Town intends to evaluate the hospital-medical, dental, life, and long-term disability insurance plans currently available to employees to determine if similar or better coverage may be available at a lower cost to the Town. The Town may substitute new insurance carriers or arrange for self-insurance provided that the overall coverage is equal to or superior to the present coverage and provided that the Town meets with the Association to consult on any new plan before it is implemented. Section 7. Retirement Program 7.1 Scope of Benefits: The Town of Tiburon shall continue as an employer under the provisions of the Public Employees Retirement System of the State of California (CalPERS). 7.2 Classic Members – Local Safety The Town of Tiburon provides the 3% @ Age 55 Cal-PERS Local Safety retirement formula for sworn personnel. This retirement benefit is based on the Cal-PERS three (3) year average salary calculation. Effective July 1, 2010, each employee covered under the Local Safety 3% @ 55 coverage group shall pay their 9% normal member contribution. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. Effective July 1, 2015, employees covered under the Local Safety 3% @ 55 coverage group shall pay 3% of the Employer’s Share of retirement contributions. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. The Town of Tiburon provides the following additional Cal-PERS benefits to “classic” employees covered under this Memorandum of Understanding: 1. 1959 Survivors Benefits 2. Death Benefits - $600 3. Unused Sick Leave Service Credit 7 . 7.3 Classic Members – Local Miscellaneous The Town of Tiburon provides the 2% @ Age 55 Local Miscellaneous retirement formula for full-time non-sworn personnel covered under this Memorandum of Understanding. This retirement formula is based on the CalPERS single highest year salary calculation. Effective July 1, 2010 each employee covered under the Local Miscellaneous 2% @ 55 coverage group shall pay their 7% normal member contribution. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. Effective July 1, 2015 each employee covered under the Local Miscellaneous 2% @ 55 coverage group shall pay 1% of the Employer’s Share of retirement contributions. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. The Town of Tiburon provides the following additional Cal-PERS benefits to “classic” employees covered under this Memorandum of Understanding: 1. 1959 Survivors Benefits 2. Death Benefits - $600 3. Unused Sick Leave Service Credit 7.4 “New” Members – Local Safety Local Safety employees classified as “new” under the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) will be covered by the CalPERS 2.7% @ 57 plan. Employees shall pay at least fifty percent (50%) of the Normal Cost of their Plan as calculated annually by CalPERS. 7.5 “New” Members – Local Miscellaneous Local Miscellaneous employees classified as “new” under PEPRA will be covered by the CalPERS 2% @ 62 plan. Employees shall pay at least fifty percent (50%) of the normal Cost of their Plan as calculated annually by CalPERS. 7.6 Part-time Hourly Employees Part-time employees covered under this Memorandum of Understanding shall accrue retirement benefits under the Town's part-time, seasonal, temporary employee retirement plan administered by the Hartford Life Insurance Company. Part-time employees contribute 3.75% to the part-time, seasonal, temporary retirement plan, with the Town providing a matching contribution. 7.7 Paid Medical at Retirement 8 For full time employees hired into Association represented classifications prior to September 19, 2001, the Town of Tiburon will contribute toward a retired employee's medical insurance plan based on the following conditions: 1. The employee must retire directly from employment with the Town of Tiburon and apply to PERS for service retirement benefits. 2. The retiree's medical allowance is fixed and capped at the Kaiser single rate that is in effect at the time of the employee's retirement. The allowance will be remitted monthly from the Town to the retiree. Should Kaiser no longer be provided through the Town's cafeteria program, a similar low-cost HMO provided will be substituted. 3. The Town contribution rate is based on the following formula: A. After 15 years of service to the Town of Tiburon, the employee/retiree will receive 50% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. B. After 20 years of service to the Town of Tiburon, the employee/retiree will receive 75% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. C. After 25 years of service to the Town of Tiburon, the employee/retiree will receive 100% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. For full time employees hired into Association represented classifications after September 19, 2001 but before July 1, 2010, the Town of Tiburon will contribute toward a retired employee's medical insurance plan, based on the following conditions: 1 The employee must retire directly from employment with the Town of Tiburon and apply to PERS for service retirement benefits. 2. The retiree's medical allowance is fixed and capped at the Kaiser single rate that is in effect at the time of the employee's retirement. The allowance will be remitted monthly from the Town to the retiree. Should Kaiser no longer be provided through the Town's cafeteria program, a similar low-cost HMO provided will be substituted. 3. The Town contribution rate is based on the following formula: A. After 15 years of service to the Town of Tiburon and the accrual of 720 hours sick leave, the employee/retiree will receive 50% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. B. After 20 years of service to the Town of Tiburon and the accrual of 960 hours of sick leave, the employee/retiree will receive 75% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. C. After 25 years of service to the Town of Tiburon and the accrual of 1200 hours of sick leave, the employee/retiree will receive 100% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. 9 Any employee hired into an Association represented classification after July 1, 2010 will not be eligible to receive a paid medical allowance upon retirement, irrespective of length of service. 7.8. Retiree Health Savings Account (RHSA) Beginning January 1, 2022, or at the first pay period following implementation of the Retiree Health Savings Account (RHSA), whichever is later, the Town of Tiburon agrees to contribute $100 per month per employee towards the RHSA, subject to the terms of the RHSA program. Employees who are eligible to receive benefits under Section 7.7 (Paid Medical at Retirement) shall not be eligible to receive the Town-paid $100 RHSA contribution. Section 8. Holidays 8.1 In accordance with Government Code and the Town Personnel Rules and Regulations, sworn personnel of the Town shall observe the following holidays on the dates indicated below: HOLIDAY DATE OBSERVED Independence Day July 4 Labor Day 1st Monday in September Admissions Day September 9 Columbus Day 2nd Monday in October Veterans Day November 11 Thanksgiving 4th Thursday in November Christmas December 25 New Year's Day January 1 Martin Luther King Day 3rd Monday in January Lincoln's Birthday February 12 President's Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May In accordance with Government Code and the Town Personnel Rules and Regulations, non-sworn personnel covered under this Memorandum of Understanding shall observe the following holidays indicated below: HOLIDAY DATE OBSERVED Independence Day July 4 Labor Day 1st Monday in September Veteran's Day November 11 Thanksgiving 4th Thursday in November Day After Thanksgiving 4th Friday in November Christmas Eve December 24 Christmas December 25 New Year’s Eve December 31 New Year's Day January 1 10 Martin Luther King Day 3rd Monday in January President's Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May 8.3 Payment for holidays to sworn personnel shall be made, at the employee's option, as either eight (8) hours additional salary included in the pay period during which the holiday falls or eight (8) hours additional vacation shall be added to the employee's vacation accrual. 8.4 The position of Police Service Aide will receive the Holiday off and not the Holiday pay. Section 9. Sick Leave Sick leave shall not be considered as a right which an employee may use at his/her discretion, but shall be allowed only in the case of necessity or actual sickness or disability, and in the case of disability other than sickness, only where such disability occurred while the employee was not gainfully employed elsewhere. 9.1 Use of Sick Leave: Sick leave may be taken for absences from duty made necessary by: 1. Personal illness, caused by factors over which the employee has no reasonable immediate control. 2. Injury not incurred in line of duty, except where traceable to employment other than the Town. 3. Medical, dental or eye examination or treatment for which appointment cannot be made outside of working hours. 4. Death of a close relation as defined in the Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations. 5. Hospitalization of a close relation as defined in the Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations or any member of the employee's household, where the Chief of Police or his/her designee approves such leave. 6. Care of a close relation as defined in the Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations, or any member of the employee's household who is ill or injured, though not hospitalized, where the Chief of Police or his/her designee approves such leave. 9.2 Sick Leave Accumulation: Sick leave with pay shall be granted to all full-time employees who have served six (6) months, except as hereinafter provided. An employee shall accumulate eight (8) hours sick leave per month from date of hire until terminated or on leave without pay. Employees hired on a part-time basis shall accrue a pro-rated share of sick leave based on their full-time equivalent. Employees who are absent without pay for any reason more than ten (10) working days during a calendar month, shall not accumulate sick leave for that month. 9.3 Holidays During Sick Leave: 11 Holidays and regular days off occurring while an employee is on sick or special leave shall not be charged against such employee's sick leave credits. 9.4 Payment for Unused Sick Leave: For each full-time classification represented by the Tiburon Police Association and hired prior to September 19, 2001, an employee may receive payment of fifty percent (50%) of the value of their unused sick leave up to a maximum of 480 hours if the following conditions are met: 1. The employee files for service retirement from the Town, or 2. The employee voluntarily separates from the Town and has at least fifteen (15) years of service with the Town. Effective July 1, 2011, the cash value of this benefit will be determined based on each employee’s hourly rate and number of eligible hours for cash-out purposes (50% of sick leave balance, up to 60 days or 480 hours). This value will be documented and the value capped. This value cannot grow through additional accrued sick leave or though increases in hourly pay rate. Employees with 15 years or more service with the Town may request a cash-out of 60% of the eligible hours (early cash-out option). Should an employee request the early cash-out of 60% of the eligible sick leave hours, they will not be entitled to any further sick leave cash-out upon retirement or separation of employment with the Town. Those hours cashed out will be deducted from the employees sick leave balance. If an employee is not eligible for, or elects not to take, the early cash-out option, they shall be paid the frozen dollar value upon separation of employment with the Town. The only way the frozen dollar amount can be lowered is if an employee has less accrued sick leave hours upon separation of employment than they do on July 1, 2011. For tax planning purposes, should an employee desire to take the early cash out option, they will be allowed to take this payment in either 2011 or in January 2012. For purposes of providing examples of this section, attached to this MOU is Exhibit “A. For each full-time classification represented by the Tiburon Police Association and hired after September 19, 2001, an employee may accrue unlimited sick leave with no option for payment of unused sick leave upon retirement or separation of employment with the Town. 9.5 Termination of Sick Leave: Sick leave shall automatically terminate on the date of retirement or on the date upon which an ordinary disability allowance under the retirement system becomes effective. 9.6 Sick Leave Notification and Proof of Illness: In order to receive compensation while on sick leave, the employee shall notify his/her immediate superior, prior to or at the time set for beginning his/her daily duties, or as may be specified by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, of the 12 reason for requiring such leave and failure to reasonably do so may be grounds for denial of such leave with pay. 9.7 Proof of Illness: In any request for sick leave with pay for three (3) or more calendar days, the Chief of Police or his/her designee may require a statement in writing signed by a licensed physician, or the submission of the substantiating evidence that the employee is incapacitated and unable to perform his/her duties. The Town has the right to determine by reasonable means the validity of any sick leave usage by any employee at any time. Section 10. Leave With Pay The following provide for leave with pay: 10.1 Military Service: Military leave shall be granted in accordance with State and Federal statutes. 10.2 Jury Duty: At the call of the Jury Commissioner, all employees occupying authorized regular positions shall be allowed to leave for jury duty upon presentation of jury notice to the Chief of Police or his/her designee or Town Manager. The employee shall receive full pay for the time served on the jury. Monies received from the courts by the employee for jury duty will be deposited with the Town of Tiburon. 10.3 Vacation Leave: All regular employees occupying a position shown in the Annual Salary Program become eligible for vacation leave with pay as shown in Section 11 below. Section 11. Vacation All regular employees are eligible for vacation leave with pay as shown below: 11.1 Vacation Leave Accrual: Vacation leave with pay shall be credited to all full-employees at the following rates: First five (5) years of service - eight (8) hours per month Second five (5) year service – twelve (12) hours per month Third five (5) years of service - thirteen and one-third (131/3) hours per month Part-time employees hired into an Association represented classification shall accrue the pro-rated share of vacation leave accumulation above based upon their full-time equivalent. Vacation leave shall be credited to each employee's account monthly. 13 11.2 Paid Time Off The classification of Police Service Aide shall receive eight (8) hours of paid time off per year. Paid time off must be used by December 31 in the calendar year that it is granted or it will be forfeited. Requests for paid time off shall be submitted in advance by the employee in writing to the Chief of Police or his/her designee, who may approve the request. Police Service Aides who work less than a forty (40) hour work week shall receive a prorated amount of paid time off. Paid time off shall not roll over to subsequent years or be paid out upon the employee’s departure from the City or promotion or transfer to another position. 11.3 Payment for Unused Vacation Time: When an employee with six (6) months service terminates, fractional periods of vacation shall be calculated and credited to the employee's account. Compensation will be at the employee's daily rate of pay. 11.4 Vacation Leave Accumulation: Vacation leave for employees with less than five (5) years of service may not be accumulated beyond two hundred hours. For employees with more than five (5) years of service, vacation leave may not be accumulated beyond two hundred and eighty hours; providing the Town Manager may require two (2) of those weeks to be taken at a separate time. Employees who are on leave or suspension without pay for more than ten (10) working days in any calendar month shall not accumulate vacation leave for that month. 11.5 Sickness During Vacation Leave: Sickness occurring during vacation leave, upon doctor's certification, will be considered sick leave and not be charged against vacation leave. 11.6 Vacation Leave Scheduling: Requests for vacation leave shall be submitted in advance by the employee in writing to the Chief of Police or his/her designee, who may approve the time employees may take their vacation. Section 12. Salary Salary increases will take effect for the full pay period that includes July 1, as follows. On July 1, 2021, the Town will give each represented classification a one-time $500 lump sum payment. Beginning July 1, 2021, the monthly salary range for each represented classification shall be: 14 TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 8,790 9,229 9,691 10,175 10,684 Officer 7,338 7,705 8,091 8,495 8,920 Police Service Aide 5,234 5,496 5,771 6,059 6,362 On July 1, 2022, the monthly salary range for the Sergeant and Officer classifications shall be increased by 2.75% and the Police Service Aide classification shall be increased by 3%: TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 9,031 9,483 9,957 10,455 10,978 Officer 7,540 7,917 8,313 8,729 9,165 Police Service Aide 5,391 5,661 5,944 6,241 6,553 On July 1, 2023, the monthly salary range for each represented classification shall be increased by 2.75%: TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 9,280 9,744 10,231 10,742 11,280 Officer 7,748 8,135 8,542 8,969 9,417 Police Service Aide 5,539 5,816 6,107 6,413 6,733 12.1 Advancement Within Salary Range: The following criteria shall apply to advancement within salary ranges of individual employees who are on a step plan: Step A: Employees generally shall be hired at Step A of their respective pay range. 15 Step B: Employees shall be eligible for advancement to Step B upon completion of six (6) months satisfactory performance as documented by a written performance evaluation, affirmed by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, and approved by the Town Manager. Additional Steps: Employees shall be eligible for advancement from Step B to higher steps in their respective pay range after completion of one (1) year satisfactory performance at the previous step as documented by a written performance evaluation, affirmed by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, and approved by the Town Manager. The Town Manager may increase an employee's salary on the basis of exceptional merit within the employee's respective pay range. The Town Manager may also designate the salary rate or step at which an employee is appointed. Section 13. Longevity Pay For the classifications of Police Officer and Police Sergeant, the Town will recognize tenure in the form of longevity pay and will compensate employees by the fixed monthly amount below: Upon the completion of five (5) years of service to the Town $155 Upon completion of ten (10) years of service to the Town $190 Upon completion of fifteen (15) years of service to the Town $235 Upon completion of twenty (20) years of service to the Town $285 Section 14. Overtime 14.1 Definition: For the classifications of Police Officer and Police Sergeant assigned to a 3/12 work schedule: Authorized time worked in excess of eighty-four (84) hours in a fourteen day work period. Time paid for but not worked such as paid sick leave, vacation leave and comp time leave shall be included in the computation of said eighty-four (84) hour work period. For the classification of Police Service Aide: Authorized time worked in excess of eighty (80) hours in a fourteen day work period. Time paid for but not worked such as paid sick leave, vacation leave and compensatory time leave shall be included in the computation of said eighty (80) hour work period. Traditionally, the classification of Police Service Aide and precursor classifications worked a traditional 5-40 work schedule. The Town implemented a 9-80 work schedule in October 2003. The Town reserves the right to discontinue the 9-80 work schedule and return to the 5-40 work schedule in whole or in part at any time during the length of this contract 16 14.2 Policy: It is the policy of the Town of Tiburon to keep overtime at a minimum consistent with the protection of the lives and property of Tiburon citizens and the efficient operation of the Department. Overtime must be authorized by the Chief of Police or his/her designee and be in compliance with the overtime policy as set forth in the Town's Personnel Rules and Regulations. 14.3 Overtime Pay: Overtime pay shall be paid at the option of the employee based on the rate of pay at time and one-half (1-1/2) or compensatory time at time and one-half (1-1/2) off. 14.4 Compensatory Time Compensatory time shall not be accumulated in excess of eighty (80) hours. 14.5 Standby Time: "Standby Time" is defined as that period of time an employee is required to leave work where he/she may be contacted to return to work if needed within a reasonable period of time. Standby time will be computed at .25 hours of each hour of standby time (1hr: 4hrs). Standby time will be compensated at straight compensatory time off (CTO) only. 14.6 Court Time: The minimum hours of compensation for court time on other than duty time shall be four (4) hours. Court time shall be computed at the time and one-half (1-1/2) rate and compensated as either compensatory time off or cash payment, at the employee's choosing. For any employee who is subpoenaed to appear in court and such appearance is cancelled, but not by 1800 hours the day before, said employee shall be credited with 2 hours non-premium compensatory time. 14.7 Call Back Time: Any employee who has departed from his/her work location and is called back is guaranteed a minimum of two (2) hours compensation. Employees who do not receive twenty-four (24) hour advance notice of cancellation of department scheduled non-emergency call back will receive call back time. Section 15. Special Meal Allowance 15.1 For the classification of Police Officer and Police Sergeant directed to work a special twelve (12) hour overtime shift will be eligible for meal reimbursement not to exceed fifteen dollars ($15). This allowance applies only to a twelve (12) hour shift that is not the employee's normal working shift. For the classification of Police Service Aide directed to work twelve (12) or more continuous hours by the Chief of Police or 17 his/her designee in a twenty four (24) hour period (commencing from 0100 to 2400 hours) without an eight hour break, will be eligible for meal reimbursement not to exceed Fifteen Dollars ($15) 15.2 A receipt must be obtained for any meals purchased or this allowance will be disallowed. 15.3 This allowance applies only to regular shift duty worked. This allowance specifically excludes court time activity, range activity, standby activity, meetings, or other non-regular shift duty. Section 16. Education Incentive Program 16.1 For the classifications of Police Officer and Police Sergeant, the following education/certification incentive program will be compensated by the fixed monthly amount below: Possession of POST Intermediate Certificate/Assoc of Arts/Science Degree $245 Possession of POST Advanced Certificate/Bachelor of Arts/Science Degree $375 Possession of POST Supervisory Certificate/Master of Arts/Science Degree $375 If an employee is eligible for more than one certificate/degree incentive pay, the employee will be compensated at the higher rate, not the combined total. Section 17. Tuition Reimbursement Program Effective December 1, 2004, for each full-time classification represented by the Tiburon Police Association, a tuition reimbursement program shall be offered for the matriculation of an Associate or Bachelor’s degree. Tuition reimbursement for advanced degrees must be approved in advance by the Chief of Police and the Town Manager. The Town will reimburse costs up to $1,200 annually for the equivalent to the cost of tuition, books and fees at California State University rates. To qualify for reimbursement, employees must submit certified transcripts with evidence of a grade of "C" or better from an accredited college or university and submit bona fide receipts. Employees currently enrolled in an advanced degree program as of December 1, 2004 shall not be subject to the annual $1,200 cap on tuition reimbursement during the pursuit of the advanced degree currently enrolled. Employees are not eligible for reimbursement of tuition for coursework which commenced during their new hire probationary period or prior to employment with the Town. Section 18. Uniform Maintenance Allowance The Town will provide an adequate supply of uniforms and pay for necessary cleaning, as determined by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, for all classifications covered under this MOU. Section 19. Special Pay The Town shall compensate for the following specialty pays: 18 Two hundred Fifty Dollars ($300) per month shall be paid to the person assigned by the department to provide the special services listed below: 1. Motorcycle Officer 2. Investigator 19.1 Field Training Officer Person assigned as Field Training Officer (FTO) shall be paid an additional Twenty-Seven Dollars ($28) per shift. No more than two (2) Field Training Officers shall be assigned to any one (1) shift. 19.2 Bi-Lingual Pay Town shall provide bi-lingual pay of One hundred Fifty Dollars ($150) per month that bi-lingual translation services are provided. Any employee wishing to be compensated for bi-lingual skills must first pass a proficiency test that certifies the employee as fluent in such language. If an employee certified in a foreign language is called at home to provide translation services, said employee shall be eligible for a minimum of one hour overtime. 19.3 Shift Differential Police Officers and Sergeants assigned to the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift shall be entitled to a Three Hundred Dollars ($300) per month shift differential. Any Sergeant or Patrol Officer, who is normally assigned to either day shift or cover shift and is assigned to work a graveyard shift in-lieu of their normal schedule, shall be entitled to nineteen dollars, seventy-eight cents ($19.78) per shift differential. Effective July 1, 2022, Police Officers and Sergeants assigned to the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift shall be entitled to a Three Hundred Fifty Dollar ($350) per month shift differential. Any Sergeant or Patrol Officer, who is normally assigned to either day shift or cover shift and is assigned to work a graveyard shift in-lieu of their normal schedule, shall be entitled to twenty-three dollars and eight cents ($23.08) per shift differential. Effective July 1, 2023, Police Officers and Sergeants assigned to the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift shall be entitled to a Four Hundred Dollar ($400) per month shift differential. Any Sergeant or Patrol Officer, who is normally assigned to either day shift or cover shift and is assigned to work a graveyard shift in-lieu of their normal schedule, shall be entitled to twenty-six dollars and thirty-seven cents ($26.37) per shift differential. Section 20. Safety Equipment 20.1 Safety Equipment 19 The Town of Tiburon shall supply safety equipment to its Police Officer and Sergeant personnel. All Police Officers and Sergeants shall possess and have immediately available for their use those items of safety equipment determined to be necessary by the Chief of Police or his/her designee. 20.2 Duty Footwear: The Town will pay up to One Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($125.00) each fiscal year for duty footwear for personnel. Replacement shall be on as-needed basis, as decided by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, but replacement shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 21. Hours of Work 21.1 Normal Work Schedule for Non-Sworn Personnel The normal work schedule for employees occupying full time positions shall consist of eighty (80) hours to be worked in a fourteen (14) day work period. The normal workday for all non-sworn employees shall consist of not more than ten (10) hours. 21.2 Normal Work Schedule for Sworn Personnel Sworn personnel work in accordance with FLSA 7k work period exemption consisting of fourteen (14) days commencing on Monday and ending fourteen (14) days later on Sunday. A typical workday for Sergeants and Officers assigned to patrol consists of twelve (12) hours per shift. Typically, each shift will normally work three twelve (12) hour shifts, or thirty-six (36) hours, followed by four (4) days off and will then work four (4) twelve (12) hour shifts or forty-eight (48) hours, followed by three (3) days off, within a fourteen (14) day work period. Typically, one team will work on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and every other Wednesday. Typically, the other team will work Thursday, Friday, Saturday and every other Wednesday, dependent upon the needs of the department. Police Sergeants and Police Officers assigned to the above twelve (12) hour shift schedule will be assigned twelve (12) hours of working time off during each six (6) week period, as scheduled by the Chief of Police or his/her designee. The following illustrates a typical work period: WEEK 1 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wed. Thurs. Friday Saturday ON ON ON OFF OFF OFF OFF WEEK 2 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wed. Thurs. Friday Saturday ON ON ON ON OFF OFF OFF 20 There are periods in which the need to augment personnel away from the above illustrated typical shift occurs. Personnel may be designated to serve on various shifts at the direction of the Police Chief or his/her designee at any time. Scheduling of individual officers within the working schedule of shift rotation is subject to change at any time. Changes may occur during periods of personnel absence due to vacation, training, illness, injury, scheduling days off, compensatory time off, resignation or other unforeseen circumstances. Changes in the typical work schedule may also occur as a result of special needs of the department in order to address service to the community. Sworn personnel may be assigned to work hours and/or days other than those listed above. An example could be 1500 hours to 0300 hours and/or Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Sworn patrol personnel will receive at least three (3) calendar days off between scheduled work weeks. Except in times of emergency as defined by a supervising officer, no Sergeant or Officer shall work more than twelve (12) hours on patrol without an intervening break of at least eight (8) hours. Changes in the days or hours of the regular work schedule of an employee shall entitle such employee to regular overtime compensation at the rate on one and one-half (1 1/2) for any hours worked outside the employee’s regular work schedule unless the Town has posted the change in the schedule seven (7) days prior to the change. No advance notice to employees by the Town of shift change shall be required and no overtime shall be paid when shift changes occur as a result of work related emergencies (i.e., multiple sicknesses, disabilities or injuries; an unplanned for vacancy or shortage occurring less than seven (7) days in advance of the shift change). Section 22. Seniority 22.1 Department Seniority: 1. Employees shall be placed on the Department seniority list in accordance with their most recent date of hire. 2. When two (2) or more employees are assigned to the payroll on the same date, seniority shall be given in accordance with their relative standing on the respective eligibility list. 22.2 Classification of Seniority: 1. Employees shall be placed on a classification seniority list in accordance with their most recent date of appointment to the specific classification. 2. When two (2) or more employees are appointed or promoted to the same classification on the same date, seniority shall be based upon their relative standing on the respective eligibility list. Section 23. Layoff Procedures The appointing authority may lay off employees because of lack of work or lack of funds requiring the reduction of the work force of the Town. An employee or employees within a given job classification so released under this Section shall be laid off based upon seniority as defined in Section 22 with the least senior employee the first to be released from Town employment. The name of any employee so released shall be placed on an appropriate re-employment eligibility list. Within ten 21 (10) working days before the effective date, the Personnel Officer shall notify the employee affected of the intended action, the effective date, and the reasons therefore. Employees laid off pursuant to this Section shall not have the right to appeal. Section 24. Disciplinary Action/Separation from the Service 24.1 For purposes of these Rules, the following positions are considered “department heads”: Director of Administrative Services, Director of Community Development, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer, and the Chief of Police. 24.2 Types of Disciplinary Actions. The following are types of actions that may be utilized by the department heads in disciplining employees. A. Oral Reprimand: A formal discussion with an employee about performance or conduct problems. This action preferably is summarized in a memo to the employee outlining the nature of the discussion. An oral reprimand is not subject to the appeal process described below. B. Written Reprimand: A written document presented to an employee regarding performance or conduct problems. A copy must be provided to the employee with a copy being placed in the employee’s personnel file. A written reprimand is not subject to the appeal process described below. C. Disciplinary Suspension: An involuntary absence without pay for a fixed period of time. D. Reduction in Pay: The temporary or permanent reduction in pay of an employee. The department head may, within the minimum and maximum of the salary range for the position, decrease the salary level of an employee whose ability to perform the required duties of his or her position falls below standard, as determined by the department head, or for disciplinary purposes. E. Demotion: Demotion to a lower classification. The department head may demote an employee whose ability to perform required duties of his or her position falls below standard, as determined by the department head, or for disciplinary purposes. No employee shall be demoted to a position for which he or she does not possess the minimum qualifications. F. Termination: Discharge from the Town service. An employee in the competitive service may be discharged for cause at any time by the department head. Pending investigation of and imposition of a disciplinary matter, the department head may place an employee on paid administrative leave. 22 The Town is not required to take disciplinary actions in sequential or progressive order. The level of the disciplinary action taken shall be commensurate with the offense, provided that the prior employment and disciplinary history of the employee may also be considered pertinent. 24.3 Causes for Discipline. Disciplinary action may be taken for any reasonable cause, including, but not limited to, the following: A. Unauthorized absence or excessive absenteeism; B. Conviction of a felony, or conviction of a misdemeanor relating to the employee’s fitness to perform assigned duties; C. Disorderly conduct; D. Carelessness; incompetence, inefficiency, or negligence; E. Insubordination; F. Intoxication while on duty; G. Neglect of duty; H. Negligence or willful damage to public property, or waste of public supplies or equipment; I. Violation of any lawful regulation or order made and given by a line supervisor; J. Willful violation of any of the provisions of the Ordinances of the Town, these rules, or others promulgated by the Town Manager as Administrative Orders. K. Tardiness; L. Discourteous or disrespectful treatment of other employees, Town residents and other members of the community, customers, suppliers, or visitors, or treatment that does not foster cooperation between employees or employees and the community; M. Dishonesty; N. Misuse of or failure to maintain any employment qualification; O. Sleeping on the job or leaving the job without authorization; P. Improper use of Town funds; Q. Acceptance or solicitation of bribes or extortion; 23 R. Unauthorized use of Town property; S. Theft of or harm to Town property or the personal property of another; T. Failure to comply with safety standards; and/or; U. Use of influence of position with the Town for private gain or advantage, or the use of time, facilities, equipment or supplies for private gain or advantage; V. Other failure of good behavior either during or outside of employment such that the employee’s conduct causes or should reasonably be expected to cause discredit to the Town. 24.4 Notice of Intent. The following procedure shall be adhered to for non-emergency suspensions, demotions, reductions in pay, and terminations: A. The department head shall issue to the affected employee a written Notice of Intent of the proposed disciplinary action. The notice shall be delivered to the affected employee personally or sent to the employee by either overnight mail and/or certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at the employee’s last known address. The Notice of Intent will include the following: 1. A statement that clearly defines the intent to take action, the proposed action to be taken, and the proposed effective beginning and ending time of intended action; 2. A statement of the specific grounds and particular facts upon which the proposed disciplinary action will be taken; 3. A copy of all written materials, reports, or documents upon which the intended action is based; 4. A statement that the employee will be afforded the right to respond to the Notice of Intent, either verbally or in writing, or both, within ten (10) calendar days upon receipt of the intended disciplinary action; and 5. The employee’s signature on the Notice of Intent will acknowledge receipt of said notice by the employee. If the employee refuses to sign, it will be noted as such on the Notice of Intent. The signature documentation on the Notice of Intent will acknowledge that the employee received the Notice of Intent. B. Employee Response to Notice of Intent. Within ten (10) working days after the employee has been served with the Notice of Intent, the employee will have the right to respond, verbally or in writing, or both, to the department head concerning the proposed disciplinary action. If, within the ten (10) day response 24 period, the employee does not provide a written or verbal response, the proposed action of the Town will take effect as set forth in the Notice of Intent. C.D. Notice of Final Discipline. After considering the employee’s timely response, the department head shall issue and deliver to the employee a Notice of Final Discipline, which shall be a written statement of the decision to uphold, modify, or reject the proposed Disciplinary Action. Such action may not include discipline more severe than that described in the Notice of Intent. 24.5 Appeal of Disciplinary Action. A. Disciplinary Actions Subject to Appeal. A regular employee may, within ten (10) working days after the effective date of a suspension, demotion, reduction in pay, or termination, file a written appeal with the Director of Administrative Services. B. Failure to Request Disciplinary Appeal Hearing. If the employee fails to request a disciplinary appeal hearing within the prescribed time and manner, the employee shall have waived the right to a hearing and all rights to further appeal of the disciplinary action. C. Hearing Officer. For appeals of discipline, the Town and employee or Association shall obtain a strike list of seven names from the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB). The Town and the employee/ Association shall then mutually select the Hearing Officer by striking names from the list in alternating turns. Fees for the hearing officer will be borne by the Town unless the employee is represented by an association in the appeal, in which case the costs will be split evenly between the Town and the association. After the Town has issued the Final Notice of Discipline, any delay by the employee or Association in selecting a hearing officer or setting a hearing date, in excess of thirty (30) days, shall result in the employee forfeiting his or her right to an appeal, and the discipline shall become final. D. Representation at Disciplinary Appeal Hearing. At the disciplinary appeal hearing, the employee may be represented by counsel or other representative. The employee may not be represented by a person who will be called as a witness. E. Production of Witnesses and Documents. The Hearing Officer shall have the authority to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to require the production of documents. The Hearing Officer shall also have the authority to require the identification of witnesses, documents, and other evidence in advance of the disciplinary appeal hearing. F. Conduct of Disciplinary Appeal Hearing. The proceedings before the Hearing 25 Officer shall be conducted as follows: 1. The Town shall have the burden of proof, and the burden shall be by the preponderance of the evidence. 2. The hearing need not be conducted in accordance with the technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses, but shall be conducted in a manner most conducive to the determination of the truth. Any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rules which might make improper admission of such evidence over objection in a court of law. Decisions made by the Hearing Officer shall not be invalidated by any informality in the proceedings. 3. The Hearing Officer shall determine the relevancy, weight, and credibility of testimony and evidence. 4. Irrelevant evidence and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. 5. The Hearing Officer shall have the authority to exclude any witnesses and other persons not necessary to the proceedings. 6. The Hearing Officer shall not engage in ex parte communications with the parties. G. Hearing Officer’s Decision. 1. The Hearing Officer shall issue an advisory, written decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Hearing Officer shall recommend that the Town affirm, revoke, or reduce the disciplinary action imposed against the employee. The Hearing Officer may not recommend discipline more stringent than that imposed by the department head. The Hearing Officer shall not have the authority to render a binding decision that requires the Town to expend additional funds, to hire additional personnel, to buy additional equipment or supplies, or to pay wages or benefits not specifically provided for in the Personnel Rules or any resolutions, ordinances, or policies adopted by the Town. The Hearing Officer shall not have the authority to require the Town to perform any other action that would violate state or federal laws. The Hearing Officer’s decision shall be advisory to the Town Manager. The Town Manager shall, within 30 calendar days from after the date of receipt of the Hearing Officer’s decision, issue a final written decision that shall affirm, revoke, or revise the Hearing Officer’s recommendation. The Town Manager’s decision constitutes a final resolution of any disciplinary action and no further appeal shall be permitted within the Town’s administrative process. A copy of the Town Manager’s decision shall be 26 provided to the charged employee, and may be placed in the employee’s personnel file. 2. Extension of Time. Any time limits specified in this procedure may be altered by mutual, written agreement. Section 25. Grievance Procedure 25.1 This grievance procedure shall not apply to the appeal of discipline, which is governed by the appeal procedures in Section 24. 25.2 Informal Grievance Procedure: Within five (5) working days of the event giving rise to a grievance, the grievant shall present the grievance informally for disposition by the immediate supervisor, or at any appropriate level of authority. Presentation of an informal grievance shall be a prerequisite to the institution of a formal grievance. 25.3 Formal Grievance Procedure: If grievant believes that the grievance has not been redressed through the informal grievance procedure within five (5) working days from the date of informally presenting the event giving rise to a grievance to his/her immediate supervisor, he/she may initiate a formal grievance within five (5) working days thereafter. A formal grievance can only be initiated by completing the filing with the Chief of Police or his/her designee a memorandum. The memo shall contain: 1. Name(s) of grievant 2. Class 3. Title(s) 4. Mailing address(es) 5. A clear statement of the nature of the grievance (citing applicable ordinance, rules or regulations, or contract language). 6. The date upon which the grievance occurred. 7. A proposed solution to the grievance. 8. The date of execution of the grievance form. 9. The signature of the grievant. 10. The name of the organization or individual, if any, representing the grievant followed by the signature of the representative. Step 1 Within ten (10) working days after a formal grievance is filed, the Chief of Police or his/her designee shall investigate the grievance and confer with the grievant in an attempt to resolve the grievance and make a decision in writing. Step 2 (a) If the grievance is not resolved in Step 1 to the satisfaction of the grievant, he may, within not more than five (5) working days from his/her receipt of the Chief of Police or his/her designee's decision, request consideration of the grievance by the Town Manager by so notifying the Personnel Officer. 27 (b) Within ten (10) working days after such notification, the Town Manager shall investigate the grievance, confer with the persons affected and their representatives to the extent he deems necessary, and renders a decision in writing. (c) The Town Manager shall advise the grievant, in writing, of his/her decision. If the decision does not resolve the grievance to the satisfaction of the grievant, the grievant may proceed to Step 3. Step 3 If the grievance is not resolved in Step 2, a final appeal may be filed, in writing, with the Town Council not more than five (5) working days from the employee's receipt of the Town Manager's decision. The Town Council shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving the grievance, hear and decide upon the grievance. The decision is final and binding in all respects. No employee shall, as a direct or proximate result of such grievance, suffer dismissal from the services of the Town, transfer, demotion, reduction of salary, or other disciplinary action unless it shall be determined by the Town Council that the grievance was taken willfully and/or spitefully for purposes of disruption, with intentional disregard of facts, to wrongfully embarrass the Town, its officers, and employees, to disturb the public peace, health, safety, and welfare, or to serve personal ends inimical to the public service. 25.3 Aggrieved Employee Representation: An aggrieved employee may be represented by any person or organization of his/her choice at any stage of the proceedings. 25.4 Appeal: A regular employee may, within ten (10) calendar days after the effective date of Town Manager’s decision regarding the grievance, file a written appeal with the Town Manager. The Town Manager may make whatever investigation of the appeal he/she deems appropriate and make a finding within fifteen (15) calendar days. If the employee is dissatisfied with such finding, within ten (10) calendar days, the employee may file a written appeal with the Town Council. The Town Council shall hold a hearing within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter. The Town Council shall render its decision on the appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days following the hearing and shall notify the employee in writing of its decision. Section 26. Fair Labor Standards Act 26.1 For police officers under the 7k exemption, a work period is fourteen (14) days. Police officers may accumulate up to twelve (12) hours of compensatory time during the work period prior to being paid overtime. 26.2 The police service aide’s work schedule shall either be a 5/8 or 9/80 plan at the discretion of the Police Chief or his/her designee. Overtime shall be paid for hours worked in excess of their normal work schedule. All overtime earned may be either paid in cash or allowed to accrue compensatory time in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. All or part of this Section shall be invalidated at such time as either a court of competent jurisdiction and/or the Congress of 28 the United States amends or modifies the act to exclude all or some local government employees. Section 27. Catastrophic Leave The Town agrees to establish a Catastrophic Leave Bank to assist employees who have exhausted accrued leave time due to a serious or catastrophic illness or injury. The Time Bank will allow other bargaining unit employees to donate time to the affected employee so that he/she can remain in a paid status for a longer period of time, thus partially ameliorating the financial impact of the illness, injury or condition. Eligibility To be eligible for this benefit, the receiving employee must: 1) Be a regular full-time employee who has passed his/her initial Town probationary period, 2) Have sustained a life threatening or debilitating illness, injury or condition which may require confirmation by a physician, 3) Have exhausted all accumulated paid leave including vacation, holiday, sick leave, and/or compensatory time off, 4) Be unable to return to work for at least thirty (30) days, and 5) Have applied for a Leave of Absence Without Pay for medical reasons. Benefits Accrued vacation and compensatory time off hours donated by other employees will be converted to sick leave and credited to the receiving employee's sick leave time balance on a dollar-for-dollar basis and shall be paid to the recipient at the donor’s rate of pay. For as long as the receiving employee remains in a paid status, seniority, and all other benefits will continue, with the exception of sick leave, holiday, and vacation accrual. The total leave credits received by an employee will not normally exceed three (3) months. However, if approved by the Chief of Police or his/her designee and the Town Manager or his/her designees the total leave credits may be extended on a case by case basis. Guidelines For Donating Leave Credits To The Time Bank a. Accrued vacation leave and compensatory time off may be donated by any regular full-time employee who has completed his/her initial Town probationary period. b. Time donated will be converted from vacation or compensatory time to sick leave hours and credited to the receiving employee's sick leave balance on an dollar-for-dollar basis and shall be paid at the rate of pay of the receiving employee. c. The total amount of time donated to one employee by another employee shall not exceed the equivalent of forty (40) hours at the recipient’s rate of pay. The 29 total leave credits received by the employee shall not normally exceed three months; however, if approved by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, the Town Manager or his/her designees may approve an extension to six (6) months total time. d. Initial leave time donations must be a minimum of eight (8) hours at the recipient’s rate of pay and thereafter, in four (4) hour increments. An employee cannot donate leave hours that would reduce his/her vacation balance to less than forty (40) hours. e. The use of donated leave hours will be in consecutive one shift increments (i.e., eight (8) hours for a full-time employee working five (5) eight (8) hour days/week). f. While an employee is on leave using donated leave hours, no vacation, holiday, or sick leave hours will accrue. g. Under all circumstances, time donations received by the employee are forfeited once made. In the event that the receiving employee does not use all transferred leave for the catastrophic illness/injury, any balance will remain with that employee as sick leave until that employee's separation from Town service. h. Payment for unused sick leave at the time of termination of employment shall be in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding. i. In accordance with IRS Ruling 90-29, leave transferred under such arrangements will not be considered wages for the employee who surrenders the leave and will therefore not be included in gross income or subject to withholding. An employee who donated leave incurs no deductible expense or loss either upon the donation or use by the recipient. Section 28. Full Understanding, Modification, Waiver 28.1 The parties agree that this Memorandum of Understanding sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein. 28.2 Except as specifically otherwise provided herein, it is agreed and understood that each party hereto voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives its rights and agrees that the other shall not be required to meet and consult with respect to any subject or matter covered herein, nor as to wages or fringe benefits during the period of the term of this Memorandum. The foregoing shall not preclude the parties hereto from meeting and conferring at any time during the term of this Agreement with respect to any subject matter within the scope of the meeting and conferring for a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the parties to be effective on or after 1 July 2015. 30 Section 29. Separability of Provisions Should any provision of this Memorandum of Understanding be declared illegal by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such provisions shall not invalidate the remaining portions thereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the Memorandum of Understanding. Section 30. Maintenance of Benefits All rights, privileges, and terms and conditions of employment in full force and effect through the duration of the previous Memorandum of Understanding and not in conflict herewith shall be part hereby and remain thereby until mutually modified by the parties hereto. Section 31. Prevailing Rights All matters within the scope of meeting and conferring that have previously been adopted through rules, regulations, ordinance, or resolutions that are not specifically superseded by this Memorandum of Understanding, shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of this Agreement. Section 32. MISCELLANEOUS At the request of the Town, the parties agree to meet and confer on any modification of fringe benefits necessary to comply with the United States Internal Revenue Service’s Section 125. TIBURON POLICE ASSOCIATION TOWN OF TIBURON ____________________________ ___________________________ John Gomez , President Greg Chanis, Town Manager Tiburon Police Association Town of Tiburon Date: Date: Approved as to Form By _________________________ Benjamin L. Stock Town Attorney EXHIBIT 2 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE 3 SECTION 1. RECOGNITION 3 SECTION 3. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS 4 SECTION 4. NO DISCRIMINATION 4 SECTION 5. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 5 SECTION 6. MEDICAL/DENTAL/LIFE AND LTD BENEFITS PLAN 5 SECTION 7. RETIREMENT PROGRAM 6 SECTION 8. HOLIDAYS 9 SECTION 9. SICK LEAVE 10 SECTION 10. LEAVE WITH PAY 12 SECTION 11. VACATION 12 SECTION 12. SALARY 13 SECTION 13. LONGEVITY PAY 14 SECTION 14. OVERTIME 16 SECTION 15. SPECIAL MEAL ALLOWANCE 17 SECTION 16. EDUCATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM 17 SECTION 17. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 16 SECTION 18. UNIFORM MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE 18 2 SECTION 19. SPECIAL PAY 17 SECTION 20. SAFETY EQUIPMENT 19 SECTION 21. HOURS OF WORK 18 SECTION 22. SENIORITY 21 SECTION 23. LAYOFF PROCEDURES 21 SECTION 24. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES AND ACTION ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SECTION 25. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 26 SECTION 26. FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT 23 SECTION 27. CATASTROPHIC LEAVE 28 SECTION 28. FULL UNDERSTANDING, MODIFICATION, WAIVER 30 SECTION 29. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS 30 SECTION 30. MAINTENANCE OF BENEFITS 30 SECTION 31. PREVAILING RIGHTS 30 Field Code Changed 3 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TOWN OF TIBURON AND THE TIBURON POLICE ASSOCIATION PREAMBLE This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, by and between the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Police Association the ______ Day of __________ 202118. The parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other items and conditions of employment of the employees in the Tiburon Police Department and have exchanged freely information, opinions, and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the employment conditions and Employer-Employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be presented to the Town Council as the joint recommendation of the undersigned for salaries, fringe benefits, and working conditions of all employees. This Memorandum of Understanding and following agreements shall not become effective until approved by the Tiburon Town Council and Tiburon Police Association. Section 1. Recognition 1.1 Association Recognition The Town recognizes the Association as the majority representative of the sworn and non-sworn employees of the Tiburon Police Department, excluding the classifications of Chief of Police, Police Captain, Secretary, Emergency Services Coordinator and Police Officer Trainee. The category of sworn police personnel represented by the Association includes the classifications of sergeant and patrol officer. All other police personnel represented by the Association are considered non-sworn. 1.2 Dues Deduction The Town shall, in a payroll deduction made twice each month, deduct the amount of Association dues or fees as specified by the Association and authorized by each affected employee in accordance with rules and regulations to implement the Employer-Employee relations ordinance. Said deductions are to be made without fee charged to the Association. The Association agrees to hold the Town harmless from any liability arising from such deduction. 4 Section 2. Association Represented Employee Rights 2.1 The Association has the right to represent its members before the Town Council or advisory boards or commission or the Town Manager or his/her designee with regard to wages, hours, and working conditions or other matters within the scope of representation. 2.2 The Association has the right to be given reasonable written notice of any proposed ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation, or amendment thereto, relating to matters within the scope of representation. 2.3 The Association has the right to reasonable access to employee work locations for officers of the Association and the officially designated representatives for the purpose of processing grievances or contacting members of the Association concerning business within the scope of representation. Access shall be restricted so as not to interfere with the normal operations of the Department, Town or established safety or security requirements. 2.4 Employees represented by the Association shall be free to participate in Association activities without interference, intimidation, or discrimination, in accordance with State law and Town policies, rules, and regulations. Section 3. Management Rights Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the rights of the Town include, but are not limited to, the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent department, commission, and boards; set standards of service; determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment and promotions; direct its employees; take disciplinary action; relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; maintain the efficiency of government operation; determine the methods, means and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted; determine the content of job classifications; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work, including contracting for specified services. The Town maintains the right to use qualified volunteers or reserves in the Police Department service, provided such use does not adversely affect wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Use of said individuals shall be in accordance with State law and Police Department regulations. Nothing contained within this Section is intended to, in any way, supersede or infringe upon the rights of the recognized employee organization as provided under State and Federal law, including, but not limited to, California State Government Code Sections 3500 through 3510, inclusive. Section 4. No Discrimination There shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or legitimate Association activities against any employee or applicant for employment by the Town or by the Department or by anyone employed by the Department; and to the extent prohibited by applicable State and Federal law, there shall be no discrimination because of age. There shall be no discrimination against 5 any handicapped person solely because of such handicap unless that handicap prevents the person from meeting the minimum standards established. Section 5. Scope of Agreement 5.1 Term: This Agreement shall be in effect from July 1, 202118 through June 30, 202421. 5.2 Procedure for Meet and Confer: The Town, through its representatives, shall meet and confer in good faith with representatives of the Association regarding matters within the scope of representation, including wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, in accordance with the provisions of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The Tiburon Police Association shall submit their next contract proposal changes to the Town Manager by no later than March 1, 2021. The Town shall commence contract negotiations no later than 45 days following receipt of the contract proposal. Section 6. Medical/Dental/Life and LTD Benefits Plan For hospital/medical insurance the Town shall contribute a dollar amount equal to the CalPERS PHEMCA minimum. In addition, for active employees the Town will contribute the dollar amount of the Kaiser 2-party rate, less the CalPERS PHEMCA, towards an employee’s medical insurance plan. For dental insurance the Town will contribute the dollar amount equal to the employee family premium. For life insurance the Town will contribute an amount equal to the premium of the Town’s group $25,000 term life insurance policy. Part-time employees who work a regular schedule over 28 hours per week shall receive a prorated amount of this monthly allowance based on their full-time equivalence. 6.1 Medical/Hospital Insurance: The Town of Tiburon offers its employees and their dependents medical/hospital insurance coverage. A full-time employee may choose a plan from those offered through the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Health Benefit plans. If the full sum specified in Section 6 above is exceeded for group insurance cost of a given employee and dependents, then that employee shall pay the balance of the monthly cost via a special twice per month payroll deduction for all full-time employees and their dependents. An employee may opt out of health insurance coverage upon evidence that they can be/are covered under their spouse or domestic partner’s insurance. If an employee opts out of Town coverage they shall receive $400 per month which shall be credited to the employees 457 Deferred Compensation Plan. Health insurance is mandatory for all full-time employees. 6.2 Dental Insurance: The Town of Tiburon offers its full-time employees and their dependents a dental plan. Such insurance is mandatory for all full-time employees. 6.3 Life Insurance: 6 The Town of Tiburon offers a Twenty-Five Thousand Dollar ($25,000) life insurance policy. Such insurance is mandatory for all full-time employees. The Town also offers employees covered by this agreement additional life insurance above the mandatory $25,000 policy, up to a combined total of no more than $95,000. Participation is optional and at the employee’s expense. 6.4 Disability Insurance: The Town of Tiburon offers its full-time employees long term disability insurance. Such insurance is mandatory for employees in the sergeant and patrol officer classification and optional for all others. 6.5 Change in Employee Benefit Plans: From time to time, at its option, the Town intends to evaluate the hospital-medical, dental, life, and long-term disability insurance plans currently available to employees to determine if similar or better coverage may be available at a lower cost to the Town. The Town may substitute new insurance carriers or arrange for self-insurance provided that the overall coverage is equal to or superior to the present coverage and provided that the Town meets with the Association to consult on any new plan before it is implemented. Section 7. Retirement Program 7.1 Scope of Benefits: The Town of Tiburon shall continue as an employer under the provisions of the Public Employees Retirement System of the State of California (CalPERS). 7.2 Classic Members – Local Safety The Town of Tiburon provides the 3% @ Age 55 Cal-PERS Local Safety retirement formula for sworn personnel. This retirement benefit is based on the Cal-PERS three (3) year average salary calculation. Effective July 1, 2010, each employee covered under the Local Safety 3% @ 55 coverage group shall pay their 9% normal member contribution. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. Effective July 1, 2015, employees covered under the Local Safety 3% @ 55 coverage group shall pay 3% of the Employer’s Share of retirement contributions. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. The Town of Tiburon provides the following additional Cal-PERS benefits to “classic” employees covered under this Memorandum of Understanding: 1. 1959 Survivors Benefits 2. Death Benefits - $600 7 3. Unused Sick Leave Service Credit . 7.3 Classic Members – Local Miscellaneous The Town of Tiburon provides the 2% @ Age 55 Local Miscellaneous retirement formula for full-time non-sworn personnel covered under this Memorandum of Understanding. This retirement formula is based on the CalPERS single highest year salary calculation. Effective July 1, 2010 each employee covered under the Local Miscellaneous 2% @ 55 coverage group shall pay their 7% normal member contribution. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. Effective July 1, 2015 each employee covered under the Local Miscellaneous 2% @ 55 coverage group shall pay 1% of the Employer’s Share of retirement contributions. This employee contribution will be made pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 414(h)(2), which allows the contribution to be made on a pre-tax basis. The Town of Tiburon provides the following additional Cal-PERS benefits to “classic” employees covered under this Memorandum of Understanding: 1. 1959 Survivors Benefits 2. Death Benefits - $600 3. Unused Sick Leave Service Credit 7.4 “New” Members – Local Safety Local Safety employees classified as “new” under the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) will be covered by the CalPERS 2.7% @ 57 plan. Employees shall pay at least fifty percent (50%) of the Normal Cost of their Plan as calculated annually by CalPERS. 7.5 “New” Members – Local Miscellaneous Local Miscellaneous employees classified as “new” under PEPRA will be covered by the CalPERS 2% @ 62 plan. Employees shall pay at least fifty percent (50%) of the normal Cost of their Plan as calculated annually by CalPERS. 7.6 Part-time Hourly Employees Part-time employees covered under this Memorandum of Understanding shall accrue retirement benefits under the Town's part-time, seasonal, temporary employee retirement plan administered by the Hartford Life Insurance Company. Part-time employees contribute 3.75% to the part-time, seasonal, temporary retirement plan, with the Town providing a matching contribution. 8 7.7 Paid Medical at Retirement For full time employees hired into Association represented classifications prior to September 19, 2001, the Town of Tiburon will contribute toward a retired employee's medical insurance plan based on the following conditions: 1. The employee must retire directly from employment with the Town of Tiburon and apply to PERS for service retirement benefits. 2. The retiree's medical allowance is fixed and capped at the Kaiser single rate that is in effect at the time of the employee's retirement. The allowance will be remitted monthly from the Town to the retiree. Should Kaiser no longer be provided through the Town's cafeteria program, a similar low-cost HMO provided will be substituted. 3. The Town contribution rate is based on the following formula: A. After 15 years of service to the Town of Tiburon, the employee/retiree will receive 50% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. B. After 20 years of service to the Town of Tiburon, the employee/retiree will receive 75% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. C. After 25 years of service to the Town of Tiburon, the employee/retiree will receive 100% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. For full time employees hired into Association represented classifications after September 19, 2001 but before July 1, 2010, the Town of Tiburon will contribute toward a retired employee's medical insurance plan, based on the following conditions: 1 The employee must retire directly from employment with the Town of Tiburon and apply to PERS for service retirement benefits. 2. The retiree's medical allowance is fixed and capped at the Kaiser single rate that is in effect at the time of the employee's retirement. The allowance will be remitted monthly from the Town to the retiree. Should Kaiser no longer be provided through the Town's cafeteria program, a similar low-cost HMO provided will be substituted. 3. The Town contribution rate is based on the following formula: A. After 15 years of service to the Town of Tiburon and the accrual of 720 hours sick leave, the employee/retiree will receive 50% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. B. After 20 years of service to the Town of Tiburon and the accrual of 960 hours of sick leave, the employee/retiree will receive 75% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. 9 C. After 25 years of service to the Town of Tiburon and the accrual of 1200 hours of sick leave, the employee/retiree will receive 100% of the value of the Kaiser single rate. Any employee hired into an Association represented classification after July 1, 2010 will not be eligible to receive a paid medical allowance upon retirement, irrespective of length of service. 7.7. Retirement Medical Trust The Town of Tiburon agrees to establish a Retirement Medical Trust for voluntary employee contributions. Such trust shall be established upon the Tiburon Police Association meeting the selected administrator’s minimum requirements. 7.8. Retiree Health Savings Account (RHSA) Beginning January 1, 2022, or at the first pay period following implementation of the Retiree Health Savings Account (RHSA), whichever is later, the Town of Tiburon agrees to contribute $100 per month per employee towards the RHSA, subject to the terms of the RHSA program. Employees who are eligible to receive benefits under Section 7.7 (Paid Medical at Retirement) shall not be eligible to receive the Town-paid $100 RHSA contribution. Section 8. Holidays 8.1 In accordance with Government Code and the Town Personnel Rules and Regulations, sworn personnel of the Town shall observe the following holidays on the dates indicated below: HOLIDAY DATE OBSERVED Independence Day July 4 Labor Day 1st Monday in September Admissions Day September 9 Columbus Day 2nd Monday in October Veterans Day November 11 Thanksgiving 4th Thursday in November Christmas December 25 New Year's Day January 1 Martin Luther King Day 3rd Monday in January Lincoln's Birthday February 12 President's Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May In accordance with Government Code and the Town Personnel Rules and Regulations, non-sworn personnel covered under this Memorandum of Understanding shall observe the following holidays indicated below: HOLIDAY DATE OBSERVED Independence Day July 4 Labor Day 1st Monday in September 10 Veteran's Day November 11 Thanksgiving 4th Thursday in November Day After Thanksgiving 4th Friday in November Christmas Eve December 24 Christmas December 25 New Year’s Eve December 31 New Year's Day January 1 Martin Luther King Day 3rd Monday in January President's Day 3rd Monday in February Memorial Day Last Monday in May 8.3 Payment for holidays to sworn personnel shall be made, at the employee's option, as either eight (8) hours additional salary included in the pay period during which the holiday falls or eight (8) hours additional vacation shall be added to the employee's vacation accrual. 8.4 The position of Police Service Aide will receive the Holiday off and not the Holiday pay. Section 9. Sick Leave Sick leave shall not be considered as a right which an employee may use at his/her discretion, but shall be allowed only in the case of necessity or actual sickness or disability, and in the case of disability other than sickness, only where such disability occurred while the employee was not gainfully employed elsewhere. 9.1 Use of Sick Leave: Sick leave may be taken for absences from duty made necessary by: 1. Personal illness, caused by factors over which the employee has no reasonable immediate control. 2. Injury not incurred in line of duty, except where traceable to employment other than the Town. 3. Medical, dental or eye examination or treatment for which appointment cannot be made outside of working hours. 4. Death of a close relation as defined in the Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations. 5. Hospitalization of a close relation as defined in the Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations or any member of the employee's household, where the Chief of Police or his/her designee approves such leave. 6. Care of a close relation as defined in the Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations, or any member of the employee's household who is ill or injured, though not hospitalized, where the Chief of Police or his/her designee approves such leave. 9.2 Sick Leave Accumulation: Sick leave with pay shall be granted to all full-time employees who have served six (6) months, except as hereinafter provided. An employee shall accumulate eight (8) 11 hours sick leave per month from date of hire until terminated or on leave without pay. Employees hired on a part-time basis shall accrue a pro-rated share of sick leave based on their full-time equivalent. Employees who are absent without pay for any reason more than ten (10) working days during a calendar month, shall not accumulate sick leave for that month. 9.3 Holidays During Sick Leave: Holidays and regular days off occurring while an employee is on sick or special leave shall not be charged against such employee's sick leave credits. 9.4 Payment for Unused Sick Leave: For each full-time classification represented by the Tiburon Police Association and hired prior to September 19, 2001, an employee may receive payment of fifty percent (50%) of the value of their unused sick leave up to a maximum of 480 hours if the following conditions are met: 1. The employee files for service retirement from the Town, or 2. The employee voluntarily separates from the Town and has at least fifteen (15) years of service with the Town. Effective July 1, 2011, the cash value of this benefit will be determined based on each employee’s hourly rate and number of eligible hours for cash-out purposes (50% of sick leave balance, up to 60 days or 480 hours). This value will be documented and the value capped. This value cannot grow through additional accrued sick leave or though increases in hourly pay rate. Employees with 15 years or more service with the Town may request a cash-out of 60% of the eligible hours (early cash-out option). Should an employee request the early cash-out of 60% of the eligible sick leave hours, they will not be entitled to any further sick leave cash-out upon retirement or separation of employment with the Town. Those hours cashed out will be deducted from the employees sick leave balance. If an employee is not eligible for, or elects not to take, the early cash- out option, they shall be paid the frozen dollar value upon separation of employment with the Town. The only way the frozen dollar amount can be lowered is if an employee has less accrued sick leave hours upon separation of employment than they do on July 1, 2011. For tax planning purposes, should an employee desire to take the early cash out option, they will be allowed to take this payment in either 2011 or in January 2012. For purposes of providing examples of this section, attached to this MOU is Exhibit “A. For each full-time classification represented by the Tiburon Police Association and hired after September 19, 2001, an employee may accrue unlimited sick leave with no option for payment of unused sick leave upon retirement or separation of employment with the Town. 9.5 Termination of Sick Leave: Sick leave shall automatically terminate on the date of retirement or on the date upon which an ordinary disability allowance under the retirement system becomes effective. 12 9.6 Sick Leave Notification and Proof of Illness: In order to receive compensation while on sick leave, the employee shall notify his/her immediate superior, prior to or at the time set for beginning his/her daily duties, or as may be specified by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, of the reason for requiring such leave and failure to reasonably do so may be grounds for denial of such leave with pay. 9.7 Proof of Illness: In any request for sick leave with pay for three (3) or more calendar days, the Chief of Police or his/her designee may require a statement in writing signed by a licensed physician, or the submission of the substantiating evidence that the employee is incapacitated and unable to perform his/her duties. The Town has the right to determine by reasonable means the validity of any sick leave usage by any employee at any time. Section 10. Leave With Pay The following provide for leave with pay: 10.1 Military Service: Military leave shall be granted in accordance with State and Federal statutes. 10.2 Jury Duty: At the call of the Jury Commissioner, all employees occupying authorized regular positions shall be allowed to leave for jury duty upon presentation of jury notice to the Chief of Police or his/her designee or Town Manager. The employee shall receive full pay for the time served on the jury. Monies received from the courts by the employee for jury duty will be deposited with the Town of Tiburon. 10.3 Vacation Leave: All regular employees occupying a position shown in the Annual Salary Program become eligible for vacation leave with pay as shown in Section 11 below. Section 11. Vacation All regular employees are eligible for vacation leave with pay as shown below: 11.1 Vacation Leave Accrual: Vacation leave with pay shall be credited to all full-employees at the following rates: First five (5) years of service - eight (8) hours per month Second five (5) year service – twelve (12) hours per month Third five (5) years of service - thirteen and one-third (131/3) hours per month 13 Part-time employees hired into an Association represented classification shall accrue the pro-rated share of vacation leave accumulation above based upon their full-time equivalent. Vacation leave shall be credited to each employee's account monthly. 11.2 Paid Time Off The classification of Police Service Aide shall receive eight (8) hours of paid time off per year. Paid time off must be used by December 31 in the calendar year that it is granted or it will be forfeited. Requests for paid time off shall be submitted in advance by the employee in writing to the Chief of Police or his/her designee, who may approve the request. Police Service Aides who work less than a forty (40) hour work week shall receive a prorated amount of paid time off. Paid time off shall not roll over to subsequent years or be paid out upon the employee’s departure from the City or promotion or transfer to another position. 11.3 Payment for Unused Vacation Time: When an employee with six (6) months service terminates, fractional periods of vacation shall be calculated and credited to the employee's account. Compensation will be at the employee's daily rate of pay. 11.4 11.4 Vacation Leave Accumulation: Vacation leave for employees with less than five (5) years of service may not be accumulated beyond two hundred hours. For employees with more than five (5) years of service, vacation leave may not be accumulated beyond two hundred and eighty hours; providing the Town Manager may require two (2) of those weeks to be taken at a separate time. Employees who are on leave or suspension without pay for more than ten (10) working days in any calendar month shall not accumulate vacation leave for that month. 11.5 Sickness During Vacation Leave: Sickness occurring during vacation leave, upon doctor's certification, will be considered sick leave and not be charged against vacation leave. 11.6 Vacation Leave Scheduling: Requests for vacation leave shall be submitted in advance by the employee in writing to the Chief of Police or his/her designee, who may approve the time employees may take their vacation. Section 12. Salary Salary increases will take effect for the full pay period that includes July 1, as follows. 14 On July 1, 202118, the Town will give each represented classification a one-time $500 lump sum payment. Beginning July 1, 2021, the monthly salary range for each represented classification shall be: TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 8,202 8,612 9,043 9,495 9,970 Officer 6,848 7,190 7,550 7,927 8,324 Police Service Aide 4,837 5,079 5,333 5,599 5,879 TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 8,790 9,229 9,691 10,175 10,684 Officer 7,338 7,705 8,091 8,495 8,920 Police Service Aide 5,234 5,496 5,771 6,059 6,362 On July 1, 202219, the monthly salary range for the Sergeant and Officer classifications shall be increased by 2.75% and the Police Service Aide classification shall be increased by 3%: each represented classification shall be increased by 2.75%: TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 8,428 8,849 9,292 9,756 10,244 Officer 7,037 7,388 7,758 8,146 8,553 Police Service Aide 4,970 5,218 5,479 5,753 6,041 TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 9,031 9,483 9,957 10,455 10,978 Officer 7,540 7,917 8,313 8,729 9,165 Police Service Aide 5,391 5,661 5,944 6,241 6,553 On July 1, 202320, the monthly salary range for each represented classification shall be increased by 2.752.75%: TITLE A B C D E__ 15 Sergeant 8,660 9,093 9,547 10,024 10,526 Officer 7,230 7,592 7,971 8,370 8,788 Police Service Aide 5,107 5,362 5,630 5,912 6,207 TITLE A B C D E__ Sergeant 9,280 9,744 10,231 10,742 11,280 Officer 7,748 8,135 8,542 8,969 9,417 Police Service Aide 5,539 5,816 6,107 6,413 6,733 12.1 Advancement Within Salary Range: The following criteria shall apply to advancement within salary ranges of individual employees who are on a step plan: Step A: Employees generally shall be hired at Step A of their respective pay range. Step B: Employees shall be eligible for advancement to Step B upon completion of six (6) months satisfactory performance as documented by a written performance evaluation, affirmed by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, and approved by the Town Manager. Additional Steps: Employees shall be eligible for advancement from Step B to higher steps in their respective pay range after completion of one (1) year satisfactory performance at the previous step as documented by a written performance evaluation, affirmed by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, and approved by the Town Manager. The Town Manager may increase an employee's salary on the basis of exceptional merit within the employee's respective pay range. The Town Manager may also designate the salary rate or step at which an employee is appointed. Section 13. Longevity Pay For the classifications of Police Officer and Police Sergeant, the Town will recognize tenure in the form of longevity pay and will compensate employees by the fixed monthly amount below: Upon the completion of five (5) years of service to the Town $155 Upon completion of ten (10) years of service to the Town $170190 16 Upon completion of fifteen (15) years of service to the Town $215235 Upon completion of twenty (20) years of service to the Town $255285 Section 14. Overtime 14.1 Definition: For the classifications of Police Officer and Police Sergeant assigned to a 3/12 work schedule: Authorized time worked in excess of eighty-four (84) hours in a fourteen day work period. Time paid for but not worked such as paid sick leave, vacation leave and comp time leave shall be included in the computation of said eighty-four (84) hour work period. For the classification of Police Service Aide: Authorized time worked in excess of eighty (80) hours in a fourteen day work period. Time paid for but not worked such as paid sick leave, vacation leave and compensatory time leave shall be included in the computation of said eighty (80) hour work period. Traditionally, the classification of Police Service Aide and precursor classifications worked a traditional 5-40 work schedule. The Town implemented a 9-80 work schedule in October 2003. The Town reserves the right to discontinue the 9-80 work schedule and return to the 5-40 work schedule in whole or in part at any time during the length of this contract 14.2 Policy: It is the policy of the Town of Tiburon to keep overtime at a minimum consistent with the protection of the lives and property of Tiburon citizens and the efficient operation of the Department. Overtime must be authorized by the Chief of Police or his/her designee and be in compliance with the overtime policy as set forth in the Town's Personnel Rules and Regulations. 14.3 Overtime Pay: Overtime pay shall be paid at the option of the employee based on the rate of pay at time and one-half (1-1/2) or compensatory time at time and one-half (1-1/2) off. 14.4 Compensatory Time Compensatory time shall not be accumulated in excess of sixty eighty (6080) hours. 14.5 Standby Time: "Standby Time" is defined as that period of time an employee is required to leave work where he/she may be contacted to return to work if needed within a reasonable period of time. Standby time will be computed at .25 hours of each hour of standby 17 time (1hr: 4hrs). Standby time will be compensated at straight compensatory time off (CTO) only. 14.6 Court Time: The minimum hours of compensation for court time on other than duty time shall be four (4) hours. Court time shall be computed at the time and one-half (1-1/2) rate and compensated as either compensatory time off or cash payment, at the employee's choosing. For any employee who is subpoenaed to appear in court and such appearance is cancelled, but not by 1800 hours the day before, said employee shall be credited with 2 hours non-premium compensatory time. 14.7 Call Back Time: Any employee who has departed from his/her work location and is called back is guaranteed a minimum of two (2) hours compensation. Employees who do not receive twenty-four (24) hour advance notice of cancellation of department scheduled non-emergency call back will receive call back time. Section 15. Special Meal Allowance 15.1 For the classification of Police Officer and Police Sergeant directed to work a special twelve (12) hour overtime shift will be eligible for meal reimbursement not to exceed fifteen dollars ($15). This allowance applies only to a twelve (12) hour shift that is not the employee's normal working shift. For the classification of Police Service Aide directed to work twelve (12) or more continuous hours by the Chief of Police or his/her designee in a twenty four (24) hour period (commencing from 0100 to 2400 hours) without an eight hour break, will be eligible for meal reimbursement not to exceed Fifteen Dollars ($15) 15.2 A receipt must be obtained for any meals purchased or this allowance will be disallowed. 15.3 This allowance applies only to regular shift duty worked. This allowance specifically excludes court time activity, range activity, standby activity, meetings, or other non-regular shift duty. Section 16. Education Incentive Program 16.1 For the classifications of Police Officer and Police Sergeant, the following education/certification incentive program will be compensated by the fixed monthly amount below: Possession of POST Intermediate Certificate/Assoc of Arts/Science Degree $225245 Possession of POST Advanced Certificate/Bachelor of Arts/Science Degree $325375 Possession of POST Supervisory Certificate/Master of Arts/Science Degree $325375 18 If an employee is eligible for more than one certificate/degree incentive pay, the employee will be compensated at the higher rate, not the combined total. Section 17. Tuition Reimbursement Program Effective December 1, 2004, for each full-time classification represented by the Tiburon Police Association, a tuition reimbursement program shall be offered for the matriculation of an Associate or Bachelor’s degree. Tuition reimbursement for advanced degrees must be approved in advance by the Chief of Police and the Town Manager. The Town will reimburse costs up to $1,200 annually for the equivalent to the cost of tuition, books and fees at California State University rates. To qualify for reimbursement, employees must submit certified transcripts with evidence of a grade of "C" or better from an accredited college or university and submit bona fide receipts. Employees currently enrolled in an advanced degree program as of December 1, 2004 shall not be subject to the annual $1,200 cap on tuition reimbursement during the pursuit of the advanced degree currently enrolled. Employees are not eligible for reimbursement of tuition for coursework which commenced during their new hire probationary period or prior to employment with the Town. Section 18. Uniform Maintenance Allowance The Town will provide an adequate supply of uniforms and pay for necessary cleaning, as determined by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, for all classifications covered under this MOU. Section 19. Special Pay The Town shall compensate for the following specialty pays: Two hundred Fifty Dollars ($250300) per month shall be paid to the person assigned by the department to provide the special services listed below: 1. Motorcycle Officer 2. Investigator 19.1 Field Training Officer Person assigned as Field Training Officer (FTO) shall be paid an additional Twenty-Seven Dollars ($287) per shift. No more than two (2) Field Training Officers shall be assigned to any one (1) shift. 19.2 Bi-Lingual Pay Town shall provide bi-lingual pay of One hundred Twenty-FiveFifty Dollars ($15025) per month that bi-lingual translation services are provided. In order to qualify for this pay, translation services must be approved by the duty Sergeant or higher ranking management position. Any employee wishing to be compensated for bi-lingual skills must first pass a proficiency test that certifies the employee as fluent in such 19 language. If an employee certified in a foreign language is called at home to provide translation services, said employee shall be eligible for a minimum of one hour overtime. 19.3 Shift Differential Police Officers and Sergeants assigned to the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift shall be entitled to a Two Hundred FiftyThree Hundred Dollars ($30250) per month shift differential. Any Sergeant or Patrol Officer, who is normally assigned to either day shift or cover shift and is assigned to work a graveyard shift in-lieu of their normal schedule, shall be entitled to anineteen dollars, seventy-eight cents ($19.78)n $8.64 per shift differential. Effective July 1, 2022, Police Officers and Sergeants assigned to the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift shall be entitled to a Three Hundred Fifty Dollar ($350) per month shift differential. Any Sergeant or Patrol Officer, who is normally assigned to either day shift or cover shift and is assigned to work a graveyard shift in-lieu of their normal schedule, shall be entitled to twenty-three dollars and eight cents ($23.08) per shift differential. Effective July 1, 2023, Police Officers and Sergeants assigned to the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift shall be entitled to a Four Hundred Dollar ($400) per month shift differential. Any Sergeant or Patrol Officer, who is normally assigned to either day shift or cover shift and is assigned to work a graveyard shift in-lieu of their normal schedule, shall be entitled to twenty-six dollars and thirty-seven cents ($26.37) per shift differential. Section 20. Safety Equipment 20.1 Safety Equipment The Town of Tiburon shall supply safety equipment to its Police Officer and Sergeant personnel. All Police Officers and Sergeants shall possess and have immediately available for their use those items of safety equipment determined to be necessary by the Chief of Police or his/her designee. 20.2 Duty Footwear: The Town will pay up to One Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($125.00) each fiscal year for duty footwear for personnel. Replacement shall be on as-needed basis, as decided by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, but replacement shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 21. Hours of Work 21.1 Normal Work Schedule for Non-Sworn Personnel 20 The normal work schedule for employees occupying full time positions shall consist of eighty (80) hours to be worked in a fourteen (14) day work period. The normal workday for all non-sworn employees shall consist of not more than ten (10) hours. 21.2 Normal Work Schedule for Sworn Personnel Sworn personnel work in accordance with FLSA 7k work period exemption consisting of fourteen (14) days commencing on Monday and ending fourteen (14) days later on Sunday. A typical workday for Sergeants and Officers assigned to patrol consists of twelve (12) hours per shift. Typically, each shift will normally work three twelve (12) hour shifts, or thirty-six (36) hours, followed by four (4) days off and will then work four (4) twelve (12) hour shifts or forty-eight (48) hours, followed by three (3) days off, within a fourteen (14) day work period. Typically, one team will work on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and every other Wednesday. Typically, the other team will work Thursday, Friday, Saturday and every other Wednesday, dependent upon the needs of the department. Police Sergeants and Police Officers assigned to the above twelve (12) hour shift schedule will be assigned twelve (12) hours of working time off during each six (6) week period, as scheduled by the Chief of Police or his/her designee. The following illustrates a typical work period: WEEK 1 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wed. Thurs. Friday Saturday ON ON ON OFF OFF OFF OFF WEEK 2 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wed. Thurs. Friday Saturday ON ON ON ON OFF OFF OFF There are periods in which the need to augment personnel away from the above illustrated typical shift occurs. Personnel may be designated to serve on various shifts at the direction of the Police Chief or his/her designee at any time. Scheduling of individual officers within the working schedule of shift rotation is subject to change at any time. Changes may occur during periods of personnel absence due to vacation, training, illness, injury, scheduling days off, compensatory time off, resignation or other unforeseen circumstances. Changes in the typical work schedule may also occur as a result of special needs of the department in order to address service to the community. Sworn personnel may be assigned to work hours and/or days other than those listed above. An example could be 1500 hours to 0300 hours and/or Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Sworn patrol personnel will receive at least three (3) calendar days off between scheduled work weeks. Except in times of emergency as defined by a supervising officer, no Sergeant or Officer shall work more than twelve (12) hours on patrol without an intervening break of at least eight (8) hours. Changes in the days or hours of the regular work schedule of an employee shall entitle such employee to regular overtime compensation at the rate on one and one-half (1 1/2) for any hours worked 21 outside the employee’s regular work schedule unless the Town has posted the change in the schedule seven (7) days prior to the change. No advance notice to employees by the Town of shift change shall be required and no overtime shall be paid when shift changes occur as a result of work related emergencies (i.e., multiple sicknesses, disabilities or injuries; an unplanned for vacancy or shortage occurring less than seven (7) days in advance of the shift change). Section 22. Seniority 22.1 Department Seniority: 1. Employees shall be placed on the Department seniority list in accordance with their most recent date of hire. 2. When two (2) or more employees are assigned to the payroll on the same date, seniority shall be given in accordance with their relative standing on the respective eligibility list. 22.2 Classification of Seniority: 1. Employees shall be placed on a classification seniority list in accordance with their most recent date of appointment to the specific classification. 2. When two (2) or more employees are appointed or promoted to the same classification on the same date, seniority shall be based upon their relative standing on the respective eligibility list. Section 23. Layoff Procedures The appointing authority may lay off employees because of lack of work or lack of funds requiring the reduction of the work force of the Town. An employee or employees within a given job classification so released under this Section shall be laid off based upon seniority as defined in Section 22 with the least senior employee the first to be released from Town employment. The name of any employee so released shall be placed on an appropriate re-employment eligibility list. Within ten (10) working days before the effective date, the Personnel Officer shall notify the employee affected of the intended action, the effective date, and the reasons therefore. Employees laid off pursuant to this Section shall not have the right to appeal. Section 24. Disciplinary Action/Separation from the Service 24.1 For purposes of these Rules, the following positions are considered “department heads”: Director of Administrative Services, Director of Community Development, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer, and the Chief of Police. 24.2 Types of Disciplinary Actions. The following are types of actions that may be utilized by the department heads in disciplining employees. A. Oral Reprimand: A formal discussion with an employee about performance or conduct problems. This action preferably is summarized in a memo to the 22 employee outlining the nature of the discussion. An oral reprimand is not subject to the appeal process described below. B. Written Reprimand: A written document presented to an employee regarding performance or conduct problems. A copy must be provided to the employee with a copy being placed in the employee’s personnel file. A written reprimand is not subject to the appeal process described below. C. Disciplinary Suspension: An involuntary absence without pay for a fixed period of time. D. Reduction in Pay: The temporary or permanent reduction in pay of an employee. The department head may, within the minimum and maximum of the salary range for the position, decrease the salary level of an employee whose ability to perform the required duties of his or her position falls below standard, as determined by the department head, or for disciplinary purposes. E. Demotion: Demotion to a lower classification. The department head may demote an employee whose ability to perform required duties of his or her position falls below standard, as determined by the department head, or for disciplinary purposes. No employee shall be demoted to a position for which he or she does not possess the minimum qualifications. F. Termination: Discharge from the Town service. An employee in the competitive service may be discharged for cause at any time by the department head. Pending investigation of and imposition of a disciplinary matter, the department head may place an employee on paid administrative leave. The Town is not required to take disciplinary actions in sequential or progressive order. The level of the disciplinary action taken shall be commensurate with the offense, provided that the prior employment and disciplinary history of the employee may also be considered pertinent. 24.3 Causes for Discipline. Disciplinary action may be taken for any reasonable cause, including, but not limited to, the following: A. Unauthorized absence or excessive absenteeism; B. Conviction of a felony, or conviction of a misdemeanor relating to the employee’s fitness to perform assigned duties; C. Disorderly conduct; D. Carelessness; incompetence, inefficiency, or negligence; E. Insubordination; 23 F. Intoxication while on duty; G. Neglect of duty; H. Negligence or willful damage to public property, or waste of public supplies or equipment; I. Violation of any lawful regulation or order made and given by a line supervisor; J. Willful violation of any of the provisions of the Ordinances of the Town, these rules, or others promulgated by the Town Manager as Administrative Orders. K. Tardiness; L. Discourteous or disrespectful treatment of other employees, Town residents and other members of the community, customers, suppliers, or visitors, or treatment that does not foster cooperation between employees or employees and the community; M. Dishonesty; N. Misuse of or failure to maintain any employment qualification; O. Sleeping on the job or leaving the job without authorization; P. Improper use of Town funds; Q. Acceptance or solicitation of bribes or extortion; R. Unauthorized use of Town property; S. Theft of or harm to Town property or the personal property of another; T. Failure to comply with safety standards; and/or; U. Use of influence of position with the Town for private gain or advantage, or the use of time, facilities, equipment or supplies for private gain or advantage; V. Other failure of good behavior either during or outside of employment such that the employee’s conduct causes or should reasonably be expected to cause discredit to the Town. 24.4 Notice of Intent. The following procedure shall be adhered to for non-emergency suspensions, demotions, reductions in pay, and terminations: A. The department head shall issue to the affected employee a written Notice of Intent of the proposed disciplinary action. The notice shall be delivered to the affected employee personally or sent to the employee by either overnight mail 24 and/or certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at the employee’s last known address. The Notice of Intent will include the following: 1. A statement that clearly defines the intent to take action, the proposed action to be taken, and the proposed effective beginning and ending time of intended action; 2. A statement of the specific grounds and particular facts upon which the proposed disciplinary action will be taken; 3. A copy of all written materials, reports, or documents upon which the intended action is based; 4. A statement that the employee will be afforded the right to respond to the Notice of Intent, either verbally or in writing, or both, within ten (10) calendar days upon receipt of the intended disciplinary action; and 5. The employee’s signature on the Notice of Intent will acknowledge receipt of said notice by the employee. If the employee refuses to sign, it will be noted as such on the Notice of Intent. The signature documentation on the Notice of Intent will acknowledge that the employee received the Notice of Intent. B. Employee Response to Notice of Intent. Within ten (10) working days after the employee has been served with the Notice of Intent, the employee will have the right to respond, verbally or in writing, or both, to the department head concerning the proposed disciplinary action. If, within the ten (10) day response period, the employee does not provide a written or verbal response, the proposed action of the Town will take effect as set forth in the Notice of Intent. C.D. Notice of Final Discipline. After considering the employee’s timely response, the department head shall issue and deliver to the employee a Notice of Final Discipline, which shall be a written statement of the decision to uphold, modify, or reject the proposed Disciplinary Action. Such action may not include discipline more severe than that described in the Notice of Intent. 24.5 Appeal of Disciplinary Action. A. Disciplinary Actions Subject to Appeal. A regular employee may, within ten (10) working days after the effective date of a suspension, demotion, reduction in pay, or termination, file a written appeal with the Director of Administrative Services. B. Failure to Request Disciplinary Appeal Hearing. If the employee fails to request a disciplinary appeal hearing within the prescribed time and manner, the employee shall have waived the right to a hearing and all rights to further appeal 25 of the disciplinary action. C. Hearing Officer. For appeals of discipline, the Town and employee or Association shall obtain a strike list of seven names from the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB). The Town and the employee/ Association shall then mutually select the Hearing Officer by striking names from the list in alternating turns. Fees for the hearing officer will be borne by the Town unless the employee is represented by an association in the appeal, in which case the costs will be split evenly between the Town and the association. After the Town has issued the Final Notice of Discipline, any delay by the employee or Association in selecting a hearing officer or setting a hearing date, in excess of thirty (30) days, shall result in the employee forfeiting his or her right to an appeal, and the discipline shall become final. D. Representation at Disciplinary Appeal Hearing. At the disciplinary appeal hearing, the employee may be represented by counsel or other representative. The employee may not be represented by a person who will be called as a witness. E. Production of Witnesses and Documents. The Hearing Officer shall have the authority to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to require the production of documents. The Hearing Officer shall also have the authority to require the identification of witnesses, documents, and other evidence in advance of the disciplinary appeal hearing. F. Conduct of Disciplinary Appeal Hearing. The proceedings before the Hearing Officer shall be conducted as follows: 1. The Town shall have the burden of proof, and the burden shall be by the preponderance of the evidence. 2. The hearing need not be conducted in accordance with the technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses, but shall be conducted in a manner most conducive to the determination of the truth. Any relevant evidence may be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rules which might make improper admission of such evidence over objection in a court of law. Decisions made by the Hearing Officer shall not be invalidated by any informality in the proceedings. 3. The Hearing Officer shall determine the relevancy, weight, and credibility of testimony and evidence. 4. Irrelevant evidence and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. 26 5. The Hearing Officer shall have the authority to exclude any witnesses and other persons not necessary to the proceedings. 6. The Hearing Officer shall not engage in ex parte communications with the parties. G. Hearing Officer’s Decision. 1. The Hearing Officer shall issue an advisory, written decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Hearing Officer shall recommend that the Town affirm, revoke, or reduce the disciplinary action imposed against the employee. The Hearing Officer may not recommend discipline more stringent than that imposed by the department head. The Hearing Officer shall not have the authority to render a binding decision that requires the Town to expend additional funds, to hire additional personnel, to buy additional equipment or supplies, or to pay wages or benefits not specifically provided for in the Personnel Rules or any resolutions, ordinances, or policies adopted by the Town. The Hearing Officer shall not have the authority to require the Town to perform any other action that would violate state or federal laws. The Hearing Officer’s decision shall be advisory to the Town Manager. The Town Manager shall, within 30 calendar days from after the date of receipt of the Hearing Officer’s decision, issue a final written decision that shall affirm, revoke, or revise the Hearing Officer’s recommendation. The Town Manager’s decision constitutes a final resolution of any disciplinary action and no further appeal shall be permitted within the Town’s administrative process. A copy of the Town Manager’s decision shall be provided to the charged employee, and may be placed in the employee’s personnel file. 2. Extension of Time. Any time limits specified in this procedure may be altered by mutual, written agreement. Section 25. Grievance Procedure 25.1 This grievance procedure shall not apply to the appeal of discipline, which is governed by the appeal procedures in Section 24. 25.2 Informal Grievance Procedure: Within five (5) working days of the event giving rise to a grievance, the grievant shall present the grievance informally for disposition by the immediate supervisor, or at any appropriate level of authority. Presentation of an informal grievance shall be a prerequisite to the institution of a formal grievance. 25.3 Formal Grievance Procedure: 27 If grievant believes that the grievance has not been redressed through the informal grievance procedure within five (5) working days from the date of informally presenting the event giving rise to a grievance to his/her immediate supervisor, he/she may initiate a formal grievance within five (5) working days thereafter. A formal grievance can only be initiated by completing the filing with the Chief of Police or his/her designee a memorandum. The memo shall contain: 1. Name(s) of grievant 2. Class 3. Title(s) 4. Mailing address(es) 5. A clear statement of the nature of the grievance (citing applicable ordinance, rules or regulations, or contract language). 6. The date upon which the grievance occurred. 7. A proposed solution to the grievance. 8. The date of execution of the grievance form. 9. The signature of the grievant. 10. The name of the organization or individual, if any, representing the grievant followed by the signature of the representative. Step 1 Within ten (10) working days after a formal grievance is filed, the Chief of Police or his/her designee shall investigate the grievance and confer with the grievant in an attempt to resolve the grievance and make a decision in writing. Step 2 (a) If the grievance is not resolved in Step 1 to the satisfaction of the grievant, he may, within not more than five (5) working days from his/her receipt of the Chief of Police or his/her designee's decision, request consideration of the grievance by the Town Manager by so notifying the Personnel Officer. (b) Within ten (10) working days after such notification, the Town Manager shall investigate the grievance, confer with the persons affected and their representatives to the extent he deems necessary, and renders a decision in writing. (c) The Town Manager shall advise the grievant, in writing, of his/her decision. If the decision does not resolve the grievance to the satisfaction of the grievant, the grievant may proceed to Step 3. Step 3 If the grievance is not resolved in Step 2, a final appeal may be filed, in writing, with the Town Council not more than five (5) working days from the employee's receipt of the Town Manager's decision. The Town Council shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving the grievance, hear and decide upon the grievance. The decision is final and binding in all respects. No employee shall, as a direct or proximate result of such grievance, suffer dismissal from the services of the Town, transfer, demotion, reduction of salary, or other disciplinary action unless it shall be determined by the Town Council that the grievance was taken willfully and/or spitefully for purposes of disruption, with intentional disregard of facts, to wrongfully embarrass the Town, its officers, and 28 employees, to disturb the public peace, health, safety, and welfare, or to serve personal ends inimical to the public service. 25.3 Aggrieved Employee Representation: An aggrieved employee may be represented by any person or organization of his/her choice at any stage of the proceedings. 25.4 Appeal: A regular employee may, within ten (10) calendar days after the effective date of Town Manager’s decision regarding the grievance, file a written appeal with the Town Manager. The Town Manager may make whatever investigation of the appeal he/she deems appropriate and make a finding within fifteen (15) calendar days. If the employee is dissatisfied with such finding, within ten (10) calendar days, the employee may file a written appeal with the Town Council. The Town Council shall hold a hearing within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter. The Town Council shall render its decision on the appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days following the hearing and shall notify the employee in writing of its decision. Section 26. Fair Labor Standards Act 26.1 For police officers under the 7k exemption, a work period is fourteen (14) days. Police officers may accumulate up to twelve (12) hours of compensatory time during the work period prior to being paid overtime. 26.2 The police service aide’s work schedule shall either be a 5/8 or 9/80 plan at the discretion of the Police Chief or his/her designee. Overtime shall be paid for hours worked in excess of their normal work schedule. All overtime earned may be either paid in cash or allowed to accrue compensatory time in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. All or part of this Section shall be invalidated at such time as either a court of competent jurisdiction and/or the Congress of the United States amends or modifies the act to exclude all or some local government employees. Section 27. Catastrophic Leave The Town agrees to establish a Catastrophic Leave Bank to assist employees who have exhausted accrued leave time due to a serious or catastrophic illness or injury. The Time Bank will allow other bargaining unit employees to donate time to the affected employee so that he/she can remain in a paid status for a longer period of time, thus partially ameliorating the financial impact of the illness, injury or condition. Eligibility To be eligible for this benefit, the receiving employee must: 1) Be a regular full- time employee who has passed his/her initial Town probationary period, 2) Have sustained a life threatening or debilitating illness, injury or condition which may require confirmation by a physician, 3) Have exhausted all accumulated paid leave including vacation, holiday, sick leave, and/or compensatory time off, 4) Be unable 29 to return to work for at least thirty (30) days, and 5) Have applied for a Leave of Absence Without Pay for medical reasons. Benefits Accrued vacation and compensatory time off hours donated by other employees will be converted to sick leave and credited to the receiving employee's sick leave time balance on a dollar-for-dollar basis and shall be paid to the recipient at the donor’s rate of pay. For as long as the receiving employee remains in a paid status, seniority, and all other benefits will continue, with the exception of sick leave, holiday, and vacation accrual. The total leave credits received by an employee will not normally exceed three (3) months. However, if approved by the Chief of Police or his/her designee and the Town Manager or his/her designees the total leave credits may be extended on a case by case basis. Guidelines For Donating Leave Credits To The Time Bank a. Accrued vacation leave and compensatory time off may be donated by any regular full-time employee who has completed his/her initial Town probationary period. b. Time donated will be converted from vacation or compensatory time to sick leave hours and credited to the receiving employee's sick leave balance on an dollar-for-dollar basis and shall be paid at the rate of pay of the receiving employee. c. The total amount of time donated to one employee by another employee shall not exceed the equivalent of forty (40) hours at the recipient’s rate of pay. The total leave credits received by the employee shall not normally exceed three months; however, if approved by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, the Town Manager or his/her designees may approve an extension to six (6) months total time. d. Initial leave time donations must be a minimum of eight (8) hours at the recipient’s rate of pay and thereafter, in four (4) hour increments. An employee cannot donate leave hours that would reduce his/her vacation balance to less than forty (40) hours. e. The use of donated leave hours will be in consecutive one shift increments (i.e., eight (8) hours for a full-time employee working five (5) eight (8) hour days/week). f. While an employee is on leave using donated leave hours, no vacation, holiday, or sick leave hours will accrue. 30 g. Under all circumstances, time donations received by the employee are forfeited once made. In the event that the receiving employee does not use all transferred leave for the catastrophic illness/injury, any balance will remain with that employee as sick leave until that employee's separation from Town service. h. Payment for unused sick leave at the time of termination of employment shall be in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding. i. In accordance with IRS Ruling 90-29, leave transferred under such arrangements will not be considered wages for the employee who surrenders the leave and will therefore not be included in gross income or subject to withholding. An employee who donated leave incurs no deductible expense or loss either upon the donation or use by the recipient. Section 28. Full Understanding, Modification, Waiver 28.1 The parties agree that this Memorandum of Understanding sets forth the full and entire understanding of the parties regarding the matters set forth herein. 28.2 Except as specifically otherwise provided herein, it is agreed and understood that each party hereto voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives its rights and agrees that the other shall not be required to meet and consult with respect to any subject or matter covered herein, nor as to wages or fringe benefits during the period of the term of this Memorandum. The foregoing shall not preclude the parties hereto from meeting and conferring at any time during the term of this Agreement with respect to any subject matter within the scope of the meeting and conferring for a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the parties to be effective on or after 1 July 2015. Section 29. Separability of Provisions Should any provision of this Memorandum of Understanding be declared illegal by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such provisions shall not invalidate the remaining portions thereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the Memorandum of Understanding. Section 30. Maintenance of Benefits All rights, privileges, and terms and conditions of employment in full force and effect through the duration of the previous Memorandum of Understanding and not in conflict herewith shall be part hereby and remain thereby until mutually modified by the parties hereto. Section 31. Prevailing Rights All matters within the scope of meeting and conferring that have previously been adopted through rules, regulations, ordinance, or resolutions that are not specifically 31 superseded by this Memorandum of Understanding, shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of this Agreement. Section 32. MISCELLANEOUS At the request of the Town, the parties agree to meet and confer on any modification of fringe benefits necessary to comply with the United States Internal Revenue Service’s Section 125. TIBURON POLICE ASSOCIATION TOWN OF TIBURON ____________________________ ___________________________ John Gomez Shane Ford, President Greg Chanis, Town Manager Tiburon Police Association Town of Tiburon Date: Date: Approved as to Form By _________________________ Benjamin L. Stock Town Attorney TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Consider Adopting a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town of Tiburon and 5 Main Street. Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Consider adopting a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town of Tiburon and 5 Main Street for the use of an existing loading and unloading zone on Paradise Drive as a valet drop-off and pick-up location. The site is located at 5 Main Street and is Marin County Assessor Parcel No. 059-151-41. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Memorandum of Encroachment between the Town of Tiburon and 5 Main Street for Valet Service. BACKGROUND On January 4, 2019, Gary Bell, representative for Mina TBD Restaurant, submitted an Encroachment Permit Application for 5 Main Street in Tiburon. The applicant is seeking permission to use the existing loading and unloading zone located at the intersection of Paradise Drive and Main Street as 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 for this purpose. Staff notified the applicant of their decision and requested documentation to support their Encroachment Permit for reference to the Town Council for consideration. The applicant delivered documentation to the Department of Public Works on June 17, 2019 for the Town Council to consider approving their Encroachment Permit. The Legal Notice was published in the ARK on July 3, 2019 and mailed out to property owners within 300’ of 5 Main Street. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 8, 2021 Agenda Item: CC-8 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 On July 17, 2019, a Public Hearing was held at Town Council for the proposed valet services at 5 Main Street. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Town 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 5 Main Street 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 pursuant 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 5 Main Street for Valet Service Exhibit(s): 1. DRAFT Resolution 2. Memorandum of Encroachment Prepared By: Steven Palmer, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer David O. Eshoo, Associate Engineer EXHIBIT 1 Page 1 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. Draft-2021 RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 19-081 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, on July 17, 2019, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Encroachment Permit 19-081, requesting an encroachment on the public street outside 5 Main Street 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 19-081 subject to the conditions provided in the memorandum 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 welfare of the Town in the following ways: 1.The valet service will provide a safe location where patrons can drop their vehicle off to an attendant and will be directly in front of the restaurant;2. Is not intended for the exclusive use of one business, and is available to be utilized by anyother business who are granted a separate encroachment permit for such valet services,thereby serving a greater number of the public; 3.The valet service will utilize existing temporary parking which will enhance the public’s access to the waterfront and nearby businesses; Page 2 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. Draft-2021 4.The valet service is available to other restaurants and businesses who obtain their ownseparate encroachment permit; 5.The location of the valet service has been sufficiently curtailed to not unreasonably impede traffic;6.The benefits of providing the valet service improves business opportunities in thewaterfront area; The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council held on June 16, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT 2 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 6 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Adopt Resolutions of Necessity to Acquire Property for the Hawthorne Undergrounding District Project Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Consider adopting resolutions to determine the necessity to acquire property (easements) by eminent domain for the Hawthorne Undergrounding District Project; to authorize commencement of litigation to acquire property by eminent domain; to seek an order of possession (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.220); and to determine that the actions authorized by this resolution were adequately analyzed by a previous CEQA action; for each of the following five properties: • APN 055-211-31; 40 Del Mar Drive • APN 055-201-25; Sommers Court RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Consider adopting Resolutions of Necessity. BACKGROUND In 2016, property owners on portions of Rock Hill Drive, Hawthorne Drive, Hilary Drive, Hilary Court, Mira Vista Court, Del Mar Drive, Palmer Court and Tiburon Boulevard began the process of forming the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Assessment District (“The District”). The goal of forming the District is to remove the existing overhead utility lines and poles and relocate them underground (Project). The District consists of 120 parcels (plus 3 sliver parcels), including both residential and commercial properties. On February 7, 2018, property owners in the District approved tax assessments equal to the cost estimate to fund completion of the project, with the intent the Town would sell bonds to finance the portion of the assessments that are not prepaid by the property owners of the District. Town Council recently approved agreements with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Ranger Pipelines to construct the Project, and authorized issuance of bonds to finance the Project on May 5, 2021. The bond sale closed on June 9, 2021. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: AI-1 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 6 ANALYSIS In order to complete the Project, the Town must acquire easements from the following eight (8) private properties: APN ADDRESS DESCRIPTION ACQUISITION NO. 055-211-31 40 Del Mar Drive Single Family Residence 31320249B 055-201-25 Sommers Court Private Road 31320249G 055-171-13 650 Tiburon Boulevard Single Family Residence 31320249D 055-201-35 4 Palmer Court Single Family Residence 31320249E 055-201-34 2 Palmer Court Single Family Residence 31320249F 055-222-04 730 Hawthorne Single Family Residence 31320249C 055-201-36 700 Tiburon Boulevard Belvedere Tennis Club 31320249H 039-111-21 145 Rock Hill Belvedere-Tiburon Community Church 31320249A Of those easements, Staff is requesting Town Council adopt a Resolution of Necessity for the following two (2) easement acquisitions at this time: • APN 055-211-31; 40 Del Mar Drive; Single Family Residence Acquisition of an easement to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) over the existing shared private driveway; 13,175 square feet. • APN 055-201-25; Sommers Court; Private Road Acquisition of an easement to PG&E over the existing shared private driveway; 193 square feet. Once the Town identified the private property necessary for the Project, the Town appraised the fair market value of those property interests and made offers to the owners of record to provide the “just compensation” required under the California Constitution. Adopting Resolutions of Necessity to Acquire easements from both these properties was previously presented to Council at the meeting on May 5, 2021. At that time, Staff requested that Council delay consideration of the Resolution of Necessity for 40 Del Mar because the property had sold to new owners. Since that time Staff contacted the current owner and is actively negotiating a purchase and sale agreement, including the amount of just compensation. The Project schedule requires possession of the easement before final resolution of the just compensation negotiations. Therefore, the Town alerted the owner that the Town would proceed procedurally to acquiring the easement through the eminent domain process, while continuing with the negotiations. At the Council meeting on May 5, 2021, the owner at 2 Palmer Court raised concerns about the easement acquisition on that property. In response, Council directed Staff to reevaluate the easement from 2 Palmer Court and determine if it was possible to redesign the Project to address the concerns of the property owner. Staff engaged the contract construction manager, PG&E, Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 6 AT&T, and Comcast to develop an alternative design that would reduce the easement required from 2 Palmer Court. An alternative design was developed that reduces the easement required from 2 Palmer Court by moving the facilities required to serve 10 Sommers Court off the property at 2 Palmer Court and onto the private road parcel (APN 055-201-25). This change increases the easement required from the private road parcel (APN 055-201-25). Since Council previously adopted a Resolution of Necessity for APN 055-201-25 at the May 5, 2021 meeting, this change requires that Council adopt a new Resolution of Necessity. The attached Resolution of Necessity for the private road parcel (APN 055-201-25) has been modified to change the easement to reflect the revised design. Pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice was given to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized County Assessment Roll as owner(s) of those property interests needed by the Town. The notices consisted of sending by first-class mail on May 28, 2021 a Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire an Easement Across a Portion of Property by Eminent Domain which notified the subject property owners that a hearing is scheduled for June 16, 2021 at 5:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at Town Hall, at which time they may appear to be heard on the matters referred to in the notice. California’s eminent domain process authorizes a public agency to conduct Hearings of Necessity to acquire the required property interests and proceed with construction of the Project, while the public agency continues to negotiate with the property owner regarding the amount of compensation. FINDINGS When acquiring property interests from private property owners, the Town is required to follow the requirements of California’s eminent domain laws. State law requires the Town make the following findings with respect to the adoption of the Resolutions of Necessity. Purpose and Need for the Project The Project includes the construction of public improvements necessary to construct underground power, telephone, and cable facilities; and remove the existing power, telephone, and cable wires and poles within the Town of Tiburon Assessment District No. 2017-1 (Hawthorne Undergrounding District). The Hawthorne Undergrounding District includes portions of the following streets: Palmer Court, Tiburon Boulevard, Rock Hill Road, Hawthorne Drive, Hilary Drive, Hilary Court, Mara Vista Court, and Del Mar Drive. The attached Exhibit 1 illustrates the boundaries of the Hawthorne Undergrounding District. The public improvements generally include: 1. Construction of mainline underground power, telephone and cable conduit, with appurtenant manholes, pull boxes and transformers and like structures. 2. Construction of service conduit and appurtenances to property line. 3. Restoration of pavement impacted by installing the underground utilities. 4. Installation of new conductor within said conduit and underground structures by the utility companies. 5. Installation of replacement street lights. 6. Removal of existing overhead power, telephone and cable wires, poles and streetlights. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 6 The approved engineering drawings are available on the Town website at the following link, under the heading "Plans" : http://townoftiburon.org/285/Hawthorne-Undergrounding-District. The Public Interest and Necessity Require the Proposed Use The public interest and necessity require the acquisition and construction of the Project. The proposed use is the undergrounding of public utilities which are in the public interest and necessity. Furthermore, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 allows any real property necessary for construction of the Project to be acquired by gift, purchase, or eminent domain. Most Compatible with the Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury. In selecting the alignment for the underground utilities, the design followed existing right of way and easements to the greatest extent possible, in order to avoid acquiring private property. In limited cases, the use of private property is required to complete the Project. The use of private property was minimized and is only what is required to complete the Project. Additionally, all surface improvements on private property will be protected or restored to pre-project conditions. The Property Interests Sought to be Acquired are Necessary for the Project The property interests sought for this Project are necessary for the undergrounding of the utilities. These property interests are required by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Project cannot be constructed as planned without the acquisition of the subject property interests. The following property interests are being sought as part of this action: • APN 055-211-31; 40 Del Mar Drive; Single Family Residence Acquire an easement of 13,175 square feet to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) over the existing shared private driveway. This easement is required to install mainline underground power, telephone, and cable wires and appurtenances in Del Mar Drive, a private road. This mainline provides underground power, telephone, and cable service to single family residences at 20, 30, 40, and 50 Del Mar Drive. • APN 055-201-25; Sommers Court; Private Road Acquire an easement of 3,118 square feet to PG&E over the existing shared private driveway. This easement is required to install the service lateral from the mainline to the property line of the single family residence at 10 Sommers Court. Government Code Section 7627.2 Offer The Town has made an offer of just compensation to each owner of record for the rights required for the Project, in accordance with Government Code section 7267.2. Each offer was based on an appraisal of the fair market value of the property rights being acquired. In each case, efforts were made to acquire each property through negotiated purchase and sale instead of condemnation. Those attempts will continue after adopting the Resolutions of Necessity. Process In order to proceed with these property acquisitions through the eminent domain process, a public hearing will be opened to provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the Town Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 6 Council; but, more importantly, the hearing will provide an opportunity for each affected property owner, or their representatives, to provide their comments to Council regarding the matters included in each Resolution of Necessity. It will be important to keep in mind that the purpose of the hearing, and the recommended action (to approve each Resolution of Necessity) is to consider the necessity to acquire the identified interests in property for the Project, based on the criteria summarized in this report. The ultimate amount of just compensation to be paid by the Town, in accordance with requirements of eminent domain law, is beyond the scope of Council’s action to approve the Resolution of Necessity. It will be the Town’s goal to negotiate an amount of compensation that is consistent with the requirements of law and mutually agreeable to both parties; however, if an agreement is not reached, the Town will be required to obtain a judgment from Marin County Superior Court to determine the amount of compensation the Town is required to pay. In order for a Resolution of Necessity to be effective, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote of Town Council, which means that no less than four members of the five-member Town Council must approve. It is contemplated that one member’s seat may be vacant and will not be present, and that Councilmember Ryan may have a disqualifying conflict of interest, based on ownership of real property within 500 feet of the Project’s boundaries. Since a Resolution of Necessity requires approval from four of the five members of Town Council, under the rule of necessity, Councilmember Ryan is authorized to participate in this action Following approval of the resolutions of necessity by four members of Town Council, the Town Attorney will be authorized to deposit the probable amount of just compensation with the State Treasury, and file an action in Superior Court to obtain an order for prejudgment possession of the property interest sought by the Town. FINANCIAL IMPACT The costs of acquisition, including the eminent domain process, are funded by the assessment district. The following table summarizes the estimated Project cost and funding. Description Cost Preliminary Engineering $615,000 Right of Way $275,000 Environmental $188,950 Construction Management $563,958 Construction (20% Contingency) $5,638,047 Utility Costs $1,515,218 Other Incidentals $110,000 Cost of Issuance / Financing $955,951 Total Project Cost $9,862,124 Source of Funding Town Contributions $771,040 Total Assessment District Cost $9,091,084 Total Funding $9,862,124 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 6 With regards to the Town Contribution of $771,040, that figure is comprised of the following three components: Paving costs (including 20% contingency) $ 364,237 General Benefit $ 19,672 Additional Contribution $ 387,131 Total $ 771,040 In 2018, Council committed to covering the cost of paving certain street sections when the project was complete. Also, Council approved an additional maximum contribution of $500,000 towards the undergrounding portion of the Project. Based on the estimated project cost in 2018 and per the approved Engineer's Report, Part III (Contributions), the Town would contribute $25,823 to fund the portion of the Project that is for General Benefit, plus an Additional Contribution of $474,177, for a total of $500,000. The Engineer's Report also states that "If the total cost of construction and incidental expenses is equal to or greater than the $10,757,563, then the full amount ($500,000) will be contributed. If the total cost of the construction and incidental cost is less than $10,757,563, then the Town’s contribution would be reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage reduction of the costs." This reduces the Town's contribution for General Benefit and Additional Contribution to $406,803. Bond financing is planned to fund the assessments that are not paid in full during the prepayment period. The bond sale closed on June 9, 2021. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A mitigated negative declaration for the Project was approved by Town Council on November 15, 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Town Council Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for each of the two (2) easement acquisitions presented in this staff report. Exhibits: 1. Hawthorne Undergrounding District Boundary Map 2. Resolution of Necessity for 40 Del Mar 3. Resolution of Necessity for Sommers Court Prepared By: Steven Palmer, PE, Director of Public Works / Town Engineer EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO DETERMINE THE NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT PROJECT TO RELOCATE EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES UNDERGROUND; TO AUTHORIZE COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN; AND TO SEEK AN ORDER OF POSSESSION (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.220) (CHRISTOPHER HOOPER, TRUSTEE AND AET HOOPER, TRUSTEE OF THE HOOPER FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2017, APN 055-211-31) _______________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Town of Tiburon (“Town”) needs to acquire a portion of property located at 40 Del Mar Drive, Tiburon, California, Assessor Parcel Number 055-211-31 (“Subject Property”), in order to construct the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project involves relocating existing overhead utilities underground by trenching and installing conduit and utility box(s) within a proposed permanent nonexclusive easement (“the “Property”). During the construction period of approximately one month, utility poles and overhead lines will be removed. The Project will not affect structures or landscaping, and will result in the removal of utility lines from view of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is within the area of the Project, and acquisition of the Property is necessary for the completion of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the Town Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by Town Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, as follows: 1. The Town Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the Town Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The Town intends to advance the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Project (“Project”), which will relocate existing overhead utilities underground at various locations in Town, including at the Subject Property. The Project is for a public use. 3. To complete construction on the Project, the Town desires to acquire a portion of the Subject Property located at 40 Del Mar Drive, Tiburon, California, Assessor Parcel No. 055-211-31, as a permanent nonexclusive easement (the “Property”). The Property is necessary to the completion of the Project. 4. The Property consists of approximately 13,175 square feet, as a permanent non-exclusive easement, as well as the associated improvements, including relocating existing overhead utilities underground by trenching and installing conduit and utility box(s) within the easement. During the construction period of approximately one month, utility poles and overhead lines will be removed. The Property is more particularly described and shown on Exhibit A attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein. 5. The Town is authorized to acquire the Property by eminent domain for the public use set forth herein in accordance with the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 19; the California Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq., including, but not limited to, sections 1240.010 through 1240.050 inclusive, and sections 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.220, 1240.350, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650; Government Code Sections 37350.5, 38730, Streets & Highway Code Section 10102, and other provisions of law. 6. On May 28, 2021, the Town mailed a Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of the Property, which notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein. The Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity was mailed to all persons whose name(s) appear on the last Equalized County Assessment Roll as having an interest in the Property, and to the addresses appearing on the Roll. The Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity advised the persons of their right to be heard on the matters referred to in the Notice on the date and at the time and place stated. 7. The hearing referenced in the Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity was held on June 16, 2021, at the time and place stated in the Notice. All interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard. The hearing was then closed. 8. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon finds, determines, declares, and resolves each of the following: A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; B. The proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The interests in the Property sought to be acquired by eminent domain are necessary for the proposed Project; D. The Town has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Property described herein, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2(a); and E. The Town has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for acquiring the Property described herein when the Town adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the Project on November 15, 2017. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, that the Town Attorney is hereby authorized to acquire in the name of the Town the Property described in this Resolution in accordance with the provisions of California Eminent Domain Law, to commence an action in eminent domain, to deposit the probable amount of compensation with the State Treasury, to apply to the Superior Court for an order permitting the Town to take immediate possession and make immediate use of the Property for the Project, and to take all necessary steps to acquire the Property under the law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon at a regular meeting held this ________ day of ____________ 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT/ABSTAIN: HOLLI P. THIER, Mayor ATTEST: LEA STEFANI Town Clerk List of Exhibits: A. Property Description B. Notice to Property Owners Distribution Easement (Rev.02/2020) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 245 Market Street, N10A, Room 1015 P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177 Location: City/Uninc______________________ Recording Fee $_____________________________ Document Transfer Tax $ __________ [ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and Value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911). [ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or [ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens & Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale [ ] Exempt from the fee per GC 27388.1 (a) (2); This document is subject to Documentary Transfer Tax Signature of declarant or agent determining tax (SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY) LD# 2401-06-EASEMENT DEED PM# 31320249 CHRISTOPHER HOOPER, TRUSTEE AND AET HOOPER, TRUSTEE OF THE HOOPER FAMILY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 12, 2017, hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, install, replace (of initial or any other size), remove, maintain, inspect and use facilities of the type hereinafter specified, together with a right of way therefor, within the easement area as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of Grantor situated in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described as follows: (APN 055-211-31) Strauss 2010-002100 as shown upon the Record of Survey Map filed for record May 28, 2010 in Book 2010 of Maps at page 67, Marin County Records. The facilities and easement area are described as follows: Such underground conduits, pipes, manholes, service boxes, wires, cables, and electrical conductors; aboveground marker posts, risers, and service pedestals; underground and aboveground switches, fuses, terminals, and transformers with associated concrete pads; and fixtures and appurtenances necessary to any and all thereof, as Grantee deems necessary for the distribution of electric energy and communication purposes located within the strip of land described as follows: Ingress, Egress and Utility Easement Per 1997-043073 & 1991-076663 and Ingress, Egress & Utility Easement Per 1997-043073 as shown upon said Record of Survey. Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down, without Grantee paying compensation, any and all trees and brush now or hereafter within said easement area, and shall have the further right, from time to time, to trim and cut down trees and brush along each side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere with or be a hazard to the facilities installed hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with applicable state or federal regulations. Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) Grantor also grants to Grantee the right to use such portion of said lands contiguous to said easement area as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the excavation, construction, reconstruction, replacement, removal, maintenance and inspection of said facilities. Grantor hereby covenants and agrees not to place or construct, nor allow a third party to place or construct, any building or other structure, or store flammable substances, or drill or operate any well, or construct any reservoir or other obstruction within said easement area, or diminish or substantially add to the ground level within said easement area, or construct any fences that will interfere with the maintenance and operation of said facilities. Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to apportion to another public utility or cable television corporation (as defined in Section 216 and 216.4 of the California Public Utilities Code) the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, remove, maintain, inspect, and use the communications facilities within said easement area including ingress thereto and egress therefrom. The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility distribution easement, was prepared by Grantee pursuant to Section 8730 (c) of the Business and Professions Code. This document may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land. Dated: __________________, _______. _________________________________ _________________________________ Christopher Hooper Aet Hooper Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) State of California County of ) On __________________________, before me, Notary Public, Insert name personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [ ] Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves [ ] Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation(s) [ ] Trustee(s) of the above named Trust(s) [ ] Partner(s) of the above named Partnership(s) [ ] Attorney(s)-in-Fact of the above named Principal(s) [ ] Other A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. RANCHO CORTE MADERA DEL PRESIDIO A.P.N. 055-211-32 A.P.N. 055-211-17 A.P.N. 055-211-16 HOOPER FAMILY TRUSTDeed Dated November 24, 2020Doc. No. 2020-059499Marin County Records APN: 055-211-31 A.P.N. 055-211-15 A.P.N. 039-151-62 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ALL COURSES EXTEND TO OR ALONG BOUNDARIES OR LINES Applicant: DEL MAR DRIVE, TIBURON :.���O' 6/�;;;020 cJJ�W:)TowNsHIP RANGE MERIDIAN couNTY oF: MARIN cITY oF: nBuRoN 36 (1N) (6W) (MDBM) F.B.:DR.BY: KXJM CH.BY: DAK8 PLAT MAP W-3402 NORTH BAY 31320249 31320249B REFERENCES 11 M 42; 2010 M 67; 28 OS 72 PG&E DIVISION AUTHORIZ DRAWING NO. Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) Attach to LD: 2401-06- Area, Region or Location: 7 Land Service Office: Santa Rosa Line of Business: Electric Distribution (43) Business Doc Type: Easements MTRSQ: (24.01.06.36.41) Rancho: Corte Madera Del Presidio FERC License Number: N/A PG&E Drawing Number: 31320249B Plat No.: VV-3402 LD of Affected Documents: N/A LD of Cross Referenced Documents: N/A Type of interest: Communication Easements (6), Electric Underground Easements (4) SBE Parcel: N/A % Being Quitclaimed: N/A Order or PM: 31320249 JCN: N/A County: Marin Utility Notice Number: N/A 851 Approval Application No: N/A ;Decision: N/A Prepared By: KXJM Checked By: DAK8 _____ Approved By: Revised by: Y:\GenlSvcs\Land\R_W 2018\Marin\31320249_Hawthorne Rule 20B, Tiburon\Working Files\31320249B.docx Christopher Hooper Aet Hooper 40 Del Mar Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT ACROSS A PORTION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE EASEMENT AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION TOWN OF TIBURON Re: Notice of Hearing Regarding Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity to Acquire an Easement by Eminent Domain [California Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235]. 1. Notice of the Intent of the Town of Tiburon to adopt a Resolution of Necessity and Hearing. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon (“Town Council”) intends to hold a hearing to consider whether a Resolution of Necessity should be adopted which, if adopted, will authorize the Town of Tiburon (“Town”) to acquire the real property described herein by eminent domain for the purpose of undergrounding existing overhead utilities as part of the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Project (“Project”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a legal description and plat map depicting the property which is required for the Project. You are being sent this notice as your name appears on the last equalized Marin County Assessment Roll for this property. DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 2021 TIME OF HEARING: 5:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard PLACE OF HEARING: Consistent with the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 promoting social distancing, there will be no physical or in-person meeting location available to the public. Instead, the meeting will be conducted by videoconference. The meeting will be accessible to the property owners and/or their representative to attend and give public comment via zoom. More information on how to participate in the hearing will be posted on the Town’s agenda 72 hours prior to the hearing date. 2. Notice of Your Right to Appear and Be Heard. You have the right to appear and be heard before the Town Council at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters and issues, and to have the Town Council give consideration to your 2 testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: (a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; (b) Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) Whether the easement sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; (d) Whether the Town has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the property, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said easement by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2(a); (e) The Town has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. The statutes which authorize the Town to acquire the easement by eminent domain for the Project include, but are not limited to, Article 1, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of California, and Section 37350.5 of the Government Code, and Section 1230.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Failure to File a Written Request to Be Heard Within Fifteen (15) Days After the Notice was Mailed Will Result in Waiver of the Right to Appear and Be Heard. If you desire to be heard or to present information to the Town on this resolution, you are required by law to file a written request with the Town Clerk no later than fifteen (15) days from the date that this notice was mailed. You must file your request to be heard at the Office of the Town Clerk, Town of Tiburon, Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. If you mail a request to be heard, please keep in mind that it must be actually received by the Town Clerk no later than fifteen (15) days after the date this notice is mailed. See Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235(b)(3). If you elect not to appear and be heard at this hearing, your decision not to appear and be heard will constitute a waiver of your right to challenge the right of the Town to acquire the property by eminent domain. Thus, the matters described in the Resolution of Necessity will be deemed to be established. 4. You Will Not Waive the Right to Claim Greater Compensation if You Do Not Appear at the Hearing. The amount of compensation to be paid for the property will not be decided or heard at this hearing. Your nonappearance at this noticed hearing will not prevent you from claiming compensation in an amount to be determined by a court of law under the laws of the State of California. This notice is 3 not intended to foreclose further ongoing negotiations between you and the representatives of the Town on the amount of compensation to be paid to you for your property. At this hearing, the Town Council will not make any determination about the amount of money to be paid for your property or to be offered to you. TOWN OF TIBURON By: Steven, Palmer, PE Director of Public Works Dated and mailed on: May 28, 2021 EXHIBIT 3 AN AMENDED RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO DETERMINE THE NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE HAWTHORNE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT PROJECT TO RELOCATE EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES UNDERGROUND; TO AUTHORIZE COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN; AND TO SEEK AN ORDER OF POSSESSION (CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.220) (SANDRA L. SOMMERS, APN 055-201-25) _______________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Town of Tiburon (“Town”) needs to acquire a portion of property located at Sommers Court, Tiburon, California, Assessor Parcel Number 055-201-25 (“Subject Property”), in order to construct the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Project (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project involves relocating existing overhead utilities underground by trenching and installing conduit and utility box(s) within a proposed permanent nonexclusive easement (“the “Property”). During the construction period of approximately one month, utility poles and overhead lines may be removed. The Project will not affect structures or landscaping, and will result in the removal of utility lines from view of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is within the area of the Project, and acquisition of the Property is necessary for the completion of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at the public meetings of the Town Council identified herein, including any supporting reports by Town Staff, and any information provided during public meetings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, as follows: 1. The Town Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct, and establish the factual basis for the Town Council’s adoption of this Resolution. 2. The Town intends to advance the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Project (“Project”), which will relocate existing overhead utilities underground at various locations in Town, including at the Subject Property. The Project is for a public use. 3. To complete construction on the Project, the Town desires to acquire a portion of the Subject Property located at Sommers Court, Tiburon, California, Assessor Parcel No. 055-201-25, as a permanent nonexclusive easement (the “Property”). The Property is necessary to the completion of the Project. 4. The Property consists of approximately 3,118 square feet, as a permanent non-exclusive easement, as well as the associated improvements, including relocating existing overhead utilities underground by trenching and installing conduit and utility box(s) within the easement. During the construction period of approximately one month, utility poles and overhead lines may be removed. The Property is more particularly described and shown on Exhibit A attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein. 5. The Town is authorized to acquire the Property by eminent domain for the public use set forth herein in accordance with the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 19; the California Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq., including, but not limited to, sections 1240.010 through 1240.050 inclusive, and sections 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.220, 1240.350, 1240.410, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650; Government Code Sections 37350.5, 38730, Streets & Highway Code Section 10102, and other provisions of law. 6. On May 28, 2021, the Town mailed a Notice of Intention to Adopt an Amended Resolution of Necessity for acquisition by eminent domain of the Property, which notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein. The Notice of Intention to Adopt an Amended Resolution of Necessity was mailed to all persons whose name(s) appear on the last Equalized County Assessment Roll as having an interest in the Property, and to the addresses appearing on the Roll. The Notice of Intention to Adopt an Amended Resolution of Necessity advised the persons of their right to be heard on the matters referred to in the Notice on the date and at the time and place stated. 7. The hearing referenced in the Notice of Intention to Adopt an Amended Resolution of Necessity was held on June 16, 2021, at the time and place stated in the Notice. All interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard. The hearing was then closed. 8. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon finds, determines, declares, and resolves each of the following: A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed Project; B. The proposed Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; C. The interests in the Property sought to be acquired by eminent domain are necessary for the proposed Project; D. The Town has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the Property described herein, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2(a); and E. The Town has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for acquiring the Property described herein when the Town adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the Project on November 15, 2017. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, that the Town Attorney is hereby authorized to acquire in the name of the Town the Property described in this Resolution in accordance with the provisions of California Eminent Domain Law, to commence an action in eminent domain, to deposit the probable amount of compensation with the State Treasury, to apply to the Superior Court for an order permitting the Town to take immediate possession and make immediate use of the Property for the Project, and to take all necessary steps to acquire the Property under the law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon at a regular meeting held this ________ day of ____________ 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT/ABSTAIN: HOLLI P. THIER, Mayor ATTEST: LEA STEFANI Town Clerk List of Exhibits: A. Property Description B. Notice to Property Owners Distribution Easement (Rev.02/2020) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 245 Market Street, N10A, Room 1015 P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177 Location: City/Uninc______________________ Recording Fee $_____________________________ Document Transfer Tax $ __________ [ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and Value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911). [ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or [ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens & Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale [ ] Exempt from the fee per GC 27388.1 (a) (2); This document is subject to Documentary Transfer Tax Signature of declarant or agent determining tax (SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY) LD# 2401-06- EASEMENT DEED PM# 31320249 SANDRA L. SOMMERS, hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, install, replace (of initial or any other size), remove, maintain, inspect and use facilities of the type hereinafter specified, together with a right of way therefor, within the easement area as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of Grantor situated in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described as follows: (APN 055-201-25) The parcel of land described in the deed from Lydia R. Sommers to Lydia R. Sommers, as trustee of the “Lydia R. Sommers Living Trust dated August 20, 2002, and any amendments there to” dated August 20, 2002 and recorded as Document Number 2002-0089416, Marin County Records. The facilities and easement area are described as follows: Such underground conduits, pipes, manholes, service boxes, wires, cables, and electrical conductors; aboveground marker posts, risers, and service pedestals; underground and aboveground switches, fuses, terminals, and transformers with associated concrete pads; and fixtures and appurtenances necessary to any and all thereof, as Grantee deems necessary for the distribution of electric energy and communication purposes located within the strip of land described as follows: A strip of land extending from the general southeasterly boundary line of said lands northwesterly to the general northwesterly boundary line of said lands and contiguous to and lying northeasterly of the following described line: Beginning at the found nail and shiner stamped PLS 7950 marking the southwesterly terminus of a course (for identification only, said course as shown upon the Record of Survey filed for record January 27, 2012 in Book 2012 of Maps at page 9, Marin County Records, has a bearing of S 59° 08' 00" W 89.26 feet) and running thence along said general southeasterly boundary line Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) (a)south 42° 46' 54" west 10.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of said line; thence leaving said general southeasterly boundary line (1)north 47° 13' 06" west 20.00 feet, more or less to a point within said general northwesterly boundary line. The foregoing descriptions is based on a survey made by Grantee in May 2020. The basis of bearings used is based on a course in the northwesterly boundary line of said lands which course according to the Record of Survey filed for record January 27, 2012 in Book 2012 of Maps at page 9, Marin County Records, has a bearing of South 59°08’00” West and a distance of 89.26 feet. Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down, without Grantee paying compensation, any and all trees and brush now or hereafter within said easement area, and shall have the further right, from time to time, to trim and cut down trees and brush along each side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere with or be a hazard to the facilities installed hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with applicable state or federal regulations. Grantor also grants to Grantee the right to use such portion of said lands contiguous to said easement area as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the excavation, construction, reconstruction, replacement, removal, maintenance and inspection of said facilities. Grantor hereby covenants and agrees not to place or construct, nor allow a third party to place or construct, any building or other structure, or store flammable substances, or drill or operate any well, or construct any reservoir or other obstruction within said easement area, or diminish or substantially add to the ground level within said easement area, or construct any fences that will interfere with the maintenance and operation of said facilities. Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to apportion to another public utility or cable television corporation (as defined in Section 216 and 216.4 of the California Public Utilities Code) the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, remove, maintain, inspect, and use the communications facilities within said easement area including ingress thereto and egress therefrom. The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility distribution easement, was prepared by Grantee pursuant to Section 8730 (c) of the Business and Professions Code. This document may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land. Dated: __________________, _______. _________________________________ Sandra L. Sommers Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) State of California County of ) On __________________________, before me, Notary Public, Insert name personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [ ] Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves [ ] Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation(s) [ ] Trustee(s) of the above named Trust(s) [ ] Partner(s) of the above named Partnership(s) [ ] Attorney(s)-in-Fact of the above named Principal(s) [ ] Other A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. Applicant: SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PLAT MAP REFERENCES MERIDIAN DATESCALE CITY OF: DRAWING NO.AUTHORIZDIVISIONPG&E COUNTY OF: F.B.: DR.BY: CH.BY: KXJM DAK8 31320249VV-3401 (36) 1"=40' (1N)(6W)(MDBM) MARIN TIBURON NORTH BAY (NW of NW) RANCHO CORTE MADERA DEL PRESIDIO UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ALL COURSES EXTEND TO OR ALONG BOUNDARIES OR LINES 055-171-13 A.P.N. 6 M 674 ( A T O W N R O A D )SOMMERS COURT P A L M E R C O U R T 29 OS 83 055-201-01 A.P.N. (PRIVATE) 6 M 675 2012 M 9 055-201-35 A.P.N. 6 M 67; 29 OS 83, 2012 M 9 SOMMERS COURT, TIBURON S 59°08'00" W 89.26' BASIS OF BEARING: APN: 055-201-25 Marin County Records APN: 055-201-25 (lot) Doc. No. 2010-003669 Deed Dated July 30, 2010 Doc. No. 2002-0089416 Deed Dated August 20, 2002 SANDRA L. SOMMERS 5/12/2021 APN: 055-201-34 Doc. No. 2011-0029440 Deed Dated June 8, 2011 BRYN ARGOV BEN ARGOV and BEGINNINGPOINT OF 20'±N 47°13'06" W 10.00'S 42°46'54" W COMMENCEMENT POINT OF 2012 M 9 (TYP.) STAMPED PLS 7950 FOUND NAIL & SHINER PG&E EASEMENT (AREA= 3118±SQFT) 31320249G REV1 Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) Attach to LD: 2401-06- Area, Region or Location: 7 Land Service Office: Santa Rosa Line of Business: Electric Distribution (43) Business Doc Type: Easements MTRSQ: (24.01.06.36.44) Rancho: Corte Madera Del Presidio FERC License Number: N/A PG&E Drawing Number: 31320249G REV1 Plat No.: VV-3401 LD of Affected Documents: N/A LD of Cross Referenced Documents: N/A Type of interest: Communication Easements (6), Electric Underground Easements (4) SBE Parcel: N/A % Being Quitclaimed: N/A Order or PM: 31320249 JCN: N/A County: Marin Utility Notice Number: N/A 851 Approval Application No: N/A ;Decision: N/A Prepared By: KXJM Checked By: DAK8 _____ Approved By: Revised by: Y:\GenlSvcs\Land\R_W 2018\Marin\31320249_Hawthorne Rule 20B, Tiburon\Working Files\31320249G REV1.docx Sandra L. Sommers P.O. Box 292296 Sacramento, CA 95829 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ADOPT AN AMENDED RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT ACROSS A PORTION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE EASEMENT AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION TOWN OF TIBURON Re: Notice of Hearing Regarding Adoption of an Amended Resolution of Necessity to Acquire an Easement by Eminent Domain [California Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235]. 1. Notice of the Intent of the Town of Tiburon to adopt an Amended Resolution of Necessity and Hearing. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon (“Town Council”) intends to hold a hearing to consider whether an Amended Resolution of Necessity should be adopted which, if adopted, will authorize the Town of Tiburon (“Town”) to acquire the real property described herein by eminent domain for the purpose of undergrounding existing overhead utilities as part of the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District Project (“Project”). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a legal description and plat map depicting the property which is required for the Project. You are being sent this notice as your name appears on the last equalized Marin County Assessment Roll for this property. DATE OF HEARING: June 16, 2021 TIME OF HEARING: 5:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard PLACE OF HEARING: Consistent with the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 promoting social distancing, there will be no physical or in-person meeting location available to the public. Instead, the meeting will be conducted by videoconference. The meeting will be accessible to the property owners and/or their representative to attend and give public comment via zoom. More information on how to participate in the hearing will be posted on the Town’s agenda 72 hours prior to the hearing date. 2. Notice of Your Right to Appear and Be Heard. You have the right to appear and be heard before the Town Council at the above scheduled hearing on the 2 following matters and issues, and to have the Town Council give consideration to your testimony prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity: (a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; (b) Whether the Project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (c) Whether the easement sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; (d) Whether the Town has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the property, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said easement by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2(a); (e) The Town has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. The statutes which authorize the Town to acquire the easement by eminent domain for the Project include, but are not limited to, Article 1, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of California, and Section 37350.5 of the Government Code, and Section 1230.010 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Failure to File a Written Request to Be Heard Within Fifteen (15) Days After the Notice was Mailed Will Result in Waiver of the Right to Appear and Be Heard. If you desire to be heard or to present information to the Town on this resolution, you are required by law to file a written request with the Town Clerk no later than fifteen (15) days from the date that this notice was mailed. You must file your request to be heard at the Office of the Town Clerk, Town of Tiburon, Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920. If you mail a request to be heard, please keep in mind that it must be actually received by the Town Clerk no later than fifteen (15) days after the date this notice is mailed. See Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235(b)(3). If you elect not to appear and be heard at this hearing, your decision not to appear and be heard will constitute a waiver of your right to challenge the right of the Town to acquire the property by eminent domain. Thus, the matters described in the Resolution of Necessity will be deemed to be established. 4. You Will Not Waive the Right to Claim Greater Compensation if You Do Not Appear at the Hearing. The amount of compensation to be paid for the property will not be decided or heard at this hearing. Your nonappearance at this noticed hearing will not prevent you from claiming compensation in an amount to be 3 determined by a court of law under the laws of the State of California. This notice is not intended to foreclose further ongoing negotiations between you and the representatives of the Town on the amount of compensation to be paid to you for your property. At this hearing, the Town Council will not make any determination about the amount of money to be paid for your property or to be offered to you. TOWN OF TIBURON By: Steven Palmer, PE Director of Public Works Dated and mailed on: May 28, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Approve a Possession and Use Agreement for 730 Hawthorne Drive for the Hawthorne Undergrounding District Project Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Consider approving a possession and use agreement to possess and use property (easement) at 730 Hawthorne Drive for the Hawthorne Undergrounding District Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Consider approving the agreement. BACKGROUND In 2016, property owners on portions of Rock Hill Drive, Hawthorne Drive, Hilary Drive, Hilary Court, Mira Vista Court, Del Mar Drive, Palmer Court and Tiburon Boulevard began the process of forming the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Assessment District (“The District”). The goal of forming the District is to remove the existing overhead utility lines and poles and relocate them underground (Project). The District consists of 120 parcels (plus 3 sliver parcels), including both residential and commercial properties. On February 7, 2018, property owners in the District approved tax assessments equal to the cost estimate to fund completion of the project, with the intent the Town would sell bonds to finance the portion of the assessments that are not prepaid by the property owners of the District. Town Council recently approved agreements with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Ranger Pipelines to construct the Project, and authorized issuance of bonds to finance the Project on May 5, 2021. The bond sale closed on June 9, 2021. ANALYSIS In order to complete the Project, the Town must acquire easements from the following eight (8) private properties: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: AI-2 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 APN ADDRESS DESCRIPTION ACQUISITION NO. 055-211-31 40 Del Mar Drive Single Family Residence 31320249B 055-201-25 Sommers Court Private Road 31320249G 055-171-13 650 Tiburon Boulevard Single Family Residence 31320249D 055-201-35 4 Palmer Court Single Family Residence 31320249E 055-201-34 2 Palmer Court Single Family Residence 31320249F 055-222-04 730 Hawthorne Single Family Residence 31320249C 055-201-36 700 Tiburon Boulevard Belvedere Tennis Club 31320249H 039-111-21 145 Rock Hill Belvedere-Tiburon Community Church 31320249A As separate actions, the Town Council has either adopted or is considering adopting Resolutions of Necessity for the easements on 40 Del Mar Drive, Sommers Court, 650 Tiburon Boulevard, and 4 Palmer Court. Negotiations are continuing for all acquisitions and Staff is optimistic that agreement on just compensation can be reached on all, except for Sommers Court. The easement on 730 Hawthorne Drive is over a portion of an area that is currently used as a driveway and landscaping. The total area of the easement is approximately 1,600 square feet, and is depicted in the grant deed and aerial photo in Exhibit 1. In acquiring the easement on 730 Hawthorne, the Town has identified the private property necessary for the Project, appraised the fair market value of those property interests and made an offer to the owner of record to provide the “just compensation” required under the California Constitution. As provided by eminent domain law, the owner has chosen to obtain an independent appraisal of the easement. This appraisal is anticipated to take several more weeks, and the Project schedule requires possession of the easement before anticipated completion of the just compensation negotiations. In order to obtain possession and use of the easement prior to completion of negotiations, Town Staff and the owner negotiated the attached Possession and Use Agreement. The agreement provides the following business points: • Town will deposit the amount of the Town's offer ($21,225) in an escrow account to be held until the easement purchase agreement is completed. • Upon deposit of the funds into escrow, Town can immediately possess and use the easement for the Project. • Town will repair any damage to the easement area that is caused during construction. • Town will notify contractors of the extensive root system of the large Cedrus deodara tree that is adjacent to the easement. • Town can file a complaint in eminent domain if an easement purchase agreement is not reached within six (6) months of this Possession and Use Agreement. • As required by eminent domain law, the Town will pay the owner's appraisal costs, not exceeding $5,000. The owner has approved and signed the agreement, as included as Exhibit 2. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 FINANCIAL IMPACT The costs of acquisition, including the eminent domain process, are funded by the assessment district. The following table summarizes the estimated Project cost and funding. Description Cost Preliminary Engineering $615,000 Right of Way $275,000 Environmental $188,950 Construction Management $563,958 Construction (20% Contingency) $5,638,047 Utility Costs $1,515,218 Other Incidentals $110,000 Cost of Issuance / Financing $955,951 Total Project Cost $9,862,124 Source of Funding Town Contributions $771,040 Total Assessment District Cost $9,091,084 Total Funding $9,862,124 With regards to the Town Contribution of $771,040, that figure is comprised of the following three components: Paving costs (including 20% contingency) $ 364,237 General Benefit $ 19,672 Additional Contribution $ 387,131 Total $ 771,040 In 2018, Council committed to covering the cost of paving certain street sections when the project was complete. Also, Council approved an additional maximum contribution of $500,000 towards the undergrounding portion of the Project. Based on the estimated project cost in 2018 and per the approved Engineer's Report, Part III (Contributions), the Town would contribute $25,823 to fund the portion of the Project that is for General Benefit, plus an Additional Contribution of $474,177, for a total of $500,000. The Engineer's Report also states that "If the total cost of construction and incidental expenses is equal to or greater than the $10,757,563, then the full amount ($500,000) will be contributed. If the total cost of the construction and incidental cost is less than $10,757,563, then the Town’s contribution would be reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage reduction of the costs." This reduces the Town's contribution for General Benefit and Additional Contribution to $406,803. Bond financing is planned to fund the assessments that are not paid in full during the prepayment period. The bond sale closed on June 9, 2021. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A mitigated negative declaration for the Project was approved by Town Council on November 15, 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Town Council approve the Possession and Use Agreement Exhibits: 1. Easement Grant Deed and Aerial Photo 2. Possession and Use Agreement Prepared By: Steven Palmer, PE, Director of Public Works / Town Engineer EXHIBIT 1 Distribution Easement (Rev.02/2020) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 245 Market Street, N10A, Room 1015 P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177 Location: City/Uninc______________________ Recording Fee $_____________________________ Document Transfer Tax $ __________ [ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and Value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911). [ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or [ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens & Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale [ ] Exempt from the fee per GC 27388.1 (a) (2); This document is subject to Documentary Transfer Tax Signature of declarant or agent determining tax (SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY) LD# 2401-06- EASEMENT DEED PM# 31320249 SHARON M. HAMPTON, as trustee of the Hampton 1994 Survivor’s Trust dated June 3, 1994, JAMES H. HAMPTON, as trustee of the J & S H Revocable Trust established U/D/T dated June 3, 1994, as amended and restated, hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, install, replace (of initial or any other size), remove, maintain, inspect and use facilities of the type hereinafter specified, together with a right of way therefor, within the easement area as hereinafter set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of Grantor situated in the Town of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, described as follows: (APN 055-222-04) Lot 7 as shown upon the map entitled "Map of Tiburon Terrace Marin County, California " filed for record April 18, 1947 in Book 6 of Maps at page 29, Marin County Records. The facilities and easement area are described as follows: Such underground conduits, pipes, manholes, service boxes, wires, cables, and electrical conductors; aboveground marker posts, risers, and service pedestals; underground and aboveground switches, fuses, terminals, and transformers with associated concrete pads; and fixtures and appurtenances necessary to any and all thereof, as Grantee deems necessary for the distribution of electric energy and communication purposes located within the strip of land described as follows: A strip of land of the uniform width of 40 feet lying contiguous to and northwesterly of the southeasterly boundary line of said lands and extending from the northwesterly boundary line of Hawthorne Drive, a town road, southwesterly 40.00 feet (measured along said southeasterly boundary line). Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down, without Grantee paying compensation, any and all trees and brush now or hereafter within said easement area, and shall Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) have the further right, from time to time, to trim and cut down trees and brush along each side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere with or be a hazard to the facilities installed hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with applicable state or federal regulations. Grantor also grants to Grantee the right to use such portion of said lands contiguous to said easement area as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the excavation, construction, reconstruction, replacement, removal, maintenance and inspection of said facilities. Grantor hereby covenants and agrees not to place or construct, nor allow a third party to place or construct, any building or other structure, or store flammable substances, or drill or operate any well, or construct any reservoir or other obstruction within said easement area, or diminish or substantially add to the ground level within said easement area, or construct any fences that will interfere with the maintenance and operation of said facilities. Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to apportion to another public utility or cable television corporation (as defined in Section 216 and 216.4 of the California Public Utilities Code) the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, remove, maintain, inspect, and use the communications facilities within said easement area including ingress thereto and egress therefrom. The legal description herein, or the map attached hereto, defining the location of this utility distribution easement, was prepared by Grantee pursuant to Section 8730 (c) of the Business and Professions Code. This document may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land. Dated: __________________, _______. SHARON M. HAMPTON, as trustee of the Hampton 1994 Survivor’s Trust dated June 3, 1994 _________________________________ Sharon M. Hampton, Trustee JAMES H. HAMPTON, as trustee of the J & S H Revocable Trust established U/D/T dated June 3, 1994, as amended and restated ________________________________ James H. Hampton, Trustee Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) State of California County of ) On __________________________, before me, Notary Public, Insert name personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER [ ] Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves [ ] Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation(s) [ ] Trustee(s) of the above named Trust(s) [ ] Partner(s) of the above named Partnership(s) [ ] Attorney(s)-in-Fact of the above named Principal(s) [ ] Other A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. Applicant: SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PLAT MAP REFERENCES MERIDIAN DATESCALE CITY OF: DRAWING NO.AUTHORIZDIVISIONPG&E COUNTY OF: F.B.: DR.BY: CH.BY: KXJM DAK8 31320249VV-3402 (36) 730 HAWTHORNE DRIVE, TIBURON 1"=20' (1N)(6W)(MDBM) MARIN TIBURON NORTH BAY (NE of NW) RANCHO CORTE MADERA DEL PRESIDIO 40'40' 2003 M 129 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ALL COURSES EXTEND TO OR ALONG BOUNDARIES OR LINES (A TO WN ROAD) HA WTHORNE DRIVE 3/2/2021 APN: 055-222-03 Marin County Records Doc. No. 2017-0036671 Deed Dated September 7, 2017 WALTER C. PRICE JR. as trustees VIRGINA LEUNG PRICE and 055-222-07 A.P.N. 055-222-08 A.P.N. 6 M 297 6 M 296 6 M 29; 2003 M 129 (AREA= 1698± SQFT) PG&E EASEMENT 31320249C REV1 APN: 055-222-04 Marin County Records Doc. No. 2012-0072629 Deed Dated November 9, 2012 JAMES H. HAMPTON, as trustee Doc. No. 2019-0012955 Deed Dated April 16, 2019 as trustee SHARON M. HAMPTON, Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) Attach to LD: 2401-06- Area, Region or Location: 7 Land Service Office: Santa Rosa Line of Business: Electric Distribution (43) Business Doc Type: Easements MTRSQ: (24.01.06.36.41) Rancho: Corte Madera Del Presidio FERC License Number: N/A PG&E Drawing Number: 31320249C REV1 Plat No.: VV-3402 LD of Affected Documents: N/A LD of Cross Referenced Documents: N/A Type of interest: Communication Easements (6), Electric Underground Easements (4) SBE Parcel: N/A % Being Quitclaimed: N/A Order or PM: 31320249 JCN: N/A County: Marin Utility Notice Number: N/A 851 Approval Application No: N/A ;Decision: N/A Prepared By: KXJM Checked By: DAK8 _____ Approved By: Revised by: Y:\GenlSvcs\Land\R_W 2018\Marin\31320249_Hawthorne Rule 20B, Tiburon\Working Files\31320249C REV1.docx EXHIBIT 2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Town Clerk Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 This document is exempt from recording fees (space above this line for Recorder’s Use) pursuant to Government Code § 27383 AGREEMENT FOR POSSESSION AND USE OF REAL PROPERTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 055-222-04 This Possession and Use Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on _____________by and between Town of Tiburon ("Town"), and Sharon M. Hampton, as trustee of the Hampton 1994 Survivor's Trust dated June 3, 1994 (“Owner”), who shall be collectively referred to as the “Parties.” RECITALS A. Town requires immediate possession and use of a portion of Owner’s real property to construct certain public utility improvements and related facilities. Owner’s real property is located in Marin County, California, legally described in the attached Exhibit “A” (“Subject Property”). See Exhibit “B” for the specific use details and description for the Easement area (“Easement Area”). B. The property interests are required for the purpose of Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Project (the “Project”). The property interests required by Town are designated by Town as an easement over a portion of Parcel No’s. 055-222-04 (the “Easement”). See Exhibit “B” for the specific use details and description for the Easement area. The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the Town to proceed with construction of the Project without delay. C. The Parties acknowledge and agree that any delay in the start of construction of the Project is contrary to public interest. It is the intent of Town to pay fair-market compensation to the Owners for permission to enter the Subject Property and to construct the Project, and as consideration for the rights set forth in the paragraph entitled “Possession,” below. Town has made a firm written offer to pay the total sum of $21,225.00 to Owners and any other persons having an interest in the Easement. This amount does not include compensation for any loss of business goodwill, pre-condemnation damages, loss of rent or any other claims for just compensation except for the Town’s appraised fair market value of the Easement (and, if applicable, severance damages). This amount does not include reimbursement for relocation benefits which will be handled pursuant to state and federal regulations and policies, if eligible. The Owners have not accepted this offer for the Easement required. OPERATIVE PROVISIONS In consideration of the sum to be paid to the Owners and in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the promises, covenants and any other conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: Possession and Use 1. Owners grant to Town and their contractors, agents, representatives, employees and all others deemed necessary by Town, the irrevocable right to non-exclusive possession and use of the Easement portion of the Subject Property, including but not limited to, the right to construct and operate the Project commencing on June 1, 2021 (Date of possession). In consideration for this irrevocable grant of possession and use, Town will tender into escrow the sum of $ 21,225.00. Town shall have the right to possess the Easement and begin construction of the Project on the date the sum is paid into escrow. 2. Each party shall exercise its rights under this Agreement as expeditiously as possible, and in such a manner as to avoid unreasonable interference with the other Party’s use of the Subject Property. If, in the course of the use of any portion of the Subject Property or the Easement Area, Town or any of Town’s agents causes any damage to the Subject Property, Town shall, at its own cost and expense, promptly repair any and all such damage as necessary to restore the impacted area or improvements to the condition that existed immediately prior to the damage, including without limitation the paved surfaces and landscaping on or adjacent to the Easement Area; provided that such restoration shall be in a manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the uses allowed in the Easement Area. If Town damages, removes or destroys any landscaping of Owner, Town shall replace or restore such landscaping to its prior condition in a manner which, among other things, will maintain the privacy screens provided by the existing landscaping; provided that the replacement landscaping shall be planted so as not to unreasonably interfere with the uses allowed in the Easement Area. Town shall coordinate with Owner regarding such restoration or replacement. Town shall notify its contractors of the presence of the extensive root system of the large Cedrus deodara tree adjacent to the Easement Area, and shall instruct its contractors to avoid any damage to the tree and to such root system. Additional details regarding the restoration of the landscaping and other issues that are not addressed in this Agreement shall be included as part of any final Easement Purchase Agreement (as defined below). Just Compensation and Appraisal 3. Owners acknowledge that the sum referenced in paragraph 1 represents the full amount of the Town-approved appraisal of what Town believes is just compensation owed for the acquisition of the Easement. The Parties agree that the deposit and payment under this Agreement shall be equivalent to a deposit and payment under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.010. Accordingly, the Parties agree that the amount deposited or withdrawn under this Agreement may not be given in evidence or referred to in any trial on the issue of compensation. Escrow 4. This transaction will be handled through an escrow with First American Title Company, Escrow No.______________. Town shall pay all escrow fees incurred in this transaction. Owners shall be entitled to interim disbursement of $11,000 from the sum referred to in paragraph 1. Owner shall not be entitled to receive any proceeds until: a. All holders of liens and encumbrances on the Subject Property have received full payment for all principal and interest due to them; and b. All other parties having interests in the Easement have received payment or have consented to a payment to Owner, and c. Town has acknowledged in writing that it concurs that there are no other parties having interests in the Easement. Term 5. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until either a final settlement, or until Town abandons the proceedings in eminent domain in whole pursuant to Section 14 of this Agreement, or until a Final Order of Condemnation under section 1268.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure is entered by the court and recorded by Town. Any sum disbursed to Owners from this escrow fund shall be deducted from the ultimate amount received by Owners as a result of any settlement, award, or verdict of just compensation for the Easement. Effective Date 6. This Agreement is effective as of the date of full execution by the Parties (the “Effective Date”). From and after the Effective Date, Owners shall not assign sell, encumber or otherwise transfer all or any portion of their interest in the Subject Property, or the property, without first obtaining Town’s prior written consent. Eminent Domain Proceedings 7. This Agreement is made with the understanding that Town will continue to negotiate in good faith with Owners to acquire the Easement by direct purchase. It is further understood that in the event an agreement for purchase (“Easement Purchase Agreement”) is not reached within six (6) months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, such failure will be an acknowledgement that the negotiations to acquire the Easement have proved futile, and Town shall proceed with its right to file a complaint in eminent domain to acquire the Easement. Such complaint shall be filed within 45 days after the time period provided in this paragraph has expired. 8. If Town begins proceedings in eminent domain, it is understood and agreed that this Agreement shall continue in effect until either a settlement is reached or a Final Order of Condemnation under section 1268.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure is entered by the court and recorded by the Town. Refund 9. Owners agree that in the event that ultimate amount of any settlement, award, or verdict is less than the total of the sum paid to and withdrawn by Owner, the Owner shall refund the difference including interest at the apportionment rate of interest as provided in Code Civil Procedure section 1268.350 to Town. Waiver 10. Owner waives any right to challenge Town’s right to possess and use the Subject Property in any subsequent eminent domain proceedings filed by Town. Owner also waives any claims of inverse condemnation against Town. Date of Valuation 11. In the event proceedings in eminent domain are begun, the date of valuation for determining the amount of just compensation for the Easement shall be the date which Town files the complaint in such proceeding. Interest 12. Compensation awarded in an eminent domain proceeding shall accrue interest as prescribed in section 1268.350 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Owners shall be entitled to receive interest on any sum received as compensation for its interest in the Subject Property, whether pursuant to this Agreement, a subsequent settlement or court judgment, beginning on the date Town takes possession of the Subject Property pursuant to this Agreement and ending on the earliest of the dates as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.320. Hazardous Materials 13. The Owner hereby represents and warrants that during the period of her ownership of the property, to her knowledge, there have been no disposals, releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes on, from, or under the property. Owners further represent and warrant that Owners have no knowledge of any disposal, release, or threatened release of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes, on, from, or under the property. Abandonment of Proceeding 14. Under section 1268.510 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, at any time after the commencement of proceedings in eminent domain, Town reserves the right to abandon the proceeding in whole or in part. Authority to Execute and Bind 15. Each of the Parties represents and warrants that each of the persons executing this Agreement has full and complete legal authority to do so and thereby binds the party to this Agreement. Entire Agreement 16. This Agreement reflects the entire agreement between the Parties and shall supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written understandings, statements, representations or promises between the Parties concerning the matters contained herein. Governing Law 17. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with California law. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against any of the Parties. Successors in Interest 18. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors and assigns of the Parties. Understanding of Agreement 19. This Agreement has been negotiated in good faith and each party warrants and represents that in executing this Agreement, they are not relying upon any representation, promise, inducement or statement made in negotiation that has not been included in the terms of this Agreement. Fees and Costs 20. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each party shall bear all costs (including expert and appraisal fees) (excluding appraisal fees incurred by Owner, which shall be paid by Town, not to exceed $5,000 pursuant to section 1263.025 of the California Code Civil Procedure) and attorney’s fees individually incurred in connection with negotiating the matters described in this Agreement. Indemnity 21. Town will require its contractor(s) to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Owner from all claims, demands, suits, losses, damages, injury, and liability incurred by reason of any act or omission by contractor in connection with the entry onto and use of Owner’s property pursuant to this Agreement, except where the claim, demand, suit, loss, damage, injury, or liability arises from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of Owner, or her agents, employees, lessees, tenants or contractors. Severability 21. In case any part, term, portion or provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining parts, terms portions and provisions shall remain valid, enforceable, and in [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signatures on following page.] full force and effect. Amendment to Agreement 22. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement, executed by all Parties. Counterparts 23. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. TOWN: OWNER: TOWN OF ______, By: Sharon M. Hampton, Trustee Hampton 1994 Survivor's Trust dated June 3, 1994 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____, Town Attorney Unless corporate resolution delegates an individual to sign contracts, an agreement with a corporation shall be signed by the President or Vice President and the Secretary or Treasurer of the corporation. A general partner shall sign on behalf of a general partnership. The managing member, if authorized, may sign on behalf of a limited liability corporation. EXHIBIT A (APN 055-222-04) Lot 7 as shown upon the map entitled "Map of Tiburon Terrace Marin County, California " filed for record April 18, 1947 in Book 6 of Maps at page 29, Marin County Records. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 12 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 281 Karen Way; Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for construction of a 1,520 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 5 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone.; Lisa Evers, Owner; Appellants Eileen McHale, Mary and Charles Barnes, Jill Sperber, and Pru and Fred Starr, File Nos. DR2020-088/VAR2020-020; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05 Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Council is considering an appeal of the Design Review Board’s approval of the proposed project located at 281 Karen Way. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends the Town Council hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town’s adopted procedure, close the public hearing, deliberate, and consider adopting one of the following options: 1) Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 2) Grant the appeal, denying the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 3) Partially grant the appeal by making revisions or adding conditions to the Design Review Board’s approval, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 4) Alternatively, remand the item to the Design Review Board with specific direction regarding any aspect of the project needing further review and deliberation. The Board’s decision on remand would again be appealable to the Council. PROJECT DATA TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-1 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 12 Address: 281 Karen Way Owner: Lisa Evers Applicant: Kyle Thayer Appellants: Eileen McHale (279 Karen Way), Mary and Charles Barnes (278 Karen Way), Jill Sperber (171 Leland Way), and Pru and Fred Starr (160 Leland Way) Assessor’s Parcel: 034-122-05 File Numbers: DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Lot Area: 8,052 SQUARE FEET Zoning: R-1-B-A (Bel Aire Single-family Residential Zone) General Plan: MH (Medium High Density Residential) Flood Zone: X (Outside 500-year flood zone) BACKGROUND On May 6, 2021, the Design Review Board voted 4 to 1 to conditionally approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the exterior alterations and additions to an existing single-family residence located at 281 Karen Way. The owners of the properties located at 279 Karen , 278 Karen Way, 171 Leland Way, 160 Leland Way, Eileen McHale, Mary and Charles Barnes, Jill Sperber, and Pru and Fred Starr, respectively (hereafter referred to as “appellant”), have filed a timely appeal of the Board’s decision. The appeal request is attached as Exhibit 1. ANALYSIS The Design Review Board has conditionally approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review for the exterior alterations and additions to an existing single-family residence on an R-1-B-A zoned property located at 281 Karen Way. The subject property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,207 square foot one-story single-family residence with a 279 square foot attached garage that was constructed in the 1950s with improvements over time. The proposed project includes approximately 1,520 square feet of additions, extending the existing eastern and western wings of the home into the rear yard and creating a second story, which includes a new bedroom, bathroom, and recreation room, as well as interior remodeling, additions of windows and door modifications. Landscape improvements include a hot tub, gas fire pit, landscape walls and stairs, and an at grade patio in the rear yard. Fencing is proposed along the front yard. Existing fence and landscaping will be retained on the property. The project proposes to modify the residence by adding approximately 877 square feet to the existing first story, primarily by extending the eastern and western wings of the home to the rear property, as well as by the creation of a new entry at the front of the dwelling. An additional 591 square feet is proposed through the creation of a new second story. The existing garage will be expanded resulting in a total square footage of 331 square feet. In total, the proposed additions would result in a gross floor area total of 2,675 square feet which is 130 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 12 The existing development covers approximately 1,486 square feet or 18.4% of the subject property. The project, with the proposed additions to the existing residence and garage, will cover 2,415.5 square feet or 29.9% of the subject property. The maximum lot coverage in the R-1-B-A zone is 30%. The height of existing residence is approximately 13’-7”. The maximum height proposed by the project is approximately 22’2’, which is under the maximum height of 30’ that is permitted in the zoning district. The existing dwelling was constructed prior to the incorporation of the Town of Tiburon as well as the development standards for the R-1-B-A zone. The existing wall of the dwelling extends to within 5 feet, 5 inches of the side property line, where a 6 (six) foot minimum distance is required. A reduced side yard setback variance was requested, in order for the additions which extend the wall toward the rear of the property to be built along the plane of the existing structure. The project will be built within the building envelope and is in compliance with all of the development standards prescribed for properties in R-1-B-A zone district, with the exception of the requested reduced side setback variance to extend the existing wall. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board held three public hearings on the application, which took place on February 18, 2021, April 1, 2021, and May 6, 2021, respectively. The staff reports and minutes of those meetings are attached as Exhibits 3-8. A brief summary is as follows: Design Review Board meeting on February 18, 2021 At this meeting, numerous nearby neighbors spoke about the project, both in favor as well as in opposition. Most neighbors who objected to the project shared a similar concern, that the proposed second story addition would not fit well with the single-story homes found in the immediate neighborhood. In general, the Board did not object to the addition of a second story, but there was concern about the configuration of the added bulk and massing, specifically towards the street and suggested there needed to be a reduction. The Board directed the project architect to revise the drawing and refine the project to mitigate massing, height, and privacy impacts, particularly to abutting neighbors on the western side of the subject property. In summary, the suggestions made by board members included: • Redesign the second story in such a manner to mask the massing and bulk so that it does not read like a second story. • Revise or relocate massing to reduce visibility from the street tuck the mass into the roof structure . • Reconsider location of windows at second floor in consideration of neighbor at 279 Karen Way • Reconsider stairwell location or volume. • Reconsider ceiling heights and provide sections in new submittal showing change. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 12 • Landscaping in front yard and fencing should be modified to lower the height and lessen the mass at the sidewalk in particular. Design Review Board meeting on April 1, 2021. After the February 18, 2021, meeting, the applicant met with Staff on multiple occasions to discuss the Board’s feedback and propose changes to the design. Solutions to address the Design Review Board’s comments were discussed at length including a proposal for additions that would increase the lot coverage calculation and require a request for a lot coverage variance. Staff advised the applicant, given the predominately flat lot, they would not be able to make the necessary findings to recommend the Board grant a lot coverage variance. For this reason, Staff discussed alternate designs that were more reflective of the comments from the Board not related to the lot coverage. At a subsequent meeting with staff, the applicant proposed a design that slightly increased the previously requested floor area. This redesign met both the allowable lot coverage and floor area ratio. The redesign includes the relocation of the second story to address the Design Review Board’s comments related to massing and privacy. Other than the requested variance for the reduced side yard setback to the west, the proposed new remodel is contained within the building envelope and below the maximum building height. At the April 1, 2021, meeting, the applicant provided revised plans, based on the feedback provided from the Design Review Board. The design concentrated the second story addition along the eastern side of the existing dwelling. The proposed first floor office was relocated behind the second story addition. The previously proposed stairwell at the front of the home was relocated to the interior and the main ridge height was reduced from 24’6” to 22’2”. The project architect provided an outline of the changes below: 1. To reduce the lot coverage, the office has been relocated from the ground floor to the second floor and placed on the back side--not visible from the street. 2. Height and mass have been reduced significantly: a) Main ridge has been lowered 2'-4" (from 24'-6" high to 22'-2" high). b) Ground floor plate height at front of house remains at 8'-1". (Lowered from 9'-1" in old design). c) Where second story occurs, the ground floor ceiling height is 9'-1" (Ceiling heights are 9'-7" at single story portion at MBR wing and Kitchen wing). d) Second story plate height reduced from 9'-1 to 8'-1" overall--and dropped one foot further to 7'-1" on the street side (south side). e) Line of second floor gutter has been lowered a total of 3'-2". f) Prominent, projecting stairwell has been redesigned and relocated to within the form of the building. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 12 g) Mass of the upper floor has been moved 7'-6" eastward, creating a significant distance from the neighboring house on the west side. 3. Original design: 13'-11" to property line. New design: 21'-5" to property line In summary, the Board members acknowledged the significant changes were made but expressed continued concern over the concentration of massing and the projected impacts on neighboring properties, specifically due to the location of the office as it relates to the privacy of the neighbors along the eastern property line. Public comment was consistent with the first meeting, with the majority of concern being that the design of the proposed second story addition did not fit into the single-story character of the neighbor. For these reasons, consideration of the application by the Design Review Board was continued to the May 6, 2021 meeting. Design Review Board meeting on May 6, 2021 The applicant submitted revised project plans, taking in to account comments received by the Design Review Board. The project architect provided a summary of the proposed modifications to the project design, which were limited to the second story, and are outlined below: 1. Removed the office from the entire project. (Eliminates the projecting room on the north side, addressing privacy concerns of eastern neighbor.) 2. The project is smaller--Reduced upper floor area by 120 sf (from 711sf to 591sf). 3. Lowered height of building by 3”, at eave of street-side bay. 4. Created new upper floor layout with new window locations. All windows on north side are in hallways, not in living areas of rooms. 5. Moved mass of upper floor towards the middle, creating a balanced composition. Upper floor is now 16’-5” from west property line and 11’-4” from east property line. 6. Moved mass of upper floor away from street by 12”. 7. The main ridge height remains the same (22’-2” high) but is moved away from street by 12”. 8. The project conforms to the 30% lot coverage, as before. The Design Review Board reviewed the project plan (Exhibit 10), along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments, and conducted on-site inspections as appropriate. After receiving public testimony and making deliberation at the public meeting, the Design Review Board voted four to one to approve the project plan with conditions by adopting a resolution (Exhibit 2). On May 17, 2021, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1). GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Town Council may wish to review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 12 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 12 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL Staff has consolidated the numerous items presented in the letter dated May 16, 2021 to in order to address the central issues proposed. The appeal request (Exhibit 1) is summarized into three (3) grounds. Ground #1: By relying on the Town’s stance of “no variances,” which was not supported by evidence in the record, and effectively deferring a decision on the design, the decision is erroneous and an abuse of discretion. Staff Response: The members of the Design Review Board evaluated the original design and subsequent designs and found that the ultimate design met the allowable floor area, lot coverage, and building height allowances. A reduced side yard variance was considered for the western elevation, as the existing dwelling was constructed prior to the establishment of the setbacks, and the addition was proposed to be extended at the same plane. The remaining front, rear, and eastern setbacks complied. The subject application did not include a request for an excess lot coverage variance, which is why it was not considered by the Design Review Board. Ground #2: The decision of the DRB was an error because the decision is not supported by evidence in the record and is otherwise improper. Staff Response: The Design Review Board made the determination to approve the subject application based on the findings of support set forth in the resolution of approval. The Design Review Board provided clear direction to the applicant to make various modifications to the initial design and to take into consideration the massing of the second story, integration of design similar to other second story designs within the neighborhood, size and the design fencing and landscaping and how it relates to the street. The Design Review Board commented and analyzed the design’s relationship to the proposed building and the existing neighborhood. The Board considered at length whether the second story addition would be appropriate in the neighborhood which consists primarily of one-story homes. In their deliberation the Board looked at and gave direction related to increased setbacks on the second story and other design features implemented to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood, ultimately Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 12 finding that the project complied with the applicable guidelines, as described below. The applicant went through several iterations of the plans to address a sensitive second story addition. In doing so, they moved massing to address concerns or privacy and reduced the square footage at the second floor. The applicant also reduced the massing at the front, street facing elevation by lowering the roof height, taking out the large stair well, and lowering the ridge height. After three public hearings and significant changes to the proposed second story, the Design Review Board approved the application with a modified design, within or below the allowances established for subject property, located in the R-1-B-A zone. While there can be aspects that are subjective, the Design Review Board did not decide in error, or without evidence. The Board based their decision on review of the information provided to them by staff, review of the various iterations of the architectural plans, visiting the site, considerable number of public comments (including letters, photographs, and oral communications) and considered various alternative designs and suggestions. The Design Review Board, throughout their discussions worked with the applicant to revise the design and were consistent, basing decisions were based on information provided, architectural plans, site visits, public comments, and the Tiburon Municipal Code, ultimately finding that the design was appropriate for the neighborhood and otherwise met applicable criteria. Ground #2: The decision of the Design Review Board (“DRB”) is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code and other applicable regulations mentioned in the 2020 General Plan, the Code of Ordinances, the Community Development Department’s guidance on “Second Story Home Addition Fact Sheet”, and Hillside Design Guidelines. Staff Response: The “Second Story Home Additions Factors to Consider” handout (Attachment 10) provides guidance to residents interested in building second story additions. Specifically, it speaks to how to design the second story addition in a way that is considered “appropriate” to the location. While the handout says that second story additions are “discouraged” in predominately single-story neighborhoods, nowhere is it stated that they are prohibited. Neither is such a prohibition included in the Tiburon Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Tiburon Municipal Codes allows a 30’ maximum height within the R-1-B-A Zone, where the property is located. The Tiburon Municipal Code does not prohibit second story additions, as Chapter 16-52.020 (H) (3) states; ‘Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 12 in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’ This language is consistent with the language in the “Second Story Home Additions Factors to Consider” handout. As such, the decision of the Design Review Board is consistent with the Municipal Code and applicable regulations. The Board members took into consideration second story factors, such as increased setbacks, other design features, neighborhood character, size, and bulk. The Design Review Board worked with the applicant and staff to arrive at a design that considers the relationship between this proposed building and the existing neighborhood. At the third and final meeting, the applicants provided a new design that addressed the height and massing, privacy, and view and visual impacts in the following manner: Height and Massing The R-1-B-A establishes a 30’ maximum height limit for primary dwellings. The proposed additions are within the allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage. The new massing created by the partial second story addition was originally concentrated along the front, street facing elevation. The second design reduced this massing by removing the stairwell, reducing the ridge height, and relocating the addition to the eastern side of the existing dwelling. The maximum height was also reduced from 24’6” to 22’2”. The revised design maintains the maximum height at 22’2”. The new massing created by the addition at the second level has been moved slightly from the eastern side of the property above the garage to above the center of the existing dwelling and towards the rear. Privacy The removal of the proposed office has reduced the anticipated privacy impacts on the western property, as the building footprint would not extend as far into the rear property as it was proposed in the original design. Similarly, the anticipated impacts on privacy on the eastern property would be alleviated, as the massing at the second story has been removed in the rear. On the eastern elevation, there will be one new window proposed on the second-floor bathroom. On the western elevation, the new windows along the hallway were proposed, with a raised sill height. At the lower level, which is less visible due to an existing fence, there are minor reconfigurations to window spacing. Visual impact and view access The revised design maintains the previous reduction at the main height ridge from 24’6” to 22’2”. The reduction of the additions to the first-floor bedroom will remain closer to the existing building footprint, reducing the anticipated impact on the view of the western neighbor. The removal of the office at the Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 12 second story will also limit the massing as it relates to the view from the eastern property. After receiving public testimony and deliberating at the public meeting, the Design Review Board found that the proposed additions to be within the allowances established for the R-1-B-A zone. Although one board member did suggest that an alternate design would improve potential impacts on nearby neighbors, the majority of board members found that significant changes had been made to address the concerns presented. PUBLIC COMMENT To date, staff has received two letters of correspondence. The applicant and homeowner has provided letters of support (Exhibit 10). A neighboring resident has also provided a letter (Exhibit 11,) which expresses disagreement to the approval of this project. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board reviewed the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in its review of this project. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On the May 6, 2021 Design Review Board meeting, as part of its review of the project and approval of the construction of exterior alterations and construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, deemed the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). To the extent further analysis is required, staff recommends that the Town Council similarly determine that with respect to the limited Site Plan and Architectural Review approval at issue the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the same Class 1 categorical exemptions, and that no exceptions to the exemptions apply. Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) The proposed project involves exterior improvements and additions to an existing home that is located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 12 and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family homes on all sides. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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: 1) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council conduct a public hearing on this matter, deliberate and then consider adopting one of the following options: 1) Deny the appeal, upholding the approval made by the Design Review Board and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 2) Grant the appeal, denying the application, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 3) Partially grant the appeal by making revisions or adding conditions to the Design Review Board’s approval, and direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. 4) Alternatively, remand the item to the Design Review Board with specific direction regarding any aspect of the project needing further review and deliberation. The Board’s decision on remand would again be appealable to the Council. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of Appeal. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 12 OF 12 2. Resolution 2021-010, approving the remodel and additions to 281 Karen Way 3. February 18, 2021, Design Review Board staff report with attachments and late mail. 4. Excerpt minutes of the February 18, 2021, Design Review Board meeting. 5. April 1,2021 Design Review Board staff report with attachments and late mail. 6. Excerpt minutes of the April 1,2021 Design Review Board meeting. 7. May 6, 2021, Design Review Board staff report with attachments and late mail. 8. Excerpt minutes of the May 6, 2021 Design Review Board meeting. 9. Second Story Home Additions Factors to Consider Handout 10. Petition of support, Received from Applicant on June 9,2021 11. Correspondence Received from Resident on May 18, 2021 12. Resolution 17-2010 Appeal procedures. 13. Approved site plan and architectural drawings reviewed by the Design Review Board on May 6, 2021 EXHIBIT 1 Attachments for NOTICE OF APPEAL May 16, 2021 APPELLANTS: Eileen McHale, Jill Sperber, Chuck and Mary Barnes, and Fred and Pru Starr Re: 281 KAREN WAY: Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020-088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers Owner. A. The decision of the Design Review Board (“DRB”) is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code and other applicable regulations mentioned in the 2020 General Plan, the Code of Ordinances, the Community Development Department’s guidance on “Second Story Home Addition Fact Sheet”, and Hillside Design Guidelines. B. The decision of the DRB was an error because the decision is not supported by evidence in the record and is otherwise improper. 1. By relying on the Town’s stance of “no variances,” which was not supported by evidence in the record, and effectively deferring a decision on the design, the decision is erroneous and an abuse of discretion. a. At the hearing, DRB members acknowledged that the applicant’s third round of plans ( May 6, 2021 agenda) did not meet redesign expectations conveyed in previous meetings. In deliberations, the DRB’s majority view was unaligned with the design and found significant deficiencies persisted. However, notwithstanding those reservations, the DRB indicated its vote of approval would be “by exclusion.” This rationale assumed the applicant had no other options but to build up due to the Town’s no variance stance for excessive lot coverage. Deliberations by the DRB included: ● “The balance of elevation continues to feel odd and not harmonious with the first floor” (Kim) ● “The width of the second story is similar to the first proposal; there was no attempt to integrate it with the lower roof. It’s not the “design I was always waiting for.”... “There is a better design that would have solved the problems…. It could have been done better” (Berger) 1 ● Given the unavailability of a variance, “this is the only solution that is left.” This is “approval by exclusion.” Zoning issues need to be addressed (Crescini) ● “The plan is somewhat back to the original design.” However, ○ Given the town’s stance on variances and required findings, two stories will become the norm. ○ “Is it my favorite 2 story? No. There could have been a less impactful roof.” ○ Leaning towards approval, there is a chance this will be appealed and heard by theTown Council (Chong) b. The DRB’s deliberations and vote carried a consistent message: essentially, the DRB said: “we don’t love the design, but our hands are tied because of the Town’s stance on no variances.” Approval was not of the design, which at least three members criticized. Rather than decide the design as per its remit, the DRB instead laid the groundwork for appeal via its approval vote to force a reckoning of the variance issue before the Town Council. As such, the DRB’s decision, which was based on factors other than the design before it, was an abuse of discretion. c. Despite the DRB’s lack of agreement that the applicant presented an acceptable, compatible design, the decision is based on assumptions that are unsupported by evidence in the record, i.e.,1) that the applicant sought approval for a variance of excessive lot coverage; 2) the Town denied the applicant’s request; 3) the Town has stopped granting excessive lot coverage variances; and 4) the applicant has no alternative but to build up. i. There is no evidence in the record that the applicant applied for a variance for excessive lot coverage or that the Town ever denied or would have denied the applicant’s request. ii. The DRB based its decision on an assumption the Town stopped granting such variances.This was not documented as evidence and made part of 2 the record. iii. The DRB expressly made assumptions, which are not in the record, to justify its decision.Therefore, the decision was an abuse of discretion. d. Notwithstanding lack of evidentiary support to find the applicant was unable to obtain a variance approval, the record did not demonstrate that the applicant requires a variance to build out a single story in the back. The applicant could have chosen to seek approval to build out a single story without objection, as was done in the recent past: In 2018, the DRB approved File Nos. DR2018-091 for the applicant’s single-story 909 square foot addition. No variances were requested, and the Town received no letters regarding this application. e. The record is absent of any evidence that applicant’s push in 2021 for a second story is even connected to “the variance issue.” Therefore, the DRB’s reliance on “the variance issue” as the basis for its approval was improper. f. The decision approving the second story addition was also based in part on applicant’s lot location along the perimeter vs. interior of Bel Aire. However, this is inconsistent with the CCD’s guidelines (“strong discouragement” of second stories). The guidelines do not provide for a second story exception for perimeter lots. (The guidelines refer to interior lots in Belveron East as having single-story homes. They reference Bel Aire lots as having single story dwellings, without distinction between interior vs. perimeter lots.1) Thus, the Board’s reliance on “perimeter” to justify its decision is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines. 1 Per the Second Story Addition Fact Sheet,Neighborhood pattern section states,“In neighborhoods consisting ofpredominantly one-story homes, a second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established developmentpattern of the area. In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East neighborhood aremade up almost entirely of one-story dwellings. Two-story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” 3 2. Decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code (“Code and supporting guidelines”2). a. Approved Mass & Scale are inconsistent with Code and guidelines. i.Size: Applicant’s second floor square footage was reduced from the second plan but remains at nearly 600 sq. ft., roughly twice as large as the existing small minority of second floor single-room additions in the neighborhood. Applicant’s second story footprint for a full bedroom, a recreation room, and a full bathroom (total of 3 rooms) would still loom over the adjacent one-story homes, particularly on the west side and the “downhill houses” across the street to the south. ii. Street presence: because of its “on street” width and proximity to the sidewalk, the two-story design still appears massive from nearby properties (both adjacent and southside) and does not blend into the neighborhood from mass and scale perspectives. 1. The approved second floor plan is roughly twice as large as existing second floors additions, which consist of one room attics/offices, or in the case of one property (285 Karen), narrow loft space accessible by ladder that overlook a “T” intersection of street only, not the bedrooms of neighbors’ homes. The decision-notwithstanding the massing’s proximity to the front- is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines. 2. Approval of a second story that is positioned front and center of the house without requiring increased setbacks or better integration to minimize intrusion to neighbors is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines. In fact, DRB noted the width of the second floor is similar to, if not wider than, the original rejected plan. A member stated the design should have been narrower and further 2 For convenience, this appeal’s reference to “Code and supporting guidelines” includes collectively the following: GeneralPlan, Code of Ordinances, Second Story Home Addition Fact Sheet, and Guiding Principles. 4 away from the side properties. Members concurred the roof should have been lowered and integrated better, but that was not the aesthetic the applicant desired. 3. Although the second floor’s relocation from the eastside back to the center again was ostensibly done to accommodate concerns of mass and scale experienced by the east-side neighbor with the April 1 plan, it does little to ameliorate the concerns of the west-side and south-side neighbors. a. In particular, the bedrooms of 2 south-side neighbors (171 Leland and 278 Karen) are more impacted than ever by the centralized and expanded repositioning of the second floor house form: these rooms directly face the applicant’s front property and imposing second story structure (with resulting loss of open space view of the hillside, and intrusions of mass, privacy, and light from 281’s second floor front windows). See photos from north- side bedroom of 171 Leland Way. b. By neglecting the impact of mass and scale to the southside neighbors’ bedrooms and minimizing the impact to the west side neighbor, the decision is inconsistent with the Code and guidelines. 5 North views from 171 Leland bedroom window taken when story poles were erected for April 1, 2021 DRB Meeting (NOT current story poles) 6 Despite these findings, the decision approved what it described as a “house form” placed on top of a house, inconsistent with the DRB’s recommendations, the Code, and supporting guidelines. iii. Lack of roofline integration: approval was decided notwithstanding the DRB’s acknowledgement of persistent flaws in the plan’s lack of elevation harmony and second floor roof line integration. Unlike other second floor additions that have lower elevations, and either flat or dormer roofs that create a “stealth-like” presence, the design ignores the DRB’s expectations and adheres only to the applicant’s personal design aesthetic. As member Berger stated in dissent, “I don’t believe [the architect] for all of his skill has actually tried to integrate this second floor into the roof in any way that we asked for from the very beginning. I think there is a way to do it. I haven’t seen it. And now that you’re getting approved, I want to go on record that I can’t approve this design as is.” 7 The decision is inconsistent with the DRB’s findings of design deficiencies regarding lack of second story roofline integration, and is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines.3 b. Decision is inconsistent with Code requirements for design consistency with Neighborhood Character The Code and supporting guidelines dictate preservation of neighborhood character and development pattern. i. Code and supporting guidelines: As per LU-13: “Neighborhood character, which is defined by the predominant architectural styles, type of buildings, building heights, mass, setbacks, landscaping, and natural characters, shall be of material consideration [emphasis added] and preserved in all construction projects, including remodels and additions, to the maximum extent feasible.” Consistency with neighborhood development pattern also appears in the Code and the Second Story Addition Fact Sheet. ii. At home with other 2 story homes: Vice Chair Chong acknowledged that if this house was going in on a street with 30 other two story homes where the home on the left and right were two stories and the 3 [houses] across the street were two stories, he doesn’t think anyone would have a problem with it. Understandably, there was no attempt by the DRB to characterize Bel Aire as that type of neighborhood. Because it’s not. iii. Bel Aire neighborhood character and development pattern: approximately 92% of homes are single story. Constructed in the 1950s in a circle layout, the lots are close together with narrow but deep lots. Many successfully integrated additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the 3 Section 16-52.020.H3 requires “height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonablerelationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity.[Emphasis added.] A good relationship of abuilding to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes,second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. 8 rear of the property and constructed both with and without variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. iv. The applicant’s design: there was no support in the record that the design harmonizes with the neighborhood character or the development pattern. The decision did not decide this material factor and is therefore inconsistent with the Code and controlling guidelines. v. Inconsistency with development pattern: The vast majority of homes in Bel Aire - on interior and perimeter lots - is single story. Hard stop. Second-story additions in Bel Aire are few and far between.The approximately eight (8) “second stories” are roughly half or less of the size of the applicant’s planned second story consisting of three distinct rooms. vi. It is inaccurate to describe the existing second level structures as full stories. They consist of single attic or office-like rooms or have narrow spaces with small windows.Unlike the applicant’s plan, these have integrated second story roof lines and an internally harmonious presence. Some have dormers or flat roofs, creating a low profile “stealth-like” appearance. Some sit on top of garages or at the far ends of their lot. vii. Non-alignment with neighborhood character: The decision did not give “material consideration” to preserving neighborhood character. There was no finding this design was internally harmonious or in character with the neighborhood or development pattern. viii. Approval by default: The Board assumed no variance could be had and portrayed the variance conundrum as tying the Applicant’s hands on the design. Vice Chair Chong predicted that without future variance approvals, “second stories will become the norm.” Feeling hamstrung by the perceived dilemma posed by the Town’s presumed “no variance” stance, the DRB openly counted on an appeal, effectively punting to the Town Council. This is that appeal. 9 c. Decision is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines protecting Privacy. i. The site plan includes a 22’2” main ridge height, which is 64% higher than all but one of the surrounding dwellings. The proposed 64% higher roofline creates unwanted viewpoints from the second story windows. ii. The second story’s privacy-invading windows loom on the applicant’s west side over 279 Karen’s primary bathroom. Even with a 5 foot sill, with the height advantage of an additional 9’ and looking down, the second story windows have an unobstructed view through 279’s CLEAR (not opaque) bay windows, resulting in loss of privacy using the commode, basin, and/or shower. See photos from 279 Karen main bathroom below. 10 iii. At the hearing, the Board erroneously equated Privacy with View, stating the bathroom window is not a primary “view.” (Comment by the Chair). The Chair suggested the burden of remediation falls to 279 Karen (the west neighbor) for installation of frosted bathroom windows in its property. 1. The decision sidestepped legitimate, reasonable privacy concerns, which is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines. 2. For example, Goal 3, Principle 6 of the Hillside Design Guidelines states “avoid placing windows where they can see right into someone’s home.” 3. Despite acknowledging that 279 Karen might install frosted glass to block 281 Karen’s views into its bathroom and protect its privacy, DRB is conceding a very real problem exists. However, the decision improperly minimized this concern and unfairly shifted the problem to the westside neighbor to solve.That approach is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines. d. Decision is inconsistent with the Code and supporting guidelines requiring minimized impact to Sunlight and Shade i.The second story looms above the westside property and would directly impact the morning sun available to it in the main dining room, family room, kitchen and bathroom. Nearly 70% of 279 Karen would experience a reduction of morning sun by approximately 1.5 to 2 hours. See photos below of morning sunlight from 279 Karen facing east (applicant’s property.) ii. The decision defies the record of compelling evidence showing light and shade intrusion posed by the design. It is contrary to the Code and supporting guidance, including the Second Story Home Fact Sheet: “Sunlight and Shade: The additional building height created by a second story can block sunlight into a neighbor's home or create too much shade in nearby yards.” 11 Impact on 279 Karen’s Morning Sun 12 Impact on 279 Karen’s Family Room Conclusion Based on the above, the APPELLANTS hereby respectfully request the Design Review Board’s decision of May 6, 2021 be set aside and the project be disapproved. 13 EXHIBIT 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 010 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 1,520 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON A R-1-B-A ZONED PROPERTY AT 281 KAREN WAY 281 KAREN WAY ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-122-05 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings A. The Town of Tiburon received an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for exterior alterations and construction of an approximately 1,520 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence with an attached garage on a R-1-B-A zoned property. The proposed house and improvements would contain approximately 2,675 square feet of gross floor area and cover 2,415.5 square feet (29.9%) of the lot. 1. Application form and supplemental materials received December 14,2020; and 2. Site plan and elevations prepared by Kyle Thayer, Architect, received on April 22,2021. B. The Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing on this project at the February 18, 2021, April 1, 2021, and May 6, 2021 meeting, the Board reviewed plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 16-52.020 (H) of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications). C. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the February 18, 2021, April 1, 2021, and May 6, 2021 staff reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the proposed project appears to further the purposes and guiding principles. D. The Design Review Board finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15303. The Design Review Board further finds that that none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply, as there is no evidence that the project will result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, presents unusual circumstances, or involves an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, a hazardous waste DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 2 site, damage to a scenic highway, or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. E. The Design Review Board further finds, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the February 18, 2021, April 1, 2021, and May 6, 2021 staff reports and the attachment thereto, as well as the data submitted, supplemented by public comment and on-site inspections, and deliberations at the meeting, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and thus will further the purpose set forth in subsection 16-52.020(A), and satisfy the applicable criteria of subsection 16- 52.020(H). 16-52.020(A) Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single-family residence. The additions will add to the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 3 The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. 16-52.030 (E) Variance 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, to this residence being approved and developed prior to town incorporation the side yard is considered an existing physical constraint. Furthermore, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. These special circumstances of an existing nonconforming side yard and a topography constraint the struct application of the Municipal Code will deprive the owner of privileges provided others that do not have these existing constraints. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non-conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones therefore not granting of a special privilege. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 4 The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated seven inches from where the existing wall is located and result in a reduction of the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The additions are proposed to extend beyond the existing plane of dwelling, but at no point will encroach further into the side yard setback. The new additions will not exceed the existing ridge height and will be shielded by the existing solid fencing. There are no substantial modifications to the existing grade or landscaping that are necessary to facilitate these additions. 16-52.020(H) Guiding Principles 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed addition in the rear of the property is compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed remodel/addition is in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, for these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The majority of the first- floor addition is limited to the rear yard of the property and the second story addition has been relocated so it is concentrated in the middle, on top of the existing dwelling. Given that the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 5 street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors located to the east and west, limiting the impacts on privacy. The new massing along the rear elevation would be concentrated towards the front of the building resulting in limited impacts. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second- story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The revised design would propose 2,084 square feet at the lower level and 591 square feet at the second story, for a total of2,675 square feet. The proposed 52 square foot addition to the 279 square foot results in a garage, totaling 331 square feet. The proposed floor area is 2,675 square feet which is 130 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed addition because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, to maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 6 The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls is proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance, and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 7 the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10.Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is in the R-1- B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11.Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12.Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File Nos. DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for the reasons set forth above, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon on May 6, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS: BARRINGER, CHONG, CRESCINI, KIM BOARDMEMBERS: BERGER BOARDMEMBERS: NONE BOARDMEMBERS: NONE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 9 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 281 Karen Way File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Community Development Department 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The owner and/or applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless along with the Town Council, commissions, boards, agents, officers, employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding (“action”), against the Town, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or damages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall promptly notify the owner and/or applicant of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the owners and/or applicants or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys with all attorney’s fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the owner and/or applicant 3. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on May 6,2021 as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated April 22, 2021, stamped “Approved by Design Review Board May 6,2021”, as determined in the discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be reviewed, and approved by the Design Review Board. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan that addresses, parking, traffic control, construction management, construction staging, scheduling, construction equipment, washout, road/access maintenance and repair and other concerns to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Community Development Director. 5. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes, such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a “bubble” or “cloud”) on the submitted construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 10 Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 6. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise, must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division’s “Notice of Action”, including the attached “Conditions of Approval” for this project, shall be copied onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings. 8. Any structures located within a required setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height at any point. 9. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24” x 24” in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 10. If any existing landscaping that is not proposed to be removed is subsequently removed during construction, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan to Planning Division staff for review and approval of additional adequate landscaping, prior to a Final Inspection. The Planning Division staff may refer any subsequent landscaping plan to the Design Review Board. 11. The stone pillars of the front yard fence are not approved. The stone material must be removed from the fence design, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Public Works Department 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mcstoppp.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 13. An Encroachment Permit from DPW is required for any work within the Town’s road right-of way, including, but not limited to, utility trenching, installation of new utility connections, and modifications to the driveway apron. The plans shall clearly identify all DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 11 proposed work in the right of way and an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to conducting such work. 14. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met. If the work includes the following, the applicant shall note on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check: (a) If over 2,500 square feet of surface area will be added or replaced, the site must provide at least one Post Construction mitigation in accordance with E.12 of the Town’s Municipal Stormwater Permit and the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. (b) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building permit final sign- off, a licensed land surveyor shall verify that fencing, walls, footings and building foundations are entirely within the subject property. If it is found that any portion of the structure(s) were placed outside of the property, that portion of the structure shall be removed and relocated to be entirely within the property boundaries. A certification letter, stamped and signed by the surveyor shall be provided as documentation. The letter is required to state that the licensed professional surveyor located the property boundary of the subject property and “certifies” that all structures, including fencing and foundations are located entirely within the subject property and do not encroach beyond it. The certification letter shall reference the building permit number, provide the date when the surveyor performed their services and must reference the property address and assessor’s parcel number. (c) If project requires movement (including cut, fill, displacement, import and/or export) of earth measuring 50 cubic yards or greater, then the following are required: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall complete the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant Package that can be found in the helpful forms and documents section of the Town’s website. Link: http://townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms-Documents. Please note that projects with over 50 cubic yards of earth movement shall also be subject to post-rain- event erosion control inspections. (d) Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide a geotechnical report, a grading plan and drainage plan to the Town Engineer. (e) Prior to issuance of a building permit, review and acceptance of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Town Engineer is required. Southern Marin Fire Protection District DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 12 15. The fire planning review fee is due prior to any final approvals from the planning department. 16. The Fire District will be required to review the building permit plans at the time of permit submittal. Please include the conditions of approval in the submittal. 17. Deferred Submittals: Please note on the cover sheet of the drawings all deferred submittals that will be required by Southern Marin Fire District. • Fire sprinklers will be required as a deferred submittal. 18. Fire Hydrant Body Upgrade Required: Prior to framing, the existing fire hydrant upgrade shall be required. When additions or modifications to structures are made, the nearest fire hydrant (if a new one is not required) located by the Fire Code Official, shall be upgraded to the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet 2 ½ inch outlet for single family dwellings and the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet and two 2 ½ inch outlets for commercial structures. • Exception: If the cost of upgrading the fire hydrant exceeds 2% of the cost of the project based on the building permit valuation. • Clow #FHD75 CLOW Residential Upgrade at hydrant located at 283 Karen Way 19. Fire Sprinkler Requirements: The current scope of work appears to be in excess of 50% of the existing structure and is being considered a substantial remodel as defined in SMFD Ordinance 2019/2020-01 and shall require the installation of fire sprinklers throughout the structure. However, if further review or change in scope reveals that the project is less than 50% of the existing structure, then the project will be re-evaluated. • A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for the following: • If the combination of the addition, alteration or remodeling exceeds 50% of the floor area of the existing structure, the project is considered a “substantial remodel” ** (see end for definition) • Existing Buildings. In any building with an existing automatic sprinkler system, protection shall be extended to any all of alteration, repair, remodel, or addition, regardless of job size so that 100% coverage is maintained. Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided through the entire structure according to Chapter 9 of the California Fire Code. Fire sprinkler system shall be installed according to NFPA standards and Southern Marin Fire Standard 401. Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the Southern Marin Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinkler system design and installation shall conform DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 13 to the provisions of the Southern Marin Fire District Standard 401and N.F.P.A. Standard(s) 13, 13D or 13R. 20. A vertical overhead clearance of 13' 6" shall be maintained free of obstructions above any roadbed (trees, brush, etc.). 21. The property owner shall comply with California Fire Code Section 304.1.2 and Local Ordinance Section 109.3.2 Abatement of Clearance of Flammable Brush or Flammable Vegetative Growth from Structures. 22. A minimum clearance of 30 feet from the structure or to the property line, 10 feet from roads and property lines and any tree which extends within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe shall be kept clear of flammable brush, tree limbs and grasses. 23. A list of flammable (pyrophytic) plans and non-flammable (fire resistive) plans can be found on the University of California Cooperative Extension: Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistive Plants list. This is available at firesafemarin.org Exception: Vegetation Management Plan for the property has been submitted and approved by the Fire Code Official. 24. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Fire Code and SMFD standard 205 (Premises Identification). 25. Smoke / CO Detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code. Non-combustible roofing required. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for: • All new roofs shall be non-combustible. • Roof Repairs or replacement: o Less than 25% - no requirement o 25% to 50% - Class C minimum o 50% or more – Non-Combustible • In no case shall the roofing material used be less fire resistive than the existing roof. NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group R Occupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the California Building Code. 26. This project shall comply with California Fire Code Chapter 33 – Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition. These requirements include but are not limited to: Temporary Heating Equipment, Precautions Against Fire, Flammable and Combustible Liquids, Flammable Gases, Owners Responsibility for Fire Protection, Fire Reporting, Access for Fire Fighting, Means of Egress, Water Supply for Fire Protection, Standpipes, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, Portable Fire Extinguishers, Motorized Construction Equipment, and Safeguarding Roofing Operations. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-010 May 6, 2021 14 27. Fire access to the project as well as the other surrounding properties shall be maintained at all times. Unapproved restrictions in roadway access shall result in citations and vehicles being towed at the owner’s expense. 28. Any revisions that include additional floor area, reduction of floor area, or modifications to existing or new walls, floors, ceilings, or roofs shall be submitted as revised drawings to the District for further review. 29. All on-site improvements, such as water main extensions, hydrants, and access roads, must be serviceable prior to framing the structure. 30. Final occupancy approval shall not be granted/released until authorization to the Community Development Agency has been received from the Fire District. Other Agencies 31. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 32. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from the Sanitary District confirming that all applicable requirements of the District have been satisfied for occupancy. 33. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). 34. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy. --End of Conditions of Approval-- EXHIBIT 3 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Subject: 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 281 KAREN WAY OWNER: LISA EVERS APPLICANT: KYLE THAYER ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 034-122-05 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 LOT SIZE: 8,052 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1-B-A (BEL AIRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: JANUARY 21, 2021 PSA DEADLINE: MARCH 22, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review for exterior alterations and construction of approximately 888 square feet of new floor area to an existing single-family dwelling on the property located at 281 Karen Way as well as the addition of 42 square feet to the existing attached garage. The property is currently occupied by a one-story single-family home that was constructed in 1953 with an approximately 1,207 square feet of floor area and a 279 square foot attached garage. The proposal would add a partial second story with a balcony and extend the existing eastern and western wings of the home into the rear yard. Additional landscape improvements are also proposed, including a new hot tub, fire pit, and barbeque in the rear yard and a new four foot tall fence at the front yard. The proposed additions would increase the calculated floor area of the property by 888 square feet to 2,095 square feet, which is less than the permitted floor area ratio (2,805 square feet) for this site. The proposed addition would increase the existing lot coverage of 1,486 square feet of TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-2 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 11 the site by 928.5 square feet to a total of 2,415.5 square feet (29.9%), which is just under the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1-B-A zone. The existing maximum height of the home is 14’8’ at the front elevation. The proposed additions would increase the height to 24’6”, which is under the 30’ height limit permitted in the R-1-B-A zone. The existing home is located 24’8” from the front property line. The addition to the garage would reduce this distance to the required setback of 20’. The current home is located 65’2” to the rear property line and the addition would reduce this to 40’6”, where a minimum of 25’ is required. The existing eastern wall of the home is located 6’4” from the side property line, where a minimum of 6’ is required. The proposed addition would be constructed at the same distance. The proposed addition at the western wall at the first floor would extend to within 5 feet, 6 inches of the side property line. As a 6-foot side yard setback is required in the R-1-B-A zone, a variance is also requested for reduced side yard setback. The proposed colors and material include a combination of stucco siding and stone. The proposed roof will be constructed of composition shingles in the “Charcoal” color. A color and material board has been included in the project plan and can be found on Sheet A5.2 on the attached plans provided for the Board review (Attachment 2). PROJECT SETTING Source: Marin Map and Google Map, accessed on February 4,2021 The property is located on a rectangular lot on Karen Way in the Bel-Aire neighborhoods. The subject site and surrounding area is predominately flat, but there rear of the site slopes up toward the old railroad right-of-way adjacent to Bel Aire School,. Homes located on the abutting properties are mostly one-story, with one-car attached garage and main entry facing the street. ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Site plan and layout Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 11 The western wall of the existing single-family dwelling was constructed five feet and six inches from the side property line, prior to the establishment of a six-foot setback. The remaining portion of the home and garage were constructed within the allowable building envelope. The proposed additions in the rear will extend the existing eastern and western walls to create a “U” shaped home, with a small courtyard. The western wall is proposed to be constructed in line with the existing wall. Extending this wall would require the granting of a variance for a reduce side yard setback. A partial second story is proposed above with an upper floor balcony facing the courtyard in the rear yard. The Board may wish to comment on whether the project is properly related to its site and location of existing improvements on adjoining sites, with the goal of achieving privacy and providing adequate light and air to nearby neighbors. Height and Massing The R-1-B-A establishes a 30’ maximum height limit for primary dwellings. The proposed additions are within the allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage, except for the variance for the reduced side yard setback for horizontal extension of an existing wall. The new massing created by the partial second story addition would locate within the building envelope and be concentrated along the front, street facing, elevation. Since the neighborhood is predominately occupied by single-story homes, the Board may want to assess if the proposed additions are appropriately scaled and are properly placed to ensure the project would bears a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Privacy The project proposes additions with adequate distance from its neighboring structures to preserve privacy. In consideration of the adjacent neighbor’s view, sunlight, and privacy, the maximum ridge height of the addition in the rear would be lower from the existing dwelling’s ridge height by one foot. The project will maintain the existing perimeter fence and landscaping. The project includes window and door replacement on the existing residence, as well as new window and door placement on the new addition. Visual impact and view access The project will maintain the 4:12 roof slope while raising the maximum ridge height from 14’-8” to 24’6’. The master bedroom suite and kitchen additions that extends toward the rear yard will have a lower ridge height of approximately 13”. The area around the subject property is relatively flat and the neighboring properties are primarily comprised of single-story homes. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed height and roof form is appropriate in its context, with the goal of minimizing visual and view impacts to nearby neighbors. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles to determine if the proposed addition would create any visual, privacy, light or view impacts on the adjacent neighbors. Zoning Variance In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 11 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,00 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. The existing physical constraints of the hillside and small lot size create special circumstances that deprives the owners of this property of the same development privileges enjoyed by other properties within this zoning district. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non- conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require that the rear addition would need to be relocated in six inches from where the existing wall is located reduce the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed additions in the rear would not be located above the existing ridgeline, maintaining the existing view of adjacent neighbors. Similarly, the concentration of the partial second story addition towards the front of the home was designed to maintain the sunlight to adjacent neighbors. The majority of new windows created at the partial second story addition would be facing the rear yard and street, instead of facing the neighboring properties. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 11 The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure the design of proposed construction supports, maintains, and enhances the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will infill the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 11 The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with the guiding principles are provided below: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed additions in the rear of the property are compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story and is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. These additions would be in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, For these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The additions on the first floor would extend into the rear of the property, with the maximum ridgeline reduced by roughly one foot. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors to the east and west, limiting the impacts on privacy. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. The Board may suggest the potential relocation or design of the second Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 11 story, as deem necessarily to ensure the project will maintain a reasonable relationship with its surrounding. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The additions to the existing home would add 888 square feet, resulting in 2,095 square feet in total floor area. The proposed floor area is 710 square feet under the maximum allowable floor area of 2,805 square feet. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed additions because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls are proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 11 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance , and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. In conclusion, the project appears to further the purposes and is in substantial conformance with many of the guiding principles. The Board may want to assess whether the proposed massing and location of the second story addition is appropriate. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 11 Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1-B-A zone. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, the Town has received numerous letters in both support (Attachment 3) as well as opposition from the neighboring residents regarding the subject application (Attachment 4). The neighbors in opposition have expressed concern over the additional mass and bulk added by the second story. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions. Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) The proposed project involves minor exterior improvements and additions to an existing home that is located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family homes on all sides. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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: 1) The property is located in a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. 5) It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions and exterior improvements to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 11 and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends the Board provide design guidance to the applicant that would advance the project toward approval. If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions or deny the project, the Board may direct staff to draft such conditions and resolution, which would be presented at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and supplemental materials, received on December 14, 2020. 2. Project plans by Thayer Architecture, received on December 14, 2020. 3. Public Comments in support of the project: • Neighbor’s letter from 83 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 334 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 326 Karen Way, received 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 329 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 318 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 258 Karen Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 85 Harriet Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 113 Blackfield Drive, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 350 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Signature sheet (20 total residents) received on 2/5/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 257 Karen Way, received on 2/7/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 191 Blackfield Drive, received on 2/8/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 321 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 342 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 346 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 4. Public Comments in opposition of the project: • Neighbor’s letter from 22 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way and 251 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 71 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 279 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 127 Leland Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 166 Leland Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 94 Claire Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 90 Claire Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 71 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 revising the house address for letter sent on 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 42 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 82 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 278 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 79 Claire Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 86 Claire Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 171 Leland Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 10 Claire Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 46 Claire Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Mindy Canter, received 2/2/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Brian Brown (owner of 2 houses on Karen Way and Leland Way), received 2/2/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 157 Leland Way, received 2/3/2021 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 11 of 11 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Marion and James Fitzgerald, received on 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 278 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 87 Claire Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 279 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager, received on 2/6/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 121 Leland Way, received on 2/9/2021 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 0 D R 2 0 2 0 - 0 8 8 / V A R 2 0 2 0 - 0 2 0 $ 1 , 3 9 5 . 0 0 R 9 8 3 9 S B K B 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 D e s i g n R e v i e w B o a r d 2 0 4 0 ' 6 " 6 ' 4 " 5 ' 6 " 2 4 ' 6 " 2 4 1 5 . 5 2 9 . 