The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2008-02-20 TOWN OF TIBURClN Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard . Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Council February 20, 2008 7:30 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Berger, Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Gram, Vice Mayor Fredericks, Mayor Slavitz ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes. PRESENTATION . Leg~slative Update by State Senator Carole Migden CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. 1. T own Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of February 6, 2008 meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. 20 Main Street - Authorize execution of consultant contract to prepare focused EIR for proposed demolition of building (Director of Community Development Anderson) 3. Permit Tracking Software - Approve budget amendments and authorize service agreements for permit~tracking software for Community Development Department (Director of Community Development Anderson) 4. Open Space Management - Approve service agreement for removal of broom and pampas grass in Middle Ridge Open Space area and authorize Town Manager to execute agreement (Director of Community Development Anderson) 5. Doyle Drive T oll- Adopt resolution opposing legislation that would impose toll for Doyle Drive seismic upgrades (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 6. Multi...Use Path - Approve certificates of appreciation as requested by Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee to recognize MMWD and Ghilotti Construction Company for their work to upgrade Multi~use Path (Community Development Department) ACTION ITEMS 1. Town Council Policy regarding Story Poles for Appeals - Consider revisions to existing policy (Town Manager Curran) 2. Mill Valley Refuse Service Contract - Consider recommendation to authorize staff to negotiate new long~term agreement with MVRS and approve budget amendment of $40,000 to engage consultant to assist staff in negotiations (Town Manager Curran) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of site plan and architectural review to construct a new single~family dwelling at 275 Diviso Street (Director of Community Development Anderson) Owner/Applicant: Property Address: Assessor Parcel No: Robin Lea, Margaret Patton, Denis Williams, Mary and Don Foree, Robin E. and Sherry Long De Mandel, and Francesca and ] ohn Madden A vi Ron 275 Diviso Street 059~071~51 Appellants: 2. Historical Landmark Building Code Amendments - Consider repeal of Chapter 13B of the Town Code and adoption of a new Chapter 13B (Historical Landmarks) - Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) - continued from February 6, 2008 3. Zoning Code Amendments - Consider amendments to Chapter 16 of Town Code regarding Village Commercial (VC) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts in downtown area - Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS . Town Council Weekly Digest - February 8, 2008 . Town Council Weekly Digest - February 15,2008 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION 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) 4 35~ 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere~ Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.ci.tiburon.ca.us. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability~related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action( s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing( s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing( s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. rr-' "" TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Slavitz called the regUlar, meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, "February 6, 2008, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California~ ~~."""'4,. ," ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Berger, Collins, Gram, Fredericks and Slavitz ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Chief of Police Cronin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to meeting in regular session, the Town Council conducted a closed session, as follows: CLOSED SESSION - (6:15 p.m.) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) County of Marin v. Martha Company CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(b)) Significant exposure to litigation . (One Case) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Section 54956.8) Agency Negotiator: Property Address; Negotiating Parties: Under negotiation: Town Manager 275 Diviso Street; portion of APN 059-071-51 Town of Tiburon and Avi Ron Price and terms of payment Prior to meeting in regular session, the Town Council conducted interviews for Boards and Commissions, as follows: INTERVIEWS FOR BOARDS & COMMISSIONS - (6:40 p.m.) 1. Barbara Tomber 2. Lalita Waterman 3. Cathy Frymier 4. John Corcoran ~own Council Minutes No. 02-2008February 6,20008 Page 1 0[8 CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Slavitz said that the Council said no reportable action was taken in Closed Session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PRESENTATION . State of District 3 (Supervisor Charles McGlashan) Supervisor Charles McGlashan reported that the Board approved the Countywide Plan in November, noting the urgent need to connect land use with a more innovative transportation system. He spoke of work to address affordable housing needs, transportation, sustainability, creation of a water network for the District, fixed route shuttles, greenhouse gases and lobbying efforts to fund transit. He reported receiving survey results from over 1,000 residents which revealed traffic congestion as the most important issue for the County; second was "other; and third was the lack of affordable housing. The most critical needs documented are to address reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, to build an adequate local transportation system and to focus on a supply of affordable and workforce housing. Supervisor McGlashan discussed second largest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions as how electricity is generated and said the County has been looking at Community Choice Aggregation. He said the Countywide Energy Task Force is looking to approve a business plan to send to all Chambers of Commerce for review and adoption and the first County Board of Supervisors Workshop on the business plan is tentatively scheduled for late April. He further spoke on the Community Choice Aggregation program and said all citizens will vote on whether they should be aggregated in for the purpose of supplying or generating their electricity. A new JP A will need to be formed for the purpose of setting public policy and rates to apply electricity on behalf of the town's residents. Every jurisdiction that decides to do this will join a new JPA which will focus on rate-setting and sourcing electricity on behalf of businesses and citizens in each jurisdiction. Ratepayers will not notice a difference in their bills, as the new JP A will take responsibility for the "generation" item on utility bills. He believed the County can greatly exceed the existing renewable portfolio standard that PG&E is able to provide, the JP A will be able to set its own rates, and he noted Sacramento and Palo Alto are public utilities and their rates are approximately 18% lower. He discussed the process of the CCA, stating the JP A would first hire experts to broker energy contracts. They would buy renewable lots of power, the JP A would use its tax-exempt bonding capacity of its local agencies to slowly build projects and over time as investments are made the rates will be lower than PG&E' s rates. Revenue is retained by the JP A which stays in the County for the purpose of purchasing power and building plants. Currently, it costs about 15 cents per kilowatt to install solar panels and they can get renewable power for 8-9 cents per kilowatt hour and the exciting upside is that the entire Marin community would draw greenhouse gas emissions 10% to 20% below 1990 levels. He reported funding was recently received from the BAAQMD to provide back-up for staff education efforts and noted certain County Supervisor's staff is available to visit local Councils to provide assistance. He said when the ordinance is passed, the Town would need to authorize the establishment of Tiburon membership into the JP A, they would have to take another vote once DRAFT Town Council Minutes No. 02-2008February 6,20008 Page 20[8 the contract is set, there are four required mailings under law the JP A would have to generate to inform ratepayers and business owners, and there will be multiple hearings in the 12 jurisdictions. Councilmembers raised issues of alternative energy sources and new technology, solar power, pricing structures, bond financing based on the Berkeley model and other financing methods, identifiable risks before signing onto the program and start-up costs which can be bonded into the future revenue stream. Supervisor McGlashan reported on future projects which may be on the Ballot include improvements to libraries, open space fire management, agricultural land preservation, and a possible Marin General Hospital seismic retrofit bond project. He said an upcoming item on the Board of Supervisors agenda will be brokering a better relationship between the Health Care District Board and the Hospital. He said the County is a true stakeholder in the matter because if the hospital folds, there is a $20 million general fund obligation for indigent care. Councilmembers and staff thanked Supervisor McGlashan for his informative update. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt Minutes of January 16, 2008 meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Monthly Investment Summary - Accept December 2007 report (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 3. Emergency Repairs - Authorize budget amendment for recent storm damage repairs (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) 4. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Adopt resolution partially granting appeal of Design Review Board approval to construct exterior alterations to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced side yard setbacks (Director of Community Development Anderson) Appellants: Applicant: Property Address: Assessor Parcel No: David & Beverly Kell Joseph Lanyadoo 78 Red Hill Circle 058-212-21 5. New MarinMap Agreement - Adopt resolution withdrawing from existing joint powers agreement and authorizing Mayor to execute new agreement with Marin General Services Agency (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 5. Berger, seconded by Collins AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Gram (Item 1 and 4) DRAFT Town Council Minutes No. 02-2008 February 6, 20008 Page 30[8 ACTION ITEMS 1. Town Council Committee Appointments - Update Appointments list to reflect new Council committee appointments (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Town Manager Curran said the staff report outlines three recommendations relating to appointments: 1) Councilmember Gram is stepping down as the Town's representative to the Marin Telecommunications Agency; 2) At the last meeting the Council approved joining ICLEI and ratification is needed for Councilmember Berger to serve as the Town's liaison; and 3) The Planning Commission has formed a Green Building Subcommittee. Staff believes it would be important to have a Town Council Subcommittee which could also meet with the Planning Commission's Subcommittee and then bring back information to the full Council. MOTION: Moved: Vote: MOTION: Moved: Vote: MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint Councilmember Collins to the Marin Telecommunications Agency. Berger, seconded by Gram AYES: Unanimous To appoint Councilmember Berger as the Town's liaison to ICLEI. Fredericks, seconded by Collins AYES: Unanimous To appoint Councilmembers Berger and Vice Mayor Fredericks to the ad hoc Green Building Sub-Committee Collins, seconded by Gram AYES: Unanimous 2. Allocation of General Fund Reserves - Consider mid-year recommendations to allocate surplus reserves into designated funds (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Director of Administrative Services Bigall reported that the Town annually reviews the General Fund Reserve balances and makes recommendations to the Council regarding designation of excess funds, according to Town policy. She said that staffhad met with the Finance subcommittee and made the following recommendations: 1. Allocate $1.1 million to the designated reserves; 2. Create a new General Fund Reserve to begin funding at $150,000 for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) as required by GASB 45; 3. A change to the funding level of the Self-Insurance Reserve. The current policy is to fund the Reserve at $200,000, and staff recommends the workers' compensation liability maintain a Fund Balance of $1 00,000 to cover unanticipated insurance liability needs; 4. Accelerate funding by allocating $569,805 to the Public Works Corp Yard Replacement fund; 5. Allocate $65,000 to the Employee Compensated Leave Reserve; 6. Allocate $200,000 to the Drainage and Streets fund; 7. Allocate $70,000 to the Open Space Maintenance Reserve in anticipation of future maintenance efforts. Town Manager Curran noted that these were allocations as opposed to appropriations. DRAFT Town Council Minutes No. 02-2008 February 6, 20008 Page 40[8 Councilmember Berger questioned why funds could not be placed into one large account to draw from. The Town Manager said that this could be an alternate method, however, she added that by designating these amounts, staff is better able to anticipate and financially plan for various priorities and projects by assigning utilization of the funds. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked about funding the Self-Insurance Reserve. Director Bigall explained that staff recommends allocating $100,000 to cover self-insured retention for unanticipated needs and that the $100,000 proposed was not in addition to the Self-Insurance Reserve set at $200,000. Councilmember Gram asked how much of the $1.1 million was "new money" in the budget. Ms. Bigall replied $900,000. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To approve the proposed General Fund allocations, as recommended. Fredericks, seconded by Berger AYES: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Consider appeal by Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition of Design Review Board approval of site plan and architectural review to construct additions and renovations to an existing religious facility and day school (Congregation Kol Shofar) (Director of Community Development Anderson) - continued without hearing until March 5, 2008 Appellants: Applicant: Property Address: Assessor Parcel No: Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition Congregation Kol Shofar 215 Blackfield Drive 038-351-34 Town. Manager Curran said one of the things that came to light in the scheduling of the hearing is the Town's policy on story poles for appeals. The policy states the poles must be up for 14 days in advance of the public hearing and differs from the DRB policy which is 10 days. She proposed placing the policy on a subsequent agenda to address this issue. Curran also said she hoped to agendize an item dealing with all polices relating to policies of actions of Commissions and Council and how they function and inter-relate with each other for the Council Retreat. Councilmember Gram said the purpose of the policy of the story poles would be to have them up with tape so that the Council had enough time to reasonably visit the property. He said there was little time to do this, given the receipt of packet and staff report information. Mayor Slavitz noted that the appeal hearing had been continued to March 5, 2008. 2. Building Code Amendments - Consider amendments to Chapter 13 of Town Code- Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) Director Anderson said the ordinance was introduced at the Council's last meeting and staff's recommendation is to hold the public hearing, take testimony, and adopt the ordinance relating to Building Code amendments. DRAFT Town Council Minutes No. 02-2008February 6,20008 Page 50[8 Councilmember Berger referred to Section F, item C. He said that the zoning ordinance had been revised to state that an area could have a sink or wet bar and refrigerator without it being identified as a kitchen; he wondered if the wording in the aforementioned section might be in conflict with other sections of the Municipal Code. Director Anderson said that wet bars would not fall under the ordinance and would therefore not be considered a kitchen. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing and there were no public comments. Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To read ordinance by title only. Berger, seconded by Gram AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Provisions of title IV, Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Building Regulations)." MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt ordinance, as written. Fredericks, seconded by Berger AYES: Berger, Collins, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz 3. Historical Landmark Building Code Amendments - Consider repeal of Chapter 13B of the Town Code and adoption of a new Chapter 13B (Historical Landmarks) - Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) Director Anderson said the ordinance had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Heritage & Arts Commission and minor changes had been incorporated into the draft. One procedural change to the existing ordinance, according to Anderson, was that any proposal involving Town land or property must be initially be reviewed by the Town Council. He said that staff recommended that the Council hold a public hearing, take testimony and pass first reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Gram confirmed that the ordinance applies to both public and private property. He said that historical landmarks typically are identified by those properties of a certain age, and he questioned what would be defined as "aesthetic interest", as they may not have historical interest at all. He said that both state and federal law required an "age" for properties under consideration for historical preservation. Town Manager Curran suggested removing "or aesthetic" and add "historical value of 50 years of age". Director Anderson noted this could also be included in Section 13B-l as well. Councilmember Gram referred to Section 13B-2, procedure for designation of historical landmarks. He referred to the City of Berkeley's ordinance that had no time limits to act on applications, and requested a time period be added to section (a) to require action on applications for historical properties of "not to exceed 6 months." He also requested the word "owner" be added to (b) as follows: "Reasonable efforts shall be made to provide notice to owners, tenants or lessees of the place, building, or structure on which the historical designation would be applied." Vice Mayor Fredericks referred to Section 13B-l, Purpose, the last line indicates, "..reasonable control of the use and/or appearance of neighboring private property within public view." In DRAFT Town Council Minutes No. 02-2008February 6, 20008 Page 60[8 Section 13 B-4 (e), it controls private property within the site of a historical landmark and she said she was uncomfortable with the item's vagueness and the possibility for controversy. Councilmember Berger asked whether property owners would have the right of appeal if "any person" could file an application to designate someone's property. Mayor Slavitz referred to Section 13B-4 (b) and said he was not sure how the review by the Heritage & Arts Commission would work. Director Anderson agreed to incorporate Council's comments into an amended version of the ordinance. Item continued. 4. Zoning Code Amendments - Consider amendments to Chapter 16 of Town Code regarding Village Commercial (VC) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) districts in downtown area - Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) Planning Manager Watrous said that the text amendments proposed to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code were to implement policies contained within the Downtown Element of the General Plan. One change recommended by the Planning Commission to the original draft had to do with regulations provided for restaurants, according to Watrous. He said that the Commission recommended that restaurants which have primarily fast-food and/or take-out service be evaluated on a case by case basis. He said that there is language within Policy DT -10 that supplements this which states, "This policy does not prohibit beverage or specialty food providers including but not limited to coffee, tea houses, juice bars, and ice cream/frozen yogurt shops." He stated that the Commission had recommended that this supplemental description not be included in the code amendment. Vice Mayor Fredericks referred to Policy DT-l0 and confirmed with Mr. Watrous that the Planning Commission had requested this change to the policy after discussing deli-style restaurants, such as "Let's Eat," which had a few tables for dining in. Even though it is primarily a take-out restaurant, it was not considered a fast-food use, according to Watrous. Vice Mayor Fredericks also referred to the classification of personal service versus an office installation and questioned if it could be argued that realtors fall under personal services. Planning Manager Watrous said personal services generally relate more to doctor's offices, dental, hair dressers, therapeutic offices, and real estate offices are considered commercial offices. Councilmember Berger said his architectural firm went from a cottage behind a house to a storefront office/former pet shop on College Avenue. He referred to Section 16-2.12.1 (b) and supported its wording because what happens is landlords want to rent to retailers, but during certain economic times, to keep things viable, they must be able to rent to a variety of uses. Councilmember Berger also asked what would constitute compelling evidence that a business is economically viable. Planning Manager Watrous said that it would be easier to regulate the DRAFT Town Council Minutes No. 02-2008February 6, 20008 Page 70[8 physical layout of a site rather than economic viability, but that the proposed exception process could consider both factors. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing and there were no public comments. Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To read ordinance by title only. Berger, seconded by Gram AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Amending Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code by Making Text Amendments thereto." MOTION: Moved: Vote: To pass first reading of the above ordinance. Gram, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Berger, Collins, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None WEEKLY DIGESTS WEEKLY DIGESTS . Town Council Weekly Digest - January 18,2008 . Town Council Weekly Digest - January 25,2008 . Town Council Weekly Digest - February 1,2008 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes No. 02-2008February 6, 20008 Page 80[8 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: CC...).. STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Approve Service Agreement for Focused EIR for a Project at 20 Main Street and Authorize the Town Manager to Execute the Agreement Reviewed By: e BACKGROUND The Town of Tiburon has received an application to demolish the existing commercial building at 20/22 Main Street and replace it with a new commercial structure. Because of the age and historical significance of the building, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. The EIR will focus on the cultural/historic impacts of the project. ANALYSIS Staff solicited and received informal price quotes from three qualified vendors to prepare the EIR for this project. The price quotes were as follows: Newman Planning Associates Leonard Charles and Associates: Jensen Planning Services $33,965 $42,105 $50,000 FINANCIAL IMPACT There will be no effect on the Town's operating budget as all costs associated with the EIR and project processing are recovered through the Town's standard fee schedules. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the firm of Newman Planning Associates be selected to prepare this EIR. This firm has a track record in preparing environmental documents focused on historic resource impacts, especially on small reconstruction projects. Staff recommends that the Town Council: 'fo\vn (u:ouncil ")(') j'Yi8 ~'." ~\..,\.'( Move to approve the recommended selection and authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement for professional services with Newman Planning Associates, at an amount not to exceed $33,965. Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development ~ Prepared By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 T own Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: CC'" J STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Approve Budget Amendments and Service Agreements for Permit- Tracking Software for the Community Development Department and Authorize the Town Manager to Execute the Agreements ~ Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Obtaining a state-of-the-art permit tracking system is an important goal of the Community Development Department. Over the past several months, the Town conducted a comprehensive review and selection process for permit-tracking software and vendors, and sought formal proposals from the three most qualified vendors determined through the initial screening process. Staff requests that the Council select PermitSoft as the vendor, approve contracts with both PermitSoft and the Town's technical transition consultant, Deborah Yacobellis-Desmond, authorize the Town Manager to execute the contracts, and approve a budget amendment to fully fund the contracts. ANALYSIS Software Vendor After screening numerous providers and permit-tracking products, Town staff and its consultant solicited and received proposals from three software vendors as follows: PermitSoft: CRW Accela: $121,900 plus $14,100 annual maintenance $177,500 plus $11,000 annual maintenance $751,544 plus $45,065 annual maintenance In addition to being low bidder, PermitSoft was also considered by staff and its independent consultant to be the most appropriate software package for the Town for the foreseeable future. Staff recommends that the Council approve the services agreement with PermitSoft in an amount not to exceed $121,900, with an annual maintenance charge of$14,110. 'rn\vn C:ouncil Management Consultant Managing the software implementation and start-up, transitioning the Town's 7+ years of data into the new system, and ensuring proper training of staff is a very technical and time-consuming process beyond the resources of Town Staff. Independent consultant Deborah Yacobellis was invaluable during the vendor screening/RFP process and would act as the Town's management consultant during the transition process, which typically takes 6-12 months based on the experience of other municipalities. Ms. Yacobellis recently and successfully completed this process for the City of Mill Valley's permit tracking system. Staff recommends that the Council approve and authorize the Town Manager to execute the management consultant agreement for an amount not to exceed $37,500. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Town adopted a technology recovery fee in January 2007 in order to fund the purchase, installation and ongoing maintenance of, among other things, a permit tracking system. This fee currently garners approximately $75,000 annually. These revenues are deposited into the already established Town General Fund Technology Reserve. The adopted municipal budget appropriates $75,000 towards the permit tracking system from the Technology Fund. To date, the Town has expended $21,150 towards this project, leaving $53,850 available. Therefore, an additional $105,550 must to be appropriated to purchase the software and let the consultant contract. After appropriating the additional funding, the General Fund Technology Reserve will have a balance of $168,000 at fiscal year end, June 30, 2008. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to approve a budget amendment in the amount of$105,500 to be funded from the General Fund Technology Reserve Fund and service agreements and authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreements Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development ~ Prepared By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: C C _ 'I STAFF REPORT To: M'ayor and Members of the Town Council Prom: Public Works Department Community Development Department Subject: Approve Service Agreement for Removal of Broom and Pampas Grass in Middle Ridge Open Space Area and Authorize the Town Manager to Execute the Agreement /~. \ ~J; L#-v Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Town Council budgeted $30,000 for various open space management items in the current fiscal year budget. Approximately $4,000 was expended in conjunction with the fire road rehabilitation project conducted last fall; approximately $26,000 remains for open space management. As noted in the Town Council digest memo dated February 1,2008 (attached), Staff believes that the most appropriate use of the funds at this time is to remove broom and pampas grass infestations that are threatening rare and endangered plants in the Middle Ridge Open Space area. The Town solicited bids through its informal bid process for small projects and received two viable bids from those firms contacted. The superior bid came from the Marin Conservation Corps. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds to complete the recommended work are contained in the current fiscal year budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to approve a service agreement with the Marin Conservation Corps for completion of the work in an amount not to exceed $26,000 and authorize the Town Manager to execute the agreement. Exhibits: Digest Memo of 2/1/2008 Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development DIGEST ~ ~/ r Town of Tiburon ;I 'MEMORANDUM ........... .... ........ ....... ......... ...... TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Developmen~ Nick Nguyen, Director of Public Works ~ .--" Peggy Curran, Town Manager e:.- ~ SUBJECT: Open Space Management & Broom Committee Update DATE: February 1, 2008 ... ................. ........... ... .... ....... The current fiscal year budget allocated $30,000 for various open space management objectives, including invasive plant removal, fire road rehabilitation, and creation of an open space management plan. The fire road rehabilitation work was successfully completed in the autumn of 2007. The fire road rehabilitation work was seen as the most important step in fire safety prevention that could be completed in the short term. Staff and the volunteer "Broom Committee" of Allan Littman and Eva Buxton have also identified localized areas of critical concern where immediate action is recommended to prevent the loss of rare and endangered plants by invasive plant species. We believe that this situation would likely be shown as "top priority" under any management plan prepared for the Town, due to the fact that these plants are federally protected and the threat of loss is real and growing. Cost estimates for the work have been secured and staff intends to engage workers to remove the most threatening of the invasive plants at their interface with the federally-protect species. Staff has also been working with the Broom Committee to address issues of managing the approximately 260-acres of Town-owned open space on the Peninsula. After some research, Staff has concluded that an appropriate open space management plan will require funds and expertise beyond that available in-house and in the current budget. In the next few months, Staff intends to release a Request for Proposals for preparation of such a plan so that the costs of preparing the plan may be better understood in time for the next budget cycle. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: C(-~ STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Clerk Subject: @dation to Adopt Resolution Opposing Doyle Drive Toll Reviewed By: BACKGROUND This report has been prepared at the request of Vice Mayor Fredericks, the Town's representative to the Transportation Authority of Marin, to provide information and a resolution in opposition to the imposition of a toll for the reconstruction of Doyle Drive. In August 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded $158.7 million in discretionary funds for the San Francisco Bay Area through the Urban Partnership Program (UPP) for the mitigation of urban congestion. A prerequisite for use of these funds is the implementation of "congestion pricing," or tolls. The reconstruction of Doyle Drive is among the projects that have been identified for receipt of the funds (in the amount of$36 million). $12 million has been earmarked for tolling equipment on Doyle Drive, and $12.8 million for a potential Larkspur ferry parking structure. The San Francisco Transportation Authority (SFT A), the agency deemed responsible for the reconstruction of Doyle Drive, has introduced legislation at the state level to receive the necessary authority to impose a "user fee" (toll) for this project. ANAL YSIS Many cities and towns in Marin agree that it is important to replace Doyle drive with a seismically sound new facility and that it is a priority for our region. However, most of the cities in Marin, along with the Board of Supervisors and the Transportation Authority of Marin, have already sent letters or adopted resolutions registering their opposition to the imposition of a toll for this purpose. Studies show that only six percent of daily traffic to the downtown San Francisco area enters from the Golden Gate Bridge corridor. An equitable solution to the problem of urban congestion in downtown San Francisco must be addressed in a way that requires all who contribute to the congestion to share the cost. '!'Cl\Vn C:ouncil 2(\ 2ChJ8 It should also be noted that safety projects on state-owned highways are normally funded by the state, and not by means of tolls. No where else in the state are tolls being used to reconstruct state highways. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact to the Town of Tiburon; however, there would be an impact on residents and businesses who would pay the proposed toll. RECOMMENDATION Vice Mayor Fredericks and Staff recommend that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution opposing proposed legislation imposing a toll of Doyle Drive. Exhibits: Draft Resolution Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk H. C) >~ RESOLUTION NO. XX-2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON OPPOSING PROPOSED LEGISLATION IMPOSING A TOLL ON DOYLE DRIVE WHEREAS, the single highway access directly connecting San Francisco and Marin County requires crossing the Golden Gate Bridge; and WHEREAS, the southern approach to the bridge, Doyle Drive, is 72 years old and has been well documented as a significant risk to public safety which requires seismic upgrades; and WHEREAS, Doyle Drive is part of the California State Highway System (CALTRANS), owned and maintained by CAL TRANS and would become a toll road unlike any other similar state facility; and WHEREAS, under an agreement between CAL TRANS and the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCT A), SFCT A has accepted the responsibility to be the project sponsor for the replacement of Doyle Drive; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Transportation has established an Urban Partnership Program and made an offer of$158 million to the San Francisco Bay Area, conditioned upon a public agency establishing its authority to implement congestion pricing through a toll strategy by the year 2010; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and SFCT A are actively pursuing legislation that would result in a toll being placed on Doyle Drive; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Town of Tiburon opposes legislation that would result in a toll being placed on Doyle Drive because it unfairly taxes North Bay commuters without equitably taxing all users of Doyle Drive, and singles out one point of access Town Council Resolution No. xx-2008 Adopted 2/20/08 Page J 0[2 into San Francisco for congestion pricing without developing a comprehensive program for all points of entry into the city; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council opposes such legislation because it includes no funding of a transit alternative for those wishing to avoid the toll and assigns sole responsibility for deciding the terms of the toll and allocation of the toll proceeds to the SFCT A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that every effort should be made to separate the congestion pricing required under the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Urban Partnership Agreement from funding the gap in the cost of the Doyle Drive Replacement Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on February 20, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. xx-2008 Adopted 2/20/08 Page 2 0[2 TOWN OF TIBURON ~"::;. 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: U - 0 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Recommendation to Approve Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Recognition of Marin Municipal Water District and Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. Efforts in the Upgrade of the Multi-Use Path 2~ Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Now that the signage for the Multi-Use Path is ready for installation, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BP AC) plans to conduct a small ceremony, tentatively scheduled for Friday, February 29th or Saturday, March 1 S\ to mark the occasion of the path's completion. BP AC would like to use that opportunity to recognize the work of both the Marin Municipal Water District and Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. for their efforts in improving the multi- use path by presenting Certificates of Appreciation to representatives of each agency. The certificates are attached. Because the certificates invoke the 'Town of Tiburon' as the issuer, they are presented to the Town Council for approval. The Mayor, a member of BP AC, would sign and present the certificates to the recipients on behalf of both the Town and BP AC. As this is just an informal ceremony, BP AC anticipates holding a much larger ceremony in conjunction with Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) later in the summer as a public outreach event. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Approve the attached Certificates of Appreciation for distribution to MMWD and Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. Exhibits: 1. 2. Certificate of Appreciation to MMWD Certificate of Appreciation to Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner Town Council Meeting February 20,2008 Agenda Item: 11:r-1 ST \FF J{EPOJ{ I' To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Recommendation to Amend Town Council Policy 2002-01 for Story Pole Requirements for Town Council Appeals Reviewed By: ~ SUMMARY T own Council Policy 2002-01 contains the requirements for installation of story poles for projects on appeal to the Town Council. The Town Council has raised concerns that this policy may be too restrictive or inconsistent with other Town story pole policies. A revised story pole policy has been prepared for review and consideration by the Town Council. BACKGROUND Prior to 2002, the Town Council had an informal policy for story poles to be erected for appeals before the Town Council. Although most appellants complied with these informal requirements, there were lapses in the installation of connecting elements, which sometimes made it difficult for the Town Council to easily visualize the dimensions of proposed structures. On May 15,2002 the Town Council adopted Policy 2002-01 regarding story pole requirements for appeals before the Council. The policy contains requirements for visually connecting all story poles, with the connections to be in place at least 14 days prior to the Town Council hearing on the application. The policy also requires that failure to install the poles and connecting materials in a timely manner would result in an automatic 30 day continuance of the appeal hearing. Since that time, there has been some confusion regarding these requirements, partly due to differences between the Town Council policy and the policy for installing story poles before Design Review Board hearings. The Town has historically required story poles to be installed 10 days before a Design Review Board meeting, rather than the 14 days required before a Town Council appeal hearing. The Design Review Board has not automatically required continuance of a public hearing for failure to install story poles in time, but has reviewed cases individually to determine if the story poles have been installed long enough before the meeting to ensure that the Board and neighboring property owners have had enough time to properly evaluate a proposed project. TOWN OF TIBURON ~"::;. 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: U - 0 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Recommendation to Approve Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Recognition of Marin Municipal Water District and Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. Efforts in the Upgrade of the Multi-Use Path 2~ Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Now that the signage for the Multi-Use Path is ready for installation, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BP AC) plans to conduct a small ceremony, tentatively scheduled for Friday, February 29th or Saturday, March 1 S\ to mark the occasion of the path's completion. BP AC would like to use that opportunity to recognize the work of both the Marin Municipal Water District and Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. for their efforts in improving the multi- use path by presenting Certificates of Appreciation to representatives of each agency. The certificates are attached. Because the certificates invoke the 'Town of Tiburon' as the issuer, they are presented to the Town Council for approval. The Mayor, a member of BP AC, would sign and present the certificates to the recipients on behalf of both the Town and BP AC. As this is just an informal ceremony, BP AC anticipates holding a much larger ceremony in conjunction with Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) later in the summer as a public outreach event. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Approve the attached Certificates of Appreciation for distribution to MMWD and Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. Exhibits: 1. 2. Certificate of Appreciation to MMWD Certificate of Appreciation to Ghilotti Construction Company, Inc. Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner '1,,\\\ II l'(\l1llcil \\('t'!illC: !vLn1dr\ ~(), J( h ),~ ANALYSIS Staff recommends that several changes be made to the current Town Council story pole policy: 1. Story poles would be required to be installed 10 days prior to the Council appeal hearing, rather than 14 days. This would eliminate confusion by requiring the poles to be up for the same length of time as the original Design Review Board hearing. 2. The policy would note that the story poles do not have to be installed for the 10 day period immediately prior to the hearing "provided that staff has distributed the Council packets for the hearing at least one week before the applicant removes the story poles." This would allow some additional flexibility in the timing for installing the story poles while ensuring that the Council would' have adequate opportunity to view the poles on the site. 3. Instead of requiring an automatic 30 day continuance if story poles are not erected in time, the policy would state that "failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in a continuance of the public hearing date." This would allow for some discretion in deciding whether a continuance is needed due to a slight delay in installing the story poles resulting from inclement weather or other circumstances. 4. The word "complete" would be deleted from the requirement that "all construction projects that will be reviewed on appeal by the Town Council must be represented by [complete] story pole installations." The appropriate number of story poles for a project can vary, and often poles at certain comers of a proposed structure are not necessary to adequately illustrate the parameters of the project for the Town Council. 5. Story poles are sometimes left on the site long after a decision has been made on the project, causing an eyesore for neighbors. Staff therefore recommends incorporating language from the policy for Design Review Board story poles which requires that "story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council." RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1. Discuss the proposed amendments to Town Council Policy 2002-01; and 2. Adopt the amended Town Council Policy 2002-01. Exhibits: 1. 2. Draft policy Town Council Policy 2002-01 Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager !, I' TOWN COUNCIL POLICY 2002-01 STORY POLE REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWN COUNCIL APPEALS Adopted By Town Council on May 15, 2002 Modified By Town Council on February 20, 2008 [Text to be added in italics; text to be deleted struck tlKough] Story poles are an important visual device for illustrating the scope of proposed construction projects in Tiburon. The need to install complete and representative story poles is critical prior to public hearings for projects appealed to the Town Council. The Town of Tiburon has determined that all construction projects that will be reviewed on appeal by the Town Council must be represented by complete story pole installations. Critical story poles must also be connected by means of ribbons, string, rope or other similar materials clearly visible from a distance of at least 300 feet, to better illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff prior to installation of the poles and connections. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least -l4 10 days prior to the date of any the appeal hearing before the Town Council. This period need not coincide with the 10 days immediately prior to the hearing provided that staff has distributed the Council packets for the hearing at least one week before the applicant removes the story poles. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner 5hall may result in aft automatic continuance of the public hearing date for approximately 30 days. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. If you have any questions regarding these story pole requirements, please contact the Tiburon Planning Division at (415) 435-7390. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 T own Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: ;fl~ 1 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Recommendation to Negotiate a New Long Term Agreement with Mill Valley Refuse Company and Approve a Budget Amendment of $40,000 to Engage a Consultant to Assist in the Negotiation Process ~--;-., (j~ Reviewed By: INTRODUCTION The Town has had a franchise agreement with Mill Valley Refuse Company for trash, and now recycling, services since 1965. The current contract is set to terminate in 2011. Staff believes it is in the interest of the Town to negotiate a new long-term agreement at this time and seeks Town Council approval to proceed with this effort and to engage an expert in that field to assist the Town in gaining the best and most comprehensive arrangement it can through this process. BACKGROUND The current agreement with MVRS provided for an 'evergreen' roll-over until such time as the Town provided a ten-year notice of termination. The Town issued this notice Sept 5, 2003, so the current contract is now set to expire on December 31, 2012. The Town did not issue the notice out of displeasure with the service of MVRS, but rather to allow the process of renegotiation to occur. Staff met with the Finance Sub-Committee to discuss renegotiation and, in particular, the engagement of an expert to assist staff in the negotiation of this agreement. Since long-term agreements are customary in this field due to the substantial capital investments on the part of the service provider, it is important that the Town have an agreement that will continue to serve its interests long into the future. The cost of the negotiator, estimated to be $40,000, will be reimbursed by MVRS, which will ultimately pass it through to its customers. Corte Madera has recently used this same model to successfully develop a 20-year contract for its residents. Tiburon can use the Corte Madera contract as a jumping-off point for contract development and negotiation. Staff believes, at a minimum, a renegotiated agreement will provide new funds to the Town through the creation of a franchise fee on debris boxes. Most Marin municipalities currently assess fees for debris boxes on both MVRS and Grange, the two providers of this service. Tiburon currently has no fee. FINANCIAL IMP ACT Staff is seeking a budget amendment of $40,000 to engage an expert for the purpose of negotiating this long-term contract. Any funds expended on this will be recouped through MVRS. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Authorize staff to negotiate a new long-term agreement with MVRS and return with said agreement to the Town Council for its consideration and approval; 2. Approve a budget amendment of $40,000 for the negotiation of a new long-term agreement with MVRS from funds in the unallocated reserves; and 3. Authorize the Town Manager to negotiate and execute a contract for negotiation servIces. Prepared By: Peggy Curran, Town Manager TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 T own Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: p#-I ~ ST AFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 275 Diviso Street; Recommendation to Deny Appeal of Design Review Board's Decision to Approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling e Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA OWNER: APPLICANT/ARCHITECT: ADDRESS: ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: PARCEL MAP NO: FILE NUMBER: LOT SIZE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOD ZONE: AVIRON A VI RON/DEAN JONES, ARCHITECT 275 DIVISO STREET 059-071-51 PARCEL 2, P.M. 10-91 (1974) 707126 18,050 SQUARE FEET R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) C BACKGROUND On November 1,2007, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for construction of a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot located at 275 Diviso Street. Five nearby property owners have appealed the Board's decision. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed residence is a two-story structure with a Mediterranean architectural theme. The upper level would include a living room, dining room, kitchen, breakfast nook, and a three car garage. A deck would extend off the dining room and connect with a larger main deck at the rear of the home, accessed by the breakfast nook, kitchen and living room. The lower level would include three bedrooms, two bathrooms, laundry room, and master bedroom suite. A smaller deck would extend toward the rear of the home with access from the master bedroom suite and two bedrooms. A five to six foot high entry fence would extend across the front of the property along Diviso Street. ~Tc)'\\.: n C~',c~Lrncj OJ 20.2008 The structure would have a lot coverage of 4,469 square feet (25%), which is below the 30% maximum permitted lot coverage in the R-l zone. The proposed structure would have a gross floor area of 3,795 square feet, which is slightly less than the floor area guideline maximum (3,805 sq. ft.) for a property of this size. The fa9ade of the home would have a Mediterranean theme in both its architectural style and color/materials. Several variations of stone fa9ade in warm neutral colors are proposed around the structure, along with stucco siding in a shade of beige and a multi-colored tile roof. A color/materials board will be available for review at the meeting. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board first reviewed the project on October 4,2007. During the meeting, several neighbors spoke in opposition to the project and raised concerns about potential light pollution, drainage, and view impacts. The central tower element, one significant area of concern with the design of the structure, would cause view blockage for the neighbors at 295 and 280 Diviso Street and 2040 Vistazo East Street. The tower would serve as a green architectural element as it would provide ventilation and natural lighting to the home. Neighbors expressed concern about lighting impacts due to the amount of windows surrounding the central tower, as well as from dormers located over the garage and guest room facing east. The neighbor to the north of the subject site, located at 295 Diviso Street, stated she would lose views of the downtown San Francisco skyline and portions of Angel Island. Just prior to the Design Review Board meeting, the project architect lowered the ribbons on the story poles to reflect a two foot reduction in the height of the structure, in order to address these view blockages. However, the neighbor apparently misunderstood the ribbon placement and because the ribbons were modified late, most of the Board did not have an opportunity to view them. The neighbor across the street at 2040 Vistazo East Street stated that water views would be lost. This neighbor was also unclear about the meaning of the modified story pole ribbons, and requested that the structure be reduced in height by two feet, and that modified story poles be erected without the ribbons. The neighbor at 280 Diviso Street also expressed concerned about a loss of water view. The Board was pleased with the design of the home, but concluded that the applicant should work with the neighbors in reducing the extent of view blockage. The project was continued so that both the neighbors and the Board could view the modified story poles and ribbons. The Design Review Board considered revised drawings at its meeting on November 1,2007. The design of the home did not significantly change from the initial review of the project; however, the applicant had made considerable progress toward addressing the concerns of neighbors in reducing both view blockage and light pollution. Modifications included: . Lowering the entire structure thirty inches (30") into the ground; . Lowering the ceiling height by one foot (1') in the lower level of the home; . Lowering the central tower element of the home by six inches (6"); . Lowering the chimney to the maximum extent possible while meeting code; 2{L 2008 . Eliminating the architectural feature at the top of the central element; and . Relocating the window dormers to the west side of the structure to reduce potential light pollution. The neighbor at 290 Diviso Street accepted these modifications since she would retain her views of downtown San Francisco, but still felt that the home was out of scale with the existing structures in the neighborhood. The neighbor at 280 Diviso Street was still opposed to the extent of water view blockage being proposed. The neighbor at 2040 Vistazo East Street indicated that the applicant had addressed some concerns, but still objected to the extent of water view blockage, and felt that the applicant could further lower the central tower element or eliminate it from the proposal. This neighbor also objected to the amount of window area surrounding the tower element and requested that the windows be tinted. The applicant indicated that a small amount of tinting could be applied to the three windows in the tower element facing uphill ( east) to prevent new light impacts on this neighbor and other adjacent neighbors. The Design Review Board was split over whether the size and character of the home was appropriate for the site in comparison with existing structures in the neighborhood. Three of the Boardmembers determined that the proj ect was well designed and appreciated that a green architectural element would be included. They also determined that although the home appeared massive in plan view, once constructed, the amount of articulation and color/materials on the home would break up the massing and result in a beautiful Mediterranean style dwelling compatible with surrounding developments. Two of the Boardmembers concluded that the structure was too ornate in design, too large for the site, and that the design could be modified to fit in better with the existing neighborhood character. The Board voted 3-2 to approve the application, with Boardmembers Frymier and Teiser dissenting. A group of neighbors filed a timely appeal of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are three grounds on which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: Ground # 1: The design and effective bulk of the structure is not appropriate for the lot or the neighborhood. Staff Response: The proposed structure would not exceed the lot coverage or the floor area guideline for the subject property. The design of the structure specifically meets Goal 1, Principles 1, 2 and 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines in terms of cutting into the hillside and stepping the floors to reduce visual bulk, and using various materials and colors to aid in breaking up the massing of the structure. A study of dwellings within 300 feet of the subject property is attached for reference which shows each home's respective floor area ratios and their permitted FAR (Exhibit 2). Lot sizes in the area vary from 3,016 square feet to 47,425 square feet. While the subject dwelling would be one of the larger homes in the area, the study reflects that approximately eight of the thirty-three parcels studied have the potential to result in much larger homes on their respective sites. Seven out of the thirty-three dwellings already exceed the maximum floor area ratios. This study would overall indicate that while the proposed structure would be larger than the homes in the immediate vicinity, that the existing dwellings in the overall neighborhood vary in size and scale, and therefore there really is no apparent character trend in terms of mass and bulk of structures in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed dwelling would not be excessively out of character with the neighborhood. The design of the structure is a Mediterranean theme, which incorporates several earth-tone colors and several materials/textures. The structure would not be overly ornate in design, but would have enough variation in color and texture to aid in reducing the massing of the structure. A color/materials board will be available at the Council meeting for review. Ground #2: The 17 foot high central tower creates view blockage, light pollution and glare issues. Staff Response: The applicant has stated that the central tower is an essential part of the project, as it would result in natural lighting and cooling for the home. Operable windows, two square feet in size, would surround the tower, allowing air to move through the house while providing natural lighting. Lighting is not proposed inside the uppermost portion of the tower, and therefore minimal light would shine out of these windows toward other homes. It should be noted that conditions of approval require tinting of the three windows in the tower facing east to further limit light that could affect the uphill neighbors' nighttime views. In terms of view blockage, the tower minimally impacts water views from the living and dining rooms at 2040 Vistazo East Street. From 280 Diviso Street, it is difficult to determine how much water view blockage would result given the amount of mature vegetation located in the front yard, which obstructs any water views from within the home. The applicant modified the height of the structure so that the neighbor at 295 Diviso Street would maintain views of the downtown San Francisco skyline. It is important to keep in mind that the subject lot has been vacant since its creation in 1974 (File No. 67405), and therefore the adjacent properties have essentially been "borrowing" some of their views across this parcel. Ground #3: The remaining drainage and runoff issues have not been addressed as part of the project. Staff Response: The Town has adopted single-family dwelling drainage standards that are applied at the time of building permit submittal and review. Both Staff and the Design Review Board indicated to the neighbors that drainage and runoff issues are addressed in detail during the building plan check process not the design review process. CONCLUSION Although the Design Review Board members disagreed on the project application, the Board adhered to the Hillside Design Guidelines and the Guiding Principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review in its review of the project. It was the consensus of the Board that regardless of the size or placement of a home on this lot, some view blockages would occur. A majority of the Board concluded that although the project as shown in plan view appeared to be massive, once constructed, the amount of articulation and color/materials on the home would break up the massing and result in a well designed Mediterranean dwelling compatible with surrounding development. RECOMMENDA TION Tor\'\) C>"unci"i 2(L 2008 Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Indicate its intention to deny the appeal; and 2. Direct Staff to return with a Resolution denying the appeal, for adoption at the next meeting. Exhibits: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. . 28. 29. 30. Notice of Appeal 300' Radius Floor Area Ratio Chart and Map Letter dated February 12, 2008 from Margaret Patton and Denis Williams Letter dated February 12,2008 from John and Francesca Madden Letter dated February 12,2008 from Don and Mary Foree Email dated February 5,2008 from Dean Jones, Architect Goal 1, Principles 1, 2 and 3 of the Hillside Design Guidelines Minutes of the November 1,2007 Design Review Board Meeting Design Review Board Notice of Action dated November 2,2007 Design Review Board Staff Report dated November 1,2007 Photographs used by Dean Jones, Architect on November 1,2007 Letter dated October 23,2007 from John and Francesca Madden Email dated October24, 2007 from Dean Jones, Architect Letter dated October 29,2007 from Robin Lea Letter dated October 31, 2007 from Margaret Patton and Denis Williams Minutes of the October 4,2007 Design Review Board Meeting Design Review Board Notice of Action dated October 5,2007 Design Review Board Staff Report dated October 4, 2007 Photographs used by Dean Jones, Architect on October 4, 2007 Letter dated September 27,2007 from Robin Lea Letter dated September 27,2007 from Robin E. and Sherry Long De Mandel Letter dated September 27,2007 from John and Francesca Madden Photographs used by John and Francesca Madden on October 4, 2007 Email dated October 2,2007 from Bob Hamer Letter dated October 3,2007 from Don and Mary Foree Letter dated October 4,2007 from Margaret Patton and Denis Williams Photographs used by Margaret Patton on October 4, 2007 Letter dated October 4, 2007 from Daniel Del Pino Memo from Ron Barney, Fire Marshal, dated October 3, 2007 Letter dated October 2, 2007 from Lawrence P. Doyle, Land Surveyor-Civil Engineer Prepared By: 31. Application and Supplemental Materials 32. Submitted Plans Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner -!i)'AT) (' ')Ullci: 20,2008 LL~ .'" J~{' 0 /1 (.) Z-h- TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL APPELLANT Name:_ Robin Lea, 295 Diviso, Margaret Patton, Denis Williams, 280 Diviso, Mary and Don Foree, 265 Diviso, Robin E. and Sherry Long De Mandel, 2021 Vistazo East, Address:_ Francesca and John Madden, 2040 Vistazo East. Telephone:.,: 789-9716 ACTION BEING APPEALED Body: Appeal DRB approval of275 Diviso Date of Action: November 1,2007 Name of Applicant:_ Wilsey/Ron Nature of Application:_ Construction of new single family dwelling GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages, ifnecessary) There continues to be strong neighborhood opposition to the 275 Diviso project as currently designed. On 11/1/07 a contentious DRB meeting concluded with a 3/2 vote for the project. We believe this was an error of discretion and a continuance should have been issued. Two board members were strongly opposed. Significant remaining concerns follow: Design and effective bulk of structure is not appropriate for lot or neighborhood. 17 foot high central tower creates view blockages, light pollution and glare issues. Remaining drainage/run off issues have not been addressed Last Day to File: /l/~nf..Q ~w !~ Fee Paid: 4)1,1-0 ct Date Received: Il/(.~~ I ~ LffV 7- / ( ?;e ;;,C2-A/~l cf" .- 200 g- ',kl Date of Hearing: EXHIBIT NO. , //!ztf2" 1 / ,,-,,-:/5.::.c'}/t-t -,/ ,- - " ,It~{/~ {-~l;~"- /L January 2004 Floor Area Ratio Study 300' Radius of 275 Diviso Street APN: 059-071-51 *** Indicate Homes Exceeding FAR Maximum Address Lot Size FAR Permitted FAR 240 Diviso 7,735 1,477 2,773.5 300 Ridge Road 10,600 2,130 3,060 14 St. Bernard Lane 38,000 1,824 5,800 2077 Centro East 17,400 2,920 3,740 430 Ridge Road 21,420 2,488 4,142 1893 Centro West 10,489 3,757 3,048.9*** 1887 Centro West 8,288 1,362 2,828.8 260 Diviso Street 7,490 1,852 2,621.5 250 Diviso Street 7,490 3,134 2,621.5*** 260 Loma Avenue 14,523 1,834 3,452.3 2021 Vistazo East 7,767 2,442 2,776.7 243 Loma Avenue 7,426 2,007 2,599.1 10 Saint Bernard Lane 24,430 4,704 4,443*** 280 Loma Avenue 6,324 2,453 2,213.4*** 240 Loma Avenue 18,189 2,897 3,818.9 1877 Centro West 7,867 2,522 2,786.7 160 Las Lomas Lane 17,883 3,322 3,788.3 263 Loma Avenue 11,100 2,055 3,110 2090 Vistazo East 7,742 1,840 2,774.2 2051 Vistazo East 39,472 2,613 5,947.2 1965 Vistazo West 7,102 2,808 2,485.7*** 249 Diviso Street 3,016 1,543 1,055.6*** 4 St. Bernard Lane 14,614 696 3,461.4 239 Diviso Street 5,000 1,452 1,750 2040 Vistazo East 7,560 2,352 2,756 295 Diviso Street 47,425 4,675 6,742.5 223 Diviso Street 5,250 1,412 1,837.5 280 Diviso Street 9,000 1,503 2,900 2051 Centro East 8,549 2,619 2,854.9 131 Las Lomas Lane 6,930 792 2,425.5 244 Loma Avenue 8,060 2,331 2,806 1898 Centro West 14,560 1,764 3,456 1901 Centro West 7,020 2,557 2,457*** 275 Diviso Street 18,050 3,795 3,805 EXHIBIT NO. ~ . Parcel Map 059-071-:)1 '.','~l' ...----\\- -" 1'/.. /Ij~,h,"/~'/~i_ I '~">< ../ \,.... \\. ,r\'~"\\'\\\\l I.~I r~~'\JJ __-,! " ,r--li-:~~::t~.., ". >'" \, ' \ '. .. I T I I ~ tl " I . ..... '., ..' \ \ ,~ ../ / __,I1! l l:.~,J/ l. / / ,,' '\" "..<"- \ " ''-'''-" .' I 1...---- til ~,..,',' ,',' .' ",l, .-' r "'&?'b.'::::~_ I~ i~ " L-..L---- -----T----r-. · -~l~,/ / \. ,J . r /. ~ .--ci>'t.t-.... ., 1'""""T.~1 / I' >" """" i", .,/' . '''~'..,~it~ j I~ \ ,/ ,,/ /,,/f/ ..:'>'\ '. j ..~"'::..:. . , ,,' )-.-.,../"_~ 1-=;r t., / ...\ \ \ '<.,. ,-' '\ 11 ,/ l<~'.,/. /.,/ \~ \ \. ':::-,"'"< /./ ./ - ---- <<:~~;'=-~-t\ \\i~' /'( \--- II ._~---\ \ " ~ \ ", ~=l-// r'f -t' i=-1-{ r-------~-, \ ~---.'-1 I I, / '\ -~R"-'.t.-~.\.\.~' '. . '-". ". ....~ "/"\" /.?"""??~. .:. ~j,. // . .~."'I/ " lZ)lr~ Print Map Page t; ,,,,,,.\ ~)r'~ ", ,I,.!/L-'. L "-'. ~, r-;r-I~) ~ ."\ \5- l ;boo lnifl I LlLJLJ ,'ODD \(J][] \@"/' l " Oli ,.," .."'-.' / (C) ~005 Haril'a!.4lP.a .:r. "\\ .... ',' I r... ./..< \ \ .\1---.--11' . /}, /: /", ""\>( \\'1 \ /'i,>(" ." , ""/ ,..><.... .~l.>.-) - I..--J_.~~....../ .... 1< }..... . .< ~ ...~ ~.... -~\~\ ~--..~ ..,-.,../";~~~.:::.,.. <.. .\ ,~,..- . ..'~,~\. " 0"..'-. "', '-- ....?..~....~.;..,".:r "'\'1 \'" I-~ .(' '. t " \. /.J, I T ~ ? '. ..~"'ll'/ .>:\ \.. ~ II ~ -~ _..:j >~ I ,(,\:,>/,\<\;:~~-)_-\D \~;:~_: l " \ ./ i .. . \ '\, ".;(~ /~., ~\~L ,l. .~i'<~"~:<~~: .~~:~,\::':'\;\: J/",,!.,] ,j',<, / \ \;/ I L=:z:::----/ II \.~;,>.(:\~..'~~, ... " ----'1) ..~ ..---r---- ../ '.... ..- \ I,;. /(,.L-'-'~---.---;}~f;~:."\\.\ .,\.,.,\:i'\.,\:..,,"A\ 'j I <'t:--'---T-- . 4f , '., ". , "'~ \~-\ .~._J ~ ~ /'<:.. \\...\<"., ..,.\~~\:~:~\ \, I ... \~ I CJ ". ~". -')) '."''<'" '.\ \;---.\.. \_ 'I 0 b:-~"'~::::: ".~..._' ~.~1l't:\ \ \. / \, .>(....... \. ,/ \\.~ ,/<: ... .......'" ......., Page 1 of] ~ Strel 0 Pare CJ Citie 0 Com ;./ Strej ;V Shof 0 CouI http://mmgis.marinmap.org/MarinMap/Print_Process.asp 9/17/2007 .', EXHIBIT NO. Z. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting February 20, 2008 Agenda Item: PII.. 2. STAFF REPORT To: Mayor & Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Recommendation to Consider and Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 13B and Adopting a New Chapter 13B of the Tiburon Municipal Code Regarding Historical Landmarks Reviewed by: ~' BACKGROUND At is meeting of February 6,2008 the Town Council considered this item and directed Staff to make several changes to the draft ordinance. These changes are summarized in the minutes for the meeting, attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the draft ordinance, with Council-suggested revisions in track-changes format, is attached as Exhibit B. The current regulations are attached as Exhibit C. ANAL YSIS The Town Council directed several revisions be made to the draft, including: 1) Removal of the term "or aesthetic" from sections 13B-l and 13B-3(a). 2) Establishing a minimum of 50 years of age to qualify as potentially "historical" in Section 13B-3(b). 3) Specifying prompt notification of the property owner when an application has been filed (Section 13B-2(a)). 4) Establishing time limits for action by the Heritage & Arts Commission in acting on applications (90 days set forth in Section 13B-2(b)). 5) Establishing time limits for action by the Town Council in acting on the recommendation of the Heritage & Arts Commission (60 days as set forth in Section 13B-2(d)), and establishing an extension process for good cause (Section 13B-2(e)). 6) Elimination of the last sentence of Section 13B-l regarding reasonable control over the use and appearance of property neighboring an historical landmark. 7) Clarification of Section 13B-4( e) regarding review by the Heritage & Arts Commission of improvements within a specified distance of an historical landmark that could materially detract from the public visibility and/or enjoyment of the historical landmark. 'TCl\vn C.:ound! 2(\ 20U8 In response to Council concerns over potential abuse of the regulations, Staff notes that Chapter 13B has been in effect for 35 years and has not been subject to unreasonable application. The regulations have been applied reasonably and in moderation. The final decision always rests with the Town Council. As with most regulations, a reasonable application of the law by rational minds acting in a non-arbitrary and non-capricious manner must be assumed to a substantial degree. However, Staffbelieves that the revisions directed by the Town Council further reduce any potential for unreasonable application of Chapter 13B. In response to Councilmember Berger's question regarding an owner's right to appeal, Section 13B-5 provides broad appeal rights over any decision up until the time of Town Council final action. In response to Mayor Slavitz' question about Heritage & Arts Commission review of proposed alterations to an historical landmark, the Commission has on occasion reviewed and approved minor modifications to historical landmarks. Such applications are flagged by Community Development Department staff and are referred to the Commission as necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Take any public comment on this item 2. Consider the proposed revisions 3. Move to read by title only 4. By role call vote, pass first reading of the ordinance as modified Exhibits: A. B. C. Draft minutes of 2/6/2008 Council meeting. Proposed (revised) Chapter 13B Current Chapter 13B Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Developmen~ S:\AdministrationITown Co un cillStaff Reportsl20081Feb 20 DRAFTSIChapter 13B revisions report2.doc 3. Historical Landmark Building Code Amendments - Consider repeal of Chapter 13B of the Town Code and adoption of a new Chapter 13B (Historical Landmarks) - Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) Director Anderson said the ordinance had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Heritage & Arts Commission and minor changes had been incorporated into the draft. One procedural change to the existing ordinance, according to Anderson, was that any proposal involving Town land or property must be initially be reviewed by the Town Council. He said that staff recommended that the Council hold a public hearing, take testimony and pass first reading of the ordinance. Councilmember Gram confirmed that the ordinance applies to both public and private property. He said that historical landmarks typically are identified by those properties of a certain age, and he questioned what would be defined as "aesthetic interest", as they may not have historical interest at all. He said that both state and federal law required an "age" for properties under consideration for historical preservation. Town Manager Curran suggested removing "or aesthetic" and add "historical value of 50 years of age". Director Anderson noted this could also be included in Section 13B-l as well. Councilmember Gram referred to Section 13B-2, procedure for designation of historical landmarks. He referred to the City of Berkeley's ordinance that had no time limits to act on applications, and requested a time period be added to section (a) to require action on applications for historical properties of "not to exceed 6 months." He also requested the word "owner" be added to (b) as follows: "Reasonable efforts shall be made to provide notice to owners, tenants or lessees of the place, building, or structure on which the historical designation would be applied." Vice Mayor Fredericks referred to Section 13B-1, Purpose, the last line indicates, "..reasonable control of the use and/or appearance of neighboring private property within public view." In Section 13B-4 (e), it controls private property within the site of a historical landmark and she said she was uncomfortable with the item's vagueness and the possibility for controversy. Councilmember Berger asked whether property owners would have the right of appeal if "any person" could file an application to designate someone's property. Mayor Slavitz referred to Section 13B-4 (b) and said he was not sure how the review by the Heritage & Arts Commission would work. Director Anderson agreed to incorporate Council's comments into an amended version of the ordinance. Item continued. Excerpt of draft minutes of 2/6/2008 Town Council meeting EXHIBIT No.A ORDINANCE NO. N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TmURON REPEALING CHAPTER 13B AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13B OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO HISTORICAL LANDMARKS Section 1. Findin!!s. WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has a long and rich history, both in its regionally significant railroad, maritime and agricultural industries, and the unique character of its historic buildings and other structures; and WHEREAS, the character of the Town is threatened by new, more modem development at or near historic and/or aesthetic resources; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that the Town's existing provisions with respect to historical landmarks are outdated and in need of revision; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held public hearings on , 200_ and , 200_, and has considered any public testimony on this matter; and WHEREAS, all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has found that the proposed Municipal Code revision is consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other ordinances and regulations; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has found that the adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements ofCEQA per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines and is also exempt under the general rule set forth in Section 15062( c )(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. Chapter 13B of the Tiburon Municipal Code Repealed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that Chapter 13B (Historic Landmarks) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby repealed. Section 3. Chapter 13B of the Tiburon Municipal Code Added. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that a new Chapter 13B entitled "Historical Landmarks" is hereby added to the Tiburon Municipal Code as follows: Town ofTiburoll Ordinance No, N.s. Effective --/--/---- 1 EXHIBIT No.L Chapter 13B: Historical Landmarks 13B-1. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter, which is adopted pursuant to California Government Code section 37361, is to promote the general and economic welfare of the town by preserving, enhancing, or perpetuating those places, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects having a special historical ~~~!.esJ_ ~~_ yt;l~~e_ K<?!_ ~~_n- _l!-~~1_. _ _ _ _ _- education and view of the general public, and to remind all citizens of this town, and visitors from elsewhere, of the historical background of the town. ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . pu.rpeses set ferth abe':e may include at'propriate aHa reasenable eentrel of fue 1:lse and/er at'peafaBee ef Beighberiag pri'/ate preperty 'l/ithiB paebe '/iev/. 13B-2.Procedure for designation of historical landmarks. The procedure for designation of an historical landmark is as follows: (a) Application filing. Any person may file an application with the Director of Community Development seeking the designation of a place, building, structure, work of art or other object as an historical landmark of the Town of Tiburon. Said application shall be accompanied by a filing fee set by resolution of the Town Council and by relevant application materials specified on historical landmark designation application forms available from the Community Development Department. The Director of Community Development shall promptly inform the propertv owner in writing of the tiling of the application. Other than with respect to application on Town Property, once the Director of Community Development has accepted the application as complete for processing purposes it shall be referred to the Heritage & Arts Commission as set forth in subsection (b) below. The Director of Community Development may, in his sole discretion, refer said application to the Planning Commission or any other Town board or commission for comment prior to referral to the Heritage & Arts Commission. Subsection (c) below sets forth the procedure for applications involving Town Property. (b) Referral to Heritage & Arts Commission. The Heritage & Arts Commission shalL within ninety (90) days of receipt of the reterraL review and make a recommendation to the Town Council on all applications referred to the Heritage & Arts Commission for historical landmark designation. Said recommendation shall be bv Resolution. The Heritage & Arts Commission shall hold a public hearing, noticed in accordance with provisions of Government Code section 65091, prior to making its recommendation to the Town Council. Reasonable efforts shall be made to provide notice to tenants or lessees of the place, building, or structure on which the historical designation would be applied. (c) Applications involving Town Property. If the application proposes the designation of a place, building, structure, work of art or other object that is Town- owned or is located on Town-owned land, the application, once accepted as complete for processing purposes by the Director of Community Development, shall be immediately transmitted to the Town Council to determine whether it will Town ofTiburon Ordinance No, N.s. Effective --1--1---- 2 _ rD~i~;d;..'~;..~~sthetic .,..U] (nm._'...........................'...'.......'..'..nn..........'........n...'..... J' - -1 Formatted: Strikethrough grant its proprietary consent for processing of the application. If the Town Council declines its consent, then the application shall be terminated. If the Town Council grants its consent, then the application shall be referred to the Heritage & Arts Commission as set forth in subsection (b) above. (~n.......:_.,.........H.~.~r.!.ngJ~m,g..J!.g,~i~,iQILhY...:Ig.!y'D.....C.9.~'-n.~jJ..~....J~g...D..IQr~Jh~Q....~.i?fJ.y'.,HiQl,.4~y~ ~tl~,L!..~~gj.12LP.:fJh~....tl~rtt9.g9.. &..,.A.It~L(~.QInnJ.i~$.,i,Qn...r~gm.TI.!n,9n49.ti.QD.,~Jh~...:I.9,~YD.. C.Q,!Jl,l~,j.L~h~J.J....h.Qlg.,~,.l?.!J..hli.~.,h~.9.r.ing~,...nPJi.~~,g.jn...~.9..~.9.nJ..~n~,~:...Yt..iHJ..r.r.p,Y..bj.9.D..~,.Qf Government Code section 65091. prior to deliberating on the recommendation of the Heritage & Arts Commission and prior to taking.,~9.tion on an application f{)r historicallanclmark qesignation. The Town Councillnay. in its sole discretion. approve, approve with conditions. or deny an application for historical landmark designation. (e) Extension of deadlines in this Section. The Director of Community Development Inav extend any deadlines in this section for good cause, provided that the Town Council acts on the application within one-hundred eighty (180) days.,~r !~~~_ ~PpH~~~!~fl'.~. ~~o!nRlet!~~. .qate: _.TI~~. I~~Yp.. ~;.<?~~~H~il.ln_l!.~~ Xi.n.q_ g()_()~_._......_ cause for and approve any time extensions that result in Council action on the application one-hundred eighty (180) days.,~l:.l!~.<?r~.~ft~~.!~~~.~Pl?!!~ati~l).-'_~_ ________._. _ completion date. )}~~~.... <=.rit~ri~ J()b.e. ~p.p).i.e(j .iJ1.~.~sig!!~HJ1g .h.i~t~~i~~" "~J1c1~.a.r~s~...... _. In reviewing applications for historical landmark designation, the following criteria shall be used by the Heritage & Arts Commission in making its recommendation to the Town Council, and shall be used by the Town Council in making its decision on an application: (a) The landmark designated shall have historicaljllt.~~~st~ry.~~~~.r<?~_~~ general public and not be limited only in interest to a special group of persons. (b) The landmark designated shall be at least fiftv (50) years of age. (~..... ... .. Tl1~ .d~sigllati~J?. .sh.~~~ .b_e. c<?~~j~te~t .~j~h .~l1e .ge~e!~~ .p~a~. ':l~~z~ll~J?_g. regulations and with any adopted master plans, precise plans, development plans, or capital improvement plans of the town. (got _ _ _.... Tl1~ .4~sjgll~tj()11 ~h.ag .11<?~_ ~~. 4~.tr:~~1l~~~.!() tl1~ .g~ll~~~l.~~lf':l!e. ~r~l1~ . ... . . . . . . community, including but not limited to factors such as traffic, noise or congestion. ' (Sl).. _ _.. _. Tl1~ .d~sjglla~j~n- .~l1ag .11<?t. r~9.~!~ .~11~. e.xp~.~~~~~. ~f ':l.n. ~I1f~~~~lla~~~...... amount of money by any affected party in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter. CO......... Tl1~ _d~sjgll~ti()l1 ~h.ag .110t. iIlfr~g.e. u'poIl.~l1.~ .~igl1t ()f ~~)'.priv.~~~. .<?~.~~.!().. make any and all reasonable uses of such landmark that are not in conflict with the purposes of this chapter. Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Effective --/--/---- 3 _ {D;I.;t;d~-~j;~~~~--.-_..-.--n.-....-.., n_n.-l . - { Deleted: six months ---l ,{ Deleted: ~ . u uuJ ,- ..- (D;I;;t';''';;~('d) I . ./: - : . -f Deleted: <#>Hearing and -D;;i~.i~~b;n-11 \ i Town Council. No more than sixty (60) "> I days after receipt of the Heritage & Arts "\ 1 Commission recommendation, t "":,' tD;';;d;";;~~"""""""",,.n.umumnm """'"'''' " ''''''') ,('.n.nn_..__..'.'.'......"........'.'.. n.nmnm..nn'nn.'nn...'.'., ..nnnn..n........n...n., 1 Deleted: <#>he Town Council shall I hold a public hearing, noticed in I accordance with provisions of ! Government Code section 65091, prior to i deliberating on the recommendation of I the Heritage & Arts Commission and 1 prior to taking action on an application i for historical landmark designation, The I Town Council may, in its sole discretion, '- i approve, approve with conditions, or '- j deny an application for historical , '-.llandmark designation.~ '...\ Deleted: or aesth~tic '( Deleted: b '~d: c .---.... n,._ n..._..m..._n..._._.._n , ,{ Deleted: d _ {D~leted: ;._u_'.'.n' ..- .J -----.'l -~1 ...nnnn....n.....] 13B-4. Conditions of designation. As part of its recommendation to the Town Council, the Heritage & Arts Commission may propose any or all of the following types of conditions it deems best suited to carry out the purposes of this chapter: (a) Demolition, removal, or destruction of the historical landmark, either in whole or in part, may be prohibited unless express consent, in writing, is ftrst obtained from the Heritage & Arts Commission. Such consent may impose all reasonable conditions deemed appropriate by said Commission to accomplish the purposes of this chapter. (b) No permits shall be issued by any town department for any alterations, repairs, additions or changes, other than routine maintenance and repair work, without prior review and approval by the Heritage & Arts Commission. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ( c) That only certain specifted uses may be allowed or that certain specifted uses shall be prohibited. ( d) Conditions related to ongoing funding, maintenance, and liability associated with an historical landmark. ( e) That no buildings or structures exposed to public view within a specifted distance of the historical landmark may be placed, erected, moved, removed, enlarged, or altered (excepting routine maintenance and repair work) in a manner that would materially detract from the public visibility and/or enioyment of the historical landmark, without prior review and approval by the Heritage & Arts Commission. (f) If the proposed historical landmark is a building, such building shall be open to the public at such reasonable times and intervals as set forth in the historical landmark designation approval. (g) Any other reasonable requirements, restrictions or conditions deemed necessary or appropriate to meet special or unique circumstances affecting the place, building, structure, work of art or other object to be designated as a historical landmark. 13B-5. Appeals. Any person may appeal in writing within ten (10) days any decision of the Heritage & Arts Commission, Director of Community Development, or other town offtcial that would otherwise be fmal (i.e. is not simply a recommendation or referral). The appeal shall be ftled with the Town Clerk on the prescribed town appeal form and shall be accompanied by the required ftling fee. The Town Council shall hear the appeal and render a decision on the appeal within sixty (60) days of the ftling of the appeal. The timely decision requirement may be waived by the applicant and/or appellant. The appeal shall be heard in accordance with procedures set forth in Tiburon Municipal Code sections 16-3.8.3 and 16-3.8.4, or successor sections thereto. Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. N.S. Effective --/--/---- 4 Deleted: The decision of the Heritage & Arts Commission may be appealed to the Town Council within ten (10) days of the decision, ~ 13B-6. Violations and Enforcement. In addition to all other remedies available under this Code or state law, any violation of this chapter shall be subject to abatement as a public nuisance. All costs relating to the enforcement of this chapter shall be borne by and recoverable from the person in violation thereof. Section 4. Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage. At least five (5) days prior to its adoption, and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, summaries of this Ordinance, the latter summary to include the names of those Town Council members voting for and against the Ordinance, shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Marin and circulated in the Town of Tiburon. At the time of the publication of each summary, the Town shall post in the Office of the Town Clerk a copy of the full text of this Ordinance in compliance with Government Code Section 39633(c)(I). This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on ,200_, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on ,200_ by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK S: IAdministration \ Town Counci/\Staff Reports\2008\Feb 20 DRAFTSlChapter/3B Landmarks Ordinance tc revisions,doc Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. N.s. Effective --/--/---- 5 .; 'p ,,- \ \.... r '- / '- CHAPTER 13B. HISTORIC LANDMARKS. Sections: 13B-l. 13B-2. 13B-3. Purpose of chapter. Heritage commission. Procedure for designation of historical landmarks. Reference to and report by planning commission. Standards to be applied in designating historical landmarks. Conditions of designation- Generally. Same-Enumerated. Funds. Appeals. Enforcement of chapter. 13B-4. 13B-5. 13:8-6. 13B-7. 13B-8. 13B-9. 138-10. See. 138-1. Purpose of chapter. . The purpose of this chapter, which is adopted pursuant to section 37361 of the Government Code of the State of California, is to promote the general and economic welfare of the town by preserving and protecting those places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects having a special historical, cultural or aesthetic character or interest for the use, educa- tion and view of the general public, and to remind all citizens of this town and visitors from elsewhere of the historical background of the town. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., S 1.) Sec. 13B-2. Heritage commission. The heritage commission shall be established by resolution of the town council, which resolu- tion shall provide for the number of persons composing such commission, the terms for which persons shall serve on such commission, conduct of the affairs of such commission, and assistance to the commission by officers and employees of the town. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., 9 1; Ord. No. 195 N.S., 9 1.) Sec. 13B-l See. 13B-3. Procedure for designation of historical landmarks. The heritage commission is hereby authorized and directed to receive and act upon applications from any interested persons to investigate and designate places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects within the inco~ rated limits of the town as having historic, cul- tural, aesthetic or other special character or interest, and being worthy of consideration for protection, enhancement or perpetuation as such. Such designation, together with any condi- tions imposed in connection therewith, shall remain and be in effect for a period of one hun- dred eighty days only and thereafter shall be of no force and effect unless prior to the expiration of such period of one hlfndred eighty days, the town council shall have set a date for a public hearing, advertise the same once in a newspaper of gen- eral circulation in the town at least ten days prior to the date set for such public hearing, and shall have confirmed .the action of the heritage com- mission within such one hundred eighty day ,period as to such designation and the conditions or any of them imposed in connection therewith. In cases where private propeny is the subject of the hearing, notice shall be served by mail upon the owner and lien hold~rs of record of such property at least ten days prior to the date set for such public hearing. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., 9 1; Ord. No. 195 N.S., 9 1.) . - Sec. 138-4. Reference to and report by planning commission. Upon receipt of any application for designa- tion of any place, site, building, structure, work of art or other object within the incorporated limits of the town as an historical landmark by the heritage commission, such commission shall refer such application to the planning commis- sion of the town with a request for a repon and recommendations with regard to such designa- tion, which report and recommendations may include any and all observations. information 92 EXHIBIT NO._ C ( aIid recommendations as to necessary or desir- able conditions in connection therewith which appear desirable to the planning commission upon consideration thereof. Such report may include but shall not be limited to, such matters as companbility with the general plan, general public interest, zoning, ~c or other problems which may appear to be affected by or created by the proposed designation. No action shall be taken. by the heritage commission within less than five days following receipt of such report from the planning commission. Following any action recommending the designation of any place, site, building, structure, work of art or other object as an historical landmark, the report and recommendation of the heritage commis- sion shall be forwarded to the town council, which shall thereafter set the public hearing thereon as provided herein. The report of the planning commission shall be forwarded to the town council together with any report or recom- mendation by the heritage commission. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., ~ 1; Ord. No. 195 N.S., g 1.) ( t" '- Sec. 13B-S. Standards to be applied in designating historical landmarks. In designating any place, site, building, struc- ture, work of art or other object as being of historical, cultural, aesthetic or other special character or interest, and worthy' of protection under this chapter, the heritage commission and the town council shall be subject to the following express standards: (a) The landmark designated shall have his- torical, cultural, aesthetic or special character or interest for the general public and not be limited only in interest to a special group of persons. (b) The designation of such as a landmark hereunder shall not be detrimental to the general welfare of the community. (c) The designation of such landmark shall not require the expenditure of an unreasonable amount of money to carry out the purposes of this chapter. In applying this provision it is the Sec. 13B-4 mtent of this chapter that whenever a landmark proposed to be so designated is private property, expenditures for its upkeep, preservation, main- tenance and protection shall be made by the owner thereof in all but the most exceptional cases. Ifupon careful review by the heritage com- mission it is proposed that public funds be expended for the preservation, restoration, maintenance or protection thereof, or any other purpose in connection with such designation, the recommendation made by such commission to the town council shall set forth that fact, and shall set forth in full the reasons therefor, and shall include a statement setting as accurately as possi- ble the estimated cost in public funds, which would be so involved. The town council, in act- ing upon such proposed designation, shall also determine whether the expenditure of public funds in connection therewith is justified. In the event that such designation would be ineffective for the preservation, restoration or protection of the proposed landmark without such expendi- ture, and the town council determines that such expenditure is not justifie~ the place, site, build- ing, structure, work of art or other object which is the subject of the proposal shall not be designated an historical landmark. (d) The designation of such landmark shall not infringe upon the right of a private owner thereof, if such there be, to make any and all reasonable uses of such landmark -which are not in conflict with the purposes of this chapter. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., g 1; Ord. No. 195 N.S., 9 1.) Sec. 13B-6. Conditions of designation- Generally. The heritage commission shall temporarily impose and recommend to the town council for permanent adoption any or all of the following types of conditions it deems best suited to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Such imposition and recommendation may be made either in connection with the original designation of the landmark or at a later date 93 ( ( { '- ; when circumstances appear to justify the imposi- tion of additional conditions. Pending action of the town council, such conditions shall remain in effect for a period of one hundred eighty days from and after action of the commission. If the town council does not take action upon such conditions they shall be of no further force and effect after the termination of such one hundred eighty day period. The town council may set a public hearing to be advertised once in a news- paper of general circulation in the town at least ten days prior to the date of such hearing. In all cases where private property is the subject of the hearing, notice of the hearing shall be served by mail upon the property owner and lien holders of record of such property at least ten days prior to the date set for such hearing. The town council, before acting on the recommended conditions, shall give notice to the owner and lien holders of record of the subject property as herein provided. At such hearing the town council may approve, modify or disapprove the conditions to be imposed. The action of the town council shall be . final and shall take effect immediately. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., ~ 1; Ord. No. 195 N.S., S 1.) Sec.13B-7. Same-Enumerated. The types of conditions that may be imposed pursuant to section 13B-6 are as follows: (a) Demolition, removal, or destruction, either in whole or in part, may be prohibited unless express consent, in writing, is flI'St had and obtained from the heritage commission. Such consent may impose all reasonable conditions deemed appropriate by the commission to accomplish the purposes of this chapter. (b) No permits shall be issued by any town department for any alterations, repairs, addi- tions or changes, other than normal mainte- nance and repair work unless and until all plans therefor have first been reviewed by the heritage commission and approved, or approved as modi- fied, and such reasonable conditions may be Sec. 13B-6 imposed as deemed necessary. All such work shall be done under the direction and control of the heritage commission' or other qualified per- sons designated by it for such purpose; provided, however, that conditions imposed as a condition of approval of alterations, repairs, additions or changes shall be final when imposed by the heritage commission, and unless they affect con- ditions imposed by the council need not be reviewed by the town council as in section 13B-6 hereinabove provided. (c) That only certain specified uses may be made or that certain specified uses shall be pro- hibited. (d) That no buildings or structures exposed to public view within a specified distance may be placed, erected, moved, altered, enlarged or removed, other than normal maintenance and repair work, without approval and in accordance with reasonable conditions imposed where deemed necessary by the heritage commission. (e) That if the landmark to be designate.d is a building, such building shall be open to the pub- lic at such reasonable times and intervals as shall be determined by the heritage commission. (f) Any other reasonable requirements, restrictions or conditions deemed necessary by the heritage commission to meet special or unique circumstances affecting the subject place, site, building, structure, work of art or other object. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., S 1; Ord. No. 195 N.S., S 1.) Sec. 138-8. Funds. The heritage commission, or other interested persons, may petition the town council for funds necessary to carry out the purposes of this chap- ter. The town council may expend all reasonable sums needed to carry out the purposes of this chapter or to acquire fee title to such lesser ownership rights, or easements, as it deems nec- essary or expedient to carry out the purposes of this chapter. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., S l~ Ord. No. 195 N.S., 9 1.) 94 ( Sec.13B-9. Appeals. Any person may appeal in writing to the town council from any action of the heritage commis- sion by filing notice of such appeal with the town clerk within fifteen days from the date of such action, and the town council shall set a public hearing, notice of which shall be duly advertised once in a newspaper of general circulation in the town, at least ten days before the date of such hearing to consider such appeal. In all cases where private property is the subject of the action which is appealed from, notice of the hearing shall be served by mail upon the owner and lienholders of record of such property at least ten days prior to the date set for such public hearing. At such hearing the town council mayaffmn, modify or set aside any or all such actions of the heritage commission. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., ~ 1; Ord No. 195 N.S., ~ 1.) :( Sec. 13B-IO. Enforcement of chapter. Any building or structure set up, erected, con- structed, altered, enlarged, convened, moved or maintained contrary to the provisions of this ( "-- Sec. 13B-9 chapter, or.any permit issued hereunder, and any use of any land, building or premises established, conducted, operated or maintained contrary tq the provisions of this chapter, or any permit issued hereunder, shall be, and the same is, hereby declared to ~ unlawful and a public nui- sance; and the town attorney shall, upon order of the town council, commence action or proceed- ings for the abatement and removal and enjoin- ment thereof in the manner provided by law and the ordinances of this town and shall take such other steps and shall apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate and remove such building or structure, and restrain and enjoin any person from setting up, erecting, building, maintaining or using any such building or structure or using property contrary to the provisions of this chapter. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. All costs relating to the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter shall be borne by and recoverable from the person in viol~tion thereof. (Ord. No. 129 N.S., S 1; Ord. No. 1~5 N.S., ~ 1.) 95 Town Council Meeting February 20,2008 Agenda Item: PI! ~.5 I ST \FF I{EPOR r To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Recommendation to Hold Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance for Approval of Text Amendments to Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Zoning) for Changes to the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Village Commercial (VC) Zoning Districts; File No. Z2008-02 W Reviewed By: BACKGROUND At its meeting of February 6, 2008, the Town Council held frrst reading of an ordinance to amend the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance to implement policies contained within the Downtown Element of the Tiburon General Plan. These policies deal generally with reconstruction of downtown commercial buildings, minor floor area additions which exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for their property, drive-through, fast food and take-out restaurants, and ground floor commercial office uses. The matter now comes before the Council for second reading and adoption, with the new regulations to take effect in 30 days following adoption. RECOMMENDA TION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing on the draft ordinance; 2. Move, second, and pass a motion to read the ordinance by title only; and 3. Read the title and hold a roll call vote on adoption of the ordinance. Exhibit: 1. Draft Ordinance Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager ORDINANCE NO. N. S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE BY MAKING TEXT AMENDMENTS THERETO The Town Council of the Town ofTiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. A. On January 23, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2008-01 recommending to the Town Council that text amendments be made to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. B. The Town Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on February 6,2008, and has heard and considered public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. C. The Town Council fmds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. D. The Town Council fmds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. E. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. F. The Town Council fmds that this project has no potential to result in adverse impacts on the environment and was adequately analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report certified for the General Plan update in 2005, and no further environmental review is required. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE. TITLE IV. CHAPTER 16 (ZONING). A. Section 16-2.11 is amended to read as follows: Section 16-2.11 NC zone regulations. The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone is intended to provide for predominantly resident-serving commercial and office uses, while allowing incidental residential uses and mixed-use commercial/residential projects in accordance with the General Plan. Predominantly tourist-oriented uses (e.g. souvenir shops) are strongly discouraged in this zone. B. Section 16-2.11.1 is amended to read as follows: Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. N. S. Effective 3/21/2008 Section 16-2.11.1, Principal uses permitted [NC). (a) Use-for-use changes (e.g., restaurant to restaurant) when no intensification of use, as determined by the Director, is proposed; except as set forth in subsection ( e) below. Intensification of use shall be measured in terms of parking requirements, number of employees at maximum shift, total floor area occupied, vehicular trip generation, or other factors within the reasonable discretion of the Director. (b) Lawfully existing uses established prior to December 26, 1990 shall be permitted to operate under the authority and limitations of applicable zoning permits. (c) The Point Tiburon Plaza commercial area shall continue to be regulated by provisions of the Point Tiburon Precise Plan. Conditional Use Permits for new uses in the Point Tiburon commercial area may be issued in accordance with provisions herein provided that such approvals are consistent with the Point Tiburon Precise Plan. (d) Drive-through restaurants, and restaurants that primarily offer fast-food and/or take-out service, are prohibited. ( e) Tiburon Boulevard-fronting, ground floor commercial office uses shall not be permitted after [insert effective date of this Ordinance] in newly-constructed or redeveloped buildings located along "Upper Tiburon Boulevard", as that area is designated in the Downtown Element of the Tiburon General Plan on Diagram 4.4-1, without the granting of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 16-4.4 and an exception pursuant to Section 16-2.11.1.1. C. Section 16-2.11.1.1 is added to read as follows: Section 16-2.11.1.1 Exception for Street-Fronting Ground Floor Office Use. An exception may be granted to allow street-fronting, ground floor commercial office use otherwise prohibited by Section 16-2.11.1 (e), provided that the acting body fmds that the applicant has provided substantial and compelling evidence that retail, restaurant, or personal service use is not economically viable in the proposed location. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N S. Effective 3/21/2008 2 D. Section 16-2.11.2 is amended (first paragraph only) to read as follows: Section 16-2.11.2 Conditional uses permitted (NC). The uses listed below shall be permitted only when a conditional use permit is granted as provided in section 16-4.4. Other similar uses may be added to this list by resolution of the Planning Commission. (1) Artist supply stores,. . . . . . [remainder of section is unchanged] E. Section 16-2.11.4 is added to read as follows: Section 16-2.11.4 Minor Floor Area Additions. Minor floor area additions to properties exceeding FAR limits may be approved without the need for a General Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendment. Minor floor area additions are those that do not materially increase parking demand or traffic generation. A finding must be made by the acting body that there will be no material adverse effects from the granting of the minor floor area addition. F. Section 16-2.12 (VC Zone Regulations) is amended to read as follows: Section 16-2.12 VC Zone Regulations. (a) The Village Commercial (VC) zone has the same permitted uses and conditional uses as those set forth in the Neighborhood Commercial zone (see Section 16- 2.11 et seq.), except as follows: (1) Souvenir shops are allowed in the Village Commercial zone. (2) As of [insert effective date of this Ordinance], street-fronting ground floor commercial office uses shall not be permitted on Main Street, covering street addresses 1 through 100 Main Street inclusive. See Section 16-2.12.1 for an exception process. (b) The Village Commercial Zone (VC) has the same land and structure regulations as those set forth in the Neighborhood Commercial zone (see Section 16-2.11 et seq.), except for the following: (1) Lot coverage limit: not to exceed twenty-eight percent of the land area located above the high water line, unless a transfer of intensity has been approved pursuant to General Plan Downtown Element policies; (2) Floor area ratio limit: 0.28, unless a transfer of intensity has been approved pursuant to General Plan Downtown Element policies. Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. N S. Effective 3/21/2008 1 G. Section 16-2.12.1 is added to read as follows: Section 16-2.12.1 Exception for Ground Floor Office Use. An exception may be granted to allow street-fronting ground floor commercial office use otherwise prohibited by Section 16-1.12 (a) (2), provided that a conditional use permit is secured and one or more of the following fmdings is made by the acting body: (a) The space proposed for the commercial office use is not physically suitable for retail, restaurant, or personal service use. (b) The applicant has provided substantial and compelling evidence that retail, restaurant, or personal service use is not economically viable in the proposed location. H. Section 16-2.12.2 is added to read as follows: Section 16-2.12.2 Minor Floor Area Additions. Minor floor area additions to properties exceeding FAR limits may be approved without the need for a General Plan or Zoning Ordinance amendment. Minor floor area additions are those that do not add demand for parking as defmed in Section 16-5.8 (Parking and Loading), and do not increase traffic generation. A finding must be made that by the acting body there will be no material adverse effects from the granting of the minor floor area addition. I. Subsection 16-5.4.3 (c) (3) [Alteration, enlargement and replacement] is amended to read as follows: An existing commercial building may be rebuilt or reconstructed to the same floor area as the former structure. If the building is located in Downtown Tiburon, the resulting building shall substantially conform to the guidelines of the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook. Town ofTiburon Ordinance No. N S. Effective 3/21/2008 4 SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The Town Council declares that it would have passed this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof: irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on February 6, 2008, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on February 20, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK S:\AdministrationITown CouncillOrdinanceslZoning Text Amendments 2008. orddoc Town of Tiburon Ordinance No. N S. Effective 3/21/2008 5