HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2022-01-19
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Town Council
January 19, 2022
Regular Meeting
5:00 P.M.
TIBURON
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), 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://us06web.zoom.us/j/86800915034
Webinar ID: 868 0091 5034
Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833
Access Code: 868 0091 5034
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.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Griffin, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor Ryan, Mayor
Welner
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 December 15, 2021 Town Council regular meeting
(Department of Administrative Services)
CC-2. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for December 21, 2021 Town Council special meeting
(Department of Administrative Services)
CC-3. Teleconference Meetings – Adopt resolution that would allow the Town to continue to operate
virtual board meetings in accordance with AB 361 (Department of Administrative Services)
CC-4. Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees – Announce pending vacancies for
2022 (Department of Administrative Services)
CC-5. Check Signing Authority – Adopt resolution updating the Town’s signature authority for
Town-issued checks (Department of Administrative Services)
CC-6. Retirement Health Savings Program – Adopt resolution establishing a retirement health
savings program for Town employees (Department of Administrative Services)
CC-7. Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District – Authorize the Town Manager to execute
acquisition and easement agreements related to the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding District
(Department of Public Works)
CC-8. Transportation Authority of Marin – Adopt resolution accepting Measure AA funds to be used
toward the 2023 Street Paving Project (Department of Public Works)
CC-9. Richardson Bay Regional Authority – Adopt resolution approving the second amendment to
the Richardson Bay Regional Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Department of
Administrative Services)
CC-10. Municipal Code Amendments – Adopt amendments to Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal
Code related to lot coverage requirements and associated development standards (Community
Development Department)
CC-11. Annual Development Fee Report – Receive annual report on the status of Tiburon’s
Development Impact Fees pursuant to California Government Code (Community Development
Department)
CC-12. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending November 30, 2021
(Department of Administrative Services)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DI-1. Tiburon 2040 General Plan – The Council will receive an update and discuss progress on the
General Plan update and provide feedback on the goals, policies, and programs of each element
(Community Development Department)
ACTION ITEMS
AI-1. Town Council Committee Appointments – Review Town Council committee appointments
list and consider any changes for 2022 (Department of Administrative Services)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DI-2. Diversity Inclusion Task Force Recommendation – Discuss the task force’s recommendation
that the Council interview the top 3 department head candidates
DI-3. Diversity Inclusion Task Force Recommendation – Discuss the task force’s recommendation
that the Council update the Town’s disciplinary procedures
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.
From:Candice Murray
To:Lea Stefani
Subject:Fwd: Petition Letter to the Town of Tiburon
Date:Wednesday, January 19, 2022 9:10:17 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.
Good morning,
I plan like to attend the Town Council Meeting at 5PM tonight. Would you be able to please
help me get on the agenda?
Thanks much,Candice
Begin forwarded message:
From: Candice Murray <candicedmurray@gmail.com>Date: January 18, 2022 at 9:53:50 PM PSTTo: jwelner@townoftiburon.org, jryan@townoftiburon.orgCc: rmonaghan@tiburonpd.orgSubject: Petition Letter to the Town of Tiburon
Jon, Jack,
It is with great concern for the safety of my Cypress Hollow community,
and the greater town of Tiburon, that I write this petition letter to set out
concerns regarding the lack of security monitoring and request action from
the Town of Tiburon to further secure our community.
Since December 31, 2021, there have been four residential break-ins
in Cypress Hollow.
My name is Candice Murray, resident of Cypress Hollow where I live with
my husband and our three children. Our home was one of the four break-
ins and one of two burglarized the evening of December 31, 2021. I want
to first take this opportunity to publicly thank Officer Sean Christopher and
his team who boarded up the shattered glass side door to secure the
gaping hole in our home and who remained onsite for hours that holiday
evening.
Following the multiple Cypress Hollow break-ins, the neighborhood has
come together to partner with our local police including Officer Sean
Christopher, Officer Isaac Madfes and Officer James Harris. We
appreciate their continued help. Many neighbors have increased their own
residential security systems and are active on our newly formed Cypress
Hollow Safety group text.
While these steps are effective safety measures – Cypress Hollow and
greater Tiburon remain vulnerable to crime due to the lack of street
security cameras and monitoring. It is widely known that there are
“loophole streets” that enable interested parties to bypass cameras and
enter Cypress Hollow. This is concerning to my family and the greater
Cypress Hollow community.
On behalf of Cypress Hollow, I am requesting the following actions
be taken by the Town of Tiburon with immediate effect:
Installation of license plate reading camera at the intersection of Bay
Vista and Rancho Drive
Installation of license plate reading camera at the intersection of Bay
Vista and Cypress Hollow
Security Notice Signage in Cypress Hollow stating the neighborhood
is protected by video surveillance
It is my hope that Tiburon takes our concerns seriously and acts with
urgency to secure our community. Petition signatures here:
https://www.change.org/AddCypressHollowSecurityCameras
Thank you for your time and attention. I welcome a conversation.
Sincerely,
Candice
Candice Murray
145 Rancho DriveTiburon, CA 94920+1.540.798.4404
Page 1 of 3
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #24-2021 DRAFT December 15, 2021
TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS
DRAFT MINUTES
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), 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.
Mayor Welner called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 15, 2021.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Griffin, Thier
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock,
Director of Administrative Services Creekmore, Director of Community Development Tasini, Senior Planner Fong, Emergency Services Coordinator Nilsen, Town Clerk Stefani
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none.
CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for December 1, 2021 Town Council special and regular meetings (Department of Administrative Services)
MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Item No. 1, as written.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner ABSENT: Griffin, Thier
PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Municipal Code Amendments – Consider amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code related to lot coverage requirements and associated development standards (Community Development Department) – Introduction and first
reading of ordinance Public comment was received by Miles Berger, Kathleen Defever, Bryan Chong, and Barb Powers, who all spoke in support of the proposed ordinance.
DR
A
F
T
Page 2 of 3
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #24-2021 DRAFT December 15, 2021
MOTION: To introduce the ordinance and read by title only. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan
VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner
ABSENT: Griffin, Thier Mayor Welner read “An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Part of Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning)”.
MOTION: To pass first reading of the proposed ordinance, waive further readings, and schedule for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Town Council. Moved: Welner, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner
ABSENT: Griffin, Thier ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Emergency Operations Plan – Consider adoption of an updated Tiburon Peninsula
Emergency Operations Plan (Police Department)
MOTION: To adopt the resolution adopting the updated Emergency Operations Plan, as amended. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan
VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner
ABSENT: Griffin, Thier AI-2. Employee Family Medical Benefits – Consider approval of side letters with both Town bargaining units related to family medical insurance and authorize the same benefit for
Town unrepresented employees (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To authorize the Town Manager to execute Side Letters with the Service Employees International Union and the Tiburon Police Officers Association to include the provision of Family Health Insurance.
Moved: Ryan, seconded by Fredericks
VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner ABSENT: Griffin, Thier MOTION: To adopt the resolutions for Unrepresented Mid-Management and Staff level
employees and Unrepresented Management Employees to include the provision
of Family Health Insurance. Moved: Welner, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner ABSENT: Griffin, Thier
AI-3. Diversity Inclusion Task Force – Discuss process for filling vacant seat on the Diversity Inclusion Task Force and authorize staff to publish the notice of special vacancy (Department of Administrative Services)
DR
A
F
T
Page 3 of 3
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #24-2021 DRAFT December 15, 2021
MOTION: To announce the special vacancy on the Diversity Inclusion Task Force and
authorize staff to publish the Notice of Special Vacancy.
Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Ryan VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Ryan, Welner ABSENT: Griffin, Thier
TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Fredericks wished a happy holiday to the group.
TOWN MANAGER REPORT
Town Manager Chanis said Town Hall would be closed 12/23/21-1/2/22 and the regular 1/5/22 Town Council meeting would be cancelled.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Welner adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
JON WELNER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
DR
A
F
T
Page 1 of 2
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #25-2021 DRAFT December 21, 2021
TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), 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.
Mayor Welner called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 21, 2021.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Griffin, Ryan, Thier, Welner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock,
Director of Administrative Services Creekmore, Town Clerk Stefani
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmembers Noah Griffin and Holli Thier expressed support for items the Council considered at their previous meeting and requested the Council adopt a meeting calendar.
ACTION ITEMS
AI-1. Town Manager Compensation Study – Consider approval of an agreement to perform a compensation study for the Town Manager position, and either (1) authorize the Town Manager to execute the contract and authorize a budget amendment from the General Fund Operating Reserves in the amount of the contract or (2) direct staff to perform an
equivalent study (Department of Administrative Services)
MOTION: To approve and authorize the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Regional Government Service (RGS) consultant to perform a Town Manager compensation study and authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $7,200.
Moved: Griffin, seconded by Thier
VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Griffin, Thier, Welner NAYS: Ryan
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Welner adjourned the meeting at 3:37 p.m. DR
A
F
T
Page 2 of 2
Tiburon Town Council Minutes #25-2021 DRAFT December 21, 2021
JON WELNER, 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: AB 361 Teleconference Meetings
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY In accordance with Government Code Section 54953, the Council will consider adoption of a resolution
that would allow the Town to continue to operate virtual board meetings for the next 30 days. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND In September 2021, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) was amended by Assembly Bill 361 to
allow fully virtual board meetings during a state of emergency. AB 361 amends Government
Code section 54953 to allow virtual board meetings through January 1, 2024 in any of the following circumstances: 1. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and state or
local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
2. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 3. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has
determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would
present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. To continue to hold virtual meetings while California’s state of emergency remains active, the body must make findings every 30 days that: 1) the body has reconsidered the circumstances of
the state of emergency and 2) that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability
of the members to meet safely in person or state and state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-3
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
The attached resolution (Exhibit 1) makes the required findings to allow the Town Council and Council appointed boards and commissions to continue to operate virtual meetings for the next 30 days.
ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. 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 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 attached resolution (Exhibit 1). Exhibit(s): 1. DRAFT Resolution Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 3
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 1/19/2022
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AND ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES CREATED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54952(b)
AUTHORIZING TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 361 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)) TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SAFELY PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Town Council is committed to ensuring public access to observe and
participate in local government meetings; and WHEREAS, all meetings of the Town Council and other legislative bodies created pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) are open and public, as required by the Ralph
M. Brown Act, so that any member of the public may participate in local government meetings;
and WHEREAS, the recently adopted AB 361, codified at Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in local government meetings, without compliance with the requirements of 54953(b)(3), during a Governor-
proclaimed state of emergency and if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that
as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency due
to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19) and
that State of Emergency is still in effect in the State of California; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2020, Marin County declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Town Manager proclaimed the existence of a local state of emergency within the Town, pursuant to Section 21-6 of the Tiburon Municipal Code and Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was ratified by the Town Council on March 18, 2020; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of Town residents; and WHEREAS, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant (Delta Variant) and SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant (Omicron Variant) are highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance calling for the use of face coverings and stating that the Delta Variant is two times as contagious as early COVID-19 variants, leading to increasing infections, the Delta Variant accounts for over 80% of cases sequenced, and cases and hospitalizations of COVID-19 are
rising throughout the state; and
Page 2 of 3
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 1/19/2022
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, the California Department of Public Health issued
guidance again requiring universal masking indoors and stating that the Omicron Variant is more contagious than early COVID-19 variants and the Delta Variant, and has increased the seven-day average case rate more than sixfold and doubled COVID-19 hospitalization rates; and
WHEREAS, the Delta and Omicron Variants have caused, and will continue to cause,
conditions of imminent peril to the health safety of persons within the Town; an WHEREAS, the Town Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees and other bodies that
were created by the Town Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively
referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely
participate in and observe local government meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that the Town Council does hereby:
1. Find that Current Conditions Authorize Teleconference Public Meetings of
Legislative Bodies. Based on the California Governor’s continued declaration of a State of Emergency and current conditions, the Town Council finds that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees, such that the conditions continue to exist pursuant to Government Code section
54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to use teleconferencing to hold public
meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.
2. Authorize Legislative Bodies to Conduct Teleconference Meetings. The
Legislative Bodies are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on January 19, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Page 3 of 3
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 1/19/2022
__________________________
JON WELNER, 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: 2022 Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions & Committees
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY At the first Town Council meeting each January, the Town Council formally announces the upcoming
vacancies on Town boards and commissions and invites applicants to fill the positions. Most terms expire in February, and the Council makes the appointments or reappointments to new terms in early March. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Announce the pending vacancies on Town boards & commissions in 2022 by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar.
BACKGROUND The Town Council makes appointments to the various boards, commissions and committees of the Town on an annual and as-needed basis. Most appointments are staggered 4-year terms, regularly scheduled to expire at the end of February. At the beginning of each year, staff and the
Council begin the process to refill the seats that are scheduled to expire, whether by reappointment of incumbent or new appointment. This process is governed by Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007 (Appointments Procedure), which requires that the Mayor announce the pending vacancies on Town boards, commissions
and committees at the first Town Council meeting of the year. Additionally, the procedure requires the Town Clerk to publish the Notice of Pending Vacancies (Exhibit 1) in the Ark newspaper and post the notice at Town Hall for the purpose of notifying the public of these vacancies, and to seek applicants to fill the positions. The deadline for new applications this year is February 11, 2022 at 5:00 P.M.
Commissioners whose terms are expiring in 2022 will be notified by the Town Clerk of their term expirations and asked whether they are interested in seeking reappointment. Due consideration will be given to all incumbent commissioners; however, the Council is required to interview all new applicants. An exception to this rule is for commissioners who have served terms of less than
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-4
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
two years in duration; the Council is not required to interview new applicants for these pending vacancies, if the incumbent seeks reappointment to the position. The attached Notice of Pending Vacancies itemizes all scheduled vacancies to which the Council
will make appointments in 2022.
ANALYSIS No further analysis provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this item.
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 announce the pending vacancies on Town boards &
commissions in 2022 by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar.
Exhibit(s): 1. Notice of Pending Vacancies 2022
Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES
on Town Boards, Commissions & Committees
January 2022
BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION
MARIN-SONOMA MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD
PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN ARTIST LAUREATE
******** The following vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees are current or pending in 2022. Pursuant to Resolution No. 16-2007, the Tiburon Town Council will conduct interviews
of interested applicants beginning in February 2022.
Current commissioners whose terms are expiring may seek reappointment for another term; commissioners who have served terms of less than two years are eligible for automatic re-appointment.
Applicants should be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the time, interest and desire to serve on the board or commission, including attendance at regular monthly meetings and other activities. Some commissions are comprised of residents of both Tiburon and Belvedere, or the Tiburon Peninsula.
Applications can be obtained at www.townoftiburon.org. You may also contact Town Clerk Lea Stefani at lstefani@townoftiburon.org or (415)435-7377 for more information. Application Deadline: February 11, 2022 at 5:00 P.M.
TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES ON BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES JANUARY 2022 BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Jeff Slavitz September 2018 6/30/2022
HERITAGE & ARTS COMMISSION
Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Francella Hall October 2012, 2014, 2018 2/28/2022
Azita de Mujica October 2010, 2014, 2018 2/28/2022
Jaleh Etemad August 2018 2/28/2022
MARIN-SONOMA MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Cathy Benediktsson August 2020 12/31/2022
PARKS, OPEN SPACE & TRAILS COMMISSION
Appointee Appointed Term Expires Isaac Nikfar September 2017; 2018 2/28/2022
Park Allen May 2010, 2014, 2018 2/28/2022
PLANNING COMMISSION Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Eric Woodward May 2019 2/28/2022
Kathleen Defever March 2018 2/28/2022
TOWN ARTIST LAUREATE Appointee Appointed Term Expires
Richard Rozen June 2018 5/31/2022
Copies to: The Ark (for publication on 1/5, 1/19, and 1/26/2022) and Marin Independent Journal
Notice Posted at Tiburon Town Hall
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Adopt Resolution to Establish Check Signature Authority
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY As there are changes in the Council composition or staff changes, a new resolution must be adopted
establishing those persons with authority to sign Town checks. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1) establishing those persons who can sign Town-issued checks.
BACKGROUND
The Town Council adopts by resolution those officials and employees who have the authority to sign and endorse Town checks. The Town’s signature authority was most recently updated in 2019, and since then, two new members have been elected to the Town Council. The attached resolution (Exhibit 1) authorizes
Vice Mayor Jack Ryan and Councilmember Noah Griffin to sign Town checks. No changes have been made to the staff members authorized to sign checks. ANALYSIS
No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this resolution.
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 January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-5
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
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 adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1) establishing those persons who can sign Town-issued checks. Exhibit(s): 1. Draft Resolution – Check Signing Authority Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT January 19, 2022
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE SIGNING AND ENDORSING OF CHECKS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF PAYMENT & ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS RETAINED IN SAFEKEEPING
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has, by resolution, adopted a policy which identifies
the employees and officials who may sign and endorse checks and other instruments of payment on behalf of the Town, and which employees may have authorization for access to Town documents held in safekeeping: and
WHEREAS, from time to time as employees or Councilmembers authorized to sign and
endorse checks and other instruments of payment on behalf of the Town leave the Town’s service it becomes necessary to add an authorized signer, and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The Bank of Marin, Tiburon Branch, shall be the depository for all funds of the Town of Tiburon. Commercial accounts shall be established and maintained by and in the name of the Town of Tiburon at the designated bank upon and subject to such terms as may be agreed to from time to time.
2. All checks, drafts and other instruments for payment from the Town’s commercial account in the amount of $2,500.00 or less, or relating to the Town’s state and federal payroll tax obligations, PERS retirement, or health insurance obligations in any amount shall be signed on behalf of the Town by any two (2) of the following people: Town Manager Gregory Chanis,
Director of Administrative Services Suzanne Creekmore, Town Clerk Lea Stefani, or any
member of the current Town Council (Alice Fredericks, Noah Griffin, Jack Ryan, Holli Thier, or Jon Welner). 3. All payroll, payroll payable, and payroll benefit checks shall be signed by the
Town Manager and Director of Administrative Services, and in the case of either’s absence the
Director of Administrative Services, or any member of the Town Council. 4. All other checks, drafts and instruments for payment shall be signed on behalf of the Town by either the Town Manager, Director of Administrative Services, Town Clerk and by
one member of the Town Council.
5. All checks, drafts or other instruments for payment made payable to the Town of Tiburon may be endorsed for deposit by written or stamped endorsement in the name of the Town of Tiburon without individual signatures.
6. Staff is directed to provide a certified copy of this resolution to the Bank of Marin along with signature authorization forms which include signatures of the individuals currently holding the following positions: Town Manager, Director of Administrative Services, Town
Page 2 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT January 19, 2022
Clerk, and Town Council members. The Town Clerk shall inform the Bank of Marin of any changes in these positions and provide new signature cards when necessary.
7. The Bank of Marin is requested and authorized to honor, receive, certify or pay any instrument signed or endorsed in accordance with this Resolution. This Resolution and signature authorization forms submitted by the Town Clerk shall remain in full force and effect, and the Bank is authorized and requested to rely and act thereon, until such time as the Bank
receives written notice of any changes from the Town Clerk.
8. The Bank of America, Tiburon Branch is the location of four Safe Deposit Boxes that the Town rents from the Bank. The following employees of the Town are authorized by signature to place, extract, or review items held in safekeeping: Town Manager (Greg Chanis),
Town Clerk, (Lea Stefani), Director of Administrative Services (Suzanne Creekmore). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on January 19, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JON WELNER, 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: Adopt Resolution to Establish a Retirement Health Savings Program for Town Employees
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY As part of the Town’s current Memorandums of Understanding with the Tiburon Police Association and SEIU Local 1021, the Town is establishing a Retirement Health Savings Account Program for fund
deposits. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1) establishing the VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Program for Town employees.
BACKGROUND
The Town Council authorized the establishment of a Retirement Health Savings Account Program (RHS Program) as part of the 2021 labor negation process and successor Memorandums of Understanding with the Town’s two bargaining units.
The Memorandums of Understandings with the Tiburon Police Association and SEIU Local 1021
indicate that an RHS Program be established for negotiated fund deposits by January 2022. The attached Resolution (Exhibit 1) authorizes the Town to establish an RHS Program with VantageCare, a program administered by one of the Town’s current 457(b) program providers.
ANALYSIS No further analysis provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this resolution. CLIMATE IMPACT
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-6
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
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 adopt the attached resolution (Exhibit 1) to establish the VantageCare RHS program for Town employees.
Exhibit(s): 1. Draft Resolution – Adoption of VantageCare RHS Program Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 1
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 1/19/2022
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A
VANTAGECARE RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS (RHS)
PROGRAM FOR TOWN EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon in Tiburon, California has employees rendering valuable
services; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a retiree health savings program for such employees serves the
interest of the Town of Tiburon by enabling it to provide reasonable security regarding such employees’
health needs during retirement, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system,
and by assisting in the attraction and retention in competent personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has determined that the establishment of the retiree health
savings program (the “Program”) serves the above objectives.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby
adopts the ICMA Retirement Corporation’s VantageCare Retirement Health Savings Program
(“Program”) through the Town of Tiburon’s integral part trust (“Trust”) and the Town of Tiburon’s
welfare benefits plan (“Plan”) (Plan Number #800297).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with the Town of
Tiburon serving as trustee for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and their survivors, and the assets
of the Plan shall not be diverted to any other purpose prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities of the Plan.
The Town of Tiburon has executed the Declaration of Trust of the Town of Tiburon Integral Part Trust in
the form of the sample trust made available by the ICMA Retirement Corporation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager or their designee shall be the coordinator
and contact for the Program and shall receive necessary reports, notices, etc.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council this 19th day of
January, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JON WELNER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST:
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3
STAFF REPORT To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Public Works
Subject: Approve Acquisition and Easement Agreements for 650 Tiburon Boulevard,
and Town Parcels adjacent to Old Rail Trail for the Hawthorne Undergrounding District Project Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY
Consider approving acquisition and easement agreement on 650 Tiburon Blvd and easement
agreement for Town Parcels adjacent to Old Rail Trail for the Hawthorne Undergrounding District Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
Staff recommends Town Council:
1. Consider authorizing the Town Manager to execute in substantially the form presented, the draft purchase and sale agreement related to 650 Tiburon Blvd (APN 055-171-13). 2. Consider authorizing the Town Manager to execute in substantially the form presented, the Easement Grant Deed related to Town Parcels adjacent to Old Rail Trail (APN 055-
201-36, 055-161-03).
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. The Town Council recently approved agreements with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Ranger
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-7
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3
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
To complete the Project, the Town must acquire easements from the following eight (8) private properties. The table below shows the current acquisition status of those properties.
APN ADDRESS ACQUISITION STATUS PG&E ACQUISITION NO.
055-211-31 40 Del Mar Drive Complete 31320249B
055-201-25 Sommers Court Complete 31320249G
055-171-13 650 Tiburon Boulevard Pending Council Approval 31320249D
055-201-35 4 Palmer Court Complete 31320249E
055-201-34 2 Palmer Court Complete 31320249F
055-222-04 730 Hawthorne Pending 31320249C
055-201-36 700 Tiburon Boulevard Complete 31320249H
039-111-21 145 Rock Hill Complete 31320249A
Staff has reached a tentative acquisition agreement with the property owner at 650 Tiburon
Boulevard and is now requesting Town Council authorization to execute the acquisition agreement. The easement on 650 Tiburon Boulevard is over a portion of an area that is currently used as a driveway and landscaping. The total area of the easement is approximately 5,655 square feet and is depicted in the grant deed and aerial photo attached as Exhibit 1. Town Staff and the
owner negotiated the Acquisition Agreement attached as Exhibit 2. The agreement provides that
the purchase price is $15,000, which is payable within ten (10) days of receipt of the executed documents. The easement along Town owned parcels adjacent to the Old Rail Trail is over a portion of an
area that is currently used as landscaping. The total area of the easement is approximately 10,924
square feet and is depicted in the grant deed and aerial photo attached as Exhibit 3. The Easement Agreement is attached as Exhibit 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.
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3
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
Bond financing is used 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: 1. Consider authorizing the Town Manager to execute in substantially the form presented, the draft purchase and sale agreement related to 650 Tiburon Blvd (APN
055-171-13). 2. Consider authorizing the Town Manager to execute in substantially the form presented, the Easement Grant Deed related to Town Parcels adjacent to Old Rail Trail (APN 055-201-36, 055-161-03). Exhibits:
1. Aerial Photo for 650 Tiburon Blvd. 2. Acquisition Agreement for 650 Tiburon Blvd. 3. Aerial Photo for Old Rail Trail 4. Acquisition Agreement for Old Rail Trail
Prepared By: David O. Eshoo, Associate Engineer
EXHIBIT 1
HAWTHORNE R20B
31320249D AERIAL
Legend
PROPOSED PG&E EASEMENT
100 ft
N
➤➤
N
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
Untitled Map
Write a description for your map.
Legend
Feature 1
Feature 2
Feature 3
Feature 4
Style1
Style18
Style2
Style4
Style7
Style8
600 ft
N
➤➤
N
EXHIBIT 4
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
CITY OF TIBURON, a municipal corporation, 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 055-201-36, 055-161-03)
Three parcels of land the first described and designated Parcel One in the deed from Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation to City of Tiburon dated January 4, 1971 and recorded in Book 2429 of Official Records at page 428, Marin County Records; the second conveyed in said deed dated January 4, 1971 and therein designated Parcel Two and the third conveyed in said deed dated January 4, 1971 and therein designated Parcel Three.
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 varying widths extending from the northeasterly boundary line of said lands southwesterly and being initially the uniform width of 30 feet lying contiguous to the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the southwesterly boundary line of Lands of Belvedere Tennis Club as shown upon the Record of Survey filed for record August 1, 2007 in Book 2007 of Maps at page
Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) 156, Marin County Records and running thence along said southwesterly boundary line of Lands of Belvedere Tennis Club (1) on a curve to the right with a radius of 5725 feet (radial bearing south 39° 00' 27" west),
through a central angle of 0° 25' 37" an arc distance of 42.66 feet, more or less, to a point that bears south 01° 03' 43" east 391.86 feet distant from the found monument marking the southeasterly terminus of a course in the centerline of Hawthorne Drive, a town road, (for identification only, said course as shown on the map filed for record in Book 6 of Maps at page 22, Marin County Records, has a bearing of S 31° 24’ E and a length of
372.024 feet) thence continuing along said southwesterly boundary line of Lands of Belvedere Tennis Club (2) on a curve to the right with a radius of 11454 feet, through a central angle of 0° 16' 40", an arc distance of 55.52 feet,
thence changing from the uniform width of 30 feet to the uniform width of 27 feet and lying contiguous to the next three courses and continuing along said southwesterly boundary line of Lands of Belvedere Tennis Club
(3) on a curve to the right with a radius of 11454 feet, through a central angle of 0° 32' 34",
an arc distance of 108.50 feet to the southwesterly boundary line of Tiburon Boulevard, also known as State Highway 131, thence continuing along said southwesterly boundary line of Tiburon Boulevard
(4) south 48° 22' 18" east 119.97 feet, thence
(5) on a curve to the right with a radius of 11453.22 feet, through a central angle of 0° 19' 24", an arc distance of 64.65 feet, to the point of termination
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 in Book 6 of Maps at page 22, Marin County Records, has a bearing of South 31° 24’ East and a distance of 372.024 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.
Distribution Easement Rev. (02/2020) Grantor further grants to Grantee the right to apportion to another public utility (as defined in Section 216 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: __________________, _______.
CITY OF TIBURON
_________________________________ By _________________________________ By _________________________________
Print Name
_________________________________
Print Name
_________________________________ Print Title _________________________________ Print Title
I hereby certify that a resolution was adopted
on the ____ day of ________, 20____, by
the ________________________________
authorizing the foregoing grant of easement.
By_________________________________
___________________________________ Name & Title
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)(1N)(6W)(MDBM)
MARIN TIBURON
NORTH BAY
(NE of NW)
RANCHO CORTE MADERA DEL PRESIDIO
UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ALL COURSES EXTEND TO OR ALONG BOUNDARIES OR LINES
(A TO
WN ROAD)
HA
WTHORNE DRIVE055-201-21
A.P.
N.
6 M 29; 2003 M 129
1"=100'
1 OF 2
SHEET
(A TOWN ROAD)
TI
B
U
R
O
N
B
L
V
D. /
H
W
Y 131
(
A S
T
A
T
E
HI
G
H
W
A
Y)
B
A
SIS
O
F
B
E
A
RI
N
G
S 31° 24' E 372.024'
(TYP)PER 6M22
MONUMENTFOUND
ROCK HILL DRIVE6
M 22
6
M 29
S
A
L
T
M
A
R
S
H
&
TI
D
E
L
A
N
D
S
M
A
P
1
055-161-18
A.P.
N.
T
I
E
:
S
0
1
°
0
3
'
4
3
"
E
3
9
1
.
8
6
'
BEGIN
NING
POINT OF
(ARE
A= 10924± S
QFT)
PG
&E EASE
ME
NT
CONCURRENTLY
TO BE ACQUIRED
PG
&E EASE
MENT
C1
C3
L1
C4
S 39° 00' 27"
W
R
A
DIAL
30'
OLD RAIL TRAIL, TIBURON
Marin County Records
Book 2429 OR Page 428
Deed Dated January 4, 1971
CITY OF TIBURON
055-161-03
A.P.N.
2007
M 156
T
E
N
NIS C
L
U
B
L
A
N
DS
O
F B
E
L
V
E
D
E
R
E
27'C2
10/28/21
31320249I REV1
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)(1N)(6W)(MDBM)
MARIN TIBURON
NORTH BAY
(NE of NW)
UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ALL COURSES EXTEND TO OR ALONG BOUNDARIES OR LINES
6 M 29; 2003 M 129
1"=100'
2 OF 2
SHEET
OLD RAIL TRAIL, TIBURON 10/28/21
31320249I 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: 31320249I 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\31320249I REV1.docx
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Public Works
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Accepting $180,824.00 of Measure AA Funds from the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) to be used towards the 2023 Street Paving Project.
Reviewed By:
_________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY Staff was successful in obtaining funding from Transportation Sales Tax Measure AA Program to be used towards the 2023 Street Paving Project, and the Council must formally accept the funds by adopting a Resolution (Exhibit 1) accepting the terms of the TAM Funding Agreement
(Exhibit 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Measure AA funds towards the 2023 Street Paving Project at various locations in Town.
BACKGROUND In November 2018, the voters of Marin County approved the authorization of Measures AA which generates funding for transportation related projects and programs through a one-half cent Sales Tax. The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) is responsible for administering the
proceeds from the program. Guided by the Measure AA Strategic Plan, the Town of Tiburon will receive $180,824 from the Measure AA Expenditure Plan to be applied towards the 2023 Street Paving Project. In order to receive these funds, the Town Council is being asked to agree to the provisions of the TAM
Funding Agreement attached as Exhibit 1. This agreement states the Town will follow all applicable State Laws and TAM policies when using the transportation sales tax funds. Staff has provided a draft Resolution (Exhibit 2) which indicates the Town’s acceptance of the funds and authorizes the Town Manager to sign all necessary documents associated with the program.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-8
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
ANALYSIS No further analysis is provided
FINANCIAL IMPACT Accept outside funding in the amount of $180,824 from Measure AA Transportation Sales Tax. These funds will be placed in the existing Measure AA Transportation Restricted Reserve Fund. 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 to Accept the Measure AA funds to be used towards the 2023 Street Paving Project at various locations in Town.
Exhibit(s): 1. TAM Measure AA Funding Agreement 2. Resolution Approving TAM Measure AA Funding Agreement Prepared By: David O. Eshoo, Associate Engineer
EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 7
TAM AGREEMENT A-FY22-11
FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN
AND
TOWN OF TIBURON
This AGREEMENT is made this day of 202 , by and between the
Transportation Authority of Marin, hereinafter referred to as “TAM”, a local public agency, and the Town
of Tiburon, hereinafter referred to as “RECIPIENT”, a local public agency.
SECTION 1. RECITALS
1. The voters of Marin County approved the authorization of Measure AA, thereby authorizing that
TAM be given the responsibility to administer the proceeds from a one-half cent transportation sales tax
to fund transportation-related projects and programs in Marin County.
2. The proceeds will be used to pay for the programs and projects outlined in the Measure AA
Expenditure Plan and further guided by the Measure AA Strategic Plan.
3. According to the Measure AA Expenditure Plan, local streets and roads funds are provided to
local cities, towns, and Marin County (local agencies) to be used for any local transportation need,
including streets and roads projects, local transit projects, bicycle pedestrian projects and other
transportation uses.
4. Each project will be required to consider the needs of all roadway users and, where feasible,
locally defined bicycle and pedestrian projects will be implemented at the time a roadway is improved.
5. Local priorities would be determined by each local agency's Public Works Director with approval
of their governing board in a public meeting.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE OF FUNDING AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT is entered into by and between TAM and RECIPIENT to document the funding
conditions necessary for the RECIPIENT to comply with applicable law and TAM policies and
conditions (EXHIBIT A). This AGREEMENT consists of additional documents stated in these sections
as being attached hereto and incorporated in the AGREEMENT by reference.
SECTION 3. PROJECT DEFINITION AND SCOPE
This AGREEMENT, approved through Resolution 2021-05 of TAM, in accordance with the requirements
of TAM’s Measure AA Expenditure Plan and Strategic Plan is made for the following purposes identified
in the RECIPIENT’s Measure AA Allocation Request Form (EXHIBIT B):
Local Infrastructure for All Modes
Additional information on project scope is included in the Measure AA Allocation Request Form.
Page 2 of 7
SECTION 4. GRANT
TAM hereby grants to the RECIPIENT the sum of $180,824.00 as designated in Resolution No. 2021-05
(EXHIBIT D), approved June 24, 2021, which is included in this AGREEMENT by reference.
SECTION 5. COST ELIGIBILITY
Cost eligibility shall be determined by TAM’s Expenditure Plan and Strategic Plan policies. Funds may
be used for any local transportation need identified by the RECIPIENT’s Public Works Director,
including streets and roads projects, local transit projects, bicycle pedestrian projects and other
transportation uses, as approved by the RECIPIENT’s governing board. Where feasible, locally defined
bicycle and pedestrian projects will be implemented in conjunction with a related roadway improvement.
This could include safety improvements, pedestrian facilities including disabled access, or bicycle
facilities such as bike lanes or signage.
SECTION 6. BUDGET AND SCOPE
RECIPIENT shall maintain a project or program budget. RECIPIENT shall carry out the project and shall
incur obligations against and make disbursements of the grant in conformity with TAM’s requirements
and the budget.
SECTION 7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RECIPIENT shall be responsible for the project and provide management of consultant and contractor
activities for which RECIPIENT contracts, including responsibility for schedule, scope, and budget,
consistent with TAM’s resolution allocating the grant unless otherwise agreed upon in writing.
SECTION 8. PROJECT OVERSIGHT
RECIPIENT shall cooperate with TAM’s project management team and shall provide any requested
project information.
SECTION 9. ATTRIBUTION AND SIGNAGE
If any portion of grant funds is used for production of reports, acknowledgment of the TAM’s role shall
be included in the documents. If any portion of grant funds is used for construction, RECIPIENT shall,
upon initiation of field work or at the earliest feasible time thereafter, install and maintain a sign at the
construction site identifying Measure AA Funds and TAM (e.g., TAM and RECIPIENT’s logos – “Your
Measure AA Dollars at Work”). For non-construction capital purchases funded by any portion of grant
funds, RECIPIENT shall affix permanent signage identifying TAM and Measure AA Funds as a funding
source. RECIPIENT shall demonstrate compliance with attribution and signage requirements as an
indispensable condition for authorization of Measure AA disbursement for project expenses.
SECTION 10. PRESS RELEASES
RECIPIENT shall notify TAM in advance of any press releases about project and program activities,
particularly groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings, in connection to grant funds expended from this
AGREEMENT.
Page 3 of 7
SECTION 11. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
In the performance of its obligations pursuant to this AGREEMENT, RECIPIENT shall keep itself fully
informed of the federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations in any manner affecting the
performance of this Agreement, and must at all times comply with such laws, ordinances, and regulations
as they may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 12. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
RECIPIENT shall undertake all environmental mitigation measures that may be identified as
commitments in applicable documents (such as environmental assessments, environmental impact
statements and reports, and memoranda of agreement) and comply with any conditions imposed as a part
of a finding of no significant impact or a record of decision; all such mitigation measures are incorporated
in this AGREEMENT by reference. Recipient shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary
environmental permits for performance of work.
SECTION 13. FINANCES
All costs charged to the project shall be supported by properly prepared and documented time records,
invoices, or vouchers evidencing in detail the nature and propriety of the charges and the basis for the
percentage charged to TAM.
SECTION 14. RECORDS
All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers, journal entries, work orders, or other accounting
documents pertaining in whole or in part to the project shall be maintained by RECIPIENT for a period of
five (5) years after the later of project closeout or termination of grant. Such project documents shall be
clearly identified, readily accessible, and, to the extent feasible, kept separate and apart from all other
similar documents not pertaining to the project.
SECTION 15. PAYMENT
TAM shall remit payment to RECIPIENT upon written request by the RECIPIENT after the execution of
this AGREEMENT.
SECTION 16. ELIGIBLE EXPENSES
RECIPIENT shall expend funds only on eligible expenses as follows: operating costs, direct staff time
(salary and benefits), consultants; right of way engineering and acquisition costs (including permitting),
and competitively bid construction contracts. Indirect costs (as defined by OMB Circular A-87) and
overhead costs will not be considered an eligible expense. Funds shall also be expended according to the
applicable provisions of the Expenditure Plan and of the Public Utilities Code Section 180000 et seq.
TAM shall provide notice to RECIPIENT of any and all expenditures made by RECIPIENT which are
not in compliance with this AGREEMENT or the Expenditure Plan promptly after TAM becomes aware
of any such expenditures.
SECTION 17. AUDITS
TAM reserves the right at any time to conduct or require a financial or performance audit of the
RECIPIENT'S compliance with this AGREEMENT. TAM will give advance notice of the requirement.
Page 4 of 7
RECIPIENT shall permit TAM, or any of its duly authorized representatives, to inspect all work,
materials, payrolls, and other data and records with regard to the project, and to audit the books, records,
and accounts of the RECIPIENT and its contractors with regard to the project.
SECTION 18. THIRD PARTY CONTRACT AUDITS
TAM reserves the right to request an audit of other third-party contracts for any reason. If RECIPIENT is
subject to third party financial audit requirements imposed by another funding source, copies of audits
performed in fulfillment of such requirements shall be provided to the TAM.
SECTION 19. CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES AND PROJECT REPORT
RECIPIENT shall provide to TAM a Project Report as shown in EXHIBIT C. This report shall include
the total expenditures for the approved scope, revenues from all funding sources applied for the approved
scope of work. RECIPIENT shall provide supporting documentation for expenditures and revenues from
its accounting and financial management system. RECIPIENT shall certify that the amounts sought are
only for project elements included in the Allocation Request Form
SECTION 20. REPAYMENT OF INELIGIBLE COSTS
TAM reserves the right to offset RECIPIENT payback of ineligible costs against future grant approvals
for this project or other projects in the Expenditure Plan for which RECIPIENT is the sponsoring agency.
SECTION 21. RIGHT TO WITHHOLD
If the above items are not provided to TAM by the annual due date and/or such items are found not to be
in compliance with this AGREEMENT, Public Utilities Code Section 180000 et seq., the ballot measure
or the Strategic Plan, TAM may withhold funds for future allocations from RECIPIENT until
RECIPIENT has corrected any noted deficiencies to TAM’s satisfaction. While funds are being withheld,
all interest on withheld funds shall be retained by TAM as an administrative fee.
SECTION 22. RESCISSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS
TAM reserves the right to rescind its authorization of unneeded grant funds prior to, or at the time of,
PROJECT closeout. Funds are determined to be unneeded if they are uncommitted at time of project
closeout.
SECTION 23. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE
RECIPIENT agrees that, upon ten (10) working days written notice, TAM may suspend or terminate all
or part of the financial assistance provided herein for failure to correct a breach of this AGREEMENT.
Any failure to make reasonable progress, inconsistency with the Expenditure Plan or Allocation Request
Form, unauthorized use of grant funds as specified in this AGREEMENT, or other violation of the
AGREEMENT that significantly endangers substantial performance of the project shall be deemed to be a
breach of this AGREEMENT and cause for termination. Upon mutual consent, RECIPIENT will repay
TAM any unexpended funds originally provided under this Agreement.
Page 5 of 7
SECTION 24. CORRECTION OF BREACH
With respect to any breach, which is reasonably capable of being cured, RECIPIENT shall have thirty
(30) days from the date of notice of breach to initiate steps to cure. If RECIPIENT diligently pursues cure,
such RECIPIENT shall be allowed a reasonable time to cure or by a time established in writing by TAM.
SECTION 25. LIABILITY
Neither TAM nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability
occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RECIPIENT under or in connection with
any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT. It is also
understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RECIPIENT shall fully defend,
indemnify, and hold TAM harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government
Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RECIPIENT under or
in connection with any work, or jurisdiction delegated to RECIPIENT under this AGREEMENT.
Neither RECIPIENT nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability
occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by TAM under or in connection with any
work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to TAM under this AGREEMENT. It is also understood and
agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, TAM shall fully defend, indemnify, and hold
RECIPIENT harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section
810.8) occurring in by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by TAM under or in connection
with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to TAM under this AGREEMENT.
In the event of concurrent negligence of RECIPIENT and TAM, the liability for any and all claims for
injuries or damages to persons and/or property shall be apportioned under the California theory of
comparative negligence as presently established or as may hereafter be modified.
SECTION 26. OBLIGATIONS
In general, termination of financial assistance under this AGREEMENT will not invalidate obligations
properly incurred by RECIPIENT before the termination date; to the extent those obligations cannot be
canceled.
SECTION 27. INTEGRATION
This AGREEMENT represents the entire AGREEMENT of the parties with respect to the subject matter
thereof. No representations, warranties, inducements, or oral agreements have been made by any of the
parties except as expressly set forth herein, or in other contemporaneous written agreements.
SECTION 28. AMENDMENT
Except as otherwise provided herein, this AGREEMENT may not be changed, modified, or rescinded
except in writing, signed by all parties hereto, and any attempt at oral modification of this AGREEMENT
shall be void and of no effect.
SECTION 29. INDEPENDENT AGENCY
RECIPIENT performs the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT as an entity independent of TAM.
None of RECIPIENT'S agents or employees shall be agents or employees of TAM.
Page 6 of 7
SECTION 30. ASSIGNMENT
The AGREEMENT may not be assigned, transferred, hypothecated, or pledged by any party without the
express written consent of the other party.
SECTION 31. BINDING ON SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNEES OR TRANSFEREES
This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the successor(s), assignee(s) or transferee(s) of TAM or
RECIPIENT as may be the case. This provision shall not be construed as an authorization to assign,
transfer, hypothecate or pledge this AGREEMENT other than as provided above.
SECTION 32. EXPENSES
Each party shall be solely responsible for and shall bear all of its own respective legal expenses in
connection with any dispute arising out of this AGREEMENT and the transactions hereby contemplated.
RECIPIENT may not use GRANT funds, or other TAM programmed funds, for the aforementioned
purpose.
SECTION 33. SEVERABILITY
Should any part of this AGREEMENT be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of
either party to enter into or carry out, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
AGREEMENT, which shall continue in full force and effect; provided that the remainder of this
AGREEMENT can, absent the excised portion, be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions
of the parties.
SECTION 34. EXHIBITS
The following Exhibits are hereby made part of this AGREEMENT:
EXHIBIT A: Conditions on Local Infrastructure for All Modes
EXHIBIT B: Allocation Request Form
EXHIBIT C: Project Report (Sample Format)
EXHIBIT D: TAM Board Resolution 2021-05
Page 7 of 7
SECTION 35. ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT
RECIPIENT does hereby declare that all written statements, representations, covenants, and materials
submitted as a condition of this AGREEMENT are true and correct and does hereby accept TAM’s grant
and agrees to all of the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The parties have executed this
AGREEMENT as of the date first written above.
Town of Tiburon: Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM):
By: _______________________________
_______________________________
Print Name
_______________________________
Print Title
By: _______________________________
Anne Richman, Executive Director
Approved as to form (optional):
By: _______________________________
Town of Tiburon, Attorney
_______________________________
Print Name
T:\14. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS\14.001 Measure AA\Funding Agreements\Category 2\Category 2.1\FY 2122\Exhbit A Conditions.doc Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
Conditions on Local Infrastructure for All Modes
Recipient agrees that it shall:
1. Agree to the formula used in the allocation of the funds as reflected in the respective Expenditure
Plans and agree to the use of the State Department of Finance Estimates of Population figures (Report
E-1, updated each May) for California cities and counties for the biennial update of the allocation
formula.
2. Set up an appropriate system of interest-bearing accounts and reporting for funds received. The
accounting system shall provide adequate internal controls and audit trails to facilitate a periodic
compliance audit for the funds which shall be maintained for the duration of the Agreement plus five
years after discharge.
3. Provide TAM with the number of maintained road miles within Recipient’s jurisdiction which shall
be consistent with the miles reported to state and federal agencies and that contained in the
Recipient’s pavement management system. Recipient shall provide TAM with the number of
maintained road miles biennially, even if there were no changes in the number of miles.
4. In the event Recipient’s expenditures in a fiscal year are less than the amount the Recipient has
received, provide an explanation of why the revenues exceeded expenditures and how the Recipient
plans to allocate the funds to future projects
5. Within 60 working days of the end of each fiscal year, provide a Project Report for projects upon
which funds were expended. The Project Report shall show the amount spent in that reporting year,
including the total estimated project costs, the total expenditures to date, a brief description (including
digital photographs) and location of the projects, and the benefits to be realized from said project (see
Project Report, Exhibit C). The Report must also include a description and photograph of Measure
AA signage and the number of signs posted.
6. As part of the Project Report, include a statement, signed by the Recipient’s Public Works Director,
certifying the Report’s compliance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT. A resolution by the
Recipient’s governing board approving the project in a public meeting should be attached to the
Report.
7. Provide updated and accurate information (including digital photographs of the projects before,
during and after construction) for TAM’s website, highlighting projects or programs in which funds
received by Recipient have been used.
8. Provide updated and accurate information on Recipient’s website, in order to inform the public, on
how funds are being used in the Recipient’s jurisdiction. Also provide a link on the Recipient’s
website to TAM’s website.
9. Make available, upon request from TAM, Recipient’s administrative officer or designated staff to
render a report or answer any and all inquiries in regard to its receipt, usage, and compliance audit
findings of funds before the TAM Board.
T:\14. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS\14.001 Measure AA\Funding Agreements\Category 2\Category 2.1\FY 2122\Exhbit A Conditions.doc Page 2 of 2
10. If after the close of the third fiscal year, minimal or no funds have been expended on projects, TAM
reserves the right to withhold the fifth year’s funds allocation until the Recipient’s allocation is drawn
down.
11. Provide parcel land use information for the annual TAM transportation modeling update.
12. Provide evidence of Pavement Management System certification in accordance with section 2108.1 of
the Streets and Highway Code. MTC requires cities and counties submitting pavement maintenance
and rehabilitation projects for funding to utilize a Pavement Management Program.
T:\14. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS\14.001 Measure AA\Funding Agreements\Category 2\Category 2.1\FY 2122\Tiburon\Measures AA ARF.doc Page 1 of 1
Transportation Authority of Marin
Measures AA Funds
Allocation Request Form
Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2021/22
Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures
Project Name: 2023 Street Pavement Project at Various Locations in Town
Implementing Agency: Town of Tiburon
Scope of Work: Grind, Overlay, Slurry Seal a number of existing roadway segments in Tiburon.
Cost of Scope: $1,547,500
Street Name From To
Cecilia Court Upper Cecilia Cul-de-sac
Geldert Court Geldert End
Red Hill Circle 2109’ S/O Lyford/COP Lyford
Sommers Court Palmer End
Vistazo East Street Vistazo West North End
Barner Lane Taylor End
Cayford Drive Cecilia End
Acacia Drive 525’ E/O Hacienda Cul-de-sac
Esperanza Street Cazadero Private Road
Midden Lane Paseo Mirasol End
Red Hill Circle 266’ S/O Lyford/COP 1304’ S/O Lyford/COP
Reed Ranch Road 45’ N/O Via Capistrano End
Reedland Woods Way Blackfield Drive Cul-de-sac
Ridge Road 250’ W/O Straits View End
Seafirth Lane Seafirth End
Straits View Drive Ridge End
Venus Court Juno Cul-de-sac
Vistazo West Street Diviso End
Measure AA Category 2.1 Funds Available Amount: $180,824
Total Requested Amount: $180,824
Other Funding: Gas Tax, Street Impact Fees, General Fund
Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Design Begins August
2022, Bid February 2023, Construction Starts June 2023. Construction Ends August 2023
Exhibit B
T:\14. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS\14.001 Measure AA\Funding Agreements\Category 2\Category 2.1\FY 2122\Exhibit C Project Report for FY21 Funds.doc Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Project Report (sample format)
(due within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year)
Amount spent in this reporting year -
Total estimated project costs
Total expenditures to date
Project locations and descriptions
(please provide digital photographs for each project)
Benefits realized from project(s)
Measure AA signage:
Number of signs posted:
Attach a statement, signed by the City Public Works Director, certifying the reports compliance with the
provisions of the funding Agreement
Attach a resolution by the Governing Board approving the project(s)
Attach the project worksheet template (sample follows) for each project included in the Project Report.
T:\14. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS\14.001 Measure AA\Funding Agreements\Category 2\Category 2.1\FY 2122\Exhibit C Project Report for FY21 Funds.doc Page 2 of 2
Local Roadway Project Report, Part I
Name of roadway:
Project limits:
Jurisdiction:
Description of maintenance project:
Roadway’s Pavement Condition Index:
Date of last PCI Evaluation:
Multi-Modal and Safety-Related Considerations
According to the Measure AA Expenditure Plan, each local road project will be required to consider the
needs of all roadway users. Where feasible, locally defined bicycle and pedestrian projects will be
implemented at the time a roadway is improved. Improvements could include striping and signing for
bicycle lanes and bikeways, sidewalk improvements, curb ramps, and other accessibility and safety
improvements.
Please discuss, in the following three sections, considerations for multi-modal and safety-related
improvements as a part of the local road maintenance project.
1. Safety Improvements: Describe safety-related improvements considered as a part of the project (refer
to collision statistics, traffic volumes, roadway functional classification and other information, as
appropriate). Discuss whether these improvements are feasible and indicate if they could or could not be
included as a part of the project. If not, state why.
2. Pedestrian and Disabled Persons Facilities: Describe pedestrian and ADA-related improvements
considered as a part of the project (refer to pedestrian master plans, ADA transition plans, school and
transit access considerations, and other information, as appropriate). Discuss whether these improvements
are feasible and indicate if they could or could not be included as a part of the project. If not, state way.
3. Bicycle Facilities: Describe bicycle-related improvements considered as a part of the project (refer to
bicycle master plans and other information, as appropriate). Discuss whether these improvements are
feasible and indicate if they could or could not be included as a part of the project. If not, state why.
Page 1 of 3
TAM RESOLUTION NO. 2021-05
RESOLUTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN (TAM) FOR THE
ALLOCATIONS OF $5,208,678 IN MEASURE AA TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX FUNDS TO
BELVEDERE, CORTE MADERA, FAIRFAX, LARKSPUR, MILL VALLEY, NOVATO, ROSS,
SAN ANSELMO, SAN RAFAEL, SAUSALITO, TIBURON, AND MARIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, The voters of Marin County approved the authorization of Measure AA at the
General Election held on November 6, 2018, thereby authorizing that TAM be given the
responsibility to administer the proceeds from a one-half cent transportation sales tax (TST); and
WHEREAS, Measure AA proceeds will be used to fund programs and projects outlined in
the Measure AA Expenditure Plan; and
WHEREAS, TAM has developed the 2021 TST Strategic Plan to provide guidance on
implementing the Expenditure Plan; and
WHEREAS, The 2021 TST Strategic Plan programs TST funds to the four categories listed
in the Measure AA Expenditure Plan, including Category 2.1, Maintain and Manage Local Roads;
and
WHEREAS, Measure AA TST funds for Category 2.1 are programmed under the 2021
TST Strategic Plan to Marin County and the cities or towns of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Fairfax,
Larkspur, Mill Valley, Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Sausalito, and Tiburon for local
infrastructure improvement projects that are prioritized by the respective Public Works Directors;
and
WHEREAS, Measure AA TST funds for Category 2.1 can be used for street and road
projects, local transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian projects; and
WHEREAS, Infrastructure improvement projects funded with Measure AA TST funds for
Category 2.1 will be approved by the County’s and Cities’ governing boards at public meetings,
and
WHEREAS, The project sponsors are requesting funds that have been accumulated for FY
21/22; and
WHEREAS, These allocations are consistent with 2021 TST Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, There are sufficient funds in Measure AA Category 2.1 line-item of the
TAM’s approved FY 21/22 Budget to cover the proposed action; and
Exhibit D
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, After reviewing the requests in coordination with project sponsors, TAM staff
recommends allocating $5,208,678 in Measure AA TST funds as requested; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the Transportation Authority of Marin hereby allocates a total of
$5,208,678 in Measure AA TST funds to eligible projects under Category 2.1 for FY 21/22 as
shown in the following table; and be it further
Sponsor Amount
Belvedere $50,872
Corte Madera $191,626
Fairfax $143,220
Larkspur $205,504
Mill Valley $294,202
Novato $939,961
Ross $54,491
San Anselmo $230,692
San Rafael $1,016,891
Sausalito $143,907
Tiburon $180,824
Marin County $1,756,488
Total $5,208,678
RESOLVED, That the Transportation Authority of Marin finds the allocations of these
funds to be in conformance with the priorities and funding levels established in Measure AA
Expenditure Plan and the 2021 TST Strategic Plan; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Transportation Authority of Marin hereby authorizes the actual
expenditure (cash reimbursement) of funds for these activities to take place subject to the Fiscal
Year Cash Flow Distribution Schedule detailed in the attached Allocation Request Forms; and be
it further
RESOLVED, That as a condition of this authorization for expenditure, the Executive
Director shall impose such terms and conditions as are necessary for the project sponsors to comply
with applicable law and adopted Authority policies and execute Funding Agreements with the
respective project sponsors to that effect; and be it further
RESOLVED, That as a condition of this authorization for expenditure, the referenced
project sponsors shall provide the Authority with any other information it may request regarding
the use of the funds hereby authorized.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Transportation Authority of Marin held on
the 24th day of June 2021, by the following vote:
Page 3 of 3
AYES: Arnold, Campbell, Carmel, Cleveland-Knowles, Colbert, Colin, Connolly, Cutrano, Fredericks, Haroff, Lee, Lucan, Moulton-Peters, Rodoni
NOES: None ABSENT: Kuhl, Rice ABSTAIN: None
__________________________ Eric Lucan, Chair Transportation Authority of Marin
ATTEST:
___________________________
Jennifer Doucette Clerk of the Board
EXHIBIT 2
Page 1 of 1
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 01/19/2022
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF $180,824 OF MEASURE AA FUNDS FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN AND AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the voters of Marin County approved the authorization of Measure AA at the
General Election held on November 6, 2018; and
WHEREAS, authorizing that the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) be given the
responsibility to administer the proceeds from a one-half cent transaction and use tax and vehicle
registration fee; and
WHEREAS, TAM requires the Town to execute an agreement annually.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tiburon Town Council, does resolve, declare,
determine and order as follow:
1. The Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute the current funding agreement for the total
funds of $180,824.
2. The Town Manager is also hereby authorized to accept on behalf of the Town of Tiburon
Measure AA funds granted by TAM.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the Director of Public Works shall be the contract
manager of the grant funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on January 19,
2022 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JON WELNER, 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: Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving a Second Amendment to the Richardson Bay Regional Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY Council is considering adoption of a Resolution approving a minor amendment to The Richardson Bay Regional Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement dated October 5, 2000 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt a Resolution (Exhibit 2) approving the Second Amendment (Exhibit 3) to the Richardson Bay Regional Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
BACKGROUND
The Town of Tiburon along with the County of Marin, City of Belvedere and the City of Mill
Valley comprise the membership of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA). The RBRA is considered a Joint Powers Agency under State law and its activities are governed by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (Agreement) dated October 5, 2000 (Exhibit 1).
State law requires the Agreement must designate the manner in which the entity's powers will be
exercised (Government Code Section 6509). This is accomplished by identifying one of the member agencies by name whose procedures and policies will serve as the basis for restricting and determining how the entity will exercise its powers. The current RBRA JPA Agreement does not contain this necessary term. Therefore, the RBRA Board of Directors, which includes
representatives from all Member Agencies, requests that each Member Agency seek approval
from its respective legislative body of a Second Amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement and that each member agency adopt the Resolution as attached (Exhibit 2) which approves the required Second Amendment to the Agreement (Exhibit 3), identifying the County of Marin as the Member Agency whose policies and procedures will serve as the basis for
exercising the JPA’s powers.
ANALYSIS
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-9
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
The recommended action is an administrative action or technical clarification only. Adoption will have no effect on prior or current actions of the RBRA, however will facilitate future updates of the RBRA Code and will better ensure compliance with state law.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town as result of this action. 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. Adopt Resolution (Exhibit 2) approving the Second Amendment (Exhibit 3) to the Richardson Bay Regional Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Exhibit(s):
1. Richardson Bay Regional Authority Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (October 2000) 2. Draft Resolution Approving Second Amendment to the Agreement 3. Draft Second Amendment to JPA Agreement Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager
EXHIBIT 1
RICHARDSON BAY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _day of 2000, by and
between the COUNTY OF MARIN, a political subdivision of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to as COUNTY", and the CITIES OF
BELVEDERE, MILL VALLEY, SAUSALITO and TIBURON, municipal
corporations of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITIES".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITIES have jointly prepared and adopted the
Richardson Bay Special Area Plan (with minor modifications as it applies to
Sausalito) which sets forth policies and recommendations for the waters of
Richardson Bay, portions of which fall within the jurisdictions of each of the
CITIES and the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITIES believe that the mutual exercise of certain
functions within the waters of Richardson Bay would be beneficial to all parties;
and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITIES are public entities of the State of California
authorized under California law to provide police, fire and other governmental
services to the inhabitants and property owners located upon and along
Richardson Bay, as more particularly depicted on Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and by this reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code
commencing with Section 6500) authorizes agreements for the provision of
services to the residents and property owners upon and along the area depicted
on Exhibit "A" so as to maximize cost savings and to coordinate the efforts on
this valuable resource;
1
t t.V.:n-.J.;.'
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:
1. There is hereby created a public agency to be. known as the Richardson
Bay Regional Agency as a separate legal entity formed pursuant to the
provisions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California
Government Code relating to the joint exercise of powers common to public
agencies, and for the purposes of this Agreement Agency is a public entity
separate from the parties hereto.
2. The governing body of the Agency shall be constituted of five (5) members,
one to be selected by the Board of Supervisors with respect to the
COUNTY representative, and one to be selected by each City Council with
respect to the representative of each of the CITIES. Such member
appointed shall be a member of the Board of Supervisors or City Council
and shall serve at the pleasure of such governmental body. The governing
body shall elect from its own members a Chairman and Vice Chairman
whose terms of office shall be two years. The Chairman and Vice
Chairman may not be reelected to a second consecutive term in the same
office. An alternate may be appointed by each member jurisdiction and
such altern?te may act for the member jurisdiction in the absence of the
regular member of the governing body.
3. The members shall each have one vote in all matters brought before the
Agency provided, however, that on any matter affecting any member CITY
or COUNTY a no vote from the member of the affected CITY or COUNTY
shall prohibit the Agency from taking the proposed action within the
affected jurisdiction's boundaries. The no vote provided for in the
precedent sentence may be cast by a member within thirty (30) days of
notice of the proposed action. In the event a no vote is not cast in such
period it shall be deemed waived.
2
4. A majority of the members of the governing body constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business. No act of the governing body shall be valid or
binding unless a majority of all the members concur therein.
5. The Agency shall not have any powers over any uses, zoning or
subdivisions on any area within the boundaries of its member jurisdictions.
6. The governing body shall maintain and implement those provisions of the
Special Area Plan (which consists of a diagram or diagrams and text
containing a description of the needs and goals of the region and statement
of policies and goals for the Richardson Bay area) relative to:
a. Mooring, dredging and navigational channel implementation including
but not limited to the establishment and enforcement of permitted
anchorage zones, navigational channels and fairways plans and
similar activities.
b. Public services and facilities which by the nature of their function, size,
extent and other characteristics are necessary or appropriate for
inclusion in the Special Area Plan. Such facilities and services may
includ~, but are not limited to, water based police and fire protection,
sewage pump-out facilities for vessels, enforcement of a vessel
sewage no discharge area when given authority by the Environmental
Protection Agency, and public docks or moorings.
7. On or before May 1 of each calendar year the Agency shall
establish the amount of money necessary to support its activities
for the next succeeding fiscal year commencing July 1 of that year
provided, however, that the opportunity to exercise a "no" vote
contained in Section 3 hereof shall be given each member prior to
3
May 1. The parties shall contribute to the Agency among the
parties hereto as follows:
Aaencv Percentaae Share
County 42.5010
Sausalito 35%
Tiburon 10%
Mill Valley 5010
Belvedere 7.5010
Increases in agency revenue in keeping with the cost distribution
formula may be changed by a resolution of the governing board of
all member jurisdictions. Per amendment adopted 1997 by all
parties. )
8. Clean-up of pre-existing conditions in the Bay shall be the responsibility of
the individual jurisdictions. This includes costs of legal action taken by the
individual members. Coordination of this clean-up activity is essential to
the success of this Agreement.
9. Following establishment and funding of the Agency, Agency shall have
power to ~nforce such regulations to accomplish the provisions of
paragraph 6 of this Agreement as it may adopt from time to time. Costs of
such enforcement shall be borne by the Agency including necessary legal
costs. The RBRA Harbor Administer is designated to enforce agency
ordinances and regulations including the issuance of citations for
infractions in violation of RBRA Ordinances which include but are not
limited to the violations listed in "Exhibit C", attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein. (Amendment adopted 1999 by all parties).
4
I
10. The Agency sr. I ,dve the power to issue citatic. QI,d perform other
enforcement actions in the name of the Agency.
11. The Agency shall fix and collect reasonable fees for services rendered by it
from persons other than its member jurisdictions.
12. The Agency shall be strictly accountable to any party for all funds paid by
them to the Agency and shall be strictly accountable to all participating
bodies for all receipts and disbursements.
13. The Agency is authorized to receive gifts, donations, subventions, grants or
other financial aids or funds.
14. The Agency may not obligate itself beyond the monies due under this
Agreement for its support from the several parties for the current fiscal
year, plus any monies on hand or irrevocably pledged to its support from
other sources. No obligation contracted by the Agency shall bind CITIES or
COUNTY.
15. Agency shall have the power to deliver or contract with any member hereof,
or any governmental entity located within the area depicted in Exhibit "A",
for the provision of police protection services.
17. This Agreement shall become effective when representatives of all of the
parties have executed it and shall continue in full force and effect until
terminated by an agreement executed by all parties. This Agreement
supercedes the Richardson Bay Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement dated
July 16, 1985, under which the member agencies have been acting until the
execution of this Agreement. The member agencies hereby ratify the prior
acts of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency.
5
oH.. f.,
18. Agency is hereby authorized in its own name to do all acts necessary for
the exercise of the powers described in Paragraphs_ 6, 15 and 16, including
but not limited to any of the following: to make and enter into contracts; to
apply for and accept grants, advances and contributions; to employ agents
and employees; to sue and be sued in its own name; to incur debts,
liabilities or obligations; to issue bonds, execute warrants and other
evidence of indebtedness; to finance costs and expenses incidental to the
projects of Agency; and, to exercise jointly the common powers of the
parties set forth above. Agency shall have the power of eminent domain
but not the power to levy ad valorem property taxes.
19. Agency shall appoint a Treasurer from among the senior management staff
of any of the member parties provided that the member agency is amenable
to the same. The Treasurer shall be either the Auditor/Controller or
Treasurer of the COUNTY or the Treasurer or Finance Director of one of
the CITIES. The Treasurer shall serve as the depository and have custody
of such books, records, funds, and accounts as may be required by
reasonable accounting practice, Government Code Section 6505, or by
another governmental agency. Amendment to original JPA, approved by
all parties in 1992.)
20. Regular meetings of the governing board of the Agency shall be held at
such times and places as shall be established by it by resolution. All such
meetings, including regular, adjourned or special meetings, shall be called,
noticed and held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the
Ralph M. Brown Act, Sections 54950 through 54960 of the Government
Code of the State of California.
21. Agency shall have the power and authority to issue and sell revenue bonds
in accordance with Article 2, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1, and Chapter 6,
6
Division 2, Title V of the Government Code, and such other relevant
provisions of law as may now or hereafter be applicable.
22. For purposes of referendum and any necessary votes on taxes on Agency-
wide basis, the boundaries of Agency shall be as depicted on Exhibit "A"
and as described in Exhibit "8", attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein. Under applicable law, Agency may form improvement
di stricts. Bond elections shall be conducted pursuant to the Uniform
District Election Law and applicable provisions of the California Elections
Code.
23. Agency shall have and exercise all powers conferred on local agencies by
the provisions of law with respect to revenue bonds.
Revenues required to provide monies for bond interest and redemption of
other bond funds in connection with revenue bonds issued by Agency shall
be derived from user fees and service charges, which charges shall be
determined by the governing board of the Agency.
24. COUNTY or a CITY may withdraw from Agency, which withdrawal shall
have the effect of requiring either a renegotiation of this Agreement or
dissolution of the Agency. Any member wishing to withdraw may do so only
on July 1 of any such year, and shall provide the Agency with at least 180
days' notice in writing of its intent to withdraw. Upon dissolution of Agency
funds and property shall be distributed as follows:
a. discharge of any liability shown on the books of the Agency;
b. any remaining assets to be divided according to the amount of
contribution by COUNTY and CITIES.
7
I
The distribution of assets may be made in kind or assets may be sold and
proceeds thereof distributed to COUNTY or CITIES, provJded, however, that
all facilities and rights assigned or transferred by COUNTY or CITIES to
Agency shall be reconveyed to said COUNTY or CITY free and clear of all
encumbrances and liens of any kind not in existence at the time of
conveyance to Agency. Upon dissolution of Agency the responsibility of
COUNTY or CITIES to contribute to the discharge of enforceable liabilities
incurred by Agency shall be limited to the portion that the contribution made
by the COUNTY or CITIES bears to the total contributions made to agency
from the effective date of this Agreement to the date of dissolution.
25. In the event that liability is imposed upon the Agency by a court of
competent jurisdiction by reason of the negligent or willful act or omission of
it, its officers or employees, in the performance of this Agreement the
money judgement shall be paid in the ratio set forth in Section 7 hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement
the day and year first above written.
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A - "Key to Plan Maps"
Exhibit B - Legal Description of Richardson Bay Boundaries
Exhibit C - "RBRA Bail Schedule"
OCT - 3 2000
CO~
J::
DATE: BY
Steve Kinsey { -
President, Board of Supervisors
CITY OF SAUSALITO
DATE: 1 \-(- ~ BY fJ~~
8
CITY OF BELVEDERE
DATE: IO/dlh BY
f
DATE: 1~!lJlM
DATE: WI /~~
CITY OF
ZLEYBY4~
LC:mag:ss:f:RBRA:RICH.BAYJOINTEXERCISEOFPOWERSAGR.DOC
9
1,__.
09/22/00 14:00 FAX 415 507 4104 AmUNISTRATION OFFICE 003/005
EXIUBfT A
4
3"
f)
2:
RICHARDSON
BAY
2
IZ.
0
en
1
0
eJ
OJ
o 000I
FEET
Key to Plan Maps 1-5
41 004/00314:02 FAX 415 507 4104 ADMINISTRATION OFFICE09/22/00
r'::I
EXHIBIT "B"
The boundaries of the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan arebeginningatthepointofintersectionoftheHarin/San FranciscoCountylineandtheSausalitoShorelineatCavalloPoint, thencealongalineconnectingsaidpointwiththeenaofEastRoad, IthenalongtheshoresideofEastRoadtoitsjunctionwithAlexander, thence along the shore side of Alexander to itsintersectionwith2ndStreet, along the shore side of 2nd St.,
to its intersection with Bridgeway, thence along the shore side
of Bridgeway to its intersection with US 101, thence along
U.S. 101 to its intersection with State Routr~, along theshoresideofStateRoute1AlmonteBlvd, to Hiller Ave., along
the shore side of MIller Ave., to its intersection with Camino
Alto, thence along the shore side of Camino Alto to its inter-section with East Blithedale, thence along its snoreside to
its intersection with Roque Moraes Dr., along its shore side
to Hamilton Drive, thence along its shore side to its terminus,thence along a line 100 feet inland from the shoreline ofRichardsonBayneartheGoodmanMarsh, thence along the westerly
side of U.S. 101 to Seminary Drive, thence crossing U.S. 101
and following the shore side of Seminary Drive to Great CircleDrive, thence along the shore side of Great Circle Drive toStrawberryDrive, thence along Strawberry Drive to its inter-section with Tiburon Blvd; thence along Tiburon Blvd. to SanRafaelAve, thence along San Rafael Ave. to West Shore Road,thence along Belvedere Ave. to its intersection with Beach Road,
thence along the shore side of Beach Road to its intersectionwithBellevueAVe. thence along the shore side of BellevueAve. to its intersection with Main Street, thence along MainStreettoitsintersectionwithParadiseDrive, thence along
the shoreside of Paradise Drive to Point Tiburon; and inclduing
all water areas encompassed therein. and thence along the Tiburon
Town limit line to the Marin/San Francisco County line and back
to the point of beginning.
EXHIBIT C
w U:
c...8+ QSS88 88oQO e
g8
QQOOQC) Q
cM~
t;t;~
4p't~~",~
J g.!!~
lfJ . Q ..!:! U ..E.
I 0
OOOQoooo OOOQQ
0 0 Q 0-
4!
a Q
o~~~~~ .
oOQOc
Qo~~~~e
g
MM~f'fi~M~ It"~":I"",="
I'l 0, ~ 1
p
0
c
I
c::a
c
I0
lI
I e0
j 0ai II MVJ
1
I
e~
I:
Q 0
l
1
Q
lJ 8
s::=:
IeJ0
0stJ
0
5 fOE
lI:
e
IS
c:
i If
u
1 g,.
L.,
0
ft
I a
In
tl
J!.
coa
8 z
if
J
0 II
EXHIBIT 2
Page 1 of 1
Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT January 19, 2022
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE
RICHARDSON’S BAY REGIONAL AGENCY
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2000, a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) was made and
entered into by and between the County of Marin and the cities of Belvedere, Mill Valley, Sausalito, and
Tiburon; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sausalito withdrew from the JPA on July 1, 2017, and the remaining
member agencies approved a first amendment to the JPA agreement in 2018 to reflect the departure of the
City of Sausalito, set member agency funding ratios, establish protocols for reinstatement of a departed
agency, and identify Board voting thresholds for increases in agency revenue; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 6509 requires that the agency members identify by name
the agency whose procedures and policies will serve as the basis for restricting and determining how the
entity will exercise its powers; and
WHEREAS, the current Agreement does not contain this necessary information and the RBRA
Board of Directors has requested each member agency adopt an amendment to the Agreement identifying
the County of Marin as the member agency whose policies and procedures will serve as the basis for
exercising the JPA’s powers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
approves the amendments to the JPA agreement and authorizes the execution of the Second Amendment
to Richardson Bay Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
this 19th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JON WELNER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
EXHIBIT 3
JPA Second Amendemrnt DRAFT 12 1 2021 ITEM 4.b ATTACHMENT
1 1443877.1
SECOND AMENDMENT TO RICHARDSON BAY JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT, made and entered into this___ day of ______, 20____, by and between the COUNTY OF MARIN, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “County”, and the CITIES OF BELVEDERE and MILL VALLEY and the TOWN OF TIBURON, municipal corporations of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as
“CITIES”.
WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITIES, along with City of Sausalito, entered into a Joint Exercise
of Powers Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated October 5, 2000 for the mutual exercise of
certain functions within the waters of Richardson Bay would be beneficial to all parties, thereby creating the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency (“the Agency”), a joint powers authority, pursuant to Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code;
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2017, the City of Sausalito withdrew from the Agreement and the
Agency; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITIES seek to amend the Agreement to clarify the law governing the Agency and facilitate the Agency’s exercise of its authority.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 26 is added to the Agreement as follows:
26. Except as otherwise or permitted by law, and pursuant to Government Code section 6509, the parties hereby designate that the Agency shall be subject to the restrictions upon the manner of exercising its powers that are applicable to the County.
2 This Amendment shall become effective when representatives of all of the parties have
executed it and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated by an agreement executed by all parties. 3. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the
Agreement not specifically modified, amended or superseded herein remain unchanged and in
full force and effect. 4. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be entitled to be the original and all of which will constitute one and the same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment the day and year first above written. [SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE]
JPA Second Amendemrnt DRAFT 12 1 2021 ITEM 4.b ATTACHMENT
2 1443877.1
Date:___________ COUNTY OF MARIN
By________________
Its_________________
Date:___________ CITY OF BELVEDERE
By________________ Its_________________
Date:___________
CITY OF MILL VALLEY By________________
Its_________________ Date:___________
TOWN OF TIBURON
By________________ Its_________________
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3
STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Recommendation to Amend Chapter 16 (Zoning) of Title IV of the Tiburon Municipal Code regarding lot coverage requirements and associated development standards (Ordinance – Second Reading)
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY Consider the adoption of various amendments of Chapter 16 of Title IV to the Tiburon Municipal Code, regarding lot coverage requirements and associated development standards in various subsections, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council to approve the adoption of Ordinance No. XX N.S. (Exhibit 1).
BACKGROUND Initiated by the Town, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission have studied the issues relating to lot coverage variances and second story construction in predominately one-story neighborhoods, as well as assessing whether the current regulations and policies provide adequate guidance for developments in single-family residential zoning districts.
Two study sessions were held with the Design Review Board, the first on July 29, 20211 and the second on September 23, 20212 where members of the public had the opportunity to comment on these issues. Upon deliberation and receiving public testimony, the DRB proposed various amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding lot coverage requirements and associated
development standards to the Planning Commission and Town Council for possible adoption.
1 Interested parties may view the packet materials and video recording of the July 29, 2021, Design Review Board special meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=648 2 Interested parties may view the packet materials and video recording of the September 23, 2021, Design Review Board special meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=692
TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-10
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3
On October 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the proposed amendments to the existing zoning ordinance as recommended by the Design Review Board3. Upon deliberation and receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission recommended the proposed amendments to the zoning code as outlined in the draft ordinance to be considered and approved by
the Town Council. On December 15, 2021, the Town Council held a first reading of this ordinance with various amendments to the zoning code regarding lot coverage requirements and associated development standards, as recommended by Planning Commission4 (Exhibit 2). Following a public hearing,
Town Council voted 3-0-2 (Two councilmembers were absent) and carried a motion to waive
further readings. The ordinance now comes to the Town Council for consideration of adoption (Exhibit 1). The proposed ordinance for adoption has had minor alterations since the first reading to add the words “WHEREAS” in several places and language that “the Town does ordain as follows.” These are not substantive changes, are clerical in nature, and may be adopted without
further consideration. ANALYSIS
No further analysis is provided.
FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates that there will be no fiscal impact resulting from adoption of the Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Town Council determined the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), general rule, which applies to any action where can be seen with certainty that there
is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no
further environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS The Council’s motion to adopt this item on the Consent Calendar will constitute a motion to
waive the second reading of the ordinance, read by title only, and pass the ordinance. Each
Councilmember’s vote on the motion to approve this item on the Consent Calendar will constitute the equivalent of a roll call vote and will be recorded within the ordinance. Should any Councilmember choose to vote differently on this item than other items on the Consent Calendar, then the vote on this item should be taken separately from other items appearing on the Consent
Calendar such that individual votes may be properly recorded. Should the Council wish to discuss
the item, it must be removed from the Consent Calendar and voted upon separately.
3 Interested parties may view the packet materials and video recording of the October 27, 2021, Planning
Commission meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=710
4 Interested parties may view the packet materials and video recording of the December 15, 2021, Town Council
meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=747
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3
Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Approve the adoption of draft Ordinance No. XX N.S., which is attached as Exhibit 1.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Town Council Ordinance No. XX N.S. 2. Town Council Staff Report and Late Mail for December 15, 2021, meeting
EXHIBIT 1
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. XX N.S. January 19, 2022
Exhibit 1
ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AMENDING PART OF MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING)
RELATING TO LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSOCIATED
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
WHEREAS, On July 29, 2021, and September 23, 2021, the Design Review Board held two
duly noticed study sessions and considered public testimony to assess current policies and
development standards with the goal to assure preservation of essential residential character
in various neighborhoods in the Town.
WHEREAS, On September 23, 2021, after public testimony and deliberation, the Design
Review Board recommended changes to the zoning code to the Planning Commission and
Town Council for adoption.
WHEREAS, On October 27, 2021, Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing, received testimony, reviewed the draft ordinance, recommended revisions, and
adopted Resolution No. 2021-008 recommending to the Town Council that various text
amendments, as revised, be made to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal
Code.
WHEREAS, The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2021
regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendation on various amendments made to Title
IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, reviewed the draft ordinance, and
considered all public testimony on the proposed ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
A. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the
adoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
B. The Town Council, pursuant to Tiburon Municipal Code section 16-68.060
affirms the recommendation of approval of the amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission described in Section 2
below, and who made the following findings:
• The amendment actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the
protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
• The amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent with the goals
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. XX N.S. January 19, 2022
and polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances
and regulations of the Town of Tiburon, and further the intent and
purposes of General Plan goals and policies.
C. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the
CEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the “general rule”,
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further
environmental review is necessary.
D. The Ordinance to amend various parts of the Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 16
(zoning) relating to lot coverage requirements and associated development standards
was placed on the consent calendar and adopted by the Town Council on January 19,
2022.
SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE.
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows:
(A) Section 16-21.040 (Table 2-2)
RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS is amended as follows:
Zone
Minimum
Lot Area
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Required
Lot
Width
Minimum Setback
Requirements1 Height Limit
Maximum
FAR
Front Sides Rear Primary Accessory
R‐1
10,000
square
feet
(s.f.)
30%
One‐story
development:
Same as
Maximum
FAR; Two‐
story or
multi‐story
development:
30%
40 ft.
15 ft. 8 ft.
20% depth
of lot
or
25 ft.
(whichever
30 ft.
15 ft.
See
Section
16‐
52.020.I
R‐1‐
B‐A 20 ft. 6 ft.
R‐1‐
B‐2
25 ft.
10
ft.
RO‐1 40,000
s.f. 15% 70 ft. 30 ft. 20
ft.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. XX N.S. January 19, 2022
RO‐2 20,000
s.f. 15% 50 ft. 30 ft. 15
ft.
is less)
R‐2
7,500
s.f.2
35%
40 ft.
15 ft.
8 ft.
3,750 s.f.
per
dwelling2
R‐3 10,000
s.f. 30% — 8 ft. .60
3,500 s.f.
per
dwelling
RPD
Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan for development
30 ft.3
15 ft.3
See
section
16‐
52.020.I
RMP Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan, or condominium plan for development .304
Notes:
1. Some older planned development approvals do not specify setback requirements, in which
case appropriate setbacks are determined by site plan and architectural review.
2. In the R‐2 zone, where a lot is contiguous with a submerged or tide lot that lies entirely or
partially in the M zone, and all of such property is under the same ownership, the total area of
such contiguous lots may be used in determining whether the minimum lot area requirements
have been met. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section to the contrary, no building or
accessory building or part thereof shall extend seaward of the zone boundary line between the R‐
2 zone and the M zone other than as may be permitted in compliance with the regulations of the
M zone (division 16‐25).
3. Unless otherwise specified in a precise development plan.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. XX N.S. January 19, 2022
4. Unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan.
(B)
i. Section 16-52.020 (I) (Table 5-2)
FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES is amended as follows:
R‐1, R‐1‐B Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 450 sq. ft. of garage or
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R‐1, R‐1‐B, RO, R‐2, and RPD1 Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 600 sq. ft. of garage or
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R‐3 and RMP Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
R‐3 .60, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
RMP .30, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. XX N.S. January 19, 2022
Notes:
1. Unless otherwise specified by Precise Development Plan or equivalent permit.
ii. Section 16-52.020 (I) (Table 5-2)
(a) EXAMPLES (1) is amended as follows:
‘(1) Example No. 1. A seven-thousand-four-hundred-square-foot lot generally could
achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of two
thousand five hundred ninety square feet (.35 x 7,400) of gross floor area, not including
up to six four hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport.’
iii. Section 16-100.020, a portion of DEFINITION FOR “FLOOR AREA, GROSS” is
amended as follows:
‘Gross floor area shall not include the following six areas:
1. For residential uses, the first four hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport space
on properties less than seven thousand five hundred square feet in area; or the first six
hundred square feet of garage or carport space on properties less than or equal to and
between seven thousand five hundred square feet to sixty thousand square feet in
area; or the first seven hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport space on
properties greater than sixty thousand square feet in area; or the first two hundred
fifty square feet of garage or carport space for each parking space required in
compliance with parking requirements from section 16-32.040 (number of parking
spaces required);’
(C) Section 16-52.020 (H)(3)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE REVIEW OF APPLICATION is amended as follows:
‘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, and
or permitted only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and other
design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid
or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability
of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of
this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. XX N.S. January 19, 2022
more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof
be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this ordinance shall
be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town Council meeting at
which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town
Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this
ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the
ordinance along with the names of those Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon, held on December 15, 2021, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the
Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on January 19, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
JON WELNER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
EXHIBIT 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Public hearing to consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to amend various subsections of Chapter 16 of Title IV of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Introduction of an Ordinance and First Reading) Regarding
Lot Coverage Requirements and Associated Development Standards.
Reviewed By:
_________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Town Council will consider adoption of zoning code amendments regarding lot coverage requirements and associated development standards in various subsections of Chapter 16 of Title
IV to the Tiburon Municipal Code as recommended by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council hold first hearing of the proposed ordinance, waiving any additional readings, as follows:
1.The Town Council should hold a public hearing and consider any testimony.
2. If appropriate, move to read by title only and carry the motion; then read the title andhold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings.3.If passed for first reading, the ordinance for various zoning code amendments will bescheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Town Council.
BACKGROUND
Historically, variances for excess lot coverage to allow one-story homes had been granted to alleviate some of the neighborhood concern over two-story homes within predominately single-story residential neighborhoods. The concern largely lies within areas where properties are generally flat, are regular in shape and lack the site-specific physical constraints, precluding staff
from making the required findings to support a variance request for excess lot coverage.
This issue has arisen on several occasions recently, as the Design Review Board (DRB) has reviewed a number of projects consisting of two-story single-family residences in predominately one-story neighborhoods. Often these second-story homes are sought because a property owner
has allowable floor area that can be used on their property. In order to utilize all of the allowable
TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting December 15, 2021
Agenda Item: PH-1
Exhibit 2, Page 1 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
floor area, a property owner then has two choices: (1) build a two-story home, or (2) obtain a variance for increased lot coverage for a one-story home.
During the review process, community members in neighborhoods with predominantly one-story
residences have expressed concern that two-story residential developments are not compatible
with the existing neighborhood character. Furthermore, most concerns from immediate neighbors are related to how two-story developments would invade privacy, obstruct views, and create light and air impacts.
As a result, staff engaged the Design Review Board to study the issues relating to lot coverage
variances and second story construction in predominately one-story neighborhoods, as well as assessing whether the current regulations and policies provide adequate guidance for developments in single-family residential zoning districts.
Two study sessions were held with the Design Review Board, the first on July 29, 20211 and the
second on September 23, 20212 where members of the public had the opportunity to comment on these issues. Upon deliberation and receiving public testimony, the DRB proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding lot coverage requirements and associated development standards to the Planning Commission and Town Council for possible adoption.
On October 27, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the proposed changes to the existing zoning ordinance as recommended by the Design Review Board3. Upon deliberation and receiving public testimony, the Planning Commission proposed the amendments discussed below to the zoning ordinance to be considered by the Town Council (Exhibit 2). The staff report to the
Planning Commission, including the memorandum of the Design Review Board Study Sessions,
received public comment letters, and meeting minutes are included as Exhibit 3.
ANALYSIS
Overview
The zoning amendments, as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board, are intended to create a distinction between one-story and two-story developments. -The first amendment seeks to allow one-story developments with increased lot coverage, equal
to allowable gross floor area, without requiring a variance in applicable single-family
residential zones. The amendment on lot coverage requirement will apply to R-1, R-1-B-A, andR-1-B-2 zoning districts, which are single-family residential zones with a land use designationof medium high (MH) density in the Town’s General Plan.-The second zoning amendment supports a tiered approach to apply the garage/carport
exemption that is commensurate with lot size. This amendment intends to prevent over-
1 Interested parties may view the video recording of the July 29, 2021, Design Review Board special meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=648
2 Interested parties may view the video recording of the September 23, 2021, Design Review Board meeting online,
which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=692
3 Interested parties may view the video recording of the October 27, 2021, Planning Commission meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=710
Exhibit 2, Page 2 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
building on smaller lots with appropriate street frontage that respects the existing neighborhood character. -Lastly, the third zoning amendment will further clarify the design criteria for two-storydevelopments in the review of Site Plan and Architectural Review applications.
Town Staff, the DRB, and the Planning Commission have determined that these amendments to the zoning ordinance would be a reasonable response to the emerging issues presented in these predominantly one-story residential neighborhoods. The several amendments to the zoning ordinance are discussed in turn below.
1. Zoning amendment relating to lot coverage requirement
•ARTICLE II, Section 16-21.040, Table 2-2 (RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS)
The maximum lot coverage requirement for R-1 and R-1-B-A and R-1-B-2 zones would change from 30% to equal the maximum Gross Floor Area for one-story developments. Two-story or multi-story development would continue to have a maximum lot coverage of 30%.
The Planning Commission and Design Review Board found that it is crucial to enable reasonably scaled one-story development without the need of granting lot coverage variances for a property owner who would like to use the allowable gross floor area of their property. The current lot coverage requirement of 30% will remain the same for two-story or multi-story development
projects with the intent to minimize structural footprint and to mitigate the effect of massing.
Other development standards, relating to minimum lot size, setback, and height that are set forth in Table 2-2, will be unchanged. The current planning review process for development proposals that involve major additions and new residence will remain the same, which is subject to Site Plan and Architectural Review and be acted on by the Design Review Board.
2. Zoning amendment relating to floor area exemption for garage and carport
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2 (FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES)
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2, Example No.1
•ARTICLE X, Section 16-100.020, Definition for “Floor Area, Gross”
Table 5-2 (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines) will have a new category for R-1 and R-1-B zones. For
lots that are less than 7,500 square feet, the floor area exemption that applies to garage or carport
would change from ‘600 square feet’ to ‘450 sq. ft’. Other references on this gross floor area exemption found in the zoning code will be updated accordingly.
The Design Review Board had a lengthy discussion to assess whether a floor area exemption
applicable to garages/carports shall be reduced on smaller-sized lots. With the objective to
prevent over-building on smaller lots, the DRB supported a tiered approach to apply a garage/carport exemption that is commensurate with lot size. A reduction of garage/carport to 450 sq. ft. for smaller lots will offer a reasonably scaled parking facility for the lots that are less than 7,500 square feet with a maximum allowable floor area up to 2,625 square feet. The
Planning Commission concurred with this proposed amendment.
Exhibit 2, Page 3 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
3. Zoning amendment relating to guiding principles for two-story developments
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020 (H)(3) (GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN REVIEW OF
APPLICATIONS)
In reviewing applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the review authority shall determine whether the project meets the applicable criteria, as well as any other guidelines that
the town council may have adopted to govern Site Plan and Architectural Review. There are
twelve guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review outlined at 16-52.020(H). One of the twelve principles, subsection (3), is currently written as follows:
‘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 DRB found that the phrase, ‘second-story additions shall be discouraged’, has created ambiguity during the review process. The DRB supported refining this phrase to replace the word ‘discouraged’ with more affirmative language that two-story developments in neighborhoods that consist of one-story homes are only permitted under certain design criteria which are intended to
minimize intrusion on the neighborhood. The DRB suggested refining this policy to read as
follows:
‘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 only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and or other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
Upon review of the DRB’s proposed amendment, the Planning Commission found that the word
‘discouraged’ is crucial to be kept as part of this principle, because this word will explicitly maintain that two-story developments “shall be discouraged” in neighborhoods that consist of predominantly one-story homes. The Commission concurred with the DRB that it is necessary to clearly articulate parameters of when second story homes could be allowed. The Planning
Commission suggested and recommended refining this policy to read as follows:
‘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
and permitted only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and or other
design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
Exhibit 2, Page 4 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
It should be noted that both the Design Review Board and Planning Commission acknowledged the existing development patterns may actually favor two-story homes at the outer rings of some of the residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Design Review Board and Planning Commission discussed the potential of creating overlay area(s) that would further restrict two-
story developments in certain single-family residential neighborhoods, but this idea was not fully
supported and it is not included as part of the zoning amendment. As two-story homes are currently permissible in all single-family residential zones under the Town’s zoning code, the DRB and Planning Commission found that the current applicable regulations, policies and review process, along with the proposed zoning code amendments that are presented in this report, will
provide standards to address community concerns over two-story developments in neighborhoods
that consist of predominantly one-story homes.
Exhibit 1 includes a draft ordinance that outlines the proposed amendments, as recommended by Planning Commission, to be considered by Town Council for adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates that there will be no fiscal impact resulting from adoption of the Ordinance.
CLIMATE IMPACT
Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), general rule, which applies to any action where can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no
further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Town Council hold first hearing of the proposed ordinance, waiving
any additional readings, as follows:
1. The Town Council should hold a public hearing and consider any testimony.2. If appropriate, move to read by title only and carry the motion; then read the title and holda roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings.3. If passed for first reading, the ordinance for various zoning code amendments will be
scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Town Council.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Town Council resolution and ordinance
2. Planning Commission Resolution 2021- 008
3. Planning Commission Staff Report for October 27, 2021, meeting
Prepared By: Christy Fong, Senior Planner
Exhibit 2, Page 5 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit 1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 6 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit XX ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. (DRAFT)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING PART OF MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING)
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
A.On July 29, 2021, and September 23, 2021, the Design Review Board held two dulynoticed study sessions and considered public testimony to assess current policies anddevelopment standards with the goal to assure preservation of essential residentialcharacter in various neighborhoods in the Town.
B.On September 23, 2021, after public testimony and deliberation, the Design ReviewBoard recommended changes to the zoning ordinance to the Planning Commission andTown Council for adoption.
C.On October 27, 2021, Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertisedpublic hearing, received testimony, recommended revisions, and adopted Resolution No.
2021-008 recommending to the Town Council that various text amendments, as revised,
be made to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
D.The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2021, and hasheard and considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance.
E.The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to theadoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
F.The Town Council, pursuant to Tiburon Municipal Code section 16-68.060
affirms the recommendation of approval of the amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission described in Section 2
below, and who made the following findings:
• The amendment actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for theprotection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
•The amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent with the goalsand polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinancesand regulations of the Town of Tiburon, and further the intent andpurposes of General Plan goals and policies.
G.The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirementsof the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of theCEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the “general rule”,pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Exhibit 2, Page 7 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE.
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows:
(A)Section 16-21.040 (Table 2-2)RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS is amended as follows:
Zone Minimum
Lot Area
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Required
Lot
Width
Minimum Setback
Requirements1 Height Limit Maximum
FAR
Front Sides Rear Primary Accessory
R-1
10,000
square
feet
(s.f.)
30%
One-story
development:
Same as
Maximum
FAR; Two-
story or
multi-story
development:
30%
40 ft.
15 ft. 8 ft.
20% depth
of lot
or
25 ft.
(whichever
is less)
30 ft. 15 ft.
See
Section
16-
52.020.I
R-1-
B-A 20 ft. 6 ft.
R-1-
B-2 25 ft. 10
ft.
RO-1 40,000
s.f.15% 70 ft. 30 ft. 20
ft.
RO-2 20,000
s.f.15% 50 ft. 30 ft. 15
ft.
R-2
7,500
s.f.2
35% 40 ft.
15 ft. 8 ft.
3,750 s.f.
per
dwelling2
R-3 10,000
s.f.30% — 8 ft. .60
Exhibit 2, Page 8 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
3,500 s.f.
per
dwelling
RPD Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan for development
30 ft.3 15 ft.3
See
section
16-
52.020.I
RMP Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan, or condominium plan for development .304
Notes:
1.Some older planned development approvals do not specify setback requirements, in which
case appropriate setbacks are determined by site plan and architectural review.
2.In the R-2 zone, where a lot is contiguous with a submerged or tide lot that lies entirely or
partially in the M zone, and all of such property is under the same ownership, the total area of
such contiguous lots may be used in determining whether the minimum lot area requirements
have been met. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section to the contrary, no building or
accessory building or part thereof shall extend seaward of the zone boundary line between the R-
2 zone and the M zone other than as may be permitted in compliance with the regulations of the
M zone (division 16-25).
3.Unless otherwise specified in a precise development plan.
4.Unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan.
(B)
i.Section 16-52.020 (I) (Table 5-2)
FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES is amended as follows:
R-1, R-1-B Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 450 sq. ft. of garage or
Exhibit 2, Page 9 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2, and RPD1 Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 600 sq. ft. of garage or
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R-3 and RMP Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
R-3 .60, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
RMP .30, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
Notes:
1.Unless otherwise specified by Precise Development Plan or equivalent permit.
Exhibit 2, Page 10 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
ii.Section 16-52.020 (I) (Table 5-2)(a)EXAMPLES (1) is amended as follows:
‘(1) Example No. 1. A seven-thousand-four-hundred-square-foot lot generally could achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of two
thousand five hundred ninety square feet (.35 x 7,400) of gross floor area, not including
up to six four hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport.’
iii.Section 16-100.020, a portion of DEFINITION FOR “FLOOR AREA, GROSS” is
amended as follows:
‘Gross floor area shall not include the following six areas:
1. For residential uses, the first four hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport space
on properties less than seven thousand five hundred square feet in area; or the first six
hundred square feet of garage or carport space on properties less than or equal to and
between seven thousand five hundred square feet to sixty thousand square feet in
area; or the first seven hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport space on
properties greater than sixty thousand square feet in area; or the first two hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport space for each parking space required in compliance with parking requirements from section 16-32.040 (number of parking spaces required);’
(C)Section 16-52.020 (H)(3)GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE REVIEW OF APPLICATION is amended as follows:
‘3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears areasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A goodrelationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoodsconsisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, andor permitted only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and otherdesign features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of
this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof
be declared invalid or unenforceable.
Exhibit 2, Page 11 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this ordinance shall be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town Council meeting at which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town
Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this
ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the ordinance along with the names of those Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon, held on December 15, 2021, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the
Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on Date , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
JON WELNER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
Exhibit 2, Page 12 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
EXHIBIT 2
Exhibit 2, Page 13 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 2
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
TOWN OF TIBURON
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION
OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's Zoning
Ordinance, codified as Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2021, and September 23, 2021, the Design Review Board held
two duly noticed study sessions and considered public testimony to assess current policies and
development standards with the goal to assure preservation of essential residential character in
various neighborhoods in the Town; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2021, after public testimony and deliberation, the Design
Review Board recommended changes to the zoning ordinance to the Planning Commission and
Town Council for adoption; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on the proposed zoning amendments was
published in the Ark newspaper on October 13, 2021 for the Planning Commission meeting, and
all other noticing required by law was provided; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised public
hearing on October 27, 2021, at which testimony was received from the public, and the Planning
Commission reviewed and considered the draft ordinance, and recommended minor revisions,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed zoning
amendments would make the required findings pursuant to Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-
68.050, and adopted a resolution recommending the draft ordinance, as revised, to the Town
Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the amendments are exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that they have no potential
to result in adverse impacts on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
or are exempt under section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendments
would not change the underlying land use or density standards in the zoning designations. The
proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
as well as with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan and other
applicable plans of the Town. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed
amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the town.
Exhibit 2, Page 14 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit Ϯ
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the Town Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance text amendments as set forth in
attached Exhibit “A”.
Section 1. Findings
Pursuant to Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-68.050, the Planning Commission finds
that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of the Tiburon
Municipal Code, the General Plan, and other applicable plans of the Town, and the
proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the
Town as follows:
A.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendments are
consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments
would not change the underlying land use or density standards in the zoning
designations. The proposed amendments will not change the zone boundaries. The
proposed amendments are related to refining the zoning standards that will
support reasonably sized one-story developments and to clarifying design criteria
for two-story developments in applicable single-family residential neighborhoods
that consist of predominantly one-story homes.
B.The Planning Commission finds the proposed zoning amendments are consistent
with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan and other
applicable plans of the town. The amendments are intended to further the goals,
policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan by refining development
standards to allow reasonably sized one-story developments within single-family
residential zones that consist of predominantly one-story homes. As such, these
amendments will help in furthering the goals of the General plan, including
preserving, protecting, and enhancing the existing neighborhood character and
identity (LU-D, LU-H); as well as encouraging intensity of development, density,
and house sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods (LU-I). The proposed zoning amendments will
provide greater clarity for developments and will not alter the review of Site Plan
and Architectural Review applications. The Planning Commission acknowledged
that new developments shall continue to comply with all applicable town
standards and guidelines, and shall not adversely affect community health, safety,
aesthetics, or natural resources (LU-5, LU-6, LU-7, LU-11, LU-12, LU-13, LU-
14, LU-15).
C.The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendments will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare of the town. The amendments are related to
orderly development and have no negative impact on public health, safety, or
welfare.
Exhibit 2, Page 15 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 2
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
Town of Tiburon held on October 27, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AMIR, DEFEVER, WILLIAMS
NAYS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TSAI, WOODWARD
___________________________________
ERICA WILLIAMS, VICE CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
________________________________________
DINA TASINI, SECRETARY
/s/
/s/
Exhibit 2, Page 16 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit Ϯ
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. (DRAFT)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING)
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
A.On July 29, 2021, and September 23, 2021, the Design Review Board held two duly
noticed study sessions and considered public testimony to assess current policies and
development standards with the goal to assure preservation of essential residential
character in various neighborhoods in the Town.
B.On September 23, 2021, after public testimony and deliberation, the Design Review
Board recommended changes to the zoning ordinance to the Planning Commission and
Town Council for adoption.
C.On October 27, 2021, Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing, received testimony, recommended revisions, and adopted Resolution No.
2021-008 recommending to the Town Council that various text amendments, as revised,
be made to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
D.The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on _____________, 2021 and has
heard and considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance.
E.The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the
adoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
F.The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are
necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
G.The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent
with the goals and polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and
regulations of the Town of Tiburon, and further the intent and purposes of General Plan
goals and policies.
H.The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the
CEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the “general rule”,
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Exhibit 2, Page 17 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 2
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE.
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows:
(A)Section 16-21.040 (Table 2-2)
RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS is amended as follows:
Zone Minimum
Lot Area
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Required
Lot
Width
Minimum Setback
Requirements1 Height Limit Maximum
FAR
Front Sides Rear Primary Accessory
R-1
10,000
square
feet
(s.f.)
30%
One-story
development:
Same as
Maximum
FAR; Two-
story or
multi-story
development:
30%
40 ft.
15 ft. 8 ft.
20% depth
of lot
or
25 ft.
(whichever
is less)
30 ft. 15 ft.
See
Section
16-
52.020.I
R-1-
B-A 20 ft. 6 ft.
R-1-
B-2 25 ft. 10
ft.
RO-1 40,000
s.f.15% 70 ft. 30 ft. 20
ft.
RO-2 20,000
s.f.15% 50 ft. 30 ft. 15
ft.
R-2
7,500
s.f.2
35% 40 ft.
15 ft. 8 ft.
3,750 s.f.
per
dwelling2
R-3 10,000
s.f.30% — 8 ft. .60
Exhibit 2, Page 18 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit Ϯ
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
3,500 s.f.
per
dwelling
RPD Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan for development
30 ft.3 15 ft.3
See
section
16-
52.020.I
RMP Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan, or condominium plan for development .304
Notes:
1.Some older planned development approvals do not specify setback requirements, in which
case appropriate setbacks are determined by site plan and architectural review.
2.In the R-2 zone, where a lot is contiguous with a submerged or tide lot that lies entirely or
partially in the M zone, and all of such property is under the same ownership, the total area of
such contiguous lots may be used in determining whether the minimum lot area requirements
have been met. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section to the contrary, no building or
accessory building or part thereof shall extend seaward of the zone boundary line between the R-
2 zone and the M zone other than as may be permitted in compliance with the regulations of the
M zone (division 16-25).
3.Unless otherwise specified in a precise development plan.
4.Unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan.
(B)
i.Section 16-52.020 (I) (Table 5-2)
FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES is amended as follows:
R-1, R-1-B Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 450 sq. ft. of garage or
Exhibit 2, Page 19 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 2
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2, and RPD1 Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 600 sq. ft. of garage or
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R-3 and RMP Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
R-3 .60, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
RMP .30, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
Notes:
1.Unless otherwise specified by Precise Development Plan or equivalent permit.
ii.Section 16-52.020 (I) (Table 5-2)
(a)EXAMPLES (1) is amended as follows:
Exhibit 2, Page 20 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 2
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
‘(1) Example No. 1. A seven-thousand-four-hundred-square-foot lot generally could
achieve a reasonable size and scale of residential construction with a maximum of two
thousand five hundred ninety square feet (.35 x 7,400) of gross floor area, not including
up to six four hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport.’
iii.Section 16-100.020, a portion of DEFINITION FOR “FLOOR AREA, GROSS” is
amended as follows:
‘Gross floor area shall not include the following six areas:
1.For residential uses, the first four hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport space
on properties less than seven thousand five hundred square feet in area; or the first six
hundred square feet of garage or carport space on properties between seven thousand
five hundred square feet and less than or equal to sixty thousand square feet in area;
or the first seven hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport space on properties
greater than sixty thousand square feet in area; or the first two hundred fifty square
feet of garage or carport space for each parking space required in compliance with
parking requirements from section 16-32.040 (number of parking spaces required);’
(C)Section 16-52.020 (H)(3)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE REVIEW OF APPLICATION is amended as follows:
‘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, and
or permitted only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and other
design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid
or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability
of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of
this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof
be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this ordinance shall
Exhibit 2, Page 21 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit Ϯ
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town Council meeting at
which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town
Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this
ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in
the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the
ordinance along with the names of those Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Tiburon, held on ____________________, 2021, and was adopted at a regular meeting
of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on __________________, 2021, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
HOLLI THIER, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
______________________________
LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
Exhibit 2, Page 22 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 2
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
EXHIBIT 3
Exhibit 2, Page 23 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
BACKGROUND
For the past year, the Design Review Board (DRB) has reviewed a number of projects consisting of two-story single-family residences in predominately one-story neighborhoods. During the review process, community members in predominantly one-story residences have expressed
concern that two-story residential developments are not compatible with the existing
neighborhood character. Furthermore, most concerns from immediate neighbors are related to how two-story developments would invade privacy, obstruct views, and create light and air impacts.
Historically, variances for excess lot coverage had been granted to alleviate some of the
neighborhood concerns regarding two-story homes within predominately single-story residential neighborhoods. The controversy largely lies within areas where properties are generally flat and are regular in shape with the lack of site-specific physical constraints, precluding staff from making the required findings to support a variance request.
As a result, Staff engaged the Design Review Board to study the issues relating to lot coverage variances and second stories construction in predominately one-story neighborhoods, as well as assessing whether the current regulations and policies provide adequate guidance for developments in single-family residential zoning districts.
Two study sessions were held with the Design Review Board, the first on July 29, 20211 and the second on September 23, 20212 where members of the public had the opportunity to comment on these issues. A memorandum of these Study Sessions, including received comment letters, and meeting minutes are included as Exhibit 5-8.
1 Interested parties may view the video recording of the July 29, 2021, Design Review Board special meeting online,
which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=648
2 Interested parties may view the video recording of the September 23, 2021, Design Review Board meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=692
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Agenda Item: PH-1
STAFF REPORT
To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Consider Recommendation to Town Council for Town-initiated amendments to the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) sections regarding lot coverage requirements and associated development standards
Exhibit 2, Page 24 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
ANALYSIS
The comments made by the DRB at the Study Session on July 29, 2021, are summarized as
follows:
-A majority of board members found that the concerns related to two-story developmentsand lot coverage variances are not exclusive to the Bel Aire neighborhood, but exist in
other predominately one-story neighborhoods (i.e., Belveron West and East).
-A majority of board members found that the lot coverage requirement is more restrictivethan the maximum allowable gross floor area, particularly for properties in smaller lotsizes. As a result, the board found that the current zoning code language does not‘encourage’ one-story development over two-story development.-A majority of board members found that the current guiding principles (TMC Section 16-
52.020 (H)(3)) too ambiguous due to the statement ‘second-story additions should bediscouraged’ and recommended to further define clear guidelines for two-storydevelopments in primarily one-story neighborhoods.
In this context, staff has followed the directions provided by individual DRB members and
prepared draft amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code for the DRB to consider at the September 23, 2021, Study Session (Exhibit 7-8). Upon deliberation and receiving public testimony, the DRB proposed the following amendments to the zoning ordinance to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Town Council for possible adoption.
These amendments will create a distinction between one-story and two-story developments. The amendment seeks to allow one-story developments with increased lot coverage (equal to allowable gross floor area) without requiring a variance in applicable single-family residential zones. These amendments will apply to R-1, R-1-B-A, and R-1-B-2 zoning districts, which are single-family residential zones with a land use designation of medium high (MH) density in the
Town’s General Plan. In addition, the amendment will further clarify the design criteria for two-story developments in the review of Site Plan and Architectural Review applications.
ARTICLE II, Section 16-21.040, Table 2-2 (RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
The maximum lot coverage requirement for R-1 and R-1-B-A and R-1-B-2 zones would change from 30% to equal the maximum Gross Floor Area for one-story developments. Two-story or multi-story development would continue to have a maximum lot coverage of 30%.
The DRB reviewed and found the current development standards creates a dilemma that ‘encourage’ property owners to pursue two-story developments and to build up in order to maximize the full amount of gross floor area potential on a property. This happens when the maximum lot coverage requirement is more restrictive than the maximum allowable gross floor area, particularly for properties with small lot size (Exhibit 2-3).
The DRB found that there is a need to rectify this problem with clear guidance for developments. The intent of this zoning amendment is to enable one-story development without the need of
Exhibit 2, Page 25 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
granting a lot coverage variance for a property owner who would like to use the allowable gross floor area of their property. The current lot coverage requirement of 30% will remain the same
for two story or multi-story development projects with the intent to minimize structural footprint
and to mitigate the effect of massing. Other development standards, relating to minimum lot size, setback, and height that are set forth in Table 2-2, will be unchanged. The current planning review process for development proposals that involve major additions and new residence will remain the same, which is subject to Site Plan and Architectural Review and be acted by the
Design Review Board.
ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2 (FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES)
Table 5-2 (Floor Area Ratio Guidelines) will have a new category for R-1 and R-1-B-A and R-1-
B-2 zones. For lots that are less than 7,500 square feet, the floor area exemption that applies to
garage or carport would change from ‘600 square feet’ to ‘450 sq. ft.’.
The DRB had a lengthy discussion to assess whether a floor area exemption applicable to garages/carports shall be reduced on smaller-sized lots. With the objective to prevent over-
building on smaller lots, the Board supported a tiered approach to apply a garage/carport
exemption commensurate with lot size. The DRB found that a reduction of the garage and carport to 450 sq. ft. will offer a reasonably scaled parking facility for the lots that are less than 7,500 square feet with a maximum allowable floor area up to 2,625 square feet.
ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020 (H)(3) (GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS)
In reviewing applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the review authority shall determine whether the project meets the applicable criteria, as well as any other guidelines that
the town council may have adopted to govern Site Plan and Architectural Review. There are
twelve guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review outlined at 16-52.020(H) (Exhibit 4). One of the twelve principles, subsection (3), is currently written as follows:
‘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 DRB found that ‘second-story additions shall be discouraged’ in this principle created ambiguity as described above. The DRB supports refining this policy to read as follows:
‘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
Exhibit 2, Page 26 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
discouraged, or permitted only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and other design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
The intent of this amendment is to clarify the subjective criteria for second-story developments in neighborhoods consisting of primarily one-story homes.
Compliance with Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 16-68.050
The Planning Commission shall, by resolution, recommend that the council approve the proposed amendments if it makes the following findings:
1.The change of zone, change of zone boundaries, or other proposed amendment, is
consistent with the requirements herein.
The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the requirements of the ZoningOrdinance. The amendments would not change the underlying land use or density standardsin the zoning designations. The proposed amendments will not change the zone boundaries.
The proposed amendments are related to refining the zoning standards that will supportreasonably sized one-story developments and to clarifying design criteria for two-storydevelopments in single-family residential neighborhoods that consist of predominantly one-story homes.
2.The change of zone, change of zone boundaries, or other proposed amendment, isconsistent with the general plan and any other applicable plans of the town.
The proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of theTiburon General Plan and other applicable plans of the town. The amendments are intended
to further the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan by refiningdevelopment standards to allow reasonably sized one-story developments within single-family residential zones that consist of predominantly one-story homes. As such, theseamendments will help in furthering the goals of the General plan, including preserving,
protecting, and enhancing the existing neighborhood character and identity (LU-D, LU-H);
as well as encouraging intensity of development, density, and house sizes/architectural stylesthat are consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods (LU-I). The proposedzoning amendments will provide greater clarity for developments and will not alter thereview of Site Plan and Architectural Review applications. New developments shall continue
to comply with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and shall not adversely affect
community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources (LU-5, LU-6, LU-7, LU-11, LU-12, LU-13, LU-14, LU-15).
3.The change of zone, change of zone boundaries, or other proposed amendment, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the town.
The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ofthe town. The amendments are related to orderly development and have no negative impacton public health, safety, or welfare.
Exhibit 2, Page 27 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed zoning amendment will not change the underlying land use or density standards in
the zoning designations. Staff has preliminary determined that the proposed amendments are exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that they have no potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment or are categorically exempt based on exemptions for minor alterations in land use limitations. These are
set forth in Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1) Hold a public hearing and consider all testimony2) Make any revisions as appropriate3)Move to adopt the attached resolution recommending approval to the Town Council ofvarious zoning text amendments
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending zoning text amendments with draftdevelopment standards to the Town Council2. Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Development Standards for R-1 and R-1-B
zones
3.Related Permit Data on Lot Coverage Variance from years 2000-20214. Excerpt of Purpose and Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review5. Memorandum and Late Mail for Design Review Board Study Session on July 29, 20216. Draft Minutes of Design Review Board Study Session on July 29, 2021
1
7. Memorandum and Late Mail for Design Review Board Study Session on September 23,2021
8. Draft Minutes of Design Review Board Study Session on September 23, 2021
2
Exhibit 2, Page 28 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
TOWN OF TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX (DRAFT)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, codified as Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2021, and September 23, 2021, the Design Review Board held two duly noticed study sessions and considered public testimony to assess current policies and development standards with the goal to assure preservation of essential residential character in various neighborhoods in the Town; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2021, after public testimony and deliberation, the Design Review Board recommended changes to the zoning ordinance to the Planning Commission and Town Council for adoption; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on the proposed zoning amendments was published in the Ark newspaper on October 13, 2021 for the Planning Commission meeting, and all other noticing required by law was provided; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on October 27, 2021 and considered any testimony received during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the basis that they have no potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment (Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, or are exempt under section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendments would not change the underlying land use or density standards in the zoning designations. The proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan and other applicable plans of the Town. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance text amendments as set forth in attached Exhibit “A”.
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 29 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Section 1. Findings
Pursuant to Tiburon Municipal Code 16-68.050, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements of the Tiburon Municipal Code, the General Plan, and other applicable plans of the Town, and the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the Town as follows:
A.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendments areconsistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments wouldnot change the underlying land use or density standards in the zoning designations.The proposed amendments will not change the zone boundaries. The proposedamendments are related to refining the zoning standards that will supportreasonably sized one-story developments and to clarifying design criteria for two-story developments in single-family residential neighborhoods that consist ofpredominantly one-story homes.
B.The Planning Commission finds the proposed zoning amendments are consistentwith the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan and otherapplicable plans of the town. The amendments are intended to further the goals,policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan by refining developmentstandards to allow reasonably sized one-story developments within single-familyresidential zones that consist of predominantly one-story homes. As such, theseamendments will help in furthering the goals of the General plan, includingpreserving, protecting, and enhancing the existing neighborhood character andidentity (LU-D, LU-H); as well as encouraging intensity of development, density,and house sizes/architectural styles that are consistent and compatible withsurrounding neighborhoods (LU-I). The proposed zoning amendments willprovide greater clarity for developments and will not alter the review of Site Planand Architectural Review applications. The Planning Commission acknowledgedthat new developments shall continue to comply with all applicable townstandards and guidelines, and shall not adversely affect community health, safety,aesthetics, or natural resources (LU-5, LU-6, LU-7, LU-11, LU-12, LU-13, LU-14,LU-15).
C.The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendments will not be detrimentalto the public health, safety, or welfare of the town. The amendments are related toorderly development and have no negative impact on public health, safety, orwelfare.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on October 27, 2021, by the following vote:
Exhibit 2, Page 30 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
___________________________________ JEFF TSAI, CHAIR TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
________________________________________ DINA TASINI, SECRETARY
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NAYS: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Exhibit 2, Page 31 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Exhibit A ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. (DRAFT)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING)
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
A.On July 29, 2021, and September 23, 2021, the Design Review Board held two dulynoticed study sessions and considered public testimony to assess current policies anddevelopment standards with the goal to assure preservation of essential residentialcharacter in various neighborhoods in the Town.
B.On September 23, 2021, after public testimony and deliberation, the Design ReviewBoard recommended changes to the zoning ordinance to the Planning Commission andTown Council for adoption.
C.On October 27, 2021, Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertisedpublic hearing, received testimony, and adopted Resolution No. 2021-XX recommendingto the Town Council that various text amendments be made to Title IV, Chapter 16(Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
D.The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on _____________, 2021 and hasheard and considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance.
E.The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to theadoption of this Ordinance have been followed.
F.The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance arenecessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
G.The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistentwith the goals and polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances andregulations of the Town of Tiburon, and further the intent and purposes of General Plangoals and policies.
H.The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirementsof the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of theCEQA Guidelines, as well as being exempt from CEQA under the “general rule”,pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE.
Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows:
Exhibit 2, Page 32 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
(A)Section 16-21.040 (Table 2-2)RESIDENTIAL ZONES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS is amended as follows:
Zone Minimum
Lot Area
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Required
Lot
Width
Minimum Setback
Requirements1 Height Limit Maximum
FAR
Front Sides Rear Primary Accessory
R-1
10,000
square
feet
(s.f.)
30%
One-story
development:
Same as
Maximum
FAR; Two-
story or
multi-story
development:
30%
40 ft.
15 ft. 8 ft.
20% depth
of lot
or
25 ft.
(whichever
is less)
30 ft. 15 ft.
See
Section
16-
52.020.I
R-1-
B-A 20 ft. 6 ft.
R-1-
B-2 25 ft. 10
ft.
RO-1 40,000
s.f.15% 70 ft. 30 ft. 20
ft.
RO-2 20,000
s.f.15% 50 ft. 30 ft. 15
ft.
R-2
7,500
s.f.2
35% 40 ft.
15 ft. 8 ft.
3,750 s.f.
per
dwelling2
R-3
10,000
s.f.
30% — 8 ft. .60 3,500 s.f.
per
dwelling
Exhibit 2, Page 33 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
RPD Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan for development
30 ft.3 15 ft.3
See
section
16-
52.020.I
RMP Established by adopted master/precise plan or precise
development plan, or condominium plan for development .304
Notes:
1.Some older planned development approvals do not specify setback requirements, in which
case appropriate setbacks are determined by site plan and architectural review.
2.In the R-2 zone, where a lot is contiguous with a submerged or tide lot that lies entirely or
partially in the M zone, and all of such property is under the same ownership, the total area of
such contiguous lots may be used in determining whether the minimum lot area requirements
have been met. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section to the contrary, no building or
accessory building or part thereof shall extend seaward of the zone boundary line between the R-
2 zone and the M zone other than as may be permitted in compliance with the regulations of the
M zone (division 16-25).
3.Unless otherwise specified in a precise development plan.
4.Unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan.
(B)Section 16-52.020 (I) (Table 5-2)
FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES is amended as follows:
R-1, R-1-B Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 450 sq. ft. of garage or
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
Exhibit 2, Page 34 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2, and RPD1 Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
Less than 7,500 sq. ft. 35% of the property area, plus an additional 600 sq. ft. of garage or
carport
7,500 sq. ft. through
60,000 sq. ft.
10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 600 sq.
ft. of garage or carport
More than 60,000 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft. plus an additional 750 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
R-3 and RMP Zones
Area of Property Gross Floor Area Maximum
R-3 .60, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
RMP .30, unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development Plan or
equivalent permit
Notes:
1.Unless otherwise specified by Precise Development Plan or equivalent permit.
(C)Section 16-52.020 (H)(3)GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE REVIEW OF APPLICATION is amended as follows:
‘3. Neighborhood character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bears areasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A goodrelationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoodsconsisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, orpermitted only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and otherdesign features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
Exhibit 2, Page 35 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this ordinance shall be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town Council meeting at which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the ordinance along with the names of those Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on ____________________, 2021, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on __________________, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________ HOLLI THIER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST:
______________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK
Exhibit 2, Page 36 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 1Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Percentage (in square feet)Percentage (in square feet)
7,000 30%2,100 35.0%2,450
7,500 30%2,250 36.7%2,750
8,000 30%2,400 35.0%2,800
8,500 30%2,550 33.5%2,850
9,000 30%2,700 32.2%2,900
9,500 30%2,850 31.1%2,950
10,000 30%3,000 30.0%3,000
Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Standards for R-1 and R-1-B zones
Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Allowable Gross Floor AreaLot size (square feet)
Exhibit 2, Page 37 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Approved Entitlements for
Lot Coverage Variance by Neighborhoods - Year 2000-2021**
Neighborhood Site Address *Lot Area (Sq.ft.)Lot Coverage %Neighborhood Site Address *Lot Area (Sq.ft.)Lot Coverage %
Belveron West 492 IRVING COURT 7,743 31.6%Pine Terrace 20 Pine Terrace 7,298 45.4%
Belveron West 480 IRVING COURT 8,136 36.1%
Belveron West 102 JEFFERSON DR 7,488 31.2%
Belveron West 489 WASHINGTON COURT 8,120 36.4%
Belveron West 493 WASHINGTON COURT 8,400 40.0%
Belveron West 488 WASHINGTON COURT 7,526 39.1%
AVERAGE LC%35.7%
Neighborhood Site Address *Lot Area (Sq.ft.)Lot Coverage %
Belveron East 10 APOLLO RD 7,840 36.7%
Belveron East 12 APOLLO RD 7,544 36.9%
Belveron East 19 APOLLO RD 6,860 33.1%
Belveron East 19 APOLLO RD 6,860 36.0%
Belveron East 20 APOLLO RD 6,935 34.3%
Belveron East 20 JUNO RD 7,276 33.7%
Belveron East 21 APOLLO RD 6,860 31.0%
Belveron East 22 JUNO RD 7,276 35.0%
Belveron East 26 APOLLO RD 8,470 37.0%
Belveron East 27 APOLLO RD 6,860 31.9%
Belveron East 28 APOLLO RD 8,712 33.0%
Belveron East 30 APOLLO RD 8,712 30.3%
Belveron East 31 APOLLO RD 7,031 32.7%
Belveron East 4 APOLLO RD 7,630 33.3%
Belveron East 8 APOLLO RD 6,820 35.7%
Belveron East 9 APOLLO RD 7,350 36.0%
AVERAGE LC%34.2%
Neighborhood Site Address *Lot Area (Sq.ft.)Lot Coverage %
Bel Aire 113 BLACKFIELD DR 7,442 34.7%
Bel Aire 125 BLACKFIELD DR 7,930 34.5%
Bel Aire 131 BLACKFIELD DR 7,442 N/A
Bel Aire 139 LELAND WAY 7,502 43.6%
Bel Aire 151 LELAND WAY 7,502 34.2%
Bel Aire 18 CLAIRE WAY 7,502 39.8%
Bel Aire 266 KAREN WAY 8,050 39.8%
Bel Aire 283 KAREN WAY 7,747 N/A
Bel Aire 290 CECILIA WAY 8,400 40.5%
Bel Aire 301 KAREN WAY 7,564 34.1%
Bel Aire 301 KAREN WAY 7,564 35.8%
Bel Aire 321 KAREN WAY 7,502 35.3%
Bel Aire 78 CLAIRE WAY 7,503 40.3%
Bel Aire 80 PAMELA CT 8,000 31.7%
Bel Aire 83 CLAIRE WAY 7,442 32.3%
Bel Aire 95 HARRIET WAY 7,700 40.8%
AVERAGE LC%37.0%
Neighborhood Site Address Lot Area*Lot Coverage %
Hawthorne Terrace 673 HAWTHORNE DR 7,500 31.8%
Hawthorne Terrace 673 HAWTHORNE DR 7,500 40.4%
Hawthorne Terrace 678 HILARY DR 7,700 37.2%
Hawthorne Terrace 678 HILARY DR 7,700 37.7%
Hawthorne Terrace 680 HILARY DR 7,400 31.7%
Hawthorne Terrace 685 HAWTHORNE DR 7,500 34.6%
Hawthorne Terrace 686 HILARY DR 7,600 34.5%
Hawthorne Terrace 687 HAWTHORNE DR 7,500 32.6%
Hawthorne Terrace 693 HAWTHORNE DR 7,500 36.6%
Hawthorne Terrace 695 HAWTHORNE DR 7,500 36.9%
Hawthorne Terrace 735 HAWTHORNE DR 7,560 39.5%
Hawthorne Terrace 735 HAWTHORNE DR 7,560 39.3%
AVERAGE LC%36.1%
* Source: Data are exported from Marin Map. Lot area is shown as estimate only.
** Source: Data are exported from Trakit Permit System for year 2000-2021. This list may not include all data, which were recorded in other permit database.
Exhibit 2, Page 38 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 3
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Section 16-52.020 - Site plan and architectural review.
A.Purpose. The purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design of proposedconstruction and new land uses assists in maintaining and enhancing the town's distinctive character.The site plan and architectural review process:
1.Ensures that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the higheststandards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood;
2.Retains and strengthens the visual quality and attractive character of the town;
3.Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects maturevegetation;
4.Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation, and provides for an efficient andinterconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways throughout the town;
5.Assists project developers in understanding the town's concerns for the aesthetics of construction;and
6.Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and doesnot adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources.
H.Guiding principles in the review of applications. In reviewing applications for site plan and architecturalreview, the review authority shall determine whether the project meets the applicable criteria below,as well as any other guidelines that the town council may have adopted to govern site plan andarchitectural review.
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 detrimentalto the public health, safety, and general welfare.
2.Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site inrelation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to viewconsiderations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacyof 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 reasonablerelationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a buildingto its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-storyhomes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks orother 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 theproperty on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio (Seesubsection I., below).
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 rockoutcroppings or watercourses.
6.Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finishare harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with itssurroundings.
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 proposedproject. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposedlandscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from otherbuildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installationand/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to
Exhibit 2, Page 39 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 4Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
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, orproduce 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 reviewof applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditionsrequiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entireproperty to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project andthe changes and/or modifications required.
10.Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, buildingenvelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in theappropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope shouldnot generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory
structures.
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 conformwith the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zonesand allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal
Code chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specificuses by this zoning ordinance.
Exhibit 2, Page 40 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 4Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Planning Division
SUBJECT: Study Session – Lot Coverage/Second Stories
DATE:July 29, 2021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background
For the past year, the Design Review Board (DRB) has reviewed a number of proposed two
story single-family residential projects or with a lot coverage variance request in predominately
one-story neighborhoods.
While some applicants would like to comply with the development standards, they are unable
to do so because the lot coverage allowance is restrictive. As a result of inability to comply
with the lot coverage allowances to achieve the desired maximum floor area, some applicants
propose a two-story residential project. Second-story residential proposals have been met with
a great deal of controversy. Many community members did not feel two-story residential
developments are compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Furthermore, many
immediate neighbors also expressed concerns that two-story residential developments would
invade privacy, create view blockage, and cause inadequate light and air.
Historically, variances for excess lot coverage had been granted to address concerns for two-
story developments in these single-story residential neighborhoods. The controversy largely
lies within areas where properties are generally flat and are regular in shape with the lack of
site-specific physical constraints, and therefore, staff has been unable to make the required
variance findings to support these variance requests.
Purpose
The issue of two-story residential projects and lot coverage variances are interrelated and
need to be addressed cohesively. The purpose of this study session is to provide an
opportunity for the public and the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss the issues regarding
lot coverage variances and second-story single family homes and to assess whether the
current regulations and policies provide adequate guidance for developments.
Issue
In order to frame the issue for a robust discussion, the following questions appear to address
the issues of lot coverage and second stories:
1.How to address the development interest of achieving the maximum allowable gross
floor area when there is a lower lot coverage requirement? (See Attachment 1)
2.Is the current lot coverage standard of 30% appropriate?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exhibit 2, Page 41 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
3.Should two-story single-family residential dwellings be permitted in predominately one-
story residential neighborhoods?
4.What is required to clarify the current policy of “second stories are discouraged”?
5.Should there be standardized design standards to review two-story residential
proposals?
Public Comment
As of the date of this report, one letters has been received regarding the subject discussion.
Recommendations and Future Action
Staff recommends the DRB hold a study session, provide a forum for community feedback,
discuss the matter, and provide direction to staff. This meeting will serve as an opportunity to
recommend further action. If the decision of the DRB is to propose amendments to the
development standards and policies, staff will draft amendments for the DRB to review at a
subsequent meeting. The DRB comments and direction will then be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation to Town Council for review and adoption.
Attachments:
1.Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Development Standards for R-1 and R-1-
BA zones
2.Floor Area Ratio Guidelines
3.Lot Coverage Information
4.Letter received from Bill and Barb Powers on July 22, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 42 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Percentage (in square feet)Percentage (in square feet)
7,000 30%2,100 35.0%2,450
7,500 30%2,250 36.7%2,750
8,000 30%2,400 35.0%2,800
8,500 30%2,550 33.5%2,850
9,000 30%2,700 32.2%2,900
9,500 30%2,850 31.1%2,950
10,000 30%3,000 30.0%3,000
Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Standards for R-1 and R-1-BA zones
Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Allowable Gross Floor AreaLot size (square feet)
Attachment 1 of
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 43 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Planning Division Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 PHONE: (415) 435-7390/FAX: (415) 435-2438
www.townoftiburon.org
FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES
Excerpts from Tiburon Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning)
Section 16-52.020 (I), Table 2-2, and Selected Definitions
I. Floor Area Ratio Guidelines.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Subsection is to provide a communityyardstick for appropriate residential size and scale, measured in gross square footage, in relation to the overall size of property on which theimprovements are proposed. It is the intent of the Town to reasonablyapply residential floor area ratios with regard to specific sitecharacteristics and the surrounding pattern of development.
The floor area ratio (FAR) guideline is intended to discourageoverbuilding of property, as often occurs with "tear-downs" and extensiveremodel/additions on infill sites, and with first-time residentialconstruction. The floor area ratio guideline for a lot is not intended as atarget to be achieved, but is intended to indicate a reasonable maximum. The Town may authorize less than the maximum square footageindicated by the floor area ratio guideline when necessary to achievecompatibility with surrounding development, to maintain the neighborhoodcharacter, or for other good cause.
2. Calculations. Floor area is calculated using the definition contained in Article X (Definitions) under "Floor area, gross." Floor area ratio includesaccessory buildings as well as any main building.
3. FAR guidelines. Residential development standards are as shown in Table 2-2 in Section 16-21.040 (Residential Zones DevelopmentStandards). FAR guidelines for single-family and two-family residentialzones (R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2, and RPO) are shown in Table 5-2 below.
1
Attachment 2 of
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 44 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
4
5
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
5
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
4
6
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
5
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
4
7
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
5
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
4
8
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
5
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
4
9
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
5
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
5
0
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
5
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
Attachment 4 of
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 51 of 156
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022 Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
July 29, 2021
RE: Bel Aire Subdivision
Tiburon Design Review Board members:
As of late yesterday, I was informed that the Design Review Board will be meeting today to
discuss modifying the parameters of the homes built in the Bel Aire neighborhood. Unfortunately, because of a prior commitment, I cannot attend.
As a resident of Bel Aire, I understand this meeting is in regards to the Board members making a
decision to terminate all or most variances and allowing the building of two-story homes. If this
is the subject matter of the meeting, I oppose the decision. However, in the alternative, request that a study/survey be commissioned by the Town of Tiburon, before any decisions are made. A Bel Aire community forum on this matter is paramount to investigate on how we would like to envision the future of our neighborhood.
The Bel Aire neighborhood is unique because the substantial majority of homes are one-story. And at one time, all of the homes were one-story. One cannot compare the character of the Bel Aire neighborhood with the character of the homes in, for example, the Sugarloaf area. There is a reason the phrase “character of the neighborhood” was used in describing this neighborhood in
an effort to preserve its character. With homes built so closely together, two-story homes would
have immediate negative impacts on the neighbors and they would be unsightly. Hence, the phrase, “character of the neighborhood” was wisely used to preserve the one-story homes to provide privacy, sunlight, and preserve the esthetics of the neighborhood. I hope the Board will abide with this sentiment.
As a former member of the Design Review Board, we were generally not opposed to granting variances to the homeowners to expand their homes to the maximum allowed. This preserved the unique character of Bel Aire, allowed the homeowner to expand their homes, and avoided neighbor disputes.
Moreover, future confrontations between neighbors may be avoided if notice were given to all of the residents of Bel Aire. If two-story homes are allowed, they must be built in a manner that is not intrusive to the neighbors.
Respectfully,
Evelyn Woo 263 Cecilia Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Late Mail
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 52 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022 Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
July 27, 2021
Tiburon Design Review Board and Planning Department
Re: R-1-BA Study and Proposed Zoning Changes
I am glad the Town of Tiburon is revisitng the zoning for the R-1-BA Zone. The Bel Aire neighborhood is a
historic neighborhood of low slung ranch style houses, wide streets, some two stories on the perimeter,
lots of houses with variences and both old and new families. Most families stay in the neighborhood
until long after retirement or the children have left because it such a nice neighborhood.
Two Stories: It is important to clarify the language on two stories. Some support them and some don’t.
The ‘discouraged’ clause leaves us open to the type of controversy that occurred with the two story that
was recently approved on Karen Way. As any attorney will state, we already have minor single room two
stories on the perimeter so I can’t see how we can deny them on the perimeter. It is important though,
to recognize that these existing two stories are not full two stories similar to designs in neighborhoods
that allow full two stories. To keep the character of the neighborhood, it will be important to not deviate
away from that or to introduce them to the interior. Clear language, possible with a square footage,
would ensure that, as well as stating perimeter only.
Variences:
•Many homeowners have invested in expensive renovations and to avoid a second story, were
granted a varience or two. Therefore the same argument holds as does for two stories, we
already have granted them so why should they be denied now? Precedence can’t be claimed in
one instance for existing two story renovations and denied for variences.
•Another important point in terms of 85 Harriet Way who have been told they can’t have a
varience even though there is an application process and associated fees on the planning
website. This looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen because it will make renovations as well as
resale more difficult to start claiming no variences are allowed. . The town already has the
application and fee schedule on the books, so who decided this? What is the reason?
•Not all of the lots are rectangular or with a house 12 foot on each side, such as mine with a 6
foot breezeway on one side which makes the separation 18 feet. So there needs to be some
method of evaluating an expansion. What other method than a review of a varience request is
there?
Rear Setbacks: The method for calculating rear setbacks shorter than the minimum of 25 feet seems to
introduce controversy. It would seem clearer to just have a minimum and then allow the applicant to
request a varience. Recently, a house behind me used the rear fence which is 1 foot into my side of the
property line to indicate the property line. Using this measurement as well as an erroneous front
property measurement that ignored the Town’s easement, they calculated a shorter setback. This
brought the proposed extension closer to my house than would be allowed if they had used a certified
survey property line and the 25 foot setback requirement. Getting rid of variences only complicates
things
Front Setbacks: Many houses have brought their garage forward while keeping a single or single & ½ car
length. These are not imposing, and allow the single story renovation to keep much of their backyard.
How can the town legally deny future similar requests? The front setback should be reduced to allow a
single car parking.
LATE MAIL
DRB Special Meeting
7/29/2021
Exhibit 2, Page 53 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
30% Lot Coverage: Many renovations have been approved with a larger lot coverage using the variance
method. Just as with two stories on the perimeter of Bel Aire, and granting of variences, how can an
increase of lot coverage when reviewed be denied just because we don’t want variances? There should
be careful review of a varience for excess lot coverage.
Certified Survey Drawings by a Licensed Surveyor: As mentioned above, no certified survey drawings
were submitted with the proposed renovation behind me. This resulted in an erroneous lot size on the
architects drawings that is conflict with the assessor’s parcel records for the same lot. Since the architect
seemed to base the lot size on the location of fences, when the west fence and rear are outside their
property line according to my certified survey drawings. I would guess there is a problem with the east
property line too but those are not on my drawings. The erroneous lot size is giving the proposed
renovation a greater than 30% lot coverage. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just require a varience and
review that by the DRB. Certified Survey drawings by a licensed surveyor should be a minimum
requirement for any proposed renovation, as well as checking the assessor’s records for a lot.
Covered Areas as a portion of lot coverage: I was told recently that eave overhangs were not considered
part of the lot coverage by the planning department for the proposed renovation behind me, when I
questioned the lot coverage calculation. Yet I see 85 Harriet has been told they do apply? The reality is
that people will just build their pergoals and structures after the main renovation is done, without the
benefit of building inspection. Therefore, this seems like another reason to keep the variences and
review them on a case by case basis.
Planning and Building Department Coordination: There should be more coordination between the
planning and building departments to avoid costly mistakes. Recently a neighbor went through planning
for a front landscaping project. They were approved by the DRB and planning for a fence close to the
interior side walk edge. Upon post inspection, by the building department, they were informed of the
town/utility easement that required them to move the fence 5 feet in. This was a costly effort for them
to relocate the posts and seems unnecessary. I suspect it was a lack of either the certified survey
drawings or unfamiliarity with building requriements for the town of tiburon. What ever the reason this
should not happen.
I appreciate all of the effort the planning department and the volunteer DRB put into reviewing
renovations. Clearer language and acceptance of historic approvals, and the opinion of those who
actually live in Bel Aire will make your jobs easier. Review cannot just be the fun of looking at design, it
also has to be the hard work of zoning, neighbors’ opinions, neighborhood character, precendence, etc.
Thank you,
Carolyn Shadan
279 Cecilia Way
Tiburon
Exhibit 2, Page 54 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
LATE MAIL
DRB Special Meeting
7/29/2021
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 5Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
MINUTES #13 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 29, 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://us06web.zoom.us/j/85064728690
Webinar ID: 850 6472 8690 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 850 6472 8690
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 Chong.
A.ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bryan Chong; Vice Chair Miles Berger; Boardmembers Cedric Barringer and Suzanne Kim
Absent: None
Staff: Director of Community Development Dina Tasini; Town Attorney Eli Flushman; Assistant Planner Samantha Bonifacio; Development Aide Kris Bernard
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Exhibit 2, Page 55 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Lot Coverage/Second Stories
Chair Chong provided introductory remarks on the goal of the special meeting.
Boardmember Kim commented that for a planning rule change to be promulgated she asked if it requires the Town Council to legislate that and questioned the process.
Director Tasini stated normally if a text amendment is done, they would go directly to the
Planning Commission because they are the body that reviews the change and recommends it to the Town Council, and the Town Council adopts the ordinance which then goes into effect. Because most of these issues they will discuss tonight are solely in the DRB’s domain and have dealt with them now for about one year, staff recommended coming to the DRB, explain the
issues, receive input from the public and for the DRB to direct staff to formulate the ordinance
and any revisions. After she receives the DRB’s direction, she typically would then bring the draft ordinance back to the DRB at another study session for review and comment by the DRB and public and then onto the Planning Commission.
Boardmember Kim presumes the process is lengthy and asked how it works for those
applications which are in process, are approved, or may have been appealed to the Town Council.
Director Tasini stated once approved under the current legislation and ordinance, it is approved.
The Municipal Code is not a static document and is amended over time for various reasons.
Whatever was approved in the past will continue. Whatever is in the queue, those projects will be approved with whatever is currently in place.
Boardmember Kim confirmed with Director Tasini that an application that has been approved
and has been through the appeals process cannot be appealed again under any new statute.
Director Tasini gave a PowerPoint presentation and provided the reasons for the special meeting, stating there has been an increase in requests for excess lot coverage variances. Staff and the Board have been confronted with how to meet the four required findings for approval and, in
some instances, they have not been able to make the findings. Variances are for exceptions and
should not be used as the rule. If they see there are a number of them, the standards should be adjusted in order to meet the community’s desires.
For instance, staff tells an applicant they cannot do the lot coverage variance and they then go to
a two-story proposal which are discouraged in the code but not disallowed. Therefore, they are
trying to find the right balance which led staff to consider the text possibly needing to be changed in some way that will allow the community to develop as they wish and to provide
STAFF BRIEFING – None
STUDY SESSION
Exhibit 2, Page 56 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
development rights people believe they should have in a manner that does not necessitate a variance or lengthy appeals or discussions.
Director Tasini stated lot coverage measures the portion of the lot covered by the structures and she described the way it is calculated.
Vice Chair Berger asked about open roofed structures such as a trellis, and Director Tasini said it
depends on whether it is 3-sided, whether it is more than 50% open, and this is not explicit in the
code.
Assistant Planner Samantha Bonifacio stated there is a section in the code defining what is lot coverage and what is not counted, and it specifies that landscape features are not counted
towards the lot coverage allowance.
Director Tasini then defined the gross floor definition which is the sum of all enclosed or covered areas of each floor of the building and she described how it is measured, an example of how applicants sometimes mis-measure lot coverage and need a lot coverage variance, and ways
to calculate the use of one’s lot.
Boardmember Kim asked if staff has seen this discrepancy in other jurisdictions of what is allowed in lot coverage and gross floor area, and if so, she asked how it is dealt with.
Director Tasini said she did not have examples, but thinks Tiburon has a specific situation here
wherein they have predominantly single family lots in Bel Aire and Belveron neighborhoods where issues have come up. People want to build out more and get as much as they can on their lot. There are ways in which to deal with this so there are no variances such as increasing the percentage of lot coverage to meet that, the Board can solely look at floor area and not look at lot
coverage, and with respect to the two-story portion of this the Board can talk about how to deal
with that in some of these neighborhoods. But there are jurisdictions that use other exceptions to allow certain types of additions to be done and not through the variance tool.
The Town currently has a policy to discourage two-story developments in predominantly one-
story neighborhoods and some say they can be done on the inner or outer parts which creates
more turmoil, and to regulate this, staff does not have standards. Therefore, staff seeks direction and review of objective development standards related to two-story developments and she thinks they can be done in a sensitive manner if staff is provided tools to tell the applicants they must set back the structure a certain distance, consider privacy, window placement, etc.
Director Tasini then outlined five questions for the Board to focus on. As next steps, staff is looking for direction so staff can return with zoning code revisions for a future study session and then bring those changes and amended text to the Planning Commission and Town Council for a future public hearing and adoption:
1.How does the Town address the development interests of achieving the maximumallowable gross floor area when there is a lower lot coverage requirement?2. Is the current lot coverage standard of 30% appropriate?
Exhibit 2, Page 57 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
3. Should two-story residential drawings be permitted in predominantly one-storyresidential neighborhoods?
4. What is required to clarify the current policy of second stories?
5. Should these be standardized design standards to review these?
Boardmember Kim stated the Town has zoning codes such as an R-1 and R-2 so there are primarily two single family home zoning codes, and she is concerned about the implication of
addressing it for one geographic region. She asked if it is possible to have a precise zoning code
for a specific geographic area so that it does not impact the entire town.
Director Tasini said yes because there is hillside lots, where they have not had issues with lot coverage, and she asked if Senior Planner Christy Fong wanted to comment.
Senior Planner Christy Fong said there is also RO-1 and RO-2 and those are more applicable to open space residential areas. The discussion for tonight is only focused on R-1 and R-1BA which has lot coverage of 30%. The other zones in residential areas have different percentages for lot coverage.
Board member Kim agreed but wondered if the Town could be even more precise and put an overlay district on a specific geographic area which would make her feel more comfortable. Director Tasini said yes, they can do this, and this is what their intent is in the R-1 and R-1BA.
Vice Chair Berger voiced the opposite point of view in that he believes the Board can find a
modification that will apply to everyone in Tiburon equally and they will not have to start picking out certain lots, certain places and areas that get treated differently than others. He believes it can be done such that it works for everybody in town.
Director Tasini noted there were at least 14 people online who may wish to speak and asked the
Board if they wanted to first take public comments.
Chair Chong asked if staff was focused through the lens of Belveron East/West and Bel Aire or other neighborhoods, noting there is also Mar East and Corinthian Island and other areas that
have very small lots.
Director Tasini said their topography is a bit different, so staff does not look at them in the same manner as they did the flat, regular shaped lots that are of a smaller size. But they did not go and conduct a huge data search on everything because she wanted to have the discussion with the
Board and the public on whether they want to focus on these areas, on the zoning, or whether
they want to focus on something as a whole. Most appeals on variances that have caused the most issues have been in Bel Aire and Belveron and they have some in some of the hillside areas, but much of these have to do with views and blockage as opposed to the variance issues.
Boardmember Kim asked if staff had a map that can specifically identify the R-1BA.
Exhibit 2, Page 58 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Director Tasini said she did not have it tonight but could for the next meeting. She would like to hear what the Board and the public have to say on what they need back to review, how to move
forward on whether they want to do something more global or specific.
Chair Chong opened the public comment period.
Public Comments:
Jim Mallot said he is an architect practicing in Tiburon for a long time and lives at 987 Tiburon Boulevard and have remodeled about 20 homes in Bel Aire and quite a few others in the small home subdivisions over the years. He appreciates what the Town is doing because it is important for the small homes to get more attention from a planning standpoint. In Tiburon there is little
new home construction left and mostly additions and remodels, so this will be increasingly
important.
When designing for small homes, issues are window placement, privacy, shadow, landscaping and he believes the Town would benefit by a half dozen more pages or guidelines for these small
homes, particularly second floor additions, limiting windows on the side to clerestory rather than
privacy reducing windows that look into someone else’s private areas. He thinks side, rear, front and back setbacks should be reduced substantially which would have the effect of reducing the need to go to a second story for more space. Sometimes there are lots which work where there are no problems for the adjacent neighbors but there are many that have issues. Designing to
minimize the impact on neighbors is critical and Tiburon is built out, so adjacent neighbors will
have issues. He thinks color on homes is more important than it is given credit for, as a white house on a hillside stands out 20 miles away and any hue or darker shades are much less visible and less obtrusive.
He thinks another issue is fashion in architecture. He appreciates modern homes but when they
damage the privacy, views or other aspects of adjacent residences there should be some constraints. He referred to and spoke about tree growth over time in Tiburon which are starting to impact views uphill and from adjacent neighbors, as well as their huge fire risk. Views will become more and more important, particularly those built in the flats, where the high trees have
no effects on them, but they affect neighbors uphill. The Town owns many parcels where view
blockage is a real issue, which should be considered.
A separate zoning code for the small homes might be a good idea. He thinks the main issue is to get something that works for the small homes, and he would encourage using the design
guidelines parallel with zoning code changes.
Carolyn Shadan said she lives in the Bel Aire neighborhood and is very glad the Board is doing this and referred to her email with specific points. She is an Engineer and looks at things a little differently, and thinks the Town needs to clarify the word “discourage”. Her main point for
speaking is that Ms. Tasini is doing a good job but is the Director and she asked if the Board has
reached out to the neighborhood. She found it outrageous that the Town wants to change zoning laws when no one was notified of this meeting. She knew the meeting was coming and notified all of her neighbors.
Exhibit 2, Page 59 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
She also does not understand the fear of variances. She understands it makes the review process
longer and maybe more difficult, but lots are not all the same and so there should be a way for
variances. The letter from 85 Harriet states they have been told by Planning that variances are no longer allowed. She would personally get an attorney because variances are on the website, are allowed per the Municipal Code and she was not sure why people cannot apply for a variance. She trusts the Boards opinion that when they review something they could decide whether the
variance is warranted or not. The standards are not very clear, are nebulous, open to
interpretation and she thinks this is what causes the controversy. Therefore, she asked to see clearer standards, but that development is taken into account because no Boardmembers live in Bel Aire, thinks one or two members live in Belveron, and no one in the Planning Department lives in either of those neighborhoods so she asked that outreach be conducted to affected
communities. She voiced support for a special overlay and did not believe it mattered what
occurs in other jurisdictions, as Tiburon is unique.
Pru Starr, 160 Leland Way, said she definitely agrees that residents were not notified of this meeting or that there was anything specifically impacting them neighbors were aware of. She
watched the dynamics and saw that the Board’s hands were tied legally and saw the importance
for a meeting like this. They agree that architecture is a huge design factor and most important and that the history of this neighborhood does pride themselves on a harmonious and cohesive energy. She suggested driving through Tower Road in Mill Valley and see exactly what they do not want which are massive homes next to small homes. She drove through Belveron today and
saw the same thing, so they are trying not to make that happen in Bel Aire. She agrees the
neighborhood zoning code is probably a good idea, thinks variances should be handled case by case and make people build out so they do not have to build up, and she spoke about examples in her neighborhood. It is not about two stories being bad but about bad designs being two stories for the neighbors.
They have a different sensibility because they live so close together and shadows and morning sun are factors that are critical for them. They appreciate trying to work on this and said everything would be nice to have simple language, but she thinks it is more a case-by-case decision.
Bill and Barb Powers, 85 Harriet Way, stated they bought 85 Harriet Way last December and prior to purchasing they researched all of the lot coverage variances that were approved on neighboring properties which helped them make a decision to buy the house. They very much wanted to build a single-story house and began working on plans. Their house is so dilapidated it
is really a tear down so they thought they would start over, build a new house, keep it in kind
with the neighborhood, and submitted it but were shocked to learn that the way things worked over time would no longer be acceptable and variances for lot coverage would no longer be given. This is disappointing and said after hearing other neighbors, he thinks it will take a while to come up with proper language and changes to the zoning ordinance, but they are stuck
because they want to move forward.
He said Ms. Tasini said they can go into design review, but the Town will not support them. They think the Board will like their design and said it fits within the neighborhood and setbacks,
Exhibit 2, Page 60 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
but it just exceeds the 30% and they do not want to pay the money to certify story poles if it will not be approved. While the new ordinance is being considered, he thinks the Board should
continue under the old standards because it seems unfair to many people who want to build or
improve their homes.
Nora Noguez said she starts from the premise that lots are not all the same and she does not think a special zoning code for Bel Aire would be fair because they should not be different from other
neighborhoods’ rules and regulations. In addition, where the lot is located in Bel Aire is very
different. She is at 346 Karen Way which is right up against a hillside and so there is really no way for her to expand because of additional restrictions imposed by foliage, trees, threats of fire, and she will either have to go forward or up to develop. She thinks a cookie-cutter approach will not work for the simple reason that not all lots in the Bel Aire area are created the same. They are
specifically different, especially the lots that are different in the horseshoe, which is Blackfield,
Cecilia, Leland, part of Karen and Claire. These are all flat lots and much larger, so it is easy for them to extend horizontally, but not for her and many others in Tiburon.
She also did not know about tonight’s meeting and heard about it from others, and thus far the
only people she hears speaking are against two stories, which she is not. She thinks every
request needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to take into consideration particularities of the lot. She thinks it would be helpful to provide notice to the entire neighborhood so all voices can be heard and not just those against two stories.
Edward McAuley re-emphasized Caroline’s comments and what Pru said. The question was
raised why Bel Aire should be different and there are a number of reasons. One is the distance between properties in Bel Aire which is very narrow. This means if a home catches on fire the amount of heat energy coming off the home if it is one-story is substantially less than the heat energy from a two-story home and because of the narrow distance between homes. The larger
home can quickly consume its neighbor even if it is another larger home. So, he asked to keep
these things in mind especially when it comes to planning along with many other examples.
He raised privacy, too much shade in people’s yard which leads to mold, problems with views and tree growth with two story homes, and other quality of life and safety issues which is
paramount. He thinks all neighborhoods are not the same; each is unique and requires thoughtful
consideration.
Ted Schroeder thanked the Board for reviewing this. He knows there was a contentious property that got through the system, and he appreciates the Board meeting to clarify all of this. His
preference would be for an expansion of variances rather than allowing two stories. He and his
family moved to Tiburon in 2013 and are relatively recent to the neighborhood. The two neighbors they were looking at the time were Sycamore Park and Bel Aire and as much as they love Sycamore Park in Mill Valley, what ultimately turned them off was that Mill Valley green-lighted a ton of two-story construction. In going through the neighborhoods there are huge new
houses on these postage stamp properties with neighbors looking down on neighbors in the rear
yard. So, when they came to Bel Aire, they were a young family that bought specifically into the privacy afforded by single story construction. There are small lots next to each other and there are not many ways to enjoy their backyard without keeping their neighbors from looking at them.
Exhibit 2, Page 61 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
If the Board starts allowing two story homes, they will take away a significant value in these tiny properties that many people have invested time and money in.
Joseph Starr agreed with Mr. Schroeder’s comments about the value of the single-story homes. Some people may make the argument that there is more value in creating a bigger home or adding a second story, but this is not necessarily true for each case. In the case where a second story is proposed and maybe one adjacent neighbor is opposed, and the other adjacent neighbor
is in favor of the second story he suggested language that would place the bulk of the mass on
the side of the neighbor in favor of the second story which would create more privacy for the neighbor opposed. He appreciates the Board’s work to discuss the matter.
Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, said right now second stories are discouraged and she does
not understand why there is even a discussion if they are discouraged. She noted that William
Blackfield designed these homes and laid out the neighborhood and his vision was to emulate a design reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright where bedrooms were facing the street and the back were open to a park-like setting. This is how these homes are situated. There is a 6-foot setback, and they are exactly set back that amount, so there is 12 feet between houses. The reason they
work is that people are not looking at each other through their windows. Everything looks out
towards the back and the lots are very oversized.
She said she was President of the Bel Aire HOA for 10 years and she also served on the Tiburon Parks and Open Space Commission for 15 years. She has been in 98% of the homes in Bel Aire
and she cannot tell the Board what beautiful remodels she has seen with quite large square
footage. People would push out the back or add a wing on either side, all looking into a center courtyard in the backyard. It was unobtrusive and neighbors on either side still felt they had privacy and seclusion even with the proximity of the houses being close, and one would never know from the front facades that the homes were so large behind them.
She does not see a problem with variances and does not know why they should be pulled. If it is that much trouble, she suggested increasing the FAR is the answer. Not everyone needs to use them, but these lots are oversized and could handle a larger FAR. She referred to the 5 questions, whether second stories should be permitted in a predominantly one-story
neighborhood, and she does not agree for this neighborhood at least. There are a few things that
have been grandfathered in and a couple of projects were presented last month that were second stories that were really lofts built on top of the small, one-car garage and the viewpoint of the photos made them look like they were large, but they were not. So, people would lose their privacy and it would change the entire flavor of the neighborhood. These lots can handle bigger
FAR, and she does not see what is wrong with variances and recommended increasing the FAR
and not pushing for two stories.
Chair Chong commented that the Board is not taking any action tonight and ultimately, the decision will be the Town Councils. The DRB heard testimony from neighbors in Bel Aire,
Belveron and other impacted neighborhoods, and staff felt it was best to identify a way to solve
the issue without having to grant variances which are absolutely allowed in the Town and there is a process for them. A variance must meet four findings and without being able to make the findings, the DRB is breaking the law and going against the way the code was written. Also,
Exhibit 2, Page 62 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
they are wrestling with allowing two stories and they are allowed today in these communities that would not require any variance at all. However, the neighborhood in general does not want
them, they are discouraged, and variances have been used as a way to get by them which is not
the correct legal way to handle that.
He also said his heart goes out to those caught up in the middle of this because they assumed based upon history that they were going to be able to do a project one way and now they are
caught up in it. He suggested starting the discussion with the five questions.
Director Tasini said it is State law and a Town-wide study session and staff did not send individual notices to people. If and when they have another special meeting, they could figure out a way to notify people more broadly. She did place an advertisement in the newspaper so
people would see it as well as the legal notice and knows the Ark ran an article this week as well.
Boardmember Kim asked what the stated purpose of the zoning code is. She asked and confirmed that it generally is designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. She asked if they should start to talk about whether or not adjusting or calling for a
change in the zoning code would enhance the health, safety and welfare or, she asked if it would
be to maintain the existing level of health, safety and welfare.
Director Tasini said this is up to the Board. She is asking the Board to look at what the Town currently does and determine if there is a better way to do that because there have been many
amendments throughout time to address this type of situation and other situations. It is not
unusual that they might do a text amendment. What is unusual is that she is coming before the DRB instead of the Planning Commission because the DRB looks at these standards. Then they must decide what they are creating will result in a betterment for the community, which is the subjective question she cannot answer.
Boardmember Kim said she presumes a key stakeholder is the Fire Department. If they start looking at expanding the lot coverage to a degree so they are now having houses encompass the entire lot, she asked if there would be any impediment to fighting fires and dealing with the spaces between lots.
Director Tasini said they are not removing setbacks so there still will be separation and setbacks.
Boardmember Kim agreed, but she wondered if they should start checking with the Fire Department as the health, safety and welfare arena.
Director Tasini said she does not think the setbacks will change and she noted the Fire Department reviews all of the plans, along with many other agencies and provide comments.
Boardmember Barringer noted the Fire Department is quick to get to that 50% calculation which
then requires sprinklers as well as a full review by the Water District, so he would argue new
homes or significant remodels are going to get sprinklered and have fire resistant landscaping against the buildings so ultimately, the reason is one of safety.
Exhibit 2, Page 63 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Boardmember Kim recommended that the review agencies comment on any proposed changes.
Director Tasini explained the process, stating tonight the Board is just being asked to provide an
idea of how to move forward. Staff would then return with more discussion, pieces of the draft ordinance, and once finalized then it will go to the Planning Commission. She will normally forward this to all review agencies, and she did not think that would be an issue.
Chair Chong asked if the Board could obtain an understanding of some of the pros and cons of
separating out certain neighborhoods, such as Belvedere where certain rules apply, and Tiburon has one code that applies to everything. He voiced concerns with carving out neighborhoods which becomes a big mess.
Boardmember Kim said in the zoning code there are different acronyms and color coded as R-1,
R-2, etc. There are already zoning codes or designations already on the map. It is not irregular inany city or municipality to have multiple designations. A zoning code should apply to the entirearea, but often an overlay district would have certain building standards or design attributesassigned to it.
Boardmember Berger said those kinds of zones almost always have to do with use and not with architectural style or configuration. The zoning in Tiburon that works well is zoning by size of lot and that is really the overriding concern. Other than a historic overlay district, they should keep to the same designation which makes the most sense which is size of lot or property. This
will open up a can of worms, such as corner lots, sloping zones, Old Tiburon, new Tiburon, etc.
Boardmember Kim said she disagrees and said she thinks it is already happening. In thinking about a small 7,000 square foot lot that is on a 70-degree slope. They are already allowing for height variances, potentially setback changes, etc.
Director Tasini said they could show the planning map, but they want to be sure that if Boardmember Kim is thinking of FARs versus coverages she asked not to forget that one of the things they also have are about 50 residential Planned Developments that have Precise Plans laid upon them as well with different developing standards. Therefore, they should be careful in how
they dissect everything because they will end up with a more complicated process in the end.
She thinks Ms. Bonifacio has the map she could pull up to look at the different single family residential, a Bel Aire single family residential, a modified residential, an R-1 that deals with 40,000 square feet, an R-2 with more of an open space, a two-family district, a multi-family
district, RPD’s, an RMP which is Residential Multi-Plan. If they want to get into the discussion
of each one, they will have to come back with something for the Board to determine how they might be dissected for lot coverage or FAR. So, putting overlays on this might be possible but difficult. It is interesting that Bel Aire has its own zoning district completely.
Boardmember Kim said it looks as though the Bel Aire zone includes sloped areas for the whole
subdivision, and Director Tasini confirmed and said often they see a flat lot that meets up to the slope that is in some instances an old railroad easement or general easement. So, people have that as a topographical feature in those areas too.
Exhibit 2, Page 64 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Ms. Fong said similarly, R-1 also covers the flat areas and hill areas.
Boardmember Barringer said he feels having lived in Belveron it has been an unwritten rule that the perimeter lots have more acceptance towards second stories. He asked if this is very difficult that if someone has an interior lot this is their zoning and here is the rule for 38% lot coverage and 18-foot maximum height, no two stories, and if on the exterior perimeter they either go with
the current zoning which for a second story whether the lot is appropriate or not or, they defer to
the zoning of the interior lot. He looks at 381 Karen Way or the house on Hilary that was appealed, and he felt those were appropriate to have second stories because they did not block anyone’s views. It was an uphill lot with not enough space and privacy because of the grade change that he felt made it appropriate. Also, some people might not want to go through the
hassle of a two story, and they will take what previously would be a lot coverage variance.
Director Tasini said one of the questions was about the issue of “discourage”. Staff is looking for some direction as to whether these should be permitted and if so, what is the standard.
Chair Chong said he hates the word “discourage”. It is ambiguous and leads an applicant to
believe that it is not they cannot do it, but it is just discouraged. They look at it as something that is allowed, and some see the word differently as opposed to having a change in the code as FAR or lot coverage or something that allows it. He therefore tends to lean towards Vice Chair Berger which is opening up a can of worms for lots in Belveron. They also have Venus Court which has
always been very supportive of two stories just because it is a totally different layout and they
have done many out there. So, to take each neighborhood and carving it up into streets and lots is not smart.
The DRB is here to look at each project as its own project without looking at other precedence.
They look at the site and the neighborhood and there is also a process for their decision to be
appealed and for the Town Council to look at. He is a believer that it has not been perfect, but it has worked relatively well until now.
Vice Chair Berger said he does agree with Director Tasini that there is a conflict in the code. If
they discourage second stories in one-story neighborhoods, then they must change the code to
allow people to build. They do not need to have a variance for each one. He believes what should happen is that people get what they deserve, a certain FAR, and that is what is in the code.
He proposed that if someone builds one story only Tiburon-wide their coverage will equal their
gross square footage they are allowed by law, plus a certain square footage for the garage, and
this way, larger lots have their rules and smaller lots have their rules. This allows the “discourage” factor to remain in place. At the DRB, they can say an applicant is perfectly entitled to the square footage they are entitled to in one-story. They can say they discourage two stories, and they are allowed to build the square footage they are entitled within one story.
If people say they do not want to and want to have a second story, then it goes to the DRB and they can review all of the different factors such as looking at the side yards, windows, privacy, etc. He therefore suggested that if the Town allows people to build in one story what they are
Exhibit 2, Page 65 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
entitled to, they do not have to worry about a variance or anything. As a DRB they can say their two-story proposal is a big headache for the neighborhood, that they are entitled to a one story
and square footage and ask them to try giving it a shot without any variances. As a whole, they
would not be singling out any particular area.
Boardmember Kim asked what would occur if there is a very steep slope and they have one story. Boardmember Berger said they would not get a height limit variance, and there are
hundreds of houses like this in Tiburon where there is a lower floor that is enclosed that is not
habitable space. On larger lots, it is not a problem.
Boardmember Kim said what they are talking about is the fear of carving out something for a particular zone, but they have already carved out an R-1BA which is Bel Aire where they are
subject to different zoning use and other things. That particular area is just in the Bel Aire area.
If they applied what Vice Chair Berger is saying just to that area, she thinks she would be much more convinced because they know there have been problems in that particular zoning.
Boardmember Barringer said in Belveron East it is the same thing, but it does not have a separate
zoning.
Boardmember Kim said it looks like the zoning code there impacts many houses.
Chair Chong asked why they would stop at those communities. He cannot count how many
other houses that have come through where the applicant was really trying to work with their
neighbors, and they ended up going with a one-story design for the simple reason that neighbors did not want a two-story but then they were limited by the lot coverage.
Vice Chair Berger said conversely, in Old Tiburon there are very small lots, but they have no
constraint on designing everything to be one story. The point is that if someone wants a building
one story in neighborhoods with predominately flat lots, where two stories is discouraged, they are at a disadvantage because in other areas where there are slopes, they are not met with opposition.
Boardmember Kim said she feels she would push this to Ms. Fong and Ms. Bonifacio. If they
applied this rule over the entire City, she asked where there are certain areas, they could create problems.
Vice Chair Berger said this was the exercise staff went through, and it is completely fine. For the
bigger lots coverage goes down, so it has been tested on different sizes of lots.
Chair Chong said if someone is entitled to build 30 feet, but the story they added blocked the uphill neighbor’s view of the Golden Gate Bridge then the Board must require they find another place to build it, so it does not mean the Board is going to rubber-stamp each application.
Boardmember Kim said she is playing devil’s advocate. Chair Chong said he thinks it is worth looking at how a rule or change like that would impact other neighborhoods and other
Exhibit 2, Page 66 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
applications that have come through previously. He said if they just say they will explore Vice Chair Berger’s route, he asked how they get to the right number.
Vice Chair Berger said there was an application where the applicant said he cannot get the square footage he wanted and must go up to the second story. If neighbors object to a second story house, then maybe the Board wants to excuse the garage from the overall square footage by tucking it in and the rest of the property can all be one story. He just thinks they should make it
possible for people to build a one-story house and not automatically have to come up against a
coverage variance.
Boardmember Kim agreed this is giving them a carrot to encourage the one-story. In playing devil’s advocate, she asked what if they say they do not want to do one-story and want to
develop a two-story.
Vice Chair Berger said this is what they have now and then they have to abide by the lot coverage.
Boardmember Kim said in certain areas where it is tighter, then they have to start thinking about
light quality, such as San Francisco downtown where the planning code forces developers to build a pyramidic type of building because of light and shadows.
Vice Chair Berger noted they always look at light quality for every project.
Boardmember Kim said the first speaker talked about clerestory and she noted there needs to be a means of egress out of the second story. She was not sure the Board should legislate this and thinks it is too prescriptive.
Vice Chair Berger said there is only one big issue the Board is dealing with; that in order to build
square footage that the Town encourages them to build on one story they are asking for a variance. He suggested removing that ability and it would be very straight-forward.
Boardmember Barringer said there is a certain simplicity to Vice Chair Berger’s approach, but he
is thinking of a 7,000 square foot lot that wants to develop with a 600 square foot garage. The
proportion of this size of a garage on a 2100 square foot house is pretty massive. He wondered if it was worth considering a 400 square foot garage, such that if someone is allowed 35% lot coverage which would include any overhangs and decks, but the garage footprint would be reduced to 400 square feet.
Vice Chair Berger said alternatively if they wanted a 600 square foot garage, 200 square feet must come out of the house. Boardmember Barringer said he thinks this might work and thinks this would be a fair approach.
Chair Chong added another item for discussion, stating the Board has seen many one stories push
closer to the edges and to the neighbors. They also have seen some one stories that are starting to encroach on two-story like heights. He thinks the concerns heard from neighbors are privacy concerns and also light blockage and the fact they now look at their window and see a structure
Exhibit 2, Page 67 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
where 12-foot ceiling heights affect this, so he asked if there is a height consideration that needs to be taken into account.
Vice Chair Berger said it goes back to the problem with the word “discouraged”. If “discouraged” was followed by a comma to then say, “….because two story application in one-story neighborhoods are difficult to do to provide privacy, more shadow, more light pollution, etc.” If they listed what the Board does not like about why they are discouraging two-story
applications where they are discouraged, then this gives them the ability to come back to address
it.
Director Tasini said this language is already in the code. She would like some discussion about “discouraged” and how they might help people because she understands Vice Chair Berger’s
comments but at the same time, when an applicant wants to do a second story regardless of the
lot coverage and staff says it is “discouraged”, they then think it is permitted and it is. If it is permitted, then she has no way of suggesting to them what they need to do. She thinks there are some setbacks they can look at.
Boardmember Barringer prepared a diagram and described the grade, setback, and he thinks it is
reasonable for people to have a 10-foot plate height and maybe a roof structure like a 14” TGI structure they will get close to 12 feet. He did not think they should limit it to 10 feet which gets a little unfair, but something like that would provide some protection. It could apply to the one or two story because a two story would mean it would have to be set back.
Boardmember Kim said she is hesitant putting a prescription in there saying if it is 12 feet, they want to limit the top of the plate. She questioned what if people do not want to do a pitched roof but instead a flat roof and they want a clerestory.
Vice Chair Berger said then the second story has to step in. This is an envelope with which
someone can build. If they want to build higher than what that envelope prescribes, they have to do it further away from the property line.
Boardmember Kim said this is exactly what San Francisco did. They said this is the envelope
and the applicant cannot go out of it. This is the prescription to maintain light, shadow, etc. She
does not like that because there are always exceptions, and it does not allow for that. She thinks the Board can come back and look at it as to how it specifically works for that situation and there were two speakers who said they want to maintain their ability to build two stories because of where they are site situated and the way they are on the slope. She did not think they should
prescribe the envelope they can build in and referred to the building created out of a lot that was
subdivided with a hill and it was very contentious. There was a restriction on how that envelope needed to look like, so this sets it before it is even built or designed.
Boardmember Barringer said in those rare cases there still is a variance process. They might
have a weird lot or special condition so there should always be that option.
Director Tasini said she is wondering that when they return to wordsmith the “discouraged” into more of a sentence that states, “Second stories may be developed if the applicant consider
Exhibit 2, Page 68 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
privacy, shadows, lights, views, etc.” This would remove the word “discouraged” because this word really causes a lot of problems. Staff works in the regulatory framework, and it is more
constraining than an architect’s fluid, subjective and creative world. She thinks they should
provide more of a guideline for it, and they could possibly incorporate a section from the design guidelines into the development code to make it more specific to allow applicants and neighbors to understand why they would go forward with something when it is “discouraged”.
Boardmember Kim asked and confirmed that the hillside guideline sketches are not part of the
code. She did not know the origins of the design guidelines document.
Director Tasini said it is not code, but it is a guideline, and it is referred to in the code. Staff must look at those principles when evaluating something. It is not that they can completely ignore
them because they are not codified. They are referred to in the code and they incorporate the
guiding principles into the findings.
Vice Chair Berger commented that staff does not make the findings. The DRB makes the findings, and he thinks people ought to be allowed to ask no matter how crazy it is for any
variance they want to ask for and it is up to the DRB to make the findings. Respectfully, it is up
to the DRB to make the findings and staff can discourage but not cut off someone when staff cannot make the findings, so they do not come to the DRB.
Director Tasini begged to differ in that staff provides the Board those findings in the staff report
based on their technical analysis and the Board can either support those findings or make
changes to them.
Vice Chair Berger said the reality is though that people have come to the Board in meetings or on the side saying they would have brought the Board that FAR coverage exception but were
told they could not. Staff does not make the findings and it is the DRB that makes them.
Director Tasini said when someone comes in and talks with staff and states they want to do something, staff never says they cannot submit their application. What they say is they are not able to make the findings and therefore they will probably not be able to recommend approval.
She does the analysis and provides the findings, and they can either support them or not and the
Board can say staff is wrong and make the findings.
Vice Chair Berger apologized because he was going by what people told him that said staff told them they could not ask for it.
Chair Chong said then the question becomes what guidance the Board wants to provide staff. He personally likes something that works for the entire town. He likes the idea that in taking the one-story option then this is a different lot coverage. The Board would have to look at what it means for past applications, what have those percentages been for other variances that have been
granted in the past.
He thinks it is worth looking into Boardmember Barringer’s idea of just because it is a one-story it does not mean they want 20-foot walls right next to the neighbor which defeats the entire
Exhibit 2, Page 69 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
purpose of taking the one-story option. Then, next he would have to think through when someone takes that one-story option and then one day wants to do a two-story what happens
when someone takes that one-story option and then wanting a two-story. He thinks this is a better
approach for one-stories in neighborhoods like Belveron and Bel Aire.
Boardmember Barringer likened it to a much more simplified option of what he was trying to get at where on a perimeter lot it might be appropriate to have a two-story. What Vice Chair Berger
suggested covers the situation where if they want to go one-story, they can build to 35% and they
are allowed a garage on top of that. He thinks the reason they are doing this is there is potential legal jeopardy here where people should be able to develop properties they purchased.
Vice Chair Berger clarified it is not a percent, but it is the allowable FAR plus a garage of some
size. The Board can decide whether it is 600 or 400 square feet. This would be the top coverage
if they stay with a one-story design. So, for every extra square foot on the lot they will get an exact coverage they are permitted.
Boardmember Kim asked if one has a 7,000 square foot lot. The lot coverage says they can only
go to 2100. The maximum gross floor area is 2450 square feet. If they have one-story, they can
build up to 2450 or they can build two floors still at 2450. If someone has a one-story, they can go to the greater square footage of the two which is in all cases will be the gross floor area.
Vice Chair Berger said his only concern is someone has a one-story home and builds to the
maximum coverage and then someone else buys the property from them and wants to put up a
second story.
Boardmember Kim said the one exception is when going from 7,000 to 7,500 square feet, the change is 350 square feet and when going to 7,500 feet it is a 500 square foot difference, so there
is something weird going on mathematically. She does not know what the average size is in that
area and what happens is the allowable area peaks up at 7500 and then it goes back down, which is a little weird. This would be worth staff looking into this.
Vice Chair Berger said he is living in an R-2 8,000 square foot lot and he is sure his coverage is
60% or 75%. It works great and it does not affect neighbors, and everybody is happy. So, he
knows it can be done and not be a terrible property.
Chair Chong said he would be curious to understand that of the ones granted a variance if they applied that rule. He questioned whether it was way over, whether it would allow them to build
what they ended up building that got a variance approved throughout the town.
Director Tasini said staff can spot check different areas to look at the variances and see what that might do for the lot sizes, etc. There have been quite a number of them, but staff can develop a spreadsheet to see how this would impact, if at all.
Chair Chong said he would also like to explore what a draft with eliminating the word “discouraged” would be and how to replace it with something. They could take a few of the minutes from a few of the meetings where the neighbors all detailed exactly what they do not
Exhibit 2, Page 70 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
like about two stories which includes privacy, light, views, and other things they regularly talk about.
Director Tasini summarized that this gives her a lot of material to bring back and she does not want this to take a long time. She recommended staff bring back draft language to the DRB which would go to the Planning Commission and to provide some data to support how this may or may not work.
Boardmember Barringer said he designed a project just a hair under 7000 square foot lot and he obtained a variance for 35% lot coverage. It was a 2125 square foot house and a 375 square foot garage, but he was at the 35% lot coverage. In theory, he could have built a 2500 square foot house plus a 400 square foot garage so it would have been more coverage on the lot. He thinks
the garage size should be limited because if he could have built a 600 square foot garage then it
would start to pack in on the small lots.
Vice Chair Berger also noted that people will start to build 600 square foot garages where one car will be parked in it and the other area will be turned into a family room, so he thinks the
Board should be able to restrict the garage size.
Chair Chong asked if 35% is the middle average of what the variances have been in these neighborhoods in the past and thought it would be important to see them on a spreadsheet.
Director Tasini said if they are looking at the FAR and not the lot coverage it might not be an
issue, but staff could look at the average is there. When she was reviewing it in the past, she believed it was around 36% or 37% what people have been getting, with the 30% being the lot coverage permitted and seeing 35% to 37% normally. They have gotten very few that are 31% or 32%.
Chair Chong asked if this was because they were trying to keep it under the FAR.
Director Tasini said she would have to look at that and obviously this needs to be tweaked, given the numerous variances. She confirmed she has direction from the Board and said she will poll
members and try to schedule another meeting as soon as possible. She thanked the Board for the
discussion and recognized staff.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Exhibit 2, Page 71 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 6
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background
For the past year, the Design Review Board (DRB) has reviewed a number of controversial projects consisting of two-story single-family residence in predominately one-story
neighborhoods. During the review process, many community members did not feel two-story residential developments are compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Furthermore, many immediate neighbors also expressed concerns that two-story residential
developments invade privacy, may obstruct views, and impact light and air.
Historically, variances for excess lot coverage had been granted to alleviate some of the
neighborhood concerns regarding two story homes within predominately single-story residential neighborhoods. The controversy largely lies within areas where properties are generally flat and are regular in shape with the lack of site-specific physical constraints, and therefore, staff has been unable to make the required variance findings to support these variance requests.
DRB Study Session on July 29, 2021
The Design Review Board held a public meeting on July 29, 2021 to study the issues relating to lot coverage variance and second stories in predominately one-story neighborhoods, as well as assessing whether the current regulations and policies would provide adequate guidance
for developments (Attachment 1). Nine public members commented on these issues at the study session.
Summary of Study Session
The meeting minutes of the Study Session held by the Design Review Board on July 29, 2021
is attached as Attachment 31. Upon public testimony and deliberation, the general comments made by the Board are summarized as follows:
-Majority of the board members found that the concerns over two-story developmentand lot coverage variance is not exclusive to the Bel Aire neighborhood, but exist inother predominately one-story neighborhoods (i.e. Belveron).
-Majority of the board members found that the current zoning code does not ‘encourage’one-story development when the lot coverage requirement is more restrictive than themaximum allowable gross floor area, particularly for properties with smaller lot sizes.-Majority of the board members found that the current guiding principles (TMC Section16-52.020 (H)(3)) is too ambiguous with the statement ‘second-story additions be
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Planning Division
SUBJECT: Study Session – Lot Coverage/Second Stories
DATE: September 23, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 72 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
discouraged’ and recommended to further define clear guidelines for two-story
developments in primarily one-story neighborhoods.
Staff Recommendations
Staff followed the directions provided by individual board members and proposes the following amendments to the zoning code for the Board’s consideration:
•For One-Story Developments in R-1 (single-family residential) and R-1-B-A (Bel-Aire
single-family residential) zones
- Increase current lot coverage requirement from 30% to match with the maximum
allowable gross floor area with the intent to encourage one-story developments withoutthe need of granting lot coverage variance to enable allowable gross floor area- Reduce the gross floor area exclusion for garage or carport from 600 square feet to400 square feet with the intent to ensure buildings are well designed with appropriatestreet frontage-Impose a height limit of 18’ for one-story development and/or further explore daylightplane requirement with the intent to ensure adequacy of light and air betweenneighbors
The Board shall review these proposed zoning amendments and provide further comments. Staff has compiled related permit data on lot coverage variance to facilitate the Board
discussion (Attachment 5).
•For Two-Story Developments in R-1 (single-family residential) and R-1-B-A (Bel-Aire
single-family residential) zones
While some board members voiced concerns over the ambiguity of current policy, staff examined possible refinements to the current guideline principle pertaining to two-story developments in predominately one-story neighborhood.
Existing relevant guiding principles, TMC Section 16-52.020 (H)(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.
Staff recommend the following refinements to TMC Section 16-52.020 (H)(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
Exhibit 2, Page 73 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
permitted only with increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor and other
design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.
Staff found that other existing guiding principles, particularly TMC Section 16-52.020 (H)(2),
will continue to govern developments with attention to view considerations, privacy and adequacy of light and air in relation to adjoining sites.
Existing guiding principles, TMC Section 16-52.020 (H)(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 purpose and guiding principles of Site Plan and Architectural Review are outlined in TMC Section 16-52.020 (A) and (H), which is excerpt as Attachment 6. The Board may review the existing texts in the zoning code and recommend refinements to address emerging issues as
deemed appropriate.
Public Comment
As of the date of this report, staff has received one written correspondence regarding the subject discussion since the last Study Session on July 29, 2021 (Attachment 4). Letters received for past Study Session are included as Attachment 2.
Recommendations and Future Action
Staff recommends the Design Review Board to take the following actions: -Review past minutes of the Study Session on July 29, 2021-Conduct a public meeting-Review the proposed zoning code amendments-Provide direction to staff on the recommendations to Planning Commission
Comments and recommendations on the zoning code amendment made by the Design Review Board will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review. Planning Commission’s recommendation will subsequently forward to Town Council for review and adoption.
Attachments: 1.Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Development Standards for R-1 and R-1-BA zones2. Memorandum and Late Mail for Design Review Board Study Session on July 29, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 74 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
3.Draft Minutes of Design Review Board Study Session on July 29, 20211
4. Letter from resident at 113 Blackfield Drove, received on August 11, 20215.Related Permit Data on Lot Coverage Variance from years 2000-20216.Excerpt of Purpose and guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review
1 Interested parties may view the video recording of the July 29, 2021, Design Review Board special meeting online, which is accessible at this link: https://townoftiburon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=648
Exhibit 2, Page 75 of 156
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Percentage (in square feet)Percentage (Equivalent) (in square feet)
7,000 30%2,100 35.0%2,450
7,500 30%2,250 36.7%2,750
8,000 30%2,400 35.0%2,800
8,500 30%2,550 33.5%2,850
9,000 30%2,700 32.2%2,900
9,500 30%2,850 31.1%2,950
10,000 30%3,000 30.0%3,000
Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Standards for R-1 and R-1-BA zones
Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Allowable Gross Floor Area*Lot size (square feet)
Attachment 1
* Floor Area Limit is based on Floor Area Ratio Guidelines set forth in the Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2.
For properties with lot area less than 7,500 sq. ft., maximum allowable gross floor area is 35% of the property area, plus an additional 600 sq. ft. of garage
or carport.
For properties with lot area between 7,500 sq. ft. through 60,000 sq. ft., maximum allowable gross floor area is 10% of the property area plus 2,000 sq. ft.
plus an additional 600 sq. ft. of garage or carport.
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 2, Page 76 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Planning Division
SUBJECT: Study Session – Lot Coverage/Second Stories
DATE: July 29, 2021
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background
For the past year, the Design Review Board (DRB) has reviewed a number of proposed two
story single-family residential projects or with a lot coverage variance request in predominately
one-story neighborhoods.
While some applicants would like to comply with the development standards, they are unable
to do so because the lot coverage allowance is restrictive. As a result of inability to comply
with the lot coverage allowances to achieve the desired maximum floor area, some applicants
propose a two-story residential project. Second-story residential proposals have been met with
a great deal of controversy. Many community members did not feel two-story residential
developments are compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Furthermore, many
immediate neighbors also expressed concerns that two-story residential developments would
invade privacy, create view blockage, and cause inadequate light and air.
Historically, variances for excess lot coverage had been granted to address concerns for two-
story developments in these single-story residential neighborhoods. The controversy largely
lies within areas where properties are generally flat and are regular in shape with the lack of
site-specific physical constraints, and therefore, staff has been unable to make the required
variance findings to support these variance requests.
Purpose
The issue of two-story residential projects and lot coverage variances are interrelated and
need to be addressed cohesively. The purpose of this study session is to provide an
opportunity for the public and the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss the issues regarding
lot coverage variances and second-story single family homes and to assess whether the
current regulations and policies provide adequate guidance for developments.
Issue
In order to frame the issue for a robust discussion, the following questions appear to address
the issues of lot coverage and second stories:
1.How to address the development interest of achieving the maximum allowable gross
floor area when there is a lower lot coverage requirement? (See Attachment 1)
2.Is the current lot coverage standard of 30% appropriate?
Attachment 2
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 2, Page 77 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.Should two-story single-family residential dwellings be permitted in predominately one-
story residential neighborhoods?
4.What is required to clarify the current policy of “second stories are discouraged”?
5.Should there be standardized design standards to review two-story residential
proposals?
Public Comment
As of the date of this report, one letters has been received regarding the subject discussion.
Recommendations and Future Action
Staff recommends the DRB hold a study session, provide a forum for community feedback,
discuss the matter, and provide direction to staff. This meeting will serve as an opportunity to
recommend further action. If the decision of the DRB is to propose amendments to the
development standards and policies, staff will draft amendments for the DRB to review at a
subsequent meeting. The DRB comments and direction will then be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for their review and recommendation to Town Council for review and adoption.
Attachments:
1.Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Development Standards for R-1 and R-1-
BA zones
2.Floor Area Ratio Guidelines
3.Lot Coverage Information
4.Letter received from Bill and Barb Powers on July 22, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 78 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 2
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Percentage (in square feet)Percentage (in square feet)
7,000 30%2,100 35.0%2,450
7,500 30%2,250 36.7%2,750
8,000 30%2,400 35.0%2,800
8,500 30%2,550 33.5%2,850
9,000 30%2,700 32.2%2,900
9,500 30%2,850 31.1%2,950
10,000 30%3,000 30.0%3,000
Existing Lot Coverage and Gross Floor Area Standards for R-1 and R-1-BA zones
Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum Allowable Gross Floor AreaLot size (square feet)
Attachment 1 of
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 79 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Planning Division Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 PHONE: (415) 435-7390/FAX: (415) 435-2438
www.townoftiburon.org
FLOOR AREA RATIO GUIDELINES
Excerpts from Tiburon Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning)
Section 16-52.020 (I), Table 2-2, and Selected Definitions
I. Floor Area Ratio Guidelines.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Subsection is to provide a communityyardstick for appropriate residential size and scale, measured in gross square footage, in relation to the overall size of property on which theimprovements are proposed. It is the intent of the Town to reasonablyapply residential floor area ratios with regard to specific sitecharacteristics and the surrounding pattern of development.
The floor area ratio (FAR) guideline is intended to discourageoverbuilding of property, as often occurs with "tear-downs" and extensiveremodel/additions on infill sites, and with first-time residentialconstruction. The floor area ratio guideline for a lot is not intended as atarget to be achieved, but is intended to indicate a reasonable maximum. The Town may authorize less than the maximum square footageindicated by the floor area ratio guideline when necessary to achievecompatibility with surrounding development, to maintain the neighborhoodcharacter, or for other good cause.
2. Calculations. Floor area is calculated using the definition contained in Article X (Definitions) under "Floor area, gross." Floor area ratio includesaccessory buildings as well as any main building.
3. FAR guidelines. Residential development standards are as shown in Table 2-2 in Section 16-21.040 (Residential Zones DevelopmentStandards). FAR guidelines for single-family and two-family residentialzones (R-1, R-1-B, RO, R-2, and RPO) are shown in Table 5-2 below.
1
Attachment 2 of
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 80 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
8
1
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
7
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
8
2
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
7
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
8
3
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
7
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
8
4
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
7
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
8
5
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
7
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
2
,
P
a
g
e
8
6
o
f
1
5
6
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
2
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
3
o
f
7
/
2
9
/
2
0
2
1
D
R
B
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
3
T
o
w
n
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
2
1
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
7
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
7
,
2
0
2
1
Attachment 4 of
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 87 of 156
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022 Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
July 29, 2021
RE: Bel Aire Subdivision
Tiburon Design Review Board members:
As of late yesterday, I was informed that the Design Review Board will be meeting today to
discuss modifying the parameters of the homes built in the Bel Aire neighborhood. Unfortunately, because of a prior commitment, I cannot attend.
As a resident of Bel Aire, I understand this meeting is in regards to the Board members making a
decision to terminate all or most variances and allowing the building of two-story homes. If this
is the subject matter of the meeting, I oppose the decision. However, in the alternative, request that a study/survey be commissioned by the Town of Tiburon, before any decisions are made. A Bel Aire community forum on this matter is paramount to investigate on how we would like to envision the future of our neighborhood.
The Bel Aire neighborhood is unique because the substantial majority of homes are one-story. And at one time, all of the homes were one-story. One cannot compare the character of the Bel Aire neighborhood with the character of the homes in, for example, the Sugarloaf area. There is a reason the phrase “character of the neighborhood” was used in describing this neighborhood in
an effort to preserve its character. With homes built so closely together, two-story homes would
have immediate negative impacts on the neighbors and they would be unsightly. Hence, the phrase, “character of the neighborhood” was wisely used to preserve the one-story homes to provide privacy, sunlight, and preserve the esthetics of the neighborhood. I hope the Board will abide with this sentiment.
As a former member of the Design Review Board, we were generally not opposed to granting variances to the homeowners to expand their homes to the maximum allowed. This preserved the unique character of Bel Aire, allowed the homeowner to expand their homes, and avoided neighbor disputes.
Moreover, future confrontations between neighbors may be avoided if notice were given to all of the residents of Bel Aire. If two-story homes are allowed, they must be built in a manner that is not intrusive to the neighbors.
Respectfully,
Evelyn Woo 263 Cecilia Way
Tiburon, CA 94920
Late Mail
7/29/2021
DRB special meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 88 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
July 27, 2021
Tiburon Design Review Board and Planning Department
Re: R-1-BA Study and Proposed Zoning Changes
I am glad the Town of Tiburon is revisitng the zoning for the R-1-BA Zone. The Bel Aire neighborhood is a
historic neighborhood of low slung ranch style houses, wide streets, some two stories on the perimeter,
lots of houses with variences and both old and new families. Most families stay in the neighborhood
until long after retirement or the children have left because it such a nice neighborhood.
Two Stories: It is important to clarify the language on two stories. Some support them and some don’t.
The ‘discouraged’ clause leaves us open to the type of controversy that occurred with the two story that
was recently approved on Karen Way. As any attorney will state, we already have minor single room two
stories on the perimeter so I can’t see how we can deny them on the perimeter. It is important though,
to recognize that these existing two stories are not full two stories similar to designs in neighborhoods
that allow full two stories. To keep the character of the neighborhood, it will be important to not deviate
away from that or to introduce them to the interior. Clear language, possible with a square footage,
would ensure that, as well as stating perimeter only.
Variences:
•Many homeowners have invested in expensive renovations and to avoid a second story, were
granted a varience or two. Therefore the same argument holds as does for two stories, we
already have granted them so why should they be denied now? Precedence can’t be claimed in
one instance for existing two story renovations and denied for variences.
•Another important point in terms of 85 Harriet Way who have been told they can’t have a
varience even though there is an application process and associated fees on the planning
website. This looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen because it will make renovations as well as
resale more difficult to start claiming no variences are allowed. . The town already has the
application and fee schedule on the books, so who decided this? What is the reason?
•Not all of the lots are rectangular or with a house 12 foot on each side, such as mine with a 6
foot breezeway on one side which makes the separation 18 feet. So there needs to be some
method of evaluating an expansion. What other method than a review of a varience request is
there?
Rear Setbacks: The method for calculating rear setbacks shorter than the minimum of 25 feet seems to
introduce controversy. It would seem clearer to just have a minimum and then allow the applicant to
request a varience. Recently, a house behind me used the rear fence which is 1 foot into my side of the
property line to indicate the property line. Using this measurement as well as an erroneous front
property measurement that ignored the Town’s easement, they calculated a shorter setback. This
brought the proposed extension closer to my house than would be allowed if they had used a certified
survey property line and the 25 foot setback requirement. Getting rid of variences only complicates
things
Front Setbacks: Many houses have brought their garage forward while keeping a single or single & ½ car
length. These are not imposing, and allow the single story renovation to keep much of their backyard.
How can the town legally deny future similar requests? The front setback should be reduced to allow a
single car parking.
LATE MAIL
DRB Special Meeting
7/29/2021
Exhibit 2, Page 89 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
30% Lot Coverage: Many renovations have been approved with a larger lot coverage using the variance
method. Just as with two stories on the perimeter of Bel Aire, and granting of variences, how can an
increase of lot coverage when reviewed be denied just because we don’t want variances? There should
be careful review of a varience for excess lot coverage.
Certified Survey Drawings by a Licensed Surveyor: As mentioned above, no certified survey drawings
were submitted with the proposed renovation behind me. This resulted in an erroneous lot size on the
architects drawings that is conflict with the assessor’s parcel records for the same lot. Since the architect
seemed to base the lot size on the location of fences, when the west fence and rear are outside their
property line according to my certified survey drawings. I would guess there is a problem with the east
property line too but those are not on my drawings. The erroneous lot size is giving the proposed
renovation a greater than 30% lot coverage. Wouldn’t it have been easier to just require a varience and
review that by the DRB. Certified Survey drawings by a licensed surveyor should be a minimum
requirement for any proposed renovation, as well as checking the assessor’s records for a lot.
Covered Areas as a portion of lot coverage: I was told recently that eave overhangs were not considered
part of the lot coverage by the planning department for the proposed renovation behind me, when I
questioned the lot coverage calculation. Yet I see 85 Harriet has been told they do apply? The reality is
that people will just build their pergoals and structures after the main renovation is done, without the
benefit of building inspection. Therefore, this seems like another reason to keep the variences and
review them on a case by case basis.
Planning and Building Department Coordination: There should be more coordination between the
planning and building departments to avoid costly mistakes. Recently a neighbor went through planning
for a front landscaping project. They were approved by the DRB and planning for a fence close to the
interior side walk edge. Upon post inspection, by the building department, they were informed of the
town/utility easement that required them to move the fence 5 feet in. This was a costly effort for them
to relocate the posts and seems unnecessary. I suspect it was a lack of either the certified survey
drawings or unfamiliarity with building requriements for the town of tiburon. What ever the reason this
should not happen.
I appreciate all of the effort the planning department and the volunteer DRB put into reviewing
renovations. Clearer language and acceptance of historic approvals, and the opinion of those who
actually live in Bel Aire will make your jobs easier. Review cannot just be the fun of looking at design, it
also has to be the hard work of zoning, neighbors’ opinions, neighborhood character, precendence, etc.
Thank you,
Carolyn Shadan
279 Cecilia Way
Tiburon
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 27, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 90 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
MINUTES #13 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 29, 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://us06web.zoom.us/j/85064728690
Webinar ID: 850 6472 8690 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 850 6472 8690
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 Chong.
A.ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bryan Chong; Vice Chair Miles Berger; Boardmembers Cedric Barringer and Suzanne Kim
Absent: None
Staff: Director of Community Development Dina Tasini; Town Attorney Eli Flushman; Assistant Planner Samantha Bonifacio; Development Aide Kris Bernard
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 2, Page 91 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
STAFF BRIEFING – None
STUDY SESSION
Lot Coverage/Second Stories
Chair Chong provided introductory remarks on the goal of the special meeting.
Boardmember Kim commented that for a planning rule change to be promulgated she asked if it requires the Town Council to legislate that and questioned the process.
Director Tasini stated normally if a text amendment is done, they would go directly to the
Planning Commission because they are the body that reviews the change and recommends it to the Town Council, and the Town Council adopts the ordinance which then goes into effect. Because most of these issues they will discuss tonight are solely in the DRB’s domain and have dealt with them now for about one year, staff recommended coming to the DRB, explain the
issues, receive input from the public and for the DRB to direct staff to formulate the ordinance
and any revisions. After she receives the DRB’s direction, she typically would then bring the draft ordinance back to the DRB at another study session for review and comment by the DRB and public and then onto the Planning Commission.
Boardmember Kim presumes the process is lengthy and asked how it works for those
applications which are in process, are approved, or may have been appealed to the Town Council.
Director Tasini stated once approved under the current legislation and ordinance, it is approved.
The Municipal Code is not a static document and is amended over time for various reasons.
Whatever was approved in the past will continue. Whatever is in the queue, those projects will be approved with whatever is currently in place.
Boardmember Kim confirmed with Director Tasini that an application that has been approved
and has been through the appeals process cannot be appealed again under any new statute.
Director Tasini gave a PowerPoint presentation and provided the reasons for the special meeting, stating there has been an increase in requests for excess lot coverage variances. Staff and the Board have been confronted with how to meet the four required findings for approval and, in
some instances, they have not been able to make the findings. Variances are for exceptions and
should not be used as the rule. If they see there are a number of them, the standards should be adjusted in order to meet the community’s desires.
For instance, staff tells an applicant they cannot do the lot coverage variance and they then go to
a two-story proposal which are discouraged in the code but not disallowed. Therefore, they are
trying to find the right balance which led staff to consider the text possibly needing to be changed in some way that will allow the community to develop as they wish and to provide
Exhibit 2, Page 92 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
development rights people believe they should have in a manner that does not necessitate a variance or lengthy appeals or discussions.
Director Tasini stated lot coverage measures the portion of the lot covered by the structures and she described the way it is calculated.
Vice Chair Berger asked about open roofed structures such as a trellis, and Director Tasini said it
depends on whether it is 3-sided, whether it is more than 50% open, and this is not explicit in the
code.
Assistant Planner Samantha Bonifacio stated there is a section in the code defining what is lot coverage and what is not counted, and it specifies that landscape features are not counted
towards the lot coverage allowance.
Director Tasini then defined the gross floor definition which is the sum of all enclosed or covered areas of each floor of the building and she described how it is measured, an example of how applicants sometimes mis-measure lot coverage and need a lot coverage variance, and ways
to calculate the use of one’s lot.
Boardmember Kim asked if staff has seen this discrepancy in other jurisdictions of what is allowed in lot coverage and gross floor area, and if so, she asked how it is dealt with.
Director Tasini said she did not have examples, but thinks Tiburon has a specific situation here
wherein they have predominantly single family lots in Bel Aire and Belveron neighborhoods where issues have come up. People want to build out more and get as much as they can on their lot. There are ways in which to deal with this so there are no variances such as increasing the percentage of lot coverage to meet that, the Board can solely look at floor area and not look at lot
coverage, and with respect to the two-story portion of this the Board can talk about how to deal
with that in some of these neighborhoods. But there are jurisdictions that use other exceptions to allow certain types of additions to be done and not through the variance tool.
The Town currently has a policy to discourage two-story developments in predominantly one-
story neighborhoods and some say they can be done on the inner or outer parts which creates
more turmoil, and to regulate this, staff does not have standards. Therefore, staff seeks direction and review of objective development standards related to two-story developments and she thinks they can be done in a sensitive manner if staff is provided tools to tell the applicants they must set back the structure a certain distance, consider privacy, window placement, etc.
Director Tasini then outlined five questions for the Board to focus on. As next steps, staff is looking for direction so staff can return with zoning code revisions for a future study session and then bring those changes and amended text to the Planning Commission and Town Council for a future public hearing and adoption:
1.How does the Town address the development interests of achieving the maximumallowable gross floor area when there is a lower lot coverage requirement?2. Is the current lot coverage standard of 30% appropriate?
Exhibit 2, Page 93 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
3. Should two-story residential drawings be permitted in predominantly one-storyresidential neighborhoods?
4. What is required to clarify the current policy of second stories?
5. Should these be standardized design standards to review these?
Boardmember Kim stated the Town has zoning codes such as an R-1 and R-2 so there are primarily two single family home zoning codes, and she is concerned about the implication of
addressing it for one geographic region. She asked if it is possible to have a precise zoning code
for a specific geographic area so that it does not impact the entire town.
Director Tasini said yes because there is hillside lots, where they have not had issues with lot coverage, and she asked if Senior Planner Christy Fong wanted to comment.
Senior Planner Christy Fong said there is also RO-1 and RO-2 and those are more applicable to open space residential areas. The discussion for tonight is only focused on R-1 and R-1BA which has lot coverage of 30%. The other zones in residential areas have different percentages for lot coverage.
Board member Kim agreed but wondered if the Town could be even more precise and put an overlay district on a specific geographic area which would make her feel more comfortable. Director Tasini said yes, they can do this, and this is what their intent is in the R-1 and R-1BA.
Vice Chair Berger voiced the opposite point of view in that he believes the Board can find a
modification that will apply to everyone in Tiburon equally and they will not have to start picking out certain lots, certain places and areas that get treated differently than others. He believes it can be done such that it works for everybody in town.
Director Tasini noted there were at least 14 people online who may wish to speak and asked the
Board if they wanted to first take public comments.
Chair Chong asked if staff was focused through the lens of Belveron East/West and Bel Aire or other neighborhoods, noting there is also Mar East and Corinthian Island and other areas that
have very small lots.
Director Tasini said their topography is a bit different, so staff does not look at them in the same manner as they did the flat, regular shaped lots that are of a smaller size. But they did not go and conduct a huge data search on everything because she wanted to have the discussion with the
Board and the public on whether they want to focus on these areas, on the zoning, or whether
they want to focus on something as a whole. Most appeals on variances that have caused the most issues have been in Bel Aire and Belveron and they have some in some of the hillside areas, but much of these have to do with views and blockage as opposed to the variance issues.
Boardmember Kim asked if staff had a map that can specifically identify the R-1BA.
Exhibit 2, Page 94 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Director Tasini said she did not have it tonight but could for the next meeting. She would like to hear what the Board and the public have to say on what they need back to review, how to move
forward on whether they want to do something more global or specific.
Chair Chong opened the public comment period.
Public Comments:
Jim Mallot said he is an architect practicing in Tiburon for a long time and lives at 987 Tiburon Boulevard and have remodeled about 20 homes in Bel Aire and quite a few others in the small home subdivisions over the years. He appreciates what the Town is doing because it is important for the small homes to get more attention from a planning standpoint. In Tiburon there is little
new home construction left and mostly additions and remodels, so this will be increasingly
important.
When designing for small homes, issues are window placement, privacy, shadow, landscaping and he believes the Town would benefit by a half dozen more pages or guidelines for these small
homes, particularly second floor additions, limiting windows on the side to clerestory rather than
privacy reducing windows that look into someone else’s private areas. He thinks side, rear, front and back setbacks should be reduced substantially which would have the effect of reducing the need to go to a second story for more space. Sometimes there are lots which work where there are no problems for the adjacent neighbors but there are many that have issues. Designing to
minimize the impact on neighbors is critical and Tiburon is built out, so adjacent neighbors will
have issues. He thinks color on homes is more important than it is given credit for, as a white house on a hillside stands out 20 miles away and any hue or darker shades are much less visible and less obtrusive.
He thinks another issue is fashion in architecture. He appreciates modern homes but when they
damage the privacy, views or other aspects of adjacent residences there should be some constraints. He referred to and spoke about tree growth over time in Tiburon which are starting to impact views uphill and from adjacent neighbors, as well as their huge fire risk. Views will become more and more important, particularly those built in the flats, where the high trees have
no effects on them, but they affect neighbors uphill. The Town owns many parcels where view
blockage is a real issue, which should be considered.
A separate zoning code for the small homes might be a good idea. He thinks the main issue is to get something that works for the small homes, and he would encourage using the design
guidelines parallel with zoning code changes.
Carolyn Shadan said she lives in the Bel Aire neighborhood and is very glad the Board is doing this and referred to her email with specific points. She is an Engineer and looks at things a little differently, and thinks the Town needs to clarify the word “discourage”. Her main point for
speaking is that Ms. Tasini is doing a good job but is the Director and she asked if the Board has
reached out to the neighborhood. She found it outrageous that the Town wants to change zoning laws when no one was notified of this meeting. She knew the meeting was coming and notified all of her neighbors.
Exhibit 2, Page 95 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
She also does not understand the fear of variances. She understands it makes the review process
longer and maybe more difficult, but lots are not all the same and so there should be a way for
variances. The letter from 85 Harriet states they have been told by Planning that variances are no longer allowed. She would personally get an attorney because variances are on the website, are allowed per the Municipal Code and she was not sure why people cannot apply for a variance. She trusts the Boards opinion that when they review something they could decide whether the
variance is warranted or not. The standards are not very clear, are nebulous, open to
interpretation and she thinks this is what causes the controversy. Therefore, she asked to see clearer standards, but that development is taken into account because no Boardmembers live in Bel Aire, thinks one or two members live in Belveron, and no one in the Planning Department lives in either of those neighborhoods so she asked that outreach be conducted to affected
communities. She voiced support for a special overlay and did not believe it mattered what
occurs in other jurisdictions, as Tiburon is unique.
Pru Starr, 160 Leland Way, said she definitely agrees that residents were not notified of this meeting or that there was anything specifically impacting them neighbors were aware of. She
watched the dynamics and saw that the Board’s hands were tied legally and saw the importance
for a meeting like this. They agree that architecture is a huge design factor and most important and that the history of this neighborhood does pride themselves on a harmonious and cohesive energy. She suggested driving through Tower Road in Mill Valley and see exactly what they do not want which are massive homes next to small homes. She drove through Belveron today and
saw the same thing, so they are trying not to make that happen in Bel Aire. She agrees the
neighborhood zoning code is probably a good idea, thinks variances should be handled case by case and make people build out so they do not have to build up, and she spoke about examples in her neighborhood. It is not about two stories being bad but about bad designs being two stories for the neighbors.
They have a different sensibility because they live so close together and shadows and morning sun are factors that are critical for them. They appreciate trying to work on this and said everything would be nice to have simple language, but she thinks it is more a case-by-case decision.
Bill and Barb Powers, 85 Harriet Way, stated they bought 85 Harriet Way last December and prior to purchasing they researched all of the lot coverage variances that were approved on neighboring properties which helped them make a decision to buy the house. They very much wanted to build a single-story house and began working on plans. Their house is so dilapidated it
is really a tear down so they thought they would start over, build a new house, keep it in kind
with the neighborhood, and submitted it but were shocked to learn that the way things worked over time would no longer be acceptable and variances for lot coverage would no longer be given. This is disappointing and said after hearing other neighbors, he thinks it will take a while to come up with proper language and changes to the zoning ordinance, but they are stuck
because they want to move forward.
He said Ms. Tasini said they can go into design review, but the Town will not support them. They think the Board will like their design and said it fits within the neighborhood and setbacks,
Exhibit 2, Page 96 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
but it just exceeds the 30% and they do not want to pay the money to certify story poles if it will not be approved. While the new ordinance is being considered, he thinks the Board should
continue under the old standards because it seems unfair to many people who want to build or
improve their homes.
Nora Noguez said she starts from the premise that lots are not all the same and she does not think a special zoning code for Bel Aire would be fair because they should not be different from other
neighborhoods’ rules and regulations. In addition, where the lot is located in Bel Aire is very
different. She is at 346 Karen Way which is right up against a hillside and so there is really no way for her to expand because of additional restrictions imposed by foliage, trees, threats of fire, and she will either have to go forward or up to develop. She thinks a cookie-cutter approach will not work for the simple reason that not all lots in the Bel Aire area are created the same. They are
specifically different, especially the lots that are different in the horseshoe, which is Blackfield,
Cecilia, Leland, part of Karen and Claire. These are all flat lots and much larger, so it is easy for them to extend horizontally, but not for her and many others in Tiburon.
She also did not know about tonight’s meeting and heard about it from others, and thus far the
only people she hears speaking are against two stories, which she is not. She thinks every
request needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to take into consideration particularities of the lot. She thinks it would be helpful to provide notice to the entire neighborhood so all voices can be heard and not just those against two stories.
Edward McAuley re-emphasized Caroline’s comments and what Pru said. The question was
raised why Bel Aire should be different and there are a number of reasons. One is the distance between properties in Bel Aire which is very narrow. This means if a home catches on fire the amount of heat energy coming off the home if it is one-story is substantially less than the heat energy from a two-story home and because of the narrow distance between homes. The larger
home can quickly consume its neighbor even if it is another larger home. So, he asked to keep
these things in mind especially when it comes to planning along with many other examples.
He raised privacy, too much shade in people’s yard which leads to mold, problems with views and tree growth with two story homes, and other quality of life and safety issues which is
paramount. He thinks all neighborhoods are not the same; each is unique and requires thoughtful
consideration.
Ted Schroeder thanked the Board for reviewing this. He knows there was a contentious property that got through the system, and he appreciates the Board meeting to clarify all of this. His
preference would be for an expansion of variances rather than allowing two stories. He and his
family moved to Tiburon in 2013 and are relatively recent to the neighborhood. The two neighbors they were looking at the time were Sycamore Park and Bel Aire and as much as they love Sycamore Park in Mill Valley, what ultimately turned them off was that Mill Valley green-lighted a ton of two-story construction. In going through the neighborhoods there are huge new
houses on these postage stamp properties with neighbors looking down on neighbors in the rear
yard. So, when they came to Bel Aire, they were a young family that bought specifically into the privacy afforded by single story construction. There are small lots next to each other and there are not many ways to enjoy their backyard without keeping their neighbors from looking at them.
Exhibit 2, Page 97 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
If the Board starts allowing two story homes, they will take away a significant value in these tiny properties that many people have invested time and money in.
Joseph Starr agreed with Mr. Schroeder’s comments about the value of the single-story homes. Some people may make the argument that there is more value in creating a bigger home or adding a second story, but this is not necessarily true for each case. In the case where a second story is proposed and maybe one adjacent neighbor is opposed, and the other adjacent neighbor
is in favor of the second story he suggested language that would place the bulk of the mass on
the side of the neighbor in favor of the second story which would create more privacy for the neighbor opposed. He appreciates the Board’s work to discuss the matter.
Mindy Canter, 167 Blackfield Drive, said right now second stories are discouraged and she does
not understand why there is even a discussion if they are discouraged. She noted that William
Blackfield designed these homes and laid out the neighborhood and his vision was to emulate a design reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright where bedrooms were facing the street and the back were open to a park-like setting. This is how these homes are situated. There is a 6-foot setback, and they are exactly set back that amount, so there is 12 feet between houses. The reason they
work is that people are not looking at each other through their windows. Everything looks out
towards the back and the lots are very oversized.
She said she was President of the Bel Aire HOA for 10 years and she also served on the Tiburon Parks and Open Space Commission for 15 years. She has been in 98% of the homes in Bel Aire
and she cannot tell the Board what beautiful remodels she has seen with quite large square
footage. People would push out the back or add a wing on either side, all looking into a center courtyard in the backyard. It was unobtrusive and neighbors on either side still felt they had privacy and seclusion even with the proximity of the houses being close, and one would never know from the front facades that the homes were so large behind them.
She does not see a problem with variances and does not know why they should be pulled. If it is that much trouble, she suggested increasing the FAR is the answer. Not everyone needs to use them, but these lots are oversized and could handle a larger FAR. She referred to the 5 questions, whether second stories should be permitted in a predominantly one-story
neighborhood, and she does not agree for this neighborhood at least. There are a few things that
have been grandfathered in and a couple of projects were presented last month that were second stories that were really lofts built on top of the small, one-car garage and the viewpoint of the photos made them look like they were large, but they were not. So, people would lose their privacy and it would change the entire flavor of the neighborhood. These lots can handle bigger
FAR, and she does not see what is wrong with variances and recommended increasing the FAR
and not pushing for two stories.
Chair Chong commented that the Board is not taking any action tonight and ultimately, the decision will be the Town Councils. The DRB heard testimony from neighbors in Bel Aire,
Belveron and other impacted neighborhoods, and staff felt it was best to identify a way to solve
the issue without having to grant variances which are absolutely allowed in the Town and there is a process for them. A variance must meet four findings and without being able to make the findings, the DRB is breaking the law and going against the way the code was written. Also,
Exhibit 2, Page 98 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
they are wrestling with allowing two stories and they are allowed today in these communities that would not require any variance at all. However, the neighborhood in general does not want
them, they are discouraged, and variances have been used as a way to get by them which is not
the correct legal way to handle that.
He also said his heart goes out to those caught up in the middle of this because they assumed based upon history that they were going to be able to do a project one way and now they are
caught up in it. He suggested starting the discussion with the five questions.
Director Tasini said it is State law and a Town-wide study session and staff did not send individual notices to people. If and when they have another special meeting, they could figure out a way to notify people more broadly. She did place an advertisement in the newspaper so
people would see it as well as the legal notice and knows the Ark ran an article this week as well.
Boardmember Kim asked what the stated purpose of the zoning code is. She asked and confirmed that it generally is designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. She asked if they should start to talk about whether or not adjusting or calling for a
change in the zoning code would enhance the health, safety and welfare or, she asked if it would
be to maintain the existing level of health, safety and welfare.
Director Tasini said this is up to the Board. She is asking the Board to look at what the Town currently does and determine if there is a better way to do that because there have been many
amendments throughout time to address this type of situation and other situations. It is not
unusual that they might do a text amendment. What is unusual is that she is coming before the DRB instead of the Planning Commission because the DRB looks at these standards. Then they must decide what they are creating will result in a betterment for the community, which is the subjective question she cannot answer.
Boardmember Kim said she presumes a key stakeholder is the Fire Department. If they start looking at expanding the lot coverage to a degree so they are now having houses encompass the entire lot, she asked if there would be any impediment to fighting fires and dealing with the spaces between lots.
Director Tasini said they are not removing setbacks so there still will be separation and setbacks.
Boardmember Kim agreed, but she wondered if they should start checking with the Fire Department as the health, safety and welfare arena.
Director Tasini said she does not think the setbacks will change and she noted the Fire Department reviews all of the plans, along with many other agencies and provide comments.
Boardmember Barringer noted the Fire Department is quick to get to that 50% calculation which
then requires sprinklers as well as a full review by the Water District, so he would argue new
homes or significant remodels are going to get sprinklered and have fire resistant landscaping against the buildings so ultimately, the reason is one of safety.
Exhibit 2, Page 99 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Boardmember Kim recommended that the review agencies comment on any proposed changes.
Director Tasini explained the process, stating tonight the Board is just being asked to provide an
idea of how to move forward. Staff would then return with more discussion, pieces of the draft ordinance, and once finalized then it will go to the Planning Commission. She will normally forward this to all review agencies, and she did not think that would be an issue.
Chair Chong asked if the Board could obtain an understanding of some of the pros and cons of
separating out certain neighborhoods, such as Belvedere where certain rules apply, and Tiburon has one code that applies to everything. He voiced concerns with carving out neighborhoods which becomes a big mess.
Boardmember Kim said in the zoning code there are different acronyms and color coded as R-1,
R-2, etc. There are already zoning codes or designations already on the map. It is not irregular inany city or municipality to have multiple designations. A zoning code should apply to the entirearea, but often an overlay district would have certain building standards or design attributesassigned to it.
Boardmember Berger said those kinds of zones almost always have to do with use and not with architectural style or configuration. The zoning in Tiburon that works well is zoning by size of lot and that is really the overriding concern. Other than a historic overlay district, they should keep to the same designation which makes the most sense which is size of lot or property. This
will open up a can of worms, such as corner lots, sloping zones, Old Tiburon, new Tiburon, etc.
Boardmember Kim said she disagrees and said she thinks it is already happening. In thinking about a small 7,000 square foot lot that is on a 70-degree slope. They are already allowing for height variances, potentially setback changes, etc.
Director Tasini said they could show the planning map, but they want to be sure that if Boardmember Kim is thinking of FARs versus coverages she asked not to forget that one of the things they also have are about 50 residential Planned Developments that have Precise Plans laid upon them as well with different developing standards. Therefore, they should be careful in how
they dissect everything because they will end up with a more complicated process in the end.
She thinks Ms. Bonifacio has the map she could pull up to look at the different single family residential, a Bel Aire single family residential, a modified residential, an R-1 that deals with 40,000 square feet, an R-2 with more of an open space, a two-family district, a multi-family
district, RPD’s, an RMP which is Residential Multi-Plan. If they want to get into the discussion
of each one, they will have to come back with something for the Board to determine how they might be dissected for lot coverage or FAR. So, putting overlays on this might be possible but difficult. It is interesting that Bel Aire has its own zoning district completely.
Boardmember Kim said it looks as though the Bel Aire zone includes sloped areas for the whole
subdivision, and Director Tasini confirmed and said often they see a flat lot that meets up to the slope that is in some instances an old railroad easement or general easement. So, people have that as a topographical feature in those areas too.
Exhibit 2, Page 100 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Ms. Fong said similarly, R-1 also covers the flat areas and hill areas.
Boardmember Barringer said he feels having lived in Belveron it has been an unwritten rule that the perimeter lots have more acceptance towards second stories. He asked if this is very difficult that if someone has an interior lot this is their zoning and here is the rule for 38% lot coverage and 18-foot maximum height, no two stories, and if on the exterior perimeter they either go with
the current zoning which for a second story whether the lot is appropriate or not or, they defer to
the zoning of the interior lot. He looks at 381 Karen Way or the house on Hilary that was appealed, and he felt those were appropriate to have second stories because they did not block anyone’s views. It was an uphill lot with not enough space and privacy because of the grade change that he felt made it appropriate. Also, some people might not want to go through the
hassle of a two story, and they will take what previously would be a lot coverage variance.
Director Tasini said one of the questions was about the issue of “discourage”. Staff is looking for some direction as to whether these should be permitted and if so, what is the standard.
Chair Chong said he hates the word “discourage”. It is ambiguous and leads an applicant to
believe that it is not they cannot do it, but it is just discouraged. They look at it as something that is allowed, and some see the word differently as opposed to having a change in the code as FAR or lot coverage or something that allows it. He therefore tends to lean towards Vice Chair Berger which is opening up a can of worms for lots in Belveron. They also have Venus Court which has
always been very supportive of two stories just because it is a totally different layout and they
have done many out there. So, to take each neighborhood and carving it up into streets and lots is not smart.
The DRB is here to look at each project as its own project without looking at other precedence.
They look at the site and the neighborhood and there is also a process for their decision to be
appealed and for the Town Council to look at. He is a believer that it has not been perfect, but it has worked relatively well until now.
Vice Chair Berger said he does agree with Director Tasini that there is a conflict in the code. If
they discourage second stories in one-story neighborhoods, then they must change the code to
allow people to build. They do not need to have a variance for each one. He believes what should happen is that people get what they deserve, a certain FAR, and that is what is in the code.
He proposed that if someone builds one story only Tiburon-wide their coverage will equal their
gross square footage they are allowed by law, plus a certain square footage for the garage, and
this way, larger lots have their rules and smaller lots have their rules. This allows the “discourage” factor to remain in place. At the DRB, they can say an applicant is perfectly entitled to the square footage they are entitled to in one-story. They can say they discourage two stories, and they are allowed to build the square footage they are entitled within one story.
If people say they do not want to and want to have a second story, then it goes to the DRB and they can review all of the different factors such as looking at the side yards, windows, privacy, etc. He therefore suggested that if the Town allows people to build in one story what they are
Exhibit 2, Page 101 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
entitled to, they do not have to worry about a variance or anything. As a DRB they can say their two-story proposal is a big headache for the neighborhood, that they are entitled to a one story
and square footage and ask them to try giving it a shot without any variances. As a whole, they
would not be singling out any particular area.
Boardmember Kim asked what would occur if there is a very steep slope and they have one story. Boardmember Berger said they would not get a height limit variance, and there are
hundreds of houses like this in Tiburon where there is a lower floor that is enclosed that is not
habitable space. On larger lots, it is not a problem.
Boardmember Kim said what they are talking about is the fear of carving out something for a particular zone, but they have already carved out an R-1BA which is Bel Aire where they are
subject to different zoning use and other things. That particular area is just in the Bel Aire area.
If they applied what Vice Chair Berger is saying just to that area, she thinks she would be much more convinced because they know there have been problems in that particular zoning.
Boardmember Barringer said in Belveron East it is the same thing, but it does not have a separate
zoning.
Boardmember Kim said it looks like the zoning code there impacts many houses.
Chair Chong asked why they would stop at those communities. He cannot count how many
other houses that have come through where the applicant was really trying to work with their
neighbors, and they ended up going with a one-story design for the simple reason that neighbors did not want a two-story but then they were limited by the lot coverage.
Vice Chair Berger said conversely, in Old Tiburon there are very small lots, but they have no
constraint on designing everything to be one story. The point is that if someone wants a building
one story in neighborhoods with predominately flat lots, where two stories is discouraged, they are at a disadvantage because in other areas where there are slopes, they are not met with opposition.
Boardmember Kim said she feels she would push this to Ms. Fong and Ms. Bonifacio. If they
applied this rule over the entire City, she asked where there are certain areas, they could create problems.
Vice Chair Berger said this was the exercise staff went through, and it is completely fine. For the
bigger lots coverage goes down, so it has been tested on different sizes of lots.
Chair Chong said if someone is entitled to build 30 feet, but the story they added blocked the uphill neighbor’s view of the Golden Gate Bridge then the Board must require they find another place to build it, so it does not mean the Board is going to rubber-stamp each application.
Boardmember Kim said she is playing devil’s advocate. Chair Chong said he thinks it is worth looking at how a rule or change like that would impact other neighborhoods and other
Exhibit 2, Page 102 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
applications that have come through previously. He said if they just say they will explore Vice Chair Berger’s route, he asked how they get to the right number.
Vice Chair Berger said there was an application where the applicant said he cannot get the square footage he wanted and must go up to the second story. If neighbors object to a second story house, then maybe the Board wants to excuse the garage from the overall square footage by tucking it in and the rest of the property can all be one story. He just thinks they should make it
possible for people to build a one-story house and not automatically have to come up against a
coverage variance.
Boardmember Kim agreed this is giving them a carrot to encourage the one-story. In playing devil’s advocate, she asked what if they say they do not want to do one-story and want to
develop a two-story.
Vice Chair Berger said this is what they have now and then they have to abide by the lot coverage.
Boardmember Kim said in certain areas where it is tighter, then they have to start thinking about
light quality, such as San Francisco downtown where the planning code forces developers to build a pyramidic type of building because of light and shadows.
Vice Chair Berger noted they always look at light quality for every project.
Boardmember Kim said the first speaker talked about clerestory and she noted there needs to be a means of egress out of the second story. She was not sure the Board should legislate this and thinks it is too prescriptive.
Vice Chair Berger said there is only one big issue the Board is dealing with; that in order to build
square footage that the Town encourages them to build on one story they are asking for a variance. He suggested removing that ability and it would be very straight-forward.
Boardmember Barringer said there is a certain simplicity to Vice Chair Berger’s approach, but he
is thinking of a 7,000 square foot lot that wants to develop with a 600 square foot garage. The
proportion of this size of a garage on a 2100 square foot house is pretty massive. He wondered if it was worth considering a 400 square foot garage, such that if someone is allowed 35% lot coverage which would include any overhangs and decks, but the garage footprint would be reduced to 400 square feet.
Vice Chair Berger said alternatively if they wanted a 600 square foot garage, 200 square feet must come out of the house. Boardmember Barringer said he thinks this might work and thinks this would be a fair approach.
Chair Chong added another item for discussion, stating the Board has seen many one stories push
closer to the edges and to the neighbors. They also have seen some one stories that are starting to encroach on two-story like heights. He thinks the concerns heard from neighbors are privacy concerns and also light blockage and the fact they now look at their window and see a structure
Exhibit 2, Page 103 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
where 12-foot ceiling heights affect this, so he asked if there is a height consideration that needs to be taken into account.
Vice Chair Berger said it goes back to the problem with the word “discouraged”. If “discouraged” was followed by a comma to then say, “….because two story application in one-story neighborhoods are difficult to do to provide privacy, more shadow, more light pollution, etc.” If they listed what the Board does not like about why they are discouraging two-story
applications where they are discouraged, then this gives them the ability to come back to address
it.
Director Tasini said this language is already in the code. She would like some discussion about “discouraged” and how they might help people because she understands Vice Chair Berger’s
comments but at the same time, when an applicant wants to do a second story regardless of the
lot coverage and staff says it is “discouraged”, they then think it is permitted and it is. If it is permitted, then she has no way of suggesting to them what they need to do. She thinks there are some setbacks they can look at.
Boardmember Barringer prepared a diagram and described the grade, setback, and he thinks it is
reasonable for people to have a 10-foot plate height and maybe a roof structure like a 14” TGI structure they will get close to 12 feet. He did not think they should limit it to 10 feet which gets a little unfair, but something like that would provide some protection. It could apply to the one or two story because a two story would mean it would have to be set back.
Boardmember Kim said she is hesitant putting a prescription in there saying if it is 12 feet, they want to limit the top of the plate. She questioned what if people do not want to do a pitched roof but instead a flat roof and they want a clerestory.
Vice Chair Berger said then the second story has to step in. This is an envelope with which
someone can build. If they want to build higher than what that envelope prescribes, they have to do it further away from the property line.
Boardmember Kim said this is exactly what San Francisco did. They said this is the envelope
and the applicant cannot go out of it. This is the prescription to maintain light, shadow, etc. She
does not like that because there are always exceptions, and it does not allow for that. She thinks the Board can come back and look at it as to how it specifically works for that situation and there were two speakers who said they want to maintain their ability to build two stories because of where they are site situated and the way they are on the slope. She did not think they should
prescribe the envelope they can build in and referred to the building created out of a lot that was
subdivided with a hill and it was very contentious. There was a restriction on how that envelope needed to look like, so this sets it before it is even built or designed.
Boardmember Barringer said in those rare cases there still is a variance process. They might
have a weird lot or special condition so there should always be that option.
Director Tasini said she is wondering that when they return to wordsmith the “discouraged” into more of a sentence that states, “Second stories may be developed if the applicant consider
Exhibit 2, Page 104 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
privacy, shadows, lights, views, etc.” This would remove the word “discouraged” because this word really causes a lot of problems. Staff works in the regulatory framework, and it is more
constraining than an architect’s fluid, subjective and creative world. She thinks they should
provide more of a guideline for it, and they could possibly incorporate a section from the design guidelines into the development code to make it more specific to allow applicants and neighbors to understand why they would go forward with something when it is “discouraged”.
Boardmember Kim asked and confirmed that the hillside guideline sketches are not part of the
code. She did not know the origins of the design guidelines document.
Director Tasini said it is not code, but it is a guideline, and it is referred to in the code. Staff must look at those principles when evaluating something. It is not that they can completely ignore
them because they are not codified. They are referred to in the code and they incorporate the
guiding principles into the findings.
Vice Chair Berger commented that staff does not make the findings. The DRB makes the findings, and he thinks people ought to be allowed to ask no matter how crazy it is for any
variance they want to ask for and it is up to the DRB to make the findings. Respectfully, it is up
to the DRB to make the findings and staff can discourage but not cut off someone when staff cannot make the findings, so they do not come to the DRB.
Director Tasini begged to differ in that staff provides the Board those findings in the staff report
based on their technical analysis and the Board can either support those findings or make
changes to them.
Vice Chair Berger said the reality is though that people have come to the Board in meetings or on the side saying they would have brought the Board that FAR coverage exception but were
told they could not. Staff does not make the findings and it is the DRB that makes them.
Director Tasini said when someone comes in and talks with staff and states they want to do something, staff never says they cannot submit their application. What they say is they are not able to make the findings and therefore they will probably not be able to recommend approval.
She does the analysis and provides the findings, and they can either support them or not and the
Board can say staff is wrong and make the findings.
Vice Chair Berger apologized because he was going by what people told him that said staff told them they could not ask for it.
Chair Chong said then the question becomes what guidance the Board wants to provide staff. He personally likes something that works for the entire town. He likes the idea that in taking the one-story option then this is a different lot coverage. The Board would have to look at what it means for past applications, what have those percentages been for other variances that have been
granted in the past.
He thinks it is worth looking into Boardmember Barringer’s idea of just because it is a one-story it does not mean they want 20-foot walls right next to the neighbor which defeats the entire
Exhibit 2, Page 105 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
purpose of taking the one-story option. Then, next he would have to think through when someone takes that one-story option and then one day wants to do a two-story what happens
when someone takes that one-story option and then wanting a two-story. He thinks this is a better
approach for one-stories in neighborhoods like Belveron and Bel Aire.
Boardmember Barringer likened it to a much more simplified option of what he was trying to get at where on a perimeter lot it might be appropriate to have a two-story. What Vice Chair Berger
suggested covers the situation where if they want to go one-story, they can build to 35% and they
are allowed a garage on top of that. He thinks the reason they are doing this is there is potential legal jeopardy here where people should be able to develop properties they purchased.
Vice Chair Berger clarified it is not a percent, but it is the allowable FAR plus a garage of some
size. The Board can decide whether it is 600 or 400 square feet. This would be the top coverage
if they stay with a one-story design. So, for every extra square foot on the lot they will get an exact coverage they are permitted.
Boardmember Kim asked if one has a 7,000 square foot lot. The lot coverage says they can only
go to 2100. The maximum gross floor area is 2450 square feet. If they have one-story, they can
build up to 2450 or they can build two floors still at 2450. If someone has a one-story, they can go to the greater square footage of the two which is in all cases will be the gross floor area.
Vice Chair Berger said his only concern is someone has a one-story home and builds to the
maximum coverage and then someone else buys the property from them and wants to put up a
second story.
Boardmember Kim said the one exception is when going from 7,000 to 7,500 square feet, the change is 350 square feet and when going to 7,500 feet it is a 500 square foot difference, so there
is something weird going on mathematically. She does not know what the average size is in that
area and what happens is the allowable area peaks up at 7500 and then it goes back down, which is a little weird. This would be worth staff looking into this.
Vice Chair Berger said he is living in an R-2 8,000 square foot lot and he is sure his coverage is
60% or 75%. It works great and it does not affect neighbors, and everybody is happy. So, he
knows it can be done and not be a terrible property.
Chair Chong said he would be curious to understand that of the ones granted a variance if they applied that rule. He questioned whether it was way over, whether it would allow them to build
what they ended up building that got a variance approved throughout the town.
Director Tasini said staff can spot check different areas to look at the variances and see what that might do for the lot sizes, etc. There have been quite a number of them, but staff can develop a spreadsheet to see how this would impact, if at all.
Chair Chong said he would also like to explore what a draft with eliminating the word “discouraged” would be and how to replace it with something. They could take a few of the minutes from a few of the meetings where the neighbors all detailed exactly what they do not
Exhibit 2, Page 106 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
like about two stories which includes privacy, light, views, and other things they regularly talk about.
Director Tasini summarized that this gives her a lot of material to bring back and she does not want this to take a long time. She recommended staff bring back draft language to the DRB which would go to the Planning Commission and to provide some data to support how this may or may not work.
Boardmember Barringer said he designed a project just a hair under 7000 square foot lot and he obtained a variance for 35% lot coverage. It was a 2125 square foot house and a 375 square foot garage, but he was at the 35% lot coverage. In theory, he could have built a 2500 square foot house plus a 400 square foot garage so it would have been more coverage on the lot. He thinks
the garage size should be limited because if he could have built a 600 square foot garage then it
would start to pack in on the small lots.
Vice Chair Berger also noted that people will start to build 600 square foot garages where one car will be parked in it and the other area will be turned into a family room, so he thinks the
Board should be able to restrict the garage size.
Chair Chong asked if 35% is the middle average of what the variances have been in these neighborhoods in the past and thought it would be important to see them on a spreadsheet.
Director Tasini said if they are looking at the FAR and not the lot coverage it might not be an
issue, but staff could look at the average is there. When she was reviewing it in the past, she believed it was around 36% or 37% what people have been getting, with the 30% being the lot coverage permitted and seeing 35% to 37% normally. They have gotten very few that are 31% or 32%.
Chair Chong asked if this was because they were trying to keep it under the FAR.
Director Tasini said she would have to look at that and obviously this needs to be tweaked, given the numerous variances. She confirmed she has direction from the Board and said she will poll
members and try to schedule another meeting as soon as possible. She thanked the Board for the
discussion and recognized staff.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Exhibit 2, Page 107 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 3
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
From: Christopher Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 11:03 AM
To: Kris Bernard <kbernard@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: Bel Aire Neighborhood POV
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 saw an article in the Ark mentioning an upcoming Town Council or Planning Commission agenda
item on Bel Aire and Belveron neighborhoods and second stories. I won't be able to join that
meeting, so I'm writing to share my thoughts with you. If you weren't the right contact for this note,
please forward this along to any colleagues.
I've been a resident of Bel Aire and owner of 113 Blackfield Dr. since 2018. I support homeowner
and developer investment in our neighborhood including the addition of 2nd stories. I do not think
our neighborhood's character is defined by building height or an original design. I believe character
comes from the active care and improvement we put into our homes and our community. Homes
should evolve as life and the community evolve.
I think the municipal code should be amended to remove subjective and vague language like
"discouraged." I know there will be edge cases and adjacent neighbors should be key considerations
in the process, but the DRB process should be fairly predictable for a homeowner to submit plans
and have a high likelihood of acceptance on the first or second submission.
Happy to elaborate on any of these points of view.
