HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2004-06-16
q-
If Z/rlzv-
TOWN OF TIBURON
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
June 16, 2004
7:00 PM - Interviews
7:30 PM - Meeting
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-7377, Notification 48
hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting,
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town
Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes
are posted on the Town's web site, www/tiburon/ora/aovernmenl.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats,
or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable
individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings, Please send a written request,
including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested'
materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the
meeting, Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an' opportunity to provide
testimony on these items, If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in
this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public
Hearing(s),
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves
the right to take items out of order, No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town
Council agenda,
.
\
"
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
June 16, 2004
Page 2 of 4
AGENDA
INTERVIEWS - Planning Commission Vacancy
. 7:00 - Jim Hennann, 52 Red Hill Circle
. 7: 1 0 - Christopher Wand, 5 Burrell Court
. 7:20 - Chris Benedicktsson, 2352 Mar East
. George Salerno, 25 Andrew Drive, #93 - continued to July 7, 2004
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavitz, Councilmember Smith, Vice Mayor Berger, Mayor Fredericks
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 vour comments to no more tha~ three (3) minutes,
CONSENT CALENDAR
1, Approval of Town Council Minutes - June 2, 2004
2, Recommendation by Traffic Safety Committee - Installation of Crosswalk at Reed Ranch Road &
Corte Palos Verdes; Relocation of St?P Sign from Corte Las Casas to Corte Palos Verdes
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Authorizing the Installation of Stop Controls and Crosswalk
At the Intersection of Reed Ranch Road and Corte Palos Verdes
3, Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Approve Amendments to Point
Tiburon Precise Plan Pertaining to the Belvedere- Tiburon Library Expansion Project
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Amending the Point Tiburon (Northwestern Pacific Railroad)
Precise Plan (PD#42) to Accommodate an Expansion of the
Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library Located at
1501 Tiburon Boulevard
4, Recommendation by Planning Manager - Adoption of Resolution Memorializing Denial of Appeal
of Planning Commission Decision relating to Property located at 207 Paradise Drive
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Memorializing the Denial of an Appeal by Susan Olson and
Paul Ortner of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Precise
Plan Amendment for Property located at 207 Paradise Drive
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
June 16, 2004
Page 3 of 4
PUBLIC HEARING
5, Recommendation by Town Manager - Adoption of Fiscal Year 2004-05 Municipal Budget
a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Adopting a Municipal Budget for the Town of Tiburon and
the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency for the Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2005
b) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Repealing Resolution No, 24-2003 and Adopting an Amended
Management Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program
c) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Repealing Resolution No, 25-2003 and Adopting an Amended
Mid-Management, Professional & Confidential Employees
Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program
d) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year
2004-2005 Pursuant to Article XIII B of the Constitution of
the State of California (Gann Limit)
6, Report by Associate Planner - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Appeal of Site
Plan and Architectural Review of the Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-family Dwelling,
with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setback and Excess Structure Height
Project Address:
Applicant:
Appellant:
Assessor's Parcel No,
5047 Paradise Drive
John & Leigh Schuberth
Douglas & Jeannie Stiles
038-021-08
7, Recommendation by Advance Planner - General Plan Update: Discussion and Comment on
Circulation Element Issues Paper
REGULAR AGENDA
8, Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Marin Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) Sphere of Influence Study; Council to Review LAFCO Recommendations
COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly Digest - June 4, 2004
Town Council Weekly Digest - June 11, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
,
Agenda - Town Council. Meeting
June 16, 2004
Page 4 of 4
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - Note: These items am tentative until thev appear on the final aaenda
. Heritage & Arts Commission Annual Report - (July 7)
. Appointment to Fill Planning Commission Vacancy - (July 7)
. Cypress Hollow Landscaping & Lighting District - (July 7)
. Landslide Repair Policy - (July)
. Proposed Erosion and Siltation Control Ordinance
. Revised Street Impact Fee Schedule
. Pilgrim Heights Proposed Undergrounding of Utilities Assessment District
. Raccoon Lane Proposed Undergrounding of Utilities District
. Waiver of Annexation Agreement; 3535 Paradise Drive
Page I of I
Diane Crane lacopi
From: Jim Hermann [hermannjim@hotmail.comj
Sent: Friday, May 21,20046:20 AM
To: Diane Crane lacopi
Subject: Application for the Town Planning Commission
Diane,
Please accept this email as my application for the open position on the town planning commission, Aslhave
previously applied for other commission positions, I am assuming you and the council are familiar with my
background and experience,
As you know, I was recently appointed to the Parks and Open Space Commission and I certainly appreciate the
opportunity to serve my community in that capacity, However, serving on the planning commission would allow
me to contribute even more and is certainly more aligned with my background and skills, Additionally, the council
is aware of my efforts in downtown development and I believe my appointment to the planning commission would
greatly facilitate the communication and efforts in that regard,
If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me and thank you for this opportunity to
apply,
Best Regards
Jim
15) ~{C~~,~ friI
lID JUN - 1 2004 10
TOWN Cl.ERK
l'./ilWN OF TIBURON
06/01/2004
i,"i;:,(,':'
~:';;j?'::
:'! .~\,t'i':,
TOWN MANAGERS OffiCE w,;, '%~~
COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE TOWNOFTIBURON , , .!i1!~~~}!)~, , ,
;,\:~;1i?JiL(!:.i~)~;:<:;:
H'f.P~'.~:~5;i!;
'li'cf:'i'ivLiy-q'r
, ~;l~{~~~~t,
c o~"#i~~:~lf#,:~,~~h e J
, , J\~f~i~~~~~:L ' ,
co~1i~'tatri'e'm'll e r
~:f'N;~',:i#~:;;:g'ig~~:
. . . :;:,:\:i.;~,i;',,~;ih:6;'Y;\~'1 . . .
And r:~~~:;:~ifiit~'~',~s 0 n
Co'~i~n~d['.L~'Eili bel
Town of Tiburon . 1505 Tihumn Boulevard. Tiburon, CA 94920. P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438. www.tiburon.org
fRlElCEmE,
DIGEST
JUN
!:. 2004
APPLICA TION
The Town Council considers appointments to varions Town commissions,
boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and
unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in
Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your
interest in serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or
experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this
form and returning it to Town Hall. The application form can also be found on the
Town's websitc, www.tiburon.orl!:/2'overnment.
, Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an
infonnal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will
remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Th..k '00 t." y,,=w;".g'~ '" ..~, lb. T;h.~)ijlJ~<
Diane Crane Iacopi
Town Clerk
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
,",' ,',
'"I (,,"
'~ \ I ~ ,'~ "
:;:~?J . :frtl: \
;: lill'-"!?':-, I
AREAS OF INTEREST
Please Indicate Your Area(s) oflnterest in Numerical Order
(#1 Being the Greatest Interest)
\/
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
RECREATION
DISASTER PLANNING
PLANNING
DESIGN REVIEW
HERlT AGE & ARTS
UBRARY
BICYCLE/PEDESTRlAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
~
,,'
re ~1~~m~!i~ ~ ~
t; ~)~\!Rt\~!W;:~1::~
J UN'ti5;j}:Ii,Z004
'~e~:i;~i;1:0~;:\}f\~j:,'i:;,'
~NCI.ERK
J'GWNOF:r~BURON '
Addendum to Commission, Board & Committee Application
Planning Commission
Christopher Wand
5 Burrell Court, Tiburon Ca 94920
383-1928
R.....C' '""~""""""""
"'1 lair. 1 l~,=\' ~ll li..... ' I"
J cr t;n;, ',;l} !J::., 1 ,] l:~,.,." l~~,'!
JUN 4 2004
Reason for ,~electing your area of interest:
TOWN MANAGERS O,F!Cf
rOIN!'j OF T1BURUt-J
Every corner ofthe Tiburon Peninsula is unique and merits careful scrutiny.
Each choice that is made relative to land use and design in Tiburon will be
seen in relation to the natural beauty that surrounds it: therefore, each
decision must be made with the utmost care, balancing the rights of the
individual with those of the community to enjoy this natural beauty while at
the same time enhancing or protecting it.
Applicable QualificaJion,~ and Experience
Lifetime Bay Area resident and resident in Tiburon since 1997. My family
has lived here since the mid Sixties. I intend to stay permanently.
Hands-on experience with wood-frame building and landscape architecture.
Community activism through San Francisco Friends of The Urban Forest as
neighborhood coordinator, tree planting crew leader and fundraiser.
Trained docent with the Richardson Bay Audubon Center and Sanctuary.
Working knowledge oflocal geology, plant species and ecology.
Unit Chair, Vice-President and now finishing second term as President of The
Reedlands Property Owners Association.
Parent of second grader in the Reed Union School District.
Community representative in MERA and Skate Park issues.
Member of the Citizens Advisory Council for the Marin County Congestion
Management Agency.
Good knowledge of other Marin communities' history, economics,
infrastructure and small business environment.
,.,
,
Ib) ECEIV~ rrn
~ JUN - 4 2004 /!lJ
Tt)WN GI.ERK
~0FItBWRON
Instructions and Application to Serve on a Town Board,
Commission or Committee
The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards,
commissions and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and
unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in
Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your
interest in serving the Town in some capacity.
Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience
which would be beneticial to the Town, by completing both pages of this form and
returning it to Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to
(415)435-2438.
Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an
informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will
remain on tile at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year.
Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community.
Diane Crane Iacopi
Town Clerk
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AREAS OF INTEREST
Please Indicate Your Arca(s) of Intcrest in Numerical Order
(#1 Bein~ the Greatest Interest)
o PLANNING # PARKS & OPEN SPACE
# DESIGN REVIEW # RECREATION
# HERITAGE & ARTS # DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
# LIBRARY # MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING
# BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1
,
PERSONAL DATA
Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted;
Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, ifncccssary.
NAME: Chris Benediktsson
MAILING ADDRESS: :1352 Mar East
TELEPHONE: Home: 135 2707
Work: 706 7235
Fax No. 435 2707
PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (If applicable) LCOTHA
TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) 4
DATE SUBMITTED: June 4,2004
REASONS FOR SELECTING
YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST
Tiburon is a fantastic place to live. I would be gra~eful for the
opportunity to use my experience and perspective to preserve and enhance the
quality of life we all enjoy.
APPLICABLE OUALIFICA TIONS
AND EXPERIENCE
My experience bridg~:3 the normal gap between environmental concerns, the
ri.ghts and concerns of citizens and the potential for planned expansion.
Currently I work as a program manager on environmental projects for Native
American Technology. Our current projects include Environmental Assessments
and related work on severaJ. ai,rports under contract with the FAA, :i.ncJ.udi.ng
Reno Stead, KaJ.eaJ,oa Hawai,i, and OakJ,and Internatj.onal Airport. In the past
my work experience i,ncJ.udes Director of Operati,ons fo~ Red Herring
Communications and a senior position with the State of Alaska Court System.
------------------------------------------- Town Hall Use ---------------------------------------------
Date Application Received: 0 - t.f - iJ 'I
Interview Date:
/p-/&-oy
Appointed to:
(Commission, Board or Committee)
(Date)
Date Term Expires:
Length of Term:
2
Chris Benediktsson
2352 Mar East, Tiburon, CA 94920
415-435-2707 (home) cchen@pacbell,net
415-706-7235 (cell)
An experienced, team oriented operations executive,
Selected Achievements:
Technical Project Management
. Multimedia Courtroom for oil comDanv/State of Alaska mezatrial: Responsible for operations design
and project management associated, with complex ,mega-trial tax case, Project featured I million
documents scanned and available for retrieval, retrieval controls installed at the attorney's podiums,
both digital and analog multimedia, real-time transcription, 3 separate networks - one Unix based and
two NT, four separate IT consulting groups, one each hired by the opposing attorneys, and two by the
State, Project completed on time, on budget and within externally imposed, almost impossible 45-day
time schedule,
Environmental Project Management
. Environmental Assessment/ Environmental ImDact Statement, .John Rozers Field ILS Svstems,
Kalealoa, Hawaii: Current NEPA project for the FAA, Site was formerly used as a Naval Air Station
with a history commencing shortly after World War 11 and continuing to the recent past. The site was
turned over the State of Hawaii in 2001, Environmental assessment and mitigation is complex and
multifaceted, as the land has a history which includes special and nuclear weapons development, historic
spills and dumping, endangered species and native sovereignty,
Regulatory Compliance/Testing
. MuniciDalitv of Anchoraze: Under contract with thc Municipality of Anchorage, prepared draft
municipal code regulating water sports facilities, Proposed code governed such areas as water quality,
tcsting, maintenance and construction details for swimming pools, water slides, spas and hot tubs,
. Reno Tahoe International Aimort: Under contract with the FAA, provided groundwater and soils
testing for contamination on proposed sitc for new air traffic control tower. Tests included volatiles imd
scmivolatiles, Per Nevada code, results compared with EP A Region 9 MCLs for drinking water.
. Culinary Foods: Provided quality control and microbiological testing for manufacturcr of frozen
airline meals.
Accounting/ Financial Management
. A ....M....P.... non Droftt funeral home, Consultant to non-profit who had experienced major
embezzlcment loss, Devcloped procedures to minimize potential for future losses, selected new
software to track multiple accounts and provide easy to read, up to datc financial reports, Designed and
providcd staff training,
Capital Project Management
Anchoraf!e Courthouse EXTlansion: Project manager for 220,000 sqft new construction, Responsibilities
included: member of team successfully lobbying for project funding at state capital, NE team selection,
Personally prcpared space plan for new facility, chaired and coordinated design committees where
building users interacted with and improved proposed design, Leader/co-leader of security team, IT team,
estimation, value engineering team, Project completed within estimated cost of$65 million
C BenediktssOll resume
rJage I
Professional History:
Manager, Western Environmental Division, Native American Technology Corporation,
San Francisco, CA 2003-present
. Responsible for development, supervision and management of environmental engineering
projects for the western region of the US,
. Responsible for business development including proposal writing and business planning,
. Personal responsibility for many disparate operations functions including projcct
management, interface with government agencies, clients and potential clients,
subcontractor coordination and hiring,
. Personally developed business plan which calls for five fold increase in rcvcnues over
next five years, Company development currently on plan,
Director of Operations, Rcd Herring Communications, San Francisco, CA 2000-2001
. Responsible for domestic and international operations for media company with offices
throughout the US, in London and Copenhagen,
. Responsible for development, supervision and management of resources in teleo,
security, leases, planning, operations, various technical support areas, contract
negotiation and budget preparation/ budget management.
. Personal responsibility for special projects including TV studio, major office construction
project, and the management of advancing and then declining resources in an
environment of roller coaster growth
. In the wake of 9/ II and the 200 I crash of the market, slashed budget by 65% by selective
staff reduction and renegotiation of existing long term contracts, including those signed at
the internet peak,
President, Business Support Services, Eagle River, AK
1994 - 2000
President of IT/Technical Services consulting company providing services to small to
medi urn sized Alaskan companies,
Representative Clients:
. Brown and . Municipality of . Builder's
Root Anchorage Bargains, lnc,
. Aleutian School . Alaska Television . Ninilehik
District Network Native Assn,
Representative Projects:
. Facilities and Operations Feasibility Study - Backscatter Radar Facility, Amchitka, AK
. Windows NT Network, accounting system design, multiple store point of sale and store
polling for two separate retailers of building products, both with sales approaching 5
million per year
. Accounting system design and installation for S&S Engineering, Tweed Excavating and
Construction, Alaska Television Network among others,
. Under contract with the Municipality of Anchorage, drafted municipal code governing
Anchorage water sports facilities,
C BcnuliktssoJl resume
.. page 2
f\
,
Senior Projects Manager, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, AK
] 989-1994
Senior staff position reporting to the Administrative Director and the Alaska Supreme Court,
. Personal signatory responsibility for operating budgets, capital projects, schedules,
acquisitions, leases, planning, safety, security and hazardous materials (among others),
. Drafted construction contract and professional services contract (with staff attorney),
. Chaired several committees including "Courthouse of the Future", "Court Security
Committee" and "Courthouse Design Committee",
. Lobbied for capital funding at the state capital, regular reporting to the Supreme Court,
. Media spokesperson for court system on capital project issues,
Project Manager, City of Cold Bay, Cold Bay, AK
]988-]989
Senior Staff position reporting to the Mayor and City Council.
. Responsible for the design and construction of the City of Cold Bay Municipal Building
. Citywide facility operating budget development, energy efficiency measures,
. Personnel management, hiring, staff supervision
. Project completed on time, on budget. '
. Verbal and written reports to City Council
Facilities/Projects Manager, Aleutian Region School District, Anchorage, AK
1984-1988
Responsible for construction, maintenance and operations for Alaskan School District
with schools in six separate communities separated by as much as 600 miles,
. Successfully built two schools and managed district wide major maintenance project
. Successfully used waste heat fTOm city generators to provide heat for two campuses
. Lobbied for capital funding at state capital.
. Authored successful grant applications,
Education:
BS Microbiology, University of Washington, 1980, Continuing education in profit/non
profit accounting, safety and regulatory issues, and others,
C Benediktsson resume
page 3
..
X:k:k ;<10 I
TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Frederic\(sCalled' th~'h:iu]ar meeting ofthe Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p,m,
on Wednesda , June 2, 2004 " Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon,
California,
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith
PRESENT: EX OFFICIO:
Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth,
Planning Manager Watrous, Director of Public
Works/Town Engineer Echols, Chief of Police
Odetto, Director of Administrative Services Bigall,
Administrative & Financial Analyst Stott,
Information Technology Coordinator Monterichard,
Town Clerk Crane lacopi
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Section 54956,9(a))
Siciliano v. Town ofTiburon
Zack, et al. v, MERA et ai,
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
(Section 54957,6)
Bargaining Unit: Management and Mid-Management/ProfessionallConfidential Employees
(Non-Represented Employees)
Negotiator: Town Manager and Administrative Services Director
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY
Mayor Fredericks said that there was no action taken,
'ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None,
Town Council Minutes # 11-211114
June 2, 211114
Page 1
.
PRESENTATIONS BY MARIN COUNTY
Presentation by Marin County Planning Agency - Draft Countywide Plan
Director of Community Development Alex Hinds gave thc Council and the public an'
overview of the draft in a PowerPoint presentation, followed by a brief question and answer
period, Public comments rangcd fyom questions on the status of the Ft. Baker project and St.
Vincent/Silveira properties to the cost ofthe countywide plan and who was paying for it.
The theme of the update, according to Hinds, was "planning sustainable communities,"
which focused on three elements: natural systems, built environment, and socioeconomic
issues, He covered these elements in his presentation and also told the public that they could
access the draft plan on-linc at www,future-marin,org,
Presentation by Marin Commission on the Aging - Annual Report
As Tiburon's representative, Mr. Bortel brought the Council up to date on the activities ofthe
Commission as Tiburon's representative, He said that he also served on thc Committee for
Housing and Transportation, as well as the Publications Committee (which publishes the
quarterly newsletter "Great Age"), He noted that the Council had a resolution in support of
"Affordable Housing Week" in Marin County on the Conscnt Calendar,
Mr. Bartel said that the housing committee was focusing on "home shares" for seniors as'a way
of utilizing current housing stock for affordable housing. He said that there were many legal
protections built into this program for the homeowners, Mr. Bortel also said that there was a
cable TV show called on Cable 26 called "A Time for all Ages,"
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of Town Council Minutes - May 19,2004
2, Request by Marin County Commission on Aging - Declaration of"Affordab1e
Housing Week"
a) A Rcsolution of the Town Council ofthe Town ofTiburon
Joining With Other Cities in Marin County to Set Asidc
June 5 -13 as Affordable Housing Week
3, Recommendation by Director of Administrative Services - Retention of Nicholson
and Olson for Audit Services
Town Council Minutes # 11-2()()4
June 2. 2004
Page?
. '
..:
4, Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer - Authorize
Execution of ABAG Grant Agreement for the Trcstle Glen Bikeway Project
a) A Resolution ofthc Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
Accepting Construction Grant for Trestle Glen Pedestrian
Path Improvements Project and Authorizing Execution of
Grant Agreement for the Project
5, Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town Engineer - Funding Assistance
Rcquest By Golden Gate Transit for Stewart Drive Bus Stop Improvcmcnts and Budget
Amendment
Mayor Fredericks askcd that Item No, 5 be removed for discussion,
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos, 1 through 4, abovc,
Bcrger, seconded by Slavitz
AYES: Unanimous
ABSTAIN: Smith, May 19 minutes,
Consent Calendar Item No.5; Recommendation by Director of Public Works/Town
Engineer - Funding Assistance Request by Golden Gate Transit f()r Stewart Drive Bus Stop
Improvements and Budget Amendment
Town Enginecr Echols said that since the last Council mecting, he had been informed by thc
Golden Gate Highway and Transportation District that the construction bids receivcd for the
project were $60,000 over budget. The Bridge District had subscqucntly contacted the Town
Engineer and asked for assistance in meeting this shortfall. Echols recommended that the Town
Council consider contributing up to $30,000 toward construction of the new bus stop
improvements using funds from the Town's Circulation System Improvement Fund,
However, Mr. Echols also noted that an amended proposal had come in, estimating the matching
funds to bc c10scr to $47,130 rather than $30,000,
Alan Zaradnick, Director of Planning for thc District confirmed the above inf()rmation and said
that he had not discovered until "late in the game" that State funding had been lost for this
project which was now 10 years old, 1n addition, hc noted that federal funding compriscd a
major portion of the grant and that these funds might also be lost if the project did not move
forward,
Mayor Fredericks asked the Town Engineer if other Town projects would be "bumped" if monies
from thc Circulation System Improvcmcnt Fund,were used toward this project.
Town Engineer Echols said that $60,000 had been earmarkcd for potential improvements to thc
Tiburon Boulevard/Reed Ranch Road intersection and that diverting these funds to another
Town Council Minutes # 11-2004
.Iulle 2, 2004
Page 3
,.
project would reduce the amount accordingly,
However, Echols said that possibly the difference could bc made up iTom gas tax or street impact
fec funding sources,
Couneilmember Gram asked what would happen if the Town "capped" its contribution at
$30,000 and whether the project would "die" if it did not receive adequate funding,
Mr. Zaradnick indicated that the Bridge District Board would have the final decision about
whether to move forward with the project, but noted that dedicated funds, such as the federal
h'l'ant money, might be lost ifit did not.
In response to a question iTom the public about the apparent high cost of the bus stop project,
Mayor Fredericks clarified that the "lion's share" of the cost was for construction of a massivc
retaining wall that was needed to create a turn-out area on Tiburon Boulevard (as opposed to the
bus shelter itself).
Vice Mayor Berger said that the project was important to create a better line of sight 'and that
buses were currently forced to stop in the Stewart Drive intersection itself to pick up passengers
since there was inadequate space to turn out [in the westbound direction],
Town Engineer Echols noted that the Circulation Element of the Town's General Plan
encouraged provision of adequate transit facilities in cooperation with other agencies and that the,
'relocation of this shelter would reduce interference with vehicular Iraflic, which was also cited as
a goal in the Circulation Element. He added that the Stewart Drive bus stop project is identified
as one of the Town's proposed circulation system improvements in the current fiscal year.
Council concurred that the Stewart Drive bus stop project was an important one that should be
supported by approving matching funds based on best known estimates, with a cap,
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To approve the funding shortfall with a cap of $42,X65,
Berger, seconded by Smith
A YES: Unanimous
PUBLIC HEARING
6, Recommendation by Director of Community Development - Approve Rezoning and
Adopt Amendments to Pt. Tiburon Master & Precise Plan Pertaining to the Belvedere-
Tiburon Library Expansion Project
Project Location: 150 I Tiburon Boulevard
Owner/Applicant: Be1vedere-Tiburon Library Agency and Town of Tiburon
Assessor's Parcel No, 58-'171-90 & 58-171-62 (portion)
Town Council Minulcs # 11-2()()4
Jww 2. 2()()4
Page 4 .
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinanccs
a) An Ordinance ofthe Town Council of the Town OfTiburon
Rezoni,ng Certain Propcrty from OS (Open Space) to P
(Public/Quasi-Public) Zonc to Accommodate an Expansion
ofThc Bclvcdere-Tiburon Public Library
Assessor Parcel No, 58-171-62 (Portion)
b) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
Amending the Point Tiburon (Northwestern Paciiic,Railroad)
Master Plan (PD#42) to Accommodate an Expansion ofthe
Bclvedere-Tiburon Public Library Located at 1501 Tiburon
Boulevard
Council waived reading of the Stafl'report,
Mayor Frcdcricks opencd and closed the public hearing, Thcrc was no public comment.
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
To read Ordinancc (a) above by title only,
Smith, seconded by Slavitz
AYES: Unanimous
Mayor Fredericks read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon rczoning
certain property from OS (Open Space) to P (Public/Quasi-Public) Zone to Accommodate an
Expansion ofthe Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library, Assessor Parcel No, 48-171-62 (portion),"
MOTION:
Moved:
Vote:
MOTION:
Moycd:
Vote:
To adopt abovc rczoning ordinance,
Smith, seconded by Slavitz
A YES: Berger, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz, Smith
To read Ordinance (b) above by title only,
Slavitz, sccondcd by Bcrger
A YES: Unanimous
Mayor Fredericks read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending
the Point Tiburon (Northwestern Pacific Railroad) Master Plan (PD#42) to Accommodate an
Expansion of the Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library located at 1501 Tiburon Boulevard,"
MOTION:
Movcd:
Vote:
To adopt above amending ordinancc,
Smith, sccondcd by Slavitz
A YES: Berger, Fredcricks, Granl, Slavitz, Smith
Town Council Minutes # 11-2004
June 2, 20114
Page 5
7, Recommendation by Planning Manager - Appcal of Planning Commission To Dcny
An Amendment to Pt. Tiburon Precisc Plan Amendment (PD#42) to Allow Additional
Floor Area
Propcrty Addrcss: 207 Paradisc Drive
Applicant/Appellant: Susan Olson and Paul Ortner
Assessor's Parcel No, 59-380-30
Planning Manager Watrous presented thc Staff report and grounds ofthc appcal. He described
the Planning Commission's deliberations whicb resulted in 3-2 votc to deny the application and
recommended that the Council bear public testimony but uphold the Commission's decision,
Mayor Fredericks opened thc public hearing,
Susan Olson, Applicant/Appellant, rcad a prepared statcmcnt into thc rccord which is attached to
these minutcs, She told thc Council of the ycars of frustration cncountered by she and her
husband over the unresolved issue of what to do with a patio area at thcir unit at Pt. Tiburon
Bayside that had suffered watcr damage and created lcakage to the downstairs unit. She said that
the Town's approved enclosure of the similar space in the unit below them had helped to
exacerbate the situation, as had the installation of a rock garden, fountain, and "illegal" hot tuh
hy the previous owner of their unit. She asked the Council to overturn the Planning
Commission's decision and allow hcr and her hushand to enclose thc area in question and put an
end to the uncertainty and years of battling with the Homeowner's Association Board as to thc
use of thc space in question,
In conclusion, Ms, Olson quoted Commissioner Greenberg, stating that "she always upholds the
integrity of precise development plans unless thcre arc exccptional conditions" and that thcir
application was an attempt to remedy an exceptional condition,
Commissioner Greenberg notcd [in the Planning Commission minutcs] that the "expansion of the
lower unit was allowed incorrectly, ercating an unsightly condition with a leak prohlem due to a
flat roof," Furthermore, Greenberg had commented that "a 36 squarcfo()( enclosure would not
make or brcak the entire complex," as long as "no more expansion" was allowed in Point
Tiburon,
Vice Mayor Bergcr asked Ms, Olson if the same "condition" existcd in [neighboring] Unit 209
which also sat atop an cnclosed space, Ms, Olson said she was not awarc if that unit had thc
same problcm,
Berger said that his understanding was that the Homeowner's Association would fix the lcak
problem hut he wondcrcd whcther the Applicants/Appellants would bc pcnnitted to replacc thc
rock garden..
Ms, Olson said that thcy had been told they could not as it contributed to "ponding" on the roof.
Town Council Minules II 1 J-2()()4
.June 2, 2()()4
Page 6
She also stated that the drainage issue had not yet becn resolved,
Nancy Dalton, owner of two units at PI. Tiburon with similar floor plans, said that she and the
other owners "valued" living at PI. Tiburon and were willing to put up with "consequences" such
as not being able to use 01' enclosc 36 square feet of deck spaec, She said that the Board did not
want to spend time reviewing and approving multiple requests for construction such as this one
and askcd thc Council to deny the appeal.
Mayor Frcdericks and Vicc Mayor Berger asked Mrs, Dalton if she knew of any other changcs or
enclosurcs ofthis nature at PI. Tiburon, Mrs, Dalton said that she did not know but that she
assumed that the buildings wcrc thc same as when they had bcen constructed,
Joseph Englert, past Homeowner's Association Boardmembcr and President betwccn 1997 and
2001, said that thc Board had received three or four informal requests to enclose a dcek arca
during that time but said that thc homeowners were always told that the [PI. Tiburon]
dcvclopment plan did not allow such enclosures,
Councilrnember Gram asked whether a homeowner had to have the Board's permission and
asked what the CC&R's said about the issue, Mr. Englert replied that his understanding was that
the [PI. Tiburon] development plan was thc overriding authority in these matters,
E,C. Grayson, currcnt Homeowner's Association Board Vicc President, said that the Board
wanted to maintain the "integrity" of the homes at PI, Tiburon, including the preservation of
views, the lawn area, and adjacent Shoreline Park,
Mr. Grayson quoted from Town Council Resolution 2818, adoptcd in March 1991, which
discouraged futurc additions to the project in order to prevent a repeat of the approval to enclose
the outside of the unit below the Applicants/Appellants' home, He asked that the Council not
"compromise or corrupt" the intent of this resolution and to "put the issue to bed" once and for
all,
Mr. Grayson also said that he and General Manager Diane Kay had met with Associatc Planner
Brian Lynch who told them that Resolution 28] 8 would "not be violated" by the Town,
Councilmember Slavitz commented that the Applicants/Appellants' request was not for an
"expansion" of their unit but rather to restore it to "looking pretty" again, He asked Mr. Grayson
whether Ms, Olson would be allowed to do this,
Mr. Grayson said that Board President Delli Woodring had invited Ms, Olson to her home to scc
how other homeowners utilized this space and that in his opinion, how to use the space was "not
that big a problem" for the homeowners at PI. Tiburon,
Howcver, hc said that the Board felt that the rock gardcn had caused the leakagc problem and
recommended instead the installation of a "trellis" floor on the patio which could then have
Town Council Minutes II 11-2004
.June 2, 2004
Page 7
plants or landscaping installed on top of it.
Mayor Frcdcricks asked if the Applicants! Appellants' unit was the only unit that looked out over
a roof below it; she was told it was not. Mr. Grayson added that "lots" of units had similar
"views," In rcsponse to further questions from the Council, he said that other units used this
samc lattice flooring to cover the spacc,
Jay Key, Homeowner's Association Board Treasurer, stated that the CC&R's said that ifthe
Town approved a construction application it would then be "kicked back" to the Board, ,He said
that thc Town had not consulted the Board on this issue but that the Board's position was that
that they would be "very careful" about what they approved,
Mr, Key also statcd that he thought the leak had been fixed,
Stcwart Dalton said the issue had bccn blown out of proportion and that the appca] was
essentially a "grudge match" between the Applicants! Appellants and the Board, He said that
whether to install a trellis or not was a "side issue" and that the deck area did not represent a "big
part" of the 180-degree view from the unit. He said the Appellants were trying to "win a point"
that was not relevant to either the vicw or the valuc of their unit.
Tom McClintock, who stated that he bought the first Pt. Tiburon unit sold in ]985, and
prcviously served on the Homeowner's Association Board, said that the HOA had an '
architcctural review committee in thc past which informally handled such requcsts, He said that
David Irmer (developer ofPt. Tiburon) had cxplained the reason for thc [open] desil,'Il of these
areas and that everyone was "reasonable" in acceptance of this fact. He complained that now it
seemed that people did not want to "work together." ,
Mr. McClintock asked the Council whether'it thought if was "right" for a homeowner to come to
thc Council ,first rather than going to the Board,
Mayor Fredericks said that the Council had no opinion on this subjcct but that it did not seem to
be the current policy of the homeowner's board,
During hcr rebuttal, Ms, Olson said that she and her husband had indeed submitted their
application to the Pt. Tiburon Board but wcre told that they would havc to go to the Town
(Planning Commission) first.
Ms, Olson told the Council that she and her husband had bcen in mediation with the Board for
three years now and that the Board was wcIl aware of all the issues, Shc said that all thcy asked
was to be able to "put back" the deck area the way it was whcn she and her husband purchascd
their unit (12 ycars ago) with the existing landscaping,
Councilmember Slavitz said that what he heard fTOm the public testimony was that the Board
was intending to cover the Applicant! Appellants' roof area with latticc, Ms, Olson said that this
Town Council Minutes # 11-2()()4
June 2, 2()()4
Pa,gc 8
"
,
was the first she had heard about this,
Couneilmember Slavitz asked Ms, Olson whether that solution would meet her needs and she
replied "no," that it was "not as attractive" as what existed when they purchased the unit. She
also wondered if the lattice would add to the leak situation,
Mayor Fredericks closed the public hearing,
Vice Mayor Berger said that while the Applicants/Appellants had his sympathy, allowing an
enclosure to the deck area would have negative impacts to the neighbors and that it was
important not to set such a precedent. He said that the Applicants/Appellants should be allowed
a "quality repair" of the leak situation by the Board, such as the installation of an overflow
scupper, and that the installation of the trellis flooring would allow a "fix" in that plants or rocks
could be added "within a workable setting,"
Vice Mayor Berger told Ms, Olson that the Homeowner's Association could solve the situation
"technically and satisfactorily" for her and her husband,
Councilmember Smith said that he disag!eed with Commissioner Greenberg's comments that the
Applicants/Appellants' situation was "unique," He said that this was a crucial factor in
evaluating the situation, Smith further commented that the [Pt. Tiburon] project was fully built
out, even "over built," and that the [open] spaces had positive desi~,'n impacts, especially on
"prominent" units such as the one owned by the Applicants/Appellants,
Councilmember Smith said that if the area in question was enclosed, it would look "substantially
different" from the other units and furthermore, if you allowed one applicant to do it, it would
become "increasingly difficult" to explain the reasons and make findings to deny similar
applications,
Councilmember Smith concluded that the problem was between the homeowner and the
homeowner's association and that he would stand by the ]99] [Town Council resolution]
decision that discouraged further additions to the project. Smith said that while it was the
Town's "fault" in allowing the, enclosure of the unit below, it was not appropriate to exacerbate
the problem and that he supported the Planning Commission's denial of the application, He
further stated that solutions existed that fell short of "affecting everyone" in the project.
Counei]member Slavitz concurred, stating that expanding the unit was' a "big hammer" in the
search to correct the leakage problem, However, he said that the appellants had his sympatby
, and that he hoped the appeal would help move the homeowner's association and the
Applicants/Appellants forward in resolving the situation,
Couneilmember Gram said that a competent roofer should be able to correct the leakage problem,
He agreed with his fellow eouneilmembers that allowing an enclosure of the space was "not a
good decision,"
Town Council Minutes # J J -21104
June 2, 211114
Page 9
,
Mayor Fredericks agreed, stating that an approval wOl!ld be an "incursion into a slippery slope,"
She said that Resolution 2818 "strongly discouraged" such changes and said shc would votc to
uphold the Planning Commission's decision,
MOTION:
To uphold the Planning Commission's decision and direct Staff to return with a
rcsolution memorializing thc findings,
Smith, scconded by Berger
AYES:' Unanimous
Moved:
Vote:
REGULAR AGENDA
8, Recommendation by Town Attorney - Proposal to .loin the General Servicc Joint
Powers Authority
The Town Attorney gavc a detailed analysis of the proposed a~,'reemen( betwecn thc public
agcncics involved in thc formation of the new .IP A (to replace thc formcr Streetlight
Acquisition JP A, She told the Council that shc had raised ccrtain issues about thc agrccment at
a mccting on May 20 among County-wide dircctors of public works and city attorneys, She
recommended thc following amcndmcnts:
1, Stipulation that the JP A will comply with local planning and building laws (Section
6,12);
2, That further amendments to thc al,,'reement would require a unanimous vote of the
membership;
3, Deletion of Scction 11 or limit it to projects that comply with state and local law and
thc agreement;
4, That no more than one official per mcmbcr agency be allowed to sit on the Board at any
given time;
5, Fees and dues should be set to reflect cach member's proportionate benefit fTom thc
JP A activities,
Town Manager McIntyre reported that the Marin Manager's Association had also discussed the
agreement in dctail and understood the Town's reluctance to move forward with joining the
.IPA in its current configuration in light of the recent Zacl< el a/. v, MEliA litigation,
Council asked whcther there would bc any technical staff or elected oflieials sitting on the
General Services Board,
Town Manager Mcintyre said that it was contemplated that the Board would consist of City
Managers and Directors of Public Works who were, in turn, accountable to the clectcd
officials,
Mcintyre also stated that an Oversight Committee of e1ectcd officials was in cxistencc whose
Town Council Minutes # 11-2()()4
.June 2, 2()()4
Page Iii
mandate it was to audit the actions of the Marin County JPA's, '
Councilmember Slavitz said that he was, Tiburon's representative to this Committee but noted
that the committee had not yet met in review because the [new] General Services JP A had not
yet been formed, ,
A discussion followed as to wbat might occur ifthe Town did not join the JP A, The Town
Engineer pointed out that the Town could still participate in certain cost-sharing arrangements
but not have a "vote"; or it might be responsible, in some cases, for delivery of services without
thc bencfit of a larger pool of participants,
Town Engineer Echols cited the examples of the GIS mapping jPA and ihe Storm water Runoff
JP A as services the Town would be unable to provide on its own,
Councilmember Slavitz noted that while the changes recommended by thc Town Attorney
might bcnefit all jPA memb(.'I's, there was no [,'llarantee that they would be accepted,
Councilmember Gram said that it would be interesting to see what aetion the other agencies
took,
Council thanked the Town Attorney f(:lr her work arid directed Town Staff to propose the
recommendations to amcnd thc agrcemcnt, as statcd above, except that No, 4 should bc
modificd to statc that thc Board shall consist on one representative from each member agency
and that said representative shall be either the agency's Manager (or, in the case of the County,
Administrator) or Public Works Director; as determined by said agency,
9, Recommendation by Town Manager - Introduction of Fiscal Year 2004-05 Municipal
Budget
Financial Analyst Stott gave a PowerPoint presentation ofthe proposed budget showing a
projected operating surplus of $167,000, He reviewed the Town's operating budget, revenue
sources (60% from property taxes and other taxes), estimated State takeaways (based on current
information from the State), and capital improvement pro[,'l'am budget.
He noted in one slide that although the Town's revenues were tapering off, the Town still met
its goals in terms of reserves and that it continued to budget conservatively when it came to
revenue projections,
An interesting statistic, according to Stott, was that over the last five years, no Town
department had varied more than 1 % from its projected expenses,
With regard to $2 million capital improvement program, Councilmemher Slavitz asked
whether a portion of the budget surplus would go to street rehabilitation, as proposed in a
previous council meeting,
Town Council Minutes # 11-2()()4
June 2, 2004
Page II
Director of Administrative Serviees said that once the books were closed in September and the
audit completed in November, an actual number would be brought back to the Couneil for
allocation to this fund,
Mayor Fredericks opened and closed the public hearing,
Analyst Stott said that Staff would return to Council on June 16 with the final budget and
adopting resolutions,
COUNCIL. COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION REPORTS
None,
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly Digest- May 21, 2004
Town Council Weekly Digest - May 28,2004
AD,IOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Town Couneil of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor
Fredericks adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m,,'sine die,
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE 1ACOPI, TOWN CLERK
Town Council Minutes # 11-2004
June 2, 2()()4
Page /2
.[D)~~~~W~lrn
m1 JUN - 22004 \!!J
TO:
Mayor, Alice Fredericks
Vice Mayor, Milcs Bcrger
Councilmember, Tom Gram
Councilmember, JeffSlavitz
Councilmember, Paul Smith
Planning Manager, Dan Watrous
askalicenow@usa,net
mberger@bdearch,com
tomgram@pachcll.nct
jslavitz@jps,net
psmith@ci,tiburon,ca,us
dwatrous@ci,tiburon,ca,us
==r-ej
S~~ ~
~rn8
o3!:i
!t~~
m .-- .-
:(:
mWN CLERK
T0WNOFP;~flthtionlTiburon Town Council Mtg/6-2-04
FROM:
Susan Olson, Appellent
portner3@sbcglobal.net
RE: Appcal of Planning Commission to Deny an Amendment to Point Tiburon
Precise Plan (D #42) to allow Additional Floor Area; 207 Paradise Drivc;
Susan Olson & Dr. Paul Ortner, Owners/Appellants
MEETING DATE: Junc 2, 2004
My Name is Susan Olson and my husband, Dr. Paul Ortncr and I are the owners of207
Paradise Drivc and thc applicants in this case. We have lived at thi;; address in the Point
Tiburon Complex for 12 years and love the Town ofTiburon, Wc arc vcry acsthetic
conscious people who have previously owned and remodeled at least 20 other properties
in the San Francisco Bayarca, Wc have been members ofthe Corinthian Yacht Club j()r
approximatcly 8 years, and even though I do not sail anymore and my husband's health is
not good, we continuc to support thc club because we believe it is a historically important
structure and aesthetically improves the town ofTiburon,
As stated in the presentation I gave to the planning commission on March 10, 2004, I
would like to review a little history of and the basis of my original request.
