Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agenda Packet 2017-03-01 •� TOWN OF TIBURON Regular Meeting Tiburon Town Hall Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevarcl March 1,2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 7:30 P.M. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Doyle, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Tollini, Vice Mayor O'Donnell, Mayor Fraser 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. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEES • Bianca Wilmott—Police Service Aide • John Gomez—Police Officer 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. CGI. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of February 15, 2017 regular meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-2. Investment Summary — Adopt report for month ending January 31, 2017(Director of Administrative Services Bigall) CC-3. Legal Services Retention Agreement — Consideration of amendment to legal services retention agreement (Office of the Town Manager) ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Reappointments to Town Boards, Commissions — Consider reappointment of commissioners whose terms have expired(Town Clerk Stefani) AI-2. Tiburon Boulevard Relinquishment — Receive report from Staff on status of work to date and provide direction to staff on future steps (Department of Public Works) AI-3. Senate Bill 415 Discussion/Direction — Receive informational report on SB 415 (Voter Participation) and consider changing election date from November of odd-numbered years to June or November of even-numbered years (Office of the Town Clerk) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 77 East View Avenue — Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a site plan and architectural review for the construction of a new single-family dwelling (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: Clinton Yee Appellant: Riley F.Hurd III/Andrina&Kenneth Welter Address: 77 East View Avenue Assessor Parcel No.: 060-105-92 TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests—February 17&24,2017 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)435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.townoftiburon.org. 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. } C�y TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayos Fraser called the regular meeting the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. o Wednesday, February 15, 2017, in Ton Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, TibVron, California. / ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, O'Donnell, Tollini ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Administrative Services Bigall, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bob Austrian,45 Southridge West,said he wished to follow up on his letter and last comments made to Council in October 2016 in regard to the Town's View Ordinance. He said he and several neighbors have discovered several issues in the ordinance and requested it be revised,particularly the way the ordinance is implemented.He said that while the procedure to protect your home's views is outlined,there are several ways around that procedure that do not serve affected residents well. He asked that Staff review the ordinance for possible revision. Mayor Fraser asked that Staff follow up on Mr. Austrian's original letter, and meet with him to discuss possible modes of relief. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of January 18, 2017 meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-2. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of February 1, 2017 meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1-2, as written. Moved: Tollini, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Fredericks Town Council Minutes #xx-2017 DRAFT February 15, 2017 Page 1 ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Trestle Trail Update—Approve final Trestle Trail design and authorize solicitation of bids (Department of Public Works) Town Manager Chanis said this item would not be heard before the Council tonight, but at a later date instead, at the request of the parties involved. AI-2. Town Audit Report—Recommendation to accept and file the Town's Fiscal Year 2015- 16 Basic Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) Town Manager Chanis introduced Ralph Marcello,of Marcello&Company C.P.A.s,to give a brief presentation on the Fiscal Year 2015-16 audit report. Mr. Marcello thanked the Council for the opportunity to perform the audit. He said the Town's finance records were in good condition, and the Town's management did a good job implementing his firm's recommendations,designed to reduce internal control risks.He said limited segregation of duties is a common issue is smaller governments due to smaller office staff. Mr. Marcello said his firm was able to provide the town with an"unqualified" audit opinion, the highest opinion a CPA firm can offer. He said he would like to focus his presentation on the pension plan. He said governments are now required to report their over-or under-funded net pension liabilities in their government-wide financial statements. In 2015, the Town reported $5.2 million net pension liability. He added that Ca1PERS is not responsible for providing the reports a government needs to determine their net pension liability. A government must outsource those reports to an actuarial company. His firm audited those reports and incorporated them into the financial statements. Mr. Marcello said the Town participates in a "Cost-Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan", meaning a retiree receives a fixed pension amount based on the number of years worked and their ending salary. He said there are 2000 other government entities part of this plan. CalPERS, as the plan fiduciary, determines the annual contribution for the members. He said if a member city were to go bankrupt,other member cities would be responsible for the bankrupt city's annual contribution requirements. Mr. Marcello said that as of June 30,2015,Total Pension Plan Assets were$24.9 billion and Total Pension Plan Liability was $31.7 billion. The total Net Pension Liability was $6.8 billion, $5.4 million of which is the Town's share (less than 1% of the total plan). The Town's other retirement liability — Other Post Employment Benefit Plan — assists qualified retirees with medical insurance payments. The Town's liability is approximately$2 million. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT February15, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Marcello said taking note of the net pension liability is important because it will allow staff and the Council to know what their future obligations are and to plan for future budgets. He said the pension liability had decreased 2.4% from the previous year. CAPERS has stated that one-third of the funds for pension benefit payments are provided by members(employers and employees)and two-thirds of the funds are provided by investment returns. CAPERS refers to their assumed rate of return on investments the "discount rate". A lower discount rate equates to higher member payments, because investment returns are low. In December 2016, CAPERS announced a plan to lower the discount rate over several years. Mr. Marcello said this will increase the Town's net pension liability by several million dollars,and will affect how the Town prepares their annual and long-term budgets. The California CPA Society asked CAPERS representatives what will happen if Ca1PERS does not have enough money to meet their pension obligations. Mr. Marcello said management should monitor this issue closely because the State may have legal obligations to make sure payments are made to State employees,but they may not be able to come up with enough money to pay for county and city employee pensions on short notice. Mr.Marcello then directed Council to the Annual Report for an analysis of how the Town's General Fund activities compare to the forecasted budget. He said property tax revenue exceeded the budgeted revenue by 3%this year.He said other tax revenue trends were positive: sales tax revenue increased 9% and TOT tax increased I% over the prior year. Mr. Marcello said the General Fund revenue has been fairly consistent between$8-10 million over the past several years. He said the Town is economically dependent on property tax revenue and in the event of catastrophe or economic downturn, the Town may have to rely on reserves to meet its obligations and provide services to citizens. General Fund expenses increased about$850,000 over the prior year,and cash/investments remained about the same at around $14 million. Mr. Marcello reviewed the final two financial statements. The statement of net position shows that the Town has about $10 million in liability, mostly tied up in infrastructure and capital assets. The statement of activities shows expenses by the Town's departments. He concluded his presentation and said the Town's financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the audit opinion was issued without qualification. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked if the Town had proceeded with putting some funds for the OPEB liability into a trust. Town Manager Chanis confirmed Staff had transferred$1.3 million of reserve funds into a trust. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT February15, 2017 Page 3 O'Donnell also commented that Council and staff have no clarity on what the contribution to Ca1PERS will be in the years to come due to the discount rate change. Mayor Fraser agreed, and said the finance committee should remain cognizant of the Ca1PERS discount rate change and how the unknown contribution will affect planning for future budgets. He posed the question of creating a reserve fund for this uncertainty to be prepared. MOTION: To accept the Fiscal Year 2015-16 annual financial audit as prepared by Marcello& Company, C.P.A.'s. Moved: Doyle, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Fredericks TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS There were none. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager Chanis thanked Director Bigall and her staff for their outstanding work to ensure the annual audit was acceptable. Chanis also said the Golden Gate Bridge,Highway and Transportation District Board would be voting on the transfer of local Tiburon ferry service to Golden Gate Ferry at an upcoming meeting,possibly February 24,2017.He said if the vote passes,commuter service will transfer from Blue & Gold Fleet to Golden Gate Ferry 1-2 weeks following the vote. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT February I5, 2017 Page 4 r Town Council Meeting �. TOWN OF TIBURON g ` l 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 1, 2017 Agenda Item: CC- Tiburon, CA 94920 g Y STA FREPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Administrative Services Department Subject: Inv9stment Summary—January 2017 Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Pursuant to Government Code Section 53601, staff is required to provide the Town Council with a report regarding the Town's investment activities for the period ended January 31, 2017. ANALYSIS January 2017 Agency Interest Investment Amount Rate Maturity Town of Tiburon Local Agency Investment $22,407,921.26 0.751% Liquid Fund (LAIF) Money Market(Bank of $ 100,000.00 0.15% Liquid Marin) Total I j'$22,507,921.26- The total invested at the end of the prior month was $22,373,142.11, therefore; the Town's investments increased by $134,779.15 from December 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact occurs by accepting this 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 Investment Summary for January 2017 Prepared By: Heidi Bigall, Director of Administrative Services TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting March 1,2017 t 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: CC -� STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Con ider Amendment to Legal Services Retention Agreement Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Since