The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 1999-09-01 MA:fI& TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BLVD. MEETING DATE: MEETING TIME: CLOSED SESSION: September 1,1999 7:30 P.M. 7:15 P.M. PLEASE NOTE: In order to give all interested persons an opportunity to be heard, and to ensure the presentation of all points of view, members of the audience should: (1) Always Address the Chait; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Limn Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak Directly into Microphone. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL A. ROLL CALL B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any) C. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Please confine your comments during this portion of the agenda to matters not already on this agenda, other than items on the Consent Calendar. TIle public will be given an opportunity to speak on each agenda item at the time it is called. Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future meeting agenda. D. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 1) NEW POLICE STATION STATUS REPORT & OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS - (project Managers Wilson & Kern) 2) AT&T/TCI SYSTEM UPGRADE IN TffiURON - (David Kerr (AT&T), Pony Krueger (pG&E)) E. CONSENT CALENDAR The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to group items together which generally do not require discussion and which will probably be approved by one motion unless separate action is required on a particular item. Al1ymember of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request re(l1oval of an item for discussion. 3) AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTS a) Headlands Reserve LLP V. City of Dana Point, 4th Civil No. G024366; b) Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore, Cat Ct. App. 1st Dist., Div 4) - (Approve) 4) 2223 & 2227 CENTRO EAST STREET - Town Council Denial of Appeal of Conditions of Approval - (Adopt Resolution) 5) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - #1169 - August 4, 1999 - (Adopt) 6) NOTICE OF COMPLETION - STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT NO. 98-SM-Ol _ (Including Flood Control Zone #4 Curb, Gutter and Drainage Improvements in Bel Aire Neighborhood) - Adopt Resolutions 7) REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF ANNEXATION: 3564,3600 & 3628 PARADISE DRIVE; Marion Hill, Lawrence and Nancy Goldberg, and Ruth Goldstein, Owners & Applicants; Assessor Parcel Nos. 38-031-12,04 & 05. F. PUBLIC HEARING 8) AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - Design Review for Utility Poles - (Introduction and 1 st Reading) 9) AMENDMENT TO KUHNS PRECISE PLAN (PD#31); 1, 5 & 9 Stevens Court - (Adopt Resolution) 10)APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 418 Greenwood Beach Road - (Appeal of Design Review Board Decision placing conditions on addition to House) - AP Nos. 55-031-04 & 55-121-08 - (philip Richardson, Applicant/Appellant) - Continuedfrom August 18, 1999 ll)APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 430 Ridge Road - (Appeal of Decision to grant Application for Variance/Design Review) - AP No. 59-082-22- (Mark Garay, Applicant; Fred & Casey Hannahs, Appellants) - 2nd Notice of Continuance 12) APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 696 Hilary Drive - (Appeal of Decision to grant Variance for Remodel of Single Family Residence) - AP No. 55-212-04; Marc & Jean Gineris, Applicants; Alfred & Jude Agajan, 694 Hilary Drive, Appellants G. NEW BUSINESS 13) TOWN MANAGER'S COMPENSATION - (Resolution) H. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITEES 14) BICYCLEIPEDESTRIAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE- A. Appointment of Council/Commission Volunteers B. Appointment of Public Volunteers I. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 15) DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - (Town Manager) 16) CCC & PHHA AGREEMENT - (Town Manager) 17) TOWN NEWSLETTER - OCTOBER MAILING SCHEDULE - (Town Clerk) 18)TOWN COUNCIL CANDIDATE ORIENTATION WORKSHOP - (Scheduled for September 9, 1999) 19) ROUND HILL OAKS SUBDIVISION - 4 lots off of Round Hill Road - (Oral Status Report, Planning Director) J. ADJOURNMENT Future A <lenda Items :>- GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD DRAINAGE PROJECT - Authorization to Proceed :>- PARCEL MAP: 2336-2338 MAR EAST STREET - Knowles & Sherry Hall, Owners and Applicants- Consider Acceptance of Parcel Map for Two-unit Condominium Conversion; AP No. 59-194-91 :>- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ANNUAL MEETING & BUDGET AMENDMENTS - (September 15) No. 10 - September 1.1999 NOTICE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING CLOSED MEETING OF THE TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL Pursuant to Califomia Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a Closed Session. More specific infonnation regarding this meeting is indicated below: 1) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Section 54957) Title: Town Manager ~lB~99 04:29P !DW40129-04-CIJ 8/99 8/18/99 11~age 1 I/Ry-# 2,02 II> c: 52 c:; ~ ~ 0 t.> "0 Ql n; t.> '5 5: : .c: II> " 'j Ql Gl :; II> ~ .. ::> ;0 :.: .. - '~~ 1>: .. c: a Cl i'ii I" .";' j~j~m + We've been busy uPlrading our Marin County cable system for quite some time. Once complete. we will be able to provide all of our customers more of what they want.. more channels, dllita! cable services and greater service reliability. + Please refer to the map to see where activation and constnlction is occurring in relation to where you IiYe. For up-to-date infonnation on system upp-ade activities. please call our System UPsrade Hotline. This Tel Update was sponsored by: ~.. AnAlo\il/oUllls..llll""",,e"T'i...: The new "all animals, aU the time" network from the people who created the Dis<<:overy Ch.nnet Welcome to Animal Planet-. the only able channel where animills play starring roles in a lineup of incredible variety! We'1llurprise you and your famity with wildly entertaining shows: comedies, dramas, ~dion.ild"enture, people ~nd their pets and the world's mosl f~scirq'ing wildlife documentaries. I I..T C I . Anlm.l PI.no;lm;ov.."llw.vAiw.blrln Vtl,""_ "nt.tI.I.~r<l~..i.,.'kl\I'fll'lt\ltrKt""illl"n ..pU.lla'fll"........rlfllnoi~.Nl"..mAI. ~ AUi-,4-!, Ie: 18 F'om- T-928 P C1/02 F-630 August 24, 1999 AT&T Broadband & Internet Servie. Nortn Say Region " , 1 Andersen D(lve Sao Ra!ael, CA}490: .'5 459.5333 FA< 415 258.0136 Robert Kleinert Town Manager Town ofTihuron 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE Tiburon SugarloafProject Via fax to 435-2438 Dear Bob' 1 enjoyed meeting with you the other da}. Per your request, I can provide a list of the street of which we know that do not currently have cable service in the Sugarloaf area ofTiburon: Place Moulin ~leadowhill Drive Venado Drive Santa Ana Ct. Audrey Ct. St. Gabrielle Ct. Heath Cliff Berke Ct. Again, these are The streets in the Sugarloafproject of which we are aware If there are others, please let me know A preliminary estimate oflhe cost to build out this underground area is $600,000 to $700,000. We need to do some more detailed engineering to get the exact cost. We count 123 homes at an estimated construction cost of approximately $5000. $6000 per home A drive out of the area indicates that about 2S% of the residences have satellite dishes at this time. With such steep construction a costs per home, reliable data on the actual number of potential customers (those that actually want cable) as opposed to JUSt the number of homes passed is important in a decision to build out this area. I appreciate your concern a.!1d willingness to gather this data and to work with us on this issue Sincerely, ~.~~ - David P Kerr Director of Govemment Affairs co '68 RecyCI.d P..per .' RUTAN & TUCKER~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW ^ PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, FOURTEENTH fLOOR COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92626-1996 DIRECT ALL M^ll TO; POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA. CALIfORNIA 92628.1950 TELEPHONE 714-641.5100 FACSIMILE 714-54&.9035 INTERNET ADDRESS www.rutan.com "W ~UTM< 'luo.un, I^M(~ a TL'n(~. sa O1aU.IUO, ...llFOROW.O....,..L.s..n'l'.nul H.RODCtRliOW!LL'''H'l,all IAMESt....ooU. P"Ul'RfO!R1CMA.RX RICHARD". (UR"'urr l(ONARO"'.IiAMP(l JOHNS HURUUT.)I MICHAHW.IMM!ll MILFOROW.OAl1l.jR TH;:OOOR(I,WAll,ACE.JR,' CllIUTN,U.UGER JOSEPH O. CARRUTH RIC"'A,RDP,SfM$ )""'{SB O'NEAL ROI(RTC.IRAUt.I THOM"IS.SA,lINCU. DAVlDC.L^,lSU" CUFfOROE.'RlfDEN MICHAElO..U"N 1....C..IV/N" JEffREY". DOU"''''N. ST"'NWOLCOTT. ROIUT S. BOWEl O"'~IO I. "'IElHrR~ M"'RC'''''''.fORSYTH W'UI"'M M. M"'BTlCOI~N'" !"'M!Sl....ORR'S WILLI....~".C"'pLM<. ""CH"'U T, HOIN"'~ PH,upO.ROHN IOElD.RUPEI8HC n[V~N"',NICHOLS THOM"'S G. UOCKINI';TON WILLI",,",W.WYNDER [VRIOlKl,VICKIID...ll...S .....NO"'llM,""..USH M"'RYM.CRUN C.[I';I';"'MIU MICH"'Uf.SlTZH THOMAS I CAAN~ ..."'IK' flA.ZI~. p!NUOpEp.......~S M.Ko\lHUIN~IENSON OUK!f.W"'HlQursr .,CH"'.DC....ONTEVIDEO LORrS"'.NERS"'lTH UNESTW.UATlE.1U ElIHIUl..l.......TYN RI"'O.THO"pSON J"'YNEUnORK"'CU 0"''''0 I.COSGROV~ H.....<5 VAN llGlEN STEPHEN"'. flUS .....HHEWK.ROSS J[FFREYWEBTHElMEB BOIUT O. OWEN AO"'M N. "Ol~~BT l!FfREY A. GOlDf"'RI F.UVINUAZll l"'YN!H....!lZEl L.SRIH....,USON !LISEK.U"'YNU... l"'UY"',CUUTTI C"'.OLD.C"'RTY p...urClD,M<;CA,Il... .lCH"'ltD R. HOwtll 1",..USS.Wl'ISZO' D"'VIDH HOCHNE. A.PAoTBrclMUliloz S.O"'NIUH"'UOTTLE PAUL I. SlEVE.S MlCH"'EllC.SLAlTERY OEUA DUNN SHEl O"'NSl",n. Uk:#J 2-) ICI..T M. Cl"'VTO.. "''''U8UOE''SIU J05!pHl..."'I';....1Il R.""I';C.RllGE. I[NNIFUWHlT[.SPUtING STEV[NI. I';OON OOUCVSJ,OENNINI';TON T.IG....IUl...NOIR TODD O. llfflN U."'S,CA,llSON !RICl.DUNN FlEOI';"'l"'NTE CRISTY LOMfN20 p"'RKU lEFF.EYT.MElCHINI'; MrUO.NEUE SEAN'.F"'lREll .......L!NEPOSE ",pRILlUW"'lTE. U.EN EllZA8ETH W...lTU ""'T"'lUSI""'lOOUNO"'S "'LISONM.I"'."".05H /ON"IW,H",,",lLTON,I. lYNNlOSCHIN pHILlpJ.8lANCH"'IO TUENCEI. I';AU.AI';HE. ROIEUI'~"G OIM....HE...,NI';W"'Y IULI[R WH"'NC O!NISEL.MUH. W. A"IOR[w MOOIE AliSON l. TSAO CH"'.USA O...V[NPOU, III O"'NIHL.CI8UT lUll! L. O.Ew ""'T"-SH...RlARA...,. IICH"'ROD.AIKO ..."'RK..........LO\105 NrUrNGUYEN Of COUNSEl: WW"'RDD,SYaES......,I... 0"'\1101. GARI....LOI. III .",pIOF[$510N"'l CORPOR"'TION * * REPLY REQUESTED BY SEPTEMBER 3,1999 * * TO: California City Attorneys FROM: Joel D. Kuperberg DATE: August 13, 1999 RE: Request for Amicus Assistance re Headlands Reserve LLP v. City of Dana Point, 4th Civil No. G024366. 1 write you today on behalf of the City of Dana Point and the California League of Cities to request your assistance in an amicus brief. We urge you to lend your support in the above- referenced litigation now pending before Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District. This case presents several issues of vital importance to cities. First, the case involves a municipality's ability to process general and specific plans simultaneously. The trial court ruled that a city may not even begin processing a proposed new specific pla.Tl if it is inco:lSistent with the existing general plan, until the general plan is first amended to obviate the potential inconsistency. This ruling would require cities to endure two separate planning processes to effect any major land use change for property which a city wishes to regulate by means of a specific plan. Second and equally importantly, the case impacts cities' abilities to decide whether and when to process private parties' specific plans. In this case, the trial court issued a writ of mandate ordering the city to suspend its pending consideration of a city-proposed specific plan, and to "accept, process, hear and decide upon" a specific plan submitted by private landowners even though the city had already expended 18 months and approximately $500,000 preparing a general plan amendment and specific plan of its own. 650/099999-0084/3283553. a08/13/99 + , RUTAN & TUCKER, .. T TO. N! Y S .. r l" W This case poses significant issues for cities' land use and planning process. Moreover, the detrimental impact this decision, if allowed to stand, could have on cities' future discretionary actions is substantial and warrants your assistance. Factual Background The "Headlands" property is one of the last undeveloped parcels of scenic coastal land in the City of Dana Point. The city's general plan requires adoption of a specific plan for the development of the Headlands property.' After the rejection of a specific plan for the Headlands in a 1994 referendum, the city reconsidered both its general and specific plans. The city held extensive public hearings and workshops, and ultimately selected a new plan from among five alternatives. The city then drafted and approved an EIR, proposed general plan amendment and proposed specific plan. During this process, a new landowner, Headlands Reserve LLC, requested the city process an application for a different, more intensive specific plan. Under its City Code, the Dana Point City council has discretion to initiate processing of specific plans, and after a public hearing, the Council decided not to process the landowners' new proposal, but to continue instead with the city's plans. The landowners then filed a writ of mandate, demanding that (1) the city halt processing of its own specific plan and (2) that the city accept and process the landowners' proposed specific plan, Judge John C. Wooley of the Orange County Superior Court granted the landowners' petition on both grounds. The court appeared to accept the landowners' argument that Government Code !l 65450 bars cities from drafting or even considering a specific plan which is inconsistent with the current general plan. The court further ordered the city to process the landowners' proposed specific plan even though this specific plan is also inconsistent with the city's current general plan. Le!!al Background Concurrent processing of general plan amendments, specific plans and other land use approvals is common throughout California. This practice saves substantial time and expense and promotes efficient planning. See also Govt. Code !l 65862 (allowing concurrent processing of general plan amendments and zoning ordinances). Furthermore, one court of appeal has already approved the practice of simultaneous specific and general plan amendments. (Mountain Defense Lea!!ue v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723, 733). Unfortunately, there is no express statutory authorization for concurrent processing of general plan amendments and related specific plans. Authority for concurrent processing has been assumed as part of local governments' inherent powers to adopt planning regulations and procedures not expressly inconsistent with state law. (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 650/099999-00&4/3283553. 0108/13/99 -2- RUTAN & TUCKER, ArT 0 . '" ~ y \ ~ 1 l '" W Cal.4th 763, 782-83; Govt, Code ~ g 65102, 65450-65456.) A successful appeal in this case would confirm such inherent governmental powers and the consistent practice of cities throughout the state, The decision also would impact cities' discretion to conduct their governmental affairs. Because the adoption or amendment ofa specific plan is a legislative act (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 570), a city's decision to accept or deny a landowners' proposed specific pian for consideration is normally an act of legislative discretion. As a general rule, courts do not have authority to control cities' exercise of such discretion, nor do courts have authority to order city councils to enact particular legislation. (See, e.g., Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 442; City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court (1959) 53 Cal.2d 236,244; Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento (1993) 17 Cal.AppAth 791, 796-97; City Council of the City of Santa Barbara v. SUDerior Court (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 389,394-99.) Although existing case law offers no exact analogy, it also appears evident that courts do not have authority to order cities to accept and act upon particular legislative proposals, such as a specific plan, unless the city itself has created such a mandatory duty by ordinance. The trial court in this case, however, asserted authority to compel processing of the landowners' proposed specific plan even though the city's specific plan ordinance is discretionary. Why This Case Is TmDortant To Your City The question of whether cities may concurrently process general plan amendments and new or amended specific plans potentially affects all cities which utilize specific plans as part of their planning efforts. The trial court ruling in this case would effectively require cities to go though a two-step process whenever cities contemplated amendments to the general plan and related specific plan amendments. Given applicable requirements for CEQA compliance, staff reports and public hearings at each stage, this two step process has the potential to vastly increase delay and expense in planning and development of specific plan areas, particularly where there is active opposition and therefore multiple opportunities for litigation. The trial court ruling also deeply implicates local discretion over planning matters, which has generally been left in the hands of local governments by the legislature. (DeVita v. County of Napa 9 Cal.4th 763,782.) More ominously, the significance of this issue may not be limited to specific plans. As noted above, existing statutes expressly authorize concurrent processing of zoning amendments and general plan amendments. If the court of appeal were to find that specific statutory authorization is necessary for concurrent processing of general plan amendments and specific plans, as is argued by the landowners in this case, the decision could impliedly disallow concurrent processing of subdivision maps, conditional use permits or any other type of development application dependent upon an amendment of the existing general plan. All cities have a common interest in this litigation. It is vital for cities to retain local discretion over planning processes involving specific plans. Concurrent processing provides 650/099999-0084/3283553. :108/13/99 -3- RUTAN & TUCKERl ... r TO.",' . S .. T ,....... substantial advantages in terms of staff time, public hearing requirements and CEQA compliance. It is equally important for cities to retain discretion to process private parties' specific plans. Courts should not compel cities to process such proposals even where the proposal does not appear in the public interest and would require wasteful expenditures of staff time and non-recoverable costs. All in all, the City of Dana Point and the California League of Cities need your support on these significant issues involving land use planning. If you agree with the City and League's position, I urge you to fill out the attached sheet to add the name of you and your city to this amicus brief. If you have any.questions, please feel free to contact either myself, or my associate, Bob King, at (714) 641-5100. Because time is of the essence in preparing this brief, I request that you reply to this letter no later than Friday, September 3, 1999. I appreciate your consideration of this request, and look forward to hearing from you. 650/099999-00&4/3283553. :108/13/99 -4- Ik..^-#3 b) : rw~@~~w~rm UlJ AUG 1 9 1999 ~ TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF TlBURON I Cooley Godward LLPI A'ITORNEYS AT LAW One Maritime Plaza 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3580 Main 415693-2000 Fax 415951-3699 August 17, 1999 www.cooley.com To: All California City Attorneys Re: Request for Cities to Join Amicus Brief in Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4) MICHAEL TRAYNOR 415693-2110 traynormt@cooley.com Dear Counsel: Introduction Boulder, CO 303 546-4000 Denver, CO 303 843-5100 Kirkland, WA 425 893-7700 Menlo Park, CA 650853-5100 Palo Alto. CA 650 843-5000 Reston, VA 703 262-8000 San Diego, CA 858 550-6000 On behalf of the League of California Cities, we are writing to request your city's participation as amicus curiae in a brief our firm is preparing in support of the City of Livermore, respondent in the above-referenced case. The Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities is supervising our preparation of the brief and urging the cities to join as amici curiae. To date, we have aiready received authorization from the following cities to represent them as amici curiae: Capitola, Carlsbad, Dinuba, Huron, Modesto, Monterey, Orange Cove, Pico Rivera, Redlands, San Luis Obispo, San Pablo, Santa Clara, Santa Paula, Tracy, and Walnut. In addition, the California State Association of Counties is considering authorizing us to appear for it as amicus curiae. The City of Livermore was sued for declaratory and injunctive relief by Kathleen R. after her son downloaded a1legedl~ offensive material from the lnternet using a computer at the Liyermore Public Library. The City has a policy of unrestricted library Internet access. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's federal claim for violation of the right to substantive due process pursuant to 42 D.S.C. section 1983, and state claims for public nuisance, waste of public funds, and premises liability. The case is now on appeal. This case has important implications for cities' discretion in formulating policies governing individual access to information on the Internet using publicly owned computers. Cities would benefit from clarification of the law in this area because regardless of whether a city adopts a policy of unrestricted access or partially restricted access using filtering software, it is impossible to eliminate completely the possibility that Internet users will access material that they consider offensive. The Court of Appeal's decision will establish judicial precedent on the question whether a city can successfully be sued by an individual who disagrees with a city's policy and I Cooley Godward LLPI All California City Attorneys August 17, 1999 Page Two claims emotional or psychological harm from intentional or inadvertent exposure to particular content. The amicus brief will concentrate primarily on two foints: first, that 47 U.S.c. section 230, a section of the federal Communications Decency Act, provides cities immunity from state civil causes of action for harm arising from Internet content originating with third parties; second, that the facts presented by plaintiff in this case do not state a viable cause of action under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1983. As discussed below in the Summary Outline of Argument section, two key themes of our brief will be the importance of local municipal discretion in setting Internet access policies and the inappropriateness of allowing individual citizens to disrupt this policy-setting process with the threat of civil litigation. The ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, and People for the American Way are working on a separate amicus brief in support of the City of Livermore. Their brief, in contrast to our brief, will place more emphasis on the First Amendment implications of overturning the trial court's dismissal. Brief Description of Case In February 1997, the Livermore Public Library Board of Trustees approved, after a public hearing, its Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks Policy. The Policy expressed the Board's support for "the idea that all members of the community have free and equal access to the entire range of library resources, regardless of content, approach, format or amount of detaiL" The Policy provides that "Internet access is available to all users of the Livermore Public Library," warning that the Internet "may contain materials of a controversial nature" and that the Library "does not monitor and has no control over the information accessed through the Internet and cannot be held responsible for its content." The Policy expressly states that "[p]arents are expected to monitor and supervise children's use of the Internet in selecting material that is consistent with personal and family values." Section 230 provides that U[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.c. S 230(c)(1).) The statute defmes the term "interactive computer service" to mean "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions." (Id. 9 230(1)(2).) In 1997, the United States Supreme Court invalidated other sections of the Communications Decency Act as unconstitutional. (See Reno v. ACLU (1997) 521 U.S. 844 [138 L.Ed.2d 874, 117 S. Ct. 2329].) However, section 230 was not at issue in Reno and has been invoked as controlling authority in recent key cases. (See Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) 129 FJd 327, cert. den. (1998)_ U.S. _ [118 S. Ct. 2341, 141 L.Ed.2d 712]; Blumenthal v. Drudge (D.D.C. 1998) 992 F. Supp. 44.) I Cooley Godward LLP! All California City Attorneys August 17, 1999 Page Three In May 1998, Kathleen R. filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Livermore in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, in her capacity as an individual, taxpayer, and guardian ad litem for her son Brandon P. The complaint included state causes of action for public nuisance, waste of public funds, and premises liability. Plaintiff alleged that Brandon P., without the knowledge or consent of his parents, visited the library on ten occasions and accessed allegedly offensive material from Internet sites maintained by third parties. Brandon P. downloaded these images to a floppy disk he brought with him. He then printed out these images using a relative's computer and printer. Kathleen R. sought an injunction preventing the City from maintaining a computer system on which anyone can access "obscene material" or minors can access "sexual material harmful to minors." The cornplaint also sought declaratory relief stating that the City "is legally liable for all future damage to plaintiffs children caused by the children accessing" harmful material on the Internet. The City of Livermore filed a demurrer, supported by amici ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, and People for the American Way. The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend the complaint. The court held that section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act "prohibits the imposition of liability on the City library for providing access to material that is transmitted over the Internet by others." In her amended complaint, Kathleen R. added a fourth cause of action for violation of substantive due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.c. section 1983. Plaintiff sought an injunction prohibiting the City "from knowingly and intentionally allowing its computers to display obscene and pornographic images where [Brandon P.] and other children can view them." The City again demurred, supported by the same amici. This time, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment of dismissal and filed her opening brief with the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District on July 15, 1999. Respondent City of Livermore'j; brief is due on October 12, 1999, by which date we will plan to file our amicus brief. Issues Presented on Appeal We plan to present two issues to the Court of Appeal, which we are currently framing as follows. 1) Does 47 U.S.c. section 230 provide a city immunity from liability for exposure to allegedly offensive third-party material on the Internet, where the city has publicly adopted a constitutionally sound policy regarding the scope of access to information on the Internet at its municipal library? I Cooley Godward LLP! All California City Attorneys August 17, 1999 Page Four 2) Has an individual stated a viable cause of action under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, in alleging harm to her son from exposure to allegedly offensive material accessed by her son from the Internet at a municipal library? Summary Outline of Argument We briefly outline here the arguments we plan to present. This outline serves primarily as a way for cities to understand the overall structure and thrust of the arguments. The precise contours of these arguments may change somewhat as we write and revise the brief and coordinate our efforts with the League's Legal Advocacy Committee and the City Attorney of Livermore. A. The Trial Court's Order Sustaining the Demurrer to the Original Complaint Was Proper Because the State Causes of Action Are Preempted by Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act. 1. Under the express language, framework, and structure of section 230, plaintiffs state causes of action are expressly preempted. The City's actions fall under section 230's broad grant of immunity to any cause of action attempting to hold the City liable for providing access to online information originating with a third party. "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with [section 230]." (47 U.S.C. 9 230(e)(3).) Boiled down to their essentials, plaintiffs alleged causes of action attempt to impose liability on the City in its role as "provider of an interactive computer service" on the theory that the City "published" harmful "informatIOn provided by another information content provider" - liability to which the City is preemptively immune under section 230. (See id. S 230(c)(I).) Plaintiffs causes of action do not fall within any of the narrow, carefully crafted excej'ltions to the broad Congressional grant of immunity. This case does not irnplicate the stated exceptions for criminal law, intellectual property law, or communications privacy law. (See id. 9230(e)(l), (2), (4).) The only other statutory exception merely states that section 230 does not "prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section." (See id. 9 230(e)(3) [emphasis added].) 2. Plaintiffs state causes of action directly conflict with the objectives of section 230, and are therefore also impliedly preempted. For example, liability would conflict with the objective of "preserv[ing] the vibrant and competitive free market . . . for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by. . . state regulation." (See id. S 230(b)(2).) I Cooley Godward LLP! All California City Attorneys August 17, 1999 Page Five 3. Holding the state causes of action to be preempted by section 230's immunity provisions also harmonizes with related constitutional principles. Immunity under section 230 harmonizes with separation of powers principles. Local legislative or administrative action, based on local values, should determine library Internet policies. A finding of liability would have the practical effect of allowing individual citizens to shape the Internet content mix accessible to all library users with the implicit threat of litigation, outside the deliberative and representative democratic process of petitioning the library board. Immunity under section 230 also harmonizes with First Amendment principles. Cities have discretion, subject to First Amendment limitations, to fashion a variety of policies with regard to access to information on the Internet. Public policy considerations militate against requiring the City to abandon a policy that clearly conforms to the First Amendment. Granting the mandatory injunction plaintiff seeks is not the least restrictive means of limiting children's access to unwelcome electronic information while preserving a constitutionally appropriate level of access for adults. B. The Trial Court's Order Sustaining the Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint Was Proper Because Plaintiff Failed to State a Cause of Action Under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, in Alleging Harm From Exposure to Allegedly Offensive Material Accessed by Her Son From the Internet at a Municipal Library. 1. The facts alleged do not implicate any right that IS constitutionally protected under substantive due process doctrine. 2. Even if there were some liberty interest implicated here, this case does not involve a "fundamental right" that would trigger strict scrutiny. 3. Regardless of the existence of a liberty interest, the allegations advanced by plaintiff fail to show that the City acted in its legislative or executive capacity in violation of substantive due process. 4. Furthermore, the City has no affirmative constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs son from offensive materials transmitted over the Internet. I Cooley Godward LLPI All California City Attorneys August 17,1999 Page Six How to Join the Amicus Brief If you wish to join the brief, please complete and sign the enclosed form letter with the heading "Authorization to Join Amicus Brief." Please be sure to include your State Bar number. For your convenience, we have enclosed a postage-paid return envelope. To be included on the brief, we must receive your authorization on or before Friday, September 24, 1999. If you have any questions about the content of the brief or the enclosed authorization to join the brief, please do not hesitate to call me or my associate, Matthew Brown, at (415) 693-2188. Sincerely, ~/u~-cj~ Michael Traynor MT:tls Enclosures cc: (w/o enclosures): Harvey Levine, City Attorney, City of Fremont Bernard C. Barmann, Sf., Kern County Counsel Daniel G. Sodergren, Assistant City Attorney, City of Livermore Matthew D. Brown, Esq. 424863 vi/SF 93TROI '.DOC 081199 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. i To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY Subject: WEAR APPEAL OF CONDmONS OF APPROVAL 2223 & 2227 CENTRO EAST STREET Date: September 1, 1999 BACKGROUNDANDANALYS~ Appellants Steven and Deborah Wear are the owners of the property at 2223 and 2227 Centro East Street. On July 14, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the Appellants' applications for a tentative map and conditional use permit that would allow the conversion of the property into condominium units. However, the Commission imposed a condition of approval that requires the Appellants to provide four parking spaces for the property in accordance with Town standards. The Appellants filed a timely appeal of this condition. The Council heard the appeal on August 18, 1999. On that date, after hearing public testimony and considering the all evidence in the record, the Council determined to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. The Council accordingly directed staff to return to the Council with an appropriate resolution. RECOMMENDATION That the Council adopithe attached resolution denying the appeal of Steven and Deborafi Wear. EXHIBITS Resolution Denying the Wear Appeal RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON REGARDING THE DENIAL OF AN APPEAL BY STEVEN AND DEBORAH WEAR OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON A PERIMT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DUPLEX INTO CONDOMINIUMS WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follow: Section 1. Recitals of Fact: 1. Steven and Deborah Wear ("Appellants") have applied for a tentative map and conditional use permit to allow the conversion of an existing duplex located at 2223 and 2227 Centro East Street into two condominium units. 2. On July 14, 1999, after considering all public testimony and other evidence in the record, the Planning Commission approved the applications with conditions of approval that, among other things, required Appellants to provide four parking spaces in accordance with Town standards prior to recordation of the parcel map. 3. On July 24, 1999, Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Commission's decision. This appeal contended that the property already contained sufficient parking; that expanding the parking area as required by the Commission would be unduly expensive; and that a waiver of the parking requirement would be consistent with the "spirit" of the Town's parking requirements and promote the character of Old Tiburon. 4. On August 18, 1999, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal. After considering public testimony and all other evidence in the record, the Council determined that the increase in parking area required by the Commission was necessary to provide adequate parking for the two units and that there were no special conditions of siting or terrain that made strict adherence to Town parking requirements undesirable. - 5. Based on the above findings, the Council determined to deny the appeal and uphold the findings and decision of the Planning Commission, which findings and decision are incorporated herein by this reference. 1 Section 2. Resolution of Decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon to deny the appeal of Steven and Deborah Wear and uphold the decision and findings of the Planning Commission: PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on September 1, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: MOGENS BACH Town of Tiburon ATTEST: DIANE 1. CRANE, TOWN CLERK 2 ,-- TOWN COUNCll.. MmUTES L~ DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Mayor Bach called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:37 p.m. on Wednesday, August 4, 1999, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, Califomia. A. mTERVIEWS Council interviewed Michael Lagios, 11 Benton Court, for the Bicycle/Pedestrian Ad Hoc Advisory Committee; and Jeanne Ortalda, 14 Paseo Mirasol, for the position of Town Historian. B. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth, Planning Director Anderson, Finance Director Stranzl, Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi, Police Lt. Aiello, Town Clerk Crane C. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any) Mayor Bach said there was no closed session. D. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS None. E. COUNCll... COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR 1) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - No. 1166 - June 16, 1999; No. 1167 - July 7, 1999; No. 1168 - July 21, 1999 - (Adopt) 2) APPOINTMENT OF ACTING TOWN ENGINEER FOR ROUND HILL OAKS.& TIBURON PENINSULA CLUB PROJECTS - (Adopt Resolution) 3) ROUND HILL OAKS SUBDIVISION - A. Consider Offer of Acceptance of Open Space Easement over Portions of three lots - (Resolution) B. Consider Acceptance of Parcel Map - (Resolution) 4) AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTS - 1) KajimalRay Wi/son v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - California Supreme Court No. S077461 (Review Granted May 26, 1999); 2) Gammoh v. City of Anaheim - 4 Civil No. G020502; (Petition for Review by Supreme Court) - (Approve) 5) TOWN MONTH INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As ofJune 30, 1999 - <Accept) Town Council Minutes #1169 August 4, 1999 Page 1 MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve Consent Calendar Items 1 through 5 above. Gram, Seconded by Hennessy AYES: Unanimous G. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES 6) TOWN HISTORIAN - (One Vacancy) Mayor Bach said that two candidates had been interviewed for the position. He noted that one of the candidates, Jeanne Ortalda, had strong archivist skills from her work with the Landmarks Society and was a long-time Tiburon resident. However, both Councilmembers Thompson and Matthews commented that the other candidate, Bran Fanning, had been involved with and had knowledge of the Town since its incorporation in 1964. Mr. Fanning had also served on the Town Council, and Thompson and Matthews thought this would be beneficial to the job. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint Branwell Fanning as Town Historian. Thompson, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Unanimous 7) BICYCLEIPEDESTRIAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE - (Appoint volunteers from Commission & Public) Vice Mayor Gram directed Staff to get a more precise picture of what was expected by the Congestion Management Agency from the Committee. Councilmember Thompson suggested getting copies of other cities' bicycle plans. it was noted that N ovato and San Rafael had plans. Council moved to continue the item until more interviews were conducted and the above information obtained. H. NEW BUSINESS 8) 885 B, C & D TffiURON BOULEVARD REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - (Toby & Sharon Power) Planning Director Anderson said that the Town had entered into a Settlement Agreement in June of 1998 which placed certain conditions on the subdivision of the Power's one-acre parcel into three lots. He said the Power's were now ready to record the parcel map, but wanted a change to one of the conditions imposed by the agreement concerning conversion of the existing duplex. Anderson said the agreement stated that conversion of the duplex must take place prior to the recordation of the parcel map finalizing the subdivision. However, he said Mr. Power was now proposing a new timeline which would require conversion of the duplex no later than three years from approval, or prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new home to be constructed on the upper lot, whichever came first. The reason for the new proposal, according to Anderson, was to avoid creating a hardship for the Town Council Minutes #1169 August 4, 1999 Page 2 Power's current tenants, who had stated they would have to take their children out of school and move out of the area, if the duplex were converted. Anderson said the Town would lose some control once the subdivision map were finalized, and said there were even more options, such as changing the agreement to trigger the conversion at the time of issuance of a building permit and/or the occupancy permit. He said Staff recommended a definite date rather than the three-year deadline suggested by Mr. Power. Councilmember Thompson noted that the agreement was not being changed by the proposal, merely delaying implementation of the duplex conversion. During public hearing, Dixon Power, 885-B Tiburon Boulevard, Owner of the property, said he did not wish to be compelled to leave the duplex vacant if a current tenant moved out. In response to a question from Councilmember Hennessy, he said that he planned to convert the duplex in 1.5 to 4 years, and that the 3-year proposal had been based on the age of the present children in school. He also said the arrangement was a month-to-month tenancy. Frank Bonardi, 885-C Tiburon Boulevard, said his children needed three years to finish at Del Mar School. He said he would not be able to stay in Tiburon ifhe were forced to leave. Roy Little, Owlswood Lane, adjacent property owners, said he and his wife had no objection to the continued occupancy of the duplex, but would leave the decision to the Council's best judgment. Julian Hoffinan, 925 Tiburon Boulevard, said he and his family also supported the proposal. Mayor Bach closed the public hearing. Council discussed the issue of whether or not to impose a. condition to prevent future rental of the duplex if the current tenant left. It was noted that the legal definition of density is occupancy. MOTION: To amend the Settlement Agreement to require conversion of the duplex to a single family unit upon the issuance of a Certificate 'of Occupancy of the new home on Lot 3, and/or prior to future rentals of the duplex. Moved: Vote: Hennessy, Seconded by Gram Unanimous Mr. Power objected to the second part of the motion. Town Attorney Danforth said the Council had the right to ask him to do this. Council considered Mr. Power's request and moved to re-open the issue. MOTION: To amend the prior motion to allow the Power's to accept another tenant in the Town Council Minutes #1169 August 4, 1999 Page 3 event ofa vacancy in the duplex [prior to the occupancy permit issuance], and to clarity that the current tenants could not sublet in the event of their vacancy. Moved: Vote: Hennessy, Seconded by Gram Unanimous 9) SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - Lyford's Cove/Old Tiburon & Hillhaven Property Owners' Association Request for Block Party at 1707 Vistazo West - (September 4,1999) Town Clerk Diane Crane said the special event permit said that 300-400 people would attend the party on Vistazo West over Labor Day Weekend which represented a three-fold increase over last year. She said that the Fire Department required that a 10-foot lane be kept open on the street for emergency vehicles, and that they were requesting that "no smoking" signs be posted along the length of the street where people congregated. Lt. Aiello of the Tiburon Police Department said it would be helpful to have a single person as a point of contact in case the police needed to respond to complaints and/or an emergency. During public hearing, Alice Fredericks, President of the Lyford Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowners' Association, said she had not received any complaints about last year's party. She responded to concerns regarding parking by stating that since it was a neighborhood party, most people walked to and from the festivities. She said the street had remained open and that the purpose of the party was to create neighborhood "bonding" and disseminate information regarding neighborhood disaster preparedness, in addition to having fun. Dr. Richard Hitchen, 1711 Vistazo West, said he and some of the neighbors were concerned about fire safety. He suggested that with the growing number of people in attendance it might be better to hold the party at Paradise Park or some other location. Council approved the permit, subject to conditions imposed by the Tiburon Fire and Police Departments. In addition, Vice Mayor Gram suggested that two cell phone numbers be provided to the police for points of contact. 10) BLOCKING OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS BY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES_- (Letter from Stewart Hopkins dated July 21, 1999) Mr. Hopkins distributed some photographs to Council which showed a large construction vehicle blocking the street in his neighborhood. In addition, the photos showed street damage caused by this vehicle. Hopkins said he had reviewed the Town's Traffic Ordinance but found nothing to address these kinds of problems. Lt. Tom Aiello and Town Attorney Danforth said there were already measures on the books that the Town could use to enforce or prevent these kinds of problems. They noted the recently passed Street Impact Fee Ordinance, and Town Manager Kleinert said the Building Department or Police should be notified if these kinds of things were occurring. Town Council Minutes #1169 Augus/4, 1999 Page 4 I. PUBLIC HEARING 11) 4900 PARADISE DRIVE - Ordinance Prezoning Approximately .28 Acres of Property to Town ofTiburon - AP#38-052-05 - (2nd Reading & Adoption) Council waived the Staff Report. Mayor Bach opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To read Ordinance by Title only. Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy AYES: Unanimous Mayor Bach read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Prezoning Approximately 0.28 Acres of Property Located at 4900 Paradise Drive, Assessor Parcel No. 38- 052-05." MOTION: Moved: Vote: To pass Ordinance Prezoning 4900 Paradise Drive Hennessy, Seconded by Thompson AYES: Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson 12) TOWN TWO-YEAR BUDGET PROGRAM - A. FINAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TO FY99-2000 B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FY99-2000 C. FUND TRANSFERS Vice Mayor Gram said he had not received the information in time to be prepared to discuss it at this meeting. Council continued the item to August 18, 1999. J. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 13) PILGRIM HEIGHTS POAlCOMMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH ("CCC") ISSUES - (Oral Status Report by Town Manager) Mayor Bach and Vice Mayor Gram said they were prepared to propose a Council subcommittee be formed to addresslhe ongoing issues between the neighbors in the Pilgrim Heights arel!and CCC. Town Manager Kleinert noted that he and the Planning Director had conducted a meeting at which agreement between the parties seemed to be reached, and proposed that one last meeting be held to try to resolve the outstanding issues prior to Council's involvement, if any. Council agreed to the Town Manager's suggestion, as long as agreement could be reached within 30 days. 14) CAL/TRANS - TIBURON BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS - (Oral Report by Town Manager) Town Manager Kleinert said that CAL/TRANS planned to overlay Tiburon Boulevard in Fall. He said he would provide more information as it became available. Town Council Minutes #1169 August 4, 1999 Page 5 K. COMMUNICA nONS 15) DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE - (Letter from League of California Cities President Carolyn Ratto, dated July 1999) Council designated Council League representatives Bach and Thompson. 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Bach adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m., sine die. MOGENSBACH,MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE 1. CRANE, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #1169 August 4, 1999 Page 6 ;:'k/Nv #~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNICL OF THE TOWN OF TlBURON ACCEPTING TOWN OF TlBURON STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT 98-SM-Ol WHEREAS, Sia Barmand, the Engineer of Work for the Town of Tiburon Street Maintenance Project 98-SM-01, has stated that work was satisfactorily completed in accordance with the contract specifications of Ghilotti Bros Construction, awarded on September 2, 1998, NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the aforementioned improvements, consisting of the following, are hereby accepted by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon: Street overlay and other improvements on Blackfield Drive, Cecilia Way, Claire Way, Harriet Way, Karen Way, Leland Way, Pamela Court, Apollo Road, June Road, Mercury Avenue and portions of Raccoon Lane, Beach Road, Cayford Drive, Centro West, Corte Las Casas, Corte Palos Verdes, Reed Ranch Road, Southridge Road, and Southridge Drive West. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT~.. COUNCILMEMBER: MOGENSBACH,MAYOR ATTEST DIANE 1. CRANE, TOWN CLERK S:ldcrane\Notice of Completion Reso - Streets.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ACCEPTING CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND DRAINAGE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BEL AIRE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FOUR WHEREAS, an Agreement Between Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Town of Tiburon was entered into on August 24, 1998, and WHEREAS, a contract for the improvements specified in said Agreement was subsequently awarded to Ghilotti Brothers Construction as part of Town ofTiburon Street Maintenance Project No. 98-SM-01, on September 2, 1998; WHEREAS, Town Engineer Sia Barmand, acting as Project Manager, has stated that the curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage facility project improvements in the Bel Aire neighborhood as specified in the aforementioned Agreement and contract were satisfactorily completed by Ghilotti Brothers Construction in June 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the aforementioned project, consisting of curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage facility project improvements within the boundaries of Marin County Flood Control Zone Four, is accepted by the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon on , 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MOGENSBACH,MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST DIANE 1. CRANE, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: 9/1/99 f To: TOWN COUNCIL From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR~ Subject: REQUEST FOR WAlVER OF ANNEXATION 3564,3600, and 3628 PARADISE DRIVE; Marion Hill, Lawrence and Nancy Goldberg, and Ruth Goldstein, owners and applicants; Assessor Parcel Nos 58-031-12,04, and 05 Date: AUGUST 27, 1999 BACKGROUND The owners of three single family homes located in the Kramer Tract Subdivision off Paradise Drive are requesting that the Town recommend to LAFCO a waiver of the dual-annexation policy that would enable them to connect to Sanitary District No 5 without concurrent annexation to the Town ofTiburon. All three homes suffer from either failing or marginal septic system operation. The location of the subject properties is shown on Exhibit 1. The letter of request from the owners is attached a~Exhibit 2. A letter from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh describing the septic_systems is attached as Exhibit 3. ANAL YSIS The subject property is located in the Kramer Tract, located between Playa Verde and Paradise Beach Park. The Kramer Tract was developed approximately 50 years ago Only three properties in this tract of approximately 16 homes are currently within the Town of Tiburon as a result of annexations in 1978 and 1994. These three properties are contiguous to the Town of Tiburon by water only Two of the subject properties, 3600 and 3628 Paradise Drive, are not contiguous to the Town of Tiburon at all. The third property, 3564 Tiburon Boulevard, is only contiguous via the previously annexed properties in the Kramer Tract. None of the properties is Tiburon Town CouNcil Staff Repart 9/1/99 capable of further subdivision under prevailing densities. Please refer to Exhibit 1. In recent years, the Town has begun to re-examine its annexation practices regarding properties in the unincorporated portion of the Tiburon Planning Area served by Paradise Drive south of Trestle Glen Boulevard. Concerns regarding costs of maintenance of Paradise Drive and efficient provision of services are paramount in the recent trend toward waiving the dual annexation policy in lieu of entering into an agreement whereby the Town could annex the property in the future without opposition from the property owners. This agreement is referred to as a "future annexation agreement" In April 1998, the Town Council approved a similar request for waiver of annexation from a nearby property at 3636 Paradise Drive in the Kramer Tract. That property also suffered from a failed septic system. Staff has been informed that the property owners are aware of the "future annexation agreement" and are prepared to sign it. One owner has already done so. Staff believes the subject properties provide a classic example of where the "future annexation agreement" is the optimum approach for the Town ofTiburon. Other options available to the Town Council include the following: I. Refusing to recommend the waiver of annexation to LAFCO, in which case LAFCO could require the properties to annex to the Town concurrently with annexation to Sanitary District No.5. LAFCO could also grant the waiver of the dual annexation policy over the Town's objections, although this is unlikely based upon past history 2. Grant the waiver of annexation on an unconditional basis, in which case eventual annexation of this property would need to be voluntary on the part of the property owner, or as a result of other properties "carrying" this property into Tiburon as part of a larger annexation effort. - . RECOMMENDA nON Direct Staff to forward a letter to LAFCO indicating that the Town of Tiburon recommends that LAFCO waive application of the dual annexation policy for these properties once a "future annexation agreement" has been recorded on the property titles. EXHIBITS I. Vicinity map of subject properties 2. Letter from property owners dated 8/13/99. 3. Letter from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh dated 8/18/99. 4. Sample of "future annexation agreement". Tibl/ron Town Council Staff Report \scott\3600para.doc 9/1/99 <6 ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \'""" ~ ~ I f:z:l \ j-\ ~, ~ o o ~ =>- ~ <::0 LL- CI7 .-jLL. J..... _.' ':"0; _c )-i'. '_2w/ ':;; Udt.~~:;, KUt.H t.(;L ,,,+1:. d':'...:.....J.':Uc i L.; ",'Q':,:<',''.)'j I-'.~C::/I:J':: Date: August 13, 1999 Mr. Scott Anderson, Planning Director Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon. CA 94920 RE; Marion K. Hill Lawrence Y. & Naucy R. Goldberl: Ruth B, Goldstein Dear Mr. Anderson: ~EC~~-'i'0'p, n ' ;;..,..."~ "-- '.I. tlUG , 7 1999 ^ I)" C' ^ ',' ',I ,'~ ',11 PLA\~N\t~G t'""'.,':'~'.' 10W(-\ GF T:,_">-,:.I"', A.P.N.058-031-12 A.P.!'l. 058-031-03 & 04 A.P.N,058-031-05 3364 Paradise Drive 3600 Paradise Drive 3628 Paradise Drive As a result of poor septic system perfonnance and lack of sufficient area to replace our seplic systelIlS satisfactorily, we are requesting to connect to a public sewer system and to annex to Sanitary District No,S of Marin County. We are the owners of the single family residences at the aforementioned addresses. Our parcels were created approximately fifty years ago as part of the Kramer Tract Subdivision. Preparing the necessary docwnentation for the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission application requires I receive either pre-zoning or a waiver of annexation from the Town ofTiburon. Please transmit to the appropriate authorities our request for a waiver of annexation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, f/l!d!,~ 01// 'Marion K. Hill 3564 Paradise Or, Tiburon, CA 94920 Nancy R. Gold 3600 Paradise Dr, Tiburon, CA ~920 1\/~ ! AA-LU, / 4tuth B. ~dstein ~ 3628 Paradise Dr., Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT NO. J. ** TOTRL PRGE.02 ** CSW [St]2 790 De Long Avenue, Novate, CA 94945-3246 (415) 892-4763 FAX: (415) 892-4502 e-mail: Office@cswsr2.com CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. Date: August 18, 1999 File: 6.662.08 RECEIVED AUG 2 0 1999 Mr. Scott Anderson, Planning Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 PL.ANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TiBURON RE: Marion 1(. Hill: A.P.N. 058-031-12 - 3564 Paradise Drive Lawrence Y. & Nancy R. Goldberg: A.P.N. 058-031-03 & 04 - 3600 Paradise Drive Ruth B. Goldstein: A.P.N. 058-031-05 - 3628 Paradise Drive Dear Mr. Anderson: Mr. Goldberg has engaged CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. (CSW/St2) to perform the necessary engineering work related to the annexation of the above mentioned parcels created approximately fifty years ago as part of the Kramer Tract Subdivision. CSW/St2 is also designing the sewer connection for the three homeowners. This office performed a hydraulic load and dye test on the Hill property septic system when she purchased the residence.. The test failed. However, during normal water use the system apparently does not fail. Both wIi-.Goldberg and Ms. Goldstein have alreacly pt'rfoffiled legal modifications to their existing septic systems. Both are concerned about their current septic systems because there are indications that the systems are in poor condition. Mr. Goldberg would like to perform some modifications to his residence but these modifications would more than likely require substantial modifications to the septic system, which would, more than likely, not be possible. There is no area to replace the existing septic systems on any of the above mentioned parcels when the septic systems fail. As you are probably aware, the soil on the Tiburon peninsula is generally terrible for septic systems. Based on these concerns, all parties are requesting to connect to a public sewer system and to annex to Sanitary District NO.5 of Marin County. Preparing the necessary documentation for the Marin Local Agency Formation Commission application requires all parties to receive either pre-zoning or a waiver of annexation from the Town ofTiburon for their parcels. They have submitted a letter to you requesting the Town Council grant Civil Engineers . Land Planners . Surveyors EXHIBIT NO.