The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 1999-11-16 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL I AGENDA / / 'l . ~ ? J :~- -'-' ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 TIBURON BLVD. MEETING DATE: MEETING TIME: INTERVIEWS: November 16, 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 Chair; (2) State Name and Address; (3) State Views Succinctly; (4) Limit Presentations to 3 minutes; (5) Speak Directly into Microphone. A. INTERVIEWS - (DESIGN REVIEW BOARD) 1) Holly Hudson B. ROLL CALL C. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any) D. PUBLIC OUESTIONS 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. The 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. E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS F. 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. Any member of the Town Council, Town Staff, or the Public may request removal of an item for discussion. 2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - #1174 - October 20, 1999 - (Adopt) 3) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As of September 30,1999- (Accept) 4) AlvIICUS BRIEF REQUESTS - a) Zelig v. County of Los Angeles - Supreme Court No. S081791, Review Granted October 20, 1999; b) Marguerite Treweek v. City oj Napa, California Court of Appeal, 1" Appellate Dist., Div. 2 Case No. A087820 (Napa Superior Court Case No. 26-04155); c) Friends oJMammoth et al. v. All persons Interested in the Redevelopment Plan Jar the Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Project et aI., California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District, Case No. C031043 - (Approve) 5) TIBURON COURT SERVICES AGREEMENT for Environmental Review of Proposed 4-unit Project off Trestle Glen Boulevard - (Approve Consultant's Contract) G. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES 6) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - (One Vacancy) H. PUBLIC HEARING 7) AMENDMENT TO PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 2 Miraflores Lane, AP# 39- 271-21 - (Applicant, Davood Sadeghi) - (Resolution) 8) 375 TAYLOR ROAD - Request for Extension of Time - Precise Development Plan- (Assessor Parcel No. 38-182-42) - (Resolution) 9) 160 SOLANO AVENUE - Appeal of Design Review Board Approval of Second Residence - AP# 59-142-12 - (Margaret May, Applicant; Leslie & Maxine Hembree, 172 Solano Drive, Appellants) - Continuedfrom October 20, 1999 10) ADOPTION OF NEWLY REVISED TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE - (Introduction & First Reading of Ordinance) I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ll)DOWNTOWN FERRY DOCK REALIGNMENT PROJECT - (Review of Blue & Gold's VHR Float and Ramp) J. NEW BUSINESS 12) RAILROAD MARSH MAINTENANCE PROGRAM - (Status Report & FY 99-2000 Budget Amendment) 13) MOTOR VEHICLES & TRAFFIC: CHAPTER 23 OF TOWN MUNICIPAL CODE - (Consider amendment of Code by Deleting Rollerblade Prohibition in Downtown Area) 14) HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE- A. General Plan Housing Element Revision Status Report B. Letter from Marin County Community Development Agency Re: Collaboration on Housing Element Updates C. Approval of Services Contract for General Plan Housing Element Update and Supplemental Appropriation of$5,000 K. STAFF & TOWN MANAGER REPORTS L. COMMUNICATIONS M. ADJOURNMENT Future k"enda Item - December I. 1999 --Interviews for Planning Commission Vacancy --Certification of November 2, 1999 Election Results & Swearing-in of Co unci/ Elect --iUain Street Accessibility Reconstruction Project - Approval of Formation of Assessment District & Bond Issue --County-wide Regulation of Firearms - Introduction & 1" Reading of Town Ordinance --Greenwood Beach Drainage Project --Amend Historical Landmarks designations for Old St. Hilary's Church property and Landmark's Society Art & Garden Center property --8 Indian Rock Court: Consider request to amend or abandon scenic easement --Approve purchase of "pooper-scooper" dispensers along multi-use path ..MS Society annual Walkathon - Special event permitfor Apri/9, 2000 --County-wide ban on Jet Skis - Proposed Town Ordinance I/e~ j){) / . h~ f:l)fM Diane Crane Town Clerk Tiburon Town Hall l50S Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEIVED OCT 2 9 1999 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON 10/27199 Dear Diane - I would like to submit my application for a position on the design review board. Having recendy been through the process myself (my hus- band and I are currendy adding on to our home), I was prompted to submit my application when I noticed in the newsletter that a vacancy on the board was being advertised. I have an interest in the restoration and development of property, as my facher has heen in that line of work for most of his adult life. He has always been able to see a good solution to a renovation project, even in the roughest of prospects, and has shared those ideas with me as he improves his various properties. My background is in graphic design. though I have ;l sttong interest in architecture and architectural history. While I enjoy many different styles and schools, I also feel that the architectural quality of share community should be a cumulative identity and not one in whic~ one particular structure or another assumes center stage. I would like to know a bit more about the responsibilities and requirements for this position and hope to be able to meet with you or one of the other board members in the near future to discuss the position. Thank you for you time in reviewing my credentials. Regards. ~ /y"' Holly Hudson 12 Mercury Ave. Tiburon, CA 94920 415-435.6834 I!duootion Distitutions Experience c.li1Cmia ColIcge of Am md Cnfh BachcIor of Pine Am deg=, Gnphic Design. 'ob University of Orogoa, Eugene Master ofLibruy Science degree, 1976 c.li1Cmia State Univenity, Hayw=! BuheIor of Am deg=, AIt History, '97S Print Regional Design Annual Sodety jor Technical Communication CA :Wagazine Printing Industries of America The Art ,\fuseum Association of America American Association of Museums Account executive/project manager, Tolleson Design, San Francisco Client liaison supporting principal arid design suff, prepare proposals, source and negotiate print. photography and illustration contracts, supervise print production. schedule project timelines and print delivery, prepare monthly invoices. 1994-present Art Director, Autodesk Inc., Corporate Communications. Sausalito Directed redesign of corporate and product line identities, responsible for the implementation of a worldwide communi- cations and packaging standard for the company and its subsidiaries, developed in-house design group (as well as extensive free-lance base) to support the expanding marketing direction, responsible for annual report, trade shows and all product packaging and marketing/sales materials, 1991-1994 Senior Designer, Bechtel Group Inc., San Francisco Developed major marketing collateral and identity for company and its business lines worldwide, direction and implementa- tion of corporate communications standards, multimedia presentations, trained design staff'in Macintosh computer technolo- gy and developed in-house service bureau with Linotronic imageserring capabilities, 1988-1991 Acting Art Director, PCW Communications, Corporate Design, San Francisco Directed collateral for magazine syndicate, identities, promotional materials and campaigns, trade show exhibitry, 1986~1988 Designer, The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco Exhibition graphics, signage, publications, brochures. invitations, announcements, posters, annual report, responsible for competitive bidding, coordination of design and production staff, 1985-1986 Designer, Macworld Magazine, pew Communications, San Francisco Monthly computer publication, computer graphics, collateral, exhibitry, 1984 Designer, The Burdick Group, San Francisco Exhibition graphics for the permanent installation of a Saudi Arabian science/technology museum, 1983 Designer, Thomas Ingalls + Associates, San Francisco Publications, announcements. identities, 1980 Designer, San Francisco Focus Magazine, KQED Channel 9, San Francisco Monthly general interest/membership magazine, advertising, 1979 Holly Hudson u Mercury Avenue 1'iburon d21uomia 9<4-920 tel 4.I5.<4-3S,6834 &x 4l5.3P.9319 TOWN COUNCn.. MINUTES C~2 ~4}.)~ CALL TO ORDER Mayor Bach called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:35 p.m. on Wednesday, October 20, 1999, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. A. INTERVIEWS 1) At 7:15 p.m., Council interviewed Jack Mavis, 407 Paradise Drive, for a vacancy on the Design Review Board. B. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson Gram PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Kleinert, Town Attorney Danforth, Planning Director Anderson, Finance Director Stranzl, Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi, Deputy Town Engineer John Huginin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi C. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION (If any) Mayor Bach said there was no closed session. D. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Elizabeth Barrows, 509 Ned's Way, asked about the Senior Housing Project and was told that she could speak during the scheduled time for that item on the agenda. Larry Smith, Tiburon Peninsula Foundation President, said his organization was taking the lead in effecting the repairs to Blackie's sculpture. He said it would have been impossible to vandalize it with a rock and surmised that a sledgehammer had been used. Smith said the most practical way to make repairs would be to extract the entire statue, but that it might be possible for the artist to make the repairs on-site. Smith also said the artist and the Foundation Board wanted to continue to have Blackie as an interactive sculpture and to allow children to sit on it. He said they [the children] were protected by the soft material been placed around the statue by the Town. Mayor Bach and Councilmember Hennessy concurred that the sculpture should be available in this way. Bach noted with pride the first time he witnessed a child sitting on the sculpture in Blackie's Pasture. Town Council Minutes #/174 October 20, 1999 Page I E. COUNCIL. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilmember Thompson announced that the proposed jet ski [ban] ordinance would be heard by the Marin County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, October 26,1999. F. CONSENT CALENDAR 2) TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES - No. 1171 - September 1, 1999; No. 1172 - September 15, 1999 - (Adopt) 3) TOWN MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY - As of August 31, 1999 - (Accept) 4) MAIN STREET ACCESSIDILITY PROJECT - Memorandum of Understanding with Sanitary District No 5 - (Authorize Execution) 5) CYPRESS HOLLOW LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING DISTRICT - (Adopt Resolution for Continued Maintenance and Operation of District) 6) SHORELINE PARK LIGHTING SYSTEM REPAIRS - (FY99-2000 Budget Amendment) 7) TOWN HALL - SPRlNT PCS SITE AGREEMENT - (Amendment) Councilmember Hennessy moved to add Items No. 13 & 14 to the Consent Calendar. Motion passed. 13) FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REPORT - FY ENDING 6/30/2000 14) SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - (Sunday, October 24, 1999) A. Pet Paws Parade - (Lower Main Street) B. "Kosovo Sleep Safe Project" - (Walk along Multi-Use Path) Town Manager Kleinert removed Item No.7, Town Hall Sprint PCS Site Agreement, from the Consent Calendar, pending further changes by Staff. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve Consent Calendar, Items 2 through 6 above, and Items 13 & 14. Hennessy, Seconded by Thompson AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Gram G. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES 8) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - (One Vacancy) Mayor Bach said the Council had interviewed some excellent candidates, but suggested postponing appointment pending further interviews as a result of interest generated by the Town newsletter. Council directed Town Clerk Crane Iacopi to extend the application period to November 15, 1999. Town Council Minutes #1174 October 20, 1999 Page 2 H. PUBLIC HEARING 9) NED'S WAY & TffiURON BOULEVARD: NED'S WAY GARDEN HOMES PROJECT; Ned's Way Garden Homes, LLC, Applicant - AP No. 058-151-35. The Town Council will hear public testimony on the merits of a proposed 25-unit senior housing project located on 1.51 acres ofland and will consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. - (Resolution) Planning Director Anderson said the item before the Council was a Precise Development Plan proposing the construction of25 senior housing units on Ned's Way near the Tiburon Boulevard intersection. He said the project was the culmination of a process that begin in 1995 with the passage of the ballot initiative directing the construction of senior housing at the site of the [now] former Town Hall and Police buildings. Anderson said the design competition had been spearheaded by the Senior Housing Advisory Committee and Ned's Way Garden Homes had been selected as the winner by the Town Council. Anderson said the Planning Commission had considered the project and its EIR at three public hearing in August and September 1999, and had praised the project for its design and compatibility with surrounding development. He said there were a couple of"quirks" such as the fact that some of the dormers were higher than 30 feet. In response to a question about potential view blockage from the Hilarita, Anderson said it would be minimal. The Draft EIR was released for public comment on June 30, 1999 and the Final EIR was released on September 17, 1999. Some potential impacts were noted in the DEIR in the following categories: Circulation/Traffic; Hydrology and Water Quality; and Noise. Anderson said the DEIR indicated that all potential significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels through the adoption of mitigation measures. According to Anderson, the Planning Commission had recommended certification of the EIR by Council subject to these conditions, including the addition of 10-20 parking spaces up hill for overflow, guest and Hilarita parking. Anderson noted that the Tiburon Police Department could use the parking as well. Anderson also said that Town Staff and the applicant had met with representatives from the Reed Union School District to discuss more precise detail regarding the development and implementation of noise and construction traffic mitigation measures. He said these details could be worked out in a separate agreement adopted at a later date, but might involve some minor changes to the mitigation monitoring program. Bruce Burman of Ned's Way Garden Homes gave a brief presentation. He said the project consisted of 12 duplexes and one single-family, detached home. He said the square footage of the nine (9) 2-bedroom and sixteen (16) 3-bedroom units ranged from between 1100 and 2100 square feet. Town Council Alinutes #1174 October 20, 1999 Page 3 In response to a question from Councilmember Matthews, Burman said the units would range in price from $275 to $325 per square foot, and that 65-70% were ADA accessible units. More specifically, the below market rate (BMR) units included kitchen and bathroom accessibility. Councilmember Hennessy said she wanted to ensure that the same amenities, such as fireplaces, were contained in the BMR units as in the market rate units. Mayor Bach opened the public hearing. Jeff Johnson, resident of Belvedere and attorney for Reed Union School District, said his client endorsed the mitigation measures but would prefer that the work be done in the summer months while school was not in session. He said the 315 [Reed School] students would be adversely affected by the noise impacts and that since most of them came by car, they would also be adversely impacted by construction traffic. Johnson asked that the Council require some sort of agreement between the school district and the developer concerning these issues. Town Attorney Danforth noted that CEQA did not require third party agreements as mitigation measures and suggested that any agreement be solely between the developer and RUSD. Councilmember Hennessy queried whether an effort had been made to carpool during the construction period. Johnson asked why the school district should make it easier for the developer. Mayor Bach said he did not appreciate this comment and suggested a more positive attitude would be beneficial. Jeri Johnson, RUSD Business Manager, said the school district did indeed encourage carpooling, and sent out special notices concerning this and other timely events. Planning Director Anderson said there was a typographical error in the revised mitigation monitorying program. He said there was no outdoor standard for construction noise but that it could be lowered to 75, not 60 decibels, and that the developer had agreed to do so. Elizabeth Barrows, 509 Ned's Way, said that she, along with many others, assumed that "senior housing" would be affordable housing. She also suggested that there be more two-bedroom units in the project. Barrows also asked about parking for visitors to the project. Mr. Burman responded that there would be at least 10 spaces outside of the development, in addition to the 50 stalls in the subterranean parking garage. Planning Director Anderson said the Town could require up to 20 per the Planning Commission's condition of approval. Mayor Bach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Matthews responded to the "three-bedroom" question. He said the Town's Town Council lv/inutes #1/74 October 20. 1999 Page 4 commitment was to provide four units that would be sold at below market rates and that the other 21 units were left up to the developer to design. Councilmember Thompson noted there had been extensive meetings and public hearings to try to incorporate the various ideas into the development. Councilmember Hennessy said she was the owner of a BMR unit at Pt. Tiburon Marsh and that those units had been developed with inferior appliances and no fireplaces. She insisted that the BMR units at Ned's Way Garden Homes have comparable amenities to the market rate units, " especially dishwashers, washers & dryers, fireplaces, and front doors. Councilmember Thompson asked about construction noise. Burman told him there would be no pile driving and a sound wall had been required. He said the equipment would consist ofD6 bulldozers and backhoes. Burman noted that sound traveled uphill and not downhill [towards the school]. Mayor Bach said he thought children enjoyed watching construction projects. MOTION: Moved: Vote: MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt the Resolution CertifYing the Final EIR for Ned's Way Garden Homes Project (PD#44) and Making Findings of Fact for the Ned's Way Garden Homes Development Project - AP#58-151-35 Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Gram To adopt the Resolution Approving the Ned's Way Garden Homes Precise Development Plan (PD#44) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Plan - AP#58-l51-35 Hennessy, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Gram Town Attorney Danforth noted that the measures requested by the Reed Union School District would be contained in a separate agreement between the school district and the developer, and would not be a part of the resolutions adopted by Council. 10) MAIN STREET RECONSTRUCTION ACCESSIBILITY PROJECT - (1-55 Main Street) - Adoption of Negative Declaration and Approval of a proposal to raise and widen existing sidewalks, raise the street pavement level, create additional pedestrian crosswalks, narrow an existing travel lane, and reduce on-street parking spaces on Lower Main Street - (Resolution) Planning Director Anderson said the project had been four years in the making and consisted of improvements to a one-block area on lower Main Street. He said the initial study identified issues of traffic, circulation, and historic resources (removal of some building siding which would need careful replacement), all of which would be mitigated. Town CouncilMinules #1174 October 20, 1999 Page 5 Anderson said the independent traffic analysis concluded that the project would improve overall safety on the street as well as accessibility for disabled persons. Mayor Bach asked why the plans called for a curb on the new street, and said he would prefer it without a curb for aesthetic reasons and also for flexibility if the street were ever made into a one- way thoroughfare. Deputy Town Engineer Huginin said the [ad hoc] Main Street Subcommittee recommended the curb design. Planning Director Anderson said a flat interface would not meet ADA guidelines. Town Attorney Danforth elaborated further on the difference in materials used on the areas close to the BART tracks to distinguish the surfaces. Superintendent of Public Works Iacopi said there were pipes that needed replacement under the street which should be taken into consideration before the project was underway. Mayor Bach opened the public hearing. Robert Trieber, representing some Main Street merchants, expressed concern about the length of the [lO-week] project and the loss of some parking spaces after the completion of the project. He also asked that the hours designated for commercial delivery be changed from 7:00 - II :00 a.m. to 7:00 - 10:00 a.m. to accommodate the opening of his business at 9:30 a.m. Mayor Bach said he did not anticipate unforeseen delays on the project, and noted that the Town had and would continue to work closely with the downtown merchants as best it could. Town Attorney Danforth noted that the contract contemplated 50 working days, which would not include rain days. Town Manager Kleinert said the street would remain open for deliveries and refuse pick-up. Nat Marans, Spanish Trail, asked why the two handicap spaces were being eliminated on Main Street and noted that he now needed one. He also criticized the Width of the street and said the new design would "make it nothing but worse." Planning Director Anderson said the Town's Building Official would designate the handicap spaces per State Law. . Bill McLaughlin, 36 Old Landing road, said it would be fabulous to do without the curbs on the street, and cited examples of areas in downtown Monterey and Sacramento with similar [curbless] streets. Mr. Zandvakili (Jr.), asked whether the project assessment fees had already been levied and whether he could get in writing that there would be no future assessments. Town Council Minutes #1174 October 20, 1999 Page 6 Town Attorney Danforth said no one would know the actual cost of the project until the bids were received, but that if the project cost less than the assessed fees, a refund would be made. Town Manager Kleinert said the district members could pay the assessment fee in a lump sum and there would be no future assessments. He said that information could be provided in writing. Councilmember Thompson said he also favored a flat [curbless] street. He asked whether the curbs could be changed later on. Planning Director Anderson said that pedestrian safety would have to be addressed, in that case, through the placement ofbollards or planters, or some other barrier. Councilmember Hennessy reiterated her support of a one-way solution and continued to maintain that a two-way street and sidewalks would be too narrow for both cars and pedestrians. Councilmember Thompson said he also supported the one-way plan but said he would vote to approve the project in order to move it forward. MOTION: To adopt resolution approving the Main Street Accessibility Reconstruction Project and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. Matthews, Seconded by Thompson AYES: Bach, Matthews, Thompson NOES: Hennessy ABSENT: Gram Moved: Vote: II) ZELINKSY P ARKIRAILROAD MARSH FLOODPLAIN PROJECT - Located behind the Belvedere/Tiburon Library and Town Hall buildings (1501 & 1505 Tiburon Blvd.)- Ordinance establishing Processing Procedures - (2nd Reading and Adoption) Planning Director Anderson said Council had introduced the ordinance and passed first reading on October 6, 1999. Mayor Bach opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: To read Ordinance establishing Processing Procedures for the Zelinsky Park/Railroad Marsh Floodplain Project by title only. Moved: Vote: Thompson, Seconded by Hennessy AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Gram Mayor Bach read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Establishing Planning Procedures for the Proposed Zelinksy Park/Railroad Marsh Floodplain project located on Town of Tiburon-owned Land behind the Tiburon Town Hall and Belvedere- Tiburon Public Library Buildings at 1501 & 1505 Tiburon Boulevard (Portions of Assessor Parcel Nos. 58-171- Town Council Minutes #1174 October 20, J 999 Page 7 62 & 85). MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt above Ordinance. Thompson, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: Gram I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12) DOWNTOWN FERRY DOCK REALIGNMENT PROJECT - (Consider Status & Review Options) Town Manager Kleinert gave the Staff Report. He noted that the option to build a new ferry dock at the site of the current downtown ferry dock had first come before Council in 1995 in the form of a grant from the California Transportation Commission. At that time, Council approved, but then subsequently withdrew, its support of the funding. The disapproval was based in part on opposition by Pt. Tiburon homeowners to the larger size of the new dock. In 1997, a new Council voted to reinstate the grant application and authorized the Town Engineer to apply for an advance on funds to prepare drawings of a revised project, which contained three alternative dock positions at the current location. Kleinert said the matter was now before Council for further direction and because the grant specified a deadline of May 2000 for completion of the project. Although Kleinert noted it would be difficult to meet this deadline, he surmised that there might be an extension if the project was well under way by that time. However, Kleinert said an essential component was missing in that the owner of the current dock, Mr. Zelinsky, showed little or no interest in pursuing a reconstruction project nor of giving up ownership of the dock to the Town. Town Manager Kleinert said that Blue & Gold Fleet had also proposed a new floating dock which would solve the problems of ADA access and would not be as large as the original replacement dock. Pip Ellis, representing Blue & Gold, said her company wanted to work with the Town to improve ferry service. She invited Council to view the proposed dock which had been in use at Pier 41 for one year and which had gained approval from members of the disabled community. In response to questions from Town Manager Kleinert, Peter Belden of Angel Island Ferry and Michele Kelly of Guaymas Restaurant, said they would not oppose the Blue & Gold design. Finally, Town Manager Kleinert said Mayor Bach had submitted a drawing for an improved pedestrian traffic circulation pattern in the dock area and possibly, another alternative for dock placement. Town Council Minutes #1174 October 20, 1999 Page 8 Kleinert suggested that the matter be continued to November 17, 1999 for further study of the above options. Council concurred. Councilmember Hennessy asked the Town Manager to convey her sentiments to Mr. Zelinsky that she thought it would be in the best interest of the Town in the long run to have ownership and/or operation of the dock facilities. J. NEW BUSINESS 13) FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REPORT - FY ENDING 6/30/200 Item moved to Consent Calendar. K. COMMUNICATIONS 14) SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - (Saturday, October 24, 1999) A. Pet Paws Parade - (Lower Main Street) B. "Kosovo Sleep Safe Project" - (Walk along Multi-use Path) Items noted. L. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Bach adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m., sine die. MOGENSBACH,MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #1174 October 20, 1999 Page 9 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: To: From: Subject: November, 1999 Item: CONSENT # :3 TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT - AS OF THE MONTH ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 TOWN OF TIBURON Institution! Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity S tate of California Local Agency $3,906,197 5.274% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) Total Invested: $3,906,197 TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Institution! Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity S tate of California Local Agency $267,291 5.274% Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) Bank of America Other $0 Total Invested: $267,291 Notes to table information: State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): the interest rate represents the effective yield for the month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week following the month ended. (As received October 29,1999) Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in confonnity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Council. The investment program herein summarized provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures. ~/~ Richard Stranzl, Finance Director November 2, 1999 cC.e: Town Treasurer ~# ,-/_a) MICHAEL M. POLLAK SCOTT J. VIDA GIRARD FISHER WAYNE D. PARISER J SUSAN GRAHAM GERARD A. LAFOND JR DAV!O A HAD LEN DANIEL P BARER jUDY L. McKELVEY LAWRENCE J SHER FRANCINE AMEGA KATHLEEN T SAENZ JEFFREY A. NEEDELMAN STEVEN T. WlODEK MINDY H. McQUEEN POLLAK, VIDA & FISHER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1801 CENTURY PARK EAST 26TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90067-2343 TELEPHONE (310) 551-3400 FAX (31 0) 5 51 ~ 1 036 E-MAIL law@pvandl,com November 3,1999 OF COUNSEL MICHAEL R. NEBENZAHL Re: \o)~@~~w~rm lffi NOV 8 1999 lill TOWN ATfOFiNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON REOUEST FOR PARTICIPATION IN ZELIG AMICUS BRIEF Zelig v. County olLos Angeles Supreme Court No. S081791 Review Granted October 20, 1999 Ann R. Danforth Town Attorney 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 [Please respond by December 15, 1999] Dear Ms. Danforth: 1 urge your City to join in the Zelig amicus brief. The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have approved amicus support. They have authorized our firm to write the brief. The League does not submit amicus briefs in its own name. Instead, it encourages cities to lend their individual support. The Case Dr. Zelig shot his wife dead in the Los Angeles County courthouse. The trial court sustained the County's demulTer on the ground that the County owed no duty to Mrs. Zelig. However, the appellate court held that Mrs. Zelig's heir could sue the County for negligence and dangerous condition liability because the County did not use a metal detector to screen persons entering the courthouse. The Supreme Court granted review. The Supreme Court will hand down an important decision on governmental tort liability. The League seeks to insure that the decision does not expand municipal liability for criminal assaults that happen on public property. November 3, 1999 Page 2 Issues The case poses these core issues: . Whether Civil Code section 1714, enacted in 1872, creates a statutory cause of action for negligence against public entities (improbable as this may seem, that is what the appellate court held); . Whether a public entity may be held liable under the "special relationship" doctrine; . Whether the dangerous condition liability statute (Government Code section 835) may impose liability on a public entity for a criminal assault on its property even in the absence of a physical defect in the property; and . Whether Government Code section 845 (the "police protection" immunity) immunizes public entities from liability in a Zelig situation. The decision likely will affect governmental liability for years to come. I enclose the Los Angeles Times' article on the Supreme Court's grant of review. You can find the appellate decision at 73 Cal.App.4th 741; 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 695; 1999 Cal.App. LEXIS 672; or 99 Daily Journal DAR 7413. For more about the issues, see the enclosed letter to Chief Justice George. Request It's important to get the cities on board. Their stance really does influence the court. In a case I argued last year, Chief Justice George turned to the League's amicus counsel and asked pointedly, "Where do the cities stand?" We'd like to make a strong statement about that in this case. If your City is willing to participate, please complete and return the attached authorization. November 3, 1999 Page 3 The form should be mailed to the undersigned by December 15, 1999. Thank you. //'j Very truly *OOfS, / GF:pb Enclosure cc: Joanne Speers League of California Cities / ! i POLLAK, VIDA &. FISHER ,4 / ! / / GIRARD FISH51\ I /" /L. (/ / ./ G:\WPDOCS\A ITYS\GF\amicus briefs\zclig\Mergedltr.gf.l10499~d Law Office of RICHARD D. JONES ~N1- 6) FIRST SECURITY BANK BUILDING 390 NORTH BREA BOUlEV ARD, SUITE A . BREA, CALIFORNIA 9282 ( TELEPHONE (714) 529-9402. (562) 697.1751. FAX (714) 529-0538 RICHARD D laNES KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW HAROLD W POTTER GREGORY P. PALMER MARIANNE .'vlILLlGAN THOMAS P DUARTE TERRY STANIBLER-WOLFE KRI5TA MAC:-.iEVIN lEE HEATHER S IKER J) r2 (r\l r2 n 00 [' ~ .' U [!; l.!9 [!; U J lS i il. I ,I LJ NOV 8 1999 U TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OFTIElURON November 4, 1999 TO: ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS AND TOWN COUNSEL RE: Request for Joinder in Amicus Curiae Brief in Manmerite Treweek v. City of Naoa, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 2, Case No. A087820 (Napa Superior Court Case No. 26-04155). Issue: Does a publicly maintained boat ramp qualitY for the immunity provided in Government Code Section 831.4 as a "path" or "trail" which provides access to recreational activities. We write to request your City's amicus assistance regarding the Appellate Court's review of the above-referenced Superior Court decision, which held that a boat ramp, publicly maintained by the City of Napa was a "path" or "trail" providing access to recreational activities and thus qualified for the immunity provided in Govemment Code Section 831.4. While the case arose in the context of a slip and fall case which was being defended by the City of Napa, its reasoning has broad implications for every city and town in the State of California which maintains recreational paths or trails within its jurisdiction. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE The City of Napa maintains a boat ramp leading to a dock on the Napa River at the foot of 4th Street in the City of Napa, California. On June 1, 1998, plaintiff Marguerite Treweek was walking from the Napa City dock up a boat ramp when she alleged the ramp failed underneath her causing her to fall and sustain minor injuries. Treweek sued in Napa Superior Court claiming the City was negligent in maintaining the boat ramp in a safe condition. Napa filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that the City of Napa was immune from liability pursuant to Government Code Section 831.4(b), since the boat ramp could be considered a "trail" which was used to provide access to recreational activities such as fishing, water sports. and recreational or scenic areas... . The plaintiff opposed the motion relying specifically on the fact that the reason Ms. Treweek was traversing the boat ramp was commercial in nature and not recreational and, thus, the immunity does not apply. Plaintiffs claim was based upon the fact that she was leaving a dinner ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS AND TOWN COUNSEL November 3, 1999 Page 2 cmise on a ship called the "Grand Romance" and thus was not engaged in a recreational activity at the time of her injury. The motion came on for hearing before Judge Richard A. Bennett in the Superior Court for Napa County. After oral argument the court ruled that the commercial nature of the plaintiff's reason for being on the boat ramp was not relevant to the issue to be decided upon the immunity. It held that a public entity would be unlikely to encourage recreation if it had liability for injuries occurring on public lands which by their nature cannot be made safe for all. It held that the boat ramp did qualifY as a "recreational path or trail" and the immunity provided in Government Code Section 831.4(b) applied to the uncontested facts of the case. The Superior Court entered a judgment on the pleadings for the defendant City of Napa, and the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Appellate Court, First District, Division 2. The amicus brief on the merits that we are preparing has been authorized by the League of California Cities. WHY THIS CASE MERITS CITY ATTENTION Just about every city and town in California can boast about maintaining recreational paths and trails within its jurisdiction. These areas provide much needed recreational activities for their own residents as well as tourists. The legislature, in enacting Government Code Section 831.4, sought to encourage the constmction of such recreational paths and trails by providing immunity to cities and towns which do so. Since its enactment, courts have tended to expand this area of the law in the area of paved bicycle paths and other walkways. It is tremendously important to all cities and towns to monitor and have input into the decisions of the courts of this state in terms of the expanding nature of the application of this immunity. The impact of the decision to be made in this case may have far reaching implications, indeed statewide implications, in terms ofthe enthusiasm with which cities and towns will thereafter be willing to create and constmct areas of access to recreational activities. ANTICIPATED FILING SCHEDULE The City ofNapa's respondent's opening brief is due to be filed in the Court of Appeal on November 17. 1999. Accordingly, our amicus brief may be due as soon as the end of November, .1999. Therefore, we request that your authorization to list your city or town on the brief be in our hands no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 24, 1999. If your council meeting schedule does not permit you to respond in that time, you are welcome to communicate your city's support at a later time; we will file a letter request for joinder in the amicus brief if sufficient late joinders warrant. We enclose a form to assist you in responding to this request. .'- -.- ~._~ ..-'.........:........----.::-.....,.......,.. ALL CALIFORt'J'IA CITY ATTORNEYS AND TOWN COUNSEL November 3. 1999 Page 3 CONCLUSION This is a case of statewide importance to all California cities and towns and your amicus assistance will be of great help in obtaining an affirmation of the Superior Court's ruling in this matter. Please join us and the Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities in supporting the City of Napa in this case. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 255-8500. We look forward to your support. , I i , I I I I I: GL.I!NN I'll WATSON H"''''U:IV L.. GERSHON DOUGL.AS W. ARGUE MARK L L.AMt<I!N ERWIN e. "'CL.I!R O...ROL.O 0 P'I!P!!R AU.EN E. RENNl!"T"T" STEVEN L OORSEY WIl.UAM L STR"'USZ MITCHEL.L. E. AI!BOTT TIMOTHY L NI!U"EL.D GRI!GOFlY W STl!PANICICM "'lOCHEu..e BROWNI! M1CMAI!L. JENKINS WIL.L.IAM e RUOeu. QUINN M. S"'RROW CAROL. W L. YNCH JI!..F"'lI!YA. .....BIN GRI!GO~..... K'\J""eFOT THOM"'S M JIM!!O ROBEFIT C ceCCON S"YRE WEAVI!R STEVEN H o<AUI"M.-.NN GA~ I!. a....Ns ..OHN J. H....FlRIS KEVIN G ENNIS ~SIN D 0-I....FlR1S MICH...eL. I!!STI"IAOA LAURENe!! S. WIENER STl!VI!N Fl. 01"11"1 MleMAEL G. COL.ANTUONO S. TlLDI!N KIM SASKI.... T ASAMUI"lA o<AVSER 0 SUME s...UL......,...1! P!!TEA M THORSON BRI!NDA L DIEDI!R'Co-I$ JAMeS L MARKMAN OI!BOI"IAM 1"1 o-IAK""AN RU!!IN O. walNl!1"I CRAIG'" STl!l!l..I! T "'!!TEI"IPI!!I"ICI! O"'VID I"IOS!!I"IT D.-.NIE\..S WILLIAM P CUI"Il..EY III O. CAAIG FOX LYNN I !BARA J"'NET E. COLl!:SON TI!I"II!NCE" SOG.... us... SOND I"lOVA CLAFlKE I'Kl)(ANN!! M. OIAZ MAAI!!!!L $ Mt!DIN.... I!AIt<,AM. "LI!!MING OLIVI... WA1-W!!N SUAN SANOAA L McOONOUGM MAT'Tl-!l!W 0 MITCH!!LL "''''ULA GUTlEI"IAI!Z ISAI!ZA TO: ~k.;t- IF 'I' ~) RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW RICl-lARO RICl-lAR09 (1~' e., 988) ... PAOl"!!SSION...l,. CORPOP..A-nON THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOA 333 SOUTH HOPE STAEET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 -1469 (213) 626.8484 FACSIMILE (213) 626.0078 SAN F~NC1SCO O....ICE SUITE MlO FORTY-FOUR MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNIA H104-481' (415) 421.8484 FACSIMILE (415) 421-8488 October 25, ORANGe: COUNTY O....ICI!! NUMBER ONE CIVIC CENTER CIRCU: BREA. CAUFORNIA 92821 (714) 980-0901 FACSUI,IULE {7141 9~230 1999 fD)~@~~W~rn1 UlJ NOV 8 1999 ~ TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF TIBURON 0" COUNSI!L WILLIAM K KRAMER 1332665 OUR FIl.e: NUMBER 11397-00001 ALL CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS FROM: T. PETER PIERCE RE: FRIENDS OF MAMMOTH ET AL. V. ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MAMMOTH LAKES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ET AL. CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, CASE NO. C031043 I write to request that your City join in the amicus curiae brief that my firm prepared and filed in the above-referenced appeal on August 10, 1999. The amicus curiae brief supports the redevelopment plan ("the plan") adopted by the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The above-referenced legal challenge to the plan is pending before the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. The trial court concluded that the plan substantially complies with the Community Redevelopment Law and, therefore, is valid. Limited time allowed us to solicit joinders in this brief only via e-mail a few days before the August 10, 1999 filing deadline. Few agencies were able to respond on such short notice. We have now learned that oral argument in the case probably will not occur for another several months, and that the Court of Appeal continues to accept amicus curiae briefs. Accordingly, a renewed effort to solicit joinders in the brief seems appropriate. plan The Town July 1997. in BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CASE of Mammoth Lakes adopted its redevelopment The redevelopment project area covers RICI-lARDS, WATSON & GERSHON All California City Attorneys October 25, 1999 Page 2 approximately 1,139 acres. Based upon the detailed report of its redevelopment consultant, the Town Council concluded that the project area suffered from conditions of economic blighting and conditions of physical blighting. No State or local taxing agencies affected by the plan objected to its adoption. A local citizen's group and several residents of the Town brought suit in August 1997 challenging the validity of the plan. In particular, the residents claimed that the project area was neither physically nor economically blighted under the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code sections 33000, et seq.). The trial court concluded in October 1998 that substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the Town Council's findings of physical and economic blight. Although plaintiffs complained in the trial court of procedural irregularities in the process of adopting the plan, plaintiffs have essentially abandoned that position on appeal and focus almost exclusively on the issue of blight. ISSUES DISCUSSED IN AMICUS BRIEF 1. AB 1290 brought about a marked difference in physical blighting criteria. Plaintiffs focus primarily upon dilapidation and deterioration of buildings as 'true blight" when, in fact, AB 1290 does not require that buildings be dilapidated or deteriorated to make a finding of physical blight. 2. The combination of blighting conditions must constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community. At several points, plaintiffs lose sight of the "combination" requirements and frame their analysis to suggest that each factor which may cause physical or economic blight must itself constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community. 3. The standard of review in assessing the validity of a redevelopment plan is whether substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the findings of the local legislative body. Although plaintiffs announce the correct standard in their brief, they proceed to exaggerate in their analysis by claiming that courts have developed a 'healthy skepticism" toward redevelopment. BRIEFING SCHEDULE The appeal has been fully briefed by the parties. amicus curiae brief was filed on August 10, 1999. However, will file an application on behalf of interested cities and The we RICt4.\RDS, WATSON & GERSHON All California.City Attorneys October 25, 1999 Page 3 agencies for leave to join in the amicus curiae brief already on file. Because this case presents issues of widespread interest to all cities and redevelopment agencies, we believe it is important for interested cities and agencies to show their support. Therefore, we request that cities and agencies wishing to join the amicus curiae brief notify us no later than Friday, November 26, 1999. The issues presented by the above-referenced legal challenge have not been presented to the Legal Advocacy Committee of the League of California Cities and, therefore, the League does not have a position on the issues. If you need any further information, or would like to receive a copy of the amicus curiae brief, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to hearing from you soon. TPP : j S 1332665 iF TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: 11/16/99 5'" To: TOWN COUNCIL From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR~ Subject: APPROVAL OF SERVICES CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW ON A PROPOSED 4-UNIT PROJECT OFF TRESTLE GLEN BOULEVARD (TIBURON COURT) Date: 11/9/99 BACKGROUND The Town is processing an application for Precise Development Plan requesting the creation of four single family building sites on 15 acres otfTrestle Glen Boulevard (Tiburon Court project) Staff has determined that an expanded initial study (CEQA review) will be required for this project, resulting in either a mitigated negative declaration or a focused EIR. The extent of this environmental review is likely beyond the normal expertise of in-house staff and it has been determined that an outside consultant will perform the work at the applicant's expense. The Town will select the environmental consultant. Staff solicited price quotations from three environmental consultants. The price quotations were as follows Nichols-Berman John Roberto Associates Parsons Harland Bartholomew $31,100 $35,000 $40,000 RECOMME;\IDATlON Approve a services agreement with Nichols-Berman for $31, I 00 and authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement. Tih/(ron Town COl/ncil S/a}f /(epo/'l /1/16/99 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. w To: TOWN COUNCIL From: TOWN CLERK Subject: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD VACANCY Date: November 16, 1999 BACKGROUND At Town Council's direction, the Town Clerk extended the application period to November 15, 1999, in order for more interested applicants to apply for the vacancy created by LaITy Doane's recent resignation. The following applications have been received and applicants interviewed: · Mark Burgess (previously applied in October 1998) . Nadine Hill (previously applied in October 1998/past DRB member) . Bill McLaugWin (interviewed 10/6/99) . Jack Mavis (interviewed 10/20/99) . Holly Hudson (interviewed 11/16/99) RECOMMENDATION That Council consider appointing one of the above applicants (or anyone else of its choosing) at the November 16, 1999 adjourned regular meeting. Another option would be to extend the application period to November 30, 1999, to coincide with the cUlTent published vacancy on the Town's Planning Commission. D. Crane Iacopl Town Clerk EXHIBIT --Special Vacancy Notice (DRB) TOWN OF TIBURON SPECIAL VACANCY NOTICE (Town Commissions, Boards & Committees) Unscheduled Vacancies - SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1999 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD - (Statutory Authority: Section 3.02 of Tiburon Zoning Ordinance) Purpose: The Design Review Board reviews and acts on applications for Site Plan and Architectural Review, which can include plans for new residential and commercial building, remodels, additions, accessory buildings, swimming pools, fences, decks, and other structures. This review includes both the site layout and architectural design characteristics of a proposal. Decisions of the Board are final, unless appealed to the Town Council. Qualifications: A licensed architect is preferred to this vacancy, although not required. Applicants for this Board need not* be residents of the Town of Tiburon, although residency is preferred. Applicants should have the interest, desire, and time available to help promote the general welfare and aesthetics of the community through proper regulation of site planning and architectural design. Formal training, experience, or familiarity with architecture, design, and/or landscape architecture are preferred but not required. An unscheduled vacancy on the Design Review Board has occurred as follows: Avvointees Date Avvointed Date Resil!ned Term Exvires I) Larry Doane January 1997 September 1999 February 2003 (Moving out of area) Interested residents can contact Tiburon Town Clerk Diane Crane at 435-7377, or pick up an application at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard. ~ *E.xtension Period for Receivt of Avvlications = November 15. 1999 cc: Tiburon Town Council/Commissions Planning Director/Town Manager The Ark/Independent Journal 'Revised Notice Posted at OJjice ofTiburon Town Clerk and BelvederelTiburon Public Library on October 21, 1999. TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. '1 To: TOWN COUNCIL From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER Subject: FILE #39905: AMENDMENT TO THE MlRAFLORES PRECISE PLAN (PD #21) TO EXPAND THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENVELOPE; 2 MlRAFLORES LANE; Davood Sadeghi, owner; Tim Casey, applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 39-271-21 Date: NOVEMBER 16, 1999 PROJECT DATA: SUBDIVISION: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMPTION: PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT DEADLINE: 2 MIRAFLORES LANE 39-271-21 39905 23,443 SQ. FT. RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT); PD #21 MlRAFLORES UNIT 2 (1975) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C JUNE 3,1999 JUNE 3,1999 ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: NOVEMBER 30, 1999 BACKGROUND: The project is the proposed amendment to a precise plan (the Miraflores Precise Plan) requested by the owners of property located at 2 Miraflores Lane. The applicants wish to expand the primary building envelope for this lot. On July 14, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No 99-07 (Exhibit 2) recommending to the Town Council that the Precise Plan amendment be partially approved. TlBlTRON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 16. 1999 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting approval of an amendment to the Miraflores Precise Plan to expand the primary building envelope for the property located at 2 Miraflores Lane. The property is developed with a single-family dwelling. The proposal is intended to allow the applicants to construct three separate additions to the existing house. The current primary building envelope consists of a 4,605 square foot rectangular area occupying much of the southern portion of the site. The secondary building envelope is a 3,745 square foot rectangular area extending north from the primary envelope. The existing house sits within the primary envelope, and a swimming pool, spa and deck area occupies much of the secondary envelope. Two adjustments are proposed to the existing building envelopes: a 292 square foot expansion of the southern edge of the primary building envelope, and a 95 square foot expansion of the northern edge of the primary building envelope. A third proposed addition would be located within the existing primary building envelope. The three proposed building additions are labeled as "A", "B" and "C" on the submitted plans. Addition" A" would involve the conversion of an existing portion of the house and deck area into a cabana attached to the house at the lower level, adjacent to the swimming pool area. The addition would result in an additional 68 square feet of building area, and would require the expansion of the primary building envelope into a portion of the existing secondary building envelope. Addition "B" would expand a bedroom and bathroom on the lower level of the house on the southern side of the structure. The proposed 165 square foot addition would project 10 feet out from the existing house, and would extend to within 5 feet of the side property line. Addition "COO would expand the upper floor of the house to the rear to enlarge a kitchen nook. This 149 square foot addition would replace a portion of an existing deck within the existing primary building envelope, and therefore would not require an amendment to the Miraflores Precise Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: At a public hearing on this request on June 23, 1999, the Planning Commission and several neighboring residents raised concerns about the subject request. It was noted that the subject house currently exceeded the Town's floor area ratio for a parcel of this size, and is one of the largest homes in this neighborhood Several neighbors downhill from the subject property indicated that the proposed Addition C would unacceptably increase the mass and scale of the house when viewed from below. The Commission also noted that the 5 foot side yard setback requested for Addition B would be less than any other home is this neighborhood, and smaller than the side yard setbacks in most other single-family areas ofTiburon. T!Hl iRON TOW:,>; COUNCIL STAfF REPORT NOVEMBER 16. 1999 2 -,..,. As a result, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations regarding the three proposed additions: I. Addition A is acceptable, as the proposed construction would resolve internal circulation problems with a minimal addition that was not visible from off the site. 2. Addition B should not be approved, as the resulting 5 foot side yard setback would be too small for a single-family home in this neighborhood, and smaller than the side yard setback required in other single-family residential zones in Tiburon. 3. Although Addition C does not require an amendment to the building envelope, the Commission recommended that the Design Review Board be encouraged to "carefully review" this addition, "in consideration of concerns raised by downhill neighbors and the present nonconforming floor area of the house" The commission specifically recommended that the depth of this addition be reduced from II feet to 7 feet 6 inches. 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 the proposed Addition B would be inconsistent with "the need for privacy with minimal visual and aural intrusion" required by Section 4.08.04 (k) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The remaining changes, which would result in a marginal increase in tloor area, would be consistent with this requirement as well as the policies outlined in the Tiburon General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT: Two neighboring property owners downhill from the site spoke in opposition to this request at the Planning Commission public hearing. The applicant has submitted letters from five nearby residents (Exhibits 6-10) indicating their support for this request. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. CONCLUSION: The requested building envelope expansion for Addition B would reduce the side yard setback for this property to 5 feet, which is smaller than such setbacks found elsewhere within this subdivision and in any other single-family residential zone within the Town of Tiburon. The proposed additIon C would increase the mass and bulk of the house when viewed from neighboring residences downhill from the site. The area included in Addition A and, to some extend, Addition nBURON TOWN COlN"CIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 16. 1999 3 C, would only marginally increase the floor area of the subject house and would help resolve the some of the home's internal design constraints. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Town Council hold a public hearing on this item, then adopt the draft resolution granting partial approval of the project, as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions contained therein. EXHIBITS: l. Application form and supplemental materials 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-07 3. Staff Report dated June 23, 1999 4. Minutes of the June 23, 1999 Planning Commission meeting 5. Miraflores Subdivision Floor Area Analysis 6. Letter from Barbara and Wayne Alexander, dated June 20, 1999 7. Letter from Lisa and Peter Westley, dated June 20, 1999 8. Letter from Betty and Turner Brashear, dated June 21, 1999 9. Letter from Timothy and Rhonda Dunn, dated June 21, 1999 10. Letter from Richard Rose, dated June 22, 1999 11. Letter from Pat Howe, dated June 22, 1999 12. Draft resolution 13 Proposed plans dated June 17, 1999 H:ldwatrouslReportsl TC3 9905 .report.doc TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 16. 1999 4 LANU Ut:.Vt:.LU....MI:N I A/"'....LI~A 1I0N-- - -" ...-- .' . ,TOWN OF TISUR:JN TYPE OF APPLICATION JUN 2 1999 o C~nditional U:se Permit Yi Precjs~t Plan o Conceptual Master Plan o Rezoning/Prezoning o Zuning Text Amendment o General Plan Amendment o Design Review (Major) o Design Review (Minor) o Variance o Sign Permit o Tree Permi't o Underground Waiver o Tentative Subdivisio<\.Mac. '-NT OF Uct"AHrfVI!:j o Final SubdiviOOlllM!lPlITY DEVELOFMENT o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjustment . o Certificate of Compliance o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS:2 Mira Flores Iane PARCEL NUMBER: .A...!'...N O,q_?71_71 PROPERTY SIZE:23443 SF ZONING: OWNER OF PROPERTY: Davoud SadeQhi MAILING ADDRESS: 2 MilO Flores r"m> CITY/STATE/ZiP: Tiburon. Ca PHONE NUMBER: 7AQ_n007 FAX 7Aq_nnn1 APPLICANT: (Other dlan Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX ARCffiTECTIDESIGNERJENGINEER: Tim Casev, AIA MAILING ADDRESS: 244 Magnolis Ave. CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: r "rkspnr '" Q4Q,Q PHONE NUMBER: 924-1610 FAX 924-1 623 Please indicate with an asterisk (*J persons to whom correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach sep3I'ate sheet iC ueeded): I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a pan 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 also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or '. >._ liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result ~f':;'~9m tl1~;f~klf("~~~~H~. &~ tJ~~.~j~~~X:;!'~1;JA~"~,b~~:;;~'Jvz,~1~'1".'.'."... . .' -. .--e'~lt---' "-"fettep fr m'o' --'- r) :~:';<l~,...t;:'lM"",;~~:)ii2_,;/;~..:k_~:: J.~:~~"-;; ~~:""'f'.,j~},,~~-"-> '_'~,..,' '. ..~ ' . ''':.'''''' ...._ 0, _ wne ~$""""'i1,;,.",":n-""'~"""'"""""'.J.-~ ,",,'~',';"" ..'~.l!<e.,c....,,,,oo..~"'.!"." _:'" '1i-f(~W:t4'i~~'~';~~J<~~\';4':}f~:;':i.""t~l,",n":::'Ci'/f,~'~fr!-~->;;[}.~ "~.;!1\:' :?,:;-~':,?:;,~;,,}'::'::t'\'E.,t:f,:~ ';"".~.!it4~~,;'t."""":"",'~~~$:;.",,::;ftv..:;" _;;?, liIt'-,,- "'1-:",4f.t';,;''''"I.~?'':", ,~'~~:~,..>}.~:,.-, ',_"c:,- ;' r~'A~'..i~'cJ"rF ':J:6a,;.'~t~:"'" EXHIBIT NO ._.L P. i DF-5 A. Project Information I. Applicant' Name: Davood Sadeghi (Owner) RECEiVED TCWN OF nEURON JAN 2 2 1999 DEPARTMENT OF CCMMUNITi DEVELOPMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SUBMISSION FORM Address: 2 Mirat10res Lane Tiburon. CA 94920 T dephone: (415) 789-0002 2. Person preparing this submission: Tim Casey. AlA Address 244 Magnolia Ave. Larkspur. CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 924-1610 ~. Project 0iumber: NA 4. Assessor's Parcel No. 039-271-21 ). Type of Approval: Precise Plan Amendment 6 Location of project: Vicinity Map included with Application Dr~wings /. Size of subject property: 23,443 sf 8 Present and previous use of site: SIngle Family Residence 9. Existing Zoning: General Plan designation: RPD (Residential Planned Development ) Medium Residential. 10. General description of project: a. Intent: Small expansion of living area and creation of a pool side Cabana. Additions to be visually "seamless." b. Map showing uses: See Application Drawings c. Major activities: Temporary building activity associated with apx. 1,000 sf oflight construction. d. Area covered by structure: 584 sf of addtionallot coverage. 718 sf of addtional t100r area 229 sf of addtional deck EXHIBIT NO..-L ~. 'Z-CF$' II. Other agencies or dept's approvals: Planning (Design Review) Building (Permit) B. Environmental Setting 1. Topography: Avg. slope 30% 2. Geology: a. Geologic type: b. Slope stability: Is good - no repairs required. c. Seismic hazards: NA 3. Air Quality: NA 4. Hydrology: NA 5. Wmer Quality:N,-', 6 Biology: NA 7. Noise: NA (Residential use. temporary noise associated with light construction. ) 8. Visual Scenic Resources: NA 9. Grading: 47 C.y. (+/-) of cut. to be exported 10. Archaeological/Cultural Resources: NA 11. Population and Housing Characteristics: Similar to existing and proposed use. 12. Circulation: NA 13. Public Service and Utilities: NA EXHIBIT NO. l f,3or:, 14. Health and Safety: a. Flammable materials on site: NA b Distance to nearest fire hazard: NA c. Production or storage of hazardous materials: NA d. Disposal for waste products: NA e. Distance to nearest sensative receptors: NA C. Impacts Adverse impacts: NA D. Mitigation }[easurcs and Alternatives 1. Mitigation: NA } Aternatives: NA E. Certification 1. r herebv certit\. that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present ths data and information required for the initial evaluation to the best of mv ability. and that the facts. statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my l610wledge and beliet-. fr / ---"',' .r Dare: 19 Jan 99 .. L,- L~~ '(Signature) ~ .) Tim Casey. AlA EXHIBIT No.L P Lf CF, Proposed Improvements to: 2 Miraflores Lane Tiburon, CA RECEiVED JUN 1 7 1999 PLM'I~lIfIG DEPARTMENT TOVvN CF TiBURCN The proposed project consists of three improvements to an existing residence. They are identified as Proposed Improvements A, B and C. The lot has two development envelopes: the Primary Envelope, which contains the residence, and the Secondary Envelope, which contains a swimming pool and other landscape improvements. Under the zoning regulations in effect at the time, enclosed living space was limited to the Primary Envelope. Landscape and hardscape elements, only, were allowed in the Secondary Envelope. Proposed Improvement A consists of converting a bedroom adjacent to the pool area into a pool cabana. The improvement involves adding 68 SF to the north side of the house. This will require adjusting the line between the Primary and Secondary Envelopes to incorporate the addition within the Primary Envelope. Improvement A replaces a bedroom with an attractive and functional support space for poolside activities, and it improves access to the pool area from the house. Proposed Improvement B is an expansion of an existing bedroom and bath suite into an existing patio area located on the south side of the house, adding 165 SF. The Primary Envelope is expanded specifically to incorporate the existing exterior patio only. A minimum clear dimension of 5'-6" to the property line is maintained for a distance of22' of its 101' length. Improvement B enlarges a small child's bedroom to accommodate a teenager. Improvement C is an expansion of the existing kitchen nook at the upper floor into the area of an existing exterior deck located within the Primary Envelope. The present eating area is small and the improvement would accommodate family dining. The total area added to the existing house is 382 SF. All of the area is added at existing exterior decks. No grading is required. The net increase to both envelopes is 270 SF, or about 3%. The improvements have no effect on adjacent properties. Use of the property remains the same or is slightly relaxed by the removal of one bedroom There is no increase in height, no views are affected, and privacy is not compromised. All new construction will match existing in both material, color and architectural detail, with the design intent of making the proposed improvements appear as part of the original construction. EXHIBIT NO.-1- ~, s cFS" RESOLUTION NO. 99-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAc"<NING COl\llMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOi'vINfENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL PARTIAL APPROVAL OF Ac"< Ai'vfENDi'vfENT TO THE MIRAFLORES PRECISE DEVELOPJ.\IfENT PLAN (PD #21) TO A,yfEl'om THE PRlNlAR Y BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR 2 MIRAFLORES LAc'JE ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 39-271-21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. The Town has received and considered an application filed by Davood Sadeghi for an amendment to the l'vliratlores Precise Development Plan to request the expansion of the primary and secondary building envelopes of an existing single-family residence on property located at 2 J.\Iliraflores Lane. The application consists of the following: 1. Application form and supplemental information dated June 2, 1999 2. Submitted plans dated June 2, 1999 B. The Planning Commission held duly noticed and advertised public hearing on June 23, 1999, considered all 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 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. D. The Planning Commission found that the proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with Town Zoning regulations and the Tiburon General Plan based on the following factual analysis: Section 4 08 04 (k) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, which states that "adequate consideration shall be given to the need for privacy and with minimal visual and aural intrusion into indoor and outdoor living areas from other living areas" The amendment to the primary building envelope to convert and expand an existing bedroom into a cabana would solve an internal circulation problem without creating additional visual or aural intrusion for neighboring property owners, and would be consistent with this zoning regulation. The proposed amendment to the southern side of the house would result in a side yard setback significantly smaller Tiburon Planning Commis$ion R.:solulion ;\10. 99-07 July i.t 1999 1 EXHIBIT NO. 7- -{J. I c<-= '3, than those found on other properties within this subdivision or other surrounding neighborhoods, and would be inconsistent with this zoning regulation. The marginal increase in floor area represented by the cabana addition would not be inconsistent with Policy LU-22 of the Land Use Element, which states that "the Town shall adopt housing size limitations for residential development." Section 2. Approval NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the adjustment to the primary building envelope for the property at 2 Miraflores Lane established by the ivliraflores Precise Plan to the Town Council, subject to the following conditions: I. The primary building envelope for the property located at 2 l'vliraflores Lane is adjusted to the configuration and location indicated by Area" A" shown on drawings dated June 2, 1999 (one page) prepared by Tim Casey, said drawing being on file with the Tiburon Planning Department. 2. The proposed addition indicated by Area "B" shown on drawings dated June 2, 1999 (one page) prepared by Tim Casey, said drawing being on file with the Tiburon Planning Department, is not approved. 3. The Design Review Board is encouraged to carefully review the building addition "C" in consideration of concerns raised by downhill neighbors and the present nonconforming floor area of the house It is suggested that the design of this addition be scaled back from the plans shown on drawings dated June 2, 1999 (Page 4 of 6) prepared by Tim Casey, and that the expansion be limited to a furnishable space, with a depth reduced from II feet to 7 feet 6 inches. 4. This Precise Development Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective 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. 5. This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Miraflores Precise Plan not specifically described herein. Tiburon Planning Commission R~sululiun :-Jo. 99.07 July 14. 1999 2 EXHIBIT NO. 2- P2..-0F:< . PASSED Ac'\ID ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Planning Commission on July 14, 1999, by the following vote: A YES COlVIMISSIONERS BERGER, KLAIRMONT AND KNOBLE NOES COMlVITSSION'ERS NONE ABST AIN COMMISSIONERS SLA VITZ AMD STEIN MILES BERG Tiburon Planning Commi ATTEST :1JL ~ SCOTT Ac'\IDERSON, SECRETARY Tiburon P1;uming Commission Resolution No. 99.07 July 14. 1999 3 EXHIBIT NO. ?-- f. ? t>F== 3 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. 3 To: PLANNING COMMISSION From: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER Subject: FILE #39905: AMENDMENT TO THE MIRAFLORES PRECISE PLAN (PD #21) TO EXPAND THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENVELOPE; 2 MIRAFLORES LANE; Davood Sadeghi, owner; Tim Casey, applicant; Assessor's Parcel No. 39-271-21 Date: JUNE 23, 1999 PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: 2 MIRAFLORES LANE 39-271-21 39905 23,443 SQ. FT. RPD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT); PD #21 MIRAFLORES UNIT 2 (1975) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C JUNE 3, 1999 JUNE 3,1999 SUBDIVISION: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DA TE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMPTION: PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15301. TIBl:RON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Jl.JNE 23. 1999 EXHIBIT No.3 p, f (;FS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting approval of an amendment to the Miraflores Precise Plan to expand the primary building envelope for the property located at 2 Miraflores Lane, The property is developed with a single-family dwelling. The proposal is intended to allow the applicants to construct three separate additions to the existing house, The current primary building envelope consists of a 4,605 square foot rectangular area occupying much of the southern portion of the site. The secondary building envelope is a 3,745 square foot rectangular area extending north from the primary envelope, The existing house sits within the primary envelope, and a swimming pool, spa and deck area occupies much of the secondary envelope, Two adjustments are proposed to the existing building envelopes: a 292 square foot expansion of the southern edge of the primary building envelope, and a 95 square foot expansion of the northern edge of the primary building envelope, A third proposed addition would be located within the existing primary building envelope. ANAL YSIS: The site slopes down from Miraflores Lane, The house and the primary building envelope are located on the southern portion of the site, and generally follow the contour of the slope toward the rear of the parcel. The swimming pool and deck area occupy much of the remainder of the upper portion of the site, Much of the property is screened by a fence and landscaping along the front property line. The three proposed building additions are labeled as "A", "B" and "C" on the submitted plans, Addition "A" would involve the conversion of an existing portion of the house and deck area into a cabana attached to the house at the lower level, adjacent to the swimming pool area. The addition would result in an additional 68 square feet of building area, and would require the expansion of the primary building envelope into a portion of the existing secondary building envelope. Addition "B" would expand a bedroom and bathroom on the lower level of the house on the southern side of the structure. The proposed 165 square foot addition would project 10 feet out from the existing house, and would extend to within 5 feet of the side property line. Addition "C" would expand the upper floor of the house to the rear to enlarge a kitchen nook. This 149 square foot addition would replace a portion of an existing deck, and would fit within the existing primary building envelope, A previous application (File #3990 I) had been submitted for this property and scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission earlier this year. The prior application requested identical additions "B" & "C," but included an addition "A" which was substantially larger and TIBURON PL.-\...\lNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 23. 1999 2 '7XHTBIT NO. 3, f 2 CE~ would have required an expansion of the secondary building envelope, This application was withdrawn on April 21, 1999 due to scheduling conflicts caused by family health situations for the applicant. The applicant submitted the current revised application on June 2, 1999. The primary building envelope was created as part of the original precise plan approval in 1975. Construction finished on the house in 1992, The secondary building envelope for this property was created under a previous amendment to the Miraflores Precise Plan (File #38801) in 1988, At that time, the Planning Commission questioned the size and location of the secondary envelope due to the slope constraints on this parcel. The secondary envelope was approved, with direction given to the Board of Adjustments and Review to "control the character and location of the pool" and to determine the appropriate location of the swimming pool and other accessory structures in relation to other nearby land uses. The existing house was originally approved in 1988, prior to the Town's adoption of floor area ratio (F,AR,) standards, The house contains 4,970 square feet of floor area; combined with the 713 square foot garage, there is currently 5,683 square feet of floor area on the site, which is 739 square feet more than the 4,944 square feet which would be allowed under the current F,AR, standards for a parcel of this size The proposed additions which would occupy the expanded building envelopes would add another 382 square feet to the existing house, resulting in a total floor area 1,121 square feet greater than the maximum FAR, allowed for this property, If the requested precise plan amendment is approved, the proposed additions would require approval of a floor area exception by the Design Review Board, Staff has prepared a floor area analysis of the parcels contained within the Miraflores Precise Plan (Exhibit 2, attached), Of these 29 parcels, 21 homes currently exceed the maximum F.AR. for their property, although most of these homes were also constructed prior to the adoption of the Town's F.A.R, standards, The 21 homes exceed the maximum floor area by an average of6422 square feet, or 199% above the F.AR, for their respective parcels, By comparison, the proposed additions would exceed the F.AR. for the subject property by 1,121 square feet, or 258% above the maximum floor area for this parcel. The only floor area exception which has been granted in this neighborhood (for the parcel at 171 Avenida Miraflores) allowed for an additional 354 square feet, or 10.3% above the maximum floor area for that parcel. Three other parcels in this subdivision are larger than the subject property, but only one parcel (10 Miraflores Lane) has a larger house than the existing house, with or without the proposed additions, Two homes (8 & 10 Miraflores Lane) have floor areas further in excess of their maximum FAR. than that proposed by the applicant for this subject property, while six parcels have tloor areas which exceed their maximum F,A,R, by a greater percentage than that proposed for this property In addition to being one of the largest homes in this subdivision, the existing house nearly fills the existing primary building envelope. The existing house extends right up to the primary building envelope line on the front and both sides of the house The proposed building envelope expansion on the southern side of the property, as previously noted, would extend to within 5 feet of the side TIBURON PL...