The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2001-06-06 4i cJ4:r TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Wednesday, June 6, 2001 7:00 p.m. - Closed Session 7:30 p.m. - Regular Town Council Meeting ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,' please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. 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 CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54950 et. seq., the Town Council will hold a closed Session. More specific information regarding this meeting is indicated below: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - CURRENT LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Town of Tiburon v. American Coach Builders Starrett v. McDonogh, Town of Tiburon, et al. Brieant & Misuraca v. Heirs of Lyford, et a/. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Bargaining Unit - Tiburon Police Association Negotiator - Town Manager Agenda - Town Council Meeting June 6, 2001 Page 2 of 3 \ . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Bach, Councilmember Gram, Councilmember Slavnz, Vice Mayor Matthews, Mayor Thompson INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEE Community SeNice Officer - Melinda Seyer ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any subject not on the agenda may do so now. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit vour comments to no more than three (3) minutes. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion unless a request is made that an item be transferred to the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and consideration. Any nem on the Regular Agenda may be moved to the Consent Calendar. (1) Approval of Town Council Minutes - May 2, 2001 (2) Approval of Town Council Minutes - May 9, 2001 (3) Approval of Town Council Minutes - May 16, 2001 (4) Approval of Town Council Minutes - May 19, 2001 (5) Acceptance of Town Monthly Investment Summary - As of April 30, 2001 (6) Response to Grand Jury Report (7) Acquisition of County Property - Diviso Street and Centro West Street (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Accepting a Conveyance of Real Property from the County of Marin (8) Request to Officially Designate Street within the Town of Tiburon - Mantegani Way (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Approving the Designation of "Mantegani Way" as a Street Within the Town of Tiburon (9) Request to Officially Designate Street within the Town of Tiburon - Shepherd Way (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Approving the Designation of "Shepherd Way" as a Street Within the Town of Tiburon Agenda - Town Council Meeting June 6, 2001 Page 3 of 3 (10) Recommendation by Town Manager - Professional Services Agreement for Engineering Services (I. L. Schwartz Associates, Inc.) (11) Recommendation by Heritage & Arts Commission - Professional Services Agreement for Public Art Consultant (L.B Fine Art) PUBLIC HEARING (12) Appeal of Design Review Board Denial of an Application to Construct a Fence at 35 Reed Ranch Road; AP# 34-301-02 - Ernest Ware, Applicant/Appellant) REGULAR AGENDA p;;''Recommendation by Town Attorney - Waiver of Town Fees - Stewart Drive Undergrounding ~ /-Qlstnct . (a) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Establishing a Policy to Govern the Partial and Total Waiver of Town Fees (14) LAFCO Dual Annexation Policy Review - (Authorize Planning Director to submit Council response) COUNCil, STAFF. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - May 18, 2001 Town Council Weekly Digest - May 25, 2001 Town Council Weekly Digest - June 1, 2001 ADJOURNMENT FUTURE MEETING DATES . June 13, 2001 (Special Meeting - Stewart Drive Underground Assessment District Bond Issuance) . June 20, 2001 (Regular Meeting) . June 27, 2001 (MCCMC - San Anselmo) FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS . Adoption of Resolutions calling an Election for the Purpose of Electing Three Councilmembers (on November 6, 2001) and Consolidating Election with County of Marin - (June 20) . Stewart Drive Traffic Study and Tiburon Blvd. Operational Analysis - (June 20) . Discussion of Town Noise Ordinance - (June 20) . Downtown Parking Enforcement - Recommendation by Traffic Safety Committee for Change Main Street Green Zone to White Zone in the vicinity of Water's Edge Hotel - (June 20) . Presentation of Annual Heritage Preservation Award - (August 15) . TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT Date: Rev. B ITEM NO. / i MEETING DATE 6/6/2001 TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ RESPONSE TO MARIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION . COMMISSION REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DUAL ANNEXATION POLICY AMENDMENTS MAY 31, 2001 ALEX MCINTYRE TOWN MANAGER To: From: Subject: BACKGROUND This item was discussed at the Town Council meeting of May 2, 2001. The Town Council appointed an ad-hoc committee to review the LAFCO referral and formulate recommendations and a draft response letter for the full Council's consideration at its meeting of June 6, 200 l. ANALYSTS The ad-hoc committee, comprised of Mayor Thompson, Council member Bach and Planning Commission Chairman Stein, met on two occasions to formulate its responses and recommendations. These responses and recommendations are contained within the draft letter attached as Exhibit l. The letter responds to each question posed in the LAFCO referral and offers some specific additions to the proposed dual annexation policy. The ad-hoc committee also addressed the issue of future maintenance of Paradise Drive, and indicated that the Town should be proactive and approach the County of Marin regarding the concept of "cost-sharing" for the future maintenance of Paradise Drive. This recommendation was based on the assumption that continued annexation of territory in the Paradise Drive area will bring additional sections of Paradise Drive into the Town limits and increase pressure on the Town to assume some road maintenance responsibilities from Marin County. If the Town Council desires to nlrther pursue this issue, it should be placed on a future agenda, as it is not directly related to the dual annexation response RECOMMENDATION Accept the draft letter (Exhibit I) and authorize the Town Manager to sign and forward it to LAFCO. Tthllroll TOWII Council .\'I(~jf /?t'fJO/"f 6,6100/ EXHIBITS 1. Response to referral letter from LAFCO. 2. Referral letter from LAFCO dated March 19,2001. 3. Text ofLAFCO adopted Dual Annexation Policy. 4 Working draft revision to Dual Annexation Policy. Iscottldual annex te2 r~port.doc TiburoJ1 Town Council Sloff RCJ'OFI 6/6;200 I 2 EXHIBIT No.l \ ,:~_., r=;-~:j n1 ~!iJ .1. '1 I J. I:;~ . r=> \ :~:/ L U LJ u:J U -' June 7,2001 Peter Banning, Executive Officer Marin Local Agency Formation Commission 165 North Redwood Drive, Suite 160 San Rafael, CA 94903 RE: RESPONSE TO LAFCO REFERRAL ON DUAL ANNEXATION POLICY Dear Mr. Banning: The Town ofTiburon would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on potential changes to the dual annexation policy, and for granting the additional time requested by the Town to prepare a thoughtful response. The Tiburon Town Council discussed the potential changes to the dual annexation policy at its meetings of May 2 and June 6,2001 and authorized me to forward the following responses to your earlier referral. With respect to the nine (9) "Policy Issues" (see attached) forwarded by LAFCO for comment, the Town offers the following responses: 1. No. Contiguous parcels should not always be required to annex to an adjoining city if there are legitimate reasons why this should not be required. Future annexation agreements with the affected municipality should be required in most instances where immediate annexation is not required. 2. Yes. While this policy issue is not applicable to the Town ofTiburon Sphere of Influence due to the "infill" nature of remaining development, it is a sound policy in keeping with LAFCO's purposes under State law. 3. No We believe that a superior dual annexation policy would be best structured by having its criteria for waiver connected by "or" rather than by "and" This beliefis based upon the diverse types of annexation situations that arise throughout Marin County, the need to have flexibility built into a dual annexation policy; and the assumption that the waiver process will be used judiciously by LAFCO. 4. No. We believe that State law does not intend for municipalities to have the authority to terminate a single district annexation. The comments of a municipality should be strongly weighed by LAFCO, which should then reach its own independent conclusion as to the most appropriate decision. 5. Yes. The 400-foot distance criterion for sewer line proximity is an adopted Marin County Code standard that has also been adopted by the Town ofTiburon in its Municipal Code. Future annexation agreements should be universally required by LAFCO in such instances 6.LAFCO should refer applications for waiver of the dual annexation policy to municipalities with allowance for a reasonable review and comment period. 7. This question is not applicable based on our response to #6 above. 8. We believe that each municipality should determine the appropriate body (Council, Staff, etc.) to respond to LAFCO referrals. 9. We have reviewed the existing dual annexation policy and the proposed revision contained in the N01'ato Area BOlIl/dCII)! Folicy Review document. The proposed revision could be viewed as a weakening of the Town ofTiburon's influence on the dual annexation policy. However, the Town ofTiburon has long supported a strong and independent LAFCO, and we believe that the proposed revision is a superior policy for Marin LAFCO's purposes. We therefore support revisions of this nature. We would suggest that findings #3 and #4 for granting an exception be connected by "or" We also suggest that finding #4 have language added similar to the following "If financial infeasibility of extending services is an obstacle to municipal annexation, LAFCO shall consider the use of assessment districts or other conditions of approval within its discretion to reduce or eliminate the financial obstacle to annexation". Alternatively, this additional text could be placed elsewhere in the dual annexation policy, for example, with the discussion of Model Landowner Agreements. We also urge LAFCO to give very high priority to its sphere of influence updates, and not delay the completion of this important LAFCO function Once again, thank you for the extended opportunity to comment on these significant policy deliberations 2 . LAFCO Dual Annexation Policy 2 March 19, 2001 In brief, those policy issues and choices are as follows: .' Policy Issue #1: Should parcels contiguous to city boundaries always be required to annex to the city? That is, are there conditions in which unincorporated land contiguous to a city boundary should be allowed to annex to a special district, but annexation to the city should be delayed or waived? Policy Issue #2: Should the purposes of the Dual Annexation Policy include control of inappropriate or premature growth within city spheres of influence? Policy Issue #3: When LAFCO makes findings on the four criteria for waiving the Dual Annexation Policy, should the waiver require affirmative findings on just one of the four criteria or on all of the criteria for waiver listed in the policy? That is, are the four criteria for waiver of the policy linked by "and" or "or" in the policy text? The current policy is not clear on this point. Is it realistic to require that all of the listed criteria be met? Policy Issue #4: Is the support of the city council for a waiver of the Policy to be required in every instance or will LAFCO consider approval of a policy waiver based on other criteria? Should cites have the power to terminate a single district annexation through withholding approval of a requested waiver? Policy Issue #5: Should a new criteria for waiver of the Dual Annexation Policy be added for parcels within 400 feet of an existing sewer line where only existing uses or new uses exempt from CEQA review would be served? Policy Issue #6: When a waiver of the Policy is sought, how should requests for waivers of the Dual Annexation Policy be set in motion? Should the Policy's procedure require applicants to make their request for a waiver to the city council or should applicants request the waiver as part of their application and LAFCO staff refers the request for waiver to the city for the city's input? Are there better alternatives? Policy issue #7: If applicants seeking waiver of the Dual Annexation Policy are required to apply directly for city. council support for the waiver, what is a reasonable city process for waiver of the Policy in terms of fees charged and processing time so that it is not unduly costly or burdensome? Should the city be permitted to attach conditions to its support for the requested waiver? Policy Issue #8: In cases where waiver of the policy is sought, should LAFCO require formal action of the city council (as required under the current policy) or written recommendation from staff or should that determination be [eft to each city? Policy Issue #9: Overall, would the proposed revision of the Policy on page 10 of the Novato Area BOllndan) Polia) Review work better for your agency? Why/Why not? DATE: March 19, 2001 EXHIBIT NO.~ RECFIVED MAR 2 1 2001 TO: Marin County Cities & Special Districts Marin County Community Development Agency PLANNING DEPARHvlENT TOWN OF TiBURON FROM: Peter Banning, Executive Officer SUBJECT: Potential Changes & Policy Choices to LAFCO's Dual Annexation Policy For the past year, Marin LAFCO has been studying its Dual Annexation Policy and related boundary policies in the Novato area. The Novato Area Boundary PoliCl} Study was published on December 1, 2000. A copy of that Report's summary is attached to this memorandum as Attachment 1. The Report contains recommendations concerning the interactions of the Dual Annexation Policy, adopted spheres of influence in the Novato area and the City of Novato's Urban Growth Boundary. Much of the report focuses on issues that are unique to Novato (e.g., the interaction of the Policy with the City's urban growth boundary). We are providing a copy of the Report because it also identifies shortcomings in the text of the Dual Annexation Policy and recommends changes to remedy those shortcomings. Staff's view is that the current policy is incomplete without clear statements of purpose and procedure and that it has become outdated. The problem of potential urban sprawl that the policy was set up to control has receded through a combination of open space protection and strengthened County planning regulations. Infill of existing semi-rural residential areas has replaced the prospect of disorderly growth. The extension of sewer service to such unincorporated areas would no longer have a significant growth-inducing effect on land use. The policy is still useful as a long-term means of implementing city spheres of influence, but a more up-to-date approach to the Dual Annexation Policy is called for to reflect changes that have accumulated over the past twenty years. The current text of the policy is included with this memo as Attachment 2. Changes to the policy text could affect cities and districts other than Novato and the Novato Sanitary District. The purpose of this memo is to describe the policy issues and choices that LAFCO will consider in reviewing the text of the Dual Annexation Policy and to request the comments and suggestions of cities and districts that may be affected by changes to the policy. Chairperson: Jeffry Blanchfield Members. Mogens Bach. Judy Chapman, Barbara Heller, John Kress, Cynthia Murray Alternates. Hal Brown, Pat Eklund, George C. Quesada, Richard Rubin Executive Officer: Peter V. Banning Marin Local Agency Formation Commission 165 N. Redwood Drive, Ste. 160. San Rafael, California 94903 . Telephone (415)446-4409 . Facsimile (415)446.4410 LAFCO Dual Annexation Policy 2 March 19, 2001 In brief, those policy issues and choices are as follows: Policy Issue #1: Should parcels contiguous to city boundaries always be required to annex to the city? That is, are there conditions in which unincorporated land contiguous to a city boundary should be allowed to annex to a special district, but annexation to the city should be delayed or waived? Policy Issue #2: Should the purposes of the Dual Annexation Policy include control of inappropriate or premature growth within city spheres of influence? Policy Issue #3: When LAFCO makes findings on the four criteria for waiving the Dual Annexation Policy, should the waiver require affirmative findings on just one of the four criteria or on all of the criteria for waiver listed in the policy? That is, are the four criteria for waiver of the policy linked by "and" or "or" in the policy text? The current policy is not clear on this point. Is it realistic to require that all of the listed criteria be met? Policy Issue #4: Is the support of the city council for a waiver of the Policy to be required in every instance or will LAFCO consider approval of a policy waiver based on other criteria? Should cites have the power to terminate a single district annexation through withholding approval of a requested waiver? Policy Issue #5: Should a new criteria for waiver of the Dual Annexation Policy be added for parcels within 400 feet of an existing sewer line where only existing uses or new uses exempt from CEQA review would be served? Policy Issue #6: When a waiver of the Policy is sought, how should requests for waivers of the Dual Annexation Policy be set in motion? Should the Policy's procedure require applicants to make their request for a waiver to the city councilor should applicants request the waiver as part of their application and LAFCO staff refers the request for waiver to the city for the city's input? Are there better alternatives? Policy Issue #7: If applicants seeking waiver of the Dual Annexation Policy are required to apply directly for city council support for the waiver, what is a reasonable city process for waiver of the Policy in terms of fees charged and processing time so that it is not unduly costly or burdensome? Should the city be permitted to attach conditions to its support for the requested waiver? Policy Issue #8: In cases where waiver of the policy is sought, should LAFCO require formal action of the city council (as required under the current policy) or written recommendation from staff or should that determination be left to each city? Policy Issue #9: Overall, would the proposed revision of the Policy on page 10 of the Novato Area Boundan) PoliCl) Review work better for your agency? Why/Why not? , LAFCO Dual Annexation Policy 3 March 19,2001 The above policy issues are detailed in the attachments to this memo. Attachment 2 presents . the current text of the Dual Annexation Policy. Attachment 3 adds sections to the current text for Legislative Authority, and statements of policy purposes and procedures. With the proposed additions to the text, policy issues and choices are inserted in boxed italic type to show where and how each policy choice would operate. The Commission opened the public hearing on the recommendations in the Novato Area Boundan) Polict) Review in February. The hearing will remain open until cities and special districts have had an opportunity to respond to this request for comment. The Commission requests that cities and districts respond by Friday, April 13, 2001. If more time is required for your response, please inform LAFCO staff at 446-4409. We recognize that some agencies will be more concerned with these changes than others and that particular aspects of the policy may be important to individual circumstances or locations. If you or your board members would prefer an in-depth discussion of LAFCO policy prior to providing input, I am available to meet with you to provide additional background or respond to questions. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this policy review. Yours very truly, 1:HZB~ Peter V. Banning. 25 Executive Officer Enclosures: Attachment 1: Novato Area Boundary Polict) Review (summary) Attachment 2: Dual Annexation Policy - Current Adopted Text Attachment 3: Dual Annexation Policy - Discussion Draft, annotated EXHIBIT NO. .3 Attachment 2 Ad.o pled Dual Annexation Policv The Dual Annexation Policy applies to property simated in the "City-Centered Corridor" as defmed in the Marin Countywide Plan and located within a city's sphere of influence. A. Land Contiguous to Municipal Limits: Annexations of unincorporated land to special districts which provide services necessary for urban development shall require concurrent annexation to a city if the land is located within the city's sphere-of-influence boundary. B. Lands Not Contiguous To Municipal Limits: For noncontiguous properties, LAFCO may grant an exception to Policy A where the site adjoins an established unincorporated community which is currently provided water, sanitary sewer, police, or fire protection services by the county and/or special districts. In order to grant a policy exception, LAFCO may grant an exception to Policy A where the site adjoins an established unincorporated community which is currently provided water, sanitary sewer, police, or fire protection services by the county and/or special districts. In order to grant a policy exception, LAFCO shall make findings of fact based on compliance with applicable criteria listed below: 1. The County Board of Supervisors has adopted a community plan governing the unincorporated area, and that a community plan is deemed by the Commission to be appropriate for the area in question. 2. Approval of policy waiver has been submitted in writing to LAFCO by the city council whose sphere of influence includes the site. 3. Affected special districts are presently willing and capable of extending urban services. 4. County Board of Supervisors has approved a master development plan project which will not promote further development beyond the farthest extension of service on the subject property. (Originally Adopted: July 13, 1977; Revised: January 13, 1983) I ~ ~ 1 1 1 i i . . . j j . . J . EX:t-IIBIT NO.~ PROPOSED REVISION OF THE DUAL ANNEXATION POLICY Legislative Authority Government Code Section 56844 and its subsections give LAFCO broad authority to add conditions to the approval of boundary changes: Any change of organization or reorganization may provide for, or be made subject to one or more of, the following terms and conditions. However, none of the following terms and conditions shall directly regulate land use, property development, or subdivision requirements: (0) The initiation, conduct, or completion of proceedings on a proposal made under, and pursuant to, this division. (v) Any other matters necessary or incidental to any of the terms and conditions specified in this section. Policy Annexations of unincorporated land to special districts that provide services necessary for urban development shall require concurrent annexation to a city if the land is located within the city's sphere of influence boundary. The purposes of this policy are: 1. To allow the Commission to encourage orderly growth and development by determining logical and timely boundary changes of local agencies 2. To provide a mechanism through which the Commission may shape boundary decisions in the long-term best interests of the efficient provision of local services and the assignment of appropriate local political responsibility for those services as generally set forth in Government Code 56001 et seq.4 3. To establish priorities among agencies providing community services that reflect local circumstances, conditions and limited financial resources. 4. To provide for the orderly implementation of adopted city and special district spheres of influence. 5. To restrict annexations of unincorporated territory to special districts to those annexations which are consistent with the creation of more rational boundaries of both city's and districts. The Dual Annexation Policy will be applied to property situated in the "City- Centered Corridor" as defined in the Marin Countywide Plan and located within a city's sphere of influence. 10 , , Exceptions to the Dual Annexation Policy . The C;ommission may grant exceptions to the Dual Annexation Policy in instances where: 1. Public health and safety will benefit from exception to the policy, or 2. Resulting City boundaries would be awkward or inefficient, or 3. Application of the policy is impractical or would result in illogical boundaries or inefficient provision of local services 4. The prospectively annexing city is unwilling or unable to extend services. Procedure for Proposals Subject to Dual Annexation Policy Requirements LAFCO staff shall provide written notice to affected agencies of the applicability of the Dual Annexation Policy with a request for staff comment on the proposal. Additional time (within timeframes specified in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act) will be extended for response by the affected city council if requested. Applicants may comply with the Dual Annexation Policy in one of two ways: 1. Filing application for a reorganization that includes annexation to both the special district and the city, or 2. Filing application for district annexation only with a request for exception to the Dual Annexation Policy. If the proposal is approved, the Commission may either grant the exception to the policy or approve subject to conditions requiring city annexation. This application of this policy may be deferred at the discretion of the Commission through the use of agreements providing for future annexation by the city. Boundary changes approved subject to a condition requiring such an agreement between the city and the property owner shall be deemed to comply with this policy upon execution of the agreement. The language of such agreements shall be substantially similar to the example text in Attachment 2, Model Landowner Agreement. Procedure for Exceptions to the Policy Applicants seeking exception to this policy shall make the request in writing and state the reasons in support of the request. In instances in which the Commission approves an exception to this policy, the resolution making determinations will include written findings on the following criteria for exception: 1. public health and safety 2. ability of the city and special district to efficiently extend services 3. the potential to induce premature urban growth or development inconsistent with the Countywide Plan 4. the net public benefits accruing from exception to the policy II -----' TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES IIeM- Ii J-. IJR4pr CALL TO ORDER Mayor ThomR called the re lar meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:46 p.m. on Wednes y, May 2,2001, i Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bach, Gram, Matthews, Slavitz, Mayor Thompson PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager McIntyre, Planning Director Anderson, Senior Planner Watrous, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Bargaining Unit - Tiburon Police Association Negotiator - Town Manager Mayor Thompson said Council had consulted with its labor negotiator but no action had been taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES (1) Belvedere- Tiburon Library Agency Board of Directors (a) Appointment to fill One Tiburon Vacancy MOTION: To appoint Victoria Fong to the Library Agency Board to fill the unexpired term of Boardmember F oITel and to a full, three-year term commencing July I, 200 I. Matthews, seconded by Bach AYES: Unanimous Moved: Vote: (b) RatifY Appointment of Reed Union School District Representative MOTION Moved: Vote To ratifY the appointment of Bonnie Ross (term expiration June 2002) Slavitz, seconded by Gram AYES: Unanimous Town Council A1inutes # 13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page I (2) Heritage & Arts Commission (a) Appointment to fill One Tiburon Vacancy MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint David Gotz to fill one (of two) vacancies Bach, Seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous CONSENT CALENDAR (3) Approval of Town Conncil Minutes - April 4, 2001 (continuedfrom April 18,2001) Councilmember Slavitz asked for the following language to be added to page 9 of the April 4 minutes: "Councilmember Slavitz commented that the Committee might have plans to take over 'new' medians, and Council should be aware of the future obligations this creates. " (4) Approval of Town Council Minutes - April 11, 2001 (continuedfrom April 18,2001) Council discussed certain details in the minutes On Page 2, last paragraph, Vice Mayor Matthews said he did not recall a discussion of the replacement of the existing fichus trees in Area #3. He said he thought the decision had been deferred until the final budget for the project was determined. He said any reference to tree removal should be deleted from the minutes. Council member Bach concurred that the budget was for the plaza area and there was no need to spend any more on the fountain plaza (Area 3). Councilmember Slavitz said he recalled that the decision had been made to eliminate the design plans for Area 4 (across the street from the fountain plaza) rather than Area 3. Mayor Thompson said the recommendation from Staff was not to cut out any of the design work at this point in order to have an option to review it later. Town Manager McIntyre concuITed that Staff had hoped to keep in the design for Area 3 as a bid alternate if funds became available, and that no final decision had been made one way or the other concerning acceptance of those plans, at the meeting. Councilmember Gram said he would vote against removal and replacement of the existing trees when the matter came before the Council. (5) Bay Trail Grant Application - Request for Funding for Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements on Trestle Glen Boulevard and Paradise Drive (a) Adoption ofa Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon Assuring Compliance with all Conditions and Requirements of the California Town CounciHfinules #13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 2 State Coastal Conservancy Associated with the Allocation of Bay Trail Grant Funds for Tiburon's Paradise Drive/Trestle Glen Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Study (6) Notice of Completion - Spring 2000 Street Rehabilitation Program (a) Adoption ofa Resolution of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon Accepting Town ofTiburon Street Rehabilitation Project No. 6940-E-9907/l0 Councilmember Gram asked if acceptance of the work precluded the any further work to be performed on Jefferson. Town Manager McIntyre answered negatively. MOTION Moved: Vote: To approve Consent Calendar Items 3 through 6, as amended. Matthews, Seconded by Slavtiz AYES: Unanimous ABSTAIN: Bach (April 4, 2001 Minutes) ABSTAIN: Gram (April 4 & II, 2001 Minutes) PUBLIC HEARING (7) Appeal Design Review Board Denial of a Request for Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with a Floor Area Exception, 2090 Centro East, AP No. 59-133-02 - (Larry & Lacy Lang, Applicants! Appellants) Senior Planner Watrous gave the Staff report. He said the Design Review Board had denied a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application for the conversion of unfinished lower floor area into habitable space, which would have required a floor area exception of 596 additional square feet, at 2090 Centro East Street at its March 15, 2001 meeting. Watrous said the Board was split 2-2 in its decision, which resulted in a failure of the application. Mr. Watrous said the owner, Ms. Lang, then appealed the decision on the following grounds: 1. Board member Beales, the only member on the DRB at the time the existing house was approved, was not present at the meeting; 2. The two members (Smith and Figour) voting against the application had not visited the residence; and 3. There being no exterior modifications requested, the sUITounding neighbors supported the application. Senior Planner Watrous noted that floor area exceptions were of growing concem to the community, especially where significant crawl spaces which had not been approved were filled in later. He said that Staff did not believe the Board would have approved the proposed use of said Town Council ,V/inutes # 13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 3 space at the time of the original application. He said the Board felt the request for an exception to the FAR would be inconsistent with the sUITounding neighborhood, as the existing house had been designed to use the maximum floor area allowed for this property (Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, Floor Area Ratio Guidelines), and was inconsistent with the general development pattern of the sUITounding Old Tiburon neighborhood. Vice Mayor Matthews asked whether the FAR guidelines were a mechanism for the Town to limit or control overdevelopment of building sites. Senior Planner Watrous answered affirmatively, stating that it was (a) a way to control compatible sizes of homes in neighborhoods, and (b) to control the mass and bulk of a project. Councilmember Slavitz asked whether the FAR was only based on developed floor space. Mr. Watrous said it did not apply to areas with underheight ceilings or undeveloped floors. Slavitz further queried how this much undeveloped floor space could occur, and whether it was a function oflot steepness of [ design review] oversight. Mr. Watrous replied that in this instance the house was designed as such to be sited to avoid view blockage of other neighbors. However, Watrous said that former Board member Snow had stated in the minutes that limits should be placed on the development of that [crawl] space in the future. Mayor Thompson said that Snow's suggestion had neither been debated nor any deed restriction had been made as part of the approval. Councilmember Gram asked if there ever had been any such condition placed on an application. Mr. Watrous said he was not aware of any, but stated that the Board did not want to "hamstring" future Boards if community standards changed. Councilmember Gram concluded that there was no significance to the lack of such a condition. Councilmember Slavitz asked whether some kind of restriction could be placed by Staff to ensure that there was no future development [in such spaces]. Mr. Watrous said that notations could be made during the plan check process, but that a new owner might presume it as developable space. Councilmember Bach asked if there were a lot of applications to develop these kinds of spaces. Watrous said it was not uncommon but what was unusual was to receive an application from such a recently developed home, where the potential for such development was discussed by the Design Review Board. Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing. Lacy Lang, 2090 Centro East, said she would explain why they wanted to develop the space and what they wanted to do with it. She said her husband would address the siting of the house, as well. Mrs. Lang said they would not have objected to any deed restriction at the time of the 1997 approval, but that it wasn't their house at the time [they were the developers]. She said that she Town Cvuncillv/inutes # 13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 4 and her husband built custom homes in Tiburon and worked out of their home. With two teenage . daughters, Mrs. Lang said they could use the extra space for a piano and a treadmill. Mrs. Lang said they had never asked for a floor area exception in any of the seven downslope homes they had developed, and that if they were circumventing Town rules, people would know it. Mrs. Lang said that Staff's list of other homes in the neighborhood showed only the smaller homes with which to compare floor areas, but she produced a list showing homes in her size range (3,000-4,000 square feet). For instance, the home below hers she claimed was 5,136 square feet) and contained eight "big bubble" skylights, and the house next door was 3,093 square feet. She concluded that her application would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Mrs. Lang also objected to Staff's characterization of the size increase of "unparalleled margin" and spent many hours at Town Hall researching the issue. She claimed that since 1992, when the FAR guidelines came into being, there were 70 FAR exceptions granted, no denials, and two withdrawals of applications. One example cited by Mrs. Lang was 2234 Mar East, a 20.7% increase in FAR granted in January 2001 (her request was for 22%). She said this was a remodel project and further noted that her request included no exterior modifications. Another example Ms. Lang cited was a remodel of 211 0 Mar West, with an FAR exception of 1,056 square feet, approved in 1997, with lot coverage variances for setbacks. Other examples were 1880 Vistazo West (713 square foot FAR, approved 8/3/00) and 1756 Centro West (already over FAR with an addition of 600 square feet of interior space), and 1818 Lagoon View (380 square foot exception at time of new construction, which represented a modification to the existing plans). Mrs. Lang had other examples, including a tear-down/remodel on Linda Vista, 1433 square feet over FAR (July 20, 2000), for a total of 4,500 square feet plus garage which was deemed "compatible with other houses in Old Tiburon... ". Finally, Mrs. Lang said her neighbors had requested and gotten an additional 120 square feet which put their project within 30 feet of her home. Mrs. Lang asked that Council not make her application the first floor area exception denial. Larry Lang, 2090 Centro East, said their 1997 plans were approved 3-1 with Board member Snow in favor of the application. Lang said that Snow's discussion of the underfloor space was a reaction to neighbor Gus Strotz' fear of a second unit being added later on. Councilmember Gram asked if the area was zoned for two (multi-family) units and was told it was not. Town Council Minutes #13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Lang said he looked at all aspects of a site when developing a property, which resulted in the location of the CUITent home at 2090 Centro East. He said the Tiburon Fire Department required a 20% slope but gave him a 21 % exception for his driveway. He said this and other design requirements of the home resulted in the amount of underfloor space under discussion. Land reiterated the fact that the application caused no change in the footprint or mass of the home, and was not visible from the street. He said it was compatible with other home sizes in the neighborhood, and also noted that neighbor Strotz now supported the project. He also told Council that he would be in favor of a deed restriction, if necessary. Councilmember Slavitz asked Staff if the statistics quoted by Mrs. Lang were COITect. Senior Planner Watrous replied that the exceptions quoted had been made but that a number of exception requests had also been withdrawn, or modified during Design Review to comply with the FAR. Helen Lindqvist, Lyford's Cove/Old Tiburon Homeowners' Association representative, said the group was concerned because of the history of the lot. She said it was originally listed as one parcel but the developer succeeded in getting a "lot split" to build two homes. Councilmember Gram asked about the previous home and was told by Planning Director Anderson that it [the lot] contained a small cottage. Mrs. Lang said it was "run down with open sewers. " Mrs. Lindqvist said the Homeowners' Association wanted Council to "stick to the rules" regarding floor area exceptions. Mayor Thompson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Slavitz said he knew the Langs from his time on the Design Review Board and said he had the utmost respect for their work. However, he said that floor area exceptions were a "hot topic" and he recalled it being impossible to exceed the FAR requirements with new home applications while he served on the Board. Slavitz said the application to develop the large amount of underfloor space defeated the purpose of the FAR guidelines, and even ifit were approved through a "loophole," it would set a bad precedent for other new home applications. He said he relied in part on Staff's assertion that the development of the space would never have been approved in the original plans, and further noted that the CUITent home was not even one foot under the maximum FAR for the lot. Mayor Thompson said he thought the "damage had already been done" by the DRB approval of the plans without taking into account and addressing the possibility of developing the underfloor space. Councilmember Slavitz agreed that it was difficult to deny an application when the space was already there, and cited other examples of approvals in Cypress Hollow and on Round Hill Road. Town Council /'vlinutes # 13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 6 However, he reiterated that the house was already at the maximum FAR. . Councilmember Gram asked Staff for the FAR calculations for the lot. He noted that the space would have no immediate effect on the neighborhood, and pondered the question of how to properly address such an application. Gram said the Applicants contended that adherence to FAR requirements was an exception in Tiburon, but he countered that the two homes on the lot were "imposing" in size and were already at maximum FAR. He said he concuITed with Councilmember Slavitz' argument against approval, particularly since the issue of the underfloor space had been discussed at the DRB level. Mayor Thompson concurred that while it was "healthy" to discuss the FAR issue, he said that the Design Review Board "blew it" when they allowed that amount of underfloor space to be enclosed. He said the issue should have been handled at the DRB level. Vice Mayor Matthews said he had visited the site and noted that some of the neighbors had not yet developed (or remodeled) on their lots. He agreed that the Langs did outstanding work, but questioned whether a floor area exception should be made for a home on such a small lot. He said when people developed properties "the maximum becomes the minimum," and that by approving the CUITent application, it would put it 20% over the maximum FAR. Matthews said he regretted not being able to accommodate the Lang's request, but noted that the lots in Old Tiburon were troublesome and that Council needed to be "more vigilant" as a result. Councilmember Bach said he was wrestling with the question of approval based on the merits of the project. He said the Council had granted [underfloor] floor area exceptions in Cypress Hollow for a relatively new house and on Stewart Drive for an older house. He said he could not see any adverse impact on the neighborhood and would reluctantly vote to approve the project. Mayor Thompson said he had always favored the efficient use of crawl spaces, especially if there was no impact on the neighbors. He said he found it "staggering" that floor area exceptions had never been denied, as contended by Ms. Lang, but noted that they were not variances. However, Thompson said the DRB needed to realize the consequence of its actions in this instance, and questioned whether the Langs should "pay for this" after the fact. Councilmember Bach said he did not agree that the Design Review Board had "eITed." Councilmember Gram said the purpose of the FAR guidelines was also to control the intensity of the use in a project. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To deny the appeal and direct Staff to return with a resolution of findings. Slavitz, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Gram, Matthews, Slavitz NOES: Bach, Thompson Town Council Minutes #13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 7 Mrs. Lang said she would proceed with putting in a T 5" ceiling in the space and use it for storage, which could be approved by the Building Official without design review. REGULAR AGENDA (8) Review ofLAFCO Dual Annexation Policy Planning Director Anderson said the LAFCO policy was last modified in 1983, and that Staff generally supported the CUITent changes now on the table. However, he said there was some room for discussion and that the letter sent by the Executive Director, Peter Banning, deserved a response. On Staff's recommendation, Council appointed an ad hoc committee, consisting of Mayor Thompson, Councilmember Bach, Planning Commission Chair Stein, Town Manager McIntyre and Planning Director Anderson to study proposed changes. Anderson also said the committee should tackle the issue of "the sleeping giant," Paradise Drive. Vice Mayor Matthews agreed that the Town was creating a "Catch 22" by wanting to manage development in the Paradise Drive area. Councilmember Gram said the Town was simply saying the area was within its "sphere of influence" rather than stating a desire to annex. Planning Director Anderson said the Town policy is to encourage all the large, undeveloped properties in the Paradise Drive area to annex into the Town. Mayor Thompson said that Tiburon's CUITent "sphere of influence" also extended all the way out to Highway 101 and asked for LAFCO's recommendation for that area. Planning Director Anderson said LAFCO was looking at taking the Strawberry area out of the sphere, and said the County had a specific plan (the Strawberry Community Plan) for that area which had greatly limited the Town's influence over development in the Strawberry area. Mayor Thompson said he thought it was important that the Town continue to have the ability to comment on development in the Strawberry area, as well as Paradise Drive, as no one knew what would happen in the years ahead. During public hearing, Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, had the following comments: 1) She supported the formation of a committee to study the Dual Annexation Policy; 2) Strawberry should be a city of its own and not part of Tiburon; and 3) She hoped that the maintenance costs of Paradise Drive would not be the Council's primary factor in reviewing the dual annexation policy, because people in that area did want a bigger voice in Town politics, and she for one wanted to see an orderly annexation of the area; Planning Director Anderson said he would send a letter to LAFCO immediately requesting more time for the Town to prepare a response (June 2001). Town Council Minutes #13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 8 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - April 20, 2001 Item Nos. 1,4 &5, 14 and 15 noted. #14 Holiday Banner purchase approved. Town Council Weekly Digest - April 27, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m., sine die. ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #13-2001 May 2, 2001 Page 9 D~.A~T 1\ . r .-.-- ~ I :2- lk",,- NO. - TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES pecial meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, ROLL CALL PRESENT COUNCILMEMBERS: Bach, Gram, Matthews, Slavitz, Mayor Thompson PRESENT EX OFFICIO: Town Manager McIntyre, Finance Director Stranzl, Acting Town Engineer Wilson, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Thompson described the evening's proceedings (below). He said that those Stewart Drive residents who had not yet submitted a ballot could do so at any time up to the close of the Public Hearing. (1) Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District A There will be a summary of the project and the proposed financing by representatives of the proposed District and Staff Margarita Perry, 540 Silverado Drive, gave the presentation on behalf ofthe proposed Assessment District. She noted the Town's past history in support of under grounding utilities and highlighted the three main reasons for formation ofthe district in the Stewart Drive neighborhood: I) safety, 2) beautification, and 3) reliability. Perry said the cost of the project was $1,373,700, and was this low due to two years' worth of [PG&E] Rule 20A credits, which were being allocated to the project by the Town. She also noted that Pacific Bell was not charging for their portion of the undergrounding, and that the homeowners would pay for the trenching and laying of conduit through an assessment of $15,790 per household. Ms. Perry said the cost of the project would be financed through the sale of a 26-year municipal bond, amounting to an assessment of approximately $1,200 per property owner per year, or lower, depending on interest rates. She said the homeowners would pay for their individual hook-ups from the curb to their meters as an additional cost. Town Council Minutes #14-2001 May 9, 2001 Page I Ms. Perry said that 10% of the bond had been set aside to assist those homeowners who needed help in financing their individual hook-ups. . Ms. Perry then gave examples of the benefits of under grounding utilities for safety and reliability reasons. She cited an instance of a house in Mill Valley that had caught fire and burned down as a result of[ safety] vehicles being unable to cross the downed power lines to reach the fire. She noted that the State now requires the undergrounding of utilities in all new subdivisions and said it not only improved the ambience of a neighborhood but also increased property values. Ms. Perry also pointed out that if the utility poles were not undergrounded, they would continue to grow higher as a result of more wires and services being added by the utilties in the future. She concluded her presentation with a slide show of the Stewart Drive area showing "before and after" shots of the neighborhood with and without its existing utility poles and lines. Vice Mayor Matthews asked about the cost to the neighbors of their individuals hook-ups and was told that they ranged from $200 to $2,000, with some as high as $3,000 if tree removal or other work was involved. In response to a question about the legal basis for formation of the district, bond counsel Stephen Casaleggio gave Council and the audience a brief history going back to the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act and 1915 Improvement Bond Act He said that a majority approval was required for formation of the district, and that in the proposed Stewart Drive U ndergrounding Assessment District, each property had one vote, rather than a vote weighted on assessed value of a property. He noted that the undergrounding assessment would follow the land, not the property owner, and that the County of Marin would collect it on the annual property tax bill. Councilmember Slavitz asked why the assessments were ,identical in this district. Mr. Casaleggio said that under Proposition 218 the assessment was to be determined by a civil engineer based on the nature of the district, location, and value received. He said the Proposition did not address how to avoid the complications of determining value based upon views and other aesthetics, and that Proposition 13 had created a disparity of property values. Engineer of Work Roger Poynts, UDI- Tetrad, addressed this issue and said the benefits were difficult to decide based on individual circumstances, but in this neighborhood, every pole was to be removed, not just some poles, and it was his decision to distribute the value evenly. He said he used the same process in a 1990 undergrounding project in Oakland, which affected 3,000 homes, after the Oakland fire. Poynts said he thought it was a "fair" approach. Acting Town Engineer Jim Wilson discussed the bid process. He said the Town had received four bids ranging from $1,036,540 to over $3 million, and noted that the low bid was within Town Council Minutes # 14-2001 May 9. 2001 Page 2 $35,000 of the Engineer of Work's estimate He said that the individual homeowners had the option of using the contractor that was awarded the [low] bid, or could chose their own for the individual hook-ups. He told Council that Staff was reviewing the low bid and would make a recommendation for an award of contract in June. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Matthews, Wilson said that Staff was checking the low bidder's references, and noted that the contractor, Underground Construction, Inc. of Benecia, had completed over 100 undergrounding projects. B. The public hearing will be opened. Speakers will have three (3) minutes and are required to state their name, address and identifY the property they own or represent within the proposed Assessment District Mayor Thompson opened the public hearing. The following residents spoke: . David Joyner, 23 Sutter Court, was in favor of the project for the reasons stated above. He said the cost was reasonable and noted the low interest rates and good financing. . Dorothy Gallyot, 545 Silverado Drive, spoke against the project, stating her property values would not be increased and that the utilities should pay more. . Debbie Korchek, 529 Silverado Drive, proponent, said that safety was the most important issue. . Christopher English, 561 Silverado Drive, questioned the issue of safety and said if that was really an issue, then PG&E should address it. He also said the other utilities, Pacific Bell and AT&T stood to gain at the homeowner's cost. Finally he challenged the argument against increased equity stating that it was irrelevant for aging people on fixed incomes. . Eric Schmidt, 534 Silverado Drive, said he and his wife had backed assessments for schools and open space, but said "this was different" in that "it doesn't affect society in a significant way" Me. Schmidt also said he doubted that the actual assessment would be as low as $15,790. · Ron Hurwin, 558 T enaya, spoke in favor of the project and noted that the assessment is not taken out of the sales price when a home sold. He also noted that even though he did not have children, he paid for school assessments. . Candace Nordstrom, 535 Silverado Drive, said a recent power surge had ruined the TV's and computers in her home, and she wanted the lines down. She also said that her parents, who lived in Mill Valley, were without power for five days when a tree fell on the power lines. . Camilla English, 561 Silverado Drive, asked if there was a method of assessment that would follow the proportion of property tax paid by the individual homeowners. . Mr. Rypinski, Stewart Drive, said he was in favor of the project for all the reason stated. He also said that with the growth of telecommunications, there would be more carriers (and more wires added) in the future. He complemented the organizers of the project and said that the planning had been "extremely competent" . Ray Fisher, 541 Comstock, asked for a breakdown of "real costs" and "soft costs." Finance Director Stranzl said the amount of the bond was $1,373,000, and detailed the other costs and credits which he said were contained in the Engineer's Report. Town Council Minutes # 14-200 I May 9,2001 Page 3 . . Victor Zffuska, 150 & 158 Stewart Drive, said it was "an easy decision to make" to vote for the project for all of the reasons stated. · Jim Rushwick, 14 Sonora Court, said that at the beginning of the project, over 50% of the homeowners had put up $700 to fund the engineering studies, which resulted in the comment by Ms. Perry that the formation of the district was supported by a majority of the affected homeowners. C. The Mayor will ask for the final submittal of ballots to the Town Clerk. Two additional ballots were submitted. D. The Public Hearing will be closed and the Council will take a short recess to allow the Town Clerk time to open and tabulate the Ballots. Mayor Thompson closed the public hearing, stating that whether or not there was agreement on formation of the district, everyone had worked hard to make the community a better place to live. The ballots were opened and tabulated by Town Clerk Crane Iacopi and Acting Town Engineer Jim Wilson. Town Clerk Crane presented the results to Mayor Thompson. Mayor Thompson announced that 81 ballots had been received and counted. He said one ballot was disqualified for lack of signature. He said the results of the 80 remaining ballots were 60 votes for the district and 20 against, resulting in a 75% majority approval of the project by the homeowners. E. Based upon the results of the balloting, the Town Council will then discuss the matter and determine how to proceed. rfthe Council decides to proceed with the formation of the Assessment District, it will adopt the following resolution: (i) A Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Adopting the Engineer's Report, Confirming the Assessment, Ordering the Work and Acquisitions and Directing Actions with Respect thereto - Town ofTiburon, Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District Council waived further discussion. MOTION: Moved Vote: To adopt above Resolution. Bach, Seconded by Matthews AYES: Unanimous Town Council Afinutes #14-2001 May 9, 2001 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT . There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m., to the May 16,2001 regular meeting. ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes # 14-2001 May 9, 2001 Page 5 TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES TIeMM,S- Djjl\"t! ;" r-r '\Ai-' TOWN HALL LOBBY RECEPTION Between 7:00 - 7:30 p.m., a public reception was hosted by the Heritage & Arts Commission to celebrate the newly decorated Town Hall lobby and its designer, Nancy Sprague. The Tiburon Peninsula Foundation presented a statue of"Blackie" to the Town for the new lobby. meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:38 p.m. n Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, ROLL CALL PRESENT COUNCILMEMBERS: Bach, Gram, Matthews, Slavitz, Mayor Thompson PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager McIntyre, Town Attorney Danforth, Chief of Police Odetto, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi ORAL COMMUNICA nONS George Swift, 71 Eastview Avenue, Corinthian Island, complained of an ongoing noise problem, especially from early morning garbage pick-ups, in the downtown area and asked the Council what they planned to do about it. He said the remedy was to give the policy enforcement authority by specifYing or limiting hours of pick-up and decibel levels. He said the downtown restaurants needed better in-house garbage disposal units as well. Mr. Swift said the solution would take the cooperation of the Town, the downtown restaurant owners, and contractors. Mayor Thompson asked for a discussion of early morning noise on Main Street and complaints about construction noise throughout Town be agendized. On another matter, Katie V ogelheim, 170 Hacienda, representing the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Committee, invited the Council to a presentation of the Committee's recommendations scheduled for June 4,2001, 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall. CONSENT CALENDAR (I) Approval of Town Council Minutes - Aplil18, 2001 Council member Bach questioned whether Town Engineer Wilson had made a statement indicating the proposed Pine Terrace Path would be up to 10 feet in some areas. Town Council Minutes #15-2001 May 16, 2001 Page I (2) Denial of Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - 2090 Centro East, AP No. 59-133- 02 - (Larry & Lacy Lang, Applicants/Appellants) (a) Adoption ofa Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Denying an Appeal by Lacy Lang of the Denial ofa Site Plan and Architectural Review and A Floor Area Exception for Property Located at 2090 Centro East Street Mayor Thompson and Councilmember Bach asked that the resolution be changed to reflect their vote against denial of the appeal. (3) Parks & Open Space Recommendation to Purchase Park Furniture (Benches & Games Tables) at South Knoll Park & Cypress Hollow Park MOTION Moved: Vote: To adopt Items 1,2 & 3, as amended above. Gram, seconded by Matthews AYES. REGULAR AGENDA (4) Recommendation to Approve Employment Agreement - Authorization to enter into Agreement to Hire Matthew C. Odetto as Tiburon Police Chief Town Manager McIntyre said that Council had given him authority to negotiate an employment agreement with acting Chief Odetto, and that he was higWy regarded by both Town Staff and the community. McIntyre said that Odetto had accepted the Town's offer to be its fifth Police Chief, and he recommended Council's acceptance of the employment agreement. Mayor Thompson said how happy he was to have Matt join the Town. Councilmember Bach commended the Town Manager for his recruitment efforts. MOTION To approve the Employment Agreement between the Town and Matthew C. Odetto as Chief of Police Bach, seconded by Slavitz AYES: Unanimous Moved Vote: (5) Recommendation by Town Manager - Authorize Conditional Award of Contract to Underground Construction Co. Inc. ofBenicia for Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District Town Manager Mcintyre said he sought conditional approval of the contract pending the bond issuance on June II, and that he wanted to bring some issues to Council's attention prior to award. Town Council Minutes # 15-2001 May 16,2001 Page 2 Mcintyre said that the contractor's references had checked out so far. He noted that there were a couple of minor discrepancies in the unit prices that were being cleared up through discussions . with the contractor and the Town Attorney. However, McIntyre said that after the financing, a 5% construction contingency remained based upon the Engineer's original estimate. He said that because the assessments were now capped (through the formation of the District), any overages would have to be paid by the Town. Council asked McIntyre what the solution to this potential problem was. He responded by saying there was some "wiggle room" in the contract numbers for project management ($15,000) which could be less, and a soils study ($10,000) that probably would not be needed. He said these could be added back into the contingency fund. But McIntyre also said that due to the eITors in the contract, the Town Attomey would ask Council to award the bid plus $4,000 to cover these costs. Margarita Perry, Silverado Drive resident and member of the Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District, estimated that the $1,373,000 going to bond would probably earn $20,000 in interest which could go toward the contingency. She noted that the contractor would receive progress payments, rather than payment in full, up to the end of the project. Perry also said she had negotiated with the District Engineers to not take the full amount of their fee ($125,000) up front, thereby interest on that amount would also continue to accrue. Ms. Perry assured the Council that the neighbors in the District were "very motivated to keep the costs down." She also said she had been told early on in the process that the Town would waive the contractor's permit fees because it was a public project. CounciJmember Gram said he would be in favor of the waiver of permit fees, but said he would "hold his breath" that nothing went wrong which would require a larger contingency fee. He recommended that Staff check these numbers before the formation of a district the next time around. Vice Mayor Matthews said he was troubled by the low bid (lower than the Engineer's Estimate). He also said he would not rely on Dunn & Bradstreet as a reference check. Town Manager Mcintyre said the Finance Director had used other references and that the contractor had submitted references, as well. Town Attorney Danforth said the contractor was required to have both a performance bond and payment bond. Councilmember Bach said that Underground Construction Co. Inc. was "a reasonably reputable company." He said he thought the contract was "decent" and that he was relieved to see Underground Construction Co. had won the low bid. Town Council Minutes # 15-2001 May 16,2001 Page 3 CounciJmember Slavitz asked if the amount of the assessment could be changed, if necessary. Town Manager McIntyre said a higher assessment would require a majority vote of the residents. . Slavitz also asked whether the project would be dependent on funding from PG&E. Town Manager McIntyre said that there were no funds involved, rather Rule 20A credits, and that PG&E, along with Pacific Bell, would perform their portion of the work on that basis, Mayor Thompson said the contingency was already at 7.5% with the addition of the variables discussed earlier, and said that the Town should go forward with the project. MOTION: To award the contract to the low bidder, Underground Construction Co. Inc., contingent upon funding [bond issuance] of the Stewart Drive Undergrounding Assessment District Project. Thompson, seconded by Bach Moved: Council briefly discussed whether the motion should state the amount of the contract plus the $4,000 correction. Stewart Drive resident John Kern said the contractor told him if there were any mistakes they would still be "stuck" with the bid amount. Town Attorney disagreed, stating it was a unit price contract, but that the cOITections were in favor or the Town in some instances and not in others. She also said that State law allowed for cOITection of minor iITegularities in publicly bid contracts. Danforth recommended that the Council let the motion stand. Vote: AYES Unanimous COUNCIL. STAFF. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Vice Mayor Matthews said the [MCCMC] Legislative Committee had planned a trip to Sacramento on May 24 but he would be unable to attend. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Town Council Weekly Digest - May 4,2001 No comments. Town Council Weekly Digest - May 11,2001 Item NO.3 - Correspondence from Hadden Roth re: Tiburon Lodge, Check for Taxes Due Item Nos. 4 & 5 - COITespondence from Finance Director re: Transient Occupancy Tax on . Elderhostel Program Customers Mayor Thompson commended Staff for its "fiscal housekeeping" in determining whether the Tiburon Lodge had met its obligations to the Town's Transient Occupancy Tax for the Elderhostel Program. Town Manager McIntyre noted that while further research was pending, the Town had received a check for $60,000 from the Lodge for back fees. Town Council Minutes #15-2001 May 16,2001 Page 4 Item No. 10 - COITespondence from Marin County Board of Supervisors re: Automatice Gas . Shut-Off Devices Town Manager McIntyre asked Council if they were interested in pursuing a Countywide "automatic cut-off ordinance." Councilmember Gram said he would like to see numbers, Assistant Project Manager John Kern said it cost $300 to install at the Tiburon Police Station. ADJOURNMENT There being no further regular business before the Town Council, Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 826 p.m. to closed session. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - CURRENT LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Masterson v, Majlessi et al. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Section 54957.6) Bargaining Unit - Tiburon Police Association Negotiator - Town Manager ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION No action taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m., to the Homeowner's Summit on May 19. ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR ATTEST DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes #15-2001 May 16, 2001 Page 5 PRW1 TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ~J/o.1. ecial meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 10:00 a.m. 01, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bach, Gram, Matthews, Thompson Slavitz PRESENT:. EX OFFICIO: Town Clerk Crane Iacopi PRESENT HOMEOWNERS: See attached attendance sheet. TOWN COUNCIL/HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIA nON WORKSHOP The Town Council reviewed items from the agenda below. A summary of the discussion is attached. 10:00 I. Welcome & Introductions - (Mayor Thompson & Council) 10:15 II. Neighborhood Issues, Concerns, Questions & Comments - (Residents) 10:30 ID. Town Activities Update . School Traffic Study . Transportation Sales Tax . Downtown Design Guidelines 11:30 IV. Summary 12:00 V. Adjournment ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon, Mayor Thompson adjourned the meeting at 12: 10 p.m. ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR ATTEST DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council A1inutes # 16-200 1 May 19,2001 Page I z~--(~ C;~ > . . HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES - ,MA-'/I?/Lf)d/ - CcV#Cj~ = n.~r~ /A~J 13~ ~ r TJvA- c.f.vK ~ .l2.~ Name AddresslPhone Homeowners' Group 1. ~e.v-..l-;J"f,""sI- :3 C4:z<d........" L,.,~ L...cc)'1"'\{A. - L~ c,,,....otJ 1';'bc"",,- 2. [JCt~ r::,I.,JWI tI~ (,,7 VI A 41s ~7t7S -r, tfl/fl<JN ~T fh'A- 3. ""'Bil( ~c..D~ ~("'-"T: TI6I.tRat.J !-\TP.o A I '1. " ,/ fL, t- Ti b___o 10\ MewsJ... 4. -.J ~t'I,',c. 7U\.!.te/' 3"/ ma..'"S l.. ~JI f~S" ~n c e.""&....;......... ,4ssO'-; 'af,a- 5. ~Vl.. 11+,.".;) ~c,t... '/0 e~ 1.;.,...1.. ClIl /'-101'J71.'-tt'" $~,o M ..:"1 { /.1 I( YJr-'""t!:. ,...., '77~,,,,,,,,,...1d-04 6. -a.-I''j c;..J l:'1 vv ~Tt C:S('l1 1 f (J /0/ ~\ 7i.li'\.\"'''rI feJ 7. W",lie,5a,vto,.)L. '/, ~c...J;,R Pl. 7rJ-"'?, 8, LWt" (!. 8Ac.it ~ \l"M1ift" UW k"l -naq~ S <<a {;., iL- 01. 'I -., f ~ 1"'&$ 9.~""" -c-&~... lo"??'" ~~~, - - I PLEASE SIGN IN e;na' ( -- - j-t.J.. 7/j l/.-'O/It Prop. "Wlo1t!d" .4$~ 'e. ~IIS~ ",,~.sH As.so~ 10. ~ ~Is~ 1'1 Ju~ tse.lv~A-E.c;;.cu. 11. ~6Yb 2.f:> J ~"'O :Relv~ ks-n... 12. E (:) ~ ()~S O.,v r;-(II(t~"A.I 1"J./I"y. (.t., H A(?6M }-/':JL,LS 13. /~ t ~Q.. V%d h".il't\ 170 Haci ~do. \:)r !;.:rbwvi'\ - ~6i' A ~;tte, 14, !lfrrIJJ,4.- IJnhJIAli tX'7 ~", !l/ar 1r'~AJ ~re fi 6-~DA'-k^" f/.rNq/i~ /;6. /.u.. ~*.~j::: ~'J.~:~~ ~:t:!:rU ~~ :::~ 17. . A . ~~h1~ " IO/~ 20. tJ~ A~ ~._...tH~J'R..(I"~II.'//s ;,~, ~o/1i~ 21, ~Cf11~ 11 La'iv~ UL8f't... PI. IL h. ~J \l'o~C-- LAG~ ~I.. ~~ !1t&.hJl.oIx S'(~ve,,'11 /1b ~f".euda. T"L 0'/ q'Lcr?c> !,.-{ ~ p(~so.l. '-77' . I loiJ I'\ICVJ~ ,,->s,"'c:. . 18. 19. Diane Crane From: Sent: To: . Cc: Subject: Diane Crane Monday, May 21,2001 11 :12 AM Alex Mcintyre Scott Anderson; Richard Stranzl; Tony lacopi; Matthew Odetto Homeowners' Summit - May 19, 2001 1. School Traffic Issues (they spent an hour on this one; good summary by Chris Carter & Katie; next mtg, is June 4, here, 7p.m.) . Police Auxiliary - suggestion was made to form one, along the lines of Volunteer Fire Department. Matt, this was punted to you... maybe a source of recruitment for crossing guards, etc. at schools.., . Public seemed happy that the Police were ticketing traffic violations in school zones, Wanted to see more of this... 2. Mt. Tiburon Water Tank - Richard, Vice Mayor Matthews wants the current construction schedule provided to him and the Mt. Tiburon homeowners...also, where will this project be staged? (Alex, the Mt. Tiburon folks suggested Lyford Drive--ha! but were told by Council that it wasn't a good idea,..) The whole question started with when will Round Hill Road be repaired? (see below,..) Also, the question came up of whether MMWD would be assessed street impact fees for this? 3. Current Year Street Repairs - Does anyone have the list of streets slated for this fiscal year? It was suggested to publish it in the Ark and on the web... 4. pt. Tiburon Marsh - Maintenance/Reed Removal - Alex, Andrew asked you to bring the Council up to date on this one. Also, the Jocelyn report was mentioned--does anyone know when it's due? I thought we had it already! 5. Multi-Use Path - Tony, someone mentioned that sproutlings of undesirable trees (I.e. pine trees) were coming up in the mulch. I noticed only one, myself, across the street in the vicinity of the Landmarks Society Art & Garden Center. Maybe Dave's crew can whack it down... 6. Multi-Use Path Safety Issue--Tony, someone said that the brush was closing in parts of the walking area forcing joggers off the dirt and into the path of bikes. I couldn't think of anywhere where this might occur except near the Tennis Courts between Lyford and Mar West? 6. More TREES - ScottlTony, John Kern said that the Town agreed to take out and thin out the saplings of the Eucs in the South Knoll area. I don't remember any such agreement, do you? However, I told them I thought some trimming or thinning would occur during the Pine Terrace Path Project. Am I correct? 7. and MORE on TREES - Scott, Bran Fanning said some Cypress Hollow neighbor had whacked down a lot of trees in violation of the Town's ordinance. Building had put a stop work order on the project, but he wanted to know what the Town was requiring in terms of repalcement...Also, he thought fines should be higher. Gram said Town had raised fines... 8. Energy Crisis--the question came up whether the Town had any guidelines and whether the Town (Building Department) could provide incentives to contractors/homeowners to start designing energy saving homes (I.e. using solar panels etc.). 9. Street lights and Lights on WaterfronUShoreline Park--Someone said they were on during the day. Tony & I checked and they were off on Saturday. Tony, keep an eye on? 10. Paradise Drive--Iengthy discussion of LAFCO and future of area. 11. Ferry Plaza design--a concern was expressed about removal of grassy knoll. Council corrected misconception... 12. Affordable Housing--some Marsh residents said they heard that low income housing was going to be built in the Bell Market parking lot. A discussion of ABAG housing guidelines ensued...also mentioned was the RUSD property at Ned's Way... All for now. Meeting adjourned at 12:10. 1 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT REVIEWED: June 6, 2001 AGENDA ITEM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL RICHARD STRANZL, FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY INVESTMENT SUMMARY REPORT - AS OF THE MONTH ENDED APRIL 30, 200 I ALEX D. McINTYRE, TOWN MANAGER 6 MEETING: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: TOWN OF TIBURON Institution! Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California Local Agency $7,692,607 5.760% Liquid Investment FWld (LAlF) Total Invested: $7,692,706 TIBURON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Institution/Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity State of California Local Agency $1,394,177 5.760% Liquid Investment Flmd (LAIF) Bank of America Other $0 Total Invested: $l,394,177 Notes to Table Information: State of Cali fomi a Local Agency lnvestment Fund (LAlF): The interest rate represents the effective yield for the month referenced above. The State of California generally distributes investment data reports in the third week following the month ended. (As received May ll, 2001) Acknowledgment: This summary report accurately reflects all pooled investments of the Town of Tiburon and the Tiburon Redevelopment Agency, and is in conformity with State laws and the Investment Policy adopted by the Town Couneil. The investment program herein summarized provides sufficient eash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures. --~ --- Richard Stra , Finance Director May 14,2001 cc: Town Treasurer TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. ~ To: !VIA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY Subject: RESPONSE TO REPORT OF MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY EXCESS BUILDING PERMIT FEES Date: June 6, 2001 BACKGROCND On March 20. 200 I, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled "Profiting From Building Permit Fees" The Report found that many Marin County jurisdictions have been collecting building permit fees in excess of the cost of providing building inspection services. Under the California State Constitution. a regulatory fee may not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatorv purpose. In the case of building permit fees, the Attorney General has opined that building permit fees should not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of provided building inspection services (California Attorney General's Opinion No 92-506). The Report noted that several jurisdictions have collected particularly large amounts of excess fees, including Novato. Belvedere, San Rafael, Mill Valley and Ross. The Grand Jury did not identifY the Town ofTiburon as having collected significantly excessive fees. However, the Report does find that the Town's fees have exceeded its costs, based on the information that the Town submitted to the Grand Jury. The Report contains a series ofrecommendations to rectifY fee overages. The Town is required to respond to the Report's findings and recommendations within 90 days. The 90-day period will expire on June 20, 2001. The responses recommended in this report are the product of extensive consultation with the Town Manager. the Planning Director, the Finance Director and the Building Official. ANAL YSIS I. Grand JUry Findings. l'nder I) 93305 of the Penal Code, the Town is required to either state that it (a) agrees with the finding. or (b) disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. In the latter case, we must include an explanation of the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons therefore Finding No.1 Finding No. I relates to the amount of excess fees reportedly collected by various Marin County jurisdictions The text of the finding does not identifY the Town as having collected excessive fees. However, the finding includes a table that indicates that the Town's fees have exceeded its reported costs over the past three years. According to Finance Director Richard Stranzl, these figures accurately ret1ect the information that the Town submitted to the Grand Jury. Therefore, we recommend that the Town concur with this finding. However, we do not concede that the Town has been realizing a profit from our fees. Rather, we expect that improved accounting of indirect costs. attributable to building department operations will support the fees charged by the Town. Finding No.2 ln Finding No 2, the Grand Jury states that many jurisdictions apparently do not keep sufficiently detailed information on assignment of expenses to be able to determine the precise level of compliance with the requirement to keep fees in line with the cost of providing building inspection services The Report does not specifY whether the Town is one such jurisdiction. However, the Report does direct the Town to respond to this finding. The Town agrees that our accounting procedures are not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a precise balance between fees and expenditures. This is because the building department incurs overhead costs and requires support from personnel outside the department. As noted in the responses to the Grand Jury's recommendations, below, the solution is for non-building department personnel to maintain better records of time spent on matters related to building inspections Finding No.3 In Finding 1'\0 3, the Jury compares the various jurisdictions reported building inspection expenses and populations The Grand Jury questioned the accuracy of the expense information provided to it by several, unspecified jurisdictions The Report states that the Grand Jury had difficulty determining compliance with Attorney General's Opinion No 92-506 because of the lack of detailed information on the assignment of indirect costs and overhead. Again. it is not clear that the Town is one of the jurisdictions referenced by this Finding. The Town's information was certainly accurate However, the Town agrees with Finding No 3, based on the fact that the Grand Jury is in the best position to know whether the information provided was adequate for the Grand Jury's purpose The Town also acknowledges that more detailed information would assist 111 establishing that the Town's building fees are in balance with costs associated with the Building Department Finding No. In Finding No 4, the Grand Jury describes profits realized by Novato', Belvedere, San Rafael, Mill Vallev, Ross, Fairfax and San Anselmo, this time expressed as percentages of the building fees ~ L charged in a chart included with Finding NO.3. The Town is not specifically mentioned in the , Finding. However, the chart indicates that the Town charged excess fees of 17% in Fiscal Year 1999/2000, 11% in Fiscal Year 1998/1999 and 29 % in Fiscal Year 1997/1998. This places the T own of Tiburon' s overages well below those of most other jurisdictions. The Town agrees that the numbers in the chart reflect the information provided by the Town of Tiburon to the Grand Jury and that information indicates that the Town's building fees exceeded reported expenditures However, we do not believe that the Town has been realizing a profit from our fees or that a fee reduction is appropriate at this time. Rather, we expect that improved accounting of indirect costs attributable to building department operations (including overhead and personnel) will support the fees currently charged by the Town. 2, Grand Jnrv Recommendations, In responding to the Grand Jury's Recommendations, Penal Code S 933.05 requires the Town to report one of the following actions: (a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action (b) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timetable for implementation (c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the ofticer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report (d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. Recommendation No, I In its tirst Recommendation, the Grand Jury recommends that the County of Marin and its II cities keep accurate and detailed records of the time and direct p.ersonnel costs involved in providing building inspection services. The Town does not believe that this recommendation is warranted with respect to the Town ofTiburon The Town keeps detailed records of the time and personnel costs involved in building department operations. o J Recommendation No.2 In Recommendation No 2, the Grand Jury suggests that that the County of Marin and its II cities keep accurate and detailed records regarding the assignment of indirect costs form other departments and general overhead costs. StatTrecommends that the Town implement this recommendation. I have drafted a memorandum for the Town Manager's signature directing all Department Heads that personnel outside the Building Department must keep careful records of all time spent on matters pertaining to building inspections This time is to be reported to the Finance Department. In addition, the Finance Director will keep detailed records of overhead and other costs assignable to building inspection serVlces Recommendation No.3 In Recommendation No.3, the Grand Jury suggests that, if a city or the County wishes to utilize excess building permit fees as a revenue source, they must seek a two-thirds vote of the electorate to do so Stall does not believe that this recommendation is warranted with respect to the Town of Tiburon Historically, the Town has never intended to raise revenue through its building permit fees beyond that necessary to cover Building Department costs. Recommendation No.4 In Recommendation 1\0 4, the Grand Jury suggests that those cities generating excess revenue Irom building permit fees should consider applying a percentage to the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables similar to the approach used by the County Building Inspection Division. This percentage should be adjusted Irom time to time, as necessary, to keep building permit fees in line with the actual cost of providing building inspection services The T"wn already follows the same general approach as the County of Marin, which is to apply a percentage to project valuation as recommended by the Uniform Building Code In that respect, no implementation action is necessary to comply with the recommendation. However, we suggest that the Town implement this recommendation insofar as it recommends periodically modifYing the percentage applied to valuation to calculate fees. As stated in response to Recommendation No.2, the Town has taken steps to improve its accounting of costs associated with building inspection services. Over the course of the next fiscal \Car and therealter, the Finance Director will carefully track building inspection expenditures and costs. The proposed memorandum Irom the Town Manager directs that if the Town continues to experience a signilicant discrepancy between costs and expenditures that exceeds normal tluctuations, staff shall return to Council with modified percentages to insure that permit fees remain in balance with building inspection costs. We do not believe that any modification should be contemplated until we have llsed the improved accounting procedures for a period of one year. 4 Town stalf does not believe that our fees are excessive and hopes that this position will be . supported over the next year by more detailed accounting procedures. We believe that a one-year period is required, because indirect Building Department costs are highly intermittent, increasing dramatically in association with particularly difficult cases Only after this trial period has run can stalf know whether a fee reduction (or increase) is appropriate. Recommendation No, 5 In Recommendation No.5, the Grand Jury suggests that those cities that still generate excess revenue Irom building permit fees after implementing Recommendations 1-4 consider establishing a trust account to allow the carry over of the excess revenues to subsequent fiscal years for expenditure on legitimate building inspection services and related activities. Until we have had the opportunity to measure exceeding fees against costs using our improved accounting procedures for a period of one year, we will not know whether this recommendation is warranted. Therel(xe, stalf recommends that we respond that this recommendation is not warranted with respect to the Town of Tiburon at this time. However, if in the future, the Building Department collects fees in excess of costs despite the measures described above, staff will recommend that the Town establish a trust account to apply excess revenues to future building inspection services and related activities RECOMMENDATION it is recommended that the Town Council should review and approve the Town's proposed responses to the Grand Jury's Report of March 20, 200 I EXHIBITS Proposed Response to Grand Jury Report Grand Jurv Report of March 20, 200 I Draft vIemorandum trom Town Manager to Department Heads 5 . , .,~''''''''';' ~ 0 2 2 '. . ~ 'I,,,,. . 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD' TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920. (415) 435-7383 FAX (415) 435.2438 OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER Alex D. Mcintyre TOWN OF TIBURON June 7, 2001 DRAFT The Honorable John A Sutro, Jr. Marin County Superior Court Post Office Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 Mr. W. Jack Friesen, Foreperson Mann County Grand Jury Post Office Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 Re: Response to Grand Jury Report 2000-2001- Building Permit Fees Dear Honorable Judge Sutro and Mr. Friesen: This letter explains in detail the Town of Tiburon's response to the Grand Jury Report dated March 20, 2001. The Report's findings and recommendations pertain to a number of Jurisdictions other than the Town of Tiburon. This letter is intended only to apply to the Report's findings and recommendations insofar as they pertain to the Town of Tiburon. FindinQ No, 1: The Grand Jury found the Marin County cities and the County reported a total of $1285,174 in excess building permit fees for fiscal year 1999-2000. The Report notes that Novato, Belvedere. San Rafael, Mill Valley and Ross collected particularly high excess fees The Grand Jury also found cumulative surpluses over the past three fiscal years again noting particularly high amounts for Novato, Belvedere, San Rafael, Mill Valley and Ross. The finding includes a table indicating building fee profits and losses for each jurisdiction in the County for the past three years. The Town agrees that the numbers in the table reflect the information provided by the Town of Tiburon to the Grand Jury and that information indicates that the Town's building fees exceeded reported expenditures. However, we do not believe that the Town has been realizing a profit from our fees. Rather, we expect that improved Hon. Sutro and Foreperson Friesen June 6, 2001 Page 2 of 5 . accounting of indirect costs attributable to building department operations will support the fees charged by the Town. FindinQ No.2: The Grand Jury found that many jurisdictions apparently do not keep sufficiently detailed information on assignment of expenses to be able to determine the precise level of compliance with the Attorney General's requirement to keep fees in line with the cost of providing building inspection services. The Town agrees that our accounting procedures are not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a precise balance between fees and expenditures. This is because the building department incurs overhead costs and requires support from personnel outside the department. These expenditures are difficult to track. We note that more precise accounting will increase administrative costs. It follows that the efforts required to demonstrate that fees and expenditures are balanced will have the unfortunate effect of increasing expenditures. Findinq No, 3: Based on a JUrlsdiction-by-jurisdiction comparison of reported building inspection expenses and the population of the jurisdiction, the Grand Jury had questions regarding the accuracy of the expense information provided to it by several JUrisdictions The Report states that the Grand Jury had difficulty determining compliance with Attorney General's Opinion No. 92-506 because of the lack of detailed information on the assignment of indirect costs and overhead. The Finding does not specify which jurisdictions had submitted information of questionable accuracy; the Town's information was certainly accurate. However, the Town agrees with Finding No 3, because the Grand Jury is in the best position to know whether the information provided was adequate for the Grand Jury's purpose. The Town also acknowledges that more detailed information would assist in establishing that the Town's building fees are in balance with costs associated with the Building Department. As noted above, there is a certain cost anticipated from the increased detail. Hon. Sutro and Foreperson Friesen June 6, 2001 Page 3 of 5 FindinQ No, 4: This Finding describes profits realized by Novato, Belvedere, San Rafael, Mill Valley, Ross, Fairfax and San Anselmo, this time expressed as percentages of the building fees charged in a chart included with Finding NO.3. The Town of Tiburon is not specifically mentioned in the Finding. However, the chart in Finding No.3 states that the Town charged excess fees of 17% in Fiscal Year 199912000, 11 % in Fiscal Year 199811999 and 29 % in Fiscal Year 199711998. This places the Town of Tiburon's overages well below those of most other jurisdictions The Town agrees that the numbers in the chart in Finding NO.3 reflect the information provided by the Town of Tiburon to the Grand Jury and that information indicates that the Town's building fees exceeded reported expenditures. However, we do not believe that the Town has been realizing a profit from our fees or that a fee reduction is appropriate Rather, we expect that improved accounting of indirect costs attributable to building department operations (including overhead and personnel) will support the fees currently charged by the Town Recommendation No, 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the County of Marin and its 11 cities keep accurate and detailed records of the time and direct personnel costs involved in providing building Inspection services. The Town does not believe that this recommendation is warranted with respect to the Town of Tiburon The Town keeps detailed records of the time and personnel costs involved in building department operations. Recommendation No, 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the County of Marin and its 11 cities keep accurate and detailed records regarding the assignment of indirect costs form other departments and general overhead costs to make it easier to confirm compliance with Attorney General's Opinion No 92-506 The Town has Implemented this recommendation. As Town Manager, I have directed all Department Heads that personnel outside the Building Department must keep careful records of all time spent on matters pertaining to building inspections. This time is to be reported to the Finance Department I have also ordered the Finance Director to keep detailed records of overhead and other costs assignable to building inspection services Hon. Sutro and Foreperson Friesen June 6, 2001 Page 4 of 5 Recommendation NO.3: The Grand Jury recommends that, as specified in Attorney General's Opinion No. 92- 506, if a city or the County wishes to utilize excess building permit fees as a revenue source, they must seek a two-thirds vote of the electorate to do so. The Town does not believe that this recommendation is warranted with respect to the Town of Tiburon. The Town does not intend to use building permit fees as a revenue source. Recommendation No.4: The Grand Jury recommends that those cities generating excess revenue from building permit fees should consider applying a percentage to the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables similar to the approach used by the County Building Inspection DivIsion. This percentage should be adjusted from time to time, as necessary, to comply with Attorney General's Opinion No. 92-506 and keep building permit fees in line with the actual cost of providing building inspection services. The Town already follows the same general approach as the County of Marin, which is to apply a percentage to project valuation as recommended by the Uniform Building Code. In that respect no implementation action is necessary to comply with the recommendation However, we will implement this recommendation insofar as it recommends periodically modifying the percentage applied to valuation to calculate fees As stated in response to Recommendation No.2, the Town has taken steps to Improve its accounting of costs associated with building inspection services. Over the course of the next fiscal year and thereafter, the Finance Director will carefully track building inspection expenditures and costs. If the Town continues to experience a significant discrepancy between costs and expenditures that exceed normal fluctuations, the Town will modify its percentages to insure that permit fees remain in balance with building inspection costs. Recommendation No, 5: The Grand Jury recommends that those cities that still generate excess revenue from building permit fees after implementing Recommendations 1-4 should consider establishing a trust account to allow the carryover of the excess revenues to subsequent fiscal years for expenditure on legitimate building inspection services and related activities. The Town does not believe that this recommendation is warranted with respect to the Town of Tlburon at this time As stated above, we believe that our improved Hon. Sutro and Foreperson Friesen June 6, 2001 Page 5 of 5 accounting will demonstrate that the Town's fees are in appropriate balance with expenditures. However, if at the end of the next fiscal year, permit fees have exceeded expenditures notwithstanding our improved accounting measures, the Town will establish a trust account to apply excess revenues to future building inspection services and related activities. * * * * * The Tiburon Town Council reviewed and approved this response on June 6, 2001. If you have further questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, ALEX D. MciNTYRE Town Manager cc Town Council Ann R Danforth. Town Attorney ~ . 2000.2001 MARIN COUNTY GRAND JURY . TITLE OF REPORT: PROFITING FROM BUILDING PERMIT FEES . Date of Report: March 20, 2001 Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person, or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides Information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that It intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Civil Grand Jury Investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who artici ate in an Civil Grand Ju investi ation. Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 200 I . PROFITING FROM BUILDING PERMIT FEES SUMMARY In response to a complaint from a Marin County resident, the Grand Jury investigated whether excessive building permit fees are being charged by Marin jurisdictions. The California Constitution specifies that: "The general rule is that a regulatory fee must not exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatory purpose sought in order to be considered as a fee rather than a guise for a tax." A 1993 California Attorney General's Opinion (No, 92-506) also addressed this issue and concluded that building permit fees cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing building inspection services, unless approved by a two-third vote of the electorate, Building permit fees typically are based on the construction cost of a project. The higher the construction expenditures, the higher the permit fee, no matter the cost of providing the permit services, Based upon information provided to the Grand Jury by local jurisdictions, many of them appear to be profiting by collecting excessive building permit fees in violation of the Attorney General's Opinion, For fiscal year 1999/2000, the total building permit fee profits (revenues in excess of costs), based on data reported to the Grand Jury by Marin cities and the County was almost $1,3 million, Several cities in Marin reported collecting particularly large amounts of excess fees during that year: Novato, about $400,000; Belvedere, about $300,000; San Rafael, about $225,000; Mill Valley, about $210,000; and Ross, about $150,000, Looking at cumulative profits and losses for each jurisdiction over the past three fiscal years (1997/1998, 1998/1999 and 1999/2000), several of the cities again reported making large profits from building permit fees: Novato, about $1,3 million: San Rafael, about $700,000; Mill Valley, about $500,000; Ross, about $325,000; and Belvedere, about $320,000, The total cumulative profit reported by Marin jurisdictions for the three-year period was almost $3,7 million. Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 2001 , On the basis of information supplied to it, the Grand Jury discovered that the records that some Marin jurisdictions keep are inadequate to confirm whether they are, or are not, complying with the applicable Attorney General's Opinion, It appears that they may be assigning general overhead and costs of other activities, which are not specifically related to building inspection functions, to building permit expenses, BACKGROUND The Building Inspection Division of the Marin County Community Development Agency providef! building inspection services in the unincorporated area of the county, Each of the 11 cities in Marin provides it's own building inspection services for properties located within its city limits, Cities in Marin typically calculate their building permit fees based on 100% of the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables developed by the State of California, The tables were designed to reflect average construction costs across the state. Because construction costs in Marin are generally far above the state average, the resulting permit fees here are generally higher than in other areas of California, The clearest legal description regarding appropriate building permit fees can be found in a March 9,1993, California Attorney General's Opinion (No, 92-506), which concluded: 1, A local agency is prohibited from charging building permit and similar fees which exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services rendered unless the amounts of the fees are approved by the electorate, 2, A local agency may not charge building permit and similar fees based upon the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables which are in excess of the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services rendered unless the amounts of the fees are approved by the electorate. 3, If a local agency charges building permit and similar fees based upon the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables without supporting evidence regarding the relationship between the fees and the services rendered, such fees are invalid to the extent they exceed the reasonable costs of providing the services rendered. Building permit fees are not a large portion of the total cost of construction and are easily passed on to a homeowner or ultimate purchaser who usually has little -- if any - specific knowledge of the fees, how they are determined or their reasonableness, Architects and contractors who may appreciate the relationship between permit costs and the services provided have little incentive to complain because they have on-going 2 Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 2001 . work with building inspection department personnel and depend upon them to approve plans and inspections of work, Besides, their clients are often unaware of, or at least don't complain about, the costs, During the investigation, an individual formerly involved in building construction in Marin described the practice of overcharging for building permits as "one of those dirty little secrets that everyone (in the construction industry) knows about, but is afraid to complain about", METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury first contacted the State Attorney General's Office to determine what legal restrictions apply to building inspection charges. The Jury was provided a copy of Attorney General's Opinion No, 92-506, which is attached as Appendix A. Members of the Grand Jury then collected data from and/or talked with personnel from a representative sample of small, medium and large cities in the County, After it became clear to the Grand Jury that violations of the Attorney General's Opinion probably were occurring, the County and all 11 cities in Marin were sent letters requesting that they provide the Grand Jury with the total building inspection function revenues and expenses for the past three fiscal years (1997/1998, 1998/1999 and 1999/2000). All jurisdictions complied with the request from the Grand Jury and responded to follow-up questions seeking clarification of the information submitted, There are clearly differences in the way the County and the cities account for their building inspection expenses, While some of the expense information received from cities seemed questionable (in that indirect and overhead costs may be overstated), the Grand Jury decided to utilize the information submitted by the jurisdictions after some follow-up clarification, To do otherwise would have required extensive analysis, auditing of operations and considerably more time involving building and/or finance department staff, The data reported by the jurisdictions and presented here seemed adequate to justify a conclusion that excess revenues are being generated from building permit fees. DISCUSSION Homes and commercial buildings that use higher-end building materials (as is typically the case in Marin) obviously cost more to build, As a result, their building permits also cost more since permit fees are typically based upon the cost of the construction, At the same time, the actual cost of plan checking and construction inspection varies little between a 2,500 sq, ft, home costing $300,000 and a 2,500 sq. ft, home costing 3 Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 2001 I $3,000,000; or one with Formica countertops and vinyl flooring and one with Corian countertops and marble floors, While salaries and other direct and indirect costs are also high in Marin, they have not kept pace with the increase in construction costs, As a result, building permit fees collected often exceed (sometimes vastly exceed) the actual cost of providing building inspection services and large profits have been generated for some Marin jurisdictions, For fiscal year 1999/2000, the total excess building permit fee revenue reported to the Grand JUry by cities in Marin and the County itself was almost $1,3 million, Several of those cities collected particularly large amounts of excess fees during that year, Because the level of building activity varies from year to year and some construction projects take more than one year to complete, the Grand Jury also looked at cumulative profits and losses reported by each jurisdiction over the past three fiscal years (1997/1998, 1998/1999 and 1999/200), The Grand Jury again found that several of the cities reported collecting particularly large amounts of excess fees during that three-year time period. Based upon the information submitted to the Grand Jury, the total cumulative profit made in Marin County over the three-year period, from excess building permit fees, was almost $3,7 million, To put the excess fees in perspective, the Grand Jury looked at the profits (revenues which exceed expenses) as a percentage of the building permit fees charged, The cities with the largest profits reported for fiscal year 1999/2000 were: Mill Valley, 64%; Ross, 46%; Belvedere, 45%; San Rafael, 37%; Fairfax, 26%; San Anselmo, 22%; and Novato, 20%, Based upon the information reported to the Grand Jury by the cities, many of them clearly appear to be profiting by collecting excess building permit fees in violation of California Attorney General's Opinion No. 92-506. With the exception of the County, which has established a "trust account" into which excess building permit revenues are deposited to be carried over for "lean years", the profits from building permit fees typically are deposited in the jurisdiction's general fund and used to fund other general municipal services, Cities should consider establishing trust accounts similar to the County's in order to allow them to carry over excess building permit revenues to subsequent fiscal years for expenditure on building inspection related activities. According to the County Auditor-Controller, the balance in the County Building Inspection Division Trust Account on February 23, 2001, was $314,613, While concern was expressed to the Grand Jury about the balance the County maintains in the Trust Account, the Grand Jury found that the balance had been reduced 58% from the $741,401 balance, which was in the account on June 30, 1999, 4 Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 200 I · It was reported to the Grand Jury that the building inspection related expenses of Marin jurisdictions have increased recently because of an increased level of construction activity, Additionally, the jurisdictions stated that the increases were due to their need to provide additional services, such as being open to the public for longer hours and because of increased staffing, The Grand Jury found that published public agency budgets often do not break down the specific costs of construction inspections, plan checks, administration, supervision or overhead allocations. The Jury also found widely disparate costs of service or overhead - as is obvious from the large differences in the relationship between reported building inspection expenses and size (population) of the jurisdiction, It appeared that some cities might have overstated overhead costs to the Grand Jury in order to reduce profits from, or show a loss in, providing building inspection services, Under California law, the larger the expense reported, the higher the fees that can legally be justified. This system obviously does not reward efficiency since there is little incentive to reduce operating or overhead expenses. Because of a challenge of County permit fees by the construction industry several years ago, the County of Marin has been charging only a percentage of the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables and has adjusted this percentage periodically, Until recently, the County Building Inspection Division was charging 60% of the Uniform Building Code fee schedule, As of February 16, 2001, the County Building Inspection Division increased building permit fees by 33% (to 80% of the Uniform Building Code fee schedule) to reportedly fund additional services, Based upon what the Grand Jury found, it appears that many of the cities should consider using a similar practice in order to comply with Attorney General's Opinion No, 92-506, Other than for the County, the Grand Jury was able to find little supporting documentation to justify the fees currently being charged, In addition, no jurisdiction has attempted to obtain voter approval to charge building permit fees that exceed the cost of providing the service as specified in the Attorney General's Opinion, FINDINGS 1, For fiscal year 1999/2000, the Grand Jury found - as indicated in the following chart - that the total excess building permit fee revenue reported by cities in Marin and the County was $1,285,174, Several cities in the County reported collecting particularly large amounts of excess fees during that year: Novato, $397,979; Belvedere, $295,602; San Rafael, $224,697; Mill Valley, $211,434: and Ross, $151,316. The Grand Jury also looked at the reported cumulative profit or loss over the past three fiscal years (1997-2000) and again found that several of the cities reported collecting particularly large amounts of excess fees: 5 Profiting from Building Pennit Fees March 200 I , Novato, $1,352,463; San Rafael, $700,334; Mill Valley, $500,909; Ross, $324,024; and Belvedere; $318,222. The total cumulative profit reported by Marin jurisdictions over the three-year period was $3,693,663, Based upon the information reported to the Grand Jury by the County and the cities, the Jury found that many of them are, in fact, profiting by collecting excessive building permit fees in violation of California Attorney General's Opinion No. 92-506, Reported profits that exceed $100,000 are highlighted in the following chart. Reported Building Permit Fee Profits or (Loses) 199912000 Belvedere Profit (Loss) 295,602 1998/1999 48,264 1998/1997 3 Year Total (25~644 ) 318,222 Corte Madera (Loss) (6,149) (15,968) (8,589) (30,706) Fairfax Profit 48,028 41,853 36,219 126,100 Larkspur (Loss) (66,916) (41,163) (68,426) (176,505) Mill Valley Profit 211,434 154,103 135,372 500,909 Novato Profit 397,979 788,722 165,762 1,352,463 Ross Profit 151,316 129,261 43,447 324,024 San Anselmo Profit 85,188 40,766 1,817 127,771 San Rafael Profit 224,697 281,343 194,294 700,334 Sausalito (Loss) (81,160) (102,301 ) (117,156) (300,617) Tiburon Profit 71,146 35,888 85,898 192,932 County of Marin Pro fi t (Loss) 60,821 2,536 6 ( 12,449) 50,908 Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 200 I 2, The Grand Jury found that many jurisdictions apparently do not keep sufficiently detailed information on assignment of expenses to be able to determine the precise level of compliance with the Attorney General's requirement to keep fees in line with the cost of providing building inspection services. 3, Based upon a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction comparison of reported building inspection expenses and the population of the jurisdiction, the Grand Jury had questions regarding the accuracy of the expense information provided to it by several jurisdictions, While efficiency (or lack thereof) could certainly account for some of what seemed to be the relatively high reported expenses indicated below for some jurisdictions, lack of detailed information on the assignment of indirect costs and overhead made it difficult for the Grand Jury to determine whether the jurisdictions actually comply with the Attorney General's requirement to keep fees in line with the cost of providing building permit services, Reported Total Revenues & Expenses (Population figures are CA Department of Finance estimates as of January 1, 2000) 1999/2000 1998/1999 1998/1997 Belvedere (population 2,318) Revenue 662,378 346,160 284,951 Expenses 366.776 297,896 310,595 Profit (Loss) 295,602 48,264 (25,644) Over/(Under) Charge 45% 14% (9%) Corte Madera (population 9,104) Revenue 257,654 234,328 320,222 Expenses 263,794 250.296 328.811 (Loss) (6,149) (15,968) (8,589) (Under) Charge (2%) (7%) (3%) Fairfax (population 7,188) Revenue 183,237 157,699 142,332 Expenses 135,209 115,846 106,333 Profit 48,028 41,853 36,219 Over/(Under) Charge 26% 36% 25% Larkspur (population 11,950) Revenue 168,554 190,850 133,638 Expenses 235.470 232,013 202,064 (Loss) (66,916) (41,163) (68,426) (Under) Charge (40%) (22%) (51%) 7 Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 200 I , Mill Valley (population 14,114) Revenue 333,031 Expenses 121.597 Profit 211,434 Over Charge 64% Novato (population 48,952) Revenue Expenses Profit Over Charge Ross (population 2,312) Revenue Expenses Profit Over Charge 313,000 158,897 154,103 49% 224,483 89,111 135,372 60% 1,993,184 1,595.205 397,979 20% 2,262.396 1.473,674 788,722 35% 1,324,604 1,158,842 165,762 13% 329,852 178.536 151,316 46% 293,596 164,335 129,261 44% 226,192 182,745 43,447 19% San Anselmo Revenue Expenses Profit Over Charge (population 12,470) 391,000 305.812 85,188 22% 266,000 264.183 1,817 1% 335,000 294,234 40,766 12% San Rafael (population 54,752) Revenue 612,164 Expenses 387.467 Profit 224,697 Over Charge 37% Sausalito (population 7,835) Revenue Expenses (Loss) (Under) Charge Tiburon (population 8,892) Revenue Expenses Profit Over Charge 735,588 454.245 281,343 38% 670,946 476,652 194,294 29% 276,251 357.411 (81,160) (29%) 226,001 328,302 (102,301) (45%) 209,725 326.881 (117,156) (56%) 416,683 345,537 71,146 17% 336,692 300,804 35,888 11% 294,494 208,596 85,898 29% Unincorporated Marin County (population 69,784) Revenue 1,599,065 1,313,614 Expenses 1,538.244 1,311,078 Profit (Loss) 60,821 2,536 Over/(Under) Charge 4% 0% (1 %) 8 1,279,462 1,291,911 (12,449) Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 2001 . 4, For fiscal year 1999/2000, the Grand Jury found, as indicated in the preceding chart, large profits (revenues which exceed expenses) expressed as a percentage of the building permit fees charged, reported by: Mill Valley, 64%; Ross, 46%; Belvedere, 45%; San Rafael, 37%; Fairfax, 26%; San Anselmo, 22%; and Novato, 20%, These figures represent the reductions in fees that would have been required during the fiscal year so that building permit revenue equaled the reported cost of providing building inspection services, Reported profits that exceeded 20% of the fees collected in any fiscal year, are highlighted on the chart, RECOMMENDA lIONS The Grand Jury recommends that: 1, The County of Marin and its 11 cities keep accurate and detailed records of the time and direct personnel costs involved in providing building inspection services to make it easier to confirm compliance with Attomey General's Opinion No, 92- 506, 2, The County of Marin and its 11 cities keep accurate and detailed records regarding the assignment of indirect costs from other departments and general overhead costs to make it easier to confirm compliance with Attorney General's Opinion No, 92-506. 3, As specified in Attorney General's Opinion No, 92-506, if a city or the County wishes to utilize excess building permit fees as a revenue source, they must seek a two-thirds vote of the electorate to do so. 4, Those cities generating excess revenue from building permit fees should consider applying a percentage to the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables similar to the approach used by the County Building Inspection Division, This percentage should be adjusted from time to time, as necessary, to comply with the Attorney General's Opinion No, 92-506 and keep building permit fees in line with the actual cost of providing building inspection services. If they are able to justify the expense numbers reported to the Grand Jury, the -cities of Larkspur and Sausalito, which indicated large losses in providing building inspection services, should consider raising building permit fees to reduce or eliminate the current general fund subsidy, 9 Profiting from Building Permit Fees March 2001 , 5, Those cities that still generate excess revenue from building permit fees, even after implementing the above recommendations, should consider establishing a trust account (similar to the County's) in order to allow the carry over of the excess revenues to subsequent fiscal years for expenditure on legitimate building inspection services and related activities, REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to CA Penal Code Section 933,05, the Grand Jury requests responses from: Marin County Board of Supervisors Belvedere City Council Corte Madera Town Council Fairfax Town Council Larkspur City Council Mill Valley City Council Novato City Council Ross Town Council San Anselmo Town Council San Rafael City Council Sausalito City Council Tiburon Town Council Findings 1-3 and Recommendations 1-3 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-3 and Recommendations 1-4 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-3 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 Findings 1-3 and Recommendations 1-4 Findings 1-4 and Recommendations 1-5 10 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS Volume 76 I . discrete class of persons; the officer was not singled out for the pass or 'scount by the carrier. . believe the situation here is distinguishable. The class at issue, "h' profil rominent citizens" of Ontario, was small in number (20 and Mayor and was singled out from the general population by the aiian Airlines 0 ial. Mayor Fatland met the criteria for the up d tickets because of hI status as mayor. At a minimum, the appr tion of our "exception" rule Mayor Fatland presents substantial que ons of fact and law which a court ould decide, Fatland's allegation that to sue' was filed against because of the relat s political motivations. In 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 11 116-117 (199 ,we observed in a similar situation: "As to the allegation that ator may have a personal interest in this application, we e that such a factor might be a consideration taken with 0 ers' determining whether the public interest would be s ed in ting leave to sue. (See, e.g., City of Campbell . Mosk (1961 197 Cal.App.2d 640, 64&-649; 36 Ops.Cal tty.Gen. 317, 320 60).) However, our quo warranto regu ons presuppose and stat at 'any person' may file a quo to application. (Cal. Co egs., tit. 11, ~ 1.) We no ally do not attempt to assess the tivation of individual ators. In deciding whether to grant or y leave to sue, e focus upon the public interest as our p ount conce . (See City of Campell v. Mosk, supra! 197 Cal.A .2d at . 648-650.)" ' urn, we believe that it would be in the public interest to have s er presented to a court for a judicial determination of the legal issue hich inhere in the wording of Article xn, section 7, and it!l proper application. Accordingly, leave to sue is hereby granted. ';;: Opinion No. 92-506-March 9, 1993 Requested by: MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEM- BL Y and MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE (Matthew Bender &. Co., Inc.) . ~ . . , . " ~ ;'.- . March 1993 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIf ~ . 5 .. Opinion by: DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General Clayton P. Roche, Deputy THE HONORABLE DAVID G. KELLEY, MEMBER.< OF 'THE CALI- FORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on~the following questions: 1. Is a local agency prohibited from charging building pennit and similar fees which exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services rendered unless the amounts of the fees are approved by the electorate? 2. Maya local agency charge building pennit and similar fees based upon the Unifonn Building Code Valuation Tables which are in excess of the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services rendered unless the . amounts of the fees are approved by the electorate? THE HONORABLE ROBERT PRESLEY, MEMBER OF THE CALI- FORNIA STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion of the following question: 3. If a local agency charges building pennit and similar fees cased upon the Unifonn Building Code Valuation Tables without supporting evidence regarding the relationship between the fees and the services rendered, are such fees valid? CONCLUSIONS 1. A local agency is prohibited from charging building pennit and similar fees which exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services rendered unless the amounts of the fees are approved by the electorate. 2. A local agency may not charge building pennit and similar fees based upon the Unifonn Building Code Valuation Tables which are in excess of the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services rendered unless :the amounts of the fees are approved by the electorate. 3. If a local agency charges building pennit and similar fees based;upon the Unifonn Building Code Valuation Tables without supporting evidence regarding the relationship between the fees and the services rendered, such" " , fees are invalid to the extent they exceed the reasonable costs of providing the services rendered. ANALYSIS Weare informed that it is a common practice for cities and counties to follow the schedule of fees contained in the Uniform Building Code Valuation Tables ("Tables") which set forth graduated building permit fees (Matthew Bender &; Co.. Inc.) , , 6 AITORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION~ Volume 76 ~ based upon the total valuation of the proposed construction as well as hourly rates for inspections and plan reviews. The three questions concern whether a .city or county may charge building permit, plan inspection, and similar fees based upon those found in the Tables without an independent investiga- tion as to whether each fee bears a reasonable relationship to the cost incurred in rendering the particular service. The questions posed also assume the possibility that if the fees are greater than the costs incurred, California law would require a two-thirds vote of the electorate to sustain their validity. A. The California Constitution "The general rule is that a regulatory fee must not 'exceed the sum reasonably necessary to cover the costs of the regulatory purpose sought' in order to be considered as a fee rather than a gUise for a tax." (Mills v. County of Trinity (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 656, 661; see also County of_ Plumas v. Wheeler (1906) 149 Cat. 758, 763; Trend Homes, Inc. v. Central Unified School Dist. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 102, 114.) Thus, such fees which exceed the reasonable costs of providing governmental services may constitute "special taxes" within the meaning of article XIII A of the California Constitution. (See Gov. Code, ~~ 50075-50077; City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell (1982) 32 Ca1.3d 47, 57; Alamo Rent-A-Car, . Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 198, 200-208; Trend Homes, Inc. v. Central Unified School District, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d 102, 114; Bixel Associates v. City of Los Angeles (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1208, 1218-1219.) Section 4 of article XIII A permits cities and counties to impose "special taxes" only after approval of a two-thirds vote of the electorate. 1 In this opinion we need not determine whether building permit and similar fees in excess of the reasonable costs incurred in rendering the services are "special taxes" within the meaning of article XIII A. However, the constitutional amendment constitutes the historical background for the statutory schemes governing here, giving strong evidence of the legislative intent in enacting these provisions. (See, e.g., California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Ca1.3d 836, 844; People v. Henson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 172, 177.) Such intent would be to ensure that local building permit and similar fees do not conflict in any way with article XIII A. 1 Article XIII A, section 4 provides: "Cilies, Counlies and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district. except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special dislriCI." (M:1nh..w nf'nrl..r k ro In(" .' , t~ ~ !: '" March 1993 ATIORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIOi 7 B. The Government Code The Government Code provisions most gennape to our,inquiry are found I '. ~ in sections 66012-66024, setting forth "Fees For Speci~c Purposes" .' (~~ 66012-66014), "Procedures For Adopting Various Fees" (~~ 66016-66018.5), and provisions regarding "Protests, Legal Actions, And Audits" (~~ 66020-66025).2 The primary section to which we direct our attention is section 66014. Subdivision (a) of section 66014 provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use pennits; building inspections; building pennits; filing and process- ing applications and petitions filed with the local agency fonnation commission. . .; the processing of maps. . .; or planning ser- vices. . . ; those fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materi- als is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue." The introductory phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" makes the rules set forth in the statute exclusive as to the fees enumerated therein, which include those gennane to our inquiry. (See In re Marriage of Dover (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 675, 678, fn. 3; State of California v. Superior Court (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 691, 695; 63 Ops.Cal. Atty.Gen. 660,661-662 (1981).) Applying this rule of "exclusivity," we find that fees such as building pennit fees or fees for plan checking and approval (1) "shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services" for which they are issued or perfonned (2) "unless. . . the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost. . . is . . . approved by. . . popular vote. . . ." Moreover, sections 66016-66018.5 mandate that (1) prior to levying new fees or service charges, or increasing existing ones, the local agency must hold a public hearing after giving interested parties access to the data relating to the estimated costs of the services to be provided, and (2) no fees shall be levied exceeding the reasonable estimated costs of the services without the requisite two-thirds vote of the electorate. Finally, sections 66020-66025 provide a procedure for interested parties to protest the imposition of fees, and also to bring court actions to set aside or annul existing or newly adopted fees as unreasonable, or to determine 2 All references hereafter to the Government Code prior to footnote 3 are by section number only. (Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.) revise the design of the fence, but noted that simply changing the fence materials or appearance would be insufficient to mitigate the potential view impacts. At the AprilS, 2001 Board meeting, the applicant indicated that he had been unable to reach an agreement with the neighboring property owners, and that changes to the fence since the last meeting included reducing the diameter of the poles; painting the fence materials to match nearby landscaping; increasing the spacing between the fence posts; and reducing the size of the wire mesh, Neighboring property owners again stated that the proposed fence would impact views from their homes, The Design Review Board indicated that the fence modifications did not adequately mitigate the view impacts which would be caused by the proposed fence. The Board then unanimously voted (4-0) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying this application. On April 19, 2001, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution No. 2001-01, denying a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new fence. Mr. Ware subsequently filed a timely appeal of this decision to the Town Council. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL: There are four grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1 The findings ofthe resolution denying the subject application are too general and vague, and are based solely on neighbor opposition and the inappropriate location of tbe fence. Staff Response: Design Review Board Resolution 2001-01 states that "the location of the proposed fence on the site would be inappropriate in relation to the location of the existing homes on adjoining sites due to the impact the fence would have on the views from these neighboring residences" (emphasis added). This resolution also states that the potential view impacts of the proposed fence were discussed at all three Board meetings during which this application was reviewed, as is also reflected in the minutes of these meetings. It is clear that the Design Review Board considered more thanjust the opposition of neighboring property owners and the specific location of the fence its making its decision on the subject application. Ground #2 The denial ofthis application did not address the applicant's need to provide privacy screening and sbielding of the mass and bulk of upbill bomes lost by tbe removal of tbe berm on upbill property. Staff Response: In its deliberations on this application, the Design Review Board acknowledged that the berm for the uphill homes of the Highlands subdivision had been required to provide privacy and mass and bulk screening for the downhill homes along Reed Ranch Road, induding the subject property, The Board determined that the view impacts which the proposed fc:nce would cause for the uphill residences would outweigh any gain in privacy or other screening T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT JUNE 6. 200 I 3 March 1993 ATIORNEY GENERAL'S OPINI 5 9 , , requirements as are contained in. . . [T]he Uniform Building Code. . . ." (~ 17922, subd. (a); see 72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 180, 184-186 (1986); 55 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 157, 158-159 (1972)). "'lith certatn exceptions not relevant here, "the provisions published in the S6.te Buil~ingStandards Code or the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 17922 shall be applicable to" every city and county. (~ 17958; see Briseno v. City of Santa Ana (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382~1383; 72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 180, 184 (1989).) Since the fee schedules contained in the Tables are part of the Uniform Building Code, why are they not applicable to cities and counties under the provisions of sections 17922 and 17958? . First, the Tables have not been adopted by the Department under section 17922's grant of authority. The obvious reason is that the Tables are not "building standards" which the statute directs the Department to adopt. A building standard "regulates, requires, or forbids the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used" and includes require- ments for the "architectural and design functions of a building." (~ 18909, subds. (a), (b); see also ~~ 18940-18942; 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 131, 132-136 (1992).) In 55 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 157 (1972), we concluded that the building standards adopted by the Department pursuant to section 17922 were to be substantive in nature rather that administrative. We stated: "Although the Department is limited in adopting rules and ~gulations by the provisions of the specified model or uniform codes, this limitation applies only to substantive regulations. The statutes, when read as a whole, demonstrate that the reference in section 17922 to the "same requirements" was not intended to include requirements of an administrative nature. , , .f o>i'. ;1 S (.; .1.: ~ "'"" " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "It is... the substantive criteria contained in the specified unifonn codes, which criteria have been set forth for the propose of promoting safety and stability in building activities, to which the Department's attention is properly directed. "That the Legislature did not intend to incorporate by reference the administrative provisions of the specified uniform codes is also evident from the fact that the State Housing Act includes sections which specifically designate procedures for administrative actions such as enforcement of the regulations and appeals from allegedly erroneous or unlawful applications of those regulations. See (Matthew Bender &; Co.. lne.) TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO.:! 2 - TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL SENIOR PLANNER WATRO~~ TOWN MANAGER MCINTYRE ~ FROM: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE (35 REED RANCH ROAD) APPELLANT: ERNEST WARE APPLICANTS: CAROLYN AND ERNEST WARE MEETING DATE: JUNE 6, 2001 PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 35 REED RANCH ROAD 34-301-02 700220 13,470 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C DECEMBER 15, 2000 BACKGROUND: On April 19, 2001, the Tiburon Design Review Board adopted Resolution No, 2001-01, denying a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road. Ernest Ware, an owner ofthe subject property, has now appealed this decision to the Town Council. T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT JUNE 6. 200 L 1 , . - .:'.' 1 I i ~. ,) .,,* ;~ March 1993 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OP1NIC"'~ II permit and similar fees imposed tinder the State Housing Law from violating the "special taxes" provision of article XIII A of the Constitution. "A statute should be construed whenever possible so as to nreserve its constitutionali- '" J < ty." (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com: (l9~7) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387.) Finally, our construction of sections 17922 and 17951 effectuates the Legislature's purpose in enacting Government Code section 66014 with its introductory phrase "(n]otwithstanding any other provision of law." In sum, under both the Government Code and the Health and Safety Code, a local agency is required to limit its building permit and similar fees to the estimated costs of providing the services rendered. Any excess above such reasonable estimated costs requires approval by a two-thirds \ote of the electorate. Opinion No. 92-519-March 11, 1993 Requested by: MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY inion by: DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General Gregory L. Gonot, Deputy TIlE TIIE C ing question: May air quality agement districts and air impose a permit syste NORABLE CHARLES W. QUACKENBUSH, ASSEMB~ Y, has requested an opinio EROF n the follow- tion control districts air pollution? Air quality mana ent districts and air po control districts (hereinafter "dis' ") have been established in ornia pursuant to Health and S~ Code sections 40000-41133.1 Their . cipal function is to "adopt enforce rules and regulations to achieve the s and federal ambient . quality standards in all areas affected by emission so sunder their' sdiction. . . ." (~ 400001.) District plans for achieving am!) t air ty standards are subject to approval by the California Air Resou 1 All section references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated. (Matthew Bender &. Co.. Inc.) " REFERENCES Mark Schatz, (Architect for Tiburon Library and City Hal\) Field Paoli Architecture 1045 Sansome St., Ste. 206 San Francisco, CA 94111 415788-6606 Karen Rollin Duffy, City Librarian Santa Clara City Library 2635 Homestead Road Santa Clara, CA 95051-5387 408 615-2999 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 925 833-6650 Mr. Andy Jorgensen Ci-.y of Pleasa'lton Public Art Program 200 Old Bernal Avenue Pleas~.!lton, CA 94566 925 484-8292 Ms. Susan Montrose Assistant Chancellor l'riversity of California, San Francisco Sa1', F~ancisco, CA 94143 415476-8039 l\i'r. Ronald Nahas RafarelF and Nahas I Bates Blvd. Ste. 200 OrinJa. CA 94563 925 254-3g00 L Y N NEB A E R <..Advisor 6- <..Appraiser 1020 Union Street, No.2 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone (415)931-1592 Facsimile (415)931-0753 ~~ TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM To: TOWN OF TIBURON DEPARTMENT HEADS From: ALEX D. MciNTYRE, TOWN MANAGER Subject: IMPROVED ACCOUNTING OF BUILDING DEPARTMENT COSTS RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2001 Date: 'Julle7.2001 On March 20, 200 I, the Marin County Grand Jury issued a report finding that many jurisdictions in the County appear to be collecting building permit fees in excess of associated costs. The Town of Tiburon was one jurisdiction found to have a surplus in fees, although the amount was relatively small As noted in the Report, state law requires that our building permit fees remain in balance with the cost of providing building inspection services To insure that the Town is able to justifY its fees, we must keep caretld accounting of all costs associated with all building inspection services Historically, the T uwn has not kept records of indirect costs associated with these services nor of time spent by personnel outside the Building Department Therefore, beginning July I, 200 I, all non-Building DepaJ1ment personnel are directed to maintain detailed and accurate records oftime spent on matters associated with building inspection services, in quarter-hour increments Records should include a description and the date of service These records and to be sent to the Finance Director The Finance Director is to maintain records of all costs associated with building inspection services, including, v,;thout limitation, the time spent by personnel outside the Building Department and overhead fairly attributable to the operations of the Building Department From time to time, beginning at the close of Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the Finance Director shall compare these costs to the revenue realized Irom building permit fees. In the event of a discrepancy between fee revenue and costs, the Finance Director, in conjunction with the Planning Director and the Building Official, shall develop a proposal to modify the percentage of valuation assessed as fees, as appropriate to maintain a balance between fees and revenues This proposal shall be brought to the Town Council for apprO\ al . EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 1978-1988 EDUCATION PU8l1CATIONS SELECTED LECTURES PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTEER AFFILIATIONS L Y N NEB A E R LAdvisor & <..Appra;ur Bururji_/d ond Burwfu/d Aucrion",., and Appl'1tism, Son mnduo. C4; 1983-1988 Director, Fine Arrs Deparanenc and Museum Servic:es, 1987-1988 Directed a departmenc with an annual gross of ovec $6 million. Supervised a scaff of eighc in all aspects of che auction process including: appraising painting>, prints. and phocogr.aphs: soliciting works for auction; producing auction catalogues; designing the advertising and marketing strategy; and working with collectors, dealers and museum scaff. Creaccd and developed new areas of specialty auctions, such as California P:liming and Conccmporary Paintings and Sculpture. Assistant Director. Painting Department, 1983-1986 Appraised American and European paintings and sculpture of the 19th and 20ch Centurics for auction and insurance purpoS('s. Worked with the public for the solicitation and selling of art at auction. Hirshhorn Muuum ond Sculpru", Ganim, Smithsonion Insriturion. Washington, D.C; 1982 Smithsonian Inrern: Assisted curator in researching relevant matC'rial for a major international 20th Cenrury exhibition. Also conducted research on works in the permanem collection and for proposed museum acquisitions, using all available research facilities. Son Froncisco Mu"urn of Mod.rn Art, Son Francisco, CA; 1981 Research Assistant: Compiled catalogue bibliography and chronology of Paul Wanner, Absrract Realist: ~rformeJ administrative;" ducies for this retrospective t:'xhibition. Qakwnd Mu"um, Oakland, CA; 1978-1981 Dirccror of Acquisitions, Collectors Gallery: Selected paintings and sculpture for a gallery thac handled over IOO artists and 300 works of art ac one time. This job required knowledge of contemporary arc as well as administrative skills in facilitating the Row of works for remal and sale. Uniz'(rsiry ofCuliftrniil, DOl'is M.A. Art Hisror)', 1983 Thesis: "W'illiam Gropper's Construction of a Dam: Case Study of a Mural" Uniz'(ni~y of CJlifornid. B(rk(/ry B.A. An History, 1976 B..>\. English Licerarure, 1970 graduated with honors "Investing in American Arc" Antiques and Fine Art Magazine. September. 1985 "From Exposition CO Exposition: The Relationship Between Paris. New York and San Francisco, 1913-1939" (Sacramento: Crocker Art Museum, 1981) "Art in Public Spaces" Guest lecrurer, UC Extension, class taught by Topher Delaney, Landscape Archieect, April 1997 "New Deal Murals. 50th Anniversary," Smithsonian Resident Associate Program. Study Tour, Washingwn, D.C.. January 29, 1988 (Similar study tour conducted in February, 1984) "Buying Art and Antiques Wisely," Seminar on fmance. Junior League of San Francisco, October 21, 1987 American Society of Appraisers' ARITABLE, Inc.. New York, NY . Alameda County Public Arc AdYlsor)' Commim:e . Judah L. Magnes Museum. Berkeley. CA, Board of Trustees . Capp Street Project, San Francisco, CA, BoarJ ofTruseec:s, 1994-97 /020 Unwn Strul. No.2 San Fran ""0, 0! 94/33 ul'phon_ (415)93/./592 Facrimil, (415)931"0753 , TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. 1- To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY Subject: ACQUISITION 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 L yjord 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 ofDiviso 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 Attomey to (a) write the County Counsel and ask that the subject property be transferred to the Town of Tiburon; and (b) take such further actions as are necessary to complete the transaction. EXHmITS Draft Letter to County Counsel TO: Andrea Morgan FROM: Lynne Baer " RE: Scope of Work and Fees The following scope of work, estimated hours, and projected fees are based on the a.5wnplion that the project will consist of selecting an anist or artist team to create a site- specific work for the plaza area located in downtown Tibumn. My fees are $100 per hour and include ordinary office and travel expenses. Additionai expenses not covered include the cost of producing and mailing an RFQ to the wats, tnlvcl out~idc till; BlIY Area. and honorarium for the finalists. These expenses shall be identified and approved before submission and payment. IdeiitIDcation of Criteria Old Appropriate .o\rtists 1, Meet with Commission Members andlor Selection Panel to develop goals and concepts lor the public art project. Thi5 includes identifying speciiications and parameters of the project, budget, and acceptable media. 2, Dcvl:lop criteria for selection of artists, to be approved by the Commission and/or Selection Panel, 3. Detcnnine timeline and written process (RFQ) to commission artists. 4. Identify qualified potential artists and requost slides for review. Estimated hours: 40 Foes; S4,OOO Selection of the Artists 1. Present .lides and relllled information of qUlIlilicd and appropriate artists to the Selection Panel for review and selection of finalists, 2, Cuunlinate flnalisls' interviews on site and receipt "fproposals, 3. P:-ovide artists with appropriate information and criteria to crenle their proposals, 4, Review proposals with t.he Selection Panel. 5. Provide additional information needed to make selection including checking artists' refcrcnco.s lI.'l wellllll the [cllliibility ofthe completion of the designs within the given budget and parameters, 6. Facilitate final selection of artists with the Selection Panel. Estimated hours: 50 Fees: $5,000 Total Fces: $9,000 i ~ " ~ ~ ,-,,'----- ~ ..:=::.~~..~...:.:~~ COUNTY OF MARIN ....... .. ADMINISTRATION . 415/499.6570 ACCOUNTI~G 415/499-6528 AIRPORT 451-A AIRPORT ROAD NOVATO. CA 94945 415/897-1754 FAx 415/897-1264 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 415/499-6576 FAX 415/499.3250 CAPITAL PROJECTS 415/499-7877 FAX 41 5/499-3724 ENGI~EERIl'iG & SURVEY 415/499-7877 FAX 415/499-3724 COUNTY GARAGE 415/499-7380 FAX 415/499.3738 LA;'I;l) DEVELOP~lENT & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 415/499-6549 PRI:'IiTING 415/499-6377 FAX 41 5/499.6617 COUNTY PuRCHASING AGENT 415/499-6371 COMMUNICATION MAINTENANCE 415/499-7313 FAX 415/499-3738 REAL ESTATE 415/499-6578 FAX 415/499-3724 ROAD lVlA"TENANCE 415/499-7388 FAX 415/499-3656 TRAffiC E:~GINEERING 415/499-6528 TRANSIT DISTRICT 415/499-6099 FAX 415/49%939 W ASH 'IA~AGE\IE~T 415/499-6647 FAX 415/499-.1724 ~1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PO. Box 4186. San Rafael, CA 94913.4186' 415/499.6528' FAX 415/499-3799 Mebdi Madjd-Sadjadi, P. E. Director May 16,2001 Alex McIntyre, Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 REceiVED MAY 1 B 2001 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TiBURGN Re: Conveyance of Property to Town of Tiburon APN 59-131-07 (ptn) Divisio St. and Centro West Street Dear Mr. McIntyre: Pursuant to your letter of March 8, 2001 to Mr. David Zaltsman, Marin County Deputy County Counsel please find enclosed an executed Quitclaim Deed from the County of Marin to the Town of Tiburon, dated May 1,2001 with Resolution No. 2001-40 attached. Upon recordation of the Quitclaim and Resolution, please forward a copy of the recorded document to me so we may close out our files on this matter, Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. ~~IY'~ . ~_~c:=- Real Estate Section Encl. Cc: David Zaltsman 1.11) 0 I , . {!by.. - ~~!! ~'111~ 38 ~ -0 If 05 April 13,2001 rjP~ M. JL Andrea Morgan 56 Lower North TeITace Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Andrea, Thank you for your phone cal1 and inquiry about my services as a consultant for public art projects, I have included my resume along with an update of CUITent projects. With some variations, the enclosed Scope of Work is standard for most community public art projects, In my experience of working with a number of communities in the Bay Area, I have developed a philosophy for placing art in public spaces, This philosophy is based on the understanding that each community is unique and to be successful, a public art project must reflect the character and ethos of the environment in which it is placed. Further, I believe that the creation and instal1ation of public art should visually enhance public spaces and promote an understanding and appreciation of art, To accomplish these goals, my methodology for the selection of art for public spaces involves developing a dialogue between the community and the process itself. This dialogue continues through the entire selection process commencing with the beginning stages of creating goals and concepts, It continues through the selection of finalists and the ultima::e decision of choosing the artist, and concludes with the instal1ation of the project and its presentation to the public. The role of the consultant is to be sensitive and alert to the opinions of the members of the community and to be able to respond appropriately without compromising the ultimate results. I have 'lsed this methodology successfully in working with the communities of Walnut Creek. 8anta Clara, Dublin, Pleasanton, Milpitas, and Emeryville in a variety of public art projects, I look forward to discussing your specific needs and the assistance I can provide in the commissioning of an artist for the plaza fountain public art project in the City of Tiburon, Best regard~'7 '~-<..L /)a.<---- Lynne Baer Enclosures L Y N NEB A E R. LAdvisor 6- LAppraiser 1020 Union Street. No.2 San Franciscn. CA 94"133 Telephone (415)931-1592 Facsimile (415)931- 0753 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT Subject: ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: 6/6/2001 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTO~ REQUEST TO DESIGNATE AN UNNAMED PRlVATE ROADWAY AS "MANTEGANI WAY" MAY 30,2001 .. ALEX MCINTYRE TOWN MANAGER g" To: From: Date: Rev. B BACKGROUND The Town has received a petition from property owners requesting modification of an awkward addressing pattern that exists in the vicinity of Las Palmas Way and Tiburon Boulevard. The situation involves 10 residential properties, all currently having Tiburon Boulevard addresses in the 800 block. The current address pattern has resulted from a process of gradual growth and interpolation of address numbers to the point where five separate properties have street addresses of 885 Tiburon Boulevard (885, 885A, 885B, 885C & D, and 885E) ANALYSIS Ten residential properties located in the 800 block ofTiburon Boulevard currently receive vehicular access from Las Palmas Way, a 40-foot wide private roadway owned in fee by the Mantegani family. The subject area is depicted on Exhibit I. In April 2001, the Town received an application and petition (Exhibit 2) signed by property owners of four of the ten properties requesting that their street addresses be changed from Tiburon Boulevard to Las Palmas Way addresses. Town Staff found this approach acceptable only if the remaining six properties either became Las Palmas Way addresses or Mantegani Way addresses (see Exhibits 3 and 4) Following a series of discussions and meetings, the Mantegani family has kindly agreed to a solution involving the creatiQn of both Las Palmas Way and Mantegani Way addresses in a manner that is strongly supported by the property owners, the Town ofTiburon, the U. S Post Office, and the public safety agencies that find the existing address pattern confusing. TihU1'O!l Town C'ol/lIcil Sta/J Repart 6,6,]00/ 15 This Agreement includes the following Exhibit, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference' Exhibit 1 Personnel Charges IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Agreement the day and year above written. 1 L. SCHW ARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN OF TIBURON Bv By: Irving l Schwartz President ALEX D. McINTYRE Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM ANN R DA'JFORTH Town Attorney 5 \ \ '0 9.32- !v 421 7_ 8 'c 9D3.2. N.45'00 C) 'b r CID @ c--- ""~ ~ 0. (2)' --l N , 1> " . .~ ~ " ~ @~ ., . ~ " 1 .. ... \ \ W~ "'01 Q) " \ \ \0 ,.- " '" '" '" I;:; ~o ..... "'J./4'c. /0". () Go. 0 .,.~. @\ \ \ .. -, ". @\ . ~ \ \ \ \ \ EXHIBIT No.L 0 " 'CD ~ o @ '" , o @. 'C_ v , - - I o 01 "-.j policies shall not affect coverage provided to the Town, its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. F The insurance required by this Paragraph shall not be suspended, voided, canceled or reduced in coverage or in limits except after the Town has received thirty days written notice. G. Evidence of compliance with the insurance and endorsement requirements of this Paragraph shall be subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. 7 Ownership of Documents: Re-Use: lndemnitv All plans, studies, documents and other writings prepared for and by Engineer, his officers, employees and agents and subcontractors in the course of performing the Services shall be the property of Town and Town shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Engineer or to any other party. Engineer shall, upon request, provide such materials to Town Town acknowledges that the documents prepared pursuant to this Agreement are intended for use only in connection with the project described in Exhibit A. Engineer makes no representation that said documents are suitable for re-use on any other project or on any expansion of the original project. Any such re-use by Town without specific written approval by Engineer shall be at Town's sole risk Town shall indemnifY and hold Engineer harmless [rom all claims, losses, damages and expenses, including attorneys fees. that mav arise ti'om Town's unauthorized re-use of said documents for another project or tar any expansion of the Project. 8 Interest of En!):ineer Engineer covenants and represents that he does not have any economic interest and shall not acquire any economic interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered bv this Agreement that would be atfected in any manner or degree by the performance of the Services. Engineer turther covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties, no person having any such interest shall pertarm any services under this Agreement. Engineer will comply with the Town's Cont1ict oflnterest code 9 Licenses Engineer represents and warrants to Town that he has all licenses, permits, qualitications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required of Engineer to practice his profession Engineer represents and warrants to Town that he shall, at his sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals that are legally required of Engineer to practice his profession lO Termination of Contract. Town may terminate this Agreement immediately for cause or by either party without cause upon 10 days written notice of termination to the other party. In event of termination, Engineer shall deliver to the Town copies of all finished and unfinished sun eys, studies, documents, computer disks, and/or rep0l1s pertaining to the Services. 3 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION O D ' R' (DRB) 0 T 'S bd' AP.R ? 5 2001 eSlgn eVlew enta t1ve lJ IVlSlon Map o Design Review (Staff level) 0 Final Subdivi~b~~o~~~'t7~~i~N I o Variance 0 Parcel Map o Sign Permit 0 Lot Line Adjustment o Tree Permit 0 Certificate of Coml)liance c.fW1 f6, o Underground Waiver ~ OthersrRGfET(\~ il., APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION 9'30 12.8 PA LlV\Pr5 WAY PROPERTY SIZE: ZONING: -I< ~ o Conditional Use Permit o o o o o Precise Development Plan Conceptual Master Plan Rezoning/Prezoning Zoning Text Amendment Geneml Plan Amendment SITE ADDRESS: LAS PARCEL NUMBER: RECEIVED TYPE OF APPLICATION OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX ARCHITECT/DESIGNER/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent. . .BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): St::b A 1}A/-l-1i2D I, the undcrsigned 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, [ understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or th2.t 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 responsibil ity for defense at the request of U1C 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 th irdjzpa. rt challenge, . (/ -; . -L /)J;J 1135- c; 01} - Signature: 'Y/t-/l ,Uf/P/'-- (If other than owner, must have letter from owner)_ ~. /1/.--,,/,. EXHIBIT NO.~ - - AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF TIBURON AND I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES. INC., FOR THE PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered this _ day ofJune, 2001, by and between the TOWN OF TlBL'RON, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "Town," and LL. SCHW AR TZ ASSOCIATES, INC., hereinafter referred to as "Engineer," RECITALS A The Town occasionally requires engineering services that cannot be provided by the Town's in-house staff and therefore wishes to engage a qualified independent contractor to provide such services on an as-needed basis. B Engineer has the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the Town with engineering services. C The parties wish to contract for the Engineer to provide engineering services to the Town as provided herein. AGREEMENT Scope of Engineer Services. Engineer shall provide Engineering Services to the Town as directed by the Town Manager or his Designee. Such Engineering Services shall include, without limitation. acting as the Interim Town Engineer as requested by the Town Manager or his Designee. For any individual project expected to cost more than $2,000, the Town Manager shall provide direction to the Engineer in writing. Any project that is anticipated to cause the Engineer's anticipated billing to the Town to exceed $10,000 shall require approval by the Town Council. 2 Compensation. Engineer's compensation for the Services shall be as set forth in Exhibit A. The rates set forth in Exhibit A shall take effect as of May 24,2001. Notwithstanding the foregoing, certain engineering Services provided by the Town are for the benefit of private property owners and are normally compensated by the owner of the private property that is the subject of said Services {"Private Property Services"). Before providing Private Property Services, the Engineer shall enter into an agreement with the private property owner that shall provide for the Engineer's compensation by said owner. The Town shall not compensate the Engineer for Private Property Services. 3 Engineer as Independent Contractor. Engineer (including its agents and employees) is not an agent or employee of the Town. Engineer is an independent contractor not subject to the direction and control of the Town. Without limiting the foregoing, Engineer_shall maintain ,/' -... -:.~O. 0,00;' ,0 a " z " _. ., .'..- . .. -' ('. ~, . -:-- . ", , ?', . ...'" '" <'/,.~. _~ J;.:;'~' ~ "...",',,, ,,.'" ~~ 1505 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920 . (415) 435-7373 FAX (415) 435-2438 TOWN OF TIBURON Planning & Building Department May 1,2001 Mr. Kent Allen P O. Box 536 Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: REQUEST FOR ADDRESS CHANGES TO LAS PALMAS WAY (FROM T1BURON BOULEVARD) Dear Mr. Allen: The Tiburon Planning Division is in receipt of your application for the following address changes: 855 Tiburon Boulevard >>>>>>3 Las Palmas Way 86l Tiburon Boulevard>>>>>> 1 Las Palmas Way 871 Tiburon Boulevard>>>>>> 4 Las Palmas Way 873 Tiburon Boulevard>>>>>> 2 Las Palmas Way The application has been referred to the Tiburon Police Department for review and comment. It is noted that the Tiburon Fire Chief has agreed to the address changes. As currently proposed by the application, properties located at 879, 885, 885A, 885B, 885C, 885D, and 885E Tiburon Boulevard (also accessed via Las Palmas Way) would not change. As I have conveyed to you on more than one occasion, this address scheme poses concerns regarding emergency services and basic street address logic. It creates a situation wherein a vehicle must turn offTiburon Boulevard onto Las Palmas Way in order to reach other Tiburon Boulevard addresses that have no frontage along Tiburon Boulevard. This is a highly unorthodox address pattern that is best avoided if possible. To my knowledge, this type of address situation does not exist elsewhere in Tiburon. Superior addressing solutions could be achieved by either of the following: l. Changing all of the above address to the same street name (whether that is Las Palmas Way or another street name) OR 2. Designating a separate private street (Mantegani Way, for example) to serve the properties at 879 through 885E Tiburon Boulevard This street would branch from Las Palmas Way at the 'T' intersection located in front of 879 Tiburon Boulevard EXHIBIT NO,~ TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10 From: MA YOR AND iVlEMBERS OF THE TOWN CO~ ALEX D. MclNTYRE, TOWN MANAGER ~ RETENTION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES - L L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC To: Subject: Date: \lay31,2001 As a result of the reorganization of the Town's engineering and public works function, the Town authorized the retention of a permanent Public Works Director/Town Engineer. Previously, these Illl1ctions were handled through a combination of Town staff and a consulting engineer. The To"n Engineer had previously been lrving Schwartz through a contractual arrangement with his lirm I L Sclmartz Associates, Inc. During this transition, the Town finds itself requiring a some ongoing consulting and design services related to the following projects . Ferry Dock Access and Safety Project . Greenwood Beach Road Improvements . 200 I Street Overlay Program . Raccoon Lane Drainage Project . Tiburon Boulevard/Ned's Way Intersection Improvements . Completion of Bay Trails Grant Applications The agreement between he and the Town needs to be revised to essentially reflect the following: Change Status as Town Engineer I would recommend that he be asked to serve as Interim Town Engineer as determined by the TO\\n r>.lanager This vvould be in the occasional absences of the Public Works Director/TO\vn Engineer This would also enable him to sign plans on behalf of the Town. ~ Rev ise the rate Structure I L Schwartz Associates is currently charged a reduced rate for the first 64 hours per month ($90/hour) and a higher rate for all hours thereatier (up to $120/hour). Since the Town can no longer guarantee I. L. Schwartz a minimum number of hours per month, he has suggested c:/ .' TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM i .~/-OF J'E:1 .. _~ v~/~ (,~- rlO. ~.~.. '''z. 1,"-" .. -'I -,i.'I. ~ .... .).~ t, \ ~ -, 'Ji - " -''-i [\('1,_"" ",_ '_ .'~i \~<;"'~_ _-:: ,_ :': ;~{",~'<J i ~' O~N-'A - \~ ~ r To: From: Subject: Date: Scott Anderson, Planning Director Thomas A. Aiello, Lieutenant Comments - Las Palmas Address Change Request May 9, 2001 As per our conversation the proposed address change for Las Palmas way is not supported by the police department. It is felt that the change would cause confusion in emergency response. Our recommendation is that all homes along that road be given Las Palmas addresses. This would eliminate any confusion for emergency responders. A compromise would be to give homes on the Mantegani properties addresses different than Tiburon Boulevard / Las Palmas addresses. One solution would be to rename that portion of Las Palmas "Mantegani Way", Las Palmas Way Mantegani Way Las Palmas Way Tiburon Boulevard (not to scale - for illustration purposes only) RECEIVED MAY - 9 2001 PLAil;--JIi'iC U~:-',-,i- .:c.i'; i TOVIN OF T1:3')=lCN EXJ:!IBIT NO.~ ~ ~ <r: " " ~ ~ co ~ ::r: ~ i:-il ~- 9\~~~'; ./., \ ./ \ /~~ ;Yo ~ , -__L!h~' , -- , I.~ .~ ,'" i .. i~ @ , I i 1'" I " \>. .. " " uoi"iu.J.. o ~ lD u \ , ~. . ~... - ;\~ ~\~',:. \~. , . \; .., "f,l., ~ .J< i I~ '/1 ,;1/ II /16 /. If: (lm ./1 i I i , i ~. ~ r-i~ \!:J.j'" ~ N ; -..< V I~"I. 19 '1"N _ ~61 i't'Ji . . ....I.U.. lO'JlJ'" ,"' '8~....... ,Il ". ~ ~'2 "0./ 0.... ~ Y I -~..... i \ t; ~-p;" 1hrr)#-. Q.. @ '. ~ _ .. 0 ,Y'..- ~ '". ~....... ba. ':' '": .o~.. ,~:::: ,..c.. "".Ol.'~ - ;.p.....~ :: ~..... '; ~ 'ci . ~ Vl -i <> , ~ 1 ..;. '" -;;. ~ oF @ N "1 ~ 'i .:. 0;...'''''...... .' 9'&\ ",.' ~. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF "MANTEGANI WAY" AS A PRIV ATE STREET WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon has received a petition from property owners requesting that an unnamed private roadway easement that provides access to six residential parcels off Las Palmas Way, on the north side of Tiburon Boulevard, be designated "Mantegani Way", and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed this request and determined that the safety and convenience of the subject residential properties would be enhanced by the designation of an official street name. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon thaI (1) Mantegani Way is hereby approved as the name of the private roadway easement of varying width serving six (6) residential parcels on the north side of Tiburon Boulevard off Las Palmas Way, as illustrated on the attached Exhibit "An. (2) Mantegani Way is not accepted into the Town ofTiburon street system pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 1806. (3) All costs of new signage, as ordered and determined by the Public Works Superintendent, shall be borne by the petitioners PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon on ,2001 by the following vote: AYES. NOES. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR TOWN OF TlBURON ATTEST DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK lv[ant~gani Way reso.doc TOWI1 ofTihuroll Resolulion No. 3.+60 6/6/]00 I EXHIBIT NO._'_ RESOLUTION NO. REVISED $=1 'A-I tJ . A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF "SHEPHERD WAY" AS A STREET WITHIN THE TOWN OF TIBURON WHEREAS, there exists within the Town ofTiburon a 50-foot wide non-exclusive roadway easement and pipeline and public utility easement commonly known as "Shepherd Way", located on the north side of Trestle Glen Boulevard between Turtle Rock Court and Paradise Drive. Said easement is further described as Parcel "E" on the final subdivision map entitled "Tiburon Perini Unit Two", filed for record on October 7, 1988 in Book 20 of Maps at Page 44, in the Office of Marin County Recorder. , WHEREAS, said roadway and utility easement serves the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church and two residential parcels, all of which derive vehicular access exclusively from it, and WHEREAS, the Town Public Works Department apparently erected a street sign at this location at some time in the past, but the Town of Tiburon has never officially designated the street through formal action, and WHEREAS, the roadway and utility easement is variously described in record documents as "Sheppard Way", "Shepard Way", "Shepherd's Way", "Shepherd Way", and WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon has received requests from various parties including the Marin County Assessor's Onice to officially designate this roadway, pipeline and public utility easement in order to eliminate the resulting confusion of various namings and spellings of record, and WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon has reviewed these requests and determined that the safety and convenience of the subject residential properties would be enhanced by the designation of an official street name NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that (I) Shepherd Way is hereby approved as the name of the private 50-foot wide non- exclusive roadway easement and pipeline and utility easement, as illustrated on Exhibit" A" to this Resolution and further identified in Exhibit "B" to this Resolution (2) Shepherd Way is not accepted into the Town ofTiburon street system pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 1806. Tml'f1 oJ Tihllrull Neso/llf/()rt .\"0. 66/]001 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. l' MEETING DATE 6/6/2001 Subject: MA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTO~ REQUEST TO OFFICIALL Y DESIGNATE "SHEPHERD WAY" AS A STREET WITHIN THE TOWN OF TIBURON MAY 30,2001 .. ALEX MCINTYRE TOWN MANAGER To: From: Date: Rev. B BACKGROUND The Town has received verbal requests from interested persons and agencies, including the Marin County AssessorlRecorder's Office, for action to clarifY the official name ofa 50-foot wide roadway, pipeline and public utilities easement, commonly known as Shepherd Way, that is located within the Town limits. The roadway provides access to the Shepherd of the Hills Church and School as well as a few single-family residences. Through a fluke of history, the underlying fee to Shepherd Way is owned by the Perini Preserve Homeowners Association (35 homes off Turtle Rock Court and Indian Rock Court), even though Shepherd Way provides access to none of the homes in the Preserve Association. Shepherd Way also forms a short portion of the Tiburon Ridge Trail Apparently, the street has never formally been named, although a street sign was erected many years ago, purportedly by the Tiburon Public Works Department, that reads "Shepherd Way". Unfortunately, documents of record variously describe the street "Shepard Way", "Sheppard Way", "Shepherd's Way" and so forth. The current Marin County Assessor Map shows the street as "Shepard Way". ANALYSIS The Town is in a position to clarify the situation by officially naming the street by Resolution. Since the street sign has read "Shepherd Way" for many years, the homes have "Shepherd Way" addresses, and the primary user of the street is the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, it makes sense that the name used on the current street sign be the official name Tdn/roll T OWIi CO/lllci/ S/(~[/Rep()/'l 66]()0/ EXHIBIT No.i <,' .,' @ if .. ",,$ 0. ;r- \ '" t-- ..~ '" - " ~ ~~ ~') -4C>~ y>C> G'l ~ -z.. .' ............':a "'l' ~ ~ ~ .. - - - -:- ( , Cl '^ t .. ;; ':. R.~ Tlb...u!~., ....,~ 19'81 ...~~,. <~ I f,.~ : ~-. I , @ g! .. I /, ~i .../" \ ,/' ..,.,- ; ~..,/~~\4- ~ ~\>o~ 'n." D~ ~ m ~ ? -;., f I; ."JI: EXHIBIT No.i .... .,- @ if '" . . ;; ~ Tlb_U!l!tt_ ~Y.- ~') ~c::,~ G> ~ -z,. .y>() \~. .: \, .,., \\ :/ ~ "'~: .. @: ~\ . , "j- .<. ~~~ .~ \ \ tD t.< 9 . ," ~ .~ ;p . ;; @: ! i @ ~! " I /,/.,\ ~. fi , /-----: /;;~~ ..~~ ( :f ~ '- 7 e, -~ TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. c; MEETING DATE 6/6/2001 Subject: MA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DIRECTO~ REQUEST TO OFFICIALLY DESIGNATE "SHEPHERD WAY" AS A STREET WITHIN THE TOWN OF TIBURON MAY 30,2001 .. ALEX MCINTYRE TOWN MANAGER To: From: Date: Rev. B BACKGROUND The Town has received verbal requests from interested persons and agencies, including the Marin County AssessorlRecorder's Office, for action to clarifY the official name ofa 50-foot wide roadway, pipeline and public utilities easement, commonly known as Shepherd Way, that is located within the Town limits. The roadway provides access to the Shepherd of the Hills Church and School as well as a few single-family residences. Through a fluke of history, the underlying fee to Shepherd Way is owned by the Perini Preserve Homeowners Association (35 homes off Turtle Rock Court and Indian Rock Court), even though Shepherd Way provides access to none of the homes in the Preserve Association Shepherd Way also forms a short portion of the Tiburon Ridge Trail. Apparently, the street has never formally been named, although a street sign was erected many years ago, purportedly by the Tiburon Public Works Department, that reads "Shepherd Way". Unfortunately, documents of record variously describe the street "Shepard Way", "Sheppard Way", "Shepherd's Way" and so forth. The current Marin County Assessor Map shows the street as "Shepard Way" ANALYSIS The Town is in a position to clarify the situation by officially naming the street by Resolution Since the street sign has read "Shepherd Way" for many years, the homes have "Shepherd Way" addresses, and the primary llser of the street is the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, it makes sense that the name used on the current street sign be the official name. Tihlll'Ofl TOWII COIfNcll ,\'laO"f?1!j)()/'f (,,(,]()()J RESOLUTION NO. REVISED $=i 'A-I tJ . , A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF "SHEPHERD WAY" AS A STREET WITHIN THE TOWN OF TlBURON WHEREAS, there exists within the Town of Tiburon a 50-foot wide non-exclusive roadway easement and pipeline and public utility easement commonly known as "Shepherd Way", located on the north side of Trestle Glen Boulevard between Turtle Rock Court and Paradise Drive. Said easement is further described as Parcel "E" on the final subdivision map entitled "Tiburon Perini Unit Two", filed for record on October 7, 1988 in Book 20 of Maps at Page 44, in the Office of Marin County Recorder. WHEREAS, said roadway and utility easement serves the Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church and two residential parcels, all of which derive vehicular access exclusively from it, and WHEREAS, the Town Public Works Department apparently erected a street sign at this location at some time in the past, but the Town ofTiburon has never officially designated the street through formal action, and WHEREAS, the roadway and utility easement is variously described in record documents as "Sheppard Way", "Shepard Way", "Shepherd's Way", "Shepherd Way", and WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon has received requests from various parties including the Marin County Assessor's Office to ot1icially designate this roadway, pipeline and public utility easement in order to eliminate the resulting confusion of various namings and spellings of record, and WHEREAS. the Town ofTiburon has reviewed these requests and determined that the safety and convenience of the subject residential properties would be enhanced by the designation of an ot1icial street name NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that (I) Shepherd Way is hereby approved as the name of the private 50-foot wide non- exclusive roadway easement and pipeline and utility easement, as illustrated on Exhibit" A" to this Resolution and further identified in Exhibit "B" to this Resolution (2) Shepherd Way is not accepted into the Town ofTiburon street system pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 1806. TO\I'I1 of TilJllrul! l?eso/llliOI! .\'0 Mi/]OO! RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF "MANTEGANI WAY" AS A PRlV ATE STREET WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon has received a petition from property owners requesting that an unnamed private roadway easement that provides access to six residential parcels off Las Palmas Way, on the north side of Tiburon Boulevard, be designated "Mantegani Way", and WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed this request and determined that the safety and convenience of the subject residential properties would be enhanced by the designation of an official street name. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that (l) Mantegani Way is hereby approved as the name of the private roadway easement of varying width serving six (6) residential parcels on the north side ofTiburon Boulevard off Las Palmas Way, as illustrated on the attached Exhibit "A". (2) Mantegani Way is not accepted into the Town ofTiburon street system pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 1806. (3) All costs of new signage, as ordered and determined by the Public Works Superintendent, shall be borne by the petitioners. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 200 I by the following vote: AYES NOES ABSENT. COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST DIANE CRANE lACOPI, TOWN CLERK ;..1al1t.:gani Way r,",so.dOl': TOIl'/1 ofTihl/rotl Rr:SO!lIfiol1 ;Vo. 3-160 616/]001 EXHIBIT NO._'_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E-< ...... co ...... ::r: ~ ~ .,- ~o r:,~y>,,!l; ) ~ f,>~ /'~ ,n-L.!,!,O. ... '\ ,n__/ . I'-'! . ,/ ,~: \/' i ; '. i~ @ I : ~~ j ~.." , \,10',0 ,;:." .".- 19. "N ,~.l:l _ 61""1/ so" ,. ,. "",t:-'" ~ 'bo' ~ f,'(o.~P' ZVfS'r 51Z.1I :....'ll'~..-' "l'O' ~':::.aV o....~ y I :: -..... ' \ .......'P... 'IJ/IT""'" Q., @ '. ~ - ... <> .~;..,.,!'Ilr- '.. . ~.r.... ~ ,;,"': 000;>.. " =: ":t. -e... ~Ol.'~ - "".I'") .. "'s-,., ';. ..... ~ ." '\..", ,Jf"-f ;.Jof I~ 'Ii ,oil :Pi /1" I'U If: (l ~ ''I ' ..0. I I i , i f-'I~ ~'" ~ N i """ v UC,'i"fl1.l ~ 'Ci 1 ., ~ '" ci ~ lD '\)~. .s. ... ~ .' TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM i .~/~ of TI rls~&(,~ [0 .'1>" ,f.., ~,.' ' ",0 _1."-..,0..... ,Z\ - 1) ,', I .~,~~~.J~ ~,o -,--,-,::--..... Fi'NIA \~v,~ " To: From: Subject: Date: Scott Anderson, Planning Director Thomas A. Aiello, Lieutenant Comments - Las Palmas Address Change Request May 9, 2001 As per our conversation the proposed address change for Las Palmas way is not supported by the police department. It is felt that the change would cause confusion in emergency response, Our recommendation is that all homes along that road be given Las Palmas addresses. This would eliminate any confusion for emergency responders. A compromise would be to give homes on the Mantegani properties addresses different than Tiburon Boulevard / Las Palmas addresses. One solution would be to rename that portion of Las Palmas "Mantegani Way". Las Palmas Way Mantegani Way Las palmas Way Tiburon Boulevard (not to scale - for illustration purposes only) REC'-:'I'I?:J"\ c- v ~~...-.. MAY - 9 Z001 PLArl~M;C uL:.:"",'" ":c,'; r TOVJN Oi':: Tiel_:SCN EXHIBIT NO.~ TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. 10 From: 'vIA YOR AND i\1EtvIBERS OF THE TOWN COU ALEX D. tv!clNTYRE, TOWN MANAGER ~ RETENTlON OF ENGINEERING SERVICES - L L SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC To: Subject: Date: 'vlay 3 I, 200 I As a result of the reorganization of the Town's engineering and public works function, the Town authorized the retention of a permanent Public Works Director/Town Engineer. Previously, these functions were handled through a combination of Town stalf and a consulting engineer. The Town Engineer had previously been ll'ving Schwartz through a contractual arrangement with his firm I L Schwartz Associates, Inc During this transition, the Town finds itself requiring a some ongoing consulting and design services related to the following projects: . Ferry Duck Access and Safety Project . Greenwood Beach Road Improvements . 200 I Street Overlav Program . Raccoon Lane Drainage Project . Tiburon Boulevard/Ned's Way Intersection Improvements . Completion of Bay Trails Grant Applications The agreement between he and the Town needs to be revised to essentially reflect the following: Change Status as Town Engineer I ,yould recommend that he be asked to serve as Interim Town Engineer as determined by the Town i\lanager. This would be in the occasional absences of the Public Works Director'Town Engineer This would also enable him to sign plans on behalf of the Town. 2 Rev ise the rate Structure I. L. Schwanz Associates is currently charged a reduced rate for the lirst 64 hours per month ($90/hollr) and a higher rate for all hours thereatler (up to $120/hour) Since the Town can no longer guarantee I. L. Schwanz a minimum number of hours per month, he has suggested ,/' _"'7 .'''.o'''"'"~ 10 Z ...., ".:""", ,.,~, L <' "J' '~;' ,":';';: "':'-,..~~l~'~;~ ~ 'Jql'w,1>. ," . 150.5 TIBURON BOULEVARD. TIBURON . CALIFORNIA 94920. (41.5) 435-7373 FAX (415)435-2438 TOWN OF TIBURON Planning & Building Department May 1, 2001 Mr. Kent Allen P. O. Box 536 Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: REQUEST FOR ADDRESS CHANGES TO LAS PALMAS WAY (FROM TIBURON BOULEVARD) Dear Mr. Allen: The Tiburon Planning Division is in receipt of your application for the following address changes: 855 Tiburon Boulevard >>>>>>3 Las Palmas Way 86l Tiburon Boulevard>>>>>> 1 Las Palmas Way 87l Tiburon Boulevard>>>>>> 4 Las Palmas Way 873 Tiburon Boulevard>>>>>> 2 Las Palmas Way The application has been referred to the Tiburon Police Department for review and comment. It is noted that the Tiburon Fire Chief has agreed to the address changes. As currently proposed by the application, properties located at 879, 885, 885A, 885B, 885C. 885D, and 885E Tiburon Boulevard (also accessed via Las Palm as Way) would not change. As I have conveyed to you on more than one occasion, this address scheme poses concerns regarding emergency services and basic street address logic. It creates a situation wherein a vehicle must turn offTiburon Boulevard onto Las Palmas Way in order to reach other Tiburon Boulevard addresses that have no frontage along Tiburon Boulevard. This is a highly unorthodox address pattern that is best avoided if possible. To my knowledge, this type of address situation does not exist elsewhere in Tiburon. Superior addressing solutions could be achieved by either of the following: I. Changing all of the above address to the same street name (whether that is Las Pal mas Way or another street name) OR 2. Designating a separate private street (Mantegani Way, for example) to serve the properties at 879 through 885E Tiburon Boulevard. This street would branch from Las Palmas Way at the "T" intersection located in front of879 Tiburon Boulevard EXHIBIT NO.~ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF TIBURON AND I.L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES. INC.. FOR THE PROVISION OF ENGINEERING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered this _ day ofJune, 2001, by and between the TOWN OF TIBURON, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called "Town," and LL. SCHW AR TZ ASSOCIATES, INC, hereinafter referred to as "Engineer," RECITALS A The Town occasionally requires engineering services that cannot be provided by the Town's in-house staff and therefore wishes to engage a qualified independent contractor to provide such services on an as-needed basis. B Engineer has the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the Town with engineering services. C The parties wish to contract for the Engineer to provide engineering services to the Town as provided herein AGREEMENT Scope ofEn~ineer Services. Engineer shall provide Engineering Services to the Town as directed by the Town Manager or his Designee. Such Engineering Services shall include, without limitation, acting as the Interim Town Engineer as requested by the Town Manager or his Designee. For any individual project expected to cost more than $2,000, the Town Manager shall provide direction to the Engineer in writing. Any project that is anticipated to cause the Engineer's anticipated billing to the Town to exceed $10,000 shall require approval by the Town Council. 2 Compensation Engineer's compensation for the Services shall be as set forth in Exhibit A The rates set forth in Exhibit A shall take effect as of May 24, 2001. Notwithstanding the foregoing, certain engineering Services provided by the Town are for the benefit of private property owners and are normally compensated by the owner of the private property that is the subject of said Services {"Private Property Services"). Before providing Private Property Services, the Engineer shall enter into an agreement with the private property owner that shall provide for the Engineer's compensation by said owner. The Town shall not compensate the Engineer for Private Property Services. 3 Engineer as Independent Contractor. Engineer (including its agents and employees) is not an agent or employee of the Town. Engineer is an independent contractor not subject to the direction and control of the Town. Without limiting the foregoing, Engineer_shall maintain LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION O 0 . R' (ORB) 0 T . S bd' AP.R ? 5 2001 eSlgn ev,ew entatlve lJ ,vIsion rolap o Design Review (Staff level) 0 F' I S bd' 1}' f,llliAl!.'W lkf'r\h ',it::', I . ,na u 'v, IO,6~OF TIBURON o Variance 0 Parcel Map o Sign Permit 0 Lot Line Adjustment o Tree Permit 0 Certificate of ComRliance c.jWI 'f6, o Underground Waiver A Other srRBET(\b;,,~lis ~" APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION 9'30 12-8 PA LMAS WAY PROPERTY SIZE: ZONING: R ~ o Conditional Use Permit o Precise Development Plan o Conceptual Master Plan o Rezoning/Prezoning o Zoning Text Amendment o General Plan Amendment SITE ADDRESS: LAS PARCEL NUMBER: RECEIVED TYPE OF APPLICATION OWNER OF PROPERTY: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX FAX ARCHITECT /DESIGNER/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY /ST ATE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent. . BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheet if needed): Sf:(; A T)iV-I-1Q[) I, the undcrsigned 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 bel ief. [ understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal), Therefore, if the To\\n grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsiblc for defending against this challenge, 1 therefore agree to accept this responsibil ity for defense at the request of U1C 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 thirdjz. part challenge, I. -1 . -.L /7/;} iJ 35- c;d" Signature: t2"'//c/} ,UO-b'r- (If other than owner, must have letter from owner)_ ~ . /f /-,,/^ EXHIBIT NO...-Ia- - - policies shall not affect coverage provided to the Town, its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. F. The insurance required by this Paragraph shall not be suspended, voided, canceled or reduced in coverage or in limits except after the Town has received thirty days written notice. G. Evidence of compliance with the insurance and endorsement requirements of this Paragraph shall be subject to the approval of the Town Attorney. 7 Ownership of Documents: Re-Use: Indemnity. All plans, studies, documents and other w6tings prepared for and by Engineer, his officers, employees and agents and subcontractors in the course of performing the Services shall be the property of Town and Town shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Engineer or to any other party. Engineer shall, upon request, provide such materials to Town. T own acknowledges that the documents prepared pursuant to this Agreement are intended for use only in connection with the project described in Exhibit A. Engineer makes no representation that said documents are suitable for re-use on any other project or on any expansion of the original project Any such re-use by Town without specific written approval by Engineer shall be at Town's sole risk. Town shall indemnifY and hold Engineer harmless trom all claims, losses. damages and expenses, including attorneys fees. that mav arise ti'om Town's unauthorized re-use of said documents for another project or for any expansion of the Project 8 Interest of En'-!ineer. Engineer covenants and represents that he does not have any economic interest and shall not acquire any economic interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement that would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of the Services. Engineer funher covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties, no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement Engineer will comply with the Town's Contlict ofInterest code 9 Licenses Engineer represents and warrants to Town that he has all licenses, permits, qualitications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required of Engineer to practice his profession. Engineer represents and warrants to Town that he shall, at his sole cost and expense, keep in etfect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals that are legally required of Engineer to practice his profession 10 Termination of Contract. Town may terminate this Agreement immediately for cause or by either party without cause upon 10 days written notice of termination to the other party. In event of termination, Engineer shall deliver to the Town copies of all finished and unfinished SUI'vevs, studies, documents, computer disks. and/or rep0l1s pertaining to the Services. 3 \ \ N (') '):. r @ . " , 1 " ,.- ,z IN ~ ~o @\ " 4'~7o/_'c. . /o~. 0 4"0.0 "'.... iii; ~ ~ " ~ ioj\ '" " " @" \SJ /d~ l 'c. 9032 #,450() @ " ~ ,.. 88 9,&. 9032 ' K4 @ <.n~ ." . - Q <.n@" -oj '" ~ p ~ ~ " @ " ,. Z6 \ \ (]~ "'0, Cl) <' '" '" .~ \ EXHIBIT NO.-1- . \ \ - - \ \ o Ot ..... \ \ l5 This Agreement includes the following Exhibit, which are attached hereto and incorporated . herein by reference: Exhibit 1 Personnel Charges IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Agreement the day and year above written. I L. SCHWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN OF TIBURON B\ By lr\'-ing L Schwartz President ALEX D. McINTYRE Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM. ANN R DANFORTH T own Attorney 5 TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT Subject: ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: 6/6/2001 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SCOTT ANDERSON, PLANNING DlRECTO~ REQUEST TO DESIGNATE AN UNNAMED PRIV ATE ROADWAY AS . "MANTEGANI WAY" MAY 30,2001 .. ALEX MCINTYRE TOWN MANAGER ? To: From: Date: Rev, B BACKGROUND The Town has received a petition from property owners requesting modification of an awkward addressing pattern that exists in the vicinity of Las Palmas Way and Tiburon Boulevard The situation involves 10 residential properties, all currently having Tiburon Boulevard addresses in the 800 block. The current address pattern has resulted from a process of gradual growth and interpolation of address numbers to the point where five separate properties have street addresses 01'885 Tiburon Boulevard (885, 885A, 885B, 885C & D, and 885E). ANALYSTS Ten residential properties located in the 800 block ofTiburon Boulevard currently receive vehicular access from Las Palmas Way, a 40-foot wide private roadway owned in fee by the Mantegani family The subject area is depicted on Exhibit 1. In April 200 l, the Town received an application and petition (Exhibit 2) signed by property owners offour of the ten properties requesting that their street addresses be changed from Tiburon Boulevard to Las Palmas Way addresses. Town Staff found this approach acceptable only if the remaining six properties either became Las Palmas Way addresses or Mantegani Way addresses (see Exhibits 3 and 4). Following a series of discussions and meetings, the Mantegani family has kindly agreed to a solution involving the creatiQn of both Las Palmas Way and Mantegani Way addresses in a manner that is strongly supported by the property owners, the Town of Tiburon, the US. Post Office, and the public safety agencies that find the existing address pattern confusing. Tlhuron Town C'ol/tleil .)'/(~,If Report 66,]()OI 1./1/01 , , Ciby.. - ~~!! ~ '1nuyr- 38 ~ -0 If 05' April 13, 2001 r+e~ M. JL Andrea Morgan 56 Lower North TeITace Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Andrea, Thank you for your phone call and inquiry about my services as a consultant for public art projects, I have included my resume along with an update of current projects. With some variations, the enclosed Scope of Work is standard for most community public art projects, In my experience of working with a number of communities in the Bay Area, I have developed a philosophy for placing art in public spaces, This philosophy is based on the understanding that each community is unique and to be successful, a public art project must reflect the character and ethos of the environment in which it is placed. Further, I believe that the creation and installation of public art should visually enhance public spaces and promote an understanding and appreciation of art, To accomplish these goals, my methodology for the selection of art for public spaces involves developing a dialogue between the community and the process itself, This dialogue continues through the entire selection process commencing with the beginning stages of creating goals and concepts, It continues through the selection of finalists and the ultima~e decision of choosing the artist, and concludes with the installation of the project and its presentation to the public, The role of the consultant is to be sensitive and alert to the opinions of the members of the community and to be able to respond appropriately without compromising the ultimate results, I ha\'e 'lsed this methodology successfully in working with the communities of Walnut Creek, Santa Clara, Dublin, Pleasanton, Milpitas, and Emeryville in a variety of public art projects. I look forward to discussing your specific needs and the assistance I can provide in the commissioning of an artist for the plaza fountain public art project in the City of Tiburon, Best regards,., I. / , ,"'PI....L /')<2.<-- Lytme Baer Enclosure:; L Y N NEB A E R LAdvisor & LAppraiser 1020 C'nlOn Street. No.2 San Francisco, CA 9-:;'133 Telephone (415)931-/592 Facsimile (..j 15)931- 0753 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT Stateof a~II~~ before me, ~fA~, ml{)..h?lP!) Name and Title of Officer (e.g., 'lane Doe, Notary Public") C. .Jo.-J f< Name(s) of Si res) ~personaly known to me - OR- 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ whose namets@are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me tha~she/ they executed the same ~her/their authorized capacity(~, and that by~her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~ounty of rnPQI~) On IJ/i/OI Date personally appeared l~ JEANINE MICHAElS ~ - Comm.' 1277054 Ul NOTAAVPU'UC.cAlIFORHIA Ul ~. MlrinCounly- M,COlMl,fxpim Oct. 13.2004 T WITNESS my hand and official seal. -~~!!!I) . Signature of Nota Ie RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER MANDATORY, While the information below is not required by law. it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this fonn to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: _01 .tLtTJ 19l0'1 0 Qen Document Date: ':J/1 101 Number of Pages Signer's Other Than Named Above: r-..n/v~ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: o Individual o Corporate Officer o Title(s) o Partner - 0 Limited 0 General o Attorney-in-Fact o Trustee o Guardian or Conservator -0 Ot~: ~SIGe\.,r Top of thumb here Signer's Name: o Individual o Corporate Officer o Title(s) o Partner- 0 Limited 0 General o Attorney-in-Fact o Trustee o Guardian or Conservator o Other: Top of thumb here S~?:resenting: , 0 P>::JARD Of- <;, .IreJ2.\t1 Si"./<._ ", Signer is Representing: TO: Andrea Morgan FROM: Lynne Bacr .. RE: Scope of Work and Fee. The following scope of work, estimated bours, and projected fees are based on the iU~wllplion that the project will consist of selecting an anist or artist team to create a site- specific work for the plaza area located in downtown Tihumn. My fees are $100 per hour and include ordinary office and travel expenses, Additionai expenses not covered include the cost of producing and mailing an RFQ to thewsts, trllvcl out~idc UIl;:' Bay Area. and honorarium for the finalists. These expenses shan be identified and approved before submission and payment. IdeiltUJeatioD of l:rlterla and Appropriate Artists 1. Meet with Commission Members and/or Selection Panel to develop goals and concepts for the public IIrt project. nli~ includes identifying speciiications and parameters of the project, budget, and acceptable media. 2, Develop criteria for selection of artists, to be approved by the Commission and/or Selection Panel, 3, Detennine timeline and written process (RFQ) to commission artists. 4. Identify qualified J'lotentia! arti8ta and request slides for review. Estimated hours: 40 Fees: $4,000 Selection of the ArtUts 1. Present .lides :md relllted information of qualifictl and appropriate artists to the Selection Panel for review and selection of finalists, 2, Cuunlinaie Ilnallsls' Interviews on site and receipt of propcsals. 3, P:-ovide artists with appropriate information and criteria to crc~le their proposals, 4, Review proposals with the Selection Panel. S, Provide additional information needed to make selection including checking artists' refercncC3 as wellll5 the feallibility oCthe completion of the de~igns within the given budget and parameters, 6, Facilitate final selection of artists with the Selection Panel. Rstimated hours: 50 Fees: $5,000 Total Fecs; $9,000 . . ~ ;: iI ~ ..'_..,-----, ~ ,'::::;:"--';it::.::~..'~~""~. . COUNTY OF MARIN ADMINISTRATION . 4151499-6570 ACCOUNTING 4151499-6528 AIRPORT 451-A AIRPORT ROAD NOV'TO, CA 94945 4151897-1754 FAX 4151897-1264 BUILDING MAINTENASCE 4151499-6576 FAX 4151499.3250 CAPITAL PROJECTS 4151499-7877 FAX 415/499-3724 E~GI:'oIEERIi\G & SeRvE\' 4151499-7877 FAX 4151499-3724 COUNTY GAR.\GE 4151499.7380 FAx 4151499-3738 LAND DEVELOP~IENT & FLOOD CO~TROL DISTRICT 415/499-6549 PRIi'iTI~G 4151499-6377 FAX 415/499.6617 COU~TY PURCHASING AGENT 4151499-6371 COMMl1NICATION MAINTENANCE 4151499-7313 FAX 415/499-3738 REAL ESTATE 415/499-6578 FAX 415/499-3724 ROAD MAINTENANCE 415/499-7388 F,x415/499-3656 TRAffiC ENGINEERING 4151499-6528 TRANSIT DISTRICT 415/499-6099 FAX 415/499-6939 WASTE l\l\'l/AGDIEST 415/499-6647 FAx 4151499-3724 bJt-1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ..... PO. Box 4186, San Rafael, CA 94913-4186' 415/499.6528' FAX 415/499-3799 Mehdi Madjd-Sadjadi, P. E. Director May 16,2001 Alex McIntyre, Town Manager Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEIVED MAY 1 B 2001 TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE TOWN OF TiBURON Re: Conveyance of Property to Town of Tiburon APN 59-131-07 (ptn) Divisio St. and Centro West Street Dear Mr. McIntyre: Pursuant to your letter of March 8, 2001 to Mr. David Zaltsman, Marin County Deputy County Counsel please find enclosed an executed Quitclaim Deed from the County of Marin to the Town of Tiburon, dated May 1,2001 with Resolution No. 2001-40 attached. Upon recordation of the Quitclaim and Resolution, please forward a copy of the recorded document to me so we may close out our files on this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. ;Z::1d ~. (!~~U1ilit . Real Property Agent Real Estate Section Encl. Cc: David Zaltsman . EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 1978-1988 EDUCATION PUBLICATIONS SelECTED LECTURES PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTEER AFFILIATIONS L Y N NEB A E R <.Advisor 0- <.Appraiser ButurficU and ButUrfUU Auction"" and Appraism. San Francisco, CA: 1983-1988 Director, Fine Arts Ocparanent and Museum Services. 1987-1988 DireclCd a department with an aMual gross of over $6 million. Supervised a staff of eight in all aspects of the auction process including: appraising painring>, prinrs, and photographs; soliclting works for auction; producing auction catalogues; designing the advertising and marketing snacegy; and working wit:h collectors. dealers and museum staff. Created and developed new areas of specialry auctions. such as California P:lincing and Contemporary P4intings and Sculpture. Assistant Director, Painting Deparanenc. 1983-1986 Appraised American and European paintings and sculprure of the 19th and 20th Centuries for auction and insurance purposes. Worked with the public for the solicitation and selling of art at auction. Hi"hhom Museum and Scu/pruT'< Garden, Smirhsonian l1lSritution, Washington, D,C.: 1982 Smithsonian Intern: Assisted curator in researching relevant material for a major imernational 20th Century exhibition. Also conducted research on works in me permanenr collection and for proposed museum acquisitions, using all available research facilities. San Francisco Museum of Modem Art, San Francisco, CA; 1981 Research Assisunr: Compiled catalogue bibliography and chronology of Paul Wonner, Abstract Realist; performc:d administrative duties for this retrospective exhibition. Oak&nd Muuum, Oakland, CA; 1978-/981 Director of Acquisitions, Colleccors Gallery: Selected paintings and sculpture for a gallery that handled over 1 no artists and 300 works of art at one time. This job required knowledge of contemporary art as well as administrative skills in facilitating the flow of works for renral and sale. Unil'~rriry ofCz/ifornit.1. DOl,is M.A. Art History, 1983 Thesis: "WIlliam Gropper's Construction of a Dam: Case Study of a Mural" Unit'('ni~y ofCdlifornw. Balulry B.A. An History, 1976 B.A. English Literature, 1970 graduated with honors "Investing in American Art" Antiques and Fine Art Magazine. September, 1985 "From Exposition to Exposition: The Relationship Be('oNeen Paris, New York and San Francisco. 1913--1939" (Sacramento: Crocker Art Museum, 1981) "Art in rublic Spaces" Guest lecturer. UC Extension. class taught by Topher Delaney, Landscape Architect, April 199' "New Deal Murals, 50th Anniversary," Smithsonian Resident Associate Program. Study Tour, Washington, D.C., January 19. 1988 (Similar scudy tour conducted in February, 1984) "Buying Art and Antiques Wisely," ~mjnar on frnance, Junior League of San Francisco, October 21. 1987 American Society of Appraisers. ARTIABLE. Inc.. New York, NY . Alameda County Public Art Adyisory Commirree . Judah L. Magnes Museum, Berkeley, CA, Board of Trustees . Capp Street Project, San Francisco, CA, Board ofTrusrec:s, 1994-97 1020 U"W" Strut. No.2 Sa" Fmnc;<co, 01 94133 Telepho", (415)931.1592 Facrimi/e (415)931-0753 , TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. 1 To: From: Subject: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY ACQUISITION OF COUNTY PROPERTY DIVISO STREET AND CENTRO WEST STREET March 7, 2001 Date: 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 ofDiviso 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 transfeITed to the Town of Tiburon; and (b) take such further actions as are necessary to complete the transaction. EXHffiITS Draft Letter to County Counsel .' REFERENCES Mark Schatz, (Architect for Tiburon Library and City Hall) Field Paoli Architecture 1045 Sansome St" Ste. 206 San Francisco, CA 94111 415 788-6606 Karen Rollin Duffy, City Librarian Santa Clara City Library 2635 Homestead Road Santa Clara, CA 95051-5387 408613-2999 Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 925 833-6650 Mr. Andy Jorgensen Ci':y of PI elSa' '\ton Public Art Program 200 Old Bernal Avenue Pleas~.!lton, CA 94566 925 484-8292 Ms, Susan Montrose Assistant Chancellor t'riversity of Cali fomi a, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94143 415476-8039 Wr. Ronald Nahas RafareP' and Nahas 1 Bates Blvd. Ste. 200 Orin:h. CA 94563 925 25'PSOO L Y N NEB A E R <..Advisor & <..Appraiser 1020 Union Street, No.2 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone (415)931-1592 Facsimile (415)931-0753 *{y TOWN OF TIBURON MEMORANDUM To: TOWN OF TIBURON DEPARTMENT HEADS From: ALEX D. MciNTYRE, TOWN MANAGER Subject: IMPROVED ACCOUNTING OF BUILDING DEPARTMENT COSTS RESPONSE TO GRANO JURY REPORT OF MARCH 20, 2001 Date: . June 7, 2001 On 'vlarch 20, 200 I, the Marin County Grand Jury issued a report finding that many jurisdictions in the County appear to be collecting building permit fees in excess of associated costs. The Town of Tiburon was one jurisdiction found to have a surplus in fees, although the amount was relatively small As noted in the Report, state law requires that our building permit fees remain in balance with the cost of providing building inspection services. To insure that the Town is able to justifY its fees, we must keep careful accounting of all costs associated with all building inspection services. Historically, the T 0\\ n has not kept records of indirect costs associated with these services nor of time spent by personnel outside the Building Department. Therefore, beginning July I, 2001. all non-Building Department personnel arc directed to maintain detailed and accurate records of time spent on matters associated with building inspection services. in quarter-hour increments Records should include a description and the date of service. These records and to be sent to the Finance Director. The Finance Director is to maintain records of all costs associated with building inspection services, including. without limitation, the time spent by personnel outside the Building Department and overhead fairly attributable to the operations of the Building Department. From time to time, beginning at the close of Fiscal Year 2001-2002, the Finance Director shall compare these costs to the revenue realized [rom building permit fees In the event of a discrepancy between fee revenue and costs, the Finance Director, in conjunction with the Planning Director and the Building Official, shall develop a proposal to modifY the percentage of valuation assessed as fees, as appropriate to maintain a balance between fees and revenues This proposal shall be brought to the Town Council for approval , TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO.:! 2 - TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL SENIOR PLANNER WATRO~~ TOWN MANAGER MCINTYRE ~ FROM: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION TO DENY SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE (35 REED RANCH ROAD) ERNEST WARE APPELLANT: APPLICANTS: CAROLYN AND ERNEST WARE MEETING DATE: JUNE 6, 2001 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.------------ PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: 35 REED RANCH ROAD 34-301-02 700220 13,470 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C DECEMBER 15, 2000 BACKGROUND: On April 19, 2001, the Tiburon Design Review Board adopted Resolution No. 2001-01, denying a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road. Ernest Ware, an owner of the subject property, has now appealed this decision to the Town Council, T1BURON TOWN COUNCIL STAfF REPORT JUNE 6, 200 I 1 March 1993 AITORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIC"-~ 11 . . permit and similar fees imposed tinder the State Housing Law from violating the "special taxes" provision of article xm A of the Constitution. "A statute should be construed whenever possible so as to ureserve its constitutionali- , < ty." (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com: (l9?7) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387.) Finally, our construction of sections 17922 and 17951 effectuates the Legislature's purpose in enacting Government Code section 66014 with its introductory phrase "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law." In sum, under both the Government Code and the Health and Safety Code, a local agency is required to limit its building pennit and similar fees to the estimated costs of providing the services rendered. Any excess above such reasonable estimated costs requires approval by a two-thirds "ote of the electorate. TIlE TIIE C ing question: May air quality agement districts and air impose a permit syste Opinion No. 92-S19-March 11, 1993 Requested by: MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY inion by: DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General Gregory L. Gonot, Deputy NORABLE CHARLES W. QUACKENBUSH, ASSEMB~ Y, has requested an opinio EROF n the follow- tion control districts air pollution? Air quality mana ent districts and air po (hereinafter "dis . s") have been established in ornia pursuant to Health and Safi Code sections 40000-41133.1 Their . cipal function is to "adopt enforce rules and regulations to achieve the s and federal ambient . quality standards in all areas affected by emission so sunder their' sdiction. . . ." (9 400001.) District plans for achieving am!) t air ty standards are subject to approval by the California Air Resou 1 All section references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated. (Matthew Bender &. Co.. Inc.) .F revise the design of the fence, but noted that simply changing the fence materials or appearance would be insufficient to mitigate the potential view impacts. At the April 5, 2001 Board meeting, the applicant indicated that he had been unable to reach an agreement with the neighboring property owners, and that changes to the fence since the last meeting included reducing the diameter of the poles; painting the fence materials to match nearby landscaping; increasing the spacing between the fence posts; and reducing the size of the wire mesh, Neighboring property owners again stated that the proposed fence would impact views from their homes, The Design Review Board indicated that the fence modifications did not adequately mitigate the view impacts which would be caused by the proposed fence, The Board then unanimously voted (4-0) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying this application. On April 19, 2001, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Resolution No. 2001-01, denying a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new fence. Mr. Ware subsequently filed a timely appeal of this decision to the Town Council. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL: There are four grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground #1 The findings of the resolution denying the subject application are too general and vague, and are based solely on neighbor opposition and the inappropriate location of the fence. Staff Response: Design Review Board Resolution 2001-01 states that "the location of the proposed fence on the site would be inappropriate in relation to the location of the existing homes on adjoining sites due to the impact the fence would have on the views from these neighboring residences" (emphasis added). This resolution also states that the potential view impacts of the proposed fence were discussed at all three Board meetings during which this application was reviewed, as is also reflected in the minutes of these meetings. It is clear that the Design Review Board considered more than just the opposition of neighboring property owners and the specific location ofthe fence its making its decision on the subject application. Ground #2 The denial of this application did not address the applicant's need to provide privacy screening and shielding of the mass and bulk of uphill homes lost by the removal of the berm on uphill property. Staff Response: In its deliberations on this application, the Design Review Board acknowledged that the berm for the uphill homes of the Highlands subdivision had been required to provide privacy and mass and bulk screening for the downhill homes along Reed Ranch Road, including the subject property, The Board determined that the view impacts which the proposed fence would cause for the uphill residences would outweigh any gain in privacy or other screening TlBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT JUNE 6. 200 I 3 March 1993 ATIORNEY GENERAL'S OPINI 5 9 . . requirements as are contained in. . . [T]he Uniform Building Code. . . ." (~ 17922, subd. (a); see 72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 180, 184-186 (1986); 55 Ops.Ca1.Atty.Gen. 157, 158-159 (1972)). ~ith certatn exceptions not relevant here, "the provisions published in the S~te BuilqingStandards Code or the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 17922 shall be applicable to" every city and county. (~ 17958; see Briseno v. City of Santa Ana (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1382-:1383; 72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 180, 184 (1989).) Since the fee schedules contained in the Tables are part of the Uniform Building Code, why are they not applicable to cities and counties under the provisions of sections 17922 and 17958? . First. the Tables have not been adopted by the Department under section 17922's grant of authority. The obvious reason is that the Tables are not "building standards" which the statute directs the Department to adopt. A building standard "regulates, requires, or forbids the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used" and includes require- ments for the "architectural and design functions of a building." (~ 18909, subds. (a), (b); see also ~~ 18940-18942; 75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 131, 132-136 (1992).) Irl 55 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 157 (1972), we concluded that the building standards adopted by the Department pursuant to section 17922 were to be substantive in nature rather that administrative. We stated: "Although the Department is limited in adopting rules and ~gulations by the provisions of the specified model or uniform codes, this limitation applies only to substantive regulations. The statutes, when read as a whole, demonstrate that the reference in section 17922 to the "same requirements" was not intended to include requirements of an administrative nature. , < .{ j)'. ;1 ); , " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "It is . . . the substantive criteria contained in the specified uniform codes, which criteria have been ~et forth for the propose of promoting safety and stability in building activities, to which the Department's attention is properly directed. "That the Legislature did not intend to incorporate by reference the administrative provisions of the specified uniform codes is also evident from the fact that the State Housing Act includes sections which specifically designate procedures for administrative actions such as enforcement of the regulations and appeals from allegedly erroneous or unlawful applications of those regulations. See (Matthew Bender &. Co.. lne.) , RECOMMENDATION: 1) 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 consideraJion aJ the next meeting. EXHIBITS: I. Notice of Appeal filed by Ernest Ware, dated April 30, 2001 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Design Review Board Resolution No. 2001-01 4. Staff Report of the February 1, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 5. Staff Report of the February 15, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 6. Staff Report of the April 5, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 7. Minutes of the February 1, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 8. Minutes of the February 15, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 9. Minutes ofthe April 5, 2001, Design Review Board meeting 10. Letter from William and Catherine Schulte, dated December 18, 2000 11. Letter from Wayne Gilbert, dated December 18, 2000 12. Letter from Bryce and Carolyn Lensing, dated December 18,2000 13. Letter from Carolyn and Ernie Ware, dated January 19,2001 14. Letter from Ann Laurie Solomon, dated January 23,2001 15. Letter from Stone and Suzy Coxhead, dated January 23,2001 16. Letter from Jeffrey and Michelyn French, dated January 25,2001 17. Letter from Mary Defenderfer, dated January 26,2001 18. Letter from Carolyn and Ernie Ware, dated February 1, 2001 19. Letter from Tiburon Highlands Homeowner's Association, dated February 10, 2001 20. Letter from Benjamin Sirota, dated February 12, 2001 21. Letter from Lorin Schneider, dated February 13, 2001 22. Letter from Bryce Lensing, dated February 14, 2001 23. Letter from Ernie Ware, dated March 30, 2001 24. Letter from Bryce Lensing, dated March 30, 2001 25. Letter from Julie Jacobs, dated March 30,2001 26. Letter from John Noerr, dated March 30, 2001 27. Letter from Philip Treick, dated March 30, 2001 28. Letter from Lorin Schneider, dated March 31, 2001 29. Letter from Diana Nhuch, dated March 31, 2001 30. Letter from Carolyn and Randy Dilena, dated March 31, 2001 31. Letter from Laurie and Eric Andrewson, dated March 31, 2001 32. Letter from Nan Jones, dated March 31, 2001 33. Letter from Robin and Andrew Bloch, dated April 1, 2001 34. Letter from Jo Ann Bell, dated April 5, 2001 TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT JUNE 6, 200 I 5 " t~ .~ l "" March 1993 ATIORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIOi 7 B. The Government Code The Government Code provisions most germape t~ our,tnquiry are found in sections 66012-66024, setting forth "Fees For Speci~c Purposes" . (H 66012-66014), "Procedures For Adopting Various Fees" (~~ 66016-66018.5), and provisions regarding "Protests, Legal Actions, And Audits" (~~ 66020-66025),2 The primary section to which we direct our attention is section 66014. Subdivision (a) of section 66014 provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; filing and process- ing applications and petitions filed with the local agency formation commission, . .; the processing of maps. . .; or planning ser- vices. .. ; those fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materi- als is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue." The introductory phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" makes the rules set forth in the statute exclusive as to the fees enumerated therein, which include those germane to our inquiry. (See In re Marriage of Dover (1971) 15 Cal.AppJd 675, 618, fn. 3; State of California v. Superior Court (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 691, 695; 63 Ops.Cal. Atty.Gen. 660,661-662 (1981).) Applying this rule of "exclusivity," we find that fees such as building permit fees or fees for plan checking and approval (I) "shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services" for which they are issued or performed (2) "unless. . . the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost. . . is . . . approved by. . . popular vote. . . ." Moreover, sections 66016-66018.5 mandate that (1) prior to levying new fees or service charges, or increasing existing ones, the local agency must hold a public hearing after giving interested parties access to the data relating to the estimated costs of the services to be provided, and (2) no fees shall be levied exceeding the reasonable estimated costs of the services without the requisite two-thirds vote of the electorate. Finally, sections 66020-66025 provide a procedure for interested parties to protest the imposition of fees, and also to bring court actions to set aside or annul existing or newly adopted fees as unreasonable, or to determine 2 All references hereafter to the Government Code prior to footnote 3 are by section number only. (Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.) , ' TOWN OF TIBURON !)AN CL. (~.- C~ '~IO- li EWH ~ ~ APR 3 0 2001 ~ - -' . NOTICE OF APPEAL TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON APPELLANT Name: U;oJ6f?i toJ~ Address: b~ I'ff.u) ;thJe f! ,lZj) Telephone~ .6B3~ J7B3. (Work)(717)22G>- C/b(}() ACTION BEING APPEALED Body PC--tVikt. 0;: UP'deA1JoF-l (FILJ~#70t),;!"23) Date of Action: fLt.t! L / ~ 100) Name of Applicant: 0f!./t;'f-4i tJItt2~ Nature of Application: ;:/:,/I.kd ,4rJ) /...A:rJ,) S t./]fIl/>lc; A-/ /' LJ tA-77DiJ (Home) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, if necessary) (~~i.- ~fTTAt:Jif1') ') ';nT'''T~''''Y,rn "'Tn I ~~L':..!....'..l.:..,-I- l"'~.J.-l-- P. t fF7 Date Received: -1";3 ~/ 0 / c.{~ 0 I Date of Hearing: 7b ~ ~/'k.-l-.J2 cR l7~z-cr(~ !tw"l~k {50/t Last Day to File: .?l/1'0 0/ Fee ($300.00) Paid: ()J( 1(31 January 1996 To: Tiburon Town Council . From: Ernie Ware Date: April 27, 2001 Subject: See-through Fence Construction with landscaping improvements (File#700220 Design Review Appeal) We are appealing the decision to deny our application for a fence with landscaping improvements for the following reasons: I. The resolution stating the reasons for denial is too general and vague without specific fmdings. Having neighbor opposition and "inappropriate location", as justification for denial of our fence and landscape plan did not address the other important factors that must be considered, as briefly described next. 2. The arguments for denial did not address our stated uphill privacy issues that have been compromised by the deliberate alterations of the 10-foot buffer zones on our up-slope neighbors' properties. 3, The arguments for denial did not address how our fence and landscaping plan will help mitigate the negative uphill design impact of looming structures with excessive bulk and rnonument on the ridge line. Our plan is intended to help correct the results from the deliberate removal of landscaping and berms, without authorization or permits, by the owners of the property directly behind our home, The landscaping and berm requirements were huge factors, and extremely widely supported by the Design Review Board and the Tiburon community. They were part of the major conditions for the Tiburon Highland houses directly behind my home to be approved. Please refer also to the Town of Tiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings (Goall/Principle I and Goal 2/Principle II). If the approved berms and landscaping were employed, as required, the debate over our fence and landscaping would not be an issue. Ii~={~I-'~-.~:: IT I~T tJ. I ~. -z,oF7 .. 4. The arguments for denial did not address the dramatic view improvements for our upslope owners that we have helped them to create and improve with our voluntary approval to remove and window pane numerous trees. Note that these are the same views that our opposing neighbors are now claiming should be immaculate and uninterrupted. Please keep in mind that this is a 5-foot tall, see-through fence (without a top rail), surrounded by low height vegetation, and stepped down the hillside on our property 3 Y:z feet. 5. The Design Review Boards fmdings did not address the evidence we presented regarding the relative view impacts of our 5 foot, see-through fence, located 3 Y:z feet off the property line, and the 3'-6" tall solid wood fence we are legally entitled to build on our property line. We believe the evidence presented clearly illustrates that our proposal will preserve our neighbors' views to a greater extent than what we could do with a ministerial building permit. We regret that we have to pursue this course of action. However, we believe that the deliberate actions by our uphill neighbors have violated our privacy and property rights, and are severely limiting the use of our property. It is clear to us that that our opposing neighbors are unwilling to cooperate or compromise with us because they believe that the design review process in the Town of Tiburon is heavily weighted in favor of views above property and privacy rights. They have come to the conclusion that they can use our property as a virtual greenbelt buffer, when in fact, it is their own property that has the requirement to provide a landscaped buffer for us and the rest of the community. We respectfully ask that the Town Council reconsider this situation and approve our application based upon the items above. SlW~~~l~ Ernie Ware cc: Pam Kaull President - Reedlands Homeowners Association Attachments "",~'-"~~'-rn 'In l '.1 "0-.'1. "~ l' I i' ~ ~"':'-':._._.:.._'..'_-:.'. '-, .'~~. '- . f. 3 or:: 7 ~1f6If12-C6P~' 1 Design Review Board TownofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 .,.- January 19, 2001 Reference: File No 700220 Dear Design Review Board Members, This letter is to let you know why we believe that the site plan application for installing a fence on our property should be approved. We regret that the neighbors uphill from us have expressed their oppositions to our fence plans, however we feel that our site plans should be approved for the fo !lowing reasons: . We already have voluntarily helped each neighbor above us to dramatically improve their views over the past 5 Y, years. . (Two mature 40+ foot pine trees were removed, two maJure 30+ foot trees were severely topped, and three 40+ foot mature pines were dramatically ''windowed'' to improve our neighbors' views) . We have already made concessions with regard to fence height, landscape design and location to provide as unobtrusive fence as possible with our neighbors, that we believe follows the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. . We should be allowed to use and enjoy our property, which we purchased in large part because of the size ofthe lot, and the privacy that it provides . We need to provide deer resistance to protect our vegetables, grapes, fruit trees, and general landscaping . Protection of our small children and property. and containment of our pets (2 cats and 1 future dog) . Provide security and safety to keep toddlers away from a lap pool that we plan to build in the future (not part of this design review application) . Provide a fence and landscaping for privacy . Correct the current landscaping problem created by the homes on Cecilia Court, which we believe are too prominent on the ridge when viewed by us, and the rest of the community. The severely (rimmed landscaping (to the bare earth, behind our home) does not afford privacy or create a natural appearance that conform~ to the intent of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. "fi1-r'(....;:.~:.;-~.T~r :\: {""'\ ~::...J..(i...._~__'-:-_\. .'. .i.. 'I ,J. I :p. i.l OF 7 ., From our standpoint, we believe that we have created a site and fence design that will meet our needs, while at the same time minimize the impact on our immediate neighbors. The proposed design will preserve their views, within reason. We also believe thaI views are important, but so is our privacy and the overall effect of the hillside landscape as viewed from our downslope location; and as well as fur the rest of the community, We have taken the following steps to achieve these goals: . We have had a land survey performed in March 1999 to identify and communicate our property line to our neighbors, . We have discussed our desire to landscape and fence this property with our neighbors over the past 5 Yz years. We have reviewed the design with our neighbors and have made revisions to our plans, with the unfortunate exception fur our newest neighbors Bryce and Carolyn Lensing, whom we have not yet met. However the previous owners of2 Cecilia Court were aware of our landscaping intentions, . We are using a fence design that is nearly invisible when viewed from a reasonable distance. It does not have any horizontal wood bracing to create a visual boundary. . We have stepped the 5 foot see-through fence, 3 Yz feet down the hillside from our property line, at the uppermost part of the ridge. This was done to minimjze the intrusion with one view corridor for the Lensing's at 2 Cecilia Court. We voluntarily helped to improve this view corridor previously. when we allowed the severe window pruning of the three large pine trees located on our property. . We hired a landscape designer with over 20 years experience in Marin County to provide a workable solution . We will remove the unsightly galvanized cyclone deer fence that is visible from several points along Reed Ranch Road, as well as from our uphill neighbors' view . We have applied the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines to our fence and landscape solution . We have selected native, drought-resistant, easily pruned, horizontal growing bushes to provide privacy and a more natural appearance for the ridge on our property and will help to mask the vertical fence posts Our intention is to also irnprove the landscape quality of the hillside to help correct a design and landscape problems created by the developer of the Tiburon Highlands. Our landscaping plan we believe will soften the stark contrast of the ridgeline creatcd by the large homes on the hillside behind us, that that do not have proper grading or landscaping to keep them from standing out on the ridge. We understand our neighbors' desires for immaculate, uninterrupted views, however their desire puts an undue burden on our rights, and lor the rest of the community, which view them from the downslope side. We also have the right to our privacy to eliminate neighbors from looking right into our bedroom window. ,-,'c~-,- ',-.-, ,"'-' -<i"J l " . . ,. '-' L 1",' ~'~.!..'lL._........i.._'_'~\.. . p. r;;D~ 7 2 We also believe that our plans will not affect the primary views of our neighbors. .. Specifically, the Sbultes' view which they are concerned about is already separated by a larger similar fence surrounding 33 Reed Ranch Road, and our new rence will have little, if any, impact on their view, They have already planted landscaping and hamboo plants in this area Their primary views are not affected at all, The fence will have little impact on the Gilbert's side view to our property; in fact the farthest corner of their property is approximately 12 feet away from the top comer of our property (per submitted survey). We believe there will be minimal impact on their primary view, if at all. They have expressed their desire to "see nothing at all from below", but we believe that request is unreasonable and inaccurate. Especially in light of the filct that we allowed voluntary removal of two large 40+ foot pine trees that dramatically improved the views for them at this location, and for the owners of2 Cecilia Court! From our neighbors' perspectives, our new landscaping will help to screen our roof, bedroom interior, skylights, chimney, patio barbecue, and dining room when viewed from their back yards, upper story windows, and balcony. Our neighbors already have landscaped trees and bushes planted above the ridgeline on their 0,",,11 propcrties. Their requcst to locate the fence 8 feet from our property line we believe is not reasonable. That would reduce the size of our usable property by over 1000 square feet, would dramatically reduce our ability to grow fruit and grapes, severely limit the use and control of our property, and will not address at all our need to create privacy. Moving the fence 8 feet onto our property will also hinder our future plans for a lap pool with privacy landscaping and decks. We have already agreed to move the fence 3 Y2 feet from our property line in an area that we believe will afford maintained views for the Bryce's at 2 Cecilia Court, We will be happy to maintain lower pruned landscaping in the areas where the fence is moved onto our property per Section View B-B, The request for 8 feet is too excessive. We arc also not intercsted in selling that portion of our property. Our property (Zone R-02) is zoned to allow fences, and is in fact one reason why we purchased our home. Our neighbors must be aware of our ability to have fences, since there are numerous fences like the one we are proposing, adjacent to us and in plain view from each of their properties (33 and 39 Reed Ranch Road). TheCC&Rs for the Tiburon Highlands (Zone RPD) will not allow fences for their development (Town or Tiburon Resolution 2535, Section 2, #12), due in part to the higher lot densities created by larger homes on smaller lot. However that zoning restriction does not apply to our development in Zone R-02. For example, a taller 6 foot fence was approved and installed in 1996 by our next door neighbor at 33 Reed Ranch road. There arc already mature trces and landscape on our property. The section A-A of our plan is shown to show the relationship of the existing fruit trces and landscaping that already exists in one section of the hillside property. I have included additional section views B-B and C-C to show our intention for the landscaping that would minimize the impact of our new landscaping from our neighbors' views. c..- __"__.,,_:;'r,, ,'.To'j I .!: \,..'-; ._<'~ i .~ '1 ',.-r..-.L.- f. (p OF 7 3 We understand the strong emotion expressed by our neighbors, and we regret thaI they , have come to view the land behind our home as a ''virtual greenbelt" separating them from our property. However, we have the right to use our property in a responsible way, We believe thaI we have worked in good faith to creaJe a reasonable design solution that meets the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, and provides reasonable compromises that will not dramatically affect their rightful primary views. We hope that the Design Review Board will agree and approve our site design as submitted, and ultimately, we hope that our neighbors will come to accept and understand that we want to improve our landsCaped property and home value as well as theirs. Please see the included photos, section views, and comments, and feel free to visit our property at any time. There are currently two unlocked gates for easy access. Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7 Photo 8 Reference example of a similar 7 foot tall "see through" mesh fence taken in the town of St Helena, California View from inside our bedroom to the balcony and windows of#2 Cecilia Court Ridge line view showing existing landscaped bushes on our property and on #2 Cecilia Court View of#4 Cecilia Court's Windows from our dining room table View of looming and stark contrast of#4 Cecilia Court home on ridge line as viewed by community from Reed Ranch Road View of looming and stark contrast of #2 and #4 Cecilia Court homes on ridge line as viewed by community from Trestle Glen area of Tiburon Boulevard Picture of two 40+ foot tTees prior to voluntary requested removal, taken in December 1995 that dramatically improved views for #2 and #4 Cecilia Court. Picture of 40+ foot tree prior to voluntary requested removal taken from corner or property of #4 Cecilia Court Section A-A Shows relationship of existing fruit trees and bushes with fence Section B-B Design oftrimmed landscape on ridge and fence offset to preserve view for #2 Cecilia Court (In line with windowed pine trees) Section C-C Design of landscaping and fence showing minimized intrusion of corner section offence into #4 Cecilia Court view area ~::~(3~ Carolyn and Ernie Ware 707.226.9600 ex!. 239 415.383.1783 Day/Work Evenings/Home ::-:..,..~~'P,O:T ~'.Tr { ..,..'".. ....' l. ..', .J. 4 ~. 7oF7 TOWN OF TIBURON LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RECEIVED DEe 1 1 2000 TYPE OF APPLICATION o Conditional Use Permit o Precise Development Plan o Conceptual Master Plan o Rezoning/Prezoning o Zoning Text Amendment o General Plan Amendment o Design Review (ORB) p, Design Review IStaff level) o Variance o Sign Permit o Tree Permit o Underground Waiver PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON o Tentative Subdivision Map o Final Subdivision Map o Parcel Map o Lot Line Adjustment o Certificate of Compliance o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: ...,.__ '1._'... '/}'1 .-' "/ /'1~ /l Ji) /:.t:-t:: i;J A rf-. 1- ft At I; j; , ..., ,''' r-, "':'i-')-->r -It"., \ .....' "_ PROPERTY SIZE: ZONING: ,'1 _ /(,c ...-') "'-- / ~OWNER OF PROPERTY: I MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: I PHONE NUMBER: I, .' C4;J. /, <<.Iv /'!-;"v/J Efll/!E: I.' Ci..,/~ ~L;- 1:'':;'';3i) l/~./:7 /:,'[4--;) ~ /J !".,--:1r '/'..!'. /,4 (;/'7/, // ;"" ,..'.c:: l" ',' ,> '..' L' :;l/lt;' ') ~,{:'.-s 7f:~ =-; ~X APPLICANT: (Other than Property Owner) MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: /,.41t-;'Lr1-~-: .~:;:;/- J/,,::_ FAX ARCHITECT IDESIGNER/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY 1ST A TE/ZIP: PHONE NUMBER: FAX Please indicate with an asterisk (*) persons to whom correspondence should be sent. BRIEFDESC~~TIO~ O!, PROp,?SED P~OJEf,T\a~ta.ch separ,ate she~t)~~~eede?): Iv,c'i. -'-c~.c!::' '_", /"'0'/'--. .r/- 1111:,:::;:-7'--40',1 /:::/ /.k.- ., .__, ," .d .. f' - '~'---' '/ ;'....- -, ),__ /'--;:: 1'1. // _-'-:f..'<-r " , 1 ('c ,I ;..'i ..::::-~-;,..,_c -c 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 1 hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. [ 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 C~alls?ge. RX1:-HBJ'T' NO. Z-- , ~ <...11. '/, 'I' P l ope. ~_._ / C';",n.,tJ,..",. MINuR ALTERATION SUPPLEMENT RECEIVED DEe 11 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON Ple<jse fill in the information requested below: 1. Bnefly describe the proposed project (attach separate sheet as needed): h(: I L"" I /J': j':'/"';f;C:,,erv h ,,~j?,-,..~ cr-. ;- ,..', 141 \ _~ !.~ Iv -:/'..; ,.- NL(-- r..;;//) ,J' 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 1.05.12*): Zoning: 3. Proposed use of site (example: single family residential, commercial, etc.): Existing L,,^)~:, I ~ ;:.4,.-1IL" l'~L.iZ>IN77"7 Proposed . .." ""Jv ~' . , 4. Describe any changes to parking areas'including number of parking spaces, tumaround or maneuvering areas. /tj/: /v':: . PROPOSED ADDITION AND/OR AL TERA TION PER ZONE Yards (Setbacks from property line)(Section 1.05.25)* Front ft, ft. ft. ft, ft. Rear ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Right Side ft. ft. ft. ft. ft, Left Side ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height (Section 5.06.07)* ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Lot Coverage (Section 506.08)* sq.ft. sq.ft sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Lot Coverage as Percent of Lot Area % % % % % Gross Floor Area (Section 105.06)* sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. *Section numbers in parentheses refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance. SUPPLEMENTAL ApPLICATION FORM FOR MINOR ALTERATION EXHIBIT NO. L.- ~. 2- 0/-2--- 1/25/99 PAGE 3 . RESOLUTION NO. 2001-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING A SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 35 REED RANCH ROAD ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 34-301-02 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. December 11,2000, the Town of Tiburon received an application for a Staff-level Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a fence (Application #700220) on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road. The application consists of the following: 1, Application Form and supplemental materials received December 11, 2000; 2. A garden plan with fence details, received December 11,2000; 3, A revised garden plan with fence details, received February 1, 2001; and 4. A revised garden landscape plan, with elevation, section drawing and fence details, received March 29,2001. Due to opposition from several neighboring property owners regarding the fence and landscaping along the rear property line of the subject property, Staff referred the application to the Design Review Board for review. B. The Design Review Board held duly-noticed public hearings on February 1, 2001, February 15, 2001 and April 5, 2001, and heard and considered testimony from interested persons. C. At the meeting of February 1,2001, neighboring residents and property owners expressed concerns to the Design Review Board regarding the potential for view blockage by the proposed fence, and the Boardmembers indicated that it was difficult to properly evaluate the potential visual impacts of the proposed fence. The hearing was continued to the February 15,2001 meeting, with direction given to the applicant to install a mock-up of the proposed fence in accordance with the most recently revised plans. Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2001-01 April 19. 2001 T,'VTTTn,'" NTn 3 ~,,::~....:....,,_-,,-.j.~ ......1. 1 1>. It:F3 . D, At the February 15,2001 meeting, the Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans . and heard additional testimony from neighboring residents and property owners, and indicated that the proposed fence would significantly impact views from several uphill residences. The hearing was continued to the April 5, 2001 meeting to allow the applicant time to further revised the proposed fence plans to address these concerns. E. Revised plans were submitted that involved replacing the proposed 4" x 4" wooden support posts with two-inch steel posts, changing the wire mesh fencing from 2" x 4" openings to 4" x 4" openings, installing a gate near the south end of the rear property line, and planting low-growing ground cover along the upper three feet of the property and in the triangular area at the southwest corner of the property, The location of the proposed fence remained unchanged, F. The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans at the April 5, 2001 meeting. The Board indicated that the revisions did not address the previously raised concerns regarding the proposed fence, and that the fence would result in significant view impacts on several uphill property owners, The Board indicated that the applicant had had adequate time to modify the proposed fence plans or to reach a mutually acceptable solution with the neighboring residents, but had not significantly changed the overall design of the proposed fence. G. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposed project in accordance with Section 4.02.07 (b) of the Tiburon Zoning Code (Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review). The Design Review Board finds, based upon application materials and analysis presented in the February 1,2001, February 15, 2001 and April 5, 2001 Staff Reports, public testimony and materials submitted by surrounding residents and property owners, as well as visits to the site, that the location of the proposed fence on the site would be inappropriate in relation to the location of the existing homes on adjoining sites due to the impact the fence would have on the views from these neighboring residences. The Board then unanimously (4-0) directed Staff to prepare a resolution denying this application, Section 2, Denial. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon does hereby deny the proposed application for Site Plan and Architectural Review and a Variance for the reasons set forth above. Tiburon Design RevieN Board Resolution No. 2001-01 April 19. 2001 2 -''[1 - ~ :) '3 ............~-..,.....,..'f........ ,. .'- ,.,' '.. " ,.; ,"'d i\. -'.....,~.,_." .. '('. . 7- of S , PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design Review Board of the Town of Tiburon on April 19, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: MCLAUGHLIN, BEALES, FIGOUR AND STROUB NONE NONE COLLINS BILL MCLAUGHLIN, TIBURON DESIGN ATTEST: 'd ; .. ~ ~.W~"- ANI~ ATROUS, SENIOR PLANNER Rdwatrous/ResolutionsIDRB700220.resolutioD.doc Tiburon Design Review Board Resolution No. 2001-01 April 19, 2001 3 "R~{~Ir~IT f'JO.. 3 ~. ~DF':' . TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD """'6- AGENDA NO.: r CONTRACT PLANNER ALLSEP 35 REED RANCH ROAD; FILE # 700220 SITE PLAN AND ARCmTECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ARBOR AND FENCE JANUARY 25, 2001 FEBRUARY 1,2001 A:?PLICANT - CAROLYN AND ERNEST WARE PROPERTY OWNERS - SAME PROJECT DATA: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: DATE COMPLETE: CEQA EXEMPTION: PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT DEADLINE: 35 REED RANCH 034-301-02 700220 13,470 SQUARE FEET RO-2 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C DECEMBER 15, 2000 JANUARY 14,2000 MARCH 13,2001 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specifIed in Section 15301. TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ST..\FF REPORT 1 February 1.2001 :=':2CHIBIT NO. L{ P t6F3 , PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a trellis and a fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road. The property is an upslope lot and is currently developed with a one-story single-family dwelling. The proposed trellis would be located adjacent to the rear of the residence in the existing patio area, and would have a maximum height of ten (10) feet Proposed fencing includes a five-foot wire mesh fence along the rear property line and continuing to approximately the midpoint of the north side property line. The wire fence is proposed to be set back a minimum of six inches from the rear property line, with a 50-foot segment of the fence set back 3.5 feet from the rear property line. A six-foot high solid redwood fence is proposed along the front portion of the north side property line. The existing chain link fence that bisects the rear yard is proposed to be removed. Proposed landscaping includes five-gallon Escallonia 'Fradesii', an evergreen shrub, to be planted along the rear property line, and several olive and other fruit trees to be planted below the Escallonia, near a "future" lap pool (the pool is not part of this application). A Staff-level application was submitted for the review of the trellis and fence. Due to opposition from neighboring property owners regarding the fence and landscaping proposed along the rear property line, this application has been referred to the Design Review Board for review. ANALYSIS: Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in general conformance with the development standards for the RO-2 zone Design Issues The subject property is located in the Reedlands Subdivision, and is bordered by properties located in the HigWands Subdivision to the west, along the rear property line. The type offence proposed for the rear of the property is an open wire fence ( 4-inch openings) supported by 4" X 4" wood posts placed six feet on center with no top raiL It is typically the type of fence that is most appropriate for hillside properties, since it is an open. see-through fence. However, the proposed landscaping along the rear property, Escallonia 'Fradesii' has the potential to obstruct views from the ground level of the parcels abutting the rear property line. According to the Sunset Garden Book, this evergreen shrub can attain a height of 5-6 feet, but can be sheared as a hedge. Staff recommends that only low growing shrubs be proposed along the rear property line, and that the applicant consider additional landscaping on the lower portion of their property that would screen the uphill homes from 35 Reed Ranch Road. TIBl,'RON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Ftlbruary 1. 2001 2 EjCQIBIT NO. 4- p. z.oF3 , Section 4.0207 (b) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance (Guiding Principles in the Review of Site Plan and Architectural Review Applications) states that the Board shall consider "the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, adequacy oflight and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. Section 4.02.07 (g) states that the Board shall consider "proposed landscaping, insofar as it is used appropriately to prevent erosion; to protect the privacy of adjoining sites; and to mitigate the visual and noise impacts of the proposed development.. . Proposed landscaping shall be used which will at maturity minimize primary view obstruction from other buildings. In addition, Goal 3 of the Town ofTiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings identifies a number of principles recognize the importance of views and privacy. The most relevant principles are included attachments to this report. The Design Review Board should consider whether the proposed fence and landscaping would be consistent with the relevant Design Guidelines noted above. Public Comment Letters of opposition to the proposed fence have been received from the property owners at 8 Upper Cecilia Way, 4 Cecilia Court, and 2 Cecilia Court, all located in the Tiburon HigWands Subdivision. Letters in support of the application have been received from the property owners at 37 Reed Ranch Road and 34 Reed Ranch Road. RECOMMENDA nON: The Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.02.07 (Guiding Principles) and the Town ofTiburon Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings (Goal 3). If the Board can make the necessary findings required to approve the application, then Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Letter from Caroline and Ernie Ware, date January 19, 2001 4. Letter from William and Catherine Schulte, dated December 18, 2000 5. Letter from Wayne H.Gilbert, dated December 18, 2000 6. Letter from Bryce and Carolyn Lensing, dated December 18, 2000 7. Excerpt from Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (Goal 3) 8. Submitted plans dated December 11, 2000 TlBCRON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT February 1.2001 3 ?YJTIBITNo.4- p 3 DF:3 . TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA NO.: e 2. FROM: SENIOR PLANNER WATROUS SUBJECT: 35 REED RANCH ROAD; FILE #700220 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ARBOR AND FENCE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 1,2001) REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2001 MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 15,2001 APPLICANTS - CAROLYN AND ERNEST WARE PROPERTY OWNERS - SAME BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of an arbor and fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road, The fence would be located near the rear property line, and the trellis would be located adjacent to the rear of the residence. A Staff-level Design Review application was submitted for the review of the arbor and fence. Due to opposition from neighboring property owners regarding the fence and landscaping proposed along the rear property line, this application was referred to the Design Review Board, This application was reviewed at the February 1, 2001 Design Review Board meeting, At that time, the applicant verbally proposed to revise the location of the requested fence, moving the fence three feet (3') back from the rear property line. Concerns were raised by several of the uphill property owners regarding potential view impacts which would be caused by a fence in this area. The Boardmembers indicated that it was difficult to properly visua1ize the potential view impacts for the revised fence location. The Board continued the request to the February 15, 2001 meeting, with direction to the applicant to install a mockup of the proposed fence at the revised location. T1BURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 15.2001 I ~S1:-1TBI'T NO..5- -~.- .--..--- ':p. lOPS- '; .'" , TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA NO.: E I FROM: CONTRACT PLANNER ALLSEP SUBJECT: 35 REED RANCH ROAD; FILE # 700220 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15,2001) REPORT DATE: MARCH 30, 2001 MEETING DATE: APRIL 5, 2001 APPLICANT - CAROLYN AND ERNEST WARE PROPERTY OWNERS - SAME BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road. Proposed fencing includes a five-foot wire mesh fence along the rear of the property and continuing to approximately the midpoint of the north side property line. A Staff-level application was submitted for the review of the fence. Due to opposition from neighboring property owners regarding the fence and landscaping proposed along the rear property line, this application was referred to the Design Review Board for review, The proposal was reviewed at the February 1 and February 15, 2001 Design Review Board meetings. At the February 1 meeting, the applicant agreed to move the fence proposed along the rear property line to a location three (3) feet from the rear property line. The Boardmembers indicated that it was difficult for concerned neighbors to visualize the potential view impacts of the revised fence location, and continued the request to the February 15 meeting, and directed the applicant to install a mock-up of the proposed fence at the revised location. A mock up of the revised fence location was installed and discussed at the February 15, 2001 DRB meeting. At that meeting, several neighbors objected to the revised fence location, stating that the proposed fence would have a negative impact on views even if it were located three feet T1BURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT April 5,2001 1 ";(QIBIl' NO. & ~) i tPz..... .,- .. , TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REPORT TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA NO.: E I FROM: CONTRACT PLANNER ALLSEP SUBJECT: 35 REED RANCH ROAD; FILE # 700220 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15,2001) REPORT DATE: MARCH 30, 2001 MEETING DATE: APRIL 5, 2001 APPLICANT - CAROLYN AND ERNEST WARE PROPERTY OWNERS - SAME BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road, Proposed fencing includes a five-foot wire mesh fence along the rear of the property and continuing to approximately the midpoint of the north side property line, A Staff-level application was submitted for the review of the fence. Due to opposition from neighboring property owners regarding the fence and landscaping proposed along the rear property line, this application was referred to the Design Review Board for review, The proposal was reviewed at the February 1 and February 15, 2001 Design Review Board meetings. At the February 1 meeting, the applicant agreed to move the fence proposed along the rear property line to a location three (3) feet from the rear property line. The Boardmembers indicated that it was difficult for concerned neighbors to visualize the potential view impacts of the revised fence location, and continued the request to the February 15 meeting, and directed the applicant to install a mock-up of the proposed fence at the revised location. A mock up of the revised fence location was installed and discussed at the February 15, 2001 DRB meeting. At that meeting, several neighbors objected to the revised fence location, stating that the proposed fence would have a negative impact on views even if it were located three feet TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT April 5,2001 1 "XtHBl'l' NO. & ~) I CPZ-- . from the rear property line, There was also discussion about the history of the berm located between 35 Reed Ranch Road and 2 Upper Cecilia Way. After Board discussion, the applicant requested a continuance in order to consider alternatives to the proposed fence design, REVISED PROPOSAL: The applicant has submitted revised plans, along with a letter that outlines the proposed changes to the fence design and landscaping, In addition, attachments to the applicant's letter proviqe background on the berm located between 35 Reed Ranch Road and 2 Upper Cecilia Way, The following changes are proposed by the applicant, as reflected on the attached' revised plans: . The support posts for the wire fence are proposed to be two-inch steel posts placed 12 feet on center, The previous plans showed 4" X 4" wood posts placed six feet on center. . The wire mesh material use for the fence is proposed to have 4"X 4" openings instead of the 2"X 4" openings previously proposed. . A gate is proposed near the south end of the rear property line to allow access for property maintenance. . A low growing, native groundcover, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (a member ofthe manzanita family), is proposed along the upper three feet of the property and in the triangular area at the southwest corner of the property. Revised plans include a section drawing of the rear portion of the subject property and adjacent uphill property (2 Cecilia Court), as well as the proposed fence location and fence height. Note: The fence is proposed to be five feet in height and set back 3.5 feet from the rear property line. RECOMMENDATION: The Board should review the proposed changes to fence design and landscaping. The Board should then review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 4,02,07 (Guiding Principles) and the Town of Tiburon Design, If the Board finds the design to be acceptable and in conformance with the Town's Design Guidelines, then Staffhas no objections to the approval of this application, If the Board wishes to approve the application, Staff recommends that the attached conditions of approval be applied, A TT ACHMENTS: 1. Conditions of approval 2. Design Review Board Meeting Minutes, February 1,2001 3. Design Review Board Meeting Minutes, February 15, 2001 4. Letter from Ernie Ware, dated March 30,2001 5. Revised plans submitted March 29,2001 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT April 5, 2001 2 EXHIBIT NO.G p z. Or-:: 2.-- ., 35 Reed Ranch Road Ware, FencelfreUis Chair Smith recused himself from this item The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road The property is an upslope lot and is currently developed with a one-story single-fumily dwelling. Proposed fencing includes a five-foot wire mesh fence along the rear property line and continuing to approximately the midpoint of the north side property line. The wire fence is proposed to be set back a minimum of six inches from the rear property line, with a 50-foot segment of the fence set back 3.5 feet from the rear property line. A six-foot high solid redwood fence is proposed along the front portion of the north side property line, The existing chain link fence that bisects the rear yard is proposed to be removed. Ernest Ware, owner, discussed his project, and noted he desired to provide security for his fumily, deer resistance for his fruit trees and grape vines, and privacy. He offered to move the fence 3 feet back from the rear property line. He acknowledged the neighbors' concerns about views, and added he has helped open neighbors' views and would continue to do so. The fence would be a hidden fence, landscaped and buried into the ground. His fruit trees are usually leafed, which provide additional screening. He should not suffer because the other side of the berm's landscaping has not been maintained. He has helped raise property values of neighbors' homes by increasing their views. In response to questions, he stated the top of the fence, if moved back, would be reduced about 1.5 feet due to the steepness 0 f the hill. The top 0 f berm is the property line 0 f the Tiburon Highlands subdivision. Mary Defenderfer, 31 Reed Ranch Road, noted the berm was leveled by the owner of2 Cecilia Court and stated the see-through fence should be approved. Brice Lensing, 2 Cecilia Court, stated the berm behind his house remains, He hired L.A. Stevens, surveyor, to determine his property lines. Larry Stevens, surveyor, described a topographical survey completed on Mr. Lensing's property, and described pictures taken from the Lensings' living room, kitchen and from different parts of their property. He stated their views would be blocked if the fence is four or six feet high on the property line. Mr. Ware cannot see into Mr. Lensing's patio. The top of the berm is at the property line, The height of the berm is three to four feet above the patio. Ann Solomon, 37 Reed Ranch Road, stated she studied the Town's files, and the berm is as stated by Staff Plants were required to be on top of the berm The shortest of the plants is three feet high, Mr. Ware has designed an almost invisible fence. She noted that he could build a 3,5-foot high fence, any type, on top of the berm without requiring Design Review approval. TIBURON DRB 2/1101 6 EXBJBI'r NO...:=L 'P. l6f' Z-- .. Bill Schulte, 8 Upper Cecilia Way, stated his existing ground-level view will be impacted negatively by " the fence design. He has an existing slot view from his living room, dining room and nook area He has a prime view that has been in existence when the home was purchased in 1992. He participates in crowning a tree owned by Mr. Ware every two years to preserve his view, He added that if the fence were moved, it would preserve 90 percent ofhis view. Diane Sklar Gilbert, 4 Cecilia Court, stated the previous owner and the Wares allow her to trim trees to preserve her views, The current fence does not affect her view. She would hope a compromise with views can be made, and added that allowing the maximum use of the property is desired, Mr. Ware stated the current fence is an eyesore but its deer-resistant. He spoke to neighbors some years ago about moving the fence up. The height of the current cyclone fence is six feet. Boardmernber Stroub noted this is a difficult situation due to the topography. Moving the fence down the hill and the landscaping materials are appreciated; however, aesthetically, the fence will not be attractive, The fence could be lowered or moved down the hill. He noted that the applicant has the right to build a 3.5-foot-high fence without Design Review approval Boardmember Figour concurred this a sensitive issue and added he appreciates what Mr, Ware has done in working with the neighbors. He would like to see a mock-up of the fence, A five-foot fence would not stop deer; however, a six-foot fence would, The Board can address only visual impacts and give the applicant as much use as possible ofhis land, Boardmember Beales noted the 3,5-foot-high fence is on the 116 elevation line which means it would extend above the berm some two feet. He asked that stringed stakes be set 3.5 feet from the property line, and added the wire would be semi-invisible. People can looked past a fence like this, Regarding Mr, Schulte's comer slot view, Mr. Ware should agree to bend back the fence a couple fence posts, He would like to see the fence moved down 3.5 feet with plantings, but would first like to see a mock- up. Boardmember McLaughlin concurred that a mock-up would be helpful go clarifY the berm location and the additional markers installed by the surveyor. Mr. Ware has taken down two major trees to allow views for his neighbors. Privacy issues are of concem He would like to see story poles in a framed arrangement with a section of the wire mesh, on a location agreed upon with the neighbors. He asked that all previous story poles be removed, He also is concerned about the comer, which is a level area, and moving the fence would take away the applicant's use of the property, MIS, Beales/Stroub, 4-0-1 (Smith recused), to continue the application to the February 15,2001 meeting, with the applicant directed to install a mock-up of the proposed fence at the revised location. Chair Smith returned to the meeting. TIBURON DRB 2/1/01 7 "'~TTTn~IT NO 7 . : ..:\....':-lJ.b_~. l' . ~. L o{'Z- E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 35 Reed Ranch Road ;' Ware, Fenceffrellis , Chair Smith recused himself from this item The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road The property is an upslope lot and is currently developed with a one-story single-fumi1y dwelling. The proposed fencing includes a five-foot wire mesh fence along the rear property line and continuing to approximately the midpoint of the north side property line, The wire fence is proposed to be set back a minimum of six inches from the rear property line, with a 50-foot segment of the fence set back 3,5 feet from the rear property line. A six-foot high solid redwood fence is proposed along the front portion of the north side property line. The existing chain link fence that bisects the rear yard is proposed to be removed, The application was reviewed at the February 1, 2001 Design Review Board meeting. At that time, the applicant verbally proposed to revise the location of the requested fence, moving the fence three feet back from the rear property line. Concerns were raised by several of the uphill property owners regarding potential view impacts that would be caused by a fence in this area The Boardmembers indicated it was difficult to properly visualize the potential view impacts for the revised fence location. The Board continued the request to this meeting, with direction to the applicant to install a mockup of the proposed fence at the revised location. Ernest Ware discussed the changes to his project. He learned, from Town documents, that the berm was sheared off two feet by the previous owner of 2 Upper Cecilia Way in 1992. Public records also show that 2 Upper Cecilia Way had to lower their house by two feet and the landscape plan shows there should be a ten-foot landscape area Regarding soil erosion, the Tiburon Highlands Final ElR states there were two significant landslides behind his property, His concern is, if the hill is not properly landscaped, it could erode, which would not be a concern if the previous owner of 2 Upper Cecilia Way had not sheared the berm and had planted the landscaping as approved, Mr. Ware wants the Design Review Board to consider what he has done to improve views for his neighbors. His fence would be see-through so views would not be changed. Bryce Lensing, 2 Cecilia Court, stated the fence would intrude into the view line from his living and dining roorns and kitchen, which will degrade his existing view. Mr. Ware and he bought their views when they bought the property. Mr. Lensing has offered to pay for part of the fence if it were located below the proposed location. Bruce Raabe, 20 Cecilia Court, a Boardmember of the Tiburon Highlands Homeowners Association, stated the fence is a significant change of views as enjoyed by his neighborhood and there is concern it could establish a precedent for changing the policy on fences, His association does not allow property line fences and Mr. Ware's proposed fence is not in the nature of what was expected for ridgeline properties. He asked why Mr. Ware needs the fence, and what l'Yfr. Ware perceives as a need that D.R.B M1Nlfl'ES 21\5/01 2 P'V-TTT'r)-rn "\.T'" 0 .~UL~1JJ2'J.L' l\;!,,). ~ -p, lcf'-{ --; --... --~~- ' , justifies the degradation of life enjoyed by Mr, Lensing. , Ann Solomon, 37 Reed Ranch Road, stated the berm behind 2 Cecilia Way as to be a mitigaJing item, as descnbed in the EIR for the Highlands project. Landslides occurred before Mr. Ware bought his property and the slides were to be repaired, but were not. The Cecilia Way properties are small lots with large houses; thus, no fences are allowed. The three-foot berm was to protect the privacy of the Reed Ranch Road homeowners. There was no permit to remove the.berm behind Mr. Ware's property. The berm should be replaced and the landscaping installed, as required in the Conditions of Approval for 2 Upper Cecilia Way, Diane Sklar Gilbert, 4 Cecilia Court, stated Mr, Ware previously indicated trees would be removed and he would plant grapes. They had agreed to remove two trees which met both their objectives, Regarding placing the fence near the property line, she told Mr. Ware she would be happy to look at a compromise along the ridgeline that would not impact her or the Lensings' views, Responding to Mr, Ware's comments that he wants a fence like you see in Napa, she said that Tiburon is not an agricultura1 area, like Napa, and Napa's fences are not needed in Tiburon. Boardmember McLaughlin asked Ms, Gilbert what views would be impacted, She responded that views would be impacted from her dining room, living room, and rear yard which look out onto the bay. She also has views from her kitchen and fumily room Her views of the fence would be diagonal, Wayne Gilbert, 4 Cecilia Court, stated the current berm and landscaping was the same when they bought their property, and this proposal degrades their properties. Randy Dilena, 11 Upper Cecilia Way, stated he has no view toward the proposed fence, but as a neighbor, is concerned about the loss of property rights, From the Schultes' and Lensings' property, a fence on the berm would take away their views. Also, regarding ?vir, Ware's loss of property, he can fence his property, but locate the fence lower, so it does not ruin the current views of neighbors, Property rights for both neighbors should be preserved, Dick Hoffinan, 14 Cecilia Court, stated he has had a fence on his property for the six years he has lived there. Dick Oliver put his fence three to four feet from Mr. Hoffinan's property line and Mr, Hoffinan can see five inches of the top. Mr. Ware's fence will ruin the beautiful green hill, Mr. Lensing will lose his view and property values will decline. William Schulte, 8 Upper Cecilia Way, circulated photographs that show his loss of view if Mr. Ware's fence were approved. He has a slot view, which impacted already by Mr. Ware's see-through fence and the six-foot tall posts that support the fence. An additional set of five-foot posts would further restrict his fumily's view, Limiting the landscaping on the fence would obstruct his view less. He did not modiJY the berm, as has everyone else. He has asked that applicant slant the landscaping and fence to a greater degree, 24 feet down the hill; this would allow his slot view to survive. He would help pay for the gate to allow applicant's use of the triangular area Mr, Ware said he did not want to look at a fence, so would not comply with Mr. Schulte's request of the longer angling. Mr, Ware's past cooperation with his neighbors was not a one-way street. Neighbors have cooperated with various D.R.B 'lINUTES 2115/01 3 EXHIBIT NO. <6 p. z-~i , changes of Mr, Ware's, including the four-foot posts Mr. Schulte has in his view. Neighbors have , approved of Mr, Ware's modificaJions to the roof; bathroom and windows, Mr, Ware replaced railroad ties with concrete steps and removed a part of a sprinkler system and two plants owned by Mr, Schulte. Mr. Ware's voiced cooperation with the neighbors was a win-win situation for Mr, Ware, Mr. Schulte's property will be impacted by a loss of views and aesthetic qualities if the fence is approved. If Mr. Ware succeeds, Mr, Schulte wiJllook at two sets of posts and two sets offences. The fence should be back further from the property line, to the fur side of the benn He suggested future landscaping on the small triangular area be addressed, and reiterated that Mr. Ware has said he does not want to look at a fence, Mr. Ware clarified that he does not want to damage the Schultes' views; a fence exists there now, He would be happy to place any landscaping on the Schultes' side of the fence, There is not landscaping in the triangle, but he would plant a nice low-lying plant to allow the Schultes' view to continue, He has never said no to any neighbor's requests who live above him. Their views have changed - two 40-foot trees were removed, which created views that were not there before. Boardmember Stroub stated the history of berms and trees is not relevant; the Board looks at the situation as it exists today. Approval of this fence would not set a precedent for Reed Ranch Road or the Highlands, With the amount of resistance of neighbors and his looking at the properties, he observes that most houses have ceremonial rooms looking toward the proposed fence and the fence will impact many people's views, Boardmember Beales concurred and added, at the last meeting, the Board asked that the fence be moved 3.5 feet to reduce the impact, based upon the Mr. Lensing's surveyor's drawings, hoping that this would significantly reduce the view impacts. Instead, the height of the top of the fence was only lowered by about 6 inches, The fence is a serious view obstruction. He had suggested to Mr. Ware that a compromise would be to put the fence fur down the hill so as to not break the horizon view of the neighbors. Boardmember Figour added there is no perfect solution. Mr. Ware can use his property, the view impact is significant to others, and deer-proofing the entire property is not realistic, He felt that the Board should allow a planting at the berm level., at a maximwn height of two feet, and the fence set down the hill so it is 1,5-feet to 2,0-feet above the benn, and this would be a compromise for everyone, Posts could be 12 feet on center to support the fence, which would help a bit. Boardrnember McLaugh1in said this a difficult application; property rights of applicant and neighbors are affected. The berms were designed to protect the privacy of the downhill neighbors, The suggestion for the equivalent of a 3.5-foot-high fence on the property line was an attempt to find a solution. Any owner can build a 3.5-foot-high fence, anywhere, of any type, on his property without Design Review approval, Regarding the rights of subdivisions, the plantings were not to be changed at 2 Upper Cecilia Way. The fence should be allowed but there will be significant impact on the current situation. The berm on the neighbor's property spills over the property line and affects the height of the fence. He felt that this is an unacceptable intrusion of the neighbors' views. DR.B. M[~UTES 2/15/01 4 EX~nBIT NO.~ P. ~ 6F'i Mr. Ware stated he would like a continuance of this application. He could, perhaps, place posts fin1her \ apart, use a narrow steel post and use a wider-pattern mesh. He wants the fence so he has control of his property, to contain pets, for security, and for a future pooL Boardmember Beales stated his concern is that a different fence or posts will not resolve the problern if the location is not changed. Boardmember Straub stated there must be dialogue with the neighbors. Boardmember Figour stated the fence must be located for minimlll impact on the views of uphill neighbors to provide some containment of Mr. Ware's property. Boardmember Mclaughlin stated it is a goal of the Board that neighbors continue dialogue. He would hope the issue is resolved, so when the application is returned, design issues only will need to be reviewed. This is a community that values its views more than anything. It is a difficult choice between property rights and views; however, the Board often leans toward the protection of views. MIS, Bea1eslFigour, passed 4-0-1, Smith recused, to continue this item to March 15,2001. Chair Smith returned to the meeting. D.R.B. MINUTES 2115/01 5 E}~BIBIT NO. g ?, ~ OFt.{ E. OLD BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD 1. 35 REED RANCH ROAD Ware, Fence The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a fence on property located at 35 Reed Ranch Road. The proposed fencing includes a five-foot wire mesh fence along the rear of the property and continuing to approximately the midpoint of the north side property line, A Staff-level applicaJion was submitted for the review of the fence, Due to opposition from neighboring property owners regarding the fence and landscaping proposed along the rear property line, this application was referred to the Design Review Board for review. The proposal was reviewed at the February 1 and February 15,2001 Design Review Board meetings. At the February 1 meeting, the applicant agreed to move the fence proposed along the rear property line to a location three (3) feet from the rear property line. The Boardmembers indicated that it was difficult for concerned neighbors to visualize the potential view impacts of the revised fence location, and continued the request to the February 15 meeting, and directed the applicant to install a mock-up of the proposed fence at the revised location. A mockup ofthe revised fence location was installed and discussed at the February 15, 2001 DRB meeting, At that meeting, several neighbors objected to the revised fence location, stating that the proposed fence would have a negaJive impact on views even ifit were located three feet from the rear property line. There was also discussion about the history of the berm located between 35 Reed Ranch Road and 2 Upper Cecilia Way. After Board discussion, the applicant requested a continuance in order to consider alternatives to the proposed fence design. Ernest Ware, owner and applicant, stated he met with neighbors a few times but did not reach a compromise agreeable to everyone, Changes since the last meeting include: reducing the diameter of the poles; painted materials to match landscaping; spacing increased between the posts; and reducing the size of wire mesh. He said that only one fence post would be seen by the Schultes. He removed two feet of landscaping on his property. Relating to modification of the berm by his neighbors, he believes conditions run with the property and should not be violated. He is entitled to construct a 3.5-foot- high fence or wall per code. He has removed trees for the Schultes' views, He asked the Board to consider his legal rights as to views of his neighbors and how he has helped improve their views, The neighbors would not see his fence if the berm and landscaping conditions had not been violated. Chair McLaugWin asked ifMr, Ware has a copy of the conditions of approval requiring the berm and landscaping on the HigWands properties. Mr. Ware responded that a previous Staff report includes discussion ofthese conditions. TIBURON D.R.B. 4/5101 Tj' ~\i-'~ ~.;.,.; IT\~ I \Tr) c:l ~L.L~_~ .......-'...~_..\...... ..... j "- . 2 .p, t D~ ;; Senior Planner Watrous that clarified most conditions of approval run through the time of the final inspection of a building. If there are subsequent alterations to the property that would not otherwise require permits from the Town, the Town has no enforcement process to require compliance with these previous conditions of approval. Chair McLaughlin asked if the Town could, ifit chose, go back and force compliance of the conditions for the berm. Senior Planner Watrous responded, if the work necessary to remove the berm did not require a permit, the Town would not go back to enforce conditions of approval after the fact. Ann Solomon, 37 Reed Ranch Road, asked Senior Planner WaJrous if conditions in the CC&Rs would run with the land. Senior Planner Watrous that clarified homeowners associations enforce CC&Rs, but the Town does not have the authority to enforce CC&R requirements, John Noerr, president ofTiburon Highlands Association, stated this fence would impact the views of many people in the association. Tiburon protects views of residents, He said thai Mr. Ware is taking away views and his application should be denied, This fence does not offer more protection than his current fence. Few residents have 100 percent use of their property. He asked the Board to not allow views to be impaired, Bryce Lensing, 2 Cecilia Court, stated the berm is still there, and is not shown in Mr, Ware's drawings. The fence obstructs existing views from his kitchen, dining and living rooms. The community supports views. The berms were the same size when he and Mr. Ware bought their properties. He hired a surveyor who stated the berm is equal to a height of four feet. The berm provides view protection to the house below. The fence is in the same location as previously submitted, and the mesh also was not modified. He asked that the application be denied rather than continued, Bill Schulte, 8 Upper Cecilia Way, stated he and Mr. Ware have agreed on the groundcover. He showed photographs of the aesthetics of the fence as it would 100m over his back yard. He asked that the fence be lowered and moved down the hill. If the fence were to be approved, he would like the gate at the south, not the north side. He noted that there is an existing gate, Mr. Ware stated he has copy of the February 1990 Staff report. He said his sketch is to scale. He distributed a photograph that was taken from the northeast looking west, Boardmember Stroub stated he is disappointed there were not more changes made since the last meeting. There would be a serious view impediment with the fence in its proposed location, The Board cannot venture into the past regarding the berm. There is a lot of serious opposition to this fence, If the fence were to be approved, it should be moved down the hill1.5 to 2 feet and tapered back near the Schultes' property. TIBURON D.R.B. 4/5/01 .-.,-, - -~) q Y:"\'" i'~~ -;-""--;r' 1 ' ,. ,'\: ~ ~ I, /.. ._-"~_~:.!.. ". .L"\" . _u_ f. zOf5 3 Boardrnember Beales stated he still feels changing the fence at the proposed location would not work. Mr. Ware has had adequate time to resolve this, He would deny the application. Boardmember Figour stated that, if the fence were moved down the hill twelve feet, it would be even with the existing berm. The applicant has made efforts to make this work, with the height, mesh size, and spacing offence posts, but views would still be harmed. He would hope for a compromise that would move the fence twelve feet down the hill, Chair Mclaughlin staled the Board cannot operate in a vacuum. The benn and landscaping issues were a major part of the dialogue when the development was reviewed; these improvements were designed to provide privacy and because the back yards of the homes were substandard, The Board cannot ignore the history, If the berm were as it should be, the fence would be a non-issue, However, the fence is a problem and the option of 3.5-foot-high fence on the property line would probably be less palatable. Boardmember Beales added that it was likely that the berms were in place at the time the Highlands homes were built, or occupancy permits would not have been granted, He noted that the current property owners bought these homes in their current condition, MIS, BealeslFigour, carried unanimously (4-0) to direct Staff to prepare a resolution denying the application. TIBURON D.R.B. 4/5/01 EXHIBIT NO. cr _ p, ',?cT 3 4 William & Catherine Schulte 8 Upper Cecilia Way Tiburon, CA 94920 " December 18,2000 RL~.L~~~ :":-~:l DEe 1 8 2000 Town of Tiburon Planning & Building Department 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 ?L ...,..-; --~ '!! Dear Sir or Madam: We wish to thank you for the public courtesy notice regarding 35 Reed Ranch Road, your file number 700220. The notice was received on December 16. Please be advised we have strong objections to the Ware's plan to build a fence on our common boundary line and do not believe the plans should be approved without an adequate public hearing by the appropriate board or boards so that opposing parties can be heard. Our primary concem is the impact a fence will have on our existing view of the Bay, Belvedere Island and San Francisco from the ground level of our home. We believe the fence, induding the plants to be grown adjacent to the fence, will obscure the entire currenUy existing view. We understand the Ware's desire for deer protection and privacy, but we do not believe the town should allow the impainnentldestruction of existing views in order to accommodate a homeowner's desire to expand the use of the property. We note the property has a currenUy existing fence, not on the boundary line, at a level below the sight line from our property. We know the existing fence was on the property when the Ware's acquired it It is our understanding that it was the town's requirement that our Tiburon Highlands CC&Rs contain a restriction against fences in our development It seems entirely out of place that a town policy in favor of open space, as reflected in our CC&Rs, could be so easily thwarted by an adjacent neighbor not belonging to the same development Mr. Ware shared with us his rough preliminary plans for further development of his property. We note the intent to eventually install a lap pool on the hill behind their residence, Your notice makes no mention of such a pool. If such a pool is part of the above application, we would like to register our objection based on the noise level caused by pumps and operating equipment Sound from these pumps and motors, many in continuous operation, will travel up hill to our residence. Please send us a copy of your decision on application file number 700220. We need to be infonned as to the basis on any decision prior to considering legal action. We may be reached at our residence telephone 381-5133 and \Mluld be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, !.V."H._' _cy~ ~ William and Catherine Schulte Cc: Howard Robin, President Tiburon Highlands HO Association ,;;.,'''t.H'RT'r I\TO Ib .....,_.____~.._J___ _ .~ , -' . , WAYNE H. GILBERT 4 CECILIA COURT TIBURON, CA 94920 1415) 383-7250 FACSIMILE (415) 383.3001 smail: wgilbert@ltws.com December 18, 2000 Ms. Emi Theriault Planning & Building Department Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, CA 94920 ~"""","7',.~'--. DEe 1 9 2000 Dear Ms. Theriault: I have received the notice regarding the Site Plan & Architectural Review Application that was submitted in connection with the property located at 35 Reed Ranch Rd. 1 wish to state my strong objections to this application. My understanding is that Mr. Ware is proposing putting at fence at his property line, which would seriously and adversely affect the views from my property and would destroy the views of my neighbor at 2 Cecilia Court, Before ruling on Mr. Ware's application, I urge you to visit my neighbor's property at 2 Cecilia Court, look towards the water from his back yard, and imagine the impact of a fence placed at the crest of the hill, which is where I understand the property line to be. I would further urge you to stand in my yard and contemplate the impact of that proposed fence. I am confident that if you do so, you will deny Mr. Ware's application. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this letter. Very truly yours, {JG iN 11 Wayne ::&ilbert cc: Mr. Howard Robin FX?:EBI1' NO. t t Bryce & Carolyn Lensing 2 Cecilia Court Tiburon, CA 94920 December 18, 2000 RECEIVED DEe 1 9 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON Planning & Building Department Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Ref: Public Courtesy Notice Site Plan & Architectural Review Application 35 Reed Ranch Road Applicant/Owner: Ware File Number: 7002200 Dear Sir or Madam: I received a copy of the above referenced Public Courtesy Notice from my next door neighbor yesterday Sunday, December 17th. She received her copy of the notice the prior day. As of now, I have not received a copy of the attached from the Town of Tiburon. I assume it is in the mail somewhere at this writing. The owner/individual filing the above/indicated application has not as yet contacted me regarding the subject this Notice addresses, even though I am the property which a fence would clearly impact the most. I am hereby giving the Town of Tiburon notice that I am protesting this alteration request Any fence would materially alter the view from my back yard as well as my neighbors' back yard. I have not actually been given any speCific indication as to the full scope of the plans for this fence. I have been informed by my neighbors on both sides of my property who have now talked with Mr. Ware, that it is his desire to build a fence along the property line where there is, and has never been a fence. This is not a matter of repair or replacement of an existing structure. The slope of the hill would allow the applicant to build a reasonable fence approximately eight feet down the hill and still not create any view impact. There is an existing chain link fence slightly further down the hill sectioning in his yard. That fence was there when he bought the house several years ago. I took several pictures this morning standing at the back door showing the existing panoramic view. It can clearly be seen that any ridge fencing would have a major negative impact on my property and its existing views. We bought this property specifically because of the views it afforded. An element in our purchase decision was the fact that the Town of Tiburon, in consideration for allowing the original developer to develop the Tiburon Highlands in 1990-91, specifically required the developer to include a covenant of the Tiburon Highlands Association which prohibited the addition of fencing as is contemplated here. The Town's support for open vistas and land was part of the basis of our purchase decision. It would seem to .", . -, ,T"T"" "TO l2-- ;.~.::\.-.:::-.:.L '0.!..' !.' .L\' . r IOf'Z- , be inconsistent with the Town's expressed views, if the Town would now allow this type of construction. I would encourage the Planning Division to come out our property and view the request first hand. By this letter I give any Planning Division personnel the right to enter my property and inspect what I have said during normal daytime hours. Since there is no fencing on my property, an inspector may access the backyard from either side of the house. I would also hope that the consideration of this matter could be shifted away from the Christmas holiday period. We had planned to be in Houston with relatives from December 22"d through January 1st. I am requesting that I be allowed to present a case as is necessary, and it seems that requiring a decision by 12/26/00 as indicated in the letter is to rapid timing in this context If you take the time to inspect the potentially impacted properties, I believe that you will clearly see that the lower property owner could put up a foot fence at a distance of eight feet down the property line, and thereby not create a ridge fence. Doing so would not destroy the views from my neighbors' and my properties. The 2 Cecilia Court property has had views of the Tiburon area, Belvedere, the Bay Bridge and the City of San Francisco from the ground level of the structure since the Town approved the construction plans. I would not want to lose that value to our property. I am requesting to be involved in any hearing on this matter so as to assess what additional remedies I may be required to pursue. Since I will be away from Tiburon from the 22"d until January 1st, I would appreciate your forwarding any notices in regard to this matter to the following address: Bryce R. Lensing 286 Bush Street, #3131 San Francisco, CA 94104 My assistant at work will see that the mail is picked up daily and faxed to me as appropriate. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Regards, (Jcu4ll! ~ . '(;arol~M. Lensing ? Home Phone: 415-380-0781; Pager: 877-631-1229; Work Phone: 415-636-7278 Cc: Howard Robin, President, Tiburon Highlands Home Owners Association Attachments (Photos) Tiburon121800.doc (legal) EXETBI'!' NO, i'l-- p. 'L ()I::L. ....... ." ,/1":"__".. Design Review Board '. Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tibw-on, CA 94920 Reference: File No 700220 RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2001 January 19, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Design Review Board Members, This letter is to let you know why we believe that the site plan application for installing a fence on our property should be approved, We regret that the neighbors uphill from us have expressed their oppositions to our fence plans, however we feel that our site plans should be approved for the following reasons: . We already have voluntarily helped each neighbor above us to dramatically improve their views over the past 5 Y2 years. (Two mature 40+ foot pine trees were removed, two mature 30+ foot trees were severely topped, and three 40+ foot mature pines were dramatically "windowed" to improve our neighbors' views) . We have already made concessions with regard to fence height, landscape design and location to provide as unobtrusive fence as possible with our neighbors, that we believe follows the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. . We should be allowed to use and enjoy our property, which we purchased in large part because of the size of the lot, and the privacy that it provides . We need to provide deer resistance to protect our vegetables, grapes, fruit trees, and general landscaping . Protection of our small children and property, and containment of our pets (2 cats and 1 future dog) . Provide security and safety to keep toddlers away from a lap pool that we plan to build in the future (not part of this design review application) . Provide a fence and landscaping for privacy . Correct the current landscaping problem created by the homes on Cecilia Court, which we believe are too prominent on the ridge when viewed by us, and the rest of the community. The severely trimmed landscaping (to the bare earth, behind our home) does not afford privacy or create a natural appearance that conforms to the intent of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. :<:XBJBIT NO.~ {), l Dr-~ 1 .. From our standpoint, we believe that we have created a site and fence design that will meet our needs, while at the same time minimize the impact on our immediate neighbors. The proposed design will preserve their views, within reason. We also believe that views are important, but so is our privacy and the overall effect of the hillside landscape as viewed from our downslope location; and as well as for the rest of the community. We have taken the following steps to achieve these goals: . We have had a land survey performed in March 1999 to identifY and communicate our property line to our neighbors, . We have discussed our desire to landscape and fence this property with our neighbors over the past 5 Y, years. We have reviewed the design with our neighbors and have made revisions to our plans, with the unfortunate exception for our newest neighbors Bryce and Carolyn Lensing, whom we have not yet met. However the previous owners of 2 Cecilia Court were aware of our landscaping intentions. . We are using a fence design that is nearly invisible when viewed from a reasonable distance. It does not have any horizontal wood bracing to create a visual boundary, . We have stepped the 5 foot see-through fence, 3 Y, feet down the hillside from our property line, at the uppermost part of the ridge, This was done to minimize the intrusion with one view corridor for the Lensing's at 2 Cecilia Court. We voluntarily helped to improve this view corridor previously, when we allowed the severe window pruning of the three large pine trees located on our property. . We hired a landscape designer with over 20 years experience in Marin County to provide a workable solution . We will remove the unsightly galvanized cyclone deer fence that is visible from several points along Reed Ranch Road, as well as from our uphill neighbors' view . We have applied the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines to our fence and landscape solution . We have selected native, drought-resistant, easily pruned, horizontal growing bushes to provide privacy and a more natural appearance for the ridge on our property and will help to mask the vertical fence posts Our intention is to also improve the landscape quality of the hillside to help correct a design and landscape problems created by the developer of the Tiburon Highlands, Our landscaping plan we believe will soften the stark contrast of the ridgeline created by the large homes on the hillside behind us, that that do not have proper grading or landscaping to keep them from standing out on the ridge, We understand our neighbors' desires for immaculate, uninterrupted views, however their desire puts an undue burden on our rights, and for the rest of the community, which view them from the downslope side. We also have the right to our privacy to eliminate neighbors from looking right into our bedroom window, RXHIBIT NO.. l ~ 2 ~. 2 e-'f''-{ , We also believe that our plans will not affect the primary views of our neighbors, Specifically, the Shultes' view which they are concerned about is already separated by a larger similar fence surrounding 33 Reed Ranch Road, and our new fence will have little, if any, impact on their view, They have already planted landscaping and bamboo plants in this area. Their primary views are not affected at all. The fence will have little impact on the Gilbert's side view to our property; in fact the farthest corner of their property is approximately 12 feet away from the top corner of our property (per submitted survey). We believe there will be minimal impact on their primary view, if at alL They have expressed their desire to "see nothing at all from below", but we believe that request is unreasonable and inaccurate, Especially in light of the rnct that we allowed voluntary removal of two large 40+ foot pine trees that dramatically improved the views for them at this location, and for the owners of2 Cecilia Court! From our neighbors' perspectives, our new landscaping will help to screen our root: bedroom interior, skylights, chimney, patio barbecue, and dining room when viewed from their back yards, upper story windows, and balcony. Our neighbors already have landscaped trees and bushes planted above the ridgeline on their own properties. Their request to locate the fence 8 feet from our property line we believe is not reasonable, That would reduce the size of our usable property by over 1000 square feet, would dramatically reduce our ability to grow fruit and grapes, severely limit the use and control of our property, and will not address at all our need to create privacy, Moving the fence 8 feet onto our property will also hinder our future plans for a lap pool with privacy landscaping and decks, We have already agreed to move the fence 3 Yz feet from our property line in an area that we believe will afford maintained views for the Bryce's at 2 Cecilia Court. We will be happy to maintain lower pruned landscaping in the areas where the fence is moved onto our property per Section View B-B. The request for 8 feet is too excessive. We are also not interested in selling that portion of our property, Our property (Zone R-02) is zoned to allow fences, and is in fact one reason why we purchased our home. Our neighbors must be aware of our ability to have fences, since there are numerous fences like the one we are proposing, adjacent to us and in plain view from each of their properties (33 and 39 Reed Ranch Road), The CC&Rs for the Tiburon Highlands (Zone RPD) will not allow fences for their development (Town or Tiburon Resolution 2535, Section 2, #12), due in part to the higher lot densities created by larger homes on smaller lot. However that zoning restriction does not apply to our development in Zone R-02, For example, a taller 6 foot fence was approved and installed in 1996 by our next door neighbor at 33 Reed Ranch road. There are already mature trees and landscape on our property. The section A-A of our plan is shown to show the relationship of the existing fruit trees and landscaping that already exists in one section of the hillside property. I have included additional section views B-B and C-C to show our intention for the landscaping that would minimize the impact of our new landscaping from our neighbors' views, EX.HIBIT NO. {3 ~. '~oF'f 3 We understand the strong emotion expressed by our neighbors, and we regret that they have come to view the land behind our home as a "virtual greenbelt" separating them from our property, However, we have the right to use our property in a responsible way. We believe that we have worked in good fuith to creaJe a reasonable design solution that meets the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, and provides reasonable compromises that will not dramatically affect their rightful primary views. We hope that the Design Review Board will agree and approve our site design as submitted, and ultimately, we hope that our neighbors will come to accept and understand that we want to improve our landscaped property and home value as well as theirs, .. Please see the included photos, section views, and comments, and feel free to visit our property aJ any time, There are currently two unlocked gates for easy access. Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7 Photo 8 Reference example of a similar 7 foot tall "see through" mesh fence taken in the town of St Helena, California View from inside our bedroom to the balcony and windows of#2 Cecilia Court Ridge line view showing existing landscaped bushes on our property and on #2 Cecilia Court View of#4 Cecilia Court's Windows from our dining room table View of looming and stark contrast of#4 Cecilia Court home on ridge line as viewed by community from Reed Ranch Road View oflooming and stark contrast of#2 and #4 Cecilia Court homes on ridge line as viewed by community from Trestle Glen area of Tiburon Boulevard Picture of two 40+ foot trees prior to voluntary requested removal, taken in December 1995 that dramatically improved views for #2 and #4 Cecilia Court, Picture of 40+ foot tree prior to voluntary requested removal taken from corner or property of#4 Cecilia Court Section A-A Shows relationship of existing fruit trees and bushes with fence Section B-B Design of trimmed landscape on ridge and fence offset to preserve view for #2 Cecilia Court (In line with windowed pine trees) Section C-C Design of landscaping and fence showing minimized intrusion of corner section of fence into #4 Cecilia Court view area :;=:~~~J~ Carolyn and Ernie Ware 707.226.9600 ext, 239 415.383.1783 Day/Work EveningsIHome "VTP"""T'r N'O 13 .'~L.":L,:.L'\~_ . 1 ".... ., 4 P l{ oFL{ January 23, 2001 RE: Proposed fence at 35 Reed Ranch Road . Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2001 Dear Design Review Board, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TISURON My property abuts the subject property and the properties at 2, 4, and 6 Cecilia Court. The Wares have worked with the neighborhood on their ongoing plans for improving their property and they have done their uImost to accommodate every concern. They have agreed to move their fence further onto their property, They have allowed significant denuding of their property. They have designed as invisible a fence as possible, eliminating even a horizontal top bar. Further concessions should not be required of the Wares. I support the current proposal. If the Wares were to move the fence 8 feet onto their property, as has been suggested, they would effectively be denied the use of 10% of their land. If anyone should be injured on the unfenced portion, the Wares would still be liable. The Wares have agreed to move the fence 35 feet downhilL They wish a fence to allow them to utilize and improve their property, not in order to relinquish it as a buffer. The Wares have lowered the height of their fence to five feet, in an effort to make it less visible. Every year trees on the Reed Ranch properties are pruned to a flat horizon to afford a view to residences above. The Wares have allowed windowing and removal of several mature trees. If the view is really at the proposed fence height, five feet and lUlder, why has this been necessary? Mr. Ware expends considerable effort tending his grapevines, fruit trees and plantings, lowering the fence any further would not deter any deer from the regular destruction they cause. To lower the fence thwarts its purpose. It is easy to understand restricting fences in Tiburon Highlands as the views are across the neighboring properties within that development. Certainly Tiburon neighborhoods are not bolUld by the restrictions of planned developments in a "domino effect". Higher fences already exist along the property line adjoining The Reedlands and Tiburon Highlands. There is no merit to the contention that The Reedlands should adhere to the CC&Rs of Tiburon Highlands. The Wares have gone to great lengths to maintain the views of the neighbors above. The Wares have lowered, moved and designed their fence to the neighbor's advantage. The Wares are seeking to improve their property to the benefit of all. They wish a fence for privacy, to maintain and to enjoy the use of their property. They have been considerate and compromising. The Wares should be given approval for the fence as proposed. ~~~ /~~-_ 16,,/ ~ Ann Laurie Solomon D,.-.IL,TT'-Im "'TO 14 ,.,. .,,-., -t.:"\. ._......_L_..:...'._____ .'_ _I.. j.. . 37 REED RA:--!CH ROAD TlBCRON, C!\LIFOR"iIA 94920 , SUZANNA & STONE COXHEAD 34 REED RANCH ROAD TmURON, CA. 94920 415-388-3144 January 23, 2001 RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2001 Members of the Board Tiburon Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNING nCPAPTMENT TOWN Ur L:5IJRON Re: Proposed fence at 35 Reed Ranch Road Dear Boardmembers, We have received a Courtesy Notice of your meeting on February 1st. We live across the street from the property at 35 Reed Ranch Road owned by Carolyn and Ernest Ware, They are proposing a fence with landscaping in the rear upslope of their property. The Wares are thoughtful and considerate of their neighbors, Reasonable use of their property and reasonable privacy protection is appropriate and is important to them, They purchased their property with the intent to enjoy the land area that is available with the R- 02 zoning. They had expectations that they could fully enjoy the outside living area and their privacy. Please take into consideration the fact that the Wares have already been very considerate of the uphill property owners and have allowed trimming or removal of at least seven trees so that their neighbors' views would be enhanced. This neighborly consent is in stark contrast to another Reed Ranch Road property owner (39 Reed Ranch Road) who has resisted efforts by his uphill adjoining neighbors to gain pennission to trim view- obstructing trees, The Wares should not be pena1ized for their neighborliness, The Wares had expectations that they could plant grapes, fruit trees, shrubs and flowers and could fully enjoy them The intrusion by the deer population is a reality in our neighborhood and the proposal by the Wares to properly protect their plantings is reasonable. Due to the steep slope of the property it becomes necessary to properly position the fence on their property so that it is effective in preventing the deer from coming in and effective in preventing children from injuring themselves. Ernie and Carolyn Ware have been continuously working on their property to make it more attractive and more livable for their growing family. They have always been considerate of their neighbors. Please view favorably the reasonableness of their proposal. Sincerely, ~~'t-2.~~(.. L Stone and Suzy Coxhead ,O)CIIBIT NO.. l5 , !\TE M"L I ~s- , Design Review Board Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 January 25,2001 Reference: File No. 700220 Dear Design Review Board Members: With this letter we provide our strong support for the planned fence installation at 35 Reed Ranch Road. Our support is based on: 1. the ~on.intrusive nature of the proposed fence. The Ware's have gone to great expense and have spent considerable time designing a fence that will result in almost no impact on anyone's view. l! would take a considerable amount of effort and concentration to even see the meshed wire fencing from the homes of the oarties in Question. We have observed the potential view impact from the Ware's property line in regards to 8 Upper Cecilia Way, 2 Cecilia Court and 4 Cecilia Court. We fmd the comments of the owners at 8 Upper Cecilia and 4 Cecilia Court to have little ifno relevance. While it is possible that the owners of 2 Cecilia Court might have some minor negative view effect from the fence, we would like to think that they would respect the Ware's concern for the safety of their children. 2. the Ware's have compromised the value of their property significantly, by moving the fence three and one-halffeet down the hill' This has a tremendous effect on the use of their total property. We applaud the Ware's consideration of their neighbors above in this regard. 3. the Ware's have been very cooperative with the homeowners in question. They have window-paned trees on their property which have nearly destroyed the natural beauty of the trees in an effort to be supportive of their neighbors. 4. our understanding is that the Tiburon Highland properties were to be graded in a maIUler to protect the pre-existing homes below. We wonder if the current grade is as required. In brief, we fmd the comments provided by the property owners in Tiburon Highland to have little or no merit We are friends with the Schulte's at 8 Upper Cecilia and can only believe that there must be some misunderstanding. We hope that you will approve the Ware's plans as proposed. Sincerely, J~~ynFrenCh 33 Reed Ranch Road Tiburon, CA 94920 RECE!VED JAN 2 6 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON EX-HIEIT NO. !~ LATE MAIL , r::s . .' Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, Ca. 94920 RECE~VED JAN 2 9 2001 January 26. 2001 PLANNING DEPft.RTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Design Review Board Members: My neighbor ,Ernie Ware, has requested permission to erect a fence at the edge of his property and I wish 10 comment on his plans and indicate my approvaL First I want 10 say that Mr. Ware has rejuvenated his yard and made many attractive and dramatic changes 10 the interior. The fonner owner had opled to withhold watering the yard because of environmental reasons and Mr. Ware has not only planted grass and flowers but also has started a small grape orchard. My next door neighbor at 33 Reed Ranch Rd. and I share a wooden fence which helps us to be good neighbors. Hr has two dogs and I have one. Also I share a wooden fence with my back yard neighbors. This was a greall asset when I was bringing up 3 active sons behind these two fences. Of course I believe thai Mr, Ware has every righl to erect a see through fence at the edge of his property to protect his garden from deer. ehsure safely for his children and future plans for dog ownership. II is noted that some Highlands neighbors have written about the original sighlline and height of the fence with the result in Mr. Ware's lowering the heighl of the fence and placing it lower on the hill behind their homes. The fence is a see through fence and to my way of thinking would not cause the up the hill neighbors to lose any of their views. II is further noted that the Bern construcled along the edge of the Highlands properties above 33 and 35 Reed Ranch Road. approved bv lhe Town of Tiburon. is still in place behind 8 Upper Cecelia but not behind the house next door. This benn was eliminated withoul the approval of the then owner of 35 Reed Rnnch Road, As staled in lhe Draft dated 7-6-88 on page 5 slales the berm was meant to "minimize the view impact of the development and maximize the privacy, peace and tranquility of lhe existing neighborhood"> Sincerelv. Mn~~ ~q~~ 3 I Reed Ranch Rd. Tiburon. Ca. 94920 Resident since Feb. 1966 EXBIHITNO. l7 ~ATEMAIL # /;;6 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 [FmLr~ @@~W RECEIVED FEB - 1 2001 . February 1,2001 Reference: File No 700220 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Design Review Board Members, This letter is to communicate our most recent design changes that we have made, and explain clarifications of our plans based upon discussion with our neighbors and Design Review Board Members, We hope this will resolve the primary objections of our neighbors, provide reasonable compromises, and allow Design Review Board Member approval. Additional Design Revisions per attached revised drawing: . We relocated the entire fence 3 V, feet down slope from our property line . We relocated the fence behind the Schulte's home at 8 Upper Cecilia Way to eliminate the need for them to remove the landscaping that has been planted by them on our property . We eliminated all landscaping on all of our neighbors' side of the see-through fence and agree to allow them to landscape up to the fence as they deem fit . We agree to develop mutually agreed upon maximum landscape heights of proposed new landscaping along our side of the see-through fence . We changed the vegetation variety in view corridor locations to a more compact lower height (Escallonia Matsuda Compact - 3 feet maximum) Clarification of Design Review considerations: . The storypole locations set up by the surveyors for 2 Cecilia Court are NOT even closely representative of our fence proposal. Our see-through fence design now is entirely 3 y, feet lower off of the ridgeline / property line, and is 5 feet tall (not 4 or 6 feet tall). The surveyor's storypoles also extend 12 feet beyond the specified fence design location to the Gilbert's property on 4 Cecilia Court. . Recent photographs in December and January do not reflect the true available views because the foliage of our fruit trees is off, and the trees are now dormant. (November through March) Sincerely and hopefully most rjnablY submitted, C~~Wcvv-- Lll/il~ II\LLll Carolyn and"Ernie Ware It \.,.\Vv ~ Day/Work Evenings/Home 707.226.9600 ext. 239 415.383.1783 Ti:XI-iIBIT NO. \<6 Attachment - Plan and Section view dated 2/1 /0 1 P'IWz... I i l , I, ~\ ~ , ~ - 1 'V ~ ~ 2- I ~ 0 ~ .~ ~ I z c.., ~ ~~ 1 ~ I \:;.\ to . (' ~ l ........ ", '-:.L y i=l c{].~ ~01-- lj ,~ '- ~ -t\.l 3~ <'-5 i \.\..\ ~ to ,"'is 't j > -<. .~ (:J ~')- \ 6 L r C::. Ji ::::> <.-.c..j -...., I l- , - , u "> J l.U~ I V] ..-.. ;;I (v/"7' ./.Lc}!:/ 0 dJ :c \ .---"--...-....... (1:< '------~~ - ~ \ ~o \ _I. \ WI \ ~ \ <: , tl \ L \. " '\ \ \ [-=,~=:~:~:...:::.:- -: .,,- 10 ~ "1. ~ ct~ -::> I 1ilP,~ t:Olli~ o \5 ~ r-<:t:~ -' Sent By: 415 3B1 6689; Feb,1',01 2:24PM; Page 1/1 .. Tiburon Highlands Homeowner's Association 20 CuRia C,,"rl Tlburon. CA 94920 Ta: 415-381.9467 Fax: 415-389-6689 LATE MAIL # E~ Fchmary 10.2001 RECEIVED FE8 1 2 2001 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon J 505 Tiburon l3<1ulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TlBURON Dear &Jill'll Members: Oil behalf ofthc forty-one homeowne~ of the Tiburon HiiPllands Homeowner's Association, J wish to (umllilly objeCllo the proposed rclOCalion oran e.'(jstmg fence at 35 Reed Ranch Road. As YOll know. property line fences are not pennitted in the Highlands to protect the views of <ill neighbors and to reduce the impact of the crose proximity of each home. Clearly, the proposed relocation drl\mltically impacts the longstanding distant views of three of our members. ApprovilOg the application as proposed would dramatically obstruct the views these homes have enjoyed lor ycars. I believe tlli:; proposal also conflicts with the imem of the Town's existing view ordillanet:. According tn the ordinance, the purpose is to protect the "right of person.~ to preserve views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied a property from unreasonable nh!ltruction..... '1~10ugh this ordinance is directed allandscape, clearly the relocation orthis fence would be far more damaging. II is my undcrstanJing, the need for the fence arises due 10 the proposed swinuning pool. Clearly, a swimming pool fence does not need to be located on the property line. Furthermore, there is ample "pportunity to relocate the fence closer to the property line without oh.o<tructing the 'views of our members. !n .;oosideration of the ~t of the proposal and the opportwlity lor a sati'lfu.ctory compromise, we strollgiy ohJect to the propo~ and hope the Design Review Bolltd rejects the proposed relocation, Mo 51 sincerelv, ~ f1m.;" 1. Raabe Roard Member EX~~-IIBIT NO.1:L FEB-13-01 06:18 PM SIROTA 612253214 p.el .. ." LATE MAIL , ~ " February 12, 2001 RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2001 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. TibUron, CA 94920 PLANNING n~PARTMENT TOWN U, I ,oUf10N Dear Sir or Madam: Reference: Applicant/Owner: Ware File Number 700220 As a ridgeline property owner in the Tiburon Highlands neighborhood, I strongly object to the proposed fence. Ifallowed to be built three feet down from the property line. this fence would be situate in the primc views of the property o",ners at 8 Uppcr Cecilia Way and 2 Cecilia Court, both located in the Tiburon IIighlands subdivision directly abutting the 35 Reed Ranch property. The Town guidelines clearly respect the maintenance ofvicws of the SM Francisco ~k.ylille and the Bay. Work~ within these guidelines, il would seem a reasonable solution to locate the fence down the hill far enough so that it does not extend int" existing views. By doing so, the views of other ridge line properties within the Tiburon Highlands neighborhood will be protecl~-d 1Tom similar proposals that may surface from downhill neighbors who may act without regard to existing views, Your dccision on this i~~ue will set a precedent Town-wide. I urge you to act in accordance with the Town of Tiburon view guidelines, and preserve our views. S_crc1y yours, ~~ Ct.~W. /(, '-P~"'.T'T')TT "TO -ZO --,.:_~"o'L:::'LbJ....L~ . FQb-13-0l 03:5lP tATE MAIL,'J:-~ P.Ol . February 13,2001 RECEWED Town ofTiburon Planning and Building Dept. 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tibumn, Ca 94920 FEB 1 3 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF T1BURDN Ref.: File No. 700220/Ware proposed fenee Ladies and Genllemen: I am writing to voiee my objection to thl! ahove referenced fence. If allowed to ':Ie buill toward the top of property abutting our Tiburcm Ilighlands neighbors at 2 Cecilia Court and 8 Upper Cecilia Way, it would adversely impact their existing views of San Francisct,l and Wal~T. r implore you to eome up with a reasonahle solution that would preserve prime views while allowing a tence thnt would ]lot intrude these views. If this fence is all(lwed as propo.Jsed, threc feel down from the property line. which would locate it right in prime views. it would set a terrihle precedent that would threaten the views of other ridgeline neighbors In the Tiburon Highlands subdivision. Tiburon is knOwnlhe world-<lvcr for its views. Our Town Guidelines acknowledge the importance of preserving lUld maintaining them. J l10pc this Board will continue to tlphold thl! Town's vi<!w guidc1inl!s, Sinccrl!lvj , '. ~'/ / - .~t~L.{M<'(/___~ / I.orin Schneider 3 Cecilia Courl Tiburon, Ca 94920 EXHIBIT NO. Z I Feb 14 01 12: 581" Mr. Br::lce Lensing: 415-636-7085 1".1 LATE n1AIL , ~~ , BRYCE RANDALL LENSING 2 Cecilia Court Tiburon, CA 94920 February 14, 2001 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEtVED FEB 1 4 2001 Ref: Site Plan & Architectural Review Application 35 Reed Ranch Road; File # 700220 Applicanl/Owner: Ware PLANNING O!,PARTMENT TOWN OF TIBuRON Dear Board Members: I attended the last Design Review Board Meeting on February 1". I am the most negatively impacted party by the above reques: since the properties directly abut. I have Md some time to reflect on the process and discussion that took place at that Design Review meeting. I am troubled that the meeting seemed to focus on issues that are peripheral to the guiding principals and ordnance of the Town of Tiburon, and they are: 1. ExistinQ Views. My property (2 Cecilia Court) from the point of purchase (August 17, 2000) and occupancy has unobstructed views from the primary living areas (kitchen, living room, and dining room on Ire ground floor) which are most often used by the occupants. Those views are medium and long range in nature: the Bay Bridge. the Tiburon Peninsula and Belvedere, and the city of San Francisco inclusive of clearly identifiable landmarks. The views meet the definition of protected views in the Town's view ordnance. 2. Relocation of an ExistinQ Fence. The fence in question is a relocation of an existing fence. The existing fence was in place when both myself and Mr. Ware ourchased and occupied our properties while recognizing the time difference in the purchase of the properties in question. From my understanding the fence has been there for at least 10 years. the length of time where the Tiburon Highlands development was constructed. The existng fence is currently 22 to 24 feet downhill from the property line and does not in any way obstruct the view from my property. The movement of this fence from its current location would be acceptable ~ it was not moved directly into the view line from my property. Tre proposed fence would have 4x4 posts set every six feet with a tight wire mesh that overlaps views of the Bay Bridge and the City of San Francisco. This is clearly a degradation of the existing view from the primary living areas of my property. I offered Mr. Ware to pay for the fence if his request to the Town was such that it not deteriorate or encroacl1 on existing views. My offer was such that given the slope of the hill that Tl:XfHBIT 1'.TO. Zz...- 1>. ICFZ-- Feb 14 01 12: 58p Mr. Br~ce Len5in~ 415-636-7085 p.2 " moving the fence approximately half way between its existing location and the crest of the hill would keep the view unobstructed. I believe that my request to keep the relocated fence below the view line in the hill is reasonable and consistent with the Town's view ordnance and the Design Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. 3. Alternative Fence. A point was made at the meeting last week that Mr. Ware could, should he wish, obtain a permit without Design Review's approval for a 3% foot solid fence along the property line. While it is correct that the permit could be granted, such an action would clearly be a view obstruction of existing views from the pnmary living areas of my property. It would therefore be an absolute violation of the Town of Tlburon's view ordnance. I would encourage the Board Members to consuit with the Town's Attorney as to the consequences of the decision to construct such an obstruction of views regardless of the potential permit issues. Using that concept as a standard to allow the fence to be relocated as requested in seems to be an unreasonable standard. When the Design Review's write up (dated February 9"', 2001) on the proposal came out, the written proposal had migrated from the Board discussion, i.e. that the fence might be considered if it was no higher than 3% feet above the edge of the property. The report came out that the fence would be considered if it was 3 feet from the property line. 4. Clear Differential View Imoact. The request to move the fence would have a clear differential impact on my property's views as compared to the requestor's property. Granting such a request is clearly not equitable, nor consistent with the Town's view ordnance or Guidelines for Hillside Dwellings. I can understand why real estate developers may not want to follow the Town's existing and past practice and contest them, but I cannot understand why the Design Review Board or the Town Counsel would feel that way and support such an action. I am requesting that the Design Review Board not approve a fence, which would clearly have a view impact, unless such an approval requires the fence to remain below the view line from the primary living areas on the impacted properties. Your re-consideration of this matter is appreciated. TiburonO;1301.doc (legal file) "1)' "l\t"": -;-Ti""" Tm ...... <T,O '2L -,-,-,':L~.lD.i L 1'1 . f zor'Z.- Har' 30 01 10: 22a Mr. Br~ce Lensing 415-636-7085 p.4 ~l-D-.,~1'A." To: ~ll and Catherine Schulte vtarolyn and Bryce Lensing Diane and Wayne Gilbert 8 Upper Cecilia Way 2 Cecilia Court 4 Cecilia Court 3/30101 Dear Neighbors; We have made ooditionaJ c!Ja,.,ges to our landscape plans and fence design that we hope you will approve. The changes to the design took longer than we e"--pected because our landscape designer was on vacation, and did not return until last week. Since the last design revision, we have mOOe the following changes: l. Added a gate for belter future access and lIlah,tenance 2. Narrower fence posts and wider spacing 3. Increased the wire mesh gap size We would like to ask you to please review the latest plan changes next Saturday 3i31 at 9:30."u'l,! at the lence location on our propeny. Our hope is that we can have a neighbor- approved solution before we present this again to the Design Review Board on AprilSth. IfSarurday mornbg is not:onvenient, please let me know and we will make other arra'1gements. I can be reached at (415) 383-1783 during the evening, and (707) 226- 9600 eXl. 239 during the day. Om goal has always been to create a fence on our property that will have as minirr.al impact as pos~ible for yeu. However, if we cannot come to a reasonable approved compromise on our fence desig.'l, we wiJ have 11D other choke but to pursue actions te reinstate the berms, landscaping, or other means to protect eur privacy and property rights that were affected by the alterations made on your properties. r~'Y',~ I {t ,,-,--lqL~ E~T"e Wa::e cc: Tiburon Design Review Board E:'CHIBI'1' J>TO. 05 Mar 30 at 10: 22a Mr. Br~ce Lensing 415-636-7085 p.2 \ BRYCE RANDALL LENSING 2 Cecilia Court Tiburon, CA 94920 March 30, 2001 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 15051iburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Ref: Site Pian & Architectural Review Application 35 Reed Ranch Road: File # 700220 Applicant/Owner: Ware Dear Board Members; I have attached two letters. The first of which is a letter dated March 30th from Ernie Ware which I found at my house yesterday evening when I got home from work. It is labeled as "attachment A". The second is the response I wrote to Ernie, which I labeled as "attachment B". Since I arrived home about 10:30 p.m. last night we have not as yet spoken on the matter in letter A I needed to be at work this morning at 6:30 am for a 7:00 am meeting. As I indicated in my letter to Ernie, I have a business trip which requires me te fly out today at 3:00 p.m. which I cannot change on a day's notice. I will net return until late Tuesday night. I am trying to arrange to review the modified plans with Ernie on Wednesday night before the next meeting. However, his verbal sketch of the modifications do not give me comfort that the modifications followed the guidance given by the Review Board at the last meeting on February 15;h. I will preserve that judgement until I have a chance to review the actual plans. I had hoped that my offer to assist financially with the building of the fence in conjunction with Soards thoughts would have produced an approach by Ernie Ware that would both preserve views and yet allow for the new fenCe to be built in a less obstructive way along the lines of the sug~estions cf Boardmember Straub or Boardmember Figour in the February 15 minutes. While I have not seen the revised plans, the language in the letter does not indicate such. I would hope that we will reach dosure along the lines articulated in the minutes of February 15'" Design Review meeting. I also hope that this does not drag on to another hearing for both the Board and because I have re-arranged several required business trips to ensure that I was available for the Design Review meetings '--~T~TT_-T - TO 2lf ""'_ \-1 . 'l ,\ , 'j,." '::' -<" ~ ,~, _.L~_....:_._~'.._ _ 1'1 . f.t~~ Har- 30 01 10: 22a Mr. Br~ce Lensin~ 415-636-7085 p.3 .. I am willing to continue discussions with Ernie Ware, but I would expect and hope that they would follow the guidance and suggestions of the Board on February 1~ . Your continued consideration is appreciated and I hope we can reach closure at the next meeting scheduled now for April St1l in a manner which accommodates both view preservation and the fence to be buill. Sincerely, (Jh~ ~gR. lensing 0 Attachments: Letter labeled "A" Letter labeled'S" ",XE-IIBIT NO. 24: ~.. ZOF~ Mar 30 01 10: 22a Mr. Br~ce Lensing 415-636-7085 p.5 l\~0-.~ · 1;," ~ BRYCE RANDAL.L LENSING 2 Cecilia Court Tiburon. CA 94920 March 30, 2001 Mr. Ernie Ware 35 Reed Ranch Road Tiburon, CA 94920 Ref: Design Review Modifications for Proposed Fence and Plantings at 35 Reed Ranch Road, Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Ernie: I got home from work last evening and found the tetter dated March 30, 2001, which was addressed to the neighbors and myself. Unfortunately, it was a bit too late to reasonably call to speak with you last night. I am therefore leaving this letter for you. I will give you a call from work later this morning March 30th. I appreciate your offer to review the modifications to the original plan which you submitted to the Tiburon Design Review Board for the requested fence at 35 Reed Ranch Road. Unfortunately, I am required to fly out of town at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon Friday, March 30th, for a business trip to New York on behalf of my employer. The business trip and flights have been scheduled for some time. A change with one day's notice IS not possible. I am hi a series of meetings in New York until late Tuesday afternoon Apri! the 3'd. I will be flying back that night. I will be at the house after 10 p.m. that night. The New York business irip involves a number of different people. several of whom are also coming from out of state. I cannot reschedule this meeting at this late date, I will be available to go over your revised plan with you the next night, Wednesday the 4lt1 of April. I would be pleased to do so after 6:30 p.m. and before 9:00 p.m. should that be satisfactory with you. That will only provide one day before the Tiburon Design Review Board meeting, but I guess that cannot be helped. The New York trip had originally been scheduled two weeks ago during the period, which was previously agreed to by the Tiburon Design Review Board to hear the matter of the fence. I was able to change the meeting With ten days notice. That last date was Thursday. March 15th, PV1.TTT"'T' n, TO /7 Y c' " 'I .....f \'~ V .......J./ _~_' _ --'-. . .-'_~~. _ ' _'- 1" . r- ~~S- Mar 30 01 10: 23a Mr~ Br~ce Lensing 415-636-7085 p.6 ~ I encourage you to proceed with the meeting on Saturday, March 31" with the '. Schulte's and the Gilbert's without me if they are able to meet the time on Saturday that you offered in your letter of the 30th. I wish that my neig hbors and I had more time to thoughtfully review and discuss your modifications than now appears to be the case, but I would like to reach closure on this issue with Design Review, I do not as yet have copies of the revised plans, which you will be filing with the Design Review Board on Friday, March 30th, covering your modifications. I must admit that am a little confused. Your written comments concerning the proposed modifications do not seem to address the requirements of the last Review Board meeting. At that meeting, I believe that the consensus of the Board was that that they would either deny the request, or give you a month to modify the original plan by moving the fence, to quote from the Board minutes of 2/15/01 : . .so as to not break the horizon view of the neighbors," (page 4, paragraph 4, sentence 4), or even . "and the fence set down the hill so it is 1.5 feet to 2 feet above the berm, and that this would be a compromise for everyone." (page 4, paragraph 5, sentence 3.) The verbal material you provided does not seem to indicate that revisions were made to the original plan that meet those requirements. I am not clear as to exactly what modifications you are contemplating. I will preserve judgement until I see the modified plans for myself. I would point out that one Design Review Board member stated that "a different fence or posts will not resolve the problem /1 the location is not changed." (page 5, paragraph 2), It does not appear from your March 30th letter that a change of location for the fence is contemplated by the modified plan, just different fence posts and fencing material. Your letter added a comment regarding "reinstate the benT/S, landscaping, or other means to protect our privacy and property rights that were affected but the alterations made on your properties." I would remind you that both you and I bought our respective properties with the berms exactly 3S they are today. The minutes from the meeting even quoted one of the Design Review members as saying "the history of berms and trees is not relevant; the Board looks at the situation as it exists today" (page 4, paragraph 3, sentence 1), I point to the material that you yourself provided the Design Review Board. In a letter dated July 23, 1992 from Dan Catron, Associate Planner for the Town of Tiburon, in his fourth paragraph of that letter responding to the then owner of the property, which you now own today, he stated: "I have reviewed the records for the Highlands subdivision and "-'C~7rC~-'T' i\T...... z-c( -'~~: }..~',--~..;. i_~. J_ \ .\. >'J !..} . p, L{ cf~ "",,, Mar- 30 01 10: 23a Mr. Br~ce Lensin~ 415-636-7085 p.7 ~ the design review records for 2 Cecilia Court I could not find any specific requirements for the berm in the records for the Highlands subdivision. The design review records for 2 Cecilia Court indicate only a 3 foot berm. which is what presently exists." I encourage you to review the survey work, which was complete<:! by L.A. Stevens Associates, independent surveyor. The survey was provided to both yourself and the Design Review Board at a prior meeting, That survey clearly shows that the berm is higher than three feet on each side of the property and essentially above three feet across substantially all of the property as measured from the ground living floor of 2 Cecilia Court, No change has been made to the berm since either you or I purchased the property and therefore it should not an issue of rroment for either of us, nor for the Design Review Board. I will make myself available to review the modified plans as soon as I return from New York. If this is acceptable to you, please call and confirm that with my assistant at work with the desired time on Wednesday the 3rd. Her name is Emma Fang (415) 636-2152. Should you prefer to leave a message on my home answering machine the nurrber is (415) 380-0781. However. I would think that confirming the time with Emma would be preferable since it will eliminate any confusion on the exact time. Sincerely, Cc: Tiburon Design Review Board Bill and Catherine Schulte Diane & Wayne Gilbert President - Tiburon Highlands Homeowners Association EX}HBIT NO.~ f. '5 Dr~ .. 0-1/01,01 SU, 09;33 EU 1 -115 288 6288 B P 1I IgJ001 LATE MAIL 1# E I ~ Julie S, Jacobs 7 Upper Cecilia Way Tiburon, CA 94920 March 30, 200 I Design Review Board Town ofTiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon. CA 94920 RECEIVED APR - 2 2001 PLMi,\"UG CEPART,\E TOWN OF TlSURO~J NT Gentlemen: RE: File No, 700220/Ware proposed fence I have been a resident of the Tiburon Highlands subdivision since 1996. During previous property ownership, we have found ourselves in a situation similar to Mr. Ware's. It is because of this experience that we understand the discomfort to the parties involved, We know that this is not an easy situation, especially for the decision makers, In our case. a compromise was arrived at that was attractive to all parties; howeve:, it involved our giving up the use of part of our yard, which was flat and entirely usable. Our neighbors lost none of their view when our fence was COD5tructed, It was well worth the sacrifice, when all was said and done, to have peace preserved among neighbors. It is our hope that in deciding the matter before you, you "ill take into consideration the following factors, Firstly, there was no fence visible on the ridgeline when all of the parties purchased their properties. The Tiburon Highlands re~idellts had every reason 10 believe that their first floor views from their ceremonial rooms - living and dining areas - would remain unobstructed. Jv!.r. Ware had every reason to believe that the existing fence on his very steeply down-sloped. and therefore unusable hillside, would stay put. It is unreasonable to ask the Tiburon Highlands o.....ners to sacrifice their views for a new fence on Mr. Ware's property. Secondly, there was an existing fence on Mr. Ware's propert}' when all of the parties purchased their properties. It met all ofthe objecti...es of the applicant, It kept his children and present and future animals within an enclosed area. His neighbors have agreed that he could move the fence uphill, just to the point at which it would not be visible from their homes. Doing so would provide Mr. Ware with additional steeply- sloped, and thus, unusable fenced-in area if he wishes. Thirdly, insofar as privacy is concerned, the Ware's purchased a downhill property fully aware ofthe topography of the hillside, and the houses overlooking his Reed Ranch property. S;0JJBIT NO, zc:; ~< IDF2... Design Review Board -2- March 30, 2001 \ It would seem reasonable to allow Mr. Ware: to mo~ his existing fence uphill, so long as the top of the fence cannot be seen from his Tiburon Highlands neighbors at 2 Cecilia Court and 8 Upper Cecilia Way. In this way Mr. Ware gains more fenced space, while bis uphill neighbors retain the aesthetic character of their properties and their unobstructed views. Certainly this is a compromise that evayone can live with. Mr. Ware's proposed "compromise" is, in reality, no compromise at alL It would deprive the neighbors of their City and Bay views from their ceremonial rooms. This is simply not necessary, nor is it desirable. Please decide to achieve the true compromise that all of the parties can live with. Please permit Mr. Ware to IIlOve his feocc up to the point at whicll the top would fall just below the line of vision from the frrst floor rooms of his neighbors' homes. Thank you for your. kind consideration. 'Very truly yours, ~- . /J . ylU(1 /, lie S. Jacobs / fl;XE-ITBIT NO. Z-~ p. '7.-OF'- LATE MAil i ~L , 11lfll\l 31~1~ ., John Noerr 26 Upper Cecilia Way Tiburon, California 94920 March 30, 2001 RECEiVED APR - 2 2001 Design Review Board Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNING., i'CD'A'fMo TO' ,c-.4 eNf VVN Ut TleURON Gentlemen: RE: File No. 700220 Ware/35 Reed Ranch application As president of the Tiburon Highlands Homeowners Association and on behalf of its members, 1 am writing to voice our objection to the fence proposed by the applicant. If built as outlined in Mr. Ware's letter to the Design Review Board, dated March 30,2001, it will adversely impact the existing views from 2 Cecilia Court and 8 Upper Cecilia Way, and will, undoubtedly, set a terrible precedent not only for our other ridgeline neighbors with similar views above the Reedlands, but for the numerous ridge line properties in Tiburon. The Town Guidelines are in place to protect views of major landmarks such as the San Francisco skyline and Bay. Working within these guidelines, it would be a reasonable solution to locate the fence down the hill far enough so that it does not extend above the view horizon. Your decision on this matter will set a Town-wide precedent. I urge you to act in accordance with the Town of Tiburon view guidelines and preserve and protect our vIews. Very truly yours, 1ijM~~p John Noerr President Tiburon Highlands Homeowners Assoc. PVTTTTITm NO <z(p ~.lkl.,".l:>J_ t ..; . lATE MAIL # E I .. Philip Treick 19 Upper Cecilia Way Tiburon, CA 94920 March 30, 2001 Design Review E:>oard Town ot Tiburon J 505 Tiburon E:>oulevard Tiburo~, Calitomia 9+920 REC~'VED APR - 4 2001 PlMIIIP1':: n~." - .....1Fi'jT T r < ."..,..,,:j Dear Members ot the E:>oard, It is with great concem that I write to express objection to the tence being proposed b.'j the owners at ;. 5 Reed Ranch. The location ot said ~ence is critical to the beaut.'j and spaciousness characterized b.'j the existing open ridgeline. As a Tiburon Highlands propert.'j owner, I urge .'jou to re9uire that an.'j ~ence built b.'j downhill Reedlands propert.'j owners, specific to this issue betore .'jou known as File No. 700220, be put ~ar enough down the hill as to not intrude existing views enjo.'jed b.'j our neighbors at 2 Cecilia Court, + Cecilia Court, and 8 Upper Cecilia Wa.'j. Common sense dictates that the histor.'j at berms is not relevant. I strongl.'j urge .'jou to consider the situation as it exists toda.'j. To do otherwise, will open a can o~ worms ~or the Town, because perfection is a standard seldom achieved, and most ohen unreasonable to expect. To allow this applicant to expect otherwise is simpl.'j asking tor bigger problems. The Tiburon Guidelines are in place to preserve and protect existing views. The.'j also support the open, spacious ~eel ot our Town, particularl.'j on the Ridgeline. I urge .'jou to act in accordance with the desires ot the populace that loves and values views, 5incerel.'j, ;tf;fhir;( EXEIBITNO.~ 7 ~~TEMAIL #I E J : Lorin Schneider 3 Cecilia Court Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEIVED :Vlareh 31, 2001 APR "Z 2001 PLANNING DEP"R [,MENJ TOWN OF TI8URO~1 Town of Tiburon De:iign Review Boa.rd 1505 Tiburon Boulcv.,ud Tiburon, CA 94920 Reference: Applicant! W.l.rli File # 700220; proposed fenee at 35 Rud Ranch Road Dear Melllbero of the Bo....d, I Ji..~ in th~ Tihuron HighJ.n~ ndghborhood, ~nd I Wiln~ YOlI to ~n(J'9r/' th.t I a.m very <:ollc=rned about the referenced consideration, A fence a8 outhned in .pplic.nt'. Morch 30'" letter to the DC'Ilisn Review Board wO,llJ ..Jveuely irnp.a.ct thft existi.nl3 ViftW8 ~rom 8 tipper Cc:cilia WilY and 2 Cccili41 C:)urt, ..nd would advl!J:':!'ely ch.og. the "e6thetic ~ppcaT.il.nc:~ of thG:st: pr"pcrtic>>. If you were to a.How the: degra.dcl.tioll of the,e Vie'7,'3 and property deflthebcs,. thie act.ion ....ould lid i1 bOld preceJl.:nt not only ~or the Hig.J,I~~ m:igJ,1crkooJ, h'.Jt fo1' t1imiJ.u vietii' prope::oties throuqhout the TOWTl l)f TiburC'lTl. A sens:ble s<::ll:.:.tion ....oulJ be tel It,cat,,, tk fence down the hill so tbat the top of it do,,"", nut ~xh:nd itltu th~ view, of the ~1phill neighbon. In tbis way, Mr. W ilre wouJd gain additional fenced 'pace ..nd the Hiihlands propertie!1 ...ould reb.it~ their v:e,,"s And oJ.estrtetic appearArtces. Most ,incerely. F.X~nBIT NO.~ 1;,- t...d..t' :~C t~.C~ TZ '-1ft... '~~ l:i:: \2~Z 'n.l<e..:: kC",-= F"O~I O! "lNA "lNO :1 I GJEl.. '<HUCH FAX NO. : 415 3815142 ~ar, 31 2001 10:26AM Pi ~ATEMAIL # E / , , D:;llU \:l:uch 6 SOllthridge Drive 7ibllfor;, California ~4nO March 3J, 2001 RE: File Number 700220 - Ware applieatiOtl RECEiVED I1PR - 2 2001 PLM!NiNG OEw"H;"c:^,- TOWN OF TISIJR;:'J I TOW:1 ofTiburon De:;ign Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tihuwll, CA ~4920 Ladies 3nd Gentlemen: How can an issue set:..!ed back ir. 1992, concerning UltH OWtlc:'T Mrs. Edger at 35 R~cd lUnch. and Mr. T:emmding at 2 Cedi. Court be re-resurrecled by parties who were not even Tiburon residents ar the cime' Were me Town's findings wrong as expressed by Dan Catron, Ao;soci.te Planner, and SCOtt Anderson, Senior PI.nner? How mar:y times mUSt old dirt be dug up? ! urge th", Board to, firstly, SUPPQrt rhe Tov,m', finding' a.s seated in Mr. Ca:zon', letter of July 23~ 1992. ":The design reyiew records fer 2 C~cili:L Court indicae Qn!y a. 3 foot berm, which is what preoenrIy exist,. Se(;ondly. to recognize that Mr. W~rc was fully a"=e of the existing topography and ,"phil! neighborhood houses at the time of !ois purch~se. Now 5-l/2 year51ater, he wants to change the cb"crer .~d quality of property views, aesthetics, and V"'.Jucs by moving 31: existing fence into the sightlines of his uphill neighbors. This is unreasonable at best. and entirely absurd. Th~ TOI;\o"n has s?okc:l on this be!'11115SL:.~ back in 1992. Our Town guidelines Yi~re m~"3nt to preserve and protect againsr this type of after-the-F.ct .what W approach, Mr, Ware sl:ould eithcr leavc his exisf.ng fcne.c where it is, or be .Jlowed to move it up the hill, but not encroac.'>. the horizon vi",,,, of his uphill neighbors. As a Tiburon Highlands residenr. I ask you to prorec- the ae'thetic beauty and view, of our neighbor, at 8 Upper Cecilia Way and 2 Cecilia CO"". Ve'7 truly your'/1 /'. '/ ,I . ,Ii / / ('FrnUk~~:()/../\ i \j Pyr.:.nnT1' i\J(). z.-q L'-:~)._,_........1- ~~ ., .\, . ... Apr 02 01 04:38p +1-650-588-7061 p.1 LATE MAIL , ~ ( '. Carolyn and lUndy Dilena 11 Upper Cecilia Way Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEIVED March 31, 2001 APR - 2 2001 Town ofTiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon, California 94920 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TlBUAON Gentlemen: Reference; File Number 700220 Proposed Fence at 35 Reed Ranch Road As homeowners in the Tiburon Highlands subdivision, we are writing to voice our objection to the fence as proposed by Mr. Ware in his letter to the Board dated March 30, 200'. This fence, if constructed, will adversely impact the existing views from 2 Cecilia Couer and 8 Upper Cecilia Way and negatively alter the aesthetic appearance of these properties as viewed from their ceremonial rooms. The Town Guidelines acknowledge the importance of views and che need to protect chern. A reasonable solution would be to allow Mr. Ware to move his fence uphill; however, require that the top of the fence nor break the horizon views of his neighbors. In this way, Mr. Ware gains more fenced yard while the uphill neighbors retain their views and the aesthetics of cheir properties. This would be a fair compromise. Please act in accordance with the Town of Tiburon View Guidelines and preserve and protect the views and aesthetic appearance of our neighbors' properties. Sincerely yours, C~7~ffI.~ '\2"<0' ;'6 t. )xi mCFBITNO. 30 '.' :iIJt< Apr-04-0l l2:26P P.Ol V\fJ f~Y LATE MAIL , ~J , L...... . IErfc An4l......n . co.,u. Court "...u...... CA ...2. <.15) ,.,....' T{{tI~c rid; ~ ~9 . VC~7(.:r f-eVI CL.J DDtt() . "apch iI'.'..' Design Review Board Town Of Tiburon , 505 Tiburon Tiburon, CA 94920 RECE1VED APR ~ 4. 2001 Re: File No 700220 -WARE PLANNING OEP,\RTMENT TOWN OF TlEVRON Dear Design Review Board Members: We are disappointed that the applicant has chosen the path of pUb'ic consideration of this issue before he attempted to work out a resolution privately and cooperatively with the neighbors affected; however, since the matter Is now before you, we feel compelled to express our concern over the proposed fence. At the conclusion of the last Design Review meeting, Mr. Ware was asked to modify the fence design in several ways. Board members also expressed their desire that he attempt to come to a mutually agreeable resolution with the neighbors involved. 'n his March 30'" letter to Design Review, we do not see compliance with your requests. The fence is not moved down from the property lines. We read Mr. Ware's memorandum of Mar<:h 30, 200 1 addressed to the Shulte's, Lensing's and Gilbert's in which he requests a meeting to present his latest proposal, There is no evidence of a desire to come to a mutual agreement; Instead he includes a threat to accept this. deSign or he will "...pursue actions to reinstate the berms, landscaping or other means to protect our privacy..... We are saddened by this behavior because we remember a town where people worked out their differences without threats, with civility and without involving town officials. From the documents we have read on file, Mr. Ware feels somewhat entitled to construct this fence because he has heretofore been cooperative with the uphill neighbors in allowing them accen to prune view-blocking trees, While we commend Mr, Ware for his cooperation, as lifetime residents of Southern Marin who own four homes here, we can state that in aU cases, we have similarly allowed OYr trees to be trimmed or removed to preserve the views of our neighbors. We consider this type of nei9hborly conduct a mwt here be<ause the majority of people who live here do so because of the phenomenal views. ____.___'"'-r-' '-'1", --Z L 2....!L:..l.U_';.;,.1 _~~._~:l.j~ ...) ? iDPZ-- Apr-04-01 12:27P P.02 .. Imagine how the Lensings must feel; they return to Tiburon, select a lovely family home for its spectacular views; a few months later they are served with a letter stating their downhill neighbor Is petitioning Design Review to build a fence that would completely block their view. Their enjoyment of their home and their property value will plummet should this fence be allowed: if the fence is not moved down, the Lensing's could not pouibly recapture the price they paid for the home just a few months earlier, We also feel that Mr. Lensing's offer to pay for part of the fence, should It located below the proposed area, Is a very generous offer and a reasonable solution. Finally, we quote from the Minutes of the 2/15/01 Design Review Meeting, "Mr. Ware said he did not want to look at a fence, so would not comply with Mr. Schulte's request of the ronger anglinglsee p. 3, last paragraph)." Obviously. even he does not want to look at the very same fence he is attempting to construct. We agree with Mr. Ware that looking at a fence is undesirable. We also agree with Bruce Raabe's statement at the last meeting that this fence wue wifllike'y set a precedent that may affect many people in our neighborhood and in Tiburon. both in quality of life and property values. We respectfully state that we feer the Shulte.s, Lensing's and Gilbert's requests be honored. and we thank you for your time in reading this and considering our feelings when coming to your decision. ~cerely. ~ . /:YW-{~ 0/ 4. e (/K.d-1L-</~ V \ ~urie & Eric Andrewsen '7.X,::nBIT NO. 31 'P. Z oFZ- BOOK::R T CORP. T::L:[-415-380-2120 Dee 30 DC 15:20 No.OOl P,Ol . Nan Jones 7 Cecilia Court Tiburon, CA 94920 March 31, 200[ Town ofTiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEIVED APR -'62001 Dear ~ir or Madam: PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TleURON Reference: Applicant: Ware; File 700220 As a resident oflheTiburon Jiighlands neighborhood, J am writing to express concern over the proposed tence. It will negatively impact the aesthetic character and vicws of the Highlands properties at 8 Upper Cecilia Way, and 2 and 4 Cecilia Court. I urge you to protect views in accordance with our Town View Guidelines, and preserve the open, spacious character ofthe Tiburon ridgelines and, in particular, of our neighborhood. To allow the erection of the proposed fence will set a precedent for other downhill neighbors to follow suit. Clearly t!1e reasonable solution is to preserve existing views by requiring the applicant to put the fence far enough downhill so that it cannot be seen by his uphill neighbors. Our Town Guidelines acknowledge the importance of maintaining views. Our spectacular views are what Tiburon is known for the world-over, I bope this Bollrd will continue to recognize the necessity of protecting them. Sincerely yours, T:1~r~T~,"",-rn "3> Z- .I,(~; i h,l'" 7\1 TO _.~_"-c..-\...,_.L._ ,'_ ..'1 . ~ROM B18ch Tibur~n PHONE NO, : 4153801799 ~pr. 03 2001 08:09RM Pi LATE MAIL #I g / 1 Robin and Andrew Bloch 18 Upp"r Cecilia Way Tiburon, CA 94920 RECEiVED APR - 2 2001 April 1, 2001 Town of Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF TIBURON Gentlemen: Ref: Ware fence proposal/35 Reed Ranch Rd. File 700220 We are writing to voice our objection to the fence proposed by Mr, Ware as described in his letter dated March 30, 2001, to the Design Review Board. This fence, if built, will negatively impact the existing views from 2 Cecilia Court and 8 Upper Cecilia Way. Further, it will set a bad precedent that could adversely impact other Highlands ridgeline properties that share conunon property lines with downhill Reedlands neighbors. A fair compromise can be accomplished by permitting a fence that will not extend into the existing views of 8 Upper Cecilia Way and 2 Cecilia Court, respectively. Our Town Guidelines acknowledge the importance of views, They also support the open, spacious feel of our Town and our Highlands neighborhood, It is our hope that you will act in accordancc with the Town of Tiburon Guidelines, thereby and preserving and protecting the existing views and aesthetic appearance of our neighbors' properties. Sincerely. ~0 MrYv1 ~1tzt- '--. T"'-T'rT~'.'T' "l' TO 3 ~ ~_I_./).~:"L.U_>J ^- . ~l . 04/05/2001 15: 31 4153826008 MARNIER CL0B AT GBT PAGE 01/El1 LATE MAil # ~I . Town of Tiburon Design Review Board Re: File j 700220 With regard to the proposed fence to be considered in the back of the property at 35 Reed Ranch Road, I urge you to consider your decision carefully, Allowing this would set a precedent that could lead to a severe impact on the natural hillside views that currently exist. It would seem to me that if the fence could be placed down the hill 10 or 12 feet everyone could be satisfied. To allow fences at the property line, coming up to what are the yards of those of us in Tiburon Highlands seems inconsiderate and unnecessary. Thank you for your consideration. Jo Ann Bell 6 Cecilia Court Tiburon RECFIVED APR - 5 2001 PlANNi~lG f1!'PMITM8H TOWll \lI- i ,jj;;.RDN PJefIFUT NO..3::L " WAYNEH. GILBERT 4 CECILIA COURT TIBURON, CA 94920 14151 383.7250 FACSIMILE (415) 383.3001 email: wgilbert@ltws.com April 5, 200 1 RECEIVED APR - 9 2001 Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 TOWN MANAGERS OFFiCe TOWN OF neURON Dear Town Council Members: As you may be aware, Ernest and Carolyn Ware, who live at 35 Reed Ranch Road, have applied to the Tiburon Design Review Board for approval to construct a five foot wire mesh fence three feet from their rear property line. Because the property line is at the ridge line, the various neighbors on Upper Cecilia Way and Cecilia Court (including myself) have objected to the proposed fence on the grounds that it would result in an unreasonable obstruction of existing views. In the course of the two Design Review Board meetings that have considered the proposed fence to date, Mr. Ware has pointed out that he would not need to obtain approval to construct a three and one-half foot solid fence at his property line. There was even some discussion by the board of the possibility of allowing Mr. Ware to construct a five foot fence that would have no greater visual impact than a three and one-half foot fence at his property line. The backyard of my neighbor at 2 Cecilia Court slopes uphill. As a result, a three and one-half foot solid fence at the property line would eliminate my neighbor's water views from his patio and ceremonial rooms on the first floor. While I appreciate that requiring Design Review Board approval of all fences would impose an unreasonable administrative burden, I believe that review is appropriate in situations involving a fence to be placed at or near the crest of a hill or ridge because in such situations even a three and one-half foot fence can result in serious view obstructions. While I would expect that the situation 1 have described is relatively uncommon, I believe that in such situations the Town's policy of permitting a three and one-half foot fence to be built without Design Review Board approval has the potential for allowing existing views to be ruined. Accordingly, I urge you to consider adopting an ordinance to prevent this from occurring. One such possibility that you may wish to consider would be to require Design Review Board approval of any fence, regardless of its height, placed within a specified - R,YI.TT~T'T' Nt) 3'j ..>.......;~L~_.,_..__ 1. .L j" . "p. i ek'Z-- .~ Tiburon Town Council April 5, 2001 . Page -2- distance (for example 15 feet) of the crest of a hill or ridge if there is an existing home on an adjacent property on the other side of the crest of that hill or ridge, Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, WYU1H\ Wayne ~.tbi1bert . ~< ,"'- -\ T"-'. -iT "l TO '3 S- _.~.L~O . "t . ~. ZO~2-- Ap~ 19 01 06:44a Mr. E~~ce Lensing 415-636-7085 p.2 ,. BRYCE RANDALL LENSING 2 Cecilia Court Tiburon. CA 94920 Ernie Ware 35 Reed Ranch Road TilMon, CA 94920 April 16, 2001 RECE~VED APR 1 9 2001 Ref: Fence design proposal PLANNING O,P'RTMENT TOWN OF [IBURON Dear Ernie: As I indicated when you called me at work Friday morning, I was leaving in about three hours'to catch a flight for a family Easter holiday, Subsequently that morning I did receive your fax dated the prior day addressed to the neighbors asking for a respons6 before April 18th. I returned to work in San Francisco this morning, and hence halle had the weekend to reflect on the full content of your letter I n our last conversation I tnought that we had respectfully chosen to disag ree concerning the adequacy of verbal modifications to the already submitted plans. I believe that the Design Review Board expressed a similar scope vIew at the last board meeting, I am stJ'e that we had discussed and the ORB affirmed as indicated in their meeting minutes, that the distance down the hill was not the issue, it was the distance that the proposed fence intruded into the existing views from our primary living areas. From tre existing slope of the hill. perhaps a 3 Y, foct fence at 6 feet from the property iine, or even the proposed 5 foot fence slightly further away would not obstruct my or my neig~bor's views. If views were not obstruc:ed, as we had indicated earlier. we would all favcrably consider the fence and landscaping proposal Additionally, I have indicated that I was Willing to contribute to the cost of the fence as well as any re- application fee if the fence were not a view obstruction. Design Review's comments and decline of the proposal at the last meeting wouid have incorporated even the fence modifications as r.ontemplated by your April 12'" ietter. I am certainly willing to work with you on a plan that preserves views and allows for yo!,; to move your existing fence up the hill. Given the nature of the discussions to date, I believe that any agreement should be explicitly documented in both writlen and plan fermat to avoid futu,e lack of clarity regarding our mutual understandings, I do not find in your letter a satisfactory modification to the plan already declined by Design Review. ;':~if(Rl 's'~1(4~~ CC: William Schulte & Wayne Gilbert Families: TicLoon Design ReView Board ~X1T3ITNO. 30 ", , . Apr IS Ot 06:45a Mr. Br~ce Lensin~ 415-636-7085 p.3 l ffd; v--- To: 'l3ill and Catherine Schulte VCarolyn and Bryce Lensing Diane and Wayne Gilbert S Upper Cecilia Way 2 Cecilia Court 4 Cecilia Court '(A.. -) '." "7/J"',e II'!:> 6..71'C-/'- [':J 4/12/01 Dear Neighbors; \\-'hen we all last met on April 4'h to review and discuss our latest fence design proposal. I verbally agreed to move the current see-through fence design an additiona12 Jlz feet further down the slope. which would place the fence 6 feet down the :1ill from our properlY line, YOl: all agreed to consider that proposal, and wO'Jld let me know before the Design Review Board meeting if you would agree to the change. We are excremely disappointed that you did not agree at that time to that proposal. The Design Review Board denied our application in the meeting the next day. and wi!! review <i.l1d approve a StaffRep<Jrt regarding this issue during their next regular meeting. We would like to ask that you reconsider ou: last offer to relocate the fence te> 6 feet from ocr property line, and te let the Design Review Board and me know of your approval befure AprillSth. Faxing this letter '",ith your approval, to the Design Review Department at (415) 435-7397 would hopefully resolve this issue, and would more imporrantly help to restore goodwill between ilS, and would eliminate the escalation 0: expe:lse and energy on all of our parts to address your desire for views, aJJd our desire for privacy and property rights. Approval of proposed design 6 tee: from property line Date Agab, we please ask that you reconsider. M.rA~tS.ir:cer,elk" . (1" 111 ((tL, L\) Ernie W~ ~!!::""""V n........, I:"D w -yt~~ ..1 c; APR 1 9 2001 cc: Tieuran Des'gn Review Board PLANNING " TO " >PARTMENT WN UF I;BURON 07 ...,......,...."...,...""'f""'; --:- ..,. - ..) R./L:l'~_L:lT .C.lO. -FIC,,,, No (00 ~~O I RECEIVED APR 1 a Z001 William and Catherine Schulte 8 Upper Cecilia Way Tiburon, CA 94920 'r'LANNlhG OfPAF1 :r..lEN\ April 17, 2001 TOWN OF TIBURON Dear Ernie: Thank you for your letter of April 12 which we received on April 13th We are pleased to see there yet remains the opportunity to reach some sort of reasonable compromise regarding your fence proposaL There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the content of our discussions on April 4th. My recollection of the conversation is a bit different from yours, at least as you have expressed it in your April 12th letter. On April4t\ we first reviewed your set of plans for your revised proposal (the one denied by the DRB at their April 5th meeting). Mr. Lensing, Mr. Gilbert and I indicated we could not sign off on those plans. 1 then brought up for discussion a suggestion of a DRB member at a previous meeting that the applicant consider a fence that protruded above the berm by no more than two feet. You indicated some willingness to explore that possibility as did the others (Mr. Lensing and Mr. Gilbert) present at the meeting. There then followed a rather extended discussion among the four of us to estimate the distance from the boundary line to set back the fence so as to accomplish that 2 foot height objective. A set-back sufficient to allow a five foot fence that would not protrude above the berm more than the present height of your existing sluub was also discussed. At the end of the discussion you had reached the conclusion that you might be willing to set back the fence six feet along the boundary line of the Lensing property (2 Cecilia Court) but would slant the fence toward the boundary line of my property so as to meet at the comer where your, my and the 33 Reed Ranch property intersect at the southwest corner of your property. You restated your unwillingness to slant the fence away from our common boundary so as to minimize the impact on our slot view. You also indicated your desire to keep the gate in the fence and your desire for a cost sharing arrangement if you were to move the fence the additional 2 12 feet from Mr. Lensing's boundary line. There was agreement by all to think about the idea overnight and discuss it with our respective spouses. Mr. Lensing, Mr. Gilbert and I indicated the need for more specificity and formality to any agreement that might be reached. We expressed our unwillingness to your suggestion to document any agreement by hand writing a few sentences on the set of plans that we did not accept. At the end of the meeting I departed with the belief that you were to discuss the six foot set-back with your spouse. Assuming you and your spouse agreed to the concept, you were to contact Mr. Lensing prior to the April 5th DRB. 1 believe Mr. Lensing is of the same impression. Just prior to the April 5th DRB meeting, 1 asked Mr. Lensing ifhe had heard anything from you with regard to the six foot set- back discussed the prior evening. He said no. I assumed the six foot set-back proposal was no longer open for discussion. Ernie, we are truly pleased to hear that you recognize the need to set back the fence further down the hilL Your original ideas as to what constitutes a minimal and reasonable impact on existing views obviously were at odds with the ideas of the uphill T'7'\.."T..,.....,...........~--m - T'-" 4 Co-" ~~..:.::....:-=-~::J:....:....~.' i. ~~"; () ~ ......0 "p, I tr- z-- . , landowners and the DRB. Catherine and I have made what we consider to be reasonable requests: 1) that the fence be angled away from our common boundary line in order to minimize the impact on our slot view, and 2) that any ground cover planted on the triangle of land through which we obtain our view be as low as possible, preferably turf. We have agreed that the low growing manzanita you identified at the last meeting was acceptable as ground cover and believe you are committed to maintain the area at that low level. (We note in passing it was described to us initially as a 4-6 inch high plant but grew to a 4-8 inch high plant in the verbal presentation at DRB. We hope it grows no higher!) Thus, we seem to have arrived at a solution for our point 2) above. We have not reached agreement as to our point 1). We are not able to approve what we understand to be your verbally "proposed design 6 feet from the property line" to quote from your April 12th letter. There are just too many unsettled issues and a complete lack of documentation as to exactly what we would be agreeing to accept. Plans need to be drawn up so that adequate documentation with specific details can be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any presentation to DRB. I suggest the following as a method of proceeding to bring this matter to conclusion: 1. DRB proceeds to deny your current application at their next meeting. 2. The four of us commit to meet for further discussions to attempt to gain verbal agreement on a new plan design. 3. New plans be drawn to reflect the verbal agreements. 4. We sign off on the new plans once they contain satisfactory solutions to all major Issues, 5. You submit a new application to DRB that has been pre-approved by the impacted neighbors If you agree to the above process and we reach agreement, I am willing to reimburse to you $100 of the DRB application fee for the new application. Regretfully and for the reasons outlined above, we can not provide the approval requested in your Apri112th letter. We hope our thoughts and suggestions will be helpful to the next stage of the process. Sincerely, rtuA~ William and Catherine Schulte Cc: B. Lensing W. Gilbert Tiburon Design Review Board "T7l--:TTT'r"f'7r7iI' !"Tr\ ^~ 1...:.~L:U:-l.U.'::."'_, . .!..; .J, ..,)0 ~ .. "2.. D("Z-- 2. cUIL.lA COUfT , ') ~LI Al'hu.+u, tl'l',t..J11 , 1. .1 'j D '. \ \ \ \ " \ ~ -\ \ L. . ~ ' ,j. ~ PfoI'E1<.n U,.,JE- - Arc~'4+,^ I. I., ..l.~'._ 6:?f,mt'?Kf"i'-3};,'m~I7FeNCj -r lACieR..t.\T'VE , 1--,.3""-'-::~l'--TH~~-rref^';;--iE I E~,,",,\I.^,^ ,...,.t.<"~... ""~r""+ U'i.^ I.w1i ~ Q ,.) I"", ty"" 0, \:6L~Jd ~ (E) ",~I<:D H.,_~" ~"v-l .?"E-TK~ f"JC:l!- \ \ L- -- llO) p~\,,~AI r6.O ----'> ~ H[~H F-P 'p':.lOr ~~' WARE RESIDENCE GARDEN LANDSCAPE Pl/ 35 REED RANCH RD. TIBURON, CA 949.20 -\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/ "J'...t "6'-D' 'REPv-loop feNC-L , "" N' '" RECEl\Il,. MAR 2 9 1001 PLANNING DEPAH 1..,_..1 TOWN OF ,IBURQN -- \ E~IT NO.,;tL 1'. /IYr" 7-*01'" fl~~e;; (Arr~...'!M-rD ,......,) /1r \ \- "'. \~ 3LAL.f::.; ~ "_ !3 uppt:K. CUoII..IA Nt'> I 1'>4' ~ l E) 1')~ C,Yf'f""e$S . ~" rM~l.lkl-\ '-@ ("'.>.4" C:tr'~ il (E)lh' Crr.".ofS iIIl (l!)(S'" crr'''' \-Ar pooL ( fu-ruI$- ~l"'"j) 012.. O~.l ItJ~ TotL~ OJ. _----1...::::. J-.ANN r- I \ \ \ \ \ \ L- ,Ri 'f-"l,,(TAIN (E,)?EE -TlI",,,,,,,M P'~C2- " ----- Hb' "I ,I .... -",'",-EN ~WOPf~CE... tic , '5(/_ EXHIBIT NO...,3,! .. ~. z.. OFw ~ e J , L , 6"'-0" o?,c. REDWOOD FENCE SCALE %"=r~o" (ALTERNATIVE 2) 6f. 2 - - r .. - J < J ~ 6' 0:' tf!,C-, REDWOOD FENCE SCALE 3/4"=1'-0" z..'~4"~IL -- J~'''''M I ~)("" f><'I"" , ~s " J '" .- 4"><4- ('on- 6f.~. '10 0 1 " 0 [) , ." (J' 0. <7 , ~ . , f 12.... f ")<6''' CAf'~11- 1'juf.~'fFi'I'{J!- 1~""[1!JM f-'''';''PdI ""~' f~~~l'P~ "<>IoWf) '~"rtAM~ ,'1<-6" ,:;"J= f"'TJrl.. ",,,^v.... 6 . ~ ~ , 'k A V . ,.",,"".& .r::t -1"14 ~. o ~ IS' r-- t- -f- . ~ L < ~ , , ,I '" EXJ:ITm'J'l'm~~L ~. 3OF(o ,. , ,.-. - " </2- . ~1aJ,. F$\ , " .,./ " WI~ ME;~ 'f"x4" crool,""" ..;c, 1-. , '!., "l '. /'Z. '-0" d.~ J' o SEE-THROUGH FENCE SCALE 3/4'=1'-0' (AL TERNATIYE 1) ""'~'" l""TI.('" 4M -.JIU-. .~ .~ la" "L - <P z-' fflU- p,,5i r-- V<lII<EM~ ~ 4'~" ...1 "r","r~ \\) '1 kL-. SEE-THROUGH FENCE SCALE 3/4"=1'-0' .Q!~ f"P11~ EXHIBI'l' NO.._~q _ f. L{ao fP .{''' 0" c\~. WARE RESIDENCE GARDEN LANDSCAPE PLAN 35 REED RANCH RD. TIBURON, CA 94920 < ~ zoo' ('/0' I 180' ~ \ I I I 170' t .~ I. eEl ~\~"- '1" _ I~ . , ()<) CfjAI>l wJk fl','-l= F' ~ nr-'PI",,, I I I )I~ I I SECTION s 35 REED RANCH ROAD, --- ,or"' Q ~, IJJ ~A-n:.. EXHIBIT NO. '39 f '5 oFIO ~J ~ I ELEVATION F'Rt.v'OU$ ~l'tM c'~aftr ~1"'4 -LE 3116.;1'-0" J ,LE 118'=1'-0" 6i~? 1'AT'''' I.' _u_ J 2 UPPER CECILIA COURT EXHIBIT NO. 39 p. (p OF (0 2. ce.cll-IA u:>uR.T l I ~~3'-6.HI<<H F<4CE. ....of!" r'J.'ER.p~I;JY-L,IN1::- ,. . 5:-:: HI"'H S~-1'<1I"'U"H Fl'NCE-ON ~Ug~c.K klNP WARE RESIDENCE GARDEN LANDSCAPE PLAf'.- 35 REED RANCH RD. TIBURON, CA 049?n TOWN OF TIBURON STAFF REpORT ITEM NO. () To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL From: ANN R. DANFORTH, TOWN ATTORNEY Subject: WAIVER OF TOWN PLANNING AND BUILDING FEES PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROJECTS Date: June 6, 2001 BACKGROUND The Town imposes fees for applications, permits and services pursuant to Resolution No. 11-2001, the Town's most recent fee schedule. The purpose of these fees is to recover the costs of processing applications and providing the other services of the Planning and Building Department. From time to time, the Town receives a request for waiver of its normally applicable fees. To provide consistency, the Council adopted Resolution No. 3323 on March 17, 1999, which set forth a policy governing applications for fee waivers The Town Council has long favored the undergrounding of overhead utility facilities. The Council recently formed an assessment district to underground facilities in the Stewart Drive neighborhood. The proponents of the Stewart Drive project have asked the Town to waive fees for the project and several Council members indicated at the meeting of May 16, 2001, that they would be favorably inclined towards such a waiver. To provide for a consistent policy regarding future waiver requests, T own staff brings forward the attached resolution for the Council's consideration. ANALYSIS As stated above, the Town's fees are imposed to recover the Town's costs in providing services. Accordingly, a waiver of fees has the effect of transferring a portion of the project costs from the project applicant to the residents ofthe Town. In enacting Resolution No. 3323, the Council found that waiver was only appropriate in limited circumstances where the project will have substantial public benefit to the people of the Town of Tiburon and the project applicant is unable to pass the project costs through to the project beneficiaries. Undergrounding projects fall somewhat outside the existing parameters of the existing waiver policy, because the project costs can be passed through to the project beneficiaries. However, the Town Council could encourage such projects by absorbing the Town's costs thereby lessening the financial burden on residents within the assessment district. If the Council wishes to offer this incentive, we Fee Waiver Policy June 6, 200 I Page 2 of2 recommend that the Council amend the existing Fee Waiver Policy to expressly provide a waiver for undergrounding projects. Please note that the draft resolution attached for the Council's consideration applies to undergrounding projects rather than to undergrounding assessment districts. This is because undergrounding proponents occasionally implement their projects without forming a district. The Council should also note that, as written, the resolution's waiver extends to the undergrounding of individual service connections. RECOMMENDATION The Council should consider the draft resolution and if it decides to waive Town fees for projects to underground overhead utility facilities, adopt the attached resolution. EXHmITS Draft Resolution Resolution 3323 (Current Fee Waiver Policy) RESOLUTION NO. ~t} ...( fA) A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OFTIBURON ESTABLISHING A POLICY TO GOVERN THE PARTIAL AND TOTAL WAIVER OF TOWN FEES WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon assesses fees upon project applicants for the purpose of recovering the admin!strative and processing costs of such project applications; and WHEREAS, Section 3.01.08 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance provides that the Town Council may waive any fees required under the Ordinance for any public, quasi-public body, district or agency of the Federal, State, County or Municipal government; and; WHEREAS, such fees are set by resolution of the Town Council, the current resolution being Resolution No. 11-2001; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 1999, the Council adopted Resolution No. 3323, establishing a policy governing applications for fee waivers; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the relocation of overhead electric and communication lines to underground conduits serves the public interest and wishes to promote undergrounding projects by absorbing the project costs associated with Town permits; and WHEREAS, the Council therefore intends to amend the Town's Fee Waiver Policy to extend to undergrounding projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows: 1. Resolution No. 3323 is hereby repealed and replaced by this Resolution. 2. The Town shall waive fees for projects to relocate overhead electric and communication lines to underground conduits. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a project involves work that is not directly associated with the undergrounding of public utilities, Town fees shall be assessed against those portions of the project that Town staff finds are not directly associated with the undergrounding portion of the project. Work considered not directly related to the undergrounding portion of the project shall include, without limitation, work to improve individual electric services. 3. With respect to all other projects, any public, quasi-public body, district or agency of the Federal, State, County or Municipal government may apply for a total or partial waiver of T own fees as set forth in this Resolution. H: IJVPDOCSIRESOIFee Waiver po/icy.2001.doc 1 4. In considering a fee waiver application, the Council will consider the following factors: A Whether the applicant is a governmental agency, a charitable non-profit organization, a private individual or a for profit organization. A private individual or for-profit entity shall not be eligible for a fee waiver unless substantially all of the benefit of the project will accrue to a charitable, non-profit organization. B. If the applicant is a non-profit entity with the power to impose dues or fees, or otherwise has the power to raise revenue to fund the project from project beneficiaries, the extent to which the project will benefit residents of the Town of Tiburon that are not subject to such power. For example, if the applicant has dues paying members, the Council will consider waiving fees only to the extent that the project will benefit non-member residents in the Town ofTiburon. C. The extent to which the project will benefit the general public of the Town ofTiburon. 5. If the Council finds the applicant is eligible under Section 4.A of this Resolution, and does not have the power to fund the project's costs by raising revenue from the project's beneficiaries, the Council may grant a waiver of up to 100% of the otherwise-applicable fees. The Council shall determine the amount of the waiver granted based on the percentage of project benefit that will be realized by the general public of the Town of Tiburon. 6. If the Council finds the applicant is eligible under Section 4.B of this Resolution, the Council shall determine the amount of the waiver based on the percentage of project benefit that will be realized by those residents of the Town that are not subject to the applicant's revenue- raising powers. In no event shall the waiver exceed 50% of the otherwise-applicable fees. 7. This resolution shall only apply to fees imposed pursuant to the Schedule ofF ees adopted by the Town Council to recover the Town's internal processing and administrative costs. The project applicant shall remain responsible for paying the cost of any outside consultants or other costs incurred by the Town in connection with the processing of the project application. Such outside costs include, without limitation, the cost of retaining plan-checkers and environmental consultants. H: IWPDOCSIRESOIFee Waiver policy.200l.doc 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon on ,2001, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ANDREW THOMPSON, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE lACOPI, TOWN CLERK H: ',JVPDOCS\RESO\Fee Waiver policy. 200i.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. 3323 . A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLlSING A POLICY TO GOVERN THE PARTIAL AND TOTAL WAIVER OF TOWN FEES WHEREAS, the Town ofTiburon assesses fees upon project applicants for .the purpose of recovering the administrative and processing costs of such project applications; and WHEREAS, Section 3.01.08 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance provides that the Town Council may waive any fees required under the Ordinance for any public, quasi-public body, district or agency of the Federal, State, County or Municipal government; and; WHEREAS, such fees are set by resolution of the Town Council and the Council wishes to establish a policy governing applications for fee waivers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows: 1. Any public, quasi-public body, district or agency of the Federal, State, County or Municipal government may apply for a total or partial waiver of Town fees as set forth in this Resolution. 2. In considering a fee waiver application, the Council will consider the following factors: A. Whether the applicant is a governmental agency, a charitable non-profit organization, a private individual or a for profit organization. A private individual or for-profit entity shall not be eligible for a fee waiver unless substantially all of the benefit of the project will accrue to a charitable, non-profit organization. B. If the applicant is a non-profit entity with the power to impose dues or fees, or otherwise has the power to raise revenue to fund the project from project beneficiaries, the extent to which the project will benefit residents of the Town of Tiburon that are not subject to such power. For example, if the applicant has dues paying members, the Council will consider waiving fees only to the extent that the project will benefit non-member residents in the Town of Tiburon. C. The extent to which the project will benefit the general public of the Town ofTiburon. 3. If the Council finds the applicant is eligible under Section 2.A of this Resolution, and does not have the power to fund the project's costs by raising revenue from the project's beneficiaries, 1 . the Council may grant a waiver of up to 100010 of the otherwise-applicable fees. The Council shall determine the amount of the waiver granted based on the percentage of project benefit that will be realized by the general public of the Town ofTiburon. 4. If the Council finds the applicant is eligIble under Section 2.B of this Resolution, the Council shall determine the amount of the waiver based on the percentage of project benefit that will be realized by those residents of the Town that are not subject to the applicant's revenue- raising powers, In no event shall the waiver exceed 50% of the otherwise-applicable fees. 5. This resolution shall only apply to fees imposed pursuant to the Schedule of Fees adopted by the Town Council to recover the Town's internal processing and administrative costs. The project applicant shall remain responsible for paying the cost of any outside consultants or other costs incurred by the Town in connection with the processing of the project application. Such outside costs include, without limitation, the cost of retaining plan-checkers and environmental consultants. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town ofTiburon on March 17, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCil. MEMBERS: Bach, Gram, Hennessy, Matthews, Thompson NOES: COUNCil. MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCil. MEMBERS: None ATTErltk DIANE L.CRAt'lE, TOWN CLERK 2