June 17, 2015, the Town of Tiburon has contracted with the law firm Burke, Williams& Sorensen ("Burke") for legal services. Under the contract, the Town Attorney Ben Stock, as well as other representatives from the firm, provide legal guidance concerning Town operations and represent the Town in matters of litigation. Burke currently bills the Town on an hourly basis of$215 for the first 65 hours, and $240 for partners and $225 for associates on any hour above the 65 hour cap for general city attorney services. As required under the contract, Mr. Stock underwent his performance evaluation last December and received positive feedback regarding Burke's representation of the Town. Burke has approached the Town with a request to increase the $215 hourly rate to $230 per hour. This proposed rate increase is in line with similarly situated cities in Marin County that rely on an outside law firm similar to Burke providing city attorney services. Those rates include Mill Valley being charged $240 per hour, Corte Madera charged $250 per hour, Belvedere charged $225 per hour, and Larkspur charged $232 per hour. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed increase at most would increase the annual cost to the Town in the amount of $11,700 assuming the Town reaches the 65 hour cap each month. It should be noted that the Town is routinely billed less than the monthly hour cap. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of a motion to approve the contract amendment. Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager i TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 1, 2017 k Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: Al - 1 STAFF PO . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Clerk Subject: Consider Reappointment of Commissioners and Appointments to Fill Va ancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees Reviewed By: BACKGROUND At the January 18, 2017 regular meeting, Mayor Fraser announced the current and pending vacancies on Town boards, commissions and committees in the coming year. Pursuant to Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007 (Appointments Procedure), the Town Clerk published a Notice of Current & Pending Vacancies on Boards & Commissions in the Ark(1/18, 1/25 and 2/1 editions), and posted it at Town Hall and the Belvedere-Tiburon Library. This notice serves to inform the public of the current or pending vacancies and invites applications for the positions. The Town Clerk contacted all the current commissioners whose terms were set to expire in February, and several of them notified the Town of their interest in seeking reappointment to another term. To recap, the terms of the following board and commission members expired on February 28, 2017: • Building Code Appeals Board —Rich Ostaggi • Building Code Appeals Board—Chuck Clemons (seeks reappointment) • Design Review Board— Gordon Cousins (seeks reappointment) • Planning Commission—David Kulik (seeks reappointment) Unscheduled Vacancies An unscheduled vacancy was created by the resignation of the Marin Commission on Aging representative, Fran Wilson, who submitted her resignation last year, stepping down after two years on the Committee. To date, one application for this vacancy has been received by Ms. Kathleen Kwentus. The Council will interview Ms. Kwentus at a later date, likely in April. Other Vacancies Town Council \lcctin,�, March 1,201-7 There are several boards or committees on which there have been vacancies of a year, or more. One is the Town's Building Code Appeals Board, a five-member board that has had an open seat since one of the incumbents stepped down in 2015. Two more of the incumbents' terms expired on February 28, 2017. To date, one incumbent has indicated he will seek reappointment, and the other has not. No applications have been received. The other is the Hilarita Board (Town representative to the Board) that has had an open seat for a Town-appointed representative since 2013. To date, no applications have been received. The term of the Tiburon Artist Laureate, Jaleh Etemad, expired in August of last year. The appointment process for this position is overseen by the Heritage & Arts Commission. The FI&A has indicated it will begin seeking applications to fill this vacancy this year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Consider reappointment and/or appointment (by Council motion) of all board and commission members, including: a) David Kulik (Planning Commission) b) Gordon Cousins (Design Review Board) c) Chuck Clemons (Building Code Appeals Board) 2. Direct staff to continue to accept applications and schedule interviews for the remaining vacancies at a future Council meeting. Exhibits: 1. Notice of Pending Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions & Committees - January 2017 2. Emails from Board and Commission members concerning reappointment (from Digest) Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk Tow.\of-T113t 1"o\ fast?0 .TOWN OF OF TIBURON NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES On Town Boards, Commissions & Committees January 2017 BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HILARITA BOARD MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING PLANNING COMMISSION Town Artist Laureate The following vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees are current or pending in 2017. Pursuant to Resolution No. 16-2007, the'Tiburon 'Town Council will conduct interviews of interested applicants beginning in February 2017. Current commissioners whose terms are expiring may seek reappointment for another term; commissioners who have served terms of less than two years are eligible for automatic re- appointment. Applicants should be residents of the Town of Tiburon and have the time, interest and desire to serve on the board or commission, including attendance at regular monthly meetings and other activities. Some commissions, such as the Heritage &Arts Commission, and The Ranch, are comprised of residents of both Tiburon and Belvedere, or the Tiburon