HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2001-03-07
/I(Af7rA
---
TOWN OF TIBURON
Regular Town Council Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
7:30 PM - Wednesday, March 7, 2001
7:00 PM - Closed Session
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAilABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall
and at the Belvedere- Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony
on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Bach. Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavitz, Vice Mayor Matthews, Mayor Thompson
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION IN CLOSED SESSION
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject not on the agenda may do so now.
Please note however. that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action
tonight on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate
Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Town Council
meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes.
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
March 7, 2001
Page 2 of 3
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion unless a request is made that
an item be transferred to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Any item
on the Regular Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar.
(1) Adoption of Resolution of Commendation -Retirement of Chief Peter G. Herley
(a) Adoption of a Resolution ofthe Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Commending Police Chief Peter G. Herley Upon the Occasion of his
Retirement from the Town of Tiburon
(2) Request by Town Attorney for Conveyance of Property from County of Marin - Property located
at the intersection of Solano and Centro West Streets
(3) Amicus Brief Request - San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Franseiseo (No. S901757)
(4) Amicus Brief Request - Lori/lard Tobacco Co., et al., v Reilly (No. 00-596))
REGULAR AGENDA
(5) Presentation by Centro WestlRaccoon Lane Neighborhood Group - Proposed Formation of
Underground Utility District
(6) Presentation by James McLane & Associates - Review of Ferry Area Access & Safety
Improvement Project
(7) PUBLIC HEARING
Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Pennit to construct a new pier and boat
lifts on property located at 16 Old Landing Road -AP Nos. 38-171-59 & 38-171-60
(Richard & Linda Torretto, Appellants)
(8) PUBLIC HEARING
Recommendation to Amend the Tiburon Municipal Code Regarding Text Amendments to the Town's
Zoning Ordinance - (Second Reading and Adoption)
(a) An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Repealing,
Adding, and/or Amending Various Provisions of the Chapter 16 of
the Tiburon Municipal Code Commonly Known as the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 360 N. S. as Amended)
(9) PUBLIC HEARING
Recommendation to Adopt New Administrative Citation Fines
(a) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Setting Forlh the Violations of the Municipal Code that May Be Enforced
by Administrative Citation Pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code
and Establishing a Schedule of Fines for Such Violations
Agenda - Town Council Meeting
March 7, 2001
Page 3 of 3
(10) PUBLIC HEARING
Recommendation to Adopt New and Revised Pennit Application Fee Schedules to Increase Cost
Recovery of Administrative, Legal, Plan Storage and Other Costs
(a) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Superseding Resolution No. 3353 and Establishing New Planning,
Buiiding, and Engineering Fee Schedules for the Town of Tiburon
(b) Adoption of a Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
Superseding Resolution No. 3354 and Adopting an Hourly Rate Fee
Schedule for Town of Tiburon Personnel
COUNCIL. STAFF, COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(11) Request from Town Clerk - Select Date for joint Planning Commission/Design Review BoardlTown
Council Workshop
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Town Council Weekly Digest - February 23, 2001
Town Council Weekly Digest - March 2, 2001
ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
)> Tiburon Peninsula Foundation Historic Signs along Multi-Use Path - (March 21)
)> Appeal of Design Review Board approval of remodel at 757 Hawthorne Drive - (Mark Bendinelli/ John
Medricky, Appellants; M/M Ezcurra, Applicants) - March 21)
)> Recommendation to Amend Contract With Public Employees' Retirement System to Provide 2% @ 55
Retirement Benefit for Miscellaneous Employees - (Second Reading & Adoption of Ordinance) - (March
21)
)> Stewart Drive Undergrounding of Utilities Assessment District - Acceptance of Engineer's Report-
(March 21)
)> SorokkolWilson Annexation: Request Reconsideration of Annexation - 3820 Paradise Drive, AP No. 39-
302-01 - (March 21)
CLOSED SESSSION - No. 01-2001
Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., the Town Council will hold a Closed
Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTiCIPATED LITIGATION
(Section 54956.9(c))
One Case
DlkM.
I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF TillURON
COMMENDING POLICE CHIEF PETER G. HERLEY
UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT FROM
THE TOWN OF TillURON
WHEREAS, Peter G. Herley has served the Town ofTiburon as Chief of Police since
June 8, 1987; and
WHEREAS, prior to his employment with the Town of Tiburon, ChiefHerley was with
the City of Torrance police department, originally hired as a police officer and later promoted to
the ranks of sergeant and lieutenant;
WHEREAS, ChiefHerley worked closely with countless Tiburon residents, council
members, and public safety employees during his \3 years as chief of the Tiburon Police
Department; and
WHEREAS, ChiefHerley was a supporter of "community policing" and instituted
programs during his tenure to achieve this goal;
WHEREAS, ChiefHerley served on numerous police and law enforcement committees
both locally and statewide, and was himself elected in 1998 as President of the California Chiefs'
Association; and
WHEREAS, Chief Herley continues to devote his time and services to the advancement
of law enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, upon the occasion of his retirement from the
Town ofTiburon, that the Town Council recognizes Peter G. Herley for his years of service to
the Town, and wishes him and his family many happy years of retirement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on
March 7, 200l by the following vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS.
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE lACOPI, TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
:2..
To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
Subject: ACQUISmON OF COUNTY PROPERTY
DIVISO STREET AND CENTRO WEST STREET
Date: March 7, 2001
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Town is presently acting as a defendant in a case entitled Brieant & Misuraca et al v. Heirs of
Lyford et al. In that case, the plaintiffs seek to quiet title to land claimed by the Town as part of the
public right of way. In the course of researching the case, staff discovered that Marin County owns
the property located immediately adjacent to the home of Ms. Brieant and Mr. Misuraca, at the
intersection ofOiviso Street and Centro West Street. In the normal course, the County would have
conveyed such property to the Town after the Town's incorporation in 1964, but apparently, the
County inadvertently omitted to do so. The County has offered to convey the property to the Town
now, at the Town's request.
The Council should be aware that the Brieant plaintiffs are claiming the right of way that fronts the
County's property, such that the County property will become landlocked if the litigation is
successful. For that reason, the County has appeared as a defendant in the case. However, the
County has no present use for the property and therefore offers to convey the property to the Town.
RECOMMENDA nON
The Town Council should authorize the Town Attorney to (a) write the County Counsel and ask that
the subject property be transferred to the Town ofTiburon; and (b) take such further actions as are
necessary to complete the transaction.
EXHmITS
Draft Letter to County Counsel
Office of the Town Attorney
(415) 435-7370
y
March I, 2001
David Zaltsman, Esq.
Deputy County Counsel
Room 342, Civic Center
San Rafael, CA 94903
SUBJECT: REOUEST FOR CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN
TOWN OF TffiURON - Diviso St. & Centro West Street
Dear Mr. Zaltsman:
As authorized by the Town Council at its meeting of March 7,2001, this letter will
constitute a formal request on behalf of the Town ofTiburon for a conveyance of
property located at the corner or Diviso and Centro West Streets in Tiburon. The County
acquired the property in 1954, apparently for right of way purposes. We believe that the
County inadvertently retained the property after the Town's incorporation in 1964. The
property functions as part of the Town's right-of-way.
I enclose a map showing the area to be conveyed for your information. Thank you for
your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Ann R. Danforth
Town Attorney
Enclosure
_...:..",,,,:.,___';:i>,~.-:,'-
,;,.-..,.._--~,'-:~ -+,--..
Q3
. ..
~;'
~ -:.~\
~ ....
I.'
.A
,,-
....
....
.
.:.....
~o
:~~A
~I
0.$.24-71
.- .
~~
,;;/ ..
,
~,
~,
'"
r.."
G"-
...~
.....
t;lh
tJ
@
. .#ll#~,...~
", /6'.1&"'1"S'
n."'.
~.-~
14'.., @
^"'.'U./Y
1. N.qj'4s'E. e.~
Z. 1\1 37"52: 34-'\11 16.45
3. ~~It'O$'E 26.~
4. ~ 49"15'E 4t.70~
... ~
-0;.1 J"1IIt(.,."~:,,,.
f"...(C"--:;:':i 'J..:.....
~ 'r ri .a.SS-L...rf"D ':Oft
...t'':'''r [JI'" ,-< tJ.A~.. 5MC'W1rf.
, ; ......elLS IlLIo.Y 1II0T
~-..~ o..OCAL \.OT-S~l.lT
,__ WI OIIOl"UlCf:$.
@
Lyfords Hygeia, Map No.3, Rec.
\
~.
~"
.
1
o
f:
~
ly
(.)
.-
@
u
OTE-Assessor's a/oele
Assessor's pgree
,q:.
-*
rk~ Jj. .3-
INSTITUTE fOT LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT
REQUEST TO CITIES TO JOIN AM.ICUS BRIEF
To:
California City Attorneys
From:
Bill Higgins
Project Director
Institute for Local Self Government
Date:
February 12, 2001
Re:
Request to Cities to Join as Amicus in San Remo Hotel v.
City and County of San Francisco (No. S091757).
The board of directors of the League of California Cities is urging cities to join the
I
amicus curiae brief in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco. This
memorandum details the background of the case and why the issues raised are of major
significance to cities. The deadline for filing has been extended to April 10, 2001.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND ISSUES PRESENTED
Courts have been highly deferential to local agency land use decisions. But in San Remo
Hotel, the court of appeal made a significant departure from existing law when it imposed
a non-deferential standard of review on a legislative development fee. The California
Supreme Court has granted review and will determine the standard of judicial review of
legislative land use regulations. Accordingly, this case will have major impact on the.
ability of local agencies to enact development impact fees and other land us regulations.
Owners of single room occupancy hotels - an important source of affordable housing in
San Francisco - were increasingly seeking to convert their properties to serve the more
lucrative tourist industry. In response, the city adopted a Hotel Conversion Ordinance
("HCO") to protect its stock of affordable housing. The ordinance aIlows such hotel
conversions to proceed on the condition that the hotel owners provide replacement
housing or pay an in lieu fee. The HCO applies to more than 500 hotels in the city.
1 The case name ~ SanRemJHcd v Cityanic;"nyifSanFnznisro, 82 Gl. App. 4th 1105, (tst D~t. August 8, 2000). S",also
SanRemJHcd v Orjani c;"ny if San Fnznisro, 145 FJd 1095 (9th Gr. June 3, 2000) (finding hotel owner', deprivation of
all economic use claim unripe and abstaining from resolving ripe claims under the PuI1mmand YCUWdoctrines).
1..:.,)\1 f..: STI~U::T, SLIT! ..;.,1". ~\C,C\~1!-:'nJ. \:, ,):;~J..+. 1.):i'.(':;'-';.3..:\'~ -1'\:\ ql{'.(>):-;'~":'...J.O
w\\'\\".lls-;,ur~
San Remo Hotel v. City and County o/San Francisco: Amicus Joinder Request
Page 2
The hotel owner contends that the HCO effects a "taking" of private property. In making
this claim. the owner invites the court to change the rules under which it reviews local
legislative actions - asking it to apply the more severe "heightened scrutiny" standard of
review. Normally, courts defer to legislatively adopted fees and apply heightened
scrutiny only where a local agency requires the dedication of property as a condition of
approval in an adjudicatory action involving an individual development. The court of
appeal held that the increased level of scrutiny was justified and strongly suggested that a
"taking" had occurred. The court reasoned that since the ordinance affected only 500
hotels - and did not apply to all properties in the city - the fee amounted to a
"particularized government exaction," warranting a higher level of judicial scrutiny.
WHY THIS CASE MERITS CITY ATTENTION
The implications ofthis case reach well beyond a tight San Francisco housing market.
Mitigation fees are at the center of many housing and environmental programs, including
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and inclusionary zoning regulations.
If the court of appeal decision stands, even the most basic impact fees will receive
increased scrutiny from the judiciary. At the very least, such a ruling would make
implementing development fee programs more expensive and burdensome. At most, it
places an essential source of municipal revenue at risk.
The amicus brief will focus on the potential chaos that such a ruling would inflict on
California municipalities. It will also review the history ofthe heightened scrutiny
standard as developed in Nol/an v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)
and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) and subsequently limited in Monterey
v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999). Moreover, the brief will
provide a strong city voice that will stress the important role that municipalities play in
balancing the competing interests of the community. The local legislative processes that
govern land use regulation should not be second-guessed by the judiciary.
BRIEF AUTHOR & DEADLINE FOR JOINDER
Tim Dowling, coauthor of the TAKINGS LiTIGATION HANDBOOK and Chief Counsel of the
Community Rights Counsel, will author the brief under the supervision of the legal
advocacy committee. The Institute for Local Self Government - through its Community
Land Use Project- is coordinating the joinder process. The deadline for filing the brief is
April 10, 2001. Accordingly, if your city is willing to join as an amicus party, please
complete and return the enclosed consent form by facsimile or first class mail as
soon as possible, but no later than April 1, 2001.
CONCLUSION
If you need any further information, please do not hesitate me at 916.658.8250 or e-mail
me at higginsb(cil,cacities.org. We look forward to receiving your support.
G:\LEGAL\lnstitute\C1p\Cases & Bills\San Remo Hotel Amicus Ltr_files\San Remo Joiner Letter.doc
..
Le2a1Team
Stephen McG. Bundy
Boalt Hall School of Law
UC Berkeley
Mi(;hael G. Colantuono
Richcuds, Walson & Gershon, P. C.
Brion J. Fox
Center fOr Tobacco Research and
Intervention,
University ofWiscol13in
Man:: B. Mihaly!
Ellen J. Garber
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP
Robert Post
Boalt Hall School afLaw
UC Berkeley
Andrea J. Saltzman
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson
Kirsten Spalding
institute ofJndustrial Relations
UC Berkeley
Stephen D. Sugarman
Boalt Hall School ofLJK!
UC Berkeley
Advisory Board
Janet Benner
Director
Tri-County Regional Team
Jean M. Benson
Councilmember
City afPalm Desert
Senlna Chen
Amencan Lung ASSOCiation
of Alameda County
Owen Clements
Chief afSpecial Litigation
City & Co. of San Francisco
Xavier Flore!
Pueblo y Salud. Inc.
Carrie 1.. Gleeson
Deputy CityArtorney
San DIego City Attorney~ Office
Lin Glen
Humboldt County Public Health
Department
Lisa Hunter
Healch & Edu~.ucio" Ccmmumcatfon
Consultancs
Nora Manzanilb
Office of the City Attomey
City of Los Angeles
Tobacco Enforcement Project
Carol McGruder
San Francisco African American
Tobacco-Free Project
James F. Mosher
Trauma Foundation
Greg Oliva
Tobacco Control Section
California Department of Health
Services
Stephen D. Su!:annan
Boall Hall School of Law
UC Berkeley
Cynthia Hallettffim Filler
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights
~PUBLIC :Cfe~M(). -1-
HEALTH ~~ @ ~ ~ W ~~
INSTITUTE 201
FEB 2 6 0
Technical Assistance Legal Cente
TOWN ATTORNEY'S oFFice
TOWN Or TIIOURON
February 23,2001
TO: California City Attorneys
RE: Request to Cities to Join as Amicus in Lorillard Tobacco Co., et aI., v.
Reilly, No. 00-596 (appeal pending, U.S. Supreme Court)
URGENT: Action Needed By March 22, 2001
I am writing to request your city's participation as amicus curiae in a brief being
prepared in the above-referenced matter on behalf of Califomia municipalities. The
City of Los Angeles will be authoring the brief (through the firm of Sidley & Austin)
with consultation from the cities of San Francisco, San Diego, and Oakland.
Additionally, the City of Oakland will also submit a separate amicus brief that would
address only the First Amendment, building on its record in Eller Media Co. v. City
of Oaklandl The Executive Committee of the Legal Advocacy Committee of the
League has recommended that Califomia cities sign onto the Los Angeles brief
which will be coordinated with and wiIl cross-reference the Oakland brief
The Technical Assistance Legal Center (TALe) is funded by the California
Department of Health Services to provide technical assistance to cities and counties
with legal questions relating to tobacco advertising and promotions regulations.
TALC is coordinating California cities' response to this request in conjunction with
city attorneys in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Diego.
Issues
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case on two issues: (1) whether
Massachusetts Attomey General regulations limiting tobacco advertising are
preempted by federal law and (2) whether the regulations are a permissible
regulation of commercial speech under the First Amendment.
Facts
The Massachusetts Attomey General promulgated regulations in January 1999 to
restrict the sale, promotion and labeling of tobacco products in order to reduce the
use of these products by minors. In particular, the regulations restrict outdoor
tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds (the regulations
apply to advertising in retail outlets that is visible from the outside). Additionally, the
regulations prohibit tobacco advertising from the ground up to five feet inside stores
that are within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.
lEUer Media Co. v. City of Oakland, No. C98-02237WHA (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7,
2000)(order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment).
50514th street, Suite 810, Oakland, CA 94612 . Phone: (510) 444-8252 . Fax: (510) 444-8253 . talc@phi.org . W'M\I.phi.orgltalc
California City Attorneys
February 23, 2001
Page 2
Procedural Background
The Massachusetts regulations were challenged by the major tobacco companies (philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds, Lorillard, Brown & Williamson, United States Tobacco Company). In separate opinions,
the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts rejected the tobacco companies claims that the regulations
were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and violated the First
Amendment. 2
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely affirmed, holding that the regulations are not
preempted by federal law. Applying the Central Hudson test, the court also held that these restrictions,
as well as certain restrictions on indoor advertising in stores, do not violate the First Amendment. In
addition, the court held that restrictions on the use of "self-service" displays of smokeless tobacco and
the requirement of specified warnings on cigar packaging and advertising do not violate the First
Amendment, although it found that a part of the warning requirement violates the Commerce Clause.3
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review this decision.
Amicus BriefIssues
The amicus brief from the City of Los Angeles is expected to address both the preemption and First
Amendment issues. In general terms, the brief will argue:
(1) Local regulation of tobacco advertising is not preempted by federal law because such
regulation is not "based on smoking and health" and affects only the location and not the
content of such advertising.4 This type of regulation is an exercise of local governments' police
power to enforce laws against underage use of tobacco products.
(2) Local regulation of tobacco advertising is permissible because it is reasonably designed to
suppress advertisement addressed to children and is intended not to diminish demand but to
prohibit the commercial solicitation of illegal transactions. Such regulations also pass the
Supreme Court test for commercial speech established in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Pub. Servo Comm 'n' since they directly and materially advance a substantial govemment
interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve their purpose. The brief also may discourage the
Court from adopting a test other than Central Hudson to review commercial speech
regulations. However, if a new test is adopted, the brief will argue that local tobacco
advertising regulations survive scrutiny under that new test.
The amicus brief will reference the local ordinances regulating tobacco advertising that have been
enacted by California municipalities.
2 Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly. 76 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D.Mass. 1999) (preemption claims); Lorillard
Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 84 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.Mass. 2000) (First Amendment claims).
] Consolidated Cigar Co. v. Reilly, 218 F. 3d 30 (1st Cir. 2000).
4 15 U.S.C. ~~ 1331-1340.
, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).
California City Attorneys
February 23, 200 I
Page 3
The City of Oakland's amicus briefwill address only the First Amendment arguments in the context of
the City's particular factual background in defending a local regulation of alcohol advertising in the
Eller Media case. Since Oakland has spent nearly two years in discovery prior to successful argument
at the District Court, their rich evidentiary record provides an excellent back-drop to the legal
arguments. Oakland is writing a separate brief to draw on this record and provide more extensive First
Amendment arguments than will be possible in the Los Angeles brief which must address federal
preemption issues in addition to the First Amendment. The Oakland and Los Angeles briefs will refer
to and cross-reference each other, therefore cities are asked to sign onto only the Los Angeles brief.
Why These Issues are of Major Significance to Cities
Currently, approximately 44 California cities and counties have ordinances regulating the location of
tobacco advertising. (See attached list from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.)
Numerous other cities are considering such regulation. A decision against Massachusetts could
significantly limit the authority of cities to locally regulate tobacco advertising in places where children
live and play.
What Amicus Support Can Add
An amicus brief from California cities will make the Court aware of the widespread effect of its
decision on ordinances outside of Massachusetts. The brief also will make the Court aware of the
range of rationales for adopting an ordinance regulating tobacco advertising. This distinction will be
crucial in ensuring that California municipalities retain the authority to enact ordinances regulating
tobacco advertising in order to reduce youth tobacco use.
Amicus Brief Authors
The amicus brief will be written pro bono by the firm of Sidley & Austin on behalf of the City of Los
Angeles. The lead authors are Mark Haddad and Paul Watford. The brief for the City of Oakland will
be authored by Stephen Berzon and Michael Wall of Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain.
Briefing Schedule
The amicus brief is due on March 26th. Accordingly, we ask that cities wishing to join in the amicus
return the attached authorization by March 22, 2001. If you are unable to respond by that date you
may still be able join in the briefby returning the form to us after March 22nd, however the addition of
your city may not receive the same level of attention by the Court as it would if included with the brief.
Therefore, the March 22nd deadline is very important.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 510-444-8252.
S~~
Leslie Zellers, J.D.
Legal Director, TALC
Enclosures: authorization form, list of ordinances
cc: JoAnne Speers, League of Califomia Cities
Other interested cities
Jlmerican JVomnoters' 1?jgfts Poundition
Helping you breathe a little easier
CALIFORNIA ORDINANCES RESTRICTING TOBACCO ADVERTISING
January 10, 2001
Ordinances Restricting Locationl Zoning of Tobacco Advertisements
Antioch, CA
Berkeley, CA..
Brentwood, CA
Carson, CA.
Compton, CA.
Contra Costa County, CA
Covina, CA *
Danville, CA
El Cerrito, CA
Encinitas, CA
Hanford, CA
Hawthorne, CA
Inglewood, CA ·
La Puente, CA *
Lafayette, CA
Lawndale, CA
Long Beach, CA
Los Angeles, CA..
Los Angeles County, CA..
Lynwood, CA *
Moraga, CA
Moorpark, CA..
National City, CA
Oakland, CA.
Oakley, CA
Oceanside, CA
Orinda, CA
Paradise, CA
Pinole, CA
Pittsburg, CA
Pleasant Hill, CA
Richmond, CA
San Diego, CA. *
San Fernando, CA"
San Francisco, CA
San Marcos, CA
· Alcohol advertising restricted in the same ordinance. Total: 7.
.. Alcohol advertising restricted in a companion ordinance. Total: 6.
San Rafael, CA
San Ramon, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Santa Cruz County, CA
Scotts Valley, CA
Walnut Creek, CA
Watsonville, CA
West Hollywood, CA
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite J . Berkeley, California 94702' (510) 841-3032/ FAX (510) 841-3071
Page I ofl
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
AGENDANO.:~
REVIEWED BY:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING D~\TO~
TOWN MANAGER MCINTYRE ~
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FERRY AREA ACCESS & SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT: REVIEW OF 35% WORKING DRAWINGS
MEETING DATE:
MARCH 7, 2001
REPORT DATE:
MARCH 1,2001
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the Town received approval for a $710,000 grant to construct ferry area access and
safety improvements in the vicinity of the Blue & Gold Ferry Dock and Angel Island Ferry Dock
in Downtown Tiburon. In November 2000 the Town Council approved the ferry area access and
safety project and adopted a mitigated negative declaration. The Council also authorized Town
matching funds of up to $134,000 and authorized Staff to proceed with preparation of
construction drawings and securing of permits from other agencies. The total approved budget
for the project is $844,000.
In December 2000, the Town Council authorized a service contract with James McLane &
Associates to prepare the working drawings for the project. In February 2001, the Town received
partial working drawings (35% drawings) prepared by the project architect based upon field
surveys These drawings depicted the proposed improvements in greater detail than the
conceptual drawings. In some areas, modifications to the elements shown in the conceptual
drawing are proposed.
On February 7,2001 Town officials held a meeting with the project architect to review the 35%
drawings in the field. Some modifications were suggested at that time. It was also determined
that the 35% drawings should be referred to the Parks & Open Space Commission and Design
Review Board for review and comment, before proceeding to the Town Council for further
revIew.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
t\.'fARCH 7. 2001
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Major project elements are as follows:
. Installation ofa new approximately 4,000 square foot, brick (or other special texture)
pedestrian plaza east of the Blue & Gold ferry dock to link the existing Tiburon Boulevard
drop-off zone with the ferry access deck (Zelinsky Bridge) and the remainder of Shoreline
Park. The proposed plaza design would reformulate the existing bicycle parking area as a
linear feature along the rip-rap in Shoreline Park facing Guaymas Restaurant, with a railing as
an integral part of the bicycle parking/locking system. The plaza design has been substantially
revised from the earlier conceptual drawings.
. Replacement of the aging and non-ADA compliant ferry access deck (the Allan Thompson
Walkway) behind the Guaymas Restaurant with a new pile-supported walkway that will have
ADA-accessible ramps. The replacement walkway would extend all the way to the Angel
Island Ferry dock.
. Improved lighting, new seating, trash containers, ferry signs and schedules for two pedestrian
arcades that connect Main Street with the Blue & Gold and Angel Island ferry docks.
. Improvements to the bus stop area on Tiburon Boulevard adjacent to the Point Tiburon Plaza
that would include new lighting, seating, trash containers, an expanded bus shelter/canopy,
and landscape maintenance.
. Improvements to the brick plaza ("fountain plaza") in front of 1700-1704 Tiburon Boulevard,
including new seating and trash containers, lighting, ferry signagelschedules, and new
landscaping. The actual fountain project will be undertaken at a later date
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AND PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION REVIEW
The Design Review Board reviewed and commented on the 35% drawings at its meeting of
February 15, 2001. Comments of the Board are summarized on attached Exhibit 1. Regarding
the ferry plaza area, the Board was unanimous in its conclusion that the current proposal was
superior to the design shown on the earlier conceptual drawings.
The Parks & Open Space Commission reviewed and commented on the portions of the 35%
drawings affecting Shoreline Park at its meeting of February 13, 2001. Draft minutes from that
meeting are attached as Exhibit 2. The POSC was also unanimous in its belief that the current
drawings depict a superior layout for the ferry plaza area than the previous conceptual drawings.
INCORPORA TION OF COMMENTS INTO REFINED DRAWINGS
Many valuable suggestions were received by the project architect at the review sessions held on
February 7, February 13, and February 15, 2001. Revised drawings are being prepared by the
architect in response to these suggestions. Revised drawings are not complete as of the writing of
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAfF REPORT
MARCH 7, 2001
2
this report, but will be provided to the Town Council as soon as possible, hopefully prior to the
meeting. The architect will provide a complete presentation of the revised drawings at the
meeting. For purposes of this report, the original 35% drawings dated February 1,2001 are
attached as Exhibit 3.
ISSUES
Several issues, arranged by sub-area, should be discussed by the Town Council and direction
provided:
Area #1,
The Ferry Plaza Area. (Refer to Sheets L-3 and L-7).
The Ferry Plaza area has been redesigned, partly because existing field conditions were not
accurately portrayed on the conceptual drawing base map. The DRB and POSC members
unanimously preferred the layout shown on the 35% drawings to that on the conceptual drawings,
provided that certain alterations were incorporated. Issues yet to be determined are:
a Should the existing trees in the Plaza be permanently eliminated as proposed?
b. How smooth/rough should the pavement surfacing be? Should it be brick, cobblestone, or
another material?
c Are the 64 proposed bicycle parking spaces adequate? (There are currently 60 spaces
provided). Is it appropriate that motorcycles continue to share the bicycle parking area
with bicycles?
d. What devices should be used to break up the seeming expanse of hardscape proposed?
Are double-loaded benches and trash/recycling receptacles enough?
e. The combination bicycle parking/guardrail facing Guaymas Restaurant appears to be an
elegant solution to a normally unattractive situation. Should the guardrail be pushed as far
out to the rip-rap as possible?
Area #2.
Allan Thompson Walkway. (Refer to Sheets 1,-8 and L-2).
a. The vertical rods of the guardrail on the proposed walkway appear to be metal. All
existing waterfront walkways have wooden guardrails. Is this the look the Town wants?
b. The juncture of the Allan Thompson Walkway with the Zelinsky Bridge, Guaymas
Walkway, and Blue and Gold Ferry Ramp is a serious congestion point. How much effort
should be expended to widen this area?
Area #3.
Arcades from Main Street to the Waterfront. (Refer to Sheet L-4).
a. Are any benches appropriate for these arcades?
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
t>,.,IARCH 7, 2001
3
Area #4.
Fountain Plaza near 1700-1704 Tiburon Boulevard. (Refer to Sheet L-5).
a. Is the removal of all the mature trees (and replacement with a reduced number of trees)
appropriate?
b. Is the number of benches proposed appropriate?
Area #5.
Ferry Directional Signs. (Refer to Aerial Photo).
a. Are the number and location of proposed ferry directional signs appropriate?
RECOMMENDA nON
That the Town Council take public comment on the 35% drawings and provide direction to Staff
and the consultants regarding any desired changes.
EXHIBITS
1. Summary of DRB comments from 2/15/2001 meeting.
2. Draft POSC minutes for 2/13/2001 meeting.
3. February I, 2001 drawings.
The most recent drawings will be made available as soon as possible
Ferry area access tcreport.doc
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 7, 200 I
4
TO: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2001
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS ON FERRY IMPROVEMENTS
On February 15, 2001, the Design Review Board reviewed the most recently revised plans for the
Downtown ferry area access improvements. The following is a summary of their comments
regarding the revised plans:
The Board unanimously felt that the revised plan was an improvement over the
previous plan.
There were concerns that the plan was too rigid and formal, and took on the
appearance of a ferry terminal. Suggestions were made to soften the appearance with
amenities that will make the area attractive and pleasant.
Concerns were raised regarding the potential reduction in the number or
effectiveness of bicycle parking, with fully available bike parking encouraged to be
provided to meet peak bike demand.
A better pedestrian access to the waterfront area was encouraged rather than
having to go through a ferry terminal area. Bisecting the existing berm for the path
was also discouraged.
The Board was opposed to the removal of mature trees.
Potential safety concerns were raised regarding a tripping hazard posed by the
anchor, and possibly the cobblestone paving as well (although comments were
made that the appearance of the cobblestone pavers was appropriate).
Different options for trash containers and newsracks were encouraged.
S :dwatrous/D RBF erry .memo.doc
EXHIBIT No.L
.~\\ \6) fK\ I ~ MINUTES NO. 184
\J \.f\\ lJU ARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 13,2001
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chamben
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Burgin called the regular meeting of the Parks & Open Space Commission to order at 7:55
P.M., Tuesday, February 13, 2001, in the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard,
Tiburon, California.
A. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Burgin, Eth, Canter, and Lindqvist.
ABSENT
COMMISSIONERS:
Sullivan, Zender.
EX-OFFICIO: Planning Director Anderson.
B. PUBLIC OUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
There were none.
C. STAFF AND COMMISSION BRIEFING
Planning Director Anderson advised the Commission that this would be Vice-Chair Eth's last
meeting. He was commended for serving for eight years and for the contnbution he has made to the
Commission.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of January 9, 2001 (No. 182) MIS Eth/Canter (4-0) to approve as corrected.
Corrections: page 5, 1" line should be Zender not Canter; delete last line of paragraph 2.
2. Minutes of January 21, 2001 (No. 183) MIS Canter/Eth (4-0) to approve as submitted.
E. BUSINESS ITEMS
) 3.
Downtown Ferry Area Improvement Drawings: Referral from Town Council for
Review and Comment
Tiburon Parks & Open Space Commission
1
Minutes No. 184 -February 13.2001
EXHIBIT NO.~
, ~
This item was discussed after Item #5,
Planning Director Anderson stated that a grant has been received for improving the ferry area access
and safety. The consultants have prepared preliminary drawings for the ferry dock area, Shoreline
Park improvements, and Main StreetlTiburon Boulevard improvements.
Mr. Anderson introduced Stephen Wheeler, who made a detailed presentation on the drawings. He
explained that they were coordinating the work in all the areas and would be assisting the Town
Engineer for the construction drawings. They have refined the earlier conceptual drawings and looked
in more detail at pedestrian circulation, transit access, and the planting, lighting, and furniture.
Commissioner Lindqvist asked about lighting on the Allan Thompson walkway. Mr. Wheeler said the
lights are pole lights about 12 feet above the deck level. She thought some of the plaza benches could
be double-loaded. There was discussion about widening Zelinsky Bridge.
Commissioner Canter wondered whether removing all the trees in the ferry plaza area would harden
the area too much. She liked the plan, but thought the bike rack should not interfere with the
pedestrians. Perhaps the plaza could be widened or other areas found for bike racks. She had
concerns about any uneven cobblestone walkway and high heel problems. She did not want a
dangerous surface and was not opposed to brick. Regarding the slats on the rail for the new deck,
she wanted as much space as possible. It was noted that the UBC requres a maximum of 4 inches,
but that the proposed bike rail is not required by the UBC and can have varying slot spaces.
Vice-Chair Eth thought that it was a good plan. His concern was for congestion at the neck of the
bottle where the various walkways meet (Zelinsky Bridge, Allan Thompson Walkway, Guaymas
Walkway). He wanted to keep bikes away from Zelinsky Bridge. He also had concerns about the loss
of paved walkway near the turning circle and wanted a little sidewalk kept there. Cobblestones may
not work. He thought the plaza needed to be smooth. Widening Zelinsky Bridge would be great. He
thought very few signs would be needed and the fewer the better.
Chair Burgin wanted widening of the proposed plaza area near the bike parking and also wanted
double loaded benches. She was concerned about the loss of the sidewalk near the turning circle.
Commissioner Lindqvist stated that the recycling bins and trash containers overflow on busy days.
She thought that more or longer containers and recycling bins were needed. Perhaps it would work
to keep the larger healthier trees and get rid of the smaller three trees near the bicycle parking area.
Chair Burgin wondered whether the ship's anchor in the turning circle would be moved. Mr. Wheeler
said that was merely a suggestion and not necessarily a part of this project.
Discussion was opened to the public.
Andrew Thompson, Councilmemeber, contrasted the current drawings with the previous conceptual
drawings. He suggested keeping the sidewalk adjacent to the turning circle, but having it connect
Tiburon Parks & Open Space Commission
2
Minutes No. 184 -February 13. 2001
back to the waterfront sidewalk further east than it currently does to preserve a large lawn area that
is mounded. He encouraged the POSC to walk the area and make additional comments at the Town
Council meeting.
Chair Burgin asked if the bike tires would overhang the rip-rap. She thought they should be pushed
out as far as possible over the rip-rap.
TIm Fraser stated that there was a lack of good signage and public information to help people get to
ferries.
Chair Burgin stated that she agreed and noted that there was also a lack of information on where to
buy ferry tickets.
Commissioner Lindqvist stated that she wanted the signage improved at the yellow zone near the
turning circle Because of the hours stated on the sign, after 6 p.m. people leave their cars all night
and then there is no place for ferry pick-ups. She thought the boIlards in fountain plaza could be
removed and perhaps be replaced with bike racks.
The Commissioners unanimously preferred the new plan over the earlier conceptual plan.
MIS Canter/Eth (4-0) to recommend approval of the drawings to the Town Council with the
comments and suggested changes.
4. Use and/or Abuse of Blackie's Pasture Park for Staging and Materials Storage
(Update)
s agreed that the new signs state what they should and that violators would be cited.
Planning Director erson stated that since the Greenwood Beach drainage project is just starting,
it would be pointless to oseed the area now, but it was agreed that Staff would send a memo to
Ghilotti Brothers requiring t hydoseed the disturbed area on completion of the project.
Commissioner Lindqvist noted that the' 'gation had been disturbed between the Blackie's Pasture
overflow lot and Tiburon Boulevard. She 0 said that one gate is off on the overflow lot and the
other gate is damaged and needs repair.
Chair Burgin asked whether the splintered bench in So h of Knoll Park had been repaired.
StaffwiIl contact Public Works to look into repair of these items.
s. The drinking fountain is broken,
The game table seat at Cypress Hollow Park has rotted end
overflowing and full of sand.
Tiburon Parks & Open Space Commission
3
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS ~
TOWN MANAGER MCINTYRE ~
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO
DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A PIER, BOAT LIFTS AND BOAT
STORAGE (16 OLD LANDING ROAD)
TO:
FROM:
REVIEWED BY:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA No.:L
APPELLANT:
RICHARD TORRETTO
APPLICANT:
SAME
MEETING DATE:
MARCH 7, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT DATA:
ADDRESS:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.:
FILE NUMBER:
GENERAL PLAN:
ZONING:
PROPERTY SIZE:
CURRENT USE:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
DA TE COMPLETE:
BACKGROUND:
16 OLD LANDING ROAD
38-171-59 & 60
10009
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
RO-2 (RESIDENTIAL-OPEN) AND M (MARINE)
42,500 SQUARE FEET
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
RICHARD TORRETTO
WESTERN DOCK ENTERPRISES
NOVEMBER 15,2000
On January 24, 200 I, the Tiburon Planning Commission denied an application for a Conditional
Use Permit for the construction of a pier, boat lifts and boat storage on property located at 16 Old
Landing Road. Richard Torretto, the property owner and applicant, has now appealed this
decision to the Town Council.
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
1
MARCH 7. 2001
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a pier, boat
lifts and boat storage on property located at 16 Old Landing Road. The parcel is currently
developed with a single-family residence and several detached accessory structures.
The original proposal called for a 54 foot long pier which would extend into San Francisco Bay
from an area near the lower driveway on the site. A boat lift would have been installed on the
left side of the pier, and a portion of the right side of the pier would have functioned as a kayak
lift. Rack storage for kayaks and canoes was also to be provided on the pier. The submitted
plans were revised, reducing the length of the pier by 2 feet to a length of 52 feet, and the width
of the end of the pier by 4 feet to a width of 12 feet. The kayak lift and storage were also
removed from the revised plans, with the remaining boat lift moved from the left side of the pier
to the right side. The applicant has indicated that a pier had previously been in existence on this
property, but had been removed several years ago after suffering storm damage.
REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission first reviewed the project (File #10009) at its December 13,2000
meeting. At that time, concerns were raised by neighboring property owners regarding potential
visual impacts which would be caused by the proposed pier and boat and kayak storage. The
Commission raised concerns regarding the visual prominence of the proposed structure, and
regarding the compatibility of the pier and storage to surrounding properties.
The Planning Commission continued this request to the January 24, 2001 meeting, with the
applicant directed to reduce the overall size of the pier, consider elimination of one or both of the
proposed lifts, and improve communications with the neighboring property owners regarding this
project. The Commission also directed Staff to obtain information from the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) regarding its standards for reviewing such applications.
The applicant revised the plans, as described above, to slightly reduce the size of the proposed
pier and eliminate the kayak lift and storage. Staff also presented the requested information from
BCDC, indicating that agency's policies regarding private recreational piers.
The Planning Commission reviewed these revised plans at the January 24,2001 meeting. Several
neighboring property owners voiced concerns about the visibility of the proposed pier and boat
lift, while several other neighbors supported the request, noting that some of the objections to the
pier were raised by the owners of at least one of the existing piers in the vicinity. The
Commission determined that the primary purpose ofthe proposed pier was to support the
requested boat lift. The visibility ofa boat visible out of the water on the lift at most times was
determined to create a harmful visual impact on surrounding property owners, and would damage
the relatively pristine visual character of this portion of the bay. The Commission also noted that
T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 7. 200 I
2
adequate marina and dock facilities exist elsewhere to store the applicant's boat rather than
constructing a boat lift at this location.
The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of approving the pier without a boat lift.
However, the applicant indicated that he preferred to have a decision on the pier and lift, with the
possibility of appealing that decision to the Town Council. The Commission then voted (2-1), to
deny the application, and directed Staff to prepare a resolution memorializing the denial of the
project. Resolution No. 2001-03 (Exhibit 3) was adopted by the Commission at the February 14,
2001 meeting. The applicant subsequently filed a timely appeal ofthis decision to the Town
Council.
BASIS FOR THE APPEAL:
There are three grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit I) is based:
Ground # I The proposed pier would be sensitive to the surrounding coastal environment
and would be consistent with the existing character ofthe cove.
Staff Response: During its review of this application, the Planning Commission noted that there
are three other piers along the cove around Old Landing Road, but that only one of the existing
piers is equipped with a boat hoist, and none has a boat lift similar to that requested as part of this
application. The Commission determined that the heightened visibility of a boat out of water on
the proposed boat lift would be inconsistent with the less intrusive visual character of the existing
piers, and would be a disruptive visual presence in this neighborhood.
Ground #2
The proposed pier would not significantly impact neighboring property
owners.
Staff Response: The proposed pier would be located toward the southern end ofthe cove along
Old Landing Road, and would be buffered from view by some ofthe residents. in the vicinity by
the existing bayside swimming pool on the subject property. Even at this location, however, the
Planning Commission determined that the sight of a boat on the proposed lift at the end of the pier
would still be noticeable from nearby properties, and would significantly impact the visual
character of the cove.
Ground #3 The proposed pier would not create a precedent or encourage the
development of additional piers and docks in the vicinity.
Staff Response: During the Planning Commission's review of this application, concerns were
raised by several neighboring property owners that the approval of the subject pier would set a
precedent and would encourage the development of other piers in this cove. The three existing
piers in the vicinity have been in existence for several decades, with no other applications for new
piers until the subject request. As the existing piers have not "encouraged" the development of
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 7. 2001
3
,iY
,-.'--
other piers in this area for many years, it is unlikely that the construction of one additional pier at
this time would result in a deluge of similar applications. The Planning Commission gave little
credence to the possibility of setting a precedent, noting also that the existing piers in this
neighborhood were constructed under Marin County review prior to annexation of this area to
Tiburon.
CONCLUSION:
Staff concludes that the Planning Commission followed the guidelines for Conditional Use Permit
applications and the Tiburon General Plan, and appropriately applied the guidelines in its review
of this project. The potential visual intrusion which would be created by the proposed pier and
boat lift would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and would not
be sensitive to the coastal environment on this stretch of San Francisco Bay.
RECOMMENDATION:
I) That the Town Council indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and
2) That the Town Council direct Staff to return with a Resolution to that effect for
consideration at the next meeting.
EXHIBITS:
I. Notice of Appeal filed by Richard Torretto, dated January 29,2001
2. Supplement to Notice of Appeal, filed by Richard Torretto, dated February 20,2001
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-03
4. Application and supplemental materials
5. Staff Report of the December 13,2000, Plarming Commission meeting
6. Staff Report of the January 24,2001, Planning Commission meeting
7. Minutes of the December 13,2000, Plarming Commission meeting
8. Minutes ofthe January 24, 200 I, Planning Commission meeting
9. Letter from Jeffrey Chanin, dated December 13, 2000
10. Letter from Walter Allan, dated January 22,2001
11. Letter from Jeffrey Chanin, dated January 23,2001
12. List of neighbors with no objections to the application, dated January 23,2001
13. Letter from Richard Torretto, dated January 24,2001
14. Letter from Diane McEwen, dated January 24,2001
IS. Submitted plans
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 7, 2001
4
c c/-.~--; 0
~. '<\II!!
,...., ,
TOWN OF TIBURON
ij~~~~W~~
~ JAN 2 9 2001 ~
NOTICE OF APPEAL
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF TIBURON
APPELLANT
Name: R'C-HA12..0 4- L,t-JDA. I -eP.P:TTD
Address:~ f.t; OU) w..JJDIl...)& \<1). lI%cJe.ow eFt Cf I{q 2..D
)
Telephone: Lft 6--'8<1-5~(Work)---Y1S-- 7ECf -53 f?Cf (Home)
ACTION BEING APPEALED
Body: r t-I'\-JJ')J I V C-- Cm.t MIS S ( 00
Date of Action: :J,t>..U d'-t~OO \
Name of APPlicant:_Q c..l-t ~ 1\ cy L, [) D-A ~ J C> ~-rr-O
Nature of Application: COiJl> 'TIOUQL- \),S'e ~e~M\1
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
(Attach additional pages, if necessary)
5~~ ~E:])
Last Day to File:
2/5/0 I
C{ f< c;310
Date Received: / - 2-7- {J I
Date ofHearing: ./D ~ dk ~: c(
d /.1 / iJV .J!l- /0 (
EL."9:IBIT NO.-L-
? t c>v-3
Fee ($300.00) Paid:
January 1996
Richard and Linda Torretto
16 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-789-5446
January 24,2001
Tiburon Town Council
c/o Mr. Dan M. Watrous
Town of Tiburon - Senior Planner
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Town Council:
I am submitting this appeal before receiving the denial ruling from the commissioners to
meet the deadline of submittal. I reserve the right to supplement and amend this appeal
letter before the town council.
This appeal is for rebuilding a pier and boat lift at 16 Old Landing Road. The proposed
plan is consistent with properties in the vicinity because there are three piers and a boat
lift already in this area. We revised our plan and made compromises to meet the planning
commissioners' and neighbors' requests. The revised plan will give us the smallest pier in
the cove and the minimum amount of space necessary to avoid the rocks on the beach and
still be able to use a small boat.
The pier was reduced by 2 feet in length (52') and 4 feet in width (12'). The 10' kayak
platform and lift was removed. This will allow a small boat with a 12" draft to use the
bay for approximately 5 to 6 hours with the incoming and outgoing tide (average depth of
3 feet for five to six hours per day). It will be the smallest and most secluded pier in the
neighborhood. The proposed pier and boat lift does not obstruct any neighbors' view of
the bay. Our home is last home on the far right of the cove and only two neighbors can
see the pier if they are on the second story and they look to the far right. If those same
neighbors look to left they see 3 much longer piers. The closest neighbor on the right,
Mr. & Mrs. Frazier Muirhead, do not object to the pier and supported our plan at the
hearing.
This is the first application for a pier in this area in over 50 years and to expect that there
will be a lot of additional applications is not a logical conclusion (there was some concern
by the neighbors that many more piers would be constructed in the cove). It is my
understanding that only one other application for a pier has been submitted over the past
10 years by the Town of Tiburon. This pier was approved in 1999 and is similar to our
proposed plan with the same boat lift and is located at 5000 Paradise Drive. The BCDC
supports and encourages water access for boats and kayaks and our proposed pier will
provide for that use. They also say that this type of pier will not cause a negative
environment impact to the area.
EJLqIBIT NO. I
P. 2oP3
One commissioner voted for the revised plan and two voted against it. The review
discussion showed that they had a hard time making a decision. Two were opposed to
having a boat lift and were discussing a way to allow the pier without a lift. That option
unfortunately does not provide access to the bay for a small boat, which is the primary
purpose for rebuilding the pier. At that point, I asked to be heard and requested an
appeal.
Based on hearing the commiSSIOners discussion and review, I do not feel that the
opposing commissioners gave enough consideration in their decision to the existing
character of the cove, which has always had piers and boat lifts (S at one time) and
currently has three piers, and a boat lift. We enjoy hearing the children playing on our
neighbors' piers and would like to have the same family enjoyment.
I have made compromises and our revised plan will be the smallest and most secluded
pier to try to please those who object. I feel that this area is what it is and that it includes
piers which creates the charm and character of the existing neighborhood. I hope you
agree and approve my revised plan. Thank you.
,
Linda and Richard Torretto
t
F:XHIBIT NO.
~, 3l>P~
Richard and Linda Torretto
16 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-789-5446
February 20,2001
Tiburon Town Council
clo Mr. Dan M. Watrous
Town of Tiburon - Senior Planner
IS0S Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 2001
PLANNING DEPP,RT~i1ENl
TOWN OF TIBURON
Dear Town Council:
This letter supplements my appeal letter previously submitted to you and dated January
24, 200 I.
I have now had an opportunity to review the Resolution of the Planning Commission
prepared following its meeting conducted on January 21,2001 at which, in a February 1
vote, my application for a CUP to construct a pier, boat lift and boat storage was denied.
I believe that my application is consistent with Policy LU-4 of the Land Use Element of
the Tiburon General Plan. Moreover, I respectfully submit that the revisions I have made
to my original proposal, together with the information submitted to the Commission,
establish compliance with this land use policy. The proposed facility is sensitively
designed and wholly compatible with the 3 piers and boat hoists enjoyed by my
immediate neighbors. The Commission's resolution said that there was one boat and one
lift and that is incorrect. Looking to the left of the cove, there are 3 piers that are much
longer then my proposed pier. There is a boat hoist and one boat on one pier as the
Commission reports. However there are two additional boat hoists on the longest pier
(130 feet long) which the Commission's findings did not include. No credible evidence
was submitted at the Commission to support the denial which occurred. The
Commission's findings states that there are several piers on this portion of San Francisco
Bay without boat lifts and only one with a boat lift. We find that the majority of piers
have boats and boat hoists. There are 10 piers with boat hoists in this portion of the San
Francisco Bay. I would also like to point out that in 1999 a similar pier and boat lift was
approved at SOOO Paradise Drive in Tiburon.
Most upsetting to us on reflection is the argument advanced by some of the neighbors that
our application should be denied because it might be precedent setting and allow others at
present both unnamed and apparently unknown to make similar application at some
future unfixed and speculated date. Weare entitled to have our application reviewed and
acted upon on its merits and we respectfully request this occur, free from the unfair and
irrelevant issue of establishing some precedent.
Finally, we note that the draft Resolution refers to certain sections of the Zoning Code
((4.04.02 (a)-(c)). We question how any negative finding may legitimately be constructed
EXHIBIT NO. 'Z-
p, I or,;; 2-
using these sections of the Code. The draft Resolution we have reviewed concludes
without explanation that our proposed pier would be too visible from neighboring
properties. We ask respectfully from whose property and from what line of sight. Our
pier does not obstruct any neighbors' view of the bay. Moreover, there was no evidence at
the Commission to support such a conclusion as stated in the draft Resolution of the
Commission. Lastly, while we suppose we could dock a boat away from our property,
this hardly seems logical or fair. Frankly, so might all of the other property owners nearby
who presently have piers and hoists. We reject any such argument as being persuasive on
the issue of whether we have met the requirements for granting of a use permit.
We thank you for your time and attention in reviewing our letters of appeal, and we
sincerely hope each of you will visit our property to see for yourselves why we believe
our application is clearly in keeping with the existing character of the Cove and why it
merits approval.
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
f. 20P2
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TffiURON
MEMORIALIZING THE DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT A PIER, BOAT LIFTS AND BOAT STORAGE
AT 16 OLD LANDING ROAD
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO 38-171-59 & 60
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows:
Section I. Findings.
A. The Planning Commission has received and considered an application for a Conditional
Use Permit filed by Richard Torretto and Western Dock Enterprises to construct a pier,
boat lifts and boat storage on property located at 16 Old Landing Road. The application
consists ofthe following:
I. Application form and materials received October 19, 2000
2. Site Plan and Elevations dated October 19,2000
3. Revised Site Plan and Elevations dated January 16, 2001
The official record for this project is hereby incorporated and made part ofthis resolution.
The record includes the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments
and materials received at the public hearing.
B. The Planning Commission held duly-noticed public hearings on December 13, 2000 and
January 24,2001, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons.
C. The Planning Commission has found, based upon the application materials and analysis
provided in the December 8, 2000 and January 19, 2001 Staff reports, that the project is
inconsistent with the Tiburon General Plan, and specifically with Policy LU-4 of the Land
Use Element of said plan, as the visual impacts caused by the prominence of the proposed
pier and boat lift would not be sensitive to the rustic visual character ofthe coastal
environment on this portion of San Francisco Bay, which is characterized by open water
and several piers without boat lifts, only one with a boat hoist.
D. The Planning Commission has further found that the project is not in compliance with
Section 4.04.02 (a) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, as the location of a pier and boat
lift, and the raised boat it would hold, would be too visible from other properties in the
neighborhood as a whole, and the project is further not in compliance with Section
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-03
February 14. 2001
1
EX,BIBIT NO. "3
~. l (X"'L
4.04.02 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, as adequate marina and dock facilities exist
elsewhere to store the applicant's boat rather than constructing a boat lift at this location.
E. As a result, on January 24, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 2-1 to deny this
application, and directed Staff to prepare a resolution memorializing this action.
Section 2. Denial.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby memorialize the denial of the proposed application for the reasons set forth
above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February
14,2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: STEIN, BERGER, FREDERICKS, SNOW
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
." J
~~V- A
C TEVE STEIN, CHAIR
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
12:~~
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
H:dwatrous\resolutionslpc 1 0009 .denial.doc
Tiburon Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-03
February 14, 2001
2
r..x"BIRIT NO.
.-. p.
3
'26f z.-
TOWN OF TIBURON
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TYPE OF APPLICATION
III Conditional Use Permit 0 Design Review {ORBI 0 Tentative Subdivision Map
0 Precise Development Plan 0 Design Review (Staff level) 0 Final Subdivision Map
0 Conceptual Master Plan 0 Variance 0 Parcel Map
0 Rezoning/Prezoning 0 Sign Permit 0 Lot Line Adjustment
0 Zoning Text Amendment 0 Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Compliance
0 General Plan Amendment 0 Underground Waiver 0 Other
APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
ZONING: ROZ
SITE ADDRESS: 16 Old Landin~ Rd., Tiburon. CA 94920
PARCEL NUMBER: 38-171-59,60
OWNER OF PROPERTY:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
Richard Tarretto
16 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
415-789-5446
FAX
APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner)
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY /ST ATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY /ST ATE/ZIP:
PHONE NUMBER:
* Western Dock Enterprises
P.O. Box 4669
Petaluma. CA
94955
FAX
707-765-6425
707-765-4646
Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed):
Construct a boat storage and pier with lift to gain access to the Bay.
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 party challenge.
We tern Dockftnterprises
I/-' ~/ I ~/Ll....~<,-e
other than owner, must have letter from owner)
Signa[Ure:
Date:
See Attached Letter
//;./f.{):J
EXHIBIT NO,
p.
Lf
t OZ::::3
Richard Torretto
16 Old Landing Rd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Use and Management Information
(C) (1)
The boat storage and pier are being constructed for personal use by the
Owners, their family, and their guests.
(2)
N/A
(3)
N/A
-~~--
- -~- .. -
r,
.. ,"
OCT 1 9 2000
: '_i'.';, ,'.;
EXHIBIT NO..!::L
r i 2 o'F3
""
-
.~
-~...:.
~
b
"
. III
~It)
00
, ,
1'1')_:
'0_
<0\\
"'i\"~ ;.---
.'
~
\)L; l'f)
It..
c <:l
>--:; '"
~-. "'\
E-<~
H
~
~
ri:l
@@
-... lD g"B
6~.o ~
....0.9 It/'l Q)
C"J "0 lP ...
t:~ CD E >-
~~~~.c
U <n;.:: w 0)
52 C5 ~ rG.~
S~If)>G
"01f)'=~u
~o~c.o.
::;;~E~g
(,) U '--:: o.Q ll,)
>~.::.t.> >0)
oO~Q)~,E
~1!~.s~)e
-.c.~ -.....
-!!~ ~~'t
~ C ,'(I 0 ,'1 C
1;"': ~ 0. u .- ,
'j,
". 1
I 1
I
,
1
I
1
I
,
.1
1
I
1
,
,
,
1
.,
1
,
;\
,
I:
"
'1
:1
1
"
~
-
;;
I
,
,
,
"
1
1
,
,
.,
., ..
.,
. 'd
: r~
,,-
-~,-~
..,
,
,
;,
"
"
,
;1
,
,
I
~ ,
;1
:1
"
,
1
"
,
"
1
,
.1
"
'- .
I
"
@
,
It)
:e ~,
-- o:lil::;:::!-
..~,
I
"^Nr.HO
~ - I
. , :,
~ ~ I _
t ~ 15f: ~~:.:='
~ I I I
~ I I
I 1 ,
I I 1
1 , '1
I I I
I I I
I 1 1
~
I , I
I 1 1
1 1 1
, b S
, u
, 0.
,
1
1
1
,
1\ ~
, ,
. "
~ 1
. ~
'l'
'" \0
\0
"'
,\i.. !t:'.
'""it
. " /.
, ft ,
-"
. . 'S~-()
~1.8
iD
~
i!J.
seO
~e\
fl'tP>
Ci~
.
~
. ~
",)1
I
1
1
I
, >.
-
1 U
I
,
I.
,
,
,
\.. @i
,
,
,
'l'
'"
....
o
-J
-J
.~
10
OJ
.J
'"
. .
. .
.
~
." "J'
@
@
~.
.. ~
~
.. ..
.. '!!
~
'!!
"
.
~
en
lC')
'~.;..~
<
"'.
"
c.
o
..
::l
.Q
".\;::};
.: :'!:_'~
,.
-'!
':#;-M"
",' :':' ;~~~
~,.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
To:
From:
Subject:
ITEM NO.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
16 OLD LANDING ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10009
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A PIER, BOAT LIFTS AND BOAT STORAGE
DECEMBER 8, 2000
DECEMBER 13, 2000
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
PROJECT DATA
Address:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
FileNo.:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Property Size:
Current Use:
Owner:
Applicant:
Date Complete:
Permit Streamlining Act Deadline:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
16 Old Landing Road
38-171-59 & 60
10009
Medium Density Residential
RO-2 (Residential-Open) and M (Marine)
42,500 square feet
Single- fiunily residential
Richard T orretto
Western Dock Enterprises
November 15,2000
February 6, 2001
A proposal has been made to construct a pier, boat lifts and boat storage on property located at
16 Old Landing Road. The parcel is currently developed with a single-fiuni\y residence and
several detached accessory structures.
The proposed 54 foot long pier would extend out into San Francisco Bay from an area near the
lower driveway on the site. A boat lift would be installed on the left side of the pier, and a
portion of the right side of the pier would also function as a kayak lift. Rack storage for kayaks
and canoes would also be provided on the pier.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DECEMBER 13,2000
H;XHIBIT NO. c;;-
p, tDP2
ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency and Zoning Compliance
A portion of the subject parcel extends out into the bay. The area beyond the mean high water
line is zoned M (Marine), while the landward area is zoned RO-2. Section 2.09.02 of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance states that piers and docks for pleasure craft are permitted only with a
conditional use permit. The proposed pier therefore requires such a permit.
The construction of a new pier and boat lifts also requires approval from the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC). The applicant has submitted an application to BCDC for
approval of the pier and boat lifts. BCDC will not act upon its application until the Town has
approved the project by approving a conditional use permit.
Policy LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the Tiburon General Plan states that:
"the Town recognizes and wishes to preserve its bay and waterfront as significant
resources and shall closely consider the sensitivity of its coastal environment through the
development review process, and shall encourage public access to the waterfront."
There are several other piers and docks which extend into the bay in the immediate vicinity ofthe
subject property. Two piers currently exist on the north side of the property, and at least one of
these piers extends out as far or farther than the proposed pier. The presence of these other piers
indicates that this is not a pristine or particularly sensitive section of shoreline. The proposed pier
would therefore not compromise the integrity of this shoreline area or result in any view impacts
or other obstructions for any neighboring homes.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the requirements ofCEQA per Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony on this item and adopt the
draft resolution granting conditional approval of the project.
EXHIBITS
I. Draft resolution
2. Application form
3. Site plan and elevations
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DECEMBER 13,2000
2
RLT-ITBIT NO. c:;-
P. 2-- D"F 2.-
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO.
:;2..
To:
From:
Subject:
PLANNING COMMISSION
DANIEL M. WATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER
16 OLD LANDING ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10009
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A PIER, BOAT LIFTS AND BOAT STORAGE
(CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 13. 2000)
JANUARY 19,2001
JANUARY 24, 2001
Report Date:
Meeting Date:
BACKGROUND
A proposal has been made to construct a pier, boat lifts and boat storage on property located at
16 Old Landing Road. As originally proposed, the 54 foot long pier would extend out into San
Francisco Bay from an area near the lower driveway on the site. A boat lift would be installed on
the left side of the pier, and a portion of the right side of the pier would also function as a kayak
lift. Rack storage for kayaks and canoes would also be provided on the pier.
This application was reviewed at the December 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At that
time, concerns were raised by and neighboring property owners regarding potential visual impacts
which would be caused by the proposed pier and boat and kayak storage. The Commission raised
concerns regarding the visual prominence of the proposed structure, and regarding the
compatibility of the pier and storage to surrounding properties.
The Planning Commission continued this request to the January 24,2001 meeting, with the
applicant directed to reduce the overall size of the pier, consider elimination of one or both of the
proposed lifts, and improve communications with the neighboring property owners regarding this
project. The Commission also directed Staff to obtain information from BCDC regarding its
standards for reviewing such applications.
ANAL YSIS
Revised Plans
The applicant has submitted revised plans for the proposed pier. The length of the pier would be
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 24. 2001
EXHIBIT NO. (p
p. IOF5
reduced by 2 feet to a length of 52 feet, and the width of the end of the pier would be reduced by
4 feet to a width of 12 feet. The kayak lift and storage would be removed. The proposed boat lift
would remain, but would be moved from the left side of the pier to the right side.
The applicant has indicated that he has spoken extensively with his neighboring property owners,
several of whom have since dropped their objections to the proposed structure. As of the date of
this report, no additional correspondence has been received from any neighbors regarding this
application. The applicant has also submitted photographs illustrating the views of the proposed
pier location from several neighboring properties.
BCDC Review
At the request of the Plarming Commission, Staff spoke with Steve McAdam ofBCDC regarding
that agency's approach in reviewing applications for piers such as the one proposed for this
property. Mr. McAdam indicated that the primary charge ofBCDC is to determine whether the
proposal is for a water-oriented use, which encourages private recreational use of the bay,
including boat and kayak uses.
Once the proposal is deemed to be a private recreational use, BCDC considers the following
factors in its review of a pier:
.
The amount offill needed in the bay, encouraging the smallest amount offill
necessary to achieve the desired purpose of the structure, and the least amount of
dredging necessary.
.
The possibility of another upland location for the proposed use which will require
less intrusion into the bay.
.
Whether the pier would impede public access to the water or beach, or if the
height ofthe pier would prevent anyone from walking across the beachfront.
.
Any interference with other recreational uses of the bay, by blocking access to the
bay from other properties.
.
Protection of public views from streets and other public access points, leaving
protection of views from private properties to the Town.
BCDC assumes that the Town of Tiburon is lead agency for CEQA review on projects within the
Town. Mr. McAdam said that piers with a surface area under 1,000 square feet are considered by
BCDC to be exempt from CEQA requirements; both the size of the original design (740 square
feet) and the revised design (472 square feet) are smaller than the size that BCDC generally
considers to be categorically exempt from CEQA. Mr. McAdam indicated that, as a rule, BCDC
finds that small boat docks rarely have any other environmental impacts. BCDC will look into
whether any sensitive mudflats or marsh areas will be disturbed and may not allow work to be
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 24, 2001
2
EXHIBIT No.lL
p. 2. OP3
done during the herring spawning season. BCDC also prohibits the use of creosote on pilings for
piers.
In order for the Town to require additional an Initial Study for a project that would otherwise be
considered to be categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, there must be substantial
evidence in the record sufficient to support a fair argument that the proposed pier will have a
significant unmitigated impact on the environment. There has been no such information presented
regarding the particular environmental sensitivity of the location of the proposed pier, and
therefore no additional CEQA review is warranted for this project at this time.
General Plan Consistency and Zoning Compliance
As noted in the previous report for this project, Policy LU-4 of the Land Use Element of the
Tiburon General Plan states that:
"the Town recognizes and wishes to preserve its bay and waterfront as significant
resources and shall closely consider the sensitivity of its coastal environment through the
development review process, and shall encourage public access to the waterfront."
The Planning Commission should determine whether the revised plans are sensitively designed for
the coastal environment of this portion of San Francisco Bay, or whether the revised plans only
minimally respond to the concerns raised at the previous meeting for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take additional public testimony on this item,
close the public hearing, deliberate upon the project merits, and direct Staff to prepare an
appropriate resolution.
EXHIBITS
I. Minutes of the December 13, 2000 Planning Commission meeting
2. Revised site plan and elevations, dated January 16, 2001
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 24, 2001
3
"-TIBIT NO..-h-
P. ?OF3
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. TmURON COURT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FOUR (4) SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES ON 13.4 ACRES; Round-Two Development, owner and applicant;
Assessor Parcel Nos. 39-061-80 and 86.
MIS BergerlSlavitz (5-0) to continue without discussion to January 10, 2001.
3. 16 OLD LANDING ROAD: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
NEW PIER, BOAT LIFTS AND BOAT STORAGE; Richard Torretto, applicant;
Assessor Parcel No. 38-171-59 & 38-171-60.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this application is asking for a new 54-foot pier with boat
and kayak lifts and storage racks. They will also need a permit from BCDC, but it needs
approval from the Town first. Mr. Watrous said there are several other piers in the immediate
vicinity, so the shoreline is not visually pristine. He had received no comments on this
application until 4:00 p.m. that day. He recommended adoption of the resolution of approval.
Vice-Chair Stein asked whether there had been any preliminary feedback from BCDC. Mr.
Watrous was not aware of any. Mr. Stein asked if there was any data about the cumulative
effects of these docks. He wondered at what point does it become an impact and whether there
was any data to help them evaluate this. Mr. Watrous said there was no additional information.
Many of these piers had been constructed before the Town was incorporated, so it would just
be a visual reconnaissance. Mr. Stein asked if there was any estimate of the number of
potential applications for piers in the area. Mr. Watrous said that according to the assessor's
map included in the packet, there could be 8 to 10 in that immediate area including those
already there.
Chair Slavitz said that this was a CUP to approve whether the pier can be put in this location,
but he wondered whether they could also consider the design. Mr. Watrous said they could
look at the configuration, but it will also require Design Review approval. Mr. Slavitz
confirmed that the two piers that are existing are regular docks without boat lifts.
Commissioner Berger asked if those two predated the formation of BCDC. Mr. Watrous said
he thought they were newer, but that they predated annexation to the Town.
Commissioner Snow asked how many piers have lifts. Mr. Watrous said he was aware of two
requests, but thought that this was becoming more common.
Discussion was opened to the public at 7:50 p.m.
Les Shorter, Western Dock Enterprises, stated that he had been building docks and piers in the
Bay Area for 35 years. He said there was one pier damaged in 1975 that they replaced, but
otherwise he was aware of only two that had been damaged in the last five to ten years. He
TIBlJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES NO. 836 OF DECEMBER 13,2000
EXHIBIT NO.1
P. lDPe...
uses wooden piles, not concrete. The boat lift is like a forklift. There are several in Belvedere
and a few in Tiburon and just make life easier. He said they do not swivel, just move up and
down. This was the solution to help a handicapped individual get into the kayak. He noted that
there was a six-hour time window for use of the powerboat.
Commissioner Snow asked whether the boat would be 50 feet out from the beginning of the
pier. Mr. Shorter said it was. Mr. Snow asked whether the height of the boat would be 12 feet
as shown in the drawing. Mr. Shorter said the lift would not usually be kept that high, but
instead would be level with the pier so people could step out of the boat onto the pier. Mr.
Snow asked if this pier was unusually long. Mr. Shorter said it was not, that there are 75 to
lOG-foot piers in Belvedere. The pier needs to get out far enough so there is at least 6 inches of
water for the kayak.
Mr. Shorter said that concerning the BCDC approval, that agency only looks at the complete
application, which includes the Town of Tiburon approval. He did not think there was a
proliferation of piers in Tiburon.
Senior Planner Watrous said that for larger projects, such as the Guyamas deck expansion, the
BCDC will often give preliminary feedback.
Vice-Chair Stein stated that the Planning Commission is required under the General Plan to
consider the coastal environment. He wondered how they could do that without the opinion of
the experts. Mr. Watrous said they could deal with the visual and overall land use issues, and
BCDC will deal with more technical environmental issues.
Vice-Chair Stein said that the sensitivity of the coastal environment is more than visual. He
wondered at what point is one more pier one too many. Mr. Watrous said the Planning
Commission needed to use its discretion on this, but that there were no standards.
Commissioner Berger stated that BCDC would recommend mitigations for any problems they
saw, and they do not want to go through that whole process and then find that the Town of
Tiburon does not approve.
Vice-Chair Stein said that usually the Planning Commission gets the benefit of feedback from
the other agencies, such as fire, except in this case. Mr. Watrous said that the General Plan is
general by nature, and has no specifics for coastal areas, so they need to use their best
judgement.
Mr. Shorter stated that because of the Petris Act, BCDC wants to promote recreational uses.
He said they also get an engineering permit, and at that time, everyone gets copies for
responding. They also must comply with mandates from the Water Quality Board, Fish and
Wildlife, and the EP A. If there are any adverse effects foreseen, these agencies ask for
mitigations.
TIDURON PLANNING COMMISSION
3
MINUTES NO. 836 OF DECEMBER 13, 2000
F.XHIBIT No.1
P. 'LOF L>
Commissioner Berger asked what things are considered negative. Mr. Shorter said that
currently they are not allowed to use creosote pilings. They can use AZZA copper and zinc.
Commissioner Fredericks said that concerning the structure, the pier was elevated at the
shoreline and she wondered whether that continues out. Mr. Shorter said that it has a slight
rise. Commissioner Fredericks said that there is a slope to the land under water and she
wondered how much of the pier would remain above water at low tide. Mr. Shorter said that it
was nine feet to the underside of the dock. High tides in Tiburon are about 8'8". Senior
Planner Watrous asked what the normal high tide would be. Mr. Shorter said they average
5'7". Mr. Watrous said that with that average there would be about 3.5 feet from the top of the
water to the bottom of the pier.
Mr. Shorter said that he disagreed that there was litter from piers that had washed away from
wave action. Those that do not hold up usually are not set with piers, but two-by-fours.
Chair Slavitz asked if the ramp was ten feet across. Mr. Shorter said it was 8 feet expanding to
12 feet for the kayak rack and then to 16 feet for the boat lifts. Mr Slavitz asked why it is not 8
feet all the way out. Mr. Shorter said if there are two kayaks, there needs to be a place for the
other one to be when one is out. There needs to be room when there are several people there
and it is a staging area.
Commissioner Berger asked what the parameters would be for a minimal pier. Mr. Shorter
said they did not want the boat to be higher than the dock. Mr. Berger said this plan was for a
16-18 foot boat, and asked what would be the maximum size boat that could be accommodated.
Mr. Shorter it could be up to 22 feet or 5,000 pounds.
Richard Torretto, applicant, stated that the late mail letter was a surprise to him because he
went to the neighbors on either side and they had no problem with his plan. He explained that
he went to a pier and ramp because of his son, who has MS. Since he cannot go down stairs,
that was the reason for the dock and the platform. He did not paint the wall a dark color, but
he did plant ficus trees there, which take a little time to fill out. He did not want angry
neighbors.
Marshall Foster, 11 Sierra Court, owns 34 Old Landing Road as his water property. Since
1945 this has been an open waterfront except for the pier next to them. The storm of
1997/1998 created problems in the lower part from wave action. He has seen damage in the
area. He said the next door pier was never used, but sat as a rusting eyesore. He lives a
distance from the applicant, but he can see the retaining wall and thought the planting would
hide that. He lamented the fact that until the pool went in on that property, you could walk the
beach and now you cannot. He wondered how big the boat would get over time. It needs to be
high enough so the wave action does not affect it. Usually boats are white with a blue tarp, so
that will stand out and they will see it. This is a massive pier at the end and with yellow
kayaks, he was concerned. Maybe more neighbors will want docks. The dock that is there has
no boat and does obstruct their view.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
4
MINUTES NO. 836 OF DECEMBER 13, 2000
ELl-nBIT NO. "1
r. '3 cF (p
Corine Geppert, 18 Old Landing Road, stated that this was a small, secluded end of a cove and
this pier will have an environmental impact. She did not want the pier.
Joan Foster, 34 Old Landing Road, stated that she thought the Commissioners had asked good
questions, especially about the cumulative effect. There are three piers that have been badly
damaged. This pier will be state of the art, with its mass and bulk. This is a wetlands area and
the pier would change the cove cumulatively. She recommended they not wait for BCDC. The
Commission will get other applications if this is approved. They wanted to be annexed to the
Town because they thought the Town would be more cautious in these matters. She asked the
Commission to not approve.
Patricia Bressler, 20 Old Landing Road, stated that they had applied for a pier, but after some
research, decided that six hours of time was not worth having for people to see all the time.
This will be a huge pier into the bay which will be exposed most of the time. She felt the cove
would be destroyed and recommended the Commissioners visit the site to see. She said there
would also be a noise problem with the powerboat.
Chair Slavitz asked Mr. Shorter whether they had considered minimizing the impact by having
the boat lift at the end. Mr. Shorter said it could happen that way, but the pier could not be
lower as it has to be high enough to avoid the waves,
Commissioner Snow asked what the approximate height of the deck would be. Mr. Shorter
said it would be 4 x 12's with the deck of 2 x 6's, plus the railing and wire mesh to an
elevation of three feet according to the building code.
Vice-Chair Stein asked what the overall square footage of the surface would be. Commissioner
Berger said it would be 650 square feet.
Discussion was closed to the public at 8:40 p.m.
Commissioner Berger stated that he liked boats and piers. When there are more of them it
actually looks better and can be charming. He was also sympathetic to Mr. Torretto's son's
illness. However, usually a dock is lower and the boat is in the water. This project hoists the
boat in plain view on a pier that would be as big as the Council Chambers. That is a substantial
structure and would be very prominent on the shoreline. Because the boats would be too high
and the dock too wide, it would not be the charming view as in other areas. If the Planning
Commission allows this, there will be more applications, and then the cumulative effect would
not be good. This does not feel appropriate in this location. Perhaps another device closer to
shore would work.
Commissioner Fredericks stated that this bothered her because it was always in sight and
always out of reach. The longer dock needs to be there because the water is inaccessible for a
period of time. She felt that the wide end, boats lifted and 54 foot length would overwhelm the
cove. Those with undeveloped property will want to maximize their property value with a
similar dock and that is a potential problem. She thought there was an alternate access for the
TIBIJRON PLANNING COMMISSION
5
MINUTES NO. 836 OF DECEMBER 13, 2000
E1C'-IIBIT NO. I
P. 4 Cf- (.,
boat, and hoped there was some other alternative for the kayaks as well. As planned, this
would overwhelm the cove.
Vice-Chair Stein said that he had the same concerns. The proposal was overwhelming for the
area and has an element of visually looking like an industrial structure with the boats out of the
water. He also had environmental concerns. This appears to be a potentially sensitive wetland
covered with a large structure. The General Plan asks the Commission to preserve the bay and
waterfront resources, yet the Commission is asked to pass on this and trust that BCDC checks
those issues. He thought it was incompatible to the neighborhood and not well suited to the
area. He understands the concern of the applicant for his son, but would like to see another
solution.
Commissioner Snow said he also understands the need and intent, but the project is out of
scale. It will loom over the water and change the area. It could have a cumulative effect and he
did not think it was appropriate for the area.
Chair Slavitz stated that he agreed this would have a visual impact on the neighbors. If the
scale were reduced, perhaps that would work.
Commissioner Berger complimented Mr. Shorter for!he straightforward presentation.
Mr. Torretto stated that he was hearing two opinions: no dock, and reduced dock. He would
try to do a reduced plan if that had a chance of approval. He would at minimum like to have
the kayak lift.
Commissioner Fredericks asked if there was a better location for the dock. Mr. Torretto
recommended the Commissioners visit the site. He felt that on that side it was less in the view
of the neighbors. The pool was already there when they bought the property. The dock would
create more obstruction in other locations.
Commissioner Snow asked how much length was needed for utility. If it were half the length
would it still be useful? Mr. Torretto said it would need to clear the rock area, which is about
half way out, to at least get to the water. It would be lower at the end.
Mr. Shorter said they added about 8 inches of water by going out 54 feet, but if the powerboat
was eliminated they could still do the kayak lift by going just half way or two-thirds. The
height would stay.
Vice-Chair Stein said he would look more favorably on that with the caveat that no other
environmental concerns comes up.
Chair Slavitz recommended the applicant answer the environmental concerns if possible.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
6
MINUTES NO. 836 OF DECEMBER 13, 2000
E2L9JBIT :NO.~ P. 5<1"'"
Commissioner Berger recommended the dock be shorter and narrower. He thought that BCDC
would have these same questions. It would be helpful if they could review and give a
preliminary assessment.
The Commissioners requested that Staff provide them with the list of what BCDC reviews.
Other suggestions for the applicant were to work with the neighbors, perhaps orient the dock
closer to the pool, show line-of-sight lines for the neighbors, and to have drawings that give a
better idea what the dock would look like.
MIS BergerlStein (5-0) to continue to the January 24th meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Having no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9: 10 p.m.
JEFFREY SLA VITZ, CHAIR
Tiburon Planning Commission
ATIEST:
SCOTI ANDERSON, SECRETARY
MOOl213
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
7
MINUTES NO. 836 OF DECEMBER 13, 2000
"!I;](1:iIBIT NO. --r P.locf-l
MINUTES NO. 838
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 24,2001
Regular Meeting
Town Council Chambers
1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California
Chair Stein called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chair Stein, Commissioners Berger and Fredericks.
Commissioners Absent:
Commissioner Snow,
Staff Present:
Senior Planner Watrous, and Planning Secretary Vorster.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
There were none.
ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
MIS BergerlStein (2-0-1) to elect Alice Fredericks as Vice-Chair.
COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING
There were no comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Not included in the packet.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. 16 OLD LANDING ROAD: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #10009 TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW PIER, BOATLIFfS AND BOAT STORAGE; Richard
Torretto, applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 38-171-59 & 38-171-60. Continued from
December 13, 2000.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that the applicant had revised the pier since the December 13th
meeting. It was now two feet shorter and without the kayak lift and storage areas, Mr. Watrous
had talked to BCDC and since this project is less than 1,000 square feet, it would be
categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, so there would be no need for further
TIBlTRON PLANNING COMMISSION
I
MINUTES NO. 838 OF JANUARY 24, 2001
EXHIBIT NO. 8'
P. i ot;::::-(p
'"
environmental review. The Planning Commission should deal with the land use issue for
private property. He recommended they take testimony and direct Staff to prepare an
appropriate resolution.
Discussion was opened to the public at 7:39 p.m.
Richard Torretto, 16 Old Landing Road, displayed photos of the bay to show the proposed pier
and how it would affect the neighbors. The proposed dock is now 52 feet long. There are
currently three other docks in the area that are from 75 to 120 feet long. Looking into the bay,
his pier would not obstruct views. There is a retaining waIl that was there when he moved in,
that would obscure the dock from view. He thought that years ago there may have been a pier
attached to this waIl. The neighborhood character has always included piers. There are two
neighbors who have second stories that will be able to see his pier. The photos show the views
from other property. He had moved the pier to a location where it would be least visible and
moved the lift to the other side. He had met with most of the neighbors and has tried to
compromise, but there are still some neighbors who just do not want any pier. He was
confused by someone who has a pier, but objects to his having one. That neighbor could have
removed their pier, but chose instead to repair it last year. He liked to hear the sounds of
children playing on the pier and using water sports.
Vice-Chair Fredericks did not agree that BCDC encouraged private access to the Bay for
recreational use. She did not find a policy statement to that affect. They cannot keep people
from doing the water sports, but at the same time were not encouraging it.
Mr. Torretto said that perhaps they had changed their policy, as they told him that they wanted
to encourage the use of water sports on the bay. He noted that they had moved there to enjoy
the bay.
Commissioner Berger said BCDC encouraged use of the bay, but not the building of piers.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that while BCDC does not actively encourage piers, they do not
hinder construction of piers.
Chair Stein asked whether the mock-up was to scale. Mr. Torretto said it was. The length of
52 feet gives them just enough room at the high tide level.
Commissioner Berger asked whether Mr. Torretto could get out by boat at high tide with the
pier half the length.
Mr. Torretto said that he would only be able to go in and out just at high tide if the pier were
to be half the length, so that would allow too little time. He thought that 52 feet was not very
long compared to the others that are there. .
Vice-Chair Fredericks stated that it was not just the neighbors the Commission needed to be
concerned about, but also other public views from the water or roads in the area.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES NO. 838 OF IWARY 24, 2001
EXHIBIT NO.
~. 2-DF(..
Mr. Torretto stated that there had been a pier on the property previously, and he just wanted to
put it back.
Les Shorter, Western Dock, stated that the facts were shown in the pictures as to view
obstruction.
Commissioner Berger asked Mr. Shorter whether he agreed with Mr. Torretto that there would
be a lack of utility if the pier were shorter. Mr. Shorter said the proposed pier is now at the
minimum length to do the job properly when the location of the rocks is considered. He noted
that for recreational purposes, BCDC allows you to fill the bay.
Chair Stein asked with the pier 52 feet long and the prevailing tides, how often would the pier
be useable, Mr. Shorter said it would be about SO% of the time, although there are a few
weeks when it could never be used, There are mud flats all around, so this is not unusual.
Chair Stein said this seems to be a shallow part of the bay. Mr. Shorter said it was, and there
was not much current there because of Paradise Cay.
Vice-Chair Fredericks stated that the neighbors were concerned about the noise of a power
boat in the cove. Mr. Shorter stated that he lives in Bel Marin Keys and there are skiers and
sailors there. He did not think that regular boats would be too noisy. This is shallow water so
the boat would need to go slowly out into the deeper water.
Commissioner Berger said that with the proximity of the rocks and present configuration, what
would be the largest size boat that could be accommodated there. Mr. Shorter said it could be
about a 12- to 16-foot boat, but not bigger because of the depth of the water. Mr. Berger
confirmed that if the property were sold, the size of the pier would limit the size of the boat.
Joan Foster, 34 Old Landing Road, stated that while she did not agree with their position, the
Torrettos were wonderful neighbors. There was a difference in how they see the cove. She felt
that more important than the size and visibility of the pier, would be the piers that would be
built if this one is approved. The three that are there are eyesores. Her understanding at the
last meeting was that this pier would be greatly scaled down, and she did not see that that had
happened. She was also concerned about the noise of the motors. Kayaks are smaller and
lighter, and they could go to Paradise Cay to dock their boat.
Pat Bressler, 20 Old Landing Road, stated that her property overlooks the pier and while she
appreciates the efforts made by the Torrettos, the upstairs of her house is the living quarters.
When the boat is raised, they will see it all the time. She thought it could be three to four feet
lower. She was also concerned about the noise, as the sound carries and reverberates off the
water.
Corrine Geppert, 18 Old Landing Road, stated that she did not feel that having a boat
suspended all year long was worth while for SO% use.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
3
MINUTES NO. 838 OF JANUARY 24, 2001
l"XT~rKIT NO . OS'
.Lu: D.!.J:_. 1 .
P. '3 OF"
Jeff Hain, 30 Old Landing Road, stated that his 75-foot dock with a boat on the end was his
reason for moving to Tiburon. He disagreed with the neighbors about the character of the
neighborhood and Tiburon. If you travel by boat, you will see that there are docks all along
Tiburon. This is the character of the neighborhood. The neighbors who oppose the docks use
his dock lo get into the bay or have applied and been denied a dock. Maybe these are just not
boat people. He uses his boat - there is about a five-hour window. If limited to high tide only
it would be for just 30 minutes to an hour. As to the noise level, he idles away in shallow
water. He noted that his was one of the few places with a sandy beach. Mr. Torretto has a
rocky beach. If the neighbors feel strongly about this, they could put a deed restriction on their
property prior to sale to limit future development. He would be embarrassed to have a dock
and object to Mr. Torretto having one, As the neighbor with a dock, and living there for 23
years, he felt Mr. Torretto should be allowed to have the same.
Commissioner Berger asked whether he had his boat on a lift. Mr. Hain said he had two hoists
to have the boat out of the water. Asked if the pier could be shorter, he said it could not, as he
would lose another foot of draft and every inch helps. He said the dock has been there for 23
years. He noted that the dock to the north is very old and needs repairs, and is not used much.
The Chanins do not have a boatlift for their outboard motor boat.
Jeff Chanin, 28 Old Landing Road, stated that of the three existing piers, Jeff Hain's is the
only one with a boat. He thought that these piers show what happens in that area, as all were
damaged in the storms. The tide comes way up and the lumber becomes battering rams. They
put their pier back together, but the one to the north is a danger. The window of use is
generally three hours. He thought that the applicant's 52-foot pier could be shorter and still
have enough water under the boat. But that was not the important question. All the bay front
residents except two are opposed to the proliferation of piers. When he moved there, BCDC
considered piers "fill" and would not allow, so they must have changed. The area was annexed
to Tiburon because they wanted to put the sewer in, but their principal concern was
development. They were assured that if they came into Tiburon, there would be a place to
voice concerns to protect the neighborhood character. He made a commitment to the neighbors
to help keep that character and he believed that was the right direction for the future. Mr.
Torretto would not have been able to do the construction he has done already without the
sewer. He submitted a photo showing many potential piers. He felt that if this pier was
approved the Planning Commission would have a hard time denying others. He said that
typically the pier is fun in the beginning, but cannot be used often, property turns over, and the
pier sits unused. It is built, but does not go away.
Chair Stein asked whether he had considered removing his pier. Mr. Chanin said that he had,
but what happens when the piles are taken out is that PCB's and selenium are released into the
water and he did not want that problem. He will keep his pier, but will not put a boatlift on it.
He said the view of the cove outweighs the number of hours of use, and an alternative exists to
dock boats at Paradise Cay.
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
4
MINUTES NO. 838 OF JANUARY 24,2001
EXHIBI1' NO. 8
p 'f 01-(,:,
Chair Stein noted that one person Mr. Chanin included on his list as opposed previously was
now on the list of residents not opposed. Mr. Chanin said that person had talked to Mr.
Torretto after the changes were made and agreed to not oppose the project.
Helen Muirhead, 4200 Paradise Drive, said that she lived south of the cove next to the
Torrettos, and does have a view of the proposed dock. She was surprised how short 52 feet is,
and said that it would not impose on her view. The height is what is needed and seemed a
reasonable request and compromise in removing the kayak lift. She had no objections to the
project.
Fraser Muirhead, 4200 Paradise Drive, stated that the only problem with noise from boats that
come into the bay on high tide is with the jet skis. Otherwise, there is no problem.
Discussion was closed to the public at 8:38 p.m.
Commissioner Berger stated that this was a tough decision. He commended the presenters'
neighborly spirit. The problem was with the visibility of the boat lifted out of the water and the
noise. He thought that there were two types of coastline on the peninsula: the pristine natural,
and the domesticated with structures which is also charming. In some areas, docks are an
enhancement, and the precedent is already there in this cove for piers. The length of the
proposed pier is not a long pier, and he thought it was down to the minimum useable length.
He did not think the impacts would be major, and that it was consistent with the neighborhood.
He thought that BCDC was neutral on this as there is no public access. But he wondered about
the precedent for piers with worse impacts, and thought that the concept of deed restrictions
was an interesting idea. He did not think that this would open the floodgates for more piers. It
is special to buy property in Tiburon and have a dock. He thought the revisions made were
good, and was leaning toward approval.
Vice-Chair Fredericks stated that she could not think of a more sensitive way to do the dock,
but had trouble with the lift. The legacy piers should not create a precedent, as they were
approved under County review. The Town wants the shoreline sensitively used. She was not
concerned about the cumulative impact of building docks, but the precedent of lifts was not
good and may come back to haunt the Commission. This really is a mud flat with inaccessible
water. She would consider approving the pier without the lift, as the owner could dock his boat
elsewhere.
Commissioner Berger noted that they could carry a kayak out, and that the lift was the biggest
problem for him.
Chair Stein stated that this felt a little like "fish out of water. " Something is out of its element,
and that is the boatlift. While the maximum use is 50%, in actuality it will be far less, as this is
really a mud flat. Boat docks do exist in areas where there is sufficient water, so the boat is in
the water. This pier is a structure to support a boat on a lift. Some communities restrict
parking a boat on the property because of the visual impact. This boat would be out of the
water most of the time, and could have a similar visual impac,t. The character of the
TIDURON PLANNING COMMISSION
5
MINUTES NO. 838 OF JANUARY 24. 2001
EXHIBIT N? 5" ~a::=-("
neighborhood does not support this type of structure. The previous plan was almost industrial,
and this still has some of the same elements. During the dual annexation procedure, the Town
represented that care would be taken in the review of these issues. The applicant indicated last
time that he understood the problems, but very little was changed, and the harm done by the
structure remains. He would deny the project.
Commissioner Berger asked if the applicant would accept a pier with no lift, would the
Commission approve that. It could be used for carrying out kayaks.
Chair Stein thought that a good decision has some degree of permanency. If it were reasonable
to have just the dock, that would have been proposed to the Commission.
Vice-Chair Fredericks said that would be reasonable use for the kayak. If someone else wants
a I50-foot dock, that would be easy to deny.
Commissioner Berger noted that kayak-only use would mean the pier could be lower to the
water.
Chair Stein said they had gone over that last time and this would now be a different structure
and use, He thought that had all been brought up before and not pursued by the applicant. He
did not think it could be done now on the spur of the moment.
Mr. Torretto indicated that a pier without the lift would defeat the purpose for him, He would
just appeal the decision at this point. He thanked the Commission for their consideration.
MIS FrederickslStein (2-1, Berger opposed), to deny the proposal and to direct Staff to prepare
a resolution memorializing the decision.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 9 MAIN STREET: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #19813; REVIEW OF
PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT; Edward and LaIeh
Zelinsky, owners; Servino Venture II, applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 59-151-40.
Senior Planner Watrous stated that this was the two-year review of the Conditional Use Permit
for outdoor seating at Servino's Restaurant. The review was imposed because of the potential
for noise or nuisance connected with the outdoor seating. The Planning Department has had no
complaints about the restaurant, nor have the Police. He felt that future review was not
warranted.
Vice-Chair Fredericks wondered why he recommended no future review. Mr. Watrous said
that the intention of the review was to be sure that the restaurant got off to a good start and that
there were no problems. If there are problems in the future, they could be dealt with as a
public nuisance or brought back to the Commission for modification of the permit. With a
good track record, it does not warrant regular review, Mrs. Fredericks noted that there have
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
6
MINUTES NO. 838 OF JANUARY 24, 2001
EXHIRIT NO. ~
p. G:> 7)y0
LATE MAIL # 3
JEFFREY R. CHANIN
710 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
~._Q.IJfORl<JA 9~1lI.1704___..
December 13, 2000
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Tiburon Planning Commission
c/o Dan Watrous, Senior Planner
Town Hall
IS05 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIV
DEe 1 3 200n
PLANNING DEFA<,
TOWN OF TIBUHUi,
Dear Tiburon Town Council:
I am writing to urge you not to approve the application of Richard Torretto to build a 54
foot pier into the bay. I regret that I am unable to attend the hearing on December 13,
2000 but my son has a musical performance this evening that I cannot miss. Several of
my neighbors have authorized me to write this letter on their behalf, including Comne
Geppert who lives next door to Mr. Torretto at 18 Old Landing Road, Francine Halberg
and Terry Kessler, who live at 24 Old Landing Road, John and Nori Kricensky, who live
at 27 Old Landing Road, Tina Newkirk who lives at 32 Old Landing Road, and Bob and
Pat Atkinson, who live at 31 Old Landing Road. Together with Pat Bressler, I believe we
represent a majority of the Old Landing Road residents who own bay-front property
contiguous to Mr. Torretto, Of course, many others who did not receive personal notice
ofthe Torretto application will be affected, including all the homeowners on the South
side of Paradise Cay who look directly at the Torretto property.
In summary, there are several reasons this pier project should not be approved:
. Building a pier into the bay as a place to store multiple boats is unnecessary and
needlessly destructive of the natural environment. The cove is a shallow wetlands
that becomes an extensive mudflat during medium to low tides; there is insufficient
water to float a powerboat except for sI-.ort periods of time during the highest tides.
. There are eight other, undeveloped wetland parcels in Old Landing Cove that project
out into the bay; allowing a new pier (in addition to the three grandfathered piers built
decades ago) will set a dangerous precedent for further development of structures into
the bay.
EXHIBIT NO. Cf
p. ICF~
Tiburon Planning Commission
December 13,2000
Page 2
· Piers set on concrete pilings are unsightly to begin with; when used for boat storage
they become eyesores. Piers, docks and associated structures must be constructed
with massive members to have any hope of withstanding normal storms, and even the
strongest pier cannotwithstana a Targestorm: Weleamedthis-iri 1989wheri-iiInfuee---~---
of the existing piers lost wooden planks that ended up as debris on neighbors'
properties.
. Mr. Torretto has already built substantial bayside storage for his 4 kayaks during the
project he completed last year; a better environmental and economic alternative to
building a pier with multiple boatlifts exists just down the road at the Paradise Drive
Yacht Harbor, which is dredged to alIow ingress/egress during medium and low tides.
Since purchasing the property a few years ago, Mr. Torretto has been engaged in one
expansive building project after another. What was once a naturalIy beautiful comer
property with a low lying residence and several detached bedroom buildings has now
become a massive and unsightly private compound with multiple large structures.
It began when our neighborhood was told that Mr. Torretto wanted to provide "handicap
access" to one of the several existing structures on the property. That plausible
explanation which no one took issue with, turned out to involve a massive cut through the
steep, natural hilI that once anchored the side of the cove. Numerous trees and yards of
hilIside were removed to make way for a sweeping driveway, replete with a 15 foot high
concrete retaining walI and extensive seawalI. The neighborhood was shocked and
surprised by the extent of the destruction and the amount of vertical concrete that was
poured to bring a driveway down a steep hillside to the bay. During the midst of the
construction, Mr. Torretto reassured us that the walI would be painted an earth color
brown, and would be covered by vines, so as not to present an eyesore. But, when the
time came, it was painted off-white and now stands out in bright contrast to what is left of
the hilIside.
The next project was a large, two-story addition to the low lying main residence, one of
several freestanding structures on the property. That increased yet again the amount of
man-made structure bordering on the bay; the expanded residence, retaining walIs and
driveway now dwarf every other structure built alongside the bay. I've attached a
photograph of the cove taken in 1995 as welI as photos of the new Torretto compound
taken from the bay on December 10, 2000.
As you can see from the photos, although not very welI, the Torretto compound also
includes a 60-foot long lap pool built on fill. This too is an eyesore that projects out into
the bay. The pool is "shielded" by an unsightly concrete retaining walI that everyone else
has to look at. This pool structure appears on the right side of the photos.
Now Mr. Torretto proposes to build yet another large structure, again into the bay, to hold
multiple boats and boat lifts, including machinery to lower and lift an entire section of
EXHIBIT NO. Of
p.2-0P f
Tiburon Planning Commission
December 13, 2000
Page 3
the dock itself. This is unnecessary. As can be seen in the photos, Mr. Torretto has
already built storage brackets into his new, concrete seawall to hold some of his kayaks.
There is plenty ofroom to mount more kayaks, and the new addition to his residence
includes a large open shed that Mr. Toftetto once explained was specifically intended t6 .
store vehicles and boats. Given that Mr. Torretto has ample room on his shoreside
property to store his kayaks and to launch them from shore when the tide permits, he has
no need to build a 54-foot dock into a pristine cove for this purpose.
The proposed boat lifts and boat storage upon the pier will be the most visually and
environmentally disruptive aspect of what Mr. Torretto proposes. Absent a lot of steel
and structure, piers in our cove cannot be made to withstand storms. In 1997 every dock
in our cove lost vast amounts of lumber to wave action which was deposited as debris
throughout the cove. The cove looked like Florida after a hurricane. We do not need
more concrete, steel and lumber in the bay.
And the use that Mr. Torretto will get from this structure, besides overwater storage, will
be trivial. This I know from personal experience. I confess to have purchased a home on
the cove, several doors down from Mr. Torretto, that came with an existing dock. The
dock dates back to the 1940s, when three docks were built into the bay. None have been
allowed since. I too had thoughts of hanging a powerboat off this dock. But, what I
learned is that our cove is so shallow that no one can bring a shallow draft boat in or out
for more than about two-three hours per day during a high tide; the tide, of course, does
not cooperate by being high very often during daylight hours. Most of the time, our cove
is a mudflat or wetlands frequented by egrets, herons, ducks, gulls and other sea birds.
Even a pier 400 feet long would not be useable fifty percent of the time. So, boats on
hoists in our cove pretty much remain suspended in mid-air, unusable, for the vast
majority of the time, but they remain there, always, for everyone to look at instead ofthe
natural beauty of the cove.
Given the conditions, and the fact that no one in our neighborhood wanted to look at
another hanging boat, I did what Mr. Torretto should do. When I purchased my boat, I
rented a slip for it at the Paradise Yacht Harbor, next door at Paradise Cay. There are
many slips available at a reasonable price, the marina is only a four-minute drive away,
and because the marina channel is dredged, keeping a boat there allows one to use it
pretty much anytime. The slips are accessible to the disabled if that is an issue.
Alternatively, Mr. Torretto can build a low lying launch ramp on the beach, alongside his
swimming pool where it will not be visible to everyone, just as others have done in the
past.
Finally, as indicated in the attached site map, there are twelve wetland properties that
project for long distances into the bay. Three of them have piers that were built decades
ago. If another pier is permitted now, it will set a precedent for further pier construction.
What remains a pristine cove may well become a lumberyard of piers.
fX!-IIBIT NO. q
P eR8
.~
Tiburon Planning Commission
December 13, 2000
Page 4
We are a tolerant and laid back neighborhood; we let Mr. Torretto take us by surprise
when he destroyed an entire hillside to extend his existing driveway down to the bay. We
trusted him when he said he would paint the retaining wall an earth color so as to
minimize its visual impact, but he did not keep his promise. What is certain this time
around is that Mr. Torretto's proposed boat hoists, boat, and new kayak storage will have
a visually and environmentally disruptive impact upon the cove and wetlands, with little
benefit to show for it. It wiII sit there as a fulltime boat-storage facility, everyone wiII
have to look at it from the land and water, and the many kayakers and canoeists who use
our sheltered cove will have one more unsightly structure to contend with. He already
has ample storage on shore, with room for more, and he has a reasonable alternative ifhe
wishes to purchase and store a powerboat. Storing a boat at a marina simply makes better
sense, environmentally, visually, and financially.
We all would urge the Commissioners personally to visit our cove to see for themselves
what this proposal means. We would also suggest that, if there is any thought of
approving this proposal, before approval is given the Commission should require Mr.
Torretto to submit an environmental impact report and a sworn statement explaining why
Mr. Torretto cannot store and launch his kayaks from his existing compound, and why he
cannot store a powerboat at Paradise Yacht Harbor or build a launch ramp, rather than
build a private pier and storage facility out into the bay.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeffrey R. Chanin
~\S-~L-~~
'-
Personafly, and on behalf of:
Corrine Geppert
Francine Halberg and Terry Kessler
John and Nori Kricensky
Tina Newkirk
Bob and Pat Atkinson
Encls.
EXHIBIT NO.3-
p, L( cv8
I~
l:J '0
.lA
o
z~
E-;
1-1
r::q
~
~
~
a
(l
c...
C>..-
.
.j
J
....
t
l~
--:--:::~-
":f i
o q.
i..~' ". :j' " "-
~ .;~-
.' ~.
i...,. ..
.,I,':" &,
-<<. ~ ~
.. ..
- ".,
~.. 00
~ " \t
7'" <l
" .~
O~
z
b
p:j
I-l
'.,'~
;j,
'~
<
,0
-5
, 1
...~ ~
I'. :ifE
/ 0; ~ I
:...-, :: c ~
?, I~ lL~ ?~
.
!j1
,
\,..
0-
"..
~
,. ~...<
'""} ..
~(i -(j ill',' '~l'-'~ 1
i (.J' ",~,'
~11 cf,t ~f;V I
1;; ~.e II!>]\
. ";(. ;. 1 t::~.~ '0 ~
.\)~..l'JJ..: ~ 1('
,jIHli' ill
It; 1rl'1..~tJ;;1 'J
~j~\l~{H\ \1
,';11$1 \~'i\;
.b...."..J, Hi
do '.If1:'
. \L,~n"1~ 1.1
),1~~:i ~l \\.
iit~l ~{I! ~
; Jt~ii\t~ ~
~f~UJ {
,n'~ :'!1~ t\' ~ ( j
X i!~"~:\ 11, J..
\"A'\ '.. I ( l '\ ;:;
~~.,;, (~.(....\~ ()-
"~~TI -'f: ~ \\(, .r
.l<;;ii,~~j' \tl~ t
:/'-. ~,(J i ,;\ r ?
t!..~I{.p~.~,'~" t5:-
~iI~ft\' } d~ . I =B
"" *~~f'( ,!\ I t
I:
,'~~tftf~ ,\
j."'.~..'::'.~'~ 1.;" )1.\'
. .' 'l'I""'Sl
. \~11"~~\~;l~ ~t i
'. ,j,:'; j l~ I; ~~\~ \1
...
~
(j/~
0'"
z~
t:
t:t:l
~
~
, ~/~
000
Z<:l.:
E-I
H
~
~
(
.
'..f
J
(.
+
'"
'"
J
,
-\-
a
1'-
..[\
;;.
"--
J
~
L-
L-
I:
LATE MAIL # ;<
Walter R. Allan
P.O. Box 771
Tiburon, CA 94920-0771
January 22, 2001
Tiburon Planning Commission
Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECE~VED
JAN 2 3 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TlBURON
Dear Members of the Tiburon Planning Commission:
This letter is written in support of the application of Richard and Linda Torretto to build a
dock on their property at 16 Old Landing Road. I am the owner of the property at 22 Old
Landing Road, which is directly above the Torretto property. After reading the article that
appeared in The Arc about the previous hearing on the application, I asked the Torrettos ifI
could visit the site and review their revised plans.
After doing so, I concluded that no reasonable claim could be made that the proposed
dock is either an environmental hazard or a visual nuisance. Indeed, it is notable that, although
most of the waterfront of the Torretto property is visible from my property, the proposed dock
site - due to its placement in a natural indentation in the shoreline-is not. For the same reason,
the revised dock site is either not visible or is only barely visible from other residences on the
cove.
I think that we can all agree that the Torrettos should be allowed to make reasonable use
of their property. Therefore, despite the multifarious points apparently raised in objection to the
dock project, there is really only one issue presented; namely, whether the proposed dock is a
reasonable use. I urge the Commission to view the site and the surrounding area. I believe that
such a visit will show that the proposed revised dock plans present no environmental or visual
sancems and are entirely reasonable.
I regret that, due to a prior commitment, I will be unable to attend the hearing on January
24. I respectfully request that the Commission take the views expressed in this letter into
consideration.
~~
Walter R. Allan
cc:
Richard and Linda Torretto
Jeffrey R. Chanin
EXHIBIT NO. 16
LAft WIAIL I :L
RECEIVED
JAN 2 4 2001
JEFFREY R. CHANIN
PLANNINl> l.lt:PAHTMENT
T()Wf\! nl= TIP:1 U:~()fl.1
710 SANSOME STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94111.1704
January 23,2001
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Tiburon Planning Commission
c/o Dan Watrous, Senior Planner
Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Commissioners:
I previously sent a letter on behalf of myself and various neighbors in the Old Landing
Road community opposing the proposal of Richard Torretto to build a dock and boatlift
at 16 Old Landing Road. Rather than repeat all the reasons stated in that letter, I
mcorporate the points I made previously in opposition to the applicant's revised proposal.
However, this letter makes additional comments that I would ask the Commissioners to
consider, and provides certain information that was asked about at the December 13,
2000 hearing.
I am writing this letter to express continued opposition to the applicant's proposal on
behalf of myself, Corinne Geppert (18 Old Landing Road), Pat Bressler (20 Old Landing
Road), Francine Halberg and Terry Kessler (24 Old Landing Road), the Sanfilippo family
(26 Old Landing Road), the Kricensky family (27 Old Landing Road), my family (28 Old
Landing Road), the Atkinsons (31 Old Landing Road), and the Fosters (34 Old Landing
Road). Together, we represent the vast majority of Bayfront homeowners on Old
Landing Cove. All of the neighbors who have authorized me to add their names to this
letter own tideland parcels upon which piers or boat docks could be built in the future by
themselves, or future owners.
First, we all credit Mr. Torretto for his compliance with the Commission's direction at the
last meeting to speak with his neighboring property owners. Our views set forth in this
letter have nothing to do with Mr. Torretto personally, nor do we believe that the
Commission's decision should be based upon anything other than an objective
determination of what is best for the neighborhood, for Tiburon, and for the Bayfront.
We urge the Commission to look to the future in deciding what is the right thing to do in
this case. For our community, this is the first time since we voluntarily annexed to
RXHTRIT NO.lL.
f. l CP'3
Tiburon Planning Commission
January 23, 2001
Page 2
Tiburon, as part of our self-funded sewer project, that we are asking the Town to decline
a development request.
Our principal opposition to the applicant's current dock developmentplan~&thatitwiU-~~----
set a dangerous precedent for future pier and dock building. This commission will not be
able to say "no" to any future requests by other property owners who own bayfront
property who may ask to build a pier that is at least comparable in size and purpose to
that which Mr. Torretto now proposes. At present, there are only three legacy piers, all of
which are concentrated in one spot in the cove. As Mr. Watrous indicated during the last
hearing, there are eight to ten additional potential applicants for piers in the cove, the
majority of whom are participants in this letter. By asking the Commission to reject the
applicant's proposal, they are, in effect, voluntarily giving up development potential of
their own properties in order to protect the cove.
One can see to the north of Paradise Cay the detrimental visual and environmental effects
when multiple piers are built out into the Bay by homeowners. A photograph of such
development is attached. We do not want to start a precedent for any more pier building
than occurred over 40-years ago in our cove, when development in the Bay was more
haphazard.
One question the Commission asked last meeting, which Mr. Watrous was not prepared
to answer, was whether the three existing piers in the cove predated the formation of
BCDC. Mr. Watrous said he thought they were newer. BCDC was created in 1965; the
existing piers are over 40 years old and predate its formation. Attached is an aerial
photograph that I believe was taken in the early 1950s, but most certainly predates the
construction of Paradise Cay in 1962 (Paradise Cay would appear at the lower right-hand
corner of the photograph, if it had already been built). You can readily see the three
existing piers in the middle of the Bay, as well as the Torretto property to the far left
(minus the swimming pool that now juts into the Bay). While it is difficult to detect in
the attached photo, you can see that boatlifts used to exist on both of the outside piers, but
have been removed by the property owners (one of whom is myself) during the
intervening years.
At its last meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to consider elimination of the
proposed boatlift. One of the criteria that BCDC considers relevant in weighing a dock
application is the possibility of another "upland" location for the proposed use. There is
only a narrow window of time when one can actually float a boat in the cove, since the
cove is flat to a distance of several hundred feet from the shore and becomes exposed at
mid to low tide.
An upland alternative exists for the applicant, which is to keep a boat in a slip at Paradise
Cay. This would allow use of the boat during any tide. The cost of a 30' slip at Paradise
Cay is $160/month. That buys 20-30 years of slip space for less than the cost of a dock
261b7l01
Ti''X"Ln~T'l' NO. \ ~
.". .~.~~.- -" --- -
~. 2- D~3
Tiburon Planning Commission
January 23, 2001
Page 3
and a mechanized lift. The Paradise Cay Yacht Harbor docks are accessed by ramps, not
stairs, so all members of the applicant's family, should be able to access the boat.
Most of the Old Landing Cove is still pristine beachfront andwetlands:-MrcWatrous- ---
comments that the shoreline is "not visually pristine." But the question for this
Commission is whether to make it less pristine now, and thereby set a precedent in this
new century that would open to further development what is left of one of the few,
generally pristine multi-family coves that remains on the Tiburon peninsula. The Old
Landing Road property owners are not the only ones who will be affected now and in the
future; many Tiburon and Corte Madera residents kayak and canoe in our cove because it
is so well protected and inhospitable to powerboats.
We therefore urge the Commission to protect our cove and to ~isapprove this dock
application, and any others that may be presented in the future. This precious natural Bay
resource should not be subjected to further, and unnecessary, construction.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey R. Chanin
JRC:rab
Encl.
2616720j
EY,-,"l:HRIT NO.1l
p. :,DP' 3
No Objection to 16 OLR Pier
, ATE MAIL , 2-
Tue-Jan 23,200111:55am
(415) 435-9350xGreg - Home
Walter Allen (OLR Neighbor)
OLR Neighbor, Greg Taylor
22 Old Landing Road
22 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
RECEIVED
JAN 2 32001
22 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
Paul N. Erickson (OLR Neighbor)
OLR Neighbor
14 Old Landing Road
14 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435-0376 - FAX
(415) 435-0363 - Home
14 Old Landing Road
Tiburon. CA 94920
Jeff Haynes (OLR Neigbbor)
OLR Neigbbor
30 Old Landing Road
30 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435-2741xJeff - Home
(415) 381-4595 - Other
30 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
Larry Lang (OLR Neighbor)
OLR Neighbor
12 Old Landing Road
12 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435-6098 - Office
(415) 435-6776xLacy - Home
2090 Centro East
Tiburon, CA 94920
Frasier J. Muirbead (OLR Neighbor)
OLR Neighbor, M.D.
4200 Paradise Drive
4200 Paradise Drive
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435-1 837xHelen - Home
4200 Paradise Drive
Tiburon. CA 94920
Tina Newkirk (OLR Neighbor)
OLR Neighbor
32 Old Landing Road
32 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435-3564 - Home
Page 1
FJCL:fIBIT NO. 17--
p, I Df?' L-
No Objection to 16 OLR Pier
Linda Torret!o (OLR Neighbor)
OLR Neighbor
16 Old Landing Road
16 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tue-Jan 23,200111:55am
(415) 789-5446 - HomeOff
(415) 789-5389 - Home
(415) 789-5660 - Other
Ben Wells (OLR Neighbor)
OLR Neighbor, Todd/friends
10 Old Landing Road
10 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
(415) 435-0846xKitty - Home
10 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
Page 2
EX-B:IBITNO. \L-
~, '2 ifZ-
Richard and Linda Torretto
16 Old Landing Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
January 24,2001
Tiburon Planning Commission
c/o Mr. Dan M. Watrous
Town of Tiburon - Senior Planner
1505 Tiburon Blvd.
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Commissioners:
Enclosed is our plan for the pier at 16 Old Landing Road. From the visual chart of the
bay you can see that our pier does not obstruct any neighbor's view of the bay. Most
cannot see the pier when they are in their house or on the beach. Only two neighbors can
see the pier on their second story when they look to the right. When they look to the left
they see three long piers that have been they a very long time. The piers have been part of
the beach and there were more piers at one time. 16 and 18 Old Landing had piers as
shown on the chart. I am choosing to rebuild a pier on my property however Corinne
Geppert has chosen not to. She did mention how she and her husband and family enjoyed
it when her children were growing up and they had a boat that her husband use to pull up
on rails.
I am placing the pier in a location that minimizes any neighbors seeing it. The old pier
and it's reminisce was in a location that would be seen more and was much longer. The
neighborhood character is one of piers and always has been (see chart of pictures). This
beach is not pristine like Jeff Chanin's letter describes. The following have said they do
not object to a pier because it has been part of the character of the neighborhood and do
not find that my pier is out of character: Walter Allen, 22 OLR; Paul Erickson, 14 OLR;
Tina Newkirk, 32 OLR; Ben & Kitty Wells, 10 OLR; Diane McEwen, (could not attend
tonight) Jeff Haynes, 30 OLR; Frasier & Helen Muirhead, 4200 Paradise; 12 OLR; Linda
& Richard Torretto, 16 OLR.
The revised plan has several changes that were made to meet the request of the
commissioners and neighbors. The kayak lift was removed. The pier was reduced by 2
feet in length (52') and 4 feet in width (12'). The result was a compromise that leaves
minimum space to avoid the rocks on the beach. This will allow a small boat with a 12"
draft to use the bay for approximately 6 hours with the incoming and outgoing tide
(average depth of 3 feet for six hours). It will be the smallest and most secluded pier in
the neighborhood.
EXIIIBIT NO. 13
f> . I or-.L.
I met most of the neighbors and I can say that the majority that I spoke to do not object to
piers. They're as some who do not like piers. I have made compromises to make the pier
less objectionable to them, however they still object to another pier. But this beach has
always had piers, even when they chose to move here there were piers present. In fact,
there were more piers then there are today.
I would like to refer to a letter that was written by Mr. Jeffrey R Chanin. Dated 1/23/01. I
respect someone's position who disagrees and dislikes piers, however I'm confused by
his position. Mr. Chanin has a 100 foot pier and repaired it two time rather then remove
it. The last repair was in 1999. Ifhe dislikes piers so much why doesn't he remove his. I
find it very hypocritical for him taking his position and to be the spokesperson for others
in writing the letter.
Other neighbors have said that they would like to have a pier in the past but that the
BCDC was not in favor of piers at that time. The report from the BCDC (Review from
Steve McAdam of the BCDC) encourages water activities and does not object to piers for
kayaks and boats. I feel that we are in compliance with the BCDC ruling.
The character of this area includes piers. It is part of the charm of the neighborhood. Our
family enjoys hearing the children on my neighbor's piers, including the Chanin's
children. We would like the same enjoyment that the other families have had over the
years including the Geppart's. This is the type of neighborhood Old Landing Road is and
that is why we moved here. (Others will be commenting on this as well in the meeting)
I have made compromises and the revised plan will be the smallest and most secluded
pier to try to please those who obj ect. I do feel that this area is what it is and that includes
piers and I will continue to pursue the eventual replacement of the pier that was once
here. I hope you agree and approve my revised plan. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Linda and Richard Torretto
EXHIBIT NO. ~ 3
[) oF'L
r. 2-
From: Ci21ne Mcewen Tc; Planner Dan Watrous
Date: 1124;101 Time: 12:21:58
Page 2 at :2
>-HfEMAIL , {).
DLANE: M. McEWEN
12 OLD LANDING
TlBURCN. CALIFORNIA 94920
I' 15j 43;-1659
RECEIVED
January 24_ 200 I
JAN 2 4 2001
evil'. Steven Stein. Chair
Tibllron Plmming Commission
Tiburon California 94920
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOWN OF TIBURON
Re: TorreTto pier application
16 Old Landing Road
Dear Mr. Stein:
As I am unable to attend tonight"s Commission meeting because J had knee surgery
y'esterday. so J am submitting in writing my reactions to the revised boat pier plan tiled by
my neighbors. Richard and Linda Torretlo. I heartily support the construction of the pier.
based upon my visit to the site and upon my review of the plans.
I am impressed by the considerable and meaningful changes to the original plan. made in
response to earlier objections. These include eliminating the kayak storage area and
moving the kayak lift to the right, reducing the total width of the far end fi'om 26 to 12
feet. Further. the pier is two feet shorter, and nan-ower.
There can be no objections based on aesthetic or enviromnental concerns. I mUSl point out
that I fully expect the pier to be aesthetically pleasing, in view of the very fine and quite
charming design of the Torretlo familv's previous upgrades on the property.
Three other piers on the Bay are much longer than the proposed 52 feet. namely 120
(Newkirk). 100 (Chanin), 75 (Haynes). These structures are actually far more noticeabk
certainly from waterside. than the TorreTto proposal which will have much less visual
impact since it is sited in a small indentation in the shoreline. The other piers are exposed.
in no such a recessed position.
I hope you will consider accepting the Torello plan. I believe the pier will turn out to be a
discreet, unassuming, quite picturesque addition to our neighborhood.
Yours sincerely.
Diane M. l\IcEwen. !vi D.
EXHIBIT No.R
3. ~ ~
p ~ ~ ; i
i ~ ,. ~I ~ ~
~ I i -!~
3 ~
..~ l:
r ~u
M~ ~ ~~ G
(~! II ~ ~
" I.l~ II ~i ~
'\ ~l ~ ~ i ~ ill
~i :~~~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~ ,L
\
-t \
\ W"" - .;z
= ~o
> = ire.
r-..J f~
\ jjj = .Ill-
o - ~~
I w ~ ~~
,II: .., zO
\ ~~
\
\
1
:j,
~
2
~
"
Ii
~
d
Z
~
~Q
~
~l
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
AGENDA NO.: l'
TO:
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING ~CTO~
TOWN MANAGER MCINTYRE ~
FROM:
REVIEWED BY:
SUBJECT:
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (TOWN-
INITIA TED)-ORDINANCE, SECOND READING AND
ADOPTION
MEETING DATE:
MARCH 7, 2001
REPORT DATE:
MARCH 1,2001
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of February 7, 2001 the Town Council held first reading of an ordinance proposing
numerous zoning ordinance text amendments. Two items were referred to the Planning
Commission for its report and recommendation. One of these involved increasing the maximum
allowable size of secondary dwelling units. At its meeting of February 14, 2001, the Planning
Commission recommended the following language:
(7) The Secondary Dwelling Unit is a maximum of Q!]~:.tbifJtQf1i:!~1I1l9Yil!.b.l~JkQu,[~<!
f9! JD5l_ P[QJ)~tJy. _QL 1.QQQ ~!l-ull!~ J~5l1. ~h.i~b~y~[ i~ J~~s. _l!.I!c!. AQ .tlQQr_lI[~l!. IlIli9
~:Lx_c_e'pjLO_nj_S_[e_q\.!.ir~4._ 799 6RslsBea 3ElMar6 feet.
The Town Council considered the Planning Commission's report on this matter at its meeting of
February 21,2001, but asked for clarification as to whether the Planning Commission intended
that the maximum size be limited to 1/3 of the total house size as opposed to 1/3 of the allowable
floor area for the property. The Council remanded the item to the Planning Commission for
clarification.
TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 7, 2001
I
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission again discussed the item at its meeting of February 28.2001 (see staff
report attached as Exhibit 1 for details). It became clear that the Planning Commission was
evenlv divided as to which approach was favored.
Commissioners Stein and Fredericks stated that they had intended the 1/3 standard to apply to the
floor area of the house, whereas Commissioners Berger and Snow had intended that the 1/3
standard apply to the allowable floor area for the entire property.
Those Commissioners favoring the" 1/3 house size" standard were concerned that secondary
dwelling units should clearly be incidental to the primary living unit, and that a 1/3 of house size
maximum would ensure this, even in small homes.
Those Commissioners favoring the" 1/3 of allowable floor area for the property" standard
indicated that the primary unit/secondary unit size ratio was not as critical as the scale of the total
project to the overall size of the property.
Staff believes that the" 1/3 house size" standard would be more limiting than the other standard.
and would not be as effective in encouraging additional secondary dwelling unit applications. On
the other hand. the" 1/3 house size" approach would more effectivelv preserve the distinction
between a primary living unit and a secondary dwelling unit.
This is clearly a policy question over which the Planning Commission is divided and which the
Town Council should resolve. Staff believes that neither approach will have a substantial effect
on the number of secondary dwelling unit applications in the foreseeable future.
RECOMMEND A nON
. Hold a public hearing and take any testimony on this item only.
. Decide which 1/3 standard should be applied to the maximum size of secondary dwelling
units
. Move to read by title only, pass the motion, and then hold a roll call vote on second reading
and adoption of the Ordinance. The Ordinance will be effective 30 days from adoption.
EXHIBITS
1. Planning Commission staff report from February 28,2001 meeting.
Z200 1-0 I tc3report.doc
TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 7. 200 I
2
---
~lllb~J~@~ ~.
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE: 2/28/2001
To: PLANNING COMMISSION
From: SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR~
Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS (REFERRAL FROM TOWN
COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS)
Date: FEBRUARY 23,2001
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2001, the Planning Commission discussed a referral from the Town Council
concerning an increase in the allowable size of secondary dwelling units. The current maximum
square footage allowed is 700 square feet. The Town Council had suggested raising the
maximum to 1,000 square feet provided that no FAR exceptions or variances would be required
to approve the project.
The Planning Commission generally agreed with the proposal to raise the maximum size of a
secondary dwelling unit from 700 to 1,000 square feet, provided that a safeguard is in place to
ensure that the secondary dwelling unit remains incidental to the primary dwelling unit in size. The
Town Council had suggested the following language:
(7) The Secondary Dwelling Unit is a maximum of ~ I 000 enclosed square feet and
no Floor Area Ratio exceotion is reauired for the orooertv to accommodate it
The Commission recommended the following slightly revised language:
(7) The Secondary Dwelling Unit is a maximum of Qo~:.tbir5tQfll]~1l1I9}'C<iQl~JlQQU'[~'!
f9! Jb~_!l[QQ~IJY. _QL l.QQQ _S.illljig J~~L l'{hj~b~y~[ l~ J~~s. _<illci _n_Q jlo_Qr_ll[~<i sllli9
~_x_c~'pjtP_nj_s_(eJlujr~c;l._ 799 8flsls5sa 3€fHare wet.
At its meeting of February 21,2001 the Town Council received the Planning Commission's
recommendation, discussed the matter, and referred the item back to the Planning Commission for
clarification.
TIEURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
2/28/2001
I
EXHIBIT NO.-L
/
;1
..I
l
,
,
\
,
ANALYSIS
The issue needing clarification was whether the Planning Commission intended to apply the "one-
third" standard to either I) the allowable floor area of the property, 2) to the proposed house size.
It was noted that under the current FAR formula, the "one-third" standard would only apply on
lots less than 10,000 square feet. This is because a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in area
would have a maximum FAR of3,OOO square feet, allowing a secondary dwelling unit of 1,000
square feet (1/3) to be applied for. Since there are very few secondary dwelling units on lots less
than 10,000 square feet, the Town Council was uncertain that the "one-third" standard would
have any practical effect except in rare occasions on small lots. The Council requested that the
Commission claritY whether it had intended to have the "one-third" standard apply to the square
footage of the house rather than the allowable square footage (FAR limit) for the property.
Below is a table comparing the two options:
1/3 ofpropertv FAR
1/3 of house size
A 7,500 sq. ft. lot could have a maximum
FAR of2,750 sq. ft. and a secondary unit
of up to 917 sq. ft.
A 7,500 square foot lot with 1,500 sq. ft.
of house could have a secondary unit of up
to 500 sq. ft.
Any 10,000 sq. ft lot could have a maximum
house FAR of3,000 sq. ft. and a secondary unit
of up to 1,000 sq. ft.
A 10,000 sq. ft. lot with 2,500 sq. ft. of
house could have a secondary unit of up to
833 sq. ft.
Any larger lot could have a maximum
secondary unit of up to 1,000 sq. ft.
Any lot with 3,000 square feet of
house could have a secondary unit of up to
1,000 sq. ft.
Staff believes that any lot smaller than 7,500 square feet is unlikely to successfully secure a
secondary dwelling unit use permit due to parking and other limitations. Option 2 better
preserves the distinction between the primary and secondary dwelling unit on properties with
smaller homes.
RECOMMENDA nON
That the Planning Commission claritY its recommendation to the Town Council regarding the
maximum size of secondary dwelling units.
Iscott\z200 1.0 1 pcreport3 .doc
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
21281200 I
2
CONSENT CALENDAR
-~-l~
.'ull-
it
.J
1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14,2001: MlS/ Berger/Snow (4-0) to approve as
corrected.
Corrections: Page 5, last paragraph, last line, "with the two added conditions recommended by
Staff "
UNFINSHED BUSINESS
This item was heard after Item No.4.
~2.
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS: Referral from Town Council of
item regarding the maximum allowable floor area of secondary dwelling units.
Planning Director Anderson indicated that the Town Council had previously considered increasing
the maximum floor area for secondary dwelling units from 700 square feet to 1,000 square feet.
When the Council referred this change to the Planning Commission for review, the Commission
had recommended that the maximum floor area be limited to one-third ofthe allowable floor area
ratio for the property, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less, as long as no floor area exception is
required.
In further reviewing this recommendation, the Town Council was unclear whether the
Commission meant to apply the "one-third" standard to either the allowable floor area of the
property or to the proposed house size. The Council had referred this question back to the
Planning Commission for clarification.
Chair Stein said that it was always his intention that the one-third standard apply to the size of the
house on the property.
Commissioner Berger disagreed, saying that he did not want to penalize people with smaller
homes from having larger secondary dwelling units.
Commissioner Fredericks felt that the purpose of the secondary dwelling unit ordinance has
always been to make sure that these uses are clearly secondary units, with a reasonable
relationship to the size of the main house.
Commissioner Berger stated that he felt it was more important that structures are in scale with the
capacity of the lot to support them rather than in scale with each other.
Commissioner Snow stated that in neighborhoods with smaller homes that are at less than the
TlBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MlNlJfES OF FEBRUARY 28, 200 I
Minutes No. 840
2
n,
~ roo,
i Fl; /^
~, 1 I '
L~~U
l
maximum floor area, the size of the secondary units would be penaliz
Chair Stein said that it was important to prevent fun second dwelling units from being approved
under the guise of the secondary dwelling unit ordinance. He thought this would result in
development more akin to multiple-family housing.
Planning Director Anderson said that there has always been a concern with blurring the distinction
between secondary units and the main house. He noted that there are currently no authorized
secondary dwelling units in the Bel Aire or Belveron neighborhoods.
Commissioner Fredericks replied that it was better to make a clear distinction with this type of
housing.
Commissioner Berger stated that he felt is was acceptable to blur the line between the main and
secondary dwelling units by making the main house smaller.
Chair Stein directed Planning Director Anderson to inform the Town Council that the Planning
Commission is divided over the interpretation of the proposed "one-third" standard.
~
""
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. VIA PARAISO EAST: PRECISE PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE
ILDlNG ENVELOPE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING
PO L; David Hui Liu, owner; Donald Blayney, applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 39-
290-1
Senior Planner Watro xplained that this was a request to modifY the building envelope to
construct a swimming poo ~acent to a recently constructed house at 2 Via Paraiso East. He
explained the history of this re st, and noted that of two previous similar requests in this
subdivision, the Planning COmmisSl had approved one application and denied the other. He
indicated Staff's concern that the prop d modification would be inconsistent with the Town's
definition of building envelope, and could c ate noise or privacy impacts on the downhill
neighbor at 40 Gilmartin Drive. He noted that had received a telephone call from the owner at
40 Gilmartin Drive indicating that he had no object to this request, and had spoken to the
representative of the owner at I Via Paraiso East who 0 had no objections to this application.
He recommended that the Commission conduct the public aring and adopt the draft resolution
denying the request.
Discussion was opened to the public at 7:40 p.m.
Don Blayney, landscape architect and planner for the applicant, stated the was surprised by the
recommendation in the Staff report. He explained that a lot line adjustment been approved by
the Town for the subject property and the lot at 40 Gilmartin Drive which insure rivacy
TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28. 2001
Minutes No. 840
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
ITEM NO.
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL --~
ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY /C::7
ADOPTION OF NEW ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FINES
March 7, 2001
I
BACKGROUND
In 1998. the Town adopted Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code, which provides for code enforcement
through an administrative citation process. Since that time, the Town has penalized violations of the
Code by imposing fines through administrative citations. Pursuant to S 31-14, the Council sets fine
amounts for specified violations by resolution
The Town has encountered increasing difficulty in enforcing the Building Code. To counteract this
problem, the Building Department has begun to add explicit conditions of approval to building
permits that clearly set forth the obligations of the permit holder. However, both Councilmember
T om Gram and Building Official Bloomquist have voiced the opinion that the current fines levels are
inadequate to discourage violations. In addition, low fines may actually encourage builders to
proceed without obtaining any building permit at all.
Staff has identified several other problems that can be addressed by replacing Resolution No. 3300,
the current tine resolution The Building Department has historically found it difficult to compel
home purchasers to comply with the requirements of the Residential Building Report prepared for
their home In addition, Resolution No. 3300 relies on the amounts set by the Marin County Bail
Schedule, which contains some inaccurate citations and is generally out of date. Lastly, the Planning
Department has requested an increase in fines relating to violations of the Town's Urban Runoff
Pollution Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 20A).
ANAL YSlS
The new resolution would clarify that the Town may penalize any violation of the Municipal Code
by administrative citation The default fee level would be $103 for violations otherwise punishable
as infractions and $504 for violations otherwise punishable as misdemeanors.
The Resolution would substantially increase penalties for violating the Building Code The Town
would penalize work performed without a permit according to the following schedule:
1
Project valuation less than $5,000: $250.
Project valuation from $5,000 to $10,000: $500.
Project valuation from $10,000 to $50,000: $1,000 plus 2 times the permit fee.
Project valuation in excess of$50,000: $1,000 plus 4 times the permit fee.
At present, the Town's fine for work without a permit is a $250 investigative fee. In addition, the
Town increases the fee for the required permit to four times the usual fee.
In addition, the Town would penalize violations of Building Permit Conditions as follows:
First violation: $500
Second violation: $1000
Third violation $2000
Fourth violation: $3000 and suspension of permit.
At present, the Building Official controls such violations by issuing Stop Work Notices.
In addition to assessing monetary fines, the Building Official would retain the discretion to issue a
Stop Work Order upon ascertainment of the violation All penalties must be paid, and violations
corrected, before the Stop Work Order is lifted. Upon a fourth offense, the Building Official will
make a formal complaint to the State Contractors License Board.
With respect to Residential Building Reports, the Resolution would mark something of a change in
Town policy. Hitherto. we have not prosecuted such cases. The Resolution would clearly authorize
the Building Ofiicial to impose a $103 fine for each day that mandatory corrective work remains
incomplete past the deadline in the Municipal Code.
In addition, the Resolution would also substantially increase fines for violations of the Urban Runoff
Pollution Protection Ordinance, as follows:
First violation: $250 per day
Second violation: $500 per day
Third violation: $1000 per day
The Town's current fine for these violations is $103.
Lastly, the Resolution correctly states the Code Sections that should accompany the specified
violations The Resolution also ret1ects staff's intention to correct the County Bail Schedule at the
earliest opportunity, which should be next fall. The Resolution provides that applicable fines shall
be that set forth in the Resolution or the Bail Schedule, which ever is higher.
2
RECOMMEND A nON
The Council should consider and adopt the proposed Resolution.
EXHIBITS
Draft Resolution Setting Administrative Fines
Resolution No. 3300
Building Permit Conditions of Approval
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON SETTING FORTH THE
VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT MAY BE
ENFORCED BY ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 31 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR SUCH
VIOLATIONS
WHEREAS. on August 5, 1998, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Town Council held
second reading of, and did adopt, Ordinance No 439 N.S., which ordinance became effective on
September 4, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No 439 NS added Chapter 31 to the Tiburon Municipal Code,
establishing a new Code Enforcement procedure for the Town; and;
WHEREAS, Chapter 31 provides that certain violations of the Town's Municipal Code may
be enforced by the issuance of administrative citations, as provided by resolution of the Council, and
further provides that the amount of fines for such code violations shall be established by resolution
of the Town Council; and
WHEREAS. the on September 16, 1998, the Council adopted Resolution No. 3300, which
set forth the violations of the Municipal Code that may be punished by administrative citation and
established a schedule of tines for said violations
WHEREAS. Resolution No 3300 incorporated the bail amounts set forth in the Uniform
Penalty and Bail Schedules published by the Marin County Courts for violations of the Tiburon
Municipal Code ("Bail Schedule"), which amounts the Council now finds are out of date;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows:
Resolution No. 3300 is hereby repealed and replaced by this Resolution.
2. Any violation of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code may be enforced by administrative
citation pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code in the discretion of the Town Manager.
3. Exhibit A sets forth a list of fines for particular violations of the Municipal Code. In some
instances, the Municipal Code and/or the applicable Bail Schedule may also establish a fee,
tine or other penalty In such instances, the fine imposed by administrative citation shall be
the greater of the fee. fine or other penalty established by Exhibit A, the Municipal Code or
that set torth in the applicable Bail Schedule. The applicable Bail Schedule shall be that in
etfect at the time of the violation
EXfrrBIT NO.-L
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on
March .2001 by the following vote:
AYES
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
2
EXHffiIT A
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES
1 Work without a Permit (Municipal Code S 13-2):
Project valuation less than $5,000: $250.
Project valuation from $5,000 to $10,000: $500.
Project valuation from $10,000 to $50,000: $1,000 plus 2 times the permit fee.
Project valuation in excess of$50,000: $1,000 plus 4 times the permit fee.
2. Violation of Building Permit Conditions (Municipal Code SS 23-31, 23-34, 26-3, 31-3):
First violation: $500
Second violation $1000
Third violation: $2000
Fourth violation: $3000 penalty and suspension of permit.
In addition to assessing monetary tines, the Building Official may, in his sole discretion,
issue a Stop Work Order upon ascertainment of the violation All penalties must be paid,
and violations corrected, before the Stop Work Order is lifted. Upon a fourth offense, the
Building Official will make a formal complaint to the State Contractors License Board.
3. Violation of any conditions included in a resolution designating property as an historic
landmark (Municipal Code S9 13B-6, 13B-7) $103
4. Violation of Other Development Permit Conditions (Municipal Code 916.5.12.00) $103
for each day that the violation persists.
5 Alteration. Planting or Removal of Tree without Permit (Municipal Code 9 ISA-3):
$1000 per tree.
6. Failure to maintain dogs on leash in specified areas (Municipal Code S 20-3): $45.
7. Failure to Remove dog feces (Municipal Code S 20-4) $45.
8 Keeping or maintaining a horse without a permit (Municipal Code S 20-10): $103.
9. Failure to make improvements required by a Residential Building Report (Municipal
Code 9 13A-8) $103
1
~
10. Violation of the Town ofTiburon Urban Runoff Pollution Protection Ordinance
(Municipal Code ~~ 20A-7, 20A-8, 20A-9, 20A-IO, 20A-1I):
First violation: $250 per day
. Second violation: $500 per day
Third and subsequent violations: $1000 per day
II. All other violations of the Municipal Code: In the absence of another, higher fine imposed
under this resolution or the applicable Bail Schedule, the fine shall be $103 for violations
otherwise punishable as infractions and $504 for violations otherwise punishable as
misdemeanors.
4
..
(' ,
RESOLUTION NO. 3300
o~
<ICA'
'lIt:
/
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIT.. OF THE
TOWN OF TIBURON SETTING FORTH THE
VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT MAY BE
ENFORCED BY ADl\nNISTRATIVE CITATION
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 31 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF FINES FOR SUCH
VIOLATIONS
WHEREAS, on August 5, 1998, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Town Council held
second reading of; and did adopt, Ordinance No. 439 N.S., which ordinance became effective on
September 4, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 439 N.S. added Chapter 31 to the Tiburon Municipal Code,
establishing a new Code Enforcement procedure for the Town; and;
WHEREAS, Chapter 31 provides that certain violations of the Town's Municipal Code may
be enforced by the issuance of administrative citations, as provided by resolution of the Council, and
further provides that the amount of fines for such code violations shall be established by resolution
of the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council now intends to set forth the violations of the Municipal Code that
may be punished by administrative citation and establish a schedule offines for said violations.
WHEREAS, the Uniform Penalty and Bail Schedules published by the Marin County Courts
("Bail Schedule") includes a list of bail amounts for violations of the Tiburon Municipal Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows:
I. Any violation of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code for which a bail amount is established
by the applicable Bail Schedule may be enforced by administrative citation pursuant to
Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code in the discretion of the Town Manager. The applicable
Bail Schedule shall be that in effect at the time of the violation.
2. In cases where the Municipal Code establishes a fee, fine or other penalty for a violation, the
fine imposed by administrative citation shall be the greater of the fee, fine or other penalty
established by the Municipal Code or that set forth in the applicable Bail Schedule. In other
cases, unless otherwise provided by resolution of the Council, the amount of fine to be
imposed by administrative citation for a violation of the Municipal Code shall be the amount
of bail set forth in the applicable Bail Schedule.
I
EXHIBIT NO. 2-
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
on September 16, 1998 by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews,
Thompson
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None
~ S7H~vs
HARRY . MATTHEWS, MAYOR
Town ofTiburon
A~
D 1. CRANE, TowN CLERK
2
" .
;.:.m
13=
!!.a::I:
.s:
g.ii"
~ -
::::~
..
.."
",0
- ~
~. 4;
<2-
- S'
:>
..
o
Co>
o
Co>
'"
..
:>
Q,
...
o
Ol
-
o
<
D
~
'"
(oJ
NNNNNNNCClClOOOClO
Y'~~~~~?OOOO
~NNNNNW,)~~~~
-..,JVlVlVll."o..) tv _
--- VlOCOO-..,J
~,e.e NVI-\,Q
00 OC 00 QC OC
00000
~~~~~
- 00
-..,J-...JO\\OW
""0000
-
-
---3:3:-----
N -
O~~
, , ,
-"">
.
N'"
o
VlWWI",W
>N.!......!.....
,
-
o
b:l
t..Ji--J
--. --.
'" 10
'-' '-'
N
--
a:;:---
~c~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~
~3~a-3.(JQ(JQ--3"'0 <~g~",
~ioea-~~~~-~i~6.~~e.o
(1li _ I;n !!.::..:;tl := ("0 n ::r (D _....., -.. ::s - .....,
--. ::sI;nCC-_ROS~a~~~=
oggs~ggOO~.;~~~~",,,,
ri 0 c= (JQ t"" -. -. 9. C 10 :: ..., C'.f.l n 5' S.g !;l
g::s::s~=ii~g~.~N~'o~~~'~
(; Z ~ 10 Oil 10 10 -:l :l g, 0 :l :l -. 0 g, ~
c:: ~ ~ (1li - - ~ ~ (j e..;n e: ~ s. '="J ~
~3 ---.t""t"" 01O:l0=0100'''
-. a" 0 ~ t""!!l 10 t"" "c :. (JQ '" 0 ... "'C ... =.
g ~~ o~ag~ rr~~g ~iii ill ~g >iii
~~.o~--ill n~~;03~l~
CJQ_:::S::S(1li 0 =-.....,o~....rD
:l~ .~nn ~~~~~<~~~
:! _ ~ n f'D n 0=' n ~. &'g 0..,
~~v.;; <::L::L '" e'"
::;: ~= :::I .....,..,--
o o' S' :i" ~ - ~ ~ ~
....., ~~> 5' (1li o~
(i ::-. :!. .., ~_. :l
:T' 0<('1> =- <:: cn(i
==Q) E.. - 2'"
(i' '-" ;- Vl n' :r - ~
(i" en g Sl=
en ~ '-" - ;:r:i"
g ~ ~::s ::I:
en g. ~. ~
o - .
"0
~
.c.
a"
'<
...
'"
.
o
~
-
o'
:l
~CIlO"''''C=C'.f.lno
!75" o""Oo:=cn~
... 0:: '" -. (") '" ~ :l
tn' ~ !2.:3::3:r 0 ('D ::;
C. CD :;:'::-. =-.~(JQ ....., g- 9-
"'3~"':l:loo<Illo
0.... (JQ O'Q "0 ... '" ...
<1l 0 ~~...,
III ill ~ ~ g: ; ;: n' 5' ~
~ ttI:T'_=.saCi"CJQ(JQ
.., :::s _. 0 ::: - ""P'I en
en rncr""1O'Q(;'loz.
(1li -. n ::: u' r-
.['ri~c:~o;gg
z - ~c-.
o 0 '" ~ -. 10_
- 0 -. :::I :=,::-.-
_ 0 (") (JQ -. 0 .....
lO=(i'" l:s~
0;.... c= III 0 c= . ,J;;
(;' 5" ::: - ::: ~ c
~ 0 3' c= 3: "'C ~.
o"'O~E.a ~
o 0"" = =-.:r =.
...,<~c: -
~_. '" CIl. n
Q.."'O (tI ~
g-8'~~ S
c ~ Q.. - S'
-c..o:r
-0"'= >
'" ~ ...
3 -. ~ g
;::+. :;. E.. CIJ
o =.
S.C
"'C.
'" '"
... -0
~. III
_=-
.... ....
""
00
~'-'
~~~~~~ ~~~Er" *
(,4--V'l-{,4~~~~
oooooo~oooO~~+:o.~~
t....lt....lt....lWWWV'lWWOWV'IV'IV'IV'IV'I
.... ....
-
00
'-' '-'
....
-~~~
0- -
0000
ow W W
-
(f)
CIl
(')
~
o'
::::l
o
-
-
CIl
::::l
en
CD
CJ-l
Ql g
=e!.
I
I
I
I
~
=
c:
::c
=0
;e:z
r-(")
en=i
(")0(
:to
m::c
Cc
c:_
r-z
m:r>
Z
(")
m
en
TOWN OF TIB URON
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
,
"~D' ""e;'
-' 0
o 2
c .
" .
Z~~()"'N'" '" "'..
,
CONDITIONS OF PERMIT
1505 TIBURON BLVD., TIBURON, CA 94920
(415) 435-7380 FAX (415) 435-7395
~FI
The level of construction in Tiburon has been very high for many years, and the
volume of complaints is rising. It is essential that contractors respect the neighbors
and do everything possible to mitigate the problems of noise, traffic impact, debris,
damaged streets/sidewalks. Schedule noisy equipment later in the morning, keep
radio volume down, keep the site clean, keep the streets clear, and be aware of the
impact you are having on the neighborhood.
The general contractor is responsible for his own workers and all subcontractors;
the Building Department will not discuss these issues with subcontractors.
In an effort to reduce the negative impact construction projects have on the
neighborhood, the following conditions will be strictly enforced.
1. Do not block the street with vehicles, material, debris box, or equipment.
Obtain permission from the Building Department for temporary street
blockage for material, concrete trucks, etc.
2. Keep the construction site and clean and orderly. Clean up the site daily and
deposit all debris/scrap in containers. Broom clean the street and sidewalk
daily.
3. Carefully observe the approved work hours printed on your job card.
4. Do not wash down concrete trucks/chutes into gutters.
5. Maintain winterization requirements. Only clear water is to leave the jobsite.
This notice is formal notification that failure to observe the above conditions will be
considered a violation of your permit and the following penalties will be imposed:
First violation:
. Stop Work Order to remain in effect until the conditions are corrected
. $500 penalty must be paid before Stop Work Order is lifted.
Second violation:
. Stop Work Order to remain in effect until the conditions are corrected.
. $1000 penalty must be paid before Stop Work Order is lifted.
Third violation:
. Stop Work Order to remain in effect until the conditions are corrected.
. $2000 penalty must be paid before Stop Work Order is lifted.
Fourth violation:
. Stop Work Order to remain in effect until conditions are corrected.
. $3000 penalty
. Suspension of permit.
. Formal complaint to Contractors License Board
~.--.
EXHIBIT NO. 3
-
_n_-.-:l
,...------
.
, .
~./
Printed on recycled paper
@
L...
. ._,., 1.1
uU-'uw
u
-----
---l
TOWN OF TIBURON
STAFF REpORT
ITEM NO.
/0
To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
Subject: ADOPTION OF NEW AND REVISED PERMIT APPLICATION FEE
SCHEDULES TO INCREASE COST RECOVERY OF ADMINISTRATIVE,
LEGAL, PLAN STORAGE AND OTHER COSTS (Resolutions)
Date: March 7, 2001
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Building Department recovers its costs through the imposition of fees on
development applications. These fees are set by resolution, currently Resolution Nos. 3353 and 3354.
Resolution No. 3353 sets a flat fee for most applications and provides that certain others, where the
cost is more uncertain, shall be billed by hourly rates. In the latter case, applicants pay a deposit, also
set by Resolution No. 3353, against which they are billed according to hourly rates set by Resolution
No. 3354.
The Planning Director believes that this system allows for substantial cost recovery in most cases.
However, Resolution No. 3354 only includes fee schedules for Planning, Building and Engineering
personnel. This is because most of the Town's costs, in most cases, come from those departments,
with incidental involvement by administrative, legal and other personnel. However, occasionally, an
application does require a significant amount of time by such personnel. At present, the Town has
no means of recovering those costs.
The Town's long-range planning functions are another source of unrecovered costs. Under state law,
the Town is required to have a current, legally valid General Plan in order to process and approve
development applications. The General Plan should be updated approximately every ten years. The
next update is expected to cost $300,000. In recent years, the County of Marin and the Cities of
Novato, San Rafael and Mill Valley have adopted long-range planning recovery fees, imposed as a
surcharge on building permits. Staff proposes that the Town also begin to recovery the cost of
maintaining its General Plan and other long-range planning functions
Tibl/ron Town COllncil
Staff Report
3/7/200 I
I
ANALYSIS
1. Administrative. Lel!al and Other Personnel Costs.
The attachment memorandum (Exhibit 1) from the Finance Director explains how he calculated the
hourly rates for Town personnel. Using these numbers, project applicants can be charged for all costs
associated with the processing of their applications.
However, the Council should consider several issues before adopting these fee schedules. The
resolution in its current form would not improve cost recovery associated with matters pending on
appeal before the Council. At present, the Town imposes a flat $300 fee on appeals, to be paid by
the appellant. This covers routine planning activities associated with preparing a matter for appeal,
but not administrative, legal and other costs. This is a significant gap, because the Town Manager
and Town Attorney are most likely to get involved with development applications on appeal. One
recent example is Saint Hilary's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial ofa CUP.
To close this gap, the Council must decide whether the applicant or the appellant should bear the
costs not covered by the $300 appeal fee (assuming that the applicant and appellant are different
parties), or whether the Town should continue to "absorb" such costs through the General Fund.
This could prove to be a significant decision, as it may induce the non-cost bearing party to attempt
to drive up the costs of the appeal. If the Council believes that the appellant should bear the costs,
staff will suggest at the meeting further revisions to attached Exhibit 2 (the revised fee schedule)
providing that appeals shall be charged at an hourly rate. If the Council believes that the applicant
should pay the excess costs, the attached Exhibit 2 should be modified to clarify that the Cost
Recovery Agreements require the applicant to pay all costs associated with the application, including
any appeal costs not covered by other fees.
A second issue is the Cost Recovery Agreements contemplated by Exhibit 3 (the new hourly rate
schedule). Councilmember Gram has advocated these Agreements as an improved mechanism for
requiring developers to pay processing costs. The Council should decide whether these Agreements
should be required for all applications or only those that are likely to incur costs beyond the monies
collected in advance. We recommend that the Council consider modifying Exhibit 3 to provide that
Cost Recovery Agreements are required for all applications for which the Town bills on an hourly
basis. If the Council elects to provide that applicants pay for excess appeal costs, they should also
require Agreements for Site Plan and Architectural Review approvals (other than staff level) and
variances If the Council requires that appellants pay those excess costs, then Exhibit 3 should state
that any party filing an appeal must execute a Cost Recovery Agreement.
2. Lonl!-Ranl!e Planninl!/General Plan Maintenance Fee.
The Town of Tiburon currently funds its advance (long-range) planning functions, including
General Plan updates, through general fund revenues Over the past few years, cities and counties
have begun to incorporate funding mechanisms into their fee schedules to help recover these
Tiburon Town Council
Slaff Reporl
3/7/200 I
2
costs. The primary method for recovering the long-range planning costs is to place a surcharge
on building permits. In recent years, the Cities of Nova to, San Rafael, and Mill Valley, and the
County of Marin have all adopted such fees. A long-range planning /general plan maintenance fee
for the Town ofTiburon is proposed to provide a funding source for long-range planning
functions. The proposed fee is a 10% surcharge on all building permits.
State law requires every city and county to adopt and maintain a "comprehensive, long-term
general plan for the physical development of the county or city... .". The last major update of the
Tiburon General Plan occurred in 1989. The Housing Element update is currently underway and
other elements will be tackled in short order. The Town also engages in other long-range
planning efforts periodically, such as the Downtown Design Guidelines and the Hillside Design
Guidelines.
In order to assist with funding these long-range planning efforts, staff is proposing a 10%
surcharge on building permits. The fees would be collected separately in a restricted fund to be
used exclusively for the General Plan update or other long-range planning functions. The table
below indicates long range planning fees that would be associated with a range of typical building
permits:
TYPE OF PROJECT PROJECT BUILDING 100/" LONG RANGE
VALUATION PERMIT FEE PLANNING FEE
New Residence $700,000 $5,880 $588
Residential Addition $100,000 $1,292 $129
Fence $9000 $150 $15
At the present time, the Town has budgeted the following amounts for current long-range
planning functions:
Housing Element update:
Other General Plan Elements:
Downtown Design Guidelines:
$58,000
$80,000
$30,000
(update required every 5 years)
(update approx. every 10 years)
(or typical similar project every 5 years)
TOTAL
$168,000
Additional General Plan update expenditures are anticipated, but not reflected in the current two-
year budget due to the lengthy timeframe for completion of the general plan update. It is likely
that the total cost for a General Plan update will approach $300,000, including in-house Staff
time. The City of Mill Valley projects a cost of $400,000 to $450,000 to update its General Plan.
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Repart
3/7/2001
3
Over the course ofa 10-year period, the Town could expect to spend $380,000 on long-term
planning/general plan updates. Assuming that the Town's current building permit revenue stream
remains stable at approximately $350,000 per year, a 10% surcharge on building permits would
generate revenues of$35,000 annually. Over a 10-year period the Town would accumulate
approximately $350,000.00 in long-range planning/general plan maintenance revenues.
Town Staff has determined that the total amount of the proposed fee would not exceed the cost
of the planning services to be provided. While the fee would provide substantial recovery of the
long-range planning costs of the Town, it will almost certainly not recover all costs, leaving a
portion to be funded by the general fund. The amount charged to individual projects is reasonably
proportional to the contribution those projects make to the need for long-range planning work
and General Plan updates.
For comparison purposes, other cities in Marin and the County of Marin charge the following
long-range planning/general plan maintenance fees:
Marin County 5%
City of Nova to 10%
City of Mill Valley 15%
City of San Rafael 15%
The financial analysis indicates that the 10% fee would most closely balance costs with revenue
recovery given the Town's current level of building permit revenue and estimated cost oflong-
range planning functions It is recommended that the Town Council adopt a 10% surcharge on
building permit fees for collection into a restricted long-range planning/general plan maintenance
fund.
3. Cost Recovery for Plan Storage.
Due to increases in application numbers and the sheer volume of paper and plans involved, as well
as changes in employment law, the Planning & Building Department was recently required to upgrade
its formerly part-time contract records management clerk position to a % time permanent position.
Current plan storage fees, last revised in 1999, do not serve to recover the costs of providing the
servIce.
The Finance Director has prepared an analysis (Exhibit 4) indicating that the plan storage function
is seriously underfunded by current plan storage fee revenues. Therefore, increases to the plan
storage component of the both Planning Fee Schedule and Building Fee Schedule are proposed. The
new fees are projected to substantially recover the costs associated with the plan storage/records
management function of the Planning & Building Department.
Copies of the current Fee Schedule (Resolution No. 3353) and Hourly Rate Schedule (Resolution No.
3354) are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively
Tiburon Town Council
Staff Report
3/7/2001
4
RECOMMEND A nON
1. Hold a public hearing.
2. Consider the issues set forth in the staff report and modify the resolutions accordingly.
3. Adopt both Resolutions (Exhibits 2 and 3).
EXHmITS
1. Memorandum from Finance Director dated 2/28/0 I regarding staff hourly rates.
2. Draft Resolution adopting revised Planning, Building, and Engineering Fee Schedule.
3. Draft Resolution adopting new Hourly Rate Schedule for T own of Tiburon Personnel.
4. Memo from Finance Director dated 3/1/2001 regarding plan storage cost recovery.
5. Resolution No. 3353 (current Planning, Building, Engineering Fee Schedule).
6. Resolution No. 3354 (current Hourly Rate Schedule).
Iscottlfees 200 I tcreport.doc
Tibl/ron Town Council
Staff Report
3/7/2001
5
TOWN OF TIBURON
.:~
'.
~ )f'_...,,~
1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD . TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435.7373
FAX (415) 435-2438
SENT VIA FAX
(510) 524-0904
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
FEBRUARY 28,2001
ANN
RICHARD
RATES FOR RECHARGE OF STAFF TIME
ANN:
Attached is a 4-page worksheet that leads to a final recharge rate for each position.
Information Concemin'{ The Factors Used:
I. Salary - MontWy salary
2. Retirement - Rates at 13% for PERS Miscellaneous, 22% for PERS Sworn Public Safety
3. Medical- MontWy allowance provided by Town
4. Allowance - Auto Allowances
5. FICA - Tax rate is 1.45%
6. Workers' Compensation - Use of rates provided by State. Based on percent of payroll-
1% for administrative, 4% for Building Inspectors, 10% for Sworn Public Safety, 13% for
Public Works Maintenance Workers
7. Liability Insurance - Based on a flat rate percentage of base salary. Town salary payroll is
approximately $2 Million, 3% is $60,000. This is consistent with recent history.
8. Compensated Leave Accrual - I used 3 levels: Department Heads 15%, Mid-Management
12.5%, and all other employees 10%. Differences in tenure affect Vacation Leave accrual,
all Staff accrue one Sick Leave day per month, Department Heads accrue more
Administrative Leave than Mid-Management (other Staff receive none).
EXHIBIT NO.
p. \ of G
I
9. Facility (Quasi-Rent) - I treated each facility as if there was an existing 30-Year mortgage
on each. Then calculated the total number of hours worked in each facility, and calculated
an hourly rate for each Staff-hour worked. For example Town Hall ($2 Million, 30 Years,
7%, $150,628 per year) Based on staffing levels, including the Director of Public Works,
the total number of staff hours worked in a year is approximately 27,000, therefore a staff
hour would be valued at $5.58. I did the same exercise for Police and Public Works.
10. Equipment Replacement - I augmented the existing replacement schedule for each facility
and calculated a staff-hour value, as above (#10.) For example the annual allowance for
Police is approximately $90,000, divided that figure by the number of staff hours worked
at the Police Building in a year, approx. 36,000, to come up with a $2.49 per hour rate.
The Public Works' rate is greater ($2.75) because fewer staff support a moderately large
equipment base.
11. Operating Component - I calculated a staff hourly rate by totaling the following costs -
facility, telecommunication, vehicle fuel and maintenance, technical support, projected
energy rate increase, and other supplies, and conference costs. For example - for Town
Hall staff, the aggregate annual cost of these items is $160,000. This figure divided by the
number of staff-hours yields a $5.92 hourly rate. For No. II specifically, there is a certain
lack of precision. Obviously other factors could be included.
~~
~SI ~
EXHIBIT NO.
~.;).+(..
D';~ .';'>. t:....1
'~:;.A.
MONTHLY COMPENSATION
Including Hourly Rates I 2 3 4 (1+2+3+4
Salary Retirement Medical Allowance SUBTOTAL
ADMINISTRATION
I Town Manager 9.167 1.192 500 350 II .209
2 Town Attorney 8.426 1.095 500 200 10,221
3 Finance Director 5.520 718 500 50 6,788
4 Town Clerk 4,300 559 450 5,309
5 Admin Finance Assistant 4.092 532 450 5,074
6 Office Assistant 2 2.871 373 427 3,671
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .
7 Planning Director 6.752 878 500 150 8,280
8 Senior Planner 5.000 650 450 6.100
9 Associate Planner 4.043 526 450 5,019
10 Planning Secretary 3,119 405 427 3,951
II Building Official 5,700 741 450 6,891
12 Building Inspector 5.040 655 427 6.122
13 Permits Clerk 3,372 438 427 4,237
14 Records Management Clerk 2.654 345 300 3.299
POLICE DEPARTMENT
IS Police Chief 7,637 1.680 500 9.817
16 Police Lieutenant 6.559 1,443 450 8,452
17 Police Sergeant 5.143 1,131 489 6,763
18 Police Officer 4,401 968 489 5,858
19 Community Service Officer 2,574 335 300 3.209
20 Police Secretary 3,566 464 450 4,480
21 Public Safety Clerk . 2,947 383 489 3.819
PUBLIC WORKS
22 Public Works Director · 8.000 1.040 500 9,540
23 Superintendent Public Works 5,853 761 500 7,114
24 Assistant Superintendent 4,630 602 450 5.682
25 Foreman 4.178 543 427 5.148
26 Maintenance Worker 2 3,464 450 427 4,341
27 Maintenance Worker 1 3.220 419 427 4,066
Ex..BIBIT NO.
?)A:c,
02/28/200 I. Page-l
DRAFT
MONTHLY COMPENSATION
Including Hourly Rates 5 6 7 8 (5-1-6+7+8
FICA Workers Comp Liability Comp Leave SUBTOTAL
ADMlNlSTRATION
1 Town Manager 133 92 275 1,375 1,875
2 Town Attorney 122 84 253 1.264 1.723
3 Finance Director 80 55 166 828 1,129
4 Town Clerk 62 43 129 538 772
5 Admin Finance Assistant 59 41 123 512 735
6 Office Assistant 2 42 29 86 287 444
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
7 Planning Director 98 68 203 1,013 1,381
8 Senior Planner 73 50 150 625 898
9 Associate Planner 59 40 121 505 726
10 Planning Secretary 45 31 94 468 638
II Building Official 83 228 171 713 1,194
12 Building Inspector 73 202 151 504 930
13 Permits Clerk 49 34 101 337 521
14 Records Management Clerk 38 27 80 265 410
POLICE DEPARTMENT
15 Police Chief III 764 229 1,146 2,249
16 Police Lieutenant 95 656 197 820 1,768
17 Police Sergeant 75 514 154 514 1,257
18 Police Officer 64 440 132 440 1,076
19 Community Service Officer 37 26 77 257 398
20 Police Secretary 52 36 107 357 551
21 Public Safety Clerk 43 29 88 295 455
PUBLIC WORKS
22 Public Works Director. 116 80 240 1,200 1,636
23 Superintendent Public Works 85 761 176 878 1,899
24 Assistant Superintendent 67 602 139 579 1.387
25 Foreman 61 543 125 418 1,147
26 Maintenance Worker 2 50 450 104 346 951
27 Maintenance Worker 1 47 419 97 322 884
EXHIBIT NO. f
p.4AC-
02/28/2001, Page-2
DRAf"f
MONTHLY COMPENSATION COMBINEC SUBTOTAL
Including Hourly Rates MONTHL ~ HOURLY
SUBTOT AI RATE
ADMlNlSTRA TION
I Town Manager 13,083 86.26
2 Town Attorney 11,944 78.75
3 Finance Director 7,916 52.20
4 Town Clerk 6,081 40.09
5 Admin Finance Assistant 5,808 38.30
6 Office Assistant 2 4,115 27.13
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
7 Planning Director 9,661 63.70
8 Senior Planner 6,998 46.14
9 Associate Planner 5,744 37.87
10 Planning Secretary 4,589 30.26
II Building Official 8,085 53.31
12 Building Inspector 7,052 46.50
13 Permits Clerk 4,758 31.37
14 Records Management Clerk 3,709 24.46
POLICE DEPARTMENT
15 Police Chief 12,066 79.56
16 Police Lieutenant 10,220 67.38
17 Police Sergeant 8,021 52.89
18 Police Officer 6,934 45.72
19 Community Service Officer 3,606 23.78
20 Police Secretary 5,031 33.17
21 Public Safety Clerk 4,274 28.18
PUBLIC WORKS
22 Public Works Director * 11,176 73.69
23 Superintendent Public Works 9,013 59.43
24 Assistant Superintendent 7,069 46.61
25 Foreman 6,295 41.51
26 Maintenance Worker 2 5,292 34.89
27 Maintenance Worker I 4,949 32.63
EXHIBIT NO. I
p. 5 . + ~ 02/28/200 I, Page-3
DRAFT
MONTHLY COMPENSATION Hourly Rates------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL
Including Hourly Rates 9 10 11 (5-+{;+ 7+8 HOURL"\:
Facility Eq Repl Operating SUBTOTAL RATE
ADMINISTRATION
1 Town Manager 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 98.87
2 Town Attorney 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 91.36
3 Finance Director 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 64.81
4 Town Clerk 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 52.70
5 Admin Finance Assistant 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 50.91
6 Office Assistant 2 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 39.74
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
7 Planning Director 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 76.31
8 Senior Planner 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 58.75
9 Associate Planner 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 50.48
10 Planning Secretary 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 42.87
11 Building Official 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 65.92
12 Building Inspector 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 59.11
13 Permits Clerk 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 43.98
14 Records Management Clerk 5.58 1.11 5.92 12.61 37.06
POLICE DEPARTMENT
15 Police Chief 4.58 2.49 4.70 11.77 91.33
16 Police Lieutenant 4.58 2.49 4.70 11.77 79.15
17 Police Sergeant 4.58 2.49 4.70 11.77 64.65
18 Police Officer 4.58 2.49 4.70 11.77 57.49
19 Community Service Officer 4.58 2.49 4.70 11.77 35.55
20 Police Secretary 4.58 2.49 4.70 11.77 44.94
21 Public Safety Clerk 4.58 2.49 4.70 11.77 39.95
PUBLIC WORKS
22 Public Works Director * 5.58 1.11 . 5.92 12.61 86.30
23 Superintendent Public Works 3.88 2.75 5.15 11.78 71.21
24 Assistant Superintendent 3.88 2.75 5.15 11.78 58.38
25 Foreman 3.88 2.75 5.15 11.78 53.28
26 Maintenance Worker 2 3.88 2.75 5.15 11.78 46.67
27 Maintenance Worker 1 3.88 2.75 5.15 11.78 44.41
... ~TT NO.
p. L+ c:,
02/28/200 I, Page-4
RESOLUTION NO. _-2001
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 3353 AND ESTABLISHING NEW
PLANNING, BUILDING, AND ENGINEERING FEE SCHEDULES
FOR THE TOWN OF TIBURON
WHEREAS, the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that any changes to the Planning
& Building Department's filing and processing fees be set forth by Resolution of the Town
Council, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Town Council that such fees be used to reimburse
the Town for the costs of providing the services for which the fees are assessed, thereby
maintaining productive and efficient service levels commensurate with the work demands
within the Planning & Building Department. and
WHEREAS, from time to time it is necessary to revise these fees to reflect actual
costs incurred by the Planning & Building Department in the normal course of its operation
and according to its obligations to administer State statutory requirements under the
authority of Town ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has provided required notice and held a pLIblic
hearing pLIrsuantto state law and local ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town COLIncil of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby adopt revised Building, Planning, and Engineering Fee Schedules,
attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C respectively. said fee schedules to become
effective 60 days from the passage of this resolution and to sLIpersede the fees schedules
set forth in Resolution No. 3353.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on , 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK
EXHIBIT NO. ~
V. \.f- 1\
EXHIBIT A: BUILDING FEES
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
The Building Permit Fee for all single or multi-family units shall be based on the actual value of the
construction, but in no case shall the fee be less than that listed in the Building Valuation Chart:
1. Apartment Houses:
Type I or II F.R. ..................................................................................................... $142.50/sq.ft.
Type V - Masonry (or Type III) ...............................................................................$114.50/sq.ft.
Type V - Wood Frame .............................................................................................$IIO.IO/sq.ft.
Type I Garage............................................................................................................. $58. 40/sq.ft.
2. Dwellings:
Type V-Masonry........................................ .................... ......$130.60/sq.ft.
Type V -Wood Frame ............ ............. ............. ............. ....$125.00/sq.ft.
Garage ............ ............ ........................................................... $30.00/sq.ft.
The initial fee may be based on the Valuation Chart but may be adjusted later to reflect actual value.
Building Valuation Supplements: The following occupancies and types are not covered in the Building
Valuation Data in the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Building Standards. The
Building Pennit Fee is as follows:
1.
Sprinklered Structure (retrofits only)..
................ ..... $3 .OO/sq.ft.
2.
Tenant Improvements - Commercial...
.... $37.50/sq.ft.
3.
Block Walls & Pilasters (includes footings)
. ........... .......... $5.00/sq.ft.
4.
Retaining Walls (includes footings)
... $15.00/sq.ft.
5.
Retaining Walls (wood) .....
......... ..... $5.00/sq.ft.
6.
Greenhouse
.............. ...... $1 O.OO/sq.ft.
7.
Patio, Solid Cover
..... ........ $12.00/sq.ft.
8.
Patio, Lattice Cover
$9.00/sq.ft.
9.
Aluminum Patio Enclosure
..... $50.00/sq.ft.
10. Deck
......... .... $1 O.OO/sq.ft.
11.
Demolition
. . ..$100.00
Tiburon Fee Schedule
Effective --/--/2001
EXHIBIT NO. :J.
Ii" J..t- II
1
12. Re-roof
Project value to be substantiated by providing contract; Building Pennit Fee is detennined from
the Project Valuation Schedule.
13. Swimming PooVSpa/Hot Tub:
Project value to be substantiated by providing contract; Building Pennit Fee is detennined from
Project Valuation Schedule.
14. Miscellaneous Work:
Building Pennit Fee for any work not covered under the Building Pennit Fees listed in either the
Building Valuation Chart or Building Valuation Supplement is to be determined from the Project
Valuation Schedule. Project value to be substantiated by providing contract.
NnSCELLANEOUSFEES
1. Plan Storage fees:
Valuation
0- $100,000. . .. .......................
$100,000 - 200,000... ......................
$200,000 - 800,000...........
$800,000 - over ..
$60.00
$12000
........... $18000
............. $250.00
2.
Residential Resale Inspection for Residential Building Report (RBR) .................
$15000
3.
Residential Resale Re-inspection: .....
$75.00
4.
Business License:
Project value $0 - $5000 .
Project value $5001 - $25,000
Projects valued over - $25,000
............ ...................................... $15.00
......................... ............. $25.00
................... .......... .0012 of the Project value.
5. Plan Checking Fees: All construction plans must be checked for conformance with State and
Town regulations. A plan checking fee shall be paid to the Town along with submittal of
construction drawings and specifications for review. Plan checking fees shall be 65% of the
building permit fees. Where plans are incomplete, or changed so as to require an additional plan
check review, an additional plan review fee shall be charged by the Town at $60.00 per hour with
a minimum charge of one hour.
6. Fees for Work Commenced without Pennit:
Permit - Investigative Fee:
.. $250.00
A person who starts any work for which a pennit is required and who does not have a valid
permit for that work is charged an investigative fee as stated in Municipal Code Title IV (Land
Improvement and Use), Chapter 13 (Building), Section 13-3 (pennits - Investigative Fee).
Tiburon Fee Schedule
Effective --/--/2001
-'yr..>TB' -T NO .1
'. d. 1 1
f>' 3.+ (I
2
Permit - Penalty Fee:
In addition to the investigative fee, a person who starts any work for which a permit is required
without first having obtained a permit shall, if later issued a permit, pay a penalty not to exceed
four (4) times the permit fee. However, this provision does not apply to emergency work if the
Building Official or Chief Building Inspector determines that such work was urgently necessary
and that it was not practical to obtain a permit before starting work.
7. Long-range planning/general plan maintenance fee surcharge...... .. .10% of building permit fee
(includes building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, grading, and all penalty fees)
8. Other Inspections and Fees
Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge is 2 hours)...
$60/hour
Re-inspection fee assessed under provisions of Section 305(g) of the UBC..
$75.00
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated
$60.00
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions is ........ ............. $60 00
or the total hourly cost to the Town, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees
involved. One hour minimum.
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
Any fees required by this division shall be paid by the applicant before any electrical work, requiring a
permit hereunder, is stated and the permit issued.
Minimum Fee: The minimum fee for any electrical permit, unless otherwise indicated is $50.00
Miscellaneous Permit Fee: Any permit for miscellaneous electrical work not in conjunction with
a building permit, and not itemized below, shall be a minimum fee of $50.00, or 2% of the
contract cost, whichever is greater.
New Service or Service Change Any permit for new service or change of service not In
conjunction with a building permit shall be charged as follows:
000-100 amps .... ............ .................
100-1000 amps ..................... .. ...........
1000 amps & up ..................................................
$50 00
$150.00
$250.00
Residential Dwellin~: For each electrical permit for a one or two family unit, or a multi-family
dwelling unit, the fee shall be based on 20% of the building permit fee, inclusive of carports and
garages, inclusive of additions and alterations.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
Effective --/--/2001
EXHIBIT NO. J_ 3
. (3-4-.,(\(
-;-~--
Temporary Power Poles: The fee for electric power pole distribution for construction sites,
structures, or facilities is as follows:
0-200 amps ............................................................................................................... $50.00
over 200 amps........................................................................................................... $70.00
Air Conditioning: The electric hook up fee for the addition of a central NC cooling system to an
existing dwelling unit, connected to an existing electrical system is $50.00.
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Any fee required by this division shall be paid by the applicant before any mechanical work requiring a
permit hereunder is started and the permit is issued.
Minimum Fee: The minimum fee for any mechanical permit, unless otherwise indicated, IS
$50.00.
Miscellaneous Permit Fee: Any permit for miscellaneous mechanical work not in conjunction
with a building permit, and not itemized below shall be a fee of $50.00 or 1% of the contract
cost.
Residential Dwellin~s: For each mechanical permit for a one or two family dwelling unit or a
multi-family dwelling unit, the fee shall be based on 9% of building permit fee, inclusive of
additions and alterations.
Commercial: Fees for commercial (including retail stores, offices, and motels) in conjunction
with a building permit are as follows:
Office
Retail sales
Food Markets
Restaurants
...... ........ ...9% of building permit fee
........9% of building permit fee
.................12% of building permit fee
........12% of building permit fee
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Any fees required by this division shall be paid by the applicant before any plumbing work requiring a
permit hereunder is started and the permit issued.
Minimum Fee: The minimum fee for any plumbing permit is $50.00, unless otherwise stated.
Miscellaneous Permit Fee: Any permit for miscellaneous plumbing work not in conjunction with
a building permit, and not itemized below, shall be a fee of $50 00 or 1. 5% of the contract cost,
whichever is greater.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
Effective --/--/2001
EXHIBIT NO.
p- S..f- (I
cl
4
Residential Dwellings: For each plumbing pennit for a one or two family dwelling unit or a
multi-family unit, the fee shall be based on 10% of the building pennit fee, inclusive of additions
and alterations.
Commercial: Fees for commercial or industrial work (including retail stores, offices, and motels)
in conjunction with a building pennit are as follows:
Office........................................................................................ 10% of building pennit fees
Retail sales................................................................................ 10% of building pennit fees
Food markets............................................................................ 10% of building pennit fees
Restaurants............................................................................... 15% of building pennit fees
GRADING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Plan Check Fees:
50 cubic yards.......... .............
100 cubic yards ....................... .
1000 cubic yards.. ..................
10,000 cubic yards..........
................ ............ . No fee
...........................$15.00
......... $22.50
.......... $30.00
Each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards to 100,000 Cubic Yards:
$15.00
Permit Fees
l-50CY.............
51 - 100 CY................... ......................................
10] - 200 CY ................................
201 - 300 c.y ..............................
301 - 400 CY .................................................
401- 500 CY.............. ....................
501 - 600 CY.............
601 - 700 CY ............................................................................
701 - 800 CY.
801 - 900 CY
901 - 1000 CY
1001 - 2000 CY
2001 - 3000 CY
300 I - 4000 CY
400] - 5000 CY.
5001 - 6000 CY
6001 - 7000 CY
7001 - 8000 CY.
8001 - 9000 CY
9001 - 10,000 CY ............ ................
................ $1500
$22.50
$33.00
$43.50
$54.00
$64.50
$75.00
$85.50
$96.00
............ .. ......... $106.50
... . .. ................ ............. .....................$11700
.... ......................................................... .......... $126.00
.................................. $13500
. ......................................... ..$144.00
........ ................. ........ .................. ........... $15300
...... ...................... .......... ........$162.00
. .......... ............................ ........... ..$171.00
$180.00
$]89.00
$198.00
Each additional 10,000 Cubic Yards is
$4050
EXHIBIT NO. :I ('"
p-C;.+(\ -::l
EXHIBIT B: PLANNING FEES
PLANNING & ZONING PERMITS
(Base fees do not include noticing, plan storage, or CEQA fees)
I. General Plan Amendment................................................................................................ $1,250*
2. Rezoning or Zoning Text Amendment ...........................................................................$1,250*
3. Prezoning: Multiple ParcelslUndeveloped Parcel/Single Developed Lot ........................ $1,250*
4. Precise Development Plan: .................................................................. $2,500 + $IOO/each unit*
a. Amendment .............................................................................. $1,250 + $50/each unit*
b. Single Lot Residential Amendment .. ...................... ..................................$625*
5.
6.
Conceptual Master Plan ..
.......... $1,250 + $50/each unit*
Conditional Use Permit and Amendment thereto
a. Minor (includes Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit)
~ ~or ........................................
....................... $625*
.................... ......... ..... $2,500*
7. Condominium Conversion Conditional Use Permit and Amendment:
a. 4 units or less = Minor Conditional Use Permit (see #6)
b. 5 units or more = Major Conditional Use Permit (see #6)
8.
9.
Variance and Amendment thereto
$375
Tree Permit.
..$125
10.
Water Well Drilling Permit and Amendment thereto
a. Potable Well
b. Non-potable Well...
$625
$325
11.
Home Occupation Permit..
$60
12.
Extension of Time
.50% of initial filing fee
13.
Appeals..
..... ...$300
*Initial deposit amount only. Any remainder will be refunded; additional Staff time to process will be
billed per the Hourly Rate Schedule adopted by separate resolution.
EX-.HIBIT NO. J.
lJ . ~ 0+ II
(,
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (DESIGN REVIEW) PERMITS
(Design Review fees already include charges for noticing, plan storage, and California
Environmental Quality Act exemption.)
I. Existing BuildinglDeveloped Lot
Exterior Alteration (staff level) and amendments thereto
$200
Design Review ofless than 500 sq. ft. that do not qualifY for staff level review........... $400
Design Review of between 500 and 1,000 sq. ft. ..................................................... . $800
Design Review of 1,000 sq. ft. or more...................................................... ..................... $1,125
Amendment to Design Review approval......
(unless it qualifies for staff-level review, then)..
.. ....................50% of filing fee
............... ..... ..$200
2.
New Residence or Non-Residential Building (Initial Approval)
.. $2,500
Minor Amendment (qualifies for staff-level review)
$200
Major Amendment involving increased floor area
and/or significant design changes. . ..... . . .......
50% of filing fee
3.
Residential Floor Area Exception.
$200
4.
Grading, Filling, or Earthwork requiring review........
(Engineering review, if required, is billed separately)
$625
5.
Penalty for review of as-built construction ..
....50% of filing fee
6.
Variance and Amendment thereto
$375
7.
Extension of Time .............
(applies only to application approved prior to 2/5/99) .
. ....................50% of filing fee
8.
Appeals...
$300
9.
Sign Permit
Staff level. ........................
Design Review Board level..
$100
$200
PLANNING CONFORMANCE CHECK ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICA nONS
(Collected by Building Department)
Actual cost (See Hourly Rate Schedule; minimum charge is 0.5 hours).
,. -~BIT NO. .2
p- fA (I
T
~.
SUBDIVISION AND RELATED PERMITS AND SERVICES
(Base fees do not include noticing. plan storage. or CEQAfees)
1.
Lot Line Adjustment............................................................................................
$325
2. Lot Merger (Voluntary) .................... ................................................................................... $150
3. Tentative Map, where Final Map required:
a. For the first 5 lots................................ ............................................................... $7,500.
b. For each additional lot ... ..................... .......................... ......... . ..... .. ..............$100.
c. Amendment to Approved Tentative Map ........................................................... $1,500.
4. Tentative Map, where Parcel Map required ....................................................................$3,750.
5.
Planning Check Fee for Final and Parcel Maps .........
............ $1,000.
6.
Extension of Tentative Map
....$1,250.
7.
Certificate of Compliance..
$625.
8.
Reversion to Acreage.. .
.. .........$6,250.
9.
Engineer Check:
Final Map/Parcel Map/Improvement Plans ...........
.............. See Engineer Fee Schedule
10.
Engineer Inspections..............................
....................... See Engineer Fee Schedule
.Initial deposit amount only. Any remainder will be refunded; additional Staff time to process will be
billed per the Hourly Rate Schedule.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
1.
Determination ofCEQAExemption ...
$50
2.
Initial Study
$1000
3.
EIR (full or focused) ...
.......... $1,000 plus actual EIR cost
4.
EIR Administrative Overhead
30% ofEIR cost
5.
Mitigation Monitoring and permit compliance review
. Actual cost
6.
FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Fish & Game Fees per Assembly Bill 3158:
a. Fish & Game Fee for Negative Declaration............ ......................
b Fish & Game Fee for EIR
..$1,275
. ..$875
EXHIBIT NO. .J.
~. q .+ (I
g
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES / MISCELLANEOUS
Services
Street Name Change............................................................................................................ $625
Change of Street Address..................................................................................................... $150
Mar West Parking Pennit (Resolution No 2560) ..................................................................$25
Noticing ofPennit Applications........................................................................................... $1 00
PlanIDocument Storage Fee (already included in Site Plan & Architectural Review) ............$50
Photocopies (regular) ............... ........... ......... .......... ................................. ........ ............. $.50 page
Microfiche Copies ................. ................................................................................... $1.OO/page
Staff Research Fee.................. ............................... ...................................................... $60/hour
Tape Duplication Fee ............. .............................................................................. $40/hour
Documents
General Plan (all Elements) ................. .............. .............
General Plan (Individual Elements).. ....... ....... ...
Zoning Ordinance ................... .......... .... ........... .......... ............. ....... ......
Municipal Code .............. ................ .. ...........
Subdivision Ordinance ................................. ...............
Design Review Guidelines ...................................................... ..............
............$25
..$5
$25
$100
$5
.......$5
Maps
General Plan Proposed Land Use Diagram (24" x 30").. ..............................
Other General Plan Diagrams (II" x IT') ............ ........................
Zoning Map (24" x 30")..................
Planned Development Map (24" x 30")............. .................
Aerial Photo Prints (60" x 42") ........................
$2
..$1
. ...$2
....$2
..$5
PUBLIC FACILITY FEES
1. Traffic Mitigation Fees - varies (see Resolution #3162 as amended).
2. In-Lieu Housing Fee - varies (based on formula in Subchapter 6 of the Tiburon Zoning
Ordinance).
3. Park & Recreation In-lieu Fee - varies (based on appraised value per Chapter 14 of Municipal
Code).
GENERAL FEE PROVISIONS
A. Fees shall be submitted in full at the time of application submittal to the Town.
B. Pursuant to a written request, the Town Council may grant a full or partial waiver of fees
pursuant to policies adopted by Resolution of the Town Council.
EXHIBIT NO. :)
r. (0 .f (I
'i'
C. Portions of fees may be refunded upon withdrawal of an application; the amount of the refund
shall be detennined by the Director based upon the amount of work done by the Town prior to
withdrawal.
D. Full fee credits may be granted by the Director toward resubmittal of applications if
applications are withdrawn and resubmitted within 60 days from the date of withdrawal.
E. In the event that any work has been undertaken or use made of property without legal
authority prior to completion of the requisite procedures necessary to authorize such work or
use, the applicant shall pay two times the required fee amount.
F. Where work requires more than one pennit, the full fee shall be collected for each and every
pennit required.
G. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Subchapter 6, some fee waivers are applicable to projects
providing below market rate housing units.
\scott\fees revised 2001 reso.doc
EXHIBIT NO. J
Q _ \l . {- II
10
RESOLUTION NO. -2001
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF TIBURON SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 3354 AND
ADOPTING AN HOURLY RATE FEE SCHEDULE FOR
TOWN OF TIBURON PERSONNEL
WHEREAS, the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that any changes to the Planning & Building
Department's filing and processing fees be set forth by Resolution of the Town Council, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Town Council that such fees be used to reimburse the Town
for the costs of providing the services for which the fees are assessed, thereby maintaining productive
and efficient service levels commensurate with the work demands within the Planning & Building
Department, and
WHEREAS, from time to time it is necessary to revise these fees to reflect actual costs incurred
by the Planning & Building Department in the nonnal course of its operation and according to its
obligations to administer State statutory requirements under the authority of Town ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Building Department's current fee program charges hourly fees for
certain projects, identified in Resolution No. 3353, according to a rate schedule established in
Resolution No. 3354; and
WHEREAS, the rate schedule established in Resolution No 3353 has proved not to provide for
full cost recovery because (a) the schedule makes no provision for time spent by Town Officials outside
the Planning and Building Department, including, without limitation, the Town Manager, the Town
Attorney, and the Town Finance Director; and (b) the schedule does not provide for the recovery of
costs associated with long-range planning, including maintaining the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to ensure that project applicants pay for the cost of all
services that the Town provides by adopting this resolution and by requiring all project applicants
to enter into agreements providing for the advance deposit of estimated fees; the further payment
of any required fees in excess of the deposit; and the refund of any portion of the deposit not
expended in the processing of the application; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has provided required notice and held a public hearing
pursuant to state law and local ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the fees established by this resolution will not exceed the
cost of the services to be provided.
EXHIBIT NO. J
~- IA..3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon
does hereby adopt the Hourly Rate Fee Schedule for Town of Tiburon Personnel, attached hereto as
Exhibit A, said fee schedule to become effective 60 days from the passage of this resolution and
supersede Resolution No. 3354. All applicants for pennits that may be subject to the fees adopted by
this Resolution shall be required to enter into agreemerits with the Town for the payment of said fees.
The Planning Director and his designees are hereby authorized to negotiate and execute said
agreements on behalf of the Town, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on March ---,2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR
Town ofTiburon
ATTEST:
DIANE L CRANE, TOWN CLERK
E~~nBIT NO. j
p. .l.f 3
EXHIBIT "A"
HOURLY RATE FEE SCHEDULE FOR TOWN OF TmURON PERSONNEL
ADMINISTRATION
Town Manager $ 98.87
Town Attorney 91.36
Finance Director 64.81
Town Clerk 52.70
Admin Finance Assistant 50.91
Office Assistant 2 39.74
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Director $ 76.31
Senior Planner 58.75
Associate Planner 50.48
Planning Secretary 42.87
Building Official 65.92
Building Inspector 59.11
Permits Clerk 43.98
Records Management Clerk 37.06
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police Chief $ 91.33
Police Lieutenant 79.15
Police Sergeant 64.65
Police Officer 57.49
Community Service Officer 35.55
Police Secretary 44.94
Public Safety Clerk 39.95
PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works Director * $ 86.30
Superintendent Public Works 71.21
Assistant Superintendent 58.38
Foreman 53.28
Maintenance Worker 2 46.67
Maintenance Worker I 44.41
\scott\fees revised hourly rate 2001.doc
EXHIBIT NO. J
p. 3 o~3
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 1,2001
SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
PLAN STORAGE FEES - REVENUES & EXPENDITURES (FY2001)
,
.:. ~ of' T/Q v.;
o~
-, ~ .'Jt~ ~
C'o(;/,
'1<... ~ 4,,:, . ","
'" ' -"
~ O~~',~ ~ \t\c. "'.
,
TOWN OF TIBURON
MEMORANDUM
DISCUSSION ITEM:
This memorandum provides current Fiscal Year information concerning the revenues and
expenditures associated with Plan Storage Fees collected for Planning Design Review and
Building Permit applications.
The following data is for Fiscal Year 200 I only, and includes only those direct costs (salary,
retirement, medical allowance and FICA tax associated with the Staffing dedicated to Records
Management.
TABLE: Plan Storage Fees
Current
Year-to-Date
(Feb.28,2001)
Projected
toYear-End
(June 30, 200 I)
Revenues
$
8,467
$
12,700
Expenses
Records Management Clerk (75% FTE)
salary retirement, medical allowance
Net: Revenues less Expenses
$
19,360
$
28,513
$
(10,893)
$
(15,813)
The Table shows that, projected to Fiscal Year-End, expenses will exceed revenues by $15,813.
This also implies that Plan Storage Fees would have to increased by 125% (factor of2.25 times
current F ee rates) to fund the direct expenses associated with Records Management staffing.
(~
R. S tranzl
EXHIBIT NO. +
~. 10+ (
---~--- ---- --- -
/
COFY
RECEIVED
RESOLUTION NO. 3353
AUG 2 3 \991 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON
PLANNING DEP~R1MENT REVISING RESOLUTION NOS. 2764 and 2953
10WN CF1IBURO~ONCERNING THE PLANNING AND BUILDING FEE SCHEDULE AND
ADOPTING AN ENGINEERING FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TOWN OF TIBURON
WHEREAS, the Tiburon Municipal Code requires that any changes to the Planning
& Building Department's filing and processing fees be set forth by Resolution of the Town
Council, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Town Council that such fees be used to reimburse
the Town for the costs of providing the services for which the fees are assessed, thereby
maintaining productive and efficient service levels commensurate with the work demands
within the Planning & Building Department, and
WHEREAS, from time to time it is necessary to revise these fees to reflect actual
costs incurred by the Planning & Building Department in the normal course of its operation
and according to its obligations to administer State statutory requirements under the
authority of Town ordinances, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has provided required notice and held a public
hearing pursuant to state law and local ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby adopt revised Building, Planning, and Engineering Fee Schedules,
attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C respectively, said fee schedules to become
effective 60 days from the passage of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on August 18, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS
--
Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
None
Gram
~_/) /.-'
..---, .'
ttCc.::>-.--,} ~.6:/
MOGENS BACH,MAYOR )
Town of Tiburon
ATTEST:
I
DIANE L. CRANE, TOWN CLERK
EXHIBIT NO.~
~
EXHIBIT A: BUILDING FEES
BUILDING PERMIT FEE
The Building Permit Fee for all single or multi-family units shall be based on the actual
value of the construction, but in no case shall the fee be less than that listed in the Building
Valuation Chart:
1. Apartment Houses:
Type I or II F.R. .......................................................................................... $142.50/sq.ft.
Type V - Masonry (or Type III).................................................................... $114.50/sq.ft.
Type V - Wood Frame ............................................................................... $110.10/sq.ft.
Type I Garage................................................................................................ $58.40/sq.ft.
2. Dwellings:
Type V-Masonry.. ...................... ...... ....... ............. ......... ..... ............. ...... ....... $130.60/sq.ft.
Type V -Wood Frame ................................................................................. $125.00/sq.ft.
Garage............................................................................................................ $30.00/sq. ft.
The initial fee may be based on the Valuation Chart but may be adjusted later to reflect
actual value.
Buildinq Valuation Supplements: The following occupancies and types are not covered in
the Building Valuation Data in the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)
Building Standards. The BLIilding Permit Fee is as follows:
1. Sprinklered StructLIre (retrofits only)................................................................$3.00/sq.ft.
2. Tenant Improvements - Commercial.............................................................$37.50/sq.ft.
3. Block Walls & Pilasters (includes footings).....................................................$5.00/sq.ft.
4. Retaining Walls (includes footings)...............................................................$15.00/sq.ft.
5. Retaining Walls (wood)....... ........... ....................... .......... .......... ........... ..... ....... $5.00/sq.ft.
6. Greenhouse................................................................................................... $10. OO/sq. ft.
7. Patio. Solid Cover .........................................................................................$12.00/sq.ft.
8. Patio, Lattice Cover...................................................... ......................... ........... $9.00/sq.ft.
9. Aluminum Patio Enclosure........................................................................ ..... $50.00/sq.ft.
10. Deck................................................................................................................ $1 O.OO/sq.ft.
11. Demolition
............................................... ................... ...... ..... ........... $100.00
Tiburon Fee Schedule
1
Adopted 8/18/99
12. Re-roof:
Project value to be substantiated by providing contract; Building Permit Fee is
determined from the Project Valuation Schedule.
13. Swimming Pool/Spa/Hot Tub:
Project value to be substantiated by providing contract; Building Permit Fee is
determined from Project Valuation Schedule.
14. Miscellaneous Work:
Building Permit Fee for any work not covered under the Building Permit Fees listed in
either the BLIilding Valuation Chart or Building Valuation Supplement is to be
determined from the Project Valuation Schedule. Project value to be substantiated by
providing contract.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
2
Adopted 8/18/99
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
1. Plan Storage fees:
Valuation
o - $100,000.................. ....... ........................ .......................................................... $30.00
$100,000 - 200,000.... ...... .... .... .............. ...... ..... ... ................. ........................ ......... $60.00
$200,000 - 800,000................................................................................................ $90.00
$800,000 - over.................... ......................................... ........................ ............... $120.00
2. Residential Resale Inspection for Residential Building Report (RBR) .............. $150.00
3. Residential Resale Re-inspection: ........................................................................ $75.00
4. Business License:
Project value $0 - $5000.................................................................................... $15.00
Project value $5001 - $25,000.............................................................................. $25.00
Projects valued over - $25,000 .... .................. .0012 of the Project value.
5. Plan Checking Fees: All construction plans must be checked for conformance with
State and Town regulations. A plan checking fee shall be paid to the Town along with
submittal of construction drawings and specifications for review. Plan checking fees
shall be 65% of the building permit fees. Where plans are incomplete, or changed so
as to require an additional plan check review, an additional plan review fee shall be
charged by the Town at $60.00 per hour with a minimum charge of one hour.
6. Fees for Work Commenced without Permit:
Permit - Investiqative Fee: ......................................................... $250.00
A person who starts any work for which a permit is required and who does not have a
valid permit for that work is charged an investigative fee as stated in Municipal Code
Title IV (Land Improvement and Use), Chapter 13 (Building), Section 13-3 (Permits -
Investigative Fee). This foe is set at $260.00 13)' OrelinaA8e ~Ie. ~li4 ns.
Permit - Penaltv Fee
In addition to the investigative fee, a person who starts any work for which a permit is
reqLIired without first having obtained a permit shall, if later issued a permit, pay a
penalty not to exceed four (4) times the permit fee. However, this provision does not
apply to emergency work if the Building Official or Chief Building Inspector determines
that such work was urgently necessary and that it was not practical to obtain a permit
before starting work.
7. Other Inspections and Fees
Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge is 2 hours)... $60/hour
Tiburon Fee Schedule
3
Adopted 8/18/99
Re-inspection fee assessed under provisions of Section 305(g) of the UBe...... $75.00
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated....,....................................... $60.00
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions is ................ $60.00
2r the total hourly cost to the Town, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall
include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the
employees involved. One hour minimum.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
4
Adopted 8/18/99
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
Any fees required by this division shall be paid by the applicant before any electrical work,
requiring a permit hereunder, is stated and the permit issued.
Minimum Fee: The minimum fee for any electrical permit, unless otherwise indicated
is $50.00
Miscellaneous Permit Fee: Any permit for miscellaneous electrical work not in
conjunction with a building permit, and not itemized below, shall be a minimum fee of
$50.00, or 2% of the contract cost, whichever is greater.
New Service or Service Chanqe: Any permit for new service or change of service not
in conjunction with a bLIilding permit shall be charged as follows:
000-100 amps .............................................................................................. $50.00
100-1000 amps .......................................................................................... $150.00
1000 amps & up ......................................................................................... $250.00
Residential Dwellinq: For each electrical permit for a one or two family unit, or a multi-
family dwelling unit, the fee shall be based on 20% of the building permit fee,
inclusive of carports and garages, inclusive of additions and alterations.
Temporarv Power Poles: The fee for electric power pole distribution for construction
sites, structures, or facilities is as follows:
0-200 amps ..................... ........................................................................... $50.00
over 200 amps.. ................................................................................... $70.00
Air Conditioninq: The electric hook up fee for the addition of a central AlC cooling
system to an existing dwelling unit, connected to an existing electrical system is
$5000.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
5
Adopted 8/18/99
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
Any fee required by this division shall be paid by the applicant before any mechanical work
requiring a permit hereunder is started and the permit is issued.
Minimum Fee: The minimum fee for any mechanical permit, unless otherwise
indicated, is $50.00.
Miscellaneous Permit Fee: Any permit for miscellaneous mechanical work not in
conjunction with a building permit, and not itemized below shall be a fee of $50.00 or
1 % of the contract cost.
Residential Dwellinqs: For each mechanical permit for a one or two family dwelling
unit or a multi-family dwelling unit, the fee shall be based on 9% of building permit fee,
inclusive of additions and alterations.
Commercial: Fees for commercial (including retail stores, offices, and motels) in
conjunction with a building permit are as follows:
Office ...............................................................................9% of building permit fee
Retail sales........................................................................ 9% of building permit fee
Food Markets .................................................................. 12% of building permit fee
Restaurants.....................................................................12% of building permit fee
Tiburon Fee Schedule
6
Adopted 8/18/99
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES
Any fees required by this division shall be paid by the applicant before any plumbing work
requiring a permit hereunder is started and the permit issued.
Minimum Fee: The minimum fee for any plumbing permit is $50.00, unless otherwise
stated.
Miscellaneous Permit Fee: Any permit for miscellaneous plumbing work not in
conjunction with a building permit, and not itemized below, shall be a fee of $50.00 or
1.5% of the contract cost, whichever is greater.
Residential Dwellinas: For each plumbing permit for a one or two family dwelling unit
or a multi-family unit, the fee shall be based on 10% of the building permit fee,
inclusive of additions and alterations.
Commercial: Fees for commercial or industrial work (including retail stores, offices,
and motels) in conjunction with a building permit are as follows:
Office......................................................................... 10% of building permit fees
Retail sales ............ ........... ...................................10% of building permit fees
Food markets ............ ............................ 10% of building permit fees
Restaurants ........... ....................................15% of building permitfees
Tiburon Fee Schedule
7
Adopted 8/18/99
GRADING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Plan Check Fees:
50 cubic yards ......................................................................................................... No fee
100 cubic yards ...................................................................................................... $15.00
1000 cubic yards.. ............................................................. ..................................... $22.50
10,000 cubic yards..........,..,.............................................. ...... .......... ..... ................ $30.00
Each additiona/1 0,000 Cubic Yards to 100,000 Cubic Yards: ............................ $15.00
Permit Fees:
1 - 50 CY .......................................................................................................... $15.00
51 -100 CY................................................................................................ $22.50
101 - 200 CY ........................................................................................................ $33.00
201 - 300 CY ........................................................................................................ $43.50
301 - 400 CY ........................................................................................................ $54.00
401 - 500 CY ..................................................................................................... $64.50
501 - 600 CY ........................................................................................................ $75.00
601 - 700 CY .............................................................................................. $85.50
701 - 800 CY ....................................................................................................... $96.00
801 - 900 CY ................................................................................................ $106.50
901 -1000 C.Y. ....,........ ,............. ,................................................................... $117.00
1001 -2000 CY .............................................................................. $126.00
2001 - 3000 CY.............. ................................................... $135.00
3001 - 4000 CY...................................................................... $144.00
4001 - 5000 CY ..................................................................... $153.00
5001 - 6000 CY ............................................................................. $162.00
6001 -7000 CY................................................................................. $171.00
7001 - 8000 CY ................................................................................... $180.00
8001 - 9000 CY........................................................................................... $189.00
9001 -10,000 CY ................................................................................... $198.00
Each additional 10 000 Cubic Yards is: $40.50
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tiburon Fee Schedule
8
Adopted 8/18/99
EXHIBIT B: PLANNING FEES
PLANNING & ZONING PERMITS
(Base fees do not include noticing, plan storage, or CEQA fees)
1. General Plan Amendment.................................................................................. $1 ,250*
2. Rezoning or Zoning Text Amendment .............................................................. $1 ,250*
3. Prezoning: Multiple Parcels/Undeveloped Parcel/Single Developed Lot......... $1 ,250*
4. Precise Development Plan: ....................................................$2,500 + $100/each unit*
a. Amendment ..,................................................................$1,250 + $50/each unit*
b. Single Lot Residential Amendment ........................................................... $625*
5. Conceptual Master Plan...................................................$1,250 + $50/each unit*
6. Conditional Use Permit and Amendment thereto
a. Minor (includes Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit)..................................... $625*
b. Major........................................................ ........... ...................... ..... .......... $2,500*
7. Condominium Conversion Conditional Use Permit and Amendment:
a. 4 units or less = Minor Conditional Use Permit (see 00)
b. 5 units or more = Major Conditional Use Permit (see 00)
8. Variance and Amendment thereto ..........................................................................$375
9. Tree Permit.........,..,......................................................... ................ ..... ........ ........... $125
10. Water Well Drilling Permit and Amendment thereto
a. Potable Well......................... ,.,....................................................................$625
b. Non-potable Well.............................................. ....... ........... ..... ........ ............ $325
11. Home Occupation Permit ................'.. ....,..,..............................................................$60
12.
Extension of Time
......................................50% of initial filing fee
13. Appeals.............."............. ..............,........................................... ........ ................... $300
*Initial deposit amount only. Any remainder will be refunded; additional Staff time to process
will be billed per the Hourly Rate Schedule adopted by separate resolution.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
9
Adopted 8/18/99
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (DESIGN REVIEW) PERMITS
(Design Review fees already include charges for noticing, plan storage, and California
Environmental Quality Act exemption.)
1. Existing Building/Developed Lot
Exterior Alteration (staff level) and amendments thereto .......................................$200
Design Review of less than 500 sq. ft. that do not qualify for staff level review....$400
Design Review of between 500 and 1,000 sq. ft. ..................................................$800
Design Review of 1,000 sq. ft. or more............................................................... $1,125
Amendment to Design Review approval.............................................. 50% of filing fee
(LInless it qualifies for staff-level review, then)........................................................$200
2. New Residence or Non-Residential Building (Initial Approval).......................... $2,500
Minor Amendment (qualifies for staff-level review) ................................................$200
Major Amendment involving increased floor area
and/or significant design changes ....................................................... 50% of filing fee
3. Residential Floor Area Exception... .....................................................................$200
4. Grading. Filling, or Earthwork requiring review ......................................................$625
(Engineering review, if required, is billed separately)
5. Penalty for review of as-built construction ...........................................50% offiling fee
6. Variance and Amendment thereto ..........................................................................$375
7. Extension of Time ................................................................................. 50% of filing fee
(applies only to application approved prior to 2/5/99)
8.
Appeals.
..........................................................$300
9. Sign Permit
Staff level ... ............................................................................$100
Design Review Board level.....................................................................................$200
Tiburon Fee Schedule
10
Adopted 8/18/99
PLANNING CONFORMANCE CHECK ON
APPLICATIONS
(Collected by Building Department)
BUILDING PERMIT
Actual cost (See Hourly Rate Schedule; minimum charge is 0.5 hours).
SUBDIVISION AND RELATED PERMITS AND SERVICES
(Base fees do not include noticing, plan storage, or CEQA fees)
1. Lot Line Adjustment ............................._..._...............................................................$325
2. Lot Merger (Voluntary).................. ..... ....... ........... ....... ..... ........................................$150
3. Tentative Map, where Final Map required:
a. For the first 5 lots..................................................................................... $7,500*
b. For each additional 101................................................................................ $100*
c. Amendment to Approved Tentative Map................................................ $1,500*
4. Tentative Map, where Parcel Map required....................................................... $3,750*
5. Planning Check Fee for Final and Parcel Maps................................................ $1,000*
6.
Extension of Tentative Map .........
$1 250*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
8.
Reversion to Acreage..
.................................... .......... ...... .......... ..... $625*
_ _. _ _. _ _. _. _.... ...... ..... ..... .... ....... ..... ..... $6,250*
7.
Certificate of Compliance..
9. Engineer Check:
Final Map/Parcel Mapllmprovement Plans...................... See Engineer Fee Schedule
10. Engineer Inspections ...................................................... See Engineer Fee Schedule
*Initial deposit amount only. Any remainder will be refunded; additional Staff time to process
will be billed per the Hourly Rate Schedule.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
11
Adopted 8/18/99
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
1. Determination of CEQA Exemption ..........................................................................$50
2. Initial Study......... ........... .......... ..... ...... ........ ...... ...... ...................... ......................... $1000
3. EIR (full or focused) ...........................................................$1,000 plus actual EIR cost
4.
EIR Administrative Overhead
30% of EIR cost
5. Mitigation Monitoring and permit compliance review ...................................Actual cost
6. FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Fish & Game Fees per Assembly Bill 3158:
a. Fish & Game Fee for Negative Declaration,.......................................... $1,250
b. Fish & Game Fee for EIR..............................................................$875
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES f MISCELLANEOUS
Services
Street Name Change............,.....,.......,..................... ....................... ...... ..... ............. $625
Change of Street Address .......................................................................................$150
Mar West Parking Permit (Resolution No. 2560) .....................................................$25
Noticing of Permit Applications .............,.................................................................$'100
Plan/Document Storage Fee.......,...................,....................................................... $39
Photocopies (regular) ...............'..,......,................'.......................................... $.50 page
Microfiche Copies...................................................... ......... ................. ......... $1.00/page
Staff Research Fee,..................... ........................................................ $60/hour
Tape Duplication Fee ,... ' . ,.. .......................................................... $40/hour
Documents
General Plan (all Elements) .....................................................................................$25
General Plan (Individual Elements) ..... ......,....................................................$5
Zoning Ordinance ..... ,. .". .,."... ......,. .".,.......................................................$25
Municipal Code. ... .............. ............................................................................$100
Subdivision Ordinance. .". .'.''.''.'....... ...........,....................................................$5
Design Review Guidelines .".",. .,. .,..,.., ,.".,......,..,."........'...................................... $5
Maps
General Plan Proposed Land Use Diagram (24" x 30") .............................................$2
Other General Plan Diagrams (11" x 17")...................................................................$1
Zoning Map (24" x 30")....,'...........,...........................................................................$2
Planned Development Map (24" x 30") .......................................................................$2
Aerial Photo Prints (60" x 42").................................................................................$5
Tiburon Fee Schedule
12
Adopted 8/18/99
.r
PUBLIC FACILITY FEES
1. Traffic Mitigation Fees - varies (see Resolution #3162 as amended).
2. In-Lieu Housing Fee - varies (based on formula in Subchapter 6 of the Tiburon
Zoning Ordinance).
3. Park & Recreation In-lieu Fee - varies (based on appraised value per Chapter 14 of
Municipal Code).
GENERAL FEE PROVISIONS
A. Fees shall be submitted in full at the time of application submittal to the Town.
B. Pursuant to a written request, the Town Council may grant a full or partial waiver of
fees pursuant to policies adopted by Resolution of the Town Council.
C. Portions of fees may be refunded upon withdrawal of an application; the amount of
the refund shall be determined by the Director based upon the amount of work done
by the Town prior to withdrawal.
D. Full fee credits may be granted by the Director toward resubmittal of applications if
applications are withdrawn and resubmitted within 60 days from the date of
withdrawal.
E. In the event that any work has been undertaken or use made of property without
legal authority prior to completion of the requisite procedures necessary to authorize
such work or use, the applicant shall pay two times the required fee amount.
F. Where work requires more than one permit, the full fee shall be collected for each
and every permit required.
G. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Subchapter 6, some fee waivers are applicable to
projects providing below market rate housing units.
Tiburon Fee Schedule
13
Adopted 8/18/99
I
r
RECEIVED
~UG 2 3 1999
PLANNING O~miSOLUTlON OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TlBURON
TOWN iA~rrlNG AN HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE FOR PERSONNEL WITHIN THE
PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
COpy
RESOLUTION NO. 3354
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon has adopted fee schedules for
permits processed by the Planning & Building Department by separate resolution
periodically updated, and
WHEREAS, said fee schedules contain application processing fees for which an
hourly rate is charged for the Staff time expended in the processing of such applications
and said fee schedule resolutions make reference to an Hourly Rate Schedule adopted by
separate resolution, and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Town Council that such hourly rate schedule be
established and be capable of being adjusted on an annual basis to reflect Town Council
approved salary and benefit adjustments without separate formal action by the Town
Council, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds it appropriate that a reasonable annual cap on
the maximum adjustment allowed per year be established, said cap not to exceed 5%
regardless of the amount of salary and benefit adjustment, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon finds it appropriate that the provisions for annual
adjustment sunset at the end of five years from the first day of the fiscal year (July 1)
nearest to its adoption date. Additional adjustments beyond that date shall require
adoption of a revised hourly rate schedule by the Town Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon does hereby adopt an Hourly Rate Schedule for personnel within the Planning &
Building Department, said hourly rate schedule being attached as Exhibit "f\' hereto and to
become effective 6.9 ,days from the passage of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of
Tiburon on August 18, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Bach, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson
None
Gram /
'1
c-~L; .s",___
MOGENSBACB,MAYOR
Town of Tiburon
ATTES~
DIANE L. RA~ERK
hourly rate schedule res. doc
EXHIBIT No.k
;....
..
.,. .~
10
EXHIBIT "A"
J /. _-"
.~.,. . "
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
FOR PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000
Planning Director............................................................................................. ............. $76/hour
Building Official............................................................................................................. $58/hour
Senior Planner............. ....................... ...... ................. .......... ........ ...... ....... ......:...... ....... $60/hour
Associate Planner.......................................... no... ............ ..... ............ ...... ..................... $52/hour
Assistant Planner............... ..................................... ........................................ ............. $46/hour
Building Inspector..................................,................... ................................................... $51 /hour
Planning Technician................................. '...................,........,............... $40/hour
Department Secretary.'...''.....'..''.................'........'.'..".......................'................... $40/hour
Permits Clerk......."........ "............."......... """...... "..."............................ ". ."...."" ..... $38/hour
NOTES:
1. Hourly rates are adjustable annually based upon Town Council approved salary and benefit
adjustments. No annual adjustment shall exceed 5%.
2. This annual adjustment clause is valid for no more than five years from the first day of the
fiscal year (July 1) nearest to its adoption date. 'Additional adjustments beyond that date
shall require adoption of a revised hourly rate schedule following a public hearing.
1.
.~
4ZJ
5. i
'-../
6.
7~
~)
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Friday- March2, 2001
"-j:",
'";;~~~~r\,,
. "\'''''''.--, ,._;,--.,.~."...._,
'i,,-, ':":.-.~,.:"'.",.,,'''';;.;
':,:o,":.:r
.. ,,_:'~'-';{-~
,. ';;..', .',:"':,:'- -~~,'-<');;,"~":;
,',',
;;,~ ~,
,-.,,;,~f' .;'i".'
:t_~'o~;~A:<
" .;;c'.
;'-'.-......,,,..
March Calendar of Meetings & Activities
Correspondence from Town Manager - re: Termination of Agreement with IEDA
Memorandum from Finance Director - re: PG&E Bankruptcy
Notice of Special Vacancy - Town of Tiburon - Design Review Board
Correspondence - re: Easton Pt. Prezoning Annex., Precise Develop. Plan, EIR Timeline
Correspondence from Sharon & James Hampton - re: Bldg. Permit at 757 Hawthorne Dr.
Correspondence from Chris Congreve - re: Excessive Night Noise from Neighbor's House
Memorandum from Town Manager - re: B/T Jt. Recreation Space Needs
Correspondence from Town Manager - re: School Traffic Study
Correspondence from Sonoma Ct. Residents - re: Storage of Vehicles on Public Streets
Correspondence from Larry Smith - re: Tiburon Peninsula Historic Trail
Correspondence from Town Manager - re: Congratulations to TPA Pres. Jim McVeigh
Correspondence from Marc Malott - re: Eagle Scout Project - Ring Mountain
Memorandum from Heidi McVeigh - re: Staff Parking in Zelinsky Lot
Correspondence from George Quesada - re: LAFCO Vacancy
Correspondence from League of California Cities - re: Reception at NLC Conference
Correspondence from Marin/Sonoma Mosquito District
News Article - re: Ways to East Traffic Crunch
Priority Focus - League of California Cities - February 23, 2001
Minutes - Be1vedere-Tiburon Library Agency - January 8, 2001
Minutes - Planning Commission - January 10,2001
Minutes - Planning Commission - January 24,2001
Action Minutes - Planning Commission - February 28,2001
Minutes - Design Review Board - February 15,2001
Action Minutes - Design Review Board - March I, 200 I
Attached Original Separates (Councilmembers Onlv)
la. League Actionlines Newsletter - League of California Cities
2a. Conference Announcement - San Francisco Estuary Project
3a. Western Cities Magazine
4a. Estuary Newsletter - BaylDelta News
Sa. The Marin Report and News Release - AT&T Broadband
,
I a. On Track Newsletter - California High Speed Rail Authority
2a. The Marin Report - AT&T Broadband News Magazine Feb 19 - 23, 2001
3a. The Marin Report - AT&T Broadband News Magazine Feb 26 - Mar 2, 200 I
4a. Risk Matters - A.BAG Newsletter
Sa. Seminar Announcement - "The Mechanics of a Bond Sale"
6a. Marin Day Schools Invitation - Fundraising Event at Herbst Pavilion
7a. Golden Gate Gazette - March 2001
Attached Ori~inal Separates (Councilmembers Only)
Correspondence from Town Attorney - re: Town Hall Parking Lease, 1525 Tib. Blvd.
Correspondence from Marcelino Nogueiro - re: Paving of Belveron West Streets
Correspondence from Town Manager - re: Paving of Belveron West Streets
Correspondence from Town Manager - re: Pine Terrace-McKegney Green Access
Bulletin from Governor Gray Davis - re: Meeting the Energy Challenge
News Article - re: Public Employee Housing
Correspondence from Marin County Auditor - re: ERAF
Correspondence from Marin Co. Spec. Districts - re: - Countywide Financing ofLAFCO
Agenda - County Boai'd of Supervisors, February 27, 2001
Agenda - Planning Commission, February 28, 2001
Agenda - Design Review Board, March I, 200 I
Agenda - POSC - March 4, 2001
Correspondence from League of California Cities - re: Dues & Conference Schedule
Priority Focus Newsletter - League of California Cities
.:;~
b"
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
1.