\."\JNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 23. 1999 3 EXHIBIT NO. 3, p, 30Fj property line. This reduced setback would be smaller than any other side yard setback established by the building envelopes in this subdivision, These conditions, along with the size of the house in comparison to other homes in the neighborhood, indicate that this property may already be developed to its maximum potential. ZONING AND GENER.\.L PLAN CONSISTENCY: The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the requirements of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance regarding precise development plan amendments, Section 4,0804 (k) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states the principle that "adequate consideration shall be given to the need for privacy and with minimum visual and aural intrusion into indoor and outdoor living areas from other living areas" The proposed expansion of the primary building envelope to within 5 feet of the side property line would appear to be inconsistent with the levels of privacy originally intended for this subdivision by the building envelopes established by the Miraflores Precise Plan. The proposed project is therefore inconsistent with the principle of precise plans, 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 avoided."] Possible methods include, but are not limited to, floor area ratios, coverage, height, bulk, and square footage limits'" The Town adopted floor area ratio limits after this house was approved; these limits are already exceeded by the existing residence. Building envelopes were also established for this subdivision to limit the overall size and location of homes for each parcel. The proposed additions would exceed both the building envelope limitations and the current FAR requirements for this parcel CONCLUSION: The requested building envelope expansions would result in a house which is not only considerably larger than that permitted under the Town's floor area ratio standards, but would also be larger than almost all other homes within this neighborhood. The proposed amended envelopes would reduce the side yard setback to 5 feet, which is smaller than such setbacks found elsewhere within this subdivision and in any other single-family residential zone within the Town of Tiburon, The size of the current house and its location already at the limits of the approved building envelopes indicates an attempt to overdevelop this property beyond the level originally intended by the Miraflores Precise Plan. FUTURE ACTIONS REOUIRED: The Planning Commission's action to deny this project would be final unless appealed to the Town Council. If the amendment to the Precise Plan is approved by the Town Council on appeal, subsequent Town permits would include Site Plan and Architectural Review approval, along with TIBt :R()"! PL.-\.'\ININO COI\1:>.llSS\()N STAFF REPORT Jl.'NE 23. 1999 4 EXHIBIT NO. 3, f, L{ 0f25 a floor area exception, and building permits for the house and other improvements on the lot, RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this item and adopt the draft resolution denying the project, EXHmITS: L Miraflores Subdivision Floor Area Analysis 2. Draft resolution 3. lVIinutes of the March 23, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. 4, Application form and supplemental information dated June 2, 1999 5, Submitted Plans dated June 16, 1999 C: IREPOR TS\PC3 9905 ,rptdoc TIBL'RON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ruNE 23. 1999 5 EXHffiIT NO. 3 p. S-()f S '.' 3. 2 MIRAFLORES LAt"ffi (FILE #399005): PRECISE DEVELOPl\-IENT PLAN AlVIENDlVIENT TO REVISE THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENVELOPE; Davood Sadeghi, applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 39-271-21. Senior Planner Watrous stated that the applicant was proposing an amendment to the Precise Development Plan for this property with adjustments to the building envelope in two locations. Addition A would add 68 square feet to the north to convert an existing bedroom into a cabana adjacent to the pool on the lower lever. Addition B would add 165 square feet on the south to expand a bedroom and bathroom on the lower level. Addition C expands the kitchen nook on the upper floor by 149 square feet and is located within the existing building envelope, The primary building envelope was set with the original precise plan in 1975 and the secondary envelope was created with a previous amendment in 1988. The house was approved in 1988 and built in 1992 with 5,683 square feet of floor area including the garage, This was built before the Town's adoption of floor area ratio standards and is 739 square feet over the FAR that would be allowed for this property, The additions would increase this amount to 1,121 square feet over the limit. This house is larger than most in the neighborhood, represents a larger increase in the FAR, and almost completely fills the primary building envelope. Addition B would come within five feet of the side property line and that is closer than any other in the neighborhood. Mr. Watrous stated that this project appears to be inconsistent with the principles of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as regards intrusion into the side yard setback, thereby changing the level of privacy set up for the subdivision and exceeding the current FAR requirements for the parcel. He therefore recommended denial of the project. He added that the corrections in the square footage of the proposed additions had not been included in one of the attachments to the Staff Report, No complaints had been received, but several letters supporting the project had been received as late mail. Mr. Watrous clarified for Mr. Berger that the reason this was before the Planning Commission, not the Design Review Board, was that an amendment to the precise plan was needed to expand the building envelope. If it were approved, then it would be eligible for Staff level Design Review, as the additions would be less than 500 square feet. The floor area exception would be entirely under the purview of the DRB. Discussion was opened to the public at 7:45 p.m, Tim Casey, architect for the project, commented that he was also the architect for the original house, which was done before the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance were written, PAGE 2 MINl.ITES ;.JQ. 807 OF JUNE 23. 1999 TIBL'RON PL,-\NNING COM~lISSION EXHIBIT NO.~ r, l Or c:; The changes were being proposed to meet the needs of a growing family. Also some improvements were needed to provide better access to the pool from the house. All additions would go into already structured areas and were not really new lot coverage, Addition A would go into the secondary envelope, Addition B would go into an existing patio area, and Addition C would enclose an upper deck area and falls within the primary building envelope. All the decks are attached to the existing primary structure. One bedroom would be converted to the cabana, so there would be less usage for that space. He stated that there would be no grading, no drainage affected, no neighbors would be affected because of height or views, and privacy would not be compromised. The neighbors have given consent for the project with supporting letters. The applicant was asking for 382 square feet to be added to the house and felt this was consistent with the neighborhood. Sada Sadeghi, applicant, stated that they have been in this house for six years. Their two girls were small when they moved in, but as they have grown, they have found that the original plan was not convenient, The breakfast area will only seat four people, so they would like to expand onto the deck to enlarge the nook. The bedroom downstairs has a patio which does not get used. As there are plenty of shrubs screening for privacy and the room is small, they would like to use that space to expand the bedroom. Since their stepson moved out, one of the bedrooms downstairs has just been used for storage, It is currently difficult to get to the pool from the house, so they would like to convert this bedroom into a cabana/playroom by expanding out onto the deck area. She had photographs to illustrate the current conditions and commented that these changes were for practicality, Kathleen Gallagher, 166 Avenida Miratlores, stated that she objected to the changes proposed. She lives downhill from the project and looks up at the house. The architect stated the changes would have no affect on the neighbors, but she disagreed. Ms. Gallagher felt the changes would make the house look even larger. While the additions would just fill in existing deck area, visually it would be a bigger house. The story poles were deceiving, as they did not show the highest point for Addition C. She wondered whether the neighbors had given their approval based on these story poles. Mr. Watrous stated that story poles were not required for this stage. The other neighbors are uphill or at the sides, so the effect is different for them. Commissioner Knoble stated that the story poles did give a sense of the mass of the structure. Ms. Gallagher thought that enclosing 40% of the deck was a high percentage and would create a bulky and massive look to that side of the house, and that this was a very visual change to the look of the house, They stated that there would be no environmental effect, but it would be a mistake to measure in only feet and inches and not consider the visual impact. There would be a drastic change to an already massive house. She was also concerned about the precedent TlBL'RON PL-\..1"'iNING COM1.nS$ION PAGE 3 MINLTES ;'\10. 807 OF ll.-"NE 23, 1999 EXHIBIT NO. Lf ~, l. Or 5 this would be setting for the other homes in the area indicating is it permissible to go larger. She wondered why the Commission would approve the project' if it were inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance, She encouraged the Commission to deny the project. George Harmina, 3 Francisco Vista Court, stated that his house is also below the subject property, He commented that he raised three children in a much smaller house with no problem. He felt that the drawings made the house look massive in comparison to the story poles that are up. He remembered when the house was built and that it had been left vacant for two years. He felt a bedroom should be used as a bedroom, Mr. Watrous commented that the house was approved before the FAR guidelines were developed and so was grand fathered in, Mr. Casey responded that the drawings Staff had put up on the board were not the current drawings and that the roofline was two or three feet lower. The Commissioners had the right plans in their packets. A building viewed from below will always appear larger. He was not sure whether the story poles were correct. Mr. Berger stated they would need to be cenifjed before the DRB process. Mrs. Sadeghi commented that there were trees between their house and the neighbors downslope, so those neighbors do not see their house. Mr. Harmina replied that they do see the house from their house and deck. Mrs, Sadeghi replied that the house is surrounded by trees and there would be no view of the additions. She also stated that the house was never abandoned, It had been on the market for one year, but was completely furnished. Mr. Harm ina disagreed about being able to see the house. Mr. Watrous commented that Addition C does not require a Precise Plan Amendment. Discussion was closed to the public at 8:25 p.m. Vice-Chair Berger stated that Addition C is within the building envelope so is out of the Planning Commission's purview. He appreciated that it was included with the application for discussion purposes. He did not feel that just because the plan goes over the square footage statistics that was a reason to deny the project as long as it was designed properly. However, on Addition B, even in a neighborhood with the smallest yards, 8 foot side yard setbacks are the minimum and it was difficult to accept something closer even though it was hidden and out of view of the neighbor. He did not want to inhibit new construction, but to encourage good design, TlBURON PLANNING CO~IMIssrON PAGE 4 MINtrrES NO. 807 OF n.."NE 23. 1999 EXHIBIT NO. if fJ, "3 be:; Commissioner Knoble did not agree and quoted previous Commissioner Mohamad Sadrieh as saying that the community had agreed on certain guidelines to abide by and it was the Planning Commission's job to see that those guidelines were complied with unless there was a compelling reason to change. Otherwise the Commission begins to establish a precedent for bending the guidelines and pretty soon there are no guidelines. She did not feel that there was a compelling reason to approve this request. Vice-Chair Berger felt that projects needed to be analyzed on a case by case basis and could be allowed if they did no harm. Commissioner Knoble stated that the neighbors that were there today may not be there tomorrow and the neighborhood needs to be consistent over time and be protected for those who will be there beyond today. Vice-Chair Berger acknowledged that they had a philosophical difference on this. On this project, he had a problem with Addition B going so close to the neighbor and thought they could change it to allow for an eight-foot side yard. Addition A goes into their own side yard. Addition C would have the biggest impact. He wanted some discussion on the size of the nook. Senior Planner Watrous stated that the applicant was there for Additions A and B, as Addition C is within their building envelope and does not require Planning Commission approval. Even if Additions A and B were denied, they could still do Addition C. It was included just to show what they want to do. Vice-Chair Berger said he was glad to have the complete plan. However, he would be uncomfortable sending this on to the DRB and wanted the applicant to come back with each area scaled back. The pool side could still have a cabana without an expansion, and he would like to see Addition B scaled back to allow an eight foot side yard. He acknowledged that a 7'6" space in the nook was inadequate, but they could go to 12 feet and have enough room. Commissioner Knoble stated that she felt there was no compelling reason for the change at Addition B. The cabana at Addition A does not need to be extended. Addition C is outside the Commission's purview. However, she thought their comments should be passed along to the DRB so they would consider the size in relationship to the neighborhood. Chair Klairmont stated that she could understand their need to be able to get to the pool easily, so she was comfortable with allowing the expansion for Addition A, She felt a 5 foot setback was too small for Addition B, and was concerned that two neighbors downhill have a problem with Addition C. Apparently the story poles were not giving the true picture. She felt that the Staff had done a good job and she did not see a compelling reason to go against their recommendation, She felt the applicant could convert the bedroom into a cabana without an expansion and Addition C could be scaled back. TIBCRO:--; PLA..'\lNING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MINUTES NO. 807 OF .l1.f:\1E 23. 1999 '~XHIBIT NO. l/ f Lf cf"' S; Commissioner Knoble commented that this was a good neighborhood as she used to live there, She felt that if they moved the table and it were round, they would have more space in the nook. She pointed out that this was a breakfast nook, not the main dining room. Mr. Watrous noted that the Commission did not have the ability to limit the size of Addition C, but only to give direction to the DRB. Commissioner Knoble wanted to make a decision so the applicant would not have to come back before the Commission. Commissioner Knoble moved to adopt the resolution denying the request, The motion died for lack of a second, MIS Berger/Klairmont (3-0) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the Town Council that they approve Addition A, deny Addition B, and suggest to the DRB that Addition C be modified to extend no more than 12 feet in consideration of the neighbors, ADJOURNMENT Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~l tfavHJ(g1;;Qb LISA KLAIRMONT, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission A TrEST: ,~(A~~" -~ ~ SCOTr ANDERSON, SECRETARY .0990623 TIBL"RON PLAl"iNING COMMISSION PAGE 6 MINUTES NO. 807 OF JL'NE 23. 1999 EXHIBIT NO. Lf: ?, 5 OF) MIRAFLORES SUBDlVISION FLOOR AREA ANALYSIS Maximum Actual Excess Excess Address Lot Size Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area (Square feet) (Square feet) (Square feet) (Square feet) 1 Miraflores Lane 8,925 2,893 3,679 786 272% 2 Miraflores Lane (existing) 23,443 4,344 4,970 626 14.4% 3 Miraflores Lane 15,000 3,500 3,630 130 3,7% 4 Miraflores Lane 8,925 2,893 3,953 1,060 36,6% 5 Miraflores Lane 11,000 3,100 3,015 6 Miraflores Lane 11,000 3,100 3,334 234 7.5% 7 Miraflores Lane 10,500 3,050 3,280 230 7.5% 8 Miraflores Lane 9,450 2,945 4,441 1,496 50.8% 9 Miraflores Lane 15,132 3,513 3,930 417 11.9% 10 Miraflores Lane 14,700 3,470 5,798 2,328 67.1% 163 Avenida Miraflores 27,000 4,700 2,621 165 A venida Miraflores 31,714 5,171 3,361 167 Avenida Miraflores 21,000 4,100 4,447 347 8.5% 171 Avenida Miraflores 14,375 3,438 3,792 354 10.3% 172 Avenida Miraflores 25,000 4,500 3,230 173 Avenida Miraflores 11,500 3,150 3,552 402 12,8% 174 Avenida Miraflores 11,200 3,120 3,550 430 13.8% 175 Avenida Miraflores 11,000 3,100 4,153 1,053 34,0% 176 Avenida Miraflores 14,950 3,495 4,134 639 18.3% 177 Avenida Miraflores 14,000 3,400 3,475 75 2.2% 178 Avenida Miraflores 13,000 3,300 3,776 476 14.4% 179 Avenida Miraflores 12,000 3,200 3,856 656 20.5% 180 Avenida Miraflores 11,050 3,105 3,937 832 26.8% 181 A venida Miraflores 9,960 2,996 3,388 392 13.1% 182 Avenida Miraflores 12,500 3,250 3,774 524 16.1% 37 Geldert Court 8,160 2,816 2,803 39 Geldert Court 13,065 3,307 2,875 41 Geldert Court 11,000 3,100 2,986 43 Geldert Court 18,078 3,808 3,556 Average: 642.2 19,9% TlBt:RON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 16, 1999 5 EXHIBIT NO, 5" 1 Miraflores Ln. Tiburon, CA. 94920 June 20, 1999 Tiburon Planning Department Tiburon City Hall Tiburon, CA. 94920 Gentlemen: We have just met with our neighbors, Mr, and Mrs, Davoud Sadeghi, who live at 2 Miraflores Ln, We have reviewed their most recent plans for the changes to their home and have found them to be consistent with our neighborhood and their property, We would like you to know that we have no objections to the construction they propose. Sincerely, t()~,t'e~~ J3~c--..-<.. Barbara and Wayne Alexander ~?:,f"'!":nr;::u b"'"'\i~i-""~4=J 'iJ ~ ~ - T''''U':.:lN TO',,"'I1\1 Or :~ " j\JN :1 , 1999 DEPF,8TM2NT O~~~r . CCMMUN\iY Dl:.\JELOhViC.NT EXHIBIT NO.le- 4 Miraflores Lane Tiburon, CA 94920 June 20, 1999 Tiburon Planning Department Tiburon City Hall Tiburon, CA 94920 To whom it may concern: We have reviewed the plans of our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs, Davoud Sadeghi, to make changes to their property at 2 Miraflores Lane. After reviewing the plans, we have no objections to the alterations that they propose. Sincerely, ~~P:::.~ VB ""'''''1'''':''':;'',::.;:.~ ",~ ~',' b"==, """, '1 ',., ].._....1.__./ [j ..~.:.=.-:..;Iu J ......_..... -""1 ""--'"""~J'IJ Tu.;ll,'~ ~...n'" ~ ;:::';'L:~~ ''ii'! 2 ,I lQQ" Jt"1 - 1/" C,.-,,:;; CT:;..~-:\;"r C"":: c,./"::l:w'.jll;>:~,,"l I ~. ,.-. ,......,...i....".... COMMUNITY Dc:'i C:l-,-,h\Ii:;~ I EXHIBIT NO.J- JJfTE- /1l&/L #3 ~. . TURNER G. BRASHEAR 172 Avenlda Mlraflores Tlburon, California 94920 (415) 435-2298 FAX (415) 435-2530 June 21, 1999 Tiburon Planning Department Tiburon City Hall Tiburon, CA. 94920 To Whom it may concern: Mrs, Brashear and I have reviewed the plans of our neighbors, Mr, and Mrs, Oavoud Sadeghi, to make changes in their property at 2 Miraflores Lane, We have no objections to the proposed modifications, Very truly yours, ~J <-. ~_/<.B_<- - /. Betty and Turner G. Brashear RECEiVED JUN 2 3 1999 PLANt'l!NG DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TiBURON EXHIBIT NO. g- Dllelllv aId Ihanda Dunn L.I}/E /l}I}-IL :tP3 Home Phone 4151789-5583 &nail TimotbyDun@aol.com 3 Mira Flore> Lane Tiburon. Ca. 94920 June 21, 1999 City of Tiburon Tiburon California Re: Constmction at 2 Mira Flores Lane We, the undersigned, have had an opportunity to review the plans for the proposed constmction work at 2 Mira Flores Lane in Tiburon, We have also discussed the modifications with the 0 of the residence and have no objections to their proposed changes, T ___,JilA__0...f\______ Print name @~~ht.L Printnarne ~. . ~ ,f"f': WED \f'"d~~.~" TO\\!N or: Ti3UR::>N JUN 2 2, 1999 DED~RT'i::NT OF COMMU~liTY 'DSVSLCPMENT EXHIBIT NO. q Richard B. Rose 170 Avenida Miraflores Tiburon, CA 94920 Tiburon Planning Department Tiburon City hall Tiburon. CA 94920 To whom it may concern. I have reviewed the plans of our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Davood Sadeghi, to make changes to their property at 2 Miraflores Lane. After reviewing the plans, I have no objections to the alterations that they propose. Sincerely, /:---) n" n,.n 62 1.... ~<::.Jo'",l.-<.iY O.:c. ~ Richard B. Rose -"""C:;,"S""~:::?" [;=:i,~' .,,-=,. ,.} -, _ft,) \j ~~'~ ~u '.l :;.=.._- ..~ ....c- -.'"'"'~ : -- '~~ll -10'" I' i'~ ! "...,-,~ '.'.iJ Ul ._....l_ Hi;'! 2 )'19Q9 VUI'i - . r-'-~""""~'I.'~""\.-OC: C",-c"",...,,,-,q , _.1'.111...-- ..,_.'.-.~F'''..\l-J CnVMU',\?j-IY l ;~'J:::1..I....; ~~:i~.'\i """H.... ~ - EXHIBIT NO. /{J Pat Howe 1.68 Avenida Miraflores Tiburon, CA 94920 June 22, 1999 Tiburon Planning Department Tiburon City Hall Tiburon. CA 94920 Dear Planning Commission Members. While the revised plans of Mr. and Mrs. Davood Sadeghi now show an appreciation for staying somewhat within the designated building envelopes of their property. I feel that generally this building on the property lot already exceeds the envelope allowed, Under certain circumstances it is necessary to be flexible regarding building outside property envelopes however this house already is probably the largest in the neighborhood with regard to density and does impact some of the neighbors with the "mass' of building and roofline. Once a house in a neighborhood is allowed to expand beyond its envelope it sets a precedent for other houses in the neighborhood. Either the town has conditions to protect or it doesn't. I do hope the Town of Tiburon takes into account these circumstances. SinCereIY~/ / I t---J I . "" r:L:; !;V~ ,Jy;(Ji':- '" Pat Howe ~""r",-:' "..n n c \" ,!:,: .... .". t: J JUl 8 1999 PLMJNr~jG D~~ol.:;: rtAtr') I TOI/\/r~l i]F Ti8URcrJ EXHIBIT NO..-lL RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TlliURON APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MIRAFLORES PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PD #21) TO AMEND THE PRIMARY BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR 2 MIRAFLORES LANE ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 39-271-21 WHEREAS, on June 23, 1999, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the approval of an amendment to the Miraflores Precise Development Plan to request the expansion of the primary and secondary building envelopes of an existing single-family residence on property located at 2 Miraflores Lane, proposed by Davood Sadeghi ("Applicant"), the owner of the property; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony and considering the application, the Commission determined that the amendment to the primary building envelope to convert and expand an existing bedroom into a cabana would solve an internal circulation problem without creating additional visual or aural intrusion for neighboring property owners, and would be consistent with this zoning regulation. However, the Commission also found that the proposed amendment to the southern side of the house would result in a side yard setback significantly smaller than those found on other properties within this subdivision or other surrounding neighborhoods, and would be inconsistent with this zoning regulation, The Commission found that the marginal increase in floor area represented by the cabana addition would not be inconsistent with Policy LU-22 of the Land Use Element, which states that "the Town shall adopt housing size limitations for residential development;" and WHEREAS, on July 14, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-07 recommending to the Town Council that a portion of the Precise Development Plan Amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 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 Development Plan Amendment, as amended, 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 adjustment to the primary building envelope for the property at 2 Miraflores Lane established by the Miratlores Precise Development Plan, subject to the following conditions Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 11/16/99 1 EXHIBIT N(" J~ p. I if 2-- 1, The primary building envelope for the property located at 2 Miraflores Lane is adjusted to the configuration and location indicated by Area "A" shown on drawings dated June 2, 1999 (one page) prepared by Tim Casey, said drawing being on file with the Tiburon Planning Department 2. The proposed addition indicated by Area "B" shown on drawings dated June 2, 1999 (one page) prepared by Tim Casey, said drawing being on file with the Tiburon Planning Department, is not approved. 3. The Design Review Board is encouraged to carefully review the building addition "c" in consideration of concerns raised by downhill neighbors and the present nonconforming floor area of the house, 1t is suggested that the design of this addition be scaled back from the plans shown on drawings dated June 2, 1999 (Page 4 of 6) prepared by Tim Casey, and that the expansion be limited to a furnishable space, with a depth reduced from 11 feet to 7 feet 6 inches, 4, This Precise Development Plan Amendment approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective 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, 5, This approval shall in no way alter other provisions of the Miraflores Precise Plan not specifically described herein PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on November 16, 1999, by the following vote AYES COUNCILMEMBERS NOES COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS TOM GRAM, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST DIANE L CRANE, TOWN CLERK H: dwatrous/resolutionsrrc 3 9905 .resolution. doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 11/16/99 2 EXHIBIT NO. ,12...- .~ 2 OFL ~-~t I e;_..:r'U '/CIE ,;t>''-''! U T -r---'------, I . '-_ '1 -_~_lt_.oI^_'.-:; ~ ~o< ~ ~~C~"'~~' , ,- -~- r -. I I<..-ot,..:l'.. -. _ I 1!>O - '" A.P.N.039-271-21 PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO, SADEGHI RESIDENCE 2 Miraflores Lane Tiburon, CA ~ ~',., ,~- , I '" j / ~I 01""'-~- , r, ~'~; i0 ~ 29 ',- 01 l~." ~ I "'" J..ll'fU SECTION VI' RECEIVE JUN I 7 1999 PL;N:liNG~H'':''RrM:; TQWNG~T'!!1I1l0Ij SHEET TITLE VICINITY PLAN & SECTION !'ROJECT, AI?QIT1ON5 TO: aT 291 JoJ.1I. O~"'l.lI'l.1 1RAFL000S PRo..eC NT 2,' 'TlBUlON , CAI 'MIMI P,anc bII.~1 .... IlEVI$IONS ton.I.M 0&1I1.>~ .", er....m.'l.l.- .Iol> NQ-q9~ OOCUd ., JHIIET 0' SHEl!TIi1 EXHIBIT NO.12- ~, I Ol"\o SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS PRIMARY SECQNDAIl~ ENVI;LOPE ENVELOPE TOTA.l 2.;, 4.~~ HiI ;;~ &,~<;I If l'l<;?f-J 1,..10". ~'VI i::i 1,711 ~ 1.li'>~ ;,,:;';,f 5,1"'11':1 ,0&,* ",. 110.... ~ I~ ~ '>f ~. 't-_ lIt__"1l'iIi'*'lr_I'G"_IIoIllj/\.QW. I~~ ..,. <..111:<' "'... ,...,,- ~1W'.~_ "'..- IWII\lll ~~. ~~ ~"" l">>U\I1tl'e.'~~ ....,.,. ~"C.l<<<DI ,,- -- l-____ /.r--' ~,-UT/~d-\ fCff' I" ~ , I . I' -\--- --, ' / I .-. J - I I r--. '.- /-'1.-." \\ , / I il. I/T' ,J \' , I II I I'" ~\..... \ \ \ L I / I I( 22 \ /..-'\ \ j. k I I; 1'-' ,\ ~ ..i--- " if!' ,~ .." I! r \k ~\ \ . -.'--J L.._u.'\-.----.~ "'''''''''..... ~ MI' ^ r~ 5 \ ..-------- . I,..!-l. _.--- . I~II~ " I .,1, ' , I' p_J..."" 1 \ ! 28 I I,. II 'i \ i l- '. _ J"-II \ +----- --I \ I ___,--L @/I?O, VICINITY PLAN ---------.. -------- . -------- I =-- I I ~......... ~ \ \ ;. \...- j .-;9 I''i;:t _, J..,_ .,,,............... r..:.~ ~ c:. -. .... .z.. ,. ,,_ D...01.aUO........ Ou..."",...COI.UaOI. "Y." ,.""""",_,.CO<.ucT<lo ....,......... ....ll U-.... .....,.__ :~~~-.::~., ....12..........iCC_ ....-.,-...-. ""'''=S''<:cu.= .."""'................. '''''~'''..,.'' 'e/ "-'.....,......'""". '"" ICE:~_~ ,~~~S ~"'le , & W~~~ , , ~:;:, , ffI.; "".I'l6' ,,~- - - --~ ~-~'".?- *'-.. ~'~-- " "".~"tj -!lI:1..-- ..... ''''''/Ul: ~ '"liW"-RYI!NVELOPf: 1"V;,;..qo:.1ll~ ',.y.... !:L-..- -'" ,-' r' " (E) TOil of Wat .. " -~ " !I.~~(! SHEET TITLE " ,~, i : I SITE PLAN ... '::'- i'M,~ ' ~ - 'ROJI!CT ADDITIONS 1'0: '~~y :& OT 29! .v...~.ru.ir '\ fl ,/ ORES PRO..EC /' /"', ~ 2, 118l!'lClN . CAI EXHIBIT NO, 1-:' ~_..~ " -- , . .. p, lDde> :r:~ 2- AN "'1'" I\~ ~._---_._-r;--_..~.._----_':::':,--~.-.--. -.... .'_._"'__ ~",."~ D_"", -W~~fI-bl: i .....No.~OI~\ CIl<<luI4J,j 6. " '_ ',.1- I .~ r i'l'IIIf'lO. iEe' .EI~ SHEET - ~ I;~~f'ft I, ,,', I.,,,,, . ~~__ ". . il:;- I ~~~~~ @Enargy OtltlC',r,. i (C) Drain Pipe Anchor (B) 8uriad DraIn Ploe AJ Drop lnl,t SHE.lITS ]~~_6. Outl" L:"-'IIIII~IIII~ - ~l ~1lllL EI'VttiO" 1ll"1 ENTRY GATE & FENCE @ -- -"" Framing Plan ,n ..J i-r 1! ~,' .....""".......... ""'.,_'''''''''''_ e...........'... I:::~::: :'t.::'.~'=.....".. 10'''.' ............n........ :::::::~~;;..:- -".....-..,. .......,......0_.......001 "....0 ~~/~:::.MCm.: :1.''''Onouo.g..__.. ':l:.~,,".... ::::::: E=t =: ~~':'OQO ::::::: :;r~:=c::. ...nl-.._...UI ,...... ;..r;-U;"''''_''"'''' ::::::: =:.._~ ::00.,.. :::;::: iH/::'"':'; UJl '.,-.-.J_ ",.... ..............-.....,..". -- .......',......Oll_.UU ............,..,....... ........r...a.IC.ucarno:u .,.., "".......0<>JllII:1. ...........IoL.I.,u... 01"'- n.."';:V';"~:::""CI.ao '.,.r.A."_D SHEI!T TlTI.E LOWER FLOOR PLAN .....,,11 OnWfIlyT..:- /011 N<I. C1'l.~ C....1oH "fL<' mm 3 OF 6 SHeETS ? t :~ J -2' -..! , ." j . -, -1~i~ ___ il I oil i '!.: I I I I I I I ~ .;)' ---=a I b';M~ l 1Ol-.Il<'.i:l 1 li0 I EXHIBIT NO..lL. ----------" ? ~ Dr", "-AN i~ ~~ _:fl<aoa___.lI'l!> '" ~,~~...."'.'" l'4l'~ iIlUt-\t\~lme>(t.~ ----.-~I '''''',''';~''''1\C'0_ '1,l<D~~~ .. A IHt'\I!O\I~ r-f!-:J!'::'!:E:C ',/ 1UW1"..""",. \"DaL.CH!",:''' (~l*.'" ~ .fI'-,,' <11',0' FLooR ~---I i I w~ n- ~. LOWER ~,..' :~I / , L , I ,- , L r , , ....:0. ( r------- ~. , .~ ',' ., -'<t!' I -':'--l.--- j I ~i ~ I ,: "i ~ " ";oj " . ~L--- ::1 :. . l , -~ " -, -~I i ,. . -l'<t ~I -" "- ....... """......... "".... ....-........ ...,._....,.,......0'_.... ......- ''''..e .".n........... 'UL/..OO :::.~~.- ''''U~-=~:'';;'' "."..,.........."'...000:.. '"'''':;~'':''''I'\I''' ....... :.: ::...1~..oOo. "'" _.....,_..,. -.........."""" ........_...0><:1... ,.........-...,-.... ........n....' "._.- 11..._. ILl_............"" ".".c~~.... ".$.........___.. ::::::: Er-.E:"oco:..._L ...-....... lO..... ....'""............__ :::::::~~l~oct "..,.. ...."...,...--... -- .........."'01"""""""......... ......Il<nU.tOll,....- ..... . ~~;.~~-= :"oc=. ./..."'......~. .....lD :~':.,~::'....... ..._.... .0_0 i \; SBEETTITLE UPPER FLOOR PLAN PROJECT ADDITIONS TO: OT 29~ ,l.t'll,Wo.A.11.j..1 1AAFL000S PRO.EC NT 2. llBlJ10N . GAl Wntem Padllc 1n"..tm.nt"l "" 1ViSiii If.ill rn m.= 0....11;4 ~ -:-... ~ 0' o-",t.'\'I JolIN<>-O\ti m'~ 4 ~. :11 "r- f=~ I 1 ' I ~~ . I - ' . 'mn-} Iii '~ " --I ~ ~ :~ ,:: ."fl ~- -,; ;1 '. ':1 ! - r \@ -.. ,~ :~, .' 1 -.i ,t I .1 a j -"I I , -~ :r . '0 i , .. - 1- i,..;~~".."" . .. '.~-'I __Cif"_.... I ~"""'~_\I#t -_i__~~~~__~ _ ~i -GAR 1'-111' ";---- , , /0 , , c:~,__! , , 1--_________ I "r--;------. :' , , I I i +---~ 1~'-+" . , , 8: ""-4 '" II'-+~ - I ~. I . " ,{~" , j '1'-""1.' 'T1I_1 I I . , ' , I@ '~ ~.'<!:u~'~i~:~.:;.f 1 . "I ~ '" v 1'1--- ~..g..;: ~ ltClf,;Mt g~~~ ~'I--n- .- j/I ~~"7'~- . ""'~ 1 . , I F"'M UI III: ~.... p..1Ol' '_ ~'.Ir. ,'. r , ,.' ,. ... . ~ ~ r'~ n."'" . [ I-'-I~-,-i. 1_1__1__" . I i ~I I I ! -1- ~I~'C i..-1./ It'''''' ." _11'___'" ::-0--, ""","1t>~~I'" I , --1- , - ~' '.I . hh 1 j ? !i -, . ", -~ ~' ~ l---.------ ". -" " , " '" ~ c ~ ~ ,'.,' ~ --~ ('7A IJ l$ EXHIBIT NO,~ '\' '1 cV(p I f , ~"'.J" n'-$' ,,' 'tt' PLAN r:~~ (.l-tI!' ~'...,. 13'-~ FLOOR UPPER .';.,,' I ,'.~' ._----!~(- 17'-.1,' " i 1 1 j 4'_&' I ~'-~' S"D~ 1 !>'_~' +- -L--.-- ~I ~ -{I "" ...... ',- ""..4 PI ....... ..,.... ,..-.. -- .... .......10........ ....lOIIO.".........../,.. ...-....".... ...... uo. ........ ,1>'''''' '......'..1'._ .11..".... ~wct.c:l'f-f~ ""-... "'-- lli!t:'I.r ~~~, r---~'b""'~ &. / ~ H\.'''''''IIt-ID / ~~~~ r~~=" ~=~ ELEVA TIONa PaOJECf. ADDITIONS ro: .CT 29\ 101.". ~H'.."j 1RAFL000S ffio..e: tIT 2, l1BlRlN ,CAI VMtem PacItIc ~......I .... 00&<&,1..,\,\ p....., ~T.., JMNo.O:ll Chacbd-Ql' ,.= 5 OF 6 SHBETS ::] /Q>l~t'\1.'c. ~ -.. ~ .. m :::JO :Jo .t(1W"") . N, E. ELEVATION "W\..EL~~""':t 1QIla.1:IIt -~If< ,- I I ILw.. ELEVATION 1lII1\I. (:f.,.!fP; ~ I \1<;> '!if ~!>- ;: ., ~lUl~ .~, 'c ~"'r -1*. (~I~ U"[ .:-;".~,-~ ,;:..", ~ 'l!'~~ -~-,~WOl AI. t @ EAVE BRACKET .: I' EXHffiIT NO,~ ";"'<0 ...." ,,- .".... ......... ""'.Ill'_'''' ,. _. ___ -.cr... "..... =.-...-.,.... ""'.0_'_0:.."""'_ .,.............Q -- _.1> .... _'.. In' =>I .0..... :/,:~.:~.... ...."'12.=......1'.. 1.......ll...Wl _." h'r........u,._ .._.'...l...... _1"01.... ..... ."""'_.~.,n._...... :;:~,.......... SHBIT TITU! ,ELEVATIONS PROJeCT. AIioITlONS TO: .CT' 291 At.~- ~1.fll."1 tRAFLClRES l'Ro.EC NT 2. 'TlIlLflON .CIII w.-mPaclllc~1 "" IlEVISlONS r~;~1t ~::~~ Oa";I_'1.'" 0'.....,1..:.. I0Il N..O\~~ Cll'_.!*~ SHEET ~ IHl!1!TS ~' (17) ... ""~IEt-@ i\.1.111t _,~ .~" :=@J ~ ~t'<\'~I_1W__~~ @f .." ._~- ----~- -~ -, - ~,.~~-.. EXHIBIT NO.~ 1. " cr:1p .ELEVATION '"'~ S, E. ,.,....~/'NiI'l. TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO, MEETING DATE 10/16/99 y To: From: Subject: TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR~ 375 T AYLOR ROAD REQUEST FOR THIRD TIME EXTENSION TO IMPLEMENT A PREC1SE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ONE SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES; FILE NO. 39704; MIRANDA LEONARD, OWNER; ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 38-182-42 NOVEMBER 12, 1999 Date: BACKGROUND The Town Council approved a Precise Development Plan for the development of one single- family residence and several ancillary buildings at 375 Taylor Road in 1992. The Town Council granted two-year time extensions of the approval in 1995 and 1997. The Precise Development Plan will expire on December 4, 1999 unless extended by the Town CounciL An application for a third time extension has been filed in a timely manner. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report attached as Exhibit A, and Planning Commission Resolution attached as Exhibit B for additional background information, Reduced drawings of the approved Precise Development Plan are attached as Exhibit D, This item appears to be non-controversial. There was no public testimony and no correspondence received regarding this item during the Planning Commission's review and hearing. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission held a public hearing 011 this item on November 10, 1999 and recommended that the Town Council grant a two (2) year time extension, Staff sees no reason why a third time extension cannot be granted, and believes the applicant has every intent to finally move ahead with implementation of the Precise Development Plan Tihllron Town COllncil SIa[f lIepo/'! 11/16/99 1 RECOMMENDA TlON That the Town Council, following a public hearing, adopt the Resolution (Exhibit C) granting a two-year time extension for the Ring Mountain Parcel G Precise Development Plan. EXHIBITS A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 4, 1999, B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-21. C. Draft Resolution approving the time extension, D. Reduced drawings of the approved Precise Development Plan, scott\39704tc1.rpt Tiburon Town Council Swff Report 11/16/99 2 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT To: PLAt'mING COivllYfISSION From: SCOTT At'ffiERSON, PLA1,,'"NlNG DIRECTOR~ Subject: 375 TAYLOR ROAD EXTENSION OF TIivlE FOR At" APPROVED PRECISE DEVELOPivlENT PLA:.i (PD;!7) Date: NOVEivfBER 4, 1999 ITEM NO. ivlEETING DATE 11/10/99 PROJECT DA TA Address 375 Taylor Road (at the end ofa gated private driveway leading from the Taylor Road cul-de-sac) 38-182-42 39704- TE L (Low density residential) RPD (Residential Planned Development) Approximately 5 0 acres Ring "fountain Parcelization (R.v[ 19-29) Vacant land Miranda Leonard John Walker 10/29/99 AP No' File :\0 General Plan Zoning Property Size Subdivision Current Use Owner' Applicant Date Complete BACKGROUND The Town Council approved a Precise Development Plan for one single-family residence and several ancillary buildings at 375 Taylor Road in 1992 The Town Council granted a two-year time extension of the approval in ] 995, and a subsequent two-year time extension was granted in 1997 The Precise Development Plan is set to expire December 4, 1999, unless extended again. An application (Exhibit I) has been filed in a timely manner for a third time extension. The original project approval document (Town Council Resolution No 2888) and the approved drawings (I sheet) are attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 The 1997 time extension Resolution is attached as Exhibit 4 Tiburon Planmng COli/mission SlaJl Repo/'l 11/10/99 A EXHIBIT NO. ~ ANAL YSIS Time extensions for Precise Development Plans are regulated by Section 4,08,05 of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. The ordinance requires that the ""permit holder shall submit sufficient information to the Town to determine whether good cause for an extension exists," Generally, in the absence of obvious economic reasons (such as a recession), Town Staff considers the following factors in assessing whether "good cause" exists: Whether there is evidence of an intent to proceed with implementation of the project in a timely manner (ie, it has not been abandoned and progress is occurring) J Whether circumstances have changed which would no longer make the project consistent with Town policies or regulations The applicant has indicated that design review drawings are in the final stages of preparation and are likely to be tiled betore the end of the year There is clearly intent to move ahead with the project. and the prOject has not been aband'Oned The property owner maintains the site and some improvements incidental to the main project have already been installed with appropriate Town approvals These include entry gates. fencing, and irrigation well Staff is not aware of any change in circumstances, either tor the property or its surroundings, or in T Own policies or regulations that would argue against granting a time extension. 'vfinutes of previous Planning Commission deliberations regarding time extensions for this project are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6 Sl'BSEQUE:\'T APPROVALS REQUIRED If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the time extension application, the Town Council will take final action at a public hearing If the Commission denies the request for time extension, that action is tinal unless appealed to the Town Council. The next permit required to implement the project would be a 'site plan and architectural review (design review) permit Building permits would follow any design approval. A design review approval of the residence would extend the life of [he Precise Development Plan concurrent with the expiration of the design review approval, which would be valid tor 36 months ENVIRONMENTAL ST..\TUS The project is categorically exempt under section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Tiburon Planning CO!1lllllSSlOfI Sial! Report J J/ J 0/99 RECOMMENDA TION That the Planning Commission recommend to the Town Council granting ofa one year time extension for the Precise Development Plan. A draft resolution to that effect is attached as Exhibit 7. EXHIBITS I. Application form and attached letter dated 9/28/99 from Walker & Moody, AlA. 2. Town Council Resolution No. 2888. 3. Approved drawings (I sheet) by Walker & Moody Architects 4 Town Council Resolution No 3253 5. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of 8/23/95. 6 Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of III! 2/97. 7 Draft Resolution recommending approval of time extension to Town Council. \scott\39704pc2 rpt Tibul"on Planning Commission SLajf Report II; J 0/99 . -..,. __ lILoIVI'\\",II" LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLlCA. TION ( TYPE OF APPLICATION o Conditional Use Permit 'Ji- Precise Development Plan o Conceptual Master Plan o Rezoning/Prezoning o Zoning Text Amendment o General Plan Amendment o Design Review (Majorl o Design Review IMinorl o Variance o Sign Permit o Tree Permit o Underground Waiver RECEIVED OCT 4 1999 PLANNI~~G O::iJ.::.cT1df::'JT o Tentativl! Subdivision IVllrpJ CF : ,o""c:, o Final Subdivision Map o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjustment o Certificate of Compliance )i.. Other "/'i ""'" /',.....J.,. V1,"\ i" "'- APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 3 i3 Tavlor Road PARCEL NlJMBER: 38-182-42 OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: . CITY 1ST A TE/ZLP: PHONE NUMBER: Miranda Leonard 433 Town Center, Suite 411 Corte Madera, CA 94925 415-258-0240 APPLICAtVf: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: C1TY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: PROPERTY SIZE: ZONING: 5 acres +1- RPD F~,( 415-258-0508 ARCffiTECTIDESIGNERIENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: 415-885-0800 FAX lonG Walker, Walker & Moody, A.I.A. 2666 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94109 FAX 415-885-1009 Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): J--.....-'- J ,1.1 _ ,__" ",.r:_,,-., ~""_ One single familv residence and ancillary buildings are proposed within building envelopes established by aporoved Precise Development Plan on approximately 5 acre site at 3i5 Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel G), I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town 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 also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorneys fees that might result from the third/P~ty_ challenge. I _ f Signature:1J.J~~ -~ ~~ (' .D~:m~~'~1Tr4. (T': .......b"'_.. ~b~... "'-".l..,!"!.Q..", l'rU;t.cf- .,J"._..,..~.,.... 1_...__..,./:-._._ ~_"_O____\ W A L K E I, & MOO u Y 2666 HYDE STRE,,! ' SAI'\! FRANCISCO CA 94109 . 415 885 0800 . A, LA, FAX 415 885 1009 R""cc,'-'-':""\ r :_~ ~ ~:'.~' .., ----. ~---"'" September 28, 1999 OCT 4 1999 Town of Tiburon Planning Department 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 ?LN1Ni,'jG 2F..'::':;':T:'.\:'-/ i Tm\I~1 :~:= ,,2:;<-:,..>; This is a request to consider the application for a time extension of a current precise development plan for the property owned by Miranda Leonard at 375 Taylor Road in the Town of Tiburon. The application is enolosed. Work is ongoing by our firm to bring the development of this property as a single-family residence to a design review in the very near future, The proposed design reduces the apparent mass of the structure by aggregating varied and smaller vciumes in order to be inconspiouous in the surroundings. The owner, the arohitects, and various consultants in computer imaging and fabrication have entered into an innovative precess of design to ensure an appropriate resulting design both for the owner's requirements and for the neightcring areas whioh will view the residence, This process and the unique qualities of the structure have required a more extended period for design consideration than is usual. However, it is the intention of all involved to bring a proposal to the Design Review committee, In order to maintain the continuity of the current design effort we 'M)uid like to ensure that the present precise development plan will still be in place after its present date of expration, December 4, 1999, Therefore, we are submitting this request for a time extension of the Precise Development Plan If any supplemental information is required to process or assess this application, please contact Bryan Fleenor of our office at 41 ~63-4320, We have the drawings that supplemented the approved Precise Development Plan, as well as a full rer.AJrd of the past actions taken by the Planning Commission and the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, EXHIBIT NO.--L . f~J.~f_~ I I I r r <, RESOLUlION NO. 2888 A RESOLCrrON OF THE TO'iVN COCNCIL OF THE Tm~ OF TIB'URON APPROVING A PRECISE DEYELOPMEI'i'T PlA.'< FOR RING MOlj~"TAL.'< PARCEL "G" (PD#7) A. P. NO. 38-182-12 1375 TA nOR RO.\.D1 SECl10N 1. Fl:'-<"DI'-i"GS. A. The Town of TIeuron has re.:eived an appliC:ltion for a Pre.:ise Development Plan for the development of 4.88 acres of land at the end of Taylor Road extension. B. The approved Pre.:ise Development Pl:lll materials consist of: a. ""ritten text entitled "Precise Development Plan Text, Ring :\fountain Parcel G., revised October 28, 1992 (2 she"ts); . b. Site PlanjBuiIding Envelope/Fencing Plan prepared by Walker & :\loody Architects, revised October 28, 1992 (1 she"t); Additional application materials included for information purposes only include: c. Gr:lding Plan prepared by "Yalker & :,foody Architects dated 4/2/92 (1 she,,!); , Site/Building Sections Plan prepared by Walker & :\foody Architects dated 4/2/92 (1 she"t); Topogr:lphy Map (p:lrti:11) dated December, 1991, prep:lred by Cr:lmer. D:lvis, Inc. (1 sheet); Slope "'lap dated December, 1991, prep:lred by Cr:lmer-Davis, Inc. (2 sheets). d. e. f. c. The Planning Commission held duly noticed public he:lrings on ,',by 27, June 10, July 8, and August 12, 1992 for the purpose of reviewing the applic:llion :lnd receiving comments and recommendations from the public. The TO'.\oTI Council has held a duly-noticed :lnd advertised public he:lring on October 21, 1992, and has considered the recommendation of the Pbnning Commission :lnd all other evidence and testimony in arriving at its decision. D. The Town Council findsth:ll the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan of the Town of Tiburon, is in conformance with the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, :lnd is exempt from fur-her review under CEQA. 1 EXHIBIT No.L f- I of r;, " I I I /' SECTION 2. APPROV.\L. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED th:lt the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the Ring :';{ount:lin Parcel 'G" Precise Development Pl:1n, subject to the following conditions: Land Use 1. The provisions of this Precise Development Pl:ln are intended to supplement and e.'ql:lnd general provisions of Sec:ion 2.0i of the Tiburon Zoning Ordin:lnce (Residential Pl:lnned Developme::lt ZQne), spedfically for this property. Cnless othenvise est:lblished in this Precise Development Plan, all provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordin:lnce shall apply to the property. 2. This Precise DevelopmeI;lt Plan approves zoning for one single family dwelling unit and accessory struc:ures on 4..33 acres, as further described in the 'Precise Developme::lt Plan T,,:a, Ring :';lountain Parcel G", attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. This Precise Development Plan approves one primary and two secondary building envelopes, as depic:ed on the Site Plan/Building Envelope/Fencing Plan revised October 23, 1992, attached herew as Exhibit B, except that construction of a guest house in Secondary Envelope :-io. 1 shall not be permitted unless a determination is made by the Planning Commission that a more appropriat" location c:1nnot be found within the primary' building envelope. Construc:ion of a stable for the keeping of horses shall require a Conditional Cse Permic pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Tiburon Town Code. ',.Yith the exception of fencing as described in Condition #5, and ancill:1r; ret::lining w:J.lls ac:ing to reduce the height of the primary ret:lining wall for the tennis court, no structures si1all be permitted outside the approved building e!1velopes. 4. t The location and height of stnlctures within the building envelopes si1all be subject to discretionary review through the Town's Site Pl:1n & Archicedur::ll Review process. However, the height of the prim::!ry structure (dwelling unit) Shall not exceed 25 feet above n::wlr:J.l or finished g!':J.de, whichever is lower, while the height of accessory structures sh::lll not exceed 15 feet above n::ltural or finished gr:J.de, whichever is lower, The height of te!1nis court fencing sh::ll1 not exceed 15 feet above the finished court surf::lce. 5. Fencing m::l)' be pl:1ced outside the building envelopes ::lS ShOWl1 on the Site Plan/Building Enyelope/fencing Plan. All fencing shall receive Site P!::m and Architectuf:J.l Review approv::ll from the Town, even if such f"ncing is less th::ln 3 1/2 feet in height. fencing sh::lll b€ 'open" in appear:J.nce. :2 EXHIBIT NO. c? f . J 0+ Co I I I .. I 6. I I ! i I I i r r Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, ownel:" shall record a deed-- restriction prohibiting the placement of fencing or other artificial barrle!"S to wildlife or pedestrians over a portion of the site. Said portion is described as a triangle with points at the northe:lst corner property line; a point on the property line 80 feet south of the northe:lst corner point; and a point on the property line 30 feet west of the northe:lst corner point. The final wording of such deed restriction sh:lll be approved by the Town Attorney prior to re.:ordation. 7. No future subdivision of the property shall be permitted. Owner sh:lll record a restriction to this efTe.:t. Such restriction shall be written to the s:ltisfaction of the Town Attorney and shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits for the proje<:t_ 8. Prior to any grading or construction of any structures, Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall be se<::Ired from the Town. Materials and colors of e:nerior building surfaces shall be in earth-tones and shall blend with the natur:J.l environment. Plans submitted shall provide details (colors, materials, te:nures) of all proposed structures, including fences, retaining w:J.lls, tennis court screening fe:J.tures, and drainage ditches. I 9. Imorovement arid rtilities 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. I Hours of construction shall be as regulated by Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Town Code. All constnlction on, and landscaping of, the property shall comply with provisions of Tiburon :\lunicipal Code Chapters 13E and 15A concerning water consenation and trees. Compliance with these regulations shall be ensured during the Site Plan and Architec!ur:J.I Review and Building Permit processes. In implementing the Precise Plan approval, owner shall satisry the requirements of the Town Engineer, Tiburon Fire Protection District, and :\larin :'vlunicip:1l Water District. Gr:J.ding on the site shall be limited to the dry season from October to :'vby, unless specifically authorized by the Town Engineer after requiring appropriate prec:J.utionary me:J.sures. An erosion control plan':1nd dust control pl:1n s:1tisfactory to the Town Engineer shall be required prior to gr:1ding or construction on the site. Gr:J.ded :1reas shall be re-veget:1ted as soon as possible following completion of gr:J.ding :J.ctivity. 3 EXHIBIT NO. :J. p, .3 of " J I I I r 15. r All contractors and subcontractol"S performing work at the site shall be requin;d by contract to halt all work within 30 yards of any archaeologic:llly signific:lnt. resource which may be uncovered during construction, until a qualified archaeologist has investigated and made I"el:ommendations. Representatives of the Native Ameri= cnmmunity shall be contacted in the event or such a find. 16. All utilities re:1Sonably related to the proje:t shall be placed underground in accordance with Town regulations. E:mintion 17. This Pre1:ise Development Plan. approval shall be valid for 36 months following its effective date, and shan e:"pire unless subsequent zoning and/or building pennits have been issued pursuant to this approval. A time extension may be granted if such request is filed prior to the expiration date. . . PASSED A.'<"D ADOPTED at a regular m~ting of the Town Council held on November 4. 1992, by the following vote: AYES: CO Li'i CILyIE:\-fBERS: NOES: CODi'iCILyIEMBERS: AESE;','T: COLi'iCIL\IE:\-fBERS: .: ATTEST: . OlLuuYrf ~LtVI ~' THERESE M. HE~"NESSY, 'IVY'r'" CLERK if Friedman, Kuhn, Nygren, Thayer Thompson None None vv<--- ALVI:'i R. KU:!;',', i'vL.\YOR Town of Tiburon ' " " , I I , ThiS IS A TRUE AND ~f.r: N.TIFIED CO~'P j I -jj7 U&<-'/)(~,J~ ,TOWN CLERK U 4 EXHIBIT NO. J f. 4 ~+ " ..,. ~. r xh\b:+ A r October 28, 1992 PRE';: I SE DE'fE!..CP~ENT PLAN TEXT RING MCUNTAIN PARCEL G Genera r In fCr-:7lZT i en anc OaT'::: 1. General Des~ripticn cf t~e P~oject & Site: P:-:::jec7 c:::nsis7s of a sins!e family r-asicenc8, peol. heusa, peel, tannis c=ur7, and OTher e[emenT3 as shewn en the Site Planl ,Suilding S:lVelcpe and Fencins plan dated 10/28/92. The pi~per7Y is z~r.ec RPQ and c=nsisTs of approximzTely 5 ac~es. The site is berdered en 3 sides by the ~Ring Mountain P~aser~e;T and cn the e~s7 side by cpen space and cne r-esidence. 2. Oesisn Concept: Separz"te elements of the residence are tc be Icc37ad at CJTTaren7 12'/915, s7zir-s+eppins up The slcpe f;-::::71 the en7:"'ance a! lc,,,,rnS maximum v!e',",s f;-cm each level. Tar:-aced s;ardens eX7enc be Ic',y ezc~ le'lgl wi~hpcc! an~ Tennis c=ur7 belew. St2ppe~ 3'-4' hi;h planting be~s w:l1 previce a sraceful, Ius:' t;-ansiticn bet'o'ieen aac;, le'lel. 3. Tianspcr7a7ian Analysis: There are no changes propcsed in the peces7,ian, vehicle ane e~€:genc! aCC2S3 to the site. T~e private crive whrc~ serves the prepsrty t;-~m the ene cf Tay I cr Rcce 'fJ i [I hZ'/e a S278 at T2:/1 or Rcce eper-3t8C: '-Jy re~C7e c::n7.:: r . A 1l7Ur:1 creui:c" ex j S-:-S 27 7:19 enc' c ~ t:-:e c,: '/2 eGC wi I I be ,nz i ,172: :-:ec:. Gues7 parkins fer 3 C2;S wi! I be pr~v:cec in acciticn to the 2 C2; garase. T:1&; projeCT w r r I hZ'/e ne . .-. S I S;-: I ;- 1::21'17 impact en acjacznt s-;-;-ee7S. 4. cui Icing Areas: The resicenc9 bui Icins ccns:s73 cf a~~r~ximate!y 6,CCO sq. en the main flecr", 12S0 sq. divided be-;-''''een 2r:c flccr" anc areas belc'", t:,€ main fleer. The pee 1 hcuse j s sca sq. The S2rag2 6.50 s~. The gciage anc the pce 1 heuse '" i ! 1 be be! ow srace as s:ic...n. . -. 'I i e'HS: Views f~em t~e lcwe: pcr7;cn ot t~e let t~ the scut~east aiec cbs=urec by a row of me7ura Monterey Pines en the acjacan7 property anc by t~e Ti~uron Penn i nsu 1 a. Vi 8'>'I'S above the tiee tcps eX7end frcm Sausz I i to tc t:-:e Sen RefiJe I Rrc~~cnc 8riese. A view stucy mzp is incrucec. APPRO',![O B'r' CITY CCUi\!CIL 0.-\ IE -11- 4-0 q S2.. RC:SOLUTION j ~g? EXHIBIT NO. p,So+c. J ~' > ~, ,r { j-i " 6. Sui lding Envelope ~ Fencins: Sui Iding E~ve!cpe 1 imi75 are as shewn en t~e Site Plan! Bui ldrng E~velcpe! Fencins Plan. 7. The meximum height sha! 1 be 25 feeT fer the r9s:cence anc 15 faeT fel al I ot~er st~uc7~i;s. 8 . S I cp e : A slope map .is incfude~ shewing thaT at I Tne st~~cture en lan~ stepe le53 than 30%, w:t~ the tennis C8~rt anC peel en the f!a7t9r pCi7icns of the let. 9. Stcr:n Cra: :1age, S.a'tier an::: P'..::: r i c Ut i lit; as: The let is sar~ed by the C~~7e Macera Sanitary District U2, MMWO, P.G. & E:. P.T..& To, Co Co2::la 1"/. A:i sar'/ic:es are u~c:ersrcl;nc'. 10. Lancsczping: The terraces, step~ec planters "the house wi I I be I ancsc3sec. anG t:-:e A S.-O'/8 2;"82 imr.':9c':a-:-ely acj2cen7 to 0: ..a.--:-i'le t:-ees '",i! I be situatec bet~een t~e c:-' i 'Ie',,?,! i::1":2::l. j n . .' " . anc 7:l.e 7e:.~15 C~Gj7. -, . " I :~e reIT:,3: ,'.....e:- .of t:-:a pi~pei7'1 w: II i7S n27~i21 S7272. A c:::mp1272 12ncsc2,;e p~:=i": '~':[i ':;e s~::::;77eo:: t:=:;- i9'/Ie':1 '.,.:7~ 7:-:2 deslgn re'/few apJ\ ;ca7ic~. 11. Acccus7iczl Analysis: :. The on!, potentia! 2C=~S7:=2~ prcble~ are t~e scuncs c~e27ec by tennis players. However, t~e C8crt is situa7eC sc as to mitigate this pctentia! prc=leG. T~e nearest .es:cence to the northeast is mere than 130t dis7an-;- ~c;i:cntally a:-:c at least 601 i:-: elevation below the c:::~rt. The other res:cence tc the southeast is 2701 cIstant hcrizcn-;-a! Iy anc 621 ill elevation be!.:;'", the c::urt. As scuncs tane 79 be cii:ctec negative impact ~is ex~ectec. up~arc and disipate with distance no :. .... " ~. .;. EXHIBIT NO. J. (l. ~ .f. ~ ~ ~ tr: >-; t:::I >-; >-'3 Z o ~ ..... ~~"l (~ S r ~~ 1'1 ~iil ii ~::j t:~ (j h; -' ;",~ "" :Xl ~ co m r S4 . ~" () 0 . 0,,- I :E~ m I "<:'l" . Zes :;;g '=;-.;~ ~c 0> <: . :;;'''',;; . ~;-:c I . " ='~ I . "'~- u roc. ::0 m ;_C< c:g<> 0 =::0 "" !;:;:~ ~r.: ~ ~'" "" :"?::~ "'- Cl , ;;::'-': . , . I I . ".';:,-" , ... , , 0<. ~~ , - ::';,.~ ,<> .. e c-~ ". " . ~;:g . .. , . ::::"'" ~J , .. " 0 ; " , '" , . , ,I ;;~I >,-;" ):> z 0 -n m 2: (J Z (j) , ,~ ~ ~ \J . "'" r . ):> , ~ ~ ~ i : Ii ;1 . o ~_u. '. C .'\;" {l"i<",c,rt. ~"" & ~..'" "'''' ,,~"''' WALKER 81 MOOOY --.....- ;ii ~"'~i;~ ~;;,. ~.;~ ~Lt-'-'. , [f!Wj' I S ~- R 8\\lYj "", "'II;=-' i..!t....=L.:; ~i.J RESOLUTION NO. 3253 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPRO\lThG A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IlYIPLE:YIENTA TION OF PLAN:'{ED DEVELOP:YIE:'{T #7 AT 375 TAYLOR ROAD (RING :YroUNTA.IN PA.RCEL G) ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 38-182-42 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: . Section 1. Findings A, The Town has received and considered an application filed by John Walker, on behalf of property owner Miranda Leonard, to extend the allowable time for implementation of the approved Precise Development Plan for 375 Taylor Road The application consists of the following I. Application form received OClOber 21, 1997. 2. Approved Precise Plan exhibits, The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes the StaffReporcs, resolutions, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at public hearings. ' B The Planning Commission held a duly-ooticed public hearing on ";ovember 12, 1997, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Planning Commission found that the requested extension of time was consistent with the goals, policies, and provisions of the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and Tiburon Town Council Resolution ~o 2888 The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 'io 97-26 recommending that the Town Council approve a two-year extension of the Precise Development Plan approval C The Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on December 3,1997, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Town Council finds that the requested extension of time is consistent with the goals, policies, and provisions of the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburcn Zoning Ordinance, and Tiburon Town Council Resolution ~o 2888 C The Town Council finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 'io 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines Tiburon Town Council Rescluncn No 3253 1213/97 EXHIBIT NO. ~. l.f d.. 4- Section 2. ADDroval NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL'lED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve an extension of time for implementation of the Precise Plan for 375 Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel G) as follows: 1. The expiration date for the Precise Development Plan approved by Resolution No. 2888 on November 4, 1992, and extended by Resolution No, 3119, shall be further extended by two years. The new expiration date will be December 4, 1999. The Precise Development Plan shall expire on that date unless subsequent zoning and/or building perrnits have been issued pursuant to said approval. PASSED Ai"<'D ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on December 3, 1997, by the following vote. AYES. CO UN C IL:V lE'vill ERS Bach, Gram, Hennessv & Matthews NOES COlTNCILME'villERS. None ABSE)iT COlIN CIL;VIE'vill ERS . Thompson .() 7:k~u;S, Jf(~~C' tL-\RRY Sl :VLUTHEWS, :'vL-\ YOR TO\Y"N OF TIBL'RON ATTF?;z~ DIAi"<'E L CR."","<'E, TO\v"N CLERK Tiburon Town Counc:l Resolution No. 3253 1213/97 2 EXIDBITNO, 4 p.,J.f.2. , ~e=scn sa~d t~ac there is also a C=unty/~~ll Valley projec~ whic~ will c=cr~~~ate the sigcals at t~e T~~~on Wye in associatic~ w~th scme i~rovemen~5 gai~g cc at Tower D=ive in M~ll Valley. CONS~ C-"'-L~;'-" 1. M:'..~utes e:: Ju:l.y 1 ~ --, 1995. Gre~~Erg re~es~ec t~e fallcwi~~ c~===c~i=ns to t~e Ju~y 12, mi~ut=s: lCC= _oJ.# _ I * paqe 11, t~e last se~===ce i~ t~e 4~h to las~ ~a=a~=a;c shcu:c reac U~c~r cf t~e ccmec~~e=s S~?~c=~ec t~e Tc~~ Cc~c~l c=a=t resclut~c~ as p~ese~~ec a~c twc felt c~a= 1ea= blcwE=5 shculc a:sc ce a:lc~ec C~ weeke~cs, w~c~ res~=ictec ccu::s cf ~se.n y Pace , ~ -- , c.e~ete t~e t~~=~ S2~~e~ce -......:::. i-44_ sec-::r:c. pa=a~:::'apr:. " Page , '1 -- , -i--I=- 1..4~_ sec::::r:c. pa=ag=a;.c. s::.culd re:ac. \\G=ee=-~e=~ -- - , - J...:':::-= ~'.... - "- I.....:._c:::._ I f:=:::::m he::- e.:~e=ie::C2 1 t~e ~~li~ t~~.s C~= w:-.e:: i: C:;:l=cses ==S"'....:.2..a.:.:..:r:s I!:'::::: r,l,j':-_=!,';' i:. s\_::;:~c::-:.s cr:.enl a,::c _....-- '-__c:.... J..S r..;"::.....! t::e t.J.=::ct:.:. 2.:' t:::r:.:.gr:.:' s rr.e9:.:.::q .l.S Sl7'..a,2..l. . II I: wa.s n....ove..:. 2-:C. seC8r:c.ec. t:J as.c'fc t::e rr...:.:-}....:.::es cf -=-1....:..::..~r . - J....o:., "'! :;c:..:: _J _ ~ I as amer:c.ec.. .~ Mct:.cr: C:=---i .:::.r ..--... --- 3-0. PUEL"C F".:2R ")!G 2. 223 D~lISO S~-Z~: Co~d:'..t:'..o~a:l. Use Pe~t to i~sta:l.l S~~ racio ant~~~as. Ma~co~ Misu=aca ~C Victo=ia B=ieaut, c~e=s ~C ap9lica=.ts. Assessers Parcel Ne. 59-131-07 (Rese1'.ltie~). ~~ED TO p~~"~G COMMISSION U?CN APPEAL TO TC~~ COUNCIL. (TO BE CONTI~uED WITECUT DISCUSSION TO SEPT~ER 13, 1993.) I~ '..as moved, sec:Jr:ced, ar:c. ur:ar:imcusly a?9rcvec. to ccr:::i,,_'..:e c::is ite~ w~thcu~ c:.sc~ssia~ tc Se~ce~~e= 13, 1995. /3. 375 TAYLOR ROAD: Precise Developme~t Plan, Extensio~ 0:: T~e ~395a3. Request to ~ctenc allowable t~e fer ~lementatio~ ef prec:'..se Develepment Pla!:!. ~7. M:'..randa Lee~ard, ewner; Bru,ce 't":3URCN i'r..;.NN!llG C::MM!SS:CN :ot:C:IU..:.S OF ;"OGCS:" ;:J. 1395 :-l::.;:'u::'~s ~Io. 7...: 2 S- 1,:x..dIBIT NO. ~. \A-ol ,- c " Mccc.y, a'P~~ica:lt. (::<esclue.icnJ . Assesscrs Pa.:cel 33-182-42 Nc. Cat==~ s~at=c t~a~ a ~=2cise DeYe':'(;~me!:t Pla..oo: 1"N'as a-c-crovec. for this Pa==el G of t~e Ring Mc~ta~~ Su=ci.7isicn, en T::e P:=ecise :S::a.'"l 1"Nas set to e:gire th=ee yea=s :9r::;e=-=y I 1"Nh:..c~ is Nc,.,-~!:".te= 199-2 . -', a':-:l.- e==ect.:"~J'2 ,.;-,.- ,-C,_::: c= tl:.e a'f!Jrava: -.....Q i.-_~_ Ca-:==:: S-.; r4 c-__ t:-:a:. p=ecise Develcpmer:;: c..:..scussec. P:"a.:: "lias t:..e TI:e a;::s:licar..t eX-:=!:S~7e:? c=:..~= t:: i=s fi::al a;:-;:=::va':' by Ct.e T::l"h~. c:::: cf t:"1e is ::'CC F=C'9csi::~ c:..a=ge ~~! as~ec~ cf ~.....,...,"':~,-.- ~-""'J'=~'-' ~- ~~ t:'2= ci==::ms~a:lc=s a-;~ =="73.:" . c:: t=-= .:..::tl St.aff i - _co r:cc awa=e c: ~y c~~~ges i:: t:..e a==ec~ t~e a;~r::vec P=ec:..se P:"a::. 1"N'"::i::h "N"ct:.2..ci S~~=: =ec::mme~cs t~a= the P:~-xi=q C::~~ssic~ t~~e a=~ ac::~= t~e C""'-=- rescl~ti~~ =2c~mme~c~~~ t~a: ~~:ic tes:imcL! t~e T~w= C~~~ci: c--~-- a t.,.;c v--- e.:c=er:s :..:::r: c: tiT..e i~~:'ene::::2..:i~r: c:: t::'2 ,............ ....-..J_ p::-:cise P2..a--:. Ee C~c::'.a:"...:: 2.S k ec t~is t:::e c::..:.. y e.:~': e::s:. c:: C~a ': is ccss.:.::::~e J..S ::::2 a;;~ic~~= a=c F_-:ce::-scr: r2~~~=~ t~at t2is i~ cat li~i=ec t8 c::= e.:<::2::s:.:::r:, t.:.::t..:.s-:..:.a':' t::: '::::='_ a:: ac.c.i::"8na: e.:-c:.ens ie-I:. cc:.:: ~::--..:.;:= ~1CCC.l" re~=2se~~a=lV2 f== Ms ~..:.es=i::::s - ' L'2cr:a::-::. I s::a=ec t::a:: ['-= 2...;:3.:....:.. =....: ~ e s :..:c....e== c~E::ec. ....,.".-,.:; - .:--'---'---- , ' ... - - -...-- -.- .1..;...:::.=.____::: 'T'1...;;::......::. ----- - te:..::r; ~~. i s ::-.;.:.::s S;2=-:<, tt.e cc=-::.:: l-.e2.=i::~ C'iro.<::=r -..........-- cee ~- ~~ ~"'-c.S a= 7 ;.;:, 5= .m. :: e '::;<::',2-....._'"': s:.a:ec. he Gees " C:,:::-::-:":'!'!;'1.s:.a:-_ces 1:a.;e ....... -;... l-__c:.'_ c.::y t,,:2.C -,.....~ .1..-- S-- c': , , c::a....-:qet.:.. wr:a: is ce:..::g .9==!=csec, ;......., -... l-~';'c.'_ t::e a:;;:"i=a::::'s .l........_ r2q...:es ::. ~- '-~ a t.:..::-..e e:c~e=-_si.cr: is a reascr:a.::_e eI:e a::c tha: c.e wcc.lc .,;OC2 c:: a;:;=:::~J-2 M '- J. T ~ / ::: ::'2C:~-<::::la~;., / G::-::-=~ e::~ (3 - 0) t: ac.cl::t t2e -;::l.<::,....,11'''''': ,-...- ---.........--'--....... r:2 c: ::rr,rner:c.:.r:~ ti:ne cf t:'.2 c-::::...-~c:,:;:. - --~--- t:.a: t:-:e Cct:::ci':" g::-c.:::. a t"..,."C 'Ie:=.- ex~er:s:'Gr: cf CE:~le~:::I=mEr:~ P:!..=..::. 4 1550 T=3URON EO~E"jA-~: Ccnditicnal Use Pe~it #1950i. Request to establish a gcu-~et ma=ket/celicatess~ i= a vac~t c~mme~~ial space. Mai~ St=eet P=c~erties, owne=i La.~ence a:c 1':3GRCN n..:.:rn:~IG C:::-1M:S~:::N :"I:~rc":'zs OF AGGUS":" 2]. l.:;l'JS :"I"-.::.u:::s ~o iJ,: J EXHIBIT NO. S p.JJ.l. .' did work to talk to others about the project. He is comfortable with the project. Although there will be some disruptions, his questions have been answered and he will support the project. He. thought the negative declaration was very thorough, and that the view from Guaymas would not be significantly blocked, He wanted to have a breakwater that does the job of protecting the boats. Chair Sadrieh felt that the herring and sedimentation issues were not substantial and would be further safeguarded by BCDC The remaining issue is visual and he agreed with Commissioner Berger that the yacht club is here to stay and there is no way they would make a decision to jeopardize the boats. They have nothing to gain by obstructing views, He wondered if peer review was necessary to determine if the height is appropriate. He asked Staff for an opinion on the height. Me. Anderson stated that it is pretty well understood that there will be a sea level rise over time, the only uncertainty is the magnitude of the rise. Also steel piles will last a very long time and you can't be adding height every couple years. Tne usual land-based measure is the 100 year storm. In this situation the 50 year storm is a good measure with a lesser amount needed than for the 100 year, which would make the breakwater even higher, Berger commented [hat maritime construction is similar to bridge building in that there is a beauty to function. Chair Sadrieh felt that it seemed [0 be a cut and drj engineering issue, that no additional research needed [0 be done as the [ides are known and they dictate how high the breakwater has to be, Commissioner Berger added that there is a dollar amount for each inch built. Sadrieh felt peer review would not reveal anything new and he was willing [Q support the project. Commissioner Berger asked the engineer to explain how the 50 year storm was determined. Mr. Hardiman explained the technical methods used to make the calculations and Berger felt they were based on reasonable assumptions, MIS Berger/Klainnont to adopt the Draft Resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration and the Conditional Use Permit for the project. (3-0) ~4. 375 TAYLOR ROAD: EXTE~SION OF TIME FOR A..'i' APPROVED PRECISE DEVELOP:"v1E:"i'T PLAc'i' (PD #7); Fll.E #39704; Miranda Leonard, Owner; John Walker, Applicant; Assessor Parcel :-io. 38-182-42. Me Anderson explained that this was [he second request for extension of time on the existing Precise Development Plan. The project was originally approved in 1992, extended in 1995, for a five-acre property at the end of a gated private driveway leading from the Taylor Road cul-de- sac. Nothing in the proposal has changed, this is just an extension of time. He recommended [hat the Commission extend for one year as the Design Review Board submittal is well underway. When the DRB approves, there will be different time limits. There had been no correspondence on this item and no objections had been expressed. T1BURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVE.>,fBER 12, 1997 MINUTES NO, 778 6 EXHIBIT NO. f' \.f.;l. G Commissioner Berger suggested that a two-year time extension be granted, rather than the one- year recommended by Staff. MIS BergerlSadrieh to adopt the Draft Resolution amended to provide for a two year extension on the Precise Development Plan. (3-0) J\<[r, Anderson stated that this is a Planning Commission recommendation to the Town Council and that it would go before the Council on December 3, 1997, for a final decision. A D.JOUR:'II~JF:NT The Commission canceled the meeting of November 26, 1997, and adjourned to the December 10, 1997 meeting at 8:45 p.m. / />//./ L- /'-:;;~~ ~,' MGHAMAD SAD EH, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: \ ;j,r () , ( {{~<L~--.$?"/\..-/ SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY m971 112 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12. 1997 MINUTES NO, 778 7 EXHIBIT NO. , p.J.fd.. RESOLUTION NO, 99-DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAL'\fNING COivITvlISS10N OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOM1VIE]\''DING APPROVAL OF A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR uv[]>LE:VIE>iTA TlON OF PLAi'\INED DEVELOPivlENT #7 AT 375 TAYLOR ROAD (RING MOUNTAIN PARCEL G) ASSESSORS PARCEL NO 38-182-42 \VHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon does resolve as follows: Section I. Findings A The Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon has received and considered an application filed by John Walker to extend allowable time for implementation of the approved Precise Development Plan for 375 Taylor Road. The application consists of the following Application t'orm received October 4, ] 999. 2 Approved Precise Plan exhibits The official record t'or this project is herebv incorporated and made part of this resolution. Th€ record includes the Staff Reports, resolutions, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at public hearings B The Planning Commission held a dulv noticed public hearing on November 10, 1999, and heard and considered testimony t'rom interested persons The Planning Commission has found that the requested extension of time is consistent with the goals, policies, and provisions of the Tibllron General Plan, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and Tiburon Town Council Resolution '<0 2388 C The Planning Commission has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section No 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 2. Approval NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does hereby recommend that the Tibllron Town Council approve an extension of time for implementation of the Precise Plan t'or 375 Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel G) as follows: I. The expiration date t'or the Precise Development Plan approved by Resolution No, 2888 on November 4, 1992, and extended by Resolution Nos 3119 and 3253, shall be further extended by one year The new expiration date will be December 4,2000. The Precise Development Plan shall expire on that date unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to said approval Tiburon Plannmg Commission Resolution No. 9g-0raft -1-199 1- EXHIBIT NO. ~ f. (. J.. -_._--.~. ._~..._-_.- PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on , 1999, by the following vote. AYES COrvlMISSlONERS. :.fOES COivlMlSSrONERS ABSENT. COrvL~!ISSION"ERS VAC.l...c1\!CIES One 'v!ILES BERGER, CHAIR'vlA...'i Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST SCOTT ,Ac"'DERSO~, SECRETAR Y J9~O-+PC: RES. DOC Tiburon Plannmg CommiSSion Resolution No. 99-0raft --/--/99 EXHIBIT NO, 3_ r-J.teL. RESOLUTION NO. 99-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #7 AT 375 TAYLOR ROAD (RING MOUNTAIN PARCH G) ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 38-182-42 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows Section 1. Findings A. The Planning Commission of the Town ofTiburon has received and considered an application filed by John Walker to extend allowable time for implementation of the approved Precise Development Plan for 375 Taylor Road. The application consists of the following I. Application form received October 4, 1999. 2, Approved Precise Plan exhibits. The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution, The record includes the Staff Reports, resolutions, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at public hearings. B. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10, 1999, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons, The Planning Commission has found that the requested extension of time is consistent with the goals, policies, and provisions of the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and Tiburon Town Council Resolution No, 2888. C The Planning Commission has found that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section No, 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 2. Approval NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does hereby recommend that the Tiburon T own Council approve an extension of time for implementation of the Precise Plan for 375 Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel G) as follows: 1. The expiration date for the Precise Development Plan approved by Resolution No. 2888 on November 4, 1992, and extended by Resolution Nos 3119 and 3253, shall be further extended by two (2) years. The new expiration date will be December 4,200 I. The Precise Development Plan shall expire on that date unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to said approval. Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-21 11/10/99 EXHIBIT NO. 6 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 10,1999, by the following vote AYES COMMISSIONERS Berger, Slavitz & Stein NOES COMMISSIONERS None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS Klairmont V ACANCIES One Isl Miles Berger MILES BERGER, CHAJRMAN Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST ~ - ~ SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY 39704PC2.RES.DOC Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-21 11/10/99 > RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #7 AT 375 TAYLOR ROAD (RING MOUNTAIN PARCEL G) ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 38-182-42 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section I. Findings A The Town has received and considered an application filed by John Walker, on behalf of property owner Miranda Leonard, to extend the allowable time for implementation of the approved Precise Development Plan for 375 Taylor Road The application consists of the foll~wing 1. Application form received October 4, 1999. 2. Approved Precise Plan exhibits. The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution, The record includes the Staff Reports, resolutions, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at public hearings. B. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10, 1999, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons, The Planning Commission found that the requested extension of time was consistent with the goals, policies, and provisions of the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and Tiburon Town Council Resolution No 2888. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 99-21 recommending that the Town Council approve a two-year extension of the Precise Development Plan approval. C The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Novemberl6, 1999, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. The Town Council finds that the requested extension of time is consistent with the goals, policies, and provisions of the Tiburon General Plan, the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, and Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 2888 C The Town Council finds that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section No 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. ,,/,./99 1 EXHIBIT NO. c Section 2. Approval NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve an extension of time for implementation of the Precise Plan for 375 Taylor Road (Ring Mountain Parcel G) as follows 1. The expiration date for the Precise Development Plan approved by Resolution No, 2888 on November 4, 1992, and extended by Resolution Nos. 3119 and 3253, shall be further extended by two years. The new expiration date will be December 4, 200 L The Precise Development Plan shall expire on that date unless subsequent zoning and/or building permits have been issued pursuant to said approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 1999, by the following vote. AYES COUNCILMEMBERS NOES COUNC1Ll'vIEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS THOMASGRAM,MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST DIANE L CRANE, TOWN CLERK 39704tc,res,doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. --/--199 2 ('j @ >-< to >-< ~ z o /D 11' i..~ ~ 1~ M i,l ~JJ :1 \;~ ;:::\1 ". )-:: ,..; --- '" ::tl ~ ~ m ~" n ~~ zz !!! 00 0> ~o ,~~ '1; ;:;; < co .,~ m C:TI -0 ~~ 0'< -0 0 z,:; I . I . I I . I x I "" o ~i~~ " " - ~-',< "'-<0 ~E;' ~~:;; :: ,. ~ ",,-,. "",." ^... - n~::: ':-~ :~ ~ .. -;:" ~. '"~ ,0- o . m 'I ',' ii: '''I ;1 , -C'_, ~~ X "<'I", ,"co. m~ _ x ~;... ~g me e~ ~j ~~ TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT TO: TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA NO.: CJ FROM: SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AS A CONDOMINIUM UNIT (160 SOLANO A VENUE) MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1999 APPELLANTS - LES AND MAXINE HEMBREE APPLICANT - MARGARET MAY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BACKGROUND: On September 16, 1999, the Tiburon Design Review Board granted Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for the construction of a second single-family dwelling on property located at 160 Solano Avenue, Les and Maxine Hembree, the property owners of the adjacent home at 172 Solano Avenue, have now appealed this decision to the Town Council. The council held a hearing on this appeal at the November 2, 1999 meeting, At that time, concerns were raised regarding the story poles for the project. The Council determined that additional information was necessary to illustrate the proposed plans in order to adequately determine the potential view impacts of the proposed house on the appellants, The Council continued the application to the November 16, 1999 meeting, with direction that the applicant place tape or ribbon between the existing story poles and submit a more detailed story pole plan. The applicant has now installed the requested tape between story poles, and has submitted a story pole plan illustrating the locations of the poles and tape (Exhibit I). The owner of the subject property, Margaret May has submitted a letter (Exhibit 2), and has requested that the individual Council members view the proposed project from her property, The attorney representing the potential owners of the proposed house has also submitted a letter (Exhibit 3), as has the architect representing the appellants (Exhibit 4), TIHCRO~ TO\}./;-.J cO( !NeiL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 16, 1999 At the previous meeting, the Town Council indicated that the continued public hearing would be reopened only for the purpose of claritying the story poles and tape illustrating the proposed project. RECOMMENDA nON: Reopen the continued public hearing, take action regarding the subject appeal, and direct Staff to return with a Resolution memorializing the action, EXHIBITS: I. Letter from Margaret May, dated November 12, 1999 2. Story Pole Map, dated November 11, 1999 3, Letter from Robert Epstein, dated November 12, 1999 4, Letter from Michael heckmann, dated November 12, 1999 T1Bl:RON TOV./N COUNCIL ST MF REPORT NOVEMBER 16. 1999 2 160 Solano Street Tiburon California November 10,1999 FM- Ie PA<<.E't :Z:;-EA::Ii / / I ~/& -f9 RECEIVED NOV 1 2 1999 Mayor Boch and Council Members Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, California 94920 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TlSURON Dear Mayor and Council Members; I am the property owner at 160 Solano Street. I have livea here for 24 years,have raised 3 daughters here and have been active in Civic events and the Girl Scouts. I was Chairman of the southern Marin Richardson Bay Association and organized The Tiburon Community Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony for seven years. I am currently the Manager of The Tiburon Thrift Shop. One of my adult children lives with me and has severe chronic medical problems. I have spent the past five years trying to find some relief for her and have taken her to a Research program at Stanford University for the past two years. Because of the extreme medical costs, I have found it necessary to sell my lot. I would like each one of you to come and walk the lot personally with me before the Continuation Meeting on November 16th. Solano Street has a steep grade and to adequately understand the site it needs to be viewed in person. I will make myself available for your viewing SaturdayNovember 13, 9am to 1pm or Sunday November 14th 9am to12 noon. Please call 435-4092 and leave a message as to the time that is most convenient for you. My contention is that the Hembrees have a sweeping view of Angel Island,Ayala Cove, S.F. Bay and City Lights. The view discussed at the November 4th Council meeting was only half of the Hembree's view.Looking in a westerly direction out of their Lv Room/Dining Areas one is able to see s.f. city and night lights and the shipping lanes of freighters in and out of the Golden Gate. This shipping lane is much closer than the one mentioned by the Hembree's in their previous letter concerning the shipping lanes they observe towards Emeryville. In fact the Hembree's usually have a telescope positioned between their dining table and couch pointed towards the shipping lane to the west facing the Golden Gate. The Hembree's view inside their Living/Dining area is no~ffected by the proposed house.Only their view from a side deck is effected. This view is only partially effected and the deck is built entirely in their 15' rear setback. The view that is effected is of the East Bay,in the far distance,over my property and beyond another house built on Paradise Drive. The Hembree's house was allowed a variance from the original 25'setback to a 15' rear setback. In 1980 when the property was remodeled, the front deck enclosed and incorporated into theliving /dining areas,at that time a new deck was built to the side of the house completely in the setback. this is the deck from which a small portion of their view is effected. Please note that the configuration of the current plan places the proposed new structure pretty much equidistant from the other neighbors EXHIBIT NO.-L f 16F'-( Page 2 setbacks. The vacant lot behind mine belonging to Mr Eiselin has a25'rear setback in addition to my setback of 8'. The Elsberg's property tothe east(2 lots) has a 8' setback in addition to my 25'-rear setback. The Hamilton property to the south has an 8' setback plus my 8' setback and the proposed structure is placed approximately 18' back. Please note that the other 8 houses on the block are two storys In conclusion, I would like to encourage you to uphold the Tiburon Design Review Board's Decision of September 16, 1999 to approve this project. Please view the property this weekend and call with the time most convenient for you. Saturday Nov. 13 9am to noon Sunday Nov.14 9am to noon Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, Margaret c. May 435-4092 '::f:2~ vt. ~ EXHIBIT NO. I r. 'Z6~~ v f....: Cf) :..) "4- <t- o~~ ~ ~~ " - to ~ A ~ U) J...: Cf) . . . . ....... ~ ~ .-. \j I t :'.?s......... ,'z/ CD C\i -13 <;.'261 .. II .tI\ - ...tol ~~ ... S'S;.I @ ~ JjXHIBIT NO. I f 5 6F '-f .... \ \. , >. , \ <U " \ III 0 .., U , (J) \. '(3 \ c <U ~ U. C <U \ rn >. "" <U III Ql - C (J) >. <U ~ W rn "" 0 -c u (J) c '(3 <U C (J) <U ~ Ql U. OJ C C <U <( rn ai -c c > <U 0 C/) () <U Ql Iii OJ >. c <( <( Ql :;:: > 0 0 Ql ,0 <( III - Gl E 0 .l: Ul Gl ! .c E Gl :J: - ... III 0 C III '0 III ('II ..... ... E 0 .... .... Ul ~ Gl :> - c Gl .... .... ::l 0 EXHIBIT NO._I P.'4cFL{ Nov-11-99 10:24 \ -, ~................ -rr~"" ~Vl....t' rCI'iI.,...C P.02 : R E' E " i / /'1 -...... "--- LL I , , i-------: ~T AN n: F:NE /; . Cc, \e"'- w ll. I,) <I) ~ j I 5rOR~ ~ S1CR'i '"":::....= :-. EL j1~.33' ',t E.... ,1 ... - -'r - - - 5 ro~,. POLE ..\ EL ,-' V 01>~'\ + ~,(j ~()~+.Y' ~p. hP::,,' v,'b '--', ~E:CK_-~ ' ..- , , '. 1--" ---- _-L-AtJJ AREA -- ",,. ---.- OOCD DECI< ELEv" leE>'s' .~ '~"';'3 ' -"""-.............. / ./ , . ....:<1'."',,' .-..... jl ....0--- _~... '........--......~ / ( ( ) LAllN AREA ~ i- I LAu.N AREA/-' ______r .-.-/" /_" _A"i.iM ;A5MiNCID05 / ' ( T-=<EL_ : e) i::!, 7i <1\, No! ----------- /- ---- -r-...___ .. . . >. ExISTINU. SHRUBS .', ilF ' (TRIMMJ:P) . 'POJ'".1'05"'O~M ~. ",",'," , " NC RECEIVED NOV 1 2 1999 -., 0 ?L~~i'.:',~jG D;:y.~tm',,1E:iT TO"t/n T]r'--T:~~;~"H- -- ('C o , Go (;> 5of."u A~DOOOD 5~Q"'O Po&.c M&p Lib": 1'_0" U~.. ~"""..c. Aa..... It/ft '/'1 A.1). o. . EXHIBIT NO. Z-- N)\-'.12.1993 12: 18F'r'<1 RAGGHIAnTI ET AL NO. 394 P.2 RAGGHIANTI . FREITAS. MONTOBBIO. WALLACE A l..IMIrl!D IJABJI..rtY PARI'N!RSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW r.4 POURTH STllEIIT SAN RAFAEL. CALlFOI\NIA 94901-31.46 I<OEERTF.EI'Sl'\lII' PA'Il\IO{ M, MACIAS J, MNtlOLPH WAllACE J, M.\llKMONTOBBlO DA VI\) p, FRE\Tl\.5 GARY T_llAGGIllAJ'/TJ. INC, lOIDI M1J'H TIIOMA.S. JR. OF. COUNSEL 'lELEPHom: (415) 4~3-0433 F.<\X (41S) 4~;.1lZ69 November 12,1999 Via Facsimile Mayor Mogens Bach and Members of the Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd_ Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 160 Solano. ADDeal of Desion Review ~Droval Dear Mayor Bach and Members of the Town Council: This follows our previous correspondence to the Town submitted on behalf of Doleres Davis and Sean Rorke, the applicants for the above-referenced project We appreciate Councifs decision to continue the matter until the November 16 meeting, as it was clear that the Council did not feel it had adequate infollTlation at the prior meeting to vote on the appeal. Ribbons have since been added to the story poles to aid the Council's review of this matter. Hank Bruce, the applicants' architect, will be available at the upcoming meeting to answer any remaining questions that the Council may have regarding the project In the meantime, we offer the following points for the Council's consideration: . There appeared to be some confusion at the last meeting regarding the Design Review Boarcts decision on this matter. The proposed design represents the product of substantial revisions designed to respond to the concerns previously stated by the neighbors and the ORB. The DRB reviewed the matter in depth - including site visits by each member of the ORB - then unanimously approved the two-story design that is before Council on this appeal- Accordingly, we again urge the Council to deny the appeal from the ORB decision that was filed by Mr, and Ms. Hembree. We also respectfully request that a member of the ORB be present at the November 16 EXHIBIT NO. 3 ~. loy3 NG/.12,1'399 12: 18Pi"1 RAGGHIANTI ET RL 1'1).394 P.3 RAGGIIIANTI. FREITAS . MONTOBBIO . W)JU>,CE LIJ' Mayor Mogens Bach and Members of the Town Council November 12,1999 Page 2 meeting to clarify any further questions that may arise regarding the ORB decision, . There also appeared to be uncertainty amongst the Council regarding the position of Mr. Eiselin, the owner of the unimproved parcel directly uphill (behincl) the subject project Contrary to a statement made at the meeting, it is our understanding that Mr. Eiselin supports the current design. . There was one comment at the prior meeting to the effect that the Town might choose not to allow any development on this parcel. Of course, such a decision would implicate the "taking" clause fOlSld in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On this point, we note that the Hembrees were aware when they purchased their property !tIat the area is zoned R-2, Given that, it is impossible to accept the Hembrees' objections to the proposed construction, which conforms in all respects to the Town zoning ordinance, . Based on the discussion at the public hearing, it seems appropriate to emphasize that the Hembrees' complaints are substantially related to the view from their deck. As confirmed by Town planning staff, the Hembree deck encroaches into the rear yard setback. No variance was obtained in connection with this construction. It would be inappropriate, to say the least, to pay any consideration to objections concerning a view from a structure that was not lawfully constructed. . Regarding the Hembrees' view, we finally note for the record that contrary to a statement made at the prior meeting, the Hembrees enjoy much more than "just an East Bay view," Instead, the Hembree view is a panorama - as defined by the Hillside Design Guidelines - that includes Angel Island, San Francisco and points beyond. The fractional portion of the view that would be affected by the proposed design is a peripheral view, Accordingly, the proposed design conforms to the standards set forth in the Hillside Design Guidelines, We apologize that our previous letter was faxed on November 3, tI1e date of the previous hearing. We trust that tI1e Council has since had the opportunity to consider the comments set forth in that correspondence, EXHIBIT NO. "3 f 2. Or 3 NOV. 12. 1999 12:15PM RAGGHIANTI ET AL Mayor Mogens Bach and Members of the Town Coundl November 12, 1999 Page 3 Thank you for your consideration. (!i" Robert F. RFElme cc: Dolores Davis and Sean Rorke m.3'34 P.4 RAGGIIIA1m . FRlllI'.lS . MONTOBBIO . WALL\C\l UP EXHIBIT NO. 3 t>. 'j of :3 MICHAEL D_ HECKMANN AlA Architect · Planner November 12,1999 RECElVED NOV -19,1999 Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNING DEP.WMEfIT TOWN OF TIBURml Re: 160 Solano Ave. Major and Members of the Town Council; As a correction of item # I in my letter of October 28, 1999, I wish to inform you that the represented distance from the second floor of the proposed structure to the Hombree outdoor deck is 28 and the distance to the Hombree residence is 40 feet. Notwithstanding these distances, my Opinion remains that impacts on the Hombree' s view resulting from this proposal remain and are not in conformance with sound design practice or the town's design review guidelines, Regards, rw Michael D. Heckmann EXHIBIT NO..!:i-. 1624 Tiburon Blvd. Fax 415-435-2875 Tiburon, CA 94920 Fan 415-435-2446 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEMNO,~ To: TOWN COUNCIL From: TOWN CLERK Subject: ORDINANCE ADOPTING 1999 TOWN MUNICIPAL CODE Date: November 16, 1999 BACKGROUND On April 7, 1999, the Town Council authorized execution ofa contract with Book Publishing Company for the republication of the Tiburon Municipal Code, The last time the Code was updated in its entirety was in 1990, New copies of the Code arrived last week and are now available at Town HaiL The public can also view (and print) the full text of the Code on the internet at the Town's website, www.tiburon,orglgovemment This is accomplished through a link to the publisher's website, www,bocnetcom, It should be noted that the Town's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 16) is not contained in this document, Copies of the Zoning Ordinance are available and updated by the Town's Planning Department The Tiburon Municipal Code will be supplemented on an annual (or as needed basis), both in hard copy format and on the internet by the publisher as part of the contract ACTION REOUTRED To hold a public hearing for the introduction and first reading of the Ordinance adopting the 1999 Tiburon Municipal Code, D, Crane Iacopi Town Clerk EXHIBITS ~ Ordinance No, 452 N.S, ORDINANCE NO. 452 N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING THE 1999 TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Book Publishing Company of Seattle, Washington, has compiled, edited and published a codification of the permanent and general ordinances of Town of Tiburon; and WHEREAS, there are now on file in the office of the Town Clerk, for public inspection, three copies of a document entitled "Tiburon Municipal Code;" NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section L Adoption, There is hereby adopted the "Tiburon Municipal Code," as compiled, edited and published by Book Publishing Company, Seattle, Washington, Section 2, Title--Citation--Reference, This code shall be known as the "Tiburon Municipal Code" and it shall be sufficient to refer to said code as the "Tiburon Municipal Code" in any prosecution for the violation of any provision thereof or in any proceeding at law or equity, It shall be sufficient to designate any ordinance adding to, amending, correcting or repealing all of any part or portion thereof as an addition to, amendment to, correction or repeal of the "Tiburon Municipal Code," References may be made to the titles, chapters, sections and subsections of the "Tiburon Municipal Code" and such references shall apply to those titles, chapters, sections or subsections as they appear in the code. Section 3, Reference aoolies to all amendments, Whenever a reference is made to this code as the "Tiburon Municipal Code" or to any portion thereof, or to any ordinance of the Town of Tiburon, codified herein, the reference shall apply to all amendments, corrections and additions heretofore, now or hereafter made, Section 4. Title, chapter and section headings, Title, chapter and section headings contained herein shall not be deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of any title, chapter or section hereof Ordinance NaA52 N.S--intraduced 1/116/99 1 Section 5. Reference to specific ordinances, The provisions of this code shall not in any manner affect matters of record which refer to, or are otherwise connected with ordinances which are therein specifically designated by number or otherwise and which are included within the code, but such reference shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within this code, Section 6, Ordinances passed prior to adoption of this code, The last ordinance included in this code was Ordinance No, 446 N.S, [Amending Chapter 13, Building Regulations], adopted July 7, 1999. The following ordinances, passed subsequent to Ordinance No, 446 N,S" but prior to adoption of this code, are hereby adopted and made a part of this code: Ordinance No, 447 N,S" Ordinance No, 448 N,S" Ordinance No, 449 N.S" Ordinance No, 450 N,S., and Ordinance No, 451 N,S, (adopted October 20,1999), Section No, 7, Effect of code on past actions and obligations, The adoption of this code does not affect prosecutions for ordinance violations committed prior to the effective date of this code, does not waive any fee or penalty due and unpaid on the effective date of this code, and doe not affect the validity of any bond or cash deposit posted, filed or deposited pursuant to the requirements of any ordinance, Section 8, Constitutionality, If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code, Section 9, References to prior code, References in town forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former Tiburon Municipal Code (adopted in 1968 and 1990) shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within this code, Section 10. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage 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, Ordinance No..J52 N.S--introduced 11/16/99 2 This Ordinance was introduced at an adjourned meeting of the Town Council held on November 16, 1999, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on December 1, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: TOM GRAM, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE ICAOPI, TOWN CLERK Ordinance No, 452 NS--introduced 11/16/99 3 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.1L- To: TOWN COUNCIL From: TOWN MANAGER Subject: DOWNTOWN FERRY DOCK REALIGNMENT PROJECT Date: November 17, 1999 BACKGROUND In 1993, the Town submitted a grant application to MTC for funding to replace and realign the existing ferry dock located behind Guaymas Restaurant This dock facility is privately-owned, and leased exclusively by the Blue & Gold Fleet, for their Tiburon - San Francisco ferry service from the property owners, Ed & Laleh Zelinsky, In 1995, after receiving approval for a grant of$710,OOO from the California Transportation Commission to replace the existing dock, the Town subsequently withdrew its application due in part from the objections by PI. Tiburon condominium homeowners, and the size and siting of the new proposed ferry dock. In 1996, the Town Council voted to reinstate the grant and directed former Town Engineer Barmand to pursue a new ferry dock design, and authorized him to apply for a $35,000 advance from the grant monies for engineering and design purposes, In 1999, the Town's Deputy Town Engineer John Huginin assumed the lead role regarding the Ferry Dock replacement project and developed a preliminary timeline for completion in order to satisfY the terms of the grant, May, 2000 is the grant's target date for completion, which would be extremely difficult to achieve at this late date. In addition to the project design, certain entitlements and permits must also be secured from BCDC, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, The project is also subject to provisions ofCEQA The most important factor, however, is that the Town cannot secure the grant or proceed with the proposed project without the approval of the property owners (Zelinskys), The Zelinskys have little interest in the proposal because there is no apparent benefit to be gained by either the local business community or themselves. In May, 1999, an informal workshop was held with Town officials, the business community, representatives from the Blue & Gold, Red & White, and Angel Island ferry services, and PI. Tiburon residents. At that time, Blue & Gold Fleet offered to install at their cost a new float and variable height ramp (VHR) which would eliminate the need for the larger replacement dock, and yet offer ADA compliance within a more compact footprint This matter was last considered at Council's October 20, 1999 regular meeting and continued to this date for further study of the Town's options, RECOMMENDATION That Town Staff be authorized to contact the California Transportation Committee (CTC) regarding the Town's intent to abandon its plans to replace and realign the existing ferry dock. 2. That the Deputy Town Engineer explore with the CTC the possibility of utilizing a portion of these grant funds for improvements and repairs to certain areas adjacent to the ferry dock facility to enhance patronage, 3. That the Deputy Town Engineer be directed to proceed with the conceptual design of specific improvements associated with the downtown ferry terminal and service, i,e, upgrade an extension of the existing pedestrian walkway, installation of cover and shelter for access to and from the ferry dock, improve current bus stop area and passenger drop off zone, etc 4 That Councilmembers inspect and evaluate the proposed Blue & Gold variable height ramp located at Pier 41 in San Francisco and discuss the facility at this time, RL. Kleinert EXHIBITS 1. June 1999 Letter from Blue & Gold Fleet to Town Manager - (VHR at Pier 41) 2. August 1999 Letter from Blue & Gold Fleet to Town Manager - (VHR design) 3. Draft Town Council Minutes, October 20, 1999 U6/29/99 TrE 11: 21 FAX .--.!1LrE 8. GOLD FLEET ~002 Blue ,Go~ ~'7 -' " Mr. Robert L. Kleinert City MWlager TowM ofTiburon 1505 Tiburoll Boulevard Tiburon, C A 94920 June 28. 1999 DeB!' Mr, Kleinert, Thank you for hosliMg the town workshop to discuss the future improvements to the downtown ferry dock, It was interestiMg to hear from the citi~s, business representatives, staff mayor and council member, As Blue & Gold proposed at the workshop, we are willing to mOve forward and retrofit the e"isting dock to become ADA compliant, We offer to design and install a modified version of a variable height boarding platform, similar to the one in operation here at Pier 41 Of course we would present a preliminary design plan to your engineering staIffor comment and review, The concept works well at Pier 41 and has the iUpport of Richard Sckaff, ADA cor,sultant who was also at the town workshop, With this design, there would be no need to enlarge the dock footprint or make major changes to your waterfront area. We will also tnstroct our designer to minimize the profile to the platform's supporting hearns, Blue & Gold is ready to commence this work if the Town of Tiburon so desires, We do not wish to make these expensive improvements for the existing dock as a temporary situation. Please let us know what decisions are made regarding the state Proposition I J 6 grant for a new dock. As always, it is a pleasure to serve the citizens of Tiburon in providing ferry service to San Francisco We look forward to hearing from you on this matter. Please call if you have i1l1Y questions. Sincerelv, JJ2~ PreSident pl!~ tl loURI:11 :n\l UL . ~AN ~UH1S(O lA 9~133 . InS! n5.9100 . FAX \~15l1D5.S4'H EXHIBIT NO. I Blue _~o~~ RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1999 Mr. Robert L Kleinert Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN MANAQHIS OFFiCE t~WN 8Ftl8YR9N August 8, 1999 Dear Bob, Here is a copy of the preliminary design for the variable height ramp (VHR) that Blue & Gold built and installed at our docks at Pier 41 in San Francisco, We propose to adapt this concept for our float in Tiburon, Our VHR at Pier 41 has been operational for fourteen months and we are very happy with its performance, This VHR design offers ADA compliance within a compact footprint As Ron mentioned, once a decision is made to approve this float adaptation, Blue & Gold would establish an escrow account for the project funding and immediately commence with the design process, We anticipate design approval and installation to take approximately six months, Please keep us informed about the Town Council's deliberations, We are anxious to work with you to achieve the desired waterfront improvements in a timely and cost efficient manner. Very truly yours, M~ 'Ii' '~~ Sandra "Pip" Elles ~ VP of Contract Services cc: Ron Duckhom Carolyn Horgan Jim Adams Richard Sckaff EXHIBIT NO.-2- &./oj2-) PIER 41 MARINE TERMINAL. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94\33 . (415) 705.8100 . FAX [41Sl 705-5429 ~ ~ t-- :to r- ~ ~ 1?1 () ,== C) I! Q 1\ I il i: "'1 , " ~r q;. , I (p. ),D/2 ) MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt above Ordinance, Thompson, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: Gram L UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12) DOWNTOWN FERRY DOCK REALIGNMENT PROJECT - (Consider Status & Review Options) Town Manager Kleinert gave the Staff Report. He noted that the option to build a new ferry dock at the site of the current downtown ferry dock had first come before Council in 1995 in the form of a grant from the California Transportation Commission. At that time, Council approved, but then subsequently withdrew, its support of the funding The disapproval was based in part on opposition by PI. Tiburon homeowners to the larger size of the new dock In 1997, a new Council voted to reinstate the grant application and authorized the Town Engineer to apply for an advance on funds to prepare drawings of a revised project, which contained three alternative dock positions at the current location. Kleinert said the matter was now before Council for further direction and because the grant specified a deadline of May 2000 for completion of the project Although Kleinert noted it would be difficult to meet this deadline, he surmised that there might be an extension if the project was well under way by that time. However, Kleinert said an essential component was missing in that the owner of the current dock, Mr, Zelinsky, showed little or no interest in pursuing a reconstruction project nor of giving up ownership of the dock to the Town. Town Manager Kleinert said that Blue & Gold Fleet had also proposed a new floating dock which would solve the problems of ADA access and would not be as large as the original replacement dock Pip Ellis, representing Blue & Gold, said her company wanted to work with the Town to improve ferry service, She invited Council to view the proposed dock which had been in use at Pier 41 for one year and which had gained approval from members of the disabled community, In response to questions from Town Manager Kleinert, Peter Belden of Angel Island Ferry and Michele Kelly of Guaymas Restaurant, said they would not oppose the Blue & Gold design, Finally, Town Manager Kleinert said Mayor Bach had submitted a drawing for an improved pedestrian traffic circulation pattern in the dock area and possibly, another alternative for dock placement Town Council i.Hinutes #1174 OClober 20, 1999 Page 8 , [:l40tl 3 C'1 (~.ll- Kleinert suggested that the matter be continued to November 17,1999 for further study of the above options, Council concurred. Councilmember Hennessy asked the Town Manager to convey her sentiments to Mr. Zelinsky that she thought it would be in the best interest of the Town in the long run to have ownership and/or operation of the dock facilities. J. NEW BUSINESS 13) FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REPORT - FY ENDING 6/30/200 Item moved to Consent Calendar. K. COMMUNICATIONS 14) SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - (Saturday, October 24, 1999) A. Pet Paws Parade - (Lower Main Street) B. "Kosovo Sleep Safe Project" - (Walk along Multi-use Path) Items noted, L. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Bach adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m., sine die, MOGENSBACH,MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Councillvlinu/es #1174 October 20, 1999 Page 9 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING: TO: FROM: SUBJECf: November 16, 1999 ITEM: TOWN COUNCIL RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR MARSH MAINTENANCE PROJECT - BUDGET AMENDMENT (L BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: This item is for Town Council approval of a budget revision increasing the amount of Marsh Restoration & Maintenance Funds allocated for the recently completed Marsh Maintenance Capital Project. The Town currently undertakes major clearing and windowing of the marsh every four (4) years, The current capital improvement budget allocates $25,000 for the project to clear areas of overgrowth and window the marsh. Waterworks Industries was employed by the Town Public Works Department to identify the corridor areas to be cleared of vegetation; clear the reeds from the shoreline toward the center of the Marsh; remove reeds, cattails and bulrush vegetation; and load and remove all such vegetation as directed by the Public Works Department The estimated fma1 cost of the project is $33,800, this exceeds the budget estimate by $8,800, The central reasons for the added expense are attributable to (I) the high level of overgrowth since the Marsh was last cleared and windowed in FY 1995/96, and (2) the related costs of hauling the excess vegetation from the site, The Marsh Fund currently has $118,200 in available resources, as funded, the current project will reduce fund resources to approximately $84,400. The next scheduled maintenance is currently planned for August 2003, and Public Works Superintendent 1acopi has indicated that the focus of the project will be clearing overgrowth and silt in the north end of the marsh where the main Town drainage pipe is located. There are also logistical problems associated with removal and hauling of the marsh spoils, that may result in significantly greater project costs in the future. (See attached memorandum) RECOMMENDATION: Town Council approve the allocation of an additional $8,800 of Marsh Maintenance Fund resources to fully fund Marsh Maintenance project costs in FY2000, ATTACHMENTS Memorandum, Supt P lic Works to Town Manager (November 4, 1999) '/ R Stranzl I TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN MANAGER SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS RAILROAD MARSH CLEAN-UP & RESTORATION PROJECT November 4, 1999 The Railroad Marsh clean-up and restoration project (which takes place every four years) started on October 18 and lasted about nine working days, The job price of $30,000 included opening up three (3) large windows between 30 and 40 feet wide to assist drainage and water quality in this fresh water marsh. After meeting with the contractor, the decision was made to place these three windows at the widest points of growth in the marsh, The contractor, Waterworks, removed 80 truckloads oftules, mud and roots from the three sites, All the debris and tules were taken to the Town's dump area located at the trestle at Blackie's Pasture This dump area, which has been used for almost 16 years, is now fulL The reason I am bringing this to your attention now is that in four years when the marsh clean-up begins again, the Town will not have a dump area, This will probably triple the cost of the project, from $30,000 to almost $90,000, The next scheduled clean-up in August 2003 will concentrate on the north end of the Marsh (next to Mar West Street), The purpose will be to open up the area around the Town's drainpipe that is rapidly being silted over. Over the last 12 years, the residents of the Pt, Tiburon Marsh have enjoyed the benefits of the Town's restoration project by having windows cut in front of their residences. The windows are rotated every four years to maximize drainage flow and to keep the growth oftules down, Unfortunately, some residents become upset when windows are not cut in front of their condos so that they can see the water and wildlife, The Town only allocates so much money per year for the marsh clean-up, and the 2003 project will provide no windowing in front of the Pt Tiburon units for the reasons stated above, cc: Planning Director Finance Director [For inclusion in the 11/16/99 Town Council packet] Tony E. Iacopi Superintendent of Public Works ;-~~'y TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO, (3 To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY Subject: ROLLERBLADING IN THE DOWNTOWN PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE Date: November 16, 1999 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Section 23-23 of the current Municipal Code prohibits roller-skates, roller-blades, skateboards and similar vehicles and devices on certain enumerated streets, These streets include Main Street, Tiburon Boulevard and Paradise Drive, These vehicles and devices are allowed on the Town's multi-use path, Mayor Tom Gram has suggested that the Town amend Section 23-23 to allow roller-blades and roller-skates in the downtown, There are several different means of accomplishing this goal. One possibility would be to allow roller-blades and roller-skates in the bike lane that runs on Tiburon Boulevard from Mar West to Main Street and on Paradise Drive from Main Street to Elephant Rock. A more ambitious approach would also allow these devices on Main Street itself Chief Herley has indicated that expanding the allowed use of roller-blades and roller-skates as described above would have adverse safety impacts, The Chief will be present at the Council meeting to explain his concerns, RECOMMENDATION The Council should consider whether it wishes to amend Section 23-23 of the Municipal Code to expand the permitted use of roller-blades and roller-skates, If the Council decides this question in the affirmative, it should select the streets on which such use should be allowed and direct staff to return with an appropriate ordinance. EXHIBITS Section 23-23 of the Municipal Code when it is necessary for any temporary purpose to drive a loaded vehicle across a sidewalk. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., g 2 (part)) 23-21 New pavement and markings. No person shall ride or drive any vehicle over or across any newly made pavement or freshly painted markings an any street when a barrier sign, cone marker or other warning device is in place warning persons not to drive over or across such pavement or marking. or when any such device is in place indicating that the street or any portion thereof is closed. (Ord, No. 423 N.S., g 2 (part)) 23-22 Obedience to traffic harriers and signs. (a) No person, public utility or department in the town shall erect or place any barrier or sign on any street unless of a type approved by the town traffic engineer. (b) No person shall disobey the instructions, remove, tamper with, or destroy any barrier or sign lawfully placed on any street by any department of this town, by any public utility or other person authorized by the town. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., g 2 (part)) 23-23 Use of skatehoards, coasters and similar devices regulated. (a) It is unlawful for any person upon a skate- board, roller skates, or riding in, upon. or by means of, any coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device to go upon any roadway in the Town of Tiburon between the hours of sunset and sunrise and on those road- ways designated by the town traffic engineer as being hazardous for such activity during daylight hours and so posted after due public notice, (b) The town traffic engineer has designated the following streets are hazardous to subject activities, and may designate others by properly posting: Reed Ranch Road Blackfield Drive Hacienda Drive Stewart Drive Via Capistrano Trestle Glen Boulevard Porto Marino Drive Geldert Drive 23-20 A venida Miraflores Roundhill Road Lyford Drive Mar West Street Centro West Street Solano Paradise Drive Main Street Beach Road Tiburon Boulevard Juanita Lane Centro East Street Mar East Street Diviso Street Ridge Road Mountain View Drive Lagoon View Drive Straits View Drive (Ord, No. 423 N.S., g 2 (part)) 23.24 Vehicles and horses prohibited on bicycle/pedestrian paths. (a) No person shall operate or drive any motor- ized vehicle upon any portion of any bicycle or pedestrian paths owned by the Town of Tiburon. This prohibition shall not apply to the Town of Tiburon's official vehicles, or to emergency vehi- cles' operated by public employees. (b) No person shall permit or allow any horse to enter any paved portion, exclusive of identified crossing points, of any bicycle or pedestrian path owned by the Town of Tiburon. (Ord. No. 423 N.S., g 2 (part)) 23-25 Use of vehicles on multi-use path. (a) Permitted vehicles and devices. The following uses shall be permitted only on the asphalt concrete portion of that certain multi-use path owned by the Town of Tiburon, and formerly the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company right-of-way, more partic- ularly described in those certain deeds conveying the property to the Town of Tiburon, recorded in Book 2426, Page 99, and Book 2429, Page 428, of the Official Records of Marin County: (I) Roller skates or roller blades; (2) Skateboards; (3) Pedal-powered, nonmotorized bicycles or tricycles with a width of not more than thirty-six inches and used for recreational purposes; (4) Baby carriages and strollers; (5) Conveyances for disabled persons; (6) Emergency vehicles; (7) Department of public works vehicles. 219 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. /L( (A) MEETING DATE: 11/16/99 To: From: Subject: Date: TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT REVISION STATUS REPORT NOVEMBER 9, 1999 BACKGROUND Town Statf is gearing up for the updates to the Tiburon General Plan scheduled to occur over the next two years The primary element to be updated is the Housing Element As mandated by State law, all San Francisco Bay Area communities must have new housing elements adopted by June 30,2001. Other elements of the Tiburon General Plan are envisioned for less comprehensive updates, It is possible, however, that major revision of the Housing Element could trigger significant amendments to other elements (particularly the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element) in order to achieve consistency between elements as required by law. An important event in the Housing Element update process is the release, by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), of the "housing needs determination" for the Town ofTiburon, These numbers wilt specify the number of very low income, low income, moderate-income and market rate income units that the Town must accommodate in its general plan and zoning documents. The ABAG numbers (in draft form) are scheduled to be released very shortly. The extent of possible amendments to other elements of the Tiburon General Plan will not be known until a strategy for addressing the housing needs determination figures is developed and the Housing Element update process is welt underway. The first priority is to begin the Housing Element update process as soon as possible. Based upon prior experience, Staff anticipates that the Housing Element update will begin this month and continue until very close to the state deadline of June 30, 200]. It is also important that Town select a quality consultant before they are all committed to other communities' housing element updates 7'IBUfWN10WYC'()UXcrf. SlAFF REPORT fl/f6/99 In subsequent items on this agenda, Staff is making specific recommendations for selection of a consultant to prepare a housing element update, and regarding a request by Marin County for some level of collaboration on housing element updates. nBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 11//6/99 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO.! t{ (6 ) MEETING DATE: 11/16/99 To: TOWN COUNC1L From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR 3k Subject: LETTER FROM MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGARDING COLLABORATION ON HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATES Date: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 BACKGROUND The Town has received a letter (Exhibit 1) from the Marin County Community Development Agency Director requesting consideration of some limited form of collaboration on Housing Element updates All cities and counties in the Bay Area must have adopted updated housing elements by June 30, 200 I. The letter suggests that three options involving various degrees of collaboration be considered, These options, listed in order of decreasing intensity, are discussed below: Option I suggests hiring the same consultant to work on selected items that could be shared between housing elements. Depending on the level of cooperation between the County of Marin and Marin's eleven cities, this could involve a total of 12 housing elements, The letter acknowledges that the collaboration would likely be limited to preparing a database, developing standardized reporting and management practices, and perhaps performing special studies. Each jurisdiction would be responsible for preparing and adopting its own housing element. The letter notes that many cities in Marin County have hired the same consultant(s) to prepare their elements in the past. The majority of housing elements in Marin County has either been prepared by Lisa Newman or Jeffery Baird. Option 2 would involve meeting regularly to exchange technical information and facilitate strategic cooperation during preparation of the respective housing elements. Option 3 involves working through the Countywide Planning Agency, which could review and comments on progress reports, draft elements, and so forth. TlBURO\' TOW\' COl':vcn ST.IFF REPORT 11/16/99 ANALYSIS . Tiburon Planning Department Staff sees some advantages to Option 1, especially in a shared database and standardized reporting and management practices. . Because housing issues are extremely volatile and universally involve highly emotional land use and density issues, Staff believes that collaborative efforts beyond data collection and standardization of reporting and management methodologies would probably faiL . Staff sees little advantage to Options 2 and 3, As most city planning departments are small, the staff time and effort that would need to be invested in these options would probably not be justified by the minimal returns. . Consideration of this initiative should in no way delay Tiburon's efforts to complete its own Housing Element update. RECOMMENDA nON That the Town Council direct Staff to respond to the County's letter expressing interest in Option No. I provided that the cost is reasonable. EXHIBITS I. Letter from Alex Hinds, Marin County Community Development Agency, dated 10/27/99, TIBU/ION !O!l',V COUNCIl. SIAI'FREPORT 11/16/99 Marin County Community Development Agency Alex Hinds, Director October 27, 1999 Scott Anderson, Director Tiburon Planning Department 1155 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 -Sea r+ Dear 1'.1[, ,',Raars",,: R-A."", '.....-\ ;-. '-" ,. , . ~ ___ 1:..+ ',_ ,I ,~ '-- '.... OCT 2 9 1999 p~'"" I'~!G OEPAR;iViE; ,j f ";,,,,,., :]F T:SURO;j As you know, all local Cities/Towns and Marin County will be soon expected, as a result of State of California requirements, to update our respective Housing Elements to the General Plan. Thus, it seems timely that we explore how some or all Marin County and Citiesrrowns collaborate on this mutual requirement, including consideration of the following options: · Hire the same consultant to prepare our respective Housing Elements. This could result in some cost savings and facilitate strategic cooperation such as the preparation of special studies and sharing of data and best management practices, while maintaining the complete responsibility of each jurisdiction to prepare and adopt their own Housing Element. It is my understanding that many Cities did hire the same consultant to prepare previous Housing Elements, . Meet regularly to exchange technical information and facilitate strategic cooperation during preparation of our respective Housing Elements, This could consist of our respective staff and consultant(s) meeting quarterly (or as needed) during the document preparation period, · Work through the Countywide Planniug Agency which could review and comment on progress reports, draft and/or final Housing Elements as desired, Please note that these suggestions are not intended to promote a" one size fits all" approach, shift responsibility for providing housing from one jurisdiction to the next, or interfere in any way with the ability of each jurisdiction to prepare and adopt their own respective housing strategies. Nevertheless, there does appear to be some major advantages to increased cooperation, as we all struggle to address housing. issues, Towards that end, 1 would appreciate your letting me know soon if your City/Town would be interested in further exploring any of the above mentioned options, Thanks, Sincerely, ~ Hc~~ Alex Hinds Agency Director A HI am: ad m I ahl cities- to wns. d oc cc: Robert Kleinert, Town Manager EXIDBIT NO.-L 3501 Civic Center Drive, #308 - San Rafael, CA 94903-4157 - Telephone (415) 499-6269 _ Fax (415) 499-7880 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: 11116/99 I Lie c ) To: TOWN COUNCIL From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR qc Subject: APPROVAL OF SERVICES CONTRACT FOR GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF $5,000 Date: 11/9/99 BACKGROUND For fiscal year 1999-2000, the Town Council has appropriated $50,000 toward a General Plan update, as the first phase ofa two-year program of updating the Tiburon General Plan, Phase I is composed primarily of the Housing Element update, with this element determining in large part whether substantial or minor updating of other elements will be necessary. It is essential that the Town begin its Housing Element update process as soon as possible, as experience has shown these elements take 12-18 month or more to complete, and the most qualified consultants will soon be recruited by other jurisdictions In staff's opinion, general plan housing elements prepared for Marin County cities are a "specialty" field. There are relatively few consultants in whom staff would place the confidence for preparation of a housing element in the highly charged housing environment of Marin County, Staff contacted the three consultants who it would seriously consider retaining for this task and received price quotations from them. These were as follows: . Terrell Watt, who prepared the 1991 Tiburon Housing Element and is very familiar with housing issues in the Town, quoted a price of $90,000. . Lisa Newman, Newman Planning Associates, is available immediately. She has previously prepared housing elements for San Anselmo, Fairfax, San Rafael, Woodside, and Los Altos Hills, among others, and has submitted a price quotation of $55,000 Tihllron Town COIfIIC.:/1 S/ajJ I?eporl 11/ J 6/99 . Jeffery Baird, Baird & Driscoll, provided a price quotation of $45,000 to perform the work. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Baird is still at work on the Town of Corte Madera Housing Element, which has generated some controversy within Tiburon, While his proposal represents the lowest price quotation, because of continuing obligations to Corte Madera, staff believes that it would be an inappropriate conflict of interest to retain him, According to the latest estimates, he is unlikely to complete his work for Corte Madera for many months, At the request of Staff, Mrs. Newman prepared a detailed scope of work for the project. Her proposal spans the 1999-2000 and 2000-200 I fiscal years and covers the full housing element update process to adoption, including the CEQA work, unless an EIR is determined to be required. Staff finds the proposal and the price highly satisfactory and quite realistic. Because the contract amount exceeds the budgeted amount for FY 1999-2000 by $5,000 staff recommends a supplemental appropriation of that amount for this fiscal year. The remaining balance in this fund at the end of the 1999-2000 fiscal year (approximately $27,000) would be carried over to the FY 2000-200 I budget, when additional appropriations are anticipated for work on other General Plan elements RECOMMENDA nON . Approve a supplemental appropriation of $5,000 for the General Plan update for FY 1999- 2000. The money would be transferred from unallocated reserves. . Approve the services agreement with Newman Planning Associates for $55,000,00 and authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement Tiburon Town CouI/cil Sloff /?epo/I ////6/99 2