Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agd Pkt 2015-09-16
TOWN.OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon Town Council September 16, 2015 Regular Meeting — 7:30 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fraser, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember O'Donnell, Vice Mayor Tollini, Mayor Doyle ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. INTRODUCTION OF NEW REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT • Dr. Nancy Lynch (introduction by Board President Dana Linker Steele) 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. ACTION ITEMS 1. Schedule of Fines — Consider adoption of resolution updating the Schedule of Fines for violations of the Municipal Code enforced by Administrative Citation (Director of Community Development) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard — Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Approval for Construction of a New Three -Story Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Building Intended for Condominium -type Ownership (Community Development Department) Owners: ACV Argo Tiburon LP Applicant: Zwick Architects Appellant: Jim Mantegani AP No. 059-101-12 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests — September 4 & 11, 2015 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.ci.tiburon.ca.us. 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 Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting September 16, 2015 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed by: Mayor & Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Consider Adoption of Resolution Updating the Schedule of Fines for Violations of the Municipal Code Enforced by Administrative Citation BACKGROUND The Town's Schedule of Fines is adopted pursuant to Chapter 31 (Enforcement of Code) of the Municipal Code, and sets forth the amount of the "fine" applied and in which instances the Town issues an Administrative Citation for a violation of the Municipal Code. The Town periodically needs to adjust its adopted Schedule of Fines in order to reflect changes in code sections in the municipal code, changes in the Superior Court Bail Schedule, or for other valid reasons. It is possible that the Schedule of Fines will need further updating pending the outcome of the vacation rental issue presently being studied. The current Schedule of Fines was last updated in October 2011, and is in need of revision for the reasons stated above. A redlined document highlighting the proposed changes to the existing Schedule of Fines is attached as Exhibit 1. The proposed draft resolution updating the Schedule of Fines is attached as Exhibit 2. ANALYSIS The proposed changes to the Fine Schedule are summarized as follows: • Where there may be a direct conflict in fine amounts contained within various documents, clarifying the order of precedence of those documents. • Revising fine amounts for certain violations, including failure to obtain a Report of Residential Building Record prior to sale of a dwelling unit. • Adding the municipal code -specified fine for violations of the Leaf Blower Ordinance to Exhibit A. • Increasing the default fine for infractions from $154 to $158, and for misdemeanors from $716 to $773, to be consistent with the most recent Bail Schedule adopted by the Marin County Superior Court. Town Council ivleeting September 16, 2015 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the Resolution approving the updated Schedule of Fines. EXHIBITS 1. Redlined Schedule of Fines document. 2. Draft Resolution. Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development TOWN OF Tim IRC)N Page 2 of 2 REDLINED VERSION EXHIBIT A ADMINISTRATIVE FINES SCHEDULE 1. Work without a Permit [Building, Plumbing, Electrical, etc.] (Municipal Code § 13-2): Project valuation less than or equal to $5,000: $250. Project valuation greater than $5,000 but less than or equal to $10,000: $500. Project valuation greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $50,000: $1,000 plus two (2) times the permit fee. Project valuation in excess of $50,000: $1,000 plus four (4) times the permit fee. 2. Violation of Building Permit Conditions (Municipal Code §§ 13-10, 23-31, 23-34, 26-3, 31-3, etc): First violation: $500 Second violation: $1,000 Third violation: $2,000 Fourth violation: $3,000 penalty and suspension of permit. In addition to assessing monetary fines, the Building Official may, in his sole discretion, issue a Stop Work Order upon ascertainment of the violation. All penalties must be paid, and violations corrected, before the Stop Work Order is lifted. Upon a fourth offense, the Building Official will make a formal complaint to the State Contractors License Board. 3. Failure to obtain a Report of Residential Building Record prior to sale or exchange of a dwelling unit (Municipal Code § 13A-3): $47000 $500 for each day the violation persists. 4. Failure to make "mandatory" corrections required by a Report of Residential Building Record (Municipal Code § 13A-8): $100 per each day the failure persists 5. Violation of any conditions included in a resolution designating property as an historic landmark (Municipal Code §§ 13B-4): $500 for each day the violation persists. 6. Violation of Zoning Ordinance or of Zoning Permit Conditions (Municipal Code § 16- 56.030): X54 $158 for each day that the violation persists, unless a higher fine is otherwise imposed for that specific violation in this Exhibit A. 7. Alteration, Planting, or Removal of Tree without Permit (Municipal Code § 15A-3): $1,000 per tree. 8. Violation of the Town of Tiburon Urban Runoff Pollution Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code §§ 20A-7, 20A-8, 20A-9, 20A-10, and 20A-11): =HIM i NO. First violation: $250 per day Second violation: $500 per day Third and subsequent violations: $1,000 per day. 9. Violations of the Town of Tiburon Solid Waste Ordinance (Municipal Code §§ 26-3, 26- 4, 26-5, 26-6, 26-7, and 26-8): $100 for each violation. 10. Violation of the Town of Tiburon Smoking and Tobacco Ordinance (Municipal Code §§ 28-3, 28-4, 28-5, 28-6, 28-7, 28-9, 28-10 and 28-11): $100 for each violation otherwise punishable as an infraction and $716 $773 for each violation otherwise punishable as a misdemeanor (§ 28-11 only). 11. Unlawful Use of Leaf Blower or Hediae Trimmer (Municipal Code § 30-4): $250 for each violation. 12 All other violations of the Municipal Code: In the absence of a different fine specifically imposed in the Municipal Code or this Exhibit A, or a another, higher fine imposed in the applicable Bail Schedule, the fine shall be $4 $158 for violations otherwise punishable as infractions and $71-6 $773 for violations otherwise punishable as misdemeanors. [Ben, does this provision conflict with Section 3 of the Resolution? If so, we need to fix it.] 12. If case of direct conflict between this Exhibit A and the applicable Bail Schedule, this Exhibit A shall control. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 711 - Town Council Meeting September 16, 2015 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard; Appeal of Conditional Use Permit Approval for Construction of a New Three -Story Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Building Intended for Condominium -type Ownership; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Zwick Architects, Applicant; Jim Man • ani, Appellant; File #11402; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-101-12 PROJECT DATA Address: Assessor's Parcel Number: File Number: Lot Size: General Plan: Zoning: Current Use: Owner: Applicant: Appellant: Flood Zone: BACKGROUND 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard 059-101-12 11402 3,676 square feet Neighborhood Commercial NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Restaurant and commercial space ACV Argo Tiburon LP Zwick Architects Jim Mantegani AE — Special Flood Hazard Area On August 12, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-08 approving a conditional use permit application to construct a new three-story, 38 foot tall commercial and residential building on the property located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard. The owner of the adjacent property at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, Jim Mantegani (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") has filed a timely appeal of the Commission's decision to the Town Council. HISTORY The building on the site appears to have been constructed in the early to mid -1940s and has been substantially remodeled since that time, most recently in the 1980s. The building has housed numerous businesses, primarily in the food service industry, but has also been used for a liquor store and laundry. A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) was prepared for the subject property TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 9 l own Council \lectins; September 16, 2015 which determined that there was no evidence of historical or architectural significance for this building and the property does not qualify for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has submitted an application to demolish the existing building and construct a new three-story, 38 foot tall commercial and residential building on the subject property. The site is located at the southwest corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane and is currently developed with a one-story commercial building occupied by two restaurants (New Morning Cafe and the Grass Shack) and office space. The proposed building would include space for a restaurant and possibly a small retail space on the ground floor, and two floors above containing two residential dwelling units. The first residential unit on the second floor would contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms and 1,196 square feet of floor area. The second residence would be a two-story dwelling, with two bedrooms and two bathrooms, including 1,105 square feet of space on the second floor and 504 square feet on the third story, for a total area of 1,609 square feet. Two (2) one -car garages would be sited toward the rear of the building with access from Juanita Lane to provide one garage space for each of the two residential units. Each dwelling unit would require one (1) additional parking space if ultimately used as condominiums. The two additional parking spaces required for the residential units would be designated (exclusive use) spaces located in the Beach Road parking lot (owned by the applicant), restricted by a covenant. The 92 seat restaurant -only first floor proposal would require 23 parking spaces and the 68 seat restaurant and retail space ground floor configuration would require 19 parking spaces. As the existing restaurant and office use on the site requires 25 parking spaces, the project would result in no net increase in parking demand or a decrease in parking demand of four (4) spaces. REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 2015 This application was first reviewed at the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, several residents and the tenants and attorney for the adjacent commercial building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard raised objections to the project design, including concerns about the proposed building height, impacts on sunlight for the neighboring building and parking. The Commission shared some of these concerns, and directed the applicant to return with a redesigned project that lowered the height of the building and allowed more light into the east -facing windows of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The Commission also requested a more detailed explanation of how parking would be provided for this project. The Planning Commission continued the application to the April 22, 2015 meeting. The applicant later requested a further continuance to the May 13, 2015 meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 9 to n Council Meering September 16, 2015 May 13, 2015 At the May 13, 2015 meeting, the applicant presented revised plans for the project that eliminated the third residential unit and reconfigured the second dwelling unit on the second floor to include a master bedroom suite on a partial third floor. The third story area was centered on the building and pulled 9 to 10.5 feet from the side property line, and a roughly 261/2 foot wide portion of the second story was pulled back to create a "light well" for the adjacent east -facing second story portion of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. Several residents, the tenants and the attorney for the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard objected to the revised project design, stating that the revisions did not sufficiently address their previous concerns about sunlight impacts and parking. The Commissioners voiced differing opinions about the partial third story, but the consensus was that a two-story building was more appropriate at this location and that the parking issues were resolved. The Commission continued the item to the June 24, 2015 meeting and directed the applicant to return with a two-story building design that adequately addressed the provision of light to the east -facing windows of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The applicant subsequently requested additional time to revise the project design and the item was further continued to July 8, 2015 and then to the August 12, 2015 meeting. August 12, 2015 At the August 12, 2015 meeting, the applicant presented revised plans for the project. The design still included a third story element, which was moved to the rear (southern) corner of the building. The first residential unit on the second floor still contained two bedrooms and two bathrooms but was reduced from 1,220 square feet to 1,196 square feet of floor area. The second floor portion of the second residential unit was still a two-story unit, with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The second unit included 1,105 square feet of space on the second floor and 504 square feet on the third story, for a total area of 1,609 square feet, an increase of 532 square feet from the previously proposed 1,077 square foot second unit. The proposed 26'/2 foot wide light well remained in generally the same location relative to the adjacent building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The first floor of the proposed building was redesigned to include two (2) one -car garages sited toward the rear of the building with access from Juanita Lane, with one garage space to be assigned to each of the two residential units. The floor area of the remaining space was reduced from 2,910 square feet to 2,450 square feet of floor area for a restaurant, or 2,084 square feet of restaurant space and 366 square feet allocated for separate retail commercial space. The maximum height of the building was still 38 feet at the partial third floor, but the additional 2 foot tall mechanical area for the elevator shaft was eliminated. The two-story section of the building would be a maximum of 26 feet in height. At the meeting, the attorney for the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard again objected to the revised project design, challenging the efficacy of the light well and stating that the Planning Commission could not make the required findings to approve the conditional use permit. The Commission determined that the revised project design substantially addressed the concerns raised at the previous meeting, but felt that portions of the design, including the mass of the third TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 9 Town Council \•lectin;; September 16, 2015 story elevator, mechanical space and stairways, the size of the third story deck and the design of the deck railings required additional attention through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. A condition of approval was added to the draft resolution directing the Design Review Board to address those design features in its future review of the building design. The Commission voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 2015-08 (Exhibit 10) conditionally approving the project. On August 24, 2015, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision (Exhibit 1). BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are three (3) grounds upon which the appeal is based: Ground #1: The Planning Commission decision incorrectly focused on the economics of the proposed project. Staff Response: During its deliberations, the Planning Commission commented briefly on the economic viability of the proposed project, noting primarily that a new one-story building on the site would not be reasonably feasible due to the demolition and reconstruction costs of such a project. However, the Commission's deliberations followed the requirements for reviewing a conditional use permit application and primarily focused on the relationship of the proposed building to its surroundings. The Commission extensively discussed the relationship of the proposed structure to the adjacent building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard as well as to the adjacent Fountain Plaza. The Planning Commission's decision to approve this application was based upon the requirements contained in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan and was not based on the economic viability of the project. Ground #2: The approval of a transfer of development intensity is not supported by factual evidence regarding the development potential and parking allocation of the Beach Road parking lot. Staff Response: General Plan Downtown Element policy DT -9 states as follows: DT -9. Transfers of Intensity. A transfer of intensity between commercially -designated Downtown properties (NC and VC districts) may be permitted subject to discretionary review (conditional use permit) by the Town, without requiring General Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendments. Transfers of intensity in Downtown Tiburon were initially envisioned as part of the 1975 Downtown Plan and were memorialized in the Downtown Sub -element of the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element. The concepts behind allowing such transfers are that a higher intensity of development is preferable in locations near the "core" of Downtown and that transferring intensity from outlying parcels, or from one parcel to another more suitably -located parcel in the core area, could lead to a superior and more vibrant Downtown core overall. Use of the transfer process has been limited to properties under the same ownership, and the potential for transfers is rather small given the limited number of undeveloped and/or underdeveloped sites in the Downtown area. Transfers are subject to discretionary review (conditional use permit), which TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 9 Town Council Meeting September 16, 2015 provides scrutiny as to potential undesirable consequences, such as creating a parking shortage or resulting in site planning and/or design compatibility problems. As documented in studies (most recently the Nelson -Nygaard Downtown Circulation and Parking Analysis dated August 2012), the Downtown has more than enough parking supply to meet current levels of demand, with peak summer demand estimated at only 74% parking occupancy for the Downtown area. Additionally, as noted on page 2 of this staff report, the proposed building has an equal or lesser overall parking requirement than the current building, which is an ideal circumstance when considering a transfer of intensity. Site planning and design issues were extensively discussed by the Planning Commission, and specific direction provided to the Design Review Board on these matters. The Commission concluded after three hearings and multiple design changes that the proposed size and height of the building were acceptable. The calculation of potential transfer of intensity is intended to be a simple process, multiplying available land area by the floor area ratio allowed by the General Plan. This results in approximately 7,700 square feet of potential commercial floor area transfer from the Beach Road donor parcel (APN 058-171-86). See Exhibit 11. The square footage takes into consideration the developability of the donor parcel. Appellants' assert that the donor parcel must reduce the square footage based on the number of parking spaces that have been previously allocated from past Town approvals. However, any previous allocation of parking spaces to the donor parcel does not prohibit development on the parcel. Instead, if the donor parcel would be developed, the developer would need to address these previous allocations as part of the development process. However, that does not limit the donor parcel's available land area for purposes of calculating the potential transfer of intensity. The Planning Commission's approval would transfer 3,220 square feet of commercial floor area to the New Morning Cafe parcel. This would be the second transfer of intensity approved by the Town under the current General Plan policy. In 2008, the Planning Commission approved a 535 square foot transfer from the Zelinsky Properties Main Street/Ark Row parcel to the Harbor Light building at 20/22 Main Street, in order to provide a more robust second floor to that new building than existed with the prior Harbor Light building. Staff recommends that a provision be added to the approval whereby a document memorializing the transfer, subject to review and approval by the Town Attorney, is required to be recorded on the title of the Beach Road parcel to reflect its reduced commercial development potential. The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance addresses parking such that changes in use, additions, or enlargements must provide any additional increment of parking required based on the calculations for the proposed change versus the existing condition. In this instance, the overall off-site parking requirement for the proposed project is either the same as or reduced from the existing uses and structure, and no further parking analysis is required. As two on-site parking spaces would be created for the residential units, a requirement for designating one or two spaces in the Beach Road parking lot exclusively for the residential use is a condition of approval. Should the partial retail option for the ground floor be pursued by the applicant, or should the subsequent restaurant conditional use permit approve less than the number of seats shown on the current use permit drawings, then the overall parking requirement would be less than the existing situation based on Zoning Ordinance standards. The project will have no effect, or negligible effect, on parking allocations and demand. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 9 Town Council Meeting September 16, 2015 Ground #3: The Planning Commission did not make the appropriate findings required for approval of a conditional use permit. Staff Response: Section 16-50-040 (D) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance lists the factors to be considered in determining whether or not any conditional use should be permitted in a specific location. The appeal asserts that the Planning Commission's decision was inconsistent with the following sections of that ordinance: 1.(c) The relationship of the location proposed to other uses of land in the vicinity: Response: Section 16-22.040 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the floor area ratio (FAR) in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone is 0.37, "unless a transfer of intensity has been approved in compliance with General Plan Downtown Element policies or the building is reconstructed pursuant to General Plan Downtown Element policies." Although the proposed building would substantially exceed the FAR for its lot size, most other two-story and three-story buildings in this portion of Downtown Tiburon also similarly exceed their FAR. Downtown Tiburon has mix of one, two and three-story buildings. Policy DT -28 of the Downtown Element of the Tiburon General Plan recommends "a mix of two- and three-story buildings is encouraged for new construction" on Tiburon Boulevard. The proposed building would have two full stories and a partial third story and would therefore be consistent with this policy. The design of the structure up to the property lines mirrors that of many other Downtown buildings built at or near the property lines, including the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The appeal states that the project would be inconsistent with the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. The Handbook states that "Tiburon Boulevard is recognized as the area that is most amenable to architectural change through new development, particularly in terms of building shape, facade treatment, street orientation and public sector improvements." The proposed building design would be generally similar in character to other buildings along Tiburon Boulevard, and the increased mass of and design changes to the building would be consistent with the allowances made in the Handbook for "architectural change through new development." The Handbook also states that for properties along Tiburon Boulevard "front facades should be kept close to the sidewalks in order to encourage and support pedestrian activity. Retail storefronts and active outdoor spaces and uses, such as sidewalk cafes, are strongly encouraged, in order to make strolling along Tiburon Boulevard a stimulating and enjoyable activity." The proposed building facade would be adjacent to the sidewalks and could provide for sidewalk cafe use. The Handbook also includes design -specific guidelines that would be reviewed in detail TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 9 Town Council \dccting Scptcmhcr 16, 2015 through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process for this building. The Handbook encourages "active outdoor spaces and uses, such as sidewalk cafes," but potential future use of the sidewalk areas adjacent to the building for tables and chairs for outdoor dining would be reviewed as part of the conditional use permit required for any future ground floor restaurant in the proposed building, and would also be subject to an encroachment permit for any Juanita Lane seating. 2. The compatibility of the design, location, size, and operating characteristics with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Response: The proposed building would have a predominantly two- story design, with a partial third story occupying only the rearmost corner of the site. As noted above, the General Plan encourages a mix of two-story and three-story buildings in the Downtown area and includes a procedure to exceed the floor area ratio with a transfer of development intensity. The Planning Commission considered these factors and determined that the size of the proposed building was consistent with other land uses in the vicinity. The upper floor of the adjacent two-story commercial and office building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard is occupied by office space, with several offices that have windows facing to the south across the roof of the existing New Morning Cafe building. An exterior deck extends up to the shared side property line, but is only accessible from a dental office that largely faces Tiburon Boulevard, and therefore the proposed building would not affect the use of this deck by other building tenants that face the subject property. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed second light well would help substantially lessen the light impacts of the proposed building on the east -facing windows of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The Commission made further efforts to ensure the efficacy of the light well by requiring elements of the third story to be minimized to increase light to this area. The Commission determined that the only way to allow more light to the windows of the adjacent building would be to either limit the project to a one-story design or push a second story area so far to the west that the additional second floor space would be impractical. The Commission concluded that such building limitations would be unreasonable for this property, particularly given the full two-story design of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. 3. The probability of impairment to the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is to be located. Response: The Planning Commission spent considerable time reviewing the architectural characteristics of the proposed building. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 9 Town Council \lccting Schtcmhcr 16, 2015 The Commission found that the original proposal to construct a full three-story building would have created unacceptable visual and sunlight impacts on the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard and would have appeared too massive when viewed from the nearby Fountain Plaza. The Commission only approved a partial third story when that portion of the building was moved to the rear of the building to further protect the visual character of its Downtown surroundings. The appeal states that the project "fails to provide parking on its own lot." The current building does not have any on-site parking, which is common for many buildings in Downtown Tiburon that also depend on off-site parking. The proposed project would provide two on-site garage spaces for the proposed residential units, thereby improving the parking situation for this property from its current condition. Overall parking requirements for the project would be equal to or less than the existing condition per Zoning Ordinance standards. CONCLUSION In reaching its decision on this project, the Planning Commission appropriately applied the review requirements for a conditional use permit and found the application to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook and the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The Commission considered the potential visual and light impacts of the proposed building on the appellant's property and the consistency of the proposed building design with the architectural character of Downtown Tiburon. The Commission determined that the proposed transfer of intensity was appropriate, that the mixed- use building would be compatible with its surroundings and would assist in the revitalization of the Downtown core area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 2), and close the public hearing. 2) Deliberate on the appeal and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intentions regarding the appeal. 3) Direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Notice of appeal 2. Appeal procedures 3. Application form and supplemental materials 4. Planning Commission staff report dated March 25, 2015 5. Planning Commission staff report dated May 13, 2015 6. Planning Commission staff report dated August 12, 2015 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 9 -1 (wn Council Meeting September 16, 2015 7. Minutes of the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission 8. Minutes of the May 13, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 9. Minutes of the August 12, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-08 11. Beach Road Parcel Transfer Calculations 12. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13. Historic Resource Evaluation, dated August 13, 2014 14. Letter from Pt. Tiburon Bayside Board of Directors, dated February 8, 2015 15. Letter from Laleh Zelinsky, dated February 17, 2015 16. Letter from Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, dated February 25, 2015 17. Petition from tenants of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, dated March 18, 2015 18. Letters from Chris Skelton, dated March 24, 2015 19. Letter from Suzanne Himmelwright, dated March 25, 2015 20. Letter from Mary Robinson, dated April 3, 2015 21. Letter from Mo Newman, dated April 9, 2015 22. Approved drawings Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of CommunityDe elopment Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 9 Diane Crane Iacopi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Scott Anderson Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:19 AM aIITC (Tiburon Town Council) Peggy Curran; 'Stock, Benjamin L.'; Diane Crane lacopi FW: 1694-96 Tiburon Blvd. Record Exhibit PC Ltr - 5 13 15 w Exhibits.pdf Dear Councilmembers, Please find below an e-mail regarding the New Morning Cafe appeal item on tonight's agenda. Scott From: Chris Skelton [mailto:cskelton@rflawllp.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:42 PM To: Dan Watrous; Scott Anderson Cc: Riley Hurd Subject: 1694-96 Tiburon Blvd. Record Exhibit Dan, Upon review of the exhibits for the above referenced appeal, I was disappointed to discover that my letter dated 5/13/15 (attached) was not included for the Council's consideration. I greatly appreciate your efforts in promptly distributing it to the Council as soon as possible. Can you also please clarify when exhibit 11 was created, by whom, and whether it was distributed to anyone? Take care, Chris Chris A. Skelton, Esq. RAGGHIANTI 1 FREITAS LLP 1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100, San Rafael, CA 94901 T 415.453.9433 Ext. 131 • F 415.453.8269 Email: cskelton@rflawIlp.com www.RFLawLLP.com • www.linkedin.com/in/caskelton CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error, you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 644.) If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender at: cskelton@rflawllp.com<mailto:cskelton@rflawl1p.com>. Thank you. 1 RagghiantilFreitas LLP Christopher A. Skelton cskelton@rflawllp.com May 13, 2015 Via E-mail Only (dwatrous@townoftiburon.org) Tiburon Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Attorneys at Law 1101 Fifth Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawllp.com Re: 1694-1696 Conditional Use Permit #11402 (Cont. from March 25, 2015) Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners: Our office continues to represents Jim and Pam Mantegani, owners of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard ("1690 Property"), in connection with the proposed development project at 1694 -1696 Tiburon Boulevard ("Project"). This Project was first heard on March 25, 2015, when the Commission and public gave specific guidance on what changes were necessary to support the Project. Unfortunately, the current plans fail to respond to the concerns raised. Furthermore, critical information is still not available to adequately evaluate this Project. For these reasons, we request that the Planning Commission deny the application. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The Planning Commissions majority view is not implemented in the Project redesign. 2. The Project fails to respond to the public's previous request for detailed information on the parking available in the Beach Road parking lot ("Lot"), as well as a breakdown of the Lot's precise development potential in evaluating the transfer of development intensity ("TDI"). 3. The Project, although conceptual in nature, does not conform to the General Plan ("GP"), Zoning Code ("Code"), or Design Guidelines ("Guidelines") and significant changes are required to achieve full compliance. 4. The findings necessary to support a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") cannot be made. May 13, 2015 Page 2 of 8 RagghiantilFreitas LLP ANALYSIS 1. The updated application does not adequately respond to the Planning Commission's prior comments. A. Height On March 25, 2015, the Commission suggested that a three-story building was too massive for the site and inconsistent with the surrounding development. "[N]o Commissioner was saying that the building must stay one story, but a two-story solution that would allow light into the windows at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard could be considered." The May 13, 2015 staff report frames the current design in terms of a "partial third story." There is nothing partial about the plans. The building height for the third -story element is still maxed out at 38 feet, with the elevator equipment projecting beyond the designated limit to 40 feet.1 Importantly, the third story element is positioned directly in-line with the proposed light well, which further interferes with reasonable access to light for the 1690 Property. Lastly, the plate heights for the second and third floor residential space are excessive, 11 feet and 12 feet respectively. These large volume spaces add to the massing and detract from compatibility with surrounding properties. We request that any future redesigns should be (a) lower and (b) supported by a shade study demonstrating the impacts on the 1690 Property. B. Parking: The purposes of the parking ordinance is to ensure that no buildings or structures are constructed, modified, remodeled unless spaces for parking and/or truck loading and unloading are permanently provided and maintained for the benefit of residents, employees, customers and visitors, within or outside of buildings or in a combination of both, in compliance with all the requirements of division 16-32. When the Project proposes to demolish the existing building in favor of a new structure and use, the applicant must then also comply with the parking requirements in place at the time of the Project. The Commission is in a unique position to properly account for and allocate the much needed parking spaces for the proposed uses. 1 The elevator does not serve the third floor, so it is unclear why the shaft projects beyond the height limits. Alternative elevator designs should be considered to minimize height (e.g. machine room -less design). 1. Ragghianti IFreitas LLP May 13, 2015 Page 3 of 8 Section 16-32.030(A)(1) requires that either a covenant or lease agreement be maintained by the Town for any parking arrangement where a use does not accommodate all required parking on their own parcel. Furthermore, the Code identifies that the Town may maintain a parking log and map. No such log or map could be identified for the Lot. It is not the public's burden to demonstrate whether the applicant is in compliance with parking requirements. The burden should be on an applicant to prove to the Commission that they comply. Although the applicant has presented information regarding the Project's parking demand, there is no discussion on whether the Lot can accommodate the demand. Lastly, section 16-32.060 of the Code requires bicycle parking on site. The current plans fail to account for the required two bike racks. Given the number of proposed encroachments, now is an appropriate time to review the overall site strategy to confirm that the required facilities can be accommodated either on the property or somewhere nearby that is also under the use and control of the Project ownership. C. 1690 access to light: On March 25, 2015, the Commission suggested that access to light for 1690 Tiburon Boulevard ("1690 Property") must be protected and preserved; the 26 -foot long by 6 -foot wide light well fails to adequately facilitate this recommendation. The front 30 feet and rear 25 feet of the shared property line (sheet A2.2) obliterate light for the 1690 Property since the proposed structure is still 26 feet tall at the shared property line. The roof eve for the 1690 Property is at an elevation approximately 22 feet tall, so the towering mass provides no relief in response to the Commission's prior comments. The proposed plate heights for the new building should be adjusted, the second story of the building should be pulled back from the property line to mirror the improvements at the 1690 Property, and a light well should be incorporated into the design. All three-story elements should be removed from the final design. 2. TDI and Development Potential of Beach Road Parking Lot are unjustified. A. Development Potential: A clear understanding of the actual development potential of the Lot is critical to evaluating the potential for transferring the development intensity from that site to the Project site. It is again blindly suggested that the Lot somehow has a development tf RagghiantilFreitas LLP May 13, 2015 Page 4 of 8 potential of approximately 10,000 square feet. It is uncertain how that development potential was determined, but it appears that realistic constraints of the site, the Code, and the process were again ignored. The anticipated 27 parking spaces needed for the Project should be considered in connection with the Lot's development potential. The Commission cannot genuinely make the necessary findings for the TDI absent evaluation of the development potential for the Lot. As a policy consideration, the Commission should consider whether it is going to require the applicant to record a covenant against the Lot identifying it as being encumbered by the final parking demand for the Project. Such a covenant should be required to promote present and future clarity of development potential for and this Lot, especially since it is reasonably foreseeable that this Lot will be further leveraged with TDIs for over- development on other properties owned by ACV Ventures. B. Beach Road Parking: According to the Nelson/Nygaard Downtown Parking and Traffic Study from 2012, this Lot may accommodate 72 parking spaces (Exhibit A). The adjacent parking lot, which may be partially located on the Lot at issue, is identified as accommodating 65 parking spaces. Town staff could not demonstrate where the Lot ended and the Bank of America property began relative to parking. A visual inspection of the adjacent lot that partially serves Bank of America revealed that a portion of the site was recently repaved and restriped, resulting in 64 parking spaces. Town staff suggested that the total Lot has approximately 120 parking spaces. A visual inspection of the Lot revealed that approximately 26 parking spaces were marked and designated for Bank of America employee and/or patron parking. On April 3, Town staff revealed that "formal allocations of parking spaces to the Beach Road parking lot in Town approvals amount to about 80 spaces." It is possible that between the Bank of America parking demand, existing allocation of parking for other projects, and the parking demand derived from the proposed Project, the Lot will be 100% encumbered with parking. The practical consequence is that zero development potential remains for transferring to the site at 1696 Tiburon Boulevard. A factually based critical analysis of this component should be prepared prior to the Commission rendering a final decision on the CUP application. tf Ragghianti I Freitas LLP May 13, 2015 Page 5 of 8 C. Historical TDI application: The TDI policy has only been utilized on a single occasion in Town - the Harbor Light building located at 20-22 Main Street. This project was approved in 2008. In the resolution approving that TDI, the Commission specifically found the exact development potential and put a square footage cap on the allowable transfer. Such findings have not been provided for consideration in the proposed resolution of approval. For comparison purposes, the following chart represents how the prior TDI compares to the proposed TDI: The proposed Project has precedential value for the Town. If the CUP granting this TDI is approved, it sends a clear message to multi -property owners that development standards and the Code do not actually apply since TDIs can circumvent the baseline rules with apparently no limit. Typically, a variance would be required to accomplish the same results as the TDI. However, genuine variance findings cannot be made to support such an application. For this reason, the Commission should proceed with caution when reviewing the level of proposed development of this Project. Extending the same 523 square footage credit from prior TDI to this Project renders a potential square footage of 3,496. Alternatively, applying the same completed FAR development from the prior TDI (117%) to this Project would generate a proposed floor area of 4,300 square feet. 4,300 square feet of development would support a first floor that is approximately the same as the existing square footage plus a modest second floor improvement that incorporates an increased setback and lightwell into the design scheme. 1696 Tiburon 22 Main Lot size (sq ft) 3,676 2,514 Allowable sq ft 1,360 704 Existing sq ft 2,970 2,415 Proposed sq ft 6,427 2,941 Percent Increase 116% 21% Allowed FAR 37% (NC zone) 28% (VC zone) Existing FAR 81% 96% Proposed FAR 175% 117% The proposed Project has precedential value for the Town. If the CUP granting this TDI is approved, it sends a clear message to multi -property owners that development standards and the Code do not actually apply since TDIs can circumvent the baseline rules with apparently no limit. Typically, a variance would be required to accomplish the same results as the TDI. However, genuine variance findings cannot be made to support such an application. For this reason, the Commission should proceed with caution when reviewing the level of proposed development of this Project. Extending the same 523 square footage credit from prior TDI to this Project renders a potential square footage of 3,496. Alternatively, applying the same completed FAR development from the prior TDI (117%) to this Project would generate a proposed floor area of 4,300 square feet. 4,300 square feet of development would support a first floor that is approximately the same as the existing square footage plus a modest second floor improvement that incorporates an increased setback and lightwell into the design scheme. rkf Ragghianti I Freitas LLP May 13, 2015 Page 6 of 8 3. The Project plans fail to satisfy the Town's guidelines and the procedure for reviewing compliance is fundamentally flawed. A. General Plan: The Project presupposes that it is allowable to rebuild the property with a non -conforming structure (floor area and parking standards), as is potentially allowed under the General Plan's DT -6 Policy. That policy allows a structure to be rebuilt or reconstructed to the previously existing FAR, provided that the resulting building substantially conforms to the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. The present plans do not. The Guidelines state, "most of the post-war and newer buildings tend to be decidedly horizontal in shape and proportions, with site development that generally includes generous front and side yard setbacks, some use of plant materials, and highly visible on- site parking." The proposed Project is inconsistent with this development strategy as demonstrated by its vertical improvements, zero setbacks, absence of plant material as a result of developing to the property lines, and zero parking on-site. The Project contradicts the three themes of the Guidelines for Tiburon Boulevard District: Consistency, compatibility, and authenticity. This Project's TDI application exacerbates the inconsistency with the Tiburon Boulevard Downtown District development pattern. Three-story structures along Tiburon Boulevard are an anomaly. In the limited situation where such large structures exist, they minimize the perceived height, bulk and mass through incorporation of design characteristics like pitched rooflines and other architectural articulation. More importantly, none of the three- story structures along Tiburon Boulevard directly abut another structure on the adjoining property. The staff report continues to promote 41 Main Street as a ripe comparison for this project, but that property is subject to a different downtown District, with its own unique characteristics. B. Encroachments: The Project plans call for four tables and 26 seats, roof eaves, and other projections in the Town's right-of-way. The Guidelines state that "all street furniture, including fire hydrants and utility boxes, are to be installed in locations that do not obstruct or impede Ragghianti I Freitas LLP May 13, 2015 Page 7 of 8 pedestrian use and enjoyment of sidewalk and plaza areas." The public sidewalk along Juanita lane is rendered impassable by the proposed improvements. More importantly, the plans would require an encroachment permit that is not supported by the allowable purposes found in the Town's encroachment policy established by Resolution 16-2010 (Exhibit B). In fact, the proposed use of the public right-of-way specifically falls within all three of the impermissible purposes established by the Resolution, the most significant being: "encroachments for the purpose of, or having the practical effect of, privatizing the affected area for the exclusive use or benefit of one or a limited number of individual owners in lieu of the general public." Such an exclusive privatization of public property violates the Town's recently adopted policy. Code section 16-30 outlines "standards for all development and land uses." In multiple subsections, the Code identifies that "in no case shall such projection encroach to within three feet of any property line." (See 16-30.030 (F)(1)-(2)). Setbacks for commercial developments are set during the CUP application. However, the Code does not appear to exempt commercial structures from complying with this three foot requirement. Therefore, the proposed plans would violate this standard along both Juanita Lane and the shared boundary line with the 1690 Property. C. Borrowed View Response: At the March 25, 2015 hearing, "borrowed view" was raised to minimize the impact to the 1690 Property owners. The NC zoning district calls for a maximum FAR of 37%. Any property owner in the NC District should be able to reasonably rely on the development standards established by the Town in determining a parcel's value relative to the development potential of neighboring parcels. The 1690 Property developed their site understanding that there was a non -conforming one -floor building on the neighboring property. However, given the development potential supported by the GP, Code, and Guidelines, there is no way the owners of the 1690 Property could reasonably foresee the level of impacts, complete obstruction of views and light, proposed by the Project. 4. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit would be violated and the findings to support the application cannot genuinely be made. RagghiantilFreitas LLP May 13, 2015 Page 8of8 A purpose of the CUP review is, in part, to determine whether the location proposed for the CUP is properly related to the development of the neighborhood or vicinity as a whole and compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the surrounding area. The March 25, 2015 meeting minutes reflect the Commission's consideration of deferring design compatibility to the Design Review Board ("DRB") phase of review. However, once the Commission establishes a height and floor area, the plans will be developed around those factors. It is reasonably foreseeable that the DRB will defer to the Commission on whether to further limit the height, bulk, and mass of the Project. For this reason, it is critical that the Commission seriously scrutinize this Project at the present time. If the Commission is not comfortable with some of the design elements, then we request that a joint PC -DRB meeting be held to address this Project holistically instead of piecemealing it through the reviewing bodies. The Code requires special consideration be paid to compatibility of the design, location, size, and operating characteristics with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. A three-story sh•ucture in this location will impair the architectural integrity of the NC district and pave the way for similar development, which will lead to a "wind tunnel" effect traveling down Tiburon Boulevard. Additionally, real estate professionals in the community suggest that the updated Project plans will continue to injure the adjoining property by cutting off light, views, and other considerations in contrast to the required CUP findings under 16-52.040(D)(4). Conclusion For the reasons articulated above, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny this CUP. If this application is continued, we request that a joint PC -DRB hearing be held and that the story poles be strung together to demonstrate the true Project massing. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very Truly Yours, Chris Skelton CC: Clients Exhibit A (1 page - 2012 Parking Evaluation) N i O +. a D CD a) ce a) c a a 13 m L N a 6 co 1 2 L D _a) LL Exhibit B (6 page - 2014 Encroach Policy Update) TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting November 5, 2014 Agenda Item: /43-: PORT: To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Town Staff Subject: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Amending the Town's Encroachment Permit Policy Reviewed By: t i A L'u' BACKGROUND Earlier this year, the Town Council heard an appeal involving the Town's Encroachment Permit Policy, originally adopted in 2010, regarding property at 1897 Mar West Street. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, the Council directed staff to return at a future meeting with amendments to the Policy that would offer more flexibility in the review and approval of similar applications proposing encroachments on Town land and right-of-way. ANALYSIS The key change to the Policy is in Section C-5 (Allowable Purposes). The proposed amendments to that section broaden the opportunities to grant an encroachment permit, especially those permits involving parking that would be required by code for a new use. A corresponding amendment to Section D-1 (Impermissible Purposes) is also proposed. Additional proposed amendments to the Policy include a new Section F (Encroachment Permit Application Requirements) amplifying the requirements set forth in Chapter 19 and allowing for independent review at the discretion of the Town Engineer when circumstances warrant such review. A redlined version of the Policy is included in Exhibit 1. Staff has also updated the standardized Memorandum of Encroachment Permit Conditions (an attachment to Exhibit 2) that is recorded with approval of the most substantive encroachment permits. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution (Exhibit 2) amending the Policy. EXIIIBITS 1. Proposed policy with amendments shown in redlined format. 2. Draft Resolution with policy in final format. Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community DeveIopment� TOWN OFTIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 Draft Revised Encroachment Permit Policy (with proposed amendments shown in redlined format) A. Definitions For the purposes of this Resolution, the meaning of words and phrases, including without limitation, Town streets, street right-of-ways, Town -owned land and other Town interests in real property (including easements), shall be as set forth or used in Title V, Chapter 19, of the Tiburon Municipal Code. B. General Provisions The Town shall have discretion to revoke any encroachment permit at any time. No encroachment permit shall grant any private property owner a permanent right to perform work in or use the area subject to the encroachment permit. The Town may, in its discretion, grant an encroachment permit allowing access from private property to the public right-of-way, provided that the Town shall condition any such encroachment permit as it deems appropriate to manage or enhance the public right-of-way. The Town is not responsible for the cost of altering, modifying, or removing any such encroachment if it deems such alteration, modification, or removal is warranted. C. Allowable Purposes For the following purposes, and only if the Town finds that the encroachment will serve public safety or welfare, the Town may issue encroachment permits for work within, upon, or beneath Town streets, street right-of-ways, and other Town interests in real property (including easements). Said permits shall contain conditions that shall include, without limitation, revocation at the Town's discretion. 1. To allow access to private property for entry/egress purposes. 2. To allow applicants to install, build or replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters and curb cuts. 3. To allow applicants to install, maintain, or replace landscaping, within the parameters of this policy. 4. To allow applicants to maintain, repair or replace previously lawfully -installed encroachments. 5. To accommodate ;-i;•cd parking that the Municipal Code would require for a new use of the type associated with the encroachment permit . where the Town finds that (a) the applicant cannot feasibly locate such parking on private property; e -(b) the public safety or welfare is better served by allowing such parking to encroach:. (c) a substantia] and material public safety benefit will result in that a substandard safety-related public street condition (such as inadequate width or shIht distance) in the project's public street f'rontasze be made standard or si<_tniticantly improved: and (I) the physical extent of the encroachment is minimized to the extent fusible. LITHIBIT NO. APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages ifnecessary) Name: Jim Mantegani AUG 242015 ' PLANNING DIVISION TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CI 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 www.ci.tiburon.ca.us Mailing Address: 1 Mantegani Way, Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone: 415.453.9433 (Work) (Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional): cskelton@rflawllp.com ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: Planning Commission Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: August 12, 2015 • Name of Applicant: ACV Argo Tiburon L.P. or Marty Zwick - architect Type of Application or Decision: Conditional Use Permit GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached letter AUG 24 2U15 TOWN CLERK TOWN Cr T:ILlu 'ON ********** k*****************************x*********** **M***********x********** STAFF USE ONLY BELOW THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: 0 "y % Date Appeal Filed: Fee Paid: 31/4-03— Receipt No. z?_PT Date of Appeal Hearing: . 6;60 NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $300 flat fee for non -applicant S:lAdministrationiFormsWotice ofAppealform revised 3-9-2010.doc Efatt191.10� Ragghianti I Fr. eitas LLP Christopher A. Skelton cskelton@rflawllp.com August 24, 2015 HAND DELIVERED Tiburon Town Council c/ o Diane Crane-Lacopi, Town Clerk 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Attorneys at Law 1101 5th Avenue, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawllp.com Re: Appeal of 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Conditional Use Permit (#11402) Dear Members of the Council: Our office continues to represent Jim and Pam Mantegani, owners of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. This letter is an appeal of the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") approved by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2015 for ACV Argo Tiburon L.P. (the "applicant"), owners of 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard (the "Property"). The grounds for this appeal are: (1) the Planning Commission's decision is not supported by adequate findings; and (2) the findings are not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council uphold this appeal and deny the CUP. The applicant sought a CUP in connection with a Transfer of Development Intensity ("TDI"), in order to demolish the existing one-story building and construct a three-story mixed use building with the top two floors consisting of residential units, presumably to be entitled as condominiums. The proposed improvements will have a tremendous adverse impact on the Manteganis' adjacent property by obliterating access to light and air along the shared east -west property line. Procedurally, this application is deceptive because it limits any single reviewing body's scope: Planning Commission reviewed for CEQA and TDI; Design Review Board ("DRB") will review the project for design purposes, but the project is already blessed by the Planning Commission with more than 6,000 square feet of development potential and the maximum height limit of 38 feet; lastly, the Planning Commission and or Council may review the project in EXHIBIT NO. R, 2 -op? Ragghianti Freitas LLP Page 2 of 6 connection with the condominium map and subdivision. The interplay between the Planning Commission and the DRB is especially troubling because the site strategy and architectural review are effectively pre -determined based on the excessive square footage and height granted to the applicant under the CUP. DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS The Commissions' deliberation and decision on August 12 focused on economics of the project. This is readily identified through the following Commissioner statements, "condemning this site to permanently economically ineffective role is a mistake for the town" (August 12, 2015 hearing minutes, 35:40); and "mindful of the need for compromise given the overarching goal of revitalizing downtown and making things economically viable." (August 12, 2015 hearing minutes, 53:45). Despite the Commission focusing its deliberation on the project's economic viability, such a finding is neither identified in the decision nor is such a finding allowed under the Municipal Code. Therefore, the findings fail to bridge the analytical gap between the evidence and the ultimate decision particularly because no evidence was provided to show that the excessive square footage was financially required for the project's feasibility. FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE The Planning Commission was charged with evaluating the merits of a CUP in connection with the application of a TDI. However, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the availability of a TDI between the Beach Road parking lot and the project site. Furthermore, the limited evidence that is offered in consideration of the TDI is contradictory. A. Development Potential The findings broadly state, "The Planning Commission finds that Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-86 [Beach Road parking lot] holds development potential of approximately 7,700 square feet under current general plan and zoning designations, and that there is adequate development potential on that site to approve the transfer." (Resolution 2015- 08, Section 4). The March 25, 2015 staff report states, "the applicants also own the 121 - space Beach Road parking lot, which has approximately 10,000 square feet of development potential." (March 23, 2015 Staff Report, page 4). Consistent with the March 23 report, the May 13, 2015 draft resolution included as Exhibit 2 to that staff report reads, "The Planning Commission finds that Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-86 holds development potential of approximately 10,000 square feet under current general plan and zoning designations, and that there is adequate development potential on that site to approve the transfer." (May 13, 2015 Staff Report, Exhibit 2, page 2). There is no explanation in the record or elsewhere regarding how the development potential was determined. Furthermore, there is no explanation as to how or why the development EXHIBIT NO. IL Ragghianti (Freitas LLP Page 3 of 6 potential for the Beach Road parking lot changed between the May 13 hearing and the August 12 hearing. The evidence simply does not support such broad conclusory statements about the development potential of the Beach Road parking lot or the availability to transfer such development potential to other properties. In both written communications and verbal presentations, it was suggested that the Beach Road parking lot development potential be evaluated based on current and proposed encumbrances; specifically what parking and other development restrictions are imposed on the lot, and how would the restrictions impact the development potential of the property. Despite multiple requests, such an evaluation was never prepared or offered to, or by, the Planning Commission. There is no evidence in the record to support the finding that the Beach Road parking lot has approximately 7,700 square feet of development potential. Disclosure of calculations showing this potential is required for meaningful Planning Commission and public review. B. Parking and development potential The record reflects that the Beach Road parking lot is comprised of 121 parking spacesl. Review of Town records reveals that formal allocation of parking spaces to the Beach Road parking lot in Town approvals amount to about 80 spaces. The findings for the August 12 decision identifies that the approximately 25 parking spaces demanded from the project may be provided off-site by recorded covenant or long-term lease. Therefore, public records suggest that the Beach Road parking lot may be encumbered with approximately 105 parking spaces allocated to other uses. There is no evidence addressing the interplay between the existing and proposed restriction on the Beach Road parking lot and how it will impact the site's development potential. This is critical, and legally required, evidence. C. CUP Factors Under section 16.52.040 of the Municipal Code, the reviewing body for a CUP is directed to give special consideration to a number of factors in determining whether or not the CUP should be permitted in a specific location. The findings fail to properly address these factors and the evidence fails to support any implied finding. 1. Relationship of the location proposed to other uses of land in the vicinity. The project proposes more than 6,000 square feet of development on a lot that the general plan and zoning code contemplate accommodating 1,360 square feet. The current building is 2,970 square feet, more than twice what the existing zoning would 1 A personal review of the property revealed that the Beach Road parking lot only contains 114 parking spaces. EXHIBIT NO. p,gbf-7 RagghiantijFreitas LLP Page 4 of 6 allow. Under the General Plan's goal DT -6, downtown buildings may be rebuilt or reconstructed to the same FAR as exists, provided that the resulting building substantially conforms to the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. No other property in Tiburon, whether along Tiburon Boulevard, Main Street, or Ark Row, exacerbates the non -conforming square footage to the degree or magnitude approved under the CUP. The location of the project, on an unusually small lot at the street corner adjacent to an open space plaza, does not support such excessive development. It will create a wind tunnel effect at this critical point of downtown and adversely impact the scale of development going forward. In consideration of DT -6, the findings fail to reconcile how the project will substantially conform to the Downtown Design Handbook. For example, the Guidelines state that street furniture should not obstruct pedestrian use, yet the plans call for four outdoor dining areas along Juanita that are located in the public right-of-way and completely impede pedestrian movement. 2. The compatibility of the design, location, size, and operating characteristics with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The size of the proposed project is not compatible with the existing land uses in the vicinity. The project dwarfs the two-story Mantegani property at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. By building directly up to the property lines with two and three story elements, the project significantly deviates from the type of development contemplated in the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Downtown Design Guidelines. While the Guidelines do call for a mix of two and three story buildings, the scale and site strategy of such buildings are pre -determined through application of the floor area ratios. This CUP effectively serves as a run around of the variance procedure typically required to achieve such a significant floor area, by allowing the applicant to double their existing FAR. This project will serve as an outlier for decades to come because TDIs are limited, and few other properties will achieve the type of scale proposed by this project. The project is diametrically incompatible with the adjacent property in its height and massing. The second floor of the Mantegani property steps back from both the front and side setbacks while incorporating the roof eave into a covered wrap around porch. The use and enjoyment of this feature is destroyed by the proposed project. In consideration of these contentions raised at the multiple public hearings, a 6 foot deep and 26.5 foot long light -well was incorporated into the project's design. The shared property line is over 80 feet long, so the light -well provides relief to less than 1/3rd of the Mantegani property. Furthermore, the third story massing was relocated directly adjacent to the light -well adding 12 additional feet to the mass, which will effectively destroy any beneficial effect of light -well. If a light -well is necessary to accomplish the EXHIBIT NO. t Pc sOF- 7 Ragghianti IFreitas LLP Page 5 of 6 Town's development goals, policies, and programs, it demonstrates that the project • simply is not compatible with the surrounding built environment. 3. The probability of impairment to the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is to be located. It is highly probably that this project, with such excessive scale relative to the site's development potential, will impair and adversely impact the integrity and character of the NC zoning district. The project fails to provide parking on its own lot, which enables nearly 100 percent lot coverage and approximately 165 percent FAR. As described above, this gross deviation from the development standards will never be achieved again making this project an aberration. With its highly visible location adjacent to the ferry plaza and a block from the waterfront/ferry landing, it will serve as a beacon of light detracting from the village character contemplated under the Guidelines. Conclusion There is only one other TDI documented in Town records. It was for 20 and 22 Main Street, which supported a 535 square foot transfer to "fill out" the existing second floor improvements at that property. Here, the applicant wants 3,220 square feet of TDI alone for an additional second floor and partial third floor. This is not what was contemplated under the General Plan's DT -9, which provides the goal of TDIs through a CUP process. Comments were made at various Commission hearings along the lines of, "What did the Manteganis expect would happen to a one-story building next door?" What they certainly didn't expect, was an applicant being granted 4.5 times the allowable FAR for the property. Such a result renders the FAR ordinance meaningless and gives surrounding property owners no way to anticipate the scope of future development. The lack of a formal process for thoughtfully considering a TDI (it's just a single sentence in the General Plan) has Ied to an extreme, and damaging result, result. While the applicant has argued that this project is the litmus test for their future development in Town (i.e. be sure and give us what we need to make money or we won't do the rest), this also sets a precedent for these future applications. While this applicant may have bought much of the downtown at a great price, making their investments as profitable as possible should not come at the expense of others who also own land nearby. The Commissions decision was not supported by the findings, and the findings were not supported by the evidence. These failures resulted in an abuse of discretion and EXHIBIT NO. (f7 1. RagghiantilFreitas LLP Page 6 of 6 entitlement to improvements that will adversely impact the development landscape of Tiburon's downtown. Please consider whether such an extreme application of the TDI is in the public interest for the Town. We know it is not in the interest of the Manteganis' property. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. We reserve the right to amend this appeal at any time in the future based on future discovery and/or investigation. CC: Clients Very Truly Yours, Christopher A. Skelton EXHIBIT NO. t 1, '7 of l ? RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and rL_unsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 17, 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE 1. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 EXHI$IT NO. Z 1 The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief (approximately 10 minute) presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 2 EXHIBIT NO. Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (0 Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If. after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 3 EXHIBIT NO. 2 SCHEDULING OF APPEALS 1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORY POLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three -hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 4 EXHIBIT NO. 2 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff - level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board, may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon To►i'n Council Resolution No. 17-2010 03/17/2010 5 EXHIBIT NO. 2- TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • Conditional Use Permit o Precise Development Plan o Secondary Dwelling Unit o Zoning Text Amendment o Rezoning or Prezoning o General Plan Amendment o Change of Address TYPE OF APPLICATION o Design Review (DRB) o Design Review (Staff Level) o Variance(s) # o Floor Area Exception o Tidelands Permit o Sign Permit o Tree Permit o Tentative Subdivision Map o Final Subdivision Map o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjustment o Condominium Use Permit o Certificate of Compliance o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 1694-1696 Tiburon Blvd./3 Juanita In. PARCEL NUMBER: 059-101-12 PROPERTY OWNER: ACV Argo Tiburon LP PROPERTY SIZE: ±3,676 gsf ZONING: NCD MAILING ADDRESS: 770 Tamalpais Dr. Suite 401 B. Corte Madera, CA 94925 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL: APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): Marty Zwick* MAILING ADDRESS: 326 Pine St. Sausalito, CA 94965 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: 415-289-0303/415-289-0404 E-MAIL: zwick@zarch.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER Marty Zwick* MAILING ADDRESS: 326 Pine St. Sausalito, CA 94965 PHONE/FAX NUMBER: 415-2894303/415-289-0404 E-MAIL: zwick@zarch.com Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): Remove existing building that contains two restaurants and an office space and replace the building with a new mixed use building that would contain a ground floor (with one restaurant and possibly one retail space), a second floor of two residential units and o third floor with one residential unit. The residential units are to be conaommlums. I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. 1 therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees that mjght result from the third party challenge. Signature: * Date: 9/9/2014 *If other than owner, must have an authorization letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes of filing this application EfiHIBIT N0. 3 DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION Application No.: GP Designation: Fee Deposit: Date Received: Received By: Receipt #: Date Deemed Complete: By: Acting Body: Action: Date: Conditions of Approval or Comments: Resolution or Ordinance # E `_' E U W L511 AUG 03 2015 PLANNING DIVISION TRANSMITTAL ZWICK ARCHITECTS DATE: 12/10/14 FROM: MarlyZwick REVISED: 4/28/15 REVISED: 7/31/15 TO: Dan Watrous PROJECT: .1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon Planning Department VIA: Hand -Delivery CC: File Dan, Below the updated Narrative/Project Description for our project #11402; 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard /3 Juanita Lane: Assessor's Parcel Number 059-101-12. Project Description This project is proposed on a relatively flat site on the south side of Tiburon Boulevard at the intersection with ,Juanita Lane in the Neighborhood Commercial District. The existing building at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard/3 Juanita Lane, consists of two restaurants and an office (with a small shed in the back) which totals ±2,776 gsf of floor area and lot coverage. The site is ±3,676 gsf per the site survey by Meridian Surveying Engineering dated April 2011. The current structure is a story and a half including roof. We are proposing to keep the restaurant use and obtain approval for a project with the flexibility to use 100% of the ground floor for restaurant use or have a small retail component on the ground floor. These uses are in keeping with the occupancies now found in the existing building and are consistent with the downtown neighborhood commercial district. We are proposing two units of new housing (condominiums) above the ground floor. Providing housing on this site will help to enliven the downtown in the evenings and encourage walking for everyday activities consistent with the Tiburon Climate Action Plan. The proposed detailing and massing is consistent with other structures in the area and the architectural style and materials harken back to Tiburon's nautical past. ZWICK ARCHITECTS 1 Architecture • Interior Design 326 Pine Street, Sausalito CA 94965 ±/415.289.0303 (/415.289.0404 EXHIBIT NO. The proposed three-story building will have a total proposed floor area of: First Floor of ±2,450 gsf Second Floor of ±2,892 gsf Third Floor of ±662 gsf Total ±6,004 gsf Project Area Breakdown: We propose to allow for flexibility in the use of the ground floor and ask that the project be reviewed with two different options for the ground floor use. Scheme A (as seen on A-2.1 A) includes one restaurant on the ground floor. The restaurant seating floor area is 1 146 gsf. The remaining ground floor area consists of kitchen area of 406 gsf with a walk-in refrigerator area of 112 gsf, bathrooms and hall of 235 gsf, circulation of 162 gsf, elevator lobby of 144 gsf, 45 gsf of machine room, refuse enclosure of 82 gsf, garage parking area of 608 (600 of which is exempt from total floor area calculations), area below front entry balcony of 60 gsf and 50 gsf for the area below the balconies on the Tiburon Boulevard side of the building. The proposed restaurant would have 8 dining counter seats, 54 table seats, 6 seats outside on Tiburon Boulevard and 24 seats outside on Juanita Lane for a total of 92 seats. The project maintains the same number of seats outdoors (30 seats) and the same number of seats indoors (62 seats) found in the existing restaurants. Scheme B (as seen on A-2.1 B) includes one restaurant and one retail or ancillary restaurant space on the ground floor. The restaurant seating floor area is 780 gsf. The remaining ground floor area consists of the kitchen area is 406 gsf, a walk-in refrigerator area of 112 gsf, bathrooms and hall of 235 gsf, retail or ancillary space of 366 gsf, circulation of 162 gsf, elevator lobby of 144 gsf, 45 gsf of machine room, refuse enclosure of 82 gsf, garage parking area of 608 (600 of which is exempt from total floor area calculations), area below front entry balcony of 60 gsf and 50 gsf for the area below the balconies on the Tiburon Boulevard side of the building. The proposed restaurant would have 8 dining counter seats, 30 table seats, 6 seats outside on Tiburon Boulevard and 24 seats outside on Juanita Lane for a total of 68 seats. This proposal includes 24 fewer seats than the existing restaurants. To accompany both first floor alternatives there is only one proposal for the second and third floor layout. ZWICK ARCHITECTS 2 Architecture • Interior Design 326 Pine Street, Sausalito CA 94965 t/415.289.0303 F/415.289.0404 r EXHIBIT NO. The second floor is proposed to have two units consisting of Unit 1 at 1 196 gsf, Unit 1 balconies 130 gsf, Unit 2 main level at 1 105 gsf, Unit 2 balcony 37 gsf, elevator and mechanical 76 gsf, hall/lobby 133 gsf, and stairs 212 gsf. We are proposing to incorportate a lightwell that runs along the property line facing 1690 Tiburon Blvd. that is 6'-0" deep and 26'-5" long. The third floor, as proposed, includes the upstairs portion of unit 2 and mechanical area. The upper level of Unit 2 is 504 gsf with mechanical area 1 of 131 gsf and mechanical area 2 of 27 gsf for a total of 662 gsf. Transfer of Intensity: The proposal for New Morning Cafe is for 6,004 square feet of new construction. The New Morning Cafe site is 3,676 square feet. The site is in the Neighborhood Commercial District, which has a floor area ratio of .37. The site square footage of 3,676 square feet allows for 1,360.1 square feet of the project's floor area to be accommodated on the New Morning Cafe lot. This leaves a deficiency of 4,643.9 square feet that must be accommodated by a Transfer Of Development Intensity (TDI). We propose to accommodate the required TDI by using available and unused development potential at The Beach Road Lot. The Beach Road Lot is 1.06 acres or 46,174 square feet, which at a .37 floor area ratio creates 17,084 square feet of unused development potential that can be used for TDI. Utilizing 4,643.9 of TDI would reduce the existing 17,084 square feet of TDI potential to 12,440.1 square feet of TDI still remaining for future projects. Parking Description: Existing Please see ASK -073115-01 to clarify the written description below of the increase in parking demand required to accommodate the proposed project. The existing uses of the property are restaurant and office. The existing restaurants seating totals 92 seats which equates to 23 required parking spaces per Tiburon zoning requirements. Since no parking was ever required on or off site for the present (and future) occupancy, the present and historic occupancy generates 23 grandfathered in spaces for the site. Additionally, the existing ground floor office in the rear (590 gsf) would require two parking spaces for a total of 25 grandfathered in parking spaces. ZWICK ARCHITECTS 3 Architecture • Interior Design 326 Pine Street, Sausalito CA 94965 t/415.289.0303 1/415.289.0404 EXHIBIT NO. 2 Proposed The new project would increase demand in an incremental way above the current demand which is grandfathered in. The proposal with only restaurant on the ground floor (A -2.1A) has a total of 92 restaurant seats and requires a total of 23 parking spaces (one for every four seats). The two residential condominiums on the upper floors require two parking spaces per unit for a total of four spaces. The project proposes to have two parking spaces on site (one for each residential unit). Proposal A-2.1 A would require two (27 spaces based on proposed use minus 25 grandfathered in spaces). Per planning department guidance, all required residential parking spaces must be considered a new use and cannot be a part of the 25 grandfathered in spaces. The two additional parking spaces designated for the residences would be allocated at the Beach Road parking lot for the 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard site. The second alternate proposal (A -2.1B) consisting of restaurant and retail on the ground floor requires less parking. This alternative proposes 68 seats (one for every four seats) for a total of 17 parking spaces required. It also proposes 366 square feet of retail (1 parking space per 250 gsf.) for a total of 2 parking spaces. This proposal includes the same two condominiums on the second and third floor, which would require four parking spaces. This version of the project also proposes to have two parking spaces on site; one for each residential unit. Proposal (A -2.1B) per grandfathering in argument would require zero parking space reserved at the Beach Road parking lot for the project (23 parking spaces minus 25 grandfathered in spaces). However, per planning department guidance, we have agreed to designate two parking spaces for the residences on the Beach Road lot. ZWICK ARCHITECTS 4 Architecture • Interior Design 326 Pine Street, Sausalito CA 94965 t/415.289.0303 (/415.289.0404 EXHIBIT NO. Flood Mitigation: The site is located near the San Francisco Bay in downtown Tiburon. Because the project site is within the 100 year flood zone, the project will be designed to mitigate the presence of water per FEMA regulations for both commercial and housing occupancies. Consistent with FEMA regulations, the proposed project includes housing on the second and third floors well above the 100 year flood zone. The proposed building has nearly the same footprint as the existing building, thus it would not change the existing flow of water. This site is not near a traditional creek or course of flowing water that would typically need to be addressed as part of the FEMA regulations. The site's proximity to the Bay is the reason why this area of Tiburon is considered to be in a flood hazard area. Rising standing water, rather than a horizontally moving stream, while still an issue, is easier to address. In this case, the existing footprint and the proposed footprint are hydraulically similar so it would be a mute point. The proposed project will not impact existing levees or dams. We are proposing to improve the life safety performance of the existing building across the board. The existing building, which is in disrepair, does not address flood mitigation nor any other present day code or standard. ZWICK ARCHITECTS Architecture • Interior Design 326 Pine Street, Sausalito CA 94965 t/415.289.0303 f/415.289.0404 EXHIBIT NO. 5 Tiburon Parking Space Requirer Retail: 1 space per 250 gsf Office: 1 space per 300 gsf Restaurant: 1 parking spoces for every 4 seats Residential: Condominium: 2 parking spaces per unit EXISTING RESTAURANT SEATING: INTERIOR SEATING NEW MORNING CAFE: INTERIOR SEATING ICE CREAM RESTAURANT: OUTSIDE SEATING TIBURON BLVD.: OUTSIDE SEATING JUANITA LANE: TOTAL SEATS: 34 SEATS 28 SEATS 6 SEATS 24 SEATS 92 SEATS PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON EXISTING BUILDING USE SUBTOTAL Restouronl Senting Existing 92 seats/4 = 23 porking spaces required Office 532 sf/300 = 2 parking spaces required Total [Grandfathered in parking spaces] 25 parking spaces required PROPOSED SEATING SHEET A-2.1 A INTERIOR SEATING DINING COUNTER: INTERIOR SEATING TABLE SEATING: OUTSIDE SEATING TIBURON BLVD.: OUTSIDE SEATING JUANITA LANE: TOTAL SEATING 8 SEATS 54 SEATS 6 SEATS 24 SEATS 92 SEATS PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PROPOSED BUILDING USE SUBTOTAL Restaurant Senting 92 seats/4 = 23 parking spaces required Residential (Condominium) Second and Third Floor: 2 units * 2 4 parking spaces required Total [Ground Floor Restaurant Only+Upper Floors Residential] 27 parking spaces required Grandfathered in spaces 25 parking spaces Total Spaces Required 2 parking spaces PROPOSED SEATING SHEET A-2.1 B INTERIOR SEATING DINING COUNTER: INTERIOR SEATING TABLE SEATING: OUTSIDE SEATING TIBURON BLVD.: OUTSIDE SEATING JUANITA LANE: TOTAL SEATING 8 SEATS 30 SEATS 6 SEATS 24 SEATS 68 SEATS PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PROPOSED BUILDING USE SUBTOTAL Restaurant Seating 68 seats/4 = 17 parking spaces required Retail Ground Floor: 366/250 gsf = 2 parking spaces required Residential (Condominium) Second and Third Floor: 2 units * 2 4 parking spaces required Total [Ground Floor Restaurant + Retail + Upper Floors Residential] 23 parking spaces required Grandfathered in spaces 25 parking spaces Total Spaces Required 0 parking spaces IBIT NO. 3 Zwick Architects 4326 Pine &M Sousoloo. Y •• : 415.289.033003 15.2 Scale: NTS Q 1 1 "X8.5 Plot ASK -073115-0 1 New Morning Cafe Tiburon, California Parking Analysis © 2015 by Zwick. n,ch )ecu TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Planning Commission Meeting March 25, 2015 Agenda Item: STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard; File #11402; Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a New Three -Story Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Building Intended for Condominium -type Ownership; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Zwick Architects, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-101-12 PROJECT DATA Address: 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Assessor's Parcel Number: 059-101-12 File Number: 11402 Lot Size: 3,676 square feet General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Zoning: NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Current Use: Restaurant and conunercial space Owner: ACV Argo Tiburon LP Applicants: Zwick Architects Flood Zone: AE — Special Flood Hazard Area Date Complete: January 7, 2015 SUMMARY The applicant has submitted an application to construct a new three-story, 38 foot tall commercial and residential building on the property located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard. The property is located at the southwest corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane and is currently developed with a one-story commercial building occupied by two restaurants (New Morning Cafe and the Grass Shack) and office space. The existing commercial building would be demolished and a new three-story building would be constructed. The proposed building would include space for a restaurant and possibly a small retail space on the ground floor, and two floors above containing two residential condominiums on the second floor and one residential condominium unit on the third floor. A conditional use permit is required for construction of the building pursuant to Section 16- 22.040 (D) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Subsequent permits would include but not be limited to a condominium use permit, Site Plan and Architectural Review, tentative and parcel maps, and a building permit. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 1 PAGE 1 OF 10 Planning Commission Mccting \larch 25. 20h BACKGROUND The building on the site appears to have been constructed in the early to mid -1940s and has been substantially remodeled since that time, most recently in the 1980s. The building has housed numerous businesses, primarily in the food service industry, but has also been used for a liquor store and laundry. A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) was prepared for the subject property which determined that there was no evidence of historical or architectural significance for this building and the property does not qualify for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing building has 2,776 square feet of floor area. The first floor of the proposed building would contain 2,910 square feet of floor area. The first floor would either be an entirely new restaurant or alternately designed with 2,502 square feet of restaurant space and 408 square feet allocated for separate retail connnercial space. The restaurant would have 42 to 62 interior seats (depending on the restaurant/retail mix) and seating for 30 patrons outside the building along Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane. The second floor would be divided into two condominium dwelling units. One unit would contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms and 1,220 square feet of floor area, while the other would contain one bedroom and two bathrooms and 715 square feet of floor area. The third floor would contain a 2,364 square foot condominium unit with two bedrooms and three bathrooms. An elevator would connect all three floors of the building. The building would have a maximum height of 38 feet. The elevator shaft would extend 3.5 feet above the third floor roof. The exterior of the building would utilize decorative wood siding and trim, as illustrated in the conceptual plans attached as Exhibit 9. The existing building has no on-site parking and no on- site parking is proposed for this project, with parking for the commercial and residential uses to be provided in off-site commercial parking lot (the Beach Road parking lot) owned by the same owner. PLANNING ISSUES Building height and mass. The proposed 38 foot building height complies with the maximum height permitted in the NC zone for properties with frontage on Tiburon Boulevard. The first and second floors of the proposed building would cover almost the entire site. The third floor would include a balcony along the Tiburon Boulevard frontage and at the corner of the building that would step the building facade back along the north side of the structure. The remainder of the building would have a three-story facade around almost the entire perimeter of the lot. The buildings in the vicinity of the site contain a mix of one-story and two-story buildings. Although the proposed building would be the first three-story structure in the immediate vicinity, the story poles erected for this project indicate that the proposed building would be somewhat taller than the surrounding structures, but generally consistent with the mix of multi -story TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT N0. PAGE 2 OF 10 Planning C;ommis,4ion Meeting, March 25. 2015 buildings in the area. The three-story project design, with commercial use on the ground floor and three dwelling units on two floors above, would be similar to the design of the Caceres building at 41 Main Street, constructed in 2005. The adjacent two-story commercial and office building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard would be the most affected by the proposed building. The upper floor of the adjacent building is occupied by office space, with several offices that have windows facing to the south across the roof of the existing New Morning Cafe building. An exterior deck extends up to the shared side property line, but is only accessible from a dental office that largely faces Tiburon Boulevard. The proposed building would extend almost fully up to the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, with only a few inches of separation between the structures, bringing the building mass in very close proximity along the entire shared property line. The story poles indicate that the second and third floors of the new building would block sunlight and views to the south from the windows. It is difficult to determine whether a two-story building would create substantially less sunlight and view blockage, as it appears that a similarly configured two-story building would also significantly compromise sunlight to and views from these windows. The Planning Commission is encouraged to view the story poles from this adjacent property to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed building. Compatibility with Downtown Tiburon. Downtown Tiburon has mix of one, two and three-story buildings. As noted above, the layout and size of the proposed building is similar to the building at 41 Main Street. Staff anticipates that future development in the Downtown area is unlikely to maintain the same floor area of existing buildings, particularly for one-story structures, as the costs associated with reconstruction are often prohibitive if projects are limited to reconstruction of a building at no more than the existing floor area. The Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook states that "Tiburon Boulevard is recognized as the area that is most amenable to architectural change through new development, particularly in terms of building shape, facade treatment, street orientation and public sector improvements." The proposed building design would be generally similar in character to other buildings along Tiburon Boulevard, and the increased mass of and design changes to the building would be consistent with the allowances made in the Handbook for "architectural change through new development." The Handbook also states that for properties along Tiburon Boulevard "front facades should be kept close to the sidewalks in order to encourage and support pedestrian activity. Retail storefronts and active outdoor spaces and uses, such as sidewalk cafes, are strongly encouraged, in order to make strolling along Tiburon Boulevard a stimulating and enjoyable activity." The proposed building facade would be adjacent to the sidewalks and would provide for sidewalk cafe use. The Handbook also includes design -specific guidelines that would be reviewed in detail through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process for this building. Floor area ratio. Section 16-22.040 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the floor area ratio (FAR) in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone is 0.37, "unless a transfer of intensity has been approved in compliance with General Plan Downtown Element policies or the building is reconstructed pursuant to General Plan Downtown Element policies." The default FAR would TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. Lt Planning Commission Meeting - March 25. 2015 allow a total floor area of 1,360 square feet for the subject property. The existing 2,776 square foot building size already exceeds this FAR and the proposed 8,304 square feet of floor area would be 6,944 square feet above the maximum FAR, and 5,528 square feet above the reconstruction allowance created by General Plan Policy DT -6. The applicants also own the 121 -space Beach Road parking lot, which has approximately 10,000 square feet of development potential. The applicants propose to transfer 5,528 square feet of development intensity from the parking lot parcel to the subject property under the provisions of General Plan Policies DT -6 and DT -9. The compatibility of the proposed project with Downtown Element policies is described in detail in the General Plan and Zoning Consistency section below. Parking. The 62 indoor seats and 30 outdoor seats for the proposed restaurant space are identical to the number of seats with the existing restaurants and require a total of 23 parking spaces. The existing 590 square feet of ground floor office space, which has a parking demand of 2 spaces, would be eliminated by this project. Each of the three condominium units would require two additional parking spaces. As a result, the project would require a total of 29 parking spaces. The applicant has proposed that these parking spaces would be allocated for this project in the Beach Road parking lot and restricted by a covenant. Similar parking arrangements have been approved by the Town for other commercial and mixed-use projects in Downtown Tiburon over the last 30 years. This is a necessity since many Downtown parcels have no on-site parking and no potential to create on-site parking. Outdoor seating areas. The New Morning Cafe has historically had outdoor seating on the Tiburon Boulevard side of the building and also on the sidewalk within the Juanita Lane right-of- way. The proposed project would include similar outdoor seating, with 3 tables and 6 seats proposed along the Tiburon Boulevard side of the building and 4 tables and 24 seats proposed along Juanita Lane. Although the Juanita Lane seating is located beyond the property line and within Town right-of-way and the Town has generally encouraged such seating at this location in the past, this long-standing right-of-way use would technically require approval of an encroachment permit by the Public Works Department. Flood Hazard Zone. According to current flood hazard maps, the subject property is located within flood hazard zone "AE," which is an area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance of flood. The applicants propose to address this issue by installing floodproofing measures on the ground floor of the new building, as permitted for commercial floors of buildings. The new dwelling units on the second and third floors would be well above flood levels and therefore would not be subject to flood control regulations. Construction parking and storage. As the existing and proposed buildings would cover almost the entire site, there is no room on the site for parking of construction equipment and storage of construction materials. Construction parking, staging and materials storage would occur off-site at the nearby Beach Road parking lot, which is adequate for these purposes. A detailed construction management plan will be required before a building permit is issued for the project. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. '� Planning Commission mmission Meeting \•larch 25. 201 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY General Plan The subject site is designated Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which typically allows resident - serving commercial uses and offices in addition to mixed (commercial/residential or office/residential) uses. The following goals, policies and programs of the Downtown Element of the Tiburon General Plan are germane to the review of this application: Goal DT -E: Goal DT -F: Policy DT -4: Policy DT -6: Policy DT -9: To support and encourage mixed-use development in Downtown, especially in order to provide affordable housing opportunities. Analysis: The project would involve the construction of a mixed-use commercial and residential building. The subject property is not located within and Affordable Housing Overlay zone and the proposed condominium units are not intended to provide affordable housing. The small size of the property and limited unit count make this site impractical for provision of affordable housing units. The project would be required to pay affordable housing in -lieu fees per the Zoning Ordinance. To enhance Downtown's public facilities and amenities for the benefit of all users. Analysis: The project would provide outdoor cafe seating that is recognized as an amenity for Downtown Tiburon. As noted in the discussion under Policy DT -30 below, the project would contribute financially to congestion -relieving circulation improvements at the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane. Mixed-use, such as commercial/residential, shall be encouraged in the commercial areas of Downtown Tiburon, especially in the areas designated with the Affordable Housing Overlay. Analysis: See discussion under DT -E above. To preserve and enhance the unique character of Downtown Tiburon, Downtown buildings may be rebuilt or reconstructed to the same FAR as exists, provided that the resulting building substantially conforms to the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. Analysis: The proposed project would increase the floor area for the property to a total of 8,304 square feet, which is 5,528 square feet above the reconstruction allowance set by this policy. The applicants propose to transfer 5,528 square feet of development intensity from property occupied by the Beach Road parking lot, which is under the same ownership as the subject property, thus meeting this policy and Policy DT -9. Transfers of Intensity A transfer of intensity between commercially -designated Downtown properties (NC and VC districts) may be permitted subject to discretionary review (conditional use permit) by the Town, without requiring General Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendments. Analysis: See discussion under DT -6 above. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. L' Policy DT -12: Policy DT -17: Policy DT -26: Policy DT -28: Program DT -d: Policy DT -30: Planning Commission \tcexing March 25. 2015 The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation shall permit primarily resident -serving commercial and residential uses. The maximum allowable intensity for lands designated Neighborhood Cornrnercial is an FAR of 0.3 7, except where a Transfer of Intensity is approved consistent with Policy DT -9. Analysis: See discussion under DT -6 above. Throughout Downtown New buildings or alterations to existing buildings in the Downtown should substantially adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. Analysis: As described above, the proposed building design would be consistent with the overall policies for new development along Tiburon Boulevard. The details of the project design will be reviewed for consistency with other Handbook requirements through the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Tiburon Boulevard Retail storefronts and active outdoor spaces for community gathering, such as sidewalk cafes, are strongly encouraged, in order to make strolling along Tiburon Boulevard a stimulating and enjoyable activity. Analysis: The proposed project would include a ground floor restaurant space fronting onto Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane with outdoor seating provided along both building frontages. Tiburon Boulevard A mix of two- and three-story buildings is encouraged for new construction. Analysis: As noted above, Downtown Tiburon has mix of one, two and three-story buildings, including the similar three-story building at 41 Main Street. The directly adjacent property at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard is developed with a two-story commercial and office building. Over the long-term, implement installation of streetscape improvements to Tiburon Boulevard's public right-of-way as described in the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, widening sidewalks to a minimum of eight feet; providing a landscaped planter strip between sidewalks and streets on both sides of Tiburon Boulevard; installing new street trees in these planter strips; and replanting the existing median strip with lower -growing vegetation. Analysis: The subject property is separated from the Tiburon Boulevard roadway by the angled public parking spaces and driveway parallel to the street. The sidewalk along the Tiburon Boulevard side of the property is currently approximately 8 feet wide and is not proposed to be changed by this project. Identify and remedy congestion points to pedestrian and bicycle circulation in Downtown, such as near the Juanita Lane/Tiburon Boulevard intersection and at the Mar West Street/Tiburon Boulevard intersection. Analysis: Staff has held discussions with the applicants regarding the desire to address this policy. The applicants have expressed a willingness to contribute financially toward future Town -sponsored improvements at this intersection to remedy the pedestrian and bicycle congestion issue at this intersection. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. `t PAGE 6 OF 10 Program DT -r: Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission \Meting March 25, 2015 Relieve the pedestrian congestion points near the intersection of Juanita Lane and Tiburon Boulevard through physical changes and improved enforcement of the public right-of-way. Analysis: See discussion under DT -30 above. Section 16-52.040 (D) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance lists the following factors to be considered in determining whether or not any conditional use should be permitted in a specific location: 1. The relationship of the location proposed to the service or market area of the use or facility proposed; transportation, utilities, and other facilities required to serve it; and other uses of land in the vicinity. Analysis: The proposed mixed-use commercial and residential building would be well situated to provide a restaurant with desirable outdoor cafe seating in Downtown, as well as introducing three new dwelling units to the mix of commercial and residential uses in the area. The location of the site along Tiburon Boulevard provides readily accessible transportation, utilities and other support facilities in the immediate vicinity. 2. The compatibility of the design, location, size, and operating characteristics with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Analysis: The location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed ground floor restaurant would be similar to the combined operations of the two existing restaurants on the site. As noted above, the design and size of the residential second and third floors of the proposed building could affect the sunlight and outward views of portions of the adjacent building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. 3. The probability of impairment to the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is to be located. Analysis: The exterior design of the proposed building would utilize decorative wood siding and trim and would appear to be generally consistent with other buildings in Downtown Tiburon. The three-story design of the building poses policy questions as to consistency with the character of its surroundings. 4. The protection of the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the Town, or any probability of injury to property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the real property is located. Analysis: The proposed replacement of an obsolete structure with a new building built to current construction standards would improve the public health and safety at this location. The Planning Commission should determine whether the potential sunlight and view blockage and proximity of the building mass to the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard would create a probability of unreasonable injury to the adjacent property and improvements. 5. The need of the community for additional numbers of such uses, paying particular heed to whether the neighborhood or vicinity is already adequately served by TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. Planning Commission \•1ceting March 25. 2015 similar uses. Analysis: There need for restaurants with outdoor cafe seating is expressed in both the Downtown Element of the Tiburon General Plan and the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook The Town has also expressed a desire for additional housing opportunities in Downtown Tiburon. Other requirements Section 16-32.060 requires that all uses except single-family and two-family dwellings provide bicycle racks or stands at the rate of one bicycle per fifteen required parking stalls. As noted above, the project would require a total of 29 parking spaces. As a result, a rack for two bicycles would be required for this project, preferably on-site. Required motorcycle parking would be addressed at the Beach Road parking lot. Chapter 16C of the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that the project provide "adequate, accessible and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials." The project includes an area along Juanita Lane toward the rear of the building for garbage that would be required to comply with the pertinent requirements of Chapter 16C. The project would also require payment of traffic mitigation fees and in -lieu housing fees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for this project, released for public comment on March 3, 2015 and is attached to this report as Exhibit 3. The public review period ends on March 24, 2015. As of the date of this report one letter (Exhibit 5) has been received regarding the draft negative declaration. The initial study focused on the following issues: • Air quality. The project's construction -related air pollutant emissions would result from demolition and construction activities at the site. The IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring that Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) be included in the contract specifications to limit the project's construction -related dust and criteria pollutant emissions. • Cultural resources. A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE, attached as Exhibit 4) was prepared for the subject property. The HRE found that the building on the site appeared to have been constructed in the early to mid -1940s and had been substantially remodeled since that time, most recently in the 1980s. The HRE determined that there was no evidence of historical or architectural significance for this building and the property does not qualify for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources and therefore does not qualify as a historic resource per the CEQA guidelines. The likelihood of discovering cultural artifacts during the demolition or construction process is small, but cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the IS/MND TOWN OF TIBURON LI - PAGE 8 OF 10 EXHIBIT NO. Planning Commission Meeting March 25. 2015 includes mitigation measures describing precautions to be taken during construction to prevent any disturbance of cultural resources on the site. • Land use and planning and Transportation and traffic. As noted above, General Plan Downtown Element Policy DT -30 states that the town should "identify and remedy congestion points to pedestrian and bicycle circulation in Downtown, such as near the Juanita Lane/Tiburon Boulevard intersection and at the Mar West Street/Tiburon Boulevard intersection." The IS/MND includes a mitigation measure requiring the project to contribute financially to design improvements at this intersection to alleviate pedestrian and bicycle circulation congestion. The initial study identified mitigation measures for potential impacts on air quality; cultural resources; land use and planning, and transportation and traffic that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The applicant has accepted these mitigation measures in writing. As of the writing of this report, no substantial evidence has been received to support a fair argument that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, four letters have been received regarding the proposed project, including a petition signed by several tenants of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. These are attached as Exhibits 5-8. POLICY ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The proposed mixed-use building would be generally consistent with the development approach encouraged by the Town for properties in Downtown Tiburon in accordance with adopted goals, policies, ordinances and guidelines. The three-story structure would help further the mix of two- story and three-story buildings encouraged by the Downtown Element of the Tiburon General Plan, introduce desirable housing into Downtown and continue a restaurant with outdoor cafe seating. The multi -story design of the building is consistent with the likely direction of future development in the Downtown area for properties currently developed with older one-story structures. The policy decision for the Planning Commission is whether this site is most appropriately redeveloped with a two-story or a three-story building, both in terms of scale and impact on its surroundings. The location and mass of the three-story structure would affect sunlight and views for portions of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard and place a tall building in very close proximity to the neighboring structure. However, it is difficult to determine whether a reduction in height to two stories or an increased setback from the adjacent property for the third floor would substantially reduce these effects. The Commission may wish to consider alternative design options for the project to address these issues, including, but not limited to, increasing setbacks for portions of the proposed building, eliminating or reducing the third floor of the building, or requiring the applicant to pay for the installation (with owner permission) of skylights in the adjacent building to at least partially off -set restore the loss of natural light to affected tenant spaces. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 9OF10 Planning Commission electing March 25, 10L5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item and hear and consider all testimony, and 2. Deliberate on the application. In the event that the Commission desires to approve the project largely as proposed, a draft resolution (Exhibit 2) has been attached for consideration by the Commission. 3. Alternatively, if the Commission desires to direct substantial modifications to the project, the item should be continued to a date specific with direction provided to the applicant. EXHIBITS 1. Application form and supplemental materials 2. Draft resolution approving the conditional use permit 3. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Historic Resource Evaluation, dated August 13, 2014 5. Letter from Pt. Tiburon Bayside Board of Directors, dated February 8, 2015 6. Letter from Laleh Zelinsky, dated February 17, 2015 7. Letter from Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, dated February 25, 2015 8. Petition from tenants of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, dated March 18, 2015 9. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\planning\pclstaff reports120151March 25 meeting\Ncw Morning Cafe CUP.report.doc TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 10 OF 10 TOWN OF TIBURON — 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 2015 Agenda Item: 1 STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard; File #11402; Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a New Three -Story Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Building Intended for Condominium -type Ownership; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Zwick Architects, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-101-12 (Continued from March 25, 2015) BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted an application to construct a new three-story, 38 foot tall commercial and residential building on the property located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard. The property is located at the southwest corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane and is currently developed with a one-story commercial building occupied by two restaurants (New Morning Cafe and the Grass Shack) and office space. The existing commercial building would be demolished and a new three-story building would be constructed. This application was first reviewed at the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, several residents and the tenants and attorney for the adjacent commercial building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard raised objections to the project design, including concerns about the proposed building height, impacts on sunlight for the neighboring building and parking. The Commission shared some of these concerns, and directed the applicant to return with a redesigned project that lowered the height of the building and allowed more light into the windows of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The Commission also requested a more detailed explanation of how parking would be provided for this project. The Planning Commission continued the application to the April 22, 2015 meeting. The applicant later requested a further continuance to the May 13, 2015 meeting. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The third residential unit has been removed. The second dwelling unit on the second floor has been reconfigured to include a master bedroom suite on a partial third floor. The size of the third story has been reduced from 2,364 square feet to 645 square feet. The third story area has been centered on the building and pulled 9 to 10.5 feet from the side property line shared with 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. In addition, TOWN OF TIBURON EXHI$IT NO. 5' PAGE 1 OF 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 13. 2015 a roughly 26 % foot wide portion of the second story has been pulled back 6 feet from the side property line to create a "light well" for the second story portion of the adjacent building. The first floor of the proposed building remains unchanged, with either 2,910 square feet of floor area for a restaurant or 2,502 square feet of restaurant space and 408 square feet allocated for separate retail commercial space. The first residential unit on the second floor would still contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms and 1,220 square feet of floor area. The second residential unit has been redesigned into a two-story unit and would contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms and have 614 square feet of space on the second floor and 463 square feet on the third story, for a total area of 1,077 square feet. The proposed elevator would only serve the first and second floors. The maximum height of the building would still be 38 feet at the partial third floor, with the mechanical area for the elevator shaft extending 2 feet above the third floor roof. Staff has requested that the applicant clarify why the elevator shaft needs to be this tall if it does not serve the third floor. The applicant has submitted a revised project description (Exhibit 1), which contains a parking analysis for the project. According to this analysis, the existing restaurant and office use on the site require 25 parking spaces, while the proposed restaurant -only ground floor would require 23 spaces and the restaurant and retail space ground floor configuration would require 20 parking spaces. Four (4) parking spaces would be required for the two residential units (assuming they are condominium units); fewer than for the previously -requested three dwellings. As a result, the project would require either a net increase of two (2) parking spaces or a decrease in parking demand of one (1) space, neither of which is considered a substantial change in parking demand over existing conditions. If the Planning Commission desires a "no net parking" increase, a slight reduction in the number of restaurant seats would accomplish this aim in the event the lower floor is entirely used for restaurant purposes. The applicant has indicated that the parking spaces required for the two residential units would be designated (exclusive use) spaces located in the Beach Road parking lot, restricted by a covenant. The project description correctly indicates that the parking space equivalents for the existing uses in the building are essentially "grandfathered", in that the Town recognizes that the parking requirements for ACV Argo Tiburon LP and Zelinsky Properties are satisfied by the continuing availability to the public of the Beach Road, Tiburon Boulevard, and Main Street Parking Lots. For Town record-keeping purposes, the required parking for the existing uses at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard is allocated to the nearest ACV Argo LP parking lot at Beach Road. Staff notes that the three condominium units created at 41 Main Street also have no on-site parking and furthermore, that the owners of that site own no parking lots or spaces in Tiburon. Those three units have satisfied their parking needs through leases for non-exclusive parking spaces with parking lot owners such as Point Tiburon. No parking issues or problems have been reported over the past 14 years with these units. The two proposed units will have a superior parking situation in that exclusive parking spaces will be marked in the Beach Road lot and these spaces are closer to the proposed units than the leased spaces are to the existing units at 41 Main Street. Conditions of approval are proposed that will ensure continued public availability of parking spaces to which uses of this site have been allocated by the Town. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 4 EXHIBIT NO. b Planning Commission 1.k. ting vIay 13, 2015 ANALYSIS The revised project design appears to be generally responsive to the direction given by the Planning Commission at the March 25, 2015 meeting. Although the proposed building still includes a third story, the floor area of the third floor has been reduced by over 70 percent. The revised story poles clearly indicate that the mass of the proposed building would be substantially reduced when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane. The proposed light well would provide additional indirect sunlight into the south -facing middle windows on the upper level of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. Although it appears that the second story would block more direct sunlight to these windows than the proposed third story, the effects of the light well might be enhanced if the third story area was moved further away from the adjacent building. The Commission is encouraged to view the story poles, evaluate the revised project design, and determine whether the modifications are sufficient to address the earlier concerns about height, scale, and blockage of light. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As noted in the previous staff report, an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for this project, released for public comment on March 3, 2015 and is attached to this report as Exhibit 3. The public review period ended on March 24, 2015. As of the writing of this report, staff believes that no substantial evidence has been received to support a fair argument that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, two letters have been received regarding the proposed project since the March 25, 2015 meeting. These are attached as Exhibits 6-7. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item and hear and consider all testimony, and 2. Deliberate on the application. In the event that the Commission desires to approve the project largely as proposed, a draft resolution (Exhibit 2) has been attached for consideration by the Commission. 3. Alternatively, if the Commission desires to direct additional substantial modifications to the project, the item could be continued to a date specific with further direction provided to the applicant, or staff could be directed to return with a resolution reflecting the Commission's desired changes to the project. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 5 PAGE 3 OF 4 Plann ins Commission Meeting May 13. 2015 EXHIBITS 1. Revised project description 2. Draft resolution approving the conditional use permit 3. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Planning Commission staff report dated March 25, 2015 5. Minutes of the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 6. Letter from Mary Robinson, dated April 3, 2015 7. Letter from Mo Newman, dated April 9, 2015 8. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\planning\pclstaff reports\20151May 13 meeting\New Morning Cafe CUP report2 sa revisions.doc TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 4 EXHIBIT NO. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Agenda Item: 1 STAFF REPORT To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard; File #11402; Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a New Three -Story Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Building Intended for Condominium -type Ownership; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Zwick Architects, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-101-12 (Continued from May 13, 2015) BACKGROUND In 2014, the applicant submitted an application to construct a new three-story, 38 foot tall commercial and residential building on the property located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard. The property is located at the southwest corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane and is currently developed with a one-story commercial building occupied by two restaurants (New Morning Cafe and the Grass Shack) and office space. The existing commercial building would be demolished and a new three-story building would be constructed. This application was first reviewed at the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, several residents and the tenants and attorney for the adjacent commercial building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard raised objections to the project design, including concerns about the proposed building height, impacts on sunlight for the neighboring building and parking. The Commission shared some of these concerns, and directed the applicant to return with a redesigned project that lowered the height of the building and allowed more light into the windows of the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The application was continued to the May 13, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the applicant presented revised plans for the project that eliminated the third residential unit and reconfigured the second dwelling unit on the second floor to include a master bedroom suite on a partial third floor. The third story area was centered on the building and pulled 9 to 10.5 feet from the side property line, and a roughly 26 1/2 foot wide portion of the second story was been pulled back to create a "light well" for the second story portion of the adjacent commercial building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. Several residents, the tenants and the attorney for the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard objected to the revised project design, stating that the revisions did not sufficiently address their previous concerns about sunlight impacts and parking. The Commissioners voiced differing opinions about the partial third story, but the consensus was that a two-story building was more TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 67 PAGE 1 OF 4 Planning t: ommiksion N-iccting August 12. 2015 appropriate at this location and that the parking issues were resolved. The Commission continued the item to the June 24, 2015 meeting and directed the applicant to return with a two-story building design that adequately addressed the provision of light to the east -facing windows of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The applicant subsequently requested additional time to revise the project design and the item was further continued to July 8, 2015 and then to the August 12, 2015 meeting. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed project. The design still includes a third story element, which has been moved to the rear (southern) corner of the building. The first residential unit on the second floor would still contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms and has been reduced from 1,220 square feet to 1,196 square feet of floor area. The second floor portion of the second residential unit would still be a two-story unit, with two bedrooms and two bathrooms and have 1,105 square feet of space on the second floor and 504 square feet on the third story, for a total area of 1,609 square feet, an increase of 532 square feet from the previously proposed 1,077 square foot second unit. The 261/2 foot wide light well remains in generally the same location relative to the adjacent building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The first floor of the proposed building has been redesigned to include two (2) one -car garages sited toward the rear of the building with access from Juanita Lane. One garage space would be assigned to each of the two residential units. The floor area of the remaining space has been reduced from 2,910 square feet to 2,450 square feet of floor area for a restaurant, or 2,084 square feet of restaurant space and 366 square feet allocated for separate retail commercial space. The proposed elevator would only serve the first and second floors. The maximum height of the building would still be 38 feet at the partial third floor, but the additional 2 foot tall mechanical area for the elevator shaft has been eliminated. The applicant has submitted a revised project description (Exhibit 1), which contains a revised parking analysis for the project. The 92 seats for the proposed restaurant -only first floor proposal remains unchanged, but the restaurant and retail option has reduced the restaurant seats from 72 to 68 seats. As noted above, two garage spaces would be provided on-site to provide one enclosed parking space for each residential unit. The two additional parking spaces required for the residential units would be designated (exclusive use) spaces located in the Beach Road parking lot, restricted by a covenant. As described in the May 13, 2015 staff report, the parking equivalents for the existing uses in the building are assigned to the Beach Road parking lot and that parking requirements for ACV Argo properties are satisfied by the continuing availability to the public of the Beach Road, Tiburon Boulevard, and Main Street Parking Lots. ANALYSIS The revised project design appears to be largely unresponsive to the direction given by the Planning Commission at the May 13, 2015 meeting. The applicant has not submitted a two-story building design. The more southerly location of the third story element may provide more light to the east -facing windows of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard during the morning and early afternoon hours, but would still block late afternoon sunlight. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 2 OF 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 12. 2015 The Commission should determine whether the revised project design adequately addresses the provision of light to the east -facing windows of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The removal of the third story would reduce any light impacts. It is possible to increase the size of the proposed light well, but this could substantially diminish the size of the two residential units. The Commission may also consider whether the applicant should be required to pay for the installation of skylights for the east -facing tenants of the adjacent building, which would let in additional sunlight and offset any light impacts from the proposed building. The Commission is encouraged to view the story poles, evaluate the revised project design, and determine whether the modifications are sufficient to cause the Commission to reconsider its earlier direction for a two-story building. Pursuant to that earlier direction, the draft resolution (Exhibit 2) includes a condition of approval approving a two-story project design, eliminating the third story portion of the building. A separate condition of approval has been drafted to require skylight installation for the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As noted in the previous staff report, an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for this project, released for public comment on March 3, 2015 and is attached to this report as Exhibit 3. The public review period ended on March 24, 2015. As of the writing of this report, staff believes that no substantial evidence has been received to support a fair argument that the project would result in a significant impact on the environment. PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the proposed project since the May 13, 2015 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Hold a public hearing on this item and hear and consider all testimony, and 2. Deliberate on the application and consider adoption of the draft resolution approving the project with modifications. EXHIBITS 1. Revised project description 2. Draft resolution approving the conditional use permit with project modifications 3. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Planning Commission staff report dated March 25, 2015 5. Planning Commission staff report dated May 13, 2015 6. Minutes of the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 7. Minutes of the May 13, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 8. Submitted plans TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 4 EXHIBIT NO. Planning Commission \.li•cting August 12. 2015 Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \sharedlplanninglpclstaff reports120151August 12 meeting\New Morning Cafe CUP report3.doc TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. PAGE 4 OF 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES NO. 1053 Regular Meeting March 25, 2015 Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Welner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Welner, Vice Chair Kulik, Commissioners Corcoran and Weller Absent: Commissioner Williams Staff Present: Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, and Minutes Clerk Harper ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard: Consider Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Construction of a New 8,304 Square Foot, Three -Story Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Building Intended for Condominium -type Ownership; File #11402; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Zwick Architects, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-101-12 Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report, stating that the applicant has submitted an application to construct a new three-story, 38 foot tall commercial and residential building at the property located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard which is currently occupied by a one-story commercial building occupied by two restaurants (New Morning Cafe and the Grass Shack) and some office space. The existing commercial building would be demolished and a new three-story building would be constructed with a restaurant and possibly a small retail space on the ground floor, and two floors above containing two residential condominiums on the second floor and one residential condominium unit on the third floor. Mr. Watrous summarized the project details and planning issues described in the staff report, including compatibility with other buildings in Downtown Tiburon and possible impacts on the adjacent two-story commercial and office building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The Commission was encouraged to try to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed building based on the EXHIBIT TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 25, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1053 PAGE 1 story poles for the project. Mr. Watrous described the transfer of intensity necessary to comply with floor area ratio (FAR) requirements and parking to be provided for the project. Mr. Watrous noted that an Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project that focused on several issues including air quality, land use planning and transportation and traffic. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for the project that found that the building was constructed in the early to mid -1940's and does not demonstrate any evidence of historical or architectural significance for the building. Mr. Watrous recommended that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this item and hear and consider all testimony, deliberate on the application. In the event that the Commission desires to approve the project, adopt the draft resolution. If the Commission desires to direct substantial modifications to the project, the item should be continued to a date specific with direction provided to the applicant. Commissioner Corcoran referred to the Planning Commission's role in the review of project plans, noting that ordinarily the Commission is not involved in design review. Mr. Watrous stated that, if approved, the project would require review by the Design Review Board (DRB) as the current plans are conceptual in nature and may be fleshed out in detail through the CUP review process. He stated that the particular issues that the DRB often deals with will sometimes overlap with what the Commission looks at in terms of appropriateness of a structure and the overall general location, mass, bulk and size. Vice Chair Kulik said that the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration includes discussion about the evaluation of environmental impacts, including aesthetics. He asked about reviewing this topic from a CEQA standpoint versus the relationships of neighboring buildings in general. Mr. Watrous stated that there is a higher bar for determining whether something is a significant environmental impact as far as aesthetics from a CEQA standpoint, which usually must be a very severe impact that would compromise a particular property. He said that the Commission has the ability through the CUP process to find that a project does not have a significant impact on the environment from an aesthetic standpoint, but that it may not be desirable from the CUP and zoning standpoint. Chair Weiner asked what would happen if the Commission viewed one of the items that were found less than significant to be potentially significant. Mr. Watrous said that if the Commission finds something potentially significant, the Commission would have to find a way to mitigate it to a less significant level through a condition of approval or mitigation measure, and then the Commission could adopt the MND. If the Commission finds that the project has impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, an EIR would be required. Matt Howarth said he is part of the ownership group for this property as well as the Beach Road parking lot and several other properties in Town. He said that they purchased this property two years ago along with other properties in Town. He said that this building is in serious need of repair so they began looking a year ago and working with the Town on what would be best on the parcel based on the fact that they do have parking available across the street or down the street and fitting in with the General Plan. He believed that the project before the Commission is EXHIBIT NO. 7 TII3URON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 25, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1053 PAGE 2 compatible. He said that the project would comply with the 38 foot height limit and would bring housing downtown. He characterized the site as probably one of the smallest and most challenging properties downtown. Marty Zwick, Zwick Architects, thanked Mr. Watrous for the comprehensive staff report and introduction. He described the project, noting that they are proposing to keep the restaurant use on the ground floor. He said that they are trying to add life to downtown by adding housing on the second and third stories. He stated that they are proposing the same number of seats as the existing restaurants, but included an approach that would allow for the possibility of including some retail space to give the ownership flexibility on its tenants. He stated that the existing building next door comes up to the property line, which was not obvious to them until they obtained a survey. He stated that they moved their building back about 7 feet from the Tiburon Boulevard property line in order to line up with the existing structure and they stepped the building further back on the third floor. He said that they tried to reduce the building's massing by including proper fenestration by balconies and other elements so it would not read as one mass. He displayed enhanced project illustrations. Mr. Zwick stated that there was a question regarding whether the story poles were accurate. He said that the illustrations overlaid the story poles with a computer model and they aligned up quite well. He shared photos of other two and three-story buildings in the areas. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Zwick indicated that the project would come close to the property line shared with 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. He stated that either a two or three story building would block their view. He stated that they determined that the property line at the front is way out on the sidewalk, so they stepped the building back so it would line up with other buildings and the rest of the street frontage. Commissioner Corcoran asked how large this setback area was. Mr. Zwick said that he would have to calculate that, but said that the building would be set back 7 feet for the full width of the site. Chair Welner opened the public hearing. Jon Fisher spoke on behalf of himself and his family and stated that the parking and resources to construct the project were woefully overlooked in the project as a function of emergency response and existing traffic conditions on Tiburon Boulevard. He said that his family owns several businesses that would actually afford the only possible parking for large equipment and their employees have suffered from flat tires and other issues from minor construction in the past along Main Street. He stated that this is a major project and things like emergency response resonate, so he encouraged further study to make sure that the resources required to actually construct the project in a very congested environment are taken into account. Chris Skelton, attorney representing Jiin and Pam Mantegani, owners of the adjacent property at 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, said that this project would set the tone for development, the look and feel of Tiburon's downtown for decades to come and he felt that this application was not ready. He referenced letters he submitted on the CEQA process and on merits of the project and stated EXHIBIT NO. 7 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 25. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1053 PAGE 3 that there were gaps in the information the Commission needed in order to make an informed decision. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a licensed surveyor certify that the story poles are correct. Mr. Watrous interjected that staff received a story pole certification letter that day, but it is not a code requirement for conditional use permits. Mr. Skelton discussed the review processes required for this project, stating that it is coming to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit for the transfer of intensity of development and environmental certification and would afterwards go to the DRB, which will be required to reverse engineer this building to accommodate the square footage that is conceptually allowed. He noted that the maximum FAR for this property is 37% and they are proposing 225%, which he believed to be excessive for what the applicant admitted is the most challenging site in Town. He felt that this did not make sense from a planning perspective. He said that parking is another issue. He said that the Grass Shack restaurant has not been in use for over a year and, according to the Zoning Ordinance, if a conditional use have been vacant or stops use for over a year, it may be revoked. He felt that it was inappropriate to grandfather in parking spaces for a use which has not been there for over a year. He said that there were questions about the transfer of development intensity, stating that this application sought to take development potential from the Beach Road parking lot which had not been explained. He said that there was no discussion of whether or not that parking lot is encumbered already, but it will be encumbered by the proposed use. He concluded by stating that there are gaps in the information and he did not think that the Commission had all the facts needed to make an informed decision on the CUP and cannot make the necessary findings. He believed that a 3 -story building is just not appropriate here. Mo Newman said that she is a tenant at the Mantegani property at 1680 Tiburon Boulevard and often there is no parking nearby for the tenants, employees and their clients. She said that traffic in the town is also a problem, and people know there are times of day one cannot get in or out, and she asked why they are building before addressing the parking issue. She did not think that people who will buy the condominiums nor employees or customers of the restaurant will park down the street. She reiterated that parking is a problem that the Town needs to address before allowing any further development. She thought that the design of the proposal was beautiful and she was not opposed to it, but wanted to not allow growth before having room for that growth. She was also concerned that employees of existing businesses and customers will be driven out of town. She said that this was not the right timing for this project and she suggested shuttle service from outlying lots, a parking structure, or widening of Tiburon Boulevard. Bill Lukens said that he and his wife have properties at several locations in Old Tiburon and have a vested interest in Tiburon. He said that they do not see this building right now, but they will have a good look at it once construction is completed. He said that this did not seem like an optimal design for such a fragile and central location. He understood that there are 3 -story buildings along Main Street where there are already taller building heights. He said that this would triple the building height and, when finished, it would be the most poignant of all buildings in Tiburon from the water. He said that there was no evaluation of the visual impacts of EXHIBIT NO. 7 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 25, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1053 PAGE 4 what this would do to the character of the Town from an environmental standpoint, so he asked that this be examined further. Diane Lynch said that she did not understand how the applicants can block an entire row of windows. She said that this building would change the character of downtown and while the character will change over the years as the State wants to see large buildings and affordable housing, she assumed that one unit would be affordable. Mr. Watrous noted that all units are proposed at market rate. Ms. Lynch said that one unit should be affordable if the Town is going to allow this development. She noted that area proposed for garbage cans and the assumed that a corral or enclosure might be proposed and she hoped that the Town will come up with a standard for an enclosed place for garbage cans for every new building and not allow them to be on the street. Marty Zwick said that in response to Commissioner Corcoran's question they believe there is 500 square feet of footprint that would be given up across the front of the site. He said that the Grass Shack closes every winter and will re -open next summer and that is how their lease runs. He said that garbage cans or a debris box would be behind a fence. Commissioner Corcoran asked if Mr. Zwick looked at the possibility of adding a step back on the second story or a possibility for a light well. Mr. Zwick said they do have recessed balconies along Tiburon Boulevard, but they did not look at the side facing 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, but this could be studied. Vice Chair Kulik asked Mr. Zwick to address what the proposed project impacts would be to 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, given the 2nd and, more importantly, 3' floors, as well as the economics of the third floor element. Mr. Zwick said that a one-story building with a restaurant exists now and encourages a lively streetscape and pedestrian traffic. He said that at night Tiburon dies downtown and having housing downtown is part of the Town's General Plan and everybody benefits. He said that the building next door was built knowing they had a view over a one-story building but they did not own or control the future of the one-story building, so he thought that it would be difficult to say that since they were there first his clients cannot build even a second story because it would block views. Chair Welner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Corcoran asked about the idea of a borrowed view in the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines. Mr. Watrous clarified that generally these guidelines are used more often for residential purposes. He said that the borrowed view is the most recent guideline and was generally intended for developing a vacant property and establishes the concept that someone objecting to a project where anything built will affect views has borrowed the view over a period of time. He said that although this guideline does not specifically address this situation the concept could be used in terms of whether there is a reasonable expectation that there would always be just a one-story building on this property or that something else would be developed at a later date. EXHIBIT NO. 7 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 25. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1053 PAGE 5 Chair Welner said that his general understanding was that the purpose of the Planning Commission's review was to identify whether these uses are appropriate for this location or whether adding residential on two floors makes sense. He asked if the DRB would be obligated to allow whatever the Commission approves in terms of height or square footage or would the DRB be able to reduce the floor area and/or height. Community Development Director Scott Anderson said that the draft resolution would sets up a situation where the Commission would approve a building up to a certain floor area and height but would not lock the DRB into those numbers. Chair Welner asked if the DRB would be capable of reducing those amounts if the design did not fit within the character of the Town. Mr. Anderson said that that was correct. Mr. Watrous added that if the Commission had serious reservations about a broader aspect of the project, such as allowing 2 stories versus 3 stories, this should be either made clear in conditions of approval of the CUP or the resolution could include direction to the DRB to focus on a particular area of concern. Commissioner Weller said that he did not see this as terribly complicated, as he thought that this project was too big for the site. He said that he walks by the site every day and has looked at the story poles for a couple of weeks. He commended the attempt to modernize the building which clearly needs to be demolished and rebuilt, and he also understood the borrowed view aspect, as he was not particularly in favor of people permanently protecting views when adjacent buildings can legally be built that might impinge on those views. However, he said that the Town approved a building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard which has windows along an entire face and the view, but more importantly, the light should be protected. Therefore he could not support this project in its current form. He did not think that it satisfies any planning criteria. He agreed with the comrnent that heights on Main Street are irrelevant to heights on Tiburon Boulevard. He said that the application needs to be redrawn and he asked that the building come down to two stories and be set back enough so that light can get into the windows at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. He stressed that this was not a view issue in his mind, but a light issue. Commissioner Corcoran said that there could be modifications and the key issue is the shared property line of the building along 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. He commented that whenever there is an urban area with properties developed over time, there is state-of-the-art one year that 30 years later is no longer state-of-the-art. He said that the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard was built as a two-story building and the New Morning Cafe building was probably affected by that building. He said that the subject property and the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard will probably be modernized in the future, and the adjacent building may be higher as well, so it would be unfortunate to require the New Morning Cafe building to be a two-story building and then have the neighboring building go up higher. He suggested exploring light wells and/or enhanced setbacks for the second or third story. He commended the applicant for not proposing building 7 feet out into the sidewalk as many applicants would have proposed that just so they could give it back. Overall, he was happy to see this property being improved and thought that the general look and feel of the project was headed in a nice direction. He said that everyone cherishes New Morning Cafe, but also want the site to modernize and bring housing and more life to downtown. He said that on balance the project could use more modification to bring more light to the property at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. EXHIBIT NO. / TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 25. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1053 PAGE 6 Vice Chair Kulik said that when he looked at this first from a conditional use standpoint, what was proposed on the ground floor was excellent and exactly what the Town wants. He said that adding housing downtown was also a great thing and a mixed use project would be very beneficial both from the ground floor and second floor point of view. He understood that limiting this building to one story would probably not be economically viable and he knows there must be a profit motive to make this a viable project. However, he said the Commission is charged with evaluating the scale and impact to the local environment of the project in its totality. He believed that there are limited beneficiaries of the third floor and many would be affected in an adverse way. He acknowledged the profit motive for developing that third floor but said that many would be affected in the process. He said that there are limited setbacks now, with an 18 to 24 inch gangway that separates the two structures. He was unsure what could be done to mitigate the light impacts. Chair Welner said that he was delighted to see this kind of development being proposed and moving forward in Tiburon and he thinks it is exciting on many levels. However, he thought that there was a scale issue and it appeared that the consensus of the Planning Commission was that this should be continued with direction to return with some modifications. He agreed that the people living in the condominiums above will not likely park in the 6 designated spaces and it did not seem like a realistic parking solution. He asked that the Commission outline what the applicant should address with a revised project. Commissioner Weller said that no Commissioner was saying that the building must stay one story, but a two-story solution that would allow light into the windows at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard could be considered. He suggested that the application be continued with direction to the applicant to return with a redesign involving 1) lower height, 2) allowing more light into the 1690 Tiburon Boulevard windows, and 3) a more detailed explanation of the parking issue. He stated that he personally parks in the Beach Road lot every day to take the ferry and it fills up by the time the last ferry at 8:40 a.m. leaves. He said that he would like to understand more about the interaction about what is happening there and how the 6 spaces which would be dedicated to this proposed building would relate to use of the existing parking. Chair Welner asked and confirmed with Mr. Zwick was amenable to making these revisions and in returning to the Commission. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Kulik) to continue the matter to April 22, 2015 with direction to the applicant to revise the proposal to address 1) height, 2) light issues to 1690 Tiburon Boulevard and 3) clarify how parking will work. Motion carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS 2. Consider Recommendation to Town Council to Accept the Annual General Plan Implementation Status Report for Calendar Year 2014 Director of Community Development Anderson stated that this is the 10th Annual Report staff has prepared since the General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2005. At this time, a fair number of the programs have been fully implemented and there are a dwindling number of EXHIBIT NO. 7 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 25, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1053 PAGE 7 create view or privacy impacts for neighboring properties and would be consistent with the open views which characterize the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Williams asked if future development of a spa and deck would be to the south of the house. Mr. Strotz said that their current thought was to place the spa to the right of the house and the decks and other improvements would occur in the southwest corner of the lot. Vice Chair Kulik asked Mr. Strotz for a more detailed description of future development on the site. Mr. Strotz said that they plan to construct a small bathroom extension and revise the decks in the southwest corner of the property. He said there is significant space on that side of the house as Miraflores Lane provides an ample buffer to the property owner on the other side of the lane. The public hearing was opened. There were no public speakers and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Williams said that she could find that the proposed project was consistent with the land use element of the General Plan, specifically Policy LU -13, in that it would not impact the neighborhood character, and was also consistent with the Miraflores Precise Plan, and she supported approval of the amendment. Commissioner Corcoran echoed Conunissioner Williams' comments. He said that this did not seem to be a controversial expansion and was relatively minor in nature in light of the physical features of the surrounding area. He said that the project would not have a dramatic impact on the surrounding properties and was consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Weller concurred. Vice Chair Kulik concurred, said he knows there is some precedence for amendments like this, as the Commission recently considered a request for a pool house nearby on Miraflores Lane. He said that there is roughly 40 years of mature foliage that blocks the entire area from public view, so he thought that any privacy or public view concerns would be mitigated. ACTION: It was M/S (Corcoran/Weller) to adopt the resolution making a recommendation to the City Council that the proposed building envelope expansion is consistent with the intent of the Miraflores Precise Plan. Motion carried 4-0. 1. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard: Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit and adoption of a mitigated negative declaration for construction of a new 6,585 square foot, three-story mixed use comrnercial and residential building intended for condominium - type ownership; File #11402; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Zwick Architects, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-101-12 (Continued from March 25 and April 22, 2015) Mr. Watrous presented the staff report. He stated that this application to was first reviewed at the March 25, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, several residents and the EXHIBIT Na. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 2 tenants and attorney for the adjacent commercial building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard raised objections to the project design, including concerns about the proposed building height, impacts on sunlight for the neighboring building and parking. The Commission shared some of these concerns and directed the applicant to return with a redesigned project that lowered the height of the building, allowed more light into the windows next door, and a more detailed explanation of how parking would be provided for this project. Mr. Watrous stated that revised plans had been received which removed the third residential unit and reduced the size of the third story to a partial story above one of the two units remaining on the second floor. The ground floor restaurant and/or retail space remained unchanged from the previous revision and a light well of 26'/2 feet wide was provided on the second story, pulled back from the side facing 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. He described the parking analysis, stating that the applicant indicated that the parking required for the residential units would be designated in the Beach Road parking lot and restricted by a covenant. The project description correctly indicates that the parking space equivalents for the existing uses in the building are essentially "grandfathered" in, as the Town recognizes that the parking requirements for most downtown property owners are satisfied by the continuing availability to the public of several parking lots in the downtown area. Mr. Watrous stated that staff believes that the project is generally responsive given the direction of the Commission at the last meeting as the size of the third story was reduced in size by 70% and the light well provides some additional indirect sunlight into the south -facing windows of the upper level, although it was uncertain whether the effects of the light well could be enhanced if the third story was moved further away or eliminated. He recommended that the Commission hold the public hearing on this item, hear and consider all testimony, deliberate on the application, and if the Commission feels they wish to approve the project as proposed a draft resolution has been prepared for approval. Commissioner Williams asked for clarification regarding parking issues related to the project. Director of Community Development Anderson said that the parking requirement for this building was really the differential between what is already there and what is proposed. What would change is the proposed residential units, which, if condominiumized, would require 4 parking spaces that currently are not part of the use. The commercial and restaurant uses are already there and the parking for all Argo properties are either on-site for some of their buildings or they are in the Beach Road parking lot or in the Tiburon Boulevard parking lot, and the Town recognizes them as being adequate. Commissioner Williams asked if the 38 foot height limit outlined in the Municipal Code Section 16-22.040 and also on the General Plan policy DT -28 was arrived at following a public review of what is appropriate for that downtown area. Mr. Watrous confirmed this and said that the zoning ordinance was amended in 2010 to increase the maximum height downtown to try to accommodate a mix of two and three-story buildings in downtown. Commissioner Williams asked if the principles in the Downtown Design Handbook were also adopted by the Town Council after public meetings were held. Mr. Watrous said yes, this was adopted after public hearings held by the Town Council and Planning Commission. EXHIBIT NO. B TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 3 Commissioner Williams asked about findings that the Commission must make for the proposed intensity transfer. Mr. Watrous confirmed that this was within the Commission's discretion. Commissioner Williams asked about the proposed mitigation measure requiring the applicants to contribute financially to improve pedestrian and bicycle congestion points at that intersection. Mr. Watrous said that staff would be asking for a financial contribution that would assist in a future project that the Town would design and carry out for that particular intersection. Commissioner Williams lastly referred to construction traffic and construction -related parking and asked if the project would be subject to a construction management plan later in time. Mr. Watrous said that a plan can be considered in some fashion by the Design Review Board but it was usually implemented through the building permit process. Vice Chair Kulik asked to clarify that the Commission was looking at a CUP but also design elements of it and the DRB's role versus the Planning Commission's authority. Mr. Watrous stated the Commission is essentially looking at the future use of the project and can generally review the overall parameters of what a project will entail in terms of size and general configuration, but can also include specific design aspects that can be important to the Commission, such as the light well. He said that ultimately the DRB will review plans for compliance with other design review standards and also for compliance with the Planning Commission's direction for this particular project. Vice Chair Kulik asked for elaboration on the specific tasks of the Commission tonight. Mr. Watrous said that the Commission was looking at approval of the CUP in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements, the transfer of development intensity for consistency with the General Plan, and the CEQA approval for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Marty Zwick, Zwick Architects, introduced Steve Jaeger from ACV Argo Tiburon and said that they were present to answer questions. Mr. Zwick noted how the ground floor could be divisible into a restaurant or retail to allow for flexibility. He said that the ground floor would be much the same as present. He stated that the third story was reduced in size by 72% and the overall project size was reduced by 23%. He said that they intentionally set back the front facade of the building from the property line, which was done for good planning and streetscape principles, although that meant that they gave up 500 square feet before coming to the Commission, which would be multiplied by three because the building is three stories. Mr. Zwick reviewed the revised plans, stating that the original plan came out to the edge of the building and would now be set back and only be accessible to the third level from within the unit in the back on the second floor. He said that the project would now have only two units and the revised design would change the massing of the building when viewed from across the street. He described a sunlight and shadow study they performed which showed minimal effects on the adjacent building at various times of the year and the effects of the proposed light well. He said that the second floor light well would be 26 feet wide and 6 feet deep and situated in front of most of the windows that are facing that direction. He said that they also sloped the roof over the stairs and made significant changes in accordance with the suggestions of the Planning Commission to try and accommodate their neighbors to the immediate property. EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 4 Commissioner Williams asked Mr. Zwick to address the question raised about the necessity of the elevator height raised in the staff report. Mr. Zwick said that they designed a little corral for rooftop equipment, including the elevator, and put a parapet around it to make it look less like a hodgepodge. Commissioner Corcoran asked if expanding the light well further would affect the stairways or hallway. Mr. Zwick replied that the stairs are as small as he could make them. Vice Chair Kulik opened the public hearing. Chris Skelton, attorney for Jim and Pam Montegani, owners of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, said that this review process was being piecemealed and he thought that there would be a great benefit if the next hearing was held as a joint DRB and Planning Commission hearing for a more holistic view of the project. He said that his fear was that the Design Review Board would feel that its hands were tied by the Planning Commission's approval. He asked that story poles be strung and a light shade study be provided to the public for any future hearings. He stated that he personally found the revised plans to be a bit offensive and unresponsive to the Commission's or the public comments. He thought that the Commission made it clear at the last meeting that there should be no third story and he felt that this should not be considered to be a partial third story because it goes up to 38 feet. He said that there are very few three story 38 -foot tall structures on Tiburon Boulevard and none of the examples have adjacent neighbors built to the property line. He said that this is the hardest site in town and was admitted as such at the last hearing. Mr. Skelton asked to reset the parking baseline and said that if this building is demolished, nothing is grandfathered and future uses must comply with parking standards. He said that parking can be broken into two components—demand and accessibility. He said that there will be a demand for 24 to 27 spaces depending on the configuration. Regarding availability, he said that it was disappointing to hear that the applicant never approached the neighbor who has parking at their site to even conceptually discuss an opportunity for shared parking. He said that there should be an evaluation of the Beach Road parking lot's capacity to provide the needed 27 spaces. He said that if the Town keeps allowing parking to exist in a vacuum and not actually document where it is going, there will eventually be parking for no one. Mr. Skelton said that he did not believe that the light issues had been adequately addressed and that the third story would be in line with the light well. He felt that the light well was a valiant attempt but more can be done. He felt that the transfer of development intensity was inappropriate and noted that there had been one such transfer in the Town's history. He suggested that the maximum size that should be allowed should be 4,300 square feet, which would have the same development potential that was given to 22 Main Street. He asked that the Commission look at the encroachments that are proposed to take over the Juanita Lane walkway. Cathleen Kudosh said that she and her husband Robert have operated their business (Tiburon Belvedere Interiors) for the past 30 to 35 years and are located in the Montegani building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, directly next to the project site. She characterized the project design as aggressive and overly bold and said that the building would entirely block the view of many other tenants who have been there for many years. She stated that the Montegani family has been EXHIBIT N0. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 5 a part of Tiburon's history and continue to treat their tenants like family and support their town. She found it disturbing that their family building would be pushed aside so quickly by a building that would blocks all second floor tenants' views like putting up a wall in front of their living room window. She thought that there must be a better way and found it perplexing that the architect had not taken the time to walk upstairs at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard to see the views of Angel Island, downtown, the Donahue Building, bay and the fountain from the balconies. She said that the parking problem would only worsen with possible condos and offices and she did not believe that condo tenants would park blocks away or take a shuttle, or even park across the street. She proposed that the applicant limit their design to one floor and not to exceed the height of the floor of the balcony at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard to respect the integrity of the Montegani Building and its tenants. Suzanne Himmel Wright said she has lived in the area since the 1950's and has seen many changes. She said that she did not want to lose the New Morning Cafe and she asked the Commission to assure residents that the cafe will stay and encourage the developers to keep it. She said that she collected nearly 1,000 petition signatures from people all over the Bay Area to encourage the cafe to remain. Sally Osmond echoed Ms. Wright's comments about the New Morning Cafe. She said that she understood that the Planning Commission does not have authority when it comes to negotiating leases, but she felt that the restaurant is such a treasured part of the community and it would create a lot of good will if it stayed. Vicky Nichols echoed the previous speakers' comments and said that while the Commission does not have a right to negotiate leases, it can make recommendations. She said that this business has been here for 43 years and not only local residents come but she comes from Sausalito to come to the restaurant. She said that the restaurant is an asset in town, provides tax revenues, and she hoped that a fair rent for this tenant would be considered. Robert Thomas Castle recalled previous businesses in downtown Tiburon, including a department store and a laundry business, which left Tiburon. He said that he and his wife ate at frequents all of the Tiburon restaurants and that he spent many years living in San Francisco and has watched the death of many businesses. Mr. Zwick said that they have made an honest effort to bring more light and air in to the neighboring building at the direction of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Williams asked Mr. Zwick how the shade study was prepared. Mr. Zwick said that June 21st is the longest day of the year when the sun is highest in the sky, so they took three different views at 9:00 a.m., noon and 3:00 p.m. to give an idea of where shadows would be cast from the various aspects of the building. He clarified that that this was done with a computer model. Commissioner Williams asked if they went to the site and tested the model, and Mr. Zwick said yes they did and had a surveyor go out to certify the story poles as accurate. He said that they then took photographs and overlaid their model on the story poles to ensure they were accurate. EXHIBIT NO. g TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 6 The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Corcoran referred to the grandfathering issue regarding parking and asked if there was a provision in the zoning code that spells this out. Mr. Watrous said that it is not spelled out explicitly in the zoning ordinance, but the concept is that the Town has general information on how parking is provided for individual buildings in downtown Tiburon. He said that when creating the new building, the applicants do not have to reestablish that allocation. He stated that parking in downtown Tiburon is very complicated as many of the buildings do not have their own parking. Commissioner Corcoran asked if the parking allocation would be formalized in some sort of restrictive covenant. Mr. Anderson said a condition of approval of the draft resolution calls for a covenant. Commissioner Williams asked for clarification on development potential as part of the intensity transfer process. Mr. Anderson said that the Town has a very good idea of what the remaining development potential is in downtown and it is not much. He described the development potential on property owned by Mrs. Zelinsky. He said that the Argo ownership owns even more parcels in the downtown with a total of about 10,000 square feet of space that could be transferred, of which 3,000 is requested to be transferred for this project. He said that the limited development potential left in the downtown is one of the reasons why future parking does not concern the Town much, as the relative success of businesses will have much more effect on parking than a few thousand square feet of additional space, especially residential space. Mr. Anderson said that the point of the transfer of intensity principle in the downtown, which dates back to the 197O's, was that it is more desirable to have more density or intensity in certain locations than others. He said that the transfer of intensity concept came has been in place for about 40 years and has not been used very much, and only recently for the Harbor Light building. He said that the most likely candidate for the remaining intensity would be the Shark's Deli site which is under -developed. Commissioner Weller commended the applicants for making a serious effort to respond to the Commission's comments from the last meeting. He said that he sympathized with the tenants of the adjoining building, but he did not believe that what he considers as borrowed views from the second story of that building deserve protection into the future when this site could be developed for a two-story building. He said that he was not in a position to conclude that the site has to remain one story because the two-story building was built first that has windows. He said that the issue was still the third story and although he appreciated the effort to set it back and make it less massive he still had fundamental planning concerns with creating the first 3 -story building on the entire row of Tiburon Boulevard at this location. He did not think that this would be consistent with the character of this portion of downtown Tiburon. He appreciated the lighting studies and it did not appear to him that the third story would create a significant additional light impact over the second story, but the issue was the character of the area. He said that he appreciated the difficulty of going from three stories to two and what would happen if the third story was eliminated, but he was unable to find the three-story design to be consistent with the character of the area. EXHIBIT NO. le TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 7 Commissioner Weller said that he was reconciled to the parking issue because there is no parking on that site and parking will be supplied elsewhere as it always has been. He commended the restaurant use and said that he wants the New Morning Cafe to stay, but he recognized that this issue is not in the Commission's purview, as the Town cannot dictate to the owner of a property who they are willing to rent to or what the rent will be. He hoped that the owners heard what the community wants. He said that the issue was still the third story element, as he had not been persuaded that a third story is an appropriate use of that property in that location. Commissioner Williams said that she was very impressed by the modifications and while she was not present at the last meeting, she read the minutes and carefully studied the materials and felt that they addressed a lot of the concerns. She said that she respectfully challenged Commissioner Weller's conclusion that a third floor is not warranted. She noted that the Downtown Element of the General Plan and the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook encourage a mixture of two and three story buildings along Tiburon Boulevard and to encourage buildings that are new and larger in scale than those on Main Street. She said that the reasons for this are to encourage and promote engagement in the community and pedestrian -friendly and resident -friendly amenities to kind of create a boulevard feeling there. She thought that it was fortunate to have a restaurant proposal with residential space as opposed to offices on the top floor and something else on the bottom level. She said that realistically the triangular space is so limited that just a second floor would not be viable. She said that the trend she sees in development in the area encourages mixed use and a inix of structures. She liked that this design was not just a two-story box, adding that the asymmetry can be very appealing and provide a community with visually distinctive features. Commissioner Williams said that she is very mindful of neighbors, but it is hard to make decisions based on an existing building that might not be there in 20 years or so. She felt that some real effort had been made to address the light issues and she does not believe that a two- story building would improve the lighting situation at all. She said that as a Commissioner, they look to the General Plan, ordinances, the Design Handbook and documents that have been created over time with public input, as these represent the community's feeling, so these views and careful review. Commissioner Corcoran commended the applicant, architect and neighbors and thought that everyone was coming together and interested in doing what is best for the conununity. He said that this is an important location and they want to modify, update and preserve it for future generations. He said that what is state of the art design today will not be in the future and other properties that were state of the art will want to improve and possibly go up in the future. He did not want to see a race to the bottom where the Town requires everybody to stay at one story or at a lower height to match what exists. He thought that the design was beautiful and felt that the applicants did a good job of modifying the design. He acknowledged how much the applicant gave back by lopping off 70% of the third story which, from an economic standpoint, is very significant to an applicant. EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 8 Commissioner Corcoran thought that this design was about as modest a third story as possible. He said that the building would be centered on the lot, set back far from Tiburon Boulevard and about as far as possible from 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. He agreed with Commissioner Williams that the General Plan encourages a mix of two and three story buildings. He noted that pictures were presented at the last meeting of different three-story buildings around town. He felt that this was a reasonable proposal. He liked the addition of the light well, although its design was not absolutely ideal, as pushing it back another 6 feet could help. He said that he could support the project as proposed. He noted that the PIanning Commission does not have a role in saying what a private property owner can do, but everybody loves New Morning Cafe and hopes that it will be back. Vice Chair Kulik said that this is a tricky and a complicated redevelopment project. He said that all of the guidance they have from the General Plan, downtown design handbook and zoning ordinance encourages multi -use commercial and residential projects, but the location is the key. He said that the Commission is tasked with evaluating the scale and impact on the local environment. He was worried that the third story would dominate Fountain Plaza in a way that makes it the focal point of town. He said that looking at the story poles from the anchor on the rotary and at Fountain Plaza, the poles dominate the view when looking from the water to Mt. Tam to Tiburon along Tiburon Boulevard. He said that a development transfer is a significant accommodation to allow these uses and allow more than just a one-story rebuild of the current building. He said that there would only be one beneficiary of a third story, but it would also have adverse impacts. Commissioner Weller said that Vice Chair Kulik articulated better than he did the concern about the third story. He said that this would be as modest a third story as possible but it still troubled him. He said that this building would become a dominant factor and he was not ready to conclude at this point in time that it ought to be the first of a series of three story structures. He thought that what is wonderful about this town is that it is a town and not a city or urban environment. He did not think that this particular location is the place to put a three-story building and there may be other more isolated places where a third story would not have as dramatic an impact on its surroundings. Vice Chair Kulik asked if there was a solution that would be possible for a two-story building with the restaurant use and two condominiums on the second floor. Steve Yeager, Argo LLP, said that it is very challenging to get into a dialogue when the project becomes economical unviable. He appreciated Commissioner Corcoran acknowledging that they have given away what was contemplated as a penthouse or third unit was more than significant. He said that they want to do the right thing here and have spent considerable time, energy and resources to put together a project they think will enhance the town. He said that there are many things in transition here and it speaks to vacancies that exist, challenging uses and small businesses that have a hard time making it work. He said that they need to create energy in the downtown core and it only comes through not turning it into a city but still turning it into some type of hybrid community and environment where people are brought into the downtown area, creating some energy and support for the businesses that are here. EXHIBIT NO. 8 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13, 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 9 Mr. Yeager said that they cannot economically do what the Commission is asking them to do to limit this to two stories. He said that this comes down to viability and they do not want to put more second floor office space in town. He said that what is needed is people to live here. He thought that the Cominission could help the community by bringing people into the downtown core to support the businesses and create vibrancy. He believed that over time the Town will see more and more that the two-story wood framed buildings that line Tiburon Boulevard are the way of the past. He said that they cannot economically build a two-story building on what is already a challenging site and need enough square footage to make it viable to actually bring two units that will be marketable. Commissioner Williams stated that the Downtown Element encourages a mixture of second and third story buildings and her sense was that this would be consistent with the mixture of heights when entering town, but could be inconsistent from the downtown vantage point described by Vice Chair Kulik. She said that was open to be persuaded and 10 years from now did not want to regret some horrible structure that was allowed to go in. Commissioner Corcoran referred to General Plan Policy DT -28 and stated that the Planning Commission gets to uphold a document that has been around for 10 years even if it is unpopular sometimes. He said that the policy states that a mix of two and three story buildings is encouraged for new construction. He said that this is an unusual occurrence to have a building in the downtown be reconstructed like this, with only three in 15 years. Commissioner Williams asked the neighboring property owner if their idea is to have a two-story structure. Mr. Skelton said that the 4,300 square foot number came from looking at the percentage that was associated with the development transfer at 22 Main Street. He said that the Commission is duty bound and this would set a precedent. He suggested if a second floor were to be added it could be pulled away from the property line to create a larger light well. Commissioner Williams said that she generally supported the project but felt like she did not have adequate information needed to make the findings to approve the CUP because of potential injury to the neighboring property from light impacts. Commissioner Corcoran said that the shade study shows that the third story did not make that much of a difference in terms of light impact and he felt that shade during some months of the year at some times of the day would not really be considered as injury to property. He noted that the finding states "the protection of the public interest, safety of the community or welfare of the town," which is intended to look at this globally and protect the public interest and safety. Vice Chair Kulik commented that CUP finding 3 discusses the "probability of impairment to the architectural integrity and character of the zoning district in which it is to be located." He felt that the three-story design of the building poses policy questions as to consistency with the character of its surroundings. Commissioner Corcoran asked if the Commission questioned the distance from the site to Fountain Plaza and said that it appears to him that Waypoint Pizza is closer to the Fountain Plaza than this third story would be. Vice Chair Kulik said that the distance is about the same, but this EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 10 would be the first three-story building on this row of buildings and Main Street has different zoning, architecture and function than Tiburon Boulevard. Commissioner Corcoran asked if there is any guidance in the Downtown Tiburon Handbook regarding third story massing on Tiburon Boulevard versus on Main Street. Mr. Watrous said that there are different guidelines for Tiburon Boulevard versus Main Street versus Ark Row. Commissioner Williams added that the Handbook states that Tiburon Boulevard buildings should be of a scale that is larger than that of Main Street. Commissioner Corcoran noted that Policy DT -6 is to preserve and enhance the unique character of downtown Tiburon and that downtown buildings may be rebuilt or reconstructed to the same FAR that exists provided that the resulting buildings substantially conform to the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. Mr. Anderson stated the Commission also needs to take into account the relative size of most of the properties along Tiburon Boulevard which are much larger than the properties along Main Street. He said that this property is very close to Main Street and much more similar to the types of sizes of parcels one would find on Main Street than Tiburon Boulevard where lots are many times larger than this. He said that the Handbook can provide good assistance but the Commission must also look at the individual parcel being reviewed. Commissioner Williams stated that while she thinks this is a beautiful design and this would potentially be a missed opportunity for a better project on this site. She concluded that a three- story building at this particular location would not be compatible with other buildings in the area. She was sad because from an economic standpoint for the Town she thought that this was a great idea and she hoped that the applicants would return with a two-story design that is appropriate. Mr. Watrous said that as an alternative, staff prepared a modified draft resolution that would approve a two-story building. He outlined potential changes that could be made to the draft resolution. Mr. Zwick asked the Commission to provide some latitude in the project design and not be locked in to the limitations in the conditions of approval described by Mr. Watrous. Commissioner Weller said that the Commission was in agreement that the applicants have made a constructive attempt to respond to the Commission's continents at the last meeting and despite the Commission's reluctance to approve a third story, there was also agreement that this building is falling down and needed to be replaced. He said that the Commission would also like the New Morning Cafe to stay there if possible and the restaurant will not stay if there is not a new building. He encouraged the Commission to continue the matter and provide the applicants with a charge to return with a two-story solution. Commissioner Corcoran suggested giving additional direction to the applicants, including the question about what would happen with the light well with a two-story design. Vice Chair Kulik asked if Commissioners supported the light well that currently exists. Commissioner Corcoran thought that the applicants would want to remove it if they lose the third EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 11 story to make it economically viable. Commissioner Weller said light is a concern and any proposal needs to address that concern. Commissioner Williams agreed that the lighting is an on- going issue and something that needs to be addressed but she would not want to pose further constraints or guidelines because she does not feel informed or has the expertise to redesign the building. Commissioner Weller thought that it is the applicants' job to decide how to respond to that concern and then the Commission will decide whether they are satisfied with the way the applicant returns with it. Commissioner Weller suggested that the meeting be continued, that the applicant be requested to re -design the project with a two-story building with no third story and a design that adequately addresses the provision of light to the east facing windows on 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. He said that the Commission was not asking for more information on the parking situation. Mr. Watrous suggested continuance to June 24, 2015. He said drawings would need to be submitted to staff 10 days prior to that or June 11, 2015. Mr. Zwick concurred. Commissioner Williams asked that the applicant add bike racks in the plans which are required but did not show up in the plans. ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Williams) to continue the matter to June 24, 2015, that the applicant be requested to return with a two-story building design with no third story that adequately addresses the provision of light to the east -facing windows of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. Motion carried 3-1 (Corcoran opposed). ACTION ITEM 3. Review of Draft Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 for Consistency with the Tiburon General Plan Mr. Anderson said that this was the annual review of the Draft CIP Budget for its consistency with the Tiburon General Plan. He described the components to the CIP budget and said that staff has provided the Commission with comparisons for the proposed spending as compared to last year and also a general description of the types of improvements that would be proposed for the streets, which is primarily maintaining, repairing and rehabilitating existing streets. He said that no new streets are planned and the Town intends to increase the amount significantly for improvements to major drainage lines. Mr. Anderson stated that there are no General Plan inconsistency issues related to any of the street or drainage projects. He said that staff provided the Commission with a list and brief description of each of the new Tiburon projects proposed for this coming fiscal year with a couple of carry-over projects which the Commission previously looked at and found consistent with the General Plan. He also provided drawings of the Blackie's Pasture improvements that are still in the conceptual stage. He recommended that the Commission find that the CIP Budget is consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the Tiburon General Plan, review the budget and adopt a motion finding the Draft CIP consistent with the General Plan to be forwarded to the Town Council. EXHIBIT NO. 8 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 13. 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1054 PAGE 12 DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 1057 Regular Meeting August 12, 2015 Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Kulik called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Present: Chair Kulik, Vice Chair Williams, and Commissioners Corcoran, Weller and Welner Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Scott Anderson and Planning Manager Watrous ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING - No Report PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard: Consider Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Construction of a New 6,004 Square Foot, Three -Story Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Building Intended for Condominium -type Ownership; File #11402; ACV Argo Tiburon LP, Owner; Zwick Architects, Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 059-101-12 (Continuedromp May 13, 2015) Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report and said this application was first reviewed at the March 25, 2015 meeting. At that time, concerns were raised about the proposed building height, impacts on sunlight for the neighboring building and parking. The Commission directed the applicant to return with a design that lowered the height of the building and allowed more light in the windows for the adjacent building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The revised plans were reviewed at the May 13, 2015 meeting which eliminated the third residential unit and left a partial third story on the building and included a new light well. The Commissioners voiced differing opinions about this partial third story, but its consensus was that a two-story building was more appropriate at this location and that the parking issues regarding the building had been resolved. The application was continued and direction was given to return with a two-story design that adequately addressed the provision of light to the east facing windows of the adjacent building. EXHIBIT NO. 11 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 12 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1056 DRAFT P,t61Z-1.- The revised plans have been submitted and the design still includes a partial third story element which has been moved to the rear corner of the building. The first residential unit on the second floor would still contain two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The second floor portion of the second unit would also be a two-story unit with the partial third story. The light well remains in the same position relative to the adjacent building. The main change on the lower floor was to include two, one -car parking garages with one garage space assigned to each of the two residential units and staff notes that the additional 2 foot tall mechanical area for the shaft above the building has been eliminated. Mr. Watrous stated that the revised project design appeared to be largely unresponsive to the direction given at the last Planning Commission meeting, as this is not a two-story design. The more southerly location of the third story element may provide more light to the east facing windows of the adjacent building, but it could still block late afternoon sunlight. Staff believes that the Commission should determine whether the revised project design adequately addresses the potential light impacts on the east facing windows of the neighboring building, although removal of the third story could reduce any of these light impacts. It is also possible to increase the size of the light well, though that would substantially diminish the size of the two residential units, or consider requiring the applicant to pay for installation of skylights or the east facing tenants of the adjacent building. He recommended that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing on this item, hear and consider all testimony, deliberate on the application and consider adoption of the draft resolution approving the project with modifications. S.G. Ellison, First Street Development, said he is the development partner for the ownership, ACV Argo Tiburon. He said that they have made a large investment in the community and this is an important project for them. He said that it would be a catalyst for what they do throughout Town and how they make a larger investment, including improvements to Shark's Deli and plans for renovation of the Maritime Building. Mr. Ellison stated that at the previous meeting there were three major issues: 1) the third story; 2) how to address parking; and 3) the light wells. He said that in addressing these items, the building was designed in such a way that it would have a maritime feel, be contemporary and be something that belongs in Tiburon. He spoke about the Town's design guidelines for a mix of two and three story buildings along Tiburon Boulevard. He described the building design and stated that the third story element would provide the second unit with openness and a useful deck for a 700 square foot unit, with great views of Tiburon and San Francisco, and would not obstruct the light well. He stated that they took the Commission's comments about the third story to mean not to place it right on top of Tiburon Boulevard. He said that they pulled the third story portion to the back corner of the property to be less obtrusive to the streetscape while still allowing the second unit to have some open space. He stated that they included on-site parking into the form of ground floor garages. He noted that the garages would displace usable square footage, which makes the third story important and to make the project viable. He said that they felt that they addressed the intent of the Commission's comments and the Town's design guidelines and felt that this could be a catalyst of more to come in Downtown Tiburon. EXHIBIT NO. et TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 12 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1056 DRAFT PAGE 2 Commissioner Corcoran asked if they had performed another shadow study. Mr. Ellison said they prepared a shadow study and that the two stories would block some light for the adjacent building, which was why they propose the light well. He said that the third story would not affect light to the adjacent building and that the light well would help bring the morning and afternoon sunlight to that building. He said that the late afternoon light would not be obstructed because the sun is setting west and the adjacent building windows face southeast, but they maintained the light well and pulled back the third story to make sure there was natural light there. He referred to Sheet A.2.3 showing the third story and said that it was pushed back to the corner as far as possible. He said that the third story would have a single bedroom, a sitting room that overlooks the deck and some structural elements that need to be there for the elevator. Vice Chair Williams asked if installing skylights was a viable option. Mr. Ellison said that they had not spoken to the neighboring property owner about that possibility. Commissioner Corcoran asked about the applicant's feelings about the proposal for skylights. Mr. Ellison said that they had taken away a lot of square footage within the structure of the building with the light well and smaller third story and had been respectful in the location of mechanical equipment. The public hearing was opened. Riley Hurd, attorney representing the owners of 1690 Tiburon Boulevard, said that the Commission requested the applicant return with a two story design and this is the third meeting and the project still had three stories. He stated that projects which continually disregard the Commission's direction are usually not a recipe for success. He said that there had been no meaningful outreach from the applicant to his client. He stated that the third story was pushed against the light well and that a shade study was not needed to understand that the efficacy of that light well would be extremely impacted by a story pressed against it. He said that he would be shocked if the Town's transfer of development intensity regulations were intended to allow 4'A times the floor area that a site is meant to have. He said that the Commission's decisions must be based on findings which must be based on evidence and they do not know how much the Beach Road parking lot has to give in terms of transferable floor area. He stated that the Commission cannot make the required CUP findings cannot be made as the project would not be harmonious with nearby land uses and would be injurious to property in the vicinity. He did not believe that the required findings could be made and he asked the Commission to deny the project. Steve Sears, proprietor of Sam's Anchor Cafe, said that thought that the project was positive and good for the Town. He stated that the building obviously needs to be replaced and if the applicant cannot replace it with a two-story building it probably would not be economically feasible, and they would end up with the existing dilapidated building. He said that the owners have put money into their retail buildings which improves the Town and it would be helpful to support these partners as they appear to be supporting the Town. Mr. Sears stated that it was important to build residential units in Town to bring more people to Tiburon, which would be good for the business community. He supported the design of the building, noting that the EXHIBIT NO. 62( TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 12 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1056 DRAFT PAGE 3 Town's guidelines call for two and three story buildings on Tiburon Boulevard and he felt that a one story building would not be feasible. He asked the Commission to support the project. Jeff Klinger said that he fully supported the proposed project. He thought that Tiburon could use some gentrification and vitality. He noted the turnover in the retail establishments and felt that it was important to try to draw people into downtown which would help make the Town more vibrant. He thought that the project was reasonable. Mr. Ellison said the 700 square feet in the third story was important to the project because it makes the project sustainable and marketable. He said that they did not neglect the Commission's recommendation to look at a two-story building, but looked at ways to try and make that work. He said that they believed that renovating the building properly would allow the upper unit to have some open space and views and they mindfully pulled it back off of the street. He addressed Mr. Hurd's comments and stated that they meet the TDI and CUP requirements to develop the property. He said that the 36 foot height would not be obtrusive and that there are other buildings of that height. Commissioner Weller asked if there was a possibility to lower the height of the elevator or mechanical portions of the proposed third story. Mr. Ellison said that they could stagger or lower that area, but it would not affect the light well. Commissioner Weller said that he assumed that a taller structure would impact more light. Commissioner Corcoran asked if similar changes could be made to the stairwell, possibly slanting its roof. Mr. Ellison said that they could look at slanting that in some manner to allow more light. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Weller commended the applicant and said that they did a great job of modifying the project. He noted his previous reservations about the lack of parking for residential units on site and said that it was a great advance to make on-site parking available. He said that his concern about the third story was the massing on Tiburon Boulevard and he thought that this proposal went a long way toward addressing his concerns and would no longer create an elevation that did not fit in downtown. He said that he was still concerned with the light issue and wanted to see some work done, as it was feasible to lower some of the mechanical and elevator area to improve light coming to the adjacent building. He did not support installing skylights, as he felt that the idea of requiring one owner to negotiate with an adjacent owner about modifying the adjacent owner's property was a no-win situation and this project needed to either stand or fall on its own merits. He said that he was favorably impressed and could support the project. He said that he was mindful of the light effect on the adjacent property, but he believed that the concept of a borrowed view has to play a role here. He felt that it would be a mistake to condemn this site to a permanently economically ineffective role. He said that the on- site parking was huge from his perspective and outweighed the relatively modest effect on the adjacent light as long as maximum effort was made to allow more light through the mechanical area. EXHIBIT NO. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 12 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1056 DRAFT PAGE 4 Commissioner Corcoran said that Commissioner Weller's comments were well -articulated and addressed a lot of the concerns from the last meeting. He wished that the Commission had this design the last time because this was preferable. He said that lowering the elevator and stairway areas would address the concern about the light well, particularly early in the morning. He estimated that the new third story would be at least 43 feet back from the front of the building, which was significant. He suggested shifting the third story eastward, which would move the deck towards Tiburon Boulevard. He echoed the comments regarding parking and having two residential spaces, and he commended the applicant for working with the neighbor. Vice Chair Williams thought that the applicant has tried to incorporate the previous comments into this new design. She said that, as she articulated at the last meeting, she was not philosophically opposed to a three story design. She thought that such a structure was appropriate for this commercial zone. She quoted from the zoning ordinance, general plan and the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook and thought that the project was consistent with these goals and policies. She said that the issue with the previous design was its massiveness and bulk when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard, as well as the view from Fountain Plaza. She felt that the applicant had addressed the view impact from the plaza sufficiently so she could support the project. She said that the only CUP finding of concern to her was the protection of the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, and she thought that the benefit to the public of a structure like this that would maintain the restaurant use, include residential uses, and bring vibrancy to the Town would outweigh the probably of harm. She thought that the applicant had tried to address the light issues in a reasonable way. She added that she would implore the applicant to keep the neighbors in mind at all times and she supported adjustments to address the light issue. Commissioner Welner thought that this was a well-designed project. He said that he was also concerned about the massiveness of a full third story and this seemed to be appropriately scaled back. He noted the size of the proposed third story deck and asked if there were any similar large decks or balconies in the downtown area. Mr. Watrous said that if the entire upper roof area is intended to be deck for the third story, this would be substantially larger than any other residential deck downtown. Commissioner Welner asked this would require a special permit. Mr. Watrous said that it would require at least design review approval and, depending on the activity level, could require a conditional use permit. Cornrnissioner Welner said that this would be a new kind of feature in the downtown where one could imagine a massive party overlooking the downtown and changing the character of how things feel. He was also unsure whether the deck railings would be solid or transparent. Mr. Watrous said that if the CUP is approved, the building design would need to be approved by the Design Review Board. He said that at that time, the Board would be able to look at the details such as glass railings versus solid railings, and the Board can be encouraged to address particular issues. He stated that he had drafted a condition of approval in response to Commissioner Weller's concerns that would direct the Design Review Board to minimize the mass of third story elements including the elevator mechanical space and stairways to increase light to the light well. Similarly, the Commission could provide direction to the Design Review Board to consider possibly reducing the size of the third story deck. EXHIBIT N0. qG TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 12 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1056 DRAFT PAGE 5 Mr. Watrous stated that the Design Review Board has looked at rooftop decks in some detail, with the main concern about creating a large party space that could be intrusive on neighboring property owners. He said that the Commission could encourage the Design Review Board to evaluate the size of the deck to ensure that it is appropriate in scale for that unit. Commissioner Weller noted that he had served on the Design Review Board and believed that the Commission could give them direction on the appropriateness of a deck scales to the size of the unit and to refine the reduction in the height of the areas that overlook the light well to the extent it would be mechanically and logistically feasible. He wanted to make sure that the deck did not promote a large party space to make the unit more desirable as a vacation rental. Vice Chair Williams thought that the Commission should also provide direction as to the railing materials, as she liked the transparent railing. Chair Kulik reiterated his appreciation for the developer's efforts here and in the revitalization of Tiburon. He said that he came into the meeting thinking this was a relatively simple decision, but many great points were made. He agreed that providing on-site parking was terrific. He said that his concern was the view of the building from Fountain Plaza but he was mindful of the need for compromise given the over -arching goals of revitalizing the downtown and making things economically viable. He felt that pushing the third story further back was an improvement and they have discussed potential further improvements by minimizing impacts to the light well, via the elevator and mechanics, and looking at the railing materials or moving the deck back further away from Main Street. He said that he appreciated the thoughtfulness of the design in addressing the impacts. Mr. Watrous said that changes would need to be made to the draft resolution to reflect approval of the three-story project, as the draft resolution dealt with a two-story project. He discussed possible conditions giving direction to the Design Review Board to minimize the mass of the third story elements, including elevator and mechanical space and stairways to increase light to the light well, and to address the size of the third story deck to ensure it is appropriate to the scale of the residential unit it serves, and the openness of the deck railing so that it does not necessarily add to the visual mass of the building or affect light to the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. The Commission discussed possible changes in the language to address appropriate direction to the DRB. It was the consensus of the Commission that it was more appropriate for the Board to review the final design to address these issues rather than having the Commission try to redesign specific elements of the project. Mr. Watrous said that the draft resolution would be amended to reflect the existing plans, to be modified as follows: • On page 2 under approval of the transfer of intensity, staff will add the term "approximately" to address concerns that the numbers used by staff may not precisely match the numbers shown on the submitted plans. • Delete Finding D. • Amend Section 4 from "2,889 square feet" to "approximately 3,220 square feet." EXHIBIT NO. 9 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 12 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1056 DRAFT PAGE 6 • Amend Condition of Approval No. 1 would be amended to state "...approves construction of an up to approximately 6,004 square foot, three-story commercial/residential building" and delete everything after "August 3, 2015." • Amend Condition No. 4 to state, "Building height is approved at approximately 38 feet." • Amend Condition No. 6 after "a separate loading berth shall not be required in association with this project." • Add the following Condition stating "as part of the review of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for this project, the Design Review Board is directed to minimize the mass of the third story building elements, including the elevator, mechanical space and stairways, to increase light to the light well of the building. The Design Review Board is further directed to address the size of the third story deck to ensure that it is appropriate to the scale of the residential unit it serves and does not unnecessarily add to the visual mass of the building when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard. The Design Review Board shall also review the openness of the third story deck railings so that the railings do not unnecessarily add to the visual mass of the building or affect light to the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard." ACTION: It was M/S (Weller/Williams) that the Commission adopt the resolution approving the conditional use permit, as amended. Motion carried: 5-0. 2. 138 & 142 Rock Hill Road: Request to Subdivide One Parcel Into Two Lots for Future Construction of Two Single -Family Homes; File #61401; The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, Owner/Applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 039-151-55 Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report and said the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 2.56 acre parcel located off Rock Hill Road into two lots. This is an undeveloped lot at this time. Lot 1 would an area of 1.45 acres, and Lot 2 would have an area of 1.11 acres with each of the two proposed lots to be developed with a single- family home. He stated that the applicant has installed 30 foot tall story poles at the corners of the possible future home locations, defined by the required setbacks from the property lines and the view easements below. He said that the story poles reflect a worst case scenario of a building and indicate the parameters of where a house could go on the site. He said that the story poles could block views of Mt. Tamalpais and portions of Richardson Bay from some rooms of the homes at 10 & 12 Via Paraiso West. Staff recommended that the Commission give direction to the DRB to strongly consider these views in the evaluation of future homes on these lots. Mr. Watrous stated that the project was consistent on balance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff prepared an Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project that focused on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geological issues, hazards, hydrological and water quality issues and noise issues and found potentially significant impacts on each of these items but also identified mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this item, hear and consider all testimony, deliberate on the application and consider adoption of the draft resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project. However, if the Q EXHIBIT NO TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - AUGUST 12 2015 - MINUTES NO. 1056 DRAFT PAGE 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDING INTENDED FOR EVENTUAL CONDOMINIUM -TYPE OWNERSHIP LOCATED AT 1694-1696 TIBURON BOULEVARD AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 059-101-12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application from ACV Argo Tiburon LP to demolish an existing building and reconstruct a new building located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard in downtown Tiburon (File No. 11402). The application consists of the following: 1. Application form and supplemental materials received April 30, 2014 2. Revised project description received August 3, 2015 3. Revised architectural drawings received August 3, 2015 4. Color/materials board received September 10, 2014 The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes, without limitation, the initial study/mitigated negative declaration, staff reports, minutes, application materials, correspondence, and all comments and materials received at any public hearings. The project proposes the demolition of a one-story 2,776 square foot commercial building containing a restaurant and an ice cream shop with a 3 -story mixed use comrnercial/residential building. The ground floor is proposed to contain a restaurant (and possibly a small retail space); while the second floor would have two residential units, with one of these units extending to a partial third floor. The building is proposed to be held in condominium -style ownership, subject to separate future approvals. B. The project was determined to be subject to environmental review and an initial study and draft mitigated negative declaration were prepared in accordance with state and local guidelines and released for public and agency review and continent on March 3, 2015. The Planning Commission has considered all comments received on the initial study/draft mitigated negative declaration. The Planning Commission finds that there has been no substantial evidence presented to support a fair argument that a significant impact under CEQA would result from the project. C. On March 25, 2015, May 13, 2015 and August 12, 2015, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the project. At the public hearings, the Planning Commission TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08 AUGUST 12, 2015 EXHIBIT NO. 10 heard and considered all public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff. The Planning Commission finds, based upon the application materials and analysis provided in the March 25, 2015, May 13, 2015 and August 12, 2015 staff reports and in the entire record, that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Tiburon General Plan and is in compliance with applicable sections of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to Sections 16-52.040 and 16-52.050, and other applicable zoning and municipal regulations. D. The Planning Commission finds that a transfer of intensity is required for project approval and hereby finds that the project qualifies for the transfer of intensity pursuant to General Plan Policy DT -9. Section 2. Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Section 3. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporates the mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. The permit holder shall bear all costs for implementation and monitoring of said Mitigation Monitoring Program. Section 4. Approval of Transfer of Intensity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves a Transfer of Intensity of up to approximately 3,220 square feet from the property identified as Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-86, commonly known as the Beach Road Parking Lot, which is held by the same owner (ACV Argo Tiburon LP) as the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-86 holds development potential of approximately 7,700 square feet under current general plan and zoning designations, and that there is adequate development potential on that site to approve the transfer. Section 5. Approval of Conditional Use Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the conditional use permit application (File #11402), to demolish the existing commercial building and construct a new commercial/residential building located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. This use permit approves construction of an up to approximately 6,004 square foot, three-story commercial/residential building, as generally shown on the TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08 AUGUST 12, 2015 2 EXHIBIT NO. 1° project application drawings (13 sheets) prepared by Zwick Architects and received by the Town of Tiburon on August 3, 2015. 2. Any initial commercial use proposed for the building shall require a separate use permit for that specific use prior to commencement of said use. 3. Condominiumization of the building shall require a separate condominium use permit from the Town. 4. Building height is approved at up to approximately 38 feet, with exceedances allowed as set forth in Municipal Code section 16-30.050(D) for certain elements, subject to site plan and architectural review approval by the Design Review Board. 5. All mitigation measures set forth in attached Exhibit A (Mitigation Monitoring Program) are incorporated as conditions of approval on the project. 6. Two (2) on-site parking spaces are provided for the two residential units. Pursuant to provisions of Tiburon Municipal Code Section 16-32.030, or successor sections thereto, all other required parking for all the uses in the building may be provided off-site by recorded covenant or long-term lease. Required parking for the uses in the building shall be maintained at all times in the Beach Road Parking Lot (APN 058-171-86), which is under the same ownership as the project site. A minimum of one (1) parking space shall be permanently identified and marked in this off-site lot for the exclusive use of two residential units in the building, increasing to two (2) spaces if the units are held in condominium ownership. The project as proposed would currently require twenty-three (23) parking spaces for the non-residential component of the building (based on up to 62 indoor seats and up to 30 outdoor seats), but the precise required number of parking spaces for commercial use of the building and their method of identification (if any) shall be determined at the time of separate use permits issued for such non-residential use. Occupancy of the building shall not be permitted until such time as the provisions of Municipal Code Section 16-32.030 shall have been fulfilled. Loss of the availability of the required parking spaces at any time for purposes of the building approved herein shall be grounds for amendment or revocation of this conditional use permit. Bicycle and motorcycle parking shall be provided as set forth in Municipal Code Sections 16-32.060 and 16-32.070, and shall be finalized as part of the Site Plan & Architectural Review approval. A separate loading berth shall not be required in association with this project. 7. Site Plan & Architectural Review approval for demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building shall be secured prior to issuance of a building permit for the new building. At that time, the project shall comply with requirements of Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16C (Recyclable Collection Area). TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08 AUGUST 12. 2015 3 EXHIBIT NO. L 8. As part of the review of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for this project, the Design Review Board is directed to minimize the mass of the third story building elements, including the elevator, mechanical space and stairways, to increase light to the light well of the building. The Design Review Board is further directed to address the size of the third story deck to ensure that it is appropriate to the scale of the residential unit it serves and does not unnecessarily add to the visual mass of the building when viewed from Tiburon Boulevard. The Design Review Board shall also review the openness of the third story deck railings so that the railings do not unnecessarily add to the visual mass of the building or affect light to the building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. 9. Construction of the building shall comply with the flood regulations set forth in Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 13D that are in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 10. Applicable traffic mitigation fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 11. Housing in -lieu fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance for the residential units in accordance with Chapter 16, Article VII of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 12. Applicants agree to financially contribute to a future Town project to improve the Tiburon Boulevard frontage and reduce pedestrian congestion as identified in General Plan Policy DT -30 and Program DT -r. Said contribution amount shall be finalized prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. 13. The Town reserves the right to amend or revoke this Conditional Use Permit for cause, in accordance with adopted regulations of the Town. 14. This Conditional Use Permit approval shall become null and void if not vested within two (2) years of final approval of this conditional use permit, unless a time extension is granted. 15. If this permit approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08 AUGUST 12, 2015 4 EXHIBIT NO. 1 0 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 12, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KULIK, WILLIAMS, CORCORAN, WELLER AND WELNER NAYS: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE DAVID KULIK, CHAIRMAN TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DAN WATROUS, SECRETARY Attachments: Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring Program TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08 AUGUST 12, 2015 5 EXHIBIT NO. L 0 0 0 a z z CE O 14\ z 0 z w E-1 Fel a 1-1 J_ 174 Q Wm z m 4 ID al 0 0 L11 iz z 0 1, H Building Division Building Division Project Sponsor Start: Ansel of demolition work Complete: Building permit final Start: Prior to issuance of building permit 0) c m 5 (0 0) COU 10 N m 0 c O d a E 0 U m 0. EY u3 m 0) A m N O N V N 7 EN c2 _(9 �o 0. CD M c .p U c 2 0) N c vU •O U m 6 (0m C 0 0 (0 OL U = CIC U 0)'V 2E0 5 O V N o CI 0 m (Oj o° di tmc s, =E3 1- a= .(0 .O 'O m CD CD m C C E., N > 0 j E N C O = N m•`- E N C �O O -° O 6'"8- 0 m p m m ._ .;,,6_ 0 V y @ 0. N ft .0.615 •C 0) E E 0 O 3 (0 O a2= C 7 — O N d.m)0 Cc C- O cF y Ta E N m �.+m.2 -pa O m[] m N C 03 N `p 3 T.` U 0) Y U'ul Lp c 5 G W y O N N }.t 0. 50-22 . 0) U o �- o_ my a :@ ..– V o z o E op7 'p y 0) N m �` U 0) m O l0 m 13? .mc a o E 0)o 0A- 0). ` 0)= O D 0 0..9- ).2 E= C a : OL m rn 0) U N O Nco.D a0, p •O N p.§. a� `o m 0) or c.. 5 0. 3 T_ .0 m N 4°, C N m a� m p m 0( pO,dC -? mCQ91myC D O O 'O m A C (0 Q U .O C N N= E m m •W a c C (0L 0 lb- 0 CO 0E18-0 N co A E. 0.._ m N 3 p c2' 9ad.np�m m°/�oc°E c0. 64 c3N o Ei=rn 2c2 ! U O) y 0) O m 7, D O oc .0 -mE'0) y57a, .555-{p2 0)(32.2 CO y N D a A N f6 N .N N U .0 L.. N m m� c VNOmi'm.E Emm aci2m''�acpi' ao CO o `��'� EEo- E0. c8Ym ' a 'C U m m m21.= x-- 7 a U) 16 A O C 253 >90)5E. • 0 .. N•IA5-pO N m m 0 m p 3 L - L -.8N L U V p U C M, C N N O v_ U m N m y E -a O, = N N N 5 V< N a' a3 >..5 -so E16UcEmA¢ .01 X _ m= > 0) p m cat' p 7 U 0 t pro To �— xCl/27-0-CW]=. > c 0)'t c vA ori t6 ut m O.mL 0 p U N Building Division Town Engineer Project Sponsor Project Sponsor Start: Onset of to site development work Start: Prior to issuance of building permit Complete: N/A co o 'c R c- o Tom. A `p .= 0 C t 3 ° -.. c- c .° 30 2p22..:V > 0m '=3' - 8.15-6° .7). 'E2fl _0 �cosc0� �a� O W L Rte. QIU R N 'O R 7 E ..� N E a, -0 8. R C m TCC jt,0'0 Cg N �a N a 5 -~ a R� Om' O 0 R� 23. e.., U ,O C U 7 U *57, w L° N c G O N .0 °)`" mnc2m a>o 0.. al �t m 0 Q y a R m p 15 T7 fn ° j E co C m t0O- C. E m0°m o :C m 2 C amZ V O ) m RV.E R C m U.0 N R 0` O g N p°pw c U_ U a C CO U C c a O O ) C m 0)- >> •- L Q. 7 N N - m 7..CCo)2 Vic`=" moo .0 Q. -..G f0 R m .R.. �. 0 N R Ca ):Y R -. E a .0 m.t CI)E `m E v" m N a •5 c 2 R 0 a, E£< . Z 0 = m NR mm Ry m EN- Ey°T3°Z-G.�3C .7.c N NZ-NjdC N�.m.OcRCattmC pm C O a Ti O C .mC X CO N °' U p 0 .2) R .1..1-W _ .: le) 0 C a aU w m a D -E 0 O m 2-v L R m y° G m Z.m 'E. ID w c C.m. N 7 0 m° O.O 0) m... C C N C C m a Uo cu O C aR S`7 N 8 E 0 c a°um E < E E C 75,- 0 c E 0SE • a - •- • U .0 • • EXHI$IT NO. N 323 /o S3G ' J5"S0 "4w A -C A o 4 D 4/3‘-/6 '50" b71Y3Wb db Mkg N 1 1 /oo' w te V dYg-t4A3471702 1- • 1 0 d�-/Ll-85 NA' 6SI 323.67 y34'37.57"dJ 3..LE'.a/.ass' W 220. ' 5 -\ a CD (.3. ti:) (-- °t- - fl 11 11 x x . _-is • �, w X e‘ 3 �) cw ,.4 ik — l+ 11 iz o 0.4 v\ 0 ! A. Initial Study For the 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project Town of Tiburon FEBURARY 2015 PREPARED BY Town of Tiburon Community Development Department EXHIBIT NO. 1 ZE, TABLE OF CONTENTS NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DRAFT) 2 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 B. REFERENCES 10 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11 Aesthetics 11 Agriculture 12 Air Quality 13 Biological Resources 15 Cultural Resources 16 Geology and Soils 17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 19 Hazards 21 Hydrology and Water Quality 23 Land Use and Planning 25 Mineral Resources ',6 Noise 27 Population and Housing 28 Public Services 29 Recreation 30 Transportation/Traffic 31 Utilities and Service Systems 33 Mandatory Findings of Significance 35 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location and Vicinity Map 8 EXHIBIT NO. l 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 1 TO: FROM: NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, Marin County Town of Tiburon Community Development Department 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Project Title: 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project Proponent: Town of Tiburon Project Location: Tiburon, CA 94920 Project Description: The project is the construction of a new three-story commercial and residential building on the property located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard in Tiburon, California. The project would involve the demolition of an existing one-story commercial building currently occupied by two restaurants (New Morning Cafe and the Grass Shack) and office space that is located at the southwest corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane. A new three-story building would be constructed with space for a restaurant and possible commercial space on the ground floor and two floors above containing two residential condominiums on the second floor and one condominium unit on the third floor. The existing building has 2,776 square feet of floor area. The first floor of the proposed building would contain 2,910 square feet of floor area, either devoted entirely to a new restaurant or with 408 square feet allocated for separate retail commercial space. The restaurant would have 42 to 62 interior seats and seating for 30 patrons outside the building along Tiburon Boulevard or Juanita Lane. The second floor would contain 2,910 square feet of space divided into two condominium units, one containing two bedrooms and two bathrooms and the other containing one bedroom and two bathrooms. The third floor would contain a 2,364 square foot condominium unit with two bedrooms and three bathrooms. An elevator would connect all three floors of the building. The building would have a maximum height of 38 feet. The exterior of the building would utilize decorative wood siding and trim. No on-site parking is proposed for this project, with parking for the commercial and residential uses to be provided in off-site commercial parking facilities owned by the applicant. The existing building also has no on-site parking. Finding: Based on the attached Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not result in a significant, adverse environmental effect, with the incorporation of required mitigation measures. Signature: aniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 are EXHIBIT NO. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 2 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Project Title: 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager (415) 435-7393 4. Project Location: 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94965 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: ACV Argo Tiburon LP 770 Tamalpais Drive, Suite 401B Corte Madera, CA 94925 6. Person Preparing the Submission/Initial Study Checklist Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager — Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone: (415) 435-7393 Fax: (415) 435-2438 Email: dwatrous(i-Dtownoftiburon.org 7. Project Number: 11402 8. Assessor Parcel No. 059-101-12 9. Type of Approval Sought: Conditional use permit for construction of a new mixed-use commercial and residential building 10. Size of Subject Property: 3,676 square feet. 11. Present Use of Site or Structures: One-story commercial building containing two restaurants and office space 12. General Plan Designation: NC (Neighborhood Commercial) 13. Zoning: NC (Neighborhood Commercial) ] 694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 EXHIBIT NO 2- 14. Description of Project: The project is the construction of a new three-story mixed-use commercial and residential building on the property located at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard in Tiburon, California. The project would involve the demolition of an existing one-story commercial building currently occupied by two restaurants (New Morning Cafe and the Grass Shack) and a small office space that is located at the southwest corner of Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane. A new three-story building would be constructed with space for a restaurant and possible commercial space on the ground floor and two floors above containing two residential condominium units on the second floor and one residential condominium unit on the third floor. The existing building has 2,776 square feet of floor area. The first floor of the proposed building would contain 2,9] 0 square feet of floor area, either devoted entirely to a new restaurant or with 408 square feet allocated for separate retail commercial space. The restaurant would have 42 to 62 interior seats and seating for 30 patrons outside the building along Tiburon Boulevard or Juanita Lane. The second floor would contain 2,910 square feet of space divided into two residential condominium units, one containing two bedrooms and two bathrooms and the other containing one bedroom and two bathrooms. The third floor would contain a 2,364 square foot residential condominium unit with two bedrooms and three bathrooms. An elevator would connect all three floors of the building. The project would exceed the maximum floor area ratio in the NC zone of 0.37 (1,360 square feet) by 6,824 square feet. A transfer of intensity will be required to transfer the development potential of other property in the vicinity under the same ownership as the subject property to this site. The exterior of the building would utilize decorative wood siding and trim. No on-site parking is proposed for this project, with parking for the commercial and residential uses to be provided in off-site commercial parking facilities owned by the applicant. 15. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is located within a predominantly commercial area in Downtown Tiburon. Other uses in the immediate vicinity include a variety of retail commercial, office and restaurant uses. Nearby residential uses include the Point Tiburon Bayside and Lagoon condominium projects as well as several residences scattered throughout the Downtown area. 16. Other agencies or utility providers whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): The project will be reviewed by the Tiburon Fire Protection District, Marin Municipal Water District, and PG&E. There are no responsible or trustee agencies for this project pursuant to CEQA. CalTrans approval would be required for any work done within the Tiburon Boulevard (California Highway 131) right-of-way directly adjacent to the subject property, although no such work is anticipated. EXHIBIT NO. l 2- 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 4 Project Location and Vicinity Map - Figure 1 .'l+l,""� YC. s j i r.` =n .'. r2 O s tt J.3G `� 'y.. .+ c atT51LiL ra +r-�-u+.+a —• . itis Y. tr :v 'k_}i: r � °. .. u � 1 To Ser Rafael Richmond a afael•Bridge • -' c-:.Igi"a id?:= ee .r_ — __ ^,'ei.5. L./ bbl Tiburon San Francisco Bay Richardson Bay Bely` y� -73 an Francisco 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles TIBURON 2020 Town of Tiburon General Plan September 2005 PLANNING AREA ,-'Planning Area Town of Tiburon Marin County EXHIBIT NO [2- 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the El Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ® Transportation/Traffic DETERMINATION: ❑ Agriculture and Forestry • Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: by this project, involving at least checklist on the following pages. ® Air Quality ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. El I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an EARLIER EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Town of Tiburon 20(6— Date EXHIBIT NO. 12- 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 6 B. REFERENCES The following is a list of references used in the preparation of this document. Each of the topics addressed in Section C, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts, includes a list of references by number. The numbers for the reference sources correspond with the sources that are listed below by number. 1. Town of Tiburon General Plan 2. Town of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance 3. Town of Tiburon Housing Element 4. Final Historic Resource Evaluation, 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California; prepared by Architectural Resources Group, August 13, 2014 5. Hazardous waste list website: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm. 6. State Planning and Zoning Law 7. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 8. Composite Flood Hazard Areas - HUD National Flood Insurance Program 9. Field Inspection 10. Experience with other projects of this size and nature 11. Aerial Photography 12. Marin Countywide Plan 13. Bay Area Air Pollution Control District 14. California Natural Areas Coordinating Council Maps 15. Harbor Light Final Environmental Impact Report, certified by the Tiburon Planning Commission on August 13, 2008 16. ABAG Projections 17. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans 18. Department of Fish & Game 19. US Army Corps of Engineers 20. USGS Data Contribution 21. Town of Tiburon Climate Action Plan 22. California Natural Diversity Database 23. State/Federal Environmental Standards, including: (a) Ambient Air Quality Standards; and (b) Noise Levels for Construction Equipment 24. Federal Environmental Standards, including: (a) Water Quality Standards - 40 CFR 120; (b) Low - Noise Emission Standards - 40 CFR 203; (c) General Effluent Guidelines & Standards - 40 CFR 401; and (d) National Primary & Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards - 40 CFR 50 EXHIBIT NO. [ 2- 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 7 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Note: For each topic listed below, a reference source was used to complete the Environmental Checklist. The reference sources are listed by number in Section B of this document. 1. Aesthetics Would the project have: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ �.. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10,11) ❑ ❑ ❑ �4 Discussion: The project is not designated as a "scenic resource" in the Tiburon General Plan, nor does the site serve as or provide a scenic vista given its location in Downtown Tiburon. The subject site is not located adjacent to a state scenic highway. The project would have no impact on scenic resources or scenic vistas. The proposed project would demolish the existing one-story, 2,776 square foot commercial building and replace it with a new three-story, 8,184 square foot mixed-use commercial and residential building. The new structure would occupy the same footprint of the site as the existing structure. The current building height is 23 feet tall; the proposed building height would be 38 feet. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The design of EXHIBIT NO. (2-- 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 8 the new building would be similar in exterior design and materials to the existing building. The proposed project would receive Site Plan and Architectural Review for the proposed replacement structure pursuant to Section 16-52.020 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and would be reviewed by the Town's Design Review Board to ensure that the overall design would complement rather than contrast with the adjacent structures in the downtown area. This would be a less than significant impact. The project would include new exterior lighting for the proposed commercial and residential building. The proposed exterior lighting would be reviewed as part of the Site Plan and Architectural Review application process to ensure consistency with the Town's criteria for exterior light sources, which are required to be low voltage and shielded downward. A detailed lighting plan will be required to be submitted and reviewed during the building plan check process to ensure conformance with the Town's exterior lighting policies. This would be a less than significant impact. 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 12) fl 0 E b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 2, 12) 0 0 0 f t c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (Sources: 1, 2, 12) /1 EXHIBIT NO. l Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 9 d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? (Sources: 1, 2, 9) ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated 0 No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 9) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Discussion: There is no land within the Town of Tiburon that is shown as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Marin County Important Farmland map produced by the State Department of Conversation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. There would be no impact. The proposed project does not change any boundaries or the potential for agricultural activities. The project would not convert Prime Farmland or any farmland of unique or State-wide importance. In addition, there is no rezoning or development proposed on forest land or land or timber property zoned Timberland Production. The project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, or result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, or conversion or loss of forest land. Based on • the above, the proposed project would result in no impacts to agricultural or forest resources. 3. Air Quality Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 10, 12, 13, 17) ❑ ❑ I� b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 10, 12, 13, 17) ❑ ❑ ❑ F/ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 EXHIBIT NO. (2- 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 10 precursors)? (Sources: 1, 10, 12, 13, 17) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17) ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17) ❑ ❑ ❑ E Discussion: The project site (Town of Tiburon) is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. Three pollutants are known to exceed the state and federal standards in the Town: ozone, particulates (PM 10), and carbon monoxide. Both ozone and PMI 0 are considered regional pollutants, because their concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Carbon monoxide is considered a local pollutant, because elevated concentrations are usually only found near the source (e.g., congested intersections). The proposed project would generate additional vehicle trips associated with the three proposed dwelling units. The ground floor commercial space would not generate additional vehicle trips as the project would not increase the size of commercial space found in the existing building on the site. The relatively small number of additional trips that would result from three dwelling units would not result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality. The addition of three dwelling units would also be consistent with ABAG's housing projections for Tiburon and with the Town's current General Plan and zoning. Therefore the project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. The low number of additional vehicle trips traffic will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, nor would they result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in "non -attainment" under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The project site is not situated within close proximity to any sensitive receptors. The project construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Any odors created by restaurant uses in the proposed ground floor commercial space would be no different than odors created by the two existing restaurants on the site. The project's construction -related air pollutant emissions would result from demolition and construction activities at the site. The recently adopted 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines consider a project's construction -related impact to be less than significant if emissions do not exceed the BAAQMD's significance thresholds and the BAAQMD-recommended construction -related mitigation measures are implemented during project construction. Therefore, the following BAAQMD-recommended measures will be incorporated into the project's contract specifications: Mitigation Measure Air Oualitv-1: To limit the project's construction -related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the contract specifications: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved EXTTTRTT NO { Z- 1694-1696 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 11 access roads) shall he watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use ofdry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. e. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations fCCRj). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. f All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with inanufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. g. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District 's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 4. Biological Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 18, 22) ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 18, 22) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, ❑ ❑ ❑ I EXHIBIT NO. ( Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 12 or other means? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 18, 22) Potentially Significant Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 1 g, 22) ❑ , ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The subject site is a developed commercial site located within downtown Tiburon and is surrounded by existing retail and restaurant commercial structures. The site is fully covered with impervious surface and therefore does not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service. The fully developed site contains no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service present on the subject property. The project site is located within an urban area in which there are no federally protected wetlands on the site or nearby. The replacement of the existing commercial building with a new commercial and residential building in the same location would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. There would be no impact on biological resources. 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 4, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 4, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� EXHIBIT NO. 12-- 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 13 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1, 4, 9, 10) ❑ ❑� ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ �� (Sources: 1, 4, 9, 10) Discussion A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) was prepared by Architectural Resources Group on August 13, 2014 for the subject property. The HRE found that the building on the site appeared to have been constructed in the early to mid -1940s and had been substantially remodeled since that time, most recently in the 1980s. The FIRE determined that there was no evidence of historical or architectural significance for this building and the property does not qualify for listing under the California Register of Historical Resources and therefore does not qualify as ahistoric resource per the CEQA guidelines. There are no known unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the subject property. The subject property has been developed for more than 70 years and is contiguous to the area that has been disturbed by the development of the railroad facilities in Downtown Tiburon since the l 880s. As a result, the chances that undisturbed cultural resources on the site are remote. However, it is recommended that precautions be taken during construction to prevent any disturbance of cultural resources on the site. The following measures are recommended to reduce this project impact to a less -than -significant level: Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources -I: The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) have requested consultation between the project developers and the tribe during the demolition and grading phases of the project. A Native American monitor appointed by the FIGR shall be present during these activities. In addition, a professional archaeologist, selected from a list provided by FIGR, shall also be present during the soil disturbance to identify and catalog prehistoric or historic materials that may he z7earthed. If prehistoric remains are found, additional archaeological investigations may be necessary. Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources -2: If during construction activities, any archaeological artifacts, previously unidentified cultural materials, and/or human remains are encountered, the following measures shall be implemented: a. Construction shall cease and a qualified archeologist shall visit the site to evaluate the nature and assess the significance of the find. The Marin County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site, make further recommendations, and be involved in mitigation planning. b. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery or monitoring must be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated, and curated in a manner consistent EXHIBIT NO. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project—Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 14 with current professional archeological standards. c. The project sponsor is responsible for notifying the contractor" In writing of the possibility of such findings. Proof of this communication shall be provided to the Town Planning staff prior to the onset of construction. 6. Geology And Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial death involving: adverse Potentially Significant Impact effects, including Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated the risk of loss, Less Than Significant Impact injury, or No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ 1•I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, ❑ ❑ ❑ ►1 EXHIBIT NO. i Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 ]5 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: There are no •Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the Town of Tiburon and the town is not near any known active faults. The nearest known active faults are the San Andreas fault, about 8 miles to the southwest, and the Hayward fault, about 8 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the potential for fault surface rupture (as opposed to ground shaking) within the Town limits is low. The seismic design of the project would follow site-specific design requirements in accordance with current standards for earthquake resistant construction in the California Building Code. The project site is flat and is not located in an area subject to landslide. The project will result in minimal excavation of the project site and would therefore not result in substantial soil erosion of the site. The existing building is connected to the public sewer system by an existing sewer lateral. Any new construction would also connect to the public sewer system. Recent geotechnical reports for projects in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, including reports prepared for the Harbor Light Final Environmental Impact Report, have found that the soil in this portion of Downtown Tiburon is comprised of soft compressible silt and clay soils known as Bay Mud, which may extend to over 50 feet in depth. Due to the compressible bay mud soils, the site is subject to settlement as a result of consolidation of compressible bay mud under the combined weight of the building. In addition, the site is susceptible to very high liquefaction. As a result, the proposed structure will have to be designed with potential future settlement in mind, including methods such as incorporation of flexible utility connections and re -leveling into the foundation design. Implementation of the standard construction practices and methodologies for development on bay mud soils will result in a less than significant impact. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ❑ EXHIBIT NO. t 2- 1694-1696 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 16 directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Sources: 1, 10, 12, 17, 21) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Sources: 1, 10, 12, 17, 21) ❑ ❑ ❑41 Discussion: On June 2, 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) Board of Directors unanimously adopted new CEQA thresholds of significance. The thresholds of significance are included in the Air District's updated CEQA Guidelines. The updated CEQA Guidelines address recent changes in air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter (PM) from the State of California and the U.S. EPA. The new health -protective air quality standards are in response to growing scientific evidence that exposure to ozone, fine particles and air toxics have greater health effects than previously estimated. In addition, the Air District's new greenhouse gas thresholds were developed to ensure that the Bay Area meets the State's plan to address climate change. The CEQA Guidelines also address exposure to toxic air contaminants, which is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, asthma, reduced birth weight and mortality. Although air quality in the Bay Area has improved over the last thirty years, fine PM and other air toxic contaminants released by transportation and industrial activities threaten the health of local residents. The updated CEQA Guidelines seek to better protect the health and well-being of Bay Area residents. The level of development of the proposed project is consistent with ABAG projections, the Town's General Plan, and current zoning and, therefore, will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment over current projections. It will also not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No BAAQMD threshold of significance would be reached. The Town has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes strategies to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions known to contribute to climate change, to conserve energy and other natural resources, and to prepare the community for the expected effects of global warming. The CAP includes specific goals and objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including policies, programs, and actions that facilitate the efforts of residents and businesses to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the CAP address uses that (a) generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The CAP establishes priorities in four key GI -IG emissions categories for adapting to the local physical changes in the environment that are already being felt as a result of global climate change, and that are expected to intensify in the corning years. Specific strategies address ways to reduce trips and vehicular travel (local shopping, support for safe routes to schools, etc.). Since the project would not result in the creation of dwelling units in locations different than those allowed in the current General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and 2014 Housing Element; the proposed project would result in no impact or less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. 8. Hazards And Hazardous Materials Would the project: EXHIBIT NO. t 2- 1694-1696 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 17 EXHIBIT NO. 1 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 18 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1, 5, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ ►1 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1, 5, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ // c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1, 5, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1, 5, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ I1 EXHIBIT NO. 1 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 18 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ E g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ I h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The existing commercial building has the possibility of containing asbestos, as the building was constructed in the 1940s. The project plans would be reviewed by the Town's Public Works Department, Building Division, and the Tiburon Fire Protection District to ensure that appropriate measures are taken during the demolition and construction process to reduce "construction activity" hazards to the public. Demolition of the existing structure would comply with Regulation 11, Rule 2 requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District regarding asbestos removal. As standard protocol, a letter to this effect would be submitted to the Building Division prior to removal of any materials. This would be a less than significant impact. The project site is located within the developed downtown area of Tiburon and is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites. There is no public airport within two miles of the Town of Tiburon. The nearest public airport is Gnoss Field, which is approximately 12 miles north of Tiburon. No airstrips are located in the Town of Tiburon. The nearest private airstrip is located at Smith Ranch, which is approximately eight (8) miles north of Tiburon. Reconstruction of the existing commercial building would not interfere with or impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is within the developed downtown area of Tiburon and is not adjacent to wildlands nor is it likely to be subject to wildland fire impacts. There would be no impact. 9. Hydrology And Water Quality Would the project: EXHIBIT NO. [Z- 1694-1696 Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 19 FFXHTRIT NO. [2- 1694-1696 Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 20 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact I No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources: 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ .1 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Sources: 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ /1 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 1, 7, 9, 10, 11) ❑ ❑ ❑ FFXHTRIT NO. [2- 1694-1696 Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 20 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 1, 7, 9, 10, 11) ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ .. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ iei j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20) ❑ ❑ ❑ ►1 Discussion: The proposed project would connect with the existing sewer system and storm drainage system and provide any required upgrades to those systems prior to issuance of connection permits. Construction activities will be subject to standard Town requirements that a construction management plan be developed to minimize any impacts associated with soil erosion or discharge of paint or other construction materials. This would be a less than significant impact. The existing commercial building is served by Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD). The proposed replacement structure would also be served by MMWD. There are no wells at the site and the project would have no impact upon groundwater recharge. Drainage patterns at the project site would not change but would be enhanced with the proposed new building. Roofs would be provided with proper gutters and downspouts would be connected to closed conduits discharging water away from the foundation. The roof downspouts and surface drains would need to be maintained entirely separate from foundation drains and retaining wall backdrains to prevent erosion. Building permit plans would be required to incorporate drainage facilities to prevent substantial erosion on-site. This would be a less than significant impact. The project site is currently developed with a one-story commercial structure and the proposed commercial and residential building would not substantially increase the footprint of structures on the site and therefore would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff from the site. Runoff from this site would be controlled through new drainage facilities and would not cause flooding on or off the site. This would be a less than significant impact. EXHIBIT NO. C Z- 1694-1696 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 21 The runoff created by the construction of a new commercial structure would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. This would be a Tess than significant impact. The proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. After construction of the proposed project, stormwater runoff would continue to be conveyed from the site into the Town's stormwater system. The primary source of urban stormwater pollution comes from streets, which would not change with the proposed project. This would be a less than significant impact. A FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was used to determine if the project has the potential to impact the 1 00 -year floodplain. FIRM Map No. 06041C0527 shows that the project lies within the 100 - year floodplain. As a result, the project must comply with the requirements of the Town's Flood Hazard Ordinance (Chapter 13D of the Tiburon Municipal Code). Under existing Town, State and FEMA regulations the applicant would be required to reduce any flood hazard impacts to less -than -significant levels. The applicant has indicated that the ground floor commercial space of the proposed building would be floodproofed to comply with building code requirements for new construction in a flood zone. The project site would not be subject to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project site is located near San Francisco Bay and therefore has the potential to be inundated by a tsunami or seiche. Both tsunamis and seiches can be caused by ground shaking or displacement. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts a 62% chance of a large earthquake (Richter Magnitude 6.7 or greater) occurring in the Bay Area in the next 30 years. The project site is susceptible to ground shaking due to its proximity to both the San Andreas and Hayward faults. However, it is not anticipated that a tsunami would result in extensive damage to the project site, as the California coastline would break the impact of one of these massive waves before entering the San Francisco Bay. A seiche of significant magnitude is highly unlikely to occur in the San Francisco Bay, and the possibility of one impacting the subject site is minimal. This would be a less than significant impact. 10. Land Use And Planning Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑ �41 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 9, 10) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ O. Discussion: The proposed project would redevelop an existing commercial structure within the downtown area of Tiburon. It would be consistent with the existing pattern of mixed use commercial and residential development in the downtown area and would not physically divide the community. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applies to the project site. There would be no impact on dividing an established community or on any conservation plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) General Plan land use designation; however, the proposed project would be inconsistent with General Plan Downtown Element Policy DT -12 and Tiburon Zoning Ordinance Section 16-22.040 (A), which state that the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio for lands designated Neighborhood Commercial is 0.37. An FAR of 0.37 permits a maximum 1,360 square foot building at this site. Although the proposed project would exceed this maximum, a transfer of intensity is proposed between the subject site and the Beach Road parking lot (Assessor Parcel No. 058-171-86, 2 Beach Road) which is located approximately 600 feet away. This would be consistent with Downtown Element Policy DT -9, which states that transfers of intensity between commercially -designated downtown properties may be permitted, subject to discretionary review by the Town without requiring General Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendments. This would be a less than significant impact. General Plan Downtown Element Policy DT -30 states that the town should "identify and remedy congestion points to pedestrian and bicycle circulation in Downtown, such as near the Juanita Lane/Tiburon Boulevard intersection and at the Mar West Street/Tiburon Boulevard intersection." The subject property is situated at the southwest corner of the intersection of Juanita Lane and Tiburon Boulevard. The current project design does not include any improvements that would remedy this congestion point for pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The following measure is recommended to reduce this project impact to a less -than -significant level: Mitigation Measure Land Use and Planning -1: The project shall incorporate design improvements at the intersection ofJuanita Lane and Tiburon Boulevard to alleviate pedestrian and bicycle circulation congestion to the satisfaction of the Tiburon Public Works Department and CalTrans, Encroachment permits shall be obtained from the Town of Tiburon and Caltrans for these improvements, which shall be constructed prior to final occupancy of the proposed ,nixed -use building. 11. Mineral Resources Would the project: [tentiaIIy Less Than Less Than EXHIBIT NO. ( 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 23 Discussion: Ring Mountain, which is considered by the State as a Scientific Resource Zone, is the only mineral resource located near the Town of Tiburon. Ring Mountain is preserved as open space owned by the Marin County Open Space District. The project site is located within an existing urban downtown area and is not known to contain any mineral resources. As a result, there would be no impact to mineral resources associated with the proposed project. 12. Noise Would the project result in: Significant Impact Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Sources: 1, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ G. L Discussion: Ring Mountain, which is considered by the State as a Scientific Resource Zone, is the only mineral resource located near the Town of Tiburon. Ring Mountain is preserved as open space owned by the Marin County Open Space District. The project site is located within an existing urban downtown area and is not known to contain any mineral resources. As a result, there would be no impact to mineral resources associated with the proposed project. 12. Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) ❑ ❑11❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ L T,PI HIBIT NO. l 2- 1694-1696 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 24 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ �41 airstrip, would the project expose people residing d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ or working in the project area to excessive noise e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ F� f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 12) Discussion: The proposed project would result in a short -tern increase in noise from normal commercial demolition activities and construction of a new commercial and residential building. The project proposes demolition of a commercial structure and construction of a new commercial and residential structure using standard construction techniques. The proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise or expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the Town's General Plan and other applicable standards, as the project would be required to comply with the Town's adopted hours of construction standards which are applied for any work covered under a building permit. Hours of construction are limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Work is not permitted on Sunday or on any Town recognized holiday. In addition, heavy equipment being delivered to a building site or in operation is limited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Although the proposed project would temporarily increase noise levels in the project vicinity, construction noise would be limited to the standard hours of construction. This would be a less than significant impact. No major ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels are expected to result from project construction. No blasting or major drilling is anticipated for project construction. The proposed demolition of a small commercial structure and construction of a new commercial and residential structure is not expected to generate a substantial, permanent increase in ambient noise levels, as the proposed use would continue to be commercial/office use. The project site is not located within an area that is covered by an airport land use plan and is not located within close proximity to a public airport or public use airport. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No airstrips are located in the Town of EXHIBIT NO [2.- 1694-1696 Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon: CA February 2015 25 Tiburon. The nearest private airstrip is located at Smith Ranch, which is approximately eight (8) miles north of the project site. There would be no other noise impacts. 13. Population And Housing Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: I, 3, 16) ❑ ❑ I ❑ 1/ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ I replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 3, 16) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ I� necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 3, 16) Discussion: The proposed project would result in the construction of a new commercial and residential building which would create three new dwelling units on a lot where no dwelling units currently exist. The project would not displace any existing housing or people and the addition of only three proposed dwelling units would not induce substantial population growth in Downtown Tiburon. This would be a less than significant impact. 14. Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact EXHIBIT NO. 1? 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon. CA February 2015 26 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: ❑ ❑ /1 ❑ Less Than Significant Impact Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ .. 416..❑ Police protection? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� Schools? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ell Parks? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ �� Other public facilities? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ A Discussion: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. No new governmental or service -related facilities would need to be constructed to serve the additional three dwelling units of the proposed project. Fire and police department services are adequate to provide continued service to the project site and the proposed commercial residential structure. The three additional dwelling units would not create a substantial demand for new school or parks services. This would be a less than significant impact. 15. Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 9, 10) 416..❑ 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon CA February 2015 EXHIBIT NO. IZ 27 b) Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ Potentially Significant Impact ❑ E or require the construction or expansion of a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10) recreational facilities that might have an adverse 41❑ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, ❑ physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 1, ❑ 4 9, 10) Discussion: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. The three additional dwelling units would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other off-site recreational facilities. The project does not include recreational facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. This would be a less than significant impact. 16. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10) ❑ 41❑ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 EXHIBIT NO. [2- 1694-1696 1 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 2g 10, 12) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1, 9) ❑ ❑ ❑ I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources: 1, 2, 9, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� Discussion: The project proposes deinolition of a commercial structure and construction of a new commercial and residential structure, with three dwelling units. Traffic generated by the project could be easily accommodated by the existing street system serving this project. The additional residences created by the proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic and would not cause any street or roadway to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. This would be a less than significant impact. The project does not involve, nor would it impact air traffic conditions. The proposed project would replace an existing commercial structure which currently includes no hazardous design features or incompatible uses and the replacement structure would not increase hazards due to its consistent design with the surrounding downtown commercial structures. Primary access for emergency vehicles to this site would continue to be provided via Tiburon Boulevard and Juanita Lane, and would not pose any unusual safety hazards. Construction parking and storage and staging of construction materials would be located at the 2 Beach Road parking lot. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation or decrease the performance or safety of such facilities in the vicinity. There are no such requirements that would directly apply to the project itself, although the Town of Tiburon encourages and supports alternative forms of transportation. There would be no additional transportation or traffic impacts. EXHIBIT NO. 1"?.. - 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project—Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 29 As noted in the discussion under Section 10 above, the current project design does not include any improvements that would remedy the congestion point for pedestrian and bicycle circulation at the Juanita Lane/Tiburon Boulevard intersection identified in General Plan Downtown Element Policy DT -30, See Mitigation Measure Land Use and Planning -1- 17. Utilities And Service Systems Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1, 16) ❑ ❑ ❑ .. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 10) ❑ ❑ ❑ �� d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ �.. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1, ❑ ❑ ❑ �� EXHIBIT NO t Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 30 10, 12) Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ I g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1, 10, 12) ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 Discussion: The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment capacities. The project proposes demolition of a commercial structure and construction of a new commercial and residential structure, with three additional dwelling units. Wastewater and water use generated by the three additional dwelling units would not be substantial enough to require new or expanded facilities. As noted in the discussion under Section 9 above, drainage patterns at the project site would not change but would be enhanced with the proposed new building and building permit plans would be required to incorporate drainage facilities to prevent substantial erosion on-site. This would be a less than significant impact. Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project as the net change in water usage necessitated by the three additional dwelling units proposed as part of this project could be easily accommodated by the existing water system serving this project. This would be a less than significant impact. Sanitary District No. 5 reviewed the project plans and indicated that adequate wastewater capacity would be available to serve the project. There would be no impact. Refuse (including recyclable materials) from the proposed project would be collected by the Mill Valley Refuse Company and transferred to the Redwood Landfill located in Novato, which has a remaining capacity of approximately 10 million cubic yards. This capacity is expected to be sufficient, under current projections, for another 10 years. Thus, the proposed project's solid waste disposal needs would be accommodated. There would be no impact. The project would continue an existing commercial use and include three additional dwelling units and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. There would be no impact. Mandatory Findings Of Significance Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant No Impact EXHIBIT NO. 12- 1694-1696 Z 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 31 Discussion: The proposed project would demolish the existing one-story, 2,776 square foot commercial building and replace it with a new three-story, 8,184 square foot mixed-use commercial and residential building. The project site is located in the downtown area of Tiburon. Construction of the new mixed-use commercial and residential structure would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, as there is no plant or animal life within the project boundaries due to the fact that this is an urban infill development. The demolition of the existing structure would not eliminate an important example of California history, as a Historic Resource Evaluation found that the building on the site appeared to have been constructed in the early to mid -1940s and had been substantially remodeled since that time, and determined that there was no evidence of historical or architectural significance for this building and the property therefore does not qualify as a historic resource per the CEQA guidelines. EXHIBIT NO. 12-- 1694-1696 2 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 32 Impact Mitigation Incorporated impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? a❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ ❑ r c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ ►1 Discussion: The proposed project would demolish the existing one-story, 2,776 square foot commercial building and replace it with a new three-story, 8,184 square foot mixed-use commercial and residential building. The project site is located in the downtown area of Tiburon. Construction of the new mixed-use commercial and residential structure would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species, as there is no plant or animal life within the project boundaries due to the fact that this is an urban infill development. The demolition of the existing structure would not eliminate an important example of California history, as a Historic Resource Evaluation found that the building on the site appeared to have been constructed in the early to mid -1940s and had been substantially remodeled since that time, and determined that there was no evidence of historical or architectural significance for this building and the property therefore does not qualify as a historic resource per the CEQA guidelines. EXHIBIT NO. 12-- 1694-1696 2 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 32 The project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, and which could cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would have potential for impacts on cultural resources, due to the potential for discovery of Native American artifacts or remains. The project as designed would be inconsistent with General Plan Downtown Element Policy DT -30, as the current project design does not include any improvements that would remedy the congestion point for pedestrian and bicycle circulation at the Juanita Lane/Tiburon Boulevard intersection identified in this policy. Mitigation measures have been identified for these potential impacts that would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. EXHIBIT NO. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Development Project — Town of Tiburon, CA February 2015 33 prepared for Town of Tiburon prepared by Architectural Resources Group San Francisco, California August 13, 2014 Final Historic Resource Evaluation I 694- I 696 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California i 1 ill AUG 13 1U14 PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT NO. 13 ARCHITECI'URA RESOUFtCy GROUP, INC. Architects, Rlafi&eir&;,Conservators Il Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA August 13, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2 3. SITE AND BUILDING DESCRIPTION 2 3.1 Site Description 2 3.2 Building Description 2 4. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 3 4.1 Tiburon 3 4.2 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard 4 5. EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK 6 5.1 California Register of Historical Resources 6 5.2 Evaluation of Significance & Integrity 6 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 8 APPENDICES Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs of 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard Appendix B: Historic Photographs of 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard EXHIBIT NO. 13 Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) has completed this Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the property at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard in Tiburon, California. ARG was originally engaged by the Town of Tiburon to conduct a peer review of a report entitled "1694-1696 Tiburon Blvd, Initial Survey/Study to Determine the Potential Historic Value" by Dan Peterson, AIA. During the course of review, however, ARG found that the initial report did not provide an adequate analysis of the subject property per the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria. Therefore, ARG has completed a full Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard to determine the property's eligibility as a historic resource per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This report includes descriptions of the property's architectural characteristics, a historical summary of the property and its surroundings, and an evaluation of the property's historic significance. To complete the HRE for 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, ARG: • Conducted a site visit to examine and photograph the project area and its surroundings on July 17, 2014; ■ Reviewed existing evaluations of the subject property; and Conducted archival research at repositories including the Tiburon Planning Department, the Belvedere - Tiburon Landmarks Society, and other online resources. Figure 1. Map of 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard; outline shows approximate boundary of property (Source: Google Maps, amended by author) EXHIRIT N0. �3 .ARCIIn-EMI -AL RL:ouRcts GROUP, hc. Architects, Planners :•* Conservators Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 2 2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The building at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard was constructed c. 1940 and has undergone many alterations since that time. It has housed numerous businesses in the food service industry, including cafes, restaurants, candy shops, and ice cream stores, as well as a coin-operated laundry. After a series of owners in the 1950s, the property was purchased by Frederick G. Zelinsky, a prominent local developer who acquired many of Tiburon's downtown properties. Based on the CRHR criteria, ARG has determined that the property does not qualify for listing on the CRHR under any criteria and therefore does not qualify as a historic resource per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. SITE AND BUILDING DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description The subject property is located on the south side of Tiburon Boulevard at the north corner of Juanita Lane, one block west of Main Street. The surrounding area primarily consists of one- and two-story commercial buildings designed in a range of architectural styles with various dates of construction. 3.2 Building Description Figure 2. 1694 Tiburon Boulevard (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) Figure 3. 1696 Tiburon Boulevard (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard is generally triangular in plan and rises one-story in height. The roof is flat and a low parapet rises above the roofline. Fenestration appears to be a mix of original wood and modern vinyl windows, but the primary style is multi -pane divided -light. The building is clad with horizontal wood siding. Near the roofline on the north and east elevations are square-shaped ventilation ducts. The north -facing elevation fronts Tiburon Boulevard and the east -facing elevation Juanita Lane. The south elevation, which faces a small utility patio, sits behind a tall wooden fence and was not visible during ARG's site visit. The west elevation abuts the neighboring building at 1690 Tiburon Boulevard. Although occupied by two separate businesses — currently an ice cream shop (1694 Tiburon Boulevard) and a cafe (1696 Tiburon Boulevard) — the subject property consists of a single building. The ice cream shop portion features an asymmetrical faux gable at the north end surmounting the main entryway and a Targe picture window. To the south of the entrance are six, six -over -six double -hung wooden windows featuring planter boxes. Above the windows is a wood -paneled overhang. The cafe is accessed via multi -light French doors. ARCHITECTURAL RESOLRCES GROUP, Inc. Architccu, Planners & Conservators EXHIBIT NO. 3 Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 3 The caf'e's main entrance, which consists of a wooden door with divided -light windows, is located at the building's northeast corner. The cafe wraps around to the east side of the building facing Juanita Lane. There are two paneled doors with glazing and divided light windows. 4. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 4.1 Tiburon The area that encompasses the modern town of Tiburon was once inhabited by the Coastal Miwok. In 1775, Lt. Juan Manuel de Ayala, an early Spanish explorer, named the peninsula Punta del Tiburon — "shark point" — since the landform resembled that of a shark, and the creatures happened to inhabit the waters around there. The land eventually became part of the Rancho Corte Madera del Presidio, a large rancho of approximately 8,500 acres granted to Irishman John Thomas Reed (1805-1842) in 1834.1 The rancho included the modern towns of Tiburon, Belvedere, Corte Madera, and parts of Larkspur and Mill Valley. Reed was married to Hilaria Sanchez, with whom he had four children: John Joseph (1837-1899), Richard (1839-1851), Hilarita (1840-1908), and Maria Inez (1842-1883). Reed died from sunstroke in June of 1842.2 After his death, Hilaria remarried her first cousin Bernardino Garcia and had three children, but only a daughter survived. Known as "Three -Fingered Jack" in the outlaw Joaquin Murietta's gang, Garcia was killed by a bounty hunter in 1853.3 Upon Hilaria's death in 1868, the rancho lands passed to her surviving children with Reed, and Hilarita received the lower portion of the Tiburon peninsula and Strawberry Point. Maria Inez received the Mill Valley portion of the rancho, and John Joseph the remaining lands. The Tiburon area saw an increase in development in the 1880s, when the railroad was constructed. Peter Donahue, President of the San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad Company, initially planned to construct the railroad to Sausalito, since it was the closest rail and ferry port to San Francisco at the time. Donahue's plan, however, was quashed, when the North Pacific Coast Railroad constructed its rail to Sausalito. Thus, Donahue changed his line's destination to Point Tiburon. The railroad brought increased industry to Tiburon, as well "shops to build and repair railroad rolling stock and to build and man the ferry boats that connected the railroad to the rest of the country. The army moved thousands of troops through Angel Island bases and the navy refueled the Pacific fleet at the coaling station on Paradise Drive."4 Other industries that arose in Tiburon included lumber, horse and cattle ranching, cod fisheries, ship -breaking yards, brick making, and explosives manufacturing. The railroad ended service in 1967. Tiburon saw another wave of development when Tiburon Boulevard was constructed in the early 1920s. The road connected the ferry terminal at Tiburon with U.S. Route 101 and was "designed to relieve the congestion of automobile traffic through Marin County."5 1 James Heig, ed., Pictorial History of Tiburon (San Francisco: Scotwall Associates, 1984), 9-15. 2 Pictorial History, 11-12. Evidently, Reed "toppled from his horse, a victim of sunstroke... His friends knew enough about blood- letting to open his veins, but not enough to close them again, and he bled to death at the age of 37." 3 Pictorial History, 12. Garcia first served as a soldier in Vallejo's company in Sonoma. Garcia was also considered responsible for the murder of two captured Americans during the Bear Flag Revolt in June 1846. ° Branwell Fanning, The Tiburon Peninsula (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2006), 45. 5 "Alto -Tiburon Road is Promised," Sausalito News, March 19, 1921. ARCHITECTURAL RF -SOURCES GROUP, INC. Architects, Planners Ll Conservators 13 EXHIBIT NO. Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 4 4.21694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard 4.2.1 Ownership History Based on limited deed records, Jack E. Berg and Agnes M. Berg were some of the property's earliest known owners. The property transferred from the Bergs to Francis L. Newton, William A. Aldrich, and J. Benton Bostick, Jr. in June 1949. The Bosticks and Newtons sold the property to John A. and Miriam Ciarlo and Joseph and Anna Margaret Ciarlo in October 1951, The following year, the Ciarlos sold the property to May B. Amos, a widow. Upon her death in 1953, the land transferred to her four children, Avrilla Beauchamp, Winifred Black, James Donald Amos, and Geraldine Kullijian. In 1955, they sold it to Philip Rock and William Goldstein, who sold it five years later to Frederick G. Zelinsky, a local developer and "Tiburon's principal property owner."6 4.2.2 Building Chronology Although the exact date is uncertain, records indicate that the subject building was originally constructed in the early - to mid -1940s,7 Historic photographs (see Appendix B) from c.1945 show the building as it originally appeared. Building permits indicate that many of the alterations to the building have been to the interior, while few, but significant, changes have occurred on the exterior. Historic photographs further show the dramatic alterations that have taken place since the building was constructed. The roofline was raised and a parapet added, likely in the 1980s. A brick planter, located at the east end of 1694 Tiburon Boulevard, was removed. Additionally, the building appears to have once been clad in stucco. Most, if not all, of the windows and doors have been replaced. Based on building permits and Town of Tiburon Planning Department records, the building's current exterior design was likely introduced in the early 1980s. 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, c. 1955, showing the building's exterior after the 1949 addition was constructed; note the appearance of the building's east elevation along Juanita Lane (Source: Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, amended by author) 6 "A Pledge To Keep Tiburon As Tourist Paradise, Lovely Town," Daily independent Journal, March 2, 1962, 38. ' In the Marin County voter registry for 1942-1944, Agnes Berg is listed as a "restaurant owner," while in previous registries she is listed as a "housewife." Furthermore, records indicate that Jack Berg worked in the construction field — census records list him as a carpenter, while voter registries list him as a contractor. The earliest available photograph of the property dates to c. 1945. EXHIBIT NO. ARCHrrEcuML RrsOURCES GROUP, INC. :1r:hitccts, Planncrs Conscnntnrs Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 5 Permit History —1694 Tiburon Boulevard Permit Number Date Issued Architect/ Engineer/ Contractor Owner Valuation Description of Work Multiple 6/5/1966 Hammond, Holland B. / Hoyt, V.D. Fred Zelinsky Remodel interior 56821 8/5/1968 Owner Ron Perry, Michael Morena (?) $500 Sign permit: to erect sign made of redwood frame and poly(urethane?) lettering cutouts 1259 12/15/1972 Self Main Street Properties $700 Alteration B-04204 1/6/1984 Redding Metal Crafters Main Street Properties $10,000 Install new hood, grill and deep fat fryer, sandwich counter B-04205 1/6/1984 Rich Electrical Main Street Properties $100 10 electrical wall outlets 05600 5/28/1985 Ireland, Robinson, Hadley Main Street Properties $5,000 Repair dry rot floor and support; Remarks: floor has bad saga NOTE: Cancelled by expiration 14259 5/9/1994 McPhail's Inc. Main Street Properties Repair sewer line Permit History —1696 Tiburon Boulevard Permit Number Date Issued Architect/ Engineer/ Contractor Owner Valuation Description of Work 6647 9/29/1949 Hammond, Holland B. / Hoyt, V.D. J. Benton, Bostick, F.L. Newton, Aldrich, Wm A. Addition A-10201 3/14/1961 Owner Fred Zelinsky $500 Interior remodel only; no change in setback A-4474 7/23/1964 Nancy Allegra $700 Alterations to be made to interior only 965 6/2/1971 Self Francis Ingalls Repair 2786 9/18/1979 Dan Callarman Zelinsky $1,000 Remodel rooms for storage B-3703 6/30/1982 Ireland, Robinson, Hadley, Inc. Ed Zelinsky $15,000 Interior remodel and new roof structure M-3719 7/13/1982 McPhail's Inc. Main Street Properties Ventilation fan M-3718 7/13/1982 Walter Louis Plumbing Main Street Properties Remodel — plumbing installation only 04222 1/25/1984 Jack Schmell Edward Zelinsky $400 Walk-in refrigerator 04957 6/19/1986 Western Architectural Main Street Properties $2,000-3,000 Awnings (deep forest green) 4.2.3 Development of Use The property at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard was constructed before 1945 and operated as Agnes's Diner.9 Since then, the building has housed numerous businesses, primarily in the food -service industry. a restaurant serving English fish and chips, Shaws (candy shop), The Butler's Pantry, The Hot Fudge Factory, New Morning Cafe, and a number of ice cream shops. A 1964 photograph shows the building housed a liquor store called The Bottle Shop and a coin-operated laundry. 'This may have never been repaired, since at the time of ARG's site visit, there appeared to be significant sagging visible on the interior. 9 A DPR 523A form for the subject property provides an estimated construction date of 1936. Since there are no extant original building permits or historical photographs dating to that period, ARG cannot confirm this construction date. Records do indicate, however, that a building was on the site by 1945, and expanded in 1949. ARCHITECTURAL L RESOURCES GROUP, INC. AI hitcas. Planners El Conservators EXHIBIT NO. i � Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard - Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 6 5. EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK 5.1 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is the authoritative guide to the State's significant historical and archaeological resources. It serves to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California's historical resources. The CRHR program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are eligible for listing in the CRHR. Evaluation for eligibility to the California Register requires an establishment of historic significance before integrity is considered. Since integrity is based on a property's significance within a specific historic context, an evaluation of a property's integrity can only occur after historic significance has been established. To be considered eligible for listing on the California Register, an historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following criteria: 1. It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, state or the nation. 5.2 Evaluation of Significance & Integrity 5.2.1 Prior Evaluations of the Subject Property The property at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard was included in the Local Historic Inventory of Downtown Buildings that was produced in January 2001 and is listed on the "Local Historic Inventory for Downtown Buildings Included and Eligible for California State Historic Building Code."10 The property was also evaluated in "Initial Survey/Study to Determine the Potential Historic Value" by Dan Peterson, AIA in November 2011. 5.2.2 Evaluation of Significance ARG finds that the property at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard does not appear to satisfy any of the California Register of Historical Resources criteria for historical significance. Below is an evaluation of the property's significance under each California Register criterion: CRHR Criterion 1 [Association with Significant Events] The property does not appear to be associated with any significant events or patterns of events in California or Tiburon's history. Research does not indicate that the buildings played a role in the development of Tiburon's downtown or Main Street areas, nor does it suggest that the property was directly associated with the construction of Tiburon Boulevard in the early 1920s. Therefore, the subject property is not significant under Criterion 1. to Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 21-2010, Adopted May 5, 2010. ARCHnkC Ln \L Rr_ot•rcEs GROUP, INC. Archicccu, Planners Conscn-nors EkHIRIT NO. �� Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 7 CRHR Criterion 2 [Association with Significant Persons] The building is not associated with any significant person. Frederick G. Zelinsky, a prominent local developer, acquired the property in 1960, but he is not directly associated with it. Research on the previous owners did not uncover any information indicating they played a particularly significant role in local, state, or national history. Therefore, the subject property is not significant under Criterion 2. CRHR Criterion 3 [Architectural Significance] The building is not significant for its architectural design, nor is it associated with a prominent architect. The building has undergone numerous alterations since its original construction and no longer resembles its historic appearance. Furthermore, the building is not a clear representation of any architectural style. Therefore, the subject property is not significant under Criterion 3. CRHR Criterion 4 [Potential to Yield Information] Criterion 4 is generally applied to archaeological resources and evaluation of the properties for eligibility under this criterion is beyond the scope of this evaluation. 5.2.3 Evaluation of Integrity Evaluation for eligibility to the CRHR requires an establishment of historic significance before integrity is considered. Since integrity is based on a property's significance within a specific historic context, an evaluation of a property's integrity can only occur after historic significance has been established. ARG has determined that the property at 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard is not historically significant and, thus, an evaluation of integrity is unnecessary. 5.2.4 Summary In conclusion, ARG finds that the 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard does not meet the level of significance required for listing on the CRHR, and therefore does not qualify as historic resource per CEQA. ARc Irr1rruRA\L RESOURCES GROUP, INC. rlr,hite.ts, Planncrs '3 Conservators EXHIBIT NO. Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Page 8 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY California Office of Historic Preservation. California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process, Technical Assistance Series 5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d. California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2001. User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory, Technical Assistance Bulletin 8.Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2004. . California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2001. . User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory, Technical Assistance Bulletin 8. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2004. Town of Tiburon. Local Historic Inventory of Downtown Buildings, January 2001. Fanning, Branwell. The Tiburon Peninsula. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2006. . Tiburon and Belvedere. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2010. Heig, James, ed. Pictorial History of Tiburon: A California Railroad Town. San Francisco: Scotwall Associates, 1984. Peterson, Dan, AIA. 1964-1969 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California: Initial Survey/Study to Determine the Potential Historic Value. Prepared for Main Street Properties. November 7, 2011. Rodby, Jill. "A Brief History of Time: Tiburon and the Tiburon Peninsula." Town of Tiburon http://www.townoftiburon.org/news/a-brief-history-of-time/ The Landmarks Society. Glimpses of Belvedere & Tiburon: The Early Decades, vols. 1 & 2. Belvedere -Tiburon, CA: The Society, 1964-78. EXHIBIT NO. 3 ARCHITECTURAL Rf:SOL'RCES GROUP, I\c. Architects, Planners ET Conservators 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA Final Historic Resource Evaluation Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs of 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard ARCHFrECIURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. Architcas. Planners Ca, Consul ators EXHIBIT NO. Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Appendix A - Page 1 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, north elevation, view looking southeast from parking lot (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) 04 a „,.. h& 3 +.aL�ic w • k--�- .1 ��w 7�-?+.al �"'�'F-' `r 1ti4. „t.ry��L ?Yy7��" _. s•'F .....ap•• y. �q, � L xa .,-v -.�:....,-.4,:,,,,,,,,,,;,:..:,-,,,... 'r. �5 ,, -4,0 t��} '•„e r� C' � r -,-ice ` Lies ay > > i. .a 7 t: - �. i44, .r y • '6Ri' . v:!~: ct i� �,!`t +- .ws ,»:.4,,e.:-,,..,.A.,e�.. ...,4,a - t ..,,, „...a z. a ^vs.4C 1694 Tiburon Boulevard, north elevation, view looking southwest (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. Architects. Planners & Conservators EXHIBIT NO. l 3 Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Appendix A — Page 2 410. 1696 Tiburon Boulevard (left) and 1694 Tiburon Boulevard (right), view looking northwest (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) 1696 Tiburon Boulevard (corner building) and 1694 Tiburon Boulevard, view looking northwest (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) ARci irrrc1 ut .AL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. Architects. Planners G Conseil -stars l EXHIBIT NO. Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Appendix A — Page 3 1696 Tiburon Boulevard, view looking northeast from Juanita Lane (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) 1696 Tiburon Boulevard, south elevation along Juanita Lane (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC, Architects, Planners & Conservators EXHIBIT NO. 1 3 Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Appendix A — Page 4 1696 Tiburon Boulevard, south elevation along Juanita Lane (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, view looking southwest along Juanita Lane (Architectural Resources Group, July 2014) ARCHITECTURAL REsoul,cES GROUP, INC. Architects. Planners CT Conservators EXHIBIT NO. ( 3 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA Final Historic Resource Evaluation Appendix B: Historic Photographs of 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP. INC. Architects. Planncrs 5' Conservators EXHIBIT NO. 13 Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Appendix B — Page 1 "'K,•,�r'�,.- rte. Fppm=.:.ti•. �``" ,1 4 •Y � y. 1., ItiMq keF Fi Trr!� Tiburon, c. 1895 (Source: Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, amended by author) Tiburon Highway looking North, c. 1946 (Source: Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, amended by author) ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC, Architects, Planners & Conservators EXHIBIT NO. 1 Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Appendix B — Page 2 Tiburon, c. 1950 (Source: Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, amended by author) Tiburon, c, 1955 (Source: Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society, amended by author) ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. Architects, Planners Er Conservators EXHIBIT NO. 13 Final Historic Resource Evaluation 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA August 2014 Appendix B — Page 3 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, c. 1964 (Source: Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society) EXHIBIT No. 13 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP, INC. Architects. Planners El Connecnators 2/8/15 Daniel M. Watrous Planning Manager Tiburon Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 pCC�O�=gl FEB 1 0 2015 J ij PLANNING DIVISION The Point Tiburon Bayside HOA would like to make these comments responding to the Project Referral Comment Sheet you sent us on the 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard commercial project, file #11402. Completeness. We feel the application is incomplete because: It does not show coloration and finishes of the building; It does not show sufficient rendering of the third floor (The third floor in the drawing is very faintly rendered, almost ghosted, and cannot be evaluated in that form.); It does not show mass and bulk related to the neighborhood. We suggest that a model of the structure should be available for viewing and that story poles be erected to show the profile of all floors of the building. These are necessary for all interested parties to have an informed opinion about the aesthetics and impacts of this project. Environmental Impact. We feel that the project could have detrimental environmental impact because of the shadows caused by its bulk. For example, we are concerned it would cast an unwanted shadow over the public seating west of the "Coming About" sculpture in the afternoon. We suggest that story poles be built to show the shadow effect of the building at various times of day. These comments reflect my own opinions and those of our directors who have reviewed this letter. They do not reflect a Board action or the opinions of general ownership. Sincerely, enrr, McWhinney President Pt. Tiburon Bayside Board of Directors E:iHIPIT NO. 141 ZELINSKY PROPERTIES LLC 130 MAIN STREET, TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 TEL 415.435.1053 r5 FAX 415.435.6514 February 17, 2015 Scott Anderson Director of Community Development 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon CA 94920 ElgEUWE FEB 19 2015 15D PLANNING DIVISION RE: Building Plans for 1694-1696 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA 94920 Dear Scott: I am happy to finally see improvement on the New Morning Cafe and Grass Shack building. I have reviewed the plans of the proposed retail/residential building on the corner of Juanita Lane and Tiburon Boulevard. I feel the building is too massive for the site. This new building height will take the light and the view from 20-22 Juanita Lane building (Harbor Light). The architecture seen in the elevations seem to be of most basic and utilitarian style. It would be important for the new building to add some style that could add to Tiburon's character. Sincerely, Laleh S. Zelinsky cc: Dan Watrous Tiburon Planning Department EXHIBIT NO. `� Dan Watrous Tiburon Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 1694-1696 Tiburon Blvd. Dan, RIE@IEUWIE IN FEB 2 5 2015 PLANNING DIVISION February 25, 2015 The above referenced property, which appears to be headed for redevelopment, is located in an area of Tiburon which contains over a century of railroad and other activity. The existing building may contain some artifacts from it original construction and/or information about its original and previous uses. The Landmarks Society would like to be notified when any demolition and excavation takes place on this site, and be allowed to observe the work and examine the results of the demolition and excavation for possible artifacts and archeological information of past activities on this site. Thanks for yo David Gotz Landmarks Archi gist EXHIBIT NO.1.6_ ? tDr3 Belvedere -Tiburon Landmarks Society History Collections 1550 Tiburon BI., Tiburon, CA 94920 415-435-5490 - lmsarchivist@sbcglobal.net - www.landmarks-society.org To the Planning Staff of the Town of Tiburon. Regarding: New construction at 1694-96 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA. 94920 oC©I W MAR 132015 PLANNING DIVISION The undersigned, tenants at 1690 Tiburon Blvd., owned by Jim Mantegani, vehemently object to a structure of the size indicated on the plans, constructed next to 1690 Tiburon Blvd. The height of the building would deny us from seeing some sunlight but would also plunge us into darkness necessitating that we work by artificial light every working hour of the day. The view of Angel Island and, partially Racoon Straights, would disappear. The Town of Tiburon just recently denied a famous sculpture, with connections to the town, to erect one of his pieces of work because, in the town's opinion, the structure was too tall and did not fit into the character of our historic town. The proposed building would be taller than the Huru Sculpture - by far the tallest structure in town, where all our town's activities take place. It would also tower over our wonderful, beautifully designed fountain which has become not only a tourist attraction but also a meeting place for friends to "hang out" and enjoy the ambiance of our very special Town. Signed r y: t DON KAGIN, TENANT Michael Lasky, Tenant i Ale/ _WAY. Marianne Strotz, Tenant 4q-- Francis Fridell Meredith Adam Kagin, Staff: Mai Kagin, Staff: Caressa Suarez ,Staff David McCarthy, Staff: Kaye Robinson, Staff: r�Gei/,ruP Cl EKHIRIT N0. itf LA I E MAIL # Ragghianti Freitas LLP Christopher A. Skelton cskelton@rflawllp.com March 24, 2015 Via E-mail Only (dwatror.ts@tozono ftthuron.org) Tiburon Planning Commission Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 1694-1696 Initial Study Comment Letter #11402 Attorneys at Law 1101 Fifth Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawllp.com RIE©gti'VE, MAR 2 4 2015 PLANNING DIVISION Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners: Our office represents Jim and Pam Mantegani in connection with the proposed development project at 1694 - 1696 Tiburon Boulevard ("Project"). This letter is concerning the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The environmental review for the Project appears incomplete, so we request that the Planning Commission either deny the application or continue the Project until a more thorough evaluation can be prepared. INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS 1. The Initial Study, Top of page 2, identifies the proposed document as a "Negative Declaration (draft)." Based on a review of the Initial Study and suggested mitigation measures, it appears that this should be titled "Mitigated Negative Declaration." The proposed Resolution also interchangeably uses these two terms. 2. The Initial Study appears to be incomplete because it practically disregards the "aesthetics" evaluation of the Project. Specifically, subsection (c) indicates that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This Project would be one of a very limited number of properties along Tiburon Boulevard in a three-story form; the Lodge and Fire Station appear to be the only other two buildings. It would be the only three-story structure along the Boulevard that is flush against the adjacent EXHIBIT NO. 1 r RagghiantilF reitas LLP March 24, 2015 Page2of3 property. It will substantially degrade the quality of the surroundings by cutting off light and views to and from the adjacent property. There is no reference to how many other structures in the surrounding area are 38 feet tall (41.5 if including the elevator shaft, and potentially taller than that if recognizing the flag pole). At a minimum, the aesthetic impacts should be considered "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" and then recommend s bgnificant project changes to mitigate these impacts. Subsection (d) should also be considered in more detail because of the significant glazing caused by the expansive use of glass on the second and third stories. A shade study, as referenced by another comment letter, should be commissioned to understand the impacts. 3. The "aesthetics" evaluation concludes by proposing illegal deferred mitigation measures in the form of supposed future refinement of the Project through the architectural review process and Design Review Board ("DRB") input. Federation of HiIIside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles, (200) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1252, 1261. DRB recommendations at a future date to harmonize the Project with adjacent structures in the downtown area renders the current Initial Study deficient from a mitigation perspective and identifies a procedural problem for the Town. Specifically, if the PC is going to be counting on the DRB to perhaps address CEQA-level aesthetic impacts, that review would need to have taken place before the adoption of the Initial Study, such that specific mitigation measures can be implemented, not impermissible future actions. 4. The "Land use and Planning" category evaluated under the Initial Study also appears deficient for similar reasons as stated above. In particular, the proposed mitigation is overly broad and ambiguous as to what efforts will be implemented to mitigate the potential impacts. CEQA requires evaluation of mitigation with certainty at the earliest possible opportunity, and this evaluation does not appear to satisfy this criteria. Furthermore, the proposed square footage of 8,304 represents approximately 225% the prescribed FAR under the Town's zoning code. Understandably, this is in part attributed to the transfer of development potential, but there is no reference, evaluation, or recommended mitigation for how this policy of transferring development standards should be reconciled with the quantifiably objective criteria for guiding development of the built environment through Floor Area Ratios. EXHIBIT NO. RagghiantilFreitas LLP March 24, 2015 Page 3 of 3 5. The Initial Study appears deficient in the evaluation of "Noise" category. There does not appear to have been any effort to review the Project's noise environment m the context of General Plan's Noise Element policy N-4. An acoustical analysis should be performed to better evaluate the necessary mitigation for the mixed use design, in particular the residential component. Furthermore, policy N-9 needs to be evaluated in the context of appropriate design and material selection. 6. The Initial Study's Transportation and Traffic category does not address the baseline for which the impacts are measured, but rather conclusively states that the project would not cause a substantial increase in traffic or impacts Level of Service in the area. Based on the above referenced inconsistencies and incompleteness of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission either deny this application or continue it to a date uncertain so that a full evaluation of the environmental impacts can be provided for both public consumption and Commissioner consideration. We make this request with the purpose of CEQA in mind, which is to serve as informative process such that decision makers are fully aware of the impacts of a project, as well as ways to address these impacts while still achieving some or all of the project's goals. In its current form, the Initial Study does not meaningfully serve this purpose. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. CC: Clients Veiy Truly Yours, Chris Skelton EXHIBIT NO. L p. 36p (0 tt; Cpl 1,-,111`4t � CY.�S L � Y # I Ragghianti I F reitas LLP Christopher A. Skelton cskelton@rflawllp.com Via E-mail Only (dwatrous@townoftiburon.org) Tiburon Planning Commission Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Attorneys at Law pQ 101 Fifth Ave, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 MAR 2 4 2015 telephone 415.453.9433 facsimile 415.453.8269 www.rflawlrp.com PLANNING DIVISION March 24, 2015 Re: 1694-1696 Conditional Use Permit #11402 Dear Tiburon Planning Commissioners: Our office represents Jim and Pam Mantegani in connection with the proposed development project at 1694 - 1696 Tiburon Boulevard ("Project"). This letter is concerning the availability of information necessary to evaluate the Project In summary, the Applicants seek to build more than 8,300 square feet on a parcel designed for 1,360 according to the Town's code. Instead of leveraging the transfer of development potential from a nearby parking lot, it appears to make more practical sense to redevelop the parking lot with the level of intensity proposed. For the reasons discussed below, we request that the Planning Commission either deny the application or continue the Project until the public is fully unformed of the impacts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The story poles were not certified by a licensed surveyor, as required by 16- 50.070(D). A site visit on March 18, 2015 revealed bowing story poles that distorted the true impacts of the Project's proposed height. For any future hearings on the Project, we respectfully request that the story poles be connected with a highly visible material to accurately depict the building form and massing. EXHIBIT NO. Q� ON ° LC Ragghianti Freitas LLP March 24, 2015 Page 2 of 5 2. There is inadequate information available to evaluate the true development potential of the Beach Road Parking Lot; specifically what are the existing encumbrances to that lot and how does it relate back to the Project. 3. The Floor Area proposed for the Project is not sufficiently justified. 4. Neither the purposes nor findings necessary to support a Conditional Use Permit required for the application appear to have been satisfied. 5. More information is needed to evaluate the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. ANALYSIS 1. Story poles do not comply with the Town Code. Based on conversation with Town staff on March 23, 2015, the Applicant had not yet provided certification from a licensed surveyor that the story poles accurately represent the proposed plans. Included for your reference is a photo taken of the site with the story poles in place (Exhibit A). Some of the poles appear to be warped and bending, which calls into question the accuracy of the heights represented. The accuracy of the Locations is unknown. Given the scale of the Project and the central location along the gateway to downtown Tiburon, we respectfully request that any future story pole plans for the Project provide connections to demonstrate the true massing of any structure. 2. Development Potential of Beach Road Parking Lot is unjustified. A clear understanding of the actual development potential of the the Beach Road Parking Lot ("Lot") is critical to evaluating the potential for transferring the development intensity from that site to the proposed Project site. It is suggested that the Lot somehow has a development potential of approximately 10,000 square feet. It is uncertain how that development potential was determined, but it appears that realistic constraints of the site, the code, and the process were ignored. To better understand the 10,000 square foot conclusion, it is first necessary to understand the Lot's characteristics, including size of the parcel. Next, it is equally important to evaluate how the Lot may be encumbered by existing obligations to satisfy parking demand from other nearby properties. Additionally, the proposed parking EXHIBIT NO. 1 8 RagghiantiiFreitas LLP March 24, 2015 Page 3 of 5 required for the Project must also be incorporated into the calculous for encumbrances to the Lot. According to the Nelson/Nygaard Downtown Parking and Traffic Study from 2012, this Lot may accommodate 72 parking spaces (page 27 of 133 of the Report). During the peak weekday hours, it was approximately 63% occupied (page 27 of 133 of the Report). Based on the high rate of use, a full inquiry into the Lot's existing obligations should be documented prior to considering any transfer of development intensity, as it is only the remaining delta that may be transferred. 3. The proposed floor area for the Project is not adequately justified. The Project presupposes that it is allowable to rebuild the property with a non- conforming structure (floor area and parking standards), as is potentially allowed under the General Plan's DT -6 Policy. That policy allows a structure to be rebuilt or reconstructed to the previously existing FAR, provided that the resulting building substantially conforms to the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. There is little discussion to support that this standard is met based on the conceptual plans provided by the Applicant. In fact, the procedural evolution of the Project suggests that the design will, and should, be refined at an uncertain future date by the Design Review Board. The Downtown Design Handbook suggests both specific qualifications as well as general policies that are not yet clearly satisfied by the Applicant's proposed plans. Therefore, suggesting that the net transfer of development intensity needed for the Project is 5,528 square feet may prematurely underestimate the transfer needed to satisfy the current Project's plans. As noted in our letter concerning CEQA, this chicken and egg scenario suggests that design review should occur concurrently with the other requested entitlements. The NC zoning district calls for a maximum FAR of 37%. The proposed plans show an FAR of approximately 225%. Although the General Plan DT -9 policy is silent on the extent to which a transfer of development intensity may be exercised, such an exaggeration of the base zoning requirements jeopardizes the Town's built environment, most specifically the small town character and charm of Tiburon. Supporting this extreme application paves the way for future abuse of a similar scale. EXHIBIT NO. 1 ? �b��� 1. Ragghianti 1Freitas LLP March 24, 2015 Page 4 of 5 An evaluation of any past transfer of development intensity should be considered as well as whether there should be practical limits to leverage this Town policy. 4. The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit would be violated and the findings to support the application cannot genuinely be made. A purpose of the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") review is, in part, to determine whether the location proposed for the CUP is properly related to the development of the neighborhood or vicinity as a whole and compatible with the types of uses normally permitted in the surrounding area. The transfer of development intensity, which requires the CUP, is inconsistent with the nearby development, especially in the context of Tiburon Boulevard. Three-story structures along Tiburon Boulevard are an anomaly. In the limited situation where such large structures exist, they minimize the perceived height, bulk and mass through incorporation of design characteristics like pitched rooflines. More importantly, none of the three-story structures along Tiburon Boulevard abut another structure on the adjoining property. This development characteristic contributes to the open feel when traveling downtown. The Code requires special consideration by paid to compatibility of the design, location, size, and operating characteristics with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The level of completeness for this application fails to allow the Commission to evaluate this effectively; however, it is obvious from the conceptual plans that the design size is incompatible with surrounding development. A three-story structure in this location needs to be seriously considered since it will impair the architectural integrity of the NC district and pave the way for similar development, which will lead to a "wind tunnel" effect traveling down Tiburon Boulevard. Lastly, as identified by real estate professionals in the community, the proposed Project in its current conceptual form will injure the adjoining property through cutting off light, views, and other considerations in contrast to 16-52.040(D)(4). 5. More information is needed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project and ascertain what mitigation measures are needed to reduce those impacts to levels that are less than significant. Under separate cover, I have submitted a comment letter regarding the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. As articulated therein, further EXHIBIT NO. ( g k Ragghianti I Frei tas LLP March 24, 2015 Page 5 of 5 information is needed to make an informed decision on the Project's environmental review. Additionally, clarification should be provided on the procedure for evaluating the merits of the Project. This application appears to present a "chicken or the egg" philosophical question: should the CUP for the transfer of development intensity come before a full and complete design application get evaluated? A component of the mitigation proposed for the aesthetics is DRB evaluation of the Project. An uncertain condition subsequent fails to adequately address the mitigation required under CEQA. For the reasons articulated above, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission either deny the CUP or continue it to a date uncertain so that full and adequate information can be provided to evaluate the application. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. CC: Clients Very Truly Yours, Chris Skelton EXHIBIT NO. 1 ?. gar �� Exhibit A (1 page - Story Pole Photo) EXHIBIT NO. p, q ap1c) LATE MAIL # 1 To whom it may concern— I'm sorry I can't share this in person. RE©20WE Lid MAR 2 5 2015 .� PLANNI DIVISION I have lived in the community for over fifty years alid�have seen many changes. So far the character of Tiburon has retained its special charm. Now I am shocked by the proposed height of the building to replace The New Morning Cafe at 1696 Tiburon Blvd. It will loom over the existing buildings. It is near the entrance to Main Street and is out of proportion with the rest of the town. Another important concern is the survival of the New Morning Cafe. It has been a beloved local institution for decades. It's extremely popular with locals and tourists alike. There is wonderful food and gracious service. I go several times a week and have never been disappointed in any of their delicious dishes. I hope there will be a space for The New Morning Restaurant in a new appropriately sized building. We don't want to lose a wonderful Tiburon attraction. Suzanne Himmelwright EXHIBIT NO. �� Dan Watrous From: Peggy Curran Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:44 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: FW: Help us -City of Tiburon! FYI — also going in Digest. Margaret A. (Peggy) Curran Town Manager, Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon CA 94920 1 415.435.7383 From: DOYLE Frank[mailto:standingstone@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 11:15 AM To: Peggy Curran Subject: Fw: Help us -City of Tiburon! For distribution Frank X Doyle I Founder I Standingstone Brand Design 1 415 793 5188 I standingstonegroup.com On Friday, April 3, 2015 11:03 AM, Mary Robinson <marycrobinson cnr yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Doyle, It has come to my attention that a developer wants to improve our main street area with something that is far from an improvement except for his own financial benefit. I moved from San Francisco to Tiburon for the very reason that Tiburon offers its residents a small town feeling. The building proposed for the New Morning Cafe would be the step in a direction that is far from that character of this town. The development company should move -on to a large city (San Francisco?) that is removing all traces of interesting town and is coupled with bulldozers, terrible roads from construction trucks, and blue hotels (portapotties), two or more on every block. Tiburon needs to resist!! It may seem like a tax boost but in reality the damage that growth does to small areas cannot be measured - damaged roads from construction, traffic and parking congestion. It will drive everyone out of the main street area along with changing lighting and views. In the process the small businesses will suffer greatly and probably go bankrupt from the flux. I will start to look for another area of California where I can find some serenity. Please resist! There are many good reasons - even the drought and lack of water to maintain a large complex. We are a neighborhood of small cafes, restaurants which is part of the appeal for the tourists that come! Please forward this letter to our city fathers that are voted -in to protect our town! Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. Mary Robinson Tiburon 415 937-5087 1 EXHIBIT NO. 24gio -41 PLANNING DIVISION c c S s V d sr E 12) d'U I O W .V ARCHITECTS .ate 'V O V3d" til Ili i i V;z. . •P 113 PLANNING DIVISION g g ,oco bain a 5 i &ott 3k PROPOSED SPIE PIAN > )f} / PMtaj ! ; e§% CN e 20 `2[ Q AN SURVEYING ( § N 2 2 § | | | | | 2 | b , , b , 6 6 ! 25 ! ! , !$ 6! 6 6 6! 6!! 6 ;;;;;;;;;; &g P.P.g |t%| �SAC)C)® ®? 2 z s 3Nn 3AY3 ONK114141 x N .1/vb.?. �i41 PROJECT SUMMARY CHART: a ; 2' i A n axxxxax =ISI gXi3a_3 10 t§"d= i 04x 4 a j5 z ; .Ru. u t2 lc) 33111 WO 0Ng1If18 8 2 a ti 241 3 E.] EB E 4 ! " idi ffx&2a$8P C.4= AMA 'A'AV1 axN�xxaaaxi, axxaann aaN 2 4§ *n wil 8R8. R � A73;@ it a qi 3 E I!tli!iI tI N it $ ho Ti! 110 g mai aayl Win _ ``ry \ Oh 04 •_ A!f 31i= __«_ \ % \ 1 k / /% b, 2g| -tee . | I¥ J t iIh1 i2f\g2% Nal" \ |-.; ; . | § i 1 ` 4 ti 2 |W /( § /§ - 1 . #Jw \|a!, g 0a1$\/ \\) 2; f \Q //|i 2!@2gs \e\\ ON q d oZta o ,D ,a) 3N11 3AY3 oNirnral 7. 3 N ,o -o '0 Po '0 1- 43.1" 3M1303ONO lit E Si ZWICK ARCHITECTS LTi. 3t41 WIGS! -r- fn 0 n 3IaLLaCd 0 0 6 6 20 Z u•�t f } EL. N a i gg t 4 L7 COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS A :n ua3dond ILO 0 Z 4 u ao 3N11 ALI3JO d a 3vn Ain3doad • ARCHITECTS 5" Nn us]dQSd 2 9 a BACKSIDE EIEV 011 D R01.411130114 \ E /! 7;7-17 \�\ /, .021 =NUL-A' 03017.170101r---- .021 z