Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2022-04-20 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon Town Council April 20, 2022 Special Meeting – 4:00 P.M. 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/85673326601 Webinar ID: 856 7332 6601 Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833 Access Code: 856 7332 6601 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 Manager by email at gchanis@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. SPECIAL MEETING – 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Griffin, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor Ryan, Mayor Welner CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: (1 potential case) ADJOURNMENT – to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 P.M. 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. ANNOUCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS • Victoria Gazulis, Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation (“The Ranch”) Committee 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 the March 16, 2022 Town Council special and regular meetings (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending February 28, 2022 (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. Special Vacancy – Announce special vacancy on the Building Code Appeals Board (Department of Administrative Services) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Municipal Code Amendments – Consider amendments to Chapter 15 (View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees) of the Tiburon Municipal Code related to view dispute resolution – Introduction and first reading of ordinance (Community Development Department) ACTION ITEMS AI-1. General Plan Housing Element Update – Receive report of Housing Element community engagement workshops related to housing opportunity sites and rezoning proposals, provide feedback on strategy to meet the Town’s RHNA requirements for 639 housing units, and consider approval of proposed housing sites for the Housing Element and EIR (Community Development Department) AI-2. Police Officer Trainee – Consider creation and approval of a new job classification for Police Department Trainee (Department of Administrative Services) AI-3. Del Mar Traffic Calming Improvement Project – Consider authorization of the Town Manager to approve and execute the contract for the Del Mar Traffic Calming Improvement Contract with Mercoza in the amount of $285,500.45 and authorize the Town Manager to approve construction change orders in an amount not to exceed 12% as contingency (Department of Public Works) AI-4. Resolution on Anti-Semitism – Consider approval of the Town Council’s resolution against hate and anti-Semitism (Diversity Inclusion Task Force) AI-5. Appointment to Town Boards and Commission – Consider making one appointment to the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee (“The Ranch”) (Department of Administrative Services) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-2. Municipal Code Amendments – Consider amendments to Chapters 14 (Subdivision of Land) and 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code related to the implementation of Senate Bill 9 regulations regarding two-unit housing developments and urban lot splits within single family residential zones – Introduction and first reading of ordinance (Community Development Department) DISCUSSION ITEMS DI-1. Town Improvement Projects Construction Staging – Discuss the use of Blackie’s Pasture as a staging area for Town-owned projects (Department of Public Works) DI-2. Virtual Public Meetings – Discuss the potential for return to in-person public meetings (Department of Administrative Services) 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. Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 lstefani@townoftiburon.org 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon’s local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Applicant Name Full Name: Date: Areas of Interest Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Victoria Christina Gazulis 3/12/22 1 Applicant Information Address: Street Address Apartment/Unit # City State ZIP Code Phone:Email: Why did you select your area(s) of interest? What are your applicable qualifications and experiences? Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. Tiburon, CA 94920 Sports and recreation have been central to my identity since I was a child. As a toddler, I remember attending my dad's recreation softball games, and my mom's recreation volleyball games. The sense of camaraderie was unmistakable, with cheers and hi-fives abundant. These early memories propelled me into a lifetime of sports, beginning with ballet and swimming when I was under 5, to a decade spent playing softball and volleyball. I was a college rower turned cheerleader at UCLA, and an active co-ed volleyball player post-college. Sports have a powerful way of connecting people, boosting confidence, and encouraging positive self-care practices. Now that I have a daughter of my own and have planted roots in Tiburon, my sense of community has been fostered through movement. Whether it be the Spring Carnival & Egg Hunt, tennis or music, The Ranch is the cornerstone of community enrichment, and I look forward to the opportunity to contribute to its future. I work in Sales as Google's Partner Lead to Nike, responsible for developing digital marketing strategies and solutions for one of the worldns largest and most iconic brands. Nike believes everyone is an athlete - If you have a body, you are an athlete. The future of sport is a common thread of conversation, as Millennial and Gen Z generations reinvent the meaning of sport. I'm excited to infuse these ideas into The Ranch as we enter the "new normal" post-pandemic era and look to engage and mobilize our community. I bring with me fifteen years in the advertising industry, and a successful track record leading high-performing teams across several industries in the adtech and martech space. Inm a former recruiter for UCLA basketball and football, and current member of the Wooden Athletic Fund. I began my career in sales and marketing for NASCAR before moving into the digital space. VICTORIA GAZULIS An enthusiastic account executive and thought leader with extensive sales, BD, account management and team leadership experience https://linkedin.com/in/victoriazahn San Francisco SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS ●Sales executive by trade ●11 years with advertising technology (adtech) companies (sales, BD, account management, and marketing) ●Closer track record, including #1 deal of 2018 ($60M) and history of fee growth on renewal (>$1M in past 6 months) ●Silicon Valley mindset acquired during 9 years working in SF Bay Area ●European Union passport (dual citizenship - US and Malta) ●Great Technology and Financial Services business network Business development & sales Grew 5 digital marketers from 6 to 8 figures in 1-3 years. Extensive experience in consultative selling, including targeting, proposing, closing and up / x-selling, for CMO, CIO and CTO organizations. FinServ credibility & trust Served 10+ Financial Services customers (Insurance, Banking, Credit, Brokerage, Wealth Management) across the US and globally. Led many projects with VP / CXO sponsorship. Track record of “land and expand” with customers like Visa, Farmers Insurance, Wells Fargo, State Farm and Schwab. Breadth & depth Helped clients address issues like: drive organizational change, accelerate digital & tech impact, navigate risk complexity, align costs with strategy, optimize deals, create unique customer experience, strengthen trust & transparency, stimulate innovation. Self-driven Led adtech and martech growth of Central / West book of FinServ business, including 10 Fortune 500 companies. Project management Led many x-functional team projects (engineering, BD, sales, marketing, solutions, legal, finance, etc.). Led projections of up to 40 people. Experience with strategy, planning, marketing, legal, partnerships, recruiting, solution development, reporting, etc. Tech & digital savviness On the frontlines of the changing digital ads ecosystem and evolving privacy landscape with the introduction of GDPR, CCPA, ITP and ETP. Sales scrappiness & grit Unlocked accounts who were dark for as much as 10 years, revived relationships and built bridges with marketers and agencies alike. EXPERIENCE Senior Technology Account Executive, Leader of FinServ West Book of Business Google October 2018 - Current San Francisco •Platforms Technology lead across Fortune 500 clients, spanning adtech, martech, and cloud for marketing • Lead Fortune 500 Financial Services advertisers into a privacy-first space given the changing regulatory landscape through operationalization of their 1P data with C4M/ADH and implementation of site analytics with GA360. From Digital Media Manager to Account Executive, Multiple Roles Google May 2013 - September 2018 San Francisco • Dual role in consultative sales and account management on Retail vertical before moving to Account Executive role across Social & Information and Financial Services verticals Business Development, Account Manager to Buyer, Multiple Roles Conversant (formerly ValueClick, Inc.) September 2009 - May 2013 Los Angeles and San Francisco • Acquired and strengthened the company's comScore 400 and premier publisher and media relationships to accommodate and fulfill ValueClick Media's $30M average quarterly display budgets Digital Account Executive ID Media (Interpublic Group, IPG) January 2008 - September 2009 Los Angeles • Researched, developed, and implemented online search and display campaigns based on cost-per-click and cost-per-lead goals Account Executive Auto Club Speedway (formerly California Speedway, NASCAR) July 2007 - January 2008 Los Angeles • #1 account executive in ticket volume across 2 NASCAR series races CAPABILITIES EDUCATION Sales BA, Global Studies Specialization in French UCLA International Institute University of California, Los Angeles September 2003 - June 2007 Los Angeles,CA (USA) Corporate MBA Certificate Google Business Academy In partnership with Duke Fuqua School of Business September 2016 - May 2017 EMEA and NA LANGUAGES WHAT OTHERS SAID “Victoria and team have provided the best support of any DoubleClick team we have worked with. One of the key reasons we've grown our investment with GMP is because of her education to my team and OMD, regarding the benefits of centralizing many of our digital efforts with Google. Victoria has also jumped in and is working directly with my counterparts to discuss solutions to connect our site analytics data with ad serving to fully understand the value we are getting across programmatic, search and social.” Major Insurance Company Marketing Director "Victoria possesses an uncanny ability to quickly grasp the fundamentals of a client's underlying business and the priorities of their senior leadership, distill these insights into soluble marketing challenges, and position the value of Google's products through this prism." Google Marketing Platform Partner Global VP of Consulting Industries served Proven traits (as seen by others) EXTRA CURRICULAR Chair of the Board, Challenge Day; Auxiliary Board Treasurer, San Francisco Yacht Club; Founding Board Member, The Nines; Founder, Cypress Hollow Neighborhood Watch; Member, Wooden Athletic Fund; Mom (since 2020); Volleyball outside hitter; Pilates enthusiast; Fashion; Pets Page 1 of 4 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #07-2022 DRAFT March 16, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL & REGULAR 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. SPECIAL MEETING – 4:00 P.M. Mayor Welner called the special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 2022. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Griffin, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor Ryan, Mayor Welner CLOSED SESSION 1.Public Employee Performance Review: Government Code Section 34957 Title: Town Manager ADJOURNMENT – to regular meeting REGULAR MEETING – 5:00 P.M. Mayor Welner called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 2022. 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 Community Development Tasini, Chief of Police Monaghan, Director of Administrative Services Creekmore, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. CONSENT CALENDAR DR A F T CC-1 Page 2 of 4 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #07-2022 DRAFT March 16, 2022 CC-1. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for the March 2, 2022 Town Council special and regular meetings (Department of Administrative Services) CC-2. Town Council Minutes – Adopt minutes for the March 9, 2022 Town Council special meeting (Department of Administrative Services) CC-3. Investment Summary – Adopt investment summary for month ending January 31, 2022 (Department of Administrative Services) CC-4. Teleconference Meetings – Adopt resolution that would allow the Town to continue to operate virtual board meetings in accordance with AB361 (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items No. 1-4, as written. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Griffin, Ryan, Thier, Welner ACTION ITEMS AI-1. General Plan Budget Amendments – Consider approval of amendments to the General Plan consultant services to (1) Prepare a Sustainability Element, (2) Manage the Diversity Element compilation, and (3) Provide additional services to complete the Housing Element, and authorization of budget amendments in the amount of $224,933 to fund the work (Community Development Department) MOTION: To approve the proposed amendments and authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $224,933 to fund the work from the General Fund Operating Reserves. Moved: Thier, seconded by Griffin VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Griffin, Ryan, Thier, Welner AI-2. ReadySet Human Resources Consulting – Consider authorization of the Town Manager to execute a contract with ReadySet Human Resources consulting and authorization of a budget amendment in the amount of $66,000 to fund the work (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To authorize the Town Manager to execute a contract with ReadySet and a budget amendment in the amount of $66,000 to fund the work from the General Fund Operating Reserves. Moved: Thier, seconded by Griffin VOTE: AYES: Fredericks, Griffin, Ryan, Thier, Welner AI-3. Statement on Anti-Semitism – Consider approval of the Town Council’s statement against hate and anti-Semitism (Diversity Inclusion Task Force) DR A F T Page 3 of 4 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #07-2022 DRAFT March 16, 2022 Mayor Welner reported that a statement had not been developed yet and this item would be reconsidered at the next Town Council meeting. AI-4. Ukraine Conflict – Consider adoption of a resolution in support of the people and country of Ukraine and directing staff to fly the Ukrainian national flag on Town facilities (Department of Administrative Services) MOTION: To adopt the resolution, as amended to strike the first stanza of the resolution. Moved: Welner, seconded by Thier VOTE: AYES: Griffin, Thier, Welner ABSTAIN: Fredericks, Ryan PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Municipal Code Amendments – Consider Municipal Code text amendments to Chapter 15 (View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees) of the Tiburon Municipal Code related to view dispute resolution – Introduction and first reading of ordinance (Community Development Department) Public comment was received by: • Jim Malott, who believed the Town would benefit from a reference document that outlined what is customary for neighbors related to trees and views. • Wendy Walley, who spoke in support of the proposed amendments. • Bob Nadjibi, who spoke in support of the proposed amendments and believed the original proposal’s 90-day waiting period was appropriate. • David Barker, who requested the Council conduct a deeper evaluation of the impacts of such proposed amendments and believed the amendments would not necessarily lessen the involvement of attorneys in the process. • Lalita Waterman, who spoke in support of the proposed amendments and believed a 90-day waiting period should be incorporated. • George Landau, who agreed with David Barker’s submitted letter and comments. The Council directed staff to return to the Council with revised amendments incorporating a 30- day waiting period before mediation is proposed. DISCUSSION ITEMS DI-1. Town Council Rules and Protocols – Discuss development of a Town Council Rules and Protocols manual (Department of Administrative Services) The Council agreed Councilmembers Fredericks and Griffin would work together as an ad hoc subcommittee on developing a rules and protocols manual for Council consideration. DR A F T Page 4 of 4 Tiburon Town Council Minutes #07-2022 DRAFT March 16, 2022 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER REPORT None. CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code section 54956.9: (One potential case) Claims filed by Yema Khalif and Hawi Awash on January 25, 2021 on file with the Town Clerk’s Office ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY No reportable action. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Welner adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. 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: Recommendation to Accept the February 2022 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 February 28, 2022. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Staff recommends that the Town Council move to accept the Investment Summary for February 2022. 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 February 28, 2022. All of the funds listed below are on deposit with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). ANALYSIS February 2022 Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) – Beginning Balance as of 02/01/2022 $24,963,207.23 0.278 % Liquid Deposits 0.00 Withdrawals 0.00 Interest Earnings (Posted Quarterly) 0.00 Total Ending Balance as of 02/28/2022 $24,963,207.23 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: CC-2 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 The total invested at the end of the prior month was $24,963,207.23. No transactions were posted for the reporting period. Interest is posted by LAIF quarterly and will be reported on the April 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 February 2022 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 February 2022 Exhibit(s): 1. PARS Section 115 Trust Account Summary for February 2022 Prepared By: Suzanne Creekmore, Director of Administrative Services EXHIBIT 1 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 April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: CC-3 Town Council Meeting April 20, 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 4/20/2022 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 4/20/2022 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 April 20, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________ JON WELNER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 3 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 4/20/2022 ATTEST: ____________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Announcement of Special Vacancy on the Building Code Appeals Board Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Council will announce a special vacancy on the Building Code Appeals Board and invite qualified applicants to apply. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Announce the special vacancy on the Building Code Appeals Board by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar. BACKGROUND Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007 (Appointments Procedure) requires that the Mayor announce special vacancies that have occurred on Town boards, commissions, and committees at the earliest possible Town Council meeting. Building Code Appeals Board member Brian McLeran submitted his resignation from the Building Code Appeals Board on 2/25/2022, effective immediately. The Building Code Appeals Board (BCAB) is a five-member body established to act as an appeals board from decisions and interpretations of the Building Official regarding non-administrative provisions of the Town’s adopted code. ANALYSIS The BCAB’s adopted bylaws outline the recommended experience or qualifications for each of the five members of the BCAB. In short, an ideal BCAB should be made up of five registered design professionals, each with one of the following areas of expertise: - Architectural - Structural engineering - Mechanical or plumbing engineering TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: CC-4 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 - Electrical engineering - Energy code and/or green building code compliance or a licensed roofing contractor Per the bylaws, each member of the body’s experience and training shall be verified by the Building Official prior to appointment. Tiburon residency is not required. The Building Code Appeals Board has 4 remaining members, plus 1 alternate. The current makeup of the board is 3 builders and 1 structural engineer. The alternate member is an architect. Mr. McLeran fulfilled the licensed roofing contractor portion of the board, so the ideal candidate would have experience in mechanical, plumbing, or electrical engineering, energy code and/or green building code compliance or as a licensed roofing contractor, but it is not required. The Notice of Special Vacancy will be posted on April 18, 2022 (Exhibit 1). The application period will close on May 20, 2022. The Council will be required to interview all new applicants for the positions before an appointment is made. The current alternate member will be asked if he would like to be considered for a primary position on the Board. 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 special vacancy on the Building Code Appeals Board by adoption of this item on the Consent Calendar. Exhibit(s): 1. Notice of Special Vacancy Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk EXHIBIT 1 SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE On Town of Tiburon Boards, Commissions & Committees 2022 Building Code Appeals Board Statutory Authority: Tiburon Municipal Code Title I, Chapter 2, Article VI and Town Council Resolution No. 34-2011 Term: Five Years Purpose: Qualifications: The five-member board has the following responsibilities: a) to act as the appeals board from decisions and interpretations of the Town’s Building Official regarding non-administrative provisions of the Town’s adopted building codes; b) to render decisions on appeals and other decisions in writing to the Building Official and Appellant; and c) to adopt such reasonable rules and regulations as it may deem necessary. Tiburon residency is not a requirement. The Board is ideally comprised of five (5) registered design professionals with one of the following areas of expertise:1)One member with architectural experience;2)One member with structural engineering experience;3) One member with mechanical and plumbing engineering experience or a mechanical contractor with at least 10 years’experience, five in responsible charge of work4)One member with electrical engineering experience or an electricalcontractor with at least 10 years’ experience, five in responsiblecharge of work 5)One member with energy code and/or green building codecompliance experience, or a licensed roofing contractor with atleast 10 years’ experience, five in responsible charge of work.A vacancy has occurred as follows: Appointee Date Appointed Date Resigned Term Expiration Brian McLeran September 2018 2/25/2022 2/28/2023 ********* Interested residents can contact Tiburon Town Clerk Lea Stefani at 435-7377 for more information, or pick up an application at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Applications are also on-line at www.townoftiburon.org. Deadline for Applications = May 20, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. (Position open until filled) Notice posted at Town Hall; Published in the Ark newspaper on April 27, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Municipal Code Amendments: Introduction and First Reading of Amendments to Title IV, Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees) Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Council will consider amendments to Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees). RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Hold a Public Hearing on the draft Ordinance (Exhibit 2) and consider any testimony. 2. Make a motion to read by title only and carry the motion. 3. Read the title of the ordinance. 4. Hold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings. If the ordinance is passed for first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. BACKGROUND In December 1991, the Town Council adopted a revamped View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees Ordinance (“1991 Ordinance”). This followed years of mounting litigation expenses incurred in the defense of its prior view and sunlight regulations. The 1991 Ordinance removed the Town from direct involvement and enforcement of view or sunlight blockage issues stemming from the growth of trees, thus removing the Town from exposure to litigation over the application and/or enforcement of the regulations. The constitutionality of the 1991 Ordinance was subsequently challenged as a part of dispute between private property owners. The trial court found the ordinance unconstitutional on its face, but that decision was reversed by a state appeals court and the decision was published. On May 17, 2017, the Town Council amended the 1991 Ordinance through adoption of Ordinance No. 572 N.S. This amendment provided slight modifications to the 1991 Ordinance, narrowly focused on removing binding arbitration clauses and streamlining the remedies process without jeopardizing the validity of the view and sunlight regulations. There have been no TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: PH-1 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 additional modifications to the Ordinance since May 2017 and staff is unaware of any additional legal challenges to its validity. In early 2022, staff and the Council received written and oral requests from members of the public to make amendments to the Ordinance relating to the process through which parties attempt to resolve disputes, including a redline of their requested amendments to Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. At the Council’s March 2, 2022 regular meeting, the Council reviewed the amendments proposed by residents and heard feedback from the community about the proposal. At the conclusion of their discussion, the Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for consideration based on their discussion and feedback. At the Council’s March 16, 2022 regular meeting, staff presented a draft ordinance to the Council, and the Council requested additional clarifications to be made to the ordinance. A revised draft ordinance now comes back to the Council for consideration. ANALYSIS At the March 2 Town Council meeting, the Council did not support all of the resident-proposed amendments but did agree some amendments to Chapter 15 may be warranted. The Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the existing ordinance that would require the complaining party to notify the tree owner in writing of their complaint, including the minimum amount of information the writing should include, prior to proposing mediation, and that the parties may jointly request the Town pay for one hour of professional mediation services from a Town- provided list of professional mediators. At the March 16 hearing, the Council requested staff bring back a revised ordinance with additional clarifying amendments that the ordinance state that the complaining party may propose mediation no earlier than 30 days from providing written notice. The proposed Chapter 15 text amendments effectuating those changes are attached in redline as Exhibit 1 and the draft Ordinance is attached as Exhibit 2. The amendments are limited to Sections 15-9 through 15-12 of Chapter 15. The rest of Chapter 15 remains unchanged. FINANCIAL IMPACT If Council adopts the proposed amendment language offering 1 hour of Town paid mediation, there would be potential ongoing additional costs to the Town. However, given the lack of information regarding the number of claims/year and the hourly rate for mediators, it is very difficult to predict what those costs would be. If the change is adopted by Council, staff would anticipate proposing a modest line item ($5,000) in the Town’s Operating Budget to track the expense. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 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. Hold a Public Hearing on the draft Ordinance (Exhibit 2) and consider any testimony. 2. Make a motion to read by title only and carry the motion. 3. Read the title of the ordinance. 4. Hold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings. If the ordinance is passed for first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. Exhibit(s): 1. Chapter 15 Redline 2. Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 3. Correspondence Prepared By: Dina Tasini, Community Development Director EXHIBIT 1 Chapter 15 ‐ VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES   15‐9 ‐ Process for resolution of obstruction disputes.   The following process shall be used in the resolution of view and sunlight obstruction disputes between parties. (a) (a) (1) Initial reconciliation. A complaining party who believes that tree growth on the property of another has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area or active use area shall notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns. Any such writing shall include, at a minimum, the following information: a. A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction; b. The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction; and c. The specific restorative action proposed by the complaining party to resolve the unreasonable obstruction. (2) The notification should, if possible, be accompanied by personal discussions to enable the complaining party and tree owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If personal discussions fail, neighborhood associations may be willing to assist with the resolution of the obstruction dispute. (3) For trees located on town-owned property, see section 15-16. (b) (1) Mediation. If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the complaining party shall propose mediation as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute no earlier than thirty days from providing the notice under subdivision (a)(1) above.. (2) Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary, but the tree owner shall have no more than thirty days from service of notice to either accept or reject the offer of mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator within twenty days of the acceptance of mediation, or the offer of mediation shall be deemed to have been declined. Should the parties agree to mediation, and the parties sign a waiver as approved by the Town Attorney, the parties may jointly request from the Town a list of recommended mediators. If the Town receives a joint request, the Town will provide a list of three recommended mediators to the parties, and pay for one hour of the selected mediator’s time spent attempting to resolve the disputed claim. (3) It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be employed. (4) The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the properties of the complaining party and the tree owner. Parties are encouraged to contact immediate neighbors and solicit input. (5) The mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this chapter in attempting to help resolve the dispute. The mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for restorative action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute by written agreement in order to reduce the potential for litigation. (Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part)) (Ord. No. 572 N.S. , § 2(F), (G), 5-17-2017) 15‐10 ‐ Tree claim preparation.   (a) In the event that the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation is either declined by the tree owner or fails, the complaining party must prepare a tree claim, and provide a copy to the tree owner, in order to pursue litigation under the authority established by this chapter. (b) A tree claim shall consist of all of the following: (1) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent and corroborating physical evidence. Evidence may include but is not limited to photographic prints, negatives or slides. Such evidence must show absence of the obstruction at any documentable time during the tenure of the complaining party. Evidence to show the date of property acquisition or occupancy by the complaining party must be included; (2) The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction, the address of the property upon which the tree(s) are located, and the present tree owner's name and address; (3) Evidence of the failure of initial reconciliation, as described in section 15-9, to resolve the dispute. The complaining party must provide physical evidence that written attempts at reconciliation have been made and have failed. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence; (4) Evidence that mediation, as described in section 15-9, has been attempted and has failed, or has been declined by the tree owner; (5) Specific restorative actions proposed by the complaining party to resolve the unreasonable obstruction. (Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part)) (Ord. No. 572 N.S. , § 2(H), 5-17-2017) 15‐11 ‐ Reserved.   Editor's note— Ord. No. 572 N.S. , § 2(A), adopted May 17, 2017, repealed § 15-11, which pertained to binding arbitration and derived from Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part). 15‐12 ‐ Litigation.   (a) In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation is either declined by the tree owner or fails, then civil action may be pursued by the complaining party for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute under the rights and provisions of this chapter relating to the issues as specified in writing under Section 15-9(a)(1).. (b) The litigant must state in the lawsuit that initial reconciliation failed and that mediation was either declined by the tree owner or failed, and that a copy of the lawsuit was filed with the town attorney. A copy of any order or settlement in the lawsuit shall also be filed with the town attorney. (Ord. No. 379 N.S., § 3 (part)) (Ord. No. 572 N.S. , § 2(I), 5-17-2017)    EXHIBIT 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV, CHAPTER 15 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES) The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town Council adopted its current View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees regulations in 1991, codified as Title IV, Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code. B. The Town Council has received information that there is a need for more detailed information to be provided by a tree claimant about the scope of any tree claim prior to making an offer for mediation. Additional amendments are proposed to the reconciliation provisions and the mediation provisions to address this need and to encourage the parties to resolve any dispute with a third party mediator. C. The Town Council held a public hearing on March 16, 2022, and has heard and considered any and all public testimony on this matter. D. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. E. The Town Council finds that the amendments made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, and that the amendments will have no deleterious effect on future use of the regulations for their intended purposes. F. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. G. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, 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). Section 2. Adoption of Amendments to the Tiburon Municipal Code. Title IV, Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows: A. Section 15-9 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: The following process shall be used in the resolution of view and sunlight obstruction disputes between parties. (a)(1) Initial reconciliation. A complaining party who believes that tree growth on the property of another has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area or active use area shall notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns. Any such writing shall include, at a minimum, the following information: a. A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction; b. The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction; and c. The specific restorative action proposed by the complaining party to resolve the unreasonable obstruction. (2) The notification should, if possible, be accompanied by personal discussions to enable the complaining party and tree owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If personal discussions fail, neighborhood associations may be willing to assist with the resolution of the obstruction dispute. (3) For trees located on town-owned property, see section 15-16. (b)(1) Mediation. If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the complaining party shall propose mediation as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute no earlier than thirty days from providing the notice under subdivision (a)(1) above. (2) Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary, but the tree owner shall have no more than thirty days from service of notice to either accept or reject the offer of mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator within twenty days of the acceptance of mediation, or the offer of mediation shall be deemed to have been declined. Should the parties agree to mediation, and the parties sign a waiver as approved by the Town Attorney, the parties may jointly request from the Town a list of recommended mediators. If the Town receives a joint request, the Town will provide a list of three recommended mediators to the parties, and pay for one hour of the selected mediator’s time spent attempting to resolve the disputed claim. (3) It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be employed. (4) The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the properties of the complaining party and the tree owner. Parties are encouraged to contact immediate neighbors and solicit input. (5) The mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this chapter in attempting to help resolve the dispute. The mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for restorative action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute by written agreement in order to reduce the potential for litigation. B. Section 15-12 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation is either declined by the tree owner or fails, then civil action may be pursued by the complaining party for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute under the rights and provisions of this chapter relating to the issues as specified in writing under Section 15- 9(a)(1). (b) The litigant must state in the lawsuit that initial reconciliation failed and that mediation was either declined by the tree owner or failed, and that a copy of the lawsuit was filed with the town attorney. A copy of any order or settlement in the lawsuit shall also be filed with the town attorney. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. 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 April 20, 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on ______, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________ JON WELNER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: __________________________________ LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT 3 From:Lalita Waterman To:Greg Chanis; Lea Stefani; Stock, Benjamin L. Subject:Agenda Item: Council Meeting on April 20, 2022 (Chapter 15) Date:Friday, April 15, 2022 11:09:21 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. Hi Greg, I am assuming that the Mediation (Trees & Views) matter is scheduled forthe 4/22/2022 Town Council agenda. As such, I would appreciate your submitting the following letter to our Mayor and Council members, and entering my letter into the record. Many thanks and Happy Easter! Dear Mayor Welner, Vice Mayor Ryan, and Members of the Tiburon Town Council, First of all, I want to thank the Council for its sensitivity towards the challenges of the current mediation provisions, and for its willingness to help. As to the proposed modification of Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code: A) Mediation at the Town's Expense - request for one hour per party: Given that the Ordinance rightly requires a mediator to conduct a physicalinspection of each of the properties involved in a dispute, presumably toindependently verify the parties' claims (this takes time), I would requestthat the complimentary mediation be one-hour per party. The aggregateof two hours in two-party situations would facilitate resolution of thedispute and restoration of relationships. Where you have one property owner (a view claimant) "piggybacking" on adifferent property owner (also a view claimant) in making a claim against athird property owner (a tree owner), as happened in the David Ehsanand John Silcox cases, --- multiple view claimants having differententitlements because of their differing locations--- the mediator wouldneed additional time to visit each property. Once again, one-hour perparty would facilitate resolution and neighborhood relationships. B) Panel of Town-selected Mediators: Suggest that our Town select itspanel of mediators from within its own residents as they would presumablybe more tuned in to our history and norms. Given the vast amount ofsuperb legal talent that we have in Tiburon, this should be easy toaccomplish. Several such lawyers would probably be willing to serve on acompletely volunteer basis. I know of at least three such highly- experienced residents. C): Task Force: The 31-year-old Ordinance has many loopholes whichcontinue to be exploited. Suggest that our Council appoint a small TaskForce to study Chapter 15 and make recommendations to our TownCouncil. I am confident that we can find 3 to 4 experienced lawyers,arborists, former Council members, etc. who live in Tiburon and who wouldgladly donate a few hours of time to this endeavor. The "fixes" arefairly straight-forward, and I firmly believe that the job can beaccomplished in less than two half-days or one full day. Thank you for your public service, Lalita H. Waterman, President THE REEDLANDS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (415) 381-4467 Tiburon Town Council April 20, 2022 PH-1: View Ordinance Amendments Late Mail Requests for Copies: Lea Stefani, lstefani@townoftiburon.org From:Jim Snipes To:Greg Chanis Cc:Lea Stefani Subject:Fwd: Comment on Proposed Changes to View Ordinance Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 3:17:51 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from snipes.jim1@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important 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 Greg, I don’t see my comments below posted on the Town website as correspondence relating toitem PH-1 at today’s Town Council meeting agenda, and want to make sure that you’ve received it. Many thanks, Jim Snipes Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Snipes <snipes.jim1@gmail.com>Date: April 19, 2022 at 12:45:57 PM PDTTo: gchanis@townoftiburon.orgSubject: Comment on Proposed Changes to View Ordinance  Dear Mayor Welner, Vice Mayor Ryan, Councilmember Fredericks,Councilmember Griffin, and Councilmember Thier, Thank you for your careful consideration of the public commentsmade in response to the amendments to the “View and SunlightObstruction from Trees Ordinance“ proposed in February by LalitaWaterman and others in the form of an Urgency Ordinance. I am grateful that the changes proposed by Town staff in the latestdraft of the revised Ordinance do not include the most egregiousfeatures of the originally-proposed amendments. If these moremodest changes are adopted, I hope that they may be helpful inresolving disputes among neighbors. However, I would urge the Council to proceed cautiously in considering further changes to the Ordinance. I note that, in her mostrecently-submitted comments, Ms. Waterman has proposed that the Council appoint a task force to make recommendations to close“loopholes” that remain in the Ordinance. As the Council is aware, the Ordinance represents a careful balancing of interests of treeowners and view owners. While the Ordinance is not perfect, it has stood the test of time. What one person regards as “loopholes” in theOrdinance may be important protections of a neighbor’s interests. As the Council may be aware, the Reedlands Property Owners Association Board recently adopted — without notice to Associationmembers or opportunity for comment — a series of resolutions that purport to address “loopholes” in the Ordinance. In fact, theresolutions directly contradict central provisions of the Ordinance that protect the rights of view owners (for example, sharplynarrowing the definition of “primary living area” in Sec. 15-2). Hence my concern at Ms. Waterman’s proposal to close further“loopholes.” If the Council believes that the Ordinance requires an overhaul, I would urge that it be done only with ample advance publicity and arobust process for soliciting broad public comment. All of us care deeply about the views we enjoy in Tiburon, and the Ordinanceshould be modified only through a process that honors that fact. Sincerely yours, Jim Snipes (40 Southridge Rd W, Tiburon) Dear Greg, Would you please send this to Council Members at your earliest. Many thanks for your responsiveness! Dear Mayor Welner, Vice Mayor Ryan, and Council Members, I would analogize the Town-selected panel of mediators to the panel of mediators/arbitrators who serve ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) programs of the Superior Courts. Generally, such mediators are experienced lawyers who consider this to be part of their pro bono service to the community for which they receive recognition from the State Bar. They serve either on a completely volunteer basis or for a nominal fee. Having repeatedly served as a court-appointed arbitrator in years gone by, for which I was paid $75/full day, in order to ensure that the program is financially viable for the Town, I would suggest that the Town pay its panel of mediators a vastly lower sum than their private practice rates. At a deeply discounted fee of $250/hour, in a two-party case, with an aggregate of two hours (one hour per party), the mediator cost to the Town would be $500. The budgeted $5,000 would cover 10 two-party cases at one hour per party. It would not surprise me to see respected members of the Bar, who reside in Tiburon, volunteer to waive any excess fees (should there be the need to spend any additional time) just to “get the job done”. Alternatively, the Town could pay a sliding scale to the mediator: $250/hour in two-party cases; $200/hour in three-party cases; $150/hour in four-party cases. While it is difficult to predict the number of requests for Town-sponsored mediation, budgeting $5,000 for 10 two-party (one hour per party) disputes in 2022, and tweak, if necessary, in future years would seem prudent and practicable. Once again, many thanks for your time and sensitivity. If any residents of The Reedlands can help in any way, I hope you will not hesitate to let me know.... With gratitude for your public service, as always, Lalita H. Waterman, President THE REEDLANDS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (415) 381-4467 PH-1 CORRESPONDENCE #1 Date: April 19, 2022 at 12:45:57 PM PDT To: gchanis@townoftiburon.org Subject: Comment on Proposed Changes to View Ordinance Dear Mayor Welner, Vice Mayor Ryan, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Griffin, and Councilmember Thier, Thank you for your careful consideration of the public comments made in response to the amendments to the “View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees Ordinance“ proposed in February by Lalita Waterman and others in the form of an Urgency Ordinance. I am grateful that the changes proposed by Town staff in the latest draft of the revised Ordinance do not include the most egregious features of the originally-proposed amendments. If these more modest changes are adopted, I hope that they may be helpful in resolving disputes among neighbors. However, I would urge the Council to proceed cautiously in considering further changes to the Ordinance. I note that, in her most recently-submitted comments, Ms. Waterman has proposed that the Council appoint a task force to make recommendations to close “loopholes” that remain in the Ordinance. As the Council is aware, the Ordinance represents a careful balancing of interests of tree owners and view owners. While the Ordinance is not perfect, it has stood the test of time. What one person regards as “loopholes” in the Ordinance may be important protections of a neighbor’s interests. As the Council may be aware, the Reedlands Property Owners Association Board recently adopted — without notice to Association members or opportunity for comment — a series of resolutions that purport to address “loopholes” in the Ordinance. In fact, the resolutions directly contradict central provisions of the Ordinance that protect the rights of view owners (for example, sharply narrowing the definition of “primary living area” in Sec. 15-2). Hence my concern at Ms. Waterman’s proposal to close further “loopholes.” If the Council believes that the Ordinance requires an overhaul, I would urge that it be done only with ample advance publicity and a robust process for soliciting broad public comment. All of us care deeply about the views we enjoy in Tiburon, and the Ordinance should be modified only through a process that honors that fact. Sincerely yours, Jim Snipes (40 Southridge Rd W, Tiburon) TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11 STAFF REPORT To: Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Consider Approval of Recommended Strategy to Meet the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 639 Units as Part of the Housing Element Update (6th Cycle: 2023-2031) Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY This is an opportunity for the Town Council to review and approve housing opportunity site selection and rezoning proposals to provide adequate sites for the Town’s Housing Element Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Review the summary of the public engagement associated with the Housing Element and housing opportunity sites; and 2. Provide feedback on staff’s recommended strategy to meet the Town’s RHNA requirements for 639 units as part of the Housing Element Update (6th Cycle: 2023-2031); and 3. Approve the proposed housing sites for inclusion in the Draft Housing Element and preparation of the EIR. BACKGROUND Every eight years, the Town, like all local governments, must update its Housing Element to accommodate projected housing needs and address new State legislation. The Housing Element addresses a range of housing issues such as affordability, housing diversity, density, and location, and establishes goals, policies, and programs for existing and projected housing needs. The Housing Element must be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan and is critical to having a legally adequate General Plan. State law does not require that jurisdictions build or finance new housing, but they must plan for it. It is in the Housing Element that local governments make decisions about where housing could be developed to offer a mix of housing types for households with varying incomes. State law also requires that sites identified for such purpose meet strict eligibility criteria defined. Perhaps most TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: AI-1 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 11 well known, the Housing Element must identify how the Town will meet its share of the region’s housing need, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, by selecting housing sites and densities that, if developed, would satisfy the RHNA. For reference, Tiburon’s 5th Cycle Housing Element Update, adopted by the Town Council on August 20, 2014, can be viewed via the following link: https://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/845/General-Plan-Housing-Element. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Process The RHNA process starts with the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) provided by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which is the total number of housing units the San Francisco Bay Area needs over the eight-year period, by income category. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is tasked with developing the methodology to allocate a portion of housing needs to each city, town, and county in the region. For the 6th Housing Element Cycle (2023-2031), HCD required the Bay Area to plan for and revise local zoning to accommodate 441,176 addition housing units, more than double the 5th Cycle’s allocation of 187,990 housing units. The RHND is intended to not only meet projected increases in population and household formation, but to address existing unmet housing needs that have led to a statewide housing crisis in California. ABAG appointed a Housing Methodology Committee to develop a methodology to distribute a share of the region’s housing need to each jurisdiction. The methodology started with a baseline allocation that reflected growth patterns and population and employment projections developed for Plan Bay Area 2050, the region’s long-range strategic plan. The baseline allocation was then adjusted by three factors related to Access to High Opportunity Areas, Job Proximity via Automobiles, and Job Proximity via Transit. Tiburon’s RHNA allocation was most heavily influenced by the Town’s classification as a Transit-Rich Area (due to the ferry terminal served by transit) and a High Resource Area (due to the Town scoring high on metrics related to high performing schools, lower exposure to environmental and health hazards, higher employment, a higher percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree, and lower poverty rates). Tiburon’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation is for 639 housing units, more than eight times the 5th Cycle RHNA of 78 units. The RHNA allocation broken down by income categories is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Tiburon 2023-2031 Final RHNA Allocation Income Level Units VERY LOW INCOME (<50% OF Area Median Income) 193 LOW INCOME (50-80% of Area Median Income) 110 MODERATE INCOME (80-120% of Area Median Income) 93 ABOVE MODERATE INCOME (>120% of Area Median Income) 243 TOTAL ALLOCATION 639 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 11 Key Components of a Housing Element While the Housing Element Update often focuses on meeting RHNA, there are several other Housing Element requirements. The Housing Element must include: 1. Community Engagement: A community engagement program, reaching out to all economic segments of the community plus traditionally underrepresented groups. 2. Evaluation of Past Performance: Review of the prior Housing Element to measure progress in implementing policies and programs. 3. Housing Needs Assessment: Examination of demographic, employment and housing trends and conditions and identification of existing and projected housing needs of the community, with attention paid to special housing needs (e.g., large families, persons with disabilities). 4. Constraints Analysis: Analysis and recommended remedies for existing and potential governmental and nongovernmental barriers to housing development. 5. Housing Sites Inventory: Identification of available sites for housing development or redevelopment to ensure there is enough land zoned for housing to meet the future need at all income levels as specified by the RHNA. 6. Policies and Programs: Policies and programs to be carried out during the 2023- 2031 planning period to fulfill the identified housing goals and objectives. New Requirements for this Housing Element Update Recent State legislation has resulted in key changes for this 6th cycle of RHNA and Housing Element updates. • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) - Housing Elements must affirmatively further fair housing, which means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities.” The preparation of the housing element requires a diligent effort to include all economic segments of the community. The housing element must provide a summary of fair housing issues, analyze patterns and trends in segregation and disparities in access to opportunity, and identify housing sites in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. The Town is working collaboratively with the County of Marin to address AFFH requirements and is planning on doing additional outreach to underrepresented community members. • Limits on Sites - Identifying Housing Element sites that can accommodate development of affordable units will be more challenging. There are new limits on the extent to which jurisdictions can reuse sites included in previous Housing Elements and increased scrutiny of non-vacant sites when these sites are proposed to accommodate units for very low- and low-income households. Town staff will therefore be required to provide more in-depth information and analysis for sites chosen to meet RHNA in order to demonstrate to HCD that those sites are likely to be developed with housing over the Housing Element planning period. Housing Element Update Deadlines An updated Housing Element is required to be reviewed and certified by HCD and adopted by the Town Council by January 31, 2023. However, penalties cannot be levied on the Town until at least 120 days after the January 2023 deadline. While not required, it is preferable to complete any required rezonings before or concurrent with the Housing Element update. Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 11 Penalties for Noncompliance/Benefits of Compliance Jurisdictions face a number of consequences for not having a certified Housing Element. Under legislation enacted in recent years, if a city does not comply with State housing law, it can be sued – by individuals, developers, third parties, or the State. In addition to facing significant fines, a court may limit local land use decision-making authority until the jurisdiction brings its Housing Element into compliance. Additionally, local governments may lose the right to deny certain housing projects. On the other hand, an HCD-certified Housing Element provides eligibility for numerous sources of funding, such as Local Housing Allocations, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Grants, SB 2 Planning Grants, CalHOME Program Grants, Infill Infrastructure Grants, ProHousing Design funding, Local Housing Trust Funds, Regional Transportation Funds (such as MTC’s OneBayArea Grants). Community Outreach and Engagement Public outreach and engagement are important components of the Housing Element Update. Staff has been working closely with its General Plan consultant to develop a multi-pronged approach aimed at reaching all segments of the community. The Town’s General Plan website at CreateTiburon2040.org provides information on the housing element, existing housing needs and conditions, housing workshops (including summaries, presentations, and video recordings), and housing surveys. The Town conducted two workshops on the Housing Element Update. Both workshops were promoted utilizing the Town’s newsletter, email communications, the Ark, and social media. A printed flyer (in Spanish on the reverse) was distributed at properties owned or managed by EAH, a Marin-based non-profit affordable housing developer and local businesses and posted on community boards throughout town. In order to encourage participation from underrepresented community members, both workshops offered Spanish translation, and the presentation was made available in Spanish on the website prior to the workshop start. The first workshop was held in November 2021 and focused on providing an overview of the housing element, RHNA, and existing housing conditions and on gathering input on housing needs and potential sites and strategies to accommodate RHNA and encourage a more diverse population. Following the workshop, a survey was posted on CreateTiburon2040.org. The workshop and survey summaries are attached as Exhibit 1. The workshop presentation and recording are available at the following link: https://createtiburon2040.org/workshops/housing-1/. The second workshop was held on February 22, 2022. The workshop built on input received at the first workshop and explored the suitability of specific sites, development types, and housing densities to accommodate RHNA. The workshop focused on sites to accommodate the very low, low, and moderate-income housing need as the above moderate income housing need is expected to be accommodated through development of vacant single family and two-family lots, additional development on single family lots through the application of SB 9 (which permits single family lot splits and development of two single family homes on a single lot), and a small number of accessory dwelling units. The following framework was used to guide selection of housing opportunity sites for very low, low, and moderate income units: Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11  Improve the vitality of Downtown (Look for opportunities to increase foot traffic and desirability of shopping and recreating in the Downtown)  Improve appearance, productivity, and quality of existing properties (Look for properties developed with older commercial buildings with little recent investment and/or currently vacant)  Consider vehicular traffic on Tiburon Boulevard (Locate sites near transit stops and the ferry dock, near Highway 101, and near jobs)  Consistent with Town’s existing land use policy to the extent possible (Combined with above goals, look to areas where housing is already allowed) The workshop presentation identified six areas for potential rezoning and provided development concepts for selected parcels within these sites. Conceptual models were used to illustrate potential massing and provide a sense of building scale. Workshop participants were asked to react to the development concepts via live polling. Following the presentation, participants gathered in breakout rooms for discussion of preferred development types, densities, building heights, and sites to meet the RHNA requirement for very low, low, and moderate housing of 396 units. The workshop summary is attached as Exhibit 2. An online survey is in progress on the CreateTiburon2040.org website at the time this staff report was prepared. Preliminary results are attached as Exhibit 3. The Tiburon Baptist Church site, which was originally included as a potential housing opportunity site, is no longer being considered for rezoning and housing development. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed housing opportunity sites and agreed the sites were appropriate for additional housing development at the densities and building heights recommended by staff. ANALYSIS There are number of ways to accommodate RHNA for the various income categories. The above moderate-income need may be accommodated through the development of new market-rate single and two-family homes on vacant parcels and through the application of SB 9, which allows single family lots great than 2,400 square feet to be split in two under certain conditions and allows both vacant and developed single family lots to be developed with two single family homes. As shown in Table 2, there are approximately 75 vacant single- and two-family lots. The SB 9 potential for additional units and/or lot splits on parcels with an existing single family is more difficult to determine. If staff excludes parcels that do not meet the State’s eligibility criteria and then assumes about 20% of those sites are economically feasible for development, as determined in an analysis done by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, there are approximately 420 potential units. However, HCD will require further analysis and evidence to support the projected production of SB 9 units on non-vacant land, including property owner interest (which could be assessed through a survey), and zoning standards and incentives adopted by the jurisdiction that would encourage and facilitate development. Potential accessory dwelling units (ADUs) may also be used to accommodate RHNA, but, according to HCD guidelines, projections must reflect the local government’s track record of actual ADU development. Based on production since 2018, the Town can project 30 ADUs will be developed over the next eight years. Affordability levels can be assumed as 30% very low, Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 11 30% low, 30% moderate, and 10% above moderate-income based on a regional study conducted by the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team. Table 2 shows how these housing strategies can be used to accommodate the above-moderate housing need of 243 units. The analysis demonstrates that staff would need to qualify 60 SB 9 units on existing developed single-family parcels to meet the above-moderate housing need. If not, the unmet above-moderate income need could be met using the excess capacity of the multi-family sites identified in Table 9 and described below. Table 2: Potential Sites for Above Moderate-Income Units Potential Units Vacant Single and Two-Family Parcels (approx.) 75 SB 9 Potential on Vacant Single-Family Parcels (approx.) 105 SB 9 Potential for Developed Single Family Parcels unknown Accessory Dwelling Units (approx.) (10% of 30 units) 3 TOTAL 183 RHNA for Above Moderate-Income Units 243 For the remaining very low, low, and moderate-income housing need of 396 units, staff is proposing rezoning five areas to allow residential use and/or housing development at higher densities. These areas are described below and shown in Attachment 4. Selected parcels within these areas are also identified for listing in the housing element site inventory as housing opportunity sites. In general, the housing opportunity sites meet HCD guidelines for sites appropriate for lower income housing, i.e., they are at least one-half acre (smaller sites can be combined with adjacent parcels under the same ownership), they are zoned with a housing density of at least 20 units/acre, and, if non-vacant, they contain uses that are likely to be discontinued early enough within the planning period to permit redevelopment with housing. Some larger sites have not been included as opportunity sites because the property owner has indicated to staff that they are not interested in redeveloping the sites with housing. Tiburon Blvd. East This area encompasses six parcels as described in Table 3 below. Five of the six parcels are currently designated with an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), which allows mixed use development with a housing density of up to 20.7 units/per acre when 25% of the units are affordable. Building heights for development utilizing the AHO are 3 stories or 38 feet, whichever is less. Staff is recommending rezoning the area for mixed use with a housing density range of 40-45 units per acre. In order to provide an active, pedestrian-oriented environment as envisioned in the Downtown planning process, there would be some required first floor commercial use at the Beach Rd. corner for lots fronting Tiburon Blvd. First floor commercial uses would be allowed, but not required, for midblock sites and buildings to the rear of the site. Building heights would be limited to 4 stories fronting Tiburon Blvd and up to 5 stories at the rear of the site. The model for this area, as shown in Attachment 3, illustrates development concepts for 1535 and 1555 Tiburon Boulevard. Although these are not the sites proposed as housing opportunity sites, the models are representative of development that could occur on other sites within the Tiburon Boulevard East area. Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 11 Table 3: Tiburon Blvd. East Rezoning Proposal Site Address Existing Use Parcel size (acres) Current Zoning District Current Density (with AHO) Proposed Density (du/ac) Proposed Housing Opportunity Site? 1525 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.66 NC 0 40-45 Yes 1535 Tiburon Blvd Chase Bank 0.72 NC/AHO Up to 20.7 40-45 No 1555 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.86 NC/AHO Up to 20.7 40-45 No 1599 Tiburon Blvd CVS 1.66 NC/AHO Up to 20.7 40-45 No 1604 Tiburon Blvd BofA (vacant) 0.57 NC/AHO Up to 20.7 40-45 Yes 4 Beach Rd Parking lot 1.07 NC/AHO Up to 20.7 40-45 Yes Community Feedback Workshop participants generally supported the scale of the proposed development, although some suggested stepping back upper levels to reduce their visibility. Most were in favor of maintaining first-floor commercial uses on mid-block properties fronting Tiburon Blvd. Property owners, on the other hand, have voiced concerns that commercial use requirements on these properties could render the project economically infeasible. Retail demand has declined due to online shopping and changing consumer purchasing habits. As a result, staff recommends a mixed-use designation that allows, but does not require, first floor commercial use for mid-block properties. Tiburon Blvd. West This area encompasses seven parcels as described in Table 4 below. Staff is recommending rezoning the area for mixed use with a housing density range of 30-35 units per acre. In order to provide an active, pedestrian-oriented environment as envisioned in the Downtown planning process, first floor commercial uses for buildings fronting Tiburon Blvd and Beach Rd. would be required. Building heights would be limited to 3 stories. Table 4: Tiburon Blvd. and Beach Rd. West Rezoning Proposal Site Address Existing Use Parcel size (acres) Current Zoning District Current Density (with AHO) Proposed Density (du/ac) Proposed Housing Opportunity Site? 1550 Tiburon Blvd Boardwalk Shopping Ctr 2.21 NC 0 30-35 Yes 1600 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.39 NC/AHO Up to 20.7 30-35 No 1620 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.27 NC 0 30-35 Yes 1640/50 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg.. 0.60 NC 0 30-35 Yes 1660 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.29 NC 0 30-35 No 6 Beach Rd Comm. bldg. and apartment 0.41 VC 0 30-35 Yes 12 Beach Rd Post office 1.00 NC 0 30-35 Yes Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11 Community Feedback Workshop participants were largely in favor of three-story development as proposed. Some felt that four stories could be accommodated in order to vary the roof line and accommodate more housing. Downtown – Main St. This area encompasses one parcel as described in Table 5 below. Staff is recommending rezoning the site for mixed use with a housing density range of 20-25 units per acre. In order to provide an active, pedestrian-oriented environment as envisioned in the Downtown planning process, first floor commercial for the Main St. frontage would be required. Building heights would be limited to 3 stories with a required upper-level step back to ensure the building does not overwhelm Main Street. Façades of buildings of historical significance would be required to be preserved and integrated into the design. HCD guidelines effectively preclude the use of sites smaller than one-half acre for use as opportunity sites for housing affordable to lower-income households. The site could, however, potentially be used to provide housing affordable to moderate-income households, and for that reason is included in the site inventory. Table 5: Main St. Rezoning Proposal Site Address Existing Use Parcel size (acres) Current Zoning District Current Density Proposed Density (du/ac) Proposed Housing Opportunity Site? 26 Main St./ 2 Juanita Lane Theatre and shops 0.43 VC 0 20-25 No Community Feedback Workshop participants were split in their support for three-story development as proposed. Although the site would not contribute a significant number of housing units, it could provide needed workforce housing near transit and contribute to enhancing the vitality of Downtown. Cove Shopping Center This area encompasses one parcel as described in Table 6 below. Staff is recommending rezoning the site for mixed use with a housing density range of 25-30 units per acre, excluding the area currently in the AHO which is located across the existing drainage behind the rear parking lot and is largely undevelopable. Table 6: Cove Shopping Center Rezoning Proposal Site Address Existing Use Parcel size (acres) Current Zoning District Current Density (with AHO) Proposed Density (du/ac) Proposed Housing Opportunity Site? 1 Blackfield Dr Cove Shopping Center 3.89 (AHO portion is approx. 1 acre) NC NC/AHO 0 up to 20.7 on AHO portion 25-30 excluding existing AHO area Yes Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 11 Community Feedback Workshop participants were split in their support for housing development on this site, citing existing parking, circulation, and traffic impacts as reasons to oppose redevelopment with housing. Many were concerned that there would be a reduction in the amount of existing commercial space. The model for the site incorporated a grocery store of the same size as the current market, but less ancillary commercial square footage. A mixed-use designation could permit the property owner to choose vertical or horizontal mixed use and the appropriate amount of commercial square footage. Reed School Site This area encompasses the vacant portion of the Reed School parcel shown in Table 7 below. Staff is recommending rezoning the site for housing with a density range of 20-25 units per acre for the area currently in the AHO. The rezoning would not significantly increase the permitted density, but it would establish a minimum density of 20 units per acre, thereby encouraging moderate-sized units to enhance affordability and ensuring housing production targets will be met. Table 7: Reed School Site Rezoning Proposal Site Address Existing Use Parcel size (acres) Current Zoning District Current Density Proposed Density (du/ac) Proposed Housing Opportunity Site? 1199 Tiburon Blvd. Reed School 7.5 acres (vacant AHO portion is approx. 2.9 acres) RMP/ AHO Up to 24.8 on AHO portion with density bonus 20-25 for existing AHO area Yes Community Feedback Workshop participants were largely in support for housing development on this site, remarking that the clustered development shown in the model was appropriate for the area and that the site could provide needed teacher and workforce housing. Housing Site Capacity Housing element law requires, as part of the analysis of available sites, that the local government calculate the projected residential development capacity of housing sites that can be realistically achieved. Jurisdictions have two options: a “safe harbor” option which allows the jurisdiction to calculate densities based on a minimum density, and a second option that requires site-by-site analysis taking into account land use controls, site constraints, and the jurisdiction’s track record of achieving similar densities in existing residential developments at similar affordability levels. Due to the lack of recent development of multifamily and affordable housing in Tiburon, staff is recommending establishing minimum densities for the six housing opportunity areas. Table 8 below shows the unit capacity for each housing opportunity site at minimum and maximum densities. When combined with projected accessory dwelling unit development, the total unit count at the minimum density is 389 units, which exceeds the 303 RHNA for very low and low-income units. This provides some cushion, as sites may need to be eliminated after further discussion with property owners and as a result of the HCD review process. Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 11 Table 8: Capacity Analysis for Housing Opportunity Sites for Lower-Income Units Note: Unit counts do not include potential density bonuses for specified percentages of affordable units. In addition to the housing opportunity sites identified in Table 8, the element would identify housing potential on other newly zoned mixed-use sites that do not meet the requirements for lower income housing because the sites are too small and/or the property owner has indicated no interest in redeveloping the site. These are shown in Table 9. Housing capacity on these sites could be used to offset the above moderate housing need, particularly if HCD challenges the use of potential SB 9 units as discussed above. Table 9: Capacity Analysis for Mixed-Sites for Moderate-Income Units Site Address Existing Use Parcel size (acres) Proposed Density (du/ac) Housing Unit Capacity 1535 Tiburon Blvd Chase Bank 0.72 40-45 28-32 1555 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.86 40-45 34-38 1599 Tiburon Blvd CVS 1.66 40-45 66-74 1600 Tiburon Blvd Former Shark’s Deli 0.39 30-35 11-13 1610 Tiburon Blvd. Comm. bldg.. 0.13 30-35 4 1660 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.43 30-35 12-15 1680 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg.. 0.29 30-35 8-10 26 Main St./2 Juanita Ln. Theatre and shops 0.43 20-25 8-10 ADUs 9 TOTAL (at minimum density) 180 RHNA for Moderate-Income Units 93 Site Address Existing Use Parcel size (acres) Proposed Density (du/ac) Housing Unit Capacity 1525 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.66 40-45 26-29 1604 Tiburon Blvd BofA (vacant) 0.57 40-45 22-25 4 Beach Rd Parking lot 1.07 40-45 42-48 1550 Tiburon Blvd Boardwalk Shopping Center 2.21 30-35 66-77 1620 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.27 30-35 26-30 1640/50 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg.. 0.60 30-35 6 Beach Rd Comm. bldg. and apartment 0.41 30-35 42-49 12 Beach Rd Post office 1.00 30-35 1 Blackfield Dr Cove Shopping Center 2.89-acre portion of 3.89-acre site 25-30 72-86 1199 Tiburon Blvd. Reed School 2.9-acre vacant portion of 7.5-acre site 20-25 58-72 ADUs 18 TOTAL (at minimum density) 389 RHNA for Very Low and Low-Income Units 303 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 11 Staff has not yet made contact with JP Morgan, the owner of the Chase Bank site. There may be an opportunity to include this site in the housing opportunity sites inventory shown in Table 8. NEXT STEPS Upon receiving Council direction, the housing element opportunity sites and rezoning proposal will be provided to the General Plan environmental consultant to initiate work on the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, which will include analysis of traffic impacts. The housing opportunity sites and proposed rezonings will be incorporated into the draft Housing, Land Use, and Downtown Elements. It is anticipated that a draft Housing Element will be released for public review in June 2022, and, following Planning Commission and Town Council review, will be submitted to HCD for its initial review in July 2022. The draft General Plan is expected to be released in the fall of 2022. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by receipt of 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 that the Town Council: 1. Review the summary of the public engagement associated with the Housing Element and housing opportunity sites; and 2. Provide feedback on staff’s recommended strategy to meet the Town’s RHNA requirements for 639 units as part of the Housing Element Update (6th Cycle: 2023-2031); and 3. Approve the proposed housing sites for inclusion in the Draft Housing Element and preparation of the EIR. Exhibit(s): 1. Housing I Workshop and Survey Summaries 2. Housing II Workshop Summary 3. Housing II Online Survey Results as of 4/13/2022 4. Housing Opportunity Sites EXHIBIT 1 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 1 TIBURON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Housing Workshop I Summary November 9, 2021, 6:00-8:00pm The purpose of the Housing Community Workshop I was to: •provide an overview of existing housing conditions and needs in Tiburon; •provide background information on the legal requirements of a housing element and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process; •begin to explore sites and strategies to accommodate new housing in Tiburon; and •gather questions and comments from participants about housing needs, concerns, and goals. Feedback received will inform the content of a future community workshop and will guide the preparation of the Housing Element Update. The community meeting was held via Zoom on Tuesday, November 9, 2021, from 6:00-8:00 pm and was facilitated by Town staff and the consultant team. All materials were made available in Spanish and posted on the project website prior to the meeting, and a translator was available to facilitate a small group discussion in Spanish. There were approximately 95 participants The format of the meeting is described in the agenda below: •Welcome & Introductions •Presentation •Q&A •Small Group Discussion •Small Group Report Outs •Next Steps & Close ATTENDANCE Meeting participants: 95 attendees Town Staff •Dina Tasini, Director of Community Development •Christy Fong, Senior Planner •Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Consultant Team •O'Rourke & Associates – Christine O'Rourke •Sustainable Community Planning – Bob Brown •WRT – Peter Winch WORKSHOP SUMMARY Dina Tasini opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and giving an overview of the meeting purpose and goals. Christine O’Rourke gave an overview of the meeting agenda and initiated a live poll (see Exhibit 1 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 2 results below). After the poll closed, Christine gave a presentation on the General Plan update process, Housing Element requirements, local and regional housing conditions and needs, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process and determination for Tiburon, available sites for housing to meet RHNA requirements for the various household income categories, and housing concepts that were presented at a community workshop on the Downtown in April 2021. After the presentation, Christine gave an overview of the small group discussion logistics and opened the breakout rooms which participants were randomly assigned. A facilitator was assigned to each breakout room. There were approximately twelve attendees in each breakout room. The presentation slides and a video recording of the workshop was posted on the General Plan Update website at createtiburon2040.org. Live Poll 1. Where do you live? (select one) • 86% live in Tiburon • 14% live in Marin County, but not in Tiburon • 0% live outside Marin County 2. Do you own or rent your home? (select one) • 83% own their home • 17% rent their home 3. What type of housing do you live in? • 71% live in a detached single-family home • 8% live in an attached single-family home (e.g., duplex or townhome) • 22% live in a multifamily home (e.g., condo or apartment) SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY Approximately half of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in six breakout rooms on a virtual whiteboard in response to the discussion prompts below (see appendix for images of virtual white boards). The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the small group discussions. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the referenced comment was expressed. Small Group Discussion Prompts • Are there any specific groups of people who are most in need of housing in Tiburon? • What type of housing is most needed or is in short supply in Tiburon? • Where should new housing go? • Are there other strategies we should consider to accommodate our housing need? Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 3 • How can Tiburon’s housing policies and programs foster a more diverse and inclusive community? Main Takeaways Are there any specific groups of people who are most in need of housing in Tiburon? • We need housing for our workforce, e.g., firefighters, police, teachers, restaurant and retail workers (6) • Families (5) • Seniors (5) • Empty nesters who want to downsize but stay in the community (1) • People of color (3) • Domestic workers, e.g., landscapers, childcare providers, domestic help (1) • Homeless (1) • People who come to Tiburon for church (1) What type of housing is most needed or is in short supply in Tiburon? • Housing that supports the local economy and activates Downtown (2) • Housing that does not generate a lot of vehicular traffic on Tiburon Boulevard and accesses alternative transportation (2) • Mixed use with commercial uses on the ground floor and housing above (2) • Rental units (1) • Housing affordable to low-income households (2) • Community-oriented housing that provides gathering places and a neighborhood feeling (2) • Community Land Trust development that allows people to build equity and a path to homeownership (1) • Workforce housing that can be used in recruitment (1) • Higher densities and small units in the Downtown (1) • Multifamily housing (2) • Accessory dwelling units (1) • Assisted living (1) • Microhomes throughout the community (1) Where should new housing go? • Large sites along Tiburon Boulevard like Chase Bank, Bank of America, CVS, parking lots (6) • Near the four-lane section of Tiburon Boulevard north of Trestle Glen (2) • Downtown (3) • Property near Blackie’s Pasture owned by the Sanitation District (2) • The Baptist Church on Greenwood Beach Road (1) • The Tiburon Peninsula Club (1) • Reuse of office buildings (1) • Expand Hilarita (1) Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 4 • Homesharing (1) • Densification of single family lots through SB 9 and ADUs (1) • City-owned parcels (1) • Add housing at Library, Town Hall, Schools, Fire Department (1) Are there other strategies we should consider to accommodate our housing need? • Consider traffic and strategies to relieve traffic congestion and dependence on the automobile (2) • Consider safety and evacuation access (1) • Densification of existing older multifamily sites (1) • Decouple parking from units to make housing less expensive and subsidize transit (bus, ferry) passes (1) • Provide incentives for utility hookups for additional units (1) • Require affordable units to be built in new housing developments (2) • Restrict unit sizes in some instances (1) • Prioritize units for the workforce (1) • Community land trust (1) • Homesharing program (1) • Parcel tax/real estate tax upon sale to provide funding for affordable housing (1) • Update the ADU ordinance to allow larger ADU sizes (1) • Rezone open space, churches, and schools that have open space for housing development (1) • Provide education and potentially subsidies for ADUs (2) • Incorporate larger area into the Town (1) • Infill existing homes and parcels (1) • Eliminate barriers and address construction costs, topographic challenges (1) How can Tiburon’s housing policies and programs foster a more diverse and inclusive community? • Rebrand Tiburon as a more inclusive community. Show people, rather than images of yachts. (1) • Mandate more affordable units (1) • Create a safer environment (1) • Encourage economic diversity (1) • Make people feel welcome (1) • Address social needs (1) • Increase middle class employment (1) • Speak with those most impacted in Tiburon, such as residents of the Hilarita and renters (1) • Create conversation to open up opportunities for change (1) Housing I Survey Results Summary 1 Summary of Housing I Survey As of survey close on January 10, 2022 67 survey responses The Housing I survey asked a series of open-ended questions. The responses are summarized below.1 The number in parenthesis indicates the number of people who expressed the next to the response indicates how many people expressed the comment. One response could be categorized in more than one category. 1. What type of housing is most needed or is in short supply in Tiburon? Affordable housing (19) Single family homes (9) Rental housing (8) Smaller homes, townhomes, and condominiums (7) Senior housing and elderly care facilities (6) Multifamily housing (5) Workforce housing (3) All types (2) None (9) 2. Where should new housing go? Downtown (22) Near Highway 101 (8) On undeveloped lots and where there are vacant buildings (7) Accessory dwelling units (5) Near shopping and transit (3) Expansion of the Hilarita (3) Tiburon Baptist Church property (1) Open space (2) Wherever there is space (3) Don’t know (2) No new housing (9) 1 Due to a technical error, the survey did not record responses to two questions: “Are there any specific groups of people who are most in need of housing in Tiburon?” and “Are there other strategies we should consider to accommodate our housing need?” These questions will be included in the next housing survey. Housing I Survey Results Summary 2 3. How can Tiburon’s housing policies and programs foster a more diverse and inclusive community? Make it more affordable, including housing (18) Build more housing (4) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Other Belvedere resident Tiburon business owner Employee/worker of a Tiburon business or household Tiburon resident I am a: 0 5 10 15 20 25 Under 21 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 or over Your age: EXHIBIT 2 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 1 TIBURON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Housing Workshop II Summary February 22, 2022, 6:00-8:00pm The purpose of the Housing Community Workshop II was to select housing opportunity sites for the Town’s Housing Element Update and identify unit capacities for each site to demonstrate compliance with the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Potential housing sites included Downtown, the Cove Shopping Center, a vacant portion of the Reed Elementary School site, and the Tiburon Baptist Church on Greenwood Beach Road. The workshop focused on providing workforce and affordable housing on sites that are appropriate for lower income housing according to State law and California Department of Housing and Community (HCD) guidelines. The workshop also explored design concepts to ensure buildings are attractive and help to create a pedestrian-friendly environment such as breaking up building massing, varying building facades, stepping back upper levels, activating street frontages, and providing parking, landscaping, and public paseos. Feedback received will guide the preparation of the Housing Element Update. The community meeting was held via Zoom on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, from 6:00-8:00 pm and was facilitated by the consultant team with assistance from Town staff. The presentation was made available in Spanish and posted on the project website prior to the meeting, and a translator was available to facilitate a small group discussion in Spanish. There were approximately 30 participants in addition to the project team. The format of the meeting is described in the agenda below: •Welcome & Introductions •Presentation & Polling •Small Group Discussion •Small Group Report Outs •Next Steps & Close ATTENDANCE Meeting participants: 30 attendees in addition to the project team Town Staff •Dina Tasini, Director of Community Development •Christy Fong, Senior Planner •Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner Consultant Team •O'Rourke & Associates – Christine O'Rourke •WRT – Peter Winch and Poonam Narkar •Sustainable Community Planning – Bob Brown Exhibit 2 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 2 WORKSHOP SUMMARY Community Development Director Dina Tasini opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and giving an overview of the meeting purpose and goals. Christine O’Rourke gave an overview of the meeting agenda and a presentation on the General Plan update process; concerns voiced in the November Housing I workshop and survey; Housing Element requirements; strategies to meet the Town’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 639 units; State law and HCD guidelines for housing opportunity sites; and the framework the project team developed to identify housing opportunity sites. Peter Winch and Poonam Narkar from WRT then presented the housing opportunity sites and models that were developed to illustrate conceptual massing and give community members a sense of building scale. The models did not show architectural detail. A polling question was posed after each site to gauge participants’ support for the development concept and to provide a springboard for further discussion in the breakout room. Next, Christine described the rezoning proposal for each area and identified potential sites for the Housing Element site inventory. She provided direction for the breakout room exercise and then opened the breakout rooms to which participants were randomly assigned. A facilitator was assigned to each breakout room. There were approximately six attendees in each breakout room. The presentation slides and a video recording of the workshop was posted on the General Plan Update website at createtiburon2040.org. Live Poll 1. Tiburon Blvd. East Corner: What do you think about the corner development concept? (multiple choice) • I could support it – (17/26) 65% • It should provide more housing units – (3/26) 12% • It should provide fewer housing units – (7/26) 27% • I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (0/26) 0% • I prefer no new development (2/26) 8% 2. Tiburon Blvd. East Midblock: What do you think about the midblock development concept? (multiple choice) • I could support it – (14/24) 58% • It should provide more housing units – (5/24) 21% • It should provide fewer housing units – (7/24) 29% • I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (1/24) 4% • I prefer no new development (0/24) 0% 3. Tiburon Blvd. and Beach Rd. West: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice) • I could support it – (19/24) 79% • It should provide more housing units – (4/24) 17% • It should provide fewer housing units – (4/24) 17% • I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (0/24) 0% Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 3 • I prefer no new development (0/24) 0% 4. Downtown – Main St.: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice) • I could support it – (9/24) 38% • It should provide more housing units – (4/24) 17% • It should provide fewer housing units – (7/24) 29% • I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (4/24) 17% • I prefer no new development (1/24) 4% 5. Cove Shopping Center: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice) • I could support it – (9/25) 36% • It should provide more housing units – (4/25) 16% • It should provide fewer housing units – (6/25) 24% • I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (4/25) 16% • I prefer no new development (4/25) 16% 6. Reed School Site: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice) • I could support it – (20/26) 77% • It should provide more housing units – (2/26) 8% • It should provide fewer housing units – (1/26) 4% • I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (2/26) 8% • I prefer no new development (2/26) 8% 7. Tiburon Baptist Church: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice) • I could support it – (16/26) 62% • It should provide more housing units – (6/26) 23% • It should provide fewer housing units – (1/26) 4% • I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (3/26) 12% • I prefer no new development (2/26) 8% SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY Approximately half of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in four breakout rooms on a virtual whiteboard in response to the discussion prompts below (see appendix for images of virtual white boards). The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the small group discussions. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the referenced comment was expressed. Small Group Discussion Prompts  What do you think of this development concept?  Are there any modifications you recommend?  What is the group’s preferred development concept? Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 4 Main Takeaways Tiburon Blvd. East, Corner and Midblock Sites • Midblock buildings should ideally also have street level commercial/retail uses fronting Tiburon Blvd. (4) • Architecture needs to be considered and is important to how the development will fit in to the surrounding area; design standards are very important (4) • Density/height is appropriate (4) • Buildings are too large or too high (1) • Step back the top floor further to reduce its visibility (1) • Roofline and building height should be varied (1) • Traffic impacts and access to Tiburon Blvd. need to be considered (3) • Need to address flooding and sea level rise (1) • Views need to be considered (1) Tiburon Blvd and Beach Rd. West • Proposed density is appropriate and in scale with existing buildings (2) • 4 stories could be integrated into the development to add more housing vary the roofline (1) • The Post Office site would also be good for this scale of development (1) • Access from Juanita allows the building to address Tiburon Boulevard better (1) • Need to address flooding and sea level rise (1) • Views need to be considered (1) Downtown – Main St. • Traffic impacts and access from Juanita Lane need to be considered (1) • Historic preservation is important and may render development infeasible (3) • Main Street is narrow and a third floor may overwhelm the streetscape if not sufficiently setback (1) • Must maintain integrity and charm of the area (2) • Noise could be an issue (1) • Views need to be considered (1) Cove Shopping Center • Parking and circulation is already an issue here (4) • Existing amount of commercial square footage needs to be preserved (3) • Traffic impacts need to be considered (2) • Potential access from Tiburon Blvd. should be considered (1) • This is a great site for workforce housing and/or because it is near 101 (2) • This is not a good site for housing (1) • Views need to be considered (1) Reed School Site Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 5 • Stepped up town homes are appropriate for the site; consistent with existing multifamily housing in the area (3) • Great site for housing for teachers; also, police and firefighters (2) • This site is not very visible and could be considered for greater density (1) • Traffic impacts need to be considered (1) • Views need to be considered (2) Tiburon Baptist Church • This is a great site for housing because it is close to 101 (1) • Building height needs to be appropriate for the site (1) • Would be ideal if church could remain (1) • Views need to be considered (1) Housing Unit Capacity Tallies Each small group was asked to identify their preferred development concept for each site and associated housing unit capacity (capacities reflect the low end of the density range as per HCD’s “safe harbor” guideline). Each group was challenged to meet the total very low, low, and moderate-income housing need of 400 units on the combined sites. A summary of the unit counts and totals is provided below. “N/A” means the group did not have time to discuss the site. Additional detail is provided in the virtual white board images in the appendix. Site Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Tiburon Blvd East Corner 66 54 48 66 Tiburon Blvd East Midblock 19 26 26 26 Tiburon Blvd and Beach Rd West 134 134 134 N/A Main Street 12 8 16 N/A Reed School Site 58 60 58 N/A Cove Shopping Center 60 60 60 0 Tiburon Baptist Church 64 64 64 64 ADUs 27 27 27 27 TOTAL 440 458 433 N/A Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 6 APPENDIX Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 7 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 8 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 9 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 10 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 11 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 12 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 13 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 14 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 15 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 16 Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 17 EXHIBIT 3 Housing II Survey Results | 1 Summary of Housing II Survey Results As of March 30, 2022 130 survey responses 30 11 14 7 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 No housing should be developed at this site It should eliminate one floor of residential units It should provide more housing units by adding an additional floor It should provide more housing units by eliminating ground floor commercial use I could support it Downtown Tiburon Blvd East Corner: What do you think about this development concept? (select all that apply) 27 13 11 11 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No housing should be developed at this site It should include ground-floor commercial use It should eliminate one floor of residential units It should provide more housing units by adding an additional floor I could support it Downtown Tiburon Blvd East Midblock: What do you think about this development concept? (select all that apply) Exhibit 3 Housing II Survey Results | 2 26 9 11 48 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No housing should be developed at this site It should eliminate one floor of residential units It should provide more housing units by adding an additional floor I could support it Downtown Tiburon Blvd West Midblock: What do you think about this development concept? (select all that apply) 27 18 7 15 47 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 No housing should be developed at this site It needs to preserve the historical facades of existing buildings It should eliminate one floor of residential units It should provide more housing units by adding an additional floor I could support it Downtown Main Street: What do you think about this development concept? (select all that apply) Housing II Survey Results | 3 46 8 3 15 34 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 No housing should be developed at this site It should provide ground floor commercial use for all buildings It should eliminate one floor of residential units above the commercial use It should provide more housing units by adding an additional floor above the commercial use I could support it Cove Shopping Center Site: What do you think about this development concept? (select all that apply) 33 6 22 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 No housing should be developed at this site It should fewer housing units It should provide more housing units I could support it Reed School Site: What do you think about this development concept? (select all that apply) 103 2 8 19 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 No housing should be developed at this site It should fewer housing units It should provide more housing units I could support it Tiburon Baptist Church: What do you think about this development concept? (select all that apply) All Other Respondents Housing II Survey Results | 4 50 3 22 4 57 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Other Tiburon business owner Employee of a Tiburon business Belvedere resident Tiburon resident I am a: 4 4 9 36 28 17 13 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Under 21 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 or over Your age group: 1 11 6 19 18 19 28 38 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Facebook/Instagram Other Housing Workshop Email from the Town of Tiburon Town of Tiburon website Create Tiburon 2040 website Tiburon Talk The Ark Word of mouth How did you hear about this survey? EXHIBIT 4 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES Exhibit 4 DOWNTOWN: TIBURON BLVD. EAST Site Characteristics Parcels currently containing CVS, Bank of America, Chase Bank, and parking lots All but #1525 currently in AHO; allows up to 20.7 du/ac All parcels are at least ½ acre DOWNTOWN: TIBURON BLVD. EAST Corner Site Concept 4-and 5-story buildings with ground-floor commercial use Break up building massing Setback along Tiburon Blvd. with retail, restaurants Stepback toward rear of property Limit building length, block size Parking within and behind buildings Building form and entrances face the street Midblock public paseo Multiuse trail and bioswale Development Outcomes Estimated 70 to 90 housing units plus retail/restaurant space Approximately 42 to 54 units per acre DOWNTOWN: TIBURON BLVD. EAST Midblock Site Concept 4-story residential buildings Break up building massing Setback along Tiburon Blvd. Upper story stepback Limit building length, block size Parking within and behind buildings Building form and entrances face the street Midblock public paseoDevelopment Outcomes Estimated 33 to 45 housing units Approximately 38 to 52 units per acre DOWNTOWN: TIBURON BLVD. EAST Development concept 4 and 5-story mixed use development for corner lots 4-story residential only for midblock Proposal Rezone area for 40-45 units/acre Potentially identify sites as shown on map for housing element sites inventory Site Characteristics Parcels currently containing offices and personal services Only #1600 currently in AHO; allows up to 20.7 du/ac 3 parcels at least ½ acre DOWNTOWN: TIBURON BLVD. AND BEACH RD. WEST Office/Shopping Center Post Office DOWNTOWN: TIBURON BLVD. WEST Midblock Site Concept 3-story buildings with ground- floor commercial use Façade variation Complements potential boulevard redesign Maintains 3-story building height appropriate for narrow site Parking access from Juanita Lane Active uses along Tiburon Blvd. Midblock public paseo Development Outcomes Estimated 27 to 36 housing units plus retail/restaurant space Approximately 32 to 42 units per acre DOWNTOWN: TIBURON BLVD. AND BEACH RD. WEST Development concept 3-story development with ground floor commercial Proposal Rezone area for 30-35 units/acre Potentially identify sites as shown on map for housing element sites inventory Site Characteristics Parcel currently contains theatre and shops 0.43-acre site DOWNTOWN: MAIN STREET Main Street Juanita Lane DOWNTOWN: MAIN STREET Site Concept 3-story building with ground- floor commercial use Main Street retail storefronts Complements potential street redesignHorizontal façade increments Parking access from Juanita Lane Upper level stepback to maintain scale Midblock public paseo Development Outcomes Estimated 10 to 14 housing units plus retail/restaurant space Approximately 24 to 32 units per acre DOWNTOWN: MAIN STREET Development concept Mixed use building with ground floor commercial; 2 floors residential above Proposal Rezone site for 20-25 units/acre Potentially identify site as shown on map for housing element sites inventory Site Characteristics •Approximately 3-acre portion of 3.9-acre site •AHO site used in previous housing; allows up to 20.7 du/ac COVE SHOPPING CENTER SITE COVE SHOPPING CENTER SITE Site Concept 2-and 3-story mixed- use development Landscape and pedestrian enhancements along Tiburon Blvd. Small public gathering space Stacked flats toward Tiburon Blvd. Townhouse units provide transition to neighborhood Grocery store anchors corner Development Outcomes Estimated 70 to 90 housing units plus retail Approximately 23-30 units per acre AHO COVE SHOPPING CENTER SITE Development concept 2-story townhomes and mixed-use building with ground floor commercial Proposal Rezone site for net 25-30 units/acre Potentially identify site as shown on map for housing element sites inventory Site Characteristics Vacant 2.9-acre portion of 7.5-acre parcel AHO already allows up to 24.8 units/acre REED SCHOOL SITE REED SCHOOL SITE Site Concept 2-and 3-story residential development Units take advantage of natural setting, views Landscape along street frontage Development follows hillside contours Consistent with nearby clustered housing Workforce housing good for families Development Outcomes Estimated 66 housing units Approximately 23 units per acre REED SCHOOL SITE Development concept 2 and 3-story townhomes Proposal Already zoned for up to 24.8 units/acre with AHO Rezone for net 20-25 units/acre Potentially identify site as shown on map for housing element sites inventory TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Approve a New Job Classification of Police Officer Trainee Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Staff recommends the establishment of new job classification of Police Officer Trainee to recruit and hire current and intended police academy enrollees to fill vacant Police Officer positions in the Police Department. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends the Town Council 1. Move to approve the new job classification of Police Officer Trainee and the related classification specification and salary range placement. BACKGROUND The Town of Tiburon’s Police Department is currently recruiting for vacant Police Officer positions. Recruitments for police officer candidates have become increasingly competitive, and to address a shortage of qualified candidates, many of the Town’s comparator agencies are actively recruiting police academy enrollees, or intended enrollees, into positions classified as a Police Officer Trainee. The intent of this classification is to hire high potential candidates prior to or during enrollment in a police academy program approved by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). These employees would then transition into a full-time sworn police officer position upon completion of the program and receiving a Basic POST certificate, which is a minimum requirement for sworn police officers in the State of California. A number of competitive candidates who have recently applied and interviewed with the Town are active police academy attendees. However, currently, the Town does not have an approved classification to employ these candidates in the role of a Police Officer Trainee while enrolled in a POST-certified Basic Law Enforcement Academy program. As a result, the Town is at risk of losing qualified candidates to other agencies who provide this option. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20,2022 Agenda Item: AI-2 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 ANALYSIS A survey of agencies in the County of Marin identified four agencies that have an active Police Offer Trainee or similar position. The salary for these positions is between 75%-89% of a Police Officer – Step 1 salary. Three of four agencies include a comprehensive benefits package, including health and retirement benefits. Staff recommends the establishment of a Police Officer Trainee classification to recruit and hire high potential candidates prior to or during their enrollment in a POST approved academy program when the Town has an existing, or anticipated vacant Police Officer position. The primary responsibility of the Police Officer Trainee will be to make acceptable progress while attending an academy program. Upon completion of the academy, possession of a POST Basic Law Enforcement certificate, and other related requirements, the Trainee would be considered for employment as a sworn Police Officer. Staff further proposes that the salary of the Police Officer Trainee be equivalent to eighty percent of the negotiated Police Officer Step A salary and include benefits provided to civilian mid-management personnel. The proposed monthly salary would be $5,870. The Town intends to have a meet and confer with the Tiburon Police Association upon Council’s approval of the classification. A draft of the Police Officer Trainee job description is attached as Exhibit 1. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no increase in the current fiscal year budget as the associated costs for salary and benefits will be absorbed within the departmental budget under the Police Officer classification. 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). Agency Active Recruitment Beginning Salary Police Trainee Beginning Salary Police Officer Percent of Police Officer Beg. Salary Benefits Mill Valley Yes 5,393 7,191 75%None San Rafael Yes 6,563 7,391 89%Full benefits, incl. retirement and leave Novato Yes 5,717 6,727 85%Full benefits, incl. retirement and leave Central Marin PA Yes 5,626 6,335 89%Full benefits, incl. retirement and leave Average 5,825 6,911 84% Tiburon - Proposed 5,870 7,338 80%Full benefits, incl. retirement and leave Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council: 1. Move to approve the new job classification of Police Officer Trainee and the related classification specification and salary range placement. Exhibit(s): 1. Police Officer Trainee Job Classification Specification Prepared By: Suzanne Creekmore, Director of Administrative Services EXHIBIT 1 TOWN OF TIBURON POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE DEFINITION To attend a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-certified Basic Law Enforcement Academy and receive the academic and physical training resulting in graduation and certification required for appointment to the classification of Police Officer. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a non-sworn classification structured for incumbents hired for the purpose of becoming a sworn police officer. Police Officer Trainees are hired into this civilian position for the period prior and during the time they are assigned to a POST-certified Basic Law Enforcement Academy. Upon successful completion of training at the academy and upon the availability of a Police Officer position, Police Officer Trainees are sworn in and appointed to the classification of Police Officer. Police Officer Trainee benefits are limited to those of a civilian employee. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receive general supervision from higher level supervisory or management staff and from training staff at a POST-certified Basic Law Enforcement Academy. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following: Attend a POST-certified Basic Law Enforcement Academy designed to provide an overview of the criminal justice system including knowledge of laws, police procedures, law enforcement techniques, first aid and physical fitness. Receive training to develop an awareness of Police Department functions, as well as the responsibilities of Police Officers and how those responsibilities relate to field operations. Perform related duties and responsibilities as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Ability to: Successfully complete a POST-Basic Law Enforcement Academy including classroom instruction, physical agility, and use of firearms. Learn proper police procedures and methods. Observe accurately and remember names, faces, numbers, incidents and places. Think and act quickly in emergencies and to judge situations and people accurately. Understand and interpret laws and regulations. Prepare clear, concise, and comprehensive written reports. Become proficient in self-defense techniques. Become proficient in the care and use of firearms. Follow oral and written instructions. Deal courteously and effectively with the general public. Experience and Training Guidelines Any combination of experience and training that would likely provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be: Experience: None required. Training: Equivalent to completion of the twelfth grade. At least 60 units of credit from an accredited college or two years of Military Service in lieu of college is highly desirable. Licenses and Certificates: Possession of and ability to maintain a valid California Driver’s License. Necessary Special Qualifications: Free of any felony convictions. A citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship (Government Code Para. 1031). Age, not less than 21 years at time of appointment. Vision in each eye, correctable to at least 20/30. Must pass a background investigation. Must meet all Department medical, physical and psychological standards. ADA Special Requirement: Essential duties require the following physical abilities and work environment: Ability to sit, stand, walk, kneel, crouch, squat, stoop, reach, crawl, twist, climb, and lift 50 pounds: exposure to cold, heat, extreme noise, outdoors, confining work space, electrical hazards, chemicals, dust, toxic waste, mechanical hazards, and explosive materials. Effective Date: April 2022 FLSA Status: Non-Exempt Representation/Resolution: Mid-management Resolution Pre-Employment Medical: Police Level 5 Examination Harassment Training: Non-Supervisory Form 700: No TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Recommendation to Award the Del Mar Traffic Calming Improvement Project in the Amount of $285,500.45 to Mercoza and Authorize the Town Manager to Approve Contract Change Orders in an Amount Not to Exceed 12% of the Contract Amount. Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The FY 2021/22 Capital Improvement Plan included funding for the construction phase of the Del Mar Traffic Calming Improvement Project that will rehabilitate six intersections near the vicinity of Del Mar Middle School. The project is funded entirely by the Safe Routes to School program administered by the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) with no local match required. The lowest responsible responsive bidder is Mercoza, with a bid of $285,500.45. Tonight, Council is considering authorizing the Town Manager to award the contract, and to approve construction change orders for the project. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Authorize the Town Manager to approve the award of contract for the Del Mar Traffic Calming Improvement Project to Mercoza for $285,500.45. 2. Authorize the Town Manager to approve contract change orders not to exceed 12% ($34,260.05) of the contract amount as a contingency for unforeseen construction issues. BACKGROUND The voters of Marin County approved the authorization of Measure AA on November 6, 2018. The measure includes funding for the TAM Safe Pathways to Schools Program which funds construction projects that make the commute to school safer. Funding may cover engineering and construction of pathway, sidewalk and street crossing safety improvements. The program consists of two categories of projects: large projects ($400,000 maximum funding request) and small projects ($50,000 maximum funding request). In June 2019 TAM issued Measure AA Safe Pathways to Schools grant funding call for projects. The Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Task Force identified Del Mar Middle School as their #1 Priority for improvements that make the commute to school safer. The Task Force retained Parisi TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: AI-3 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 Transportation Consulting to help identify those locations of work and develop preliminary engineering plans. The project was submitted by town staff and approved for funding in the amount of $400,000 by the TAM Board on October 24, 2019. The SR2S grant program is intended to fund projects that encourage children to walk and bicycle to school. This grant fully funded the design and physical improvements associated with this project. The engineering plans include new signage, new crosswalk striping, and improving sidewalk ramps. A detailed description of the physical improvements are as follows, with a complete set of plans for the project attached as Exhibit 1: Intersection 1: Howard Drive and Hilary Drive • Refresh existing red curb at the intersection. • Refresh existing crosswalk at the intersection. • Install a new stop pavement stencil and stop bar on Hilary Drive. Intersection 2: Howard Drive and Rowley Circle • Install new high visibility crosswalk across Howard Drive. • Install new bulb out with pedestrian ramp and associated signage. Intersection 3: Rowley Circle and Gelder Court • Install new pavement stencils on Rowley Circle. • Install new pedestrian signage at the existing crosswalk. • Install new red curb along Gelder Court. Intersection 4: Hilary Drive and Rowley Circle • Install a second new high visibility crosswalk across Hilary Drive. • Install new bulb out with pedestrian ramp and associated signage and pavement stencils. Intersections 5 and 6: Avenida Miraflores/Felipa Court/Hilary Drive • Install pedestrian signage and new red curbs at the intersection of Avenida Miraflores at Hillary Drive. • Install new bulb out with pedestrian ramp, refuge island and associated signage and striping on Avenida Miraflores at Felipa Court. The engineer’s construction estimate was $300,000 - $350,000, and the project was put out for bid in February 2022. Bids for the project were opened publicly on March 15, 2022. The Town received the following five bids: Mercoza $285,500.45 FJ&I Engineering Inc. $316,520.00 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 Kerex $345,230.00 Michale Paul Company $350,180.00 Maggiora & Ghilotti $357,357.00 The low bidder, Mercoza, included all the required forms, and staff has verified they possess a valid Contractor’s license as required by the Bid Documents. ANALYSIS Subsequent to bid opening, staff reviewed the bid submitted by Mercoza, found no bid irregularities, and therefore, determined they are the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The bid is below the engineer’s estimate by $14,499.55 (4.8%). The difference between the low bidder and the second low bidder is 9.80%. In addition to recommending Council authorize the Town Manger to award the contract, staff is also recommending the Council authorize the Town Manager to approve change orders not to exceed 12% of the contract amount in order to address any unforeseen construction issues in a timely manner. The total estimated cost of the Project is shown in the table below. Phase Expended to Date Total Projected Preliminary Engineering $59,660.00 $60,000.00 Construction (incl 12% cont.) -- $319,760.00 Construction Management -- $20,240.00 Total $59,660.00 $400,000.00 A copy of the agreement template used by the Town is included as Exhibit 2. After this action to award by the Council, staff will send a Notice of Award to the Contractor along with a completed agreement for the Contractor to execute. FINANCIAL IMPACT This Project is funded entirely by the Measure AA Safe Pathways to Schools Grant Program, with no local match required. Therefore, there is no additional Financial Impact to the Town. Funding for this project was included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2022 Capital Improvement Plan. As a result, no Budget Amendment is required. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff determined that this Project is categorially exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301, Class 1 (c)) of the CEQA Guidelines. As specified in Section 15301, the project involves maintenance of existing roadways. The Project consists of the repair and maintenance of existing public facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the Marin County Recorder and State Clearing House. Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Authorize the Town Manager to approve the award of contract for the Del Mar Traffic Calming Improvement Project to Mercoza for $285,500.45. 2. Authorize the Town Manager to approve contract change orders not to exceed 12% ($34,260.05) of the contract amount as a contingency for unforeseen construction issues Exhibit(s): 1. Project Plans 2. Construction Agreement Template Prepared By: David Eshoo, Associate Engineer EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT SITE DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL RO W L E Y C I R C L E HILL A R Y D R I V E HO W A R D D R I V E AVENIDA MIRAFLORE S GELDERT DRIVE FE L I P A C O U R T TI B U R O N B O U L E V A R D MILL VALLEY MUIR WOOD NATIONAL MONUMENT RICHARDSON BAY CORTE MADERA GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA REED HARBOR POINT MARIN CITY BAY MUIR BEACH TIBURON 580 1 CALIFORNIA PROJECT LOCATION 101 101 OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 P-1 1 NTS TITLE SHEET TOWN OF TIBURON DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 20-ST-04 NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE HI L L A R Y D R I V E FE L I P A C O U R T R O W L E Y C I R C L E HOWARD DRIVE H O W A R D D R I V E HILLA R Y D R I V E RO W L E Y C I R C L E A V E N I D A M I R A F L O R E S HILLARY DRIVE ROWLE Y C I R C L E G E L D E R T D R I V E OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 PC-1 2SURVEY CONTROL HO W A R D D R I V E R O W L E Y C I R C L E OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 00 10'20' HOWARD DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE DEMOLITION PLAN 1" = 10' LD-1 3 ROWLEY CIRCLE H I L L A R Y D R I V E OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HILLARY DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE DEMOLITION PLAN 1" = 10' LD-2 4 00 10'20' FE L I P A C O U R T AVENIDA MIRAFLO R E S OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES AND FELIPA COURT DEMOLITION PLAN 1" = 10' LD-3 5 00 10'20' HO W A R D D R I V E R O W L E Y C I R C L E OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HOWARD DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE LAYOUT PLAN 1" = 10' L-1 6 00 10'20' ROWLEY CIRCLE H I L L A R Y D R I V E GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB GB OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HILLARY DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE LAYOUT PLAN 1" = 10' L-2 7 00 10'20' FE L I P A C O U R T AVENIDA MIRAFLO R E S OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES AND FELIPA COURT LAYOUT PLAN 1" = 10' L-3 8 00 10'20' G B G B GB GB G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HOWARD DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE CURB RAMP PLAN 1" = 5" CR-1 9 00 5'10' 00 5'10' G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B GB GB G B G B G B G B OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HOWARD DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE CURB RAMP PLAN 1" = 5' CR-2 10 00 5'10' 00 5'10' G B G B G B GB GB G B G B G B G B G B G B G B OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HILLARY DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE CURB RAMP PLAN 1" = 5' CR-3 11 00 5'10' 00 5'10' G B G B G B GB GB G B G B G B G B G B G B G B OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HILLARY DRIVE AND ROWLEY CIRCLE CURB RAMP PLAN 1" = 5' CR-4 12 00 5'10' 00 5'10' GBGBGB GB GB GB OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES AND FELIPA COURT CURB RAMP PLAN 1" = 5' CR-5 13 00 5'10' 00 5'10'00 5'10' GBGBGB GB GB GB OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES AND FELIPA COURT CURB RAMP PLAN 1" = 5' CR-6 14 00 5'10' 00 5'10'00 5'10' G B G B GB GB G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B G B HOWARD DRIVE R O W L E Y C I R C L E HILLARY D R I V E HO W A R D D R I V E OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 HILLARY DRIVE & ROWLEY CIRCLE AT HOWARD DRIVE STRIPING AND SIGNAGE PLAN 1" = 20' S-1 15 00 20'40' 00 20'40' ROWLEY C I R C L E GE L D E R T DR I V E GB GB GB G B G B GB GB GBGB GB GBGB RO W L E Y C I R C L E HILLARY DRI V E OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 1" = 20' S-2 16 00 20'40' 00 20'40' GELDERT DRIVE & HILLARY DRIVE AT ROWLEY CIRCLE STRIPING AND SIGNAGE PLAN FE L I P A C O U R T AVENIDA MIRAFLORES HI L L A R Y D R I V E OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 1" = 20' S-3 17 00 20'40' FELIPA COURT & HILLARY DRIVE AT AVENIDA MIRAFLORES STRIPING AND SIGNAGE PLAN OF REVISIONS TOWN OF TIBURON 18 02/17/2022 1936 University Ave., Suite 250 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 343-6400 DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS 20022 Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R S TATEOF CAL I F O R N I A R E G I S T E R E D P R OFESSIONAL E N G I N E E R CIVIL A N D R E W K.L E E No. 86247 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 1" = 10' CD-1 18 1" MILL AND OVERLAY MATCH TO EXISTING SURFACE MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION 1.25" HMA OVERLAY(3/8" MIX) (SEE NOTE) EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION PLACE AC PLUG AT EDGE OF NEW CONCRETE TO FULL DEPTH OF ADJACENT PAVEMENT SECTION, SEE PLANS FOR AC PLUG WIDTHS EXISTING ROADWAY ELEVATION NEW CONCRETE, SEE PLANS 2' 2" DEEP GRIND AND AC CONFORM SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 2' MIN EXHIBIT 2 Rev. 0 May 2016 Agreement 00 5200 - 1 Del Mar Middle School Traffic Calming Improvements DOCUMENT 00 5200 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated this [date] day of [Month], [20__], by and between [Enter Name of Contractor] whose place of business is located at [Address of Contractor] (Contractor), and TOWN OF TIBURON, a political subdivision of the state of California (Owner), acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in Owner by the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, Owner, through its BOARD on _______ day of ___________ awarded to Contractor the following Contract: DEL MAR MIDDLE SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT No. 20-ST-04 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and Owner agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 – SCOPE OF WORK OF THE CONTRACT 1.01 Work of the Contract A. Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications, Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents (Work). 1.02 Price for Completion of the Work A. Owner shall pay Contractor the following Contract Sum (Contract Sum) for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto. B. The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any). [ATTACHMENT] The Contract Sum is all inclusive and includes all Work; all federal, state, and local taxes on materials and equipment, and labor furnished by Contractor, its subcontractors, subconsultants, architects, engineers, and" vendors or otherwise arising out of Contractor's performance of the Work, including any increases in any such taxes during the term of this Agreement; and any duties, fees, and royalties imposed with respect to any materials and equipment, labor or services. The taxes covered hereby include (but are not limited' to) occupational, sales, use, excise, unemployment, FICA, and income taxes, customs, duties, and any and all other taxes on any item or service that is part of the Work, whether such taxes are normally included in the price of such item or service or are normally stated separately. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party shall bear such state or local inventory, real property, personal property or fixtures taxes as may be properly assessed against it by applicable taxing authorities. ARTICLE 2 – COMMENCEMENT AND Completion of Work 2.01 Commencement of Work A. Contractor shall commence Work on the date established in the Notice to Proceed (Commencement Date). B. Owner reserves the right to modify or alter the Commencement Date. 2.02 Completion of Work Rev. 0 May 2016 Agreement 00 5200 - 2 Del Mar Middle School Traffic Calming Improvements A. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work within Fifty (50) Working Days from the Commencement Date. ARTICLE 3 – PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES 3.01 Owner’s Project Manager A. Owner has designated the Town Engineer as its Project Manager to act as Owner’s Representative in all matters relating to the Contract Documents. If Project Manager is an employee of Owner, Project Manager is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to Owner including, without limitation, all releases and indemnities. B. Project Manager shall have final authority over all matters pertaining to the Contract Documents and shall have sole authority to modify the Contract Documents on behalf of Owner, to accept work, and to make decisions or actions binding on Owner, and shall have sole signature authority on behalf of Owner. C. Owner may assign all or part of the Project Manager’s rights, responsibilities and duties to a Construction Manager, or other Owner Representative. 3.02 Contractor’s Project Manager and Other Key Personnel A. Contractor has designated [________] as its Project Manager to act as Contractor’s Representative in all matters relating to the Contract Documents. B. Contractor has designated the following other Key Personnel for the Project: Name Position ARTICLE 4 – LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN COMPLETION OF WORK 4.01 Liquidated Damage Amounts A. As liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay Owner two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work, until achieved. 4.02 Scope of Liquidated Damages A. Limitations and stipulations regarding liquidated damages are set forth in Document 00 7200 (General Conditions). ARTICLE 5 – CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 5.01 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, Addenda, and Modifications thereto: Document 00 5100 Notice of Award Document 00 5200 Agreement Document 00 5500 Notice to Proceed Document 00 6113.13 Construction Performance Bond Rev. 0 May 2016 Agreement 00 5200 - 3 Del Mar Middle School Traffic Calming Improvements Document 00 6113.16 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond Document 00 6290 Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits Document 00 6325 Substitution Request Form Document 00 6530 Release of Claims Document 00 6536 Guaranty Document 00 7200 General Conditions Document 00 7301 Supplemental General Conditions Document 00 7316 Supplementary Conditions – Insurance and Indemnification Document 00 7380 Apprenticeship Program Document 00 9113 Addenda 2018 California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications and any revisions thereto 2018 California Department of Transportation Standard Plans and any revisions thereto Drawings and Technical Specifications Prepared by Parisi Transportation Consulting 5.02 There are no Contract Documents other than those that are listed above. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented as provided in Document 00 7200 (General Conditions). ARTICLE 6 – Miscellaneous 6.01 Terms and abbreviations used in this Agreement are defined in Document 00 7200 (General Conditions) and Section 01 4200 (References and Definitions) and will have the meaning indicated therein. 6.02 Contractor and Owner understand and agree that in no instance are the persons signing this Agreement for or on behalf of Owner or acting as an employee, agent, or representative of Owner, liable on this Agreement or any of the Contract Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise. Contractor and Owner further understand and agree that liability of Owner is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contract Documents or applicable law. 6.03 Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771(a), Contractor represents that it and all of its Subcontractors are currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. Contractor covenants that any additional or substitute Subcontractors will be similarly registered and qualified. 6.04 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the awarding body all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with §16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the public works contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time Owner tenders final payment to Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the parties. 6.05 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are on file at the Owner’s Facilities Development and Management Division, may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations website [http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm] and are deemed included in the Contract Documents, and shall be made available to any interested party on request. Pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1860 and 1861, in accordance with Labor Code Section 3700, every contractor will be required to secure the payment of compensation to their employees. Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Labor Code Section 3700 that require every Rev. 0 May 2016 Agreement 00 5200 - 4 Del Mar Middle School Traffic Calming Improvements employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of the Contract Documents. 6.06 This Agreement and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the Town of Tiburon, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in the Superior Court for the County of Marin, California. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement in quadruplicate the day and year first above written. CONTRACTOR: [CONTRACTOR’S NAME] By: ______________________________ By: _______________________________ (Signature) (Signature) Its: _______________________________ Its: ________________________________ Title (If Corporation: Chairman, President Title (If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant or Vice President) Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or Assistant Treasurer) OWNER: TOWN OF TIBURON By: (Signature) (Print Name) (Title) Attest: Secretary (Print Name) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY THIS __ DAY OF _____, [20__] By: Attorney for Owner (Print Name) Rev. 0 May 2016 Agreement 00 5200 - 5 Del Mar Middle School Traffic Calming Improvements END OF DOCUMENT TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Diversity Inclusion Task Force Subject: Consider Approval of the Town Council’s Resolution Against Hate and Anti-Semitism Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Council will consider approval of a resolution, made on behalf of the Town Council, against hate and anti-Semitism. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Adopt the resolution (Exhibit 1). BACKGROUND On March 9, 2022, the Diversity Inclusion Task Force discussed requesting the Town Council make a statement condemning the recent distribution of anti-Semitic flyers to homes and the spread of hate in Tiburon. Members of the task force agreed to develop a statement for the Council’s consideration. The draft resolution (Exhibit 1) was presented to the Diversity Inclusion Task Force on April 13, 2022, and the task force expressed satisfaction with the resolution. The resolution now comes before the Town Council for adoption. 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. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: AI-4 Town Council Meeting April 20, 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 resolution (Exhibit 1). Exhibit(s): 1. Draft Resolution Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk EXHIBIT 1 Page 1 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 04/20/2022 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON CONDEMNING ANTISEMITISM AND HATE WHEREAS, in 2018—following two incidents of antisemitic graffiti within the Town of Tiburon—the Town Council approved Resolution 25-2018, celebrating diversity and condemning all discrimination, harassment, hate crimes, hate incidents, prejudice, and bigotry in all forms; WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 45-2018, the Town committed itself to speak out against any future hateful incidents occurring within the Town; WHEREAS, in recent years the Town has taken important steps to celebrate diversity and promote inclusion, including the creation of the Town’s Diversity Inclusion Task Force; WHEREAS, the Town has unfortunately been afflicted once again with an incident involving hate speech and antisemitism; WHEREAS, during the weekend of February 20, 2022, hated-filled and antisemitic fliers were distributed to dozens of homes in Tiburon; WHEREAS, hundreds of such fliers were also distributed throughout the Bay Area and the United States in recent weeks; WHEREAS, antisemitism and hate crimes are a real and growing threat to Jews in Tiburon and throughout the United States. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reports that acts of assault, vandalism, and harassment against Jews are currently at the highest levels since the ADL began recording such incidents in 1979; WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon is a community that welcomes diversity and does not tolerate hatred or bigotry of any kind, and will stand by all of its residents to support them against hatred and bigotry; WHEREAS, the month of May is Jewish American Heritage Month, celebrating the diverse and significant contributions of Jewish Americans to American history; WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 2282 has been introduced and is now pending in the State Legislature, which expands and strengthens the definition of hate crimes to include committing any of the following acts for the purpose of terrorizing others: hanging a noose; displaying a symbol of hate, including the Nazi swastika; or burning or desecrating religious symbols; NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby resolves: Section 1. The Town forcefully condemns the recent antisemitic incident involving the distribution of hate-filled fliers to Town residents; Page 2 of 2 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2022 DRAFT 04/20/2022 Section 2. The Town affirms its commitment to diversity and inclusion, and its refusal to tolerate hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in any form; Section 3. The Town declares its support and celebration of Jewish American Heritage Month, recognizing the rich cultural heritage of its Jewish residents; and Section 4. The Town expresses its support for the passage of AB 2282, which will make it easier for law enforcement in the future to prosecute hateful incidents and prevent them from occurring in the Town of Tiburon. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 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 Appointment to the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager n/a ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Council will consider making an appointment to the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1.Make one appointment to the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee; or2.Continue the item and direct staff to continue to accept applications for the open seat. BACKGROUND The Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee has had one vacancy since February 16, 2022 when Eddy Dominguez submitted his resignation from the committee. The vacancy was advertised according to regular appointments procedure. The application period closed on March 17, 2022. Staff received one application for the position, and the Council has interviewed the only candidate: Victoria Gazulis. Her application is attached as Exhibit 1. 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 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: AI-5 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 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. Make one appointment to the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee; or 2. Continue the item and direct staff to continue to accept applications for the open seat. Exhibit(s): 1. Victoria Gazulis Application Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk EXHIBIT 1 Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 lstefani@townoftiburon.org 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon’s local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Applicant Name Full Name: Date: Areas of Interest Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Victoria Christina Gazulis 3/12/22 1 Applicant Information Address: Street Address Apartment/Unit # City State ZIP Code Phone:Email: Why did you select your area(s) of interest? What are your applicable qualifications and experiences? Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. 190 Rancho Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 925-783-7493 vgazulis@gmail.com Sports and recreation have been central to my identity since I was a child. As a toddler, I remember attending my dad's recreation softball games, and my mom's recreation volleyball games. The sense of camaraderie was unmistakable, with cheers and hi-fives abundant. These early memories propelled me into a lifetime of sports, beginning with ballet and swimming when I was under 5, to a decade spent playing softball and volleyball. I was a college rower turned cheerleader at UCLA, and an active co-ed volleyball player post-college. Sports have a powerful way of connecting people, boosting confidence, and encouraging positive self-care practices. Now that I have a daughter of my own and have planted roots in Tiburon, my sense of community has been fostered through movement. Whether it be the Spring Carnival & Egg Hunt, tennis or music, The Ranch is the cornerstone of community enrichment, and I look forward to the opportunity to contribute to its future. I work in Sales as Google's Partner Lead to Nike, responsible for developing digital marketing strategies and solutions for one of the worldns largest and most iconic brands. Nike believes everyone is an athlete - If you have a body, you are an athlete. The future of sport is a common thread of conversation, as Millennial and Gen Z generations reinvent the meaning of sport. I'm excited to infuse these ideas into The Ranch as we enter the "new normal" post-pandemic era and look to engage and mobilize our community. I bring with me fifteen years in the advertising industry, and a successful track record leading high-performing teams across several industries in the adtech and martech space. Inm a former recruiter for UCLA basketball and football, and current member of the Wooden Athletic Fund. I began my career in sales and marketing for NASCAR before moving into the digital space. VICTORIA GAZULIS An enthusiastic account executive and thought leader with extensive sales, BD, account management and team leadership experience +1 925 783 7493 vgazulis@gmail.com https://linkedin.com/in/victoriazahn San Francisco SUMMARY QUALIFICATIONS ●Sales executive by trade ●11 years with advertising technology (adtech) companies (sales, BD, account management, and marketing) ●Closer track record, including #1 deal of 2018 ($60M) and history of fee growth on renewal (>$1M in past 6 months) ●Silicon Valley mindset acquired during 9 years working in SF Bay Area ●European Union passport (dual citizenship - US and Malta) ●Great Technology and Financial Services business network Business development & sales Grew 5 digital marketers from 6 to 8 figures in 1-3 years. Extensive experience in consultative selling, including targeting, proposing, closing and up / x-selling, for CMO, CIO and CTO organizations. FinServ credibility & trust Served 10+ Financial Services customers (Insurance, Banking, Credit, Brokerage, Wealth Management) across the US and globally. Led many projects with VP / CXO sponsorship. Track record of “land and expand” with customers like Visa, Farmers Insurance, Wells Fargo, State Farm and Schwab. Breadth & depth Helped clients address issues like: drive organizational change, accelerate digital & tech impact, navigate risk complexity, align costs with strategy, optimize deals, create unique customer experience, strengthen trust & transparency, stimulate innovation. Self-driven Led adtech and martech growth of Central / West book of FinServ business, including 10 Fortune 500 companies. Project management Led many x-functional team projects (engineering, BD, sales, marketing, solutions, legal, finance, etc.). Led projections of up to 40 people. Experience with strategy, planning, marketing, legal, partnerships, recruiting, solution development, reporting, etc. Tech & digital savviness On the frontlines of the changing digital ads ecosystem and evolving privacy landscape with the introduction of GDPR, CCPA, ITP and ETP. Sales scrappiness & grit Unlocked accounts who were dark for as much as 10 years, revived relationships and built bridges with marketers and agencies alike. EXPERIENCE Senior Technology Account Executive, Leader of FinServ West Book of Business Google October 2018 - Current San Francisco •Platforms Technology lead across Fortune 500 clients, spanning adtech, martech, and cloud for marketing •Lead Fortune 500 Financial Services advertisers into a privacy-first space given the changing regulatory landscape through operationalization of their 1P data with C4M/ADH and implementation of site analytics with GA360. From Digital Media Manager to Account Executive, Multiple Roles Google May 2013 - September 2018 San Francisco •Dual role in consultative sales and account management on Retail vertical before moving to Account Executive role across Social & Information and Financial Services verticals Business Development, Account Manager to Buyer, Multiple Roles Conversant (formerly ValueClick, Inc.) September 2009 - May 2013 Los Angeles and San Francisco •Acquired and strengthened the company's comScore 400 and premier publisher and media relationships to accommodate and fulfill ValueClick Media's $30M average quarterly display budgets Digital Account Executive ID Media (Interpublic Group, IPG) January 2008 - September 2009 Los Angeles •Researched, developed, and implemented online search and display campaigns based on cost-per-click and cost-per-lead goals Account Executive Auto Club Speedway (formerly California Speedway, NASCAR) July 2007 - January 2008 Los Angeles •#1 account executive in ticket volume across 2 NASCAR series races CAPABILITIES EDUCATION Sales BA, Global Studies Specialization in French UCLA International Institute University of California, Los Angeles September 2003 - June 2007 Los Angeles,CA (USA) Corporate MBA Certificate Google Business Academy In partnership with Duke Fuqua School of Business September 2016 - May 2017 EMEA and NA LANGUAGES WHAT OTHERS SAID “Victoria and team have provided the best support of any DoubleClick team we have worked with. One of the key reasons we've grown our investment with GMP is because of her education to my team and OMD, regarding the benefits of centralizing many of our digital efforts with Google. Victoria has also jumped in and is working directly with my counterparts to discuss solutions to connect our site analytics data with ad serving to fully understand the value we are getting across programmatic, search and social.” Major Insurance Company Marketing Director "Victoria possesses an uncanny ability to quickly grasp the fundamentals of a client's underlying business and the priorities of their senior leadership, distill these insights into soluble marketing challenges, and position the value of Google's products through this prism." Google Marketing Platform Partner Global VP of Consulting Industries served Proven traits (as seen by others) EXTRA CURRICULAR Chair of the Board, Challenge Day; Auxiliary Board Treasurer, San Francisco Yacht Club; Founding Board Member, The Nines; Founder, Cypress Hollow Neighborhood Watch; Member, Wooden Athletic Fund; Mom (since 2020); Volleyball outside hitter; Pilates enthusiast; Fashion; Pets TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 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 Add Chapter 14-3.313 (Urban Lot Splits) to Chapter 14 (Subdivision of Land) and Chapter 16.53 (two-unit developments) to Chapter 16 (Zoning) Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Council is considering adoption of revisions to the Tiburon Municipal Code by adding Chapter 14-3.313 (Urban Lot Splits) to Chapter 14 (Subdivision of Land) and Chapter 16.53 (two-unit developments) to Chapter 16 (Zoning). RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff Recommends the Town Council: 1. Hold a Public Hearing on the draft Ordinance (Exhibit 4) and consider any testimony. 2. Make a motion to read by title only and carry the motion. 3. Read the title of the ordinance. 4. Hold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings. If the ordinance is passed for first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. BACKGROUND On September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) into which amends or adds several sections to the Government Code (sections 65852.21, 66411.7, and 66452.6). SB 9 became effective on January 1, 2022, thereby streamlining the development of housing and allowing multiple housing units on single family zoned properties and requires local jurisdictions to grant such project through a ministerial approval process. In effect the law requires ministerial approval of two-unit developments and lot splits in single-family residential zones that meet certain criteria. The intent of SB 9 is to address California’s housing shortage by increasing density in single-family neighborhoods, allowing additional units to be built on a lot that is currently zoned for a single-family residence. SB 9 builds on previous State legislation for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) but provides greater opportunities for sale and ownership of the resulting units. While SB 9 mandates that two-unit developments and urban lot splits be allowed through a ministerial review in the single-family zones. Local jurisdictions are allowed to require projects to TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April, 20, 2022 Agenda Item: PH-2 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 meet objective subdivision and development standards, as well as objective design review standards, as long as those objective standards do not otherwise physically preclude the construction of two units or preclude either of the units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. (Government Code § 65852.21((b)(2)(A); Government Code § 66411.7(c)(2)(A).) Although the Town of Tiburon is not required to adopt an ordinance to implement SB 9, staff recommends the Town Council amend the residential zoning regulations to establish clarity and certainty for staff, property owners, and the larger community. In addition, staff recommends the Town Council amend Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code pertaining to lot splits (Parcel Maps) to allow for ministerial processing of maps and applying applicable standards, also required under SB 9. In this case, clarity and certainty are particularly important because the ministerial process required by SB 9 is implemented entirely by Town staff without any public notice, public hearings to review or assist in the approval of a development. The proposed amendments to the residential zoning districts zoning are intended to serve two purposes for the Town: 1. Establish clear and objective standards for the review of future applications by staff for lot splits and new housing in all residential zoning districts that permit development of single-family homes as required by SB 9. 2. Encourage well-designed infill housing in the single-family residential family in support of the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element of the General Plan is currently being updated for the period 2023-2031. The Housing Element establishes the goals, policies, and actions necessary to ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet Tiburon’s RHNA, which is 639 units. In 2021, seven (7) ADUs were approved and four (4) JADUs were approved. Of those approved, two (2) have been completed and one single family home was constructed. SB 9 provides authority to develop each lot with a total of 4 units and also permits local jurisdictions to limit infill development to 4 units by prohibiting ADU’s and JADU’s on lots that have developed two units and or split parcels. SB 9 provides authority to develop each lot with a total of 4 units and also permits local jurisdictions to limit infill development to 4 units resulting 8 units after a lot split has been granted. While not expected to significantly increase housing production in residential zones, this easing of restrictions on two-unit developments and land divisions in the residential zones can provide opportunities for infill development, as well as affordable rental and home ownership opportunities. SB 9 allows for the development of new, for-sale homes, either on a newly subdivided lot, with the addition of one residential unit where a single-family home already exists, or through the conversion of existing single-family homes into two family homes. This ability to create duplexes and/or split a lot and convey new units with a distinct title would allow property owners to pursue a wider range of financing options than have typically been available for ADU construction. A report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley (Exhibit 1) projects that the impact of SB 9 on housing development in California will be moderate. The report states: “Under our business-as-usual scenario, we estimate 1,800,000 new ADUS/JADUS are currently market-feasible and could be built under today’s zoning laws across California’s 7,500,000 existing single-family housing parcels. With SB 9, we estimate that approximately 700,000 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 additional new units would become market-feasible, representing a 40 percent increase in existing development potential across California’s single-family housing parcels.” The SB 9 potential for additional units and/or lot splits on parcels with an existing single family is more difficult to determine. If staff excludes parcels that do not meet the State’s eligibility criteria and then assumes about 20% of those sites are economically feasible for development, as determined in an analysis done by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, there are approximately 420 potential units. However, HCD will require further analysis and evidence to support the projected production of SB 9 units on non-vacant land, including property owner interest (which could be assessed through a survey), and zoning standards and incentives adopted by the jurisdiction that would encourage and facilitate development. On March 23, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, took public testimony and recommended a maximum height of 16 feet for any two-unit development, and reorganization and formatting fixes on the document. The Commission then unanimously passed Resolution No. 2022-001, recommending the Town Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapters 14 and 16 of the Municipal Code. A copy of the Resolution is attached as Exhibit 2, with the Staff Report from the March 23 meeting attached as Exhibit 3. ANALYSIS The Town of Tiburon Municipal Code currently allows single family residential units and Accessory Dwelling Units within all residential zones. SB 9 requires local jurisdictions to approve up to two units on each residential lot and can permit two additional units with an ADU and JADU. A local jurisdiction is not required to permit more than two-units on a parcel created through an urban split or developed as part of the allowable two units per lot provision of SB 9. Staff has prepared a proposed ordinance for Council consideration which is consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance is attached as Exhibit 4. The proposed ordinance recommends a process to approve two units per parcel and prohibits ADUs and JADUs-limiting the number of total units resulting from a lot split to four (4) (i.e., 2 units per parcel resulting from a lot split). There have been a number of development inquiries regarding development of residential units since the SB 9 became effective on January 1, 2022. Staff has not received any applications prior to or as part of the consideration of adoption of the attached Draft ordinance. The proposed ordinance includes objective standards that would limit the lot size, height, color, orientation of windows, and other similar objective standards. Such standards are similar to what was imposed in the ADU ordinance. And as required, the proposed ordinance includes exceptions to the standards such that the ordinance would not otherwise physically preclude the construction of 800 square foot units. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town as a result of adoption of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. CLIMATE IMPACT Staff has determined this action will have no direct climate impact to Tiburon. Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), adoption of an ordinance to implement SB 9 is not considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the TMC implementing SB 9 are not subject to review under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hold a Public Hearing on the draft Ordinance (Exhibit 4) and consider any testimony. 2. Make a motion to read by title only and carry the motion. 3. Read the title of the ordinance. 4. Hold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings. If the ordinance is passed for first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. Exhibit(s): 1. Terner Report 2. Planning Commission resolution proposing the amendments 3. Planning Commission staff report dated March 23, 2022 4. Draft Town Council Ordinance Prepared By: Dina Tasini, Director of Community Development EXHIBIT 1 Copyright 2021 Terner Center for Housing InnovationFor more information on the Terner Center, see our website at www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 Will Allowing Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Family Create New Homes? Assessing the Viability of New Housing Supply Under California’s Senate Bill 9 AUTHORS: BEN METCALF, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TERNER CENTER DAVID GARCIA, POLICY DIRECTOR, TERNER CENTER IAN CARLTON, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, MAPCRAFT LABS KATE MACFARLANE, PRODUCT MANAGER, MAPCRAFT LABS Exhibit 4 A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 2 Introduction In recent years, California lawmakers have proposed a number of legislative changes to address the state’s ongoing housing shortage and affordability crisis. While the most ambitious of these efforts have not passed, momentum has increased around one solution in particular: legislation to allow modest increases in smaller-sized units in existing single-family neighbor- hoods. In 2020, Senate Bill 1120—which would have allowed for up to four new homes on existing single-family parcels— passed both the California Assembly and Senate, but fell short of becoming law as time ran out at the end of the session. This year, Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins has introduced Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which proposes a similar policy shift. SB 9 has now passed through the State Senate and is under discussion in the State Assembly; if approved by the Assembly, it may be poised to be the most significant housing bill coming out of California’s current legislative session. SB 9 has potential to expand the supply of smaller-scaled housing, particularly in higher-resourced, single-family neighbor- hoods. In this way, SB 9 builds on recent state legislation that opened up access to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for virtu- ally all California single-family parcels. What distinguishes SB 9 is that it allows for the development of new, for-sale homes, either on a newly subdivided lot or through the conversion of existing single- family homes into multiple units. This ability to create duplexes and/or split the lot and convey new units with a distinct title would allow property owners to pursue a wider range of financing options than are available for ADU construction to build these new homes.1 In so doing, SB 9 could open up new homeownership oppor- tunities at more attainable price points for prospective purchasers, who would be able to apply for a traditional mortgage to buy the home. Yet, the likelihood of creating new housing and homeownership opportunities as a result of SB 9 largely depends on local context. While Senate Bill 9 does not apply to single-family parcels in historic districts, fire hazard zones, and rural areas, local market prices and develop- ment costs play a large role in determining where there is financial viability for the addition of new homes. Moreover, phys- ical constraints, such as small lot sizes and other local regulations, can limit the number of new homes built as a result of this bill. To assess the potential impact of SB 9 on new housing supply, this anal- ysis assesses the market feasibility of new homes as allowed by the current version of the Bill (as of July 2021).2 This analysis finds that SB 9’s primary impact will be to unlock incrementally more units on parcels that are already financially feasible under existing law, typically through the simple subdivision of an existing structure. Relatively few new single-family parcels are expected to become financially feasible for added units as a direct consequence of this bill. While this analysis does not attempt to measure the actual rate of uptake for adding new units to single-family parcels, it is reasonable to assume that SB 9 will modestly accelerate the addition of new units relative to the status quo by facilitating access to conventional mortgage products for multiple households able to purchase homes on newly subdivided single-family parcels. A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 3 Background California’s recent housing laws have largely failed to unlock significant housing production changes that would ease the ongoing housing and homelessness crisis. One of the state’s more effective housing solutions has been recent laws removing barriers to the construction and financing of ADUs. In 2016, Senate Bill 1069 and Assembly Bill 2299 expanded the ability of homeowners to build ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs). Subsequent legislation (Assembly Bill 68, Assembly Bill 881, Senate Bill 13) removed other barriers to ADU development, including lowering impact fees and removing owner occupancy requirements. The impacts of this legislation are already apparent throughout the state. Published state data demonstrates that the initial 2017 ADU law had immediate impacts: California jurisdictions went from issuing 5,911 ADU permits in 2018 to 15,571 in 2019, with ADU completions following a similar upward trend, more than tripling over the same period (from 1,984 to 6,668 units) (Figure 1).3 The ADU laws that took effect in 2019 allowing two ADUs on single-family parcels and more on multi-family parcels are already having a significant impact on gently adding density across the state in single- and multi-family properties. In early 2021, the City of Los Angeles reports processing upwards of 20,000 ADUs where ADUs make up nearly 40 percent of all housing building permits, and the City of San Jose reports that ADUs make up 38 percent of all housing building permits.4 This progress signals the significance of easing approvals and barriers to smaller- scale, infill development in low-density areas. Figure 1. ADU Permits and Completions in California, 2018 and 2019 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Permits Completions 2018 2019 Source: Chapple, K., et. al. (2020). “Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance.” Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf. A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 4 The early success of recent ADU legisla- tion has prompted lawmakers to examine similar policies that would incrementally unlock more homes in low-density urban infill neighborhoods where the housing crisis is particularly acute. Such poli- cies would also align with state climate change policies encouraging additional homes near jobs and services to reduce vehicle miles travelled. Last year, SB 1120 proposed allowing up to four units in single-family-zoned parcels throughout the state. Analysis by the Terner Center of SB 1120 found that nearly six million single-family parcels statewide would theoretically be eligible, a significant expansion of buildable area in Califor- nia.5 For example, if just 5 percent of those parcels created new two-unit structures as a result of SB 1120, that would have resulted in 597,706 new homes. That’s more than five times the number of new homes that have been built in California annually since 2015.6 However, in a session marked by the disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, SB1120 ran out of time to be sent to the governor’s desk, despite passing both the Assembly and the Senate. SB 9 was introduced with nearly identical language to its predecessor, SB 1120, but as the bill has progressed through the legisla- tive process, some important changes have been made. Most notably, properties that have developed an ADU are not eligible for the density or lot split provisions of SB 9, and jurisdictions would have the option of imposing owner-occupancy requirements for lot split applicants, where the applicant would have to make one of the units on the site their primary residence for at least one year. This owner-occupancy provision has been added to address concerns that current homeowners could be incentiv- ized to sell to private entities interested in speculative investment on single-family parcels and to encourage use of the law to create more opportunities for California families to buy a home. The provisions also ensure the law cannot be used to divide homes occupied by renters as a measure to prevent displacement. Other new provi- sions have made the legislation potentially more impactful. For example, SB 9 allows more flexibility in how the lot is split. SB1120 required that both newly created lots be of equal size, potentially limiting the number of instances where new homes would be feasible. New language in SB 9 requires that one of the newly created parcels only needs to be more than 40 percent of the original parcel size. Table 1 summarizes the key provisions of SB 9 as of July 2021. A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 5 Location • The parcel, lot, or development must be located in a single-family residential zone. • The parcel cannot not be located in a historic district or be a historic property itself (as defined by the state or local county or city). • The parcel cannot be located in a high fire zone area. • The parcel must be in a city whose boundaries include some portion of an urbanized area or urban cluster as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau. • If the parcel lies in an unincorporated area, then the parcel at stake must be a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area/cluster. Parcel Size • The parcel must be a minimum of 2,400 square feet in size. • The newly created parcel as a result of a lot split may not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel. • A locality cannot impose any standards that would preclude the construction of up to two units or physically precluding either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area. • A side and rear setback of up to four feet is allowed. Anti-Displacement • The lot split cannot require the demolition or alteration of a housing unit currently serving moderate-, low- or very-low income household(s) or a rent-controlled unit. • The lot split cannot result in the demolition or alteration of housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years or where an owner has used the Ellis Act to remove a rental unit from the market within the last 15 years. • A jurisdiction may impose an owner-occupancy restriction for lot splits, where the applicant must intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of one year from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. Other • The parcel cannot have been created from a previous lot split as provided by this policy. • The same person (or another party acting on their behalf) cannot perform a lot split on adjacent lots. Table 1: Eligibility Criteria Proposed for Split Lots Under SB 9 A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 6 To inform our model, several assump- tions were made about market conditions and trends. For example, all properties with single-family detached land uses were assumed to conform to zoning and currently have exactly one existing unit (e.g., no ADUs). In combination with tax assessor data, we estimated the value of each existing single-family property on those parcels. MapCraft calculates stan- dard development “pencil out” models to compute snapshots of market feasi- bility on every relevant parcel, both under current policies and as proposed in SB 9. These models are based on the financial evaluations conducted by developers to assess an investment’s viability early in the development process by balancing the cost of developing the site with expected rental or sale income.8 MapCraft’s models of small-scale development look at finan- cial feasibility from the perspectives of owner-occupants, owner-occupant land- lords, small-scale investors, and commer- cial investors, with market-feasible unit potential based on a probabilistic blend of all possible development options. Finan- cial expectations of investors and lending terms are based on conversations with industry professionals and are updated by MapCraft regularly. MapCraft’s calculations incorporate data and assumptions about current rents, sales prices, construction costs, and investors’ expected return on investment rates, and are validated by ECONorthwest, a West Coast economics consultancy. MapCraft’s market demand information relies on multiple sources, including CoStar, Zillow, tax assessors, U.S. Census, and transaction records. MapCraft’s construction cost information is based on interviews and RS Means. Finally, the modeling relies on Methodology It is unrealistic to assume that under SB 9, every single-family lot would be split, or that every existing single-family home would be demolished and replaced with four new units. For example, some lots may be too small, have other existing structures or ADUs, have a history of being rented, or other physical conditions that prevent changes. Some owners may have no interest in developing their prop- erty. And finally, even if a property owner is interested in pursuing new development on their land, trying to recoup this invest- ment with market-rate rental or sales will prove financially infeasible in many instances. To develop a better estimate of the potential impact of SB 9 on new supply, we conducted an analysis of how many new homes would be both physically eligible and financially feasible as a result of SB 9, as well as what types of develop- ment would be most likely, taking into account on-the-ground market dynamics. We partnered with MapCraft Labs, which developed a financial feasibility model to assess market-feasible housing capacity on existing parcels with detached single- family homes. The base layer for the analysis is a parcel dataset from Urban- Footprint which includes all counties in California with populations greater than 45,000 people, and covers homes built prior to 2020.7 This dataset includes roughly 7.5 million single-family parcels across the state. We used MapCraft’s Lab analysis tool to determine what types and scales of housing development would be feasible with an approach that considers construction costs, market demand, financing, land use policies, and individual parcel characteristics. A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 7 assumptions about parking requirements based on previous Terner Center research, typical unit sizes, and other factors that inform development.9 The provisions of SB 9 would allow for a variety of development options. For this analysis we examined the most likely devel- opment scenarios as shown in Appendix B. Our business-as-usual scenario evaluates development feasibility for housing supply changes currently permissible under single-family zoning, while the alternative policy scenario considers the additional set of development options allowed under SB 9. For example, under the business-as- usual scenario, a homeowner may decide to build an ADU but would only be able to split the parcel into two lots, each with two homes, under the alternative policy scenario allowed under SB 9. Our estimates also account for the fact that SB 9 includes anti-displacement language that prohibits alteration or demolition of renter-occupied homes. To approximate this, we used the percentage of single- family home rentals in each census tract (as determined by ACS data) to discount results for development outcomes that alter or demolish the existing structure. We also examined the potential impacts of owner-occupancy requirements by removing financial scenarios that assume all the new units are rentals, as well as development scenarios that require demo- lition of an existing structure. In addition, we assumed that owners received a 25 percent discount for the unit they occu- pied in split lot development scenarios. Market-feasible capacity is not a forecast of future production. While this analysis identifies the number of market-feasible units, in most cases these market-feasible units will take years to be developed, and some may never get built. This analysis considers the market feasibility of redevelopment on each eligible single-family parcel in isolation, and assumes that every property owner is maximizing the economic potential of their lot. However, that is not the case for several reasons. First, the most economically feasible use does not consider the motivations and preferences of individual property owners. Any change in use requires the coopera- tion of the owner, either to sell the site or to redevelop it themselves. The economics All Single-Family Parcels Eligible Parcels Market-Feasible Parcels DevelopedParcelsTBD Figure 2: Production Funnel A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 8 may suggest that the highest value of a house may be to tear it down and rebuild it into a much larger house, but if a home- owner prefers a small house or the existing architecture, they’re not going to rebuild. Converting a house to a duplex and renting out half may be most profitable for a home- owner, but that will not happen if that homeowner is uninterested in living more closely with others in what was formerly “their” space or in becoming a landlord or homeseller. Even when a property owner does wish to redevelop their site, they may lack the upfront capital and sophistica- tion to initiate the process; and then may be unable to access financing due to a low credit score or other underwriting barrier. In addition, redevelopment does not happen instantaneously; it requires home- owner awareness and interest, available construction industry capacity, a suitable financing ecosystem and viable routinized business models for development in order to proceed. State ADU laws, for example, have taken several years to ramp up as awareness, delivery models, industry and local agency capacity have adapted to law changes. It is reasonable to assume that it may take years for that capacity to fully emerge in California if SB 9 becomes law. Findings SB 9 could enable the creation of over 700,000 new homes that would otherwise not be market feasible. Under our business-as-usual scenario, we estimate 1,800,000 new ADUS/JADUS are currently market-feasible and could be built under today’s zoning laws across Cali- fornia’s 7,500,000 existing single-family housing parcels. With SB 9, we estimate that approximately 700,000 additional new units would become market-feasible, representing a 40 percent percent increase in existing development potential across California’s single-family housing parcels. All Single-Family Parcels7.5 million Eligible Parcels6.1 million Market-Feasible Parcels~410,000(including 110,000newly feasible parcels) DevelopedParcelsTBD Figure 3: Parcel Development Funnel (Total Numbers) A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 9 SB 9 would enable the development of more units on 410,000 single- family parcels, of which only 110,000 parcels would become newly feasible. Overall, SB 9 would change the development feasibility of a relatively small number of parcels. First, the conditions stipulated by the legislation limit the number of parcels that can utilize the bill’s provisions, as illustrated in Figure 3. For example, the bill’s current limitations on new development in high fire hazard areas, historic districts, non-urbanized areas, and existing renter homes removes approximately 1.4 million existing single- family homes from consideration.10 Of the 6.1 million remaining parcels, the majority would not be affected because of an absence of physical capacity or financial feasibility. However, on 5.4 percent of current single-family parcels, SB 9 would enable new development. For 110,000 single-family parcels (1.5 percent of total single-family parcels), SB 9 would enable new development where none was financially feasible before, and for another 300,000 parcels, SB 9 would allow for more units than under our business-as- usual scenario. For the majority of single-family proper- ties, we find the most financially viable outcome is not to pursue any develop- ment whatsoever, both under our busi- ness-as-usual scenario and under our SB 9 scenario. Under our assumptions about today’s regulations, market conditions, and devel- opment alternatives, we found that doing nothing was the most likely option for California’s single-family parcels: devel- opment is not feasible for 80 percent of parcels (Figure 4). If SB 9 passed, 110,000 parcels would be newly devel- opable, causing the share of infeasible parcels to tick down slightly to 78 percent. The primary benefit of SB 9 comes from allowing slightly more units on parcels where development already makes sense and in opening up any added units to homeownership opportunities through the ability to legally subdivide those parcels. Figure 4. Likely Parcel Feasibility By Number of Feasible Units 78% 80% 1% 1% 12% 16% 7% 4% 2% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Under SB 9 Business-As-Usual No feasibility 1 New Unit 2 New Units 3 New Units 4 New Units A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 10 SB 9 is unlikely to lead to significant demolition of the existing stock. We found that nearly 97 percent of single- family homes would be retained under SB 9’s provisions, either without any modifi- cation or with less intensive development (e.g., subdividing the existing structure to enable a duplex conversion). In many places, existing zoning allows homes to be demolished and replaced with larger single-family homes, which we found was the most financially attractive scenario on 1 percent of all single-family parcels under our business-as-usual scenario. Under SB 9, the likelihood of tearing down a single- family home and replacing it with a larger single-family home falls by half to 0.5 percent due to other viable development opportunities. While SB 9 would provide a boost in three- and four-unit feasibility, duplexes would be the most domi- nant form of financially-feasible development. The majority of viable development oppor- tunities should SB 9 be enacted would result in two units per existing lot (Figure 5). Duplexes comprise an important block of this new capacity, accounting for 35 percent of all new units, two thirds of which would be in converted existing single-family homes. SB 9 would also enable a somewhat higher total number of feasible units by allowing greater uptake of three- and four-unit development. Figure 5. Estimates of Parcels with Feasible Capacity Under SB 9 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 1 Unit (1 for 1replacement of existinghome) 2 Units 3 Units 4 Units A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 11 There is wide regional variation in market-feasible units. The amount of new market-feasible units varies by region. Los Angeles County resulted in the most new market-feasible units under SB 9 with approximately 126,000 new homes. While significant, Los Angeles County also comprises both the most single-family parcels and SB 9 eligible parcels (Table 2). Analyzing new market-feasible units per eligible single- family parcel finds that Yuba, El Dorado, Sutter, and Nevada counties would see the most new market-feasible potential per parcel, although the overall number of new feasible units is relatively low compared to larger counties. Many coastal California counties exhibited higher than average per parcel unit ratios, such as Marin, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties, signaling that rents and sales prices there could support new homes resulting from SB 9. Mean- while, most Central Valley counties, such as Fresno, Merced, Kern, and Stanislaus, showed below average potential for new homes per parcel, reflecting lower finan- cial feasibility. For a list of all county results, see Appendix A. At the city level, the state’s most populous jurisdictions were all below average for market-feasible units per parcel, as shown in Table 3. Owner-occupancy requirements would have a limited negative impact on the market feasibility of devel- opment pursuant to SB 9, but they could have a much larger impact on actual delivery of units under SB 9. SB 9, as currently written, allows juris- dictions to impose owner-occupancy requirements for lot split applicants, but not for duplex conversions. Our analysis finds that, if every jurisdiction imposed owner-occupancy requirements, the total financially feasible units enabled by SB 9 would decrease by roughly 6 percent, or approximately 40,000 units. This limited impact reflects the fact that our model indicates only 10 percent of new units under SB 9 would be attributable to lot splits. While the owner-occupancy requirement would have only a modest impact on the financial viability of new units, it may have a significant effect on the number of owners willing to actually pursue new develop- ment on their properties. By preventing owners from splitting a lot unless they plan to live there themselves for at least a year, or from allowing a developer to take on development involving a lot-split pursuant to SB 9, the owner-occupancy requirement may reduce the number of homes that will result from SB 9. Shifts in construction costs and rental and sales prices could change development feasibility. In addition to assessing the potential impact of SB 9 using current market conditions, we also ran a sensitivity anal- ysis to examine the potential impact of SB 9 under different market scenarios. Our analysis found that a 10 percent decrease in construction costs could increase the amount of market-feasible units by 5 percent, or roughly 36,000 more units than the 700,000 baseline impact of SB 9. Local and state policymakers should therefore also consider policies that could help reduce the costs of production to enable policies such as SB 9 to work more effectively in more places. In the oppo- site direction, we found that a 10 percent increase in construction costs lowers development feasibility by 4.5 percent, or by approximately 32,000 units. Our A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 12 County Total single- family parcels SB 9-eligible parcels Parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market- feasible units Parcels where SB 9 changes feasible outcome from no net new units to 1+ net new units* Total market- feasible new units if SB 9 is enacted** Total