Best,
Chris Murphy
113 Blackfield Dr.
Attachment 4
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo Exhibit 2, Page 108 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Approved Entitlements for
Lot Coverage Variance by Neighborhoods - Year 2000-2021
Neighborhood Site Address LOT COVERAGE %Neighborhood Site Address LOT COVERAGE %
Belveron West 492 IRVING COURT 31.60%Pine Terrace 20 Pine Terrace 45.40%
Belveron West 480 IRVING COURT 36.10%
Belveron West 102 JEFFERSON DR 31.20%
Belveron West 489 WASHINGTON COURT 36.40%
Belveron West 493 WASHINGTON COURT 40%
Belveron West 488 WASHINGTON COURT 39.10%
AVERAGE LC%35.73%
Neighborhood Site Address LOT COVERAGE %
Belveron East 10 APOLLO RD 36.70%
Belveron East 12 APOLLO RD 36.90%
Belveron East 19 APOLLO RD 33.10%
Belveron East 19 APOLLO RD 36%
Belveron East 20 APOLLO RD 34.30%
Belveron East 20 JUNO RD 33.70%
Belveron East 21 APOLLO RD 31%
Belveron East 22 JUNO RD 35%
Belveron East 26 APOLLO RD 37%
Belveron East 27 APOLLO RD 31.90%
Belveron East 28 APOLLO RD 33%
Belveron East 30 APOLLO RD 30.30%
Belveron East 31 APOLLO RD 32.70%
Belveron East 4 APOLLO RD 33.30%
Belveron East 8 APOLLO RD 35.70%
Belveron East 9 APOLLO RD 36%
AVERAGE LC%34%
Neighborhood Site Address LOT COVERAGE %
Bel Aire 113 BLACKFIELD DR 34.70%
Bel Aire 125 BLACKFIELD DR 34.50%
Bel Aire 131 BLACKFIELD DR N/A
Bel Aire 139 LELAND WAY 43.60%
Bel Aire 151 LELAND WAY 34.20%
Bel Aire 18 CLAIRE WAY 39.80%
Bel Aire 266 KAREN WAY 39.80%
Bel Aire 283 KAREN WAY N/A
Bel Aire 290 CECILIA WAY 40.50%
Bel Aire 301 KAREN WAY 34.10%
Bel Aire 301 KAREN WAY 35.80%
Bel Aire 321 KAREN WAY 35.30%
Bel Aire 78 CLAIRE WAY 40.30%
Bel Aire 80 PAMELA CT 31.70%
Bel Aire 83 CLAIRE WAY 32.30%
Bel Aire 95 HARRIET WAY 40.80%
AVERAGE LC%36.96%
Neighborhood Site Address LOT COVERAGE %
Hawthorne Terrace 673 HAWTHORNE DR 31.80%
Hawthorne Terrace 673 HAWTHORNE DR 40.40%
Hawthorne Terrace 678 HILARY DR 37.20%
Hawthorne Terrace 678 HILARY DR 37.70%
Hawthorne Terrace 680 HILARY DR 31.70%
Hawthorne Terrace 685 HAWTHORNE DR 34.60%
Hawthorne Terrace 686 HILARY DR 34.50%
Hawthorne Terrace 687 HAWTHORNE DR 32.60%
Hawthorne Terrace 693 HAWTHORNE DR 36.60%
Hawthorne Terrace 695 HAWTHORNE DR 37%
Hawthorne Terrace 735 HAWTHORNE DR 39.50%
Hawthorne Terrace 735 HAWTHORNE DR 39.30%
AVERAGE LC%36.07%
** Source: Data are exported from Trakit Permit System for year 2000-2021. This list may not include all data, which were recorded in other permit
database.
Attachment 5
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 2, Page 109 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Section 16-52.020 - Site plan and architectural review.
A.Purpose. The purpose of site plan and architectural review is to ensure that the design of proposedconstruction and new land uses assists in maintaining and enhancing the town's distinctive character.The site plan and architectural review process:
1.Ensures that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are compatible with the higheststandards of improvement in the surrounding neighborhood;
2.Retains and strengthens the visual quality and attractive character of the town;
3.Ensures that landscaping emphasizes drought tolerant native species and protects maturevegetation;
4.Recognizes the interdependence of land uses and circulation, and provides for an efficient andinterconnected system of streets and pedestrian ways throughout the town;
5.Assists project developers in understanding the town's concerns for the aesthetics of construction;and
6.Ensures that construction complies with all applicable town standards and guidelines, and doesnot adversely affect community health, safety, aesthetics, or natural resources.
H.Guiding principles in the review of applications. In reviewing applications for site plan and architecturalreview, the review authority shall determine whether the project meets the applicable criteria below,as well as any other guidelines that the town council may have adopted to govern site plan andarchitectural review.
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 detrimentalto the public health, safety, and general welfare.
2.Site layout in relation to adjoining sites. The location of proposed improvements on the site inrelation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to viewconsiderations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacyof 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 reasonablerelationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good relationship of a buildingto its surroundings is important. For example, in neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-storyhomes, second-story additions shall be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks orother 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 theproperty on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is known as floor area ratio (Seesubsection I., below).
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 rockoutcroppings or watercourses.
6.Compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish. The architectural style and exterior finishare harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not be in stark contrast with itssurroundings.
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 proposedproject. Applicants are encouraged to use native and drought-resistant landscaping. Proposedlandscaping shall be used which will, at maturity, minimize primary view obstruction from otherbuildings. A cash deposit or other monetary security may be required to ensure the installationand/or maintenance for a one-year period of any and all landscaping. Projects that are subject to
Exhibit 2, Page 110 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 5
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
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, orproduce 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 reviewof applications for additions or modifications to existing development may include conditionsrequiring changes and/or modifications to existing buildings and site improvements for the entireproperty to the extent that there is a reasonable relationship between the requested project andthe changes and/or modifications required.
10.Appropriate use of building envelope. In planned residential (RPD and RMP) zones, buildingenvelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area for flexibility in theappropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures. The building envelope shouldnot generally be interpreted as an area intended to be filled by a main structure and its accessory
structures.
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 conformwith the setback, parking, and height requirements established for each zone by article II (zonesand allowable land uses), and with any special requirements including recycling (see Municipal
Code chapter 16C [recyclables collection area]) and screening guidelines established for specificuses by this zoning ordinance.
Exhibit 2, Page 111 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Attachment 5
of 9/23/2021 DRB memo
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
From:Christy Fong
To:Kris Bernard
Subject:FW: September 23 Agenda Public Comment
Date:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 12:46:23 PM
HI Kris,
Please distribute this late mail for 9/23 DRB meeting. Thanks.
Regards,
Christy Fong | Town of Tiburon | 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920
I am available during normal business hours which are 8 AM to 4 PM, Mondays through Thursdays.
Town Hall is closed on Fridays.
** Most staff are available by email (Staff Directory). Email is the best method of communication.
**
From: Shadan, Carolyn
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 12:07 PM
To: Town <town@townoftiburon.org>; Christy Fong <cfong@townoftiburon.org>
Subject: September 23 Agenda Public Comment
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.
Lea Stefani is out until Oct 4.
From: Shadan, Carolyn
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:58 AM
To: lstefani@townoftiburon.org
Subject: September 23 Agenda Public Comment
DRB Members and Planning Staff
Re: 9/23 Agenda-Planning Staff Recommendations on changes to TMC Section 16-52.020
Understanding that some lots have physical restrictions that prevent a single story expansion, ie: hills
or the creek, I support two stories on those types of lots but NOT on the interior of Bel Aire. It
seems that the proposed changes to TMC Section 16-52.020 (H) (3) opens the entire Bel Aire
LATE MAIL PH-2
9/23/2021 DRB meeting
Exhibit 2, Page 112 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
neighborhood up to two stories. I would like to remind everyone that we only have existing and one
future two story on lots that severely restrict single story expansion.
The proposed recommendations for changes to R-1-B-A (Bel-Aire single-family residential) zones do
not take neighborhood character as stated in the Staff recommended wording for TMC Section 16-
52.020. If neighborhood character includes ”The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project
bears a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity” (quote from
page 2 of 4 of the Agenda), then it is plain that a two story on the interior of Bel Aire on a regular flat
would not be in character, but could pass Design Review based on the proposed wording. So the
ambiguity of this proposed change will leave the DRB, and the neighborhood open to future
squabbles and protests.
Wouldn’t it be easier to state where a two story would be allowed? For example something like
‘where a single story rear addition is unfeasible due to changes in elevation of ….’. Also, why can’t a
second story be limited to a percentage of the first story which would ensure set back architecture.
This would make it clear and maintain the neighborhood character.
A very important outstanding item has to do with variances. It seems that the proposed
amendments concerning lot coverage variances are aimed at eliminating variances. As a reminder,
Planning staff has stated at the DRB Study Session that ‘they could not support variances’ after a DRB
member asked why Planning Staff was telling applicants that variances were not allowed, when they
are allowed, and reviewed/approved by the DRB. Another reminder, several recent applicants in Bel
Aire have been told that they cannot get any variances so don’t even apply. Planning staff advised
me early this year that “one day you will have a two story on either side of you, there is precedence”
which is an odd statement as there are no two stories on the interior of Bel Aire. Only on the
exterior where lots have a hill or creek in their backyard. Again, the proposed changes do not take
into account neighborhood character. And the proposed language is still ambiguous, leaving it up to
discussion about what is the neighborhood character.
It is a mistake to state that variances were allowed to avoid two stories. This is not the only
reason for a variance. Variances are also allowed where the variance doesn’t negatively impact
surrounding neighbors and to accommodate a unique property shape or condition. For example, I
had a variance to come 2 feet into my 6 foot side setback because there was 26 feet between my
house and the house on that side due to the public breezeway between our properties. A
variance gives an applicant’s architect more leeway in the design process.
The wording neighborhood character is an important one. This is why homes sell so quickly in Bel
Aire. If a prospective homeowner drives around they will notice some large excess lot coverage
single stories. They will notice two stories on the perimeter. They will notice variances on front
setback, particularly with garages. Is it fair or reasonable to now restrict variances without
considering the details of the lot and the “relationship to the character of existing buildings in the
vicinity”? Wouldn’t this open the Town of Tiburon to litigation?
Will Bel Aire end up looking like Belvedere around the lagoon which used to restrict two stories and
now has HUGE two stories? What exactly does neighborhood character mean? This is as ambiguous
Exhibit 2, Page 113 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
as the ‘discouraged’ wording.
Carolyn Shadan
279 Cecilia Way
Exhibit 2, Page 114 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 7Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)TIBURON REMOTE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
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://us06web.zoom.us/j/83840937936 Webinar ID: 838 4093 7936 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 838 4093 7936
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 6:05 p.m. by Vice Chair Berger.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bryan Chong (arrived late); Vice Chair Miles Berger; Boardmembers Cedric Barringer Suzanne Kim (arrived late) and Jim Malott
Absent: None
Staff: Director of Community Development Dina Tasini; Assistant Town Attorney Eli Flushman; Senior Planner Christy Fong; Assistant Planner Samantha Bonifacio; Community Development Aide Kris Bernard
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
STAFF BRIEFING – None
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 115 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
PH-2 LOT COVERAGE DISCUSSION: Tiburon Design Review Board will consider
Town-initiated amendments to the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 16
(Zoning) sections regarding lot coverage requirements and associated development standards for a recommendation to the Planning Commission. This will provide the Design Review Board and the public an opportunity to discuss possible amendments. The Design Review Board initially met on July 29, 2021 to discuss this topic and
directed staff to return with additional information.
Director Tasini introduced the item and stated Senior Planner Christy Fong will provide an overview of the staff memo. The Board will be asked to provide direction in moving forward. Normally, staff would develop something and have the Planning Commission hear it and not the
Board. Because the DRB looks at developments and lot coverages more than the Planning
Commission she felt it was appropriate to have the matter reviewed by the Board in order to receive feedback before taking it to the Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Christy Fong gave an overview of the staff memo and asked the Board to provide
their preferred guidelines in moving forward.
Chair Chong opened the public comment period.
Evelyn Woo, 263 Cecilia Way, said when the Bel Aire subdivision was built whoever was on the
DRB and PC at the time, the phrase “character of the neighborhood” was used, knowing that the
Bel Aire subdivision consisted of one-story homes. This neighborhood is very distinct from others in that they are one-story homes. She used to serve on the DRB with Miles Berger and they allowed residents to expand in the backyard, in the front, and because the houses are so closely together plants do not work to provide privacy. Therefore, she implored the Board to
respect the character of the neighborhood as well as that phrase in keeping with the one-story
character of this neighborhood and only allow residents the ability to expand in the front or back of their homes.
Bill Powers, 85 Harriett Way, said he and his wife are in the process of applying for a building
permit and have been on a long hold waiting for the new ordinance to take effect. He asked the
Board to agree on amendments tonight so staff can direct it to the PC and avoid having to schedule another meeting with the DRB.
Chair Chong asked for Board deliberation to focus on the memo’s points on page 2.
Exhibit 2, Page 116 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Boardmember Malott said he was not present for the last discussion and he has remodeled 19 or 20 homes in the area along Blackfield and the subdivisions there. One of the characteristics of
these neighborhoods is 6 foot side yard setbacks. When going to a two-story it is a nightmare for
neighbors who buy their homes for almost complete privacy with what 6 foot fences, trellising and some vegetation creates. It is an environment different from all hillside housing in Tiburon which glory with distant views. These homes glory in their privacy so he is supportive of extending the ability to move farther into the rear and front yards. Most front yards are not used
in any constructive way and are a legacy of Town planning in the 1940’s and 1950’s. He did not
think it would be a problem to allow the front yard setbacks to be reduced as well as the rear yard.
With regard to second stories, they are a valuable addition but only in some areas of the R-1B
and R-1-B-A subdivisions. Second stories are possible when a particular house backs up against
the hillsides of the valley without privacy problems to adjacent neighbors in many cases. Therefore, he would not say the Board should remove the second story possibilities in those areas but he believes extending into the rear yard with 5 feet or so necessary to make things more comfortable or in conformance with the other aspects of the code makes sense. He thinks the
Board should look at the front yard setback as well.
Regarding reducing the garage from 600 feet to 400 feet, he does not think there is a 600 foot garage in the Blackfield subdivision with one exception which was built once for a man who wanted to keep a boat in it. Most garages are 150 feet. He was less concerned about the R-1
zoning because it tends to be more flexible and the setbacks are not quite as small.
Chair Chong asked for any comment on the height. Part of the Board’s last discussion focused on allowing houses to go larger on the lot and take up more space. He asked if the Board should force applicants to push in roof lines.
Boardmember Malott said if they are going to a second story, the setback ought to be increased to 16 feet or so from the property line versus 6 feet. The 18 foot height limit tends to make a house that looks much larger than homes there which have a 12 foot ridgeline, and 18 feet is a big change. He would rather see allowing a second story with a much larger setback on the
second floor and stepping it back 16-18 feet from the property line.
Boardmember Barringer said he thinks the way the memo lays out the proposed changes to the requirements makes a lot of sense. He thinks the reduction of the garage makes sense because if a developer can build 35% of an 8,000 square foot lot and have a 600 square foot garage it makes
sense to limit it a little bit because they will have to have less house to be able to do that. It gives
some flexibility for covered outdoor space, as well.
The average of variances granted over the last 10 or so years are all in the 35% to 37% range. He feels for people like the Powers who bought a home that they want to tear down and
redevelop and are being held up when many people have gotten lot coverage variances and now
they cannot all of a sudden so there is something to be said for speeding up the process. He noted the 18 foot height is only for the one-story developments and while he did not particularly like what they approved for Karen Way he thinks it was a reasonable approach on what is
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 117 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
allowed. The second story was stepped back at least twice the allowable setback which would be a reasonable way to approach it. If they felt like it, they could suggest going up 12 feet at the
setback and then going at a 45 degree angle, which would prevent people from building an 18
foot box right at the setback, although the reality is, when presented to the DRB it would not be approved.
In going to the 15 foot front setback which many people do there is a little bit of a grey area in
some cases. Technically, a parking spot is 18x8 ½ feet but he thinks they should be allowed to
go in the front setback whether a garage or living space and park the two cars in front of it which seems reasonable where there is a sidewalk. This might impede the technical term of two parking spaces unless they are proposing a 2-car garage. The way it is written makes total sense. It does not preclude people from building two stories and thinks certain lots are appropriate.
Regarding the process, if these were presented to the Planning Commission it would be a welcomed change, as the goal is to protect those one-story neighborhoods.
Vice Chair Berger complimented staff for summarizing the Board’s ideas. He is in complete
agreement with the one-story development section and increasing the current lot coverage
requirement. Regarding the second one which is reducing the gross floor area exclusion for the garage, there are many neighborhoods in town where this is not an appropriate restriction. However, the R-1-B-A makes sense and when many applications come before the Board many homes just have one single garage parking spaces and they are grandfathered in to have that
allowed. Therefore, he thinks it would be fine within the R-1-B-A zone.
In general, he does not like the idea of singling out specific neighborhoods for specific design code elements and it should be avoided. He likes the general aspect of this with the exception of a 400 square foot garage where if applicants want more square footage, it must come out from
the rest of the house.
He understands the height limit but he is concerned and would rather leave it to the discretion of the DRB to look at what someone comes in with. If someone comes in with an 18-foot flat roof project coming right up to the 6 foot property line, it will not be approved. So, he is not sure
how he feels about an 18 foot height limit but suspects the Board can rule on the appropriateness
of the height of a building as it meets neighbors. It could be 18 foot or less if the Board wished to put a restriction on it.
To summarize, bullet point 1 is okay as is, bullet point 2 just in R-1-B-A zone, and bullet point 3
should be removed and to leave it to the Board to make a decision, but he agrees with setting
back the second story away from the setback. When it comes to two-story developments, he likes the staff recommended refinements to the TMC section. He thinks the Board might suggest things like tucking the second floor into the general roof and there are other tricks to minimize the effects of a second story but it is difficult to put these into words and he recommended
relying on the discretion of the DRB to come back with appropriate design ideas.
Chair Chong returned to Boardmembers Barringer and Malott to hear refinements to the TMC section and rewording there.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 118 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Boardmember Barringer said they could spell it out and say double the required setback, or other
design features speak to hiding some of the second story with the roof, reducing glazing, and
every design is different so this gives some flexibility while still speaking to the neighborhood character, and it is well worded.
He noted that on the 18 foot height, there is a house on Apollo in his old neighborhood that was a
farmhouse style and the ridge was 18’ or 18’6” and it was a design feature and not a flat roof.
The peaks were brought in a it was a 9 foot plate height. It was relatively tall by numbers, but given the location it was not intrusive in any way. So, he thinks the 18 foot height limit allows people reasonable flexibility in their design.
Chair Chong provided some background on the TMC section for Boardmember Malott regarding
the word “discourage” and rewording so as not to create two sides of an argument for the exact same word.
Boardmember Malott said he reviewed this and would also object to the word “discourage”. He
thinks second story additions will receive additional scrutiny by the DRB or words to that effect
or perhaps indicate that issues of privacy and view and light blockage will all become major issues. He would rely on the architectural group they have designing homes in Tiburon as well as the DRB. He does not think the DRB should remove the second story. It is a taking of the value of the land which is huge.
Therefore, even limiting a single story to 18 feet is not right. He has a problem with it because he knows under certain circumstances, he would put an 18 foot high building on a portion of a house with a sloping roof and it might work out perfectly. Also, second stories adjacent to other buildings that already have second stories or in areas up against the hillside changes things a lot.
In looking at the overall character of the neighborhoods it is the scale of the individual elements
of the design that gives you the overall massing and not the single height limit. It is important to allow designers to keep that so he would still favor keeping a second story everywhere but with more scrutiny, recognizing that bigger setbacks or more articulation to the building overall, creation of clerestories rather than view windows, etc. which are things that could mitigate any
second story project.
Noted as Present: Boardmember Kim arrived at 7:16 p.m. and was noted as present.
Chair Chong apprised Boardmember Kim as to where the Board was deliberating in the meeting.
He was in agreement, stating bullet point 1 is the least controversial and the Board is supportive of the change. He can see both sides of the garage issue and is a bit on the fence. He could see that it could be just for Bel Aire, but then there are also other neighborhoods that are Bel Aire-like such as Belveron where 400 square feet would be more appropriate, and he also was unsure
as to whether it should be applied to all of Tiburon.
Regarding the height limit, he thinks he is with Boardmember Malott with. It does not seem they should limit a one-story because of the many scenarios. He was also hesitant to put a number in
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 119 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
there because it seems like a goal for people to achieve versus looking at what the story poles show, which is what impacts neighbors, what impacts him when he drives to a site to visit, and
he does not think a number changes the impact.
The other comment is the daylight plane. Originally, he thought it needs to be the 45 but he was inclined to let the DRB opine on this. Before he moved to Tiburon, there was a project on 25 Mercury and the applicant came through with a first version of it. Most Belveron neighborhoods
have rooflines that go side yard to side yard and they took a line and drew it straight back from
the top of the roofline without any inset. It was going to have an enormous impact on the next door neighbor, but DRB members visited, looked at it from the neighbor’s views and found it was just too much house all the way down. The applicant came back and revised it which probably ends up looking like a 45 on the new section of it and leaving the old roofline where it
was. So, he was inclined to let the process work the way it should and not necessarily putting in
a hard limit.
He was definitely in support of the TMC section changes and rewording that “shall be permitted only with increased setback, set back from the first floor, other design features to minimize
intrusion on the neighborhood.” Lastly, many of these projects end up with the need for
variances on setbacks. Boardmember Malott was saying they should allow some type of variances on setbacks and he thinks Boardmember Barringer thought they should be allowed to build up to the setback line. He asked and confirmed Vice Chair Berger favored Boardmember Barringer to build to the setback. There are always reasons to approve a variance based on an
individual project and this does not necessarily eliminate that. He falls more on the side of not
giving “blank checks” to variances or reduced one-story setbacks.
Boardmember Kim said with regard to the one-story, she thinks the first bullet point makes sense. Regarding the second bullet point, this is a huge change in determining what single-family
residential is in Bel Aire. It has implications for the entire community. So, she was not
convinced with that and does not see the argument for that. Regarding the third bullet regarding the 18 feet, she worries that if they have 6 or 8 foot side setbacks, they will build up 18 feet and there will be tunnels everywhere. She knows the intent is to ensure adequate light which is terribly broad, so she was not sure about the second and third bullet points.
In terms of two story developments in R-1, she thinks having established neighborhood character can be considered but the bigger issue are light and privacy. Therefore, she was not sure what clarification needs to get done.
Chair Chong said for him it was elimination of the word “discourage”. He said it sounds like
members are a bit mixed with the second and third bullet point. It sounds like most boardmembers are against a height limit or he asked if the 18 feet is just not the right number.
Boardmember Malott said he is against the 18 foot height limit. This is high enough for two, 8
foot ceilings and the intervening floor and a pad and to make it a single story building, height
limit will encourage people to go for that target. He would let the height limit be what it is which is 30 feet, but he would also put some kind of wording to the effect it will receive additional scrutiny if an applicant intends to go two stories. The issue most important is privacy. As soon
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 120 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
as one gets up to the second story, they have violated the privacy on all four sides of their home. It is less important in the front yard because the setback across the street is 50 to 60 feet. But, in
a side yard it is a total of 12 feet apart and privacy becomes a horrendous issue that close
together.
Chair Chong said the more he thinks about it, he would like to think the Board has been reasonable. If someone came tomorrow with a 24 foot, one-story project there is no possible way
to get anywhere with that in a neighborhood that is not appropriate. Even if a future Board
approved it, there is still an appeal process and other things that are built in to limit unreasonable design.
Vice Chair Berger asked to remember that the paragraph that starts at the bottom of page 2 and
continues to 3 is not exclusively for two story houses. This idea that light, air, relationship
applies to one-story homes too. So, as long as they have that and directing people these are still characteristics the Board would want to see observed in any case. This would save them from having to restrict the height limit but they can call the other properties into discussion to make sure there are some controls regardless of the number of stories.
Boardmember Kim said she thinks the two bullet points are way too prescriptive and the result will be a certain typology that will happen. There will be many 18 foot one-story houses, so she feels this is not the intent of it and there is no need to be prescribing that.
Chair Chong said there were some members in favor of the second bullet point the way it is.
Vice Chair Berger said he was going off of Boardmember Barringer’s comment that in Bel Aire, you can have a 400 square foot garage but if they want to go to a 3-car garage in this neighborhood of tiny homes, they must remove it from the rest of their house square footage. In
all other R-1 neighborhoods, they would go crazy if the Board said they could not have a 3-car
garage. It has been that way for 8 or 9 years.
Boardmember Barringer said in taking a typical Bel Aire lot which are 7,500 square feet, 35% allows them to do 2625 square feet and a 400 square foot garage which puts them just over 3,000
square feet on a 7,500 square foot lot. This seems like a lot. If they are able to build 600 square
feet it is even more. So, it seemed like a reasonable limitation and he is thinking about all of the flat areas that would not want a two story home.
Chair Chong said he can see both sides where people would go crazy on larger lots to limit that
number. He asked if it was more just applicable to the smaller subdivisions. He asked if maybe
the 400 number only applies to lots that are under 7,500 square feet. For an over 60,000 square foot lot it is 750 square feet garage or carport, 7500 to 60,000 is 600 square feet, and then they do not bump the garage down for the less than 7,500 and it is also 600, which he confirmed with Ms. Fong.
Chair Chong said therefore, if 600 is a benchmark then they allow an extra 150 square feet up to 750 and he asked if they should just go the other way for the very small lots of 450 square feet.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 121 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Boardmember Malott said he would not penalize the small lots. If you look at most garages, they are half storage and, in many cases, more than that. So, what the Board is really doing is
not allowing any storage in the garage because two cars barely fit in 400 square feet but if you
relax it to 600 square feet, that gives 2 or 2 ½ feet of storage on each side, plus across the end of the garage which is most of the storage for the house. Over time, he has realized that the extra volume they are creating in the house is mostly for the “things” people are collecting in the house. He was a little more concerned with ceiling heights and volume of the building than he is
with the floor area of the building creeping up.
Chair Chong said to Boardmember Barringer’s point about still having the storage space but it just must come out of the house. His view of the floor area ratio and lot coverage is overbuilding too much on the one lot, and Boardmember Malott agreed. Chair Chong said if they take it to
600 feet it could result in over 3,000 square feet on some of the very small lots.
Boardmember Barringer said something they also have not talked about is lot coverage for any outdoor covered area so this will also come into play with the calculations. It gets a little nit-picky to start imposing all of these very specific things. The garage suggestion he supports is
really just to prevent massive homes. He thinks ultimately people will build to the maximum
allowable.
Chair Chong agreed and said 450 square feet would still give a 7,000 square foot lot 2,900 square feet on a small lot. Boardmember Barringer said 450 square feet would probably not
make all the difference, but it will also be that much more structure.
Chair Chong said he would like to get to solid guidance for staff so as not to hold up projects. If sounded like all Boardmembers were supportive of bullet point 1, for bullet point 3 they are all against putting any type of height limits or daylight planes, and it sounds like Boardmembers are
supportive of language changes, and the only one is the garage square footage. It sounded like
more people are against making a change that would apply to 400 across the board, and he would just be in favor of tiering it with having three steps as opposed to 600, 600, 750. He is not attached to what those numbers are, but the whole reason for doing this is to prevent over-building on these small lots. If everyone wants to keep it at 600, he could be swayed to that.
Vice Chair Berger said he liked the 450 square foot number because 400 is too small. He agrees with Boardmember Malott regarding storage around the edges of the garage, as this is what he has. He can only get cars that fit in given the storage. He thinks the 450 square feet for smaller lots at 7,000 and less is a good one and a great way to present it to the Planning Commission.
Boardmember Barringer said he thinks the even tiering makes some sense and 450 square feet of garage will make it more possible to park two cars in it, even though it most likely will be one car and a lot of storage.
Boardmember Kim said she could support something that is tiered. Having a broad change for
everybody could result in a something not so great. She has not listened to the discussion about the two-story development and considerations of light versus discouraging the second floor. Her
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 122 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
instinct would say she likes the change that it is permitted as long as there are increased setbacks to discourage the tunnel like issue.
Director Tasini said currently there is a height limit of 30 feet so people can have the two stories but then there was a conflict about it was “discouraged” and staff had no way in which to get to “yes”. They know that the height is there and therefore it is technically permitted but they are running up against the word “discourage” all the time. So, staff changed the language to
consider setbacks and how that second story relates to the street and adjacent neighbors.
Vice Chair Berger said the other genesis was that people would say they are not asking for special treatment because they are permitted to build “x” square footage on their lot, and if the Town tells them they have to come back with a two story, they cannot put it all on one story. The
DRB could say in the future that their two story design cannot be done because they are too close
to their neighbors, but they can build every square foot on one story because of this change. He thinks it is a great step forward.
Boardmember Kim said after thinking about it she is in favor of that change.
Ms. Fong said she wants to summarize the discussion before bringing this item to the next step.
Vice Chair Berger asked if it would be a good idea if staff could make the revisions and bring it back for the Board to review before the PC’s review.
Director Tasini cautioned that there are people waiting in the wings and she hesitates because they are 98% there. There will be a chance for the DRB to see any text amendment staff brings forward through the PC agendas and members can provide comments in that manner. She knows there was at least one couple who want to get their project going.
Chair Chong agreed and suggested Ms. Fong recap the discussion, as the PC will discuss this.
Ms. Fong summarized that the proposed code amendment for one-story development in R-1 and R-1-B-A. The proposed change for the zoning code will be:
•Bullet No. 1: No changes
•Bullet No. 2: Changes from 600 square feet to 450 square feet and only applicable to a lotless than 7,500 square feet.
For two-story developments, the code amendment is on page 2 of the staff report for Sections TMC 16-52.020(H)(3), this section will be refined to the proposed version at the bottom of page 2 continued to the top of page 3.
Ms. Fong thanked the Board for their feedback and discussion, and Chair Chong and Boardmembers thanked staff for their work.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 123 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
Boardmember Malott asked and confirmed with the Chair that he should speak with staff to add something to a future agenda as the Board cannot discuss anything not identified on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES #17 (EXCERPT)9/23/21
Exhibit 2, Page 124 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 8Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2021
October 26, 2021
RE: Bel Aire Subdivision, Tiburon
Tiburon Planning Commission Members:
I understand that the Planning Commission will be holding a meeting on October 27, 2021, to discuss modifying the parameters of the homes built in the Bel Aire neighborhood.
I understand this meeting is in regards to the Planning Commission considering terminating all or
most variances and allow the building of two-story homes. If this is the subject matter of the
meeting, I oppose the decision.
The Bel Aire neighborhood is unique because the history of the neighborhood and substantial majority of the homes are one-story. And at one time, all of the homes were one-story. One
cannot compare the character of the Bel Aire neighborhood with the character of the homes in,
for example, the Sugarloaf area. There is a reason the phrase “character of the neighborhood” was used in describing this neighborhood in an effort to preserve its character. With existing homes built so closely together, two-story homes would have immediate negative impacts on the neighbors and they would be unsightly. Hence, the phrase, “character of the neighborhood”
was wisely used to preserve the one-story homes to provide privacy and sunlight to the residents
of the neighborhood. I hope the Commission will abide with this original intent to preserve the character of Bel Aire.
As a former member of the Design Review Board, we were generally not opposed to granting
variances to the homeowners to expand their homes to the maximum allowed. This preserved
the unique character of Bel Aire, allowed the homeowner to expand their homes, preserved the one-story character of the neighborhood, and avoided neighbor disputes.
Respectfully,
Evelyn Woo
Planning Commission MeetingOctober 27, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 125 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Town of Tiburon
ZONING AMENDMENTS
RELATING TO
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
DESIGN REVIEW GUIDING PRINCIPLE
OCTOBER 27, 2021
1
PH-1 LATE MAIL
Planning Commission Meeting October 27, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 126 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Exhibit 3
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Overview
2
•Emerging Issues
•Design Review Board Study Sessions
•Zoning Map
•Gross Floor Area Vs. Lot Coverage
•Potential Development Scenarios
•Amendment 1: Refining guiding principles for two-story developments in
neighborhoods which consist of primarily one-story homes
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020 (H)(3)
•Amendment 2: Amending the maximum lot coverage requirement for one-
story developments from 30% to equal the maximum Gross Floor Area
•ARTICLE II, Section 16-21.040, Table 2-2
•Amendment 3: Reducing the floor area exemption for garage or carport
from 600 sf to 450 sf on lots that are less than 7,500 square feet
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2
Exhibit 2, Page 127 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
•Context
•Zoning Amendments proposed by Design Review Board:
Emerging Issues
3
•Proposals for second-story development, in certain residential
neighborhoods with predominately one-story homes, had created
controversies in the Design Review Process.
•Historically, variances for excess lot coverage had been granted
to enable one-story homes and to alleviate some of the
neighborhood concerns regarding two-story developments.
•Dilemma occurs when development is proposed on properties that
are generally flat, regular in shape, and lack of site-specific
physical constraints, which preclude staff from making the
required findings to support a variance request.
Exhibit 2, Page 128 of 156 Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
Study Sessions with the
Design Review Board (DRB)
4
•Held Study Sessions on July 29, 2021 and September 23,
2021.
•Provided an opportunity for the Design Review Board and
the public to comment.
•Assessed whether the current regulations and policies
provide adequate guidance for developments in single-
family residential zoning districts.
Exhibit 2, Page 129 of 156 Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
Summary of DRB Study Sessions
5
General comments made by the majority of DRB members are
summarized as follows:
•Concerns related to two-story developments and lot coverage
variances are not exclusive to the Bel Aire neighborhood, and exist
in other predominately one-story neighborhoods.
•Lot coverage requirement is more restrictive than the maximum
allowable gross floor area, particularly for properties in smaller lot
sizes. As a result, current zoning code does not ‘encourage’ one-
story development over two-story development.
•Current guiding principle (TMC Section 16-52.020 (H)(3)) is too
ambiguous due to the statement ‘second-story additions should be
discouraged’ and recommended to further define clear guidelines
for two-story developments in primarily one-story neighborhoods.
Exhibit 2, Page 130 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Tiburon Zoning Map
6
Exhibit 2, Page 131 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Gross Floor Area Vs. Lot Coverage
7
Purpose of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) guidelines, TMC §16-52.020 (I)
To provide a community yardstick for appropriate residential size and scale, measured
in gross square footage, in relation to the overall size of property on which the
improvements are proposed. It is the intent of the town to reasonably apply residential
floor area ratios with regard to specific site characteristics and the surrounding pattern
of development.
The floor area ratio (FAR) guideline is intended to discourage overbuilding of property,
as often occurs with "tear-downs" and extensive remodel/additions on infill sites, and
with first-time residential construction. The floor area ratio guideline for a lot is not
intended as a target to be achieved, but is intended to indicate a reasonable maximum.
The town may authorize less than the maximum square footage indicated by the floor
area ratio guideline when necessary to achieve compatibility with
surrounding development, to maintain the neighborhood character, or for other good
cause.
Exhibit 2, Page 132 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Gross Floor Area Vs. Lot Coverage
8
Purpose of Lot Coverage, TMC §16-30.120 (B)
Lot coverage measures the proportion of a lot that is covered by
structures.Lot coverage limits help to promote the aesthetic qualities of spaciousness
and privacy.Lot coverage limits can also help reduce excessive run-off and help
provide usable outdoor spaces by restricting the horizontal overbuilding of properties.
In traditional zones (R-1, R-1-B, R-2, R-3, RO), the percentage of any lot that may be
covered by structures is specified in the land and structure regulations for that zone
(see article II [zones and allowable uses]).Lot coverage in planned developments is
usually established by the precise development plan or associated document.
Exhibit 2, Page 133 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Gross Floor Area Vs. Lot Coverage
9
Gross Floor Area Lot Coverage
Definition Sum of all enclosed or
covered areas of each floor of the
building, measured to the exterior
faces of the enclosing walls,
columns, or posts
Percentage of a lot or parcel that is
covered by structures
Purpose/Intent •Indicate a reasonable maximum,
appropriate residential size and
scale, measured in gross square
footage, in relation to the overall
size of a property
•Intended to discourage
overbuilding of property
•Specify a percentage of
any lot that may be covered by
structures for that zone
•Intended to discourage horizontal
overbuilding of property
Application Shall reasonably apply with regard
to specific site characteristics and
the surrounding pattern of
development
Shall apply to promote aesthetic
qualities of spaciousness and
privacy, to reduce excessive run-off
and to provide usable outdoor
spaces
Exhibit 2, Page 134 of 156 Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
Gross Floor Area Vs. Lot Coverage
10
*
Current Gross Floor Area and Lot Coverage Standards
for R-1 and R-1-B zones
Exhibit 2, Page 135 of 156
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Potential Development Scenarios
11
When allowable gross floor area > maximum lot
coverage:
Scenario 1: Less than allowable gross floor area,
with one-story development
Scenario 2: Allowable gross floor area, with two-
story development
Scenario 3: Allowable gross floor area, with one-
story development and a variance
request on excess lot coverage
Buildable
Area of a
Property
Exhibit 2, Page 136 of 156 Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
12
Possible development scenarios when
allowable gross floor area > maximum lot coverage:
Scenario 1: Less than allowable gross floor area,
with one-story developments
Scenario 2: Allowable gross floor area, with two-
story developments
Scenario 3: Allowable gross floor area, with one-
story developments and variance
request on excess lot coverage
DRB Recommended
Amendment 1: Refining
guiding principles for
two-story developments
in neighborhoods
consist of primarily one-
story homes
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 1
Exhibit 2, Page 137 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 1
13
The DRB recommended remove ambiguity and refine this guiding
principle to read as follows:
‘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 only with
increased setbacks, stepped back from the first floor, and other
design features to minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.’
ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020 (H)(3) (GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN
REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS)
Exhibit 2, Page 138 of 156 Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
14
Possible development scenarios when
allowable gross floor area > maximum lot coverage:
Scenario 1: Less than allowable gross floor area,
with one-story developments
Scenario 2: Allowable gross floor area, with two-
story developments
Scenario 3: Allowable gross floor area, with one-
story developments and variance
request on excess lot coverage
DRB Recommended
Amendment 2:
Amending the maximum
lot coverage requirement
for one-story
developments from 30%
to equal the maximum
Gross Floor Area
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 2
Exhibit 2, Page 139 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
15
ARTICLE II, Section 16-21.040, Table 2-2 (RESIDENTIAL ZONES
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS)
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 2
Exhibit 2, Page 140 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
16
•The DRB also reviewed the current Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
guidelines and discussed whether the proposed amendments
would create a reasonable maximum and appropriate
residential size and scale, in relation to the overall size of a
property.
•The DRB proposed a tiered approach to apply the
garage/carport exemption commensurate with lot size.
•The DRB proposed to reduce the floor area exemption for
garage or carport from 600 sf to 450 sf on lots that are less than
7,500 square feet.
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 3
Exhibit 2, Page 141 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
17
ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2 (FLOOR AREA RATIO
GUIDELINES)
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 3
Exhibit 2, Page 142 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
18
ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2 (FLOOR AREA RATIO
GUIDELINES)
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 3
a.Examples. The following are some examples to illustrate the
floor area ratio guideline concept:
(1) Example No. 1. A seven-thousand-four-hundred-square-foot
lot generally could achieve a reasonable size and scale of
residential construction with a maximum of two thousand five
hundred ninety square feet (.35 x 7,400) of gross floor area, not
including up to six four hundred fifty square feet of garage or
carport
Exhibit 2, Page 143 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
19
DRB Recommended Amendment No. 3
ARTICLE X, Section 16-100.020, Definition for “Floor Area, Gross”
Gross floor area shall not include the following six areas:
1.For residential uses, the first four hundred fifty square feet of
garage or carport space on properties less than seven thousand five
hundred square feet in area; or the first six hundred square feet of
garage or carport space on properties between seven thousand five
hundred square feet and less than or equal to sixty thousand square
feet in area; or the first seven hundred fifty square feet of garage or
carport space on properties greater than sixty thousand square feet
in area; or the first two hundred fifty square feet of garage or carport
space for each parking space required in compliance with parking
requirements from section 16-32.040 (number of paring spaces
required);
Exhibit 2, Page 144 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Town of Tiburon
Municipal Code
20
Chapter 16-68.050 Commission Findings
The Commission shall, by resolution, recommend that the council
approve the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance if it makes
the following findings:
1.The change of zone, change of zone boundaries, or other proposed
amendment, is consistent with the requirements herein.
2.The change of zone, change of zone boundaries, or other proposed
amendment, is consistent with the general plan and any other
applicable plans of the town.
3.The change of zone, change of zone boundaries, or other proposed
amendment, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare of the town.
Exhibit 2, Page 145 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Recommended Actions
21
1.Conduct a public hearing
2.Deliberate and make any revisions as appropriate
3.Adopt draft resolution, as amended to include the code sections
marked in red below, recommending approval to the Town Council
of various zoning text amendments
•Amendment 1: Refining guiding principles for two-story developments in
neighborhoods consist of primarily one-story homes
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020 (H)(3)
•Amendment 2: Amending the maximum lot coverage requirement for one-
story developments from 30% to equal the maximum Gross Floor Area
•ARTICLE II, Section 16-21.040, Table 2-2
•Amendment 3: Reducing the floor area exemption for garage or carport from
600 sf to 450 sf on smaller lots
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2
•ARTICLE V, Section 16-52.020, Table 5-2, Example
•ARTICLE X, Section 16-100.020, Definition for “Floor Area, Gross”
Exhibit 2, Page 146 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Town of Tiburon
22
Exhibit 2, Page 147 of 156 Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
From:Shadan, Carolyn
To:Holli Thier; Jon Welner; Jack Ryan; Alice Fredericks; Noah Griffin
Cc:Lea Stefani
Subject:Dec 15 TC Meeting PH-1 Amendment
Date:Friday, December 10, 2021 12:07:46 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.
Mayor Welner and Town Council Members,
I cannot understand why the first item in the Public Hearings, PH-1 Municipal Code Amendments
Exhibit 3-Planning Commission Staff Report, is even on the agenda for the December 15, 2021
meeting. Although the Tiburon Planning Commission did not approve a proposed change to the
Municipal Code by the Tiburon Planning Department, to allow two stories everywhere in the Bel
Aire neighborhood, this proposed change is being brought to the Town Council again.
While the language is modified to include wording that seems to make a two story less intrusive, it is
still a major modification to the Municipal Code to allow two stories everywhere. I cannot
understand why the Tiburon Planning Department is stubbornly trying to alter the Municipal Code to
eliminate variances and to allow two stories everywhere, even after the Tiburon Planning
Commission did not approve this plan.
I would like to point out:
Bel Aire does have two stories on its perimeter but not interior. These are on lots that have
limited room to expand and are not obtrusive. There are no two stories on the interior. New
homeowners buy into this neighborhood with the realization that this is the precedence.
Variances have worked to accommodate odd shaped lots, or other limiting features for many
years. A large number of homes have brought their garages forward into the front setback
while still having room for off street parking to maintain the large backyard space, all with
approved variances. How does the town plan to justify a policy change that makes it ok for
some and not others, basically any new homeowner?
A new homeowner that bought on Harriet Court has been paying two mortgages for a year,
waiting to submit their plans because Dina keeps telling them she won’t approve a variance
they have in their plans. Apparently other applicants have been told the same thing. Yet the
current Municipal Code allows for an application for a variance with an attached fee. How
can the Town of Tiburon legally tell an applicant they cannot apply for a variance that an
application process and attached fee exists for?
The DRB has reminded Dina Tasini on several occasions that the Tiburon Planning
Department does not approve or disapprove variances, the DRB does. In response, Dina has
stated “ I can’t support them”. The town attorney has concurred with the DRB on this.
No one in the Tiburon Planning Department lives in the Bel Aire neighborhood. Where is this
push for changes coming from? It would seem that the new Director of Community Affairs
has her own agenda and it not listening to the Community.
PH-1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 148 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
While the Planning Commission Staff Report discusses contentious processes for the review
of two story proposals, the proposed language is not going to eliminate that. Neighbors will
still be involved, sometimes in a contentious manner, because the Municipal Code discusses
impact to the neighborhood and neighbors. And two stories on the perimeter that have gone
through this process have been approved even when contentious. Two story and loft
additions have received approval and have not been contentious. So it is not always
contentious and I would guess has a lot to do with precedence, Community outreach and
Planning Staff guidance. It is just the process and part of the planning department and DRBs
duties.
In reviewing a proposed addition story poles behind me, Dina stated ‘I can see how this
negatively impacts you but one day you are going to have two stories on either side of you,
there is precedence’ ignoring the fact that there is no precedence for two stories on the
interior. It seems it was ok to ignore the negative impact because of some future negative
impact on either side of me. It would seem that Dina is promoting ideas she brought to the
Town of Tiburon, not ideas proposed by the very community she is supposed to represent.
During the discussion by the DRB on this topic, some members seemed exhausted by the
projects that became contentious. And it probably is exhausting for this volunteer position.
But that is part of being on the review board, to deal with these issues and diffuse them. And
maybe some should take a break from time to time?
In closing I would like to state that I am not anti-two story as I think they work well on the perimeter,
that variances work to help homeowners and I trust the DRB to review projects and consider the
neighborhood and affected neighbors. I just want the community to be involved in Municipal Code
changes, and don’t want to eliminate the possibility of variance or allow two stories everywhere in
Bel Aire.
Thanks for reading this,
Carolyn Shadan
279 Cecilia Way
Tiburon, Ca.
Exhibit 2, Page 149 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
From:Bronia Hill
To:Town
Cc:Diversity; Lea Stefani
Subject:Late Mail Addition to Agenda Packet Town Council Meeting 12/15
Date:Wednesday, December 15, 2021 8:40:59 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.
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm extremely concerned that a special Town Council meeting has been scheduled for today,December 15, for the following reasons:
a)agenda item PH1 which - as called out by Bel Aire resident Carolyn Shadan in her email to
town council - is a complex, nuanced and years-long issue that represents a potential change tothe Town's municipal code and is probably best not discussed in a special meeting scheduled
immediately before the Christmas holiday. Are members of the Planning Commission orDesign Review Board aware of this special meeting and agenda item? Have members of theBel Aire community who would be most impacted by this agenda item been notified ofthis meeting? Carolyn also raises some important questions and issues related to how the
entire situation has been handled by the town's Director of Community Development. Whatsteps will the Town Council take to address these concerns?
b) there is a lack of transparency and equity around how items are added to the Town's agenda
in general. Some are apparently escalated when it suits town management (such as the issueabove), while others (such as adding DEI as an additional element to the town's general plan
or changing the employee appeal hearing process back to town council from the TownManager) are set aside for months. What is the process for adding items to the TownCouncil agenda and for calling special meetings? How can transparency andcommunication around these meetings be improved so that important issues andconversations are not taking place without engagement from residents who are mostimpacted? What can/ought to be done to make the process more equitable?
I will write to the Town Council and the Diversity Inclusion Task Force separately detailing
the various motions that were voted on by the Diversity Inclusion Task Force in Octoberwhich have yet to be addressed by the Town Council. I would like to see some
accountability/ownership for ensuring that issues voted on by the DITF are actually advancedand put before Town Council. Otherwise what's to prevent the DITF from being reduced to a
performative meeting held once monthly?
Lea, could you please ensure that this email is forwarded to the Planning Commission andDesign Review Board? I am unable to find group emails for these entities on the Town's
website.
Thank you for your consideration,Best wishes, Bronia Hill
PH-1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 150 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
phone: 415.971.7871 cedric@barringerarchitecture.com
ARCHITECTUREBARRINGER
ab
December 15th, 2021
Ms. Lea Stefani, Town Clerk
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: December 15th, Town Council PH-1
Dear Ms. Stefani,
I am a current member for the Design Review Board, and the former Chair of that board. In my [roughly] two
years on this board I have seen this issue come up over and over again. As a practicing Architect in town, I also
see it in my professional practice, where owners have been forced to cut down projects to meet the 30% Lot
coverage, where in some instances, their direct neighbors are sitting in houses that enjoy 36 or 38% lot
coverage.
I may not be able to attend tonight’s meeting due to family obligations (though I will try), so I felt it was worth
my time to write into the Town council to share my experience with the process.
The “lack of transparency” described by Ms. Hill in her earlier letter – in my opinion – could not be farther from
the truth. The Design Review Board often see projects that get pushed into a second story because of a new,
stricter adherence to the zoning rules that essentially remove the ability for owners to build what so many
others have been able to through lot coverage variances. I don’t feel this is what the neighborhoods truly want
–if you were to judge the vehement opposition.
As for the process, once Planning’s “new approach” [of not allowing for lot coverage Variances based solely
because a lot is flat and in one of these neighborhoods that “discourage” second stories] was run into by
homeowners looking to cover more that 30% of their lots, people started to take notice. The Planning
department patiently explained to Owners and their Architects the reasons for the new stance—largely a legal
one. It became clear that the only way to really solve the problem was via zoning change. In July and in
September, we have twice had special session meetings on the subject at the Design review board and invited
public comment. The Planning Commission at the end of October also heard the arguments and approved the
change to go before you tonight.
I would argue the opposite of Ms. Hill that the public has not been informed. This change is long overdue and
the process – for those paralyzed on projects waiting for the change – is unfair as zoning currently is written.
THIS CHANGE WILL NOT BRING A FLOOD OF 2- STORY PROJECTS TO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. They would still
need to go through the Design Review process, and if you’ve been in a meeting with a 2-story proposal and seen
the opposition, any smart Architect might suggest to their clients the easier option of just building 1-Story. The
Zoning change is not called out specifically to limit projects to 1-story because R-1 Zoning covers a relatively
broad swath of Tiburon. In some cases, such as hillside sites, a 2-story project can be appropriately designed to
have no impacts on neighbors. So 2-story proposals ARE SOMETIMES COMPETELY APPROPRIATE. Would I, as
an Architect, put a 2-story house on Claire way? No way. Never. And it’s unlikely that most Owners after
PH-1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 151 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
phone: 415.971.7871 cedric@barringerarchitecture.com
ARCHITECTUREBARRINGER
ab
2
talking with neighbors would do the same. I feel strongly that this Zoning change will not cause a change for the
worse.
I have seen first hand that many people are afraid of change, but the bottom line is this example: Say a young
family of four 3 years ago bought an original 1950’s Bel-Aire house, with 3 bedrooms and 1-bathroom house
(1000sf) on a 7500 sf lot. If they wanted to expand to meet the needs of their family, they could have probably
built a 2400 sf house, with a 300 sf garage, covering 36% of their lot via a Variance process. The same family
today would be limited –if they wanted a garage of 250sf to about 2000sf. At the massive cost of buying real
estate in Tiburon, and the massive cost and time of going through a major project, who are we to judge a
family’s need for the space afforded to them by the Floor Area Ratio spelled out in the zoning code? If an
individual grew up in one of those lovely 3-bedroom 1 Bathroom homes and it was just fine--Great! Good for
them. That doesn’t mean this should define what today’s typical family needs or wants. That is flat out unfair.
I hope you will support the passage of this Zoning change, as it is long overdue.
Regards,
Cedric C. Barringer
Exhibit 2, Page 152 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
From:Amy Kaufman
To:Lea Stefani
Subject:Meeting tonight
Date:Wednesday, December 15, 2021 2:03:38 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.
Hi Lea.
I just found out about the Town Council meeting tonight where zoning in Bel Aire is going to be
addressed. I live in Bel Aire for the last eight years and wanted to weigh in if it isn’t too late. I read
through the emails submitted for the meeting. I whole heartedly agree with Cedric Barringer. As a
family of five in less than 2000 square feet, living quarters are very tight. I love the neighborhood
and would love to find a way to stay as my kids grow up and need even more space. I know the
opposition is loud, but I don’t think the loud voices of the minority accurately represent how most
families in the neighborhood feel. Many of those loud voices are older neighbors who have been in
the neighborhood for many years and no longer have children living in the home. No one wants Bel
Aire to lose its charm, but I do think lot variances and second stories make sense in certain cases. I
would hate for that not be an option at all.
Respectfully,
Amy Kaufman
______________________________________________________________________________________Amy KaufmanPartner & Search Practice Leader, BVOH
Direct: (415) 596-5787Emai: akaufman@bvoh.com
www.bvoh.com
PH-1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 153 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
From:daniel amir
To:Lea Stefani
Subject:Late mail - Municipal code amendments - 12.15.21 Town Council meeting
Date:Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:19:24 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.
Town Council,
I understand that on the agenda tonight is a recommendation for municipal code amendments - PH1.
I am a member of the planning commission and wanted to address the late emails. Unfortunately, I cannot attend
tonight's meeting.
As a commission, we met on this subject on 10/27/21 and this was after two meetings at the Design Review Board
on 7/29/21 and 9/23/21. This topic was discussed at length and thoroughly addressed with an opportunity for the
community to come forward and express their concerns. This topic is not simple as the goal here was to address the
rising applications around requests for variances in mainly single story neighborhoods with that of owners property
rights. There is no easy solution here. As a commissioner I believe that these proposed changes in this amendment
assist the town and provide more clarity to residents while avoiding the lengthy variance process as many designs
will fall into the new variance amendment. Architectural and design reviews will still be brought to public hearings
just like they were previously.
All the best,
Daniel
PH-1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 154 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
From:Bryan Chong
To:Lea Stefani
Subject:Late Mail for Town Council Meeting
Date:Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:53:43 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 Councilmembers,
A family commitment prevents me from speaking at tonight’s meeting but I didn’t want to
miss the opportunity to share my thoughts as a long-standing member of the Tiburon
Design Review Board.
Two-story projects in some Tiburon neighborhoods have always been a hotly contested
topic during my 13 years on the DRB. I see both sides of the argument and have taken
differing positions depending on the merits or impacts of an individual application.
However, I’m not writing to debate two stories, but instead to share the challenges our
board faces when evaluating applications fitting the following description:
The applicant would like to develop their property to its fullest potential.
The neighbors or the neighborhood prefer single stories.
The applicant is willing to build a single story.
A variance is required for lot coverage due to the size of the lot.
The Design Review Board struggles to make the findings for these lot coverage variances
simply because the applicant could build a two-story that would not require any variances
and would be in full compliance with our municipal code.
And therein lies the problem – the neighbors want a single story, the applicant is willing to
build a single story, but our town’s municipal code says we discourage two stories as well
as restrict lot coverage forcing the second-story design. This creates a great deal of
unnecessary conflict and commonly plays out in neighborhoods like Belveron and Bel Aire,
but we also see hillside applications whereby an applicant is willing to build a single story to
minimize the view impacts of an adjacent neighbor but will require a variance for lot
coverage.
PH-1
Town Council Meeting
December 15, 2021
Exhibit 2, Page 155 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
A solution to this problem has been needed for many years and, since the DRB must
arbitrate these applications, I was appreciative that the Tiburon planning staff was kind
enough to involve our board early on in the process. They helped facilitate two study
sessions held in July and September that were properly noticed and attended by members
of the public.
From those sessions, we crafted a solution we believed would permit applicants to develop
their properties to the fullest potential, increase neighborhood support, and be in
compliance with our municipal code and California laws.
Our recommendations were passed to the Planning Commission and ultimately formed the
foundation for the zoning code amendments you’re reviewing tonight. They have my full
support as a logical solution to an ongoing problem.
Kind regards,
Bryan Chong, Chair
Tiburon Design Review Board
Exhibit 2, Page 156 of 156 Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
STAFF REPORT To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: Recommendation to Accept Annual Reporting of Development Impact Fees
Pursuant to the California Government Code Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Town of Tiburon imposes three categories of fees that qualify as development fees. These
categories are: 1) traffic impact fees; 2) street impact fees; and 3) stormwater runoff fees. State law requires end of year reporting of these development fees. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Staff recommends the Town Council accepts this annual report as part of the Consent Calendar.
BACKGROUND Similar to most cities and counties in California, the Town of Tiburon imposes public facilities fees on development projects during the approval process. Certain of these fees are categorized as “development fees” under Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code. Section
66006 of that code requires specific data regarding development fees to be made available to the
public within 180 days following the end of each fiscal year (i.e., by December 31), with a public meeting held on the matter at the next regularly scheduled meeting following release of the data. This report sets forth the required annual data reporting for the Town’s development fee accounts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-2021, which closed on June 30, 2021.
ANALYSIS The Town of Tiburon imposes three categories of fees that qualify as development fees. These categories are: 1) traffic impact fees; 2) street impact fees; and 3) stormwater runoff fees. Park
and recreation in-lieu fees and affordable housing in-lieu fees, which the Town also collects, are
not defined as development fees. Required reporting data for each of the Town’s three development fee categories is shown below.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-11
Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 5
Traffic Mitigation Fees Traffic mitigation fees have been collected by Town since 1980; the two current fee accounts
were established in 1996, each addressing different portions of the Tiburon Planning Area. The
Town Council received a mandatory five-year report on these funds in January 2017 and made findings regarding the future use of unexpended funds in these accounts; the next five-year review would be scheduled for January 2022. In August 2017, the Town Council adopted updated traffic mitigation fees that consolidate the collection of newly received traffic impact fees
into a single account that also contains the prior fees collected for improvements within the
Town’s corporate limits, which is called the Circulation System Improvement Fund. The pre-existing Planning Area Mitigation Fund will continue to exist but will not receive any new contributions.
Circulation System Improvement Fund (CSIF): This fund contains the collected exactions for
construction of public traffic improvements in the incorporated portions of the Tiburon Planning Area prior to October 15, 2017 and all traffic mitigation fees subsequently collected. The fee varies depending on the location of the project in relation to intersections identified in the General Plan Circulation Element as requiring improvement. The fee is $7,174.76 per new PM peak hour
trip generated.
TIBURON CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT FUND Fund Balance, June 2020 $139,767 Revenues:
Fees Collected $0
Interest Income $1,147 TOTAL REVENUES $1,147
Expenditures: $0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $(0) Fund Balance, June 30, 2020 $140,914
In the adopted FY 2021-2022 budget there are no planned expenditures identified from this account. No inter-fund loans or transfers occurred from this account for FY 2020-2021 and no refunds from this account were issued in FY 2020-2021.
Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 5
Planning Area Mitigation Fund (PAMF): This fund contains the collected exactions for public traffic improvements in portions of the Tiburon Planning Area outside of the Town’s corporate limits, all of which were collected prior to October 15, 2017. No new fees are collected into this
account.
TIBURON PLANNING AREA MITIGATION FUND Fund Balance, June 30, 2020 $ 197,643 Revenues:
Fees Collected $0
Interest Income $1,621
TOTAL REVENUES $1,621
Expenditures: $0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $(0)
Fund Balance, June 30, 2021 $199,265
The FY 2021-22 Town budget contains no budget allocations from this fund. Future projects to which these funds would be contributed include a merge/acceleration lane at the Tiburon Boulevard/Cecilia Way intersection and capacity improvements at the Tiburon
Boulevard/Redwood Highway Frontage Road intersection. These improvements are set forth in the General Plan Circulation Element but are likely to be at least five years away. The cost of these improvements will exceed funds available at this time. No inter-fund loans or transfers occurred in this account for FY 2020-2021 and no refunds from this account were issued in FY 2020-2021.
Street Impact Fee The street impact fee went into effect in July 1999. This fee partially off-sets the Town’s costs of public roadway maintenance by assessing a fee of 1.0% (.01) on the valuation of all building
permits issued by the Town. A project with a $100,000 building permit valuation would therefore be subject to a street impact fee of $1,000.
Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 5
TIBURON STREET IMPACT FUND Fund Balance, June 30, 2020
$ 2,505,578 Revenues: Fees Collected $672,612 Interest Income Refund/Reimbursement $18,088 $0.00
TOTAL REVENUES $690,700
Expenditures: ($1,295,494
TOTAL EXPENDITURES ($1,295,494) Fund Balance, June 30, 2021 $1,900,784
For FY 2020-21, the Town has identified in its adopted budget $1,461,191 in planned street
improvement projects to be funded by the Street Impact Fund. The Town maintains a Pavement Management Program (PMP), which analyzes the condition of the Town’s streets and suggests appropriate repair/replacement techniques based on this analysis. In 2006, the Town embarked on an aggressive program to eliminate its “failed” street segments, which has been successfully
completed. According to the most recent Pavement Management Program (PMP) update report,
the Town’s overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) now stands at 76 and up from a PCI of 66 in 2006. No refunds or transfers were issued from this account in FY 2020-2021.
Stormwater Runoff Fee The Town began collecting stormwater runoff fees, also known as impervious surface fees, in
2005. The stormwater impact fee helps recover the costs of upgrading the Town’s public storm
drain system to accommodate additional runoff caused by new construction. The fee is $1.00 per square foot of new impervious surface created by construction projects. The Town Council received a mandatory five-year report on these funds in January 2016 and made findings regarding the use of unexpended funds in this account. The next such report is due in January
2022.
Town Council Meeting
January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON Page 5 of 5
STORMWATER RUNOFF (DRAINAGE IMPACT) FUND Fund Balance, June 30, 2019 $ 93,788
Revenues:
Fees Collected $39,720 Interest Income $1,022
TOTAL REVENUES $40,742
Expenditures: $0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0
Fund Balance, June 30, 2021 $134,530
For FY 2020-21 there are no planned expenditures from the Storm Water Runoff Fund. No inter-
fund loans, transfers, or refunds were issued to or from this account in FY 2021-2022.
FINANCIAL IMPACT The information provided is an annual report of development fees. There is no fiscal impact to accepting this report.
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 the Town Council accepts this annual report as part of the Consent Calendar.
Prepared By: Dina Tasini, Director of Community Development
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 Accept the November 2021 Investment Summary
Reviewed By:
_________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
n/a ________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY Staff provides the Town Council a monthly report on the Town’s investment activity. This report is for the month ended November 30, 2021. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Staff recommends that the Town Council move to accept the Investment Summary for November 2021
BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with
a report regarding the Town’s investment activities for the monthly period ended November 30,
2021. All of the funds listed below are on deposit with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). ANALYSIS
November 2021
Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) –
Beginning Balance as of 11/01/2021 $22,000,322.10 0.203 % Liquid
Deposits 0.00
Withdrawals 0.00
Interest Earnings (Posted Quarterly) 0.00
Total Ending Balance as of 11/30/2021 $22,000,322.10
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 12, 2022
Agenda Item: CC-12
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
The total invested at the end of the prior month was $22,000,322.10. No transactions were posted for the reporting period. Interest is posted by LAIF quarterly and will be reported on the January 2022 statement.
In addition to the funds on deposit with LAIF, the Town invests funds in two Section 115 Irrevocable Trusts for Other Post-Employment Benefits and pension obligations. These trusts are administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS). The PARS November 2021 Statement is attached to this report as Exhibit 1.
FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing – safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order.
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 accept the Investment Summary for November 2021 Exhibit(s): 1. PARS Section 115 Trust Account Summary for November 2021 Prepared By: Suzanne Creekmore, Director of Administrative Services
EXHIBIT 1
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 8
STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Community Development Department
Subject: General Plan Update - Draft goals, policies and programs for Downtown, Safety and Resilience, Parks and Recreation, and Open Space and Conservation elements
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY This is a mid-process review for the Council to consider the draft goals, policies and programs which have been prepared for four elements of the new General Plan and provide any feedback or direction to staff for modification or deletions prior to drafting the new General Plan early
next year. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Review the summary of the public engagement associated with each element 2. Provide feedback on the draft goals, policies, and programs on each element
BACKGROUND
The Town is midway through the General Plan 2040 update process, having completed much of the community input through stakeholder interviews, three community workshops and subsequent on-line surveys, and several meetings with the Planning Commission, the Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission, and The Ranch Board of Directors. Draft goals, policies and programs have been prepared based on this input for four of the more policy-driven elements of
the General Plan: Downtown, Safety and Resilience, Parks and Recreation, and Open Space and Conservation. The updated Safety and Resilience Element focuses on increasing concerns with sea level rise and wildland fires. ANALYSIS
The purpose of this mid-process review is for the Council to consider the draft goals, policies and
programs which have been prepared for four elements of the Updated General Plan and to
provide feedback or direction to staff for modification or deletions prior to drafting the Draft
Update to the General Plan early next year. Each of the four elements is addressed below,
including a summary of the public engagement associated with this element and then an overview
TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: DI-1
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 8
of the more significant revisions or new goals, policies and programs. The proposed draft goals,
policies and programs for each of the four subject elements are attached as Exhibits 1-4.
Safety and Resilience Element
Community Outreach and Feedback
Two community workshops: March 2, 2021 – Adapting to Sea Level Rise and March 30,
2021 – Safety for Wildfires, Earthquakes, Landslides and Tsunamis.
Two on-line surveys: Adapting to Sea Level Rise (79 responses) and Safety, Parks and
Open Space (123 responses)
The workshops and surveys indicated significant concerns over sea level rise and wildfire risks.
Widely supported recommendations for wildfire mitigation included better signage and
publicizing of evacuation routes, promoting emergency warning systems, organizing
neighborhood teams, and increasing training, and reducing fire loads in the open space. Support
for requiring property owners to maintain defensible space around structures was evenly split.
Feedback related to sea level rise was that planning and mitigation needs to begin prior to
flooding impacts, that adaptation can be addressed in phases, that areas subject to rising tides
such as Downtown and the Cove Shopping Center and the surrounding neighborhood will need
physical protection but others, such as Blackie’s Pasture, may have to accommodate rising tides,
and that mitigation will have to be a public/private partnership in terms of funding.
Planning Commission review on April 28, 2021. The Commission was supportive of the
heightened approaches to wildland fires and sea level rise.
Summary of Major Revisions to Goals/Policies/Programs
Flooding and Sea Level Rise
New Programs:
Prepare and update a localized Flooding and Sea Level Rise Protection Map for use as a
reference for Town policies and regulations and as a public education tool.
Coordinate data with the County and support creation of a countywide agency or JPA to
oversee adaptation planning, financing, and implementation.
Prepare a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan for those portions of Town that will be subject to
tidal flooding to define adaptation options and funding sources.
Disclose properties at risk of tidal flooding as part of the Town’s Residential Building
Resale Inspections.
Participate in FEMA’s Community Rating System to notify residents of hazards in flood-
prone areas, resulting in reduced flood insurance rates.
Coordinate with Caltrans and utilities in protecting vulnerable infrastructure, including
Tiburon Blvd, Paradise Drive, and Main Street.
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 8
Study raising the minimum required first floor elevation from 2 to 3 feet above FEMA’s
base flood elevation to account for future sea level rise to extend the useful life of the
structures.
Encourage use of green infrastructure in storm water improvements.
Fire Hazards
Revised Policy: Recommends modifying existing policy from requiring defensible space in new
developments to consideration of an ordinance mandating defensible space for all properties in
areas of high fire risk.
Emergency Preparedness
New Policy and Programs:
Encourage educational outreach and neighborhood organization to promote disaster
preparedness.
Improve signage of evacuation routes and promotion of public safety route identification
applications and emergency notifications for cell phones.
Revised Program: Edited to be more explicit in working with the Fire Districts to support
community education and training, including engagement of Neighborhood Watch or similar
organizations.
Building Hazards
This hazard type was not included in the current General Plan.
Parks and Recreation Element
Community Outreach and Feedback
Community workshop: March 30, 2021
On-line survey: 123 responses
The workshops and surveys indicated desires for a community pool, kayak/paddleboard launch, a
dog park and more programs for teens and pre-teens.
Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission reviews on March 16 and May 18, 2021. POST
recommended the policy related to Blackie’s Pasture should include a definition of passive
recreation to be more useful, including developing a framework or decision-making
guidance for the Richardson Bay Linear Park, that future park improvements to be
considered to include a community pool, community center/gymnasium, a dog park and
bocce courts, possibly on the Richardson Bay Sanitary District’s site, should this become
available. They concurred with public desires for a kayak launch facility and a trail
connection between Downtown and the open space trail network.
The Ranch Board review on May 17, 2021. The Board agreed with POST’s
recommendations for a kayak/paddleboard launch, creation of a community recreation hub
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 8
at the wastewater treatment plant site and agreed that the Ranch funding model of pay-for-
service programming conflicts with a goal of providing equal access to lower-income
households.
Planning Commission review on May 9, 2021. The Commission was supportive of the
incorporation of policies and programs based on input from the public workshop/survey
and the POST and Ranch Board sessions.
Summary of Major Revisions to Goals/Policies/Programs
Revised Goal and Policies:
Language expanded to encompass provision of parks and recreation facilities for those of
differing abilities and income levels.
Policy re: Blackie’s Pasture edited to incorporate a general definition of passive recreation
at the suggestion of POST.
Remove the direction to prepare an overall parks master plan.
Existing program that called for exploration of a new community center has been expanded
to mention consideration of a broader range of mentioned improvements if sites/funding
become available, including identification of the Richardson Bay Sanitary District site as a
possible location for a recreation hub, if the site becomes available.
New Programs:
Consider creating a small watercraft (kayak/paddleboard) launch along the waterfront as
suggested at public workshops and by POST and The Ranch Board.
Create a framework or decision-making criteria for future improvements to Richardson Bay
Linear Park as suggested by POST.
Explore means of providing financial support for recreation programs for residents with
financial needs.
Open Space and Conservation Element
Community Outreach and Feedback
Community workshop: March 30, 2021
On-line survey: 123 responses
The workshops and surveys indicated strong support for open space preservation, management of
open space lands, more trail connections and better trail signage (including educational signage
about rare/endangered species).
Parks, Open Space and Trails Commission reviews on March 16 and May 18, 2021. POST
was supportive of the edited open space policies and programs.
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 8
Planning Commission review on May 9, 2021. The Planning Commission supported the
proposals and suggested additional edits to create text with a consistent action-oriented
style.
Summary of Major Revisions to Goals/Policies/Programs
Revised Goal and Policies:
Language expanded to reference recreational and environmental benefits of open space.
Delete policy which requires at least 50% of land zoned Planned Development be
permanent open space since future Planned Development zoning may be proposed outside
of the hillsides to accommodate housing development, which would not be feasible with a
50% open space requirement. POST asked if deletion would affect the Martha Property
development. The response is no, this policy only applies to property within the Town of
Tiburon. The Martha Property will be developed under County zoning and policies.
Delete existing policies in General Plan which establish development setbacks from
Tiburon Ridge, Significant Ridgelines (which are mapped in the General Plan) and call for
development restrictions on steep slopes. These regulations should be quantified and
located in the Zoning Ordinance rather than in the General Plan.
New Programs:
Incorporate ridgeline setbacks and other hillside development requirements from the
General Plan and Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings (1981) into objective hillside
development regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. This will be particularly important for
any developments involving multiple homes or multi-family units which must be reviewed
under objective zoning and design standards in accordance with new state law.
Improve trail signage, including safety and habitat information.
Create a trail connection from the open space network to the Downtown/Tiburon Blvd.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the wetland and streamside buffer setbacks
from existing General Plan policies.
Downtown Element
Community Outreach and Feedback
Community workshop: April 27, 2021
On-line survey: 137 responses
The workshops and surveys indicated strong support for converting Main Street into a pedestrian-
only zone as a pilot project, better connecting the Downtown with the shoreline and trail network,
activating Downtown with mixed use development, multi-generational events, and pedestrian-
oriented building frontages.
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 8
Planning Commission reviews on June 23 and August 26, 2021. The first hearing was an
in-depth examination of issues and options, and the second hearing devoted to discussion
of possible goals, policies, and programs. The Commission strongly supported new mixed-
use development, Main Street conversion to pedestrian space, providing more multi-modal
transportation options, diminishing views of parking, and reconfiguration of Tiburon
Boulevard to provide a wider sidewalk and protected bike lane.
Summary of Major Revisions to Goals/Policies/Programs
Land Use Mix and Activation
New Goal, Policies and Programs:
Encourage extending the pedestrian-oriented environment of Downtown to Tiburon
Boulevard from the Library to the Bay.
Require new ground-floor space along commercial street frontages be devoted to retail,
restaurants, personal services, or community uses, and limiting office use.
Encourage new housing downtown.
Update the Zoning Ordinance and Tiburon Design Handbook to reflect the new goals and
policies of the General Plan.
Downtown Character and Design
New Policies and Programs:
Redevelop properties around Tiburon Blvd. and Beach Road to create a new activity hub
with housing and walkable retail.
Additional design objectives added for new building location, height, and massing.
New development should incorporate streetscape enhancements and midblock pedestrian
connections (paseos).
Study zoning or other incentives to support historic preservation, economic vitality, and
housing goals.
Revised Policy: Existing design-related policy extensively revised to add more explicit design
objectives for pedestrian-oriented development.
Access, Circulation and Parking
New Policies and Programs:
Make circulation improvements to Main Street, Tiburon Boulevard, and other Downtown
streets to improve multimodal access.
Initiate a pilot program to test the feasibility of converting lower Main Street to a
pedestrian-only environment.
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 8
Redesign a portion of the west side of Tiburon Boulevard to reorient angled parking, widen
the sidewalk, and create a protected bike lane.
Improve Downtown bike facilities and infrastructure.
Create new midblock pedestrian paseos.
Create a pedestrian connection between Downtown, the Bay, and the hillside open space
trail network.
Assess existing parking inventory and occupancy and create new parking requirements to
meet demand and foster redevelopment.
Implement a new wayfinding and identity signage program.
Public Facilities, Spaces and Amenities
New Policies:
Study public spaces in the Downtown to identify improvements to further activate public
use.
Study new community amenities Downtown, including play areas, restrooms, and a kayak
launch.
Support programing of events for Downtown public spaces.
NEXT STEPS
The timeframe for completion of the General Plan update is being driven by state-imposed deadlines for review and approval of the new Housing Element.
The remaining four elements of the General Plan (Housing, Land Use, Circulation and Noise) will be addressed in the next few months. A second Housing Element workshop will be held in
February. A community workshop on mobility and circulation will follow in March.
The Land Use Element will result from the direction on the Downtown and Housing Elements. The Planning Commission and Town Council will review development projections in the Spring. The Draft Housing Element must be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development in June.
The Town Council is considering adding a Sustainability Element and Diversity and Inclusion Element to the General Plan work program.
It is anticipated that a draft General Plan and EIR will be available for public review in Fall 2022. FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by receipt of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 8
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. Review the summary of the public engagement associated with each element
2. Provide feedback on the draft goals, policies and programs on each element Exhibit(s):
1. Draft Safety and Resilience Element Goals, Policies and Programs
2. Draft Parks and Recreation Element Goals, Policies and Programs 3. Draft Open Space and Conservation Goals, Policies and Programs 4. Draft Downtown Element Goals, Policies and Programs
EXHIBIT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
1
SAFETY AND RESILIENCE ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Goals
Goal SE-A
Maintain a safe and healthy community.
Goal SE-B
Identify hazardous areas and discourage to the maximum extent feasible development of areas subject
to hazards including, but not limited to, geotechnical hazards, unstable slopes, and flood-prone areas.
Goal SE-C
Ensure safe subdivision and building design.
Goal SE-D
Encourage disaster preparedness planning for effective emergency response and to protect public
safety.
Goal SE-E
Reduce the impact of hazardous materials exposure and strive to reduce threats to health, safety, and
the environment from hazardous materials.
General Policies
New policy 1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards.
Reduce the risk of loss of life, personal injury, and property damage resulting from seismic and
geologic hazards including ground shaking, land sliding, liquefaction, and slope failure.
Policy SE-4 Development in Areas with Geologic Hazards.
Assure that development allowed within areas of potential geologic hazard is neither endangered
by, nor contributes to, the hazardous conditions on the site or on surrounding properties.
Policy SE-6 Hazard Reduction.
Actively encourage owners of developed property to repair or improve unstable slopes, install
drainage facilities, and take other measures that may reduce potential safety hazards.
Policy SE-7 Development on Slopes.
Discourage development on slopes exceeding 40% wherever possible.
Policy SE-8 Development in Gullies.
Strongly discourage development located below or in the path of gullies which are highly
susceptible to debris flow mudslides.
New Program 1 Building Code Compliance.
Require that new development and infrastructure projects conform to seismic requirements
of the California Building Code and, when applicable, mitigation required by the California
Environmental Quality Act.
New Program 2 Geotechnical Analysis.
Require preparation of a report by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer for new
development proposals including new subdivisions, additions, remodels, and infrastructure
ATTACHMENT 1
2
projects, as applicable, to determine the extent of geotechnical hazards, specify adequate
repair/improvement techniques, describe optimum design for structures and improvements,
and set forth any special requirements for the sites.
New Program 3 Landslide Mitigation Policy.
Require that new development in areas subject to land sliding comply with the Town’s
Landslide Mitigation Policy. Require physical improvements to landslides and to potential
landslide areas in instances where avoidance is not feasible or appropriate, as determined
through the development review process.
Program SE-I Water Infrastructure Safety.
Coordinate with the Marin Municipal Water District to replace the piping and fittings in those
water tanks in the Planning Area that are not currently fitted with flexible, earthquake-
resistant joints. In addition, the water tanks should be evaluated to ascertain their ability to
withstand strong seismic ground shaking.
Program SE-j Seismic Improvement Program.
Create and implement a Seismic Improvement Program for public buildings and infrastructure.
The Program shall include conducting a seismic risk assessment of existing Town
infrastructure, which would help to create a list which would prioritize the buildings and
equipment that should be retrofitted. Following risk assessment, the Town should adopt a
Program that would upgrade vulnerable facilities based on the priority list.
Program SE-k Building-owner Education.
Increase education regarding upgrading of privately-owned buildings using structural and non-
structural mitigation measures.
Flooding and Sea Level Rise Hazards
New Policy 2 Flood Risk Reduction.
Reduce the risk of loss of life, personal injury, and property damage resulting from flooding by
properly maintaining storm drainage systems, natural flood control channels, and waterways and
regulating runoff from new construction and development projects. Encourage flood control
measures that retain the natural features and conditions of watercourses to the maximum extent
feasible.
New Policy 3 Sea Level Rise Projections.
Integrate flooding and sea level rise projections into policies and regulations to inform the public of
the future hazard areas, assess and address potential impacts to future development, inform future
planning and building requirements, plan for opportunity areas for adaptation, and inform funding
and financing decisions about short- and long-term adaptation projects.
New Program 4 Flooding and Sea Level Rise Protection Map.
Prepare and update a Flooding and Sea Level Rise Projection Map as a reference for town policies
and regulations and as a publicly accessible tool for tracking flooding and sea level rise hazards.
Update the Flooding and Sea Level Rise Map at least every five years, based on the most recent
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps and local
projections from the County of Marin.
New Program 5 Coordinate with County of Marin.
ATTACHMENT 1
3
Ensure information and data related to increased flooding and sea level rise is current and
consistent with the information and data utilized by the County of Marin.
New Program 6 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan.
Prepare and adopt an adaptation plan addressing increased flooding and sea level rise. The
adaptation plan shall include the following components:
a) Flooding and Sea Level Rise Projection Map, to be used as the basis for adaptation planning.
b) Coordination with local, county, state, regional and federal agencies with bay and shoreline
oversight, major property owners, and owners of critical infrastructure and facilities in the
preparation of the adaptation plan.
c) An outreach plan to major stakeholders and all property owners within the vulnerable areas.
d) An inventory of potential areas and sites suitable for mid- to large-scale adaptation projects
e) A menu of adaptation measures and approaches that could include but not be limited to:
- Managed retreat, especially on low-lying, undeveloped, and underdeveloped sites, in areas
that are permanent open space, and in areas that are environmentally constrained. Transfer
of development rights from such areas should be encouraged.
- Innovative green shoreline protection and nature-based adaptation measures such as
wetlands and habitat restoration, and horizontal levees where most practical and feasible.
- Hard line armoring measures (sea walls, levees, breakwater, locks, etc.) to minimize the
potential for displacement of permanent residents and businesses.
- Elevating areas, structures, and infrastructure to reduce risks.
f) The appropriate timing and “phasing” of adaptation planning and implementation.
g) Potential financing tools and opportunities.
h) Coordination with or incorporation into the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
New Policy 4 Community Awareness.
Increase community awareness related to flooding and sea level rise hazards.
New Program 7 Residential Building Resale Inspections.
Include disclosure of potential property risk due to increased tidal flooding and sea level rise in
preparing residential building resale inspections. Utilize the Sea Level Rise Prediction Map for
confirming property vulnerability. Work with realtors and property owners to implement this
disclosure.
New Program 8 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Continue to comply with the federal National Flood Insurance Program by maintaining a flood
management program and flood plain management regulations. In addition, develop and
periodically update a Community Rating System (CRS) to notify residents of the hazards of living in
a flood-prone area, thereby reducing local flood insurance rates.
New Policy 5 Public Facilities.
Ensure that the Town’s streets, public spaces, public buildings, and infrastructure are resilient to
flooding and sea level rise.
New Program 9 Capital Improvement Planning.
Ensure flooding and sea level rise considerations are included in the Town’s capital improvement
planning.
New Program 10 Asset Management Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1
4
Maintain an asset management plan that includes life cycle costs and considers sea level rise
impacts.
New Program 11 Coordination with Caltrans and other roadway partners.
Coordinate with Caltrans and other partners to ensure roadway improvements in vulnerable areas
are consistent with the Town’s goals, and that infrastructure projects address and plan for
increased flooding and sea level rise. This includes Tiburon Boulevard, Paradise Drive, and Main
Street.
New Program 12 Coordinate with Utilities and Services.
Coordinate with the utilities and services that have infrastructure and facilities in vulnerable areas
to ensure that sea level rise information and goals are consistent with the Town’s goals, and that
infrastructure/utility projects address and plan for increased flooding and sea level rise.
New Policy 6 Flood-resistant New Development.
Ensure new development is resilient to flooding and sea level rise.
New Program 13 Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Require new development and/or construction, where feasible, to be outside Special Flood
Hazard Areas,which are defined by FEMA as areas that would be inundated by a flood having a
1% chance of occurring in any given year. Construction proposed within Special Flood Hazard
Areas shall comply with the Town’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Municipal Code
Chapter 13D).
New Program 14 Protection from Wave Action.
Require structures constructed adjacent to areas subject to the 100-year tidal flood to be
protected from destructive wave action.
New Program 15 Development Projects.
Require new development, including substantial alterations, to consider and address increased
flooding and sea level rise impacts and to integrate resilience and adaptation measures into
project design as warranted.
New Program 16 Code Amendments for Minimum Floor Elevation.
Study amendment of the Town’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to establish a minimum
finished floor elevation requirement of +3 feet above the FEMA 100-year flood elevation to
protect new development against future sea level rise.
New Policy 7 Mitigation of Storm Drainage Impacts.
Ensure new development mitigates storm drainage impacts and potential increases in runoff
through a combination of measures, including improvement of local storm drainage facilities.
New Program 17 Design of New Drainage Facilities.
Design drainage facilities within new subdivisions to accommodate a 100-year storm.
New Program 18 Stormwater Detention.
Utilize on-site detention of stormwater runoff to ensure that post-development peak flow
rates from a site resulting from both the two-year and 100-year design rainstorms are not
increased by new subdivisions or other permitted development projects.
New Program 19 Expansion of Stormwater Drainage System.
ATTACHMENT 1
5
To the extent that new subdivisions are responsible for exceeding the capacity of any existing
stormwater drainage system, the applicant shall be responsible for the cost of improvements
to the system such that the capacity is not exceeded upon project completion.
New Program 20 Use of Stormwater Runoff Impact Fees.
Utilize Stormwater Runoff Impact Fees to upgrade, enhance, and/or rehabilitate the Town’s
public storm drain system to offset the increased demand on the capacity, operation, and
sustainability of the Town storm drain system.
Program SE-b Analysis of Impacts on Drainageways.
Require project applicants for new development to prepare a hydraulic and geomorphic
assessment of on-site and downstream drainageways that are affected by project area runoff.
Characteristics pertinent to channel stability would include bank erosion, excessive bed scour
or sediment deposition, bed slope adjustments, lateral channel migration or bifurcation, and
the condition of riparian vegetation. In the event existing channel instabilities are noted, the
applicant may either propose their own channel stabilization program or defer to the
mitigations generated during the Town’s environmental review. Any proposed stabilization
measures shall anticipate any project-related changes to the drainageway flow regime.
New Program 21 Green Infrastructure Improvements.
Evaluate potential measures to more sustainably manage stormwater and erosion and improve
water quality associated with urban runoff. This includes improvements such as rain gardens and
permeable pavement, which attenuate flooding downstream and provide ecological benefits.
New Policy 8 Funding Partnerships.
Foster partnerships for funding and project implementation to address flooding and sea level rise
hazards.
New Program 22 Partners in Planning and Adaptation.
Work with the County of Marin, the City of Belvedere, other adjacent agencies, property owners,
and neighborhood groups/organizations to plan for and implement adaptation projects.
New Program 23 County Flood Control Districts.
Work collaboratively with the County of Marin Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts to
upgrade existing and/or plan for new facilities that would improve flood protection. Consider
expanding the County flood control districts to include areas impacted by sea level rise.
New Program 24 Countywide Agency/Joint Powers Authority.
Work with the County of Marin to facilitate the formation of a centralized countywide agency or
joint powers authority to oversee adaptation planning, financing, and implementation.
Fire Hazards
Policy SE-16 Fire Risk Reduction.
Reduce the risk of loss of life, personal injury, and property damage resulting from wildfire and
urban fire hazards through code enforcement and coordination the local Fire Districts and other
agencies to ensure the safe delivery of emergency services and the effective evacuation of the
community in the event of a disaster.
Policy SE-17 Impacts of New Development.
ATTACHMENT 1
6
Require new development to provide sufficient water supply and equipment for fire suppression to
ensure that the requirements for minimum fire flow and the size, type, and location of water mains
and hydrants set forth in the California Fire Code and by local ordinance are met.
Policy SE-18 Mitigation of Inadequate Water Supply.
Require new development within areas of insufficient peak load water supply to contribute to
improvements to the water delivery system to meet requirements for minimum fire-flow.
Policy SE-19 Cooperation with Fire Districts.
Work with the Fire Districts and other agencies to provide, enhance, and maintain adequate access,
including secondary access, to all areas within the Planning Area.
New Program 25 Defensible Space Around Structures.
Consider adoption of an ordinance requiring the maintenance of defensible space on
properties where fire hazard is significant. On-going maintenance of defensible space buffers
and fire protection infrastructure (e.g., safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible
street signs, fuel breaks, and emergency water sources and supplies, etc.) in new development
projects shall be assured in a form satisfactory to the Town and the Fire Districts prior to
construction of improvements.
Program SE-c Review New Developments for Fire Risk.
Review all development proposals for fire risk and require mitigation measures, including on-
going maintenance of defensible space and infrastructure related to fire protection and fire
hardening of structures and areas proximate to structures, for development located in state
responsibility areas, high fire hazard severity zones, or other areas with significant wildfire
potential, to reduce the probability of fire-related hazards to a less than significant level.
Require all new development to meet the adopted state and local fire codes. Refer all
applications to the appropriate Fire Districts for review.
Program SE-d Open Space Management Plan.
Implement the adopted Open Space Management Program to reduce fuel loads and maintain
fire roads and evacuation routes.
Policing
Policy SE-21 Police Services.
Maintain an adequate and cost-effective Police Department to serve and protect the community.
Policy SE-22 Community Policing and Crime Prevention.
Continue to implement community policing and crime prevention programs to strengthen
relationships between the Police Department and the community.
Emergency Preparedness
Policy SE-23 Emergency Preparedness.
Ensure that the Town is prepared to effectively respond to any emergency or disaster, including
hazardous material releases, in cooperation with other public agencies and appropriate
organizations.
Policy SE-24 Post-Disaster Services.
ATTACHMENT 1
7
Make provisions to continue essential public services during and after natural disasters and other
catastrophes.
New Policy 9 Public Outreach.
Encourage educational outreach and neighborhood organization to promote awareness and
readiness among residents regarding disaster preparedness. Community involvement will be an
essential part of the Town’s resilience and recovery.
New Policy 10 New Public Facilities.
Locate new essential public facilities outside of high hazard areas, including high fire risk areas,
Special Flood Hazard Areas, and areas at high risk for geologic or soil instability, to the extent
feasible. Where it is not feasible to locate essential public facilities outside of high hazard areas,
require site design, construction, and other methods to minimize damage. Essential public facilities
include, but are not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency
command centers, and emergency communications facilities.
Program SE-e Emergency Operations Plan.
Continue to review, update, and provide continued training to ensure that the Emergency
Operations Plan remains effective in preparing for disasters.
Program SE-f Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Implement the adopted Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to comply with the federal Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000 and maintain eligibility for hazard mitigation funding from FEMA.
Program SE-g Cooperation in Training and Educational Programs.
Support and participate in educational and training programs provided by the Fire Districts
and other governmental or community-based agencies. Engage Neighborhood Watch Groups
or similar neighborhood organizations to disseminate information and train to supplement
Town resources during emergencies and disaster recovery.
Program SE-h Post-Earthquake Assessments.
Conduct an immediate post-earthquake assessment of critical facilities and buildings in the
Planning Area to determine the extent of damages, if any, to essential Town infrastructure.
This should be performed by trained professional(s) utilizing the current state-of-knowledge
regarding post-earthquake assessment.
New Program 26 Evacuation Routes.
Improve local evacuation capacity by identifying evacuation routes through signage and
promotion of public safety route identification applications.
New Program 27 Public Safety Notifications.
Promote public safety emergency notification systems to warn residents of active threats such
as flood or wildfire.
Structural Hazards
New Policy 10 Structural Risk Reduction.
Reduce the risk of loss of life, personal injury, and property damage resulting from structural,
electrical, or fire damage to structures through code enforcement and public education.
New Program 28 Implement the Building Code.
ATTACHMENT 1
8
Review and inspect new development, building additions, and remodels, while enforcing the
California Building Standards Code and local amendments.
New Program 29 Update Building and Fire Codes.
Continue to update the Town’s building and fire codes and provide information to the public
on new code provisions.
Hazardous Materials
Policy SE-25 Hazardous Materials Risk Reduction.
Actively address the need to reduce exposure to hazardous materials.
Policy SE-26 Reduce Use of Hazardous Materials.
Encourage residents and businesses to reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials,
including encouraging residents to purchase toxic substances in only the amount needed to do the
job, or use non-toxic alternatives that do not pose a threat.
Policy SE-27 Disposal of Hazardous Materials.
Reduce the presence of hazardous materials in the community and support the operation of
recycling centers that take hazardous substances, such as oil, paint, pesticides, cleaners, chlorine
products, etc.
Program SE-l Evaluation of Hazardous Material Impacts.
Evaluate the potential impacts related to hazardous materials during the environmental
review process for new developments or businesses that involve use, transport, production,
storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials or that are proposed on a site affected by a
hazardous materials release. Coordinate hazardous materials management with other public
agencies regarding the use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. The
potential significant impacts associated with exposure to hazardous emissions or hazardous
materials shall be fully mitigated.
Program SE-m Coordination with other Agencies.
Coordinate with other local agencies to implement proper management measures as
identified by the County’s Hazardous Materials Area Plan.
EXHIBIT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
1
PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Goals
Goal PR-A
Provide sufficient land and facilities for a balanced system of parks and recreation opportunities that
serve all ages, abilities, and income levels.
Goal PR-B
Anticipate population growth and to plan for and provide funds for the acquisition of adequate lands or
installation of adequate facilities to address future parks and recreation needs of the community.
Policy PR-1 Maintain Sufficient Park Facilities.
Maintain sufficient park land and recreational facilities over time.
Program PR-a Coordinate Park and Recreation Planning.
Work with the Belvedere-Tiburon Recreation Department and the City of Belvedere to consider
the long- and short-term need for additional parklands, sporting facilities, picnic facilities, play
areas, or programs to meet the community’s recreational programming and facilities needs.
Program PR-c Future Recreation Facilities.
Consider development of a community pool, community center/gymnasium, a dog park and bocce
courts if sites and funding become available. Consider acquisition of the Richardson Bay Sanitary
District site for recreational use if it becomes available.
Policy PR-2 Parkland Dedication.
Continue to require new parkland dedication and/or collection of in-lieu fees during the
development review process. A ratio of 5.0 acres of park land per 1,000 persons is established for
the Planning Area pursuant to the Quimby Act.
Policy PR-3 Use of Park Funds.
Continue to use park funds and any future in-lieu fees for improvement of existing and future parks
and for parkland acquisition purposes.
Policy PR-4 Pursue Outside Funding.
Pursue federal, state, county, and other funds to assist in the maintenance, improvement, and
acquisition of existing and/or future park facilities.
Policy PR-5 Park Maintenance.
Strive to adequately fund the ongoing maintenance of the Town’s park and recreation facilities.
Policy PR-6 Blackie’s Pasture.
Retain the area known as Blackie’s Pasture for passive, informal recreational use, including uses
such as picnicking, hiking, wildlife watching, and open play areas which require minimal
improvements such as pathways, benches, picnic tables, or restrooms. The quality and
preservation of the environment should be the focus of the recreational experience.
Policy PR-7 Water Recreation.
Maintain, and enhance where practical, existing water recreation opportunities.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
New Program 1 Small Watercraft Launch.
Consider locations and funding for creation of a launch facility for small watercraft (e.g., kayaks
and paddleboards), possibly in the Downtown area.
Policy PR-8 Public Shoreline Access.
Encourage additional public shoreline access from publicly accessible land, especially in areas
where none currently exists.
New Program 2 Richardson Bay Linear Park.
Prepare a framework or decision-making criteria for future improvements to the Richardson Bay
Linear Park.
Policy PR-9 Public Trails.
Continue to enhance the network of public trails within the Tiburon Planning Area, including
connections between and to public trails.
Program PR-b Trail Easements.
Evaluate development applications for the existence and potential creation of easements and/or
trails that connect or continue to allow public access to shoreline, recreation, and open space
areas.
Policy PR-10 Recreational Amenities.
Encourage public convenience facilities such as restrooms, bicycle racks, drinking fountains, and
trash receptacles which may be provided by the State of California, the Town of Tiburon, and/or the
local community.
Policy PR-15 Angel Island.
Maintain a positive, mutually beneficial working relationship with the California Department of
Parks and Recreation and Angel Island administration to ensure that Angel Island remains a unique
state resource and that the uniquecharacter of Downtown Tiburon is protected.
Policy PR-11 Recreation Programs.
Continue to work cooperatively with the Belvedere/Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee to administer
and operate recreation programs and facilities for the residents of Belvedere and Tiburon.
Policy PR-12 Equal Access to Recreation Programs.
Ensure recreation programming is responsive to and serves the the needs, interests, and desires of the
entire community, including those of different ages, abilities, and income levels.
New Program 3 Financial Assistance for Recreation Programs.
Explore ways of providing financial support to allow full access to recreation programs by
residents of need.
EXHIBIT 3
ATTACHMENT 3
1
DRAFT OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
Goal OSC-A
Protect, preserve, and enhance the Town’s unique open space and natural beauty for its recreational
and environmental benefits.
Goal OSC-B
Permanently preserve as much open space as possible to protect shorelines, open water, wetlands,
significant ridgelines, streams, drainageways, riparian corridors, steep slopes, rock outcroppings,
special status species and their habitat, woodlands, cultural and historic resources, and areas of visual
importance, such as views of and views from open space.
Goal OSC-C
Permanently protect, to the maximum extent feasible, the unique open space character of the Town
which is attributable to its large amounts of undeveloped land and open water.
Goal OSC-D
Permanently protect as conservation areas, to the maximum extent feasible, all lands and other areas
in the public trust.
New Goal 1
Protect open space for its visual values, habitat ,and native vegetation and minimize impacts of any
additional development.
Policy OSC-1 Open Space Preservation.
Strive to permanently preserve through setbacks, dedication, purchase, easement, or other
appropriate means exceptional structures, sites, open space, and sensitive environmental
resources. Encourage the permanent protection of open space through: conveyance of fee title to
an appropriate government agency or land trust; by easement; deed restriction; or other
appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town.
Policy OSC-2 Open Space Dedication.
When considering whether open space land should be dedicated to the Town or other public
entity, weigh the benefits to the community of public ownership against the costs of management
efforts and other liabilities associated with owning the land.
Policy OSC-3 Public Access.
Strive to secure public access to those portions of open space land most appropriate for public use
through trail easements that connect to other public trails or through other appropriate legally
permissible mechanisms.
Policy OSC-4 Retention of Publicly-owned Open Space.
Permanently protect public or private open space. Publicly-owned open space land should not be
sold and should only be traded in exchange for open space which provides improved trail
connections, resource protection, or other public benefits.
ATTACHMENT 3
2
Policy OSC-7 Contiguous Open Space Dedication.
Land that is proposed for preservation as permanent open space shall typically be contiguous to
existing open space and/or open space areas that may in the future be permanently preserved.
Policy OSC-31 Development Review.
Ensure that new development respects the ecological, visual, and safety benefits of hillsides,
ridgelines, and other natural areas that serve as habitat and erosion protection as well as visual
backdrops to the community. Use the development review process to retain the visual character and
environmental attributes of the Planning Area.
Program OSC-a Environmental Constraints Assessment.
Require applicants to demonstrate that proposals for development minimize environmental
impacts and comply with the General Plan and applicable regulations, ordinances, and
guidelines. Require preparation of an assessment of environmental constraints that addresses
applicable topics identified by California Environmental Quality Act and open space
characteristics, including those associated with aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural and
tribal cultural resources, prior to the submittal of Precise Development Plan applications for large
undeveloped parcels.
Program OSC-b Review Development Applications within Sphere of Influence.
Review development applications that are submitted to the County and that are within the
Town’s sphere of influence and areas of interest in order to encourage conformance with Town
policies, including minimizing the visual impact of development on surrounding hills visible from
the Town.
Program OSC-c Environmental Assessment.
Require an environmental assessment for development proposed on sites that may contain
sensitive biological resources, including wetlands, occurrences of special-status species and
sensitive natural communities, native wildlife nurseries and nesting locations, and native wildlife
movement corridors. The assessment shall be conducted by a qualified professional to
determine the presence, potential presence, or absence of any sensitive resources which could
be affected by proposed development, shall provide an assessment of the potential impacts, and
shall define measures to avoid significant adverse impacts to the resource. The development
project shall be required to implement feasible measures to avoid or, if avoidance is not feasible,
reduce significant adverse impacts.
Policy OSC-6 Cluster Development.
Cluster lots in new subdivision design to maximize the preservation of open space to the greatest
extent feasible. Where the Town determines that a project would better conform to the goals and
policies of the General Plan, “estate lot” type development (i.e., large homes on large lots) may be
considered. Easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism acceptable to the Town
shall be used to preserve open space within common areas or individual lots.
Policy OSC-8 Greenbelt Separators.
Require undeveloped greenbelts to separate development areas or to link open space areas
where appropriate.
Policy OSC-9 Ridgeline Protection.
ATTACHMENT 3
3
Protection of predominantly undeveloped ridgelines shall have the highest priority in balancing open
space interests with development interests. Undeveloped ridgelines have overriding visual
significance to the Town.
Policy OSC-10 Setbacks from Tiburon Ridge.
Development and the construction of buildings and yard improvements associated with development,
including landscaping and trees, shall be set back from either side of Tiburon Ridge as established in
Figure XX:
1) a minimum of 150 horizontal feet, and
2) a minimum of 50 vertical feet, measured from the highest point of the roofline of a
structure or tree.
If strict application of these requirements prevents all reasonable use of the property, encroachment
into the setbacks may be allowed provided that structures are limited to a maximum 15 feet in height,
as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and provided that both horizontal and vertical
encroachment are minimized.
New Program 1 Ridgeline and Hillside Development Regulations.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the required setbacks from significant ridgelines
contained in Policies OSC-10 and -12, limitations on development of steep slopes in Policy OSC-
17, and the objective hillside development standards from the Design Guidelines for Hillside
Dwellings.
Policy OSC-12 Setbacks from Significant Ridgelines.
Development shall be set back from Significant Ridgelines as established in Figure XX . Setbacks
shall be based on an evaluation of the following characteristics: local and regional visual
prominence, ability to connect to existing or potential open space, potential to act as a
neighborhood separator, views of and views from, length, height, presence of trees, presence of
unusual physical characteristics, highly visible open slopes, significant vegetation, sensitive
habitat, special silhouette or back-drop features, difficulty of developing or accessing, and
integrity of the ridgeline land form.
In evaluating Significant Ridgelines for protection, all characteristics identified in Policy OSC-12
should not be judged equally. Significant Ridgelines that have a high visual prominence, have the
potential to connect to the Tiburon Ridge Trail, or have a distinct ridgeline land form, such as
those found at the eastern terminus of the Tiburon Ridge, should be afforded greater protection
than those that have low visibility, do not connect to the Tiburon Ridge, or do not have distinct
ridgeline land forms.
If strict application of these requirements prevents all reasonable use of the property, encroachment
into the setbacks may be allowed provided that structures are limited to a maximum 15 feet in height,
as defined by the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and provided that both horizontal and vertical
encroachment are minimized.
Policy OSC-13 Roads and Utilities Crossing Ridgelines.
Roads and utilities constructed along or across the Tiburon Ridge or Significant Ridgelines as
established in Figure XX shall be strongly discouraged. If no other vehicular access is viable, crossing
of ridges shall be minimized and shall be as near to perpendicular to the ridgeline as possible.
Policy OSC-27 Development on Steep Slopes.
ATTACHMENT 3
4
Strongly discourage development on slopes exceeding 40%.
Policy OSC-35 Grading.
Keep grading to a minimum to the maximum extent possible and make every effort to retain the
natural features of the land including ridges, rolling landforms, knolls, vegetation, trees, rock
outcroppings, and water courses.
Policy OSC-36 Landslide Mitigation.
Avoid site grading that is not required by the Town’s Landslide Mitigation Policy to the maximum
extent feasible to retain natural landforms.
Program OSC-d Hillside Stabilization.
Where hillslope stabilization is proposed as part of a development proposal, or wherever such
stabilization is required by the Town to protect public safety, require the project to evaluate all
slope repair-related modifications such as the secondary impacts of subsurface drainage on site
and watershed ecological communities, including special-status species, sensitive natural
communities, and wetlands. In the event impacts are likely, modifications to the proposed
project shall be considered. In the event avoidance and project modification are infeasible,
appropriate on- or off-site habitat mitigation shall be required prior to project approval, as
mandated by the State and federal regulatory agencies.
Policy OSC-37 Restoration after Grading.
Restore natural vegetation and habitat to the maximum extent feasible where grading is required to
stabilize areas of geologic instability.
Policy OSC-38 Minimize Grading Impacts.
Minimize the impact of grading on adjacent properties, water quality, and air quality.
Policy OSC-39 Graded Slopes.
Slopes created by grading shall be at a slope angle determined to have long-term stability for the
materials being used, not exceeding 30 percent wherever possible. Final contours and slopes shall
reflect natural land features, including natural vegetation.
Policy OSC-40 Retaining Walls.
The visual impact of retaining walls and similar engineering elements shall be reduced in size and
scope to the maximum extent feasible by minimizing their use unless necessary as a foundation to
reduce above-grade building mass and by requiring appropriate visual screening.
Policy OSC-28 View Preservation.
Identify and preserve principal vistas, view points, and view corridors affected by development to the
maximum extent feasible.
Policy OSC-29 Protect Vistas from Roadways.
Protect open space views from key roadways, including Tiburon Boulevard, Trestle Glen Boulevard,
and Paradise Drive, through the permitting process.
Policy OSC-30 Views from Open Space.
Encourage development in areas where it least interferes with views of and views from open space to
the maximum extent feasible.
Policy OSC-32 Water Views.
ATTACHMENT 3
5
Protect visual access to the bayfront and scenic vistas of water and distinct shorelines through land
use and development review procedures to the greatest extent feasible.
OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT
Goal OSC-E
Manage the Town’s open spaces for the benefit of the entire community.
Policy OSC-41 Use of Public Open Space.
Encourage conservation and educational uses of public open space lands. Authorize or provide
conservation and education facilities, including nature trails, interpretive exhibits, day camps,
nature study areas and other related facilities in areas where the impacts on the natural
environment will be minimal.
New Program 2 Improve Trail Signage.
Provide improved trail signage to the public open space, including information on trail safety and
identifying/protecting habitat for endangered species.
New Program 3 Trail Connection to Downtown.
Evaluate the potential for an off-road trail connection between the Town’s public open space
and Downtown/Tiburon Boulevard, securing trail easements over private property where
possible.
Policy OSC-43 Open Space Partnerships.
Encourage and seek agreements with other governmental jurisdictions such as County, State,
Federal and other agencies and non-profit organizations for funding, acquisition, maintenance,
and use of open space areas.
Policy OSC-44 Cooperation with Private Organizations and Individuals.
Encourage and promote cooperation and participation of private groups, organizations, and
individuals in the planning, operation, and preservation of open space lands as deemed necessary.
Policy OSC-45 Open Space Coordination.
Coordinate the use of open space lands with other public and quasi-public lands that are
contiguous or otherwise inter-related to Town open space where desirable.
Policy OSC-46 Restoration and Enhancement.
Engage in or authorize landscape restoration and/or enhancement programs where the natural
landscape has been altered or degraded and when funding and resources allow on Town open
space land.
Program OSC-g Open Space Management Plan.
Implement the adopted Open Space Management Plan that identifies maintenance projects and
funding sources.
Policy OSC-64 Native Plants.
Encourage the use of native plants for landscaping and discourage the planting of invasive, exotic
species
Policy OSC-65 Invasive Species.
ATTACHMENT 3
6
Require the removal of invasive, exotic species, such as broom and pampas grass, as a condition of
approval for new developments.
Program OSC-q Invasive Species.
Encourage homeowners’ associations to disseminate information about the harmful effects
of invasive exotic species in landscaping.
Policy OSC-66 Ongoing Maintenance of Private Property.
Require new developments to ensure ongoing removal of invasive, exotic species through
homeowners’ associations, covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), or other appropriate
mechanisms.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Goal OSC-F
Preserve and improve the quality of the environment through resource restoration and conservation,
management, and pollution control. Take actions to address long-term impacts of climate change.
Water and Shoreline Policies
Policy OSC-14 Open Water Uses.
Limit use of open water areas to landings for boats and ferries; boating, swimming, and fishing;
and parks.
Policy OSC-15 Existing Structures Built over Water.
Maintenance and replacement of lawfully existing structures built over San Francisco Bay
(bayward of the mean high tide line) may be permitted. However, with the exception of piers,
docks, and public access facilities approved by the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), expansion of existing structures or construction of new structures that would
result in new filling of San Francisco Bay shall be prohibited.
Policy OSC-16 Habitat Preservation.
Preserve and enhance the diversity of wildlife and aquatic habitats found in the Planning Area
bayfront lands, including tidal marshes, seasonal marshes, lagoons, wetlands, and low-lying
grasslands over historical marshlands.
Policy OSC-17 New Development.
Development shall not encroach into sensitive wildlife habitats, limit normal range areas, or create
barriers to wildlife that cut off or substantially impede access to food, water, or shelter, or cause
damage to fisheries or fish habitats. Access to environmentally sensitive marshland and adjacent
habitat shall be restricted, especially during spawning and nesting seasons.
Policy OSC-19 Use of Lands Underlain by Bay Mud.
Reserve those areas underlain by deposits of “young muds” for water-related recreational
opportunities, habitat, open space, or limited development subject to approval by the Corps of
Engineers and other trustee agencies.
Wetland Policies
ATTACHMENT 3
7
Policy OSC-20 Wetland Setbacks.
Provide buffer zones of at least 100 feet between development and wetland areas to the
maximum extent possible.
New Program 4 Wetland and Streamside Regulations.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate wetland and streamside development setbacks.
Policy OSC-21 Construction in Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands.
Development and construction shall comply with all federal and state regulations regarding
jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
Streams and Riparian Corridors Policies
Policy OSC-18 Freshwater Streams and Marshes.
Preserve and/or expand freshwater habitats in the bayfront areas associated with freshwater streams
and small former marshes so that the circulation, distribution, and flow of the fresh water supply are
facilitated.
Policy OSC-22 Stream Setbacks.
Require open space buffers of at least 50 feet on each side of the top of the bank of perennial,
intermittent, and ephemeral streams on properties less than five acres, and of at least 100 feet on
each side of the top of the bank on properties greater than five acres, to minimize disturbance of
natural vegetation and maintain the environmental and scenic attributes of the corridor. Where
modification of corridors is required for flood control or crossings, such modification shall be
made in an environmentally sensitive manner that enhances, replaces, or retains vegetation.
Flood-Prone Area Policies
Policy OSC-23 Flood Hazard Zone.
Avoid construction on lands that are shown to be within the 100-year flood hazard zone as shown
on the current FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Map.
Policy OSC-24 Uses of Floodplains.
Use areas defined as floodplain for habitat and flood protection.
Wildlife and Habitat Preservation Policies
Policy OSC-25 Habitat Preservation
Preserve and protect wildlife, plant, and marine habitat in the open spaces, shoreline, marshes,
mudflats, and other biologically sensitive areas to the greatest extent feasible.
Policy OSC-26 Development Impacts on Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats.
Assure that new development and construction does not have a significant adverse effect on
special-status species or sensitive natural communities to the extent feasible and as regulated by
federal and state laws.
Tree Policies
ATTACHMENT 3
8
Policy OSC-33 Tree Protection.
Preserve protected trees, as defined in the Municipal Code, tree stands, and tree clusters to the
maximum extent feasible.
Program OSC-f Tree Preservation.
Consider revising and expanding the Tiburon Tree Ordinance to provide protection of both
individual trees and native woodlands. Factors to consider in expanding the current ordinance
include the importance of protecting smaller sapling trees and balancing their protection against
those of designated “protected trees”, defining critical management guidelines necessary to
maintain healthy woodlands, and methods to encourage natural regeneration in woodland
habitats.
Policy OSC-34 Woodland Protection.
Protect natural habitat, and natural wooded areas to the maximum extent feasible.
Historical and Cultural Resource Policies
Policy OSC-47 Cultural Resource Protection.
Protect significant geological, ecological, archaeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological
resources and historic sites.
Program OSC-i Potential Cultural and Tribal Resources.
Require that projects proposed for sites that have the possibility of containing cultural and tribal
cultural resources and resulting in ground disturbance be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist
prior to project approval and require such projects to implement measures to reduce or avoid
impacts to any identified or inadvertently discovered cultural and tribal cultural resources.
When encountering unanticipated cultural resources, artifacts, or human remains, contractors
shall cease construction activities upon until proper authorities have been notified and a
mitigation plan is developed.
Policy OSC-48 Structures of Historic and Cultural Significance.
Preserve and protect structures and properties which have historical, cultural, aesthetic, or other
special character or interest to the Town.
Program OSC-h Historic Building Overlay.
Consider adopting an overlay zone for the area containing the Town’s Inventory of Local
Historical Buildings and adopting additional protection measures for the structures identified in
the Inventory.
Water Conservation Policies
Policy OSC-49 Water Conservation.
Support the efforts of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) to conserve the use of water
through enforcement of the Town’s water conservation ordinance requiring implementation of
water conservation measures.
New Program (former Policy OSC-51) Development Impacts on Water Retention.
Where impervious surface construction and storm drain system installation and/or hillside
stabilization (e.g., landslide repair) are proposed as part of development proposals, or wherever
ATTACHMENT 3
9
such stabilization is required by the Town to protect public safety, require project applicants to
analyze the impacts of these drainage pattern modifications on groundwater recharge and on
downslope water wells and their yields. In the event impacts are likely, modifications to the
proposed project, including possible downsizing, should be implemented to the extent feasible.
Program OSC-j Water Conservation Ordinance.
Continue to implement the Town’s water conservation ordinance through the review of new
development proposals involving new landscaping.
Policy OSC-50 Water Supply Planning.
Coordinate planning activities with MMWD to ensure that both the Town and MMWD have the
latest information with respect to land use and water supply planning.
Water Quality Policies
Policy OSC-52 Water Quality.
Maintain or enhance water quality to promote the continued environmental health of natural
waterway habitats.
New Program 5 Implement Stormwater Regulations.
Continue to be an active member agency of the Marin County Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) to implement best management practices and to comply
with federal and state water quality regulations to reduce pollution being conveyed through
storm water systems to the Bay.
Air Quality Policies
New Policy 1 Implement the Clean Air Plan.
Implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Clean Air Plan by applying BAAQMD’s
rules, best control measures ,and best management practices to construction, property
maintenance, commercial operations, and other applicable activities.
New Program 6 (former Policy OSC-55) Participate in Emission Reduction Efforts.
Participate in efforts to voluntarily reduce activities that pollute on Spare the Air days and help
publicize Spare the Air day activities.
New Program 7 (former Policy OSC-56) Reduce Particulate Emissions.
Promote the reduction of particulate matter from construction sites, roads, parking lots, and
other sources through requiring development projects to implement best management practices
(BMPs).
New Program 8 Reduce Air Quality Impacts of New Development.
Review all development and infrastructure projects for potential air quality impacts to
residences, congregate housing, schools, and other sensitive receptors. Ensure that mitigation
measures and best management practices are implemented to reduce significant emissions of
criteria pollutants to the greatest extent feasible.
New Policy 2 Air Quality Impacts to Sensitive Receptors.
ATTACHMENT 3
10
Minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to concentrations of air pollutant emissions, toxic air
contaminants, and odors.
New Program 9 (former Policy OSC-57) Emission Reductions.
Require the use of feasible control measures to reduce PM10, NOx, and diesel particulate matter
related to development, including construction and operational phases.
Policy OSC-58 Vehicle Emissions Reduction.
Encourage the reduction of the number of single-occupant vehicle trips and cumulative emissions
that result from auto use through implementation of Circulation Element policies.
Program OSC-l Fleet Vehicle Replacements.
Give priority to electric and zero emissions vehicles, as feasible, when replacing vehicles in
the Town’s fleet with the goal of achieving a zero-emissions fleet by 2030.
EXHIBIT 4
ATTACHMENT 4
1
Draft Downtown Element Goals, Policies and Programs
Land Use Mix and Activation
Goal DT-B
Enhance Downtown’s role as the heart of the community and a thriving commercial and visitor
destination.
Goal DT-C
Promote pedestrian activity and enjoyment of life in Downtown through land use, design, and
public investment.
Goal DT-E
Support mixed-use development in Downtown, with an emphasis on providing housing
opportunities.
Policy DT-1 Central Gathering Place.
Promote a Downtown that is attractive to residents and visitors of all ages and backgrounds,
with a mix of commercial activities and housing, public spaces, amenities, and events.
Policy DT-2 Mix of Uses.
Allow and encourage commercial land uses Downtown, including a mix of businesses that serve
both residents and visitors.
Program DT-a Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Handbook.
Update the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Tiburon Design Handbook to be consistent
with the goals and policies of this Element as they pertain to land use mix and activation .
Policy DT-4 Housing Downtown.
Encourage mixed-use development that includes housing in combination with retail,
restaurants, offices, or community uses in Downtown Tiburon.
New Policy 1 Ground Floor Commercial Frontages.
Require that new development feature retail or retail-ready space along commercial street
frontages. These ground-floor spaces may be occupied by a wide range of retail and restaurant
uses; personal services; or community uses such as daycare or performance spaces.
New Policy 2 Office Uses.
Limit office uses in existing or new ground-floor spaces in order to promote active street life.
New Policy 3 Housing Downtown.
Create opportunities for a variety of multifamily housing downtown, with or without ground-
floor commercial or community uses.
ATTACHMENT 4
2
Policy DT-3 Economic Vitality.
Actively promote the economic vitality of Downtown, in partnership with local businesses and
organizations.
New Program 1 Chamber of Commerce.
Sustain partnerships with the Chamber of Commerce to improve the business climate and
support local businesses.
Downtown Character and Design
Goal DT-A
Preserve and enhance the historical attributes and distinct character of Downtown that exists
on Main Street and Ark Row.
New Goal 1
Create an extended downtown environment along Tiburon Boulevard from the Library to
the Bay. Encourage an active pedestrian environment and alternative means of
transportation.
Policy DT-6 Distinct Character Areas
Support and enhance the distinct character in each of Downtown’s subareas through the design
and programming of buildings and public spaces. Subareas include Main Street, Ark Row, Point
Tiburon, Lower Tiburon Boulevard, Upper Tiburon Boulevard, and the Civic Hub.
New Policy 4 Activity Hub at Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Road.
Facilitate development of properties around the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and
Beach Road to create a new activity hub with opportunities for walkable retail and
multifamily housing downtown.
Policy DT-7 Historic Resources.
Encourage preservation of significant historic buildings and resources Downtown, through
implementation of the California State Historic Building Code and additional guidance
provided by the Town of Tiburon.
New Program 3 Incentives.
Explore incentives to support the Town’s historic preservation, commercial vitality, and
housing goals.
Policy DT-19 Local Historic Buildings.
Character defining elements of buildings listed on the Town’s Inventory of Local Historical
Buildings (Resolution No. 07-2001 as amended) shall be retained, preserved, and restored
wherever feasible.
ATTACHMENT 4
3
Policy DT-24 Ark Row.
Retain and rehabilitate the historic arks, cottages, and other resources of Ark Row
consistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Policy DT-25 Pedestrian-Friendly Ground Floor.
Ensure that buildings contribute to a lively, active pedestrian environment at street level
through build-to lines, setback areas that expand the public realm, and ground-floor design
characteristics including the following:
• Storefront and building entrances that directly face the sidewalk;
• Floor-to-floor heights that enable flexible commercial use and create a sense of
welcome;
• Visibility between the sidewalk and building interiors;
• Canopies and awnings that provide shade and support business identity;
• Harmonious, pedestrian-oriented signage; and
• Opportunities for indoor and outdoor display and seating.
Policy DT-26 Gathering Places.
Encourage retail storefronts and active outdoor spaces for community gathering, such as
sidewalk cafes, in order to make walking downtown a stimulating and enjoyable activity.
Policy DT-28 Mix of Building Heights.
Enable a mix of building heights for new construction, creating variety and accommodating a
vibrant mix of uses.
New Policy 5 Building Placement, Height and Massing.
Ensure new buildings are attractive additions to the downtown environment. This will be
achieved through:
• Placing buildings so that they line and define streets and public spaces;
• Composing facades in a way that complements adjacent buildings or district character;
• Breaking up the massing of large buildings into increments;
• Providing variation in building height, allowing for solar access while maintaining a
continuous streetwall;
• Incorporating façade projections and recessed storefronts that add variety and pedestrian
comfort at street level.
New Program 2 Update the Zoning Ordinance and Design Handbook.
Revise the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook to be
consistent with the goals and policies of this Element as they pertain to downtown building
design and character and the need to provide objective development standards.
ATTACHMENT 4
4
New Policy 6 Streetscape Improvements.
Require new development to contribute to desired downtown streetscape enhancements and
midblock paseos.
Policy DT-27 Parking Location.
Locate parking behind buildings when feasible to reduce the visual prominence of vehicular
parking .
Policy DT-33 Design of Parking.
Locate public or commercial parking facilities behind buildings, and provide landscaping and
signage that integrates parking into an attractive downtown environment and helps visitors
navigate to parking and destinations. Structured parking should be integrated into buildings,
screened, low-scale and not prominently visible.
Access, Circulation and Parking
Goal DT-D
Improve and enhance access to and movement through Downtown for all modes of travel, with
an emphasis on pedestrian comfort and safety.
Goal DT-G
Provide parking, electric vehicle charging stations, bike parking, pick-up/drop-off and loading
areas that optimize use of the curbside and access for all.
New Policy 7 Access for All Modes.
Pursue potential circulation and design changes to Main Street, Tiburon Boulevard, and other
downtown streets that would enhance multimodal access and visibility.
New Program 4 Main Street Pilot Program.
Initiate a pilot program to test the feasibility of converting lower Main Street to a
pedestrian-only space. Study long-term design options, including the feasibility of a one-
way couplet involving Main Street and Juanita Lane if deemed necessary. Redesign of Main
Street should emphasize creating a high-quality pedestrian environment, address flood
hazards, and respond to the need to adapt to sea level rise.
Program DT-d Tiburon Boulevard.
Plan, design and implement streetscape improvements to Tiburon Boulevard’s public right-
of-way to create a balanced transportation environment. These improvements may
include, but are not limited to, traffic calming; widening sidewalks; providing pedestrian
amenities; installing new street trees ; upgrading bike infrastructure; providing vehicle and
ATTACHMENT 4
5
transit access and on-street parking; and incorporating stormwater management and flood
hazard mitigation.
New Policy 8 Encourage Bicycle Use.
Ensure that bicycle and e-bike access to and through downtown is safe and comfortable,
serving both local trips and recreational use.
New Program 5 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements.
Initiate improvements to downtown bike facilities including designation and
implementation of bike lanes, signage, pavement markings, and parking.
New Program 10 Streetscape Improvements.
Provide bike parking as part of streetscape improvements.
New Policy 9 Support Transit Services.
Support transit service and increased transit use, through advocacy, promotion and public
communications, and contributions to streetscape enhancements that create a better transit
user environment.
New Program 6 Transit Improvements.
Actively monitor changes to transit service, advocate for service optimization for Tiburon,
and support enhanced transit infrastructure as part of downtown streetscape
improvements.
Policy DT-34 Ferry Service.
Support ferry service and encourage the use of ferries to create a unique and enjoyable travel
option for Tiburon residents and visitors while reducing visitor vehicle traffic and parking
demand.
Program DT-t Ferry Service Improvements.
Actively monitor the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority process and advocate
for improved ferry service and facilities.
Policy DT-31 Prioritizing Pedestrians.
Enable safe and comfortable pedestrian access throughout downtown and to the downtown
waterfront.
Policy DT-32 Pedestrian Access to Waterfront.
Pursue the opportunity to provide increased pedestrian access to the waterfront along Main
Street when changes in property use and construction of major additions or substantial
redesign of new buildings allow.
Policy DT-18 Pedestrian Amenities.
ATTACHMENT 4
6
Provide paving treatments, landscape elements, street furnishings and street lighting that will
enhance use and enjoyment of sidewalks, parks, pedestrian corridors, plazas and other public
areas.
New Program 7 Update the Zoning Ordinance.
Update the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance to achieve circulation goals and policies for
downtown, including requirements for new development to provide streetscape
improvements and midblock public paseos, and adjustment of vehicle and bike parking
requirements.
New Policy 10 Pedestrian Connections.
Pursue opportunities to create new midblock pedestrian connections to enhance the
downtown walking experience. Paseos may create new connections between Tiburon
Boulevard and Main Street (Ark Row), and connections through future development north of
Tiburon Boulevard.
New Policy 11 Connections to the Bay and Hills.
Create pedestrian connections between downtown Tiburon, the Bay, and the hillside open
space and trail network. Explore a high-quality pedestrian connection along Beach Road from
the bay to Teather Park, and a trailhead and trail connection between Teather Park and Old St.
Hilary’s Preserve.
New Policy 12 Green Infrastructure.
Integrate green infrastructure into downtown streetscape improvements, helping to protect
downtown from flooding hazards and adapt to sea level rise while contributing to an attractive
and pedestrian-oriented street environment.
New Policy 13 Parking.
Provide adequate on- and off-street public and commercial parking areas to support downtown
businesses, destinations, and events, and share parking resources.
Program DT-k Main Street Parking Lot.
For the Main Street Parking Lot, explore partnership with the property owner to support
long-term improvements to pedestrian walkways, stairways, lanes and intersection points,
directional and parking availability signage, pavement markings, vehicular access, electric
vehicle charging stations, and landscaping.
Program DT-m Review Parking Utilization.
Periodically review, along with Downtown property owners and merchants, the
relationship between Downtown businesses and the time limit regulations of on-street
parking and study changes to the current public street parking regulations to best serve
Downtown merchants and their patrons.
ATTACHMENT 4
7
Program DT-n Explore Public Parking Downtown.
Explore the desirability and feasibility of a public parking facility in Downtown.
New Policy 14 Parking Requirements.
Establish parking requirements for new development that ensure that parking demand
generated by new uses is met, helping to facilitate downtown revitalization and without
detracting from a cohesive built environment.
New Program 9 Revise Parking Requirements.
Conduct a study of on- and off-street parking inventory, occupancy, and pricing, and
update the Town’s approach to shared parking resources.
New Policy 15 Wayfinding and Identity Signage.
Provide wayfinding and identity signage that orients visitors to destinations and contributes to
an attractive and unified sense of place.
New Program 8 Sign Program.
Initiate a wayfinding and identity signage program for downtown.
Public Facilities, Spaces and Amenities
Goal DT-F
Enhance and program Downtown’s public facilities, public spaces and amenities to attract
Tiburon residents and visitors of all ages and backgrounds.
Public Facilities
Policy DT-11 Donahue Building.
Maintain Shoreline Park’s historic Donahue Building (currently the Railroad/Ferry Museum) as a
public use.
New Policy 13 Downtown Public Spaces.
Initiate a study of downtown public spaces to identify opportunities to make these spaces more
successful in supporting active and diverse public use.
New Policy 14 New Public Amenities
Add new community amenities downtown, potentially including play areas, restrooms,
infrastructure to support temporary events, and a kayak launch.
Program DT-w New Downtown Amenities.
Study options and potential locations and gauge public support for new amenities
downtown, potentially including a play area, a small public restroom, plaza improvements
to support events, and a kayak launch.
ATTACHMENT 4
8
Program DT-i Public Art Ordinance.
Consider adoption of a public art ordinance and establishment of a community program to
encourage public art where appropriate.
New Policy 15 Programming Public Space.
Facilitate and support programming for downtown public spaces, potentially including a
farmers’ market, block parties and concerts, food trucks and pop-up social spaces.
New Program 11 Support Public Events.
Fund and implement a year-round program of public events downtown, coordinating
closely with the Chamber, the Library, and others.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Department of Administrative Services
Subject: Town Council Committee Appointments
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY Town Councilmembers are appointed to serve on various boards and committees. At the beginning of
each year and on an as-needed basis, the Council reviews the list to make any necessary changes or new appointments. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Review the Committee Appointments List and make any necessary or desired updates for 2022.
BACKGROUND
Members of the Town Council are appointed to serve on a variety of local and regional boards and committees and as the Town representatives on a number of joint powers authorities. They also serve on Town standing and ad hoc committees to study issues or projects in town. It is regular practice for the Council to conduct an annual review of the list of appointments
(Exhibit 1) at the beginning of each year, following the reorganization of the Town Council in December, to make any changes or new appointments for the coming year. ANALYSIS
In addition to general review and potential revisions to the list of appointments, staff specifically recommends the Council consider the following tonight:
• Consider appointments to fill vacant seats. The Council has not yet considered filling
the appointments that were left vacant by David Kulik’s departure from the Council. The
current vacancies are highlighted in yellow in the attached list.
• Create the 2022 Budget/Finance ad hoc subcommittee and appoint membership. The
2021 Budget/Finance committee was made up of Holli Thier and Jon Welner. Historically
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: AI-1
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
this committee is the current Mayor and Vice Mayor. This committee will sunset on 12/31/2022.
• Consider appointments to the new MCCMC Water Policy committee. The Water
Policy committee was created in October 2021. The committee aims to explore Marin County drought impacts, water shortages, and conservation efforts. Per MCCMC, participation is optional.
• Consider appointment of a new Chair and Vice Chair of the Diversity Inclusion Task Force. Per task force bylaws, the Council considers the appointments of a new Chair and Vice Chair on an annual basis. Staff proposes the Council consider this appointment alongside the standing committee appointments action item each January, with the annual term of the Chair and Vice Chair to be March 1 – February 28 of each
year, which will allow the current Chair and Vice Chair to have served in their positions for an entire year. If the Council wishes to proceed with this appointment tonight, the new Chair and Vice Chair will assume their new roles on the Task Force on March 1, 2022. 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 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 review the Committee Appointments List and make any necessary or desired updates for 2022.
Exhibit(s):
1. 2022 Committee Appointments List Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk
2022 Town Council Committee Appointments List 01/2022 Page 1 of 5
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
2022
I. STATE & REGIONAL AGENCIES
1. ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (General Assembly meets in April and October)
Jack Ryan, Delegate
Jon Welner, Alternate
2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PRIORITY-SETTING COMMITTEE (CDBG) (Meets twice a year in Marin City and at Civic Center)
Holli Thier, Delegate
Jack Ryan, Alternate
3. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
(Meets quarterly and at the Annual Conference in September; other events as published)
Alice Fredericks
• Voting Delegate for Town of Tiburon
o Alternate: Holli Thier
• Transportation, Communication & Public Works State Policy Committee -
(Appointment by North Bay Division of the League of CA Cities)
4. MARIN CLEAN ENERGY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(Meets 1st Thursday from 7–9 p.m. at 1 McGinnis Parkway, San Rafael)
Holli Thier, Delegate
[VACANT], Alternate
5. MARIN CLIMATE AND ENERGY PARTNERSHIP (MCEP)
Local Governments for Sustainability (Meets 1st Thursday, San Rafael City Hall)
Samantha Bonifacio (Assistant Planner), Staff Liaison & voting board member
6. MARIN EMERGENCY RADIO AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(Meetings scheduled as needed) Police Chief Ryan Monaghan, Delegate
Holli Thier, Alternate
7. RICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(Meets monthly on 2nd Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. - Sausalito City Hall)
[VACANT], Delegate
Alice Fredericks, Alternate
2022 Town Council Committee Appointments List 01/2022 Page 2 of 5
8. TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (Meets monthly on 4th Thursday at 7:30 p.m. - Board of Supervisors Chambers, Civic Center)
Alice Fredericks, Board member and Vice Chair [Term = 1/1/2020 – 12/31/2023]
• Fredericks serves on the Human Resources Ad Hoc Committee, and
Administration Projects Planning Executive Committee (Chair)
• Fredericks is MCCMC liaison to TAM and reports monthly at MCCMC
Jack Ryan, Alternate
II. LOCAL AGENCIES/COMMITTEES
1. BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT DISASTER ADVISORY COUNCIL
(Meets bi-monthly on 2nd Tuesday from 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers) Holli Thier, Town Council Representative
2. BELVEDERE-TIBURON JOINT RECREATION COMMITTEE (The Ranch) (Meets bi-monthly on 3rd Monday in the Town Hall Community Room)
Jon Welner, Town Council Voting Member
3. TIBURON PENINSULA TRAFFIC RELIEF JOINT POWERS AGENCY (formed 3/16/16)
[JPA members include Town of Tiburon, City of Belvedere, RUSD]
Holli Thier – Primary Director
Jack Ryan – Primary Director
4. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LOCAL BUSINESS TASK FORCE
[Task Force members include Chamber Exec. Director, Tiburon Town Manager,
Destination Tiburon member, and two retail representatives]
VACANT
Jack Ryan
III. TOWN STANDING COMMITTEES
1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Jack Ryan
• Alice Fredericks
2. DIVERSITY INCLUSION TASK FORCE
[CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TERMS 3/1/2021- 2/28/2022]
• Chair Holli Thier
• Vice Chair Alice Fredericks
3. DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
• VACANT
• Holli Thier
2022 Town Council Committee Appointments List 01/2022 Page 3 of 5
4. LEGISLATIVE ACTION
• VACANT
• Alice Fredericks
5. MARTHA PROPERTY APPLICATIONS
• Jon Welner
• Alice Fredericks
6. PATHS AND OPEN SPACE ACCESS
• Alice Fredericks
• Holli Thier
7. USE OF TECHNOLOGY
• Holli Thier
• Jon Welner
IV. TOWN AD HOC COMMITTEES
1. SUSTAINABILITY
• Alice Fredericks
• Jon Welner
2. UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT POLICY
• Alice Fredericks
• VACANT
3. 2022 TOWN MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
• Holli Thier
• Noah Griffin
4. 2022 BUDGET FINANCE
• VACANT
• VACANT
5. DOWNTOWN VIBRANCY
• Holli Thier
• Jack Ryan
V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPOINTMENTS
Nominated by MCCMC and appointed by Board of Supervisors
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2022 Town Council Committee Appointments List 01/2022 Page 4 of 5
(Meets 2nd & 4th Fridays at 10 a.m., GGBHTD offices) Holli Thier [current term = 1/1/2022 – 1/1/2024
VI. MCCMC COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
1. Legislative Committee [a Standing Committee per MCCMC Bylaws]
(Meets4thd Monday at 8:00 a.m., San Rafael City Hall)
Alice Fredericks (also serves as Chair)
No alternate
2. JPA Oversight Ad Hoc Committee
(Meetings scheduled as needed)
Jack Ryan, delegate
No alternate
3. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise – Ad Hoc Committee
(Meetings scheduled as needed)
Jon Welner, delegate
Alice Fredericks, alternate
4. Pension and OPEB Reform Committee
Holli Thier, Delegate
VACANT, Delegate
VACANT, Alternate
5. Disaster Preparedness Committee
Jack Ryan, Delegate
Holli Thier, Alternate
6. Water Policy Committee
VACANT, Delegate
VACANT, Delegate
7. Marin County Bay Waterfront Adaptations Vulnerability Evaluation
*(Bay WAVE) Policy Group
Alice Fredericks’ appointment affirmed by Town Council on April 20, 2016
8. HOMELESS POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE (HPSC)
(Under auspices of County Dept. of Health Human Services)
Holli Thier, Town representative
VII. TOWN APPOINTMENTS IN OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST
2022 Town Council Committee Appointments List 01/2022 Page 5 of 5
MarinMap Steering Committee
(Meetings scheduled as needed)
[VACANT]
Marin County Hazardous & Solid Waste JPA
(Meets quarterly) Greg Chanis
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Office of the Town Attorney
Subject: Discuss Diversity Inclusion Task Force’s Recommendation that the Town Council Interview Top 3 Department Head Candidates
Reviewed By: _________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Council will discuss the Diversity Inclusion Task Force’s recommendation that the Council interview the top 3 candidates for Department Head positions. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Discuss the Task Force’s recommendation and provide feedback to staff about next steps.
BACKGROUND On October 13, 2021, the Diversity Inclusion Task Force discussed diversity in hiring and employment and Town hiring and employment policies and procedures. At the end of their
discussion, the Task Force passed the following motion (7-1 with 2 absent):
MOTION: To advise the Town Council to request that the Town Council interview the Top 3 candidates for department head positions.
The recommendation now comes to the Council for discussion.
ANALYSIS Staff is seeking feedback from the Council on whether the Council wishes to proceed with the
Task Force’s recommendation.
While the Council is deliberating, one limiting factor to keep in mind is the fact that the Council is a legislative body that may only meet in compliance with Brown Act open meeting laws. Any quorum (3 or more Councilmembers) of the Council may only meet in open and public session.
The Council could consider conducting 1-1 or 2-1 interviews with a candidate or creating an ad hoc subcommittee of two councilmembers to conduct the interviews.
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: DI-2
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
Each of these factors require additional scheduling flexibility, so the Council should keep ease of scheduling additional meetings in mind to ensure continuity of Town business. FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no immediate fiscal impact to the Town by discussion of this item. 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 discuss the Task Force’s recommendation and provide feedback to staff about next steps. Prepared By: Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From: Office of the Town Attorney
Subject: Discuss Diversity Inclusion Task Force’s Recommendation that the Council Update Disciplinary Procedures Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager
________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY The Council will discuss making amendments to the Town’s disciplinary procedures. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Discuss the Task Force’s recommendation and provide feedback to staff about next steps.
BACKGROUND On October 13, 2021, the Diversity Inclusion Task Force discussed diversity in hiring and
employment and Town hiring and employment policies and procedures. Among other things, the Task Force discussed Town policy related to staff disciplinary procedures. At the end of their discussion, the Task Force passed the following motion (5-1 with 1 abstention and 2 absent):
MOTION: To recommend to the Council to act as the final administrative body for any discipline issues and to retain the benefit of the state hearing officer. The recommendation now comes before the Council for discussion.
ANALYSIS During the 2018 labor negotiations process with the Town’s two bargaining units, the Town Council authorized changes in the Town’s disciplinary procedures, and those changes are still in
effect today. The updated disciplinary procedures name the Town Manager as the final approval for disciplinary action and appeals and provides department heads with the authority to administer discipline of employees in their departments. The updated procedures also introduce an appeal hearing process for disciplinary actions that utilize a Hearing Officer, selected by use of a strike list, from the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB). Appeal hearings result in a
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
Agenda Item: DI-3
Town Council Meeting January 19, 2022
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2
written, advisory decision from the PERB Hearing Officer to the Town Manager, who then makes a final decision regarding disciplinary action within 30 days. There is no further appeal. In 2018, the Town Council approved MOUs with the Town’s two bargaining units reflecting this
change in procedure. In 2019, the Town Council adopted a resolution updating the Town’s
Personnel Rules & Regulations and Municipal Code amendments incorporating the updated disciplinary procedures for unrepresented employees. The Task Force has recommended the Council consider updating the disciplinary procedures
have the Town Council be the final appealing body, instead of the Town Manager, while still
retaining the use of the PERB Hearing Officer. An update to these procedures would also require updates to the MOUs with the Town’s two bargaining units, an update to the Town’s Personnel Rules & Regulations (by Town Council
resolution), and adoption of an ordinance reflecting the changes in the Municipal Code.
FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by discussion of this item.
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 discuss the Task Force’s recommendation and provide
feedback to staff about next steps.
Prepared By: Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney