The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2003-06-04 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 June 4, 2003 A2Jk d ~ 'I ,./ 6:30 PM - Closed Session 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting AS~IST ANCE -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/org/government. 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. I -Yt~ I I 6-~~03 . i TCAlZ: I I '-" Agenda - Town Council Meeting . June 4, 2003 Page 2 of 5 ':"~ \ . AGENDA CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et. seq., the Town Council will hold a closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Bargaining Unit: Management and Mid-Management/Non-Represented Employees Negotiator: Town Manager 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. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion unless a request is made that an item be transferred to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Any item on the Regular Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar. 1. Recommendation by Town Clerk - Resolutions Pertaining to November 4, 2003 Municipal Election a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Ordering and Calling a Municipal Election in the Town of Tiburon on November 4, 2003 for the Purpose of Electing Two Councilmembers b) A Resolution of the Town Council of The Town of Tiburon Requesting the Marin County Board of Supervisors to Consolidate the Election and Authorize the County Clerk to Render Services Regarding the Municipal Election to be Held on November 4, 2003 ~, ,1 I Agenda - Town Council Meeting June 4, 2003 Page 3 of 5 2. Recommendation by Town Manager - Resolution Commemorating Steve Sears and Brian Wilson on the 25th Anniversary as Owners and Operators of Sam's Anchor Cafe a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Commending Steve Sears and Brian Wilson for their 25 Years of Business in the Tiburon Community as Owners of Sam's Anchor Cafe 3. Recommendation by Director of Public WorkslTown Engineer - Approval of Plans & Specifications for the 2003 Drainage Improvement Program REGULAR AGENDA 4. Recommendation by Director of Public WorkslTown Engineer - Del Mar Valley Undergrounding of Utilities Assessment District a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon of Intention to Make Acquisitions and Improvements - Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District 5. Presentation by Town Manager - Proposed Municipal Budget Plan for Fiscal Year 2003-04 PUBLIC HEARING 6. Recommendation by Town Manager - Approval of Mill Valley Refuse Service Rate Adjustment 7. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Town-initiated Text Amendments to the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance - Modifications to Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit Process as set forth in Section 16-4.5 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Section 4.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance), and related consistency amendments; the Addition of Regulations Requiring Site Plan and Architectural Review for Driveways and Open Parking Spaces Introduction and 1st Reading of Ordinances Read by Titles Only a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code With Respect to Secondary Dwelling Unit Regulations, Including Associated Amendments to Definitions b) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code Requiring Design Review for Driveways and Open Parking Spaces '~l '~&, Agenda - Town Council Meeting June 4, 2003 Page 4 of 5 " " '\ 8. Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Town-initiated Text Amendments to the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance - Modified Regulations Regarding Detached Two-Family Dwellings in the R-2 Zone; New and Modified Definitions; Establishment of New Regulations Regarding Parking Areas and Parking Lots ;td Reading and Adoption of Ordinance Read by Title Only a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - May 23, 2003 Town Council Weekly Digest - May 30, 2003 ADJOURNMENT STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM /- 'i Town of Tiburon .. ..... .................. ...... ..... TO: Mayor Slavitz and Members of the Town Council FROM: Town Clerk Crane lacopi SUBJECT: November 4, 2003 Town Council Election MEETING DATE: June 4,2003 Reviewed by ~ BACKGROUND It's hard to believe that another Town Council election is already upon us. The terms of Councilmember Andrew Thompson and Mayor Jeff Slavitz will expire in November of this year. Candidates for Council can pick up nomination papers for circulation beginning July 14, 2003. If anyone of the incumbents does not file for re-election by the deadline, August 8, 2003, the nomination period will be extended five days (for non-incumbents only) until 5:00 p.m. on August 13, 2003. At this time, the Council is required to adopt a resolution ordering and calling an election, and requesting consolidation of the election with the County of Marin in order to provide election services. A calendar of important events leading up to the November 4, 2003 election is also attached, along with a Notice of Election that will be published in the Ark newspaper later this month. RECOMMENDATION The only action required of the Council at this time is adoption of the two resolutions attached as Exhibits A & B....~! ~!Il' .i'7~: / 1/ ~/LcjM Diane Crane lacopi, Town' Clerk EXHIBITS --Resolutions --Election Calendar --Notice of Election " RESOLUTION NO. -2003 ~. -\ .' A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ORDERING AND CALLING A MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE TOWN OF TIBURON ON NOVEMBER 4, 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING TWO COUNCILMEMBERS BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, that it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Date of Election - Offices to be Filled. A general municipal election is hereby called and ordered to be held in the Town ofTiburon, State of California, on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, for the purpose of electing two Town Councilmembers, the terms of the incumbents of which are about to expire. Section 2. . Registration to Close October 20.2003. Registration for said election shall close on October 20, 2003; no persons registered after that date will be entitled to vote at said election. Section 3. Procuring and Filing Nomination Papers. Nomination papers may be procured from the Town Clerk and shall be filed with the'Town Clerk no later than 5:00 P.M. of the eighty-eighth day before the election. Nomination papers may not be circulated prior to July 14, 2003and must be filed no later than 5 :00 P.M. on August 8, 2003. If anyone of the incumbents does not file for re-election to office by August 8, 2003,5:00 P.M., the filing period for such office is extended until August 13,2003,5:00 P.M., for non-incumbent candidates only. Section 4. Time When Polls Are Kept Open. At said election the polls shall be opened at 7:00 A.M. of the day of said election, and shall be kept open until 8:00 P.M. in the evening ofthe same day, when the polls shall be closed, subject to the provisions of Section 10242 of the Elections Code. Resolution No, -2003 - Calling November 4, 2003 Election 1 2rffl/JIT A " - Section 5. Certification of Vote by Council. The Council shall meet at its usual meeting place on the first available date following the canvass of the vote by the County Registrar of Voters to certifY the election and install the newly elected officers. The official date of assuming office shall be December 5, 2003. Section 6. Publishing Notice of Election. The Town Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation a Notice of Election which will include the date of election, hours the polls open and close and the offices to be filled. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon on June 4, 2003, by the followingvote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Resolution No. -2003 - Calling November 4, 2003 Election 2 RESOLUTION NO. - 2003 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON REQUESTING THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE ELECTION AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY CLERK TO RENDER SERVICES REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 4.2003 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon has ordered an election for November 4,2003; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon may request the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin to consolidate the General Municipal Election with any other election conducted on the same date; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10002 of the California Elections Code, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon may request the Board of Supervisors to permit the County Clerk to render specified services to said Body relating to the conduct of the election on a reimbursable basis, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon as follows: 1. That the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin is hereby requested to consolidate the election and authorize the CoUnty Clerk to render the following specified services for said Body relating to the conduct of the election to be held on November 4,2003: V oter Indexes V oter Count by Precinct Verification of Signatures Drayage and Rental of Polling Places Printing of Measures and Arguments Printing of Sample and Official Ballots Appointment and Notification of Election Officers Mailing of Sample Ballots and Polling Place Notification Precinct Supplies Training of Precinct Workers Processing of Absentee Ballots Central Counting Canvass of Votes Cast Resolution No. -2003 - Consolidate November 4, 2003 Election 6V'H7 6Jj.l/J I{ 7'> , " , 2. That the Clerk of said Body be and hereby is ordered and directed to file a copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on June 4, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Resolution No. -2003 - Consolidate November 4, 2003 Election 2 '- CONSOLIDATED CITIES GENERAL (OR SPECIAL) MUNICIPAL ELECTION TUESDAY, NOVEMBE~ 4, 2003 LAws IN EFFECT IN 2003 (Calendar Updated 10/29/2002) May 16, 2003 June 30 June 30 - July 14 July 7 July 14 - August 8 July 15 (E-172) (E - 127) (E - 127 to 113) (E - 120) (E - 113 to 88) (E -112) July 15 July 29 August 8 August 8 August 8 August 13 August 13 August 14 August 21 September 8 - October 21 Septem ber 25 October 6 - October 28 October 14 October 20 October 23 October 28 November 3. (E .,.. 112) (E - 98) (E - 88) (E - 88) (E - 88) (E - 83) (E - 83) (E- 82) (E - 75) (E - 57 to 14) (E - 40) (E - 29 to 7) (E-21) '- (E -15) (E -12) (E - 7) (E - 1) E November 4 SUGGESTED LAST DAY TO FILE PETITIONS REGARDING MEASURE SUGGESTED LAST DAY FOR COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS PUBLISH NOTICE OF ELECTION LAST DAY TO ADOPT REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES STATEMENTS FILING PERIOD FOR NOMINATION PAPERS AND CANDIDATE'S STATEMENTS SUGGESTED LAST DAY TO CALL ELECTION FOR BALLOT MEASURES PUBLISH NOTICE OF ELECTION - MEASURE(S) ONLY, No CANDIDATES POST NOTICE OF DEADLINE FOR FILING ARGUMENTS SUGGESTED LAST DAY TO FILE ARGUMENTS LAST DAY TO CALL ELECTION FOR BALLOT MEASURES SUGGESTED LAST DAY TO FILE REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS LAST DAY TO FILE NOMINATION PAPERS LAST DAY TO FILE NOMINATION PAPERS - EXTENSION LAST DAY TO WITHDRAW MEASURE(S) FROM BALLOT. SECRETARY OF STATE TO DETERMINE ORDER OF NAMES ON BALLOT CANCEL ELECTION - INSUFFICIENT CANDIDATES FILING PERIOD FOR WRITE-IN CANDIDATE LAST DAY TO FILE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE STATEMENTS - 1ST PRE-ELECTION VOTERS MAY REQUEST ABSENTEE! VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS LAST DAY TO MAIL SAMPLE BALLOTS AND POLLING PLACE NOTICES LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE LAST DAY TO FILE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE STATEMENTS - 2ND PRE-ELECTION LAST DAY FOR ELECTION OFFICIAL TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF NOMINEES LAST DAY FOR COUNCIL TO ADOPT PROCEDURES TO RESOLVE TIE VOTE ELECTION DAY November 26 - December 19 (E + 28 + 17) LAST DAY TO INSTALL NEWLY ELECTED MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBER, ETC. December 10 - December 30 At next Regularly Scheduled Meeting after Declaration of Results REORGANIZE COUNCIL AND CHOOSE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM December 26 - January 18 (30 Days after Assuming Office) LAST DAY TO FILE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS LAST DAY TO FILE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE STATEMENTS - SEMI-ANNUAL LAST DAY TO SUBMIT REPORT ON MEASURES TO SECRETARY OF STATE January 31, 2004 April 1, 2005 www.martinchapman.com/scott@martinchapman.com MARTIN & CHAPMAN Co. * 1951 WRIGHT CIRCLE * ANAHEIM, CA 92806-6028 * 714/939-9866 * FAX 714/939-9870 (Revised10-02 / November 4. 2003 Consolidated Final) " , / Please publish under Legal Notices in The Ark. week of June 25, 2003 and July 9, 2003 NOTICE OF ELECTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a General Municipal Election will be held in the Town of Tiburon on Tuesday, November 4,2003, for the purpose of electing two Town Council members. The terms of the following incumbent Council members will expire: Jeff Slavitz Andrew Thompson Interested residents who are registered voters of the Town of Tiburon may take out nomination papers to run for Council from the office of Tiburon Town Clerk Diane Crane Iacopi, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA. The nomination period will open on Monday, July 14, 2003, and close on Friday, August 8, 2003 at 5:00 p.m., unless anyone of the incumbents does not file for re-election. In this event, the nomination'period for non-incumbent candidates onlv will be extended to Wednesday, August 13,2003, at 5:00 p.m. A filing fee in the amount of $25.00 is charged to all candidates pursuant to Town Council Ordinance No. 118 N;S. . Town Hall office hours are 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 9:00 a.m.- 12:00 p.m. on Friday. Town Hall will be remain open for the purpose of filing nomination papers with the Town Clerkon Friday, August 8, 2003, until 5:00 p.m. Voter registration for said election shall close on October 20,2003. Polls will be open on Election Day from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk June 25, 2003 :1. RESOLUTION NO. - 2003 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCil OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON COMMENDING STEVE SEARS AND BRIAN WilSON FOR THEIR 25 YEARS OF BUSINESS IN THE TIBURON COMMUNITY AS OWNERS OF SAM'S ANCHOR CAFE WHEREAS, Steve Sears and Brian Wilson are only the third owners of the world-famous Sam's Anchor Cafe since its inception in Tiburon in 1920; and WHEREAS, Steve and Brian met while employed by "The Refectory" restaurant located in Layfayette, California, and later became managers of a restaurant by the same name in Greenbrae, California; WHEREAS, in 1978, Steve was hired as manager of Sam's Anchor Cafe, and with the help of his new partner, Brian, and several investors, bought the restaurant that same year; WHEREAS, under Steve and Brian's ownership, the restaurant has evolved into not only a bar and fine eating establishment, but is the site of many local events such as political fund raisers and charitable events; . WHEREAS, Steve has been an active member and past President of the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, and both Steve and Brian were named "Citizens of the Year" by that group in 1996; and WHEREAS, Steve and Brian continue to function as owners and operators of a successful downtown business which serves the needs of locals and tourists alike; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tiburon Town Council hereby recognizes Steve Sears and Brian Wilson for 25 years of successful ownership of Sam's Anchor Cafe, and wishes upon them all the best for continued and future success in Sam's Anchor Cafe. r. ~~r~. PASSEDAND.ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Town Council of the town of Tiburon held on June 4, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council FROM: Pat Echols, Director of Public Worksl Town Engineer~ SUBJECT: Approve Plans for 2002-03 Drainage Improvemen~oject MEETING DATE: June 4, 2003 REVIEWED BY: ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION Plans and specifications have been prepared by Harris & Associates for the 2002 Drainage Improvements (Exhibit 1). The project is part of the 2002-03 Capital Improvements budget and includes improved facilities on Old Landing Road, new inlet structures on Taylor Road near Paradise Drive and replacing substandard curb and gutter on Juno Road. Staff is prepared to solicit contractor bids for the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council approve the 2002-03 Drainage Improvements Project and authorize staff to solicit contractor bids for the project. EXHIBITS Project Plans .'.. . . ~ - . '. May 29, 2003 1 of 1 :( .\ (h) Intermediate or community care facilities (as defined by state law) or any other residential care facility for the handicapped (as defined by the Fair Housing Act) located in a single family dwelling. All such facilities shall be subject to all regulations of the California Health and Safety Code. F. Section' 16-4.2.2(f) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: (f) Modifications to the layout or design of parking lots located in a non- residential zone, or in any parking lot or parking area containing more than ten (10) parking spaces that is located in an R-3 or RMP zone. This excludes simple repainting of existing stall lines absent any substantive modifications. G. Section 16-5.6.4(d) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read a.s follows: (d) In any residential zone, a front yard shall not be used for the storage of junk materials as described in Section 16-1.5 under the definition of "junkyard". H. Section 16-5.6.4(e) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby renumbered to become Section 16-5.6.4 (f). I. Section 16-5.6.4(e) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby added to read . as follows: (e) The parking or storage of operable or inoperable vehicles in areas other than on an Improved Parking Surface, as defined in this Chapter, is prohibited. /zo/tc.zoning .amend ment2003. text. doc 7 ~r 2. One unit shall be significantly smaller than the other; with a minimum 60%/40% floor area split between the two units. 3. No floor area exception shall be allowed for the project. 4. No lot coverage variance shall be allowed for the project. 5. No height variance shall be allowed for the project. 6. No side yard or rear yard setback variances shall be allowed for the . project. 16-2.5.4 (I) Action by Design Review Board. The Design Review Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception. In taking its action, the Board shall make findings based on evidence in the record. The burden rests with the applicant to convince the Board that the project has met the criteria necessary for approval. 16-2.5.4 (J) Appeal; Expiration; Reapplication. The decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-3.8. Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exceptions shall expire and become null and void three (3) years after the date of approval unless a building permit has been issued before the date of expiration. Following the denial of an application for a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception, no application for the same or substantially the same exception shall be filed within one (1) year of the date of denial unless the denial is made without prejudice. E. Section 16-2.8.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 16-2.8.1. Principal Uses Permitted (RMP). (a) Single family dwelling. (b) Attached Two-Family Dwelling. (c) Multi-family dwelling. (d) Dwelling group. (e) Provide room and board for not more than one paying guest ina single family dwelling. (f) Public park or open space use. (g) Nursery school, day care center, or preschool located in a single family dwelling and serving six or fewer children as defined and regulated by California Health and Safety Code. 6 , land use compatibility benefits of detached units are clearly demonstrated for the lot. 3. Two dwelling units in two detached buildings would likely reduce visual, environmental, privacy or other impacts as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling on the lot. 4. The permit history of the lot has been researched and provides no evidence of self-created hardship, self-created non-conformity, or other pattern of activity that would act to circumvent the purpose of this section. 5. All vehicular access shall be convenient, shall comply with industry standards for ingress and egress, and shall not result in adverse impacts on neighboring properties and/or streets. In conducting its evaluation of the criteria, the Design Review Board shall also review the lot for evidence that its physical limitations are of such severity that a single family dwelling may be the appropriate level of development for the lot, and shall consider any such evidence in its deliberations. 16-2.5.4 (G) Required Condition. The following condition shall be imposed on any approval for a Detached Two- Family Dwelling: "Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, Owner shall record a deed restriction prohibiting future condominiumization or subdivision of the property for the duration that the Detached Two-Family Dwelling remains in existence. Said deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney prior to recordation, and following recordation, a recorded copy shall be transmitted to the Town for its permanent record." The Town finds this condition is necessary to avoid de facto upzoning of property and to protect the Town's existing stock of rental housing. 16-2.5.4 (H) Recommended Conditions. The Design Review Board shall consider the application of conditions to the approval of a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception, including but not limited to the following: 1. At least four (4) on-site non-tandem standard-sized residential parking spaces shall be provided. No more than three (3) ofthese spaces may be side-by-side, as viewed from any street open to use by the public. 5 " The purpose of the Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception is to limit approval of such uses to lots where the applicant has successfully addressed land use compatibility issues and neighborhood impacts, and where the detached units will result in a demonstrably superior site planning solution as compared to a probable attached two-family dwelling. The Design Review Board may grant a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception for any lot in the R-2 zone which meets the "minimum parcel area" and "minimum parcel area per dwelling unit" land and structure regulations for the R-2 zone as set forth in Section 16-2.5.3 of this Chapter. 16-2.5.4 (C) Application and Fee. The application for a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception shall be filed in conjunction with a Site Plan & Architectural Review application for the project pursuant to Section 16-3.1 of this Chapter, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate additional filing fee. 16-2.5.4 (D) In.formation Required. Lists of information and materials which are normally necessary for a complete Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception application are available from the Tiburon Planning Division. The Director or his designee may require additional information, planS, drawings, or other documents if needed to assist in making an informed decision on the application. 16-2.5.4 (E) Notice and Hearing Required. A hearing as prescribed in Section 16-3.3 of this Chapter shall be held to consider every application for a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception. Notice shall be given pursuant to Section 16-3.3.2 of this Chapter. 16-2.5.4 (F) Criteria for Review and Approval. The Design Review Board shall consider the following criteria prior to taking action on an application for a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception: 1. The lot area is adequate to reasonably accommodate two detached units in a functional site layout that substantially meets the land and structure regulations of the R-2 zone. 2. Physical conditions exist on the lot that render impractical or difficult the construction of attached units; or the site planning superiority and 4 (c) One Detached Two-Family Dwelling, provided that the Design Review Board has approved or conditionally approved a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception, as set forth in Section 16-2.5.4. Detached Two Family Dwellings that lawfully exist as of [the effective date of this Ordinance], and proposed Detached Two- Family Dwellings that have received final zoning permit approval as of [the effective date of this Ordinance], shall be deemed legal non- conforming structures subject to provisions of Section 16-5.4. (d) Publicly owned park. (e) The providing of room and board for not morethan one paying guest in each dwelling unit. (f) Nursery school, day care center, or preschool located in a single family dwelling and serving six or fewer children as defined and regulated by the California Health and Safety Code. ' (g) Intermediate or community care facilities (as defined by state law) or any other residential care facility for the handicapped (as defined by the Fair Housing Act) located in a single family dwelling. All such facilities shall be subject to all regulations of the California Health and Safety Code. D. Sections 16-2.5.4 (A) through (J) of the Tiburon Municipal Code are hereby added to read as follows: 16-2.5.4 Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception. 16-2.5.4 (A) Policy. The R-2 zone is located exclusively in the Old Tiburon/Lyford's Cove neighborhood. This neighborhood was created by a subdivision in the nineteenth century and is generally characterized by densely developed small lots, steep slopes, narrow winding streets, and inadequate parking. '-- Attached Two-Family Dwellings are, and have historically been, the predominant form of two-family dwelling allowed in the, R-2 zone. An unregulated proliferation of Detached Two-Family Dwellings could substantially alter the existing development pattern and character of the Old Tiburon neighborhood in that detached units on small lots create a de facto single:'family residential land use pattern on significantly smaller lots than is allowed in any single family residential zone in the Town of Tiburon. The Town also recognizes that limited instances may occur where a Detached Two-Family Dwelling may be a preferable land development solution due to physical characteristics of an individual lot, or due to the specific nature of a lot's immediately surrounding pattern of development. 16-2.5.4 (B) Purpose and Authority. 3 .) Detached Two-Family Dwelling means two dwelling units, each located in a separate building on the same lot, for which a Detached Two-Family Dwelling Exception has been issued pursuant to this Chapter. Detached Two Family Dwellings that lawfully exist as of [the effective date of this Ordinance], and proposed Detached Two-Family Dwellings that have received final zoning permit approval as of [the effective date of this Ordinance], shall be deemed legal non-conforming structures subject to provisions of Section 16-5.4. Director of Community Development: The Director of the Town's Community Development Department, or his assigned designee. Improved Parking Surface: An artificially enhanced ground surface, typically but not exclusively composed of concrete, asphalt, stone; brick, ceramic, macadam, turf-block, or gravel, that is used for, or capable of being used for, the parking of vehicles. Planning Division: The division of the Community Development Department charged with responsibility for the current and advance planning functions of the Town of Tiburon, including land use regulation, zoning permits and enforcement thereof. B. The following definitions contained within Section 16-1.5 of the Tiburon Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as.follows: Community Development Department: The Planning Division and the Building Division of the Town of Tiburon, which together are charged with implementing the land use regulations of the Town and providing staff support to the various Boards, Commissions, and the Town Council. Director: See Director of Community Development. Dwelling, Two-Family: An Attached Two-Family Dwelling or a Detached Two-Family Dwelling, as defined herein. Planning Department: See Planning Division. Planning Director: See Director of Community Development. C. Section 16-2.5.1 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is revised to read as follows: 16-2.5.1 Principal Uses Permitted (R-2). (a) One single-family dwelling. (b) One Attached Two-Family Dwelling. 2 ,~ ORDINANCE NO. N.S. ~t~;+ ",'- :ti':~~ AN O.RDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCil OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findinas. A. The Town Council has held public hearings on ,2003 and , 2003, and has received and considered public testimony on this matter. B. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. C. The Town Council finds that the changes and modifications made by this Ordinance are consistent with the objectives of Chapter 16 and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. D. The Town Council has found that the changes and modifications 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. E. The Town Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. Adoption of Amendments. A. The following definitions are added to Section 16-1.5 of the Tiburon Municipal Code to read as follows: Attached Two-Family Dwelling means a building containing two dwelling units designed for and/or occupied by two families living independently. An Attached Two-Family Dwelling is such that the two dwelling units share a common wall, roof, and foundation, or are one above the other sharing a common floor/ceiling. A breezeway, carport, or similar accessory structure connecting two buildings does not transform the buildings into an Attached Two-Family Dwelling. EXHIBIT NoA 1 " '" .' Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM B. TO: MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCil FROM: SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY" A ~ DEVELOPMENT . ~ SUBJECT: Z 2003-01: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MODIFIED REGULATIONS REGARDING . DETACHED TWO-FAMilY DWELLINGS IN THE R-2 (TWO- FAMilY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE; NEW AND MODIFIED DEFINITIONS; AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW R EGUl. ATIONS REGARDING PARKING AR~A. NO PARKING lOTS (SECOND READING & AD I ) MEETING DATE: JUNE 4, 2003 APPROVED BY .... REPORT DATE: MAY 23, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND At its meeting of May 21, 2003, the Town Council introduced and held first reading of the ordinance setting forth the zoning ordinance text amendments. The item now comes to the Town Council for second reading and adoption. If adopted, the amendments will take effect in 30 days. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: · Hold a public hearing and conduct any desired deliberations. · Move to read by title only, pass the motion, read the title, and then hold a roll call vote on second reading and adoption of the ordinance. EXHIBITS A. Draft Town Council Ordinance. \zo\Z2003-01 tc report2.doc Tiburon Town Council Staff Report . . .s ...oJ I{e ",. o~t..... '~~o ~( . , \Z .... .. ~;: ,.:: ;~~~~:::~ i. ~. ,..\, ...<'''-m_''-n.!''t" ~~Jg~:f~if~: , . June 4, 2003 1 of 1 (c) Where a driveway occupies required side yard open space, the provisions of subsection 2(a} and 2 (b) shall not apply; in that situation, a maximum of thirty (30) percent of the combined total required side yard open space area may be occupied by one or more of the features described in subsection 1 (a), (b) and (c). accordance with a design approved as provided in this chapter. The following items shall be subject to environmental and design review permits, whether or not a building permit is required. 3. Major site design improvements, including but not limited to: d. Circulation and parking and loading facilities for pedestrians, bicycles and me>tor vehicles on a development subject to major environmental and design review, 2. Minor site design improvements, including but not limited to: d. Parking and loading areas, including driveways, sidewalks and curb cuts, on a development subject to minor environmental and design review; and/or parking locations for uses with insufficient parking, D. Exceptions. 3. The planning director may. declare improvements which have been determined to be minor or incidental within the intent and objectives of this chapter to be exempt from review. Sausalito Section 10.912.2: Staff Design Review The Planning Division staff shall review and act on ~pplications which are made solely for the following classifications of projects and which are . located outside the boundaries of any officially designated Historic District. 3. Driveways in required side yard open spaces if not a part of an application which requires review by the Planning Commission. Section 10.202.7: Exceptions (e) (1) Subject to the coverage limitations set out below, the following enumerated structural features may occupy required side yard open space to the extent authorized herein, provided that any such feature is constructed of natural materials including, but not limited to, wood, stone, exposed aggregate concrete, quarry tile, and similar materials. (a) Walkways, provided that any walkway is not at any point more than two (2) feet above or below the level of natural grade. (b) Decks and patios, provided that the height of any structure does not exceed two (2) feet above the average level of.natural grade directly below the feature. (c) Driveways subject to Design Review Board approval per Section 10.912.1 (0) and provided that driveways shall not, at any point, be more than two (2) feet above or below the level of natural grade. C. Any other work determined by the Director of Planning and Building to be minor or incidental in nature and consistent with the intent and objectives of this Chapter." Novato Section 19.20.100: E. Limitations on the Use of Setbacks. Required setback areas shall only be used in compliance with the following requirements, and as provided by section 19.34.130 (Outdoor Dining Display and Sales). 3. Parking. Residential parking is allowable within required setback areas only on paved driveways, and within paved side yards, in compliance with section 19.30.070 (Parking Design Standards), and section 19.34.170 (Vehicle Parking in Residential Zones). 4. Pavement. Within a. residential zoning district, pavement within a front yard setback shall be limited to no more than 50 percent of the area of the required setback, configured as: a. A driveway together with a turnaround area, and/or a circular driveway, where detennined by the director to be appropriate because of larger parcel size and/or configuration; and b. A pedestrian walkway not more than five feet wide, unless more pavement is approved through design review. Section 19.34.170: Vehicle Parking and Storage in Residential Zones. B. Outdoors. A maximum of four vehicles including all types of operable or inoperable motor or recreational vehicles, motorcycles, campers, snowmobiles, jetskis, off-road vehicles, boats, and trailers may be parked or stored outdoors only under the following conditions: 1. Only operable vehicles may be parked in the front yard areas on an improved driveway in compliance with division 19.30.070 (Parking and Loading), section 19.20.100 E, and where adequate sight distance is maintained in compliance with . section 19.20.070 0 (Sight Visibility" Area Required). San Rafael Section 14.18.200: . Location of parking and maneuvering areas. Parking or maneuvering areas, excluding access driveways, shall be prohibited in all required yard areas in the medium- and high-density residential districts (Multi-family districts). Section 14.25.040: Improvements subject to review. No improvement subject to environmental and design review shall hereafter be constructed, located, repaired, altered, expanded or thereafter maintained, except in . Specific Code Sections from Marin Cities Corte Madera Section 18.20.050: Standards for off-street parking facilities. (5) In a residential district, a parking area shall not be located in a.required front yard, in a required side yard on the street side of a comer lot, or in a required rear yard on a double frontage lot. Required uncovered parking for a residence, multiple dwelling, lodging house or apartment hotel may be located in any other required side or rear yard if an equivalent amount of open area at ground level, in addition to the area of the required yard spaces, is provided elsewhere on the site. Section 18.20.100: Vehicle parking and storage. . In all residential zoning districts no vehicles of any type whatsoever including but not limited to cars, pick-up trucks, motorcycles, personal watercraft or any other vehicle or vessel described in Section 10.40.062 of this code shall be parked or stored in the front yard of a residentiallotlsite except in approved or permitted driveways, parking aprons, parking decks, garages and/or carports. Section 18.04.593: Parking apron. A parking apron means an area immediately contiguous to the driveway and to the nearest side yard property line which is devoted to the off street parking of vehicles with direct access to a street or road. . Section 18.24.050: Exceptions to Yard Requirements Walls, hedges, walks, driveways, garage aprons and uncovered decks three feet or less above the ground... and similar features may occupy any required yard or other open space . Mill Valley Section 20.66.020: All new buildings, structures, and physical improvements, and all additions, extensions, changes in color and other exterior changes of or to existing buildings, structures, and physical improvements shall be subject to Design Review, whether or not a building permit is required, except as otherwise exempted by Section 20.66.030. "Physical improvements" as used herein may include, but is not limited to, parking and loading areas, driveways, retaining walls, fences and garbage and trash enclosures. Section 20.66.030: The following developments and physical improvements are exempt from Design Review procedures and requirements: 5~,ve, 0esv..t+s Summary of Parkina and Pavina Reaulations for Marin Cities Belvedere: No limitations. Corte Madera: In a residential district, a parking area shall not be located in a required front yard, in a required side yard on the street side of a comer lot, or in a required rear yard on a double frontage lot. Required uncovered parking for a residence, multiple dwelling, lodging house or apartment hotel may be located in any other required side or rear yard if an equivalent amount of open area at ground level, in addition to the area of the required yard spaces, is provided elsewhere on the site. However, Walls, hedges, walks, driveways, garage aprons and uncovered decks three feet or less above the ground, and similar features may occupy any required yard or other open space. larkspur: No limitations. Mill Valley: Parking and loading areas.and driveways subject to Design Review. Novato: Parking allowed in front yard setbacks, as long as no more than 50% of the required setback is paved for driveways and walkways. San A.nselmo: No limitations. San Rafael: Parking or maneuvering areas, excluding access driveways, are prohibited in all required yard areas in the R-3 zones. Design Review required for parking spaces and driveways. Sausalito: Driveways in required side yards subject to Design Review. Driveways, walkways decks and patios shall cover no more than 30% of required side yard. Summary Mill Valley, San Rafael and Sausalito explicitly require Design Review for parking and driveways. Novato has limitations for the amount of paving in the front yard, while Sausalito has limitations for the amount of paving in the side yard. Corte Madera prohibits parking within the street side of required setbacks. No cities have limitations on the overall amount of paving or impervious surfaces on a lot. EXHIBIT NO. 3 MIS, Stein/Greenberg, passed 5-0, to continue hearing discussion on parking limitations of vehicles in front yards to the May 14, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Planning Commission PAUL SMITH, CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission April 9, 2003 9 Commissioner Greenberg questioned whether parking should be restricted in the side or rear yard setbacks, and whether this prohibition would be limited only to the required setbacks. . Planning Manager Watrous noted that most required side yard setbacks are not.large enough for two non-tandem parking spaces. Commissioner Stein stated the amount of yard area that can be converted to hardscape is the issue. He thought that a formula should be devised establishing a maximum amount of impervious surface on a property. Community Development Director Anderson stated Staff started looking at such restrictions and found it is not simple to come up with a straightforward regulation. Commissioner Greenberg noted that planned developments have larger lots and paving over a side yard can be an issue. She felt that the issue is paving over and storing vehicles anywhere on a residential lot. Planning Manager Watrous noted that there could be difficulties in detennining what constitutes a front or side yard on lots with irregular building envelopes. He stated that the issue of parking in a back yard raises a different set of questions. Commissioner Stein stated the same concern about excessive vehicles in the front yard should apply to the back yard also because many people look into back yards. He felt that the amount ofhardscape and where vehicles can park could be defined more stringently. If the zoning ordinance is intended to improve the livability of a neighborhood, then he felt that the Planning Commission is not giving it its best shot. He thought that parking should be prohibited on all required yards and the Town should restrict the amount of yard that can be converted to impervious surfaces. He would like Staff to return with modified language to include this. Planning Manager Watrous recommended that the Planning Commission separate the discussion of these potential restrictions from the remainder of the potential code amendments being discussed at this meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue discussion on this subject to the May 14 Planning Commission meeting. The last line of the new definition of "Attached Two-Family Dwelling" would be modified to read ".. . does not transform an Attached Two-Family Dwelling." MIS, Greenberg/Collins, passed 5-0, to direct Staff to prepare a resolution with amendments as noted to the R2 zoning and RMP changes to be presented at the April 23, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 8 Language was to be included specifically stating that existing detached two-family dwellings would be considered to be legal nonconforming structures. The beginning of the last paragraph of Section 2.05.04 (A) was changed to state, "The T own also recognizes. . ." Language would be added to the criteria in 2.05.04 (F) regarding readily accessible access that would not create adverse impact on neighboring properties. The word "reasonable" would be deleted from the beginning of Section 2.05.04 (G). Condition 6 of Section 2.05.04 (G) would be modified to add "variances" after "setback." Commissioner Stein stated.he personally does not feel as strongly about allowing condominiumization but feels strongly about the process to get there. He thought that prohibiting condominiumization or recommending against condominiumization and the use of this procedure creates a self-contradictory process because there will be enormous pressure to condominiumize. He believed that the development pressures are heading toward smaller units on smaller lots with divided ownership and a recommended condition against it will not change this. Chair Smith stated he would leave in the flexibility of prohibiting condominiums. Commissioner Greenberg suggested adding reasoning so that the Town Council understands the reasons for this prohibition. Condition #7 of Section 2.05.04 (G) would be modified to make a deed restriction prohibiting future condominiumization a required condition of approval, with language included stating that this is necessary to avoid de facto upzonings and protecting the Town's rental housing stock. It was Planning Commission consensus to make no changes to the RMP language. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require Design Review approval for the modification to the layout or design of parking lots in non-residential zones, and for parking lots often or more spaces in the R-3 or RMP zones. Extensive discussion was held regarding parking of vehicles within the front yard setbacks in residential zones. Chair Smith stated this is common in his neighborhood. He noted that huge vehicles often do not fit into garages; as a result, front yards are often paved, which leads to a proliferation of vehicles and equipment in the front yard. Commissioner Stein stated that any such regulations should not be tacked onto the junkyard language. He suggested that a separate statement could be added to restrict parking vehicles on grass. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 7 Commissioner Collins stated, for the thirteen years since the ordinance was enacted, there have only been a couple of detached duplexes built. He said that the ordinance is very clear to him; establishing criteria is what is important. He said that the two-step review process would create two rounds of design review~ He would try to add criteria that would give direction to the Design Review Board. He favors Scenario 3. Chair Smith stated he would lean toward Scenario 3. He said that he would actually only make a very minor change to the existing ordinance, as he does not find that the language is ambiguous. He did not want to create an over-regulatory process, but felt that Scenario 3 adds more clarity. Commissioner Collins stated that the issue of findings did not trouble him because the Design Review Board already has to make findings to support its decisions, although not as explicitly as the process being proposed. . Commissioner Snow stated he. favors Scenario 3.. Commissioner Greenberg asked if there is any information about two ownerships on a lot and difficulty in getting a mortgage. Planning Manager Watrous stated that he has seen lending agencies with a lack of understanding of the condominumization process when the end result looks like two single-family homes on a single lot. Commissioner Greenberg stated that when there is separate ownership, more building begins occurring on the lot (fences etc.). She felt that it is a land use issue when there is an increase in the density by allowing two structures oil one lot. Chair Smith stated that people will maximize their return by constructing two buildings, making them condominiums and selling them. . Commissioner Greenberg stated financing issues should be investigated if Scenario 3 is followed. If there is a potential problem, she felt that the Town should educate people about this during the application process. . The majority of the commissioners agreed to begin reviewing the details ofthe proposed Scenario 3. Discussion was held, with direction given to Staff to make a number of changes to the draft language in Scenario 3. In Section 2.05.01, subsections 2 and 2.5, the language allowing two dwelling units in either a single building or in two buildings was to be replace with either "attached two- family dwelling" or "detached two-family dwelling." Planning Commission April 9, 2003 6 Commissioner Stein noted that the Town Council asked the Planning Commission to look at this issue. There being no further comment, the public comment period was closed. . Commissioner Stein stated that the spectrum of comment has been varied. He said that, according to Darwin, most change is a result of doing something marginally better, not necessarily fixing something that is broken. He said that the Planning Commission was asked to explore if perhaps the Town could do something better regarding detached duplexes, and is trying to make the future process fairer and more efficient. He noted that the existing law states that two detached units on two small lots is not normally the desired result for an R-2 property. Rather, he said that two units in one structure is desired, so if there is an exception to this, standards must be met. He said that it must be determined if this is a design or land use decision. He noted that if there is a lot split in the R-l zone, that application would come to the Planning Commission in a bifurcated process with the Design Review Board. He said that it is not unusual to have both land use and design review issues in which the Planning Commission addresses land use. Commissioner Collins. asked Community Development Director Anderson to clarify how a bum-down or teardown of either one or two buildings would be affected by grandfathering issues. Community Development Director Anderson stated the intent of the draft ordinance was that existing buildings and uses be grandfathered. . Commissioner Greenberg stated she believes the Zoning Ordinance language needs work, and that the proposed language is in the right direction. She was not sure whether a two- step or one-step process would be most appropriate. She preferred not to slow the process. She acknowledged that it will be difficult to know what level of building design will be necessary for Pla.nnmg Commission review. She wanted to simplify the process, but felt that this is clearly a land use decision. She said that the Town should not wait. until something is broken to fix it. She felt that these applications should come to the Planning Commission first. She asked for specific(language. about grandfathering. Commissioner Snow concurred there should be a quick review process but it is also good to have criteria and he does not want to take responsibility away from the Design Review Board. He still wants the Design Review Board to be able to make good decisions about variances, etc. He asked that the language be made as simple as possible. Commissioner Stein stated that Scenario 2 is the most appropriate because land use questions need to be considered prior to design review. He did not see why the Town. should perpetuate a process that creates small houses on small lots. He said that this is a long-term decision, and that the two-step process would not be a disproportionate level of reVIew. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 5 (r Ms. Brunini stated that, as a real estate broker, she was concerned about clients who already have detached duplexes on their property. Chair Smith explained that existing homes would be grandfathered. Sue Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated that she agrees with Ms. Fredericks' perspective. She stated that exceptions should be made to the Zoning Ordinance based on physical characteristics, not whims. She felt that two structures on one lot increase visual density. and create additional view and privacy problems. Allowing two structures, not one~ is an irreversible decision and she felt that this should be a Planning Commission decision. She said that cities that have larger lots have higher values and more amenities. She presented a summary of a study that she had conducted ofR-2 zoned properties in Tiburon. She felt that no one would be hurt by denying the ability to construct two structures on one lot. She asked that the Planning Commission consider an ordinance that states two single- family homes on one lot is not an accepted use in the R-2 zone and change the definition of duplex. Helen Lindqvist, 3 Cazadero Lane, stated that she had heard that the Town Council had partially granted the appeal for the Aureguy project, but at the following meeting, the partial granting was not included in the adopted resolution, resulting in more unhappy neighbors. She described another recent Design Review application at 1790 Centro West Street for a detached duplex, where the owner wanted two units but did not want to provide street parking. She felt that parking in Old Tiburon must be increased. She asked that the Planning Commission to watch what happens with all the approved variances. Planning Manager Watrous stated on the Aureguy appeal, the Town Council adopted two resolutions because there were two appeals. One was denied and one partially granted with the condition that the roof heights of the two units be lowered. Mr. McLaughlin stated there has recently been discussion in the town about conflicts of interest. He said that the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the Town Council, and a Town Councilmember speaking before the Planning Commission, trying to affect legislation that the Planning Commission will offer to the Council, sends the wrong message to the public because elected officials are expected to attend a meeting with their minds not made up. Wally Quinn, 2343 Paradise Drive, stated that Councilmember Miles Berger has a home in the R-2 zone and voted on the issue at the last Town Council meeting. Alice Johnson, 1819 Mar West Street, said that there is nothing wrong with someone on the Town Council who wants to speak as a private individual. Kathy Benedictson, representing Richard Dawson, thanked Hank Bruce for his comments at the last meeting, and stated there is integrity in tlte design review process, the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. She said that perhaps this effort is an attempt to fix something that is not broken. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 4 Ms. BruniiU added that thePl8.nning Commission should not delete "storage of operable or inoperable vehicles" from the regulations on parking in front yards on. Page 17, Section 5.06 SAd. Chair Smith noted that in his neighborhood, one property has a five-car parking lot and another has a six-car parking lot on either side of his house. Dolores Davis, 162 Solano Avenue, stated that having two houses on a lot is nicer than seeing an enormous one building on a lot, and there are currently many restrictions to two houses on one lot. She asked why her property should be treated differently than other owners' because she is in an R-2 zone. She described the common area requirements for detached condominium units. Chair Smith stated there were concerns from the last meeting that condominiumized detached duplexes begin to look like small house on small lots. Bill McLaughlin stated he sat on the Design Review Board and heard the Aureguy application at 2355 Paradise Drive. He noted that the Design Review Board approved the application, which was appealed to the Council, and the appeal was denied. He felt that this showed that the process works. He did not believe that there will be a flood of requests for similar projects in the R-2 zone. He felt that perhaps the dust should settle a little longer on this recent application before changes are made to the R-2 zone, and that . the Town should wait until the project is co~pleted so the Planning Commission can see what the Design Review Boardmembers saw when they approved it. He felt that monolithic one-unit duplexes are not acceptable in Old Tiburon. He would recommend Staffzoning code amendment Scenario 3, with a change to Page 14, Item 4 in the preamble, with fewer specific regulations. He also felt that the proposed changes to the. parking regulations should be reviewed at.a separate public hearing. Alice Fredericks, One Cazadero Lane, stated that she supported Staff Scenarios 1 or 2. The impact of all140-plus R-2 zoned lots the lots developing with two structures would have a significant impact on her property. She felt that these changes are coming, as homeowners will want to tear down their little, older homes. She felt that the issue of whether dwelling units should be allowed in two structures is a land issue that should be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not the Design Review Board. She felt that a bifurcated approval process with land use issues considered by the Planning Commission is appropriate and would not be onerous on applicants. Commissioner Collins asked how the Planning Commission, given a bifurcated process, would not be essentially doing the work ofthe Design Review Board because the Planning Commission would have to look at design, bulk, etc. of a building. Ms. Fredericks replied that the Planning Commission's decision would be limited to whether a one- or two- structure design is appropriate; the Design Review Board would "not be able to supersede the Planning Commission's decision regarding one or two structures. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 3 (,.~.. '., PUBLIC HEARINGS APr'ROVED 'MINUTES TOWN-INITIATED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS; CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USES ALLOWED IN THE R-2 (TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE; ADDmON AND AMENDMENT OF SEVERAL DEFINED TERMS; ADDmON OF REGULATIONS REQUIRING DESIGN REVIEW FOR PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS; ADDmON OF REGULATIONS PLACING LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF VEIDCLES IN FRONT YARDS; AND MODIFICATION TO THE RMP ZONE PROHIBITING DETACHED.TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS Community Development Director Anderson reviewed the.Staffreport. He noted that everyone who has property in Old Tiburon received notice of this hearing. Chair Smith suggested changing language, on Page 9, F and 14, 16, to "...no side yard variances." He asked if there is a need to take separate action on each text amendment. Community Development Director Anderson responded that separate action would only be necessary if there is no consensus. The public comment period was opened. . Virginia Brunini, 267 Karen Way, stated that residents park in front yards in Bel Aire without a formalized agreement, following Staff's encouragement that no more than 50 percent of a front yard be paved. She would like a regulation fonnalizing this requirement. Sam Ware, 1809 Mar West Street, asked why new regulations are being considered for the R-2 zone. He felt that Staff had composed a sophisticated solution to the Commission's direction; however, he asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the need for new legislation that contains cookie cutter dimensions and requirements to be imposed on a neighborhood built in a time when the cookie cutter had not yet evolved. He asked the Planning Commission to consider that the need does not exist to struggle with the creation of legislation or regulations that might tend to further encumber the system and process than enable it. Hank Bruce, 2350 Paradise Drive, stated that he concurred with Mr. Ware and cannot understand why this issue has been raised, as he felt that the changes are unnecessary. He was involved with the recent Design Review application at 2355 Paradise Drive and feels that the Town reached the correct decision. He did not think that there needed to be any further justifications for two buildings on an R-2 lot, or other requirements, such as accessing a property from two sides, which can minimize front yard paving. Planning Commission April 9, 2003 EXHIBIT NO.~ EXHIBIT A Section 16-4.2.2(g) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: (g) After {the effective date of this Ordinance}, the creation, installation, or establishment of any driveway or of any open parking space (or other area capable of being used as a parking space) on an Improved Parking Surface. Izo/pc.zoningamendment5-14-2003.text.doc PAUL SMITH, CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY \zo\zoamendpcres2.doc Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-DRAFT 5/14/2003 2 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) 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 April 30, 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 May 14, 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 May 14, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-DRAFT 5/14/2003 1 EXHIBIT No.L Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g) After {the effective date of this Ordinance}, the creation, installation, or establishment of any driveway or of any open parking space (or other area capable of being used as a parking space) on an Improved Parking Surface. A draft Resolution to this effect is attached as Exhibit 1. Requlation of Impervious Surfaces As noted above, a survey of municipalities in Marin County indicates that none of the other cities have limitations on the overall amount of paving or impervious surfaces on a lot. However, the California Water Quality Control Board has been urging Regional Boards to adopt additional stormwater regulations on new development, including restrictions on the amount of impervious surfaces on many new developments. Within the next few years, it is anticipated that most California municipalities will need to adopt new regulations that will be consistent with these statewide or regionwide stormwater requirements. As the previously recommended zoning text amendment would address the'issues of adequate review for new driveways and parking areas, Staff recommends that the Town take up the issue of limitations on impervious surfaces once the State or the Regional Water Quality Control Board finalizes these stormwater requirements. RECOMMENDATION 1. Hold a public hearing on the item. 2. Discuss and make any desired changes or refinements to the draft zoning text amendments. 3. If appropriate, adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the zoning text amendments to the Town Council. EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution with proposed ZOl;ling text amendment. 2. Minutes of the April 9, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. 3. Survey of Parking and Paving Regulations for Marin Cities. \zo\parking in yards pcreport5-14-2003.doc Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14, 2003 6 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regulations in other Marin County Municipalities Staff conducted a survey of other municipalities in Marin County to gauge the extent to which parking areas and driveways are subject to zoning permit review. The full survey results are attached as Exhibit 3. The Cities of Mill Valley, San Rafael and Sausalito explicitly require Design Review for parking areas and driveways. The City of Novato has limitations for the amount of paving in the front yard, while The City of Sausalito has limitations for the amount of paving in the side yard. The Town of Corte Madera prohibits parking within the street side of required setbacks. No municipalities in Marin County have limitations on the overall amount of paving or impervious surfaces on a lot, or regulations regarding parking in rear yards or outside building envelopes. There is no consistent pattern in the regulation of parking or paving in required yards in other Marin County municipalities. However, the presence of Design Review requirements for parking and driveways in three other nearby cities could mitigate the previously noted potential enforcement issues associated with requiring a zoning permit for installation of paved surfaces, which are exempt even from building permits under the Uniform Building Code (UBC). .If these other cities have such requirements, most responsible contractors would understand the need to contact the Town regarding possible permit requirements for driveways and/or parking areas prior to their installation. Recommendation There does not appear to be a preponderance of evidence establishing that the location of driveways or parking areas within required setbacks is such a problem that strict regulations on such improvements should be imposed. However, it is clear that the potential exists for improper design of driveways or parking areas that could resUlt in unwanted impacts on neighboring properties. Circumstances vary greatly from site to site based on many factors. ifiburon's existing Site Plan and Architectural Review process offers an accepted means to assess the appropriateness of most physical improvements in town. It is therefore recommended that the Design Review process be expanded to require the review of proposed driveways and parking areas. This could be accomplished by adding a new Section 4.02.02(g) to the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance as follows: Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14, 2003 5 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " residential properties are not highly visible from neighboring lots. In most cases, homes and yard areas are designed and landscaped to provide adequate privacy for rear yards as private recreation areas. Many older cities have actually encouraged parking and placement of garages within rear yard areas, partly in recognition of the limited visibility of such areas; for example, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance permits accessory structures to be located within the required rear yard setback. Although this limited visibility can lead to excessive vehicle parking or other unsightly storage in rear yards, . existing zoning regulations regarding junkyards provide adequate controls for such nuisances. . Buildinq Envelopes. Not all precise development plans have established building envelopes for the lots covered by these plans.. In some older precise plans, the location of all physical improvements is established through the Design Review process. In many cases, the irregular shape of building envelopes makes the clear delineation of front, side and rear yard areas difficult to define. Limitations on parking outside building envelopes would be difficult, as most lots need to have a driveway leading from the street to the building envelope, as envelopes almost never extend to the property lines adjacent to street rights-of-way. Further, the regulations of what can and cannot be done outside building envelopes varies considerably among precise plans; it would be difficult to craft enforceable regulations that would be compatible with most adopted precise development plans in Tiburon. It is clear that unregulated installation of driveways or parking areas in front yards creates the potential for unwanted visual and aesthetic characteristics visible to surrounding properties. Although the required side and rear yard setbacks are not generally as visible, and areas outside approved building envelopes are difficult to define, the potential still exists for improperly designed driveways or parking areas to negatively impacts nearby homes. Discussion at Town Council/Design Review Board Workshop This issue was discussed at the annual Town Council/Design Review Board Workshop held on April 30, 2003. There appeared to be a consensus from both bodies that some form of regulation was appropriate for parking in front yards. Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14,2003 4of6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review approval as provided in Section 4.02.02 of this Chapter. The purpose of this regulation is to prevent excessive use of required front yards for the parking of vehicles. This requirement for review would be used in conjunction with the following new definition of the term "Improved Parking Surface": Improved Parking Surface: An artificially enhanced ground surface, typically but not exclusively composed of concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, ceramic, macadam, or gravel, that is used for, or capable of being used for, the parking of vehicles. At the April 9, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission also discussed expanding the regulation of parking to required side or rear yard setbacks, and to the areas outside of approved building envelopes in Residential Planned zones. The issues associated with such potential regulations vary: . Front Yard Setbacks. Most of the potential undesirable impacts from unregulated front yard parking stem from the visibility of front yard areas from the street and from neighboring properties. The unsightliness of multiple vehicles parked in front of a home, the potential loss of landscaped front yard area, and the impacts on neighboring properties from headlights, noise, and so forth are heightened by the normally open character of residential front yards. Limitations on or regulation of parking in front yards could address these issues. . Side Yard Setbacks. In contrast, most required residential side yards considerably smaller (with setbacks of 8 feet in the R-1 and R-2 zones, and 6 feet in the R-1-BA zone), and are often less visible than front yards, due to fencing and landscaping for privacy purposes. Side yard areas are seldom used for parking of vehicles, unless as part of a driveway leading to a garage or carport at the rear of the property, or when the side yard of a corner lot borders a street. Limitations on or regulation of parking in most required side yards would therefore affect only a narrow strip of land that is generally not used for parking, nor particularly visible from neighboring properties. . Rear Yard Setbacks. Although required rear yard setbacks are larger than side yard setbacks (usually 25 feet), the rear yards of most Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14,2003 3 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . I" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lack of permit authority frustrated both an affected neighbor and the Design Review Board. ' Current Regulatory Framework The current Zoning Ordinance regulations for the location of required parking stalls with respect to "yards" are set forth in Section 5.08.03(B) as follows: (B) The required parking stalls, loading berths and parking aisles, if outdoors, may be located on the required side and rear yards, and within the required front yards up to three feet from the street right-of-way; Previous Commission Discussion At the April 9, 2003 meeting, the Commission forwarded recommendations to the Town Council that would clarify existing prohibitions on parking on unimproved surfaces (such as lawns). The Commission also considered, but did not take action on, text amendments that would requlate (but not necessarily prohibit) parking in required front yards by requiring Site Plan & Architectural Review as follows: Section 4.02.02(g) [requiring Site Plan & Architectural Review approval] is hereby added to the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance to read as follows: (g) After {the effective date of this Ordinance}, creation or establishment of more than two non-tandem, open or uncovered parking spaces (or other areas capable of being used for parking) on an Improved Parking Surface, ,if located in a required front yard on any lot in a residential zone. Section 5.06.04(e) [regulating yards] of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance is added to read as follows: (e) In any required front yard in a residential zone, the creation or establishment of more than two non-tandem, open or uncovered parking spaces (or other areas capable of being used for parking) on an Improved Parking Surface, shall require Site Plan & Architectural Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14. 2003 2 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDAITEM ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: PLANNING COMMISSION SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY ~ DEVELOPMENT ~ ~ DAN WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGE\R j1VJ Z 2003-02: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF LIMITATIONS ON PARKING IN REQUIRED YARDS (SETBACKS) AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: MAY 14, 2003 REPORT DATE: MAY 2,2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I.' . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND At its meeting Of April 9, 2003, the Planning Commission began discussion of possible zoning ordinance text amendments regarding the regulation of parking il! required yards (setbacks) in residential zones, and also regarding limitations on the amount oHmpervious surface allowed on lots in residential zones. Pertinent. portions of the minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit 2. The Commission continued these matters to its regular meeting of May 14, 2003 for further discussion. ANALYSIS Requlation (or Prohibition) of Parkinq in Required Yards (Setbacks) This issue has been raised in response to concerns that lot owners may choose to "pave over" considerable portions of their front yard for parking of vehicles without the need for any permits from the Town of Tiburon. Currently this is possible as there is neither zoning code nor building code requirements for permits for essentially at-grade improvements such as paving or placement of sidewalks or other hardscape when not related to a substantially more significant application such as a new home or remodel/addition. The concern being expressed at this time is that the "paving over" of front yard areas (for parking) is essentially unregulated. While Town Staff is not aware that paving over front yards for parking purposes is currently a problem of significant magnitude in Tiburon, there was a recent instance where the Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14, 2003 1 of 6 EXHIBIT NO.C Scott Anderson Page 1 of 1 From: BarryAKahn@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 20034:18 PM To: Scott Anderson Subject: Agenda Item 3B - Planning Comm. Meeting on 5-14-03 LATE MAIL #55 Dear Mr. Anderson: Regarding Agenda Item 3B on tonights Planning Commission Agenda concerning limitations on parking in required yards (setbacks), I am of the opinion that the proposed zoning ordinance changes as set forth in Exhibit A are not broad or specific enough regulate parking in front yard setbacks and, furthermore, any changes should apply toany existing conditions where there has not been a specific previous approval to the front yard parking. The following is a proposal for a new subsection as part of Municipal Code Section 16-5.6.4 which would read as follows: . "In all residential zoning districts, no vehicles of any type. whatsoever shall be parked or stored in the front yard, except that up to 2 vehicles may be parked or stored in improved driveway parking areas located in front yards. Improved driveway parking areas shall not occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of the required front yard area and shall be located in front of or immediately adjacent to any private residential garage, carport or car deck. Any exceptions to said parking uses and restrictions shall require a permit. " I will be at tonight's meeting. Barry A. Kahn 22 Corte.San Fernando Tiburon, cA 94920 (415) 435-2117 (415) 235-4097 (cell) \ 5/14/2003 APPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Greenberg asked if parking multiple cars in a front yard can be resolved. In some yards it could be aesthetically pleasing to have paving in the front. Yet parking is not wanted there. The problem is the parking in a front yard not the paving of the front yard. She asked if this has been addressed. Community Development Director Anderson responded that the Town currently does not allow parking on unimproved surfaces, and that if the proposed text amendment is adopted, installation of an improved surface that could be used for parking will require design review approvaL Commissioner Greenberg asked what happens if there is a contemporary style house and paving looks good in the front, and a child moves home and a number of vehicles are now parked on the paving, which was approved because it suits the house. Community development Director Anderson stated the assumption would have to be made during review that the paving would someday be used for parking; hence, the provision of landscaping, fences, or physical barriers to its use as parking area would have to be anticipated during the design review process. Commissioner Greenberg stated in Mr. Kahn's area, the parking is the problem, not the improved parking area. Community Development Director Anderson responded that the Design Review Board must assume there could be parking use ofthe improved area, and may need to require conditions to address potential impacts from this use if there are neighbor concerns. Commissioner Stein suggested perhaps a landscaped hedge could be required to prevent access to potential parking areas from the driveway. He stated that one must sometimes walk before learning to run, and that the Staffrecommendation is best for now. He thought that the Design Review Board should process a few applications of this nature, and the Town could assess the success of this approach. Commissioner Snow concurred. Commissioner Greenberg asked if the work that was done on Corte Fernando would require design review approval under the proposed text amendment. Anderson replied that it would. . Greenberg added that the incorporation of soil into certain surfaces should also constitute an improved parking surface. Anderson responded that the phrase "turf- block" had been added to the text in response to this concern. MIS Stein/Collins (4-0) to adopt the draft resolution recommending approval of the parking-related text amendment to the Town Council as set forth in the staff report. 4. REGULAR AGENDA Review and Comment: Proposed Capital Improvement Program section of the Town of Tiburon's Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 7 APPROVED MINUTES are health and safety violations. As to confidentiality, pub}ic record is public record. Complaints involving health and safety will be investigated even if anonymous. MIS Greenberg/Stein(4-0) to adopt the resolution recommending approval of the zoning text amendments to the Town Council, and to direct Staff to revise and return the "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" checklist for continued consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. '7 B. Establishment of limitations on parking of vehicles in required yards (setbacks) in residential zones, and establishment of limitations on the amount of impervious surface allowed In residential zones Community Development Director Anderson reviewed th~ Staff report. The public comment period was opened. Barry Kahn, 22 Corte San Fernando, stated the best written proposal having to do with parking in front yard setbacks is that of Corte Madera. The problem faced is parking the front yard. Families have more and larger vehicles that do not fit in garages. His neighbors removed part of their yard and installed turf block and grass. Regulating how the site is developed is not effective because it does not regulate what goes on in the front yard. The language should state "cannot park more than 'x' vehicles in the front yard." This regulates use of a property because of the limitation. The text proposed by staff is . not clear or broad enough to get at the problem residents are facing now. He emailed his suggestions, which are in the Late Mail. Perhaps the numbers should be different. Four cars in front yards throughout the town could be a disaster. He asked the Planning Commission to broaden this regulation to be more similar to that used by the Town of Corte Madera. There being no further comment, the public comment period was closed. Commissioner Stein asked if Tiburon has similar language to Corte Madera as to required front, back and side yards. Community Development Director Anderson referred to the section of the staff report quoting the Town's current regulations. Tiburon's approach to zoning takes a more "performance-based" view as opposed to a traditional approach of assigning numbers because design review is required for most work of any significance. In Tiburon, there is tremendous variation in the sizes of lots as well as their topography. He believed that Cote Madera required design review only in limited circumstances, so that numerical standards were more critical in that jurisdiction. Commissioner Stein stated where there is an opportunity to provide language clarifying the Town's intent in adopting a particular regulation it makes sense to take advantage of it. EXHIBIT No.R Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 6 EXHIBIT"A Section 16-4.2.2(g) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: (g) After {the effective date of this Ordinance}, the creation, installation, or establishment of any driveway or of any open parking space (or other area capable of being used as a parking space) on an Improved Parking Surface. \ZO \zoamendpcres2 .doc Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-07 5/14/2003 3 WAYNE SNOW, VICE-CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-07 5/14/2003 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-07 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 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 April 30, 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 May 14, 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 May 14, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Collins, Greenberg, Snow & Stein NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Smith Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-07 5/14/2003 1 EXHIBIT No.A Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT ~) (."~'l. 'l~ \.>-; l"i~l 't.:, ~,I;, if' t~ AGENDA ITEM . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Planning Commission concluded that the most appropriate regulatory approach for the Town of Tiburon would be to require "design review" for the creation of driveways and open parking spaces. The design review process could be performed at the Staff level, as written notice would be provided to all property owners within 100 feet of the subject parcel. The Planning Commission recommended the addition of Section 16-4.2.2(g) [Design Review Required] of the Tiburon Municipal Code as follows: (g) After {the effective date of this Ordinance}, the creation, installation, or establishment of any driveway or of any open parking space (or other area capable of being used as a parking space) on an Improved Parking Surface. Additional background information can be found in the Planning Commission minutes and staff report for May 14, 2003, attached as Exhibits Band C. A concerned resident, Mr. Barry Kahn, did address the Planning Commission and submit a letter to the Commission urging a more specific and detailed form of parking regulation. RECOMMENDATION 1. Hold a public hearing on the item. 2. Discuss and make any desired changes or refinements to the draft zoning text amendment. 3. Move to read by title only, carry the motion, read the title and hold a roll call vote on introduction and first reading of the Ordinance. EXHIBITS A. Planning Commission Resolution 2003-07. B. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2003. C. Planning Commission Staff Report of May 14, 2003. \zo\Z2003-02B tcreport.doc Tiburon Town Council Staff Report June 4, 2003 2of2 ,~ Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM U MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNIT~ DEVELOPMENT Z 2003-02: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULATIONS REQUIRING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR DRIVEWAYS AND OPEN PARKING SPACES MEETING DATE: JUNE 4,2003 REPORT DATE: MAY 29,2003 REVIEWED BY:~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND Recently, the Town has been made aware of resident concerns regarding the lack of regulation for creation of parking spaces, especially in residential zones. The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed this issue at its meetings of April 9 and May 14, 2003. The Commission concluded that some form of regulation was in the public interest, and has recommended a Zoning Ordinance text amendment (Exhibit A) to the Town Council to respond to this issue. ANALYSIS The issue is that lot owners may (and sometimes do) "pave over" considerable portions of their property for parking of vehicles without the need for any permits from the Town of Tiburon. Currently this is possible as there is neither zoning code nor building code requirements for permits for essentially at-grade improvements ~uch as paving or placement of sidewalks or other hardscape when not related to a substantially more significant application such as a new home or remodel/addition. The Planning Commission considered the practices and regulations of other jurisdictions in Marin County, which practices range from "no regulation" to "design review required" to the imposition of specific limits on the number of vehicles (e.g. two vehicles) that could be parked outside of a garage or carport. Tiburon Town Council Staff Report .'.. . . "l!> June 4, 2003 1 of 2 Ch. 1062 -10- (1) "Living area," means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether general iaw or chartered. (3) For purposes of this section, "neighborhood" has the same meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5. (4) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include. permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also includes the following: . (A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code. (B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 ofthe Health and Safety Code. (j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for second units. --SEC. 3. Section 65915 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65915. (a) When an applicant proposes a housing development within the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that 1 government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessio r the production of housing units as prescribed in this chapt 1 cities, counties, or cities and counties shall adopt an ordin that specifies how compliance with this section will be imple ed. (b) A city, county, or city and county shal . er grant a density bonus and at least one of the concessions or in ves identified in subdivision 0), or provide other incentives or cessions of equivalent financial value based upon the land cos dwelling unit, when the applicant for the housing development es or proposes to construct at least anyone of the following: (1) Twenty pe of the total units of a housing development for lower incom seholds, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safe ode. . (2) percent of the total units of a housing development for very 10 come households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and fety Code. 90 - I -9- Ch. 1062 (5) A second unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot The second units shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (c) No local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second units within single-family or multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and,welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. (d) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size requirements for both attached and detached second units. No. minimum or maximum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage of the existing dwellingl shall be established by ordinance for either attached or detached dwellings which does not permit at least an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local development standards. (e) Parking requirements for second units shall not exceed one parking space per unit. or per bedroom. Additional parking may be required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking requirements are directly related to the use of the second unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to existing dwellings. OfT-street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction. (f) Fees charged for the construction of second units shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000). (g) This section does not limit the authority oflocal agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of second units. (h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption. (i) As used in this section, the following terms mean: 90 I Ch. 1062 -8- its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the application and approve or disapprove the application niinisterially without discretionary review pursuant to this subdivision unless it adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within 120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906, every local agency shall grant a variance or special use permit for the creation of a second unit if the second unit complies with all of the following: (A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. (B) The lot is zoned for single-family or multifamily use. (C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling. (D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling. (E) The increased floor area of an. attached second unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the existing living area. (F) The total area of floorspace for a detached second unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. (G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning r~quirements generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the property is located. (H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached dwellings, as appropriate. (I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage disposal system is being used, if required. (2) No.other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision. (3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a pennit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant. (4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this subdivision. Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of second units if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. 90 I ( -7- 52.2 of the Government Code is amended to 1 "- 1- U-~+s read: 65852.2. (a) (1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following: (A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. (B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height. setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on anx...real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places. (C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot. . . (2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. (3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a local government to adopt or amend an ordinance for the creation of second units. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs that it incurs as a result of amendments to this paragraph enacted during the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature, including the costs of adopting or amending. any ordinance that provides for the creation of second units. (b) (1) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) receives 90 I EXHIBIT NO. 3_ Adequate landscaping. including trees and shrubs for shading and visual buffering, is shown as part of the parking layout and would be provided. The required Parking Spaces for the proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be served by the same driveway access to the street as the Primary Unit. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would incorporate the same architectural features, building materials, and colors as the Primary Unit. Any window or door which faces a side yard would utilize techniques to . lessen the privacy impacts on adjacent properties. These techniques may include, but are not limited to, use of obscured glazing, window placement above eye level, windows and doors located toward the existing on-site residence or screening treatments. The Secondary Dwelling Unit would be in conformance with the current building codes adopted by the Town. Unless the project constitutes New Construction, a building inspection shall be performed by the Town's Building Division, and a memo summarizing the feasibility of the project to meet current building codes shall be provided to the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of a Secondary Dwelling Unit permit. Adequate sanitary service capacity for the adqitional increment of effluent resulting from the Secondary Dwelling Unit would be available. Applicant has submitted a letter from the appropriate Sanitary District to that effect. The Secondary Dwelling Unit would comply with all Fire District regulations and all Water District regulations. \zo\second unit standards1.doc EXHIBIT A . STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS The.proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be located in one of the following residential Zones: R-1, R-1-B, RO-1, HO-2, or RPD. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be the only Secondary Dwelling Unit on the Lot. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be located on a Lot with a Lot Area of not less than 10,000 square feet. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be located on the same Lot on which the Owner of Record maintains his or her Principal Place of Residence. The proposed Secondary 'Dwelling Unit, if any portion thereof constitutes New Construction, would not exceed a maximum Floor Area of 400 square feet. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit, if it constitutes New Construction, would conform to all required Yards or Building Envelope restrictions for the Zone or Planned Development in which it is located. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit, if it constitutes New Construction, would be single story and would not exceed fifteen (15) feet in Height, as defined in Section 16-5.6.7 of the Municipal Code. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit, if located in an existing Building (including a lawfully existing detached accessory building), or if proposed as. an integral part of a new single family residence, would not exceed one-third (1/3) of the maximum Floor Area of the property (as prescribed in Section 16-4.2.8 of the Municipal Code), or 1 ,000 square feet of Floor Area, whichever is less. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit, if located in an existing Primary Unit, would be limited to portions of the existing Primary Unit that conform to the required Yards or Building Envelope restrictions for the Zone or Planned Development in which it is located. The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would provide one (1) off-street, non-tandem Parking Space for each bedroom within the Secondary Dwelling Unit. The Parking Spaces would comply with all Town standards and regulations regarding Parking Spaces. . RESOLUTION NO. 2003-{DRAFT) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF "STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS" ! WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's Municipal Code which include a Section which states that the Town Council shall establish by Resolution "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units"; and WHEREAS, the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was published in the ARK newspaper on April 30, 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 May 14, 2003, at which testimony was received from the public, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" 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 "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" as set forth in the attached Exhibit " All. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: PAUL SMITH, CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY EXHIBIT ~NO...r1.- Town. of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .11 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . The proposed SecondarY Dwelling Unit would be located.in one of the following residential Zones: R-1, R-1-B, RO-1, RO-2, or RPD. . The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be the only Secondary Dwelling Unit on the Lot. . The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be located on a Lot with a Lot Area of not less than 10,000 square feet. . The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be located on the same Lot on which the Owner of Record maintains his or her Principal Place of Residence. . The Secondary Dwelling Unit would be in conformance with the current building codes adopted by the Town. . Adequate sanitary service capacity for the additional increment of effluent resulting from the Secondary Dwelling Unit would be available. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing on the item. Discuss and make any desired changes or refinements to the municipal code amendments or the "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units", and adopt the Resolutions recommending approval to the Town Council. EXHIBITS . 1. Resolution Recommending Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 2. Resolution Recommending Adoption of Resolution Establishing Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units. 3. Assembly Bill 1866 (portion). Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14, 200: page 6 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ParkinQ In 1994, state law was changed to establish maximum parking requirements for secondary units. Government Code Section 65852.2(e) states that "parking requirements for secondary dwelling units shall not exceed one parking space per unit or per bedroom." The section further states that parking "be permitted in setback areas in locations determin,ed by the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made...that it isnot permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction;" The Parking and Loading section of the Zoning Ordinance4 prescribes the requirements for parking layout. The Town is authorized to require the same parking layout requirements for secondary units as for other uses, but no additional requirements. The following proposed standard is, therefore, the most stringent allowed by law. . The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would provide one (1) off-street, non-tandem Parking Space for each bedroom within the Secondary Dwelling Unit. The Parking Spaces would comply with all Town standards and regulations regarding Parking Spaces. To reduce the visual impact of additional parking spaces on adjacent properties, and to limit the impact on street parking by prohibiting additional curb cuts, these other standards are proposed: . Adequate landscaping, including trees and shrubs for shading and visual buffering, is shown as part of the parking layout and would be provided. . The required Parking Spaces for the proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would be served by the same driveway access to the street as the Primary Unit. Other New "Standards" , Other standards that are proposed primarily make it clear to applicants and Staff that, even without design review, architectural harmony is required and that there are other agencies which will still need to review applications and apply conditions. These are as follows: . The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit would incorporate the same architectural features, building materials, and colors as the Primary Unit. . The Secondary Dwelling Unit would comply with all Fire District regulations and all Water District regulations. "Standards" from Current Reauired Findinas In addition to the new standards described above, a number of the current findings required to approve a use permit are objective criteria and are proposed for adoption as part of the "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units". These are as follows: 4 Zoning Ordinance Section 5.08.03 Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14, 200: page 5 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The most important proposed standards may be the following: . The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit, if any portion thereof constitutes New Construction, would not exceed a maximum Floor Area of 400 square feet. . The proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit, if located in an existing Building (including a lawfully existing detached accessory building), or if proposed as an integral part of a new single family residence, would not exceed one-third (1/3) of the maximum Floor Area of the property (as prescribed in Section 16-4.2.8 of the Municipal Code), or 1,000 square feet of Floor Area, whichever is less. These standards allow for the construction of small secondary dwelling units without discretionary review, consistent with the intent of AB 1866, and allow larger secondary units in existing buildings, where they would have potentially fewer negative impacts on adjacent properties. To further address the privacy issue, the following additional standard'is proposed: . Any window or door which faces a side yard would utilize techniques to lessen the privacy impacts on adjacent properties. These techniques may include, but are not limited to, use of obscured glazing, window placement above eye level, windows and doors located toward the existing on-site residence or screening treatments. Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report May 14, 200: page 4 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . changing the definition of Secondary Dwelling Unit, adding definitions for New Construction and Primary Unit (Draft Section 16-4.5.2), . adding a section stating that existing Secondary Units are still subject to their conditions of approval (Draft Section 16-4.5.9), and . making minor changes to the expiration and revocation, yearly update and violations sections (Draft Sections 16-4.5.11,12,13, and 14). STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS The Draft Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit Ordinance will comply with the provisions of AS 1866 by eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit and by explicitly stating that applications shall be acted upon without discretionary review or a public hearing. The Town is still authorized by state law to impose standards on secondary dwelling units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit.3 It is through the "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units,"'adopted by separate Resolution of the Town Council, thatthe Town will set forth the standards which secondary dwelling units must meet to gain approval. As described above, a ministerial action requires the exercise of "little or no personal judgment" by a public official. Therefore, the "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" must consist of fixed standards or objective measurements, while addressing issues that may be associated with secondary units to the degree possible. The Draft "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" are intended to anticipate and address issues such as noise, privacy, views, and parking; as well as to take those required findings in the current ordinance which are objective criteria and adopt them as "Standards". New Construction vs. Existino BuildinQs' There is a consensus forming in the legal community that the intent of AS 1866 is to allow new construction for secondary dwelling units without discretionary review or public hearings. This is in direct conflict with the fact that architectural review, typically a discretionary process, was left by AB 1866 as one of the standards that local governments are authorized to impose on secondary dwelling units. To address these conflicting provisions of the law, as well as to protect Tiburon's neighborhoods, the Draft Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance makes a distinction between Secondary Dwelling Units which would constitute "new construction" and those which would be located within existing buildings. The distinction is important because the conversion of existing buildings into secondary units will generally have less impact on noise, privacy, and views than new construction. 3 Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1 )(8) Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Rep,ort May 14, 200: page 3 of 6 Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . This is distinct from discretionary review, which "requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity."2 AMENDING THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE Currently, the Town allows secondary dwelling units in single-family residential zones with an approved use permit. The Town's ordinance gives the Planning Commission the authority to review and approve, deny, or conditionally approve applications for secondary dwelling units. In addition, the ordinance prescribes the findings that are required to grant a conditional use permit for a secondary unit and requires Site Plan and Architectural Review for Secondary Units which will include exterior modifications. Each of these provisions of the Town's current ordinance is affected by the changes in state law. Therefore, the Town's Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance needs to be amended to comply with AS 1866. The Draft Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Exhibit 1) would repeal the existing ordinance and replace it with the proposed language. Hiahliahts of the Draft Secondary Dwellina Unit Ordinance The Draft Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance replaces the requirement for a conditional use permit and the required findings to grant a use permit with a new Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, which: . Shall be acted upon by the Community Development Director or his designee without discretionary review or a public hearing (Draft Section 16-4.5.5), and . Would comply with all of the standards set forth in the currently adopted list of "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units." (Draft Section 16-4.5.6) The "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units", attached as Exhibit 2, would be "established by Resolution of the Town Council, and may be amended from time to time by Resolution of the Town Council." (Draft Section 16-4.5.7) It is recommended that the "Standards" be adopted separately by Resolution because resolutions are easier and faster to adopt and to amend, and this allows the Town to respond more efficiently to needed changes in the standards. Other bills are currently pending in the State Legislature that could, if they become law, potentially require changes to the Standards. Unlike the current ordinance, the Draft Ordinance has no requirement for Site Plan and Architectural Review of secondary dwelling units, as this process is a discretionary process now prohibited by state law. \ Other changes from the existing ordinance include: 2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15357. Tiburon Planning Commiss.ion Staff Report May 14, 200: page 2 of 6 ~.c."J'T'~ n:" "~'.'.-'" ,'" A 1 . ~ (f"'" .'~ U :r:v Ii " i .~ tf1' , " .' Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM li . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KEVIN BRYANT, ADVANCE PLANNER (JjJ SUBJECT: Z 2003-02: TOWN-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE, MODIFYING SECTION 16-4.5, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT USE PERMITS; AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY DWELLlLNG UNITS MEETING DATE: May 14, 2003 REPORT DATE: May 1, 2003 REVIEWED BY: ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . BACKGROUND On September 29, 2002, Governor Davis signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1866 (Wright), which changed the state law authorizing local governments to approve secondary dwelling units. Prior to the change, local ordinances were allowed to: . Designate areas where secondary dwelling units may be permitted. . Impose standards on secondary dwelling units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. . Provide that secondary dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the unit is located. . Establish a co.nditional use permit for secondary dwelling units. The change in law has removed the authority to establish a conditional use permit process for the consideration of secondary dwelling units. Besides no longer authorizing use permits, the law now prohibits discretionary review or a hearing for secondary units: When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for [the creation of a secondary dwelling unit], the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 [relating to use permits and variances] or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. (Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(3)) [emphasis added] A ministerial action is one "involving little or no personal judgment by a public official. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried OUt.,,1 Tiburon Planning Commission Staff Report EXHIBIT .NO. 0 1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15369. APPROVE MINUTES are health and safety violations. As to confidentiality, public record is public record. Complaints involving health and safety will be investigated even if anonymous. MIS Greenberg/Stein (4-0) to adopt the resolution recommending approval of the zoning text amendments to the Town Council, and to direct Staff to revise and return the "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" checklist for continued consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting. B. Establishment of limitations on parking oi;~hicl;'~"in ~equired yards-- ~ ~. (setbacks) in residential zones, and establishment of limitations on the ~ amount of impervious surface allowed in residential zones "- Communifypevelopment Director Anderson reviewed the Staff report. \ The public co~ent period was opened. \. \\ Barry Kahn, 22 Co'rte San Fernando, stated the best written proposal having to do with parking in front yard'setbacks is that of Corte Madera. The problem faced is parking in the front yard. Famili~s\have more and larger vehicles that do not fit in garages. His neighbors removed part d(their yard andinstalled turf block and grass. Regulating how the site is developed is not\6{fective because it does not regulate what goes on in the front yard. The language should st~e "cannot park more than 'x' vehicles in the front yard." This regulates use of a property~cause of the limitation. The text proposed by staff is not clear or broad enough to get the problem residents are facing now. He emailed his suggestions, which are in the Late ail. Perhaps the numbers should be different. Four cars in front yards throughout the to \. could be a disaster. He asked the Planning Commission to broaden this regulation be more similar to that used by the Town of Corte Madera. Commissioner Stein asked if Tiburon has similar nguage to Corte Madera as to required front, back and side yards. Community Developme t Director Anderson referred to the section of the staff report quoting the Town's current gulations. Tiburon's approach to zoning takes a more "performance-based" view as oppo ed to a traditional approach of assigning numbers because design review is required for ostwork of any significance. In Tiburon, there is tremendous variation in the sizes of lots s well as their topography. He believed that Cote Madera required design review only in . mited circumstances, so that numerical standards were more critical in that jurisdiction. ent period was closed. There being no further comment, the public c Commissioner Stein stated where there is an opportunity to provide anguage clarifying the Town's intent in adopting a particular regulation it makes sense t it. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes of May 14. 2003 6 APPROVED MINUTE~S~ that most people will not want a secondary dwelling unit as small as 400 square feet, and will first apply for an addition to the existing home that is larger than 400 square feet, then submit an application for a secondary dwelling unit. In such cases, at least the addition will have gone through the design review process. Commissioner Stein stated that conversion of a portion of an existing house to a secondary dwelling unit wjthin the existing footprint makes sense, but that applying the new state law to "new construction" makes little sense, and can be counter-productive to the creation of more secondary dwelling units, which is the state's goal. Community Development Director Anderson reiterated that the prevailing belief is that a city cannot distinguish between new construction and conversion of part of an existing home when it comes to a ,requirement for design review. Creation of all new secondary dwelling units must be a ministerial process. Commissioner Stein stated there is a legal maxim that the legislature shall not pass legislation that is not reasonable, and this is not reasonable. He asked if the Town could request an opinion from the Attorney General on this issue. Community Development Director Anderson stated he does not know how long that would take, or whether the Attorney General would decline the request. The Town needs a new process for secondary dwelling units to be in effect in July. The Commission generally agreed that litigation will be ongoing for years over the changes in the state law. Commissioner Stein recommended adding language that "should an opinion of the Attorney General indicate 'xyz,' then this provision does not apply." In response to questions, Community Development Director Anderson stated architectural review must be a ministerial type of review for secondary dwelling units. He will look into existing law that is not reflected in the standards. Commissioner Greenberg suggested a standard that reads, "Secondary dwelling units may be built on slopes 30 percent or less". I Community Development Director Anderson stated grading could occur for which a permit may not be required and the slope would change. He will review this and other possible scenarios, but identifying and avoiding all pitfalls at the outset will be extremely difficult. Commissioner Stein stated the effect of the state law is likely to result in less second units because the law is forcing municipalities to anticipate possible abuses in their regulations. Commissioner Snow asked if "in writing" is the ordinary method that the Town receives complaints regarding non-compliance. Community Development Director Anderson responded that in Section 16-4.5.14 Reporting of Violations, the language is a carryover from the current ordinance. Staff does not respond to anonymous complaints unless there Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 5 APPRO\tVEJJ MINUTES Community Development Director Anderson responded that if it is truly a "basement", it would not be considered "new construction" because basements do not count as floor area. However, ifnew "floor area" is created, it would constitute "new construction". No floor area exceptions should be allowed. Commissioner Greenberg suggested that with respect to the architectural standard, that the phrase "the same exterior features" be used, and at the end of sentence, the words "so long as these meet current guidelines" should be added. Commissioner Stein cautioned that the word "exterior" should not be used because it could lead to loopholes, for example with a "courtyard". Commissioner Greenberg suggested language to be used, ".. .colors of unit must be muted, medium to dark" or use whatever the Town's standard language for colors might be. Commissioner Stein noted that when adding additional living space, public reviews are part of the process in Tiburon, but questioned the interpretation that suggests that the new state law prohibits this public review process for secondary dwelling units. Commissioner Greenberg asked about new construction on slopes and stated she is concerned that steep slopes should not be built on. She recommended adding language that deals with construction on steep slopes. She was also concerned about retaining walls, as these are often required to construct on slopes. Community Development Director Anderson noted that if a retaining wall were required, the proj ect might require design review. Commissioner Greenberg pointed out that if a retaining wall were an integral part of a secondary dwelling unit, then design review would probably not be required. Anderson conceded that this could be the case, and observed that the new state law created many opportunities for loopholes that would be difficult to avoid. Commissioner Stein suggested that with respect to development standards such as setbacks, height, lot coverage and floor area, that the checklist should include strong language in pertinent places, such as "all secondary dwelling units shall be subject to all requirements that now exist." Community Development Director Anderson stated that most development standards could be applied, but that it is the belief of municipal attorneys that a requirement for discretionary design review cannot be applied. The Town's approach is to limit the size of new construction to minimize impacts. Commissioner Collins stated it does not make sense to have design review for a new home or addition, but none for 400 square feet of additional space if it is a secondary dwelling unit. Community Development Director Anderson responded this is the law, and the state legislature had its reasons for eliminating the discretionary review process. Staff believes Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 4 APPROVED MINUTES Commissioner Stein asked ifit can be determined whether the Town can convey and enforce this intended ownership requirement, especially in the event a property with a secondary dwelling unit is sold. Community Development Director Anderson responded that verification could be challenging but the Town would make its best efforts. However, he added that he believes there is pending legislation that would eliminate ownership requirements for either of the dwelling units. He will explore this proposed legislation with the Town Attorney. Commissioner Stein expressed serious concern that this legislation could result in single-family zones.gradually becoming rental zones in their entirety. With respect to the parking standard, Commissioner Stein urged that there be a minimum requirement of one parking space no matter how small the secondary dwelling unit because there could be studio units without a bedroom, yet parking should still be provided. In response, Community Development Director Anderson stated he would add the language, "but in no case, less than one space" to the proposed parking standard. Commissioner Stein further stated the requirement should specifically prohibit tandem parking. He further stated that in the standard regarding landscaping, that the phrase "adequate landscaping" is inadequate. Commissioner Greenberg concurred and stated the requirement does not call for objective standards and the language is too discretionary. It should state specific examples. Commissioner Stein suggested that the standard describe a clear objective that is to be achieved by the landscaping. Commissioner Greenberg suggested language such as, "to minimize the view impacts created by the building; to provide shade as appropriate; to provide a visual buffer between old and new neighbors and parking areas." She added that all the reasons why landscaping is required should be enumerated. She suggested that an alternate approach might be to state that "Landscaping should be consistent with that in the area." Regarding the privacy standard, Commissioner Collins stated that the phrase concerning "any window or door" should be more specific with respect to mitigation, such as specifying the number of feet of setback. Commissioner Greenberg suggested that this requirement should be modified to state, "Areas surrounding any window or door. . ..." and that the phrase "which faces a side yard" should be eliminated. Commissioner Collins asked about the reference to "adequate sanitary service." Community Development Director Anderson responded that a letter confirming adequate sanitary service from the sanitary district is required as part ofthe application. In the event of lots on septic systems, Commissioner Greenberg asked that language be added. that states, ".. .must be connected with the public sewer system and for alternate sewage disposal systems, the County of Marin Environmental Health Department will review whether the existing system is adequate to handle the proposed secondary dwelling unit." Commissioner Greenberg asked about "new construction" being built in a basement. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 3 APPROVED MINUTES according to the market, is desirable. The two most desirable areas are near downtown and areas with views. M/S Collins/Stein (3-0, Greenberg abstained), to approve the minutes as corrected. 2. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 2003 Regular Meeting M/S Stein/Collins (4-0) to approve the minutes as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ 3. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE) A. Repeal and replacement of provisions regulating secondary dwelling units (Section 4.05 of the Zoning Ordinance [Section 16.;.4.5 of the Municipal Code] and related sections and definitions) COllmunity Development Director Anderson reviewed the Staff report and noted the ,ordinance was set up to be a bare bones document. The critical element in this process is the checklist that will be reviewed by Staff for each application. This checklist would be adopted by Resolution so that it could be amended quickly, since Staff believes that frequent amendments to the checklist may be necessary as state law evolves and local issues arise. One significant change from the prior secondary unit regulations is that secondary dwelling units that constitute "new construction" would be limited to a maximum of 400 square feet. Secondary dwelling units within existing structures, or that are an integral part of new homes, could be up to 1,000 square feet as currently allowed. It is hoped that negative impacts such as view blockage may be minimized by limiting new construction that does not require design review to this amount of square footage. Anderson continued on to review and discuss the other standards contained in the resolution. There were no public comments on this section of the item and the hearing was closed. Commissioner Stein asked if each owner of record must sign a document to continue a use permit, and if this could this be enforced. Community Development Director Anderson responded that a yearly update is required and the owner of record must verify compliance in writing. Revocation procedures are proposed in the ordinance to address violations. Commissioner Greenberg asked how the state defines a secondary unit, and stated, since the ToWn does not want a neighborhood of rentals in single-family neighborhoods; the Town should take measures to be on firm legal grounds with respect to enforcement of ownership requirements and enforcing that the secondary unit is at the owner's principal place of residence. Tiburon Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 EXHIBIT ~lO.C. Accessory Use means a use customarily incidental, related, and subordinate to the principal legal use of the parcel or lot and located on the same. A Secondary Dwelling Unit is not an accessory use. Accessory ,Building or Structure means a building or structure which is subordinate to the main building on the same site, or the use of which is incidental to the use of the site or the use of the main building on the site. An accessory building that shares a common wall with a main building shall be deemed a part of the main building. A building or structure which is used as a Secondary Dwelling Unit is not an accessory building or structure. (See Setback.) Secondary Dwelling Unit means an attached or detached additional dwelling unit on a single family lot which provides independent living facilities for not more than three (3) persons, and which has kitchen/cooking~ sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same parcel as the primary unit. See Section 16-4.5. B. Section 16-2.2.1 (f) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: (f) Secondary Dwelling Units pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-4.5. C. Section 16,.2.2.2(0) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. D. Section 16-2.4.1 (f) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: . (f) Secondary Dwelling Units pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-4.5. E. Section .16-2.4.2(0) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. F. Section 16-2.7.1 (f) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: (f) Secondary Dwelling Units pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-4.5. G. Section 16-2.7.2(m) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. H. Section 16-3.4.1 (a) (2) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. H:\ZO\Second Unit Ordinance pctextfinal.doc 5 16-4.5.14 Reporting of Violations. All reporting of Secondary Dwelling Unit violations shall be in writing and directed to the Community Development Department. The Director of Community Development or his designee shall notify the owner of record of the property that a complaint has been registered, within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of any such complaint. The Director of Community Development or his designee shall investigate and issue a written report to the complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of the issuance of the notice outlining the current status of any alleged violation and the steps that have been requested of the Owner of Record to remedy the situation. 16-4.5.15 Violations Considered an Infraction. Violations of this section shall be punished as infractions or by administrative citation, in the discretion of the Director of Community Development and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 16-5.13 and/or Chapter 31 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. This subsection also applies to violations of conditions of approval issued in association with any Secondary Dwelling Unit approval. .. 16-4.5.16 Violations Additional Remedies-Injunctions. As an additional remedy, the existence and/or maintenance of any Secondary Dwelling Unit in violation of any provisions herein, or of any conditions of approval placed thereon, shall be cause for revocation and shall be deemed and is declared to be a public nuisance and may be subject to summary abatement (Le., including, without limitation, administrative abatement pursuant to Chapter 31), and/or restrained and enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event legal action is instituted to abate said violation, the Town shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting said action. 16-4.5.17 Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any decision involving the approval, denial, or revocation of a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit (or a Conditional Use Permit if the secondary dwelling unit was established under a Conditional Use Permit issued prior to July 1,2003), may appeal such decision to the Town Council pursuant to Section 16-3.8. Associated Amendments. A. The following definitions contained within Section 16-1.5 of the Tiburon Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows: H:\ZO\Second Unit Ordinance pctextfinal.doc 4 16-4.5.9 Approved Conditional Use Permits Still Valid. Any Secondary Dwelling Unit legally established with an approved Conditional Use Permit prior to July 1 , 2003 shall continue to be considered a legal, conforming Dwelling Unit. Secondary Dwelling Units established by any such Conditional Use Permit shall continue to comply with all conditions of the permit approval. 16-4.5.10 Premises Identification. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for each Dwelling Unit and said numbers or addresses shall be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. 16-4.5.11 Expiration. Secondary Dwelling Unit Permits issued pursuant to this Section shall expire and become null and void one (1) year after issuance unless a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Building Division. 16-4.5.12 Revocation. Upon written notice to the holder of a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, and a hearing before the Director of Community Development or his designee, the Director of Community Development may revoke or modify any Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, on anyone or more of the following grounds: (a) That the approval was based on false information submitted by the applicant. (b) That the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one (1) year or more. (c) That the permit granted is being or recently has been exercised contrary"to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation. 16-4.5.13 Yearly Update. The Community Development Department shall maintain a record of all legal Secondary Dwelling Units and shall annually update the record. At the annual review, the Owner of Record shall verify in writing under penalty of perjury that the Secondary Dwelling Unit is in compliance with all conditions of the Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, or with all conditions of the Conditional Use Permit if the Secondary Dwelling Unit was established under a Conditional Use Permit issued prior to July 1, 2003. H:\ZO\Second Unit Ordinance pctextfinal.doc 3 Principal Place of Residence means a Dwelling Unit that is occupied by the Owner of Record as his primary place of residence. Attached Secondary Dwelling Unit means a Secondary Dwelling Unit that shares a common wall with the Primary Unit. 16-4.5.3 Secondary Dwelling Units; Where Permitted. Secondary Dwelling Units shall be permitted in all single-family residential Zones, specifically as follows: R-1, R-1-B, RO-1, RO-2, and RPD. 16-4.5.4 Application and Fee. Application for a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit shall be made pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-3.1 and shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee. 16-4.5.5 Director of Community Development as Acting Body. Applications for Secondary Dwelling Units shall be acted upon by the Director of Community Development or his designee without discretionary review or a public hearing. 16-4.5.6 Grant of Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit. In order to grant a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, the Director of Community Development or his designee, shall find ,that the Secondary Dwelling Unit would comply with all of the standards set forth in the currently adopted list of "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units". 16-4.5.7 Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units. The list of "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" shall be established by Resolution of the Town Council, and may be amended from time to time by Resolution of the Town Council. ' 16-4.5.8 Building Permits. A building permit shall be required in conjunction with the issuance of a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit if repair, rehabilitation, or other work otherwise requiring a building permit is necessary. H:\ZO\Second Unit Ordinance pctextfinal.doc 2 EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TEXT FOR MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING) TEXT AMENDMENTS Section 16-4.5 (Secondary Dwelling Unit Use Permits) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 16-4.5 (Secondary Dwelling Unit Permits) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby adopted to read as follows: 16-4.5 SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT PERMITS. 16-4.5.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the establishment and reasonable regulation of Secondary Dwelling Units in order to encourage housing opportunities for all segments of the population while ensuring the public health, safety, and welfare. 16-4.5.2 Definitions. As used in this section: Secondary Dwelling Unit means an attached or detached additional Dwelling Unit on a single family lot which provides independent living facilities for not more than three (3) persons, and which has kitchen/cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same lot as the Primary Unit. New Construction means the construction of a new Building, or the construction of an addition to an existing Building that would increase the Floor Area of the Building. Legal Nonconforming Secondary Dwelling Unit means a Secondary Dwelling Unit which currently does not conform to the regulations for the Zone in which it is situated but which did conform at the time it was constructed or erected. Primary Unit means the Building (or portion of the Building in cases of an Attached Secondary Dwelling Unit) in which the Principal Use of the lot takes place. A Secqndary Dwelling Unit cannot constitute the Primary Unit. Owner of Record means the owner of at least 50 percent interest in the subject real property. . H:\ZO\Second Unit Ordinancepctextfinal.doc 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURQN RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code; and .' WHEREAS, a display ad notice of the public hearing on the amendments was published in the ARK newspaper on April 30, 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 May 14, 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 as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetingof the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on May 14, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Collins, Greenberg, Snow & Stein COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Smith WAYNE SNOW, VICE-CHAIRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: ~ dx3i; _ .~ SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY EXHIBIT NO.~ Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-06 . May 14, 2003 1 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 SLAVITZ, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK \z0\Z2003-02 tc ordinance.doc Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Adopted 8 (f) Secondary Dwelling Units pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-4.5. C. Section 16-2.2.2(0) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. D. Section 16-2.4.1 (f) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: (f) Secondary Dwelling Units pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-4.5. E. Section 16-2.4.2(0) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. F. Section 16-2.7.1 (f) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is added to read as follows: (f) Secondary Dwelling Units pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-4.5. G. Section 16-2.7.2(m) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. H. Section 16-3.4.1 (a) (2) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. Section 4. 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 decisionshall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5. 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 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 , 2003, and was adopted Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Adopted 7 16-4.5.16 Violations Additional Remedies-Injunctions. As an additional remedy, the existence and/or maintenance of any Secondary Dwelling Unit in violation of any provisions herein, or of any conditions of approval placed thereon, shall be cause for revocation and shall be deemed and is declared to be a public nuisance and may be subject to summary abatement (i.e., including, without limitation, administrative abatement pursuant to Chapter 31), and/or restrained and enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the event legal action is instituted to abate said violation, the Town shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting said action. 16-4.5.17 Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any decision involving the approval, denial, or revocation of a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit (or a Conditional Use Permit if the secondary dwelling unit was established under a Conditional Use Permit issued prior to July 1,2003), may appeal such decision to the Town Council pursuant to Section 16-3.8. Section 3. Associated Amendments. A. The following definitions contained within Section 16-1.5 of the Tiburon Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows: Accessory Use means a use customarily incidental, related, and subordinate to the principal legal use of the parcel or lot and located on the same. A Secondary Dwelling Unit is not an accessory use. Accessory Building or Structure means a building or structure which is subordinate to the main building on the same site, or the use of which is incidental to the use of the site or the use of the main building on the site. An accessory building that shares a common wall with a main building shall be deemed a part of the main building. A building or structure which is used as a Secondary Dwelling Unit is not an accessory building or structure. (See Setback.) Secondary Dwelling Unit means an attached or detached additional dwelling unit on a single family lot which provides independent living facilities for not more than three (3) persons, and which has kitchen/cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same parcel as the primary unit. See Section 16-4.5. B. Section 16-2.2.1 (f) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Adopted 6 Upon written notice to the holder of a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, and a hearing before the Director of Community Development or his designee, the Director of Community Development may revoke or modify any Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, on anyone or more of the following grounds: (a) That the approval was based on false information submitted by the applicant. . (b) That the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one (1) year or more. (c) That the permit granted is being or recently has been exercised. contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation. 16-4.5.13 Yearly Update. The Community Development Department shall maintain a record of all legal Secondary Dwelling Units and shall annually update the record. At the annual review, the Owner of Record shall verify in writing under penalty of perjury that the Secondary Dwelling Unit is in compliance with all conditions of the Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, or with all conditions of the Conditional Use Permit if the Secondary Dwelling Unit was established under a Conditional Use Permit issued priorto July 1, 2003. 16-4.5.14 Reporting of Violations. All reporting of Secondary Dwelling Unit violations shall be in writing and directed to the Community Development Department. The Director of Community Development or his designee shall notify the owner of record of the property that a complaint has been registered, within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of any such complaint. The Director of Community Development or his designee shall investigate and issue a written report to the complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of the issuance of the notice outlining the current status of any alleged violation and the steps that have been requested of the Owner of Record to remedy the situation. 16-4.5.15 Violations Considered an Infraction. Violations of this section shall be punished as infractions or by administrative citation, in the discretion of the Director of Community Development and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 16-5.13 and/or Chapter 31 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. This subsection also applies to violations of conditions of approval issued in association with any Secondary Dwelling Unit approval. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. i Adopted 5 Applications for Secondary Dwelling Units shall be acted upon by the Director of Community Development or his designee without discretionary review or a public hearing. 16-4.5.6 Grant of Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit. In order to grant a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, the Director of Community Development or his designee, shall find that the Secondary Dwelling Unit would comply with all of the standards set forth in the currently adopted list of "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units". 16-4.5.7 Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units. The list of "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" shall be established by Resolution of the Town Council, and may be amended from time to time by Resolution of the Town Council. 16-4.5.8 Building Permits. A building permit shall be required in conjunction with the issuance of a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit if repair, rehabilitation, or other work otherwise requiring a building permit is necessary. 16-4.5.9 Approved Conditional Use Permits Still Valid. Any Secondary Dwelling Unit legally established with an approved Conditional Use Permit prior to July 1, 2003 shall continue to be considered a legal, conforming Dwelling Unit. Secondary Dwelling Units established by any such Conditional Use Permit shall continue to comply with all conditions of the permit approval. 16-4.5.10 Premises Identification. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for each Dwelling Unit and said numbers or addresses shall be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. 16-4.5.11 Expiration. Secondary Dwelling Unit Permits issued pursuant to this Section shall expire and become null and void one (1) year after issuance unless a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued by the Building Division. 16-4.5.12 Revocation. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Adopted . 4 16-4.5.2 Definitions. As used in this section: Secondary Dwelling Unit means an attached or detached additional Dwelling Unit on a single family lot which provides independent living facilities for not more than three (3) persons, and which has kitchen/cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same lot as the Primary Unit. New Construction means the construction of a new Building, or the construction of an addition to an existing Building that would increase the Floor Area of the Building. Legal Nonconforming Secondary Dwelling Unit means a Secondary Dwelling Unit which currently does not conform to the regulations for the Zone in which it is situated but which did conform at the time it was constructed or erected. Primary Unitmeans the Building (or portion of the Building in cases of an Attached Secondary Dwelling Unit) in which the Principal Use of the lot takes place. A Secondary Dwelling Unit cannot constitute the Primary Unit. Owner of Record means the owner of at least 50 percent interest in the subject real property. Principal Place of Residence means a Dwelling Unit that is occupied by the Owner of Record as his primary place of residence. Attached Secondary Dwelling Unit means a Secondary Dwelling Unit that shares a common wall with the Primary Unit. 16-4.5.3 Secondary Dwelling Units; Where Permitted. Secondary Dwelling Units shall be permitted in all single-family residential Zones, specifically as follows: R-1, R-1-B, RO-1, RO..2, and RPD. 16-4.5.4 Application and Fee. Application for a Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit shall be made pursuant to the provisions of Section 16-3.1 and shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee. 16-4.5.5 Director of Community Development as Acting Body. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Adopted 3 WHEREAS, the Town Council has held public hearings on , 2003 and , 2003, and has received and considered 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 changes and modifications 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 has found that the changes and modifications 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 adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code. NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURONHEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Repeal. Section 16-4.5 (Secondary Dwelling Unit Use Permits) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 2. Adoption. Section 16-4.5 (Secondary Dwelling Unit Permits) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby adopted to read as follows: 16-4.5 SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT PERMITS. 16-4.5.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for the establishment and reasonable regulation of Secondary Dwelling Units in order to encourage housing opportunities for all segments of the population while ensuring the public health, safety, and welfare. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Adopted 2 ORDINANCE NO. N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON REPEALING SECTION 16-4.5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 16-4.5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS, the State Legislature has declared that secondary dwelling units provide a valuable form of housing for family members, students, senior citizens, in-home health care providers, the disabled and others at below market prices within existing neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Legislature stated its intent that any secondary dwelling unit ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing for the creation of second units; and WHEREAS, the Legislature restated its commitment to secondary dwelling units as a valuable form of housing in 2002 with the passage of Assembly Bill 1866, which amends Government Code Section 65852.2 by eliminating the authority to require a conditional use permit or any discretionary review for second units and mandating ministerial approval of such units; and WHEREAS, Section 65852.2 authorizes a local agency to designate areas where secondary dwelling units may be permitted based on criteria that may include adequacy of water and sewer services, impact on traffic flow or other factors identified by the Town; and subject to certain limitations, impose standards that include parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to permit secondary dwelling units, subject to standards and criteria to be adopted by Resolution, in all single-family residential zones; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to establish a procedure authorizing the Community Development Director or his designee to consider applications for secondary dwelling units ministerially, subject to specified standards and criteria, in compliance with Section 65852.2 of the Government Code; and A EXHIBIT }!O Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Adopted 1 '( STAFF REPORT Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other changes from the existing ordinance include: . changing the definition of Secondary Dwelling Unit, adding definitions for New Construction and Primary Unit (Draft Section 16-4.5.2), . adding a section stating that existing Secondary Dwelling Units are still subject to their conditions of approval (Draft Section 16-4.5.9), and . making minor changes to the expiration and revocation, yearly update and violations sections (Draft Sections 16-4.5.11, 12, 13, and 14). PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW At its regular meeting on May 14, 2003, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed text amendments as well as the Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units which referenced in the proposed ordinance. See Exhibits B, C, and D. The Planning Commission made no changes to the text of the proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance and adopted a resolution recommending approval of the Municipal Code amendments to the Town Council. However, the Planning Commission did have a number of concerns and questions about the Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units and therefore directed Staff to revise and return the Standards checklist for continued consideration by the Commission. Further Commission review of the Standards will have no bearing on the draft ordinance, as the two documents are independent. Because the changes in state law go into effect on July 1, 2003, the Municipal Code amendments, which require two readings to be adopted and 30 days to take effect, are being forwarded to the Town Council for immediate consideration. After the Planning Commission concludes its work on the Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units, they will be brought before the Town Council for their review and consideration. The Standards will go into effect immediately upon adoption by the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION . Hold a public hearing and deliberate on the proposed Municipal Code amendments. . When deliberations are complete, the Town Council should direct Staff to incorporate any desired changes into the draft ordinance. . Move to read by title only, and hold a roll call vote on introduction and first reading of the ordinance. EXHIBITS A. Draft Town Council Ordinance. B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-06. C. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 14, 2003. D. Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated May 14, 2003. lzo1Z2003-02 testaff report. doc June 4, 200: pa'ge 3 of 3 ' , Town of Tiburon ~;~~' STAFF RiERORT , " " " . " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " This is distinct from discretionary review, which "requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity."2 The Town has initiated amendments to the Municipal Code to comply with the changes in state law governing secondary dwelling units. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Currently, the Town allows secondary dwelling units in single-family residential zones with an approved use permit. The Town's ordinance gives the Planning Commission the autliority to review and approve, deny, or conditionally approve applications for secondary dwelling units. In addition, the ordinance prescribes the findings that are required to grant a conditional use permit for a secondary unit and requires Site Plan and Architectural Review for Secondary Units which will include exterior modifications. Each of these provisions of the Town's current ordinance is affected by the changes in state law. The Draft Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Exhibit A) would repeal the existing ordinance and replace it with the proposed language. Hiohliohts of the Draft Secondary Dwellino Unit Ordinance The Draft Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance replaces the requirement for a conditional use permit and the required findings to grant a use permit with a new Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit, which: . Shall be acted upon by the Community Development Director or his designee without discretionary review or a public hearing (Draft Section 16-4.5.5), and . Would comply with all of the standards set forth in the currently adopted list of "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units." (Draft Section 16-4.5.6) The "Standards for Secondary Dwelling Units" would be "established by Resolution of the Town Council, and may be amended from time to time by Resolution of the Town Council." (Draft Section 16-4.5.7) It is recommended that the "Standards" be adopted separately by Resolution because resolutions are easier and faster to adopt and to amend, and this allows the Town to respond more efficiently to needed changes in the standards. For example, AS 1160 (Steinberg) is currently moving through the State Legislature. If the bill becomes law, changes to the Standards will be required. Unlike the current ordinance, the Draft Ordinance has no requirement for Site Plan and Architectural Review of secondary dwelling units, as this process is a discretionary process now prohibited by state law. ' 2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15357. June 4, 200: page 2 of 3 I, Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBJECT: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL KEVIN BRYANT, ADVANCE PLANNER tp Z 2003-02: TOWN;.INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE, MODIFYING SECTION 16-4.5, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT USE PERMITS, AND RELATED CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: June 4, 2003 REVIEWED BY:>>- REPORT DATE: May 30,2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND On September 29, 2002, Governor Davis signed Assembly Bill 1866, which changed the state law authorizing local governments to approve secondary dwelling units. Prior to the change, local ordinances were allowed to: . Designate areas where secondary dwelling units may be permitted. . Impose standards on secondary dwelling units which include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. . Provide that secondary dwelling units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the unit is located. . Establish a conditional use permit for secondary dwelling units. The change in law has removed the authority to establish a conditional use permit process for the consideration of secondary dwelling units~ Besides no longer authorizing use permits, the law now prohibits discretionary review or a hearing for secondary units: When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for [the creation. ofa secondary dwelling unit], the application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 [relating to use permits and variances] or any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits. (Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(3)) [emphasis added] A ministerial action is one "involving little or no personal judgment by a public official. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project . should be carried OUt.,,1 ' . 1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15369. TIBURON INCREASE 8.09% EFFECTIVE 7/1/04 Page 5 of 5 COMMERCIAL 45 GL CAN BASE PROPOSED . NEW RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE # OF CANS 131,40 10.63 !4g:03 '. . 1CANl4 PU 243.55 19.70 263.25 2 CANS/4 PU .39l.0~ 29.20; . '. 390.23' 3CANS/4 PU 478.48 38.70 517.18 4 'CANS/4 PU 'i",.,;, '.' .. . '.. .LtQ\1'Q....( .....~ ... ....,:..;.... . '.,.".. 713.36 57.69 771.05 6 CANS/4 PU ,"",..,., ~ ,iC;i",":". , . 948.45 76.70 1025.15 8 CANS/4 PU ~ ~ ~ "i.'. ",: ". . " . ..',\~.< Gt !iH....;'i\.< i ....--;;... ~ ./. "'. 302.32 24.45 3 2 6.77 2 CANS/5 PU k. . ......' '.. , . .:;,.' ., .i.' i", '......; I:,.............,..,......,. -;: ."....", ... .v',.. '."f , 595.81 48.19 644.00 4 CANS/5 PU 742;413 60:05 . .. I',' '!30?53 5CANs/5PU . 889.15 71.91 961.06 6 CANS/5 PU 1035;82 83.77 1119.59 7CANS/5 PU 1182.49 95.63 1278.12 8 CANS/5 PU 1329.16 107.49 1436;05 9CANS/5PU 1~4;q,! .'" <1LI;ia~'. ... ,> . .. ......<i/.,.,:' " .... "'.. , 361.03 29.20 390.23 2 CANS/6 PU . 53?;?l ; C'C. ....y."..,. ""','. .,' " ........:::c ,..,.,', . ". ,.: 713.42 57.70 771.12 4 CANS/6 PU !' .' "i88 9,:713,: ..... '." , A" "",)"" '. 1065.82 86.20 1152.02 6 CANS/6 PU !. .". .,'0 , '.' 1417.89 114.67 1532.56 8 CANS/6 PU .... . 159$.9?" "', k .,. ,........ ''',i'''' I:: i' . "9CANSY6"PW, '.' ' ..," ..... .. TIBURON INCREASE 8.09% EFFECTIVE 7/1/04 Page 4 of 5 COMMERCIAL 45 GL CAN BASE PROPOSED NEW RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE # OF CANS 38:04 3;08' '. " .......'11)12 ............. F.: t;CPiN/1'PtJ 67.36 5.45 72.81 2 CPiNS/1 PU 96.74 7.82 10456 3 CPiNS/1 PU 126.08 10.20 136.28 4 CPiNS/1 PU 155.45 12.57 168.02 5 CPiNS/1 PU 184.67 14.93 199.60 6 CPiNS/1 PU 214.22 17.32 231.54 7 CPiNS/1 PU 243.55 19.70 263.25 8 CPiNS/1 PU 272.93 22.07 295.00 ~ 9 CPiNS/1 PU 67.36 5.45 I 7g:8.1 1CAN/2 PU 126.13 10.20 136.33 2 CPiNS/2 PU 184:67 '. 14;9~ o. I;," . <'199:60: '. >< ........3ql*f;:JS/?pU '.. ...... '., . 243.55 19.70 263.25 4 CPiNS/2 PU . 3Q2.32 24.4~ '. ...... 326':'7.7 ..' ". ........... 5.cAN~/2PU 361.03 29.20 390.23 6 CPiNS/2 PU 419.76 33.95 453,:71 7CPiNS/2PU 478.48 38.70 517.18 8 CPiNS/2 PU 537.21 43.45 580.66 9 CPiNS/2 PU 96.76 7.83 104.59 1 CPiN/3 PU 184.67 14.93 199.60 2 CPiNS/3 PU 272.93 22.07 295.00 3 CPiNS/3 PU 361.03 29.20 390.23 4 CPiNS/3 PU 449.15 36.32 485.47 5 CPiNS/3 PU 537.21 43.45 580.66 6 CPiNS/3 PU 625.29 50.57 67"5;86 7CPiNS/3PU 713.36 57.69 771.05 8 CPiNS/3 PU 801.44 64:82 $66,26 I," ...... ,..9Gfl\NS/3PU' TIBURON INCREASE 8.09'0 EFFECTIVE 7/1/04 Page 3 of 5 COMMERCIAL 32 GL CAN , BASE PROPOSED NEW RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE # OF CANS 91.90 I' ,.,', 7.43 , ,;,'. 9,9.33 " """'; i 1:'CAN/4.PU 166.67 13.48 180.15 2 CANS/4 PU 244:99 19.81 "'" ' /. I ",,',. "2p4;8() , 3 GANS/4RU , '" " "'" " 323.29 26.15 349.44 4 CANS/4 PU 401.51 32;47':- "... ,43~:98' ',......., ..,.,"...., " 5GANS!4PU " 479.88 38.81 518.69 6 CANS/4 PU 558;23 45.15 p03.38 7 CANS/4 PU 636.59 51.48 688.07 8 CANS/4 PU 714.95 57.82 772.77 9 CANS/4 PU 107.94 8.73 116.67 1 CAN/5 PU 205.84 16.65 222.49 2 CANS/5 PU 303.74 24.56 328.30 3 CANS/5 PU 401.51 32.47 433.98 I 4 CANS/5 PU 499.30 40.38 539.68 , 5 CANS/5 PU 597.07 48.29 645.36 6 CANS/5 PU 694:84 56.19- 751.03' 7GANS/5PU 792.63 64.10 856.73 8 CANS/5 PU 890.40 72:01'." I " 962:41' '.' 9CANS/5PU . 127.41 10.30 ".' .',', 1}7:71'..... '. 1GAN/6 PU I .. r, ',' 244.99 19.81 264.80 2 CANS/6 PU 362.44 29.31 391.75 3CANS/6PU 479.91 38.81 518.72 4 CANS/6 PU 597.49 48.32 645:81 5 CANS/6 PU 714.85 57.81 772.66 6 CANS/6 PU 832.20 67.30 899.50 7 CANS/6 PU 949.55 76.79 1026.34 8 CANS/6 PU 1066.90 86.28 1153.18 9 CANS/6 PU TIBURON INCREASE 8.09% EFFECTIVE 7/1/04 Page 2 of 5 COMMERCIAL 32 GL CAN BASE PROPOSED NEW RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE # OF CANS 29;66 .2:40' "., 'i".'." '3?(0~1',..",."",',':i....'. I"",. ", ..1QfI;N(tPl.:.f . ." 49.21 3.98 53.19 2 CANS/1 PU 68~7.9 . , .5~56 I"', . i",' '3QANSI1 'PU . . '.' ..(........v.;l . 88.35 7.15 95.50 4 CANS/1 PU 107:94 807"3' ,. '; .'" :116:67 . .:" " '5'CANS/1 Pl:I 127.41 10.30 137.71 6 CANS/1 PU 147.10 11.90' 159.00 7 CANS/1 PU 166.67 13.48 180.15 8 CANS/1 PU 186.27 15.06 201.33 9 CANS/1 PU 49.21 3.98 53.19 1 CAN/2 PU 88.38 7.15 95.53 2 CANS/2 PU 127.41 10.30 137.71 3 CANS/2 PU 166.67 13.48 180.15 4 CANS/2 PU 205:84- 16.65 222.49 5 CANS/2 PU 244.99 19.81 264.80 6 CANS/2 PU 284.14 .' '.' 22.98. .' .'" 307.12 "'.',' ',""..". T.cANS/2,PU . 323.29 26.15 349.44 8 CANS/2 PU 362.44 29.31 '.' 39[75. :.' .: ' 9GAt-jS/2PU . , 68.80 5.56 74:36..... , 1 .cAN/3 PU 127.41 10.30 137.71 2 CANS/3 PU 186.27 15.06 201.33 3 CANS/3 PU 244.99 19.81 264.80 4 CANS/3 PU 303.74 24.56 328.30 5 CANS/3 PU 362.44 29.31 391.75 6 CANS/3 PU 421.15 34.06 455.21 7 CANS/3 PU 479.88 38.81 . 518.69 8 CANS/3 PU 538.59 43.56 582.15 9 CANS/3 PU TIBURON INCREASE 8.09% EFFECTIVE 7/1/04 Page 1 of 5 BASE PROPOSED NEW NEW RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE QUARTERLY # CAN ?Ch,6,8 " .' I':' " '1;1::> . .,! ;.,.........23,0'4?'. I'.., ',. . ." , 70;26 1 CAN'FLAT 25.82 2.09 27.91 83.73 1 CAN HILL 39;48 3:19 42;68 128;04 2 CANS ALL 56.98 4.61 61.60 184.80 3 CANS ALL 74:44 6;02 80:47 24:1.41 4 CANS ALL 19.22 1.55 20.77 62.31 MINI CAN FLAT 22:li6: . " :1)84:",. ":21.; . .?4:'(j(D: .::......... ..:.:.'.:" .'Z3:f!0 .Mj;~IcAN"HILL ..' '.': I" 30.61 2.48 33.09 99.27 45 GAL FLAT " ~ ~ ., ...., ,!"{.j '.'A.~\~~L..HiDLL '. " ROLUNG HILLS AREA ..' ~ ~ ~"",,,,:,,;,,,):,: . .. ." 75.00 6.07 81.06 243.18 2 CAN/2PU .':' '110r03."\"" ,;.".}. ,'.,.... . .,', .3.'Ct<';NI2PtJ' ".; .i"') .... .,-,;:: '" ....A. ....c ;',.c...i.... : , 145.03 11.73 156.75 470.25 4 CAN/2PU '9E~.q:' ',". ....z. ". ". . 5:CAN/c1PlJ .,'. y~ -:,,~...<....:/c. .... 109.42 8.85 118.27 354.81 6 CAN/1PU 20.15 CU. YD. TIBURON CONTAINERS BASE PROPOSED NEW RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE RENTAL PICKUPS 1 YARD CONTAINER 89.13 7.21 96.34 13.00 1 PIGKUP 178.28 14.42 192.70 13.00 2 PICKUP 267:44: 4-1.q ~. '. 0':' I::", .:2~Q~(D7 ....;:.... '<"":;.., gigO:. I' 3 PICKUP .. ,'.' 356.57 28.84 385.41 13.00 4 PICKUP 4'45.73 . '. , Ib'.:..... :.;,,:,.......' \.,. "c ce.." ':".'i;. ,.~cPIe~up 534.90 43;26 578.16 13.00 6 PICKUP ,.-.n ...... ".1'A '..j.:,:...,...."'........ ..";.' ...;,............ ......' '" i....t~ICKUP " '~I:"''',V 'c'" 356.57 28.84 385.41 26.00 2 PICKUP I.' 534:90" ,( ,'" .'4".:l ..':. ":;c: '.:. .3,PffiCKUP ,......,: I'; . 713.12 57.67 770.79 26.00 4 PICKUP 891.48 .72.10. 963:58' 26:00" 5 PICKUP 1069.77 86.52 .' 1156.29 26.00 6 PICKUP MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION COMMERCIAL BASE PROPOSED NEW RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE .29;68< ,.. . .' 2:4<;>0: ',',. ., c. : 32C08 . , ". "". ;C0MM.,;17.32G.ALCANIPU' . . 38.04 3.08 41.12 COMM. 1-45GAL CAN IPU 20;50.;, .. 1;...."',.: :[!'Y:'~;APJlf:;PEBo'\:1N~[ ~Ft.~.m,'.," .;';<' .... .,..;,.:.... ,": . ,.,........ c....:. 19.49 1.58 21.07 HILARIT A PER CAN FLAT ,:.' '?4:n::r,'; ',;' i\' F':'j~P'T.;P,I:R~l1JNFr;HfrB~i,\..' ""'-.)".-.;-\ ~- '. .', ..,..-....-~,: :.', .'c,: '.c'i ""',.'.; , 23.55 1.90 25.45 HILARITA PER CAN HILL EXHTB..lmi\T() --- . i _ ~ ,_, ,. c. C6a.l~ c.~1 toll OFf; Mill Valley Belvedere Corte Strawberry LM/AL TO MV County Madera IHOM E 4YD $ 112 $ 112 $ 121 $ 121 $ 121 116 10 YO $ 232 $ 230 $ 250 $ 250 250 239 20 YO $ 357 $ 352 $ 385 $ 385 385 368 40 YO $ 683 $ 672 $ 737 $ 737 737 704 5YD DIRT $ 235 $ 232 $ 253 $ 253 $ 253 242 10YD DIRT $ 357 $ 352 $ 385 $ 385 $ 385 368 EXBIBIT ~ro ~ .' --- TIBURON INCREASE 8.09% EFFECTIVE 7/1/03 Page 5 of 5 COMMERCIAL 45 GL CAN CURRENT PROPOSED NEW MONTHLY RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE # OF CANS 12,1.'57,' 9,8? .,C .J I' i.::' .,'>13:1;49'\'\( J I;",:.' ,. "">1CAt'il/4Pl:l '," . ." . "--', 225.33 18.22 243.55 2 CANS/4 PU 3,3it02 ., ,. 21':q1.....,...." I'." ,36l:(;)~':::-:..,! .:'" . :'_,3,'Ct\N~/4PliJ , ,., 442.68 35.80 478.48 4 CANS/4 PU 551.23 " 44:58,. '. ,"595;81; ,'. ' . "'5'CANS!4'PU , 659.98 53.38 713.36 6 CANS/4 PU 768.73 62.17 830;90 7 CANS/4PU 877.48 '70.97 948.45 8 CANS/4 PU 986.22 79.76 1065.98 9 CANS/4 PU 143.82 11.63 155.45 1 CAN/5 PU 279.70 22.62 302.32 2 CANS/5 PU 415.54 33.61 449.15 3 CANS/5 PU 551.23 44.58 595.81 4 CANS/5 PU 686;93 55.55 .., " 742:'48 5.CANS/5PU 822.62 66.53 889.15 6 CANS/5 PU 958.32 77;~0 -- ;', 1'\' 10:3~;82i, " ",',.. " ,7:CANS/5iP!:)' ,- 1094.01 88.48 1182.49 8 CANS/5 PU 1229.71 99)45 I , '1329;16 - ., -- . ," QC;A.NS/5'PU' '., 170.85 13:82 ;. 184;67 1 CAN/6 PU 334.02 27.01 361.03 2 CANS/6 PU 497.01 40.20 ' 537.21 3 CANS/6 PU 660:04 53.38 713.42 4 CANS/6 PU 823.20 66.58 889.78 5 CANS/6 PU 986.07 79.75 1065.82 6 CANS/6 PU 1148.92 92.92 1241.84 7 CANS/6 PU 1311.80 106.09 1417.89 8 CANS/6 PU 1474.66 119.26 1593.92 9 CANS/6 PU TIBURON INCREASE 8.09'0 EFFECTIVE 7/1/03 Page 4 of 5 COMMERCIAL 45 GL CAN CURRENT PROPOSED NEW MONTHLY RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE # OF CANS ,,::-'c:~, -,C " 62.32 5.04 67.36 2 CANS/1 PU Ie,',;'" 'r, 'y' ,'" ,'.:r",'",' J,; 116.65 9.43 126.08 4 CANS/1 PU I,e., :rj n',.>' "") :,., ,} it ",','" ~,".,~~ c, " ." ,. 170.85 13.82 184.67 6 CANS/1 PU tQ$JQ' . I::,: '. 16103",',."'" :"" 2.f"'1<22." , ',,,qaAt>lSI1:PU: :.. 225.33 18.22 243.55 8 CANS/1 PU 252.51 20.42 272.93 9 CANS/1 PU 62.32 5;04 67.36 1. CAN/2 PU 116.69 9.44 126.13 2 CANS/2 PU 170i,~5; . , 1$i82 7'1 ," " ',:....'..,'-,: Ii, '. " $',G.~N$/g.PQr' c_ "".".. '-"""; ,-' '.",',.,.. ,'. 225.33 18.22 243.55 4 CANS/2 PU ,,~ ".".' ),"., ", , ",. 'it. , :,' 334.02 27.01 361.03 6 CANS/2 PU >, "'. ,'i ,,) "'" , "" 442.68 35.80 478.48 8 CAN S/2 PU 497;01' .. 1::,,'..,';" ", "..".~,. '. ,." '..,'." ,,' ~~ ~ ". .,' ),", ) ! c-89;52 : ",. .",",,'-:'1"' .,' :':;'::>i,.<~"'" ,. .,..." ~:eAr\lX3Pu' l.. .,:.,,' "'" 170.85 13.82 184.67 2 CAN 8/3 PU 252.51 20.42 , 272.93 3cANS/3 pU 334.02 27.01 361.03 4 CAN8/3 PU 415.54 33.61 449.15 5 CANS/3 PU 497.01 40.20 537.21 6 CANS/3 PU 578.50 46:79 625.29 7CANS/3PU 659.98 53.38 713.36 8 CANS/3 PU 741..47 '," ''''O'U:7 , '., :J' """.' ,'". 9 CANS/3PU J'" "". .> TIBURON INCREASE 8.09"0 COMMERCIAL 32 GL CAN CURRENT PROPOSED NEW MONTHLY RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE 85:02 >.~;8~'<' ..... . .'.:Q'L9qJ' .. .... 154.20 12.47 166.67 226.66 18.33 244.99 299.10 24.19 323.29 37147 30,04' 401:51 443.97 35.91 479.88 , 516.,46 M,077."!!,, .'5?~:23 .i. 588.96 47.63 636.59 \"'6'61:46'; .' ..... ',\ ,:. '. ...... I'" ". .','8"08%", ..... ...."......,'."....~ 190.44 15.40 ....281.[01 Ii,." _ ... .,.,.... ,.... .. 371.47 . ........46EQ.f1.\. 552.40 642.8~ 733.32 823.78 205.84 EFFECTIVE 7/1/03 .. . .'.,t:.QAN/4:PLJ 2 CANS/4 PU 3 CANS/4 PU 4 CANS/4 PU 5CANS/4 PU 6 CANS/4 PU >'\'YiiCINf\J$/4;PLJ ' 8 CANS/4 PU ,". 2 CANS/5 PU ','., .... A..... ..... ".," ~'. . n' ;,;,;,'" v'.. . 401.51 30.04 , . ..../ 44.67 51:99' 59.31 66,62 " ;. .. .: 597.07 .694;84 792.63 890.40 '.... 117.88 226.66 335.~2 444.00 5s2.78 ."~ 661.36 76'9:93:; 878.50 987:07 .. .'.;''; 9.53 127.41 18.33 244.99 ":27:'1'2;.;,' ... .... ..?'.92~n4" ,', ............: 35.91 479.91 '. .'. ..\ .... :, . . ...... ';"";'," 4 CANS/5 PU s"5cCANS(5;Pl.:J . 6 CANS/5 PU 7CANS/5:PU' 8 CANS/5 PU 9 CANS/5 PU 1 CAN/6 PU 2 CANS/6 PU . '.i~ ::();4;N S/6jiPtJ. 4 CANS/6 PU ..,.. ....,.. 6 CANS/6 PU 714.85 ..;'. i....... . .', ,".. .';' , 53.49 ,"",':'IE~';':'L . ....ii'.I,''':.I;.. 71.05 949.55 .I Y'K'~'" ,.'. I""""" :1@.'66...:90/," -,...... .j. 1"'" .... . .' .',.. j,.' 8 CANS/6 PU , · :.giCANS/6iPl.:L 'I:' . ; ,': .I,C' ,..,.,....<. '. . '. ',1 ... ,'. I.... Page 3 of 5 # OF CANS . .... .... "'",'j" . .' . . . TIBURON INCREASE 8.0910 EFFECTIVE 7/1/03 Page 2 of 5 COMMERCIAL 32 GL CAN CURRENT PROPOSED NEW MONTHLY RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE # OF CANS '.",= 2'7:44 c ,. <,c'...........' '"" .' c< ',,""',."i , I:. ,'.."r,:"",. < .,....".",,} 1\,.', ."., ""', ",' ,~. ." .', "~X " 45.53 3.68 49.21 2 CANS/1 PU ....,.<,:'..."'2 ~ """ """ ".. ':,f..'."','" '. ",' ",,"','. 81.74 6.61 88.35 4 CANS/1 'PU 'i. '; '''"'''"''.n'' ~ '" ., ;"<"",>"".,,,, 117.88 9.53 127.41 6 CANS/1 PU " '"", ..:> """,,". ," ,~ , ., ":.,' " k, , 154.20 12.47 166.67 8 CANS/1 PU , 172.38 ,.., .'.' '. .c; "~'x L' '. ~7QQfI;t'J$/1.PLi " I..' " " .., ',., ~~y.~1 4553 3:68 " 49:21 lCAN/2 PU 81.77 6.61 88.38 2 CANS/2 PU 117.88 9:53 127.41 3 CANS/2 PU 154.20 12.47 166.67 4 CANS/2 PU 190.44 15.40 205:8:4, , . 5 CANS/2PU 226.66 18.33 244.99 6 CAN S/2 PU ,.. 2,62;8,~ " ',', " ,2.tl'26' " ",} H""",,', :',","'.: '," 'ic/iZlCf\N S/2iP l:.J , IF' , "',' "."",,,,.,,.,', 299.10 24.19 323.29 8 CANS/2 PU r '~~c: fI "'. ,,"" ';',i'$~ --:- I"! . ,'''" 1'":<:''' ',' !L',"'". ""'" ',".' ...' ~'." 63:p5: ,...';.,'.',""..."".,' '",'. '\' ',. "." [,:"':""-'--;;:" . , " " 117.88 9.53 127.41 2 CANS/3 PU 17'2.33' , 13:g-4: ' ,'.'. ".,;.~:,.".., , .':,. ,,; ~;(3!XKJ S/3\PW ; , 226.66 18.33 244.99 4 CANS/3 PU 28t01 , ,2,2:73, ~ 'q~3.74, " , 5CANS/3PU , 335.32 27.12 362.44 6 CANS/3 PU 389.64 31.51 421.15 7 CANS/3 PU 443.97 35.91 479.88 8 CANS/3 PU 498.29 40.30 538;59 9CANS/3 PW TIBURON INCREASE 8.09% EFFECTIVE 7/1/03 Page 1 of 5 CURRENT PROPOSED NEW NEW MONTHLY RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE QUARTERLY # CAN ~ " i., /'>,\ '~'c;'" ,,' ;}\ ,:NC!i.N),EL:Aw ""i,'" 23.89 1.93 25.82 77.46 1 CAN HILL , 36:52 .:,,?:Q~" .... '. ;1;1~!4tt ..... . 2CA'tSlS ALL '.,".'~ ,"'''' ',' '.'7" . 52.71 4.26 56.98 170.94 3 CANS ALL 68:86 5.57 74:44 223.32 4 CANS ALL 17.78 1.44 19.22 57.66 MINI CAN FLAT 21.06 , '. 1.70 " 22;7.6 . .., 68.28' MINI CAN HELL 28.32 2.29 30.61 91.83 45 GAL FLAT 34rOO. ';~ ,.,;b .i.' )i; '., ..... ...., , '4...'^';"'~ ). '. ......, 45'G~L;HILL ...... .,.......:.; .....,. ,t::I:,J'.' '...../ """". '. .,,: ROLLING HILLS AREA ,,/' ~ ~ .. "'" ..i......., I" ' /.... .... " 69.40 5.61 75.00 225.00 2 CAN12PU ....i .'y..... ,"'" .;3!'c;!i.N/?PU ,,' .,',' 134.19 10.85 145.03 . 435.09 4 CAN/2PU ,'. . .,.,\ ~<""'/< sl~i.gf.2it.. "';"':"",.',.:../ i".' 'U,: "'..i .... ~, 101.23 8.19 109.42 328.26 6 CAN/1PU 19.21 CU. YD. TIBURON CONTAINERS CURRENT PROPOSED NEW MONTHLY RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE RENTAL PICKUPS 1 YARD CO NT AINER 82.46 6.67 89.13 13.00 1 PICKUP 164.94 13..34 178.28 13.00 2 PICKUP 247.43 20;01 26;Z.~4. 13;0(;) . 3 PICKUP .',,' '1. 329.89 26.68 356.57 13.00 4 PICKUP 412.38 .33:3$,. .>';, 1:./ :.' . ..''''.,i,......".. ,.' >;:13;00 '. ........ ...... '5)PiI!CKUP ." :,.., 494.88 40.02 534.90 13.00 6 PICKUP 2 YARD CONTAINER \ " '.". ...". .,.... . ...... 329.89 26.68 356.57 26.00 2 PICKUP ,>< ':49418.8" '>'. 't' ." :'.' ."..' ....., ...... " 3 PICKUP 'i'e. ,.... '.."',,'" ".;. 659.76 53.36 713.12 26.00 4 PICKUP .' 824.78' , 66.70 . .",. I.. .,891.48: 26:00 5,pICk\UP .. "'.".. .;, '. 989.73 80.04 1069.77 26.00 6 PICKUP MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION COMMERCIAL CURRENT PROPOSED NEW MONTHLY RATE INCREASE MONTHLY RATE 27:46 " 2:22 "<.' ,:: 29:68. , :., ...CGJMM..'h32GAL'CAN.1Pl:J "".,. . ",. ".: .. ..,.... '. .. '. 35.19 2.85 38.04 COMM. 1-45GAL CAN 1PU l'~t~~ ......:. '. . '1",~,q"..):::.:"e'<. Ie." ,. ".". .i1 ..i. .:i:::'.r ......,.:. , . :".: .... 18.03 1.46 19.49 HILARIT A PER CAN FLAT 22.79 .. .'i;' ,....\'......,1..... "...... I..c:t',.. .. ,'):<")',.A'8;;r..:;RgR.:liJNLn-'::HIgL~.':.' .. ',";.' ,..'..' , '. '. .........,...,<<.,.,...." ". ";i.,; ,.. ... . 21.79 1.76 23.55 HILARITA PER CAN HILL EXHIBIT NO. ,. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of this 4th day ofJune, 2003. TOWN OF TIBURON JEFF SLA VITZ Mayor ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI Town Clerk MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. By: Its: Seventeenth Amendment to MVRS Franchise Agreement - Adopted 6/4/03 -2- EXHIBIT ~JO"~ SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT.TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT "- The parties are the TOWN OF TffiURON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue ofthe laws ofthe State of California, hereinafter referred as "Town," and MILL V ALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INe." a California corporation hereinafter referred to as "Company." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the parties heretofore entered into a written agreement dated November 12, 1965 and renewed a modified Solid Waste Management Agreement on December 6, 1995, relating to the collection and disposal of all refuse within the Town, and have amended said rates for services referred to in the agreement on several occasions, and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend said agreement in the respects hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Town has heretofore held a hearing in the matter, and has determined that said further amendment is proper and in the best interests of its citizens; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the rates charged by the Company for the services referred to herein should be modified and adjusted as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that the written agreement between the parties dated December 6,1995, and the subsequent amendments thereto, shall be amended in the following manner, effective for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30,2005: Effective July 1, 2003, the monthly rates shall be those set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. These rates include and incorporate an eight point zero nine percent (8.09%) adjustment to all rates for solid waste collection and recycling for all residential and commercial customers. Construction bins/roll offs will be adjusted to the rates shown on Exhibit B. Effective July 1, 2004, the monthly rates shall be those set forth in Exhibit C. which is attached. hereto and incorporated herein by reference. These rates include and incorporate an additional eight point zero nine percent (8.09%) adjustment to all rates for solid waste collection and recycling for all residential and commercial customers. Other than as herein specifically provided, the aforesaid Agreement, and the amendments thereto, are hereby ratified and confirmed to be and shall continue in full force and effect. Seventeenth Amendment to MVRS Franchise Agreement - Adopted 6/4/03 -1- diversion to over 75% of the franchised collected wastes, by seeking competitive proposals for waste management services. Summary of Significant Forecast Assumptions: Revenue: Assumed to be the same as in 2002. Does not include the increase in garbage collection rates requested in this application. Salaries and wages: While a reduction in recycling driver hours were noted from the change in recycling vehicles, no reduction in staffing is shown to result from the purchase of new equipment that will reduce the need for maintenance. Section 12: Findings and Recommendations While EPe did not identify any serious financial issues from the review of the MVRS Rate Application, there are certainly opportunities for MVRS to increase the efficiency of their operations, and reduce costs to the ratepayers. However, some of these opportunities would require major changes in the way MVRS conducts business, and potentially a restructuring of the operations. Some of the possible improvements to operations may not be appropriate following the major capital expenditure on new equipment that has just occurred. Recommendations for improvements are provided throughout this report. The projected costs and rates seem reasonable. It is recommend that the rate increases requested for 2003 be approved at this time, and that future rate increases be contingent on MVRS implementing changes to improve their operations and service to the communities. Mill Valley Refuse Service 9 Rate Application Review 6) debris box services included, labor hours without debris box services and without cleanup events (line 7), labor hours without debris box services, but including cleanup events (line 8), and truck hours without debris box services included (line 9). For each factor, the quantity relating to each jurisdiction is listed, and the total provided. Then for each line, the percent of the total relating to each jurisdiction is allocated. In calculating the percent allocation for each service area, each of the factors is applied to the appropriate line item in each expense category to calculate the costs for each of the jurisdictions [Rate Application pages 16-27]. Within the limitations of the data com piled by MVRS, this methodology provides for the fair distribution of costs to each jurisdiction. However, it may not completely reflect the actual costs. For example, it does not reflect the cost of service to, and revenues from residential customers as compared with commercial customers. Based on this approach, the communities with the larger commercial base may be paying slightly more (or less) than their true share for refuse services. As noted in Section 4 of this report, it is not clear that all of the revenues are being allocated appropriately. Likewise, it is not clear that all of the expenses are allocated correctly (although they may well be). It should be noted that when the last rate application review was conducted debris box revenues were not tracked by jurisdiction, but generally they are now. Also, while 17% of the debris box services are provided in communities outside the franchise area, it is not clear that ,these hours are not included in the costs of operation. Since entirely separate services are not provided for each community, determining the precise cost for service to each would be nearly impossible. In light of this situation, the allocation methodology used is considered to be sound and appropriate. Section II: Specific Notes on the MVRS Rate Application Cover letter: Recycling Conversion: delivering recyclables to a processor (Timber Cover Recycling) that will pay for them is an improvement over utilizing one (Marin Sanitary) that charges for processing. Fleet Modernization: Yes, MVRS is purchasing new equipment, but it is not necessarily modern. Depreciation: changing the cost recovery period is appropriate, since most of the new equipment will be used for more than 10 years. Comparable rates: EPC recently assisted the Town of Los Altos Hills in negotiating a 15% decrease in rates from their current service provider. The Town of Port 01 a Valley reduced rates by over 15% (to a base rate of $19.18 for one-can collected at curbside) and increased waste Mill Valley Refuse Service 8 Rate Application Review The Franchise Fee requirements vary by Franchise Agreement. For example: City of Mill Valley: The Collector agrees to pay to the City an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the gross receipts of the Collector on refuse, and 2% for debris boxes of 5 cubic yards or more, which gross receipts are derived from customers. or property owners furnished with garbage service by the Collector within the territory regulated by the City. No franchise fee shall be paid for debris boxes of 4 yards or less. Tiburon: The Collector agrees to pay to the Town an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the gross receipts of the Collector, which gross receipts are derived from customers or property owners furnished with garbage service by the Collector within the territory regulated by the Town. . The two examples cited above both indicate that franchise fees would be due on all revenues from residents or businesses that have garbage services. Fees due on debris box operations are described separately, when they are addressed. However, the total gross receipts may now also include revenues that were not envisioned when the Agreements were negotiated, including. payments for beverage container processing, storage boxes, holding tanks, porta-potties, and whatever miscellaneous activities that MVRS conducts in the communities served. Recommendation: The details of which revenues are to be included in the calculation of gross receipts, should be a clarified. Section 9: Procedures for the acquisition, maintenance and replacement of equipment MVRS does not maintain a set of procedures for acquisition, maintenance or replacement of equipment. They operate a very standardized fleet, and maintain it well. Many of the collection vehicles are well over the industry standard of 10 years that is used for equipment depreciation. The company maintains a line of credit, and uses it to purchase equipment. When the owners of MVRS need a new truck, they purchase it. Hence, when the company perceived that there was an opportunity to reduce collection costs by switching to collection of recyclables in rear loaders, they just went out and bought new trucks. Recommendation: MVRS should discuss their ideas with the affected communities in advance of implementing significant changes to their operations (like switching to single stream collection of recyclables). Section 10: Allocation of cost of operations among the member jurisdictions EPC reviewed the company's allocation of costs by jurisdiction. The cost allocation methodology is provided on Page 5 of the rate application as Allocation Statistics. The table provides data on nine factors: the number of accounts billed (line 1), labor hours (line 2), truck hours (line 3), labor for cleanup events (line 4), revenues with (line 5), and without (line Mill Valley Refuse Service 7 Rate Application Review is no hill side surcharge in Tiburon for multiple cans. The other MVRS service areas do not have separate flatland and hillside rates. f EPC followed one of the route vehicles in the hilly area of Mill Valley to determine productivity statistics, and to verify that the company's operational experience supports the need for a differential rate. Operating a collection system using a rear-loading packer truck requires more than thirty seconds per stop on route, in the best of conditions. In the hilly areas, the time per stop increases to about 40 seconds per stop on average. Recommendation: The communities should consider restructuring the rates for services (within anyone jurisdiction) to standardize the differential in service fee for hillside services. The hillside service rate should include a 12.5% (10%-15%) surcharge to the flatland rate. Backyard Service: Currently, residents pay for backyard service. However, since recycling and plant trimming. wastes are only collected at the curb, many residents bring their garbage out to the street for collection. While the costs for providing service in the hilly areas are higher than in the flatland areas, a much larger differential is caused by the need to go into a resident's back yard, and an even bigger differential caused by the need to climb stairs in the hilly areas. These costs are not reflected in the rates. Residents who bring their wastes and recyclables out to the street are subsidizing those who do not. Individual stops where a driver has to go into a backyard, and in the hilly areas climb stairs, to get to a waste container, often exceed 2 minutes, or 4 times a long as flatland curbside service. Backyard collection is a much more significant issue relating to service time per stop than is hillside versus flatland. Recommendation: The communities should consider restructuring the rates for services to more accurately reflect the cost of services requested by the customer. By implementing a distance and elevation change surcharge, rates would not have to increase as.much to those residents who elected to bring all of their wastes to the curb. Recommendation: MVRS should be asked to provide the communities with recommendations for these service charges. [NOTE: The surcharge would be expected to be approximately $2.50 per 100-feet distance from the nearest place to park the collection vehicle, or about $2.50 per 25-feet of elevation change from the street to where the garbage is collected.] Section 8: Franchise fee tracking and calculation procedures EPC reviewed the company's calculation and p~yment of franchise fees for accuracy and compliance with each member jurisdiction's Franchise Agreement. The franchise fee calculations are included in rate application spreadsheets provided by MVRS. While the rates and amounts due are accurately calculated based on revenues shown in the spreadsheets, other data provided by MVRS shows different gross revenues. Mill Valley Refuse Service 6 Rate Application Review Section 5: Justification for and calculation of executive compensation pa~kage EPC reviewed the justification for changes to the executive compensation package, and discuss the appropriateness of the request with the financial officer. Waste management companies might normally be expected to have a general manager, an operations manager, an equipment manager, and a financial manager. Since the MVRS partners fill many of these roles in. the day to day operations, the executive compensation could (in part) be viewed as salary. Past rate applications have requested that each partner is to receive $100,000 per year as an executive in the company, and $103,000 as a return on their investment in the Company. However, the executive compensation has been fixed at $400,000 for the last 8 years. This amount was a compromise between the $455,000 proposed by MVRS and the $266,000 recommended by a financial consultant. Had the executive compensation be set at $320,000 in 1994, and allowed to escalate at the rate of 3% per year, it would be almost $400,000 per year now. ; Recommendation: Beginning in 2004, the executive compensation should be subject to cost of living increases equal to the approved cost of living adjustment rate increase. ' Section 6: Justification for and calculation of operational cost adjustments The Agreements between MVRS and the communities provide for cost of living adjustments. Insurance costs have risen at a significantly higher rate than the overall cost of living. Recommendation: The requested cost of living adjustments for labor should be approved. Recommendation: It is appropriate to pass the unusually high insurance rate increases on to MVRS customers. Section 7: Justification for and calculation of appropriate hillside rate surcharge Rate Structure: Currently, there are two residential service billing rates, one for flat areas and the other for hilly areas. Based data provided in Section 3 of the rate application, the flatland area rates were compared to the hillside area rates. The rates as a percent of service costs are quite inconsistent. In Belvedere the hillside rate varied from a 12% surcharge on the 4-can rate to a 30% surcharge for the 3-can rate, and over 50% for the 45-gallon can. In Corte Madera the hillside rate surcharge was a consistent 7.5%, except for a 9% surcharge for the mi'ni-can, but the 45-gallon can hillside rate is only 95% of the flatland rate for the same can. In Mill Valley the hillside rate varied from a 4% surcharge on the 5-can rate to a 14% surcharge for the I-can and mini-can rates (and almost 15% for the 45-gallon can). In Tiburon the hillside rate surcharge for the mini-can is 19%, for I-can it is 18%, and for the 45-gallon can is 20%. There Mill Valley Refuse Service 5 Rate Application Review Recommendation: MVRS should develop a methodology to more accurately reflect the cost of providing services, and provide that data to the communities they serve. Recommendation: MVRS should track services provided and revenues received by type of service to insure that the cost of providing those services is recovered by the appropriate rates. Non-Payment For Service: The data provided by MVRS shows that their accounts receivable (AR) is running at over $100,000, and much of this amount is more than 90 days past due. Approximately half of the AR is from commercial accounts. In the prior performance review, I noted that "the 2000 actuals for Franchise Fees and the forecast 2001 fees, it was noted that there is a significant shorifall in revenue due to non-payment for service. " And that "MVRS believes that the communities that they serve want them to continue to collect the garbage, even when payment is not received within a reasonable time. " . These issues have not yet been resolved. In some cases, non-payment is by residents who are tenants renting homes. These people may think that the cost of garbage collection is included in their rent, but it is usually not. Making the property oWner responsible would likely reduce the amount of the non-payment from residential accou'nts. Some communities place liens on property where utility bills are not paid. When viewed as a percent of the amount billed, the only accounts receivable categories that are over 1.5% of the amount billed are holding tank, storage box and porta-potie accounts. Recommendation: MVRS needs to do a better job of tracking non-payment, and needs the authority to recover money due them, while continuing to provide service. Recommendation: MVRS should provide an updated listing of all accounts that are over 90 days delinquent to each jurisdiction, each quarter with the franchise fee payment. R.ecommendation: MVRS should institute a policy that certain types of commercial accounts (especially special service accounts, like contractors) should be required to provide a deposit (at least 50% of the service price), before the bin is delivered to a job site. Debris Box Services: Some debris box services are currently provided by other service providers. Since these services are outside the contract and franchise arrangements of MVRS, net income from those operations reduces the MVRS revenues. Revenues derived by other haulers are not subject to franchise fees, giving the other companies a competitive advantage and reducing revenues in communities where franchise fees are assessed on debris box services provided by MVRS. Recommendation: The jurisdictions should consider requiring all debris box service providers to obtain a non-exclusive franchise, pay franchise fees, whenever possible take loads to a processing facility to increase the diversion rate, and provide the communities with reports on where they have taken the materials. Mill Valley Refuse Service 4 Rate Application Review Section 3: Staffing practices, including the deployment of management and supervisory personnel The MVRS management are directly involved in the day to day activities of all personnel. Presonnel are assigned to complete whatever tasks are required for that day. MVRS management pitch in as needed to insure that all collections are made as scheduled. Section 4.: Financial management practices, including the company's billing and collection system and its policies with regard to uncollected accounts EPe reviewed MVRS's financial management practices, relating to the company's billing policies and procedures, and the company's collection policies and procedures, including the amount of uncollected accounts. It should be noted that the hired a new financial officer (Kevan Mullins) less than a year ago, and that changes are slowly being made to the financial operations. Overview: The financial information provided by the MVRS operations is reasonable in an overall sense, but the data breaks down when reviewed in detail and by specific community services. The financial records treat the entire operation as one large service area, but since there are differences in the individual franchise agreements and since services are provided outside the franchised areas, it is difficult to insure that all of the revenues and expenses are properly allocated. Separate records are maintained in separate data management systems that can not easily be integrated or compared. As a result, charges and revenues may incorrectly be entered and not reconciled when the specific data are not in agreement (because they are not compared). The dichotomy in records causes further confusion in the record keeping process regarding debris box services. On page 4 of the rate applic~tion, debris box revenues are attributed to each of the service areas, but over 17% of the revenues are attributed to "miscellaneous" areas. It appears that this revenue is from services provided outside the franchised service areas, but it is not clear if this operation has a neutral, beneficial or negative impact on the overall cost of service in the franchised service areas. Recommendation: MVRS should be required to update their accounting programs so that charges and revenues are consistent and easily reconciled. Service Rates: The current rate structure does not adequately address the cost of providing services. The residential rates do not reflect the cost of distance or elevation changes required for the driver to collect garbage. The commercial rates are the same for a one yard bin emptied twice as they are for a two yard bin emptied once, but this does not reflect the cost of the return trip. Mill Valley Refuse Service 3 Rate Application Review The primary focus of the business is on the collection of wastes and recyclables. MVRS provides high quality services in a timely and courteous manner. The company is very customer friendly and service oriented. This is the most important function of the company. As a result of their service focus, .there are certain financial management issues that do not get the attention they need, and there are inadequacies in record keeping - especially accounts receivables. Section 2: Efficiency of collection operations, including an analysis of routes and schedules EPe evaluated the MVRS collection operations, efficiencies of routing and route scheduling practices. In our 2001 rate application performance review, EPe noted that: "MVRS operates a fleet of rear-loading packer trucks. While these trucks do have some operational advantages in the hitty terrain of their seroice area, they do require more labor than.do side-loading packer trucks (because of the longer distance from the drivers compartment to the loading hopper). The tendenry in a small company is to have all trucks of the same configuration so each can be used anywhere in the seroice area, the company might be able to gain some ifficiencies if they were to purchase and operate side-loaders in the less hilty seroice areas. The jurisdictions should ask MVRS to conduct an ,evaluation (before their next rate application) of the use of side-loaders in appropriate seroice areas." MVRS continues to operate its fleet of rear-loading packer trucks, and in fact is changing out its side-loading recycling trucks in favor of rear-loading vehicles as it switches to single-stream collection of recyclables. This has a positive effect on the maintenance of the fleet, as all of the vehicles have the same parts and systems. Further, the older collection vehicles are used for lighter duty recycling activities, and the newer vehicles are used for garbage collection. This process extends the useful life of each vehicle. EPe also evaluated opportunities for route efficiency improvements. The residential garbage services provided include manual collection from the residents back-yard. This is the most costly service that is typically provided. However, it was noted that collection in several route areas was performed by a two-person crew usi'ng a single vehicle. By utilizing another vehicle these same two workers can provide service to about 40% more residences. This opportunity was discussed with MVRS. They indicated that their experience supported this conclusion, . and that they would investigate the opportunities to institute these savings. Recommendation: The use of different types of vehicles in different service areas could increase collection efficiency. MVRS should review similar operations of other waste management companies, and evaluate the purchase of alternative equipment. ,Mill Valley Refuse Service 2 Rate Application Review ; Mill Valley Refuse Service 2003 Rate Application Review Environmental Planning Consultants (EPC) has reviewed the 2003 Mill Valley Refuse Service (MVRS) rate application and met with representatives of MVRS to discuss the application to determine if the rate request is reasonable. EPC has also conducted a review and evaluation of Mill Valley Refuse Service (MVRS) operations. The following sections detail the findings of this review and evaluation. General Comments Overall, MVRS is run as a small family business. It does not have the systems and controls in place that might be expected of a company providing service to approximately 17,500 customers. Operational decisions are frequently based on maintaining the status quo. MVRS buys new trucks that are just like the ones they have purchased for the last 20 years' (and some of the trucks that are still in service are that old). Operational decisions are provided independent of the financial implications of the actions. MVRS does not have a structure in place to manage delinquent customer accounts. They do not track details of income against billings. Their financial information is tracked by the entire operation, not by individual jurisdiction or service area. They provide very good quality services and they bill for services at the rates approved. I do. not believe that the partners are not trying to maximize their income, or make unreasonable rate requests. However, by the same token, they have not done much to maximize efficiency and reduce costs. Section 1: Overall organizational structure, management systems and procedures MVRS is wholly owned by four partners. Each partner plays an active role in the day to day operations of the company. Dave Biggio is the equivalent of a General Manager. Jim Iavarone serves as the Operations Manager, and is responsible for the day-to-day collection activities. Ray Dami and Dave Della-Zoppa have various financial and operational responsibilities. If the partners did not playa significant role in the company, MVRS would need to hire additional staff to cover these responsibilities. The company also employs a financial officer (Kevan Mullins), an office manager (Mary Biggio), and a shop foreman (Kelvin Mauchline). MVRS is operated as a small, family business, and the management personnel communicate in an informal manner on a regular basis. They do not follow a formalized set of procedures or internal staff reporting arrangements. Mill Valley Refuse Service 1 Rate Application Review .. Environmental Planning Consultants 1885 The Alameda, Suite 120 San Jose, CA 95126 =~ Voice 408-249-0691 Fax 408-249-0681 Richard@environplan.com EXHIBIT JVO. ~ -"-...- May 21,2003 TO: Town of Belvedere Town of Corte Madera ToWn of Mill Valley Town of Tiburon County of Marin SUBJECT: Mill Valley Refuse Service 2003 Rate Application The attached report provides my findings and recommendations on the Mill Valley Refuse Service 2003 rate application. My overall finding is that the projected costs and rates are reasonable, and I recommend that the rate increase requested for 2003 be approved at this time. However, I feel that future rate increases should be contingent on MVRS implementing changes to improve their operations to reduce the cost of service to the communities. MVRS should be required to tighten up their accounting system, and provide more detailed costs for different elements of theif operations. They should be requested to come forward with recommendations for changes that would improve the efficiencies of their operations and would more directly tie the charges for services to the cost of providing those services. Specific recommendations are provided throughout the text of my report. If you have any questions about the information provided, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Richard Gertman Richard Gertman Principal . I -2- April 1, 2003 I This will result in a decrease in depreciation expense as we are lengthening our cost recovery period ~ As we are fully aware that this increase in the fIrst year exceeds the change in the December Consumer Price Index, we decided to review our rates to determine if they are commensurate with the types of services we offer. To determine this we relied upon the Survey results of Bay Area Refuse Disposal Rates conducted by Armanino McKenna LLP (included behind Tab 5). The following table is a summary of rates where "Backyard Service" is provided. I I Table 2 - 2002 Comparable Rates I Municipality Los Altos Hills - County Los Altos Hills Hillsborough Sausalito Average 2002 Rates $26.64 24.61 .21.71 22.15 $23.78 I I Further research into 2003 rates, derived from public sources, indicated the following: I Table 3- 2003 Comparable Rates ~ Municipality Sausalito - Flat Sausalito - Hill Kensington San Francisco - Norcal* Los Altos Hills":" County** Average 2003 Rates $24.00 25.35 27.44 28.16 29.41 $26.87 I I , *Base Rate 16.49 *Charge for distance 4.53 *Charge for elevation 7.14 **Backyard rate 26.88 **Can rental 2.53 After reviewing this information we have determined that even with this increase, our base rate for all three services, is signifIcantly below the average. Therefore we respectfully submit this application for the year 2003. Should you have any questions feelfree to contact me at (415) 457-2287. I ! I Respectfully Yours, I ~-s.~ ! Kevan L. Mullins Chief Financial Officer Mill Valley Refuse Service, Inc. ! ~ II _ZI I ~ I "~ I '.'.3 I ..)P I .,-.;;;) I _...!!J ~ I ,,~, I ,..;1 ~ I _.W I .:.;J I ...;J;.i I ...;J , I ;;; , I ..J 1~'1BIT .~fo..,,,,A ..- ~ Jll..- ~ MILLpr~~!~SA~!!~!!o!!'!~!~!~ INC. ~ PHONE (41 5) 457-9760 FAX (415) 457-3003 April 1, 2003 To All Interested Parties: SUBJECT: 2003 RATE APPLICATION Mill Valley Refuse Service has completed its internal rate review and respectfully submits this rate application. The percent increases that we are requesting are detailed in Table 1 belo\v. In order to minimize our rate increase the Company will be seeking the increase in two parts. The fIrst part of the increase we are asking is to take effect July 1, 2003, the second to take effect on January 1, 2004. During the next two years' the Company will be focusing on route reorganization and maximizing the' efftciency of new equipment to minimize costs. With all else remaining equal the Company does not intend to request any further rate increase until July 1, 2005. Table 1- Percent Rate Increase by Municipality PROPOSED RATE INCREASES 2003 2004 CITY OF MILL V ALLEY 8.6% 8.6% TOWN OF BELVEDERE 7.6% 7.6% TOWN OF CORTE MADERA 8.6% 8.6% ALTO SANITARY DISTRICT 8.3% 8.3% TOWN OF TIBURON 8.1% 8.1% COUNTY OF MARIN 8.1% 8.1% HOMESTEAD SANITARY DISTRICT 7.4% 7.4% STRA WBERR Y RECREATION DISTRICT 8.2% 8.2% ALMONTE SANITARY DISTRICT 7.4% 7.4% Throughout the coming years we are planning some changes in the types of services we offer. Listed below is a summation of those changes and improvements that we see as material to this application. 1. Recycling conversion - \V'e are in the fInal stages of converting our recycling fleet from a compartmented to a single stream system. We have included in this application these costs and the costs distributing 68-gallon containers to all our customers. The distribution of these containers will facilitate a possible consolidation of our Green Can and Recycling fleets. 2. . Fleet Modernization - A high percentage of the current fleet is older and requires a higher schedule of maintenance and repairs. In the up coming months we will be looking to replace several of the older trucks. As with any aged equipment, the cost benefIt of keeping it maintained decreases as it requires more and more shop hours and parts to maintain a decent level of reliability. A large portion of our fleet is over 20 years old; almost twice that of industry standards. 3. Depreciation - From this point on, we will depreciate all collection equipment over ten years. Currently, we use a 7 year schedule for trucks and equipment which is the industry standard. (' STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ " Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TO: Mayor and Members of the Town ttil. Alex D. Mcintyre, Town Manager ~ 2003 Refuse Collection Rate Application - Mill Valley Refuse Service FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: June 4, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mill Valley Refuse Service, Inc. (MVRS) has submitted its request for its annual rate increase. The Town has had a franchise agreement with MVRS since 1965. Different this year, MVRS is requesting a two-year across the board rate increase (an 8.09% rate adjustment effective July 1,2003 and another 8.09% on July 1,2004). Separately, they are requesting a sliding scale increase for their bin service. They are making such a request due to several changes that MVRS has undertaken to introduce operational efficiencies and improve customer service. Such changes are outlined in the MVRS Rate Application letter dated April 1, 2003 (Exhibit A). A full copy of the application is available in my office for review. MVRS services the cities/towns of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Mill Valley, and Tiburon as well as several unincorporated areas of Marin County. The Franchise Agreement between the Town of Tiburon and MVRS guarantees an automatic cost-of-living rate adjustment each year tied to the consumer price index. This year's automatic increase would have been approximately 4%. Given the significant change in the requested rate adjustment, as in years past, the contracting agencies retained Richard Gertman from Environmental Planning Consultants (EPC) to review the rate application. After thorough analysis, Mr. Gertman believes that the requested rate increases are justified. His report is attached as Exhibit B. MVRS's original rate request was for the same amount, only the 2nd increase was requested to trigger in January 1, 2004; the city/town managers and representatives from MVRS agreed to recommend the 2nd rate increase on July 1, 2004. I believe that the rate increase is appropriate given the changes the MVRS has introduced to its collection and disposal of refuse. With significant modernization of its fleet, improved accounting practices, and changes to its collection and disposal practices of recyclables and refuse. Given the significant nature of the rate request, I would recommend that the Town Council grant the initial 8.09% increase and tie the second increase to measured and proven improvements in efficiency and customer service. I would suggest that the Town ask for a presentation by MVRS in March 2004 evidencing its improvement. The Town can again retain Environmental Planning Consultants to verify these improvements. The cost for the EPC will be borne by MVRS. Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT ',j'., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :e. . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendation It is recommended that the Town Council accept the Mill Valley Refuse Service, Inc. rate application and approve the attached Seventeenth Amendment to Franchise Agreement (Exhibit C) granting the rate increases. It is further recommended that the Town Council tie the 2nd year rate increase to proven successes in efficiency and operation as outlined above. Exhibits A - Rate Application Request from MVRS B- Environmental Planning Consultant's Final Report C - Seventeenth Amendment to Franchise Agreement May 30,2003 Page 2 of 2 Town of Tiburon 2003/2004 Proposed Municipal Budget Plan June 4, 2003 FY 2003/04 Proposed Budget Overview of Operating Revenues & Expenditures 1....................1 ::i~::.i:~ii: r.................1 .................... ~~~li~MiilliW~ .:.:.' .~. :6ij7:':':': ::.~[ili::: .................... 11=~6,I~:r:! 2003/04 Proposed Budget Operating Revenues by Source (General Fund) Mm.ertE~5 \9% F..,..,ti,e, H" 1~ltlav_&Agl'ITY 4.4% ~1Rel.e1U!$ '''' UCl!J'<le,&P~h 154% PmpertyT;1lU!$ 39_6% !'lMWiM#.~;*-M@i@%1 2003/04 Total Town Budget $0,000,000 A 18,000,000 11,000,000 16,000,000 15,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 . $1,000,000 10 2003/04 Proposed Budget Operating Revenues by Source lowlModerate h::;ome HousingFtn1 09% library.PA 133% !~.I[lill~I:..:: Long Range Planring Fmd Police COPS 2.9% 30% State Budget Revenue Reductions Normally Expected Proposed Budget Net loss VlF $600,000 $200,000 ($400,000) SB90 Reimbursements $20,000 $0 ($20,000) POST Training $12,000 $0 ($12,000) ERAF Rebate $208.000 $0 ($208.000) COPS I SlESF $103,000 $103,000 $0 COPS /TECH $16,000 $16,000 $0 TOTAL $959,000 $219,000 ($640,000) 1 Revenue Enhancements . Audits (TOT, Sales Tax, Property Tax & Business Licenses) Increased Enforcement of Encroachment Permits . Full Cost Accounting of Restricted Funds . Fee increases to be presented to Council (Alarm Permit Fees, Drainage Impact Fees) General Fund Expenditures $4,000.000 $3.500,000 $3,000,000 S.larles $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Benefit. $1,500,000 Sup pile. & Servlc.. $1,000,000 5S00,OOO Capital Outlav $0 ,/ ,/ ./ ",<Ii' ""./ / /~/ 2003/04 Proposed Budget Reserves (General Fund) $7,000,000 $6,500,000 $6,000,000 $5,500,1100 $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 .........-- . 1998/99 1999/U0 2000/U1 2001102 2002/U3 21103/04 2003/04 Proposed Budget Expenditures by Object (Operating Expenditures) Supplies & Services 41.3% General Fund Revenues vs. Expenditures $5.500,000 $6,000,000 $5,500,000 ---+---~-.:-.... $5,000,000 / . . $4.500,000 ",' ... . .. $4.000.000 /' ...-- ...............--... ./ $3,500,000 ~--- $3.000,000 " $2,500.000 $2,000,000 ~ ~ ~ ii1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19 1~ ~ & '1 :g ~ ~ i3 ~ ~ I....-R.v.nu... ~Exp.nditure$1 !W ~ 2003/04 Proposed Budget Expenditures by Department (General Fund) Community Development 15.4% ~:@'i#l@i@MMM#~1 2 2003/04 Proposed Budget Expenditures by Department (General Fund) $2,000,000 ,/ /' #j9- /' / /" /~ ./ 2003/04 Proposed Budget Administrative SerVices Department Expenditures Legal Services 13.6% Admlnlatration 77~" Town""ll 6.'" Major Activities FY 2002-03 MERA Antenna Sighting & Litigation UDI Tetrad & Xanadu Litigation . Enhanced & Expanded Town Newsletter . Migration of Accounting System to New Server Upgraded Town's Network - Automate Software Rollout - Security Upgrades from a Central Location Implemented Tools for Telecommuting Town Administration Organizational Chart :::r6WiH'Mria~-::' .................. ,:,:,:<,""'--'" ..... ........... ..:.:.:-:.:1_tw'.:.:........ ~~~ :~.,;w;.w:w;a;': ..:'::::~:.........~:':<'::: ................. ..'.:-N>""'~"""<.:.: Administration Department . Legal Services . Administrative Services . Legislative . Town Hall Facility . Non-Departmental Major Activities FY 2002-03 (cont. ) . Streamlined & Enhanced Town's Website - General Plan - Skateboard Task Force - BPAC - Frequently Used Handbooks and Policies . Improved Personnel Services for Employees Met All Financial Reporting Deadlines Managed Office Space Remodel . Successfully Conducted 4 Recruitments 3 Major Activities FY 2002-03 (cant. ) . Purchase of New Copier Machine Grant Administration . Initiated Audits of Revenue Sources -TOT - Property Taxes - Sales Tax - Business Licenses Conducted Special November 2002 Election Community Development Organizational Chart General Plan Workshop Major Activities FY 2002-03 (cant.) . Cross Trained Staff . Completed CERT Training . Conducted Team Building Retreat . Prepared 225 Pages of Council Minutes Issued 550 Business Licenses 28 Regular/Special Payrolls (1 ,200 Checks) . Issued 1 ,700 NP Checks (6,000 Invoices) 2003/04 Proposed Budget Community Development Department Expenditures BulldJng Inspection 40.2% Advance Planning 19.5% Police Department Organizational Chart 4 2003/04 Proposed Budget Police Department Funding Sources Chief Odetto's New Vehicle . Emplo,..C.mp._ell l..""R_rve ... Community Policing Identity Theft Accident Investigation Burglary Investigation . Y:.~'.. :-:~:j:~:~:. 5 Special Olympics Police Department Programs (cant. ) . Citizen Ride-Along Program . Fingerprint Your Child Home Security Inspections Marin County Fair Booth Good Driver Program . Meet an Officer Day Volunteer Program . Sponsor Special Olympic Events Public Works Organizational Chart Direda".ot:_publk:Wt;~ll<rwi\f:rjglr'lef!~: ;.:-~II1I'~' .00rllQli"of'Publl~~ !;t1~Filrem;iri" :'::;;::m",,,tS~lIrjr1ei1oef't'Ct-PLill)iC.w~.'." . :;:::M~lI)b!nanre'W~r:K'>:' :::::M~llJlenantew~a-:':" .....Mal~nanceWttl<et...... Police Department Programs You Are Not Alone Neighborhood Watch . Business Watch Operation Identification Vacation House Checks Drug Abuse Recognition Education (DARE) . Bicycle Safety Rodeo Pedestrian Safety Program (Decoy Operation) COPS Program MERA Bond Payment (100%) Record Management System (100%) . Investigator (100%) - Residential Thefts & Burglaries - Fraud & Identity Theft - Department Training - Internal Investigation & Background Investigation . IT Coordinator (33%) 2003/04 Proposed Budget Public Works Department Expenditur~s streelMlil1enmc8 36h" COIpordion Y~d 6.7% street & Signa MBirtenance 3_9% Altnirislrallion & EngmeID;i 25.8% ..-..--_._--.-_................................... .~~~~~~~~~,I~M 6 Town of Tiburon Capital Improvement Program FY 2003-04 Budget If Echols Ruled the World . :.~..\tr:u \\r\~ Traffic Safety Improvements . Tiburon Blvd. Merge Lanes - Ned's Way - Reed Ranch Road . Traffic Signal Timing Coordination . Sidewalks at Lyford & Rock Hill I Street Rehabilitation Program I . Blackfield Drive . Cypress Hollow Drive . Esperanza Street . Midden Lane . Rancho Drive . Via Capistrano . Reed Ranch Road . Multi Use Path 7 .... Community Projects . Ferry Plaza Supplemental Bike Racks . Fountain Plaza Bench Replacement . Playground Improvements at South of Knoll Park ~~..I- Drainage Improvements 8 ~ . .- -' Drainage Improvements Questions? 9 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM 5. Town of Tiburon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBJECT: ::o:~::I::~:::::n:7: C. 2003-2004 Fiscal Year Municipal Budget Plan TO: FROM: MEETING DATE:. June 4, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under separate cover, the proposed Municipal Budget Plan for fiscal year 2003-2004 has been submitted for your consideration. Staff will make a presentation summarizing the proposed budget during the course of the Town Council meeting. ~ .~ C~: ~~~~~~ ,. ~&() k/rr~ ~J-1:t) &J. .~(\o~ May 27, 2003 ~ ~~~rjW~ ~ Dear Neighbor, U JUN 0 2 2003 Re: Proposed undergrounding in Del Mar TOWN CLEr,K TOWN OF TIBURON As long-time Del Mar residents, those of us who have signed tIllS letter want to make sure that everyone in the neighborhood has all the facts regarding undergrounding before it is too late. Weare in favor of undergrounding utilities in Del Mar provided that the assessments are equitable, well reasoned and legally defensible. Such is not tIle case with the petition circulated recently in the neighborhood. This petition calls for assessments for the cost of an undergrounding project to be spread equally among the properties, regardless of how much or how little benefit each property derives from tIle undergrounding. There are two significant problems WitIl this scenario: one, it is not fair~ and two, it is not legally defensible. Some properties have Bay views and will derive great benefit from undergrounding because wires and/or poles will be removed from the owners' water vi(1ws. Other properties have less view or no view and, therefore, will derive less benefit. In accordance with the Town ofTiburon's policy updated and adoptedjust last month and in accordance with state law (section 10204 of the Streets and Highways Code), assessments are supposed to be in accordance with benefit. In other words, the greater the resulting benefit from undergrounding, tIle greater the assessment to the property as a share of tIle total cost. A sentence out of the town policy reads, "That net cost will be apportioned or 'assessed'to each of the parcels in the district based on how each parcel is specially benefited from the undergrounding work. " These regulations apply to any undergrounding project, not just the one being proposed here. You may have seen an article in a recent issue of The Ark about an undergrounding project that was approved for fonnation by the city council in Belvedere. Because tIle properties are located in a hilly area, as in Del Mar, there is a wide variation in views across the homes in tIle district. The engineering company detennined that the range of assessments would be from $13,800 for those parcels receiving the least benefit to $55,200 for those receiving the most benefit from undergrounding. In addition, in all " .. " '. undergrounding projects, each property owner must also pay for the cost of connecting his home to the street (the lateral connection). The assessment criteria established by the engineering firm for that project are: 25% for improved safety and reliability, 25% for improvement of street frontage appearance and 50% for view enhancement. Other undergrounding projects in Tiburon, Belvedere and elsewhere have followed similar patterns. In a 1991 project in the Hillhaven area of Tiburon, the ratio was 4:1, depending on location. In a 1983 project on Mountain View in Tiburon, the ratio was 3: 1, depending on uphill and downhill location. In the current Beach Road project in Belvedere, the ratio is 2: 1, with the uphill properties being assessed approximately $41,250 and the downhill properties being assessed approximately $19,500. A recent project on Corinthian Island in Belvedere also had a tiered range of assessments in accordance with benefit. In an undergrounding project in the City of Piedmont, the assigned assessments are 33% for safety, 33% for enhancement of streetscape and 33% for enhancement of views to San Francisco Bay. In all cases, if you do not pay the assessment up front, but instead choose to finance the costs of undergrounding over the term of bonds, 20 or 25 years, for example, the costs are much higher. While we support undergrounding for the same reasons as many of you, we are concerned that there may be misunderstandings regarding the sharing of costs. We wanted to make certain that each of you had all the facts prior to deciding to spend thousands of dollars of your money on this or any other project. Please call any of us if you have questions. Sincerely yours, Ted & Christie Gazulis, Toby & Susan Mumford, Evon & Steve Rieden, John & Priscilla Tripp Theodore Gazulis 106 Howard Drive Tiburon, CA 94920 4 June 2003 Members of the Tiburon Town Council Delivered by hand Re: Proposed Undergrounding District in Del Mar To the Town Council: Unfortunately, due to a family commitment I cannot participate in tonight's meeting. I would, however, like to add my input to the decision making process. The proponents of the proposed district have presented the Town Council with petitions representing 62% ofthe proposed district. Under the policy adopted by the Town Council, districts will not be formed unless favorable petitions are received representing at least 60% of the proposed district. On the surface, it would appear that the proponents have met that standard. I believe that there is more to the story. In paragraph 3(c) of the petitions, the petitioners, "Understand that each property owner will pay his/her assessment based on an equal payment." I understand that both the policy ofthe Town ofTiburon and California state law require that allocation of costs be made according to benefit received. I do not believe that a subset of the affected properties can, by simple petition, unilaterally impose a cost distribution on the entire district. Despite the requests of several property owners, the proponents have chosen not to pass that information on to all affected properties. As a result, several of us have done so. In response, I understand that several petitioners have indicated that they would not have signed the petition if they had known that costs could be unevenly distributed. It seems clear to me that the petition which has been circulated fails to state a material fact - the possibility that costs are likely to be unevenly distributed - and, as a result, people may have signed agreeing to one set of circumstances, while the outcome might be dramatically different. This has implications for the policy of the Town ofTiburon. With 187 properties within the proposed district boundaries, 62% represents! 15.9 (rounded to 116) properties. To exceed the threshold amount of 60% requires 113 properties. A swing of only four property owners takes the proposed district from above the Town-required number, to below that standard. With complete information, it is not inconceivable that there could be a swing of four properties, and, as such, under the Town's policy this item would not even be on the agenda. Because of the flawed (or, at best, confusing) nature ofthe petition, I strongly urge the Town Council to refrain from taking action, either favorable or unfavorable, on the proposed district until a factually correct petition has been recirculated. Doing otherwise would set a dangerous precedent, namely, that petitions submitted to property owners for con.,ideration by the Town Council need not be factually accurate. Respectfully submitted, Theodore Gazulis . . . EXHIBIT A TOWN OF TIBURON Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District DESCRIPTION OF WORK Within the Town of Tiburon, (the "Town") County of Marin, State of California, the construction and acquisition of the following public improvements, including the acquisition of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, licenses, franchises, and permits and the construction of all auxiliary work necessary and/or convenient to the accomplishment thereof in accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by the Town: Within the area of the Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District and in and along all or portions of Avenida Miraflores, Felipa Court, Hillary Drive, Howard Drive, Harn Court, Rowley Circle, Geldert Drive, Wilkins Court, Malvino Court, Mark Terrace, Porto Marino Drive, and Hacienda Drive, as more particularly shown on the proposed Boundary Map of the Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District on file in the office of the Town Clerk, the installation of new, underground facilities to replace such utility lines, including all required removal of pavement, trenching, backfilling, repaving, installation of substructures, conduits, pull boxes, vaults and appurtenances and the removal of existing overhead electric, telephone and CATV utility lines, including existing, transformers and other overhead structures. - 7 - . . . 18. Reimbursement Declaration. The Town intends to issue the Bonds, which are "Obligations" under United States Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 (the "Regulations"), to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Improvements. The Council hereby declares that the Town reasonably expects to use a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds for reimbursement of expenditures for the Improvements that are paid before the date of issuance of the Bonds. This section of this resolution shall be solely for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Regulations and shall not be deemed an approval of all or any part of the Assessment District or a commitment on the part of this Council to issue any or all of the Bonds or otherwise provide for financing. 19. Professionals Appointed. The Town hereby appoints Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, as bond counsel, and Wulff, Hansen & Co., San Francisco, California, as underwriter. The Town Manager and/or Town Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to enter into agreements with such firms for their services to the Town for the Assessment District and the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. 20. Effective. This resolution shall be effective upon its adoption by the Council. ************ - 5 - PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, State of California, on this day of , 2003, by the following vote . to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCI LMEMBERS COUNC/LMEMBERS JEFF SLAVITZ MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK . ~) . - 6 - . . . (2) The boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District. (3) The lines and dimensions of each parcel of land within the Assessment District. Each subdivision shall be given a separate number upon the diagram. The diagram may refer to the county assessor's maps for a detailed description of the lines and dimensions of any parcels, in which case those maps shall govern for all details concerning the lines and dimensions of the parcels. (f) A proposed assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the proposed improvement upon the several subdivisions of land in the Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each subdivision, respectively, from the improvement. The assessment shall refer to the subdivisions by their respective numbers as assigned pursuant to subdivision (e). When any portion or. percentage of the costs and expenses of the acquisitions and improvements is to be paid from sources other than assessments, the amount of such portion or percentage shall first be deducted from the total estimated cost and expenses of the acquisitions and improvements, and the assessment shall include only the remainder of the estimated cost and expenses. 11. Use of Surplus. If any excess shall be realized from the assessment it shall be used, in such amounts as this Council may determine, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, for one or more of the following purposes: (a) Transfer to the general fund of this Town, provided that the amount of any such transfer shall not exceed the lesser of $1,000 or 5% of the total amount expended from the improvement fund; (b) As a credit upon the assessment and any supplemental assessment or for the redemption of bonds, or both; or (c) For the maintenance of the improvements. 12. . Contact Person. Patrick Echols, Town Engineer, is hereby designated as the person to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, California 94920, or by calling telephone number (415) 435-7388. 13. Contracts with Others. To the extent that any of the work, rights, improvements and acquisitions indicated in the Engineer's Report, to be made as provided herein, are shown to be connected to the facilities, works or systems of, or are to be owned, managed and controlled by, any public agency other than this Town, or of any public utility, it is the intention of this Council to enter into an agreement with such public agency or public utility pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 10100) of the Act, which agreement may provide for, among other matters,the ownership, operation and maintenance by such agency or utility of the works, rights, improvements and acquisitions, and may provide for the installation of a II or a portion of such improvements by the agency or utility and for the providing of service to the properties in the area benefiting from the work, rights, improvements and acquisitions by such agency or utility in accordance with its rates, rules and regulations, and that such agreement - 3 - shall become effective after proceedings have been taken for the levy of the assessments and sale of bonds and funds are available to carry out the terms of any such agreement. . 14. Improvement Bonds. Notice is hereby given that serial and/or term improvement bonds (the "Bonds") to represent unpaid assessments, and bear interest at the rate of not to exceed such rate of interest as may be authorized by applicable law a the time of sale of such bonds, will be issued hereunder in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, Division 10 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Bond Law"), the last installment of which bonds shall mature not to exceed thirty (30) years from the second day of September next succeeding their date. The bonds shall be issued in such series and shall mature in such principal amounts at such times as shall be determined by this Council at the time of the issuance of such bonds. The provisions of Part 11.1 of the Bond Law, providing an alternative procedure for the advance payment and calling of bonds, shall apply to the bonds iS$ued in these proceedings. It is the intention of this Council to create a special reserve fund pursuant to and as authorized by Part 16 of the Bond Law. It is the intention of the Town that the Town will not obligate itself to advance available funds from the treasury of the Town to cure any deficiency in the redemption fund to be created with respect to the bonds; provided, however, that a determination not to obligate itself shall not prevent the Town from, in its sole discretion, so advancing funds. 15. Refunding of Bonds. The bonds may be refunded pursuant to the provisions of Division 11.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code upon the determination of the Council of the Town that the public interest or necessity requires such refunding. Such refunding may be undertaken by the Council when, in its opinion, lower prevailing interest rates may allow reduction in the amount of the installments of principal and interest upon the assessments given to owners. of property assessed for the works herein described. The refunding bonds shall bear interest at a rate not to exceed that which is stated in the resolution . of the Council expressing its intention to issue the refunding bonds, which resolution of intention shall also set forth the maximum term of years of the refunding bonds. The refunding shall be accomplished pursuant to Division 11.5 (commencing with Section 9500) of the California Streets and Highways Code, except that, if, following the filing of the report specified in Section 9523 and any subsequent modifications of the report, the Council finds that each of the conditions specified in the resolution of intention to issue the refunding bonds is satisfied and that adjustments to the assessments are on a pro-rata basis, the Council may approve and confirm the report and may, without further proceedings, authorize, issue and sell the refunding bonds pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 9600) of Division 11.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code. 16. Division 4. Reference is hereby made to proceedings had pursuant to Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of California which are on file in the office of the Town Clerk. It is the intention of this Council to comply with Division 4 of the Streets and Highways Code of California by proceeding under Part 7.5 thereof. To that end, the Engineer of Work is hereby directed to include in the Engineer's Report all of the material specified by such Part 7.5 and for which the total true value shall be estimated as the full cash value of the parcels of land in the Assessment District as. shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County, or alternatively, by means of a current appraisal on such terms as may be prescribed by this Council. 17. No Private Contract. Notice is hereby given that, in the opinion of this Council, the public interest will not be served by allowing the property owners to take the contract for the construction of the improvements and therefore that, pursuant to Section 20487 of the . California Public Contract Code, no notice of award of contract shall be published. -4- . . . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON OF INTENTION TO MAKE ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TOWN OF TIBURON Del Mar Vallev Utilitv Underaroundina Assessment District RESOLVED by the Town Council (the "Council") of the Town of Tiburon (the "Town"), County of Marin (the "County"), State of California, as follows: 1. Intention. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and that it intends to order the making of the acquisitions and improvements described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof in and for the Town's proposed Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District (the "Assessment District"). 2. Law Applicable. Except as herein otherwise provided for the issuance of bonds, all of the work shall be done as provided in the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, Division 12 of the Streets and Highways Code of California (the "Act"). 3. Nature and Location of and Grades for Improvements. All of the work and improvements are to be constructed at the places and in the particular locations, of the forms, sizes, dimensions and materials, and at the lines, grades and elevations, as shown and delineated upon the plans, profiles and specifications to be made therefor, as hereinafter provided. There is to be excepted from the work above described any of such work already done to line and grade and marked excepted or shown not to be done on the plans, profiles and specifications. Whenever any public way is herein referred to ,as running between two public ways, or from or to any public way, the intersections of the public ways referred to are included to the extent that work is shown on the plans to be done therein. The streets and highways are or will be more particularly shown in the records in the office of the County Recorder of the County and shall be shown upon the plans. 4. Change of Grade. Notice is hereby given of the fact that in many cases the work and improvements will bring the finished work to a grade different from that formerly existing, and that to the extent the grades are hereby changed and that the work will be done to the changed grades. . --l I i 5. Work on Private Property. In cases where there is any disparity in level or size between the improvements proposed to be made herein and private property and where it is more economical to eliminate such disparity by work on the private property than by adjustment of the work on public property, it is hereby determined that it is in the public interest and more economical to do such work on private property to eliminate such disparity. In such cases, the work on private property shall, with the written consent of the owner of the property, be done and the actual cost thereof may be added to the proposed assessment of the lot on which the work is to be done. 6. Official Grades. This Council does hereby adopt and establish as the official grades for the work the grades and elevations to be shown upon the plans, profiles and specifications. All such grades and elevations are to be in feet and decimals thereof with reference to the datum plane of this Town. . 7. Descriptions. General. The descriptions of the acquisitions and improvements and the termini of the work contained in this Resolution are general in nature. All items of work do not necessarily extend. for the full length of the description thereof. The plans and profiles of the work and maps and descriptions as contained in the Engineer's Report, hereinafter directed to be made and filed, shall be controlling as to the correct and detailed description thereof. 8. Special Benefit and Boundary Map. The contemplated acquisitions and improvements, in the opinion of this Council, are of more than general or ordinary public benefit, and the costs and expenses thereof are made chargeable upon the Assessment District, the exterior boundaries of which are shown on a map thereof on file in the office of the Town Clerk, to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. The map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory proposed to be included in Assessment District and shall govern for all details as to the extent of the Assessment District. 9. Public Property.. This Council declares that all public streets, highways, lanes and alleys, and properties owned by any public agency or department of the United States of America, the State of California, the County, any city or special district, within the Assessment District and in use in the performance of a public function shall be omitted from the assessment hereafter to be made; provided, however that to the extent found to be specially benefited, such lands shall be subject to assessment. 10. Engineer's Report. The acquisitions and improvements are hereby referred to Harris & Associates, being a competent firm employed for the purpose hereof as Engineer of Work for the Assessment District (the "Engineer of Work"), and the Engineer of Work is hereby directed to make and file with the Town Clerk a report in writing (the "Engineer's Report"), presenting the following: ' (a) Maps and descriptions of the lands and easements to be acquired, if any; .. (b) Plans and specifications of the proposed improvements if the improvements are not already installed. The plans and specifications do not need to be detailed and are sufficient if they show or describe the general nature, location, and extent of the improvements. If the Assessment District is divided into zones, the plans and specifications shall indicate the class and the type of improvements to be provided for each zone. The plans or specifications may be prepared as separate documents, or either or both may be incorporated in the Engineer's Report as a combined document. (c) A general description of works or appliances already installed and any other property necessary or convenient for the operation of the improvements, if the works, appliances, or property are to be acquired as part of the improvements. (d) An estimate of the cost of the improvements and of the cost of lands, rights-of-way, easements, and incidental expenses in connection with the improvements, including any cost of issuing and registering bonds. (e) A diagram showing, as they existed at the time of the passage of this Resolution, all of the following: (1 ) The exterior boundaries of the Assessment District. . - 2 - -;: '. . /. ~: .- Town of Tiburon STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM ~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Proposed Del Mar Valley Utility Undergrounding Assessment District ~ . ~~~~~~ ~~T.E~ ~u.n~ ~,.2~~3. ~V.~~E.D.B:: ~ . . . . .. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Town Council received a brief presentation from Del Mar Valley resident Henry Broderick on March 5, 2003 regarding his neighborhood's interest in forming a utility undergrounding assessment district. The Council expressed support of the neighborhood's efforts and encouraged them to continue moving forward. Since that time, the resident proponents have worked with Harris & Associates (proposed district engineering consultants), Town staff and the utility companies to expand and refine the proposed district. To formally begin the process of forming the proposed assessment district, the Town Council must adopt a resolution of intention (Exhibit B). Town policy requires that district proponents gather petitions of support from at least 60 percent of the affected property owners within the proposed district and collect subscription deposits sufficient to cover advance costs required to retain the District Engineer, secure utility company design support, and legal advisory services. The proponents of the proposed district have submitted 116 petitions of support (approximately 62 percent of the 187 parcels within the district boundary) and $110,000 in subscription deposits. The Town Clerk has certified that the petitions and boundary map are in order. Harris & Associates have indicated that the subscription deposits collected should be sufficient to cover the advance costs. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council take the following actions: a) Receive a presentation by proponents and proposed District Engineer. b) Receive any public comment. c) Accept the proposed District Boundary Map (Exhibit A), petitions of support and subscription deposits. d) Adopt the resolution of intention (Exhibit B). EXHIBITS Proposed District Boundary Map Resolution of Intention May 29, 2003 1 of 1 0: c'. ./ ~ g STREET NAME APPROXIMATE QUANllllES - THIS SHEET ONLY REMO~ AND RECONSTRUCT REMOV1:: AND RECONSTRUCT REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT UNDA 'v1STA C&G TO NEW GRADE C&G tJA TCHING EX. GRADE SPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE S1DEWALJ( 62 L.F 145.5 L.F 008 SF 608 SF Ro.lO'vf: AND RECONSTRUCT REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT TAYLOR RD C&C Wllt-i NEW CURB HEICHT DRAINAGE INLET 112 LY 2 EA LEGEND ~ ~ REMOVE AND REPLACE 60 FT OF CURB AND GUTTER WrT11 0.6" SLOPE AT FtOW UNE. REMOVE AND RECONS~UCT SIDEWALl<, CURB AND GUTITR TO THE SAME GRADES ~ REMOVE AND RECONS~UCT SIDEWALK TO MATCH NEW C&G ON STREET SIDE AND MATCH AC PAVEMENT ON DRIVEWAY SIDE. --- m G) o CD o '" CONSTRUCT FtOW UNE WITH 0.6" SLOPE o REMOVE AND REPlACE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SAWCUT EXISTlNG CURB EXISTlNG UP OF CUTTtR REMOVE EXIST INLET AND REPlACE WITH M'WA STlD PlAN .300-0 INLET WITH 28 FT LONG CURB OPENING GRAPHIC SCALE: 10' 20' JO' TWO DAYS BEfORE YOU DIG ... g I; 'e o ,..., o o ~ z o cr :::l (1) 5- :t CALL USA TOLL FREE 800-227-2600 SCAlE: ,- "" 1 0' CIo\l'E ISSl.Ell 4/22/03 Jll8 NO. RE\ISIllH 0Il.IllN lJl' NO. em: lIt PLAN IJN)A VISTA AVE & TAYLOR RD JCC JCC GL TOWN OF TBl.m)N 2002-03 DRAl4AGE NPROVEMENTS ncsl[ llflAlIIlHOS ,,"0 ~'-, NIl!. THe: PR<;lf'D<1Y JWJ ~ at H EI<<lNDl I>IG !Wll ItOT ~ u:5tl) ON ~-=~~~~ 9CIUll DllolD$QlCS />IfJ flD.O ~ sw.u. lIE \IEItfU ~ :'Jr'~~TO~ :Jm~Nf(IOJl& P-1 2 Ot 5 Han1s a AsaocIatea 120 MOSQII crde C<ll1cwd. CA ~520 (925) 627>4900 IlESlQIEIl r1t c:IE.(m) r1t SHEET i~J''\,~O ~"i \~~.. ;'\H ~'_ . c~ ~^"l 1 "l t..*, --'f""""- -' - \ \ \ 6 2" DIA \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .......-'".....- \ I I ! 1\ L--~"~--_L ' / --' -------- ~--_.,---.__.~. -I., .= 'il""~ r""'" C"l> ""r. ![-'~ r),. ~ E"'.~:~ i\.J ["'0$ ir"'~ i t.",,\ C ~><::) ~ !=-< [:: \":~i L "':; \. !f"":'l L",~ o z ~ I 5 Cl. I x PVl STA .. 10+38.<45 P'v1 ElEV .. 34.14 A.D. .. -15.<< PVl STA .. 10+23.18 t<.. 0.52 PVl ElEV . 30.29 I I 8.0' VC A.D. ... 18.9-4 I( '" 0.42 8.0' vc I I PVl STA . 10+35.24 PYI ELEV - J5.54 PVl STA · 10+22.73 A.D.. -12.54 PVl El..EV om J2.69 l< 0 114 A.O. ... 12.64 II. ~.i' 8.0' YO I( '" 0.62 B.O'VC ri .... ~:!J ~ ~~ c5~ "I ~Ig ~;;; : ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~:~ CD Eg ~. CD OC '\ >- ...J ~ Cl. Vl <:( ...J <:( Z 0 F is 0 <:( l<.. 0 W rn 53 0 N ,..., >- (J1 d x ....J ~ ~ 0.. 1:5 w <:.:> n 8 ~ r- '" ~.:(, CSt:id ~ Cl>> cri ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fi~~ ~~lDlD ~ :s ~ ~ ~ ~ ?t f:? I x ..J ~ N I X -='-;:,1, IT1Tlb ;. I~ 10+00 10+25 10+41 DWY AT #34 JUNO RD. SCALE: ~~I]:~W m-~...,'I' ~.'~6 ' ~~ ~... ~~ 10+00 10+20 10H2 DWY AT #36 JUNO RD. HORIl. 1".10' SCA/....E VERT. 1"...'. ~ u Qj ~ '" o :i ~ .... ~ .... ~ ;; CD ~ ~ .;( ~ fi ~ I d d a ~ lJ;j ~ 8 v ~ "- o .., :t;- o ,., a. I .... -( e g- O> co g '0 Q ,., o o N ./ Z ~ :;l co ~ i ,~..13 ~ 11) l8 ~~ 10+00 10+20 10H2 DWY AT #32 JUNO RD. SeAU HORIZ. 1"-1 0' VERT. 1 ".5' 1400 llATt Rf'IISION 'fH[S~ OMWI~S ~o SPCClflCAT10NS ARE l1'1E PROPf;:Fny AN' CQF'<1I:IlHT or T>1E "''''~W' AND SI1AL.l. NOT "" USED ON mY on<E~ WORK ExCU'T 61' WRlffiN ^"REEMENT !lITH 1l1E ENC;NEEIt. oIRI~ D:~EN5IONS SHAll. TME PRECEDENCE O~~ SCM.tO I)WENSION$ AND i=1n,o O:WENSJONS SHAu,. aE VERiFIED OM n"IE JOB SITE. N<< OI~/\HCY St-lAU.. BE fllWUGi'ft TO TI-fE ~OT'CE Of THE EN(;iNEE~ PR10R TO THE liTAA'T OF ~ wOR><. EJiJ;~'o<~:":: I . ',' . " '... ~8.0'VC ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' .;:51 ~I~ I 3" DIA / PROPERTY) ADDRESS (TY?) / I ~ :3 D.. L- a PVI STA '" 10+22.20 PVI El.EV '" 35. 70 A.D. = 6.82 t< '" 1.17 8.0' vc I I T~~ cdlliJ c3~ ~.~ :- ~ ~~ ~~ lDlalOG '\ PVI STA . 10+38.48 PVl ELEV .. 38.10 A.D. .. -10.22 l< .. 0.78 I w " e ~~ I'l,..: ~.., ~~ al >- >::2"- Xc- C:.JVl o ~ + .~ ~ .~ ~ :~ "'-. ~. OAAWN "" DS DESICNEO 61' JCC O<El;KUl IlY GL ~n: ISsue:o 4/22/0J . Harris & Associates 1 ZO MosOI\ Circle Concord, CA 94520 (925) 827-4900 5 \ \ l I / I' l // # ~"flo.~~~ \ /' ,,;,.t:)'0l~~$ ~ ::.;.. V". \ \ \ \ \ \ \ SA WCU T (TY?) \ \ \ \ 5 \ '. \ \ \, \ 'l--#----- \ -~. 1 ..- "'" ~... """. GRAPHIC. SCALE: ~- -20' 0 20 40' 1 -- ----"'.,..,.- . ~- "..,.. -,~- ,~~ ,~ ...-~<<<< - "..., ...---" - SCALE: ,. '" 20' ............;.........\..;.y.:>v.,-y(.~"">>..:..x..:~~....~,..:......yOIo.-.:,. eo' I \ \ \,~ ....~~~..y ~..-#o:;-# "",-:,.-> APPROXIMATE QUANTIllES - ll-lIS SHEET ONLY STREET NAME REl.40'v1:: ROlLED C.tG AND CONSTRUCT VERTlCAL C.tG REMOVE ANO REPLACE AC PAVD.4ENT REMOVE AND RECONsmuCT DRlVEWA'f OR WAU<WA'f JJNO RD 1 J14 LF 2281 SF 1324 Sf' LEGEND REPlACE CONCRETE DRlVEWA'f OR WAJ.X-M.'f TEt.lPORARV EASEMENT REMOVE AND REPlACE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT PER @ RfJ40VE ROu.m CURB AND GUTTER AND CONSTRUCT VERTlCAL CURB ANa GlJTT[R PER @ c o .. t.tATCH EXIST VERTl~ CctG 0- 0'" f:\4 . RECONSTRUCT W~AY MATCHING E)(IST SURfACE TEXlURE, \.V PATTERN AND COLOR WITH MINl"'UM s" PCC AND 6" AS. G) a 5 frET LONG VERT1CAl... CURB TRANSmON FROM e. TO ZERO HEIGHT o '" MODIfY EXIST UD TO OtSCHARGE ON GU1TER PAN PER RECONsmUCT r:1K'( MATCHING EXIST SURFACE TEXTURE. PATTERN ANO COlOR WITH M1NI"'U'" e" PCC AND 0" AS. CONSTRUCT CUP.B ANO CURB TRANSmON PER MARIN COUNTY STD OWG 102. PROTECT EXIST r:1K'( AND CONSTRUCT CURB AND CURB TRANsmON PER MAAlN COUNTY STD OWO 102. TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU Die CALL USA TOll rREE 800-2V-2600 NOTE: All RECONSTRUCTED OWYS AND WJoJJ<WA'fS PROFlLE SHALL BE A STRAIGHT UNE FRO'" BACl( OF ':URB 10 St.WCUT UNE. E)(CEPT FOR DWYS ON ADDRESS 32. 34 AND 3e WHICH SHAll. BE CONSTRUCTED PER PROFlLES INClUOE HEREIN. TOWN OF neURON 2002"'03 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND PROFILES JUNO ROAD P-3 4 OF SHEET ~ o N ...- Z o Cl: ::::> w ;" :i::" VICNTY MAP GENERAL NOTES J. I 1. DISTANCES SHO,^" ON niE DRA'MNG ARE HORIZONTAL MEASUREMENTS. 2. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON THE DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON DESIGN SURVEY METHODS. Flao MEASUREMENTS MAY VARY fROM THOSE ON Tl1E DRA'MNGS. AD.AJSTMENTS TO UNE AND GRADE MAY BE MADE BY THE ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION. PA'l'MENT 'HILL BE BASED ON QUANTITIES INSTALlED. J. IT SHALL BE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSlBIUTY TO FlElD VERIFY LOCATIONS. ElEVATIONS. ETC. Of EXISTING FAQUTIES AND TO IMMEDIA Tn. Y NOTIFY niE ENGINEER OF ANY FlElD CONruCTS OR OMISSIONS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP EXISTING STREET FREE FROM DIRT AND DEBRIS DURING ALL PHASES Of CONSTRUCTION. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DUST CONTROl AT ALL TIMES. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL t.fAINTAIN ACCESS TO RESIDENCES AND BUStNESSES ALONG THE STREETS TO BE REPAIRED THROUGHOUT 1liE UfE OF THE CONTRACT. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE AlERT (U.S.A.) 800-227-2600. 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO START OF ANY EXCAVAnON OR DEMounON OF IMPROVEMENTS. 8. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE 'MTH UTIUTIES TO HAVE 1l1EiR MANHOLES OR VALVE BOXES ADJUSTED. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY All UTIUTIES 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION SO THAT UNES CAN BE MARKED. UTIUTIES TO NOnFY INCLUDE. BUT NOT BE WAITED TO: A) PG&E. PAClFlC BELL. AT&T BROADBAND; CONTACT U.S.A. (800) 227-2600 B) RICHARDSON BAY SANITARY COlLECTION AGENCY (415) 388-1345 C) SANITARY DISTRICT No.5 (415) 435-1501 0) MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (415) 945-1506 9. ANY DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING FACIUTIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT UMllID TO, TREES. LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, FENCES. WAllS. SIDEWALK AND OTHER PAVEMENT SURFACES SHALL BE REPAIRED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. CONTRACTOR SHAlL RESTORE ANY AND ALL PAVEMENT AND OTHER FAClUTIES OUTSIDE UMITS Of WORK AfFECTED 8Y THE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS AT NO ADDIl10NAL COST. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TRAFFIC CONTROl & SlONINO PLAN (INCLUDING STREET CLOSURE DETAILS) TO Tl1E ENGINEER AT niE PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING. 11. TRAmC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION SHAll. BE niE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSlBIUTY AND IN ACCORDANCE 'HITH 1l1E CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AlL UGHTS, SIGNS. BARRICADES. FlAGGERS AND omm DEVICES TO PROVIDE FOR SAFE PASSAGE OF PUBUC VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRtAN TRAmC. 120 CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL EXISTING RAISED MARKERS PRIOR TO MIWNG. u. TYPICAL DETAILS REfERRED TO ON mESE DRAWINGS ARE FROM THE .STANDARD PLANS., MARIN COUNTY: .STANDARD PLANS. AMERICAN PUBUC WORKS ASSOCIATION AND .STANDARD PlANS" CAUFORNfA DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS). 14. REfER TO SPEClFlCA TIONS FOR TRAmC CONTROl RESTRICTIONS AND HOURS OF WORK. 15. B/DDERS SHOULD NOTE PRESENCE OF OVERHEAD UTIUTIES IN THE WORK AREA. OVERHEAD UTIUTIES MAY BE SHOJIrN IN ll-lElR APPROXIMATE AUGNMENT. AS PART Of' Tl-iElR PRE-BID INSPECTION, BIDDERS SHALL NOTE THE TYPE AND LOCATION OF OVERHEAD ununES IN THE PROPOSED WORK AREA. BIDDERS PRICE SHALL INClUDE PROVISIONS FOR WORKING IN AREAS \\tiERE OVERHEAD UTIUTIES EXIST AT THE TIME OF BIDDING. ~ETHER SHO~ ON mE PLAN OR NOT, AND NO ADDlTlONAL COMPENSATION IS ALLOYtfD. 16. ALL WORK WITHIN STATE RICHT OF WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIF1CAnONS (JUL Y 2002). --: e a. E .. go '2 o TOWN OF TIBURON MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3. .4 2003 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT """"~V",~~4#."'?-;;;:~--~~\ "- " , t..1u{S) .:;~,.~ 'C DR. " ~~~$' I fi '<t";"",~,".,,, I~ ' "0, 1;$ ;~ I-_J\[~ I N I ~. , \ '--, -~ , S\ , '~~~7'. f \::"'\ l,".:,;1 ,~~ '1:')""1': -~~;~ ,."".,,1";:;" """-/\ ,\ .~~ \ l ~1!> .__"C;;i&i~~";;7':;:"" r ~ ) ;,/~'{5'-' ( "/'~.~DW-~o/ ( /~;-~ ~";7"",""''J'.'>;,,".J'!'''''::_~,,;.~:. V. . ).J r ,"~ ~ Y' , ~;f9P~"\ "'\~ ~;.. \~ '\:1, ~ (\ f/;~' , ~\: .. ~~~~'> , "1;.-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:~9";1" \~f' 9Z~ ~\., '" .~, ,<;.~.: :i~:t~!J..J1..';~.' ~.:.~~ \;~\ '\ ~~ ) ,., ~.~.1" ~ \ , \ c..v DR. .;{ \ _. ~ . . ~.,-,>'" "i~:;.r ....~e;'" , .., ~,;;'i?" ...../. ""ST, ~I .L ""# ,_/ ., ~ ~ '~, '" -:~"1\.,~._ .. .J UllOA Vw;rAAV 'I;"'''>.<'''''~~%':t~'~'''''.l%I'' (FOR REfERENCE ONLY NOT TO SCAlE) LO(:A nON MAP SlREET LIST UNDA VISTA AVENUE TAYLOR ROAD OLD LANDING ROAD JUNO ROAD NOTES : ,. CONTRACTOR SHALL POSSESS A VAllO CLASS 'A' OR A COMBINATION OF A ClASS 'C-12' AND 'C-32' UCENSE AT THE TIME OF AWARD OF THE CONTRACT. INDEX OF ORA WNGS T-1 TIRE SHEET 2 P-1 AB8REVIA TIONS AS AC AVE. AV APPROX. APWA 3 P-2 4 P-J 5 0-1 UNDA VISTA AVE. & TA't1..OR RD. PLANS OLD lANDING PLAN AND PROFILES JUNO RD. PLAN AND PROFlLES DETAILS , "C<'<""~;>.";;':J., 1~:,. APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF TlBURON: PAT ECHOLS. P.E. #49008 TOWN ENGINEER - TOWN OF TIBURON DATE PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: JOEL C CAMACHO. P.E. 153983 PROJECT MANAGER -HARRIS & ASSOCIATES DATE sac 8M C&G CO CONC DET DWG DWY EA EP, EOP ETW EXIST, EX FH FOC GV HORIZ LF MON Ol PBMH PRF QTY RB RO RC ROW SDMH SF CO SSMH SS STO TYP UNK VERT ~ wv AGGREGA TE BASE ASPHAL T CONCRETE AVENUE APPROXlMA TE AMERICAN PUBUC WORKS ASSOCIATION BACK Of CURB BLUE MARKER CURB & CUTTER ClEAN OU T CONCRETE DETAIL DRAWING DRIVEWAY EACH EDGE OF PAVEMENT EDGE OF TRAVElED WAY EXISTING FlRE HYDRANT FACE Of CURB GAS VALVE HORIZONTAL UNEAR FOOT MONUMENT OVERLAY PAClFlC BELL MANHOlE PAVEMENT REINFORCING FABRIC QUANTITY RICHARDSON BAY SANITARY COLLECTION AGENCY ROAD RELATIVE COMPACTION RIGHT Of WAY STORt.f DRAIN MANHOlE SQUARE FEET SANITARY SEWER ClEAN OUT SANITARY SE~ MANHOLE SANITARY SEYffR STANDARD TYPICAL UNKNOWN VERTICAL 1Mll-l WA TER METER WATER VALVE Prepared By: . tfitUJ! cte Assodatu Concotd. CA ~520 (925) 827--4900 TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CALL USA TOIL ruB 800-227-2600 APPROXIMA lE QUANTITIES - ll-lIS SHEET ONLY CONsmUCT HEADWA.LL STREET NA.ME PLACE 36" RCP PLACE 16. RCP REMOVE 24" RCP REMOVE 15" RCP 4 EA 41 IF 114 IF 41 IF 36 IF ESTIMATE OLD LANDING PROTECT WATER METER LEGEND 8 o 0) 0) o CD o o o @) G PLACE NEW 36- RCP (CULVERT #1) PLACE NEW 18" RCP (CULVERT #2) OLO..LANOIN;:R :::;:;::~::: ' ~;o;~;.o~.~..~ ..~:::~: ' PLACE NEW '8" RCP (CULVERT #3) REMOVE 24' RCP REMOVE 12" CMP REMOVE '5" RCP CONSTRUCT HEADWAll PER DETAil ~ CONSTRUCT HEADWAll PER DETAil ~ CONSTRUCT HEADWAll PER DETAll~ CONSTRUCT HEADWALL PER DETAil 0 ~ REPLACE LANDSCAPE ROCKS IN~KIND GRAPHIC SCALE: -'0' 0 10' 20' ~ JO' J SCALE: 1" = 1 0' CONSTRUCT HEADWALL PER CONSTRUCT HEADWALL PER OG FG .,-- ~EMOVE 12" CMP . ~ o z ;S z ~ ~ I w (f) ~ I >< .~---- --- CONSTRUCT HEADWALL PER ;1 J ! . . REMOVE EXIST 15" RCP CULVERT (OU-:-LET NOT !kNOWN) ..J a. ~ I >< 0 0 2:; ;!: <( ~ Vi ~ ...J W ~ o o + ~ ;5 o:i CIl ~ d ~ !:;: ('oj ,.. cri .., . + d S ~ <( ... f- . CIl .:J f- ~ cz:: : ~ ( ? ~ g ~ 0 if .:J ~ w ~ ~ ~ '" r-. ~ 6 fJ ~ N < ... f- CIl .:J f- UJ ~ ~ . INSTALL 18" RCP CULVERT INSTALL 16. RCP CULVERT u Qi ~ I i !NSTALL 36" RCP CULVERT i , '<i" o :.t . . . . ' , . ' , ' . . . . : : : : : : : ' . . . . ' . , . . ' . : : : : . . . : : ; : ; . . . ~":OO~ BI ~f ;1 * ;1 ~~ ;1 ~ ~I TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG ~ ~~ ~ ~; ;1 ~~ ;\ ~ ~ ~-~I aoo C> ~~ ..., Z g ....... "" o LUf'tI1tI JfL8V (100 CALL USA TOLL FREE l(~ ~ ~~ C',g ;'~ -;. N 0;:' ~): o oc; ~; 800-227-2600 ,,: ('oj 0.. I .., ~ e c. j; 1D+60 10+40 10+ 60 10+20 ',0+40 10+00 10+40 10+20 10+00 10+20 ~+gO 10+00 HORIZ. 1"",10' SCALE VERT. 1."'5' SCALE HORIZ. ''''''10' VERT, 1."'5' CULVERT #2 CULVERT #1 SCALE HORIZ. 1"""0' VERT. 1 "=5' CULVERT #3 " <:1' C c: 'e o ..., o o N ./ Z o cz:: ;;> CD 5- :i PLAN AND PROFILES OLD LANDING RD ~ l~-suen OAAW>l Il'I TOWN OF nBURON 2002-03 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS P-2 SHEET 3 OF 5 NO. o..TE DS JCC GL 4/22/03 . Harris & Associates 120 ~oson Circle Conoord, CA 94520 (925) 627-4900 fHE5E OR,ljl'",-,S ""0 51'ECIF',u.nON$ ARE 1'11E .~.EI<1Y .... COI"I'lllllllf "" f\1E D<",..<R ...0 SNAU. "'" IE usEll (>OJ foN1 OTHE~ WORK OtcEPl' BY MlI1"TU ....REDolENT wrT'H THE ENC,~ElR. iIIRIffUl O:MENSlO~S 51<AU TAKE PIlECEOCNCE Ol(~ SCJ\I..LD Ol.wE:fllSI'ONS .',NO no..o Ol"'EN~ SHNJ.. at I/ERlFI[O ON Tl€ ,OS ~ ,..... "'=N<C'I S>;,\U at BROUGHT 10 TH( N:O'T1CE OF THE e;;NQINE:t.A: pRIOR TO THt stAAT rY' foNt( WORK. OESICNEO B'I ,oa NO. PAYENT ADJACENT TO il1E UP OF GUm SHALL BE ,,- TO ~- ABOVE SAWCUT AND TI1E UP OF GumR -:\ 4,O';i: -1 r ~Jg~ EX\STlNG SAWCUT AND MATCH EX. 'tit MATCH EXISTING 1.0'j\ 2.~L~ 1& GRADE . Mii;J__ --i4:Pcc a- AC B AC I. ~;!i I I ~AB : 'I, ~i=~~~. ,,.,-r";.;.,;. ~~=~:;~~ SlDEWALK, ~ MATCH EX. 6-Pce REPLACE C&:G, a-AS MATCH EX, fA\ SECTION ~ NOT TO SCALE . 3'-6" ll~ ~CKm ~r/ ~ I / I / --J/ '\ C 36- RCP n ~~ CUT\ ;.., ,-J~~_~_ ,a U;l. .' r" N ~l J J ~~~ SECTION ~~'8- RCP ~f:?-,' (SEE P-2 FOR INVERT) I ,.' ~ ~ 1 L~ I r-. [3. ~ I '1 1 <.> OJ ~ 1\ I \ ~ ~~. -~EMOVABLE GALVANIZED LAN STEEL P GRATE ~ o .;,: .., ~ ~ ........ cO o Ci I cO ./ ~ I fE\ DETAIL \P=f7 CONCRETE HEADWALL #1 '---/ SCAlE 1/2- .. ,. ., '" o .g ! a .., o o ~ z o i I I NO. DAn: fI'( RE'lISlON fHESE OAAW1NCS ANO SPEC'tlCl.TIONS .....€ TH€ PRQPtRTY .\NO COP'Ylllc.Hf OF THE ~C.l~~ !\NO SHAi...l.. NOT es USED ON ;.Nt OTHtR wORK Q(C~PT ~ WRlfTI;N ACREDotEN1' WIT_ THE ENC,NU;/l WRITIEN DI~ENSlONS Stw.L. TMt PREC~NC( ol1'Jl '3CAI....f:lJ O:Wf.NSlCNS ANO F'lEl..O O~EN5IONS 5I'WJ.. eE V1;.fUfrEO D>l TH( JOB SIlE. _ D1stREI'NiCY iIiAU. Ill: IlRQV~T TO T1<E None( OF THE ENIlINEEll P",OO TO n1E ST""- OF /WI WORK, 36- RCP L.v REMOVE EXIST PAVENT ADJACENT TO THE UP OF GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE x.- TO ~- ABOVE _ SAWCUT AND MATCH PAVENT ADJACENT TO lliE LIP OF GUTTER TI1E UP OF GUTTER 1 ~ BATTER-j r UP OF GUmR SHALL BE x.- TO "'- SHALL BE lit' TO "'" ABOVE SAWCUT AND CONSTRUCT WE "A" CURB AND GUTTER 6" r+- BELOW AOJACENT PAVEMENT GRAOE ~ r--.::: "''' " ~~~~t~DEWAU<. .. t'?:'2~j~ ~ /~ .........:<".. !B\ ~~ON ~r~~t~ SHO~ (C\ S~~~~N REMOVE EXIST CURB AND GUTIER C~~~~1 ~~~ j I~' 30" ::~l ~ ~ NOT TO SCALE ~ NOT TO SCALE ([)\ SECTION ~J NOT TO SCALE :t '}'-5- 6- ;i:,}'-g- 6- '-/ i---- i------ (FJELD ADJUST) (FIELD ADJUST) 2' B- 3'-6- ~ - ~ N' ~ ~ \t\~~ ~L:~] I ~I [~ ~~~ ~1 ~ I! /' BA.CKFJLL OG\ ' ~/~" .L ~ ~ . --{ ~~ w I -~ "'---l.. I -- . cb .s.., r" - T ---- '\ I . 1 18" RCP) ~~ f- "' ~ 1 --- -~ I 1 B- RCP ~SECTION r~~ I I I -~n uLD L- v T T I I ~ ~ I N L~ I ':.t 1 \ I \ ~~ : REMOVABLE GALVANIZED PLAN ~~ rG\ DETAIL \ P-1 } CONCRETE HEADWALL (f3 "--/ SCALE: 1/2- == l' - ALL EXPOSED EDGES SHALL BE BEVELED. - ALL CONCRETE TO BE REINFORCED ~TI1 NO. 4 REBARS o a- MIN. O.C. BOTH WAYS. - RCP PIPE CORNERS SHALL BE ROUNDED, R::J". - CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS -B- (5 SACK MIX) UNLESS OlHERWlSE NOTED. - FlNISH AND EXPOSED SURFACES SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 51-1.1BB OF il1E STATE STANDARD SPEOFlCATIONS. - NO CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED PRIOR TO FORM AND STEEL INSPECTION BY TOWN REPRESENTATIVE.. SECTION -<<-- I I I I I I ~-~ 'B~~ (SEE P-2 FOR INVERT) , to HEADWALLS NOTES: f---~ i~ . REPLACE IN KIND REMOVED OR E~R~~~t:F ACE ROLLED CURB (WlDTI1 VARIES) AND ASPHALT SEE P-3 CONCRETE ~.. . . -1 ~~!E~L6- 1.0' I_.J.~~ I II 6"AC L:,;.:O".~OU:?::':h~~'~~~~.'~;.r.~" - r- 1. .''''..,...''w~ ~~ ~.. ....,', "~,c,,;:~).:~''r'>< ,TJ:~ ,.,-::k'" ': \>."1 . .' .~. ,. " . ., , .... ~ ~.' I. ~ . , '.1 ~iEtf~' g:~~j-J ~\"7( )7ii7;iCY:)(:;:.~;C~ L Ii-pcc REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT 1j- AS DRIVEWAYS (SEE P-J) CONSTRUCT lYPE -A- CURB AND GUTTER PER MARIN COUNlY STANDARD DETAIL 101 ~ KEEP EXIST FlOWUNE ELEVATIONS f I \ DETAIL ~ NOT TO SCALE ---- /f\l.OH:SS/o",. r8 " c. ~"'< ~ @ SjJV 1; i;l ( !!J r;;" ~ NO. C5J98.3 g I * EXP, 12-.31-0J * II'~ aI/I\. ~~ It OF" CPl..-,~O~ --=- SAWCUT AND MATCH EXlSllNG GRADE AT DRIVEWAYS SAWCUT AND MATCH EXISTlNG GRADE TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG CALL USA TOll FREE PLAN I 800-227-2600 I fF\ DETAIL \ P-1 ) CONCRETE HEADWALL #2 "--/ SCALE: 1/2- :: " ~6'l' OS Jec Gl SHEET 5 OF 5 "",TE iSSUED 4/22/03 DET AILS 0-1 TOWN OF TSUtON 2002-03 DRAINAGE NPROVEMENTS H Harris & Associates , 20 ~QSon CirCle Concord. CA 94520 (925) 827-4900 DE5t.;NE1) BY JOB 1<0. ~E:C.KEO ~