9 2 7 1 2 H o m e 3 2 1 G a r a g e = 3 0 3 3 2 8 0 5 H o m e 6 0 0 G a r a g e = 3 4 0 5 2 0 2 5 6 6 3 0 2 4 1 6 3 0 D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 2 0 J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 1 IA] ROOF: CLASS 'A' COMPOSITION SHINGLES,GAF TIMBERLINE, "CHARCOAL" � FASCIA AND GUTTERS: PAINTED BLACK IQ] SIDING: 3 COAT STUCCO: BENJAMIN MOORE "SILVER SATIN" OC-26 [!] WINDOW SASH: BLACK; WOOD WINDOW WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING IQ] SIDING: CULTURED STONE: PRO-FIT ALPINE LEDGESTONE, "BLACK MOUNTAIN" COLORS AND MATERIALS I-iii; JOB NO: 2D2ll-08 COLORS& MATERIALS SCALE: NIA DAlE: DEC. 11, 2020 DRAWH3 5.2 REVISION & January 25,2021 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 1 :58 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way CAUTION : This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I just wanted to send the feedback that I am very excited about the project at 281 Karen way and think it will be fantastic for the neighborhood. They have been really great to everyone in the neighborhood and it is a real shame Chuck Barnes is trying to stop this ... Matt Boyd 83 Claire Way Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:41 PM Kris Bernard -rl> Subject: Fwd: Design Review logistics -281 Karen Way remodel Attachments: IMG_2207-2.JPG; IMG_2206-2.JPG; IMG_2204-2.JPG; IMG_2208-2.JPG; Two Story Home Addition Fact Sheet.pdf; 281 Karen Lisa Evers 2021-01-24 letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, We live at 334 Karen Way in Tiburon. We received the below email regarding a planned remodel at 281 Karen Way. Please note our support of this remodel, we think the second story is fine. Please let me know if there is anything else we should do to register our support. Best, Sarah and Andrew Basham 334 Karen Way Tiburon, CA ----------Forwarded message--------- From: C Barn __ Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM Subject: Design Review logistics -281 Karen Way remodel T January 25, 2021 Hi Neighbors, re: 181 Karen Way remodel/addition --='Thi,...:--_I I just got off the phone with one of the staff people for the Town of Tiburon about logistics for Design Reviews Feedback emails to Kris Bernard, kbernard@townoftiburon.org Kris indicated that it is best if she receives input as soon as possible. She has to package the materials and distribute them to the Board members and publish them on-line in the "Meetings and Agendas" section of the Town of Tiburon website. The agenda and other materials (feedback, staff report, etc.) are slated for distribution and on-line publication 2/11 for 281 Karen Way. Architectural plans are published in the "Projects Under Review" section of the website once the town planner assigned to the project considers the application complete. As of our conversation the planner had not indicated the submission for 281 Karen Way as complete. I fully support remodels and fixing up the neighborhood. My communications are not to enlist you in a particular viewpoint but to make sure facts are available, including the Town of Tiburon design factors to consider ab'Out second story 1 additions. I was not involved in formulating the design factors and they have been in place a long time. There are many wonderful large remodels/additions in Bel Aire that have managed to deal with the constraints of our properties and the Town of Tiburon with neighborhood support. This is not about a personal story. -Chuck -----Fnn""'rded Message ----- v Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021, 8:24:02 PM PST Subject: 1/24 Lisa Evers letter attached -Fw: Update -Re: 281 Karen Way story poles/remodel -Chuck -----Forwarded Messa~e ----- vent: Sunday, January 24, 2021, 8: 11 :49 PM PST Subject: Update -Re: 281 Karen Way story poles/remodel I'll be delivering copies of this to the neighborhood. I've attached the Tiburon "Second Floor Home Addition" document and pictures of the local houses that are being used to justify a 600 sq ft second floor living space. -Chuck January 24, 2021 Dear Bel Aire Neighbors, You may have received a letter from Lisa Evers 1/24 about a proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way. The remodel has a 2,000 sq ft first floor and a 2nd floor with 600 sq ft of living space. Traditionally 2nd story additions have been denied in the Bel Aire neighborhood because they would be inconsistent with the established development pattern in the area. Those of you who have lived in Bel Aire for a while are well aware of the issue and may have been involved in stopping a number of second floor additions. For those of you who remodeled to fit in with the neighborhood over the years, thank you! I have enclosed a copy of the Town of Tiburon's "Second Story Home Additions -Factors To Consider" also found at Helpful Forms & Documents I Tiburon. CA -Official Website Helpful Forms & Documents I Tiburon, CA -Official Website Click on "Second Story Addition Fact Sheet" in the "Design Review Application Forms, Guidelines and Related Documents" section. Lisa is aware of this document. The Neighborhood pattern section specifically cites Bel Aire and is quite clear. 2 The second to last paragraph of the document states "Town staff encourages homeowners to talk to their neighbors who may be affected by their project at the outset of the design process, and then keep them advised of any substantive changes as the design takes place." That did not take place. Lisa and I talked yesterday (Saturday). I don't believe she or the architect talked to anyone else prior to Saturday. The story poles were up and the plans submitted to the Planning Deportment prior to our conversation. I indicated my opposition to the second story, with 600 sq ft of living space, because it would not fit with the neighborhood pattern. Lisa's 1/24 letter is very misleading about the other homes with second floors in Bel Aire. Three of the four she identifies with second floors have barely visible second floors from the street and were done when this area was a part of the county, not the Town of Tiburon. They don't look anything like her proposal. Cited are 354 Karen Way, 326 Karen Way, 318 Karen Way and 258 Karen Way. I also have pictures of them (attached). If you need a copy of the letter let me know. She is having "open houses" this week and asking for sign off. I recommend you read "Second Home Documents", look at the houses with 2nd floors, and consider our whole Bel Aire neighborhood look and feel (established neighborhood pattern) before signing off. A number of us think there will be a cascade effect of second story additions all across Bel Aire if this is approved. I also recommend that you participate with feedback to Lisa and to the Design Review Board as early as possible. I am working on getting more specific logistics information of where/how to send feedback and the the when/how of the Board meeting for this proposal. Thanks, Chuck Barnes (the person with "the older truck in his yard and overgrown trees") 278 Karen Way On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 2:01:17 PM PST, C Barnes <cbarnez@gmail.com> wrote Hi Neighbors, We have not received the official notice from the Town of Tiburon about a proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, but story poles went up today. If you are interested in the look and feel of houses in Bel Aire I recommend you check out the story poles and quickly give feedback to the Tiburon Design Review Board either in writing or in person/Zoom at the meeting slated for February 18 Town of Tiburon 3 Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 "If you have any questions about submitting public comment, please contact the Town Clerk at lstefani@townoftiburon.org " Thanks, Chuck 4 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BelAireNeighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to belaireneighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.corn /d/msgid /b.elaireneighborhood/6152452.3236770.16116l0887000%40ma il.ya1100.corn . 5 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:41 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 181 Karen Way Remodel/Addition From: Carol Perry   Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:41 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: 181 Karen Way Remodel/Addition  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hello Kris,   My name is Carol Perry and I live on 326 Karen way. My house has a second story addition and I lived in it for 20  years.I'm writing this email to share with you some feedback I have in regards to the second floor addition on 181 Karen  Way.   I reviewed the Architectural plans and I am in full support of the proposed second floor addition. I believe it is consistent  with the established architectural pattern of the neighborhood and does not diminish views from nearby homes.  I hope Tiburon's design review approves the proposed plans. It is important for our town to be supportive of actions that  improve the value of it's residents properties.  Thank you and all the best,   ‐‐   Carol Perry  January 27, 2021 ~ ~ ((; r ,1 1 ~ : ~I ~11 b Pl.ANNING DIVISION Grover Wilson III 329 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 January 26, 2021 Ms. Samantha Bonifacio Sent Via Email: sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org Assistant Planner Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Proposed Home Remodel – 281 Karen Way, Tiburon CA 94920 Dear Sam: I am writing in support of the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920. We have lived in Bel-Aire for almost 28 years and seen many changes to the neighborhood the vast majority of them good. As a former Tiburon Design Review Board member, I can appreciate change is sometimes a challenge. I believe within reason trying to tastefully nudge our 1950’s style neighborhood into the 21st century, one house at a time, is okay with me. Sincerely, Grover Wilson III January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:John Leszczynski Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:01 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Having a second story myself, approved in 2006, I hope that you approve Ms. Evers design in its entirety.  She's not asking for any variances, especially considering the limited room on the property,  not the least of  which includes the RR berm in her backyard!  Great design given all her constraints.  We need more such  innovative designs in BelAire, moving us out of 1953.   As far as the chief complainant across the street, I wonder how he can even see her property most of  the year, as he's got all that vegetation and a permanently installed truck in his front yard!  Given the   town's enhanced awareness of fire hazards on residential property.....well, maybe the fire safety marshall  should have a look at his!  Just sayin'! .   Best regards,  John Leszczynski  318 Karen Way.   January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lara Conte Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 7:43 PM To:Kris Bernard; Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:re: 281 Karen Way letter of support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  1.31.21  Letter for 281 Karen Way  We are writing to state our support for the proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way.  While we understand that 2nd stories  are discouraged in the neighborhood and we do not think they are appropriate in many situations, we think that the  specifics of this lot and its siting on the north side of Karen Way make it a house where a partial second story makes  sense. We also do not fear this approval would open the floodgates for 2nd stories, as the design review board carefully  reviews each application on a case‐by‐case basis.  This lot has minimal level area due to the steep rear yard hillside that backs up to Bel Aire School, making expanding the  house on one level into the backyard less desirable.  In normal years, schoolkids wait for the bus daily all over the  homeowner’s front lawn, making expanding far forward undesirable as well. There is no rear yard neighbor who would  have privacy impacts as the rear yard “neighbor” is Bel Aire School. The house is facing two driveways across the street  with minimal privacy concerns.  While one house across the street does have windows fronting Karen Way, heavy  landscaping provides screening in both directions.  Also, given the north side of Karen Way is higher than the south side,  there is already a view downward across the street and the partial 2nd story does not create more of a privacy intrusion  than already exists. There is no protected view that is being blocked by the partial 2nd story.  The homeowner has pulled the partial second story inward from the side setbacks in order to reduce square footage and  massing upstairs and minimize the impact to the neighbors on either side.  At the same time, as the adjacent residences  are directly next door and the most affected, should they have privacy concerns, it is important to hear their  comments.  There could be some mitigating steps taken that could minimize privacy issues (minimizing windows facing  east/west, raising windowsills above eye level, reducing deck area, or minimizing outdoor lights on upper story).   We think that it is rational to either approve this application or to find a pathway toward approving it.  Fred & Lara Conte  258 Karen Way   Sent from Mail for Windows 10  February 1, 2021 ~ ~ © 1 11 ~ ITT i ::1 ~] 1~ PLANNING DIVISION February 3, 2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear members of the board, This letter is to voice our support for the proposed partial second story addition at 281 Karen Way. After reviewing the plans with the owner and visiting the property with the story poles in place, it is understandable why the owner would like to increase square footage to the property with a partial second story. The lot does not have adequate level area in the backyard to expand the house as a single story. The fact that this lot has a very steep hillside in rear yard and backs up to Bel Aire School would not be intruding on any privacy issues for a rear neighbor nor are any views being blocked by the second story. The proposed second story would have minimal impact for the side, front neighbors as the second story would not be blocking their views, and their properties have not become a “fishbowl” from this proposed second story. The design that the owner has created is within the height and square footage allotment per the Town’s requirements and has great curb appeal that keeps in line with the style of the neighborhood. We support the approval of the proposed second story at 281 Karen Way. Regards, Bill and Barb Powers 85 Harriet Way February 3, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Christopher Murphy Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:24 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:Letter in Support of 281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,  My wife and I, residents of the Bel Aire neighborhood and owners of 113 Blackfield, are writing in support of the  proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way for the upcoming DRB meeting.  We've seen the current home, neighbors' homes,  lot characteristics, remodel story poles, as well as the remodel designs.  We are excited at the continued investment in our neighborhood with a well‐designed remodel that fits our  neighborhood character and does not appear to impact the privacy of adjacent homes.  It's our understanding that the  design complies with all local requirements, including "second‐story additions shall be... permitted with increased  setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood (16‐52.020.H.3)."  We do not think our  neighborhood's character is defined by building height, but by the active care and improvement we put into our homes  and our community.    Best,  Chris & Linda Murphy   113 Blackfield Dr.  FEB 4, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 7:55 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: In support of the addition to 281 Karen Way From: Edward Leaman    Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2021 12:17 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: Edward Leaman   Subject: In support of the addition to 281 Karen Way  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  My name is Edward Leaman and I own my home at 350 Karen Way. I am writing to support Ms. Evers application to build a partial second floor on to her home. I walk past the story polls a couple of times every day, given COVID, with my dog. I also walk past other homes that have partial second floors. My fundamental feeling is that if the plans for 281 Karen Way fit within the requirements, and they either do or they don’t, then the issue to be decided is one of individual or group point-of-view. For me my home is a place of refuge and sanctuary. It has housed the people I love and it holds the treasures and memories of my life. It is not my or anyone else’s business what a home looks like to anyone else or as much as what happens inside a home, and I certainly wish to support anyone in our community who chooses to invest in their homes and by it contribute to our neighborhood, inspiring new generations of people to move in. If the plans submitted meet the legal requirements set out then we should not be judges on everything else from that point, and certainly not on the basis of aesthetics. It is people that make a neighborhood, not partial second floors. Some years ago there was a petition to prevent Kol Shofar building its new vision for a place of Jewish Community prayer and gathering. It was said it FEB 4,2021 2 would disturb the neighborhood, bringing unwanted traffic to the area. Signs popped up on lawns and letters placed in mail boxes. It felt and it was ugly. You had the good sense to move forward and no-one now remembers what the fuss was about. And the truth then was that every single day in a normal school year there was more traffic on Karen Way, and in front of 281 Karen Way, than at any time in the Kol Shofar annual calendar. If Ms. Evers wants to build the home that she would love we should all have the dignity, humility and grace to love her vision for her home and love her too. It’s 2021. Time to move forward. Thank you. Edward Leaman 350 Karen Way. FEB 5,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Stephanie Zaczek Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 10:02 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:Support of 281 Karen Way Remodel/Renovation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To: Tiburon Design Review Board  The purpose of this letter is to provide support for the renovation and remodel of 281 Karen  Way.  The design is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound construction, fitting well into the  neighborhood plan, while also enhancing property values of this and other adjacent homes. In  addition, the plan for the new home fits the particular topography of the lot, skillfully absorbing  the steep slope in the backyard, with the home's footprint and surrounding yard space. There  are multiple precedents for 2nd story remodels in this neighborhood.  We urge the Tiburon Planning Commission to vote in favor of this beautifully designed plan for  281 Karen Way.   Sincerely,   Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager  FEB 6,2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Feb. 7, 2021 Dear Board Members: This is a letter in support of Ms. Lisa Evers’ request to remodel her home and add a second story (281 Karen Way). After meeting with Ms. Evers and being apprised of her situation, we feel it is well within reason for her to want to build up. We understand there are other homes in the neighborhood that were remodeled with a second story, so it only seems fair that Ms. Evers should also be able to do so. I don’t believe that she is requesting anything out of the ordinary and it is well within her right to update her home. Best, Jeffrey and Colleen Chien 257 Karen Way FEB 7,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Amy Kaufman Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:30 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Subject:Letter of Support for Project at 281 Karen way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom It May Concern:   I have been living at 191 Blackfield Drive for the past seven‐plus years, right down the street from the proposed project.  I have taken a look at the poles and given that the house is backing up to a hill, I do not have any reason to think that the  second story addition will block anyone's views or light or impose on their neighbors in a significant way.  Since moving here, I have become actively involved in the neighborhood and have noticed that many folks who have  lived here for a long time wish to see minimal changes being made. I understand that historically Bel Aire has been a  neighborhood of mostly smaller, one‐story homes.  However, times have changed.  More families are moving into the  neighborhood and families are getting larger.  I know I came for the schools and love it here.  My house was expanded  right before we moved in ‐ all on one level and as big as they could have possibly gone ‐ 2000 square feet. With three  kids, it's not nearly enough space. We love it here, but it's not cheap.  At some point, my growing family will be forced  out of the neighborhood because we will need to seek more space. I would love for that not to be the case. We would  love to be able to build up and stay.  I have always thought that just because things have been a certain way for a long time is not sufficient reason for things  to never change.  I love this neighborhood and am thrilled when my neighbors take good care of their homes or decide  to renovate.  It makes our neighborhood even better.  If my neighbors at 281 are interested in investing in their home in  a way that minimally impacts their neighbors and serves to make our neighborhood more beautiful, I am fully  supportive.  I would love to see the precedent change in terms of allowing second story additions when appropriate.  Again, I think it  will only enhance our neighborhood and allow more families to be able to stay long‐term.  At a certain point, we have to  embrace change.    Respectfully,  Amy Kaufman  191 Blackfield Drive  FEB 8, 2021 Vasco Morais  Holly Kaiser  321 Karen Way  Tiburon, CA  94920  February 9, 2021  Samantha Bonifacio  Assistant Planner  Town of Tiburon  1505 Tiburon Boulevard,   Tiburon, CA 94920   Re: 281 Karen Way Project  The 281 Karen Way remodel seems to us to be consistent with that vision of measured, reasonable,  organic growth and we do not have any objection to the Lisa Evers’ remodel.  The house abuts the railroad  right‐of‐way, and we note that overall the mass of the remodeled house seems to be within reason and  consistent with the natural growth of the homes in our neighborhood, and not out of characteristic of the  designs for the neighborhood.  The remodel design is an addition of 930 sq. ft. total (888 sq. ft. living  space, plus 42 sq. ft. addition to garage), but only 600 sq. ft. of that is for the 2nd story addition, bringing  the total house to about 2,712 sq. ft. of living space (and 321 sq. ft. for the garage).  That seems very  reasonable to us.(Having said that, we also believe that the closer the neighbor to the project, that more  valuable the input as to any objection to the remodel characteristics.)  We do have a significant concern, however, as to the Town of Tiburon blanket policy statement in the  “Second Story Home Addition Fact Sheet”  that 2nd story homes are “strongly discouraged” in Bel Aire.  We  do not recall that issue coming to a vote for Bel Aire, and would seem to be an over simplification the Bel  Aire neighbor consensus position, and would like to set the record straight as to our position as to 2nd  stories in the neighborhood, at least as it relates to upper Karen Way, if not all of Karen Way.  Firstly, the Town statement is not accurate as there have been are a number of 2nd story additions in Bel  Aire, our neighborhood, many completed in recent years.  The carte blanche official Town of Tiburon  “strong discouragement” of 2nd stories ‐ which we are hearing about for the first time ‐ is problematic as  it is inconsistent with the position of a substantial portion of the Bel Aire community.  Having lived in the neighborhood for almost 30 years now, we recall a historical Bel Aire neighborhood  objection about 20 years ago to a 2nd story that was a complete teardown and proposed construction of  about a 4,000 sq. ft. 3‐story Mediterranean‐style home on Leland, sandwiched between two original 1,000  sq. ft. homes.  At that time, I believe that there was a consensus that the construction would have stuck  out like a sore thumb in terms of both size characteristics, and design, and neighbors were concerned of  Bel Aire following the “Belveron” development plan, where massive new construction or re‐modeled  homes structures, 3x or 4x the size of the neighboring original construction, were being permitted,  creating an eye‐sore of hodge‐podge development.  Our recollection of the majority view at the time was not an objection to 2nd stories per se, but that there  be some measured, reasonable, organic growth in the Bel Aire neighborhood, as part of the natural  evolution within Belaire to remodel to larger structures with 2nd stories.    FEB 9, 2021 I speak for a number of neighbors in Upper Karen Way, if not all (and have not heard any opposition to  the contrary) that we would like to set the record straight as to our position as to 2nd stories in the  neighborhood, at least as it relates to Upper Karen Way, that the “Second Story Home Addition Fact  Sheet”  that being restated and corrected as follows::  “Neighborhood  Pattern.  In  neighborhoods  consisting  of  predominately  one‐story  homes,  a  second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern  of the area.   In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East  neighborhood  are  made  up  almost  entirely  of  one‐story  dwellings.  Two‐story  projects  are  strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.”  As for the Bel Aire neighborhood, second story  remodel  projects  should  be  of  size  and  design  characteristics  consistent  with  the  natural  evolution of measured, reasonable, organic growth in the Bel Aire neighborhood to larger  structures with 2nd stories. To retard natural growth by a top‐down policy statement from the Town of Tiburon would seem to be  fraught with the potential for a gross misunderstanding of the position of a substantial number of Bel Aire  residents, and an undue restriction and limitation on our home ownership, development, and values in  our neighborhood.  Thank you,  Vasco Morais  Holly Kaiser  321 Karen Way  Tiburon, CA  94920    1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Josiane Sadoun Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:53 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Subject:281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hello, I have lived at 342 Karen Way for almost 42 years. I am happy that Lisa Evers is trying to improve the neighborhood. In driving by her property, I see it is against the hill in the back, so it would not affect the neighborhood, I think it would improve it. There are a few houses with partial second floors and they look nice. I am in support of this remodel and hope you will approve her request. It can only improve the neighborhood. Thank you. Kindly, Josiane Sadoun 342 Karen Way FEB 9, 2021 February 9, 2021  Town of Tiburon  Planning Division  Samantha Bonifacio,  Assistant Planner  RE:  In support of proposed remodel of 281 Karen Way  Dear Ms. Bonifacio,  I live at 346 Karen Way.  I bought my home approximately 19 years ago as a single  mother.  My youngest daughter attended the Reed District Schools from first  grade through middle school.  I write in support of Lisa Evers’ proposed plan to  add a partial second story to her home.    I looked at the drawings and the story poles and I believe that her remodel is  attractive and consistent with the character of the neighborhood.  In addition, I  looked at the “Second Story Home Additions Factors to Consider.”  The first factor  reads as follows:  Neighborhood pattern.  In neighborhoods consisting of predominantly one‐story homes, a second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area.  In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one‐story dwellings.  Two‐story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” In the first instance, the language of this factor says that “a second story is usually  considered to be inconsistent.” It does not say “always.”  I would argue that a  “factor” that banned second stories completely would constitute a “taking” based  on the fact that not all lots are the same and therefore each should be considered  on a case by case basis.  As applied however, it seems that those that oppose the  remodel assume that this factor is a blanket prohibition to be applied in  perpetuity.  It is not.  FEB 9,2021 In this case, Ms. Evers’ property backs onto a hillside that abuts Bel Aire School.   Her lot is much smaller and distinctly different from the lots on Claire Way and  the houses built around them on Cecilia, Leland, Karen and Blackfield.  I took the  time this past Sunday to drive through Belveron East and West.  There are second  stories in both of these neighborhoods. There are even second stories on homes  built on the Lagoon.  In addition, there are already partial second stories in Bel  Aire.      The second factor reads as follows:     Views.  Residents cherish their views in Tiburon.  It doesn’t take much for a  new house or building addition to block views of the Golden Gate Bridge, San  Francisco, the bay, or other landmark views.  A second story can often  diminish precious views from nearby homes.  In such cases, neighbors will  likely object to the project and it is unlikely to be approved through the  Design Review process.    Such views are not at issue in this proposed remodel.  Again, Ms. Evers’ property  backs onto a hillside.  There are no views to be had.  One door down from Ms.  Evers’ home is a long concrete driveway that goes up a hill to Bel Aire School.  In  no way is this driveway an attractive view.      The third factor reads as follows:     Privacy.  A second story can cause privacy impacts for adjacent homes by  creating unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks that would allow  someone to look into the yards or private spaces of their neighbors.  These  privacy‐invading elements of new second story projects should be identified  and avoided early in the design phase.    The homes built on the portion of Karen Way, where Ms. Evers’ property is  situated, do not have privacy in the back of their lots.  Bel Aire School is above  and behind the homes; as is the strip of land where the trains used to run.  This  area is accessible and children play there.  In addition, the house located to the  left of Ms. Evers’ home is flanked by the driveway leading up to Bel Aire School.  I  often walk up that driveway and can look directly into that home.          The fourth factor reads as follows:     Sunlight and Shade.  The additional building height created by a second story  can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in  nearby yards.      Ms. Evers and her adjacent property owners are very fortunate to enjoy direct  sunlight because of their orientation.  The front of those homes get sunlight as  long as the sun is up.      The fifth factor reads as follows:     Mass and bulk.  A second story can often loom over a one‐story home or a  downhill house.  Two‐story projects should be designed and articulated to  avoid large, uninterrupted spaces that would appear massive from nearby  properties.     Ms. Evers’ property is uniquely situated in that it is one door up from a massive  driveway that was the former location of a railway berm.  In addition, Bel Aire  School is located right above and behind it.  Looking at the height of the story  poles, the proposed partial second story is consistent with other second stories in  the neighborhood.  The area of the home is also consistent with other homes in  the neighborhood.     The sixth and final factor reads as follows:     Lot Characteristics.  The size and physical characteristics of a property can  make it difficult to approve a second story.  A steep lot could make a two‐ story home look even larger when viewed from below, and a two‐story home  on a flat lot could tower over its one‐story neighbors.      Ms. Evers’ proposed plan is not to build on a steep lot but on a flat lot that backs  onto a hillside.  For all of the reasons previously stated, the size and unique  characteristics of Ms. Evers’ property, as well as its location, make it the perfect  parcel for approving her request to remodel her home with a partial second story.   I whole heartily support Ms. Evers’ plan to create her forever home.  Her home  will be a beautiful addition that will enhance the character of our neighborhood.   As a property owner, I appreciate the care and consideration that Ms. Evers put  into her proposed plan to remodel her home.  I respectfully request that the  Design Review Board approve Ms. Evers’ project without modification.      Sincerely,    Leonor Noguez  346 Karen Way          Kris, Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:07 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way Remodel l~©I T L.; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Design Review Board, Thank you for soliciting input on the remodel at 281 Karen Way. We have been in the Bel Aire neighborhood for more than 15 years and live at 22 Claire Way. During our time here, we've seen several attempts to build 2nd stories and to extend the allowable building height significantly beyond what fits with the character of the neighborhood. While we understand there have been a few exceptions allowed, the proposal at 281 Karen far exceeds them, and would set a bad precedent that undermines the character of the Bel Aire neighborhood. Many of the past requests for much higher rooflines were on our street -in the end compromises were reached that kept the character of the neighborhood in tact, while allowing some expansion of the house. We urge the Design Review Board to strongly consider the risk in setting a precedent, and hope that the owners of 281 Karen can come up with a scaled back design which allows them to expand, but does not create a new "high water" (roofline) mark in the neighborhood to be exploited by future remodelers and developers. Best regards, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way 1 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:58 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way design opposition letter Tiburon Design Review Board final copy.docx PLANNING DIVISION CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, Please accept this attachment as part of the opposition to 281 Karen Way's design plans. I plan to send a standard letter, knowing that Covid may delay its opening, so better to send them both. Sincerely, Pru Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon, CA 94920 1 Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 January 24,2021 Dear Design Review Board, I am a sixty-year Bel Aire resident and my family owns two properties near the proposed second story, 160 Leland Way, and 251 Karen Way. Please let this letter stand as DOUBLE NEGATIVE COMMENTS about the 281 Karen Way story poles, coming from a neighbor who did not check with other neighbors, and seems to think she can bulldoze an ugly design through the Board. I am also speaking for three other Bel Aire residents who, like me, despise this design and are not able to ZOOM their opposition for this 2,600 foot monster or in email. California law requires cars to stop at the stop sign intersection between Karen Way and Leland Way, facing 281 Karen Way. Can't miss 281. Those skyscraper poles look ghastly! The current design plan insults surrounding neighbors, does not fit the neighborhood and looks really, really bad. The house plan needs to be in a neighborhood that wants the look of a Texas TownHouse apartment complex, but definitely NOT in Bel Aire, Tiburon. Bel Aire neighbors who care about their neighbors have remodeled gorgeous homes that extend, but NOT UP LIKE THAT, no matter what their yard's configuration may be. Neighbors have attended Design Review Board meetings more than once, and together we strive to maintain architectural character around us. The Design Board understands our voiced concerns, and in the past has responded by not allowing 600 foot second stories. We have been successful for 60 years to keep the low key character, and our neighborhood still has a rare, unified charm. We were instructed by Board member, Miles Berger, to "GO STEALTH" in our designs, especially when the design moderately goes up, adhering to the consistency of a mid-century neighborhood. We listen and respect echoes stealth designs within the neighborhood. Lisa Evers and architect Thayer ignore Bel Aire's long standing village culture, different from other Tiburon neighborhoods. We purposefully maintain low profile homes on wide, tree lined streets. Please, DO NOT approve this design. Sincerely, Pru Starr Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 10:06 PM Kris Bernard 181 Karen Way addition comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, My name is David Schneider and I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood at 71 Claire Way. I would like to voice my opposition to the second story requested by the owner of 181 Karen Way. I am primarily opposed to second stories in our neighborhood because they are inconsistent with our neighborhood pattern and almost always impact some neighbors privacy. I also believe that many property values will decrease, not increase, if second stories are allowed because of the impact to privacy and the change to the neighborhood development pattern which will not be attractive. I am in full support of remodels and additions in our neighborhood, but not second stories. Thanks for your time and reading this email. Best, David 1505 Tiburon Ooulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Jan unry 2 3, 2021 Dear-Design Review Board, PLANNlNG DiVISION My name is Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, west of the story poles at 281 Karen Way. I have lived in Bel Aire for fifty years. I definitely oppose 281 Karen design, and I live next door to this nightmare. The biggest negative is that my main bathroom is in front of the house. The current two-story plan is right where my bathroom is located, and I would lose privacy, sunlight, the sky and hillside view from my bathroom window. I would have to live with closed shades for the rest of my life to maintain privacy. Evers' one-story part of her extension plan is the length of my existing extension, and because of the roof line, 281 Karen Way1 s new design will entirely block out all morning sun from my house. I will be looking at the full side of Evers' house which will block out all the hillside and everything else. This design stands out like a sore thumb and doesn't belong in Bel Aire. This current plan is intolerable. No one should lose everything because of someone else's remodel. Evers does not demonstrate neighborly respect for me. She acts like she cares to my face, but , do not trust her. The only way Evers can accommodate me is to redesign her plans. Please do not approve this design! Sincerely, ~~'tl/Jl~ Eileen McHale 279 Karen Way Tiburon, CA. 94920 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 10:09 AM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way Proposed Renovation C/l.UTION: This email originated from outside of the organizatfon. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kris, Hello, I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood and a neighbor recommended I send feedback regarding the proposed addition of 281 Karen Way to you for the Design Review Board's consideration. To the Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, While on my daily walk with my dog around the neighborhood a few days ago, I was surprised to see the extremely tall story poles erected at 281 Karen Way. After learning more about the proposed addition and renovation, I feel that the addition would be inconsistent with the established Bel Aire neighborhood pattern of development. The proposed second floor addition appears massive from street view and will tower over its neighbors, particularly 279 Karen Way. I urge you to deny the addition as proposed so that the homeowner may incorporate feedback from neighbors and the town to find an alternative solution that is more in line with the development pattern of the neighborhood. Please also consider the sunlight, shade and privacy impacts of the immediate neighbors as a result of the proposed second story. My home,127 Leland Way is next door to a partial second story addition, 133 Leland Way. This addition completed prior purchasing my home, definitely impacts the shade and sunlight on that side of my property. When I look out my kitchen window, my view largely consists of the added height of the neighbor's exterior wall. Having such a large structure in such close proximity to my house would greatly impact our privacy if the addition had windows facing my home. Bel Aire is a lovely close knit community largely because we are all living together in such close proximity. My husband and I purchased our Bel Aire home in 2014 and completed our renovation and addition in 2016. Prior to renovating, we walked around the neighborhood with our plans in hand and sought out feedback from many neighbors. We have found our neighbors likewise courteous and thoughtful about advising and working with us prior to making any substantive changes to their properties that may affect us. These types of interactions contribute to the overall success of the neighborhood. Given the constraints and close proximity of the homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood, the addition and remodel at 281 Karen Way is not appropriate and should not be approved as is. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Emilie Rosales Trimble 127 Leland Way Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:48 AM Kris Bernard Subject: Fwd: Remodel 281 Karen ~~©~TIWs~ fill JAN 2 6 2021 ~~ PLANNING OIVl~I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded mess.age: From: Glennis FitzGerald <gf418284@gmail.com> Date: January 26, 2021 at 10:39:52 AM PST To: sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org Subject: Remodel 281 Karen Design Review Board Members My name is Glennis FitzGerald. I have been a Bel Aire resident for 50 years. My home is 166 Leland Way, and I can clearly see 281 Karen Way, and the extremely tall story poles from my house. I am adamantly opposed to this remodel as it is inconsistent with our neighborhood r:iatte__r-_ri, and will greatly impact some neighbors light and privacy. While there have been many tasteful remodels, many of which are still one story, this plan is definitely not one of them! I urge you not to approve this remodel design. Sincerely, Glennis FitzGerald 166 Leland Way Tiburon Sent from my iPad 1 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2: 13 PM Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard; lstfani@townoftiburon.org oppose remodel of 281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, My name is Barbara Schneider and my husband & I live at 94 Claire Way in the Bel Aire neighborhood. We strongly oppose the (2) story addition to 281 Karen Way. Being raised at 90 Claire Way (next door to my house), it has been a perfect family home to grow up in. The privacy that all the houses has given to each other has been extremely important. Over the years, as new home owners have come in & wanted to build 2 story homes, we have all come together in this neighborhood to oppose them for a few reasons, one would be a lack of major privacy. We all greatly appreciate having privacy in our yards & inside our homes while living so close together. Therefore, in the past, the new neighbors have agreed to comply & build their roof level slightly higher with additions in the back. This has proved to work quite well. The second & third reason would be that all the remainder neighborhood homes would look very much out of place and with compromising the privacy would definitely go down in value. Thank you very much for your time in reading our concerns. Barbara Schneider Sent from Outlook Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:20 PM Kris Bernard We oppose the remodel of 281 Karen Way. PLANNING DiVISIOf\ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Design Review Board Members, My husband Werner & I have lived at 90 Claire Way since 1971. We were very disappointed to see the story poles set up as a second story at 281 Karen Way. Over these many years, it has been understood by the residences that second stories will take away the precious privacy we have since our homes are very close together. The residences in this little community have instead opted to build out to the back which has proven to be successful & tasteful. Please consider all of our oppositions, as this will truly make a negative impact to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Wilma & Werner Schneider Sent from Outlook 1 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:41 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 181 Karen Way addition comments From: David Schneider <schneid_66@yahoo.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 3:49 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Re: 181 Karen Way addition comments  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Kris, I got the house number wrong. I am referring to 281 Karen Way. Thanks, David On Monday, January 25, 2021, 10:06:23 PM PST, David Schneider <schneid_66@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Kris, My name is David Schneider and I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood at 71 Claire Way. I would like to voice my opposition to the second story requested by the owner of 181 Karen Way. I am primarily opposed to second stories in our neighborhood because they are inconsistent with our neighborhood pattern and almost always impact some neighbors privacy. I also believe that many property values will decrease, not increase, if second stories are allowed because of the impact to privacy and the change to the neighborhood development pattern which will not be attractive. I am in full support of remodels and additions in our neighborhood, but not second stories. Thanks for your time and reading this email. Best, David January 27, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:01 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 281 Karen Way Remodel From: Hedieh Doffo   Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:21 AM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: Luis Doffo   Subject: RE: 281 Karen Way Remodel  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom It May Concern, I am a resident at 42 Claire Way in the Bel Aire Estates neighborhood, and I am writing this email to strongly oppose the proposed two-story building plan at 281 Karen Way. Bel Aire Estates has always been zoned for single story homes which makes this neighborhood unique - and one of the reasons we purchased (and remodeled), our home here in 2008. While there are some homes with loft style second stories, none are full second story additions (as this particular project calls for). This plan, as proposed, will set precedence for other large projects which will ultimately change the look and feel of the neighborhood and this community. I appreciate your attention to this matter. King Regards, Hedi Doffo January 27, 2021 ~ ~ © r 11 •tJ It: : ~I ~ij 10 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:05 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Proposed remodel, 281 Karen Way, Bel-Aire Estates, Tiburon From: Lynn Marcotte  Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:03 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: C. Barnes <cbarnez@gmail.com>  Subject: Proposed remodel, 281 Karen Way, Bel‐Aire Estates, Tiburon  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Ms. Bernard, and Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, I am writing to you to object to the plans for remodel at 281 Karen Way, Bel Aire, Tiburon. I am the current homeowner at 82 Claire Way, Bel-Aire Estates, Tiburon. The established neighborhood construction and renovation pattern here in Bel Aire is that of single story homes. While I support thoughtful remodels and additions in general, I think the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, if approved, will disrupt and harm the aesthetic harmony and character of this neighborhood, pushing it beyond what is recognizable as a Bel Aire home and property. Such dramatic changes are not beneficial to the neighborhood because they invite further changes that others will surely seek, leading to an escalation in expectations for remodels that will further change the character of this neighborhood. For example, allowing this second story change will allow others to argue for second story renovations in this, our neighborhood of single story homes. This change and other second-story changes would make Bel-Aire unrecognizable. More well- considered alternatives to this remodel are available to the homeowner at 281 Karen Way. I ask that she reconsider her current proposal. The reason I, and most of my neighbors, bought homes in this neighborhood was because of its modest charm. Most of us allow these homes to define us as much as we define them. But such renovations as the one proposed at 281 Karen Way would make that home and its lot significantly different from the existing homes, thereby imposing an incongruity in the Bel Aire neighborhood. This remodel would turn a Bel-Aire home into something it was never intended to be and into something that simply does not fit. Consequently, I am against this remodel. I support the owner's right to remodel her home and I may be supportive of a project that coheres more closely with the original architectural charm and harmony of this neighborhood. I think it's important that we not lose sight of the charm that drew us to this neighborhood, lest we find it becoming less and less charming with each new and increasingly imposing structure. I ask the Design Review Board to reject this plan, and I ask this homeowner to please consider scaling this project down, in order to make it more compatible with our neighborhood, especially the second story height of the proposed new remodel. Thank you, Lynn Marcotte 82 Claire Way Tiburon January 27, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION January 28, 2021 From: Charles & Mary Barnes 278 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Design Review Board, This letter is in regards to: 281 KAREN WAY: Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; Lisa Evers Owner VAR2020-20 We do not support the current proposed design. We are looking at the story poles and design plans for this proposed remodel/addition almost directly across the street from our home. Neither the owner or architect reached out to review the design with us or neighbors for input prior to submitting the remodel/addition request to the Town of Tiburon and erecting story poles. I discussed our concerns specifically about second floor living space additions with the owner and asked if she had seen the Town of Tiburon “Second Story Home Additions – Factors To Consider” document posted on the Town of Tiburon website. It specifically calls out Bel Aire in the “Neighborhood pattern” section. https://www.townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms- Documents. She said she had seen the document. I indicated our opposition to the second story, with 600 sq ft of living space, because it would not fit with the neighborhood pattern. The proposed design has not been changed. The same owner had a one story remodel/addition approved in 2018 (DR2018-091) for 2,400 sq ft with 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. I'm not sure why this approved plan footprint, updated with the owners current personal situation, wasn't used as a basis for the new proposal. They are 100% different. We warmly welcome a remodel/addition to the dwelling that attempts to work within the lot constraints, neighbor constraints, and Bel Aire and Town of Tiburon design constraints. There are many large home remodel/additions that have been done successfully in the Bel Aire neighborhood. On Karen Way within a block of this proposal there are homes at 275, 283, 301, 313, 317, 321, 325 that have all been extensively expanded on similar type lots with similar hillside constraints behind them. These owners worked with the constraints and do not have second floor living space. There are many varying styles and designs on upper Karen; style is not the constraint. The street look and feel is great. The owner has communicated to the neighborhood that there are other partial second stories January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION at 258, 318, 326 and 354 Karen Way to support justifying the proposed design for adding a second floor living space. Three of the four identified with second floors have barely visible second floors from the street and were done when this area was a part of the county, not the Town of Tiburon. None of these houses look anything like the second floor design proposal for 281 Karen Way. We urge the Town Planner and Design Review members view the homes on Karen mentioned above and the story poles and design documents for the proposed 281 Karen Way design in person from the sidewalk and/or street prior to Design Review. There is a stark difference. We do not support the current proposed design, particularly the intrusive 600 sq ft second floor living space that appears very forward and massive. It will block a large amount of light and view of the next door neighbor to the west. There is even a variance request in the submitted design to move house even closer to the neighbor to the west. Though a small variance, again the neighbor was not consulted or notified, and it seems to be buried in the fine print in the plans. This design will also overlook our side yard which is unusual in Bel Aire. Although small we treasure and use it. After the leaves fall off of our front yard Japanese maples the proposed second floor Rec room on the second floor will look down into our front bedrooms. The Town of Tiburon “Second Story Home Additions – Factors To Consider” were completely ignored with this design. Neighbors were not consulted in advance. Design factors were ignored. We strongly welcome and support remodels/additions in Bel Aire. Not this proposed design. Approval of the proposed design as is will also start a cascade of second story addition proposals all across Bel Aire. Many of us moved here, stayed here and love Bel Aire because of its openess without a wall of second stories. If this design is approved it would be difficult for the Design Review Board to deny future intrusive second floor living space designs that go against neighborhood patterns without threat of legal action. Thank you, Charles and Mary Barnes To design review From Cynthia Perry and Bruce Sievers 1/28/21 We are writing to you about the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way. When I (Cynthia) walked past the story poles recently I was shocked and frankly puzzled. This proposed house is very much outside the character of this neighborhood and affects everyone who lives in Bel Air, not just those within 300 feet. This is so outside the parameters of the general plan for this area that I wondered if it is a stalking horse for other projects. It looms above the surrounding houses and would place the neighbors in the awkward position of having to complain and take action. Our houses are only 12 feet apart and are only 6 feet from the property line. A two story house next door has a huge impact no matter how clever the design. A two story house on each side would leave one a hapless homeowner living in a canyon. The approval of a two story house in this neighborhood would also be a sign to others that this sort of construction is acceptable here. It is not. My husband and I have lived at 79 Claire Way for nearly 30 years. I am the last elected president of the now inactive Homeowners Association. Over that time I have been part of a large group of neighbors who have been active in attempting to educate everyone about the general plan and ordinance that was originally intended to prevent two story houses from being built in this neighborhood. New people move in and often do not understand the reason for maintaining the character of a neighborhood and instead are determined to build a two story house here in spite of neighbors’ objections. We have taken surveys of every homeowner by canvassing the neighborhood. We have had many meetings and written many letters to the design review and planning committees and staffs over the years. We have met with the people who want two stories and heard their arguments. We have seen “stealth” two stories being built, circumventing the planning committee and the design review committee and the intention of the general plan. One problem that we would like addressed is that a 30 foot house is too high to begin with and invites this kind of circumvention. Here is what we have found out over the years: 1.Everyone wants to see the houses in Bel Air expanded, improved and beautified.2.Many homeowners have beautifully expanded their houses to four bedrooms and threebaths without going up.3.People who want to expand up are apparently confused or they are told that the 30 foot height limit is an indication that they can have a second story. The planning staff oftentries to tell them that a two story will not be accepted but they design it that way anyway.When they are thwarted they often get angry at their neighbors and lash out inunfortunate ways.4.The immediate neighbors are often left to incur expenses and invest months of their time to fighting a looming presence next door to them. It is not fair to them. In one instance January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION the neighborhood took up a collection to help a woman on Leland with the expense she incurred. 5. People who say they don’t care what happens on the next street often care very much when there is a two story proposal next door. 6. It is not fair for one homeowner to increase the value of their house at the expense of the value of the houses near them. 7. People who want a two story house make the same arguments every time. They claim it will not have much impact on the houses nearby. We ask that you stand in the back and front yards of the neighbors near by and imagine what loss those people will face. 8. Sometimes the homeowner who is proposing the two story house tell the planners and the design committee that the side facing the next door neighbor will have no windows so nobody can look into their house or garden. This is terrible for two reasons. One, there can and often is an window added later. Maybe by a future homeowner. Two, this makes the neighbors face a tall, blank wall. And of it happens on both sides of them they are totally blocked in. 9. Immediate neighbors I have spoken with over the years are often intimidated, bullied, shy, elderly or preoccupied with personal tragedy and even though they are upset that there will be this looming house next door, don’t have it in them to fight a neighbor with a lot of money or a lawyer. It’s unfair that happens over and over again. I urge you to make it clear any homeowner who hopes to construct a two story house here that they and their architect must explore alternative expansion designs. Everyone thinks they are special and that their arguments are special and that they have special reasons to obtain a variance regardless of the impact on the character of this neighborhood. This puts a terrible burden on individuals who will bear the permanent negative consequence of the new building, with the loss of light, air, privacy and views. I urge you to visit the neighbors surrounding the house at 281 Karen and personally see what they face. Please feel free to call me. Cynthia Perry and Bruce Sievers 79 Claire way 415-298-2633 Cynthiasps@gmail.com 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:John Leszczynski Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:01 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Having a second story myself, approved in 2006, I hope that you approve Ms. Evers design in its entirety.  She's not asking for any variances, especially considering the limited room on the property,  not the least of  which includes the RR berm in her backyard!  Great design given all her constraints.  We need more such  innovative designs in BelAire, moving us out of 1953.   As far as the chief complainant across the street, I wonder how he can even see her property most of  the year, as he's got all that vegetation and a permanently installed truck in his front yard!  Given the   town's enhanced awareness of fire hazards on residential property.....well, maybe the fire safety marshall  should have a look at his!  Just sayin'! .   Best regards,  John Leszczynski  318 Karen Way.   January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lara Conte Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 7:43 PM To:Kris Bernard; Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:re: 281 Karen Way letter of support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  1.31.21  Letter for 281 Karen Way  We are writing to state our support for the proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way.  While we understand that 2nd stories  are discouraged in the neighborhood and we do not think they are appropriate in many situations, we think that the  specifics of this lot and its siting on the north side of Karen Way make it a house where a partial second story makes  sense. We also do not fear this approval would open the floodgates for 2nd stories, as the design review board carefully  reviews each application on a case‐by‐case basis.  This lot has minimal level area due to the steep rear yard hillside that backs up to Bel Aire School, making expanding the  house on one level into the backyard less desirable.  In normal years, schoolkids wait for the bus daily all over the  homeowner’s front lawn, making expanding far forward undesirable as well. There is no rear yard neighbor who would  have privacy impacts as the rear yard “neighbor” is Bel Aire School. The house is facing two driveways across the street  with minimal privacy concerns.  While one house across the street does have windows fronting Karen Way, heavy  landscaping provides screening in both directions.  Also, given the north side of Karen Way is higher than the south side,  there is already a view downward across the street and the partial 2nd story does not create more of a privacy intrusion  than already exists. There is no protected view that is being blocked by the partial 2nd story.  The homeowner has pulled the partial second story inward from the side setbacks in order to reduce square footage and  massing upstairs and minimize the impact to the neighbors on either side.  At the same time, as the adjacent residences  are directly next door and the most affected, should they have privacy concerns, it is important to hear their  comments.  There could be some mitigating steps taken that could minimize privacy issues (minimizing windows facing  east/west, raising windowsills above eye level, reducing deck area, or minimizing outdoor lights on upper story).   We think that it is rational to either approve this application or to find a pathway toward approving it.  Fred & Lara Conte  258 Karen Way   Sent from Mail for Windows 10  February 1, 2021 ~ ~ © 1 11 ~ ITT i ::1 ~] 1~ PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 8:21 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Remodel project at 181 Karen Way, Tiburon ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Yahoo <cillawanat@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 8:18 AM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Fwd: Remodel project at 181 Karen Way, Tiburon   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  For the attention of Kris Bernard concerning the above mentioned project.  My name is Priscilla Wanat , owner/resident 86 Claire Way, Tiburon.  I have received a letter with an elevation of the proposed development and I have visited the site and spoken with the  owner, Lisa Evers.  My first impression of the elevation with its peaked roof is that the building is too tall for our neighbourhood. On seeing  the house with story poles, that impression is reinforced 100%.  It looks quite imposing, overbearing.  When I spoke about this to Lisa she drew comparisons with other upgraded houses in the neighbourhood on the  grounds of square footage, whereas the problem for me is the height and bulk, not only in relation to the nearby  housing but to the entire neighbourhood.  There are examples of second story additions which succeed in fitting into the neighbourhood character, one just 2  doors away on Karen Drive.  There is the further concern that residents have spent considerable, to put it mildly, time and energy to maintain our  current pleasant environment and  a unsympathetic development, such as the proposed, would set a most unwelcome  precedent.  Thanking you for your attention.  Priscilla Wanat  priscillawanat@gmail.com  cillaaparis@gmail.com  415‐381‐4846  415‐342‐1479 (cell)  33(0)142931967 (Paris)  February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 8:26 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Current Proposal for 281 Karen Way Attachments:thumbnail (1).jpg; thumbnail.jpg; thumbnail (2).jpg From: Jill Sperber <jillsperber@yahoo.com>   Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 4:51 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Current Proposal for 281 Karen Way  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Re Public Comment on Remodel of 281 Karen Way Date of hearing: February 18,2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Meeting To the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, Please accept this comment for consideration. I would like to acknowledge the owner's openness for feedback from the neighbors' perspectives. I reside at 171 Leland Way, located on the southwest corner of Leland and Karen. Our lot's north side sits directly across from 281 Karen Way. This is the first time (since May 1994) that I have felt compelled to provide my view point to the Board on a prospective remodel. I enjoy a remodeled home, appreciate the completed remodels of my neighbors, and support others who are planning or hoping to remodel. I am in support of the owner of 281 Karen to convert the currently unsustainable property into her "forever" home. Also we understand 281 Karen has special challenges in the back yard (e.g., a steep embankment) and, like all other non-corner homes, proximity to the backyards of lateral neighbors. I believe the owner has made good faith efforts to resolve those challenges with the current plan. In considering the Town's Second Story Home Addition Factors ("Factors"), the current proposal for 281 Karen gives me pause as follows: > Neighborhood pattern - "Two story projects are strongly discouraged [in neighborhoods consisting of predominately one-story homes]." The current plan would present an anomaly, a proposed addition to 2,100 sq. ft. proposed on the ground floor. Approval of same would be precedent-changing. The legacy "watchtowers" on a handful of lots appear to be smaller than 600 sq. ft. and are set off from the street often behind the home or garage. One tall home nearby features high loft space with windows, but is not truly a proper second "floor" and overlooks the T section of a street, as opposed to facing other lots directly. February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 2 > Mass and bulk / Lot Characteristics - Per the Factors, second stories should avoid large spaces "that would appear massive from other properties." "....[A] two story home on a flat lot could tower over one- story neighbors.:" In comparison with neighboring homes, the proposed design portends, at least to me, a strong and not subtle street presence. Photos (attached) show the view of 281 Karen from my home's north facing bedroom. Although 281 Karen's 2nd floor rec room would not necessarily encroach on my view or privacy, we will lose some degree of open space feeling on Karen Way. A second level rooftop line would be at eye level with the top of the hillside embankment, currently seen from Karen Way. From our northside bedroom, we would essentially only be able to see a 2 story wall of house. It is my sincere hope that 281 Karen's team can work with the Town's Planning Division staff to come up with alternative design solutions that deliver for the owner while being in sync with the established neighborhood character. Sincerely, Jill Sperber 171 Leland Way Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 January 31, 2021 File DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Dear Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, I am writing to express my concern about the remodel plans for the house at 281 Karen Way. The design is ostentatious due to its second story that looms over both neighbors’ homes like a watch tower with a clear view into their yards. For the rest of us, the excessively high addition is made even worse by virtue of the fact it spans almost the entire width of the street-facing wall. If approved, this house would visually detract from the low profile community of Bel Aire, and open the flood gates for more new buyers to disregard the established development pattern. In the 66 years that my family has lived in this neighborhood, we have seen many tastefully completed remodels. I don’t object to more vaulted ceilings, but second stories are a bridge too far. I fully support the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department’s fact sheet regarding second story homes. I urge you not to make an exception in this case. More than ever before the neighborhood houses are being purchased by people who are not satisfied to work within these guidelines and these battles are happening more frequently. Sincerely, Tamara Sweger 10 Claire Way February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Rich Cellini Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:17 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Remodel... Attachments:image001 copy.tiff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,   We're writing in regard to the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way.  As a home owner in Bel Aire since 2004 we have  witnessed several of these two story proposals submitted to the Design Review Board, and thankfully through the years  they have been denied.  The regulations in the neighborhood are clear, and anyone who wishes to build a two story  home can do so in several nearby neighborhoods, but not in this one.  According to the letter distributed by the owner  of 281 Karen she has been in this neighborhood for well over a decade and therefore she knows what’s acceptable and  what is not with regard to second story additions.  We are 100% against the two story proposal and the impact it will  have on the neighborhood as a whole.  If it’s allowed for one house, it should be allowed for, all and that is not  something we would like to see in Bel Aire.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.  Thank you,  Rich & Christine Cellini  46 Claire Way  Tiburon  ___________________________ Rich Cellini, Ph.D. Professor Sport Management Program University of San Francisco February 3, 2021 ~~©~O~[g[~ ~ ,~ PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Mindy Canter Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:59 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Kris Bernard Subject:Proposed 2nd Story Addition 281 Karen Wy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Design Review Board:   As former President of the Bel Aire Homeowners Association, Chair, Tiburon Parks and Open Space Commission (15  years), and Bel Aire homeowner (30+ years), I am opposed to the proposed second‐story addition at 281 Karen Way.  According to the Design Review Guidelines and Policies, the proposed 2 story addition at 281 Karen Way has too many  negative impacts to be considered, much less approved.  Below are Tiburon’s Design Review Guidelines and Policies for two‐story additions. The points stated below clearly  outline the negative impacts this proposed addition will have on the neighborhood.  1.Neighborhood Pattern. “In neighborhoods consisting of predominately one‐story homes, a second story is considered inconsistent with the established development pattern  of the area, in particular Bel Aire neighborhood and the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one‐story dwellings. Two‐story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” 2.Views. Residents cherish their views and want to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. 3.Privacy.  Second‐story additions cause privacy impacts to adjacent houses by creating unwanted viewpoints from windows and decks that would allow someone to look into  the yards or private spaces of their neighbors.  4.Sunlight and Shade. The additional building height created by a second‐story can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in nearby yards. 5.Mass and Bulk. A second story will loom over a one‐story home.  A second story addition would create large, uninterrupted spaces that would appear massive from nearby                 properties. 6.Lot Characteristics. The size and physical characteristics can make it difficult to approve a second‐story. A steep lot could make a two‐story home look even larger when viewed from below, and a two‐story on a flat lot could tower over its one‐story neighbors. I hope you deny this proposal for a second‐story addition.  Yours truly,  Mindy Canter  February 2, 2021 ~ ~ © ~, il ~ [g r~I' ~ !0 Pl.ANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:brian brown Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:47 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way , Tiburon CA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom it May Concern,   I have lived in Bel Aire neighborhood for 30+ years.  Currently, my family own 2 houses in the neighborhood.  1 house on  Karen Way, and 1 house on Leland Way.  I 100% strictly oppose the second story at 281 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920.    I won’t mince words, it’s not in keeping with the charm of the neighborhood.   In fact the plans look ridiculous for this  neighborhood.  If the owner wants more space and a 2 story house Bel Aire is not the place for them.  There are plenty  of other houses for sale in the world that will allow them enough room to do what they want.    There are many houses in the neighborhood who have expanded their footprint significantly while respecting the no 2nd  story wishes of their neighbors.     This proposed remodel is a highly invasive and grossly oversized for the lot size.  This will set a precedent that will  ultimately ruin the charm of the neighborhood.    We don’t want it , repeat don’t want it thank you .    Respectfully,  Brian Brown  35 year resident of Bel Aire  Get Outlook for iOS  February 2, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:31 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Re.281 Karen Way remodel From: Bjorn Hermanson    Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 4:27 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Re.281 Karen Way remodel  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Kris, We are writing this in opposition to the proposed remodel. This project is a "de'ja`-vu" of the proposal for 124 Leland Way 20 odd years ago. The arguments are the same this time. This a remodel, which is out of character for the Bel-Aire neighbourhood. We believe our lots are too small to accommodate two story structures. There are established guidelines by the Town of Tiburon for home additions in various neighbourhoods, like Bel-Aire, where second stories are discouraged to preserve the character of the area. The owner of 281 Karen and her architect have obviously disregarded this, without thought how it will affect the neighbours and the area in general. We urge you to turn down the remodel proposal in its present form. Thank You. Respectfully, Helena and Bjorn Hermanson !57 Leland Way February 3, 2021 February 3, 2021 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Attention: Cedric Barringer, Bryan Chong, Miles Berger, Paolo Crescini, Suzanne Kim Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed second story addition at 281 Karen Way. This project must not be approved. I have lived in Bel Aire my whole life and my family has lived in Bel Aire since the 1950’s. Since that time, there have been numerous tasteful remodels of the original Bel Aire home. This is not one of them. When the story poles went up at 281 Karen Way a few weeks ago, I was frustrated and perplexed. Frustrated to be forced into another battle to defend my neighborhood from property owners who want to construct enormous homes that are completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and confused as to how and why a project with such significant negative impacts had even reached this far in the process. This proposed remodel contradicts every factor when considering second story home additions in the Town of Tiburon. 1.Neighborhood pattern:​ This house would be completely inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area. In addition, it would set a dangerous precedent of inviting wealthy real estate investors and developers to purchase Bel Aire homes when they are on the market, maximizing the square footage of the property, and then selling it for a handsome profit with total disregard for the neighbors. 2.Views:​ One appealing feature of Bel Aire are the views of Ring Mountain and the surrounding sky, making for an enjoyable experience walking around the neighborhood, especially in the early mornings and evenings when spectacular sunrises and sunsets can be seen. Allowing a development such as this would invite future homeowners to build up, leading to the loss of precious skyline views. 1 February 3, 2021 February 3, 2021 3.Privacy​: Bel Aire lots are extremely close together and second story homes with expansive balconies such as this negatively impact adjacent neighbors, not only raising concerns about the loss of privacy, but loss of natural lighting as well. 4.Mass and bulk:​ This second story project in particular looms over neighboring homes, dwarfing them. Its massive appearance is conspicuous not just from nearby properties but also from far away. 5.Lot characteristics​: Bel Aire lots are small and close together. They do not accommodate large two story homes. Plain and simple. Even a stealth partial second story is glaringly obvious, but a jarring second story addition of this scale is so strikingly out of place with the rest of the neighborhood it raises many serious questions amongst the neighbors. I urge you to stand on the sidewalk in front of 281 Karen Way and look up at the story poles in order to better understand how the proposed house will look on site. I spent much of my childhood and early teenage years inside 281 Karen Way because I was close friends with the boys who lived there. The family of five, who were one of many tenants to rent Mrs. Evers’ forever home over the past 17 years, had no trouble accommodating and entertaining me, as well as many other neighborhood families. It is unfortunate that Mrs. Evers does not feel like she has enough space for her lifestyle but that is not our fault. Her dream home should not come as a detriment to the neighborhood. I believe, as many others do, that a tactfully designed and constructed single story home would allow the current owners more than enough space to accommodate their lifestyle without disrupting the lifestyles of the rest of the neighborhood. Respectfully, Joseph Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon, CA 94920 2 TO: Design Review FROM: Marion and James Fitzgerald RE: 281-Karen-Way-DR2020-088 First when I saw the story poles a few weeks ago, I was shocked to see the height of the proposed structure. After reviewing the plans online I cannot believe somebody would build this big imposing, out of character house in a ranch style neighborhood. I have lived in the Bel Aire neighborhood for 38 years, have seen fantastic one story remodeled homes over the years and it can be done because we have great size lots. This proposed two story house with a second floor balcony, has a huge impact on the neighbors, loss of sun light, loss of privacy, loss of views. Our houses are only 12 feet apart with a fence dividing the homes. Approving a second story structure will have a long term impact on the neighborhood. We support the expansion of homes in Bel Aire, but done in the right way. It is possible to get up to the maximum F.A.R. without a second story and an exemption to the current guidelines. For those reasons we do not support the current proposed two story design. I hope the Design Review Board will enforce what is on the website “Second Story Home Additions – Factors to consider” because this plan doesn’t consider: Neighborhood Pattern, Views, Privacy, Sunlight and Shade, Mass and Bulk, Lot Characteristics. February 3, 2021 February 4, 2021 From: Charles & Mary Barnes 278 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Design Review Board, This letter is in regards to: 281 Karen Way: Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; Lisa Evers Owner DR2020-088, VAR2020-20 Input in addition to our letter/email sent January 28. There are two items that struck us with the proposed design in addition to the already objected to non-neighborly/non-neighborhoodly second floor. Unfortunately that big issue has people not looking at other design details. These additional items are not in the spirit of the Tiburon Design Guiding Principles. Tiburon “Design Guiding Principles 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation.” Natural Gas Natural gas is a large source of greenhouse gas pollution and has been banned in new construction in many localities. PG&E is supporting minimizing it's use in new construction. Forty plus jurisdictions in the state have mandated or encouraged all-electric new construction or placed limits on how gas infrastructure can be used. There are many articles about this issue. In the submitted design there are three natural gas fireplaces inside and a large “fire table” outside. These natural gas decorative features are designed to be used for extended periods of time while spewing out major contaminating non-green pollutants. In addition there is a seven person hot tub placed right next to the west neighbor's setback. Is it gas heated as another greenhouse gas contributor? The DRB should not allow all of these polluting natural gas features. The proposed drawings do not indicate how the other appliances in the house will be powered, but they appear to “working” appliances used for short bursts of time, not decorative. We are not totally against natural gas, but we do not support decorative features that pollute the environment needlessly. FEB 4,2021 Photovoltaic Tiburon Zoning 16-40.080 - “Photovoltaic energy generation system required for newly constructed single-family dwellings.” In the plans there doesn't appear to be any photovoltaic energy system for this house. It is incongruent that there is an outdoor BBQ structure, fire table and hot tub, but no photovoltaic system. The proposed design “features” are not in the spirit of the Tiburon Green Building principles. The project design does not include any features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. They are in direct conflict with the many “Spare The Air” events we have had. We recommend that the Tiburon green building design principles be considered by the DRB and Town of Tiburon in this proposed design. Looking at the before and after drawings the proposed design for 281 Karen Way is a completely new house for all intents and purposes. The proposed design is not green or an attempt to be green. Thank you. February 4,2021 To Design Review From Ann A. Allen Owner 87 Claire Way 2/3/21 Re: proposed second story remodel at 281 Karen Way I am writing to let you know I oppose the remodel of the property For the following reasons: -Intrusive –huge impact, looms above neighbors resulting in loss of privacy, light, view and creates sense of being blocked in -Homes are only 6 feet from property line, 12 feet apart -Intimidating to neighbors who feel trapped -Affects everyone in Bel Aire, not only those within 300 feet since it sets a precedent There have been wonderful remodels in Bel Aire, which are in keeping with the nature of the area. These one story remodels are very welcome and an enhancement to the neighborhood. Please, give these concerns responsible consideration since they reflect the reality of our neighborhood. I hope a clear message will be clearly reflected to future prospective 2nd story homeowners. I really care and gratefully thank you, Ann A. Allen 87 Claire Way home owner since 1985 February 4, 2021 FEB 4,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Joannie Cahill Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:51 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Remodel / Design Review Feedback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  We've been Bel Aire residents since 1994 and remodeled our single story home in 1999/2000. We welcome the investments and the improvements our neighbors have made to their homes in the neighborhood over this time, as it adds value for all of us. That said, we feel strongly that the design and scale of remodels should be consistent with the surrounding environment. We have not been supportive of two story additions in the past, as there are very few lots that allow for a second story while maintaining adjacent-neighbor privacy. Additionally, the height and mass of two story homes feel out of scale and overwhelm other homes in the neighborhood while also blocking views of our surrounding hills. After reviewing the plans and elevations posted online we are not supportive of these as submitted, and ask that the height of the home be lowered. The 24'6" height appears to be much higher than other homes in the neighborhood, and dwarfs homes in the immediate area. Many other neighbors on this section of Karen Way have successfully remodeled their homes within the recommended single story design guidelines of the Bel Aire neighborhood. In the very few cases where two story remodels were previously approved, the second story additions have been setback and are not easily visible from the street nor appear intrusive on their neighbors. The owner has stated a need for additional space to accommodate her family of four children (two away in college and two in high school locally) coupled with the need to work from home due to the current Covid pandemic. Many of us are dealing with this same issue these days, however, by the time the remodel work is finished, a year or two from now, the current challenges will most likely no longer apply and therefore this rationale should not be used to justify this particular remodel. Allowing a two story home of this size will set a precedent that would permanently alter the character of our neighborhood. Joannie and Tim Cahill 121 Leland Way, Tiburon FEB 9,2021 EXHIBIT 4 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 4 2/18/21 Town Attorney Eli Flushman stated there will be a slight change on the draft resolution which should be included in the motion which is to add to Section 2: “….review with VAR2021-002 to allow swimming pool and spa to be located in the front setback.” It was M/S/C (Chong/Berger) that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and adopts the draft resolution, subject to conditions and additional conditions: 1) amend Section 2 language to read: “….review with Variance to allow swimming pool and spa to be located in the front setback.”; 2) Drawings to include details as to fence type and height, pool equipment shall be placed in such a manner that complies with Town’s code relating to noise; and lighting to be placed in a manner so it is not visible from Avenida Miraflores. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. PH-2 281 KAREN WAY; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. Kyle Thayer, Thayer Architecture, provided an overview of the project and consideration for site plan and architectural review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. He described the variance request and cited the number of one-story homes that have been added onto in excess of the 30% lot coverage, a few homes with second story additions approved and constructed and presented a diagram depicting these homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood. He then described the overall design of the project and requested Board approval. Lisa Evers, Owner, stated she bought the house and one-third of the railroad berm above her lot in 2004. She presented a slideshow and said she realized no significant upgrades had been done since the 1950’s. She has drainage issues and sludge from the hillside which runs through her garage, old electrical and plumbing problems, no irrigation for landscaping, and she said it is difficult to live in a 1,200 square foot house with her family during the COVID situation. Her family and extended family lives in Marin and get together for holidays and the house is not large enough for indoor or outdoor gatherings. In July 2020, they were forced to move out of the home with one week’s notice due to a massive flood and black mold destroyed the entire kitchen, 90% of the floors and subfloors, three-quarters of the interior walls, and she is currently renting a home and also paying her mortgage. She made the hard financial decision to remodel the entire house and make it her forever home. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 5 2/18/21 She has been working closely with Mr. Thayer and Ms. Bonifacio to design an energy efficient home, to fix all drainage issues, add new irrigation, and all has been done within the Town’s guidelines. She explained that no front doors face her home and no one is directly impacted by her second story at the front of the house. Her neighbor at 171 Leland provided photos from the only two windows she has which illustrate how little the impact the second story has given several trees, a shrub and fence. They took care in placing the second story in the center of the existing house away form the street to be respectful to neighbors. Once the story poles went up she held three open houses, offered private appointments because of COVID, and only one person opposed the remodel. She met with her, looked at the plans and considered the challenge the hillside causes in her backyard. Of the 181 homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood, 24 homes have signed petitions or have written letters of support, 24 have written letters in opposition, or 13.5% in either direction. This also leaves 133 households or 73% that have remained neutral. Lastly, she presented and described those homes that have been approved for variances for lot coverage and second stories. Boardmember Crescini said he sees the original plate of the house was 8’1”. The new drawings are 9’1” and 9’7” and he was trying to understand how the design works from a ceiling point of view. Mr. Thayer explained that the upper floor coincides with the north wall of the lower floor and this stacks perfectly. The east/west wall parallel to that which is the south wall lines up partially on walls, and in other areas there will be beams which can enable them to have different ceiling heights. So in the north/south direction, the upper floor does not line up perfectly with walls but there will be beams. Boardmember Kim referred to Sheet A-5.A5 and said it is difficult for her to figure out where everything is because they have no information about the first story. There are some dimensions on this, but it is difficult. Mr. Thayer said he focused on the second story because he did not think the Board would be concerned with the ceiling heights in the one-story parts and that the two-story would be more controversial. The sections are clear in showing it is 10’3” ceiling, a 12” floor joist, and a 9’1” plate up above. So, the Board is getting all of the data they need to know what describes the second story. Boardmember Crescini questioned why the design is 9’7” in the back and 9’1” in the front. Mr. Thayer said he and Ms. Evers talked about raising the ceiling in the kitchen in the east that goes back toward the hillside as well as the master bedroom. They wanted a little more verticality in those rooms. Boardmember Kim asked about the 4’ solid fence and asked about more specificity on the plan, and Mr. Thayer referred to Sheet A-5.1, drawing 2. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 6 2/18/21 Chair Barringer opened the public comment period. Ron Rujanover, 358 Karen Way, voiced support of the project, thinks it fits well within the parameters of the neighborhood, is currently outdated as is the Bel Aire neighborhood, and he voiced support of the variance for the additional story. Lenore Nogaz, 346 Karen Way, strongly urged the Board to go to the neighborhood, see the story poles and look at the lot in question. She thinks it is unfair to treat Ms. Evers’ lot like others that have developed. Every house on Claire Way opposed to this project has no view of the house and is not impacted at all. Likewise, on Leland there are 3 homes that have a partial view at an angle. She thanked Ms. Evers for being considerate of neighbors and questioned why anyone would oppose the design. Charles Barnes, 278 Karen Way, explained that the concern is that the neighborhood has a character to it and the design is vastly different from other homes. He noted that a proposal designed by Mr. Thayer had been approved in 2018 for an addition and he asked why this did not move forward, said there were no notifications until the story poles went up for this design, and the second floor does not fit into the character of the neighborhood and is massive. Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, former President of the Bel Aire HOA and former Chair of Tiburon POST, said the neighborhood has its own feel which is retro, bungalow style. Historically, the homeowners have fought second stories but some have been grandfathered in. She thinks the proposal is massive, does not fit in, thinks it is not a question of what neighbors can see it, suggested adding square footage in the rear yard instead of proposing a second story and to not set a precedent. Eckhart Evers said he has built homes in the area as well as in San Francisco, understands what is at stake, and said this lot has an extreme hardship given it is the narrowest of all 5 homes which all back up against the railroad right-of-way. He pointed to the opposition but said 73% of neighbors have no opinion. This neighborhood is moving into the future for larger and updated homes, understands story poles can be overwhelming but noted the second story is only towards the back which is within the keeping of the neighborhood. He therefore questioned why there was opposition. Brian, 259 Karen Way, said he grew up in the neighborhood and has seen it change. He is the percentage that did not respond, wants to be open-minded, thinks it is nice people want to upgrade their homes, and said his neighbor has a second story and thinks the Board should visit the project and make a determination based on what they see. Pru Star, 160 Leland Way, said she also owns 251 Karen Way, did not agree with someone saying this will be their forever home, questioned the drainage problem which she had to deal with and fix without any problems, stated her home looks right at the house and she is horrified that the second story looks like a house on top of a house. No one has mentioned that Eileen McHale’s next door’s side yard will be eliminated from greenery and grass and thinks this will directly impact her, as well as those in the neighborhood who want to keep the character of the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 7 2/18/21 neighborhood. She asked that the Board look through the windows at Eileen McHale’s slides which she sent in as attachments. When it comes to going “stealth” which Boardmember Berger told everyone to do 15 years ago, there have been some nice additions. She read portions of her husband Fred’s letter regarding the impacts of the height and many windows of the second story on the neighbor’s view, sunlight and privacy. Priscilla Wanat said various statements have been made that Ms. Evers has a unique situation but neighbors know now that it is not. She thinks the addition is massive, does not fit into the neighborhood, said she was the one person who visited the home and thinks Ms. Evers may regret retiring in the home with a second story. There are second story additions in the neighborhood which are done sensitively and she is very unhappy with this design. Sissy Twigs, 301 Karen Way, said she lives two doors down from Lisa Evers who she confirmed consulted with her and people around her before she went with her design and put story poles up. Honestly, they made the second story look a lot larger than it is and tonight she saw a view which was the overhead shot showing where the second story is located on the full roof, which is a lot smaller than she thought it was from the drawings. Neighbors must deal with the berm and water issues and she appreciated that Ms. Evers did not add the second story on the wings going back into the backyard which would cast a shadow. She also heard from her neighbor located in between their homes who she said also supports the remodel. Dan Schwager, 38 Claire Way, voiced support of Ms. Evers’ proposal because of her aesthetic vision for the neighborhood and her proactive approach for a successful living environment that she now requires, given the pandemic. He said there has been vocal but minority opposition to second stories and it seems to be short-sighted and reflexive. Most want beautiful structures, are not in love of the 1950’s bungalows which need remodeling, and they want to support neighbors to perceive their forever home. Ms. Evers’s children and someone from an older generation will need to utilize this home and he thinks the Board has a social obligation to consider this. Carol Perry, 326 Karen Way, said her house has a second story and they bought it that way. She has visited Ms. Evers and saw the plans and elevations and she and her husband are in full support of the project. The scale is appropriate for the lot and neighborhood. She questioned why there is opposition to those wanting to beautify the neighborhood and thinks instead there should be a discussion about homes that are neglected. Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, said her house is most affected by the remodel. The second story looks right into her main bathroom and she will have no view of the hillside or trees any longer. The back addition will block all of her east windows in her kitchen and family room and she no longer will be getting any morning sun and no view. She raised three children in her home of 50 years and she opposed the remodel. Stephanie Zaczek, 38 Claire Way, said she strongly supports the design, thinks it is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound design. There is a lot of precedent for second stories in this neighborhood already and the sister neighborhood, Belveron, also began with small bungalows TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 8 2/18/21 and they have evolved faster. She thinks Ms. Evers has the appropriate lot to add a second story and she voiced her support. Ted Schroeder, 270 Karen Way, said as far as a precedent for second story homes in this neighborhood, he went on Google Maps and said there are about 105 homes that have expanded in this area, so 4 examples of second stories is not a precedent. He remodeled his home with modern flooring, electrical and a pool, but they did not build up, which typically removes people’s privacy, blocks sunlight, and blocks windows. Regarding COVID, this is a two-year project and people will not be in lockdown for life. The decision tonight will have permanent ramifications based on a temporary condition, and he asked the Board to keep this in mind. Joseph Star, 160 Leland Way, said the proposed project is visible from his front driveway and he was against the two-story addition. He thinks it is over-sized and thinks a tasteful one-story remodel would be welcomed. Regarding the 73% of those who have not responded, he noted that these people could also be against the project. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period. Rebuttal – Applicant Kyle Thayer, Architect, stated Priscilla Wanat was concerned about setbacks and he clarified that the existing home is non-conforming on the west setback. The variance they are asking for is taking that line and extending it another 18 feet. All other setbacks are conforming and all other aspects of the home also are conforming. Regarding Eileen McHale’s comments, they are open to discussions with her about the nature, quality and size of windows that face her home and said they could raise the sill height to prevent any loss of privacy and put them in different locations. Lastly, there have been many comments about the mass of the building and in his diagrams he explained they set the second floor addition 47 feet from back of curb and 39’9” from the property line. This is not something looming over the street. They are 13’11” from Eileen McHale’s property line on the west side and 12’6” from the neighbor on the east side. He has demonstrated that the addition is well positioned and well-considered in its location to avoid the feeling of being massive. Lisa Evers, Owner, thanked everyone for their comments, especially those in support. She said it has been difficult listening to some of the neighbors who have lived in the neighborhood the longest and do not want to see any type of progression. She thinks she and Mr. Thayer have done an exceptionally good job of working with Town Staff in the design and said there are 8 homes that have developed second stories, with some being very recent. Many lots have been granted +40% variances and she is not asking for any variance or height exceedances. The White’s, the neighbors to her east, could not be here tonight, but they absolutely support her design. She has tried to speak with Eileen McHale, left her several notes at her door, asked if she and her kids would like to set up a private appointment, but no word. She pointed out that Ms. McHale TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 9 2/18/21 has a long, extended remodel she did herself years ago that is on her western fence line they adjoin. The portion of her extension is a single story at that point. She finds it difficult to understand why Ms. McHale can enjoy her lot and look into her backyard and her hill and she should not be afforded the opportunity to have a neighborly discussion and extension on her lot and would be happy to work with her on the windows and their locations and sill height. In closing, there are many people in favor of her project. Those that did not speak up are neutral and she thinks everybody should let the evolution of Bel Aire develop which it will, and she thanked everyone. Boardmember Kim referred to the “Second Story Additions - Factors to Consider” memo which is policy and now regulating how the DRB reviews this. She asked if the Town Attorney could address what the enforceability of this memo is. Town Attorney Eli Flushman explained that whenever the DRB is hearing an application their role is to make findings related to the guiding principles of Subsection H of Section 16.5.020. Subsection 3 of that includes some of the same language within that policy memo Boardmember Kim referenced. It states, “The neighborhood character, the height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. But, good relationship of a building to its surrounding is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize intrusion on the neighborhood.” This means they are discouraged, but it does not mean second stories are prohibited. He said some of the discussion tonight has focused on certain features of the project and it is the Board’s job of weighing whether or not they can make the findings necessary to approve or not, as well as other factors and conditions. Boardmember Kim stated because of that, she would like to review each building for its own unique conditions and determine whether or not that variances could be bound. The variance in this case is the setback variance. As part of the scope, the Board can look at volume and massing. She thinks that while there is a 30 foot height limit, she questioned whether one necessarily should build up to that height or not. She thinks the second floor is proportionately large and she was struck by the way the roof is being taken advantage of for the ridge height to take advantage of the floor to ceiling height. She thinks there is a way to compress the height and make it look less prominent. She did have an issue with the side setbacks but asked to adjust the massing, plate heights, and the windows facing the neighbor by raising the sill height. Boardmember Berger said this is a tough call as members of the DRB. In responding to the comment about “stealth”, back then, he thinks he meant doing remodeling in a way that is as least visible as possible. He encourages and supports the ideas of remodeling in these older homes and some have done it brilliantly over the years; however, it is not a question of style, as TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 10 2/18/21 there are many different styles in the neighborhood. It is not color and it is not whether it has a second story or not because 10% of the homes have second stories in the neighborhood. There is not strictly speaking a second story prohibition or code in Town. This neighborhood goes under the same guidelines as the rest of Tiburon does, and neighborhood compatibility is the guiding principle here. The question is how the second story is done. He drove around the neighborhood and is familiar with it and especially at the end of Karen Way where there are at least two, second-story additions very tastefully done. Most of their massing is done in the back of the property, in towards the center of the lot, stepped down and done in a subtle way and not celebrated at the front on the street. Also, the tastefully done second story addition two doors down from the project, which is Ms. Twig’s residence, is fairly close of the front of the property but it is very downplayed with its flat roofs and horizontal elements. Around the neighborhood are others tucked into dormer type settings but unfortunately, the one or two shown by the applicant are some of the least appealing ones to him. Therefore, the question is what is compatible with the neighborhood that the Board should ask for in the re-design as he cannot approve the project as submitted. If a second story is to be done, it should be very subtle or in the back, pushed back from the street. The stepping forms in this architecture call more attention to the double height along the street, and stretching it east/west creates less shading but it is not the evening sun but the morning sun coming from the east. If it was bult more on the west side, it would cast fewer shadows on that side. There is great attention to privacy windows as they face other properties which are missing in this design. He also thinks that the solid fence is another thing that makes a distinctive change in this property. The consistent green space in the front is one of the things that keep the properties harmonious when going down the street. In terms of direction for re-design, he asked to use roof forms that de-emphasize and push the massing back and over towards the west more so it will not take the morning sun from the adjacent property, look to continue the setback from the side, implement better privacy windows and use roof forms that downplay and do a more subtle job of approaching the second story, such as a stepped flat roof or roofs where the second story toward the street side take on the form of dormer or is incorporated into the roof. Additionally, when it comes to building in an area where second stories are discouraged, no one is more sympathetic than he is to allowing someone a coverage variance for a smaller second story and having a little overage in the site coverage. He finds this strong from a mass point of view on the street and, in that respect, it is not typical of neighborhood character in terms of the second stories that have been done and should be more that way. This would be to the benefit of the neighborhood characteristics and to the neighbors and their light and air on the property. The way this is done does the exact opposite and he would like to see the redesign return. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 11 2/18/21 Town Attorney Flushman said in talking about a variance, he wanted to emphasize that the Board would need to look at all factors related to a specific project. Therefore, just because the applicant cannot meet certain criteria in one design does not mean they would receive a variance. Vice Chair Chong said people want to develop two stories in Bel Aire and Belveron and one thing that will not change is the fact there will always be a lot of neighbors that do not support them. He agreed this is the most difficult thing the Board does. There are many reasons why applicants want two stories, especially if they have a small lot to begin with. They do not want to destroy their backyard and putting additional square footage up versus out is a smart way to go. Also, the sensitivity of wanting to stay within the guidelines and not ask for variances is the other. On the other hand, if he lived next door in a one-story house and a large two-story home was going up, he understands all of the reasons why people dislike two stories because of the tunnel effect, impacts to views, privacy, light and character of the neighborhood. He went out to the site and over the years he has supported second stories and sometimes did not. Some were appealed, some were redesigned and returned, and it is never easy. He is not against two stories, but in a neighborhood like this one he is not a fan because it is even tighter than Belveron is. He is against houses that look like two stories. When he turned around in front of 301 Karen, which is a couple of doors down, he had to look at this two-story and had to relook at it again to see whether it was an actual two story or just windows letting light in. In driving around the neighborhood, the reason some of the two stories were passed was because they did not have a two-story feel in a very predominantly one-story neighborhood. Therefore, for those reasons he would want to see a redesign that still gives the applicant what they as far as space, but it would have to not feel like the second story that it currently is. It needs a re-thinking of either pushing it back or doing something to it, and the findings on neighborhood character, height, size, and the way it is sited is too much. Lastly, in looking at the number of people who have developed two stories over the years, these were all people who were very much discouraged to build two stories and they found a way to accomplish what they needed in their remodel by going one story. Boardmember Crescini said he visited the site and found it is too wide and towering. The wall lines are vertical and the sensation is the same with the drawings. With regard to one or two stories, the Town permits two stories but discourages them, which he sort of resents as a boardmember because they are giving arguments to both sides, so he hopes this is solved with the new iteration of the zoning code. For the time being, for this project he thinks the second story is justified by the specific conditions of the lot with the lack of backyard. Having said this, he thinks it should and could lose a couple of feet at a minimum. The volumes spike up and the original top plate was 8 feet and typical of a cottage style homes. If they want to keep the general look of the neighbors, he suggested keeping the eaves low. He suggested having a sloped ceiling, some beams or trusses exposed, and to increase the height TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 12 2/18/21 internally without increasing the volume of the home. He thinks it does look like a house on top of another house which was the feeling he had when looking at the design. Another thing that disturbed him was the stair and the stairwell. In the section on the stairwell, there is a huge amount of volume up above that does not help anyone. When looking at the west elevation, all of the volume of the stairwell is on the street. So, he thinks it would beneficial if the stairs could be set back so this volume is not imposing. Also, the 3 foot balcony on the back is not a big deal which faces north, but this is where the backyards of neighbors can be seen, so he suggested eliminating that. He suggested keeping the ceiling plate at 8 feet or even 7 feet and going up with the slope and having nice beams. But in summary, this house must go down in height. Chair Barringer echoed the points from Boardmember Crescini and said there is no reason the stairwell either gets relocated to the back of the house which would reduce the appearance of volume at the front or at least be dropped back a couple of feet which would give it less of a prowl feeling. Boardmember Berger reiterated the idea that in addition to lowering it, if that floor is turned 90 degrees and put over back from the garage from the street edge, it could be one of the houses that are barely noticeable as a second story house. Chair Barringer said his second thought was that he did not see any reason the first floor plates could not be 9 feet and second floor plates at 8 feet with the volume ceiling and still achieve everything they are trying to get done as far as the space in the house. He feels the location of the second story, in general, set back and at the center is appropriate. As it relates to the neighbor to the left, if they start pulling it back towards the backyard there will be more impacts onto their light. He thinks these are two main things he could see improvement towards. He also agrees that the zoning code should be clarified, given unwritten rules which he briefly described. In a perimeter lot, a second story is not an issue. There is no view impediment and he thinks the location set back 12 ½ and 13 ½ feet is going to reduce the light impacts on neighbors as much as is reasonable. He thinks the lot characteristics make it tricky and justifiable to have it designed like it is, but little moves like raising the sill heights on the west side are easy moves and, in general, the location of east and west side windows on the second story are pretty minimal and they could be raised on the west. He summarized that the Board is leaning towards a continuance and he was not opposed to the second story, but it needs reworking to blend better. Boardmember Kim said a little rework like changing windows is not enough for her. It is the height of the floor plates and the height of the ceiling on the second floor which needs to be done in tandem with how the massing is articulated on the second floor. Additionally, the fence in the front which is 4 feet and opaque emphasizes and works against the height even more. So, she thinks it should be porous, more subtle and not 4 feet high. Vice Chair Chong agreed with Boardmember Kim’s comments and said it is really a relook at how they make the second floor not feel like a second floor and there are creative ways of doing it, and it is looking at a new design. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 13 2/18/21 Boardmember Crescini agreed and said the second story is on top of the 10’3” portion of the house so he putting it on top of a 9 foot story below is already one foot down. The whole design needs to be reworked. The other thing he wanted to say is that he was surprised that the Town of Tiburon considered this a remodel and not a new house. He was intrigued by the calculations and was sad about it as it forces the criteria and it affects the upgrade of the house. Chair Barringer supported continuance and Ms. Tasini said there is a PSA deadline of March 22, 2021. If continued past that date, the applicant will need to sign a PSA extension. It was M/S/C (Barringer/Chong) to reopen the public comment period for the applicant to indicate the date for continuance. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Mr. Thayer first asked and confirmed with Ms. Tasini of the timing deadlines given potential re-noticing, staff report preparation, story pole certification, a site visit and a PSA deadline date and agreement to an extension before March 22nd. After brief discussion, Mr. Thayer and Ms. Evers agreed to sign a PSA extension and to provide this to staff by the deadline, and April 1st was chosen as the continuance date. Chair Barringer asked if there were public comments related only to scheduling. Mindy Canter asked why the application is being continued when 4 of 5 members of the Board are opposed to the design. She asked if new story poles will go up, and Chair Barringer stated yes, this is a requirement. Boardmember Berger explained that this will provide time for the redesign. Chuck Barr asked when the neighbors will be able to see the plans prior to the April 1st DRB meeting. Ms. Tasini explained that once staff releases the documents for public review they are posted on the Town’s website on the “Projects under Review” section of the website which is typically two weeks before the hearing. Dan Schwager noted that all Boardmembers stipulated that they support a second floor. He asked if this can be reflected in the minutes even though the design needs further work. Boardmember Berger stated the Board did not necessarily support this particular second floor design. It was rather how it was done which was the objection. Mr. Flushman stated the Board will have an opportunity to review the minutes prior to the meeting and make a motion to adopt them at their next regular meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 14 2/18/21 Chair Barringer clarified for the speakers that the minutes will reflect the discussion by the Board. Mr. Thayer stated he has taken notes from all Boardmembers and has a good sense of what they are and what changes he needs to consider. He asked if there will be minutes or a summary of what the changes are that reflect the Board’s concerns, or he asked if he should rely on his own notes. Ms. Tasini stated the entire meeting is recorded, and that he was welcome to review the recording tomorrow morning and review comments. The minutes will return to the next DRB meeting for approval and she will not have them available right away. Staff has taken notes as well, and Ms. Bonifacio stated she will be scheduling a meeting next week and go over what was discussed and next steps. Mr. Thayer asked and confirmed March 18th was when staff needs revised drawings, and Ms. Tasini stated when they meet next week they can also solidify the timeline for submittal, review and discussion. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period, and the Board voiced the need to continue the matter. It was M/S/C (Chong/Berger) to continue the application to the April 1, 2021 DRB meeting. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. EXHIBIT 5 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-1 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Subject: 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 969 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 5 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 281 KAREN WAY OWNER: LISA EVERS APPLICANT: KYLE THAYER ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 034-122-05 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 LOT SIZE: 8,052 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1-B-A (BEL AIRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: JANUARY 21, 2021 PSA DEADLINE: JUNE 18, 2021 (EXTENDED) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting design review for an addition and remodel to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 281 Karen Way The property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,207 square foot one-story single-family residence with a 279 square foot attached garage that was constructed in the 1950s with improvements over time. This application was first reviewed at the February 18, 2021 Design Review Board meeting (Attachment 2) where the Design Review Board held a properly noticed public hearing, received public testimony, and discussed the project plans. At that meeting, numerous nearby neighbors presented to speak both in favor as well as in opposition. Most neighbors who objected to the Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 10 project shared a similar concern, that the proposed second story addition would not fit well with the single-story homes found in the immediate neighborhood. In general, the Board did not object to the addition of a second story, but that was concern about the configuration of the new bulk and massing, specifically towards the street needed to be reduced. The Board directed the project architect to revise the drawing and refine the project to mitigate massing, height, and privacy impacts, particularly to abutting neighbors on the western side of the subject property. In summary, the suggestions made by board members including, but are not limited to: • Second stories are not “historically” encouraged, but can be approved, given that they do not “look like a second story”. • Revise or relocate massing to reduce visibility from the street. • Reconsider location of windows at second floor in consideration of neighbor at 279 Karen Way • Reconsider stairwell location or volume. • Reconsider ceiling heights and provide sections on new submittal showing change. • Landscaping in front yard should be modified (lowered) and be an open fencing design. Comments made by each board member can be found in the excerpt of the meeting minutes, which is included as Attachment 4 of this staff report. Consideration by the DRB was continued to the April 1, 2021 meeting. After the meeting, the applicant met with Staff on multiple occasions to discuss the Board’s feedback and propose changes to the design. The first iteration of revised plans proposed an increase in lot coverage which would have required a lot coverage variance. Staff was not able to support the lot coverage variance and requested that the applicant modify the design and maintain the proposed lot coverage at the original 29.9%. At the subsequent meeting with staff, the applicant proposed a design that slightly increased the previously requested floor area, but the proposed project remained below both the allowable maximum floor area lot coverage calculation. Other than the original variance for the reduced side yard setback to the west, all of the proposed new addition was contained within the building envelope and below the maximum building height. The applicant submitted revised project plans on March 11, 2021(Attachment 2). Once, confirmed the plans were complete, story poles were erected, and a letter of certification was submitted on March 15, 2021. The Design Review Board is encouraged to visit the adjusted story poles, assess the current project plan, evaluate the design issues. A summary of the applicant’s proposed modifications to the project design is outlined as follows: 1. To reduce the lot coverage, the office has been relocated from the ground floor to the second floor and placed on the back side--not visible from the street. 2. Height and mass have been reduced significantly: a) Main ridge has been lowered 2'-4" (from 24'-6" high to 22'-2" high). Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 10 b) Ground floor plate height at front of house remains at 8'-1". (lowered from 9'-1" in old design). c) Where second story occurs, the ground floor ceiling height is 9'-1" (Ceiling heights are 9'-7" at single story portion at MBR wing and Kitchen wing). d) Second story plate height reduced from 9'-1 to 8'-1" overall--and dropped one foot further to 7'-1" on the street side (south side). e) Line of second floor gutter has been lowered a total of 3'-2". f) Prominent, projecting stairwell has been eliminated--it's been redesigned and relocated to within the form of the building. g) Mass of the upper floor has been moved 7'-6" eastward, creating a significant distance from the neighboring house on the west side. 3. Original design: 13'-11" to property line. New design: 21'-5" to property line ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Height and Massing The R-1-B-A establishes a 30’ maximum height limit for primary dwellings. The proposed additions are within the allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage, except for the variance for the reduced side yard setback for horizontal extension of an existing wall. The new massing created by the partial second story addition was originally concentrated along the front, street facing elevation. The revised design has reduced this massing by removing the stairwell, reducing the ridge height, and relocating the addition to the eastern side of the existing dwelling. The maximum height was also reduced from 24’6” to 22’2”. The Board may want to assess if the proposed changes would make the addition more appropriately scaled to ensure the project would bear a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Privacy The modifications to the proposed addition have reduced the anticipated privacy impacts on the western property, by relocating the proposed office to the second floor. This reduces the length of the addition, which would have been constructed adjacent to the neighboring property. The revised design will eliminate the amount of glazing and raise the sill height of the windows. On the eastern elevation, there will be one new window proposed on the second-floor bedroom and one new window at the office. At the lower level, which is less visible due to an existing fence, there are minor reconfigurations to window spacing. The Board may want to assess if these changes will provide sufficient privacy or if any modifications could occur. Visual impact and view access Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 10 The revised design is reducing the main height ridge from 24’6” to 22’2”. This was achieved by keeping the existing 8’1” ground plate height, where it was previously proposed to be increased to 9’1” as well as reducing the second story plate height from 9’1” to 8’1” overall, with an additional decrease to 7’1” at the street facing side. Further, the second story was located 7’6” to the east. The stairwell that was prominent located at the front, street facing elevation was relocated so that it is contained entirely within the form of the building. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed height and roof form is appropriate in its context, with the goal of minimizing visual and view impacts to nearby neighbors. Zoning Variance In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, to this residence being approved and developed prior to town incorporation the side yard is considered an existing physical constraint. Furthermore, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non-conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated seven inches from where the existing wall is located and result in a reduction of the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 10 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed additions in the rear would not be located above the existing ridgeline, maintaining the existing view of adjacent neighbors. Similarly, the concentration of the partial second story addition towards the front of the home was designed to maintain sunlight for the adjacent neighbors. The majority of new windows created at the partial second story addition would be facing the rear yard and street, instead of facing the neighboring properties. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. The previous analysis incorrectly stated that the wall of the existing home would extend to within 5 feet, 6 inches of the side property line. The existing wall extends to within 5 feet, 5 inches of the side property line. The proposed new addition would extend into the setbacks at the same measurement. The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The Purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design of proposed construction and use assist in maintaining and enhancing the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will add to the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 10 The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with the guiding principles are provided below: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed addition in the rear of the property is compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed remodel/addition is be in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, For these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The majority of the first floor addition is limited to the rear yard of the property and the second story addition has been relocated to the rear yard as well. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors located to the west, limiting the impacts on privacy. The new massing along Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 10 the eastern elevation would be concentrated towards the front of the building resulting in limited impacts. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The revised design would propose 2,084 square feet at the lower level and 711 square feet at the second story, for a total of 2,795 square feet. The proposed 52 square foot addition to the 279 square foot results in a garage, totaling 331 square feet. The proposed floor area is 2,795 square feet which is 10 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed addition because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, to maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 10 impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls is proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance, and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 10 This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. In conclusion, the project appears to further the purposes and is in substantial conformance with many of the guiding principles. The Board may want to assess whether the proposed massing and location of the second story addition is appropriate. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1-B-A zone. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, letters (Attachment 6) were received from nearby neighbors to speak in support. Attachment 5 includes a letter submitted for the February 18, 2021 hearing that was omitted from the previous packet in error. We have also received multiple letters from nearby neighbors in opposition of the project (Attachments 7). The letters in opposition voice concern for the size and design of the second story additions. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends the Design Review Board determine the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 and Class 3 categorical exemptions. Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) The proposed project involves exterior improvements and additions to an existing home that is located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family homes on all sides. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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: Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 10 1) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions, it is recommended that the attached resolution and conditions be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution with conditions of approval 2. Project Plans received March 11, 2021 3. February 18, 2021 Design Review Board staff report and attachments 4. Excerpt of February 18, 2021 Design Review Board meeting minutes 5. Letter of support received by neighbor for the February 18, 2021 meeting that was omitted in error. 6. Letters of Support a. Received from Paige & Gary Fassig, resident at 242 Cecilia Way b. Petition of signatures from: i. Mike Midlock, resident at 154 Leland Way ii. John Leszczynski, resident at 318 Karen Way iii. Stephanie Zaczek, resident at 38 Claire Way iv. Danny Schwager, resident at 38 Claire Way v. Barb Powers, resident at 85 Harriet Way vi. Elizabeth O’Neil, resident at 112 Leland 7. Letters of Opposition a. Received from Pru Starr, resident at 160 Leland Way b. Received from Tessa and Marcus White, resident at 283 Karen Way c. Received from Eileen McHale, resident at 279 Karen Way d. Received from Marion and James Fitzgerald, no address provided e. Received from Rich and Christine Cellini , resident at 46 Claire Way f. Received from Fred Star, resident at 160 Leland Way g. Received from Canter Gamily, address not provided. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 969 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON A R-1-B-A ZONED PROPERTY AT 281 KAREN WAY 281 KAREN WAY ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-122-05 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings A. The Town of Tiburon received an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for exterior alterations and construction of an approximately 969 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence with an attached garage on a R-1-B-A zoned property. The proposed house and improvements would contain approximately 2,795 square feet of gross floor area and cover 2,415.5 square feet (29.9%) of the lot. 1. Application form and supplemental materials received December 14,2020; and 2. Site plan and elevations prepared by Kyle Thayer, Architect, received on March 11,2021. B. The Design Review Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on this project at the February 18, 2021 and April 1, 2021 meeting, the Board reviewed plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 16-52.020 (H) of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications). C. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the February 18, 2021 and April 1, 2021 staff reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the proposed project appears to further the purposes and guiding principles. D. The Design Review Board finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15303. The Design Review Board further finds that that none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply, as there is no evidence that the project will result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, presents unusual circumstances, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 2 or involves an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, a hazardous waste site, damage to a scenic highway, or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. E. The Design Review Board further finds, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the February 18, 2021 and April 1, 2021 staff reports and the attachment thereto, as well as the data submitted, supplemented by public comment and on-site inspections, and deliberations at the meeting, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and thus will further the purpose set forth in subsection 16-52.020(A), and satisfy the applicable criteria of subsection 16-52.020(H). 16-52.020(A) Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will add to the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 3 The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. 16-52.030 (E) Variance 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, to this residence being approved and developed prior to town incorporation the side yard is considered an existing physical constraint. Furthermore, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non-conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated seven inches from where the existing wall is located and result in a reduction of the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 4 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed additions in the rear would not be located above the existing ridgeline, maintaining the existing view of adjacent neighbors. Similarly, the concentration of the partial second story addition towards the front of the home was designed to maintain sunlight for the adjacent neighbors. The majority of new windows created at the partial second story addition would be facing the rear yard and street, instead of facing the neighboring properties. 16-52.020(H) Guiding Principles 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed addition in the rear of the property is compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed remodel/addition is be in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, For these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The majority of the first floor addition is limited to the rear yard of the property and the second story addition has been relocated to the rear yard as well. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors located to the west, limiting the impacts on privacy. The new massing along the eastern elevation would be concentrated towards the front of the building resulting in limited impacts. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 5 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The revised design would propose 2,084 square feet at the lower level and 711 square feet at the second story, for a total of 2,795 square feet. The proposed 52 square foot addition to the 279 square foot results in a garage, totaling 331 square feet. The proposed floor area is 2,795 square feet which is 10 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed addition because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, to maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 6 charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls is proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance, and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 7 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File No. DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for the reasons set forth above, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon on April 1, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 8 ________________________________ CEDRIC BARRINGER, CHAIR TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: ______________________________ DINA TASINI, SECRETARY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 9 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 281 Karen Way File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Community Development Department 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The owner and/or applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless along with the Town Council, commissions, boards, agents, officers, employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding (“action”), against the Town, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or damages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall promptly notify the owner and/or applicant of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the owners and/or applicants or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys with all attorney’s fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the owner and/or applicant 3. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on April 1, 2021 as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated March 11, 2021, stamped “Approved by Design Review Board April 1, 2021”, as determined in the discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be reviewed, and approved by the Design Review Board. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan that addresses, parking, traffic control, construction management, construction staging, scheduling, construction equipment, washout, road/access maintenance and repair and other concerns to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Community Development Director. 5. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes, such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a “bubble” or “cloud”) on the submitted construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 10 that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 6. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise, must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division’s “Notice of Action”, including the attached “Conditions of Approval” for this project, shall be copied onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings. 8. Any structures located within a required setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height at any point. 9. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24” x 24” in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 10. If any existing landscaping that is not proposed to be removed is subsequently removed during construction, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan to Planning Division staff for review and approval of additional adequate landscaping, prior to a Final Inspection. The Planning Division staff may refer any subsequent landscaping plan to the Design Review Board. Public Works Department 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mcstoppp.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 12. An Encroachment Permit from DPW is required for any work within the Town’s road right-of way, including, but not limited to, utility trenching, installation of new utility DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 11 connections, and modifications to the driveway apron. The plans shall clearly identify all proposed work in the right of way and an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to conducting such work. 13. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met. If the work includes the following, the applicant shall note on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check: (a) If over 2,500 square feet of surface area will be added or replaced, the site must provide at least one Post Construction mitigation in accordance with E.12 of the Town’s Municipal Stormwater Permit and the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. (b) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building permit final sign- off, a licensed land surveyor shall verify that fencing, walls, footings and building foundations are entirely within the subject property. If it is found that any portion of the structure(s) were placed outside of the property, that portion of the structure shall be removed and relocated to be entirely within the property boundaries. A certification letter, stamped and signed by the surveyor shall be provided as documentation. The letter is required to state that the licensed professional surveyor located the property boundary of the subject property and “certifies” that all structures, including fencing and foundations are located entirely within the subject property and do not encroach beyond it. The certification letter shall reference the building permit number, provide the date when the surveyor performed their services and must reference the property address and assessor’s parcel number. (c) If project requires movement (including cut, fill, displacement, import and/or export) of earth measuring 50 cubic yards or greater, then the following are required: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall complete the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant Package that can be found in the helpful forms and documents section of the Town’s website. Link: http://townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms-Documents. Please note that projects with over 50 cubic yards of earth movement shall also be subject to post-rain- event erosion control inspections. (d) Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide a geotechnical report, a grading plan and drainage plan to the Town Engineer. (e) Prior to issuance of a building permit, review and acceptance of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Town Engineer is required. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 12 Southern Marin Fire Protection District 14. The fire planning review fee is due prior to any final approvals from the planning department. 15. The Fire District will be required to review the building permit plans at the time of permit submittal. Please include the conditions of approval in the submittal. 16. Deferred Submittals: Please note on the cover sheet of the drawings all deferred submittals that will be required by Southern Marin Fire District. • Fire sprinklers will be required as a deferred submittal. 17. Fire Hydrant Body Upgrade Required: Prior to framing, the existing fire hydrant upgrade shall be required. When additions or modifications to structures are made, the nearest fire hydrant (if a new one is not required) located by the Fire Code Official, shall be upgraded to the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet 2 ½ inch outlet for single family dwellings and the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet and two 2 ½ inch outlets for commercial structures. • Exception: If the cost of upgrading the fire hydrant exceeds 2% of the cost of the project based on the building permit valuation. • Clow #FHD75 CLOW Residential Upgrade at hydrant located at 283 Karen Way 18. Fire Sprinkler Requirements: The current scope of work appears to be in excess of 50% of the existing structure and is being considered a substantial remodel as defined in SMFD Ordinance 2019/2020-01 and shall require the installation of fire sprinklers throughout the structure. However, if further review or change in scope reveals that the project is less than 50% of the existing structure, then the project will be re-evaluated. • A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for the following: • If the combination of the addition, alteration or remodeling exceeds 50% of the floor area of the existing structure, the project is considered a “substantial remodel” ** (see end for definition) • Existing Buildings. In any building with an existing automatic sprinkler system, protection shall be extended to any all of alteration, repair, remodel or addition, regardless of job size so that 100% coverage is maintained. Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided through the entire structure according to Chapter 9 of the California Fire Code. Fire sprinkler system shall be installed according DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 13 to NFPA standards and Southern Marin Fire Standard 401. Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the Southern Marin Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinkler system design and installation shall conform to the provisions of the Southern Marin Fire District Standard 401and N.F.P.A. Standard(s) 13, 13D or 13R. 19. A vertical overhead clearance of 13' 6" shall be maintained free of obstructions above any roadbed (trees, brush, etc.). 20. The property owner shall comply with California Fire Code Section 304.1.2 and Local Ordinance Section 109.3.2 Abatement of Clearance of Flammable Brush or Flammable Vegetative Growth from Structures. 21. A minimum clearance of 30 feet from the structure or to the property line, 10 feet from roads and property lines and any tree which extends within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe shall be kept clear of flammable brush, tree limbs and grasses. 22. A list of flammable (pyrophytic) plans and non-flammable (fire resistive) plans can be found on the University of California Cooperative Extension: Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistive Plants list. This is available at firesafemarin.org Exception: Vegetation Management Plan for the property has been submitted and approved by the Fire Code Official. 23. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Fire Code and SMFD standard 205 (Premises Identification). 24. Smoke / CO Detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code. Non-combustible roofing required. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for: • All new roofs shall be non-combustible. • Roof Repairs or replacement: o Less than 25% - no requirement o 25% to 50% - Class C minimum o 50% or more – Non Combustible • In no case shall the roofing material used be less fire resistive than the existing roof. NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group R Occupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the California Building Code. 25. This project shall comply with California Fire Code Chapter 33 – Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition. These requirements include but are not limited to: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 14 Temporary Heating Equipment, Precautions Against Fire, Flammable and Combustible Liquids, Flammable Gases, Owners Responsibility for Fire Protection, Fire Reporting, Access for Fire Fighting, Means of Egress, Water Supply for Fire Protection, Standpipes, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, Portable Fire Extinguishers, Motorized Construction Equipment, and Safeguarding Roofing Operations. 26. Fire access to the project as well as the other surrounding properties shall be maintained at all times. Unapproved restrictions in roadway access shall result in citations and vehicles being towed at the owner’s expense. 27. Any revisions that include additional floor area, reduction of floor area, or modifications to existing or new walls, floors, ceilings, or roofs shall be submitted as revised drawings to the District for further review. 28. All on-site improvements, such as water main extensions, hydrants and access roads, must be serviceable prior to framing the structure. 29. Final occupancy approval shall not be granted/released until authorization to the Community Development Agency has been received from the Fire District. Other Agencies 30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 31. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from the Sanitary District confirming that all applicable requirements of the District have been satisfied for occupancy. 32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). 33. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy. --End of Conditions of Approval-- M A R . 1 1 , 2 0 2 1 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Subject: 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 281 KAREN WAY OWNER: LISA EVERS APPLICANT: KYLE THAYER ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 034-122-05 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 LOT SIZE: 8,052 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1-B-A (BEL AIRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: JANUARY 21, 2021 PSA DEADLINE: MARCH 22, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review for exterior alterations and construction of approximately 888 square feet of new floor area to an existing single-family dwelling on the property located at 281 Karen Way as well as the addition of 42 square feet to the existing attached garage. The property is currently occupied by a one-story single-family home that was constructed in 1953 with an approximately 1,207 square feet of floor area and a 279 square foot attached garage. The proposal would add a partial second story with a balcony and extend the existing eastern and western wings of the home into the rear yard. Additional landscape improvements are also proposed, including a new hot tub, fire pit, and barbeque in the rear yard and a new four foot tall fence at the front yard. The proposed additions would increase the calculated floor area of the property by 888 square feet to 2,095 square feet, which is less than the permitted floor area ratio (2,805 square feet) for this site. The proposed addition would increase the existing lot coverage of 1,486 square feet of TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-2 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 11 the site by 928.5 square feet to a total of 2,415.5 square feet (29.9%), which is just under the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1-B-A zone. The existing maximum height of the home is 14’8’ at the front elevation. The proposed additions would increase the height to 24’6”, which is under the 30’ height limit permitted in the R-1-B-A zone. The existing home is located 24’8” from the front property line. The addition to the garage would reduce this distance to the required setback of 20’. The current home is located 65’2” to the rear property line and the addition would reduce this to 40’6”, where a minimum of 25’ is required. The existing eastern wall of the home is located 6’4” from the side property line, where a minimum of 6’ is required. The proposed addition would be constructed at the same distance. The proposed addition at the western wall at the first floor would extend to within 5 feet, 6 inches of the side property line. As a 6-foot side yard setback is required in the R-1-B-A zone, a variance is also requested for reduced side yard setback. The proposed colors and material include a combination of stucco siding and stone. The proposed roof will be constructed of composition shingles in the “Charcoal” color. A color and material board has been included in the project plan and can be found on Sheet A5.2 on the attached plans provided for the Board review (Attachment 2). PROJECT SETTING Source: Marin Map and Google Map, accessed on February 4,2021 The property is located on a rectangular lot on Karen Way in the Bel-Aire neighborhoods. The subject site and surrounding area is predominately flat, but there rear of the site slopes up toward the old railroad right-of-way adjacent to Bel Aire School,. Homes located on the abutting properties are mostly one-story, with one-car attached garage and main entry facing the street. ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Site plan and layout Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 11 The western wall of the existing single-family dwelling was constructed five feet and six inches from the side property line, prior to the establishment of a six-foot setback. The remaining portion of the home and garage were constructed within the allowable building envelope. The proposed additions in the rear will extend the existing eastern and western walls to create a “U” shaped home, with a small courtyard. The western wall is proposed to be constructed in line with the existing wall. Extending this wall would require the granting of a variance for a reduce side yard setback. A partial second story is proposed above with an upper floor balcony facing the courtyard in the rear yard. The Board may wish to comment on whether the project is properly related to its site and location of existing improvements on adjoining sites, with the goal of achieving privacy and providing adequate light and air to nearby neighbors. Height and Massing The R-1-B-A establishes a 30’ maximum height limit for primary dwellings. The proposed additions are within the allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage, except for the variance for the reduced side yard setback for horizontal extension of an existing wall. The new massing created by the partial second story addition would locate within the building envelope and be concentrated along the front, street facing, elevation. Since the neighborhood is predominately occupied by single-story homes, the Board may want to assess if the proposed additions are appropriately scaled and are properly placed to ensure the project would bears a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Privacy The project proposes additions with adequate distance from its neighboring structures to preserve privacy. In consideration of the adjacent neighbor’s view, sunlight, and privacy, the maximum ridge height of the addition in the rear would be lower from the existing dwelling’s ridge height by one foot. The project will maintain the existing perimeter fence and landscaping. The project includes window and door replacement on the existing residence, as well as new window and door placement on the new addition. Visual impact and view access The project will maintain the 4:12 roof slope while raising the maximum ridge height from 14’-8” to 24’6’. The master bedroom suite and kitchen additions that extends toward the rear yard will have a lower ridge height of approximately 13”. The area around the subject property is relatively flat and the neighboring properties are primarily comprised of single-story homes. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed height and roof form is appropriate in its context, with the goal of minimizing visual and view impacts to nearby neighbors. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles to determine if the proposed addition would create any visual, privacy, light or view impacts on the adjacent neighbors. Zoning Variance In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 11 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,00 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. The existing physical constraints of the hillside and small lot size create special circumstances that deprives the owners of this property of the same development privileges enjoyed by other properties within this zoning district. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non- conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require that the rear addition would need to be relocated in six inches from where the existing wall is located reduce the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed additions in the rear would not be located above the existing ridgeline, maintaining the existing view of adjacent neighbors. Similarly, the concentration of the partial second story addition towards the front of the home was designed to maintain the sunlight to adjacent neighbors. The majority of new windows created at the partial second story addition would be facing the rear yard and street, instead of facing the neighboring properties. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 11 The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure the design of proposed construction supports, maintains, and enhances the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will infill the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 11 The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with the guiding principles are provided below: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed additions in the rear of the property are compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story and is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. These additions would be in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, For these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The additions on the first floor would extend into the rear of the property, with the maximum ridgeline reduced by roughly one foot. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors to the east and west, limiting the impacts on privacy. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. The Board may suggest the potential relocation or design of the second Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 11 story, as deem necessarily to ensure the project will maintain a reasonable relationship with its surrounding. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The additions to the existing home would add 888 square feet, resulting in 2,095 square feet in total floor area. The proposed floor area is 710 square feet under the maximum allowable floor area of 2,805 square feet. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed additions because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls are proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 11 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance , and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. In conclusion, the project appears to further the purposes and is in substantial conformance with many of the guiding principles. The Board may want to assess whether the proposed massing and location of the second story addition is appropriate. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 11 Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1-B-A zone. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, the Town has received numerous letters in both support (Attachment 3) as well as opposition from the neighboring residents regarding the subject application (Attachment 4). The neighbors in opposition have expressed concern over the additional mass and bulk added by the second story. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions. Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) The proposed project involves minor exterior improvements and additions to an existing home that is located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family homes on all sides. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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: 1) The property is located in a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. 5) It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions and exterior improvements to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 11 and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends the Board provide design guidance to the applicant that would advance the project toward approval. If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions or deny the project, the Board may direct staff to draft such conditions and resolution, which would be presented at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and supplemental materials, received on December 14, 2020. 2. Project plans by Thayer Architecture, received on December 14, 2020. 3. Public Comments in support of the project: • Neighbor’s letter from 83 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 334 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 326 Karen Way, received 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 329 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 318 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 258 Karen Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 85 Harriet Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 113 Blackfield Drive, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 350 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Signature sheet (20 total residents) received on 2/5/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 257 Karen Way, received on 2/7/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 191 Blackfield Drive, received on 2/8/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 321 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 342 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 346 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 4. Public Comments in opposition of the project: • Neighbor’s letter from 22 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way and 251 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 71 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 279 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 127 Leland Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 166 Leland Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 94 Claire Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 90 Claire Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 71 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 revising the house address for letter sent on 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 42 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 82 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 278 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 79 Claire Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 86 Claire Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 171 Leland Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 10 Claire Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 46 Claire Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Mindy Canter, received 2/2/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Brian Brown (owner of 2 houses on Karen Way and Leland Way), received 2/2/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 157 Leland Way, received 2/3/2021 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 11 of 11 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Marion and James Fitzgerald, received on 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 278 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 87 Claire Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 279 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager, received on 2/6/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 121 Leland Way, received on 2/9/2021 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 0 D R 2 0 2 0 - 0 8 8 / V A R 2 0 2 0 - 0 2 0 $ 1 , 3 9 5 . 0 0 R 9 8 3 9 S B K B 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 D e s i g n R e v i e w B o a r d 2 0 4 0 ' 6 " 6 ' 4 " 5 ' 6 " 2 4 ' 6 " 2 4 1 5 . 5 2 9 . 9 2 7 1 2 H o m e 3 2 1 G a r a g e = 3 0 3 3 2 8 0 5 H o m e 6 0 0 G a r a g e = 3 4 0 5 2 0 2 5 6 6 3 0 2 4 1 6 3 0 D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 2 0 J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 1 IA] ROOF: CLASS 'A' COMPOSITION SHINGLES,GAF TIMBERLINE, "CHARCOAL" � FASCIA AND GUTTERS: PAINTED BLACK IQ] SIDING: 3 COAT STUCCO: BENJAMIN MOORE "SILVER SATIN" OC-26 [!] WINDOW SASH: BLACK; WOOD WINDOW WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING IQ] SIDING: CULTURED STONE: PRO-FIT ALPINE LEDGESTONE, "BLACK MOUNTAIN" COLORS AND MATERIALS I-iii; JOB NO: 2D2ll-08 COLORS& MATERIALS SCALE: NIA DAlE: DEC. 11, 2020 DRAWH3 5.2 REVISION & January 25,2021 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 1 :58 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way CAUTION : This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I just wanted to send the feedback that I am very excited about the project at 281 Karen way and think it will be fantastic for the neighborhood. They have been really great to everyone in the neighborhood and it is a real shame Chuck Barnes is trying to stop this ... Matt Boyd 83 Claire Way Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:41 PM Kris Bernard -rl> Subject: Fwd: Design Review logistics -281 Karen Way remodel Attachments: IMG_2207-2.JPG; IMG_2206-2.JPG; IMG_2204-2.JPG; IMG_2208-2.JPG; Two Story Home Addition Fact Sheet.pdf; 281 Karen Lisa Evers 2021-01-24 letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, We live at 334 Karen Way in Tiburon. We received the below email regarding a planned remodel at 281 Karen Way. Please note our support of this remodel, we think the second story is fine. Please let me know if there is anything else we should do to register our support. Best, Sarah and Andrew Basham 334 Karen Way Tiburon, CA ----------Forwarded message--------- From: C Barn __ Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM Subject: Design Review logistics -281 Karen Way remodel T January 25, 2021 Hi Neighbors, re: 181 Karen Way remodel/addition --='Thi,...:--_I I just got off the phone with one of the staff people for the Town of Tiburon about logistics for Design Reviews Feedback emails to Kris Bernard, kbernard@townoftiburon.org Kris indicated that it is best if she receives input as soon as possible. She has to package the materials and distribute them to the Board members and publish them on-line in the "Meetings and Agendas" section of the Town of Tiburon website. The agenda and other materials (feedback, staff report, etc.) are slated for distribution and on-line publication 2/11 for 281 Karen Way. Architectural plans are published in the "Projects Under Review" section of the website once the town planner assigned to the project considers the application complete. As of our conversation the planner had not indicated the submission for 281 Karen Way as complete. I fully support remodels and fixing up the neighborhood. My communications are not to enlist you in a particular viewpoint but to make sure facts are available, including the Town of Tiburon design factors to consider ab'Out second story 1 additions. I was not involved in formulating the design factors and they have been in place a long time. There are many wonderful large remodels/additions in Bel Aire that have managed to deal with the constraints of our properties and the Town of Tiburon with neighborhood support. This is not about a personal story. -Chuck -----Fnn""'rded Message ----- v Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021, 8:24:02 PM PST Subject: 1/24 Lisa Evers letter attached -Fw: Update -Re: 281 Karen Way story poles/remodel -Chuck -----Forwarded Messa~e ----- vent: Sunday, January 24, 2021, 8: 11 :49 PM PST Subject: Update -Re: 281 Karen Way story poles/remodel I'll be delivering copies of this to the neighborhood. I've attached the Tiburon "Second Floor Home Addition" document and pictures of the local houses that are being used to justify a 600 sq ft second floor living space. -Chuck January 24, 2021 Dear Bel Aire Neighbors, You may have received a letter from Lisa Evers 1/24 about a proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way. The remodel has a 2,000 sq ft first floor and a 2nd floor with 600 sq ft of living space. Traditionally 2nd story additions have been denied in the Bel Aire neighborhood because they would be inconsistent with the established development pattern in the area. Those of you who have lived in Bel Aire for a while are well aware of the issue and may have been involved in stopping a number of second floor additions. For those of you who remodeled to fit in with the neighborhood over the years, thank you! I have enclosed a copy of the Town of Tiburon's "Second Story Home Additions -Factors To Consider" also found at Helpful Forms & Documents I Tiburon. CA -Official Website Helpful Forms & Documents I Tiburon, CA -Official Website Click on "Second Story Addition Fact Sheet" in the "Design Review Application Forms, Guidelines and Related Documents" section. Lisa is aware of this document. The Neighborhood pattern section specifically cites Bel Aire and is quite clear. 2 The second to last paragraph of the document states "Town staff encourages homeowners to talk to their neighbors who may be affected by their project at the outset of the design process, and then keep them advised of any substantive changes as the design takes place." That did not take place. Lisa and I talked yesterday (Saturday). I don't believe she or the architect talked to anyone else prior to Saturday. The story poles were up and the plans submitted to the Planning Deportment prior to our conversation. I indicated my opposition to the second story, with 600 sq ft of living space, because it would not fit with the neighborhood pattern. Lisa's 1/24 letter is very misleading about the other homes with second floors in Bel Aire. Three of the four she identifies with second floors have barely visible second floors from the street and were done when this area was a part of the county, not the Town of Tiburon. They don't look anything like her proposal. Cited are 354 Karen Way, 326 Karen Way, 318 Karen Way and 258 Karen Way. I also have pictures of them (attached). If you need a copy of the letter let me know. She is having "open houses" this week and asking for sign off. I recommend you read "Second Home Documents", look at the houses with 2nd floors, and consider our whole Bel Aire neighborhood look and feel (established neighborhood pattern) before signing off. A number of us think there will be a cascade effect of second story additions all across Bel Aire if this is approved. I also recommend that you participate with feedback to Lisa and to the Design Review Board as early as possible. I am working on getting more specific logistics information of where/how to send feedback and the the when/how of the Board meeting for this proposal. Thanks, Chuck Barnes (the person with "the older truck in his yard and overgrown trees") 278 Karen Way On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 2:01:17 PM PST, C Barnes <cbarnez@gmail.com> wrote Hi Neighbors, We have not received the official notice from the Town of Tiburon about a proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, but story poles went up today. If you are interested in the look and feel of houses in Bel Aire I recommend you check out the story poles and quickly give feedback to the Tiburon Design Review Board either in writing or in person/Zoom at the meeting slated for February 18 Town of Tiburon 3 Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 "If you have any questions about submitting public comment, please contact the Town Clerk at lstefani@townoftiburon.org " Thanks, Chuck 4 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BelAireNeighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to belaireneighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.corn /d/msgid /b.elaireneighborhood/6152452.3236770.16116l0887000%40ma il.ya1100.corn . 5 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:41 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 181 Karen Way Remodel/Addition From: Carol Perry   Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:41 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: 181 Karen Way Remodel/Addition  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hello Kris,   My name is Carol Perry and I live on 326 Karen way. My house has a second story addition and I lived in it for 20  years.I'm writing this email to share with you some feedback I have in regards to the second floor addition on 181 Karen  Way.   I reviewed the Architectural plans and I am in full support of the proposed second floor addition. I believe it is consistent  with the established architectural pattern of the neighborhood and does not diminish views from nearby homes.  I hope Tiburon's design review approves the proposed plans. It is important for our town to be supportive of actions that  improve the value of it's residents properties.  Thank you and all the best,   ‐‐   Carol Perry  January 27, 2021 ~ ~ ((; r ,1 1 ~ : ~I ~11 b Pl.ANNING DIVISION Grover Wilson III 329 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 January 26, 2021 Ms. Samantha Bonifacio Sent Via Email: sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org Assistant Planner Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Proposed Home Remodel – 281 Karen Way, Tiburon CA 94920 Dear Sam: I am writing in support of the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920. We have lived in Bel-Aire for almost 28 years and seen many changes to the neighborhood the vast majority of them good. As a former Tiburon Design Review Board member, I can appreciate change is sometimes a challenge. I believe within reason trying to tastefully nudge our 1950’s style neighborhood into the 21st century, one house at a time, is okay with me. Sincerely, Grover Wilson III January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:John Leszczynski Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:01 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Having a second story myself, approved in 2006, I hope that you approve Ms. Evers design in its entirety.  She's not asking for any variances, especially considering the limited room on the property,  not the least of  which includes the RR berm in her backyard!  Great design given all her constraints.  We need more such  innovative designs in BelAire, moving us out of 1953.   As far as the chief complainant across the street, I wonder how he can even see her property most of  the year, as he's got all that vegetation and a permanently installed truck in his front yard!  Given the   town's enhanced awareness of fire hazards on residential property.....well, maybe the fire safety marshall  should have a look at his!  Just sayin'! .   Best regards,  John Leszczynski  318 Karen Way.   January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lara Conte Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 7:43 PM To:Kris Bernard; Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:re: 281 Karen Way letter of support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  1.31.21  Letter for 281 Karen Way  We are writing to state our support for the proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way.  While we understand that 2nd stories  are discouraged in the neighborhood and we do not think they are appropriate in many situations, we think that the  specifics of this lot and its siting on the north side of Karen Way make it a house where a partial second story makes  sense. We also do not fear this approval would open the floodgates for 2nd stories, as the design review board carefully  reviews each application on a case‐by‐case basis.  This lot has minimal level area due to the steep rear yard hillside that backs up to Bel Aire School, making expanding the  house on one level into the backyard less desirable.  In normal years, schoolkids wait for the bus daily all over the  homeowner’s front lawn, making expanding far forward undesirable as well. There is no rear yard neighbor who would  have privacy impacts as the rear yard “neighbor” is Bel Aire School. The house is facing two driveways across the street  with minimal privacy concerns.  While one house across the street does have windows fronting Karen Way, heavy  landscaping provides screening in both directions.  Also, given the north side of Karen Way is higher than the south side,  there is already a view downward across the street and the partial 2nd story does not create more of a privacy intrusion  than already exists. There is no protected view that is being blocked by the partial 2nd story.  The homeowner has pulled the partial second story inward from the side setbacks in order to reduce square footage and  massing upstairs and minimize the impact to the neighbors on either side.  At the same time, as the adjacent residences  are directly next door and the most affected, should they have privacy concerns, it is important to hear their  comments.  There could be some mitigating steps taken that could minimize privacy issues (minimizing windows facing  east/west, raising windowsills above eye level, reducing deck area, or minimizing outdoor lights on upper story).   We think that it is rational to either approve this application or to find a pathway toward approving it.  Fred & Lara Conte  258 Karen Way   Sent from Mail for Windows 10  February 1, 2021 ~ ~ © 1 11 ~ ITT i ::1 ~] 1~ PLANNING DIVISION February 3, 2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear members of the board, This letter is to voice our support for the proposed partial second story addition at 281 Karen Way. After reviewing the plans with the owner and visiting the property with the story poles in place, it is understandable why the owner would like to increase square footage to the property with a partial second story. The lot does not have adequate level area in the backyard to expand the house as a single story. The fact that this lot has a very steep hillside in rear yard and backs up to Bel Aire School would not be intruding on any privacy issues for a rear neighbor nor are any views being blocked by the second story. The proposed second story would have minimal impact for the side, front neighbors as the second story would not be blocking their views, and their properties have not become a “fishbowl” from this proposed second story. The design that the owner has created is within the height and square footage allotment per the Town’s requirements and has great curb appeal that keeps in line with the style of the neighborhood. We support the approval of the proposed second story at 281 Karen Way. Regards, Bill and Barb Powers 85 Harriet Way February 3, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Christopher Murphy Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:24 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:Letter in Support of 281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,  My wife and I, residents of the Bel Aire neighborhood and owners of 113 Blackfield, are writing in support of the  proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way for the upcoming DRB meeting.  We've seen the current home, neighbors' homes,  lot characteristics, remodel story poles, as well as the remodel designs.  We are excited at the continued investment in our neighborhood with a well‐designed remodel that fits our  neighborhood character and does not appear to impact the privacy of adjacent homes.  It's our understanding that the  design complies with all local requirements, including "second‐story additions shall be... permitted with increased  setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood (16‐52.020.H.3)."  We do not think our  neighborhood's character is defined by building height, but by the active care and improvement we put into our homes  and our community.    Best,  Chris & Linda Murphy   113 Blackfield Dr.  FEB 4, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 7:55 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: In support of the addition to 281 Karen Way From: Edward Leaman    Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2021 12:17 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: Edward Leaman   Subject: In support of the addition to 281 Karen Way  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  My name is Edward Leaman and I own my home at 350 Karen Way. I am writing to support Ms. Evers application to build a partial second floor on to her home. I walk past the story polls a couple of times every day, given COVID, with my dog. I also walk past other homes that have partial second floors. My fundamental feeling is that if the plans for 281 Karen Way fit within the requirements, and they either do or they don’t, then the issue to be decided is one of individual or group point-of-view. For me my home is a place of refuge and sanctuary. It has housed the people I love and it holds the treasures and memories of my life. It is not my or anyone else’s business what a home looks like to anyone else or as much as what happens inside a home, and I certainly wish to support anyone in our community who chooses to invest in their homes and by it contribute to our neighborhood, inspiring new generations of people to move in. If the plans submitted meet the legal requirements set out then we should not be judges on everything else from that point, and certainly not on the basis of aesthetics. It is people that make a neighborhood, not partial second floors. Some years ago there was a petition to prevent Kol Shofar building its new vision for a place of Jewish Community prayer and gathering. It was said it FEB 4,2021 2 would disturb the neighborhood, bringing unwanted traffic to the area. Signs popped up on lawns and letters placed in mail boxes. It felt and it was ugly. You had the good sense to move forward and no-one now remembers what the fuss was about. And the truth then was that every single day in a normal school year there was more traffic on Karen Way, and in front of 281 Karen Way, than at any time in the Kol Shofar annual calendar. If Ms. Evers wants to build the home that she would love we should all have the dignity, humility and grace to love her vision for her home and love her too. It’s 2021. Time to move forward. Thank you. Edward Leaman 350 Karen Way. FEB 5,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Stephanie Zaczek Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 10:02 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:Support of 281 Karen Way Remodel/Renovation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To: Tiburon Design Review Board  The purpose of this letter is to provide support for the renovation and remodel of 281 Karen  Way.  The design is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound construction, fitting well into the  neighborhood plan, while also enhancing property values of this and other adjacent homes. In  addition, the plan for the new home fits the particular topography of the lot, skillfully absorbing  the steep slope in the backyard, with the home's footprint and surrounding yard space. There  are multiple precedents for 2nd story remodels in this neighborhood.  We urge the Tiburon Planning Commission to vote in favor of this beautifully designed plan for  281 Karen Way.   Sincerely,   Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager  FEB 6,2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Feb. 7, 2021 Dear Board Members: This is a letter in support of Ms. Lisa Evers’ request to remodel her home and add a second story (281 Karen Way). After meeting with Ms. Evers and being apprised of her situation, we feel it is well within reason for her to want to build up. We understand there are other homes in the neighborhood that were remodeled with a second story, so it only seems fair that Ms. Evers should also be able to do so. I don’t believe that she is requesting anything out of the ordinary and it is well within her right to update her home. Best, Jeffrey and Colleen Chien 257 Karen Way FEB 7,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Amy Kaufman Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:30 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Subject:Letter of Support for Project at 281 Karen way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom It May Concern:   I have been living at 191 Blackfield Drive for the past seven‐plus years, right down the street from the proposed project.  I have taken a look at the poles and given that the house is backing up to a hill, I do not have any reason to think that the  second story addition will block anyone's views or light or impose on their neighbors in a significant way.  Since moving here, I have become actively involved in the neighborhood and have noticed that many folks who have  lived here for a long time wish to see minimal changes being made. I understand that historically Bel Aire has been a  neighborhood of mostly smaller, one‐story homes.  However, times have changed.  More families are moving into the  neighborhood and families are getting larger.  I know I came for the schools and love it here.  My house was expanded  right before we moved in ‐ all on one level and as big as they could have possibly gone ‐ 2000 square feet. With three  kids, it's not nearly enough space. We love it here, but it's not cheap.  At some point, my growing family will be forced  out of the neighborhood because we will need to seek more space. I would love for that not to be the case. We would  love to be able to build up and stay.  I have always thought that just because things have been a certain way for a long time is not sufficient reason for things  to never change.  I love this neighborhood and am thrilled when my neighbors take good care of their homes or decide  to renovate.  It makes our neighborhood even better.  If my neighbors at 281 are interested in investing in their home in  a way that minimally impacts their neighbors and serves to make our neighborhood more beautiful, I am fully  supportive.  I would love to see the precedent change in terms of allowing second story additions when appropriate.  Again, I think it  will only enhance our neighborhood and allow more families to be able to stay long‐term.  At a certain point, we have to  embrace change.    Respectfully,  Amy Kaufman  191 Blackfield Drive  FEB 8, 2021 Vasco Morais  Holly Kaiser  321 Karen Way  Tiburon, CA  94920  February 9, 2021  Samantha Bonifacio  Assistant Planner  Town of Tiburon  1505 Tiburon Boulevard,   Tiburon, CA 94920   Re: 281 Karen Way Project  The 281 Karen Way remodel seems to us to be consistent with that vision of measured, reasonable,  organic growth and we do not have any objection to the Lisa Evers’ remodel.  The house abuts the railroad  right‐of‐way, and we note that overall the mass of the remodeled house seems to be within reason and  consistent with the natural growth of the homes in our neighborhood, and not out of characteristic of the  designs for the neighborhood.  The remodel design is an addition of 930 sq. ft. total (888 sq. ft. living  space, plus 42 sq. ft. addition to garage), but only 600 sq. ft. of that is for the 2nd story addition, bringing  the total house to about 2,712 sq. ft. of living space (and 321 sq. ft. for the garage).  That seems very  reasonable to us.(Having said that, we also believe that the closer the neighbor to the project, that more  valuable the input as to any objection to the remodel characteristics.)  We do have a significant concern, however, as to the Town of Tiburon blanket policy statement in the  “Second Story Home Addition Fact Sheet”  that 2nd story homes are “strongly discouraged” in Bel Aire.  We  do not recall that issue coming to a vote for Bel Aire, and would seem to be an over simplification the Bel  Aire neighbor consensus position, and would like to set the record straight as to our position as to 2nd  stories in the neighborhood, at least as it relates to upper Karen Way, if not all of Karen Way.  Firstly, the Town statement is not accurate as there have been are a number of 2nd story additions in Bel  Aire, our neighborhood, many completed in recent years.  The carte blanche official Town of Tiburon  “strong discouragement” of 2nd stories ‐ which we are hearing about for the first time ‐ is problematic as  it is inconsistent with the position of a substantial portion of the Bel Aire community.  Having lived in the neighborhood for almost 30 years now, we recall a historical Bel Aire neighborhood  objection about 20 years ago to a 2nd story that was a complete teardown and proposed construction of  about a 4,000 sq. ft. 3‐story Mediterranean‐style home on Leland, sandwiched between two original 1,000  sq. ft. homes.  At that time, I believe that there was a consensus that the construction would have stuck  out like a sore thumb in terms of both size characteristics, and design, and neighbors were concerned of  Bel Aire following the “Belveron” development plan, where massive new construction or re‐modeled  homes structures, 3x or 4x the size of the neighboring original construction, were being permitted,  creating an eye‐sore of hodge‐podge development.  Our recollection of the majority view at the time was not an objection to 2nd stories per se, but that there  be some measured, reasonable, organic growth in the Bel Aire neighborhood, as part of the natural  evolution within Belaire to remodel to larger structures with 2nd stories.    FEB 9, 2021 I speak for a number of neighbors in Upper Karen Way, if not all (and have not heard any opposition to  the contrary) that we would like to set the record straight as to our position as to 2nd stories in the  neighborhood, at least as it relates to Upper Karen Way, that the “Second Story Home Addition Fact  Sheet”  that being restated and corrected as follows::  “Neighborhood  Pattern.  In  neighborhoods  consisting  of  predominately  one‐story  homes,  a  second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern  of the area.   In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East  neighborhood  are  made  up  almost  entirely  of  one‐story  dwellings.  Two‐story  projects  are  strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.”  As for the Bel Aire neighborhood, second story  remodel  projects  should  be  of  size  and  design  characteristics  consistent  with  the  natural  evolution of measured, reasonable, organic growth in the Bel Aire neighborhood to larger  structures with 2nd stories. To retard natural growth by a top‐down policy statement from the Town of Tiburon would seem to be  fraught with the potential for a gross misunderstanding of the position of a substantial number of Bel Aire  residents, and an undue restriction and limitation on our home ownership, development, and values in  our neighborhood.  Thank you,  Vasco Morais  Holly Kaiser  321 Karen Way  Tiburon, CA  94920    1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Josiane Sadoun Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:53 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Subject:281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hello, I have lived at 342 Karen Way for almost 42 years. I am happy that Lisa Evers is trying to improve the neighborhood. In driving by her property, I see it is against the hill in the back, so it would not affect the neighborhood, I think it would improve it. There are a few houses with partial second floors and they look nice. I am in support of this remodel and hope you will approve her request. It can only improve the neighborhood. Thank you. Kindly, Josiane Sadoun 342 Karen Way FEB 9, 2021 February 9, 2021  Town of Tiburon  Planning Division  Samantha Bonifacio,  Assistant Planner  RE:  In support of proposed remodel of 281 Karen Way  Dear Ms. Bonifacio,  I live at 346 Karen Way.  I bought my home approximately 19 years ago as a single  mother.  My youngest daughter attended the Reed District Schools from first  grade through middle school.  I write in support of Lisa Evers’ proposed plan to  add a partial second story to her home.    I looked at the drawings and the story poles and I believe that her remodel is  attractive and consistent with the character of the neighborhood.  In addition, I  looked at the “Second Story Home Additions Factors to Consider.”  The first factor  reads as follows:  Neighborhood pattern.  In neighborhoods consisting of predominantly one‐story homes, a second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area.  In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one‐story dwellings.  Two‐story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” In the first instance, the language of this factor says that “a second story is usually  considered to be inconsistent.” It does not say “always.”  I would argue that a  “factor” that banned second stories completely would constitute a “taking” based  on the fact that not all lots are the same and therefore each should be considered  on a case by case basis.  As applied however, it seems that those that oppose the  remodel assume that this factor is a blanket prohibition to be applied in  perpetuity.  It is not.  FEB 9,2021 In this case, Ms. Evers’ property backs onto a hillside that abuts Bel Aire School.   Her lot is much smaller and distinctly different from the lots on Claire Way and  the houses built around them on Cecilia, Leland, Karen and Blackfield.  I took the  time this past Sunday to drive through Belveron East and West.  There are second  stories in both of these neighborhoods. There are even second stories on homes  built on the Lagoon.  In addition, there are already partial second stories in Bel  Aire.      The second factor reads as follows:     Views.  Residents cherish their views in Tiburon.  It doesn’t take much for a  new house or building addition to block views of the Golden Gate Bridge, San  Francisco, the bay, or other landmark views.  A second story can often  diminish precious views from nearby homes.  In such cases, neighbors will  likely object to the project and it is unlikely to be approved through the  Design Review process.    Such views are not at issue in this proposed remodel.  Again, Ms. Evers’ property  backs onto a hillside.  There are no views to be had.  One door down from Ms.  Evers’ home is a long concrete driveway that goes up a hill to Bel Aire School.  In  no way is this driveway an attractive view.      The third factor reads as follows:     Privacy.  A second story can cause privacy impacts for adjacent homes by  creating unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks that would allow  someone to look into the yards or private spaces of their neighbors.  These  privacy‐invading elements of new second story projects should be identified  and avoided early in the design phase.    The homes built on the portion of Karen Way, where Ms. Evers’ property is  situated, do not have privacy in the back of their lots.  Bel Aire School is above  and behind the homes; as is the strip of land where the trains used to run.  This  area is accessible and children play there.  In addition, the house located to the  left of Ms. Evers’ home is flanked by the driveway leading up to Bel Aire School.  I  often walk up that driveway and can look directly into that home.          The fourth factor reads as follows:     Sunlight and Shade.  The additional building height created by a second story  can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in  nearby yards.      Ms. Evers and her adjacent property owners are very fortunate to enjoy direct  sunlight because of their orientation.  The front of those homes get sunlight as  long as the sun is up.      The fifth factor reads as follows:     Mass and bulk.  A second story can often loom over a one‐story home or a  downhill house.  Two‐story projects should be designed and articulated to  avoid large, uninterrupted spaces that would appear massive from nearby  properties.     Ms. Evers’ property is uniquely situated in that it is one door up from a massive  driveway that was the former location of a railway berm.  In addition, Bel Aire  School is located right above and behind it.  Looking at the height of the story  poles, the proposed partial second story is consistent with other second stories in  the neighborhood.  The area of the home is also consistent with other homes in  the neighborhood.     The sixth and final factor reads as follows:     Lot Characteristics.  The size and physical characteristics of a property can  make it difficult to approve a second story.  A steep lot could make a two‐ story home look even larger when viewed from below, and a two‐story home  on a flat lot could tower over its one‐story neighbors.      Ms. Evers’ proposed plan is not to build on a steep lot but on a flat lot that backs  onto a hillside.  For all of the reasons previously stated, the size and unique  characteristics of Ms. Evers’ property, as well as its location, make it the perfect  parcel for approving her request to remodel her home with a partial second story.   I whole heartily support Ms. Evers’ plan to create her forever home.  Her home  will be a beautiful addition that will enhance the character of our neighborhood.   As a property owner, I appreciate the care and consideration that Ms. Evers put  into her proposed plan to remodel her home.  I respectfully request that the  Design Review Board approve Ms. Evers’ project without modification.      Sincerely,    Leonor Noguez  346 Karen Way          Kris, Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:07 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way Remodel l~©I T L.; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Design Review Board, Thank you for soliciting input on the remodel at 281 Karen Way. We have been in the Bel Aire neighborhood for more than 15 years and live at 22 Claire Way. During our time here, we've seen several attempts to build 2nd stories and to extend the allowable building height significantly beyond what fits with the character of the neighborhood. While we understand there have been a few exceptions allowed, the proposal at 281 Karen far exceeds them, and would set a bad precedent that undermines the character of the Bel Aire neighborhood. Many of the past requests for much higher rooflines were on our street -in the end compromises were reached that kept the character of the neighborhood in tact, while allowing some expansion of the house. We urge the Design Review Board to strongly consider the risk in setting a precedent, and hope that the owners of 281 Karen can come up with a scaled back design which allows them to expand, but does not create a new "high water" (roofline) mark in the neighborhood to be exploited by future remodelers and developers. Best regards, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way 1 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:58 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way design opposition letter Tiburon Design Review Board final copy.docx PLANNING DIVISION CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, Please accept this attachment as part of the opposition to 281 Karen Way's design plans. I plan to send a standard letter, knowing that Covid may delay its opening, so better to send them both. Sincerely, Pru Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon, CA 94920 1 Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 January 24,2021 Dear Design Review Board, I am a sixty-year Bel Aire resident and my family owns two properties near the proposed second story, 160 Leland Way, and 251 Karen Way. Please let this letter stand as DOUBLE NEGATIVE COMMENTS about the 281 Karen Way story poles, coming from a neighbor who did not check with other neighbors, and seems to think she can bulldoze an ugly design through the Board. I am also speaking for three other Bel Aire residents who, like me, despise this design and are not able to ZOOM their opposition for this 2,600 foot monster or in email. California law requires cars to stop at the stop sign intersection between Karen Way and Leland Way, facing 281 Karen Way. Can't miss 281. Those skyscraper poles look ghastly! The current design plan insults surrounding neighbors, does not fit the neighborhood and looks really, really bad. The house plan needs to be in a neighborhood that wants the look of a Texas TownHouse apartment complex, but definitely NOT in Bel Aire, Tiburon. Bel Aire neighbors who care about their neighbors have remodeled gorgeous homes that extend, but NOT UP LIKE THAT, no matter what their yard's configuration may be. Neighbors have attended Design Review Board meetings more than once, and together we strive to maintain architectural character around us. The Design Board understands our voiced concerns, and in the past has responded by not allowing 600 foot second stories. We have been successful for 60 years to keep the low key character, and our neighborhood still has a rare, unified charm. We were instructed by Board member, Miles Berger, to "GO STEALTH" in our designs, especially when the design moderately goes up, adhering to the consistency of a mid-century neighborhood. We listen and respect echoes stealth designs within the neighborhood. Lisa Evers and architect Thayer ignore Bel Aire's long standing village culture, different from other Tiburon neighborhoods. We purposefully maintain low profile homes on wide, tree lined streets. Please, DO NOT approve this design. Sincerely, Pru Starr Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 10:06 PM Kris Bernard 181 Karen Way addition comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, My name is David Schneider and I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood at 71 Claire Way. I would like to voice my opposition to the second story requested by the owner of 181 Karen Way. I am primarily opposed to second stories in our neighborhood because they are inconsistent with our neighborhood pattern and almost always impact some neighbors privacy. I also believe that many property values will decrease, not increase, if second stories are allowed because of the impact to privacy and the change to the neighborhood development pattern which will not be attractive. I am in full support of remodels and additions in our neighborhood, but not second stories. Thanks for your time and reading this email. Best, David 1505 Tiburon Ooulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Jan unry 2 3, 2021 Dear-Design Review Board, PLANNlNG DiVISION My name is Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, west of the story poles at 281 Karen Way. I have lived in Bel Aire for fifty years. I definitely oppose 281 Karen design, and I live next door to this nightmare. The biggest negative is that my main bathroom is in front of the house. The current two-story plan is right where my bathroom is located, and I would lose privacy, sunlight, the sky and hillside view from my bathroom window. I would have to live with closed shades for the rest of my life to maintain privacy. Evers' one-story part of her extension plan is the length of my existing extension, and because of the roof line, 281 Karen Way1 s new design will entirely block out all morning sun from my house. I will be looking at the full side of Evers' house which will block out all the hillside and everything else. This design stands out like a sore thumb and doesn't belong in Bel Aire. This current plan is intolerable. No one should lose everything because of someone else's remodel. Evers does not demonstrate neighborly respect for me. She acts like she cares to my face, but , do not trust her. The only way Evers can accommodate me is to redesign her plans. Please do not approve this design! Sincerely, ~~'tl/Jl~ Eileen McHale 279 Karen Way Tiburon, CA. 94920 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 10:09 AM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way Proposed Renovation C/l.UTION: This email originated from outside of the organizatfon. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kris, Hello, I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood and a neighbor recommended I send feedback regarding the proposed addition of 281 Karen Way to you for the Design Review Board's consideration. To the Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, While on my daily walk with my dog around the neighborhood a few days ago, I was surprised to see the extremely tall story poles erected at 281 Karen Way. After learning more about the proposed addition and renovation, I feel that the addition would be inconsistent with the established Bel Aire neighborhood pattern of development. The proposed second floor addition appears massive from street view and will tower over its neighbors, particularly 279 Karen Way. I urge you to deny the addition as proposed so that the homeowner may incorporate feedback from neighbors and the town to find an alternative solution that is more in line with the development pattern of the neighborhood. Please also consider the sunlight, shade and privacy impacts of the immediate neighbors as a result of the proposed second story. My home,127 Leland Way is next door to a partial second story addition, 133 Leland Way. This addition completed prior purchasing my home, definitely impacts the shade and sunlight on that side of my property. When I look out my kitchen window, my view largely consists of the added height of the neighbor's exterior wall. Having such a large structure in such close proximity to my house would greatly impact our privacy if the addition had windows facing my home. Bel Aire is a lovely close knit community largely because we are all living together in such close proximity. My husband and I purchased our Bel Aire home in 2014 and completed our renovation and addition in 2016. Prior to renovating, we walked around the neighborhood with our plans in hand and sought out feedback from many neighbors. We have found our neighbors likewise courteous and thoughtful about advising and working with us prior to making any substantive changes to their properties that may affect us. These types of interactions contribute to the overall success of the neighborhood. Given the constraints and close proximity of the homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood, the addition and remodel at 281 Karen Way is not appropriate and should not be approved as is. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Emilie Rosales Trimble 127 Leland Way Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:48 AM Kris Bernard Subject: Fwd: Remodel 281 Karen ~~©~TIWs~ fill JAN 2 6 2021 ~~ PLANNING OIVl~I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded mess.age: From: Glennis FitzGerald <gf418284@gmail.com> Date: January 26, 2021 at 10:39:52 AM PST To: sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org Subject: Remodel 281 Karen Design Review Board Members My name is Glennis FitzGerald. I have been a Bel Aire resident for 50 years. My home is 166 Leland Way, and I can clearly see 281 Karen Way, and the extremely tall story poles from my house. I am adamantly opposed to this remodel as it is inconsistent with our neighborhood r:iatte__r-_ri, and will greatly impact some neighbors light and privacy. While there have been many tasteful remodels, many of which are still one story, this plan is definitely not one of them! I urge you not to approve this remodel design. Sincerely, Glennis FitzGerald 166 Leland Way Tiburon Sent from my iPad 1 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2: 13 PM Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard; lstfani@townoftiburon.org oppose remodel of 281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, My name is Barbara Schneider and my husband & I live at 94 Claire Way in the Bel Aire neighborhood. We strongly oppose the (2) story addition to 281 Karen Way. Being raised at 90 Claire Way (next door to my house), it has been a perfect family home to grow up in. The privacy that all the houses has given to each other has been extremely important. Over the years, as new home owners have come in & wanted to build 2 story homes, we have all come together in this neighborhood to oppose them for a few reasons, one would be a lack of major privacy. We all greatly appreciate having privacy in our yards & inside our homes while living so close together. Therefore, in the past, the new neighbors have agreed to comply & build their roof level slightly higher with additions in the back. This has proved to work quite well. The second & third reason would be that all the remainder neighborhood homes would look very much out of place and with compromising the privacy would definitely go down in value. Thank you very much for your time in reading our concerns. Barbara Schneider Sent from Outlook Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:20 PM Kris Bernard We oppose the remodel of 281 Karen Way. PLANNING DiVISIOf\ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Design Review Board Members, My husband Werner & I have lived at 90 Claire Way since 1971. We were very disappointed to see the story poles set up as a second story at 281 Karen Way. Over these many years, it has been understood by the residences that second stories will take away the precious privacy we have since our homes are very close together. The residences in this little community have instead opted to build out to the back which has proven to be successful & tasteful. Please consider all of our oppositions, as this will truly make a negative impact to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Wilma & Werner Schneider Sent from Outlook 1 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:41 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 181 Karen Way addition comments From: David Schneider <schneid_66@yahoo.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 3:49 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Re: 181 Karen Way addition comments  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Kris, I got the house number wrong. I am referring to 281 Karen Way. Thanks, David On Monday, January 25, 2021, 10:06:23 PM PST, David Schneider <schneid_66@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Kris, My name is David Schneider and I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood at 71 Claire Way. I would like to voice my opposition to the second story requested by the owner of 181 Karen Way. I am primarily opposed to second stories in our neighborhood because they are inconsistent with our neighborhood pattern and almost always impact some neighbors privacy. I also believe that many property values will decrease, not increase, if second stories are allowed because of the impact to privacy and the change to the neighborhood development pattern which will not be attractive. I am in full support of remodels and additions in our neighborhood, but not second stories. Thanks for your time and reading this email. Best, David January 27, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:01 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 281 Karen Way Remodel From: Hedieh Doffo   Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:21 AM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: Luis Doffo   Subject: RE: 281 Karen Way Remodel  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom It May Concern, I am a resident at 42 Claire Way in the Bel Aire Estates neighborhood, and I am writing this email to strongly oppose the proposed two-story building plan at 281 Karen Way. Bel Aire Estates has always been zoned for single story homes which makes this neighborhood unique - and one of the reasons we purchased (and remodeled), our home here in 2008. While there are some homes with loft style second stories, none are full second story additions (as this particular project calls for). This plan, as proposed, will set precedence for other large projects which will ultimately change the look and feel of the neighborhood and this community. I appreciate your attention to this matter. King Regards, Hedi Doffo January 27, 2021 ~ ~ © r 11 •tJ It: : ~I ~ij 10 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:05 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Proposed remodel, 281 Karen Way, Bel-Aire Estates, Tiburon From: Lynn Marcotte  Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:03 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: C. Barnes <cbarnez@gmail.com>  Subject: Proposed remodel, 281 Karen Way, Bel‐Aire Estates, Tiburon  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Ms. Bernard, and Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, I am writing to you to object to the plans for remodel at 281 Karen Way, Bel Aire, Tiburon. I am the current homeowner at 82 Claire Way, Bel-Aire Estates, Tiburon. The established neighborhood construction and renovation pattern here in Bel Aire is that of single story homes. While I support thoughtful remodels and additions in general, I think the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, if approved, will disrupt and harm the aesthetic harmony and character of this neighborhood, pushing it beyond what is recognizable as a Bel Aire home and property. Such dramatic changes are not beneficial to the neighborhood because they invite further changes that others will surely seek, leading to an escalation in expectations for remodels that will further change the character of this neighborhood. For example, allowing this second story change will allow others to argue for second story renovations in this, our neighborhood of single story homes. This change and other second-story changes would make Bel-Aire unrecognizable. More well- considered alternatives to this remodel are available to the homeowner at 281 Karen Way. I ask that she reconsider her current proposal. The reason I, and most of my neighbors, bought homes in this neighborhood was because of its modest charm. Most of us allow these homes to define us as much as we define them. But such renovations as the one proposed at 281 Karen Way would make that home and its lot significantly different from the existing homes, thereby imposing an incongruity in the Bel Aire neighborhood. This remodel would turn a Bel-Aire home into something it was never intended to be and into something that simply does not fit. Consequently, I am against this remodel. I support the owner's right to remodel her home and I may be supportive of a project that coheres more closely with the original architectural charm and harmony of this neighborhood. I think it's important that we not lose sight of the charm that drew us to this neighborhood, lest we find it becoming less and less charming with each new and increasingly imposing structure. I ask the Design Review Board to reject this plan, and I ask this homeowner to please consider scaling this project down, in order to make it more compatible with our neighborhood, especially the second story height of the proposed new remodel. Thank you, Lynn Marcotte 82 Claire Way Tiburon January 27, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION January 28, 2021 From: Charles & Mary Barnes 278 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Design Review Board, This letter is in regards to: 281 KAREN WAY: Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; Lisa Evers Owner VAR2020-20 We do not support the current proposed design. We are looking at the story poles and design plans for this proposed remodel/addition almost directly across the street from our home. Neither the owner or architect reached out to review the design with us or neighbors for input prior to submitting the remodel/addition request to the Town of Tiburon and erecting story poles. I discussed our concerns specifically about second floor living space additions with the owner and asked if she had seen the Town of Tiburon “Second Story Home Additions – Factors To Consider” document posted on the Town of Tiburon website. It specifically calls out Bel Aire in the “Neighborhood pattern” section. https://www.townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms- Documents. She said she had seen the document. I indicated our opposition to the second story, with 600 sq ft of living space, because it would not fit with the neighborhood pattern. The proposed design has not been changed. The same owner had a one story remodel/addition approved in 2018 (DR2018-091) for 2,400 sq ft with 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. I'm not sure why this approved plan footprint, updated with the owners current personal situation, wasn't used as a basis for the new proposal. They are 100% different. We warmly welcome a remodel/addition to the dwelling that attempts to work within the lot constraints, neighbor constraints, and Bel Aire and Town of Tiburon design constraints. There are many large home remodel/additions that have been done successfully in the Bel Aire neighborhood. On Karen Way within a block of this proposal there are homes at 275, 283, 301, 313, 317, 321, 325 that have all been extensively expanded on similar type lots with similar hillside constraints behind them. These owners worked with the constraints and do not have second floor living space. There are many varying styles and designs on upper Karen; style is not the constraint. The street look and feel is great. The owner has communicated to the neighborhood that there are other partial second stories January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION at 258, 318, 326 and 354 Karen Way to support justifying the proposed design for adding a second floor living space. Three of the four identified with second floors have barely visible second floors from the street and were done when this area was a part of the county, not the Town of Tiburon. None of these houses look anything like the second floor design proposal for 281 Karen Way. We urge the Town Planner and Design Review members view the homes on Karen mentioned above and the story poles and design documents for the proposed 281 Karen Way design in person from the sidewalk and/or street prior to Design Review. There is a stark difference. We do not support the current proposed design, particularly the intrusive 600 sq ft second floor living space that appears very forward and massive. It will block a large amount of light and view of the next door neighbor to the west. There is even a variance request in the submitted design to move house even closer to the neighbor to the west. Though a small variance, again the neighbor was not consulted or notified, and it seems to be buried in the fine print in the plans. This design will also overlook our side yard which is unusual in Bel Aire. Although small we treasure and use it. After the leaves fall off of our front yard Japanese maples the proposed second floor Rec room on the second floor will look down into our front bedrooms. The Town of Tiburon “Second Story Home Additions – Factors To Consider” were completely ignored with this design. Neighbors were not consulted in advance. Design factors were ignored. We strongly welcome and support remodels/additions in Bel Aire. Not this proposed design. Approval of the proposed design as is will also start a cascade of second story addition proposals all across Bel Aire. Many of us moved here, stayed here and love Bel Aire because of its openess without a wall of second stories. If this design is approved it would be difficult for the Design Review Board to deny future intrusive second floor living space designs that go against neighborhood patterns without threat of legal action. Thank you, Charles and Mary Barnes To design review From Cynthia Perry and Bruce Sievers 1/28/21 We are writing to you about the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way. When I (Cynthia) walked past the story poles recently I was shocked and frankly puzzled. This proposed house is very much outside the character of this neighborhood and affects everyone who lives in Bel Air, not just those within 300 feet. This is so outside the parameters of the general plan for this area that I wondered if it is a stalking horse for other projects. It looms above the surrounding houses and would place the neighbors in the awkward position of having to complain and take action. Our houses are only 12 feet apart and are only 6 feet from the property line. A two story house next door has a huge impact no matter how clever the design. A two story house on each side would leave one a hapless homeowner living in a canyon. The approval of a two story house in this neighborhood would also be a sign to others that this sort of construction is acceptable here. It is not. My husband and I have lived at 79 Claire Way for nearly 30 years. I am the last elected president of the now inactive Homeowners Association. Over that time I have been part of a large group of neighbors who have been active in attempting to educate everyone about the general plan and ordinance that was originally intended to prevent two story houses from being built in this neighborhood. New people move in and often do not understand the reason for maintaining the character of a neighborhood and instead are determined to build a two story house here in spite of neighbors’ objections. We have taken surveys of every homeowner by canvassing the neighborhood. We have had many meetings and written many letters to the design review and planning committees and staffs over the years. We have met with the people who want two stories and heard their arguments. We have seen “stealth” two stories being built, circumventing the planning committee and the design review committee and the intention of the general plan. One problem that we would like addressed is that a 30 foot house is too high to begin with and invites this kind of circumvention. Here is what we have found out over the years: 1.Everyone wants to see the houses in Bel Air expanded, improved and beautified.2.Many homeowners have beautifully expanded their houses to four bedrooms and threebaths without going up.3.People who want to expand up are apparently confused or they are told that the 30 foot height limit is an indication that they can have a second story. The planning staff oftentries to tell them that a two story will not be accepted but they design it that way anyway.When they are thwarted they often get angry at their neighbors and lash out inunfortunate ways.4.The immediate neighbors are often left to incur expenses and invest months of their time to fighting a looming presence next door to them. It is not fair to them. In one instance January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION the neighborhood took up a collection to help a woman on Leland with the expense she incurred. 5. People who say they don’t care what happens on the next street often care very much when there is a two story proposal next door. 6. It is not fair for one homeowner to increase the value of their house at the expense of the value of the houses near them. 7. People who want a two story house make the same arguments every time. They claim it will not have much impact on the houses nearby. We ask that you stand in the back and front yards of the neighbors near by and imagine what loss those people will face. 8. Sometimes the homeowner who is proposing the two story house tell the planners and the design committee that the side facing the next door neighbor will have no windows so nobody can look into their house or garden. This is terrible for two reasons. One, there can and often is an window added later. Maybe by a future homeowner. Two, this makes the neighbors face a tall, blank wall. And of it happens on both sides of them they are totally blocked in. 9. Immediate neighbors I have spoken with over the years are often intimidated, bullied, shy, elderly or preoccupied with personal tragedy and even though they are upset that there will be this looming house next door, don’t have it in them to fight a neighbor with a lot of money or a lawyer. It’s unfair that happens over and over again. I urge you to make it clear any homeowner who hopes to construct a two story house here that they and their architect must explore alternative expansion designs. Everyone thinks they are special and that their arguments are special and that they have special reasons to obtain a variance regardless of the impact on the character of this neighborhood. This puts a terrible burden on individuals who will bear the permanent negative consequence of the new building, with the loss of light, air, privacy and views. I urge you to visit the neighbors surrounding the house at 281 Karen and personally see what they face. Please feel free to call me. Cynthia Perry and Bruce Sievers 79 Claire way 415-298-2633 Cynthiasps@gmail.com 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:John Leszczynski Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:01 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Having a second story myself, approved in 2006, I hope that you approve Ms. Evers design in its entirety.  She's not asking for any variances, especially considering the limited room on the property,  not the least of  which includes the RR berm in her backyard!  Great design given all her constraints.  We need more such  innovative designs in BelAire, moving us out of 1953.   As far as the chief complainant across the street, I wonder how he can even see her property most of  the year, as he's got all that vegetation and a permanently installed truck in his front yard!  Given the   town's enhanced awareness of fire hazards on residential property.....well, maybe the fire safety marshall  should have a look at his!  Just sayin'! .   Best regards,  John Leszczynski  318 Karen Way.   January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lara Conte Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 7:43 PM To:Kris Bernard; Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:re: 281 Karen Way letter of support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  1.31.21  Letter for 281 Karen Way  We are writing to state our support for the proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way.  While we understand that 2nd stories  are discouraged in the neighborhood and we do not think they are appropriate in many situations, we think that the  specifics of this lot and its siting on the north side of Karen Way make it a house where a partial second story makes  sense. We also do not fear this approval would open the floodgates for 2nd stories, as the design review board carefully  reviews each application on a case‐by‐case basis.  This lot has minimal level area due to the steep rear yard hillside that backs up to Bel Aire School, making expanding the  house on one level into the backyard less desirable.  In normal years, schoolkids wait for the bus daily all over the  homeowner’s front lawn, making expanding far forward undesirable as well. There is no rear yard neighbor who would  have privacy impacts as the rear yard “neighbor” is Bel Aire School. The house is facing two driveways across the street  with minimal privacy concerns.  While one house across the street does have windows fronting Karen Way, heavy  landscaping provides screening in both directions.  Also, given the north side of Karen Way is higher than the south side,  there is already a view downward across the street and the partial 2nd story does not create more of a privacy intrusion  than already exists. There is no protected view that is being blocked by the partial 2nd story.  The homeowner has pulled the partial second story inward from the side setbacks in order to reduce square footage and  massing upstairs and minimize the impact to the neighbors on either side.  At the same time, as the adjacent residences  are directly next door and the most affected, should they have privacy concerns, it is important to hear their  comments.  There could be some mitigating steps taken that could minimize privacy issues (minimizing windows facing  east/west, raising windowsills above eye level, reducing deck area, or minimizing outdoor lights on upper story).   We think that it is rational to either approve this application or to find a pathway toward approving it.  Fred & Lara Conte  258 Karen Way   Sent from Mail for Windows 10  February 1, 2021 ~ ~ © 1 11 ~ ITT i ::1 ~] 1~ PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 8:21 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Remodel project at 181 Karen Way, Tiburon ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Yahoo <cillawanat@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 8:18 AM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Fwd: Remodel project at 181 Karen Way, Tiburon   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  For the attention of Kris Bernard concerning the above mentioned project.  My name is Priscilla Wanat , owner/resident 86 Claire Way, Tiburon.  I have received a letter with an elevation of the proposed development and I have visited the site and spoken with the  owner, Lisa Evers.  My first impression of the elevation with its peaked roof is that the building is too tall for our neighbourhood. On seeing  the house with story poles, that impression is reinforced 100%.  It looks quite imposing, overbearing.  When I spoke about this to Lisa she drew comparisons with other upgraded houses in the neighbourhood on the  grounds of square footage, whereas the problem for me is the height and bulk, not only in relation to the nearby  housing but to the entire neighbourhood.  There are examples of second story additions which succeed in fitting into the neighbourhood character, one just 2  doors away on Karen Drive.  There is the further concern that residents have spent considerable, to put it mildly, time and energy to maintain our  current pleasant environment and  a unsympathetic development, such as the proposed, would set a most unwelcome  precedent.  Thanking you for your attention.  Priscilla Wanat  priscillawanat@gmail.com  cillaaparis@gmail.com  415‐381‐4846  415‐342‐1479 (cell)  33(0)142931967 (Paris)  February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 8:26 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Current Proposal for 281 Karen Way Attachments:thumbnail (1).jpg; thumbnail.jpg; thumbnail (2).jpg From: Jill Sperber <jillsperber@yahoo.com>   Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 4:51 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Current Proposal for 281 Karen Way  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Re Public Comment on Remodel of 281 Karen Way Date of hearing: February 18,2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Meeting To the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, Please accept this comment for consideration. I would like to acknowledge the owner's openness for feedback from the neighbors' perspectives. I reside at 171 Leland Way, located on the southwest corner of Leland and Karen. Our lot's north side sits directly across from 281 Karen Way. This is the first time (since May 1994) that I have felt compelled to provide my view point to the Board on a prospective remodel. I enjoy a remodeled home, appreciate the completed remodels of my neighbors, and support others who are planning or hoping to remodel. I am in support of the owner of 281 Karen to convert the currently unsustainable property into her "forever" home. Also we understand 281 Karen has special challenges in the back yard (e.g., a steep embankment) and, like all other non-corner homes, proximity to the backyards of lateral neighbors. I believe the owner has made good faith efforts to resolve those challenges with the current plan. In considering the Town's Second Story Home Addition Factors ("Factors"), the current proposal for 281 Karen gives me pause as follows: > Neighborhood pattern - "Two story projects are strongly discouraged [in neighborhoods consisting of predominately one-story homes]." The current plan would present an anomaly, a proposed addition to 2,100 sq. ft. proposed on the ground floor. Approval of same would be precedent-changing. The legacy "watchtowers" on a handful of lots appear to be smaller than 600 sq. ft. and are set off from the street often behind the home or garage. One tall home nearby features high loft space with windows, but is not truly a proper second "floor" and overlooks the T section of a street, as opposed to facing other lots directly. February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 2 > Mass and bulk / Lot Characteristics - Per the Factors, second stories should avoid large spaces "that would appear massive from other properties." "....[A] two story home on a flat lot could tower over one- story neighbors.:" In comparison with neighboring homes, the proposed design portends, at least to me, a strong and not subtle street presence. Photos (attached) show the view of 281 Karen from my home's north facing bedroom. Although 281 Karen's 2nd floor rec room would not necessarily encroach on my view or privacy, we will lose some degree of open space feeling on Karen Way. A second level rooftop line would be at eye level with the top of the hillside embankment, currently seen from Karen Way. From our northside bedroom, we would essentially only be able to see a 2 story wall of house. It is my sincere hope that 281 Karen's team can work with the Town's Planning Division staff to come up with alternative design solutions that deliver for the owner while being in sync with the established neighborhood character. Sincerely, Jill Sperber 171 Leland Way Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 January 31, 2021 File DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Dear Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, I am writing to express my concern about the remodel plans for the house at 281 Karen Way. The design is ostentatious due to its second story that looms over both neighbors’ homes like a watch tower with a clear view into their yards. For the rest of us, the excessively high addition is made even worse by virtue of the fact it spans almost the entire width of the street-facing wall. If approved, this house would visually detract from the low profile community of Bel Aire, and open the flood gates for more new buyers to disregard the established development pattern. In the 66 years that my family has lived in this neighborhood, we have seen many tastefully completed remodels. I don’t object to more vaulted ceilings, but second stories are a bridge too far. I fully support the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department’s fact sheet regarding second story homes. I urge you not to make an exception in this case. More than ever before the neighborhood houses are being purchased by people who are not satisfied to work within these guidelines and these battles are happening more frequently. Sincerely, Tamara Sweger 10 Claire Way February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Rich Cellini Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:17 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Remodel... Attachments:image001 copy.tiff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,   We're writing in regard to the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way.  As a home owner in Bel Aire since 2004 we have  witnessed several of these two story proposals submitted to the Design Review Board, and thankfully through the years  they have been denied.  The regulations in the neighborhood are clear, and anyone who wishes to build a two story  home can do so in several nearby neighborhoods, but not in this one.  According to the letter distributed by the owner  of 281 Karen she has been in this neighborhood for well over a decade and therefore she knows what’s acceptable and  what is not with regard to second story additions.  We are 100% against the two story proposal and the impact it will  have on the neighborhood as a whole.  If it’s allowed for one house, it should be allowed for, all and that is not  something we would like to see in Bel Aire.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.  Thank you,  Rich & Christine Cellini  46 Claire Way  Tiburon  ___________________________ Rich Cellini, Ph.D. Professor Sport Management Program University of San Francisco February 3, 2021 ~~©~O~[g[~ ~ ,~ PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Mindy Canter Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:59 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Kris Bernard Subject:Proposed 2nd Story Addition 281 Karen Wy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Design Review Board:   As former President of the Bel Aire Homeowners Association, Chair, Tiburon Parks and Open Space Commission (15  years), and Bel Aire homeowner (30+ years), I am opposed to the proposed second‐story addition at 281 Karen Way.  According to the Design Review Guidelines and Policies, the proposed 2 story addition at 281 Karen Way has too many  negative impacts to be considered, much less approved.  Below are Tiburon’s Design Review Guidelines and Policies for two‐story additions. The points stated below clearly  outline the negative impacts this proposed addition will have on the neighborhood.  1.Neighborhood Pattern. “In neighborhoods consisting of predominately one‐story homes, a second story is considered inconsistent with the established development pattern  of the area, in particular Bel Aire neighborhood and the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one‐story dwellings. Two‐story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” 2.Views. Residents cherish their views and want to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. 3.Privacy.  Second‐story additions cause privacy impacts to adjacent houses by creating unwanted viewpoints from windows and decks that would allow someone to look into  the yards or private spaces of their neighbors.  4.Sunlight and Shade. The additional building height created by a second‐story can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in nearby yards. 5.Mass and Bulk. A second story will loom over a one‐story home.  A second story addition would create large, uninterrupted spaces that would appear massive from nearby                 properties. 6.Lot Characteristics. The size and physical characteristics can make it difficult to approve a second‐story. A steep lot could make a two‐story home look even larger when viewed from below, and a two‐story on a flat lot could tower over its one‐story neighbors. I hope you deny this proposal for a second‐story addition.  Yours truly,  Mindy Canter  February 2, 2021 ~ ~ © ~, il ~ [g r~I' ~ !0 Pl.ANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:brian brown Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:47 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way , Tiburon CA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom it May Concern,   I have lived in Bel Aire neighborhood for 30+ years.  Currently, my family own 2 houses in the neighborhood.  1 house on  Karen Way, and 1 house on Leland Way.  I 100% strictly oppose the second story at 281 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920.    I won’t mince words, it’s not in keeping with the charm of the neighborhood.   In fact the plans look ridiculous for this  neighborhood.  If the owner wants more space and a 2 story house Bel Aire is not the place for them.  There are plenty  of other houses for sale in the world that will allow them enough room to do what they want.    There are many houses in the neighborhood who have expanded their footprint significantly while respecting the no 2nd  story wishes of their neighbors.     This proposed remodel is a highly invasive and grossly oversized for the lot size.  This will set a precedent that will  ultimately ruin the charm of the neighborhood.    We don’t want it , repeat don’t want it thank you .    Respectfully,  Brian Brown  35 year resident of Bel Aire  Get Outlook for iOS  February 2, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:31 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Re.281 Karen Way remodel From: Bjorn Hermanson    Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 4:27 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Re.281 Karen Way remodel  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Kris, We are writing this in opposition to the proposed remodel. This project is a "de'ja`-vu" of the proposal for 124 Leland Way 20 odd years ago. The arguments are the same this time. This a remodel, which is out of character for the Bel-Aire neighbourhood. We believe our lots are too small to accommodate two story structures. There are established guidelines by the Town of Tiburon for home additions in various neighbourhoods, like Bel-Aire, where second stories are discouraged to preserve the character of the area. The owner of 281 Karen and her architect have obviously disregarded this, without thought how it will affect the neighbours and the area in general. We urge you to turn down the remodel proposal in its present form. Thank You. Respectfully, Helena and Bjorn Hermanson !57 Leland Way February 3, 2021 February 3, 2021 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Attention: Cedric Barringer, Bryan Chong, Miles Berger, Paolo Crescini, Suzanne Kim Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed second story addition at 281 Karen Way. This project must not be approved. I have lived in Bel Aire my whole life and my family has lived in Bel Aire since the 1950’s. Since that time, there have been numerous tasteful remodels of the original Bel Aire home. This is not one of them. When the story poles went up at 281 Karen Way a few weeks ago, I was frustrated and perplexed. Frustrated to be forced into another battle to defend my neighborhood from property owners who want to construct enormous homes that are completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and confused as to how and why a project with such significant negative impacts had even reached this far in the process. This proposed remodel contradicts every factor when considering second story home additions in the Town of Tiburon. 1.Neighborhood pattern:​ This house would be completely inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area. In addition, it would set a dangerous precedent of inviting wealthy real estate investors and developers to purchase Bel Aire homes when they are on the market, maximizing the square footage of the property, and then selling it for a handsome profit with total disregard for the neighbors. 2.Views:​ One appealing feature of Bel Aire are the views of Ring Mountain and the surrounding sky, making for an enjoyable experience walking around the neighborhood, especially in the early mornings and evenings when spectacular sunrises and sunsets can be seen. Allowing a development such as this would invite future homeowners to build up, leading to the loss of precious skyline views. 1 February 3, 2021 February 3, 2021 3.Privacy​: Bel Aire lots are extremely close together and second story homes with expansive balconies such as this negatively impact adjacent neighbors, not only raising concerns about the loss of privacy, but loss of natural lighting as well. 4.Mass and bulk:​ This second story project in particular looms over neighboring homes, dwarfing them. Its massive appearance is conspicuous not just from nearby properties but also from far away. 5.Lot characteristics​: Bel Aire lots are small and close together. They do not accommodate large two story homes. Plain and simple. Even a stealth partial second story is glaringly obvious, but a jarring second story addition of this scale is so strikingly out of place with the rest of the neighborhood it raises many serious questions amongst the neighbors. I urge you to stand on the sidewalk in front of 281 Karen Way and look up at the story poles in order to better understand how the proposed house will look on site. I spent much of my childhood and early teenage years inside 281 Karen Way because I was close friends with the boys who lived there. The family of five, who were one of many tenants to rent Mrs. Evers’ forever home over the past 17 years, had no trouble accommodating and entertaining me, as well as many other neighborhood families. It is unfortunate that Mrs. Evers does not feel like she has enough space for her lifestyle but that is not our fault. Her dream home should not come as a detriment to the neighborhood. I believe, as many others do, that a tactfully designed and constructed single story home would allow the current owners more than enough space to accommodate their lifestyle without disrupting the lifestyles of the rest of the neighborhood. Respectfully, Joseph Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon, CA 94920 2 TO: Design Review FROM: Marion and James Fitzgerald RE: 281-Karen-Way-DR2020-088 First when I saw the story poles a few weeks ago, I was shocked to see the height of the proposed structure. After reviewing the plans online I cannot believe somebody would build this big imposing, out of character house in a ranch style neighborhood. I have lived in the Bel Aire neighborhood for 38 years, have seen fantastic one story remodeled homes over the years and it can be done because we have great size lots. This proposed two story house with a second floor balcony, has a huge impact on the neighbors, loss of sun light, loss of privacy, loss of views. Our houses are only 12 feet apart with a fence dividing the homes. Approving a second story structure will have a long term impact on the neighborhood. We support the expansion of homes in Bel Aire, but done in the right way. It is possible to get up to the maximum F.A.R. without a second story and an exemption to the current guidelines. For those reasons we do not support the current proposed two story design. I hope the Design Review Board will enforce what is on the website “Second Story Home Additions – Factors to consider” because this plan doesn’t consider: Neighborhood Pattern, Views, Privacy, Sunlight and Shade, Mass and Bulk, Lot Characteristics. February 3, 2021 February 4, 2021 From: Charles & Mary Barnes 278 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Design Review Board, This letter is in regards to: 281 Karen Way: Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; Lisa Evers Owner DR2020-088, VAR2020-20 Input in addition to our letter/email sent January 28. There are two items that struck us with the proposed design in addition to the already objected to non-neighborly/non-neighborhoodly second floor. Unfortunately that big issue has people not looking at other design details. These additional items are not in the spirit of the Tiburon Design Guiding Principles. Tiburon “Design Guiding Principles 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation.” Natural Gas Natural gas is a large source of greenhouse gas pollution and has been banned in new construction in many localities. PG&E is supporting minimizing it's use in new construction. Forty plus jurisdictions in the state have mandated or encouraged all-electric new construction or placed limits on how gas infrastructure can be used. There are many articles about this issue. In the submitted design there are three natural gas fireplaces inside and a large “fire table” outside. These natural gas decorative features are designed to be used for extended periods of time while spewing out major contaminating non-green pollutants. In addition there is a seven person hot tub placed right next to the west neighbor's setback. Is it gas heated as another greenhouse gas contributor? The DRB should not allow all of these polluting natural gas features. The proposed drawings do not indicate how the other appliances in the house will be powered, but they appear to “working” appliances used for short bursts of time, not decorative. We are not totally against natural gas, but we do not support decorative features that pollute the environment needlessly. FEB 4,2021 Photovoltaic Tiburon Zoning 16-40.080 - “Photovoltaic energy generation system required for newly constructed single-family dwellings.” In the plans there doesn't appear to be any photovoltaic energy system for this house. It is incongruent that there is an outdoor BBQ structure, fire table and hot tub, but no photovoltaic system. The proposed design “features” are not in the spirit of the Tiburon Green Building principles. The project design does not include any features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. They are in direct conflict with the many “Spare The Air” events we have had. We recommend that the Tiburon green building design principles be considered by the DRB and Town of Tiburon in this proposed design. Looking at the before and after drawings the proposed design for 281 Karen Way is a completely new house for all intents and purposes. The proposed design is not green or an attempt to be green. Thank you. February 4,2021 To Design Review From Ann A. Allen Owner 87 Claire Way 2/3/21 Re: proposed second story remodel at 281 Karen Way I am writing to let you know I oppose the remodel of the property For the following reasons: -Intrusive –huge impact, looms above neighbors resulting in loss of privacy, light, view and creates sense of being blocked in -Homes are only 6 feet from property line, 12 feet apart -Intimidating to neighbors who feel trapped -Affects everyone in Bel Aire, not only those within 300 feet since it sets a precedent There have been wonderful remodels in Bel Aire, which are in keeping with the nature of the area. These one story remodels are very welcome and an enhancement to the neighborhood. Please, give these concerns responsible consideration since they reflect the reality of our neighborhood. I hope a clear message will be clearly reflected to future prospective 2nd story homeowners. I really care and gratefully thank you, Ann A. Allen 87 Claire Way home owner since 1985 February 4, 2021 FEB 4,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Joannie Cahill Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:51 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Remodel / Design Review Feedback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  We've been Bel Aire residents since 1994 and remodeled our single story home in 1999/2000. We welcome the investments and the improvements our neighbors have made to their homes in the neighborhood over this time, as it adds value for all of us. That said, we feel strongly that the design and scale of remodels should be consistent with the surrounding environment. We have not been supportive of two story additions in the past, as there are very few lots that allow for a second story while maintaining adjacent-neighbor privacy. Additionally, the height and mass of two story homes feel out of scale and overwhelm other homes in the neighborhood while also blocking views of our surrounding hills. After reviewing the plans and elevations posted online we are not supportive of these as submitted, and ask that the height of the home be lowered. The 24'6" height appears to be much higher than other homes in the neighborhood, and dwarfs homes in the immediate area. Many other neighbors on this section of Karen Way have successfully remodeled their homes within the recommended single story design guidelines of the Bel Aire neighborhood. In the very few cases where two story remodels were previously approved, the second story additions have been setback and are not easily visible from the street nor appear intrusive on their neighbors. The owner has stated a need for additional space to accommodate her family of four children (two away in college and two in high school locally) coupled with the need to work from home due to the current Covid pandemic. Many of us are dealing with this same issue these days, however, by the time the remodel work is finished, a year or two from now, the current challenges will most likely no longer apply and therefore this rationale should not be used to justify this particular remodel. Allowing a two story home of this size will set a precedent that would permanently alter the character of our neighborhood. Joannie and Tim Cahill 121 Leland Way, Tiburon FEB 9,2021 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 4 2/18/21 Town Attorney Eli Flushman stated there will be a slight change on the draft resolution which should be included in the motion which is to add to Section 2: “….review with VAR2021-002 to allow swimming pool and spa to be located in the front setback.” It was M/S/C (Chong/Berger) that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and adopts the draft resolution, subject to conditions and additional conditions: 1) amend Section 2 language to read: “….review with Variance to allow swimming pool and spa to be located in the front setback.”; 2) Drawings to include details as to fence type and height, pool equipment shall be placed in such a manner that complies with Town’s code relating to noise; and lighting to be placed in a manner so it is not visible from Avenida Miraflores. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. PH-2 281 KAREN WAY; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. Kyle Thayer, Thayer Architecture, provided an overview of the project and consideration for site plan and architectural review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. He described the variance request and cited the number of one-story homes that have been added onto in excess of the 30% lot coverage, a few homes with second story additions approved and constructed and presented a diagram depicting these homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood. He then described the overall design of the project and requested Board approval. Lisa Evers, Owner, stated she bought the house and one-third of the railroad berm above her lot in 2004. She presented a slideshow and said she realized no significant upgrades had been done since the 1950’s. She has drainage issues and sludge from the hillside which runs through her garage, old electrical and plumbing problems, no irrigation for landscaping, and she said it is difficult to live in a 1,200 square foot house with her family during the COVID situation. Her family and extended family lives in Marin and get together for holidays and the house is not large enough for indoor or outdoor gatherings. In July 2020, they were forced to move out of the home with one week’s notice due to a massive flood and black mold destroyed the entire kitchen, 90% of the floors and subfloors, three-quarters of the interior walls, and she is currently renting a home and also paying her mortgage. She made the hard financial decision to remodel the entire house and make it her forever home. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 5 2/18/21 She has been working closely with Mr. Thayer and Ms. Bonifacio to design an energy efficient home, to fix all drainage issues, add new irrigation, and all has been done within the Town’s guidelines. She explained that no front doors face her home and no one is directly impacted by her second story at the front of the house. Her neighbor at 171 Leland provided photos from the only two windows she has which illustrate how little the impact the second story has given several trees, a shrub and fence. They took care in placing the second story in the center of the existing house away form the street to be respectful to neighbors. Once the story poles went up she held three open houses, offered private appointments because of COVID, and only one person opposed the remodel. She met with her, looked at the plans and considered the challenge the hillside causes in her backyard. Of the 181 homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood, 24 homes have signed petitions or have written letters of support, 24 have written letters in opposition, or 13.5% in either direction. This also leaves 133 households or 73% that have remained neutral. Lastly, she presented and described those homes that have been approved for variances for lot coverage and second stories. Boardmember Crescini said he sees the original plate of the house was 8’1”. The new drawings are 9’1” and 9’7” and he was trying to understand how the design works from a ceiling point of view. Mr. Thayer explained that the upper floor coincides with the north wall of the lower floor and this stacks perfectly. The east/west wall parallel to that which is the south wall lines up partially on walls, and in other areas there will be beams which can enable them to have different ceiling heights. So in the north/south direction, the upper floor does not line up perfectly with walls but there will be beams. Boardmember Kim referred to Sheet A-5.A5 and said it is difficult for her to figure out where everything is because they have no information about the first story. There are some dimensions on this, but it is difficult. Mr. Thayer said he focused on the second story because he did not think the Board would be concerned with the ceiling heights in the one-story parts and that the two-story would be more controversial. The sections are clear in showing it is 10’3” ceiling, a 12” floor joist, and a 9’1” plate up above. So, the Board is getting all of the data they need to know what describes the second story. Boardmember Crescini questioned why the design is 9’7” in the back and 9’1” in the front. Mr. Thayer said he and Ms. Evers talked about raising the ceiling in the kitchen in the east that goes back toward the hillside as well as the master bedroom. They wanted a little more verticality in those rooms. Boardmember Kim asked about the 4’ solid fence and asked about more specificity on the plan, and Mr. Thayer referred to Sheet A-5.1, drawing 2. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 6 2/18/21 Chair Barringer opened the public comment period. Ron Rujanover, 358 Karen Way, voiced support of the project, thinks it fits well within the parameters of the neighborhood, is currently outdated as is the Bel Aire neighborhood, and he voiced support of the variance for the additional story. Lenore Nogaz, 346 Karen Way, strongly urged the Board to go to the neighborhood, see the story poles and look at the lot in question. She thinks it is unfair to treat Ms. Evers’ lot like others that have developed. Every house on Claire Way opposed to this project has no view of the house and is not impacted at all. Likewise, on Leland there are 3 homes that have a partial view at an angle. She thanked Ms. Evers for being considerate of neighbors and questioned why anyone would oppose the design. Charles Barnes, 278 Karen Way, explained that the concern is that the neighborhood has a character to it and the design is vastly different from other homes. He noted that a proposal designed by Mr. Thayer had been approved in 2018 for an addition and he asked why this did not move forward, said there were no notifications until the story poles went up for this design, and the second floor does not fit into the character of the neighborhood and is massive. Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, former President of the Bel Aire HOA and former Chair of Tiburon POST, said the neighborhood has its own feel which is retro, bungalow style. Historically, the homeowners have fought second stories but some have been grandfathered in. She thinks the proposal is massive, does not fit in, thinks it is not a question of what neighbors can see it, suggested adding square footage in the rear yard instead of proposing a second story and to not set a precedent. Eckhart Evers said he has built homes in the area as well as in San Francisco, understands what is at stake, and said this lot has an extreme hardship given it is the narrowest of all 5 homes which all back up against the railroad right-of-way. He pointed to the opposition but said 73% of neighbors have no opinion. This neighborhood is moving into the future for larger and updated homes, understands story poles can be overwhelming but noted the second story is only towards the back which is within the keeping of the neighborhood. He therefore questioned why there was opposition. Brian, 259 Karen Way, said he grew up in the neighborhood and has seen it change. He is the percentage that did not respond, wants to be open-minded, thinks it is nice people want to upgrade their homes, and said his neighbor has a second story and thinks the Board should visit the project and make a determination based on what they see. Pru Star, 160 Leland Way, said she also owns 251 Karen Way, did not agree with someone saying this will be their forever home, questioned the drainage problem which she had to deal with and fix without any problems, stated her home looks right at the house and she is horrified that the second story looks like a house on top of a house. No one has mentioned that Eileen McHale’s next door’s side yard will be eliminated from greenery and grass and thinks this will directly impact her, as well as those in the neighborhood who want to keep the character of the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 7 2/18/21 neighborhood. She asked that the Board look through the windows at Eileen McHale’s slides which she sent in as attachments. When it comes to going “stealth” which Boardmember Berger told everyone to do 15 years ago, there have been some nice additions. She read portions of her husband Fred’s letter regarding the impacts of the height and many windows of the second story on the neighbor’s view, sunlight and privacy. Priscilla Wanat said various statements have been made that Ms. Evers has a unique situation but neighbors know now that it is not. She thinks the addition is massive, does not fit into the neighborhood, said she was the one person who visited the home and thinks Ms. Evers may regret retiring in the home with a second story. There are second story additions in the neighborhood which are done sensitively and she is very unhappy with this design. Sissy Twigs, 301 Karen Way, said she lives two doors down from Lisa Evers who she confirmed consulted with her and people around her before she went with her design and put story poles up. Honestly, they made the second story look a lot larger than it is and tonight she saw a view which was the overhead shot showing where the second story is located on the full roof, which is a lot smaller than she thought it was from the drawings. Neighbors must deal with the berm and water issues and she appreciated that Ms. Evers did not add the second story on the wings going back into the backyard which would cast a shadow. She also heard from her neighbor located in between their homes who she said also supports the remodel. Dan Schwager, 38 Claire Way, voiced support of Ms. Evers’ proposal because of her aesthetic vision for the neighborhood and her proactive approach for a successful living environment that she now requires, given the pandemic. He said there has been vocal but minority opposition to second stories and it seems to be short-sighted and reflexive. Most want beautiful structures, are not in love of the 1950’s bungalows which need remodeling, and they want to support neighbors to perceive their forever home. Ms. Evers’s children and someone from an older generation will need to utilize this home and he thinks the Board has a social obligation to consider this. Carol Perry, 326 Karen Way, said her house has a second story and they bought it that way. She has visited Ms. Evers and saw the plans and elevations and she and her husband are in full support of the project. The scale is appropriate for the lot and neighborhood. She questioned why there is opposition to those wanting to beautify the neighborhood and thinks instead there should be a discussion about homes that are neglected. Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, said her house is most affected by the remodel. The second story looks right into her main bathroom and she will have no view of the hillside or trees any longer. The back addition will block all of her east windows in her kitchen and family room and she no longer will be getting any morning sun and no view. She raised three children in her home of 50 years and she opposed the remodel. Stephanie Zaczek, 38 Claire Way, said she strongly supports the design, thinks it is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound design. There is a lot of precedent for second stories in this neighborhood already and the sister neighborhood, Belveron, also began with small bungalows TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 8 2/18/21 and they have evolved faster. She thinks Ms. Evers has the appropriate lot to add a second story and she voiced her support. Ted Schroeder, 270 Karen Way, said as far as a precedent for second story homes in this neighborhood, he went on Google Maps and said there are about 105 homes that have expanded in this area, so 4 examples of second stories is not a precedent. He remodeled his home with modern flooring, electrical and a pool, but they did not build up, which typically removes people’s privacy, blocks sunlight, and blocks windows. Regarding COVID, this is a two-year project and people will not be in lockdown for life. The decision tonight will have permanent ramifications based on a temporary condition, and he asked the Board to keep this in mind. Joseph Star, 160 Leland Way, said the proposed project is visible from his front driveway and he was against the two-story addition. He thinks it is over-sized and thinks a tasteful one-story remodel would be welcomed. Regarding the 73% of those who have not responded, he noted that these people could also be against the project. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period. Rebuttal – Applicant Kyle Thayer, Architect, stated Priscilla Wanat was concerned about setbacks and he clarified that the existing home is non-conforming on the west setback. The variance they are asking for is taking that line and extending it another 18 feet. All other setbacks are conforming and all other aspects of the home also are conforming. Regarding Eileen McHale’s comments, they are open to discussions with her about the nature, quality and size of windows that face her home and said they could raise the sill height to prevent any loss of privacy and put them in different locations. Lastly, there have been many comments about the mass of the building and in his diagrams he explained they set the second floor addition 47 feet from back of curb and 39’9” from the property line. This is not something looming over the street. They are 13’11” from Eileen McHale’s property line on the west side and 12’6” from the neighbor on the east side. He has demonstrated that the addition is well positioned and well-considered in its location to avoid the feeling of being massive. Lisa Evers, Owner, thanked everyone for their comments, especially those in support. She said it has been difficult listening to some of the neighbors who have lived in the neighborhood the longest and do not want to see any type of progression. She thinks she and Mr. Thayer have done an exceptionally good job of working with Town Staff in the design and said there are 8 homes that have developed second stories, with some being very recent. Many lots have been granted +40% variances and she is not asking for any variance or height exceedances. The White’s, the neighbors to her east, could not be here tonight, but they absolutely support her design. She has tried to speak with Eileen McHale, left her several notes at her door, asked if she and her kids would like to set up a private appointment, but no word. She pointed out that Ms. McHale TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 9 2/18/21 has a long, extended remodel she did herself years ago that is on her western fence line they adjoin. The portion of her extension is a single story at that point. She finds it difficult to understand why Ms. McHale can enjoy her lot and look into her backyard and her hill and she should not be afforded the opportunity to have a neighborly discussion and extension on her lot and would be happy to work with her on the windows and their locations and sill height. In closing, there are many people in favor of her project. Those that did not speak up are neutral and she thinks everybody should let the evolution of Bel Aire develop which it will, and she thanked everyone. Boardmember Kim referred to the “Second Story Additions - Factors to Consider” memo which is policy and now regulating how the DRB reviews this. She asked if the Town Attorney could address what the enforceability of this memo is. Town Attorney Eli Flushman explained that whenever the DRB is hearing an application their role is to make findings related to the guiding principles of Subsection H of Section 16.5.020. Subsection 3 of that includes some of the same language within that policy memo Boardmember Kim referenced. It states, “The neighborhood character, the height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. But, good relationship of a building to its surrounding is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize intrusion on the neighborhood.” This means they are discouraged, but it does not mean second stories are prohibited. He said some of the discussion tonight has focused on certain features of the project and it is the Board’s job of weighing whether or not they can make the findings necessary to approve or not, as well as other factors and conditions. Boardmember Kim stated because of that, she would like to review each building for its own unique conditions and determine whether or not that variances could be bound. The variance in this case is the setback variance. As part of the scope, the Board can look at volume and massing. She thinks that while there is a 30 foot height limit, she questioned whether one necessarily should build up to that height or not. She thinks the second floor is proportionately large and she was struck by the way the roof is being taken advantage of for the ridge height to take advantage of the floor to ceiling height. She thinks there is a way to compress the height and make it look less prominent. She did have an issue with the side setbacks but asked to adjust the massing, plate heights, and the windows facing the neighbor by raising the sill height. Boardmember Berger said this is a tough call as members of the DRB. In responding to the comment about “stealth”, back then, he thinks he meant doing remodeling in a way that is as least visible as possible. He encourages and supports the ideas of remodeling in these older homes and some have done it brilliantly over the years; however, it is not a question of style, as TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 10 2/18/21 there are many different styles in the neighborhood. It is not color and it is not whether it has a second story or not because 10% of the homes have second stories in the neighborhood. There is not strictly speaking a second story prohibition or code in Town. This neighborhood goes under the same guidelines as the rest of Tiburon does, and neighborhood compatibility is the guiding principle here. The question is how the second story is done. He drove around the neighborhood and is familiar with it and especially at the end of Karen Way where there are at least two, second-story additions very tastefully done. Most of their massing is done in the back of the property, in towards the center of the lot, stepped down and done in a subtle way and not celebrated at the front on the street. Also, the tastefully done second story addition two doors down from the project, which is Ms. Twig’s residence, is fairly close of the front of the property but it is very downplayed with its flat roofs and horizontal elements. Around the neighborhood are others tucked into dormer type settings but unfortunately, the one or two shown by the applicant are some of the least appealing ones to him. Therefore, the question is what is compatible with the neighborhood that the Board should ask for in the re-design as he cannot approve the project as submitted. If a second story is to be done, it should be very subtle or in the back, pushed back from the street. The stepping forms in this architecture call more attention to the double height along the street, and stretching it east/west creates less shading but it is not the evening sun but the morning sun coming from the east. If it was bult more on the west side, it would cast fewer shadows on that side. There is great attention to privacy windows as they face other properties which are missing in this design. He also thinks that the solid fence is another thing that makes a distinctive change in this property. The consistent green space in the front is one of the things that keep the properties harmonious when going down the street. In terms of direction for re-design, he asked to use roof forms that de-emphasize and push the massing back and over towards the west more so it will not take the morning sun from the adjacent property, look to continue the setback from the side, implement better privacy windows and use roof forms that downplay and do a more subtle job of approaching the second story, such as a stepped flat roof or roofs where the second story toward the street side take on the form of dormer or is incorporated into the roof. Additionally, when it comes to building in an area where second stories are discouraged, no one is more sympathetic than he is to allowing someone a coverage variance for a smaller second story and having a little overage in the site coverage. He finds this strong from a mass point of view on the street and, in that respect, it is not typical of neighborhood character in terms of the second stories that have been done and should be more that way. This would be to the benefit of the neighborhood characteristics and to the neighbors and their light and air on the property. The way this is done does the exact opposite and he would like to see the redesign return. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 11 2/18/21 Town Attorney Flushman said in talking about a variance, he wanted to emphasize that the Board would need to look at all factors related to a specific project. Therefore, just because the applicant cannot meet certain criteria in one design does not mean they would receive a variance. Vice Chair Chong said people want to develop two stories in Bel Aire and Belveron and one thing that will not change is the fact there will always be a lot of neighbors that do not support them. He agreed this is the most difficult thing the Board does. There are many reasons why applicants want two stories, especially if they have a small lot to begin with. They do not want to destroy their backyard and putting additional square footage up versus out is a smart way to go. Also, the sensitivity of wanting to stay within the guidelines and not ask for variances is the other. On the other hand, if he lived next door in a one-story house and a large two-story home was going up, he understands all of the reasons why people dislike two stories because of the tunnel effect, impacts to views, privacy, light and character of the neighborhood. He went out to the site and over the years he has supported second stories and sometimes did not. Some were appealed, some were redesigned and returned, and it is never easy. He is not against two stories, but in a neighborhood like this one he is not a fan because it is even tighter than Belveron is. He is against houses that look like two stories. When he turned around in front of 301 Karen, which is a couple of doors down, he had to look at this two-story and had to relook at it again to see whether it was an actual two story or just windows letting light in. In driving around the neighborhood, the reason some of the two stories were passed was because they did not have a two-story feel in a very predominantly one-story neighborhood. Therefore, for those reasons he would want to see a redesign that still gives the applicant what they as far as space, but it would have to not feel like the second story that it currently is. It needs a re-thinking of either pushing it back or doing something to it, and the findings on neighborhood character, height, size, and the way it is sited is too much. Lastly, in looking at the number of people who have developed two stories over the years, these were all people who were very much discouraged to build two stories and they found a way to accomplish what they needed in their remodel by going one story. Boardmember Crescini said he visited the site and found it is too wide and towering. The wall lines are vertical and the sensation is the same with the drawings. With regard to one or two stories, the Town permits two stories but discourages them, which he sort of resents as a boardmember because they are giving arguments to both sides, so he hopes this is solved with the new iteration of the zoning code. For the time being, for this project he thinks the second story is justified by the specific conditions of the lot with the lack of backyard. Having said this, he thinks it should and could lose a couple of feet at a minimum. The volumes spike up and the original top plate was 8 feet and typical of a cottage style homes. If they want to keep the general look of the neighbors, he suggested keeping the eaves low. He suggested having a sloped ceiling, some beams or trusses exposed, and to increase the height TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 12 2/18/21 internally without increasing the volume of the home. He thinks it does look like a house on top of another house which was the feeling he had when looking at the design. Another thing that disturbed him was the stair and the stairwell. In the section on the stairwell, there is a huge amount of volume up above that does not help anyone. When looking at the west elevation, all of the volume of the stairwell is on the street. So, he thinks it would beneficial if the stairs could be set back so this volume is not imposing. Also, the 3 foot balcony on the back is not a big deal which faces north, but this is where the backyards of neighbors can be seen, so he suggested eliminating that. He suggested keeping the ceiling plate at 8 feet or even 7 feet and going up with the slope and having nice beams. But in summary, this house must go down in height. Chair Barringer echoed the points from Boardmember Crescini and said there is no reason the stairwell either gets relocated to the back of the house which would reduce the appearance of volume at the front or at least be dropped back a couple of feet which would give it less of a prowl feeling. Boardmember Berger reiterated the idea that in addition to lowering it, if that floor is turned 90 degrees and put over back from the garage from the street edge, it could be one of the houses that are barely noticeable as a second story house. Chair Barringer said his second thought was that he did not see any reason the first floor plates could not be 9 feet and second floor plates at 8 feet with the volume ceiling and still achieve everything they are trying to get done as far as the space in the house. He feels the location of the second story, in general, set back and at the center is appropriate. As it relates to the neighbor to the left, if they start pulling it back towards the backyard there will be more impacts onto their light. He thinks these are two main things he could see improvement towards. He also agrees that the zoning code should be clarified, given unwritten rules which he briefly described. In a perimeter lot, a second story is not an issue. There is no view impediment and he thinks the location set back 12 ½ and 13 ½ feet is going to reduce the light impacts on neighbors as much as is reasonable. He thinks the lot characteristics make it tricky and justifiable to have it designed like it is, but little moves like raising the sill heights on the west side are easy moves and, in general, the location of east and west side windows on the second story are pretty minimal and they could be raised on the west. He summarized that the Board is leaning towards a continuance and he was not opposed to the second story, but it needs reworking to blend better. Boardmember Kim said a little rework like changing windows is not enough for her. It is the height of the floor plates and the height of the ceiling on the second floor which needs to be done in tandem with how the massing is articulated on the second floor. Additionally, the fence in the front which is 4 feet and opaque emphasizes and works against the height even more. So, she thinks it should be porous, more subtle and not 4 feet high. Vice Chair Chong agreed with Boardmember Kim’s comments and said it is really a relook at how they make the second floor not feel like a second floor and there are creative ways of doing it, and it is looking at a new design. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 13 2/18/21 Boardmember Crescini agreed and said the second story is on top of the 10’3” portion of the house so he putting it on top of a 9 foot story below is already one foot down. The whole design needs to be reworked. The other thing he wanted to say is that he was surprised that the Town of Tiburon considered this a remodel and not a new house. He was intrigued by the calculations and was sad about it as it forces the criteria and it affects the upgrade of the house. Chair Barringer supported continuance and Ms. Tasini said there is a PSA deadline of March 22, 2021. If continued past that date, the applicant will need to sign a PSA extension. It was M/S/C (Barringer/Chong) to reopen the public comment period for the applicant to indicate the date for continuance. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Mr. Thayer first asked and confirmed with Ms. Tasini of the timing deadlines given potential re-noticing, staff report preparation, story pole certification, a site visit and a PSA deadline date and agreement to an extension before March 22nd. After brief discussion, Mr. Thayer and Ms. Evers agreed to sign a PSA extension and to provide this to staff by the deadline, and April 1st was chosen as the continuance date. Chair Barringer asked if there were public comments related only to scheduling. Mindy Canter asked why the application is being continued when 4 of 5 members of the Board are opposed to the design. She asked if new story poles will go up, and Chair Barringer stated yes, this is a requirement. Boardmember Berger explained that this will provide time for the redesign. Chuck Barr asked when the neighbors will be able to see the plans prior to the April 1st DRB meeting. Ms. Tasini explained that once staff releases the documents for public review they are posted on the Town’s website on the “Projects under Review” section of the website which is typically two weeks before the hearing. Dan Schwager noted that all Boardmembers stipulated that they support a second floor. He asked if this can be reflected in the minutes even though the design needs further work. Boardmember Berger stated the Board did not necessarily support this particular second floor design. It was rather how it was done which was the objection. Mr. Flushman stated the Board will have an opportunity to review the minutes prior to the meeting and make a motion to adopt them at their next regular meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 14 2/18/21 Chair Barringer clarified for the speakers that the minutes will reflect the discussion by the Board. Mr. Thayer stated he has taken notes from all Boardmembers and has a good sense of what they are and what changes he needs to consider. He asked if there will be minutes or a summary of what the changes are that reflect the Board’s concerns, or he asked if he should rely on his own notes. Ms. Tasini stated the entire meeting is recorded, and that he was welcome to review the recording tomorrow morning and review comments. The minutes will return to the next DRB meeting for approval and she will not have them available right away. Staff has taken notes as well, and Ms. Bonifacio stated she will be scheduling a meeting next week and go over what was discussed and next steps. Mr. Thayer asked and confirmed March 18th was when staff needs revised drawings, and Ms. Tasini stated when they meet next week they can also solidify the timeline for submittal, review and discussion. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period, and the Board voiced the need to continue the matter. It was M/S/C (Chong/Berger) to continue the application to the April 1, 2021 DRB meeting. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Stephanie Zaczek Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 10:02 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:Support of 281 Karen Way Remodel/Renovation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To: Tiburon Design Review Board  The purpose of this letter is to provide support for the renovation and remodel of 281 Karen  Way.  The design is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound construction, fitting well into the  neighborhood plan, while also enhancing property values of this and other adjacent homes. In  addition, the plan for the new home fits the particular topography of the lot, skillfully absorbing  the steep slope in the backyard, with the home's footprint and surrounding yard space. There  are multiple precedents for 2nd story remodels in this neighborhood.  We urge the Tiburon Planning Commission to vote in favor of this beautifully designed plan for  281 Karen Way.   Sincerely,   Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager  FEB. 6, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lisa Evers Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:48 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:Support of 281 Karen Way remodel CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Sam, I'll send over my petition list but thought I should go ahead and forward this to you... Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Paige Fassig To: Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2021 6:57 pm Subject: Support of 281 Karen Way remodel We are completely behind you on your remodel project. You may use our names to assist you. Good luck! Paige and Gerry Fassig 242 Cecilia Way, Tiburon, Ca 94920 MAR. 23, 2021 M A R . 2 5 , 2 0 2 1 Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA.94920 March 18, 2021 Dear Board Members, I’m Pru Starr and I live at 160 Leland Way. My driveway looks directly at 281 Karen Way on the right. Current design plans are so difficult to read, but it looks to me as if the story poles still make the house too tall, and its height impacts neighbors on both sides. Ms. Evers and her architect made effort to hide the intrusive ‘house on top of a house’ design of her brand new house, but it’s still more imposing than the tallest neighbor’s two doors east. Rearranged story poles demonstrate its height has moved further back but it’s still way too tall. I oppose this current design because it still looks like a house on top of the first floor, increasing square footage from 617 feet to 711 square feet, increased both house and garage. I don’t need to remind the Board about the importance of ‘stealth’ design, and sadly this design remains ostentatious and uncharacteristic of our neighborhood’s ambience. Please add my opposition to this design as part of your review. There has got to be a better design with less height. Thank you, Pru Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon MAR. 18, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:tessa white Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 4:04 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Dina Tasini Subject:Feedback on 281 Karen Way Design Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  From: Tessa and Marcus White 283 Karen Way To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board My husband and I would like to mark our objection to the proposed second story addition on 281 Karen Way proposed by Lisa Evers. We are strongly opposed to the office that extends 10ft x 13ft out the back of the 2nd level addition. I have taken images from 4 different places in our garden (from closest to furthest away) and there is not one single place where we cannot see the office and its 3 windows that look directly into our garden, and will have no privacy whatsoever. Following the rejection of the first set of designs by the DRB on 2/18, the owner showed us an updated design that moved the whole upper addition firmly over to our side of the house so as not impact 279 Karen Way. We did not oppose this alteration. However, the design we were shown was not the design the owner submitted to the Town. After reviewing the 3/09 and 3/11 designs submitted and posted online, we were taken by surprise to see an extra 10ft x 13ft extension on the second floor added to the back of the original drawings firmly impacting our ability to use our garden as a family. This part of the new plans was a total surprise. When the story poles went up, we used them to create a mock up to understand how they would impact our privacy. I subsequently spoke with Lisa to discuss this and talk through alternatives, as we had hoped by moving the office it might help. But with no acceptable alternatives that doesn’t dramatically impact our privacy, we simply can’t support the combination of height AND backwards projection over our house. My husband and I are not opposed to a 2nd level but request it all remains at the front so we are not forced to look at it from every corner of our back garden. Whilst we plan to plant some screening plants along our fence the office proposed severely impacts our privacy and we feel will heavily impact and chance of re sale on our property in the future. With the proposed office, our only option would to plant a series of trees that would need to grow 40+ feet in order to create a privacy barrier. As I said to Lisa. We have a 4 bedroom house with an office (5th bedroom), 3 baths, Living, Dining, Kitchen and Laundry all on one level and don’t even have the courtyard closed in as per her design so maybe the floor plan needs a re work on the lower level? Regards Marcus and Tessa of 283 Karen Way. MAR. 19, 2021 MAR. 22, 2021 TO: Design Review FROM: Marion and James Fitzgerald RE: 281 Karen Way DR2020-088 The new story poles are not much different from the previous ones. Height and mass are still there. Big imposing, out of character in a ranch style community I don’t see the points made at the previous meeting being considered by Lisa Evers and her architect. 1 Reduce the scale of the home and be more compatible with the neighborhood. 2 Plans need a full ground-up redesign. 3 Neighborhood compatibility is the guiding principle. 4 Roof forms that downplay the size of the house. 5 Do a more subtle job of dealing with the second story. 6 Use window sizes and features that would protect neighbors privacy. 7 Second story was huge and is still huge. 8 It is not tweaking the current design, it need a new design. 9 The whole project needs to be reworked. None of the above points made by Design Review have been considered in the new plans. The mass of the second story shifted from one side more to the middle and now both neighbors are hugely affected. I hope the Design Review Board will enforce what is on the website “Second Story Home Additions – Factors to consider” because this plan doesn’t consider: Neighborhood Pattern, Views, Privacy, Sunlight and Shade, Mass and Bulk, Lot Characteristics. MAR. 23, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Rich Cellini Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:11 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way... Attachments:image001 copy.tiff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,   We are writing in regard to the revisions for the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way.  As a home owner in Bel Aire since  2004 we have witnessed several of these two story proposals submitted and resubmitted to the Design Review Board,  and thankfully through the years they have been denied.  The regulations in the neighborhood are clear, and anyone  who wishes to build a two story home can do so in several nearby neighborhoods, but not in this one.  According to the  original letter distributed by the owner of 281 Karen she has been in this neighborhood for well over a decade and  therefore she knows what’s acceptable and what is not with regard to second story additions.  We are 100% against the  two story proposal and the impact it will have on the neighborhood as a whole.  In reviewing the new plans there is still  a second story, except it is now larger and located on one side of the house vs in the middle.  If a second story  is  allowed for one house, it should be allowed for all houses and that is not something we would like to see in Bel Aire.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.  Thank you,  Rich & Christine Cellini  46 Claire Way  Tiburon  ___________________________ Rich Cellini, Ph.D. Professor Sport Management Program University of San Francisco MAR. 23, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:fred Starr Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 2:30 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Design Review Comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  March 24, 2021 From: Fred Starr, 160 Leland Way, Tiburon CA To: Town of Tiburon, Design Review Board Members, 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon CA 94920 Subject: 281 Karen Way Addition and Remodeling (March Re-submittal of Drawings) Supplementary to my February 5, 2021 comments, I continue to oppose the subject remodel (as revised in March 2021) for the following additional reasons: 1.The second story mass is still too great and out of character with the neighborhood. Also, the square footage of the second story, as well as the first story, appears to have increased from February to March. If this is confirmed, it looks like a step in a direction that conflicts with the intent of the Design Review Board’s conclusions and recommendations. 2.The Conceptual Solar Panel Layout conflicts with Tiburon guidelines (February 2, 2005) that call for minimal visual impact to public streets and neighboring properties. Twelve of the proposed fourteen panels are visible from Karen Way. Thank you for this opportunity to present my opinion on the subject project. Fred Starr MAR. 24, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Mindy Canter Sent:Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:31 PM To:DRBComments Subject:281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Design Review Board,  We are all for remodeling. However…  We are opposed to the current design at 281 Karen Way. It still looks like a house on top of a house and sticks out like a  sore thumb. This design does not fit into the neighborhood and would set a precedent for 2 story houses in Bel Aire.  There are 6 new homes (from the foundation up) on Blackfield Dr. (and multiple other new homes sprinkled throughout  the neighborhood). They are all one story and fit into the neighborhood.  We have personally been inside 95% of the homes in Bel Aire. You would never know from the understated front facade  of these houses that there were wonderful large remodeled additions, many doubling the square footage or more.  We agree with Miles Berger’s comment in the last DRB meeting. Miles said that remodels should inconspicuously wrap  around the sides and back of the existing house.  Even remodels that raise the ridge line a few feet, are still one story and are lined up with the ridge lines of their  neighbors. This enables everybody to enjoy the unique back yard privacy this neighborhood offers and we all enjoy.  We hope you don’t approve the current design. It’s not consistent with the neighborhood and would set a dangerous  precedence.  Yours truly,  The Canter Family  MAR. 25, 2021 EXHIBIT 6 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 2 4/1/21 STAFF BRIEFING – None MINUTES Consider adoption of minutes of meeting of March 18, 2021 It was M/S/C (Berger/Kim) to adopt the minutes of March 18, 2021, as submitted. Roll Call Vote: 3-0-2 (Barringer and Crescini absent). PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020-088/VAR2020- 020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 969 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 5 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. (Continued from February 18th, 2021) Kyle Thayer, Thayer Architecture, said they listened to neighbors and the DRB and spoke to design changes made since the last meeting which were to reduce building height and mass and to shift the second floor away from the western neighbor. He noted the original setback variance from the first DRB meeting still holds. He displayed and described examples of reductions in the building height and mass in various portions of the proposed addition, elimination and redesign of the stairwell to sit within the form of the building, movement of the building eastward away from the western neighbor, relocation of the office to the upstairs, receipt of verbal support of eastern side neighbors of the upper bedroom moving closer to their house, and opposition by an eastern neighbor to the office after removal of a large tree that screened both properties. Mr. Thayer then presented an example of the non-conforming lot coverage design that preceded the design before the Board today and said they moved the office upstairs to achieve a conforming lot coverage of 30%. The non-conforming lot coverage design is 32.5% and staff had indicated they would not be enforcing the lot coverage requirement and not granting and not supporting lot coverage variances, which had previously been granted over the last 40 years. Lastly, design is about balancing constraints and contradictions, finding a middle way acceptable to all parties or at least equally uncomfortable and unacceptable to all parties. A homeowner’s property rights, and zoning say they can build a second story, yet some Bel Aire neighbors have threatened a class action lawsuit against the owner if they build a second story. Alternatively, if they propose a design that reduces or eliminates the second story by going over the allowed lot coverage, the Town will categorically deny such a variance. They feel they have gone a long way in striking a balance between the needs of the owner and community and asked for approval. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 3 4/1/21 Lisa Evers, Owner, said Mr. Thayer spoke to the points which are in line with what the DRB specifically asked for. She has taken a neighborly approach to trying to reach out to neighbors. There are 181 homes, and she wrote a letter and hand-delivered to each neighbor, walked the neighborhood twice, asked people to come to two different open houses, wrote hand-written notes to her immediate neighbors west of her, and the only ones that came to talk with her were the White’s who were kind. She said the White’s bought their home in August/September and she had already been flooded out of her home then. They knew she was in the process of planning a remodel and she did everything to keep them in the loop, and they have been great. After the February 28th DRB meeting and just prior to her meeting with the Planning Department on March 4th, she spoke with the White’s and said it was suggested that she move the second floor more towards the east side which was their garage side. Things broke down after she and Mr. Thayer presented the non-conforming plan where the office was on the lower floor which they had been fine with. She went into the meeting with Ms. Tasini and Ms. Bonifacio on March 4th and was shocked after learning that the Town would not support a 2.5% variance after many people have been granted larger variances. She contacted the White’s and told them that she was in a conundrum because of the non-conforming issue and non-support of the variance. She then pointed to Slide 1 which showed pictures of the White’s home and her house with their tree to the left. The story poles were not yet up and went up on January 19th. After the White’s took out the tree in late February/early March the Board will see how stark their two lots are. The tree provided both of their homes and lots a great deal of buffering and screening, so she is surprised they would choose to remove the tree. Lastly, she paid $400+ to create renderings that are to the actual specifications and drawings of the architect versus those drawings which people have submitted in their letters and which do not show depth or perception. Vice Chair Chong asked for questions from Boardmembers. Boardmember Kim asked Ms. Tasini to address the lot coverage and variance change. Community Development Director Dina Tasini explained that variances are considered a unique hardship and the Design Review must make findings that are found in the Zoning Code prior to approving a variance. Simply stating an applicant has requested and wants a lot coverage variance is not a supported finding within the Code. Variances are connected to topography or a physical constraint. For example, an outcropping of rocks on one’s lot where there is no other place to build, or a physical constraint found on the lot those are physical hardships and constraints making it infeasible to develop the site in accordance with the Code. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 4 4/1/21 In this instance, the lot is flat. They can build within that allowable coverage or not, therefore staff cannot make the four required findings and must deny and or not support the variance request. Considering or making a finding simply based on a policy of discouraging second stories is not a finding. This is subjective and is not a standard related to physical constraint. Staff instead has determined that an amendment to the zoning code may be necessary to remedy the lot coverage issue. Staff will look at objective design standards and allowable clot coverage percentages to determine if a change needs to take place. Tasini noted specific guidelines are identified in Section 16-52.020(h) or the Guiding Principles, and in relation to this proposed development staff could not make all four of the findings for this lot/project. Any proposed zoning changes will come before the Planning Commission in the Spring of 2021. Tasini anticipates presenting options to the Town Council prior to presenting an Ordinance for approval. Town Attorney Eli Flushman clarified that even though Ms. Tasini has mentioned some potential items that may come before the Planning Commission and City Council, he cautioned against discussion about any code amendments or study session. He asked the Board to consider the property at 281 Karen Way and the findings that must be made. Boardmember Berger stated it has been the tradition in the past that staff did not make the findings in a binding sense, but by the DRB. Additionally, coverage variances were regularly granted to people who tried to meet with neighborhood standards and make smaller or remove second stories, which were grounds for the DRB to grant coverage variances. He agrees that it would be a lot smarter if the code recognized this but the findings for a variance is at the Board’s purview ultimately. Vice Chair Chong agrees with Boardmember Berger’s comments and opened the public comment period. Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, voiced opposition of the current design, thinks it still looks like a house on top of a house, does not think the applicants made the changes requested by the DRB at the February meeting but moved a section from the west side to the east side, lowered the top height by 4’6”, and the design does not fit in the neighborhood of ranch style homes. She spoke about homes with raised ridgelines that do not look massive and usually the ridgelines line up with homes on either side so it is not imposing, and everyone maintains their privacy and asked that the Board not approve the current redesign which is not in line with the neighborhood at all and would set a dangerous precedent. Pru Starr, 160 Leland Way, referred to her letter opposing the design and said she never received a letter from Ms. Evers, the DRB’s suggestions were not followed by the architect and disregarded in a way that shifts the mass from the west to the east, the house is still too big for the lot and she was shocked the way the windows appear. Privacy is very important in Bel Aire and this design still seriously impacts neighbors on both sides. She thinks the plans remain uncharacteristic for the neighborhood and still looks like one house with a house on top. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 5 4/1/21 Marcus White said he and his wife Tessa live at 283 Karen Way next to Lisa Evers. They were shown the second design and were supportive of that; however, because of the variance, Ms. Evers called his wife with details that they were going to put the office on the top. They want to be able to enjoy their backyard and if the design had been built when they were looking to buy a home, they probably would not have moved into their home. Their concern is for resale as well. The office looks at their garden as well as their side fence area and entire backyard. Tessa White, 283 Karen Way, said Ms. Evers called and told her the design was changed but she was not told how. They next saw the story poles go up and saw the 10-foot extension towards the back which allowed views of all sides of their gardens. She was not sure why the architect would place the office in the middle instead of to the side, noting it gives a larger visual impact for any neighbors’ privacy. There was a tree there and it was removed after the first story poles went up. They do plan to replant however, and had the tree stayed it was naked half the year and the current office would have still had a view of their garden. She knows the owner wants a four-bedroom home and she and her husband live in a 5 bedroom and 3 baths with a decent kitchen, laundry and dining all on one level. So, she thinks every room is 25% larger than it needs to be. If the front door had not been moved to the middle with the loss of so much floor space and entryway and stairwell, the design could actually be achieved on one level similar to theirs. Boardmember Berger asked and confirmed that the office can see into their backyard. He asked if the bedroom on the side and closest to them was less troublesome in its position. Mrs. White said yes; it is in line with their garage and laundry so while it will block a small amount of light, it is okay where it is. Boardmember Berger asked and confirmed that if the office was pushed further back down the wing of the house it would pose a privacy problem. Priscilla Wanat, 86 Claire Way, said it looks as though moving the office from the west to the east has merely changed the inconvenience to a different neighbor. She reviewed some of the renditions from the architect showing what the view would be from the White’s house, and they would have a wall to look at rather than sky. She also visited one of her neighbors and commented how her next-door neighbor was allowed to have a higher ceiling height inside the house and was surprised that the high roof adds an element of intrusion into the living space. She also questioned why the Town cannot just change the guidelines for the size of the house on a lot without having to get variances because neighbors like one-story homes in Bel Aire. If a variance is needed in order to approve a house plan that fits in the neighborhood, a variance would be the way to go. Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, said she is the west neighbor, and the two-story design still impacts her greatly. There would be no sunlight in the front where the main bathroom is. The windows can still look down even though they are further away, and now it affects her kitchen, family room and her back bathroom because the windows facing north on the hillside and on the west side can look straight down into her living room and family room, especially at night, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 6 4/1/21 stating there would be no privacy whatsoever. She said two stories just does not work in the neighborhood no matter what side a neighbor is on. Mary Barnes, 278 Karen Way, said it seems to her that Ms. Evers is forcing something into the neighborhood that neighbors do not want, and this is not neighborly. She suggested working with neighbors instead of pushing for a design neighbors do not support or want. Rebuttal – Applicant Ms. Evers displayed Slide 4 and thanked the White’s who have been wonderful. She thinks they all got blind-sided by the Planning Department’s stance on the variance situation. She is in a tough situation to create a design that works. If they were to consider the non-conforming design with the office on the lower floor with the 2.5% variance, it would be fine by her and she wants to work with neighbors. Not having a tree between them impacts them both. She displayed Slide 5 which shows a side-by-side view of the two homes. There is not a way to get a 30-foot tree planted in a short period of time, so she has been put in a conundrum. They are still within all of the guidelines, setbacks, have not asked for any other variances, and she would like to make this point. Even with the office, she is still within her rights, square footage, allotments, etc., and she asked if Mr. Thayer would like to add anything. Kyle Thayer, architect, clarified that back when they had their meeting with staff and they had expressed data about the lot coverage, they then proposed the office on the second floor. They explored placing the office right behind the bedroom and not in the center of the lot but sliding it eastward towards the Whites. This was Boardmember Berger’s questions as to whether this had been explored, and they proposed this informally and it looked as though it was going to be acceptable. But then they thought the office on the second floor anywhere was going to be a problem. Therefore, this is just something they looked at and were trying to accommodate the Whites in that regard. Ms. Evers said she thinks it is important for the DRB and neighbors to hear that she is not trying to be un-neighborly, and it is very disheartening to be told that. She has opened up to anyone to speak with her, but she tried to stick to the facts which staff has told her to do and does not feel it is fair to be attacked this way. She is trying to create a nice home and has done it per the Town’s guidelines. Vice Chair Chong closed the public comment period and returned discussion to the Board. Boardmember Kim said she has been on the Board for about 4 years. There is one case every year where she feels a neighbor is being unfairly attacked personally and she feels for Ms. Evers, and her comments will stick to the design. In the last meeting, she indicated the height and bulk need to be dealt with in a more sensitive way. She feels this re-design is not enough and feels it is also unbalanced. It is very tight in between the two houses. She recognizes the White’s concerns about the views into their lot. There are quite a few windows facing that and regardless of a tree, people always have to plan TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 7 4/1/21 that a tree may go away as well as a seasonality issue. Regarding the redesign, she was not very keen on it. There is something about it that does not seem balanced in terms of the mass and bulking to the right side. The other issue she had is giving up the lot coverage and then having to have to move that space. She questioned whether the office was needed or not. She is not opposed to the second floor but how it is being expressed. She realizes the windows on the White’s side are clerestory and very high, so it is only about light without any privacy issues, but she thinks the room is still going to be a problem with having a wall that goes all the way up and the way it is articulated. Boardmember Berger said it should be acknowledged that the design has come a long way. Mr. Thayer and Ms. Evers have tried to modify the design based on the Board’s comments. He thinks it is not quite there yet and understands and echoed what Boardmember Kim is saying. It needs a sense of style and balance and he thinks it is not elegant. Also, the office location is a problem for the White’s. Honestly, if this had been presented without the office upstairs, leaving the office downstairs and would have asked for a minor coverage variance and he would be very inclined to have looked favorably on a coverage variance. But this is not what the Board is being presented with today. He thinks having the office on the west side still stretches along the front making the second story very prominent. It is not that there are no second stories in Bel Aire because there are, but he suggested a better job of integrating the second story into the roof form of the first story. As it is designed now, he was still not be supportive and thinks the neighbors would lose their privacy. The second story is not an enhancement to the house except in its square footage and he would like more work on the architecture and to work with the neighbors. Noted Present: Chair Barringer arrived at the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Chair Barringer said he reviewed the plans and staff report and said he generally feels it is a great improvement to the roof height, light and impingement onto neighbors. He understands this is the route the applicant has chosen to pursue and if the owners want this amount of square footage, it is a logical way to achieve it. He was tending to be in support of the project because, in some ways, this is a solution that meets all of the requirements. While there could be improvements with reductions in windows and the office, people should be able to build up to the FAR allowed on the lot, but it is a conundrum. Boardmember Kim cited the impact on the neighbor. While her objection is partly dealing with the views into their yard and privacy, her issue is the wall being created right next to the White’s house. It could be a flat roof that is needed to achieve the articulation. The reason the house works two homes away is because the second floor has a flat roof, which cuts down another 3-4 feet. Chair Barringer said he does not disagree with Boardmember Kim on the placement of the second story over to the east side which lends more difficult to one neighbor as compared to the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 8 4/1/21 last design which was equally disadvantageous to both neighbors. Perhaps there is a middle ground there that keeps the reduction in roof heights. Vice Chair Chong said he feels the applicant and architect made a sincere effort to try to accommodate neighbors and impacts based on the last hearing. He agreed with Boardmember Kim’s comments on balance in that the top story on the east side is just almost like cut off somehow and it creates a wall. The homes are already close enough together and that this much massing should not be on an upper story that close. Often times when striking the right design, it creates people supportive of the project to not being supportive. He also thinks in this neighborhood there is not a two-story design that would receive a number of people’s support because there have been so many one-story remodels as a trend. He believes there is still work that could be done and thinks there was a sincere effort made without stepping into the same lot coverage issue. Therefore, it sounds like the Board was leaning on a continuance and confirmed with staff the PSA deadline has been extended until June 18th. Vice Chair Chong asked what a design would need to have in order for Boardmembers to be able to support a second-floor remodel on this lot. Boardmember Berger said it should be something the neighbor to the east is happier with than the neighbor with the office looking into the backyard; one with potentially a smaller second floor more worked into the roofs and treated in a dormer factor. One speaker said it looks like a house on top of a house, and he suggested working the design into the roof more symmetrically. Boardmember Kim said the way it is articulated; the massing of the second floor is not balanced. She wondered if the solution is some kind of dormer solution where it fits more comfortably. If the owner wants to have an office on the second floor, there might be another way to do this by using the existing roof design and integrating the plan. She did not know what the solution is, but the way it is articulated is two masses on top of each other rather than one integrated cohesive mass, which is her biggest issue. Reducing the massing would solve this as well as changing the roof to a flat roof which would reduce the roofline height. Vice Chair Chong echoed comments of Boardmembers and confirmed with Ms. Tasini that the next continuance meeting date available would-be May 6th or May 20th. Ms. Evers asked for better direction and assistance from the Board as to what to do with the design. Ms. Tasini suggested the Board recap the direction on how the applicant should proceed with the design. Vice Chair Chong summarized that they try to avoid designing people’s houses. It comes down to trying to facilitate looking at a design, seeing how it impacts neighbors, the character of the neighborhood and whether the Board can make findings. They are faced with either approving a project, denying a project, or providing a continuance which allows for the applicant to go back TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 9 4/1/21 and take comments as discussed and return. Often times, there are multiple continuances to get to a design that ultimately works. There is also an appeal process that the applicant can choose if the DRB denies the project. The applicant should seek to 1) satisfy some of the concerns of the White’s which ties into a smaller second story, and 2) develop a design that looks more integrated as an overall project, so it does not resemble a house on top of a house. Some applicants have told the Board to deny it so they can pursue an appeal to the Council, which is an option, as well. Ms. Tasini said they did hold a study session in the past where the applicants and the Board had a more informal discussion about how to move things around, look at massing, materials, and this could be a helpful exercise if the applicant and Board are amenable. Ms. Evers said she would love the opportunity for a study session, given the constraints of the lot coverage variance. Boardmember Berger suggested to the applicant that if they were instead spreading out on the site, if they ran the rooms down the center with their stair and brought the roofs up all the way around so the second story is done like an attic-like dormer which is integrated, it will look like a one-story house with an attic or dormers. He asked to think along those lines and by having roofs on the side might preclude views into the neighbors’ yards and proximity. Vice Chair Chong said he agrees with Boardmember Berger’s comments and noted one reason they try to stay away from it is that if the applicant returns with exactly that design it might not get enough support for approval. He thinks they see such a design that could satisfy both immediate neighbors and also create something nice for the neighborhood, while giving the applicant their design objectives. Ms. Evers asked if the Board would be willing to hold a study session, and Vice Chair Chong said he would be open to it. Boardmember Berger said he thinks he would rather allow the architect to design it, but to consider the direction he just mentioned. Mr. Thayer said they are two meetings into this and possibly if they began with a study session it could have been fruitful. He has some ideas as to how to respond to comments and the study session would be without any voting, so it would add another month or two to the overall timeframe. Ms. Evers cited frustrations with added costs and said if the DRB does not accept anything more than 30% lot coverage there will have to be massing on the upper floor. Boardmember Kim said the Board is not arguing about square footage but massing. Massing has volume, height and reach. The Board is suggesting that there may be a way to perhaps relook at the massing and how it looks. Right now, it is a challenge, but every project that the Board sees is challenging. She thinks there is a more elegant and harmonious way of achieving this that would make much better sense. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 10 4/1/21 Mr. Thayer asked for a continuance to May 6th, and Vice Chair Chong suggested a motion. Ms. Bonifacio announced that revised story poles would also need to be erected 10 days before the continued meeting. It was M/S/C (Berger/Kim) to continue the matter to the May 6, 2021 DRB meeting. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Crescini absent). PH-2 187 Stewart Drive; Assessor’s Parcel No. 039-251-04; File No. DR2021-001/VAR2021- 001/VAR2021-007; Mary Kathryn and Charles Rice, Owners; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for the exterior alterations to an existing single-family residence, the construction of two accessory structures that include a cabana and an office, and other landscape improvements including a new swimming pool, patios, and exterior stairways, with the following Variance requests: 1) to allow the main residence that is currently located within the front setback be increased in height from 24’-1” to 26’-3” and 2) excess height for accessory structure to allow proposed cabana be built at the height of 17’-10”, where a maximum of 15’ is permitted. The project would contain approximately 3,928 square feet of gross floor area and cover 3,678 square feet (14.9%) of the lot. This property is zoned as RO-2. Charles Rice, owner/applicant, 187 Stewart Drive, gave a PowerPoint presentation and said their project plans were previously approved by the DRB in 2018 but there is relevant context before presenting their proposed revisions. He provided background of the project plans, unanimous approval granted by the DRB in 2018, relevant events and Planning staff’s review, and proposed revisions since the approved plans. He noted there is only one item that required them to return for a second DRB review which was the variance request for a small height access at a singular story pole location and a section of the pool cabana accessory building roof ridge. All other items have been reviewed and supported by Planning staff. The prior plans were unanimously approved and were still approved at the time of this submittal. Generally, their proposed revisions to the plan are minor except for the main house upper-level wall height increase which is well within their allowable limit to 10 feet from the existing 8-foot wall plate and an overall height of 26 feet which is well within the 30-foot ordinance limit. Planning staff confirmed in December that all revisions could have been processed at the Planning staff level if not for the variance request for the small height excess for that section of the accessory building roof ridge at the singular story pole location pole #18. He said while the staff report points to the excess as 17’10” versus the 15’ limit for accessory buildings, it should again be noted that the height excess is only for a portion of the roof ridge. If measured from the proposed finished grade, the roof height would comply with the 15’ limit. Further, recent comparable variances with larger excesses have been approved, which he described. EXHIBIT 7 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting May 6, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-1 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Subject: 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 1,520 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 5 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 281 KAREN WAY OWNER: LISA EVERS APPLICANT: KYLE THAYER ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 034-122-05 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 LOT SIZE: 8,052 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1-B-A (BEL AIRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: JANUARY 21, 2021 PSA DEADLINE: JUNE 18, 2021 (EXTENDED) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting design review for an addition and remodel to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 281 Karen Way The property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,207 square foot one-story single-family residence with a 279 square foot attached garage that was constructed in the 1950s with improvements over time. This application was first reviewed at the February 18, 2021 Design Review Board meeting where the Design Review Board held a properly noticed public hearing, received public testimony, and discussed the project plans. At that meeting, numerous nearby neighbors provided comments both in favor as well as in opposition. Most neighbors who objected to the project shared a similar Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 10 concern, that the proposed second story addition would not fit well with the single-story homes found in the immediate neighborhood. In general, the Board did not object to the addition of a second story, but that was concern about the configuration of the new bulk and massing, specifically massing facing the street needing to be reduced. The Board directed the project architect to revise the drawing and refine the project to mitigate massing, height, and privacy impacts, particularly to abutting neighbors on the western side of the subject property. Consideration by the Design Review Board was continued to the April 1, 2021 meeting. At the April 1, 2021 meeting, the applicant provided revised plans, which are included as part of Attachment 3. In this design, the proposed addition was concentrated along the eastern side of existing dwelling. The proposed first floor office was relocated behind the second story addition. The previously proposed stairwell at the front of the home was relocated to the interior and the main ridge height was reduced from 24’6” to 22’2”. In summary, the Board members acknowledged the significant changes that were made but expressed concern over the concentration of massing and the projected impacts on neighboring properties, specifically due to the location of the office as it relates to the privacy of the neighbors along the eastern property line. Comments made by each board member can be found in the excerpt of the meeting minutes, which is included as Attachment 4 of this staff report. Public comment was consistent with the first meeting, with the majority of concern being that the proposed second story addition did not fit into the single-story character of the neighbor. For these reasons, consideration of the application by the Design Review Board was continued to the May 6, 2021 meeting. The applicant submitted revised project plans on April 22, 2021(Attachment 2). Once, confirmed the plans were complete, story poles were erected on April 26, 2021. The Design Review Board is encouraged to visit the adjusted story poles, assess the current project plan, evaluate the design issues. The project architect provided a summary of the proposed modifications to the project design which are outlined as follows: All changes are at the upper floor: 1. Removed the office from the entire project. (Eliminates the projecting room on the north side, addressing privacy concerns of eastern neighbor.) 2. The project is smaller--Reduced upper floor area by 120 sf (from 711sf to 591sf). 3. Lowered height of building by 3”, at eave of street-side bay. 4. Created new upper floor layout with new window locations. All windows on north side are in hallways, not in living areas of rooms. 5. Moved mass of upper floor towards the middle, creating a balanced composition. Upper floor is now 16’-5” from west property line and 11’-4” from east property line. 6. Moved mass of upper floor away from street by 12”. 7. The main ridge height remains the same (22’-2” high) but is moved away from street by 12”. 8. The project conforms to the 30% lot coverage, as before. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 10 ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Height and Massing The R-1-B-A establishes a 30’ maximum height limit for primary dwellings. The proposed additions are within the allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage. The new massing created by the partial second story addition was originally concentrated along the front, street facing elevation. The second design reduced this massing by removing the stairwell, reducing the ridge height, and relocating the addition to the eastern side of the existing dwelling. The maximum height was also reduced from 24’6” to 22’2”. The revised design maintains the maximum height at 22’2”. The new massing created by the addition at the second level has been moved slightly from the eastern side of the property above the garage to above the center of the existing dwelling and towards the rear. The Board may want to assess if the proposed changes would make the addition more appropriately scaled to ensure the project would bear a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Privacy The removal of the proposed office has reduced the anticipated privacy impacts on the western property, as the building footprint would not extend as far into the rear property as it was proposed in the original design. Similarly, the anticipated impacts on privacy on the eastern property would be alleviated, as the massing at the second story has been removed in the rear. On the eastern elevation, there will be one new window proposed on the second-floor bathroom. At the lower level, which is less visible due to an existing fence, there are minor reconfigurations to window spacing. The Board may want to assess if these changes will provide sufficient privacy or if any modifications could occur. Visual impact and view access The revised design maintains the previous reduction at the main height ridge from 24’6” to 22’2”. The reduction of the additions to the first-floor bedroom will remain closer to the existing building footprint, reducing the anticipated impact on the view of the western neighbor. The removal of the office at the second story will also limit the massing as it relates to the view from the eastern property. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed height and roof form is appropriate in its context, with the goal of minimizing visual and view impacts to nearby neighbors. Zoning Variance In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 10 deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, to this residence being approved and developed prior to town incorporation the side yard is considered an existing physical constraint. Furthermore, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. These special circumstances of an existing nonconforming side yard and a topography constraint the struct application of the Municipal Code will deprive the owner of privileges provided others that do not have these existing constraints. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non-conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones therefore not granting of a special privilege. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated seven inches from where the existing wall is located and result in a reduction of the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The additions are proposed to extend beyond the existing plane of dwelling, but at no point will encroach further into the side yard setback. The new additions will not exceed the existing ridge height and will be shielded by the existing solid fencing. There are no substantial modifications to the existing grade or landscaping that are necessary to facilitate these additions. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The Purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 10 the design of proposed construction and use assist in maintaining and enhancing the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will add to the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with the guiding principles are provided below: Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 10 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed addition in the rear of the property is compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed remodel/addition is in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, for these reasons, the additions support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The majority of the first-floor addition is limited to the rear yard of the property and the second story addition has been relocated so it is concentrated in the middle on top of the existing dwelling. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors located to the west, limiting the impacts on privacy. The new massing along the eastern elevation are concentrated towards the front of the building resulting in limited impacts. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 10 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The revised design would propose 2,084 square feet at the lower level and 591 square feet at the second story, for a total of 2,675 square feet. The proposed 52 square foot addition to the existing 279 square foot garage results in a garage with a total square footage of 331 square feet. The proposed floor area is 2,675 square feet which is 130 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed addition because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, to maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls is proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 10 safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance, and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. However, the applicant will be installing a rooftop solar system 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. In conclusion, the project appears to further the purposes and is in substantial conformance with many of the guiding principles. The Board may want to assess whether the proposed massing and location of the second story addition is appropriate. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1-B-A zone. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 10 PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no letters have been received for this applicant or for the revised designed. All previous correspondence is included as part of Attachment 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends the Design Review Board determine the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 and Class 3 categorical exemptions. Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) The proposed project involves exterior improvements and additions to an existing home that is located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family homes on all sides. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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: 1) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 10 (Purpose) ,satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) make the findings of Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.030 (E) (Variance) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions, it is recommended that the attached resolution and conditions be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution with conditions of approval 2. Project Plans received April 22, 2021 3. April 1, 2021 Design Review Board staff report and attachments 4. Excerpt of April 1, 2021 Design Review Board meeting minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 1,520 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON A R-1-B-A ZONED PROPERTY AT 281 KAREN WAY 281 KAREN WAY ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-122-05 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings A. The Town of Tiburon received an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for exterior alterations and construction of an approximately 1,520 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence with an attached garage on a R-1-B-A zoned property. The proposed house and improvements would contain approximately 2,675 square feet of gross floor area and cover 2,415.5 square feet (29.9%) of the lot. 1. Application form and supplemental materials received December 14,2020; and 2. Site plan and elevations prepared by Kyle Thayer, Architect, received on April 22,2021. B. The Design Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing on this project at the February 18, 2021, April 1, 2021, and May 6, 2021 meeting, the Board reviewed plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 16-52.020 (H) of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications). C. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the February 18, 2021, April 1, 2021, and May 6, 2021 staff reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the proposed project appears to further the purposes and guiding principles. D. The Design Review Board finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15303. The Design Review Board further finds that that none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply, as there is no evidence that the project DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 2 will result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, presents unusual circumstances, or involves an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, a hazardous waste site, damage to a scenic highway, or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. E. The Design Review Board further finds, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the February 18, 2021, April 1, 2021, and May 6, 2021 staff reports and the attachment thereto, as well as the data submitted, supplemented by public comment and on-site inspections, and deliberations at the meeting, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and thus will further the purpose set forth in subsection 16-52.020(A), and satisfy the applicable criteria of subsection 16- 52.020(H). 16-52.020(A) Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single-family residence. The additions will add to the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 3 The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. 16-52.030 (E) Variance 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, to this residence being approved and developed prior to town incorporation the side yard is considered an existing physical constraint. Furthermore, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. These special circumstances of an existing nonconforming side yard and a topography constraint the struct application of the Municipal Code will deprive the owner of privileges provided others that do not have these existing constraints. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 4 Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non-conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones therefore not granting of a special privilege. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated seven inches from where the existing wall is located and result in a reduction of the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The additions are proposed to extend beyond the existing plane of dwelling, but at no point will encroach further into the side yard setback. The new additions will not exceed the existing ridge height and will be shielded by the existing solid fencing. There are no substantial modifications to the existing grade or landscaping that are necessary to facilitate these additions. 16-52.020(H) Guiding Principles 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed addition in the rear of the property is compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed remodel/addition is in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, for these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety, and general welfare. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 5 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The majority of the first- floor addition is limited to the rear yard of the property and the second story addition has been relocated so it is concentrated in the middle, on top of the existing dwelling. Given that the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors located to the east and west, limiting the impacts on privacy. The new massing along the rear elevation would be concentrated towards the front of the building resulting in limited impacts. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second- story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The revised design would propose 2,084 square feet at the lower level and 591 square feet at the second story, for a total of2,675 square feet. The proposed 52 square foot addition to the 279 square foot results in a garage, totaling 331 square feet. The proposed floor area is 2,675 square feet which is 130 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 6 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed addition because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, to maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls is proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 7 New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance, and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is in the R-1- B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. Section 2. Approval. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 8 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File Nos. DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for the reasons set forth above, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon on May 6, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS: ________________________________ CEDRIC BARRINGER, CHAIR TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: ______________________________ DINA TASINI, SECRETARY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 9 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 281 Karen Way File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Community Development Department 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The owner and/or applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless along with the Town Council, commissions, boards, agents, officers, employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding (“action”), against the Town, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or damages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall promptly notify the owner and/or applicant of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the owners and/or applicants or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys with all attorney’s fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the owner and/or applicant 3. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on May 6,2021 as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated April 22, 2021, stamped “Approved by Design Review Board May 6,2021”, as determined in the discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be reviewed, and approved by the Design Review Board. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan that addresses, parking, traffic control, construction management, construction staging, scheduling, construction equipment, washout, road/access maintenance and repair and other concerns to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Community Development Director. 5. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes, such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a “bubble” or “cloud”) on the submitted construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 10 that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 6. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise, must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division’s “Notice of Action”, including the attached “Conditions of Approval” for this project, shall be copied onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings. 8. Any structures located within a required setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height at any point. 9. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24” x 24” in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 10. If any existing landscaping that is not proposed to be removed is subsequently removed during construction, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan to Planning Division staff for review and approval of additional adequate landscaping, prior to a Final Inspection. The Planning Division staff may refer any subsequent landscaping plan to the Design Review Board. Public Works Department 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mcstoppp.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 12. An Encroachment Permit from DPW is required for any work within the Town’s road right-of way, including, but not limited to, utility trenching, installation of new utility DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 11 connections, and modifications to the driveway apron. The plans shall clearly identify all proposed work in the right of way and an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to conducting such work. 13. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met. If the work includes the following, the applicant shall note on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check: (a) If over 2,500 square feet of surface area will be added or replaced, the site must provide at least one Post Construction mitigation in accordance with E.12 of the Town’s Municipal Stormwater Permit and the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. (b) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building permit final sign- off, a licensed land surveyor shall verify that fencing, walls, footings and building foundations are entirely within the subject property. If it is found that any portion of the structure(s) were placed outside of the property, that portion of the structure shall be removed and relocated to be entirely within the property boundaries. A certification letter, stamped and signed by the surveyor shall be provided as documentation. The letter is required to state that the licensed professional surveyor located the property boundary of the subject property and “certifies” that all structures, including fencing and foundations are located entirely within the subject property and do not encroach beyond it. The certification letter shall reference the building permit number, provide the date when the surveyor performed their services and must reference the property address and assessor’s parcel number. (c) If project requires movement (including cut, fill, displacement, import and/or export) of earth measuring 50 cubic yards or greater, then the following are required: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall complete the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant Package that can be found in the helpful forms and documents section of the Town’s website. Link: http://townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms-Documents. Please note that projects with over 50 cubic yards of earth movement shall also be subject to post-rain- event erosion control inspections. (d) Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide a geotechnical report, a grading plan and drainage plan to the Town Engineer. (e) Prior to issuance of a building permit, review and acceptance of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Town Engineer is required. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 12 Southern Marin Fire Protection District 14. The fire planning review fee is due prior to any final approvals from the planning department. 15. The Fire District will be required to review the building permit plans at the time of permit submittal. Please include the conditions of approval in the submittal. 16. Deferred Submittals: Please note on the cover sheet of the drawings all deferred submittals that will be required by Southern Marin Fire District. • Fire sprinklers will be required as a deferred submittal. 17. Fire Hydrant Body Upgrade Required: Prior to framing, the existing fire hydrant upgrade shall be required. When additions or modifications to structures are made, the nearest fire hydrant (if a new one is not required) located by the Fire Code Official, shall be upgraded to the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet 2 ½ inch outlet for single family dwellings and the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet and two 2 ½ inch outlets for commercial structures. • Exception: If the cost of upgrading the fire hydrant exceeds 2% of the cost of the project based on the building permit valuation. • Clow #FHD75 CLOW Residential Upgrade at hydrant located at 283 Karen Way 18. Fire Sprinkler Requirements: The current scope of work appears to be in excess of 50% of the existing structure and is being considered a substantial remodel as defined in SMFD Ordinance 2019/2020-01 and shall require the installation of fire sprinklers throughout the structure. However, if further review or change in scope reveals that the project is less than 50% of the existing structure, then the project will be re-evaluated. • A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for the following: • If the combination of the addition, alteration or remodeling exceeds 50% of the floor area of the existing structure, the project is considered a “substantial remodel” ** (see end for definition) • Existing Buildings. In any building with an existing automatic sprinkler system, protection shall be extended to any all of alteration, repair, remodel, or addition, regardless of job size so that 100% coverage is maintained. Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided through the entire structure according to Chapter 9 of the California Fire Code. Fire sprinkler system shall be installed according DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 13 to NFPA standards and Southern Marin Fire Standard 401. Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the Southern Marin Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinkler system design and installation shall conform to the provisions of the Southern Marin Fire District Standard 401and N.F.P.A. Standard(s) 13, 13D or 13R. 19. A vertical overhead clearance of 13' 6" shall be maintained free of obstructions above any roadbed (trees, brush, etc.). 20. The property owner shall comply with California Fire Code Section 304.1.2 and Local Ordinance Section 109.3.2 Abatement of Clearance of Flammable Brush or Flammable Vegetative Growth from Structures. 21. A minimum clearance of 30 feet from the structure or to the property line, 10 feet from roads and property lines and any tree which extends within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe shall be kept clear of flammable brush, tree limbs and grasses. 22. A list of flammable (pyrophytic) plans and non-flammable (fire resistive) plans can be found on the University of California Cooperative Extension: Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistive Plants list. This is available at firesafemarin.org Exception: Vegetation Management Plan for the property has been submitted and approved by the Fire Code Official. 23. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Fire Code and SMFD standard 205 (Premises Identification). 24. Smoke / CO Detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code. Non-combustible roofing required. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for: • All new roofs shall be non-combustible. • Roof Repairs or replacement: o Less than 25% - no requirement o 25% to 50% - Class C minimum o 50% or more – Non-Combustible • In no case shall the roofing material used be less fire resistive than the existing roof. NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group R Occupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the California Building Code. 25. This project shall comply with California Fire Code Chapter 33 – Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition. These requirements include but are not limited to: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX May 6, 2021 14 Temporary Heating Equipment, Precautions Against Fire, Flammable and Combustible Liquids, Flammable Gases, Owners Responsibility for Fire Protection, Fire Reporting, Access for Fire Fighting, Means of Egress, Water Supply for Fire Protection, Standpipes, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, Portable Fire Extinguishers, Motorized Construction Equipment, and Safeguarding Roofing Operations. 26. Fire access to the project as well as the other surrounding properties shall be maintained at all times. Unapproved restrictions in roadway access shall result in citations and vehicles being towed at the owner’s expense. 27. Any revisions that include additional floor area, reduction of floor area, or modifications to existing or new walls, floors, ceilings, or roofs shall be submitted as revised drawings to the District for further review. 28. All on-site improvements, such as water main extensions, hydrants, and access roads, must be serviceable prior to framing the structure. 29. Final occupancy approval shall not be granted/released until authorization to the Community Development Agency has been received from the Fire District. Other Agencies 30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 31. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from the Sanitary District confirming that all applicable requirements of the District have been satisfied for occupancy. 32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). 33. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy. --End of Conditions of Approval-- A P R . 2 2 , 2 0 2 1 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-1 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Subject: 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 969 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 5 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 281 KAREN WAY OWNER: LISA EVERS APPLICANT: KYLE THAYER ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 034-122-05 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 LOT SIZE: 8,052 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1-B-A (BEL AIRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: JANUARY 21, 2021 PSA DEADLINE: JUNE 18, 2021 (EXTENDED) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting design review for an addition and remodel to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 281 Karen Way The property is currently occupied by an approximately 1,207 square foot one-story single-family residence with a 279 square foot attached garage that was constructed in the 1950s with improvements over time. This application was first reviewed at the February 18, 2021 Design Review Board meeting (Attachment 2) where the Design Review Board held a properly noticed public hearing, received public testimony, and discussed the project plans. At that meeting, numerous nearby neighbors presented to speak both in favor as well as in opposition. Most neighbors who objected to the Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 10 project shared a similar concern, that the proposed second story addition would not fit well with the single-story homes found in the immediate neighborhood. In general, the Board did not object to the addition of a second story, but that was concern about the configuration of the new bulk and massing, specifically towards the street needed to be reduced. The Board directed the project architect to revise the drawing and refine the project to mitigate massing, height, and privacy impacts, particularly to abutting neighbors on the western side of the subject property. In summary, the suggestions made by board members including, but are not limited to: • Second stories are not “historically” encouraged, but can be approved, given that they do not “look like a second story”. • Revise or relocate massing to reduce visibility from the street. • Reconsider location of windows at second floor in consideration of neighbor at 279 Karen Way • Reconsider stairwell location or volume. • Reconsider ceiling heights and provide sections on new submittal showing change. • Landscaping in front yard should be modified (lowered) and be an open fencing design. Comments made by each board member can be found in the excerpt of the meeting minutes, which is included as Attachment 4 of this staff report. Consideration by the DRB was continued to the April 1, 2021 meeting. After the meeting, the applicant met with Staff on multiple occasions to discuss the Board’s feedback and propose changes to the design. The first iteration of revised plans proposed an increase in lot coverage which would have required a lot coverage variance. Staff was not able to support the lot coverage variance and requested that the applicant modify the design and maintain the proposed lot coverage at the original 29.9%. At the subsequent meeting with staff, the applicant proposed a design that slightly increased the previously requested floor area, but the proposed project remained below both the allowable maximum floor area lot coverage calculation. Other than the original variance for the reduced side yard setback to the west, all of the proposed new addition was contained within the building envelope and below the maximum building height. The applicant submitted revised project plans on March 11, 2021(Attachment 2). Once, confirmed the plans were complete, story poles were erected, and a letter of certification was submitted on March 15, 2021. The Design Review Board is encouraged to visit the adjusted story poles, assess the current project plan, evaluate the design issues. A summary of the applicant’s proposed modifications to the project design is outlined as follows: 1. To reduce the lot coverage, the office has been relocated from the ground floor to the second floor and placed on the back side--not visible from the street. 2. Height and mass have been reduced significantly: a) Main ridge has been lowered 2'-4" (from 24'-6" high to 22'-2" high). Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 10 b) Ground floor plate height at front of house remains at 8'-1". (lowered from 9'-1" in old design). c) Where second story occurs, the ground floor ceiling height is 9'-1" (Ceiling heights are 9'-7" at single story portion at MBR wing and Kitchen wing). d) Second story plate height reduced from 9'-1 to 8'-1" overall--and dropped one foot further to 7'-1" on the street side (south side). e) Line of second floor gutter has been lowered a total of 3'-2". f) Prominent, projecting stairwell has been eliminated--it's been redesigned and relocated to within the form of the building. g) Mass of the upper floor has been moved 7'-6" eastward, creating a significant distance from the neighboring house on the west side. 3. Original design: 13'-11" to property line. New design: 21'-5" to property line ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Height and Massing The R-1-B-A establishes a 30’ maximum height limit for primary dwellings. The proposed additions are within the allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage, except for the variance for the reduced side yard setback for horizontal extension of an existing wall. The new massing created by the partial second story addition was originally concentrated along the front, street facing elevation. The revised design has reduced this massing by removing the stairwell, reducing the ridge height, and relocating the addition to the eastern side of the existing dwelling. The maximum height was also reduced from 24’6” to 22’2”. The Board may want to assess if the proposed changes would make the addition more appropriately scaled to ensure the project would bear a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Privacy The modifications to the proposed addition have reduced the anticipated privacy impacts on the western property, by relocating the proposed office to the second floor. This reduces the length of the addition, which would have been constructed adjacent to the neighboring property. The revised design will eliminate the amount of glazing and raise the sill height of the windows. On the eastern elevation, there will be one new window proposed on the second-floor bedroom and one new window at the office. At the lower level, which is less visible due to an existing fence, there are minor reconfigurations to window spacing. The Board may want to assess if these changes will provide sufficient privacy or if any modifications could occur. Visual impact and view access Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 10 The revised design is reducing the main height ridge from 24’6” to 22’2”. This was achieved by keeping the existing 8’1” ground plate height, where it was previously proposed to be increased to 9’1” as well as reducing the second story plate height from 9’1” to 8’1” overall, with an additional decrease to 7’1” at the street facing side. Further, the second story was located 7’6” to the east. The stairwell that was prominent located at the front, street facing elevation was relocated so that it is contained entirely within the form of the building. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed height and roof form is appropriate in its context, with the goal of minimizing visual and view impacts to nearby neighbors. Zoning Variance In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, to this residence being approved and developed prior to town incorporation the side yard is considered an existing physical constraint. Furthermore, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non-conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated seven inches from where the existing wall is located and result in a reduction of the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 10 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed additions in the rear would not be located above the existing ridgeline, maintaining the existing view of adjacent neighbors. Similarly, the concentration of the partial second story addition towards the front of the home was designed to maintain sunlight for the adjacent neighbors. The majority of new windows created at the partial second story addition would be facing the rear yard and street, instead of facing the neighboring properties. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. The previous analysis incorrectly stated that the wall of the existing home would extend to within 5 feet, 6 inches of the side property line. The existing wall extends to within 5 feet, 5 inches of the side property line. The proposed new addition would extend into the setbacks at the same measurement. The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The Purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design of proposed construction and use assist in maintaining and enhancing the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will add to the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 10 The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with the guiding principles are provided below: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed addition in the rear of the property is compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed remodel/addition is be in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, For these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The majority of the first floor addition is limited to the rear yard of the property and the second story addition has been relocated to the rear yard as well. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors located to the west, limiting the impacts on privacy. The new massing along Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 10 the eastern elevation would be concentrated towards the front of the building resulting in limited impacts. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The revised design would propose 2,084 square feet at the lower level and 711 square feet at the second story, for a total of 2,795 square feet. The proposed 52 square foot addition to the 279 square foot results in a garage, totaling 331 square feet. The proposed floor area is 2,795 square feet which is 10 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed addition because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, to maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 10 impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls is proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance, and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 10 This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. In conclusion, the project appears to further the purposes and is in substantial conformance with many of the guiding principles. The Board may want to assess whether the proposed massing and location of the second story addition is appropriate. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1-B-A zone. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, letters (Attachment 6) were received from nearby neighbors to speak in support. Attachment 5 includes a letter submitted for the February 18, 2021 hearing that was omitted from the previous packet in error. We have also received multiple letters from nearby neighbors in opposition of the project (Attachments 7). The letters in opposition voice concern for the size and design of the second story additions. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends the Design Review Board determine the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 and Class 3 categorical exemptions. Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) The proposed project involves exterior improvements and additions to an existing home that is located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family homes on all sides. Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303-New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone and in an urbanized area. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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: Design Review Board Meeting April 1, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 10 1) The property is located within a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions, it is recommended that the attached resolution and conditions be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution with conditions of approval 2. Project Plans received March 11, 2021 3. February 18, 2021 Design Review Board staff report and attachments 4. Excerpt of February 18, 2021 Design Review Board meeting minutes 5. Letter of support received by neighbor for the February 18, 2021 meeting that was omitted in error. 6. Letters of Support a. Received from Paige & Gary Fassig, resident at 242 Cecilia Way b. Petition of signatures from: i. Mike Midlock, resident at 154 Leland Way ii. John Leszczynski, resident at 318 Karen Way iii. Stephanie Zaczek, resident at 38 Claire Way iv. Danny Schwager, resident at 38 Claire Way v. Barb Powers, resident at 85 Harriet Way vi. Elizabeth O’Neil, resident at 112 Leland 7. Letters of Opposition a. Received from Pru Starr, resident at 160 Leland Way b. Received from Tessa and Marcus White, resident at 283 Karen Way c. Received from Eileen McHale, resident at 279 Karen Way d. Received from Marion and James Fitzgerald, no address provided e. Received from Rich and Christine Cellini , resident at 46 Claire Way f. Received from Fred Star, resident at 160 Leland Way g. Received from Canter Gamily, address not provided. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 969 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON A R-1-B-A ZONED PROPERTY AT 281 KAREN WAY 281 KAREN WAY ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 034-122-05 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings A. The Town of Tiburon received an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for exterior alterations and construction of an approximately 969 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence with an attached garage on a R-1-B-A zoned property. The proposed house and improvements would contain approximately 2,795 square feet of gross floor area and cover 2,415.5 square feet (29.9%) of the lot. 1. Application form and supplemental materials received December 14,2020; and 2. Site plan and elevations prepared by Kyle Thayer, Architect, received on March 11,2021. B. The Design Review Board held a duly-noticed public hearing on this project at the February 18, 2021 and April 1, 2021 meeting, the Board reviewed plans for the proposed project in accordance with Section 16-52.020 (H) of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications). C. The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the February 18, 2021 and April 1, 2021 staff reports, public testimony, as well as visits to the site, that the proposed project appears to further the purposes and guiding principles. D. The Design Review Board finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15303. The Design Review Board further finds that that none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply, as there is no evidence that the project will result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, presents unusual circumstances, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 2 or involves an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, a hazardous waste site, damage to a scenic highway, or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. E. The Design Review Board further finds, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the February 18, 2021 and April 1, 2021 staff reports and the attachment thereto, as well as the data submitted, supplemented by public comment and on-site inspections, and deliberations at the meeting, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and thus will further the purpose set forth in subsection 16-52.020(A), and satisfy the applicable criteria of subsection 16-52.020(H). 16-52.020(A) Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will add to the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 3 The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. 16-52.030 (E) Variance 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, to this residence being approved and developed prior to town incorporation the side yard is considered an existing physical constraint. Furthermore, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non-conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated seven inches from where the existing wall is located and result in a reduction of the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 4 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed additions in the rear would not be located above the existing ridgeline, maintaining the existing view of adjacent neighbors. Similarly, the concentration of the partial second story addition towards the front of the home was designed to maintain sunlight for the adjacent neighbors. The majority of new windows created at the partial second story addition would be facing the rear yard and street, instead of facing the neighboring properties. 16-52.020(H) Guiding Principles 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed addition in the rear of the property is compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed remodel/addition is be in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, For these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The majority of the first floor addition is limited to the rear yard of the property and the second story addition has been relocated to the rear yard as well. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors located to the west, limiting the impacts on privacy. The new massing along the eastern elevation would be concentrated towards the front of the building resulting in limited impacts. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 5 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The revised design would propose 2,084 square feet at the lower level and 711 square feet at the second story, for a total of 2,795 square feet. The proposed 52 square foot addition to the 279 square foot results in a garage, totaling 331 square feet. The proposed floor area is 2,795 square feet which is 10 square feet below the maximum allowable floor area. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed addition because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, to maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 6 charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls is proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance, and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 7 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the application for Site Plan and Architectural Review (File No. DR2020-088/VAR2020-020) for the reasons set forth above, subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attached Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon on April 1, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 8 ________________________________ CEDRIC BARRINGER, CHAIR TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATTEST: ______________________________ DINA TASINI, SECRETARY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 9 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 281 Karen Way File # DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Community Development Department 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The owner and/or applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town harmless along with the Town Council, commissions, boards, agents, officers, employees, and consultants from any claim, action, or proceeding (“action”), against the Town, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, employees, and consultants attacking or seeking to set aside, declare void, or annul the approval(s) of the project or alleging any other liability or damages based upon, caused by, or related to the approval of the project. The Town shall promptly notify the owner and/or applicant of any action. The Town, in its sole discretion, may tender the defense of the action to the owners and/or applicants or the Town may defend the action with its attorneys with all attorney’s fees and litigation costs incurred by the Town in either case paid for by the owner and/or applicant 3. The construction of this project shall substantially conform to the application as approved by the Design Review Board on April 1, 2021 as may be amended by these conditions of approval. Any substantial modification to the drawings dated March 11, 2021, stamped “Approved by Design Review Board April 1, 2021”, as determined in the discretion of the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, shall be reviewed, and approved by the Design Review Board. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan that addresses, parking, traffic control, construction management, construction staging, scheduling, construction equipment, washout, road/access maintenance and repair and other concerns to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Community Development Director. 5. Construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be materially identical to those approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved Design Review drawings, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such changes when construction drawings are submitted to the Building Division for plan check. For Planning Division conformance check purposes, such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a “bubble” or “cloud”) on the submitted construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawing set, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require separate Design Review approval. All changes to a project DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 10 that have not been explicitly approved by Planning Division Staff as part of the Building Division Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Planning Division approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require removal. 6. At the time of building permit submittal, construction drawings for building permit shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting fixtures, other than those specifically approved by the Design Review Board to be otherwise, must be down-light type fixtures with shielding where appropriate. 7. At the time of building permit submittal, a copy of the Planning Division’s “Notice of Action”, including the attached “Conditions of Approval” for this project, shall be copied onto a sheet near the front of each set of construction drawings. 8. Any structures located within a required setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height at any point. 9. Prior to commencement of construction, a construction information sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24” x 24” in size and shall be made of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information: job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site. 10. If any existing landscaping that is not proposed to be removed is subsequently removed during construction, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan to Planning Division staff for review and approval of additional adequate landscaping, prior to a Final Inspection. The Planning Division staff may refer any subsequent landscaping plan to the Design Review Board. Public Works Department 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into construction documents measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mcstoppp.org. Prior to commencement of grading/building work on the site, the applicant shall implement the measures as shown on the construction documents. 12. An Encroachment Permit from DPW is required for any work within the Town’s road right-of way, including, but not limited to, utility trenching, installation of new utility DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 11 connections, and modifications to the driveway apron. The plans shall clearly identify all proposed work in the right of way and an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to conducting such work. 13. Throughout project construction, all requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met. If the work includes the following, the applicant shall note on Building Division drawings submitted for plan check: (a) If over 2,500 square feet of surface area will be added or replaced, the site must provide at least one Post Construction mitigation in accordance with E.12 of the Town’s Municipal Stormwater Permit and the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. (b) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building permit final sign- off, a licensed land surveyor shall verify that fencing, walls, footings and building foundations are entirely within the subject property. If it is found that any portion of the structure(s) were placed outside of the property, that portion of the structure shall be removed and relocated to be entirely within the property boundaries. A certification letter, stamped and signed by the surveyor shall be provided as documentation. The letter is required to state that the licensed professional surveyor located the property boundary of the subject property and “certifies” that all structures, including fencing and foundations are located entirely within the subject property and do not encroach beyond it. The certification letter shall reference the building permit number, provide the date when the surveyor performed their services and must reference the property address and assessor’s parcel number. (c) If project requires movement (including cut, fill, displacement, import and/or export) of earth measuring 50 cubic yards or greater, then the following are required: Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall complete the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant Package that can be found in the helpful forms and documents section of the Town’s website. Link: http://townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms-Documents. Please note that projects with over 50 cubic yards of earth movement shall also be subject to post-rain- event erosion control inspections. (d) Prior to issuance of a building permit, provide a geotechnical report, a grading plan and drainage plan to the Town Engineer. (e) Prior to issuance of a building permit, review and acceptance of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan by the Town Engineer is required. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 12 Southern Marin Fire Protection District 14. The fire planning review fee is due prior to any final approvals from the planning department. 15. The Fire District will be required to review the building permit plans at the time of permit submittal. Please include the conditions of approval in the submittal. 16. Deferred Submittals: Please note on the cover sheet of the drawings all deferred submittals that will be required by Southern Marin Fire District. • Fire sprinklers will be required as a deferred submittal. 17. Fire Hydrant Body Upgrade Required: Prior to framing, the existing fire hydrant upgrade shall be required. When additions or modifications to structures are made, the nearest fire hydrant (if a new one is not required) located by the Fire Code Official, shall be upgraded to the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet 2 ½ inch outlet for single family dwellings and the minimum standard of one 4 ½ inch outlet and two 2 ½ inch outlets for commercial structures. • Exception: If the cost of upgrading the fire hydrant exceeds 2% of the cost of the project based on the building permit valuation. • Clow #FHD75 CLOW Residential Upgrade at hydrant located at 283 Karen Way 18. Fire Sprinkler Requirements: The current scope of work appears to be in excess of 50% of the existing structure and is being considered a substantial remodel as defined in SMFD Ordinance 2019/2020-01 and shall require the installation of fire sprinklers throughout the structure. However, if further review or change in scope reveals that the project is less than 50% of the existing structure, then the project will be re-evaluated. • A fire sprinkler system shall be provided for the following: • If the combination of the addition, alteration or remodeling exceeds 50% of the floor area of the existing structure, the project is considered a “substantial remodel” ** (see end for definition) • Existing Buildings. In any building with an existing automatic sprinkler system, protection shall be extended to any all of alteration, repair, remodel or addition, regardless of job size so that 100% coverage is maintained. Fire sprinkler coverage shall be provided through the entire structure according to Chapter 9 of the California Fire Code. Fire sprinkler system shall be installed according DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 13 to NFPA standards and Southern Marin Fire Standard 401. Plans for fire sprinkler system design and hydraulic calculations shall be completed by a licensed C-16 sprinkler contractor and submitted to the Southern Marin Fire District, Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Fire sprinkler system design and installation shall conform to the provisions of the Southern Marin Fire District Standard 401and N.F.P.A. Standard(s) 13, 13D or 13R. 19. A vertical overhead clearance of 13' 6" shall be maintained free of obstructions above any roadbed (trees, brush, etc.). 20. The property owner shall comply with California Fire Code Section 304.1.2 and Local Ordinance Section 109.3.2 Abatement of Clearance of Flammable Brush or Flammable Vegetative Growth from Structures. 21. A minimum clearance of 30 feet from the structure or to the property line, 10 feet from roads and property lines and any tree which extends within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe shall be kept clear of flammable brush, tree limbs and grasses. 22. A list of flammable (pyrophytic) plans and non-flammable (fire resistive) plans can be found on the University of California Cooperative Extension: Pyrophytic vs. Fire Resistive Plants list. This is available at firesafemarin.org Exception: Vegetation Management Plan for the property has been submitted and approved by the Fire Code Official. 23. The address shall be posted in accordance with requirements of the California Fire Code and SMFD standard 205 (Premises Identification). 24. Smoke / CO Detectors shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code. Non-combustible roofing required. Noncombustible roofing shall be provided for: • All new roofs shall be non-combustible. • Roof Repairs or replacement: o Less than 25% - no requirement o 25% to 50% - Class C minimum o 50% or more – Non Combustible • In no case shall the roofing material used be less fire resistive than the existing roof. NOTE: A "noncombustible" roof is a Class A roof (for other than Group R Occupancies, a Class A or Class A assembly) as defined in the California Building Code. 25. This project shall comply with California Fire Code Chapter 33 – Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition. These requirements include but are not limited to: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XXX April 1, 2021 14 Temporary Heating Equipment, Precautions Against Fire, Flammable and Combustible Liquids, Flammable Gases, Owners Responsibility for Fire Protection, Fire Reporting, Access for Fire Fighting, Means of Egress, Water Supply for Fire Protection, Standpipes, Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, Portable Fire Extinguishers, Motorized Construction Equipment, and Safeguarding Roofing Operations. 26. Fire access to the project as well as the other surrounding properties shall be maintained at all times. Unapproved restrictions in roadway access shall result in citations and vehicles being towed at the owner’s expense. 27. Any revisions that include additional floor area, reduction of floor area, or modifications to existing or new walls, floors, ceilings, or roofs shall be submitted as revised drawings to the District for further review. 28. All on-site improvements, such as water main extensions, hydrants and access roads, must be serviceable prior to framing the structure. 29. Final occupancy approval shall not be granted/released until authorization to the Community Development Agency has been received from the Fire District. Other Agencies 30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain required permits from the Sanitary District and comply with applicable Sanitary District regulations. 31. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from the Sanitary District confirming that all applicable requirements of the District have been satisfied for occupancy. 32. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written documentation that the final landscape and irrigation drawings would comply with current water efficient landscape requirements of Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). 33. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division, applicant shall submit documentation from MMWD confirming that all applicable requirements of MMWD have been satisfied for occupancy. --End of Conditions of Approval-- M A R . 1 1 , 2 0 2 1 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Subject: 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 281 KAREN WAY OWNER: LISA EVERS APPLICANT: KYLE THAYER ASSESSOR’S PARCEL: 034-122-05 FILE NUMBERS: DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 LOT SIZE: 8,052 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1-B-A (BEL AIRE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: JANUARY 21, 2021 PSA DEADLINE: MARCH 22, 2021 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting design review for exterior alterations and construction of approximately 888 square feet of new floor area to an existing single-family dwelling on the property located at 281 Karen Way as well as the addition of 42 square feet to the existing attached garage. The property is currently occupied by a one-story single-family home that was constructed in 1953 with an approximately 1,207 square feet of floor area and a 279 square foot attached garage. The proposal would add a partial second story with a balcony and extend the existing eastern and western wings of the home into the rear yard. Additional landscape improvements are also proposed, including a new hot tub, fire pit, and barbeque in the rear yard and a new four foot tall fence at the front yard. The proposed additions would increase the calculated floor area of the property by 888 square feet to 2,095 square feet, which is less than the permitted floor area ratio (2,805 square feet) for this site. The proposed addition would increase the existing lot coverage of 1,486 square feet of TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 Agenda Item: PH-2 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 11 the site by 928.5 square feet to a total of 2,415.5 square feet (29.9%), which is just under the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1-B-A zone. The existing maximum height of the home is 14’8’ at the front elevation. The proposed additions would increase the height to 24’6”, which is under the 30’ height limit permitted in the R-1-B-A zone. The existing home is located 24’8” from the front property line. The addition to the garage would reduce this distance to the required setback of 20’. The current home is located 65’2” to the rear property line and the addition would reduce this to 40’6”, where a minimum of 25’ is required. The existing eastern wall of the home is located 6’4” from the side property line, where a minimum of 6’ is required. The proposed addition would be constructed at the same distance. The proposed addition at the western wall at the first floor would extend to within 5 feet, 6 inches of the side property line. As a 6-foot side yard setback is required in the R-1-B-A zone, a variance is also requested for reduced side yard setback. The proposed colors and material include a combination of stucco siding and stone. The proposed roof will be constructed of composition shingles in the “Charcoal” color. A color and material board has been included in the project plan and can be found on Sheet A5.2 on the attached plans provided for the Board review (Attachment 2). PROJECT SETTING Source: Marin Map and Google Map, accessed on February 4,2021 The property is located on a rectangular lot on Karen Way in the Bel-Aire neighborhoods. The subject site and surrounding area is predominately flat, but there rear of the site slopes up toward the old railroad right-of-way adjacent to Bel Aire School,. Homes located on the abutting properties are mostly one-story, with one-car attached garage and main entry facing the street. ANALYSIS The following sections are outlined to facilitate the Board when evaluating the project: Design Issues Site plan and layout Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 11 The western wall of the existing single-family dwelling was constructed five feet and six inches from the side property line, prior to the establishment of a six-foot setback. The remaining portion of the home and garage were constructed within the allowable building envelope. The proposed additions in the rear will extend the existing eastern and western walls to create a “U” shaped home, with a small courtyard. The western wall is proposed to be constructed in line with the existing wall. Extending this wall would require the granting of a variance for a reduce side yard setback. A partial second story is proposed above with an upper floor balcony facing the courtyard in the rear yard. The Board may wish to comment on whether the project is properly related to its site and location of existing improvements on adjoining sites, with the goal of achieving privacy and providing adequate light and air to nearby neighbors. Height and Massing The R-1-B-A establishes a 30’ maximum height limit for primary dwellings. The proposed additions are within the allowable floor area ratio and lot coverage, except for the variance for the reduced side yard setback for horizontal extension of an existing wall. The new massing created by the partial second story addition would locate within the building envelope and be concentrated along the front, street facing, elevation. Since the neighborhood is predominately occupied by single-story homes, the Board may want to assess if the proposed additions are appropriately scaled and are properly placed to ensure the project would bears a reasonable relationship to the character of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Privacy The project proposes additions with adequate distance from its neighboring structures to preserve privacy. In consideration of the adjacent neighbor’s view, sunlight, and privacy, the maximum ridge height of the addition in the rear would be lower from the existing dwelling’s ridge height by one foot. The project will maintain the existing perimeter fence and landscaping. The project includes window and door replacement on the existing residence, as well as new window and door placement on the new addition. Visual impact and view access The project will maintain the 4:12 roof slope while raising the maximum ridge height from 14’-8” to 24’6’. The master bedroom suite and kitchen additions that extends toward the rear yard will have a lower ridge height of approximately 13”. The area around the subject property is relatively flat and the neighboring properties are primarily comprised of single-story homes. The Board may wish to assess whether the proposed height and roof form is appropriate in its context, with the goal of minimizing visual and view impacts to nearby neighbors. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles to determine if the proposed addition would create any visual, privacy, light or view impacts on the adjacent neighbors. Zoning Variance In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 11 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The 8,052 square foot size of the property is smaller than the 10,00 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1-B-A zone. The minimum lot size in the R-1-B -A is 10,000 square feet, the project site measures approximately 8,052 square feet. In addition, the existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. The existing physical constraints of the hillside and small lot size create special circumstances that deprives the owners of this property of the same development privileges enjoyed by other properties within this zoning district. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Numerous other properties in the R-1-B-A , including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non- conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The existing home was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Tiburon’s zoning requirements, including setbacks. The strict application of the side yard setback would require that the rear addition would need to be relocated in six inches from where the existing wall is located reduce the floor area for a house on this lot to a level below the allowable floor area ratio for a lot of this size. These building limitations would result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As described above, the proposed additions would not project into the views of or create privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The proposed additions in the rear would not be located above the existing ridgeline, maintaining the existing view of adjacent neighbors. Similarly, the concentration of the partial second story addition towards the front of the home was designed to maintain the sunlight to adjacent neighbors. The majority of new windows created at the partial second story addition would be facing the rear yard and street, instead of facing the neighboring properties. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 11 The Board should consider whether the proposed project will further the purpose set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 16-52.020(A). The purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure the design of proposed construction supports, maintains, and enhances the town’s distinctive character. Purposes 1. Ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the highest standards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood. The project will improve and continue to support the existing home to be used as a single- family residence. The additions will infill the existing footprint of the home and expand within the buildable area of the project site. The proposed architectural design is compatible with other single-family home styles in the surrounding neighborhood. As conditioned, the improvements will be designed to be compatible with the existing and surrounding properties in terms of use, scale, and architecture. 2. Retains and strengthens the visual quality of and attractive character of the town. The proposed architecture will be built in a style that is compatible with the existing home and its surrounding structures. Proposed materials are consistent with current construction trend. The proposed additions and exterior improvements will continue to retain the visual quality and character of the Town. 3. Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects mature vegetation. New landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. Existing landscaping will be modified or replaced in a similar layout. The screening provided by trees at the side and rear yards will remain. 4. Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation and provides for an efficient and interconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways through town. The proposed project will expand the existing garage and extend the existing driveway. A new covered entry porch will face the street and connect to nearby sidewalk. The street system will not be adversely affected by the project. 5. Assists project developers in understanding the town’s concerns for the aesthetics of construction. The proposed improvements will be aesthetically compatible with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed materials and colors will be in traditional style with stucco and stone siding and composite shingle roof material. 6. Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and does not adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources. The proposed additions and improvements will comply with all required development standards, with the exception of the variance request for the western wall addition that encroaches into the setback. The proposed project would not appear to affect the community health, safety, aesthetics or natural resources for the neighborhood. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 6 of 11 The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles). Staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with the guiding principles are provided below: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is located on an 8,052 square foot lot with an existing one-story single-family residence that was originally developed in 1953. The proposed additions in the rear of the property are compatible with the existing home. The addition of the second story and is below the allowable maximum building height for the R-1-B-A zone. These additions would be in conformance with the zoning requirements prescribed for the property, For these reasons, the additions would support orderly development of the community. The project has proper relation to its site. The existing driveway will be expanded, and the pedestrian access will be improved by the creation of the walkway from the home to the sidewalk. The project does not appear to create detrimental impacts to the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. The subject and adjacent properties are on relative flat lots, with rear yards sloping up to the hillside, which was previously used as an old railroad right of way. The additions on the first floor would extend into the rear of the property, with the maximum ridgeline reduced by roughly one foot. Given the second story addition massing faces the street and the orientation of the homes across the street, views of the hillside by adjacent neighbors are not lost. The second story addition is proposed to be concentrated away from the neighbors to the east and west, limiting the impacts on privacy. No new mechanical equipment is proposed as part of this application. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. The existing home is located in a neighborhood with predominately one-story homes with narrow lots. Many additions in the neighborhood have been concentrated in the rear of the property, with variance approvals for excessive lot coverage. The justification for these variances was to maintain a low profile of the homes facing the street and deter the construction of second-story additions. In this instance, the proposed project is consistent with the development standards and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Board may wish to discuss whether the proposed location or the project as a whole will adversely affect nearby neighbors. The Board may suggest the potential relocation or design of the second Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 7 of 11 story, as deem necessarily to ensure the project will maintain a reasonable relationship with its surrounding. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio. The existing home is 1,207 square feet with an existing 279 square foot attached garage. The additions to the existing home would add 888 square feet, resulting in 2,095 square feet in total floor area. The proposed floor area is 710 square feet under the maximum allowable floor area of 2,805 square feet. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. The project will require minimal grading changes for the proposed additions because the project will be constructed entirely on level ground. There will be grading in the rear of the property to facilitate the construction of a seating area within the BBQ location, a new spa, and garden. Existing trees and landscaping will be replaced in similar location, maintain the existing screening. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. The proposed exterior finishes include grey stucco and stone siding with fascia and gutters painted black. The proposed roof will be built with composite shingle in a charcoal color. Windows and doors will be wood with aluminum cladding, painted black. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish is compatible with existing developments in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surrounding. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought- resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. As noted above, new landscaping is proposed in the front and rear yards. While the majority of the landscaping will be replaced in a similar location and density, a portion of the proposed rear hillside will be partially modified. The addition of two four foot retaining walls are proposed to provide a terraced, useable rear yard. The Board may wish to assess whether new landscaping will help to mitigate visual impact and protect privacy of adjoining sites. The Board may impose conditions as deem necessarily to achieve such goal. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 8 of 11 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. New exterior lighting will be installed for the new front porch, at the new garage addition, at the balcony entrance , and along the rear addition and entries. All lights will be shielded and downlit with no clear glass. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. The property is not on the Town’s list of historic properties. The proposed additions will utilize the existing building. New volume will be added to the existing home, below the maximum height. The proposed improvements are compatible with the existing home and the site as a whole. The Board may add any conditions that they determine would be appropriate regarding the proposed improvement. 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. The proposal is not located in an RPD or RMP zone. The existing property is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The building envelope is established by height, setbacks and other limits as specified in the development standards. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. This project is exempt from any green building requirements as it is not the construction of a new home. 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code Chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. The proposed project is located in the R-1-B-A zone. The proposed modifications will comply with all zoning requirements, with the exception of the reduced side yard setback. In conclusion, the project appears to further the purposes and is in substantial conformance with many of the guiding principles. The Board may want to assess whether the proposed massing and location of the second story addition is appropriate. Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 9 of 11 Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is in conformance with the development standards for the R-1-B-A zone. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, the Town has received numerous letters in both support (Attachment 3) as well as opposition from the neighboring residents regarding the subject application (Attachment 4). The neighbors in opposition have expressed concern over the additional mass and bulk added by the second story. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff recommends that the Design Review Board determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Class 1 categorical exemptions. Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) The proposed project involves minor exterior improvements and additions to an existing home that is located in a residential zone. The project is located in an urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available to allow maximum development permissible in the General Plan and is surrounded with other single-family homes on all sides. Categorical Exemption Exceptions (CEQA 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: 1) The property is located in a residential zone with single-family dwelling surrounding the property on all sides. 2) According to the California Department of Transportation, there are no scenic highways in Marin County. 3) According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control, there are no hazardous waste sites in the Town of Tiburon. 4) The existing home is not on the Town’s List of History Properties. The existing home has gone through modifications throughout the years. 5) It is a common practice for the Town of Tiburon’s Design Review Board to approve additions and exterior improvements to existing single-family dwellings in an established residential neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project, along with all reports and data submitted, supplemented by public comments and on-site inspections as appropriate, and determine whether the project will further the purposes set forth in Zoning Ordinance subsections 16.52.020 (A) (Purpose) and satisfy the criteria of Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 10 of 11 and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends the Board provide design guidance to the applicant that would advance the project toward approval. If the Board wishes to approve the project as submitted with conditions or deny the project, the Board may direct staff to draft such conditions and resolution, which would be presented at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and supplemental materials, received on December 14, 2020. 2. Project plans by Thayer Architecture, received on December 14, 2020. 3. Public Comments in support of the project: • Neighbor’s letter from 83 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 334 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 326 Karen Way, received 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 329 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 318 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 258 Karen Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 85 Harriet Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 113 Blackfield Drive, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 350 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Signature sheet (20 total residents) received on 2/5/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 257 Karen Way, received on 2/7/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 191 Blackfield Drive, received on 2/8/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 321 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 342 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 346 Karen Way, received on 2/9/2021 4. Public Comments in opposition of the project: • Neighbor’s letter from 22 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way and 251 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 71 Claire Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 279 Karen Way, received 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 127 Leland Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 166 Leland Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 94 Claire Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 90 Claire Way, received 1/26/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 71 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 revising the house address for letter sent on 1/25/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 42 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 82 Claire Way, received on 1/27/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 278 Karen Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 79 Claire Way, received 1/28/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 86 Claire Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 171 Leland Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 10 Claire Way, received 2/1/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 46 Claire Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Mindy Canter, received 2/2/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Brian Brown (owner of 2 houses on Karen Way and Leland Way), received 2/2/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 157 Leland Way, received 2/3/2021 Design Review Board Meeting February 18, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON Page 11 of 11 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Marion and James Fitzgerald, received on 2/3/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 278 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 160 Leland Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 87 Claire Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 279 Karen Way, received 2/4/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager, received on 2/6/2021 • Neighbor’s letter from 121 Leland Way, received on 2/9/2021 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 2 0 D R 2 0 2 0 - 0 8 8 / V A R 2 0 2 0 - 0 2 0 $ 1 , 3 9 5 . 0 0 R 9 8 3 9 S B K B 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 1 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 D e s i g n R e v i e w B o a r d 2 0 4 0 ' 6 " 6 ' 4 " 5 ' 6 " 2 4 ' 6 " 2 4 1 5 . 5 2 9 . 9 2 7 1 2 H o m e 3 2 1 G a r a g e = 3 0 3 3 2 8 0 5 H o m e 6 0 0 G a r a g e = 3 4 0 5 2 0 2 5 6 6 3 0 2 4 1 6 3 0 D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 2 0 J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 1 IA] ROOF: CLASS 'A' COMPOSITION SHINGLES,GAF TIMBERLINE, "CHARCOAL" � FASCIA AND GUTTERS: PAINTED BLACK IQ] SIDING: 3 COAT STUCCO: BENJAMIN MOORE "SILVER SATIN" OC-26 [!] WINDOW SASH: BLACK; WOOD WINDOW WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING IQ] SIDING: CULTURED STONE: PRO-FIT ALPINE LEDGESTONE, "BLACK MOUNTAIN" COLORS AND MATERIALS I-iii; JOB NO: 2D2ll-08 COLORS& MATERIALS SCALE: NIA DAlE: DEC. 11, 2020 DRAWH3 5.2 REVISION & January 25,2021 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 1 :58 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way CAUTION : This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I just wanted to send the feedback that I am very excited about the project at 281 Karen way and think it will be fantastic for the neighborhood. They have been really great to everyone in the neighborhood and it is a real shame Chuck Barnes is trying to stop this ... Matt Boyd 83 Claire Way Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:41 PM Kris Bernard -rl> Subject: Fwd: Design Review logistics -281 Karen Way remodel Attachments: IMG_2207-2.JPG; IMG_2206-2.JPG; IMG_2204-2.JPG; IMG_2208-2.JPG; Two Story Home Addition Fact Sheet.pdf; 281 Karen Lisa Evers 2021-01-24 letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, We live at 334 Karen Way in Tiburon. We received the below email regarding a planned remodel at 281 Karen Way. Please note our support of this remodel, we think the second story is fine. Please let me know if there is anything else we should do to register our support. Best, Sarah and Andrew Basham 334 Karen Way Tiburon, CA ----------Forwarded message--------- From: C Barn __ Date: Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM Subject: Design Review logistics -281 Karen Way remodel T January 25, 2021 Hi Neighbors, re: 181 Karen Way remodel/addition --='Thi,...:--_I I just got off the phone with one of the staff people for the Town of Tiburon about logistics for Design Reviews Feedback emails to Kris Bernard, kbernard@townoftiburon.org Kris indicated that it is best if she receives input as soon as possible. She has to package the materials and distribute them to the Board members and publish them on-line in the "Meetings and Agendas" section of the Town of Tiburon website. The agenda and other materials (feedback, staff report, etc.) are slated for distribution and on-line publication 2/11 for 281 Karen Way. Architectural plans are published in the "Projects Under Review" section of the website once the town planner assigned to the project considers the application complete. As of our conversation the planner had not indicated the submission for 281 Karen Way as complete. I fully support remodels and fixing up the neighborhood. My communications are not to enlist you in a particular viewpoint but to make sure facts are available, including the Town of Tiburon design factors to consider ab'Out second story 1 additions. I was not involved in formulating the design factors and they have been in place a long time. There are many wonderful large remodels/additions in Bel Aire that have managed to deal with the constraints of our properties and the Town of Tiburon with neighborhood support. This is not about a personal story. -Chuck -----Fnn""'rded Message ----- v Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021, 8:24:02 PM PST Subject: 1/24 Lisa Evers letter attached -Fw: Update -Re: 281 Karen Way story poles/remodel -Chuck -----Forwarded Messa~e ----- vent: Sunday, January 24, 2021, 8: 11 :49 PM PST Subject: Update -Re: 281 Karen Way story poles/remodel I'll be delivering copies of this to the neighborhood. I've attached the Tiburon "Second Floor Home Addition" document and pictures of the local houses that are being used to justify a 600 sq ft second floor living space. -Chuck January 24, 2021 Dear Bel Aire Neighbors, You may have received a letter from Lisa Evers 1/24 about a proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way. The remodel has a 2,000 sq ft first floor and a 2nd floor with 600 sq ft of living space. Traditionally 2nd story additions have been denied in the Bel Aire neighborhood because they would be inconsistent with the established development pattern in the area. Those of you who have lived in Bel Aire for a while are well aware of the issue and may have been involved in stopping a number of second floor additions. For those of you who remodeled to fit in with the neighborhood over the years, thank you! I have enclosed a copy of the Town of Tiburon's "Second Story Home Additions -Factors To Consider" also found at Helpful Forms & Documents I Tiburon. CA -Official Website Helpful Forms & Documents I Tiburon, CA -Official Website Click on "Second Story Addition Fact Sheet" in the "Design Review Application Forms, Guidelines and Related Documents" section. Lisa is aware of this document. The Neighborhood pattern section specifically cites Bel Aire and is quite clear. 2 The second to last paragraph of the document states "Town staff encourages homeowners to talk to their neighbors who may be affected by their project at the outset of the design process, and then keep them advised of any substantive changes as the design takes place." That did not take place. Lisa and I talked yesterday (Saturday). I don't believe she or the architect talked to anyone else prior to Saturday. The story poles were up and the plans submitted to the Planning Deportment prior to our conversation. I indicated my opposition to the second story, with 600 sq ft of living space, because it would not fit with the neighborhood pattern. Lisa's 1/24 letter is very misleading about the other homes with second floors in Bel Aire. Three of the four she identifies with second floors have barely visible second floors from the street and were done when this area was a part of the county, not the Town of Tiburon. They don't look anything like her proposal. Cited are 354 Karen Way, 326 Karen Way, 318 Karen Way and 258 Karen Way. I also have pictures of them (attached). If you need a copy of the letter let me know. She is having "open houses" this week and asking for sign off. I recommend you read "Second Home Documents", look at the houses with 2nd floors, and consider our whole Bel Aire neighborhood look and feel (established neighborhood pattern) before signing off. A number of us think there will be a cascade effect of second story additions all across Bel Aire if this is approved. I also recommend that you participate with feedback to Lisa and to the Design Review Board as early as possible. I am working on getting more specific logistics information of where/how to send feedback and the the when/how of the Board meeting for this proposal. Thanks, Chuck Barnes (the person with "the older truck in his yard and overgrown trees") 278 Karen Way On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 2:01:17 PM PST, C Barnes <cbarnez@gmail.com> wrote Hi Neighbors, We have not received the official notice from the Town of Tiburon about a proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, but story poles went up today. If you are interested in the look and feel of houses in Bel Aire I recommend you check out the story poles and quickly give feedback to the Tiburon Design Review Board either in writing or in person/Zoom at the meeting slated for February 18 Town of Tiburon 3 Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 "If you have any questions about submitting public comment, please contact the Town Clerk at lstefani@townoftiburon.org " Thanks, Chuck 4 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BelAireNeighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to belaireneighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.corn /d/msgid /b.elaireneighborhood/6152452.3236770.16116l0887000%40ma il.ya1100.corn . 5 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:41 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 181 Karen Way Remodel/Addition From: Carol Perry   Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 6:41 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: 181 Karen Way Remodel/Addition  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hello Kris,   My name is Carol Perry and I live on 326 Karen way. My house has a second story addition and I lived in it for 20  years.I'm writing this email to share with you some feedback I have in regards to the second floor addition on 181 Karen  Way.   I reviewed the Architectural plans and I am in full support of the proposed second floor addition. I believe it is consistent  with the established architectural pattern of the neighborhood and does not diminish views from nearby homes.  I hope Tiburon's design review approves the proposed plans. It is important for our town to be supportive of actions that  improve the value of it's residents properties.  Thank you and all the best,   ‐‐   Carol Perry  January 27, 2021 ~ ~ ((; r ,1 1 ~ : ~I ~11 b Pl.ANNING DIVISION Grover Wilson III 329 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 January 26, 2021 Ms. Samantha Bonifacio Sent Via Email: sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org Assistant Planner Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Proposed Home Remodel – 281 Karen Way, Tiburon CA 94920 Dear Sam: I am writing in support of the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920. We have lived in Bel-Aire for almost 28 years and seen many changes to the neighborhood the vast majority of them good. As a former Tiburon Design Review Board member, I can appreciate change is sometimes a challenge. I believe within reason trying to tastefully nudge our 1950’s style neighborhood into the 21st century, one house at a time, is okay with me. Sincerely, Grover Wilson III January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:John Leszczynski Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:01 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Having a second story myself, approved in 2006, I hope that you approve Ms. Evers design in its entirety.  She's not asking for any variances, especially considering the limited room on the property,  not the least of  which includes the RR berm in her backyard!  Great design given all her constraints.  We need more such  innovative designs in BelAire, moving us out of 1953.   As far as the chief complainant across the street, I wonder how he can even see her property most of  the year, as he's got all that vegetation and a permanently installed truck in his front yard!  Given the   town's enhanced awareness of fire hazards on residential property.....well, maybe the fire safety marshall  should have a look at his!  Just sayin'! .   Best regards,  John Leszczynski  318 Karen Way.   January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lara Conte Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 7:43 PM To:Kris Bernard; Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:re: 281 Karen Way letter of support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  1.31.21  Letter for 281 Karen Way  We are writing to state our support for the proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way.  While we understand that 2nd stories  are discouraged in the neighborhood and we do not think they are appropriate in many situations, we think that the  specifics of this lot and its siting on the north side of Karen Way make it a house where a partial second story makes  sense. We also do not fear this approval would open the floodgates for 2nd stories, as the design review board carefully  reviews each application on a case‐by‐case basis.  This lot has minimal level area due to the steep rear yard hillside that backs up to Bel Aire School, making expanding the  house on one level into the backyard less desirable.  In normal years, schoolkids wait for the bus daily all over the  homeowner’s front lawn, making expanding far forward undesirable as well. There is no rear yard neighbor who would  have privacy impacts as the rear yard “neighbor” is Bel Aire School. The house is facing two driveways across the street  with minimal privacy concerns.  While one house across the street does have windows fronting Karen Way, heavy  landscaping provides screening in both directions.  Also, given the north side of Karen Way is higher than the south side,  there is already a view downward across the street and the partial 2nd story does not create more of a privacy intrusion  than already exists. There is no protected view that is being blocked by the partial 2nd story.  The homeowner has pulled the partial second story inward from the side setbacks in order to reduce square footage and  massing upstairs and minimize the impact to the neighbors on either side.  At the same time, as the adjacent residences  are directly next door and the most affected, should they have privacy concerns, it is important to hear their  comments.  There could be some mitigating steps taken that could minimize privacy issues (minimizing windows facing  east/west, raising windowsills above eye level, reducing deck area, or minimizing outdoor lights on upper story).   We think that it is rational to either approve this application or to find a pathway toward approving it.  Fred & Lara Conte  258 Karen Way   Sent from Mail for Windows 10  February 1, 2021 ~ ~ © 1 11 ~ ITT i ::1 ~] 1~ PLANNING DIVISION February 3, 2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear members of the board, This letter is to voice our support for the proposed partial second story addition at 281 Karen Way. After reviewing the plans with the owner and visiting the property with the story poles in place, it is understandable why the owner would like to increase square footage to the property with a partial second story. The lot does not have adequate level area in the backyard to expand the house as a single story. The fact that this lot has a very steep hillside in rear yard and backs up to Bel Aire School would not be intruding on any privacy issues for a rear neighbor nor are any views being blocked by the second story. The proposed second story would have minimal impact for the side, front neighbors as the second story would not be blocking their views, and their properties have not become a “fishbowl” from this proposed second story. The design that the owner has created is within the height and square footage allotment per the Town’s requirements and has great curb appeal that keeps in line with the style of the neighborhood. We support the approval of the proposed second story at 281 Karen Way. Regards, Bill and Barb Powers 85 Harriet Way February 3, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Christopher Murphy Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:24 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:Letter in Support of 281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,  My wife and I, residents of the Bel Aire neighborhood and owners of 113 Blackfield, are writing in support of the  proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way for the upcoming DRB meeting.  We've seen the current home, neighbors' homes,  lot characteristics, remodel story poles, as well as the remodel designs.  We are excited at the continued investment in our neighborhood with a well‐designed remodel that fits our  neighborhood character and does not appear to impact the privacy of adjacent homes.  It's our understanding that the  design complies with all local requirements, including "second‐story additions shall be... permitted with increased  setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood (16‐52.020.H.3)."  We do not think our  neighborhood's character is defined by building height, but by the active care and improvement we put into our homes  and our community.    Best,  Chris & Linda Murphy   113 Blackfield Dr.  FEB 4, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 7:55 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: In support of the addition to 281 Karen Way From: Edward Leaman    Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2021 12:17 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: Edward Leaman   Subject: In support of the addition to 281 Karen Way  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  My name is Edward Leaman and I own my home at 350 Karen Way. I am writing to support Ms. Evers application to build a partial second floor on to her home. I walk past the story polls a couple of times every day, given COVID, with my dog. I also walk past other homes that have partial second floors. My fundamental feeling is that if the plans for 281 Karen Way fit within the requirements, and they either do or they don’t, then the issue to be decided is one of individual or group point-of-view. For me my home is a place of refuge and sanctuary. It has housed the people I love and it holds the treasures and memories of my life. It is not my or anyone else’s business what a home looks like to anyone else or as much as what happens inside a home, and I certainly wish to support anyone in our community who chooses to invest in their homes and by it contribute to our neighborhood, inspiring new generations of people to move in. If the plans submitted meet the legal requirements set out then we should not be judges on everything else from that point, and certainly not on the basis of aesthetics. It is people that make a neighborhood, not partial second floors. Some years ago there was a petition to prevent Kol Shofar building its new vision for a place of Jewish Community prayer and gathering. It was said it FEB 4,2021 2 would disturb the neighborhood, bringing unwanted traffic to the area. Signs popped up on lawns and letters placed in mail boxes. It felt and it was ugly. You had the good sense to move forward and no-one now remembers what the fuss was about. And the truth then was that every single day in a normal school year there was more traffic on Karen Way, and in front of 281 Karen Way, than at any time in the Kol Shofar annual calendar. If Ms. Evers wants to build the home that she would love we should all have the dignity, humility and grace to love her vision for her home and love her too. It’s 2021. Time to move forward. Thank you. Edward Leaman 350 Karen Way. FEB 5,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Stephanie Zaczek Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 10:02 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:Support of 281 Karen Way Remodel/Renovation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To: Tiburon Design Review Board  The purpose of this letter is to provide support for the renovation and remodel of 281 Karen  Way.  The design is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound construction, fitting well into the  neighborhood plan, while also enhancing property values of this and other adjacent homes. In  addition, the plan for the new home fits the particular topography of the lot, skillfully absorbing  the steep slope in the backyard, with the home's footprint and surrounding yard space. There  are multiple precedents for 2nd story remodels in this neighborhood.  We urge the Tiburon Planning Commission to vote in favor of this beautifully designed plan for  281 Karen Way.   Sincerely,   Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager  FEB 6,2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Feb. 7, 2021 Dear Board Members: This is a letter in support of Ms. Lisa Evers’ request to remodel her home and add a second story (281 Karen Way). After meeting with Ms. Evers and being apprised of her situation, we feel it is well within reason for her to want to build up. We understand there are other homes in the neighborhood that were remodeled with a second story, so it only seems fair that Ms. Evers should also be able to do so. I don’t believe that she is requesting anything out of the ordinary and it is well within her right to update her home. Best, Jeffrey and Colleen Chien 257 Karen Way FEB 7,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Amy Kaufman Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:30 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Subject:Letter of Support for Project at 281 Karen way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom It May Concern:   I have been living at 191 Blackfield Drive for the past seven‐plus years, right down the street from the proposed project.  I have taken a look at the poles and given that the house is backing up to a hill, I do not have any reason to think that the  second story addition will block anyone's views or light or impose on their neighbors in a significant way.  Since moving here, I have become actively involved in the neighborhood and have noticed that many folks who have  lived here for a long time wish to see minimal changes being made. I understand that historically Bel Aire has been a  neighborhood of mostly smaller, one‐story homes.  However, times have changed.  More families are moving into the  neighborhood and families are getting larger.  I know I came for the schools and love it here.  My house was expanded  right before we moved in ‐ all on one level and as big as they could have possibly gone ‐ 2000 square feet. With three  kids, it's not nearly enough space. We love it here, but it's not cheap.  At some point, my growing family will be forced  out of the neighborhood because we will need to seek more space. I would love for that not to be the case. We would  love to be able to build up and stay.  I have always thought that just because things have been a certain way for a long time is not sufficient reason for things  to never change.  I love this neighborhood and am thrilled when my neighbors take good care of their homes or decide  to renovate.  It makes our neighborhood even better.  If my neighbors at 281 are interested in investing in their home in  a way that minimally impacts their neighbors and serves to make our neighborhood more beautiful, I am fully  supportive.  I would love to see the precedent change in terms of allowing second story additions when appropriate.  Again, I think it  will only enhance our neighborhood and allow more families to be able to stay long‐term.  At a certain point, we have to  embrace change.    Respectfully,  Amy Kaufman  191 Blackfield Drive  FEB 8, 2021 Vasco Morais  Holly Kaiser  321 Karen Way  Tiburon, CA  94920  February 9, 2021  Samantha Bonifacio  Assistant Planner  Town of Tiburon  1505 Tiburon Boulevard,   Tiburon, CA 94920   Re: 281 Karen Way Project  The 281 Karen Way remodel seems to us to be consistent with that vision of measured, reasonable,  organic growth and we do not have any objection to the Lisa Evers’ remodel.  The house abuts the railroad  right‐of‐way, and we note that overall the mass of the remodeled house seems to be within reason and  consistent with the natural growth of the homes in our neighborhood, and not out of characteristic of the  designs for the neighborhood.  The remodel design is an addition of 930 sq. ft. total (888 sq. ft. living  space, plus 42 sq. ft. addition to garage), but only 600 sq. ft. of that is for the 2nd story addition, bringing  the total house to about 2,712 sq. ft. of living space (and 321 sq. ft. for the garage).  That seems very  reasonable to us.(Having said that, we also believe that the closer the neighbor to the project, that more  valuable the input as to any objection to the remodel characteristics.)  We do have a significant concern, however, as to the Town of Tiburon blanket policy statement in the  “Second Story Home Addition Fact Sheet”  that 2nd story homes are “strongly discouraged” in Bel Aire.  We  do not recall that issue coming to a vote for Bel Aire, and would seem to be an over simplification the Bel  Aire neighbor consensus position, and would like to set the record straight as to our position as to 2nd  stories in the neighborhood, at least as it relates to upper Karen Way, if not all of Karen Way.  Firstly, the Town statement is not accurate as there have been are a number of 2nd story additions in Bel  Aire, our neighborhood, many completed in recent years.  The carte blanche official Town of Tiburon  “strong discouragement” of 2nd stories ‐ which we are hearing about for the first time ‐ is problematic as  it is inconsistent with the position of a substantial portion of the Bel Aire community.  Having lived in the neighborhood for almost 30 years now, we recall a historical Bel Aire neighborhood  objection about 20 years ago to a 2nd story that was a complete teardown and proposed construction of  about a 4,000 sq. ft. 3‐story Mediterranean‐style home on Leland, sandwiched between two original 1,000  sq. ft. homes.  At that time, I believe that there was a consensus that the construction would have stuck  out like a sore thumb in terms of both size characteristics, and design, and neighbors were concerned of  Bel Aire following the “Belveron” development plan, where massive new construction or re‐modeled  homes structures, 3x or 4x the size of the neighboring original construction, were being permitted,  creating an eye‐sore of hodge‐podge development.  Our recollection of the majority view at the time was not an objection to 2nd stories per se, but that there  be some measured, reasonable, organic growth in the Bel Aire neighborhood, as part of the natural  evolution within Belaire to remodel to larger structures with 2nd stories.    FEB 9, 2021 I speak for a number of neighbors in Upper Karen Way, if not all (and have not heard any opposition to  the contrary) that we would like to set the record straight as to our position as to 2nd stories in the  neighborhood, at least as it relates to Upper Karen Way, that the “Second Story Home Addition Fact  Sheet”  that being restated and corrected as follows::  “Neighborhood  Pattern.  In  neighborhoods  consisting  of  predominately  one‐story  homes,  a  second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern  of the area.   In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East  neighborhood  are  made  up  almost  entirely  of  one‐story  dwellings.  Two‐story  projects  are  strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.”  As for the Bel Aire neighborhood, second story  remodel  projects  should  be  of  size  and  design  characteristics  consistent  with  the  natural  evolution of measured, reasonable, organic growth in the Bel Aire neighborhood to larger  structures with 2nd stories. To retard natural growth by a top‐down policy statement from the Town of Tiburon would seem to be  fraught with the potential for a gross misunderstanding of the position of a substantial number of Bel Aire  residents, and an undue restriction and limitation on our home ownership, development, and values in  our neighborhood.  Thank you,  Vasco Morais  Holly Kaiser  321 Karen Way  Tiburon, CA  94920    1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Josiane Sadoun Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:53 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Subject:281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hello, I have lived at 342 Karen Way for almost 42 years. I am happy that Lisa Evers is trying to improve the neighborhood. In driving by her property, I see it is against the hill in the back, so it would not affect the neighborhood, I think it would improve it. There are a few houses with partial second floors and they look nice. I am in support of this remodel and hope you will approve her request. It can only improve the neighborhood. Thank you. Kindly, Josiane Sadoun 342 Karen Way FEB 9, 2021 February 9, 2021  Town of Tiburon  Planning Division  Samantha Bonifacio,  Assistant Planner  RE:  In support of proposed remodel of 281 Karen Way  Dear Ms. Bonifacio,  I live at 346 Karen Way.  I bought my home approximately 19 years ago as a single  mother.  My youngest daughter attended the Reed District Schools from first  grade through middle school.  I write in support of Lisa Evers’ proposed plan to  add a partial second story to her home.    I looked at the drawings and the story poles and I believe that her remodel is  attractive and consistent with the character of the neighborhood.  In addition, I  looked at the “Second Story Home Additions Factors to Consider.”  The first factor  reads as follows:  Neighborhood pattern.  In neighborhoods consisting of predominantly one‐story homes, a second story is usually considered to be inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area.  In particular, the Bel Aire neighborhood and the interior portion of the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one‐story dwellings.  Two‐story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” In the first instance, the language of this factor says that “a second story is usually  considered to be inconsistent.” It does not say “always.”  I would argue that a  “factor” that banned second stories completely would constitute a “taking” based  on the fact that not all lots are the same and therefore each should be considered  on a case by case basis.  As applied however, it seems that those that oppose the  remodel assume that this factor is a blanket prohibition to be applied in  perpetuity.  It is not.  FEB 9,2021 In this case, Ms. Evers’ property backs onto a hillside that abuts Bel Aire School.   Her lot is much smaller and distinctly different from the lots on Claire Way and  the houses built around them on Cecilia, Leland, Karen and Blackfield.  I took the  time this past Sunday to drive through Belveron East and West.  There are second  stories in both of these neighborhoods. There are even second stories on homes  built on the Lagoon.  In addition, there are already partial second stories in Bel  Aire.      The second factor reads as follows:     Views.  Residents cherish their views in Tiburon.  It doesn’t take much for a  new house or building addition to block views of the Golden Gate Bridge, San  Francisco, the bay, or other landmark views.  A second story can often  diminish precious views from nearby homes.  In such cases, neighbors will  likely object to the project and it is unlikely to be approved through the  Design Review process.    Such views are not at issue in this proposed remodel.  Again, Ms. Evers’ property  backs onto a hillside.  There are no views to be had.  One door down from Ms.  Evers’ home is a long concrete driveway that goes up a hill to Bel Aire School.  In  no way is this driveway an attractive view.      The third factor reads as follows:     Privacy.  A second story can cause privacy impacts for adjacent homes by  creating unwanted viewpoints from windows or decks that would allow  someone to look into the yards or private spaces of their neighbors.  These  privacy‐invading elements of new second story projects should be identified  and avoided early in the design phase.    The homes built on the portion of Karen Way, where Ms. Evers’ property is  situated, do not have privacy in the back of their lots.  Bel Aire School is above  and behind the homes; as is the strip of land where the trains used to run.  This  area is accessible and children play there.  In addition, the house located to the  left of Ms. Evers’ home is flanked by the driveway leading up to Bel Aire School.  I  often walk up that driveway and can look directly into that home.          The fourth factor reads as follows:     Sunlight and Shade.  The additional building height created by a second story  can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in  nearby yards.      Ms. Evers and her adjacent property owners are very fortunate to enjoy direct  sunlight because of their orientation.  The front of those homes get sunlight as  long as the sun is up.      The fifth factor reads as follows:     Mass and bulk.  A second story can often loom over a one‐story home or a  downhill house.  Two‐story projects should be designed and articulated to  avoid large, uninterrupted spaces that would appear massive from nearby  properties.     Ms. Evers’ property is uniquely situated in that it is one door up from a massive  driveway that was the former location of a railway berm.  In addition, Bel Aire  School is located right above and behind it.  Looking at the height of the story  poles, the proposed partial second story is consistent with other second stories in  the neighborhood.  The area of the home is also consistent with other homes in  the neighborhood.     The sixth and final factor reads as follows:     Lot Characteristics.  The size and physical characteristics of a property can  make it difficult to approve a second story.  A steep lot could make a two‐ story home look even larger when viewed from below, and a two‐story home  on a flat lot could tower over its one‐story neighbors.      Ms. Evers’ proposed plan is not to build on a steep lot but on a flat lot that backs  onto a hillside.  For all of the reasons previously stated, the size and unique  characteristics of Ms. Evers’ property, as well as its location, make it the perfect  parcel for approving her request to remodel her home with a partial second story.   I whole heartily support Ms. Evers’ plan to create her forever home.  Her home  will be a beautiful addition that will enhance the character of our neighborhood.   As a property owner, I appreciate the care and consideration that Ms. Evers put  into her proposed plan to remodel her home.  I respectfully request that the  Design Review Board approve Ms. Evers’ project without modification.      Sincerely,    Leonor Noguez  346 Karen Way          Kris, Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:07 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way Remodel l~©I T L.; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Design Review Board, Thank you for soliciting input on the remodel at 281 Karen Way. We have been in the Bel Aire neighborhood for more than 15 years and live at 22 Claire Way. During our time here, we've seen several attempts to build 2nd stories and to extend the allowable building height significantly beyond what fits with the character of the neighborhood. While we understand there have been a few exceptions allowed, the proposal at 281 Karen far exceeds them, and would set a bad precedent that undermines the character of the Bel Aire neighborhood. Many of the past requests for much higher rooflines were on our street -in the end compromises were reached that kept the character of the neighborhood in tact, while allowing some expansion of the house. We urge the Design Review Board to strongly consider the risk in setting a precedent, and hope that the owners of 281 Karen can come up with a scaled back design which allows them to expand, but does not create a new "high water" (roofline) mark in the neighborhood to be exploited by future remodelers and developers. Best regards, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way 1 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:58 PM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way design opposition letter Tiburon Design Review Board final copy.docx PLANNING DIVISION CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, Please accept this attachment as part of the opposition to 281 Karen Way's design plans. I plan to send a standard letter, knowing that Covid may delay its opening, so better to send them both. Sincerely, Pru Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon, CA 94920 1 Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 January 24,2021 Dear Design Review Board, I am a sixty-year Bel Aire resident and my family owns two properties near the proposed second story, 160 Leland Way, and 251 Karen Way. Please let this letter stand as DOUBLE NEGATIVE COMMENTS about the 281 Karen Way story poles, coming from a neighbor who did not check with other neighbors, and seems to think she can bulldoze an ugly design through the Board. I am also speaking for three other Bel Aire residents who, like me, despise this design and are not able to ZOOM their opposition for this 2,600 foot monster or in email. California law requires cars to stop at the stop sign intersection between Karen Way and Leland Way, facing 281 Karen Way. Can't miss 281. Those skyscraper poles look ghastly! The current design plan insults surrounding neighbors, does not fit the neighborhood and looks really, really bad. The house plan needs to be in a neighborhood that wants the look of a Texas TownHouse apartment complex, but definitely NOT in Bel Aire, Tiburon. Bel Aire neighbors who care about their neighbors have remodeled gorgeous homes that extend, but NOT UP LIKE THAT, no matter what their yard's configuration may be. Neighbors have attended Design Review Board meetings more than once, and together we strive to maintain architectural character around us. The Design Board understands our voiced concerns, and in the past has responded by not allowing 600 foot second stories. We have been successful for 60 years to keep the low key character, and our neighborhood still has a rare, unified charm. We were instructed by Board member, Miles Berger, to "GO STEALTH" in our designs, especially when the design moderately goes up, adhering to the consistency of a mid-century neighborhood. We listen and respect echoes stealth designs within the neighborhood. Lisa Evers and architect Thayer ignore Bel Aire's long standing village culture, different from other Tiburon neighborhoods. We purposefully maintain low profile homes on wide, tree lined streets. Please, DO NOT approve this design. Sincerely, Pru Starr Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Monday, January 25, 2021 10:06 PM Kris Bernard 181 Karen Way addition comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, My name is David Schneider and I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood at 71 Claire Way. I would like to voice my opposition to the second story requested by the owner of 181 Karen Way. I am primarily opposed to second stories in our neighborhood because they are inconsistent with our neighborhood pattern and almost always impact some neighbors privacy. I also believe that many property values will decrease, not increase, if second stories are allowed because of the impact to privacy and the change to the neighborhood development pattern which will not be attractive. I am in full support of remodels and additions in our neighborhood, but not second stories. Thanks for your time and reading this email. Best, David 1505 Tiburon Ooulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Jan unry 2 3, 2021 Dear-Design Review Board, PLANNlNG DiVISION My name is Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, west of the story poles at 281 Karen Way. I have lived in Bel Aire for fifty years. I definitely oppose 281 Karen design, and I live next door to this nightmare. The biggest negative is that my main bathroom is in front of the house. The current two-story plan is right where my bathroom is located, and I would lose privacy, sunlight, the sky and hillside view from my bathroom window. I would have to live with closed shades for the rest of my life to maintain privacy. Evers' one-story part of her extension plan is the length of my existing extension, and because of the roof line, 281 Karen Way1 s new design will entirely block out all morning sun from my house. I will be looking at the full side of Evers' house which will block out all the hillside and everything else. This design stands out like a sore thumb and doesn't belong in Bel Aire. This current plan is intolerable. No one should lose everything because of someone else's remodel. Evers does not demonstrate neighborly respect for me. She acts like she cares to my face, but , do not trust her. The only way Evers can accommodate me is to redesign her plans. Please do not approve this design! Sincerely, ~~'tl/Jl~ Eileen McHale 279 Karen Way Tiburon, CA. 94920 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 10:09 AM Kris Bernard 281 Karen Way Proposed Renovation C/l.UTION: This email originated from outside of the organizatfon. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Kris, Hello, I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood and a neighbor recommended I send feedback regarding the proposed addition of 281 Karen Way to you for the Design Review Board's consideration. To the Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, While on my daily walk with my dog around the neighborhood a few days ago, I was surprised to see the extremely tall story poles erected at 281 Karen Way. After learning more about the proposed addition and renovation, I feel that the addition would be inconsistent with the established Bel Aire neighborhood pattern of development. The proposed second floor addition appears massive from street view and will tower over its neighbors, particularly 279 Karen Way. I urge you to deny the addition as proposed so that the homeowner may incorporate feedback from neighbors and the town to find an alternative solution that is more in line with the development pattern of the neighborhood. Please also consider the sunlight, shade and privacy impacts of the immediate neighbors as a result of the proposed second story. My home,127 Leland Way is next door to a partial second story addition, 133 Leland Way. This addition completed prior purchasing my home, definitely impacts the shade and sunlight on that side of my property. When I look out my kitchen window, my view largely consists of the added height of the neighbor's exterior wall. Having such a large structure in such close proximity to my house would greatly impact our privacy if the addition had windows facing my home. Bel Aire is a lovely close knit community largely because we are all living together in such close proximity. My husband and I purchased our Bel Aire home in 2014 and completed our renovation and addition in 2016. Prior to renovating, we walked around the neighborhood with our plans in hand and sought out feedback from many neighbors. We have found our neighbors likewise courteous and thoughtful about advising and working with us prior to making any substantive changes to their properties that may affect us. These types of interactions contribute to the overall success of the neighborhood. Given the constraints and close proximity of the homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood, the addition and remodel at 281 Karen Way is not appropriate and should not be approved as is. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Emilie Rosales Trimble 127 Leland Way Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:48 AM Kris Bernard Subject: Fwd: Remodel 281 Karen ~~©~TIWs~ fill JAN 2 6 2021 ~~ PLANNING OIVl~I CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded mess.age: From: Glennis FitzGerald <gf418284@gmail.com> Date: January 26, 2021 at 10:39:52 AM PST To: sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org Subject: Remodel 281 Karen Design Review Board Members My name is Glennis FitzGerald. I have been a Bel Aire resident for 50 years. My home is 166 Leland Way, and I can clearly see 281 Karen Way, and the extremely tall story poles from my house. I am adamantly opposed to this remodel as it is inconsistent with our neighborhood r:iatte__r-_ri, and will greatly impact some neighbors light and privacy. While there have been many tasteful remodels, many of which are still one story, this plan is definitely not one of them! I urge you not to approve this remodel design. Sincerely, Glennis FitzGerald 166 Leland Way Tiburon Sent from my iPad 1 Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2: 13 PM Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard; lstfani@townoftiburon.org oppose remodel of 281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Kris, My name is Barbara Schneider and my husband & I live at 94 Claire Way in the Bel Aire neighborhood. We strongly oppose the (2) story addition to 281 Karen Way. Being raised at 90 Claire Way (next door to my house), it has been a perfect family home to grow up in. The privacy that all the houses has given to each other has been extremely important. Over the years, as new home owners have come in & wanted to build 2 story homes, we have all come together in this neighborhood to oppose them for a few reasons, one would be a lack of major privacy. We all greatly appreciate having privacy in our yards & inside our homes while living so close together. Therefore, in the past, the new neighbors have agreed to comply & build their roof level slightly higher with additions in the back. This has proved to work quite well. The second & third reason would be that all the remainder neighborhood homes would look very much out of place and with compromising the privacy would definitely go down in value. Thank you very much for your time in reading our concerns. Barbara Schneider Sent from Outlook Kris Bernard From: Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 2:20 PM Kris Bernard We oppose the remodel of 281 Karen Way. PLANNING DiVISIOf\ CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Design Review Board Members, My husband Werner & I have lived at 90 Claire Way since 1971. We were very disappointed to see the story poles set up as a second story at 281 Karen Way. Over these many years, it has been understood by the residences that second stories will take away the precious privacy we have since our homes are very close together. The residences in this little community have instead opted to build out to the back which has proven to be successful & tasteful. Please consider all of our oppositions, as this will truly make a negative impact to our neighborhood. Sincerely, Wilma & Werner Schneider Sent from Outlook 1 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 9:41 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 181 Karen Way addition comments From: David Schneider <schneid_66@yahoo.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 3:49 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Re: 181 Karen Way addition comments  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Kris, I got the house number wrong. I am referring to 281 Karen Way. Thanks, David On Monday, January 25, 2021, 10:06:23 PM PST, David Schneider <schneid_66@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Kris, My name is David Schneider and I live in the Bel Aire neighborhood at 71 Claire Way. I would like to voice my opposition to the second story requested by the owner of 181 Karen Way. I am primarily opposed to second stories in our neighborhood because they are inconsistent with our neighborhood pattern and almost always impact some neighbors privacy. I also believe that many property values will decrease, not increase, if second stories are allowed because of the impact to privacy and the change to the neighborhood development pattern which will not be attractive. I am in full support of remodels and additions in our neighborhood, but not second stories. Thanks for your time and reading this email. Best, David January 27, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 12:01 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: 281 Karen Way Remodel From: Hedieh Doffo   Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:21 AM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: Luis Doffo   Subject: RE: 281 Karen Way Remodel  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom It May Concern, I am a resident at 42 Claire Way in the Bel Aire Estates neighborhood, and I am writing this email to strongly oppose the proposed two-story building plan at 281 Karen Way. Bel Aire Estates has always been zoned for single story homes which makes this neighborhood unique - and one of the reasons we purchased (and remodeled), our home here in 2008. While there are some homes with loft style second stories, none are full second story additions (as this particular project calls for). This plan, as proposed, will set precedence for other large projects which will ultimately change the look and feel of the neighborhood and this community. I appreciate your attention to this matter. King Regards, Hedi Doffo January 27, 2021 ~ ~ © r 11 •tJ It: : ~I ~ij 10 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:05 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Proposed remodel, 281 Karen Way, Bel-Aire Estates, Tiburon From: Lynn Marcotte  Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 6:03 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Cc: C. Barnes <cbarnez@gmail.com>  Subject: Proposed remodel, 281 Karen Way, Bel‐Aire Estates, Tiburon  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Ms. Bernard, and Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, I am writing to you to object to the plans for remodel at 281 Karen Way, Bel Aire, Tiburon. I am the current homeowner at 82 Claire Way, Bel-Aire Estates, Tiburon. The established neighborhood construction and renovation pattern here in Bel Aire is that of single story homes. While I support thoughtful remodels and additions in general, I think the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way, if approved, will disrupt and harm the aesthetic harmony and character of this neighborhood, pushing it beyond what is recognizable as a Bel Aire home and property. Such dramatic changes are not beneficial to the neighborhood because they invite further changes that others will surely seek, leading to an escalation in expectations for remodels that will further change the character of this neighborhood. For example, allowing this second story change will allow others to argue for second story renovations in this, our neighborhood of single story homes. This change and other second-story changes would make Bel-Aire unrecognizable. More well- considered alternatives to this remodel are available to the homeowner at 281 Karen Way. I ask that she reconsider her current proposal. The reason I, and most of my neighbors, bought homes in this neighborhood was because of its modest charm. Most of us allow these homes to define us as much as we define them. But such renovations as the one proposed at 281 Karen Way would make that home and its lot significantly different from the existing homes, thereby imposing an incongruity in the Bel Aire neighborhood. This remodel would turn a Bel-Aire home into something it was never intended to be and into something that simply does not fit. Consequently, I am against this remodel. I support the owner's right to remodel her home and I may be supportive of a project that coheres more closely with the original architectural charm and harmony of this neighborhood. I think it's important that we not lose sight of the charm that drew us to this neighborhood, lest we find it becoming less and less charming with each new and increasingly imposing structure. I ask the Design Review Board to reject this plan, and I ask this homeowner to please consider scaling this project down, in order to make it more compatible with our neighborhood, especially the second story height of the proposed new remodel. Thank you, Lynn Marcotte 82 Claire Way Tiburon January 27, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION January 28, 2021 From: Charles & Mary Barnes 278 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Design Review Board, This letter is in regards to: 281 KAREN WAY: Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; Lisa Evers Owner VAR2020-20 We do not support the current proposed design. We are looking at the story poles and design plans for this proposed remodel/addition almost directly across the street from our home. Neither the owner or architect reached out to review the design with us or neighbors for input prior to submitting the remodel/addition request to the Town of Tiburon and erecting story poles. I discussed our concerns specifically about second floor living space additions with the owner and asked if she had seen the Town of Tiburon “Second Story Home Additions – Factors To Consider” document posted on the Town of Tiburon website. It specifically calls out Bel Aire in the “Neighborhood pattern” section. https://www.townoftiburon.org/156/Helpful-Forms- Documents. She said she had seen the document. I indicated our opposition to the second story, with 600 sq ft of living space, because it would not fit with the neighborhood pattern. The proposed design has not been changed. The same owner had a one story remodel/addition approved in 2018 (DR2018-091) for 2,400 sq ft with 6 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. I'm not sure why this approved plan footprint, updated with the owners current personal situation, wasn't used as a basis for the new proposal. They are 100% different. We warmly welcome a remodel/addition to the dwelling that attempts to work within the lot constraints, neighbor constraints, and Bel Aire and Town of Tiburon design constraints. There are many large home remodel/additions that have been done successfully in the Bel Aire neighborhood. On Karen Way within a block of this proposal there are homes at 275, 283, 301, 313, 317, 321, 325 that have all been extensively expanded on similar type lots with similar hillside constraints behind them. These owners worked with the constraints and do not have second floor living space. There are many varying styles and designs on upper Karen; style is not the constraint. The street look and feel is great. The owner has communicated to the neighborhood that there are other partial second stories January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION at 258, 318, 326 and 354 Karen Way to support justifying the proposed design for adding a second floor living space. Three of the four identified with second floors have barely visible second floors from the street and were done when this area was a part of the county, not the Town of Tiburon. None of these houses look anything like the second floor design proposal for 281 Karen Way. We urge the Town Planner and Design Review members view the homes on Karen mentioned above and the story poles and design documents for the proposed 281 Karen Way design in person from the sidewalk and/or street prior to Design Review. There is a stark difference. We do not support the current proposed design, particularly the intrusive 600 sq ft second floor living space that appears very forward and massive. It will block a large amount of light and view of the next door neighbor to the west. There is even a variance request in the submitted design to move house even closer to the neighbor to the west. Though a small variance, again the neighbor was not consulted or notified, and it seems to be buried in the fine print in the plans. This design will also overlook our side yard which is unusual in Bel Aire. Although small we treasure and use it. After the leaves fall off of our front yard Japanese maples the proposed second floor Rec room on the second floor will look down into our front bedrooms. The Town of Tiburon “Second Story Home Additions – Factors To Consider” were completely ignored with this design. Neighbors were not consulted in advance. Design factors were ignored. We strongly welcome and support remodels/additions in Bel Aire. Not this proposed design. Approval of the proposed design as is will also start a cascade of second story addition proposals all across Bel Aire. Many of us moved here, stayed here and love Bel Aire because of its openess without a wall of second stories. If this design is approved it would be difficult for the Design Review Board to deny future intrusive second floor living space designs that go against neighborhood patterns without threat of legal action. Thank you, Charles and Mary Barnes To design review From Cynthia Perry and Bruce Sievers 1/28/21 We are writing to you about the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way. When I (Cynthia) walked past the story poles recently I was shocked and frankly puzzled. This proposed house is very much outside the character of this neighborhood and affects everyone who lives in Bel Air, not just those within 300 feet. This is so outside the parameters of the general plan for this area that I wondered if it is a stalking horse for other projects. It looms above the surrounding houses and would place the neighbors in the awkward position of having to complain and take action. Our houses are only 12 feet apart and are only 6 feet from the property line. A two story house next door has a huge impact no matter how clever the design. A two story house on each side would leave one a hapless homeowner living in a canyon. The approval of a two story house in this neighborhood would also be a sign to others that this sort of construction is acceptable here. It is not. My husband and I have lived at 79 Claire Way for nearly 30 years. I am the last elected president of the now inactive Homeowners Association. Over that time I have been part of a large group of neighbors who have been active in attempting to educate everyone about the general plan and ordinance that was originally intended to prevent two story houses from being built in this neighborhood. New people move in and often do not understand the reason for maintaining the character of a neighborhood and instead are determined to build a two story house here in spite of neighbors’ objections. We have taken surveys of every homeowner by canvassing the neighborhood. We have had many meetings and written many letters to the design review and planning committees and staffs over the years. We have met with the people who want two stories and heard their arguments. We have seen “stealth” two stories being built, circumventing the planning committee and the design review committee and the intention of the general plan. One problem that we would like addressed is that a 30 foot house is too high to begin with and invites this kind of circumvention. Here is what we have found out over the years: 1.Everyone wants to see the houses in Bel Air expanded, improved and beautified.2.Many homeowners have beautifully expanded their houses to four bedrooms and threebaths without going up.3.People who want to expand up are apparently confused or they are told that the 30 foot height limit is an indication that they can have a second story. The planning staff oftentries to tell them that a two story will not be accepted but they design it that way anyway.When they are thwarted they often get angry at their neighbors and lash out inunfortunate ways.4.The immediate neighbors are often left to incur expenses and invest months of their time to fighting a looming presence next door to them. It is not fair to them. In one instance January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION the neighborhood took up a collection to help a woman on Leland with the expense she incurred. 5. People who say they don’t care what happens on the next street often care very much when there is a two story proposal next door. 6. It is not fair for one homeowner to increase the value of their house at the expense of the value of the houses near them. 7. People who want a two story house make the same arguments every time. They claim it will not have much impact on the houses nearby. We ask that you stand in the back and front yards of the neighbors near by and imagine what loss those people will face. 8. Sometimes the homeowner who is proposing the two story house tell the planners and the design committee that the side facing the next door neighbor will have no windows so nobody can look into their house or garden. This is terrible for two reasons. One, there can and often is an window added later. Maybe by a future homeowner. Two, this makes the neighbors face a tall, blank wall. And of it happens on both sides of them they are totally blocked in. 9. Immediate neighbors I have spoken with over the years are often intimidated, bullied, shy, elderly or preoccupied with personal tragedy and even though they are upset that there will be this looming house next door, don’t have it in them to fight a neighbor with a lot of money or a lawyer. It’s unfair that happens over and over again. I urge you to make it clear any homeowner who hopes to construct a two story house here that they and their architect must explore alternative expansion designs. Everyone thinks they are special and that their arguments are special and that they have special reasons to obtain a variance regardless of the impact on the character of this neighborhood. This puts a terrible burden on individuals who will bear the permanent negative consequence of the new building, with the loss of light, air, privacy and views. I urge you to visit the neighbors surrounding the house at 281 Karen and personally see what they face. Please feel free to call me. Cynthia Perry and Bruce Sievers 79 Claire way 415-298-2633 Cynthiasps@gmail.com 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:John Leszczynski Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2021 10:01 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Having a second story myself, approved in 2006, I hope that you approve Ms. Evers design in its entirety.  She's not asking for any variances, especially considering the limited room on the property,  not the least of  which includes the RR berm in her backyard!  Great design given all her constraints.  We need more such  innovative designs in BelAire, moving us out of 1953.   As far as the chief complainant across the street, I wonder how he can even see her property most of  the year, as he's got all that vegetation and a permanently installed truck in his front yard!  Given the   town's enhanced awareness of fire hazards on residential property.....well, maybe the fire safety marshall  should have a look at his!  Just sayin'! .   Best regards,  John Leszczynski  318 Karen Way.   January 28, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lara Conte Sent:Sunday, January 31, 2021 7:43 PM To:Kris Bernard; Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:re: 281 Karen Way letter of support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  1.31.21  Letter for 281 Karen Way  We are writing to state our support for the proposed 2nd story at 281 Karen Way.  While we understand that 2nd stories  are discouraged in the neighborhood and we do not think they are appropriate in many situations, we think that the  specifics of this lot and its siting on the north side of Karen Way make it a house where a partial second story makes  sense. We also do not fear this approval would open the floodgates for 2nd stories, as the design review board carefully  reviews each application on a case‐by‐case basis.  This lot has minimal level area due to the steep rear yard hillside that backs up to Bel Aire School, making expanding the  house on one level into the backyard less desirable.  In normal years, schoolkids wait for the bus daily all over the  homeowner’s front lawn, making expanding far forward undesirable as well. There is no rear yard neighbor who would  have privacy impacts as the rear yard “neighbor” is Bel Aire School. The house is facing two driveways across the street  with minimal privacy concerns.  While one house across the street does have windows fronting Karen Way, heavy  landscaping provides screening in both directions.  Also, given the north side of Karen Way is higher than the south side,  there is already a view downward across the street and the partial 2nd story does not create more of a privacy intrusion  than already exists. There is no protected view that is being blocked by the partial 2nd story.  The homeowner has pulled the partial second story inward from the side setbacks in order to reduce square footage and  massing upstairs and minimize the impact to the neighbors on either side.  At the same time, as the adjacent residences  are directly next door and the most affected, should they have privacy concerns, it is important to hear their  comments.  There could be some mitigating steps taken that could minimize privacy issues (minimizing windows facing  east/west, raising windowsills above eye level, reducing deck area, or minimizing outdoor lights on upper story).   We think that it is rational to either approve this application or to find a pathway toward approving it.  Fred & Lara Conte  258 Karen Way   Sent from Mail for Windows 10  February 1, 2021 ~ ~ © 1 11 ~ ITT i ::1 ~] 1~ PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 8:21 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Remodel project at 181 Karen Way, Tiburon ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Yahoo <cillawanat@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 8:18 AM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Fwd: Remodel project at 181 Karen Way, Tiburon   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  For the attention of Kris Bernard concerning the above mentioned project.  My name is Priscilla Wanat , owner/resident 86 Claire Way, Tiburon.  I have received a letter with an elevation of the proposed development and I have visited the site and spoken with the  owner, Lisa Evers.  My first impression of the elevation with its peaked roof is that the building is too tall for our neighbourhood. On seeing  the house with story poles, that impression is reinforced 100%.  It looks quite imposing, overbearing.  When I spoke about this to Lisa she drew comparisons with other upgraded houses in the neighbourhood on the  grounds of square footage, whereas the problem for me is the height and bulk, not only in relation to the nearby  housing but to the entire neighbourhood.  There are examples of second story additions which succeed in fitting into the neighbourhood character, one just 2  doors away on Karen Drive.  There is the further concern that residents have spent considerable, to put it mildly, time and energy to maintain our  current pleasant environment and  a unsympathetic development, such as the proposed, would set a most unwelcome  precedent.  Thanking you for your attention.  Priscilla Wanat  priscillawanat@gmail.com  cillaaparis@gmail.com  415‐381‐4846  415‐342‐1479 (cell)  33(0)142931967 (Paris)  February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Monday, February 1, 2021 8:26 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Current Proposal for 281 Karen Way Attachments:thumbnail (1).jpg; thumbnail.jpg; thumbnail (2).jpg From: Jill Sperber <jillsperber@yahoo.com>   Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 4:51 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Current Proposal for 281 Karen Way  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Re Public Comment on Remodel of 281 Karen Way Date of hearing: February 18,2021 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Meeting To the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board, Please accept this comment for consideration. I would like to acknowledge the owner's openness for feedback from the neighbors' perspectives. I reside at 171 Leland Way, located on the southwest corner of Leland and Karen. Our lot's north side sits directly across from 281 Karen Way. This is the first time (since May 1994) that I have felt compelled to provide my view point to the Board on a prospective remodel. I enjoy a remodeled home, appreciate the completed remodels of my neighbors, and support others who are planning or hoping to remodel. I am in support of the owner of 281 Karen to convert the currently unsustainable property into her "forever" home. Also we understand 281 Karen has special challenges in the back yard (e.g., a steep embankment) and, like all other non-corner homes, proximity to the backyards of lateral neighbors. I believe the owner has made good faith efforts to resolve those challenges with the current plan. In considering the Town's Second Story Home Addition Factors ("Factors"), the current proposal for 281 Karen gives me pause as follows: > Neighborhood pattern - "Two story projects are strongly discouraged [in neighborhoods consisting of predominately one-story homes]." The current plan would present an anomaly, a proposed addition to 2,100 sq. ft. proposed on the ground floor. Approval of same would be precedent-changing. The legacy "watchtowers" on a handful of lots appear to be smaller than 600 sq. ft. and are set off from the street often behind the home or garage. One tall home nearby features high loft space with windows, but is not truly a proper second "floor" and overlooks the T section of a street, as opposed to facing other lots directly. February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 2 > Mass and bulk / Lot Characteristics - Per the Factors, second stories should avoid large spaces "that would appear massive from other properties." "....[A] two story home on a flat lot could tower over one- story neighbors.:" In comparison with neighboring homes, the proposed design portends, at least to me, a strong and not subtle street presence. Photos (attached) show the view of 281 Karen from my home's north facing bedroom. Although 281 Karen's 2nd floor rec room would not necessarily encroach on my view or privacy, we will lose some degree of open space feeling on Karen Way. A second level rooftop line would be at eye level with the top of the hillside embankment, currently seen from Karen Way. From our northside bedroom, we would essentially only be able to see a 2 story wall of house. It is my sincere hope that 281 Karen's team can work with the Town's Planning Division staff to come up with alternative design solutions that deliver for the owner while being in sync with the established neighborhood character. Sincerely, Jill Sperber 171 Leland Way Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 January 31, 2021 File DR2020-088/VAR2020-020 Dear Members of the Tiburon Design Review Board, I am writing to express my concern about the remodel plans for the house at 281 Karen Way. The design is ostentatious due to its second story that looms over both neighbors’ homes like a watch tower with a clear view into their yards. For the rest of us, the excessively high addition is made even worse by virtue of the fact it spans almost the entire width of the street-facing wall. If approved, this house would visually detract from the low profile community of Bel Aire, and open the flood gates for more new buyers to disregard the established development pattern. In the 66 years that my family has lived in this neighborhood, we have seen many tastefully completed remodels. I don’t object to more vaulted ceilings, but second stories are a bridge too far. I fully support the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department’s fact sheet regarding second story homes. I urge you not to make an exception in this case. More than ever before the neighborhood houses are being purchased by people who are not satisfied to work within these guidelines and these battles are happening more frequently. Sincerely, Tamara Sweger 10 Claire Way February 1, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Rich Cellini Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:17 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Remodel... Attachments:image001 copy.tiff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,   We're writing in regard to the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way.  As a home owner in Bel Aire since 2004 we have  witnessed several of these two story proposals submitted to the Design Review Board, and thankfully through the years  they have been denied.  The regulations in the neighborhood are clear, and anyone who wishes to build a two story  home can do so in several nearby neighborhoods, but not in this one.  According to the letter distributed by the owner  of 281 Karen she has been in this neighborhood for well over a decade and therefore she knows what’s acceptable and  what is not with regard to second story additions.  We are 100% against the two story proposal and the impact it will  have on the neighborhood as a whole.  If it’s allowed for one house, it should be allowed for, all and that is not  something we would like to see in Bel Aire.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.  Thank you,  Rich & Christine Cellini  46 Claire Way  Tiburon  ___________________________ Rich Cellini, Ph.D. Professor Sport Management Program University of San Francisco February 3, 2021 ~~©~O~[g[~ ~ ,~ PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Mindy Canter Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:59 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Cc:Kris Bernard Subject:Proposed 2nd Story Addition 281 Karen Wy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Design Review Board:   As former President of the Bel Aire Homeowners Association, Chair, Tiburon Parks and Open Space Commission (15  years), and Bel Aire homeowner (30+ years), I am opposed to the proposed second‐story addition at 281 Karen Way.  According to the Design Review Guidelines and Policies, the proposed 2 story addition at 281 Karen Way has too many  negative impacts to be considered, much less approved.  Below are Tiburon’s Design Review Guidelines and Policies for two‐story additions. The points stated below clearly  outline the negative impacts this proposed addition will have on the neighborhood.  1.Neighborhood Pattern. “In neighborhoods consisting of predominately one‐story homes, a second story is considered inconsistent with the established development pattern  of the area, in particular Bel Aire neighborhood and the Belveron East neighborhood are made up almost entirely of one‐story dwellings. Two‐story projects are strongly discouraged in these neighborhoods.” 2.Views. Residents cherish their views and want to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. 3.Privacy.  Second‐story additions cause privacy impacts to adjacent houses by creating unwanted viewpoints from windows and decks that would allow someone to look into  the yards or private spaces of their neighbors.  4.Sunlight and Shade. The additional building height created by a second‐story can block sunlight into a neighbor’s home or create too much shade in nearby yards. 5.Mass and Bulk. A second story will loom over a one‐story home.  A second story addition would create large, uninterrupted spaces that would appear massive from nearby                 properties. 6.Lot Characteristics. The size and physical characteristics can make it difficult to approve a second‐story. A steep lot could make a two‐story home look even larger when viewed from below, and a two‐story on a flat lot could tower over its one‐story neighbors. I hope you deny this proposal for a second‐story addition.  Yours truly,  Mindy Canter  February 2, 2021 ~ ~ © ~, il ~ [g r~I' ~ !0 Pl.ANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:brian brown Sent:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:47 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way , Tiburon CA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To Whom it May Concern,   I have lived in Bel Aire neighborhood for 30+ years.  Currently, my family own 2 houses in the neighborhood.  1 house on  Karen Way, and 1 house on Leland Way.  I 100% strictly oppose the second story at 281 Karen Way, Tiburon, CA 94920.    I won’t mince words, it’s not in keeping with the charm of the neighborhood.   In fact the plans look ridiculous for this  neighborhood.  If the owner wants more space and a 2 story house Bel Aire is not the place for them.  There are plenty  of other houses for sale in the world that will allow them enough room to do what they want.    There are many houses in the neighborhood who have expanded their footprint significantly while respecting the no 2nd  story wishes of their neighbors.     This proposed remodel is a highly invasive and grossly oversized for the lot size.  This will set a precedent that will  ultimately ruin the charm of the neighborhood.    We don’t want it , repeat don’t want it thank you .    Respectfully,  Brian Brown  35 year resident of Bel Aire  Get Outlook for iOS  February 2, 2021 PLANNING DIVISION 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Kris Bernard Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:31 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:FW: Re.281 Karen Way remodel From: Bjorn Hermanson    Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2021 4:27 PM  To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>  Subject: Re.281 Karen Way remodel  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Kris, We are writing this in opposition to the proposed remodel. This project is a "de'ja`-vu" of the proposal for 124 Leland Way 20 odd years ago. The arguments are the same this time. This a remodel, which is out of character for the Bel-Aire neighbourhood. We believe our lots are too small to accommodate two story structures. There are established guidelines by the Town of Tiburon for home additions in various neighbourhoods, like Bel-Aire, where second stories are discouraged to preserve the character of the area. The owner of 281 Karen and her architect have obviously disregarded this, without thought how it will affect the neighbours and the area in general. We urge you to turn down the remodel proposal in its present form. Thank You. Respectfully, Helena and Bjorn Hermanson !57 Leland Way February 3, 2021 February 3, 2021 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Attention: Cedric Barringer, Bryan Chong, Miles Berger, Paolo Crescini, Suzanne Kim Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed second story addition at 281 Karen Way. This project must not be approved. I have lived in Bel Aire my whole life and my family has lived in Bel Aire since the 1950’s. Since that time, there have been numerous tasteful remodels of the original Bel Aire home. This is not one of them. When the story poles went up at 281 Karen Way a few weeks ago, I was frustrated and perplexed. Frustrated to be forced into another battle to defend my neighborhood from property owners who want to construct enormous homes that are completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood and confused as to how and why a project with such significant negative impacts had even reached this far in the process. This proposed remodel contradicts every factor when considering second story home additions in the Town of Tiburon. 1.Neighborhood pattern:​ This house would be completely inconsistent with the established development pattern of the area. In addition, it would set a dangerous precedent of inviting wealthy real estate investors and developers to purchase Bel Aire homes when they are on the market, maximizing the square footage of the property, and then selling it for a handsome profit with total disregard for the neighbors. 2.Views:​ One appealing feature of Bel Aire are the views of Ring Mountain and the surrounding sky, making for an enjoyable experience walking around the neighborhood, especially in the early mornings and evenings when spectacular sunrises and sunsets can be seen. Allowing a development such as this would invite future homeowners to build up, leading to the loss of precious skyline views. 1 February 3, 2021 February 3, 2021 3.Privacy​: Bel Aire lots are extremely close together and second story homes with expansive balconies such as this negatively impact adjacent neighbors, not only raising concerns about the loss of privacy, but loss of natural lighting as well. 4.Mass and bulk:​ This second story project in particular looms over neighboring homes, dwarfing them. Its massive appearance is conspicuous not just from nearby properties but also from far away. 5.Lot characteristics​: Bel Aire lots are small and close together. They do not accommodate large two story homes. Plain and simple. Even a stealth partial second story is glaringly obvious, but a jarring second story addition of this scale is so strikingly out of place with the rest of the neighborhood it raises many serious questions amongst the neighbors. I urge you to stand on the sidewalk in front of 281 Karen Way and look up at the story poles in order to better understand how the proposed house will look on site. I spent much of my childhood and early teenage years inside 281 Karen Way because I was close friends with the boys who lived there. The family of five, who were one of many tenants to rent Mrs. Evers’ forever home over the past 17 years, had no trouble accommodating and entertaining me, as well as many other neighborhood families. It is unfortunate that Mrs. Evers does not feel like she has enough space for her lifestyle but that is not our fault. Her dream home should not come as a detriment to the neighborhood. I believe, as many others do, that a tactfully designed and constructed single story home would allow the current owners more than enough space to accommodate their lifestyle without disrupting the lifestyles of the rest of the neighborhood. Respectfully, Joseph Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon, CA 94920 2 TO: Design Review FROM: Marion and James Fitzgerald RE: 281-Karen-Way-DR2020-088 First when I saw the story poles a few weeks ago, I was shocked to see the height of the proposed structure. After reviewing the plans online I cannot believe somebody would build this big imposing, out of character house in a ranch style neighborhood. I have lived in the Bel Aire neighborhood for 38 years, have seen fantastic one story remodeled homes over the years and it can be done because we have great size lots. This proposed two story house with a second floor balcony, has a huge impact on the neighbors, loss of sun light, loss of privacy, loss of views. Our houses are only 12 feet apart with a fence dividing the homes. Approving a second story structure will have a long term impact on the neighborhood. We support the expansion of homes in Bel Aire, but done in the right way. It is possible to get up to the maximum F.A.R. without a second story and an exemption to the current guidelines. For those reasons we do not support the current proposed two story design. I hope the Design Review Board will enforce what is on the website “Second Story Home Additions – Factors to consider” because this plan doesn’t consider: Neighborhood Pattern, Views, Privacy, Sunlight and Shade, Mass and Bulk, Lot Characteristics. February 3, 2021 February 4, 2021 From: Charles & Mary Barnes 278 Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Design Review Board, This letter is in regards to: 281 Karen Way: Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; Lisa Evers Owner DR2020-088, VAR2020-20 Input in addition to our letter/email sent January 28. There are two items that struck us with the proposed design in addition to the already objected to non-neighborly/non-neighborhoodly second floor. Unfortunately that big issue has people not looking at other design details. These additional items are not in the spirit of the Tiburon Design Guiding Principles. Tiburon “Design Guiding Principles 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation.” Natural Gas Natural gas is a large source of greenhouse gas pollution and has been banned in new construction in many localities. PG&E is supporting minimizing it's use in new construction. Forty plus jurisdictions in the state have mandated or encouraged all-electric new construction or placed limits on how gas infrastructure can be used. There are many articles about this issue. In the submitted design there are three natural gas fireplaces inside and a large “fire table” outside. These natural gas decorative features are designed to be used for extended periods of time while spewing out major contaminating non-green pollutants. In addition there is a seven person hot tub placed right next to the west neighbor's setback. Is it gas heated as another greenhouse gas contributor? The DRB should not allow all of these polluting natural gas features. The proposed drawings do not indicate how the other appliances in the house will be powered, but they appear to “working” appliances used for short bursts of time, not decorative. We are not totally against natural gas, but we do not support decorative features that pollute the environment needlessly. FEB 4,2021 Photovoltaic Tiburon Zoning 16-40.080 - “Photovoltaic energy generation system required for newly constructed single-family dwellings.” In the plans there doesn't appear to be any photovoltaic energy system for this house. It is incongruent that there is an outdoor BBQ structure, fire table and hot tub, but no photovoltaic system. The proposed design “features” are not in the spirit of the Tiburon Green Building principles. The project design does not include any features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. They are in direct conflict with the many “Spare The Air” events we have had. We recommend that the Tiburon green building design principles be considered by the DRB and Town of Tiburon in this proposed design. Looking at the before and after drawings the proposed design for 281 Karen Way is a completely new house for all intents and purposes. The proposed design is not green or an attempt to be green. Thank you. February 4,2021 To Design Review From Ann A. Allen Owner 87 Claire Way 2/3/21 Re: proposed second story remodel at 281 Karen Way I am writing to let you know I oppose the remodel of the property For the following reasons: -Intrusive –huge impact, looms above neighbors resulting in loss of privacy, light, view and creates sense of being blocked in -Homes are only 6 feet from property line, 12 feet apart -Intimidating to neighbors who feel trapped -Affects everyone in Bel Aire, not only those within 300 feet since it sets a precedent There have been wonderful remodels in Bel Aire, which are in keeping with the nature of the area. These one story remodels are very welcome and an enhancement to the neighborhood. Please, give these concerns responsible consideration since they reflect the reality of our neighborhood. I hope a clear message will be clearly reflected to future prospective 2nd story homeowners. I really care and gratefully thank you, Ann A. Allen 87 Claire Way home owner since 1985 February 4, 2021 FEB 4,2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Joannie Cahill Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:51 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Remodel / Design Review Feedback CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  We've been Bel Aire residents since 1994 and remodeled our single story home in 1999/2000. We welcome the investments and the improvements our neighbors have made to their homes in the neighborhood over this time, as it adds value for all of us. That said, we feel strongly that the design and scale of remodels should be consistent with the surrounding environment. We have not been supportive of two story additions in the past, as there are very few lots that allow for a second story while maintaining adjacent-neighbor privacy. Additionally, the height and mass of two story homes feel out of scale and overwhelm other homes in the neighborhood while also blocking views of our surrounding hills. After reviewing the plans and elevations posted online we are not supportive of these as submitted, and ask that the height of the home be lowered. The 24'6" height appears to be much higher than other homes in the neighborhood, and dwarfs homes in the immediate area. Many other neighbors on this section of Karen Way have successfully remodeled their homes within the recommended single story design guidelines of the Bel Aire neighborhood. In the very few cases where two story remodels were previously approved, the second story additions have been setback and are not easily visible from the street nor appear intrusive on their neighbors. The owner has stated a need for additional space to accommodate her family of four children (two away in college and two in high school locally) coupled with the need to work from home due to the current Covid pandemic. Many of us are dealing with this same issue these days, however, by the time the remodel work is finished, a year or two from now, the current challenges will most likely no longer apply and therefore this rationale should not be used to justify this particular remodel. Allowing a two story home of this size will set a precedent that would permanently alter the character of our neighborhood. Joannie and Tim Cahill 121 Leland Way, Tiburon FEB 9,2021 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 4 2/18/21 Town Attorney Eli Flushman stated there will be a slight change on the draft resolution which should be included in the motion which is to add to Section 2: “….review with VAR2021-002 to allow swimming pool and spa to be located in the front setback.” It was M/S/C (Chong/Berger) that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and adopts the draft resolution, subject to conditions and additional conditions: 1) amend Section 2 language to read: “….review with Variance to allow swimming pool and spa to be located in the front setback.”; 2) Drawings to include details as to fence type and height, pool equipment shall be placed in such a manner that complies with Town’s code relating to noise; and lighting to be placed in a manner so it is not visible from Avenida Miraflores. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. PH-2 281 KAREN WAY; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. Kyle Thayer, Thayer Architecture, provided an overview of the project and consideration for site plan and architectural review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. He described the variance request and cited the number of one-story homes that have been added onto in excess of the 30% lot coverage, a few homes with second story additions approved and constructed and presented a diagram depicting these homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood. He then described the overall design of the project and requested Board approval. Lisa Evers, Owner, stated she bought the house and one-third of the railroad berm above her lot in 2004. She presented a slideshow and said she realized no significant upgrades had been done since the 1950’s. She has drainage issues and sludge from the hillside which runs through her garage, old electrical and plumbing problems, no irrigation for landscaping, and she said it is difficult to live in a 1,200 square foot house with her family during the COVID situation. Her family and extended family lives in Marin and get together for holidays and the house is not large enough for indoor or outdoor gatherings. In July 2020, they were forced to move out of the home with one week’s notice due to a massive flood and black mold destroyed the entire kitchen, 90% of the floors and subfloors, three-quarters of the interior walls, and she is currently renting a home and also paying her mortgage. She made the hard financial decision to remodel the entire house and make it her forever home. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 5 2/18/21 She has been working closely with Mr. Thayer and Ms. Bonifacio to design an energy efficient home, to fix all drainage issues, add new irrigation, and all has been done within the Town’s guidelines. She explained that no front doors face her home and no one is directly impacted by her second story at the front of the house. Her neighbor at 171 Leland provided photos from the only two windows she has which illustrate how little the impact the second story has given several trees, a shrub and fence. They took care in placing the second story in the center of the existing house away form the street to be respectful to neighbors. Once the story poles went up she held three open houses, offered private appointments because of COVID, and only one person opposed the remodel. She met with her, looked at the plans and considered the challenge the hillside causes in her backyard. Of the 181 homes in the Bel Aire neighborhood, 24 homes have signed petitions or have written letters of support, 24 have written letters in opposition, or 13.5% in either direction. This also leaves 133 households or 73% that have remained neutral. Lastly, she presented and described those homes that have been approved for variances for lot coverage and second stories. Boardmember Crescini said he sees the original plate of the house was 8’1”. The new drawings are 9’1” and 9’7” and he was trying to understand how the design works from a ceiling point of view. Mr. Thayer explained that the upper floor coincides with the north wall of the lower floor and this stacks perfectly. The east/west wall parallel to that which is the south wall lines up partially on walls, and in other areas there will be beams which can enable them to have different ceiling heights. So in the north/south direction, the upper floor does not line up perfectly with walls but there will be beams. Boardmember Kim referred to Sheet A-5.A5 and said it is difficult for her to figure out where everything is because they have no information about the first story. There are some dimensions on this, but it is difficult. Mr. Thayer said he focused on the second story because he did not think the Board would be concerned with the ceiling heights in the one-story parts and that the two-story would be more controversial. The sections are clear in showing it is 10’3” ceiling, a 12” floor joist, and a 9’1” plate up above. So, the Board is getting all of the data they need to know what describes the second story. Boardmember Crescini questioned why the design is 9’7” in the back and 9’1” in the front. Mr. Thayer said he and Ms. Evers talked about raising the ceiling in the kitchen in the east that goes back toward the hillside as well as the master bedroom. They wanted a little more verticality in those rooms. Boardmember Kim asked about the 4’ solid fence and asked about more specificity on the plan, and Mr. Thayer referred to Sheet A-5.1, drawing 2. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 6 2/18/21 Chair Barringer opened the public comment period. Ron Rujanover, 358 Karen Way, voiced support of the project, thinks it fits well within the parameters of the neighborhood, is currently outdated as is the Bel Aire neighborhood, and he voiced support of the variance for the additional story. Lenore Nogaz, 346 Karen Way, strongly urged the Board to go to the neighborhood, see the story poles and look at the lot in question. She thinks it is unfair to treat Ms. Evers’ lot like others that have developed. Every house on Claire Way opposed to this project has no view of the house and is not impacted at all. Likewise, on Leland there are 3 homes that have a partial view at an angle. She thanked Ms. Evers for being considerate of neighbors and questioned why anyone would oppose the design. Charles Barnes, 278 Karen Way, explained that the concern is that the neighborhood has a character to it and the design is vastly different from other homes. He noted that a proposal designed by Mr. Thayer had been approved in 2018 for an addition and he asked why this did not move forward, said there were no notifications until the story poles went up for this design, and the second floor does not fit into the character of the neighborhood and is massive. Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, former President of the Bel Aire HOA and former Chair of Tiburon POST, said the neighborhood has its own feel which is retro, bungalow style. Historically, the homeowners have fought second stories but some have been grandfathered in. She thinks the proposal is massive, does not fit in, thinks it is not a question of what neighbors can see it, suggested adding square footage in the rear yard instead of proposing a second story and to not set a precedent. Eckhart Evers said he has built homes in the area as well as in San Francisco, understands what is at stake, and said this lot has an extreme hardship given it is the narrowest of all 5 homes which all back up against the railroad right-of-way. He pointed to the opposition but said 73% of neighbors have no opinion. This neighborhood is moving into the future for larger and updated homes, understands story poles can be overwhelming but noted the second story is only towards the back which is within the keeping of the neighborhood. He therefore questioned why there was opposition. Brian, 259 Karen Way, said he grew up in the neighborhood and has seen it change. He is the percentage that did not respond, wants to be open-minded, thinks it is nice people want to upgrade their homes, and said his neighbor has a second story and thinks the Board should visit the project and make a determination based on what they see. Pru Star, 160 Leland Way, said she also owns 251 Karen Way, did not agree with someone saying this will be their forever home, questioned the drainage problem which she had to deal with and fix without any problems, stated her home looks right at the house and she is horrified that the second story looks like a house on top of a house. No one has mentioned that Eileen McHale’s next door’s side yard will be eliminated from greenery and grass and thinks this will directly impact her, as well as those in the neighborhood who want to keep the character of the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 7 2/18/21 neighborhood. She asked that the Board look through the windows at Eileen McHale’s slides which she sent in as attachments. When it comes to going “stealth” which Boardmember Berger told everyone to do 15 years ago, there have been some nice additions. She read portions of her husband Fred’s letter regarding the impacts of the height and many windows of the second story on the neighbor’s view, sunlight and privacy. Priscilla Wanat said various statements have been made that Ms. Evers has a unique situation but neighbors know now that it is not. She thinks the addition is massive, does not fit into the neighborhood, said she was the one person who visited the home and thinks Ms. Evers may regret retiring in the home with a second story. There are second story additions in the neighborhood which are done sensitively and she is very unhappy with this design. Sissy Twigs, 301 Karen Way, said she lives two doors down from Lisa Evers who she confirmed consulted with her and people around her before she went with her design and put story poles up. Honestly, they made the second story look a lot larger than it is and tonight she saw a view which was the overhead shot showing where the second story is located on the full roof, which is a lot smaller than she thought it was from the drawings. Neighbors must deal with the berm and water issues and she appreciated that Ms. Evers did not add the second story on the wings going back into the backyard which would cast a shadow. She also heard from her neighbor located in between their homes who she said also supports the remodel. Dan Schwager, 38 Claire Way, voiced support of Ms. Evers’ proposal because of her aesthetic vision for the neighborhood and her proactive approach for a successful living environment that she now requires, given the pandemic. He said there has been vocal but minority opposition to second stories and it seems to be short-sighted and reflexive. Most want beautiful structures, are not in love of the 1950’s bungalows which need remodeling, and they want to support neighbors to perceive their forever home. Ms. Evers’s children and someone from an older generation will need to utilize this home and he thinks the Board has a social obligation to consider this. Carol Perry, 326 Karen Way, said her house has a second story and they bought it that way. She has visited Ms. Evers and saw the plans and elevations and she and her husband are in full support of the project. The scale is appropriate for the lot and neighborhood. She questioned why there is opposition to those wanting to beautify the neighborhood and thinks instead there should be a discussion about homes that are neglected. Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, said her house is most affected by the remodel. The second story looks right into her main bathroom and she will have no view of the hillside or trees any longer. The back addition will block all of her east windows in her kitchen and family room and she no longer will be getting any morning sun and no view. She raised three children in her home of 50 years and she opposed the remodel. Stephanie Zaczek, 38 Claire Way, said she strongly supports the design, thinks it is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound design. There is a lot of precedent for second stories in this neighborhood already and the sister neighborhood, Belveron, also began with small bungalows TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 8 2/18/21 and they have evolved faster. She thinks Ms. Evers has the appropriate lot to add a second story and she voiced her support. Ted Schroeder, 270 Karen Way, said as far as a precedent for second story homes in this neighborhood, he went on Google Maps and said there are about 105 homes that have expanded in this area, so 4 examples of second stories is not a precedent. He remodeled his home with modern flooring, electrical and a pool, but they did not build up, which typically removes people’s privacy, blocks sunlight, and blocks windows. Regarding COVID, this is a two-year project and people will not be in lockdown for life. The decision tonight will have permanent ramifications based on a temporary condition, and he asked the Board to keep this in mind. Joseph Star, 160 Leland Way, said the proposed project is visible from his front driveway and he was against the two-story addition. He thinks it is over-sized and thinks a tasteful one-story remodel would be welcomed. Regarding the 73% of those who have not responded, he noted that these people could also be against the project. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period. Rebuttal – Applicant Kyle Thayer, Architect, stated Priscilla Wanat was concerned about setbacks and he clarified that the existing home is non-conforming on the west setback. The variance they are asking for is taking that line and extending it another 18 feet. All other setbacks are conforming and all other aspects of the home also are conforming. Regarding Eileen McHale’s comments, they are open to discussions with her about the nature, quality and size of windows that face her home and said they could raise the sill height to prevent any loss of privacy and put them in different locations. Lastly, there have been many comments about the mass of the building and in his diagrams he explained they set the second floor addition 47 feet from back of curb and 39’9” from the property line. This is not something looming over the street. They are 13’11” from Eileen McHale’s property line on the west side and 12’6” from the neighbor on the east side. He has demonstrated that the addition is well positioned and well-considered in its location to avoid the feeling of being massive. Lisa Evers, Owner, thanked everyone for their comments, especially those in support. She said it has been difficult listening to some of the neighbors who have lived in the neighborhood the longest and do not want to see any type of progression. She thinks she and Mr. Thayer have done an exceptionally good job of working with Town Staff in the design and said there are 8 homes that have developed second stories, with some being very recent. Many lots have been granted +40% variances and she is not asking for any variance or height exceedances. The White’s, the neighbors to her east, could not be here tonight, but they absolutely support her design. She has tried to speak with Eileen McHale, left her several notes at her door, asked if she and her kids would like to set up a private appointment, but no word. She pointed out that Ms. McHale TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 9 2/18/21 has a long, extended remodel she did herself years ago that is on her western fence line they adjoin. The portion of her extension is a single story at that point. She finds it difficult to understand why Ms. McHale can enjoy her lot and look into her backyard and her hill and she should not be afforded the opportunity to have a neighborly discussion and extension on her lot and would be happy to work with her on the windows and their locations and sill height. In closing, there are many people in favor of her project. Those that did not speak up are neutral and she thinks everybody should let the evolution of Bel Aire develop which it will, and she thanked everyone. Boardmember Kim referred to the “Second Story Additions - Factors to Consider” memo which is policy and now regulating how the DRB reviews this. She asked if the Town Attorney could address what the enforceability of this memo is. Town Attorney Eli Flushman explained that whenever the DRB is hearing an application their role is to make findings related to the guiding principles of Subsection H of Section 16.5.020. Subsection 3 of that includes some of the same language within that policy memo Boardmember Kim referenced. It states, “The neighborhood character, the height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. But, good relationship of a building to its surrounding is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize intrusion on the neighborhood.” This means they are discouraged, but it does not mean second stories are prohibited. He said some of the discussion tonight has focused on certain features of the project and it is the Board’s job of weighing whether or not they can make the findings necessary to approve or not, as well as other factors and conditions. Boardmember Kim stated because of that, she would like to review each building for its own unique conditions and determine whether or not that variances could be bound. The variance in this case is the setback variance. As part of the scope, the Board can look at volume and massing. She thinks that while there is a 30 foot height limit, she questioned whether one necessarily should build up to that height or not. She thinks the second floor is proportionately large and she was struck by the way the roof is being taken advantage of for the ridge height to take advantage of the floor to ceiling height. She thinks there is a way to compress the height and make it look less prominent. She did have an issue with the side setbacks but asked to adjust the massing, plate heights, and the windows facing the neighbor by raising the sill height. Boardmember Berger said this is a tough call as members of the DRB. In responding to the comment about “stealth”, back then, he thinks he meant doing remodeling in a way that is as least visible as possible. He encourages and supports the ideas of remodeling in these older homes and some have done it brilliantly over the years; however, it is not a question of style, as TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 10 2/18/21 there are many different styles in the neighborhood. It is not color and it is not whether it has a second story or not because 10% of the homes have second stories in the neighborhood. There is not strictly speaking a second story prohibition or code in Town. This neighborhood goes under the same guidelines as the rest of Tiburon does, and neighborhood compatibility is the guiding principle here. The question is how the second story is done. He drove around the neighborhood and is familiar with it and especially at the end of Karen Way where there are at least two, second-story additions very tastefully done. Most of their massing is done in the back of the property, in towards the center of the lot, stepped down and done in a subtle way and not celebrated at the front on the street. Also, the tastefully done second story addition two doors down from the project, which is Ms. Twig’s residence, is fairly close of the front of the property but it is very downplayed with its flat roofs and horizontal elements. Around the neighborhood are others tucked into dormer type settings but unfortunately, the one or two shown by the applicant are some of the least appealing ones to him. Therefore, the question is what is compatible with the neighborhood that the Board should ask for in the re-design as he cannot approve the project as submitted. If a second story is to be done, it should be very subtle or in the back, pushed back from the street. The stepping forms in this architecture call more attention to the double height along the street, and stretching it east/west creates less shading but it is not the evening sun but the morning sun coming from the east. If it was bult more on the west side, it would cast fewer shadows on that side. There is great attention to privacy windows as they face other properties which are missing in this design. He also thinks that the solid fence is another thing that makes a distinctive change in this property. The consistent green space in the front is one of the things that keep the properties harmonious when going down the street. In terms of direction for re-design, he asked to use roof forms that de-emphasize and push the massing back and over towards the west more so it will not take the morning sun from the adjacent property, look to continue the setback from the side, implement better privacy windows and use roof forms that downplay and do a more subtle job of approaching the second story, such as a stepped flat roof or roofs where the second story toward the street side take on the form of dormer or is incorporated into the roof. Additionally, when it comes to building in an area where second stories are discouraged, no one is more sympathetic than he is to allowing someone a coverage variance for a smaller second story and having a little overage in the site coverage. He finds this strong from a mass point of view on the street and, in that respect, it is not typical of neighborhood character in terms of the second stories that have been done and should be more that way. This would be to the benefit of the neighborhood characteristics and to the neighbors and their light and air on the property. The way this is done does the exact opposite and he would like to see the redesign return. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 11 2/18/21 Town Attorney Flushman said in talking about a variance, he wanted to emphasize that the Board would need to look at all factors related to a specific project. Therefore, just because the applicant cannot meet certain criteria in one design does not mean they would receive a variance. Vice Chair Chong said people want to develop two stories in Bel Aire and Belveron and one thing that will not change is the fact there will always be a lot of neighbors that do not support them. He agreed this is the most difficult thing the Board does. There are many reasons why applicants want two stories, especially if they have a small lot to begin with. They do not want to destroy their backyard and putting additional square footage up versus out is a smart way to go. Also, the sensitivity of wanting to stay within the guidelines and not ask for variances is the other. On the other hand, if he lived next door in a one-story house and a large two-story home was going up, he understands all of the reasons why people dislike two stories because of the tunnel effect, impacts to views, privacy, light and character of the neighborhood. He went out to the site and over the years he has supported second stories and sometimes did not. Some were appealed, some were redesigned and returned, and it is never easy. He is not against two stories, but in a neighborhood like this one he is not a fan because it is even tighter than Belveron is. He is against houses that look like two stories. When he turned around in front of 301 Karen, which is a couple of doors down, he had to look at this two-story and had to relook at it again to see whether it was an actual two story or just windows letting light in. In driving around the neighborhood, the reason some of the two stories were passed was because they did not have a two-story feel in a very predominantly one-story neighborhood. Therefore, for those reasons he would want to see a redesign that still gives the applicant what they as far as space, but it would have to not feel like the second story that it currently is. It needs a re-thinking of either pushing it back or doing something to it, and the findings on neighborhood character, height, size, and the way it is sited is too much. Lastly, in looking at the number of people who have developed two stories over the years, these were all people who were very much discouraged to build two stories and they found a way to accomplish what they needed in their remodel by going one story. Boardmember Crescini said he visited the site and found it is too wide and towering. The wall lines are vertical and the sensation is the same with the drawings. With regard to one or two stories, the Town permits two stories but discourages them, which he sort of resents as a boardmember because they are giving arguments to both sides, so he hopes this is solved with the new iteration of the zoning code. For the time being, for this project he thinks the second story is justified by the specific conditions of the lot with the lack of backyard. Having said this, he thinks it should and could lose a couple of feet at a minimum. The volumes spike up and the original top plate was 8 feet and typical of a cottage style homes. If they want to keep the general look of the neighbors, he suggested keeping the eaves low. He suggested having a sloped ceiling, some beams or trusses exposed, and to increase the height TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 12 2/18/21 internally without increasing the volume of the home. He thinks it does look like a house on top of another house which was the feeling he had when looking at the design. Another thing that disturbed him was the stair and the stairwell. In the section on the stairwell, there is a huge amount of volume up above that does not help anyone. When looking at the west elevation, all of the volume of the stairwell is on the street. So, he thinks it would beneficial if the stairs could be set back so this volume is not imposing. Also, the 3 foot balcony on the back is not a big deal which faces north, but this is where the backyards of neighbors can be seen, so he suggested eliminating that. He suggested keeping the ceiling plate at 8 feet or even 7 feet and going up with the slope and having nice beams. But in summary, this house must go down in height. Chair Barringer echoed the points from Boardmember Crescini and said there is no reason the stairwell either gets relocated to the back of the house which would reduce the appearance of volume at the front or at least be dropped back a couple of feet which would give it less of a prowl feeling. Boardmember Berger reiterated the idea that in addition to lowering it, if that floor is turned 90 degrees and put over back from the garage from the street edge, it could be one of the houses that are barely noticeable as a second story house. Chair Barringer said his second thought was that he did not see any reason the first floor plates could not be 9 feet and second floor plates at 8 feet with the volume ceiling and still achieve everything they are trying to get done as far as the space in the house. He feels the location of the second story, in general, set back and at the center is appropriate. As it relates to the neighbor to the left, if they start pulling it back towards the backyard there will be more impacts onto their light. He thinks these are two main things he could see improvement towards. He also agrees that the zoning code should be clarified, given unwritten rules which he briefly described. In a perimeter lot, a second story is not an issue. There is no view impediment and he thinks the location set back 12 ½ and 13 ½ feet is going to reduce the light impacts on neighbors as much as is reasonable. He thinks the lot characteristics make it tricky and justifiable to have it designed like it is, but little moves like raising the sill heights on the west side are easy moves and, in general, the location of east and west side windows on the second story are pretty minimal and they could be raised on the west. He summarized that the Board is leaning towards a continuance and he was not opposed to the second story, but it needs reworking to blend better. Boardmember Kim said a little rework like changing windows is not enough for her. It is the height of the floor plates and the height of the ceiling on the second floor which needs to be done in tandem with how the massing is articulated on the second floor. Additionally, the fence in the front which is 4 feet and opaque emphasizes and works against the height even more. So, she thinks it should be porous, more subtle and not 4 feet high. Vice Chair Chong agreed with Boardmember Kim’s comments and said it is really a relook at how they make the second floor not feel like a second floor and there are creative ways of doing it, and it is looking at a new design. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 13 2/18/21 Boardmember Crescini agreed and said the second story is on top of the 10’3” portion of the house so he putting it on top of a 9 foot story below is already one foot down. The whole design needs to be reworked. The other thing he wanted to say is that he was surprised that the Town of Tiburon considered this a remodel and not a new house. He was intrigued by the calculations and was sad about it as it forces the criteria and it affects the upgrade of the house. Chair Barringer supported continuance and Ms. Tasini said there is a PSA deadline of March 22, 2021. If continued past that date, the applicant will need to sign a PSA extension. It was M/S/C (Barringer/Chong) to reopen the public comment period for the applicant to indicate the date for continuance. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Mr. Thayer first asked and confirmed with Ms. Tasini of the timing deadlines given potential re-noticing, staff report preparation, story pole certification, a site visit and a PSA deadline date and agreement to an extension before March 22nd. After brief discussion, Mr. Thayer and Ms. Evers agreed to sign a PSA extension and to provide this to staff by the deadline, and April 1st was chosen as the continuance date. Chair Barringer asked if there were public comments related only to scheduling. Mindy Canter asked why the application is being continued when 4 of 5 members of the Board are opposed to the design. She asked if new story poles will go up, and Chair Barringer stated yes, this is a requirement. Boardmember Berger explained that this will provide time for the redesign. Chuck Barr asked when the neighbors will be able to see the plans prior to the April 1st DRB meeting. Ms. Tasini explained that once staff releases the documents for public review they are posted on the Town’s website on the “Projects under Review” section of the website which is typically two weeks before the hearing. Dan Schwager noted that all Boardmembers stipulated that they support a second floor. He asked if this can be reflected in the minutes even though the design needs further work. Boardmember Berger stated the Board did not necessarily support this particular second floor design. It was rather how it was done which was the objection. Mr. Flushman stated the Board will have an opportunity to review the minutes prior to the meeting and make a motion to adopt them at their next regular meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #3 14 2/18/21 Chair Barringer clarified for the speakers that the minutes will reflect the discussion by the Board. Mr. Thayer stated he has taken notes from all Boardmembers and has a good sense of what they are and what changes he needs to consider. He asked if there will be minutes or a summary of what the changes are that reflect the Board’s concerns, or he asked if he should rely on his own notes. Ms. Tasini stated the entire meeting is recorded, and that he was welcome to review the recording tomorrow morning and review comments. The minutes will return to the next DRB meeting for approval and she will not have them available right away. Staff has taken notes as well, and Ms. Bonifacio stated she will be scheduling a meeting next week and go over what was discussed and next steps. Mr. Thayer asked and confirmed March 18th was when staff needs revised drawings, and Ms. Tasini stated when they meet next week they can also solidify the timeline for submittal, review and discussion. Chair Barringer closed the public comment period, and the Board voiced the need to continue the matter. It was M/S/C (Chong/Berger) to continue the application to the April 1, 2021 DRB meeting. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Stephanie Zaczek Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 10:02 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Kris Bernard Cc:Lisa Evers Subject:Support of 281 Karen Way Remodel/Renovation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  To: Tiburon Design Review Board  The purpose of this letter is to provide support for the renovation and remodel of 281 Karen  Way.  The design is an excellent balance of aesthetics and sound construction, fitting well into the  neighborhood plan, while also enhancing property values of this and other adjacent homes. In  addition, the plan for the new home fits the particular topography of the lot, skillfully absorbing  the steep slope in the backyard, with the home's footprint and surrounding yard space. There  are multiple precedents for 2nd story remodels in this neighborhood.  We urge the Tiburon Planning Commission to vote in favor of this beautifully designed plan for  281 Karen Way.   Sincerely,   Stephanie Zaczek and Dan Schwager  FEB. 6, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Lisa Evers Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:48 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:Support of 281 Karen Way remodel CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Sam, I'll send over my petition list but thought I should go ahead and forward this to you... Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Paige Fassig To: Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2021 6:57 pm Subject: Support of 281 Karen Way remodel We are completely behind you on your remodel project. You may use our names to assist you. Good luck! Paige and Gerry Fassig 242 Cecilia Way, Tiburon, Ca 94920 MAR. 23, 2021 M A R . 2 5 , 2 0 2 1 Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA.94920 March 18, 2021 Dear Board Members, I’m Pru Starr and I live at 160 Leland Way. My driveway looks directly at 281 Karen Way on the right. Current design plans are so difficult to read, but it looks to me as if the story poles still make the house too tall, and its height impacts neighbors on both sides. Ms. Evers and her architect made effort to hide the intrusive ‘house on top of a house’ design of her brand new house, but it’s still more imposing than the tallest neighbor’s two doors east. Rearranged story poles demonstrate its height has moved further back but it’s still way too tall. I oppose this current design because it still looks like a house on top of the first floor, increasing square footage from 617 feet to 711 square feet, increased both house and garage. I don’t need to remind the Board about the importance of ‘stealth’ design, and sadly this design remains ostentatious and uncharacteristic of our neighborhood’s ambience. Please add my opposition to this design as part of your review. There has got to be a better design with less height. Thank you, Pru Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon MAR. 18, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:tessa white Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 4:04 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio; Dina Tasini Subject:Feedback on 281 Karen Way Design Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  From: Tessa and Marcus White 283 Karen Way To: Town of Tiburon Design Review Board My husband and I would like to mark our objection to the proposed second story addition on 281 Karen Way proposed by Lisa Evers. We are strongly opposed to the office that extends 10ft x 13ft out the back of the 2nd level addition. I have taken images from 4 different places in our garden (from closest to furthest away) and there is not one single place where we cannot see the office and its 3 windows that look directly into our garden, and will have no privacy whatsoever. Following the rejection of the first set of designs by the DRB on 2/18, the owner showed us an updated design that moved the whole upper addition firmly over to our side of the house so as not impact 279 Karen Way. We did not oppose this alteration. However, the design we were shown was not the design the owner submitted to the Town. After reviewing the 3/09 and 3/11 designs submitted and posted online, we were taken by surprise to see an extra 10ft x 13ft extension on the second floor added to the back of the original drawings firmly impacting our ability to use our garden as a family. This part of the new plans was a total surprise. When the story poles went up, we used them to create a mock up to understand how they would impact our privacy. I subsequently spoke with Lisa to discuss this and talk through alternatives, as we had hoped by moving the office it might help. But with no acceptable alternatives that doesn’t dramatically impact our privacy, we simply can’t support the combination of height AND backwards projection over our house. My husband and I are not opposed to a 2nd level but request it all remains at the front so we are not forced to look at it from every corner of our back garden. Whilst we plan to plant some screening plants along our fence the office proposed severely impacts our privacy and we feel will heavily impact and chance of re sale on our property in the future. With the proposed office, our only option would to plant a series of trees that would need to grow 40+ feet in order to create a privacy barrier. As I said to Lisa. We have a 4 bedroom house with an office (5th bedroom), 3 baths, Living, Dining, Kitchen and Laundry all on one level and don’t even have the courtyard closed in as per her design so maybe the floor plan needs a re work on the lower level? Regards Marcus and Tessa of 283 Karen Way. MAR. 19, 2021 MAR. 22, 2021 TO: Design Review FROM: Marion and James Fitzgerald RE: 281 Karen Way DR2020-088 The new story poles are not much different from the previous ones. Height and mass are still there. Big imposing, out of character in a ranch style community I don’t see the points made at the previous meeting being considered by Lisa Evers and her architect. 1 Reduce the scale of the home and be more compatible with the neighborhood. 2 Plans need a full ground-up redesign. 3 Neighborhood compatibility is the guiding principle. 4 Roof forms that downplay the size of the house. 5 Do a more subtle job of dealing with the second story. 6 Use window sizes and features that would protect neighbors privacy. 7 Second story was huge and is still huge. 8 It is not tweaking the current design, it need a new design. 9 The whole project needs to be reworked. None of the above points made by Design Review have been considered in the new plans. The mass of the second story shifted from one side more to the middle and now both neighbors are hugely affected. I hope the Design Review Board will enforce what is on the website “Second Story Home Additions – Factors to consider” because this plan doesn’t consider: Neighborhood Pattern, Views, Privacy, Sunlight and Shade, Mass and Bulk, Lot Characteristics. MAR. 23, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Rich Cellini Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 8:11 AM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way... Attachments:image001 copy.tiff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Samantha,   We are writing in regard to the revisions for the proposed remodel at 281 Karen Way.  As a home owner in Bel Aire since  2004 we have witnessed several of these two story proposals submitted and resubmitted to the Design Review Board,  and thankfully through the years they have been denied.  The regulations in the neighborhood are clear, and anyone  who wishes to build a two story home can do so in several nearby neighborhoods, but not in this one.  According to the  original letter distributed by the owner of 281 Karen she has been in this neighborhood for well over a decade and  therefore she knows what’s acceptable and what is not with regard to second story additions.  We are 100% against the  two story proposal and the impact it will have on the neighborhood as a whole.  In reviewing the new plans there is still  a second story, except it is now larger and located on one side of the house vs in the middle.  If a second story  is  allowed for one house, it should be allowed for all houses and that is not something we would like to see in Bel Aire.  Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.  Thank you,  Rich & Christine Cellini  46 Claire Way  Tiburon  ___________________________ Rich Cellini, Ph.D. Professor Sport Management Program University of San Francisco MAR. 23, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:fred Starr Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 2:30 PM To:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:281 Karen Way Design Review Comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  March 24, 2021 From: Fred Starr, 160 Leland Way, Tiburon CA To: Town of Tiburon, Design Review Board Members, 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon CA 94920 Subject: 281 Karen Way Addition and Remodeling (March Re-submittal of Drawings) Supplementary to my February 5, 2021 comments, I continue to oppose the subject remodel (as revised in March 2021) for the following additional reasons: 1.The second story mass is still too great and out of character with the neighborhood. Also, the square footage of the second story, as well as the first story, appears to have increased from February to March. If this is confirmed, it looks like a step in a direction that conflicts with the intent of the Design Review Board’s conclusions and recommendations. 2.The Conceptual Solar Panel Layout conflicts with Tiburon guidelines (February 2, 2005) that call for minimal visual impact to public streets and neighboring properties. Twelve of the proposed fourteen panels are visible from Karen Way. Thank you for this opportunity to present my opinion on the subject project. Fred Starr MAR. 24, 2021 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Mindy Canter Sent:Thursday, March 25, 2021 2:31 PM To:DRBComments Subject:281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you  recognize the sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Design Review Board,  We are all for remodeling. However…  We are opposed to the current design at 281 Karen Way. It still looks like a house on top of a house and sticks out like a  sore thumb. This design does not fit into the neighborhood and would set a precedent for 2 story houses in Bel Aire.  There are 6 new homes (from the foundation up) on Blackfield Dr. (and multiple other new homes sprinkled throughout  the neighborhood). They are all one story and fit into the neighborhood.  We have personally been inside 95% of the homes in Bel Aire. You would never know from the understated front facade  of these houses that there were wonderful large remodeled additions, many doubling the square footage or more.  We agree with Miles Berger’s comment in the last DRB meeting. Miles said that remodels should inconspicuously wrap  around the sides and back of the existing house.  Even remodels that raise the ridge line a few feet, are still one story and are lined up with the ridge lines of their  neighbors. This enables everybody to enjoy the unique back yard privacy this neighborhood offers and we all enjoy.  We hope you don’t approve the current design. It’s not consistent with the neighborhood and would set a dangerous  precedence.  Yours truly,  The Canter Family  MAR. 25, 2021 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 2 4/1/21 STAFF BRIEFING – None MINUTES Consider adoption of minutes of meeting of March 18, 2021 It was M/S/C (Berger/Kim) to adopt the minutes of March 18, 2021, as submitted. Roll Call Vote: 3-0-2 (Barringer and Crescini absent). PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1 281 Karen Way; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020-088/VAR2020- 020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 969 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 5 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. (Continued from February 18th, 2021) Kyle Thayer, Thayer Architecture, said they listened to neighbors and the DRB and spoke to design changes made since the last meeting which were to reduce building height and mass and to shift the second floor away from the western neighbor. He noted the original setback variance from the first DRB meeting still holds. He displayed and described examples of reductions in the building height and mass in various portions of the proposed addition, elimination and redesign of the stairwell to sit within the form of the building, movement of the building eastward away from the western neighbor, relocation of the office to the upstairs, receipt of verbal support of eastern side neighbors of the upper bedroom moving closer to their house, and opposition by an eastern neighbor to the office after removal of a large tree that screened both properties. Mr. Thayer then presented an example of the non-conforming lot coverage design that preceded the design before the Board today and said they moved the office upstairs to achieve a conforming lot coverage of 30%. The non-conforming lot coverage design is 32.5% and staff had indicated they would not be enforcing the lot coverage requirement and not granting and not supporting lot coverage variances, which had previously been granted over the last 40 years. Lastly, design is about balancing constraints and contradictions, finding a middle way acceptable to all parties or at least equally uncomfortable and unacceptable to all parties. A homeowner’s property rights, and zoning say they can build a second story, yet some Bel Aire neighbors have threatened a class action lawsuit against the owner if they build a second story. Alternatively, if they propose a design that reduces or eliminates the second story by going over the allowed lot coverage, the Town will categorically deny such a variance. They feel they have gone a long way in striking a balance between the needs of the owner and community and asked for approval. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 3 4/1/21 Lisa Evers, Owner, said Mr. Thayer spoke to the points which are in line with what the DRB specifically asked for. She has taken a neighborly approach to trying to reach out to neighbors. There are 181 homes, and she wrote a letter and hand-delivered to each neighbor, walked the neighborhood twice, asked people to come to two different open houses, wrote hand-written notes to her immediate neighbors west of her, and the only ones that came to talk with her were the White’s who were kind. She said the White’s bought their home in August/September and she had already been flooded out of her home then. They knew she was in the process of planning a remodel and she did everything to keep them in the loop, and they have been great. After the February 28th DRB meeting and just prior to her meeting with the Planning Department on March 4th, she spoke with the White’s and said it was suggested that she move the second floor more towards the east side which was their garage side. Things broke down after she and Mr. Thayer presented the non-conforming plan where the office was on the lower floor which they had been fine with. She went into the meeting with Ms. Tasini and Ms. Bonifacio on March 4th and was shocked after learning that the Town would not support a 2.5% variance after many people have been granted larger variances. She contacted the White’s and told them that she was in a conundrum because of the non-conforming issue and non-support of the variance. She then pointed to Slide 1 which showed pictures of the White’s home and her house with their tree to the left. The story poles were not yet up and went up on January 19th. After the White’s took out the tree in late February/early March the Board will see how stark their two lots are. The tree provided both of their homes and lots a great deal of buffering and screening, so she is surprised they would choose to remove the tree. Lastly, she paid $400+ to create renderings that are to the actual specifications and drawings of the architect versus those drawings which people have submitted in their letters and which do not show depth or perception. Vice Chair Chong asked for questions from Boardmembers. Boardmember Kim asked Ms. Tasini to address the lot coverage and variance change. Community Development Director Dina Tasini explained that variances are considered a unique hardship and the Design Review must make findings that are found in the Zoning Code prior to approving a variance. Simply stating an applicant has requested and wants a lot coverage variance is not a supported finding within the Code. Variances are connected to topography or a physical constraint. For example, an outcropping of rocks on one’s lot where there is no other place to build, or a physical constraint found on the lot those are physical hardships and constraints making it infeasible to develop the site in accordance with the Code. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 4 4/1/21 In this instance, the lot is flat. They can build within that allowable coverage or not, therefore staff cannot make the four required findings and must deny and or not support the variance request. Considering or making a finding simply based on a policy of discouraging second stories is not a finding. This is subjective and is not a standard related to physical constraint. Staff instead has determined that an amendment to the zoning code may be necessary to remedy the lot coverage issue. Staff will look at objective design standards and allowable clot coverage percentages to determine if a change needs to take place. Tasini noted specific guidelines are identified in Section 16-52.020(h) or the Guiding Principles, and in relation to this proposed development staff could not make all four of the findings for this lot/project. Any proposed zoning changes will come before the Planning Commission in the Spring of 2021. Tasini anticipates presenting options to the Town Council prior to presenting an Ordinance for approval. Town Attorney Eli Flushman clarified that even though Ms. Tasini has mentioned some potential items that may come before the Planning Commission and City Council, he cautioned against discussion about any code amendments or study session. He asked the Board to consider the property at 281 Karen Way and the findings that must be made. Boardmember Berger stated it has been the tradition in the past that staff did not make the findings in a binding sense, but by the DRB. Additionally, coverage variances were regularly granted to people who tried to meet with neighborhood standards and make smaller or remove second stories, which were grounds for the DRB to grant coverage variances. He agrees that it would be a lot smarter if the code recognized this but the findings for a variance is at the Board’s purview ultimately. Vice Chair Chong agrees with Boardmember Berger’s comments and opened the public comment period. Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, voiced opposition of the current design, thinks it still looks like a house on top of a house, does not think the applicants made the changes requested by the DRB at the February meeting but moved a section from the west side to the east side, lowered the top height by 4’6”, and the design does not fit in the neighborhood of ranch style homes. She spoke about homes with raised ridgelines that do not look massive and usually the ridgelines line up with homes on either side so it is not imposing, and everyone maintains their privacy and asked that the Board not approve the current redesign which is not in line with the neighborhood at all and would set a dangerous precedent. Pru Starr, 160 Leland Way, referred to her letter opposing the design and said she never received a letter from Ms. Evers, the DRB’s suggestions were not followed by the architect and disregarded in a way that shifts the mass from the west to the east, the house is still too big for the lot and she was shocked the way the windows appear. Privacy is very important in Bel Aire and this design still seriously impacts neighbors on both sides. She thinks the plans remain uncharacteristic for the neighborhood and still looks like one house with a house on top. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 5 4/1/21 Marcus White said he and his wife Tessa live at 283 Karen Way next to Lisa Evers. They were shown the second design and were supportive of that; however, because of the variance, Ms. Evers called his wife with details that they were going to put the office on the top. They want to be able to enjoy their backyard and if the design had been built when they were looking to buy a home, they probably would not have moved into their home. Their concern is for resale as well. The office looks at their garden as well as their side fence area and entire backyard. Tessa White, 283 Karen Way, said Ms. Evers called and told her the design was changed but she was not told how. They next saw the story poles go up and saw the 10-foot extension towards the back which allowed views of all sides of their gardens. She was not sure why the architect would place the office in the middle instead of to the side, noting it gives a larger visual impact for any neighbors’ privacy. There was a tree there and it was removed after the first story poles went up. They do plan to replant however, and had the tree stayed it was naked half the year and the current office would have still had a view of their garden. She knows the owner wants a four-bedroom home and she and her husband live in a 5 bedroom and 3 baths with a decent kitchen, laundry and dining all on one level. So, she thinks every room is 25% larger than it needs to be. If the front door had not been moved to the middle with the loss of so much floor space and entryway and stairwell, the design could actually be achieved on one level similar to theirs. Boardmember Berger asked and confirmed that the office can see into their backyard. He asked if the bedroom on the side and closest to them was less troublesome in its position. Mrs. White said yes; it is in line with their garage and laundry so while it will block a small amount of light, it is okay where it is. Boardmember Berger asked and confirmed that if the office was pushed further back down the wing of the house it would pose a privacy problem. Priscilla Wanat, 86 Claire Way, said it looks as though moving the office from the west to the east has merely changed the inconvenience to a different neighbor. She reviewed some of the renditions from the architect showing what the view would be from the White’s house, and they would have a wall to look at rather than sky. She also visited one of her neighbors and commented how her next-door neighbor was allowed to have a higher ceiling height inside the house and was surprised that the high roof adds an element of intrusion into the living space. She also questioned why the Town cannot just change the guidelines for the size of the house on a lot without having to get variances because neighbors like one-story homes in Bel Aire. If a variance is needed in order to approve a house plan that fits in the neighborhood, a variance would be the way to go. Eileen McHale, 279 Karen Way, said she is the west neighbor, and the two-story design still impacts her greatly. There would be no sunlight in the front where the main bathroom is. The windows can still look down even though they are further away, and now it affects her kitchen, family room and her back bathroom because the windows facing north on the hillside and on the west side can look straight down into her living room and family room, especially at night, TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 6 4/1/21 stating there would be no privacy whatsoever. She said two stories just does not work in the neighborhood no matter what side a neighbor is on. Mary Barnes, 278 Karen Way, said it seems to her that Ms. Evers is forcing something into the neighborhood that neighbors do not want, and this is not neighborly. She suggested working with neighbors instead of pushing for a design neighbors do not support or want. Rebuttal – Applicant Ms. Evers displayed Slide 4 and thanked the White’s who have been wonderful. She thinks they all got blind-sided by the Planning Department’s stance on the variance situation. She is in a tough situation to create a design that works. If they were to consider the non-conforming design with the office on the lower floor with the 2.5% variance, it would be fine by her and she wants to work with neighbors. Not having a tree between them impacts them both. She displayed Slide 5 which shows a side-by-side view of the two homes. There is not a way to get a 30-foot tree planted in a short period of time, so she has been put in a conundrum. They are still within all of the guidelines, setbacks, have not asked for any other variances, and she would like to make this point. Even with the office, she is still within her rights, square footage, allotments, etc., and she asked if Mr. Thayer would like to add anything. Kyle Thayer, architect, clarified that back when they had their meeting with staff and they had expressed data about the lot coverage, they then proposed the office on the second floor. They explored placing the office right behind the bedroom and not in the center of the lot but sliding it eastward towards the Whites. This was Boardmember Berger’s questions as to whether this had been explored, and they proposed this informally and it looked as though it was going to be acceptable. But then they thought the office on the second floor anywhere was going to be a problem. Therefore, this is just something they looked at and were trying to accommodate the Whites in that regard. Ms. Evers said she thinks it is important for the DRB and neighbors to hear that she is not trying to be un-neighborly, and it is very disheartening to be told that. She has opened up to anyone to speak with her, but she tried to stick to the facts which staff has told her to do and does not feel it is fair to be attacked this way. She is trying to create a nice home and has done it per the Town’s guidelines. Vice Chair Chong closed the public comment period and returned discussion to the Board. Boardmember Kim said she has been on the Board for about 4 years. There is one case every year where she feels a neighbor is being unfairly attacked personally and she feels for Ms. Evers, and her comments will stick to the design. In the last meeting, she indicated the height and bulk need to be dealt with in a more sensitive way. She feels this re-design is not enough and feels it is also unbalanced. It is very tight in between the two houses. She recognizes the White’s concerns about the views into their lot. There are quite a few windows facing that and regardless of a tree, people always have to plan TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 7 4/1/21 that a tree may go away as well as a seasonality issue. Regarding the redesign, she was not very keen on it. There is something about it that does not seem balanced in terms of the mass and bulking to the right side. The other issue she had is giving up the lot coverage and then having to have to move that space. She questioned whether the office was needed or not. She is not opposed to the second floor but how it is being expressed. She realizes the windows on the White’s side are clerestory and very high, so it is only about light without any privacy issues, but she thinks the room is still going to be a problem with having a wall that goes all the way up and the way it is articulated. Boardmember Berger said it should be acknowledged that the design has come a long way. Mr. Thayer and Ms. Evers have tried to modify the design based on the Board’s comments. He thinks it is not quite there yet and understands and echoed what Boardmember Kim is saying. It needs a sense of style and balance and he thinks it is not elegant. Also, the office location is a problem for the White’s. Honestly, if this had been presented without the office upstairs, leaving the office downstairs and would have asked for a minor coverage variance and he would be very inclined to have looked favorably on a coverage variance. But this is not what the Board is being presented with today. He thinks having the office on the west side still stretches along the front making the second story very prominent. It is not that there are no second stories in Bel Aire because there are, but he suggested a better job of integrating the second story into the roof form of the first story. As it is designed now, he was still not be supportive and thinks the neighbors would lose their privacy. The second story is not an enhancement to the house except in its square footage and he would like more work on the architecture and to work with the neighbors. Noted Present: Chair Barringer arrived at the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Chair Barringer said he reviewed the plans and staff report and said he generally feels it is a great improvement to the roof height, light and impingement onto neighbors. He understands this is the route the applicant has chosen to pursue and if the owners want this amount of square footage, it is a logical way to achieve it. He was tending to be in support of the project because, in some ways, this is a solution that meets all of the requirements. While there could be improvements with reductions in windows and the office, people should be able to build up to the FAR allowed on the lot, but it is a conundrum. Boardmember Kim cited the impact on the neighbor. While her objection is partly dealing with the views into their yard and privacy, her issue is the wall being created right next to the White’s house. It could be a flat roof that is needed to achieve the articulation. The reason the house works two homes away is because the second floor has a flat roof, which cuts down another 3-4 feet. Chair Barringer said he does not disagree with Boardmember Kim on the placement of the second story over to the east side which lends more difficult to one neighbor as compared to the TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 8 4/1/21 last design which was equally disadvantageous to both neighbors. Perhaps there is a middle ground there that keeps the reduction in roof heights. Vice Chair Chong said he feels the applicant and architect made a sincere effort to try to accommodate neighbors and impacts based on the last hearing. He agreed with Boardmember Kim’s comments on balance in that the top story on the east side is just almost like cut off somehow and it creates a wall. The homes are already close enough together and that this much massing should not be on an upper story that close. Often times when striking the right design, it creates people supportive of the project to not being supportive. He also thinks in this neighborhood there is not a two-story design that would receive a number of people’s support because there have been so many one-story remodels as a trend. He believes there is still work that could be done and thinks there was a sincere effort made without stepping into the same lot coverage issue. Therefore, it sounds like the Board was leaning on a continuance and confirmed with staff the PSA deadline has been extended until June 18th. Vice Chair Chong asked what a design would need to have in order for Boardmembers to be able to support a second-floor remodel on this lot. Boardmember Berger said it should be something the neighbor to the east is happier with than the neighbor with the office looking into the backyard; one with potentially a smaller second floor more worked into the roofs and treated in a dormer factor. One speaker said it looks like a house on top of a house, and he suggested working the design into the roof more symmetrically. Boardmember Kim said the way it is articulated; the massing of the second floor is not balanced. She wondered if the solution is some kind of dormer solution where it fits more comfortably. If the owner wants to have an office on the second floor, there might be another way to do this by using the existing roof design and integrating the plan. She did not know what the solution is, but the way it is articulated is two masses on top of each other rather than one integrated cohesive mass, which is her biggest issue. Reducing the massing would solve this as well as changing the roof to a flat roof which would reduce the roofline height. Vice Chair Chong echoed comments of Boardmembers and confirmed with Ms. Tasini that the next continuance meeting date available would-be May 6th or May 20th. Ms. Evers asked for better direction and assistance from the Board as to what to do with the design. Ms. Tasini suggested the Board recap the direction on how the applicant should proceed with the design. Vice Chair Chong summarized that they try to avoid designing people’s houses. It comes down to trying to facilitate looking at a design, seeing how it impacts neighbors, the character of the neighborhood and whether the Board can make findings. They are faced with either approving a project, denying a project, or providing a continuance which allows for the applicant to go back TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 9 4/1/21 and take comments as discussed and return. Often times, there are multiple continuances to get to a design that ultimately works. There is also an appeal process that the applicant can choose if the DRB denies the project. The applicant should seek to 1) satisfy some of the concerns of the White’s which ties into a smaller second story, and 2) develop a design that looks more integrated as an overall project, so it does not resemble a house on top of a house. Some applicants have told the Board to deny it so they can pursue an appeal to the Council, which is an option, as well. Ms. Tasini said they did hold a study session in the past where the applicants and the Board had a more informal discussion about how to move things around, look at massing, materials, and this could be a helpful exercise if the applicant and Board are amenable. Ms. Evers said she would love the opportunity for a study session, given the constraints of the lot coverage variance. Boardmember Berger suggested to the applicant that if they were instead spreading out on the site, if they ran the rooms down the center with their stair and brought the roofs up all the way around so the second story is done like an attic-like dormer which is integrated, it will look like a one-story house with an attic or dormers. He asked to think along those lines and by having roofs on the side might preclude views into the neighbors’ yards and proximity. Vice Chair Chong said he agrees with Boardmember Berger’s comments and noted one reason they try to stay away from it is that if the applicant returns with exactly that design it might not get enough support for approval. He thinks they see such a design that could satisfy both immediate neighbors and also create something nice for the neighborhood, while giving the applicant their design objectives. Ms. Evers asked if the Board would be willing to hold a study session, and Vice Chair Chong said he would be open to it. Boardmember Berger said he thinks he would rather allow the architect to design it, but to consider the direction he just mentioned. Mr. Thayer said they are two meetings into this and possibly if they began with a study session it could have been fruitful. He has some ideas as to how to respond to comments and the study session would be without any voting, so it would add another month or two to the overall timeframe. Ms. Evers cited frustrations with added costs and said if the DRB does not accept anything more than 30% lot coverage there will have to be massing on the upper floor. Boardmember Kim said the Board is not arguing about square footage but massing. Massing has volume, height and reach. The Board is suggesting that there may be a way to perhaps relook at the massing and how it looks. Right now, it is a challenge, but every project that the Board sees is challenging. She thinks there is a more elegant and harmonious way of achieving this that would make much better sense. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #6 10 4/1/21 Mr. Thayer asked for a continuance to May 6th, and Vice Chair Chong suggested a motion. Ms. Bonifacio announced that revised story poles would also need to be erected 10 days before the continued meeting. It was M/S/C (Berger/Kim) to continue the matter to the May 6, 2021 DRB meeting. Roll Call Vote: 4-0-1 (Crescini absent). PH-2 187 Stewart Drive; Assessor’s Parcel No. 039-251-04; File No. DR2021-001/VAR2021- 001/VAR2021-007; Mary Kathryn and Charles Rice, Owners; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for the exterior alterations to an existing single-family residence, the construction of two accessory structures that include a cabana and an office, and other landscape improvements including a new swimming pool, patios, and exterior stairways, with the following Variance requests: 1) to allow the main residence that is currently located within the front setback be increased in height from 24’-1” to 26’-3” and 2) excess height for accessory structure to allow proposed cabana be built at the height of 17’-10”, where a maximum of 15’ is permitted. The project would contain approximately 3,928 square feet of gross floor area and cover 3,678 square feet (14.9%) of the lot. This property is zoned as RO-2. Charles Rice, owner/applicant, 187 Stewart Drive, gave a PowerPoint presentation and said their project plans were previously approved by the DRB in 2018 but there is relevant context before presenting their proposed revisions. He provided background of the project plans, unanimous approval granted by the DRB in 2018, relevant events and Planning staff’s review, and proposed revisions since the approved plans. He noted there is only one item that required them to return for a second DRB review which was the variance request for a small height access at a singular story pole location and a section of the pool cabana accessory building roof ridge. All other items have been reviewed and supported by Planning staff. The prior plans were unanimously approved and were still approved at the time of this submittal. Generally, their proposed revisions to the plan are minor except for the main house upper-level wall height increase which is well within their allowable limit to 10 feet from the existing 8-foot wall plate and an overall height of 26 feet which is well within the 30-foot ordinance limit. Planning staff confirmed in December that all revisions could have been processed at the Planning staff level if not for the variance request for the small height excess for that section of the accessory building roof ridge at the singular story pole location pole #18. He said while the staff report points to the excess as 17’10” versus the 15’ limit for accessory buildings, it should again be noted that the height excess is only for a portion of the roof ridge. If measured from the proposed finished grade, the roof height would comply with the 15’ limit. Further, recent comparable variances with larger excesses have been approved, which he described. EXHIBIT 8 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 1 5/6/21 MINUTES #8 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF May 6, 2021 On May 18, 2020, the Marin County Public Health Officer issued a legal order directing residents to shelter at home until further notice. The order limits activity, travel and business functions to only the most essential needs. Additional information is available at https://coronavirus.marinhhs.org/ Consistent with Executive Orders No. N-25-20 and No. N-29-20 from the Executive Department of the State of California, the Design Review Board meeting will not be physically open to the public and all Board members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the meeting by following the meeting live at: Please click the link below to join the webinar: Audio/Video Webinar: https://zoom.us/j/95332739330 Webinar ID: 953 3273 9330 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 953 3273 9330 Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting are available on the Town’s website. Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to the Town Clerk by email at comments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Board meeting will be distributed electronically to the Board and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received after the start time of the Board meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item, will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Chair’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at www.townoftiburon.org. The meeting was opened at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Cedric Barringer. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Cedric Barringer; Vice Chair Chong; Boardmembers Miles Berger, Paolo Crescini and Suzanne Kim Absent: None Staff: Director of Community Development Dina Tasini; Town Attorney Eli Flushman; Senior Planner Christine Fong; Assistant Planner Samantha Bonifacio; Community Development Aide Kris Bernard ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – None TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 2 5/6/21 STAFF BRIEFING – Community Development Director Dina Tasini reminded the Board of the joint meeting with the Town Council on May 19, 2021. She asked Boardmembers to contact her via email with any items they would like covered during the meeting. MINUTES Consider adoption of minutes of meeting of April 15, 2021 It was M/S/C (Kim/Berger) to adopt the minutes of April 15, 2021, as submitted. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1 281 KAREN WAY; Assessor’s Parcel No. 034-122-05; File Nos. DR2020- 088/VAR2020-020; Lisa Evers, Owner; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a 930 square foot addition to an existing single-family dwelling with an attached garage as well a new spa, fire pit, and outdoor kitchen island with a barbeque, with a Variance request for reduced side setback. A portion of the project would extend within 5 foot, 6 inches of the left side property line, which is less than the 6-foot side setback required in the R-1-B-A zone. (Continued from April 1, 2021) Kyle Thayer, Thayer Architecture, stated this is the third time before the Board and each time they have made revisions based on comments from the Board and neighbors. The original 6’ setback variance requested is still applicable. At the last meeting, they lowered the main ridge 2’4”, restored the ground floor plate height to 8’1” in conformance with the normal pattern in the Bel Aire neighborhood, reduced the second story plate height from 9’1” to 8’1” overall and dropped another foot to 7’1” on the south side, dropping a line of the second floor eave closest to the street by 3’2” among other changes. The current design has the following additional changes, all of which are at the upper floor: • Removed the office from the entire project which eliminates the upper floor projecting room on the back north side to address privacy concerns of the eastern neighbor; • Made the building smaller by reducing the upper floor area by 120 s.f. from 711 s.f. to 591 s.f.; • Lowered the height of the building by 3” at the eave of the street side bay; • Created a new upper floor layout with new window locations. All windows on the north side are in hallways and not in living areas of rooms to respect privacy concerns of both neighbors to the east and west; • Moved the mass towards the middle of the lot, creating a balanced composition. The upper floor is now 16’5” from the west property line and 11’4” from the east property line; • Moved the mass per floor away from the street by 12”; and TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 3 5/6/21 • The main ridge height remains the same at 22’2” but is moved away from the street by 12” In the design of the second story, they felt constraints on all 4 sides as well as the ground plane. The proximity to the neighbors on the east and west due to privacy concerns, the distance of the upper floor to the street on the south side, and the mandate from immediate neighbors against projecting the building northward all needed to be considered and balanced. In addition, the Planning Director and Town Attorney have made it explicitly clear that a single story scheme requiring a variance in lot coverage would not be a viable option. The current design of the second story strikes a balance between all of these factors, resulting in a smaller upper floor, more centered on the lot with no projecting room on the north. They feel the upper floor is now the right size, height, and in the right location. They are unsure of what other changes can be made without compromising one of these factors. At the meeting one month ago, the DRB said two main things: 1) Create a more balanced composition when viewed from the street; and 2) Create a second story that does not look like a second story. They were able to do the former and have explored a number of options that would more directly address the latter concern. They tried fitting the second story within the plane of a continuance lower roof like an attic space. This necessitated turning the upper floor 90 degrees, aligning it in the north/south direction back towards the hillside. They agreed that this made the privacy issues with the neighbors on either side more acute and problematic and this fact, coupled with a very different aesthetic, resulted in rejecting this design. They also considered a more modern approach using flat roofs which again was rejected because it was not a look his client was willing to accept. The design tonight is their “best take”—lower, smaller and more balanced than previous designs, adhering to the Town mandate of conforming lot coverage and the neighbor mandate of no projecting room on the north side. They have responded to what the DRB has asked for and have responded to the needs of the immediate neighbors. This may not be exactly the design someone would propose, but in taking into account all of the conflicting factors it is a good solution, in their opinion. It is the design his client wants and is the home she wants to build and live with her family in. The staff report outlines a way for the DRB to approve this project tonight and he encouraged the Board to consider the changes and improvements made to the design and to approve the project. He thanked the Board for their consideration and said he could refer to drawings if the Board wished to view them. Lisa Evers, Owner, said the lot is long and narrow with a massive hillside and they are also constrained by the Planning Department’s requirement of not exceeding 30% lot coverage variance. Second stories are permitted and they exist in the neighborhood and the challenge of the location of the second story was the fact she has two close neighbors east and west of her and they absolutely have asked her not to take the second story along their fence lines. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 4 5/6/21 She and Mr. Thayer have worked very hard to come up with a balanced design. In the last meeting she believes Boardmember Kim did not want the sheer wall on the east side so they re- positioned the second floor. Realistically, putting the second floor in the center of the existing house is a beautiful design. Aesthetically, it looks appealing and from the street which is very wide and she looks at her neighbor’s garage and the side of her house. Therefore, the front view to the house putting the second story in the center gives all of the privacy issues to east and west and takes that out and mitigates it. In fact, taking the office off the back of the house which is what Marcus and Tessa White had asked her to do has been done. She reduced the entire square footage of the entire project and she sent her a very nice text this morning and wished her good luck tonight. She said the plans looked really nice and hopes she gets approved. Strategically, they have done everything the DRB has asked. They are under many constraints based off of the Planning Department and variances they have requested that they do not exceed. She has worked very hard with Mr. Thayer, Samantha Bonifacio, and Dina Tasini from the Planning Department, have been before the DRB twice, and have taken everything they have been asked to do and she is not asking for any special considerations. Everything she is asking for is in the Town’s zoning guidance and ordinance. Therefore, she hopes the Board sees the time, effort and money she has put into this project and will consider the fact the home is beautiful and fits in with the neighborhood. There are many styles of homes here and hers is something in the middle. It has a nice color palette, fits well into the neighborhood, and she is spending a lot of money to bring it up to date with the code and hopes to gain approval from the Board tonight. Chair Barringer opened the public comment period. Public Comments: Maggie Drent said she lives at 132 Leland Way on the corner and is two houses east of the project and across the street. She opposes the new design because she feels it would be obtrusive and set a precedent for others to build a two-story house. Second stories take away sun and blue sky from where she sits in her living room. They put skylights in their home but it is still dark. The houses are not far apart from each other and having a house twice the size of their home is too large and she would feel blocked in. Two doors down there was a remodel which is fairly large but it does not seem as apparent and is nice. Boardmember Berger clarified that it is not specifically the sun and effects of this house per se that worries Ms. Drent but the precedent of other two-story homes that might be built near her that concerns her. Ms. Drent said yes, but she has been in this neighborhood for decades and knows the Evers’ neighbor, Eileen McHale and has grown up with them. She knows it will definitely take away her sun and privacy, as well. It also takes away from the neighbor across the street. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 5 5/6/21 Pru Starr, 160 Leland Way, said the story poles look almost the same as before. The design is still unbalanced, out of character, does not belong in Bel Aire, is obtrusive, impacts everyone, and she does not know what it will take for Ms. Evers to figure out that neighbors do not need this kind of house here. Gil Norman echoed Ms. Starr’s comments and said he has lived in the neighborhood for 65 years. He has seen remodels done, is happy with those that are one-story and appropriate, but this house is way too large and has not changed at all. He is unhappy someone is trying to force this size of a house in a neighborhood that will not accommodate it and the charm of Bel Aire will be lost. Many people are nervous about this project and he thinks it is inappropriate. Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, said she has lived here for over 31 years and thinks the applicant has made incremental changes of inches on either side since the last two meetings. The proposed remodel still looks like a house on top of a house and will stick out like a sore thumb. It does not fit into the neighborhood, looks boxy, and looks like it belongs more in Corte Madera behind the Paradise Shopping Center which is a totally different style than their Bel Aire neighborhood. The Town does not mandate no variances because historically the DRB granted variances to increase the FAR rather than allowing second stories, and she was not sure what the applicants have against getting a variance. They should tuck the remodel into one story around the side of the house and in the back, noting neighbors all along Leland and next to them have done this. Most remodels are one-story and beautiful, with square footages of 2,000 to 2,800 square feet, and they all fit in the neighborhood. She then read the Town’s policies and how two-story additions are strong discouraged in these neighborhoods. The project will also impact views, privacy, sunlight and shade, will loom over the street and neighbors, and will set a dangerous precedent, and she asked that the DRB deny the project. Stephanie Zaczek, 38 Claire Way, spoke in strong support of the very ethical and hard-working effort by Ms. Evers to comply with all rules and regulations that have been before her to design a house that she wants and is entitled to, according to the rules and regulations of the Bel Aire neighborhood. Some people might feel fine with building out every square inch of their lot and getting variances, but at this time they are no longer allowed to have variances. Because of this, second story options are fully and legally allowed and endorsed by the CC&Rs in the Bel Aire neighborhood. Many people want to keep lot footprints small because they have young children and want a yard, garden or trees, pools, but there must be flexibility. If people read the CC&Rs they can see what the height requirements are and lot requirements. They bought into the neighborhood knowing these were the facts and what they could be faced with. She has listened to arguments by speakers but there is no dangerous precedent here. It is a house for someone to live in and she asked that everyone calm down. Ms. Evers has gone back and forth and spent a lot of money which is not easy in order to comply with all of the rules. Her design is well thought out and there is a lot of support from neighbors. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 6 5/6/21 Ted Schroeder, 270 Karen Way, registered his opposition and echoed comments of speakers in opposition, stating this design has been rejected twice already on the basis of its design and not because it is two stories. It does not look like it has fundamentally changed, does not fit within the character of the neighborhood, thinks the owners have not made any strong effort to re-think the project other than moving rooms around and changing roof height, but it is the fundamental aesthetics of this design which have not been addressed. Eckhard Evers, 275 Church Street, said he is helping Ms. Evers build the house and she has done everything asked of her by the DRB, is within all legal rights, and he does not understand why there are still issues. He thinks people can argue about size but not design, per se. He has remodeled numerous homes and this house completely fits in the neighborhood, thinks there will always be people in opposition but also numerous people in favor. At the first meeting, 14 people were in favor and 13 opposed to the house that has been redesigned and reduced. She has appeased neighbors on the east and north side with privacy, encouraged the DRB to approve the project, and thinks this is within legal rights and follows the design review guidance. Eileen McHale stressed the impact that the second story would have on her privacy. The new plan is just as big and closer to her house now with a recreation room with three windows on the west side looking inside her primary bathroom’s commode and basin and would also be able to see a person entering or exiting the shower. She included a picture of her bathroom window in the late mail #10 to demonstrate this impact on her privacy and displayed these photos. The applicant has moved everything closer to her house and it is larger. She thinks everyone should have a private bathroom in their house and people buy in Bel Aire for one-story homes. Every street except Harriet have houses where yards meet each other and if a two-story was built it would affect five neighborhoods’ privacy. Regarding sunlight, she asked staff to display impacts here which shows where the sun comes up which will block all of her sunlight until after 9AM in the morning in her bathroom, dining room, kitchen, and family room. Priscilla Wanat, 86 Claire Way, said she lives just around the corner and has no problem at all with the house, but it is designed to be in the wrong place. She understands neighbor’s concerns with having a bulky construction next door to them when there is very little room between the houses. The effects on the sunlight would be very evident and the sense of having an outside view to see the hills would also be interrupted. She said it might have been easier for the owner had she spoken previously to those who were not in favor of her design to have a clearer idea of the objection to the house and personally wrote three letters expressing various problems she has with this design. Dan Schwager, 38 Claire Way, said he lives about one block away, is a strong support of Ms. Evers’ plan and feels it is tastefully designed. Any issues have been remedied and he strongly supports the ability for homeowners to have second stories particularly when they are so attentive to the aesthetic. To retain a feeling by some neighbors that second stories can never be allowed is not to anyone’s advantage and he thinks the neighborhood would thrive with well-done second stories. They will increase property values and eliminate the bungalow look of the originals which he feels are detrimental. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 7 5/6/21 He said every time he walks his dog by Ms. Evers’ house, he looks at the story poles and feels it would look great right where it is planned and strongly endorsed the plan. Lenore, 346 Karen Way, said she is very much in favor of this design. She looked at the report produced by Ms. Bonifacio and thinks if everyone reads the report and resolution there is no way the Board can turn down the request to build this house. Ms. Evers has bent over backwards to accommodate everything that is required of her, has spent a lot of money, thinks she has done an amazing job and has done more than what was required. She has read all letters submitted in opposition and there is nothing she can do to appease neighbors. They are simply dead set against having a second story. To tell her it is just the wrong house in the wrong place is offensive and insulting because there is no prohibition against second stories. Some of the people calling in and complaining should keep their homes in order for them to appreciate in value. Many people live here because they cannot afford to live in any other part of Tiburon. Frankly, the condition of some of the homes is very run down and she suggested people start investing and stop criticizing people who want to bring money and make the community a more attractive neighborhood. It is not a reason for denying this proposal and asked the Board to approve the project. Rebuttal – Applicant Mr. Thayer referred Eileen McHale, the neighbor on the west, and said there are two windows in the recreation room that face west and those are 2x4 foot hop awning windows with 5 foot sills so they are not windows that will be looking down into any of her rooms. They are located up high and are for air. He also pointed out that the windows are 16’6” from the property line and nearly 23’ away from her house. Therefore, this is not looming over anyone’s home and they have tried to balance this. There is a third window which is a side window to the bedroom which is 34’ away from her house and it is an approximately 3x3 foot window and not a major view window. Lisa Evers said the difficult thing is that the same people that continually come as the vocal minority do not want change and she respects Ms. McHale’s privacy next door. They have done everything they can to raise the height of the windows. They are not view windows and no one will ever look down into any of her windows, and they did this on purpose to accommodate any impact. She said some people will never want any change, which is unfortunate. As the Board has heard from several other people, along with the neighbor two doors down from her and the White’s who are unable to be here, they are in favor of the project. They want the progression and change and do not have any problem with second stories. Belveron has had many second stories tastefully done and no matter what anyone does as far as a remodel they can either tastefully do it or not tastefully do it. She is spending a lot of money and time trying to improve the value of her home and the overall neighborhood and does not think anything she is doing is egregious. She hopes the Board can TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 8 5/6/21 listen to those who support the project and said she has tried very hard to work with people in the neighborhood who have even been willing to talk to her. Ms. McHale has never come once to talk to her after she has offered and she is grateful to those in support. Mr. Thayer has addressed the privacy issues and she has done everything she can to respond to the DRB’s comments in contingency of the fact that the Town’s Planning Department has strict variances and will not support anything over 30%. Boardmember Kim said she appreciates all of the significant changes in the plan on the first floor. The second floor looks similar to what was in the initial design. It is approximately the same size even though they lost the stair protrusion. Again, it is not about the second floor but the balance of the elevation. There is something about it that just feels like it is an add-on and not a harmonious second floor to the bottom, and it feels like a pop-out. While she understands the aesthetics Ms. Evers wants for the roof, but this is what is offending people. She wondered if a flat roof would actually bring down the overall height and people would be less offended by it. Getting rid of the back piece, the front protrusion and reducing the square footage did help which were meaningful changes but she is not in love with the front elevation and finds it a bunch of pieces that were patched together and not harmonious; however, she is open to hearing what other Boardmembers think. Boardmember Berger also acknowledged the applicant’s changes. To lose a whole room on the top floor because of privacy concerns is not insignificant and it is to be commended and taken into consideration by the Board. There are also second stories in the neighborhood so this per se is not the issue but rather how it is done. He said the width of the second floor is very similar to what it had proposed to be and the attempt to integrate it into the lower roof by bringing up the lower roof and having the second floor be done as a series of dormers is completely possible and it was the design he was always waiting for. He presented the second floor and said the rooms are lined up side to side and there is no reduction in square footage. It could just as easily be done with the rooms one in front of the other with the bathroom and stair on the one side, bringing in the roof almost half as much width with no diminished diminution in the square footage of the second floor. That could be done in such a way that the second floor would be a much smaller portion of the overall house. Again, it could be worked in because it is more centered if bringing the roofs up on the outside where two pieces could be done as dormers. T There are many ways it could be done to minimize the extent to which the second floor looks like it is another house form. It could be integrated in and be much narrower as seen from the street and further away from the side properties. The question for the Board is whether this is what they mean or something like this or designing it so it minimizes the extent of the width of the second floor. He would hate to ask that it come back again but to him it is not a diminution in square footage or any of the light and air aspects. But it would make the house not stretch across the site but be much narrower and it would be an TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 9 5/6/21 easy thing to try to integrate it into some of the room forms as the most successful of the second stories in the neighborhood do. So, it is a question of compatibility with the neighborhood; instead of putting the rooms on the sides or some other of the many ways to lower the impression of the second floor. He was going to ask about the height of the windows in the recreation room on the side and 5’ is pretty good. It used to be 5’6” which was what people said was one’s eye line and he suggested these be raised a touch more, so instead of the sills at 5’ be at 5’3” which would never pose a privacy issue from those windows. Additionally, the fence has not been discussed. When many Boardmembers first saw it, they felt it was too powerful and big for this neighborhood. He would like to see the fence deleted or brought back as a much more friendly and low key fence that would fit more into the streetscape and allow the continuity of the yard spaces along the street to be more consistent. So, the questions in order to achieve approval would be being more obscure on the sill on the windows, remove the fence, and instead of having the rooms side by side that they come front to back and continue to integrate the roof forms with the second floor in terms of a dormer approach that would lower the impact and look of the second floor. He thinks it is great that Ms. Evers has neighbors who support her, but he does not want to downplay the significance of the changes made. Lastly, he noticed that the living room is taller than the rooms on the other side which is not a reason for not having the rooms in front of the other. Once rooms are slenderer, if they design it with the recreation room in the back and the bedroom in the front, they can raise the floor of this one up so as to gain extra height in the living room. So, there is no detriment to changing the design to having the second story much narrower and work into the roof form, especially as it relates to the front of the house and having this come back. Ms. Tasini said staff would like to have the sketch copy Boardmember Berger made for the record and she noted there is a Permit Streamlining Act issue with this particular process which is June 18, 2021. At some point, if the Board’s direction is to continue and ask for changes again, she suggested bringing back the architect and owner to see if these can be met and whether they can meet this deadline. Chair Barringer thinks Boardmember Berger’s idea for 10 foot ceilings in the living room is viable. One of the big improvements as far as neighbor impact in plans 2 and 3 which was the reduction of the roof height. He thinks bringing the roof height back up will raise more issues. Commissioner Crescini said he would like to summarize in a nutshell what the issue was with the coverage variance so he understands better how to deal with this project. Ms. Tasini explained that when someone applies for a variance there are certain findings that must be made. With the instances of lot coverage, the Board must make all four findings. When there is a flat lot with no topographical constraints and no hardship there, she cannot make those findings. Therefore, she would have to come to the Board with a variance denial. This is what TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 10 5/6/21 she told the applicants in the very beginning. Now, she will note that in the past there have been many variances given but she believes they were somewhat weak, in her own opinion. Town Attorney Eli Flushman said he thinks Ms. Tasini’s explanation is sufficient for findings. This meeting is not to consider any variance for lot coverage. In order to consider one and bring one, staff wanted to see something they could support for the four findings. In discussing how it was done in the past is not before the Board tonight, so he thinks the Board should focus on the application presented and what is on the agenda tonight. Boardmember Crescini said the reason he asked is because the applicant has choices if the variance is an option. If the variance is not an option, then there are no choices. And, he would like to account for this in evaluating the project. Mr. Flushman said the proposed project is what the option is. Boardmember Berger added that the Board can discuss this for the meeting on the 19th but it is not before them now or as an option. Boardmember Crescini recognized the background and said it will enable him to deliberate on the project. He said he remembers a comment from Boardmember Kim who said she felt sorry for the owner because once a year there is a project where applicants can get unfairly treated and he agrees this is the case. It seems they have tried every possible way and he thinks the Board needs to recognize that. They tried to work with all possible problems and he thinks the solutions they are submitting tonight are actually the only ones left because if the Board does not approve this, he questioned what else they could do. In looking at the floor plan, he pointed out that it is about 2,000 square feet which is not exaggerated, and one quarter of the area is above with the main bulk down below. He visited the site and was very against the first story pole he saw but he thinks he could support this version. The Board could ask the applicant to further lower it but the point is that all of the neighbors are at an 8’ top plate. He thinks asking for a higher ceiling in the rooms is already different from the neighbors. So, he looks at the project and the house is a 3 bedroom plus a recreation room and now that people are forced to being at home, this is a welcome space. Down below, he thinks the spaces are what they need to be and they are not huge or waste of space. Up above there are two bedrooms and the two rooms and a bathroom. He also noticed the new story poles and everything is now centered. He agrees with Boardmember Berger with a sloped ceiling but at this point, whatever the Board wishes to accomplish to mitigate the look of the house will take away from the rights of the owner to have the house she wants. The geometry of the house does not allow for the type of roof integration that they saw in other projects and the City is not helping saying they allow two stories but discourages it because it creates discourse which he is saddened by. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 11 5/6/21 In reply to Boardmember Berger’s suggestion to bring the room on the back, he understands this would achieve a leaner second floor but they already went through this. Putting a room in the back means a window would be added on the west side or east side which would cause complaints from neighbors, or on the north side so both are complaining. The main windows are on the street now. He thinks the applicant has done their due diligence in limiting the privacy issues on the two sides and on the back. The Board can ask to have the sills raised a bit higher for privacy which he supports and, generally speaking, he feels he can approve the project as presented and feels the applicant and architect did everything they could, as it is impossible to satisfy everybody. Boardmember Berger asked and confirmed Boardmember Crescini agrees that the fence is not something seen in the neighborhood and he supported having an open front yard. Chair Barringer suggested that if an applicant wants a fence for any reason the Board could condition it so it is lightened by removing the stone-wrapped pillars which would be an improvement. Vice Chair Chong said he struggles with the project. On one hand, he feels like they are back where they started. There was the original design which was 35 feet wide on the top in the center. They went to a design that slid it all the way over to the right, added an office in the back, and dropped the roof down. This was 33’6” wide. Now, they slid it back to the center which is 2” wider now. It has lost the office in the back and still has the height reduction. In some respects, it is the original design with a lower roof and a couple less in width. Originally, he wanted to see a two-story that did not look like a two-story from the street. He went back out and looked at the story poles a couple of times and they are not offensive from the street. They block a bit of the hill in the back but it is not massive. He understands why neighbors do not like two stories because it blocks light, affects privacy, etc. He also puts himself in the applicant’s view which is that they cannot go back because it will affect lot coverage. They should be able to add the square footage that everybody else has in her neighborhood. The applicant is asking essentially for what amounts to a room of a master suite in many houses which is a recreation room, a small bedroom and bathroom. To Boardmember Berger’s point, he was expecting the applicant was going to come back with a plan to turn it sideways. To Boardmember Crescini’s point, it creates the same problem. This just puts more in the back and there will be windows, and the exact same problems the office had originally will not be the other two rooms turned. Boardmember Berger had mentioned this at the last meeting and there must have been a reason why the architect and applicant did not want that version, and they came back with this design. Therefore, given now he understands more of the Town’s stance on variances and the findings required to make them, short of the Town changing something it will end up being two stories as the norm, assuming the Town will allow people to improve their homes and not allow for variances. Given the sensitivities they are having to juggle, he was not sure he would want to see more mass in the back that will look down into people’s backyards and creates privacy impacts TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 12 5/6/21 so he was more where Boardmember Crescini is leaning and would lean towards support knowing there might be a chance it gets appealed and ends up in with the Town Council. Boardmember Crescini said excluding every other possibility, this is the only design that remains in his view. Boardmember Kim said what the neighbors are expressing is a zoning problem and it needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission. The Board is not arguing about the zoning. They are arguing about the architecture and actual design, which is difficult. Vice Chair Chong said, however, it is directly related to the zoning because if this was a house going in on a street where there were 30 other two story homes and the home on the left and right were two stories and three across the street were two stories, he does not think anybody would have a problem with it. Chair Barringer said also if 38% lot coverage was allowed the owner would be happy to keep it one story. Some of the letters grate him a little bit the wrong way and the questions about why people need houses this big. Many people in the neighborhood do have houses this big or bigger and they just happened to get there through lot coverage variances. He would agree that the privacy issues have been dealt with in a respectable manner. Regarding Ms. McHale, the neighbor to the west, a view out the bathroom window is not a primary view. He personally had a frosted window because his neighbor was 16 feet away so privacy goes both ways. On the east side there are no windows at all which he thinks is appropriate because that is the side that is closer. The distances have been pulled back and these are reasonable as well as the 8’ plate. The big difference from the first proposal is that instead of the staircase protruding out to the street, it has been incorporated. The windows on that bedroom also go down from the 8’ plate to 6’9” which he thinks is a big improvement from the street. Chair Barringer said he is supportive of applying a condition to change the fence design. He believes this is a reasonable way to resolve things by giving the applicant the house she wants which is a fair request, and the materials are also fine because it is a mixed neighborhood. Vice Chair Chong said he thinks this is the reason the code is written about two stories to be “strongly discouraged” versus “prohibited”. Boardmember Kim supported a condition on the fence at a minimum because it is blocking and not integrated with the other homes in the neighborhood. Boardmember Crescini said he is not necessarily against the fence but it is so heavy and he questioned its need and suggested a vegetated fence. Vice Chair Chong and Chair Barringer suggested a condition to indicate to removal of the stone and replace it with wood for the fence material. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #8 13 5/6/21 Boardmember Berger said he thinks the height of the wood as shown 3’6” is not excessive at all and if it was just a wooden section with an occasional post for stability as opposed to the stone it would fit much better into the neighborhood. The planting plan seems to show there is vegetation around it to soften it considerably as well. Chair Barringer said it seems they have addressed the major comments, knows this is a tough project as far as the neighborhood but there is no one behind this applicant which changes the view situation. There may be light intrusion on the sides but it is set back from the street and there is no view blockage from behind so he did not think he would support this if it was on Claire Way and also does not think it sets a precedent. Boardmember Crescini agreed and voiced support for the second story because of the age of the neighborhood and because it has a hill behind. Otherwise, if it were in the middle, he would probably not support a second story. Chair Barringer moved and Vice Chair Chong seconded to adopt the draft resolution as written with the additional condition of removal of the stone pillars at the front fence. Boardmember Berger said he thinks there is a better design that would solve the problems. He did not think Mr. Thayer has tried to integrate this second floor into the roof in any way that the Board asked from the very beginning and thinks there is a way to do it. He will go on record that he cannot approve the design, as is. It was M/S/C (Barringer/Chong) that the application is categorically exempt from CEQA and to adopt the draft resolution as written with the additional condition of removal of the stone pillars on the front fence. Roll Call Vote: 4-1 (Berger voted no). PH-2 687 HILARY DRIVE; Assessor’s Parcel No. 055-211-08; File No. DR2020-015; Terrell, Owners; Consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with two-car attached garage in the R-1 zone. The project includes new retaining walls, replacement of a portion of the perimeter fence, hot tub, exterior stairs and landing, and landscape improvement. The proposed house and exterior improvements would contain approximately 3,543 square feet of floor area and cover 4,515 square feet (24.55%) of the lot. (Note: This project was appealed to Town Council on March 17, 2021. The project has subsequently been remanded to the Design Review Board for further review and deliberation of changes to previous design) Basia Terrell, owner, said after hearing the last project she has an appreciation for the challenges the Board deals with and there are similar issues they are dealing with here. She can speak to the fact that they were appealed and went before the Town Council. After a 4 hour hearing, the Mayor said their design was beautiful which was echoed by the Vice Mayor but there were some concerns and issues raised and they heard comments from the appellant. EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT 10 EXHIBIT 11 1 Samantha Bonifacio From:Thomas Knauer Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 10:09 PM To:Town; Jack Ryan; David Kulik; Alice Fredericks; Jon Welner; Holli Thier Cc:Samantha Bonifacio Subject:Town Council Consideration of 281 Karen Way Appeal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Dear Tiburon Town Council, I recently wrote to the Design Review Board regarding the remodel at 281 Karen Way, and was asked by Samantha Bonifacio to forward my comments to you. I believe that most of you know the Bel Aire neighborhood well, and may be aware of the may attempts over the years to build upwards, beyond the current norms of the neighborhood. While most families desiring to expand their homes have made reasonable requests to expand, generally by making creative use of available space, a few parties have tried to expand upwards – which creates a negative impact on their neighbors and the broader community. There are many remodeled Bel Aire homes with similar lot coverage to the 281 Karen Way proposal which comfortably house families of four or five (or in one case, six), but without the second story. In my emails to the Design Review Board, I noted that the current proposal is nearly 3,000 sq ft, or 1,000 sq ft per inhabitant, significantly more than the average of 500-700 sq ft/inhabitant for most of the Bel Aire homes. I also must wonder about the long-term objectives and motivation to plow ahead with a plan that upsets a large percentage of the neighborhood. And finally, I am concerned about the precedent being set and the the potential to create a neighborhood with a "wall effect". Thank you for your consideration, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way •From: Thomas Knauer Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 3:55 PM To: Lea Stefani <lstefani@townoftiburon.org>; Samantha Bonifacio <sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org> Subject: 281 Karen Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Design Review Board, May 18, 2021 2 I was dismayed to hear from neighbors that the plan to remodel 281 Karen Way, without substantial changes to the original proposal, seems to be moving forward. Based on my research, and as I noted in my original comments, the proposed floor space of nearly 3,000 sq ft (now slightly reduced) would be the largest in Bel Aire, with only a couple of other homes of similar size. And considering the fact that the application letter reference three inhabitants, the 1,000 sq ft/person is excessive when compared to the typical 500 sq ft/person for most homes in Bel Aire (average around 2,000 sq ft with four inhabitants). At this point, I wonder about the motivation to continue forward with a project which has alienated a very large number neighbors, and the insistence on keeping the features which cause the most tension - primarily the second story. There are multiple homes which have more inhabitants, and cover similar ground sq ft., without the need for the second story: Examples include 317 Karen Way (family of four), 266 Karen Way (family of four), 151 Leland Way (family of five?), 139 Leland Way, 78 Claire Way (family of six), and many others. This important topic needs to be considered not only for the current project, but also for the precedent it sets. If approved, more Bel Aire homeowners will use it as justification for a second story, and the character of the neighborhood will change dramatically. I commuted to Fremont for 10 years, passing through neighborhoods with lot sizes similar to Bel Aire and a high proportion of second story houses - the "wall effect" was depressing and made the neighborhoods less desirable and livable. I am certain that this is not the outcome the Design Review Board intends, but it is a strong possibility once the door is opened to second stories. Thank you, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way  I would like to add some comments, based on my review of the architectural plans for 281 Karen Way posted on your website. While the lot plans indicate coverage of 2,415 sq ft, the actual living space is nearly 3,000 sq ft, far more than almost every other home in the Bel Aire neighborhood. This would seem excessive for the applicant's family of three, as she indicated in her letter to the neighborhood. Most Bel Aire homes are approximately 2,000 sq ft, with typical occupancy of four, and have 3-4 bedrooms, and 2 bathrooms - about 500 sq ft/occupant. The proposal for 281 Karen would be nearly 1,000 sq ft/occupant, and consists of five bedrooms (considering the game room and office as potential bedrooms) and 3.5 bathrooms. Frankly, this is overkill, even for the largest lots in the Bel Aire neighborhood. The ground floor expansion (2,415 sq ft) would be much more in line with the previous projects in Bel Aire, and would seem to be more than adequate for the family based on their own description of their lifestyle needs. The second story does not add value to the neighborhood, and seems to be more about increasing resale value than about supporting the needs of the current residents. 3 Thank you, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way On Monday, January 25, 2021, 02:07:21 PM PST, Thomas Knauer wrote: Dear Design Review Board, Thank you for soliciting input on the remodel at 281 Karen Way. We have been in the Bel Aire neighborhood for more than 15 years and live at 22 Claire Way. During our time here, we've seen several attempts to build 2nd stories and to extend the allowable building height significantly beyond what fits with the character of the neighborhood. While we understand there have been a few exceptions allowed, the proposal at 281 Karen far exceeds them, and would set a bad precedent that undermines the character of the Bel Aire neighborhood. Many of the past requests for much higher rooflines were on our street - in the end compromises were reached that kept the character of the neighborhood in tact, while allowing some expansion of the house. We urge the Design Review Board to strongly consider the risk in setting a precedent, and hope that the owners of 281 Karen can come up with a scaled back design which allows them to expand, but does not create a new "high water" (roofline) mark in the neighborhood to be exploited by future remodelers and developers. Best regards, Tom Knauer 22 Claire Way o o o o 17 Settings 4     18 Settings To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org + Add to contacts EXHIBIT 12 Page 1 of 5 Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021 RESOLUTION NO. 10-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01, all of which were superseded by Resolution No. 17-2010 on March 17, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 31, 2021 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 17- 2010 is hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town’s web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town’s current adopted Fee Schedule. Page 2 of 5 Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021 (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant’s appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town’s current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant’s other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than ten (10) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the ten (10) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the ten (10) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than ten (10) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the ten (10) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the ten (10) minute time limit. (d) At the Mayor’s discretion, with consensus of the Town Council, the amount of time specified in subsections (b) and (c) may be increased, but each side must be given equal time. Page 3 of 5 Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021 (e) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (f) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (g) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties’ control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Page 4 of 5 Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021 SCHEDULING OF APPEALS 1. The Town’s policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORY POLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council’s appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. Page 5 of 5 Town Council Resolution No. 10-2021 05/05/2021 APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff-level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on May 5, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ryan, Thier, Welner NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Kulik ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None _______________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: _______________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK /s/ /s/ A P R . 2 2 , 2 0 2 1 Tiburon Town Council June 16, 2021 PH-1: 281 Karen Way Appeal Late Mail Requests for Copies: Lea Stefani, lstefani@townoftiburon.org Rifkind Law Group 1010 B Street, Suite 200, San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 785-7988 * www.rifkindlawgroup.com Leonard A. Rifkind len@rifkindlawgroup.com 1 June 11, 2021 VIA EMAIL ONLY: hollithiertiburontowncouncil@gmail.com; jwelner@townoftiburon.org; afredericks@townoftiburon.org; jryan@townoftiburon.org; dinatasini@townoftiburon.org; sbonifacio@townoftiburon.org; lstefani@townoftiburon.org Mayor Holli P. Thier Members of the Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 281 Karen Way File No. DR2020-088, VAR2020-020 Design Review Appeal Dear Mayor Thier and Councilmembers: Introduction. Our firm represents Lisa Evers, who owns 281 Karen Way, Tiburon. Ms. Evers retained Kyle Thayer, Thayer Architecture, to design a remodel of her modest 1200 square foot 1950’s vintage home. Ms. Evers has appeared before three design review board meetings on February 18, April 1, and May 6, 2021, which at the last meeting gave design review approval. The neighbors appeal with just cause, opposing any second story addition in the Bel Aire neighborhood. Ms. Evers seeks to add a 591 square foot second story addition to her home; her original design called for 930 square feet, reflecting a 37.5% reduction during the DRB process. Neighbors, nevertheless, have appealed and are opposed to any second story addition principally because Ms. Evers home is located in the Bel Aire neighborhood. There are 8 second story homes in this neighborhood. Ms. Evers’ lot is long and narrow and has a large hillside at the rear, significantly constraining development. There is no ordinance in Tiburon precluding a second story addition. Rather, the issue presented is whether design review and variance findings can be made. TMC §16-52.020H, .030(E). The Design Review Board after three public hearings made the findings. Ms. Evers has obtained support for her project from 52 neighbors. (See attached support). 2 Summary of DRB Public Hearings: February 18, 2021. The Board indicated they would support a second story and voted to continue the hearing to allow redesign. Ms. Evers sought approval for a 930 square foot addition, and a variance for a reduced side yard setback, of approximately 6 inches, which is an extension of the existing west elevation that is legal non-conforming. Ms. Evers needs to improve her 1200 square foot home, which was built in the 1950’s, and has not been significantly upgraded since being built, and to meet the space requirements of her family. In July 2020, a significant leak/flood required evacuation of the home, with more than 90% of the interior floors and 75% of the walls damaged by mold, requiring her to move-out. Ms. Evers has struggled financially to carry two homes and now has had to give up her rental and move back into her home. Ms. Evers seeks to remodel with a second story because the alternative, would increase lot coverage over 30%, which is not supported by staff. Previously the Town has granted many variances over 40% lot coverage that according to staff are no longer supported for future projects. Further, even if the remodel was on the ground level, a rear yard slope precludes the ability to expand on ground level without significant grading, and adversely affects the back yard usable space. The second story addition was located in the center of the existing residence to reduce any privacy and light impacts to neighbors. There are no significant impacts. The second-floor addition was located 47 feet from the curb, 39 feet 9 inches from the property line, 13 feet 11 inches from the west property line and 12 feet 6 inches from the east property line. Ms. Evers made significant outreach efforts to the neighbors and the general neighborhood—open houses, private appointments because of COVID, canvass walking, and handwritten notes. April 1, 2021. The Board voted again to continue the hearing requesting a more balanced design and look less like a second story addition. Again, there was DRB consensus to support a second story design. Mr. Thayer advised the redesign followed DRB’s direction to reduce height 2’ 4 inches, mass by lowering the ground floor plate height to 8 feet 1 inch, reduced the second-floor plate height from 9 feet 1 inch to 8 feet 1 inch, dropped the second floor even closest to the street by 3 feet 2 inches, and shifted the second floor away from the western neighbor, reducing the size from 930 square feet to 711 square feet. The new design moved the office upstairs because staff would not support a variance of 2.5% on lot coverage. Mr. Thayer explained the only way to achieve the desired design program and comply with staff’s directive to comply with 30% lot coverage was to construct a second story addition with the office on the second floor. May 6, 2021. The Board granted design review approval (4-1). After being whipsawed from the original design located centrally to placing the second story to the east, the Board directed Ms. Evers to present a design that moved the addition back to the center of the existing home, and now reflected a 37.5% reduction in original size, to 591 square feet, including removing the office from the entire program, to eliminate privacy 3 concerns of the neighbor on the east. Staff again reiterated it could not support a variance for lot coverage, leaving a second story addition as the only option. Second Story Home Additions – Factors to Consider (“Factors”). In 2015, the Planning Department prepared its “factors” for second story additions. (Copy attached). Factors was created by staff some six years ago, and is not binding on the Council, merely a staff work product paper. Factors include: • Neighborhood Pattern. Factors calls out the Bel Aire as discouraging second story development. Neighborhoods evolve and at the present time some 5% of the Bel Aire neighborhood has a second story. The DRB at each of its three public hearings supported a second story design. • Views. The project does not block any landmark views or views of any kind. • Privacy. Every effort has been made by Ms. Evers to avoid privacy impacts. • Sunlight and Shade. Neighbors have presented no evidence the proposed second story additional adversely affects adjoining properties’ sunlight access. • Mass and Bulk. The design reduced from 930 SF to 591 SF, a 37.5% reduction in size, and eliminated an entire room from the second floor. • Lost Characteristics. The lot is narrow and long with a hillslope to the rear limiting design choices. Design Review Guiding Principles (Findings). Tiburon Municipal Code section 16- 52.020(H) requires Council make the following findings: 1. Site plan adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. Finding No. 1. The house footprint has been in place since construction in the 1950’s and is not changing. The modest 591 SF second story addition has little or no impact on any neighboring property. The project complies with all development standards for a R- 1 zoned property, save a variance on the western elevation to extend an existing legal non-conforming wall. 2. Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. 4 Finding No. 2. Constrained by a narrow lot width and rear hillslope, along with no ability to seek a variance for lot coverage, the only option was to build a second story addition to the existing 1200 SF residence. The location of the second story in the center of the existing residence will not create any view obstructions, and provides reasonable light and air to neighbors on each side of the residence. The upper floor is set back and articulated on both sides to avoid excessive mass and bulk appearance. Side windows have been reduced to increase privacy, and windowsill heights increased. 3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood. Finding No. 3. Residences in the Bel Aire neighborhood are varied in height, size and bulk. Throughout the years, numerous smaller single-family homes in the area have been rebuilt and/or remodeled, and some with second story additions. The amount of floor area proposed by the project is appropriate for a lot of this size. 16’-1”. 4. Floor area ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio (See subsection I., below). Finding No. 4. The project complies. 5. Grading and tree removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the site such as rock outcroppings or watercourses. Finding No. 5. The project will have no grading or tree removal impacts. 6. Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. Finding No. 6. The architectural design and exterior finish appear to be consistent with other updated homes in the neighborhood. The proposed architectural style and exterior finish will be harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with its surroundings. 7. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed project. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be 5 used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to provisions of title IV, chapter 13E (water efficient landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code shall comply with the Marin Municipal Water District regulations regarding water-efficient landscaping adopted by reference therein. Finding No. 7. The existing landscaping is sufficient and seeks to preserve existing mature trees. 8. Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for safety and security purposes. All proposed exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. Finding No. 8. All lights are shielded down lighting with no clear glass reducing impacts. 9. Overall property improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing improvements, upgrades may be required to be made to existing buildings and the site as a whole. The review of applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project and the changes and/or modifications required. Finding No. 9. This is remodeled single-family home in located in a single-family zone, meeting and satisfies all zoning requirements, except the requested variance. Upgrading aging housing stock is a benefit to the Town. (re-read first sentence… seems slightly off) 10. Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope should not generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory structures. Finding No. 10. The proposal is not located in an RPD and/or RMP zone. The project complies with all zoning constraints and development standards, except the side yard variance sought. 11. Green building. The project design includes features that foster renewable energy and/or resource conservation. Finding No. 11. The project will comply with Tier 1 of the CalGreen Building Code. 6 12. Conformance with zoning requirements. All modifications and site improvements shall conform with the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zones and allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal Code chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specific uses by this zoning ordinance. Finding No. 12. The project is located in the R-1 zone. The proposed structures would comply with all zoning requirements, except for a side-yard variance for which findings can be made. Variance Findings. All variance findings as set forth in TMC Section 16-52.030(E) can be made: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Finding No. 1. The lot is smaller than minimum lot size, approximately 8,000 SF where 10,000 is required. The residence was developed in the 1950’s before the Town’s zoning ordinance was adopted, and is grandfathered as a legal non-conforming. The existing sloped backyard further limits the developable building area. Therefore, a string application of the side yard setback would deprive Ms. Evers of privileges provided other property owners that do not have these existing constraints. 2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. Finding No. 2. Numerous other properties in the neighborhood, including 38 Claire Way (File #20132) and 279 Cecilia Way (File #20726) have received variances for reduced side yard setbacks. Specifically, the variances were for additions to existing non- conforming buildings constructed prior to current zoning requirements. Therefore, the granting of this variance would be consistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Finding No. 3. Because the residence including its setbacks are legal non-conforming, the strict application of the side yard setback would require the rear addition to be relocated six inches from where the existing wall is located and result a reduction of permitted FAR. 7 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Finding No. 4. The proposed project will not create view or privacy impacts for any neighboring residences. The addition is does not exceed height limits and will have solid fencing screen. There are no substantial modifications to the existing grade or landscaping that are necessary to facilitate the project. Conclusion. The Council can easily make the findings for design review and variance approval. The project has been endorsed and approved by the DRB after three public hearings. All 12 design review findings and four variance findings can easily be made as described above. The project does not create any material impacts to light, views and privacy, or inconsistency with neighboring properties, and represents the future of improving 1950’s homes needing modest space increases to meet modern requirements. This design represents the on-going need to meet today’s family requirements in one of the more modest areas of Town. Respectfully submitted, RIFKIND LAW GROUP By:__________________________ Leonard A. Rifkind LAR/lr Encls. cc: client Page 1 of 2 June 14, 2021 Dear Tiburon Town Council, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed remodel as it is currently designed for 281 Karen. 1. The Design Review Board's decisions regarding the suitability of the design were applied inconsistently. The first image is the street-side elevation from April 1, and the second is the same elevation from May 6. The first elevation was deemed unsuitable and the board voted for a continuance. The second elevation was approved, despite no alterations in the fundamental design. If this is being judged solely on the basis of the design, there is no way to justify this project going from a "no" on April 1 to a "yes" on May 6 when these pictures are virtually identical. 2. Alternative design suggestions were all but ignored by Ms. Evers and her architect. Miles Berger mocked-up a design that incorporated the second story addition into the roofline, reducing the massing and softening the "box on top of a box" design; however, that idea was discarded because, according to the architect, his client didn't want to go in that direction. While everyone has their personal aesthetic, the Town of Tiburon's building code states that "Neighborhood character...shall be of material consideration", and proposing a design that matches the neighborhood pattern is a requirement that must be met. 3. Ms. Evers' attorney states that, at the May 6 meeting, staff could not support a variance for lot coverage, but this is misleading. The board was advised by town counsel to not consider or discuss the variance, and only to address the design itself, because any speculation regarding a possible variance was beyond the scope of the meeting. In fact, board members had stated in previous meetings that they would be open to a lot coverage variance for this property. There is Page 2 of 2 no evidence that Ms. Evers ever applied for a lot coverage variance at all, and is instead using the assumption of being denied a variance as an excuse to build a second story. 4. Ms. Evers' claimed hardship does not justify approval. There are 17 other homes on the north side of Karen Way that have expanded beyond the original floorplan, with an 18th design recently approved at 273 Karen. They all have roughly the same lot size and back up to the same hill, and yet not a single one has a full-sized second story. Ms. Evers "hardship" is neither unique nor extraordinary, and her situation does not warrant an exemption that wasn't granted to the other 18 families that remodeled their homes in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. 5. The most glaring issue is that house does not fit into the neighborhood pattern. Ms. Evers states that the design is under the 30' height limit, which is true. However, the 30' height limit is not the only consideration in approving a remodel. Town of Tiburon's building code states that "Neighborhood character...shall be of material consideration, and preserved in all construction projects...", and that guideline is every bit as legitimate as any setback or height requirement in the books. Just because it's qualitative and can't be measured with a yardstick doesn't change the fact that it is still a requirement that must be met. Ms. Evers can point to the 8 other houses that have a second floor addition, but those examples are much smaller, more subtly integrated, and in keeping with the surrounding architecture. The current design at 281 Karen accomplishes none of those things. There is no other house in Bel Aire that adds this much square footage to the second floor. There is no other house that fails to integrate their second floor into the existing roofline. There is no other house that incorporates this stacked, box-on- box design. There is no other house where the front elevation dwarfs its immediate neighbors by 65%. Vice Chair Chong stated that if this house was on a street full of 2-story houses, no one would have a problem with it, and that is exactly the point. This is not a neighborhood full of houses with second stories. His statement is a de facto admission that this design does not fit the neighborhood character, and as such, it fails to meet the guidelines in Tiburon's building code. This project should either be sent back to Design Review or denied outright. Thank you for time, Ted Schroeder 270 Karen Way June 14, 2021 Mayor Holli P. Thier Members of the Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 281 Karen Way Dear Mayor Thier and Councilmembers, I call into question the decision to approve the development of a second story addition made by Design Review Board on May 6, 2021 Members of the DRB expressed their displeasure with the design. Additionally, the majority of the residents in Bel Aire are opposed to the project. The only reason the DRB approved this design was because they were mislead to believe the homeowner would not be granted an excessive lot coverage variance that would be required in order reduce the overwhelming bulk and mass of the second story. There is no record that the owner applied for an excessive lot coverage variance. There is no record that the Town of Tiburon would have denied her if she tried. That right there is all you need to know. The notion that the owner of 281 Karen Way is unable to reduce the size of the second story because she cannot build more into her back yard is patently false. Thank You, Joseph Starr 160 Leland Way Tiburon, CA 94920 From:Kris Bernard To:Lea Stefani Subject:FW: 281 Karen Way, Tiburon CA - Opposition Letter Date:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 9:52:10 AM From: brian brown <brianmarinabrown@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 4:44 PM To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org> Subject: 281 Karen Way, Tiburon CA - Opposition Letter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Holli P. Their and member of the Tiburon Town Council, The old timers of Bel Aire are not opposed to 2nd story additions. There are many tasteful 2nd story additions that add to the charm of the neighborhood. The proposed plans for 281 Karen Way are atrocious. Members of the DRB have called the revised plans “Odd” and I agree! To be clear, we welcome 2nd stories in our neighborhood, just not this one! Please make them adjust and accommodate the charm of our neighborhood. Throughout the decades when homeowners in Bel Aire needed more livable space they applied for backyard variances. These backyard variances have frequently, and consistently been approved. My family was granted two such variances in Bel Aire on two separate houses. Lisa Evers at 281 Karen Way never even attempted to apply for a backyard variance before submitting building plans for a 2nd story. There is NO SOLID EVIDENCE that Lisa Evers ever applied for a backyard (excessive lot coverage) variance. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that had Lisa Evers would have been denied this variance if she had applied for it. Lisa Evers claimed she would not be granted a backyard variance, by who? Why not? The Design Review Board made their decision on an “assumption” that the town stopped granting such variances. This “assumption” un-founded and there is no documented evidence whatsoever to support this assumption. I would bet the farm that the backyard variance for 281 Karen way would be approved without hesitation, as they have been consistently for the past 50 years. Despite the fact that the DRB was not fully supportive of the revised 2nd story plans, The DRB was forced to approve this atrocious design under the false narrative that 281 would not be granted a backyard (excessive lot coverage) variance. This is not a matter of anyone trying to restrict 2nd story additions in Bel Aire, it’s a matter of doing it tastefully. It is also a matter of pointing out that the DRB’s decision to approve these plans is based on Lisa Evers stating that her backyard variance would not be approved, this is unsubstantiated and there is zero evidence supporting this claim. She should be made to submit for a backyard variance before attempting to build up. Thank you, Brian Brown Bel Aire Resident From:Carolyn Shadan To:Lea Stefani Subject:278 Cecilia Appeal Date:Wednesday, June 16, 2021 9:39:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Their and Town Coucil Members This appeal, the many meetings, letters and comments all seem to be the result of mis steps during the design application process. This is said not to demonize the applicant, the planningdepartment or the DRB. We do have new staff in the planning department and it seems they may not have been aware of certain protocols and town procedures. An important point of considerstion-Variences are considered and approved or not, by theDRB. The town has an application and a fee schedule for this. Bel Aire has a significant precedence for variences. Therefore, the planner erred in telling Lisa, the applicant for 278,that variences were no longer going to be approved. I don’t know if Lisa would have applied for variences on a single story design had she not been told this. It seems the DRB and thetown attorney have confirmed the DRB’s jurisdiction in terms of variences in a DRB meeting after the design for 278 was submitted. So the dye had been cast. Another point for consideration is the idea of precedences and whether they matter or not. Wenot only have precedence for variences, but also for single room type second rooms, all on houses on the perimeter of Bel Aire. These are set back and unobtrusive. The first designproposed for 278 consisted of several rooms on the second story and was very obtrusive. While I don’t know the discussions between Lisa and her architect, it seems the inability toapply for variences pushed this design onto the second story. I believe this was also at the direction of the planning department. Dina did tell me, on a visit to my backyard, that one dayI would have two stories on either side of me. She said there was precedence for them. To which I reminded her that there was only precedence for them on the perimeter. And as I havewritten, those are all single rooms on the second story. Precedence cannot be claimed for one design point (single room second stories on the perimeter of Bel Aire), denied for another design point (variences) when it exists, andstretched to include a design point that doesn’t exist (multi-room second stories on the interior). I believe the appeal should be granted and the design sent back to the DRB and planning toeither consider a single story with variences that will give Lisa the size and number of rooms she needs, or to modify this design for a single room on the second story that is unobtrusiveand attractive. The town council, the DRB, and planning may not like having to review appeals and/or believe this is extortion, yet the town has a fee schedule and process for appeals. The zoningand planning guidelines state two stories are to be discouraged in an area of single storyhomes. It is the only process for being heard from our elected representatives, as we don’t hirethe planners, or appoint the DRB. I certainly find the process exhaustive and cumbersome. Yet, I disagree that one day I will have two stories on either side of me when there is noprecedence for them on the ineterior of Bel Aire, or that a cumbersome multi-room two story that one of the DRB members found unattractive should be built. I also don’t think it is fair to demonize neighbors (and this is important) who will actually lookat and experience reduced privacey, sunlight, due to a renovation. We will have to live with the impacts for years to come. Not the architects, buikders or friends of 278. s 278 will notimpact me and therefore my objection is to the inability of Lisa to apply for variences and the seeming promotion of multi room two stories all over Bel Aire, both by the Tiburon planningdepartment. Carolyn Shadan 279 Cecilia Sent from my iPhone TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Establishing the Municipal Budget Plan for FY 2021-22 Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Presentation and adoption of FY 21-22 Preliminary Municipal Budget and Gann Limit RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt, and authorize the Mayor to sign, the attached resolution (Exhibit 4) approving the Municipal Budget Plan for the Town of Tiburon for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022, with any approved modifications as previously discussed at tonight’s meeting, and associated Gann Limit Resolution (Exhibit 5) OR 2. Adopt a continuing budget resolution (Exhibit 6) and provide Staff with direction to return the budget for adoption at a later date. BACKGROUND Municipal Budget FY 2021-22 Staff is presenting the preliminary Fiscal Year 2021-22 Municipal Budget and Capital Improvement Program for Council review and comment. The Town Manager’s introductory Budget Letter provides an overview of the preliminary budget and an analysis based on year-to-year trends, and is attached as Exhibit 1, with the entire budget document attached as Exhibit 2. In addition, attached as Exhibit 3 is The Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension & OPEB Program Review – June 2021, which provides information on the Town’s two trust accounts related to CalPERS and Other Post Employment Benefit liabilities. These documents, along with tonight’s presentation provides Council with the opportunity to review the budget, ask questions, and provide input prior to the adoption of the budget. The Tiburon Planning Commission reviewed the draft Capital Improvement Program for consistency with the Tiburon General Plan on June 9, 2021. No conflicts with the General Plan were found. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 Agenda Item: PH - 2 Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 Appropriation Limits (Gann) FY 2021-22 Proposition 4, approved by California voters in November 1979, established and defined annual expenditure appropriation limits on all government entities. Proposition 4 became effective in Fiscal Year 1980-81; however the calculations to determine the annual limit are carried from a Fiscal Year 1978-79 base. Proposition 4 was modified in 1990 with the passage of Proposition 111, which slightly changes the annual adjustment factors, further identification of the types of expenditures which are excluded from the limit, and provisions for the exclusion of emergency expenditures from the limit. Implementation legislation provides that the Town Council shall, at a regularly scheduled meeting, establish by resolution the amount of appropriation subject to limitation. The State is to be provided with informational forms with the filing of the Annual Statement of Financial Transactions no later than ninety days after the start of the fiscal year. The appropriations limit is the calculated dollar amount which limits the Town’s ability to receive and expend proceeds of taxes. Such revenues include: Property Taxes, ERAF rebates, Sales Taxes, Real Property Transfer Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, Business License Taxes, State Motor Vehicle Fees, Off-Highway Taxes, certain rental income, other revenues and rebates, a share of Investment Earnings, and transfer of funds from other funds into reserves of the General Fund. The limit is calculated by adjusting the previously adopted limit by factors which include: (1) the State of California Per Capita Income Growth, and (2) the Town’s Population Growth. Both these figures are provided by the State Department of Finance. The limit is further adjusted if cities bear the costs of legislated fees for the transfer of responsibility. The County, through SB 2335, established fees for the collection of property taxes, which are not subject to the limit. ANALYSIS Municipal Budget The Town Manager’s Introductory Budget Letter, attached as Exhibit 1 provides analysis of the proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Municipal Budget and Capital Improvement Program. The total Town budget appropriates $18,341,422 in expenditures. The total budget includes $13,964,186 in operating expenditures, $381,200 in capital equipment and IT outlay, $2,677,045 in capital improvements, and $1,318,991 in debt service. The operating budget is balanced and provides a $97,455 surplus. Appropriation Limits (Gann) FY 2021-22 The calculation for the Town of Tiburon’s Appropriations Limitation for FY 2021-22 is illustrated below: Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 Gann Limit Calculation – FY 2021-22 Amount 1. Previously established limit, July 1, 2020 $10,581,513 2. Adjustment Factors Per capital personal income 5.73% Population growth -0.57% 3. Multiplier, for adjustment to limit (1.0573 x 0.9943) 1.05127 4. Annual Adjustment Amount (1) x (3) $542,550 5. Add: legislated pass-through fees County property tax collection $67,054 6. Revised limit, July 1, 2021 $11,191,117 Once the Appropriations Limitation has been determined for the upcoming fiscal year, using price factor and population data from the State of California Department of Finance, Staff must then determine the amount of revenues that the Town expects to receive that are subject to the limit. The table below illustrates revenues that are subject to the Gann Limit. 2021-22 Appropriations Subject to Gann Limit Amount A. Proceeds of Taxes $ 8,783,338 B. Exclusions -0- C. Appropriations subject to Limitation $ 8,783,338 D. Current Year Limit (#6) $11,191,117 E. Over/(Under) Limit ($2,404,778) F. Over/(Under) Limit as a Percent -21.49% Any additional revenues received during FY 21-22 that are considered “proceeds of taxes” will reduce the amount the Town is currently under the Gann Limit. Town Council Meeting June 16, 2021 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 FINANCIAL IMPACT By approving the Resolution as presented, the Council is authorizing the level of expenses, within funds, for the 2021-22 fiscal year. There is no financial impact in adopted the Appropriations Limitation resolution. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. 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 pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt, and authorize the Mayor to sign, the attached FY 2021-22 Budget Adoption resolution (Exhibit 4) approving the Municipal Budget Plan for the Town of Tiburon for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022, with any approved modifications as previously discussed at tonight’s meeting; AND move to approve a Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for FY 2021-22 (Exhibit 5); OR 2. Adopt the attached FY 2020-21 Budget Continuance resolution (Exhibit 6) and direct staff to return to Council for the adoption of the FY 2021-22 budget at a later date. Exhibits: 1. Town Manager’s Introductory Budget Letter 2. Preliminary FY 2021-22 Municipal Budget and Capital Improvement Plan 3. PARS OPEB & Pension Program Review – June 2021 4. Resolution Adopting the FY 2021-22 Municipal Budget and Capital Improvement Plan 5. Resolution Establishing the Town’s Appropriation Limit for FY 2021-22 6. Resolution Establishing the Continuance of the FY 2020-21 budget Prepared By: Elena Kurakina, Accounting and Finance Manager Suzanne Creekmore, Director of Administrative Services EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 PRESENTED TO: Mayor Holli Thier Vice Mayor Jon Welner Councilmember Alice Fredericks Councilmember Jack Ryan One Vacant Seat TOWN OF TIBURON PRELIMINARY MUNICIPAL BUDGET Fiscal Year 2021‐22 Table of Contents Town Manager's Budget Letter PUBLIC WORKS Town Organization Chart i All Divisions 57 Directory of Town Officials ii Administration & Engineering 58 Town Council, Commission and Board Members iii Streets Maintenance 61 Parks Maintenance 64 Corporation Yard 67 FUND RESOURCES OVERVIEW Street & Signal Light System 69 Overview of Total Appropriations 2 Cypress Hollow Special District 71 Statement of Fund Balances 3 Changes to Fund Balances 5 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Special Fund Descriptions 6 All Divisions 74 Risk Management/Joint Power's Authorities 76 OPERATING BUDGET PLAN Low-Moderate Income Housing 79 Overview of Operating Revenues & Expenditures 7 Town Owned Housing 81 Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency 83 OPERATING REVENUES & SOURCES OF FUNDS Overview of Operating Revenue Plan 9 CAPITAL OUTLAY & ALLOWANCE Summary of Operating Revenues 10 Planned Capital Outlay Purchases 86 Operating Budget Revenues 11 Planned Technology Outlay Purchases 87 OVERVIEW OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Overview of Expenditures by Object 15 Overview of Planned Funding 88 Summary of Department Expenditures 18 Streets Improvement Program 89 Summary of Funding for Department Expenditures 19 Drainage Improvement Program 91 Summary of Expenditures by Object 20 Community Improvement Program 93 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 95 DEPARTMENT OPERATING EXPENDITURES DEBT SERVICE PROGRAMTOWN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Principal, Interest & Fiscal Fees 127 Department Summary all Divisions 22 Department Summary by Object 23 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Administrative Services 24 Assessed Value of Property 131 Legal Services 27 Assessor's Parcel Data 133 Legislative Support 29 Town Staffing 135 Town Hall Facility 31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT All Divisions 36 Planning & Design Review 37 Building Inspection 40 Advance Planning 43 POLICE DEPARTMENT All Divisions 46 Police Services 48 Police Facility/EOC 52 Town Organization Chart i. TOWN MANAGER Gregory Chanis TOWN ATTORNEY Benjamin Stock CHIEF OF POLICE Ryan Monaghan DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dina Tasini DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS & TOWN ENGINEER Steven Palmer DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Suzanne Creekmore TOWN CLERK Lea Stefani BUILDING OFFICIAL Clay Salzman Directory of Town Officials ii. PLANNING COMMISSION BELVEDERE/TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE Kathleen Defever, Chair Jeff Tsai, Vice Chair Jason Rosell, Chair (Tiburon) Daniel Amir Chelsea Schlunt, Vice Chair (Belvedere) Erica Williams Jon Welner (Tiburon Town Council) Eric Woodward Sally Wilkinson (Belvedere City Council) Erin Burns (Tiburon) Jerry Riessen (Tiburon)DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Melissa Feder (Belvedere) Julianne Schaefer (Belvedere) Cedric Barringer, Chair Sherry Wangenheim Bryan Chong, Vice Chair (Reed Union School District) Miles Berger Suzanne Kim One Vacant Seat BELVEDERE/TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY BOARD OF TRUSTEES PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION Bill Smith, Chair (Belvdere) Isaac Nikfar, Chair Niran Amir, Vice Chair (RUSD) Chuck Hornbrook, Vice Chair Larry Drew (Tiburon) Park Allen Ken Weil (Tiburon) Tim Burr Jeff Slavitz (Tiburon) Angela McInerney Tom Cromwell (Belvedere) Maureen Johnson (Belvedere) HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION BELVEDERE/TIBURON JOINT Leonor Noguez, Chair DISASTER ADVISORY COUNCIL Jaleh Etemad, Vice Chair Patricia Ferrin Tom Cromwell, Chair Victoria Fong Holli Thier (Tiburon Town Council) Fran Hall Christopher Murphy (Tiburon) Kindra Lee James Sherman (Tiburon) Azita Mujica-Beavers Jerry Butler (Belvedere) Victoria Arnett, Commissioner Emeritus Town Historian: David M. Gotz ONE VACANT SEAT Town Council, Commission & Board Members TOWN COUNCIL HOLLI THIER, MAYOR JON WELNER, VICE-MAYOR ALICE FREDERICKS JACK RYAN iii. Overview of Total Appropriations Statement of Fund Balances, June 30th Closing Changes to Fund Balance Fiscal Year 2021/22 Capital & Special Project Fund Descriptions FUND RESOURCES OVERVIEW Page 1 FUND RESOURCES OVERVIEW Fiscal Year 2021/22 Overview of Total Appropriations Appropriation Operating Program Town Administration 2,284,530 Community Development 1,728,201 Police 4,137,071 Public Works 2,723,011 Non-Departmental 3,472,571 Subtotal:14,345,386$ Capital & IT Outlay Program 381,200$ Capital Improvement Program Street Improvements 1,863,945 Drainage Improvements 155,200 Community Development Improvements 657,900 Subtotal: 2,677,045$ Debt Service Program 2016 Consolidated Reassessment District 620,373 TPFA 2016 Refunding Revenue Bonds 619,790 Virginia Undergrounding District Series A 38,600 Virginia Undergrounding District Series B 40,228 Subtotal: 1,318,991$ Total Appropriation 18,341,422$ Page 2 FUND RESOURCES OVERVIEW Fiscal Year 2021/22 Statement of Fund Balances, June 30th Closing 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 FUND/ RESERVE Actual Actual Estimated Projected GENERAL FUND Operating (Policy Requires 25% Reserve)5,975,758 6,479,367 6,188,730 6,186,185 Employee Compensated Leave 171,952 250,000 195,000 195,000 Employee Housing Assistance - - - - CalPERS Liability Reserve - - OPEB Fund (GASB 45)- - Self Insurance 250,004 250,004 223,190 98,190 Capital Equipment Replacement 484,177 530,083 584,946 604,516 Technology Fund 610,233 601,855 645,527 548,882 CalPERS Side Fund Repayment - - - - Other Post Employment Benefits - - - - Sub-Total 7,492,125$ 8,111,309$ 7,837,393$ 7,632,773$ DISCRETIONARY SET-ASIDES PW Corp Yard Improvement 3,581,633 3,497,788 3,497,788 3,497,788 Park Development & ORT 603,766 525,921 480,170 368,270 Open Space Management 25,141 25,141 25,141 25,141 Emergency Repairs 47,277 99,560 99,560 99,560 Streets & Drainage 1,847,880 1,360,005 1,361,197 1,325,997 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 1,151,126 1,151,126 1,398,960 900,960 Litigation Reserve Retirment Surplus Account Sub-total 7,256,823$ 6,659,540$ 6,862,815$ 6,217,715$ Total General Fund:14,748,948$ 14,770,849$ 14,700,208$ 13,850,488$ OTHER RESTRICTED FUNDS Planning State Grant - - - 160,000 COPS 37,234 - - - Cypress Hollow District 22,402 19,038 (1,962) (22,981) Paula Little Flower 27,211 28,533 28,742 20,742 County Measure A Funds (Parks)63,385 50,706 39,272 21,320 TAM Safe Routes to Schools - - 22,208 (332,000) State Per Capita Grant (Parks)- - - (48) State Gas Tax 1,747,613 1,481,523 1,025,190 1,618,865 County Measure A Transportation (Sales)336,889 557,242 522,499 284,574 County Measure B Funds 113,532 115,384 32,503 32,828 RMRA (SB1 Funding) 152,565 333,799 340,873 518,192 Town Owned Housing Fund 179,109 220,855 288,076 268,698 Heritage & Arts Donation Fund 5,450 10,303 11,303 13,434 Low & Moderate Housing 1,221,450 1,205,125 1,064,766 1,069,489 Tiburon Playground Improvements 2,030 2,030 2,030 2,030 Tiburon Parks In-Lieu 39,433 40,562 41,170 41,582 Open Space Acquisition 203,538 206,859 209,962 212,061 Tiburon Planning Area Mitigation 194,474 197,643 200,608 202,614 Page 3 FUND RESOURCES OVERVIEW Fiscal Year 2021/22 Statement of Fund Balances, June 30th Closing 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 FUND/ RESERVE Actual Actual Estimated Projected Tiburon Street Impact 2,683,891 2,505,578 2,311,364 2,534,478 Tiburon Drainage Impact 73,597 93,788 108,195 122,277 Tiburon Circ System Improvement 132,337 139,767 141,864 143,283 Tiburon Bunch Grass Mitigation 137,767 140,013 142,113 143,535 Tiburon Long Range Planning 363,268 411,324 450,258 144,012 Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency - - - - Total Restricted Funds:7,737,176$ 7,760,074$ 6,981,033$ 7,198,983$ Grand Total Funds 22,486,124 22,530,923 21,681,241 21,049,471 Page 4 FUND RESOURCE OVERVIEW Fiscal Year 2021/22 FUND/RESERVE Estimated Fund Balance 7/1/2021 Projected Revenues Projected Operating Expenses Projected Capital Project Expenses Transfers In Transfers Out Projected Change to Fund Balance PROJECTED FUND BALANCE 6/30/2022 GENERAL FUND RESERVES POLICY RESTRICTED Operating Reserve (25%)6,188,730$ 11,153,681 11,056,226 - - 100,000 (2,545) 6,186,185$ Employee Compensated Leave 195,000$ - - - - - 195,000 Employee Housing Assistance -$ - - - - - - CalPERS Liability Reserve -$ - - - - - - - OPEB Fund (GASB 45)-$ - - - - Self Insurance 223,190$ - 125,000 - - (125,000) 98,190 Capital Equipment Replacement 584,946$ 149,570 130,000 - - - 19,570 604,516$ Technology Fund 645,527$ 154,555 251,200 - - - (96,645) 548,882 Sub-Total 7,837,393 11,457,806 11,562,426 - - 100,000 (204,620) 7,632,773 DISCRETIONARY SET-ASIDES PW Corp Yard Improvement 3,497,788$ - - - - - - 3,497,788 Park Development & ORT 480,170$ - 40,000 71,900 - - (111,900) 368,270 Open Space Management 25,141$ - - - - 25,141 Emergency Repairs 99,560$ - - - - - 99,560 Streets & Drainage 1,361,197$ 70,000 - 105,200 - - (35,200) 1,325,997 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 1,398,960$ - 150,000 348,000 - - (498,000) 900,960 Litigation Reserve -$ - 100,000 100,000 - Retirement Surplus Assets - - - - - Sub-Total 6,862,815 70,000 290,000 525,100 100,000 - (645,100) 6,217,715 Total General Fund 14,700,208$ 11,527,806$ 11,852,426$ 525,100$ 100,000$ 100,000$ (849,720)$ 13,850,488$ RESTRICTED FUNDS Planning State Grant (SB-2)-$ 160,000 - - - - 160,000 160,000 COPS -$ Cypress Hollow District (1,962)$ 15,980 37,000 - - - (21,020) (22,981) Paula Little Flower 28,742$ - 8,000 - - (8,000) 20,742 County Measure A Funds (Parks)39,272$ 57,048 75,000 - - - (17,952) 21,320 TAM Safe Routes to School 22,208$ - 354,208 - - (354,208) (332,000) State Per Capita Grant (Parks)-$ 177,952 178,000 (48) (48) State Gas Tax (HUTA)1,025,190$ 1,281,676 110,000 578,000 - - 593,676 1,618,865 County Measure A Transportation (Sales 522,499$ 173,873 - 411,798 - (237,925) 284,574 County Measure B Funds 32,503$ 325 - - - - 325 32,828 RMRA (SB1 Funding)340,873$ 527,259 349,939 - - 177,320 518,192 Town Owned Housing Units 288,076$ 147,421 106,799 60,000 - - (19,378) 268,698 Heritage & Arts Project Fund 11,303$ 2,130 - - - 2,130 13,434 Low & Moderate Housing 1,064,766$ 15,971 11,249 - - - 4,723 1,069,489 Tiburon Playground Improvements 2,030$ - - - - - - 2,030 Tiburon Parks In-Lieu 41,170$ 412 - - - - 412 41,582 Open Space Acquisition 209,962$ 2,100 - - - - 2,100 212,061 Tiburon Planning Area Mitigation 200,608$ 2,006 - - - - 2,006 202,614 Tiburon Street Impact 2,311,364$ 443,114 - 220,000 - - 223,114 2,534,478 Tiburon Drainage Impact 108,195$ 14,082 - - - 14,082 122,277 Tiburon Circ System Improvement 141,864$ 1,419 - - - - 1,419 143,283 Tiburon Bunch Grass Mitigation 142,113$ 1,421 - - - - 1,421 143,535 Tiburon Long Range Planning 450,258$ 48,754 355,000 - - - (306,246) 144,012 Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency -$ 1,789,912 1,789,912 - - - - - Total Restricted Funds 6,981,033 4,862,854 2,492,959 2,151,945 - - 217,950 7,198,983$ Total Town Funds 21,681,241$ 16,390,661$ 14,345,386$ 2,677,045$ 100,000$ 100,000$ (431,770) 21,049,471$ Changes to Fund Balance, projected June 30, 2022 Page 5 FUND RESOURCES OVERVIEW Fiscal Year 2021/22 Capital & Special Projects Funds Descriptions FUND Description Low & Moderate Housing Fund To account for resources received through collection of in-lieu housing fees which are restricted for expenditure on low and moderate (affordable) income housing programs. Open Space Acquisition Fund To account for resources received from issuance of the 1972 Open Space General Obligation Bonds. Funds are restricted for expenditures for the acquisition, maintenance or improvement of open space. State Gas Tax Fund To account for State revenues restricted for streets expenditures. Street Frontage Improvement Fund Restricted for expenditure on street frontage improvements such as sidewalks and curbs. Tiburon Circulation System Improvement Fund To account for resources received through collection of mitigation fees which are for expenditures related to traffic and circulation system improvements located within the Town's corporate limits, and primarily along Tiburon Boulevard consistent with the General Plan. Tiburon Long Range Planning Fund To account for resources received through the issuance of building permits and the subsequent collection of a special planning fee, which is used for expenditures related to maintenance of the Town's General Plan. Tiburon Parks In-Lieu Fund To account for resources received through collection of in-lieu parks fees which are restricted for expenditure on the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of park and recreational facilities. Tiburon Planning Area Mitigation Fund To account for resources received through collection of mitigation fees which are for circulation improvements located outside the Town's corporate limits, but within the Tiburon Planning Area. This fund was previously named the Tiburon Boulevard 101 Wye Tiburon Playground Improvement Fund To account for resources received from the community for improvement of playground facilities in Tiburon. Established July 1995 through transfer of resources from the General Fund Park Development Reserve. Tiburon Street Impact Fund To account for resources received through the issuance of building permits and the subsequent collection of Impact fees which are used for expenditures related to improvement and maintenance of the Town's street system. Tiburon Drainage Impact fund To account for resources received through the issuance of building permits and the subsequent collection of impact fees which are used for expenditures related to improvement or maintenance of the Town's drainage system. Town Owned Housing Fund To account for resources received through the rental of Town owned Pt. Tiburon Marsh units. County Measure A Transportation Sales Tax To account for resources received through the County of Marin from a 1/2 cent sales tax measure passed in 2004 to improve transportation in Marin County. The Transportation Authority of Marin oversees the administration of funding. County Measure B VLF Fund To account for resources received through the County of Marin from a $10 vehicle license registration fee charge for transportation improvements. This fee was approved by voters in November 2010 and is overseen by the Transportation Agency of Marin. County of Marin Measure A Open Space Sales Tax To account for resources received through the County of Marin from a 1/4 cent sales tax measure approved by voters in November 2011. Funds are to be used for existing parks and open spaces. Page 6 Overview of Revenues & Expenditures Fiscal Year 2021/22 OPERATING BUDGET OVERVIEW Page 7 OPERATING REVENUES & EXPENDITURES Fiscal Year 2021/22 Overview of Operating Budget Revenues & Expenditures REVENUE & SOURCES AMOUNT EXPENDITURES AMOUNT GENERAL FUND REVENUES TOWN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Property Taxes 6,741,495 Town Administration 1,487,530 Other Taxes 1,615,000 Legal Services 431,050 Licenses & Permits 893,250 Legislative 81,900 Intergovernment & Agency 299,595 Town Hall Facility 284,050 Franchises 745,000 Charges for Service 422,090 NON DEPARTMENTAL 3,472,571 Investment Earnings 129,200 Fines & Forfeitures 105,250 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Other Revenues 202,802 Planning & Design Review 724,373 Building Inspection 648,829 Subtotal 11,153,681$ Advance Planning 355,000 POLICE OTHER SOURCES Police Services 4,062,601 Other Fund Sources 3,289,159$ Police/EOC Facility 74,470 PUBLIC WORKS Administration & Engineering 678,383 Streets Maintenance 886,768 Parks Maintenance 955,640 Street & Signal Light System 52,500 Corporation Yard 112,720 Cypress Hollow 37,000 TOTAL REVENUE & SOURCES 14,442,841$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES:14,345,386$ 14,097,365 NET OPERATING SURPLUS (DEFICIENCY)$97,455 Page 8 Overview of Operating Revenue Plan Summary of Operating Revenues Operating Budget Revenues General Fund Self Insurance Reserve Employee Compensated Leave Reserve Capital Equipment Replacement Reserve Technology Fund Reserve Park Development & ORT Reserve Cypress Hollow Fund Measure "A" Parks State Gas Tax Town Owned Housing Units Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund Peninsula Library JPA Fund Long Range Planning Fund OPERATING REVENUES & SOURCES OF FUNDS Page 9 Overview of Operating Budget Sources of Funding Property Taxes 6,741,495$ Other Taxes 1,615,000$ Franchises 745,000$ Fines & Forfeitures 105,250$ Investment Earnings 129,200$ Intergovernment & Agency 299,595$ Licenses & Permits 893,250$ Charges for Service 422,090$ Other Revenues 202,802$ Other Fund & Revenue Sources 3,289,159$ 14,442,841$ OPERATING REVENUES Fiscal Year 2021/22 Property Taxes 46.7% Other Taxes 11.2% Franchises 5.2% Fines & Forfeitures 0.7% Investment Earnings 0.9% Intergovernment & Agency 2.1% Licenses & Permits 6.2% Charges for Service 2.9% Other Revenues 1.4% Other Fund & Revenue Sources 22.8% Planned Operating Revenues & Sources of Funds for 2021/22 $14,442,841 Page 10 OPERATING REVENUES Operating Budget Revenues - Summary Description 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 6,023,400 6,348,923 6,315,635 6,560,467 6,741,495 Other Taxes 1,746,561 1,522,588 1,110,136 1,212,392 1,615,000 Franchises 665,216 722,417 729,897 715,490 745,000 Fines & Forfeitures 408,687 208,342 100,000 106,968 105,250 Investment Earnings 329,964 242,164 285,000 150,000 129,200 Intergovernment & Agency 223,138 293,740 282,844 330,620 299,595 Licenses & Permits 991,374 880,721 873,250 904,724 893,250 Charges for Service 654,145 738,082 496,500 543,782 422,090 Other Revenues 90,763 118,241 97,005 279,486 202,802 Subtotal General Fund 11,133,249$ 11,075,219$ 10,290,268$ 10,803,929$ 11,153,681$ OTHER FUND & RESERVE SOURCES Litigation Reserve - - - - 100,000 Employee Compensated Leave Reserve 92,623 - - 44,397 - Self Insurance Reserve - 125,000 125,000 24,747 125,000 Capital Equipment Replacement 76,294 - - 59,903 130,000 Technology Fund 139,469 - - 95,524 251,200 Park Development & ORT 9,943 40,000 - 10,000 40,000 Disaster Response 680 - - - - Cypress Hollow Fund 20,124 16,500 16,500 23,802 37,000 Paula Little Flower 7,940 - - 7,957 8,000 Measure "A" Parks 86,627 68,344 68,344 68,344 75,000 State Gas Tax 3,335 - 40,000 7,500 110,000 Town Owned Housing Units 78,989 113,700 113,700 79,319 106,799 Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund 35,848 23,552 23,552 23,552 11,249 Street Impact Fund - 50,000 50,000 40,000 - Long Range Planning Fund - 355,000 355,000 355,000 355,000 Peninsula Library JPA Fund 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement - - - - 150,000 Subtotal Other Sources 2,532,307$ 2,522,315$ 2,522,314$ 2,570,264$ 3,289,159$ Totals:13,665,557$ 13,597,534$ 12,812,582$ 13,374,193$ 14,442,841$ Page 11 OPERATING REVENUES Operating Budget Revenues - Detail Description 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAXES Secured 4,180,494 4,231,593 4,423,743 4,423,743 4,603,458 Unsecured 77,342 82,586 85,610 86,142 91,488 Supplemental 53,662 95,520 75,000 75,000 75,000 Other 25,030 54,289 25,000 25,000 25,000 HOPTR State 16,337 19,106 18,890 18,809 18,634 ERAF Rebate 740,608 882,076 675,000 914,097 880,000 Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF 993,108 1,040,783 1,077,210 1,082,494 1,114,969 County Fees (63,180) (57,030) (64,818) (64,818) (67,054) Total:6,023,400 6,348,923 6,315,635 6,560,467 6,741,495 OTHER TAXES Sales Tax 568,472 586,284 400,000 460,101 550,000 Sales Tax-Public Safety 88,856 84,202 63,450 88,396 80,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 907,773 638,638 466,686 342,256 750,000 TOT Seasonal Rentals - - - - - Real Property Transfer 181,460 213,463 180,000 321,640 235,000 Total:1,746,561 1,522,588 1,110,136 1,212,392 1,615,000 FRANCHISES Energy-PG&E 120,907 127,978 127,397 132,699 132,500 Refuse-Mill Valley Refuse 379,153 390,931 410,000 410,000 425,000 Debris Boxes - Grange 14,029 7,407 17,500 - 15,000 Cable-AT&T 151,128 196,100 175,000 172,791 172,500 Total:665,216 722,417 729,897 715,490 745,000 FINES & FORFEITURES Vehicle Code 16,161 9,184 12,000 3,262 12,000 Parking Code 45,753 55,169 45,000 62,444 50,000 False Alarm Fines 8,308 4,600 3,000 4,125 3,250 Permit Reactivate Fines 56,802 150 10,000 1,200 10,000 Other Fines 281,662 139,240 30,000 35,938 30,000 Total:408,687 208,342 100,000 106,968 105,250 INVESTMENT EARNINGS Interest-LAIF 329,922 242,164 285,000 150,000 129,200 Interest-Notes/Loans - - - - - Interst - Investments 42 - - - - Interest - Other - - - - - Total:329,964 242,164 285,000 150,000 129,200 INTERGOVERNMENT & AGENCY State Motor Vehicle License Fees 4,631 7,410 6,500 6,997 6,750 State POST 1,538 - 12,000 - 12,000 State Abandoned Vehicle 4,835 5,625 4,800 4,974 4,800 Police COPS/SLESF Fund 118,167 163,435 150,000 199,055 150,000 lSB 90 Reimbursements - - - - - Belvedere (Dairy Knoll Capital $30K)34,007 35,334 35,334 35,334 36,429 Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency - - - - - Richardson Bay Sanitary District - - - - - Reed Union School District - 6,487 5,000 7,692 6,487 Tiburon Sanitary District 13,422 9,993 7,210 11,718 9,993 Tiburon Fire District 12,254 22,475 12,000 24,190 22,475 Page 12 OPERATING REVENUES Operating Budget Revenues - Detail Description 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed TPSL McKegney Fees 8,715 22,308 35,000 25,000 30,000 State Grants 10,000 5,000 - - 5,000 County Grants 15,569 15,672 15,000 15,660 15,660 Other Grants/Gifts (Risk Management)- - - - - Total:223,138 293,740 282,844 330,620 299,595 LICENSES & PERMITS Business License-Regular 194,202 181,521 180,000 165,000 170,000 Business License-Construction 69,058 67,072 60,000 60,000 65,000 Dog Walker Permits 150 1,350 750 300 750 Solar Panel Permits 1,890 - - - - Film Permits - 1,000 - - - Building Permits 512,841 454,589 475,000 500,000 500,000 CEQA EIR Initial Study 14,177 400 - 250 - Design Review 81,299 46,022 70,000 69,755 70,000 Home Occupation Permit 5,650 6,108 5,000 5,800 5,000 Lot Line Adjustment 180 720 - - - Master & Precise Plan 1,300 1,300 - - - Sign Permit 360 755 1,500 1,180 1,500 Subdivision Permit - 13,680 - - Tree Permit 8,285 6,320 6,000 5,385 6,000 Use Permit 11,710 10,185 7,500 15,290 7,500 Variance Amendment 16,490 6,785 9,000 15,570 9,000 Zoning (Pre, Re)- - - - Other Planning Permits 6,780 25,540 2,500 (6,791) 2,500 Alarm System Permit 15,975 17,065 14,000 11,627 14,000 Encroachment Permit - Staff Review 48,285 38,140 40,000 59,359 40,000 Park Usage Permit - - - - Drainage Review Fee - Misc. Engineering Fees 150 - - - Parking Permit (Residential)2,590 2,170 2,000 2,000 2,000 Total:991,374 880,721 873,250 904,724 893,250 CHARGES FOR SERVICE Cost Recovery - IT Services 35,965 33,840 35,000 15,300 - Cost Recovery-Housing Administration 9,439 11,033 9,600 9,600 9,600 Refuse Franchise Admin. Fee 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Miscellaneous-Administration Charges 3,687 2,573 2,000 1,310 2,000 Appeal 2,050 900 900 900 900 Plan Checking 401,948 490,610 275,000 372,617 280,000 Plan Checking-Outside - 30,163 50,000 6,736 - Records & Document Storage 41,815 30,730 30,000 46,461 31,590 RBR Residential Resale Report 39,970 40,500 27,500 46,433 35,000 Staff Research - - - - Street Name/Address Change 680 - - 340 Noticing Of Applications 500 900 500 667 500 Sale Publications & Documents 113 - - - - Cost Recovery-Community Dev.18,828 - - - - Cost Recovery - Building 30,135 29,332 - 18,772 10,000 Certified Access Specialist Fee (CAS)- - - - Page 13 OPERATING REVENUES Operating Budget Revenues - Detail Description 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed Miscellaneous-Planning Charges - 143 - - - Cost Recovery-Police 24,456 46,444 38,000 13,841 25,000 Police Overtime Reimbursement 3,888 4,364 10,000 - 5,000 Miscellaneous-Police Charges 13,187 5,177 5,000 1,622 2,500 Sign Placement & Impound Fees 144 - - - - Sign Fees - - - Cost Recovery-Public Works 21,342 5,374 7,000 3,183 14,000 Total:654,145 738,082 496,500 543,782 422,090 OTHER REVENUES Refunds & Reimbursements 5,893 2,532 1,000 64,355 1,000 Other Revenues 548 4,108 5,000 121,000 5,000 Administrative Fees-Assessment Dist - 27,706 10,000 49,162 114,032 Rent-Antenna Site & Utility 73,976 76,935 78,005 79,756 80,270 Rent-Downtown Restroom 8,836 6,240 2,500 6,240 2,500 Rent-Other 460 720 500 - - Sale-Property Equipment 1,050 - - - - Total:90,763 118,241 97,005 279,486 202,802 Total General Fund:11,133,249 11,075,218 10,290,267 10,824,442 11,153,681 es OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDS Restricted Fund Contributions/Transfers Litigation Reserve 100,000 Employee Compensated Leave Reserve - 92,623 - 44,397 - Self Insurance Reserve - - 125,000 24,747 125,000 Capital Equipment Replacement - 76,294 - 59,903 130,000 Technology Fund - 139,469 - 95,524 251,200 Park Development & ORT - 9,943 40,000 10,000 40,000 Disaster Response - 680 - - - Cypress Hollow Fund 25,193 20,124 16,500 23,802 37,000 Paula Little Flower - 7,940 - 7,957 8,000 Measure "A" Parks - 86,627 68,344 68,344 75,000 State Gas Tax - 3,335 - 7,500 110,000 Town Owned Housing Units 327,503 78,989 113,700 79,319 106,799 Low/Moderate Income Housing Fund 22,673 35,848 23,552 23,552 11,249 Street Impact Fund - - 50,000 40,000 - Long Range Planning Fund - - 355,000 355,000 355,000 Peninsula Library JPA Fund 1,879,966 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 150,000 PERS Surplus Asset Fund General Fund Operating Reserve Total:2,255,335 2,532,307 2,522,315 2,570,264 3,289,159 Total Revenues (All Funds):13,388,585 13,607,525 12,812,582 13,394,706 14,442,841 Page 14 OVERVIEW OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES Expenditures by Object Fund Sources for Expenditures Expenditures by Department Page 15 OPERATING EXPENDITURES Overview of Operating Expenditures by Object Salary & Wages 4,787,881$ Employee Benefits 2,452,482$ Supplies & Services 6,454,697$ Capital Outlay Expense 396,200$ Capital Outlay Allowance 224,125$ Capital Projects 30,000$ Total Operating Expenditures $14,345,386 FY 2021/22 Salary & Wages $4,787,881 33.4% Employee Benefits $2,452,482 17.1% Supplies & Services $6,454,697 45.0% Capital Outlay Expense $396,200 2.8% Capital Outlay Allowance $224,125 1.6%Capital Projects $30,000 0.2% Planned Operating Expenditures by Object for 2021/22$14,345,386 Page 16 OPERATING EXPENDITURES General Fund Operating Expenditures Salary and Wages 4,787,881$ Employee Benefits 2,452,482$ Supplies and Services 3,574,238$ Capital Outlay EXPENSE 15,000$ Capital Outlay Allowance 224,125$ Capital Projects 2,500$ Total General Fund Operating Expenditures 11,056,226$ FY 2021/22 Salary and Wages$4,787,881 43.3% Employee Benefits$2,452,482 22.2% Supplies and Services$3,574,238 32.3% Capital Outlay Allowance $224,125 2.0% Capital Projects $2,500 0.0% General Fund Expenditures by ObjectFY 21/22$11,056,226 Page 17 OPERATING EXPENDITURES FY 2021/22 Summary of Department Expenditures Department/Division 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed ALL DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS TOWN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Administration 1,102,234 1,196,543 1,336,522 1,343,932 1,487,530 Legal Services 280,612 408,830 356,000 442,047 431,050 Legislative 75,656 53,619 80,550 58,224 81,900 Town Hall Facility 169,071 263,671 254,250 232,424 284,050 subtotal 1,627,573$ 1,922,663$ 2,027,323$ 2,076,628$ 2,284,531$ NON-DEPARTMENTAL Insurances and Governmental Agreements 1,465,385 1,632,908 1,358,788 1,324,907 1,289,612 Self Insurance - 24,747 125,000 Housing 22,673 35,848 23,552 23,552 11,249 Town Owned Housing 327,503 78,989 113,700 79,319 106,799 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 150,000 Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency 1,879,966 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 subtotal 3,695,527$ 3,728,179$ 3,226,259$ 3,182,745$ 3,472,571$ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning & Design Review 599,977 572,692 618,028 617,997 724,373 Building Inspection 611,856 736,758 659,793 621,514 648,829 Advance Planning - - 355,000 355,000 355,000 subtotal 1,211,832$ 1,309,450$ 1,632,821$ 1,594,510$ 1,728,201$ POLICE SERVICES Police Department 3,104,928 3,568,152 3,679,767 3,732,008 4,062,601 Police EOC/Facility 55,049 75,245 70,600 65,651 74,470 subtotal 3,159,977$ 3,643,397$ 3,750,367$ 3,797,659$ 4,137,071$ PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING Administration & Engineering 358,353 620,807 586,885 627,701 678,383 Streets Maintenance 524,332 723,098 678,300 688,655 886,768 Parks Maintenance 655,807 673,291 768,077 759,579 955,640 Street & Signal Light System 44,592 30,899 36,000 30,209 52,500 Corporation Yard 101,454 127,001 89,100 129,713 112,720 Cypress Hollow 25,193 20,124 16,500 23,802 37,000 subtotal 1,709,730$ 2,195,221$ 2,174,862$ 2,259,658$ 2,723,011$ TOTALS 11,404,640$ 12,798,910$ 12,811,630$ 12,911,200$ 14,345,387$ Page 18 OPERATING EXPENDITURES Summary of Funding Sources for Department Expenditures 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed ALL FUNDS General Fund 9,149,305$ 10,266,603$ 10,289,315$ 10,340,935$ 11,056,226$ Employee Compensated Leave Reserve - 92,623 - 44,397 - Self Insurance Reserve - - 125,000 24,747 125,000 Capital Equipment Replacement - 76,294 - 59,903 130,000 Technology Fund 139,469 - 95,524 251,200 Park Development & ORT - 9,943 40,000 10,000 40,000 Disaster Response - 680 - - - Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 150,000 Litigation Reserve 100,000 Cypress Hollow Fund 25,193 20,124 16,500 23,802 37,000 Paula Little Flower Fund 7,940 - 7,957 8,000 Measure "A" Parks - 86,627 68,344 68,344 75,000 State Gas Tax Fund - 3,335 - 7,500 110,000 Town Owned Housing 327,503 78,989 113,700 79,319 106,799 Low & Moderate Income Housing 22,673 35,848 23,552 23,552 11,249 Street Impact Fund - 50,000 40,000 - Long Range Planning - - 355,000 355,000 355,000 Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency 1,879,966 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 Totals 11,404,640$ 12,798,910$ 12,811,630$ 12,911,199$ 14,345,386$ FY 2021/22 Page 19 OPERATING EXPENDITURES FY 2021/22 Expenditure Object 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 4,229,077$ 4,504,012$ 4,730,793$ 4,704,840$ 4,787,881$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,830,853$ 2,094,466$ 2,138,739$ 2,008,469$ 2,452,482$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ Department Supplies & Expenses 168,374 174,500 208,810 162,850 208,949$ Conferences & Memberships 45,191 40,112 82,305 55,744 76,275 Contractual Services 556,766 809,777 686,219 849,590 1,009,941 Insurances 403,210 337,636 495,578 376,233 508,345 Intergovernmental & Agency 2,860,063 3,232,898 2,802,936 2,815,860 2,837,498$ Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 488,329 766,485 858,250 794,181 999,555$ Utility & Communication 280,601 317,789 316,950 374,690 374,635$ Special Department Administrative 72,906 127,958 457,250 456,424 439,500 Allocated Costs 0 0 300 0 -$ Total Supplies & Services 4,875,440$ 5,807,155$ 5,711,098$ 5,885,573$ 6,454,697$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 9,973$ 211,694$ 17,500$ 125,567$ 396,200$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 177,600$ 177,900$ 183,500$ 190,500$ 224,125$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES 260,239$ 3,684$ 30,000$ 3,250$ 30,000$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 11,383,180$ 12,798,910$ 12,811,630$ 12,918,199$ 14,345,386$ Summary of Expenditures by Object Page 20 Administrative Services Legal Services Legislative Support Town Hall Facility Town Administration is comprised of a series of support-related activities and functions. The activities are performed by the Town Manager, Town Attorney, Director of Administrative Services and other personnel. The Department remains staffed with 6.7 full-time equivalent employees in FY 21-22.The total proposed appropriation for Town Administration is $2,288,622. Administrative Services The Administrative Services division is responsible for management oversight of all departments; financial management of Town resources; debt and special assessment management; payroll, personnel and benefit administration; risk management; records management; elections; participation and oversight of inter- governmental relations that affect the Town; and coordination and direction of Town activities and service delivery systems to ensure that services are provided efficiently. Legal Services The Town Attorney provides legal counsel and advice to Town Council and Town Staff; coordinates all legal representation of the Town should outside counsel be required; and prepares or reviews ordinances, contracts and agreements. Legislative Support This division provides funding for legislative activities and bodies including the Town Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Heritage & Arts Commission and the Parks and Open Space Commission. Town Hall Facility This division consolidates all non-specific operational funding for the Town Hall. Expenses for building utilities and maintenance, insurance costs, and operating supplies are reflected here. TOWN ADMINISTRATION Page 21 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed DEPARTMENT FUNDING General Fund 1,627,573 1,852,040 2,027,322 2,011,152 2,065,030 Employee Compensated Leave Reserve - - - 1,146 - Legal Services Reserve 100,000 Capital Equipment Replacement - - 20,000 - 20,000 Technology Fund 68,926 56,525 64,329 99,500 State Gas Tax - 1,697 - - - Total Department Funding 1,627,573$ 1,922,663$ 2,103,847$ 2,076,627$ 2,284,530$ DIVISION FUNDING Administration General Fund 1,102,234 1,125,920 1,336,522 1,278,457 1,388,030 Employee Compensated Leave - - - 1,146 - Technology Fund 68,926 56,525 64,329 99,500 State Gas Tax 1,697 Total Administration 1,102,234$ 1,196,543$ 1,393,047$ 1,343,932$ 1,487,530$ Legal Services General Fund 280,612 408,830 356,000 442,047 331,050 Legal Services Reserve 100,000 PERS Surplus Asset Fund - - - - - Total Legal Services 280,612$ 408,830$ 356,000$ 442,047$ 431,050$ Town Hall Facility General Fund 169,071 263,671 254,250 232,424 264,050 Capital Equipment Replacement - - 20,000 - 20,000 Total Town Hall 169,071$ 263,671$ 274,250$ 232,424$ 284,050$ Legislative General Fund 75,656 53,619 80,550 58,224 81,900 Total Legislative 75,656$ 53,619$ 80,550$ 58,224$ 81,900$ Total Division Funding 1,627,573$ 1,922,663$ 2,103,847$ 2,076,627$ 2,284,530$ Town Administration DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Page 22 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 723,795$ 735,019$ 840,675$ 841,821$ 766,806$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 248,542$ 271,758$ 308,097 286,506 307,372 SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 104,442 98,251 123,000 83,242 123,750 Conferences & Memberships 23,143 18,521 33,150 23,250 31,000 Contractual Services 341,526 471,557 449,500 533,861 667,302 Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 54,561 129,422 112,200 111,888 116,200 Utility & Communication 63,762 71,181 75,950 77,060 74,750 Special Department Administrative 35,632 33,798 49,250 28,663 29,500 Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 623,067$ 822,730$ 843,050$ 857,965$ 1,042,502 CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 4,169$ 64,856 84,025 62,335 124,500 CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 28,000$ 28,300 28,000 28,000 43,350 CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ - - - DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ - - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,627,573$ 1,922,663$ 2,103,847$ 2,076,627$ 2,284,530$ SOURCE OF FUNDING General Fund 1,627,573 1,853,737 2,027,322 2,012,298 2,065,030 Employee Compensation Leave - - - 1,146 - Legal Services Reserve 100,000 Capital Equipment Replacement - - 20,000 - 20,000 Technology Fund - 68,926 56,525 64,329 99,500 State Gas Tax 1,697 - - TOTAL FUNDING 1,627,573$ 1,924,360$ 2,103,847$ 2,077,773$ 2,284,530$ STAFFING LEVEL Town Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Town Attorney - - - - - Director of Administrative Services 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Accounting & Finance Manager - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Information Technology Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - Town Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Finance & HR Clerk - 0.70 0.70 - 0.70 TOTAL STAFFING 6.80 6.70 6.70 5.00 5.70 Town Administration ALL DIVISIONS OBJECT SUMMARY Page 23 OBJECT SUMMARY 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 723,795$ 735,019$ 840,675$ 841,821$ 766,806$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 248,542$ 271,758$ 308,097$ 286,506$ 307,372$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 3,009$ 2,755$ 6,000$ 5,168$ 5,750$ Conferences & Memberships 11,493$ 16,787$ 24,250$ 18,750$ 22,000$ Contractual Services 57,833$ 67,438$ 91,500$ 90,663$ 233,802$ Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency Equipment Supplies & Maintenance -$ 1,734$ -$ 2,188$ -$ Utility & Communication -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Special Department Administrative 31,562$ 12,133$ 40,000$ 15,000$ 20,000$ Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 103,897$ 100,848$ 161,750$ 131,770$ 281,552$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ 62,618$ 56,525$ 57,835$ 99,500$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 26,000$ 26,300$ 26,000$ 26,000$ 32,300$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,102,234$ 1,196,543$ 1,393,047$ 1,343,932$ 1,487,530$ Positions 7.80 6.70 6.70 5.00 5.70 TOTAL STAFFING 7.80 6.70 6.70 5.00 5.70 Town Administration ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Page 24 Town Administration 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Town Manager 212,807 216,288 222,777 222,777 229,463 Dir. of Admin. Services 139,150 130,130 143,886 143,886 164,560 Town Clerk 86,596 95,454 104,850 104,850 111,219 IT Coordinator 87,138 96,173 104,764 104,764 - Administrative Analyst 70,526 - - - - Administrative Assistant 64,051 67,880 69,995 69,995 71,396 Accounting/Finance Manager 51,692 101,431 127,113 127,113 132,248 Finance/HR Assistant (Part Time)7,597 27,663 46,790 46,790 57,920 Overtime - - 500 500 - Vacation Leave Compensation - - - 1,146 - Casual/Temporary Hire 4,238 - 20,000 20,000 - Subtotal:723,795$ 735,019$ 840,675$ 841,821$ 766,806$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Medical & Insurance 80,960 98,166 124,944 92,828 121,424 Employee Accruing Fringe 28,077 21,644 18,928 29,453 19,060 PERS-Town Normal Cost & Survivor Ben.45,948 45,449 60,172 60,172 54,116 PERS AAUL Payment 52,417 56,858 67,477 67,477 69,621 PST-Parttime 3.75%534 1,134 1,583 1,583 2,164 OPEB - GASB 45/75 Allowanc 7,700 14,267 - - 7,668 FICA-Medicare Tax 9,538 11,089 11,893 11,893 11,119 Automobile Allowance 9,192 9,050 9,000 9,000 7,200 Housing Allowance 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Cell Phone Allowance 2,175 2,100 2,100 2,100 3,000 Subtotal:248,542$ 271,758$ 308,097$ 286,506$ 307,372$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Bank Charges & Fees 1,151 539 1,500 1,706 1,750 Noticing & Publication 1,858 1,603 3,500 2,500 3,000 Recruiting & Background 355 - - Publications & Subscriptions - 259 1,000 963 1,000 Subtotal:3,009$ 2,755$ 6,000$ 5,168$ 5,750$ CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel 2,844 7,905 9,000 6,750 9,000 Employee Development 275 - 3,000 2,000 3,000 Memberships 8,374 8,882 12,250 10,000 10,000 Subtotal:11,493$ 16,787$ 24,250$ 18,750$ 22,000$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services 5,822 3,503 12,500 12,500 17,500 Minutes Services (Temporary Hire)5,000 Contractual Services 6,307 - 6,494 - Financial Services Audit 31,900 33,600 36,000 36,000 36,000 Financial Services Audit 1,697 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Account Description Page 25 Town Administration 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Account Description Professional Consultants 8,075 9,975 20,000 20,000 52,500 Systems/Technical Support 11,942 6,074 13,000 3,545 7,500 IT Consulting Services 94 6,281 10,000 12,125 115,302 Subtotal:57,833$ 67,438$ 91,500$ 90,663$ 233,802$ EQ SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE System License & Maint 1,734$ -$ 2,188$ - Subtotal:-$ 1,734$ -$ 2,188$ -$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Election 96 5,621 20,000 - - Municipal Code Section Maintenance 3,940 1,891 5,000 5,000 5,000 Newsletter Production & Mailing 367 - 2,500 2,500 2,500 Records Management 7,931 972 2,500 2,500 2,500 Contingency Provision 19,227 3,650 10,000 5,000 10,000 Subtotal:31,562$ 12,133$ 40,000$ 15,000$ 20,000$ Total Supplies & Services:103,897$ 100,848$ 161,750$ 131,770$ 281,552$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Computer & Peripheral 968 3,000 2,000 3,000 Software & Licenses 20,362 16,000 25,000 27,000 Computer Monitor 1,502 - Misc. Computer Parts 180 2,000 2,000 Printer Maintenance 14,000 Lap Top Computers 1,581 - LaserFische Ann. Maint.4,521 5,500 5,500 5,500 Financial Software Purchase 24,820 2,000 2,000 18,000 e-Trak Software 4,525 - 6,500 Incode 10 Maintenance 23,500 23,335 23,500 Battery Back Up - Server 8,685 - Subtotal:-$ 62,618$ 56,525$ 57,835$ 99,500$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance 5,000 Technology Allowance 26,000 26,300 26,000 26,000 27,300 Subtotal:26,000$ 26,300$ 26,000$ 26,000$ 32,300$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 1,102,234$ 1,196,543$ 1,393,047$ 1,343,932$ 1,487,530$ Page 26 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses - - - - - Conferences & Memberships - - - - - Contractual Services 279,612 398,357 355,000 438,992 430,000 Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency Equipment Supplies & Maintenance Utility & Communication Special Department Administrative - 9,473 - 2,055 - Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 279,612$ 407,830$ 355,000$ 441,047$ 430,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,050$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 280,612$ 408,830$ 356,000$ 442,047$ 431,050$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract TOTAL STAFFING Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Town Administration LEGAL SERVICES OBJECT SUMMARY Page 27 Town Administration 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contract - Town Attorney 252,545 377,397 250,000 325,000 275,000 Legal Services - Other 27,067 500 50,000 61,561 Legal Services - Other 100,000 Legal Services - Employment - - 25,000 25,000 25,000 Litigation - Contigency - - 25,000 25,000 25,000 Litigation - General - 20,461 - - - Legal Settlements - - 5,000 2,431 5,000 Subtotal:279,612$ 398,357$ 355,000$ 438,992$ 430,000$ Total Supplies & Services:279,612$ 398,357$ 355,000$ 438,992$ 430,000$ SPECIAL DEPT ADMINISTRATION Emergency/Disaster - 9,473 - 2,055 - Subtotal:-$ 9,473$ -$ 2,055$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Office Furniture/Equipment Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance - - - - - Technology Allowance 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,050 Total:1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,050 TOTAL DEPARTMENT 280,612$ 408,830$ 356,000$ 439,992$ 431,050$ LEGAL SERVICES Account Description Page 28 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 58,935 48,329 61,000 45,074 63,000 Conferences & Memberships 11,650 1,734 8,900 4,500 9,000 Contractual Services Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency Equipment Supplies & Maintenance - 94 400 400 400 Utility & Communication Special Department Administrative 4,071 2,462 9,250 7,250 9,500 Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 74,656$ 52,619$ 79,550$ 57,224$ 81,900$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ -$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 75,656$ 53,619$ 80,550$ 58,224$ 81,900$ Town Administration LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT OBJECT SUMMARY Page 29 Town Administration 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Special Events, Awards, Functions 56,630 46,184 25,000 10,000 25,000 Holiday Festival & Lights - - 30,000 29,574 32,000 Council/Commission Functions 2,305 1,925 5,500 5,500 5,500 Department Expenses - 220 500 - 500 Subtotal:58,935$ 48,329$ 61,000$ 45,074$ 63,000$ CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel 2,871 424 3,500 2,000 3,500 MCCMC Functions 7,284 275 4,000 2,500 4,000 Memberships 1,495 1,035 1,400 - 1,500 Subtotal:11,650$ 1,734$ 8,900$ 4,500$ 9,000$ EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Operating Supplies - 94 400 400 400 Subtotal:-$ 94$ 400$ 400$ 400$ SPECIAL DEPT ADMINISTRATION Walking Guide Brochure (Heritage & Arts)2,085 - - - - Emergency/Disaster 482 - - Planning Commission 325 - 500 500 750 Design Review Board - - 250 250 250 Parks, Open Space & Trails Commission - - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Heritage & Arts Commission 1,661 1,980 3,500 3,500 3,500 Contingency - - 4,000 2,000 4,000 Subtotal:4,071$ 2,462$ 9,250$ 7,250$ 9,500$ Total Supplies & Services:74,656$ 52,619$ 79,550$ 57,224$ 81,900$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Capital Equipment Allowance - - - - - Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 - Technology Allowance - - - - - Subtotal:1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ -$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 75,656$ 53,619$ 80,550$ 58,224$ 81,900$ LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT Account Description Page 30 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 42,498 47,167 56,000 33,000 55,000 Conferences & Memberships Contractual Services 4,081 5,762 3,000 4,207 3,500 Insurances - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 54,561 127,593 111,800 109,300 115,800 Utility & Communication 63,762 71,181 75,950 77,060 74,750 Special Department Administrative - 9,730 - 4,358 - Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 164,902 261,433 246,750 227,924 249,050 CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 4,169 2,237 27,500 4,500 25,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE - - - - 10,000 CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES - - - - - DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 169,071$ 263,671$ 274,250$ 232,424$ 284,050$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions - - - TOTAL STAFFING - - - Town Administration TOWN HALL FACILITY OBJECT SUMMARY Page 31 Town Administration 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Office & Copier Supplies 24,668 20,423 26,000 15,000 25,000 Postage 6,068 7,612 10,000 5,000 10,000 Printing & Reproduction 914 756 5,000 2,500 5,000 Recruiting & Background 2,844 2,868 5,000 3,000 5,000 Special Events, Awards, Functions 8,004 15,508 10,000 7,500 10,000 Subtotal:42,498$ 47,167$ 56,000$ 33,000$ 55,000$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services 481 762 500 1,707 1,000 Parking Lease 3,600 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 Subtotal:4,081$ 5,762$ 3,000$ 4,207$ 3,500$ EQ SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Equipment Maintenance 16,510 85,417 35,000 35,000 35,000 Building/Facility Supplies 5,357 9,010 7,200 7,200 7,200 Inspection & Testing - - 500 500 500 Janitorial Services 18,951 22,284 27,500 25,000 27,500 Landscape Grounds Materials - - 1,000 1,000 2,500 Pest Control 170 - 600 600 600 Dairy Knoll Expenses 2,239 10,883 30,000 30,000 32,500 Misc. Facility Improvements 11,335 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 Subtotal:54,561$ 127,593$ 111,800$ 109,300$ 115,800$ UTILITY & COMMUNICATION Energy-PG&E 26,573 33,142 35,000 45,000 35,000 Water-MMWD 2,385 3,698 4,000 2,742 3,500 Telecommunications 16,681 17,575 19,000 11,611 17,500 Cable Communication Services 1,132 1,174 1,250 1,006 1,250 MIDAS Network Charges 16,991 15,591 16,700 16,700 17,500 Subtotal:63,762$ 71,181$ 75,950$ 77,060$ 74,750$ Total Supplies & Services:164,902$ 251,703$ 246,750$ 223,566$ 249,050$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Emergency/Disaster 9,730 - 4,358 - Subtotal -$ 9,730$ -$ 4,358$ -$ TOWN HALL FACILITY Account Description Page 32 Town Administration 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed TOWN HALL FACILITY Account Description CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Office Furniture/Equipment (General Fund)4,169 2,237 7,500 4,500 5,000 Office Furniture/Equipment (Reserve Fund Capita - - 20,000 - 20,000 Subtotal:4,169$ 2,237$ 27,500$ 4,500$ 25,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance - - - - 5,000 Technology Allowance - - - - 5,000 Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 169,071$ 263,671$ 274,250$ 232,424$ 284,050$ Page 33 Planning & Design Review Advance Planning Building Inspection The Community Development Department is responsible for managing the planning, development and implementation of the overall community goals in accordance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Codes, Building Codes, and Town Council policies. The total proposed appropriation of $1,736,8481 for the Community Development Department is primarily funded with resources of the General Fund. Staffing of the Department remains at eight employees; four in the Planning Division and four in the Building Division. The FY 2021/22 budget includes an appropriation of $355,000 for the General Plan Update, funded entirely by the Long Range Planning Fund. Planning & Design Review The Planning Division is responsible for managing the physical development of the Town in an orderly manner, in accordance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, Hillside Design Guidelines, Downtown Design Handbook, and Town Council policies. The Division reviews and issues planning and zoning permits, tree permits, sign permits, and well permits, among others, and performs code enforcement functions for areas under its regulatory purview. Advance Planning The Advance Planning Division is responsible for maintaining a comprehensive up-to-date General Plan, as well as conducting studies and producing long-range plans and documents such as the Climate Action Plan, Open Space Resource Management Plan, Recreation Needs Assessment, McKegney Green Management Policy, Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Building Inspection The Building Inspection Division ensures that construction in the Town is compliant with adopted construction codes, in conformance with accepted building practices, and conforms to the Town's adopted policies and ordinances. The Division issues permits, conducts regular permit inspections, performs plan check reviews for construction applications, conducts residential resale inspections, and performs code enforcement functions for areas under its regulatory purview. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 34 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed DEPARTMENT FUNDING General Fund 1,211,832 1,270,003 1,277,821 1,239,510 1,301,701 Employee Compensated Leave Reserve - 12,513 - - - Technology Fund - 26,934 51,500 - 71,500 Long Range Planning Fund - - 355,000 355,000 355,000 Total Department Funding 1,211,832$ 1,309,450$ 1,684,321$ 1,594,510$ 1,728,201$ DIVISION FUNDING Planning & Design Review General Fund 599,977 533,245 618,028 617,997 652,873 Employee Compensated Leave - 12,513 - - - Technology Fund - 26,934 51,500 - 71,500 Total Planning & Design Review 599,977$ 572,692$ 669,528$ 617,997$ 724,373$ Building Inspection General Fund 611,856 736,758 659,793 621,514 648,829 Total Building Inspection 611,856$ 736,758$ 659,793$ 621,514$ 648,829$ Advance Planning Long Range Planning Fund - - 355,000 355,000 355,000 Total Advance Planning -$ -$ 355,000$ 355,000$ 355,000$ Total Division Funding 1,211,832$ 1,309,450$ 1,684,321$ 1,594,510$ 1,728,201$ Community Development DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Page 35 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 813,777$ 741,015$ 833,028$ 825,528$ 805,024$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 253,235$ 264,721$ 315,143$ 291,047$ 362,582$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 4,446 10,852 8,500 6,653 6,300 Conferences & Memberships 7,579 5,818 13,000 9,250 13,200 Contractual Services 71,021 212,599 62,500 53,304 40,000 Insurances - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 4,393 6,657 6,250 6,829 6,350 Utility & Communication - - - - Special Department Administrative 36,381 19,855 375,000 375,000 395,000 Allocated Costs - - - - Total Supplies & Services 123,820$ 255,781$ 465,250$ 451,035$ 460,850$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 26,934$ 44,000$ -$ 71,500$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 21,000$ 21,000$ 26,900$ 26,900$ 28,245$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,211,832$ 1,309,450$ 1,684,321$ 1,594,510$ 1,728,201$ SOURCE OF FUNDING General Fund 1,211,832 1,270,003 1,277,821 1,239,510 1,301,701 Employee Compensated Leave Reserve - 12,513 - - - Technology Fund - 26,934 51,500 - 71,500 Long Range Planning Fund - - 355,000 355,000 355,000 TOTAL FUNDING 1,211,832$ 1,309,450$ 1,684,321$ 1,594,510$ 1,728,201$ STAFFING LEVEL Community Development Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Planning Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - Senior Planner - - - 1.00 1.00 Assistant Planner 1.00 - - - - Community Development Aide 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Building Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Permits Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Permit Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Planning Technician - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TOTAL STAFFING 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Community Development ALL DIVISIONS OBJECT SUMMARY Page 36 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 445,690$ 358,778$ 428,097$ 428,097$ 413,864$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 128,447$ 121,825$ 161,431$ 144,243$ 184,624$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 4,301 8,308 6,300 5,653 6,300 Conferences & Memberships 3,843 2,307 5,000 4,250 5,200 Contractual Services 10,713 47,596 12,500 23,304 20,000 Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 884 836 500 750 600 Utility & Communication - - Special Department Administrative - 8 - - 10,000 Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 19,740$ 59,055$ 24,300$ 33,956$ 42,100$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ 26,934$ 44,000$ -$ 71,500$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 6,100$ 6,100$ 11,700$ 11,700$ 12,285$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 599,977$ 572,692$ 669,528$ 617,997$ 724,373$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 TOTAL STAFFING 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Community Development PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW OBJECT SUMMARY Page 37 Community Development 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Director of Community Development 80,285 115,598 169,243 169,243 172,384 Senior Planner 114,408 50,714 102,489 102,489 106,080 Associate Planner 83,430 3,329 3,406 3,406 - Assistant Planner - - - - 74,101 Planning Technician 42,535 58,460 68,113 68,113 - Community Development Aide 18,251 52,813 56,846 56,846 60,299 Planning Intern (PST)4,670 - - - Overtime 138 279 1,000 1,000 1,000 Vacation Leave Compensation - 12,513 - - - Casual Hire 101,974 65,071 27,000 27,000 - Subtotal:445,690$ 358,778$ 428,097$ 428,097$ 413,864$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Medical & Insurance 51,141 42,358 66,312 44,852 75,167 Employee Accruing Fringe 9,567 8,662 5,100 7,872 4,800 PERS-Employer Normal Cost 26,507 20,337 37,433 37,433 35,534 PERS-Employer Unfunded Liability Pmt.29,952 37,905 44,985 44,985 55,697 PST 3.75% Employer Contribution 175 - - - - OPEB - GASB 45/75 Allowanc 3,960 6,997 - - 4,139 FICA-Medicare 5,346 4,320 5,801 5,801 5,987 Auto Allowance 1,800 1,246 1,800 1,800 1,800 Cell Phone Allowance - - 1,500 1,500 Subtotal:128,447$ 121,825$ 161,431$ 144,243$ 184,624$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Office & Copier Supplies 1,239 - 353 - Noticing & Publication 4,301 7,068 6,000 5,000 6,000 Publications & Subscriptions - - 300 300 300 Subtotal:4,301$ 8,308$ 6,300$ 5,653$ 6,300$ CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel 2,806 1,311 3,000 2,500 2,500 Employee Development/Training 390 160 1,000 1,000 1,000 Memberships 647 836 1,000 750 1,700 Subtotal:3,843$ 2,307$ 5,000$ 4,250$ 5,200$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services 10,713 47,596 5,000 23,304 10,000 Minutes Services - - - - 10,000 Contractual Services 7,500 - Subtotal:10,713$ 47,596$ 12,500$ 23,304$ 20,000$ PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW Account Description Page 38 Community Development 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed PLANNING & DESIGN REVIEW Account Description EQ SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Equipment Maintenance - 16 - - - Fuel & Oil 505 473 - - - Vehicle Maintenance 379 347 500 750 600 Subtotal:884$ 836$ 500$ 750$ 600$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Zoning Ordinance Maintenance 10,000 Subtotal:-$ 8$ -$ -$ 10,000$ Total Supplies & Services:19,740$ 59,055$ 24,300$ 33,956$ 42,100$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Computer & Peripheral 4,056 6,000 0 5,000 Misc. Computer Parts 419 2,000 0 1,500 Permit Soft Ann. Maint.16,914 16,000 0 32,500 e-Trak Software 12,500 iTrak Software CDD 5,545 20,000 0 20,000 Subtotal:-$ 26,934$ 44,000$ -$ 71,500$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance 2,000 2,000 4,200 4,200 4,410 Technology Allowance 4,100 4,100 7,500 7,500 7,875 Subtotal:6,100$ 6,100$ 11,700$ 11,700$ 12,285$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 599,977$ 572,692$ 669,528$ 617,997$ 724,373$ Page 39 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 368,088$ 382,237$ 404,931$ 397,431$ 391,160$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 124,788$ 142,895$ 153,712$ 146,804$ 177,959$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 145 2,544 2,200 1,000 - Conferences & Memberships 3,736 3,511 8,000 5,000 8,000 Contractual Services 60,308 165,002 50,000 30,000 20,000 Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 3,510 5,822 5,750 6,079 5,750 Utility & Communication - - - - - Special Department Administrative 36,381 19,846 20,000 20,000 30,000 Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 104,080$ 196,726$ 85,950$ 62,079$ 63,750$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 14,900$ 14,900$ 15,200$ 15,200$ 15,960$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 611,856$ 736,758$ 659,793$ 621,514$ 648,829$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 TOTAL STAFFING 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Community Development BUILDING INSPECTION OBJECT SUMMARY Page 40 Community Development 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Building Official 131,892 136,874 141,139 141,139 143,967 Building Inspector 100,951 104,151 107,396 107,396 109,548 Building Permit Technician 49,232 65,073 69,902 69,902 72,724 Building Permits Clerk 64,095 56,852 62,994 62,994 64,921 Overtime 251 451 1,000 1,000 - Casual/Temporary Hire 21,667 18,835 22,500 15,000 - Subtotal:368,088$ 382,237$ 404,931$ 397,431$ 391,160$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Medical & Insurance 47,841 52,104 63,917 52,209 73,139 Employee Accruing Fringe 14,400 14,400 9,600 14,400 9,600 PERS-Employer Normal Cost 23,891 25,748 29,679 29,679 29,939 PERS-Unfunded Liability 29,952 37,905 44,985 44,985 55,697 OPEB - GASB 45/75 Allowanc 3,524 7,311 - - 3,912 FICA-Medicare 5,180 5,427 5,531 5,531 5,672 Subtotal:124,788$ 142,895$ 153,712$ 146,804$ 177,959$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Publications & Subscriptions 145 2,544 2,200 1,000 Subtotal:145$ 2,544$ 2,200$ 1,000$ -$ CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel 3,091 3,186 4,500 2,500 4,500 Employee Development/Training 645 - 2,500 2,000 2,500 Memberships - 325 1,000 500 1,000 Subtotal:3,736$ 3,511$ 8,000$ 5,000$ 8,000$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual (Marin Builders Survey) 60,308 165,002 50,000 30,000 Minutes Services 20,000 Subtotal:60,308$ 165,002$ 50,000$ 30,000$ 20,000$ EQ SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Equipment Maintenance 1,306 3,213 2,500 2,500 2,500 System License & Maintenance Fuel & Oil 1,514 2,247 1,750 2,079 1,750 Vehicle Maintenance 690 362 1,500 1,500 1,500 Subtotal:3,510$ 5,822$ 5,750$ 6,079$ 5,750$ BUILDING INSPECTION Account Description Page 41 Community Development 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed BUILDING INSPECTION Account Description SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Records Management-Outside Scanning 36,381 18,101 20,000 20,000 30,000 Emergency/Disaster 1,745 - - Subtotal:36,381$ 19,846$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 30,000$ Total Supplies & Services:104,080$ 196,726$ 85,950$ 62,079$ 63,750$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,410 Technology Allowance 10,700 10,700 11,000 11,000 11,550 Subtotal:14,900$ 14,900$ 15,200$ 15,200$ 15,960$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 611,856$ 736,758$ 659,793$ 621,514$ 648,829$ Page 42 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses - - - - - Conferences & Memberships - - - - - Contractual Services - - - - - Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance - - - - - Utility & Communication - - - - - Special Department Administrative - - 355,000 355,000 355,000 Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services -$ -$ 355,000$ 355,000$ 355,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES -$ -$ 355,000$ 355,000$ 355,000$ Community Development ADVANCE PLANNING OBJECT SUMMARY Page 43 Community Development Account Description 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Advance Planner Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ Associate Planner Medical & Insurance Employee Accruing Fringe PERS-Employee (7%) PERS-Town (11.776%) FICA-Medicare Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Noticing & Publication Printing & Reproduction Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel Memberships Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Housing Element Update - - - - General Plan Update (Misc.)- - 355,000 355,000 355,000 Subtotal:-$ -$ 355,000$ 355,000$ 355,000$ ALLOCATED COSTS Insurance-Liability - - - - Insurance-Workers' Compensation - - - - Town Hall Facility - - - - Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Supplies & Services:-$ -$ 355,000$ 355,000$ 355,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance - - - - Technology Allowance - - - - Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT -$ -$ 355,000$ 355,000$ 355,000$ ADVANCE PLANNING Page 44 Police Services Police/EOC Facility The Police Department provides law enforcement services for ensuring the safety of and a high quality of life for the community. To that end, the Department strives to enforce all federal, state and local laws without prejudice, preserve the peace and insure that the citizens and merchants that live and work in our community receive the highest level of law enforcement services available. The total proposed appropriation for the Police Department is $4,155,207. Staffing is comprised of 13 sworn personnel, 4 civilian personnel and approximately 4 volunteer and reserve police officers. The Department also coordinates with other Town departments, government agencies and has developed a partnership with the community in planning and implementing safe school programs, neighborhood and business awareness, safe pedestrian and traffic flow on our streets and emergency preparedness programs. Community oriented policing in Tiburon builds on the understanding that it is the community itself that can best say what it needs from its Police Department and the Police and the community must work together to accomplish jointly set goals through cooperative efforts. While the philosophy of community oriented policing has only recently received an official title, this concept has been in place in the Town of Tiburon since the Department's inception in 1972, and continues to exists to this date. Police Services The Department Services Division includes patrol, administration, support personnel, investigations, training, parking enforcement and crime prevention program. Police/Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Facility The Police/Emergency Operations Center Facility Division serves as the primary Emergency Operation Center for the entire Tiburon Peninsula. All costs related to maintaining the policy facility which also serves as the primary Emergency Operation Center for the entire Tiburon Peninsula. section. Belvedere contributes 12.5% of the funds needed to maintain this function. POLICE Page 45 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed DEPARTMENT FUNDING General Fund 3,159,977 3,552,145 3,750,367 3,698,308 4,024,871 Employee Compensated Leave - 44,037 - 43,251 - Capital Equipment Replacement - 18,794 25,000 25,000 45,000 Technology Fund - 28,421 67,200 31,100 67,200 Total Department Funding 3,159,977$ 3,643,397$ 3,842,567$ 3,797,659$ 4,137,071$ DIVISION FUNDING Police Services General Fund 3,104,928 3,476,900 3,679,767 3,632,657 3,950,401 Employee Compensated Leave - 44,037 - 43,251 - Capital Equipment Replacement - 18,794 25,000 25,000 45,000 Technology Fund - 28,421 67,200 31,100 67,200 Total Police Services 3,104,928$ 3,568,152$ 3,771,967$ 3,732,008$ 4,062,601$ Police Facility General Fund 55,049 75,245 70,600 65,651 74,470 Total Facility 55,049$ 75,245$ 70,600$ 65,651$ 74,470$ Total Division Funding 3,159,977$ 3,643,397$ 3,842,567$ 3,797,659$ 4,137,071$ Police Department DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Page 46 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 1,883,568$ 2,091,863$ 2,142,422$ 2,115,973$ 2,208,593$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 682,994$ 844,442$ 947,499$ 885,580$ 1,054,657$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 49,751 52,445 63,500 58,830 63,500 Conferences & Memberships 9,130 10,978 24,000 14,144 19,500 Contractual Services 28,172 6,572 53,924 100,176 128,924 Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency 251,068 297,652 244,122 294,046 235,627 Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 102,648 135,035 110,600 108,275 130,185 Utility & Communication 62,425 67,249 65,800 66,044 66,085 Special Department Administrative 893 3,946 5,000 8,740 15,000 Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 504,086$ 573,877$ 566,946$ 650,256$ 658,821$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 3,328$ 47,216$ 97,200$ 58,600$ 117,200$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 86,000$ 86,000$ 86,000$ 86,000$ 95,300$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ 2,500$ 1,250$ 2,500$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,159,977$ 3,643,397$ 3,842,567$ 3,797,659$ 4,137,071$ SOURCE OF FUNDING General Fund 3,159,977 3,552,145 3,750,367 3,698,308 4,024,871 Employee Compensated Leave - 44,037 - 43,251 - Capital Equipment Replacement - 18,794 25,000 25,000 45,000 Technology Fund - 28,421 67,200 31,100 67,200 TOTAL FUNDING 3,159,977$ 3,643,397$ 3,842,567$ 3,797,659$ 4,137,071$ STAFFING LEVEL Chief 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sergeant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Patrol Officers 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Police Service Aide 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Emergency Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 TOTAL STAFFING 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Police Department ALL DIVISIONS OBJECT SUMMARY Page 47 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 1,883,568$ 2,091,863$ 2,142,422$ 2,115,973$ 2,208,593$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 682,994$ 844,442$ 947,499$ 885,580$ 1,054,657$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 49,751 52,445 63,500 58,830 63,500 Conferences & Memberships 9,130 10,978 24,000 14,144 19,500 Contractual Services 28,172 6,572 53,924 100,176 128,924 Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency 251,068 297,652 244,122 294,046 235,627 Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 73,280 85,481 76,000 75,090 97,000 Utility & Communication 40,966 43,402 42,300 42,370 42,300 Special Department Administrative - 2,102 - 3,697 10,000 Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 452,366$ 498,632$ 503,846$ 588,355$ 596,851$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ 47,216$ 92,200$ 56,100$ 112,200$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 86,000$ 86,000$ 86,000$ 86,000$ 90,300$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,104,928$ 3,568,152$ 3,771,967$ 3,732,008$ 4,062,601$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 TOTAL STAFFING 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 Police Department POLICE SERVICES OBJECT SUMMARY Page 48 Police Department 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Police Chief 189,663 195,357 202,700 150,000 204,369 Sergeants (4)410,159 469,459 505,232 505,232 515,343 Patrol Officer (8)773,528 753,784 805,245 805,245 845,318 Emergency/Admin Services Coordinator 81,856 88,574 94,934 94,934 98,784 Police Service Aide (3)179,663 206,498 221,189 221,189 228,934 Overtime 150,903 158,572 145,055 145,055 145,000 Overtime-Emergency 48,592 - Overtime-Special Svcs 2,266 4,076 10,000 5,000 10,000 ORT Patrol 13,834 25,000 15,000 25,000 Education Incentive Pay 24,093 27,575 30,300 30,300 30,300 Holiday Pay 43,939 50,005 63,487 63,487 66,265 Special Pay 2,305 7,409 6,000 6,000 6,000 Bilingual Pay - 4,500 2,500 4,500 Longevity Pay 12,529 11,616 10,780 10,780 10,780 Shift Differential 12,665 12,473 18,000 18,000 18,000 Vacation Leave Compensation 34,284 - 43,251 - Sick Leave Compensation 9,753 - - Subtotal:1,883,568$ 2,091,863$ 2,142,422$ 2,115,973$ 2,208,593$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Medical & Insurance 159,710 210,073 272,089 204,688 296,940 Employee Accruing Fringe 29,406 22,779 9,600 15,082 14,400 PERS-Employer Normal Cost 215,239 236,841 280,631 280,631 278,309 PERS-Employer Unfunded Liability Pmt.216,455 287,341 340,297 340,297 408,388 OPEB - GASB 45/75 Allowanc 19,497 41,817 - - 22,086 FICA-Medicare 25,272 30,353 28,444 28,444 29,434 Automobile Allowance 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 Cell Phone Allowance 1,500 Medical Allowance 12,838 12,838 12,838 12,838 - Tuition Reimbursement 1,200 - 1,200 1,200 1,200 Unemployment Insurance 977 - - - - Subtotal:682,994$ 844,442$ 947,499$ 885,580$ 1,054,657$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Office & Copier Supplies 12,783 15,758 14,000 12,000 14,000 Evidence Supplies 756 644 1,500 1,600 1,500 Postage 737 239 1,000 730 1,000 Printing, Reproduction 3,330 5,754 4,000 5,000 4,000 Range & Weapons 9,908 2,834 10,000 9,500 10,000 Recruiting & Investigation 7,970 13,898 12,000 12,000 12,000 Special Investigation 768 2,804 6,000 6,000 6,000 DOJ Live Scan 8,697 3,445 8,000 5,000 8,000 Publications & Subscriptions 4,801 7,068 7,000 7,000 7,000 Evidence - Photo, Film & Video Supplies Subtotal:49,751$ 52,445$ 63,500$ 58,830$ 63,500$ POLICE SERVICES Account Description Page 49 Police Department 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed POLICE SERVICES Account Description CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel 2,115 2,516 3,000 3,000 3,000 Employee Development 1,721 - 5,137 - Memberships 1,499 348 2,000 1,500 1,500 POST-Reimbursed Training 557 - 12,000 - 12,000 POST-Non Reimbursed Training 3,154 5,084 5,000 4,000 1,000 Special Meal Allowance (MOU)1,805 1,309 2,000 507 2,000 Subtotal:9,130$ 10,978$ 24,000$ 14,144$ 19,500$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services-Consultant 6,572 - 50,189 75,000 Records Management System (Tech)23,512 - 38,487 38,487 38,487 Lexipol Policy Manual Maintenance - 4,000 4,000 4,000 Systems Support (MDC, CAD Maint)4,660 - 11,437 7,500 11,437 Subtotal:28,172$ 6,572$ 53,924$ 100,176$ 128,924$ INTERGOVERNMENT, AGENCY & JPA Marin County Major Crimes Task Force 49,555 50,994 52,063 52,063 37,500 Marin County Dispatch 198,386 243,531 188,932 238,856 195,000 Marin County DA-Prandi Center 3,127 3,127 3,127 3,127 3,127 Subtotal:251,068$ 297,652$ 244,122$ 294,046$ 235,627$ EQ SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Equipment Maintenance 2,103 1,605 2,500 2,500 2,500 Fuel & Oil 17,979 26,586 25,000 25,000 26,000 Radio Maintenance 4,076 846 2,000 1,500 2,000 Safety Equipment 2,290 3,556 5,000 5,381 20,000 Uniform Maintenance 3,993 7,343 7,000 5,000 7,000 Uniform Purchase/Replacement 14,604 28,432 15,000 15,000 15,000 Vehicle Supplies 1,061 3,336 1,000 1,000 1,000 Vehicle Maintenance 16,997 12,644 15,000 15,000 17,500 Safety Equipment (MOU)183 218 1,000 1,189 1,000 License Plate Camera Maintenance 9,994 915 2,500 3,521 5,000 Subtotal:73,280$ 85,481$ 76,000$ 75,090$ 97,000$ UTILITY & COMMUNICATION Telecommunication 26,516 25,655 25,000 25,000 25,000 Cable Communication Services 601 472 600 670 600 MIDAS Internet Connection 13,849 17,275 16,700 16,700 16,700 Subtotal:40,966$ 43,402$ 42,300$ 42,370$ 42,300$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Emergency & Disaster Planning 2,102 - 3,697 10,000 Subtotal:-$ 2,102$ -$ 3,697$ 10,000$ Total Supplies & Services:452,366$ 498,632$ 503,846$ 588,355$ 596,851$ Page 50 Police Department 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed POLICE SERVICES Account Description CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES License Plate Reader Ca - - 3,600 - 3,600 Vehicles & Setup 18,794 25,000 25,000 45,000 Computer & Peripheral - 3,000 3,000 3,000 Misc. Computer Parts - 2,500 - 2,500 Telecommunication Equipment - 30,000 - 30,000 Body Cameras 28,421 28,100 28,100 28,100 Subtotal:-$ 47,216$ 92,200$ 56,100$ 112,200$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 78,750 Technology Allowance 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,550 Subtotal:86,000$ 86,000$ 86,000$ 86,000$ 90,300$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 3,104,928$ 3,568,152$ 3,771,967$ 3,732,008$ 4,062,601$ Page 51 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Actuals 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted 2/2/2021 Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses - - - - - - Conferences & Memberships - - - - - - Contractual Services - - - - - - Insurances - - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 29,368 49,554 34,600 24,756 33,185 33,185 Utility & Communication 21,459 23,847 23,500 13,478 23,674 23,785 Special Department Administrative 893 1,844 5,000 5,042 5,042 5,000 Allocated Costs - - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 51,720$ 75,245$ 63,100$ 43,276$ 61,901$ 61,970$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 3,328$ -$ 5,000$ -$ 2,500$ 5,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ 2,500$ -$ 1,250$ 2,500$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 55,049$ 75,245$ 70,600$ 43,276$ 65,651$ 74,470$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions TOTAL STAFFING Police Department POLICE FACILITY OBJECT SUMMARY Page 52 Police Department 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES EQ SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Equipment Maintenance 9,946 17,848 10,000 10,000 10,000 Building/Facility Supplies 6,141 7,391 8,000 8,000 8,000 Fuel & Oil - - 500 500 500 Inspection & Testing - 500 500 500 Janitorial Services 13,071 17,193 15,000 13,000 13,000 Pest Control Service 210 - 600 600 600 Vehicle Maintenance 7,122 - 585 585 Subtotal:29,368$ 49,554$ 34,600$ 33,185$ 33,185$ UTILITY & COMMUNICATION Energy-PG&E 20,462 22,723 22,500 22,889 23,000 Water-MMWD 997 1,124 1,000 785 785 Subtotal:21,459$ 23,847$ 23,500$ 23,674$ 23,785$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Emergency & Disaster Planning 893 1,844 5,000 5,042 5,000 Subtotal:893$ 1,844$ 5,000$ 5,042$ 5,000$ Total Supplies & Services:51,720$ 75,245$ 63,100$ 61,901$ 61,970$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Office Furniture 3,328 - 5,000 2,500 5,000 Subtotal:3,328$ -$ 5,000$ 2,500$ 5,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance - - - 2,500 Technology Allowance - - - 2,500 Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES Facility Alteration/Improvement - - 2,500 1,250 2,500 Subtotal:-$ -$ 2,500$ 1,250$ 2,500$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 55,049$ 75,245$ 70,600$ 65,651$ 74,470$ Account Description POLICE FACILITY Page 53 Administration & Engineering Streets Maintenance Parks Maintenance Cypress Hollow Corporation Yard Street & Signal Light System The Public Works Department is responsible for the construction, maintenance and oversight of the Town's infrastructure and public facilities, including streets and roads, sidewalks, storm drains, park lands, open space lands, street light and signal light system, and Town easements and rights-of-way. The total proposed appropriation for Public Works is $2,723,038 primarily from the General Fund. The Department operates with 9.0 FTE employees. Streets Resurfacing and Drainage Improvement projects, as well as some other projects, are authorized in the Capital Improvement Program budget and are not a cost to the Public Works Department budget. Administration & Engineering This division oversees the entire public works operation, providing administrative and engineering oversight for Town's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, processing encroachment permits, and coordinating with Caltrans regarding Tiburon Boulevard traffic operations and modifications. This division is also responsible for identifying, securing and administering grants for capital projects. Street Maintenance This Division is responsible for maintenance of the Town's nearly 15 miles of sidewalk and 32 centerline miles of streets. This division also performs preventive maintenance on the Town's storm drainage system, which includes over 50 miles of curb & gutter, 13 miles of culverts, 18 miles of v-ditches and over 500 catch basins. Parks Maintenance This Division maintains the Town's ten parks (covering nearly 70 acres) as well as the multi-use path and the landscaped medians throughout Town. Cypress Hollow This division provides for maintenance of the lighting, landscape and facilities at the Cypress Hollow park and is paid for through a special tax assessment on the parcels located in Cypress Hollow. Corporation Yard The Corporation Yard is the Town's garage and workshop. It also provides for storage of maintenance equipment/supplies and engineering project files. Street & Signal Light System This division provides for the operational costs for the Town's 300+ street lights; the Town's contribution toward Tiburon Boulevard traffic signal maintenance can be found here. PUBLIC WORKS Page 54 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed DEPARTMENT FUNDING General Fund 1,684,537 1,959,506 2,000,017 2,067,057 2,375,011 Employee Compensated Leave - 36,074 - - - Capital Equipment Replacement - 57,500 40,000 34,903 65,000 Technology Fund - 15,188 16,970 95 13,000 Park Development & ORT - 9,943 40,000 10,000 40,000 Disaster Response - 680 - - - Cypress Hollow Fund 25,193 20,124 16,500 23,802 37,000 Paula Little Flower Fund - 7,940 - 7,957 8,000 Measure "A" Parks - 86,627 68,344 68,344 75,000 State Gas Tax - 1,638 - 7,500 110,000 Street Impact Fund - - 50,000 40,000 - Total Department Funding 1,709,730$ 2,195,221$ 2,231,832$ 2,259,658$ 2,723,011$ DIVISION FUNDING Administration & Engineering General Fund 358,353 502,069 518,541 551,857 603,383 Employee Compensated Leave - 26,938 - - - Technology Fund - 2,856 - - - Disaster Response - 680 - - - Measure "A" Parks - 86,627 68,344 68,344 75,000 State Gas Tax - 1,638 - 7,500 - Total Administration & Engineering 358,353$ 620,807$ 586,885$ 627,701$ 678,383$ Streets Maintenance General Fund 524,332 644,130 628,300 644,023 698,768 Employee Compensated Leave - 9,135 - - - Capital Equipment Replacement - 57,500 - 4,537 65,000 Technology Fund - 12,333 16,970 95 13,000 State Gas Tax - - - - 110,000 Street Impact Fund - - 50,000 40,000 - Total Streets Maintenance 524,332$ 723,098$ 695,270$ 688,655$ 886,768$ Parks Maintenance General Fund 655,807 655,408 728,077 711,255 907,640 Employee Compensated Leave Capital Equipment Replacement - - 40,000 30,366 - Park Development & ORT - 9,943 40,000 10,000 40,000 Paula Little Flower Fund - 7,940 - 7,957 8,000 Total Parks Maintenance 655,807$ 673,291$ 808,077$ 759,579$ 955,640$ Street & Signal Light Maintenance General Fund 44,592 30,899 36,000 30,209 52,500 Total Street & Signal Light Maintenance 44,592$ 30,899$ 36,000$ 30,209$ 52,500$ Cypress Hollow Cypress Hollow Fund 25,193 20,124 16,500 23,802 37,000 Public Works DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Page 55 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed Public Works DEPARTMENT SUMMARY Total Cypress Hollow 25,193$ 20,124$ 16,500$ 23,802$ 37,000$ Corporation Yard General Fund 101,454 127,001 89,100 129,713 112,720 Total Corporation Yard 101,454$ 127,001$ 89,100$ 129,713$ 112,720$ Total Division Funding 1,709,730$ 2,195,221$ 2,231,832$ 2,259,658$ 2,723,011$ Page 56 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 807,936$ 936,115$ 914,668$ 921,518$ 1,007,458$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 294,735$ 342,021$ 373,529$ 355,752$ 489,748$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 4,037 6,316 5,510 4,709 5,700 Conferences & Memberships 5,339 4,795 12,155 9,100 12,255 Contractual Services 103,176 104,666 97,000 136,853 147,000 Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 273,559 436,301 561,200 508,886 686,820 Utility & Communication 154,414 179,359 175,200 231,586 233,800 Special Department Administrative 70,359 28,000 44,021 - Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 561,984 801,796 879,065 935,156 1,085,575 CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 2,475 72,688 21,970 4,632 83,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 42,600 42,600 42,600 49,600 57,230 CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES - - - - - DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,709,730$ 2,195,221$ 2,231,832$ 2,266,658$ 2,723,011$ SOURCE OF FUNDING General Fund 1,684,537 1,959,506 2,000,017 2,067,057 2,375,011 Employee Compensated Leave - 36,074 - - - Capital Equipment Replacement - 57,500 40,000 34,903 65,000 Technology Fund - 15,188 16,970 95 13,000 Park Development & ORT - 9,943 40,000 10,000 40,000 Disaster Response - 680 - - - Cypress Hollow Fund 25,193 20,124 16,500 23,802 37,000 Paula Little Flower Fund - 7,940 - 7,957 8,000 Measure "A" Parks - 86,627 68,344 68,344 75,000 State Gas Tax - 1,638 - 7,500 110,000 Street Impact Fund - - 50,000 40,000 - TOTAL FUNDING 1,709,730$ 2,195,221$ 2,231,832$ 2,259,658$ 2,723,011$ STAFFING LEVEL Public Works Director/ Town Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Superintendent 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Maintenance Worker 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Maintenance Worker I 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 TOTAL STAFFING 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 Public Works ALL DIVISIONS OBJECT SUMMARY Page 57 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 263,218$ 349,071$ 307,812$ 312,812$ 346,043$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 71,095$ 95,546$ 101,608$ 108,810$ 133,055$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 540 1,150 810 79 500 Conferences & Memberships 1,636 1,778 6,055 5,400 6,055 Contractual Services 7,460 37,795 15,000 37,500 50,000 Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 11,804 130,011 125,000 132,500 140,000 Utility & Communication - - - - - Special Department Administrative - - 28,000 28,000 - Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 21,440$ 170,735$ 174,865$ 203,479$ 196,555$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ 2,856$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 2,600$ 2,600$ 2,600$ 2,600$ 2,730$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 358,353$ 620,807$ 586,885$ 627,701$ 678,383$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 TOTAL STAFFING 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Public Works ADMINISTRATION & ENGINEERING OBJECT SUMMARY Page 58 Public Works 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Public Works Director/Town Engineer 173,565 215,421 192,816 192,816 201,185 Associate Engineer 88,993 105,718 114,996 114,996 118,858 Project Coordintor - - - - 26,000 Vacation Leave Compensation - 26,938 - - - Casual Hire 660 994 - 5,000 - Subtotal:263,218$ 349,071$ 307,812$ 312,812$ 346,043$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Medical & Insurance 20,250 26,949 42,840 50,042 63,228 Employee Accruing Fringe 4,800 4,154 - - - PERS-Town Normal Cost 21,286 28,604 26,432 26,432 27,138 PST - Part time (3.75%)962 PERS-Unfunded Liability Payment 14,476 18,953 22,492 22,492 27,849 OPEB - GASB 45/75 Allowanc 2,848 6,697 - - 3,460 FICA-Medicare 3,834 5,026 4,444 4,444 5,018 Auto Allowance 3,600 3,738 2,400 2,400 2,400 Cell Phone Allowance - 1,425 3,000 3,000 3,000 Subtotal:71,095$ 95,546$ 101,608$ 108,810$ 133,055$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Noticing and Publication 471 1,150 810 79 500 Subtotal:540$ 1,150$ 810$ 79$ 500$ CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel 582 1,068 3,900 2,500 3,900 Employee Development/Training 255 189 900 900 900 Memberships 800 521 1,255 2,000 1,255 Subtotal:1,636$ 1,778$ 6,055$ 5,400$ 6,055$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contract - Engineering Services 7,460 1,313 15,000 7,500 15,000 Encroachment Inspections 36,483 - 30,000 35,000 Subtotal:7,460$ 37,795$ 15,000$ 37,500$ 50,000$ EQUIP, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Open Space Management 3,193 25,792 56,656 56,656 65,000 Open Space Management (Measure A)86,627 68,344 68,344 75,000 Storm Drain Flushing - 15,275 - - - Slide Repairs (1,780) - - - - Slide Repairs 680 - - - Curb/Sidewalk Improvements 1,638 - 7,500 - Street Striping 10,390 - - - - Subtotal:11,804$ 130,011$ 125,000$ 132,500$ 140,000$ ADMINISTRATION & ENGINEERING Account Description Page 59 Public Works 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed ADMINISTRATION & ENGINEERING Account Description SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Street Speed Survey - 28,000 28,000 - Subtotal:-$ -$ 28,000$ 28,000$ -$ Total Supplies & Services:21,440$ 170,735$ 174,865$ 203,479$ 196,555$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Computer & Peripheral - 131 - - - Computer Monitor - 349 - - - Lap Top Computers - 2,375 - - - Subtotal:-$ 2,856$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Depreciation Allowance - - - - - Technology Allowance 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,730 Total:2,600$ 2,600$ 2,600$ 2,600$ 2,730$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 358,353$ 620,807$ 586,885$ 627,701$ 678,383$ Page 60 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 323,179$ 366,307$ 364,391$ 366,241$ 360,697$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 132,525$ 144,994$ 152,809$ 156,248$ 194,171$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses -$ -$ -$ 239$ 500$ Conferences & Memberships 2,177$ 1,972$ 4,000$ 2,000$ 4,000$ Contractual Services -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Insurances -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Intergovernmental & Agency -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 63,976$ 83,131$ 152,100$ 156,587$ 244,400$ Utility & Communication -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Special Department Administrative -$ 56,862$ -$ 2,708$ -$ Allocated Costs -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Supplies & Services 66,153$ 141,965$ 156,100$ 161,534$ 248,900$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE 2,475$ 69,833$ 21,970$ 4,632$ 83,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 524,332$ 723,098$ 695,270$ 688,655$ 886,768$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 TOTAL STAFFING 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Public Works STREETS MAINTENANCE OBJECT SUMMARY Page 61 Public Works 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Superintendent of Public Works 113,516 120,416 131,197 131,197 133,890 Maintenance Worker (2) 132,934 153,317 144,316 144,316 137,178 Senior Maintenance Worker 71,468 76,546 82,878 82,878 84,529 Overtime 1,660 1,689 2,400 3,500 1,500 Overtime-Emergency 1,603 - 750 - Special Shift Pay 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 Vacation Leave Compensation 9,135 - Subtotal:323,179$ 366,307$ 364,391$ 366,241$ 360,697$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Medical & Insurance 50,505 44,472 63,840 52,879 84,815 Employee Accruing Fringe 20,289 23,506 9,600 24,001 14,400 PERS-Employee (7%) PERS-Town Normal Cost 21,928 24,946 27,478 27,478 28,696 PERS-Unfunded Liability 29,952 37,905 44,985 44,985 55,697 OPEB - GASB 45/75 Allowanc 3,125 6,761 - - 3,607 FICA-Medicare 4,976 5,604 5,106 5,106 5,156 Cell Phone Allowance 550 600 600 600 600 Tuition Reimbursement 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Subtotal:132,525$ 144,994$ 152,809$ 156,248$ 194,171$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Publications & Subscriptions - - - 239 500 Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ 239$ 500$ CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel 1,787 1,733 1,500 500 1,500 Employee Development/Training 390 239 2,500 1,500 2,500 Subtotal:2,177$ 1,972$ 4,000$ 2,000$ 4,000$ EQUIP, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Operating Supplies 1,297 2,149 2,900 2,900 500 Equipment Maintenance 78 725 1,100 1,100 15,000 Library Expansion 2,344 - - - Fuel & Oil 20,190 30,083 14,000 28,000 15,000 Pest Control Downtown 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Downtown Cleanup & Restrooms Small Tools 1,130 1,948 1,000 1,000 1,000 Storm Drain & Culvert Maintenance 6,689 3,650 30,000 30,000 30,000 Pavement/Sidewalk Maint and Repair 26,513 33,569 35,000 35,000 56,000 Pavement/Sidewalk Maint and Repair 60,000 STREETS MAINTENANCE Account Description Page 62 Public Works 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed STREETS MAINTENANCE Account Description Street Painting (Moved Dept 430 FY 2014) Safety Equipment & Apparel 2,230 807 1,200 2,135 1,500 Uniform Maintenance Service 1,598 - 4,200 171 4,200 Uniform Purchase/Replacement 2,391 4,979 - 3,581 - Vehicle Maintenance 364 10,000 10,000 8,500 Safety Equipment (MOU)359 1,013 1,200 1,200 1,200 Contingency (Streets)- 50,000 40,000 - Contingency (Streets)- - - 50,000 Subtotal:63,976$ 83,131$ 152,100$ 156,587$ 244,400$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Emergency & Disaster Planning 36,194 - 2,678 - Emergency PG&E PSPS 20,667 - 30 - Subtotal:-$ 56,862$ -$ 2,708$ -$ Total Supplies & Services:66,153$ 141,965$ 156,100$ 161,534$ 248,900$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Vehicles & Setup - 40,000 - - 65,000 Video/Camera Equipment 17,500 - 4,537 Computer & Peripheral 1,945 1,500 95 1,500 Misc. Computer Parts - 1,250 - Maint.Schedule SW Maint 9,958 9,220 - 11,500 Telecommunication Equipment 430 5,000 - Subtotal:-$ 69,833$ 16,970$ 4,632$ 78,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ OTHER EQUIPMENT Street Light Pole Replacement 2,475 - 5,000 - 5,000 Subtotal:2,475$ -$ 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 524,332$ 723,098$ 695,270$ 688,655$ 886,768$ Page 63 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 221,539$ 220,737$ 242,465$ 242,465$ 300,718$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 91,116$ 101,482$ 119,112$ 90,694$ 162,522$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses - - - - - Conferences & Memberships 1,525 1,045 2,100 1,700 2,200 Contractual Services 91,372 66,697 75,000 82,957 83,000 Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 136,212 141,170 234,400 150,183 219,500 Utility & Communication 114,043 133,256 135,000 179,074 182,700 Special Department Administrative - 8,904 - 12,506 - Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 343,152$ 351,072$ 446,500$ 426,420$ 487,400$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 655,807$ 673,291$ 808,077$ 759,579$ 955,640$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 TOTAL STAFFING 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Public Works PARKS MAINTENANCE OBJECT SUMMARY Page 64 Public Works PARKS MAINTENANCE 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SALARY Maintenance Worker (3)122,895 131,154 128,285 128,285 196,513 Senior Maintenance Worker 77,945 63,507 78,180 78,180 78,205 Seasonal Maintenance Worker-PST 20,299 25,080 35,000 35,000 25,000 Overtime 400 681 1,000 1,000 1,000 Overtime-Emergency 316 - - - Subtotal:221,539$ 220,737$ 242,465$ 242,465$ 300,718$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Medical & Insurance 46,803 48,267 53,011 34,193 78,730 Employee Accruing Fringe - 9,600 - 9,600 PERS-Town Normal Cost 15,835 16,433 17,948 17,948 22,829 PERS-Unfunded Liability 22,464 28,429 33,739 33,739 41,773 PST 3.75% Employer Contribution 761 941 1,313 1,313 1,875 OPEB - GASB 45/75 Allowanc 2,059 4,221 - - 3,007 FICA-Medicare Tax 3,194 3,192 3,501 3,501 4,708 Subtotal:91,116$ 101,482$ 119,112$ 90,694$ 162,522$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Conferences, Meetings & Travel - 25 400 - 500 Employee Development/Training 1,115 710 1,200 1,200 1,200 Memberships 410 310 500 500 500 Subtotal:1,525$ 1,045$ 2,100$ 1,700$ 2,200$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services (Medians & Restrooms) 84,693 57,630 70,000 70,000 70,000 Contractual Services (flower baskets)7,940 7,957 8,000 Downtown Fountain Maint 6,679 1,128 5,000 5,000 5,000 Subtotal:91,372$ 66,697$ 75,000$ 82,957$ 83,000$ EQUIP, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Equipment Maintenance 4,218 19,943 10,000 16,712 10,000 Building/Facility Supplies - 249 - - - ORT Special Maintenance 5,100 - - - - Building/Facility Supplies - 40,000 30,366 - Fuel & Oil - - 14,000 - 15,000 Fuel & Oil - 5,820 - 1,625 - Janitorial Services - 600 5,400 - 18,000 Landscape Grounds & Materials 39,769 53,412 30,000 62,746 63,000 McKegney Green Maintenance 6,791 25,110 30,000 15,951 19,000 Small Tools & Implements 720 - - Street Materials & Signs 4,431 226 1,000 593 11,000 Tree Maintenance 71,615 20,110 40,000 8,250 30,000 Fencing - 10,000 - - Account Description Page 65 Public Works PARKS MAINTENANCE 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated ProposedAccount Description Safety Equipment & Apparel - - - - 1,000 Uniform Maintenance Service 1,897 378 4,000 - 4,000 Uniform Purchase/Replacement 2,391 4,657 - 3,746 - Vehicle Maintenance - - 10,000 194 8,500 ORT Maint. DG/Pavemen - - - - - Fencing 9,943 - 10,000 - Contingency (Parks)- - 40,000 - 40,000 Subtotal:136,212$ 141,170$ 234,400$ 150,183$ 219,500$ UTILITY & COMMUNICATION Energy-PG&E 8,509 9,547 10,000 7,760 10,000 Water-MMWD 90,472 123,709 125,000 170,852 172,000 Water-RBSD Reclaimed 15,062 - - - - Telecommunication 461 700 Subtotal:114,043$ 133,256$ 135,000$ 179,074$ 182,700$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Emergency & Disaster Planning 8,904 - 12,506 - Subtotal:-$ 8,904$ -$ 12,506$ -$ Total Supplies & Services:343,152$ 351,072$ 446,500$ 426,420$ 487,400$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance - - - - 5,000 Technology Allowance - - - - - Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ 5,000$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 655,807$ 673,291$ 808,077$ 759,579$ 955,640$ Page 66 Public Works 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 3,497 5,166 4,700 4,391 4,700 Conferences & Memberships - - - - - Contractual Services - - - - - Insurances - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 38,132 52,578 25,700 53,593 32,920 Utility & Communication 19,825 24,664 18,700 30,922 28,100 Special Department Administrative - 4,593 - 807 - Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 61,454$ 87,001$ 49,100$ 89,713$ 65,720$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 47,000$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 101,454$ 127,001$ 89,100$ 129,713$ 112,720$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions TOTAL STAFFING CORPORATION YARD OBJECT SUMMARY Page 67 Public Works 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Office & Copier Supplies 1,602 3,089 1,500 1,539 1,500 Permit/Application Fees 1,895 2,077 3,200 2,852 3,200 Subtotal:3,497$ 5,166$ 4,700$ 4,391$ 4,700$ EQUIP, SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Operating Supplies 785 4,325 6,000 9,479 7,500 Equipment Maintenance 2,604 177 3,000 4,214 4,220 Building/Facility Supplies 4,666 5,590 5,000 5,491 5,500 Fuel & Oil 10,348 15,885 2,500 12,269 7,000 Janitorial Services 2,580 2,580 2,600 2,633 2,600 Small Tools/Implements 1,862 401 3,500 2,926 3,000 Vehicle Maintenance 15,265 17,051 - 12,072 2,000 Facility - Alteration/Improvements 22 3,882 600 - - Rental-Equipment & Tools - 2,687 2,500 1,009 1,100 Corporation Yard Fuel Pump Rebuild - - 3,500 - Subtotal:38,132$ 52,578$ 25,700$ 53,593$ 32,920$ UTILITY & COMMUNICATION Energy-PG&E 3,690 4,345 4,300 4,332 5,000 Water-MMWD 1,928 4,184 3,200 3,303 3,700 Telecommunication 11,473 13,335 8,000 21,047 16,000 Cable Communication Services 2,734 2,800 3,200 2,239 3,400 Subtotal:19,825$ 24,664$ 18,700$ 30,922$ 28,100$ SPECIAL DEPT. ADMINISTRATIVE Emergency & Disaster Planning 4,593 - 807 - Subtotal:-$ 4,593$ -$ 807$ -$ Total Supplies & Services:61,454$ 87,001$ 49,100$ 89,713$ 65,720$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 42,000 Technology Allowance - - - - 5,000 Subtotal:40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 47,000$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 101,454$ 127,001$ 89,100$ 129,713$ 112,720$ CORPORATION YARD Account Description Page 68 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses Conferences & Memberships Contractual Services Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 25,447 12,267 16,000 11,551 30,000 Utility & Communication 19,145 18,632 20,000 18,658 20,000 Special Department Administrative - - - - - Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 44,592$ 30,899$ 36,000$ 30,209$ 50,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 44,592$ 30,899$ 36,000$ 30,209$ 52,500$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions TOTAL STAFFING Public Works STREET & SIGNAL LIGHT SYSTEM OBJECT SUMMARY Page 69 Public Works STREET & SIGNAL LIGHT SYSTEM 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES EQUIP SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Street/Signal Light Maint. (Cal/TRANS)25,447 12,267 16,000 11,551 30,000 Subtotal:25,447$ 12,267$ 16,000$ 11,551$ 30,000$ UTILITY & COMMUNICATION Energy-PG&E 19,145 18,632 20,000 18,658 20,000 Subtotal:19,145$ 18,632$ 20,000$ 18,658$ 20,000$ Total Supplies & Services:44,592$ 30,899$ 36,000$ 30,209$ 50,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSES Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE Capital Equipment Allowance 2,500 Technology Allowance - - - - - Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 44,592$ 30,899$ 36,000$ 30,209$ 52,500$ Account Description Page 70 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Actuals 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted 3/30/2021 Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses Conferences & Memberships Contractual Services 14,000 173 7,000 9,396 16,396 14,000 Insurances - - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 9,793 17,144 8,000 2,982 4,473 20,000 Utility & Communication 1,400 2,808 1,500 1,956 2,933 3,000 Special Department Administrative - - - - - - Allocated Costs - - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 25,193$ 20,124$ 16,500$ 14,333$ 23,802$ 37,000$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES 1$ 2$ 3$ 4$ 5$ 6$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25,193$ 20,124$ 16,500$ 14,333$ 23,802$ 37,000$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions TOTAL STAFFING Public Works CYPRESS HOLLOW SPECIAL DISTRICT OBJECT SUMMARY Page 71 Public Works 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services (Cost Recovery)14,000 173 7,000 14,000 Subtotal:14,000$ 173$ 7,000$ 14,000$ EQUIP SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Landscape Grounds & Materials 9,793 17,144 8,000 5,000 Tree Maintenance - - 15,000 Subtotal:9,793$ 17,144$ 8,000$ 20,000$ UTILITY & COMMUNICATION Water-MMWD 1,400 2,808 1,500 3,000 Subtotal:1,400$ 2,808$ 1,500$ 3,000$ Total Supplies & Services:25,193$ 20,124$ 16,500$ 37,000$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 25,193$ 20,124$ 16,500$ 37,000$ CYPRESS HOLLOW SPECIAL DISTRICT Account Description Page 72 Insurances and Joint Power Authorities Low-Moderate Income Housing Town Owned Housing Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency The non-departmental section of the budget entails those projects and costs that are not part of the regular operations of any specific department. Insurances and Joint Power Authorities This section includes the appropriations for liability, workers' compensation, and property insurance premiums, which are then allocated out to the various operating departments based on risk analysis. The Town is self- insured for the first $150,000 for each workers' compensation claim and $50,000 for each liability claim. After the deductible is reached the Town is insured for $5 million per occurrence for liability and $2 million for workers' compensation. The Town voluntarily participates in several Joint Power Authorities which provide specialized services that the Town would not be able to provide on its own. The JPAs provide an economy of scale to the Town and to the participating members of each JPA. These services include animal control, cable telecommunications, mediation, LAFCO, MERA and storm water run-off services to name a few. Town Owned Housing The Town currently owns eight below market rate (BMR) condominium units at the Point Tiburon Marsh complex. Proceeds of the rent income and investment earnings support the general maintenance, tax, and homeowners' association costs of operating the units. Low-Moderate Income Housing This section provides for appropriations connected with the Marin Renter's Rebate program and the Marin Housing Authority JPA. This restricted fund receives funding through in-lieu fees paid by developers. Tiburon Peninsula Library Agency This section provides for a pass though of property taxes the Town receives on behalf of the Peninsula Library Agency. NON-DEPARTMENTAL Page 73 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed DEPARTMENT FUNDING General Fund 1,465,385 1,632,908 1,383,788 1,324,907 1,289,612 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 150,000 Low/Moderate Housing Fund 22,673 35,848 23,552 23,552 11,249 Town Owned Housing 327,503 78,989 113,700 79,319 106,799 Self Insurance Reserve - - 125,000 24,747 125,000 Peninsula Library JPA Fund 1,879,966 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 Total Department Funding 3,695,527$ 3,728,179$ 3,376,258$ 3,182,745$ 3,472,571$ COMBINING SUMMARY TOTALS NON-DEPARTMENTAL Page 74 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 351,346$ 371,524$ 194,472$ 189,583$ 238,122$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Department Supplies & Expenses 5,698 6,635 8,300 9,416 9,699 Conferences & Memberships - - - - 320 Contractual Services 12,872 14,384 23,295 25,396 26,715 Insurances 403,210 337,636 495,578 376,233 508,345 Intergovernmental & Agency 2,608,995 2,935,245 2,558,814 2,521,814 2,601,871 Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 53,167 59,070 68,000 58,303 60,000 Utility & Communication - - - - - Special Department Administrative - - - - - Allocated Costs - - 300 - - Total Supplies & Services 3,083,942$ 3,352,971$ 3,154,287$ 2,991,162$ 3,206,949$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES 260,239$ 3,684$ 27,500$ 2,000$ 27,500$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,695,527$ 3,728,179$ 3,376,258$ 3,182,745$ 3,472,571$ SOURCE OF FUNDING General Fund 1,465,385 1,632,908 1,383,788 1,324,907 1,289,612 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 150,000 Low/Moderate Housing Fund 22,673 35,848 23,552 23,552 11,249 Town Owned Housing 327,503 78,989 113,700 79,319 106,799 Self Insurance Reserve - - 125,000 24,747 125,000 Peninsula Library JPA Fund 1,879,966 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 TOTAL FUNDING 3,695,527$ 3,728,179$ 3,376,258$ 3,182,745$ 3,472,571$ OBJECT SUMMARY ALL DIVISIONS Non-Departmental Page 75 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES 0 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 351,346$ 371,524$ 194,472$ 189,583$ 238,122$ SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses Conferences & Memberships - - - - 320 Contractual Services 4,472 4,784 13,695 15,796 17,115 Insurances 403,210 337,636 495,578 376,233 508,345 Intergovernmental & Agency 706,357 918,964 805,043 768,043 800,711 Equipment Supplies & Maintenance Utility & Communication Special Department Administrative Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 1,114,039$ 1,261,384$ 1,314,316$ 1,160,072$ 1,326,490$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,465,385$ 1,632,908$ 1,508,788$ 1,349,655$ 1,564,612$ STAFFING LEVEL Positions - - - - TOTAL STAFFING - - - - OBJECT SUMMARY INSURANCES AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Non-Departmental Page 76 Non-Departmental 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Retiree Health Benefits 151,346 163,852 183,122 178,840 183,122 PERS AAUL Extra Payment 200,000 200,000 0 0 50,000 Unemployment Insurance (EDD)0 7,672 11,350 10,743 5,000 Subtotal:351,346$ 371,524$ 194,472$ 189,583$ 238,122$ SUPPLIES & EXPENSES CONFERENCES & MEMBERSHIPS Memberships - - - - 320 Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ 320$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual Services 750 Health Benefit Plan Administration 1,568 1,857 4,195 4,195 5,115 Downtown Restroom Lease 2,904 2,177 9,500 11,601 12,000 Subtotal:4,472$ 4,784$ 13,695$ 15,796$ 17,115$ INSURANCE Liability Premium (PLAN JPA)146,637 127,827 149,023 134,505 155,883 Workers Compensation Premium (Bay Cities)244,920 179,373 177,025 177,312 177,584 Worker's Compensation SIR 125,000 24,747 125,000 Property Premium (PLAN JPA)-4,360 13,318 24,160 18,414 24,435 Public Officials EO (PLAN JPA)- - 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000 Employment Practices Liability (ERMA/Bay Cities)16,013 17,118 19,370 20,255 24,443 Risk Management Subtotal:403,210$ 337,636$ 495,578$ 376,233$ 508,345$ INTERGOVERNMENT, AGENCY & JPA Animal Control JPA (MGSA)95,640 125,299 110,000 110,000 110,000 Cable Telecom JPA-Media Center - 0 0 0 0 Chamber of Commerce TOT 5% 28,053 27,963 27,500 11,623 37,500 Destination:Tiburon TOT 5%28,053 27,963 27,500 11,623 37,500 Transportation Authority of Marin JPA 19,348 19,348 18,500 17,306 17,306 MERA Radio Acquisition JPA (Bond)44,378 44,275 44,275 44,304 21,000 MERA Radio Acquisition JPA (Operating)43,584 44,923 44,923 47,225 53,945 Emergency Management Planning JPA - 0 5,000 965 965 Hazardous Materials JPA 2,805 2,805 2,945 2,945 2,945 Marin Mediation Services (MGSA)2,909 0 3,144 3,144 3,144 Richardson Bay Regional Agency JPA 70,940 70,334 89,000 88,333 91,000 Stormwater Runoff (MCSTOPP) JPA 32,801 28,118 28,430 28,430 28,430 Street Light Acquisition Dues (MGSA)198 0 500 500 500 MCCMC Lobbyist & Legislative Support 3,738 4,100 4,250 4,250 4,250 LAFCO 5,961 0 7,500 5,819 5,900 Marin Map (MGSA)- 6,320 6,000 6,000 6,500 Marin General Services Authority (General)8,615 0 9,076 9,076 9,076 Marin Clean Energy JPA (MGSA)11,500 0 1,500 1,500 1,500 Cal Fire Contract (Angel Island)23,925 25,361 30,000 30,000 29,250 Account Description INSURANCES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL Page 77 Non-Departmental 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated ProposedAccount Description INSURANCES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL Marin Fire Chiefs Disaster Preparedness - 3,500 0 0 Yellow School Bus Contribution 283,908 169,973 175,000 175,000 170,000 Contributions/Donations (Welcome Center)10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Contributions/Donations (Ranch)158,682 Contributions/Donations 150,000 150,000 Contributions/Donations (Library)150,000 150,000 Subtotal:706,357$ 918,964$ 805,043$ 768,043$ 800,711$ CAPITAL OUTLAY Peninsula Siren System Contribution Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 1,465,385$ 1,632,908$ 1,508,788$ 1,349,655$ 1,564,612$ Page 78 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses - - - - - Conferences & Memberships Contractual Services - - - - - Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency 22,673 35,848 23,552 23,552 11,249 Equipment Supplies & Maintenance - - - - - Utility & Communication Special Department Administrative Allocated Costs - - - - - Total Supplies & Services 22,673$ 35,848$ 23,552$ 23,552$ 11,249$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 22,673$ 35,848$ 23,552$ 23,552$ 11,249$ STAFFING LEVEL - None OBJECT SUMMARY NON-DEPARTMENTAL-LOW-MOD HOUSING Non-Departmental Page 79 Non-Departmental Fund 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Bank Charges & Fees - - - - - Property Tax Payments - - - - - Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual services (Cost Recovery)- - - - - Subtotal:-$ -$ -$ -$ INTERGOVERNMENT, AGENCY & JPA Marin Housing Authority JPA 10,149 10,800 11,028 11,028 11,249 Marin Homelessness Contribution 12,524 25,048 12,524 12,524 - Subtotal:22,673$ 35,848$ 23,552$ 23,552$ 11,249$ Total Supplies & Services:22,673$ 35,848$ 23,552$ 23,552$ 11,249$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 22,673$ 35,848$ 23,552$ 23,552$ 11,249$ Account Description NON-DEPARTMENTAL-LOW-MOD HOUSING Page 80 Non-Departmental Town-Owned Housing Fund 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Actuals 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted 3/30/2021 Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses 5,698 6,635 8,300 9,416 9,416 9,699 Conferences & Memberships Contractual Services 8,400 9,600 9,600 - 9,600 9,600 Insurances - - - - - - Intergovernmental & Agency - - - - - - Equipment Supplies & Maintenance 53,167 59,070 68,000 43,824 58,303 60,000 Utility & Communication - - - - - - Special Department Administrative - - - - - - Allocated Costs - - 300 - - - Total Supplies & Services 67,265$ 75,306$ 86,200$ 53,240$ 77,319$ 79,299$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES 260,239$ 3,684$ 27,500$ 593$ 2,000$ 27,500$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 327,503$ 78,989$ 113,700$ 53,833$ 79,319$ 106,799$ STAFFING LEVEL None - - - TOTAL STAFFING - - - OBJECT SUMMARY NON-DEPARTMENTAL-TOWN OWNED HOUSING Page 81 Non-Departmental 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES & EXPENSES Property Tax Payments 5,698 6,635 8,300 9,416 9,699 Subtotal:5,698$ 6,635$ 8,300$ 9,416$ 9,699$ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Contractual services (Cost Recovery)8,400 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 Subtotal:8,400$ 9,600$ 9,600$ 9,600$ 9,600$ EQ SUPPLIES & MAINTENANCE Property Management (HOA)53,167 59,070 68,000 58,303 60,000 Subtotal:53,167$ 59,070$ 68,000$ 58,303$ 60,000$ ALLOCATED COSTS Insurance-Property - - 300 - Subtotal:-$ -$ 300$ -$ -$ Total Supplies & Services:67,265$ 75,306$ 86,200$ 77,319$ 79,299$ CAPITAL EXPENSES PROPERTY ACQUISITION Purchase Real Property 232,218 - - - - Facility Alteration/Improvement - Facility Alteration/Improvement /Renovation 28,021 3,684 - 7,500 Unit 2 2,500 2,000 2,500 Unit 3 2,500 2,500 Unit 4 2,500 2,500 Unit 6 2,500 2,500 Unit 7 2,500 2,500 Unit 11 10,000 2,500 Unit 14 2,500 2,500 Unit 18 2,500 2,500 Subtotal:260,239$ 3,684$ 27,500$ 2,000$ 27,500$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 327,503$ 78,989$ 113,700$ 79,319$ 106,799$ Account Description NON-DEPARTMENTAL-TOWN OWNED HOUSING Page 82 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed EXPENDITURES SALARY & WAGES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SUPPLIES & SERVICES Department Supplies & Expenses Conferences & Memberships Contractual Services Insurances Intergovernmental & Agency 1,879,966 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 Equipment Supplies & Maintenance Utility & Communication Special Department Administrative Allocated Costs Total Supplies & Services 1,879,966$ 1,980,433$ 1,730,219$ 1,730,219$ 1,789,912$ CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENSE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL OUTLAY ALLOWANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ DEBT SERVICE EXPENSES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,879,966$ 1,980,433$ 1,730,219$ 1,730,219$ 1,789,912$ OBJECT SUMMARY BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY Non-Departmental Page 83 Non-Departmental BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Actual Adopted Estimated Proposed SUPPLIES & SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENT, AGENCY & JPA Payment to Library Agency (Property Tax proceeds)1,879,966 1,980,433 1,730,219 1,730,219 1,789,912 Subtotal:1,879,966$ 1,980,433$ 1,730,219$ 1,730,219$ 1,789,912$ Total Supplies & Services:1,879,966$ 1,980,433$ 1,730,219$ 1,730,219$ 1,789,912$ TOTAL DEPARTMENT 1,879,966$ 1,980,433$ 1,730,219$ 1,730,219$ 1,789,912$ Account Description Page 84 Planned Capital Outlay Purchases Planned Technology Outlay Purchases Depreciation Allowance Schedule Total proposed Department capital outlay purchases equal $130,000. This amount is $19,570 more than the proposed total Depreciation Allowance charged to the Departments. $19,570 amount will be held in the Reserve for years when the allowance is less than the proposed purchases. There are sufficient funds to cover the planned purchases, which includes upgrades to the Town Hall lobby, replacements Police Department Vehicle Patrol Car and Public Works dump truck. Total proposed Department technology outlay purchases equal $251,200. This amount is approximtely $96,645 more than the total amount of revenues anticipated for the Technology Fund. Periodically the depreciation allowance and technology fees are more than the planned purchases and excess funds are held in the Reserve for years when the allowance is less than the proposed purchases. There are sufficient funds to cover the planned purchases. Operating Departments are charged a "Depreciation Allowance" that is paid from the Operating Fund to the General Fund Capital Equipment Replacement Reserve and the Technology Reserve. The Depreciation Allowance represents an estimate of the annual amount that Departments are to be assessed in order to fund future equipment purchases. Planned Department Capital Outlay purchases are made from the Capital Equipment Replacement Reserve. CAPITAL OUTLAY & ALLOWANCE Page 85 CAPITAL OUTLAY Planned Capital Outlay Purchases DEPARTMENT & ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOWN ADMINISTRATIONTown Hall Lobby Upgrades 20,000 Total Town Administration $ 20,000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Total Community Development $ - POLICE Police Department Vehicle replacement-Patrol Car 45,000 Total Police $ 45,000 PUBLIC WORKS New dump truck to replace 2006 model 65,000 Total Public Works $ 65,000 Total Planned Capital Outlay Purchases: $ 130,000 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Page 86 CAPITAL OUTLAY Planned Technology Outlay Purchases DEPARTMENT & ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOWN ADMINISTRATION Desktop Computer Replacement (2)3,000 Licenses (Unidata, Progressive, Granicus, CivicPlus, Antispam)27,000 Miscellaneous Computer Parts (8)2,000 Printer Maintenance 14,000 Laserfiche Annual Maintenance & Licenses 5,500 GovInvest 2 Year Agreement 18,000EK: Office 365 $527.5 monthly 6,500 Financial Accounting Software - Annual Maintenance (Tyler Incode)23,500 Total Town Administration 99,500 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Computer & Peripheral 5,000 Misc. Computer Parts 1,500 Central Square Vendor where are the dollars? (PermitTrak)32,500 Voice Trak- new implemeentation 12,500 implementation of I Trak- SB2 Funds 20,000 Total Community Development 71,500 POLICE Miscellaneous Computer Parts (10)2,500 Desktop Computer Replacements (2)3,000 Body Camera - 5 Year Contract Including Maintenance (FY 19-20 through FY 24-25)28,100 License Plate Camera Software Support 3,600 Phone System Upgrade 30,000 Total Police 67,200 PUBLIC WORKS Desktop Computer Replacements (1)1,500 Maintenance Scheduling Software - Annual Fee 11,500 Total Public Works 13,000 Total Planned Technology Outlay Purchases:251,200 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Page 87 Capital Improvement Program Plan Fiscal Year 2021/22 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDING - ALL CATEGORIES Planned Capital Projects Funding General Fund -$ General Fund Parks 71,900$ GF Streets & Drainage 105,200$ GF Reserve - Infrastructure 348,000$ TAM SR2S Grant 354,208$ State Per Capita Grant (Parks)178,000$ State Gas Tax 578,000$ Measure A/AA 411,798$ RMRA (SB1)349,939$ Street Impact Mitigation 220,000$ Town Owned Housing Units 60,000$ Total Funding All Sources:2,677,045$ General Fund Parks$71,900 2.7%GF Streets & Drainage$105,200 3.9% GF Reserve - Infrastructure$348,000 13.0% TAM SR2S Grant$354,208 13.2% State Per Capita Grant (Parks) $178,000 6.6% State Gas Tax$578,000 … Measure A/AA $411,798 15.4% RMRA (SB1) $349,939 13.1% Street Impact Mitigation $220,000 8.2% Town Owned Housing Units $60,000 2.2% Capital Projects Funding Plan for 2021/22 $2,677,045 Page 88 Capital Improvement Program Plan Fiscal Year 2021/22 Overview of Streets Project Funding Planned Streets Projects Funding General Fund -$ TAM SR2S Grant 354,208$ State Gas Tax 528,000$ County Measure A Transportation 411,798$ RMRA (SB1)349,939$ Street Impact Mitigation 220,000$ Total Funding:1,863,945$ TAM SR2S Grant, $354,208 , 19.0% State Gas Tax, $528,000 , 28.3% County Measure A Transportation , $411,798 , 22.1% RMRA (SB1), $349,939 , 18.8% Street Impact Mitigation, $220,000 , 11.8% Projects Funding Plan for 2021/22 $1,863,945 Page 89 Capital Improvement Program Plan Fiscal Year 2021/22 Street Improvement Projects Project Project Notes Status Proposed Funding Source AMOUNT Streets Resurfacing & Improvement Pedestrian Improvements Various Improvements Annual County Measure A Transportation 25,000 Bicycle Improvements Various Improvements Annual County Measure A Transportation 25,000 Hawthorne Resurfacing Resurfacing Annual RMRA (SB1)177,439 Hawthorne Resurfacing Resurfacing Annual County Measure A Transportation 186,798 Class III Bikeway-Greenwood Beach Maintenance - Striping & Signs Carry-over State Gas Tax 10,000 Safe Routes to School-Del Mar Construction Carry-over TAM SR2S Grant 354,208 Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Construction Phase II Carry-forward State Gas Tax 518,000 Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Construction Phase II Carry-forward RMRA (SB1)172,500 Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Construction Phase II Carry-forward County Measure A Transportation 175,000 Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation Construction Phase II Carry-forward Street Impact Mitigation 220,000 Total Proposed Streets Projects 1,863,945$ Page 90 Capital Improvement Program Plan Fiscal Year 2021/22 Overview of Drainage Project Funding Planned Drainage Project Funding GF Streets & Drainage 105,200$ State Gas Tax 50,000$ Total Funding:155,200$ GF Streets & Drainage $105,200 67.8% State Gas Tax $50,000 32.2% Projects Funding Plan for 2021/22 $155,000 Page 91 Capital Improvement Program Plan Fiscal Year 2021/22 Drainage Improvement Projects Project Project Notes Status Proposed Funding Source AMOUNT Storm Drain Maintenance & Rehabilitiaton Storm Drain Replacement Project Carry-over State Gas Tax 50,000 Railroad Marsh Basin Rehabilitation Railroad Marsh Rehabilitation Carry-over GF Streets & Drainage 75,200 Old Rail Trail Culvert Replacement Old Rail Trail at San Rafael Avenue; Design phase Carry-over GF Streets & Drainage 30,000 Total Proposed Drainage Projects 155,200$ Page 92 Capital Improvement Program Plan Fiscal Year 2021/22 Overview of Community Project Funding Planned Community Development Project Funding General Fund -$ General Fund Parks 71,900$ GF RESERVE - INFRASTRUCTURE 348,000$ State Per Capita Grant (Parks)178,000$ Town Owned Housing Units 60,000$ Total Funding:657,900$ General Fund Parks $71,900 10.9% GF RESERVE - INFRASTRUCTURE $348,000 52.9% State Per Capita Grant (Parks) $178,000 27.1% Town Owned Housing Units $60,000 9.1% Projects Funding Plan for FY 2021/22 $837,900 Page 93 Capital Improvement Program Plan Fiscal Year 2021/22 Community & Miscellaneous Projects Project Project Notes Status Proposed Funding Source AMOUNT Buildings & Facilities Improve Town Condominiums Improvements New GF RESERVE - INFRASTRUCTURE 60,000 Town Hall HVAC Rehabilitation Construction Carry-over GF RESERVE - INFRASTRUCTURE 323,000 Recreation Building Transfer Switch Electrical modifications New GF RESERVE - INFRASTRUCTURE 25,000 Park Facilities Elephant Rock Rehabilitation Design Carry-over General Fund Parks 27,900 Elephant Rock Rehabilitation Design Carry-over State Per Capita Grant (Parks)139,500 Open Space Trailhead Improvements Improve existing trailheads on Gilmartin New General Fund Parks 7,700 Open Space Trailhead Improvements Improve existing trailheads on Gilmartin New State Per Capita Grant (Parks)38,500 Lyford Tower Repairs Design & Installation New General Fund Parks 15,000 Tether Park Tennis Court Rehabilition Resurfacing Carry-over General Fund Parks 21,300 Total Proposed Projects 657,900$ Page 94 Project 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Five Year Total Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation 1,085,500$ 1,547,500$ 997,500$ 1,447,500$ 997,500$ 6,075,500$ Paradise Drive Stabilization -$ 290,000$ -$ -$ -$ 290,000$ Greenwood Beach Road Class III Bikeway 10,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000$ Del Mar Safe Routes to School 354,208$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 354,208$ Hawthorne Resurfacing 364,237$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 364,237$ Brick Crosswalk Rehabilitation -$ 70,000$ -$ -$ -$ 70,000$ Main Street Seawall -$ 185,000$ -$ -$ -$ 185,000$ Brick Sidewalk Installation -$ 40,000$ 150,000$ -$ -$ 190,000$ Annual Pedestrian Improvements 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 125,000$ Annual Bicycle Improvements 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 125,000$ Storm Drain Maintenance & Rehabilitation 50,000$ 350,000$ 50,000$ 350,000$ 50,000$ 850,000$ ORT Culvert Rehabilitation 30,000$ 125,000$ -$ -$ -$ 155,000$ Beach Road Drainage Improvements -$ 120,000$ 590,000$ -$ -$ 710,000$ Railroad Marsh Basin Rehabililitation 75,200$ 60,000$ 60,000$ -$ -$ 195,200$ Corporation Yard Rehabilitation -$ 115,000$ 371,000$ 4,156,500$ 4,156,500$ 8,799,000$ Town Hall HVAC Rehabilitation 323,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 323,000$ Greenwood Beach Restoration -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Elephant Rock Rehabilitation 167,400$ 80,000$ 900,000$ -$ -$ 1,147,400$ Open Space Trailhead Improvements 46,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 46,200$ Tether Park Tennis Court Rehabilitation 21,300$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21,300$ Lyford Tower Repairs 15,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 15,000$ Recreation Building Transfer Switch 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,000$ Improve Town Condominiums 60,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 60,000$ Hawthorne Undergrounding -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total 2,677,045$ 3,032,500$ 3,168,500$ 6,004,000$ 5,254,000$ 20,136,045$ Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Projects Page 95 Source of Funds 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Five Year Total Gas Tax 578,000$ 585,000$ 630,000$ -$ 480,000$ 2,273,000$ RMRA (SB1)349,939$ 172,500$ 172,500$ 172,500$ 172,500$ 1,039,939$ Transportation Sales Tax 411,798$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 225,000$ 1,311,798$ Street Impact Fund 220,000$ 1,200,000$ 220,000$ 1,100,000$ 220,000$ 2,960,000$ GF Corp Yard -$ 115,000$ 371,000$ 4,156,500$ 4,156,500$ 8,799,000$ GF Parks 71,900$ 80,000$ 900,000$ -$ -$ 1,051,900$ GF Streets & Drainage 105,200$ 655,000$ 650,000$ 350,000$ -$ 1,760,200$ Town Owned Housing Unit 60,000$ GF Facilities 348,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 348,000$ Grant (TAM SR2S)354,208$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 354,208$ Grant (Prop 68 Parks)178,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 178,000$ Assessments (UG)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Outside Agency -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total 2,677,045$ 3,032,500$ 3,168,500$ 6,004,000$ 5,254,000$ 20,136,045$ 2,677,045 3,032,500 3,168,500 6,004,000 5,254,000 20,076,045 GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD BAD00000(60,000) Gas Tax 2,273,000 RMRA (SB1)1,039,939 Transportation Sale 1,311,798 Street Impact Fund 2,960,000 GF Streets & Dra 1,760,200 Grant (TAM SR2S 354,208 GF Corp Yard 8,799,000 GF Facilities 348,000 GF Parks 1,051,900 Grant (Prop 68 Parks)178,000 Assessments (UG 0 Outside Agency 0 Total 20,076,045 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Funding State/Regional Town Other Gas Tax 11% RMRA (SB1) 5%Transportation Sales Tax6% Street Impact Fund 15% GF Streets & Drainage9% Grant (TAM SR2S) 2% GF Corp Yard 44% GF Facilities 2% GF Parks 5% Grant (Prop 68 Parks) 1% Assessments (UG)0% Outside Agency 0% Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Funding Page 96 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Street Impact Fund 0 Preliminary GF Corp Yard 0 Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design GF Streets & Drainage Construction 125,000 Other 0 Other TOTAL 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Total Cost 125,000 Various pedestrian improvements. Includes improvements identified in 2016 Bicycle/Pedestrian Masterplan: improve mid-block crossing on Tiburon Blvd 161' west of Juanita, improve path between Esperanza Way & Vistazo West, Tiburon Ridge Trail Gap closures, improve trail at Las Lomas Lane & Centro West Street, and priority curb ramp replacements. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Various Pedestrian Improvements Street Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 97 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 0 RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design GF Streets & Drainage Construction 125,000 Other 0 Other TOTAL 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 Total Cost 125,000 Various bicycle improvements. Includes improvements identified in 2016 Bicycle/Pedestrian Masterplan: Class IV Bikeway Blackies Grove to Blackies Pasture, Class II Trestle Glen Boulevard, Class I to II transition on Tiburon Boulevard at Mar West Street, Class II Paradise Drive, Class II Tiburon Boulevard, Class IV Tiburon Boulevard Hwy 101 to Trestle Glen Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Various Bicycle Improvements Street Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 98 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 0 RMRA (SB1)177,439 177,439 Measure A Trans 186,798 Street Impact Fund 3,385 3,385 GF Corp Yard Preliminary GF Parks Acquisition Costs GF Streets & Drainage Design 47,000 Other Construc 428,000 TOTAL 3,385 364,237 0 0 0 0 180,824 Total C 475,000 Because of the extensive trenching required as part of the proposed Hawthorne undergrounding project, a significant portion of the street will require restoration. This presents an opportunity for the Town to resurface the entire street by contributing the cost difference between patching, and fully resurfacing the street. Current policy provides that Town-maintained streets with a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 70 or greater will receive a slurry seal fully funded solely by the Town. This would include Hilary, Palmer Ct and the upper parts of Rock Hill. Current policy also provides that projects on the CIP list will receive an overlay. This includes Hawthorne and the lower part of Rock Hill. Streets with a PCI of 20 or less are paid for solely by the Town. That would include part of Hawthorne. The remainder of the street segments are on a cost share basis where the trench restoration costs are put toward the overlay, with the remainder paid by the Town. Status This work is being completed as part of the Hawthorne Undergrounding project. Net Impact on Operating Budget None Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Hawthorne Undergrounding Resurfacing Street Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 99 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 10,000 10,000 RMRA (SB1)0 Measure A Trans 0 Street Impact Fund 0 Preliminary GF Corp Yard 0 Acquisition Costs GF Parks 0 Design GF Streets & Drainage 0 Construction 10,000 Private Funding 0 Other TOTAL 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 Total Cost 10,000 Funding Estimated Project Costs Description (continued)NOTES Tiburon Project Data Sheet Class 3 Bike Lane on Greenwood Beach Road Street Public Works TBD TBD Description This is a Class III bicycle lane along Greenwood Beach Road as included in the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. Class III bike route signs should be changed to advise bicyclists of a neighborhood ‘slow zone’; signs should direct faster bicyclists to use Tiburon Boulevard.; and explore the use of different pavement textures to help slow bicycle traffic on Greenwood Beach Road or alert bicyclist to slow zone signs. Install Safe Routes to School signage and pavement markings along Greenwood Beach Road. (Additional Information Provided on Other Side of Sheet) Status Included as a concept in the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan. County and Town agreed to do the project next year with signs only using school bike route signs. Net Impact on Operating Budget Small increase maintaining striping and or signs Page 100 Sea Level Rise This project would be affected by a sea level rise of 100 cm Page 101 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 68,000 GF Streets & Drainage 0 Construction 332,000 Grant (TAM)45,792 354,208 400,000 Other TOTAL 45,792 354,208 0 0 0 0 400,000 Total Cost 400,000 Funding Estimated Project Costs Description (continued)NOTES Tiburon Project Data Sheet Del Mar Safe Pathways to School Street Public Works 7/1/2020 6/30/2022 Description The Project will install improvements intended to improve pedestrian safety at the following intersections: Howard Drive and Hillary Drive, Howard Drive and Rowley Circle, Rowley Circle and Gelder Court, Hillary Drive and Rowley Circle, Avenida Miraflores and Hillary Drive, Avenida Miraflores and Felipa Court. Improvements vary by interesction, and include improved pavement striping, markings, and signage; curb ramps; pedestrian bulb outs; and median refuge islands. The Project is 100% funded by a grant from the Tranpsoration Authority of Marin Safe Pathways to School Funding Program. Status Grant awarded by TAM in October 2019. Town Council approved agreement in April 2020. Funding for Design in FY20/21 and Construction in FY21/22 Net Impact on Operating Budget Small increase maintaining striping and or signs Page 102 Sea Level Rise Page 103 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 518,000 430,000 430,000 1,378,000 RMRA (SB1)160,000 172,500 172,500 172,500 172,500 172,500 862,500 Measure A Trans 214,862 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 875,000 Street Impact Fund 1,525,630 220,000 1,200,000 220,000 1,100,000 220,000 2,960,000 Preliminary GF Corp Yard 0 Design 1,100,000 GF Parks 0 Acquisition Costs GF Streets & Drainage 0 0 0 Construction 4,975,500 Other 0 Other TOTAL 1,900,492 1,085,500 1,547,500 997,500 1,447,500 997,500 6,075,500 Total Cost 6,075,500 This project is the annual pavement maintenance program.The program performs maintenance activities such as slurry seal and asphalt overlay as recommended in the town's pavement management program. Streets and treatments are determined annually.This is part of the commitment made by Council to fund roadways to increase the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) in Tiburon. Status Design in August 2021 for Construction in June 2022 Net Impact on Operating Budget Avoid Consequences of Deferred Maintenance Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Pavement Maintenance Street Public Works Ongoing Ongoing Description Page 104 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 802,715 GF Streets & Drainage 592,519 350,000 350,000 1,292,519 Construction 589,804 Other Other 50,000 Total 592,519 50,000 350,000 50,000 350,000 50,000 1,442,519 Total Cost 1,442,519 The Storm Drain Replacement Project consists of repair or replacement of storm drain pipes. The purpose of the construction is to replace or repair damaged and worn storm drain lines and bring those lines up to an appropriate capacity, preferably the 25-year storm capacity. Status Need design to start new project Net Impact on Operating Budget Repairing these now could avoid damage to roadways. Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Storm Drain Replacement Project Storm Drain Public Works Ongoing Ongoing Description Page 105 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 15,000 GF Streets & Drainage 59,800 75,200 60,000 60,000 255,000 Construction 180,000 Other Other TOTAL 59,800 75,200 60,000 60,000 0 0 255,000 Total Cost 195,000 Estimated Project Costs Funding Tiburon Project Data Sheet Railroad Marsh Rehabilitation Park Public Works TBD TBD Description In 2016 the Town completed a three year project to remove biomass as an alternative to a much more expensive dredging project. This project helped to maintain the detention capabilities of Railroad Marsh at a cost of about $40,000 per year. The Town continues to do in-house maintenance to the detention basin but cattail biomass has grown significantly since the last cutting. This project is for another three year round of biomass removal. The first year includes permiting (JARPA permit). Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Page 106 Project Name Project Number Category oject Rank Score Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 30,000 GF Streets & Drainage 30,000 125,000 155,000 Construction 125,000 Other Other TOTAL 0 30,000 125,000 0 0 0 155,000 Total Cost 155,000 The culvert under the Old Rail Trail carries a 5-year storm event and has minor damage that needs repair. It is part of a system that includes a channel across private property and a culvert in the City of Belvedere. Both of these other elements carry less water than the culvert in Tiburon under the Old Rail Trail. Flooding of roadways occurs in heavy rain event. A 100 year event in 2014 caused minor flooding to three residences. Belvedere wishes to increase the capacity of the system. Status A pre-design study has been done. Englarging the downstream channel requires cooperation of the private property owner. Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Old Rail Trail Culvert Replacement Storm Drain Public Works 7/1/2020 6/30/2022 Description Page 107 This project will not be affected by sea level rise. The downstream area will flood in a 200 cm rise scenario, which could affect flows. Sea Level Rise Description (continued)NOTES Page 108 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 53,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 310,000 GF Facilities 40,000 323,000 363,000 Other TOTAL 40,000 323,000 0 0 0 0 363,000 Total Cost 363,000 This project replaces the HVAC system in Town Hall. Seven of the eight mechanical/electrical components are over their median service life. Improvements are needed to bring the system in compliance with current code, and accomodate changes in the floor plan. Recently, Staff has replaced the sensors, controllers, outside air dampers and one condenser fan. Despite this the system is still working poorly with some staff bringing in heaters and other opening windows.   Status In 2015, the Town had a pre-design study completed for the HVAC system. The least expensive and most efficient system is the basis for the cost estimate. Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Town Hall HVAC Rehabilitation Facility Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 109 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 5,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 20,000 GF Facilities 25,000 25,000 Other TOTAL 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 Total Cost 25,000 Facility and electrical modifications to make building able to utilize a portable generator as backup power. Status Not started Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Recreation Building Transfer Switch Facility Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 110 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks 27,900 80,000 900,000 1,007,900 Design 80,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 900,000 Prop 68 Grant (280)139,500 Other TOTAL 0 167,400 80,000 900,000 0 0 1,007,900 Total Cost 980,000 Estimated Project Costs Funding A structural evaluation was completed in 2016. Project cost estimate was provided as part of evaluation. No design work has been completed on this project. Funding in 2021/2022 is for replacement of metal railings. Tiburon Project Data Sheet Elephant Rock Rehabilitation Park Public Works TBD TBD Description The pier at Elephant Rock was built in 1961. It was declared structurally unsafe in 1985 and rehabilitated in 1986. On December 11, 1995 the pier was damaged in a storm. It was rebuilt in 1999. Some elements such as the timber piles beneath the walkway structure date from the 1986 rehabilitation and are now over 30 years old. A preliminary structural evaluation was completed in 2016. The following aspects were observed and need to be addressed: • Deteriorating wood members; especially the posts supported by concrete footing. • Corroding post and beam brackets. • Corroding fasteners. • Cantilevered tube steel and supported bracket with extensive corrosion. • Improper joist hangers for skewed conditions and improper protective finish. • Spalling concrete with exposed reinforcing steel at the rock formation. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Page 111 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks 7,700 7,700 Design 10,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 71,600 Prop 68 Grant (280)38,500 38,500 Other TOTAL 0 46,200 0 0 0 0 46,200 Total Cost 81,600 Estimated Project Costs Funding Not started Tiburon Project Data Sheet Open Space Trailhead Improvements Park Public Works TBD TBD Description Improve existing trailheads on Gilmartin by installing post and rail fencing and enhanced signage for maps, open space etiquette, and habitat education. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Page 112 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks 15,000 15,000 Design 5,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 10,000 Other Other TOTAL 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 15,000 Total Cost 15,000 Estimated Project Costs Funding Evaluation Tiburon Project Data Sheet Lyford Tower Repairs Park Public Works Jul-20 Jun-21 Description Evaluation and possible repairs of masonry and concrete at Lyford Tower to address any critical issues. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Page 113 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks 21,300 21,300 Design GF Streets & Drainage Construction 20,000 Other Other TOTAL 0 21,300 0 0 0 0 21,300 Total Cost 20,000 Estimated Project Costs Funding Cost estimate received from contractor Tiburon Project Data Sheet Tether Park Tennis Park Resurfacing Park Public Works Jul-20 Jun-21 Description Tape cracks and resurface tennis courts at Tether Park. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Page 114 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 0 290,000 290,000 RMRA (SB1)0 Measure A Trans 0 Street Impact Fund 0 Preliminary GF Corp Yard 0 Acquisition Costs GF Parks 0 Design 30,000 GF Streets & Drainage 0 Construction 260,000 Other 0 Other TOTAL 0 0 290,000 0 0 0 290,000 Total Cost 290,000 About 2007 suspected problems were discovered in the retaining wall near #2002 Paradise Drive. In 2008, borings were done on the road to look for suspected problems. A design was completed in 2009 and included drilling and installing “soil nails” in the slope embankment, installing drainage facilities, and applying a shotcrete wall over the embankment to stabilize the slope. The estimated cost of this work was $65,000. The property owner would not allow the Town to encroach on his property so the Town could not complete the work. The Town requested a proposal from Miller Pacific utilizing a CIDH (cast-in drilled-hole) solution that could be implemented without needing adjacent property encroachment. This proposal was not executed by the Town. Status Project is currently on hold. Net Impact on Operating Budget None Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Paradise Drive Stabilization Street Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 115 This project will not be affected by sea level rise Sea Level Rise Description (continued)NOTES In 2014 Miller Pacific updated the cost for a soil nail wall to $112,000. The cost for a CIDH solution was estimated at $102,000 with the condition that the existing dead man anchors in Paradise Drive would need to be located and avoided in the construction of the CIDH retaining wall. This option would need design. This project has been on the project list for over a decade. It was put on the list because it was felt that it was a potential long term safety problem, yet the project has not received permission to move forward. It was originally delayed because of site access problems. An alternative design to avoid these access problems was not funded even though it would be a lower cost construction project. If there is a need for this project it should be done. If there is not a need, it should be removed from the project list. Page 116 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 70,000 70,000 RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans 0 Street Impact Fund 0 Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 10,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 60,000 Other Other TOTAL 0 0 70,000 0 0 0 70,000 Total Cost 70,000 Over the years, the Town has installed twelve brick crosswalks. The older of these crosswalks are experiencing some distress in isolated locations. This includes cracking, broken and missing bricks as well as depressions similar to "potholes". This project would fix these isolated locations. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Brick Crosswalk Rehabilitation Street Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 117 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 185,000 185,000 RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans 0 Street Impact Fund 0 Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 60,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 125,000 Other 0 Other TOTAL 0 0 185,000 0 0 0 185,000 Total Cost 185,000 The seawall at Main Street has deteriorating concrete and exposed rebar and structural flanges. This seawall holds up the sidewalk and part of Main Street. Maintenance is needed to assure the continued structural capacity of the seawall. An evaluation was done by Moffet and Nichols in 2018. They recommend protecting the steel beam from saltwater exposure by installing protective anodes and coating it with a marine epoxy or replacing the concrete cover. This will slow the steel corrosion and further extend the life of the structure. This procedure will likely need to be repeated over time (every 20-40 years) as the coating will wear. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Main Street Seawall Street Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 118 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 40,000 150,000 190,000 RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans 0 Street Impact Fund 0 Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 40,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 150,000 Other Other TOTAL 0 0 40,000 150,000 0 0 190,000 Total Cost 190,000 In 2014 the Town extended the brick sidewalk from Downtown Main Street up towards ARK Row about 140 feet. The ARK Row businesses have requested that the Town extend this further. To make the sidewalk ADA compliant most of the curb and gutter will need to be replaced as well. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Replace Concrete Sidewalk near Ark Row with Brick Sidewalk Street Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 119 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax 0 RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 120,000 GF Streets & Drainage 120,000 590,000 710,000 Construction 590,000 Other Other TOTAL 0 0 120,000 590,000 0 0 710,000 Total Cost 710,000 The intersection of Beach Road and Tiburon Boulevard experiences regular flooding, particularly when heavy prolonged rainfall coincides with extreme high tides. In 2018, the Town completed a Drainage Study for this area which identified options for mitigating the recurring flooding. The construction would include reconstructing existing culverts on Beach Road and constructing a new outfall and 4,000 gpm pump station. Four options were presented for meeting this capacity ranging from a portable pump to a pump station with both pump and electrical redundancy. Additional information regarding the life of the project (given sea-level rise), life cycle costs and costs per flood event has been requested by Council. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Estimated at $13,000 per year over the life of the system. Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Beach Road Drainage Improvements Storm Drain Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 120 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 20025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary 30,000 GF Corp Yard 30,000 115,000 371,000 4,156,500 4,156,500 8,829,000 Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 486,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 8,313,000 Other Other TOTAL 30,000 0 115,000 371,000 4,156,500 4,156,500 8,829,000 Total Cost 8,829,000 The Public Works Corporation yard is on the site of the former Hilarita Dairy, and still utilizes the Dairy residence originally built in 1939. In 1969, the Town of Tiburon signed a lease agreement with the Reed Union School District to establish a joint corporation yard for use by the town and the school district. In 1979, the town acquired parcel containing the corporation yard from the school district. The 1939 era residence was converted to an office and garage/workshop. Town hall was replaced in 1997 and the Police Department Building shortly thereafter. However, the plans to reconstruct the Public Works Corporation Yard stalled. Status A scoping study was done and Council decided to look at a less expensive option to replace the existing buildings at current size. Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Description (continued)NOTES Tiburon Project Data Sheet Public Works Corp Yard Facility Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 121 This project will not be affected by sea level rise Sea Level Rise A topographic survey was completed in 2001. A June 2003 report from ABAG noted that, “The Corporation Yard building, constructed in 1940 is an old one story dairy that has been raised to allow a second floor to be built underneath…. And should undergo a structural evaluation as soon as feasible for it may be a collapse hazard. If this building houses essential government functions it may need to be replaced.” In 2004 there were discussions and searches for an alternative site and discussions of a master plan. It appears these were never completed. In 2007 an RFP for a new Corp Yard Design was sent out. Proposals were received in January 2008. In September 2008 BSA Architects was hired to provide conceptual designs at a cost of $40,000, significantly less than the original proposal. BSA completed the Corporation Yard Master Plan and Concept Design in January 2009. A presentation was given to the Council sub-committee. The project was deemed too expensive and put on hold. Another study was completed by Griffen Structures in 2019. Three alternatives were developed each with an extimated cost of over $15 million. Page 122 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 5,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 45,000 Town Owned Housing Units 60,000 60,000 Other TOTAL 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 60,000 Total Cost 50,000 Improve three (3) Town owned condominiums by adding mini-split or similar heating and cooling units. Status Not started Net Impact on Operating Budget Funding Estimated Project Costs Tiburon Project Data Sheet Improve Town Owned Condominiums Facility Public Works TBD TBD Description Page 123 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Costs GF Parks Design 190,000 GF Streets & Drainage Construction 1,500,000 Measure AA SFBRA 0 190,000 Other 5,000 TOTAL 0 0 190,000 0 0 0 0 Total Cost 1,695,000 Estimated Project Costs Funding Periodic renourishment of beach material will be required. Frequency and cost undetermined at this time. Approximately up to 10k a year periodically. Design and permitting underway and shall be completed in Spring on 2022. Construction will begin in 2023 if sucessful in receiving grant funding. Tiburon Project Data Sheet Greenwood Beach Restoration Park Public Works July 1, 2021 July 1, 2023 Description Project to restore shoreline at Greenwood/Blackie's Beach and reduce shoreline erosion. Marin County is preparing design. Town will be lead agency for CEQA. Preliminary and Final Design is funded through Measure AA SFBRA grant. There is no funding for construction at this time. Status Net Impact on Operating Budget Page 124 Project Name Project Number Category Department Start Date End Date Source of Funds Prior 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Total Gas Tax RMRA (SB1) Measure A Trans Street Impact Fund Preliminary GF Corp Yard Acquisition Co 275,000 GF Parks Design 615,000 GF Streets & Drainage 406,803 406,803 Construction 7,541,937 Assessments 2,717,867 0 2,717,867 Other (5,307,267) TOTAL 3,124,670 0 0 0 0 0 3,124,670 Total Cost 3,124,670 Funding Estimated Project Costs Description (continued)NOTES Tiburon Project Data Sheet Hawthorne Undergrounding Utility Public Works TBD TBD Description Property owners on portions of Rock Hill Drive, Hawthorne Drive, Hillary Drive, Hillary Court, Mara Vista Court, Del Mar Drive, Palmer Court and Tiburon Boulevard have filed petitions to form a utility undergrounding district. The project undergrounds utility poles and lines on these roads and along the Old Rail Trail. The Town has agreed to pay up to $500,000 towards this project. Status Construction planned to start in June 2021 Net Impact on Operating Budget Page 125 Sea Level Rise This project will not be affected by sea level rise. Page 126 Program:DEBT SERVICE PROGRAM Schedules:Bond Issue Information Principal, Interest & Fiscal Fees Commentary:The Town's Debt Service Program is comprised of a consolidated municipal bond associated with the financing of public improvements in specific neighborhood, subdivision or development areas. Such issues have generally included 1915 Act, Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, and Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act bonds. Page 127 Debt Service Program Fiscal Year 2021/22 Principal, Interest & Fees Bond Issue Principal Interest Administration Fees TOTAL fund 2016 Consolidated Reassessment District Refunding Bonds1 303,892 316,481 - 620,373 TPFA 2016 Refunding Revenue Bonds1 370,000 249,790 - 619,790 420 Virginia Underground District, Series A 30,000 8,600 - 38,600 475 Virginia Underground District, Series B - 40,228 - 40,228 475 Total Debt Service: $ 703,892 $ 615,099 $ - $ 1,318,991 Bond Issue Information 2016 Consolidated Reassessment District Refunding Bonds & TPFA 2016 Refunding Revenue Bonds- Dated August 25, 2016. Amount $9,889,321 with an interest range of .75% to 3.5%. Term 2016 to 2040. The bond was issued to refinance several assessment bonds to reduce payments to property owners. The refinanced bonds include the Del Mar Valley Undergrounding Assessement District, 2010 Del Mar Valley Supplemental Assessment District, Lyford Cove Undergrounding Assessment District, Main Street Assessment District, and Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District. 1. Assessments on properties within the 2016 Consilidated Reassessment District are based upon the annual debt service due on the 2016 Consolidated Reassessment District Refunding Bonds. Those assessments are then funneled up to pay the annual debt service on the TPFA 2016 Refunding Revenue Bonds. Page 128 Bond Issue Information Issue Description 2016 Consolidated Reassessment District 2016 Consolidated Reassessment District - Dated August 25, 2016. Amount $9,889,321 with an interest range of .75% to 3.5%. Term 2016 to 2040. The bond was issued to refinance several assessment bonds to reduce payments to property owners. The refinanced bonds include the Del Mar Valley Undergrounding Assessement District, 2010 Del Mar Valley Supplemental Assessment District, Lyford Cove Undergrounding Assessment District, Main Street Assessment District, and Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District. Debt Service Program Fiscal Year 2021/22 Page 129 Section SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Schedules:Population, Tax Rate & Indebtedness Assessed Value of Property Assessor's Tax Roll Parcel Data Staff Positions Page 130 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Fiscal Year 2021/22 Assessed Value of Property Land Improvements Personal Property & Equipment Less: Exemptions Total Taxable Secured Assessed Value (AV) Percent Change v. Prior Year 1991 513,803,322 579,753,663 910,956 (20,015,563) 1,074,452,378$ 11.7% 1992 550,974,479 633,661,850 960,511 (20,382,515) 1,165,214,325$ 8.4% 1993 580,036,634 685,964,198 767,891 (20,038,790) 1,246,729,933$ 7.0% 1994 607,025,342 717,542,008 693,717 (21,702,817) 1,303,558,250$ 4.6% 1995 632,679,605 751,381,562 793,189 (22,003,337) 1,362,851,019$ 4.5% 1996 662,009,290 794,222,148 856,475 (23,131,360) 1,433,956,553$ 5.2% 1997 709,708,290 830,039,705 439,623 (32,804,037) 1,507,383,581$ 5.1% 1998 768,658,271 886,685,487 752,144 (34,489,632) 1,621,606,270$ 7.6% 1999 851,060,826 952,604,769 668,114 (36,381,893) 1,767,951,816$ 9.0% 2000 983,203,674 1,042,445,017 687,260 (37,928,443) 1,988,407,508$ 12.5% 2001 1,136,860,012 1,142,045,841 480,811 (36,993,288) - 2,242,393,376$ 12.8% 2002 1,237,267,545 1,223,991,571 520,673 (38,234,059) 2,423,545,730$ 8.1% 2003 1,341,460,513 1,297,041,856 704,006 (39,277,601) 2,599,928,774$ 7.3% 2004 1,449,203,886 1,366,238,078 676,266 (28,193,704) 2,787,924,526$ 7.2% 2005 1,607,302,317 1,453,572,748 642,894 (46,438,387) 3,015,079,572$ 8.1% 2006 1,763,414,311 1,559,587,235 687,936 (46,777,350) 3,276,912,132$ 8.7% 2007 1,890,794,244 1,651,068,179 736,286 (15,579,200) 3,527,019,509$ 7.6% 2008 2,031,517,663 1,760,127,679 1,084,650 (47,953,926)3,744,776,066$ 6.2% 2009 2,093,406,131 1,836,636,003 4,933,773 (49,308,259)3,885,667,648$ 3.8% 2010 2,035,208,969 1,812,129,624 4,659,876 (48,887,108)3,803,111,361$ -2.1% 2011 2,069,090,894 1,851,327,620 4,377,679 (57,846,502)3,866,949,691$ 1.7% 2012 2,116,679,985 1,893,908,155 4,478,366 (59,176,972) 3,955,889,534$ 2.3% 2013 2,192,029,753 1,953,851,145 1,999,655 (60,583,319)4,087,297,234$ 3.3% 2014 2,304,779,555 2,066,907,583 5,308,617 (60,164,047)4,316,831,708$ 5.6% 2015 2,564,572,545 2,219,244,471 4,643,185 (60,652,395)4,727,807,806$ 9.5% 2016 2,734,875,260 2,344,504,943 3,921,636 (62,308,812)5,020,993,027$ 6.2% 2017 2,874,838,575 2,462,033,479 3,683,071 (63,848,344)5,276,706,781$ 5.1% 2018 3,024,124,880 2,586,022,990 3,675,142 (64,698,340)5,549,124,672$ 5.2% 2019 3,179,590,904 2,702,357,857 3,509,205 (66,373,640)5,819,084,326$ 4.9% 2020 3,322,689,804 2,805,338,889 2,929,665 (76,735,295)6,054,223,063$ 4.0% Page 131 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Fiscal Year 2021/22 Assessed Value of Property Current Assessed Valuation 5,819,084,326$ The Town of Tiburon has 3713 parcels of which 3,224 are Single-Family, 183 are Multiple-Family, and 57 are Commercial, the remainder are exempt or subject to exemption from regular tax assessments.Assessed Valuation on July 1, 1983 395,258,102$ Average Annual Growth Since 1983 8.03% Since Fiscal Year 1983 assessed value has grown at an average annual rate of 8.03%. Some of the growth is due to occasional annexation, a portion to in-fill construction and development, and a share is attributable to Bay Area real estate market conditions. $0 $1,000,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $4,000,000,000 $5,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 $7,000,000,000 Assessed Valuation Growth & Trend Information FY 2000-2020 Page 132 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Fiscal Year 2021/22 Assessor's Tax Roll Parcel Data Use Code Use Status Parcel Count As Percent of Total Parcels Total Assessed Value As Percent of Assessed Value Average Assessed Value Per Parcel SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Vacant - Unimproved 115 3.1%48,763,904 0.8%424,034 Improved - Detached 2,467 66.5%4,970,477,007 81.1%2,014,786 Improved - Attached 643 17.3%617,129,277 10.1%959,766 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Unimproved 7 0.2%1,682,142 0.0%240,306 Improved 169 4.6%288,321,425 4.7%1,706,044 COMMERCIAL Unimproved 9 0.2%893,270 0.0%99,252 Improved 48 1.3%134,475,691 2.2%2,801,577 INDUSTRIAL LAND Unimproved 1 0.03%2,451 0.0000%2,451 SUBJECT TO EXEMPTION Unimproved 11 0.3%306,836 0.0%27,894 Improved 37 1.0%68,896,391 1.1%1,862,065 TAX EXEMPT 176 4.7%0 0.0%0 COMMON AREA PARCEL Homeowner's Association 27 0.7%9,964 0.0%369 Column Totals:3710 100.0%6,130,958,358$ 100.0%1,652,549$ Source: Marin County Office of Assessor-Recorder Page 133 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Fiscal Year 2021/22 Assessor's Tax Roll Parcel Data The Town of Tiburon has 3710 parcels of which 3,225 are Single-Family, 176 are Multiple-Family, and 57 are Commercial, the remainder are exempt or subject to exemption from regular tax assessments. A total of 115 Single-Family parcels are unimproved, some of which are "scraps or "strips" and are undevelopable. The Town-wide average assessed value per parcel is $1,652,549. The average assessed value for an improved detached Single-Family parcel is $2,014,786 for an attached townhouse-type unit it is $959,766 . Parcel Type Number Total AV Single Family Residential 3,225 5,636,370,188$ Multi-Residential 176 290,003,567 Commercial 57 135,368,961 All Other 252 69,215,642 Total Parcels:3,710 6,130,958,358$ Single Family Residential 86.9% Multi- Residential 4.7% Commercial 1.5%All Other6.8% Tiburon Parcels By Land-Use Type Page 134 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Fiscal Year 2021/22 Staff Positions Position 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Position 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOWN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENT Town Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Town Attorney - - - - Town Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Chief of Police 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Captain - - - - Admin. Services Direrctor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sergeant 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Finance & Accounting Manager - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Patrol Officers 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 IT Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 - Investigator/Detective - - - - Accounting & HR Technician - 0.70 0.70 0.70 Secretary - - - - Management Assistant 0.86 - - - Police Service Aide 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Management Analyst 1.00 - - - Emergency Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Subtotal:6.86 6.70 6.70 5.70 Subtotal:17.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS Community Dev. Director 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Director & Town Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Planning Manager 1.00 - - - Engineering Technician - - - - Senior Planner - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Associate Planner 1.00 - - - Superintendent of Public Works 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Assistant Planner - - - - Assistant Supt. of Public Works - - - - Community Development Aide - 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Maintenance Worker 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Planning Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Worker 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Building Official 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Subtotal:9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 Building Inspector 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Permit Technician 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Permit Clerk 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Subtotal:8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Page 135 EXHIBIT 3 Town of Tiburon PARS 115 Trust –OPEB Prefunding Program and Pension Rate Stabilization Program Client Review June 16, 2021 Town of Tiburon ▎2 Contacts Mitch Barker Executive Vice President (800) 540-6369 x116 mbarker@pars.org Angela Tang Client Services Coordinator (800) 540-6369 x159 atang@pars.org Andrew Brown, CFA Director, Senior Portfolio Manager (415) 705-7605 andrew.brown@highmarkcapital.com Town of Tiburon ▎3 Pars 115 Trust Team Trust Administrator & Consultant 37 Years of Experience(1984-2021) 2,000+ Plans under Administration 1,000+ Public AgencyClients $6.0 B Assets under Administration 500 K+ Plan Participants •Recordkeeping •Sub-trust accounting •Monitors plan compliance •Processes contributions/disbursements •Hands-on, dedicated support teams •Coordinates all agency services Investment Manager •Investment sub-advisor to trustee U.S. Bank •Investment policy assistance •Uses open architecture •Active and passive platform options •Customized portfolios (with minimum asset level) 102 Years of Experience(1919-2021) $18.2 B Assets under Management & Advisement Trustee •5th largest commercial bank and one of the nation’s largest trustees for Section 115 trusts •Safeguard plan assets •Oversight protection as plan fiduciary •Custodian of assets 158 Years of Experience(1863-2021) $5.0 T Assets under Administration 400+ 115 Trust Clients Town of Tiburon ▎4 Subaccounts OPEB and pension assets are individually sub-accounted, and can be divided by dept., bargaining group, or cost center Assets in the PARS Section 115 Combination Trust can be used to address unfunded liabilities. Financial Stability Allows separate investment strategies for OPEB and pension subaccounts. Flexible Investing OPEB and pension assets aggregate and reach lower fees on tiered schedule sooner – saving money! Economies-of-ScaleAnytime Access Trust funds are available anytime; OPEB for OPEB and pension for pension. No set-up costs, no minimum annual contribution amounts, and no fees until assets are added. No Set Up Cost or Minimums Retiree Medical Benefits Prefund OPEB GASB 75 OPEB Reimburse agency; or Pay benefits provider Pension Rate Stabilization Program Prefund Pension (PRSP)GASB 68 Pension Reimburse agency; or Pay retirement system Assets can be used to:Assets can be used to: prefundeither or both General Fund PARS IRS-Approved Section 115 Trust Town of Tiburon ▎5 Plan Type:IRC Section 115 Irrevocable Exclusive Benefit Trust Trustee Approach:Discretionary Plan Effective Date:May 4, 2016 Plan Administrators:Town Manager Current Investment Strategy:Balanced Index PLUS (Passive) Strategy; Pooled Account Summary of Agency’s OPEB Plan AS OF APRIL 30, 2021: Initial Contribution:September 2016: $322,520 Additional Contributions:$1,787,803 Total Contributions:$2,110,322 Disbursements:$0 Total Investment Earnings:$971,746 Account Balance:$3,045,081 Town of Tiburon ▎6 Summary of Agency’s OPEB Plan CONTRIBUTIONS, DISBURSEMENTS, AND TOTAL ASSETS AS OF APRIL 30, 2021: *Plan Year Ending June 2017 is based on 10 months of activity.**Plan Year Ending June 2021 is based on 10 months of activity. $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 Jun-17 Jun-18 Jun-19 Jun-20 Jun-21 Plan Year Ending Contributions Disbursements Total Assets Year Contributions Disbursements Total Assets Jun-17*$1,290,017 $0 $1,386,481 Jun-18 $39,521 $0 $1,511,758 Jun-19 $692,713 $0 $2,342,412 Jun-20 $88,071 $0 $2,513,798 Jun-21**$0 $0 $3,045,081 Town of Tiburon ▎7 •We have received the actuarial report by Nicolay Consulting dated September 23, 2020 with a measurement date as of June 30, 2019. In the table below, we have summarized the results. OPEB Actuarial Results Demographic Study Measurement Date: June 30, 2018 Measurement Date: June 30, 2019 Actives 37 41 Retirees 21 26 Total 58 67 Town of Tiburon ▎8 OPEB Actuarial Results Measurement Date: June 30, 2018 Discount Rate: 6.50% Measurement Date: June 30, 2019 Discount Rate: 6.50% Total OPEB Liability (TOL) Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL)$3,737,498 $3,677,790 Fiduciary Net Position Actuarial Value of Assets $1,511,758 $2,342,412* Net OPEB Liability (NOL) Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL)$2,225,740 $1,335,378 Funded Ratio (%)40.4%63.7% Service Cost $102,141 for FY 2017-18 $107,248 for FY 2018-19 Actuarially Determined Contribution (ADC) $257,809 for FY 2018-19 $354,559 for FY 2019-20 Annual Benefit Payments (Pay-as-you-Go) $135,075 for FY 2017-18 $105,340 for FY 2018-19 *As of April 30, 2021, assets at $3,045,081.Rule of thumb:For every one percent increase in the discount rate, the unfunded liability is lowered by 10-12%. Town of Tiburon ▎9 Summary of Agency’s Pension Plan AS OF APRIL 30, 2021: Initial Contribution:July 2018: $1,050,000 Additional Contributions:$400,000 Total Contributions:$1,450,000 Disbursements:$0 Total Investment Earnings:$330,918 Account Balance:$1,762,100 Plan Type:IRC Section 115 Irrevocable Exclusive Benefit Trust Trustee Approach:Discretionary Plan Effective Date:May 4, 2016 Plan Administrator:Town Manager Current Investment Strategy:Moderately Conservative Index PLUS (Passive) Strategy; Pooled Account Town of Tiburon ▎10 Summary of Agency’s Pension Plan CONTRIBUTIONS, DISBURSEMENTS, AND TOTAL ASSETS AS OF APRIL 30, 2021: $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,000,000 Jun-19 Jun-20 Jun-21 Plan Year Ending Contributions Disbursements Total Assets Year Contributions Disbursements Total Assets Jun-19 $1,250,000 $0 $1,328,259 Jun-20 $200,000 $0 $1,611,919 Jun-21*$0 $0 $1,762,100 *Plan Year Ending June 2021 is based on 10 months of activity. Town of Tiburon ▎11 Combined Miscellaneous & Safety Groups Valuation as of June 30, 2018 Valuation as of June 30, 2019 Change Actuarial Liability $38.0 M $39.5 M 3.8% ↑ Assets $28.9 M $29.7 M 3.0% ↑ Unfunded Liability $9.2 M $9.8 M 6.5% ↑ Funded Ratio 75.9%75.3%0.8% ↓ Employer Contribution Amount $1.0 M (FY 19-20) $1.1 M (FY 20-21)13.3% ↑ Employer Contribution Amount –Projected*---$1.5 M (FY 26-27)40.3% ↑ Pension Funding Status As of June 30, 2019, Town of Tiburon’s CalPERS pension plan is funded as follows*: * Data through 2026-27 from Agency’s latest CalPERS actuarial valuation. Town of Tiburon April 30, 2021 Presented by Andrew Brown, CFA Town of Tiburon ▎12 Economic and Market Forecasts -August 2020 2021-2022 projections 2021 2022 Assumptions Assumptions GDP 5.5% -7.5%3.5% -4.5% S&P500 earnings $170 -$190 $190 -$210 Unemployment 4.8% -5.5%4.2% -4.9% Core PCE Inflation 1.8% -2.1%1.8% -2.1% Fed Funds Target 0.0% -0.25%0.0% -0.25% Economic and Market Forecasts -April 2021 Town of Tiburon ▎13 Performance Inception:10/01/2016 Returns are gross of account level investment advisory fees and net of any fees,including fees to manage mutual fund or exchange traded fund holdings.Returns for periods over one year are annualized.The information presented has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable.Past performance is not indicative of future returns.Securities are not FDIC insured,have no bank guarantee,and may lose value. 3 Months Year to Date (4 Months)1 Year 3 Years Since Inception (55 Months) Cash Equivalents .01 .01 .04 1.24 1.08 Lipper Money Market Funds Index .00 .00 .04 1.20 1.03 Total Fixed Income -1.51 -2.11 .62 5.00 2.77 BBG Barclays US Aggregate Bd Index -1.91 -2.61 -.27 5.19 2.97 Total Equities 11.41 11.74 50.14 14.97 14.98 Large Cap Funds 13.21 12.04 46.51 18.43 17.49 S&P 500 Composite Index 12.98 11.84 45.98 18.67 17.64 Mid Cap Funds 13.96 13.65 60.34 16.69 15.42 Russell Midcap Index 13.95 13.65 59.57 16.71 15.46 Small Cap Funds 10.01 15.38 75.10 14.78 15.20 Russell 2000 Index 9.55 15.07 74.91 15.23 15.35 International Equities 5.87 6.79 45.00 7.49 9.92 MSCI EAFE Index 7.74 6.59 39.88 6.27 9.26 MSCI EM Free Index 1.71 4.83 48.71 7.51 11.56 RR: REITS 17.27 17.31 35.31 13.21 7.00 Wilshire REIT Index 16.93 17.55 34.24 11.36 6.23 Total Managed Portfolio 6.34 6.30 27.85 11.11 9.98 Selected Period Performance PARS/OPEB BALANCED INDEX PLUS Account 6746050109 Period Ending: 4/30/2021 Town of Tiburon ▎14 Asset Allocation As of April 30, 2021 Current Asset Allocation Investment Vehicle Equity Range: 50%-70%61.05% Large Cap Core IVV iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 19.43% Large Cap Value IVE iShares S&P 500 Value ETF 6.93% Large Cap Growth IVW iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF 7.25% Mid Cap Core IWR iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF 4.53% Small Cap Value IWN iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF 4.29% Small Cap Growth IWO iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF 4.35% International Core IEFA iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF 6.85% Emerging Markets VWO Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF 5.40% Real Estate VNQ Vanguard Real Estate ETF 2.02% Fixed Income Range: 30%-50%34.81% Short-Term VFSUX Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Adm 5.30% Intermediate-Term AGG iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF 27.85% High Yield VWEAX Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Adm 1.66% Cash Range: 0%-20%4.14% FGZXX First American Government Oblig Z 4.14% TOTAL 100.00% Town of Tiburon ▎15 Performance Inception:08/01/2018 Returns are gross of account level investment advisory fees and net of any fees,including fees to manage mutual fund or exchange traded fund holdings.Returns for periods over one year are annualized.The information presented has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable.Past performance is not indicative of future returns.Securities are not FDIC insured,have no bank guarantee,and may lose value. 3 Months Year to Date (4 Months)1 Year Since Inception (33 Months) Cash Equivalents .01 .01 .04 1.19 Lipper Money Market Funds Index .00 .00 .04 1.15 Total Fixed Income -1.50 -2.09 .67 5.16 BBG Barclays US Aggregate Bd Index -1.91 -2.61 -.27 5.44 Total Equities 11.36 11.72 49.32 14.19 Large Cap Funds 13.22 12.06 45.71 17.42 S&P 500 Composite Index 12.98 11.84 45.98 17.65 Mid Cap Funds 13.96 13.64 59.43 16.28 Russell Midcap Index 13.95 13.65 59.57 16.06 Small Cap Funds 10.00 15.38 74.02 12.59 Russell 2000 Index 9.55 15.07 74.91 13.24 International Equities 5.98 6.81 44.17 8.27 MSCI EAFE Index 7.74 6.59 39.88 7.28 MSCI EM Free Index 1.71 4.83 48.71 10.48 RR: REITS 17.26 17.30 34.40 10.80 Wilshire REIT Index 16.93 17.55 34.24 9.04 Total Managed Portfolio 2.35 2.04 13.38 7.98 Selected Period Performance PARS/PRSP MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE Account 6746050105 Period Ending: 4/30/2021 Town of Tiburon ▎16 Asset Allocation As of April 30, 2021 Current Asset Allocation Investment Vehicle Equity Range: 20%-40%31.70% Large Cap Core IVV iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 9.70% Large Cap Value IVE iShares S&P 500 Value ETF 3.53% Large Cap Growth IVW iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF 3.67% Mid Cap Core IWR iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF 2.35% Small Cap Value IWN iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF 2.30% Small Cap Growth IWO iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF 2.31% International Core IEFA iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF 3.92% Emerging Markets VWO Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF 2.82% Real Estate VNQ Vanguard Real Estate ETF 1.10% Fixed Income Range: 50%-80%66.70% Short-Term VFSUX Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Adm 11.17% Intermediate-Term AGG iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF 52.88% High Yield VWEAX Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Adm 2.65% Cash Range: 0%-20%1.60% FGZXX First American Government Oblig Z 1.60% TOTAL 100.00% Town of Tiburon ▎17 1-Month 3-Month Year-to- 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year Fund Name Return Return Date Return Return Return Return iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF 6.84 9.65 9.06 48.57 22.95 21.04 16.34 iShares S&P 500 Value ETF 3.72 16.67 14.81 40.64 12.84 12.49 11.09 iShares Core S&P 500 ETF 5.34 12.97 11.83 45.94 18.63 17.38 14.12 iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF 5.07 13.90 13.60 59.31 16.55 15.40 12.52 iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF 2.17 2.19 7.11 68.96 17.90 18.88 12.94 iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF 2.02 17.39 23.53 78.73 11.50 13.40 9.98 iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF 3.24 8.10 7.07 42.06 6.61 9.37 -- Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF 1.87 2.50 5.50 47.54 7.77 11.59 3.15 Vanguard Real Estate ETF 7.96 17.32 17.35 35.35 13.52 8.28 9.12 iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF 0.79 -1.94 -2.63 -0.31 5.13 3.13 3.32 Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Adm 0.51 -0.02 0.04 4.38 4.28 2.94 2.61 Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Adm 1.20 1.08 1.11 14.73 6.61 6.38 6.07 Source: SEI Investments, Morningstar Investments TOWN OF TIBURON Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is no indication of future results. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee, and may lose value. BOND FUNDS For Period Ending April 30, 2021 LARGE CAP EQUITY FUNDS MID CAP EQUITY FUNDS SMALL CAP EQUITY FUNDS INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS REAL ESTATE FUNDS Town of Tiburon ▎18 EXHIBIT 4 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. ____-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A MUNICIPAL BUDGET PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF TIBURON FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 WHEREAS, the Town Council conducted a Public Hearing concerning the proposed Municipal Budget Plan for fiscal year 2022 at its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, June 16, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Town Council now finds that the proposed Municipal Budget Plan, as estimated, provides for all appropriate municipal purposes and services with current fund(s) and resources and estimated revenues for fiscal year 2022; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that the proposed Municipal Budget Plan appropriates revenues and other sources of funds for expenditures associated with operations, capital outlays, capital improvements, and debt service, in the following amounts: Section 1. Operating Budget Program - The proposed Plan has sufficient resources to finance the planned expenditures: Revenues and Funding Sources $14,442,841 Expenditures $14,345,386 Total Operating Net: $ 97,455 Section 1a. Operating Revenue Appropriation – Estimated Revenues and Sources of Funds for fiscal year 2022: GENERAL FUND Property Taxes 6,741,495 Other Taxes 1,615,000 Franchise Fees 745,000 Fines & Forfeitures 105,250 Investment Earnings 129,200 Intergovernmental & Agency 299,595 Licenses & Permits 893,250 Charges for Services 422,090 Other Revenues 202,802 Subtotal General Fund Revenues 11,153,681 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES Litigation Reserve 100,000 Page 2 of 4 Self-Insurance Reserve 125,000 Low/Moderate Housing Fund 11,249 Town Owned Housing Fund 106,799 Peninsula Library Agency 1,789,912 Long Range Planning Fund 355,000 Street Impact Fund State Gas Tax 110,000 Measure “A” Sales Tax Parks 75,000 Park Development & ORT 40,000 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 150,000 Capital Equipment Replacement 130,000 Technology Fund 251,200 Paula Little Flower 8,000 Cypress Hollow Fund 37,000 Total Revenues & Sources $3,289,159 Section 1b. Operating Expenditures Appropriation – Planned Department expenditures for fiscal year 2022: ADMINISTRATION Town Administration 1,487,530 Town Attorney 431,050 Legislative 81,900 Administration Building 284,050 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning & Design Review 724,373 Building Inspection 648,829 Advanced Planning 355,000 POLICE Police Department 4,062,601 Police Building 74,470 PUBLIC WORKS Administration 678,383 Streets Maintenance 886,768 Parks Maintenance 955,640 Street & Signal Light Maintenance 52,500 Corporation Yard 112,720 Cypress Hollow 37,000 NON-DEPARTMENTAL Insurances & JPAs 1,289,612 Self-Insurance 125,000 Low-Moderate Income Housing 11,249 Page 3 of 4 Town Owned Housing 106,799 Infrastructure & Facility Replacement 150,000 Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency 1,789,912 Total Expenditures: $14,345,387 Section 2. Capital Improvement Program – Sources of Funding for Planned Streets, Drainage and Community Development Improvements in fiscal year 2022: SOURCES PROJECTS General Fund 0 General Fund Parks 71,900 GF Streets & Drainage 105,200 GF Reserve - Infrastructure 348,000 TAM SR2S Grant 354,208 State Per Capita Grant (Parks) 178,000 State Gas Tax 578,000 Measure A/AA 411,798 RMRA (SB1) 349,939 Street Impact Mitigation 220,000 Town Owned Housing Units 60,000 STREETS Pedestrian Improvements 25,000 Bicycle Improvements 25,000 Hawthorne Resurfacing 364,237 Class III Bikeway-Greenwood Beach 10,000 Safe Routes to School-Del Mar 354,208 Pavement Maintenance & Rehabilitation 1,085,500 Contingency Provision 2020 Paradise Drive Subtotal Streets Improvements 1,863,945 DRAINAGE Storm Drain Maintenance & Rehabilitation 50,000 Railroad Marsh Basin Rehabilitation 75,200 Old Rail Trail Culvert Replacement 30,000 Subtotal Drainage Improvements 155,200 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS Improve Town Condominiums 60,000 Town Hall HVAC Rehabilitation 323,000 Recreation Building Transfer Switch 25,000 Elephant Rock Rehabilitation 27,900 Page 4 of 4 Elephant Rock Rehabilitation 139,500 Open Space Trailhead Improvements 7,700 Lyford Tower Repairs 15,000 Tether Park Tennis Court Rehabilitation 21,300 Subtotal Community Development Projects 657,900 Total Capital Improvements $2,677,045 $2,677,045 Section 3. Debt Service Program – Planned Debt Service and related expenses for special assessment, community facilities districts, and general obligation bond issues of the Town are as previously planned: BOND ISSUE AMOUNT 2016 Consolidated Reassessment District 620,373 TPFA 2016 Refunding Revenue Bonds 619,790 Virginia Underground District, Series A 38,600 Virginia Underground District, Series B 40,228 Total Debt Service $1,318,991 IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager may make adjustments and activities within the budget provided that no increase or diminishment in salaries result other than that provided by the Town’s Personnel System and Master Salary Program, or as authorized by the Town Council, and provided that no expenditure or encumbrance contingent on contract agreement, or other engagement requiring approval of the Town Council shall be made until such contract is first approved by the Town Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on June 16, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT 5 RESOLUTION NO. ____ -2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, Article XIII B. of the Constitution of the State of California requires governmental jurisdictions to establish appropriations limits each year, and WHEREAS, the previously established limit for Fiscal Year 2020-21 was $10,581,513, and the State Department of Finance has determined that the 2021-22 Per Capita Personal Income Factor is 5.73%, and the Population Change Factor is 0.57%; the Accounting and Finance Manager estimates that legislated pass-through fees of the County will be $67,054; the Accounting and Finance Manager of the Town of Tiburon has determined that the appropriations limit in the amount of $11,191,117 shall be established for Fiscal Year 2021-22. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that an appropriations limit in the amount of $11,191,117 is established for Fiscal Year 2021-22 pursuant to Article XIII B of the Constitution of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on June ____, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT DATA TOWN OF TIBURON 2021-2022 SUMMARY 2020-2021 APPROPRIATIONS LIMT 10,581,513 CALCULATION OF 2021-2022 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT 1. Annual Change Factors: Per Capita Personal Income or 573.000% Non-residential Assessed Valuation plus 0.000% Tiburon Population or -57.0000% Marin County Population (whichever is greater) 2. Cumulative Factor: (1 + .0573) X (1 + .00057) 1.05127 3. Annual Adjustment Amount (Last FY Limit X 2.Cumulative Factor) 542,550 4. Property Tax Collection Fees 67,054 2021-2022 APPROPRIATIONS LIMT 11,191,117 2021-2022 ESTIMATED PROCEEDS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT Property Taxes 5,861,495 ERAF 880,000 Sales & Use Tax 550,000 Sales Tax 80,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 750,000 Real Property Transfer Tax 235,000 Business License Tax 235,000 State Motor Vehicle License Fees 6,750 Refunds & Reimbursements 1,000 Other Revenue 5,000 Rent- Antenna Site 80,270 Interest Earned From Taxes (LAIF) 101,823 TOTAL PROCEEDS SUBJECT TO LIMIT 8,786,338 2021-2022 ESTIMATED LEEWAY 2,404,778 EXHIBIT 6 Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. ____-2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUANCE OF OPERATIONS INTO FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 AT FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 APPROPRIATION LEVELS WHEREAS, the Town Council has duly passed the Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget, and; WHEREAS, the adoption by Town Council of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget has been delayed, and; WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget ends of June 30, 2021, and; WHEREAS, the Town Council deems it appropriate to continue the operation of Town services until the passage of the Fiscal Year 2020-21 municipal budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby continue the 2020-21 annual budget in full force and effect until adoption of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on June 16, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: ___________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK