HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2003-09-17
"
TOWN OF TIBURON
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
September 17, 2003
~"I
.
7:00 PM - Closed Session
7:15 PM -Interviews
7:30 PM - Regular Meeting
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/tiburon/orq/qovernment.
.
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.
.
Agenda - Town Council Meet,ing
September 17, 2003
Page 2 of 4
~;
~,
.
AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE, WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
(Section 54956.9(a))
Howard Zack, Diane Zack v. MERA
MERA v. Town of Tiburon and De[3n Bloomquist
Citizens for Open Process in Antenna Siting (COPAS) v. MERA
Siciliano v. Tiburon
Xanadu v. Town of Tiburon
INTERVIEWS -Design Review Board
. 7:15 PM - Emmett O'Donnell, 135 Avenida Miraflores
. 7:25 PM - Jim Hermann, 52 Red Hill Circle
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Berger, Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Thompson, Vice Mayor Fredericks, Mayor Slavitz .
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject not on the agenda may do so now,
Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action
tonight on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate
Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Town Council
meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes.
PRESENTATION
. Community Marin - Nona Dennis
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES
. Design Review Board - (One Vacancy) .
.
?
.
.
.
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
September 17, 2003
Page 3 of 4
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 public, staff or Town Council that an item be transferred to the
Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Likewise, any item on the Regular
Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar. If you would like to speak on any of these items
on the Consent Calendar below, please do so now. .
1. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Accept Town Investment Summary for
July 2003
2. Recommendation by Chief of Police - Authorization for COPS Funding for Fiscal Year 2003-04
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Approving an Expenditure Plan for the Utilization of
Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (COPS Monies)
Received Fiscal Year 2003-2004
3. Recommendation by Director of Public WorkslTown Engineer - Accept as Complete the 2003
Street Rehabilitation Project
4. Recommendation by Town Manager - Authorization to Purchase Additional Low-Moderate Income
Housing Unit - 5 Marsh Road, Tiburon
5.
Recommendation by Town Attorney - Responses to 2002 - 2003 Marin County Grand Jury Report
a) Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees and Set-Aside Funds; and
b) Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
REGULAR AGENDA
6. ' Recommendation by Town Manager - Request by County of Marin to Form a Business
" Improvement District to Fund the Marin County Convention and Visitor's Bureau
7. Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Authorization to Modify Town
Investment Practice
PUBLIC HEARING
8. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Approval of Additions to Single Family Home with
Variances at 425 Virginia Drive
Applicant: George & Dora Gavros
Appellant NO.1: Wayne Snow, 100 Jefferson Drive
Appellant N. 2: Gaye & Francois Varnay, 525 Virginia Drive
9. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - General Plan Update - Review of
Land Use Element Issues Paper
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
September 17, 2003
Page 4 of 4
"
.
10. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Town Initiated Text Amendments
and Open Space Rezonings (Chapter 16 of Town Municipal Code)
Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance
a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Adopting Various Amendments to, and Rezoning Certain
Properties Designated within, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the
Tiburon Municipal Code
COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly Digest - September 5, 2003
Town Council Weekly Digest - September 12, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS - Note: These items are tentative until thev appear on the final aaenda.
.
Future Meetings
. Report on Downtown Plaza Public Art Project
. Proposed Jet Ski Ordinance
. Proposed Erosion and Siltation Control Ordinance
. Contract for Silt Basin Clean-Up
. Proposed Taxicab Ordinance
. Proposed Drainage Impact Fee
. Revised Alarm Permit Fee Schedule
,. Revised Road Impact Fee Schedule
. Raccoon Lane Undergrounding Utilities District
. Recommendation by Town Manager of Revenue Enhancement ICost Recovery Ideas
. Report on Library Expansion
. First Quarter FY 2003-04 Financial Reports
. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application to Amend the Cypress Hollow
Precise Development Plan to amend a building envelope at 65 Monterey Drive; Applicant/Appellant
Eckhard Evers
.
'1
.
.
.
r'
I~J ;}7Ai/TlM>o../1J .-
~ I / --:+ L",,)
~;pr ! ~I A-C.!() ~ .'
,/ tilt/lA, CWV-CA..lL /iI1.
TOWN OF TIBURON
SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE
(Town Commissions, Boards & Committees)
JULY 2003
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD -
(Statutory Authority: Section 3.02 of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance)
Purpose:
The Design Review Board reviews and acts on applications for Site Plan
and Architectural Review, which can include plans for new residential and
commercial building, remodels, additions, accessory buildings, swimming
pools, fences, decks, and other structures. This review includes both the
site layout and architectural design characteristics of a proposal. Decisions
(jfthe Board are final, unless appealed to the Town Council.
Qualifications:
A licensed architect is preferred for this vacancy, although not required.
Applicants' for this Board need not be residents of the Town of Tiburon,
although residency is preferred. Applicants should have the interest,
desire, and time available to help promote the general welfare and
aesthetics of the community through proper regulation of site planning and
architectural design. Formal training, experience, or familiarity with
architecture, design, and! or landscape architecture is preferred but not
required.
An unscheduled vacancy on the Design Review Board has occurred as follows:
Aooointees
William Comstock
Date Aooointed
June 2002
Date Resi1!ned
July 2003
Term Exoires
February 2004*
*The new appointee will be eligiblefor automatic reappointment to afull,four-year term in
February 2004.
Interested residents should contact Tiburon Town Clerk Diane Crane Iacopi at 435-7377.
Applications are available on-line at www.tiburon.org/government, or at Town Hall, 1505
Tiburon Boulevard.
DEADLINE for Receiot of Aoolications = AU1!ust 13.2003
Cc: The Ark (for publication)
Marin Independent Journal (for publication)
Notice Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Be/vederelTiburon Public Library
DIGEST
Diane Crane laco
~~~~w~
From:
Sent:
To:
Emmett O'Donnell [Emmett@vikingind.com]
Monday, August 11, 2003 8:55 AM
Diane Crane lacopi
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
AUG 11 2003
Diane,
I was reading in The Ark about the unscheduled vacancy on D.R.B. I think you might
remember that I interviewed with the Town Council for the position a few months ago and
again one year prior. I would be interested in completing Mr. Comstock's term through
February 2004.
If necessary, I can re-submit a resume and formal letter of interest. Please do let me
know.
I have a long scheduled, family vacation planned for the last two weeks of August (Aug 16
to 31), and I will not be in the Bay Area during this time, however my schedule is open
any other time for an interview with the Councilor whatever is required.
Thanks in advance for the consideration.
Emmett O'Donnell
135 Avenida Miraflores
Tiburon, CA 94920
Home: (415) 889-4075
Work: (915) 427-2518
1
,
.
.
.
,
@~UU~~I.
~ FES - 6 2003 ~
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
February 4, 2003
Diane Crane lacopi
Town Clerk
T own of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920'
Dear Diane,
I am writing to express my interest in potential vacancies on the Planning
Commission, Design Review Board, or the Heritage and Arts Commission.
Approximately a year ago, I was interviewed for a vacancy on the Design Review
Board. I am enclosing some personal data and a statement of qualifications.
If the present commissioners on these boards would like to continue in their
positions, then I would not like to challenge for the openings because of term
expiration.
Please let me know if there are any opportunities.
.
Sincerely, ,
gj(TI til/k{ti~
Emmett O'Donnell
.
.
.
.
Personal Data
Emmett O'Donnell
135 Avenida Miraflores
Tiburon, CA 94920
Home tel: 415-889-4075
Work tel: 925-427-2518
Fax: 415-889-4074
Property Owners' Association: Del Mar
Tiburon Resident 1 J'2 years Date submitted: February 25, 2002
Reason For Selectin(:l Your Areas of Interest
I have always taken a keen interest in a city's public spaces, its environment, its
commitment to open space, and the aesthetic preservation of its architectural
heritage.
Applicable Qualifications and Experience
I graduated from Harvard University in 1984 with B.A. in Fine Arts. While at
Harvard I pursued studies in architecture. I chose not to pursue the field after
spending a numbers of years working overseas in the Middle East. In late
1980s with two partners, I started a company specializing in the international
trade of packaging products. Today this same company, Viking Industrial Corp.,
is one of the largest exporters of shipping containers from the Bay Area. The
company and its affiliates now employ over 80 people and are located in
Pittsburg, CA.
For the 15 years, my wife and I have resided in San Francisco. As a resident of
San Francisco, I was appointed by Mayor Brown to serve ona S.F. Park and
Recreation subcommittee, drafting a plan to rehabilitate the city's public sports
facilities within the. park system. This plan envisioned and incorporated both
public and private funds. I have volunteered for many years at the San Francisco
Boys and Girls Club in the Mission district of San Francisco, and I served for two
years as President of the Lincoln Park Golf Club. My wife and I have been avid
supporters of. the S.F. Art Institute.
I believe I would be an asset to public service on behalf of the town, and I would
welcome the opportunity of an interview.
Town of Tiburon .1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Tiburon, CA 94920. P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438. www.tiburon.org
.. ':'A1.fG f'o "2003
", ".", ..,., " .". ;.,...., '. '.. PLANNI~~G DIVISION
COMMISSION,' BOARD&Coi\1MITTEETOVVN OF TIBURON
AP'P'LTCA TION
,.,.J~e Jown Council considers appointments to variolls Town commissions,
board's~nd"'" 'committees throughout the year due to term expirations and
'unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in
Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your
interest in serving the Town in some capacity.
, Please indicate your specific, areas of interest and special skills or
experience which would be benefiaaltothe'Towil~'by completing.both sides of;this
fonn.;all~:,t~tuf>Dingjt)tQ ~'F own;,liIalh! ~h~ :~pplicatjQn Jonn,canJll&(tlJe .,~(}~n~ ,on:t~~
Tgw,~;':~j~e~s!t~,Www .t~buron;.or211!overnll1ellt~ , :'.. i" '
Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council andal'1' ;.
informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will
remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
T~~nkY<lU ,f~r yourwillingJIess tp serye .t~~ Ti):;roW;2? . . .
Il~~
..n'Diane( Cran.elacopi' i,'
u /Town .!CI~k\,:
,,,' '~ r f ,':,
~,.: 'j rr'
Please Indicate Your Area(s) ofInterestin Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
PLANNING PARKS & OPEN SPACE
X DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION
HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PLANNING
LmRARY
BICYCLEIPEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
.
.
.
;
.
.
.
PERSONAL DATA
Only computer-generated or typewrittenccopy will be accepted;
, Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, if necessary.
Jim Hermann
NAME:
52 Red Hill Circle, Tiburon, CA 94920
MAILING ADDRESS:
435-9484 435~4563
TELEPHONE: Home: Work:
Fax No.
Monterrosa at Tiburon
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable)
, 5
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years)
08/20/03
DATE SUBMITTED:
REASONS FOR SELECTING'
YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST
TibnTon i~ one of the most beautiful places in the world to live. And we must keep it that
way This will happen only through strong leadership. commitment and consensus of the
citi7.ens of Tiburon. I want to be involved in this and I look at the Design Review Board as a
way, to contribute.
APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS
AND EXPERIENCE
I ha"e been a Chairman, CEO, MMiagcmcnt CtlBsultaftt,General Manag8f, Din~ctor of
Strategic PIMlftiBg8:Bd morc, aU primarily in the eomput@r indllBtry. I also h~Ye a real estate
license and a seeurities lioense 8:tldpres@Jltly work h8f~ in TibYron at my office with Edward
Jones & Co., aR investments company. I am Pregident of the Monteros~a HO"1eowner'~
Association, and algO on the Boar.d of Directors of the Rotary (,111~ ~mn the (,h~mher of
Commerce here in Tib11roo. I have b11ilt my Own home ~nn experienced the eha Henge, and
the fn;a,stration, ofworki~g thro1]gb the ne~igJ1 review process lhel1eve lean make a solid
contrib11tiofl to the ne~ign Review Hoard and would look forward to the opportunity
---------~,------------------------ Town Hall V se --------..,-------------------------------
Date Application Received: ? / J,O /03-
, ,
Interview Date:
Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
Date Term Expires:
Length of Term:
S:dcrane:comm.app (12/01)
fr-r Se"~"/d""/~ ~ 21e~
7~' /f -() )
.
NONA DENNIS (Retired) Former Vice President of Environmental Science Associates
in San Francisco and adjunct faculty in the University of San Francisco graduate
program in Environmental Management. Her local activities include the following: (past)
Board of the Environmental Forum of Marin and current instructor in the Forum's annual
Training Program; current Board of Marin Conservation League; member of Community
Marin Working Group; recently served on the St. Vincent's/Silveira Advisory Task Force
(1998-2000) and the Sustainability Working Group for the Marin Countywide Plan update
(2001). She has lived in Mill Valley since 1960, serving on the Planning Commission
during the 1970s.
.
.
..~
I
I.
I
I
I
I
1
1
'I
,.
I
I
1
I
I
, ~- ~ ~ rv. t:!Q"',
R ,rr:~.....J IW- l... 'J.;.>1'~ '
JUN - 3 2003
PU\I'J~JII"G DIV!SIOH
TO'vW1 OF T!BURON
COMMUNITY
,
MARIN
2003
I
PRESERVING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF MARIN
.
PREPARED BY:
MARIN CONSERVATION LEAGUE
ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM OF MARIN
MARIN AUDUBON SOCIEfY
SIERRA CLUB/MARIN GROUP
.
.
INTRODUCTION
This report, focused primarily on the eastern part of Marin, presents recommendations of the
Marin Conservation League, the Marin Group of the Sierra Club, Marin Audubon Society, and
the Environmental Forum of Marin. These recommendations provide an environmentally
responsible foundation for land use planning which takes into account the impact of human
activities on land, water, air and all living species. Although most of Community Marin's,
recommendations suggest changes in general plan policies of the County and its cities and towns,
the document is also addressed to the public at large.
Community Marin does not attempt to address all of the subjects that must be covered in a general
plan. Rather it focuses on major concerns which the environmental organizations believe are of
countywide importance. In so doing, it speaks toa range of planning issues -- housing, the
economy, transportation, community facilities-which are interconnected and which have an
impact on the environment Other issues, notably in West Marin, also deserve attention.
.
.
Community Marin IMarch 2003
Page 1
.
.
Consider the fiscal and environmental costs of providing water and sewer services to
areas currently not serviced.
Recognize that reducing development potential in one location does not mean that it
should be squeezed in elsewhere.
Encourage attractive, safe housing that is affordable to Marin's work force in areas
that are currently served by public transit and other services.
Make preservation of the natural environment a priority in all land use planning.
Because Marin has large areas devoted to federal and state parklands, the County should contittue
to provide recreation, open space and opportunities for environmental appreciation for the people
of the Bay Area and the nation. Marin County should also work with other jurisdictions in
regional planning efforts.
We encourage the County and its cities and towns, as appropriate, to adopt the recommendations
that follow. Fwthennore, we acknowledge that all existing or recommended policies depend upon
effective implementation and enforcement
./
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 3
.
1. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Background. The 1973 Marin Countywide Plan divided the County into three north/south
environmental corridors - City-Centered, Inland Rural and Coastal Recreation - for purposes of
land use planning. These corridors still serve as the basis for Marin County's land use policies.
The 1973 Plan also set forth policies on growth limitations, agricultural preservation and
protection of ridge and greenbelt community separators. The 1982 plan added policies for
bayfront and streamside protection, environmental hazards and energy. The 1994 Plan continued
the three environmental corridors and also described three resource conservation areas: Stream
Conservation Areas, the Coastal Conservation Zone and the Bayfront Conservation Zone. It also
identified a series of resource protection issues including air quality, mineral deposits, species
protection and timber production. The 1994 Plan improved protections for wetlands, special
status species and water quality, identified other natural resources needing protection, i.e. native
trees, but deleted the energy section.
Some recommendations contained in the 1994 Plan have been implemented in ensuing years. For
example, the Marin County Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) was
developed to better protect water quality from non-point source pollutants in surface runoff (See
Streams and Riparian Habitats, below). The County has also adopted an ordinance restricting
use of pesticides on County owned lands.
Other improvements in the 1994 Marin Countywide Plan are not sufficiently comprehensive to
ensure protection of Marin's biological diversity, native habitats and species. In order to do this
the Plan must address these habitats, their sensitivities and importance, in the body of the Plan,
not merely in an appendix. Community Marin recommends that the scope of sensitive habitats be
expanded to include at a minimum the habitats described in following sections, based on the
Vegetation Map of Marin County (February 5, 2002) and developed for general plan purposes.
For use in planning, plant communities and wildlife habitats of all Marin County should be
mapped to a greater degree of accuracy than is currently available from the State.
HABITATS OF MARIN COUNTY
1.1. BAYLANDS
.
This ecosystem includes a complex of habitats that exist in geographic proximity to each other
and that are interdependent. These habitats include open bay; rocky shoreline; mud flat; salt
marsh; diked salt marsh; seasonal, brackish and freshwater wetlands; grasslands/agriculture, and
oak woodland. Animals of these habitats are dependent not only upon their own habitat but on
neighboring ones as well.
Several of these habitats are so productive (see section on Salt Marshes) that they export organic
material to the bay lands. ecosystem as a whole. The open bay and mud flat habitats are rich food
sources. They contain organic material produced by microscopic algae on the mud and in the
water along with organic material produced in nearby salt marshes and adjacent upland
watersheds covered with grassland! agriculture and oak woodlands. This material dissolves in the
water and settles on the mud flat. Small animals such as snails, clams and wonns living in the
.
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 5
."
.
.
.
other important habitats would not be adversely impacted. Where possible, wetlands
should be enhanced and restored.
'1.1.6. Revise agricultural preserve boundaries to include appropriate lands in the Baylands
, Protection Conidor currently in agriculturaI use in order to make them eligible for
Williamson Act contracts.
1.1.7. Encourage and support public and private partnerships, such as that demonstrated by
Marin Baylands Advocates and Marin Audubon Society (MAS), that are working to
acquire bay lands. After acquisition, restoration and/or enhancement these properties
should be transferred when possible to governmental agencies for long-term ownership
and/or management. When this is not feasible. the non-profit agency should retain
ownership. A public agency or a protective non-profit organization should own habitats.
1.1.8. Add diked historic salt marsh to the CWP priority list for acquisition with Open Space
funds, because diked baylands are resources of regional value and significant habitats,
function as open space and community separators, and have other attributes noted above.
1.1.9. Continue to protect diked historic salt marsh remaining in the cities of San Rafael, Corte
Madera,'Larkspur and Mill Valley, even though not all of these are part of the proposed
Baylands Protection Conidor.
1.1.10. Continue to recornmena and actively pursue public acquisition of bay lands surrounding
Bolinas Lagoon, as stated in the current Local Coastal Plan.
1.2. OPEN BAY
Water in the San Pablo and San Francisco Bays is a mixture of marine water from the Pacific
Ocean and fresh water coming from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and from the entire
Bay watershed. Watersheds contribute sediments and organic compounds to the Bay;
approximately 20 percent of both dissolved and suspended organic compounds in the Bay come
from watersheds. The sediments contribute to marsh development and the organic compounds
are important to the many filter-feeding animals that live in the water and in the mud of the Bay.
These same watersheds may also contribute non-point source pollutants to the Bay in the for,m of
heat, cheJJlicals and suspended solids. In addition San Francisco and San Pablo Bay water quality
is affected by point source discharges associated with sewage treatment outfalls in the City-
Centered Conidor.
Tomales Bay and Bolinas Lagoon in the Coastal Recreation Conidor are also a mixture of marine
water and fresh water coming from upland watersheds in West Marin. These coastal bays are
similarly affected by non-point source pollutants produced by upland land uses, primarily
agriculture. Tomales Bay has also been declared as impaired for point-source mercury.
Recommendation
I.~.I. Improve, or ensure there ,are no adverse changes to, the chemistry and biology of streams
entering San Pablo and San Francisco Bays or tocoastal baysand lagoons, including
Bolinas Lagoon and Tomales Bay. Performance standards and maintenance practices
detailed in MCSTOPPP's Action Plan 2005 provide an array of water pollution preven-
tion controls (See Streams and Riparian Habitats). The San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board strictly regulates point sources. However, changes could
include new sewage outfalls, increased output from existing outfalls and/or discharges
from desalination plants. Such changes would be subject to environmental review.
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 7
Recommendations
1.4.1. Ensure that no changes occur in the sediment load of any stream flowing into bays,
lagoons or the ocean through a marsh or, where appropriate, reduce the load. Marshes
are dependent on natural fluctuations in sediment load but long-lasting man made
perturbations can result in too much sediment being deposited or none at all. Changes in
streams might include disturbance to riparian vegetation, agricultural cultivation, erosion
and inadequate sediment controls in adjacent construction sites, riprap, sea walls, small
boat piers and new dredging or frequent maintenance dredging.
1.4.2. Encourage the County to actively plan salt marsh enhancements and restorations as part
of County Parks and Open Space management.
1.5. DIKED HISTORIC SALT MARsH
.
Because many diked historic salt marsh sites are in the City-Centered Corridor, which is
designated primarily for urban development, the Marin Countywide Plan appears to promote their
conversion to developed uses. Diked bay lands currently used for grazing and oat hay crop, and
their associated seasonal wetlandlhabitat resources, are under intense pressure for development
because they are the major remaining level, accessible sites in the County.
After salt marshes were diked and drained for agriculture between 50 and 120 years ago, the
sedirnentsgradually lost moisture and organic material to drying and oxidation. As this happened
the sediments shrank and the surface of the diked salt marsh fell in elevation. Present dikoo
baylands may be as much as six to nine feet (in extreme cases) below the elevation of the tidal
salt marshes outside the levees.
Although diked historic salt marshes have long been valued for their scenic and open space
values, their ecological value as seasonal wetlands has only been recognized during the last 25
years. We now understand that they are an integral part of the ecosystem of the San Francisco
Estuary, the largest and most important estuary on the West Coast of this continent.
The sediments of diked historic salt marshes contain clay once deposited by bay waters. This
clay acts as an impervious layer, allowing water to pond during the winter rainy season, thus
retaining wetland characteristics on a seasonal basis and performing many important functions.
Sediments contain a significant amount of salt left on the surface when the rainwater evaporates
during spring and summer. They also become acidic when exposed to the air and thus do not
create ideal soil conditions for agriculture.
From a biological perspective, these diked baylands are an integral part of the estuary's
, ecosystem, providing habitat for migrating birds and endangered species, improving water quality
, and storing runoff, which helps to prevent flooding of neighboring developed lands. Many
species of shorebirds depend on shallow seasonal wetlands for roosting and feeding during high
tide cycles when the intertidal mud flats, their preferred foraging habitats, are covered with deep
. water. Waterfowl also choose these protected wetlands during stonos and rough waters on the
. Bay, and some prefer them to the deeper waters of the Bay. From a public safety perspective, the
dry sediments of diked historic salt marshes are underlain by deep deposits of highly
compressible Bay mud subject to severe ground shaking during earthquake events, thus rendering
them seismically unstable and unsuitable for human habitation without special engineering.
Recommendations
1.5.1. Ensure that diked wetlands, unless currently in agriculture, are allowed to remain as
seasonal wildlife habitat, with the ultimate goal of restoring them to tidal salt marsh.
.
.
Community Marin March 2003 '
Page 9
.
.
.
alder, box elder, blue elderberry and redwood are associated with streams in Marin's
Mediterranean climate. Streamside vegetation stabilizes stream banks and prevents erosion and
downstream sedimentation. Streams must have adequate stream flow to maintain and enhance the
habitat value of watersheds. Native ~mal species that are listed as endangered or threatened and
that depend upon stream habitat include steeJhead and coho salmon.
Some streams have'sections of banks that are naturally unvegetated, or that have been cleared of
vegetation for flood control projects or by property owners or grazing cattle. The maintenance of
streamside buffer zones is important evenifno riparian vegetation is present because soils,
grasses and weedy (ruderal) vegetation also provide habitat and serve as a buffer in the case of a
nearby pollutant discharge. Unvegetated stream banks may also present an opportunity to restore
riparian vegetation.
Marin County and all 11 cities and towns have adopted stormwater pollution ordinances. The
Marin County Storm water Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP), which all jurisdictions
have endorsed, recognizes that retaining streams ina natural state contributes to the maintenance
of water quality by absorbmg and trapping pollutants. Native vegetation also controls erosion and
provides wildlife habitat.
However, there are weaknesses in the ordinances. Only the County ordinance addresses retaining
streams above ground. The ordinances fail to adequately address one common cause of pollution,
namely the release of sediments from construction sites and temporary access roads dwing the
rainy season. Excessive sediment loads can degrade water quality and cause extensive damage
by covering plants and streambed habitats and even blocking the flow of water. In addition,
current efforts to enforce these ordinances are deficient.
Recommendations
1.7.1. Encourage watershed-based planning in Marin County, to include participation by
property owners or their represe~tatives, water diverters and dischargers, regulators,
commercial users" environmental interests, fisheries, the ~eneral public and other
interested stakeholders.
1.7.2. Strengthen stream and creek protections, both policies and ordinanCes, so they cover
" ephemeral and intermittent streams whether or not they are identified as solid or dashed
blue line streams on USGS Quadmaps. Ensure protection for all streams connecting with
a bay or lagoon, including those that have been channelized or otherwise altered by
hUman intervention. Provide for protection of 50 to 100-foot buffers along stream banks
even where no riparian vegetation exists.
1.7.3. Encourage the County, cities and towns to adopt stream protC(;tion policies that require
streams to be retained above ground and that provide for adequate buffers as described
above. Diversions should not be permitted uniess it can be demonstrated that there wouid
be no adverse impact to stream habitat from reduction of stream flows and that the
diversion, however small, would not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts. ,
1.7.4. Ensure that the County, cities and towns adopt similar stream protection policies and
ordinances so Marin streams receive the same level ofprot~ction throughout the county.
Planning for stream protection and erosion control should occur on a watershed basis and
not just along the existing jurisdictional boundaries. (Note: No matter how good policies
are, without consistent, developer-funded monitoring by.informed staff these policies will
, fail to protect our streams.)
Community Marin ;March 2003
Page 11
, 1.10. SERPENTINE GRASSLAND
This special and rare subset of Coastal Grassland is fOood mainly on serpentine rock on the
Tiburon Peninsula (Ring MOootain). SmaHer outcrops of serpentine rock and its resulting soils
are fOood in limited locations on Mount Tamalpais, Carson Ridge and Mount Burdell. The
chemical nature of serpentine inhibits most plants from growing on it. Those that are successful
are often restricted to serpentine soils and are isolated genetically from others of their species
because of the distance between outcrops. Thus a small population on one small outcrop may
differentiate into a subspecies or separate species and, by nature, be rare; If anything causes
change in the outcrop the population could become endangered. Many of Marin's threatened or
endangered plants are serpentine endemics. Three of these are the Tiburonjewelflower, Tibmon
Mariposa lily, and the Tiburon Indian paintbrush.
Recommendations
1.10.1. Do not consider serpentine grassland to be "vacant" because of the lack of trees and
scarcity of vegetation. Recognize that although it may not be a biologically productive
community it may be habitat for threatened or endangered species and requires a very
thorough biological assessment before any change is considered.
1.10.2. Recognize the possible incompetence of the ooderlying serpentine rock to support
structures, and require a thorough geological and soils analysis of any serpentine site
proposed for development.
.
1~11. CHAPARRAL
This community is a dense, often impenetrable cover of evergreen shrubs ranging from three to
10 feet in height with occasional tree species. The shrub species of Marin County typically are
manzanita on the ridge tops, chamise on steep slopes and scrub oak in the ravines. The plants are
deep-rooted to contend with summer drought but also have surface roots to quickly exploit any
available moisture. In the absence of fire for 25 to 60 years, chaparral become overly mature and
begin to die (scenescent), and dead material (fuel) accumulates. These species are also woody
and oily, thriving on low amooots of winter precipitation on poor, rocky soils. They are highly
susceptible to wildfire and adapted to repeated fires, to which many species respond'by stump,
sprouting. The denSe cover and large production of fruit makes this an ideal habitat for wildlife.
Chaparral is the most extensive habitat in California, covering about five percent of the state and
serving the important function of watershed for much of the state.
Serpentine chaparral is found on Mount Tamalpais, Carson Ridge and Mount Burdell on
serpentine outcroppings and soils. The community has much the same characteristics as mixed '
chaparral but is made up of species that can, tolerate serpentine chemistry. Ordinary soil is rich in
calcium and poor in magnesium; serpentine is the reverse and also contains more metals such as
iron, ,chromium and nickel and very low 8...rnOU!lts of nitrogen and phosphoT'.lS. ' .A nUlnber of
species of serpentine chaparral, such as the Tamalpais manzanita, are found on lists of rare,
threatened and endangered plants of California.
Recommendations
1.11.1. Recognize in planning policies the importance of chaparral vegetation for both wildlife
habitat and watershed protection.
1.11.2. In view of the high potential for wildfire at the urban wildland interface, restrict the
introduction of further development into areas of chaparral for the safety of present and
future residents.
.
.
Community Marin !March 2003
Page 13
.
is largely adjacent to and within the urban or City-CenteredConidor of Marin County and thus is
particularly subject to removal for development and impacts associated with human activity. In
recent years several tree species in the community have been found to be susceptible to a disease
called "sudden oak death" and large numbers of these species have died in Marin. Species
susceptible to, or acting as hosts for, the disease include coast live 08k, black oak, madrone,and
California bay. Most of the trees in the community are also very sensitive to changes in the soil
elevation, compaction and/or moisture under their canopy.
Valley oaks also occur on flat alluvial valley floors. Broad areas of grassland studded with
occasional valley oaks are called oak savannahs, represented on several dairy lands in North
Marin. Oak woodland is widely used by a variety of wildlife species, including both narrowly
and widely adapted bird species. Acorns supply a major food source for many species of
mammals and birds that also browse the foliage, particularly black-tailed deer.
Recommendations
1.14.1. A void compaction or changes in depth of soil or excessive water near oak trunks and
within the tree dripline. In or near an oak woodland or savannah be aware of the
sensitivity of the tree species to physical changes in the soil or groundwater regime. In
particular, avoid subjecting ~t live oak to typical garden irrigation.
1.14.2. Continue to adequately fund collaborative research efforts aimed at solving questions
surrounding sudden oak death, such as vector, preventing infection, treatment of affected
trees, prevention of spread, and best methods to prevent wildland fire resulting from the
increased fuel load.
1.IS. OAKIBA Y WOODLAND AND DoUGLAS FlRlREnwooJ) FOREST
These two forest and woodland types are mapped, separately on the Vegetation Map of Marin
County but may also be referred to together as the Broadleaf Evergreen/Conifer Forest. This is an
intermediate forest between the moist (mesic) redwood forest and the dry (xeric) oak woodland.
In a survey of Marin Municipal Water Djstrict (MMWD) watershed lands, Parker (1 990)
determined that 90 percent of the cover is comprised of seven species: tanbark oak, California
bay, Douglas fir, coast redwood, madrone, coast live oak and Sargent cypress. However, these
species never all occur in the same location. Of these trees tanbark oak, California bay, coast live
oak, madrone and coast redwood are subject to or host to"sudden oak death" pathogen.
Recommendations
.
1.15.1. When planning land use changes or vegetation management in or near this forest type, be
aware of the sensitivity of the' tree species to both physical changes in the soil and
moisture regime and to the introduction of pathogens. '
1.15.2. Continue to adequately fund collaborative research effort.saimed at solving questions
surrounding "sudden oak death." such as vector, preventing infection, treatment of
affected trees, prevention of spread and best methods to prevent wildland fire resulting
from the increased fuel load.
1.16_ PINEICVPRESS FOREST
.
The Sargent cypress stands in the MMWD watershed are mapped along with those of the closed
cone Bishop pine. The Sargent cypress, a serpentrne endemic, occurs in serpentine chaparral on
Mount Tamalpais ,and in a dense forest on Carson Ridge to the northwest. Both areas are publicly
owned lands. Bishop pine ~urs on the Inverness Ridge within and adjacent to the Point Reyes
Community Mm-jn /March 2003
Page 15
"
.
2. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Marin is fortunate that a major portion of the County is in public ownership. In addition to the
federally-owned Muir Woods, Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National
Seashore, three state parks (Angel Island, China Camp, and Olompali) are in East Marin, and four
(Mount Tamalpais, Samuel P. Taylor, Tomales Bay and Marconi Historical State Park) are in
West Marin. The major county parks are Paradise, McNears Beach, McInnis Park and Stafford
Lake. The Marin County Open Space Disttict also owns and manages numerous open space
preserves, and two water distticts control more than 25,000 acres of watershed lands and
reservoirs. These important parks, open space, and watershed lands are valuable community
assets. But there are serious problems. Existing overuse and trends toward increased use threaten
many sensitive and popular areas. It is necessary to develop protections to sustain these resources
for future generations.
The terms 'parks and open space' are sometimes used . interchangeably . Locally, for the County
and cities, park refers to protected publicly owned land that usually includes active recreational
facilities such as playing fields or swimming pools. These, are addressed under the Community
Facilities and Services section of this document. The term 'open space' refers to protected open
land, either private or public, in which thC? natural resources are preserved without developed
facilities other than low impact trails. Marin County Open Space preserves, state and federal park
areas, and watershed lands remain primarily in a natural state and are important local and regional
assets. The development of county opeD space and watershed lands for additional recreational
uses would change natural habitats and could adversely impact natural biological systems,
wildlife and wildlife habitats.
.
Wilderness areas, as defined by the Marin County Open Space district, are roadless areas that
have minimal use and public intrusion in order to maintain and sustain the health of the natural
environment.
Recommendations
2.1. Increase funding for the Marin County Open Space Disttict including consideration of an
open space impact fee.
2.2. Ensure that policies, funding and other mechanisms are in place to guarantee the addition
to and/or maintenance of natural resource lands in County, water district, state, and
federal open space and park preserves.
2.3. Adv()C8te that Marin County Open Space District give high priority to the acquisition of
remaining large undeveloped wetland and bay land parcels.
2.4.
Reduce or eliminate uses on open space, water district or park lands that would have
adverse impacts on natural resources or be incompatible with adjacent natural resource
areas.
.
Community Marin tMarch 2003
Page 17
.
3. AGRICULTURE
.
"Agricultw"e. The breeding, raising, pasturing, and grazing of livestock, for the
production of food and fiber; the breeding and raising of bees, fish, poultry, and
other fowl; and the planting, raising, harvesting and producing of agricultural,
aquacultural, horticultural and forestry crops. "
-- From Marin County Code Title 22, Development Code
Background. In 1971 most agricultural lands in Central and West Marin were rezoned to A-60,
a low:density zoning which pennits no more than one unit per 60 acres. Two additional
agricultural zoning districts, ARP (Agricultural, Residential Planned) and C-APZ (Coastal
Agricultural Production Zone) were created in the early 1980s. The C-APZ zoning district
imposed the strictest conditions for non-agricultural development. The pre-1971 zoning
designation, A-2, a residential zoning district permitting one unit per two acres and allowing
agricultural uses, remains in effect on some small parcels in West Marin and most agricultUral
parcels in the City-Centered Conidor which were not rezoned to ARP or a planned residential
zoning district.
Complementing agricultural zoning, the nonprofit Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT) was
created in 1980, and through 2003 had permanently preserved more than 32,000 acres of West
Marin agricultural land by acquiring agricultural conservation easements on these lands.
In 1982 the County created a Bayfront Conservation Zone (BFC), an overlay zone applicable to
tid~lands and historic bay marshlands along San Francisco and San Pablo Bays in the City-
Centered Corridor. Some 'of the historic bay marshlands had been diked and have been used for
agriculture for the past 100 years or so (primarily. for growing oat hay or grazing cattle). The
purpose of the BFC is to preserve natural habitats and agricultural values of property within the
BFC zone. An environmental assessment is required prior to any application for development in
this zone.
.
In the 1994 revision of the Countywide Plan an Agricultural Element was added to emphasize th,e
County's commitment to the preservation of agriculture. The Agricultural Element included a
separate section for agricultural lands in the BFC. The County is cWTently developing
recommendations for revis~ng the County's agricultural zoning. These recommendations apply to
lands zoned A, ARP and C-APZ: There remains an inherent policy <;onflict between the purposes,
of the BFCand development permitted by A-2 z.oning.
Agriculture is an important part of Marin's historic community character and economy.
Undeveloped parcels near urban development may have an important potential for'innovative
farming techniques and for providing fresh food for local residents. Existing agricultural uses on
parcels zoned for agriculture in both East and West Marin should be preserved unless these
parcels contain wetlands, baylands or watercourses. When these natural habitats and their
associated uplands are present these areas should be restored and preserved.
Community Marin places a.high value on preserving agricultural lands in Marin while
establishing land management practices to protect and restore natural habitats on those lands.
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 19
'"
.
4. HOUSING
4.2.
Background. A major goal of the 1973 Marin Countywide Plan was to ."achieve greater
economic balance for Marin, by increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing for
people who will hold them - - - thus becoming more self-sufficient economically by reducing the
present heavy reliance on the commute to San Francisco." .
Recently the number of new jobs created in Marin has grown at a greater rate than the number of
housing units and the cost of housing has spiraled. Today Marin's work force increasingly
commutes in from Sonoma County, the East Bay, San Francisco and beyond. It is time again to
evaluate our needs regarding jobs and housing.
The desirability of Marin as a place to live, market forces and social values foster constrnction of ,
expensive, large custom homes in a sprawling pattern. County zoning ordinances often allow, and
even encourage, new development on large lots outside of urban areas. In addition, small older
homes in historic subdivisions are being enlarged -thus decreasing the stock of lower priced
housing.
Sprawling development not only burdens future taxpayers with infrastructure maintenance costs,
but it degrades areas rich in natural resources and wildlife 'habitat. Oversized homes are wasteful
of natural resources, both in construction and ongoing energy needs. In recent years building
codes have been strengthened to minimize energy usage, and water districts have begun to
encourage conservation to a greater extent than in the past. Such steps, while creating the illusion
~f environmental responsibility, are considerably offset by the constructiol). of very large homes
ringed by landscaping requiring irrigation and introducing large impervious surfaces that
contribute to erosion, polluted run-off and flooding. These homes are often located away from
existing infrastructure.
In order to meet the current and future need for housing affordable for all segments of Marin's
work force as well as to maintain a diverse population, Ma.riD's leaders should look to a number
of creative strategies. We propose that the County, cities, towns and special districts, where
applicable, take the following actions:
Recommendations
4.1. Recognize that Marin is part of a major urban area that is economically interdependent.
Look for solutions to housing, employment and tra.nsport..ation issues in a regional
context. Work with state and local legislators to explore techniques for developing and
retaining below market rate housing.
Prevent sprawl and intrusion into environmentally sensitive areas through such means as
urban'growth boundaries.
Encourage infill and mixed use of spaces above parking lots, shopping centers and other
commercial centers, and reuse of existing buildings for housing.
.
4.3.
.
Community Marin !March 2003
Page 21
.
.
.
5. ECONOMIC VITALITY
Background. COWltywide Plans historically have called for increaSing the number 'of jobs in the ,
County to encourage the development of a more self-sufficient, service-oriented local economy
and also to reduce the amount of traditional commuting to the job center in San Francisco. Local
jurisdictions have promoted commercial (i.e. office, retail, and light industrial) development
policies to support and nourish a vital local economy, and also to help compensate for the loss of
property taxes resulting from the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. These policies have led to an
increase in commercial space and growth in th7 number of local jobs in excess of the available
housing supply for these added workers. COWlty and,city governments continue to promote
,Marin as ajob center in the interest of maintaining local economic vitality, and to reduce the out-
of-coWlty commuting trips at peak times. Consequently professional, scientific and technical
services jobs have become the fastest growing segment of employment.
However, retail trades still provide the largest number of jobs in Marin, and these jobs are often
low-wage, which means that many of the service personnel must commute long distances from
, their homes to work in ~ COWlty.
Commercial developments and accompanying job growth rates in the COWlty continue to exceed
the growth in available housing supply. According to Association of Bay Area Government
(ABAG) projections for the next 20 years, job growth will continue to be twice that of new
housing supply.
Commercial development strategies promoting Marin asajob center have also played a
significant role in exacerbating traffic congestion on the county's highways, and on arterial and
, local roadways. Commuter traffic problems persist and have become worse.
Commercial development plans are not coordinated with other planning objectives. Economic
Vitality policy objectives have not been sufficiently specific, are often in conflict with other
planning objectives, and require better integration with larger planning policy objectives.
R.eeommendations .
5.1. Focus new development in existing community centers through infill and reuse of
existing commercial sites on a mixed commercial and residential basis. Balance new
development and'reuse with traffic demands and transit opportunities. Encourage
preservation and enhancement of the existing town centers.
5.2. Reduce the amount of new commercial development authorized in general plans',
particularly in Novato and San Rafael, in order to reduce the additional transportation and
environmental impacts caused by the additional job growth.
5.3. Reduce the amount ofland designated for new commercial development, especially areas
isolated from transit systems or that could accommodate housing.
5.4.
Encourage r~tention of businesses that supply the diverse and essential needs of the
people who live and work in Marin.
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 23
5. I I. Examine the net public costs of all new commercial developments, including those of
infrastructure, services and affordable workforce housing requirements. Require that
commercial developments fully meet those costs as part of the planning and approval
process.
5. I 2. Require developers of co,mmercial space to provide housing mitigation remedies, with a
strong preference for building the needed associated housing on-site or in other approved
locations. Regulatory and zoning changes should be enacted concurrently to support the
development of housing in appropriate infilllocatioDS within the City-Centered corridor.
In lieu fees should be allowed only as a last resort and should reflect as closely as
possible the true public cost of providing the associated housing needs generated by the
new commercial development.
.!
.
"
.
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 25
.
.
.
6.7.
6.8.
Amend the Countywide Plan, and revise the Residential Multiple Planned (RMP) zoning
designation to clarify that any office use must be ancillary and subordinate to the primary
residential use.
Require new development, both residential and commercial, to incorporate energy
efficiency and other resource conserving measures in all aspects of siting, infrastructure,
construction techniques and materials, and landscaping,'such as those listed below:
· Encourage compact development patterns that promote efficient use of electricity,
natural gas, gasoline,' and other fuels.
· Maintain natural landforms and natural habitats by prohibiting massive grading,
encroachment into or filling of floodplains and wetlands, and removal of native
vegetation.
· Make use of small-scale land forms' such as berms, native and introduced
landscaping, buildings and pavement, solar orientation, and other layout, siting, and
design opportunities that optimize microclimate when siting buildings to reduce
building energy demands.
· Minimize conversion of water absorbent ground surfaces to impervious materials.
· Maximize dedication ofland for open space, agriculture, and/or habitat protection
purposes by clustering development.
· Where feasible, use on site renewable energy technologies, including both active and
passive solar, to reduce demands for grid-delivered electricity and natural gas.
.
Utilize recycled or renewable materials for roads and structures, including materials
from sustainable-certified. sources and materials that can be recycled in the future.
Conserve water use through installation of locally adapted and drought-tolerant
landscaping; use recycled (waSte) water or graywater wherever possible. Consider
codes to encourage the use of graywater in new construction.
Make recycling facilities readily available to residents/occupants.
Encourage use of proven resource-conserving materials and construction
technologies. In all other respects, use design elements that minimize harm to the
external environment and ensure a healthy indoor environment.
..
.
.
Community Marin !March 2003
Page 27
Implement a stronger household and school hazardous waste coUection program. Include
a strong educational component Coordinate with the cities to prevent uses that involve
placement of hazardous materials near creeks and sensitive sites such as schools,
hospitals, high occupancy buildings, and nursing homes.
Develop the telecommunications infrastructure in the most environmentally beneficial
way, to avoid the impacts of the facilities on humans and wildlife.
Develop and implement improved septic standards to protect public health and to
encourage more widespread compliance, based on a reliable monitoring system and
improved technology. Adopt regulations to ensure clean water standards without
permitting development that exceeds adopted land use plans.
Implement the Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan. Encourage the expansion of
recycling efforts toinclude the entire county, and a program for use of minimal resources
and recyclable packaging. Implement the policies of the 1982 Source Reduction and
Recycling Element. Encourage the use of local renewable resources.
7.8. Implement the measures identified in the 2002 Energy Management Study of County
Facilities, which would result in energy savings of 75 percent, and encourage the cities to
undertake similar efforts.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
.
7.9. Strengthen programs to divert construction waste from landfills, including on site use of
materials.
7.10. Create an energy office, joint powers authority, or regional energy agency that will serve
all 11 cities and the county in two key activities:
· Providing energy efficiency analyses, interventions, projects and consulting to
government, non-profit organizations and businesses.
· Investing in renewable energy generation facilities, such as solar, wind, wave power
and hydroelectric (on existing dams) to reach a renewable generation target of 30
percent by 2020.
7.11.. Support and encourage abroad range of water conservation strategies. Encourage the
expansion of wastewater reclamation and the use of graywater in residential and
commercial development and in parks and recreational facilities.
7.12. Require on site retention of water runoff, through such means as holding ponds and/or
vegetated swales, to minimize impacts on water quality and the storm water drainage
system. Use measures such as landscaping and the replacement of pavement with
permeable surfaces to reduce nmoff after construction.
7.13. Encourage the County, cities, schools and other special districts to develop stronger
programs to limit use of poisons used to control pests and employ current practices of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
7.14. Retain school sites for community recreation.
7.15. Provide neighborhood parks for recreational uses.
7.16. Require setting aside land for community parks or public spaces or payment of in lieu
park fees as part of new commercial or residential developments.
.
.
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 29
~
.
.
'.
Issues that need to be addressed include the foJ1owing.
Traffic Congestion. As a result of trends described above, the County has experienced growth in
inter- and intra-county auto traffic at a rate much greater than that of transit and roadway
infrastructure. This has resulted in high levels of congestion on the County's single north-south
freeway corridor and the major east-west arterial streets. The initial phase of the San Rafael HOV
Gap Closure is under construction, but funding for the completion of the project is uncertain.
Other Hwy 101 freeway improvem,ents, including lane additions, improved interchanges, and
addition ofHOV lanes through Novato and the Marin-Sonoma Narrows for buses and carpools
are only in the planning stages and are not fully funded. When these projects are completed, they
will provide some additional traffic capacity., However, added HOV capacity, in itself, will not
discourage solo driving patterns, which can only be corrected through improved public transit.
Land Use and Transportation. Land use plays a key role in determining transportation deman.d.
As job growth continues to outpace that of population and housing' over the next 20 years Marin
workers will continue to be forced to commute from out of the region.' The combination of
increased commute traffic, due to growth in neighboring counties, and increased local traffic, will
continue to cause congestion on regional highways and local roads - contributing to a reduction
in the quality of life in Marin County. The following needs to be done:
· Integrate loca1land use patterns with transportation facilities~
· Manage growth so as not to further burden transportation facilities' limited capacity.
· Address the impacts of tourism on Marin's transportation network.
· Promote more efficient use of the existing transportation infrastructure.
· Create sources of funding for improved transportation.
Public Transit. Public transit service in the County continues to be underfunded, inadequate and
underotilized. Expanded public transit is needed to serve our communities. A transit system with
much improved access, connectivity, and frequency of service would aid under served Marin
communities and transit-dependent residents. Shuttles with satellite parking lots could be
developed in partnership with national and state park services. By providing attractive
alternatives to automobile use, these transit improvements would also attract other users; thereby
promoting the viability of public transit. These steps should assist in mitigating traffic congestion
along the Hwy 101 ,corridor and on our County's east-west arterials.
Energy-efficieno/ and Pollution. Agoal of transportation planning should be to maximize energy
efficiency and to minimize pollution. When transportation alternatives and facilities are
considered and evaluated, it is essential that they be cOnsistently compared based upon rates of
energy consumption. pollutant emissions and discharges to regional air and local surface waters.
Wherever possible, public agencies should utilize low emission. fuel-efficient vehicles so as to
encourage the development of new technologies.
Protection of Natura/Resources:. An overriding concern is the protection of open space and
habitats, notably in Marin Baylands, that lie in close proximity to the Hwy 101 and NWP rail
corridors. Any potential or proposed transportation projects utilizing the existing Northwest
Pacificright,"of-way must avoid both direct and indirect harmful effects on wetlands, important
habitat and other natural resourceS of thes,e areas and would be contingent on prior placement of
land use controls. Only those transportation facilities that do not degrade these areas should be
considered.
Community Mmin /March 2003
Page 31
8.11. Ensure that development of the Marin-Sonoma Narrows Project, located primarily within
the Inland Rural Corridor, is consistent with that land use designation, so that:
· The HOV lanes are built within the existing roadway footprint.
.Prontage roads beyond those serving existing rural uses are not created.
· No new interchanges or flyovers are bUilt except where preeminent public safety
concerns exist, such as at the Redwood Landfill crossing site.
· Any bikeway constructed avoids hann to environmental resources.
· Rural character is maintained by minimizing cut-and-fill roadway construction,
restricting signage, maintaining views, and preserving and enhancing native
vegetation.
· Zoning designations are not changed at interchange locations.
· Caltrans principles of "Context Sensitive Design" are incorporated into the final
design of the highway features.
8.12. Improve design of Highway I 0 I interchanges with the specific purpose of promoting
auto, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit safety.
8.13. Create and expand networks of bicycle and pedestrian routes/pathways ;that provide
alternatives for non-motorized travel.
8.14. Encourage use of "traffic calming" measures to promote public safety in neighborhoods.
8.15. Confine aviation to existing uses at Gnoss Field (general aviation only), Marin Ranch
Airport and the Richardson Bay Heliport and sea plane base
Transit Systems
8.16. Expand intra-county bus service. Buses and shuttles can best serve the needs for public
transit in Marin Cmmty due to their flexibility and capability to be reconfigured in
response to land use changes and population shifts. Intra-county bus service will be the
most likely means of increasing transit capacity of the east-west arterials. These buses
must connect with an effective north-south system and with ferry terminals.
8.17. Expand inter-county express bus service to provide convenient service to workers
traveling into Marin from Sonoma, San Francisco, and East Bay Counties. Express
buses, coupled with continuous HOV I~es, provide long distance commuters with an
attractive alternative to auto commute travel.
8.18. Establish bus routes that are responsive to the needs of workers, students, the elderly and
other transit-dependent population seCtors and/or communities
8.19. Expand the ability of buses to accomniodate bicycles, and encow-age employers to
provide secure bicycle storage, showers, and financial incentives to bicycle commuters.
8.20. Expandparatransit services to meet the needs of the served population, such as seniors
and the disabled.
8.21. In planning for new transportation facilities, anticipate the likely long-tenn growth in
reverse commutes along the Highway 101 corridor.
8.22. Should the prison operation at San Quentin be discontinued, explore relocation of the
Larkspur Ferry Tenninal to San Quentin ifeconomically justified and if the relocation
would not have adverse environmental impacts on Bay habitats. A North Bay ferry
.
.
.
Community Mcuin /March 2003
Page 33
.
.
.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
AREAS OF POTENTIAL CHANGE
Following are recommendations fot major areas of eastern Marin County for which major
development or change in land use may be proposed. These recommendations are based on the
policies described in preceding sections. In all cases, allowable land uses and densities should be
based on environmental constraints, availability of services - in particular transportation - and the
protection of community character. This report does not address all areas, which may be proposed
for development. There are other major areas of potential change,' particularly in West Marin,
that also deserve attention.
NORTHERN MARIN
Much of this area is in the proposed Baylands Protection Corridor and should be designated
primarily for uses such as habitat conservation (or restoration) and agriculture which protect
resources and scenic values and minimize hazards to public safety. Any development should.
require preparation of a master plan for the entire contiguous ownership, in which uses would be
located to maximize protection of resources and minimize conflicts among uses. Any allowable
, density and uses should be detennined based not on the total acreage but rather only on those
limited parts of the land that are actually buildable.
9.1. ' Silveira NorthJCorda Ranches (unincorporated)
These properties, located along both sides of Highway 101 north of Gnoss Field and Rancho
Olompali State Park, are zoned A-60 and are in the Inland Rural Corridor. They have historically
been used as dairies and for grazing. All of the Silveira Ranch property, except for a 200-foot
wide strip along the west side of the freeway right-of-way and a 300-foot wide strip along the east
side of the freeway right-of-way, is under Agricultural Contract. Both properties provide
important seasonal ponded wetland and upland habitats. Interchanges andlor frontage roads
being studied as part of the Marin/Sonoma Narrows project on Highway 101 could inc~ase
pressure for development in this area. Because, of their important natural resource and community
separator values, these properties should be pennanentlyprotected.
9.2. Burdell IslandlMira Monte Marina (unincorporated)
Burdell Island is a small hill surrounded by tidal and non-tidal marsh and a smali marina with
water access to the PetaIuma River via San Antonio Creek. The property was zoned BFC-RCR
(Bay front Conservation Zone - Resort and Commercial Recreation). However because of a court
decision rescinding the entire ordinance that reZoned the undeveloped portion of Bel Marin Keys
the zoning has reverted to RCR.lt is in the Inland Rural Corridor. Although efforts to purchase
this land for preservation have failed in the past, the entire site should be permanently protected
and previously filled lands restored to tidal action. During the planning for conversion of the
Marin/Sonoma Narrows to freeway status, consider public acquisition of this property in order to
avoid the costs and adverse environmental impacts of building a new frontage road andlor
interchange.
Community Marin March 2003
Page 35
9.6. South Leveroni Property (unincorporated)
This Leveroni property is located southeast of the Highway 10 1/Highway 37 interchange in the
Bel Marin Keys area. It was zoned BFC-ARP.1 0 (Bayfront ConservationIPlanned Residential -I
unit per 10 acres) by the County. However, because of a court decision rescinding the entire
ordinance that rezoned the undeveloped portion of Bel Marin Keys, the zoning appears to have
reverted to A-2 (Agricul~ -1 unit per 2 acres). The area is diked baylands, is being used for,
agriculture and is subject to flooding. The site has extensive areas of shallow ponding in winter
and provides habitat for a wide diversity of wildlife. An area along Bel Marin Keys Boulevard
has been filled but continues to pond and, therefore, retains seasonal wetland values. The City of
Novato, which includes this property in its Sphere of Influence, has designated the 164 acre site
as Conservation (1 unit per 10-60 acres) and the 14 acre site along Hamilton Drive as Light
Industrial/Office. This Leveroni property should be pennanently preserved for agriculture and
resource conservation.
.
9.7. Sf. Vincent's/Silveira (unincorporated)
The S1. Vincent's/Silveira lands should be designated as part of the proposed Baylands Protection
Corridor to protect the scenic, historical, agricultural and natural resource values for future
generations and minimize public safety problems such as flooding, seismic hazards and traffic
generation. These lands should be acquired for resource conservation, wildlife habitat and
agricultural preservation and protection of public health aDd safety, rather than being designated
for development., More appropriate infill and redevelopment sites exist for new urban
development and affordable housing. In the event the sites cannot be purchased and permanently
protected, limited development should be pennitted only on areas that do not contain important
natural and cultural resources. S1. Vincent's has modest development/redevelopment potential in
the area of the existing historic buildings. If efforts to acquire Silveira Ranch are unsuccessful,
transfer of development rights to the area just north of the existing St. Vincent's buildings should
be considered.
Any development should be based on a master plan that emphasizes habitat protection, possibly
expands agricultural use, and minimizes conflicts among these uses. The master plan should
protect all wetlands, floodplains, unstable soils, agricultural lands, migratory and resident species, ,
watercourses and other resources; The master plan should also avoid development on unstable
soils and impacts 'on water quality. Among the values that must be preserved in such a plan are
oak woodlands, seasonal and tidal wetlands, vernal pools, oak savanna habitats, views from
Highway 101 to the bay, Miller Creek and its riparian corridor, the valley oaks, soils clas~i:fied as
fannlan~ of local importance, the historic buildings on the S1. Vincent's property and important
Miwok Indian archeological sites - all of which also function as an important community
separator between San Rafael and Novato and provide the last major remnant of early Marin/early
California along the now largely urbanized Highway 101 corridor.
.
Any development shouid wso avoid the need for new infrastructure such as new road
construction, expansion of the existing sewage treatment plant, flood protection along Miller
Creek and widening of the Marinwood freeway overpass. McInnis Parkway should not be
extended onto or through the property. Planning for future use of the properties should also be
limited by the development constraint caused by existing traffic congestion on local roads and
Highway 101 and there should be no transit stop along the railroad right-of-way on the property.
.
Community Marin !March 2003
Page 37
.
.
.
development of the site would be out of character with Marin and inappropriate. The entire site
should be m!l8ter planned to promote a unified and balanced use of the land and bay frontage.
The historic character of the adjacent San Quentin Village neighborhood should be preserved.
9.15. Madera Bay Park (Corte Madera)
Because it is an historic bay land area and because of its proximity to important adjacent wetland
,and endangered species habitat areas, this property is not appropriate for development and should
be pennanently preserved as habitat
9.16. Paradise Drive Area & Martha Company Property (Easton Point) (unincorporated)
Severe environmental constraints and important natural resources exist in this area, particularly
on $e Martha Company property. These include ancient landslide areas, visually prominent
ridgelines and steep slopes with serpentine soils, native oaks, drainageways and seeps, native
grasslands plus the presence of the endangered red legged frog on adjacent downstream ponds. In
addition" there is only limited acCess to the area. The resources in this area should be preserved.
9.17. Junction/Shoreline Hi2hway (unincOlporated)
Potential redevelopment and new development in this commercial area should seek to create a
resident serving commercial center for the community, consistent with the significant traffic and
environmental constraints on development in the. area and the proximity to Bothin Marsh and
Richardson Bay. This area, particularly along the shoreline, is an inappropriate location for large-
scale buildings. In addition the Caltrans right-of-way through Bothin Marshshould be protected
and restored to marsh.
Community Marin !March 2003
Page 39
clarify land use policies in agricultural and low density residential areas and to prevent
inappropriate development.
10.6. Continue to advocate that the County, possibly through the Countywide Planning
Agency, establish cooperative planning relationships with Sonoma County and represent
Marin in its dealings with regional agencies. Coordinate planning with Sonoma County
to preserve natural resources and community separators and prevent urban sprawl.
There continues to be a needfor coordination of planning for land use, as'well as
transportation, particularly with Sonoma County.
10.7. Support appropriate residential infill andmixed use projects as described in the Housing
and Community Development sections of this report.
These are key strategies to meet ongoing housing needs.
10.8. Monitor activities and conduct further studies regarding the following subjects, and
incorporate appropriate policies into future revisions of this document:
· Development pressures in West Marin due in part to increased recreational activity,
conversion of agricu1turallands to other uses, intensification of residential and
commercial uses and evolving agricultural practices.
· Impact of overuse, increased use and pressures of additional recreation uses on
county open space and county, state and federal parks.
· Cooperative and creative opportunities to meet county open space acquisition goals.
· Transportation policies for the use of the former Northwestern Pacific right-of-way
and improvements to the Marin/Sonoma Narrows section of Highway 101 ~
· Annexation policies, Sphere oflnfluence boundary studies and the potential for other
urban growth boundaries (UGBs) or similar measures, particularly with regard to the
St Vincent's/Silveira properties.
· Impact ofCaJifomia's fiscal structure on land use and transportation planning.
10.9. Create, adopt and implement a wetlands protection ordinance similar to ,the protections
included in the Local Coastal Plan.
.
.
These are important environmental issues on which fUrther study is needed before the
organizations can take informed positions.
.
Community Marin /March 2003
Page 41
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
I.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . '.
FROM:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Heidi McVeigh, Director of Administrative Services
TO:
SUBJECT:
Monthly Investment Summary - July 2003
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2003
REVIEWED BY:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TOWN OF TIBURON
I nstitution/ Agency
Investment
Amount
Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $9,996,4 79.29 1.653% Liquid
Investment
Fund (LAIF)
Total Invested: $9,996,4 79.29
TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Institution/Agency
Investment
Amount Interest Rate
Maturity
State of California Local Agency $837,467.68 1.653% Liquid
Investment
Fund (LAIF)
Bank of America Other $0
Total Invested: $837,467.68
Notes to Table Information:
State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): The interest rate
represents the effective yield for the month referenced above. The State of California
generally distributes investment data reports in the third week following the month
ended.
Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of
the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity
with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council. The
investment program herein summarized' provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet
next month's estimated expenditures.
Heidi McVeigh
cc: Town Treasurer
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
)~,.
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
MATTHEW C. ODETTO, CHIEF OF POLICE
BRIAN M. STOTT,ADMINISTRATIVE & FINANCIAL ANALYST
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUN;:OPSl
PROPOSED UTILIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-04
September 17, 2003 REVIEWED BY:
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
In 1996, the State of California established the Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS)
Program. In July 2001, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 2885, which extended the COPS
Program through January 1, 2005. The COPS program provides local government law
enforcement jurisdictions with annual baseline funding in the amount of $100,000 for frontline
law enforcement personnel and other related equipment. The COPS program requires the Town
Council to adopt a resolution approving its COPS spending plan. In addition to the regular COPS
Program, as part of AB 425, the 2001-02 Budget Act appropriated any remaining COPS funds to
local agencies to provide technology items. These COPS TECH funds were allocated on a per
capita basis and the Town received approximately $16,000 during the 2002-03 Fiscal Year.
On July, 1, 2003, the Tiburon COPS fund began the fiscal year with a fund balance' of $54,570
and anticipates receiving an additional $100,000 in revenues during the fiscal year. In addition,
the beginning fund balance of the Tiburon COPS TECH fund was $16,604. At the time of budget
adoption, the Town anticipated receiving an additional $16,000 in COPS TECH monies, but due
to the State Budget, the State cut these funds.
The adopted Fiscal Year 2003/04 Budget for the Police COPS program was $188,877 but in light
of COPS TECH funds being eliminated from the State budget, it is necessary for staff to reduce
spending accordingly. Staff is proposing to reduce all discretionary expenditures in the COPS
Program (i.e. employee development and equipment purchases), which were planned to be
$19,350 in the adopted budget. These expenditures will be absorbed in the existing Police
Department Budget. With the elimination of the $19,350 in planned expenditures, staff is
anticipating an ending balance of $1,647 on June 30,2003.
The COPS Program is scheduled to continue through January 1, 2005 but due to the uncertainty
of the future State Budget, it is uncertain whether the COPS Program will continue to be fully
funded, partially unfunded, or eliminated entirely. Town staff will monitor the COPS funding to
determine the likelihood of receiving these funds in the future. Through the budget process next
year, staff will present various expenditure scenarios reflecting these alternatives.
Town of Tibur,on
STAFF REp\.(b RT
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The chart below illustrates the Town's Planned FY 2003/04 SLESF Operating Program:
Town of Tiburon's Planned FY 2003/04 Operatina Proaram
COPS / SLESF COPS TECH
COPS Beginning Fund Balance (July 1, 2003) $54,570 $16,604
Revenues
- Anticipated SLESF/COPS Allocation $100,000
Proiected FY 2003/04 Expenditures
- Investigator's Salaries & Benefits ($97,247
- Supplies & Services
- IT Coordinator (33,000
- MERA Acquisition Bond Payment (22,676 (16,604)
TOTAL Supplies & Services ($55,676 (16,604)
Anticipated Ending Fund Balance (June 30, 2004) $1,647 $0
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Town Council approve the revised COPS spending program and
adopt the attached resolution memorializing these changes.
Attachment
SeptembeTl1,-2i--
page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
APPROVING AN EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR THE UTILIZATION OF
SUPPLEMENT AL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS
("COPS" MONIES) RECEIVED FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004.
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 3229, signed into law as Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996,
established the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Program; and
WHEREAS, in July 1, 2001, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 2885, that extends the
COPS, program to January 1, 2005 and provides local government law enforcement
jUrisdictions with annual baseline funding in the amount of $100,000, for frontline law
enforcement personnel and other related equipment, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council, at a public hearing held annually September, must
approve of a plan for the expenditure of Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds (COPS),
and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the TowIlofTiburon, at its meeting on June 18,2003,
adopted the recommended Police Department Budget that included authorization of a
COPS-funded frontline position (Investigator), COPS- funded participation in the
Countywide MERA Program, a portion of the LT. Coordinator salary and operating
expenses associated with frontline law enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Town Council ofthe Town ofTiburon
to approve the proposed and recommended use of COPS funds, and further, that the
action to employ additional frontline personnel shall be effective contingent upon receipt
and continuation of baseline funding in the amounts referred to above. This Resolution,
which approves ofthetecommended plan for the expenditure of COPS monies, is to be
submitted to County Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on, September 17,2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI,
TOWN CLERK
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
. . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Pat Echols, Director of Public Worksl Town Engineer ~
SUBJECT: Accept 2002-03 Street Rehabilitation Project Contract as
ME~T~~~ATE~ ;:~:::~!~'~~~3. ... . .. .~~~~~D~~:~. ,
TO:
FROM:
BACKGROUND
On May 21, 2003, the Tiburon Town Council awarded acontract to Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc.
in the amount of $541 ,541 for the 2002-03 Street Rehabilitation Project.
DISCUSSION
Project construction commenced in late June 2003 and was completed in August 2003.
Some unanticipated subsurface conditions were encountered after grinding several streets,
including Rancho Drive, Mateo Drive, Lagoon View, and Barner Lane which necessitated
significant digout repairs and additional asphalt to properly correct for the subsurface
deficiencies. Asphalt quantities for Paradise Drive (between Mar West and the Town limit)
were also higher than expected due to the pre-existing irregular contours and surface texture
of the roadway.
In addition, several change orders were issued to address safety and local drainage
conditions, including repairs at Eastview and Alcatraz Avenues and tree root damage on the
multi-use path. By incorporating these repairs into this contract, the Town realized cost
savings of over $10,000. Additional quantities of contract work and net change order work
totaled $102,754 for a final contract price of $644,295. The Town will receive a federal
reimbursement of $122,000 from a TEA-21 grant for the Paradise Drive resurfacing work.
Contract work was completed in conformance with the project plans and met specifications.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Town Council accept the contract work performed by Maggiora &
Ghilotti, Inc. for the 2002-03 Street Rehabilitation Project as complete in accordance with the
project specifications and direct staff to file a Notice of Completion.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Alex D. Mcintyre, Town Manager @,
Acquisition of 5 Marsh Road, Tiburon
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
September 17, 2003
The Town of Tiburon owns 6 low-moderate income units at the Point Tiburon-Marsh
Condominium complex. The Town owns 5 one-bedroom units and 1 two-bedroom unit. Within
the past year, the Town decided against acquiring another one-bedroom, preferring to wait for a
two-bedroom unit instead. Staff recommended against that acquisition because few Town or
other local public employees wish to live in the one-bedroom units, which are relatively small.
The situation surrounding the opportunity is somewhat complex, but staff believes that the Town
now has the legal option to purchase a two-bedroom unit at 5 Marsh Road. This is a unit that
was sold to an individual for owner-occupancy and the Town's re-purchase option is the Town's
means of enforcing the owner-occupancy restriction. The cost would be approximately $150,000
and the Town has sufficient reserves in the Low-Moderate Income Housing Fund to purchase
the unit.
Staff notes, that the recent Grand Jury reports cite a lack of affordable housing in the area,
particularly for employees involved in emergency response (see Item #5 on tonight's agenda).
The Town's Marsh units have been a valuable source of such housing in the Tiburon. Staff
believes that there would be great interest among public employees in living in the two-bedroom
unit. However, if after acquisition, the Town could not find a suitable public employee to rent the
unit, the Town could decide to rent or sell the unit to another person or person of low/moderate
income.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to work with the Marin
County Housing Authority to purchase 5 Marsh R,?ad.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF- mabORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Redevelopment agencies established by larger jurisdictions may generate substantial set-
aside funds. These funds can be used effectively to provide affordable housing in those
jurisdictions.
5. The Town of Corte Madera's nonresidential development impact fee is an innovative way to
raise funds for affordable housing from commercial developers.
6. Several jurisdictions are finding creative uses for their in-lieu fees and set-asides, thereby
maximizing the effectiveness of these funds in creating affordable housing.
7. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) treats each jurisdiction as a stand alone
entity as required by state law.
8. There is no formal countywide mechanism for treating the affordable housing problem.
9. The recently developed Marin Housing Workbook can be an important tool in creating
affordable housing particularly since it urges the full inclusion of all housing providers:
public, private and nonprofit.
10. Local affordable housing information is not easily accessible to the general public.
Staff recommends that the Town agree with all of the Findings except for Finding 10. Staff
believes that affordable housing information is easily accessible in Tiburon, as the budget has
line items and descriptions of the Low & Moderate Housing Fund and the Redevelopment
Agency Housing Set-Aside Fund. In addition, the Housing Element of the General Plan
provides a clear description of the Town's housing programs.
Staff recommends that the Town agree with Finding 3 with the understanding that it does not
apply to Tiburon.
2. Grand JUry Recommendations
In responding to the Grand Jury's Recommendations, Penal Code Section 933.05 requires the
Town to report one of the following actions:
(a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implementing action.
(b) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a timetable for implementation.
(c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
page2 of 3
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM~.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
KEVIN BRYANT, ADVANCE PLANNER YJl
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
SCOTT ANDERSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RESPONSE TO THE MARIN GRAND JURY REPORT 200:1:' 03
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEES AND SET-ASIDE S
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 REVIEWED BY:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2003, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled "Financing
Affordable Housing: Local In-Lieu Fees and Set-Aside Funds." The Report examines the
financial resources available to the County and its cities and towns for affordable housing. The
Report concludes that the financial resources are, in many cases, too small in individual
jurisdictions to be useful in promoting affordable housing. The Report's recommendations are
aimed at consolidating the resources of the county, cities, and towns to further the affordable
housing goals of Marin County as a whole. The Grand Jury has requested that all cities and
towns respond to all of the Report's Findings and Recommendations. By law, the Town's
response is due on September 28, 2003.
Attached is the Town's draft response for the Council's review and approval.
ANALYSIS
1. Grand JUry Findinas
Under Section 933.05 of the Penal Code, the Town is required to either state that it (a) agrees
with the Findings; or (b) disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings. In the latter case, the
Town must include an explanation of the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an
explanation of the reasons therefore.
The Findings of the Grand Jury Report are:
1. Jurisdictions with little, if any, development generate minimal in-lieu fees.
2. A number of jurisdictions have not established redevelopment agencies and therefore do not
collect set-asides.
3. Small amounts of in-lieu fees, held in special accounts in some jurisdictions in the county,
are not large enough to be particularly useful in promoting that jurisdiction's affordable
housing goals. '
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury
Report.
(d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Recommendation 1 states that the Board of Supervisors should request that ABAG and/or the
California Department of Housing and Community Development treat the County of Marin as a
single housing market unit for purposes of establishing affordable housing goals. The Board of
Supervisors would be responsible forthis recommendation. However, Staffquastions whether
this recommendation is practical. Staff believes that a change in state housing element law
would be required and that a request to a member of the County's legislative delegation is
needed. Furthermore, Staff believes the strategy is problematic because the affordable housing
goals are part of the housing element and general plan. Staff is concerned that the
recommended change would make it unclear which local government is responsible for
identifying the necessary land to accommodate housing, or worse, shift the responsibility to the
county" which would not be accountable to local residents.
Recommendation 2 urges the Board of Supervisors and the cities and towns to establish an
appropriate mechanism for the coordination of all affordable housing activities in the County.
Recommendation 3 calls for the inter-governmental coordination that was used to develop the
Marin Housing Workbook to be used for ongoing implementation of the recommendations
contained therein. Staff recommends that the Town participate in inter-jurisdictional efforts to
facilitate affordable housing in Marin. Staff also recommends that the Town be willing to fund
county housing projeCts when they have a benefit for the Town as well, such as previous loans
to the Marin Housing Authority for the construction of affordable units in Tiburon.
Recommendation 4 is directed at the Board of Supervisors, urging them to support and
cooperate with the various nonprofit housing agencies and developers within the County by
including them in the implementation of the countywide housing programs. Because this
recommendation is directed at the Board of Supervisors, the Town has no role to play.
However, the Town is committed to working with the stakeholders identified in implementing its
housing programs.
Recommendation 5 calls on local governments to assure that their housing programs and
funding are fully disclosed to the public. As described in the discussion of Finding 10 above,
Staff believes that the Town has implemented this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
The Town Council should review and approve the Town's proposed response to the Grand
Jury's Report of June 30, 2003.
EXHIBITS
1. Proposed Responses to Grand Jury Report
2. Grand Jury Report of June 30, 2003
page 3 of 3
E)r....BTRIT "(\'J:() I
-. ,....;
[Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920]
September 18, 2003
The Honorable Lynn O'Malley Taylor
Marin County Superior Court
P.O. Box 4988
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988
Conrad Kloh
Foreperson
Marin County Civil Grand Jury
3501 Civic Center Dr., Room 303
San Rafael, CA 94903
Re: Response to Grand Jury Report 2002-2003 - Financing
Affordable Housing: Local In-Lieu' Fees and Set-Aside Funds
Dear Honorable Judge Taylor and Foreperson Kloh:
This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Grand Jury
Report dated June 30, 2003. The Report directs all city and town councils to
respond to all Findings and Recommendations.
Findinas Nos. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8. and 9:
The Tiburon Town Council agrees with Findings 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9.
With respect to Finding 3, which states that "small amounts of in-lieu fees, held in
special accounts in some jurisdictions in the county, are not large enough to be
particularly useful in promoting that jurisdiction's affordable housing goals," the
Town Council does not consider the Finding to apply to Tiburon, which is second
only to the County of Marin in available affordable housing funds.
Findina No.1 0:
Finding No. 10 states that "local affordable housing information is not easily
accessible to the general public." The Tiburon Town Council partially disagrees
with this Finding. The Town's adopted budget.includes a line item for the Low &
Moderate Housing Fund and the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Set-Aside
Fund, including current balances of each fund. In addition, the budget, which is
available on the Town's website, provides a description of each of the housing
funds.
Hon. Taylor and Foreperson Kloh
September 18,2003
Page 2 of 4
This information, when considered with the Town's Housing Element, provides
clear; easily-accessible information about Tiburon's affordable housing programs
and the resources available to implement those programs. The Town Council
agrees that detailed, comprehensive information regarding expenditures and
revenues over the years must be compiled and is not available to the public in a
ready-made format, but will be provided expeditiously upon request.
Recommendation No.1:
As a preliminary matter, the Town notes that it is not in a position to implement
Recommendation 1, which would require action by the Marin County Board of
Supervisors. Moreover, the Town questions the practicability of the
recommendation. Recommendation 1 calls for the Board of Supervisors to
request that ABAG and/or the California Department of Housing and Community
Development treat the County of Marin as a single housing market for purposes
of establishing affordable housing goals.
It is the Town's belief that the California State Legislature is the only body with
the authority to change the state law in order to make this recommendation
possible. A request to Marin County's state Assemblyman and state Senator
would be a more direct approach.
The Tiburon Town Council understands the desire of the Grand Jury to promote
a county-wide approach to affordable housing issues, particularly because many
jurisdictions, such as Tiburon, have limited staff resources. However,
consolidating the establishment of affordable housing goals for the entire county
is problematic.
As the Grand Jury Report indicates, under current law a local government's
regional housing need that is developed by ABAG must be accommodated within
the government's housing element, which is part of its General Plan. Each
jurisdiction is required to identify an adequate supply of land to accommodate its
housing need, and designate the land to allow for the appropriate number of
housing units. This is a land use planning process which local governments
must undertake. Consolidating the housing goals would make it unclear which
local government is responsible for identifying the necessary land to
accommodate housing, or worse, shift the responsibility to the county, which
would not be accountable to local residents.
Recommendation Nos. 2 and 3:
Recommendation 2 urges the Board of Supervisors and the cities and towns to
establish an appropriate mechanism for the coordination of all affordable housing
activities in the County. Recommendation 3 calls for the inter-governmental
Hon. Taylor and Foreperson Kloh
September 18, 2003
Page 3 of 4
coordination that was used to develop the Marin Housing Workbook to be used
for ongoing implementation of the recommendations contained therein.
Among the primary recommendations included in the Workbook was to
implement an inter-jurisdictional strategic action plan for housing in Marin and to
create a countywide housing assistance team (HAT).
, The Town of Tiburon supports the continued coordination of housing activities
among the county and the cities and towns and will participate in inter-
, jurisdictional efforts to facilitate affordable housing in Marin.
With respect to the sharing of funds, the Town has hist9rically made loans to the
Marin Housing Authority for the construction of affordable housing units in
Tiburon. This has provided a benefit for Tiburon because of the construction of
new affordable units within the Town and for the Housing Authority because it
freed resources the Authority could use on other projects. The Town will
continue to be willing to fund county projects which also have a benefit for
Tiburon.
Recommendation No.4:
Recommendation 4 is directed at the Board of Supervisors, urging them to
support and cooperate with the various nonprofit housing agencies and
developers within the County by including them in the implementation of the
countywide housing programs. As with Recommendation 1, the Town has no
power to implement this recommendation.
Although this recommendation is not directed at the Town, Tiburon is committed
to working with nonprofit housing agencies and developers to implement its
housing programs and to meet its housing goals. .
Recommendation No.5:
Recommendation 5 calls on all local governments to assure that their housing
programs and funding are fully disclosed to the public. As described in the
discussion of Finding 10 above, the Town's budget includes line items and
descriptions of both the Low & Moderate Housing Fund and the Redevelopment
Agency Housing Set-Aside Fund. In addition, the Housing Element, which
describes the Town's housing programs, is also available. The Town believes
that it has implemented this recommendation.
*, * * * *
Hon. Taylor and Foreperson Kloh
September 1 8, 2003
Page 4 of 4
The Tiburon Town Council reviewed and approved this response on September
17,2003. If you have further questions on this matter; please do not hesitate to
call.
Very truly yours,
ALEX D. MciNTYRE
Town Manager
c: Town Council
Town Attorney
Director of Community Development
ii:
EXI-IIBIT NfO. ,~
.......-...._--~
2002-2003 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY
TITLE OF REPORT: Financing Affordable Housing:
Local In-Lieu Fees and Set-Aside Funds
Date of Report: June 30, 2003
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code
Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or
facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand
Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal
Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in
testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality
of those who artici ate in an Civil Grand Ju investi ation.
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
FINANCING AFFORDABLE HOUSING: LOCAL IN-LIEU FEES
AND SET-ASIDE FUNDS
SUMMARY
Surveys in Marin County always'indicate that a range of housing options in the county is
a top priority. Affordable housing is needed for the wide variety of 'people who
constitute. a well-balanced community. It also is clear that a lack of the full range of
housing resources severely impacts some of the other important county issues, such as
transportation and emergency response.
As mandated by state legislation, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
has developed a formula for each municipality and unincorporated area in the nine Bay
Area counties that specifies how many units and what types of affordable housing a
community must provide for in its general plan, and sets a time table for implementation.
Funding for most affordable housing development is provided by a combination of
private sector, nonprofit and government programs. In this report, the Grand Jury' limited
itself to an investigation of city and county funding that might be available under current
conditions and legislation, specifically in-lieu fees and set-aside funds ("set-asides"). In-
lieu fees, more fully described in the next section, refer to fees paid to communities by
housing developers when affordable housing is not included on site in a particular
development. Set-asides, also more fully described in the next section, represent a
percentage of increased property tax revenues paid to communities from redeveloped .
properties. Both sources of revenue must be segregated in special accounts by the
communities and used for affordable housing-related purposes.
To make their dollars go further, jurisdictions in the county typically leverage their in-lieu
funds and set-asides in a variety of ways. For example, they may use these monies to
provide rental subsidies, low-interest loans for downpayments, or moving assistance for
affordable housing projects in collaboration with other agencies and nonprofit
organizations.
The Grand Jury - has concluded that treating the county as a single housing market,
rather than dictating quotas to each jurisdiction, would be a more efficient way to
approach the affordable housing problem in the county. The Board of Supervisors and
the cities and towns should consider establishing an appropriate mechanism for
coordinating all of the affordable housing activities in the county. ,The county should
enlist the support of the various non-profit agencies and other housing developers by
including them in the implementation' of a countywide plan. Finally, the Grand Jury
recommends that jurisdictions fully disclose to the public what in-lieu fees and set-aside
funds they hold, how they are accounted for, and how they have been spent to date or
will be spent in the future.
Affordable Housing-11
1
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
BACKGROUND
In recent years, communities have become increasingly aware of the need to have
housing that lower income persons, who provide essential services in the communities,
can afford. Therefore, many communities require that, when a developer seeks to build
a number of residential units, that development must include a percentage of so-called
affordable units. This requirement is referred to as "inclusionary zoning." The
percentage is set by the community and varies depending upon its needs and options.
Both the public and the development community have found ,that there are
circumstances when the provision of those affordable units on site are not feasible or
appropriate. Therefore, a program of in-lieu fees has been created that permits a
developer, instead of building the units on site, to pay a predetermined amount into an
account set up specifically for that purpose. The community then uses those funds for
affordable housing-;related purposes.
Despite existing federal and state housing legislation, funding for affordable ,housing
programs has been lagging behind the clearly known need. In the 1940's the State of
California acknowledged that redevelopment activities should be connected to the
provision of affordable housing and included the 20% set aside provision in the state.
law on urban redevelopment.
EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY:
IN-LIEU FEES:
Many contemporary zoning ordinances, in order to meet the requirements of their
communities' general plans for the provision of affordable housing units, have instituted
a variety of techniques to enable the private market to provide the vast majority of the
affordable units needed. By far the preferred method is to require the developer to
include a percentage of affordable units integrated into its overall development program.
There are times, however, when such integration is not possible or desirable as a result
of some local condition. Therefore, many communities have instituted an alternative to
the actual physical integration of affordable units into a given development program.
This alternative provides that the developer pay to the community a predetermined sum
of money in-lieu of constructing the physical affordable housing units on site. These
monies are put into, a segregated account for the community's future to support
development of affordable housing units.
SET-ASIDE FUNDS:
Housing set-aside funds, called "set-asides", in redevelopment projects are required by
California redevelopment law (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et.
seq.). It applies only to jurisdictions that have established redevelopment agencies.
The principle behind these set-asides is as follows:
I
Affordable Housing-12
2
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
A redevelopment project area must meet certain requirements in order to be able to
withstand legal challenges to its establishment. These areas are supposed to have met
standards of deterioration (physical and/or economic). Therefore, it is assumed that
property tax revenue from these areas is relatively low. Once such an area is
redeveloped, it is again assumed that the new development will have a significantly
higher value and will yield significantly higher property taxes in the future.
The pre-redevelopment property value is established as a base and the associated tax
revenue will generally continue to flow to the existing taxing agencies. As the new
d~velopment begins to increase the property values, 80% of the tax revenues above the
established base are used to pay for expenditures the municipality made to assure the
success of the redevelopment project. Such expenditures include the purchase of the
properties needed for redevelopment; public improvements, such as streets, utilities,
etc.; and administrative and technical services required to carry the project to fruition.
Twenty percent of the property tax revenues in excess of the base are to be set aside
for purposes connected with provision of affordable housing in the community.
METH'ODOLOGY
Last year's Grand Jury circulated a brief questionnaire to the county and its 11 cities to
determine what Marin jurisdictions have done to date in the area of affordable housing.
The questionnaire had three major sections: zoning, redevelopment issues, and
required housing elements of general plans. The responses to the housing element all
indicated that the elements are in the process of being updated and are expected to be
completed relatively shortly.
Circumstances and time constraints did not permit the 2001-2002 Grand Jury to
complete the study. Therefore, the. current 2002-2003 Grand Jury decided to continue
and complete the work. In order to do that, the grand jury sent an additional and
expanded survey to all the jurisdictions in the county, including the county itself. A copy
of that survey (Affordable Housing Funding Questionnaire, Grand Jury 2002-2003) and
the transmittal letter are attached as Appendix A.
This Grand Jury expresses its appreciation to the county staffs for their generally
complete and expeditious replies and their patience in responding to follow-up inquiries.
DISCUSSION
IN-LIEU FEES:
Nine of the 12 jurisdictions in Marin County have provisions in their zoning codes for
"inclusionary" zoning (that is, the jurisdictions are required to provide for a full range of
housing units that a wide spectrum of economic needs.). Of these, seven of the
jurisdictions provide for the alternative of paying in-lieu fees. With regard to the option of
paying the fees or constructing the actual units, five of the jurisdictions reserve the
Affordable Housing-13
3
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
determination to their governing bodies, the county leaves that decision to staff
discretion, and the City of Novato currently leaves the decision to the discretion of the
developer. (The City of Novato indicated in its response that this issue is currently under
discussion and would most likely be changed.) ,
SET-ASIDE FUNDS:
The County of Marin, Larkspur, Novato, San Rafael, Sausalito, and Tiburon currently
have, or have had, redevelopment agencies. At one time, the Larkspur had designated
a portion of thecorDmunity in a designated redevelopment project" area, but that area
has never been activated. The county has had one active redevelopment area, Novato
had three, and San Rafael and Tiburon had one project area each. Sausalito has never
established a project area.
In all, four jurisdictions that currently have active redevelopment agencies, any funds
collected under redevelopment law are kept in r accounts that are segregated and not
co-mingled with other accounts. Also, in all the active agencies, the agency boards
(either the county Board of .Supervisors or local council) .must authorize expenditures
from those restricted accounts.
SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF FUNDS RECEIVED AND SPENT FROM FISCAL YEARS
1996-1997 TO 2001-2002:
Results from the current 2002-2003 Grand Jury's survey follow. Included is information
on how each of the twelve jurisdictions in the county has handled the issue of in-lieu
fees and set-asides over the past six fiscal years. 'Additional comments provided by
Novato, San Rafael, Tiburon and the County of Marin are indented and included in
italics. They illustrate the creative use and leveraging of available funds.
It should be noted that collections and disbursements are not necessarily equal, as
there may have been fund balances prior to the 6 years surveyed which were drawn
down, or, conversely, fund balances may have increased over the reporting period.
City of Belvedere: No in-lieu fees have been collected. Since Belvedere does
not have a redevelopment agency, no set-aside monies have been generated.
Belvedere had no funds on hand. '
Town of Corte Madera: $42,000 in in-lieu fees have been collected, but not
allocated or expended for any particular projects. Corte Madera does not have a
redevelopment agency, and therefore has no set-aside funds. The town made these
funds available as a loan to the Ecumenical Association for Housing to expedite a
current application for an affordable housing project. Corte Madera had no funds on
hand.
Additional comments provided by the Town of Corte Madera. This quote from
Corte Madera is included because it raises a relatively, recent approach that
relates to the need for affordable housing, which is directly created by non-
residential developments.
Affordable Housing-14
4
Financing AffordableHousing: Locatln-Iieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
"I thought you might also be interested to know about...Corte Madera's
Nonresidential Development Impact Fee ordinance. This ordinance is not part of
the inclusionary housing ordinance and it differs from the inclusionary ordinance
in that it applies to nonresidential development projects. The ordinance requires
developers of nonresidential projects to pay a fee which is used for the land
and/or building costs associated with developing housing affordable to low and
very-low income households. The ordinance was adopted last year, and to date
has collected approximately $43,000. An affordable housing fund has been
created by the Town Council to receive the fee payments. The Director of
Environmental Services administers the fund, and the Town Council must
approve all expenditures. "
Town of Fairfax: No in-lieu fees have been collected. Fairfax does not have a
redevelopment agency, and therefore. has no set-aside funds. Fairfax had no funds on
hand.
o
City of Larkspur: No in-lieu fees have been collected. Larkspur does not have
a redevelopment agency, and therefore has no set-aside funds. Larkspur had no funds
on hand.
City of Mill Valley: Approximately $61,000 in in-lieu fees have been collected,
but not allocated or disbursed for any particular projects. Mill Valley does not have a
redevelopment agency, and therefore has no set-aside funds. Mill Valley had a fund
balance of$73,261 as of June 30, 2002.
City of Novata: Approximately $315,000 in in-lieu fees and $1,905,000 in tax
increment set-aside funds have' been collected in the Grand Jury's six-year study
period. Of the $2,220,000 total., approximately $1,720,000 has been disbursed over this
period for projects' including The Downtown, Hamilton and Vintage Oaks
Redevelopment areas, housing services and mobile home rent control.
Novato had a fund.balance of $919,000 at June 30, 2002.
Additional comments orovided bv the Citvof Novato: (regarding in-lieu funds)
"As this is a relatively new fee, the City is accumulating the funds for future use.
There are no specific projects currently designated for which .the funds will be
used, however, it is anticipated that funds will be leveraged in participation with
public or private developments to provide affordable housing. n
(regarding set-asides) "Major Agency programs include overall Agency
management providing oversight compliance with mandated operational and
reporting requirements; project area management for the three Redevelopment
Project Areas (Vintage Oaks, Hamilton and Downtown); Agency liaison for
economic development and downtown revitalization matters; and implementation
of the Agency's housing policies/programs in coordination with the City's housing
programs, homeless, matters, and the adopted Housing Element of the General
Affordable Housing-15
5
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
Plan. All executive staff services are provided by the City Manager. Staff services
are charged to Agency program elements on a cost recovery basis. n
Attached as Appendix B is a chart provided by the Novato Redevelopment Agency
reporting activities in Fund No. 219, which covers Redevelopment Agency Housing for
FY 2000101
Town of Ross: No in-lieu fees have been collected. Ross does not have a
redevelopment agency, and therefore has no set-aside funds. Ross has no funds on
hand.
Town of San Anselmo: No in-lieu fees have been collected. San Anselmo
does not have a redevelopment agency, and therefore has no set-aside funds. San
Anselmo has no funds on hand.
City of San Rafael: Approximately $610,000 in in-lieu fees and other related
revenue {i'nterest, fees for services, and monies from the state and county} have been
collected. In addition, approximately $5,274,000 has been collected in the housing
account of the redevelopment agency from set-aside revenues, lease payments and a
transfer from the in-lieu' account. Approximately $4,900,000 from these two accounts
has been disbursed for a number of uses, including rental assistance, housing support
programs, housing rehabilitation, and other specific building renovation and renewal
projects. San Rafael had a fund balance of $292,219 as of June 30,2002.
,
I
Additional comments provided. bv. the City of San Rafael: (regarding in-lieu
funds) "Over the past 7 years, the in-lieu funds have been spent to assist in the
provision of affordable housing. Two examples include: 1) payment of $52,354
toward the new homeless shelter at Hamilton, and 2) assistance in the form of a
$200,000 grant to BRIDGE housing, a non-profit housing developer, to purchase
and make affordable an apartment building in the Canal Area. n ,
(regarding set-asides) "The San Rafael Redevelopment Agency (Agency) was
established under the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law
(California Health and Safety Code, commencing with Section 33000) primarily to
assist in the clearance and rehabilitation of areas determined to be in a declining
condition in the City of San' Rafael (City). Financial activity of the Agency
commenced in July 1973. Under the' Agency's Redevelopment Plan (Plan),
approved in November 1972, the Agency proposes to assist in the development
of property located in the central San Rafael business core and east San Rafael.
The Agency's Redevelopment Plan has been amended over time and restated ~n
October 1998. The Agency receives incremental tax revenues on the developed
property due to increases in assessed value. The Agency functions as an
independent entity. The City Council serves as the governing board of the
Agency" (from the Auditors' report for the year ended June 2001).
Attached as Appendix C is a chart provided by the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency
specifying the Housing Set-Aside Project and Program Expenditures from 1996 to 2001.
Affordable Housing-16
6
-
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
During that reporting period, San Rafael has used the set aside funds for a number of
affordable housing-related purposes. Some of the funds have gone into the
rehabilitation of units, some into rental assistance funds, some into assistance to
homeless support facilities, and some to support needed mediation services.
Approximately 20% of the total spent over the five years covered in the chart was used
for program administration.. -
City of Sausalito: No in-lieu funds have been collected. Sausalito has created
a redevelopment agency, however, a project area has never been established.
Sausalito has no funds on hand.
ToWn of Tiburon: Approximately $660,000 in in-lieu fees has been collected
and approximately $600,000 has been disbursed for purchase of "below market rate"
housing and rental assistance under the Marin Renters Rebate program. Tiburon's
redevelopment agency has collected approximately $3,400,000 in set-asides, and
approximately $3,300,000 has been spent for construction of senior housing and
rehabilitation of existing housing. Tiburon had a fund balance of $1,232,129 as of June
30, 2002.
Additional comment provided bv the Town of Tiburon: "The funds have been
used to purchase affordable units, maintain affordable units owned by the Town,
fund payments to the Marin Housing Authority for the construction of additional
affordable units in Tiburon. . . "
County of Marin (for the unincorporated areas of the county): Approximately
$393,000 in in-lieu fees and $1,090,000 in set-aside funds have been collected, and the
Board of Supervisors transferred-$500,000 into the in-lieu fee fund. The county has
expended approximately $2,305,000 for rental assistance, homeless programs and
specific housing developmentlrehabilitationprojects. The county had a fund balance of
$2,089,216 as of June 30, 2002.
Additional comments provided bv the Countv: (regarding in-lieu funds) "Over
the past eight years since the in-lieu fund was established moneys have been
used fot new construction of rental and ownership units, preservation and
rehabilitation of existing affordable housing, emergency rental assistance, and
deposit assistance. The in-lieu housing trust fund has helped to create new
housing opportunities for homeless, seniors, families, developmentally disabled,
environmentally disabled and very low, low and moderate-income individuals and
families. 562 units of housing have been created using funds from the Housing
Trust. An, additional 174 units have been preserved or rehabilitated using
Housing Trust Funds. "
(regarding set-asides) "Since the accrual of tax increments from development
in the Marin City Redevelopment Area, the Agency has set aside $1,142,403,
repre~enting 20% of all tax increment revenues, towards low and moderate
income housing projects in Marin City and paid it out. A total of $1,049,403 have
been paid, to the Gateway Apartment Partners, and, $93,000 have been paid
Affordable Housing-17
7
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
towards for the Braun 'Court residential development..." (See Appendix 0 for a
Summary of Disbursements.)
The following table summarizes the combined fund balances of in-lieu fees and set.;
aside funds as of June 30, 2002.
In-lieu Fees and
Set-Aside Funds
Jurisdiction @ 6/30/2002
(in dollars\
Belvedere 0
Corte Madera 0
Fairfax 0
Larkspur 0
Mill Valley 73,261
Novato 1,100,000
Ross 0
San Anselmo 0
San Rafael 292,219
Sausalito 0
Tiburon 1,232,129
County of Marin
(Unincorporated Areas) 2,089,216
Totals $4,686,825
The Grand Jury found that limited public financial resources are currently available from
in-lieu fees and set-aside funds. Thus there is very little money in the "public bank" for
-affordable housing. The median single-family home in Marin currently is hovering at
about $700.000. Therefore, $4.7 million in Marin, without creative financing and/or
leveraging, can buy only six to seven single-family homes.
STATE LAW, ABAG AND MARIN COUNTY
Califomialaw requires that each jurisdiction be treated as a stand-alone entity.
Therefore, ABAG is required to establish housing targets for Marin County and each of
its cities and towns. Marin County's small size and relatively small population often
preclude places of work and housing resources to be within the same jurisdiction. If
Marin County were treated as a single housing market, a more productive use of the
limited available funds might be feasible. The following illustrates the problem:
The amount of money collected from in-lieu fees, particularly in the smaller communities
that have relatively little new development, is insignificant relative to the costs of
providing affordable housing. Set-asides generated from redevelopment projects are
much larger but again. not all jurisdictions have redevelopment projects., Because
,affordable housing projects generally need a significant amount of "seed money" or
other subsidies to get them started, imaginative uses of either in-lieu fees or set-aside
Affordable Housing-18
8
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
funds can be extremely helpful in facilitating the creation of such badly needed housing
resources.
The Grand Jury observed that several of the jurisdictions that generate either type of
funds use the funds for projects that are not wholly within their jurisdiction. However,
they did not seem to be a well-defined plan for the coordinated and efficient use of
these funds on a countywide basis. It would be possible to make more effective use of
these funds if countywide coordination was implemented to allocate funds from the
various jurisdictions for projects throughout the county.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Just as ABAG is constrained by existing state law in the assignment of housing targets
to the separate jurisdictions" THE Board of Supervisors is limited to the areas of the
county under its direct jurisdiction. However, Board with its countywide perspective
should look at the advisability of establishing some kind of funding pool, which could
lead to using some of the limited available funding across municipal boundaries~ It
should hot be an insurmountable challenge to set up an appropriate mechanism for the
administration of such 'a funding pool. It could be either the Board, acting in its role as
the County Housing Authority, a committee established by the Council of Mayors and
Council Members, or some other mechanism acceptable to the community. Such a
mechanism could become another significant building block toward to the development
of an ever improving Marin County community.
An example of positive cooperation toward to the goal of addressing countywide
housing needs is the preparation of the Marin HousinQ Workbook of February 2002. It
was created by countywide representative committee, which included not only public
agencies but also, the nonprofit agencies active in providing affordable housing
throughout the county.
ONE FINAL COMMENT
During its investigation, the Grand Jury found that information 'about local affordable
housing funding is available but not readily accessible. Easy accessibility to information
related to affordable housing funding would encourage, more public input that may lead
to better solutions to solve this chronic problem.
FINDINGS
1. Jurisdictions with little, ifany, development generate minimal in-lieu fees.
2. A number of jurisdictions have not established redevelopment agencies and
therefore do not collect set-asides.
3. Small amounts of in-lieu fees, held in special accounts in some jurisdictions in the
county, are not large enough to be particularly useful in promoting that jurisdiction's
affordable housing goals.
Affordable Housing-19
9
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
4. Redevelopment agencies established by larger jurisdictions may generate,
substantial set-aside funds. These funds can be used effectively to provide
affordable housing in those jurisdictions.
5. The Town of Corte Madera's nonresidential development impactfeeis an innovative
way to raise funds for affordable housing from commercial developers. '
6. Several jurisdictions are finding creative uses for their in-lieu fees and set-asides,
thereby maximizing the effectiveness of these funds in creating affordable housing.
7. ABAG treats each jurisdiction as a stand-alone entity as required by state law.
8. There is no formal countywide mechanism for treating the affordable housing
problem.
9. The recently developed Marin Housinq Workbook can be an important tool in
creating affordable housing particularly since it urges the full inclusion of all housing
providers: public private and nonprofit.
10. Local affordable housing information is not easily accessible to the general public.
RECOMMENDA liONS
1. The Board of Supervisors should request that ABAG and/or the California
Department of Housing and Community Development treat the County of Marin as
a single housing market unit for purposes of establishing affordable housing goals.
2. The Board of Supervisors and the cities and towns should establish an appropriate
mechanism for the coordination of all affordable housing activities in the County.
3. The intra-county governmental cooperation, which was basic to the development of
-the Marin' Housino Workbook (February 2002), should be used as a foundation for
ongoing implementation of the recommendations contained therein.
4. The Board of Supervisors should support and cooperate with the various nonprofit
housing agencies and developers within the County by including them in the
implementation of the countywide housing programs.
5. All local governmental' agencies should assure that their housing programs and
funding are fully disclosed to the public.
Affordable Housing-110
10
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu ,Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury respectfully requests
responses as follows:
· Marin County Board of Supervisors to all Findings and Recommendations
· All Marin city and town Councils to all Findings and Recommendations
Affordable Housing-111
11
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
APPENDIX A
Housing Funding Questionnaire
Grand JUry 2002-2003
General Issues
1. Has your jurisdiction updated its affordable housing element in your master plan?
If yes, has it been approved by the State of California? When was it approved?
If no, what is your timeline for completion?
2. How many affordable units are in your inventory currently? How many units are
envisioned for the future?
3. What issues or problems do you see in meeting your affordable housing unit
mandate?
Zoning Issues
1. Does your jurisdiction have requirements in your zoning for the inclusion of
affordable housing? If not, why not? '
2. If you have such provisions, do they include the alternative of paying fees "in lieu"
of actually building such housing? If not, why not?
3. Does the developer or does the municipality determine whether "in lieu" fees are
paid or units are constructed?
4. Regarding question # 3 above, what is the ordinary outcome - units or in "lieu
funds"?
5: If you receive "in lieu" fees:
a. Over the past 10 years, how much money has been received in such "in lieu"
fees? '
b. How are they accounted for in your financial records? Please reference
specific accounts / trust funds in your jurisdiction's financial records.
c. Over the past six years, for what purposes have the "in lieu" funds been
spent? Please be specific and put this information in a format similar to the
attached spreadsheet.
d. Name the person or entities that can access the expenditure of these "in lieu"
fees and the procedure for so doing.
Affordable Housing-112
12
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
Housing Funding Questionnaire (continued)
Grand JUry 2002-2003
Redevelopment Issues
1. Does your jurisdiction have a Redevelopment Agency?
2. If so:
a. Do you have or have you had Redevelopment Projects?
b. Have you complied with the provisions of State law that require 20% of "set
aside" funds be'spent on affordable housing?
c. Indicate the amount, dates and uses of Redevelopment funds for affordable
housing.
e. How are these funds accounted for in your jurisdiction's financial records?
Over the past six years, for what purposes have the "in lieu" funds been
spent? Please be specific and put this information in a format similar to the
attached spreadsheet.
f. Name the persons or entities that can access the expenditure of these
redevelopment fees and the procedure for so doing.
###
Affordable Housing-113
13
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
APPENDIX B
NOVATO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HOUSING PROGRAM
FUND NO. 219
This table identifies the funding and expenditures for the housing program of the Redevelopment
Agency. Tax increment funds for the housing program are generated from all parcels within the
Redevelopment Project Area No.1 - Hahn (Vintage Oaks), and the new Hamilton and '
Downtown Project Areas. These reserved funds have been used as a source of funding for the
interim housing and homelessness prevention programs addressing Novato's at risk population;
update of the Housing Element and Hamilton Reuse planning and implementation effort. These
funds will be considered for implementing appropriate programs in the adopted Housing
Element.
Actual Actual Projected Adopted
1998/99 1999/00 Actual Budget
2000/01 2001/02
Fund Balance - Begin Fiscal Year 403,276 398,076 458,139 648,084
Revenues:
Investment Earnings 11 ,286 13,836 20,325 1 0,450
Tax Increment:,
Vintage Oaks 273,285 324,438 321,709 315,477
Hamilton 0 0 ' 1,757 14,000
Downtown 0 19,160 40,768 40,415
Mohile, Home Rent Control 9,240 40,590 23,997
Other 17,804 41,740 33,147 40.000
Subtotal Revenues 311,615 439,764 441,703 420,342
Tr;in!;fArS; In:
General Fund 310,779
Housing Opportunity Fund 3,000 3,000
Loan Repayment-Novato Financing Auth 14,200 51,887 14,200 14,200
TOTAL FINANCING AVAILABLE 732,091 892,727 914,042 1,393,405
EynAnrlihlrA':;:
Downtown RDA 0 0 440 77 ,573
Hamilton RDA 0 0 1,757 38,999
Loan to Hamilton Redevelopment 100,000 100,000 100,000 93,278
Vintage Oaks 117,266 329,690 ' 137,983 42,590
Housing & Services 0 0 3,943 23,666
Mobile Home Rent Control 4,558 21,835 30,120
Other 16,749 340 0 0
Transfer out - Redevelopment Agency 100,000 0 0 0
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out 334,015 434,588 265,958 306.226
Fund Balance - End Fiscal Year 398,076 458,139 648,084 1,087,179
Affordable Housing-114
14
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
APPENDIX C.
. '
SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
. ._'. "." ... ._..._ . .."n _ .___._. ...... ...... , _.".. "." !_ __.. ._ ._. _.. ._" ...
HOUSINGSET ASIDE PROJECT AND PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
..L~~~!' ' FY97/98 : F~~(~~~,' ~~i~~; FYOO/o1'
I "' ..- -'---", .. ..... J , . --_. -".-,,---. . I
Marin Housing Renter Rebate $ 21,300 $ 21,800 $ 21,800 $ 21,800 $ 21,800
Marin Mediation Sei"Ace $ - $ 1.1,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000
Ritter House $ 28,531 $ 35,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000
MCIL Rehab Grant $ - $ 12,500 $ - $ - $ -
162-172 Belwdere $ 750,040
55 Fairfax / $ 20,000
Lone Palm $ - $168,264 $ - $ - $ -
190 Mills Street;'HB , $ 28.531
Cannel Hotel Rehab Grant-HB $ - $ - $142,000 $ 23,600 $ -
1111 Fourth Street-HB $ - $ - $ - $ - $ '173.571
Gordon's Opera House $ - $ - $ - $ 340,000 $ -
Christmas in April $ - $ - $ - $ 7,000 $ 7,000
Buckelew - 7 Mariposa $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 $ -
161 Novato-CCA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 85,000
165 Novato-CCA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000
Mediation Rental Complaints $ - $ - $ - $ -
Downpament Assistance $ - $ - $ - $ -
Program Administration $114,210 $110,370 $101,392 $139,320 $ 187,287
PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS TOTAL $164,041 $499,965 $311,192 $ 632,720 $1,415,698
Affordable Housing-115 \.
15
Financing Affordable Housing: Local In-lieu Fees and Set-aside Funds
June 2003
APPENDIX D
MARIN COUNTY HOUSING SET-ASIDE FUNDS - PAID
MARIN COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SUMMARY OF DISBURSEMENTS
FROM THE LOW & MODERATE HOUSING FUND
20% HOUSING SET-ASIDE OF TAX INCREMENT
Date
8/17/9
8/17/9
9/20/9
12/29/
2/24/9
12/19/
1/13/9
717/98
12/23/
7/22/9
1/13/0
7/10/0
1/9/01
7/13/0
1/11/0
Uses,
Marin City Affordable Homes, Inc., for Braun
Marin City Affordable Homes, Inc., for Braun
Fidelity Nat'!. Title for Marin City Apartments
Fidelity Nat'!. Title for Marin City Apartments
Marin City Affordable Homes, Inc., for Braun
Fidelity Nat'!. Title for Gateway Apartment
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gateway Apartment Partners for Marin City
Gatewav Apartment Partners for Marin City
Total Disbursed to Date
DISBURSEMENT OF 20% HOUSING SET ASIDE:
Low & Moderate Housing Fund, including Interest
Braun Court, Marin City -1993, 1994, 1997
Marin City Apartments -1995,1997,1998, 1999,2000,2001
to Gateway Apartment Partners
Total
Source: Marin County Housing Set Aside Ledger
Affordable Housing-116
16
Paid
$38,800.00
31,400.00
72,316.69
14,350.31
22,800.00
76,689.88
69,623.00
63,347.00
108,757.00
97,372.00
108,358.00
92,715.00
115,495.00
96,934.00
133.445.00
$1,142,402.88
$93,000.00
1,049,402.88
$1,142,402.88
I"
t,;
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~.
~.
. . . . . . . . . .: - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBJECT:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
KEVIN BRYANT, ADVANCE PLANNER Yb
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
SCOTT ANDERSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RESPON, SE TO THE MARIN GRAND JURY REPORT 200~003
HOUSING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY EMPLOY. 5
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 REVIEWED BY:
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
On June 30, 2003, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled "A Crisis Brewing?
Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees." The Report identifies the fact that many of
the public health and safety employees in Marin County cannot afford housing in the county and
that no assessment of the housing needs of these employees has been done. Because many
emergency personnel live outside the County, the Report concludes that the County would be
inadequately served in the event of a disaster. The Report's recommendations are intended to
develop policies to provide more affordable housing for health and safety employees. The
Grand Jury has requested that all cities and towns respond to all of the Report's Findings and
Recommendations. By law, the Town's response is due on September 28, 2003.
Attached is the Town's draft response for the Council's review and approval.
ANALYSIS
1. Grand JUry Findinas
Under Section 933.05 of the Penal Code, the Town is required to either state that it (a) agrees
with the Findings;'or (b) disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings. In the latter case, the
Town must include an explanation of the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an
explanation of the reasons therefore.
The Findings of the Grand Jury Report are:
1. The county, the cities and the towns have neither identified nor defined those positions, both
public and private, considered critical to the health and safety of the Marin community and
which would be considered first responders in the event of a disaster. They have not
developed a priority ranking for "close-by housing," based upon critical needs during a
disaster.
2. The county, the cities and the towns have not quantified the housing needs of the Marin
community with respect to those who are considered first responders.
.J
.~
.
I
. Of TIe,. ·
"~~V,\>"
~711i~'t-
'I~~~\'
('\\~e~
~\~~ ~J~
(')~-::.-~....~~'O
~o'.~. ~
." ~/YIA \tlc., ".
f
.
"
~.
Town of Tiburon
'.~
~ <'\':~
STAFF~~PORT
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. The county, the cities, and the towns have not exercised their legislative authority to develop
policies leading to programs making housing affordable to first responders.
4. Eighty percent of the county law enforcement employees live outside Marin. '
Staff recommends that the Town Council agree with Findings 1 ,2, and 4.
Regarding Finding 3, that no local governments have exercised their legislative authority to
develop policies leading to programs making housing affordable to first responders, Staff
recommends that the Town Council disagree. The Town has purchased six affordable housing
units in downtown Tiburon and these units are available for Town and public employees to rent.
Although there is no policy providing preferential consideration to public health and safety
employees, three of the units' current occupants are employees who could be considered public
health and safety employees. In addition, the Town's Draft Housing Element also has a policy
to "identify opportunities for local government employees (especially public safety personnel) to
find housing locally through such efforts as construction of workforce housing..., establishment
of preferences, or subsidizing mortgages or rents."
2. Grand JUry Recommendations
In responding to the Grand Jury's Recommendations, Penal Code Section 933.05 requires the
Town to report one of the following actions:
(a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implementing action. '
(b) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,
with a timetable for implementation.
(c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury
Report.
(d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable"with an explanation therefor.
Recommendation 1 directs the county to take the lead, in cooperation with the cities and towns,
to develop definitions for the positions of first responders and to establish a rank order of their
need to be close by in time of crisis. Staff recommends that the Town participate in a County-
led exercise to define and rank these positions.
Recommendation 2 calls for the county, the cities, and the towns to provide the definitions which
are developed as a result of Recommendation 1 to both public and private organizations and
page 2 of 3
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
l~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.obtain a quantificatian .of hausing needs far persans identified as first responders. Staff believes
this is alagical next step and recammends that the Tawn participate in a Caunty-Iedeffart ta
accamplish this.
Finally, Staff believes that Recammendatians 1 and 2 appropriately lead taRecammendatian 3,
which states that the caunty, the cities and the tawns shauld wark with each ather and with
ather public and private arganizatians within Marin Caunty ta develap overarching policies that
will ,enable first respanders ta be able ta live within a reasanable distance in .or near the
cammunity in which they wark. Staff recammends that the Tawn participate in a Caunty-Ied
process ta develap such palicies. '
RECOMMENDATION
The Tawn Cauncil shauld review and apprave the Tawn's prapased respanse ta the Grand
Jury's Report .of June 30, 2003.
EXHffiITS
1. Propased Respanses ta Grand Jury Repart
2. Grand Jury Repart .of June 30, 2003
page 3 of 3
RXI-!IBIT k~TO" ~I_ 'I
. [Town of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920]
September 18, 2003
The Honorable Lynn O'Malley Taylor
Marin County Superior Court
. P.O. Box 4988
San Rafael, CA 94913-4988
Conrad Kloh
Foreperson
Marin County Civil Grand Jury
3501 Civic Center Dr., Room 303
San Rafael, CA 94903
Re: Response to Grand Jury Report 2002-2003 - A Crisis Brewing?
Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
Dear Honorable Judge Taylor and Foreperson Kloh:
This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Grand Jury
Report dated June. 30,2003. The Report directs all city and town councils to
respond to all Findings and Recommendations.
Findina Nos. 1.2. and 4:
The Town of Tiburon Town Council agrees with Findings 1, 2, and 4.
Findina No.3:
The Grand Jury found that the county, the cities and the towns have not
exercised their legislative authority to develop policies leading to programs
making housing affordable to first responders. The Tovmdisagrees with this
Finding insofar as it applies to the Town of Tlburon.
Over the past several years, the Town of Tiburon has purchased six (6)
affordable housing units, adjacent to downtown Tiburon, which are made
available for Town employees to rent. Each of these units was obtained through
the use of the Town's legislative authority. Although there is no policy providing
preferential consideration to public health and safety employees, three of the
units' current occupants are employees who could be considered public health
and safety employees or first responders: one from the Fire District, one from the
Sanitary District, and one from the Public Works Department. Therefore, the
effect of the Town's policy and programto own affordable housing units, and to
Hon. Taylor and Foreperson Kloh
September 1 8, 2003
Page 2 of 3
make them available to Town and other public employees, has led to making
housing affordable for first responders.
Additionally, the Town's Draft Housing Elememtincludes a policy to "identify
opportunities for local government employees (especially public safety "
pr;Jrsonnel) to find housing locally through such efforts as construction of
" workforce housing at public facilities or parking lots, establishment of
preferences, or subsidizing mortgages or rents." (emphasis added) This policy
will be adopted by legislative action as well.
Furthermore, in recognition of the affordable housing issue for employees, the
Town Council has established an Employee Housing Fund which contains
approximately $400,000 at present.
Recommendation No.1:
This recommendation is directed at the county to take the lead, with the co-
operation of the cities and towns, in developing definitions for the positions of first
responders and to establish a rank order of their need to be close by in time of
crisis.
The Town Council agrees that defining a class of employees as first responders
and public safety personnel would be a worthwhile exercise. Furthermore, the
Town agrees that the county is the appropriate lead, as they are uniquely
situated to bring together the variety of local agencies and public and private
organizations which provide emergency services for the whole county.
The Town will participate within any schedule developed by the county.
Recommendation No.2:
After defining which employees are the first responders and public safety
personnel, the Town Council agrees that the definitiOhs shollldbeusedon a
county-wide basis to determine the housing need for those positions. The Town
will co-operate with the county and other cities and towns to accomplish this
objective, following the process of developing the definitions referred to in
Recommendation 1.
Recommendation No.3:
Within the framework for interagency coordination that was started by the Marin
Housing Workbook project, the Town will work with the county, other cities and
towns, and other public and private organizations to develop overarching policies
that will enable first'responders to be able to live within a reasonable distance in
-.
#1
Hon. Taylor and Foreperson Kloh.
September 18, 2003
Page 3 of 3
or near the community in which they work. This would be a logical extension of
. work done based on Recommendations 1 and 2.
* * * * *
The Tiburon Town Council reviewed and approved this response on September
17,2003. If you have further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to
call.
Very truly yours,
ALEX D. MciNTYRE
Town Manager
c: Town Council
Town Attorney
Director of Community Development
"
RXT-!IBIT hTf) ~.
-.. ,.'".- ':'J'1'II"::I~""""___
2002~2003 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY
TITLE OF REPORT: A Crisis Brewing?
Housing For Public Health
And Safety Employees
Date of Report:. June 30, 2003
,~
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code
Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or
facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand
Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal
Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities' to encourage full candor in
testimony in Civil Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality
of those who artici ate in an Civil Grand Ju investi ation.
A Crisis Brewing? Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
June 2003
'-
A CRISIS BREWING?
HOUSING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY EMPLOYEES
SUMMARY
Marin County is facing an impending crisis which has not yet become evident to the
general public, but which could, in the not-too-distarit future, create significant problems
for the county populace.
In the event of a disaster such as an earthquake, flood, or terrorist attack, only public
health and safety employees on duty at the time may be available to attend to the
emergency needs of Marin County. Employees who live some distance from their place
of employment may be delayed, if not prevented, from reaching their place of work by
the distance they must travel and/or the' obstacles they may encounter en route. If the.
disaster occurs at night, on a weekend ora holiday, with even fewer personnel on duty,
a serious situation may become critical.
For this report, first responders are considered to be: police, fire, emergency medical
technicians, hospital personnel, water and sanitation district employees, and emergency
utility crews.
A common thread throughout the Grand Jury investigation was that law enforcement
employees are not required to live within the jurisdiction where they work. To insure
that sufficient first responders are available in time of crisis, the county, the cities and
the towns (the legislative authorities within Marin County) must address this issue of
availability of health and safety workers, by developing housing affordable to first
responders in or near the communities in which they serve.
As the older workforce retires within the next five years, the housing needs for first
responders will become even more urgent, if not critical. The employment vacuum
created by these retirements will likely be filled by persons who cannot afford to
purchase or to rent housing within the county. boundaries, let alone near their places of
employment. The result will be an even greater percentage of first responders living
outside of. Marin and perhaps being unavailable during or immediately after to a
disaster.
The cost of housing in.Marin affects many workers in both the public and private sectors
,
according to the Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In the event of a disaster, the
fact that 80% of the county law enforcement employees live outside of Marin is of
considerable concern. The problem of making housing within Marin both affordable and
available to first responders should be addressed and solved. It cannot be solved
tomorrow, but there can be a start. In twenty years, instead of 80% of county law
enforcement employees living outside of Marin, perhaps many will be able to live in
Marin.
Affordable Housing-2
1
A Crisis Brewing? Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
June 2003
The Grand Jury found little evidence that the housing need for first responders has been
quantified or coordinated on a countywide basis. The Grand Jury recommends that the
county and the other municipal jurisdictions agree to a set of definitions of first
responders and then obtain, from both public and private organizations within each
jurisdiction, a quantification of the housing needs of these first responders.
Further, the Grand Jury recommends that a coordinated countywide program to develop
policies that enable first responders to live near their work should be undertaken and
implemented without regard to political boundaries.
BACKGROUND
Housing in Marin County is extrem~ly expensive, largely" because of the scarcity of
buildable land to accommodate the influx of persons who want to enjoy the benefits of
living in a scenic, rural and undeveloped area that is close to San Francisco. As
pressure builds to locate or construct housing for those wishing to live in the county, real
estate prices rise. Unfortunately, salaries do not necessarily rise correspondingly.
Those who work, but whose incomes do not allow them to live in Marin, must commute
from housing in surrounding counties.
The cost of housing in Marin affects many workers in both the public and private
sectors. In the event ofa disaster, the fact that 80% of the county law enforcement
employees live outside of Marin is of considerable concern. In Marin County, first
responders will suffer the commute to enable them to provide their families with the
Arnerican dream of a home with some land.
METHODOLOGY
Interviews Conducted:
The Grand Jury spoke with officials from Marin County Community Development
Agency, Novato Citywide Employee Housing Assistance Program, Marin County
Housing Authority and Marin County Board of Supervisors. In addition, interviews were
conducted with some mayors and planners of cities and towns in Marin,some directors
of special districts, school district superintendents, public and private hospital
administrators and officials of one union in the county. Interviews were also conducted
with representatives from Ecumenical Association for Housing, the Marin Consortium for
Workforce Housing and the Marin Housing Council.
Documents Reviewed:
Marin County Emplovee Housinq Options Report. December 2002.
Marin County Draft Housinq Element and draft housing elements from the cities
and towns in Marin.
Affordable Housing-2
2
l
\
\
A Crisis'Brewing? Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
June 2003
Marin Housinq Workbook, February 2002.
Key. Trends, Issues.' and . Strateqies Report, Marin County Community
Development Agency, January 2003.
Marin Profile 2001: A Survey of Economic. Social, and Environmental Indicators.
Internet Sources:
Association of the Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
www.abag.ca.gov/planning/smartgrowth
Key Trends, Issues, and Strategies Report, Marin Countywide Plan Update
www.future-marin.org
Workforce Housing: Hometown Crisis, an insert from Marin Independent Journal
www.manm].com
Housing in Marin
www.housingmarin.org
Ecumenical Association for Housing
. www.eahhousing.org
Housing Council of Marin
http://housingcouncil.marin.org
Marin Countywide Plan Update 2002-2004
www.future-marin.org . .
Marin County Planning Commission Minutes, April 7, 2003
www.co.marin.ca.us!depts
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
www.huduser.org
Marin Profile 2001-A survey of Economic, Social, and Environmental
Indicators
www.co.marin.ca.us!depts/CD/main/pdf/planning/Marin _Profile-200 1. pdf
Affordable Housing-2
3
.~
,
A Crisis Brewing? Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
June 2003
DISCUSSION
Half of all Marin County government employees, and 80% of its law enforcement
employees, live outside Marin largely due to the high cost of housing. Sixty percent of
all county employees have annual incomes that qualify them for affordable housing
programs. A$ the county is the second largest employer, the Marin County workforce
provides a microcosm for the impending housing crisis found in greater Marin.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) establishes
housing goals for the Bay Area Region. The Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) distributes these housing goals among the nine Bay Area counties and the
municipalities therein based on job and population growth and income category. These
goals are the units of housing (homes and apartments) that all cities, towns and
counties must provide for their current and future inhabitants. In response, in their
housing element report to the state, which mustbe updated every five years, all of these
jurisdictions must indicate how they plan to meet the assigned goals.
Each jurisdiction designates, according to its needs, a percentage of its total housing
goals as affordable, Le., able to be acquired or rented by individuals or households of
very low, low, or moderate income levels, as defined by HCD. As determined by
Housing and Urban Development for fiscal year 2003, the median income for a four-
person household in Marin is $91,500. The Grand Jury found that in many instances,
employees were surprised to find that their income level made them eligible for housing
assistance under HCD guidelines. The preceding description . of the housing element
report is a rather simplistic one, as it doesn't describe all of the detailed information
required of the various entities. Further, it addresses all housing, and does not focus on
housing for first responders.
The county, the cities and the towns (the land-use authorities within Marin. County) have
expended great amounts of time to respond to the requirements imposed by ABAG with
regard to affordable housing. The housing elements of the general plans of these
jurisdictions, when completed, all identify the required housing unit requirements and
suggest many innovative programs to achieve the requirements. If the provisions of
those housing elements are implemented, the county, cities and towns will deserve
credit for significant achievements. However, the Grand Jury found little evidence that
these jurisdictions have policies that could result in programs facilitating housing
, affordable to first responders. Nor is there any sign that the staffs of these jurisdictions
have been directed to develop first responder housing policies.
The reality is that these housing elements reflect affordable housing requirements, not
the needs of first responders who provide health and safety services to the local
jurisdictions. In addition, the Grand Jury did not find any countywide identification and
definition of positions that should be considered as first responders. It is desirable for
police, fire, emergency medical technicians, hospital personnel, and water and
sanitation district employees and emergency utility crews to be available to maintain
essential health and safety services to the Marin community in th'e event of a disaster.
Affordable Housing-2
4
l:
A Crisis Brewing? Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
June 2003
,
To provide housing to that group of first responders, their housing needs must first be
quantified. How many first responders are there and how much first responder housing
is needed?
Housing Strategies
A common thread throughout the Grand Jury investigation was that law enforcement
employees are not required to live within the jurisdiction where they work. Recognizing
that some of their employees cannot live near work because of the cost of local
housing, individual jurisdictions (county, cities, towns and districts) have implemented
different emergency staffing policies in an attempt to cover their needs during or after a
disaster.
· One town has a rental unit available to its police and/or fire personnel at below
market rates.
· In some of the special water and sanitation districts, there are personnel nearby
(long-term employees who own their own homes, and even in one district, a board
member) available to "turn the valve" or, within reason, perform the necessary
actions required for safety and security purposes in emergency situations.
· In some communities several police officers share the rental of an apartment during
the week and only return to their out-of-county homes on off-duty days.
· Some employees have developed personal responses to the lack of affordable
housing, e.g., a person who works for the county and who must be close to where
he works, rents an apartment in Marin during the week. He was unable to purchase
affordable housing within the county and the home he is able to afford is too far
distant for a daily .commute.
· The North Marin Water District provides funds for "silent second" mortgages to its
employees. These loans require no principle or interest payment until the property is
sold, at which time the equity increase is divided between the employee and the
district.
· A portion of the Hamilton affordable housing project in Novato, gave preference to
applicants for the housing based on their professional abilities to offer emergency
services, e.g., nurses were given a higher priority than schoolteachers.
· One of the hospitals has developed recruiting incentives that assist physicians in
acquiring housing. Physicians who are first-time buyers are offered low-interest,
secured loans of up to 10% of the house value (maximum of $120,000). In 10 years
the loan will be forgiven, if the physicians are still active at the hospital. Physicians
who are "move-up" buyers are offered a replacement loan of up to $60,000, which is
forgiven in five years if they are still active at the hospital.
Affordable Housing-2
5
'1
t
A Crisis Brewing? Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
June 2003
Information Sources Worthy of Note
The Marin County Employee Housinq Options Report indicated that 1/3 of county
employees will likely look for another job outside the county in order to shorten their
commute times. The fact must be recognized that county safety employees, if offered
acceptable employment in the community where their families have put down roots,
would likely jump at the chance.
The Marin Independent Journal, in a recent article, quoted from the Marin County
Employee Housino Options Report, "Under one scenario, the county would build its own
affordable housing exclusively for couhty employees on county property...." The article
indicated that more than 1 00 parcels have been identified that could be used for such
housing.
The Marin County Draft Housing. Element states, "One response to housing concerns
has been a process jointly sponsored by all of the local governmental jurisdictions in
Marin - all eleven towns and cities and the county - to [develop] best practices and
participate together in . developing common strategies.to address housing needs." The
Grand Jury thinks that this is a laudable concept and should especially apply to finding
housing solutions - without regard to political boundaries - to insure the availability of
first responders who are critical to the maintenance of the health and safety of the
county's residents in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. Disasters do not
recognize political boundaries.
The Grand Jury found that communication between and among' thecount}i. the cities
and the towns regarding housing has been occurring. However, there has been no
apparent communication regarding housing needs between these governmental
jurisdictions and other jurisdiction~, both public and private, which employ first
responders. A common thread in the Grand Jury's. interviews has been an apparent lack
of communication betw(;}en and among the county, the cities and the towns on one
hand, and other public and private entities on the other hand. It must be recognized that
this is a two-way responsibility for both. the jurisdiction with the need (such as a water,
sanitation, fire or police district) and the provider (such as the county, a city or a town).
Each has an equal responsibility to communicate not only the availability and the need,
but also to share solutions that are working for them. Is the town council aware of the
housing needs of the police departmen~? Indeed, has the police department informed
the town council about its housing needs?
The problem of making housing within Marin both affordable and available to first
responders should be addressed and solved. It cannot be solved tomorrow, but there
can be a start. In 20 years, instead of 80% of county law enforcement employees living
outside of Marin, perhaps most will be able to live in Marin.
Affordable Housing-2
6
:
A Crisis Brewing? Housing for Public Health and Safety Employees
June 2003 .
~
FINDINGS.
1. The county, the cities and the towns (the land-use authorities within Marin
County) have neither identified nor defined those positions, both public and
private, considered criticar to the health and safety of the Marin community and
which would be considered first responders in the event of a disaster. They have
not developed a priority ranking for "close-by housing," based upon critical needs
during a disaster.
2. The county, the cities and the towns have not quantified the housing' needs of the
Marin community with respect to those who are considered first responders.
3. The county, the cities and the towns have not exercised their legislative authority
to develop policies leading to programs making housing affordable to first
responders.
4. Eighty percent of the county law enforcement employees live outside Marin.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. At a minimum, the county should take the lead and, with the co-operation of the
cities and towns, develop definitions for the positions of first responders and
establish a rank order of their need to be close by in time of crisis.
2. The county, the cities and the towns should provide these definitions to both
public and private organizations and obtain from them a quantification of housing
needs for positions identified as first responders in their various communities.
3. The county, the Cities and the towns should work with each other and with other
public and private organizations within Marin County to develop. overarching
policies that will enable first responders to be able to live within a reasonable
distance in or near the community in which they worlc
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury respectfully requests
responses as follows:
1. The Marin County Board of Supervisors to all Findings and Recornmendations
2. All city and town councils to all Findings and Recommendations
Affordable Housing-2
7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
""
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Members of the Town~. 0 cilil
Alex D.Mclntyre, Town Manager ~
Request to Establish a Business Improvement District to Fund the
Marin County Convention and Visitor's Bureau
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
September 17, 2003
As a result of severe economic conditions, Marin County discontinued funding its Convention
and Visitor's Bureau (CVB). As a means to resuscitate the CVB, the County Department of
Parks, Open Space and Cultural Services has proposed a funding program which should
generate in excess of $600,000. The County would like to form a Business Improvement
District (BID)which is a funding mechanism authorized by the State Streets and Highway Code
allowing their formation for the purposes of promoting tourism. The operating arm of the BID
would be Marin Visitor Network, Inc. BIDs are not uncommon in the State to promote certain
unique travel markets.
Practically, the Town Council would need to approve the formation of the BID and, as requested
by the County, implement an additional 1 % on the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) currently
collected by the Town. The Town currently imposes a 10% TOT and collects approximately
$350,000 annually. The additional 1 % would generate approximately another $35,000 for the
BID. The Marin County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent to form the BID in
June 2003.
The countywide BID would promote increases in hotel occupancy through a marketing
campaign. One of initial pushes for the campaign would be to increase mid-week and/or off
peak travel where hotel vacancies are greatest. Many of the Marin County cities/towns have
agreed to form the BID with the exception of Sausalito and Mill Valley who have indicate an
unwillingness to do so. Ross and Belvedere are not a party to this since they have no hotels.
Also, the hotels in West Marin have expressed serious concern over the formation of the BID.
believe that Tiburon should also question the merit of forming such a BID for a countywide
purpose at this time.
I believe that the SouthernlWestern Marin tourism/business travel community is quite different
from the balance of Marin County. Travelers to SouthernlWestern Marin'appear to be more
tourism/vacation oriented rather than business related travel. Northern Marin hotels cater more
towards the business traveler. Our travel market is more closely tied to the travel industry in San
Francisco than the balance of Marin. Creating a marketing campaign to address these extremes
seems to be quite difficult. Specifically, how it will help Tiburon remains unclear.
Further, the Town Council directed staff to explore increasing the Town's TOT rate for the
purpose of funding Town programs and services. With the uncertainly of future State funds for
the Town, there is a practical limit to the amount of TOT that can be collected. The Town
already dedicates a portion of the TOT to the Chamber of Commerce fortourism promotion.
This additional 1 % of TOT might be better used to specifically promote Tiburon hotels instead.
Town of Tiburon
1:~~
STAFF REl\@RT
.................................................
I have met with the representatives from the CVB and shared with them my views, but also
offered them the opportunity to make a brief presentation directly to theTown Council. The will
appear before the Town Council to make their request. They have submitted the attached
materials.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Town Council opt out of the presently proposed BID.
Attachment
September 12, 21
page 2 of 2
Marin County
Tourism
Business
Im.provement
District
.
....
...
A proposal for tourism
growth in Marin County, ·
organized by the'
Ad-Hoc CVB Transition .....
Committee in partnership
with Marin County ·
lodging establishments ....
Increase occupancy through
increased marketing
There is a direct relationship between
marketing and promotions campaigns and
ncreases In occupancy.
collectively a tourism Business
Working
Improvement Districtcan start a positive
tevenue cycle whereby funds are generated
ncreasing the
marketing to visitors,
for
occupancy.rales
and ultimately generating more funds for
s a WIN-WIN
program.
Contacl Sherry Sweet for more Information
(415) 499-5000
MAKING the BID
The Marin County Ad-Hoc CVB Transition
Co~millee in partnership with Marin County
lodging establishments and their Chambers of
Commerce are positioning Marin County as a
recognizable and desirable tourism
destinatron. This effort wilf have a direct
benefit on all lodging establishments,.
increasing their occupancy during both the
peak and off-peak season and also
enhancing the area's economy.
Currently the Marin County Convention and
Visitors Buteau, does tourism marketing in
Mario.
Establishing a tourism Business Improvement
District (BID) will allow the Marin County
Region to establish a direct benefiltourism
marketing program dedicated to increasing
tourism in the designated boundaries al no
oul of pocket expense to hoteliers, chambers
or municipalities
]0
To
.....
~
W
\!l
<I
a..
OJ
:::>
u
z
H
CIC
<I
:::E
of visitors and your
marketing
It'
number
LD
cD
(J1
~
.-i
cD
~
LD
.-i
~
LD
N
-<:T
.-i
(T)
~
IS)
N
........
N
.-i
........
(J1
IS)
Answers
and
'Y
Questions
'Y
'Y
be assessed?
N
~
w
l.!)
<I
0...
Who will
Hotels within the proposed designated area -
Marin County - will be assessed 1 % per room
nighl stay,
relationship to the Sacramento Convention
Center with the assessment focused solely on
marketing tourism activities. Sacramento's
STBID is expected to generate more than
$3.1 million within the first year.
What is a Business Improvement
District?
A Business Improvement District (810) is the
legallenn for a type of assessment enacted
into law within a specific boundary or district
A slate statute gOl/erns improvement districts;
the (810) Business Improvement District law
enacted in 1989.
As the hotelier you do not pay anything -
most assessments are passed on to the
consumer as a surcharge. These dollars will
help your budget in other ways too. Currently
most hotels do not have room in their budget
for jornt regional tourism promotion. After the
Marrn County 810 is passed there will be
dollars generated for tourism promotion - bu
at NO additional expense to the individuaf
hotel's budget.
have to pay?
What do
The SiBID assessment is calculated based
upon room night stays and are charged back
to tMe user as an itemized charge on the
customer's bill. Generally it is 1% per room
night stay.
This 1989 BID law usually govems tourism
and marketing efforts.
What will be done with additional
dollars generated by an
assessment?
How is a BID enacted locally?
co
::>
u
z
H
0::
<I
:::E
the
How much wi be generated bV this
assessment?
Once passed who decides how
money is spent?
An appointed governing board will be
established made up primarily of those being
asses9E!d (the lodging facilities).
to
The funds generated will allow Marin County
to significantly enhance tourism-marketing
programs. In addition to increasing hotel and
B&B occupancy the marketing effort will result
in stim ulating economic development for the
entire hospitality industry in Marin County.
The intent of the proposed tourism BID is
generate dollars for tourism marketing in
Mar;n County.
A BID plan is drafted by an attomey and IS
governed by a non-profit board of directors.
Businesses that will be assessed are poled.
A 51 % majority is needed tor the BID to be
presented before the local municipal
goveming body (BOard of SupeNisors) To be
enacted, the proposed BID must be adopted
into law by a resolution. There is a protest
procedure and detailed reporting and
planning procedures required. The BID is
commonly drafted as a five-year plan that is
revisable annually.
U1
LD
CT\
~
..-<
LD
~
U1
..-<
~
Based on an average of67% occupancy, had
room nights in the fiscal year '01-'02 been
assessed aI1%, the approximate revenue
generated would have been $650,00000.
Marketing tools may include promotionaf
materiats, tradeshow exhibits, multi-media
advertising, event sponsorship, a public
relations campaign, etc_ _
in the area
The Sacramento Corrvention and Visitors
Bureau enacted a "Tourism Business
Improvement District" in fel:)ruary 2001. Fees
are assessed based on both the number of
occupied rooms and th,8 hotellocalion in
Has this been done
before?
L[)
01
~
..-<
(T)
c:J
c:J
C'J
"-
('oj
..-<
"-
CT\
~
Marin Visitors J\'etwork
Strategic Plan for the Marin County Tourism Business Improvement
District (BID)
(T)
c;)
W
l.!:l
<I
a..
Overview
The analysis and subsequent plan has one primary objective... to create a tourism entity that will operate
consistent with the culture of Marin County, that will benefit the lodging industry within the Marin County
Tourism Business Improvement Distric~ that will more effectively manage tourism1s impact on the
community, and protect the current economicbenefit oftourisni.
III
:>
u
z
.....
0::
<I
:::E
The preliminary analysis, consisting of focus groups and interviews inclusive of all participant groups, review
of all existing docwnents and data, and observations, revealed that Marin County was receiving all the worst
tourism had to offer while receiving little of the benefit. The objective for the plan has been clearly validated
The following plan describes a destination management and marketing model that will directly benefit
Marin's lodging businesses and which is truly Wlique and reflective of the needs ofihe participating entities
l!1
LD
(jl
(S)
......
LD
'"
l!1
......
"""
Page 2.1
May 03
BID Strategic Plan, Rev.
l!1
0J
'"
......
(T)
(S).
(S)
c'~
-....
C'~
......
-....
(jl
[';)
Marin Visitors Network
Strategic Plan for the Business Improvement District (BID)
v
co
W
l.!:I
<[
ll..
The Plan
A strategic plan for the Marin Visitors Network will defme its role and responsibility
within each of the four destination dimensions. The plan will address organizational
structure~ governanceJ accountability~ the MVNJs relationship with participants,
resource mechanismsJ scope offunctions, and performance measures.
The following plan components illustrate how the Marin Visitors Network will be
structured as a tourism/overnight lodging marketing and management organization.
00
:>
()
z
......
Cl:
<[
:::E
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.12
Page
Organizational Structure and Governance.
The Mission.................
Strategic r mperatives.. '"
Objectives. _........ ..... .....
Strategies for Objectives.
Page 2.2
Through
Rev. May 03
BID Strategic PJan~
lD
LD
CJ'
is)
....
LD
V
lD
....
V
lD
(\l
V
....
(T)
is)
co
(\l
-.....
N
....
'-
(J)
co
Organizational
Il1
c;)
W
l!J
<I
0...
Structure and Governance
Marin Visitor Network., Inc.
Proposed Name:
~ California corporation
Board of Directors comprised of members from the HotelfTravel Industry, Chambers and
funding organizations, including participating cities, Also serves as Advisory Board to tbe
Board of Supervisors' approved Tourism Business Improvement District.
Not-for-profit SO
Structure:
Board of Directors:
By-laws will dictate officer selection, succession, etc. Board role and responsibilities are
included in the attachment.
ContractualreIationships with the County of,Marin funded through tbe Marin County Tourism
Business Improvement District by lodging establishment participants paying an assessment per
occupied foam Marin Visitor Network. ,viiI meet performance measures for tourism/overnight
lodging marketing and tourism management established in contract \\'ith the County.
Funding:
!Xl
>
u
z
......
Ct::
<I
L
which do
All of Mar ill County, excluding city jurisdictions with no lodging establishments or
n01 \\~sb to be part of Marin Visitor Netv.'or~ Inc.
Geographic Responsibility
lodging businesses in
1) Web-site construction and maintenance, with li.nkage to
County Tourism Business Improvement District.
Ke}' FunctiQns:
5)
6) Sales in targeted
in the Marin County District
It is anticipated that the staffing level would be 4-5 full time equivalents. CEO, Sales Manager,
Services Manager, Support, contracted:bookkeepingfaccounting, fulfillment, etc. Staff - . Page 2.3
deployment '....ill be at the discretion of the CEO.
2) Print collateral (Visitor Guide/maps),
Towism Business Improvement District.
3) Visitor center staffingllocation/signage offering visitor information on hotels and available
lodging within the Marin County Tourism Business Improvement District.
4) Management alliancesIBoard ofDire<:tors
Research
the Marin
Marin Count)'
incllJl:Jing information on hotels in the
Ul
cD
CT\
c;)
......
cD
"7
Ul
......
'J"
buslness
lodging
to increase ,"veekday and off-season overnight
markets
Staffing
Tourism Business Improvement
Il1
0J
'J"
......
['1
c;)
c;)
0J
.......
0J
......
.......
CT\
<S:l
rr and
and "Why do we exist?
we in? II
The Mission
Statement thaI answers the questions "What husiness are
serves as a rallying pointfor the organization.
Mission
o.D
Q
W
~
<I
0.
The mission of the Marin Visitor's Netl'vork,Inc is to sustainably
manage and selectively promote Marin County as an overnight
destination, in a way that preserves the existing environment and
enhances the quality of lifefor residents, while providing
increased econon1ic benefit for the lodging industry and the
community.
co
::>
(J
z
H
a::
<I
::E
lI)
o.D
IJ"1
Q
....
LO
'7
lI)
....
'7
Page 2.4
May 03
Rev
BID Strategic Plan
lI)
0<
'7
....
(Y)
Q
Q
C~
"'-
N
......
"'-
IJ"1
Q
that govern the way the organization plans and conducts
Strategic Imperatives
Basic ;deals
and principles
r-
(t)
W
l!l
<.I
a..
business.
The MVN
1. Adheres to the highest professional standards in all its actions.
2. Recognizes and accepts a leadership role in managing tourism and its impact on the community.
3. Is dedicated to increasing the benefit of the existing tourism product, including increased lodging business weekdays and off-seas<Jn.
4. Establishes and maintains cooperative relationships with the industry~ chambers and local governments to pursue their mutual goals.
5. Marketing effort focuses predominantly on overnight visitors ....tithin the Tourism Business lrnprovement District.
6. Pursues niche market opportunities that will be attracted to tbe unique attributes of Marin County.
7. R.eccgnizes that the citizens of Marin County represent the primary customer within its management rote~ and that visitors represent
the primary customer vtithin its tourism/overnight lodging promotion TO Ie.
8. Works to influence visitors after their arrival to increase off-peak. overnight lodging to maximize economic return. and minimize
impacts.
9. Holds itseJf accountable for achieving its mission and obje.ctives.
10. Secures resources adequate to accomPlish the mission.. . .
11. Leverages its resources and maximiZes its effectiveness through partnerships with other agencies- parks, other CVB's etc.
2.Reties on its marketing participant partners as well as the opportunities for co-op dollars, in addition to membership
co
:>
u
z
H
(k
<.I
:::<:
lodging business promotion/tourism management/visitor
opPortunities
13. Operates as a California corporation with 50 l.c6 tax status.
14. Budget follows a general guideline that allocates its resources for
services, for promotion, and for administration/overhead.
S.Tracks and C()mmunicates the results of its efforts on the basis ofthe following performance
Ll1
l.D
G"'
(t)
r-<
l.D
~
Ll1
r-<
~
measures:
Additional Room nights booked
Economic benefit to lodging industry and area economy
Med ia reach in targeted markets
Attendance at selected attractions throughOltt the county
Number of visitors served while in the county
Cooperative resources generated
Completion of management plan strategies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ll1
(';
~
r-<
(Y)
(t)
cu
C:'J
'-..
(';
r-<
'-..
G"'
~
Page 2.5
Strategic Plan, Rev. May 03
BID
co
~
w
(!l
<I
CL
Objectives
Statements that support the mission and, . along with imperatives, clarifythe role and scope. Ohjectives must be
responsive to current conditions and consistent with the mission and imperatives.
Objectives
Create and implement a tourism management plan
Target mid-week and off-season overnight lodging business and group travel
within tbe boundaries of the Marin County Tourism. Business Improvement
District.
#1
#2
III
~
u
:z:
H
0::
<I
:E:
via all
Package and market the product., including lodging promotion
appropriate media, including tue internet.
#3
Conduct research to track the results of management and marketing efforts,
identify management issues, and target appropriate markets
#4
Ul
LD
(J1
~
.....
LD
':t
Ul
.....
':t
increased overnight
and influence their stay for
for viSItors
Serve as bost
#5
Page 2.6
within the community of the viSItor services available
May 03
Strategic Plan, Rev
BID
lodging business
Build awareness
#6
Ul
N
':t
.....
(')
IS)
IS)
N
"-
N
.....
"-
(J1
IS)
Strategies
en
c;)
w
l!)
([
a...
tourism management plan.
implement
Create and
Objective #1
a
Strategies
r
committee
groups
Form a tourism management
comprised of diverse interest
1.1
ISS ues
Identify and prioritize management
using a data-driven approach.
.2
1
Collect available occupancy information to
serve visitor inquiries.
3
1
IXl
>
o
z
......
Ct:
([
:::E
Distribute county wide leads
Act as a liaison for outside promotional
opportunities coming to the county
including familiarization tours
4
5
1
LD
l.D
en
c;)
rl
l.D
~
LD
rl
~
Page 2.7
May 03
BID Strategic PI~ Rev
LD
N
~
rl
[T]
c;)
GJ
N
"-
N
rl
'-
Q")
c;)
Strategies
(l;)
......
w
<.!)
<I
Q..
lodging business,
Target mid-week and off-season overnight
and group travel.
Objective #2
Strategies
I
Build a database of groups that represent
the best match for Marin t s product~ rate,
and season
1
2
Target the appropriate markets with
integrated sales strategies.
low
2.2
2.3
P:l
:>
u
z
......
Q:
<I
::E
need dates for and shoulder
seasons to focus promotion
Target
Target motorcoach and group tour business.
2.4
LD
LD
CTI
(S)
......
LD
-o:s
LD
rl
-o:s
Page 2.8
May 03
Strategic Plan. Rev
BID
LD
N
-o:s
......
(T)
(S)
c:l
N
'-
N
rl
--
iT'
(S)
Strategies
.-.
.-.
w
(!J
<I
a...
-
Objective #3 Package and market the product, including lodging
promotion, via all appropriate media, including the
internet
Strategies
J
Match specific product in Marin to
identified niche markets
3
Working with partners, develop packages to
include accommodations, attractions. and
travel.
3.2
co
:>
u
z
......
ct::
<I
:E
Create marketing strategies for each niche
market to include advertising, PR, and
promotion as appropriate
3.3
l!1
cD
(T1
Q
.-.
cD
~
l!1
....
~
Page 2.9
May03
BID Strategic Plan, Rev
l!1
GJ
~
....
M
Q
Q
('01
.......
('ol
....
.......
(T1
Q
Strategies
N
......
W
I.!:l
<I:
a.
track results of management and marketing
issues, & target appropriate markets.
Conduct researcb to
efforts, identify management
Objective #4
Strategies
I
to track performance
Develop mechanism
meas ures
4
Establish a database of groups that
represent the best potential Return On
Investment with the least impact onthe
environment.
4.2
co
>
u
z
......
0::
<[
::E
"
;
Establish monitoring method to assure that
the highest level of satisfuction is achieved
through feedback from participating
community and all visitor services.
4.3
lD
LD
C1'
Q
rl
LD
'3"
lI1
rl
'3"
o
Page 2
BID Strategic Plan,.Rev. May 03
lI1
C'<
'3"
rl
(T)
Q
Q
C'J
-.....
C'"
rl
'-
U'
Q
Strategies
(Y)
......
W
I.!I
<I
(L
increased
their sta)' for
Objective #5 Serve as host for visitors and influence
overnight lodging business.
Strategies
J
Maintain a strategically placed visitor center
that distributes information on available hotel
rooms in the B.LD..
]
5
Expand services and impro ve available
information on where to stay, local
communities, things to do, events, getting
around, etc
5.2
CQ
>
()
z
.....
0::
<I
L
and Web-based collateral that
all participating accommodations,
restaurants, and activities.
Create print
represents
attractions
5.3
LD
to
0"
o
......
to
'<t
LD
......
'<t
Page 2
May 03
Strategic Plan, Rev
BID
LD
N
'<t
......
(Y)
o
o
N
........
N
.--.
........
0"
o
Page 2. I 2
Strategies
Objective #6 Build awareness of the visitor services available in Marin
County.
r Strategie~
6.1 CommWlicate to the public, through
electronic and print media, the industry's
contribution.
6.2 Identify key constituent groups within the
community and develop the relationships
needed to gain their support.
BID Strategic Plan, Rev. May 03
"'"
......
W
I!l
<I
(L
m
>
u
z
......
Cl::
<I
:::E
Ul
LD
0->
IS)
......
LD
""
Ul
......
""
Ul
N
""
......
f')
IS)
IS)
N
'-
N
.-..
'-
0->
IS)
Marin County Convent;on& Visitors Bureau
Transient Occupancy Tax FY2001-2002
.
City or Area 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999..2000 2000..2001 2001-2002 +/- 0/0
Corte Madera $546.375 $596,795 $618,367 $670.093 $540,471 -19.30,'0
Fairfax $15,533 $22,806 $28,763 $24, 137 -16.1 %
Larkspur $561,876 $576,599 $620,833 $628,034 $426,860 -32.0%
Mill Valfey $212,051 $229,308 $356,572 $435,759 $369,177 -15.3%
~ . $382,983 $949,955
Novato $502,475 $1,007,582 $1,135,615 -16.30/0
San Rafael . $1.567,245 $11696,212 $1,847,408 $1,816,603 . $1,452,658 -20.00/0
Sausalito $530,573 $606,321 $672,657 $686,487 $564,809 -17.7%
Tiburon $295,100 $289,500 $317,682 $450,691 $432,078 -4. 1 0,10
County $1,301,081 $1,379,096 $1,372,019 $1,5381240 $1,501,608 -2.40/0
.
Totals $5,397,284 $6,044,958 $6,770,353 $7,390,285 $6,261,753 -15.30/0
.
Percentage Change 13.6%) 12.00/0 12.0% 9.2%) -15.30,'0
. ~
I
I .
11/12/02 f
L[J
......
w
c.!)
<[
0...
en
:>
u
z
H
0:
<[
::E
L[J
LD
(Tl
Q
......
LD
'"
L[J
......
'"
L[J
(';
'"
.....
(T)
Q
Q
OJ
--.....
(';
......
--.....
(Tl
Q
oJ)
~
W
\!'
<I
a..
SUB FOR CATEGORY
2003 - 20()4 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
ANNUAL TOTAL EXPENDEO
$203,280.00
$17,160.00
$27,060,00
PERCENTAGE OF COST
30.80fJ(,
2.60%
4.10%
MARIN VISITORS NElWORK
PERSONNEL COSTS
Salaries & Wages
Payroll Taxes
Employee Ber'l~ls
$2017.500.00
$18,480.00
$19.8DD.OO
$5,940.00
$17.160.00
$10,560.00
$13<1.020.00
$33.000.00
Sol 1,580.00
$5,9010.00
$1,980.00
S10,56~.OO
$8,500.00
3750fJ(,
280%
3.00%
0.90%
2.60%
1.6<l%
19,70%
5.00%
6.30%
0.9IJ%
0.30%
1.60%
1.30%
Sub.Total
DIRECT PROMOTION
Travel & Enlertainml!l1\
Trade StlOW$
Fam T our&lSfte VIli1s
Ewnl HO$tir'lg -lndustry Promo
Ewrll HO!Itirtg . Member/Communily
Media Advertising
Web Site Expense I
Printed CollJteral
GflIeaway PromolionaJ Items
Research
FlJlfillml!ll1l including postage
Otller Oired Promctions
CQ
>
()
Z
......
Q:
<I
~
$303,600.00
15,280.00
$01,620.00
$11.2211.00
$3,300.00
$5,280.00
$3,3000(}
$1.91\0.00
$11,SM.00
$7.260.00
$22.440.00
$9,900.00
59.240.00
$3.300.00
$10.560.00
46.00%
0.80%
0.70%
1.70%
0.50%
0.80%
0.50%
0.30%
1.60%
1.10%
3.40%
1.50%
1.40%
0.50%
1.60%
Sub.Total
OTHER EXPENSES
Dues & Subscliplions
COOlputer Expense
Depreciation & Bad Debts
51aft Training & Dm!Iopmenl
Equipment Rentalltease Conlrac1li
General I nsursnce
Interest Expense
Professional Fees
Office Supplies
RentlUlilities
T elecommunic:atiOlls
Poslage
Repairs & Mainlenance
Olher
U1
oJ)
(Tl
(S)
rl
oJ)
':j"
U1
~
':j"
5109,560.00
$66{),OClOOO
16.50%
Sub-Total
U1
('J
':j"
~
(T)
(S)
(S)
('J
'-
('J
rl
"-
en
(S)
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
TO ESTABLISH THE MARIN COUNTY
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 24,2003, the Board of SuperviBors (the "Board") oflhe
County ofMaI'm (the "County") adopted a resolution ofintcntion to establish the Marin County
Tourism Business Improvement District ("MCTBID") and levy an assessment on lodging
05toblishments within the MCTBJD as set fotth. in said. Resolution of Inte.otion. The resolution is
attae:h.ed her~o and hereby incorp 0 tated into the notice.
. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at 11:00 a.m.) on Tuesday, July 15,2003, at the
Chambers of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, Civic Center; Room 330.3501 Civic Center
Drivel San Rafael, California, a public meeting shall be held pursuant to Government Code section
54954.6 to allow public: teitiIl:lony regarding the establishment of the MCTBID and the levy of
assessments therein as set forth in the enclosed resolution ofinttmtion and pursumtt to Government
Code section 54954.6.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that at 11 ;00 a.m,) on Tuesday, August 26,2003; at the Chambcrs of
the Marin COUD.ty Board of Supervisors, Civic Center, Room 330) 3501 Civic Center Drivo. San
Rafael, California, has been set as the time and plaoe for a public hearing at whieh time members of
the Board propose to enact the proposed assessment as set forth in the Resolution of Intention and
pursu~t to cJovermnent Code section 54954.6.
Assessment: An assessment is proposed to be levied on all lodging establishments within the Marin
County Tourism Business Improvement District boundaries within the County of Marin
and the Cities of Larkspur, :Mill Valley, Nova-to, San Rafael, Sausalito and the Towns of
Corte Madera, Fairfax, San Anselmo, and Tiburon. The <lSsessl11ent is proposed to be
1 % of the gross room rental revenue. It has belen determined, in C<lnsultation with the
lodging industry in Marin County, that an assessment of 1% gross room rental rates is
the fairest method for all lodging businesses and the most accurate measure of tho
benefits to be received by each lodging establishment within, and from the activities ot:
the Marin CO'UD.ty Tourism :Susitiess hnprovement District,
Estimate: The (:lmmated amount of revenue to be raised by the assessment' in the first year is
approximately 5660,000.
Purpose: The MCTBJD proposes to fund projects, programs and activities that benefit the
lodging establishments within the boundaries of the Marin County 'tourism B\lSl.ness
Improvement District, within the participating cities and the County of Marin, ineluding
promotion of the Marin County Tourism Business Improvement Distriot region as an
ovc:might tourism destination) plus the provision of tourism management and visitor
services.
Conection: Each participating jurisdiction shall collect the assessments from the lodging businesses
within their jurisdiction and forward the assessments to the Marin County Tourism
Business Improvement District in a methocl jointly approved by the jurisdiction and the
County, Cities may deduct from the aSSCI&S11lent totals their actu.a1 00516 of collection and
forwarcling to the MCTBID.
S'd
91S'ON
~3dns/a~B OJ NI~~W
W~6~:~f E00Z'LZ"Nnr
Ll 391i:1d
8.^8N HIIi:1W
S95IH'3l>S 11:>
SG:t>T E006/61/50
~
Protest~
Upon receipt by the County Board of Supervisors of written petitions of tIle ownOfS of
lodging businosses in the area who would pay 50 percent or more of the annual
asses51Ilcmt51evie~ the lalielismeut shall be abandoned,
Should)'Qu des1re to mail a protest asainst this assessmcntJ the address is:
Marin County Board of Supervisors
Clerk of the Board. Rm. 329
Marin County Ci"lie Center
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, Califotnia 94903
IraformatioD: Should you d"sire additional information a.bout this assessment, contact:
. Frances Brigmann, Director Marin County Depariment of Parks, Open
Space, and Cultural Services at 499-6387
Sherry Sweet, Acting CVB Administrator at 499.6595
Marin COUnty Convention and Visitors Bureau
1013 Larkspur Landing Circle
Larkspur,CA 94939
~~~
President, Board of Supervisors
4:t
-
Dated: June 24, 2003
\
~~
Cle:rk of the Board of Supervisors
2
9'd
91S.0N
. CJ3dls/aC:lE! 0::> I-JIClI;:jW
Wtl~rc : n E\302 ' L2 'l.Jnr
81 39l;;1d
8^8NICll;;1W
S%01'3t>SlP
S~:t>l E00~!~1!b0
"
RESOLutION NO. 20~-82
RESOLUTION OF THE MARIN COUNlY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTAaUSH THE MARIN COUNTY TOURiSM
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MCTaID) AND LEVY AN ASseSSMENT ON
LODGING ESTASUSHMENTS WITHIN THE MCTBIC
WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989. Section 36500
et seq. authorizes counties to establish parking and business improvement areas for the
purpose of promoting tourism; and
. WHEREAS,cartaln ~odging businesses within the county have, requested that the
Board of Supel'Vi~ors ("the Board") of the County of Marin estabUsh a Martn County Tourism
Business Impl'tlvement District ("MCTBID"). for pUrp05ei of promotion of off.season, mid-week
ovemight ledging business in Marln; and .
WHEREAS, the County of Marin is requesting the con5ent'of the Cities of Larkspur,
Mill Valley, Novato. San Rafael, Sausaliro and the Towns of Corte Madera, Faj~. San
Anselmo and Tlburon, each af which have lodging businesses withIn their JurisdictJon, to
establish the MCTBID within the boundaries of theIr cities and towns; and
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Marin does hereby resolve, determine c:lnd find as follows:
Section--.!.:. The recitals set forth herein are tru~ and correct.
Section 2..:, The Board of Superviso~ decliires its intention to establish the Marin
County Tourism Business Improvement District and to levy and collect assessments
within the MCTBID boundaries pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement
Area Law of 1989 Section 36500 et seq. The bound2'lrles of the MCT81D shall be the
boundaries of the County of Marin, Including area within all city and town jurisdictions
within Marin County exoept for the City of Belvedere and the Town of Ross, which
have no lodging facilities within their Jurisdiction,
Section 3, The name of the district Shall be the Marin County Tourl5m Business
Improvement District
Section 4, The MCTB1D proposes to administer marketing programs to promote mid.
week and offwseason overnight lodging business,. to promote the MarIn County
Tourism Business Improv~ment District region as an ovemight tourism destination and
to fund pf'Cljects, programs, and activities that benefit lodging establishments Within the
Marin County Tourism Business Improvement District infilachof the partlcipating cIties
and towns and the Oounty of Marin, indUding tourism management and visitor
services. .
Section 5. The a~~ent is proposed to be levIed on all lodgIng establishmenta,
existing and future. within the Marln County Touri~m Business Improvement District in
the County of Marin and within the partIcipating cities of larkspur. Mill Valley, Novato,
San Rafael, SausaUto and the Towns of Corte Madera. Fairfax. San Anselmo and
Tiburon based upon 1% of tria gross room rental revenue, The MCrSIDprojected
annual assessment revenues In year one total approximately $660,000. The
assessment Is proposed to be 1 % of the gross room rental Charges for the followina
reasons:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-e2
PA(3E 1 OF 3
2'd
9'tS'QN
51 39~d
8A8Nld'v'W
d3dns/a~8 OJ NI~~W W~80;'tl E002'LZ.Nnr
S95G19rSlr Sl:r1 EGGG/l1/50
E'd
0l 39t;1d
a. An assessment based on petcantaga is most fair to lodging establi~hments
. because It will cost smallar, (ewer service level and perhaps more Inexpensive
lodging businesses less money than it will cost larger, perhaps higher servJce level:
and higher room rata lodging businesses. .
b, Benefits received by the assessed lodging businesses may be proportional to their
assessment, depending upon programs implemented.
c. An assessment based on percentage will result in revenues that rise and fall in
reflection of greeter and lesser bueines$ in an overall up or down tourism market
and world economy. .
d. . An assessmsnt b;:lsed on percentase is direct, easy to understand and calculate,
Section 6. New hotels within the boundarfes wlU not be exempt from the levy of
a~8essment pursuant to Sectlon-S6531.
Section 7. . Except where funds are otherwise available, the lodging business
assessment will be levied annually to pay for all improvements and actlvlties withIn the
MCTBlb in keeping with the 'IMarln Visitor Network Strategic Plan for the Marin County
Tourism Business Improvement District" and cOl1tracts between the County of Marin
and the Marin Visitor Network, for specific lodging-related and visitor services. These
include but are not limited to Web.slte constructIon and maintenance including lodging
promotion, printing of collateral (vIsitor guide/maps) inclUding informatIon on assessed
hotels, op~ration of a visitor center that will promote mid-week and' offwseason
overnight lodging; Management Alliances/Board of Directors~ Research; Sales in
Target Markets, and Administration & Personnel.
Section ~ each participatins jurisdiction shall collect the assessments from the
loaging businesses within Its Jurisdiction and forward the assessments to the Marin
County Tourism Business Improvement District in a method Jointly approved by the
Jurisdiction and the County. Cities may deduct from the assessment totals their actual
costs of collectIon and forwarding to the MCTBID.
Section 9. The MCTBID bUdget and work program shall undergo annual review by
the City of Larkspur, Mill Valley, NOvatgl San Rafael. Sausalito, and the Towns of
Corti Madera, Fairfax, San AnsBlmo and Tiburon CIty Councils, at their request. The
MCTBID based budget and work program shall be' approved annually by the Marin
Oounty Beard of Supa/'\lisors. .
Section 10, The Marin Board of Supervisors shall appoint the Advisory Board as
described in' Section 36530 with full consideration of the recommendations of the
lodgIng industry and the particlpating cities.
Section 11. The time and place for the pUblic meeting for comments on the proposed
MCTBID Is set for 11:00 a.m., July 15, 20Q3, at the Chambers of the Marin Board of
Supervisors, Civic Center, 3601 CII/le CenterDrive, Room 330, San Rafael, California.
Section 12. The time and place for the pUblic hearing to establish tl1e MCTBID and
the levy of the assessments is set for 11 :00 a.m., August 26 I 2003. at the Chambers of
the Marin Board of Supervisors, Civic Center. 3501 Clvie Center Drive, Room 330, San
Rafael. California. .
S$ction 1 S. At the pUbliC hearing the testlmony gf all interestsd persons for or against
, the establishment of the T.B.I.O.. the extent of the T.B.I.D. area, the types of lcdgin9
businesses to be assessed, or the furnishing of specified types of improvemel1ts or
actIvities will be heard. . :
RESOLUTION NO. ~003..a1
PAGE 2 OF 3
9lS'ON
~3dns/a~8 OJ NI~~W W~B0:tt E002'L2.~nr
S95019vSlv SG:pI E00G/GI/50
8^8NI~t;1W
..
Section 14. A prOtest against 1he MeTelO cr any aspect of It may be ma~e in ~ritjng.
To count in the majority protest against the MOTBID, a pretest must be In writing. A "
written protest may be withdrawn from Writing at any time before the conclusion of the. .
public hearing. aach written protest shall t:Qntaln a written description of the lodging'
business in which the person signing the protest in interested, sufficient to identify the
. business and Its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official
records of the County of Marin or partIcipating city as the owner of the lodging
business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that
the person is the owner of the busIness. Any wrltten protest a5 to the regularity or
evidence of the proceedings $hall be In writing and clearly state the irregularity Qr
defect to which objection Is made. Written protests should be mailed to the Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors of the County of MarIn at 3501 Civic Center Drive; Room
329, San Rafael, CA 94903.
Seotion15. If at the conclusion of the public hearing on August 26, 2003, there are of'
record, written protests by the owners of the lodging businesses within the MCTBID
that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total asselli5ments of the sntire MCT81D,
no further proceedings to create the MGT810 shall occur. New proceedings to form
the MOTBle shall not be undertaken again for a period of at least one (1) year from
the date of the tinding of the majority written ~rotest by the Soard of S upervi sors. If the
majority written pretests Is only as to an improvement or activity proposed, then that
type of improvement ~r activity shall not be included in the MCTBID.
Section 16. Further information regardIng the proposed Marin County Tourism
Business Improvement District may be obtained from FrancBS Brigmann, Director
Marin County Par~6, Open Space and Cultural Services, 499-6367/ or Sherry Swee~
Acting cva Administrator, at 499-e595.
Section 17. The Clerk of the Board is instructed to provide notice of ~h61 pUblic hea.rlng
as follows: .
a. Publish this Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circUlation in the
County of Marln once, at least seven (7) days before the hearing.
b. Mail complete copy of thIs Resolution of Intention 10 eaoh and every business
owner in the MCTBID within seven (7) days of the adoption of this Resolution by
the Board of Supervisors. .
Section 18. This R.esolution is effective on i1s adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of SupeNisor~ of the
. County of Marin held on this 24th day of June 2003. by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS Susan L. Adams, Harold C. Brown, Jr.. Steve Klnsey,
C~thiaLM~Y'~~ ~
PRESIDENT, BOARD OF S PERVISORS
NOES:
ABS!:NT:
NONE
NONE
A~~
CLERK ~
RESOL\.JT10N NO. 200~
FAGS J OF S
v'd
Ie; 39~d
gtS.ON
8^:)NICJ~W
~f3dns/a~8 D:) t-JI~8W WtJ60: l1 E:l;\02' 2.2 'l.Jnf
Sg50IgrSIr SC;:pl EOOG/C;I/GO
'.
"j
)
':j
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
7.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM:
Heidi McVeigh, Director of Administrative Services
SUBJECT: Investment of Town Funds
~
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2003
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Annually, the Town Council adopts a Statement of Investment Policy, which establishes
investment objectives in accordance with the provisions of the State of California Government
Code Sections 53600 et seq. (attachment). It also provides guidelines to ensure that funds are
prudently invested to preserve capital, provide necessary liquidity and to achieve a rate of return
consistent with the Town's needs and objectives, in that order. The policy delegates
management responsibility for the Town's investment program to the Town Manager and
Director of Administrative Services. The policy further outlines eligible securities for investment
purposes, the percent of the Town's portfolio that may be invested in any security, the maximum
percent that may be invested with each issuer, and the maximum amount of time an investment
may be held.
The Town has historically invested 100% of its funds with the Local Agency Investment Fund
(LAIF) and the Town currently has approximately $9.1 million invested. LAIF has, up until
recently, provided the Town with its investment objectives of safety, liquidity and yield. Over the
past three years, the LAIF investment yield has been steadily declining and currently sits at
1.632%. It is the Town Treasurer's opinion that LAIF interest rates will continue to decline to a
rate of less than 1.5% by the end of the year. The table below illustrates the average annual
investment rate, interest earnings and LAIF balance for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003. These
figures do not include any funds invested by the Town on behalf of the Tiburon Redevelopment
Agency.
AVERAGE INVESTMENT AVERAGE LAIF
FISCAL YEAR YIELD EARNINGS BALANCE
FY 2000 5.67% $ 281,478 $4,953,854
FY 2001 6.12% $431,013 $7,097,698
FY 2002 3.43% $ 352,490 $8,652,225
FY 2003 2.18% $ 190,127 $8,900,958
As the table clearly indicates, though the Town's average annual balance in LAIF has increased
by 80% over the past four fiscal years, investment earnings have decreased by approximately
33%, due to the drop in interest rates.
l'
~
Town of Tiburon
STAFF di>ORT
,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There now exists the opportunity for the Town to safely diversify a portion of its investment
portfolio in medium term securities to achieve a rate of return greater than LAlF's current rate of
return, with relatively low risk to the Town. The Council Finance and Administration Committee
met on September 3,2003 with the Town Treasurer, Bill Osher, along with the Town Manager
and Director of Administrative Services to discuss investment options. At that time, the Town
Treasurer recommended investing in Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) notes and
Certificates of Deposits (CDs), with maximum maturities of 2.5 years. Though these investments
do present a slight risk, should the Town need to call the investment before maturity date, staff
believes that $4 million could safely be invested in medium length securities without any
unforeseen cash flow problem to the Town. Simply stated, this would allow one full year's
operating budget to remain highly liquid in LAIF.
The Finance and Administration Committee requested Staff to poll other local jurisdictions as to
their investment practices. Staff has contacted Corte Madera, Fairfax, Larkspur, Mill Valley,
Novato, Ross, San Anselmo, San Rafael and Belvedere. Currently Larkspur, Ross, San
Anselmo and Belvedere have all funds invested in LAIF. Larkspur will be investing in CD's and
FNMA in the near future. Corte Madera, Fairfax, Mill Valley, Novato and San Rafael invest in
CD's, corporate notes, Federal Agency paper, FNMA, and Treasury Bullets.
This matter comes before the Town Council to approval a change the Town's current investment
practice, not the adopted Investment Policy. Workirigin conjunction with the Town Treasurer,
Staff will be extremely sensitive. to the future cash needs of the Town, maintaining a conservative
approach to Town investment program.
Town Treasurer Bill Osher will make a brief presentation on the Town's financial portfolio and
options.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to work with the Town
Treasurer to diversify the Town's investment portfolio in compliance with the Town's adopted
Investment Policy.
Attachment
September 12, 21
page 2 of 2
.'
-,
Town of Tiburon, Investment Policy Statement FY 2003-04
S I. PURPOSE
This Policy sets forth the investment guidelines for the prudent
management of all surplus funds of the Town of Tiburon,
Tiburon Redevelopment Agency and Tiburon Public Facilities
Financing Authority. It is the goal of this Policy to establish
investment objectives in accordance with the provisions of the
State of California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq., and
investment policy guidelines to ensure that funds under its
purview are prudently invested to preserve capital, provide
necessary liquidity and to achieve a rate of return consistent with
the Town's needs and objectives. Investments may be made as
authorized by this Investment Policy and subsequent revisions.
This Statement ofInvestment Policy shall be reviewed annually
by the Tiburon Town CounciL The Town is therefore afforded a
broad' range of investment opportunities if the investment is
deemed prudent and is allowable under current legislation of the
State of California.
S II. OBJECTIVES
The Town's cash management system is designed to accurately
monitor 'and forecast revenues and expenditures, thus enabling
the Town to invest these surplus funds to the fullest extent
possible. Surplus funds shall be invested in accordance with
sound treasury management principles, State of California
Government Code Sections 53600 et. seq, and this Policy.
When investing, reinvesting, acquiring, selling and managing
Town funds, objectives for selecting investments, in priority of
order, are
1. Safety. The primary objective shall be to safeguard the
principal of the funds. The Town shall invest only in those
investments considered safe. Investment in instruments and with
institutions pennitted under Section 5. Investment Guidelines, are
deemed to constitute safe investments within the meaning ofthis
Policy.
2. Liquidity. The secondary objective shall be to meet the
liquidity needs of the Town. It is important that the portfolio
contain investments that provide flexibility and may easily be
sold with minimal risk ofloss of principal or interest.
3. Yield. . The third objective shall be to achieve a
reasonable rate of return on the portfolio. The investment
portfolio shall be designed to attain safety and liquidity of
principal first, and thereafter attain a market rate of return that is
consistent with portfolio design and Policy principles.
S III. PRUDENCE
Town Council Members, The Town Manager, Director of
Administrative Services and Town Treasurer, and any persons
authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of the Town,
are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the Prudent
Investor Standard. When investing, reinvesting, acquiring,
selling and managing Town funds, a trustee shall act with
care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances
then prevailing, that a prudent person acting in a like
capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the
conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims to
safeguard the principal and to maintain the liquidity needs of
the Town (Government Code Section 53600.3)
The Prudent Investor Standard shall be applied in managing
an overall portfolio. Investment officers acting in
accordance with written procedures and the Investment
Policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of
personal responsibility for a particular security's credit risk
or market price changes, provided deviations from
expectations are reported in a timely fashion and appropriate
action is taken to control developments.
S IV. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Authority to manage the Town's investment program is
derived from approval of Town Council. Management
responsibility for the Town's cash management systems and
investments are delegated to the Town Manager and
Director of Administrative Services. No person may engage
in an investment transaction except as provided under the
terms 'of this Investment Policy Statement and procedures
established by the Town CounciL
sV.
INVESTMENT GUIDELINES
Investments are to be made in high quality securities or
instruments as pennitted by the Government Code and
subject to the Limit~tions of this Investment Policy.
A. Eligible securities for investment shall include the
following:
1. U.S. Treasury Securities. United States Treasury
notes, bonds, strips, bills or certificates of indebtedness, or
obligations for which the full faith and credit of the U.S.
Government are pledged for the timely payment of principle
and interest.
2. . Federal Agencies and U.S. Government Sponsored
Enterprises. Obligations, participations, or other
instruments of or issued by a federal \igency or federal
government sponsored enterprise. This includes, and is not
restricted to, obligations of the: Federal Home Loan Bank
(FHLB), federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(FHLMC), Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA), Federal Farm Credit Bank (FFCB), Government
National Mortgage Association (GNMA), Small Business
Administration (SBA), Export-Import Bank of the United
States, and the U.S. Department of Housing and. Urban
Development.
t~
.,
Town of Tiburon., Investment Policy Statement FY 2003-04
3. State of California and Local Agency Obligations.
Registered State warrants, Treasury notes, or bonds of the State
of California, and bonds, notes, warrants or other evidence of
indebtedness of any local agency of the State (including bonds
payable solely out of revenues from a revenue producing
property or asset owned, controlled, or operated by the State or
local agency, or by a department, board, agency or authority of
the State or local agency.) Such obligations must be rated AI,
SP-l, its equivalent or higher short term, or "A" or higher long
term, by a nationally recognized rating agency.
4. Commercial Paper. Commercial paper of "prime"
quality rated Al/P 1 or higher by Moody's Investor Services, Inc.
Or Standard & Poor's Corporation. Eligible paper is further
limited to issuing corporations that: (a) are organized within the
United States, (b) have total assets in excess of five hundred
million dollars ($500,000,000), and have a long term debt rating
of "A" or higher.
5. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit. Negotiable
certificates of deposit issued by a nationally or state-chartered
bank or savings association, or federal association, or a state or
federal credit union, or by a state-licensed branch of a foreign
bank carrying an individual rating of at least B/C by the
Thompson Bank Watch or mCA rating services, a short term
debt rating of Al/Pl or higher, and a long term debt rating of " A"
or higher.
6 Money Market Funds. Shares of beneficial interest
issued by diversified management companies as authorized by
California Government Code Section 53635U).
B. State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The
Town may invest all or a portion of its investments, up to the
State-mandated maximum, in LAIF pursuant to California
Government Section 16429. L
C. Diversity and Maturity Guidelines:
Maximum Maximum Maximum
Type of Investment %of % of one Maturity
Portfolio issuer
U.S. Treasury 100 100 . 5 years
Securities
Federal Agencies and 65 20 5 years
U.S. GSEs
Commercial Paper 15 5 270 days
Negotiable Certificates 25 5 3 years
of Deposit
Money Market Funds 15 15 N/A
State LAIF 100 100 N/A
S VI. REPORTING
Within thirty (30) days following the end of each quarter
Staff shall render a report to the Town Council, which shall
include the following information
1. A portfolio appraisal that includes the type of
investment, issuer, date of maturity, par and dollar amount
invested for all securities and investments of the Town, and
shall additionally include a description of any Town monies
that are under the management of any outside parties.
2. The current market value, as of the report date, of
all investments, as well as the source of this same valuation.
3. A statement ofthe status of the compliance (or non-
compliance) of the portfolio to this Investment Policy
Statement.
4. A statement denoting the ability (or inability)of the
Town to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six
(6) months.
F or investments placed in LAIF, a bank, or savings and loan
association, the most recent statements received by the
Town from the institution may suffice in lieu of the
requirements . listed above.
S VII.' SAFEKEEPING AND DELIVERY OF
SECURITIES
All transactions shall be executed on a Deliver versus
Payment (DVP) basis. To protect against potential fraud or
embezzlement, the assets of the Town shall be held in
safekeeping by the Town's safe keeping agent, or secured
through third-party custody and safekeeping procedures
pursuant to the limitations set forth in Government Code
Section 53608. These procedures will be reviewed annually
by an external auditor. All investments are to be held in the
name ofthe Town of Tiburon.
2
~~
'-
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM-&-
~
..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBJECT:
MAYORAND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNE~
TWO APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE
A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR
ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, WITH VARIANCES FOR
REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REDUCED FRONT YARD
SETBACK (524 VIRGINIA DRIVE)
TO:
FROM:
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
REVIEWED B ~
...................~.
MEETING DATE:
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
REPORT DATE:
PROJECT DATA:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
FILE NUMBER:
SUBDIVISION:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
524 VIRGINIA DRIVE
GEORGE & DORA GAVROS
ROGER HARTLEY
1) WAYNE SNOW
2) GAYE & FRANCOIS VARNAY
055-081-26
20308
LITTLE REED HEIGHTS
9,147 SQUARE FEET
R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESID., 10,000 SQ. FT MIN.)
MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
APRIL 30, 2003
ADDRESS:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
DESIGNER:
APPELLANTS:
BACKGROUND
On August 7, 2003, the Tiburon Design Review Board conditionally approved a Site Plan and
Architectural Review application for the construction of additions to a single-family residence
with variances for reduced front yard setback and reduced side yard setback. Gaye and
Francois Varnay, owners of the adjacent property at 525 Virginia Drive, and Wayne Snow,
owner of the property at 100 Jefferson Drive, have each separately appealed this decision to the
Town Council on different grounds.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on the west end of Virginia Drive in
the Little Reed Heights Subdivision. The property is below the street level of Virginia Drive, and
the rear of the property slopes down to Tiburon Boulevard. The existing 1,318 square foot
residence is located on the narrow flat area of the lot arid is relatively small as compared to
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
'f
Town of Tiburon
~ft''''~....,,~
<"~~~f'i
STAFF REpORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
others in the vicinity. The home has a simple rectangular floor plan consisting of two bedrooms
and two bathrooms. The flat roofline extends over an attached carport.
The project would consist of rebuilding a portion of the existing structure, constructing a second
story addition, installing a pool, and creating a new uncovered parking area near the top of the
existing driveway. The lower level would consist of a kitchen, dining room, living room, two
bedrooms, three bathrooms, and an office. The second story would be comprised of the master
suite. The size of the additions would be 1,507 square feet, resulting in a total of 2,825 square
feet for the home.
Because the existing carport would be converted to living space, a new parking pad would be
created near the top of the existing driveway, which would account for all of the off-street
parking for the home. The swimming pool would be constructed adjacent to the existing
concrete patio and at the edge of the flat area of the property, such that a significant retaining
wall would be installed to support it. Other site improvements would include a spa next to the
swimming pool, rebuilt retaining wall along the front property line, terraced retaining walls below
the parking pad, new steel trellises near the front entrance, and reconfigured concrete steps
leading up to the street.
The ground level additions would be located within the front yard and side yard setback areas.
A variance of 13 feet is requested for reduced front yard setback (2 feet in lieu of the standard
15 feet), and a variance of three feet is requested for reduced side yard setback (5 feet in lieu of
the standard 8 feet).
. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
The Design Review Board initially reviewed the project at the May 15, 2003, Board meeting.
During the course of this meeting, the Board raised concerns about the potential view impacts
the project presented for the residents of 525 Virginia Drive. The. Board noted that there would
be a significant blockage of the view of Blackie's Pasture and Richardson Bay from the property
at 525 Virginia Drive. Members of the Board also expressed concern about the prominence of
the structure in its proposed location as viewed from north and west of the project site. The
Board continued the public hearing until the meeting of June 19, 2003 for revisions.
On June 19, 2003, the applicant presented a revised plan for this project. The primary revision
to the plan was that the slope of the roof over the single-story element would be changed from
6: 12 to 4: 12, essentially lowering the overall height of the structure in this location by
approximately three (3) feet. The applicant also clarified some of the technical items the Board
had previously discussed, including the precise location of the six foot redwood fence, the
provision of landscaping, and details for the retaining wall supporting the pool.
Upon reviewing these changes, the Board still voiced concerns about the loss of view from the
property at 525 Virginia Drive. It was the consensus of the Board that the height of the single-
story portion of the home needed to be lowered even further. It also became apparent to the
Board that the second-story element would block a valuable part of the view from 525 Virginia
Drive; a concern that was not strongly expressed during the Board's initial review.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 2 of 9
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The. Board also expressed some peripheral concerns about the visual prominence of the home
on the hillside. However, there was not a consensus among the Board members on this issue.
On one hand, there was some discussion about the project's inconsistency with the Hillside
Design Guidelines in terms of blending in with the existing landscape. On the other hand, the
Board expressed the value of architectural interest, and that the proposed building could
become a benefit to the existing landscape. Nevertheless, the Board continued the public
hearing so the applicant could further revise the application.
On August 7,2003, the applicant presented a revised plan that attempted to address all of the
Board's concerns, while, according to the applicant, maintaining the architectural flavor of the
initial design. The key changes in the new plan were that the roof of the single-story element
was flattened, which reduced the view obstruction from 525 Virginia Drive, and the second-story
element was scaled back so views across the building could be retained. The remaining
features of the project, including the pool, parking deck, and retaining walls, were largely
unchanged.
The Board reviewed the proposed changes and concluded that the revisions had adequately
addressed its previous concerns. The Board specifically stated that the house would not have a
sigl]i~i9ant impact on "iE!lws from neighboring properties, the house would not be too prominent
on the hillside, and the architectural style would be consistent with neighborhood character.
The Board voted 2-0 (Boardmember Teiser recused and Boardmembers Comstock and
Kunzweiler were absent) to conditionally approve the application.
On August 18, 2003, the appellants filed two separate timely appeals of this decision.
OVERVIEW
This type of application is among the most challenging that comes before the Town for review.
The Design Review Board (and Town Council on appeal) often struggle with major additions to
older, smaller homes in established neighborhoods. As Town Councilmembers have often
stated, expansion of such homes to meet the needs and desires of modern households is a
worthy endeavor. The goal is to carefully design such additions such that they do not stand
prominently out of character with their surroundings. The mass, bulk, and compatibility of the
project compared to surrounding development is a common source of dispute by neighbors and
other interested persons.
Terraced neighborhoods (Little Reed Heights, Hawthorne Terrace, The Reedlands) present the
additional challenge that mere inches of height can often make the difference between whether
a primary view is substantially impacted, or not meaningfully impacted.
Clearly, from a reading of the minutes of the meetings, the Design Review Board members
struggled with this application, requiring the design to be lowered and reduced in floor area.
Appellants assert that the Board did not go far enough in addressing the view blockage, mass
and bulk; neighborhood character, and compatibility issues posed by this project.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 3 of 9
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appeal hearings in the Town of Tiburon are essentially hearings "de novo", with maximum
latitude on the part of the Town Council to "approve, modify, or disapprove the action appealed.
from, in whole or in part, based on the record on appeal and the evidence received at the
hearing on appeal". .
Staff notes that the two variances issued by the Board have not been directly raised as an issue
in. either appeal.
The two separate appeals will be analyzed independently in this report, although the hearing on
the appeals may be held concurrently.
BASIS FOR THE APPEALS
Gaye and Francois Varnay Appeal
There are three (3) grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) from Gaye and Francois Varnay,
525 Virginia Drive, is based, which are summarized as follows:
Ground #1 The story poles for the project were not installed in a timely manner or in the
appropriate location as required by law. The appellants left town and were not
afforded the chance to understand the full impact of the project with respect to
their view. In addition, the story poles were not certified by a licensed surveyor.
Staff Response: The requirement to erect story poles is based on an administrative policy
established by the Community Development Department. The policy is stated on every Design
Review application, and reads: .
Story poles are a visual device used to delineate location, height, and bulk of the .
proposed structures. Story poles are required for all substantial additions, and may be
deemed necessary for smaller improvements in sensitive areas. A surveyor or
registered civil engineer maybe required to certify in writing to the Town that the story
poles or properly located and reflect proposed heights. Story poles must be in place and
certification on file with the Town ten (10) days prior to the Design Review Board
meeting.
Since this is an administrative policy, it is the duty of Town staff to determine when story poles
should be erected, and whether or not to require story pole certification by a surveyor. It has
been the policy of the Town to require story poles for any project that is reviewed by the Design
Review Board, and require that the story poles be certified by a surveyor only when the
application is for a new single family-dwelling or other new building. The Board itself also has
the authority to require more story poles, require them to be placed in different locations, or
require that they be certified by a surveyor if staff has not previously made that a requirement. It
is the intent of this policy to be flexible so staff and the Board can exercise reasonable discretion
in this matter.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 4 of 9
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
/
. . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As is typical for major addition projects reviewed by the Board, Town staff requested in writing
that the story poles be erected at least ten days prior to the Board meeting. Certification of the
story poles was not initially required because the subject application involved the construction of
additions to an existing residence. Staff conducted a site visit to review the project and the story
poles at least one week prior to each meeting, and determined that the story poles were
adequate in their placement. Staff also reviewed the story pole plan submitted by the applicant,
which indicated where the story poles were placed on the site, and determined the plan to be
adequate. The individual Board members also visited the site prior to each meeting, and the
Board did not request any further clarification of the placement of the story poles durin.g its
review. The Board did require as a condition of approval that the story poles be certified as
accurate prior to issuance of a building permit. If there are any significant changes to the story
poles resulting from the surveyor's findings, the Board would be required to approve those
changes before a building permit is issued.
Town policy does not require that project applicants' extend the story pole placementwhen one
or more interested residents is out of Town. Town staff believes that such a policy would be
impossible to administer.
Ground #2 The approved project disrupts the view towards Richardson Bay from the
residence at 525 Virginia Drive. In addition, the total mass of the structure would
appear excessive as looking up the hill from Tiburon Boulevard, which is an .
observation that is shared by other adjacent residents.
Staff Response: According to the staff report and minutes from the May 15, 2003, Design
Review Board meeting, both Town staff and the Board initially expressed concern regarding the
view blockage caused by the proposed building, and by its prominence on the hillside. The
public hearing was continued by the Board twice, mainly to require the applicant to address view
blockage concerns by redesigning the project. The applicant made changes to the project
which, in the determination of the Board, significantly reduced the potential view and
compatibility impacts of the project and brought the project into conformance with the Guiding
Principles in the Review of Applications (hereafter "Principles") and the Town's Hillside Design
Guidelines (hereafter "Guidelines").
Ground #3 Only two of the five Board members were present to make a decision on the
project, who did not necessarily represent the consensus of the full Board. Two
members should not be able to make such an important decision.
Staff Response: According to Section 3.03.05 of the Zoning Ordinance, "any action taken by
the Board shall be by a majority of those voting." Since there were two members voting on this
issue, and both votes were to approve the project, the decision was made in compliance with
the application procedures and zoning permit review authority of the Board. There is no
requirement in any Town regulation that a consensus of the full acting body is required to take
action. A 2-1 vote in favor of the project would have rendered the same result. Requiring that
all members of a Board vote on an issue is impractical and is not required in any municipality
known to Town Staff.
Tiburon Town' Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 5 of 9
~
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
Staff notes that the Town's requirement for action by the Town Council on an appeal is different,
and specifically requires three members present to uphold an appeal. Staff further notes that
the additional requirement for three members at the Town Council level was a purposeful
distinction. The Town has a long-standing practice of allowing Board and Commission action on
applications by less than three votes under certain circumstances where less than three
members are voting. This less than ideal situation is sometimes a fact of life with five member
boards in small towns where conflict of interest recusals are fairly common.
The circumstance that a majority of the Board did not vote on this application may be weighed
by the Town Council as a matter of policy. If the Town Council is uncomfortable with use of the
Town's long-standing practice in this particular case, then it may consider remanding the item to
the Design Review Board for further consideration at a Board meeting where at least three
members are voting.
A related question is whether the two members present were sufficient to constitute a quorum
for action by the Board. The issue arises because Mr. Teiser actually left the Chambers after
recusing himself. The Town's long-standing practice has been to continue meetings under
these circumstances, at least at the Board and Commission level. However, staff notes that
under Robert's Rules of Order, once the number of members present at a meeting drops below
the number required for a quorum, the chair or a member should so note and the body should
take no further action until the quorum number is restored. The Town has often used Robert's
Rules as a procedural guide, but is not required to do so and has on occasion adopted different
regulations and practices. If the Council does decide to remind this project back to the Design
Review Board because of the small number of Board members that participated in the decision,
it may wish to consider modifying the Town's quorum practice to conform to Robert's Rules.
Public Comment
No public comment has been received regarding this appeal as of the date of this report.
CONCLUSION
The applicant fulfilled their requirement, as outlined above, in the erection of story poles for the
project. The Design Review Board reviewed and considered the Principles and the Guidelines
prior to approving this project. In addition, the Board followed the application procedures and
review authority of the Board, and determined that the project design as conditioned would not
result in significant view or mass and bulk impacts on neighboring residences, and thatthe
design would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal, unless the
Council concludes that the Design Review Board erred in reaching its decision regarding
compliance with Site Plan and Architectural Review regulations, or chooses to remand the item
for further consideration by the Board. If the Town Council chooses to take action on the appeal
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 6 of 9
STAFF REPORT
c
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(rather than remand the item to the Board), then it should direct Staff to return with an
appropriate resolution for adoption at the next meeting.
Wavne Snow Aooeal
There are two (2) basic grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 2)from Wayne Snow, 100
Jefferson Drive, is based:
Ground #1 The approved project is not consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 4.02.07,
Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications. Specifically, the appellant has
stated that the project is inconsistent with the following principles of review: (b)
Site layout in relation to adjoining sites; (c) neighborhood character; (e) grading
and tree removal; (f) compatibility of architectural style and exterior finish; (g)
landscaping; and (h) lighting.
Staff Response: The Principles are the basis for all of the Board's decisions on applications for
Site Plan and Architectural Review. The Board is well versed in the Principles, and must always
make the finding that a project is consistent with the Principles prior to granting project approval.
The Board specifically discussed numerous aspects of the project as they related to the
Principles, and twice continued the project for design changes that would bring the project into
stricter conformance with the Principles. The design review process is by nature somewhat
subjective, but Staff believes that the Board took the relevant Principles into consideration
before approving the project. The Principles, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, are attached
for reference.
Ground #2 The approved project is not consistent with the Tiburon Design Guidelines for
Hillside Dwellings. Specifically, the appellant has stated that the project is
inconsistent with the following design principles: Goal f, Principle 7- Avoid large
retaining walls in a uniform plane, break retaining walls into elements, terraces;
Goal 2, Principle 2- Do not use large expanses of a single material on walls,
roofs or paving areas. Remember most dwellings must be seen from below and
above by others higher on the hillside; Goal 2, Principle 4- Use great care with
reflective materials and exposed undersides of structures; Goal 2, Principle 6-
Control window placement for sun privacy and view... avoid large expanses of
floor to ceiling glass and picture windows; Goal 2, Principle 11- Site buildings so
they don't "stand-out" because of location on property.
Staff Response: Much like the Principles, the Guidelines are an integral part of the design
review process and are a valuable tool used by the Board when making their design-related
decisions. For the subject application, staff specifically recommended that the Board review the
project in respect to the Guidelines, and if inclined to approve the project, make the finding that
the project is consistent with the Guidelines. The May 15 staff report isolated certain Guidelines
that staff believed should be closely scrutinized. In particular, the following comments were
made in the May 15, 2003, Staff Report, which are in direct reference to this ground for appeal:
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 7 of 9
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The proposed materials, along with the amount of windows on the west elevation should
be reviewed by the Board in regards to their potential for reflection and glare, as
suggested by the Hillside Design Guidelines. Although the west elevation is not directed
towards adjacent homes, the proposed home would be in a prominent location as seen
from Tiburon Boulevard, Blackie's Pasture, and other homes in the distance.
In his initial evaluation of the project, Boardmember Kunzweiler found, according to the May 15,
2003 minutes, that the proposed first story roof was too tall. He said that his concern was with
the house being at the entry to Tiburon. He said that landscaping is important and that colors'
and geometry of the house are a concern, as it does stand out a lot. Not all of the board
members agreed with these sentiments, but this issue, and other relevant issues as identified in
the Guidelines, was certainly discussed and considered.
At the decisive August 7,2003, Board meeting, Boardmember Figour stated that he liked the
design of the home from the beginning, and did not agree with those who think this would be a
big, massive house. He felt that it would probably be the best-looking house on the hillside.'
Boardmember Figour also stated that because there is no homogenous character in the
neighborhood, the proposed home would not be out of character with the surroundings.
Boardmember Beales followed these comments by saying that there was no need to lower the
building. He said that the building would be no more visible from Blackie's Pasture than others
on the hillside, and that the proposed vegetation would help screen the building as well.
Based on the above comments and minutes from the meetings, it is clear that the Board took
the Guidelines into consideration before making a decision on the project. Appellants
essentially disagree with the conclusions reached by the Board with respect to conformance
with the Guidelines. The specific sections from the Guidelines that are called into question by
the appellant are attached for reference.
Public Comment
Several residents of the Reedlands neighborhood have signed a petition in support of this
appeal. The petition is attached. A separate letter from Michael Daniels of 12 East Terrace, in
support of Mr. Snow's appeal, is also attached.
CONCLUSION
The Design Review Board reviewed and considered the Guidelines in the Review of
Applications, as well as the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines prior to approving this project.
The Board concluded that the project design as conditioned would not result in significant view,
privacy, traffic and parking, noise, or mass and bulk impacts on neighboring residences, and
would not be incompatible or out of character with surrounding development.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 8 of 9
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal, unless the
Council concludes that the Design Review Board erred in reaching its decision regarding
compliance with Site Plan and Architectural Heview regulations. The Town Council should
direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for adoption at the next meeting.
EXHIBITS
1. Notice of Appeal filed by Gaye & Francois Varnay, dated August 18, 2003
2. Notice of Appeal filed by Wayne Snow, dated August 18, 2003
3. Design Review Board Staff report dated May 15, 2003
4. Design Review Board Staff Report dated June 19, 2003
5. Design Review Board Staff Report dated August 7,2003
6. Minutes of the May 15, 2003, Design Review Board meeting
7. Minutes of the June 19,2003, Design Review Board meeting
8. Minutes of the August 7, 2003, Design Review Board meeting
9. Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications
10. Goal 1, Principle 7; Goal 2, Principle 2; Goal 2, Principle 4; Goal 2, Principle 6; Goal 2,
Principle 11 of the Hillside Design Guidelines.
11. Letter submitted by Wayne Snow, 100 Jefferson Drive, on May 8,2003
12. Letter submitted by Gaye & Francois Varnay, 525 Virginia Drive, on May 12, 2003
13. Letter submitted by the owners of 531, 542, and 543 Comstock Drive, 557 Silverado
Drive, and 567 Virginia Drive, on May 15 2003 .
14. Letter submitted by Gaye & Francois Varnay, 525 Virginia Drive, on June 16, 2003
15. Signatures submitted by the applicant from the owners of 528 and 542 Virginia Drive
16. Letter Submitted by Leslie & Ingo Schreiber, tenants of 525 Virginia Drive, on June 19,
2003
17. Drawings submitted by Michael Heckmann, architect representing Gaye & Francois
Varnay, on June 19, 2003
18. Letter submitted by Tina Shafa, 480 Washington Court, on August 7,2003
19. Letter submitted by Gaye & Francois Varnay, 525 Virginia Drive, on July 21, 2003
20. Letter submitted by Tina Shafa, 480 Washington Court, on August 7,2003
21. Petition submitted by Wayne Snow on September 5, 2003
22. Letter submitted by Michael Daniels, 12 East Terrace, on September 11, 2003
23. Submitted plans
S:\blynch\Town Council.reports\#20308- 524 Virginia Drive.appeaI3.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
9/17/2003
page 9 of 9
TOWN OF TIBURON
NOTICE OF APPEAL
APPELLANT
Name: Cl ;1L/G"'; 'rK/J ,t(f eC) ? '-f
RECE~VED
AUG 1 8 Z003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
/~1'o , ;^'''l ( J
&" /' /.1-lVXtI r
~ V f-;:) ,.--,,' \ . . /
. ~7,' . . '/f). . /'. ,/. " ~. ~. / ) ,..., .
Address: "<:. ,,} / k-~.? 1/,-.( / l1 ,y) 12 I 0 ~ C. t:--<:. IN
Telephone: Arid _(I] tf Yfr;' (Work) /(//r ---. '?- /]- U;-YYb(Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body:
''7')L..-~- \ ./'. . I
~~ / C; "'-1
,A:"/ ,'----: C/ " .' -, /..,'
,. .,./.-. i f..-.. ,., I
-,- \:....'~.. , 1..-.'- ~-<....../
Date of Action:
,.?.., , /; )
//. , .-'/ " .. /:..... l' -"""',
c..... . 'L C ..(.. /. C /1 ,.,t-.
.../1 .... 1./ ,,,,_'
.~
/' /
/-;>
...l~ r") '~/. i I)'
c.,. / /(7<:'
../
/' ;/
Name of Applicant:
"l._'
~".i~~ A.' -' /~ '~" \-
;-- ....:.. H" ,),,-/ Ut!.,) / .J
I
/l
Nature of Application: ~r;::J 'I' C- (I It. c: /~"/ / t /1
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
.:2-1\::)<'") ~.?
!"')
\ "'''1--7.'--
.. I i 1..-17
(/7itZ,/lT/ ij
'--'
D 1 '-;-:-).-:- ") ", ,.::>
~. /"-77 <-,.f'::' .'---.<- ~-:,(J
;'
'.I'
(., !EZu
C', ,-. /7 oJ 'n-... &
......... 'r '-- h./j .=OJ../ 0 1'--...
'1'../' C' /? / "f> ~ ',,......,. \
f.,/ , ....J jV<-'1 . - c..--7 '<..--!/\ .
to' . . . ~, '-' ,/
~?'-j"T f" cDIZI?/f-:-:c: 'T'
/ ~1
--tz:'1 '0 /--1 / 2 /0 p L::/~) >/ .,J
. /'/
in'2 -r', L/
t (/c- -J C~<JT'
1-7 JJ-rL / ..1 .,', , /; C \,,- --"- ," f2 '../
, , r \. (.e' <..:.-, !A....J' ( - ~ C ,-<f.;, ,,,,. (
DO ..~"r.
/' .... C '-"'c.J
r--;:;j/ .4 . '/'- ./-j ,'-' I' c'-'
/1' / I ./1' ),
,:;:,; .- L I v' '.f i ;-(. ?
r{
/" ..J.
'Cc.-:>
//,,~ ') x ('L c.....,.
{(/t'~ (
'j
.:::><......
1..-./ .,-_...
/ C t:-'..c;..-? /? C-C ...~-J
/ ,/ (I~ -c.....- /L--.'
. !7 S
t.A-,7,
Last Day to File:
,..-"', / . y
0:/ J f.
,~ ". ..._' ,/ (-:;7' ,A
. .-' ,/' I
? . d
,~ Date ReceIve :
2~..c.) ~ :i
2~,,~i!.-"::"
Fee ($300.00) Paid:
~.
Date of Hearing:
January 1996
ff~f' -
T\2A '
IAOs.t- \ tV-e('1 C{~ 7
EXHIBIT NO. 1-
~. \ rP 2..
August 16, 2003
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board
Mr. Lynch, Planer
The Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Re; 524 Virginia Drive, Tiburon
Variances, Addition, Floor
We are contesting the Board decision approving the addition of the .above
referenced property based on several important factors.
,
1. The.marking poles were not installed in a timely manner as required by law.
We left toWn without the opportunity to investigate the poles revised location.
We returned on the evening of the meeting having denied the chance to
understand the full implication of the markings related to our view~
2. After investigating the marking poles location, we have concluded that they
are not representing the actual roofline. The roofis designed to be a half circle
shape. By the shape of the roofline, it hangs exceedingly into our view
compromising our view corridor even more. All we requested was to lower the
height of the second story by 24". Even with the present shape of the roof, it
would solve our view disruption. Lowering the height of the second story would
still give the owner 18 feet of height la lot more than a two story building needs)
without giving up any living space or .square footage.
It would also reduce the total mass of the building from the Tiburon Blvd. view
prospective as one looks up the hillside. This observation is shared by many
fellow residents. (See enclosed letters from previous meetings.)
3. Only two of the five board members approved the revised addition. The other
three members where not present at the meeting on August 7, 2002. The two
board members present had no objections to the original plans in the first place!
Two members should not make such a decision permanently effecting our life.
We would like to have a new hearing scheduled with all the members of the
board present
Thank you for your consideration,
GaYr i'nd Fran~i~ ~varnay
,l<J/...<J1l) I tI o..A/n,Cr
/.
~'~/
/... I
. ./ <//~
~.. './)/./'. "';,,^----.)
/ 6~/'.---/;;/:., f>
'/"/.."."'/ ......
//- , -, ~'
- " -'-.."
- ..",
./
..,/
/
EXHIBIT NO. ~
2~.2
"
TOWN OF TIBURON
RECEIVED
AUG 1 8 2003
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLANNING DIViSIOr,)
TOWN OF riE5URON
APPELLANT
//YfIL. d?~cJ
/,1" ~t5f;;i}.) fl~/ . YvlM.J
,
#~'/f?,P (Work) ;f#~" ?/;?3
(Home)
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body:
;Pf'(/GPAJ ./4'9~f~ ~#M
~t/~vVr t!/~ AIf'~.:7
,
blj-<,C;-~ 9"" P~,-f# 6'#~.lA('
Ydr ~/fCd/4 P/f., /9Udt1~c:>R'
/
Date of Action:
Name of Applicant:
Nature of Application:
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
- Af/WI! $f~ ~fe (Y) 4i77fMa ~~Er.
.... 5/~V"A~tf//~ ~~
- ;;t/~/t?A/ 7Z> ~~
Last Day to File $C?, Jlt?t?: Date Received: /ti'G"N'T /<fJ A/PO.J
Fee ($300.00) Paid: . _;(~J~ Date ofHeanng: -':;~J::i!; /~ dtJ/J 3
January 1996
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
~.\~+
.t'
APPELLANT:
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
(work)
(Home)
Wayne Snow.
100 Jefferson Drive
415-388-1963
415-383-6143
ACTION BEING APPEALED:
Body:
Date of Action:
Name of Applicant:
Nature of Application:
Design Review Board
August 7, 2003
George & Dora Gavros
524 Virginia Drive; File 20308
For additions to a single family dwelling with variances for
Reduced side yard setback and reduced front yard setback
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
Per 4.02.07 Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications:
(b) Site Layout in Relation to Adjoining Sites.
This project is asking for two variances so they can place the home closer to the street for
additional building area as shown on the site plan sheet L 1. They are using the existing
footprint to reduce costs and use this space toward the street so they can expand in the
rear for a pool and spa.
(c) Neighborhood Character.
The building was approved with stucco finish and appears to be mostly windows facing
westerly. The height ofthe second story 18'H x 30'L and the single story of 14'H x
50'L, total 84' in length. The length of the building is almost as long as the Washington
Mutual building in Tiburon. None of the immediate neighboring homes are made of a
stucco finish. Character of the neighborhood is going to change because how this
prominent home will be viewed from Tiburon Blvd and by adjacent neighborhoods.
(e) Grading and Tree Removal.
The approved plan allows for removal of significant vegetation. It appears that most of
the vegetation from the pool retaining wall to Tiburon Blvd will re removed or
significantly cut back; thus making the building more visible and prominent. There is a
proposal to replant, yet it appears replanting will not permanently screen the building.
(f) Compatibility of Architectural Style and Exterior Finish.
The architectural style as expressed in (c) Neighborhood Character is not harmonious
with the neighborhood and especially when seen from Tiburon Blvd. Most of the homes
are not stucco and have less window mass. This home should have solid railing to block
window and building mass. The Board and Designer had been asked to provide
renderings or a simulation ofthe home sited on the site, neither had provided one for a
clear understating of the style and exterior finish on the property site.
(g) Landscaping.
The lack ofa rendering or simulation of the approved building and landscaping on the
property does not show the prominence of this approved project. I think it is
inappropriate to rely on landscaping for a perm en ate barrier from Tiburon Blvd.
Landscaping takes time to mature and can be removed.
(h) Lighting.
The approved project may invade the privacy of other properties, neighborhoods and
Tiburon Blvd. From the inside of the home and from the outside patio, light pollution
and glare were not adequately addressed. Light pollution is going to make this a very
prominent home.
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
2~~
'.
~
Page 2, Appeal, 524 Virginia
TIBURON DESIGN GUIDELINES
The guidelines were respected mostly for the uphill neighbor who.had view blockage issues. I
think the guidelines were not upheld enough for the Tiburon commilllity at large. The guidelines
that need to be respected are the following:
Principle #7: Avoid large retaining walls in a uniform plane, break retaining walls into
elements, terraces. This retaining wall is as small as 4'6", about 50' long facing Tiburon Blvd.
Principle #4: Use great care with reflective materials and exposed undersides of structures.
Use non-reflective glass or plastic for skylights, control forms so reflections do not strike other
dwelling illlits. The mass of windows could be an annoyance to adjacent neighborhoods and
possibly to cars on Tiburon Blvd.
Principle #2: Do not use large expanses of a single material on walls, roofs or paving areas.
Remember, most dwellings must be seen from below and above by others higher on the
hillside.
Under "NO" under this principle, NO:
large roof area
patio area too large
hugh retain wall
large glass area'
large wall area
This home is designed to have a large amoilllt of stucco and windows facing westerly.
Principle #6: Control window replacement for sun, privacy and view. (A) States: Avoid
large expanses of floor to ceiling glass and picture windows. This home is going to have a
large mass of windows facing westerly ~d northerly.
Principle #11: Site buildings so they don't "stand out" because oflocation on property. Do
not build on crest of knolls, ridgelines, prominent locations, remember, all dwellings on the hill
are part of a rich texture buildings, landscaping and open space. No one dwelling should be
exceptionally prominent. This design is mostly stucco and glass facing westerly with no
permanent visual barrier like a solid railing to minimize the light pollution and building size.
Approved Design:
to prominent
to many windows for reflections and light illumination
No rendering/simulation showing the home, retaining wall and landscaping as they would
appear on the hillside looking from Tiburon Blvd.
No permanent barrier (solid railing) was required to reduce the prominence of the windows
and light illumination.
The plate height of the single story remained the same, 14'. The single story will be 14' in
height and 50' in length.
At the August 7th meeting, there were three board members present for a quorum, one member recused
himself so there were only two members to approve or deny the application. The minutes ofthe 06/19/03
meeting expressed the two absent board members had concern about height and prominence:
The "dramatic statement of the house from Tiburon Boulevard and felt the design: has not
significantly changed". He thought the landscaping would help mitigate the impacts of the
project, but that the design is in conflict with the Hillside Design Guidelines. He said he
could support the project with reservations.
He said that "atleast three feet shoulq be taken from the first floor element and the two story
element should be pulled back six feet".
EXHIBIT NO.2
3;~
.'
"
Page 3. Appeal, 524 Virginia
The General Plan Participation Program identified excessive home size, new/remodels as one of the most
challenging characteristics ofTibur.on. .
Strongly control maximum house size.
Allow few variances and FAR exceptions.
Variance exceptions should discourage overbuilding.
In the General Plan survey public participation strongly stated: .
Ensure that tear-doWns and major remodels are consistent with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Strongly control maximum house size.
Recommended New Policy:
Preserve neighborhood character, major remodels and tear-downs/rebuilds shall be consistent
in design, size and scale with the sUlTmmding neighborhood.
I think, the Tiburon community at large was not fully taken into consideration during the approval ofDRB
on August 7th. The size of this hom~ on this site would be too prominent, would illuminate too much light
without permanent screening. The property is highly visible from adjoining neighborhoods and while
people drive into Tiburon.
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
~~4
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
E-4
-;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUBJECT:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER~
524 VIRGINIA DRIVE; FILE #20308
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO
A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED
SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND
A FLOOR AREA EXCEPTION. .
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE: NlAY 15,.2003
REVIEWED BY: DMW
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PROJECT DATA:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADLINE:
GEORGE & DORA GA VROS
ROGER HARTLEY
524 VIRGINIA
055-081-26
20308
9,147 SQUARE FEET
R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
MH(MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
APRIL 30,2003
MAY 15,2003
JULY 14,2003
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in
Section 15303.
PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted an application for the construction of additions, with variances for
reduced side yard setback and reduced front yard setback, and a floor area exception, on the
property at 524 Virginia Drive. The subject property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on
the west end of Virginia Drive. The property is below the street level of Virginia Drive, and the
rear of the property slopes down to Tiburon Boulevard. The existing home is located on the
narrow flat area of the lot and is relatively small as compared to others in the vicinity. The home
EXHIBIT NO. ~
~,\ ~7
STAFF REPORT
"
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
has a simple rectangular floor plan consisting of two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The flat
roofline extends over an attached carport.
The project would consist of rebuilding a portion of the existing structure, constructing a second
story addition, installing a pool, and creating a new uncovered parking area near the top of the
existing driveway. The size of the additions would be 1,624 square feet, resulting in a total of
2,942 square feet for the home. The lower level would consist of a kitchen, dining room, living
room, two bedrooms, three bathrooms, and an office. The second story would be comprised of
the master suite and an additional bedroom and bathroom.
Because the existing carport would be converted to living space, a new parking pad would be
created near the top of the existing driveway, which would account for all of the off-street
parking for the home. The swimming pool would be constructed adjacent to the existing
concrete patio, and would be located underneath the eave and balcony of the second story
addition. The pool would be located at the edge of the flat area of the property so a significant
retaining wall is proposed to be installed to support it. Other site improvements would include a
spa next to the swimming pool, rebuilt retaining wall along the front property line, terraced
retaining walls below the parking pad, new steel trellises near the _front entrance, and
reconfigured concrete steps leading up to the street.
The ground level additions would be located within the front yard setback area, up to two feet
from the front property line. The required front yard setback for the property is 15 feet; therefore
a variance qf 13 feet is requested for reduced front yard setback (2 feet in lieu of the standard
15 feet). The existing structure is located within the south (left) side yard area, up to five feet
from the south property line. The proposed second story addition would also be located in the
side yard area; therefore a variance of three feet is requested for reduced side yard setback (5
feet in lieu of the standard 8 feet).
Several other properties in the vicinity have received variances for reduced front yard setbacks,
including 526, 534, 535, and 545 Comstock Drive, 524, 533 and 547 Virginia Drive, 528 and 539
Silverado Drive, and 125 Stewart Drive. Variances for reduced side yard setbacks have been
granted for the properties at 548 and 555 Virginia Drive, 532 and 544 Silverado Drive, 534, 543
and 546 Comstock Drive .
The floor area of the proposed home is 2,942 square feet square feet in size, which exceeds the
maximum allowable floor area for the property of 2,915 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a floor area exception of 27 square feet.
ANALYSIS:
Zoning
As previously stated, the project does not meet the required side yard setback, front yard
setback, and floor area limit. The project appears to meet the remaining standards of the R-1
zoning district.
EXHIBIT NO. 3>
2...~,
May 15, 2003
page 2 of 7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
~-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . '.
Design Issues
Although some of the basic architectural features of the existing home would be maintained, the
proposed structure would have a significantly different appearance. The proposed structure
would have modern styling and unique elevation details. The single-level area of the home
would have a shed type roof with a slope of 6 and 12. Due to the slope of the roof, the home
would appear to "open up" towards Richardson Bay in the westerly direction. This design
feature allows for a tall ceiling height and several windows, which would maximize access to
light and air. The two skylights above the living room, dining room and kitchen would also
provide good access to light and air. In contrast, the roof over the second story would be flat,
minimizing its appearance of height. A portion of the master suite would extend over the first
level and pool on the west side of the residence. Two other distinct roof elements would be
located over the entryway and over the interior stairwell on the east side of the building. Three
narrow trellises would be located by the entryway to add architectural interest.
The colors and materials of the structure would be consistent with the modem design. The
sloped portions of the roof would be comprised of a metal standing seam roof, while the flat
portions of the roof would be grey aggregate. The main body of the structure would be painted
stucco with white trim. There would also be a number of metal elements such as the trellises
and columns, and the deck railing at the rear of the structure. The proposed materials, along
with the amount of windows on the west elevation should be reviewed by the Board in regards
to their potential for reflection and glare, as suggested by the Hillside Design Guidelines, Goal 2
Principle 3 (Exhibit #5). Although the west elevation is not directed towards adjacent homes,
the proposed home would,be in a prominent location as seen from Tiburon Boulevard, Blackie's
Pasture, and other homes in the distance. A color and materials board will be available for
review at the Board meeting.
Although the property is well below the street level of Virginia Drive, the proposed structure
appears to adversely impact the primary views from the property located at 525 Virginia Drive.
The residents of 525 currently enjoy views in the westerly direction to Blackie's Pasture and the
cove of Richardson Bay. The proposed additions would block a portion of this westerly view
from the. kitchen and living room. It is recommended that the Board consider the impact of this
view carefully. The Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines address in more detail the issue of view
blockage (Exhibit #5):
. Goal 3, Principle 7, of the Hillside Design Guidelines states that although some view
blockage is inevitable, partiarview blockage Should be avoided whenever possible.
View protection is most important for ceremonial rooms which include the dining room,
living room, and kitchen. The. most significant view blockag~ would be from the
ceremonial rooms at 525 Virginia Drive.
. Goal 3 Principle 7 also states that the horizon line is the most sensitive part of the view;
then fore ground and middle ground respectively. The proposed addition may come up
to the horizon I.ine, and it would significantly impact views to importan. t features in the -:>
foreground as seen from 525 Virginia Drive. EXHIBIT NO. =:>
3c*'1
May 15, 2003
page 3 of 7
STAFF REPORT
~
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. Goal 3, Principle 7 also states that a wide panoramic viewcan accept more view
blockage than the smaller slot view. The view as seen from 525 Virginia is a relatively'
narrow view framed by tall pine trees on either side. This slot view would be impacted
by the project.
Although the project exhibits some positive site planning and design elements, it appears that
the project is not consistent with the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines.in regards to view
preservation.
Floor Area Exception
In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Board must make the following findings
as required by Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed
structure is compatible 'with the predominant pattern established by existing
structures in the surrounding neighborhood.
The plans would indicate that the size and scale of the proposed home is compatible
with the predominant pattern established by the existing structures in the neighborhood..
However, the subject property is in a prominent location that can easily be seen from
surrounding public areas. This situation would dictate that the structure be designed so
the visual impacts are reduced, or it may preclude a structure that exceeds the floor area
restrictions.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the propos.ed structure is compatible with
the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not
limited to, the scale of trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land forms, and
the dimensions of the lot.
It appears that the proposed structure is compatible with the dimensions of the lot and
surrounding physical features. The surrounding large trees are an obvious natural
feature, which dramatically increase the visual scale of the property.
Variance
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make the following findings as
re,quired by Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The unusual shape and steep topography of the subject property confine development
more than the site conditions of other properties in the vicinity. The only level area on
the subject parcel is relatively narrow, and it extends into the front yard and side yards
areas. Most of the properties in the vicinity are rectangular in shape and have
EXHIBIT NO. ~
+~7
May 15, 2003
page 4 of 7
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . .
topography that is more amenable to construction.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
As mentioned above, several homes in the vicinity (Little Reed Heights) have been
granted variances for front yard and side yard variances. Therefore, the variance would
not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with properties in the vicinity.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
The strict application of the Ordinance would result in attempting to construct
improvements in areas that are less amenable to construction. In addition, the strict
application of the Ordinance would limit the applicant's ability to utilize the foundation
and walls of the existing structure, which happen t6 fall within the required front yard and
side yard areas.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
Although the proposed home would be located ,closer to the street and close to the
neighboring property to the south, the granting of the requested variances would not
appear to be detrimental the properties in the vicinity.
Public Comment
A letter, submitted by Mr. Wayne Snow of 100 Jefferson Drive, states concerns about the mass
and bulk of the west elevation of the proposed structure, and the structure's potential for
reflection and glare. Mr. Snow also expresses concern about the exterior finish of the building
and the potential for any new landscaping on the site. All correspondence has been attached
for reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
'. It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections
4.02.07,4.03.05,4.02.08 (Guiding Principles, and Variance Findings by Acting Body, and Floor
Area Exception Findings) and the Hillside Design Guidelines and determine that the project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in
Section 15303. If the Board finds that the design of the project is consistent with the Guiding
Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and all
necessary findings can be made for the variance and floor area exception, then it is
recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.
EXHIBIT NO. "3
5oe- 1
May 15, 2003
page 5 of 7
STAFF REPORT
C'
Town of Tiburon
..................................................
EXHffiITS:'
1 . Conditions of Approval.
2. Application and supplemental materials dated March 20,2003.
3. Applicant's findings for the variances.
4. Photos taken from 525 Virginia Drive.
5. Excerpts from the Hillside Design Guidelines.
6. Letter from Mr.Wayne Snow, 100 JeffersonDrive
7. Plans for the proposed project.
EXHIBIT NO. 3
G~.l
May 15, 2003
page 6 of 7
I
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
524 Virginia Drive
FILE #20308
1. This approval shall be used within 3 years of the approval date, and shall become null
and void unless a building permit has been issued.
2. The development of this project shall conform to the application received by the Town of
Tiburon on March 20, 2003, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any
modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.
3. No lighting fixtures shall be installed in the wells of the skylights, and the skylights shall
be tinted in a non-reflective manner.
4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a
building permit for this project.
5. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must
be down light type fixtures.
6. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those
approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved
Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such
changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Such changes
must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list
describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building
plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff member indicating
that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design
Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the
Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Design
Review approval is notvalidand shall be subject to stop work orders and may require
removal.
EXHIBIT NO. ~
loP7
May 15, 2003
page 7 of 7
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
0-2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .' . . . . . . ..' . . . -, . . . . . . . . .
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 2003
REVIEWED BY: DMW
. . . . . . . .' .. ... . . . . . . . . 's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 . . . . . .
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in
Section 15303.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has submitted an application for the construction of additions, with variances for
reduced side yard setback and reduced front yard setback, and a floor area exception, on the
property at 524 Virginia Drive. The original request was to add approximately 1,624 square .
feet, resulting in a total of 2,942 square feet for the home. The additions would be located on
both the upper and lower level of the residence. Other proposed site improvements included
converting the carport to living space, a swimming pool and spa wo~ld be constructed adjacent
to the existing concrete patio, the existing retaining wall along the front property line would be
rebuilt, terraced retaining walls below a new parking pad would be constructed, new steel
trellises near the front entrance would be installed, and the concrete steps leading up to the
street would be reconfigured. .
This application was first reviewed by the Design Review Board on May 15, 2003. At thattime
the Board raised concerns about the potential view impacts the project presented for the
residents of 525 Virginia Drive. The Board noted that there would be a significant blockage of
the view of Blackie's Pasture and Richardson Bay from the property at 525 Virginia Drive.
Members of the Board also had a concern about the prominence of the structure in its proposed
location as view'ed from north of the project site. The Board also expressed concern about
some of the details of the project; for example the location of the proposed wood fence around
the property, the status of the existing and any proposed landscaping, and the height and visual
impact of the retaining wall proposed to be located below the swimming pool. Based on these
concerns, the Board continued the public hearing until the meeting of June 19, 2003, so the
applicant could make any modifications to address the concerns of the Board.
EXHIBIT NO. 4-
\~5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The applicant has now submitted revised plans for this project. The revised application
indicates that the main features of the project remain largely unchanged. The proposed home
has the same footprint, the architectural style has not changed, and the pool is in the same
location. In order to address the concerns of the Board, the applicant has made changes to the
rear elevation and roofline of the structure. The slope of the roof over the single-story element
would be changed from 6: 12 to 4: 12; This would essentially lower the overall height of the
structure in this location by approximately three feet.
The applicant has also clarified some of the technical items the Board had previously discussed.
In particular, the applicant has clarified that the six foot redwood fence is to be located along the
left side, the rear, and a portion of the right side of the property. The retaining wall below the
proposed swimming pool would reach a maximum height of 5'6" at the north corner, and the
applicant has indicated that some trees and shrubs would be planted throughout the property.
The applicant has indicated. that the same variances and floor area exception are being
requested with the revised application.
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
It appears that the applicant has responded directly to the Boards concerns with the. revisions
that are proposed. The lowering of the single-story element of the home reduces the structure's
. prominence on the hillside, and alleviates some of the view impacts across the site. However,
the residents of 525 Virginia Drive currently enjoy views in the westerly direction to Blackie's
Pasture and the cove of Richardson Bay_ Although the revised. plan decreases the view impact
as previously reviewed by the Board, the proposed additions would still block a portion of this
. westerly view from the kitchen and living room. It is recommended that the Board consider the
impact of this view carefully.
Zoning
As previously stated, the project does not meet the required side yard setback, front yard
setback, and floor area ratio. The project appears to meet the remaining standards of the R-1
zoning district.
Floor Area Exception
In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Board must make the following findings
as required by Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed
structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing
structures in the surrounding neighborhood.
The size and scale of the proposed home would be compatible with the predominant
pattern estab1ished by the existing structures in the neighborhood. The subject property
EXHIBIT NO. 4- I"n" 19, 2003
2 ot::' 5 page 2 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . '. . . .
is in a prominent location that can easily be seen from surrounding public areas, but the
applicant has reduced this impact in the revised application.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with
the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not
limited tO,the scale of trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses, land forms, and
the dimensions of the lot.
)
It appears that the proposed structure would be compatible with the dimensions of the lot
and surrounding physical features. The surrounding large trees are an obvious natural
feature, which dramatically increase the visual scale of the property.
Variance
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make the following findings as
required by S.ection 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties' in
the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. .
The unusual shape and steep topography of the subject property confine development
more than the site conditions of other properties in the vicinity. The only level area on
the subject parcel is relatively narrow, and it extends into the front yard and side yards
areas. Most of the properties in the vicinity are rectangular in shape and have
topography that is more amenable to construction.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
As mentioned in the previotJs Staff report, several homes in the vicinity (Little Reed
Heights) have been granted variances for front yard and side yard variances. Therefore,
the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with properties in the
vicinity. .
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
The strict application of the Ordinance would result in attempting to construct
improvements in areas that are less amenable to construction. In addition, the strict
application of the Ordinance would limit the applicant's ability to utilize the foundation
. and walls of the existing structure, which happen to fall within the required front yard and
side yard areas.
EXHIBIT NO. 4-
.~ 0:' 5
JI,me 19, 2003
page 3 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .................
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
Although the proposed home would be located closer to the street and close to the
neighboring property to the south, the granting of the requested variances would not
appear to be detrimental the properties in the vicinity.
Public Comment
.To this date, no public comment has been received regarding the revised application.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections
4.02.07,4.03.05,4.02.08 (Guiding Principles, and Variance Findings by Acting Body, and Floor
Area Exception Findings) and the Hillside Design Guidelines and determine that the project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in
Section 15303. If the Board finds that the design of the project is consistent with the Guiding
Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and all
necessary findings can be made for the variance and floor area exception, then it is
recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.
EXHmITS:
1. Conditions of Approval.
2. Staff report dated May 15, 2003.
3. Reyised plans forthe proposed project.
EXHIBIT NO. 4-
+-~5
June 19,2003
page 4 of 5 .
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHffiIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
524 Virginia Drive
FILE #20308
1. This approval shall be used within 3 years of the approval date, and shall become null
and void unless a building permit has been issued.
2. The development of this project shall conform to the application received by the Town of
Tiburon on June 10, 2003, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Af,ly
modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.
3. No lighting fixtures shall be installed in the wells of the skylights, and the skylights shall
be tinted in a non-reflective manner.
4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a
building permit for this project.
5. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the.Design'Review Board must
be down light type fixtures.
6. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those
approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved
Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such
changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Such changes
must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") an the submitted plans. A list
describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building
plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff member indicating
th<<:.:it these changes have been reviewed and are appro\led, or require.additional Design
Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part ofthe
. Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Design
Review approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require
removal. .
EXHIBIT NO. Lt
5~5
June 19, 2003
page 5 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
0-2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .. ..........
SUBJECT:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER ~
524 VIRGINIA DRIVE; FILE #20308
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO
A SIN(;LE FAMILY DWELLING, WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED
SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK.
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 19, 2003)
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 7,2003
REVIEWED BY: DMW
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in
Section 15303.
BACKGROUND:
On May 15, 2003, the applicant presented an application for the construction of additions, with
variances for reduced' side yard setback and reduced front yard setback, and a floor area
exception, on the property at 524 Virginia Drive. The original requestwas to add approximately
1,624 square feet, resulting in a total of 2,942 square feet for the home. The additions would be
located on both the upper and lower level of the residence. Other proposed site improvements
included converting the carport to living space, a swimming pool and spa would be constructed
adjacent to the existing concrete patio, the existing retaining wall along the front property line
would be rebuilt, terraced retaining walls below a new parking pad would be constructed, new
steel trellises near the front entrance would be installed, and the concrete steps leading up to
the street would be reconfigured.
At the May 15, 2003, Board meeting, the Board raised concerns about the potential view
impacts the project presented for the residents of 525 Virginia Drive. The Board noted that
there would be a significant blockage of the view of Blackie's Pasture and Richardson Bay from
the property at 525 Virginia Drive. Members of the Board also had a concern about the
prominence of the structure in its proposed location as viewed from north of the project site.
Based on these concerns, the Board continued the public hearing until the meeting of June 19,
2003.
On June 19, 2003, the applicant presented a revised plan for this project. The main aspect of
the revised plan was that the slope of the roof over the single-story element would be changed
from 6: 12 to 4: 12, essentially lowering the overall height of the structure in this location by
EXHIBIT NO. .5
\~5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
approximately three feet. The applicant also clarified some of the technical items the Board had
previously discussed; for example the location of the six foot redwood fence, the provision for
landscaping, and details for the retaining wall supporting the pool.
Upon reviewing these changes, the Board still had a concern about the loss of view from the
property at 525 Virginia Drive (see exhibit #2). It was the consensus of the Board that the
height of the single-story portion of the home needed to be lowered even further. It also
became apparent to the Board that the second-story element would block a valuable part of the
view; a concem that wasn't as strongly expressed the first time the Board reviewed the project.
The Board also expressed some peripheral concerns about the visual prominence of the home
on the hillside. However, there was not a consensus among the Board members on this issue.
On one hand there was some discussion about the project's inconsistency with the Hillside
Design Guidelines in terms of blending in with the existing landscape. On the other hand, the
Board expressed the value of architectural interest, and the proposed building could become a
benefit to the existing landscape.
The applicant. has now submitted a revised plan that attempts to address all of the Board's
concerns, while according to the applicant, maintaining the architectural flavor of the initial
design. The key changes in the new plan are the roof of the single-story element has been
flattened, which effectively. lowers the height of the building, and the second-story element has
been scaled back so views can be retained across the building. The remaining features of the
project, including the pool, parking deck, and retaining walls, remain largely unchanged.
The applicant is requesting the same variances as in the initial application; reduced front yard
setback (2 feet in lieu of the standard 15 feet), and reduced side yard setback (5 feet in lieu. of
the standard 8 feet). However, the floor area of the proposed structure would be reduced by
120 square feet from the previous proposal, resulting in the project complying with the floor area
limits for the property. Therefore, a floor area exception is no longer being requested.
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The scaling back of the second-story element significantly reduces the view impact as
compared to the previous designs. The upper floor plan of the submitted drawings illustrates
the "compromise view corridor" as established by the architect representing the owner of the
property at 525 Virginia Drive (see exhibit #3). The master suite would be cut back along this
view line, so no part ofthe enclosed structure breaks the view corridor. A balcony, however,
would extend off of the master suite across the view line, but the intrusion would be reduced
with the use of a glass railing. This reduction in project scope would necessitate the deletion of
one of the upstairs bedrooms.
The floor plan ofthe single-story element would remain unchanged. . Although the plate height
of the first level would be the same, the flat roof would not extend up into the line of sight as
much as the previous sloped-roof design. The applicant has indicated that the effective height
of the roofline would be lowered by 1'9".
EXHIBIT NO. 5
21:1; '5
August7,2003
page 2 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . .
Some other minor changes inthe design are windows would be added to the north and east
elevations of the building, a trellis would be added off of the master suite on the west elevation,
and the skylights above the living room would be removed. The color and materials of the body
of the structure would remain the same, but the flat roof on the single-story element would be
changed toa modified bitumen roofing, to match the roof of the second-story element.
It appears that the applicant has responded directly to the Board's primary and peripheral
concerns by reducing the visual impact and prominence of the home, while maintaining
architectural interest.
Zoning
As previously stated, the project does not meet the required side yard setback and front yard
setback. The project has been revised to comply with the floor area limits for the property. The
project appears to meet the remaining standards of the R-1 zoning district.
Variance
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make the following findings as
required by Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The unl.Jsual shape and steep topography of the subject property confine development
more than the site conditions of other properties in the vicinity. The only level area on
the subject parcel is relatively narrow, and it extends into the front yard and side yards
areas. Most of the properties in the vicinity are rectangular in shape and have
topography that is more amenable to construction.
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
As mentioned in the previous Staff report, several homes in the vicinity (Little Reed
Heights) have been granted variances for front yard and side yard variances. Therefore,
the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with properties in the
vicinity.
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
The strict application of the Ordinance would result in attempting to construct
improvements in areas that are less amenable to construction. In addition, the strict
application of the Ordinance would limit the applicant's ability to utilize the foundation
EXHIBIT NO. 5
":) -t"\ 5 August 7, 2003
:::;) ~ page 3 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and walls of the existing structure, which happen to fall within the required front yard and
side yard areas.
4. The, granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
Although the proposed home would be located closer to the street and close to the
neighboring property to the south, the granting of the requested variances would not
appear to be detrimental the properties in the vicinity.
Public Comment
To this date, no public comment has been received regarding the revised application.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections
4.02.07, 4.03.05, (Guiding Principles, and Variance Findings by Acting Body) and the Hillside
Design Guidelines and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board finds that the
design of the project is consistent with the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural
Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and all necessary findings can be made for the
variance, then it is recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of
Approval.
EXHIBITS:
1. Conditions of Approval.
2. Minutes from the June 19, 2003, DRB meeting.
3. Illustration of view corridor by Michael Heckmann, Architect.
4. Revised plans for the proposed project.
EXHIBIT NO. 5
4-~5
August 7,2003
page 4 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.. . " . . " .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. ..
EXHIBIT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
524 Virginia Drive
FILE #20308
1. This approval shall be used within 3 years of the approval date, and shall become null
and void unless a building permit has been issued.
2. The development of this project shall conform to the plans received by the Town of
Tiburon on July 31, 2003, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any .
modifications to the approved plans must receive further design review and approvals.
3. No lighting fixtures shall be installed in the wells of the skylights, and the skylights shall
be tinted in a non-reflective manner.
4. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must
be down light type fixtures.
5. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a
building permittor this project.
6. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those
approved by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the approved
Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such
changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Such changes
must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans. A list
describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building
plans. with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff member indicating
that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design
Review. All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the
Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Design
Review approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require
removal. .
EXHIBIT NO. ~
~5
August 7, 2003
page 5 of 5
. 4. . 524 VIRGINIA DRIVE
AREA EXCEPTION
GA VROS, ADDITIONSN ARlANCESIFLOOR
Boardmember T eiser recused himself from this item.
The applicant has. submitted an application for the construction of additions, with
variances for reduced side yard setback and reduced front yard setback, and a floor area
exception, on the property located at 524 Virginia Drive. The subject property is located
at the end ofthe cul-de-sac on the west end of Virginia Drive. The property is below the
street level of Virginia Drive, and the rear of the property slopes down to Tiburon
Boulevard. The existing home is located on the narrow flat area of the lot and is .
relatively small as compared to others in the vicinity. The home has a simple rectangular
floor plan consisting of two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The flat roofline extends over
an attached carport. The application requests variances for reduced front and side yard
setbacks, along with a floor area exception. ..
Roger Hartley, civil engineer and designer, discussed the project.
Associate Planner Lynch noted there is a plan in the file indicating that less than 50 .
percent of the existing structure would be demolished as a result of this project.
Chair Comstock stated that the proposed retaining wall would be high, but that Plan C-l
does not have spot elevations to identify the heights at the top and bottom of the wall.
Mr. Hartley responded that a topographical survey was completed for the project, and
that the retaining wall would be no higher than six feet, !illd most of the wall would be
four feet in height.
Associate Planner Lynch clarified that a new six-foot redwood fence is also proposed
along the rear and north property line, which was not in the Staff report analysis. He
stated that he does not have enough information to evaluate the fence because there are
no details submitted., and that the fence height could be a concern.
Francois Varney, owner of525 Virginia Drive~ stated thatthe second story design would
impact his property. He felt that the project would be inconsistent with the Tiburon -
guidelines regarding views to be considered with new buildings or additions. ~e said
that the design would not fit the character ofthe neighborhood. He felt that the building
design would be too imposing, and would include twenty windows looking into his
property. He also felt that the proposed chimney is very high and the entire house is very
tall. He stated that the applicant did not discuss the project with him. He felt that the
applicant's desire for a pool and jacuzzi would come at the expense of his view, as he
would no longer be able to see Mt. Tamalpais.
Wayne Snow, 100 Jefferson Drive, distributed photographs ofthe location of the
proposed retaining wall viewed from his house. He stated that the house is prominent
situated at the entrance to the town. He felt that the front yard setback variance request,
thirteen feet is a significant variance request. He noted that the Staff report stated that the
TmURON D.R.B.
05/15/03
EXHIBIT NO. G 10
t~ ?J
house is inconsistent with the TiburonHillside Guidelines as to view preservation. He
felt that the proposed project would not fit with the predominant pattern in the
neighborhood. He believed that the proposed structure would be far too large and can be
better designed. He said that something other than a pool should be built on the flat area
of the lot, and that the roofline should be lowered.
lngo Schrieber, 525 Virginia Drive, stated that the project would create a massive
invasion of his privacy.
Jack Gaines, 526 Comstock Drive, stated that the proposed construction would erode a
large portiol1 of the water view from Mr. Schrieber's house, and he would like that view
preserved. .
Eleanor Becker, 567 Virginia Drive, stated that her view would be blockedby similar
construction in front of her property. She said that the Design Review Board should
uphold the Hillside Guidelines. Although she is not directly impacted by this project, she
wanted to say that existing views should be preserved.
George Gavros, owner, distributed photographs and stated that he had made an effort to
meet neighbors. He said that he did not know that the neighbors' views were as
important because trees have previously blocked the view. He said that he would revise
the roof elevation and possibly reduce the overhang. He said that he does not want to
impact views. He did not believe that the chimney would impact views. He said that he
had tried to not align the proposedwindows with the neighbor's to avoid impacts to Mr.
Schrieber's privacy. He stated thatsome neighbors approve of the project. He proposed
to construct a trellis to break. up the visual mass. He sought guidance on this project from
the Board. He stated that this is a small, narrow property, and that he needs to expand the
house because of his growing family. He reiterated his desire to work with the neighbors.
Boardmember Kunzweiler asked about the plans for the retaining wall facing Tiburon
Boulevard. Mr. Hartleyresponded that the house would have the appearance of a one-
story building, with landscaping below. .
Boardmember Figour stated that the design is interesting and could fit nicely into the
neighborhood. He said that the house appears to be a two-story building all the way
across the rear elevation. He found the second story element of the structure to be
acceptable, but said that the clerestory windows above the ~me-story element would block
the viewsto Blackie's Pasture and the cove from 525 Virginia Drive. He said that he
could make the fmdings for the setback variances. He wanted more information on
landscaping. Regarding the view from below, he noted that there has always been a
house on this site, and the surrounding hills are built out.
Boardmember Beales concurred that dropping the outboard section on the roof would
help 525 Virginia Drive. He felt that the two-story portion of the house would be tucked
under the trees and does not need to be lowered. He noted that the existing side yard
setback would simply be carried forward, and that the existing house is situated within
EXHIBIT NO~ ~
2~3 11
TIBURON D.R.B.
05/15/03
.~.
. the front setback. He said that the fence on top of the wall on the north property line
should be addressed. Overall, he stated that he likes the design. He said that the length
of the building will be no longer than it is now. He said that the height oftheedge ofthe
roof of the one story should be reduced to lessen the impact on 525 Virginia Drive.
Bqardmember Kunzweiler stated that the first story roof area is too talL He said that his
concern is with the house at an entry to Tiburon. He said that landscaping is important, .
and that the colors and geometry of the house are a concern; as it does stand out a lot. He
said that the applicant should seek ways to tone down the design to minimize prominence
above Tiburon Boulevard.
Chair Comstock stated that the one issue is blocking the views of 525 Virginia Drive and
applicant has said he is willing to work on that. He said that the project should be
. reevaluated with revised story poles. He thought that the second floor element would not
. .
result in much view blockage, but there is the ability to adjust that. He said that a high
ceiling room is nice but not ifit comes at the expense of the neighbor. He said that the
retaining wall height of 4.5 feet would be acceptable, but it seems like the wall would be
taller than represented. He stated that this house is iii a row of homes that appear to have
colors similar to the ones presented, and that the body color of the house should not be
white. He said that he does not have a problem with setbacks, noting that the applicants,
are giving themselves a small yard. He said that the applicant should resolve the
neighbor's issues and return with the revisions.
MIS, BealeslFigour (passed 4-0-1, Teiser recused) to continue this item to the June
19, 2003 meeting.
Boardmember Teiser returned to the meeting.
TIBURON D.R.B.
05/15/03
EXHIBIT NO. ~.
6~5
12.
2.
524 VIRGINIA DRIVE
GA VROS, NEW DW'ELLINGN ARIANCES
Boardmember Teiser recused himself from this item.
The applicant has' submitted an application for the construction of additions, with
variances for reduced side yard setback and reduced front yard setback, and a floor area
exception, on the property at 524 Virginia Drive. The original request was to add
approximately 1,624 square feet, resulting in a total of2,942 square feet for the home.
The additions would be located on both the upper and lower levels of the residence.
Other proposed site improvements include converting the carport to living space, a
swimming pool and spa would be constructed adjacent to the existing concrete patio, the
existing retaining wall along the front property line would be rebuilt, terraced retaining
walls below a new parking pad would be constructed, new steel trellises near the front
entrance would be installed, and the concrete steps leading up to the street would be
reconfigured: The application was first reviewed by the Design Review Board on May
15,2003. At that time the Board raised concerns about the potential view impacts that
the project presented for the residents of 525 Virginia Drive. The Board noted that there
would be a significant blockage of the view of Black ie' sPa sture and Richardson Bay
frorr. the property at 525 Virginia Drive. Members of the Board also had a concern about
the prominence of the structure in its proposed location as viewed from north of the
project site. The Board also expressed concern about some of the details of the project;
for example, the location of the proposed wood fence around the property, the status of
the existing and any proposed landscaping, and the height and visual of the retaining wall
. proposed to be located below the swimming pool. Based on these concerns, the Board .
continued the public hearing until the meeting of June 19, 2003, so the applicant could
make any modifications to address the concerns of the Board.
Roger Hartley, project designer and civil engineer, discussed changes that have been
made since the last Board meeting. He distributed site photographs demonstrating new
story poles,'and stated that the proposed construction would be almost totally obscured
from Tiburon Boulevard. He said that the views of the coastline, Blackie's Pasture and
the edge of the water along the cove have been restored to the 525 Virginia Avenue
property. He noted that reversing the roof pitch would present a blank: roofview from
Tiburon Boulevard. In response to a question from the Board, he stated that the proposed
fence would terminate at the retaining wall on the lower grade. He added that the railing
above the wall is for safety purposes, and he believes that the combined height will not
need a variance.
Francois Varnay, owner of 525 Virginia Drive, stated he does not feel the changes are
sufficient. He felt that his view would still be affected. He distributed photographs of the
story poles taken from his home.
MichaelHeckmann, architect, elaborated upon Mr. Varnay's issues. He felt that the
proposed construction would not be compatible with the neighborhood and should be
designed to avoid view blockage. He described the view corridor which Mr. Varney
currently has from his house, and stated that he had discussed these constraints withMr.
TmURON D.R.B.
6/19/03
EXHIBIT NO. !~~ 7
\~3
4
Hartley. He noted that an upper story normally would step back from the first floor, and
felt t;mt this design exacerbates the view problem.
Leslie Schrieber, resident of 525 Virginia Drive, stated that she and her husband have
leased the property and would buy it if possible, though not if the proposed construction
were approved. She said that they enjoy the views ofBlackie's Pasture, Trestle Cove and
Richardson Bay. She stated that the proposed second story would block most of the view
of the cove from their kitchen, dining room and living room. She said that the second
story would jut out instead of being tucked behind the trees, causing her view blockage.
She felt that lowering the first floor would protect her view ofBlackie's Pasture. She
also felt that the style and materials of the project would not blend in with surrounding
houses.
Ingo Schrieber, resident of 525 Virginia Avenue, distributed a letter with his concerns
about the project. He stated that the ground on this site is unstable, as demonstrated by
the retaining wall below the building along Tiburon Boulevard. He said that the
proposed swimming pool could affect the stability of the soils, and that the pool could be
relocated elsewhere on the site.
George Gavros, owner, stated he is skeptical 'of what is shown by the various photographs
presented by the neighbors. He felt that the neighborhood is very visually diverse, and
that his project would be consistent with its surroundings. He did not believe that a
2,900-square-foot house is massive. He said that most homes in the neighborhood are
two-story homes which are visible from Tiburon Boulevard. He felt that the existing and
proposed vegetation would screen the building. He felt thatthe previous guidance from
the Board was that the second story was acceptable. He said that reversing the roof pitch
would add glare to Tiburon Boulevard and would result in an unsightly roof, while he
thought that the current design blends with the hillside. He noted that the proposed pool
would require serious engineering, and perhaps will not be allowed; however, he does not
want to build the pool up against the house.
Boardmember Kunzweiler stated that it is difficult to reconcile the photographs as to the
potet~tlaJ view impacts. At the prior hearing, he had concerns about the dramatic
statement of the house from Tiburon Boulevard, and he felt that the design has not
significantly changed. He thought that the landscaping would help mitigate the impacts
of the project, but that the design is in conflict with the Hillside Design Guidelines. He
said that he could support the' project, but with reservations.
Boardmember Beales stated that lowering the roofline has helped. He felt that the'
combination of one-story and two-story element helps to break up the mass of the
. building. He said that he also has difficulty reconciling the different photographs. He
stated that he had viewed the story poles from the porch at 525 Virginia Drive. He felt
that the roofline changes make the impacts less severe, and that the vegetation would help
hide the mass of the building. He also thought there are other homes far more obvious in
making an entry statement into Tiburon. He said that he could support the project.
TffiURON D.R.B.
6/19/03
EXHIBIT No.7~_,
2'*'3.5
Boardmember Figour stated that he likes the character of the building, and that this
neighborhood does not have a homogeneous character. He said that he is comfortable
with the view from Tiburon Boulevard; however, he felt that the view from 525 Virginia
Drive is a problem. He said that these neighbors currently have a nice view of the cove
and Blackie'sPasture. He said that the two-story portion of the house would block the'
view of the end ofthe cove, and the one-story element cuts into the view of Black ie's
Pasture. Although he could support the remainder of the application, he cannot support
the current project design with these view impacts.
Chair Comstock concurred with Boardmember Figour and stated that he was surprised to
see how much more the second story stuck out. He said that he likes the project except
for the view impacts. He said that at least three feet should be taken from the first floor
element, and the two-story element should be pulled back six feet. .
Boardmember Kunzweiler agreed that the water view of the neighbor would be
decimated. He said that the changes had exacerbated tl)e problem with the second story.
Boardmember Figour added that the solution is to design the building to preserve the
view ofthe cove and Blackie's Pasture for the house at 525 Virginia Drive.
Mr. Hartley asked if there was any amount of impact to the water views to 525 Virginia
Drive that would be acceptable. Boardmember Figour stated that he could agree to some
water view reduction.
Boardmember Beales suggested that the applicant not try to retain the existing walls of
the structure just to avoid an application for the construction of a new dwelling.
Chair Comstock stated that he thought that the front and side yard setbacks could be .
minimized ina revised design.
Boardmember Figour stated he that once these additions are built, they will be in front of
525 Virginia Drive for a long time.
MIS, Figour/Kunzweiler (passed 4-0-1, Teiser recused), to continue this item to the
August 7, 2003 meeting.
Boardmember Teiser returned to the meeting.
TffiURON D.R.B.
6/19/03
EXHIBIT NO. 7
3~~ 6
2.
524 VIRGINIA DRIVE
GA VROS, ADDITIONSN ARIANCES
Vice-Chair Teiser recused himself from this item.
On May 15, 2003, the applicant presented an application for the construction of additions,
with variances for reduced side yard setback and reduced front yard setback, and a floor
area exception, on the property at 524 Virginia Drive. The original request was to add
approximately 1,624 square feet, resulting in a total of2,942 square feet for the home.
The additions would be located on both the upper and lower level of the residence. Other
proposed site improvements included 'converting the carport to Living space, a swimming
pool and spa would be constructed adjacent to the existing concrete patio, the existing
retaining wall along the front property line would be rebuilt terraced retaining wall walls
below a new parking pad would be constructed, new steel trellises near the front entrance
would be installed and the concrete steps leading up to the street would be reconfigured.
At this meeting, the Board raised concerns about the potential view impacts the project
. presented for the residents of 525 Virginia Drive~ The Board noted that there would be a
significant blockage of the view of Blackie'.s Pasture and Richardson Bay from the
property at 425 Virginia Drive. Members of the Board also had a concernaboutthe
prominence of the structure in its proposed location as viewed from north of the project
site. Based on these concerns, the Board continued the public hearing to the meeting of
June 19,2003.
On June 19, 2003, the applicant presented a revised plan for this project. The main
aspect was that the slope of the roof over the s-story element would be changed from 6:12
to 4:12, essentially lowering the overall height ofthe structure in this location by
approximately three feet. The applicant also clarified some ofthe technical items the
Board had previously discussed; for example, the location of the six-foot redwood fence,
the provision for landscaping, and details for the retaining wall supporting the pool. The
Board still had concerns regarding potential view impacts, and continued the item to
allow the applicant to modify the plans.
Since that time, the applicant has submitted further revised plans that attempt to address
all of the Board's concerns. Several changes have been made to the proposed roof
design. The variances for reduced front and side yard setbacks are still requested, but a
floor area exception is no longer required.
George Gavros, owner, summarized the intent and direction of the project.
Francois Varney, 525 Virginia Drive, stated that the revised plans were a substantial
improvement. He asked what type of fireplace would need the large chimney proposed,
and if the story poles are accurate. He asked that the applicant lower the second story
two feet because it is in his kitchen view.
Associate Planner Lynch stated that he has not received a letter of certification of the
story poles.
TmURON D.R-B.
817103
EXHIBIT NO. 6
\oP~
3
Wayne Snow, 100 Jefferson Drive, distributed a letter from a resident on Washington
Street who was concerned about the visual prominence of the building. Mr. Snow aSked
that the one-story structure be reduced to a height of twelve feet. He previously asked if
the designer could provide a photo simulation of the house on th,e hillside, which ,was not
done. He was concerned that people driving into Tiburon will see this large house on the
hillside, as much of the existing vegetation would be removed, making the building very
. obvious. He said that he has no issues with the variance requests. He noted that a survey
conducted as part of the Town's General Plan update.revealed concerns regarding the
prominence of structures and preservation of character, along with a desire that remodels
and new buildings be consistent in scale and size to existing neighborhoods. He felt that
the proposed project would be both prominent and out of character witp. its surroundings.
Mr. Gavros stated the story poles had not been certified. He felt that further reducing the
building height was unreasonable after the concessions made to date. He said that
privacy was a concern to him, but that the proposed vegetation will ensure it is not a
problem. He said that many homes on the street are larger than what is proposed, and no
two homes on the street are the same color. .
Roger Hartley, designer, stated that he had discussed window changes with Michael
Heckmann, representing Mr. Varney, and that they had agreed that the windows would be
screened by the carport and would not impact Mr. Varney. He stated that the chimney is
for a wood-burning fireplace, but that the view angle would hide the chimney from Mr.
Varney's sight. He said that story poles had been placed at the edge of the roofto show
the extent of view blockage. He said that only the very top of the building would be seen
from Blackie's Pasture. He stated that much of the vegetation would remain.
Boardmember Figour stated that he has liked this design from the beginning. He did not .
agree with those who think this would be a big, massive house. He felt that it would
probably be the best-looking house on the hillside. He said that he was pleased to see the
architecture not lose any excitement or thrust by the house being pulled around to
preserve the view corridor. He felt that the views from 525 Virginia Drive have been
well maintained with slight impact. He said that the applicant has tried hard to make this
project work, and this would not be out of character with the neighborhood. He said he
could support the application.
Boardmember Beales stated that the chimney is not an issue, as it would be masked by
the roof. He did not think that there was a need to lower the building. He said that the
building would be no more visible from Blackie's Pasture than others on the hillside, and
that the vegetation would help screen the building as well. He asked Staff whether story
pole certification was normally required. Associate Planner Lynch responded that
generally, story poles are not required to be certified for a remodel project, but that a
condition of approval could be added to .require this.
MIS, Figour/ Beales (passed 2-0-3, Teiser recused, Comstock and Kunzweiler
absent) to determine that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
TffiURON D.R.B.
8/7/03
EXHIBIT NO. A.>
2~~4
CEQA and approve the application subject to the conditions of approval as set forth
in the Staff report and require story poles to be certified as correct
Vice-Chair Teiser returned to the meeting.
EXHIBIT NO. 8
3&~ 5
TffiURON D.R.B.
8/7/03
Tiburon Town Code
Chapter 16: Zoning
SUBCHAPTER 4; ZONING PERMITS
4.02.06.
Planning Director as Acting Body on Applications for Minor Alterations.
. Site Plan & Architectural Reviewapplications for the following items are considered to be Minor
Alterations and may be acted upon by the Planning Director or his designee in lieu of the Design
Review Board:
a. Residential additions less than 500 square feet in floor area.
b. Accessory buildings or structures less than 500 square feet in floor area.
c. Fences, walls, and/or retaining walls.
d. Minor exterior alterations such as windows, decks, skylights, solar panels, satellite
dishes, and similar items as determined by the Planning Director.
e. Re-roofs.
f. Swimming pools.
g. Spas.
h. Modifications to approved Site Plan & Architectural Review permits when
determined to be minor in nature.
1. Other applications which the Planning Director determines to be appropriate for Staff
action.
The Planning Director may refer any application to the Design Review Board for action.
4.02.07. Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications.
In reviewing applications for Site Plan & Architectural Review, the acting body shall consider the
following principles as they may apply:
(a) Site Plan Adequacy. Proper relation of a project to its site, including that it promotes
orderly development of the community, provides safe and reasonable access, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
(b) Site Layout in Relation to Adjoining Sites. The location of proposed improvements
on the site in relation to the location of improvements ,on adjoining sites, with
particular attention to view considerations, privacy, adequacy.oflight and air, and
topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site
conditions;
(c) Neighborhood Character. The height, size, and/or bulk of the proposed project bear
a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity. A good
relationship of a building to its surroundings is import.ant. For example, in
neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall
be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to
minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance Amended through Ordinance No. 475 N.S. 7/18/2003 Page 97
EXHIBIT NO. q
\~L
Tiburon Town Code
Chapter 16: Zoning
SUBCHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
(d) Floor Area Ratio. The relationship between the size and scale of improvements and
the size of the property on which the improvements are proposed. This concept is
known as "floor area ratio" (see Section 4.02.08 below).
(e) Grading & Tree Removal. The extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes
grading and/or removal of trees, significant vegetation, or other natural features of the
site such as rockoutcroppings or watercourses.
(f) Compatibility of Architectural Style ahd Exterior Finish. The architectural style and
exterior finish are harmonious with existing development in the vicinity and will not
be in stark contrast with its surroundings. I
(g) Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent
erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise
impacts of the proposed development. Applicants are encouraged to use native and
drought-resistant landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be used which will at
maturity minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. A cash deposit or
other monetary security may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenance
for a one year period orany and all landscaping.
(h) Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other
properties, or produce glare or light pollution; yet provide adequate illumination for
safety and security purposes. The acting body may impose a condition that following
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection, all exterior lighting
shall be subject to a 30-day light level review by the Planning Department to ensure
conformance with this guideline.
'. (i) Overall Property Improvement. In order to allow the gradual upgrading of existing
development it may be' required that improvements to existing buildings and the site
as a whol.e be made. The review of applications for additions or modifications to
existing development may include conditions requiring changes and/or modifications
to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property.
G) Appropriate Use of Building Envelope. In Planned Residential (RPD and RMP)
zones, butlding envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-needed area
for flexibility in the appropriate siting of a main structure and its accessory structures.
The building envelope should not be interpreted as an area intended to be "filled" by
a main structure and its accessory structures.
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance Amended through Ordinance No. 475 N.S.7/18/2003
Page 98
EXHIBIT NO. q
2~L
'H . ~.. )
.IBURON DESIGN UIDE'LINES: .
- MAXIMUM VERTICAL DIMENSION OF A SINGLE FACE OF RETAINING WALL SHOULD BE 6 FEET
. I . . .' ..
G1 P7
7
~IH~L.e J2.e"'A1H1H~ : :. :
WA.L..l,;. M~K.e~ A 1M~lve
~trAtz. OM :HILl.IblPE, roe,..;;
or.- wAL..L. . t'leec.Luo{:.~: :
PLAt-lT1HC1 OF;:.Ffc.t,tIVc
.L)~r:::.ct-J, '. .::
~(,.,."~~I:I.. . . ~. I
. I . :
. j i
)".~'.'
. ......
. -. . ..
. "
,,'-. .
:-.1.,'-'
.
TE.I2~A(...Er.r l2eTAIHIl-lc.1
WAL.L~ f.>f2r;.A...1' UP 'MA~1b
--.--7
~_...
~ PI2IHrIPt.~ iAVTI1 0 LA~e, ~pr An"; 11'"10. WA:..L.1Jd_A _t,JJ!:lE~t~~~PLt-~_,__~E~~~_g!;':,rt\LtlLtla _ ()
,!,,~1,;6. IM1"" . e ;eMe.:[6~2~.I.~~~t?.t-~~e:?~., . ;. . . () \.;J
" ",. -'" (J,
~O . " "'. '''''''. .,,""~ . {)
~ ,,".".'; 0---
., " '. " . ". 'i Z
\ '\. '". ".', ....,.........
". '<""' < .. :~".jj"'~-. '. : . . ~.
..,.~ ~. ~
\ ". \ \. ". ~,. ."~ .
\ , ",' . '.. -'~V' ~
\ ' ....-..
\ ' " ' I,' . -'.. - .... ~.
''...'''-, ", ''-.. _ _ ~~ ~" . ..' - ~ .~:=~=- c' ~./
, !.. .' ~
'\'" I ,_:..> _'" .._--- _ ~ /-
....- -- - . . . . ..'
_...",.'
-"~' - ",.
-
,
............-.. ....-.
.
.
. .
~IH~Le LAt<6:e."
r2eTAIHIHl'. wALL'.o
cAHfiOr,;! .. j..;
6ct2e.e1geo :eA~ILY.
)::f~2
..
.....
, '..........
\ ......
, ',,- '..,. ~ - -....,
\....~ :~
~'~'~ -
-.! --~ -"
. . . -~ '
6eVE.r<AL6;\1VC\:"'L..e~ ~.___; l_~'-'-
lC?E:iAIHn-lC=! WAL.L.H....J
c-AH e,e. 'bc..t<'ee eo
----
--~
i
rrIBURo~'Dl!S1GN GU1DEl!
I . .
,
.01
8
P7
. Li~~r2~e.c..oH'-t<~Te t2eTAIHIH6j. wAL.L.
~l.Jr2FAl.e-6: G.~H ~c l'.:leeH . FOr,?MIl..,E:6
A~O I rA.~e ,ye.~~ TO, ""H"eAL.
WITH: PL~HTIH~ ^Ht?, rrr~~.~.
l. l : : f ; j
I ! I ~ ~ 1
. . \
I
i
i
I
~.
'.
· AL.:n:.I2HAre P~~e>lLrT'r.:
. t<t< T1e.~ t.J~el? A.,#;) c.IZH~el~l~
~HI':) . r'LAHTIH~1 . !
-Effe."iIVE
~UL~
./
./
____.i _
.--
./
./
./
,/
/'
./
.
.
./
./
./
pL,AH-nHCI. t'o,"~er~
HO e.FpeCTIVe.
P.lLiLK. . .
.,...,:
.-/'
HO rL.~H-r!HO\ 1'-'0-66\ ~~e oue
TO Toe C'ftZeTAiHIH~ WAt..L
,
,
No
YE:~
· rL.AHiIH~ POc.t<.E:i6oH
"bTEPfeo: l<eTAIHIMOI . '!{~
. WAL.1;oo p...L..L..ow~L.~ee~ fj,t'i
. PLAHTIH~'~T~5VE.l<AL. . ~/ ~
Lc::.Vr::f A. .. . " . \.'1"
~ c;.V..J. ",,'v ----, ~--..~
r.
OlJ1
-'tl;
oN
Z
E-t
I---j
~
~
~
~
~
lE!f.lpLe:.Z: ,PO 'HOr LJ6E: :"'AQ e EXPAH~e-t> of A~-bl~Le M~U;~~L.._o_tL V{6~~"~~J<op~
O~PJ>.VIH4' ,p,.r(I!A6. .i2eMeMMr<,.~..'. ~.. 'tlt jLv,.;eL.l.IHM MU":,"' ~e ?eet-l J:IZOM f?e~q\.y AH~' .
P\~ove.. ~y oThlet26 hh H~r< gHJHe. IL.L~ltJe." -. O~
HO ...' '1'86 .~~
z
E-1
~
,::Q
~
t:O
tx1
r::t:l
. :: ; : : . I
! ' J I J :- ' Iii
· LAr<~E. ~OOF A126~
· ~TI" A~eA
. jOt.:' L~~Ote
\ .. , "
'- '.'" ", ""'-,.:...
~'. ", ...~ '
"'
,
- m'" i ,1._ ., i Ii
?rIl3URa ,f.)lrS~QN. QlJlOLINe:'$l- .'. : -. .-:-
- fMAXtMUM OF APPROXIMA TEL V 300 'SQUARE.FEET OF ANY SINGLE MA Tt:RIAL
"300 SQUARE FEET STAND OUT. ON THE HillSIDE "
\. .
,
~
~
I
--+-----
) :" -;.::.).......211~~.~--
~~~~.. :~--......;'.. . ..' ~.'; '. '-'-.
0.;~_, '~i-4-=- , : '.: ~ .
. ~~~- ......... . . ,
~"'~ ,.. ~ : -.
. ..... ',,---- ' . '------
'. I '. . . '.'.....,~..---...
, . ------ '. -.......-.." .
H '. e .il!!' . '--."~ "----"'-. !,~
: t2~~IH[H}J WAI-l.,; , :~ ~. ~~.. ''-'''';
I '. r. . : ." I "<....
· L' ~~~;~.f~~6'At2eA! '1 "-".
. A.I~VJ .., i : .! ~ i~.
· L.A.rc?6tE.WAh ~ ; A~~
I; . '!.!
. ,
. .
, I"'
, ,
i j : i;
, ,
i !
: I
i
.
IN ANY P'LANE. AREAS iAR.GER THA~.1~2 '-'P.2.'
13
.
.
,
.'
re~r<AL..eO
r-'AT10-e1 oec..~~
WALL ~t<~
. .
, .
,
!
!
e,l2oKe~Llp..
--....
- -
- --
"--
---...
""-
----.....
"
'"
-
.
.
~<eTA:MIHC1 WALL6
F3r<''''''E.H LJ~
LA:<61E !:200P At<> eA"et.,)
f?;)r<o~eH lJP
'TIS'URON DE.SIGN-GUIDELINES
'-
G2 P,4
.
: 15
~~
O~
z '
~
~
p:j
~
~
r:i1
,
~HAHC'le I200p ~O!2M
TO }2e~Let..lIH,-
O1FferzE=.HT
O:r<ISG-TIOH
rzl HI.IPU:: <4 i Ll~e t1l2eil' tAt<EW 111-1 !mFl..ec.:rl VE: ;INi.~ r.2IAL..'5 ~t-! 0 E:)(fO-6~O ':,l t-l r.n:'.~el tJ~ OF
>'br~w'*TLJ~e~h~ ~L~67At.HJMlriuM A OPLtMbTIC-t'J. A!..-lo- f2E!FLlSc.f LI~111 AHO c..AH.~~e
~r(~T ~Ht-loyA-.HC.S. po~ 1 He.ltJIH ~r<.6, . O~t<~ .~Or:>IZ~O ~LlJM: f"J.UM l~' ~e6i WH e12E P~~l ~Le
LJ~e.HOt+.. i<L;~L.~iIVe:. ~L..A.~~ O~ ~l..A~rl~' FO~' 6\'.YL.lc..,HT6.' c..OHi~"\... pOt<~ 60
taa.e~'fIOH~ 00 HoT ~T~l~e OiHe.t< oWe.LL.lI-le;: WHIT~,
~ J~
t:(IH~IPL..e 'r,: '~ofli~ wIHOow'PL.;Al-E:./vle.rl ;For;t~-6wH? PK'JV.-'\~~_f-\H~YJcW:... 0
A~. AV."I.l L^. .r<. ~e:ex~.~~. e.~, 0.' .F. F. ,.\..0.. O. ~..J ".'.~.o. 'G.. E.1L.1.M6. ~ i. ~L..^-6~ ~HtY~Ic...TLJk'e. 0 I y..
: wlHr. ~~. tHe-'b5'" e. WA~TeFWU i?F=eHe.~~Y? AOMIT:rOOMU'-H 6UH, - 0
; H eA" AHO~l..A~~,; 00, t-'1of :f~AMe'VIe.w~ wet-l-,' DfTeHt.AU6e. P~IYAl.. Y . U'
. P~Of e.M~' rO~' eOTHHeW,~W1WOIH~ AH~AoJ~G.eHT ~e~Il?e:.H(.,.e6:, 0
u,:u+.Rey MuI~" .At;v\nA. '. ..,..-AL........ WAa\.....~...s:~:e. .e:-~:c...t.lt<..TAI.Heo;iHe.. ~eFo~e. THe..-ve~\(vle.w z
1 tHl;Y A~F 0~~..,ior<e:l~L.: l"5.-t~.TO~F't . ' . .' ~
e; IIfr.2,A/v\ell vlew~ :WITH &At<e~UL-t...y. iHOU~~ioUT' WIHtJOW6. E9
doJ Av'-'IQ ~LlA~IH~ Wlt"H~oW~ \wHe.~e r8e.y wILL. \lLOO~~ ~I~~r 11....:1011 ~
. . . I ~"MeOHie ..e~~..HOMe.; lH6TeAq? LJ-6e. ~~r:L.1C.1HT~ol< ;bMAL.Le~., wsL.L..r:iI
,'-:" !.pt,;A~ESOtwlt+lOOW~ pOI<' ~pe"IFIc.. vlew~'AFlo-t.1G.,HT. ;.. - -.- ...
10: i _~Ol.~. ."""." ". YE6 "'_ \. . ,./ ..
/ , -' -....-0-
, ~ .
/ l' . i .
I ' .' ,
/ ,: -/ .'
.~tyVIIaW;;/ . .. . . . I ~
! .I . .~ " · ~rfl~~b~I~-Lt "-. -----
. " ; view OF; .
. PI6TAHT:
!a~Je.G.T~
: : !;. I Hf
. : . , ,i
· VI~W 'At<GA .
, .
· Lt:TMOr<c' Llt;H1 IHro I<OPM WiTH . we~L-
: L.;OHc...~1'/,l:P;d6~YL..IC4HT-6.>1,' . '. i..
t WrC?eM · t.Ol""\ir:2Ol.. OF -!:lLl~ 'fYITH Pl:2of~t<' ovei<:-
I I :. ,. t<.1 HAH"-'" Aeave WIHOOW.
~WI~OI' -- ~I . .' .
. Pr<IVAL: · !II=-ee~l of P~:VA~IPOr<.'THo6e eeLow.
'J ,'- 'r-- .
TIBU~'ON D
G2 P6'
17
!?QIHt.IPLE': IO~ 12eMoreL: LOCAle/? OLJT~UIL.DIHt'1,l~1 A12E. rJl~t.OUQ/>-;~~,P ~
~ WIMMIHt, pool.. l-Ic.?U6E:":>., ~UM~ 1-I0U":>1:.-:,? TooL -6H e~ ? 6tAt<A~1O ~ A:-1 I) or H 1":12 -tif "'u~:r U 12 e'-> O~
t2eM"re Fr2V'M The PI2IHt.1PAL.. rJwaLLIHC;j MAKe '7Hr; F3P~e~lve f"JUL.f<... hHrJ ~eHr:;.r2A~ A/~\j..?()H7 -
0;::: r?LJll...r?IH'" or-! A ~ITe ~E:ehi\. ~Ar'&ie'(, IF PO~61~Le, 7HcJ:JE. FAG.I:...ITIE:-6 6H'oULr.> 0e IH lHE::- 0
Mp.,IH r?We.LLlH~? Ol~ '? IP lZ8MOjE"..? iHS:.'( .l:JvC'uLrJ ~G.. r?ut4 U-1TO lHc, HILL~ltJe.~ Or.? J.)tJ~~-rAHIIA~~Y z~
-6l,~eeHe.r.> WlfH P;Jet2~? t'L.,t'J-1TH1~? FtM?-E~, elc... HOTE:: ThJr~.) I):> HOr MeAH7 TO t)1~LrO~QAC:jE;.~
lI,-L(..l~Tc:t21l f:lL..t>,.t-l~ WITH ,:~OUt2.rYA~Or" ~e\\N6eH ~At~t\-;;'!iie. A~r) r)w~LLlht-i.) C,ic.... EO
, 1-'4
No YE.~ ~ . ::r:
, :) , r~eMo1e r';/t:N,p +--IoLlJ:lC?<
I r)UL'...~- 'I....: t,\Ho ~c.Q'.:.eHE.~
--------
~ V~ '
,~~A
" (I I (1- ./,)
~- l'r" ,v
'Lv""! .
~ .
Pr2II-\~\t?LA:. \\': ~liE':: ~UICt?lH01;') "-"0 'T'HeV pol-\\-r ll~TAHD oU 'It p;et.AtJ~e of LO~A TIOrJ,' OH Pt2ot'e.Q7Y.
rJO. HOT ~LJI r:J ot-l c.Qe/~r OF- \<-.HoL 6, t<1r')~E.LlHE:~? r;\'20MIHt:HT Loc.ATIC'H).:;l. r2eMr:;fA~e~.)
ALL. r,)weL..LH16i~ OH THe HILL A.r.<e.rAQ-r Of p.. r<21t.H ie)(1Ut2e P.)UILO:t'-1~,A)1)1 :"'At-:06t--A!?a-it..-;
~HtJOPe:H ~rA~e. Ho OHE. (.)wE;~LIHt:: ).)HOUL.,tJ P.le eX?lZ~\o~jA\"'\...Y r,.1~t'tY1\N1:.lrrr
I . . -' .
H9. I. _ . _ YE:~_.. .
. 'TH e e~o 1]'\ P. P;U~1A)\ H~6 n"1 ',' ~-_._~ . P/
. 1"t20MIt..{t::H I. ...."~A, 10M;" ~~r--I y
p;e -?laerl1DeT.i11Me.HTA1-~Y? ' . (
F12~M eve:12ywhet<'E-,' \' 1'1
.
-, ,-, . ~ ..' .,"-. t?WaLUt-k..~ ~lTcDJG~7 p)e.~ow
- 02E:~~i 00E:.J.) ~oT IHTer~fE:i2c
, . . :-VI~H HAI~.~AL..t2!PC1e~IMe:,
" . ." . I .,.., . ... .. . I . I . _" ., ~ 1 ,- ... ".. '1'.... . ~~.~r---..l,.'q -Li.~'.:l" . c' 'j JlI:.J...~- J , If" ,
iTIBURONDESIGN GUtOELINl:S . . - I J
G2 P10
!i~!!:.I~!~lJ..~~~_T:~~~~_D... ~~ :~F!E_S_T.;.~~~IDGElINE. ,CONSIDEFf BER'MING, CUTTING INTq THE HillSIDE OR' EVE'N P11
24
Wayne Snow
100 Jefferson Drive
Tiburon, CA, 94920
RECEIVED
MAY 0 8 2003
Town ofTiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA, 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
May 8, 2003
Re:
Property Address:
Property Owner:
Architect:
524 Virginia Drive
Gavros
Roger Hartley
Dear Chair and Board Members:
After observing the story poles from my residence I visited the Town Hall and reviewed the proposed
plans. The issues I would appreciate you assessing are as follows:
The existing structure is 8"3" in height. The proposed structure is approximately 20' in height and
approximately 84' in length. The plans show the South (which should maybe known as the West)
view 20' x 84' = 1,680 sq. ft of building facing West. The tallest part and the most bulk and mass
are on the West Side of the building. Is this design to large for the site?
Of the proposed 1,680 sq. ft on the West Side of the plans, 576 sq. ft of the building is window.
There are 22 windows and glass doors on the South side, is this too many? The proposed
windows make up 34% of the West Side ofthe building. How is the issue of glare from the sun
on the windows being addressed? Will the amount of light from the inside be excessive?
The North West End of the proposed building is a single story with a ceiling that is as tall as 20',
should it be lower? These spaces are primarily the kitchen/dininglliving room.
The exterior stucco color has not been specified. The facia is supposed to be white. White may
accentuate the bulk and mass.
The plans do not show the location of any exterior lighting on the West Side (rear) of the property.
Is there any landscaping plans for the rear of the property? Are they planning on managing the
trees or plants at th~ rear to retain the view and not to reduce bulk and mass?
There are 10 windows on the North side. Is there more than necessary?
What will the retaining wall look like when looking at the rear ofthe property from Tiburon Blvd.
I also suggest you ask for a rendering showing the proposed home Qn the site. Such as taking the
3D model from the plans, coloring it and simulate it on the site being viewed from Tiburon Blvd.
I am sending this letter and comments early so Mr. Hartley, the Gayros's and you will have time to assess
these issues before your meeting. I support improvements to this property and that your approval be to the
best interest of the property owner and the Town. I hope you wil1.contact me to discuss this matter and to
see proposed changes from our.property and neighboring vantages. 1 can be reached at 415-383-6143.
S~~.b ~
<<~~w ~
Cc: Roger Hartley
EXHIBIT NO. \ \
LAT,E MAlL # E-+
. RECEIVED
MAY 1 2 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
May 9, 2003
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board.
1 505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon Ca. 94920
Re: 524 Virginia Drive, Tiburon Ca.
Attn: Mr. Brian Lynch, Associate Planner
Dear Mr. Lynch,
We are the owners of the property located at 525 Virginia Drive
(directly above the subject property)..
After carefully inspecting the submitted design of the above
referenced property, we concluded that it is completely and entirely
unacceptable in any form and shape to us.
We wish to refer to 'Tiburon Design Guidelines. pages 33, 34 and 36 +.s c-
view protection. Blockage of the center of the view and the entire
panorama would be effected.
The proposed design would destroy our view and take away the
enjoyment of our home. The water view, the cove and the green
grassy pasture were the main reasons we purchased our property.
From the street level, which we actually own, the Mount Tamalpais
view would be totally blocked. Instead of seeing the beautiful hilfside,
we would see a structure. From our front yard or deck, it is gravely
effecting our western view. Addition to it, from the bedroom, kitchen,
Jiving room and dining room, as you can see from the enclosed
photographs. From my garden furniture, I would see a sixty feet wide
roof instead of enjoying the sun sets on the Richardson bay. We
would see a "firewall" and a huge roof.
EXHIBIT NO. \ 2-
\~L
The negative financial impact we would suffer could reach hundreds
of thousands of dollars. Mr. Bernie M. Curley Realtor at Prudential
California Realty and a neighborhood resident has supported this
. opinion. He has been a resident in Tiburon for over thirty years.
I am postponing my business trip to Utah to be present at the
Hearing on May IS at 7:00 PM. It is extremely important to us to.
follow any developments in this matter. Please review our material
before the hearing to be completely familiar with our concerns.
Sincerely,
Gaye and Francois Varnay
525 Virginia Drive, Tiburon ca. 94920
415/383/6446 . / 1
~.., ' ...... 1:Ir
".yo: ",
//' t' ,/
fl!'V<(J
Gov. Code Section 65009[b}-(2).
EXHIBIT NO. \ 2
2-~L
Tiburon Design Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon,Ca 949290
May 15,2003
RECEIVED
Gentlemen:
MAY 1 5 2003
Re: 524 Virginia Drive File #20308
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
In connection with the architectural application for above mentioned property,
we would like to make the following comments. No one wants to prevent a
person from improving and upgrading his property; however in making those
improvements, there should be some consideration forthose who may be
adversely affected by the improvements, particularly in this area, where views
are coveted, are of the greatest importance, and valued. above all else.
The staff reports . . ."The proposed structure appears to adversely impact the
primary view from the property located at 525 Virginia Drive. The residents
of 525 Virginia currently enjoy views in the westerly direction to Blackie's
Pasture and the cove of Richardson Bay. The proposed additions would
block a portion of this westerly view from the kitchen and living room. It
is recommended that the Board consider the impact of this view carefully.
The Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines address in more detail the issue of
view blockage". . . etc. . . . "although the project exhibits some positive site planning
. and design elements, it appears that the project is not consistent with the Tiburon
Hillside Design Guidelines in regard to view preservation."
We have been to the site and note that the view of some 45 years or more from
525 Virginia is relatively narrow and part of it would be blocked by the
construction, as mentioned above. Please uphold the Tiburon Hillside Design
Guidelines for all of us.
Respectfully,
5f3 ~.,T~
t;/3ttAht
V1' 7uJ~ -tf vgU/
EXHIBIT NO. \ ~
,I"
June 11, 2003
LATE MAIL # D--2
Town of Tiburon,
Mr. Brian Lynch, Associate Planer
Members of the Tiburon
Design Review Board
Mr. William Comstock
Mr. Michael Figour
Mr. Kirk Beales
Mr. John Kunzweiler
RECEIVED
JUN 1 6 2003
Re: 524 Virginia Drive, Tiburon
Variances, Addition, Floor
TOWN OF TIBURON
BUILDING DIVISION
Dear Mr. Lynch and Board Members,
After the May 15, 2003 meeting, we retained the services of an experienced local
architect, Mr. Michael D. Heckmann AlA. We thought that with his extensive local
knowledge, he would be able to assist Mr. Gavros, his Designer, and us to find a
solution to our serious concerns about the view blockage to our property at 525
Virginia Drive.
During my consultation with Mr. Heckmann, I learned that there are several
alternatives to address the view blockage, without impending the expansion of
the above referenced property.
Unfortunately, again, Mr. Gavros elected not to contact us and share the revised
design changes. We only learned about the new plan when we received the
Courtesy Notice. It is difficult to find an acceptable solution if Mr. Gavros is not
cooperating.
The size of the view blockage based on his original plan is approximately 400
sa. FT. Mr. Gavros revised "new design", a reduction ofthe north section of the
roof line height; represent less than 20% of the total view blockage we would like
to eliminate.
Dear respected board members, the revised design is not a compromise, it is a
halfhearted and cynical way to address the issue, by practically saying, " I do not
give a damm about your view about your quality of life or the financial loses I
create to my neighbor, as long as I have a greater view, save enough room for a
swimming pool, jacuzzi. double my living space and keep all my backyard".
It.is clearly against all the written guidelines in Tiburon concerning expansion and
view blockage!!
Please consider all this facts before the June 19, 2003 Public Meeting.
Thank You,
Gaye and Francis Varnay
525 Virginia Drive, Tiburon
. , ! . /)
U'~' //
", i.//~'1 /:/
i'J'T / /
..,............ \.. - ..!'-:~/'
,J , . iV~//~"'"
~."'~:// .
~. ..-;f:'!:o~ .
." /.c'"P"" ,
C/' "y.....
.../ /" .
EXHIBIT NO. \4-
ROGER HARTLEY RCE25588
1550 TIBURON BLVD
TIBURON, CA 94920
415.435.0400
rhartley@mindspring.com
RECEIVED
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
,MA~C. ; 5 r-u3 C A-<.0 "&~/
5)., 'S VI i2C:e{,IO CA- bv<- un:? ( .
f,.~c~ &ocJ! /J .
---::== ~ c;.---
-t\eMi~ ~ utJ
~;r\j f~?~f>:if '
. r)~-c~ ,ro;~
CJpJ~ Ll
f~<g4 ~v
1~'{1v~
JUN 1 9 'ZOOJ
EW FROM NORTH
~~e.-'"\
'\ y.,\ '::> ~~e.~0-
~ .)
~......,. .
. y
ADDITIONS & AL TERA TIONS
1~tr~
GA VROS RESIDENCE
524 VIRGINIA DRIVE
TIBURON, CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT NO. \ 5
DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 04.10.03
LESLIE AND INCO SCHREIBER
525 VmcINIA DRIVE .:. TIBURON, CA 94920
June 19,2003
Chair and Members of the
Design Review Board
The Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
RECEIVED
JUN 1 9 2003
Re: 524 Virginia Drive.
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TlBURON
Gentlemen:
Following attendance of the May 15th, 2003 meeting of the Board, we would like to herewith submit the following:
. The modifications to the north side. of the proposed building are a marked improvement, however the
.main building remains a mayor view impediment which we vehemently oppose in it's present form.
. Since I foster serious doubts that the story poles tell the full story, I would like to ask: Is the applicant,
who personally placed the poles, willing to certify their' accuracy?
. The currently proposed massive remodel of building at 524 Virginia Drive requires, according to staff
report, a great many variances of the building codes yet it was substantially approved. An application
presented at the same meeting May 15th, for a remodel at 23 Old Landing Road, was rejected outright by
the Board on grounds of being too massive and intrusive, yet it did not require any variances whatsoever.
. The proposal for 23 Old Landing Road was also rejected by the board, on grounds that it did not fit in the
neighborhood. The same. criteria certainly should be applicable to 524 Virginia, particular in light of the
recently completed remodel at 539 Virginia, the designers of which made a commendable effort in
maintaining the "feel" of the neighborhood. .
. The present proposal for 524 Virginia' includes a pool. This particular property appears to be on quite
unstable grounds, notably during the rainy season (nOte the hill side shoring along Tiburon Boulevard
directly below the property). The additional weight of a water filled pool will undoubtedly put
considerable additional stress to this site. Conversion of the pool to living space could most certainly be
used effectively to reduce the current invasive elevations proposed.
. Kindly take also in consideration, that this particular sectionofHWY 131 below the property is by far the
narrowest and most constrained of its entire length; any slide or spill here will cause absolute havoc to all
traffic in and out of Belvedereffiburon.
. Are both board and applicant aware of the fact that a good portion of the present access to 524 is over the
lot of 525 Virginia?
. One of the committee members vacated his seat prior to the agenda calling for discussions of the 524
Virginia Drive application. This move presumably occurred to avoid a conflict of interest. Could we be
appraised to the actual reasons of this move and in case of conflict, as to the relations between applicant
and Board member?
Thanking you for your kind considerations and in anticipation of extending elevation limitations also to the main
structure, despite tonight's agenda item: "POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE, HILLSIDE DESIGN
GUIDELINES" .
i
We remain, \~ .
'I \
Cordially Yours
EXHIBIT NO. \ k,
(415) 435-4509 . E-M~AIL: leslingo@earthlink. net
"
[;; - ~
:1 ~
..
p . n
~
sl
I
.( Ol~~~
~~1I2 ~
- 10
'0
1
I
@I
.....-.
~ 0 ~I ~ j a
~t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~!11
'1l\&&(ii\ii\ii\l\lIl1l1'i~ 2 I
GI I I I C\ I I I I I I I J:.
i ," '"'''' Ill! i i
~ I
m ~~E H~~ fU
ins ~ EU ~ ! '!
i ~ 6 ~ I I
, : .L ~ \., : I \ 'I
i Q B i E I~ ~ ~ I
.
" i ,I ir, i
.!,i~i I~l
, ~ t III ~~
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
.~ ;0
;Ii 0
~iil COl
. h !B .
~ %
~ )0
~ ~
~.~ ~
=~ ~
,~ I
EXHIBIT N ._\ I
\----0{=' 4-
a
I I I ill
5 , Iii
.. I U>
~~ ~ III ~
. ,I C
f.l" Z
I
ADDmONS AND AL TERA nONS
GA VROS RESIDENCE
o
~
514 VIRGINIA ST, TIBURON CA 94920
AJ"# 55-081-26
a
C
-0
-0
m
;:0
"
r
o
o
;:0
~ -0
: ):
~ z
s::
rv
N..
::0
o
C1
~
::0
==
>
::0
~
t'"'
~
><
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~ ;;~~ .~~~~~~~~. . . . . . . . i.~. . i ~ ~
524 V;,g;M "'::"~';~=~~i'iiIBIT ~. i! \ ,_
2G(:+
~
4---
o~
~"'
~
d\'
-=1 ~ ·
"'''~
71
.,,-
~g i
Z 1.
~u .
.~
~
C!.~
"'~
- ..,
:tl
0:1
z.....
...
tit
GJ
Q::;
~~
~.:".~....".".~
~ ~ '" f;:l
~ ~ S t!1
~ ;;I .. 8
'"
~
........................................ ..
{/J
fii
> ::J
I
~
"
i5
~
~
~
3
~
---4
d\\)~
r7f'"
I..' i -,~~
If__I'r 1;
""'''1.., ,
.
.
I'
I
I
6' MAX I
._ _2()'.....~
-l~ C ::0
~~ z ~
'~~ I m
~~~ 0) <::
~S '6 m
~6 ~ c
Z.z
~
~
~g
~.,
"'..
g~
o
~
g~l
':;~2
r:~t
.:.L ym
~"'~
. ~C-I
*~
-
~-J
-
~.
(j'.
I C:.
-
~
t\\
c-
-
Z-
tt\
\P
EXHIBIT NO. \ I
~~4
d\d\~
~bc;
~.,,~
J: tt ~
~~.~
4-'"
~ $,
~l\)"
r ." \It
n. i\ '"
~-c
/p l~G
,.../,
.'
en
m
(')
-;
o
z
OJ
~ " ;:F.. ,,~,,:,".,.. ....
tJ\ ~J,...... " ;.'
,-. .:,.,
, . " - ,.:,' .:~-.; ~. :." ."
C ~ ~.'..~; ......'.::.'..:.....1':..,.:.
,.... .....;'.:.
T -':~';.
r- ~>:.;. .;..
I:. ..k~,";\'
n
=F
..:.t
I'
I
/
6' MAX I
. 2Q~::4: _B.,_"._ .". ---...-.. ----~......-. ,...-....--i
'- ::0 ~
c:
:z m
I C")
0> m
"" <:
= m
=
<.U C
EXHIBIT NO. \-,
4oT;4-
FROM T I BURON FILM FEST! IJf1L
mx NO. 1 415 388 4123
n. 22 2003 10:43f1M Pi
LATE MAIL #~ 2
Town of Tiburon
Oesign Review Board
1505 Tihuron Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECE~\fED
JUN 2 3 2003
Re: 524 Virginia Drive
Application for Additions
PLANNI~IG DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear ChaiT and Board Members,
June 20, 2003
We like most neighbors in the area think that the size and appearance ofthe building
facing west is too large and lall. !tis directly toward our neighborhood in Belveron West.
It should be reduced and lowered in size as presently seems too large for our area. This
can be done by reducing the roofheight or changing the design. We don't think the town
residence would want a home on this site.
Thank you for your time.
Tina Shafu
(415)388- 7798
480 Washington Ct.
Tihuron, CA 94920
EXHIBIT NO. \e
~LATE MAI'L# D"2.
Gaye and Francois Varnay
525 Virginia Drive
Tiburon Ca. 94920
RECEIVED
JUL 2 I 2003
Town of Tiburon
Design Review board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon Ca. 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TISURON
July 17,2003
Re: 524 Virginia Drive
Gravos
Application for Additions with:
Variances For Reduced Side Yard Setback
Variances For Reduced Front Yard Setback
Floor Area Exception
Dear Chair, Board Members and Staff members,
Because the critical nature. of the height and position of the above referenced
project, I respectfully request that the new STORY POLLS accuracy be verified by a
certified land surveyor.
, Respectfully,
~
~ r{~~
Gaye and Francois Varnay
EXHIBIT NO.J q
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
AUG 0 7 2003
Re: 524 Virginia Drive
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Chair and Board Members:
August 8, 2003
I am sorry that I can't be at the tonight's meeting. But this is in regards to the above
design and my previous letter that I sent you on behalf of our neighbors. We still think that
this plan is too large for this area and needs to be reduced from all directions.
We also agree with those town residents who would not want to see a prominent home on
this site.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
TinaShafa
480 Washington
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415)388-7798
EXHIBIT NO. 20
To: Tiburon Town Council
RECEIVED
SEP 5 2003
Re: Appeal of Design Approval, August 7,2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
----------------------------------------------------
,
524 Virginia Drive
I1We request that the Town Council uphold the appeal filed by Wayne
Snow. We support the appeal and would like the applicant to resubmit a
new design. 'The Design Review approval should be changed for the
followi,l,g reasons:
,~.' Too:prominent a building (84' long by lowest 14' tall) on this site.
,," The one story is to tall, 14' Height by 50' Length.
_ To many windows mcing westerly. 41 windows.
_ Too much potential for light pollution. Prominence at night.
_ No permanent barrier to reduce appearance . of windows and
building size/mass.
_ Out of character for the neighborhood
Date Address
Q'3-o J 10 Gre.e..,.,lVOO ~ ct.
Name
WP,Ju'f Ju..!::Lfdl< UA-lltt
~~~/IV .
q-~-&5 q EoO T~ce. . 5.. ~
1- 3 "03 q E~t~~ /\,{arlaP1VJ e.-
9 - c/- () -:> 2 { ~r11 ~v1-cX- j b t:J.
Cf- '.l63 2--1 KbYW W Y4-CJ2 ,I/p'.d-t I!. L v1~;
. I 0
9~tf-a1 /6-f;l."~/<-(?4ee j)oR.o-rU/ t1L J}CIlll'if!uL
.'-.4,0:' J' .~~Ac-6- ~~~
!5k41Jt/X k~
Sienature
lJ1)JU~
~J:>~.
~
1-/t{~o3
/{P ;( eeJ ~C-~
EXHIBIT NO.~
. Appeal OfDRB Approval To Be Heard 9/17/03
Brian Lynch
Page 1 of 1
,_,_,~:,:,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,:,:,,,,.:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.:.:...,.,.:.:.:.""""""""'0"""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''':.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.'.,",.:n",...,.'.,.,.,....,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,"',.,.,.,"",.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.:.,.,.",.,.,.,.,.,.,...,.,.:....,.,.,.,.,"'.,":,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"",""""""""""'''''''''':",'''''':''':''''''''''''-'>>''''''",.,,,,."'."".:.,....,.,.,,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.....:.,.,.,.,.,.,..",.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,....,.,...,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,..",...."
From: Michael Daniels [danielsm001@hawaiLrr.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11 , 2003 5:06 AM
To: Brian Lynch
Cc: (Tiburon Planning Commission) Wayne Snow
Subject: Appeal Of DRB Approval To Be Heard 9/17/03
To :Brian Lynch, Associate Planner
Tiburon Town Council
From: Michael R. Daniels
12 East Terrace Court, Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
SEP 1 1 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Action Being Appealed:
Name of Applicant: George & Dora Gavros
Nature of Application: 524 Virginia Drive, Tiburon; File 20308. Additions to a single family
dwelling with variances for reduced side yard and reduced front yard setback.
I have carefully reviewed the appeal submitted by Wayne Snow and concur with and support it's
conclusion that the building is too prominent for this site and character of the neighborhood. The size
and high visibility of this home on this site would be too prominent and would illuminate too much light
to adjoining neighborhoods and to those entering Tiburon. I therefore support adherence to the Tiburon
Design Guidelines and oppose approval of this design.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Daniels
9/1112003
EXHIBIT NO. 22.
~
LATE MAtl #1.
To: Tiburon Town Council
----------------------------------------------------
RECEIVED
SEP 1 2 2003
Re: Appeal of Design Approval, August 7,2003
524 Virginia Drive
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
I/We request thatthe Town Council uphold the appeal filed by Wayne
Snow. We support the appeal and would like the applicant to resubmit a
new design. The Design Review approval should be changed for the
following reasons:
-_ Too prominent a building (84' long by lowest 14' tall) on this site.
The one stOry is to tall, 14' Heightby 50' Length.
_ To many windows facing westerly. 41 windows.
_ Too much potential for light pollution. Prominence at night.
_ No permanent barrier to reduce appearance of windows and
building size/mass.
_ Out of character for the neighborhood
Date Address
Name
Signature
q (3 (07 t.f 80 CIIf15/htf.(, 10 tJ SJHt9?tr ,/?~ ~
J /'1//KI,e 1. SI,fLEr!f
q!1/d3 4,?,S uJ~/:iirf J~ ~,,-;;r;.Izi.
o L( C-U4 ~eA;. gt a ky '--A..I /J
7 --03 'fB.-> w~~ fy.. v-- -rn~
I. '1_<I~ J!:?~if;jf:~f2:1;~~J%'~
,s/JYt>r'9/1k:/ . r ~~E~
q> _ LJ- -0 '3 ~ 15'Y fU CL-8 j4( n 7+~ Trl3l1ftl(
, ,
~,
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. AGENDA ITEM .!!1..- . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . ..
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner ~
General p. Ian Update: Goal, Policy, and Program' Refine~t
land Use Element Issues Paper .
September 17, 2003 REVIEWED BY:
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
. .. ,s . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .' .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
BACKGROUND
As part of the Goal, Policy, and Program Refinement 'stage of the General Plan Update process,
the Planning Commission hosted a meeting on August13, 2003 to discuss the goal, policy, and
program suggestions contained in the Land Use Element Issues Paper. At the meeting, the
Planning Commission took comments from the public and also provided feedback to Staff.
In preparing the Issues Paper, Staff made several assumptions, as follows:
. There will be virtually no change in allowable residential densities, with the exception of
select affordable housing sites. Dramatic reductions in maximum residential densities
(downzonings) that accompanied the 1989 General Plan are not being proposed.
.. All Vacant Land (undeveloped parcels of four or more acres) will be designated Planned
Development - Residential, which would be implemented through the Residential Planned
Development Zone in the Zoning Ordinance and the Precise Development Plan application
process.
. The Planning Area of the current General Plan will remain the same in the new General
Plan 2020. This includes the Town, the Paradise Drive area, the Eagle Rock/Bay Vista
area, and all of the Strawberry Peninsula (Issues Paper, Fig. 4, p. 15).
TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
With the Planning Commission public hearing complete, the Land Use Element Issues Paper
now comes before the Town Council for its consideration and comment.
In essence, the Town Council is being asked to answer two questions:
1. Do the goal, policy, and program recommendations (summarized in Appendix A of the
Issues Paper) accurately represent the goals and vision of the community? If not, what
modifications need to be made to make them accurately represent those goals and
vision?
2. Are there issues and ideas which are missing from the recommendations presented in
this paper?
This is the time in the General Plan Update process to give direction for substantial changes to
the direction and recommendations presented in the Issues Paper. Following this review, Staff
will begin preparation of the Land Use Element that will be part of the Draft General Plan 2020.
Town of Tiburon
f'~~
STAFF REPORT
.~
.
I
· Of T1lJV ~.
)Y/~~
'-'( _~'f
~\~ ?~L ~.
~...~;. ~'O
"',~'\
.~ O~~c.' ".
1
.
,
'h
"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . oi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ISSUES DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Members of the Planning Commission and the public raised and discussed several issues at the
August 13 meeting:
. The recommended narrative description and the maximum densities of the large vacant
parcels which would be designated Planned Development - Residential.
. The relationship between the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element.
. The Reed School affordable housing site.
. The designation of Blackie's Pasture as Park.
. The cost of maintaining Paradise Drive should that area be annexed.
. The goals and policies relating to the Town's revenue base.
. The lack of discussion in the Issus Paper about certain urban services (sewer, water, fire
flow) in the unincorporated area.
. The effect of an Open Space designation on private land encumbered by open space
easements.
Planned Development - Residential Designation
In the Issues Paper, Staff recommends that the current General Plan's Vacant Land Table,
which sets maximum densities for vacant properties (of four or more acres), be replaced with a
mapped land use designation, Planned Development - Residential (PD-R). General Plan text.
explaining the land use classifications would include a short description for each of the
properties designated PD-R and would specify the maximum densities allowed on each
property. (Issues Paper, pp. 22-26) The recommended densities are based on the current
General Plan.
There was some concern on the part of the Planning Commission that the descriptions would
give a false impression that the Town had done a thorough site analysis of each property. In
addition, some members of the Planning Commission expressed concern that the Town may be
re-enforcing maximum densities that cannot be supported on the properties, leading to
applications for projects that cannot be approved.
Through discussion of the issue, the Planning Commission agreed that inclusion of the property
descriptions in the General Plan is appropriate, provided it is clear in the General Plan that
descriptions are not based on detailed site analysis. In addition, it was agreed that identifying
the maximum densities allowed on the properties is appropriate, as long as introductory
language is included which makes it plain that achieving the maximum densities would likely be
limited by physical, environmental and policy constraints, as described in the Open Space
Element and other elements of the General Plan.
There was also a discussion among the Planning Commission about lowering the densities on
some of these properties. It was suggested that through work on the open space element and
using new mapping tools, it may be possible to define a more appropriate density for these
properties.
Town Council Issue: Because the Planned Development - Residential designation and the
description of individual properties would be a change from the existing General Plan, Staff
page 2 of 7
'':
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
:
. . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
requests that the Town Council specifically provide feedback on Staff's recommended new
approach. Additionally, Staff requests that the Town Council provide direction on whether to
use staff resources to recommend changes to the maximum allowable densities on these
properties.
Staff Recommendation: Staff believes, and the Planning Commission agreed, that designating
and mapping the vacant properties as Planned Development - Residential and including a
narrative description of them in the Plan is appropriate. Staff also agrees with the Planning
Commission recommendation that explanatory language regarding the basis for the descriptions
and the meaning of the words "maximum allowable density," particularly with respect to
physical, environmental and policy constraints, is appropriate.
Based on work reviewing the Land Use Element and preliminary work on reviewing the Open
Space and Conservation Element, Staff does not believe that better data will be available with
which to further refine the maximum allowable densities on these properties. The identification
of specific constraints comes during project evaluation and the analysis that is required to
complete Environmental Impact Reports. The Town does not have the resources to do this
work in advance Of the adoption of a new General Plan. Therefore, Staff would recommend the
maximum allowable densities remain as recommended, with language l'11aking it clear that the
actual level of allowed development will depend on project-specific site analysis. To the extent
that obvious constraints may be identified in the narrative description at this time, such
information shall be included.
Relationship between Land Use Element and Open Space Element
One member of the Planning Commission expressed regret that the Open Space Element had
not been considered prior to the Land Use Element, as many of the property constraints that will
affect densities on vacant properties will be identified in the Open Space Element.
Additionally, public testimony and other Planning Commission comments expressed concern,
that language in the current Land Use Element which is similar to, or relates to, the current
Open Space Element is recommended for deletion in the new Land Use Element.
Suggestions were made by both the public and Commissioners to keep some of the language in
the Land Use Element because repetition helps to re-enforce the importance of the policies.
Additionally, it was suggested that General Plan 2020 include an introduction to the whole
document which would include the principal, over-arching goals of the Town.'
Town Council Issue: The Town Council is asked to provide feedback to Staff regarding the
appropriateness of re-stating important policies in more than one element of the General Plan
and the inclusion of an introduction to the General Plan 2020 which would include over-arching
goals.
Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees that an introduction to the new General Plan 2020 is
appropriate and that it should include the identification of principal themes and/or over-arching
Town goals.
page 3 of 7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
':
. . II . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As for goal and policy language which echoes that found in the Open Space Element, Staff
recommends that examples and references are appropriate while repetition of whole policies is
not. The process of finalizing policy language in the new General Plan 2020 will be applied to
all draft elements together. Staff believes this will be the appropriate time to assess if policies
are located in the correct element of the Plan.
Reed School Affordable Housing Site
A member of the public opposed the designation of the rear portion of the Reed School property
as an Affordable Housing site due to concerns about additional traffic congestion. The concern
about congestion was echoed by a member of the Planning Commission. Another member of
the public raised concern about the concentration of high-density housing in the area. .
The Draft Housing Element, which has been found by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) to be in compliance with State housing element law, has
identified the Reed School site as one to be re-designated to accommodate affordable housing.
Removing Reed School as a potential affordable housing site would have a serious negative
effect on the Town's Draft Housing Element and standing with HCD, by forcing the Town to
identify an alternative affordable housing site and resubmitting the draft element to HCD.
Town Council Issue: Should the Town keep Reed School as an Affordable Housing site?
Staff Recommendation: Staff strongly recommends that Reed School remain an Affordable
Housing site, to maintain the certified status of the Housing Element..
Blackie's Pasture
Staff recommends in the Issues Paper that Town lands with the Public/Quasi-Public designation
in the current General Plan be separated into two designations: Public/Quasi-Public and Park.
As part of this recommendation, Blackie's Pasture and the Richardson Bay Lineal Park have
been recommended to be re-designated from Public/Quasi-Public to Park. (Issues Paper, p.
27)
A member of the public suggested that the Town should designate Blackie's Pasture as Open
Space instead of Park because the property was purchased with funds generated by the 1972
Opem Space Bond measure. In the Attachment 6, it is pointed out that the ballot measure which
authorized the bonds stated that the purpose of the bonds were for "acquisition of land for open-
space and recreational purposes." The word "park" had been removed from the Open Space
Bond measure ballot language by the Council because they were "concerned the word would
possibly cause some misconception or misapprehension by some Tiburon residents, in that it
would be equated with intensive structured use.,,1 The letter concludes from these facts that
Blackie's Pasture is nota park, but is open space and that designation in the General Plan as
Park would "invite misunderstanding, resulting in repeated applications for inappropriate use of
that property."
1 Council Minutes No. 287, July 17,1972
page 4 of 7
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . .
It is important to note that the recommended description of the Park designation is that it "may
allow development for recreational purposes" and" the Open Space designation is "for lands
which are set aside for natural resource protection, public health and safety, scenic qualities,
and for passive recreation. These areas shall remain undeveloped." (Issues Paper, Appendix
A, p. A-6) <
Town Council Issue: Should Blackie's Pasture be designated as Park or Open Space?
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Parks designation that is recommended in
th~ Issues Paper be called the "Parks & Recreation" designation instead of "Parks". The
description of the Parks & Recreation designation would be as it appears above, that this
designation "may allow development for recreational purposes." Furthermore, Staff believes
that the Parks & Recreation designation is appropriate for Blackie's Pasture.
Paradise Drive
A member of the public urged the Town to fully resolve how to pay for Paradise Drive
maintenance before the Town annexes properties in the Paradise Drive area. There is a
recommended program in the Issues Paper to work with other agencies to develop a financing
plan which would make annexation of properties in the Paradise Drive area fiscally acceptable
to the Town. Additionally, money to conduct a study to determine the cost of maintaining
Paradise Drive has been allocated in the Town's 2003-04 budget.
Town Council Issue: Does the Land Use Element need to do more to address the costs of
annexation of Paradise Drive?
Staff Recommendation: Staff believes the policies and programs recommended are sufficient to
identify the cost of the annexation ,of Paradise Drive and to create a financing plan which would
make annexation feasible and fiscally acceptable.
Revenue Base
In the Issues Paper, Staff recommends a new goal "to establish a secure local revenue base to
ensure the provision of high quality services, including streets and parks" and an associated
policy "to preserve tax revenue which is essential for the Town's financial stability."
There was concern raised by the public and the Planning Commission that this could be
construed as a desire by the Town to maximize development. In addition, it was stated that a
policy which called for the Town to preserve property values would add a new dimension to the
consideration of design review applications.
Town Councillssue: Should the General Plan contain goals and policies relating to the Town's
revenue base?
Staff Recommendation: Staff agrees that inclusion of the recommended goal and policy
language may lead to unnecessary confusion, and the importance of a secure local revenue
base can be incorporated into the General Plan without being adopted as policy. Therefore,
page 5 of 7
,Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
':;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staff would recommend deletion of the goal and policy language relating to the local revenue
base. '
Urban Services
One member of the public stated that he did not see a discussion in the Land Use Element
I~sues Paper of the provision of urban services, such as water and wastewater. The Issues
Paper does recommend retention of policies which call for services to be in place at the time
development is completed. However, because the Town does not provide those services, there
is no further discussion of them in the IsSues Paper.
Town Council Issu.e: Should discussion of the provision of urban services be included in the
General Plan?
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends an additional policy which would call for the Town to
coordinate with service providers, such as the Marin Municipal Water District and the sanitary
districts. Staff believes that with this additional policy, and the recommended policies requ'iring
that services be provided prior to development, urban services will be adequately addressed.
Private Open Soace Land
One member of the public wanted it to be clear in the General Plan that designation of private
lands as Open Space would have no effect on the terms and conditions of easements on the
property, nor would it give the public rights to access private property. The Planning
Commission assured the public that the designation would not change the property rights of the
owners.
Town Council Issue: Confirm the Planning Commission's position.
TEXT CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS
Along with the broader policy issues discussed above, specific policy language
recommendations were made by Planning Commissioners and the public. Many of these
changes will be incorporated into the Draft General Plan 2020. Attachment 5 is a comments
matrix that documents the comments received and the changes that will be incorporated into the
Draft Land Use Element. .
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council take any public comment about the goal, policy, and
program recommendations contained in the Land Use Element Issues Paper; provide direction
on the outstanding issues identified in this report and other issues of interest to the Council; and
direct Staff to proceed with the drafting of the Land Use Element of the General Plan 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Element Issues Paper (previously distributed to Town Council)
2. Land Use Element Issues Paper Errata Sheet, August 13, 2003
3. . Staff'Report to the Planning Commission, August 13, 2003
page 6 of 7
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
4. Correspondence for the Planning Commission Meeting
5. Draft Minutes from the August 13, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting
6. Letter from Bruce Abbott, dated August 13, 2003
7.8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting: Comments & Changes Matrix-Working Draft,
September 2003
S:\kbryant\Staff Reports\Land Use Paper TC ,Staff Report.doc
page 7 of 7
EXI-!IBIT T\l() J..
-.. - ',..,....'....,~
";
TOWN OF TIBURON
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LAND USE ELEMENT
ISSUES PAPER
ERRATA SHEET
August 13,2002
Page 10: Policy LV-I2 should read: "In Planned Residential Districts, new Development
should be located on the least environmentally sensitive and least hazardous portions of
the vaeam lands wherever feasible to promote sound land development and planning
practices. Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping significant ridgelines open and
unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible."
Page A-7: Policy LU-7 (LU-I2) should read: "Development should be located on the
least environmentally sensitive and least hazardous portions of the land wherever feasible
to promote sound land development and planning practices. Special emphasis shall be
placed on keeping significantridgelines open and unobstructed to the maximum extent
feasible."
~
;:'
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
EYT-IIBIT l\T{) 3 .
..... 1._ .:....,.... ","",:< ___,
TO:
. . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Members of the Planning Commission
Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner 0
General Plan Update:
land Use Element Issues Paper and Public Hearing
August 13', 2003 REVIEWED BY:~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
BACKGROUND
The General Plan Update is now in
the middle of the Goal, Policy, and
Program Refinement stage. Work
on this stage began this spring with
the discussion of the Downtown
Element Issues Paper.
The second in what will be a series
of issues papers, the Land Use
Element Issues Paper, is now before
the Planning Commission for
discussion. The paper is intended to
provide a common reference point
far discussion and deliberation of
goals, policies, and programs to be
included in the new Land Use
Element of General Plan 2020.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
Issue Icl,entification/Data Collection (Spring - Fall
2002) - COMPLETE
Goal, Policy, and Program Refinement (2003 - 04)
Housing Element - Review Complete
. Downtown Element - Review Complete
Land Use Element
Open Space & Conservation Element - Fall '03
Circulation Element - Fall/Winter '03 - '04
Safety and Noise Elements - Winter '04
Parks & Recreation - Spring '04
Plan Preparation, CEQA Compliance, and Plan
Adoption (2004)
OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING COMMISSION ,MEETING
The objectives.of the Planning Commission meeting are to provide an additional forum to
receive public comment and for the Planning Commission to provide feedback to Staff. The
input received from the public and Planning Commission will be reported to the Town Council.
Staff has sent out over 420 fliers, over 160 emails, and placed a ;4-page advertisement in the
Ark, all inviting participation at the August 13 Planning Commission meeting. Members of the
public are encouraged to share their opinions about the recommendations in the Land Use
Element Issues Paper with the Planning Commission. People who are unable to attend this
meeting will have a similar opportunity before the Town Council in September.
The role of the Planning Commission at this meeting is to take the information, analysis, and
recommendations presented in the Issues Paper, combined with the comments provided by the
public, and to provide feedback to Staff concerning the goal, policy, and program
recommendations in the Issues Paper, This feedback will be reported by Staff to the Town
Council.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
This is the time in the General Plan Update process to give direction for substantial changes to
the recommendations presented in the Issues Paper. Following Planning Commission and
Town Council review, Staff will begin preparation of the Land Use Element that will be part of
the Draft General Plan 2020.
. LAND USE ISSUES PAPER: ASSUMPTIONS AND IDGHLIGHTS
Inpreparing the Issues Paper, Staff made several assumptions, as follows:
. There will be virtually no change in allowable residential densities, with the exception of
select affordable housing sites. Dramatic reductions in maximum residential densities
(downzonings) that accompanied the 1989 General Plan are not being proposed.
. All Vacant Land (undeveloped parcels of four or more acres) will be designated Planned
I
Development - Residential, which would, be implemented through the Residential Planned
Development Zone in the Zoning Ordinance'and the Precise Development Plan application
process.
. The Planning Area of the current General Plan will remain the same in the new General
Plan 2020.
Based on the existing General Plan, the Draft Housing Element, the Downtown Element Issues
Paper and the related Planning Commission and Town Council hearings, and the input received
from the public participation program; the Land Use Element Issues Paper makes
recommendations for goals, policies, and programs. Highlights include:
. Refinement of annexation policies;
. Adoption of an affordable housing overlay on select properties;
. Adoption of policies to preserve neighborhood character;
. Carrying over allowable densities in residential areas from the current General Plan; and
. Designating those portions of private lands which are subject to scenic, open space, or
conservation easements held by the Town.of Tiburon as Open Space.
These and other recommendations are described in more detail in the Issues Paper.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public comment on the goal, policy, and
program recommendations contained in the Land Use Element Issues Paper, andto provide
feedback and recommendations to be forwarded to the Town Council.
ATTACHMENT
Land Use Element Issues Paper (July 2003) (previously distributed to Planning Commission)
August 13, 201
page 2 of 2
Page 1 of2
~
Kevin Bryant
From: Vasco Morais [vasco@kaimoLcom]
Sent: Saturday, September 06,20033:20 PM
To: Kevin Bryant EXT-!IB!T l\TO_~
Cc: Holly W. Kaiser
Subject: RE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC MEETING
Kevin - nice jobon the General Plan update. I liked in particular your suggestion to re-designate the Cove
Shopping Center as "Neighborhood Commercial" and your policy statements that rebuilds, additions and
renovations should be within the existing character of the neighborhood.
I would like to confirm that the Bel Aire Neighborhood (we live in Karen Way) is suggested as being designated
"MH Medium High Density Residential (up to 4.4 du/acre" and that designation is consistent with the existing
character of the Bel Aire neighborhood comprised of single-family detached homes,
Thanks
Vasco Morais
Holly Kaiser
321 Karen Way
Tel: 389-6016
Fax: 389-6739
'-1[wyv.kalmor.com
V~~co@ kalmor. com <mailto:vasco@kaimor.com>
-."mOriginal Message-----
From: Kevin Bryant [mailto:kbryant@ci.tiburon.ca.us]
Sent: Friday, September 05,20039:03 AM
To: Kevin Bryant
Subject: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC MEETING
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC MEETING
. LAND USE ELEMENT REPORT
Town Council
Wednesday, September 17
7:30 P.M.
Council Chambers
Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Check out the Land Use Element Issues Paper at
httR://www.tiburon.org/governmentlGeneraIPlan/generalQlan.htm. Town Hall or the Belvedere-Tiburon Library.
The paper provides information, analysis, and recommendations for goal, policy, and program language.
Discussion items before the Council will include:
. Designation of vacant land as Planned Development - Residential, and approriate densities
. Relationship between the Open Space Element and the Land Use Element
09/08/2003
Page 2 of 2
. Designation of affordable housing sites, including the Cove Shopping Center and Reed School
. Changing designation of parks, including Blackie's Pasture, from Public/Quasi-Public to Parks
. Annexation policies
. Neighborhood Character policies
You are invited to come and share your thoughts with the Town Council on September 17. Comments may be
also sent to:
Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
(415) 435-7385
Fax: (415) 435-2438
kbryant@ci.tiburon.ca,us
09/08/2003
Kevin Bryant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rgttib@aoLcom
Friday, September 05,20039:41 AM
Kevin Bryant
Re:'GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC MEETING
Kevin, thanks for the heads up. I will be out of town from Sept.7 - 20.
My
comments would be the same as before the Planning commission. Once
again,
congratulations on a good job.
Jerry Thayer
1
Page 1 of 1
Kevin Bryant
From: Jennifer L. Carter Ucarter128@juno.coml
Sent: Thursday, September 04,20037:51 AM
To: Kevin Bryant
Subject: Neighborhood Character - Bel Aire .
. Hi Kevin,
I wanted to confinn you received my first email regarding neighborhood character which I sent to you
on August 13,2003 as I did not receive an acknowledgement from you. I also wanted to let you know
that I did a head count at the 8/13/03 meeting and counted 25 citizens totaL There were 8 of us there
from Bel Aire, although you only heard from Jerry Thayer on this issue because we asked him to speak
for all of us regarding our strong desire to preserve the single story character of Bel Aire. We just
don't want to spend time and money fighting anymore 2nd story proposals,
The eight people from Bel Aire at the August 13,2003 meeting were:
Virginia Bruinini
Jennifer Carter ..
Glynnis Fitgerald
Bjorn Hermanson
Helena Hermanson
. Werner Schneider
Wilma Schneider
Jean Sullivan
Jerry Thayer
Karen Way
Leland Way
Leland Way
Leland Way
Leland Way
Claire Way
Claire Way
Cecelia Way
Blackfield Dr,
Please Ie! me know whether YOll received my.firs! email.
Thank you very much.
Jennifer Carter
130 Leland Way
09/04/2003
~
Kevin Bryant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(Tiburon Planning Commission) Steve Stein
Friday, August 15, 200310:50 AM
Scott Anderson; Kevin Bryant
re general plan update
Scott and Kevin:
As you know, I have been seeking a concise term - to be articulated in
the
general plan - that will act as a counterweight to "maximum", because
"maximum" allowable density so often morphs into presumptive actual
density, and
throws the burden of proof on anyone who argues otherwise.
The term that may fill the counter-balancing role is "optimum." It is
generally understood that optimum and maximum are not the same, and the
plan, in the .
appropriate places, may point up the conceptual differences. In
practice, I
think this would lead to a different balance in the dialogue, because
now both
sides on various development issues would have a convenient shorthand,
instead of ' just one of them.
It isn't neceessarily important to flesh out "optimum density" too
extensively in the general plan. That process would occur organically,'
over time, once
the phrase was given a place at the table.
I am happy.to expand on my thoughts, if that would be worthwhile.
Regards,
Steve
RICHARD B. COLLINS
660 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, California 94920
(415) 789-5205 Telephone
(415) 789-5206 Fax
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Keven Bryant
Richard B. Collins
August 14, 2003
RE:
"Paper").
Town of Tiburon General Plan Update - Land Use Element Issues Paper dated July2003 (the
Dear Kevin:
In connection with the public meeting of last Wednesday night to discuss the Land Use Element of the
Town's General Plan update, the following are my questions, comments (some of which are concurring
comments from suggestions made by other members of the commission) and suggested language changes:
L Page 3, the paragraph entitled 'Sanitary Sewer Capacity":
This paragraph states that the Sanitary District No. 5 has "indicated" that the satellite treatment plant at
Playa Verde is virtually at capacity". In what manner has the District so "indicated" the same? Has the
Town received any written or other documentary evidence to support that assertion? Otherwise, how is
the statement supportable? Should the document not refer to that which the Town has received from the
District and which foms the basis of the statement that the District has "indicated" virtual capacity?
2. Page 9:
Goal NO.2: Add the word "preserve" before the word "protect" in the second line deletion of the
word "retain" in the third line.
Goal NO.3: Substitute the word "classify" for the word "identify" in the first line (it appears to me
that the land uses have alreadybeen identified), and adding the words "and related infrastructure, streets,
utilities, public services and other facilities after the word "land" in the last line,
Goal NO.4: Add the words "where not in conflict with other public uses or with private uses which
are of overriding public benefit" (or words to that effect) at the end of the paragraph.
Goal NO.5: Add the words "and to discourage intensity of development, density, and house sizes and
architectural styles that are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood" (or words to that effect) at
. the end of the paragraph.
Goal No, 7: Add the words "through the Town's planning department process and" after the word
"water" in the second line.
3. Page 10:
LU-3: Add the word "use" after the word "land" in the second line and add the words "and approving"
after the word 'determining" in the second line.
4. Page 11:
LU-14: Add ", character" after the word "nature in the second line and add ", peaceful" after the word
"quiet" in the second line.
LU-IS: I concur with other commissioners that voiced an objection to the stricken language of this
paragraph.
LU-19c: Add the words "primary and secondary' after the word "avoid". Add an appropriate reference
to a requirement to sufficient on-site parking to support the use of the lot to be developed.
5. Page 12:
LU-a: Add he word"periodically" after the word "shall" in the first line.
6. Page 13:
LU-I: Add he word" periodically" after the word "shall" in the first line and add the words "and
implement" after the word "reflect" in the second line.
7, Page 17:
First Recommended Policy: Add the word "materially" after the word "will" in the second line.
8. Page 29:
OSC-6: Add the words "character and" after the word "its in the second line; add the words "or
inordinately large or bulky" after the word ','massive" in the second line, add the words "or that are
inconsistent with" after the word "overwhelm" in the third line, and add the words "or provide" after the
word "surrounding" in the third line. I do have a problem with the use of the words "well-designed
projects". Those words are entirely subjective and I suggest that they either be deleted or replaced with
words that objectively describe what is sought to be portrayed.
9. Page 30:
Recommended Policy: Change from "feel" to a definitional characterization as suggested by Steve Stein,
and add the words "the predominant" after the word "by' in the second line. Add a reference where
appropriate to the natural characteristics of the terrain, make reference to the fact that such characteristics
shall be of material consideration and that the same shall be respected "to the maximum extent feasible" n
all development, etc.
10. Page 31:
Delete the Recommended Policy that refers to the Town's preservation of property values. This appears
to have the aspects of a slippery slope.
Delete the reference to "employment" in the Recommended Policy regarding commercial uses,
1 L Page 32:
Delete the reference to "Local" in the Recommended Policy regarding the undergrounding of utility wires.
12. Page A-I:
LU-B: Add "preserve," after the word "to" in the second line and delete the word 'retain" in the third
line.
LU-C: Substitute the word "classifY" for the word "identifY" the first line and add the words "and related
infrastructure, streets, utilities, public services and other facilities" (or words to that effect) after the word
"land" in the second line,
LU-D: Add the words "where not in conflict with other public uses or with private uses which are of
overriding public benefit" (or words to that effect) at the end of this paragraph.
LU-E: Add the words "and to discourage intensity of development and house sizes and architectural
styles that are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood" (or words to that effect) at the end ofthis
paragraph.
LU-G: Add the words "the town's planning department process and in" after the word "through" in the
second line.
13, PP A -2 throughA-5:
Planned Development designations PD-R-a through PD-R-r:
Add an introductory paragraph that states that the maximum number of units permitted under the Town's
zoning codes can only be achieved if all "environmental constraints" (this term should also be clearly
defined in the Paper with appropriate examples) are satisfied by the applicant, and that the applicant
carries the burden of proof to satisfY the Town that such environmental constraints have been or will be
fully satisfied., and if othenvise approved by the Town's Planning Commission and City Council in their
discretion as permitted by the Town's zoning ordinances, by its General Plan and otherwise by law,
14. Page)A-7:
LU-2: Add ", character" after the word "nature" in the second line and add ", peaceful" after the word
"quiet" in the third line.
LU-4 Delete this paragraph.
LU-6: Add the word "use" after the word "land" in the second line, add he words "and approving" after
the word "determining" in the second line, and add the words" and its affect upon related streets, traffic,
utilities, infrastructure and public and other facilities" at the end of the paragraph.
LU-8: Add the words "the developer" after the word "to" in the second line, the words "of completion of
construction of' after the word "time" in the second line, delete the words" is constructed" in the third
line and place a period after the word "development". Add the word "maximum" after the word "the" in
the last line.
15, Page A-8:
LU-Il: Same suggested changes as per Page II, LU-19c,
16, Page A-9:
LU-18: Change this paragraph to read: "Wireless communications facilities shall not be allowed in
residential areas unless it is demonstrably proven by the applicant with incontrovertible evidence
presented to the Town that (i) all other sites are infeasible, and (ii) the impact of the wireless
communication facility and the radio frequencies that it generates are reduced to the maximum extent
possible, and (iii) the health, safety and welfare of any person exposed to the impact of such facility shall
not be jeopardized or adversely affected."
This particular matter is or should be of considerable concern given what the Town has been through over
the past year as a result of the MERA activities, It is my belief that this particular policy should be
carefully considered, clearly and completely vetted and articulated to the maximum extent pennitted by
law.
LU-19: Delete the word "employment" from this paragraph.
LU-20: Add the words" and service" after the word "retail" in he first line.
Consider the addition of a policy statement regarding parking in general and in partiwlar with respect to
the Downtown area of the Town,
LU-21: Add the words "where not in conflict with other public uses or with private uses which are of
overriding public benefit" (or words to that effect) at the end of the paragraph.
LU-23: Add the word "materially" after the word "will" in the second line.
LU-24: Delete the word "that" and the words "Town is able to do so" in the fourth line and carrying over
to the fifth line and insert the words "annexation is feasible" after the word "the"in the fourth line to end
the paragraph.
17. Page A-lO:
LU-27: Add the words "and other economic implications" after the word "revenue" in the second line and
the words "the nature and ex1ent of necessary infrastructure, streets, parking, utilities and other facilities"
after the word "implications" in the second line. Substitute the words "feasibility of extending" in place
of the words "ability to ex1end" in the third line, and add the words "the Town and its consideration of
the" after the word "affecting" in the last line,
18. PageA-ll:
LU-a: Add the word "periodically" after the word "shall" in the first line.
,
LU-c: Add the word "periodically" after the word "shall" in the first line, and the words "and to
. implement" after the word "reflect" in the second line,
LU-e: Add the words "feasible and" after the word "area" in the fourth.line.
As I told you after the meeting of last Wednesday, 1 believe that you have done a very credible job in
preparing the Paper. It is a momentous task with many implications and pennutations..
The Last Chance Committee
1911 Straits View Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
8/14/03
To the Tiburon Planning Commission and Planning Staff
Re: Land Use Element.
The issues paper on the GP indicates the review of the element was thorough. We
applaud the effort and concur with many of the recommendatioI)s. The Last Chance
Committee, would also like to submit the following comments and recommendations:
Comparisons are difficult to make between the current and the new text. In future drafts,
we would appreciate seeing the current text along with all recommended changes.
Two elements, Land Use and Open Space, are strongly related. As the staff edits each
section, we would recommend finalizing these sections together rather than sequentially
so that all interrelationships could be worked out.
We strongly support the planning staff's idea to create an introduction to the General Plan
that explains the document, its uses and the importance of equally weighting the goals
and policies of all sections in the development decision process. We also think 1-3 over-
riding town goals would appropriately belong in that introduction and that the surveys
and workshops are a good source for the most valued goals for the Town.
GOALS:
On page 5 you list the Town's most valued characteristics that relate to land use policy
(received through survey and workshops), In LU-B you have appropriately included
two of these "quiet" and "village like character" as worthy of protection. The other
valued characteristics need to be included in the land use goals. E.g. To preserve and
protect Tiburon's views, scenic environment, natural beauty and open space.
It also may be worth repeating the OSC-1 goal in the land use element: "To preserve the
character of the Tiburon peninsula through control of the type and location of
development. "
LU-B & LU-2 We would like to see the phrase "low density" remain, The word "quiet'
has replaced this phrase. While we agree we do want quiet neighborhoods, we do also
want to keep Tiburon "low-density." This is important not only for new development but
for rebuilds and re-subdivision. We all know smaller houses continually are being
replaced by larger and larger homes. The GP should be our guide on these land use
decisions,
I understand that the use of the phrase has a very specific meaning when the GP
refers to density later in the document but I think the English language is like that,
words can refer to more than one thing. I think the general public will understand
the phrase in this context.
LU-l2 "Special emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgeIines open and unobstructed to
the maximum extent feasible" was inadvertently left out and needs to be added back in.
In addition, we recommend making this a separate goal.
POLICIES:
The split between "new development" and "residential neighborhoods" seems
unnecessary. Putting both sections together simplifies and strengthens the presentation,
LU-3, Old Lu-l7 We recommend keeping the latter part of the old lu-17 which provides
examples of environmental circumstances under which density maximums must be
lowered. Also, some form of this as a footnote whenever you list density maximums for
the "Planned Development - Residential" would help prospective developers understand
the term "maximum" exists within a context.
Policy Lu4 We recommend a rewrite or deletion. The policy states "the Town shall
preserve property values to protect the investment of property owners.. ..." The goal may
be preserving the unique qualities ofTiburon, its scenic beauty, the attractiveness of its
landscape, its open space, its neighborhood feel" (which would keep land values high and
hence our tax base high). However, we think it could be taken by some to mean
maximize all development to get a bigger tax base. This is clearly not the case. Therefore
we recommend rethinking the addition of this policy as written.
Section 4, page 29 recommends moving appropriate policies to and from the Open Space
and Conservation Element i.e. preserving views to land use element and preserving.
habitat, marshes and shoreline to open space. While we agree they belong in the sections
as recommended, they also belong in the section as they are today to both guide
development decisions and open space preservation. We recommend keeping them in
BOTH sections. As there are probably only 3-5 overlapping items, for the future
commissions and councils, it would bear repetition of overlapping goals or policies in
both sections. .
We would also like to see the deleted phrase "property owners cherish their
. ,., .
VIews remaIn.
We appreciate that you have included and welcomed us in this review process.
Joanna Mason Kemper
Representing The Last Chance Committee
TO:
FM:
DATE:
RE:
Kevin Bryant, Scott Anderson
Randy Greenberg
8/14/03
Comments of July '03 Land Use Issues Paper
The issues paper represents a comprehensive review and reworking of our current land
use plan. It is largely responsive to the consensus expressed in the public workshops and
goes further to improve organization of this element of our General Plan [GP). I support
many of the suggested changes.
As a member of the public, participating in the creation of our first GP, I knowthat every
item, phrase and word was carefully considered. ~ believe this level of review resulted in
a document that, for the most part; has served the Town admirably for over two decades.
I believe we should give the same attention to the overall sense and intent of the proposed
revisions, and their specific language, this time around as well. In this spirit, I offer the
following comments:
Amended/New Items:
1. p. 9. B. Land Use Goals of the Issues paper, 3rd recommended goaL The intent of this
Goal is unclear to me. Perhaps some examples would help clarify,
2. The paper several times removes the term "low density" and replaces it with "quiet"
(see new LU-B, LU-2 and LU-14). "Low density" was deliberately used and, indeed,
has been relied on in decision-making over the years. "Low density" should be
retained; "quiet" may be added. The two have different meanings and the change
should be called out and explained, not just made.
3. Old LU-D has been partially folded into new items addressing annexation. However,
the language regarding circulation issues - "The maintenance of acceptable
circulation levels of service in presently unincorporated areas is therefore of
considerable importance to the Town." - has been deleted. This statement, regarding
development of unincorporated areas and their potential to adversely impact traffic,
should be retained in Land Use, It directly addresses the traffic impacts of land use
decisions that may be made by another jurisdiction - which is most likely look in the
Land Use section for applicable policies.
4. New LU-E (old LU-F): "To preserve existing neighborhood character and identity."
The phrase ""by requiring buffer zones (greenbelts) between new and existing
development where practical" has been deleted with no explanation. The reasons for
this deletion need to be expressed and justified,
5, p, A-6. Table: Planning Area Maximum Buildout Projection.... Some of the
numbers under "persons per gross acre" have been changed from our current Table. I
checked several and the current numbers seemed correct
7/14/03
Greenberg Comments-Land Use Issues Paper 7/03
Page 1 of 5
6. New LU-2 (old LU-14). In place of the word "regulate" I would suggest "limit",
7. New LU-3 (old LU-17). The revision speaks about consistency with the GP. It
deletes specific examples given in old LU-17. I would like to see examples of major
constraints reinstated. It is my experience that the GP is more user-friendly with
examples, and that the more times important themes are restated; the more likely they
. are to be complied with. Repetition of high priority themes has functioned in the past
to give more authority to goals and policies.
8. New LU-4. The language offered: "that the Town shall preserve property values to
protect the investment of property owners" is very problematic. The author seems to
have jumped from a citizenry wish for a secure local revenue base to a policy
protecting private investment and property values. Having attended the public
workshop at which this was addressed, I cannot believe that this new policy was what
was envisioned. I can foresee arguments for structural and other changes to
residential properties in the interests of "preserving" property values" that would not
otherwise be approved. This language creates a whole new set of .criteria for
consideration by Design Review, which I believe do not now exist - and I believe
should not exist. It also raises issues concerning subdivision of large, currently
undeveloped parcels. This item needs considerable discussion.
9. The "Policies" have been divided into categories. I think that the two sections "New
Development" and "Residential Neighborhoods" have, as a practical . matter, .
considerable overlap. The attempt to separate them creates a misleading division,
Why not combine them and call it "Residential Development?"
10. New LU-6 (old LU-3). I would like the see the words' "and design" added:
". , . through the development and design review process. . , "
11. New LU-9 (old OSC-3). I agree with moving this item. However, the language
"Property owners cherish their views", which preceded the rest of the item, has been
deleted. While the deletion is efficient, I believe the old language gave added
importance and value to the policy, which I think is appropriate. I would like to see it
retained.
12. New LU-12. Says that neighborhood character "... shall be considered and
respected.. ." These words give lip service to preservation, but they have no teeth.
"Preserved" or some synonym should be used in place of or in addition to
"considered and respected."
13. New LU-13. I suggest replacing "the character" with "existing development in",
"Character" lacks specificity and susceptible to a wide of variety of interpretations.
14. New LU-14b (old LU-19b). What are the practical consequences of deleting the
word "average" before "slope"?
7/14/03
Greenberg Comments-Land Use Issues Paper 7/03
Page 2 of5
15. New LU-14c (old LU-19c), Add "primary and secondary" before "ridgelines" for
greater clarity on this very important issue,
16. Amended LU-lS. This item no longer speaks to the importance of resident serving
uses over tourist facilities. This is a substantive change, and not a minor text change.
It requires explanation and justification,
"
17. New LU-19: "The town shall support a diversity of commercial uses to serve the
shopping and employment needs of the community." Supporting commercial uses to
serve the employment needs of local residents is a new policy. I am concerned that
this policy, as worded, could be used to support less than desirable commercial uses.
The intent of this policy, and its specific language, should be discussed further.
18, Amended LU-22 (old LU-13). Why was the language changed from "shall adopt by
reference" to "supports the San Francisco"?
19, New LU-16 (old LU-26). The word "appropriate" is not adequate, Criteria need to
be specified,
20, New LU-27 (old LU-S-7). The reVIsed language leaves out the necessity for essential
infrastructure (sewer, water, etc.) to be available by the time new development is
constructed. I think this language should be included here, or elsewhere as
appropriate.
21. New LU-28 & 29 (old LU-5). New LU-28 says that annexation agreements shall be .
required early in the development review process. The word "early" is very
imprecise, and may be subject to a variety of interpretations. New LU-29 talks about
concurrent LAFCo processing of annexation with development applications. These
two items are potentially at odds. The timing issue needs to be more explicitly
presented.
22. p.26-27, LU Issues Paper. Page 26 says NC maximum development is .17, In
discussing the recommended zoning change to the Cover Shopping Center, on page
27 it says that NC zoning would permit development to an FAR of .37. Is there a
discrepancy here?
23. New LU-36. The word "supports" is unclear as to meaning - in spirit, financially? I
wonder about the wisdom of including language that gives global encouragement of
"provision of neighborhood-accessible school facilities", given the recent
controversies over new gym space at Del Mar and St, Hilary's.
7/14/03
Greenberg Comments-Land Use Issues Paper 7/03
Page 3 of5
DeletedlRelocated Items:
22. Old LU-16: "Town will strive topreserve...habitat in the open ridges, shoreline...."
I believe this item belongs in the Land Use element. When development proposals
involving these areas come before the Town, this language is absolutely relevant in
guiding land use decision making. Alternatively, new LU-12 could be amended to
include the language "such as habitat in the open ridges, shoreline...." and current
LU-16 could be moved to the OSC element.
23. Because meaningful areas of open space are an integral part of land use planning,
including in new subdivisions, I believe a specific goal or policy in the Land Use
element should address the importance of preserving existing and protecting new
open space in the course of development.
24. Old LU-21. While we have adopted design guidelines, I believe a General Plan
statement about enforcing them and referencing the Design Guidelines for Hillside
Dwellings, the Downtown Design Handbook and the relevant sections of the Zoning
Ordinance is appropriate. Referencing them in the General Plan demonstrates their
importance and gives them greater standing. In addition, I think there should be a
stated requirement for requiring development of design standards for new
subdivisions. I believe a policy should be included that requires explicit design
criteria, as appropriate, for new subdivisions.
25. LU-25. As long as the Strawberry Village area is part of Tiburon's SOl, policies that
should apply to it should be retained in Tiburon' s General Plan.
Items Raised at 8/13/03 Planning Commission Hearing and in letters
26. Some of the issues raised in letters and at the Planning Commission hearing should be
given further consideration for inclusion in the land use section of the General Plan:
27, The possibility of adding a "Guiding Principles" or similar section at the beginning.
Besides highlighting certain issues, this could act to reference related items covered
in other elements of the General Plan.
28. Before the list and description of undeveloped properties, add a paragraph
emphasizing that descriptions are general and that densities can only be finally
decided with the kind of information generated by EIR's.
29, Consider if new information available today, particularly various new resource
mapping, provides data which would allow us to set new, more appropriate densities,
for undeveloped land.
30, Single story homes as a descriptor of "character"
7/14/03
Greenberg Comments-Land Use Issues Paper 7/03
Page 4 of5
31, Description of Keil property should include .5 acre fresh water spring surrounded by
Easton Pt. property and the fact that it is covered by a conservation easement.
32. In new LU-14 (old LU-19): Add an item saying that sufficient parking must be
available on-site.
If you have any questions about any of this, please let me know.
7/14/03
Greenberg Comments-Land Use Issues Paper 7/03
Page 5 of 5
Kevin Bryant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ian R. Schwartz [ischwartz@manwellschwartz.com]
Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:20 PM
Kevin Bryant
General Plan Update: Land Use Element Issues Paper
Dear Kevin,
With reference to our telephone conversation last week, I propose the
following language be appended to the second sentence of the section
entitled "Designating Land Subject to Open Space Easement" on Page 28 of
the
July 2003 Land Use Element Issues Paper:
( ,
"; provided, however, that nothing herein shall expand the scope of, or
otherwise affect, the terms and conditions of said easements."
I look forward to meeting you tonight and answering any questions you
may
have concerning the above. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian R. Schwartz
Manwell & Schwartz
20 California Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111 USA
direct: 415.318.1155
switchboard: 415.362.2375
fax: 415.362.1010
e-mail: ischwartz@manwellschwartz.com
website: www.manwellschwartz.com
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. ACcess by any other
person to this e-mail is not authorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete this e-mail. Any disclosure of this e-mail or
of
the parties to it, any copying~ distribution or any action taken or
omitted
to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited, and may be unlawful.
/J/A
lATE MAlL # y ~ ..
1
Kevin Bryant
Page 1 of 1
From: Dan Watrous
Sent: Wednesday ,August 13, 2003 -2:27 PM
To: Kevin Bryant
Cc: Scott Anderson
Subject: General Plan Input
I just spoke to Terry Hennessy, ex-Mayor and ex-Town Clerk. She wanted to let us know, for the record, that she
supports efforts to put affordable housing near the Bell Market site, and increasing the allowable floor area for
commercial properties downtown.
. So noted.
Dan
L 1\,'1' F r)i, j.J.. 1, ..
f\, _. :~lr u ;...'
08/13/2003
~
S
..-......-......,.,.-.----
Page 1 ot 1.
Kevin Bryant
From: Jennifer L. Carter [jcarter128@juno.coml
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 8:20 AM
To: Kevin Bryant
Subject: Neighborhood Character Bel Aire R-1-BA
Dear Kevin Bryant,
My name is Jennifer Carter and I've lived at 130 Leland Way for 25 years, Last year I spent literally
hundreds of hours working to preserve Bel Aire's special intimate character by fighting a proposed new
2 story house next door at 124 Leland Way. The Bel Aireneighborhood pulled together in a way that
was absolutely wonderful.
One neighbor hired a lawyer to draft a petition opposing 2nd stories in Bel Aire and then circulated the
petition and obtained 80 signatures in less than two days, just in time for the first DRB meeting which
was held in April 2002. I purchased lawn signs and supportive neighbors placed them in theirlront
yards. We held many strategy meetings evenings and weekends to protect our beloved Bel Aire's
neighboorhood "feelll which consists of ranch style single story homes with 20 foot set backs, Our
street is lined with mature sycamores and has a 1950's feel to it The majority of us have been here
many years. In fact, I am a relative newcomer compared to many. On Leland Way there are several
homeowners who are original owners who have been here since Bel Aire was built in 1951, There are
also two homeowners on Leland Way who were born in Bel Aire and are now are raising college age
children who are 3rd generation Bel Aire residents.
I am writing this to appeal to you to protect and preserve our neighborhood character. Weare the sole
remaining single story neighborhood in Tiburon and we do not want to have to wage another long and
expensive battle to prevent two stories here in the future. In our case, I don't believe the zoning
ordinance was adhered to by Senior Planner Dan Watrous or the DRB. In August 2002, the
DRB disregarded the vast majority of homeowners here and voted 3-0 (two members not attending) to
allow a 2 story at 124 Leland Way.
I filed the appeal to the Town Council with 30 ten dollar checks from 30 different Bel Aire
homeowners. We wanted the Town of Tiburon to know that there was strong opposition to this project,
but Seilior Planner Dan Watrous still recommended the 2 story project be approved by the Town
.. \ Council. Since I felt the zoning ordinace was being disregarded and that Bel ,Aire's wishes were being
ignored, I hired an architect who had done extensive work in and for the citY, Jim Malott, in the hopes
that his name and reputation with the Town would help our cause.
I then scheduled appointments with each Town Council member to visit me in my home. For each
, ,
visit, I invited between 10 and 30 neighbors to attend and speak individually to the Town Council: This
required quite a bit of time and effort on my part as well as the neighbors. Some people had to use
vacation time so they could attend the weekday appointments, Long time political types such as Jeny
Thayer and Virginia Bruinini came to these meetings and helped guide the neighborhood. Our hard
work finally paid off when the Town Council voted 5-0 in ouf favor on September 18th 2002 to
uphold my appeal and not allow the 2 story to be built next door,
On September 19th, the day after we won the appeal, neighbors began to put checks in my mailbox to
offset some of the costs I had incurred, Over the next week, I received $751.67 from 15 different
people. The checks ranged in amount from $10.00 to $100,00. This spontaneous outpouring of
support from my neighbors not only touched me deeply, it also convinced me that Bel Aire is truly
something special that deserves to be protected.
08/1312003
Page 2 of2
The total cost of the campaign to prevent the 2 story at 124 Leland Way was $1,873.41. The neighbors
donated a total of$I,051.67, (please see attached spreadsheet "Expenses to Fight 2 Story in Bel
Aire",)
Also attached is a spreadsheet "30 Neighbors Donate Ten Dollars For Appeal" which lists the 30
neighbors who each donated ten dollar checks to file the appeal,
The Town of Tiburon does recognize in its Residential Zoning classifications that Bel Aire single
family dwellings are unique from all other single family dwellings in Tiburon with the R-I-BA
designation. Perhaps it would be possible for you to incorporate a special protection to
preserve neighborhood character in Bel Aire into the new General Plan using this specific
residential R-I-BA designation.
Jerry Thayer will be speaking on behalf of many Bel Aire homeowners tonight at the meeting, although
only a handful of us will be attending. It is my hope that this letter will provide you some insight and
appreciation for the special Bel Aire neighborhood character.
Sincerely,
Jennifer L. Carter
130 Leland Way
381-2586
08/13/2003
Expenses- To Fight 2 Story At 124 Leland Way
Date Vendor
9/25/02 Jim Malott
8/30/02 County Records
8/30/02 County Records
8/22/02 Ram InstaPrint
8/27/02 Ram InstaPrint
8/30/02 Ram InstaPrint
9/11/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
9/9/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/20/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/20/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/15/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/15/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/15/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/13/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/8/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
7/17/02 Mail Boxes Etc.
8/14/02 Longs
8/22/02 Safeway
6/3/02 Photo Sprint
8/15/02 Express 1 hr Photo
8/22/02 Town of Tiburon
8/22/02 Town of Tiburon
9/16/02 Town of Tiburon
1 0/17/02 Town of Tiburon
8/14/02 Sign-a-Rama
8/9/02 Fredy Reyes
9/4102 Judd Corbin
9/7102 Viking Office Prod.
8/26/02 Town of Tiburon
Description Paid With Amount
Architectual Consulting Ck 1865 $ 584.94
Map - Bel Aire Ck1853 $ 6.00
Subdivision Document Ck 1854 $ 6.00
Copies Visa $ 57.33
Copies Visa $ 59.79
Copies Visa $ 20.59
Copies Visa $ 13.14
Copies Visa $ 27.96
Copies Visa $ 5.26
Copies Visa $ 29.60
Copies Cash $ 3.22
Copies Visa $ 18.14
Copies Visa $ 18.29
Copies Cash $ 1 .82
Copies Visa $ 4.83
Copies Cash $ 0.60
3-ring Foldersfor ORB Cash $ 1.71
Binders for Ordinance Cash $ 12.18
Photos Cash $ 6.89
Photos Visa $ 14.58
Zoning Ordinance Ck 1850 $ 25.00
Building Guidelines Cash $ 5.00
ORB Tapes . Ck 1861 $ 20.00
Town Council Tapes Ck 1869 $ 15.00
Signs for Lawns Visa $, 353.35
Cut Elm To See Story Poles Ck 1843 ,$ 130.00
Cut Elm To See Story Poles Ck 1855 $ 80.00
Ink for Printer Visa $ 52.19
Appeal Fee - 30 Neighbors Neighbors $ 300.00
Sub-Total $ 1,873.41
Total Donations From Neighbors $ 1,051.67
. Remaining Balance Paid By J. Carter $ 821.74
08/1312003
30 Concerned Neighbors Donating $10.00 For Purpose of Appeal Fee
Evelyn Woo
Judy Hewson
Garnet Gorin
Virginia Sullivan (Jean)
Jim & Marion Fitzgerald
Bill Howard
Address
106 Leland
109 Leland
112 Leland
118 Leland
127 Leland
136 Leland
148 Leland
157 Leland
160 Leland
166 Leland
Leland Way Total 10
246 Cecilia
255 Cecilia
263 Cecilia
267 Cecilia
271 Cecilia
283 Cecilia'
287 Cecilia
295 Cecilia
Cecilia Way Total: . 8
Cynthia Perry & Bruce Sievers 79 Claire
Peter & Kimberly Brooks 54 Claire .
Claudia Madison 47 Claire
Werner & Wilma Schneider 90 Claire
Barbara Schneider 94 Claire
David Schneider 71 Claire
Claire Way Total: . 6
267 Karen
321 Karen
251 Karen
Karen Way Total: 3
158 Blackfield
Blackfield Way Total: 1
Norris & Miriam Martin 75 Harriet
Harriet Way Total: 1
40 Pamela
Pamela Ct. Total: 1
Virginia Brunini
Holly Kaiser & Vasco Morais
Phoebe Brown
Name
Jean Kautz
Mo Barzegar & Margaret Del Coto
Walter & Barbara Lister
Peter Mason
Barbara Banthien & Bob Rogers
Claire & Peter Bohan
Carol Largman & Charles Murray
Bjorn & Helena Hermanson
Prudence & Fred Starr
Glennis Fitzgerald
Gregg & Cheryl Lynch
Claire Dinneen
Jerry Thayer
Austin B. Fenger
RECEiVED
August 12, 2003
AUG 1 2 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Planning Commission, Town of Tiburon
Att: Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Thank you for distributing the LAND USE ELEMENT PAPER as part of the Town of
Tiburon's GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS. This is the first time we have had an
opportunity to review this documenLAs residents of the Town of Tiburon and as' owners
of a parcel of undeveloped landin the unincorporated portion of the Paradise Drive
corridor my wife and I would very much appreciate the Planning Commission's review
and consideration of our comments on the Land Use Element Issues Paper.
I am not a professional developer and have little experience with land use issues so my
comments are basically "common sense"'type feedback for the Planning Commission and
it may very well be that I have missed some of the subtleties and/or political aspects of
this document so please bear with us.
I find the Paradise Drive corridor very attractive and it has in our opinion been managed
very well by the current planning activities in the County as a "rural area" with far lower
residential densities than whatis found within the incorporated and developed areas of
the Town of Tiburon it self.
..
It appears to me that the proposed changes to the General Plan indicate that the Town will.
take a more assertive stance in regards to encouraging incorporation of the
unincorporated areas.
It also appears that the proposed policies for development within the unincorporated areas
will be "tightened" and made more restrictive compared to the previous General Plan.
Several planning policies that could be found in the failed Measure-I initiative seams to
have been added to the revised proposal for the new General Plan.
The Staff and the Planning Commission appear to be spending a considerable amount of
time, energy, and resources planning for currently unincorporated areas. The approach to
this process seams counter-intuitive as there are several very fundamental issues
mentioned in the issues paper that in my view must be addressed and resolved before
modifying the General Plan as it relates to these unincorporated areas.
As noted in the paper there appears to be very little interest from the landowners in the
unincorporated areas of Paradise Drive to incorporated their properties. My guess would
be that it is so because the landowner benefits that are normally associated with
incorporation of rural areas (like access to additional urban services and urban
development densities) are to a high degree absent in this plan. Some examples of this
would be sanitary services, road maintena'nce, and development densities. The satellite
treatment plant in Sanitary District 5 at Playa Verde is virtually at capacity. Paradise
Drive is currently maintained by the County and not the Town and proposed development
densities in the General Plan are those normally associated with rural areas and not
typical for urban and incorporated areas.
As the issues paper indicates a report that has been prepared by the planning consultant
Scott Hochstrasser predicts that the maintenance cost for the Town of Tiburon for the
Paradise Drive road would be significant and probably not offset by the incremental tax
revenue from incorporation of the additional properties contemplated. This circumstance
is obviously amplified by the fact that the General Plan for the properties to potentially be
annexed has a very low development density and thus very low incremental tax revenue
for the Town.
I also understand that the current view within LAFCO is that annexation of properties
along the Paradise Dr corridor will only be considered if the Town also takes over the
maintenance cost of this road. This circumstance in combination with the policies in the
new proposed General Plan, the current General Plan subdivision annexation policies,
and the existing LAFCO "dual annexation policy" might force the Town against it's will
to take over the maintenance cost of Paradise Drive. This aspect and potential pitfall for
the Town appears to not have received appropriate attention in the Land Use Issues
Paper.
In summary: In my opinion this proposed General Plan is inconsistent in the way that it is
working toward incorporation of "rural areas" into "urban areas" while also apparently
suggesting that potential development be reduced all at a net fiscal expense to the Town.
All of this is taking place without support from the affected landowners partly because
incorporation would not result in the benefits of additional urban services normally
associated with incorporation.
This whole thinking seems backwards and makes little sense to me. I strongly encourage
the Town and the Planning Commission to address and work through these. substantial
planning inconsistencies before proceeding with additional detailed policy review for the
unincorporated areas.
I feel that the Town has done an excellent job over the years in creating an attractive
"village like" urban environment with plenty of attractive open space within the Town
limits and that the County has done an equally excellent job in maintaining an attractive
"rural feel" to the Paradise Drive corridor.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for us to voice our opinion concerning this
important matter. We hope that our comments will be contributing to a continued
constructive process and that it will result in providing a good balance between private
property rights and the preservation of the quality of life on the Tiburon peninsula for all
residence regardless of whether one is located within the incorporated Town boundaries
or in the County.
Sincerely,
Terri Salvatore-Swahn
193 Gilmartin Dr.
Tiburon, CA 94920
cc. Scott Andersen, Town of Tiburon Director of Planning
Brian Crawford, Marin County Community Development Agency
Peter Banning, Executive Officer, LAFCO
09/12/2000 05:27
4153Bl(?ilf;d
HEI GES
PAGE 01
To: Kevin Bryant
From: Victoria Heiges
August 9 2003
RECEIVED
AUG I 1 2003
Re: General Plan and Private Open Space
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Thank you tor your time on the phone discussing this.
I would like to see the planning department bring under one umbrella all the
private open space easements and allow the owners to do minimal landscaping
within your approval
The benefit of this would be to reduce their fire hazzard potential. With my
easement I am not allowed to do anything to this area.
It would also eliminate the scraggly unkempt abandoned look of this area that lies
within a manicured street.
I look forward to attending future meetings on the General Plan update.
~~ fh~
7{ H (j1. f C<<&.2O" ,
1J, 3-g>I-M"'o
,
'.
"
Kevin Bryant
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
fred starr [fstarrjr@earthlink.net]
Wednesday, August 06,2003 9:58 PM
Kevin Bryant
jcarter128@juno.com
Policies to Preserve Neighborhood Character
Hi Kevin. This is Fred Starr from 160 Leland Way in Tiburon. I cannot
attend
the August 13 meeting; however, I would like to say that to preserve the
character of the Bel Aire neighborhood two-story homes generally should
not
be permitted due to the negative impacts on sunlight, views, and
privacy.
1
II
THE KEIL ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
ESTABLISHED 1848
RECEIVED
August 4, 2003
AUG 6 Z003
Kevin Bryant
Advance Planner
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DIVISION
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Bryant:
1 have reviewed the Land Use element Issue Paper and wish to comment on the passage
which describes our family home.
PD-R-m (Keil) A Grant Deed of Conservation Easement was made on December 20,
2001. The real property conserved includes not only the 30.8 acre site referenced but
also the .5 acre spring property located at the center ofPD-R-n (Martha Company).
The recorded purpose of the Easement is to assure that the property will be retained
forever as a natural, scenic, historic and horticultural resource. The Grantee of this
Easement is The Garden Conservancy.
The fact that his property is subject to a Conservation Easement should be included in the
descriptive passage. If you have any questions regarding the easement or wish to visit the
property, do not hesitate to give me a call at 415.781.5546.
Very truly yours,
\
Russell D. Keil, Jr.
KEIL BLJ ILDI NG . 244 KEARNY STREET. TH,IRD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORN lA 941.08
415/781/5546 . FAX 4],5/781/3939
S'
EYT-!IBIT 1\~~O'q,_._
DRAFT
DISCUSSION ITEMS
5. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE; REVIEW OF LAND USE ELEMENT ISSUES
PAPER; Take Public Comment for a Report to the Town Council Regarding
Recommendations for General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs for the
Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Community Development Director Anderson briefly reviewed the status of the General
Plan Update. .
Advance Planner Bryant presented the Staff report and noted that the annexation policies
include three distinct areas: Paradise Drive, Eagle Rock/Bay Vista and Strawberry; and
that preserving neighborhood character is important to the community.
Commissioner Stein stated the Town recognizes that Strawberry is quite different and this
difference should be underscored in the future because it will make annexation policy
more understandable. He also stated that the Issues Paper undercuts the assumption that
the Planning Area will be the same, particularly as it relates to Strawberry. He added that
it is interesting how recommendations in the Land Use Element are tied in with the
Housing Element and the Downtown Element. He said that he wished the Open Space
Element had been looked at first. If that had been done, the Land Use Element could be
viewed as the appropriate lynchpin of the entire plan. He understands nothing said
tonight will resolve issues; it is one more step in the process. At every step, it must be
understood that everyone is somewhat in a bind because so many items require
interpretation of both the open space and land use elements; hence, any decisions or
direction provided tonight should be considered tentative because the open space element
has not been reviewed yet..
The public comment period was opened.
Bruce Abbott, Greenwood Beach Road, stated he is concerned about the designation of
'Blackie's Pasture as a park because it was purchased by a bond issue and the word "park"
was deleted from the title of the bond measure by the Council. He said there is a
distinction between open space and parks. Open space was acquired by general purpose
bonds and citizens determine the use of the property, because the purpose of the ballot
initiative which authorized the bonds can be modified only by citizens. He asked that
research be done and stated he has a letter with documentation that Blackie's Pasture was
purchased as open space.
Jerry Thayer, 158 Blackfield Drive in the Bel Aire neighborhood, stated his
neighborhood consists of one-story homes, from about 1,500 square feet to 2,000 square
feet in size. He and his neighbors support the new policies which address neighborhood
character, particularly LU-12 and LU-13. LU-13 speaks directly to his neighborhood's
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003
concerns and he compliments Staff on their awareness of the neighborhood's
sensitivities.
. Joanna Mason Kemper, Last Chance Committee, stated she and the committee members
have several recommendations. She said that officially designating land covered by open
space easements as open space is a good idea. They would like to add that before any
section ofthe Plan is finalized the open space and land use elements should be looked at
together. They support creating an introduction to the General Plan that describes the
uses of the plan, its importance, how to equally weigh all elements of the General Plan in
making a decision about development, and listing town goals. These major goals should
be fashioned from citizens' input. She also said that the land use element should include
a goal that discusses the importance of open space to Tiburon. She said it may be worth
repeating the first goal in the open space element to preserve the character of the Tiburon
peninsula through control of the type and location of development. Also, she suggested
retaining the "low density" phrase in the goals. She said that policy LU-12 has language
which says that special emphasis shall be placed on keeping ridgelines open and
unobstructed to the maximum extent feasible. She asked to ensure that this language is
included and recommends making it a separate goal. She said that maintaining property
values is right, but it is not an appropriate goal ofthe Town. Someone could take this to
mean all development should be maximized to get the biggest tax base possible.
Regarding moving text and meaning from open space toiand use, she said that with three
to five overlapping policies, they should be included in each element. She also said that
they recommend keeping the part ofLU-17 which provides examples of environmental
circumstances under which density maximums must be lowered.
Ian Schwartz, 1 Round Hill Terrace, stated he has a Town-held open space easement over
a portion of his lot and supports the open space easement concept. He was concerned
that the proposed open space designation might add new restrictions to the existing
easement. He suggesting adding the words, "provided, however, that nothing herein shall
expand the scope of, or otherwise affect, the terms and conditions of said easements" to
the text of the Issues Paper.
Frank Mortarotti, 10 Tara View Road, stated he objects to the affordable housing overlay
land use designation at the Reed Elementary School property. He expressed concern that
it would increase the existing congestion in that area.
Anders Swahn, Gilmartin Drive, stated he owns undeveloped land in an unincorporated
area on the Tiburon Peninsula. He is pleased with the town and county and the planning
processes in both. The language is good as it relates to density, development,
restrictions; however, it appears services that would be expected during development are
not well-articulated or well-planned, e.g., waste treatment and sewage lines. As a
landowner, he appreciates the concern the Town has for developing the Paradise Drive
corridor, but services have not been addressed adequately. From a resident's point of
view, a number of things could trigger incorporation and maintenance of Paradise Drive
'may not be covered through the tax base of incorporated areas. LAFCO policies are that
the Town must provide services and it appears the Town could be required to maintain
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13. 2003
2
Paradise Drive before it decides where the money is coming from. How to pay for it and
maintain it is a serious concern. He suggested that the Town resolve how to pay for
Paradise Drive before annexation occurs.
There being no further comments, the public commented period was closed.
Commissioner Stein stated all comments received are pertinent and intelligent. He would
have liked new LU-14 tied in with the discussion ofthe issue of having two separate units
in the R-2 zone, which looks like a lot split. The relationship between those two items
could be dealt with here. The new approach on densities on large undeveloped parcels
takes a different approach than that in the 1989 plan. Maximums are spelled out and
treated differently. He is not sure it helps by adding this degree of specificity in the
General Plan language. If a study is made of each parcel, both in the CEQA process and
in discussing the merits of each, then the Planning Commission will look at what actual
density is appropriate. Such a detailed description in the General Plan suggests that these
studies have been done. A problem faced over the years in development applications is
that a developer sees the stated allowable maximum and that number becomes imbedded
as the allowable density. However, the burden of proof that the maximum density
development is appropriate rests with the developer, and this message does not get
across. He suggested the Planning Commission think of adding the concept that there is
an average foreseeable density on undeveloped parcels thatis considerably less than the
allowable maximum density, and the density may go from the average baseline to the
maximum or the reverse to as low as is consistent with the takings clause. He would not
try to do this process item by item or parcel by parcel, but he would try to work it into the
concept of the Planning Commission's approach to land use of undeveloped parcels, and
he would tie this in with revisions made in the open space element. For many years, the
Town has at least suggested that private open space exists on undeveloped parcels and
must be preserved as private open space. He would like to see this spelled out more
comprehensively. .
Commissioner Greenberg stated she likes calling out the parcels that will be planned
residential. This allows people who are looking at the Plan to know where they are
located. She finds this helpful. Overall, she said the language is much more efficient and
tight, but valuable examples have been taken out. She said that examples and repetition,
which have been taken out, helps to make the point. Removal ofthis kind oflanguage
makes designations of particular parcels seem much more set in stone. Examples in the
General Plan were included to make the document more user-friendly. She concurs with
Commissioner Stein on the overall concept but she likes the data in the document with
properties listed and described.
Commissioner Stein stated, for example, the listing of tree species for specific parcels
suggests the Town has attempted to make more of a study than it has of the parcels.
Commissioner Greenberg suggested language to precede this section of the Plan, "These
are general broad descriptions and the 'properties will require ErRs to clarify specific
conditions and to' allow development."
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003
3
Commissioner Stein stated this would convey where the Town stands.
Commissioner Greenberg added that landslides are not discussed and a statement should
be made that descriptions are primarily based on obvious visual characteristics..
Commissioner Stein stated that perhaps the Town should be developing a process that
derives a more foreseeable density that is less than a maximum, and point to a set of
criteria that is found in the CEQA process that may allow an enhancement to what is seen
as a maximum. He recalls from three or four hearings on different properties that the
suggestion was made by applicants that the maximum means that is what has to be
allowed unless someone shows it must be less. He said that is not what the General Plan
states. The Town should learn from experience in updating the General Plan that this is a
structure that does not quite work. .
Commissioner Collins stated the Town should not try to strike an average; this would
make it look like the properties have been prejudged and there is no data to base a
judgment for an average foreseeable density. The text can describe properties with a
paragraph or more oflanguage that identifies the fact it is up to the applicant to prove that
densities and maximum allowed units are achievable. He said that examples are very
helpful if not overdone. .
Commissioner Snow noted that stating the maximum allowable density sets a bar and
development applications will rise to the bar. He recommended that the Plan takeout
maximum densities. He also said the description of individual properties has some value.
Community Development Director Anderson stated that under state law the Town must
establish a density. It must be applied, on a map or a table, to each property in the
Town's planning area.
Commissioner Greenberg stated the maximum density should be in the document.
Information should be in the Plan and readily available for everyone to see easily. She
supports a paragraph or two explaining how it was derived and that environmental
constraints are likely to reduce the number of units built.
Community Development Director Anderson suggested using policy LU-3 as a starting
point for a more detailed explanation of what the densities mean to someone who wants
to develop property. The open space element will contain something similar to this.
Commissioner Stein stated the Town needs a maximum density figure, but there should
be another functioning figure as well. It is almost worth questioning the assumption of
not looking at downzoning as part of the General Plan process. He asked what
downzoning would entail procedurally.
Community Development Director Anderson noted that one of the assumptions for the
Land Use Element listed in the Staff Report was that major downzoning was not
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003
4
contemplated. This assumption was probably conveyed to owners ofthe large
undeveloped properties. If the Planning Commission is going to entertain possible
downzoning, it is appropriate that it be made known in some form to potentially affected
property owners.
Commissioner Stein stated the only way the Planning Commission would know what
densities make sense is in the context of discussing the open space element.
Commissioner Greenberg stated the densities originally established were to some extent
arbitrary and, for the era they were established, were considered to be very low. Times
have changed, however, and the Town has more data with various mapping tools as to
what the properties look like. Staff could perhaps look at towns similar to Tiburon, and
new geographical information, to reconsider some ofthose densities.
Community Development Director Anderson stated that the appropriateness of the
maximum unit count depended in part on the underlying assumptions about the type of
development that might occur on the properties. For instance, the maximum unit count
numbers may not seem so outrageous for small clustered or attached unit projects.
However, if one assumes large estate homes on individual large lots, then the maximum
unit counts appear less appropriate. He believed that the General Plan should state the
assumptions underlying the densities being described.
Commissioner Stein stated in the next fifteen years, whatis considered appropriate land
use could change and if this were changed, it would affect the numbers of units. He
asked the record to convey to the Council that the Planning Commission is considering
this and the Council should think about it as well.
Commissioner Collins stated there is no reference in the document to parking. In
particular in policy LU-14, there is no reference to adequate onsite parking. The
description of neighborhood character should include that parking in relation to streets
and terrain are important. South of Lyford, the strip ofland to the west of Tiburon
Boulevard is designated open space, yet it is a parking space.
Community Development Director Anderson noted this is Caltrans property. Caltrans
once proposed a formal Park & Ride lot and the Town rejected that because it would have
eliminated half of the spaces there now, and it would have been wall-to-wall asphalt with
no landscaping in order to meet Caltrans standards.
Commissioner Collins stated the parking ,area ought not to look like a parking lot because
it is the front porch ofTiburon. . ,
Community Development Director Anderson noted this is a concern discussed in the
circulation element.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13. 2003
5
Commissioner Stein stated, on page 11, policy LU-15, that it was previously clear and
conveyed that the Town did not want to encourage hotels, etc., and asked why this
language was taken out.
Advance Planner Bryant responded that in combining the two policies, if the policy is
read as one, the meaning does not change.
Commissioner Stein added that the language does more good than harm in clarifying
where the Town wanted to go. A political decision would favor stressing that language.
Commissioner Greenberg added that the meaning has been changed when the original
language was changed on LU-I5. The stated preference for residential uses over tourism
was lost. The condensed language changed the meaning and the change requires
explanation and justification.. She asked what Page 9, the third goal under B means.
Advance Planner Bryant responded that this language comes directly out ofthe existing
General Plan. Commissioner Greenberg stated that most people do not understand what
an environmental constraint is and that this is an instance where an example would make
the document clearer and more user friendly.
Commissioner Collins stated it seems that if present uses are identified, discussion should
also be included about the infrastructure, streets, utilities and public services that tie in.
He asked about environmental constraints.
Community Development Director Anderson responded the original intent was to point
out that environmental constraints are very important, a lead-in to policy LU-3. This also
includes present land use.
Commissioner Greenberg noted in LU-E, LU-2 and LU-14 that "quiet" was substituted
for "low density". She prefers strikethroughs to see what is being changed from the
former General Plan. She said the "low-density" language is often referred to in decision
making and that it helps emphasize the low-density wish of citizens, when a
development is applied for. It is acceptable to use both "low density" and "quiet", but a
simple substitution is not acceptable, since the two terms are not synonymous.
Commissioner Stein stated "low density" has a demonstrable meaning while quiet means
different things to different people and does not help one make a decision.
Commissioner Greenberg added that the new LU-E, with the deletion of language about
buffer zones between new and existing development, is a big change.
Community Development Director Anderson stated that in reality, looking at the large,
undeveloped properties over the years, the best way to go about placing development on
these sites has usually been as an extension of existing development. Large greenbelt
buffers can force new roads and development further into a property than is otherwise
necessary, thus disturbing a larger area than needed. Staff can re-word this policy. He
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003
6
said he believed that the greenbelt corridor concept works better on a larger scale than is
found on the Tiburon Peninsula.
Commissioner Greenberg noted many Town officials have referred to the greenbelt
buffer policy when assessing the merits of projects.
Community Development Director Anderson suggested using the term "buffers", and
said Staff will revisit the greenbelt policy.
Commissioner Stein noted this comes up in transitional areas. He noted in the new LU-
E, character and identity, he is not comfortable with defining neighborhood character as
the "feel" of the neighborhood and suggests "defining characteristic of the
neighborhood" should be used instead. This will vary from case to case but there. needs
to be some way to get the point across that neighborhood character means preserving
something. From the standpoint of the Planning Commission, it will be a question if that
something is worth preserving in light of what is now developing. He said that staff is
too delicate with the term "neighborhood character."
Commissioner Greenberg stated that on the new LU-4, the reasoning given for the
recommended language has a whole different meaning than what is in the policy. New
policy LU-4 says Tiburon is in the business of protecting people's private property,
which is a tremendous leap from the principle of establishing a secure local revenue base
for the Town. She said that the language offered: "that the Town shall preserve property
values to protect the investment of property owners" is very problematic. She said the
author seems to have jumped from a citizenry wish for a secure local revenue base to a
policy protecting private investment and property values. Having attended the public
workshop at which this was addressed, she said she cannot believe that this new policy
was what was envisioned. She can foresee arguments for structural and other changes to
residential properties in the interests of "preserving" property values that would not
otherwise be approved. This language creates a whole new set of criteria for
consideration by Design Review, which she believes does not now exist - and she
believes should not exist. She said it also raises issues concerning subdivision of large,
currently undeveloped parcels. This item needs considerable discussion.
The Commission agreed to strike this language and start over.
Commissioner Greenberg suggested combining both the ''New Development" and
"Residential Neighborhoods" sections in the Appendix into a "Residential Development"
section, as they have considerable overlap. Separation creates a misleading division. She
added that the new LU-9 used to begin with "Property owners cherish their views." This
has disappeared without comment. The old language gave added importance and value to
the policy, which she thinks is appropriate. The existing General Plan has worked well
and changes to it must be justified.
Commissioner Stein stated, at the very least, a decision should not be made to change or
remove language until the open space element is looked at.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003 .
.7
Commissioner Greenberg stated that on policy LV-12, ".. . and respected" does not give
direction. Sh~ suggested "preserved" be used instead.
Commissioner Collins stated that "predominant" should be used before "architectural
styles" in policy LU-12.
Commissioner Stein stated that on policy LV-12, "defining characteristic of the
neighborhood" should be used.
Commissioner Collins stated that "major" should be deleted at the beginning of policy
LV-l3.
Commissioner Greenberg stated, regarding the sentence, "... design and scale should be
consistent with existing development in surrounding neighborhood," the sense is it should
not stand out like a sore thumb. She also suggested to add "primary and secondary"
before the words "ridge lines" on the new LV-14c. '
Commissioner Collins asked why the Town encourages home occupations.
Community Development Director Anderson responded they are generally believed to
remove commute traffic from the streets.
Commissioner Greenberg stated, on LV-19, this is the first time we have a policy that
calls for consideration of the "employment needs" of residents in making decisions and
this language may justify businesses that may otherwise not be approved. She
recommended removing "employment needs" or expoUnding on them.
Commissioner Stein stated he took this to mean that the Town encourages more office
development and if so this is in conflict with the language that office uses should be
limited on the ground floor.
Commissioner Collins suggested that policy LV-18 end the text with "residential areas."
Community Development Director Anderson stated he is not certain that the Town can
legally do this.
Commissioner Greenberg stated she will email additional comments to Staff. On LV-36,
she asked what "supports" means. Regarding "neighborhood school facilities," she is
surprised to see this given the controversy overthe plans to build gyms at schools.
Community Development Director Anderson stated this policy is aimed at pedestrian and
bicycle accessibility, and should be placed in the circulation element.
Commissioner Greenberg stated the old LU-16 should be in the land use element. It
refers to areas in unincorporated areas and this language is relevant when development
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003
8
--
comes before the Town, and it is clear what is being looked at. She said duplication of
language in more than one element is acceptable to her, if it addresses issues applicable to
more than one element This is a very important policy in land use decisions. From land
use planning comes open space. A developer should read this. It is important that a
developer know about this.
Commissioner Collins also will email his changes to Community Development Director
Anderson.
Commissioner Stein stated Staff must further define private open space so it has meaning.
He said that Mr. Schwartz's lot almost did not get built. Where there are environmental
constraints, the Town wants to ensure further development does not happen. Staff needs
to ask and find out from other communities what can be expected to happen when
something is designated private open space when it benefits a private person and a
landowner. He would like to resolve issues that come back over and over again.
Commissioner Greenberg stated that as far as establishing private open space in
subdivisions and Precise Development Plans, it would take an act of god to change the
language. She said nothing would expand the scope of the Town's use of private open
space area.
Community Development Director Anderson stated that the issues raised by Mr.
Schwartz are addressed in the grant of open space easement. Provisions for fire control
exist in the easement language.
Commissioner Greenberg noted that some services are not provided by the town, e.g.,
fire, sewer, but are provided by special districts.
Community Development Director Anderson stated a Town ofTiburon ordinance
requires the extension of public sewers to serve development.
Commissioner Greenberg stated that the traffic issues around Reed School have not been
resolved. She shares the speaker's concerns about high density housing in that area.
Mr. Schwartz stated he walks by this parcel every day and that side of Lyford Drive
should have a sidewalk, and he cannot image higher density than already exists. He
thinks this is "dumping" affordable housing into one area in order to meet the state's
housing requirements.
ADJOURNMENT
There. being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003
9
WAYNE SNOW, VICE-CHAIRMAN.
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of August 13, 2003
10
.
.
EXI-!IBY!' I\TO h
-
To: Tiburon Planning Commission
From' Bruce-Abbott
. !
August 13, 2003
Dear Members, of the Planning Commission:
The following is submitted for your consideration in amending the General Plan:
In 1974 and 1975 the Town ofTiburoo, known then as, the City of TibHron; J*lfc~ased
Blackie's Pasture, in a series of acquisitions, with Proceeds of the 1972 General
Obligation Open Space Bonds, . The obligation was awroved-by a two-thirds-vote o~the
people. The issue of the referendum that was presented to, and approved by, the people
was defined bya.resolution-oi the City Ceuncil; found in-CoUflCilMifll:ltes-No: 286 ,g{
July 10, 1972, and modified by Council Minutes 287 of July 17, 1972. Your attention is
invited to those minutes, wherein-it is made cl€arthat the real- property to-oo acquil:@d
with the proceeds of the general obligation qonds was for "open space and recreational
. purposes:', specifically striking the word "park" from the ordinance, It was-further.
explained that the purpose in striking the work "park" from the ordinance calling for the
referenaumwas. to avoid,itbeing,"equated with intensive st~tured use:" ~nce,
Blackie's Pasture is not a park, but open space.
CalifoffHa law pro.videsthat the J>H'rpose of a geooral obligatien-oo.ad may. not. be e~ged
without approval of the people. As in the original, enabling referendum, the amended
PUFpC>5e must be awroved by two-thin!,s.. vot@... The obligatioH- having beea undertak~ by
the people, the people alone can amend the purpose of the obligation; that is, whether or
not the property. ~quired. with the proceeds of the bend issue may be changed from ,open
space to some other purpose, such as a park. .
TocaU Blaekie' s Pasture. a park doos- not. change its status. as open space, but- does
confuse the issue, and invites misunderstanding, resulting in repeated applications:for
inappropriate use- at'that propeFty,
The general plan of the town should not contribute to the confusion by the
mischaraeterization ofBlaekie'sPastureas a park, but should take every preeauti~ to
avoid that confusion and maintain the integrity of our open space,
Thank you for your atten~ion,
Bruce Abbott
"
~
g
{'9'i
.~t
.1.-i
I-.~
!.~
~.~
':5
I
.'-J
Add a recommended Goal
(OSe-A): To preserve the character ofthe Tiburon peninsula through
control of the type and location of development.
Add a Recommended Goal:
To preserve and protect Tiburon's views, scenic environment, natural
beauty, and open space.
"Low-Density" is a term of art in planning, and is specifically defined in
the General Plan as residential development of up 0.5 dwelling per acre.
Most of the Planning Area is made up of existing development which is
not "low-density" at all, but "medium"and even "high" density, as these
terms are defined in the General Plan.
September2003
Page 1 of 13
However, Staff understands the desire to keep the concept of "low-
densi......" It is recommended that an alternative term be used as a
TOWN OF TIBURON
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LAND USE ELEMENT ISSUES PAPER
8/13/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
COMMENTS & CHANGES MATRIX - WORKING DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 2003
unless otherwise noted.
Note: Policy numbers listed are taken from Appendix A of the Land Use Element Issues Paper
The term "low density" was deliberately used in Goal LU-
B and Policies LU-14 and LU-I5 of the current General
Plan. These terms have been used in decision-making over
the years. The term has been replaced with "quiet" in new
recommended policies, but it doesn't have the same
meaning. Leave the term "low-density" in existing OP
Goal LU-B and Policy LU-I4.
OSC-A in the Land Use Element.
Include a goal which captures all of the valued
characteristics presented in the Issues Paper.
Town QfTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
Include current Goal
,~
i-
S
Change to
LU-B (LU-B): To ensure that all land uses, by type, amount, design, and
arrangement, serve to preserve. protect and enhance the quiet residential
image of the community and retain the village-like character of its
Downtown commercial area.
Change to:
LU-C (LU-C): To classify identify present land uses and to propose
future land uses within environmental constraints and within the ability
of the land and related infrastructure. streets. utilities. public services
and other facilities to support such land uses.
Change to:
LU-D (LU.~B):To plan facilities that encourage use of the shoreline
compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with balancing the
objectives of preservation of shoreline resources while also maximizing
public access to the waterfront where not in conflict with other public
uses or with nrivate uses which are of nublic benefit.
This smart growth principle was scored as very appropriate for Tiburon
by respondents of the General Plan Update survey. Therefore, it is
recommended that it be retained as a goal, in some form.
1. The phrase was deleted because preserving existing neighborhood
character and identity is achieved through many policies, one of which
may be buffers. However, there are other policies which would help to
achieve this goal, such as recommended policy LU-13 that major
remodels and tear-down/rebuilds be consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. The goal should be a general objective statement.
for
an appropriate goal
is not
LU-B: minor text change
LU-C : minor text change
LU-F
LU-D: minor text change
Recommended Goal
Tiburon.
1. ,The phrase "by requiring buffer zones (greenbelts)
between new and existing development where practical"
has been deleted from current goal LU-F with no
explanation. The reasons for this deletion need to be
expressed and justified.
and house sizes and
densit
2. Add the words "and to discourage intensity of
development and house sizes and architectural styles that
are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood" at the
September2003
Page 2 of 13
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
LandUse Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
Change to
LU-G: To address regional issues, such as transportation, schools, and
water, through development review and in coordination with
neighboring cities, the county, and other governmental entities.
Staff disagrees with one of the basic arguments for leaving this in the
Land Use Element - that other jurisdictions will most like\y look at the
Land Use section for applicable policies. The Circulation Element is
Widely understood among professionals to contain policies regarding
transportation for the entire Planning Area. The selection of one
statement for inclusion in the Land Use Element may have the effect it
is intended to protect against, ignoring the Circulation Element. Also,
the statement is not a goal statement. but fa olic
Add the words "the Town's planning department process
and in" after the word "through" in the second line of
recommended Goal LU-G.
Current Goal LU-D includes the following: "The
maintenance of acceptable circulation levels of service in
presently unincorporated areas is therefore of considerable
importance to the Town." This statement directly
addresses the traffic impacts of land use decisions that may
be made by another jurisdiction and Should be retained in
the Land Use Element because this is where they will look
licable
Staff does not believe that the additional data obtained through work on
the Open Space Element will be sufficient to assign new densities to the
PD-R properties.
Town Council issue. See above with respect to additional data with
which to identify a functioning density for the PD-R properties
Through work-on the Open Space Element, al
information may come out which would allow the Town to
re-examine densities.
Along with the "maximuni allowable density", identify a
functioning "average" or "optimum" density for the
properties which may provide a more realistic assessment
ofthe likely number of units that can be developed on a
This will be included in the Draft General Plan 2020. It is
recommended that an explicit reference be made to policies in the Open
Space & Resource Conservation Element to provide clear direction
about the importance of open space factors in development decisions
Include an introduction to the Planned Development -
Residential properties which explains that "maximum
density" approved for a site will be determined by
decision-making bodies applying the policies contained in
the entire General Plan, especially the Open Space and
Conservation Element, based on site soecific information
September2003
Page 3 of 13
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
Change descriptions to
PD-R-m (Keil): This approximately 30.8 acre site contains some of the
most unique features found within the Planning Area, including a
freshwater pond and a 70-foot rock outcropping near the Bay shore.
The property currently contains 3 single-family residences and is subiect
to a Conservation Easement held by the Garden Conservancy. The
recorded purpose of the Easement is to assure that the property will be
retained forever as a natural. scenic. historic. and horticultural resource.
One additional home could be_constructed under the tenus of the
The Keil property, PD-R-m, is subject to a Conservation.
Easement held by the Garden Conservancy. The recorded
purpose of the easement is to assure that the property will
be retained forever as a natural, scenic, historic and
horticultural resource. The terms of the easement call for
the maintenance of the three houses on the property, and
would allow for the construction of one additional house.
easement.
Maximum allowable density: 0.13 duJacre
Approximate maximum units: ~ ffi
The easement also conserves the 0.5-acre in-holding on the
Martha property, PD-R-n.
,~:~
,....~
~J
PD-R-n (Martha): At 110 acres, this is the largest private land holding in
the Planning Area. The site consists of steep slopes and flatter ridges
covered by dense coast live oak woodlands on lower elevations and
grasslands on higher elevations, both punctuated by rock outcroppings.
The property also surrounds a 0.5-acre in-holding that is subject to a
Conservation Easement held by the Garden Conservancy.
Maximum allowable density: 0.4 duJacre
Approximate maximum'units: 44
The 0.37 FAR refers to the proposed change for Neighborhood
Commercial that is included in both the Downtown Element and the
Land Use Element. The ~urrent FAR for Neighborhood Commercial is
0.17
Page 26 of the Issues Paper says the maximum
development for Neighborhood Commercial is 0.17 FAR..
In discussing the recommended zoning change to the Cover
Shopping Center, on page 27 it says that NC zoning would
permit development to an FAR of .37. Is there a
discreoancv here?
September2003
Page 4 of 13
Town of Tiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
Blackie's Pasture, which was purchased with proceeds Town Council issue. Staff is recommending that the Parks designation
from the 1972 Open Space Bonds, should be designated as be renamed Parks & Recreation.
Open Space, not Park, because the voter-approved ballot
language authorizing the bonds listed the purpose as "open
space and recreational." The word "park" had been
explicitly removed by the City Council prior to approval of
the ballot language.
The new table uses ABAG's Projections 2003, which projects 2.2
persons per household instead of2.4 assumed in the current General
Plan.
Projection table appears
Planning Area Maximum Buildout
to have been changed incorrectly.
"Low-Density" is a term of art in planning, and is specifically defm
the General Plan as residential development of up 0.5 dwelling per acre.
Most of the Planning Area is made up of existing development which is
not "low-density" at all, but "medium" and even "high" density, as these
terms are defined in the General Plan.
Furthermore, having a policy that all land uses protect the low-density
character would be inconsistent with encouraging affordable housing
projects.
The term "low density" was deliberately used in Goal LU-
B and Policies LU-I4 and LU-I5 of the current General
Plan. These terms have been used in decision-making over
the years. The term has been replaced with "quiet" in new
recommended policies, but it doesn't have the same
meaning. Leave the term "low-density" in existing GP
Goal LU-B and Policy LU-I4.
However, Staff understands the desire to keep the concept of "low-
density". It is recommended that an alternative term be used as a
replacement.
Change to:
LU-2 (LU 14 & 15): The Town shall limit rcgulatc the type and amount
of uses within the Town to those that are compatible with the nature~
character and image of the Town as a quiet, peaceful residential
community with a village-like commercial area.
. .
minor text change
LU-2
September2003
Page 5 of 13
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
In
below
Change to:
LU-3 (LU-17): Future land use decisions shall be consistent with the
Land Use Diagram, Proposed Land Use. Densities and intensities
specified in the Land Use Element are maximums (except for state-
mandated bonuses for affordable housing or other density bonuses
specifically provided for in the Housing Element) that may not be
achieved unless consistency with the General Plan. includinl olicies.
the Qoen Soace and Conservation Element. is demonstrated.
Delete LU-4
The revision of existing Policy LU-I7 speaks about
consistency with the General Plan. Specific examples have
been deleted. Re-state the examples because the examples
make the General Plan more user-friendly and the more
times importantthemes are restated, the more likely they
are to be complied with. Repetition in the past has
functioned to give more authority to goals and policies.
be
This change will be made. Policies LU-5 through LU-I8 will
grouped under the heading "Residential Development"
Delete or re-write new recommended policy LU-4. The
language creates a whole new criterion for consideration
during Design Review which shouldn't exist. The policy
also could be taken by some to mean the Town wants to
maximize development to get a bigger tax base.
In the organization of pollcies, as presented in Appendix A,
combine ''New Development" with "Residential
Neighborhoods" .
LU-7: minor text
Change to
LU-7 (LU-12): Development should be located on the least
environmentally sensitive. including habitat in the open spa
shoreline. marshes. mudflats. and other biologically sensiti, and
least hazardous portions of the land wherever feasible to promote sound
land development and planning practices.
Change to:
LU-8 (LU-18): Sewer, water and other essential infrastructure
improvements must be available to the develooer to serve new
development by the
s
change
minor text change
LU-8
September2003
Page 6 of 13
Town of Tiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
of essential expanded infrastructure to the maximum extent allowed by
law.
Change to:
LU-9 (OSC-3): Property owners cherish their views. New development
and associated landscaping shall be so situated or kept low to avoid
interference with existing primary views.
Change to:
LU-II (OSC-6): The Town shall encourage wcll designcd projects that
enhance its character and image through the development and design
review processes. Monotony in design, and massive or inordinately
large or bulky structures and site coverage that overwhelm or that are
inconsistent with the surrounding area, shall be avoided.
Add recommended policy:
(LU-2I): The Town shall enforce design guidelines, such as the Design
Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings, the Downtown Tiburon Design
Handbook, and the guiding principles for Site Plan & Architectural
Reviewfound in the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff will draft such a policy.
minor text change
minor text change
Keep a policy similar to Policy LU-2l ofthe existing Plan
which calls for adopting and enforcing design guidelines.
LU-9
LU-ll
Add a policy that requires explicit design criteria, as
appropriate, for new subdivisions.
LU -12: minor text change
Change to:
LU-12: Neighborhood character, which is
defined influenced by the predominant architectural. styles, type of
buildings, building heights and setbacks, ElI1d by landscaping, and
natural characteristics. shall be of material consideration and preserved
considered and respected in all development, including remodels and
additions. t.Q the maximum extent feasible.
be consistent in
the
Change to
LU-13:
desi
minor text change
LU-13
September2003
Page 7 of 13
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
surroundin,
1. Staff believes that "primary and secondary" would unnecessarily
prevent theTown from protecting ridgelines which have not been
formally identified and therefore, recommends that the change not be
made.
for
Add "primary and secondary" before "ridgelines'
greater clarity in new recommended Policy LU-14
(current Policy LU-19).
1
Add an appropriate reference to a requirement for
sufficient on-site parking.
2
2. Change to
LU-14'(LU-19): Re-subdivision of vacant legal lots and existing
developed lots shall be discouraged unless the following criteria are met:
Safe, convenient, and acceptable access can be provided,
especially in areas where narrow, curving, or otherwise
substandard streets predominate.
All newly-created lots have a slope of less than 30 percent.
Development would avoid ridgelines, knolls, or other
prominently visible areas. ,
Consistency with General Plan, Zoning, Subdivision and
other Town regulations is demonstrated.
Proposed lost sizes and density are compatible with the
surrounding pattern of development.
Sensitive treatment of trees and other significant mltural
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
What are the practical consequences of deleting the
word "average" before "slope" in b?
3
features can be achieved.
All required infrastructure can be provided to the site.
Nodriveway shall serve more than three units. A public or
private roadway, meeting Fire District and Town standards,
must be provided if more than tree units are to be served.
Sufficient on-s.ite rQvided.
f.
g.
h.
1.
September2003
Page 8 of 13
other
The Town does not use "avera
3
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
ordinance or regulation. Both the Zoning Ordinance and the
Subdivision Ordinance contain more recent definitions for
"slope" and the General Plan should be updated to reflect the
current definition.
Change to:
LU-16 (LU-26): The Town shall encourage appropriate home
occupations in residential areas that are clearlv incidental to
residential uses.
minor text change
LU-16
Change to:
LU-17: beettl Residents and property owners are encouraged to actively
pursue the undergrounding of utility wires to promote safety, service
reliability, and aesthetic benefits to the Town~
Change to
LU-18:
minor text change
LU-17
din
Town shall support a diversity of commercial uses to serve
g needs of the community.
text change
LU -19: Supporting commercial uses to serve the
employment needs of local residents is a new policy. It
could be used to support less than desirable commercial
uses.
LU-20
LU-lS
Change to:
LU-20: The Town shall encourage the addition of under-represented
retail and service categories to enhance shopping opportunities for
Tiburon residents and to increase sales tax revenues.
change
minor text
September2003
Page 9 of 13
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
Add recommended policy to Commercial Areas
(LU-15): Destination tourist facilities and commercial recreation uses
shall be carefully regulated to preserve convenient use of commercial
services, harbors, shorelines, local transportation, and parking facilities.
Add recommended policy to Commercial Areas if Strawberry remains
in Planning Area:
(LU-25): If an existing commercially-designated building is destroyed,
the building may be rebuilt the same size, regardless of FAR limitations,
rovided that parking standards and desi requirements can be met.
Keep the language in existing Policy LU-15 emphasizing
the importance of resident serving uses over tourist
facilities.
in the
Policies which may affect Strawberry should be kept
Plan if Strawberry is kept in the Planning Area.
Change to
LU-21 (LU-4): The Town recognizes and wishes to preserve its bay and
waterfront as significant resources and shall closely consider the
sensi,tivity of its coastal environment through the development review
process, and shall encourage maximum feasible access to the waterfront,
as called for in the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission's (BCDC) San Francisco Bay Plan, where not in conflict
with other public uses or with private uses which are of public benefit.
"Adopting by reference" is used for ordinances of other jurisdictions,
such as the Town of Tiburon adopting Marin County's ordinance
regarding individual sewage disposal systems). It is very unusual to
adopt policy language "by reference", and better to support the policy as
the Town does with LAFCO's dual annexation policy.
Change to: .
LU-23: The Town shall, through prezoning and annexation processes,
add land to the Town when such action will materially enhance the
community or substantially further the goals and policies of the General
Plan.
Change to:
LU-24: The Town reco
change
Why was the language changed from "shall adopt by
reference" to "supports the San Francisco" in new LU-22
(old LV-13)?
LU-23
minor text
minor text change
LU-21
minor text change
LV-24
orated Paradise Drive
September2003
Page 10 of 13
that the uninco
ruzes
Town of Tiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
area is an "island" completely surrounded by the Town of Tiburon and
that the area is functionally a part of Tiburon, and therefore supports the
annexation of the area into Tiburon at such time that the annexation is
feasible Town is able to do so.
Change to:
LU-27 (LU-5, 6, & 7): Factors to be considered in annexation requests
include: resident/property owner interest, cost/revenue and other
economic implications, the nature and extent of necessary infrastructure,
streets. parking. utilities and other facilities. and the feasibility of
extending ability to extend Town services to the annexation area without
adversely affecting levels of service provided to current Town residents.
Staffwill continue to work on drafting appropriate language to address
these concerns.
the Reed
ict tll1d to
facilities
Change to:
LU-36: The Town supports Wl
Union School District tll1d thc
encourages the provision of fiE
site-.S. that are easilv accessible for students.
New recommended Policy LU-28 says that annexation
agreements shall be required early in the development
review process. The word "early" is very imprecise, and
may be subject to a variety of interpretations. New
recommended Policy LU-29 talks about concurrent
LAFca processing of annexation with development
applications. These two items are potentially at odds. The
~ming issue needs to be more explicitly presented.
I In new recommended Policy LU-36 the word
"supports" is unclear - in spirit, financially?
text changes,
LU-27
The language for the encouragement of neighborhood
accessible school facilities may not be appropriate
given recent controversy over new gyms at Del Mar
and St. Hil 's.
2
IS
Staff believes that a comprehensive treatment 'of open space criteria
important. For a complete and comprehensive presentation, it is
recommended that the aoen Soace Element deal with those
Policies which guide both development decisions and open
space preservation should be in both the Land Use Element
and the aoen Soace Element.
September2003
Page 11 of 13
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
considerations dealing with the preservation of open space and avoiding
development on valuable open space land. It is appropriate for policy
language to echo policy language from other elements. However,
repetition of policies shouldn't be necessary.
Parking is addressed in the Downtown Element. Staff does not believe
it needs to be included in the Land Use Element
Consider the addition of a policy statement regarding
parking in general and in particular with respect to the
Downtown are,
Change to
LU-a: The Town shall periodically review and, if appropriate, revise its
Municipal Code and other regulations to reflect the goals, policies,
densities, intensities and the land use designations of this General Plan.
Change to:
LU-i (LU-c): The Town shall periodically revise its application forms,
processing procedures, and development review procedures as necessary
to reflect and implement the goals and policies of this General Plan.
LV-a: minor text change
LU-c: minor text change
Change to:
LU-e: The Town, in conjunction with LAFCO and the County of Marin,
shall conduct a study to establish the true cost of annexing Paradise
Drive and work to create with the County of Marin and LAFCO a
financing plan which would make annexation of properties in the
Paradise Drive area feasible and fiscally acc' table to the To
LV-e: minor text change
None.
ordinance.
None. Staff believes that the policy and program recommendations are
sufficient for addressing the cost of Paradise Drive.
Two-story homes should generally not be permitted in Bel
Aire.
The Issues Paper simultaneously calls for low-density
development in the Paradise Drive area while not fully
lanning for the cost of maintaining Paradise Drive.
the
September2003
Page 12 of 13
Because urban services are
None.
ears to recommend that the Town
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix - Working Draft
General Plan requires nothing more than they be available to serve new
development. The Town does not believe that higher densities are
appropriate on Paradise Drive.
take a more aggressive stand with respect to annexation 0
Paradise Drive, while not offering higher densities or urban
services which may entice property owner interest in
annexation.
The designation of private open space as Open Space
should not change the terms and conditions of easements
held by the Town.
In what manner has Sanitary District
Town that the satellite treatment plant
virtually at capacity?
in easement terms and conditions as a
None. There would be no change
result of the re-designation.
f;
SaIiitary District 5, the Tiburon Sanitary District, notified LAFCO as
part of an annexation application that the "District at this time is
concerned about its sewer service capacity at the Playa Verde Treatment
Plant,.. . and is currently evaluating the capacity" in a letter dated
January 8, 2003.
None. An issue which would be better dealt with in zoning ordinance, .
design guidelines, and/or design review process. .
None. The terms of the various private open space easements that the
Town is a party to could not be changed through General Plan policies.
However, there appears to be some confusion among these property
owners about what they can and cannot do on their property. The Town
may want to consider implementing an education program which would
clarifv the ts of these ertv owners.
September2003
Page 13 of 13
5 indicated to the
at Playa Verde is
Waste management cans are a visual nuisance in Old
Tiburon.
Bring all private open space easements "under one
umbrella" to allow owners to do minimal landscaping and
reduce fire potential.
Town ofTiburon
General Plan Update
Land Use Element Issues Paper
8/13/03 Planning Commission Meeting
Comments & Changes Matrix ~ Working Draft
,."
;'
.
.
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM -ID-.
TO:
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY~~
DEVELOPMENT ~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Z 2003-03: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS AND
OPEN SPACE REZONINGS TO THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 16 (ZONING)----ORDINANCE,
INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17,2003
REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2003
REVIEWED BY: ~
. . . . . . . a _ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
The Town has initiated several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance,
codified as Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. These amendments
include text amendments as well as "open space" rezonings.
PROPOSAL
The amendments and rezonings are summarized as follows (all section
references are to the Tiburon Municipal Code):
1. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-1.3 (Scope) to reference preemption of
the Town's zoning regulations by certain state and federal laws, and to
clarify certain provisions regarding vesting.
2. Amend Chapter 16, Sections 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 (Public/Quasi-
Public Zone Regulations) to delete certain "permitted" uses from the
current list, to modify certain "conditional" uses on the current list, and to
reference preemptions contained in state and federal laws.
3. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-2.16 (Zoning Map) to rezone certain
properties from Planned Residential to Open Space, such properties
having been acquired by a public agency for open spaces purposes
through dedication or acquisition.
4. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-3.1.1 (Application Procedures) to include
provisions that applicants must agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the
Town harmless from any losses or litigation or claims arising from the
Town's approval of an application (this codifies existing written policy).
Tiburon Town CounCil
Staff Report
September 17, 2003
1 of 3
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT f_
AGENDA ITEM
1\
....
5. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-5.6.4 (Yard Regulations), and add
Section 16-5.6.7 (e) (Height Measurement Method) to amend the height
restrictions for walls and fences within required yards in order to address
situations where the grade is substantially higher on one property than
on the other property.
6. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-6.6 (Density Bonuses) to comply with
recent changes in State law governing such density bonuses for
affordable housing projects.
The specific parcels proposed for open space rezoning (under item #3 above)
are as follows:
~ Former "Harroman" Property (Assessor Parcel Nos. 058-100-71
and 58-450-01); 103 acres; now owned by the Marin County Open
Space District as part of the old S1. Hilary's Open Space Preserve.
End of Lyford Drive. .
~ Former "Jay" Property (Assessor Parcel 58-100-38); 15.6 acres;
now owned by the Marin County Open Space District as part of the
Old S1. Hilary Open Space Preserve. Upslope from Tiburon
Peninsula Club.
~ Fraige Land Division Open Space Dedication (Assessor Parcel No.
58-111-28); 0.6 acres; now Town of Tiburon open space. End of
Stevens Court.
For ease of Town Council review, a comprehensive "redlined" version of the
proposed text amendments is attached as Exhibit A.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments and
rezonings at public hearings held on July 9, 2003 and August 13, 2003. The
Commission made several refinements to the text amendments and adopted
Resolutions 2003-12 and 2003-13 (Exhibits B and C) recommending
approval of the amendments and rezonings to the Town Council.
ANAL YSIS
Background and analysis of the proposed amendments is contained within
the Planning Commission staff reports attached as Exhibits D and E.
Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings are attached as Exhibits F
and G. A draft ordinance (Exhibit H) incorporating the zoning amendments
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
~
.f
.:ir-
~
.
.
.
September 17, 2003
2 of 3
q:
..
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
as recommended by the Planning Commission has been prepared for
consideration by the Town Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Following the first Planning Commission meeting on July 9, 2003, revisions to
the amendments were incorporated that resulted in no controversy or public
comment at the second public hearing held by the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed amendments have no potential to result in adverse
environmental impacts and are exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of the
CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
.
1.
Hold a public hearing on the proposed text amendments and
rezonings.
Discuss and make any desired changes or refinements to the draft
ordinance.
Move to read by title only, adopt the motion, and read by title only.
Hold a roll call vote on first reading of the ordinance.
2.
3.
4.
EXHIBITS
A. Redlined version of proposed text amendments.
B. Planning Commission Resolution 2003-12.
C. Planning Commission Resolution 2003-13.
D. Staff Report from July 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
E. Staff Report from August 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
F. Minutes from July 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
G. Minutes from August 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
H. Draft Ordinance.
\zo\Z2003-03tcreport9-17 .doc.
.
o
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
September 17. 2003
3 of 3
t
)i
EXHIBIT NO.! '.
REDLINED VERSION OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS .
NOTE: Proposed deletions are struck-through; proposed additions are double-
underlined.
Section 16-1.3 rScope of Zoning Ordinance)
This Chapter shall apply, insofar:as legally permissible, to all property within the
incorporated limits of the Town, including the public streets and waterways,
public utility poles, lines, and underground facilities for primary distribution
systems, whether such property is owned by the United States of America or any
of its agencies, the State of California or any of its agencies or political
subdivisions, any county or city including the Town of Tiburon or any of its
agencies, any authority or district organized under the laws of the State of
California, or private persons, firms, corporations, utilities, or organizations. The
scone of this Chanter is limited bv oreemntions for certain uses as set forth in
state and/or federal law.
Except in cases where a property owner can establish a vested right to be
regulated by any prior ordinance or Town-recognized document, the provisions of
this Chapter shall apply to all property development in the Town of Tiburon.
Examples of such vesting could be, but are not limited to, one of the following, if
in effect prior to December 26, 1990:
.
1. A valid Development Agreement.
2. A recorded Ri2:hts established bv a Vesting Tentative Map.
3. A valid Town-recognized stipulated legal settlement.
Non-vested properties for which Master and/or Precise Plans or their equivalent
have been adopted prior to December 26, 1990 shall continue to be governed by
the provisions of those approvals, except that all such properties shall be subject
to the floor area limit provisions of this Chapter, where such provisions are more
restrictive than the floor area limit provisions, if any, contained in the Master
and/or Precise Plans.
Section 16-2.13 [P Zone Regulations 1
The Public/Quasi-Public Zone is intended to provide for public and quasi-public
uses, and to recognize existing public and quasi-public uses and facilities which are
expected to remain ina similar use in the foreseeable future. The nermitted uses
and conditional uses listed below are aualified bv the existence of oreemntions for
certain uses as set forth in Section 53091 or successor section(s) ofthe California
Government Code and bv other oreemntions contained in state or federal law.
.
:..
;>
.
.
.
16-2.13.1 Permitted uses (P).
The uses listed below are allowed by right in the P zone.
(a) Parks and ancillarv imDfovements thereto open spaces;
(b) Ooen Soaces and ancillary imDfovements thereto: Governmental buildings and
facilities;
(c) Utility facilities.
16-2.13.2 Conditional uses permitted (P).
The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional use permit is
granted, as provided in section 16-4.4. Other similar uses may be added to this list
by resolution of the planning commission.
(a) Educational facilities;
(b) Buildings or ~!acilities operated by public/non-profit agencies;
(c) Recreational buildings or tmd facilities;
(d) Utilitv buildings or facilities:
( e) Governmental buildings or facilities:
f4) ill Additional specific uses which are, in the opinion of the commission, similar
or accessory to those uses listed above.
Section 16-3.1.1 r Application Procedures]
Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on forms
furnished by the planning Communitv Develooment Department. The owner of
the property for which any application is submitted, or the agent or authorized
representative of the owner, shall file the application with the planning
Communitv Develooment Department. Potential applicants are encouraged to
consult with planning division staff prior to application.
Applications spall be full and complete, including all information required for the
presentation of necessary facts for the permanent record and to assist in
determining the merits of the application. Handouts and instructions listing
submittal requirements shall be obtained from the planning Communi tv.
Develooment Department.
The aoolication shall be accomoanied bv a written statement of the Dfooertv
owner. or his/her legallv aooointed reDfesentative. agreeing that if the Town
grants the aODfoval. with or without conditions. and that action is challenged bv a
third oartv. the Dfooertv owner/aoolicant will be resoonsible for defending against
this challenge. The orooertv owner/aoolicant shall also agree to defend.
.indemnifv and hold the Town harmless from anv costs. claims or liabilities arising
':;
from the aoorovaL including. without limitations. any award of attorney's fees
that might result from the third oartv challenge. The Town will imoose this
reauirement as a condition to all oroiect aoorovals or conditional oroiect
aoorovals.
.
Section 16-5.6.4 (Br2l) [Yard Regulations] ..
"A fence, wall, or retaining wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in any yard,
unless all of the following conditions are met:
a. The fence and/or wall is located along a orivate residential
orooertv line shared with another orivate residential orooertv:
b. There is a difference in surface elevation between the two
adioining orooerties along the orooertv line uoon which the
orooosed fence and/or wall is to be located:
c.
The fence and/or wall would have a maximum height of six (6)
feet on the uooer side of the structure: and a maximum height on
the lower side of the structure of six (6) feet olus the difference in
surface elevation between the adioining yard areas at the orooertv
line. but in no instance more than nine (9) feet:
.
d. The Acting Bodv determines that a fence and/or wall with a height
of six (6) feet on the lower side of the structure would not oroyide
an effective orivacv screen for the adioining orooerties: and
e. The Acting Bodv determines that the orooosed fence would not
result in significant view obstruction or visual imoacts on
orooerties in the vicinitv.
Section 16-5.6.7 (e) rHeight Measurement Methodl
( e) If two or more fences or walls are constructed with a seoaration of three
(3) feet or less between the faces of the structures. the height of the
resoective structures shall be combined to determine the total wall or fence
height. If the walls and/or fences are seoarated bv a horizontal distance
greater than three (3) feet. the heights of the structures shall be calculated
seoaratelv.
Section 16-6.6 (Density Bonuses)
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 et seq., the town shall provide
density bonuses oftwenty-five percent for qualifying projects which orovide
.
..
.
.
.
twentv oercent of the total units of a residential develooment for lower income
households. ten oercent of the total units of a residential develooment for very low
income households. or fiftv oercent of the total units of a residential develooment
for qualifvinQ: residents: or the town shall orovide a densitv bonus often oercent
for condominium oroiects which orovide twentv oercent of the total units for
moderate income households, in addition to the other incentives described in
sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and(j).
(b) Aoolicants who orooose residential develooment which como lies with the
affordabilitv requirements described in section (a) mav submit to the Town a
orooosal for the snecific incentive described in sections 16-6.3( Q:). (h)' (i) and (i).
The Town shall award the incentive unless either of the followinQ: written findinQ:s
is made based uoon substantial evidence: .
(1 ) The incentive is not required in order to orovide for affordable housinQ: costs.
or
(2) The incentive would have a soecific adverse imoact uoon oublic health and
safetv or the ohvsical environment or on anv real orooertv that is listed in the
California ReQ:ister of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible
m.ethod to satisfactorilv mitiQ:ateor avoid the soecific adverse imoact without
renderinQ: the develooment unaffordable to low and moderate income households.
(b) Pursuant to general plan housing element policy H 27,thc to'.vn shall consider
density bonuses for qualifying senior housing projects, in addition to the othor
incentives described in sections 16 6.3(g), (h), (i) and (j).
(c) Pursuant to general plan housing element policy H 15, The town shall grant
density bonuses which allow the re-establishment of developments containing
affordable housing units when such developments are destroyed by fire, .
earthquake, or similar disaster, even when such developments may exceed current
allowable densities.
Rezonings
See attached Figure 1.
zo/Z2003-03 tcredline.doc
..
Fig-~1: PROPERTIES TO BE RE-ZONED OPEN SPACE
.
/'
".~,;/,;'
.....,'--r;,:...--,-i-y, '\,~,"~--
'I '~,\,
: ;, j I' \.
I ,; . : i .\~~,- ~-
""/-..,(-'-""",--.\-----"- ,
"-';',' ! (,
i' 'i" ,;,.., , .'
'-1//'" /'
_J Y
\ .\
'-,."'.
.. .,,>
'\'/ "
<1
-Q
:..~~-::-:.~~J.I~.T-r;-~f-~:'~..
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
.. Zoning Change: RPD to OS
Zoning Change: RMP to OS
,
o
I
440
880
I
1,760
I
Feet
.'
Map Prepared by the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department
;-
.
EXHIBIT No.B
RESOLUTION 2003-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (CHAPTER 16: ZONING)
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments tothe Town's
Zoning Ordinance, codified as Chapter 160f the Tiburon Municipal Code; and,
.. '.uu.u WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined thc:it the project has no
potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment and is exempt from the
requirements of CEQA; and .
.
.
WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was
published in the ARK newspaper on June 25, 2003 and other noticing was provided as
required bylaw; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing on July 9, 2003, at which testimony was received from the public, and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Municipal Code
amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and progra'ms of the Tiburon
General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Com~ission hereby
recommends that the Town Council adopt the Municipal Code amendments to Chapter
16, Zoning, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the Town of Tiburon held on August 13, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: . COMMISSIONERS: Collins, Greenberg, Snow & Stein
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Smith
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-12
8/13/2003
1
ATTEST:
/ i
(,I FI
,;:-~;::fj!7
/
I
!
i ;';
i)/
II ' .
V\....'h . 1v('./'~:2_~~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-12
8/13/2003
"
.
.
2
.
;'
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
, . '
Section 16-6.6 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Or~inance) is amended to read
as follows: .
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 et se,q., the town shall., provide density.'
bonuses of twenty-five percent for projects which provide twenty percent of the total
units of a residentiaf development for lower income households, ten percent of the total
units of a residential development for very low income households, or fifty' percent of
the total units ora residential development for people 62 years of age or older, or 55
years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development; or the toWn shall provide
a density bonus of ten percent for condominium projects which provide twenty percent
of the total units for moderate income households, in addition to the other incentives
described in sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0). '
(b) Applicants who propose residential development which complies with the
affordability requirements described in section (a) may submit to the town a proposal for
the specific incentive described in sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0). The town shall
award the incentive unless either of the following written findings is made based upon
substantial evidence:
(1) The incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, or
(2) The incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or
the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register
of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development
unaffordable to low and moderate income households.
The town shall grant density bonuses which allow the re-establishment of developments
containing affordable housing units when such developments are destroyed by fire,
earthquake, or similar disaster, even when such developments may exceed current
allowable densities.
Section 16-5.6.4 (B[2]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is amended
to read as follows:
(2) A fence, wall, or retaining wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in any yard,
unless all of the following conditions are met:
a. The fence and/or wall is located along a private residential property
line shared with another private residential property;
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-12
.8/13/2003
3
b.
There is a difference in surface elevation between the tvyo adjoining
properties along the property line upon which the proposed fence
and/or wall is to be located;
c. The fence and/or wall would have a maximum height of six (6) feet
on the upper side of the structure; and a maximum height on the
lower side of the structure of six (6) fE?et plus the difference in '
surface elevation between the adjoining yard areas at the property
line, but in no instance more than nine (9) feet;
d. The Acting Body determines that a fence and/or wall with a height
of. six (6) feet on the lower side of the structure would not provide
an effective privacy screen, for the adjoining properties; and
e. The Acting Body determines that the proposed fence would not
result in significant view obstruction or visual impacts on properties
in the vicinity.
-'
Section 16-5.6.7 (e) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is added to read
as follows:
(e) If two or more fences and/or walls are constructed with a separation of three (3)
feet or less between the faces of the structures, the height of the respective
structures shall be combined to determine the total wall or fence height. If the
fences and/or walls are separated by a horizontal distance greater than three (3)
feet, the heights of the structures shall be calculated separately.
Izo/Z2003-03pcreso1.doc
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-12
8/13/2003
4
.
.
.
;'
..
.
.
RESOLUTION 2003-13
EXHIBIT NO,C
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (CHAPTER 16: ZONING)'
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments and rezonings to
the Town's Zonil'1g Ordinance, codified as Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined, that the project has no
potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment and is exempt from the
requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was
published in the ARK newspaper on June 25, 2003 and other noticing was provided as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing on July 9, 2003, at which testimony was received from the pubiic, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did by motion continue certain proposed
amendments to its meeting of August 13, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Municipal Code
amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon
General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the Town Council adopt the Municipal Code amendments to Chapter
16, Zoning, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. .
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the Town of Tiburon held on August 13, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Collins, Greenberg, Snow & Stein.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Smith
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-13
8/13/2003
1
~;U---.
WAY E SNOW, VICE-CHAIRMAN
Ti~ron Planning Commission
ATTEST:
// !
.CJ ...-1)<./, / /,~ ..>
/~~.o) J--_> GI/ V~1/&:./ LQ~~
E?COTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-13
8/13/2003.
...
.
.
2
.
;'
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
Section 16-1.3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
This Chapter shall apply, insofar as legally permissible, to all property within the
incorporated limits of the Town, including the public streets and waterways,
pyblic utility poles, lines, and underground facilities for primary distribution
, . \ .
systems, whether such property is owned by the United States of America or any
of its agencies, the State of California or any of its agencies or political
subdivisions, any county or city including the Town of Tiburon or, any of its
, '
agencies, any authority or district organized under the laws ofthe State of
California, or private persons, firms,corporations, utilities, or organizations. The
scope of this Chapter is limited by preemptions for certain uses as set forth in
state and/or federal law.
Except in cases where a property owner can establish a vested right to be
regulated by any prior ordinance or Town-recognized document, the provisions
of this Chapter shall apply to all property development in the Town of Tiburon.
Examples of such vesting could be, but are not limited to, one of the following, if
in effect prior to December 26,1990:
1.
2.
3.
A valid Development Agreement.
Rights established by a Vesting Tentative Map.
A valid, Town-recognized legal settlement.
Non-vested properties for which Master and/or Precise Plans or their equivalent
. have been adopted prior to December 26, 1990 shall continue to be governed by
the provisions of those approvals, except that all such properties shall be subject
to the floor area limit provisions of this Chapter, where such provisions are more
restrictive than the floor area limit provisions, if any, contained in the Master
and/or Precise Plans.
Sections 16-2.13, 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning) are '
amended to read as follows:
Section 16-2.13 P Zone Requlations.
The Public/Quasi-Public Zone is intended to provide for public and quasi-public
uses, and to recognize existing public and quasi-public uses and facilities which
are expected to remain in a similar use in the foreseeable future. The permitted
uses and conditional uses listed below are qualified by the existence of
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-13
8/13/2003
3
preemptions for certain uses as set forth in Section 53091 or successor section(s) .
of the California Government Code and by other preemptions contained in state
or federal law.
16-2.13.1 Permitted uses (P).
The uses listed below are allowed by right in the P zone.
(a) Parks and ancillary improvementsther~to;
(b) Open Spaces and ancillary improvements thereto.
16-2.13.2 Conditional uses permitted (P).
The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional use permit is
granted, as provided in section 16-4.4. Other similar uses may be added to this
. list by resolution of the planning commission.
(a) Educational facilities;
(b) Buildings or facilities operated by public/non-profit agencies;
(c) Recreational buildings or facilities;
(d) Utility buildings or facilities;
(e) Governmental buildings or facilities;
(f) Additional specific uses which are, in the opinion of the commission, similar or
accessory to those uses listed above. .
Section 16-2.16 of the Tiburon. Municipal Code (Zoning Map) is hereby amended .as set.
forth in the attached Figure 1, said exhibit depicting the following rezonings:
1. Assessor Parcel Nos. 058-100-71 and 58-450-01; approximately 103 acres
located at the end of Lyford Drive; rezoned from Residential Planned
Development (RPD) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
2. AssessorParcel 58-100-38; approximately 15.6 acres; located immediate down
slope from the above-listed property; rezoned from Residential Multiple Planned
(RMP) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
3. Assessor Parcel No. 58-111-28; approximately 0.6 acres located down slope
from the end of Stevens Court; rezoned from Residential Planned Development
(RPD) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-13
8/13/2003
4
.
;-
.
.
.
Section 16-3.1.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning) is amend.ed to read as follows:
Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on forms
furnished by the Community Development Department. The owner of the
property for which any application is submitted, or the agent or authorized
representative of the owner, shall file the application with the Community
Development .Department. Potential applicants are encouraged to consult with
. planning division staff prior to application.
Applications shall be full and complete, including all information required for the
presentation oJ necessary facts for the permanent recard and to assist in
determining the merits of the application. Handouts and instructions listing
submittal requirements shall be obtained from the. ComlTlunity Development
, Department.
The application shall be accompanied by a written statement of the property
owner, or his/her legally appointed representative, agreeing that if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a
third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against
this challenge. The property owner/applicant shall also agree to defend;
indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any ccists,. claims or liabilities arising
from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that .
might result from the third party challenge. The Town will impose this
requirement as a condition to all project approvals or conditional project
approvals.
IzoIZ2003-03pcreso2.doc
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-13
8/13/2003
5
Fig. 1: PROPERTIES TO BE RE-~ONED OPEN SPACE
.
../
../....
......
/-:;J-~-::""':'''/'' ,
I " t I ' ,
: Ii ii \; '\.///
/ i I :: \ -
\.J(-)1:'L::'\_)>:=,_~~E I' --- ,
~_'" ,"/ _ L \ \, ". \r~__ ,r (
_\)' /.~ \ /.'j/I/- '\ ~ ._'
II I L:...I-=-'_-"f"-/V __ \,/ ..,..,....
.\, r ..\ :'1' '\ \ "\ \\C. ~-.:y ._.-....---'..
. 'i' ,,\ ,\ ..~..,.---..
\. '" /,1 I ' \, __I. .'\ .J-.' --- \ \ /~
.......- - - - - ...-...~' '~"'.,', ~ I /,/;."'.... ~_
\ / ~.-.", \ r..---~\ ~ .::::~'
,~...... ..~ " . '" ..)/'/ BEAT
\ /.--.....,..\- , "r':X'iV: /, '''~
\ -." ~'JlJ]; iJl "-( / ,'.
. __.- '. ~ -<: \ I r--'-il -( \ J I. ,t> :-
~.-.-- /<\~~~:.~:~~~ LLLJLOiF t-;.;~ ,,~./\_
\ I] // ~C~:'jJ~JJ' (~Ui4';..~:--Y'if--J-/7r~~~J 'K. \)' -/>~~~
\ I, ';:> "\ "/ \ _\ \. -'\ <./ G~1<9 -~, -r ;. / ~),(>\
/ 'f,/ ,/ \ ' , ~ y _. \,' 'e ____,1)~ .v! l.fj.z \.
('-{j .' J.r\ l ~1' ',~ - -~' l.y > ~rJ \
J~ f0/fK;-r;r;:1j/fiJ!J;s~~ir i,
)" l-<f~/~\ / 2j9..~_'1L / \\\ ~7/~/~'j /jJl~~;)~p:i'.r~,'.J!\
~t( \ t...~i~xYJ.~~ D'V;':~)(ff7.l~\ ~-L.<:;!:1'(~J~//'~)l '\' \
\~. ";)~fJ'~o~;( 7 -,\ \--~~r-s~:J~' /;<~:~~~\',.~vr\\>"i "
'. ~,/ fi} ~j., 'I\/J -( A !--l--'(-<U: ~ VA) \ ,,'01
. ' \ ,><M~E;/ --- i' ~:C::Y~r-'-- \'v/--\)" -/ .(~_-!~<s>\, ):.F-t~"J
\-/\ ~--- > k\ -...} '........~ \ c/)'
F~1 ( >( rf /f/ '. J oooo~ ,""" ..., i/ '" '--
UN L d",,)J/~ '" "\ ~,i)--, f<,8.)-, '" """''''f-j;.J9;''~''' ~ ,,'"
-'- Jeo- ___- ,,\-p. ./ '~....-.- ""/ /l :.. l, c.; ( '-<:'~. :'\
~\ \ \-n~t5" -\'~/ /~jr-'>' .(J,r(i I, ( ,,\,..-{- uou~ -- "'l/') 115 \\ I >.
, \ ~ ~ \ H '--. ,"-', ' !'rI~ , DODO -........ ~~ [\ 4
'....-....:-.g. -_....~~ " "~\,/)' I ~ \ D Ij"-~''-. '---.; f::IfJJjr.J ft
-'- ~ ;:. _'" \' '''''-_/'1))' l .:e'(r: _ I.',~,~t:i "
Ii f$ --j,;:'~::?n J-=:: .O[]!iI}:"'/(\"- '- ." . '~~;> -) \ -,.( ./ ~',~, ,,}if
~ l0"-' -JL_SJ I [:;'--7---' -\;,,"\~ , ' / \. ~~' >/,;-~ ~-- 1'?/' fj
'("-~' !l?;etvG', \,...,.,>"., Jf r '.j{,;~:.'. \ Cl:{u :. a ~
/ . - '\, :---/J" /.. 1..:::'-1.' r~.1 ~~ (" ~ .
, ;. x;:\/ ,1-..... Y'" r '/\\~'Ow- \ '
\-=t:~~ - / ~!::.- / /;:': ~J-_/- '1'..-1 \J~'o '~j (:::- uno ./<' WEST-
, ~I .;; /. --1.-------. tQ \ 0 I H -- QUI) I
0''',' I\-J \- .(".";,J.J ',/ /L., '\','" ~\ \'0 \ :X:O<?; I ~ :~J;- \:\\ I r /
/ "'" - 'I' i'[;'< /( "J 'f':"> \.//-,.~ '~~I, \C~"(;J ).~~ ~,~~I,\ 'I' <3r~=I'1 I._.....:...~
;' J-' ) - , ;,' ...\ ( \ 0_ ;'-/ ;.<.>", UIJ[J ~ I L ,_ l-.. .
/ j \ ",' ,;' ", .L\-j -~>-:,-! \ . ,'. '. (.,.. \--~\ \'0 S'-\:\"...,'.', ,l;'.,!f)< /~J "J I it
r-- ----l_~ \ /~ ..)----//! ," "'(~.:\>"..'JlI \ .'I,. "-_/ 'I';:\~" '/. 0.. () :i; ,,'
(.1 \. s ~ \' J \ " ,i / i"'J"', <'-:)/1/ \\ '--=-- .~~~-r~' ~ I, ;~1J:) \, ' """',',.i""\"~,,,,,:':',",["'::":,,.\f,,!;~,'~~,~,:\~'
'-- ' -.. ("- ~.,' \ "",-;/ /' ,,::<J>' \, ciL ;'.--, l' ,r'~~ '..' ',/ j..,
_~ Z ,-~\ ' .:_;--1 ,'i/'" /.. I \ ULI p~ \,-.JOIJn II:.: i/;
. .'..~. ! ~-\ g:\ rT::\ C-"~<-~C . D.i:\-/:--~---=~.__ U \----i-..'.! (/ .'
',j Z 8._.,-0\; ./1 I, \ \ 'I.I. 'C';'\J'p.B /_. __~_,__' "--. ------., 'I. >' !
! ~~\ \ 'a: \ \-~" \...--1. \__-~__':'.-'\ i :O)A~ ~ .....__--/ .....~.....----J_LJ ; i ri..-;__.... ....----..,.,. f-"
.
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
_ Zoning Change: RPD to OS
Zoning Change: RMP to OS
"
o
I
440
880
I
1,760 Feet
I
.
Map Prepared by the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department
"
.
.
F;RfHBIT No,D
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~
. . s' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY~
DEVELOPMENT
DAN WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGE~
KEVIN BRYANT, ADVANCE PLANNER
Z 2003-03: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16 (ZONING
ORDINANCE) AND CHAPTER 16A (SIGN ORDINANCE)
MEETING DATE: JULY 9, 2003
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
. REPORT DATE: JULY 3, 2003
..... ..D....... ..... ....... .... ........ ...
BACKGROUND
The Town has initiated several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and an
amendment to the sign code as part of a periodic update to address issues
and code sections that have been identified through actual use as in need of
review and/or refinernent. These amendments include:
1. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-3.1.1 (Application Procedures) to include
provisions that applicants must agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the
Town harmless from any losses or litigation or claims arising from the Town's
appro\(al of an application (codifies existing written policy).
2. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-6.6 (Density Bonuses) to be comply with .
recent changes in State law governing such.density bonuses for affordable
. housing projects. '
3. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-5.6.4 (Yard Regulations) to amend the height
restrictions for walls and fences within required yards).
4. Amend Chapter 16A, Section 16A-8 (Prohibited Signs) to add "internally
illuminated (box-type) signs" to the list of prohibited signs.
5. Amend Chapter 16, Sections 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 (Public/Quasi-Public
Zone Regulations) to delete certain permitted uses from the current list; and
to modify certain conditional uses on the current list.
6. Amend Chapter 16 (Zoning Map) to rezone certain properties that have been
secured as OpEm Space through dedication, acquisition, easement, or other
means.
. Each proposed amendment is discussed separately below.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
.~~" '-~{}'W(r.-
o~......~\~
,.. ,', \oloo
.~ ~\W e ~j; ~.
:v\;S~' - ~A_= '"
~1<>"-::-~-""'o.
..... o~N~~C.' s.
I
.
.
July 9, 2003
1 of 12
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANAL YSIS
1. Indemnification Provisions in Application Procedures
The Town of Tiburon currently has a written policy requiring that applicants
must agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the Town harmless from any
losses or litigation or claims arising from the Townis approval of any land
development application. This language recognizes that the requested
approval is for the benefit of the applicant, and keeps the Town from incurring
potentially substantial legal costs in the defense of such an application.
Current Regulatory Framework
The Towns' land development application form (required as part of all
planning, design review and subdivision applications) currently contains the
following statement that must be accompanied by the signature of the
property owner or his/her legally appointed representative:
"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. I 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
limitations, any award of attorney fees that might result from the third
party challenge."
.
Section 16-3.1.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code outlines the procedures for
filing planning and design review applications:
"Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on
forms furnished by the planning department. The owner of the property
for which any application is submitted, or the agent or authorized
representative of the owner, shall file the application with the planning
department. Potential applicants are encouraged to consult with town
planning staff prior to application."
"Applications shall be full and complete, including all information
required for the presentation of necessary facts for. the permanent
record and to assist in determining the merits of the application.
Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report
.
July 9, 2003
2 of 12
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
Handouts and instructions listing submittal requirements shall be
obtained from the planning department."
The Town Attorney strongly recommends thata requirement to indemnify,
defend and hold the Town harmless from any losses, litigation or other claims
arising from the Town's approval or conditional approval of the application
should be included in this section. In addition; it is recommended that this
portion of the code be updated to reflect the title of the Community
Development Department.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Section 16-3.1.1 be amended to read ,as follows:
.
"Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on
forms furnished by the Community Development Department. The
owner of the property for which any application is submitted, or the
agent or authorized representative of the owner, shall file the
application with the Community Development Department. Potential
applicants are encouraged to consult with town planning staff prior to
application. "
"Applications shall be full and complete, including all information .
required for the presentation of necessary facts for the permanent
record and to assist in determining the merits of the application.
Handouts and instructions listing submittal requirements shall be
obtained from the Community Development Department."
"The application shall be accompanied by a written statement of the
property owner, or his/her legally appointed representative, agreeing
that if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and
that action is challenged by a third party, the property owner will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner
shall also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town 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
Staff Report
July 9,2003
3 of 12
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
e.
AGENDA ITEM
2. Modifications to Houslno Densitv Bonus Provisions
Assembly Bill 1866, signed by Governor Davis on September 29,2002,
amended Section 65915 of the California Government Code, commonly
known as the "density bonus law". The Town of Tiburon implements the
density bonus law through provisions of Section 16-6.6 of its Municipal Code.
Prior to AB 1866, an applicant could submit a preliminary proposal for the.
development of housing pursuant to the density bonus law prior to the
submittal of formal applications. The local government then had 90 days to
notify the applicant how it would comply with the density bonus law.
Under the changes in the law, an applicant may now submit a request for
specific incentives. The local government is required to grant the concession
unless certain written findings are made. New subsection (b) of Section 16-
6.6 (Density Bonuses) takes language directly from the state law to comply
with .tl::le .change.
e
AB 1866 also added a new category of affordability for the purpose of defining
when a density bonus is required. Now housing projects which provide
twenty percent of the total units in a condominium project for moderate
income households are awarded a density bonus of ten percent. This change
has been reflected in the proposed change in subsection (a) of Section 16-
6.6.
Finally, it is proposed that the original subsection (b), relating to senior
housing proj~cts, be deleted because state law defines "qualifying residents"
as a person 62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age o'r older in a senior
citizen housing development (Civil Code Section 51.3(b)(1)). This makes
subsection (b) redundant with subsection (a).
Recommendation
S~aff recommends that Section 16-6.6 be amended to read as follows:
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 et seq., the town
shall provide density bonuses oftwenty"'five percent for qualifying
projects which provide twenty percent of the total units of a residential
development for lower income households. ten percent of the total
units of a residential development for very low income households, or
fifty percent of the total units of a residential development for QualifvinQ
e
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9, 2003
4 of 12
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
residents: or the town shall provide a density bonus of ten percent for
condominium proiects which provide twenty percent of tne total units
for moderate income households, in addition to the other incentives
described in sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0).
(b) Applicants who propose residential development which complies
with the affordability requirements described in section (a) may submit
to the Town a proposal for the specific incentive described in sections
16-6.3(q), (h), (i) and (D. The Town shall award the incentive unless
either of the followinq written findinqs is made based upon substantial
evidence:
..
(1) The incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable
. housinq costs, or
(2) The incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public
health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property
that is listed in the California Reqister of Historical Resources and for
which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitiqate or avoid the
specific adverse impact without renderina the development
unaffordable to low and moderate income households.
(b) Pursu::mt to general plan housing element policy H 27, the to'J.'n
shall consider density bonuses for qualifying senior housing projectc, in
addition to the other incentives described in sections 16 6.3(g), (h), (i)
and 0).
(c) Pursuant to gen~ral plan housing element policy H 15, The town
shall grant density bonuses which allow the re-establishment of'
developments containing affordable housing units when such
developments are destroyed by fire, earthquake, or similar disaster,
even when such developments may exceed current allowable '
densities.
3. Heiqht Restrictions for Walls and Fences in Required Yards
.
This issue has been raised in response to commonly occurring situations in
many residential areas of Tiburon where there is a difference in elevation
between adjacent yards. In many of these instances, a retaining wall has
been constructed along the property line, creating a clear difference in the
levels of the adjoining yards. Requests to construct a 6 foot tall fence on top
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9, 2003
5 of 12
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ri . . . . . . . . .
of such retaining walls to provide adequate privacy for the neighboring
property owners may only be approved with a variance for excess fence and
wall height, due to the Town's current requirement that fences and walls
either separately or in combination not exceed a height of 6 feet within
required yard setbacks.
Current Regulatory Framework
The Town's current regulations for the height of walls and fences within
required yards are set forth in Section 16-5.6.4 (8[2]) of the Municipal Code
as follows:-
"A fence, wall, or retaining wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in
any yard."
The calculation of the height of a wall or fence is defined by Section 16-5.6.7
as follows:
"Height is the plumb vertical distance, measured using a plane,
established by the lower of the natural or finished grade at the
perimeter of the exterior surface of the building, structure,'fence, or
wall."
.
The height ofa fence on top of a retaining wall is therefore measured from the
top of the fence to the point where the lower portion' of the retaining wall
meets the finished or natural grade. For example, a 6 foot tall wooden fence
constructed on top of a 3 foot tall retaining wall would be considered to be a 9
foot tall structure, even though the apparent height on the uphill side would
only be 6 feet. This is because the apparent height on the downhill side
would be 9 feet.
In the past, some applicants have attempted to skirt this requirement by
proposing to construct a 6 foot tall fence mere inches from a retaining wall,
with the intent of having these structures determined to be separate walls
and/or fences for purposes of height calculation. As such construction has
the same visual impact on property owners downhill from the wall as that of a
taller structure, the Community Development Department adopted a policy
years ago stating that there must be a 3 foot horizontal separation between
walls, and/or fences before the heights of such structures are individually
calculated. Without such a separation, the wall and fence would be
considered a single structure for purposesofheight measurement.
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9, 2003
6 of 12
-. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Numerous lots in Tiburon have relatively level yard areas that have different
elevations than the yard areas of adjoining lots, with a retaining wall along the
common property line. A fence on top of the retaining wall in compliance with
the Town's maximum height requirements often does not provide adequate
privacy separation between these yard areas. For example, a fence no taller
than 3 feet could be constructed on top of a 3 foot tall retaining wall; such a
structure would appear to have a height of 6 feet when viewed from the lower
side and a height of 3 feet when viewed from the upper side. However, such
a fence would allow people in the upper yard to easily look down into the yard
of the lower property, resulting in unwanted privacy impacts for the residents
of the lower lot.
.
Inthe recent past, the Design Review Board has approved a number of
variances for excess walls and fence heights to mitigate such concerns. In
each of these cases, the Board determined that the difference in lot
elevations was a special physical circumstance, and that the strict application
of the fence and wall height requirements would result in an unnecessary
hardship on the property owners. However, the growing number of such .
applications has prompted discussion regarding the potential need to amend
these zoning requirements, rather than requiring each property owner in such
circumstances to apply for a variance.
The Design Review Board also often considers variance requests for
overheight fences as a means of keeping deer out of a property. . Such fences
usually have the same height on both sides of the fence, with the appearance
of a fence over 6 feet in height when viewed from eit,her side. It is
recommended that the Town continue to require variances for such fences,
with the Board evaluating each application on an individual basis.
Discussion at Planning Commission/Design Review Board Workshop
This issue was discussed at the Planning Commission/Design Review Board
Workshop held on May 8,2003. There appeared to be a consensus from
both bodies that the wall and fence height regulations should be reviewed and
possibly modified to address these issues.
Recommendation
.
There appear to be enough residential properties in Tiburon with shared
physical circumstances that create the necessity for walls and/or fences taller
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9, 2003
7 of 12
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT,
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . .
than 6 feet along common property lines to avoid unnecessary privacy
impacts. Therefore, it is recommended that Section 16-5.6.4 (B[2]) be
amended to read as follows:
"A fence, wall, or retaining wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in
any yard, unless all of the following conditions are met:
a. The fence and/or wall is located along a private
residential property line shared with another private
residential property;
b. There is a difference in surface elevation between the
two adjoining properties along the property line upon
which the proposed fence and/or wall is to be located;
c.
The fence and/or wall would have a maximum height of
six (6) feet on the upper side of the structure; and a
maximum height on the lower side of the structure of six
(6) feet plus the difference in surface elevation between
the adjoining yard areas at the property line, but in no
instance more than nine (9) feet;
d. The Acting Body'determines that a fence and/or wall with
a height of six (6) feet on the lower side of the structure
would not provide an effective privacy screen for the
adjoining properties; and
.
e. The Acting Body determines that the proposed fence
would not result in significant view obstruction or visual
impacts on properties in the vicinity.
In addition, it is recommended that the Town's policy regarding the 3 foot
horizontal separation between walls and/or fences be codified by adding
Municipal Code Section 16-5.6.7 (e) as follows:
"If two or more fences or yv'alls are constructed with a separation of
thre.e (3) feet or less between the faces of the structures, the height Of
the respective structures shall be combined to determine the total wall
or fence height.. If the walls and/or fences are separated by a
horizontal distance greater than three (3) feet, the heights of the
structures shall be calculated separately."
Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report
.
July 9, 2003
8 of 12
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . " . . . " " . " " " . " " . " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
4. . Prohibition of Internallv Illuminated Box-tvpe Siqns
The Town has recently adopted the Downtown Tiburon Design
Handbook. The handbook contains design concepts and guidelines for
buildings, storefronts and $treetscapes within Downtown Tiburon.
,
The handbook includes guidelines for signs and awnings, with
recommendations for appropriate types of signs, materials, locations
and sources of illumination. The handbook also includes a list of sign
types that are deemed to be "inappropriate and, in almost all cases,
prohibited in Downtown Tiburon." Internally-illuminated, metal-frame
"box" signs are included on the list of prohibited signs. A suggestion
has been made to also prohibit these signs in the Tiburon Sign
Ordinance. The Town has purposely not approved any such signs for
several years.
Current Regulatory Framework
.
Chapter 16A of the Tiburon Municipal Code contains the Sign Ordinance,
which provides standards and procedures for the review of new signs.
Section 16A-8 of the Sign Ordinance prohibits the following signs:
(a) Moving signs (including pennants, airborne balloons, moving or
flashing lights, and other nonstationary devices)
(b) Off-site signs (advertising signs which are not located on the
property or premises of the use, business or service or which they
advertise) ,
(c) Roof signs (~igns erected upon or over the roof or parapet of any
building) .
(d) Vehicle signs (advertising signs attached to or suspended from a
motor vehicle, such that the primary purpose of the vehicle is. the display.
of the signs) ,
Roof signs and moving signs are also included in the list of pronibited signs in
the Downtown Design Handbook.
.
The Sign Ordinance regulates signs throughout Tiburon, including other
commercial and office areas outside of the Downtown area. An amendment
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9, 2003
9 of 12
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
to the Sign Ordinance that would add another type of sign to the list of
prohibited signs would affect other commercial properties, including the Gove
shopping center and the office building at the intersection of Tiburon
Boulevard and Mar West Street.
During the review of the Downtown Design Handbook, internally-illuminated,
metal-frame "box" signs were determined to be inconsistent with the desired
visual character and appearance for businesses in Tiburon. The prohibition
of such signs in the Sign Ordinance would also improve the consistency
between the Downtown Design Handbook and the Sign Ordinance.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Section 16A-8 (e) of the Tiburon Municipal Code be
added to read as follows:
(e) Internally illuminated, box-type signs
.
5. Modifications to Uses Allowed in the P (Public/Quasi-Public) Zone
The P (Public/Quasi-Public) zone in Tiburon contains a rather broad range of
uses, including government buildings (including town hall, library, fire
stations); parks; public schools; water tanks, sewage treatment facilities, and
private recreational clubs and facilities.
Staff believes that the distribution of "Permitted Uses" and "Conditional Uses"
needs adjustment in order for the Town to better regulate certain types of
uses on such lands. More specifically, Staff believes that parks and open
spaces should be the only uses alfowed by right, and all other uses should
require a conditional use permit. This change would primarily have the
potential to affect "governmental buildings and facilities" and "utility facilities".
Of course, government agencies such as public schools, fire, water, and
sewer districts have the authority under state law to exempt projects on their
own property from the Town's regulations should they so choose, at least for
projects directly related to purpose and function of the agency. For example,
the water district does not need the Town's permission to replace or install a
new water tank on its own property; nor does a public school district need
Town permits to construct classroom or other school additions.
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9, 2003
10 of 12
'. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . ." . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,; . . . . . -. . . .
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Sections 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 of the Tiburon
Municipal Code should be modified to read as follows:
16-2.13.1 Permitted uses (P).
(a) Parks and ancillary imorovements thereto open spaces;
(b) Ooen Soaces and ancillary imorovements thereto: Governmental
buildings and facilities;
(c) Utility facilities.
16-2.13.2 Conditional uses permitted (P).
.
The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional use
permitis granted, as provided in section 16-4.4. Other uses maybe
added to this list by resolution of the planning commission.
(a) Educational facilities;
(b) Buildinas or and F facilities operated by public/non-profit agencies;
(c) Recreational buildings or aM facilities;
(d) Utilitv buildinas or facilities:
(e) Governmental buildinas or facilities:
tat ill Additional specific uses which are, in the opinion of the
commissic:>n, similar or accessory to those uses listed above.
6. ,
Rezoninq of Certain Properties Secured as Open Space
Staff will be proposing'that several properties and portions of properties that
have either been purchased, dedicated, or prot~cted by easement as open
space be rezoned to the OS zoning designation. However, in order to provide
better individual property owner notice, Staff will need additional time and
recommends that this portion of the amendments be continuedto the
Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 2003. As the rezonings are'
unrelated to any of the other amendments proposed, the Commission may
take separate action at a later date on the rezoning item.
Recommendation
.
Staff recommends that the rezoning item be continued without discussion to
the Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 2003.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9, 2003
11 of 12
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . . . .
RECOMMENDATION
1. Hold a public hearing on the proposed text amendments to the
Tiburon Municipal Code.
2. Discuss and make any desired changes or refinements to the draft
amendments.
3. Adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the proposed text
amendments to the Town Council.
EXHIBITS
1. Draft Resolution.
\zo\Z2003-03pcreport7 -9.doc
.
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
July 9. 2003
12of12'
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-(Draft)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (CHAPTER 16, ZONING, AND CHAPTER 16A, SIGNS)
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's
Zoning Ordinance, codified as Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, and the
Town's Sign Ordinance, codified as Chapter 16A of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the project has no
potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment and is exempt from the
requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was
published in the ARK newspaper on June 25, 2003 and other noticing was provided as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing on July 9, 2003, at which testimony was received from the public, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Municipal Code
amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon
General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the Town Council adopt the Municipal Code amendments to Chapter
16, Zoning, and Chapter 16A, Signs, as set forth in the a~ached Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular r:neeting of the Planning Commission of
the Town of Tiburon held on July 9, 2003, by ~he following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
7/9/2003
1
EytITPIT:!'JO, I
.
PAUL SMITH, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
7/912003
2
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
Section 16-3.1.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is amended to read
as follows:
Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on forms
furnished by the Community Development Department. The owner of the
property for which any application is submitted, or the agent or authorized
representative of the owner, shall file the application with the Community
Development Department. Potential applicants are encouraged to consult with
town planning staff prior to application.
Applications shall be full and complete, including all information required for the
presentation of necessary facts for the permanent record and to assist in
determining the merits of the application. Handouts and instructions listing
submittal requirements shall be obtained from the Community Development
Department.
The application shall be accompanied by a written statement of the property
owner, or his/her legally appointed representative, agreeing that if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged bya
third party, the property owner will be responsible for defending against this
challenge. The property owner shall also agree to defend, indemnify and hold
the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval,
including, without limitations, any award of attorneys' fees that might result from
the third party challenge.
Section 16-6.6 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is amended to read
as follows:
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 et seq., the town shall provide
density bonuses of twenty-five percent for projects which provide twenty percent
of the total units of a residential developmentforlower income households, ten
percent of the total units of a residential development for very low income
households, or fifty percent of the total units of a residential development for
qualifying residents; or the town shall provide a density bonus of ten percent for
condominium projects which provide twenty percent of the total units for
moderate income households, in addition to the other incentives described in
sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0).
(b) Applic~nts who propose residential development which complies with the
affordability requirements described in section (a) may submit to the Town a
proposal for the specific incentive described in sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0).
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
7/9/2003
3
The Town shall award the incentive unless either of the following written findings
is made based upon substantial evidence:
.
(1) The incentive is not required in orderto provide for affordable housing
costs, or
(2) The incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public health
and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is
listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low
and moderate income households.
(c) The town shall grant density bonuses which allow the re.,establishment of
developments containing affordable housing units when such developments are
. destroyed by fire, earthquake, or similar disaster, even when such developments
may exceed current allowable densities.
Section 16-5.6.4 (B[2]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is amended
to 'read as follows:
(2)
A fence, wall, or retaining wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in any yard,
unless all of the following conditions are met:
.
a. The fence and/or wall is located along a private residential property
line shared with another private residential property;
b. There is a difference in surface elevation between the two adjoining
properties along the property line upon which the proposed fence
and/or wall is to be located;
c. The fence and/or wall would have a maximum height of six (6) feet
on the upper side of the structure; and a maximum height on the.
lower side of the str.ucture of six (6) feet plus the difference in
surface elevation between the adjoining yard areas at the property
line, but in no instance more than nine (9) feet;
d. The Acting Body determines that a fence and/or wall with a height
of six (6) feet on the lower side of the structure would not provide
an effective privacy screen for the adjoining properties; and
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
7/9/2003
4
.
.
.
.
e.
The Acting Body determines that the proposed fence would not
result in significant view obstruction or visual impacts on properties
in the vicinity.
Section 16-5.6.7 (e) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is added to read
as follows:
(e) If two or more fences and/or walls are constructed with a separation of three (3)
feet or less between the faces of the structures, the height of the respective
structures shall be combined to determine the total wall or fence height. If the
fences and/or walls are. separated by a horizontal distance greater than three (3)
feet, the heights of the structures shall be calculated separately.
Section 16A-8 (e) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Sign Ordinance) is added to read as
follows:
(e) Internally illuminated, box-type signs
Sections 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
are amended to read as follows:
16-2.13.1 Permitted uses (P).
(a) Parks and ancillary improvements thereto;
(b) Open Spaces and ancillary improvements thereto.
16-2.13.2 Conditional uses permitted (P).
The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional use permit is
granted, as provided in section 16-4.4. Other uses may be added to this list by
resolution of the planning commission.
(a) Educational facilities;
(b) Buildings or facilities operated by public/non-profit agencies;
(c) Recreational buildings or facilities;
(d) Utility buildings or facilities;
(e) Governmental buildings or facilities;
(f) Additional specific uses which are, in the opinion of the commission, similar or
accessory to those uses listed above.
Izo/Z2003-03pcreso .doc
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
7/9/2003
5
,,-""""
.
WYir.-
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM K
. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTTANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITYcA--.
DEVELOPMENT - ~~ \
Z 2003-03: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO
THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16 (ZONING
ORDINANCE)
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 13, 2003
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REPORT DATE: AUGUST 4, 2003
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of July 9,2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
in consideration of several amendments to the Tiburon Municipal Code.
These amendments included:
1. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-3.1.1 (Application Procedures) to include
provisions that applicants must agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the
Town harmless from any losses or litigation or claims arising from the Town's
approval Of an application (codifies existing written policy).
2. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-6.6 (Density Bonuses) to be comply with
recent changes in State law governing such density bonuses for affordable
housing projects.
3. Amend Chapter 16, Section 16-5.6.4 (Yard Regulations) to amend the height
restrictions for walls and fences within required yards).
4. Amend Chapter 16A, Section 16A-8 (Prohibited Signs) to add "internally
illuminated (box-type) signs" to the list of prohibited signs.
5. Amend Chapter 16, Sections 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 (Public/Quasi-Public
Zone Regulations) to delete certain permitted uses from the current list, and
to modify certain conditional uses on the current list. .
6. Amend Chapter 16 (Zoning Map) to rezone certain properties that have been
secured as Open Space through dedication, acquisition, easement, or other
means.
Minutes of that meeting are attached elsewhere in the Commission's packet.
- I
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission directed staff to do the
following:
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
.
.
.
.
August13,2003
1 of 6
/'
(
;'.r-....
(
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT -
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '-. .
~ Confer with the Town Attorney and return with modifications to Item #1
addressing concerns raised by the Commission.
~ Return with a resolution on August 13, 2003 recommending approval
to the Town Council of items #2 and #3.
~ Item #4 was dropped from further consideration upon the
recommendation of the Town Attorney.
~ Item #5 was continued without discussion to August 13, 2003 at the
request of the Marin Municipal Water District.
~ Item #6 was continued without discussion to August 13, 2003 at the
request of Town staff.
ANAL YSIS
1. Indemnification Provisions in Application Procedures
.
The Commission referred this item to the Town Attorney for further
consideration. The Town Attorney has prepared a written response (Exhibit
1) to the Commission's concerns. In summary, the Town Attorney agrees
with the Commission's suggestions regarding use of indemnification language
in project conditions of approval (slightly modifying those used by the Town of
Corte Madera), and also agrees that modifications to proposed Section 16-
3.1.1 are desirable.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Section 16-3.1.1 be amended to read as follows
(changes suggested by the Town Attorney are double-underlined):
Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on
forms furnished by the Community Development Department. The
owner of the property for which any application is submitted, or the
agent or authorized representative of the owner, shall file the .
application with the Community Development Department. Potential
applicants are encouraged to consult with planning division staff prior
to application. _
.
Applications shall be full and complete, including all information
required for the presentation of necessary facts for the permanent
record and to assist in determining the merits of the application.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
August 13, 2003
2 of 6
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Handouts and instructions listing submittal requirements shall be
obtained from the Community Development Department.
The application shall be accompanied by a written statement of the
property owner, or his/her legally appointed representative, agreeing
that if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and
that action is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant
will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property
owner/applicant shall also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the
Town 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. The Town will impose
this reouirement as a condition to all proiect approvals or conditional
proiect approvals.
Item #5. Modifications to Uses Allowed in the P (Public/Quasi-Public) Zone
The P (Public/Quasi-Public) zone in Tiburon contains a rather broad range of
uses, including government buildings (including town hall, library, fire
statiqns); parks; public schools; water tanks, sewage treatment facilities, and
private recreational clubs and facilities.
.
Staff believes that the distribution of "Permitted Uses" and "Conditional Uses"
needs adjustment in order for the Town to better regulate certain types of
uses on such lands. More specifically, Staff believes that parks and open
spaces should be the only uses allowed by right, and all other uses should
require a conditional use permit (unless the Town's zoning regulations are
otherwise preempted by state or federal law).
The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) had expressed concerns about
the proposed text amendments, set forth in a letter dated July 31,2003 (see
Exhibit 2). Staff has revised the proposed text amendments to address the
concerns of MMWD, which has expressed satisfaction with the revisions and
will not be sending a representative to the meetings as indicated in its earlier
letter.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Sections 16-1.3, 16-2.13, 16-2.13.1, and 16-2.13.2 of
the Tiburon Municipal Code should be modified to read as follows (proposed
text amendments are double-underlined or struck-through):
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
August 13, 2003
3of6
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. . . .
Section 16-1.3 Scope.
.
This Chapter shall apply, insofar as legally permissible, to all property
within the incorporated limits of the Town, including the public streets
and waterways, public utility poles, lines, and underground facilities for
primary distribution systems, whether such property is owned by the
United States of America or any of its agencies, the State of California
or any of its agencies or political subdivisions, any county or city
including the Town of Tiburonor any of its agencies, any authority or
district organized under the laws of the State of California, or private
persons, firms, corporations, utilities, or organizations. The scooe of
this Chaoter is limitedbv oreemotions for certain uses as set forth in
state and/or federal law.
Except in cases where a property owner can establish a vested right to
be regulated by any prior ordinance or Town-recognized document, the
provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all property development in the
Town of Tiburon.
Examples of such vesting could be, but are not limited to, one of the
following, if in effect prior to December 26, 1990:
1. A valid Development Agreement.
2. !\ recorded Riahts established bv a Vesting Tentative
Map.
3. A valid Town-recognized stipulated legal settlement.
Non-vested properties for which Master and/or Precise Plans or their
equivalent have been adopted prior to December 26, 1990 shall
continue to be governed by the provisions of those approvals, except
that all such properties shall be subject to the floor area limit provisions
of this Chapter, where such provisions are more restrictive than the
floor area limit provisions, if any, contained in the. Master and/or
Precise Plans.
Section 16-2.13 P Zone Requlations.
.
The Public/Quasi-Public Zone is intended to provide for public and
quasi-public uses, and to recognize existing public and quasi-public
uses and facilities which are expected to remain in a similar use in the
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
August 13, 2003
4 of 6
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
foreseeable future. The oermitted uses and conditional uses listed
below are aualified bv the existence of oreemotions for certain uses as
set forth in Section 53091 or successor section(s) of the California
Government Code and bv other oreemotions contained in state or
federal law.
16-2.13.1 Permitted uses (P).
The uses listed below are allowed by right in the P zone.
(a) Parks and ancillarv imorovements thereto open spacos;
(b) Ooen Soaces and ancillarv imorovements thereto: Governmental
buildings and f3cilities;
(c) Utility facilities. .
16-2.13.2 Conditional uses permitted (P).
The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional use
permit is granted, as provided in section 16-4.4. Other similar uses may
be added to this list by resolution of the planning commission.
.
(a) Educational facilities;
(b) Buildinas or ~ facilities operated by public/non-profit agencies;
(c) Recreational buildings or afl€l facilities;
(d) Utility buildinas or facilities:
(e) Governmental buildinas or facilities:
fGj ill Additional specific uses which are, in the opinion of the
commission, similar or accessory to those uses listed above.
Item #6.
Rezoninq of Certain Properties Secured as Open Space
In recent years, properties have come into possession (fee title ownership),
either through purchase or dedication, of the Town of Tiburon or the Marin
County Open Space District as open space lands.
These lands are as follows:
1. Former "Harroman" Property (Assessor Parcel Nos. 058-100-71 and
58-450-01); 103 acres; now owned by the Marin County Open Space
District as part of the Old St. Hilary's Open Space Preserve. End of
Lyford Drive.
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
August 13, 2003
50f 6
. Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. .
.
.
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Former "Jay" Property (Assessor Parcel 58-100-38); 15.6 acres; now
owned by the Marin County Open Space District as part of the Old St.
Hilary Open Space Preserve. . Upslope from Tiburon Peninsula Club.
3. Fraige Land Division Open Space Dedication (Assessor Parcel No. 58-
111-28); 0.6 acres; now Town of Tiburon open space. End of Stevens
Court.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Town
Council rezoning of the three (3) above-listed properties from planned
residential zoning (RPD or RMP) to Open Space (OS) zoning.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
2.
Hold a public hearing on the proposed text amendments/rezonings.
Discuss and make any desired changes or refinements to the draft
amendments/rezonings.
Adopt Resolution A (Exhibit 3) recommending approval of the
proposed text amendments contained in Items #2 and #3 to the
Town Council.
Adopt Resolution B (Exhibit 4) recommending approval of the
proposed text amendments/rezonings contained in Items #1, #5,
and #6 to the Town Council.
3.
4.
EXHIBITS
1. Memo from Town Attorney Danforth dated August 6,2003.
2. Letter from Marin Municipal Water District dated July 31,2003.
3. Draft Resolution A.
4. Draft Resolution B.
\zo\Z2003-03pcreport8-13.doc
Tiburon Planning Commission
Staff Report
August 13, 2003
6of6
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
.
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
ZONING ORDINA,NCE INDEMNITY ISSUES
August 6, 2003
You have referred to me certain questions from the Planning Commission
regarding the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring proj ect
applicants to indemnify the Town. I address those questions below:
1. Should the resolution of project approval include language requiring
the owner/applicant to indemnify the Town?
Such language as a condition of approval would have several benefits. First,
subsequent property owners would be more clearly put on notice of their
responsibilities with respect to defending the approval of the project. Second, the
Town would have an addition enforcement tool. I recommend that your
department implement this suggestion.
.
2. Would the Town require the owner/applicant to defend the Town or to
reimburse the Town for its defense expenses?
~ most situations, the Town would require the owner/applicant's attorney to
provide the defense, with the Town providing appropriate support. However, in
some cases the Town's support will involve significant resources and in such
cases, we would ask the owner/applicant to reimburse the Town. You have
provided me with a sample condition of approval from the Town of Corte Madera
language which reflects this possibility; however, I would recommend that the
Town of Tiburon's condition more explicitly state the following:
The Town shall have the discretion to (a) tender the defense of the
matter to the owner/applicant; (b) defend the claim itself, with the
owner/applicant depositing in advance a sum estimated by the
Town Attorney as sufficient to cover the Town's expenses; or (c)
tender the defense of the matter to the owner/applicant, the Town
appearing separately in support of the project, with the
.
- 1 -
FYBIBIT No.i
.
.
.
owner/applicant depositing in advance a sum estimated by the
Town Attorney as sufficient to cover the Town's expenses.
3.
Should the owner/applicant have to indemnify and defend the Town
when the lawsuit is frivolous?
I note that a frivolous lawsuit must be answered and can cost as much to defend as
a serious claim. Either the Town or the owner/applicant must defend the case or it
will be lost by default. The Town can fairly require the owner/applicant to bear
the costs of defense as the primary beneficiary of the project approval under
attack. Otherwise, the costs of defense would come from resources that belong to
the residents of the Town of Tiburon, who generally speaking do not benefit
significantly from the project approval.
4. Should the owner/applicant have to indemnify and defend the Town
when the Town has made a mistake?
Absent a truly egregious error, it appears fairer to place the burden of defense on
the project beneficiary - the owner/applicant - than upon Tiburon residents. I
note that in the overwhelming majority of cases, project opponents file legal
challenges to a project approval because they object to the project itself, not
because of any particular Town error. As noted above, one of two parties must
bear the costs of defense: the owner/applicant or the Town. If the Town pays, the
actual burden falls on Town residents who do not share in the project's benefits
and have made no mistakes. On balance, fairness dictates that the cost fall on the
owner/applicant.!
During my years as Town Attorney, I know of only one case that might not have
been filed absent an alleged error by the Town (issuance of a building permit a
few days after expiration of Site Plan and Architectural Review). The petitioners
might still have filed suit in any case, given their financial means and adamant
opposition to the project. However, in that circumstance, the Town vigorously
defended its action and did not charge the owner/applicant for its costs. In such
cases, the Town may choose not to enforce its right to indemnification.
5. The Town Attorney should review the proposed amendment to Section
16-3.1.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code.
1 This view is consistent with the law's treatment of public agency errors in other
contexts. For example, if a public official or body makes an erroneous statement
or assumption regarding the application of local law, a court generally will not
hold the public agency to the error. This is because the public laws are enacted
for the benefit of the general public. and the public should not be deprived of that
benefit because of an individual's or individuals' mistake. Thus, the burden of
ensuring compliance with laws and regulations falls on project applicants as a
practical matter.
-2-
I recommend that you modify the proposed amendment to Section 16-3.1.1
slightly, as indica.ted below.
.
Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on forms
furnished by the Community Development Department. The owner 6fthe
property for which any application is submitted, or the agent or authorized
representative ofthe owner, shall file the application with the Community
Development Department. Potential applicants are encouraged to consult
with town planning staff prior to application.
Applications shall be full and complete, including all information required
for the presentation of necessary facts for the permanent record and to
assist in determining the merits of the application. Handouts and
instructions listing submittal requirements shall be obtained from the
Community Development Department.
The application shall be accompanied by a written statement of the
property owner, or his/her legally appointed representative, agreeing that
ifthe Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that
action is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be
responsible for defending against this challenge. The property
owner/applicant shall also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town
harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval,
including, without limitations, any award of attorneys' fees that might
result from the third party challenge. The Town will impose this
requirement as a condition to all proiect approvals or conditional project
apnrovals.
.
I also recommend that your department impose a condition on project approvals
similar to that used by the Town of Corte Madera, modified as suggested in
response to Question 2, above.
If you have any further questions regarding these matters, please do not hesitate to
call upon me.
ANN R. DANFORTH
TOWN ATTORNEY
.
- 3 -
~ (..J I" ..JoLt U..J
.L.JI,J-J
,.".,wu rC~:>UI'lI'lCL ~l;:J ':'c. ( C. (~( ... <41:l'l'):l<:::'l.)tj
NO. 187
Gl02
&:::::.\ MARIN MUNICIPAL
. ~ WATER ]jISTRICT
220 Neilan Avenue Corte Madera CA 94925-1169
www.marinwater.org
July 31, 2003
, Scon Anderson
Community Development Director
Town of liburon
. 1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Re: Proposed Changes to Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding Public/Quasi Public Zone
Dear Scott: ..
.
We have had a chance to review the proposed changes to the Town's Zoning Ordinance. We
believe that the amendrnents,as currently drafted, are vague, overbroad and potentially overstep
the Town's legal authority in this arena. Consequently, we suggest clarifying the amendments so
that they, to the extentpo~sjble, accurately reflect the Town's jurisdiction over certain uses and
recognize the limitations imposed by state law over other uses.
We offer the followin.g suggestions:
1. Section 16.2.13.1 Permitted U~es: This section does not recognize that those exempted uses
contained in Government Code Section 53091 are allowed without any pennits. Therefore,
we suggest amending this section to include those facilities that are exempted pursuant to
Government Code Section 53091, So, Section 16-2.13.1 could be amended to include the
following language:
"c. Exempted facilities under Government Code Section 53091."
In the alternative, if the Town wanted to more narrowly define the exemption for water
facilities, we suggest that the following language be added to the same section:
lie. Exempted facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment or
transmission of water, for the production or generation of electrical energy or the
storage or transmission of electrical energy, as provide in Government Code 53091."
.
2. Section 16-2.13.2 Conditional Uses Permitted: As currently written, this section, is over
broad, as it could be read to require a use pennil for water facilities that are exempted Wider
Government Code Section 53091. For example, reading subsections (b) & (e) it can be
argued that water transmission facilities require a use permit, as those facilities would'be
recycled .A.
rlCyclable ,..1
EX1-lTE~Irr '/"T () ...
~~-_. ~ ~ - ...!III..-
'...u. .Lur
Scon Anderson
July 31, 2003
Page 2
operated by a public agency and a governmental agency. Clearly, that is not the case. So. again,
we suggest clarifying the field of uses that are actually subject to the Town's jurisdiction.
Therefore, we suggest deleting both subsections (b) & (e) and repl.acing them with the following
language:
"(b) Non-exempt buildings and facilities under Government Code Section 53091."
Even though these suggestions offer generalized language, that language is taken directly from
. the Government Code section that authorizes the Town to permit certain uses and limits the
Town's ability to regulate others. Ip adopting these suggested changes, the Commission would
tie Tiburon's Zoning Ordinance directly to Government Code S.ection 53091. Therefore. any
changes to Section 53091 or any case law that explains that section would further define what
uses are or are notsubject to the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
UnfortWlately, I will be out of town on August 13,2003. I am submitting our comments early, in
the hope of having the opportunity to discuss this with you and Anne Danforth about them before
I leave town. We intend. to have Jon Mandell, the Assistant Engineering Manager, attend the
Commission's August 13,2003 meeting. However, once you and Anne have bad a chance to
review this letter, please call me so that we can discuss our suggestions (945-1440).
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
~~(U
Mary . asey
Gener unsel
cc: Pam Nicolai, General Manager
Jon Mandell, Asst. Engineerin.g Manager
.""..)
.
.
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TOTHE
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (CHAPTER 16: ZONING)
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's
Zoning Ordinance, codified as Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the project has no
potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment and is exempt from the
requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was
published in the ARK newspaper on June 25, 2003 and other noticing was provided as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing on July 9,2003, at which testimony was received from the public, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Municipal Code
amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon
General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the Town Council adopt the Municipal Code amendments to Chapter
16, Zoning, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the Town of Tiburon held on ,2003, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
1
EP!TBIT NO~
.
, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTTANDERSON,SECRETARY
.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
2
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
Section 16-6.6 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is amended to read
as follows: .
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 et seq., the town-shall provide density
bonuses of twenty-live percent for projects which provide twenty percent of the total
units of a residential development for lower income households, ten percent of the total
units of a residential development'for very low income households, or fifty percent of
the total units of a residential development for people 62 years of age or older, or 55
years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development; or the town shall provide
a density bonus of ten percent for condominium projects which provide twenty percent
of the total units for moderate income households, in addition to the other incentives
. described in sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0).
(b) Applicants who 'propose residential developmentwhich complies with the
affordability requirements described in section (a) may submit to the town- a proposal for
the specific incentive described in sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0). The town shall
award the incentive unless either of the following written findings is made based upon
substantial evidence:
(1) The incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, or
(2) The incentive would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or
the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register
of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specifi~ adverse impact without rendering the development
unaffordable to low and moderate income households.
The town shall grant density bonuses which allow the re-establishment of developments
containing affordable housing units when such developments are destroyed by fire,
earthquake, or similar disaster, even when such developments may exceed current
allowable densities.
Section 16-5.6.4 (B[2]) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is amended
to read as follows:
(2) A fence, wall, or retaining wall shall not exceed six (6) feet in height in any yard,
unless all of the following conditions are met:
a. The fence and/or wall is located along a private residential property
line shared with another private residential property; -
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No_ 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
3
b.
There is a difference in surface elevation between the two adjoining
properties along the property line upon which the proposed fence
and/or wall is to be located;
.
c.The fence and/or wall would have a maximum height of six (6) feet
on the upper side of the structure; and a maximum height on the
lower side of the structure of six (6) feet plus the difference in
surface elevation between the adjoining yard areas at the property
line, but in no instance more than nine (9) feet;
d. The Acting Body determines that a fence and/or wall with a height
of six (6) feet on the lower side of the structure would not provide
an effective privacy screen for the adjoining properties; and
e. The Acting Body determines that the proposed fence would not
result in significant view obstruction or visual impacts on properties
in the vicinity.
Section 16-5.6.7 (e) of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) is added to read
as follows: .
(e) If two or more fences and/or walls are constructed with a separation of three (3)
feet or less between the faces of the structures, the height of the respective .
structures shall be combined to determine the total wall or fence height. If the
fences and/or walls are separated by a horizontal distance greater than three (3)
feet, the heights of the structures shall be calculated separately.
Izo/Z2003-03pcreso1.doc
'i
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
4
.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION B
A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE (CHAPTER 16: ZONING)
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments and rezonings to
the Town's Zoning Ordinance, codified as Chapter 16 ofthe Tiburon Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the project has no
potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment and is exempt from the
requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was
published in the ARK newspaper on June 25, 2003 and other noticing was provided as
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised
public hearing on July 9, 2003, at which testimony was received from the public, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did by motion continue certain proposed
amendments to its meeting of August 13, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Municipal Code
amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon
General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the Town Council adopt the Municipal Code amendments to Chapter
16, Zoning, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the Town of Tiburon held on August 23,2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
1
EXHIETT NO Lf-
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
.
, CHAIRMAN
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATTEST:
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No.2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
2
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
Section 16-1.3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
This Chapter shall apply, insofar as legally permissible, to all property within the
incorporated limits of the Town, including the public streets and waterways,
public utility poles, lines, and underground facilities for primary distribution
systems, whether such property is owned by the United States of America or any
of its agencies, the State of California or any of its agencies or political
subdivisions, any county or city including the Town of Tiburon or any of its
agencies, any authority or district organized under the laws of the State of
California, or private persons, firms, corporations, utilities, or organizations. The
scope of this Chapter is limited by preemptions for certain uses as set forth in
state and/or federal law.
Except in cases where a property owner can establish a vested right to be
regulated by any prior ordinance or Town-recognized document, the provisions
of this Chapter shall apply to all property development in the Town of Tiburon.
Examples of such vesting could be, but are not limited to, one of the following, if
in effect prior to December 26, 1990:
1.
2.
3.
A valid Development Agreement.
Rights established by a Vesting Tentative Map.
A valid, Town-recognized legal settlement.
Non-vested properties for which Master and/or Precise Plans or their equivalent
have been adopted prior to December 26, 1990 shall continue to be governed by
the provisions of those approvals, except that all such properties shall be subject
to the floor area limit provisions of this Chapter, where such provisions are more
restrictive than the floor area limit provisions, if any, contained in the Master
and/or Precise Plans.
Sections 16-2.13, 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning) are
amended to read as follows:
Section 16-2.13 P Zone Reoulations.
The Public/Quasi-Public Zone is intended to provide for public and quasi':public
uses, and to recognize existing public and quasi-public uses and facilities which
are expected to remain in a similar use in the foreseeable future. The permitted
uses and conditional uses listed below are qualified by the existence of
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
3
preemptions for certain uses as set forth in Section 53091 or successor section(s) .
of the California Government Code and by other preemptions contained in state
or federal law.
16-2.13.1 Permitted uses (P).
The uses listed below are allowed by right in the P zone.
(a) Parks and ancillary improvements thereto;
(b) Open Spaces and ancillary improvements thereto.
16-2.13.2 Conditional uses permitted (P).
,
The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional use permit is
granted, as provided in section 16-4.4. Other similar uses may be added to this.
list by resolution of the planning commission.
(a) Educational facilities;
(b) Buildings or facilities operated by public/non-profit agencies;
(c) Recreational buildings or facilities;
(d) Utility buildings or facilities;
(e) Governmental buildings or facilities;
(f) Additional specific uses which are, in the opinion of the commission, similar or .
accessory to those uses listed above.
Section 16-2.16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning Map) is hereby amended as set
forth in the attached Figure 1, said exhibit depicting the following rezonings:
1. Assessor Parcel Nos. 058-100-71 and 58-450-01; approximately 103 acres
located at the end of Lyford Drive; rezoned from Residential Planned
Development (RPD) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
2. Assessor Parcel 58-100-38; approximately 15.6 acres; located immediate down
slope from the above-listed property; rezoned from Residential Multiple Planned
(RMP) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
3. Assessor Parcel No. 58-111-28; approximately 0.6 acres located down slope
from the end of Stevens Court; rezoned from Residential Planned Development
(RPD) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
4
.
/.'--
,.
I
. Section 16-3.1.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning) is amended to read as follows:
Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be made on forms
furnished by the Community Development Department. The owner of the
property for which any application is submitted, or the agent or authorized
representative of the owner, shall file the application with the Community
Development Department. Potential applicants are encouraged to consult with
planning division staff prior to application.
Applications shall be full and complete, including all information required for the
presentation of necessary facts for the permanent record and to assist in
determining the merits of the application. Handouts and instructions listing
submittal requirements shall be obtained from the Community Development
Department.
.
The application shall be accompanied by a written statement of the property
owner, or his/her legally appointed representative, agreeing that if the Town
grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a
third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against
this challenge. The property owner/applicant shall also agree to defend,
indemnify and hold the Town 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. The Town will impose this
requirement as a condition to all project approvals or conditional project
approvals.
IzoIZ2003-03pcreso2.,doc
.
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-(Draft)
8/13/2003
5'
.,~>r-..,
^..
Fig. 1: PROPERTIES TO BE RE-lONED OPEN SPACE
.
/- -'. v '--.J "( '......,~ \
/_ , /" "'" ).. / \ \ ____--1
~-_/'...'':/;;;/> ."'" """ . I,----~- ".,--<,,/\ \ \/~ _\-//- \,
~I II TT\\ ,-\-~\ //. .~ '".., "1 r ( "\ \'../l-/'/.- \--,
J ;11 I \\' ~\ ~// ',....,"- i.l.c---/._)......,(',.//
, I I ~- _\\ _ ''0)' ('
.....'11/ +r--' I \\--~--=::--:.'.- \,.~/
r-I\ ) \ \r"\_/>_-P,~E (( -
t--.1.L l ' \ / ,<;--"" - '., ,~ \
\ r /j---r/\ . . \ / / j'--..JI"---,rc----< '. \
'\ / ~L)-/:jv _ \ / '---'
\' 'T-t /' /C\ \ v/}::!Y .._------
"'\ I y{ \ \'\ li,..---- _---
\ \ V// \ \ \ /1 ___~---- r--\)
\ ' / ~/k)/ ___-- '....., l\ ((.-::._, .-//
\,j _----- '.....", '. '..... . ''il;;: -N~
..-...... , I x~ \;L ,.-:-
. //-/ \ ,~\1Trl-" - \-/' /(;) '-(~^-
~--/-- /'/\~-,,~~~~)~r~ d.[JjJ~J~91dl,<:(~:~\-~__
, ./ 0<$.>\;;-1/ \~C-SUG4-;:/\'~r--.'(-T~r; ~~(~ \ '-/:(\)
\ {j /$.:J};(',,, ,~\) U-,:':.=~-~\ \ L~/ /:>~~~~&~t-:; I~'Y-
\ /~/'''' \/\ \_ -'-_ -/'1" \,\ // ,~~~~l (Ill - \
\ r---~ ! .. ,--\,L, 'v. l;~ /' -~j ("1/ \ ;:,
=--_\ )1 / l.....~/ /,","'J \ /-"'__ ~;~~.. !0N'PlD ,;/ --8 (--[ -- " , //" \
, '----.../ A I 'j "- jI __ \ J ~\- / -J/",,, l,J. /'\ V \
I ( I _-" r " --' -- '-,....., '- ~\. \, -- "-
_DR )____\ ~ ',\,;t( ,\,,~~j;:/.J:2~-/I~~JC~;?q _,," I ~J//;Z'?(<f~),g~(\~ >\
IT-'_.I\ -'I:{i ':- - j:>, , , \;}}:tI' ~-/ \I. / /~ \--Y \ ,{
kiN I__\S -~-:<;0-iio~"~ '1 I t--7) \r~Y--~~\/;Z ~~\,~ \ :;I\ I /~/'
l--\L..:=J \"~( /\--- ~'I t~~L i'l //1 /3(/t:~')/ (-" ~~~~-tJ7~~u~ \/[; ,'tJ
.1..-1___, ~/,<' }1~-::~~_, i "--?1[-~-!--=-=1-=1:,~l \/~j/V <;:~ \J 1-1$
-rt-W,. r~' ~'\ /;;( ~Y:---~$/\ / \1Jr.;;;~RO-l o=a~~ / F "'-
-Y.l'IP_lJ_ t\Y~~~- \,~V\ \-;.::,~~- - --'It:. ~1/{'JbJ;,i( J ~P"IJ~'" ;;::-t::'~~~;jao "-?:<~':
:-\-'\7 r'l/\ ""'/~ ,\<2 /\~/ j( ('<~- ~ )/(/ I (---:,\ ':>{,~ oU"~)- ", /\ ~~8 ~\ '\ \
_~_\.~_~_\ --\-_J/'~' '\ 'GJ I-.......~\ ;. _) r; ~ \."\ l100: (-t'::::~::: ~~!J!J& (1\ 2
C'" \ 'j"::"'~~;'l-='-=-~-' '--'.-~OUh)y'/ fA;' 'lA") ",u~~~o ::-:L-J )"~z-t'%:' flg;#('/
-., \ --....:-- I I I ....,-........ '" LVJ;J 1/ \ J...... /, L ' d)
N Q "--- __ I ( I r -.::=:=::-----, /' / .... Jr /'./ - -~---> ,,""
~ ~! r'~l -8- l hp'---'> (\ \:\., ... };"~ ("> ~~O j'-;Y ~,'il
; / '/71-rr-/-:;-::'f?J1Vr.7 "[/' //.. !'~~~~ de:, \-ltt\IJ ~ B ~ ~--".E
, I I / -'-,' \.J' I'" / \,? -- Ii ,-y,--- \ \ 0 ...---'--..- \ -..,
,/ -- '---- \ \.L'~' '...,,>-../ (- I .AI ~o (.;- ',- /----'------
, --~~..j I J /'-..:.,)~ /~,L:<:.Y"', [_~_ --\, \.__J I f'';; \0H II 1(' "WE"ST- ,
\ -t---t--Lr~ ~ ~/ ~ --- (" \r--~- ->-' ,\~ r \ 0 \ ~ 88g ~ ( !
/ ", ~_L__( I ~/, /~ '" / I' \ (--i" " \ ~ \ q, :::r: I F== nna '-'.(0' I
Q,///' \ \"-.~-.../.../ 1<__\ '" ,,/ __ ____~ \\ \ \ \ 0 ~~ \ i\ \ ~ ~~;J \ ~\ I ;
I', \ I I J( \'!f \' j \~./--\ ~'o\ \0 O~,!,> '\~~_UIIU(\ :',0:: ~~,,,-I / \
:. " I t i '--- \)\ \ ~O\ \0 <J t:.::: UlIo l..j ) 01 -- I ~---
( r~\ 'I /~-\,...../(I j' .-----/ \ ) )) ~~' \ ,,\--,\ \~': '8 ,r~'0..\\) ot;,"I! /, I "-/ I ~/ / /'
T-~--J I /\ /7~! ) <:>,,'>' /:fl, ", \ >--/ (-g'L J.. ~\f'--jll;;; / -"'3,\,
C J \ Q \r-' \ \ / I 1'0> />: 1\ ~--l l:" -...., \ /'!Q \f ' / J\)~~\0'Q
~ z \---r 17 \~r ),r1L-;?!--, - / ;#;/ Jl\ \ ~%~f'---\ Lj~B')' I~ ) ) I / <~ \\8i~, ~~~'J
\' '11--\ 0 >_-,--\ I ".l- -\( ',/- 0--------.." GO\.. \ )' Y ,) I,' ,\--'-
'I Z \ 0\ \ \ -' ~-I \-- \ ~-- ---------- ---.....'l (.... \ Y ~"'---1 \
/~" ~~~\~\ ~j(_\ \L1--\ ~ iJ1><&~~~~':'/--:'=-~[J1I~~,-,-_-------<::~>'v;:~;/1 L .---'-\' \ '"
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
_ Zoning Change: RPD to OS
Zoning Change: RMP to OS
, . ~ ,~o I 8~O J , ,1,~60 Feet.
Map Prepared by the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department
e-
..
.
. EXHI~ NO F
about protecting sensitive environmental areas. She said that the report also includes newer
.--- conc:epts,..suchasnsustainability,andissues that had not previously been addressed in proper
detail, including protection of natural habitats.
I
Ms. Dennis stated that the report focuses on elements with the most environmental implications, .
including serpentine habitat on Ring Mountain. She also noted that the Paradise Drive area was
listed as an area that is undergoing significant changes.
Ms. Dennis stated that there are six overriding ideas contained within the Community Marin
2003 report: I) discourage disruptive and inappropriate growth; 2) reduce the amount of
commercial development allowed under general plans; 3) encourage and enable housing that is
safe, comfortable and affordable; 4) rethink and redesign attitudes toward energy-and the use of
:...naturaLresources;5} make the protection and restoration .ofnatural habitat a priority; . and 6) - --~-~---_.
protect the agricultural heritage ofthe county.
Ms. Dennis used the Tiburon Glen project as an example of a project to which the
recommendations of the Community Marin 2003 report could be applied, but added that some of
the Town's current policies for reviewing suchprojects are already consistent with those of the
report. For example, she stated that the report emphasizes the ne~d to follow best management
practices (BMP's).prepared by MCSTOPPP for ephemeral streams; take a watershed-level
approach to drainage analysis; protect grassl~nd habitats and oak and bay woodlands; properly
manage open space areas; recognize thaffb\'ersized houses waste natural resources; and consider
the specific environmental constraints ofthe lands above Paradise Drive.
Commissioner Stein encouraged Ms. Dennis to attend the July 14PlanningCommissiop meeting
regarding the Tiburon Glen project. He~~~ed questions about the differences of opinion in the
report regarding the potential for rail traiisportation in Marin County. Ms. Dennis described that
issues related to wetlands preservation and the potential growth-inducing impacts around the rail
stations that had divided the group preparing the report. Commissioner Stein added that he
hoped that the report could do more to discuss issues relatecl to the implementation of affordable
housing.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. MINUTES OF JUNE 11,2003
M/S Stein/Greenberg (5-0) to approve the Minutes as written.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
')-3.
Z2003-03: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER A6 (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND CHAPTER
16-A (SIGN ORDINANCE) ..
The Town Attorney had recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item. Since
members of the public had taken the time to attend the meeting, Commissioner Greenberg
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of July 9, 2003
2
recommended that the Planning Commission take testimony regarding the proposed ~ign
Ord-inancechanges, with the understanding thatthe Planning Commission would take no action .
that evening, and with the caveat to the public that testimony given at this meeting should not be
repeated at a later hearing.
Chair Smith stated that he does not want to contradict the request of the Town Attorney. He said
that he would prefer to reopen the public comment period rather than have the public testify
under this public hearing, as the item was recommended to be pulled off the agenda.
Commissioner Stein asked if the Town Attorney had any problems with taking testimony only on
. this item. Planning Manager Watrous responded that taking testimony was not part of his
discussion with the Town Attorney. Commissioner Stein stated that it could be useful to at least
hear testimony, even if no action istaken on theamendmentatthis meeting.
. .
It was the consensus ofthe Planning Commission to take testimony on the proposed amendment
to the Sign Ordinance during the public hearing.
Community Development Director Anderson proceeded with the Staff report and described the
indemnification language that the Town Attorney had requested to be added to the Zoning
Ordinance. He reiterated that Items 5 & 6, dealing with changes to the uses in the P zone and
potential rezoning of properties into the OS zone were recommended for continuation without
discussion to the August 13 Planning Commission meeting.
Advance Planner Bryant described changes in State law regarding density bonuses. He said that .
applicants may now ask for specific incentives as part of a development proposa~ and the Town
must grant concessions unless certain written fmdings are made. He also described several other
minor modifications to the density bonus provisions required by changes in State law.
Commissioner Greenberg asked about differentiations within these provisions between
condominium projects and single-family residential projects. Advance Planner Bryant
responded that the language included in the proposed amendment was identical to that in State
law.
Commissioner Greenberg commented on the provisions that would allow for a 25 percent
density bonus for a project that would consist of20 percent affordable housing. Community
Development Director Anderson noted that private developers were not exactly clamoring to
build affordable housing projects in Tiburon.
Planning Manager Watrous described proposed changes to the regulations for wall and fence
height in specific instances of fences constructed on top of retaining walls. Chair Smith stated
that, in essence, the amendment would allow the height of such fences to be measured from the
high side of the fence, rather than the low side ofthe fence.
The public comment period was opened.
Chair Smith stated that the issue regarding the proposed Sign Ordinance amendment was
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of July 9, 2003
3
.
.
.
whether to add illuminated box signs to the list of prohibited signs. He asked the audience.to
tailor their comments to the. issue at hand.-
Cindy Siciliano stated that the views of the people have not been considered in decisions made
by the Town regarding signs. She requested that the Town Council take control ofthe Design
Review Board, and to protect the constitutional rights of people in Tiburon. She said that there
was a need to rectify the abuse of discretion by the Design Review Board. She stated that the
proposed code amendment was another attempt by Town Staff to gain more control of private
property.
Rick Payton asked when the continued hearing would be held, and whether penalties applying to
Ms. Siciliano's sign would continue to accrue. Planning Manager Watrous stated thatfhe
hearing on the Sign Ordinance amendment would be continued to a date uncertain. Chair Smith
stated that the issue of penalties for that sign is not before the Planning-Commission, and is being
handled 'through a separate process;
Anita Rozia, Tiburon resident, stated that she hoped to keep the Town from looking like
Burbank. She said that she understood Ms. Siciliano's concern, but said that most of the people
supporting that sign do not live in Tiburon. She stated that she did not want to see additional
lights on signs in the evening.
Joe Grasso, 25 year resident ofTiburon, asked why the sign at the Tiburon Lodge had been
allowed. He felt that the Townwas discriminating against Ms. Siciliano.
Colleen Evans stated that she works for a Tiburon resident who is upset with the treatment of
Ms. Siciliano. She said that the Town was discriminating by ignoring the Tiburon Lodge sign
and was picking on Ms. Siciliano.
Jeff Goddard, Belvedere, stated that the sign at Bell Market shines into his house, and that roof
signs such as that are prohibited in Tiburon. He suggested a compromise that Ms. Siciliano
would turn off the lights to her sign each night at midnight if Bell Market did likewise.
. .
Ron Goldman, 55 Main Street, described how his request for a sign for his business had been.
denied by the Design Review Board. He felt that Ms. Siciliano's sign added to the diversity of
the community. He asked if the timing of the proposed Sign Ordinance amendment was a
coincidence, and speculated that it was targeted at Ms. Siciliano. He said that the amendment
would give Staff more ammunition to discriminatorily apply the Sign Ordinance.
Jay Davis, Las Lomas Lane, said that he remembered Tiburon when it was not a place where
people would complain about signs. He asked what message this amendment was sending to the
busmess community.
With no one else wishing to speak, the public comment period was closed.
Commissioner Collins asked whether the indemnifications clause was needed only for approved
projects. Chair Smith responded that if an application is denied, the applicant would sue the
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of July 9, 2003
4
Town, rather than having a third party file the suit.
.
Commissioner Collins asked whether the clause should refer to the applicant rather than the
property owner. Community Development Director Anderson replied that the property owner
would be responsible, as approvals ran with the property. .
Chair ~mith noted that other Towns include the indemnification language in the resolutions of
approval. Community Development Director Anderson stated that the Conunission may want
the Town Attorney to investigate that possibility.
Commissioner Stein stated that if the property owner gains a privilege from the approv!ll ofan
application, a subsequent property owner may not be aware of the need to indemnify the Town.
There was a consensus of the Planning Commission that there was a concern about the
notification ofthis obligation to successive property owners.
Commissioner Collins asked whether the Town would want the property owner to defend the
Town or have the owner reimburse the Town for defending itself. Chair Smith stated that the
Town of Corte Madera has ordinance.language covering this process that allows the town to
choose either approach.
Commissioner Stein asked for an example of when such indemnification became necessary. .
Community Development Director Anderson described the case in which the Kol Shofar
synagogue received approval to modify its parking lot, after which several neighbors sued the
Town. In that instance, the Town Attorney assisted Kol Shofar's lawyers, who performed the
bulk of the legal work.
.
Commissioner Stein said that the proposed code amendment does not address occasions where
the Town makes a mistake or a frivolous lawsuit is filed. He felt that the issue should be studied
a bit more, and was unsure whether it was fair to shift the burdenofthe lawsuits to the property
owners in all cases.
Commissioner Greenberg stated that property owners get the benefit of an approval, but the .
applicant should not have to defend against mistakes of the Town. She suggested that the Town
Attorney take another look at the proposed amendment language.
Commissioner Stein added that a property owner should not have to pay to defend a lawsuit if
the decision made by the Town is clearly erroneous. Chair Smith noted that the language in the
Corte Madera ordinance stated that the property owner indemnifies the city except in cases of
gross negligence.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have the Town Attorney review the
comments of the Commission and the proposed code amendment language.
Chair Smith stated that the proposed density bonus percentages seemed to be consistent with
those granted by other cities. He said that it was so hard to build affordable housing, and the
only way was to make affordable housing an economically viable option for developers.
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of July 9, 2003
5
.
.
.
Community Development Director Anderson stated that such projects are even harder to
accomplish in Tiburon. He said that affordable housing projects usually need monetary support
from the public agency, so the Town has control over unreasonable density bonuses.
Commissioner Greenberg asked that language defining the term "qualifying" be added to avoid
confusion. Advance Planner Bryant acknowledged that a phrase could be substituted that
reflected the actual definition of "qualifying" in those sections.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed code amendment regarding
fence and wall heights was acceptable.
._" MISGreenberglSnow (5-0) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval
to the Town Council of the municipal cQde amendments regarding density bonuses and
fence and wall heights, with the resolution to be brought back to the"Commission for.
adoption at a later date.
M/S Stein/Greenberg (5-0) to continue the hearings ()n the code amendments regarding
indemnification language, uses in the P zone, and rezoning of properties to the OS zone to
the August 13, 2003 meeting.
The Commission noted that since the Sign Ordinance amendment was being continued to a date
uncertain and would need to be renoticed, no motion was necessary.
Community Development Director Anderson stated that there were no items scheduled for the
July 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
M/S Stein/Snow (5-0) to cancel the July 23,2003 Planning Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 9: 15 p.m.
~..
PAUL SMITH, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
AT~EST: , I)
() -iLfL-- //~ / .
&~-r{/\...; V'i~.91/\. ./
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY -
Tiburon Planning Commission
Minutes of July 9, 2003
6
! .r'~ . "'lrTrrnrr H0 G
(; f/ J (I I \ J f'
In particular, she asked if conditions 3, 4, 6 and 8 from the (;r99treso~ution w[j~ld b~ ~J .
included. .~"
Planning Manager Watrous responded that the conditions of approval were established
. prior to the interim standards, but have not been included in the draft resolution.
Commissioner Greenberg stated that she would approve renewing the permit, but would
like those conditions 3, 4, 6 and 8 made part of the resolution.
Commissioner Stein stated that he assumed the original resolution was incorporated by
reference and if it is not, then elements that are desired to continue as conditions of
approval ought to be specified. He thought that the resolution could be amended to
include these conditions, rather than incorporating the previous resolution by reference.
M/S, Stein/Greenberg (passed 4-0-1, Smith absent)to adopt the resolution as
amended to include conditions of approval 3, 4, 6 and 8 from Resolution 96-11.
'7 4.
TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS AND OPEN SPACE
REZONINGS TO THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16
(ZONING ORDINANCE)
Community Development Director Anderson presented the Staff report.
The public comment period was opened. No one wished to comment on this item, and
the public comment period was closed.
.
Commissioner Collins questioned whether it was clear from the August 6 memo from the
town attorney that applicant must pay whatever the amount is to cover the Town's portion
of costs of litigation in defense of a Town approval.
Community Development Director Anderson stated that applicants are aware that a
deposit must be filed before the Town tenders a legal defense and that money mayor may
not be refunded from that deposit.
MIS Greenberg/Collins (4-0) to adopt Resolutions A and B recommending approval
of the text amendments and rezonings to the Town Council.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
5. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE; REVIEW OF LAND USE ELEMENTS
ISSUES PAPER; Take Public Comment for a Report to the Town Council
Regarding Recommendation for General Plan Goals, Policies and Programs
for the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Community Development Director Anderson briefly reviewed the status of the General
Plan Update.
.
Tiburon Planning Commission
. Minutes of August 13, 2003
3
.
H'XEIBIT NO.-H.
ORDINANCE NO.
N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TIBURONADOPTING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO,
AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES DESIGNATED WITHIN,
CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments and
rezonings to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, codified as Chapter 16 of the
Tiburon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed and
advertised public hearings on the amendments on July 9, 2003 and August
13,2003; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
amendments to the Town Council by adoption of Resolutions 2003-12 and
2003-13 on August 13, 2003; and
.
WHEREAS, the Town Council held duly-noticed and advertised
public hearings on September 17, 2003 and October 1,2003, and received
and considered any and all public testimony on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that all notices and procedures
required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been
followed; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the amendments made by
this Ordinance are consistent with the objectives of Chapter 16 and would
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the amendments made by
this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon
General Plan and are consistent with other Town ordinances, plans, and
regulations; and
.
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the project has no potential
to result in adverse impacts on the environment and is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant
to Section 15061 (B) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines and is, in addition,
statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section
21080.17 of the Public Resources Code.
Town of Tiburon
Ordinance No. N. S.
Effective --/--/2003
1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
TIBURON HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOllOWS:
.
Section 1. Zonina Text Amendments.
A. Section 16-1.3 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
This Chapter shall apply, insofar as legally permissible, to all
property within the incorporated limits of the Town, including
the public streets and waterways, public utility poles, lines, and
underground facilities for primary distribution systems, whether
such property is owned by the United States of America or any
of its agencies, the State of California or any of its agencies or
political subdivisions, any county or city including the Town of
Tiburon or any of its agencies, any authority or district
organized under the laws of the State of California, or private
persons, firms, corporations, utilities, or organizations. The
scope of this Chapter is limited by preemptions for certain uses
as set forth in state and/or federal law.
Except in cases where a property owner can establish a
vested right to be regulated by any prior ordinance or
Town-recognized document, the provisions of this Chapter .
shall apply to all property development in the Town of Tiburon.
Examples of such vesting could be, but are not limited to, one
of the following, if in effect prior to December 26, 1990:
1. A valid Development Agreement.
2. Rights established by a Vesting Tentative Map.
3. A valid, Town-recognized legal settlement.
Non-vested properties for which Master and/or Precise Plans
or their equivalent have been adopted prior to December 26,
1990 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of those
approvals, except that all such properties shall be subject to
the floor area limit provisions of this Chapter, where such
provisions are more restrictive than the floor area limit
provisions, if any, contained in the Master and/or Precise
Plans.
B. Sections 16-2.13, 16-2.13.1 and 16-2.13.2 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of
the Tiburon Municipal Code are amended to read as follows:
.
Town of Tiburon
Ordinance No. N. S.
Effective --/--/2003
2
.
Section 16-2.13 P Zone Requlations.
The Public/Quasi-Public Zone is intended to provide for public
and quasi-public uses, and to recognize existing public and
quasi-public uses and facilities which are expected to remain in a
similar use in the foreseeable future. The permitted uses and
conditional uses listed below are qualified by the existence of
preemptions for certain uses as set forth in Section 53091 or
successor section(s) of the California Government Code and by
other preemptions contained in state or federal law.
16-2.13.1 Permitted uses (P).
The uses listed below are allowed by right in the P zone.
(a) Parks and ancillary improvements thereto;
(b) Open Spaces and ancillary improvements thereto.
.
16-2.13.2 Conditional uses permitted (P).
The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional
use permit is granted, as provided in section 16-4.4. Other
similar uses may be added to this list by resolution of the
planning commission.
(a) Educational facilities;
(b) Buildings or facilities operated by public/non-profit agencies;
(c) Recreational buildings or facilities;
(d) Utility buildings or facilities;
(e) Governmental buildings or facilities;
(f) Additionar specific uses which are, in the opinion of the
commission, similar or accessory to those uses listed above.
C. Section 16-3.1.1 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
Applications for permits governed by this chapter shall be
made on forms furnished by the Community Development
Department. The owner of the property for which any
application is submitted, or the agent or authorized
representative of the owner, shall file the application with the
Community Development Department. Potential applicants
are encouraged to consult with planning division staff prior to
application.
.
Town of Tiburon
Ordinance No. N. S.
Effective --/--/2003
3
Applications shall be full and complete, including all .
information required for the presentation of necessary facts for
the permanent record and to assist in determining the merits of
the application. Handouts and instructions listing submittal
requirements shall be obtained from the Community
Development Department.
.
The application shall be accompanied by a written statement
of the property owner, or his/her legally appointed
representative, agreeing that if the Town grants the approval,
with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a
third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for
defending against this challenge. The property
owner/applicant shall also agree to defend, indemnify and hold
the Town 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.
The Town will impose this requirement as a condition to all
project approvals or conditional project approvals.
D. Section 16-5.6.4 (B[2]) of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon
Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
(2) A fence, wall, or retaining wall shall not exceed six (6)
feet in height in any yard, unless all of the following
conditions are met:
.
a. The fence and/or wall is located along a
private residential property line shared
with another private residential property;
b. There is a difference in surface elevation
between the two adjoining properties
along the property line upon which the
proposed fence and/or wall is to be
located;
c.
The fence and/or wall would have a
maximum height of six (6) feet on the
upper side of the structure; and a
maximum height on the lower side of the
structure of six (6) feet plus the difference
in surface elevation between the adjoining
yard areas at the property line, but in no
instance more than nine (9) feet;
.
Town of Tiburon
Ordinance No. N. S.
Effective --/--/2003
4
.
d.
The Acting Body determines that a fence
and/or wall with a height of six (6) feet on
the lower side of the structure would not
provide an effective privacy screen for the
adjoining properties; and
e. The Acting Body determines that the
proposed fence would not result in
significant view obstruction or visual
impacts on properties in the vicinity.
E. Section 16-5.6.7 (e) of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal
Code is added to read as follows:
(e) If two or more fences and/or walls are constructed with
a separation of three (3) feet or less between the faces
of the structures, the height of the respective structures
shall be combined to determine the total wall or fence
height. If the fences and/or walls are separated by a
horizontal distance greater than three (3) feet, the
heights of the structures shall be calculated separately.
.
F.
Section 16-6.6 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
(a) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 et seq., the
town shall provide density bonuses of twenty-five percent for
projects which provide twenty percent of the total units of a
residential development for lower income households, ten
percent of the total units of a residential development for very
low income households, or fifty percent of the total units of a
residential development for people 62 years of age or older, or
55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing
development; or the town shall provide a density bonus of ten.
percent for condominium projects which provide twenty
percent of the total units for moderate income households, in
addition to the other incentives described in sections 16-6.3(g),
(h), (i) and 0).
.
(b) Applicants who propose residential development which
complies with the affordability requirements described in
section (a) may submit to the town a proposal for the specific
incentive described in sections 16-6.3(g), (h), (i) and 0). The
town shall award the incentive unless either of the following
written findings is made based upon substantial evidence: .
Town of Tiburon
Ordinance No. N. S.
Effective --/--/2003
5
(1) The incentive is not required in order to provide for
affordable housing costs, or
(2) The incentive would have a specific adverse impact
upon public health and safety or the physical
environment or on any real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources and for
which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without
rendering the development unaffordable to low and
moderate income households.
(c) The town shall grant density bonuses which allow the re-
establishment of developments containing affordable.housing
units when such developments are destroyed by fire,
earthquake, or similar disaster, even when such developments
may exceed current allowable densities.
Section 2. Rezoning.
Section 16-2.16 (Zoning Map) of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon
Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in the attached Figure 1,
said Figure 1 depicting the following rezonings and being incorporated
herein by reference:
1. Assessor Parcel Nos. 058-100-71 and 58-450-01; approximately 103
acres located at the end of Lyford Drive; rezoned from Residential
Planned Development (RPD) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
2. Assessor Parcel 58-1 00-38; appro~imately 15.6 acres; located
immediate down slope from the above-listed property; rezoned from
Residential Multiple Planned (RMP) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
3. Assessor Parcel No. 58-111-28; approximately 0.6 acres located
down slope from the end of Stevens Court; rezoned from Residential
Planned Development (RPD) zone to Open Space (OS) zone.
Section 3. Severabilitv.
If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a
decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of
the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this
Ordinanc,e, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
Town of Tiburon
Ordinance No. N. S.
Effective --/--/2003
6
.
.
.
,j!
.
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the
date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage
by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance, or its legally required
equivalent, shall be published with the names of the members voting for and
against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the
Town of Tiburon.
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town
Council of the Town of Tiburon on September 17, 2003, and was adopted at
a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on
,2003, which was noticed pursuant to provisions of
. the California Government Code, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
.
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
\zo\Z2003-03 tc ordinance.doc
.
Town of Tiburon
Ordinance No. N. S.
Effective --/--/2003
7
, :1'
Fig. 1: PROPERTIES TO BEIRE-ZONED OPEN SPACE .
/'
..,,,,,,
/'
..,....
7. T-~'~'
i i i
j<. {l_
~...--..: j
\ . "
~_... .J
),'. "'
r
<7.
{;<;1
r;:
.0- --"",_
,.,,- ,"
. "~..~::.~.~~,~'Jl~T7-"~~~'~:;~:"'-
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
_ Zoning Change: RPD to OS
Zoning Change: RMP to OS
"
o
I
440
880
I
1,760 Feet
I
.'
Map Prepared by the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department