~ \\Odsl\Uata\AJmin\W?60\6",C;,r'8-18-99662 Mr. Scott Anderson Town ofTiburon August 18, 1999 Page 2 CSW [8t]2 them the waiver of annexation. I hope the Town Council afterreading this report will be encouraged to do so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, / . Dietrich Stroeh RC.E. #16937 JDS:gmp 'lOw 1'da1alAdmin\WP60\6\Cor\8-18-99.662 ;~\,~. RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1998 PL.;NNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TiBURON Recording Requested By: TOWN OF TIBURON Return to: Scott Anderson, Planning Director Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 This document is for the benefit of the Town of Tiburon. DOCUMENT TITLE AGREEMENT REGARDING Ai'lNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE TOWN OF TffiURON ASSESSOR PARCEL 58-031-21 Gallagher Annexation Agreement ,- 1IIIIn 111111111 111111111111111 III 199a-0040317 Recorded I REI: FEE .1llIl Offici~l Records I County Of I ~ln I JOAN C. lHAYER I Recordel" I I ISC 12:48PM 11-Jun-1998 I Page 1 of 5 -......- - ~ 1= iij ;c: 1.- :i, 1r-'~i:-:u'ilj@\Y7 U -4 '-=:!-= '..:I U U EXHIBIT NO...1:- AGREEJ."IE.'IT REGARDING ANNEXATION OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE TOWN OF TffiURON This Agreement is made and entered into this].v -Ii. day of ~ /<in... , 1998, by and between the Town of Tiburon, a municipal corporation, ("Town" hereafter) and James J. Gallagher, as trustee for the Gallagher Living Trust ("Owner" hereafter) and is based upon the following facts: (a) Owner holds title to that certain real property ("the Property" hereafter) described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and (b) As a result of a failed septic system, Owner has been required to connect to a public sewer system and annex to Sanitary District No.5. Under existing policies, this would also require concurrent annexation to the Town unless waived or deferred by the Town; and (c) The Town has agreed to defer annexation of the Property on the conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, TIfr.REFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: 1. Owner agrees on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns that, in the event any future proceedings for the annexation of the property to the Town shall be initiated by the Town, Owner shall neither directly nor indirectly oppose or protest such annexation. 2. Owner agrees that his obligations hereunder shall run with the Property and that the Property shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used and occupied subject to the provisions of this Agreement and that the obligations undertaken by Owner hereunder shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title, or interest in the Property. Dated: l.f" '21) , 1998' Living Trust U/ A dated 11/30/92 Gallagher Annexation Agreement .- . ." -. 0 .., ~ , . TOWN OP'TIBURON: BS~'S 71~ '\" Harry S .Matthews, Mayor :~II Diane '1. Crane, Town Clerk o Gallagher Annexation Agreement DESGUPl'ICN AU t.'1at cer'".ain real ~J situate in ti',e Ceua!:'J of Marin, State of CalifOJ:nia, desc:::i.l::ed as foUew.;; P.".RCEL CNE: BEGINNJ:N:; at a J;XJint = the Ncrtt:westerly l.iNa of the 7.70 ac=e tact of land =weyed ty 'Ih:mas B. Deffebac.'1-, et al, to R.O. Kraner ty Deed reC::::rced Septanber 13, 1938 in Ecck 369 of Official Rec:=-'...s at Page 3C9, Marin Ccunt.y Records, distant therecn Scuth 33. 11.' West 3CO feet f:::on the m:::st Nort.'oerly = of said 7.70 ac=e tract of land; ~ thenc8 f:::on said J;XJint of l::eginrti.nJ Scut.'1- 56. 49' East 130.CO feet, Scuth 36. 38' West 76.75 feet, South SO. 24' West 89.16 feet, South 55. eg' west 54.32 feet, Scuth 26. 07' West 51.05 feet ard Nort.'1- 56. 49' West 80.00 feet, = = less to a J;XJint = the Nort.~ly lir,e of said 7.70 ac=e tract of land; rurnir.g ti'.en=e al~ ti'..e last narood line, Nort.'1- 33. 11' East 258. CO feet, = = less, to ti'..e ];:Oint of t:egir.nin;. EXCEPrL'.G ti'.erefran t.'1at !;XJrt:icrl, if <=I, 1~ Nortbe.a.sterly of ti',e b:undarJ l.iNa established in the Ecurdary Jl.greatEnt 1:et"~"6€Il Stanley A. Weigel and }lrr.e Weigel, his wife and Ale.'Cis Tellis and Anr.e Tellis, his wife, dated July 22, 1971 and rac=t:led August 13, 1971 in Ecck 2492 of Official Recort:ls at Page 518, tAari..n Ccunt"J Recort:ls, whic.'1- r::crtim was granted ty said Tellis to said Weigel in said agresnent. PARCEL ThO: THE Par---el of ~ar.dr if ~.., granted by S~-1ey A.. Weigel arxi .:lr.rE fdei;clr lU..s ~Hi.fe to Ale.'Cis Tellis and Arr.e Tellis, his wife in t.'le Bo.:r:Cary Agreenent dated Jul.y 21,_ 1971 and r=Ced August 13, 1971 in Ecck 2492 of Official Records at Pages 518, Marin Ccunt".l Recor"...s, which par-..el lies Scu't:l1westarly of t."'..e b:::undary Er..e establisl".ed in said agreenent ard NcJ:""-.J".easterly of Paresl Ch;! atove. PJlRCEL 'lliP.EE: AN EASEM:NI' f= road prrp:::ses ever a strip of land bie.rlt":{ feet in width, ti'..e center 1ir.e t.".ereof being desc:::i.ted as fo11ew.;: BEGINNThG at a J;XJint whic.'1- !:ears North 57. 30' West 416.46 feet, Scuth 35. 10' West 196.14 feet and N:Jrth 56. 49' West 10 feet fran ti'..e most Norti'.er1y =.er of Lot.l, as sh:wn up:::n ti'..e map entitled, "l"ap of Paradisa Cove, Mar'..n Ccunt"J, CalifOJ:nia~', filed January 10, 1939 in Volune 5 of Maps at Page 77, Mar'..n Ccunt":{ Reccrds: running thenc8 fran said J;XJint of l::eginn.inJ, Scuth 36' 38' west 76.75 feet to a J;XJint: t.>Jence Scut.'1- 50. 24' west 89.16 feet te a J;XJint; the."1Ce Scut.'1- 55' 09' West 54.32 feette a J;XJint; t.'1encs Scuth 26' 07' West 51.05 feet to a J;XJint; t.'1er.ce Scut.'1- 13. 55' East 53.25 feet te a J;XJint; ti'.ence Scuth 48. 31' East 87.55 feet to a J;XJ:i.nt; t.'1e.;ca Scut.'1- 70. 51' East 232.47 feet to a J;XJint; ti'.ence Scuth 57" 32' East 93.26 feet to a J;XJint = ti'..e Nc:n:i:t'.erly line of a 6O.CO fcot Ccunty Road. EXCEPl'DC the p:::r+.i= within t.'le I::a.mdaries of Parcels Cne and 'I'M:). EXHIBIT "A" TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. f To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR Subject: TOWN-INITIATED ZONING AMENDMENT DESIGN REVIEW OF UTILITY POLES AND FACILITIES Date: September 1, 1999 BACKGROUND At the Town Council meeting of July 7, 1999, Tiburon resident Joe Keller urged the Council to adopt a requirement for design review of utility poles similar to that in place in the City of Belvedere. This would allow for affected members of the public to comment on such facilities and suggest methods of minimizing any adverse impacts. The Council directed staff to initiate such an amendment. ANALYSIS The proposed ordinance would amend the Town's Zoning Ordinance to require Site Plan and Architectural Review of utility poles and distribution facilities. The requirement would apply to all new facilities and any replacement or modification of existing facilities. The Planning Director or his designee would review and approve applications for most such facilities. However, applications that generate substantive controversy would be referred to the Design Review Board. Under the Town's Zoning Ordinance and State planning laws, the Planning Commission must review and comment on any amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission considered the proposed amendmenj: on August 25, 1999. After considering public testimony, the COpmllssion adopted the attached resolution in support of the amendment. RECOMMENDA nON The Council should hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. If after considering the evidence in the record, the Council supports the amendment, it should by motion read the ordinance by title only and pass first reading of the ordinance by roll call vote. EXHmITS Commission Resolution Draft Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF UTILITY DISTRIBUTION POLES AND FACILITIES The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection (e) is hereby added to Section 4.02.02 of Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, to read as follows: (e) The placement, replacement or modification of utility distribution poles and facilities. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council ofthe Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof; irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town ofTiburon. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 1999, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 1999, which was noticed pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.3, by the following vote: Des. Review, Utility Poles 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: MOGENS BACH, MAYOR Town of Tiburon DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK Des. Review, Utility Poles 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99-~4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF UTILITY DISTRIBUTION POLES AND FACILITIES Section 1. Findings. 1. At the request of the Town Council, the Town of Tiburon has initiated an amendment to Section 4.02.02 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance, said ordinance being codified as Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. The proposed amendment would require Site Plan and Architectural Review of utility pole and distribution facilities. 2. The proposed amendment is determined not to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code 99 21000 et seq. and is therefore exempt from environmental review requirements. 3. The Planning Commission, pursuant to the Government Code, held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on August 25, 1999, to receive public input and comments on the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment; and the Planning Commission considered that testimony in its deliberations. 4. The Planning Commission finds that the zoning ordinance text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies ofthe Tiburon General Plan, consistent with the objectives of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and consistent with other applicable plans of the Town of Tiburon. Section 2. Recommendation for Adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment as set forth in the attached Exhibit" A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon held on August 25, 1999, by the following vote: H:\PIanningIDR of UitJity Roles, PC Reso.doc 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Berger, Slavitz & Stein NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Klairmont & Knoble Sf/Miles Berger// MILES BERGER, CHAIRPERSON Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: !l.;L L~_, SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY H:\PfanningIDR of UitJity Roles, PC Raso.doc 2 EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE TIBURON lHUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO REGULATION OF UTILITY DISTRIBUTION POLES AJ."ID FACILITIES The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection (e) is hereby added to Section 4.02.02 of Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, to read as follows: (e) The placement, replacement or modification of utility distribution poles and facilities. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof; irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on . 1999, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 1999, which was noticed pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.3, by the following vote: Des. Review, Utility Poles 1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: MOGENS BACH, MAYOR Town ofTiburon DIANE CRANE, TOWN CLERK Des. Review, Utility Poles 2 / Ufc1. ~p-r .5:z{!J ! ATTENTION!!!! PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED ON TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE The Tiburon Planning Commission and Tiburon Town Council will hold public hearings on August 25,1999, and September 1,1999, respectively, to hear testimony on an amendment to the Site Plan & Architectural Review section (Chapter 4.02) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The proposed text amendment will require the Site Plan & Architectural Review (commonly called "design review") for the placement, replacement or modification of utility distribution poles and facilities. No rezoning of property, or changes to any other section of the Zoning Ordinance, is proposed. The public hearings will be held at the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Each meeting will begin at 7:30 PM. The public is invited to attend and comment. Copies of the proposed text amendments are available for review at the Tiburon/Belvedere Public Library, 1501 Tiburon Boulevard, and at the Tiburon Planning Department, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA. Please send any written comments to Scott Anderson, Planning Director, Tiburon Planning Dept., 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920. For a draft copy of the proposed amendments, please call 435-7377. NOTICE OF LIMITATION ON LEGAL CHALLENGES . Pursuant to Section 65009 of the California Government Code, please be advised that if you challenge the Town's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1'1~"'/ PUBLISH AS 1/6 PAGE DISPLAY AD ON AUGUST 13,1999 "'. L::r- #- f!r.;GUST ;)..01 1717 / ~ 1 T~~ 1O:f~){(LL4 fJU' /v i)U07 ~~ fll! /7; -( ! !7J/ <} 7 - PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED ON TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE The Tiburon Planning Commission and Tiburon Town Council will hold public hearings on August 25,1999, and September 1,1999, respectively, to hear testimony on an amendment to the Site Plan & Architectural Review section (Chapter 4.02) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The proposed text amendment will require the Site Plan & Architectural Review (commonly called "design review") for the placement, replacement or modification of utility distribution poles and facilities. No rezoning of proparty, or changes to any other section of the Zoning Ordinance, is proposed. The public hearings will be held at the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. Each meeting will begin at 7:30 PM. The public is invited to attend and comment. Copies of the proposed text amendments are available for review at the Tiburon/Belvedere Public Library, 1501 Tiburon Boulevard, and at the Tiburon Planning Department, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA. Please send any written comments to Scott Anderson, Planning Director, Tiburon Planning Dept., 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon, CA 94920. For a draft copy of the proposed amendments, please call 435-7377. NOTICE OF LIMITATION ON LEGAL CHALLENGES Pursuant to Section 65009 of the California Government Code, please be advised that if you challenge the Town's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town at, or prior to, the public hearing. r~ C61c TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. I To: TOWN COUNCIL From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER Subject: FILE #39904 AMENDMENT TO KUHNS PRECISE PLAN (PD #31) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA; 5 STEVENS COURT; Tom and Susan Gallagher, owners; Assessor's Parcel No 58-11]-26 Date: SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PROJECT DATA Address: APNo.: FileNo.: General Plan: Zoning: Property Size: Subdivision: Current Use: Owners: Applicant: Date Complete CEQA Exemption: Permit Streamlining Act Deadline: BACKGROUND 5 Stevens Court 58-111-26 39904 Medium Low Density Residential RPD (Kuhns Precise Plan, PD #31) 33,459 square feet Lands ofFraige, PM 5-90 Single-family residential Tom and Susan Gallagher Hank Bruce Architects June 3, 1999 June 3, 1999 September I, 1999 The project is the proposed amendment to a precise plan (the Kuhns Precise Plan) requested by the owners of property located at 5 Stevens Court. The applicants wish to increase the maximum floor area permitted for all three residential parcels located in this subdivision. Two other recently-constructed homes, commonly known as 1 and 9 Stevens Court, are also located within the subdivision. All three lots are developed with two-story single-family homes. On August II, ] 999, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-13 recommending to the Town Council that the Precise Plan amendment be approved. TIBURON TOW~ COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 1 SEPTEMBER 1. 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Kuhns Precise Plan currently limits each parcel to a maximum floor area of3,600 square feet, including the garage. The applicants propose to amend the text of the precise plan to allow additional floor area "if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house." Plans have been submitted (Exhibit 6) which illustrate the additional floor area which could be constructed within the mass and bulk of the existing house at 5 Stevens Court. A media room and utility room would be added to the existing lower floor (shown on the plans as the "mid-level"). A new lower floor would be added beneath the mid-level, including an activity room, office, bathroom and storage area. These additions would increase the floor area of the house by 1,510 square feet, from the existing 3,600 square feet to 5,110 square feet. It is difficult to estimate the potential floor area which could be added to the other two homes in this subdivision if this amendment is approved, without a more detailed analysis of the other floor plans. HISTORY The Kuhns Precise Plan was originally approved in 1980, then expired and was reapproved without any changes in 1984. The precise plan includes three parcels accessed by Stevens Court, a private street. Town Council Resolution No. 3121 (Exhibit 4), which currently governs this precise plan, states that "the maximum gross floor area for each parcel shall not exceed 3,600 square feet, including the garage." This condition of approval was imposed by the Town Council during hearings on this development proposal in 1980. The Council minutes do not reflect extensive discussion on this floor area limit, but indicate that the applicant was requested to indicate the anticipated floor area for the three homes in the subdivision. These house size limitations on the Kuhns Precise Plan were imposed prior to the Town's adoption of Floor Area Ratio (FA.R.) limits in all residential zones. House size limits were placed on certain precise plans in the early 1980' s, as a precursor to current floor area limitations. Current practice for the Town of Tiburon is that all precise development plan approvals SRecity floor area limits on all lots within a development. These limits are commonly more restrictive than the "default" floor area limits found in Section 4.02.08 of the Zoning Ordinance. For comparison purposes, under the Town's current "default" FA.R. standards, adopted in 1990, the subject property would be allowed a maximum floor area of 5,346 square feet, plus an additional 600 square feet for garage space. The total floor area indicated for this house under the requested amendment would be 5, 110 square feet, including garage. TIBlTR()~ TOWN COf!NCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 1. 1999 2 Another application was submitted in 1995 to increase the floor area maximums for this precise plan (File #39502). This previous application requested that the maximum floor area for Lots 1 & 2 (1 and 5 Stevens Court) be increased to 4,800 square feet, with the floor area for Lot 3 (9 Stevens Court) increased to 4,600 square feet. At that time, the applicant stated that the additional floor area would be "added to the lower portion and downhill side of the house[s] which would then have no impact on uphill neighbors." Several uphill property owners along Round Hill Road raised objections to the request to increase floor areas for these homes. The T own Council denied this application, stating that "the project would have a negative visual impact on adjacent properties by increasing the mass and visible bulk of the structures" PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission contrasted the current application to the previously denied request to increase floor area for the homes governed by this precise plan While the previous request would have allowed the residences to be visually expanded, the current request would not result in any visible increase in the mass and bulk of the existing homes. The Commission did not want this decision to set any precedent for allowing unlimited increases in floor areas for other previously approved precise plans in Tiburon. In this case, the Commission determined that the increased floor area permitted for the homes in this subdivision would be in keeping with the sizes of other homes in the surrounding area, yet would still be less than that otherwise permitted by the Town's F. A. R. standards for similar sized lots elsewhere in Tiburon. The request to increase the floor area for the existing homes without increasing the mass and bulk of the structures was also deemed to be different than other requests to increase home sizes, and would therefore keep the visual scale of these homes consistent with the standards of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise plan amendments and with the Tiburon General Plan. The Planning Commission determined that since there would be no changes to the mass and bulk of the existing homes, the project would not alter the overall development pattern of the Kuhns Precise Plan, and therefore is consistent with the policies outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT No comments were received from surrounding property owners regarding this request. The applicant has spoken to the neighboring residents, many of whom have objected to the previous request for increased floor area for this precise plan. No objections were received, primarily due to the lack of visual changes proposed as part of this request. T/[H!RON TO\\,.'N COlr;.JCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER I. 1999 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINA nON This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. CONCLUSION: The request to increase the maximum permitted floor area for homes within this subdivision would be generally consistent with the intent of the Kuhn Precise Plan. The requested additions would increase the permitted floor area beyond that originally approved under this precise plan in 1980, but would not result in any visible changes to the mass and bulk of the three existing homes governed by this precise plan, and would be generally compatible with the existing scale of the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends that the Town Council hold a public hearing on this item, then adopt the draft resolution approving the project, subject to the conditions contained therein. EXHIBITS 1 Application form and supplemental materials 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-13 3. Staff Report dated July 28, 1999 4 Minutes of the July 28, 1999 Planning Commission meeting 5. Letter from Tom and Susan Gallagher, dated July 28, 1999 6. Draft resolution 7. Proposed plans dated June 7, 1999 TIBl IRON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER I. 1999 4 TYPE OF APPLICATION ~ MAY I 2 1999 ;;.~. \. ' ";..- ., o Conditional Use Permit o Precise Development Plan o Conceptual Master Plan o Rezoning/Prezoning o Zoning Text Amendment o General Plan Amendment PLANNING DEPARTMENr o Design Revie~ (Major) 0 Tentative SubdiviSio~TlBURON o Desig" Review (Minor) 0 Final Subdivision Map o Variance 0 Parcel Map o Sign P~r.mit.. 0 lot line Adjustment o T~ee Permit" .~;~:i '._".'-'0' Certificate of Compliance o Underground Waiver ., Other Precise Development Plan Amendment APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 5 Stevens Court PARCEL NUMBER: 58-111-26 PROPERTY SIZE: ZONING: 33,459 SF RPD OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: Tnm .::Inri C;11C';:;:tn (.;~" i'lghpY' 5 Stevens Court Tiburon. CA 94920 989-93D2 FAX APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: Hank Bruce Architects ?1R M,,;n C;trppt Tiburon, CA 94920 435-9118 FAX 435-6051 ARCIllTECTillESIGNER/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: as applicant above FAX Please indicate with an asterisk (*J persons to whom correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate. sheet. if needed): "To develop existing II underfloor area into habitable resldentlal space alld orovide access to the exterior. !, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval-of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the previsions of the Town Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. EXHIBIT NO.---L- l lc:F'f Hank Bruce Architects ~ 23 B Main Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Fax 415 435-6051 Telephone 415 435-9118 June 2, 1999 Precise Deveiopment Plan Amendment for: Tom and Susan Gallagher 5 Stevens Court Tiburon, CA 94920 APN: 58-111-26 PROPOSED CHANGE TO Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Resolution No, 3121: SECTION 2. APPROVAL 4. The maximum gross floor area for such parcei shall not exceed 3,600 square feet, including the garage; exceot that oreater area is oermitted if attained entirelv within undevelooed soace within the existino mass and bulk of the aooroved house. EXHIBIT NO. I p. 2- ~'-{ Hank Bruce Architects ~ v" . .. RECr.:;V':~ JUN 2 1999 23 B Main Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Fax 415 435-6051 Telephone 415 435-9118 PLANNING OE?~P;';E,.!T TOWN OF T!8LJHL:J June 2, 1999 Precise Development Plan Amendment for: Tom and Susan Galla9her 5 Stevens Court Tiburon, CA 94920 Hom~ Phone: 415-789-9302 Environmental Data Submission: A. Proiect Information 1. Applicant: See above 2. Submission Preparer: Hank Bruce Architects 23B Main Street Tiburon, CA 94920 3. Project Number: 98.20 4. Assessor's Parcel No.: 58-111-26 5. Approval Sought: Precise Development Plan Amendment 6. Project Location: See Sheet 1, Vicinity Map 7. Property Size: 33,459 SF 8. Site Use: Single-Family Residential 9. Zone: RPD 10. The project intent is to develop the existing underfloor area into conditioned, habitabie space of approx. 1510 F. The present single-family use of the property will remain unchanged. The surrounding land will. remain unchanged except for an access porch to the exterior. 11. Design Revi5lw Board approval will be required for the new window and door _ openings in existing exterior walls. 12. See #6, above. B. Environmental Settina 1. Topography: The natural slope of the terrain surrounding the house is approximately 2:1. Clumps of oak trees lie downhill form the residence. All proposed work will occur within the existing building envelope and will not impact the surrounding land and tree growth. 2. Ecology: Since work will not occur outside the existing building envelope, siope stability will not be impacted. 3. Air Quality: There are no known air pollutants in this existing residential area. EXHIBIT NO. t cr. 3 oF- L{ 4. Hydrology: A natural drainage course lies to the north in addition to engineered drawings installed at the time of this minor subdivision. The proposed work will effect neither. 5. Water Quality: No know sources of contamination exist in the area. 6. Biology: Clusters of oak trees exist downhill from the house and will remain untouched. 7. Noise: No significant noise generators exist in this single-family residential area. 8. Visual fScenic Resources: This is not a scenic resource site. The project will result in no visible change to the landscape. 9. Grading: Approximately 2S cu. yds. of earth will be excavated during this work, the majority of which will be hauled off the site. 10. ArchaeologicfCultural resources: There are no such resources on the site. 11. Population and Housing Characteristics: This site is a part of a single- family residential district. 12. Circulation: The project will resuit in no change of traffic or circulation patterns. 13. Public Service and Utilities: The project will require no change in the provision of public services. 14. Health and Safety: No dangerous material are near the site. Trees and brush are located downhill from the house and are maintained against fire danger. C. Imoacts As noted above, no adverse impacts will occur as a result of this proposed work. D. Mitioation Measures None needed, E. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: ~ For: EXHIBIT NO.--1- -p. I{ CFl{ RESOLUTION NO. 99-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE KUHNS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-111-26 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings A. The Town has received and considered an application filed by Tom and Susan Gallagher for an amendment to the Kuhns Precise Development Plan to increase the maximum floor area permitted for each parcel within this subdivision. The applicant's property is developed with existing single-family residence, and is located at 5 Stevens Court. The application consists of the following: 1. Application form, dated May 12, 1999 2. Environmental Data Submission Form, dated June 2,1999 3. Site Plan and Proposed Floor Plans dated June 2, 1999 B. The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on July 28, 1999, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. C The Planning Commission has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. D. The Planning Commission finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the July 28, 1999 Staff Report, as well as visits to the site and testimony received from the applicant, tlJat the project is consistent with the requirements of the Tiburon Z.oning Ordinance regarding precise development plan amendments and is compatible witlnhe overall intentions of the Kuhns Precise Development Plan. The increased floor area requested would be in keeping with the sizes of other homes in the vicinity, but would be less than that which would be allowed for similar sized lots in other zones in the town. This request for increased floor area is different from other such requests in Tiburon, as the additional floor area requested would not increase the mass and bulk ofthe existing homes in this subdivision, but would still be in keeping with the applicable neighborhood and community standards. E. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the policies contained within the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan. Policy LU-22 of the Tiburon Planning Conunissilln R.;>:so\ution No. 99-13 August 11. 1999 1 EXHIBIT NO. L p. L or:;. Land Use Element states that "the Town shall adopt housing size limitations for residential development as part of the Zoning Ordinance for reasons detailed in Open S pace and Conservation Policy OSC-6 [which states that "the Town should encourage well-designed projects that enhance its image through the development and design review processes. Monotony in design, and massive structures and site coverage that overwhelm the surrounding area, shall be avoided."] Possible methods include, but are not limited to, floor area ratios, coverage, height, bulk, and square footage limits." The Town has adopted a square footage limitation for this subdivision, but the maximum floor area established for homes in this subdivision in 1980 no longer reflects the current housing market and the needs of single-family homeowners in Tiburon. The increased floor area requested would be less than that which would be allowed for similar sized lots in other zones under the Town's adopted floor area ratio requirements. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the increase in the maximum floor area established by the Kuhns Precise Plan to the Town Council, subject to the following conditions: 1. Town Council Resolution No. 3121 shall be amended to state that "the maximum . floor area for each parcel shall not exceed 3,600 square feet, including the garage; except that greater area is permitted if attained entirelv within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the aoproved house." 2. This Precise Development Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months following' its effectiv~ date, and shall expire unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to this approval. A time extension may be granted if such request is filed prior to the expiration date. 3. This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Kuhns Precise Plan not specifically described herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on August 11, 1999, by tllefollowing vote: .. AYES COIVIMISSIONERS: BERGER, KNOBLE, SLA VITZ AND STEIN NOES COlVl.MISSIONERS NONE ABSTAIN COlVl.MISSIONERS KLAIRMONT Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 99~13 August 11. 1999 2 EXHIBIT NO. '2-- p. Zap 3. ATTEST: ~; SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY Tiburon Planning Commission ~~~~ Tiburon Planning Commission H:\resoslpc39904.apv.doc Resolution No. 99-13 Auguslll.1999 3 EXHIBIT NO. "2- p- 3Dr 3 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. c2 To: PLANNING COMMISSION From: DANIELM. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER Subject: FILE #39904: AMENDMENT TO KUHNS PRECISE PLAN (pD #31) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA; 5 STEVENS COURT; Tom and Susan Gallagher, owners; Assessor's Parcel No. 58-111-26 Date: JULY 28, 1999 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 14, 1999) PROJECT DATA Address APNo FileNo: General Plan: Zoning Property Size: Subdivision: Current Use: Owners: Applicant: Date Complete: CEQA Exemption: Permit Streamlining Act Deadline: 5 Stevens Court 58-111-26 39904 Medium Low Density Residential RPD (Kuhns Precise Plan, PD #31) 33,459 square feet Lands ofFraige, PM 5-90 Single-family residential Tom and Susan Gallagher Hank Bruce Architects June 3, 1999 June 3, 1999 September 1, 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the proposed amendment to a precise plan (the Kuhns Precise Plan) for property located at 5 Stevens Court. The applicants wish to increase the maximum floor area permitted for all three residential parcels located in this subdivision. Two other recently-constructed homes, commonly known as 1 and 9 Stevens Court, are also located within the subdivision. All three lots are developed with two-story single-family homes. TIBlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JULY 28, 1999 1 EXHIBIT NO.~ ? lbP<,., The Kuhns Precise Plan currently limits each parcel to a maximum floor area of3,600 square feet, including the garage. The applicants propose to amend the text of the precise plan to allow additional floor area "if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house." Plans have been submitted (Exhibit 6) which illustrate the additional floor area which could be constructed within the mass and bulk of the existing house at 5 Stevens Court. A media room and utility room would be added to the existing lower floor (shown on the plans as the "mid-level"). A new lower floor would be added beneath the mid-level, including an activity room, office, bathroom and storage area. These additions would increase the floor area of the house by 1,510 square feet, from the existing 3,600 square feet to 5,110 square feet. The requested amendment would allow a 41.9% increase above the current maximum floor area for this parcel. It is difficult to estimate the potential floor area which could be added to the other two homes in this subdivision if this amendment is approved, without a more detailed analysis of the other floor plans. HISTORY A brief chronology of the Kuhns Precise Plan approval record is as follows: 1980. The Fraige Master Plan and Precise Plan are approved by the Town. These approvals subsequently expire in 1984. 1984. The Kuhns Master Plan and Precise Plan resubmitted and approved by the Town. 1995. Amendment to the Kuhns Precise Plan (File #39406) approved to adjust the building envelopes for all three parcels in the subdivision 1995. Amendment to the Kuhns Precise Plan (File #39502) requested to increasethe maximum floor area for a~. three parcels, adjust the building envelope for Lot 2 (5 Stevens Court) and modifY the height limitations for all three parcels. The request to increase the floor areas was not approved, but the other modifications were approved. 1995. Amendment to the Kuhns Precise Plan (File #39504) approved to adjust the parking and fencing requirements for the subdivision. Town Council Resolution 3121 adopted to consolidate all amendments and remaining original requirements for the precise plan. 1998. Amendment to the Kuhns Precise Plan (File #39705) to allow the construction of an exterior staircase outside the building envelope for Lot 1 (1 Stevens Court) denied by the Planning Commission. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JULY 28. 1999 2 EXHIBIT NO. 3 ~. ')... OF L, The Kuhns Precise Plan was originally approved in 1980, then expired and was reapproved without any changes in ] 984. The precise plan includes three parcels accessed by Stevens Court, a private street. Town Council Resolution No. 3121 (Exhibit 4), which currently governs this precise plan. states that "the maximum gross floor area for each parcel shall not exceed 3,600 square feet, including the garage" This condition of approval was imposed by the Town Council during hearings on this development proposal in 1980. The Council minutes do not reflect extensive discussion on this floor area limit, but indicate that the applicant was requested to indicate the anticipated floor area for the three homes in the subdivision. These house size limitations on the Kuhns Precise Plan were imposed prior to the Town's adoption of Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) limits in all residential zones. House size limits were placed on certain precise plans in the early 1980' s, as a precursor to current floor area limitations. Current.practice for the Town of Tiburon is that all precise development pJ@ approvals specify floor area limits on all lots within a development. These limits are commonly more restrictive than the "default" floor area limits found in Section 4.02.08 of the Zoning Ordinance. For comparison purposes, under the Town's current "default" F.A.R. standards, adopted in ]990, the subject property would be allowed a maximum floor area of 5,346 square feet, plus an additional 600 square feet for garage space. The total floor area indicated for this house under the requested amendment would be 5,] ] 0 square feet, including garage. The 1995 application to increase the floor area maximums for this precise plan (File #39502) requested that the maximum floor area for Lots 1 & 2 (1 and 5 Stevens Court) be increased to 4,800 square feet, with the floor area for Lot 3 (9 Stevens Court) increased to 4,600 square feet. At that time, the applicant stated that the additional floor area would be "added to the lower portion and downhill side of the house[s] which would then have no impact on uphill neighbors" Several uphill property owners along Round Hill Road raised objections to the request to increase floor areas for these homes. The Planning Commission determined that this increased floor area was inappropriate, and did not recommend approval of this request in its resolution to the Town Council (Resolution No. 95-13, attached as Exhibit 2)._ The Town Council included the following language in adopting Resolution No. 310] (Exhibit 3): "The Town Council finds that the applicant's request to increase the allowable house size limit for residences in the project would have a negative visual impact on adjacent properties by increasing the mass and visible bulk of the structures. The proposed house sizes are substantially larger than existing houses in the immediate vicinity, including the new residence at 211 Round Hill Road. The Town Council further finds that the applicant has provided no compelling reason to approve larger house sizes for the project, nor demonstrated any benefit to the public health, safety or general welfare to warrant a change to the zoning restrictions properly placed on the project by the Town." TIBl;RON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JULY 28. 1999 3 EXHIBIT NO. "?:> ?, '3 6F (,.,. ANALYSIS In the past few years, the Design Review Board has been faced with a growing number of requests to enclose area originally approved as crawl space or other unfinished areas, many of which require approval of floor area exceptions. In some cases, concerns have been raised that the homes were designed to meet the maximum F.A.R. requirements, but included additional space that did not meet the technical definition of "floor area," but could be easily converted to habitable space in the future. A number of residents have raised concerns about such cases, which they feel subvert the intent of the F.A.R. regulations. Although it is difficult to determine if the subject house was designed with this intention, the request would be similar to those made for numerous other homes in Tiburon. - Section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that "residential construction in excess of the floor area guidelines may be granted through a floor area exception if the following findings are made: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to. the scale of trees, rock outcrop pings. stream courses, land forms, and the dimensions of the lot" Requests to convert crawl spaces and other unfinished areas that lie within the existing mass and bulk of a house usually conform to these requirements, as the additional floor area generally does not change the overall visual size and scale of the house, and would not alter the relationship between the house and the physical characteristics of the site. Although the subject request cannot be remedied by a floor area exception, the requested additions would also appear to meet these requirements for granting additional floor area to a residence, as the additions would not add to the mass and bulk of the existing house nor change the structure's relationship to the contours of the property. Another growing phenomenon in Tiburon is a pattern of unrealistic development expectations for expensive real estate. Increasingly, homebuyers purchase an existing residence with the expectation that, for the purchase price paid, they should be able to substantially increase the size of the house. In many cases, the size of the existing homes is already at the maximum F.A.R. for the property, and additions can only be permitted with a floor area exception. These homebuyers base their expectations of the ultimate size of their house on the purchase price of the house, rather than the development standards established for the home and others in the neighborhood. TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JULY 28. 1999 4 EXHIBIT NO. "3 ~( L..{ OF (p Elements of this situation are present in the analysis of the subject application. The Kuhns Precise Plan clearly established a maximum floor area of3,600 square feet for each of the three parcels in this subdivision. This limitation was present prior to the applicant's purchase of the property in 1997. Yet, rather than abide by these requirements, the applicants are requesting to increase the floor area for this residence by more than 40%. In 1995, the Planning Commission noted that the applicants at that time had purchased property with knowledge of the existing floor area limitations As mentioned above, these limitations are often more restrictive for parcels regulated by precise development plans than for lots located in other single-family residential zones. The Town Council also noted in 1995 that no compelling reason had been presented by the applicant to amend the Kuhns Precise Plan to increase the floor areas for these homes. The current applicants contend that since the requested floor area would be con~ined "within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house," that the additional floor area would not result in negative impacts on other properties in the vicinity. The 1995 request would have permitted less floor area than the current application, and permitted additions which would "have no impact on uphill neighbors." The current application is therefore substantially similar to the request denied by the Town in 1995. No significant changes have occurred to the subject or surrounding properties since that time to present compelling reasons to approve this request at this time. This application was originally scheduled for the June 23, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Prior to that meeting, the applicant requested a continuance to attempt to address the concerns raised within this report and to speak to neighboring property owners regarding this request. To date, the Town has received no public comments from nearby residents regarding this application. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise plan amendments and the Tiburon General Plan. The project does not appear to be consistent with the overall intentions of the Kuhns Precise Plan. The limitation on floor area contained within this precise plan does not offer exceptions to increase the floor area based on the designs of individual homes, or for any other reason. This requirement was imposed along with other conditions of approval that were intended to preserve much-of the open and wooded character of the site, and ensure compatibility with the scale of surrounding residential development. The floor area maximums appear to have been intended as a finite limit on the development potential for each home within this subdivision Policy LU-22 of the Land Use Element states that "the Town shall adopt housing size limitations for residential development as part of the Zoning Ordinance for reasons detailed in Open Space and Conservation Policy OSC-6 [which states that "the Town should encourage well-designed projects that enhance its image through the development and design review processes. Monotony in design. and massive structures and site coverage that overwhelm the surrounding area, shall be TIBlfRO?\' PL.A...."'JNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R1LY 28. 1999 5 EXHIBIT NO. 3> ~, C; O'F-(p avoided."] Possible methods include, but are not limited to, floor area ratios, coverage, height, bulk, and square footage limits." The Town has adopted a square footage limitation for this subdivision, but has since adopted floor area ratio requirements which would permit additional floor area for this property if no such limit was contained within the governing precise plan. In cases where two different development standards exist, Section 1.03.00 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, the more restrictive standard prevails. In this case, the request would be inconsistent with the established square footage limitations for this property specified by the Kuhns Precise Plan, and therefore would be inconsistent with Policy LU-22. CONCLUSION The request to increase the maximum permitted floor area for homes within this subdivision would b.e inconsistent with the intent of the Kuhn Precise Plan. The requ~s~d additions would significantly increase the permitted floor area beyond that originally approved under this precise plan in 1980, and reaffirmed in the denial of a substantially similar application in 1995. No compelling reason has been presented to approve this precise plan amendment, which would be inconsistent with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Tiburon General Plan. FUTURE ACTIONS REQUIRED The Planning Commission's denial of this project would be final unless appealed to the Town Council. Should the Commission vote to approve the project, that action would be a recommendation to the Town Council. If the amendment to the precise plan is approved by the Town Council, subsequent Town permits would include Site Plan and Architectural Review approval and building permits for the proposed additions. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this item and adopt the draft resolution denying the project. EXHmITS 1. Application form and supplemental materials 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 95-13 3. T own Council Resolution No. 3101 4. Town Council Resolution No. 3121 5. Draft resolution 6. Site plan and floor plans TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JULY 28. 1999 6 EXIDBITNO. 3 ?, tv oFr,a PUBLIC HEARING 2. 5 STEVENS COURT (FILE #399004): PRECISE DEVELOPMENl: PLAN (KUHNS) AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA; Tom and Susan Gallagher, applicants; Assessor Parcel No. 058-111-26. (Continued from July 14, 1999.) Senior Planner Watrous stated that this was a request to amend the Kuhns Precise Plan to increase the maximum floor area allowed for the three residential parcels in this subdivision. The floor area currently allowed is 3,600 square feet including the garage. They are asking to allow additional floor area "if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house. " They propose increasing the floor area by 1,510 square feet for a total of 5,110 square feet. A previous request to increase the floor area was denied in 1995. Staff review of the subdivision and application found that this request would not be consistent with the intent of the Kuhns Subdivision or the Tiburon General Plan. Mr. Watrous felt that the applicant had not demonstrated a compelling reason for the change, and he recommended denial of the project. Vice-Chair Slavitz wondered whether this represented a loophole. Mr. Watrous stated that it is not uncommon for the extra crawl space to be constructed with under-height ceilings and unfinished floor. He felt this was not a loophole, but that it is something to be watched when new homes are reviewed. Commissioner Stein confirmed that the prior denial occurred prior to construction. He asked what public policy was served by limiting the crawl space as it is. Mr. Watrous replied that it limited the intensity of development. More floor area usually means more people, more cars, and more activity. It is more an intensity issue than a visual one. Commissioner Stein asked how often a conversion of this nature came up. Mr. Watrous replied that it usually does not involve a precise plan, so the Design Review Board handles these floor area exceptions, and the Board usually supports them. New homes that are intentionally designed to fill in this space at a later date circumvent the regulations. That was not the case here. Chair Berger confirmed that if this were regulated by the Town's general floor area ratio standards, this property would be allowed 5,946 square feet. The discussion was opened to the public at 7:45 p.m. Tom Gallagher, applicant, complimented Staff on the handling of this project and complimented the Commission for being such an objective body. He stated that he bought the house with the intention to add on, but discovered that the Town interprets precise plans specifically and exactly. He explained that they needed the extra space because his children were currently double-bunked in each of the two bedrooms, and they need an office area. He felt that what they were proposing was compatible with the neighborhood and the site as it would not be visible. Tiburon does allow TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES NO. 809 OF JULY 28, 1999 EXHIBIT NO. 4: ~. L DF5 floor area exceptions elsewhere and his request would be significantly below the 5,900 square feet otherwise allowed by the Town's floor area standards. Mr, Gallagher pointed out that when the application was denied in 1995, these homes had not been built yet and there were problems between the developer and a neighbor. No neighbors have responded negatively to his proposal. There are homes in the neighborhood of similar size or larger and they could all expand. As to the suggestion that this is a real estate ploy, this is their home and they have no desire to move. Mr. Gallagher explained some of the history of this project. He said Mr, Kuhn was granted permission to build three clustered homes in 1980. At that time Mr. Kuhn was asked how large the homes would be and he said 3,600 square feet, including garage space, was what he intended to build. Mr. Gallagher commented that this was based on the economic conditions at that time, which were quite different then. He asked the Commission not to let that determine what he could do now. He also noted that the realtor had a "family room" sign posted in the empty space downstairs in the house. Discussion was closed to the public at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Stein felt there needed to be some rationale for adhering to the precise plan. Staff advised that there would be a potential intensification of use, even if the addition would not be visible. But the prime reason to limit the floor area is to limit the mass and bulk of a structure and that is not a factor in this proposal. If the floor area were not limited by this precise plan, this change would be allowed. He cited the Point Tiburon application for the use of the second story in which the Council reversed the Commission's denial. He felt the Commission had received a clear direction from the Council to interpret requests to use interior space with no exterior aspect liberally. It did concern him that realtors advertise these spaces as potential floor area, but he was inclined to accept this proposal. Commissioner Knoble thought the Commission needed to be more vigilant and perhaps educate developers and realtors about Town restrictions. She stated that a precise plan was usually applied for a good reason and may be more restrictive because of aggressive developers. While she was concerned that they were proposing increasing the floor area by 42 %, she would approve this as a one-of-a-kind, non-precedent setting change. Vice-Chair Slavitz stared that he understood Staff was trying to minimize floor area incr~es and if it were an external expansion, he would not approve the request. But this is not adding mass or bulk and he would approve this application. He did want some way to more carefully examine new home requests in the future. Commissioner Knoble stated that this project had exceptional circumstances and this type of expansion would not necessarily be approved in the future, only if there were a compelling reason presented and there were no view impacts. Chair Berger stated that, in some cities, the DRB guidelines now count the double height space, for example, in the floor area calculation. TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION 3 MINtrrES NO. 809 OF JUI.... Y 28. 1999 EXHIBIT NO..2L- 1'. z oF~ Chair Berger said the Commission was there to make discretionary decisions. This project had no added bulk, the intensity of use is already there, and the other neighbors are not opposed to the change. The purpose of the FAR is to control mass and bulk. If floor area can be added without adding view blockage, that is good. MIS Berger/Knoble (4-0) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the Town Council approval of this project. The resolution was to include language that this action would not set a precedent, that the increase in mass is in keeping with the neighborhood, and that the homes would still be smaller than others in the neighborhood. 3. 141 TAYLOR ROAD: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.tS-ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS; Doug & Britt Engel, applicants; Assessor Parcel Nos. 38-071-13 & 38-071-16. Senior Planner Watrous stated that this was a request to split one parcel into two lots for single- family homes. A similar application had been made in 1987, but had expired. A Design Review approval had been received in 1993 and that had also expired. The geotechnical report for this proposal is somewhat different than the one for the 1987 project. Now, rather than extensive soil removal to repair a landslide area, they propose an anchored foundation. The wetlands from a seep on the west side will be redirected and native vegetation will be planted. No serpentine grass has been found, and no endangered species. The house that was approved for Lot 2 was for 5,609 square feet plus garage. Both lots would have a maximum floor area of 8,000 square feet. The Commission may consider reducing this maximum, and the applicant would agree to that. There has been one letter in opposition and a few phone calls in support of the subdivision. Mr. Watrous recommended that if the Commission finds the application consistent with the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, they should adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the tentative subdivision map. Mr. Watrous had prel'ared a table to compare the lot sizes and floor areas of the hom~s in the area. The downhill homes were older and smaller, and those uphill were larger than the proposed homes. Chair Berger asked how staff felt about limiting the square footage. Mr. Watrous replied that the maximum should be more in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Stein stated that the previous approval had been for one house on a three-acre lot. He wondered how this project the approved house. Mr. Watrous stated that this project complies with the setback requirements and floor area ratio. Mr. Stein said that the 1994 geologic report referred to one house and was very specific to that project. He wondered how that could pertain TIBURON PLANNINO COMMISSION 4 MINUTES NO. 809 OF JULY 28.1999 EXHIBIT NO. If p. '3 uF 3> MEMORANDUM DATE: 07/28/99 TO: TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TOM AND SUSAN GAllAGHER SUBJECT: 5 STEVENS COURT As owners and residents of 5 Stevens Court, we are asking the Tiburon Planning Commission accept our request to amend the precise plan for our home. We request a change in the precise plan for a number of reasons, many of which we outline below. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL SPACE We hope to add an additional bedroom to the second floor of the house. When originally built, the house had this entire space on the second floor left open. Rat proofed, and open to the elements, this odd room became a problem for us as our exploring children were able to access it directly from the hallway on the second floor. On more than one occasion, we had problems with children's play because of this area. Afraid of it becoming a bigger problem, we put in flooring, though the space is not usable at this time. The current precise plan does not allow us to do anything with this room. Why do we need an extra bedroom? Currently our four children double bWJk in two bedrooms. This new bedroom will ~e"tly enhance the livability of the second floor of the home. As the Qouse currently exists, we struggle to fit beds, desks, and drawers into the children's rooms. The iliird bedroom downstairs rotates between sick kids, visiting relatives, and a winter playroom of approximately 50 usable square feet. The other changes to our home will take place below the bedrooms. We hope to add a storage room, a family room large enough to hold a pool table, and an office. Currently, the garage is our main storage area of the home. By adding storage to the inside of the home we will be able to park our cars in the garage and get them out of view of the neighbors. The family room will provide our children with space to be kids inside of our home. Finally, since my bedroom doubles as an office, the office below will provide an effective solution to my work needs. I work at home frequently in the evenings and early mornings, at those times our bedroom does not provide a viable solution. In the end, while we love the home and want to stay for many, many years, we have come to realize that these changes are necessary for our family to make the home work for us. EXHIBIT NO.~ f. LOF ~ RESPONSE TO TIlE STAFF REVIEW AND FINDINGS I. The staff analysis indicates that in section 4.02.08 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance "residential construction in excess of the floor area guidelines m"}' be granted through floor area exception if the following findings are made: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site... ." This request meets these criteria. II. The staff analysis indicated the size of the home on this parcel, if zoned as a general residential lot in Tiburon, could be as large as 5,200 square feet, with an additional 600 square foot garage. While the home is subject to the precise plan with its own limitations, our home including the entire new floor space will be well below the maximum allowable for this site. This request falls within Tiburon zoning guidelines. III. Staff indicated a similar request was denied in 1995 on this exact parcel. I spent a significant amount of time reading the file on the earlier request. In fact, in 1995 the Tiburon Planning Staff let the question of the size of the homes to be built on the three parcels which make up the subdivision be determined by the neighbors. Because of a number of issues, the neighborhood had in dealing with the developer, as a group they stood against any increase allowed in the scope of the precise plan. No such objection~have been raised by any of our neighbors. IV The staff indicated that the homes in the vacinity were of similar size to our eXlstmg structure and that our request would not be in keeping with the neighborhood. This is not altogether true. Attached is a listing of homes that are within a quarter of a mile of our home that are sometimes significandy larger. Furthermore, the uphill neighbors have a significant advantage we do not share today - that is, they can request (as recently an uphill neighbor has done) to increase the size of their home. There are a number of homes we look at from our home everyday, which are significantly larger. 2 EXHIBIT NO. 5 p, 2- DP'Co V The staff analysis also suggests that there may be something of a real estate play involved in our request. The analysis was based upon the fact that the restrictions on the property existed when we purchased the home. This is not correct. What really happened was a complete lack of understanding of Tiburon. If we can make the changes necessary, we will be in our home permanently. There is no real estate play involved. VI. The staff also alluded to neighborhood congestion, traffic and the impact the addition may have in the future. Honestly, this should also not be a problem to the neighborhood. As a family of six, in a three home subdivision, this is just not an issue here. We almtdy hare 1'17Gre rhan the narm! If the neighborhood didn't want us to complete this project because of the congestion and use issues, they would have responded against our request. There will be no additional concerns of neighborhood congestion with our addition. HISTORY AND TIlOUGHTS ABOUT TIlE KUHN SUBDIVISION In total, the Kuhn precise plan consists of three existing homes. Much of the time I spent reviewing the fIles of the subdivision and the precise plan was in anempting to understand the reason for the restriction of 3,600 square feet. Where did it come from? Why was it limited to this size? The answer to the fIrst question goes back to May/June of 1980 when the town agreed to the precise plan for the three parcels. The Kuhn precise plan exists today because William Kuhn, when asked by the Planning Commission of the day what size of the homes he intended to build, responded that he planned to build three homes on the site of no more than 3,600 square feet, including garage. The answer to the second question requires a certain amOWlt of conjecture, but it is easy to sunnise because of the prevailing conditions of the economy and the value of real estate on the Tiburon peninsula at that time. TIllnk about the conditions of the economy in 1980. We were strapped with double digit interest ",tes and an economy in the dwnps. If William Kuhn was going to hope to sell his homes profIrably;-they couldn't get much bigger. Neither the prevailing economic conditions of the day, nor the real estate climate would have pennined these homes to be larger. Please don't let the prevailing conditions of the economy and real estate market in 1980, detennine what my family can do with our home today. TIlOUGHTS ON TIlE COMPELLING REASON In their analysis, the staff has suggested that there are no compelling reasons to allow a change to the precise plan. We disagree. If none of the points of discussion already presented affect your decision, then perhaps our single most compelling argument exists in challenging the Planning Commission and staff to think about the decision to allow the home to be built with its current configuration. We 3 EXHIBIT NO. S- ~, 3 DPCo were not present when the staff reviewed this design. We were not present when a decision was made to allow a home to be built with enclosed space on a parcel controlled by a precise plan. We weren't present when the home was allowed to be built with the hillside running through our actual living space, where our children play during our soggy months. If the staff now has a problem with this, why did they allow the home to be built like this in the first place? The compelling reason is the nature of the request itself. It's logical. Not one additional square foot of space will be visible to anyone. In conclusion, if the members of the Planning Commission are inclined to vote against our submission, we request you put off your decision until each of you come by our home and see the project's scope first hand. By visiting our home, we know you will have a better understanding of the nature of our request and its impact on the neighborhood. 4 EXIllBIT NO. {;: f. 4 Of-(.., ~ #S4~ /AI 7F~JJ ~.~~ t/J II wflN 11-1 JIIlil4JII Plf4J~r ~~__09 Parcel # , 034-243-31 034-330-04 034-330-06 034-330-08 034-330-13 034-330";14 034-330-15 034-330-16 034-330-16 034-330-19 034-330-20 038-011-31 036-011-32 038-011-33 038-011-44 038-011-45 038-091-35 036-091-36 038-400-13 038-400-14 ~039-070-30 ~039-070-31 039-070-32 039-081-03 039-141-14 039-141-17 $039-171-03 039-171-16 039-201-01 039-252-04 039-252-06 039-271-03 039-271-10 039-271-12 039-271-13 039-271-16 039-290-01 039-290-02 039-290-05 ~039-290-10 -039-290-15 055-162-06 -055-183-06 *055-251-45 058-121-06 lfo058-121-15 056-132-38 056-141-05 058-201-15 056-201-16 058-231-03 056-231-05 058-231-13 058-231-24 058-231-25 ;f.oS8-261-14 '1:058-261-18 _058-261-20 "058-261-30 Property Address 501 TIBURON 59 VIA LOS ALTOS 63 VIA LOS ALTOS 71 VIA LOS ALTOS 62 VIA LOS ALTOS 68 VIA LOS ALTOS 74 VIA LOS ALTOS 80 VIA LOS ALTOS 83 VIA LOS AL'l'OS 87 VIA LOS ALTOS 91 VIA LOS ALTOS 4 PARK 6 PARK 7 PARK 15 CIBRIAN 11 CIBRIAN 4681 PARADISE. 4883 PARADISE 66 .REED RANCH 64 REED RANCH 150 HACIENDA 152 HACIENDA 7 WILI<INS 10 TANFIELD 25 MARK 31 MARl< 5 GILMARTIN 300 ROUND HILL 237 ROUND HILL 188 STEWART 192 STEWART : 175 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES 176 AVENIDA MlRAFLORES 1 'MIRAFLORES - 3 MlRAFLORES 9 MIRAFLORES 8 VIA PARAISO 10 VIA -l'ARAISO 11 VIA PARAISO 100 GILMARTIN ~ 5 VIA PARAISO: 662 HILARY 665 HILARY 30 GILMARTIN 1 OWLSWOOD 925 TIBURON 10 OWLSWOOD 12 SPRING 6 TARA VIEW 4 TARA HILL 6 ACELA 111 LYFORD 1~ ~i~~IBIT NO. S 1 BERKE 0 C'OFL 106 MT TIBURON r, J ~ 98 MT TIBURON 94 MT TIBURON 99 MT TIBURON Sqft 4227 4390 3928 3979 4438 3888 4915 4439 4796 4392 4770 4485 4856 4009 4090 4183 4027 . 4082 4535 4169 430.0 4490 4389 3997 4436 4019 4367 4990 4171 40~8 3928 4017 4134 3834 4003 3930 4765 4036 4077 4597 4622 4307 4679 4330 4444 4607 4794 4704 3903 3940 4433 4050 4654 4489 3872 4626 4329 3989 4308 Acres Sale date .09 OS/21/93 .26 03/14/88 .48 01/31/92 - .45 07/22/88 .24 05/09/86 .3? 09/01/94 .53 08/03/88 .32 05/15/90 .38 05/10/95 .47 07/08/92 .35 05/17/90 1.18 02/21/92 1.56 11/30/88 2.76 05/01/85 .58 07/16/93 .57 11/13/67 1.03 12/06/88 1. 02 08/16/85 .69 02/15/89 . .61 02/01/94 .42 07/23/92 .50 07/10/90 .79 10/07/94 .01 12/30/93 .47 09/30/87 .63 06/30/87 .39 12/14/93 .91 10/01/92 .39 07/13/88 .63 06/01/88 .61 07/07/87 .25 03/04/93 .34 09/28/93 .21 01/31/92 .28 02/21/92 .35 05/15/89 .48 06/06/88 .39 04/15/88 .78 12/17/86 .64 ~0/28/87 .37 12/31/90 .31 03/18/93 .53 08/01/66 .37 02/04/66 .64 10/13/89 .91 09/11/86 - .43 05/03/94 .76 05/08/90 .96 10/24/89 .67 97/01/88 .41 01/14/92 .56 05/03/91 .73 03/15/95 .42 12/02/86 .31 OS/26/94 .81 05/15/92 .78 07/07/69 1.09 12/31/87 .60 07/08/88 Amount 1317500 350000 1160000 -285000 815000 944000 367000 1425000 1583200 1510000 1441000 950000 612556 FA" 950000 261000 1200.000 752500 . 1165000 1110000 1550000 o 1140000 700000 735000 1400000 975000 915000 725000 925000 725000 1005000 1250000 1090000 395000 -- 425000 223978 297000 . 1825000: 625000 850000 "261006- 1350000 665000_ 1285000 2000000 1830000 707000 1700000 1675000 1175000 496500 1275000 1575000 1600000 1190000 .~ 20' .~,,~ 12.'" 25' IrA: Z7<} IZ~ /4' ~~ 2S~ 17~ ~i i~ '. a,4l '0, lk "*058-282-08 6 - ST' . ..BRIELE 4268 .44 05/01/90 1900000 Z2~ 058-283-01 2 HEATHCLIFF 4976 .35 07/03/86 750000 1058-301-22 90 ROUND HILL 4982 .91 06/18/93 1100000 I~" 058-321-09 27 VENADO 4010 1.21 02/23/95 910000 8~ 058-341-01 31 MEADOWHILL 3951 .41 11/22/94 0 2l' "058-341-03 35 MEADOWHILL 4808 .50 12/17/85 1070000 2.2' 058-351-07 15 PLACE HOULIN 4841 .46 01/04/88 1350000 059-023-lI' 616 RIDGE 4173 .55 12/01/87 845000 059-023-18 604 RIDGE 3911 .23 05/14/86 835000 24~ .* 059-__.03 2-23 1778 VISTAZO 3815 .36 12/09/87 28-'1000 034-370-10 29 TURTLE ROCK 4734 .59 06/28/90 1450000 034-380-13 11 TURTLE ROCK 4324 .64 01/06/93 1230625 034-380';"14 7 TURTLE ROCK 4509 .47 03/13/512 1283000 034-352-09 4 SOUTHRIDGE 3897 .24 10/21/94 925000 034-360-01 4 CECILIA 3867 .24 06/09/93 1075000 034-370-02 16 TURTLE ROCK 4524 .80 06/03/93 034-360-14 17 CECILIA 4661 .34 12/13/91 1213000 034-360-15 15 CECILIA 4219 .25 05/15/91 1040000 034';'370-06 24 TURTLE ROCK 4068 .59 08/31/90 1175000 034-370-07 26 TURTLE ROCK 4951 .55 04/28/95 0 034-370-08 28 TURTLE ROCK 3897 .81 01/15/91 1100000 034-370-14 17 TURTLE.ROCK 4854 .34 05/02/95 0 034-380-03 2 TURTLE ROCK 4505 .42 07/15/92 034-380-10 10 TURTLE ROCK 4879 .66 01/04/94 1331000 038-291-36 4 HILLCREST 4188 .47 09/0'9/94 1-125000. 038-422-02 201 TAYLOR 4722 .72 06/11/92 1450000 038-432-07 334 BLACKFIELD 3975 .59 12/31/92 902000 038-440-13 109 REED RANCH 4012 .34 08/02/94 125000 .- 039-280-17 40 NORMAN 3804 2.18 1075000 .~~ *058-341-15 28 MEADOWHILL 4252 1.39 05/15/89 725000 039-280-19 40 NORMAN 3804 2.04 06/27/90 1075000 034-330-56 59 VIA LOS ALTOS 4390 .23 03/31/93 , , EXHIBIT NO. S- f, &7 DF b . .;"/ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KUHNS PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #31) TO ALLOW INCREASED FLOOR AREA ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 58-111-26 WHEREAS, on July 28, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the approval of an amendment to the Kuhns Precise Development Plan to increase the maximum floor area permitted for each parcel within this subdivision, proposed by Tom and Susan Gallagher ("Applicants"), the owners of the property developed with an existing single-family residence at 5 Stevens Court; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony and considering the application, the Commission determined that the proposed amendment would allow the expansion of the existing single-family homes in this subdivision without increasing the visual mass and bulk of the homes or disturbing the size and scale of the surrounding neighborhood, and was therefore consistent with the relevant policies of both the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance and the Tiburon General Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No 99- 13 recommending to the Town Council that the Precise Plan Amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 1999, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents on the record, including the plans modified as recommended by the Planning Commission. the Town Council concurred with the findings made by the Planning Commission, and found that the proposed Precise Plan Amendment would be consistent with the Town Zoning regulations and the Tiburon General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve of the increase in the maximum floor area established by the..Kuhns Precise Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Town Council Resolution No. 3121 shall be amended to state that "the maximum floor area for each parcel shall not exceed 3,600 square feet, including the garage; except that greater area is permitted if attained entirely within undeveloped space within the existing mass and bulk of the approved house." 2. This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Kuhns Precise Plan not specifically described herein. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 9/1/99 1 EXHIBIT NO.~ ~, (OFL PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on September 1, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS MOGENSBACH,MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK H:resosrrc 3 9904. res. doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 9/1/99 2 EXHIBIT NO. Co ~, '2-o!:-L ; '\ 1 ~ '. ~ , " . , :l:.?, " , , "~ n:- l. t: (~,) =;#f-::-~~:-~::: '~ " '/' ii H~ __ j-r I .~. ~~- ~ I { ~ :~r \ - , :=3' i r: ."d '7 "I ' ' ""-4 II II _ 91,I_u- ,\ '(; I-.J-~-----~::-"q;-._-_u_-- '-' I" '\ _____-io~ ~- ~ ."< ,e; '" :~ ;<: @ ,~ " . . i I~!!I '1'- ~ :i / --------- ~ ' -- / )~_~--jl-;;-r-- L 1 \ \ / // <-----) ,. I,r -I / -. --~-\ _/ / I I ___I /~U b-~-' ~ JJ l\ \ " 1 ,,' . " i t 'f ,~ -- I ' . ~ t;' " _ ' r- 't ' " " ' \ ~",1 Ud,l \ ", - \ \ /,~_J! I}! \ I _1 ~ Ii III ;-~- --- j 11 u ; i If I " . I \ e. ~ ~ l___ _ ;;~ ~C]I-I- J _____ ~ 0 _.__ ~:_-=--.::.!J ~ -..=:.:==-=--:--- I I, --> '~ ~ ~~ H H ~ ,; .1 :c ~, . , ' ~, ~. t ~ ,': '1 " Jl!' ill . ~;rp k; Tl~l:Icm~:if:~ W/~~~H l I~ ,'- ~" ~ <5 ' _ , I'l' _. & ",' f' i.-, _ /~--'V "" =-=":.J ik __ (~j~:\'1' -~- ~ ,~ t I ,f If> k-~JLJ ~ I~-;::--a----=-:u--:-- t. __1.--- - ...- i . " , I -I --<~ C'- ::D O~ <= ~* z m g~ I n 51" ....., m c> - el~ 'ii < z@ ::2 m - 0 I~~ ",' \Ii! 3P . ffVet4/Af/fC -I - .;, '" l't"<fIIW ":1""" UMOt\<f"'" toe'" IcM....(,~'7 ","5 b"~"^"lttf-' SfPNbiS ~f{ , l'ffsa,'II-~ _, ,__ 'Tl~t14rtl, 0- ' :~:.~~...-;.. ...._"'.111..... ff {~ ll."okll""',, Archil.ct. ~ J \~"".t;'c'. ~ - ." " "" ~ I , , , r . I~ \ 'I~J , .1\ i / '" ~ ~ t'i ~ ",z N 9 ll-J , IU 1 L\.!!' i !: . . [lJj I 1/ 'f I, l' . ,0". t - . _ _~"'-'.l1---,- ~~ , >-~ . _:JI u J ~ - :JL 1IlTk-- 1111111).,.\ 1111111'\ -o"r*'",\ "~".. '. ~I' - - " f~-=-~ - -T~____ Iii! "'~j \' . '<i ' I ~ ~ i ~ 'U ':/ ~~ q: .~J ~ ; a / (u ! I , ~ L,_n_, I =---- ! .. . --, ~ " l J , tk Iz1' . '7-:; ',I ~.t 1 i D(N6!<;f,wNI -r tJ<.ISi//i? i!rlJ6f<ffA:v( I~ 4-~ if. (jTHt f'frSlrJtl~ I.f '" ~ rCM ~ sVw;' ~~ft&/lf:tl- : ,'of'1f 5e.lII, l{. -q 1!,,,1tl/(ri';; CCl~ '7l/lr~ ,,.., '" nirtn~E -l 1r~?I~j [1-' g~"JlTI-lll , I ! (n - . b !mt1JIII ! I ~~- V I ' ff; r----.u_-- 'i. (bilk 1I,"n- ArchilecQ; ~ 'JO"~""'''' ,........c._..., r..""".",,,...,,,. Page 1 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT TO: TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA NO.: 10 FROM: ASSOCIATE PLANNER THERIAULT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WITH AN FLOOR AREA RATIO EXCEPTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (418 GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD) MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 APPLICANT/APPELLANT- PHILIP A. RICHARDSON PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: -..- LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMPTION: 418 GREENWOOD BEACH ROAD 55-031-04 AND 055-121-08 799065 9,000 SQUARE FEET R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) C MAY 20, 1999 MAY 20, 1999 BACKGROUND: This application was originally scheduled to be heard before the Council at its regular meeting on August 18, 1999. The item was continued to the September 1, 1999 Council Meeting per the Page 2 appellant's request. During the interim, the appellant and the property owners of the adjacent property, George and Cressy Sayre of 414 Greenwood Beach Road, have discussed alternative solutions to the privacy retention related condition of approval required by the Design Review Board. No new information has been submitted to Staff regarding this proposal, however. Please review the Staff Report for item #E2 of the August 18, 1999 Tiburon Town Council Agenda Packet. Additional copies of this report are available at Town Hall. TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT To: ITEM NO. II TOWN COUNCIL From: Subject: EMI THERIAULT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE 430 RIDGE ROAD; FILE #299004: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL No. 059-082-22 APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGE-FAMILY DWELLING SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 Date: Staff recommends that this item be continued for the following reason(s) -K... No story poles have been erected/no certification received Requested information has not been received Item not properly advertised The appellant has requested a continuance to: SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 in order to continue ongoing negotiations with the applicant Other: The application will be continued to the SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 Town Council meeting Aug-26-99 02:19P P.02 ALJg - 4!b" ~g 02: OI'P P.,,;, Joltfl ". ~"'rr ......4I1ft "'II'UII Rrlllllft SHARP &. BROW~. UP A l..mt....d LA'Olbe,. r.,.'n.,....," 4.tr.rtlI:Y", ,", Ln. (,l,,,,,,i, F'''trcai '8~/fi"" &1fl (U) f.iqIU"OI1".t!"''''', 'j"HII~ JI/j ~"'" '''J~('I, C.Uj"ftHlI II_'''J 1415J ~'J".Jlf'JIJ ,- 'UIUltt< (41~1 ~7-1~. ('In..I:.b l..n(Jl.r"~-'ll"'l A l.S""'~1 2f'l. 1 :t~q VI \ f..\lSIMIU L.ml1'h('rl,JUI: r:~\lWI1 rl.,""'n~ l)op.ltm<'!H l.\ll5 T'OulQn 13;vc Tih...mll. \...',\ l.J4Q:n P""c- II iJ ~ ..t .~. p - '~"'. ~.-- (--':---" ....it ~ ,CIl; AUt; 26 1999 ,..'-..,:1,'.....,.., Re_ Q'') 11 It.!}{li' , t'd"JlIron l'aJitorn.I;'l . , ~.', , D\;.1t Lml' I h,) \Aili (vn1iml m.\ \Oil(' m:d ((i1MJ\~,' '.'-' S~Ufl 4r.JC':-_~t1n ,ind _t'u..J"t':1 JUI';J~ "V"ll,:"n . r~qt:t;~((:'J th;'H [he n~~rlnf :llrr~ntly )1,." fl...'I....I.:.:'J:..:mt'll::r L L 9Qy b..; ;,;\.I\r,n.Kd r..:n~'ln~ <;lll~l.lItl",~ttlc-ment Ml,;~otlJl1vn~ tJ':";:~:I{, :"~' l~i. Jsd th~1 :;\; ;1~1:l~J1\ijl!~, I ;1.....1 ~IJhJ t '.Ul,;)' II."JJU1..JJ:i .J.l1J .JF"PicJ.nls \1; Jud Mrs_ Ga!.1\ JIC:e-tlV !~qUC$t thai rh~ ;)~P~~l hlo!J.f.:\g currently ."...h.Jl"lltu b:f\)n: t.1~ 10\1,-n c.. ol;..:.c:ll')ll )l:~tenlber I. l (J~/() b..; conll1111..:J III the W).:t.!ltJ.1 ..,r ScctC'r.lb'Cf 1:'. l ()IJtl ,1l1){dCI to ~;ll.l", tlu: p.lr.ae~ to '''lit:ll\,;e t:le'[ '>L:ll!tm~1H a~p.NI3.lh1n'l FlY ('lmfllcrSJ~n."lurc or tJus IellC!, .\1.; tJa:':l\ ~XY(.s5t~ !us :1src\ InLIH tu {hi' \\Ir.tiI;\,:anc: Tb;u~ Yilt; f<;Jf ~'<)ur d(lt'nlll.lll l\,1 tl1~")( nliOllc:r:- \ "r)' l!u!, 'f1>W:,> //'/ y.ku ((. /Jt>hfl r- "'ihar;: r , I..L~(,_ .1t'~"I,,'J ~;; c\.:. Ft'ed ;ll~...! l.~I"'<'\ H-trln,'h'l "",' IrI . ';~\i .Jrlrltl C(1 ~t1d ^7~ 96!e.~,r~rt> lS:~t 666T!3~/8~ TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT TO: TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA NO.: J J- FROM: ASSOCIATE PLANNER THERIAULT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO MINOR ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE; 696 HILARY DRIVE MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 APPLICANT - MARC AND JEAN GINERIS APPELLANTS - ALFRED AND JUDE AGAJAN PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FlLE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMPTION: 696 HILARY DRIVE 55-212-04 299022 8,300 SQUARE FEET R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MH (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) C JULY 7, 1999 JULY 7,1999 BACKGROUND: On July 15, 1999, the Tiburon Design Review Board granted Site Plan and Architectural Review approval with a variance for excess lot coverage to allow for the construction of two minor additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 696 Hilary Drive. Alfred and Jude Agajan. the property owners of the immediately adjacent lot to the west of the subject property, have now appealed this decision to the Town Council. TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER I, 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requested Design Review approval for construction of two minor additions to an existing single-family dwelling at 696 Hilary Drive. The existing house has a one-story design which is sited on a substandard sized lot. The proposed design would add a small addition to the rear of the property and a small addition to the west side of the property. The roofline would be raised by approximately 1 foot and a skylight is proposed for the bathroom extension toward the rear of the property. No setback variances were required. The application requires a variance for excess lot coverage. Maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-l zone is 2,490 square feet (30.0 %) while the proposal requests 2,742 square feet (330 %) of lot coverage. REVIEW BY THE BOARD: The application was heard before the Design Review Board at its July 15, 1999 meeting. The Board received both written comments from the public submitted prior to the meeting and oral comments presented during the meeting. The Board considered these comments prior to making the decision to approve the project The letters submitted prior to the meeting included a letter from the appellant (Exhibit 8) expressing concern regarding privacy, setbacks, noise and environmental issues, including potential loss of sunlight and oxygen and increase in wind due to the proposed addition on the west side of the residence. The Design Review Board determined that the proposed addition would not create significant view or privacy impacts on neighboring properties. In response to the skylight issue, the Board required the applicant to install a flat, tinted skylight The Board determined that, based on the substandard size of the lot, existing vegetation on or near the subject property, the amount oflot coverage based on a large deck area and the design's compliance with all setbacks, that the requested variance did not impact other homes in the vicinity. The Board voted unanimously (3- 0) to conditionally approve the application. The Agajans subsequently filed a timely appeal of this action on July 26, 1999. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL: The appeal (Exhibit 1) is based on the appellants' concern that the Board did not base its decision on evidence in the record. The appellants specifically refer to their letter, dated July 15, 1999, as the evidence upon which the Board should have based its decision. The Board reviewed and approved the findings for the proposed variance presented in the Staff Report (Exhibit 5). In addition, the Board specifically stated during its deliberations that it saw no reason not to approve the application even after reading the concerns of the neighbors, the appellants, of 694 Hilary Drive. TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 1. 1999 The appellants also mentioned that the Board may have based its decision on inaccuracies in the Staff Report and the conditions of approval. It is Staff's understanding that Mr. and Mrs. Agajan are referring to Staff's comment in the Staff Report that "dense, mature vegetation screens the area of the proposed right side yard addition from the neighbor located at 694 Hilary Drive" (Exhibit 5) and condition of approval #6 (Exhibit 2) "mature landscaping existing on the subject property's right side yard shall be maintained in order to protect privacy for the neighbor at 694 Hilary Drive." The appellants have contended that, while this vegetation may extend over and into the applicant's yard, the roots of the existing privacy screen are located on the appellant's property and, therefore should not be considered in the Board's decision. Regardless of the location of the roots of the existing vegetation, the Board's condition of approval which requires the retention of the existing landscape privacy screen serves to protect the appellant's privacy The appellants, therefore, have the ability to maintain this privacy screening in perpetuity. As long as both the applicant and the appellant refrain from reducing the existing mature landscaping, the appellant's privacy will be preserved. CONCLUSION: Staff concludes that the Design Review Board followed the guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review applications, and appropriately applied the guidelines for such applications in its review of this project. The proposed addition does not appear to create view, privacy, mass or bulk impacts associated with the minor addition to the west side of the existing residence. RECOMMENDA nON: Deny the appeal and direct Staff to return with a Resolution memorializing the action. EXHIBITS: Notice of Appeal dated July 26, 1999 2. Notice of Design Review Board Action for July IS, 1999 (with conditions of approval) 3. Minutes ofthe.July 15, 1999 Design Review Board meeting 4. Application and supplemental materials dated June 11, 1999 5 Staff report from the July 15, 1999, Design Review Board meeting 6. Letter from Marc and Jean Gineris, dated May 28,1999 7. Letter from Kathleen and Robert M. Chandler, dated June 9, 1999 8 Letter from Mrs. Judy Agajan and Mr. Alfred Agajan, dated July 14, 1999 9. Submitted plans, dated June 8, 1999. TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 1. 1999 EXHIBITNO.~ TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL ~ ~/ APPELLANT .., Name: II LT,( F 1) /1/1//;1 J <./ [, F bi- ~'~ / L- 7'-1;; V ~~ -?7~~ ' ~ . -d (Work) .if /L 'A ~ / .~' ,_( "v Address: J)z 95-. \ -;1 2~/ (Home) Telephone: ACTION BEING APPEALED Body' fl e s/? /V' /~ e t./) ~ u./ O",of :"0" ~;~ ~:: Name of Applicant: _ _ _ _ _ J3va.. (2.~ ,) II 'PF A9A I A J1J . ~ Nature of Application: IJ p",.- 5" /d.</ 7(1 c;: R A.u'T ~ :? ~ I-J} t... /j Z. Y ..t3 .17. L/AJCJAM'C'" /d GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, if necessary) 7iff ?'(II:1~~) 1',-> i)l,~ .4-:?;PT41 JJf:P"~ I;fF,., IoU -c-/",U} .*"uCj- Cj('-6/ H 2 4 f ~ f?" <:j& L' OA/ 7J../JC )::",/7"' /h'A r -;1~r ty;://</A'A.J /...5" ' , - IIIJ T S' If/'Pd.P7,r" ~y .rl//IF-ur-f /A/ 78+- i'FCd?::J <).,Ppc/cr/C....7Ly/ My !. e7Tr"R ])-4 u)~ 7/ Ir/75 ,Ii' J: 1....<." W? TP,r Pc", ?&S$~ t/4A'4-U~ eo 744rMT,rrIAA/r;. T#f 1;(/~?I""-;.hp,u7 ,)~ ~,/,.I:+c<;, 1<: 7/,/7' AJ)JChU/4f;. (JC?FE7'7lt9<./ /In_,f~,, ,7#A7 WOil<-1I Rp<;'vL7 'T/(OM 7~ "p/f,j.f"tJ.s:.i& RenO/ft... 1;?.J!'o;PbS,J:LJ 7/fAT T,i./T~j?p,7'i"'^" 5,OOVl.L' -ti'E,,4l.0)<'Ve.o t/N 7#1< J?E...1l. ~r 7r1,f EX'S7/A/'7 57/<1./ c7"7" Last Day to File: r - )...(P-7 '1 Date Received: 1- z,.. '17 Fee ($300.00) Paid: ~--- Date of Hearing: A&de~ January 1996 1V((711&:1<. Sjf/5,e.J1... /N.40: v~ 1':'/;;5 w~u S1AJ&1' 13y 704; l'L-'l-v/V.E'<:.r / j,J s: E. r"'I,v'7 7=/)i27H 711~/R C(.'pcLv5:'/o,v./! ~c./d 1J'z~ 'rt . T~.~_. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD' TlBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373 15) 435-2438 EXHIBIT NO. .2. NOTICE OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION On July 15, 1999, the Tiburon Design Review Board took the following action: Granted Design Review approval for a variance for lot coverage and an addition to the property located at 696 Hilary Drive (File #299022). Approved as submitted ,/ Approved with conditions Denied as submitted Continued Please review the attached materials (if any) to acquaint yourself with the conditions of approval or other requirements. The following materials are attached and should be retained for your records: ,/ Approved plans Appeal provisions of the Town No attachments ,/ Other-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. After Design Review approval, you are required to obtain a Building Permit from the Tiburon Building Department for your project. Information on Building Permit procedures may be obtained by calling the Building Department at (415) 435-7380. ' For additional information regarding this application, please call me at (415) 435-7397. Sincerely, ~'/~ Emi Theriault Associate Planner CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 696 Hilary Drive FILE #299022 1. This approval shall be used withiu 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 with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on June 11, 1999, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of June 11, 1999, must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. The applicant must meet all requirements of the Town Engineer and all other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. 5. The bathroom skylight shall be flat, tinted or bronzed and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 6. The mature landscaping existing on the subject property's right side yard shall be maintained in order to protect privacy for the neighbor at 694 Hilary Drive. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FINAL CONDITIONS 7/15/99 EXHIBIT NO. '3 - 2. 696 Hilary Drive Gineris, AdditionsN ariance The applicants, Mr. and !'vIrs. Gineris, are requesting approval for a remodel of their existing residence located at 696 Hilary Drive The remodel would include extensions of the existing bedrooms to the right side of the property and to the rear of the property and a bathroom addition also to the rear of the property. The plans also show a living room addition of 126 square feet to the rear of the building. Mr. Gineris has informed StatY that he is no longer requesting this living room addition. The addition requires a variance for excess lot coverage. Staff has determined that the applicants miscalculated the existing lot coverage on the submitted data sheet. The submitted plans indicate that 100% of the deck area was included in the calculation, while only 50% of a deck area is to be considered in a lot coverage calculation. With this revision, the total existing lot coverage is 2,428 square feet. The deletion of the living room addition from the proposal reduce the proposed lot coverage area to 2,742 square feet. The maximum permitted lot coverage is 2,490 square feet. however, the proposal still requires a variance for excess lot coverage despite the corrected calculation. Marc Gineris. applicant, stated that they want the variance to facilitate a bedroom and bathroom. The alternative was to expand to the front of the house. The addition will minimize the impact to the neighborhood. He noted that they have eliminated the additional living room from their plan. Christopher Secor, architect representing the applicant. stated that the existing house is outdated and has only one nice size bedroom. with three very small bedrooms, and another room that would classify as an office. They do not have a modern bathroom They want the privacy of having the bedroom and modern bath in the rear of the house. They are also eliminating a bedroom. Architecturally. they wanted to keep the character of the existing building. He extended the pitch of the existing roof, which required an increase in the ridge elevation of 9 inches but he did not think that would affect any neighboring views of the water. The only place there could be a blockage of view was at 695 Hilary Drivec In response to a question by the Board, Mr. Gineris stated that there is an impact to the water view of the owners of 693 Hilary Drive if you were standing at their doorstep but there is no view impact from the living room. Mr. Secor added that there is a heavy screening of trees. The house at 693 Hilary Drive is entirely off set from the Gineris' property and the backdrop of that would be the Gineris' side property Smith stated that he had a hard time seeing the story poles. TlBURON DRB MINUTES OF 7/15/99 APPROVED 3 ,- Joe Keller, 699 Hilary Drive, is concerned about the skylight because it may cast light up and affect him. Mr Secor responded that they would install a flat skylight instead of a bubble skylight and will adhere with the staff condition to tint the skylight. Mrs Gineris, applicant, stated that they currently have a bubble skylight over their kitchen area and the skylight does not negatively impact anyone. Boardmember Snow stated he visited 695 Hilary Drive and could not see the roofline or chimney or any issue listed in the letter from the neighbor residing at 694 Hilary Drive. The home, like others in the area, is dated and it is nice to see the rooflines kept. He sees no reason not to approve the project. Boardmember Smith stated that he also sees no reason not to approve the application even after reading the concerns of the neighbors at 694 Hilary Drive. Chair Beales stated that he visited 694 Hilary Drive and they looked over the trees and there will be no impact. He too can support the application. Mis Smith/Snow, and unanimously passed (3-0), to approve the application based on the findings and conditions as set forth in the staff report and with the amendment to Condition 5 that states the skylight shall be flat. TffiURON DRB MINUTES OF 7/15/99 APPROVED 4 TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TYPE OF APPLICATION Conditional Use Permit 0 Design Review {Majorl 0 PLAN~G OEPAA: Mt 0 Tentative Subdivisiqo ~PTIOURON 0 Precise Development Plan 0 Design Review (Minor) 0 Final Subdivision Map 0 Conceptual Master Plan ~ Variance 0 Parcel Map 0 Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 lot Line Adjustment 0 Zoning Text Amendment 0 Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance 0 General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver 0 Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: (,,'j(, f-l-ILAf-'! hr os-S-- 2-/2.-0Y PROPERTY SIZE: ZONING: ~300 S'i-~I- 1<.-1 OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: VYl fW<- A. r :JF~H foA. (,-, ".,.i \ ~ (,1(" 1+ '0' i<y b~. I,L.,J./""'" Wr..\. 4'\t;~ (C"S-;?k'\- 9~1-<" FAX (".<1 "..'\- 9l.:'H APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: G.CHI~DESIGNERIENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TEIZIP: PHONE NUMBER: tr-or) ~~ J. .2.11 9 '. '., " FAX Lh("\\ SIl.<...oR FAX Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): -so CU':G-.l. l1..<LL.A.,.....J '-('-70 ~<; tu...1 0+ +l~v.c dv-~v... 1la~,A.O.~ "3 \'''~ L.L.1tlYv\..I. -J-", UI.<-..J.t {"'-'<:." v O.,)N1 5 , I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of t.he plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Ordinances, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval....., with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and aJso agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, cla:ims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result from the third party challenge. . Date: &( II (q9 Signature: <- (If other than 0 n r, must. have leUee from owner) DO NOT limITE BELOW THIS LINE DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING INFORMATION q ,/ ~~C- Application No. 7q oq't Fee Oeposit: 10 0'-0 Date Recaived: b!/f!q1 RaceivedBy: PH-/ Receipt # 'P05'7lY Date Deemed Com~lete': T /7-' I "I 4 By: -;r: Acting Body: Conditions of Approval or Comments: Action: Resolution or Ordinance #: lo.rn.\.O ~o 2/98 ... Please fill in the information requested below (attach separate sheet as needed): DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FO~fitCE3VED _ JUN I I 1999 1. Briefly describe the proposed project: -,- " [2.;, ~&S i?I" ,,~, 1/..;.""", ocJ T r-u..r........, .~ .,.e.... j ,J-.. ~ kd. .... fl- """'-..l...t.!.v.. !.,~ t.,' ) ;vv. ~ ~L,:tt., PLANNlr'lG OEP4RTlV1EI'IT 3.. ~A.l..!...c:...., ~.-:&(::.;.',,-v\S T~vvr~tS~~~'N :rv....~{4 A. i1."'f<\'('d...-' s,~ L,'~&""~""""" 2. ----- " Lot area in square feet (Section 1.05.12.):(~iC C ,>c) .(:'.,~) Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): EXisting S', ^';l: f, .vo...:L h....vvu.. Proposed ( ., ,. \ , t:_.~. c.._ h_~ S-\){:l,<;T4-AlnA-t' {~ Zoning: 12. .. / LOT 3. 4. Describe any changes to parKing areas including number of parking spaces, tumaround or maneuvering areas. - IL{~ - .. . . ... TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY . .. . ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED CAL- PER ZONE AND/ORALTERA TION CULA TED Yards (Setbacks from property line)(Section 1.05.25)" Front J.G ft. ;1(... ft. ft. ft. \S ft. Rear 2"1- ft. .J.O ft. ft. ft. 0..0 ft. Right Side 13 ft. 9 ft. ft. ft. <;< ft. u Left Side ,:J.. ft. 12... ft. ft. ft. c,s ft. Maximum Height 30 (Section 506.07)* 10 ft. Ii ft. ft. ft. ft. .. '1 ~ <' t3~~ 'Hu :J.'1C:;O'l' Lot Coverage .~ . 0 3 "La , I d.,7<f%q.ft. (Section 506.08)* -Z~;L- :>q.ft. sq.ft ~~5~ sq.ft. ( sq.ft. Lot Coverage as 3 7,7 Percent of Lot Area 33 % 31.2..- % cY't 2:; % 33 % '30 % Gross Floor Area 2..J'1'-{ 3\Y ~ d,'-\'8Y ~ Y'6'1 ;;),'830 (Section 105.06)* sq.ft. sq.ft. I sq.ft. \ sq.ft. 1 sq.ft. v' ,/ ~- v v vAl- iI '" .Section rumbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEME)oIT AL APPLICATION FoR.\! ( +- ill ~ /2kr{! \i\J;~ J<OI..N\..-. ~.:+,'~ '* f,... ToWN OF TIBlJRON 10 000 cp bt Ia\- <"D~ tY'lto>< ~3a:::c I _.. - ~~_.,. --. .-. - I TOWN OF TIEURON 1305 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TlBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373 FAX (415) 435-2438 Planning Department (415)-435-7390 ,I~ ? tqqq APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE P~AN~JING DE?ARTME:~JT TOW~I OF TIBGROti WHAT VARIANCES ARE YOU REQUESTING? Condition Ordinance Requirement Your Application Variance Requested Front Yard Rear Yard Left Side Yard Right Side Yard \ c~'Lot Coverage ':. sr::k ,3 ;2.2. >i -?l-(. .....) S, k <--':'''<'''''''', <. Height Area Per Unit Requirements Usable Open Space Sign Requirements H".-....". -'I ._. ,,- "1' . ,,' '~n'_., <; 1...... -'. ,.-=.~.. ;' ',' ;, '''l """'",,,' Parking JlJN 1 ~ 1999 Expand N onconformi ty P~,l~iN!'\JG Other (Please describe): ...... t}J l.C) lC) " .. .. ~ "0 ~9 "- .:! o C5 - II) ~ tl:: ~ lti c "'t e5 c "'t :E- ~ ~ tl:: o u o ::to u ~ "'t tl:: ~ ~ - "'- Ej L -.....; C 0 0" a. >. CI.~ QJ 0...'- ... Om 1ii >. - 00..0_ "O..2lfl:'=U ~--- 0 Cl) - to=: o..r;: > Qj "'- >. () ecoc~ Q.(Llij'ltlro en en m- cu - Q.l.~ On 'iii..c:~t:>. a..';; H m ro en - rc a. E :S.g.2m.,,;;;: C'5J-~-fj o 0l~.!:2:.c C ctl OJ '- ~ .2 V) C1.O 0 roctloc_ E dJ a.."C- ~ cguQ)E --a;CJ~rc .~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ...- -" ... CD OJ l-6;,.~.... . C:;=. :::110 .. '::t!if'. ;: ".- . ;.". .:.l... ..~ ";'1~~': .,.;, ~,:' ~ '~r ,.~ !!",.:.' '~::'~';iL "~~:~'~' [. 1 - ...c.\I.1>..: "0;.::: '0 ~ Cl;:~U. o It) . ll::~c. :;:,~~: CC'lQ :0', ;:: a::S .. C. o ':Q: ;!:l~~ 3::,,-C'! o 0 ::0; ~::: 0\ "G>~. .", '" III ';r- ',<: ~ :--... " , 'i, C]Y1'l- .'" ~ ~- .' ,:~: :\: : .. , .~ , .:" .,. ~ ~- , ,,'''. , . ~ . @ \ , ., ! @-"':' .- @ /' /' .,:, '-":1 EXHIBIIT NO. 5 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT ITEM NO. J)~ DESIGN REVIEW BOARD EMI THERIAULT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER 696 HILARY DRIVE; FILE #299022 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR APPROVAL OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH A VARIANCE FOR EXCESS LOT COVERAGE DATE: JULY 15, 1999 APPLICANTIPROPERTY OWNERS-MARC AND JEAN GINERIS PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DA TE COMPLETE: U CEQA EXEMPTION: PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT DEADLINE: 696 HILARY DRIVE 055-212-04 299022 8,300 SQUARE FEET R-l (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) C JULY 7,1999 JULY 7,1999 SEPTEMBER 6, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303(e). TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT JULY 15,1998 PROPOSAL: The applicants, Mr. and Mrs Gineris, are requesting approval for a remodel of their existing residence located at 696 Hilary Drive. The remodel would include extensions of the existing bedrooms to the right side of the property and to the rear of the property and a bathroom addition-also to the rear of the property. The plans (received June II, 1999) also show a living room addition of 126 square feet to the rear of the building. Mr. Gineris has informed Staff that he is no longer requesting this living room addition. The additions require a variance for excess lot coverage. Note: Staff has determined that the applicants miscalculated the existing lot coverage on the submitted data sheet. The submitted plans indicate that 100% of the deck area was included in the calculation while only 50% of a deck area is to be considered in a lot coverage calculation. With this revision, the total existing lot coverage is 2,428 square feet. The deletion of the living room addition from the proposal reduces the proposed lot coverage area to 2,742 square feet. Maximum lot coverage is 2,490 sq uare feet, however, so the proposal still requires a variance for excess lot coverage despite the corrected calculation. A variance is therefore requested for excessive lot coverage. Color and materials samples have not been submitted, as the proposed additions would match the existing appearance of the house. The architect, Chris Secor, explained that they have discussed upgrading parts of the exterior to siding, however. Staff has instructed Mr. Secor to bring any such plans (and a materials/colors board) to the July 15, 1999 meeting if the owners prefer to make these changes rather than maintaining the residence's current exterior appearance. ANALYSIS: Design Issues The subject property is located directly opposite a small cul-de-sac at the corner of Rock Hill Drive and Hilary Drive. The matter currently before the Board concerns additions to the rear and side of the subject prQJJerty. Dense, mature vegetation screens the area of the proposed right side yard addition from the neighbor located at 694 Hilary Drive. The proposed new chimney and new skylight, shown on the floor plan, are not indicated on the current site/roof plan. Staff has informed the architect for the applicant that the plans submitted to the Board must demonstrate the location for these proposed items on the site/roof plan. Staff does not foresee any other design issues with this project. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in conformance with the development standards for the R - 1 zone, with the exception of the previously noted variance for excess lot coverage. T1BUROV DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT JULY 15,1998 2 Variance In order to grant the requested variance, the Board must make the findings as required by Section 4.03.05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. Staff suggests that the following findings may be made in support of the requested variance: 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. A special circumstance that applies to this property includes the substandard size of the lot The lot is 8,300 square feet while the minimum lot size for the R-l zone is 10,000 square feet The minimum lot coverage for a 10,000 square foot lot would be 3,000 square feet which is more than the lot coverage the applicant is currently requesting. A strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicants of developing their property to the full potential allowed for other properties in the R-l zone. 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. A variance for excess lot coverage was approved in 1997 for 686 Hilary Drive. In addition, variances have been granted in the immediate neighborhood in 1980 for 693 Hilary Drive, in 1962 for 694 Hilary Drive and in 1954 for 690-692, 695 and 699 Hilary Drive. These examples indicate that the subject request would not constitute a special privilege and is consistent with development in the area. 3. The strict application of this Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. Requiring the owner to maintain the lot coverage at the expense of constructing additions which would provide a home consistent in size with those in the surrounding area would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property owners. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. The proposed construction to the rear and within the side yard of the house would not result in any view or privacy impacts that would be injurious to other homes in the vicinity. The mature vegetation existing between 694 Hilary Drive and the subject property serves as privacy screening between the proposed addition and the neighboring property. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. TlBUROV DESIGN REVIEW BOARD S7:4FF REPORT JULY 15,1998 3 Public Comment Staff has not received comments from the public regarding this proposal. RECOMMENDA nON: The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.06 (Guiding Principles) and 4.02.08 (Site Development Criteria). If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design Guidelines, then Staff has no objections to the approval of this project. If the Board wishes to approve the project, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS: I. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials dated June 11, 1999 3. Submitted plans received June 11, 1999. TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT JULY 15, 1998 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 696 Hilary Drive FILE #299022 1. This approval shall be used within 3 years ofthe approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. The development of this project shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on June 11, 1999, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of June 11, 1999, must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. The applicant must meet all requirements of the Town Engineer and all other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded downlighting. 5. All skylights shall be tinted or bronzed and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 6. The mature landscaping existing on the subject properly's right side yard shall be maintained in order to protect privacy for the neighbor at 694 Hilary Drive. TlBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT JULY 15,1998 5 - Marc & Jean Gineris 696 Hilary Drive Tiburon, Ca. 94920 (415)789-9276 Ti'.' ..rT-TT'nTTN / , l-\j, 1>..1 n _1 o. c...JJ May 28, 1999 Town of Tiburon I Planning Commission 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, Ca. 94920 Re: Site Variance Request RECEIVED JUN 2 1999 p~...r\ji'UIG :JE:J':;;T:.'L:jl1" ~~:'/,,'~'; :::F ",:2~:,~j;,j '<. Dear Planning Dept; Our property is located at 696 Hilary Drive in Tiburon. Our neighborhood is zoned R-1. Our lot size is 83x100 = 8300sq.ft. The lot fall 1700 sq.ft. below the minimum lot size for R-1 zoning. We also have a 5f!. utility set-back that goes through one end of our property. We do have a large deck in the rear of our yard which is approximately 765sq. ft. , which is throwing our site coverage over the maximum for the remodel we are wanting to do. Our existing site coverage is approximately 2800sq.ft. Our existing floor area is 1575 sq.ft. without the garage. We would like to increase that by approx. 446sq.ft. The granting of the variance will not result in a special privilege that is inconsistent with other properties in our Neighborhood. We are not asking to go beyond allowable set-backs for R-1 zoning. We will not inhibit the view or privacy of the neighbors, since all work is being done on back end and side of the property and house. The strict application of the zoning ordinance creates a hardship in that we cannot increase the value of the property by keeping it at the current sub-standard size . Since housing costs in the area have us outpaced , our solution is to make this one more livable. Our master bathroom is below standard as well as the master bedroom in size. Two bedrooms cannot even fit queen size beds , they are so small. Page 2 We enjoy the town of Tiburon very much and consider it our permanent home. We believe in the beautification of our neighborhood and town without infringement of others views or privacy. We do hope the Commission will grant this size variance at their earliest convenience. We will gladly furnish any documents needed. Sincerely, Jean M. Gineris ~"'" ,,1/1 Y-4",<Zw Marc A. Gineris 7J;tt.f,t4-~ JLL 11 '99 18:52 Ci-'AnDLER 415 435 1455 ljJ I e..- III I} / L =IF l);;;. - P. : EXHIBIT NO. :t- 695 Hilary Dr Tiburon Ca 94920 719/99 Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon Ca 94920 Ae: 696 Hilary Dr, A/P155-212-o4 Design Review for 7/15/99 RECEIVED JUl I 2 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TlBURON Dear Soard Members: We live directly across the street from 698 Hilary Dr. Our living room window and primary view is of the house at 696 Hilary Dr. We have lived here 21 years. We have seen the plans for remodeling. Associate planner Ms. Emi Theriault explained the proposed remodeling Our objectIon to the remodeling Is : 1. Roof level is being raised 2. A second chimney is proposed and will be in our view. These Sll'trtitlons (chlmn~ and raiaal't roof} will detract from the enloyment of our view and should not be allowed to be built RObert M. Chandler will be out of town for the July 15,1999 Design Review Meeting and Kathleen Chandler is handicapped and cannot attend. Please allow this letter tc express our feelings. -. . Very truly yours, ;;"'iM-~ ~ ''''' m ".. ~XHlBIT NO._ f;) LoirE MAil , J).:< RI;CI;/lIfIQ We respectfully request that the petition for a variance for the proposed addition to th'!Ul I 5 1999 property of Marc and Jean Gineris at 656 Hilary Drive, Tiburon, CA 94920, assesso~I/'VIIiG DE ' parcel No. 055-212-04, be denied. (t,C/f#) Of;;jOF T;t":o%[,V, For each and every reason that side set backs have been instituted, approved and <? 'r I T I ""/-tJ./A r 7./1F promulgated for this ,and any other single family residential community .i.'r! ,"- P" ll.~ ~=~~~ J In the case of fire or an explosion from either 694 or 696 Hilary Drive fire, smoke and water damage would be greatly increased to both properties as well as health problems resulting from such occurrence. Our house insurance expense would no doubt be increased if this variance is granted. Environmental factors are involved if this variance is approved. Specifically, morning sunlight would be prevented from angling onto our property. With increased noise a sense of privacy for both properties would be reduced. Airflow would be minimized with the resulting loss of health giving oxygen. During windy days the velocity of air would increase as it was being transported through a narrower space. Regarding the staff analysis report under paragraph # 2, no mention is made of any or all of the unsuccessful petitions for variances that have been processed by Marin County or the Town ofTiburon. 696 Hilary Drive has an addition constructed with a variance I believe resulting in more square footage than the average home. Specifically, wasn't a former owner of 696 Hilary advised that no variance would be granted for the garage area of 696 Hilary Drive.Z Regarding paragraph # 3 ofthe staff analysis report petitioners were well aware of the deficiencies of the property when they purchased. Nothing was hidden, the size ofthe bedrooms and baths were obvious. Regarding paragraph 4 of the staff analysis reports this paragraph does not speak to the reduction of side yard space that would make these homes, 696 and 694 Hilary Drive resemble a town house community rather than a single family residential neighborhood. In conclusion, we feel that the existing side yard spacing of 696 Hilary Drive from 694 Hilary's property (fence) line can not be reduced from it's current footage. (/:1, ,fed) - 0;; ~! 7 ~r (>v_ bf,:~~~ wi/de Ifthe town ofTiburon agrees that 696 Hilary Drive should be allowed to increase it's existing floor space the expansion should take place immediately behind the existing structure. Thank you for the consideration of our request for denial/. of the proposed variance. Iv-, J d A . ~ ~. .%;'1.-:---} lo-" """Jl,bY'S 1'1"'5 u y gaJan ..' . h'h Alfred Agaj tuj1ftl nh7 ~ ..... ALFRED AQA~AN <4 HILARY DR TJ8URON, CA. 94920 t 9c; 1-/ I ur 1<,/ j)~. Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. 7~ If - 91 Subject: 695 Hilary Drive, Pile # 299032 Additions to dwelling with a Variances for excess lot coverage RECEIVED AUG 3 0 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMEN r TOWN OF rlBORON -- ptoP9= ~cs -_ I &.-LO: ~~'" 'NE"!lOP<' ;...~....~.-~. ':~ ....-".; '"" --" 1'- .B I "- I i i II +- II -~-- . _l i i'o' t -' I .___._n . I ._._ r-- N -- 'u.n:u:NeE. S Iv ~ " ~ -' ;ci g:;l1.- :;:1: .r'.... _ ~'.;i.., .pl.-", ~B~ ..2 l~ ,"" -'~'c:x:r1'!T:"" ~;~.t~.!t..~..,~..I'.~~".:r-2.- ,~ ."$,-rt"'to'_'::' !#iSS/___ '.. ~'..,.~ ~;-~~~~;";.f--~i~:;'~~:~.t/~-.x!~);:,;~'~~' _: t"'~:':~'~ ,~STIi<ci,--"""""......; '''''. 1<5,'5 p,- -4~..iE;AoDl,..i~::nooct ".u.~ 1"1;~~ rr:- ~S::eD _ - "t>>t~_':~.ff"l'&:.;~QD-VIM..A;G.L '4afo'~- .~-V~~O' .M:ICl1"'IQI.IA.l::':-~.~ +4Ot'T'" -"...... -.:a c.....-:__ -J ;:~-:)ff- -' .- , .- '), -' , -' ~ . .::-~'- -=w:_oo I, #" 'iI! . "'0. 8O>oTlDt.. _-,-.i..' ., --, :-n -~..~ --..'::rD:~_~.- . I - ~....~ I ' i!!,.- '!"!!' .--' ~--._."..- ----,., -- -- __h. +-~::-~_ e.u$rf"/l ~se; _~_,-~,"tI~~' ---aD% SECTJON. AT . A -A' S:::AtL 1/-+' 'C" o. - --- ~~~~;;-',':-.~~; . ........ ~~(~.;;1~= ~~r:~17#-r~~~::.'_~.~Y:,~- 1!S;t.fSir1~.-Sr.tol"' -- ~ , i -- -L~ --:::1' ! I_+_____.ot _ I 1. ~ I >k-- I~- j 1- ~ I I ____r~--r 'I " I.. .~ ~.o ~...-- ;..._ "t'a "'~ :b':"'~ '.";" ,,=.:- ,'. ~ ri)C ' ;;<;'=:r . 1::1T ;,:.> ~'I f' ,J ~ "'~' ",1 ~~J'~:; " ;I?i{'~i~~<<;' ~, .~.!: ..:~:o;..~".. ~ . .... ~1'~" ^ , ~ j ~ ...~;&~ ,~...,';... ~":- .:t '2~ 1 ....l/ ~~ (f!'- j,i ~ 5lTE.. '5~ J --= Ll~ \ t-4-10" 10'G;" 1-'6\~. ------- r I L'. 1 .o! -~l , I 1\.0' DRIVlC t I I ,.1 ~ILAlt'1' ~~'1 PlAN '6.--.<',\'0 .... ~ A fLoo~ :.' ~'"' I I I I I I en II '.:C..J .,!-. % dWr.:!..- --:r ./l u' '.' -:1.\Iol.4. Ii,. IL __"'4t ~ C._L~~I e.e=M I: - , 1,1 11 q t ~ri.OOM ~. ri-~"lf':~' ,--- +~ -,- PLAN 7.-=--\ "0'" .- ~- -- --(~.=~:. ~s.~~), _I- __ -;...J~ ~,--"""",,-'---..- - ',EJC,U.TTt>tG- .,...u..c.t.qoC:; :~I' A - a ~ ;.;c. ~ jj r -='~!i1"",' .b<l ::.:.~'" ,II..."...,"....... '\' J~I^- if I L ;-1- 77 W/*cf' ) ~:h - .~ #-,-~~ " '- ~',~ .'. -- .-.-..........". ~; " ~ v ! " '" ~ ~ .: ~ '" o ..w U ---.,--- ".~ ~.""-:-"" ,~ f"':?''''''' -~~._-- , . ~r . ~ ~ ~ J '" " o d \!' " ... ... :; (\ " IJ"'S t::l:-il o c('F [:..J :z Z\:9" o 1-::;( '" r:i'" "" "".> 04- -<:,lll 4""''' '--ll(i 11'1' .. ll)' '" -,:zi -'.<( o. .. :r u.J ~ -,... J"s N.... ""'.". .... ~ I ~~:~ _ j-~-L] J L.f.":o~ .....:: [,m I" ~'i r 1<tx>A... TM....It Q.AV&:L ~U4l.4T C1 r ., r __1.. "C--:==LJ- I ! 'T ---.- NOW ! r fllf P i i i:) ; ~ .\ .., .. J ':- 'l iLl/ :i., < 1r -..~ ~-T OJ! ,,- "l::--S. ""-=-<=~= D ... -... . 1T'1 D.U I" r-011T I ~_LJ illJ"U1LJ - SlOltcGo 10 ~"'t'O-t ec&sTl..x... f'''I''-Il'tJ) AoofTI~___~.. _'_".'___.__. WE5T ELLYATION _. .. NOI4T'1-l ELEVATION X4LL-'-rj;.--;-.-I' 0;- .-- 1 -t cr ___~ r-f-~ ~IMNet _--4.-..._._.__. r'~oc.UTING. a.l1"'ttJ~( , ! NeW I ....., J, --T- .......... .-~IS-"'N' 1 r .'ua./ R.10" -"J~' eas.'T1NGo RDOr .- 1<Dcr'_ .$IC:fLUa41'- - -... 'UlW CU IMtJey $wt.MeT, (;AI .--!- -- ----------~. n" .;/-_ 'I; I ij r .L...b.. ! I -..-- I t .1 ___.______ J r J. n -....,.. .-.---- I ; ..... ELLVAT ION 1J~~;-- UbT ~CA.L.~ E..LLVATION If.,'. " 0'. " 5OUTI-I 6ut..l: - ~.-;- :-';, r~~ ' "t'. ~" ~.- ------- rFl..["l~ f;-, I I il . rT1 LU -- --. -.. -- .----- ---.-. ~-~ - ..... ~ -"_.- .~ I/eM.- #13 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TmUORN FIXING THE SALARY OF THE TOWN MANAGER FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 WHEREAS, Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2-7 of the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that the salary of the Town Manager be fixed by Resolution of the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Manager shall receive annually those benefits as provided for and specified in the Management Recognition and Incentive Compensation Program, Resolution No. 3356, adopted on August 18, 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the monthly salary of the Town Manager for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 shall be $ PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ofthe Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on September 1, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNICLMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MOGENSBACH,MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE 1. CRANE, TOWN CLERK S:\dcrane\Town Manager Salary 1999-00 Resolution.doc TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT To: TOWN COUNCIL ITEM NO. 4- From: TOWN CLERK Subject: APPOINTMENTS TO BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE Date: September 1, 1999 BACKGROUND At Town Council's direction, the Town Clerk extended the application period in order for more interested residents to apply for the public positions on the above committee. As of August 26, 1999, the following applications had been received and applicants interviewed: 1. MICHAEL LAGIOS 2. TYLER PHILLIPS 3. PETER WINKLER In addition, volunteers were solicited from the Town's Council, Boards and Commissions (see Planning Director's Staff Report dated August 27, 1999, attached) to serve on the committee. RECOMMENDATION That Council appoint the volunteers listed in the above Staff Report and consider making public appointments at its September 1, 1999 regular meeting. D.L. Crane Town Clerk EXHIBITS ~ Applications of Dr. Lagios & Messrs. Phillips & Winkler TOWN OF TIBURON SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE (Town Commissions, Boards & Committees) JULY 1999 BICYCLEIPEDESTRIAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE posmON: TERM: Qualifications: Purpose: Composition: COl\'IMITTEE MEMBER Committee will sunset with publication of Countywide Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan Applicants should be residents of the Tiburon Peninsula (Tiburon, Belvedere, Strawberry area) and have the interest, desire, and time available to serve on the Committee, including attendance at Council, Committee or Congestion Management Agency meetings and related activities. The purpose of the BicycleIPedestrian Ad Hoc Advisory Committee is to provide input on behalf of the Town of Tiburon to the County Congestion Management Agency for inclusion in the Countywide PedestrianlBicycle Master Plan. The Tiburon committee will be comprised of one Town Councilmember, one Town Planning Commissioner, one Town Parks & Open Space Commissioner, one BelvederelTiburon Jt. Recreation Committee member, and three members from the public. The three public positions are waiting -- to be filled. Interested residents can pick up an application at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd., Tiburon CA 94920, or call Tiburon Town Clerk Dia eat:l- ~ Deadline for receipt of applications: Extended to AU2ust 26. 1999 cc: Tiburon Town CounciVStaff Tiburon Town Committees/Commissions The ArklMarin Independenc Journal Notice Posted at Office ofTiburon Town Clerk and BelvederelTiburon Library on 7//4/99 & 8/9/99. FROM : M. LAGI03 =''"H1E ',0. : JI--Ll. 27 1'339 lJ:l:3Pr"1 ~1 TOWN Of' TlBURON ~', ~':'~.E 02 -i!"';~~;~8 ~ ~: f<t&MJ PI !-Aaros MP "(~)7/'27/199':t :"~:34 ,~~5;,j.~~'243':: . Titll...l~Qr-; . Ca..:"JF(,)Il:Nt" <l"~:O . \4J.'i; ..~.'.71.i',~ l'A,X f ~ 15; ",~,'14':! '> COl\fMlSSION. BOARD & COMMITTEE P LICATI N A=O~~~C~fi eomiden~~~a~v~s~~~~~M. boards aod COIDIDJttee tbrouchout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vte-.....' In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon I s local I.vera.ental process and activities, tile Council needs to know your interest in serviD. tile Town iD some tapadty. PIeue Indicate your speciftc areas of interest and special skills or experience wIdd1 would be berleftdal to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and retarniDg it to Town HaD. Copies wiD be forwarded to the Town Council and iDfonnalapplkalltICoundJ interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your a,plication will also RlDlin OIl file at Town HIli for a period of one (1) year. Tllank)'Ou for yourwilUnpess to serve the Tiburon community. &A Robert L. Kleinert Town Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . * . . * . . '" ~:,.,~ ~ ,V",.,." ',;':'j' 1. " . '1...,~/::.c. ~'1fi =8 ><< t&~~ . ,. "., ... "11% '''.~ .j. '-.' " ""."-~l~ "". '" ~ ' ."~,, ,~" ,t ~ .r~,,,,, l' , <<_"."",-,,,,,1i{~ ~ .~~ -~~,.;.'a<<"M.::~4ff I'eIl( ) ......... Ill, wueneal Order (III ......... G_t lIIt.rest) PLANNING PARKS & OPEN SPACE DESIGN RE\1EW RECREA TION HERITAGE" ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY RECYCLING &I WASTE MANAGEMENT V DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE ~$/o/CI:E'~~, R-I1ON (CIJ/lICtvtJIINO;) ,kNO SflRfJ9. 1 F:;;;]M : 'I. ~~:i1]3 ;:::'ri]:~E --C. Ld. 2c 1939 E):13P~1 P2 .J7/:;7/1 S~.-j 1::: ~'.~ J~::-+~":=':'~18 - ::':..JI~J ::F T 1 s,_'.r;.CI;'i PAr~:;E: 03 NAME: :D. ~ l) MAILING ADDRESS: ( f ~ TELEPHONE: HODle:-41S"~ Work: ~~SS(/,8 PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (lhppUaable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (Y....) (h DATE SCBMITTED: '7-~.7-99 . , ~ ' ) ~ '" _ 11 A",\{" ",~,![t; "ti," ~ . >,V'Y ";;~ ",'.r,'^ '" ,.jt.,f' ~~...;~~.' .,,' ..~~ ';;' ;c~: ..~ ~ .., ~ ~ n1~ >','M~J:!;"Jf. ( , .. . ; ,:~ ,~,';'*"::W""" ~ ' ' , ,.... """^"iY.::~'" 'Xl' ' . , ", <-) >~ r"'<;i~fi1B:.~_fJtp.~ iN . , ~ '> v ' '" ~ ~~~~:W~1i4~~%/:~~~ ~>" I~ ~ ~: ~. , ~ ",~.~., ~_, f.~' ,,";~Y">,~"'x.~ft~~~.o:~,,~" .~. ~, t\i', " ~'},.... ~~?', -:?,,"'i'~ ~ ;~.::t,. , . '. ,^':i~II)'"' . ' "" . ~. ......: )',0$;"""1 f "". '5;;;> " > > _ . ,- .it~ IT' > . - . ~ .........1ro101l 11"1 {J!he ....-.--.----------------.----------------..---.- _ Date Application Receh'ed: _ AppoiDted to: lnterview Date: (Commlniolt, Board or Committee) (Date) _ Da" Term E~pi...: Jm 12195 Lentth of Term: 2 C-c: NAME: ('fc-G-tZ 7hlL-u,?) MAILING ADDRESS: "? l'r'-'O(Lf. '1 Cc)v(L I TELEPHONE: Home: /.f") r 6<>2.-( Work: Fax No. if!:> S- Va ~I PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (Ihpplicable) TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years) / )<~ DATE SUBMITTED: 7(,9(79 Co ~ (TTt3c':- ___iXJ"'-~,,~ RECEIVeD JU~ 2 Q 1999 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE rowl~ O~ 118~R61J ,) -,tv' () 131 c veLI r ,. 2;} }f:3 ""-o",,,frt.I'l7l"-<J l,y 1Ftt ~I - I) 12-6ntl-60 GV~c-~.m~E: / a&-o ~) ~~(*, ~ C-avi'VT'r '-'""'''7 tL bl C CfCC-C C CJ ~ ( Tf"""F~ ,.) Sl....tc..<~ 6<,?~{~t'i.. t!>7d-1<6-(2 L-oc.JI-:<cfV'-/J &.} ~e..-Ilttt.~ .....,7)--] 1tvA-t-A--tf~'L I(.......'~ r. - ----------------------------------------------llo~ lIaJl lJse ------------------------------------------------- _ Date Application Received: -:; ~ JAr 11 Interview Date: Avrv .rf _-'f _ Appointed to: (Commission, Board or Committee) (Date) _ Date llerm Expires: Length of Term: jrn 12/95 2 , TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373 FAX (415) 435-2438 COMMISSION. BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committee throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both sides of this form and returning it to Town Hall. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. &11 Robert L. Kleinert Town Manager * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .!;4~:~;;J.;~::~i:;lllrj,ijll~11!'llilll1Iillflillll!llIl!1!lill Indicate Your Area(s) of Interest in Numerical Order (#1 Being the Greatest lnterest) .1J2.. PLANNING l. PARKS & OPEN SPACE DESIGN REVIEW ~ RECREATION HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS BUDGET & FINANCE LIBRARY RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEMENT DOWNTOWN REVIT ALIZA TION TASK FORCE 1 RECEIVED AUG 1 0 1999 PETER WINKLER ATIQRNEY AT LAW lO4-A MAIN STREET TIBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 Telephone (415) 435-2677 Facsimile (415) 435-9781 . - ~.k~ TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON 9 August 1999 Mr. Robert Kleinert Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 Dear Bob: Enclosed please find my application for one of the three public positions on the Town's Bicycle/Pedestrian Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. ~in ly, _......-r~ er winkler Enclosure cc. 08/08/1888 08:20 4154352438 TO\')H OF TI EUPOH PAGE 02 TOWN OF TIBURON ~.- -' 150S nlURON BOULEVARD' TIBURON . CAliFORNIA 94920 . (41~) J.35-7~7.l FAX (415) 4:0:'1-24.16 COMMISSION. BOARD & COMMITTEE il,PLICA lION TIle Tcnna CoUDCiI COIISiden appoiDtmen15 to its various Town commissions, bunts Md coll1lllittee tbrouabout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen v-...--. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local lovenllaenul process aDd activities, tile Council needs to know your interest in ..... *e ToWD hi SOme c:apadty. Pleue indicate your specific: areas of Interest and special skills or experience wlddt would be beaefICial to the ToWII, by completing both sides of this form and retul'lliDI it to Town BaB. Copies wiD be forwarded to the Town Council and JafonIaIapplicaDtlCouodllnterviews are scheduled periodically during the year. y.....pplicatioa w118Iso remain OD tile atToWD Han for a period of one (1) year. T'-k you for your wt"lnpess to serve the Tiburon community. ~A Robert L. Kleinert TowD Manager ................................***.*.*........ ....... Y OIl. Ana(I) ., ........t Ia N_ertoal Order (II Be.., doe G_late....t) PLANNING PARKS & OPEN SPACE DESIGN REVIEW RECREA TION HERITAGE & ARTS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS BUDGET" FINANCE LIBRARY RECYCLING & WASTE MANAGEME~1 DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE xxx BiCYCle/Pedestrian Ad Hoc Advisory Committee 1 ,._,-_..._.~ "f 88i~9j19g9 a~:~6 ,.n5435~:>138 TO"," OF TIEUROC. RAGE 03 NA~E: Peter Winkler MAILING ADDRESS: 104-A Main Street, Tiburon, CA 94920 TELEPHONE: Home: 389-9360 Work: 435-2677 Fax No. 435-9781 PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (It.".........) nl a TIBURON RESIDENT: (Yean) 17 DATE SUBMITTED: 9 Aug 99 I am an avid bicycle rider who commutes by bicycle from Strawberry to my office in Tiburon seV2ra~ t1mes per WeeK. I also have two children who have taken up bicycling. In addit10n to the Tiburon Triathlon, I organize several other bicycling events. I regularly ride most of the roads in the County. . Director of Tiburon Triathlon, 9 years nsrF' bicycle racer. 4 years Tiburon volunteer firefighter, 12 years 'T'ihl1rnn Fire Prot. Dist., safety committee, 4 years Tiburon Peninsula resident, 17 years Attorney with civil practice in Marin, 18 years Town HaIl Use -____ IJvjVsf (0/ If~7 Interview Date: _ Dall! Applieati.. Received: ?/;f /ff ( , _ Appoinled to: (ComnUseion, B.ard or Committee) (Date) _ Date Term Ezplres: jm 12195 LeOEth of Term: 2 TOWN OF TIBURON SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ITEM NO ILl MEETING 6~\~ To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE AUGUST 27,1999 BACKGROUND At its meeting of August 4, 1999 the Town Council directed staff to collect information from other Marin cities which have previously performed work on bicycle plans. The Council also requested more information regarding the purpose and function of the cOlllmittee. Function of the Committee The Town has proceeded with the formation of a bicycle-pedestrian committee at the request of the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The CMA has recently selected a consultant to prepare a countywide bicycle-pedestrian plan that would enable all Main cities to apply for available funding which can only be received if a bicycle plan has been adopted. The CMA believed that a countywide plan would be far more cost-efficient and would avoid duplication of effort compared with all II Marin cities and Marin County preparing separate bicycle plans. The CMA requested that each city form a committee that could provide the CMA's consultant with input specific to each community, resulting in a superior countywide bicycle-pedestrian plan. It was not the CMA's ifltent that each community proceed to create and adopt its own separate bicycle plan, but rather focus its efforts on ensuring that those measures important to each city are incorporated into the CMA's countywide plan. Input from the committee would likely focus on inventorying current tacilities, identifying desired new or improved facilities, identifying problem areas, poor or absent signage, and so forth Plans of other Marin Cities Town Staff contacted both the City of Nova to and City of San Rafael to request whatever plans had been prepared to date. The City of Nova to adopted a Bicycle Plan in 1995. This plan, absent Tiburon Town COIlf/cil SlajJ Report 9iJ t)() the map, is attached as Exhibit 1. It is not known whether the CMA bicycle plan would follow this type offormat, but a work product similar in nature is likely. The City of San Rafael staff indicated that it did not have any work products available for public release at this time. ANAL YSIS The Town has received a memo (Exhibit 2) from Tyler Phillips indicating that the CMA consultant may be contacting the Town as early as mid-October to receive input regarding Tiburon's desires for the countywide plan Staff believes that the Committee should be formed as soon as possible so that it can begin work. RECOMMENDATION . That the Town Council appoint the following persons from existing boards and commissions who have volunteered to serve on the Bicycle-Pedestrian Ad Hoc Committee: Andrew Thompson, Town Council Lisa Klairmont, Planning Commission Nancy Knoble, Planning Commission Jordan Eth, Parks & Open Space Commission Fred Mayo, Belvedere-Tiburon Joint Recreation Committee . That the Town Council appoint public members as desired based upon interview results. EXHIBITS I. City of Nova to Bicycle Plan adopted November 1995. 2. Memo from Tyler Phillips dated 8/26/99 Bicycle commIttee rcport3.doc Tiburon Town COl/ncil SlajjReporl 9/1/99 2 f".'ef'. ~~~""""",, f'"lii-"'-"ii-l ~-..J AUG 1 8 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON CITY OF NOVATO BICYCLE PLAN Approved by The .~Ietropolitan Transportation Commission on August 17, 1995 Caltrans on August 18, 1995 Novato City Council on December 12, 1995 .. Prepared by: Novato Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee 9/20/94 Revised 10/11/95 EXHIBIT NO. J , llABLE OF CON'fENllS 1.0 Introduction - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2.0 Novato's Bicycle Map . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.0 Regional Programs - - - . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . . 4 4.0 Recreational Cycling Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.0 Commuter Bicycle Routes .............................. 9 6.0 Child and School Bicycle Safety Programs _............... _ . . . .. 11 7.0 Bicycle Usage and Accidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 8.0 Goals and Implementation Policies .................. _ . . . . . . .. 15 9.0 Process to Develop and Secure Funding for Bicycle/pedestrian Projects . . . .. 19 CD399;2126/96 1 1.0 IN'rRODUcnON This ten-year Novato Bicycle Plan was prepared by the Novato Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee to update the last Draft Transportation Bicycle Plan prepared in January 1983. Committee members who contributed to writing the plan include Ron Leiken, Rob Raven, Therese Berreyesa, Suzie Davis, Merv Giacomini, Seth Goldman and Barbara Schoen. Others who helped include Mark Birnbaum and Oren Noah. The purpose of this Bicycle Plan is to improve bicycle transportation in Novato. Further, this plan should provide direction for future bicycle planning and meet the requirements of the California Bicycle-Transportation Act, which requirements are contained in Section 890 of the California Streets and Highways Code. In order to meet the California Bicycle-Transportation Act requirements, the Novato Bicycle Plan must include the following provisions: . A Novato bicycle route selection which is highlighted in the chapters on Child/School Safety Programs, Regional Programs, Co=uter Cyclist Routes and Recreational Cycling. The Goals and Policies section also lists bicycle routes that should be considered in Novato's General Plan. . Land use provision. The intent of the Novato Bicycle Plan is to serve the entire City (reference map included). Novato is a city of suburban character. This plan is integrated with the General Plan provisions which may be referenced for further information. Specific bicycle facility projects will be prioritized to be cost effective in serving the total co=unity. . Transportation interface. Golden Gate Transit has/is installing bike racks at important stops and the Novato Bicycle Co=ittee has requested bike racks on busses. . Long range transportation planning. Our plan is in concert with Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) 1994 Regional Transportation Plan for San Francisco Bay Area. Specifically, the goals and objectives deaBng with a) mobility for persons, b) equality for system users, c) enhance sensitivity to the environment, and d) support co=unity vitality of the Region. Please see specific chapters on Co=uter Cycling, Schools, Regional and Recreational Cycling. . Local government. This co=ittee is advisory to the Novate City Council. The meetings are agendized and properly noticed in accordance with the Brown Act. They are open to the public. The City Council requires an annual report and recommissions the committee annually. . Rest facility provisions. Services are generally available throughout most of the co=unity. Rest rooms, drinking water and telephones are available in the parks and throughout the co=ercial district. C0399;2/26/96 1 . Parking facilities. This Plan recognizes that bicycle parking facilities are insufficient in Novato. The Policy Section No. 13 and 14 address the specifics of bicycle parking. The Novato Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee has spent long hours preparing this Bicycle Plan for the City of N ovato. It is hoped that this document will be a useful source of information for the City Council and the Planning Commission and be fully integrated into Novato's Long Range Plan. The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee is also concerned with inline skate travel and the safety aspects of skateboard usage (as related to bicycle/pedestrian facilities)_ The Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee in August/October 1995 provided information to and worked with the Novato Police Department and City Council in helping with the development of revised ordinances regulating unsafe operation of bicycles, skateboards, and inline skating in shopping centers. The Committee expressed its concern that the transportation aspects of bicycles and inline skates be accommodated. CD399;2/26i96 2 '. 2.0 NOVATO'S BICYCLE MAP (Exhibit "A" Attached) The Bike Map which accompanies this Plan designates Novato's bicycle routes and those in adjacent unincorporated areas by Class I, II, or ill in accordance with Chapter 1000 of the California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual - Bikeway Planning and Design. Class I Bikeways serve the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians. Class II Bikeways serve the prefer~ use of bicycles on established lanes on paved streets. Class ill Bikeways serve bicycles on streets connecting Class I or Class II bikeways. The map designates over 51 miles of bikeway routes in Novato. This map is currently used as a planning tool for the City of Novato. A goal of the City of Novato Bicycle Plan is to provide cyclists a Bicycle Map which provides a way to evaluate routes in and around Novato. The planned Bicycle Map will provide a color coded route marking which will enable the bicycle rider to make a decision about which route to use based upon his or her skill level. time of day, weather, length of trip, etc. The proposed Bicycle Map will also include bicycle regulations and safety tips. The goal of the proposed Bicycle Map is to encourage the use of the bicycle for trips to and from school, employment, and shopping and recreational areas to minimize automobile trips for the improved quality of life in Novato. CD399:2126/96 3 3.0 REGIONAL PROGRAMS Federal, state and local legislation has been enacted to make bicycles part of the transportation mix. Regional agencies such as MTC, as well as state agencies are administering the various programs created by the legislatures and act as conduits for grants to fund construction of facilities. Standards have been created at the state and federal levels for the construction of various classes of bicycle facilities. These are minimums and should be used as a guide when planning. Often individual situations will call for a facility that exceeds these standards, in order to safely fulrIll its purpose. Marin County is currently finalizing a long-term plan to provide a usable bicycle corridor from the Sonoma County border to the Golden Gate Bridge. Novato should work with the County to make sure that: · The portion of the corridor which passes through Novato follows the route that makes the most sense from the cyclists perspective, · The route is part of the City of Novato plan, . The route is signed both as part of the countywide plan and as part of the City of Novato system with appropriate destination signs and signs indicating the location of the route. CD399;1/26/96 4 4.0 RECREATIONAL CYCLING FACILITIES In addition to the 51 miles of bicycle lanes which can be used by recreational cyclists, the City of Novato bas a number of parks and open space areas that can be reached by bicycle. Most parks, however, lack safe and easy access by bicycle, and only two of the parks have bike racks for parking. In spite of these obstacles, Novato' s parks are a pleasant destination for cyclists seeking a quiet spot for a picnic or group activity. CITY PARKS Miwok Park and Marin Museum of the American Indian Class II bicycle lanes the length of Novato Boulevard lead to this park and museum where a variety of activities are available. The park bas turf area, two playgrounds, horseshoe pits, group and family picnic areas, and a large natural area along Novato Creek. The Museum, dedicated to the preservation, display, and teaching of Native American Indian culture, is located at 2200 Novato Boulevard and San Miguel Way. Anifacts and exhibits of Indians who once dwelt in the area are on display. Meander along the path that follows Novato Creek and the fishing hole and you'll fmd a second small playground which fronts on San Miguel Way. A bike rack for five bicycles is installed here. Pioneer Park This park at 1007 Simmons Lane can be reached by following Novato Boulevard's Class II bicycle lanes north and turning at the intersection of Simmons Avenue. This attractive park offers nine acres of mature oak and pine trees, large open turf areas, picnic sites, playground equipment, and tennis courts. A tree covered knoll bears the graves of Novato's early settlers. No bike lanes exist on the first block of Simmons, but they extend from Virginia north to San Marin Drive. Another access via Virginia Avenue has bike lanes but the street is narrow and pavement in disrepair. No bike racks. Class II bike lanes should be installed the length of Simmons between Novato Boulevard and San Marin Drive. . Stafford Grove Park Located at 1035 Seventh Street, this park can be reached on bike lanes from Novato Boulevard and Seventh Avenue. The bike lanes end, however, at the Grant Avenue intersection. One more block on Seventh takes you to the park at the corner of Marion Avenue. This sma1l neighborhood park with a turn-of-the-century theme includes playground equipment, park benches, and a game gazebo. No bike racks. Slade Park This neighborhood park lies east of Highway 101 at the DeLong Avenue turnoff. A right turn on Davidson Avenue, another right to 593 Manuel Drive and you've reached this C0399:1/26/96 5 three-acre site which has playground equipment, a large turf area, and picnic tables. Access to this pleasant park is hampered by a narrow and poorly surfaced road with no bicycle lanes. No bike racks. A Class II bike lane should be installed on the streets leading to the park from Highway 101. Joseph 1I0og Community Park Class II bike lanes the length of Ignacio Boulevard lead to this eleven-acre park at 558 Marin Oaks Drive. Going west, make a left turn on Montura Way and a right on Marin Oaks Drive. Available at this site are two outdoor volleyball courts, playground equipment, a group picnic, and barbecue area that accommoclates up to 60 people. A bike rack will accommodate about seven bikes. OPEN SPACE PRESERVES Open Space Preserves are managed for preservation of the natural environment and the enjoyment of the public. Fire roads in these preserves are open to hikers, equestrians, and bikers. Single track trails are for the use of hikers and equestrians, picnickers, joggers, photographers, and bird watchers and to anyone who wants to get away from the rush of city life. Pacheco Valley/Loma Verde/Ignacio Valley Open Space Preserves These Preserves are part of the link in the chain of preserved open space atop Big Rock Ridge. They cover extensive acreage on both sides of the Ridge. A hike or ride to the ridge line rewards you with spectacular views of Novato and the Bay. Southern access points to the Ridge Trail are found along Alameda Del Prado at Clay Court and Posada Del Sol. Because of limited parking space at these entries, park officials recommend hiking or bicycling to them. Many other access points to steeper trails on the north side of the preserves can be found by continuing along Alameda Del Prado, then to the bike lanes that run the length of IgnaCio Boulevard then turning off at Fairway Drive. Indian Valley Open Space Preserve This beautiful natural area around Indian Valley College can be reached by following the bike lanes west on Ignacio Boulevard. Hiking trails abound as well as picnic tables and shady spots along the creek. Bicycle traffic is restricted to the fire trails, but cyclists can join the hikers and equestrians on the northeast section of fire road which takes you out on Indian Valley Road. Although scenic, this road has neither walking nor bicycle trails. Indian Valley Road should have a Class II bike lane between Vineyard and Hill Road as a feeder to the open space cycling and servicing the schools, Sinaloa, HilI, and Novato High School. CD399:2/26/96 6 Mount Burdell Open Space Preserve One of the largest of the Open Space Preserves, Mt. Burdell includes nearly 1,600 acres of grassland, savanna, and oak woodland. A unique feature of Mt. Burdell is Hidden Lake, a seasonal pond. A network of fIre roads and hiking trails offer a variety of routes to explore. Many access points may be found on the southern slopes by using the bike lanes on San Marin Drive and following almost any of the side streets going north. Sereno Way, San Carlos Way, San Mateo Way, Andreas court, and San Andreas Drive all lead to fIre roads and trails. PARKS ADJOINlNG NOV AllO Olompali State Park This state park located just north of Novato on Highway 101 was opened in 1990. The fIrst inhabitants of these 770 acres, the coast Miwok Indians, dwelt here 4,000 years ago. A three-mile-long loop trail takes you through natural vegetation of the Coast Range with views of the Petaluma River, marshlands at the north end of San Francisco Bay, and distant Mt. Diablo. There are no bicycle trails in the park but when bicycle access is completed along the Redwood Highway, bike racks will be a welcome addition. Currently there is no bike path to reach Olompali State Park. Within the next ten years, a Class II should be installed along the west side of Highway 101 from San Marin Drive north through Birkenstock property and open space to Olompali Stafford Lake Park Operated by the County of Marin, this park lies outside the City on Novato Boulevard. Lakeside Park features hiking, fIshing, barbecue areas, volleyball. and turfed play areas. Starting at San Marin Drive, a Class I path and pedestrian path winds through rolling hills to reach this sce~cc spot. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEl\tIENllATION WHERE FEASIBLE: 1. Install safe bicycle lanes and walkways leading to City and County parks and open space preserves. 2. Install adequate bike racks in all City parks. 3. Require the inclusion of bike lanes and safe pedestrian access connecting all new development in the City to existing bicycle and pedestrian routes. 4. Publish a map showing all hiking and bicycle trails in and surrounding Novato. CD399;2126/96 7 5. Connect and upgrade bike routes to existing open space preserves. 6. Connect the Novato portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail. 7. Create a bicycle/pedestrian trail along Novato Creek from Diablo Avenue to San Francisco Bay. 8. Develop and improve. all major routes to public schools recognizing that a major portion of bicycle traffic is students in transit to and from school or after school activities held at school sites. CD399;2i26/96 8 \ , \ 5.0 COMMUTER BICYCLE ROUTES There are two types of bicycle co=utes that need to be addressed. Routes need to be developed to make it feasible for "average" people to cycle to destinations within Novato, such as schools, parks, shopping centers, downtown and work centers such as Bel Marin Keys, Hamilton Field and Fireman's Fund. Routes need to be developed as part of the countywide master plan to make it easy for cyclists to co=ute to San Rafael and points south. The "spine" of Novato's bike route system, which should also become part of the Marin County north-south route is (from north to south) Redwood Boulevard, South Novato Boulevard, Enfrente Road, and Alameda del Prado. At present, Redwood Boulevard, Diablo, and some portions of South Novato Boulevard are rideable by the "average" person. South Novato Boulevard is currently undergoing renovation along its entire length and will have Class II lanes which meet Caltrans standards when renovation is completed. The greatest gap in the route through Novato is the space between the southern end of South Novato Boulevard and Enfrente Road, just north of Ignacio Boulevard. Access at present is southbound only on the shoulder of Highway 101, with various challenges related to riding on a freeway shoulder. There is no northbound access through this area unless cyclists take a long detour over Sunset Parkway. This gap makes co=uting between the main portion of Novato and Ignacio, Bel Marin Keys industrial Park, Hamilton Field, or San Rafael impossible for all but the most fit and determined cyclists. We look to local, state and federal sources to construct a Class I facility connecting South N ovato Boulevard with Enfrente Road. South of Ignacio Boulevard, Alameda del Prado includes Class II lanes, except for the section through the unincorporated area where wide median islands and narrow traffic lanes do not provide a bikeway. Various streets feed into the "spine" mentioned above, including Center Road, Novato Boulevard, Grant Avenue, Rowland Boulevard, Diablo and Atherton/San Marin Drive. These streets have varying amounts of space for cyclists, and some have Class II lanes along portions of them. In addition, there are various streets that connect destinations within N ovato that do not act as direct feeder:f-tb the main route. To encourage bicycle co=uting within the-next ten years, various streets need to have space for bicycles added to them. On some streets this should take the form of a 4-6-foot-wide marked Class II lane. On some streets, a widened traffic lane will be sufficient. Some of the more obvious gaps in a system of routes include: 1. Novato Boulevard between Seventh Street and Diablo. 2. Hill Road from Diablo to Tamalpais (under construction 10/95). 3. Tamalpais from Hill Road to Center Road (under construction 10/95). 4. Eucalyptus Avenue, for its entire length. 5. Vineyard Road, along its western portion. 6. Simmons Lane, at the bridge over Novato creek. CD399;2126196 9 .1.. / 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. Virginia Avenue for its entire length. Vintage Oaks Shopping Center to the Bel Marin Keys industrial and residential areas. Olive Avenue from Atherton Avenue to the City limits. Atherton Avenue from Bugeia to Highway 37. Indian Valley Road from Old Ranch Road to Wilson. Alameda del Prado completion. To further encourage bicycle commuting, all traffic signals where feasible and economically possible should be fitted with bicycle sensitive loop detectors, so cyclists are not forced to wait for a car to trip the light or forced to break the law and proceed through a red light. All schools, parks, and shopping centers should have secure, covered, and easy-to-use bicycle racks to encourage srudents, teachers, shoppers, and employees to ride to these destinations. Srudents represent the largest single group of bicycle commuters at present. Expanding this base will lead to a reduction of literally hundreds of thousands of vehicle miles driven per year as more students ride to school instead of being driven. All office buildings and buildings in industrial parks should also have bicycle racks. Large employers should be required to provide racks and showerllocker facilities for employees who wish to commute by bicycle. Many local jurisdictions already have such ordinances in place. In industrial parks, such facilities could be shared between several smaller firms. Municipal buildings should be provided with racks and showerllocker facilities to encourage employees and citizens with City business to travel via bicycle to City Hall. Racks should be provided at frequent intervals along commercial streets such as Grant Avenue, Redwood Boulevard and South Novato Boulevard to encourage shoppers and employees to ride. Increased provision of bicycle support facilities will perhaps lead to an increase in use of bicycles as a method of commuting. We hope to see the City implement these policies over the next ten years and thus demonstrate a real commItment to cycling as a form of transportation. CD399;2/26/96 10 \.. \ - \ , 6.0 CHILD AND SCHOOL BICYCLE SAFETY PROGRA.c'vlS School and Parks and Recreation Programs to ensure the safety of children riding to school are generally left up to each elementary school's PTA. The Parent Teacher Associations have strongly advocated for bicycle safety including endorsing the helmet law which went into effect January 1994. Now all school children are required to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle to school. Various schools have sponsored bicycle rodeos which educate the students on bicycle safety. In 1993, the Novato Police Department sponsored a Bicycle Rodeo emphasizing proper procedures at intersections, hand signaling, riding in traffic, and the importance of wearing a helmet. It is hoped that this bike rodeo will become an annual event. The Novato Parks and Recreation Department holds various summer week long bike camps for children ages 8 to 12 years. These camps emphasize bicycle safety and participants travel the bike paths from schools to parks for instruction and fun. Novato Police/Public Safety The Novato Police Department publishes a free brochure available at the police station entitled Bicvcle Laws. This pamphlet explains the rules of the road including parking a bicycle, driving on public grounds and sidewalks, bicycle lanes and paths, necessary bicycle equipment and procedures for locking a bike properly. Also covered in the brochure is information on how to license a bicycle and applicable fee required. Safety tips and a bicycle safety quiz are offered. The Novato Police do issue citations to juvenile offenders who have violated traffic safety laws either on a bicycle, in-line skates, or skateboard. First time offenders receive a letter sent home to the parents explaining the violation along with the Bicvcle Laws brochure. A second-time offender will be sent to traffic court. School Bike Routes It is the goal of the Novato Bicycle Plan to designate certain streets near by schools in need of bicycle lanes which are subject to a high volume of bicycle traffic. These streets are main arteries used by students to commute to schools by bicycle. Novato Unified School District has 13 schools of which 8 are elementary (K-5), 3 are middle (6-8), and 2 are high schools (9-12). The following 13 schools have designated these arterial streets as primary routes for students to cycle to school. Novato's Bike Committee would like to propose Class II bike paths on the following designated streets if they do not currently exist: Olive School: Bikeway on Olive Avenue from Redwood Boulevard to Atherton Avenue. CD399:2126196 11 / San Ramon: Pleasant Valley: Lorna Verde: Rancho: Lynwood: Hamilton: Lu Sutton: Hill Middle: San Jose l\iIiddle: Sinaloa Middle: San Marin IIigh: Novato IIigh: Bikeway on San Ramon Way between San Marin Drive and San Carlos Way. Bikeway on Sutro Ave from Center Road to Vineyard Road. Bikeway on Alameda de la Loma between Alameda del Prado and Fairway Drive. Bikeway on Johnson Street to Cambridge Street ending at Arthur Street. Bikeway on Sunset Parkway between Leafwood and South Novato Boulevard. Bikeway along Main Entrance Road between Main Gate and Palm Drive. Bikeway along Center Road between South Novato Boulevard and Sutro Avenue. Bikeway along Diablo Ave/Hill Road to Indian Valley Road between Redwood Boulevard and Arthur Street. Bikeway on Sunset Parkway between South Novato Boulevard and Ignacio Boulevard. Also, bike path on Ignacio Boulevard to Alameda del Prado. Bikeway on Wilson Avenue between Novato Boulevard and Hill Road. Also, Vineyard Avenue between Sutro Avenue and Wilson Avenue. Bikeway on San Marin Drive frpm Redwood Boulevard to Sutro Avenue. Also, on Novato Boulevard between Wilson and San Marin Drive. .. Bikeway on Arthur Street between South Novato Boulevard and Indian Valley Road. Also, on South Novato Boulevard between Sunset Parkway and Diablo Avenue. Note: See Exhibit "B" for Bicycle Travel Survey. CD399;2/26/96 12 \ \ 7.0 BICYCLE USAGE AND ACCIDENTS Novato is a panicularly good place to ride a bicycle. The aesthetic beauty and bike trails make it an enjoyable ride for the serious commuter and the pleasure biker alike. Novato is committed to becoming a link: in the north/south bikeway route through Marin County. This routing will allow commuting by bicycle through Marin and will make recreational biking available to the many cyclists who choose to see what Marin County and all Marin cities have to offer. Unfortunately, more bike riders on busy streets means a higher probability of bicycle accidents. In 1991 and 1992, there were 80 reported bicycle accidents in the City of Novato. The map included shows where these accidents occurred. There is also a listing of the streets involved. The streets with the higher density of traffic seem to yield the highest number of bicycle accidents. Center Boulevard and Novate Boulevard have the two highest number of bicycle accidents, followed by Grant Avenue, Vineyard, South Novato Boulevard, and Diablo Avenue. These busy streets represent a majority of the bicycle accidents in Novato or 41 % of all the bicycle accidents on Novato public streets reported in 1991/92. Most of the accidents are in areas that do not have Class II bicycle paths. A high number of accidents involve children in and around schools. Using the total number of 80 bicycle accidents in Novato, 55% involve children, 29% adults, and 7% are unassigned. Where bicycle accidents occur and blame is assigned, children are at fault 69% of the time and adults are to blame for 31 % of the accidents. In 65 % of accidents where caused by an adult or child, the bicyclist is a fault. It must be clearly stated that not all bicycle accidents are reported to the Novato Police Department and this report only reflects those accidents reported. Reduction in the numbers of accidents is a goal of the Bicycle Plan. Research shows that bicycle accident rates decrease with traffic riding skills education. The most experienced cyclists have the lowest accident rates, despite many more miles traveled. Bike safety education is an ongoing program of the Novato Police Department. As a committee, we support the contfuiiation of that education. The continual addition of bike lan'es to the Novato streets, and in particular the addition of bike lanes in and around the schools of Novato, should help to reduce bicycle accidents. CD399;2126/96 13 , / / Bicycle Accidents by Street 83 Reported Accidents Two Year Period: January 1991 - December 1992 Center Road 8 Novato Boulevard 7 Grant Avenue 5 Vineyard 5 Diablo 4 San Andreas Drive 4 South Novato Boulevard 4 Olive Avenue 3 Alameda del Prado 3 Bolling Drive 2 Cross Road 2 Entrada 2 Redwood Boulevard 2 Reichert Avenue 2 San Carlos Way 2 San Marin Drive 2 The following streets have had one bicycle accident in 1991/1992: Arlington Circle, Arthur, Cambridge, Chase, Cowbam Lane, DeLong, Dominic Drive, Drakewood Lane, Fourth Street, Indian Valley Road, Lamont Avenue, Leafwood Drive, Madeline Court, Main Entrance Road, Main Gate Road, Marin Oaks Drive, Martin Drive, McClay Road, Rudnick Avenue, Vallejo Avenue, Second Street, Seventh Street, and Sunset Parkway. CD399:2J26/% 14 \ \ 8.0 GOALS AND 1MPLE1'\1ENTATION POLICIES GOALS 1. Provide for bicycling as a reasonable alternative to motor vehicles for short trips within the City and for commuting and recreational riding within Novato and linked to areas outside Novato. 2. Create and maintain a safe, convenient, and continuous, signed system of bicycle and pedestrian transportation routes that connect residential neighborhoods with employment and commercial centers, transit facilities, parks, schools, and regional bicycle transportation facilities. 3. Plan, provide, or encourage functionally adequate and secure bicycle parking facilities at new and existing employment centers, shopping and commercial areas, multifamily housing areas, downtown, schools, transit stops, park-and-ride lots, and recreational facilities throughout the City. This goal recognizes that secure bicycle parking is essential to a successful bicycle transportation program. 4. Educate the residents of the City that bicycling and walking are worthwhile, safe, economical, healthful, viable, enjoyable, and nonpolluting alternatives to automobiles, and that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are a legitimate and important component of the City and the regional transportation systems. POLICIES 1. Provide bicycle lanes and/or paths along all collector and arterial streets where feasible. a. Where street widths and funds are available, Class II lanes are the preferred bicycle route type. This recognizes the accepted concept that Class II lanes are safer because the bicyclist is in a more predictable pan of the street so thiit-'pedestrians, turning vehicles, and vehicles accessing or egressing driveways are more likely to see the oncoming cyclist. 1 b. Class I bicycle paths are appropriate when connecting anerials "cross country" through parks or similar expansive areas and along streets where adequate right of way is available and where there is a minimum number of driveway and cross-street conflicts. Where existing or projected pedestrian usage is heavy, extra path width should be provided. 1 lMarch 12, 1996, amendment. CD399;2J26/96 15 -J --, 2. Evaluate bicycle routing as an integral part of street design so that lanes and pathways form an integrated network within the City and are connected with the rest of the County. 3. Implement procedures that provide for an ongoing maintenance and pavement management program to repair broken pavement and to clear trash and debris from existing bicycle lanes and streets. Require high compaction and maximum smoothness when streets are repaired and patched. 4. Develop and annually update a prioritized list of bicycle and pedestrian system improvements and seek funding to implement the highest priority projects. A list of potential projects should be annually adopted by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee for consideration as part of the City's Five-year Capital Improvement Program. 5. Match the prioritized list of projects to available funding sources and application deadlines to proactively seek funding for improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian system. Track funding sources over time. 6. Actively solicit input from all bicyclists as to the location of barriers to cycling, routes that need to be implemented or improved, and maintenance that is required to remove existing unsafe conditions. Input can be used in project identification, evaluation, and prioritization. This can be achieved by additional public hearings, and by coordination with bicycle user organizations and bicycle retail sales stores, various City departments, School District personnel, and the City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. Also, a number can be provided to bicyclists to report problems in bikeways. 7. Retain the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee to advise the City Council. 8. Support periodic workshops/meetings between the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the City Planning Commission and/or the City Council and other agencies. 9. Support special bike days and other events such as a "Bike to Work Day" to help spread awareness of bicycle commuting or a "Bike-A-Thon" which may help raise money for local bicycling projects. 10. Seek funding for motorist awareness and bicyclist safety and awareness training for both children and adults to teach safe riding techniques to bicyclists and to teach motorists and cyclists how to share the road. 11. Continue requirements for new developments to identify and provide for bicycle facilities relevant to the new business or development. This policy is set forth in Chapter V, "Development Standards," of the City of Novato Code. 12. Participate in developing bicycle route maps for public distribution. CD399:2126i96 16 \ \ 13. Encourage or require large employment sites to provide adequate facilities conducive to employee bicycle commuting, such as providing secure and functionally adequate bicycle parking racks or lockers and showers and lockers. Provide employers with information on parking options. Covered/patrolled bicycle rack areas and/or in-building bike parking is preferred. 14. Support the installation of secure and functionally adequate bicycle parking in key existing areas such as on or convenient to the public sidewalks along Grant Avenue. Work with businesses to install parking at existing shopping and co=ercial areas and multifamily housing areas. Provide key businesses with information on bicycle parking options. 15. Support secure and functionally adequate bicycle parking at all public facilities, including City employment sites and parks and recreation sites. 16. Work with Golden Gate Transit to install secure and functionally adequate bicycle parking at key transit stops. Also, encourage Golden Gate Transit to install bicycle racks on its buses. 17. Work with Caltrans to install secure and functionally adequate bicycle parking at park-and-ride lots. 18. Seek more creative strategies in residential and nonresidential development to provide more emphasis on nonmotorized forms of transportation, such as having developers provide rights-of-way for bicycle and pedestrian facilities; amending the zoning code to require secure bike parking; and encouraging employers to provide additional support facilities and incentives. 19. Support the installation of marked signal loop detectors responsive to bicycles at new and existing intersections and time traffic signals to allow adequate clearance for cyclists, where reasonable and feasible. 20. Monitor improvements and needs in the Bicycle/Pedestrian TransportatioI}. Plan on an annual basis. 21. Ensure that Environmental Impact Reports analyze impacts on bicycling and pedestrian facilities and provide mitigation measures to improve bicycling and pedestrian access. 22. Coordinate efforts with the County so that bicycle routes are continuous with and part of County routes when the street extends beyond the City limits. 23. Work with the County to create and encourage the completion and signing of a countywide north/south bicycle route. C0399;U26/96 17 ., 24. Work with Caltrans and other state and federal agencies to identify funding sources to obtain rights-of-way next to State Route 101 to create safe, flat routes that the average person can fmd and use to bicycle from central Novato to Bel Marin Keys, Ignacio, and Hamilton Field areas. For further reference see Novato General Plan. CD399;1J16i96 18 9.0 PROCESS TO DEVELOP AND SECURE FuNnING FOR BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PROJEcrs 1. Identify potential projects for Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee and other review. 2. Produce "candidate list." (All the ideas that would be potential bike/pedestrian projects in Novato.) 3. Project worksheet, plat and cost estimate - prepared by staff. 4. Prioritize projects from the "candidate list" to recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. Funding options (so Council/Staff can target projects to appropriate funding source). 6. Identify projects on the "candidate list" that are potentially desirable but in another jurisdiction (projects in the Novato area but outside the City limits). 7. As projects are developed and approved, they will form the list to be a part of the Bicycle Plan and projects for which grant funding may be sought. For value of existing bicycle facilities, see Exhibit "C" attached. CD399;:J26196 19 RECEIVED Memorandum AUG 2 6 1999 From: Tyler Phillips To:Tom Gram, Scott Anderson Subject: Tiburon BPAC Date: August 26, 1999 PLANI~ING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF T1BURON Last night I attended the Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) meeting in San Anselmo. In addition to MCBC members and myself,. there were BPAC representative from Larkspur, San Rafael, San Anselmo, Corte Madera and Fairfax. Here are the highlights: · The County CMA has selected a consultant but the contract is not official yet, another few weeks. He is Michael Jones from San Rafael. The best guess is that it will be mid- October before there is any formal communication regarding his approach or his information requirements on the various towns. · Several of the BPACs (San Anselmo, Novato, Fairfax) are well along in gathering information and forming their plans. They have an inventory of existing bike routes, identification of problem areas and intersections, identification of signage voids, and suggestions for alternatives and improvements. Other BP ACs are either still in the organizational formation stage or just getting started. · There is a bill working in Sacramento (Senator Burton - SCA3) which provides for a one-time county option for the adoption of a sales tax for transportation requiring only a 50% voter approval (versus two thirds). This legislation would be on the ballet in November next year. ..the result (If offered and passed ---big ifs) would be $150-300 million in transportation funding for Marin over the next 18-20 years. There is also Federal legislation pending for the creation of an "American Bikeway" crossing the country and beginning in Marin. Message being that there is a likelihood for increased funding for transportation coming from various sources, so our timing is right for creating a BP AC. Albeit, we are competing with other towns for our share. · MCBC may decide to take on certain County-wide SP AC like activities such as the creation of signage standards, maps, information brochures, public awareness campaigns, etc. Anyway, I suggest that Tiburon convene its SP AC sometime in Mid September. Please advise. EXHIBIT NO. cl Tyler Phillips 8 Audrey Court, Tiburon, CA 94920 Ph: (415)435-8021 Fx (4\5)435-4021 email: tyler@jilleLcom TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. I~ To: From: Subject: Date: Town Council Town Manager Main Street ADA September 1, 1999 BACKGROUND In April the Town Council adopted a resolution initiating the formation of the Main Street Assessment District for the purpose of resolving certain ADA access deficiencies on lower Main Street, between Tiburon Boulevard and 55 Main Street. Both the Town and local merchants agreed that such construction activitv should only be undertaken during the months of January or February. This would reduce the negative impacts upon the local business community. LL Schwartz Associates of Nova to was appointed the Engineer of Work and is currently completing the project engineering and design work. The construction plans are almost complete and the next phase is to determine the cost of the project. The Engineer of Work has indicated that a meeting of the Assessment District Engineer, Town Staff and property owners should be scheduled for the week of September 13. The District Underwriter, Mark Pr'essman ASSOCIates of San Francisco has prepared a project time-line and schedule of activities regarding the assessment district proceedings and the issuance and sale of the bonds. This schedule is based upon a January-February construction period. Attachments AUG-26-S8 15,07 FROM,MARK PRESSMAN ASSOC MARK Pll.JlSSMAN ASSOCIATES 10,4154210755 2/3 PAGE Investmont Banking . TOWN OF TIBURON MAIN STREET ASSESSMEST DISTRICT Preliminary Schedule as of 8125/99 AuGUST 1999 SEPTEt.IIBER 1999 OCT06ER 1999 S M T w TH i F S , I 2 3 . . i s 7 . . 10 11 ,. 13 14 '. ,. 17 18 19 20 21 I I 22 i 23 2' 25 26 27 . ;:8 I 20:30 3' S M i T W "H F S i l , 2 3 i . 5 . 7 8 . 10 " 12 ',3 ' " 15 1. " 1. 1. 20 21 ~ '" 2' 25 26 27 28 .. 30 S M T iW 1H F S 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 . 9 i 10 1l '2 13 " 15 1. " 1. ,. 20 ,1 22 23 G;J 25 1261 v 2S I 29 I 30 ,31 I , NOVEM8EFlI999 DeCEMBER 1999 JANUARY 2000 S M T w TH F S 1 2 I 3 4 . . 7 8 . i 10 " 12 13 14 15 ,. ' 17 ,e ,. I 2C 21 22 ." 2. 25 2. 27 28 29 3C S M T win< . s I 2 ' 3 . , ' . , 8 . i '0 " i 12 113 " I" ,. I 17 18 '. i a. 21 22 28 24 .. 26 7T 2B 29 30 3' MARCH I START DESIGN WORK $ M IT W TH F $ I 1 j 2 3 . , . T . 9 lO . ~; I '2 n 14 15 110 17 i 18 19 2. " 22 28 24 I 25- 2. 27 28 2. 30 31 APPOINT PROFESSrONAL TEA,\-1 APPROVE BOUNDARY MAP RESOLUTION OF INTENTION APRIL 7 COUNCIL MEETING: WEEK OF SEPT 13 PROPERTY OWNER MEETINGIWITH COST ESTIMATES OCT 6 COUNCIL MEETING: FILE ENGL'iEER'S REPORT SET HEARING OCT 7 NOTICES AND BALLOTS TO PROPERTY 0\\ piERS OCT 7 ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS NOVIO C01\STRUCflON BID OPE:-<lNG 465 California Stteet, Suite GOO, San Frmcisco, C>Jifomia 941N . Tel, nSj42I.730C FAX ,15/421-0755 AUG-25-SS 15,08 FROM,MARK PRESSMAN ASSQC IO,415~210755 DEC 1 COUNCIL MEETING: FILE AMENDED REPORT (if necessary) IIEARlNG/ELECTION CONFIRM ASSESSMENT AWARD CONTRACT AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF BONDS DEC2 RECORD NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT DEC3 PRICE BONDS DEe 16 BOND DELIVERYiFl1NDS AVAILABLE JAN3 CONSTRUCTION STARTS NOTE: THE ABOVE SCHEDULE ASSUMES 100% PROPERTY OWNER WAIVERS FOR CASH COLLECTION PERIOD. IF TIiERE IS NOT 100% PARTICIPATION, THE SCHEDULE WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS' DEC 1 COVNCIL MEETING: FILE AMENDED REPORT HEARINGIELECTION CONFIRM ASSESSMENT DEC2 RECORD NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT START 30.DA Y CASH COLLECTION PERIOD JAN 3 CASH COLLECTION PERIOD ENDS JA-'\; 5 COUNCIL MEETING: PAID AND UNPAID LIST AWARD CONTRACT AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE Mm SALE OF BONDS J."",'\I 10 PRICE BONDS J.'\1"112 CONSTRUCTION STARTS JAN 25 BOND DELIVERY !FUNDS A v AU..ABLE PAGE 3/3 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. /Cp llo: From: Subject: Date: Town Council Town Manager CCC/PHHA Agreement September 1, 1999 BACKGROUND At Council's August 41h regular meeting Staff gave a brief oral report regarding certain neighborhood issues currently being discussed between the Community Congregational Church (CCC) and the Pilgrim Heights Homeowners Association (PHHA). Council was advised that Town Staff was assisting the CCC and PHHA in their attempt to reach mutual agreement It was suggested that possibly a Town Council subcommittee should become involved concerning the outstanding issues. However, it was agreed that Staff should continue to assist the parties with the hope that such agreement could be achieved within the next thirty (30) days. STATUS Representatives from the Church and the Homeowners Association met with Town Stafflast Friday, August 20, at Town HaiL There was general consensus and agreement concerning the majority of items. Staff has since revised the draft MOU and forwarded it to each party for their review and comment The parties will contact Staff next week so that the Town Council can be advised accordingly at the September 1 regular meeting. R L Kleinert Town Manager Ijr2 Iv'-.#- /1- TOWN OF TIBURON Memo To: TOWN DEPT. HEADS/ MILLENIUM COMMITTEE From: TOWN CLERK Date: 08/24/99 Re: SCHEDULE - SEPT. /OCT. TOWN NEWSLETTER The Fall edition of the Town Newsletter is scheduled to be mailed during the first week of October 1999. Here is a schedule for you use in submitting material of interest to the community: ~ SEPTEMBER 10, 1999 ~ SEPTEMBER 30,1999 ~ OCTOBER 7, 1999 DEADLINE FOR ARTICLES NEWSLETTER TO PRINTER NEWSLETTER MAILED TO RESIDENTS Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks. I~ D.L. Crane, Town Clerk . Page 1