market- feasible new units divided by SB 9 eligible lots Los Angeles 1,441,000 1,210,500 79,500 18,000 127,000 0.10 San Diego 554,500 398,500 28,500 9,000 54,500 0.14 Orange 557,000 486,000 26,500 8,500 47,000 0.10 Riverside 563,000 483,000 36,500 10,000 62,500 0.13 San Bernardino 493,000 385,000 32,000 8,000 56,500 0.15 Santa Clara 331,000 319,500 22,000 8,500 40,000 0.13 Alameda 306,500 277,000 16,000 3,500 25,000 0.09 Sacramento 369,500 360,500 25,000 5,000 40,500 0.11 Contra Costa 263,500 239,000 20,000 7,500 38,000 0.16 Fresno 203,500 186,000 5,500 500 10,500 0.06 Statewide totals (excluding counties with pop. under 45,000) 7,470,500 6,182,500 410,000 111,500 714,000 0.12 Table 2. SB 9-Eligible Parcels and Market-Feasible New Units by Largest Counties *Note: This is a subset of the parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market-feasible units. **Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded. A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 13 City Total single- family parcels SB 9-eligible parcels Parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market- feasible units Parcels where SB 9 changes feasible outcome from no net new units to 1+ net new units** Total market- feasible new units if SB 9 is enacted Total market feasible new units divided by SB 9 eligible lots Los Angeles 447,500 355,000 23,000 6,000 37,500 0.11 San Diego 203,500 133,000 7,000 3,000 13,000 0.10 San Jose 168,500 168,000 10,500 2,500 16,000 0.10 San Fran-cisco 94,500 93,500 6,500 500 8,500 0.09 Fresno 104,000 104,000 2,000 100 4,000 0.04 Sacramento 116,500 116,000 6,500 800 9,500 0.08 Long Beach 59,500 58,500 3,000 200 3,500 0.06 Oakland 66,500 51,000 3,000 100 3,500 0.07 Bakersfield 87,500 87,500 5,000 2,000 9,000 0.10 Anaheim 43,000 36,000 2,500 1,000 4,000 0.11 Table 3. SB 9-Eligible Parcels and Market-Feasible New Units by Most Populous California Cities* *Note: This is a subset of the parcels where SB 9 would increase the number of market-feasible units. **Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded. A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JULY 2021 14 model also analyzed sensitivity to changes in rental and sales prices. We found that a 10 percent increase in prices resulted in an 8 percent increase in market-feasible units, or roughly 57,000 more units. Policy Implications A significant amount of land in California has historically been designated for single- family homes, limiting the development of a greater diversity of urban infill housing options in jurisdictions across the state. Solving California’s housing crisis—let alone tackling the challenges of climate change and residential segregation— requires policies that intensify land use in these communities. California’s statewide ADU laws were a step in the direction of gently adding more density to simulta- neously address the housing, climate, and equity challenges faced by the state. But, in other ways, California lags behind other states in its land use regulations and dogged resistance to changing single- family zoning. For example, the state of Oregon recently required jurisdictions to allow multifamily housing—either two or three units—on all single-family parcels. Some cities have gone even further, such as Portland and Minneapolis, both of which have voted to loosen allowable homebuilding on single-family parcels. While many cities in California—including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Sacra- mento, Berkeley, and Oakland—are exploring similar options, SB 9 could play an important role in enabling the construc- tion of a significant amount of new house options that are smaller-scale, more cost-effective, more varied, and inclusive across the urban areas of the state. Our analysis shows that approximately 700,000 new, market-feasible homes would be enabled under SB 9. But despite the concerns of some of its detractors, SB 9 will not lead to the overnight trans- formation of residential neighborhoods. Differential owner preferences and limited applicability means that only a share of that potential is likely to be developed, particularly in the near term as aware- ness and capacity expands. As such, while important, the new units unlocked by SB 9 would represent a fraction of the overall supply needed to fully address the state’s housing shortage. Policymakers should consider comple- mentary strategies to ensure that this legislation is effective. These strategies could include outreach to make sure that homeowners are aware of and understand the opportunities allowed by recent policy changes, either through SB 9 or existing ADU laws, and the expansion of more robust financing options to moderate- and low-income owners who wish to add new units to their parcels. Increasing housing production in single-family zoned areas is also not the only policy shift that is needed. Policymakers should add addi- tional tools to boost supply overall, including by expanding permissible residential development on commercial property and by further reducing local barriers to new housing through expe- dited approval processes for conforming projects and reform of the local regula- tory barriers and fees. APPENDIX A County Name Existing SFR Lots SFR Lots Eligible for SB 9 Additional Lots with 1+ Unit Capacity Under SB 9 SB 9 Net Change in Market-Feasible Units* SB 9 Net Units Per Eligible Lot Alameda 306,306 276,795 3,633 25,000 0.09 Butte 65,020 32,720 47 3,000 0.09 Contra Costa 263,303 238,957 7,438 38,000 0.16 El Dorado 57,386 19,133 583 4,500 0.24 Fresno 203,474 185,908 564 10,500 0.06 Humboldt 35,672 22,560 93 2,500 0.11 Imperial 33,036 27,002 76 1,500 0.06 Kern 216,321 174,219 2,226 14,500 0.08 Kings 29,045 26,784 87 1,500 0.06 Lake 27,095 10,257 60 1,000 0.10 Los Angeles 1,441,148 1,210,729 18,130 127,000 0.10 Madera 35,785 22,474 1,196 4,500 0.20 Marin 60,998 46,841 2,163 9,500 0.20 Mendocino 19,350 8,949 90 1,500 0.17 Merced 55,676 51,972 106 2,500 0.05 Monterey 75,348 55,097 845 6,000 0.11 Napa 31,248 25,890 1,108 5,000 0.19 Nevada 43,090 5,618 199 1,500 0.27 Orange 557,820 485,756 8,730 47,000 0.10 Placer 125,458 94,273 1,448 13,000 0.14 Riverside 562,935 482,821 10,149 62,500 0.13 Appendix Table 1. County-Level Results APPENDIX A County Name Existing SFR Lots SFR Lots Eligible for SB 9 Additional Lots with 1+ Unit Capacity Under SB 9 SB 9 Net Change in Market-Feasible Units* SB 9 Net Units Per Eligible Lot Sacramento 369,605 360,485 5,006 40,500 0.11 San Benito 12,747 9,940 740 2,500 0.25 San Bernardino 492,806 385,243 7,848 56,500 0.15 San Diego 554,502 398,386 9,015 54,500 0.14 San Francisco 94,400 93,514 486 8,500 0.09 San Joaquin 164,796 147,577 2,159 14,000 0.09 San Luis Obispo 75,016 53,068 1,229 8,500 0.16 San Mateo 151,508 134,531 3,112 17,000 0.13 Santa Barbara 91,540 75,399 1,506 10,000 0.13 Santa Clara 331,232 319,319 8,527 40,000 0.13 Santa Cruz 54,817 43,522 1,422 8,000 0.18 Shasta 55,366 25,997 402 3,500 0.13 Solano 110,592 105,962 684 8,500 0.08 Sonoma 124,610 103,452 2,688 16,500 0.16 Stanislaus 123,922 116,754 1,542 9,500 0.08 Sutter 24,707 19,357 1,111 4,000 0.21 Tehama 18,504 7,903 35 500 0.06 Tulare 104,235 86,679 1,096 6,000 0.07 Tuolumne 25,386 995 1 100 0.10 Ventura 184,033 135,836 1,604 14,500 0.11 Yolo 43,761 40,940 550 4,500 0.11 Yuba 16,743 13,064 2,016 4,500 0.34 Statewide Total 7,470,342 6,182,678 111,746 714,100 0.12 Appendix Table 1. County-Level Results (Continued) +Note: Parcels that could have feasibly built ADUs or JADUs in a pre-SB 9 scenario are not included in the “New Market-Feasible Lots Under SB 9” category in this table, even if our analysis found that under SB 9, they could now feasibly build three or four units. As a result, per lot averages of new feasible units will yield results higher than four units per lot. *Note: Market-feasible new units are rounded APPENDIX B Specific Modeling Assumptions The following assumptions were incorporated into MapCraft’s analysis of SB 9. Allowed Prototypes The prototypes in the following tables were evaluated on each site. Keep Existing Structure Demo Existing Structure Do nothing Build new single-family residence (SFR) Add detached ADU (DADU) Build new SFR + detached ADU (DADU) JADU conversion + DADU Build new SFR + DADU + JADU Convert to duplex Build duplex Convert to duplex + DADU Build duplex + DADU Convert to duplex + DADU + JADU Build duplex + DADU + JADU Appendix Table 2. Prototype Options When SB 9’s Lot Split Provision Is NOT Used Italicized indicates outcomes that are possible in the business-as-usual scenario under current single-family zoning, without SB 9. Keep Existing Structure Demo Existing Structure and Create Two Lots Subdivided Lot with Existing Structure New Lot Build two new SFR Do nothing SFR Build two new SFR + ADU Add detached ADU (DADU)SFR Build two new SFR + JADU + ADU JADU conversion SFR Build two new duplexes JADU conversion + DADU SFR Duplex conversion SFR Do Nothing SFR + ADU Add detached ADU (DADU)SFR + ADU JADU conversion SFR + ADU JADU conversion + DADU SFR + ADU Duplex conversion SFR + ADU Do nothing SFR + JADU + ADU Add detached ADU (DADU)SFR + JADU + ADU JADU conversion SFR + JADU + ADU JADU conversion + DADU SFR + JADU + ADU Duplex conversion SFR + JADU + ADU Do nothing Duplex Add detached ADU (DADU)Duplex JADU conversion Duplex JADU conversion + DADU Duplex Duplex conversion Duplex Appendix Table 3. Prototype Options When Using SB 9’s Lot Split Provision For new-built duplex prototypes, MapCraft evaluated both stacked and side-by-side vari- ations at a variety of scales. Also, four scales of single-family prototypes were tested. In total, 652 pro formas were evaluated on each parcel. Data Inputs The parcel data for this analysis was provided by UrbanFootprint and includes approxi- mately 7.5 million parcels: all parcels with single-family dwellings in California counties with populations greater than 45,000 people. For the purposes of this work, all properties with single-family detached land use were assumed to currently have one existing unit (i.e., no ADUs) and single-family zoning that limited development of multiple primary units. To support the assumption, UrbanFoot- print scanned zoning in a sample of cities, finding that the vast majority of parcels with single-family homes are zoned for single-family. UrbanFootprint’s parcel data included information on each lot and the single-family homes on those lots. In combination with tax assessor data, the value of each existing single-family property was estimated in the second quarter of 2020. To be realistic about the policy constraints that limit development under current policies and SB9, MapCraft relied on coarse zoning-like limitations interpolated from homes built in each tract between 2005 and 2020. MapCraft assumed that developments on a parcel would need to conform to the 90th percentile of height, FAR, and lot coverage of other recently built homes in the same census tract. In other words, MapCraft assumed that plexes would be held to the same bulk restrictions as newer single-family homes. MapCraft’s financial calculations incorporated data and assumptions about early 2020 rents, sales prices, construction costs, and investors’ expected return rates, which were validated by ECONorthwest and Economic & Planning Systems, two West Coast economics consultancies. Early 2020 data was used given the volatility of both the rental and for-sale prices during the COVID-19 pandemic. MapCraft’s market demand informa- tion relied on multiple sources, including CoStar, Zillow, tax assessors, U.S. Census, and transaction records. MapCraft’s construction cost information was based on interviews with cost observations localized based on RS Means. Financial expectations of investors and lending terms were based on MapCraft’s conversations with industry professionals. Finally, the modeling relied on assumptions about parking requirements, typical unit sizes, development fees, and other factors that inform development. The Terner Center provided input on parking and fees that were incorporated into the analysis. Tenancy-Based Eligibility Restrictions SB 9 prohibits demolition or alteration of renter-occupied housing. To address this, Mapcraft used the percentage of single-family rentals in each tract (per the U.S. Census) to discount results for outcomes that require demolition of the existing structure. SB 9 also allows jurisdictions to impose certain owner-occupancy requirements. Mapcraft tested the impact of this provision by running bookend scenarios at two extremes: 1) no jurisdictions impose owner-occupancy restrictions, and 2) all jurisdictions impose owner-occupancy restrictions. To model the owner-occupancy requirement, Mapcraft disallowed all-rental valuation options and prototype options that required demolition of the existing structure. Mapcraft also tested the imposition of a risk premium threshold that eliminates any second split lot prototypes that do not generate residual land values that exceed the reduced value of the original property by 25 percent. Notably, the results do not estimate the number of owner-occupants that may pursue development given an owner-occupancy requirement. Lot Splitting Limitations MapCraft used the following assumptions in modeling the ability of a parcel to split into two lots: • Lots smaller than 2,400 square feet cannot be split. • In cases where the existing structure is retained, the lot must have at least 4,000 sq ft of unbuilt area (after deducting the footprint of the existing structure from the lot size). Parking Provision MapCraft used Terner Center’s California Residential Land Use Survey to help define parking delivery minimums. Even if a jurisdiction’s code or SB 9 eliminates parking requirements, demand for parking may still exist, and developers will still provide parking. MapCraft assumed that developers will provide at least the parking ratios shown in Appendix Table 4. Within ½ Mile of High-Capacity Transit Not Near High-Capacity Transit Small Units (2 Bedrooms or Fewer)0.5 stalls/unit 1 stall/unit Large Units (3+ Bedrooms)1 stall/unit 2 stalls/unit Appendix Table 4. Assumptions of Minimum Demanded Parking for New Construction In prototypes where a small unit is added without a lot split or demolition of the existing structure, MapCraft assumed that no new parking spaces will be added. Relaxed Zoning Restrictions SB 9 prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing zoning standards on two-unit develop- ments or newly split lots that would physically preclude the construction of up to two units, or that would preclude units from being at least 800 square feet. To reflect this, MapCraft increased the existing zoning restrictions on FAR, lot coverage, and impervious coverage. FAR was relaxed by increasing the allowed FAR by one quarter, lot coverage was relaxed by one quarter up to 75 percent coverage, and impervious coverage was increased one quarter up to 90 percent coverage. ENDNOTES 1. It is often difficult for a homeowner to finance an ADU. Few loan products exist to finance ADU construction, and those that are available often do not go far enough to cover the costs of development. See https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/ reaching-californias-adu-potential-progress-to-date-and-the-need-for-adu-finance/. 2. Senate Bill 9: Housing development approvals, April 27, 2021. https://leginfo.legis- lature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB9 3. Chapple, K., et. al. (2020). “Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance.” Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-con- tent/uploads/2020/12/ADU-Brief-2020.pdf. 4. 2021 Casita Coalition Best Practices Webinar Series. https://www.youtube.com/ playlist?list=PLRPPog7f6IzVUuadN9ED5HztZGU_tgY32 5. Garcia, D., Tucker, J. & Schmidt, I. (2020). “Single-Family Zoning Reform: An Analysis of SB 1120.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Single-Family_ Zoning_Reform_An_Analysis_of_SB_1120.pdf. 6. On average, California added roughly 100,000 new homes each year between 2015 and 2019. California Industry Research Board, “Housing Production in California, 2005- 2019”. 7. The following counties are not included: Calaveras, Siskiyou, Amador, Lassen, Glenn Del Norte, Colusa, Plumas, Inyo, Mariposa, Mono, Trinity, Modoc, Sierra, and Alpine. 8. For more information on the financial dynamics of development decisions, see our 2019 brief “Making it Pencil: The Math Behind Housing Development”. 9. Mawhorter, S. & Reid, C. (2018). Terner California Residential Land Use Survey. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://californialan- duse.org/. 10. Historic areas were determined using National Park Service data, which does not include local or state historic designations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to the Terner Center team including Issi Romem, Carolina Reid, and Elizabeth Kneebone for their review and expertise as well as Paavo Monkkonen and Denise Pink- ston for their input and feedback. Also, thank you to UrbanFootprint for the use of their statewide parcel dataset. This research does not represent the institutional views of UC Berkeley or of Terner Center’s funders. Funders do not determine research findings or recommendations in Terner Center’s research and policy reports. ABOUT THE TERNER CENTER The Terner Center formulates bold strategies to house families from all walks of life in vibrant, sustainable, and affordable homes and communities. Our focus is on generating constructive, practical strategies for public policy makers and innovative tools for private sector partners to achieve better results for families and communities. For more information visit: www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBIT 3 TOWN OF TIBURON 1 BACKGROUND On September 16, 2021, the Governor of California signed Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) into which amends or adds several sections to the Government Code (sections 65852.21, 66411.7, and 66452.6). SB 9 became effective on January 1, 2022, thereby streamlining the development of housing and allowing multiple housing units on single family zoned properties, and requires local jurisdictions to grant such project through a ministerial approval process. In effect the law requires ministerial approval of two-unit developments and lot splits in single-family residential zones that meet certain criteria. The intent of SB 9 is to address California’s housing shortage by increasing density in single-family neighborhoods, allowing additional units to be built on a lot that is currently zoned for a single-family residence. SB 9 builds on previous State legislation for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) but provides greater opportunities for sale and ownership of the resulting units. While SB 9 mandates that two-unit developments and urban lot splits be allowed through a ministerial review in the single-family zones, if they meet stated criteria, local jurisdictions are allowed to apply objective subdivision and development standards, as well as objective design review standards. Although the Town of Tiburon is not required to adopt an ordinance to implement SB 9, staff recommends that the Planning Commission amend the residential zoning regulations to establish clarity and certainty for staff, property owners, and the larger community. In addition, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend amendments to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code pertaining to lot splits (Parcel Maps) to allow for ministerial processing of maps and applying applicable standards, also required under SB 9. In this case, clarity and certainty are particularly important because the ministerial process required by SB 9 is implemented entirely by Town staff without any public notice, public hearings to review or assist in the approval of a development. The proposed amendments to the residential zoning districts zoning are intended to serve two purposes for the Town: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 2022 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, adding Chapter 16.53 (two-unit developments) to Chapter 16 (Zoning) and Chapter 14-3.313 (Urban Lot Splits) to Chapter 14 (Subdivision of Land) Exhibit 3 TOWN OF TIBURON 2 1. Establish clear and objective standards for the review of future applications by staff for lot splits and new housing in all residential zoning districts that permit development of single-family homes as required by SB 9. 2. Encourage well-designed infill housing in the single-family residential family in support of the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Element of the General Plan is currently being updated for the period 2023 -2031. The Housing Element establishes the goals, policies, and actions necessary to ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet Tiburon’s RHNA, which is 639 units. In 2021, seven (7) ADUs were approved and four (4) JADUs were approved. Of those approved, two (2) have been completed and one single family home was constructed. SB 9 provides authority to develop each lot with a total of 4 units and also permits local jurisdictions to limit infill development to 4 units by prohibiting ADU’s and JADU’s on lots that have developed two units and or split parcels. SB 9 provides authority to develop each lot with a total of 4 units and also permits local jurisdictions to limit infill development to 4 units resulting 8 units after a lot split has been granted. While not expected to significantly increase housing production in residential zones, this easing of restrictions on two-unit developments and land divisions in the residential zones can provide opportunities for infill development, as well as affordable rental and home ownership opportunities. SB 9 allows for the development of new, for-sale homes, either on a newly subdivided lot, with the addition of one residential unit where a single-family home already exists, or through the conversion of existing single-family homes into two family homes. This ability to create duplexes and/or split a lot and convey new units with a distinct title would allow property owners to pursue a wider range of financing options than have typically been available for ADU construction. A report by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley (Exhibit 3) projects that the impact of SB 9 on housing development in California will be moderate. The report states: “Under our business-as-usual scenario, we estimate 1,800,000 new ADUS/JADUS are currently market-feasible and could be built under today’s zoning laws across California’s 7,500,000 existing single-family housing parcels. With SB 9, we estimate that approximately 700,000 additional new units would become market-feasible, representing a 40 percent increase in existing development potential across California’s single-family housing parcels.” Staff anticipates that the increase in housing production in Tiburon’s residential zones as the result of the recommended amendments will be moderate. Over eight years, new development in the single family could potentially add 420 units toward the Town’s 639-unit RHNA obligation, that is if each residential lot develops their lots with one additional unit. Based on our production of housing over the past five years this does not seem plausible, but nevertheless, the opportunity to create housing units is possible through application of provisions granted through SB 9. TOWN OF TIBURON 3 ANALYSIS The Town of Tiburon Municipal Code currently allows single family residential units and Accessory Dwelling Units within all residential zones. SB 9 requires local jurisdictions to approve up to two units on each residential lot and can permit two additional units with an ADU and JADU. A local jurisdiction is not required to permit more than two-units on a parcel created through an urban split or developed as part of the allowable two units per lot provision of SB 9. The proposed ordinance recommends a process to approve two units per parcel and prohibits ADUs and JADUs-limiting the number of total units resulting from a lot split to four (4) (i.e., 2 units per parcel resulting from a lot split). There have been a number of development inquiries regarding development of residential units since the SB 9 became effective on January 1, 2022. Staff has not received any applications prior to or as part of the consideration of adoption of the attached Draft ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), adoption of an ordinance to implement SB 9 is not considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the TMC implementing SB 9 are not subject to review under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Hold a public hearing and consider all testimony 2) Make any revisions as appropriate 3) Move to adopt the attached resolution recommending approval to the Town Council of various zoning text amendments EXHIBITS 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Draft Ordinance 3. SB 9 Legislation 4. Terner Report EXHIBIT 4 Page 1 of 12 Exhibit 1 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF TOWN OF TIBURON ADDING CHAPTER 14- 3.313 (URBAN LOT SPLITS) TO CHAPTER 14 (SUBDIVISION OF LAND) AND CHAPTER 16.53 (TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS) TO CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE, TO IMPLEMENT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66411.7 AND 65852.21 (SENATE BILL 9) RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WHEREAS, SB-9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) enacted sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 to the Government Code, effective January 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, these provisions require the Town to provide ministerial approval of urban lot splits, (“Urban Lot Splits”) and the construction of up to two residential dwelling units (“Two-Unit Developments”) on each single-family residential zoned lot within the Town, subject to certain limitations; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66411.7(a) limits eligibility of Urban Lot Splits by size and proportionality; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7(a)(3)(C) and 65852.21(a)(2) limit Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Developments, respectively, to sites that are not located on or within certain farmland, wetlands, very high fire hazard severity zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones, special flood hazard areas, regulatory floodways, lands identified for conservation, habitats for protected species, and historic properties, unless projects on such sites meet specified conditions; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7(a)(3)(D) and 65852.21(a)(3) through (a)(5) limit eligibility of an Urban Lot Split and a Two-Unit Development, respectfully, that proposes to demolish or alter housing subject to affordability restrictions, housing subject to rent or price controls, housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years, housing that has been withdrawn from rent or lease within the past 15 years, and housing that requires demolition of existing structural walls unless authorized by local ordinance or has not been tenant-occupied within the past 3 years; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 65852.21(a)(6) and 66411.7(a)(3)(E) allow a Town to deny an Urban Lot Split for properties within a historic district or listed on the State’s Historic Resource Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a Town or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a Town or county ordinance; and Page 2 of 12 WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7(c) and 65852.21(b) allow a Town to establish objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Developments, respectively, subject to limits within state law; and WHEREAS, such objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards may not have the effect of “precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels from an Urban Lot Split or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet” for a Two-Unit Development; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 allow a Town to deny a proposed Two-Unit Development or Urban Lot Split, respectively, if the project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), the Town may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, and such an ordinance shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to implement objective standards and an application process for projects undertaken pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 by the adoption of such an ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, The Town council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: Section 1. The above findings are adopted and incorporated herein. Section 2. Section 14-3.313- 14-3.316 (Urban Lot Splits) is added to Chapter 14 (Subdivisions) of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code to read as follows: Page 3 of 12 Title 14 URBAN LOT SPLITS 14-3.313. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this Chapter to provide procedures necessary for the implementation of section 66411.7 of the Government Code pertaining to Urban Lot Splits. To accomplish this purpose, the regulations outlined herein are determined to be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and for the promotion of orderly growth and development. 14-3.314 Definitions. A. Urban Lot Split. The subdivision of a parcel within a residential single-family zone into no more than two parcels pursuant to the authority set forth in section 66411.7 of the Government Code. 14-3.315 Filing, Processing, and Action. A. Ministerial Review. An Urban Lot Split shall be ministerially approved, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all provisions of this chapter and conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2) commencing with section 66410 of the Government Code. B. Parcel Map. Applicants for Urban Lot Splits shall submit a Parcel Map application. 1. Applications shall include, at a minimum: i. An affidavit from the applicant stating the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units created through an Urban Lot Split as the applicant’s principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. An affidavit shall not be required if the applicant is a community land trust or qualified nonprofit corporation under Sections 214.15 or 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. ii. Parcel map applications shall be accompanied with all data and reports as set forth in Section 14-3.304 and the fees as set forth in the applicable Town fee schedules. Page 4 of 12 2. Parcel maps for Urban Lot Splits shall not be conditioned on dedication of right of way or construction of offsite improvements. C. The Town shall act on a Parcel Map application for an Urban Lot Split within 50 days of receipt of a complete application. If the applicant requests a delay in writing, the 50-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. The Town has acted on the application if it: 1. Approves or denies a Parcel Map application for an Urban Lot Split; or 2. Informs the applicant in writing that changes to the proposed project are necessary to comply with this Chapter or other applicable laws and regulations. D. Adverse Impact Upon Health and Safety. A proposed Urban Lot Split shall be denied if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed Two-Unit Housing Development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. E. Limitations on Approval. A proposed Urban Lot Split shall not be eligible for approval pursuant to this Chapter if any of the following circumstances apply: 1. The proposed Urban Lot Split would require demolition or alteration of “protected housing.” Protected housing includes: i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. ii. Housing that is subject to rent control through valid local rent control provisions. iii. A parcel on which the owner of residential real property has withdrawn accommodations from rent or lease pursuant to Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application (i.e., an exit of the rental housing business pursuant to the Ellis Act). iv. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years. 2. The parcel to be subdivided is located within a historic district, is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is within a site Page 5 of 12 that is legally designated or listed as a Town or county landmark or historic property or district. 3. The parcel to be subdivided satisfies the requirements of subsections (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the California Government Code. 4. The parcel to be subdivided has been established through prior exercise of an Urban Lot Split pursuant to this Chapter. 5. Neither the owner of the parcel to be subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an Urban Lot Split pursuant to this Chapter. “Acting in concert” means the owner, or a person acting as an agent or representative of the owner, knowingly participated with another person in joint activity or parallel action toward a common goal of subdividing the adjacent parcel. 14-3.316 Development Standards. The following objective development standards shall apply to Urban Lot Splits. In addition to these standards, all provisions of the California Building Code shall apply to Urban Lot Splits. A. General Standards. 1. Urban Lot Splits shall be permitted in all single-family residential zones, as provided for in Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. 2. Uses created through an Urban Lot Split shall be limited to residential uses. 3. Short Term Rentals Prohibited. The rental of any unit created through an Urban Lot Split shall be for a term of longer than thirty (30) days. 4. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. i. As more fully set forth in section 16-77.040(A)(5), accessory dwelling unity or junior accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on parcels created through an Urban Lot Split pursuant to this Chapter. B. Objective Development Standards. Page 6 of 12 1. Both newly created parcels must have a minimum lot size of 1,200 SF, 2. Neither of the resulting parcels can be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel, 3. The resulting parcels must both have access to or adjoins the public right-of-way, sufficient to allow development on the parcel to comply with all applicable property access requirements under the California Fire Code section 503 (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) and California Code Regulations Title 14, section 1273.00 et seq., 4. The resulting parcel shall have four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. C. Exceptions to Development Standards. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, all development standards shall be subject to the following: 1. Any standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet, shall not be imposed. 2. No setback shall be imposed for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. 3. Correction of any legal nonconforming zoning condition shall not be required as a condition of approval of an Urban Lot Split. Section 3. Chapter 16.77 (Two-Unit Housing Developments) is added to Title 16 (Zoning) of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code as set forth below. Title 16 TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 16-77.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to provide procedures and development standards for the establishment of Two-Unit Housing Developments pursuant to Government Code section 65852.21. To accomplish this purpose, the regulations outlined herein are determined to be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and for the promotion of orderly growth and development. Page 7 of 12 16-77.020 Definitions. A. Two-Unit Housing Development. A Two-Unit Housing Development is a development containing no more than two primary dwelling units and which development either (1) proposes two new units, or (2) proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit. 16-77.030 Filing, Processing, and Action. A. Ministerial Review. A Two-Unit Housing Development shall be ministerially approved, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all provisions of this chapter. B. Administrative Permit. Applicants for Two-Unit Housing Developments shall submit an Administrative Permit application in addition to a Building Permit application. C. The Town shall act on an Administrative Permit application for a Two-Unit Housing Development within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. If the applicant requests a delay in writing, the sixty-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. The Town has acted on the application if it: 1. Approves or denies the building permit for the Two-Unit Development; or 2. Informs the applicant in writing that changes to the proposed project are necessary to comply with this chapter or other applicable laws and regulations. D. Adverse Impact Upon Health and Safety. A proposed Two-Unit Housing Development shall be denied if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed Two-Unit Housing Development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. E. Limitations on Approval. A proposed Two-Unit Housing Development shall not be eligible for approval pursuant to this Chapter if any of the following circumstances apply: 1. The Two-Unit Housing Development would require demolition or alteration of “protected housing.” Protected housing includes: Page 8 of 12 i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. ii. Housing that is subject to rent control through valid local rent control provisions. iii. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years. 2. The Two-Unit Housing Development would be located on a parcel on which the owner has withdrawn it from renting or leasing under Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application (i.e., an exit of the rental housing business pursuant to the Ellis Act). 3. The Two-Unit Housing Development would be located within a historic district, is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is within a site that is legally designated or listed as a Town or county landmark or historic property or district. 4. The Two-Unit Housing Development would be located in any of the specified designated areas set forth in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the California Government Code. 16-77.040 Development Standards. The following objective development standards shall apply to Two-Unit Housing Developments. In addition to these standards, all provisions of the California Building Code shall apply to Two-Unit Housing Developments. A. General Standards 1. Two-Unit Housing Developments may either be detached or attached, as long as attached structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. 2. Two-Unit Housing Developments shall be permitted in all single-family residential zones including as provided for in Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. 3. Short Term Rentals Prohibited. The rental of any Two-Unit Housing Development shall be for a term of longer than thirty (30) days. Page 9 of 12 4. Utility Connections. Each unit in a Two-Unit Housing Development shall be served by separate water, sewer and electrical utility connections which connect each unit directly to the utility. 5. Accessory Dwelling Units. No accessory dwelling unity or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on parcels that utilize the authority of this Chapter and Section 14-3.313 et seq. (Urban Lot Splits). 6. Height. Two-Unit housing development shall not exceed 16 feet in height. B. Objective Development Standards. 1. The color and materials of the dwelling unit shall match the Primary Unit. 2. Lighting shall be shielded and/or directed such that it does not produce glare visible from off-site or illuminate adjacent or nearby property. 3. The residential unit shall have a permanent full kitchen with a sink, refrigerator and stove/oven. Only one kitchen is allowed per Residential unit. No exterior lights are allowed except two shielded downward pointing lights at the entry to the residential unit. 4. No windows facing the rear and side property lines are allowed when located less than 6 feet from the rear or side property line. 5. No entryways are allowed within 10 feet of a side or rear property line. 6. The Residential unit is not allowed on any open space easement. A title report shall be provided to identify all open-space easements. The Residential unit shall not have any reflective roof or building material. 7. The roof color of the Residential unit shall use similar roof materials and color as the primary dwelling unit. 8. No vents, flues, or appurtenances shall exceed the height limit. 9. No signs are allowed on Residential unit except an address sign. Page 10 of 12 10. No portico, trellis or other roof is allowed as part of the residential unit. A 5x5 foot entryway roof is allowed but must be at least 10 feet from any property line 11. All Building Code requirements, including Appendix Q of the 2019 Residential Code (Tiny Houses) shall apply to all Residential Units. 12. The Residential unit shall not include any other item that would require discretionary approval, including but not limited to an exterior shower, exterior sink, pool, BBQ, spa, fence, and/or piping stub outs to the exterior. 13. Two trees shall be planted at each proposed window of the Residential unit facing a neighboring property where such trees are consistent with the Fire Code. 14. Applicant shall submit a water budget consistent with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) demonstrating water use of no more than 500 gallons per 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area per day. The landscape area of single-family residence, or duplexes shall be designed with no more than 20% of the landscaped area planted in turf or plants that are not water-wise as defined as needing “low” or “very low” water per Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) established by the Water Use Efficiency Office of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) or other sources as verified by a licensed landscape architect. 15. Any protected tree to be removed as part of a new residential unit shall require a tree removal permit. 16. Fire District Regulations. The Residential unit shall comply with all applicable Fire District regulations, subject to provisions and limitations set forth in Government Code Section 65852.2. 17. Adequate sanitary service capacity for the additional increment of effluent resulting from the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be available. If the lot is connected to the public sewer system, the applicant shall submit a letter from the appropriate Sanitary District to that effect. If the lot is not connected to the public sewer system, the applicant shall submit a letter from the County of Marin Environmental Health Department confirming that the individual or alternative sewage disposal system serving the lot has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed Residential unit. Page 11 of 12 18. Attached Residential units. Independent exterior access separate from the primary dwelling is not required for an attached Residential Unit. C. Exceptions to Development Standards. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, all development standards shall be subject to the following exceptions: 1. Where each of the units of a Two-Unit Housing Development is no greater than eight hundred (800) square feet in size with side and rear setbacks of at least four (4) feet, the Two-Unit Housing Development shall be permitted regardless of any development standard that would prevent construction of the units. 2. No setback shall be imposed for a Two-Unit Housing Development constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure Section 4. Section 16-79.140 is added to Chapter 16.70 (Residential units) of Title 16 (Zoning) of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code to read as follows: 16-79.140 Two-Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot Splits (SB 9). (a). Pursuant to the authority provided by section 65852.21(f) of the Government Code, no Residential unit shall be permitted on any lot in a single- family zoning district if: 1) an Urban Lot Split has been approved pursuant to Chapter 15.31; and 2) a Two-Unit Housing Development has been approved for construction pursuant to Chapter 16.77 herein. (b). Two-Unit Housing Developments, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, and where the lot has not been created through an Urban Lot Split pursuant to Chapter 15.31. Section 6: Environmental Review. The Town Council finds and determines that enactment of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), as this action is to adopt an ordinance to implement the requirements of sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the Government Code. Page 12 of 12 Section 7: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its passage and adoption. Section 8: Severability. The Town Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases. Section 9: Certification. The Town Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be posted and/or published in the manner required by law. This Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the Town Council on the ___ day of _______ 2022, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Town of Tiburon on the ___ day of _______ 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jon Welner, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Lea Stefani, Town Clerk TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Public Works Department Subject: Town Council to Discuss the Use of Blackie’s Pasture Gravel Parking Lot as a Construction Staging Area for Public Works Projects. Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Town Council will hear a presentation from staff and will discuss the use of Blackie’s Pasture as a construction staging area for the benefit of Town owned projects. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff Recommends the Town Council: 1. Receive the Staff Report, ask any questions of staff and provide direction to staff as to any changes with regards to the current practice with regards to this matter. BACKGROUND Many public works construction projects require a secure construction staging area, which is property available for use by the Contractor during the construction period for the purpose of accepting deliveries, storing products and construction equipment, and coordinating activities associated with the work. The Blackie’s Pasture gravel parking lot has historically been used as a construction staging area for Town owned projects. An aerial view of the area being discussed is attached as Exhibit 1. These projects typically consist of street and storm drain rehabilitation projects that each run 40-60 days in duration. In the past, the Town has also periodically provided the area to Sanitary District 5, Richardson Bay Sanitary District and Marin Municipal Water District to use when rehabilitating sewer and water lines in Town. In these instances, the Town requires the entity to apply for an Encroachment Permit for the proposed use. All contractors utilizing the area are required to abide by a set of special conditions related to the use of the area. An example of these conditions is attached as Exhibit 2. In addition to being periodically used as a staging area, the area is also used monthly during the summer for five “Chipper Days,” an event co-sponsored with the Tiburon Fire Protection District that encourages residents to perform vegetation management and fire fuel reduction. These events typically attract a significant turnout from residents with only minor impacts to the area. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: DI-1 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 Prior to utilizing the current staging location, contractors working for the Town and RBSD routinely staged equipment and materials along and adjacent to the Old Rail Trail (ORT), a practice staff discontinued due to safety and aesthetics concerns. Currently, it is estimated the gravel parking lot area is used for construction staging 3-4 times per year. The Contractor completing the Hawthorne Utility Undergrounding Project has been utilizing Blackie’s Pasture since June of 2021. This is an unusual project due to its size and duration. Throughout the project, staff has been in communication with several residents living across from the staging area concerned about negative consequences associated with this use. Specifically, the concerns raised relate to noise and dust associated with the activity as well as the loss of parking for those visiting Blackies Pasture. During peak hours, this reduced parking results in some visitors utilizing available parking on nearby residential streets. Town staff have worked with the contractor to mitigate these issues and the contractor will demobilize at the end of April 2022. During the public comment period of the February 16, 2022 Town Council meeting, a member of the public made a request for Town Council to consider not allowing construction staging at Blackie’s Pasture. At the conclusion of the February 16th meeting, Council directed staff to place the item on a future Council meeting agenda for discussion. ANALYSIS Construction staging areas are utilized to provide a centralized, secure and controlled enclosure for a variety of construction project activities. They are critical to ensuring projects are completed as efficiently and safely as possible. The Towns typical public works project differ from many other construction projects in that the area where construction activity is taking place is often the towns Right of Way (ROW). This makes it difficult to establish staging facilities in the area where the work is being performed. This contrasts, for example, with the current Library Expansion Project where with proper planning, the construction site can also be utilized as a staging area for the work. The Town’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program indicates that there are typically two public works projects annually planned to use the Blackie’s Pasture staging area. These are the annual street rehabilitation and annual storm drain rehabilitation projects. The paving projects typically start in June and finish in August. The storm drains projects typically begin in June and end in July. Staff is sensitive to the concerns of the neighboring residents; however, no other areas exist within Town limits that could appropriately accommodate construction staging. Staff has considered the impact if this area was not available for this use and have identified a number of potential negative outcomes. First, we would anticipate an increase in project costs for work that requires this type of staging area. This anticipated increase would be the result of several factors, or a combination of factors including: 1. Certain Contractors may decline to submit bids if they cannot locate a staging area in an alternative location. This could reduce the number of overall bids, resulting in a less competitive bidding environment. 2. Contractors bidding on town projects would need to include the cost of providing a staging area in their bids, increasing overall project costs. Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 3. Any alternative staging area would likely be located outside of Tiburon, and perhaps at a significant distance from Town. In this scenario, contractors would incur increased costs to transport equipment and materials on a daily basis from the remote location. In addition to increasing costs, factor 3 above could also result in both increased traffic along Tiburon Boulevard as well as increased emissions from construction vehicles traveling in and out of Town each day. The purpose of this item is for Council to have an opportunity to discuss the current usage, ask any questions of staff and provide direction to staff as to any desired changes to this practice. FINANCIAL IMPACT As noted in the ‘Analysis’ section above, prohibiting the periodic use of Blackies Pasture gravel parking lot as a construction staging area would likely increase costs. However, given the variability of the scope, complexity and duration of construction projects, it is difficult to predict with any certainty the magnitude of any increase. CLIMATE IMPACT As noted in the analysis section above, requiring contractors to provide their own staging areas will likely result in increased construction vehicle traffic in and out of Tiburon on a daily basis. Many of these vehicles will be medium/heavy duty vehicles such as dump trucks or truck trailer combinations transporting equipment. As a result, staff would anticipate some increase in emissions as a result of this change, however, given the variability of the scope, complexity and duration of construction projects, it is difficult to predict with any certainty the magnitude of any increase. 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: 1. Receive the Staff Report, ask any questions of staff and provide direction to staff as to any changes with regards to the current practice with regards to this matter. Exhibit(s): 1. Aerial Map 2. Special Conditions for Staging Area Use Prepared By: Patrick Kerslake, Superintendent of Public Works David O. Eshoo, Associate Engineer EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBIT 2 Permit No. ________ 1/2 Special Conditions – Encroachment Permit No. _________ Blackie’s Pasture Construction Staging Area for the MMWD Pipeline Replacement Project In addition to the standard provisions required by the Town’s encroachment permit, the following conditions are established and supersede if there is conflict: 1. A $3,000 deposit shall be submitted to the Town prior to permit issuance to be use in the case that the conditions of this permit are not complied with. Additional funds will be sought if work exceeds this initial deposit. 2. Permittee shall ensure that all other permits and understanding are received from other regulatory agencies prior to using this site. Copy of such permits and/or letter of understanding shall be provided to the Town. 3. Area to be used shall be defined by the Town prior to use, and no other area is allocated as per this permit. Ingress and egress location(s) will be also be defined by the Town. 4. Digital detail pictures shall be submitted to the Town of the area to be used. 5. The area shall be strictly for construction equipment and material staging for the MMWD Pipeline Replacement Project, and absolutely no other storage, operation, or activities are permitted at this site. 6. No equipment maintenance and repair operation is allowed on the site unless approved by Town. 7. High quality perimeter chain link fencing with green mesh is required to be installed and maintained around the area. “24-7” contact information must be attached to the entry gate. 8. A high quality sign shall be installed at the gate of this area indicating the project that the site is being used for, the project owner, the project contractor, 24-7 contact number, and planned completion month and year. Sign shall be a minimum size of 5 feet by 4 feet with white background and black or dark blue lettering. 9. The hours of operation for the staging area shall be the same as the hours of work allowed for the construction work. 10. The staging, stockpiling and parking of equipment and material shall be neat and orderly, and the permittee is required to maintain the site as such. 11. Detail point-by-point plans, including the responsible personnel, for dust control, fume control, noise control, and stormwater quality control shall be developed, written, and submitted for approval by the Town prior to work. These control measures shall be provided and maintained by the permittee at all times, including after-hours, and will comply with the Town’s municipal codes, state regulations, the contract specifications, and the direction of the Town’s representative. Permit No. ________ 2/2 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation and control measures shall be developed, written, and submitted for approval by the Town prior to work. 13. The use of this site is allowed up to October 5, 2007, or as extended or shortened at the sole discretion of the Town. 14. The permittee is required to, at his sole expense, clean, re-grade, reseed and/or make any necessary repairs to the site and appurtenant areas (e.g. driveway, access roads, bridges) when vacating the site to a condition similar to or better than prior to use and that is acceptable to the Town. 15. Any waste material or contamination of the site shall be cleaned up at the permittee’s expense to the satisfaction of the Town. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Discuss Returning to In-Person Town Council Meetings Reviewed By: _________ Greg Chanis, Town Manager ________ Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Council will discuss the potential of returning to in-person Town Council meetings. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Discuss and provide feedback to staff about whether and/or when the Council would like to return to in-person Town meetings. BACKGROUND On March 17, 2020, the County of Marin issued a Shelter-in-Place Order due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognizing the need to minimize exposure to others and promote social distancing, while still allowing legislative bodies to continue to operate during the emergency, Governor Newsom signed Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspended certain provisions of the Brown Act and similar rules relating to teleconferencing and electronic meetings. Under these orders, all members of the legislative body were permitted to participate electronically or by phone from any location without posting agendas or opening those locations to the public. Further, the agency was not required to provide a physical meeting space for legislative meetings. On April 1, 2020, the Town began holding virtual public meetings using the Zoom meeting format to allow transparency and public participation during the pandemic. In May/June 2020, the Town’s other boards and commissions began holding virtual public meetings as well. The Council and all the Town’s boards and commissions have been holding fully virtual public meetings with remote participation since then. On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) following the expiration of his 2020 Executive Orders. AB 361 extended the suspension of certain provisions of the Brown Act and the authority of public agencies to conduct virtual meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. AB 361 is effective through January 1, 2024. Since September 2021, Council has adopted resolutions making the necessary findings to continue operating fully virtual public meetings during a state of emergency every 30 days, in accordance with AB 361. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 Agenda Item: DI-2 Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 ANALYSIS Tonight staff is seeking feedback from the Council regarding returning to in-person meetings. Over the last two years, staff has worked with the Community Media Center of Marin (CMCM) to outfit the Town Council Chambers with the necessary camera and AV equipment to digitally stream legislative body meetings taking place in the Chambers. Additionally, due to a positive community response to the ability to virtually participate in Zoom meetings, staff and CMCM have also equipped the Chambers with the ability to offer a remote participation option for members of the public to call in to in-person meetings. Meeting Options Continue operating virtual meetings until a date to be determined. If the Council feels there is still imminent danger of holding in-person Council and board meetings, the Council may still continue operating virtual meetings under AB 361. Every 30 days, the Council will be required to make the required findings of health and safety risk to holding in-person meetings. Continue operating virtual meetings until a specified date. The Council may wish to deliberate tonight on when it would like the Town Council and its boards to resume in-person meetings. If the Council wishes to return to in-person meetings, staff is seeking additional feedback from the Council on the following: 1. Does the Council wish to require masks or vaccine verification for in-person participants? Marin County has aligned its current Public Health Orders with the State of California’s Public Health Orders which, at this time, only strongly encourages mask wearing in crowded environments where vaccine status cannot be confirmed. The Town is still requiring masks to enter the facility and Town staff are still wearing masks in their workplace. As of April 1, 2022, indoor event guidance will no longer require vaccine verification for indoor events of any size. 2. Does the Council wish to allow remote Town-Council member participation in in- person meetings? If the Council wishes to return to in-person meetings, the Council will no longer be making the necessary findings to operate meetings in emergency conditions under AB 361. Therefore, the Brown Act rules regarding councilmember teleconferencing will apply. Councilmembers teleconferencing into the meeting will be required to publish the address at which they will be teleconferencing from on the agenda, the agenda must be posted at the location 72 hours prior to the meeting, and the teleconference location must be open and accessible to the public. Additionally, at least a quorum of the Council must be within Tiburon’s jurisdiction. 3. Does the Council wish to discuss the regular meeting start time? Prior to the COVID- 19 pandemic, the Town Council’s regular meeting start time was 7:30 p.m. On May 6, 2020, the Council changed its regular meeting start time to 5:00 p.m. by Resolution 20-2020, which was established to only remain in effect while the Council was meeting Town Council Meeting April 20, 2022 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 virtually. When the Council resumes in-person meetings, without further action from the Council, the Council’s regular meeting time will revert back to 7:30 p.m. 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: 1. Discuss and provide feedback to staff about whether and/or when the Council would like to return to in-person Town meetings. Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk