Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2008-04-02 TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard . Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Council April 2, 2008 7:30 p.m. Closed Session: 7:15 p.m. AGENDA TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION - (7:15p.m.) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Section 54956.9(a)) Town of Tiburon v. Sylvia; Sylvia v. Town ofTiburon CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Berger, Councilmember Collins, Councilmember Gram, Vice Mayor Fredericks, Mayor Slavitz ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION. IF ANY 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 Recognition of Outgoing Board and Commission Members ~ . William T eiser (Design Review Board) . Priscilla Tripp at. Recreation Committee) . Tara Sullivan at. Recreation Committee) 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. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of March 5, 2008 meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Investment Summary - Adopt February 2008 report (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 3. Eminent Domain Ballot Measures - Adopt resolutions opposing Proposition 98 and in support of Proposition 99 onJune 3, 2008 ballot (Town Manager Curran) 4. Appeal of Design Review Board Decision - Adopt resolution partially granting an appeal by Robin Lea, Margaret Patton, Denis Williams, Mary and Don Foree, Robin E. and Sherry Long De Mandel, and Francesca and John Madden Board of the DRB approval of site plan and architectural review to construct a new single~family dwelling at 275 Diviso Street (Associate Planner Tyler) 5. Multi~ Use Path Improvements - Approve budget amendment to reimburse MMWD for shortfall on contracted improvements to MUP during pipeline replacement project (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) 6. Lyford Cove Undergrounding Project Completion - Adopt resolution accepting the Lyford Cove Rule 20B Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Project and authorize filing of Notice of Completion (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) 7. Post EmplOYment Benefits Study - Authorize award of contract for actuarial study pursuant to GASB 45 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Commission Consolidation - Consider consolidation of the Parks &: Open Space Commission and Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee into a newly established Community Facilities Commission by Amending Title I, Chapter 2 (Administration) and Title V, Chapter 18 (Parks, Open Space &: Recreational Lands) of the Town Code (Town Manager Curran and Director of Community Development Anderson)- Introduction &: First Reading of Ordinance/Adoption of resolution 2. 430 Ridge Road - De novo review of a site plan and architectural review application for exterior modifications to an existing single~family dwelling (Associate Planner Tyler) Applicant: Mark and Lynn Garay Assessor's Parcel No. 059~082~ 22 3. Hillside Design Guidelines - Consider adoption of resolution amending the Hillside Design Guidelines for "borrowed views" (Planning Manager Watrous) 4. Chapter 20 (Animal Control) Ordinance - Consider amendment to Chapter 20 of Town Code incorporating recent changes to Marin County Code (Director of Community Development Anderson) - Introduction &: First Reading of Ordinance 5. Chapter 13 (Building Code) Ordinance - Consider amendment to Chapter 13 of Town Code adopting enhanced energy efficiency standards for large single~family residences (Director of Community Development Anderson) - Introduction &: first Reading of Ordinance 6. Chapter 16 (Zoning Code) Ordinance - Consider amendment to Chapter 16 of Town Code regarding wireless communications facilities and remodel projects (Director of Community Development) - Introduction &: First Reading of Ordinance TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS . Town Council Weekly Digest - March 21, 2008 . Town Council Weekly Digest - March 28, 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 staff reports are posted on the Town's website, www.cLtiburon.ca.us. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Town Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at Town Hall during normal business hours. 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. cc-/ TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER '\, Mayor Slavit~/ea1Ied the regular m~eting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:37 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. 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, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Captain Hutton, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to meeting in regular session, the Town Council conducted interviews for Boards and Commissions, as follow: INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCIES ON BOARDS & COMMISSIONS 6:45 p.m. - Phillip Ramirez, 111 Ned's Way 6:55 p.m. - Anne Thull, 210 Taylor Road 7:05 p.m. - Bryan Chong, 100 Eastview Avenue 7:15 p.m. - Jack Mavis, 407 Paradise Drive ORAL COMMUNICATIONS George Landau voiced his concern over the way citizens and the elected officials were treated by the California Parks Commission during a recent meeting at Town Hall concerning the Angel Island Ferry service. He volunteered to mobilize efforts to maintain local control of the ferry service by the McDonough family. Vice Mayor Fredericks said that she had received a follow-up telephone call from one of the officials offering an apology for the way the meeting was conducted. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEE Community Development Director Anderson introduced the Town's new Building Inspector, George Dailey, and the Town Council, staff and audience welcomed him. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 1 of 17 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopted minutes of February 20, 2008 meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) 2. Town Investment Summary - Adopted January 2008 report (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 3. Town Audit Report - Accepted report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2007 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 4. Town Council Policy regarding Story Poles for Appeals - Considered revisions to existing policy (Director of Community Development Anderson) - continued from February 20,2008 5. Lyford Cove Undergrounding District - Authorized the Town Manager to enter into a contract with PG&E for the elimination of two utility rise poles within the Lyford Cove Utility Undergrounding District at the District's cost (Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen) MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 5. Gram, seconded by Fredericks AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Appointments to Town Boards and Commissions - Consider appointments to fill vacancies on the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and Heritage & Arts Commission (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) Town Clerk Crane Iacopi said there are a number of vacancies due to term expirations and resignations. She said that the Council had interviewed a total of eight candidates tonight and on February 6 for vacancies on the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and Heritage & Arts Commission. She recommended that the Council consider appointments to those commissions tonight. Town Clerk Crane Iacopi said that Heritage & Arts Commissioner Patricia Navone had expressed an interest in continuing to serve, but that Jt. Recreation Committee member Tara Sullivan was stepping down. The Town Clerk also said that while there were term expirations on the Parks & Open Space Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, staff recommends that the Council direct those two bodies continue in their current capacities until the Council had an opportunity to consider consolidation of the two bodies. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint Cathy Frymier to the Planning Commission. Fredericks, seconded by Gram. AYES: Unanimous DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 2 of 17 MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint Bryan Chong to the Design Review Board. Berger, seconded by Collins. AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz noted that there was still one more vacancy on DRB but that the Council would continue the interview process, as well as advertise for the Jt. Recreation Committee vacancy. MOTION: Moved: Vote: MOTION: Moved: Vote: To appoint Anne Thull to the Heritage & Arts Commission. Fredericks, seconded by Berger. AYES: Unanimous To re-appoint Patricia Navone to the Heritage & Arts Commission. Fredericks, seconded by Gram. 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 from February 6,2008 Appellants: Applicant: Property Address: Assessor Parcel No: Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition Congregation Kol Shofar 215 Blackfield Drive 038-351-34 Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report and summarized the 21 grounds of the appeal filed by the Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition (TNC). Watrous said that during the Design Review Board hearing on November 15,2007, the TNC raised concerns about numerous aspects of the project. He said the Board found that the project substantially addressed the noise, light, parking and safety concerns addressed by the conditional use permit conditions of approval and subsequent mitigation measures and had voted unanimously to approve the application. Mr. Watrous said that a question had arisen over a subsequent change to the original approved plans concerning the NANA doors that open onto the patio. Mayor Slavitz asked Congregation Kol Shofar (CKS) architect Suzie Coliver (Herman & Coliver Architecture) to clarify whether the NANA doors were horizontal or vertical. Ms. Coliver said the NANA doors were mechanical and horizontal; that it would close up and incorporate a 6.5 foot tall canopy which would then project out. Vice Mayor Fredericks questioned if the proposed Schweis or NANA doors required specific approval. Mr. Watrous said if the Council believed that having a vertically open door versus a horizontal open door would be consistent with the CUP, it would visually make little or no difference from DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 3 of 17 an exterior standpoint and could be considered substantially conforming to what the Design Review drawings currently showed. He said that the Council could require its inclusion in the application when it comes in for a building permit. Vice Mayor Fredericks questioned if the Design Review Board realized the Schweis door was different than what was shown on the plans that the Council had reviewed. Mr. Watrous said the Board did not ask any particular questions about how the door would operate other than the fact that it seemed consistent with what was required in the CUP. Councilmember Berger questioned under what circumstances and how often could the Schweis or NANA doors be opened up in the courtyard. Mr. Watrous said Condition #4b discusses the multi-purpose building specifically and under subsection 2, the condition talks about doors and window openings during specific times and events listed. Councilmember Berger questioned at what times events would be held. Mr. Watrous read the condition in part; "Use of the courtyard area for events is only for high holy days, opening and closing Sunday School, graduation ceremonies, Sukkot, and Saturday Kiddush lunches. Outdoor use of the courtyard during events other than (those identified) shall be limited to people stepping out for air and casual conversation. Except for the Kiddush lunches, no food or drink shall be served in the courtyard. No organized activities other than those listed will be held in the courtyard." He said the doors are supposed to be closed when there are over 1 00 people in an indoor event, except for the High Holy Days and events listed above. Councilmember Berger questioned the possibility of simultaneous events taking place, and Mr. Watrous said he thought that this would be possible under the language of the conditional use permit. Councilmember Collins asked and was told by the architect that the NANA doors were opened mechanically. Councilmember Gram asked whether the doors in open position would increase the height of the roof. Ms. Coliver replied negatively to this question. Planning Manager Watrous added that it would make little or no difference visually when the doors were open. Councilmember Gram said that this was an opportunity to ensure that Kol Shofar representatives were clear on the conditions of approval and uses of the facility. Mr. Watrous added that the Council had also put a CKS/neighborhood review process in place to help understand any unintended consequences of the language of the use permit. Town Attorney Ann Danforth clarified that while the CUP could not be modified at this time, the Council could indicate its wish to do so. She said that it seemed clear that the intention of the CUP conditions was to place limits on the number of people that could be on the site at any given time where functions could potentially be disruptive to the neighborhood. In the course of the review process, ifKol Shofar is not conducting itself in accordance with the conditions, the Council could change the conditions of approval. Mayor Slavitz asked about the treatment of skylights, lighted shafts, clerestory windows and glass within the NANA walls. He asked Mr. Watrous to confirm that the only thing that must be covered is the skylights, and that language referring to the "blackout shades" is incorporated for this requirement. The Mayor also asked whether any glass on the top of the light shafts would also require blackout shades because they might have the same effect of skylights to draw light in. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 4 of 17 Mr. Watrous said that he did not think that any of the vertical surfaces on the walls such as windows, would require blackout shades. If there was any horizontal glass that brought light into the building on the top, he said that staff would treat those as requiring blackout shades. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. Appellant Presentation: Kurt Kaull, Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition, said their current opposition mainly had to do with the wall. He said that the debate had started with the existence of buildings and the Coalition not liking the building being built, but then they had debated the size, usage, and hours of the building. He asked the Council to balance all of the issues which have been debated in the process. Kaull said that he did not think the Board had the opportunity to hear all of these issues during their review and he questioned whether or not the notion of the open wall with the numbers and frequency of uses met the Town's intent when the project was approved. He said that they believed when the building was built, it would have four enclosed walls, a Schweis or NANA door and a window, but that what had happened was the wall had turned into the entire side of the building's opening. He said that the CUP indicates the doors and windows must be closed when certain numbers of people are present at an event. However, this means the doors and windows can be opened an unlimited number of times when there is less than 100 people in the room, and he questioned if this was truly intended. Mr. Kaull said the Coalition does not like this and they will continue to argue to limit what is really occurring with the wall system. Tim Metz, Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition, said while this is not a CEQA process, he had expected answers to be provided to questions asked in their correspondence, especially having to do with landscaping, parking and items discussed by the Design Review Board. He also said that they did not know there were automatic controls on the blackout shades until Ms. Coliver presented this at the DRB meeting. Metz said that a presentation of20 minutes for a project of this magnitude was inexcusable, and asked that a full presentation of the project be explained to them, particularly to describe the lighting plan. He said the project had been evolving and changing and he questioned whether or not it was even ready to be heard by the Design Review Board. He said the staff report was vague about when the skylights are to be open or shut; that having blackout shades in his living room was a lot different than a 4,500 square foot multi-purpose room and that he was not sure what the treatment of the walls were. Metz said that TNC member Samantha Winter is a landscape architect who wrote a very detailed letter regarding concerns of the landscape plan which was completely ignored in the design review process. He said that grounds 13, 14, 15 and 16 needed to be addressed, HV AC equipment was never reviewed by the Board, ground 18 needed clarification on its interpretation, they never had an official presentation on the lighting plan referenced in ground 20, and one of the biggest issue is the 23 foot wall in the multi-purpose room as they believe it is completely out of scale with the site and the residential neighborhood and is incredibly different than what was originally proposed. He said the original proposal was for a 14'8" foot tall wall which was originally approved in the EIR. It had 3 scalloped light wells on the roof that did eventually get to 23 feet and believed this was a massive change. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5,2008 Page 5 of 17 Metz said all HV AC equipment is outside of the building and the 10-foot solar panels would be huge on the roof. He asked to install smaller solar panels and more of them versus what is proposed and would agree with a 17-18 foot tall wall maximum with the solar panels and did not understand why the applicants need 23 feet to get light into the room. He referred to the wall where the NANA door is proposed and said it is 19'8" tall, questioned why everything in the building is 19'8" but the height is proposed to be 23 feet, said the tent poles are 23 feet, yet the wall is 19'8", and he believed they should be much shorter because they stick out. Dave Holden, Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition, discussed the open wall of the multi-purpose room that faces the courtyard and said there is a multitude of times that the CUP allows the doors and windows of the room to be open. He said that the there were times other than the High Holy Days and Kiddush Lunches that would allow the full use of the completely open wall, but the wall can be opened at any time when there are fewer than 100 people as long as there is no amplification. The CUP allows these events to take place anytime up to the closing set forth during the week at 9PM, 10PM on Saturdays and 8PM on Sundays. While the CUP limits the number of member sponsored events, it does not do so for synagogue-sponsored events, which have no limits. The courtyard is limited for certain events but for other events he questioned how one would define "stepping out for air" as noted in the CUP and felt the indoor and outdoor spaces would have no boundaries. It is true that a similar design is part of the original application, but he said that design contained two large breaks created by the columns in the opening which would address sound created inside the rooms. The original design would still be effective in allowing functions like the High Holy Days and would more likely provide relief from noise generated during other allowed uses. Neighbors are concerned that broad usage of the open wall in the courtyard will go beyond the spirit of the CUP and he believes some Councilmembers agree. He requested that the full open wall be replaced with three small sections as proposed in the original application. He questioned what number of months would the tent pole structure be considered permanent according to the CUP, said lunches can be served in the courtyard, they are only limited to the number of Saturdays in a year, and the quantity of its usage concerns the neighbors. He said since no boundary will exist between the tent and the wall opening, attendees will have full use of the new covered space when up, and he questioned how this did not constitute use in part of an organized activity and asked that a temporary pole system replace the structure. Regarding light pollution, he believes the underlying concept for reducing this problem rests in mitigation 3.5e-7 which states, "No direct lighting or glare will be allowed to be visible from off the property through the multi-purpose room windows." This is intended to limit light pollution similar to the skylights having blackout shades and exterior lighting be low level and shielded and he questioned how the mitigation will be accomplished. He said while trees in front might provide some shielding, light will still be visible from the surrounding neighborhood and the houses on Via Los Altos and above will have a direct view of the glare coming from the windows, as no screening exists. Escaping light is one of the main reasons they oppose the project and one of the main reasons they fought to reduce nighttime uses. They appreciate the mitigations the Council placed on the CUP but only if conditions actually come to bear on the project. Although the CUP cannot be changed tonight, they believe the project would be difficult to bring back for review. Samantha Winter, Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition, said they were extremely surprised that the 25 skylights were not going to be on a timer, they would involve a lot of manual closing each night, and she requested automatic timers be required. Regarding the parking lot she reiterated that the design does not truly transition between the lower and upper lots, she thought people will DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 6 of 17 be parking on the street and one mitigation is the use of a parking shuttle and an off-site parking area for larger events. She said vehicle circulation currently does not seem to work; both lots feed into one single exit lane and it will be difficult for the shuttle to make its way up and back to take people to their cars quickly. She suggested the alternative of moving the shuttle drop-off point to an improved area in the upper lot which is the employee and handicap parking lot where on Via Los Altos. She said she currently has headlights shining right into her house and her neighbor's house and regardless of shrubbery they will still have increased headlight intrusion. She asked the Council to consider higher shrubbery or a small retaining wall or fence, asked to add planting in the lower parking lot regardless of whether this takes away parking spaces, and suggested planting be added to the area shown on the plans where 3 spaces are indicated not to be used. She believed that adding landscaping will break up the wide open asphalt and also deter young people from racing and squealing their tires in the lot. She said that kids often drive through the open parking lot at night, squealing their tires and that landscaping in the lot could help control this. Tim Metz, Tiburon Neighborhood Coalition, noted there were a couple of ideas for the shuttle drop-offs, voiced concern with problems of the existing gate, did not feel there was an effective solution on Reedland Woods Way and asked the Council to consider other options for shuttling people. He referred to an illustration from the Hillside Design Guidelines and said large walls or glass areas are not supported in the guidelines. He asked to reduce the wall, reduce the usage of the multi-purpose room and for the parking plan to be revised. Mayor Slavitz questioned what the DRB had reviewed for the NANA wall system. Mr. Watrous said the plans submitted to the DRB clearly indicate the accordion design in a sideways fashion. An opening glass wall system is cited in the application form and the illustration they show has a sideways system. Regarding the parking lot layout, Mr. Watrous said the main concern is that, given there is a one- way entrance off of V ia Los Altos, a one-way exit off of Reedland Woods Way and the parking lot circulation as one-way going in and looping around, the drive aisles are fairly narrow and there is concern that an accident during high traffic times could stack parking up on Via Los Altos. He said that after review by the Town Engineer, staff suggested that the aisle be widened an additional 10 feet and the parking lot widened by 10 feet to create enough passing room area, and there was not much of a concern where the driveway loops back. Mayor Slavitz questioned if narrowing the driveway was good for the neighbors but bad for circulation, and Mr. Watrous said at the exit it does not hurt the circulation one way or the other and the idea was to narrow it down to discourage people from trying to enter in. Applicant Presentation: Susan Coliver, Herman & Coliver Architecture, presented a slide show showing the site area, existing building, the area under the dome, existing pods and annex and neighboring houses. Areas to be added are the multi-purpose building, classrooms and new parking lot with an access drive to it and said that the part of the site where the multi-purpose building would be situated is most distant from the most number of neighbors. She presented the landscape plan and said there is single point of access from Via Los Altos and egress onto Reedland Woods Way, a two-way drive coming up to the new parking lot and the drop-off and turn-around back down, and the width of the drive aisle is now 12 feet wide. She DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 7 of 17 said that to enlarge it to 20 feet would be extremely difficult and would require a huge retaining wall at one edge or another into the slope. She presented the multi-purpose building which is the largest point of contention, noted its distance of 140 feet to the closest point at Via Los Altos, 280 feet to the corner of Blackfield Drive and Via Los Altos and 175 feet to Reedland Woods Way. She described the entrance to the site up Blackfield Drive and the upper fence, said the existing building and new building will be hidden and she described features seen and hidden while traveling to and from the project site, stating the site was fairly hidden both by existing vegetation and the angle of vision up the hill. Ms. Coliver said that the multi-purpose building wing has a compatible shape and size to the existing facility and their effort was to make it harmonious to itself and to the neighborhood. She presented what the site could hold and believed what they propose is minor compared to what had been intended. Regarding the multi-purpose room's intended uses, Coliver said they reduced the building by 15%, pulled it back from the slope by at least 5 feet and when they did this the NANA doors and east wall were changed to accommodate the room size. She presented the footprint of what was submitted for the CUP at 9,733 square feet and what was submitted to the DRB which has been changed to 8,288 square feet. She presented an overlay of the difference between the two schemes, said the existing 29 foot height of the dome can hardly be seen, and said 23 feet is realistically the height of a two-story home of which there are a great many in the neighborhood. She presented the NANA wall system, said the actual opening area is about 13.5 feet tall and 40 feet wide. She said there were no issues of the Design Review Board as to what materials would be used except for the color of the plaster. She presented what was suggested and what was previously submitted for plaster colors. She said that some of the Council had questioned whether the colors were too bright, too light and reflective. Therefore, Coliver said they revised colors which will be reviewed again by the DRB prior to permit issuance and said they would blend in the heavy screen of foliage. She said windows are a matte aluminum and the top of the canopy is a powdered, coated steel and of a dark, rust/burgundy color. She described materials of the new building and said the likelihood of anyone seeing light emanating from the windows was very slim. She described the door design, said they were recently installed at Stanford University and described how they bend in the middle and showed them in an open position. With regard to the question of getting out from the multi-purpose building other than using the Schweis doors, she noted there were three, separate exit doors. She further presented the canopy, solar panels on the roof, the two tent poles which would not be seen and painted a green color. She presented a sample of the solar panels which are intentionally non-reflective, the entry materials which had not changed from the DRB meeting, cedar siding, aluminum windows, elevations and said trash generated from events would b,e collected inside the required 800 square foot van storage and would be taken to the exterior trash enclosure. She said trash is not kept indoors today and it has always been the understanding that the point of keeping trash enclosed was to not hear bottles and cans. During the day trash would be taken to the exterior trash enclosure. Regarding exterior lighting, Coliver said that there was some confusion about the exact type of lights. One of the cut sheets talks about flood lights and she said it is not a flood light even though it is called out that way in the literature. Many of the 21 lights are low-level step lights embedded in the curb as a stairway. There are 3 pole lamps in the parking lot which will remain, the fixtures DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 8 of 17 are currently flood lights and they will be replaced. She described lights surrounding the building and noted bollards do not shoot light up into the neighborhoods. April Phillips, Landscape Architect, presented a slide presentation, described the 10 trees to be removed due to overcrowding and 10 trees to be removed due to construction. She discussed the addition of 88 new trees in various locations and species chosen to comply with the Marin Municipal Water District drought tolerance plan. She said that there were 29 Melaleuca trees through the grove, that additional trees and native planting will be added to the existing and new parking lot. She said that two areas of "rain gardens" will be added to better improve the soil so plants can grow better, and to address run-off issues. She said they have lined many shrubs along Reedland Woods Way and up the slope to screen any light; that they will add Black Myrtle along the street edge which will significantly shield the area and Bamboo will get to 20-30 feet tall and planted on side of the multi-purpose room. She presented the play area, the fence along the play area, bike rack areas, water features, elevations, plant materials and their relationship to the edge of the courtyard, Coastal Live Oaks, existing shrubs in open areas and said they can work on adding shrubs to open areas as requested. She believed that most of the concerns of the neighbors had been addressed, and that they are working with water conservation issues to ensure the slope is planted properly. Mayor Slavitz said his understanding is that the DRB approved the accordion style NANA wall system, and unless the Council changes it to the Schweis wall or something else, this is what has been approved. Mr. Watrous agreed. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked what was the motivation and function for changing the NANA wall to the Schweis doors. Ms. Coliver said functionally, the Schweis doors do the same thing. It was changed because of semantics--a NANA wall received very critical comments in that it was referred to as a wall rather than a door. The Schweis door opens the entire expanse on a smooth transition, it creates a canopy which will be good for shade, it has very similar acoustical properties, it closes just as tightly, lets as much light in and out and there were not a lot of visual differences. Vice Mayor Fredericks said in the current opening it looks as though the NANA wall could be opened partially and not an all unlike the Schweis door. She questioned if its function would have an effect on allowing more noise out of the building. Bob Herman, Herman & Coliver Architecture, said as a student, he had an acoustical engineer as a teacher who said he wanted to dispel the notion everyone has about noise-he presented a box with a bell inside and an electric wire with a button and a door. The door would close. He pushed the button, the bell was ringing inside the box and it could not be heard. When the door was opened a crack and the bell rang, it could be heard. So, his point was that regardless of whether it is opened a crack or the entire way, all noise comes through. He said there would be absorption in the room if the NANA door were only partially opened, but by and large the noise generated inside the room does travel outside. Councilmember Collins confirmed the width of the door is approximately 40 feet wide and the actual door itself is about 15 feet high, but 1.5 feet of the soffitt could not be seen on the covering and when opened, is about 13' 8" high. Councilmember Berger questioned the size of the trees being installed, and Ms. Phillips said it depends on the species; they have a range of 36" box trees which will be about 12 feet tall and about 5 feet wide. The Melaleuca species will be about 14-15 feet tall and wider. Most specimens DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 9 of 17 for the courtyard will be about 15 feet wide. Many shrubs, depending on how fast they grow, may already be about 4-5 feet and some are 1 feet wide and some 2-3 feet wide. It also depends upon spacing between each other. The Bamboo will be about 20 feet tall upon its installation. The trees to be planted on the slope are limited to 36" box and with the slope, hedge and Bamboo, trees will eventually fill out and be part of the overall screening effect. Councilmember Berger questioned what occurs at a Kiddush lunch, what is the relationship between the inside of the multi-purpose room and the courtyard during such an event, and how often Kiddush lunches are held. Ron Brown, Past President ofKol Shofar, said they interpret the CUP conditions that the door will be able to be opened to the outside on high holidays and during Sukkot and Shabbat. He said the only new uses of the courtyard were for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The new use allows them to have tables inside the room so those not wanting to be out in the sun can be inside, so this will not really be a new use. Councilmember Berger questioned if these occasions are amplified and are held every Saturday. Mr. Brown said Sukkot is for 8 days per year and they currently have dinners outside on almost every night of that holiday, one of which is a Saturday night. People will serve themselves from a buffet inside and wander in and out while talking to people, but there is no amplification. V ice Mayor Fredericks questioned if the events and numbers of people would increase than what currently exists. Mr. Brown said he did not foresee an increase of those coming for Sukkot or Shabbat. They currently have about 2,000 individuals who belong to Kol Shofar or almost 600 families, who are never all present except for three days a year during the high holidays. So, he expects that the same 150 regular attendees will continue to come for Shabbat. Mayor Slavitz asked about problems with circulation on site, and Mr. Brown said they will probably find many improvements with the new plan. He believed the shuttle would address a lot of people driving individually on site and they had not thought about where the shuttle would go, but believes the suggestion by TNC might improve the current circulation. He said if the shuttle uses the upper driveway, people using it would arrive at the back door of the facility. He said a committee will be set up to talk about operational issues like this and if something works better, they will implement it, but they hoped for a dialogue to occur. Mayor Slavitz referred to whether the roadway should be 14 feet and he questioned if this was a problem from an architectural standpoint. Mr. Herman said if they used a 12 foot roadway and drivers could not pass, widening the road to 18 feet would mean the need for a continuous retaining wall, the widening of the entire parking lot and a lot of engineering work. Mayor Slavitz questioned whether landscaping should be used to mitigate the size and mass of a building. Ms. Phillips said that they believe that using bamboo would add to the quality of appreciating the space captured from the inside more as well as from the outside. Councilmember Gram asked what the Municipal Code says about 45 degree one-way aisles being 12 feet wide; he said he has seen them more commonly as 14 feet. Ms. Coliver said they have reviewed many different parking lot layouts and the goal in the CUP was to provide for more parking spaces, but parking is actually better than it currently exists in terms of the numbers of parking spaces. Mr. Watrous confirmed that for a 45 degree one-way, the Town Code called for a 12 foot aisle. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 10 of 17 Councilmember Gram questioned the vertical Schweis door's design and whether it was broken up in segments. Ms. Coliver said they propose one long door and it was not broken up. He asked where the tent would be stored, and Ms. Coliver said the tent is fabric and stored inside the annex building where all major storage is held. Gram asked how many times a year the tent is anticipated to be put up and Ms. Coliver said three times a year; the purpose of the door opening all the way is that there are more people during the high holidays and they will need to be accommodated on-site so that they can get inside the building. The idea for a tent to go up with chairs being set up outside is just for the High Holy Days so everyone can have a view into the prayer area. Councilmember Gram said he remembers last year there was a large two-family bar mitzvah and a tent was set up. Ms. Coliver said this was a tent not where the service took place but for the after party and this was due to not having a multi-purpose room. He confirmed with Mr. Brown that the multi-purpose room would serve that purpose in the future and the courtyard would be used for the Kiddush lunches. Councilmember Gram said the concern of the neighbors is that the tent would be set up and stay. Mr. Brown said this is not their intention and would not happen; it was never contemplated when the CUP was approved and would serve no function for them. Councilmember Gram questioned the need for permanent tent poles which to him may suggest a permanent tent. Mr. Brown said the poles need to stay in place for structural stability for the tent. Ms. Coliver said the permanence of the poles was needed because if they are not permanent, they are less structurally stable and would need guy wires which are a significant tripping hazard where there are hundreds of people on site. The permanent poles do not require guy wires and there is less opportunity for accidents. She said the bar mitzvah tent also had sides on it and it will not be needed because of the presence of a multi-purpose room. Councilmember Collins questioned the interior appearance inside the multi-purpose room. Ms. Coliver said the floor is a bamboo floor, the walls incorporate a wainscot of up to 4 feet with an eco-acrylic recycled material, and above that would be sheet rock with a ceiling having absorbent materials. Vice Mayor Fredericks asked Mr. Brown to address the concern there will be events of less than 100 people where the doors would be opened, which would not trigger certain mitigation measures. Mr. Brown said Saturdays would trigger the ability to open the inside to the outside and there are no events after service unless there are small groups of people who meet. Kol Shofar member Diane Zack noted there are lunches called Community Kiddush's where they are altogether in one Kiddush. They do not have competing events where people need to eat outdoors while there is something else going on in the multi-purpose room; she said they all eat together during Kiddush lunches. Councilmember Berger said when he reads the CUP a lunch could be held outside which allows opening of the doors while also having 200 people inside at some sort of event like a bar mitzvah and concurrent events. Mr. Brown said if they have a service and a lunch afterwards, doors would be closed long before any evening event. He confirmed that there would be no concurrent events gomg on. Kol Shofar member Gail Dorf said when there is a bar mitzvah, everyone is together and there are no separate parties for others at the same time. If there is another party, it would be held in the evening and not concurrent with the lunches in this synagogue. Mr. Brown confirmed they will DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 11 of 17 not have a party during the day at the same time as the Kiddush lunch because it is not consistent with the way they celebrate the Sabbath. Councilmember Gram asked about the landscape berms, and Ms. Phillips described berming locations, said berms are 3-4 feet high along with additional 3-4 foot hedges. Councilmember Gram referred to the skylights, said the plan is to put up the shades which will be pulled across the skylight, and he questioned if someone will manually do this everyday. Ms. Coliver said there is a maintenance staff that presently opens and closes buildings and the shades. The CUP includes controls on this and the neighborhood has the opportunity to complain if the shades are not being adhered to by maintenance staff. She said the shades are only opened when the buildings are used and some buildings go for many days without use. She believed there needs to be a level of trust that it will happen. Councilmember Berger said he liked the idea of a shuttle service having priority so people are confident they will get to their cars faster than driving and parking their own vehicle in the lot. Mayor Slavitz said the multi-purpose building's walls are 3 sections, which total 105 feet wide by 23 feet high for the 3 walls. There are 2 windows on one side, 2 windows on another side, and 1 on another space behind the ark. He asked if the applicant considered stepping the wall or doing something to break up the solid mass. Ms. Coliver said in terms of maximizing the use of the space and the light, they were limited and did not consider stepping the mass. She said it was also not 23 feet from ground to top visually as it is heavily masked with bamboo, the hedges and the trees and much less of a visual mass than most homes in the area. Mayor Slavitz confirmed the windows will still have access to the outdoors. Ms. Co liver said the windows bring light in and will look out to the bamboo. Slavitz said that on one hand, the foliage will be dense to screen the building but on the other hand, the windows will allow light to come into the building and people will be able to see out. Ms. Coliver said where the building will be seen is from the roadway and one house. In addition, there are minor shrubs and hedges and from any level looking up at it, the view is changed and it takes less to cover up more of the building. So in essence, if everything has not done its screening job enough, the bamboo should address it. Bob Herman said the three segments of the wall are structurally very beneficial in terms of lateral uses and it would be much harder to seismically design and build the structure otherwise. Regarding the bamboo and other screening, he discussed a situation when one hides in bushes and cannot be seen from a distance, but can easily see light out through, and this is the effect the bamboo would have. Councilmember Collins said there were comments made about the HV AC equipment and its location on the roof. Ms. Coliver said they have no mechanical equipment on the roof and she pointed out the location of the van parking, multi-purpose room and its edges and said the system is open to the air, but enclosed behind a wall. She said its noise is controlled through its surrounding wall. Mr. Herman noted the enclosure was on ground level and on the landscape plan, said the equipment is well below the view and nestled into an area which is open for air circulation. Councilmember Collins questioned the location of the kitchen ventilation equipment and Mr. Herman described its location on the plan and its low profile screening on the roof. Councilmember Collins confirmed with Ms. Coliver that they addressed every point made at the DRB regarding parking lot trees, bike racks, trash enclosure and noted the bamboo width was approximately 5 feet and would be spaced out appropriately. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 12 of 17 Councilmember Gram followed up on the suggestion that trees be located in the parking lot where on the plans it designates no parking and asked if this was feasible. Ms. Phillips said one of the issues with the parking lot and striping is that it is narrow. She believed site lines may be blocked with trees and she voiced concern over safety. They could put in wheel stops or curbs to break up the parking lot to restrict kids from squealing tires and plants typically do not thrive well in small areas in parking lots, but they can look into this. Ms. Coliver said they did not previously hear comments about kids driving in the lot and squealing their tires and she agreed that putting in curb stops might address this. Mayor Slavitz questioned and confirmed with Ms. Coliver that the light shafts in the multi- purpose building will not be covered but the windows already exist and they cannot be seen from the surrounding area. Vice Mayor Fredericks said the applicants had stated earlier they were willing to change some of the clerestory windows, and Ms. Coliver said if they were determined to be a problem later on, they could be addressed. She said they had intended to put shades on the clerestory windows in the classroom facility. BREAK Mayor Slavitz called for a 5-minute break at 10:30 p.m., and thereafter reconvened the regular meeting at 10:35 p.m. Public Comments: Karen Nygren said bamboo is listed by MMWD as a fire hazard and as a plant species not recommended for planting. She said 12 feet is a standard freeway lane and requested it be widened, said skylights are proposed to be manual and because they are on a dome shape, unless they are on a track they will not function properly to block out light, and she suggested that conduit or wiring be put in ahead of their installation in case manual opening and closing does not work well. Richard Goldwasser said he appreciates the many measures to mitigate the project but voiced opposition to a NANA wall system and the amount of use, noise, and level of activity in the multi-purpose room and the outside area, for which the neighborhood will have no legal recourse. He voiced concern with blackout shades being closed without an automatic system, debris on site, and the demonstrated operations of Kol Shofar in the past, and asked that any questionable items be addressed now. Kurt Kaull said the intent is for the doors to be open 52 Saturdays a year during the 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. period and closing this loophole is important. He was not sure when Kiddush lunches could or could not be conducted, cited the main issue is Kol Shofar's operational hours and amount of true usage and said the issue was not so much the distance from the neighbors of the multi- purpose room but about nighttime usage, frequency, noise, sound and parking. He said there were no pictures or models of the project and he disagreed that the building is invisible. He requested the tent usage be limited to the high holy days only or one or two additional days, said the tent has never been discussed or approved and he asked that it be better regulated. Lastly, regarding parking and circulation, Kaull said he believed it was interesting that the applicant had not really addressed how it would work. The public hearing was closed. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 13 of 17 Mayor Slavitz said there is a lot of discussion about the NANA doors being opened every Saturday. Slavitz asked Town Attorney Danforth whether the Council could decide to take up the matter up sooner than the 6 month review. The Town Attorney said that it might be more appropriate to look at the situation after 6 months, to see if there were problems and if there were, a new condition of approval could be added limiting the usage. Vice Mayor Fredericks questioned that because the DRB approved the horizontal opening doors, would Kol Shofar have to re-submit their application to get this changed. Town Attorney Danforth said if the Council decided that the vertical doors were preferable, they can adopt this change; however, it would be at the Council's discretion to take this up since it is not part of the current proposal. She suggested the Council question whether or not it would be Kol Shofar's preference to have it vertical versus horizontal. Mayor Slavitz confirmed with Ms. Danforth that as long as the parking lot has 156 spaces, the Council could make modifications to this if they find it is necessary to bring it into conformance with the design review criteria. Councilmember Gram asked whether the width of the driveway aisle could be changed if the Code is 12 feet, and Ms. Danforth said if the Council believes there is substantial evidence in the record that would support a finding of there being some particular hazard associated with the standard width, it would have the discretion to widen it. He questioned what the depth of the parking spaces were, and Planning Manager Watrous said the standard depth of a parking space is 8.5'x18'. Councilmember Berger believed the hearing was an interesting and necessary exercise. He said that the DRB process works well for review of a home but the neighborhood group needed more clarification on many issues as well as other issues they wanted to bring up. He said this forum provided a chance to hear everything and he believed there had been cooperation on all sides. In general, Councilmember Berger said he believed the DRB got its review right on almost all points. For him, there will be reviews of the CUP 6 months after the completion of the construction and every year afterwards, and he felt there was a lot of fine-tuning in addition with meetings of the neighborhood group and Kol Shofar. He thinks there must be an understanding that Kiddush lunches on Saturday are quiet affairs, and the issue will need review if it gets loud. He complimented the architects on the multi-purpose room which is so much more attractive than in the past, agreed it was not broken up vertically, but it was horizontally. Sometimes the DRB focuses on reducing the size of buildings, but he does not see reducing the multi-purpose building as an overriding factor because it is quite a distance to homes. He believed more dense planting at the Blackfield/Via Los Altos intersection would help in mitigating screening for the neighborhood looking back into the site from below and asked that the landscape plan be shifted so more planting goes into this area. Councilmember Berger said he liked the new colors which are much softer and blend better into the area, but he asked that they return to the DRB with the revised color palette to ensure that they will be. He agreed with the suggestion that wiring or conduit be put in to get power to the areas of the skylights which would be a small cost compared to retrofitting them. Regarding the shuttle and parking, for the shuttle to enter the parking lot where everyone else enters it, the situation would be daunting, according to Berger. He suggested making an ingress on Reedland Woods Way; with an entrance usable only by the shuttle. By doing so, the shuttle DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 14 of 17 can avoid any back-up in the parking lot. He believed there are solutions for everyone and he did not have a preference for the doors opening horizontally or vertically. Vice Mayor Fredericks said she understands the concerns of the neighbors on the wall as there were several versions of it in the initial use permit and DRB process; one version had door panels that opened, at a certain point it changed to a NANA wall system, and because of a compacting of the design there was one large opening where doors seem to open in horizontal sections. Then it turned into a vertical door which was not on any of the plans which opened across a 43 foot wide opening and left no possibility for the future of mitigating sound at all. The Vice Mayor said that it now seems possible to have the vertically opening door or a horizontally opening door to open in sections. She said that she would like to have some sort of idea on whether people think whether a sectional opening door makes a difference to them, knowing that there are use permit controls in place for up to 100 people, and appellants believed it did make a difference. Secondly, she questioned whether horizontal or vertical made a difference, and appellants felt it was the width of the opening. She said she would side with the neighbors, although she would add that aesthetically, she was impressed by the vertical opening, especially if it could be made sectional, and also because it allows for future mitigation. She thinks there are several ideas for shuttle access, agrees with Councilmember Berger's comments, and she believed there could also be traffic monitors. Councilmember Collins said he believed the pre-wiring for the skylight shades was a good idea because it would allow for the future option to provide automatic or mechanical opening and closing. He said the project has taken a long time but that most issues can be addressed in the 6 months review of the CUP and annual reviews thereafter. He thinks the idea of curbs or bumps to limit teenagers from squealing their tires could be incorporated, said he wanted to know if bamboo was flammable or not and if it is, it should be substituted. The widening of the parking lot is a great idea not only for the shuttle but if there is a fender bender, cars can go around it. Collins said that the CUP states that the trash must be inside an enclosure and if the outside receptacle unit is removed, it would become an issue. He agrees with clerestory windows in classrooms, thinks if the entire doors were open, there would be more noise. He supported having the tent poles stay in place as long as the tent is put away after each use. Councilmember Gram said other city's normal standard parking spaces are 9'x20' and in Tiburon it is 8.5'x18'. He was not comfortable with the 12 foot wide aisle and the 8.5'x18' spaces. He felt those with pick up trucks or large SUV's or vans would be problematic and he wanted a 14' wide aisle. He said he was not crazy about the 23' height, had heard a lot about bamboo and the colors, and he was okay with those if the Council concurred with these items. Gram said that he supported the tent poles, but that trash receptacles were supposed to be inside the enclosure next to the multi-purpose building. He said that CKS should make the shuttle system a priority operation in and out so people will want to use it. Regarding review of the use permit, he said the Town does not typically approach it with the idea that all loopholes must be closed or the ability to deal every "what if'. He acknowledged the past distrust by appellants of Kol Shofar, but said that Kol Shofar had "gotten the message" about working together. He said that the Town will see what happens, the situation will be reviewed in 6 months, and the Council can deal with problems if they arise. Mayor Slavitz thanked everyone for their participation and felt the process had been productive. He said that he liked the sectional wall idea because he would rather have one section open versus DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 15 of 17 all three sections open. He said that he did not care whether they opened horizontally or vertically, but the NANA door sectional idea makes the most sense. Regarding the covering of the skylights, the NANA wall, the light shafts, clerestory windows, he said that the Council should be focusing on things that cannot be changed easily at the CUP review. He agreed with the suggestion to widen the parking aisle to 14 feet, and widening it toward the synagogue and not toward the street. He thought wheel stops in the parking lot were a great idea, and noted that tents will only be up during 10 days of the high holy days. Slavitz said that he did not like to see landscaping used as a band aid, but said he would love to see the 23-foot wall, which is 105 fee wide, more broken up than it is but if the Council does not agree, he thinks there are good solutions in place to break it up. He agreed that more planting at the base was a good idea, as well as wiring of the skylights ahead of time. Regarding the shuttle, he said the neighbors did not want another entrance on Reedland Woods Way and he felt it would break up the landscaping, and he suggested bringing the shuttle up to the top and bypass the entire parking lot. He also agreed with Councilmember Collins that the trash enclosure should be enclosed. Vice Mayor Fredericks said it was her understanding that the trash was supposed to be collected inside after events and that at some future time, be taken out to the general trash collection point, which is outside. Director Anderson said the CUP talks about the multi-purpose building having an enclosure which would connect two kitchens and where catering vehicles would be loaded and unloaded, and for storage of garbage and recyclables during the event. Presumably at some point, the garbage cans would need to be wheeled outside so the garbage company can pick them up and haul them away. But this was intended so that late at night, garbage would not be wheeled out to the street. Planning Manager Watrous agreed that the intent was for the cleanup to occur at night within an enclosed space and it did not necessarily have to do with the trash itselfbut the noise from the clean up. The DRB required there be some trash enclosure within the area to collect it inside, but not necessarily all trash enclosures had to be within that structure. Planning Manager Watrous said to modify the DRB' s decision the Council would have to direct staff to prepare a resolution partially granting the appeal to add some additional conditions of approval. He summarized what he believed the Council had requested--additional planting near the intersection of Via Los Altos and Blackfield Drive, skylights to be pre-wired during construction and the multi-purpose room door be a sectional door and vertical. Ms. Coliver said if it is the desire to have it sectional and open up partially, they would need to go to the horizontal style. Planning Manager Watrous said the Council also wanted the central driveway ingress to be widened to 14 feet, the parking lot expanded in the direction of the synagogue, wheel stops to be installed in the lower parking lot, and a suggestion of putting blackout shades on the clerestory windows. Vice Mayor Fredericks referred to the 23 foot wall and the architect's contention that it cannot be lowered. Councilmember Berger said the very nice effect of this is that inside, the wall goes up and the skylights are completely out of view, and just because it can be lowered does not mean that it should be lowered which would result in an inferior design and functionality. The Council members briefly discussed the effects of landscaping and massing of the wall. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 16 of 17 MOTION: Moved: Vote: To direct staff to return with a resolution partially upholding the appeal and setting forth the additional conditions of approval as stated by the Council. Berger, seconded by Gram. AYES: Unanimous 2. Historical Landmark Building Code Amendments - Consider repeal of Chapter 13B of the Town Code and adoption of a new Chapter 13B (Historical Landmarks) - Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance (Director of Community Development Anderson) Council waived the staff report. Mayor Slavitz opened and closed the public hearing. There was no public comment. MOTION: Moved: Vote: To read ordinance by title only. Gram, seconded by Fredericks. AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon repealing Chapter 13 B of the Town Code and adopting a new Chapter 13B (Historical Landmarks)." MOTION: Moved: Vote: To adopt ordinance, as written Gram, seconded by Berger AYES: Berger, Collins, Fredericks, Gram, Slavitz NOES: None TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT None. WEEKLY DIGESTS . Town Council Weekly Digest - February 22,2008 . Town Council Weekly Digest - February 29,2008 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz adjourned the meeting at 11 :35 p.m. ATTEST: JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #04-2008 March 5, 2008 Page 17 of 17 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 2" 2008 Agenda Item: CC-~ STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Administrative Services Department Subject: Investment Summary - February 2008 Reviewed By: ~ BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section5360 1, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities. ANALYSIS The Town of Tiburon currently invests all idle funds for the Town and the Redevelopment Agency in the California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). Below illustrates the funds on deposit with LAIF at month end, February 29, 2008: Agency Investment Amount Interest Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency $18,115,530.85 4.1610/0 Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) Redevelopment Agency Local Agency $1,044,069.81 4.1610/0 Liquid Investment Fund (LAIF) FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by adopting the report. The Town continues to meet the priority principles of investing - safety, liquidity and yield in this respective order. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to accept the February 2008 investment summary Exhibits: Prepared By: None Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 T own Council Meeting April 2, 2008 Agenda Item: Cc - "3> STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Eminent Domain Ballot Measures - Adopt Resolutions to Oppose Proposition 98 and in Support of Proposition 99 Reviewed By: ~)/ W/ BACKGROUND Two ballot measures concerning eminent domain reform have qualified for the June 2008 statewide election. The League of California Cities, along with and the Legislative Committee ofMCCMC, have reviewed the ballots measures and recommend opposition to Proposition 98 and support of Proposition 99. Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, was placed on the ballot by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Property Rights. This measure proposes to eliminate the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, abolish rent control and renter protections, reduce local control over land-use planning, and diminish environmental regulations. Eminent Domain Reform Now, a coalition of local government, environmental and business interests that opposed Proposition 90 in 2006, came up with an opposing ballot measure entitled the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act (proposition 99). This measure would prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire a single-family, owner-occupied home and transfer the property to a private party. It has the strong support of over 35 organizations, including the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Redevelopment Association, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, League of California Homeowners, Housing California, California League of Conservation V oters, and Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League. Information explaining each ballot measure is attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Adopt the Resolutions Opposing Proposition 98 and in support of Proposition 99. Exhibits: Draft Resolutions Summaries of ballot measures prepared by League of California Cities SF Chronicle Article dated March 10, 2008, concerning Eminent Domain measures Capitol Weekly article dated February 28,2008, concerning Proposition 98 Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk RESOLUTION NO. XX-200B A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 98 WHEREAS, a constitutional amendment ballot measure, Proposition 98, will appear on California's June 2008 ballot; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 proponents want voters to believe the initiative is about eminent domain, but in fact the measure contains hidden agendas and flawed language which will eliminate rent control and other renter protections, threaten development of public water projects, stymie local land use planning and impair our ability to protect the environment; and WHEREAS, the majority of the funding to qualify this measure comes from wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners who are attempting to trick voters into abolishing rent control and other renter protections, thereby jeopardizing an important affordable housing tool to protect working families, seniors, single-parent homes, veterans and others; and WHEREAS, provisions in the initiative would also preclude the use of eminent domain to acquire land or water to develop public water projects that are needed to provide our residents, businesses, farmers and economy with a reliable and safe supply of water; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 is opposed by the Association of California Water Agencies and the Western Growers Association, who warn the initiative will impair water projects to protect water quality and supply; and WHEREAS, language in the initiative will also prohibit the passage of regulations, ordinances, land use and other zoning laws that enable local governments to plan and protect communities; and WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association opposes the measure because it threatens their ability to keep communities and the public safe; and WHEREAS, leading environmental groups warn provisions in the measure would impair our ability to enact environmental protections such as laws that control greenhouse gas emissions, preserve open space, protect coastal areas, and regulate development; and WHEREAS, the No on Proposition 98 campaign is represented by the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other leading state and local associations who oppose Proposition 98. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the that Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby oppose Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot. BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council authorizes the use of our name by the No on Proposition campaign in opposition to Proposition 98, and we direct staff to fax a copy of this adopted resolution to 916-442-3510 for this purpose. Town Council Resolution No. xx-2008 Page 1 of2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on April 2, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. xx-2008 Page 2 of2 RESOLUTION NO. XX-20GB A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 99 WHEREAS, in June of 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government could take a home through eminent domain to give to a private developer; and WHEREAS, since that decision more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws; and WHEREAS, California has failed to place a prohibition on the use of eminent domain to take homes for private development; and WHEREAS, Proposition 99, which will be on the June 2008 ballot, will prohibit government from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to another private party; and WHEREAS, the protections in Proposition 99 directly address the issues in the Kelo decision and the measure does not contain any unrelated provisions that will result in unintended, harmful consequences for California; and WHEREAS, the League of California Homeowners supports this measure because it will provide ironclad protections for California homeowners; and WHEREAS, the Yes on Proposition 99 campaign is represented by a broad based coalition, including the League of California Cities, California States Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other leading state and local associations who support Proposition 99; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby support Proposition 99 on the June 2008 ballot. BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Council authorizes the use of our name by the Yes on Proposition 99 campaign in support of Proposition 99, and we direct staff to fax a copy of this adopted resolution to 916-442-3510 for this purpose. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on April 2, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Resolution No. xx-2008 Page 1 of2 ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. xx-2008 Page 2 of2 Summary of California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights have submitted signatures to place a measure on the June, 2008 ballot, which would make major changes to laws governing use of property, including use of eminent domain and regulation of land use. Governmental Regulations Affecting the Price of Private Property The initiative provides that a government regulation that limits the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property requires the payment of just compensation. This includes rent control ordinances1 and inclusionary housing ordinances. Limitation on Use of Eminent Domain for Consumption of Natural Resources The initiative would prohibit the use of eminent domain to "transfer the ownership, occupancy or use of private property.. .to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources..." This provision can be read, for example, to prohibit the use of eminent domain by a city to acquire new drinking water resources. The initiative would also prohibit the use of eminent domain if the public agency would use the property for "the same or substantially similar use as that made by the private owner." This provision would likely eliminate eminent domain as a tool to acquire conservation and open space easements. Land Use Regulations The initiative prohibits a public agency from regulating the use of private property if the regulation transfers an economic benefit from the regulated property owner to another private property owner. Nearly all traditional land use regulations economically benefit some properties while burdening others. Read literally, this provision would make unconstitutional virtually all regulation of land use. Changes to the use of Eminent Domain · Property may not be taken and then transferred to a private party. This would end the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies except for public works projects and prevent its use by other public agencies that wish to establish a public-private partnership for facilities such as toll roads and prisons. . The definition of "iust compensation" is changed. The existing law provides reasonable certainty to both the public agency and the private property owner thereby reducing the need to go to court to determine "just compensation." The initiative will likely require more frequent recourse to the courts to understand how to apply the new definition. In addition, the initiative requires a public agency to pay the property owner's attorney's fees if the jury awards one dollar more than the amount offered by the public agency. It also includes elements not currently recognized such as temporary business losses in the calculation of "just compensation." Rent controlled units as of January 1, 2007, would be grandfathered, but only for so long as at least one of the tenants continues to live in the unit as their principal place of residence. . Acquiring immediate possession of property made more complicated. Under existing law, a public agency may deposit the estimated just compensation and gain immediate possession of the property. The property owner is limited to challenging what constitutes "just compensation" if the deposit is withdrawn. Under the initiative, the property owner will also be able to challenge whether the public agency has a right to take the property. This means that it would be possible for a public agency to take immediate possession of the property and for a court to subsequently rule that the public agency had no underlying right to acquire the property at all. . Balance of power shifted to courts. When a public agency makes findings explaining the need to exercise eminent domain, those findings are entitled to a strong presumption of validity when challenged in court. In addition, the court is limited to reviewing the administrative record that was before the public agency. The initiative changes this balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government by removing the presumption of validity and allowing the property owner to introduce evidence to the court that was not previously a part of the administrative record before the public agency. 2 Summary of the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act The Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act is an initiative constitutional amendment proposed for the June 2008 ballot by substantially the same coalition of local government, environmental and business interests that opposed Proposition 90 in 2006. The initiative would make the following changes to existing law: Restrictions on the Use of Eminent Domain Under existing law, a redevelopment agency may acquire a privately owned single-family home and resell it to a private developer for redevelopment in order to eliminate blight. In direct response to public concerns raised following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, the initiative would amend the California Constitution to prohibit a redevelopment agency, the State, or any local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied, single-family residence and resell it to a private person. "Owner-occupied, single- family residence" is defined as real property improved with a single-family residence (including a condominium or townhouse) that is the owner's principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government's initial written offer to purchase the property. Exceptions The prohibition on using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied, single-family home for resale to a private party would not apply if the acquisition is for a public work or improvement. A "public work or improvement" is defined to include what have been traditionally viewed as public facilities, including those that may be constructed or operated as public/private partnerships (e.g., toll roads). The initiative would also not apply if the acquisition was to abate a nuisance, protect public health and safety from building, zoning or other code violations, prevent serious, repeated criminal activity, respond to an emergency, or remediate hazardous materials. Effective Date If passed, the measure would take effect the day following the election. Property acquisitions where both: (1) the initial written offer to purchase the property is made on or before January 1, 2008, and (2) a resolution of necessity to acquire the property by eminent domain is adopted on or before December 31, 2008, could be completed. Construction with Other Measures The initiative provides that if it appears on the same ballot with another initiative measure dealing with the same or similar subj ect and both measures pass, this measure will prevail over the other if it receives more votes than the other measure. In such event, the provisions of the other measure will be null and void. SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE SFGale.com Eminent domain measures on ballot Tom Chorneau. Chronicle Sacramento Bureau Monday, March 10, 2008 (03-10) 04:00 PDT Sacramento-- Celebrity developer Donald Trump stirred controversy last year with his plan to build an upscale golf community in Fresno that would have required the city to use eminent domain to help him get all the land he needed. Fresno officials backed down, even though government's authority to condemn privately owned land for the use of another private buyer has been on the books for many years and was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. On June 3, California voters will decide two ballot measures that would restrict government's use of eminent domain for private purposes - and one of them goes much further, eliminating rent controls in cities including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose. Eminent domain is the power state and local governments have to take possession of private property for the public good. In its most common application, private landowners are given market value for their property that might be needed for things such as a highway expansion, a public building or installing utility lines. In its ruling three years ago in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London, the nation's highest court said the power of eminent domain included the authority to take private land without consent of the owner for the express purpose of reselling that land to another private party. The case involved members of a Connecticut family forced out of their home to make way for a privately sponsored development plan. The court said the taking was justified because eventually the new development would add to the local tax base. Fearing similar confrontations in California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association led an effort to qualify Proposition 98 for the June ballot. California voters narrowly rejected a similar measure in 2006. Rental control targeted Prop. 98 would not only prohibit state and local governments from taking private land and transferring it to another private party - but it would also phase out rent control ordinances and, some critics said, would undermine general land-use zoning and environmental protections. Saying the Jarvis measure had a hidden agenda, a coalition led by the California League of Cities has qualified Proposition 99 for the June election. The competing measure would simply prohibit government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home to help a private landowner. Prop. 99 is written so that if it receives more votes than its rival, it would become law - even if a majority of voters also supports Prop. 98. Supporters of Prop. 99 said the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision raised an issue that needs to be addressed - but not the way Prop. 98 would solve the problem. "The Kelo decision was about taking someone's home," said Tom Adams, president of the California League of Conservation Voters. "We believe that voters in California want clean, straightforward protection for residents (but) not having other issues being hijacked into eminent domain." Jarvis group sees threat Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the Kelo decision poses a threat to landowners. If approved, Prop. 98 would still allow government to condemn land for public projects like schools, roads and parks. But Coupal fears that if Prop. 99 is adopted, government officials will find ways to acquire private property for private use using other methods, such as increasing the use of rent controls. He said Prop. 98 is aimed at closing all the loopholes - including rent control. Supporters of Prop. 98 contend that rent control is one way government officials could undermine private property rights. Coupal said government officials must be prohibited from imposing price restrictions on the sale or lease of private property. If Prop. 98 is approved, it would eliminate rent control ordinances in at least 17 California cities. Much of the financial support for the Prop. 98 campaign has come from owners of mobile home parks and apartment owner groups, who together have contributed about $2 million. Supporters of Prop. 99 include a long list of renter groups, including the San Francisco Tenants Union, Housing California and the Coalition to Protect California Renters. Adams said Prop. 98 might also be interpreted to restrict laws that protect development of natural areas and laws that restrict pollution, which is why environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, California League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council are backing the competing measure. Fresno officials reluctant Officials in Fresno were reluctant last year to use their eminent domain powers to seize private property to help billionaire Trump move forward with his 48o-acre Running Horse development. "Eminent domain has its place," said Brian Calhoun, a member of the Fresno City Council. "We use it to help with road constructions and public housing. It's a tool to deal with recalcitrant landowners. "But when it came to using that power to help Mr. Trump build a private golf course- I just couldn't see it. It just wasn't defensible." Property rights initiatives Voters June 3 will be asked to consider two ballot measures intended to curb government's use of eminent domain. If Proposition 99 receives more votes than its rival, it becomes law. Proposition 98 What it would do: Prohibit state and local government from taking possession of private land and transferring it to a private party; would phase out rent control; would allow government to take property for public facilities. Proposition 99 What it would do: Prohibit state and local government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home (including condominiums) to transfer it to another private party. Sources: Legislative analyst; secretary of state. To get involved To learn more about Proposition 98's impact on rent control in San Francisco, a Save Rent Control convention will be held Saturday at 1 p.m. at the Main Library, Grove and Larkin streets. E-mail TomChorneauattchorneau(iiJsfchronicle.com. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. cgi?f=/c/a/200B/03/1 O/MNFBVFOBP. DTL This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle Top of Form Bottom of Form (C) 2008 Hearst Communications Inc. I Privacy Policy I Feedback I RSS Feeds I FAO I Site Index I Contact Amy O/Gorman Regional Public Affairs Manager League of California Cities P.D. Box 623, Sonoma, CA 95476 Cell: (707) 291-3270 Fax: (707) 939-8703 aogorman@cacities. org Page 1 of3 Diane Crane lacopi From: Amy Q'Gorman [aogorman@cacities.org] Sent: Thursday, February 28,2008 10:13 AM To: Amy Q'Gorman Subject: Capitol Weekly Article: Prop 98's passage could land $15 million for Sam Zell's firm & ~~~~T9 ~:W~NE~~Y Prop 98's passage could land $15 Inillion for Sam Zell's firm By John Howard and Anthony York (published Thursday, February 28, 20(8) A company run by Sam Zell, the new chairman of the Los Angeles Times' corporate parent, stands to gain up to $15 million if an eminent domain initiative on the June ballot is approved by California voters. The initiative, Proposition 98, would repeal rent control ordinances across California, which could lead to a boon for Zell. Zell, the Tribune Co. chairman, is also chairman of Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., a Chicago-based company that owns more than 112,000 residential units across the United States and Canada. The company's 28 properties in California include a dozen rent-controlled mobile home parks. But Proposition 98 would phase out those rent-control laws. And that could lead to a windfall over time for Zell and his company, according to documents that Equity Lifestyle has filed with the Security and Exchange Commission. "Certain of our properties located in California are subject to rent control ordinances, some of which not only severely restrict ongoing rent increases, but also prohibit us from increasing rents upon turnover," Zell's company told SEC regulators in its 2006 annual financial report. "The company estimates that the annual rent subsidy to tenants in these jurisdictions may be in excess of $15 million," Equity Lifestyles stated in the report. "In a more well-balanced regulatory environment, the company would receive market rents that would eliminate the subsidy and homes would trade at or near their intrinsic value." Equity Lifestyles has contributed $50,000 to the Yes on 98 campaign, according to documents at the secretary of state's office. Zell made his bid for Tribune Co. last spring, and the bid received final approval from the company's 3/25/2008 Page 2 of3 shareholders in December. The Times has written about Proposition 98 and disclosed Zell's contribution in a Jan. 29 story. The account did not mention the potential windfall for Zell. The Times will take an editorial position on the initiative closer to Election Day and will not consult Zell or take his role in the campaign into account, said Jim Newton, the Times' editorial page editor. "We do intend to make an endorsement in the Proposition 98 race, and we will come to our position as we do with other ballot propositions. The decision will be made by the editorial board," he said, "but we will not include Zell in that conversation. We will not consider his role in the campaign or any of his financial interests." Zell, who was traveling, was unavailable to comment, said his spokeswoman, Terry Holt. The rent-control fight is not a new one for Zell. Zell's company has filed several lawsuits against cities across California in efforts to repeal local rent-control ordinances. The company settled a suit with the city of Santa Cruz; the settlement allows the company to increase rents after existing tenants move out. The company has also been engaged in an ongoing battle with the city of San Rafael in federal court and has been sued by tenants' rights groups in Marin in response to the company's efforts to raise rents. Zell has made a name for himself purchasing what are considered to be undervalued or distressed properties, and seeking changes in laws and regulations to increase their value. A 1995 New York Times article on Zell, who once tried to acquire Rockefeller Center, described him and his late partner as "classic 'vulture' investors - they bought faltering properties or businesses at cents on the dollar, betting that with a little prudent management and upturns in the business cycle, the value of their bargain-basement purchases would rise." Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is sponsoring Proposition 98, says the rent control provisions are a minor piece of the Proposition 98 campaign. He says opponents of the initiative, including the League of Cities, is focusing on the rent control provisions of the initiative for political reasons. "I can tell you that the two top contributors to the initiative are the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau, neither of which are that focused on the rent-control element," Coupal said. "All this crap from the other side that the whole thing is about rent control is just not true. The core of our initiative is the eminent domain reform." According to documents at the secretary of state's office, the Yes on 98 campaign has raised more than $2.4 million. The Jarvis group has given more than $323,000 to the effort. The farm bureau has donated $290,000. But other major funding has come from mobile home parks and other property groups. The Apartment Owners Association PAC has given $291,000. Apartment owners stand to benefit from both the elimination of rent control and the eminent domain measures in the initiative. A fund raising flyer for the AOA talks about the measure and "how to end rent control." "When passed 3/25/2008 Page 3 of3 by the voters, the (initiative) will have a dramatic impact on rent control laws in the state of California," the flyer states. It calls rent control "the most egregious example of private property taking for the purpose of conferring an economic benefit on another private individua1." V arious mobile home park owners and interests, including Equity and the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust, have donated tens of thousands more. "This measure was created for landlords, paid for by landlords, for the financial benefit of landlords," said No on 98 spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks. "Rent control provisions were specifically included to attract funding - otherwise it wouldn't have even made it on the ballot. Landlords and the groups that represent them have contributed 85 percent of the funding so far. Clearly their motivation is rent control, not eminent domain." Amy O/Gorman Regional Public Affairs Manager League of California Cities P.D. Box 623, Sonoma, CA 95476 Cell: (707) 291-3270 Fax: (707) 939-8703 aogorman@cacities. org 3/25/2008 TOWN OF TIBURON '~ 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 2, 2008 Agenda Item: cc--'I STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 275 Diviso Street; Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Partially Granting the Appeal of the Design Review Board Decision to Approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review Application for the ~dion of a New Single-Family Dwelling Reviewed By: BACKGROUND On March 19, 2008, the Town Council heard and considered an appeal of a Design Review Board decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a new single- family dwelling on property located at 275 Diviso Street. After hearing public testimony, the Town Council directed staff to prepare a resolution partially granting the appeal, with the inclusion of an additional condition of approval to reduce the size and restrict the location of the clerestory element on the structure, and eliminate clerestory windows on the front (East, facing 2040 Vistazo East) and the right side (north, facing 295 Diviso Street) of the clerestory element. The draft resolution has been prepared and is attached as Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution partially granting the appeal. Exhibits: 1. Draft Resolution Prepared By: Laurie Tyler, Associate Planner RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PARTIALLY GRANTING AN APPEAL BY ROBIN LEA, MARGARET PATTON AND DENIS WILLIAMS, MARY AND DON FOREE, ROBIN E. AND SHERRY LONG DE MANDEL, AND FRANCESCA AND JOHN MADDEN OF THE APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 275 DIVISO STREET WHEREAS, on October 4, 2007, the Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider the approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new single-family dwelling, Town File #707126, for property located at 275 Diviso Street, proposed by Avi Ron ("Applicant"); and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the neighboring property owners raised concerns that the proposed construction would impact views, cause light pollution and drainage issues; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board directed the applicant to consult with the neighbors to reduce the light pollution and view impacts, and continued the item to a date specific; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board heard the item again at its meeting on November 1, 2007. The Board reviewed the revised plans for the project, which included lowering the entire structure 30" into the ground; lowering the ceiling height by one foot (1') in the lower level of the home; lowering the central tower element by six inches (6"); lowering the chimney to the maximum extent possible while meeting code; eliminating the architecture feature at the top of the central tower element; and relocating the window dormers to the west side of the structure to reduce potential light pollution. The Board heard additional public testimony from the neighboring property owners regarding remaining potential view and lighting impacts, as well as whether the size and character of the home was appropriate for the site in comparison with existing structures in the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board concluded that the design was in conformance with the Guiding Principles of Site Plan and Architectural Review and with the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. The Board voted 3-2, (Frymier and Teiser dissenting), to conditionally approve the project; and WHEREAS, on November 13,2007, the owners of the adjacent properties at 295 Diviso Street, Robin Lea, 280 Diviso Street, Margaret Patton and Denis Williams, 265 Diviso Street, Mary and Don Foree, 2021 Vistazo East, Robin E. and Sherry Long De Mandel, and 2040 Vistazo East, Francesca and John Madden ("Appellants"), filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision, objecting to the design and effective bulk of the structure in its relation to the existing structures in the neighborhood, potential view blockage and lighting/glare impacts from the seventeen foot high central tower element, and drainage and runoff issues; and Town Council Resolution No. DRAFT Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT NO. I WHEREAS, on March 19, 2008, the Town Council held a duly-noticed hearing on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the proposed construction of a new single-family dwelling and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the Town Council partially agreed with the appellants that the central tower element would result in lighting impacts on the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5-0 to direct Staff to prepare a resolution partially granting the appeal with the condition that the clerestory element be reduced in size, and that the clerestory windows on the front and right sides of the clerestory element be eliminated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby partially grants the appeal of Robin Lea, Margaret Patton and Denis Williams, Mary and Don Foree, Robin E. and Sherry Long De Mandel, and Francesca and John Madden of the Design Review Board's decision by adding the following condition of approval to those set forth by the Design Review Board: 17. The clerestory element shall be reduced in size and restricted to its location over the entry to the dwelling as indicated in sheet A.2, submitted on March 19, 2008. The clerestory windows on the front (East, facing 2040 Vistazo East) and the right side (north, facing 295 Diviso Street) of the clerestory element shall be eliminated. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on April 2,2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK TOWN OF TIBURON -- 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 T own Council Meeting April 2, 2008 Agenda Item: LC - .5 STAFF REP()RT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Recommendation to Approve A Budget Amendment of $16,910 To Offset Additional MMWD Construction Cost During The Restoration And Improvement Of The Tiburon Multi-Use Path In Connection With The MMWD Pipeline Replacement Project ~ Reviewed By: DISCUSSION As part of the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) 2004-05 Fire Flow Master Plan (FFMP), MMWD installed a replacement pipeline along the Tiburon Multi-Use Path (MUP) between the South of Knoll and Lagoon Road. The new pipeline replaced two smaller (10-inch and 14-inch diameter) cast iron pipes that were installed in the 1920's and in 1957. These pipes were identified in the District's FFMP and Reliability Plan as critical backbone infrastructure. Construction began in May, 2007 and was completed in November, 2007. On April 4, 2007, the Council approved a budget amendment to fund construction of two retaining walls and two drinking fountains as part of MMWD' s restoration of the MUP. At the time, MMWD's quotation to the Town for these two items was $62,800. MMWD recently indicated that, during the course of work, quantities went over the contract amount. This is not atypical since contracts are paid per quantity installed, and quantities will often differ from the original design plans. The final cost for the retaining wall was $64,900 or about $12,100 more. This information was not relayed to the Town during construction. Other additional miscellaneous cost amounted to $8,010 for bench footings and additional vegetation removal. Total cost invoiced by MMWD is $82,910. The current Town budget is $66,000. FISCAL IMPACT The work that was agreed to with MMWD has been completed to the Town's satisfaction. In order to reimburse MMWD for this work, a budget amendment of $16,910 is required. Funds are available in the General Funds - Park Development Designated Reserves. Town Council !vkcting RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to approve a budget amendment of$16,910 to offset additional MMWD construction cost during the restoration and improvement of the Tiburon Multi-Use Path in connection with the MMWD Pipeline Replacement project. Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Tn\\';\' elF TIBl 'RelN Page :2 (If :2 TOWN OF TIBURON - 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Town Council Meeting April 2, 2008 Agenda Item: et::-fc; STAFF REP()RT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Recommendation to Accept the Lyford Cove Rule 20B Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Project And Authorize The Filing Of The Notice Of Completion For The Work # Reviewed By: BACKGROUND On May 18,2005, the Council approved the plans and specifications for the Lyford Cove Rule 20B Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Project, and authorized staff to advertise and seek bids. The project was posted and advertised as required by the State of California's Public Contract Code. On April 19, 2006, the Council: . approved a Bond Purchase agreement with Wulff Hansen for all the supplemental bonds, . adopted a resolution authorizing issuance of the supplemental bonds, and . awarded a construction contract to Maggiora & Ghilotti in an amount of $4,205,227. Work consisted of trenching over 17,000 feet of pavement, installation of plastic conduits and utility boxes, street lights, and other appurtenant work. Most of the work centered around Centro East St, Spanish Trail Rd, Vistazo East St, Solano St, Mar East St, Vista Del Mar Ln, Paradise Dr, Tower Pt. Ln, and Agreste Ave. The completed construction work included 15 change orders for unforeseen items of work in the total amount of$691,439.83. Three additional change orders were approved that had different funding sources outside of the District: the pavement overlay of the District for $377,135.35 (plus $25,069 for inspection) and two change orders totaling $63,626 in which AT&T will reimburse the Town. Based on the work performed, material installed, and total change orders (not including those three funded independently), the final construction cost is $4,088,945.75, delivering the construction project under budget. Additionally, on behalf of the District the Town was successful in recovering $40,165 in claims against PG&E and $195,000 in construction Town Councili\1ccting contribution from Comcast (a portion of which was settled on behalf of the Del Mar Undergrounding District). Construction management and inspection fees were originally budgeted for $290,000. Approximately an additional $148,952 was required for inspection and field engineering to address sub-surface conditions and property owner concerns. The District has also committed $84,000 to eliminate two riser/switching poles at Mar Centro and Paradise Drive. The work will be performed by PG&E and AT&T. Lastly, staff anticipates another $30,000 of miscellaneous construction-related cost to be expended. The District has an effective contingency fund of approximately $580,298 which will comfortably cover these two cost items. After accounting for the additional construction management fees, pole elimination cost, and miscellaneous expenses, approximately $31 7,346 remaIns. Combined with the construction contract savings, the project team delivered the project approximately $570,792 under budget. Additional work related to PG&E, AT&T, and Comcast conversion activities may require additional funding. After all costs have been settled the remaining surplus will be returned to the District upon instructions from the District's bond counsel. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to adopt a resolution accepting this project as complete and authorizing the Director of Public Works / Town Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion on behalf of the Town Council, and upon completion of the 35 day period, release the retention funds to the contractor. Exhibits: Resolution Accepting the Lyford Cove Rule 20B Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Project And Authorizing The Filing Of The Notice Of Completion For The Work. Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Tl)\ \;\! elf TIIi I ; RO'\ Page :2 of :2 RESOLUTION NO. - 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ACCEPTING THE LYFORD COVE RULE 20B UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, On May 18, 2005, the Council approved the plans and specifications for the Lyford Cove Rule 20B Utility Undergrounding Assessment District Project, and authorized staff to advertise and seek bids; WHEREAS, On April 19, 2006, funding for the project was made available through a Council action adopting a resolution authorizing issuance of supplemental bonds; WHEREAS, Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc. was awarded the contract on April 19, 2006 to perform the work; WHEREAS, The construction of the project was completed under budget on March 5, 2008; and WHEREAS, The total construction cost, including payment of total quantities installed is $4,152,571.75, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows: Section 1. The Town Council does hereby accept the construction of the Lyford Cove Rule 20b Utility Undergrounding Assessment District project as complete by Maggiora & Ghilotti, Inc. Section 2. The Town Council authorizes the Director of Public Works / Town Engineer to execute the Notice of Completion and the Town Clerk to record the Notice of Completion. Section 3. The Town Council authorizes the Director of Public Works / Town Engineer to release the retention payment 35 days after the recordation date of the Notice of Completion, pending release of any stop notices or Town claims. 1/2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on the 2nd day of April, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLA VITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK 2/2 TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 T own Council Meeting April 2, 2008 Agenda Item: cc - 1- STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Recommendation to Award Contract for Actuarial Study of Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) - GASB 45 iiif Reviewed By: BACKGROUND In 2004 the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved Statement No. 45, which provided accounting standards for non-pension retirement benefits, and also set forth dates by which government agencies are expected to financially evaluate their post-employment benefits and have their financial statements reflect such benefits in accordance with GASB 45. The Town of Tiburon is required to report in accordance with GASB 45 effective fiscal year 2009-10. ANAL YSIS On February 12, 2008 Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to 12 firms; by our March ih deadline we received five written responses - 3 firms responded with proposals, and 2 firms declined to bid. The 3 proposals received were comprehensive and responsive to all elements of our RFP. A summary of the proposals is presented in the following table: Firm/Location of Actuary Proposal Amount Bartel & Associates, San Mateo CA $6,600 - $8,500 Nicolay Consulting, San Francisco, CA $5,600 Rael & Letson, Foster City, CA $7,800 All firms are well-qualified to perform the study, and client references checked for each firm were uniformly very good to excellent. The study is anticipated to take approximately 10 weeks to complete and the results will be presented to the Town Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staffhad appropriated $5,000 in the Administrative Services Department professional consultant's line item. There are sufficient funds available in this line item to cover the additional $600. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Town Council Authorize the Town Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Nicolay Consulting to perform an actuarial study of Non-Pension Post Employment Benefits in accordance with GASB 45 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services