My main reason to requcst the changc to the precise amendment was centered around the
negative impact created by the expansion of Unit 208 to our Unit 207, In 1990 the Board
of Adjustmcnts & Review approved an 85 squarc foot addition to the master bedroom of
Unit 208 which is located directly below our unit. This decision allowed the creation of
the 36 squarc foot unsightly flat roof area visiblc to the intcrior of our living/dining room
arca and the unusual notch to the exterior of our units, This area in other units within the
complex is open and looks down through to the gardens below,
In March 1991, Karl Kocnig who owned Unit 207 previously, f1Icd an application to
amend the Point Tiburon Precise Plan and enclosc the same 36 square loot space, In
review of the microfichc filcs, it seems as if the Planning commission was at that time
going to, as written in the tiles, "recommend that it be approved due to the unintended
advcrsc effects caused by the addition to Unit 208 located below and because they tound
that the condition was unique and not lound in other units," Thcrc was a drall written up
including it as a precise plan amcndment prior to the passing of Resolution No,2818,
-2-
Karl Koenig became ill and had decided to sell Unit 207 and then rescinded his request
and unf()rtunately, it was not included,
As we know Resolution No, 2818 discourages any future additions to the project. In this
resolution it states in Item# G that "The commission found that haphazard additions and
enclosures (such as the one made to Unit 208 below) could damage the integrity and
harmony of the project, detract from the appearance ohhe project as a whole, and result
in other negative impacts: The exact words which the Town Council gave as a reason to
discourage future square footage additions at Point Tiburon are precisely what has
occurred in our situation, A haphazard addition and enclosure which was approved by
the town in 1990 for Unit#208 created a situation which resulted in a negative impact to
Unit#207 and Now Unit #206 as well. This situation was created by the exaet situation
that 2818 was created to stop,
In the Appeal's paper's staffresponsc from Daniel Watrous, I would likc to respond first
to what was written as the response to Grounds # I & #2, the stafTreport does not prove
or demonstratc that this small 36 foot cnclosurc would be haphazard & would damagc thc
integrity and detract from the appearance of the project overall. In fact, under Grounds
#2 the stafIreport states, "Thc proposed 36 square foot addition would rcsult in a
relatively minor change to the overall exterior appearance of one building in the Point
Tiburon Bayside complex, It is even somewhat ditlieult to identify the location of the
proposed addition without any visual aids to mark its location," In addition to the stall'
statement,] contend that the haphazard nature of the addition that was approved
previously for Unit# 208 does not damage the integrity of the project as a whole nor
detract from the appearance of the project as a whole, it only rcsults in ncgativc impacts
to Unit#207 by creating the unsightly, continually leaking, concrete roof which is visible
only to Unit# 207 & #206, In fact, the proposed project will not change the footprint of
the building and will create a more consistent exterior,
One of the reasons that I appealed the Planning Commission's decision was that
originally thc Staff Report findings written up by Dan Waltrous for the March 10 meeting
wcre favorable and the vote was close, 3 to 2 opposed, Of the 5 commissioners, only 3
made appointments to come and inspect my property personally, Those commissioners
were, Fraser, Greenberg, & Kunzweiler. At the public hearing on March 10 it seemed all
threc ofthc commissioners who came to view the situation were going to vote favorably
to approve the precise plan change, During thc deliberations between the council,
Commissioner Kunzweiler said he became confused about the purpose of the application
and over the issues at hand and decided to change his vote to opposing the change, He
stated he'was confused because if the sole purpose is to fix the leak, there are many ways
to fix a leak that can be accomplished without creating new floor area, He said that
eliminating an unsightly design or expanding the unit are difTerent issues, No comments
by thc public were allowed at this time to refuk or clarify thc facts so I was unable to
rcspond,
.
~
,
-3-
Another reason that I wanted to appcal is on the basis of facts which wcrc statcd
incorrectly during the public hearing and which brings me also to the secondary reason
filr the original request, the leak problcm, During the deliberation pcriod, Commissioner
Collins statcd that he sccs this more of a leak issue, He said that the condition existed
when the applicants bought the home; it was unsightly then and it is now, Chair Snow
also stated that this condition existed when the applicants purcha~cd the property, I
would likc you to notc that neither of these commissioncrs visitcd thc sitc to vicw thc
situation from my unit. In addition, their facts were not correctly stated, When we
purchased the unit back in 1992 thcre cxistcd a rock garden on the roof area which is the
subjcct of this application, This was placed there by the previous owner, Karl Koenig,
prior to selling to us, The rock garden had a fountain, large plants, and was lar more
attractive than the bare concrete roof area which exists now, At the time of purchase we
were not aware of any leak involving thc roof area or dry rot in the exterior walls of this
unit. The rock garden and fountain were removed by the HOA's contractor during the
repair of the leak and dry rot in 2002/2003, This wa~ thcir THIRD attempt at trying to
repair the leak in this area, The HOA's contractor advised us that the rock garden and
fountain had to be removed because it collected water and contributed to the standing
water and the leak into unit 208 below, This area was also very diiTicult to maintain when
it was a rock garden because the roof arca is not accessible except through 2 small lower
windows from the inside of our unit or by placing a large ladder in the yard of Unit#208.
After many attempts by the HOA's contractor to repair the leak problem in the arca we
were told by them, as well as by our own contractor, and the HOA architect that they Jelt
that by cnclosing this arca it would oncc and for all permanently fix the leak situation and
improve the aesthetics,
Just in the last two weeks, AFTER ONE YEAR, the HOA has finally attempted to fix the
leak again for the FOURTH time. Not until this hearing was occurring did they attempt
to repair it again, evcn though thc owner of Unit 208, as well as us, had madc numerous
requests to the 1'lOA, For one year we had to look at pieces of torn out wood and plastic
sheeting covering the leak, as well as, puddles of water for days after the rains, They
may have temporarily fixed the lcak into unit 208 again; however, they have still not
fixed the drainage problems and the aesthetics visible to our unit. Thc Icak is not into our
unit; however, the circumstances' surrounding it does affect our view, We continue to
look at an unsightly bare area that accumulates water and is in continual repair modc,
So you can see that it is not a simple, leak problem that can be easily resolved. The arca
that we are discussing today is a small part ofthe overall leak problems that previously
existed and the last section to be resolved, In conclusion, this leak after FOUR attempts
and now EIGHT years has still not been able to be fixed successfully,'
We have lived at Point Tiburon Jor 12 years and have experienced much frustration
regarding all ofthe construction down time being done by the HOA to our unit. We have
becn in Association construction mode regarding the entire front of our unit lor the past 3
years repairing leaks which resulted from faulty original construction, And at the Sanle
-,
-4-
time, we also spent 4 years having to push the HOA into mediation to get the repairs for
which they were found liable accomplished, The entire !Tont of our unit has been
reconstructed, These intrusions have cost us several months and sometimes years of loss
ofenjoyme~t of our living space which faces our 1.7 MILLION DOLLAR VIEW, Each
time it has disrupted our neighbor's lives as well. We havc become very tired or paying
attorneys costs and spending hours in mediation and pleadings with the Homeowner's
Board and AssoCiation to move on issues when they occur, even though every time thcy
are found culpable, During these periods the l'IOA's Board has stalled the repairs being
done sometimes for an entire year,
I know that some of the prcvious information concerning our problcms with the HOA is
not cntirely the council's or the planning commission's problem, However it is part of
the "Big Picture" that exists regarding this request and any solution to this problem. I am
also noting this in more detail due to the Staff's Report and rcsponse to Ground #3 in the
appeal; "The Planning Commission determined that the applicant had not sulI1ciently
demonstrated that alternative repair solutions had been explored that did not require the
construction ofthc proposed addition," In response, I would contend that having madc 4
major attempts, over a 8 year period & spending several thousands of dollars docs
sufficiently demonstrate that the alternative repair solutions have been explored,
I would likc to also rcspcctfully address our neighbor in #205, Boh Fishman's concerns,
If we are allowed to complete the enclosure, I do not see h~w it would aITeet the light
into his unit. I have looked at this carefully during ditlerent parts of the day, His Unit is
located completely off to one side, clear or our unit, downstairs, Our unit also juts out in
front of all the others by halrthe building, We only harely see part of his patio and none
of his living room area, In addition, the entire patio portion of our unit ha~ a solid wall
that alrcady blocks any excess sun from the direction that it would come across the front
of the building, so there would be no additional effect. If privacy is the issue we would
he amenable to having a solid wall on the huilding side and window in front. This is not
our preference as it would actually diminish thc view we now enjoy, but it would increase
everyone's privacy tremendously, This proposal would also have minimal etlect to the
integrity of the outside of the huilding, The HOA does not object to our application, We
are supported hy all other of our adjacent neighbors and Unit#208 wrote a letter to you in
support of our request due to his !Tustrations with the leak situation over a period of
years,
In conclusion, I would like you to note the statements to the record made by
Commissioner Randy Greenberg, who is known to be very tough on precise plan changes
and usually votes against them, As stated in her deliherations at the puhlie hearing, "she
always upholds the integrity of precise development plans unless there are exceptional
conditions, She said that the additions made to Point Tiburon that were approved without
a precise development plan amendment are thc problcm, She noted that the development
of Point Tiburon was hotly contested, and it was clear that additions were not to he
allowed, She stated that an expansion of the lower unit was allowed
i
-5-
incorrectly, creating an unsightly condition with a leak problem due to a flat roof: She
felt that this project makes sense as a 36 square loot enclosure would not make or break
the entire complex, She said that the problem has been caused by the Town and has not
been solved by the Homeowners Association, She felt that the addition would not change
the building design in any meaningful way, However, she said that after this application,
no more expansion should be allowed in Point Tiburon," She also went on to say that
the resolution could be written up in a way that would prevent any further expansions and
that they should not worry about this unique situation setting a legal precedent as it would
not.
I am requesting that the Town Council take Commissioner Greenburg's comments as
well as, all of the above items into consideration when voting to appeal the decision of
the Planning Commissicin in this matter.
I thank you for you time and, consideration and for your public service to our wonderful
eommunity,as well,
Sincerely,
Susan M, Olson
207 Paradise Drive
Tiburon, CA .94920
'",
?
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
t
AGENDA ITEM
TO:
::-::~::::7:.~~~~;;;. ~ ~
Pat Echols, Director of Public Worksl Town Engineer
FROM:
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF STOP CONTROLS AND
CROSSWALK AT REED RANCH ROAD ANi)TE PALOS
VERDES ,
MEETING DATE: June 16, 2004 REVIEWED BY:
..... .. ... ... . .. ..... ... . .... . .. . ... ...... ...
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
The Police Department has received complaints from concerned parents and
neighbors that there currently is no crosswalk to allow children to cross Reed Ranch
Road at Corte Palos Verdes which poses a hazard for both pedestrian and vehicular
traffic, This location is currently a three way intersection with no regulatory controls
on Reed Ranch Road, A sidewalk curb cut exists on the east side of the intersection,
There is a paved path which connects Corte Palos Verdes and Bel Air School, which
is used by students who walk or ride their bikes to school.
The Traffic Safety Committee was asked to consider painting a crosswalk at the
Corte Palos Verdes intersection, The Committee concluded that installing a
crosswalk was inadvisable unless stop controls were installed as well, Approximately
180 feet to the south of the Corte Palos Verdes intersection is the Corte Las Casas
intersection, It is a three-way intersection with stop controls, The site vicinity is
depicted on the attached orthophotographic map (Exhibit 1), Given the short distance
between these two intersections, the Committee also concluded that stop controls
would not be necessary at both intersections, At their May 11 meeting, the Traffic
Safety Committee voted unanimously to install stop controls and a crosswalk at the
Corte Palos Verdes intersection, The committee also recommended removal of the
existing stop controls on Reed Ranch Road at the Corte Las Casas intersection, The
installation cost can be funded using an existing Office of Traffic Safety grant.
RECOMMENDATION
The Town Traffic Safety Committee recommends that the Town Council adopt the
attached resolution authorizing the installation of stops signs and a crosswalk at the
intersection of Reed Ranch Road and Corte Palos Verdes and direct staff to remove
the existing stop controls on Reed Ranch Road at Corte Las Casas,
EXHIBITS
1, Site Map
2, Draft Resolution
.
.
.',~ 01 T'I,I1V"
.J~'o,:_.
^, -
. 0
...~ "'l>
"0 .,
." 1(IvIIo,It-l'-''''.
,
.
61812004
1 of 1
"
EXHIBIT 1
\.
""
Ij
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2004
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
TIBURON AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP
CONTROLS AND CROSSW ALK AT THE INTERSECTION OF
REED RANCH ROAD AND CORTE PALOS VERDES
WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon is aulhorized to install and maintain such traffic control dcviccs as
may be necessary and proper to warn and guide traffic on lhe Town's public streels; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received complaints that uncontrolled vehicular traffic at thc intersection of
Reed Ranch Road and Corte Palos Verdes poses a hazard for pedestrians; and
WHEREAS, the subject intersection is used by children accessing Bel Air School via Corte Palos Verdes;
and
WHEREAS, the Tiburon Traffic Safety Committee determined that a hazard exists at the subject
intersection and recommended that the Town install a crosswalk and stop controls on all sides of the intersection
of Reed Ranch Road and Corte Palos Verdes; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Tiburon Trallic
Safety Committee,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council ofthe Town ofTiburon to authorize and direct
the Town Engineer to install a crosswalk and stop controls on all sides of the intersection of Reed Ranch Road
and Corte Palos Verdes,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon on June
16, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COl.lNCILMEMBERS:
COl.lNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
TOWN OF T1BURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
_i~
".
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FROM:
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITYr~
DEVELOPMENT ~
TO:
SUBJECT:
1501 TIBURON BOULEVARD: BELVEDERE-TIBURON LIBRARY
EXPANSION PROJECT. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE POINT TIBURON
PRECISE PLAN; BELVEDERE.TIBURON LIBRARY AGENCY
(BTLA) AND TOWN OF TIBURON, OWNERS; BTLA, APPLICANT;
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 58.171-90 & 62 (PORTION)
MEETING DATE: JUNE 16, 2004
REVIEWED BY:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the meeting of June 2, 2004, No action was taken on the
resolution at that meeting due to confusion regarding the wording on the agenda, Public
hearings were held on this item on May 19 and June 2, 2004,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council adopts the Resolution,
EXHIBIT
1, Draft Resolution approving the Point Tiburon Precise Plan Amendment.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
611612004
;,
..
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING THE POINT TIBURON
(NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD) PRECISE PLAN (PD#42) TO
ACCOMMODATE AN EXPANSION OF THE BELVEDERE-TIBURON PUBLIC
LIBRARY LOCATED AT 1501 TIBURON BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as fol1ows:
WHEREAS, in 1979, the Town adopted Ordinance No, 219 N,S, approving the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Master Plan, which_ designed the westernmost portion of the 38-
acre former railroad property for Open Space use; and
WHEREAS, in 1980, the Town adopted Resolution No, 1090 approving the
Northwestern Pacific Railroad Precise Plan, Said Precise Plan depiCted the westernmost portion
of the 38-acre site (adjacent to Mar West Street and depicted on attached Exhibit "A") for Open
Space use; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon 'has amended said Precise Plan from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the 38-acre former railroad property was subsequently developed as the
Point Tiburon Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, in 1984, the Town ofTiburon accepted, as part of the Point Tiburon
Subdivision Final Map, an offer of dedication from the owner of the property (The Innisfree
Companies) for the subject and adjacent property (col1ectively identified as Lot 10 of the Point
Tiburon Subdivision) as "public open space and flood control use", said offer of dedication
containing reversionary clauses if used for other purposes; and
WHEREAS, in October 1997, The Innisfree Companies ful1y and forever released any
reversionary rights to Lot lOin a Settlement Agreement and General Mutual Release document
recorded on January 8,1999 as Serial Number 1999-0001725 of Marin County Records; and
WHEREAS, Town of Tiburon is currently processing an application from the Belvedere-
Tiburon Library Agency (File #30304) to amend the aforesaid Precise Plan by al10wing the
designation of approximately 16,000 square feet of Lot 10 for Public uses, including public
buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28, 2004 on the
Precise Plan amendment application and recommended approval of said application to the Town
Council; and
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No,
Page
~i'i"I_TTnFl' 1.r,... ,f
..........~..L.i..u.....L .L'Il_...
'.
.
WHEREAS, the Town Council held public hearings on May 19, 2004, and June 2, 2004
and heard and considered all public testimony on the matter, and has reviewed and considered the
entire project record, including the recommendations of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has previously adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the project is consistent with the goals and
policies of the Tiburon General Plan; is in conformance with standards and regulations of the
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance; and is consistent with other provisions 'of the Point Tiburon Master
Plan and Point Tiburon Precise Plan, as set forth and documented in the staffreport dated May
19,2004,
, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon
does hereby approve the Precise Plan amendment by re-designating (in all material aspects of the
Precise Plan) approximately 16,000 square feet ofland, as depicted on attached Exhibit "B",
comprising a portion of Lot 10 of the Point Tiburon Subdivision, from' Open Space use to Public
use, including public buildings,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on , 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ALICE FREDERlCKS,MA YOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
jlibrary/precisc plan tc reso.doc
Tiburon Town Council
Resolution No.
Page
2
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4-
.
.
." ~ pL.!/;j~& ...
.-1:.~~,,;~_:~
0\-:;:; ~~";;~;:::"';;;;,'
v..~;~~;-- !:'$~:~::
.~ R.\o-iA'-I"'"C.. ~.
,
.
./
TO:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
DANIEL M. WATROUS, PLANNING MANAGER
207 PARADISE DRIVE
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE DENIAL OF AN
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY AN
AMENDMENT TO POINT TIBURON PRECISE PLAN (PO #42) TO
ALLOW ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA '~
JUNE 16, 2004 REVIEWED BY: "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . .
F~OM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
SUMMARY
On June 2, 2004, the Town Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny an application for an amendment to a precise plan (the Point
Tiburon Precise Plan) for property located at 207 Paradise Drive, within the Point Tiburon
Bayside condominium complex, At that meeting, the Town Council veited unanimously to deny
the appeal, A resolution has been prepared memorializing this decision, and is attached,
RECOMMENDA nON
Adopt the attached resolution memorializing the denial of the appeal,
EXHIBITS
1, Draft resolution
H: dwalrous/reports/TC30401, appeal2, doc
','
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORIALZING THE DENIAL OF AN APPEAL BY SUSAN OLSON AND PAUL ORTNER
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A PRECISE PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 PARADISE DRIVE
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the approval of an application to amend the Point Tiburon Precise Plan to increase the
maximum floor area permitted under this precise plan in order to allow the construction of a 36
square foot addition to the residence located' at 207 Paradise Drive, as submitted by Susan
Olson and Paul Ortner ("Applicants"); and;
WHEREAS, after receiving pUblic testimony at that hearing, the Planning Commission
determined that the project would be inconsistent with the previous direction given for the Point
Tiburon Precise Plan by Town Council Resolution No. 2818 "to strongly discourage square
footage additions in the Point Tiburon project, especially in the residential portions," and "that
haphazard additions and enclosures could damage the integrity' and harmony of the project,
detract from the appearance of the project as a whole, and result in other negative impacts,"
The Commission also found that although the prop()sed addition would address leakage
problems for the lower unit at 208 Paradise Drive, there are other solutions to this problem that
would not require the construction of a room addition to the subject residence; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2004, the Planning Commission voted (3-2) to adopt Resolution
No, 2004-05 denying the application to amend the Point Tiburon Precise Plan; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2004, the Applicants filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision; and
, WHEREAS, on June 2, 2004, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held a duly-
noticed pUblic hearing on the appeal; during which public testimony was heard regarding the
project and the Planning Commission's review of the application; and
WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the
Town Council determined that the project would be inconsistent with the Town policy established
by Resolution No, 2818, as the proposed addition would damage the architectural integrity of the
complex and result in unwanted privacy impacts on nearby residences; that there are other
means to solve the leakage problems for the adjacent home at 208 Paradise Drive that would not
result in these unwanted and unintended consequences; and that the approval of the proposed
addition would likely encourage the construction of similar additions throughout the Point Tiburon
complex, as the Applicants' situation is not unique within the complex; and
WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Council voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO,
6/16104
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
hereby memorializes that the appeal of Susan Olson and Paul Ortner was denied on June 2,
2004, as set forth in this resolution, by a vote of 5-0,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on June 16, 2004, by
the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
TOWN OF TIBURON
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO,
6/16/04
2
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5-
. . . ... .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: HEIDI BIGALL, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
BRIAN M. STOTT, ADMINISTRATIVE & FINANCIAL ANALYST
ADOPTION OF 2004-2005 MUNICIPAL BUDGE~P NAND
ENABLING RESOLUTIONS
MEETING DATE: JUNE 16, 2004
SUBJECT:
. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . ., . . . . .. . .,
2004-05 MUNICIPAL BUDGET PLAN
At its meeting on June 2, 2004, the Town Council reviewed the Proposed
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Municipal Budget Plan and directed staff to bring back
the resolutions adopting the budget with the recommended changes,
The budget is balanced as follows:
Projected Revenues
Projected Expenses
$6,809,068
$6,711,828
$ 97,240
Operating Surplus
The Total Budget for the Town including all funds (operating, capital
improvement, debt service and the Redevelopment Agency) is $9,950,698,
Most importantly, the 2004-05 Municipal Budget is balanced, Once adopted,
the final document will be printed and circulated to all interested parties,
Recommended Changes from Proposed Budget
Compensation Chanqes from the Proposed Budqet
The Town Council authorized several changes to the budget in the area of
salaries and benefits. Remaining consistent with the Town's Compensation
Policy, the Town desires to compensate employees competitively for similar
positions in the local market.
The Town's Compensation Policy provides pay adjustments for these
employees based on the following three factors:
1, Increase in the Cost of Living (COLA);
2, Job Performance (merit); and
3, Adjustment in the market for a position (equity),
g"'.
. '
..
, '
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
.... .. . ... .. '" . .... ... 0.'.... ........... . ... ..
These three factors were taken into consideration in the recommended
compensation adjustments and the Town's ability to increase compensation
will be used to trigger certain compensation adjustments,
COLA
If by December 1,2004, the Town Manager is able to determine that the FY
2004/05 operating surplus will likely exceed $300,000, then retroactive to July
1, 2004, Mid-managementlNon-represented and Management employees will
receive a 1 % COLA, However, if the Town Manager determines that the
Town's operating surplus is likely to be less than $300,000, then there will not
be a COLA for Mid-managementlNon-represented and Management
employees,
Merit
In addition, the Town partially implemented a merit pay program several years
ago, The proposed budget includes a"pot" of funds in the Administrative
Services Department Budget for meritorious performance throughout the
fiscal year, There is a total of $40,500 (or 3% of the total compensation for
Mid-managementlNon-represented and Management employees) available
for meritorious performance, The Town Manager's working definition of
meritorious performance is one that goes above and beyond the call of duty
for either a specific major project, or on an ongoing basis, A final Merit
Program will be brought to the Town Council for consideration,
Equity
In addition, Town staff performed a salary survey with other Marin County
jurisdictions and found that consistent with the Town's Adopted
Compensation Policy, salary range adjustments were required in the Police
Secretary and Assistant Superintendent of Public Works positions,
Cafeteria Benefits
Since Health Insurance rates do not adjust until January 1, 2004, the Town
Council also agreed that increases to the Cafeteria Benefit amount that each
employee receives be effective January 1, 2005, If by December 1, 2004, the
Town Manager is able to determine that the FY 2004/05 operating surplus will
likely exceed $300,000, then effective January 1, 2005,Mid-managementl
Non-represented and Management employees will receive an additional $225
per month towards cafeteria benefits, However, if the Town Manager
MuniCipal Budget Plan
June 16, 2004
2016
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . . . . . .. .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. ...... . . ',' .
determines that the Town's operating surplus is likely to be less than
$300,000, then effective January 1, 2005, the increase will be an additional
$200 per month for each Mid-managementlNon-represented and
Management employee towards cafeteria benefits,
Holiday Schedule
During the past two years, the Town Council has granted all non-patrol police
personnel an extended period of time off, during the ,Christmas and New
Year's holiday period, Town Hall and the Corporation Yard would be closed
from December 23, 2004 through January 2, 2005,
As a reminder, employees will be required to take a 3-day furlough in
between the four holidays observed for Christmas Eve, Christmas, New
Year's Eve and New Year's Day, However, employees will not be required to
suffer compensation loss, The observance of Veteran's Day will be moved
from November 11,2004 to December 27,2004, the Town will provide an
additional paid day off on December 28,2004 and each employee will be
required to use a personal vacation day on December 29, 2004,
The proposed schedule is reflected below,
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Friday, December 24, 2004
Monday, December27,2004
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Friday, December 31,2004
Christmas Holiday
Christmas Eve Holiday
Veteran's Day Observance
Furlough Day #1 (additional day off)
Furlough Day #2 (vacation day)
New Years Holiday
New Years Eve Holiday
There is no impact to the budget as a result of this program,
Capital ChanQes to the Proposed BudQet
,
There is also one capital improvement project which has been added to the
proposed budget since the introduction of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2004-05
Budget.
At the June 2, 2004 meeting, the Town Council approved allocating $42,865
from the Circulation Improvement Fund for the construction of a bus shelter
on Tiburon Boulevard at Stewart Drive, This is reflected in the budget to be
adopted,
Municipal Budget Plan
June 16, 2004
3 of 6
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM
. .. . .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... . . . . . . . . . ..
Attached BudQet and Compensation Resolutions
The attached resolution (Exhibit 1) reflects the Final Budget for Fiscal Year
2004-05, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 memorialize these compensation changes
for Management and Mid-managementlNon-represented employees
respectively,
FY 2004-05 APPROPRIATION LIMIT
Proposition 4, approved by California voters in November 1979, established
and defined annual revenue appropriation limits on all government entities,
Proposition 4 became effective in Fiscal Year 1980-81; however the
calculations to determine the annual limit are carried from a Fiscal Year 1978-
79 base, Proposition 4 was rnodified in 1990 with the passage of Proposition
111, which slightly changes the annual adjustment factors, further
identification of the types of expenditures which are excluded from the limit,
and provisions for the exclusion of emergency expenditures from the limit.
Implementation legislation provides that the Town Council shall, at a regularly
scheduled meeting, establish by resolution the amount of appropriation
subject to limitation, The State is to be provided with informational forms with
the filing of the Annual Statement of Financial Transactions no later than
ninety days after the start of the fiscal year.
The appropriations limit is the calculated dollar amount which limits the
Town's ability to receive and expend proceeds of taxes, Such revenues
include: Property Taxes, ERAF rebates, Sales Taxes, Real Property Transfer
Taxes, Transient Occupancy Taxes, Business License Taxes, State Motor,
Vehicle Fees, Off-Highway Taxes, certain rental income, other revenues and
rebates (excluding Redevelopment Agency Fees), a share of Investment
Earnings, and transfer of funds from other funds into reserves of the General
Fund,
The limit is calculated by adjusting the previously adopted limit by factors
which include: (1) the State of California Per Capital Income Growth, and (2)
the Town's Population Grown, Both these figures are provided by the State
Department of Finance, The limit is further adjusted if cities bear the costs of
legislated fees for the transfer of responsibility, The County, through SB
2335, established fees for the collection of property taxes and for booking
prisoners,
Municipal Budget Plan
June 16, 2004
4 of 6
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
. . .... ... . . '. . . . . . . .. .. ., . . .. .. .... . . . .. . . ..
The calculation for the Town of Tiburon's Appropriations Limitation for FY
2004-05 is illustrated on the following page:
Gann Limit Calculation - FY 2004-05
Amount
1, Previously established limit, July 1, 2003
2, Adjustment Factors
Per capital personal income
Population growth
$5,109,804
3,28%
- ,09%
3, Multiplier, for adjustment to limit
(1,0328 x -1009) 1,03187
(1) x (3) $5,272,656
4, Subtotal new limit
5, Add: legisiated pass-through fees
County property tax collection
County Booking Fees
$30,450
11,000
6, Revised limit, July 1, 2004
$5,314,106
Once the Appropriations Limitation has been determined for the upcoming fiscal year, staff
must then determine the amount of revenues that Town expects to receive that are subject to
the iimit. The table below illustrates revenues that are subject to the Gann Limit.
2004-05 Appropriations Subject to Gann Limit'
Amount
A. Proceeds of Taxes $3,943,431
B Exciusions -0-
C, Appropriations subject to Limitation $3,943,431
0, Current Year Limit (from above) $5,314,106
E, Over (Under) Gann Limit $1,370,675
F, Percent Over Limit 34,76%
Any additional revenues received during FY 2004-05 that are considered "proceeds of taxes"
will reduce the amount the Town is currently over the Gann Limit.
Municipal Budget Plan
June 16, 2004
5 of 6
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM
. .. ... . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. ..
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Town Council hold a public hearing and after due
consideration, approve the attached resolutions:
1, Adopting the Municipal Budget Plan for FY 2004-2005;
2, Adopting a Revised Management Recognition and Incentive
Compensation Program;
3, Adopting a Revised Mid-Management, Professional and Confidential
Employee Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program; and
4, Establishing the Town's Appropriation Limit for FY 2004-2005,
Exhibits
Municipal Budget Plan
June 16, 2004
6 of 6
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING A MUNICIP AL
BUDGET PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF TIBURON AND
THE TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30. 2005
WHEREAS, the Town Council conducted a Public Hearing concerning the
proposed Municipal Budgct Plan for fiscal year 2005 at it regularly scheduled meeting of
,
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 and on Wednesday June 16,2004; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council now finds that the proposed Municipal Budget
Plan, as estimated, provides for all appropriate municipal purposes and services with
current fund( s) and resources and estimated revenues for fiscal year 2005; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; that the proposed Municipal Budgct
Plan appropriates revenues and other sources of funds for expenditures associated with
operations, capital outlays, capital improvements, debt services, and the Redevelopment
Agency in the following amounts:
Section 1. Operating Budget Program - The proposed Plan has sufficient
resources to finance the planned expenditures:
Revenues and Funding Sources $6,809,068
Expenditures 6.711,828
Total Operating Net: $ 97,240
Section la, Operation Revenue Appropriation - Estimated Revenues and
Sources of Funds for fiscal year 2005
GENERAL FUND
Propertv Taxes $1,966,150
Other Taxes 1,092,500
Franchise Fees 372,000
Fincs & Forfeitures 230,000
Investment Earnings 120,000
Intergovernmental & Agency 290,000
Licenses & Permits 849,050
Charges for Services 279,000
Other Revenues 161,500
Subtotal General Fund Revenues $5,360,200
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
Employee Compensated Leave $ 41,800
Low/Moderate Housing Fund 60,650
Peninsula Library Agency 845,000
Long Range Planning Fund 168,017
PERS Surplus Asset 209,401
Police COPS/SLESF Fund 100,000
Cypress Hollow Fund 24,000
Total Revenues & Sources $6,809,068
Section I b, General Fund Expenditures Appropriation - Planned
Department expenditures for fiscal year 2005:
AMOUNT
ADMINISTRATION
Town Attorney $ 154,837
Town Administration 1,011,180
Administration Building 38,100
Non-Departmental 905,650
Legislative 37,500
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning & Design Review $ 428,841
Building Inspection 410,985
Advance Planning 171,517
POLICE
Police Department $2,367,964
Police Building 51,030
PUBLIC WORKS
Administration $ 283,150
Streets Maintenance 406,395
Parks Maintenance 294,279
Street & Signal Light Maintenance 41,400
Corporation Yard 85,000
Cypress Hollow 24,000
Total Expenditures: $6,711,828
,
Section 2, Capital Improvement Program - Sources of Funding for Planned Streets,
Drainage and Community Development Improvements in fiscal year 2005:
SOURCES PROJECTS
Circulation System Improvement Fund 60,000
Gas Tax Fund 230,000
General Fund Streets & Drainage Reserve 283,000
Marsh Restoration Fund 8,000
Drainage Impact Fund 75,000
Parks In-Lieu Fund 25,000
PlavgroundlmprovementFund ]00,000
Public Art Fund , ] 00,000
Street Impact Fund 300,000
Bicvcle Transportation Account Grant 435,000
ABAG Bav Trai] Grant 206,000
Safe Routes to School Grant ] 74,000
General Fund 55,000
PW Corooration Yard Imnrovement Fund ]00,000
Develooer Contributions 80,000
Bus Shelter Tiburon Blvd 7al Stewart Drive 42,865
STREETS
Resurfacing $ 390,000
Engineering & Administration ]40,000
Intersection Improvements 1,0] 3,000
Bus Shelter - Tiburon Blvd, (aJ, Stewart Drive 42,865
Subtotal Strects Improvements $1,585,865
DRAINAGE
CCTV Equipment Condition Assessment $ 50,000
Culvert Rehabilitation/Replacement 50,000
Beach Road/Upper Main Street Outfall 20,000
Railroad Marsh Improvements 8,000
Shoreline Park Outfall 30,000
Contingencv Reo airs ]0,000
Catch Basin Reo airs 15,000
Preparation of Plans I Soecification 25,000
Subtotal Drainage Imorovements $ 208,000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Sidewalk & Curb Ramos (ADA Comoliance) $ 10,000
Blackie's Pasturc Irrigation Uogrades 25,000
South of Knoll Tot Lot Renovation ] 00,000
Fountain Plaza Public Art Proiect ] 00,000
Multi-Use Path Improvements(cl) Pine Terrace ] 00,000
Elephant Rock Pier Rail Foundation 20,000
Replace Tiburon Blvd, Street Light Shades 25,000
Public Works Corporation Yard Master Plan 100,000
Subtotal Community Development Projects $480,000
Total Capital Improvements $2,273,865
Section 3, Debt Service Program - Planned Debt Service and related expenses for
spccial assessment, community facilities districts, and general obligation bond issues of
the Town are as previously planned:
BOND lSSUE AMOUNT
Gilmartin Drive Refunding District $ 270,600
Hillhaven Undergrounding Assessment District 48,625
Linda Vista Undergrounding District 8,365
Main Street Assessment District 39,595
PI. Tiburon Community Facilities District 132,900
Stewart Drive Asscssmcnt District 110,800
Tiburon Public Facilities Financing Authority 251,925
Via Capistrano Assessment District 18,495
Total Debt Service $ 881,305
Section 4, Redevelopment Agency Budget Plan - The following tables provide
ovcrview information for the general increment and Housing Set-Aside Funds of thc
Redevelopment Agency in fiscal year 2005,
Redevelopment General Increment Fund:
AMOUNT
Revenues & Sources $ 4,000
Expcnditures 4,500
Total Operating Net ($ 500)
Redevelopment Agency Housing Set-Aside Fund:
AMOUNT
Revenues & Sources $ 12,500
Expenditures 5,500
Total Operating Nct $ 7,000
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Managermay make adjustments
and activities within the budget provided that no increase or diminishment in salaries
result other than that provided by the Town's Personnel System and Master Salary
Program, or as authorized by the Town Council, and provided that no expenditure or
encumbrance contingent on contract agreement, or other engagement requiring approval
of the Town Council shall be made until such contract is first approved by the Town
Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Tiburon on , 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE-IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TlBURON ESTABLISHING
AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIll B, OF THE CONSTTTUTTON
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Article XlII B. ofthc Constitution ofthc Statc of California provides
that total annual appropriations subject to exceed the appropriations limit of such entity
ofgovemment for the prior year adjusted j()r changes in the cost of living and population,
cxccpt as provides in Artie e XIII B; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XTII B of the Constitution of the State of
California, the Town Council ofthc Town of Tiburon deems it to be in the best interest of
the Town ofTiburon to establish an appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2004-05; and
WHEREAS, the previously established limit for Fiscal Year 2003-04 was,
$5,109,804, and the State Department of Finance has determined that the 2003 Per Capita
Pcrsonal Income Factor is 3,28%" and the Population Change Factor is -J19'Yo; the
Director of Administrative Services cstimatcs that legislated pass-through fees ofthe
County will bc $41,450; ,the Director of Administrative Services of the Town ofTiburon
bas determined that the appropriations limit in the amount of$5,314, 106 shall be
establisbed for Fiscal Year 2004-05,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon that an appropriations limit in tbe amount of $5,314, I 06 is established for Fiscal
Year 2004-05 pursuant to Article XIll B of the Constitution oftbe State of Cali fomi a,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
ofTiburon on June 16,2004 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
RESOLUTION NO,
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TlBURON REPEALING RESOLUTION
NO, 24-2003 AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED MANAGEMENT
RECOGNITION AND INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in January 1979, the Town Council established and adopted a Management
Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program, in order to promote the development of a
strong, more effective management team and a means of recognizing outstanding management
performance in all public service areas; and
WHEREAS, the Management Recognition and Incentive Compensation program
enhances the professional growth, motivation, and loyalty of management employces and
promotes a consistently higher level of service to the public; and
WHEREAS, thc Town Council has updated and amended the Managemcnt Recognition
and Incentive Compensation Program on several occasions, most recently in 2003 by the
adoption of Resolution No, 24-2003; and
WHERAS, the Town ofTiburon management employees are defined to mean the
following positions:
Town Manager
Town Attorney
Chief of Police
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Community Development
Director ofPlIbIic Works/Town Engineer
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tibllron does hereby repeal Resolution No, 24-2003 and all predecessor versions of the
Managemcnt Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program and adopts the following
amended Management Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program:
SECTION I, SALARIES
Effective July I, 2004 salary ranges for management positions shall be:
Town Attorney
Chicf of Police
Director of Administrative Services
Director of Community Development
Director of Public Works/Town Engineer
$8,250 - $10,312
$7,858 - $9,822
$6,455 - $8,068
$6,901 - $8,626
$7,482 - $9,352
Pagc 1
SECTION 2, SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
The Town Manager shall submit annually to the Town Council recommended salary
ranges for management employees, These ranges will be based upon the Compensation
Policy adopted by the Town Council. Movcmcnt through the salary ranges will bc based
upon merit following a comprehensivc written perfonnance evaluation by the
management employee's dircct supervisor.
SECTION 3, BENEFITS AND INSURANCE
lfby December I, 2004, the Town Manager, in his solc discretion, has dctennined that
the FY 2004/05 operating surplus will likely exceed $300,000, thcn cffective January 1,
2005, the Town shall contribute $950 per month towards a managcment employec's
fringc benefit coveragc, However, if the Town Manager detennines thattbe Town's
operating surplus is likely to bc less than $300,000, thcn cffcctive January 1,2005, the
Town of Tiburon shall contributc $925 per month towards a management employce's
fringc benefit coveragc,
Ifthc monthly cost ofan employee's group insurance cxcccds the Town's contribution to
that employcc's fringe bencfit coverage, that employee shall pay the balancc ofthc
monthly cost via a payroll deduction from the first two payrolls of the month, If any
cmployee's monthly group insurancc cost is less than thc Town's contribution to his or
her fringe bencfitcoverage, the Town shall deposit thc balance into the Town's Dcfcrrcd
Compensation Plan in the employee's name, ,
Retirement - For Miscellaneous Mcmbers of the Public Employee's Retirement Systcm,
the Town of Tiburon shall provide management employees the PERS 2% @ 55
rctirement benefits, with highest single year calculation and service credit for unuscd sick
leave, For Local Safety Mcmbers of the Public Employec's Retirement System the Town
shall provided management employees the PERS 3% @ 55 retirement benefit, avcragc
three highcst years calculation, and servicc credit for unused sick leavc, The Town shall
contribute on behalf of management employees the full cmployer and employee
retirement contributions,
Medical Insurance - Thc Town ofTiburon offers managcment employees and their
depcndents medicallhospital insurance coverage, A qualified employee may choosc from
the plans offered through the Public Employees Rctirement System Health Bencfits
Division for medical/hospital insurancc coverage" Such insurance is mandatory for
covered employees unless they can demonstratc compliance with other covcragc,
Dental Insurance - The Town of Tiburon offers managcment employces and their
dependents a dental plan, Such insurance is mandatory for all qualified employecs unless
thcy can demonstrate compliance with other covcrage,
Life Insurancc - The Town of Tiburon offers managemcnt employecs a life insurance
policy cqual to one year's salary, not to exceed $95,000, Such insurance is mandatory for
all full-time employees, If thc mandatory amount is no! cxcccded, the Town of Tiburon
Page 2
offers management employees additional life insurance up to a combined total of no more
than $95,000, Participation is optional.
Disabilitv Insurance - The Town ofTiburon offers management employees long tenn
disability insurance, Such insurance is optional, except for the position of Chief of
Police,
Long Tenn Care - The Town ofTiburon offers management employee a long-tenn care
policy, Participation is optional.
Deferred Compensation Plan - The Town of Tiburon offers a deferred compensation plan
to management employees, Such monies deposited would become tax-deferred and
would be subject to income taxation in the year they are withdrawn from the deferred
compensation plan, Participation is optional.
IRS Section 125 Plan - The Town ofTiburon offers management employees the ability to
participate in its IRS Section 125 Plan, Participation is optional.
SECTION 4, V ACA TION LEAVE
In recognition of the fact that many top management personnel arc recruited from outside
the Town, that the average tenure for those management personnel is substantially more
than that of non-management personnel, and that at least three years prior experience is
required, the following vacation leave policy for management personnel shall be
implemented:
Management employees holding their respective positions as of September 2, 1998, shall
accumulate vacation time in accordance with the following vacation entitlement
schedule:
Service
Work Davs
1 Year
3 Years
5 Years
10 Years
15 Days
18 Days
20 Days
25 Days
Management employees hired after September 2, 1998 shall accumulate vacation leave in
accordance with the following vacation time entitlement:
Service
Work Davs
0-5 Years
6-15 Years
16+ Years
15 Days
20 Days
25 Days
Page 3
Upon termination ofa management employee's service with thc Town, such employee
,shall be paid a Jump sum equivalent to his/her accrued vacation leave, Maximum
accumulation of vacation leave is 40 workdays,
SECTION 5, V ACA TION LEAVE CONVERSION
After one year's scrvicc with the Town, Managcment cmployecs who usc at least 10
working days of vacation leave, may convert into cash payment up to 50% of the total
number of vacation hours taken in a calcndar year, not to exceed 10 working days:
Vacation leavc conversion will bc grantcd during the month of Deccmber each calendar
ycar.
SECTION G, SICK LEA VE
Management employees shall be entitled to accrue onc working day of sick leavc with
pay for cach month or major fraction thereof. Sick leave may be accrued by managemcnt
employees without a maximum limitation,
SECTION 7, SJCKLEAVEPAYOFF
Management cmployccs hired prior to July 1,2001, or if their employment contract statcs
differently, may reccive cash equivalent compensation of50% of their accrued sick leave,
up to a total of GO days, ifthc following conditions are mct:
a, The employec files for a servicc rctirement from thc Town, or
b, The employee voluntarily scparates from the Town and has at least 15 ycars of
servicc with the Town,
For management employccs hired after July 1.2001, may accrue unlimited sick Icave
with no option for "cashback" benefits,
SECTION 8, HOLTDA YS
The Town agrces to provide management cmployces thc following holidays:
New Y car's Day
Martin Luther King Day
President's Day
Memorial. Day
Independencc Day
Labor Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Eve
Christmas Day
New Year's Eve
Page 4
January 1
Third Monday in .January
Third Monday in February
Last Monday in May
.July 4
First Monday in September
December 27
Fourth Thursday in November
Friday after Thanksgiving
December 24
December 25
December 31
When a holiday falls on a Saturday the preceding Friday shall be deemed a holiday,
When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed, For
management employees who work an alternative work schedule and a holiday falls on
his/her regular day off, he/she shall select either the preceding or following regular
working day off. Effected employees shall provide the Town Manager with at least one
week's notice' as to which day they will observe as a holiday,
SECTION 9, FURLOUGH
All represented employees will be required to take a 3-day furlough, The days
furloughed will be December 28 and December 29, 2004, Tiburon Town Hall will be
closed from December 23, 2004 through January 2, 2005,
However, employees may not suffer compensation loss, The Town will provide a one-
time paid day off for the December 28, 2004 day and the employee will be required to
take a vacation day for the December 29, 2004 furloughed day,
Proposed Schedule:
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Friday, December 24, 2004
Monday, December 27,2004
Tuesday, December 28,2004
Wednesday, December 29,2004
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Friday, December 3], 2004
Christmas Holiday
Christmas Eve Holiday
Veterans Day Observance
Furlough Day #1 (additional day off)
Furlough Day #2 (vacation day)
New Years Holiday
New Years Eve Holiday
SECTION ]0, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE,
In recognition of the long hours required to perform at the management level, including
attendance at numerous meetings outside normal working hours, the following
Administrative Leave policy shall be implemented:
Management employee may receive up to ten days administrative leave annually, to be
awarded at the discretion of the Town Manager. Administrative Leave shall be taken in
one-day increments,
SECTION J ]. DINNER ALLOW ANCE
All management employees who live more than ]0 miles from Town and who are
required to attend night meetings or work after office hours beyond 7:00 P,M, may be
reimbursed in an amount not to exceed $] 5,00 for the purchase of dinner for that night.
This allowance applies to management employees who reside outside a ten-mile radium
of the Town, Employee reimbursement is subject to the approval of the Town Manager
and must be accompanied by a restaurant receipt, which shall include the amount, date,
meeting or purpose, and the,employee's name,
Page 5
SECTION 12, TERMINATION ALLOWANCE
In order to foster job security within a professional climate, management employees will
be entitled to severance pay when they are terminated from Town service, However;
such employee must be in the employ of the Town for at least three (3) years, and such
tennination is not for cause or for reasons listed hi Government Code S'ection 19572, the
Town's Personnel Rules & Regulations, Section 6, or any employcc who voluntarily
resigns from Town Service for personal reasons,
Unless otherwise noted in an Employment Agreement, Management employees shall be
covered by tbe following termination allowanee schedule:
Service
Work Weeks
After: 3 years
7 years
I 0 years
, I month
2 months
3 months
This severance pay is in addition to any accrued vacation leave, unused at the time ot'
termination,
SECTION 13, VEHICLE USAGE/ALLOWANCE
Management employees, to a far greater extent that other Town employees, are required
to travel throughout the Town, County, and Bay Area to fulfill their job requirements,
This travel is frequently required outside ofnonnal working hours, In recognition ot'this
employment requirement, the Town shall provide either the use of a Town vehicle or an
automobile allowance, as provided in the Town budget. Use of a Town vehicle shall be
in aceordance with the Town's Administrative Policies and Procedures and is not
intended for private use,
SECTION 14, TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
In order to promote continued development of skills, knowledge, and abilities among
management employees, the Town ofTiburon shall reimbursement the costs of tuition,
books and fees at the rate of the California State University system, Employees must
receive prior approval of the Town Manager and submit certified transcripts with the
evidence of a grade of "C" or better from an aecredited college or university and submit
bona fide receipts to qualify for tuition reimbursement.
SECTION 15, PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP FEES
Most management personnel are expeeted to maintain membership in appropriate
professional organizations, These memberships servc to acquaint the Town with current
programs and procedures in these professional areas by means of publications and
specific activities, The Town will includc the cost of these membership fees in the
respective departmcntal budgets,
Page 6
SECTION 16, RETIRED EMPLOYEE'S MEDICAL ALLOWANCE
The Town of Tiburon will make contributions toward a retired employee's medical
insurance plan based upon the following conditions:
a, , Employee must retire directly from employment with the Town ofTiburon and
apply to PERS for retirement benefits,
b, The retiree's medical insurance allowance is fixed and capped at the Kaiser single
rate that is in effect at the time ofthe employee's retirement.
c, The Town's contributions rate is based on the following formula:
Percent of Kaiser
Single Rate
Years of Consecutive
Service to Town
50%
75%
100%
15 Years
20 Years
25 Years
Such coverage is not extended to employee's spouse or other dependents,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provisions of this
resolution shall supersede any other previous rules and resolutions of the Town ofTiburon which
may be in conflict herewith,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council ofthe Town of
Tiburon on , 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILME~BERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS
Mayor
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE-IACOPI
Town Clerk
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO,_
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON REPEALING RESOLUTION NO, 25-2003 AND ADOPTING AN
AMENDED MID-MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL & CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
RECOGNITION AND INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in January 2002, the Town Council established and adopted a Mid-
management Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program in order to attract and retain
professional, compctcnt and qualified employees to carry out the Town's public service mission,
and
WHEREAS, such a program cnhances the professional growth, motivation, and loyalty of
mid-management, professional and confidential cmployees and promotcs a consistently higher
level of service to thc public, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has updated and amended the Mid-management
Rccognition and Incentive Compensation Program most recently in 2003 by the adoption of
Resolution No, 25-2003; and
WHERAS, the Town of Tiburon mid-management, supcrvisory and confidential,
employees are defined to include the following positions: '
Administrative Aide
Advance Planner
Associate Planner
Deputy Director of Public Works
Policc Licutenant
Planning Managcr
Town Clcrk
Administrative & Financial Analyst
Assistant Superintendcnt of Public Works
Building Official
Information Technology Coordinator
Policc Secretary
Records Management Clerk
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon docs hereby repeal Resolution No, 25-2003 and all predecessor versions of the Mid-
Management, Profession & Confidential Employees Recognition and Incentive Compen.sation
Program and adopts the following amended Mid-Management, Profession & Confidential
Employees Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program:
SECTION I, SALARIES
Effective July I, 2004 salary ranges for qualified positions shall be:
Administrative Aide (part-timc)
Administrative & Financial Analyst
Advance Planner
Ass!. Sup!. of Public Works
Associate Planner
up to $20,60/hr.
$4,244 - $5,305
$4,984 - $6,229
$4,762 - $5,952
$4,029 - $5,037
Page 1
vacation hours takcn in a calendar year, not to exceed 10 working days, Vacation lcavc
conversion will be granted during the month of December each calendar year,
SECTION 6, SICK LEAVE
Mid-management, professional and confidential employees shall bc cntitled to accruc onc
working day of sick leave for each month or major fraction thereof. Sick leave may be
accrued by qualified employees without a maximum limitation,
SECTION 7, SICK LEAVE PAY OFF
Mid-management, professional and confidential employees hired prior to July I, 2001
may receive cash equivalent compensation of 50% of their accrued sick leave, up to a
total of 60 days, if the following conditions are met:
a, The employee files for a service retirement from the Town, or
b, The employee voluntarily separates from the Town and has at least 15 years of
service with the Town,
For employees hired after July I, 2001, in the mid-management, professional or
confidential positions, they may accrue unlimited siek leave with no option for
"cashback" benefits,
SECTION 8, HOLJDA YS
The Town shall provide mid-management, professional and confidential employees the
following holidays:
New Year's Day
Martin Luther King Day
President's Day
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Eve
Christmas Day
New Year's Eve
January I
Third Monday in January
Third Monday in February
Last Monday in May
July 4
First Monday in September
December 27
Fourth Thursday in November
Friday after Thanksgiving
December 24
December 25
December 31
When a holiday falls on a Saturday the preceding Friday shall be deemed a holiday,
When a holiday falls on a Sunday the following Monday shall be deemed a holiday, For
employees who have an alternative work schedule and a holiday falls on an employee's
regular day off, he/she shall select either the preceding or following regular working day
Page 4
off. The employee shall provide their department head with at least one week's notice as
to which day they will observe as a holiday,
SECTION 9, FURLOUGH
All represented employees will be required to take a 3-day furlough, The days
furloughed will be December 28 and December 29, 2004, Tiburon Town Hall will be
closed from December 23, 2004 through January 2, 2005,
However, employecs may not suffer compensation loss, The Town will provide a onc-
time paid day off for the Dccember 28, 2004 day and the employee will be requircd to
take a vacation day for the Decembcr 29,2004 furloughed day,
Proposed Schedule:
Thursday, Dccember 23,2004
Friday, Dccember 24, 2004
Monday, Decembcr 27,2004
Tuesday, December 28,2004
Wednesday, December 29,2004
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Friday, December 31,2004
Christmas Holiday
Christmas Eve Holiday
Veterans Day Observance
Furlough Day 1/1 (additional day ofl)
Furlough Day 1/2 (vacation day)
New Years Holiday
New Years Eve Holiday
SECTION 10, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
In recognition of the long hours required to perfOnll at the mid-management and
professional level, including attendance at numerous meetings outside normal working
hours, the following Administrative Leave policy shall be implemented, '
Each exempt mid-management, professional or confidential employee may reeeivcllP to
ten days administrative leave'annually, to be awarded at the discretion of the Town
Manager. Administrative Leave shall be taken in one day increments,
SECTION 11, DINNER ALLOWANCE
All mid-management, professional and confidential employees who live more than I 0
miles of Town and who are required to attend night meetings or work allcr office hours
beyond 7:00 P,M, may be reimbursed in an amount not to excecd $15,00 for the purchase
of dinner for that night. Employee reimbursement is subject to the approval of the Town
Manager and must be accompanied by a restaurant receipt which shall include the
amount, date, meeting or purpose, and the employee's name,
Page 5
SECTION 12, TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
In order to promote continued development of skills, knowledge, and abilities among
employees, the Town of Tiburon shall reimburse the costs of tuition, books and fees at
the rate of the California State University system, Employees must receive prior
approval ofthe Town Manager and submit certified transcripts with the evidence of a
grade of "C" or better from an accredited college or university and submit bona fide
receipts to qualify for tuition reimbursement.
SECTION 13. RETIRED EMPLOYEE'S MEDICAL ALLOWANCE
The Town ofTiburon will makc contributions toward a retired employee's medical
insurance plan based upon the following conditions:
a, Employee must retire directly from employment with the Town ofTiburon and
apply to PERS for retirement benefits,
b, The retiree's medical insurance allowance is fixed and capped at the Kaiser single
rate that is in effect at the time of the employee's retirement.
e, The Town's contributions rate is based on the following formula:
Percent of Kaiser
Single Rate
Years of Consecutive
Service to Town
50%
75%
100%
15 Years
20 Years
25 Years
Such coverage is not extended to employee's spouse or dependents,
, Page 6
SECTION 14, PERSONNEL RULES & REGULATOINS
In the event any provisions of this Resolution contradict those includcd in the Town's
Personnel Rulcs & Regulations, the tcons of this Resolution shall prevail.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on , 2004, by the following votc:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS
Mayor
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE-IACOPI
Town Clerk
Page 7
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCil
BRIAN lYNCH, ASSOCIATE PlANN~
AN APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO
APPROVE A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMilY
DWELLING lOCATED AT 5047 PARADISE DRIVE
,
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REPORT DATE:
JUNE 11, 2004
MEETING DATE: JUNE 16, 2004
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
OWNERS/APPLICANTS:
ARCHITECT:
APPEllANTS:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
FilE NUMBER:
lOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA ITEM ~
REVIEWED BY:
~
5047 PARADISE DRIVE
JOHN AND lEIGH SHUBERTH
KATIE HAllAl
DOUGLAS AND JEANNIE STILES
038-021-08
20412
27,142 SQUARE FEET
R-1 (SINGLE-FAMilY RESIDENTIAL)
MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
On May 6, 2004, the Tiburon Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural
Review application for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling located
at 5047 Paradise Drive, with variances for reduced side yard setback and excess building
height. Douglas and Jeannie Stiles, owners of the adjacent property at 5053 Paradise Drive,
have appeaied this decision to the Town Council (Exhibit #2),
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject parcel is located on the south side, or uphill side, of Paradise Drive, The site slopes
significantly from the street up to the residence, and is accessed via a steep shared driveway,
The existing residence is a three-level structure; the center of the building consists of three
consecutive levels, the west side is comprised of a garage on the ground level, and the east
side is comprised of the living areas and a iarge exterior deck on the middle level.
Tiburon T'Own Council
Staff Report
2/26/2004
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scheme #1: Original proposal reviewed on April 1, 2004
The original application included additions at the entrance to the buiiding, at the southeast side
of the residence, and on the west side, above the existing garage, The additions would create a
formal entrance, a new kitchen, and two new bedrooms, The roofline would be modifieo on the
east and west sides of the structure, A significant portion of the addition would be located
directly above the existing garage, only 2'6" from the west property line, The additions would
have added approximately 930 square feet for total of 4,105 square feet for the residence, The
application was in compliance with the floor area requirements for the property,
The applicant requested two variances for the'project; excess building height (30'7" in lieu of the
maximum 30 feet) and reduced side yard setback (2'6" lieu of the minimum 15 feet), Details on
the requested variances are as follows:
Excess Buildino Heioht The height of the existing home is 30' 61/2", which exceeds the
height limit of 30 feet. Most of the proposed additions would be below the 30 foot
maximum height line, However, at the proposed architectural projection off the master
suite on the upper-level, the new roof edge would extend beyond the existing roof edge,
At this point, the, new roof edge would be a maximum of 30'7" high, The proposed
height variance would minimally exacerbate the existing non-conforming situation,
Reduced Side Yard Setback The existing home is approximately 3 feet from the'
property line on the west side, which does not comply with the required 15 foot setback
(a variance was previously granted for the garage to be located within the side yard
setback), The additions on the west side of the building would have been directly above
the existing garage with an architectural feature projecting beyond the wall of the
garage, The resulting setback would have been 2'6", The proposal would have
significantly exacerbated the existing variance situation, and reduce the existing setback
by six inches,
Scheme #2: Revised proposal reviewed on May 6, 2004
The kitchen and entryway additions would remain largely unchanged, but the bedroom addition
on the west side of the residence would be reconfigured, In the revised design, the additions
were pulled away from the appellant's property and would be located towards the south side of
the buiiding, Except for a guardrail around the roof of the existing garage, the additions would
comply with the setbacks for the property, An outdoor deck would be created on the roof of the
existing garage, The architectural style of scheme #1 was maintained, but some slight changes
were made on the west elevation to respond to the revised project.
The floor area of the additions was increased to 1,230 square feet (from 930 square feet in
scheme #1), for a total of 4.405 square feet for the property, The project would remain in
compliance with the floor area limits for the property, The project still required variances for
excess structure height and reduced side yard setback; however, the setback variance would
change as follows:
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
6/16/2004
page 2 of 5
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............... ...............
Reduced Side Yard Setback The additions were modified to comply with the side yard
setback, However, the revised plan includesd the installation of a guardrail along the
edge of the existing garage roof, which technically exacerbatesd the existing variance
situation, . The resulting project would not be any closer to the property line than the
existing structure,
REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
On April 1 , 2004, during the review of the original proposal, there was a concern voiced from the
appellant regarding the project's proximity to their residence and the affect this would have on
the appellant's privacy, The Board reviewed the project, and the majority of the Board liked the
design and basic concept of the additions, There was no consensus among the Board
members regarding the merits of the two requested variances, however it was suggested by at
least two of the Board members that the applicant redesign the project in an attempt to address
the neighbor's concerns, The Board also suggested that the applicant provide a survey for the
property, and clarify the distances of the addition to the property lines, The public hearing was
continued until May 6, 2004,
On May 6, 2004, the Board reviewed the revised project design, The Board considered
testimony from the appellant and other adjacent neighbors who had concerns about potential
privacy impacts, The Board stated that the applicant had done well in addressing the previous
concerns of the Board and the adjacent neighbors, The Board concluded that the changes to
the project were significant in reducing any potential impacts, ,A,t least one board member
expressed concern about the proposed roof deck above the existing garage, but the majority of
the Board stated that the roof deck would not be highly used, and therefore, would not have a
negative impact to adjacent neighbors, The Board stated that there would not be an excessive
amount of windows on the west side of the structure to affect privacy between adjacent
neighbors, The Board stated that the existing landscaping on the west side of the property
would maintain privacy between adjacent properties, The Board subsequently voted 4-0
(Board member Beales absent) to conditionally approve the application, The deliberations can
be more fully reviewed in the Design Review Board minutes (Exhibits #5 and #8),
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL
The proposed roof deck above the existing garage (the gara!le is three (3) feet from the
side property line in lieu of the minimum 15 feet) would adversely affect the appellant's
privacy and would create noise impacts, The Board's approval failed to require adequate
vegetative screening between the two properties,
Staff Response: At both the April 1, 2004, and May 6, 2004, DRB meetings, the Board's
discussion focused primarily on the potential impacts to the appellant's property, All four Board
members recognized the appellants' concern about the project, and at the April 1, 2004, DRB
meeting, at least two board members suggested that the project should be redesigned
specifically to address the appellant's concerns, The applicant submitted a revised project
design in an attempt to address the concerns of the Board and the appellant.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
6/16/2004
page.. 3 of 5
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When reviewing the revised design, the Board considered the fact that the addition would
partially occupy an existing outdoor deck/patio area on the west side of the residence, Although
a roof deck above the garage would be added, the net change in active use area on the west
side of the building would not be minimal. In addition, there is an existing large deck on the
opposite side (east side) of the building that is accessed from the main living areas of the
residence, Since the proposed roof deck would be accessed from a bedroom and not a main
living area, it would appear that most outdoor activities would be directed to the existing outdoor
areas on the east side of the building,
The Board also discussed the amount of vegetative screening that occurs between the
applicant's and the appellant's properties, At least two of the board members specifically stated
that this existing vegetation is significant and it would be in the interest of both parties to
maintain the vegetation, Much of the existing landscaping is on the appellant's property, which
could be maintained or trimmed to the extent desired by the appellant. For these reasons, the
Board did not require additional landscaping to be installed,
The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose and intent of the Site Plan and Architectural
Review Process, and how applications shall be reviewed by the Town, The Ordinance states
that during the review of an application, the acting body shall consider the Guiding Principles in
the Review of Applications (hereafter "Principles"), According to Section 4,02,07, the Board
should consider "the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of
improvements on adjoining sites with particular attention to view considerations, privacy,
adequacy of light and air...... As described above, and as reflected the minutes for the Board
meetings, the Board did consider the proposed project in respect to the location of
improvements on adjoining properties and determined that there would be no significant
impacts,
In addition, the Principles require that the Board consider "landscaping, insofar as it is used to
appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the
visual and noise impacts of the proposed development." As described above, and as reflected
the minutes for the Board meetings, the Board did consider the status of the existing vegetation
on the project site and on the appellant's property and determined that the existing vegetation
would adequately screen the project.
CONCLUSION
The Design Review Board reviewed and considered the Principles prior to approving this
project. In addition, the Board determined that the project design as conditioned would not
result in significant view, privacy, or other impacts on neighboring residences,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the decision of the Design Review Board and
direct Staff to return with a resolution memorializing that action,
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
6/16/2004
page 4 of 5
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBITS
1, Draft resolution for denial
2, Notice of Appeal filed by Douglas and Jeannie Stiles, dated May 14, 2004
3, Design Review Board Staff report dated April 1 ,2004
4, Late mail for the April 1, 2004 Board meeting
5. Minutes of the April 1 ,2004, Design Review Board meeting
6, Design Review Board Staff report dated May 6, 2004
7, Late Mail for the May 6, 2004, Board meeting
8, Minutes of the May 6, 2004, Design Review Board meeting
9, Notice of approval with modified conditions of approval dated January 20, 2004
10, Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications
11, Plans approved by the ORB on May 6, 2004
S:IPlanninglStaff FolderslblynchlTown Council.reports\#20412- 5047 Paradise Drive,doc
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
6/16/2004
page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY DOUGLAS AND JEANNIE STILES
OF A DESIGN ~EVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE A '
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
LOCATED AT 5047 PARADISE DRIVE
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 038-021-08
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2004, John and Leigh Schuberth (hereafter "Applicant")
filed a Site Plan and Design Review Application for the construction of additions to a
,single-family dwelling, with variances for excess structure height and reduced side yard'
setback, on a property located at 5047 Paradise Drive; and
WHEREAS, on April 1 , 2004, the Design Review Board held a duly noticed
public meeting, and reviewed the application in accordance with The Guiding Principles
in the Review of Applications (hereafter "Principles"), and the required findings for the
requested variances; and-
WHEREAS, at that hearing, concerns were raised by nearby property owners
regarding potential privacy impacts; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board
determined that more information was needed to make an informed decision on the
project, the project should be modified to address the nearby property owners
concerns, and the project should be modified to reduce the magnitude of the variance
request. The Board voted 5-0 to continue the public hearing until May 6, 2004; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2004, the Design Review Board held a duly noticed public
meeting, and reviewed the revised project design and additional information submitted
by Applicant; and
'WHEREAS, at that hearing, concerns were again raised by nearby property
owners regarding potential privacy impacts; and
WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board
determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Principles, with specifiC
attention to potential privacy impacts, and the findings were made for the requested
variances, The Board voted 4-0 to conditionally approve this application; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2004, the owners of the adjacent property at 5053
Paradise Drive, Douglas and Jeannie Stiles ("Appellant"), filed an appeal of the Board's
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL '
RESOLUTION NO,
-1--104
1
EXHIBIT NO. .1-
\~~
decision to approve the application on the grounds that the Board approved a roof deck
above the existing garage on the west side of the property (the garage is three (3) feet
from the west side property line in lieu of the minimum 15 feet) that would adversely
affect the appellant's privacy and would create noise impacts, Appellant also claimed
that the Board's approval failed to require adequate vegetative screening between the
two properties; and '
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2004, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public
hearing on the appeal; during which public testimony was heard regarding the subject
application and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and
WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the
administrative record, the Town Council found and determined that the Board correctly
applied the Principles to the subject application, and that the roof deck on the west side
of the property would not significantly impact the appellant's privacy, and would not
create significant noise impacts, The Town Council also determined that the existing
vegetation between Applicant's and Appellant's properties would adequately screen the
project; and
WHEREAS, based on the above findings and determinations, the Town Council
voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Design Review Board's decision,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based on the above findings and
determinations, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby deny the appeal
filed by Appellant, as set forth in this resolution,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on
, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
RECUSED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ALICE FREDERICKS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO,
-1--104
2
, EXHIBIT NO. L
2~~
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO,
-1-/04
3
"EXHIBIT NO. i..
. ~~~
. i.-"'--- ,,/
i
'--
:) :
TOWN OF TIBlJRON
- ,.,' ',' ,,; . '.
''OJ".''' -" .
, ,-
",-,\,"",.; -,'
NOTICE OF APPEAL
" ::::':",,:.
i~-:.{:::: (\: ~::!
APPELLANT
.:l'".\i.:":l,<j(, . .-'!;:., :"\'
I ,.\,',j ,I -" I~"_"'" \
Name:])O'!!Jla( PJd \1etfnf)J'e 6-6/t--5
Address: t'jf)5"3 ?Ar'C;!cUYO 1Y. ,TiJJUt01, CA- qc.jqZO '
tf35-05~S- I '
Telephone:4J5-435-ft;,/02- (Work) l-/-J5- LJ3.C:; -232t;; (Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALEIl
Body: j){;S~ RCI!~vJ B~ ref
Date of Action: fib y ~ I 2 IJoLj
Name of Applicant: (!?JcK- Xf1fA b::;r/f;
6-te: BA.1l C</ld At2hrfrtJ!/Atfl I ;h/l1Cw Jty C~Jv14cf1 tY1
Naturc of Application: Ofl!Pd,hOflC;- tn &'<11 eXl5hfY-"\ ,C;If)g~- f?Jlrn1lj ICslck,/lce
, v-.J'di'l ~ VtAt/W1 co rtr CX~ SfYJAc Ivt Vc hcJgVJ.T.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL '
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
DeB 4fP'D.vecJ Improvement Df (,.( mol cf-cclClfbn 0 OY)
tAt} exl6b~ nOl1-(01fD('IY1I'9~arage OYllj 2.5/ fV[yn
51.df'. Yl1rn Pli{L;fy Me ~v-JY cAJlUvv'S lf7TtYJ.5rryln9
<2 vantince. A2ve~r:JY affects inc- aJ2f2CJJCV)J~
[1JV~(Y atld C{,ecttes ()oI~ ln7rcts.. U2B CPPD\Jtf J /2? lJed
~((e, aooqtLafc Vt9~bcY7 \.:xfCCf)(r)9.
Last Dav to File: :~~ - /1- ,'c)'./ Date Received: ~ -/LI - 0 ~
$ /- / ",
Fee Paid: , ,M, (r;j Date of Hearing: ',;-,,) l,::"--~' C( I~ /':0,. i,,~',f
, G/I(;/04- -
January 2004
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
t~ \
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM
0-2
TO: TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER~
SUBJECT: 5047 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE #20412
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH VARIANCES FOR REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK
AND EXCESS STRUCTURE HEIGHT.
MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2004
PROJECT DATA:
OWNER:
ARCHITECT/APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
FILE NUMBER:
LOT SIZE:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
FLOOD ZONE:
DATE COMPLETE:
CEQA EXEMPTION:
PERMIT STREAMLINING
ACT DEADLINE:
JOHN M, SCHUBERTH
KATHERINE J. HALLAL
5047 PARADISE DRIVE
038-021-08
20412
27,142 SQUARE FEET
RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OPEN)
M (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
C
MARCH ii, 2004 '
APRIL 1, 2004
MAY 31, 2004
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENT AI. DETERMINATION:
Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in
Section 15303,
PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted a request to construct additions to an existing single.family
residence located at 5047 Paradise Drive, The subject parcel is located on the south side, or
uphill side, of Paradise Drive, The site slopes significantly from the street up to the residence,
and is accessed via a steep shared driveway, The existing residence is a three-level structure;
the center of the building consists of three consecutive levels, the west side is comprised of a
EXHIBIT NO. 3
l~
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
garage an the graund level, and the east side is camprised .of the living areas an the secand
level.
The applicant is propasing ta canstruct additians at the entrance ta the building, at the sautheast
side .of the residence, and an the west side, abave the existing garage, The additians wauld
create a mare farmalized entrance, create a new kitchen, and create twa new bedroams, The
roafline wauld be madified an the east and west sides .of the structure, The additians wauld add
appraximately 930 square feet far tatal .of 4,105 square feet for the residence, The project
wauld be in campliance with the floor area requirements for the property,
The applicant is requesting two variances for the project; excess building height (30'7" in lieu of
the maximum 30 feet) and reduced side yard setback (2'6" lieu of the minimum 15 feet), Further
details on the propased variances will follow,
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
The existing building appears ta have been remodeled and added onto a couple of times in the
past. due to the varying architectural treatments and unusual f1aar plan, The applicant has
stated that the while the main aspect of the project is ta canstruct additional needed bedrooms,
the project is alsa designed to make the residence mare visually integrated and to create a
mare camfartable floar plan, The design changes, starting on the east side of the structure,
would include a new kitchen at the rear .of the structure, The roof ,aver the existing dining raam
and living roam wauld be changed ta a shed roaf, The slape in the raaf wauld allaw c1erestary
windaws ta be installed an the rear elevation .of the building,
At the entrance ta the building, the existing exteriar staircase wauld be remaved, An interiar
staircase wauld be created in its place, and wauld be designed ta be at an askew angle ta
create architectural interest. The entry stair wauld have large vertical windaws throughaut.
Althaugh the frant daor wauld be lacated an the ground flaor adjacent ta the study and the
garage, the additian wauld create much better access ta the main living areas .of the hame an
the secand level.
Adjacent ta the entry wauld be the three-level partian .of the building, On the ground f1aar a
study, bathraam, and wine c1aset wauld be created, Directly abave the study wauld be the
family room and an existing bedroam, On the third level wauld be the master suite,
,
Architectural prajectians an the narth and west sides .of this sectian .of the hause wauld add ta
the visual interest, and reduce the significance .of the existing monalithic facade,
On the west end .of the residence, the garage is an the ground flaar, and twa new bedraams
wauld be canstructed abave the garage, The roaf .of the additian wauld be a shed style roaf, ta
match the roaf an the east end .of the building, Clerestary windaws wauld alsa be added facing
the rear elevatian, A balcany wauld be constructed an the front elevatian .of this additian,
The calars and materials .of the hame wauld be madified accarding ta a calar and materials
baard submitted by the applicant. The calar and materials baard will be available far review at
April 1, 2004
EXHIBIT mY of ~
2.~ l~
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the Design Review Board meeting, The main body of the building is proposed to be stucco with
, a blue/grey color, The trim color would be dark grey and light blue/grey, The sloped portions of
the roof would be standing seam copper. The flat portions of roof would be medium grey,
Zoning
As previously mentioned, the proposed project would not comply with several zoning
regulations, Details on the requested variances are as follows:
Excess Buildina Heiaht The height of the existing home is 30' 6 1/2", Most of the
proposed additions would be below the 30 foot maximum height line, At the proposed
architectural projection off the master suite on the upper-level, the new roof edge would
extend beyond the existing roof edge, At this point, the new roof edge would be a
maximum of 30'7", The proposed height variance would minimally exacerbate the
existing non-conforming situation,
Reduced Side Yard Setback The existing home is approximately 3 feet from the
property line on the west side, which does not comply with the required 15 foot setback,
The additions on the west side of the building would be directly above the footprint of the
existing structure, with the exception of a relatively small projection in front of the
garage, The resulting setback-would be 2'6", exacerbating the existing non-conforming
situation by six inches,
Variance
In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make the following findings as
required by Section 4,03,05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
1, Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and in the same or similar zones, '
The topographical constraints of the site minimize the developable area of the lot, and
the configuration of the existing improvements on the site also hinder future
improvements, For example, the flattest area of the lot is in the location of the existing
building, The existing improvements are designed to respect the topography of the site
and have a linear east to west orientation, The proposed improvements would follow
,this precedent and respect the topography of the site, In regards to the height variance,
the existing improvements create a tall unarticulated wall on the front elevation, The
architectural projection on the upper-level is designed to break up the mass and bulk of
the existing building,
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones,
Similar variances for reduced side yard setback have been approved on other properties
in the vicinity such as 4975,4950,5080, and 5053 Paradise Drive (Files #290024,
EXHIBIT ~S~:
3~ l~
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
#295007, #28321, and #298041, respectively), The most recent variance for reduced
side yard setback was approved in 1998 on the adjacent property at 5053 Paradise
Drive,
Variances for excess structure height are generally highly scrutinized by the Board due
to the potential view impacts now and in the future, However, in cases where an
applicant has proposed additions to an existing non-conforming structure, the Board has
taken a more liberal approach in the review of the application, Similar height variances
have recently been granted at 100 Lyford Drive, 136 Hacineda Drive, 116 Sugarloaf
Drive,. and 130 Geldert Drive, For these reasons, the granting of the variances would
not appear to be a special privilege,
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical, difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
It would be an unnecessary hardship to strictly apply the Ordinance in this case and
require the applicant to rebuild the existing home to meet the required setbacks and
building height requirements, The only reasonably flat area of the site is in the location
of the existing building footprint. To build improvements in other areas of the lot would
require further expansion of the building footprint and would discontinue the linear layout
of the building, In regards to the height variance, the strict application of the Ordinance
would require that the roofline of the existing residence be re-sloped throughout the
entire upper-level.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
As proposed, the project would not appear result in significant view, privacy or other
impacts detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity,
However, the adjacent neighbors at 5053 Paradise Drive have expressed their
disapproval of the proposed project.
Public Comment
The applicant has provided a site plan with the signatures from two of the adjacent neighbors
indicating their support of the project; the Bortons at 5045 Paradise Drive, and the Stiles's at
5053 Paradise Drive, The Planning Division has since been informed that the Doug and
Jeannie Stiles have rescinded their approval for the project.
The applicants have submitted a letter which explains the history in the design of their project,
and the steps that were taken to review the plans with adjacent'neighbors,
Doug and Jeannie Stiles of 5053 Paradise Drive have submitted a letter of objection to the
proposed project, and clarify in the letter that they rescind their signature indicating their support
of the project. No specific objections have been cited,
EXHIBIT ~(i.; ~~5
- 4~t~
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. ',' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RECOMMENOATlON:
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections
4,02,07 and 4,03,05 (Guiding Principles, Variance Findings by Acting Body) and determine that
the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
specified in Section 15303, If the Board finds that the design of the project Is consistent with the
Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, and all necessary findings can be
made for the variances for excess building height and reduced side yard setback, then it is
recommended that the project be approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.
EXHIBITS:
1, Conditions of Approval
2, Application and supplemental materials dated March 8, 2004,
3, Applicant's findings for the variance,
4, Letter submitted by applicant on March 26, 2004
5, Letter submitted by Doug and Jeannie Stiles on March 26, 2004
6.. Plans for the project
EXHIBIT NO. ~
April 1, 2004
pagS:l=: l~
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
EXnmlT 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
5047 Paradise Drive
FILE #20412
1, This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall
become null and void unless a building permit has been issued,
2, The development of this project shall conform to the application and plans dated by the
Town of Tiburon on March 22, 2004, or as amended by these conditions of approval.
Any modifications to the plans must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Board,
3, All exterior lighting other than that approved by the Design Review Board shall be
shielded downlighting,
4, No lighting fixtures shall be located in the wells of the skylights, and the skylights shall
be tinted in a non reflective manner.
5, Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those
approved by the Design Review Board, If any changes are made to the approved
Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such
changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan check, Such changes
must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans, A list
describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building
plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff member indicating
that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design
Review, All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the
Building Plan Check process are not approved, Construction that does not have Design
Review approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require
removal.
EXHIBIT NO. ~
April I. 200'1
pa~~ to
TOWN OF TIBUW"'I
LAND DEVELOPMENT I .,JPLlCATlON
TYPE QU,\PPLlCATION
0 COliditional Use Permit if Design Review (DRB) 0 Tflntative Subdivision M~p
0 Preciso Dovelopment Plnrl 0 Design ReviJ-.Jw {Staff leV(ll) () Fin,ll Subdivision Map
0 Conceptual Masler Plan llY Variance 0 Parcel lv1ap
U Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 Lot Line Adjustment
0 Zoning Text Amendment (l Tree Permit U Cortificate of Compliance
0 Gflnmal PI<ln Amendment () Underground Waiver () Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
sl'm AIIIHlESS: 5C:-!Q Mr.J;~ Dr. I'ROI'ERTY SIZE:
I'ARCEL NlJMIlER: O~e - 0:'-1- of; ZONING:
'f<" OWNEI{ OF,I'ROl'ERTY: cGhn~, '6::hv0Nth
MAILlN(, ADDRESS: 'Sot? 1''1'" 1)v-,
CITY/STATE/ZIP: T.101!'mY\ 't4<l-:11>
PHONE NUMlJER: 41~, ~35',f;5'4;l. FAX
:If. M'I'LlCANT: (O\her \hall Property OWller) ~~oJ\t\.\
MAILING ADDRESS: ')UJ \Z;cM~ j)f ,
CITY/STATE/ZIP: M;II VAliN" '14'11'
PHONE NUMBER: 4-15, :2'50,oBIe I FAX 7100 so:), "2.055
~ 7} \4Q. lW
Roo?
ARCIlITECTmESIGNER/ENGINEER: ~ro iT. r\..\\..1
MAILING ADDRESS: , :1:20 R:cl-t".;;(~ Oi'.
CITY/STATE/ZIP: ---11.1/ VAil '14<'l1.1
PHONE NUMBER: "1-15, :25'o.'1oJ>~ FAX -'ll:Q, 56:2" ::1.c'55'
J"fcase illl/icalc with all asterisk (*) perso"s to wh011l correspondence should be sellt.
IIRIEF UE:SCRIl" 'ION 0 '!'ROI'OSEU PROJECT (attach separale sheet If needed):
___nfi!!! c..
I, tile ulHlersigl1ed oWl1er (or authorized ilgenl) of the properly herein described, hereby lllllkc applicati(l!l for
<lpproval or ll1e plans sUUllIiltctl ami made a pan of this application ill acconlallcc with [he pr()visj(ll1~ of the 'l\lWll
Onlimlllces, amI I herehy certify that the information given is trllc and correct to the hest of illY y.1I11wlcdgl: .lIlt]
belief.
\ \I\\(krs\am\ that the n~qucstc.d approval is h)f my benefit tor that of my prim:ipi\\), Therefore, if 1he TmVll
}pall(s the appruval, with or without conditions, and thal action is challenged by a tllird party, I will he
l'e:;pOJlSilllc for dcfclliJing against tllis challcng~. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility ror derense at llle .
Icqucsr or t.he TOWll and also agree'to defend, indemnify alld hold tile Town h;lrll1lcss from au)' costs, claims or
lialJililics <lri~illg from the approval, including, willHll1t limitation, allY iiwind or attorneys Ices that Illight reslll1
Croll! tile tllir~, party cllal1ellge. /i ,~
',. ,\ ( !" n -~ 2, - 2,.0' '_-')_ll-
Sig.l1ature:__."~\ ...._ ,I' '"~ ~ Date: _ \ v
(If (ther than ownc ;.,!!lUftt have letter from owner)
I
5.; I
AIJplicalioll N(J,' CJ,_rJ, 'II ;?-_, " ree uepusit: / /' 00 CIZ'
DElle ReceiV8d.3J.s:/;~{ _ " I~eclived Bv~t~.___ . Roceipl# -c;-~~~---~=~~- \
Dil'(~ l)eulllerl c:ornl1l(~tfl:_~,__,_"._-::;..'..l..~.~i(d.'i_~__-,-_._._____~___ By' _ -- t:!_~..::.L.L-- --~ --~ I
ActillU Eludy:__"__,____,.",_,,,_ A( lion I NO ~
- - ~ ; -- d--EXHTB T- .'~. . --~-
Cn,-,diliollS nl/\pproval 01 CUIT1I\lf;Il!S: n8',ofII1l(J[1 Ilr urtrn -"'If""':" 1A- I
___u______.._..__..____'_ ___ ,_u ..__..._ ,.. --- ..--------~--:J~, .a",~"
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION
DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM
fi,[-:'.C;',::~:.:",
I" ::~; ':' '.
.;' - ,.
r"leaSe fill in 1.'1e information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed):
'3eL c-.Vti c11
." "
1,
Briefly describe the proposed project:
"~."; ~.: ; i;'; . . ,_ ,_I 'I:'~ ; ',' i..'
2, Lot ar~a in square feet (Section 1,05,12'): ;}7, 14-~ ""1'~'
Zoning fZ() - -:2..
o
~,
Proposed use of site (exa
Existing ,,,
Proposed
4,
Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces, tumaround or maneuvering areas,
Nt! c.1-1^Vt~~' .
,.....""."..."......",......"..."",.......".....,.."".,,,....,
...,.""".,......."",......"....."...,",...h...'..",........"
.."."."",..."......",.....""..........",.."......."""...."
iml~~9~9~gp.ARRjm
1:1AND/(jR:~L'T:sRA'1iI()N:
Yards
(Setbacks from property
line)(Section 1,05.25)'
Front 5';2.. ft, 5'- ft, 52. ft,
Rear ft, ft, ft,
Right Side ~~ 01 ft, .'l.." B~ ft, ,,2! B~ ft.
Left Side 15 ft, J&5 ft, 115 ft,
Maximum Height I " I " t 1')
(Section 5,0607r ':xJ -bib.. ft, oA'5 ft, So- ft.
Lot Coverage J.) f#7 0 ll. -140 .2., !?1'5
(Section 5,06 Oar sq.ft, sq,ft sq,ft,
Lot Coverage as q,fy 10,5
Percent of Lot Area % % %
Gross Floor Area 1'30 & sq,ft,
(Section 1,0506r 3p5 sq,ft, tt 105 sq,ft,
ft, ft,
ft. ft,
ft, ft,
ft, ft,
ft, ft,
sq,ft, sq,ft,
0/0 %
sq,ft, sq,ft,
'Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific proviSions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance
bF:SICiN REVIEW SUPPLEI\lJ~NTi\L .A.I'I'UCAT10N J~Oln\'l
..\/~)9
EXHIBIT NO.
~,' ~\:"I\,IN OJ. TIr-iUI\ON
\ ~ .
f"~ t6
~
T"WN OF TlBURON
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD, TIBUIWN . CALIFORNIA ~W)2(1 . (415) <13:;-7]7:1
FAX 1415) 4:1.'1.1438
,"
\.1
"
....".
COMMUfflTYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
:"'1','""i:'.
Planning Division (415)-435-7390
. ,"',ii.;" " "
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards would
result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships must be
caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site, Please refer to Section 4,03 of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance (Section 16-4,3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code) for additional information regarding Variances,
WHAT VARIANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING?
Condition
Zoning
Ordinance
Requirement
Existing
Condition
Your
Application
Proposes
Magnitude
Of Variance
Requested
Front Yard Sethack
Rear Yard Setback
Left Side Yarel Setback
Right. Side Yard Sethack
16'
3'
J..~
Lot Coverage
Pn]"" 1 fu'HJ-lcigllt
,
30
, ..
":10 ~ '(//;2.
30'- '1"
Parcel Area
Per Dwcllilll'Unit.
'-'
Usable Open Spacc
Parking
Expa nsion of
N ol1confonTlity
Ot.her (Pleas" describe):
AIJI'Ll CA TJ ON FOli v AI\] ANCE
TOWN OF T I HURON
Ilev, os/o~
I)a~' t' I
EXHIBiT NO. )~
q~~0
WONG.HALLAL ARCHITECTS
320 Richardson Drive Mill Valley CA 94941
Tei 415,250,0881 Fax 760,502,2055
Licensed by the California Architects Board . No. C14860 & C25737
';.'1
~ ': ~ !. .
'".J:' ';':"1'"
Date: March 8, 2004
To: Tiburon Planning Department
From Katherine Hallal, Architect
Re: Schuberth Residence
5047 Paradise Drive
On behalf of the Owners, I submit the following required findings for the proposed residential
remodel at 5047 Paradise Drive:
1, The residence is situated on a steeply sloping site oriented towards the Bay, Due to
the topography there is limited building area which does not require extensive
excavation, The current residence takes advantage of this area and captures the view
by extending across the width of the property, The requested setback variance
accommodates two bedrooms and is primarily over the previously approved and
constructed first fioor garage also within the setback,
Existing conditions, including access to the site, prevent adding onto the front of the
house; the amount of excavation necessary and concerns regarding slope stability, in
particular the stability of adjacent property, prevent expansion in the rear, The
topography varies in this neighborhood; immediately adjoining properties are less
limited by such topographical conditions,
The request for a height variance results from existing conditions, The plans call for a
one-foot extension of an 11 foot wide area of the existing eave, In continuing the
existing slope the roof height increases by y,", Continuing the slope ensures a
harmonious design in character with the rest of the building,
eXHIBIT NO.~
lO ~ ~~
1600
2, The proposed remodel would result in a gross floor area of nearly ~ sq, ft. less
than the maximum permitted under ,the Zoning Ordinance, and a lot coverage of less
than 11%, The height variance would result in a y," vertical increase at the edge of an
11 foot wide by one foot roof extension, As evidenced'by neighbors' approval of the
plans, there is no impact on existing view corridors,
The requested variances would not result in special privileges but rather allow the
Owners to achieve reasonable improvements to their residence while on a challenging
site, The project remains well within floor area and lot coverage limits and results in
massing that does not impose on other structures,
3, Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would necessitate locating the proposed
bedrooms at the rear of the house, This would lead to excessive excavation and
extensive work to ensure the stability and proper drainage of the slope and the
adjacent property, Locating these rooms in the back dramatically reduces usable
outdoor space and increases the building footprint and lot coverage, It also restricts
the amount of light into the building and limits opportunities to enjoy the Bay view,
Strict application of the Ordinance in regards to the roofline would require resloping the
existing roof, This roof consists of exposed structural beams running throughout the
third floor.
4, The proposed addition within the side setback is sufficiently downslope from the
residence on the adjacent property and will not restrict the neighbors' view,
The proposed increase over the maximum allowable height will not impact the view of
any neighbors, This is reinforced by the neighbors' approval of the plans,
q~cfJU
.EXHIBIT NO.~
\\ cJ; \Z;'
HAND DELIVERED
Friday, March 26, 2004 9:00am
March 26, 2004
~~.~.: c: E~. r, ~.:} ~!.::.:
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
'.r' "
-.,;
:-::'L'~J,!Hil"'.~ ;:: 1\/1 ::~:C-(\;
';'\_~'\^J~.I C;:'l!;3UEC,~.:
To The Members Of The Tiburon Design Review Board:
We pack & Leigh Schuberth) are scheduled to appear in front of the
Town of Tiburon Design Review Board on April!, 2004 with respect to
our home remodel, which includes additions and an application for two
variances (height limit and reduced side set back), Our home is located
at 5047 Paradise Drive,
We would like to offer a brief history of our design process so that our
efforts in achieving a suitable design with neighbor support can be noted,
We have been in the design process for approximately eighteen months
working with our architect, Katy Hallal, and our contractor, Curtis Poem,
to bring forth the best conceivable plans for our site, As our plans began
to take shape, we sent a Jetter to our adjacent neighbors on December 4,
2003 (see attached) informing each neighbor where we were in the
process and expressing our desire to meet with each of them individually
to present our plans,
We scheduled a meeting with our neighbors, Doug and eJeannie Stiles on
March 6, 2004, They reside at 5053 Paradise Drive, The meeting lasted
for about. an hour and a half and during that time we physically walked
them through the house room by room and then talked through the
proposed changes, We walked off the changes outside where applicable,
We then shared all of the architectural plans that would be submitted to
the Town of Tiburon, This included each floor plan, site sections, and a
color rendering of the exterior. At. the conclusion of the meeting we
asked if we could have the Stiles' support on the plans and they replied
"yes" and noted their approval on thc plans with their signatures,
As is necessary, our next step was to erect our story poles a minimum of
ten days prior to Design Review Board Meeting, We completed this task
on Saturday, March 20th, 2004,
EXHIBIT NO.~
\ 2.~ ~g
On Sunday, March 21st we had a meeting with our architect to walk the
property and make sure everything was exactly as we had submitted, It
was at this time while outside that our neighbor Jeannie Stiles expressed
some concerns with the story' poles, My immediate response was to
communicate that Jack and I would be happy to hear their concerns and'
if at all possible address them right away, At 3:30pm in the afternoon,
Jack and I went over to the Stiles' property so we could visualize any
concerns they might have as well as listen to any issues, The main
concern that we heard at that time was:
. The ability of The Stiles' family to visualize the proposed rear
bedroom from their master suite (built within 7ft. 6 of the side set
back) and vice versa,
. The proximity of the proposed rear bedroom to their master suite,
Even though there is existing heavy brush and foliage along the fence
line, which virtually obscures our house, we immediately offered
additional landscaping to ease their concerns, For the record the build-
out over the garage is not visible from their property, just the proposed
rear bedroom, We then headed over to our property to walk it off one
more time, At that time, we sought their feedback and reiterated that we
were willing to add additional landscaping to further secure the privacy
and would consider some design changes to address their concerns, At
the, conclusion of the meeting, Doug verbalized that he felt we could come
to a compromise, As a result of this conversation we immediately
directed our architect to come up with some revisions that might address
their concerns in a timely fashion.
Katy was able to draft three design changes that we felt addressed their
issues as articulated to us,
On Monday, March 22,2004 we offered to present the proposed design
changes to the Stiles, During this conversation Jeannir; was unable to
clearly voice her concerns other than to say that they no longer approved
of the plans and that she opposed the variance,
We asked for clarification but did not get any guidance as to the reason
for the opposition, simply an unequivocal lack of support. This left us in
a difficult position, as it is hard to make changes or improvements on the
design without any collaboration,
At this time we proposed an open session meeting with our architect and
contractor so we could postulate design changes based on their specific
concerns, They agreed and requested the presence of their
I~XHIBIT NO.\?>~~
contractor / consultant. We agreed to meet Wednesday, March 24th at
8:00pm.
The following people were present:
Jack & Leigh Schuberth (homeowner's)
Katy Hallal (Architect for the Schuberth's)
Curtis Po on (Contractor for the Schuberth's)
Doug Stiles (neighbor at 5053 Paradise Drive)
Mark (Contractor/consultant to The Stiles Family)
We opened the meeting by introducing our remodel project (as Mark had
yet to see it) and explained how it is we arrived at some of the design
decisions,
Katy Hallal presented the merits of our project and the rationale of our
design plan, emphasizing the minimal impact on our neighbors,
Katy then presented alternative site plans of comparable square footage
in the rear of our property that were well within the rear and side
setbacks, While this was not our first choice it was another option to
achieve a comparable living space, These plans were well under the
maximum allowable square foo.tage and lot coverage regulations, Curtis
Poon offered to erect a story pole showing where the corner of the other
buildable area would be relative to the corner of the property line,
however the Stiles declined this offer,
At this time in the meeting we asked for their feedback and their
concerns. Mark indicated that to allow ANY variance would be harmful to
the Stiles' property value, While that is hard to ascertain, Curtis Poon,
encouraged the Stiles to talk with realtors and get the opinion of
professionals, For the record, the Stiles master suite is located within 7ft
6in, of the property line and their deck is built within 5ft, of the property
line,
From this discussion we examined our recent civil survey that denoted
the property line, elevations and topography, The survey also
demonstrated that the fence line is not accurate to the property line,
Mark asked us if we had staked the rear corner of the property line and
we replied that we had not but would be happy to do so in order to
denote the accurate property lines, The corner was staked and the
property lines marked on March 25, 2004,
At the conclusion of the meeting we voiced our desire to meet again in
the hopes of at least showing the Stiles' the three revised design plans
,eAlIlBlT NO. ~~ l~
with concessions that pertained to the requested variance that were
developed by Katy Halla!.
On Thursday, March 25,2004 I received a voice mail message on my
office telephone from Doug Stiles indicating that he had spoken with his
wife Jeannie, and upon the advice of their consultant Mark, they did not
want to see any other story poles. Doug indicated that they would stand
in opposition of the project as proposed.
While we respect their right to make their decisions as they see fit we feel
terribly disappointed and bewildered that we were not given the
opportunity to propose compromises that might address their concerns.
As a result, we will come to town planning on April 1, 2004 with our
existing plans, knowing that the Stiles are in opposition. Our other
neighbor has signed off and continues to support our plans. The Stiles'
consultant Mark has also implicated that he would encourage the Stiles
to stand in opposition of any plans to build in the rear of our site.
While it was our desire to approach the Design Review Board in
agreement with our neighbors it does not seem possible at this time.
At this point we respectfully submit ourselves to the Design Review
Board process and thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Leigh & Jack Schuberth
With attachments: December 4,2004 letter
March 24, 2004 notes from meeting
cc: Katy Hallal
Curtis Poon
EXHIBIT NO.. '3.
--
t S ~ t8
December 4, 2003
'.
Happy Holidays-
Hope all is well with your family.
It's hard to believe it's already December and almost 2004! Where did
the time go?
Jack and I are in the process of finalizing our home remodel and we will
be going in front of the Tiburon Design Review Board within the next 4-5
weeks. I don't know if you are familiar with the process but the Design
Review Board meets the 1 st and 3rd Thursday of every month to insure all
construction projects are in compliance with the rules, regulations and
ordinances of the town of Tiburon.
Our project will include renovations to the interior as well as the exterior
of our home and we would love the opportunity to walk you through the
plans. While it is not necessary, it is strongly encouraged, to get
neighbor support. We of course agree, and would like your support. .
We would like to see if there is a time during the week or on the weekend
when we could show you our plans. Any time in the first 2 weeks of
January would be ideal.
1 am reachable the following ways and welcome your reply.
Lcigh Oshirak Schuberth &, Jack Schuberth
Work 415-438-8106 (Leigh)
Cell 4] 5-350-1575 (Leigh)
] oshirakw)wsgc. com
ps: One of the perks of working at Williams-Sonoma is this fabulous
apple... Enjoy!
..~..)rH"IBI'Ii N 0, ~~ ....
.L""\,,, - . ~~
1c ~ t~
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Objective:
Listen to and address the concerns of the Stiles family with respect to the
remodel of the Schuberth family home. Upon fully understanding the concerns
of the Stiles family we would like to propose some solutions in hopes of
reaching a compromise.. We are in no way expecting that we will resolve this
tonight however we want to make sure before we make any further efforts that
we are fully understanding the issues at hand.
Goal:
To take input from Stiles and come back with a compromise that addresses
their concerns.. To get buy-in of Stiles family on new design direction prior to
DRB meeting.
In Attendance: Leigh Schuberth, Jack Schuberth, Katy Hallal (architect for
the Schubcrth's), Curtis Poon (Architect/Contractor for the Schuberth's),
Jeannie Stiles, Doug Stiles, Contractor for the Stiles.
Ae:enda
1. Introductions of all parties
2. Katy & Curtis to give some history as to the background of the
design
3. Doug & Jeannie to articulate their concerns about current plans
including any/all input from their contractor
. 1
4. Discussion on where the compromise might lie.
I .
5. Talk through the options as we currently see them.
Option 1-
Option 2-
Option 3-
I
6. Discuss the options/get feedback from all parties re: pro's and
,
cons of each.
7. Determine if we can collectively agree on direction of design to
be presented on 4/1/04.
8. Agree on next steps.
Can we present the compromise to you next week on Wednesday,
March 31"?
9. Final Questions/concerns to be communicated by all parties.
,
8XHIBIT NO.---.:..~..:..-
\l~ l~
~"'.. ,",~"'. ~
HAND DELIVERED
March 25. 2004
..'",' '
Doug and .!cannie Stiles
5053 Paradise Drivc
Home phone: '435-2325
Fax: 435-0421
';;','
Assessor's parcel numher of our property is: 038-021-04
. Tiburon Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RE: SCHUBERTH ADDlTlONS TO EXISTING SINGLE-F AMTL Y DWELLING
5047 PARADISE DRJVE (PARCEL # 38-021-08)
Dear Sir/Madam:
This letter is in response to your notice with respect to the subject matter.
We have reviewed the proposed design at the Planning Department, and subsequent to
the erection ofthc story poles, we have come to the conclusion to oppose the design
hefore you, and request that the proposed two variances be denied.
Consequently, we also advise you that our signature appearing on the suhmitted design is
hercby withdrawn. We reserve the right to bring up other objections during thc puhlic
hearing,
Sincerely,
~p ~~$fu;
-'YFfIBIT No._3 _
\b J;- \.~
Mar 31 2004 2:00PM
lAW ~FFICES OF lEONARD A. 14154S37605
p.2
LATE MAIL # D-2..
LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD A. RIFKIND
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
:" "."
790 Mission Avenue
San Rafael, California 94901-3207
Telephone: 415ABo.2200 . Facsimile: 415.453.7605
lEONARD A. RIFKINO, Esq.'
. Direct Dial Ext 133
Email: lrHkind@mlolaw.com
OF COUNSEL
Julie Garfield. Esq,"
Direct Dial: (415) 472-5017
Email: iulieaoaif{CD.aol.cQm
HOllY Co lARSEN, Esq.
DirBct Dial Ext. 136
Email: hlarsen(Q)mlolaw.com
"Also admitted in Nevada
"'Also admitted In Alaska and Oregon
March 31, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE 415.435.2438 AND HAND DELIVERY
Bill T eiser, Chair
Town of Tiburon, Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94929
Re: 5047. Paradise Drive
. File No. 20412
Design Review For Construction of Additions to an EXisting Single Family
Home with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setback and Excess
Structure Height.
Dear Chair Teiser and Members of the Design Review Board:
Our firm has been consulted and retained by Douglas and Jeanie Stiles
(collectively ~'Stiles"), property owners who reside at 5053 Paradise Drive. The
Stiles property is located immediately adjacent to ,the west boundary 01 the
subject property located at 5047 Paradise Drive, which is owned by applicants
John and Leigh Schuberth (hereafter "Applicants").
Summary of Opposition.
Stiles oppose the application for a side yard variance from the required 15 feet
reduced to 2.5 feet on the grounds set forth below. Mandatory finding required
by Tiburon Municipal Code ("TMC") Section 16-4.3,5 cannot be made. No
Objection is made at this lime to the requested height variance. Grounds to deny
the variance include:
EXHIBIT NO.4-
\~S
Mar 31 2004 2:08PM
LAW ~FFICES OF LEONARD A. 14154S37605
Bill Teiser, Chair
Town of Tiburon, Design Review Board
March 31,2004
Page 2
1. "Special circumstances" do nDt apply tD this application. It is undisputed that.
the Applicant's property has Dther buildable IDcations Dutside of required
setbacks that can accommodate the proposed expansion. Other properties in
the neighborhood do not have a second story addition built within only 2.5 feet of
the boundary line. .
2. Granting the requested side yard setback' variance will constitute a "special
privilege," No other property has a second story so close to the boundary line.
. .
3. The proposed additionisa "self-created hardship." The addition is not
required or necessary, and is prDposed to be built on top of a garage structure
built by these same owners that required a variance as well. Now the Applicants
seek to intensify the former variance by adding a second story to a structure only
2.5 feet from the boundary line.
4. The proposed variance is clearly detrimental to the public as precedent setting
for all properties in the neighborhood to expand up to two stories to within 2.5
feet of a common boundary. Granting this variance will lead to a loss the
residential character of the neighborhood, creating a more u rhan appearance.
Further. the second story is intrusive and creates a loss of privacy for Stiles,
whose master bedroom is only 7.6 feet from the same boundary line. In addition,
the proposed second story would be visible from the living room, dining room and
main outside front deck living area: The proposed structure cannot reasonably
be screened with vegetation on the Applicants' property, with only 2.5 feet of land
to plant. . The majority of the existing screening is actually located an Stiles'
property and is not consistent with their intended landscape plan, and is further of
temporal duration. .
Because mandatory findings cannot be made to grant the requested side yard
variance, the application should be denied,
Statement of Facts.
In December 2003. the Applicants advised neighboring property owners that they
were going to remodel both interior and exterior. . Applicants failed to advise
Stiles at this time that they intended to build a second story on the existing
garage located only 2.5 feet from the common boundary line.
On March 6, 2004, Stiles met with the Applicants to review the proposed project'
Stiles objected to concept of a second story addition over the garage, and
1".3
EXHIBIT NO. 4-
2~5
Mar 31 2004 2:'08PM
LAW n'FICES OF LEONARD A. 14154537605
p.4
Bill Teiser, Chair
Town of Tiburon, Design Review Board
March 31 , 2004
Page 3
requested story poles. Stiles signed the plans to acknowledge that they had
reviewed the plans, not that Stiles approved the project.
On March 20, 2004. Applicants affixed the story poles for the second story
addition.
On March.21, 2004, Stiles met again with the Applicants. Stiles objected to the
visual impact and bulk of a second story addition so close to the property line,
which impacts privacy from several main living areas of Stiles home, as well as to
their main outdoor space. which is located in the front. .
On March 22. 2004. the Applicants offered to show additional design options
conditioned upon Stiles agreeing to the second story addition. Stiles reiterated
their opposition to a second story over the garage.
On March 24, 2004; the parties and their advisors (architect for the Applicant and
contractor. for Stiles) met to attempt resolution. The parties did not reach
consensus. Stiles remains opposed to a second story addition in the proposed
location.
Legal Analysis.
The statutory justification for a variance is that the owner otherwise would suffer
unique hardship under the general zoning regulations because his or her
particular parcel is different from the others to which the regulation applies due to
its size, shape, topography. location, or surroundings, (Gov. Code 965906).
Here, there is nothing particularly unique about the subject property as all
properties in the vicinity are located on sloping ground. Further, the lot size.
27,142 square feet, is substantial, accounting for only a 10.5% proposed lot
coverage. Accordingly, there is ample other iand area available not requiring a
variance, which can accommodate the proposed addition.
The variance concept is not that the basic zoning provision is being changed, but
that the property owner is allowed to use his property in a manner basically
consistent with the established regulations with minor variations that will place
him or her in perity with other property owners in the same zone. (Curtin's
California Land Use and Planning Law, Solano Press Books, page 50). Here,
the Applicant's proposed project is neither minor nor provides parity. It will set
precedent to allow a second story to be added to an existing structure which
required a variance, all just 2,5 feet from the boundary line,
EXHIBIT NO.~
:S~S
Mar 31 2004,2:09PM
LA~ ~FFICES OF LEONARD A. 14154537605
p.5
Bill Teiser, Chair
Town of Tiburon, Design Review Board
March 31, 2004
Page 4
The staff report references variances granted at 4975, 4950, 50BO and 5053
Paradise Drive as support to grant the variances requested by the Applicants.
As a preliminary matter, all variances should stand on th'eir own merits and not
be granted because a prior inadvertent or poor planning decisions were granted
in the past. The result being the destruction of the uniformity of the zoning
district at issue In viewing the site plan, Applicants have multiple structures and
improvements.-all encroaching into required side yard' set back including:'
existing garage, pool, garden ,shed, and hardscape. Further the existing fence
encroaches into Stiles' property proper an average of seven feet adjacent to the
area where the side yard variance is requested.
4975 Paradise Drive, A variance was granted to allow a second story addition
into a side yard set back equal. to 6 feet 7 inches where 15 feet is required. This
variance is distinguishable on two grounds:. (1) the lot was only 12,643 and
limited the available area for the remodel. Whereas here the Applicant's property
is more than twice as big; and (2) the setback was almost seven feet as opposed
to just 2.5 feet.
4950 Paradise Drive. A variance was granted to allow remodeling of a dining
room and to reconfigure a deck. Variances were granted for front yard and lot
coverage. This case is again distinguishable. First, the variance was granted for
a front yard not a side yard like here. which causes Stiles to feel squeezed.
Second, again the lot was small in comparison to other neighboring properties.
5053 Paradise Drive. Prior to Stiles' acquisition of the property, a predecessor"
in interest sought a rear yard variance 11 feet 6 inches where 25 feet is required
for additions to the rear of the house for the kitchen, one bedroom and the family
room, There additions are screened from view by the slope and a six foot fence.
Stiles' predecessor also sought a side yard variance for six feet six inches where
15 feet is required on the west boundary and is shielded by mature vegetation.
This the opposite side of the property from the Applicant's boundary, These
variances are distinguishable from' the Applicant's proposal because the first
variance was for a rear not a side yard. The second variance, while only 6 feet 6
inches, is still more than double the distance proposed by Applicants for single
story improvements, There were no objections by any neighbors,
5080 Paradise Drive. A side yard variance was granted to allow a guest house
9 feet from the property line, The set back distance is more than triple what is
proposed by the Applicants, and again allowed a single story improvement as
opposed to a second story improvement.
EXHIBIT NO. 4-
4~S
~ar 31 2004 2:09PM
LAW ~FFICES OF LEONARD A. 14154~37605
1".6
'Bill Teiser, Chair
Town of Tiburoni Design Review Board.
March 31 , 2004
Page 5
In sum, none of the above-referenced variances remotely supports a grant oUhe
proposed side yard variance in this case, .
To grant a variance in all cases, there must be circumstances surrounding the
applicants' situation that are unique in that they create disparities oetween the
applicants' property and other properties in the area. . Generally such
circumstances are limited to physical conditions of the property. No such
circumstances exist here, Furthermore, the unique circumstances must cause
hardship to the property owner to justify the authorization of a .varianee. Here,
the Applicants desire a side yard variance because it is less expensive to
construct desired improvements on top of an existing structure, which itself
required a variance. Such a situation is a self-created hardship and prevents the
granting of a variance. .
Conclusion.
In conclusion mandatory required findings cannot be made for this appliei:ltion.
Accordingly, the application for a side yard variance should be denied,
Very truly yours,
By.
L
ICES OF LEONARD A. RIFKIND
EXHIBIT NO. 4
5~5
2. 5047 PARADISE DRIVE SCHUBERTH, AJ)I)JTION/V ARIANCE
The applicant has submitted a request to construct additions to an existing single-lillllily
residence located at 5047 Paradise Drive, The subject parcel is located on the south side,
or uphill side. orl'aradise Drive, The site slopes significantly Iromthe street up to the
residence, and is accessed hy a steep shared driveway. The existing residence is n three-
level struclure; the center of the building consists of three consecutive levels, the west
side is comprised of a garagc on the ground level, and the cast side is comprised or thc
living areas on the second level. The applicant is proposing to construct additions at the
entrance to the building at the southeast side of the residence, and on the west side. above
the existing garage, The additions would ercate a more formalized entrance, create a new
kitchen. and create two new bedrooms, The roofline would be modified on the cast and
west sides of the structure. The additions would add approximately 930 square feetlc,r a
total or 4.105 square feet for the residence, The project would be in compliancc with thc
noor area requircments for the property.
Boardmemher Beales noted his wife was a patient of Dr. Schuhcrth, somc cight years
ago, hut Boardmember Beales has had no contact for somc seven years; henec, there is no
necd to recuse himself horn this item,
Katherine Halla!, architect, discussed the project.
Lee Schuherth, owner. reviewed the project and history of the property. She described
discussions with the Stjjeses about their eoncems and discussed errors in the rccently-
submitted letter. In response. to questions. she stated the civil survey is reflected on the
site plan. The setbacks are taken from the property line, not the fence.
In response to questions, Ms, Hallal stated the locations of the Stiles' residence werc
taken horn Town microfiche, not from the Schuherth's survey. The Schuherth's plan,
showing the addition at 2'(j" fj'omthe property line, is lrOln the survey,
.lack Sehuberth, owner. noted a variance was givcn in 199(j ror the garage; it was
predicated upon the Town's erroneous microl1ehe and was based on the fence line, not
the property line. When the garage was planned in ] 996, neighbors thought they were
approving a variance for eight fect based on the current position of the fcnee.
In rcsponse to questions, Mrs, Schubcrth statcd .she just learned the fenee is not on the
propel1y line' in Novcmber 2003 when the survey was completed, and has not had'an
opportunity to correct its location,
Mr. Sehuberth added, the fcnce was built many years ago and its location has not been
changed since bccause there is adequate screening.
Len Rilkind, attorney j()r the Stileses at 5053 Paradise Drive, stated the Sti\eses have not
had sufficient time to respond, There arc alternative locations for the bedroclIn on the
upper story that the Schuberths should pursue, The bottom line is whether the Board can
TIBUIWN nJUl,
04/01/04
.EXHIBIT NO. 5
t~4
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM ~1
TO: TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM: BRIAN LYNCH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER~
SUBJECT: 5047 PARADISE DRIVE; FILE #20412
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE WITH A VARIANCE FOR EXCESS STRUCTURE HEIGHT
(CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 1, 2004 ORB MEETING).
MEETING DATE: MAY 6,2004
PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted a revised application for additions to an existing single-family
residence located at 5047 Paradise Drive, with a variance for excess structure height. The
original request was for additions at the entrance to the building, at the southeast side of the
residence, and on the west side, above the existing garage, The additions would add
approximately 930 square feet for total of 4,105 square feet for the residence. In addition to the
. variance for excess structure height, the original application included a variance for reduced
side yard setback,
On April 1, 2004, the Design Review Board held a public hearing for the original proposal.
During the review of the application there was a concern voiced from the adjacent neighbor to
the west about the project's proximity to their residence, The Board reviewed the project, and
the majority of the Board liked the design and basic concept of the additions. There was no
consensus among the Board members regarding the merits of the two requested variances,
however it was suggested by at least two of the Board members that the applicant redesign the
project in an attempt to address the neighbor's concerns. The Board also suggested that the
applicant provide a survey for the p'roperty, and clarify the distance from the proposed addition
to the residence on the adjacent property to the west.
\
'.
The revised application eliminates the need for a side yard setback variance, and in doing so
the applicant has stated that the redesigned project would at least part'lally address the'
concerns of the neighbors to the west. The kitchen and entryway addition have remain largely
unchanged, but the bedroom addition on the north side of the residence has been reeonfigured,
The addition would not occupy the space over the existing garage. but would be located .
towards the rear yard of the property, The internal circulation pattern would be changed, and
the west elevation would be modified, Shed style roofs would be created on the west side, and
an outdoor patio would be created above the existing garage, The floor area of the revised
project would be increased to 1,230 square feet, for a total of 4,405 for the property, The
project would still remain in compliance wit the floor area limits for the property,
EXHIBIT NO. C;
\~.~
Board11lc11lber Figour gavc additio'nal guidance; if the Schuberths returned with a
proposal ~hat does not require a variance, he would lean towards approving it. Therc
should be discussion among thc parties about alternativcs,
Board11lember O'Donnell addcd, thcre is a big difference betwecn three and eight feet as
it relates to setbacks,
Boardmember Beales concurred with Dr. Schuberth that an alternativc with no variance
might have more impact on theStileses than the current proposal.
MIS, Beales/Figour (passed S-O) to continue this item to May 6, 2004.
T1BURON I).R.B.
04/111/114
EXHIBIT NO. 5
+~.c;-
STAFF REPORT
Town 'of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......
ANALYSIS:
Design Issues
It appears that the revised application would address at least part of the concerns of the Board,
The applicant has provided a site survey for the project which is attached to the revised plans.
While the revised project would eliminate the need for a side yard variance. the building would
actually be closer to the existing home on the property to the west. and the third story element
would be enlarged, Based on the discussion from the Board meeting of April 1, 2004, the Board
should consider whether the revised application would alleviate the privacy and proximity
concerns of the adjacent neighbors.
Zoning
AspreviDusly mentioned, the prDpDsed project wDuld still require a variance for excess structure
height. The height of the existing home is 30' 6 1/2", MDst Df the proposed additiDns wDuld be
below the 30 foot maximum height line, At the proposed architectural projeetiDn off the master
suite on the upper-level, the new roDf edge would extend beyond the existing roof edge, At this
point, the new roof edge would be a maximum of 30'7". The propDsed height variance wDuld
minimally exacerbate the existing non-conforming situatiDn,
Variance
In order tD grant the requested variances, the Board must make the follDwing findings as
required by SeetiDn 4.03,05 Df the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance:
1. . Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size,
shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this
Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
The tDpographical constraints Df the site minimize the developable area of the IDt. and
the configuration of the existing improvements on the site also hinder future
improvements, FDr example, the flattest area Df the lot is in the 10catiDn of the existing
building, The existing improvements are designed tD respect the topDgraphy Df the site
and have a linear east tD west orientation. The proposed improvements would follow
this precedent and respect the tDpography of the site, In regards to the height variance,
the existing improvements create a tall unarticulated wall Dn the front elevation. The
architectural prDjeetiDn Dn the upper-level is designed to break up the mass and bulk of
the existing building,
2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones.
Variances fDr excess structure height are generally highly scrutinized by the BDard due
to the potential view impacts nDW and in the future, HDwever, in cases where an
applicant has proposed additions to an existing non-conforming structure, the Board has
taken a more liberal approach in the review Df the applieatiDn, Similar height variances
have recently been granted at 100 Lyford Drive, 136 Hacienda Drive. 116 Sugarloaf
May 6. 2004
paqe 2 of 4
EXHIBIT NO. G
2""\:~
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..............................
Drive, and 130 Geldert Drive, For these reasons, the granting of the variances would
not appear to be a special privilege:
3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship.
It would be an unnecessary hardship to strictly apply the Ordinance in this case because
it would require that the roofline of the existing residence be re-sloped throughout the
entire upper-level.
4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
As proposed, the requested variance would not appear result in significant view. privacy
or other impacts detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the
vicinity,
Public Comment
To this date, no public comment has been submitted
RECOMMENDA TION:
It is recommended that the Board review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections
4,02.07 and 4,03,05 (Guiding Principles, Variance Findings by Acting Body) and determine that
the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as
specified in Section 15303, If the Board finds that the design of the project is consistent with the
Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, and all necessary findings can be
made for the variance for excess building height, then it is recommended that the project be
approved with the attached Conditions of Approval.
EXHIHITS:
1, Conditions of Approval
2, Staff report Dated April 1, 2004
3, Minutes from the DRB meeting of April 1, 2004
4, Revised plans for the project
EXHIBIT NQ:~
3~~
.05/1l6/2004 07 '00 FAX
ws!-sroreOps
4ZJ 002
LATE MAIL # D-:L
Jack & Leigh Schuberth
5047 Paradise Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
f~~ t::~ C: ;::,~ '~
,
VIA FACSIMILE
415-435-2438
8:00am (5/6/04)
'JL"'\i~'r'.I:!\lc,
Tn'/\ir.~ ,~:.;:: :"::.~~,J'F::()i\:
May 6, 2004
Town of Tiburon
Design Review Board
1505 Tiburon Blvd,
Tiburon, CA 94920
To The Members Of The Tiburon Design Review Board:
Jack and I were granted a continuance on April} at with re:spect to OUr home rernodel at
5047 Paradise Drive. As a reminder, the continuance was granted jn the hopes that we
could come: to a design compromise on our originally proposed design with our
neighbors at 5053 Paradise: Drive.
Attached please find the correspondence that suPPOtts our willingness to meet with our
neighbors to discuss such a compromise, We have also included the correspondence
from Doug & Jeannie Stiles and the memos from Michael Heckman, architectural
consultant to Doug & Jeannie Stiles.
We look forward to prcsenting the design revisions personally and addressing any
questions you may have.
We thank you for your time.
"~
ae; ~~berth
--
With attachments;
Schuberth Correspondence dated April 2, 2004
Schuberth Correspondence dated April 8, 2004
Schuberth Correspondence dated April 20, 2004
Stilcs Correspondence datcd April 3, 2004
Stiles Correspondence dated April 7, 2004
Stiles Correspondence dated April 9, 2004
Memo from Michael D. Heckman dated April 23, 2004
Memo from Michael D, Heckman dated May 4.2004
Cc: Katy Hallal
Curtis Poon
EXHIBIT NO. 7
\ofl
Ma", 05 04 11:52a
micr~el heckmann
4154' -2875
p,l
MICHAEl D. HEcKMAN~IEMAIL #U-1f'<r:cE D
Architect . Planner
,.'!,
,'",~, .
f: ~J:"jl:
.
.
.
.
.
:~;~ ~~~:,;!!:!i,,~;: ~:' -;~'~!':/;'~T~~I?:~~;
TRANSMITIAL
DATE: 4 MA't 01-
TO: l-1=\Gtt\- 4 uf,CI<-' Sc." u'Cl:l\.1ll-
4'39' \012.
c.c,\ \)fll.>GI 01 <.l'EA~t>l.\J: Sl1Lfs
4 '3'0 ' 042..\
LEOl.l."'Il-D
TI13\1\l,b-l'l
TOTAL NO. PAGES: I
1m'\("\I-\.l>
l'\..t-~~l"'r.. bE"J>.~u.!r
4s~..,c;;o"3
4 'l> 5 . 2..-4".;
o As you requested
)J For your use
o For your approval
o Please comment
SUBJECT: 1304'1 PA"'AOlslO tll'-/-rlllUi'-ot-\.
.
ENCLOSED: \"f\O..lt:cT ~~\'E\IJ A~O R.E.S p<>t.l.5"Eo
-mAN-I'- ~~u Fl!>....... }J.eD\l'Ylllc. ~OVp... p~\\$S""t.. JD \<.U,p'f.cT "'T'll'E..
15 fl. '511:>1;,/,,\<.0 sl:.Tb....c\<- .A, <9Ul'- OHtj1G<VO"'5 tIl-OI'EI>-T'f L.I~.
A1=lep- A 't>'E:l?-lt..;~o R;l:\(I"E\I.J Or ~(l\J'" G'0"-Rl:'1'ti "S1.le>....~l.-
,,& C.U.I-l~lftSl \.Il-t;; C.AI4I>lDT 'Svt'\,Oi"-T 'iuuP-\'ll--o,,}'f:C[ A\.Io o1';.l'E.c'T
1V ~ '\=o\"'u>\1J Itl.es. 'Et..'EK'Et-tJ"'; ~
\. 11lf. U'>~ ~1" -r-t\'l:. ~R,4c;.'E l-eE>1" ........ ^ ~~ 1>,)"\",;;1:>
1N:l1U!>'oIloC.c -noo !-\l.Lc.<<. tWt~'E Al<\.l:> ACilVI'rj ON'-,! 2'61-' 'fT:
i=!>.eH J1l't.- i'1U>~i1 \t{........ A~A of ~6N' ee14fflll..HlNGf
'l'\4:\l1~\l.5 COt-l.ST1U> c~~. I'.\\Jit 1.- \...A.~~ Ilt;cl<- A~......t>1
~ H~c~S riU>H 11IE pp.o r~"'t'f LIN'C, I'll> 1l1SJ.1J PEe-\<- ~jI!..",
s ~\l" i-'o l5t. p..Pl>E.J>.
'2. ?~n:1lAL.. vl'l'fIL \.:t.'ltL.- 1>.f~~t>OIl.l~ 1\1.-re 'l\E.1l.)S, U~ll ""\>I<- f'l"'>P~'l
NoVo '5\\!9l>i-P ~~ ~l-IO\l'EOD Ie, ~\I'- l.A"'\?I~ AT U9t'1')
I'-\P,,"~ ~\'-'ETj .et>l.b f.I""'1'EFl- ~,<q&. GfEl4'tlL.-'E ~\...IGo:I\)S
W O\,)i--D ~,..... 'A.>t-l.q\l>I>lAl- ~\)E.~"f\Fj'E...
V I A: 'F"'X..
120 Main Street Tiburon, CA 94920
Tel 415.435.2446 Fa, 415.435.2875
EXHIBIT No.7
2~1
Ha~ 06 04 01:16p
mich .1 heckmann
41543" '975
p.l
MICHAEL D. HECKMANN AlA
Architect . Planner
.
.
.
.
~:.:..;\~,:!.;! [. ::, : ,":+ ..'>
-;',:'.Ii',; (;;: :l',); ,",'"
TRANSMIHAL
LATE MAIL # D-/
DATE: (Q MA"t 0+
TO: L.?IGd-\. J,,"CF- SC\\\'lB"eJCTtt
C.C '. \<.A't 'f \\^\-l...A \,..
VOlle., I!. -..l~N.N.re STlvES
\.-'E"t--\.""....~ l'.\~ \<.\"'~
T1!:l\l (l.e/ol I'I.4'-IoINlroIc. Dl:.pr.
4-;,,\ '\"'1-=>-
,"<ll, Se>';l..'2,o55
4-~':>' 0"\'2-\
-4B?;..'1.<o~E>
"T~~' ~4:,g,
TOTAL NO. PAGES: 4-
o As you reg uested
)!!i For your use
.0 For your approval
o Please comment
SUBJECT: l;5c>4'1 P"..,p..p.b \'>L pp. /, \ 6u,""N.
ENCLOSED: F.1:.sl"e>....s.1C. ~h'oo...lr~U.T{..l'\. ot I.>PD..."'[l3-.
AJ=-S'F-p-- M.Ell'-'E. bl::J7l..\~1:l ~\,"I<.>~ION. \>>\TI\- ~~ P1l1.:EoS ~1?^iJ
~$i I'r...~~ ~ r/lL-L-DI>JIH.c. cDt-IHl!r-q'; fMb:to \\-""'fE ,"'\j'JS.cm:.t> A
M.......\\-l:.t> vp bl1E \>I.-A>I. A"'l> '2.~ ~ ~of' 1=L<><>1>- 1>~<;' TO
O\'-""\Ur,\ JL<u... rj'\;"",,:
l. W1\~. ~ (>;t..t\.4V/>-\..- oPt" '11\'1:. A\.CD\lE '"<>-?J".CE 0'" ~
'FE>~"'~ ~ 01" -mt:. p.,t:I?\<$Dl-\ c!l"EP--- '111~ ~c..t:. ~p....
/-0- S'E'\lE1'- 1-l~<i<\1I. eF- sEpA\V."t'1-EltJ..4 \>I>\~A':; AS ;wE.
^f'.lU'- It..."" M""...l<Il-l/-L- "F1j1l.CT\c......1..- Q,!..E. t'....y\l.;~'\.
-:2-. f.l.'E.JaI/l A Ct) 1'0 \0\ 11t 1'0 'E1'lj'"!<> f>~su.~e. * f~T -tuJo
aU;'i1AA l-\Jlif\llL'E. ~~ 'W -rwe. ~ll:!'I- .....\lot> ~
&1=- ~ ?RJl>pCS>~ ~ !U>D1{c,..
~. ~L~'O AOl>llleAA\,.. L--Ml.l><;'cArl~~ ).\.lll'-TlI- Ell' I\I-l' ~"lItl.ii
Gw'<P-I'Ci4lt- jtl ^ ~\<il+-T D-F 1- 5 n. 'i"" FIl..L ~
c"A-p C>F ~\'>~\tJ.Ct \-f)uJ~ L\t\llS oC..p JM; ~'l/.\l>Jl~~
6,.~IU>UJt..l ""'1\l'Cl~':...
+. . :f'-.~G<~ A- t:>1!:$:.1'1;1L--} I-j!.o;;.s- ~1'-\\.v~1<l ~~IiWGI>-- c..e\.-I9P-- -n\f.-j C€JI.4<pL.IEJl 1>>\\1'1 --nre :;P's-<;lc:.~ <S.\}\t>!.=L.l~ES
. .
lJ,,..N,bl'o.-:!1E:- 1=-<0>1'- ~-re>-\Ss:
VIA ""'.....X
120 Main Street
Tel 415.435.2446
Tiburon, CA 94920
Fax 415.435.2875
EXHIBIT NO. {
6'~1
06 04 01: 17 p
Ma"
m i cr
'1 heckmann
D"",;K
.~
-a-:, }'l
" ~
.
,,0,-
r!J,/
'. ,.-
/
/
<
"'-,
, ,'" "0{'
54-' "875
41 , .
p.2
~t)
5~oee.;
,
\
"\
/E.]~'
-
\ 1'118'
- ~1 ,,,.c~. NI'
----
!u
~
",
",
/~
D"..cK
EXfflIT~'_~\~I-
~, 4~1
,Ma~
06
04
01 :~/." i....
I,> .:
:"':.
,.'
~ . .tDl'OCM .
,
.~~
'. /'I'ILL
-'
,,',.1
,
~"'~'- .-
.......-...
.----,..._____..J . .~
~1L."'PDOf'1
L1rl6 0I':.6'1'm'..... .
,~I~~I.\~~ ::
j , . ~ ~
-.- ==- -=- -==- =- -=-.;:::; .
". ;.~
/
4t
?-,:~? Fl.;.C=P-
PIAN
.':'
mieni'
l'1eCK.mann
10.';"'_'
"t~::l"t-='-::l-":l/::l
f"'~
,~,,"'.'- ,-.~, " -
-~
.-
I
....1
'.1. ~
" ,j l-l~'~'~' ~
~ ..' .'.
I
I
I
~
I!.)~
:",1.1"
II
!
~T
.~
I
I
-"I
-'
",
i!ii!
. -.."l,~"""
~ ;f ~~~~.~~;;iH~i:; ~
11-'''''Jj~''~':'''''.u;.;"....
_ '," i~Ji~,t,i
,,:,.
/
~
./'
/ -',
~'<
,
,
~
!
I . .
-------;.;::;,--;J
./
~r"
'f'-J.,.G,.O'll::' .
.-'~-'--"_.-.
~ e.\...'E.,TE.
~'f
~
~.'
EXHIBIT NO.
-Sof-7;
rla~
tleckmann
415435"875
,.; ~0\~ :,-:~Rt<:;;~':_.,:-;~\":'.\ ;:'~< - .
'.'" :};~~;t~;
/.;.~:':! "
p.4
....
"i," .-:.
I
I
:...-~~..;."-:'-:."
".r:
I
,".
t:'a.\..t~
~,HHp~~
,:.'
".f:
*
. :-"'.'-'"
, \:'";:ir'
~I~M.
, , ' ,
" ..
"-0)'
:it
r-T'
"1.'1
....:-.J..
.!,);
IV
:~;l~~~~.
.,,1
~. -1'-~'
L7'(
~----------
I. .' ~",
. f '1' ~~ .,~~_..~_/ "~"-'-:
"---)-"- & .
J
!
I
-n1\S(s)
PL.f\N
f~
'~...,.......'.'
, '. '. '
,. N
"'ii"
.
'I;;
.:"
,\. 'r:,
""
....'
00+- 1-
.'"';"
LATE MAIL #
i ,~
'.r
Z.
".J.
. .
:!
"I
',..,'.1
. :".:, ~ .
j
"'",",
.,;:',' ~:;i~r'~i;t~~~;~~j",i'}.;~;
:.,.' ,. ,
. .c;,TIL,'E~
.
.
.
~
I j
.,
, i
1 ~
Ii
, '
: 1
I 1
\ !
11
I
!
i
",,'
,';\.
i
"
./!
MICHAEL D. HECKMANN AlA
Arc:hitcct . Plannt.~r
'..:'
",,'
I
pApJ..O\~e ':pp.. ,
i ..
501-1
MICHAEl. D. HECKMANN
120 M<lill Stn~!;t
Tel 41;;.4:l5-244Cl
TillUIUI1, CA ~WJ2(]
r~x 41.')-'D,r,-2117:i
'EXHIR-IT NO:
t- 0+:- 1:
D. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD
l. 5047 PARADISE DRIVE ADDITlONSIV ARIANCE
Thc applicant has submitted a revised application for additions to an existing single-family
residence located at 5047 Paradise Drive, with a variancc for excess structure height. The
original request was for additions at the entrance to the building. at the southeast side of the
residence, and on the west side, abovc the existing garage, The additions would add
approximately 930 square feet for a total of 4, 1 05 square feet f()r the rcsidence. In addition to thc
variancc for cxeess structure height, the original application included a variance for rcduccd sidc
yard sctbaek.
Kathcrine Halla!, architect, reviewed the application, She described thc various changes made to
thc dcsit,'TI to address the concerns of the neighbors at.5043 Paradisc Drive, ineluding relocating
two bedrooms to the first floor and pulling the additions away from the side yard setback. She
said that the garagc deck is intended for the use of the bedroom occupant only, She described
several chang'cs made to windows, and addresscd privacy concerns regarding windows facing thc
neighbor to the side. She also noted that therc arc a number of trees higher than the roofline in
this area, She said that the owners rejceted the request to remove thc alcove,
Lee Sehuberth, owner, stated that she proposed design compromises to the neighbor after the last
mceting and describcd communication with the Stiles and their architect. She was concerned
that the neighbors' requests had arrived shortly before this mccting, which did not give her the
opportunity to address these issucs,
Associate Planncr Lynch noted that the deck railing would he a structural element extending
higher than six feet in a sctback arca and would require a variancc, but could still bc approvcd
undcr the original variance request.
Boardmemher Bird asked aboutthc previous variance for thc garage, Mrs, Sehuberth stated the
location of the garage was based on the fence line; thc arehitcet then assumed the fence was on
the property line, Shc thought that this is similar to the Stiles' location oftheir master bedroom
in the setback, which was also based on thc fenec line being thc property line.
Michael Heckmann, architect, representing Mr. and Mrs. Stiles, stated that the issue with thc
garage outdoor telTace is that it will bccome an outdoor living spaCC near the property line, He
said that the property already has a large number of outside telTaces and decks, and eliminating
this telTace would not affect the property, He suggested that a better looking roof be dcsigncd
f()r thc garage. He stated that mastcr bathroom window would look into the Stiles' property, and
suggested replacing the window with skylights to provide light and ventilation, He stated that
additional landscaping is needed to ensure privacy near the garage, He said that views irom thc
alcovc would also extend into the Stiles' property, He.said that the color of the house should not
bc as strong or bright.
TIRUIWJ\; D.lUI,
5/6/114
EXHIBIT NO.-a-
\~~
Boardmember Figour stated he does not see the window in the upstairs bath as a privacy concern
to the Stiles, Mr. Heckmann responded that peoplc standing by this window would have a view
to the north,
Jeannie Stiles, neighboring property owner, stated that she and her husband have gone thc extra
steps to work with the Sehuberths by hiring an architect to explain to them the dcsii,,'Tls and
process. She said that this has been an emotional issue and she thought her architect should dcal
with the applicants' architect on a professional basis, .
Boardmembcr O'Donnell asked why this is an emotional issue, if she hired the professional
services of a lawyer and architect, but did not personally meet with the applicants,
Mrs. Stiles stated they have been in the home less than a year. She said that the massiveness of
the proposcd project seems to be coming close to her property rather than to the other side of the
project property, She said that they likcd the privacy and h'Tandness of their lot, but said that she
is limited in how she can deal with the brush, which provides some screening, but is not a
pleasant screen. She said that the revised plans arc better, but thought that the terrace on the
garage would sit above her lawn,
Lin Rifkind, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Stiles, statcd the Zoning Ordinance requires a building to
be in the proper relation to the site, but the proposed construction is orientcd to one sidc of the
lot. He said that a building should also be consistent with the neighborhood character, yet the
proposed home would be three stories next to a single-story home. He requested a condition of
approval requiring that the landscaping remains,
Doug Hartley, owner of property to the west of the Stiles property. stated that his home is built
on the same plane as the Stiles, He said that the proposed deck would take away his privacy
because he has a window facing their house. Hc felt that any vegetation would help his privacy
as would raising the bathroom window, He noted that the neighborhood basically consists of
single-story homes.
Mrs, Sehuberth stated that the intent of deck over the garage is aesthetic only, so the occupant
does not look at a garage roof She stated that thcre is dense shrubbcry between the deck and the
property line, and that Mr. Hartley's house is 130 feet away, She said that shrubbery cxtends
eight feet above the story poles, and felt that both parties should provide additional vcgetation,
She said that she was asked to respect the setbacks, which she did, and would be willing to grey
down thc color ofthe building,
Boardmember Bird asked, if they would be willing to remove the door since they do not intcnd
to use the deck on the garage, Ms. HallaI stated she would like to try designing a walkway that
would extend three feet into the side yard setback that would allow the occupant ofthe room to
reach the exterior to access the pati<i, rather than removing thc door. Mrs. Sehubcrth stated that
while shc does not want to lose the door and wants the glass railing for aesthetic reasons and for
safety, shc would aequiesec to removing thc door.
1'IBLJJHlN n.R.B.
5/6((14
EXHIBIT NO. 8>
2q~
Boardmember Figour stated that the applicants listened to the eoneems of the Board and the
neighbors, He said that there would not be an overabundance cifwindows facing the Stiles'
propcrty, and that the stairwell window could hc made opaque, Hc exprcsscd disappointment at
the Stiles' approach at how they worked with the applicants, He felt that this was a ,,'l'eatjob in
redesign, and that he could support thc project as is,
Boardmember Bird stated that the windows are not excessive and are placed in a sensitive
location to thc neighbors, She liked thc idea of changing the alcove so the dcck above the garage
is not an outdoor living space, She said thai it is the responsibility of both parties to come up
with landscaping solutions. She stated that she could support the project with the changes to the
garagc deck,
Boardmembcr O'Donnell statcd he did not Iikc the initial dcsign because it was so close to the
property linc and he stated at the first hearing that he would approvc a plan that complicd with
the sidc yard setback, He said that applicants have gone overboard to cooperate with thc
ncighbors, and thought that the neighbors' suggestions arc making mountains of molehills, He
said that the windows are not cxccssive, and that it is in the interest of both partics to maintain
landscaping for privacy, He felt that the garage deck will not be heavily utilized. He said that
the project would enhance the neighborhood, He rccommended toning down the blue color of
the house to a bluc-,,'l'cy, to which the applicant has agrced, He said that other than the color, he
could support the project as is,
Chair Teiser stated that he can support the project. He commended the applicants f()r going thc
extra mile to aeeommodatc the Board and neighbors. He said that he could make the findings for
the variance for the deck, Hc a,,'l'eed that the blue color should be toned down with more grcy,
with StatT approving thc final color. He felt that access to the roof of the garage is not a major
issue, and the existing window that will be reduced in size is also a non-issue
Boardmember Figour stated the roof deck will not be highly used and pcrhaps it is torturing the
applicant to rcquire it to be modified, though he understands the neighbors not wanting morc
activity there, He said that both sides want privacy, and landscaping works for both parties,
Boardmember O'Donnell added that thc willingness ofthc applicants to accommodate to modify
the garage dcck design is an indication that they will not rrequently use thc garage deck.
MIS, O'Honnell/Figour (passed 4-0) to determine that the pro.ieet is categorically exempt
from the provisions of CEQA and approve the application subject to the conditions of
approval as set forth in the Staff report, with additional conditions requiring the glass
safety railings along the top of the garage to match the other railing; and requiring that the
blue exterior color bc toned down and/or given more of a grey hue, subject to review by
Staff.
TIIIURON n.R-II,
5/6/114
EXHIBIT NO, t3
4
6c*,~
PLANNING DIVISION
NOTICE OF
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION
Town of Tihuron . ] )05 Tihuron lloulevard . TilmrtJll, CA 94no. ,P. 415.435.737~" F. 115Aj5.24JB. www.tihuron.or~
Alice Frede.rick.1
M;lyor
Miles Berger
Vice Mayo)
John & Leigh Shuberth
. 5047 Paradise Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
Notice Date: May 6, 2004
Tom \.nlnl
COLlncilm(':mht:1
Jeff Slavin'
COl!lJcilmcmhcl
On May 6. 2004, the Tiburon Design Review Board conditionallv approved the
following project located at 5047 Paradise Drive:
Paul Smith
Councilmcmbcl
Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of additions
with variances for reduced side yard setback (3 feet in lieu of 15 feet),
and excess structure height (30'7" in lieu of 30 feet); File'# 20412.
Please refer to the attached conditions of approval.
Minutes of the Design Review Board meeting are generally available within 3
weeks following the meeting, and will be provided upon request
There is a ten (10) day appeal period of any decision made by the Design Review
Board. To appeal this decision, the prescribed form shall be filed in with the Town
Clerk, accompanied with the appropriate fee, Appeals will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission or Town Council for review.
A Building Permit must be obtained for this project. Please inquire at the Building
Division for additional information regarding the Building Permit process (415-435-
7380).
Ce: Katherine Hallal
320 Richardson Drive
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Doug & Jeannie Stiies
5053 Paradise Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
S:\I'ianlllng\Slail"Ful(kn;\hl;.!Tlch\NO'J'JCESv\CfJUN.I)I<JW/2041<2- 5(j47 l'aradisc Drivc.!\(K'
EXHIBIT NO. q
\~2--
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT]
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
5047 Paradise Drive
FILE #20412
'AS AMENDED AT THE MAY 6,2004 DRB MEETING
1, This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall
become null and void unless a building permit has been issued
2, The development of this project shall conform to the application and plans dated by the
Town of Tiburon on March 22,2004, or as amended by these conditions of approval.
Any modifications to the plans must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Board,
3, All exterior lighting other than that approved by the Design Review Board shall be
shielded down lighting.
4, No lighting fixtures shall be located in the wells of the skylights, and the skylights shall
be tinted in a non reflective manner.
5. The proposed body color of the additions and existing home shall be more neutral
or grey toned than represented on the color and material board dated March 8,
2004. A revised body color shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Division prior to the issuance of a building permit:
6. The proposed railing around the edge of the garage roof is approved as shown on
the plans dated April 21, 2004:
7. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall be identical to those
approved by the Design Review Board, If any changes are made to the approved
Design Review plans, the permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying all such
changes when submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Such changes
must be clearly highlighted (with a "bubble" or "cloud") on the submitted plans A list
describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the building
plans, with a signature block to be signed by the Design Review Staff member indicating
that these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or require additional Design
Review All changes that have not been explicitly approved by Staff as part of the
Building Plan Check process are not approved. Construction that does not have Design
Review approval is not valid and shall be subject to stop work orders and may require
removal.
EXHIBI'JMN~004 q
.. pagN ~1 4 \ ()P 1--
Tiburon Town Code
ChaplL'J' l6: Zoning
SUBCHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMITS
4.02.06.
Planning Director as Acting Body on Applications for Minor Alterations.
Site Plan & Architectural Review applications for the following items are considered to be Minor
Alterations and may be acted upon by the Planning Director or his designee in lieu of the Design
Review Board: .
a. Residential additions less than 500 square feet in floor area,
b, Accessory buildings or structures less than 500 square feet in floor area,
e. Fences, walls, and/or retairung walls.
d. Minor exterior alterations such as windows, decks, skylights, solar panels, satellite
dishes, and similar items as determined by the Planning Director.
e. Re-roofs.
f. Swimming pools..
g. Spas.
h, Modifications .to approved Site Plan & Architectural Review permits when
determined to be minor in nature.
1. Other applications which the Planning Director determines to be appropriate for Statf
action.
The Planning Director may refer any application to the Design Review Board for action.
4.02.07. Guiding Principles in the Review of Applications.
In reviewing applications for Site Plan & Architectural Review, the acting body shall consider the
following principles as they may apply:
(a) Site Plan Adequacy. Properrelation ofa project to its site, including thatit promotes
orderly development of the community, provides safe a'nd reasonable access, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, arid general welfare.
(b) Site Layout in Relation to Adjoining Sites. The location of proposed improvements
on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with
particular attention to view considerations, privacy, adequacy of light and air, and
topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site
conditions;
(c) Neighborhood Character. The height, size, and/or bulk ofthe proposed project bear
a reasonable relationship to the character of existing buildings in the vicinity, A good
relationship of a building to its surroundings is important. For example, in
neighborhoods consisting primarily of one-story homes, second-story additions shall
be discouraged, or permitted with increased setbacks or other design features to
minimize the intrusion on the neighborhood.
TibuTOn Zoning Ordinance Amended through Ordinance No, 475 N.S. 7/18/2003 Page 97
EXHIBIT NO. n~_'
. ~
Tiburon Town Code
Chapter 16: Zoning
SUBCHAPTER 4: ZONING PERMlTS
(d) Floor Area Ratio. Thc relationship between the size and scalc of improvements and
the sizc of the property on which the improvements arc proposed, This concept is
known as "floor area ratio" (see Section 4.02.08 below).
(e) Grading & 71-ee Removal. TIle extent to which the site plan reasonably minimizes
grading and/or removal oftrecs, significant vegetation, or other natural features ofthc
. site such as rock outeroppings or watercourses,
(1) Compatibility of Architectural Stvlc and bxterior Finish. The architcetural style and
extcrior finish arc harmonious with existing'development in thc vicinity and will not
be in stark contrast with its surroundings.
. (g) Landscaping. Proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prcvcnt
erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise
impacts ofthe proposed development. Applicants arc encouraged to use native ~Uld
drought-resistant landscaping, Proposed landscaping shall bc used which will at
maturity minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings, A cash dcposit'or
other monetary sceurity may be required to ensure the installation and/or maintenancc
for a one year period of any and all landscaping.
(h) Lighting. Proposed lighting, insofar as it should not invade the privacy of other
properties, or produee glare or light pollution; yet providc adequate illumination !c)r
safety and security purposes. The acting body may impose a condition that following
issuance of aeertifieate of occupancy or final building inspection, all exterior lighting
shall be subject to a 30-day light level revicw by thc Planning Department to ensurc
conformance with this guideline.
(i) . Overall Property Improvement. In order to allow the gradual uPh>rading of existing
development it may be required that improvements to existing buildings and the site
as a whole be made, The review of applications for additions or modifications to
existing developmcnt may include conditions requiring changcs and/or modifications
to existing buildings and site improvements for the entire property,
(j) Appropriate Usc 0.[ Building Envelope, In Planned Residential (RPD and RMP)
zones, building envelopes are generally intended to provide a larger-than-necded area
for flexibility in the appropriate siting ofa main structure and its accessory structures.
TIle building envelope should not be interpreted as an area intended to be "filled" hy
a main structure and its accessory structures,
Tiburon Zoning Ordinance Amended through Ordinance No, 475 N,S. 7118/2003
Page 98
EXHIBIT NO. lo
2.~2-
----- ,..... ..-."tIJ:;:j~-;;;oi!\g:i'-;:-5:g~g3C
Eb~'::'!il~~=o~el:x.egg!l:~__~:u__,.,__c: ~ m
in~~o~n--_m >2 o"'P1 ,.,g,.,~~~~,.,~..z
"';;;>;1 z~5S M:uiil~I:<g!i:~80l-<z:u%l_;!IO_F m
olllil~lIIo>~ Ql'lnij; n:;1:"-z~;;;gzowlllo:tl
.....zi'P1nlll~:tIiii;;J~;f;... ~:r"'~~oo-(Z>:U-<:i!iii}o-
~~,.,rne~g~iiii~:u~~ ~iii>~~~6'~~S~Mir
~;i~~:~i>i'~iiijE -<@2~~~~ g~~"'mg~
~1:leRl e::;:!~aJ"'~;g~t. ;!~~iIi""O~ ~fTl..(~'U~-l
1111II5~ ~1II111~~~~~"tI ~~Z~O~C oB~~~~m
~~lt-g t3~~~g~~C:i!: 1II:r;~~~~ ~:r~~~~ to
-(go~ g~~~~gS~~ ~"'e~~~ ~~~~~~
~6~o III~~@ \/I" ~~ Q~~~~~~ ~,.,~co~
~~~~ g~~~ ~ ~~ ~@~~~"'aJ ~~E~I
.:!! ~,., :i:N '" .'. -<i c:,... !l!-<:i'-< ~2C::!i'~
~~Q~ o~~:< 0.... 5~;:j~iii"'i' ~~0 "'..
o5i'~ ~....~ ~ ~~ z~~:~~,., 2~>gg~
~8"'~ i'~~ z:U,., ~iiiZ~M~~ :ug~~~a
-00 "''Un "!IX C ! IgL "'~I~:u-
>zEi' ~~2 ~ ~g F~:U~n~~ ~~g-<~c
gi'~,., ~~~ ~ ~~ -<:~~J:~z ~g?J~~
~;~g ~6 ~ b~ ~~glll~~~ na~g....~
;;ip...z gg!3 ~ "'g 2"::E~-<1II:Y gc;1 00
00"';;1 n> >'" <ngt;}l~2;; 2:!Ndri'
~WAJ~""-l~:z 0\1 :!':!........:!ct~,...,
::o~::oo e....O :., -(~ :;w:Z~nl"""'" ~~..g;iiAJ
~o~~ b~i' < ~n ~~~~ -(~ ~~;~~~
~"~:il ~o"'" ;,,"\1 o~~~i'lilo ~"'ilF"'"
~dr"'" ~~p ~ ~~. ~~~~~....~ g~~c z
", c_ ,,~ _ -""''''IAJ =I o:ilo
~~~:il ~~2 Q"'i' ~:r>~;;:""'::;! ;I:~t;g"';:;l;
~-<~~ o-<~ ~ '" Q""'~-(~~g ~o:~co
gg } :;~~ ~ ~ ~~~. ~e >> ~ ~
~12~~ ~II! >~....~ ';::>> PI ,iil
~~~,..., ~ 5i'~ ~~ ~ ~
-("'::0 ..... z", ,
>
.
Zr
~~
2~
,-
~
'-..-----
~-
----~\,
--~~.
""'.'6,
~'~-.
------= ' ~
___ .f>\.g~ 9~
~tt..r..\
~~
------=:' e----
.;:::::::::::::
o ~/
/"' /
'/ _/@
, ~
' /
/@
!2>>"'m
o~f;i)>
~>>~ Q;!
r ~gc.o
'i::r:O
"'f'ltfJiI
~!'~m
~~~I:
~:E~<
~~p)>
g~~~
~~~~
<:J:r'"
Omz
o >
. ~F'
c.
g<
'0
8~
go
n
;;t~
.~
c..
~g
~>
'8
~-
~z
i:1~
--
.m
"~
"C_;,:: .0,"
$D~!:.J>. t ~)>
~~ ,'1J :j~!;,q
.1::: ill JJ t.oc.o.
0"om !'>r::lo
o~ iI 0011
~o m 30
~Q ~ Q;~
~~z ,!::::~
O;to 0 ~~
{;;iim 0.0
0.-< 00 ~..
g8 ~i5
ll::c ...;Si
~~ ~~
..
'-
gf
Z>
~.
~g
<"
0<
~m
.~
'-;
-.
-.
;,g
~~
.>
~~
05
.~
"c
>z
Zm
"
~~
<0
-.
~E
:::~
z~
.>
8'
z~
-0
mz
. 0
~b
g~
~~
.~
go
zE
mm
OZ
~~
m
"m
~~
~.
.~
~"
;g
~.
~~
3
>c
~o
.~
>-
g-
.
Oc
.0
~~
..
"
.
S
_ J
-.J12_~~
:.s,
J,
,-
---
-
--
~
~~
0,
~8
;~
<
~
~
n
H
..
.
g
~
~i!=
nw
jJ ~~~
rr1 ~~(")
~ ~~~~
;tJ-l oz
~O--oITlO
~O~Zj;Otll
;::~ ~()~O
OOI"'lVl"T1
g-l"T\;<;;rOtll
;::X---l (Doo
-orr1mro nI
~::OC' ~,.,c
Zrr1;:O'U ~~
-<oO>---lI::O
~z~~:j1
~ co---lt,
o .~gtv
~ n
o~
n~
~z
"'-
_::::~
':11'1 U~ I
; ,;'@'I ~
lli~~;1
~ ~~~
....!'"l.....
I~~~
~<o~
-h
~
~
Ii
o
8~
>
--
UJ
:=3
M
UJ
c:
;:d
-<
M
0-<:
;,..
I __
\ J.....rJ---
~/
.---"-'~-
--
-
-
-
,-.'
------~
G
~
~
-I,,~Oz~~:;j~PH:~e h1
~~b"@p 0 ~~~~~~-If;>~ ~
ji!!'> 0
;;l~~3i5~~~~2~~
i~~~~~~~~~8
s~ ~~o~~ ~....
0;1,... ~f.l ;6;0 ...
~~ ~ :il~
Eo If: ~~
~~ ~ !~
o .
. g
z
~
~,~
><:..,'-;,
() ~;?
",' ':~~
)>
~'or:;
:;:u
Al
IT!
f'~'
t'n
-
,,~.,
~
fCl
~;j:
.
c
Jt..~
~~
, ~
~
.
.~
~~
~
H ~~ n
~~2~~~
.... Iil ~ ~!:l
. ~ ~
~ a J;;
~
:::: l.;)
\;: 0.(
\;
G
..,~-'il
\
~
\
.
-\
I
"
\
\
I
\
I
<Pi
1\
~
.:L
. /
-I>"O(~
;
zr
80
~-I
~E
~
302~
300---"
,...-c-.
--
\
\
\
%~
f,\~
;l.fi
\
\
J
-
-
--
-
-
--~.-
~~~--~ .
.
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
-
~.
~
!'
;t
""i .. ~>
~~(~~> ,/
~~~ ~~~~\ - =::~_/~:~\. /.. .'C'
~ r-- ,@ \ /
.. . // ........ ~~, /
;. 0/ )/ \ /.,.p '-~__
~.c l' ~~
Ie............ 1>. ..-7 \ ---------. .,
~ .~- u- \.
')
\\
f-l
!11
'"<;"x
t7'.'"
iil
~
I
fA
.,.-
\~
\i
....,.-.-.
"
- --,5'-0"
~
b
'-I
flI
\ ;
\J
~
/ ,~.,:'. -..-
\i' '.
17 .'. ~"
$ I~
. ~ ~
@ .\
r~
, '"
\
,
.'
r
\
~
\~
'-'
----
",5
~-
17
'i .
\ .,' !
\" ..-""
g .
. .
I?
,@1
i 1
# .
I \
, /
..., / I ,
, ,i
~~r.
. /
--'
x
~s
;l;
&1 _
....::'-~
:.lID \
-----
\
--
l... 8Lt __
..
\
Dl'-~
~
\
\
\
i \
. .' \' ---
!, -1;' -----
,
\. --
------ ,. .
-~ .
\
I
\
@\ - --------------
-----
:.., I
.'"
r....
l I I 1.51T& Pl-Ar-l
~~
6~
. i
.5CHUOEi'TH P-E:6lOeNCe
~1:Jl<I/I;>.DI~~ D"'M
TI!>Ul'or!
N'N !Jll-02.1-0!>
J.JO-IG 't:W.I..Al-. .N-CHIT~T5
~.~oeoND~~~
HI~~~ 9'1"1'11
<tIll. ~iJo; ceilI.'
:;:
l
. .
I
.
.
I
i
______u_..... ._,.-
~
~
~
:l'l_~'
,
,
~~ ~:-// /
,.--- ~..- - ....---r-
-- -"" ')(
- - ----- ~ .....--' ----
~;~r ,-- /
/ ~- b /
/ '~Y'. ~ ,./~.
,,,/ ~)./.., .,It')~ ~././-_/
/' / c.
..-
,....---
/-1.,:.0
~
<.
"~"
/
,i
~"
. .
, .
- -- -"'
..-"
,.' ~,O ,.. ___ -- -..--..... -
, -~-~
-.~
~g .-' \
.'~ \~~
\~
o
I'
\
\
\
<
.
l!
.-
:~ 1
I
x
.. \')'.
i(
~
~
i
(j)
.:::j
(II
~
.. ,I
I,
~
)>
z
,/
-'>
i~
~~
~
1\
i~
l~
\\
\~
\~
@j
..-+ .
~
t., ~:%
__:..t..
\\
,n l(
/
-----
J'x
.-~--~'" - -.
"---~f2.
.\.' -
-~-
,...;..----:-.-,
..-
-'--
---.- ----,
~' ",---
,/"
,/
.. ..._,/~x
.~
---..---..
..~
.-"..
-.
-"",--~...
."-
-------'
----
~
/
I
I
I
I
I
~.
.." -------
-- ---
....-....-.
/'
~
@z
------
~.. I
~
I:\:
l I I J
~~
~~
EXI&11I't; ~m PI.AN
5CHUt>E"TH f'-f;5IDE:NCE:
~ PAMDl!!a DI'oM
-rJb~N
APH ~. a!J . 05
~G' HALL.AL. Af'.CHITe.C'T5
"to "CHMOOON ~
MIL.L.. ""-l-t.eY
<l15. 2.~ 0/181
~ II
.:;!
,--.
~
~
"
J
~
. C1J-
:p
U>
,-j
II
.
8 <
J>
\)
~ , -~.
-.- -~' . I
I~
~,
~ II
z II
~ I~~
~, II '"
r
II -q I~
.lL II it5
f
. -..
, .-
$> I I!
?~ ,
... 2 ~ ,
~ i \.
~it..:: ~ 3 /
~- s- f I
~'. ~ I \
(i). ;t
i' ~
,
\.
I
.
.
I
I
~
~/
.~ ..
~
~
· f . . . 0 PI~5T ~ PlAN 5CHlJe,e:fID+.. p.f;.5IDeNCe: . l-J~' Ho\~l.Al.. MCi4!Te:CT5 11)1;
I i I 5
~ '!' ~ 5""", P~',Qfl.Jvr ~20 "'ICHA,~ OIO.M!: ~; .
!' a
i:A -. - TI!>UI'.ON. MI~~ VAl.UY 'l19'I1 ,1~ .
o.~ .
APN $' 021. OIl -t~. 1.5o,OfI6! .
.
I
.
,
I
I
~...
.V ) .,
pi
~
~
!!
iJ
~
-Q
z
-t
D
~
i
I
(]
l! I I
.I~ .1
!i! I I
,';';
Ii
-.-- -_.-
~ - - ---
1
.l.
~
"
I
8
:I
(I)
{II
h
~
o
<
,
I~
0_ :
~, .
1?>
"l\
8
'F
~
Z
~
~
~
I
I~
~
,;
'"
~
'v
j
>
I
1
; ,.'
Ii
I[
I,
I
,~' r
r-'
I
I
'"
__ .'D\_-'-__
i
..
: II
!(
'';'.
GO>-
I
~- ..-
g
"
~
i '
! !.,
II
<
.
@
('t~- ..' .'
~i~ i--~~-~-<~
<" ~ [
\
Ie
I~
~
-.
--.~-.--.
12'-10'
.2.l'.(;,'
~~~.
, "
.. .q
Oil i i f ~NO ,.~ Pl...AN
~... · . 'E
"",. ~ ,.
r~ ~j
~CHUf>c.R;1l/ ~ll:e~e
~7. ~~. .t:Il'Nf:' .
1'I!lLN:>N .
N'1'\' !iii . 01.1. 0&
.j.,u:;N(3. J-W..l.Al. A"<:Hrr'l'CT5
,!lie'. ~. '0RNe'
MtU-~' 'l'I"t+l
'I15.t5I%COHl
. ~.
~. ~
.-;" ~
,. .
~.
_._-----~~-----~---~-----~------~-----;--
I
.
.
I
I
· r.
..,~
rc,"I
I f r
.,~
~~
:i!
7J
o
.~
,
8
7'
;D
)-
z
[i9
1'H1fl.D I'L.OO" ftAN
~
!l
"
~
~!i
i~
~i
- a<
it
+-
~
.1:;
9CHUb&f',11t F-.e-51Df;Nce:
_..~et!',-IJI'NE.
!le.Ul'.oN
APM !l8-021-0f!,
~
i
I
'"
I~
~
,~a
X.d......~_
~
-~
-_. .
c';
~
~'-3.
.!5~1~ .
""'~'5'
5d.<I
)..jON(3. ~L.l.,AJ... Al'CHITu:re"
= .I'JC~ DflN~
1'111.1. v...u..e-r ''i'I~''I1
+15. .5:>.0681
13
',j
I
.~ I
I~
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----T
. ;::J
6' j'
. ,
~ ,
" .
---_.._._-~~----_._-~----~----'_.-.~.
:;
(
g ~ ....~
~ ~ ~
? )o.!:i
! ,. ~
l_ ~ ~
LJ l> i
,~
_---1
:
.
I
.
.
,
i
~---~
c
/
"
,
"
n
<1~ i
i~ I
~~
~~
,
)J
8
11
5
z
~
).
~
t=\
I ~
I ~r
~.
~I
~
g
~
1
~/
z@
).-
..~
j
I
I
L_
2
:z
~
0<---'-<
v~
r~
~~
'"
8"
- !
~
~
I ~
lj
I i
::t
I i
~
I
l-l
;>
~
L'
~.
<$
----,
r
~ ~u
" ~
e~
jJ
ir
~ i
...
~
.. /-,
I
I
I !
-T--.J i
_+___J
!3KuU
~Ti
. r---..
...~~
i"
@ioi
~
:. f . I I r P.OOF A-Ari 5CHUf>f"'''TH'1"i'''-'lDeNCe: . WONG. HALLAl. A"CHIT~C1'5 ,~ ,.
,. ~ ~ ~+7 F'AAAoDIB~ DJ'lN& ~20 I'OfAP.050H Dp./Ve
I:) . "TleUI'ON MILL ,...u..~,..
it N ^f'N !lB-02.I-Q8 415. ~5". 0661 =
-~~-------~-_._--_.._-;--
I
.
.
I
I
~~r ·
r.....
~
J I I
ii'~
~i
f
~
o
,.
~
OJ
=i
\TI
01
{Il
()
--t
a
z
, .
....t',
;-., .
SITE: 5~TION5
Ul
-I
~
(Jl
~
o
z
. .
',,~!O -? ..
I
,
..
J
g
~
,;
):
~
o
. ...
5
~
\
'5
~
"
I ,~
.'
s'lt>
i
"
.tf'_Clj1
L1'-8'
5CHue.e;",H fl,!;SIDE:NCe:
5017 ~Ol!lt: Df'M<
TIOUf'.ON
A"N !l8.-021- OS
~ )-
~. ! I
~ .
j
~NG'HAUAl.. AACHliECT5
~20 ~~ DF\l"~
Miw. ~LU'(
A'~, 2510. otel
.
<
!
.
I
.
.
I
I
:.., r
~
r=
l J r r
~l
~i
l':"
m
2
--l
4
{t1
c
~
'j>
-\
o
Z
~\
lrr
I~
I
~
II
11
:i.
I
o
,
,
i
,
o
1
. I
I
B
/
~'--'
I'
:t11
"'~
~
--1
D~
o
I I
1
I
e
)
o
-:~-~!..-----:;-
D
e.- ""0"_1
I
" I
ZD-1 I
,,/..
H
~I~
l~
18
'"
~10f'.. ~eYATIO~
,
,
I
,
_..;z,~
..I",
~!.o
"'n
"~
!f'i.i
''''
, '..
""0
...'
-1;,-
. ib
~
.D
D
'0
TI
I
~.
e
;tl,.
~~
~,.
~1~
"I
~~g ,
pt_._n
D."
...~
~:b
i
i
;
/
&'-0'
,
- --'--
I
,
n:
;-I'Ji
"'~
IJ ~
11/
I"
6QIUt>eJ'.TH ,",e~IDE.NC&.
5""" "-"'IY\D1e6" tiP'Nj' .
TIe.UPoON
..... ~.. Ot! . 0&
,
\ I
II
i'
,I
I .,
!I
Ii ~
! r-
I,
! J
,
II
. ,
~ . .
J
I ..
I
I Lj
I r=J IjJ
, i
II I
I , 'fL
I I ~
I l I
r I v
I ~ ,
,
r r -'- :<
I ~
3 I
'I
G ~ ~
?;
1 ~ . I 0
r D
,
i ,
'1
. 0-' ---'-~-
--
I ,
!
!
, '. , .'
.
'.r .. '~I
...
l n ,~ !'t
.... e~
f"f' ~..-~_.-
~ I - @e
-----
, - , = !
.. .-... --._- f+
. ---
i .
, ....-------
I 0
I , I
I " .
I ..
i
, I,
i I'
"
, i
II
~ =:ij..
". . 0-
. [], ~ .......:t'!;~' ," .
. :t)2. r-
I~' J ~i ,
, I
f ,
, I
i
,
I l .. - I
'-.0 u;f11J;1
" , I
I I I
I ... !
I I I ,.
I , ! I
I , J1 !
I -: ~ I
i ! IL UI II
1 I = 1
I '
i t [ I I
:<
1 r j
I ! I
I
j ~
- . I I )
0: I
II i I I
I J-~.~J ,i I I !
i 1- --;;'.2' I 1
~ I I
,
U"'" ,
.;:a I
::~
.1
I~
i~
B>
u
~.~
.:~
...~o
Ii
I
I
:!,1I
-'
."l
",!.~.
".ii
'.
,
~ I
t..~
:~
i~
)'
...~
;~
...
',i"
'8
I",
J..k:lNG ,H-'II..lAL. Al'CHITf:CTS
= ""'Ho'.f'OeON """'"
MU.J_~f;Y
.fl5, 250; ~I
~.
.
;
I
I'
I
I
~~ I
.,..
It!:
t<>
rq
&
.,
{tI
r
!;U
~
o
z
I I J r
~ I
--- :.....
6:~
......1
II
I
[
!
D
i ]
i[]
I
""M '</"."'
~'t> aP
<\i!l ~.' ~
l~ .~
i~
II
l'
Ii
I
II if t ~
I D
I ,.
,
'. ,
~ II i
II I
I
-"W~
CP...
~'2
~~~
,".
~
f
-~
i
~
o
p
I
~' I
i
. JUl-- -~!! <A'l ~~ .'
~I~ ;!:
~ '1 ~:fl ~~
~.
,0 .,~ -:"
:~ '8 ~Ii
;~ I" :~
.
SCHUe>f:"-TH ""e~oe.N::5
ll'O'!'7 ~1l.ADf~ ONV5
~1e.IJI'.OH
AA<I ~&-oz.l-O!l
l'7<nl',IOI'. ~A"'I"N'
-
.{lj
()\
-i
\'l
r
['II
-&
~
o
z
"I"
~!i;
;t,.,.
"[ij
r
!M
'"t!~
,
Ii
I
I'
I.
I
[D..
I
1
I
B
~!~ t~
c.'~ ~I'
~!...
is
I"
,
'_1i
.,~I
: "
,I
'I
Dc=J
i ' !
~I
!H
~,
l-IOHG. i+\1..L.At; A"-CHITE.CT5
520 .I'-Ic~ MM
MI~ ~Ut'1'
'lt5. t~. 0681
,
.,
,
11!J
&l~
-!
I.
:~
,~
I
!)>
i
~, .ll ,.
" J
.
.
~_..
\
.
.
." ~})_U_I~lI.p ".
O~.'~1-
../ .... \
.1"" ~I'-
~..=:-.::~
'^'>=-1~
f"'\~~~/'<1-
'V,..)~....~~'O
~6~.'-'
.' ~^,'iA-i~C.' ....
,
.
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
recommendations in the Issues Paper, This feedback will be reported by Staff to the Town
Council.
This is the time in the General Plan Update process to give direction for substantial changes to
the recommendations presented in the Issues Paper, Following Planning Commission and
Town Council review, Staff will begin preparation of the Circulation Element that will be part of
the Draft General Plan. Tiburon 2020, .
CIRCULATION ELEMENT ISSUES PAPER: OVERVIEW
Many of the existing goals, policies, and programs are included in the recommendations for the
updated General Plan, Staff has also recommended additional policies and programs to
promote the use of bicycles and walking and other alternative transportation modes.
In addition to the goals, policies, and programs, Staff has recommended a revised list of
proposed circulation system improvements for the Planning Area,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public comment on the goal, policy, and
program recommendations contained in the Circulation Element Issues Paper, and to provide
feedback and recommendations to be forwarded to the Town Council.
ATTACHMENT
1, Circulation Element Issues Paper (April 2004) (previously distributed to Planning
Commission)
2, Comments from Ralph Leighton, May 6, 2004
3, Comments from Bruce Powell, August 1, 2003
S:\PlanningIPlanning CommissionlStaff Reports\20041Circulation Element Staff Report 5-26,doc
May 26, 2004
page 2 of 2
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
(~-_..
AGENDA ITEM
i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Members of the Planning Commission
Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner 9
General Plan Update: .
Circulation Element Issues Paper and Public Hearing
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: May 26, 2004
REVIEWED BY:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
The Goal, Policy, and Program
Refinement stage of the General
Plan Update continues with the
fourth of a series of issues papers,
the Circulation Element Issues
,Paper, now before the Planning
Commission for discussion. The
paper is intended to provide a
common reference point for
discussion and deliberation of goals,
policies, and programs to be .
included in the new Circulation
Element of the updated General
Plan, Tiburon 2020,
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
Issue Identification/Data Collection (Spring - Fall
2002) - COMPLETE
Goat, Policy, and Program Refinement (2003 . 04)
Housing Element - Review Complete
Downtown Element - Review Complete
Land Use Element - Review Complete
OSC Element - Review Complete
Circulation Element
Safety and'Noise Elements - Summer '04
Parks & Recreation Element - Summer '04
Plan Preparation, CEQA Compliance, and Plan
Adoption (2004-05)
OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
The objectives of the Planning Commission meeting are to provide a forum to receive public
comment and for the Planning Commission to provide feedback to Staff, The input received
from the public and Planning Commission will be reported to the Town Council.
Staff has sent out over 600 fliers, nearly 200 emails, and placed a Y..-page advertisement in the
Ark, all inviting participation at the May 26 Planning Commission meeting, Members of.the
public are encouraged to share their opinions about the recommendations in the Circulation
Element Issues Paper with the Planning Commission, People who are unable to attend this
meeting will have a similar opportunity before the Town Council, most likely in June,
The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee has also received copies of the Issues Paper and
will have the opportunity to forward comments to the Planning Commission at their May 25
meeting, prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
The role of the Planning Commission at this meeting is to take the information, analysis, and
recommendations presented in the Issues Paper, combined with the comments provided by the
public, and to provide feedback to Staff concerning the goal, policy, and program .
V,1V'Ufti'tT i"tfi fJ.-
~l~%=.-:.;:J~~ ~'~":~:__,
STAFF REPORT
(,
"
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paradise Drive Funding
The Planning Commission also recommended that stronger language be included which
indicates that the Town needs to work cooperatively with the County of Marin to lobby for
funding for Paradise Drive because most of the road is currently in unincorporated areas,
Staff supports this recommendation and will include cooperation with Marin County in
recommended programs relating to funding for Paradise Drive,
Timing for Pedestrian Signals
The Planning Commission recommended that the Town explore the replacement of existing
pedestrian signals with "countdown" signals which provide a numeric countdown in addition to
the walk and don't walk symbols.
Staff believes this would be an appropriate pedestrian safety enhancement and will include the
concept in the updated General Plan. .
Bicycle Parking for Ferry Users
The Planning Commission recommended that existing policy C-31 include provisions for bicycle
parking for ferry users. Part of the Ferry Plaza improvements project was the inclusion of non-
obtrusive bicycle parking facilities: Staff believes that adequate bicycle parking is available at
the Ferry Plaza. buUhat it may be underutilized because it is not clear that the railing is also
parking, -
Staff does not recommend that additional mention of bicycle parking for ferry users is
necessary .
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Town Council take any public comment about the goal, policy. and
program recommendations contained in the Circulation Element Issues Paper; provide direction
on the outstanding issues identified in this report and other issues of interest to the Council; and
direct Staff to proceed with the drafting of the Circulation Element of the updated General Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Circulation Element Issues Paper, April 2004 (previously distributed to the Town Councii)
2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission. May 26. 2004
3. Correspondence for the Planning Commission Meeting
4. Draft Minutes from May 26, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
June 16. 2004
page 4 of 4
-"
STAFF REPORT
I
/
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Town Councif Issue: Should the Town be primarily responsible for providing and maintaining
bus shelters?
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the language be changed as stated above for
the reasons provided above. The Town's role in providing bus shelters can be as great or small
as the Council desires '
Tiburon Shuttle
Based on Council direction as part of the review of the Downtown Element Issues Paper, Staff
had recommended that the existing implementing program C-h, to explore a shuttle to reduce
trips on Tiburon Boulevard, be deleted,
The Planning Commission noted, however, that recent cutbacks made by the Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway and Transportation District are severe enough to warrant revisiting this
question, The Commission did not advocate that a shuttle be programmed for the future, but
did indicate that a review of feasibility and desirability may be appropriate to confront the bus
service reductions,
Town Council Issue: Should the exploration of a jitney service or shuttle for Downtown be
included in the General Plan? '
Staff Recommendation: The Town Council has previously given direction that the idea of a jitney
or a shuttle should be considered. but not in the General Plan, Staff believes the Council
approach is still appropriate,
SUMMARY OF OTHER COMMENTS PROVIDEI> BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The following additional comments were made by the Planning Commission. No specific
direction is requested by Staff, but additional comments are welcomed,
Roundabouts
The question of whether roundabouts might be an appropriate alternative to traffic signals for
Tiburon, particularly on Tiburon Boulevard was raised by the Planning Commission.
At the meeting, Staff informed the Planning Commission that, generally, in order for
roundabouts to be effective. traffic volumes entering the roundabout from each direction must
be comparable. Due to the linear nature of the peninsula and the fact that Tiburon Boulevard is
located on one side of the peninsula. there are no intersections on Tiburon Boulevard which
have this characteristic, Therefore. roundabouts are not recommended.
It was also pointed out by the Commission that any roundabouts on Tiburon Boulevard would
need to be approved by the state Department of Transportation (Caltrans) because it is a state
highway,
June 16, 2004
page 3 of 4
..
Town of Tiburon
\
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HIGHLIGHTS OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Staff is not recommending substantial changes to the policies and programs in the Circulation
Element. Following is a brief overview of the new policies and programs recommended for the
updated General Plan.
. Incorporation of Congestion Management Agency standards for Tiburon Blvd.
. Incorporation of Tiburon Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
. New polices supportive of ferries, paratransit, and alternative transportation for school
children,
ISSUES DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Following public testimony at the Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners offered the
following comments. Staff requests that the Town Council provide direction on the following
issues raised by the Commission,
Gated Communities
The Planning Commission asked for clarification on whether the recommended policy to
discourage gated developments would apply to single-family homes.
Staff's recommendation was intended to apply to communities or subdivisions made up of
multiple homes. It was not the intent of the recommended policy that owners of single-family
homes be denied gates on their individual properties.
,
Town Council Issue: Should the recommended policy to discourage gated developments apply
to single-family homes?
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the installation of gates at individual homes not
be covered by this policy.
Bus Shelters
Staff had recommended that existing policy C-11, which stated that the Town "should provide
and maintain" covered seating areas at all bus stops along Tiburon Boulevard. be changed to
say that the Town will support such waiting areas and will work with the Golden Gate Bridge,
Highway and Transportation District to provide them (see new Policy C-2? in Appendix A of the
Issues Paper).
Staff has recommended the changes because of increasing construction and maintenance cost,
liability concerns, and the location of most bus stops in Caltrans right-of-way. These facts make
it less desirable for the Town to be the lead agency in providing bus shelters.
The Planning Commission noted that this recommended policy change may be inconsistent with
the goal to "promote an integrated transportation system, including the preservation and
enhancement of transit",
June 16, 2004
page 2 of 4
'r
J>
,I
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM-1-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ',' . . .
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner \(f7
General Plan Update: Goal, Policy, and Program Refine~.
Circulation Element Issues Paper .
June 16, 2004 REVIEWED BY: .
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
As part of the Goal, Policy, and
Program Refinement stage of the
General Plan Update process, the
Planning Commission hosted a
meeting on May 26, 2004 to discuss
the goal, policy, and program
suggestions contained in the
Circulation Element Issues Paper,
At the meeting, the Planning
Commission took comments from
the public and also provided their
comments to Staff.
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
Issue Identification (Spring - Fall 2002) - COMPLETE
Goal, Policy, and Program Refinement (2003 - 04)
Housing Element - Review Complete
Downtown Element - Review Complete
Land Use Element - Review Complete
asc Element - Review Complete '
Circulation Element
Safety and Noise Elements - Summer '04
Parks & Recreation Element - Summer '04
Plan Preparation, Environmental Impact Report, and
TOWN COUNCIL PUBUC Plan Adoption - Fall- Winter '04 .
HEARING
With the Planning Commission public hearing complete, the Circulation Element Issues Paper
now comes before the Town Council for its consideration and comment. The Town Council, as
the Town's policy-making body, is charged with making the final recommendation to Staff about
the appropriateness of the suggested goals, policies. and programs contained in the Issues
Paper,
In essence, the Town Council is being asked to answer two questions:
1, Do the goal. policy, and program recommendations (summarized in Appendix A of the
Issues Paper) accurately represent the goals and vision of the community? If not, what
modifications need to be made to make them accurately represent those goals and
vision?
2, Are there issues and ideas which are missing from the recommendations presented in
this paper?
This is the time in the General Plan Update process to give direction for substantial changes to
the recommendations presented in the Issues Paper, Following this review, Staff will begin
preparation of the Circulation Element that will be part of the Draft General Plan: Tiburon 2020,
p. 20 May 6 The FINAL Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan was approved on
May 6. Eliminate 2nd Parag from bottom,
Pg 21: 2nd parag: A bit confusing to the uninformed, I wondered how the WTA would
enhance ferry service already provided to Tiburon, when our ferry service is private, Is
public ferry service being offered?
Pg 24: Policy C-7: No New streets along or over Tiburon Ridge: Since the "extension"
of the Tiburon Ridge area is also to be afforded maximum protection, this should be
reworded to include secondary ridges of significance, with same exceptions,
Pg 26: Programs: Cob : Please ensure that this wording includes any urban service
agreements we may make with the county re p, Drive, Check with Scott on the current
dialogue,
pg 34: Not to be too cynical about models, but perhaps the Recommended Program at the
bottom of the page should read" A traffic model shall be maintained by the town to
evaluate",." The change is a suggestion to avoid being locked into a model that may not
work well at some point (e.g. arguably, trickle down economics) .
Pg 43: Just a comment: During the last GGBHD cutback of evening services, we passed
out a survey at the Chamber Board meeting (about 6 weeks ago) for distribution asking
about needs for late nite service, willingness to use other resources, and/or to work with
other businesses on providing info about or alternatives to bus for employees, No
surveys returned yet.
Pgs45-46: Various Pedestrian Parking, ete re DT: Please reference DT element on any
policies/programs that are eliminated because they are included in the DT element.
Pg 47 Improvement # 5: I support Alex's suggestion that an alternate entrance to
Blaekies near Trestle Glen be explored, though not necessarily for capacity improvement.
The goal of an alternate entrance would be to enhance the safety of left turns out of the
Reedlands by affording the opportunity to lenb>then the merge acceleration lane,
Wording of#5 should be changed to allow the possibility of considering an alternate
entrance for other purposes, i,e Under status,. ...,"is no longer contemplated for the
purpose of increasing capacity, "
Thanks Kevin
Two are my comments on the Circulation Issues Paper:
~WN Cd UNUL
LATE MAIL # =1
~~t 44e- (p(l~ (1) y
Dear Kevin
1 ssues Paper
p. 8: Plz update bus service table, The Peninsula is without bus service after around
6:30PM. No nite buses, no late nite buses.
p,12: This section presents the Steward Dr. Bus stop as funded rrom the C1P. Policy
suggestion: since some ofthe funding for projects (i.e Stewart Drive bus stop) are
matching funds, would it be prudent to point out how the Town prudently leverages its
$$$? _ especially since we had to up the ante on the bus stop, and some members of the
audience at that TC meeting remarked on how expensive the bus stop is.
p. 13 _ ]4: Planning Area Mitigation Fund Projects: Tiburon Blvd Signal co
coordination: The Circulation issues paper talks about a near term co ordination project
between Miraflores and SR Ave; and a "future project" of co ordinating signals between
Blaekfield and 101, According to Pat, the proposed project to stripe the median for a two
stage left turn at Reed Ranch Rd has been axed by Caltrans, so the signal co ordination
for the stretch from Blaekfield drive to Trestle Glen is very important for the Rcedlands.
At what point will the segment of Tiburon Blvd between Blaektield and Trestle Glcn be
. affected so that cars will platoon past the Reedlands intersection" Should that be .
mentioned"
Pg 19: Please update all references to the CMA to note that the Transportation Agency of
Marin (TAM) has bcen designated as the Marin CMA, See also pg 26 - C-37 .
p. 20: Re subsidized taxis: The final version of the sales tax expenditure plan designated
subsidies for taxis tor the Paratransit services only. MCTD, as I rceall, cannot subsidize
taxis because
a) thcir budget is decimated by the State take aways trom special districts, it is
not clear what they will be able to do evcn if the sales tax passes and
b) check with Alex, but I believe MCTD cannot subsidize taxis in Marin because
no company provides disablcd friendly cabs It may not be prudent to include
subsidized taxis as a resource in the general plan.
Howcver, in thc near vision of the Sales Tax Expenditure Plan, Tiburon is a named as
eligible recipient of some funding for the small bus flexible services.
1'20: The expeetcd revenucs from the sales tax have been revised upward to over $330M
over 20 yrs The final allocations arc based on that figure, 1 believe. - 3'" parag from'
bottom
ij ~~.~!i~g ~I
~ JUN 1 4 2004 WJ
TOWN CL'~RK
TOWN OF TIBUROI,
'.
Alice Fredericks, Mayor
Members of the Town Council
Town of Tlburon
June 11, 2004
Page 4
allowing an intensification of use within 2.5 feet of the boundary line, the
applicants have little room to effect their fair share of screening on their property.
4. Overall Property Improvement. The review of applications for additions or
modifications to existing development may include conditions requiring changes
and/or modifications to existing buildings, TMC \j4.02.07, subd. (i). The Town
Council may impose conditions restricting any outdoor use of the garage roof,
and further impose screening to effect design review objectives to prevent
privacy impacts to neighbors.
Conelusion.
Here, the garage roof deck and lack of screening will unreasonClbly and
adversely affect the Stiles' reasonable privacy expectations. No justified grounds
exist to allow an increase in the intensity of use on the roof of an existing garage
structure. which was granted a variance by mistake, and is located only 2.5 feet
from the boundary line. Accordingly, design review approval for Site Plan and
Architectural Review should be denied until such time'as reasonable conditions
are imposed restricting all use of the garage roof area as outdoor living space
and requiring the planting and maintaining of a vegetation screen.
Very truly yours,
LAW 0 FleES OF LEONARD A. RIFKIND
By:
L nard A. Rifkind
LARlsd
cc: clients
,
.~ .
Alice Fredericks, Mayor
Members of the Town Council
Town of Tiburon
June 11, 2004
Page 3
percent increase from the existing structure. The Applicant's architect, Katherine
Hallal, stated the existing, garage roof/deck is intended for the use by the
adjacent bedroom. The Stiles through their architect, Michael Heckmann,
objected to the proposed use of the garage roof for any outdoor use. A review
of the s.ite plan reveals that 5047 Paradise has a large number of existing outside
decks and terraces, and therefore eliminating the existing garage roof form being
converted to outdoor living space would not be prejudicial. Applicant Leigh
Schuberth made statements inconsistent to prior statements made by her
architect, Ms. Hallal, that use of the roof deck is aesthetic only, leaving open the
likely possibility that the roof deck will be used in the future as outdoor living
space in' absence of Town condition of restricting the use. andlor private
restriction. Mrs. S chuberth further agreed to provide additional vegetation but
none was imposed by the DRB as a condition of approval. The ORB approved
the application without imposing any limitation on the use of the garage roof area
and without requiring additional vegetation screening,
During the pending appeal period, our office proposed a deed restriction in the
form of a covenant running with the land to ensure that no outdoor use of the
garage roof area would occur. The Applicants rejected this proposal and refused
to make their legal counsel available to discuss viable alternatives.
L.egal Analysis.
The Town Council has the authority to Impose reasonable conditions on all
applications for Site Plan & Architectural Review. (Tiburon Municipal Code
("TMC") ~4.02.05. The following principles apply:
1. Site Plan Adequacy. There must be proper relation of a project to its
site. such that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
welfare. TMC 94,02.07, subd. (a). '
2. Site Layout in. Relations to Adjoining Sites. The location of
proposed improvements must pay particular attention to view considerations, and
privacy. TMC 94.02.07, subds, (b). A roof deck will obviously infringe upon the
Stiles' privacy.
3. Landscaping. Landscaping shall "mitigate the visual and noise
impacts of the proposed development." TMC 94.02.07. subd. (g). Landscaping
is temporal in nature, subject to age, disease, and inclement weather. Here. the
burden of screening unfairly falls wholly on the Stiles. With the current site plan,
"'~
Alice Fredericks, Mayor
Members of the Town Council
Town of Tiburon
June 11. 2004
Page 2
Summary of Appeal.
The Stiles oppose use of the existing garage roof as outdoor living space, and
request vegetation screening should be required as conditions of approval.
Statement of Facts.
In 1996, the Town granted the Applicants a variance to locate a garage within the
side yard setback of approximately seven feet. The Town granted this variance
under the mistaken apprehension that the existing fence line represented the true
boundary line. A 2003 survey revealed that the garage is actually only 2.5 feet
set back from the true boundary line, and that the fence in this area encroaches
into the Stiles' property. It seems clear that the Town would never have
approved construction 0 f the existing garage in 1 996 if it had been presented
accurate boundary line information.
In December 2003, the Applicants advised neighboring property owners that they
were going to remodel both interior and exterior of 5047 Paradise. The
Applicants failed to advise the Stiles at that time that they intended to build a
second story over the existing garage, located only 2.5 feet from the common
boundary line. .
On April 1, 2004 the Design Review Board ("DRB") first heard the application to
construct additions to 5047 Paradise Drive, which included living space over the
existing garage, increasing the square footage by 930 square feet or
approximately 29 percent over the existing amount of approximately 3175 square
feet. The Stiles objected to the application because it required a 2.5 foot side-
yard variance and packed a lot of building crowding up to the common boundary
line between the respective properties. The Board voted unanimously to
continue the hearing to May 6, 2004, to allow the parties time to effect
compromise.
In the interim between ORB hearings, the Stiles retained architect Michael
Heckmann to review the proposed plans and to interface with the Applicant's
architect in a good faittl effort to reach compromise and consensus.
On May 6, 2004, the DRB reviewed a substantially revised application, included
relocating two bedrooms to the first floor and pulling the additions away from the
side yard setback adjacent to the Stiles' property, The revised application
increased the square footage by now 1,230 square feet or approximately 38.7
..
/,
LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD A. RIFKIND., 1\ \\11 rc: ~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW r~ I!!l IS W IS ~
. 790 Mission Avenue
San Rafael. California 94901.3207 JUN 1 4 2004
Telepl1one: 415.485.2200 . racslmile: 415.453.7605
LEONARD A. RIFKINO. Esq.'
Direct Di.1 Ex!. 133
Email: Irif1<ind@mlolaw.com
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TI13URON
HOLLY C. LARSEN. Esq,
Direct Dial El(\. 136
Emili!: b.!!rsentmmIDlaw.com
OF COUNSEL
Julie Garfieldl Esq....
Direct Dial: (415) 472,5017
Email: iulieaaarf~aol.com
. Alao 21dmitted in Nevada
"Also admitted In Aiaska and Oregon
June 11, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE 415.435.2438 AND HAND DELIVERY
AND VIA EMAIL TO: askalicenowl6lusa,[!,et mberaertalbdearch.eom
torno,[.am@pacbell.net islavitztalips. net psmith@ci.tiburon.CB.us
Re: 5047 Paradise Drive
File No. 20412
Design Review For Construction of Additions to an Existing Single Family
Home with Variances for Reduced Side Yard Setback and Excess
Structure Height.
7tJ4JN CoJtVClt-
lATE MA'L#~
A~d~ {P!/0!OY
Alice Fredericks. Mayor
Members of the Town Council
Town of Tiburon
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94929
Dear Mayor Fredericks and Members of the Town Council:
Our firm has been consulted and retained by Douglas and Jeanie Stiles
(collectively the "Stiles"), property owners who reside at 5053 Paradise Drive.
The Stiles appeal in part the May 6, 2003 Design Review Board ("ORB") decision
allowing use of the roof an existing garage, which required a side-yard variance
located approximately 2.5 feel from the side yard setback. as usable space
because it will severely impact the Stiles' privacy and use of their own main
outdoor living areas. Further, the ORB failed to impose any vegetation screening
conditions. Otherwise, no other part of the Design Review Board approval
granting two variances for height, and side yard, and design review approval are
challenged. The Stiles property is lOcated immediately adjacent to the west
boundary of the subject property located at 5047 Paradise Drive, which is owned
by applicants John and Leigh Schuberth (hereafter "Applicants"). .
,
,---'-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TO: Members ofthe Planning Commission
FROM: Kevin Bryant, Advance Planner ~
SUBJECT: BPAC Comments on Circulation Element Issues Paper
DATE: May 26, 2004
. . ,".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
BACKGROUND
The BicyclelPedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), which had a regular meeting on May 25,
offered the following comments on the recommendations in the Circulation Element Issues
Paper.
Generally, the BPAC believed that the recommendations in the Issues Paper effectively capture
the bicycle and pedestr.ian issues that have been identified by their Committee,
The BPAC, which was critical in the Town's securing of a Bay Trails grant for the construction of
a pathway on Trestle Glen Boulevard, also observed that they will be able to help the Town
iinplement some of their programs, such as pursuing additional funding opportunities.
The BPAC did express concern that existing General Plan policy C-17, which states that
Tiburon Boulevard will remain two lanes from Trestle Glen Boulevard to Mar West Street is
recomm~nded for deletion. The Committee recommended that the policy remain, with
additional language which would allow for the addition of a westbound lane on Tiburon
Boulevard approaching the intersection,
In addition to these comments, BPAC Member Ralph Leighton submitted detailed comments
which have been included in the Planning Commission packet.
S:IPlanninglPlanning CommissionlCorrespondence\20041Circulation Paper pre-meeting comments,doc
EXl::(Tbrrn ". :7
............;,:)...,. .,'T() ~
, .... ... '\ '-, .
"----'
Kevin Bryant
Subject:
Ralph Leighton [tuva@sprintmaiLeom]
Thursday, May 06. 2004 11 :23 AM
Tyler Phillips; Pete'r Winkler; Peyton Stein; Jim Fraser; Matt Odetto; Kevin Bryant: Jeff Slavitz;
Pat Echols
Re: Circulation Element Issues Paper
From:
Sent:
To:
Kevin et aI,
Re: the "Cj.rculatiorl Element Issues Pap~r," I'd better make some
comments now, in case things get too' crazy later thj.s month. I invite
all BPAC members to read the dOC\lmer'lt I as there B,l'e several places that
pertain to bicycle and pedestrian issues.
1) The title looks J.:l.ke a rl8wspaper headline:
about it! CIRCULATION ELEMENT ISSUES PAPER!
done about that.
Gxtra! Extra! Read all
I suppose nothing can be
2) pp 10 and 11: 'Il~ not aware that Paradise Dr is proposed to have
Class II bj.ke lanes, especially on the part sO\lth of Trestle Glen. I
would think the Proposed Class II Bike Routes would be Hwy 131 from IIwy
101 to Trestle Glen, and Trestle Glen itself. Maybe the part of
Paradise Dr north of Trestle Glen might be Class 11 one day, as it is
part of the Bay Trai:l. Please note that on p 25, Section C-23, bike
lanes for Paradise Dr. have been removed from the plan.
3) P 13:, Right tur.'n overlaps--where do we' stand on those? r thought
Caltrans had OK'd Trestle Glen, and the Town was going to pay for three
more (Mir.aflores, Rock Hill, Lyfor.d). But then I heard T:r.'estle
Glen--the only one warranted by Caltrans--wasn't happening after all.
4) P 14: maybe it would be appr.op,riate to mention that the BPAe was
created to help write the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and--as a
result of a Council resoJ.ution--will remain active :i.n advocating
bicycle and pedestrian issues to the Town as pa,r.t of the Town I s
commitment to improving the health and safety of its citizens. Maybe
state what the composition of the BPAC is--one Council member, et:c,
from the Tiburon Penin.:iUla community.
5) p.20: maybe mention Safe Routes to School under the Transportatioll
Sales Tax Expenditure Plan?
6) P 26 C-37: how about calling for bike lanes to be added in the OS
101 corr.-i..dor.?
7) P 3~: How about adding, after "Del Mar Crossing,'!' the following:
"Improve c,r. r.eplace the pedestrian pathway that connects the T'iburon
Bl. c~osswaJ.k servj.ng Stewart Driv~ to the Multi-Use Path."
8) P 36: in the box at the top, I recoTI@end revising the sentence to
read: " ... improvements has occurred, and/or when the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Corrunittee.r.ecomrnends changes in the plan,"
. (
9) p.42: shou].d we.mention that students use buses to ~et to school,
and bicyclists also use buses that have bike racks on the front?
10) p.4S Policy C-17: it might be good to keep the possibility of class
II bike lanes open by Si'l.ying: "Tiburon Bl between Trestle Glen to Mar
West may be widened only to acconunoda-te Class II bike lanes." This
would h,J,ve the added benefit of accommodating emergency vehicles, which
presently have dj.f,Eiculty getting through when Tiburon Bl is crowded.
11) p.46 Policy C-33: Should we ,reconunend the timed pedestrian signals
1
which give pedestrians and otlil2rS a ",countdown" err seconds beL_.L"e a
light change?
12) p. 48 #7: Add to the sentence so it reads "... intersection, and the
crosswalk relocated to a more visible location after construction of a
new connecting pathway l:o the Multi-Use'Path."
13) page A-6: under Bicycle.s and Pedestr.ians: 1t would be good to add
the role of trje BPAC here. See suggestion 4) above.
14) page B-1 (first bullet): does the Town have a copy of the Caltcans
"Project Study Report" for that interchange? I hope it includes bike
lanes OTl the Hwy 131 portion of the interchange.
15) page B-2 T:Lb BI/Stewart.Or: hasn't an application to Cal~rans for a
signal already been made, and rejected?
16) page B-2 Tib Bl/Mar West: how about: "Apply to Caltrans for
installation of a traffic signal and/or pedestrian warning li.ghts, even
if the intersection does not meet the req~lred warrants." (i.e. the
Town would pay for it instead of Caltrans. I think the Stewart Dr
signal was turned down because of sight-distance issues for eastbound
traffic, whereas Mar West doesn't appear to have that problem.)
17) page C-l under TCM #9 Tiburon Action: revise language from
"curr.entl.y has" to "has reaffirmed the importance of" . An item
could be added in the third column saying that the Town is providing
bicycle safety education (column 2) through its support of the Safe
Routes to Schools program, and through efforts of the BPAC.
WHEW!! !
Hope that helps,
R
On May 5, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Kevin Bryant wrote:
> There'll be a Planning Commission meeting on it May 26, followed by a
> report
> to the Council. It would be useful for me to have comments in before
> the PC
> meeting.
2
c__
c.._-
Kevin Bryant
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bruce Powell [bruee@ealou.com]
Friday, August 01. 2003 12:57 AM
Kevin Bryant
RE: roundabout intersections for tiburon
Dea.r Mr. B.r.yant',
After further. thought I've composed Ci letter .which I think expresses
IllY v~ews adequately. Since it includes images, I've posted it on my
web server, so you can view the document at the foJ..lowj,.ng address:
http://www.calou.com/roundabout
I would appreciate it if you could include this as pa.rt of the rE~view
of the C.i.r-culation Element of the Gener.al Plan. It: you need this
document in POF, Word, or another format please let me know. Please
keep me posted On the stat.us, if possible.
many thany.s,
Bruce Powell
IUUlIUdUUUlS IUI IIULlI\.J11
~. -.=>-
Dear Town planners.
I have heard that a traffic signal is being considered for the intersection at Tiburon Blvd, and Mar West. As a free
traveler I have become quite a fan of the so-called "modern roundabout" [not to be confused with "rotary'l inters.
found throughout much of Europe, and also incidentally at Tiburon Blvd. near the ferry terminal. I'm convinced th
such intersections are vastly superior to traffic light intersections, Rather than having to stop at a red light half th,
such intersections merely require motorists to slow down momentarily-not a bad thing for motorists about to ent,
. ,downtown distlict. To quote the U,S. DOT, "The average delay at a roundabout is estimated to be less than half
at a typical signalized intersection"
In addition to reduced delay, it has been shown that such intersections have a significant benefit in traffic safety,
. quote the Calif, DOT. "roundabouts have resulted in an overall reduction in the number and severity of accidents
despite the initial concern that lack of familiarity with this type of intersection would lead to driver confusion"
It has been argued that such roundabouts work best when the traffic on the approaching roads is fairly balanced
however I would point out that, such is not the case at Tiburon Blvd by the ferry terminal. where that intersection
remarkably well, despite the fact that it is also used as a bus turnaround.
The benefits of faster average transit time, greater carrying capacity, increased safety. and superior aesthetics s
be reason enough to consider such an intersection as opposed to yet another dangerous traffic signal.
To the aforementioned advantages, I might add, the roundabout will continue to function during Tiburon's numer
blackouts. since no power is required,
With regard tothe question of physical site feasibility, a comparison of the satellite photos of the existing roundal
on TibulOn Blvd, by the ferry terminal with the site atMar West shows that there is more than ample 100m for a ~
or even' larger roundabout at the intersection at Mar West:
Roundabout on Tiburon Blvd at the ferry terminal
(black circle indicates perimeter of existing roundabout)
The intersection at Tiburon Blvd and Mar We
(black circle indicates size of a similar roundab(
. I would like to request that such an intersection be considered for Tiburon Blvd, and Mar West, as an alternative
traffic signals,
respectfully.
Bruce Powell, TibulOn resident
bruce@calou.com
htt D ://www.ealou.eom/roundabout!
OX/0412003
P,S, I.have collected these publications from the U,S. DOT and Calif. DOT. which pertain to modern roundabol
intersections, for your reference, and they are appended here, '
Excerpt trom the U.S, DOT, "Flexibility in Highway
. httR://www.fhwa.dol.gov/environment/flex/ch08.htm Design"
. httR:llwww.dot.ca.gov/hgiQRRd/dib/dib80.htm
Further information:
I have located the following additional informative links:
CalitomiaDOT Design Bulletin 80
. httR://WWw.citY~Ralo-alto.ca.lIs/embarcadero/fags.html# T oc502739831
The City of Palo Alto has
together an excellent pa,
Questions & Answers rei
to roundabout intersectio
this address.
. httR:1 /www4,nationalacademies.org/trb/onlineRubs,nsf/we b/NC HR P Synth We b
the Transportation Rese,
Board's paper, "Modem
Roundabout Practice if,
United States.
Excerpt from the U.S. Dep-1lJ::tment of Transl!ortation, "Flexibilitv in Higj1way.Design:
In recent years. a new intersection design concept has evolved to provide an alternative to the traditional T. fourl
and multi leg intersections, This design concept is called a roundabout.
Modem roundabouts are increasingly being
recognized as design allernatives to the use of
traditional traffic signals for intersections for
arterials, They improve both safety and efficiency
for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor
vehicles. So far. roundabouts have been buill in
such States as California, Colorado. Maryland,
Nevada. Florida. and Vermont. These roundabouts
are different from rotary or traffic circles that
have been used in the United States for a number of
years to give entering traffic the rightofway and
encourage higher design speeds,
The modern roundabout is designed to slow
entering traffic and allow all the traffic to fiow
through the junction freely and safely. Unlike the
older rotary design, entering vehicles must yield the
rightofway to vehicles already in the circle. A
defiection at the entrance forces vehicles to slow
down, Traffic signals are not used. and pedestrians
cross the streets at marked crosswalks,
The average delay at a roundabout is estimated
to be less than half of that at a typical signalized
intersection. Decreased delay may mean that
fewer lanes are needed, Signalized intersections
otten require multiple approach lanes and multiple
bUD: / /WW\\', ca lOll. com/roundabout!
,\{od",',"u /"olll/(/(lh{ll/(,\; (XIII n~dllce dd<~\' alld iIICl.,~(lSl~ S(!(('.ty.
OS!04!1003
receiving lanes, which leads to a wider road,
Perhaps the greatest advantages of roundabouts
are their urban design and aesthetic aspects,
Roundabouts eliminate the clutter of overhead wires
and signal poles and allow sign age to be reduced,
They can be distinctive entry points into a .
community or mark a special place, The central
island offers an opportunity for a variety of
landscape designs. as well.
http://www.dot.ca.qov/hgIQpJld/dib/dib80.htm
DESIGN INFORMATION BULLETIN NUMBER 80
California Department of Transportation
Design and Local Programs
Office of State Geometric Design Standards
ROUNDABOUTS
Approved By:
ROBERT L. BUCKLEY
Program Manager
Design and Local Programs
September 8. 1998
I. BACKGROUND
c_
All vehicles, inclllclif1g hi9'c1es. are/lirced 10 sloU' dow1I (Jlld p
al1el11iof} when entering a modern rmmdaholll. (Cecil Co.. ..\If)
The modern roundabout is a type of circular intersection that has been successfully implemented in Europe and
Australia over the past few decades. Despite the approximately 35,000 roundabouts in operation around the wor
there are fewer than 50 that exist in the United States, Until recently. roundabouts have been slow to gain suppo
this country, The lack of acceptance can generally be attributed to the negative experience with traffic circles or
rotaries buitt in the earlier half of the twentieth century, Severe safety and operational problems caused these tra
circles to fall out of favor by the 1950's. However, substantial progress has been achieved in the subsequent de,
circular intersections, and a modern roundabout should nof be confused with thefraffic circles of the past
http://www.calau . eomii'oundabout!
08!04/20OJ
I'OUIIUaUOlllS I VI IIlJUIOII
/
L__
The modern roundabout is defined by two basic principles that distinguish it from a nonconforming traffic circle.
1, Roundabouts follow the "yield-at-entry" rule in which approaching vehicles must wait for a gap in the circulatin
before entering the circle. whereas traffic circles require circulating vehicles to grant the right of way to entering
vehicles,
2, Roundabouts involve low speeds for entering and circulating traffic. as govemed by small diameters and delle
entrances, In contrast, traffic circles emphasize high-speed merging and weaving. made possible by larger diarn
and tangential entrances.
In giving priority to entering vehicles. a traffic circle tends to lock up at higher volumes, The operation of a traffic
is further compromised by the high speed environment in which large gaps are required for proper merging, The.
deficiencies have been corrected with the modern roundabout.
The number of roundabouts constructed in the U.S. is relatively small, but those that are currently in
operation have been reported to be performing favorably in tenns of shorter delays, increased capacity,
improved safely, and improved aesthetics. The roundabouts have resulted in an overall reduction in the
number and severity of accidents, despite the initial concern that lack of familiarity with this type of
intersection would lead to driver confusion.
II. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
Neither Callrans nor AASHTO has maintained current guidelines for the design of roundabouts, Until design star
for roundabouts are adopted by Caltrans. all proposals for roundabouts on the State highway system shall be
conceptually approved by the Project Development Coordinator prior to the approval ofthe Project Study Report
other project initiation document.
The conceptual approval will be based on whether the proposal conforms with the general concepts contained ir
Design Information Bulletin, The purpose oUhis document is to provide a basis for evaluating roundabout pro po,
and it is not intended to contain the comprehensive'information needed to complete a design, Proposed roundat
should be discussed with the Project Development Coordinator. Geometric Reviewer and Traffic Liaison Enginel
throughout the conceptual and design stages of the project. .
After a number of roundabouts of variable capacities have been constructed statewide. a study will be conductec
the Office of State Geometric Design Standards to evaluate the effectiveness of the roundabout designs and to [
any information needed to adopt design standards. To assist in this effort. the district should notify the Project
Development Coordinator as soon as any issue is raised regarding the safety and operation of an intersection at
a roundabout has been installed,
III. APPROPRIATE APPLlCA TlONS
Roundabouts may be constructed on the State highway system for the primary purpose of improving safety and
operations at intersections, They should not be considered for reasons of traffic calming or aesthetics. although,
applications may be acceptable on facilities under other jurisdictions, Examples of appropriate uses for roundabc
on State facilities are as follows:
. Improvement of Intersection Capacity
When considering methods to increase the capacity of an intersection. the use of a roundabout may be analyzec
alternative to stop signs or traffic signals. With conventional types of traffic controls. only alternating streams of
vehicles are permitted to proceed through the intersection at one time. causing a loss of capacity to occur when
intersection clears between phases, In contrast. the only restriction on entering a roundabout is the availability 01
in the circulating flow, The slow speeds wilhin the circle allow drivers to safely select a gap that is relatively smal
allowing vehicles to enter simultaneously from mulliple approaches using short headways, a possible advantag.
hUD: 1111'11'11'. ca I Oll. com/rounda bout!
OS/04/200}
IUUIIUaUUUl;) 11..11 111.11..11\.111
/
capacity can be achieved with a roundabout. This advantage becomes more prominent when the volumes of
right turning movements are relatively high,
* Reduction of Queue Storage Requirements
Roundabouts can produce operational improvements in locations where the space available for queuing is limite
Roads are often widened to create storage for vehicles waiting at red lights. but the reduced delays and continue
flows at roundabouts allow the use of fewer lanes between intersections. Possible applications may be found at
existing diamond interchanges, where high left turn volumes can cause signals to fail. By constructing a pair of
roundabouts at the ramp intersections. capacity improvements to the interchange can be accomplished without. t
costly requirement of widening the structure to carry additional lanes over or under the freeway, \
* Accommodation of Unusual Intersection Geometries
Conventional forms oftraffic control are often less efficient at intersections with a difficult skew angle. a significar
offset, an odd number of approaches, or close spacing. Roundabouts may be better suifed for such intersectiom
because they do not require complicated signing or signal phasing. Their ability to accommodate high turn;n!
volumes make them especially effective at 'V" or "T" junctions. Roundabouts may also be useful in elimina
pair of closely spaced intersections by combining them to form a mulli-Iegged roundabout.
* Reduction of Accidents
At some locations. a roundabouts can provide a possible solution for high accident rates by reducing the nurn
conflict points at which the paths of opposing vehicles intersect. For example. over half of the accidents at
conventional intersections occur when a driver either (1) misjudges the distance or speed of approaching vehiclE
while making a.left turn. or (2) causes a right angle collision after violating a red light or stop sign, Such acciden
would be eliminated with a roundabout, where left turns and crossing movements are prohibited, FurthermorE
collisions at roundabouts would involve low speeds and low angles of impact. and therefore. would be less likely
result in serious injuiy,
IV. SITE REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements should be considered when determining whether a proposed site is suitable for a
roundabout:
* Geometric Design
Roundabouts should be considered only in areas that can accommodate an acceptable outside diameter and otl
appropriate geometric design elements (see Section V), To provide adequate sight distance for approaching dri.
perceive the layout of the intersection. the roundabout should be preferably located either on level terrain or at H
bottom of a sag vertical curve. The topography should also allow the circle of the roundabout to be constructed c
flat plateau to provide visibility within the intersection,
* Capacity Limitations
For proposed mundabout sites. an analysis of traffic volumes and turning movements should be conducted to
determine whether the roundabout would carry more capacity than another form of traffic control or operational
improvement (see Section VI), Because roundabouts have only begun to appear in the U:S.. there is a lack of
empirical data regarding the volume at which a roundabout begins to break down, Until further data is available,
roundabouts on the State highway system should be considered only at intersections where volumes generally c
exceed 5000 vehicles per hour. Regardless of whether the proposal involves a new facility or an operational
improvement. the design of a roundabout should be based on estimated traffic 20 years after the completion of
construction,
ill! 0:/ /www.ealou.com/rouhdabout/
O~/04/2(J03
* Adjacent Intersections
Consideration should be given to the interactive effects between a proposed roundabout and the adjacent
intersections, Roundabouts are not suitable in areas with a coordinated traffic signal system, because such syst,
break down when the progression of platoons is disrupted by the unregulated movement of a roundabout. Conv,
a roundabout should not be constructed at a location where the flow of vehicles leaving the intersection would b,
obstructed by queues from downstream traffic controls,
* Salanced Entry Volumes
R'oundabouts may not be effective at intersections where entry flows are unbalanced. When the volume on the n
road is much heavier than that on the minor road. the equal treatment of approaches may cause undue delay to
major road, Also. if the major road carries a heavy stream of through-traffic. the lack of adequate gaps in the dor
flow may prevent the minor flow from entering the roundabout.
* Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic
Additional assessment is warranted prior to constructing roundabouts in areas where pedestrian or bicycle activi
expected, With the absence of conventional crossing controls. many pedestrians do not perceive roundabouts te
safe, Despite this perception. accident records indicate that with the use of proper design elements, a pedestriar
least as safe at a roundabout as at a conventional intersection, However. the safety record tor bicyclists appears
more problematic. Multi-lane roundabouts should not be considered at locations with existing bicycle activity unl,
acceptable alternative can be provided for routing bicycle traffic through the area, The safety of bicyclists begin t
deteriorate as roundabouts increase in size and speed.
V. GEOMETRIC DESIGN ELEMENTS
There is no uniform design guidance in the U.S, for modern roundabouts, However. the Federal Highway
Administration is planning to develop guidelines within the next two years. and information on roundabouts will a
introduced in the next edition of AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The design
currently used in this country are generally based on either, the British or the Auslr~lian guidelines,
The basic principle of roundabout design is to restrict the operating speed within the intersection by deflecting th
paths of entering and circulating vehicles, Safety and capacity benefits can be fully achieved only if vehicles are
physically unable to traverse the roundabout at speeds higher than approximately 40 km/h, The major elements
roundabout are shown in Figure A and are described as follows:
. Inscribed Circle: The diameter of the inscribed circle may range between 15 m and 100 m, A minimum diametE
m is required for roundabouts on the State highway'system. because smaller circles do not adequately accommo
truck movements. However, the safety advantages of a roundabout may begin to diminish when the diameter of
inscribed circle exceeds 75 m,
* Circulatory Roadway: The width of the circulatory roadway depends mainly on the number of entry lanes and II
radius of vehicle paths, The roadway must be at least as wide as the maximum entry width. and lane lines within
circle should not delineated. The pavement may be either crowned or sloped to one side. depending on the nee,
facilitate drainage or minimize adverse crossfalls for vehicle paths.
. Central Island: The central island is usually delineated by a raised curb. and its size is determined by the width
circulatory roadway and the diameter of the inscribed circle.
. Truck Apron: A truck apron may be needed on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel path of oversiz
vehicles. The apron is usually designed as a mountable portion of the central island,
. Splitter Island: This splitter island is placed within the leg of a roundabout to separate entering and exiting traffi.
usually designed with raised curb to deflect entering traffic arid to provide a refuge for pedestrian crossings..
hUn:/ /II'II'\\'. cal ou. com/round" boul/
08/04/2003
C-_
. Bypass Lane: A bypass lane may be warranted for heavy right turn volumes,
. Pedestrian Crossing: The location of pedestrian crossing is generally recommended to be one to three vehicle
lengths behind the yield line, Bringing crossings closer to the circle would reduce roundabout capacity, while pia'
them further away would expose pedestrians to higher speeds,
. Approach Width: This approach width refers to the half of the roadway that is approaching the roundabout.
. Departure Width: This departure width refers to the half of the roadway that is departing the roundabout.
. Entry .Width: The entry width is the perpendicular distance from the right curb line of the entry to the intersectiol
the left edge line and the inscribed circle,
. Exit Width: The exit width is the. perpendicular distance from the right curb line of the exit to the intersection of t
edge line and the inscribed circle.
. Flare: A flare may be used to increase the capacity of a roundabout by providing additional lanes atthe entry,
Because flared entries tend to increase the potential for accidents, they should be used only when required by tr
volumes, ' .
. Entry Angle: To provide the optimum deflection for entering vehicles. the angle of entry should be approximatel
degrees, Smaller angles reduce visibility to the driver's left. while larger 'angles cause excessive braking on entrj
resulting decrease in capacity, .
. Entry Radius: The entry. radius is the minimum radius of curvature measured along the right curb at entry, The
practical entry radius is approximately 20 m, Smaller radii may decrease capacity, while larger radii may caUse
inadequate entry deflection,
. Exit Radius: The exit radius is the minimum radius of curvature measured along the right curb at exit. The desil
exit radius is approximately 40 m,
httn:/ Iwww.calou.com/rolll1da bCll]!/
08/04/200:;
DeparblreWidth
I
/
I
I
I
I
J
r
lrudl Apron
Exit Radius:
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE A
ROUNDABOUT
NO SCALE
AppruadoWldth
VI. CAPACITY ANALYSIS
There are two approaches to calculating the capacity of a roundabout. The British method involves an empirical
formula based on measurements at saturated roundabouts. whereas the Australian method .uses an analysis ba'
gap acceptance, A draft update of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) includes a procedure for determining th,
capacity of single-lane roundabouts using the gap acceptance approach. For analyzing multi-lane roundabouts.
draft HCM suggests the use of software programs, but no specific program is mentioned, It is recognized that thl
advantages to using empirical models to develop relationships between geometric d<csign characteristics and
roundabout performance. However, given the current lack of field data in the United States. the draft HCM
recommends using the analytical approach,
httD:/ /;\'ww, cal (lU, com/round" boul/
08/04/2003
IULlllaaOOLllS TOr j IOLlnlll
..l US"";' U'..L J
Although both approaches are currently acceptable, the fundamental differences between the empirical aod ana'
methods may sometimes produce inconsistent results, The two methods are described as foliows:
. Empirical (British) Method
10 the British method, the capacity formula is based on the relationship between entry capacity and various geon
parameters. For example, the capacity of each approach to a roundabout decreases linearly as the entry angle
increases, Other parameters include entry width, approach width, entry.radius. and inscribed circle diameter. Tw
computer software packages commonly used to calculate capacities. queues, and delays in accordance with the
British formula are ARCADY (Assessment of Roundabout CApacity and DelaY) and RODEl (ROundabout DEU
Statistical tests have been performed to confirm the suitability of the geometric parameters used to predict eapa(
and the output of both computer programs have been verified through direct field observations.
. Analytical (Australian) Method
In the Australian method, the capacity of a roundabout is calculated using a traditional gap acceptance approact:
is similar to the process described in the HCM for analyzing two-way stop-controlied intersections. It is assumed
drivers need a minimum "critical gap" in the circulating fiow before entering the' roundabout. As the available gap
become larger. more than one driver can enter with subsequent headways equal to the "foliow-up time". The car
formula calculates the capacity of each approach as a function of the circulating flow, the critical gap, and the fol
time, SIDRA (Signalized and unsignalized Intersection Design and Research Aid) is a the computer software pal
commonly used for predicting the performance of roundabouts by applying the gap-acceptance methodology.
VII. REFERENCES
A recommended reference for general information on roundabouts is the National Cooperative Highway Reseal(
Program Synthesis 264. "Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States", Additional reference material is av:
through the Geometric Reviewer. and information on ordering the appropriate capacity analysis software can be
. obtained from the Traffic Liaison Engineer.
hup:l /www.caloLl.comlroundabout/
08/04/2003
4. GENERAL PLAN UPUATE: CIRCULATION ELEMENT ISSUES PAPER;
Take Public Comment for a Report to thc Town Council Regarding
Recommendations for Gcneral Plan Goals, Policies and Programs for the
Circulation Element of thc General Plan
Advance Planner Bryant presented the Stafl report and identified the recommended
changes and additions to the Circulation Element Issucs Paper. I-Ie stated that the
suggestions reecived by the public and the Commission will be fe}rwarded to the Town
Council.
Chair Snow opened the item for public comments.
George Landau, Tiburon resident, rceommended that the number of bicyclists on Tiburon
Boulcvard, particularly the section past Trestle Glen Boulevard, be' reduced by erecting
signs that encourage them to use the altcrnate routes,
Commissioner Kunzweiler suggested that bicycle rcntal outfits revise their maps to
eneouragc bicycling along thc multi-use path,
Commissioner Fraser said that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee is making
ongoing efforts to work with CalTrans to install signs that will indicate the various
bicycle routes,
Chair Snow stated that hicyelists arc aware oftheir rights to use roadways and support
thc efforts made to encourage them to take alternate routes.
Jerry Rjesscn, Tiburon resident, refcrenccd the intersection Lcvels of Service (LOS) .
tahles in the lssues Paper and questioned whether certain projects would show significant
impacts on intersection LOS,
Advance Planner Bryant replied that certain criteria must be met for project specific
impacts on levels of service to be considered a significant impact.
Community Developmcnt Director Anderson confirmed that three particular intersections
would drop below the Town's LOS standards and that each dcvelopment projcet is
required to contribute its pro rata share of funding towards making the improvements,
Mr. Riesscn referenced Policy C-1 and askcd that safety be considered on narrow two-
lane streets. He noted that the traf1ie impacts caused by large trucks associated with
home remodels pose safety concerns on those streets.
Mr. Ricssen suggested revising Policy C-7 to read, ",. .or where no other access is
available",
Commissioner rraser agrced with Mr. Riessen's eommcnts regarding Policy C-7 and
made the following recommendations:
TlmJIWN PLANNING c;()MMISSI0N MINums OF MAY 2(;. 211114
MINun:s # H9J
I'a~c 5
~I
Ci
>-.
"':"t
E~-1
-
P1
~- ~
1-1;
f-';
tx1
;;':1
I. Clarify Circulation Goals and provide a method of measuring the goals;
2, Crcate an incentive in Policy C-8 that encourages residents to underground utilities;
3. Specify who is responsible for the preservation of views and how those views are
identified in Policies C-14, C-16, C-21, and C-22;
4, Dcvelop ways to encourage public transportation by making it more desirable and
convenient while preserving the Town's rural nature; he also noted that the
recommended change regarding the bus sheltcrs for reasons of cost and liability are
inconsistent with this goal;
5. Provide clarification on Policy C-29, which opens the possibility of a multi-level
parking structure in the downtown area yet conflicts with the desire to preserve the
Town's character and rural environment; ,
6. Provide clarification regarding whether gated eommunitics are prohibited or
discouraged for single homes,
Commissioner Fraser stated that many policies seem vague and that hc would like to see
more overall clarity.
Commissioner Kunzweiler agreed that more specificity is needed throughout the
document but cautioned that codifying the document would make it inflexiblc.
Advance Planner Bryant clarified the existing lcvel of service for Trestle Glen
Boulevard/Tiburon Boulevard intersection is LOS "C" and that it is projected to worsen
to LOS "E" over time.
Commissioner Kunzweiler referenced Policy C-3 and Policy C-4 and asked what
enforcement is in place that requires a project applicant to pay traffic fees.
Community Development Director Anderson replied that according to current laws, a
project cannot be denicdbased on an inability to produec the total amount offunding
required to build the improvemcnt that would meet the Town's intersection level of
service standards. Developers can only bc required to pay their pro rata share of
contributions toward the traffic improvements. Hc agreed that this wording is unclear
and stated that it has been proposed for deletion. If a project in and of itself would cause
an intersection to fail, it would thcn have to be identified as being a significant impact.
Funds received for traffic mitigation measurcs are retained in a dedicated fund that is
applied to the list of traftie improvcments currently identified in the General Plan.
In response to Commissioner Kunzweiler's request to clarify Policy C-20, Community
Development Director Anderson statcd that the goal of this policy is to minimize the
number of new intersections created on Paradise Drive so that new developments with
multiple homes arc designed to aeecss it from a single intersection.
Commissioner Kunzweiler a~ked if Policy C-25 was designcd to open reserved parking
during evening hours work by working with business owners.
Advance Planner Bryant replied that this program will be further examined in the futurc.
TIRLIR()N I>I:.^NNING COMMISSION MINII'n:s OF MAY 2(" 20U4
MINIJTES # 893
1'8.j:!c6
Commissioner Kunzweilcr refcreneed Policy C-3] and questioncd whethcr a specific
statcmcnt is nccded to address downtown/ferry parking.
In response to a qucstion asked by Commission Kunzweiler rcgarding whether a fornlal
statement should be made rcgarding the use of roundabouts, Advance Planner Bryant
inf{)rmed the Commission ofthc requirements typically needed for considering
roundabouts as an alternative to stoplights, and why they are unlikely to bc met in
Tiburon.
Community Development Dircetor Anderson stated that the fees cited in thc lssues Paper
arl: used to implement policies and programs,
Commissioner Kunzweiler asked whethcr a statement can bc included which indicates
that the Town should work cooperatively with thc County of Marin to lobby for
additional funding for Paradise Drivc,
ln response to a question asked by Mr. Landau regarding fees eollccted to mitigate traffic
problems, Community Development Director Anderson assurcd him that traffic
mitigation fees havc resultcd in many improvements.
Chair Snow madc the following comments:
1. The statement made in Policy C-29 regarding the cxploration of multi-level parking
is very good because it says "explore" instead of committing the Town to a specific
course. of action;
2. Many of the recommendations regarding bicycle changl:s are appropriate;
3, There should be an ongoing rcview ofshutlle feasibility, espedally given the
current bus service situation;
4. That he assumes that CalTrans would have to approve round-abouts on Tiburon
Boulevard;
5, That traffic signal warrants arc not always relatcd to traffic but may related to
injurics or accidents as well;
0, Egress and ingress for a second west-bound lane on Tiburon Boulevard at Trestle
Glen Boulevard will need to be lookcd at very closely;
7, Timed pedestrian signals should be looked at.
Community Development Director Anderson clarified for Chair Snow that the LOS is an
average of the hours that have the highest use. The four consecutive 15 minute segments
that generate the most traffic volume are considered the peak hour. It was notcd that
morning peak hours may coincide with school drop-offs,
Advanec Planner Bryant thanked the Commission for their comments and noted that
those comments will be forward cd to the Town Council.
TIDUROr\ I'I,MINING C()MMISSION MINIJ'n:s OF MA\' 2(" 211U4
MINUTES # 893
, I'll~l' 7
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM L
Town of Tiburon
SUBJECT:
MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :J?i/
MARIN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION: SOUTHERN
MARIN SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCi:Y
(PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT) ~
JUNE 16, 2004 REV. BY: /
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
BACKGROUND
The Marin Local Agency Formation Commission has released its long-awaited draft report,
entitled Southern Marin Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update, hereinafter "Study",
which makes recommendations for amendments to Sphere of Influence (SOl) boundaries for
Southern Marin cities and special districts,
The issue of SOl boundary updates was last discussed by the Town Council in November 2002
and in June 2002, Please refer to attached Exhibits A, Band C for details of those
discussions.
In June 2002. the Town Council preliminarily indicated that it favored no changes being made to
the current SOl boundary, In November 2002, LAFCO staff indicated a strong intention of
removing the Strawberry area south of Tiburon Boulevard from the Town of Tiburon SOl.
ANALYSIS
LAFCO staff's recommendations are very much as anticipated, Pertinent excerpts from the
LAFCO report are attached as Exhibit D. To summarize, two principal changes to the Town of
Tiburon SOl boundaries are being recommended by LAFCO staff:
1) Remove Strawberry (south of Tiburon Boulevard) from the Tiburon SOl for various
reasons set forth in the report,
2) Remove unincorporated portions of Ring Mountain in public ownership (Ring Mountain
Nature Preserve) from the Tiburon SOl because they are undeveloped and will never
require urban services.
Town staff sees the removal of Strawberry south of Tiburon Boulevard from the Town's SOl as
a logical and appropriate step given the recently redefined meaning of SOl as set forth in State
law, Town Staff sees no reasonable likelihood of the Town of Tiburon extending its urban
services to that large unincorporated area in the foreseeable future. The Strawberry area would
continue to be designated as an "area of interest" for the Town of Tiburon, ensuring that the
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
6/16/2004
1
Town of Tiburon
STAFF REPORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
County of Marin would continue to se~d referrals to the Town on land use applications filed in
the Strawberry area.
Staff sees the removal of the Ring Mountain Nature Preserve from the Town SOl as
inconsequential, since no development can occur in this area and no extension of the Town's
urban services to it will ever occur.
The Tiburon SOl would continue to include all of the Paradise Drive unincorporated area as well
as the Eagle Rock/Bay Vista area. For comparison purposes with the color map in the LAFCO
report, the current Tiburon SOl is shown on Exhibit E,
With specific regard to Paradise Drive; the report states, at p, 84:
The [LAFCO] Commission's actions in reviewing the Tiburon SOl should focus on
defining a more probable boundary plan that would remove irregular pockets of '
unincorporated territory along Paradise Drive and aiding the Town and County in
resolving the maintenance cost of Paradise Drive as a barrier to annexation.
LAFCO staff is also recommending that the Town of Tiburon and City of Belvedere pursue
minor amendments to their shared corporate limit lines at the Boardwalk Shopping Center and
on Corinthian Island, In both of these areas, parcels straddle the corporate limit lines of the City
of Belvedere and Town of Tiburon, By proposing the SOl changes (see final sheet of Exhibit D),
LAFCO seeks to encourage the two municipalities to adjust these minor boundary irregularities
through movement of corporate limit lines. Past efforts to adjust the boundaries have not been
successful. largely due to fiscal (sales tax) complications and a general lack of
acknowledgement that a meaningful problem exists with the current boundaries,
On a separate but related topic, Town Staff recommended that the Town's Planning Area
boundary (currently being reviewed in the General Plan Update process) be made coterminous
with the adopted SOl boundary. Staff sees only confusion resulting from a Planning Area
boundary that is not substantially coterminous with the SOl boundary.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the Study at its regular meeting on May 26, 2004, Minutes
of that meeting are attached as Exhibit F. The Commission recommended that the Town
Council do the following:
1) Accept the SOl boundary as set forth in the Study (Strawberry south of Tiburon
Boulevard and Ring Mountain Nature Preserve removed from the Town of Tiburon SOl)
2) Favor the "Recommended" (as opposed to "Alternate") SOl boundary for the Boardwalk
Shopping Center area (see final sheet [color map] in Exhibit D),
3) Make the Town's General Plan Planning Area boundary match the LAFCO SOl for
Tiburon (by removing Strawberry south of Tiburon Boulevard and Ring Mountain Nature
Preserve),
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
6/16/2004
2
STAFF REPORT
Town of Tiburon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council accept the Planning Commission's recommendations
and forward a letter to LAFCO setting forth the Council's position with respect to the SOl
boundary, LAFCO is scheduled to discuss the matter at its meeting on July 8. 2004.
EXHIBITS
A, Minutes of Town Council meeting of November 6. 2002.
B. Minutes of Town Council meeting of June 5. 2002.
C. Staff report to Town Council for meeting of June 5, 2002.
D, Excerpts from Southern Marin SeNice Review and Sphere of Influence Update-Public
Review Draft, dated April 26. 2004.
E. Diagram showing current Town of Tiburon Sphere of Influence boundary.
F, Minutes (draft) of Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2004.
Lafca so; study repart,dac
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
6/16/2004
3
, ..".,.,
\1 -'l
l.~ t,
Mayor Gram said that he agreed that enforcement of such an ordinance should take place on land
and that he was not in favor of banding together (to share costs) with other cities. He said he
would not support spending money on a boat.
Town Attorney Danforth said that the Town's ordinance could be worded to add the "putting in"
and "putting out" of personal watercraft as a violation. She also suggested that language could
be added which would authorize the County to enforce the ban in local waters.
Council directed Staff to return with a proposed ordinance incorporating modifications pertaining
to Tiburon.
-7 COUNCIL. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
./
Couneilmember Fredericks gave a brief summary of the highlights of the recent LAFCO Sphere
of Influence meeting. She said that the suggestion had been made regarding "clear boundaries"
and service areas, an example of the former being the Belvedere/Tiburon border (e.g. the
Boardwalk Market is in Belvedere, while other shops on the Boardwalk are in Tiburon),
She said that the Strawberry area had been discussed, one of the points being that "north"
Strawberry was not part of the area that had always defined itself as a community and therefore it
might make sense to consider annexation of that area, Fredericks also said that there had been
discussion about whether certain areas of Paradise Drive would annex to the Town in order to
avoid development, without Paradise Drive itself. She said it might be defined as an "urban
service area."
Fredericks also said she had attended a Congestion Management Agency meeting in which a
letter from a resident pertaining to inaccurate or inconsistent ferry and feeder bus schedules was
discussed. .
Town Manager Mcintyre confirmed the dates of the remaining Council meetings for 2002. and
the proposed reorganization of the Town Council on December 4, 2002,
WRITTEN COMMUNICA nONS
Town Council Weekly Digest - October 18,2002
Town Council Weekly Digest - October 25, 2002
Town Attorney Danforth asked for authorization to join an amicus brief, Item No.5, in support
of the City of Sacramento, Council unanimously concurred,
Town Council Minutes # 26-2002
November 6, 20()2
Page 6
1:j''<rr..:r7DT''i' 1"T~ LI
~.....L..L.L.Jo..iJ.......... .., .........~
~; T:] ~-:~ '~.;:;I
U M""",~.
.U;
Couneilmember Fredericks concurred, noting that the task force should come back to the Council
which would then decide the next step,
Ms, Cohn asked about representation on the task force by the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation,
Mr. Abbott objected, stating that the Foundation had already endorsed the proposal at Blaekie's
Pasture. Mayor Gram agreed with Mr. Abbott.
Director Echols said Staff would return to Council with a recommendation of members to
comprise the task force,
'j 13. Report by Planning Director - Sphere ofIntluenee and Annexation Issues
(a) Sphere of Intluenee Update by Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO)
(b) P.aradise Drive Annexation: Referrals from Local Agency Formation Commission
Planning Director Anderson said that LAFCO was undertaking a review and update of the
"sphere of intluenee" for public agencies in southern Marin, as noted by Executive Director
Banning in his report. .
Anderson said that LAFCO was interested in any early input from the Town with respect to
where it would prefer to see the SOl line drawn. He noted that the final decision belonged to
LAFCO.
Anderson said that the Town's SOl included portions of the unincorporated areas of Paradise
Drive, Ring Mountain, and North and South Strawberry, He said in its recent review, the
Planning Commission had unanimously recommended that Paradise Drive and Ring Mountain
should remain within the Town's sphere ofintluence, but not necessarily all of Strawberry.
The Planning Director said that Council could agree to I) retain the existing SOl boundaries; 2)
amend the boundaries to match the current corporate limits; 3) choose something in between. He
said one area explored by the Planning Commission was to draw a line along Highway 131 all
the way to Highway lOI which would include "North" Strawberry; or to draw a line at Blaekfield
Drive to include the gas station and (Cove) apartments.
Couneilmember Fredericks asked if there were opportunities for affordable housing anywhere in
the SOl. Anderson noted that two large parcels of undeveloped land north of Strawberry might
be considered for affordable nousing.
In response to a question from Couneilmember Berger, Mayor Gram and Planning Director
Anderson noted that the residents of Strawberry had traditionally been opposed to annexation to
Tiburon,
Town Council Minutes # 13-2002
.June 5. 2002
Page 1/
"oL,B
;{\i'TT_:r7D F:' 11T"
L...............L.~J.J.....l. ..." y ..
Councilmember Thompson said he was reluctant to give up any influence the Town might have
in the Strawberry area. However, he warned that the Town had to restructure itself in ] 992 due
to a budget crisis and that the current [State] budget uncertainty did not lend itself to providing
services to additional areas, He wondered if the intent to annex had to be linked to the SOl.
Mayor Gram said that the Town's General Plan articulated an intent to annex all areas within the
Town's SOl. Planning Director Anderson said that the Town still had the right to create its own
"planning area" but that LAFCO would still be the deciding body with regard to SOL
Couneilmember Thompson suggested that the boundary line could be extended south of Highway
131 to Belvedere Street (in Strawberry) and include the shopping center.
However, he continued to state his opposition to annexation of most of South Strawberry.
Vice Mayor Slavitz said that the only way to annex the shopping center would be to take the
residential portion of Strawberry, .
Mayor Gram asked Planning Commission Chair Stein whether the Planning Commission had
addressed this issue,
Mr. Stein said the Commission came to no clear conclusion, but posited the following: as
citizens of Marin County who supported the concept of "good government," the Strawberry area
should be retained provisionally because it is better for an area to be incorporated rather than not.
However. Stein said the Commission also noted that Strawberry was free to pursue any legal
option to which it was entitled.
Council concurred with this assessment and directed Staff to indicate to LAFCO maintenance of
status quo with regard to the current SOl boundaries; to add a proviso that while the Town is not
interested in annexation of Strawberry' at this time, it does not wish to change the SOl
boundaries; and further note that the Strawberry area is entitled to pursue incorporation or other
options.
Couneilmember Thompson asked whether Paradise Cay would ever be considered for
annexation. Planning Director said that because of the existing sewer connection in that
development, it would never come into the Town through the dual annexation process but only
through popular desire of its residents.
b) Paradise Drive Annexation: Referrals from LAFCO
Planning Director Anderson said that the referrals were of applications from the owners of 15
properties around Teaberry Lime who had indicated their intention to pigb'Ybaek onto a sewer line
currently under construction. This line would link them to Sanitary District No, 5 at the Playa
Verde processing plant,
Town Council Minutes f.!- 13-2002
.June 5, ]00]
Puge 12
Anderson said that through the mechanism of entering into "annexation agreements" with the
Town, the owners of the properties postponed annexation but would be precluded from opposing
any future annexation efforts by the Town. .
Anderson said that theLAFCO Board would consider the 15 applications at its July meeting. He
noted that Town Staff believed annexation of the properties was premature (one reason being that
they were not contiguous with any current Town boundaries), and recommended that the Council
express its intent to approve the annexation agreements. '
In response to questions from Council, Planning Director Anderson said that generally speaking,
if a property was within the Town's SOL it was an easier process to annex it than if the property
was not in the Town's SOL
It would still be possible, but would require additional findings ofLAFCO, according to
Anderson.
Mr. Anderson said that some land use issues would arise as a result of the Teaberry Lane hook-
ups. He said that being free of the limitations of septic systems would likely lead to applications
for larger homes and remodel projects in that area,
Council continued its discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of annexation of areas
within the Town's eurrent'sphere ofiiilluenee. One major concern expressed was the issuc of
later incorporating developments which had been approved done under County rather than Town
regulations.
Couneilmember Be~ger asked whether a case could be made for the annexation of these (15)
properties at this time in order to require design review by the Town.
Mayor Gram said that Town Staff had performed an economic analysis in the recent past and had
concluded that that the 7 cents on the dollar the Town received in property taxes did not cover
extcnding Town services (such as road repairs and other services) to either the Strawberry or
Paradise Drivc areas.
Couneilmember Fredericks a~ked what the County Community Development Agency looked
used as criteria for approval of[land use] applications in that area. Planning Director Anderson
said they used the Paradise Drive Visioning document and the County Code. but were also aware
of portion of the Town's zoning ordinanec pertaining to neighborhood character, ete,
Anderson said the Town eommentcd (in letter form) on all applications in the unincorporated
area, but noted that the Town had historically had better success with its comments on smaller
projects over the largcr ones.
Mayor Gram opened the public hearing.
Town Council Minutes # /3-200]
.June 5. 2002
Page 13
Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, said she had heard that other properties beside the ] 5
mentioned in Anderson's report were hooking up to the same sewer line,
Ms, Greenberg was concerned that development would change the character of the area very
soon and that there was no opportunity for public input through the County's review process,
She said she thought the Town should have more "clout" and suggested that the Town provide
oversight in some fashion other than the Planning Department's comments on project referrals.
In response to a Council comment suggesting that more involvement could be sought through the
vehicle of neighborhood organizations, Ms. Greenberg told Vice Mayor Slavitz that the only
neighborhood group in the area was the Paradise Drive Property Owners' Association, whose
sole purpose was to (seemingly) avoid annexation to the Town,
Bill McLaughlin, DRB member, said he supported the concerns expressed by Council and Ms,
Greenberg. He said the Town needed some "locked in" way to review applications in this area.
He cited examples of applications processed by the County which would never have been
approved by the Town; one application, for instance, was for a massive home that had been
constructed at the end 0 f a Town street, Mar East.
Planning Director Anderson said that Town had no mandatory forum for review and that the
County could not "delegate away" its land use powers in that area, He said that a couple of
previous annexation agreements had called for a "courtesy review" by the DRB but that in no
way bound the owners of the property. He also noted that. in the past, various DRB chairmen
had told him that such reviews were largely a waste of time,
Mayor Gram asked whether the County held public hearings on applications in this area,
Planning Director Anderson said they did not, but rather. the applications were processed at the
staiT level.
Vice Mayor Slavitz noted that the only way to get a hearing by the (County) Planning
Commission was to file an appeal of a staff level approval (for $850),
Council discussed whether it would be worth asking the County to extend its noticing area from
300 to 600 feet, Ms, Greenberg had previously pointed out that due to the rural nature of the
area, 300 foot notices did not reach very many homes. She said that the only way neighbors
found out about projects was when construction started in the area,
Planning Director Anderson said that interested parties could also provide envelopes to the
County, or ask to be put on a mailing list.
Couneilmember Thompson expre.ssed his belief that the area would eventually be annexed into
the Town and that the Town shoul,d "be prepared for what will inevitably happen tomorrow,"
Council directed Stafr to proceed with the [deferred] annexation agreements of 15 propenies off
Teaberry Lane; to ask County to extend their notice radius for Paradise Drive area projects to 600
Town Council Minutes # 13-2()()2
.JlIne 5. 2002
Page /4
feet; and for Staff to continue its practice of providing written comments on applications in the
unincorporated Paradise Drive area.
1 4, Recommendation by. Town Attorney and Town Clerk - Report on Proposed Open
Space Ballot Initiative
To ttorney Danforth said that on May 7, 2002, the Town had received a Notice ofIntent to
CireuIa a Petition from members of the Last Chance Committee. She said that the Committee
sought to lace an initiative before the voters that would tighten restrictions on certain open
spaces Ian within the Town.
Danforth said at petitions were now being circulated and that if the requisite number of
signatures was 0 tained, the Council must either adopt the measure or call a special election.
The Town Attorney Iso said that the Council could ask Staff to prepare a report on the fiscal
(and other) impacts 0 he proposed initiative pursuant to California Elections Code Section
9212,
Mayor Gram suggested that 'orne of the criteria in Section 9212 were not necessary to report on,
such as the initiative's impae on the community's ability to attract and retain business and
employment (subsection 5), an its impact on agricultural lands, etc. (subsection 7).
Vice Mayor Slavitz said he would . e to have a report on the "takings" issue. Town Attorney
said the initiative incorporated a "tal( gs safety valve" but that she would comment further in her
report.
Couneilmember Berger said that "takings' . ssues were usually determined by the courts.
Danforth agreed and said that courts determ e these issues on a"ease by case" basis,
,
would put the burden on developers to provide
a challenge.
Couneilmember Fredericks said that the initiati
data to the Town if they were determined to mo
Couneilmember Berger said he would like to start se ' g "footprints" or some sort of drawing of
the areas protected by the proposed initiative.
Planning Director Anderson said that Staff could create so
all the areas or parcels would require detailed topographical
available,
examples, but that doing maps for
d other information not currently
Mayor Gram said he thought the initiative should be presented to tIi voters on the November
ballot. Couneilmember Thompson commented that the Council also ad the option of adopting
the initiative by ordinance,
Town Council Minutes # 13-2002
.June 5. 2002
Page /5
r". ..
,J '.,.,--;',
'; ~.,; : : ! 1: ;.:;"
t,j 11,: '-, ,l..~
L! "'_,;""""'-'~
r.;'l..,:, .. /'
Vi} 1Ji,' !,[' il
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE 6/5/2002
/Xd)
Date:
App. By:
MAYOR & MEMBERS OFTHE TOWN COUNC!!:, II ..
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE BY MARIN LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
MAY 28, 2002 ~.
ALEX D. MClNTYRE, TOWN MAt"iAGER ~
To:
From:
Subject:
BACKGROUND
The Marin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has begun i'ts review and update of
the "sphere of intluenee" for public agencies in southern Marin County. These reviews arc
mandated by state law.
The government code defines a "sphere ofinf1uence", also known as SOl. as follows:
A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as
determined by the commission [LAFCO].
The current SOl for the Town ofTiburon includes all of Strawberry to U. S. Highway 101, and
all of unincorporated Paradise Drive to the Corte Madera town limit line. The extent of this SOl
will be carefully reviewed' by LAFCO over the course of the next six months or so
LAFCO has requested early input from Tiburon with respect to where it would prefer to see the
SOl line drawn, The fmal decision regarding the SOL is made by LAFCO.
ANAL YSIS
The Planning Commission discussed the SOl issue at its meeting on April 24, 2002. The Staff
Report and adopted minutes are attached as Exhibits A and B.
The Planning Commission noted that annexation issues are so closely interwoven with fiscal and
political issues that it was hesitant to make strong recommendations to the Town Council.
TIBC/ION TOWN CO LWCIL
S'('lfF HE?OIIl
6/5.i]()02
l:.'y,::[nniT' Un r
--..........................;._J-"-...,.....,.:.........~
However, from a strictly land use and planning standpoint, Commissioners were unanimous that
the Paradise Drive unincorporated areas should remain within Tiburon's SOl, whereas all or a
significant portion of Strawberry should be seriously considered for deletion from the Town of
Tiburon SOL Town Staff supports the direction of these comments.
OPTIONS
The Town Council need not choose to comment at this time, Assuming that the Town Council
desires to provide some comment to LAFCO at this time, the options appear to be as follows:
1) Retain the existing SOl boundary
2) Amend the boundary to match the Town's current corporate limits
3) Draw a line somewhere in between Options #1 and 2 above, focusing on a logical
extension of the Tiburon Town limits with respect to provision ofT own services
Staff recommends either option 2 or 3, and will provide maps at the meeting showing possible
SOl boundaries, should the Town Council have specific suggestions at this time
EXHIBITS
A. Planning Commission Staff Report from 4/24/2002 meeting.
B. Planning Commission minutes from 4/24/2002 meeting.
\:,cott\soi rcvic\v 2002tc r~poru1oc
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
6'5/]()O:
iF....' D~'" ~(''"'''''';:;'<I'.''>''.':
I i= .,:' Ii il.~!.,)\'(
r 1"-.. '__ ,~rr~U! b
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO. F - 3
MEETING DATE 4/24/2002
Date:
PLANNING COMMISSION
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE BY MARIN LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO)
APRIL 19,2002
To:
From:
Subject:
BACKGROUND
The Marin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has begun its review and update of
the "sphere of influence" for public agencies in southern Marin County. These reviews are
mandated by state law.
The government code defines a "sphere of influence", also known as SOl, as follows:
A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency. as
determined by the commission [LAFCO).
The SOl review will include all municipalities and special districts such as sanitary districts, fire
districts, water districts. community service districts, recreation districts. and so forth. The list
(see Exhibit 1) does not include school districts. Criteria that LAFCO must consider in the SOl
review are attached as Exhibit 2. Town Staff has provided Marin LAFCO with all materials
requested to begin its work on the SOl update. Marin LAFCO has indicated that it would
appreciate any comments or suggestions the Town may have regarding its SOl boundary. By
happenstance. the LAFCO SOl review coincides with the Town's General Plan update process.
This is fot1uitous in that the Town has traditionally attempted to coordinate its "Planning Area"
boundal)' with LAFCO's SOl boundary
SOl determinations are important to some municipalities in that properties included within thc
SOL arc easier and faster to annex. In addition. the Marin County Community Development
Agency will sometimes give greater weight to comments made on development proposals by a
city, if the proposed development is within the city's SOL
IJ13UJWN I'LiINNING COMMISSION
S1>1/'1' /(E/YJ/IT
.//].//]()()]
ANALYSIS
Current SOl
The Town ofTiburon's current SOl is shown on the attached Exhibit 3. Please note that this
boundary is essentially coterminous with the Tiburon Planning Area boundary Both includc
nearly all unincorporated areas on the Tiburon Peninsula east of U. S. Highway 10 l, including all
of Strawberry, most of Ring Mountain, and all of the Paradise Drive unincorporated areas. A
portion of Ring Mountain facing Corte Madera is located within that municipality's SOl. but will
he adjusted during this review to place it in Tiburon's SOL The area is irrelevant for planning
purposes as Ring Mountain is set aside as permanent open space.
Current General Plan Policies
The] 989 Genera] Plan, in Goal LU-D, calls for annexation of all unincorporated areas with thc
Town ofTiburon SOl. These unincorporated areas are divided into three sub-areas set forth in
Land Use Element Policies LU-5 through LU-7 (see Exhibit 4).
Howevcr, since] 989, there has been a considerable shift in the community and political attitude
toward annexation ofthc entire SOl, mostly with respect to Strawbcrry.
Strawberry/Eagle Rock/Ba)i Vista Sub-area
. Since adoption of the ]989 General Plan, Strawberry has almost completely "built out", under the
guidance of the Strawberry Community Plan, adopted by the Marin County Board of Supervisors
in 1973 and amended in 1982. Due to the .existenee of this adopted Community Plan. the Town
ofTiburon's influence over development in the Strawberry Area has been negligible over the past
30 years An attempt by the Town to annex the Bay 'Vista area in 1987 failed due to lack of
interest by the property owners in that area More recently, the Strawberry community has
considered (and dropped) discussions regarding annexation to Tiburon, as well as pursuit of
incorporation.
Moreover, in recent years the TibuTOn T own Council has indicated that annexation of Strawberry
would fundamentally change the character of the Town ofTiburon, as well as impact its ability to
provide services to its existing citizenry. Westward expansion of the Town ofTiburon has been
effectively halted by the Town Council since the annexation of the Cypress Hollow/Rancho
Drive/Barn Road area in 1998
Marin LAFCO staff is very aware of these trends, and is already considering the deletion of
Strawberry from the Town ofTibuTOn SOl. In such a case, Strawberry would likely end up in no
municipality's SOl, which is eopasetic undcr LAFCO law.
With respeCt to large undeveloped properties, there arc two sizeable parcels remaining in the
TlHUlION I'LANNINC; COMMISSION
S7:1 FF REPORT
4/2 m002
Strawberry area that could yield residential subdivisions (see Exhibit 5), The 17A-acre Pan-
Pacific Ocean property and the 6, 1 -acre Oloumi property are both zoned 0,2 units per acre hy the
County, but considerably higher densities arc possible under the Strawberry Community Plan and
Marin Countywide Plan (up to 10 unit per acre for Oloumi and up to 1 unit per acre or more for
Pan-Pacific).
The Town's options appear to be as follows:
1)' Retain the existing Strawberry area SOl boundary
2) Amend the boundary to match the Town's current corporate limits
3) Draw a line somewhere in between Options #1 and 2 above, focusing on a logical
extension of the Tiburon Town limits with respect to provision of Town services
Staff recommends either option 2 or 3. and will provide maps at the meeting showing possible
SOl boundaries.
Paradise Dnve Suh-Areas
Both of these sub-areas (Paradise Cay & Vicinity and Paradise Drive Area South of Trestle Glen)
are likely to remain within the Tiburon SOl following LAFCO's review Town Staff believes that
this is appropriate, and recommends no changes to the SOl boundary for these areas.
EXHIBITS
I. List of public agencies included in Marin County SOl update
2. Criteria to be considered by LAFCO in SOl boundary update.
3. Map showing Town ofTiburon's current SOl and Planning Area boundary.
4. Annexation goals and policies in current Tiburon General Plan.
5. Map showing Oloumi and Pac-Pacific Oecan properties.
\sclltt\soi rcvicvv'2002,doc
TII3UNON PLoJNNlNG COMMISSiON
SI:<IJ'I'NEI'OIU
4!]4/]O()]
CITIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
INVOLVED IN LAFCO SPHERE OF nIF~UENCS
UPDATE
Cities:
Districts
Beivedere
Corte Madera
Fairfax
Larkspur
Mill VaHey
Novato
Ross
San Anselmo
San Rafael
Sausalito
Tiburon
Marin Co Resource Cons Dist
Bel Marin I~eys CSD
Marin City CSD
Marinwood CSD
Muir Beach CSD
Tamalpais CSD
Bolinas FPD
Southern Marin FPD
Kentfield FPD
Novato FPD
Sleepy Hollow FPD
Stinson Beach FPD
Tiburon FPD
Sanitary Dist #1 (Ross Valley)
Sanitary Dist #5 (Tiburon)
Novato Sanitary District
Almonte San Dist
Alto San Dist
Homestead Valley San Dist
Las Gallinas VaHey San Dist
Richardson Bay San Dist
Sausalito-Marin City San Dist
Bolinas Community PUD
Inverness PUD
North Marin Water Dist
Marin Municipal Water Dist
Stinson Beach Water Dist
Strawberry Ree Dist
Marin Health Care Dist
Tomales Village CSD
I
ET<-D:BIT N(),l_~
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE CRI7ERIA
Government Code Section 56430
(a) In order to prepare and to update spheres of influence in accordance with section
56425, the commission shall conduct a service review of the municipal services
provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission, The
commission shall include in the area designated for service review the county, the
region, the sub-region, or such other geographic area as is appropriate for an analysis of
the service or services to be reviewed, and shall prepare a written statement of its
detcrminations with respect to each of the following:
(1) infrastructure needs or deficiencies;
(2) growth and population projections for the affected area;
(3) financing constraints and opportunities;
(4) cost avoidance opportunities;
(5) opportunities for rate restructuring;
(6) opportunities for shared facilities;
(7) government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of
consolidation or reorganization of servicc providers;
(8) evaluation of management efficiencies; and
(9) local accountability and governance.
(b) In conducting a scrvice review, thc commission shall comprchensively review all of
the agencies that provide the identified service or services within the designated
geographic area.
(c) The commission shall conduct a service review before, or in conjunction with, but no
later than the time it is considering an action to establish a sphere of influence in
accordance with section 56425 or section 56426.5 or to update a sphere of influence
pursuant to section 56425.
(d) Not later than July 1,2001, the Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with
commissions, the California Association of Local Agcncy Formation Commissions, and
other local governments, shall prepare guidelines for the service reviews to be
conducted by commissions pursuant to this section.
'Q,T""T~"ITm -, In
l.:..:_^-....:..'-!..:.~..:..~ l\i..J.
J-
.
~ "
~
~ ~
q;
!il
::l
h ~ 71 ~
." ~ g ~
I~
~
~
~I
~
,...,
'-3
25
[w
I
~
E
~f"'":)
s:
~.,
il
~+
-i:>, f=
i> ti
<) ,
q
~
cJ)
o
H
RACcOON
5TRAIrs
'-s,
l
^
",. T H
u '. )
r1 +, ,
v ~
c J:o I
t ~ t~
: 'Y v
<"', "-
C"::."'.
~-;\
',..
.....-0
~
'c
ANNEXATION GOAL
LU-D. To annex all unincorporated areas within the Tiburon
Planning Area in order to provide more unified and coherent
land use policy implementation. The Town supports LAFCO's
dual annexation policy. The maintenance of acceptable
circulation levels of service in pres~ntly unincorporated
areas is therefore of considerable importance to the Town.
ANNEXATION POLICIES
LU-5. Paradise Drive Area South of Trestle Glen.
Annexation of property in this sub-area should be based on
resident/property owner interest, cost/revenue implications
of specific annexation requests, and provision of Town
services to the property. Annexation of property in this
area to the Town should be required prior to the approval of
specific development projects. Annexation requests may be
processed by LAFCO concurrently with development
applications by the Town. Sewer, water and other essential
infrastructure must be available to serve new development by
the time hew development is constructed.
LU-6. Paradise Cav & vicinitv. Annexation of property in
this sub-area should be based on resident/property owner
interest, cost/revenue implications of specific annexation
requests, and provision of Town services to the property.
Total annexation of this sub-area is not anticipated to
occur prior to 1995. At such time as annexation of property
in this area is imminent, the Town should pre-zone the
property consistent' with this General Plan.
LU-7. Strawberrv/Eaqle Rock/Bav vista. Annexation of
property in this sub-area should be based on
resident/property owner interest, cost/revenue implications
of specific annexation requests, and provision of Town
services to the property. Total annexation of this sub-area
is not anticipated to occur prior to 1995. At such time as
annexation of property in this area is imminent, the Town
should pre-zone the property consistent with this General
Plan.
LU-8. The Town shall coordinate with LAFCO to study the
current sphere of influence (SOl) and possibly modify the
SOl boundary where inconsistencies occur with the Town's
Planning Area boundary.
Adopted 9/28/89
LAND USE ELEMENT
PAGE
5
EY1::rmIT NO. 4-
'-!! ~ l~; .:::\i';\'~
~ ~\ i g'
2..[1/(;;[1 j~.:::"h!i
~~'j "'--"
~~~.,l .
'~-' ,.... ~:-;-' r.....- 'lll'- 'JIil i ~,':" ~:;... < ....".:'''''@i~r
%, '.W!:,\";L",., "'~'\\'lli;f[,i,~\%\f;l1~ M~'." \:f~;(~" ~ ~''<''~'~ O>~.0:fi~l"'L.'
~'~'..'_ ";~~.:: , Yf~ .\.'~..,:.'.'-:.jo'-r' '1'~EJEJi r;.. 1~~..;,1:...~, ~jjH.); '<0 ~"'""'\'<
I"<;~ ~' ~"~'J~., 'tii!?b..,~.;y.".rs'''' ~7 .1')1;,,~ ,;,0:. 'lZ":,J\,,, ,~, <,... ", ,}'I.h. i{.~,;t,:,.~c.;'"
~."~;"1 'ii'" ':') ".; :::.'"~,!!!_,,.w A:'."o;f ,.,.~,'I1i:.~~~" ,::; ";:?,(,~,,,,,p,
:;i2; i/-'.' &.r. ":z ,~!,;.Li'J'tJ..,".(' ~ ~ li.j:3}:~/'IJi. IV .L~ l.~i'~7JI.';;:" "J, ,.,"';'" .:.<'1- 'c,';'"
"l .', "" ,. '~', ((@iffi)!a,'!.\\,E<'",,,,,,,, JiJ.i" ..'. ....0:"'" ,'"
<<.: ~ :::. '~~" ttl"'l,;;%~'!~';iJ!;;:;''':" l1'iJ:F;~"~,"i:i:r,,i;'~;;;:,';j'~;:'";'>if'
-' :."_ .' t:;.. ~ ~$r;f;{W~:l.~iit~~ ..~. .. ' ~:, :;-:.l:.."<'.:. ". '...~::.-5~~~.~l~ii:.,...~~~,
:-~Et!~ tJ=1, .' { , ~1'i'\rloi .~':!- ........1 '~lfl!~ '$~r';f, f::<~'r;':!-'i'<-)!f1.'i..,"'"
~11TR .1 ~ ~~i~i' ~[;,;,. ".7 ,. ',.~' "'f l.:;'R:;t~:'j"'\,?'r.
(,wcli.: '" "'" -~" '.' G~')o'1f' 0-... J'''~''" ,'. ,~"",,:-"'~:~i{ ,
~~,,-:5 B;'.1 ),,~ .: r.;.--.. /!J.,=U2.f ,......: "V ~ ..:=';";.:&,;';'
,~, ",I ~,ar:.:,:i' "-:'-l.!::~ .)' ,. Ei.,':~ .-,,0)./ i':)(~ ~t:;)...-.',<...,.~ .w,
\,; ~'i2 ~~ ":~:::?f;;;'I"'" ~,t;, (l' ..&:'~. '~:.. (- ~. ....j..'/:i,;"Y- 0; !1iM~:1~ ~~
:"':_"~'::'?'~' ~'''<W':~:~' ~j ; M~'::;' ;;;'",",","'~; ?~A~,fgFflf
"<' "'WA - ;,:,., ,~y cC<... &Jyt:l\!:;\,,: , "':',",l;i-,)"" 't! ; C;,.,'
. :~~.,!,~ ~~I;i:~;'" ", :. /~~ ;(,~;:,;: ~~;j\ . ir,-'Z: ..~.~I g. ,:l'"
~ '" rfW" ,,"'" "..."",!1!.v:-,dDt,, ,.,. ,.,.",,,,.,.,>', "f.'
;~:~':,:r'? d <<t.. .~,'~~~\ ~.'f.Z;~-~::..:~~t:j~f";,:,,;0N~~~i!i;;'
~fI ~.- " ?:~_. 'fit};1. )":;".1." -::.,. .;i..1:}....".,l; .t.\i~~;'--;:;1:""
~ /\9' 4: ~~~.- ~_;~"~' ,qt ~:Yj:,~.~~~~~li~fk~~~.t'-1:~~l~ ' '~i>'~~~T"
;':;i"',f:>~' A'~ .","'.... '""}:'fri1Jl'j).,,' ,",,"". ,;;",:;(:;";<:"~,;""".,,,,~;,,"8',",,, "",,,.,",)',"
;WiJ,~ ilf I~~~ ~~"::~,"i~'fl~%!.'~~tl,i~~~~~'i~~;'
" ,
!1.. ~;;. .:'. -r, ..,_,':?;~r~~:?0~--:" , .
.' ~ """":/?'
'~ ~~..
~'! .;;; .r:..~ :-\ ~ x~. .""",.~f,._.."p,<... ,..". , .
''''-'''''~''':''".'',''''-'':"' ~ ~ ,/ '\ ))7) v_ /. .:','>i}2 "Y~C:~,'8'2;'.~:'.!.:,''ir,!,'.'':':''''': , ' .'
~; ".." t~ .} '-"""-J,f;." ,-",...!"I-,.:r:::r."~?-A''-''__ "-" t; _,_,;~~,:;,--,,":{,;,+_3i',:
,~.,.,~ ..) ~ . ~ t--....... ';:~~~~1-~;;a~~5g'~~":<;~~~~4t:\~< -;,'. >,.
?Jffi:' ~: .....-/\V.~ f ':'i,o;li;"'!&""~"'~"-"'''W'''' ,.,",,.,,1;:,...,'.1.
~: ~;~:;,
ij~ "4l?(> \-
?AI
& ~ :' tl!li; '.~, :'il? ';;' ~:K4
I f2orE:"~~'- ';,': 'f':l;~ '''':l~'\--"", \~ ,,,,.,~..._.f, ....'."r"...'(...,<,.",:
..,- ~- - -', t,_:~ 1 -;;-2~:~~;;::--'~t;:5~::~:~.5':~"~,,;',;/;:,;',r;.,:,'/")''.~:~j,
~ ~ ^. ,j : '" ;' , : , '" :.: ~ \.- J .J ( . i ~""'?.&"'-=';"t;'\~;"';'10~1[,-;:~,.~,~"
I r ' ~ ~^ ,;''''~~:::ff:V;;'\j:?'Y.~/-!;t:l~:'~- r _.;:~.:/.r;S:~~-:"i"):"
_'~::;'i:iJ, !ft.:, ..c !II?' ~ ;'.;.:. ,:" . \ '1 \. ~ '>.i:~c:4~:"""'1~1;?:..;:');:f:~"!.1~;;fi?{;PES
~~!/!"'~:i Ei2: ' . . ,........... 'Il,,~f'::;::::'''''J'''''!''c';::
",~:-,,~::q,:;:;, ~.. "~flfl
:~ "' ,'. .'." ',')j \;, :;:~: ~ )\; NI'"- ,'c...."""",-
~i~.i. '/i',;"
, ,;:,r.:-r:_
-1i;~i ,.,'""" ,.
,,c,,,', '::'
'il;,,':
'~""I;b"G8~~1' ;~.l.
. 'x .-' \ r~ ~ A'!!i'-?t;,., "r:;;;i"li;i.,}",!,c""','.\1,,~,,,""""";-:::;~"'"
^""'\" --I \ Ir ....I..r.'......v~' '''''-''''-''-'''-'-/~'''';r.''-'''~''''''''''<''~.''';''''I..'.;JV''-''
^ J\ "1\ ::~.<> ,~ ' .Ji~~:;:;'~" I;;!!!~J'~!~
t.....'\:: ~;;e,,"""""~ "2'\("~"""r"'-J'P""'b"-''''''
'1{,,:' /; l&iSi;:j'J{'{'.(~" - ';f:i2i!{"{r~Z?~~,~i!J!!";~{!0:&g;~.
'.,.~.
6~
'I
~"
::;...--
.,~,
"
i!;\l.;:
,,:,. ~
.,,~
~
EYBIBIT NO -
-''-
SOUTHERN MARIN SERVICE REVIEW AND
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFI'
Prepared by:
Peter V. Banning, Executive Officer
Marin Local Agency Formation Commission
165 North Redwood Drive, Suite 160
San Rafael, California 94903
http://lafco.marin.org
April 26, 2004
-';-~--"-'--.--,." " T ~ D
:"'~.4t': :-l':".~~.' 1. ; '''. ':..,' ~ ~ ':"-
Sou/Item Marin Service Review &
Spltere of Influence Update
79 _
Public Review Draft
April 26, 2004
B. Town of Tiburon
1. Existing Sphere of Influence
The sphere of influence of the Town of Tiburon includes unincorporated territory
along Paradise Drive, Ring Mountain, Eagle Rock and Strawberry areas west to
Highway 101. The Town's SOl encompasses all of the Tiburon and Strawberry
peninsulas as shown on Map 1,
2. Service Relationships
The Town of Tiburon provides general administration, police, community
development, solid waste disposal and parks and recreation, and library services
(with the City of Belvedere) to a slowly expanding population,
The sources of municipal services in the Town of Tiburon and areas within its sphere
of influence are shown in Table 18. The Town of Tiburon has developed mutually
advantageous service relationships with the City of Belvedere, including JP As for
library and recreation services. The Town does not control fire protection or sewer
services that are provided by special districts to the Town and adjacent
unincorporated areas.
Table 18
Sources of Service: Tiburon Sphere of Influence
Incorporated
Service Town of Tiburon Paradise Dr. West Tiburon Strawberry
Police Town County County County
FirejEmer. Medical TFPD & SMFPD TFPD SMFPD SMFPD
Water MMWD MMWD MMWD MMWD
Sewer TSD & RBSD TSD & CMSD RBSD RBSD
Solid Waste Town (MVR) County County SRD (MVR)
Corom, Development Town County County County /SDRB
Street Maintenance Town County County County
Parks & Recreation Town UPA County County SRD
w/Belv)
Library City UP A County County County
w /Tiburon)
Areas in City Sphere of Influence
Southern Man'lI Service Review [1'
Sphere of Influence Update
80
Public Review Draft
April 26. 2004
3. Demand for Services
Existing and projected population for the Town of Tiburon and unincorporated areas
within the Town's sphere of influence are shown in Table 19,
Table 19
Estimated Population & Development Potential, Town of Tiburon
%
Potential
Pop.
Increase
3,90%
14,71%
8,37%
53.56%
Tiburon
Incorporated Area
Paradise Drive
West Tiburon
Strawberry
land
Area
(acres )
2,848
846
558
1,437
3,961 147
400 146
325 9
2,691 170
7,377 472
15,906
Existing Potential
Units New Units
Estimated
Max. Pop.
9,004
1,325
754
4,823
Population
2000
8,666
989
733
4,432
Total SOl 5,689
14;820
76,65%
The development potential remaining within Tiburon's currently incorporated area is
estimated at approximately 147 units, including 86 units on vacant parcels, 45 units
from new subdivisions and an estimated potential for 16 second units, Approval and
construction of new housing units has averaged 31 units per year since 1990.
Even though the unincorporated areas in the existing Tiburon sphere of influence
contain a significant amount of undeveloped land, current estimates of development
potential are relatively low as shown in Table 19. The Paradise Drive and Strawberry
areas represent significant service impacts if annexed to Tiburon primarily due to
demand for service from existing population and facilities.
The unincorporated portions of Paradise Drive receive their urban services from a
variety of sources, The County provides general administration, sheriff, community
development, road maintenance and parks and recreation services to the
unincorporated area, While much of the area is still on individual septic systems, the
area north of Trestle Glen receives sewer service from Sanitary District #2 and
Sanitary District #5 provides service to pockets of unincorporated territory along
Paradise Drive as shown on Map 2 through a "pocket" treatment plant at Paradise
Cove, The Seafirth area provides its own sewer system owned and operated by a
private homeowners association, Facilities for extension of sewer service to the
balance of the area are currently in planning stages, Fire protection services are
provided by the Tiburon Fire Protection District.
Southern Marin Service Review &
Sphere of (nfluence Update
81
Public Review Dmfl
April 26, 2004
The development potential remaining in the Paradise Drive unincorporated area is
approximately 146 units, Remaining raw land in the area will be developed at very
low densities due to site constraints and planning policies of both the Town and the
County .
The Strawberry area receives police, community development, and road maintenance
services from the County and a number of service districts including Richardson Bay
Sanitary District, Southern Marin Fire and the Strawberry Recreation District. The
development potential remaining in Strawberry is approximately 221 units,
Redevelopment of the Strawberry Town and Country Shopping Centcr increasing its
commercial area approximately 20% from 140,000 to 170,000 squarc feet is in
preliminary planning stages, New demand for services does not pose challenges to
existing service providers in the area, but anncxation of such a significant area and
population to the Town of Tiburon would deeply impact the scale and organization
of existing Town services. This potential is indicated by thc 54 % increase in the
Town's population that would result from annexation of the area as shown in
Table 19,
4. Ability to Extend Services
The Town's ability to cxtend its services to outlying areas of its existing sphere of
influence may be questioned in two respects:
,
o The Paradise Drive roadway is very costly to maintain. Theroad lies in a
narrow right-of-way on steep topography and was not built to a modern
engineering standard. It is susceptible to slides and other costly repairs. The
County Department of Public Works annually surveys road condition in
unincorporated territory. Paradise Drive's current condition index is 42 out of
a maximum of 100, indicating a need for chip-sealing and other major
maintenance tasks. Sealing on 2. five to ten year cycle prevents further
deterioration and emergency repairs, However, County DPW staff advises
that cyclical chip-sealing is not being undertaken for any of thc County's road
system due to reduced Statc gas tax revenue allocations, The allocations have
been reduced approximately 50% for both cities and counties by the State
Legislature and used for other budgetary priorities. In the absence of
sufficient revenue, minor annual maintenance activity (including striping,
signage, vegetation control and drain clearance) is performed, but chip-sealing
and other significant preventative maintenance projects have not been a part of
the County's road maintenance program for several years,
~
I
(
I
I
I
The County's accumulated backlog of needed maintenance procedures,
including chip-sealing of Paradise Drive, is calculated approximately
I
Southern Marin Seroicc r<cview [.,.
Sphere of Influence Update
82
Public Review Draji
April 26, 2004
$100 million for unincorporated areas only, Cities and counties may
appropriate additional funds for road maintenance from general sources of
revenue, but rarely do so due to service demands in other program areas
(e,g., public safety), Unless and until the State legislature restores gas tax
revenues to at least their former levels, deterioration of local TOad facilities in .
Marin County can be expected to accelerate, Recently enacted road impact
fees levied on new development by somc local jurisdictions (including the
County and the Town of Tiburon) will not be sufficient to alter this trend,
In the past, annexations to the Town of Tiburon in the Paradise Drive area
have excluded the road right-of-way, LAFCO policy; however, calls for the
inclusion of the full width of the right-of-way with the annexation of parcels
annexing to cities, Routine annual maintenance costs, cyclical preventative
maintenance procedures and the risk of ground failure and emergency rcpair
excced the Town's ability to support this service givcn revenues generated by
the low density residential uses characteristic of the area. Thc Town and the
County have begun to discuss maintcnance of Paradise Drive as a shared
problem that impcdes annexation, but no solution has been identified. Policies
of the Town of Tiburon, LAFCO and the County all encourage annexation and
the extension of thc Town's land usc planning authority over new
development in the area, Neither the Town nor owners of developing land
can bear the costs of service,
o Strawberry (population approximately 4,250) is geographically distinct from
the Town and the Tiburon Peninsula as a whole. Strawberry residents are
provided a high level of services by the County (e.g" Strawberry Design
Review Board) and the independent Strawberry Recreation District. The
Town's park and recreation services do not provide the depth and range of
services provided by the District. If the Strawberry area were to annex to the
Town of Tiburon; the Town would face two general service issues: the impact
of a large new population (54% increase) on the Town's existing services and
disposition of the activities of the Strawberry Recreation District,
SRD would logically be dissolved and its functions undertaken by the Town's
Department of Parks and Recreation, However, the differences in programs
and services between the Town and the District may indicate that SRD would
be more effectively operated as a subsidiary district of the Town, That is, SRD
would be preserved as a separate entity within the Town, but would be
governed by the Town Council rather than by an independent governing
board, Existing differcnces in recreational service levels could be separately
maintained and financed,
Southem Marin Service Review &
Sphere of Influence Update
83
Public Review Draft
April 26, 2004
5. Applicable General Plan Provisions
The Town's General Plan contains several policies directed at annexation of the
Paradise Drive area and Strawberry/Eagle Rock/ Bay Vista based on a number of
factors, including: "resident-property owner interest, cost/revenue implications of
specific annexation requests and provision of Town services to the property" (LU-5,
LU-6, LU-7). In addition, General Plan policy LU-8 calls for coordination with
LAFCO to study the current sphere of influence and possibly modify the sphere of
influence boundary where inconsistencies occur with the Town's planning area
boundary. The Town's policies support retention ofthe Strawberry area in the
Tiburon sphere of influence.
Emerging issues in Tiburon are similar to other cities in Southern Marin and include
increasing pressure by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development to provide new affordable housing for the local workforce, Since there
is limited land for the development of new housing, Tiburon like other southern
Marin communities, is proposing more aggressive policies for the creation of second
units to meet housing demand, Other ongoing aild emerging issues include the
increasingly high price of scarce vacant land, larger home sizes and limited
transportation choices, which in turn fuels the "no_growth" sentiment in the County.
Planning policies of the Town are consistent with those of the Countywide Plan
including provisions for preservation of openspace. The urban service area
designated for Tiburon in the Public Review Draft Marin Countywide Plan update
(February 2004) is inconsistent with the Town's existing sphere of influence.
6. Service and Organizational Alternatives
o Status Quo: No change to the existing sphere of influence
o Annexations within the existing sphere of influence including annexations of
contiguous territory in Paradise Drive, West Tiburon and Strawberry areas,
o Annexations and detachments to follow parcel boundaries between Tiburon
and Belvedere on Corinthian Island and Boardwalk Shopping Center. (See
Map 7: Recommended Sphere of Influence, City of Belvedere.)
o Exclusion of territory from Tiburon sphere of influence: The Strawberry area
might be considered for exclusion from the Tiburon sphere of influence due to
its geographic differences from the Town and impacts on municipal services,
(See Table 20.) Annexation of the Paradise Drive area would also create high
service costs, Exclusion of the Paradise Drive area from the Town's sphere of
influence based on the Town's inability to fund maintenance of Paradise Drive
Southenl Marin Service Review &
Sphere of Influence Update
84
Public Review Draj!
April 26, 2004
influence based on the Town's inability to fund maintenance of Paradise Drive
is not considered an organizational alternative due to the existing Town
boundary that entirely surrounds the unincorporated area.
o Establishment of Subsidiary Districts: Both the Tiburon Fire Protection
District and the Sanitary District #5 (Tiburon) could be established as
subsidiary districts of the Town of Tiburon, A subsidiary district would
remain as a separate entity (with its own boundary and budget), but would be
governed by the Town Council rather than an independent governing board,
Establishing subsidiary districts requires that 70% of the district's land and
assessed value lie within the city's incorporated territory, Both Tiburon Fire
Protection District and Sanitary District #5 currently meet the 70% criteria.
The advantages of consolidation of special districts with cities are compared to
those of consolidation of special districts with other special districts in
Chapter 2.
7. Recommended Sphere of Influence
Staff believes that the currently adopted sphere of influence of the Town of Tiburon is
not consistent with the revised definition of sphere of influence in the Cortese-Knox-
Hertzberg Act because much of the unincorporated area within the sphere is unlikely
to be annexed to the Town in the foreseeable future.
The Commission's actions in reviewing the Tiburon SOl should focus on dcfining a
more probable boundary plan that would remove irregular pockets of
unincorporated territory along Paradise Drive and aiding the Town and the County
in resolving the maintenance cost of Paradise Drive as a barrier to annexation.
The Strawberry area may be distinguished from other unincorporated areas in the
Town's sphere of influence in a number of ways as Summarized in Table 20.
Strawberry Peninsula is a landform distinct from the Tiburon Peninsula, not
presently contiguous to the Town boundaries, Strawberry has its own highway
access, retail and service center, Strawberry receives enhanced local services from thc
Strawberry Design Review Board and Strawberry Recreation District. Because
gradual annexation of the Strawberry Peninsula is unlikely, the Town of Tiburon
would expect significant service impacts from a single annexation that increased
population by 54%,
/'
Staff recommends the following amendments to the sphere of influence of the Town
of Tiburon as shown on Map 8: Recommeiuied Sphere of Influence, Town of Tiburon:
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
.
.
I
.
Southern Man'n Sen;ice Review &
Sphere of Influence Update
85
Public RL7Jiew Draft
April 26, 2004
o Unincorporated portions of Ring Mountain in public ownership should be
removed from the Town's SOl as they will remain undeveloped and will not
require urban services,
o Strawberry should be removed form the Town's sphere of influence,
If these actions are taken, the Commission should also direct communications with
the County Community Development Agency encouraging amendments to the
Countywide General Plan Community Facilities Element deleting Strawberry from
the Tiburon Urban Service Area.
Further amendments to the Strawberry Community Plan may also be necessary to
reflect removal of Strawberry from the Tiburon sphere of influence, An "area of
interest" should be maintained to enhance policy coordination between Tiburon and
the County in the Strawberry area, Defining such an area in the Countywide General
Plan and any affected community plans would maintain the County's recognition of
development impacts in the Strawberry unincorporated area on the Town, The
designation would further continue formal consultations between the County and the
Town on applications for rezonings or general plan amendment in the
unincorporated area in the Town's old sphere of influence area,
The Town's SOl should continue to include West Tiburon/Eagle Rock and
unincorporated portions of Paradise Drive, Despite obstacles to annexation of the
Paradise Drive area, unincorporated portions of Paradise Drive should remain in the
Town's SOl because it is completely surrounded by the Town's very irregular
boundary between the ridge and the shoreline. In so doing, the Commission would
plan to maintain the Tiburon Peninsula as a geographic whole under the jurisdiction
of the Town, West Tiburon/Eagle Rock should remain in the Town's SOl because is
in closer proximity to the Town and provides a key access into the Town at the
Tiburon Boulevard interchange of Highway 101. Planned upgrades to the
interchange will be of crucial interest to the Town.
I
~
~ '" "0
w >
.... .... ii5
'" '"
"0 '"0 t::
t:: 2 0
;:l ....
t> 0 '" ;:l
..0 .... ..0
.... 0
w .c' 0.. !'! f::
.L '0 .... ;:l
> 0 <n :-:,
.. .2 u .~ '"
'" j <:0
....
- <n :=; W t::
[J) ;:l 0.. 0
0 .r: 2 <n
;:l 01:J "0
,~ ;:l '" ....
.... '"
c: 0 '" ~
.... 0.. U
0 ~
u i::: w C2
[J)
b
w '"
u "0 "0
t:: t:: 2
w t:: ;:l
;:l 0 0 '"
..0 ....
1i .... 0 '"
;:l .c' 0.. '3
.L ....
..... .~ '0 0 <n
.... f-< 0 u .~
0 - - .~
w <n <n W
.... W ;:l ;:l 0..
w ~ 0 t::
~ 6b .r:
~ 01:J 0
0.. ;:l ~
[J) 'l:) 0
t:: .... '"
t:: 0 ~ w 0
0 u i::: .... u
0 '"
"l ....
;:l
w .L
::ti f,:: ~
'" ..0
f-< t:: "0
~ .w
<r; "0
'" ..; t::
w Q ;:l
~ 0 1] '"
w .... w '3
....
.... <n ;:l w <n
0 .~ <n .... .~
"0 .lj C t)
t:: '" 0
0 .... <n '" w
<n '" ;:l"O '0 0..
.~ Il., o 3 .r: t:: w
0 ,5
0.. 5b 0 01:J ~ OJ.
:C..o ::i
E 1:;" 2 01:J
0 3.~ ~ 0 "0
U u i2
86
w .lj
01:J -t::
'" <n
=.:J itEi w
> ~'" "" 01:J
Cl "-' ,"" ~ "" '"
~ [J) u 0 U) =.:J
[J) oi .2 (; >
t:: <n "',
0 ;:l .... ~ t:
'" .9
<n w "'l w
- .... .5 - ..0
u ~ '" "0 :: <:0
'" w w
0.. <n .... X '" C<:
C) <n
E 6 u ~ b Cl
C) w
- .... [J) Ul
w <ii
<n
;:l '0
.~ ....
w '" w
01:J'~ ~
@ ~ w
01:J
'5~"O "" 0 .l:i
..... .~ 00 u t::
- 2 011 .lj 0
,::; -
.l:i 5 ~ ~ <ii '"
~ 'l:) - '0
"'w"O t:: 0 ....
~ rt: U ._ W - W
:;. "0 . ~ <:0
.. @ w
t; w t:: 'in >' ~
.s w 1i 0 w .. 0 Cl
t.i:wZ ~ :r: U CTl
c
0
'in
c
w
. -
0 x
w
'in oi
c U o~
w C
"0 '" If)
~ t:: -
- t:: w
~
.l:i w c .5 <ii
t:: Ei .15 '" .... 'l:)
w o..u Ei w t::
Ei o .~ :: w
w QJ"'O"tj "0 w w
.... >-.~ rt:l w 'in t:: t::
U Q) ..... 0 (J') w 0 0
.s Cl ,;:! C<: 'Q C<: Z Z
Ei <n
0 .... >, <n
- -2 w . .w
.9-< flj ;:l Ei '",
"0 <n ::J
.r: w @ ., ., 0
~.:;: - - t:: "0 <n
..J v w 0 w .,
<II .... t:: - C .", "0
0':'0. .c' ~ 0.. .2 0 ;:l "0 '" > ....
.... :::: 1lI c Ei <n 'l:) <: w ..J '"
0 - w w U <II > .... 0
- '" <II ;:l .... - c ;:l .E '0) "0 w <:0
v OJ .... .~ w 0 <n '3 0 w Cj)
0 ::::; w <n co ~
<II Q::; v '.!:l 0.. .~ x 01:J
"" e- - - <n 3 w ~ t::
C Cl .~ <II 01:J '" 0 C<:
... 0 x ~ Il., ,;:l 'E
0 w '~ Ei <r;
.~ u U .... w ~ 0 w ........ 0..
<n t:: 0 <r; [J) - Ei co <ii 0.. w
>-,..fiIoooo{. b c .... .lj () 'S: '.0 0 >
0 0
..r: '" 0 - '" 0 .... t:: .r:
"" ";l <n ~ '" "0 5: w "0 U OJ OJ <fl C)
<n .... OJ U OJ Cj) "0 ';;;
:; OJ <II 01:J '" 'S: "0 o "V; <ii
U 0.. OJ U U
0 U 0 '" .... .... "0
<( U OJ ~ OJ W 0 0
<:0 U'J U'J <( U'J ..,.. U C<: -l ..J II
~
I
I
Q)
e U
'c ai'lOt
<ll 0
""~o
""eN
E::: 5-
Q) 0 Q)
.:; Q.l ':;
::J Q5 <D
o..c::O::
(fJo.
(fJ
e
>..2
" <n
C:.!Q
~E
<eE
-0
1:5U
0<::
...Jo
c:~
'- '"
ro E
::;0
LL
I
I
I
I
I
r==
I
I
I
ai
'CUt:
.. c: 0
w CIl ...
'C::l::l
C:-..c
COCll'E:j::
~E::....
:iE~OO
U E ~
CIl CIl 0
0:: -a I-
en
0 is is
Ul <n Ul 0
~ ~ 0 <n
w '" c
is " is ~ is "ii e
w <n . is "
<n .? <n ~ .c
~ w ~ ';j g . <n ;::
<Il '" Ul c
w ~ g c w ~ " "ii ." e ."
0; '" 0 " " w . . . "
." "ii ~ 5 . w " ~ " " .-g .
> "
. > .c 0; c c . c .c ."
> " ;:: <Il w ~ w Ul . ;:: . c
0; ';j . E E E E "
<Il Ul '0 '" '" E '" E '" E 0
E .5 :S .S <Il
'0 '0 '0 .5 0 0 ;; 0
c ;; 0 ;; 0 .. 0 0 .."
~ ~ 0 . 'x .
~ "" 'x w 'x w , iJ
", " ~ c: UJ c: UJ c:
() iJ () UJ c: UJ
<: DODD r'0:,'~r;1 I
.. 1,!11:1 0
Cl i
j ilctJ ,If,
~.
..d___'."_
~~.~~~~
::::.;:=::;;::::::':"'~::;~"----='~;sc:=~....
l ;;
, ;;;
-
..
""
0:;
"'
"
"'t
,
'~,-:;:",
I
'->'----.,
\, /
, /"
~J
'I' 'u
~ t
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
& 0 2
.. 1ii ~
G ~
~ ~ 50
~ ~ ~~ .--7' III
~ 0 "',5 =-............ c:i
~ ~ g*
9 II:: ~~
. ~~ 12 ~
~~ G ~
""~~ ~ ,Ji
~i'::?: oi:: ~'!!
~z~ "i:i ~~
!8~~g ~~
.
~
o
--.:,:.-
-'.--../
./
/
Ii
"
"
i/
(;
II
\
\)
)
I
I
j
I
(~'~./'
',/
/\ _////-'/1
c
;~
Southcm Mariti Scroicc Rt'1Ji!:W (",
Sphere of lnflucnce Update
77
Public ReviL'1.o Dralt
April 26. 2004
4. Ability to Extend Services
Service providers should be able to continue to extend services to existing population
at existing levels of service, The City's ability to provide services would be
strengthened if it were anne~ed to both Sanitary District #5 (Tiburon) and Tiburon
Fire Protection District.
5. Applicable General Plan Provisions
Belvedere is essentially built out and its sphere of influence is mostly coterminous
with the City's boundary except for a small area of San Francisco Bay to the south.
The Belvedere General Plan contains a policy (LU Policy 11) which refers to ongoing
discussions and intent to resolve two boundary issues with the Town of Tiburon:
o The current City limit line extends through the Boardwalk Shopping Center;
and
o The Corinthian Yacht Club has its clubhouse in Belvedere and its berths and
parking areas in Tiburon,
LAPCO's adopted Policies, Procedures and Guidelines stress that local government
boundaries should conform to parcel boundaries. The City of Belvedere and the
Town of Tiburon have unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate an exchange of territory
along their cOmmon boundary to avoid splitting parcels, Recommendations for
realignment of the City boundaries are shown on Map 7: Recommended Sphere of
Influence, City of Belvedere.
6. Recommended Sphere of Influence
I
I
There is no contiguous unincorporated territory that might be considered for
annexation to the City of Belvedere. Staff recommends a coterminous sphere of
influence for the City of Belvedere with minor realignment of the boundary between
Belvedere and Tiburon as shown on Map 7,
I
I
I
I
I
Ql
't:l t.'I Gl 0
., C ...
'5GlGl UJ 0
I"-lii.:-g o~o :g 2
c.<=c":: UJ,%UJo. c
ra-.;;-Q) ~......_oc::~IU~(J)~_e-
~Eo~ 1:.e~~-li,gc1lg.Eg
8~o ~~~~~ii~1:~~E
:Gl>- ~~o~E~c1l~~1!~~
..t::!::: "Og.c~~~E~~",E.~
~Q ~O!lQ";II!li~
I';, r \';21Jt:;:";;~; \I~ !, i]' 1
1'.,r'I',. _...........<.,..y;::," "Sfi"''''' (,..
'~I 1,,-!,'j :..;. __. ',L-,", /,<,,"""'_'5,~~'r'("""~_'"'::"'() :r'~~tf/ I _1;..~4;.' .,..;,;"'....
,. >,.' '___ Hj _,>L{(,'.:I ." \\'" -I "
.,'('.., ','1]1'" _> ,l'..,--,1I' ~ -', ,,~ II .. .
. -11 ,I .'r-=r'~"7- ,.,,~,' = ,I "'i M"" "L .;7" ''''.
.1_ '-i ;JI_/,',", ,:-.' ! '-;" - f ,,':'" ", ,.ff re".- , .' ''''''. s-
. , '11. .' I' ,'+~ . '\ . - ,--- . -;:..:'1 ), "_'",~r Ii 0';"'/ I .' I " "II"
'~;)r\(_':' ,,;:'-)\~r':\\J;;;: (,' ~:~..",~-;l>:-"l~';:_'/"'" S-/....-W?
,.1""'" 1 ..' ..'" \.. ~ ,.vl. ~"-' 1'11.';""'VA.
" ,'u __. '1'"'. '" _, ,,, &".!. .."., ' ~? '.; "'0
I" I' j I __ ", "t 'I" .;f' /;/)/..'" -(, ..... '<
" :, r;i Ij-,'-f'~-P\ ;'''' /" ..,.J 'I IS ' l/i',."e!,,:', Xh:-'..... ."'.0
'." 'r'- _ "',1.:,,). \ ._,,/., .' '1 . ,'I"" !.'n" "'" V.I) ."
. _.'_ '\ "._"..,,,.,' ,"I,i('.',\ ',/' ",'-'ii'0~'''--' ,&~"'...."I)&.,
F ,:"Y I.....-"\.'::..:";/-li. ,\,- 'k~\-q' I ""_",,"~::'\,~j:" :'~~'" ',_.0" ". '" ..,;~~~
\ 1',1-/11--."'>----..-- 'I /",.___'" '.f~,>r,!'._I1",..:. ..'".)"1 . ".".""0.-----()1 '1~"" -
~ /_ _ '.. ",' . /-.;.... ,',,"" .. ,. ~'~"'w ) If /! I~&...v.,',.,...
.' -1-,-, I' ,. ','. .1 '/\G3"''DIYj, ,,~ ,,/ l;i.'rr~"'~/'^ " '
'.' ;"::-"c '1)",,'_/ ~ .... ,'" ..;;.";/ .:<S-(l.!""~~A I~I /i1"f: "i)'vt.tli.X-<,c,!! '
,.; p,' r" ': '_,. ,':/ ,'- h1')t~:~ -" D 'i "T 1i:lI ,-V"
::.- ! "I.':',~\I\-=-":~ B)i, ,,'<~E:;;I fl'Y ^",. /!<.,.)=~, ";-.,,,,~,'r0.~i;:'\;"~ -(/:::~>,""
..' . I" __ ' '/ ,9,\j\2 ~r,:;y ~ ...y.'" ',cl,3JJ="-' ':D."" ' /)1")' ".
, ,_- ",,', ''''J " ",,4_ i' m"'~'" '
.. ,I' ,,'/A....'" " 1.'.,."^'%I~"'i.-'~'I.,.l"..,...,yy' '
, ., VI" <ifl .. "I' ""';d: - I ,t I,,, 'j ",","I ',,,,.vD "r".' I Ie'" '.. ''-; , '.
Ii' ;,\ J !;; I l r ,. Ij' Y. (, 'I! < I~J -",}"~;'; "(;0.. .. "
"/ #I'.j 1/.... "I ., ~ ~~. ~~"
_ r f!?( .",/ IlfV 1 ^ v,;~ ~ ',/ '.
, " j, l ,~, , -,,' ,~ - j: V'-' i'1,.. ",
). 'c. '/Ip;" , $ ," ~~. ~p ~):Xn;'(.:.s."":/ rtp.:(I' '
",' ,.' .,il'..;;:I'0IJ\, t ) rm'<'f>>'i '. t911tJYt " ~""Yi7"A 7( ".
. .,,, ' ".~ ," '" .\ II - _,JI,.r x' ,,'
"...,,,,,, _ _ '" .. .-'" cu> ,,," y,,,e'x"-- ' 'c.
, :;;. > '.// ''YC T:J_'~,,'(Jn:.r;' -,-""""., '\ /'~!
, " d0S0 c>>;0f ,~ ~",Cd' ..,'" '
j_ / __ ".-'jf',,:"fDV, ,"" -- . ,/,,\
, "/ __ .-\,,^ 'Li"''<''''/ -' ·
"", / -,O-'~' .'W'" """ '
,.' J' --ccm'~"Y -
'i'l fc"'--- ,-
f/';"/'
'.... J
......./ /' j,7
, ~,
7 ~.~
, pi},6
,......' "" s-,'" ' ,IN C~lvvO
..' -- " ~[ ,"" "''''''",
..., " '1-1 .U ..IQ-'" --------"--.----..-..
~......? -i.,: > "fY/'i"O' ------.-- ./..=.WV'lllli.llb--n "
, ".'_ \0 0"#&'" ,
" ,,'., -""...' ,,2; I I '
",,-"""- oY-RF ,--.., --,--;c ,
Rf"i-0 / -- '3-'~-.?JI0~"'" I
:r """---'j" ,.,il';' . .. ., ,"~,'~
~'~~\\,' :.,/ \_.~!"., ..'" ..' V"b,^"*,~-' 1'''=
,I ~. 1) / ' /!.~' /3 ~J"(" ..,:/,;;;fI#
\~\.~<.,.;,.~ / ~;,t-;(~""~I ""z'j' I .' "/,,0, 'I '7~~~~A~;~' \~(~\1j~~~
_-----~. >~~.i,J /.~" :.~ ~"~.. . .~ -::: .,/ "', 1 ::~\;-.;; \.li-L.'-~. ,/!l~t'- c .x(,Yi/~I--\ ~~.:,)\~,:
I ",,0 ".,~.L. ,,-" eo'i"! I 'Y"~;_41~1, "
__,_ /0;,,' ~ _ '\ -S~~~_::>., ,y~ ~ on .~:'. ~ .~ ,,- )i'\\\~:/?;':'':~
)._,_UJ~".r '\I~~'" ":!.,~,,/i:::C::! _..",.,~.\.i2,~2:3_S.;j<'!;---L I J L'_" ",,:11/0":;."
,...,.';. ::1 ,"",,,c',,"'-' _ ,,;c,LJij- '-11 ':---1 ::->"-;'" /.~ -,,:'/":;
<'-/ll'" 1.r/.r::;';r'f&\;)7/!).r-~!J' ,";'''' ,,'} &> ~\3.s:\(o"", ../'1 '7'':=
".,.:"/k;-Q.' '/'<'; \';~~./.i.?'~'::-...i:"jl~.ii{~~\.>./ I ~ '\ ',_v :;Iii;' ~\ /;'2!-.J2/ i ~~
...::.:: ~:,}-, fv.l~I~>1 ,.. r ~ " .', e..'5 ' .,
';~' ...) ,~-:-:~~y'_'};-'/'_'I" "CI /1<-;0.' .' " .. " , <,"W ~1---.J ;/;:
,~ "" ""..,,,,,:,,,I:~,4f:\\></: ~ .(..','.-"_::'.i;} ."",~c~. ',-' , / .:,,:,;~}J__',~~~~!!V,l ,,:'.
1/ /-0 . ..../'.,....r::P~: .. / ' :: i I ..."if) i ~.:' "IUI;.:i"~;!' \~/ ,.,
I,. /1:t;r\~\}-J.~-'~ ~ ?i/t,{> 1 (~~~,~>/.):.:,
.._:'~.'=\.' " ,,~ "..,:~'-_'. ,:'\' \ , \ \ \\~____-"'(<-- t I', ,1.:>_--' ,;p "...... /'J:-'1!Jf,/\ ,,' '\........'.~
..', ". " ' " ,/V.WC;' '
~.' ".'~C',,"/, i ~ /)~:fJ\y",,-,--j c"
/"'\"552\(::~),:;;,,3"~, '\-' ~ ....
'--'\\\\ ~.;/\\ 1 -
~
CIl
c u
'C c:
m!E(g;
2~O
c.sC\J
\-..... ~
~OQ)
"5 -~ 'S:
o CIl CIl
(J).cO::
a..
(f)
c
>..Q
u UJ
c UJ
Q) ,-
OlE
<eE
- 0
~u
o C
..J 0
c:;::
'- '"
t;; E
~c;
u..
I
!L
~~
, -, "'"
I
1>.<'
I
I
I
I
I
I
-;;;;-:
"~;':'" ..."
I
~
.
u
~ ~
~ ~
g @
&: z m
~ 0 9.
>- ~ ~
~ ;i ''';'.0
(~ b ~(j
-( u ~"
w'._-, ~ ~3 z
_ ~ 0" ""'i(
o ~ ~;~
;;l;uj rt r;:~
$~ t m
17~?:: aJ ~,
~ r- ~ ~ ~~
m:;:::..i;--' fi.
!t:)8~.st> ~~
ll. o.c9 ~~
~
::::::Lf)
"
~
N
b
o
-' ;,;.;.~~~;;;~;,..,;~.
.....~~......~..
;to
j
.,
.~
r:
. '"
'"
'0
'"
Ct.
B- ,
"
~ "'
~~~~1
~1: o-z.
H'iI~
w"S.l;_
-r'
-....c.
~
"
~
c:;::::,
G
,
~'
~.
,-...
~
..::
(
~n
00
mAl
~~
(
')
;::
;=
~
):;
~
~
m
""
, ,
';, /1/
\'- I
'- ,
/'~' .I
( I ,-,
/:., , -::!.---,/~
, .' ~
V>
'"
..", ::J
..,,'
;;;
=>
o
.iii'
0,
o.
OJ
,,"
'<
\ ..
.
.
.
CF'1 '
(;~) --
~l:"
--
"1.
(j
=:
"I
"I
~
:=
....
--3
Q
:;:
:=
Q
...,
--3
..
C'
-
-
"I
Q
:=
'JJ
o
....
=
Q
=:
:=
Q.1
~ ,
"I
~
I
:'
~t . \.. ~~=~I [~?
r"'\:, \.I',~ j".,... .i ~.
I' ",! , cl
DISCUSSION ITEMS I U)
). 5. LAFCO SPlIERE OF IN'"LUENCE STUDY AND RECOMMEN",,"ffoNS
FOR SOUTHERN MARIN COUNTY: Review and Make Recommendations
to the Town Council
Community Development Director Anderson presented the Staff report and concluded
that LAFCO staff's findings are accurate and its recommendations appropriate,
Commissioner Frascr asked what the impact is when LAFCO makes a recommendation
to change city boundaries, but that doesn't take place.
Community Director Anderson replied that LAFCO has the authority to set spheres of
influence but it does not have land Use authority. LAFCO can encourage cities to initiate
b,"",,1' Ohm,,,. EI<h" Tlh,ro, ',B']""orn woold ,~, '" 'pp]y r" <h, h""",
change for it to move forward.
Commissioner Kunzweiler agreed with both Staff recommendations and stated that he
likes LAFCO's recommendation to modify the corporate boundaries [at the Boardwalk
Shopping Center and on Corinthian Island].
Community Dcvelopment Director Anderson stated that Staff prefers the LAFCO
recommended sphere of influence for thc Boardwalk Shopping Center, as opposed to thc
"alternate" sphere of influence,
Chair Snow stated that he supports Staff and LAFCO recommendations.
Chair Snow opened. and closed thc public hearing, There was no public comment.
. MIS FraserlKunzweiler (3-0) to SUpport Staff recommendation as noted.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting Was adjOurned at 9:46 p.m,
WAYNE SNOW, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
T1RURON "LANNING COMMISSION MINlJTES OF MAV 26, 2004
.u.,.,.___
r'v",]-Trn,,., , Tn' F
_...."""--'..............J.......... .1.',
"'-;'---