Peninsula. Applications can be obtained at Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, or from the Town's website, www.townoftiburon.ori(click on"Forms and Documents"under"Government"). You may also contact Town Clerk Lea Stefani at lstefani@townoftiburon.org(tel: 435-7377) for more information. MUM, NO•_____-- TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF CURRENT & PENDING VACANCIES ON BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES JANUARY 2017 BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD Appointee Appointed Term Expires • David Kallmeyer(resigned) April 2012 2/28/2019 [position vacant since 2015] • Rich Ostaggi June 2012; 2013 2/28/2017 • Chuck Clemons April 2012; 2013 2/28/2017 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Appointee Appointed Term Expires • Gordon Cousins April 2013 2/28/2017 HILARITA BOARD (Town representative to the Hilarita-Tiburon Ecumenical Association Board of Directors) Appointee Appointed Term Expires" • Carolyn Grey 2009 Resigned [position vacant since 2013] MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING Appointee Appointed Term Expires • Fran Wilson(resigned) July 2014 06/30/2017 [position vacant since 2016] PLANNING COMMISSION Appointee Appointed Term Expires • David Kulik July 2013 2/28/2017 TOWN ARTIST LAUREATE Appointee Appointed Term Expires • Jaleh Etemad September 2012 8/31/2020 [position vacant] *Appointees who have served terms of 2 years or less are eligible for automatic reappointment pursuant to Town Council Resolution No. 16-2007. **No set term limit Copies to: The Ark(for publication on 1/18 and 1/25/17) Courtesy copy to: The Marin Independent Journal Notice Posted at Tiburon Town Hall and Belvedere/Tiburon Library Lea Stefani From: jobs@energycalcco.com Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:54 AM To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re: Building Code Appeals Board Appointment Thank you for the email Lea. Yes I would be happy to serve another term. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Chuck Clemons, Owner Energy Calc Co. 45 Mitchell Blvd, Suite 16 San Rafael, CA 94903 415-457-0990 www.energvcalcco.com >Good morning Chuck, > Per our phone conversation, please confirm you would like to be >considered for reappointment to another 4-year term to the Tiburon > Building Code Appeals Board.And as always,the Town of Tiburon is >greatly appreciative of your dedication to our community. > Lea Stefani >Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon >(415)435-7377 > Istefani@townoftiburon.org<mailto:lstefani@townoftiburon.org> EXHIBIT NO. Lea Stefani From: Gordon Cousins <cousinsgd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 12:17 PM To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:TERM EXPIRING - DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Please let the Council know that I would be pleased to serve another term on the Design Review Board should they wish to renew my appointment. Thanks Gordon Cousins On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Lea Stefani <lstefani@townoftiburon.org> wrote: Dear Gordon: Our records indicate that your current term on the Design Review Board will expire at the end of February, 2017. Pursuant to Town Council Policy ("Appointments Procedure"), the Town would like to hear from you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or an e-mail will do. I will advise the Town Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly. The Town of Tiburon has certainly benefited from the time and energy you have contributed to the board since your appointment in 2013. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Very truly yours, Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 i Lea Stefani From: David Kulik <kulik.planning.tiburon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 3:07 AM To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re:TERM EXPIRING - PLANNING COMMISSION Lea- Please let the Council know that I would be honored to continue my service. Thank you, David On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:30 PM Lea Stefani <lstefanigtownoftiburon.org>wrote: Dear David: Our records indicate that your current term on the Planning Commission will expire at the end of February, 2017. Pursuant to Town Council policy ("Appointments Procedure"), the Town would like to hear from you whether or not you are interested in seeking appointment to another term. Either a letter or an e-mail will do. I will advise the Town Council of your decision and they will be able to act accordingly. The Town of Tiburon has certainly benefited from the time and energy you have contributed to the commission since your appointment in 2013. We appreciate your dedication and service to the Tiburon community. Very truly yours, Lea Stefani Town Clerk Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 lstefani@townoftiburon.org<mailto:lstefani c@townoftiburon.org> i TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting t 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 1, 2017 �. Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: /( i .� STAFF P,RT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: C ideration of Potential Relinquishment of Tiburon Boulevard Reviewed By: r ' BACKGROUND On March 2, 2012, at the Town Council annual retreat, Council and staff discussed the possibility of the Town seeking a relinquishment by Caltrans of the downtown portion of Tiburon Boulevard from Lyford Drive to Main Street (Exhibit 1). On May 2, 2012, the Town Council directed staff to send a Letter of Interest to Caltrans to commence the relinquishment process with the understanding that Council intended to review the matter again before making a final decision to proceed. Caltrans responded they were interested in moving forward with a study on the basis that the Town would make a good faith effort to complete the process and that any study would be done on a"no cost"basis to Caltrans, "meaning Caltrans cannot provide any funding for road improvements or rehabilitation prior to relinquishment" (Exhibit 2). Caltrans completed a Transportation System Analysis and Evaluation in October 2013 (Exhibit 3). The Town asked Assemblymember Levine to introduce legislation to allow the relinquishment of Tiburon Boulevard to the Town of Tiburon. AB-747 State Highway Route 131: Relinquishment, was signed by Governor Brown and chaptered in June 2014 (Exhibit 4). The bill provides the California Transportation Commission authority to relinquish the specified segment of SR 131 "if the department and the town enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment." Thus, for the relinquishment to take place, the Town of Tiburon must agree to accept the relinquishment. In February 2014, the Town signed an agreement with Caltrans for Caltrans to complete a Project Scope Study Report(PSSR) at a cost of$108,000 (Exhibit 5). A PSSR evaluates the environmental, engineering and other aspects of the subject property and includes a survey (identifying the boundaries of the property changing hands), a prerequisite for a land transfer of this nature. Caltrans was requested to put the PSSR on hold in April 2014 until AB-747 passed. Work on the PSSR began again in the summer of 2014 but was put on hold again in December 2014 at the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 request of the Town. To date Caltrans has expended about $18,000 on the PSSR. The PSSR remains on hold. Council has asked about the relinquishment a few times over the last two years, but has not wished to continue with the expense of the PSSR. Staff recognizes that the question of relinquishment entails tradeoffs. On the positive side the Town gains control over the main roadway in the downtown area. The negatives include the cost of expanded liabilities for maintenance, management and periodic reinvestment. Staff requests additional direction from the Town Council regarding whether to continue with the relinquishment process, or end it. DISCUSSION Municipalities sometimes seek relinquishment of all or portions of state highways running through their jurisdictions to gain local control over the land uses on or adjacent to these roadways and to reduce the cost and delay associated with gaining Caltrans' approval, and being subject to its decisions, whenever changes are sought. At issue for Tiburon is local control over the stretch of Highway 131 —Tiburon Boulevard—from Lyford Drive to Paradise Drive. The Caltrans process can add substantial time and cost to projects (the Lyford parking lot is an example of this phenomenon) and influence the outcome. The prospect of possible projects in the downtown on or adjacent to the Caltrans right-of-way (ROW), such as curb cuts for private projects, newsrack regulation, signage, round-abouts, parking configuration and regulation, tree planting in medians and so forth raises the question of whether it makes sense for the Town to take steps now to secure ownership of the Boulevard for the benefit of the Town. While local ownership would confer complete control to the Town, it would also come with ongoing expense as the Town would be required to repave the road periodically (it was most recently paved in 2011) and absorb other costs associated with ROW liability and maintenance that are now the responsibility of Caltrans. At the retreat in 2012, when the Town Council asked staff to develop a cost/benefit analysis, the expectation was that this would be undertaken by an outside consultant. Town staff subsequently spoke with four different firms about providing this service. What became clear was that these firms would look to the Town and Caltrans to provide all the essential information about costs, and also turn to the Town for its assumptions and projections about how land uses or infrastructure projects (such as round-abouts) might be altered by relinquishment to determine benefit. In other words, it became evident that this was a situation in which an outside firm would not be providing real value but would simply repackage information the Town provided. Consequently, staff has produced the necessary cost information itself. Costs The new or incremental cost of acquiring the Boulevard in this manner is estimated to be annualized at $133,000 ($124,300 in 2012 dollars). This total includes funding for those tasks that are only periodically undertaken such as paving as well as storm drain maintenance which is currently not performed by Caltrans. The most expensive elements of ongoing maintenance are the large capital expenditures including storm drain replacement and periodic paving of the , _-- __ _ ...... . --- . TOWN OF TIBURON Page 2 of 4 roadway. These total $99,000 per year. The incremental increase for ongoing operational maintenance is estimated at $34,000 per year. Benefits Benefits have generally been broken into two types: 1. Removing the added cost and time of Caltrans reviews for projects along Tiburon Boulevard. 2. Controlling the right of way in order to develop the Downtown area in a way the Town chooses. Regarding removing Caltrans reviews for projects along Tiburon Blvd, benefits come from time savings and reduced costs as well as greater control. It is important to note that Tiburon has always, eventually, been able to construct a project in the Caltrans ROW, albeit at greater costs and time. One example is the Caltrans process the Town was required to follow to develop the Lyford Parking Lot. Despite Caltrans staff cooperation and professionalism, the agency's involvement took significant Town staff time, delayed the project by approximately one year, and modified it in ways the Town might not have chosen on its own. The agreement between Caltrans and the Town restricts the Town's ability to manage the lot going forward (for instance, the Town cannot charge users for parking, a constraint that is not an issue now but may be in the future). Town ownership of the Boulevard would have eliminated this process and allowed the Town to manage the process and outcome directly as it does for projects elsewhere in Town. That said, the direct cost of Caltrans comments does not begin to approach $133K/year. The Lyford Parking Lot was the biggest project the Town has done in the ROW in recent years. The original design fee was $225K. There were eight amendments to this design fee and at least $13K of these were due to the extra work Caltrans required. As a comparison, the redesign due to comments by Belvedere was at least$36K. Another comparison might be the Hawthorne Undergrounding design estimate. The designer estimated that the additional cost of design for getting a Caltrans permit is $7,310, about 1.5% of the total design. The total design effort for the Rule 20B undergrounding/Old Rail Trail improvement project was $52K. Obviously, the differential cost of working with Caltrans was much less than that amount. There must be additional benefit to the Town to make relinquishment worthwhile. This additional benefit comes through control of the ROW. Relinquishment would allow the Town to control future decisions over small matters such as curb cuts, plantings, newsrack regulation, and signage, and position it to act upon larger opportunities that may arise including reconfiguration of some sidewalk/parking areas (such as along Shark's Deli and The Boardwalk property), possible round-abouts and so forth. The Caltrans ROW is very wide— 100 feet in most locations. This means relinquishment involves a lot of property, and thus its ownership offers a significant opportunity to the Town for the downtown. The problem is that these opportunities are difficult to quantify. History indicates we can do projects without relinquishment, albeit with greater time and expense. The Council has discussed __._"_ ___ ___ -------------- TOWN OF TIBURON Page 3 of 4 j.r,;>S3 ,tii fJi t Ii si.PE`i.:f.!i, the desire to do a cost/benefit analysis for the relinquishment. The costs can be calculated. We have provided some estimates here and Caltrans will provide similar costs as part of their PSSR. In addition, there are tort liability risks. These are more difficult to quantify. On the benefit side, there is the reduced cost of design associated with removing Caltrans from the design process. To calculate this, we would need to know the extent of future projects along the ROW. Finally, there is the benefit of controlling the ROW. In the years since relinquishment started, this has never been quantified. Until we can place a value on this it is difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis. Given the lengthy time frame for relinquishment, if Council believes it may pursue any right-of- way changes in the foreseeable future it may be prudent to act now to put relinquishment in motion. That said, it is also true that there is no reason to believe Caltrans will not be willing to relinquish the roadway in the future, and the language of AB-747 does not sunset, so the option will remain open should Council choose to pass on it at this time. FINANCIAL IMPACT The current estimate for the cost of the required Project Scope Study Report is $108,000. To date about $18,000 of this has been spent. The cost of taking over the maintenance of Tiburon Boulevard from Lyford Drive to Paradise Drive is estimated to be annualized at $133,000. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council determine whether the Town should continue with the relinquishment process and proceed with one of the following options: 1. Direct staff to work with Caltrans on completion of the PSSR, including funding this task at an approximate cost of$108,000 2. Provide alternative direction to staff Exhibits: 1. Limits Map 2. Letter from Caltrans dated October 5,2012 3. Transportation System Analysis Evaluation dated October 28,2013 4. AB747-State Highway Route 131:relinquishment 5. Cooperative Agreement PSSR dated February 28,2014 Prepared By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager Patrick Barnes,Director of Public Works/Town Engineer TOWN OF TIBURON Page 4 of 4 N.,..: i` , � o- � ,s ire ♦� 'x. � " : 0, .:x� le " F h x rF r yi. ti , ✓< \ t `,, .' .. f � ;a. «"y ; ,< t..r ;:: ,r Vic; ;�,:,' wn �✓: .,w,;: a,<"tiz' .rw„ y` /, r .^6, " " ;K r 0 b`..s. �}, %�, '�'- *:�� o ✓z r. v ,i �� `t 6 M , m &.,.i "r �;-s ..✓�� a�. fit,. sew« .r.,`�' $:: x�t, x^,:;. I' s '�` Y?,>?, v.' r, a R r, , Y ^ " e l .`• I It Length of Propose Relinquishment > Aust east of Lyford Drive 6, �K r � }approximately 0.88 mile (3,590 �g �� ry^ w pSA u Feet) n a x v -v r, ;a., •znK <.v„, ..>.`���s , �•;r;,t�><� � BELVEE�ERE .., ;.. +,, rqt,'�'"�l} $�` 'S� ��j* �✓k" � U fx' Iw fi "c” �' a,,.,s„ I. ,h•' . ;a �y <a.' a :;8, ,4 rl. w ' un93., ."'. ^ „ _ 4�.i• sx a "' ", mit" nci � ,g; r, �- �, , `�'.�.;�' ern r✓f ' ). .�r,� ) i ...� �' ::�' �.. _'�-`� ,r. ,,; t � »a< ; t�rLrh „ 'rrrr ' < � n: -� � ,� � i y�� •'fit ^, v' ;A" ,,.:I a +.?t '.k s'�: � �r � � e � , e,. ., y .. ,,, ., . .�L� .., '.�?„ r, ,.� r,. . <a>' ✓;,:'. z,; ,. .. .:,,' ,.fay `�� ��` sa:.. �'> ;: ��,.�"` {� y ,>" *3 i .� !�fix;,, , 'm�„��s,,� .✓ ` � '�.' ✓+i`: r� �,y.. �7 �''.n, � , 7 �- .; r VA 9 r- ,� "> ,`, >g ,,, �. 5''.'- .,,:,� ;'' 'cnY)'t�k hex t ren: �r�MMss��fi✓� ,. �^. �""� ;,Of; v �a a „ ka _,fAM,�zako�, r r -, r.r- .,' ,r,.eyti .7 tt� ,'" „r' At!\ , ,. %',F +. 4 ..(^, [ *7 z L3:. .S fib, > ✓;:<N,'.. >ifi )Sfv'f ) .,�y .bl„c,.a ,�t¢ p ^�,. i ry 1 §* f fl.. 3�tLpECi'�.L?, +'�ry .`,tc.�.,o,:ndi�...dig, ,3.># � k,,... ' �a a 4 ..s �' s`,;. .?�,� ?.,..��5?�.�+�"�, � /J," .Q , .,, � � „rid„.,a '�.;. �°. ,. a �lGn r., s. �� ) >tt u r z � arI-.f< �✓3y{.�, .� ,,�?' s`'"�� "t sir.: .:35 sGa4.I. s,r+G +'t"l'" ';yD.. r 3�x,> �i ✓�'u��.F r� � ,. ,x� `y<' � e� ar < msp to Ext�t: x=5994304.97.7 y=2149056,349 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSMESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY EDMiJND G BROWN Jr Governor DEPARTMENTPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P.O.BOX 23360 OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510)286-5900 Flex your power! FAX (510)286-6301 Be energy efficient! TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov October 5, 2012 Mr.Nicholas T.Nguyen, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr.Nguyen: We received your letter confirming Town of Tiburon's (Town)interest in the relinquishment of State Route 131,(SR 13 1)from Lyford Drive to Main Street to local ownership and operation. An assessment'of this proposal concluded that the segment of SR 131 in question can be considered for relinquishment. We have begun working on our Transportation System Analysis &Evaluation. We are also preparing a scoping document that will authorize the preparation of deed maps for presentation to the California Transportation Commission. As you are aware to accomplish this,legislation enacting the relinquishment will be required. It"is our understanding that the Town will lead that effort. i Given the resource needed to go through the relinquishment process,we are assured that the Town will make a strong good faith effort to complete the process. Please note, Caltrans is only able to pursue a"no cost"relinquishment of SR 131,meaning Caltrans cannot provide any funding for road improvements or rehabilitation prior to relinquishment. If you have any questions or have reservations about proceeding with the relinquishment process, please contact Lee Taubeneck,Deputy District birector, Transportation Planning and Local Assistance, at(510) 286-5908. 4Sincere BIJAN SA IPI Distri rector c: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director, TAM EXHIBIT NO. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" ` Transportation System Analysis and Evaluation (TSAE) For State Route 131 within the Town of Tiburon in Marin County from Lyford Drive to Main Street (end of the route) Approved by: �.7 LEE TAUBENECK Date District 4 Deputy District Director Transportation Planning& Local Assistance /I :?wc,: — - BIJAN SA TIPI Date District D' ict Director EXHIBIT NO. Table of Contents Purposeand Need.............................................................................................................................. 3 CaltransMission and Responsibilities............................................................................................... 3 Descriptionof Route.......................................................................................................................... 3 Basis of Request for Relinquishment................................................................................................. 7 Relinquishment Recommendations................................................................................................... 7 District Coordination on Relinquishment...........................................................I.............................. 9 Attachment......................................................................................................................................... 9 2 Purpose and Need Relinquishment of individual State Highway System (SHS) routes or route segments can be initiated by either the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)or a local agency. Chapter 25 of the Project Development Procedures Manual outlines the relinquishment process. The Town of Tiburon (Town)has requested the relinquishment of State Route(SR) 131 from Lyford Drive to Main Street within the town limits.This Transportation System Analysis Evaluation (TSAE)is the initial step in this process of legislative relinquishment. The purpose of the TSAE is to determine if this relinquishment is in the best interests of the State. For this assessment,Transportation Concept Reports as well as other System Planning documents and information are used and input is obtained from District and Headquarters functional units to evaluate the current and future use of the facility as it pertains to the mission and responsibilities of the State,and to make a recommendation regarding the relinquishment request. However, there is no existing Transportation Concept Report (TCR)for SR 131, so other system planning information is being used. Caltrans Mission and Responsibilities The mission of Caltrans is to improve mobility across California. Caltrans is responsible for the interregional and regional movement of people and goods and is the owner and operator of the SHS. Caltrans works continuously,cooperatively, and comprehensively with its transportation partners and local agencies on the development and operations of California's multi-modal transportation system. Description of Route Statutory Route Description The statutory description for SR 131 is as follows: "Route 131 is from Route 101 to Tiburon." (Streets and Highway Code Section 431) 3 Map of Highway 131 with section considered for relinquishment a� xs M A R I N o COUNTY Detailed Map A tire' Tiburon Richardson say Tiburon Ferry SR-131 lnal Angel Island Route Relinquishment I Ferry (Detailed) verminal A } A Ferry Terminal SR-131 Corridor Section being considered Golden pace for relinquishment Sausalito retry Terminal Major Routes Major Roads localRoads w Rail ' Ferry Route Tiburon City Boundary Water N Prrpnnd Bp: A . _ . OQkraG%Sdanal tyaeq arming Source:Caltrans District 4 4 Constructed Route Description SR 131, as constructed, conforms to the statute that describes the route as extending from US 101 (PM 0.0)to the Town of Tiburon (PM 4.392).SR 131 is called Tiburon Boulevard along its entire length. Beginning at the junction with US 101, it is a four-lane highway divided by a center median until it reaches Trestle Glen Boulevard.Then it narrows to two lanes along the Tiburon Peninsula heading into Tiburon. In downtown Tiburon,the two-lane road widens to include a median, shoulder parking and/or bike lanes, and frequent left and right-turn lanes. Its eastern terminus is at the traffic circle east of the Main Street Intersection, after which the road becomes Paradise Drive,a local road, which loops around the eastern side of the Tiburon Peninsula to Corte Madera.West of US 101,Tiburon Boulevard becomes East Blithedale Avenue, a local road which leads into Mill Valley. ---------------- ME- Ike `zou "�✓.`v, 3'' r`.xLa '' .moi t`". l �°�f IN r Tiburon Boulevard at Lyford Drive Downtown Tiburon Boulevard Segment Requested for Relinquishment The Town of Tiburon requested relinquishment from Lyford Drive (PM 3.7)to Main Street(PM 4,35).The route terminates at PM 4.392 east of the Main Street intersection at Paradise Drive, a local road. Route Designations Functional Classification The Functional Classification system, implemented by the federal government in 1976, describes the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes according to the character of service they are intended to provide. in this federally approved California Road System network, SR 131 is designated as conventional urban arterial serving local traffic. 5 Interregional Road System (IRRS) The IRRS is legislatively designated by the State to be critical to the region-to-region and to-and- through movement of people and goods. SR 131 it is not included in the IRRS. Freight Designation SR 131 allows trucks under the California Legal Truck designation to a 65-foot maximum truck length. Transit Facilities Golden Gate and Marin Transit run fixed-route regional commute and local transit services along SR 131.The Blue and Gold Fleet offers ferry service between the Tiburon Ferry Terminal at Main Street and Tiburon Boulevard and to the Ferry Building and Pier 41 in San Francisco. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Downtown Tiburon has sidewalks paralleling the highway as well as marked Class II bike lanes,which connect to the multi-use path that follows the highway alignment on its west side from Mar West Street to Trestle Glen Boulevard. Current and Projected Traffic SR 131 had an annual average daily traffic(AADT)volume of 5100 vehicles in 2011. A modest increase in travel demand can be anticipated based on household (4—7 percent)and employment(12- 15 percent)growth projected over the next 25 years, per 2009 data from the Association of Bay Area Governments. The main corridor issues are capacity constraints during school drop-off and pick-up peak times and weekend congestion, access and parking problems in the downtown area of Tiburon, as well as constraints at the interchange with US 101. Existing Operations and Maintenance Agreements The Maintenance Agreement of July 1980 between the Town of Tiburon and the State does not delegate any maintenance functions from the State to the Town. Maintenance is performed by Caltrans. Per this Agreement,the State bills the Town for its share of cost for maintaining and operating traffic signals and safety lighting. Coordination with State&Local Plans and Programs The General Plan for the Town of Tiburon specifies SR 131 (Tiburon Boulevard)as the primary access for Tiburon,connecting US 101 to downtown Tiburon. It is designated as a "Major Arterial" from US 101 to Trestle Glen Boulevard, and a "Minor Arterial"from Trestle Glen Boulevard to Main Street in the Circulation Element of the Town's 2005 General Plan. Currently,there are no State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)or State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects planned or programmed for the segment of 6 SR 131 in Tiburon considered for relinquishment. Corridor investments are targeted towards improvements at the US 101/Tiburon Boulevard interchange. Local efforts focus on improvements to transit service and bicycle and pedestrian access and connectivity in the corridor and to better connections to regional bus and ferry services,per recently completed Tiburon Transit Needs Assessment study. Basis of Request for Relinquishment The Town of Tiburon is requesting the relinquishment of SR 131 from Lyford Drive to Main Street to local ownership and operation. In 2012,the District conducted an evaluation of District State Highway System (SHS) routes to assess which routes to recommend for relinquishment based on their diminishing role in providing for interregional and regional mobility of people and goods. SR 131 in its entirety is listed as one of the highways recommended for relinquishment. District 4 engaged in initial discussions of relinquishment of SR 131 with the Town in the Spring of 2012. The Town had for some time expressed interest in taking over parts of the route in order to be more flexible in the design and implementation of local planning and community design efforts.The outreach culminated in the official written request by the Town dated May 3,2012 (see attachment),to the District Director to initiate the relinquishment process of the eastern end portion of the SR 131,from Lyford Drive to Main Street. Relinquishment Recommendations Background Information SR 131 is a stub route of approximately 4.3 miles in length. it is the core arterial serving the Tiburon Peninsula and carries almost exclusively local traffic'. At the end of the route it connects to the Tiburon-San Francisco ferry service,which is mostly locally used 2, but is also an attractive connection for tourists. Route Concept Reports (RCRs), now called Transportation Concept Reports(TCRs),were District planning documents that described the Department's vision and conceptual improvement options for a given transportation route over a 20-year planning horizon.These reports were developed by the Districts for most State routes during the late 1980s. A RCR/TCR was not prepared for SR 131, which indicates its low importance for the regional and interregional network. Overall Recommendation Based on the local character of travel along SR 131,the relinquishment of the entire route to local control is recommended.The Town has requested relinquishment of only the easternmost segment of the route,from Lyford Drive to the current end of the route. Caltrans supports relinquishment of this segment and considers it as an initial step leading to the relinquishment of A connection from Tiburon via Angel Island to San Francisco was envisioned at some point in the 1950s and explains why the route became part of the SMS. 2 The majority of commuter ferry trips are between San Francisco and Tiburon/Belvedere(only about two percent of trips originate in Mill Valley),per recently completed Tiburon Transit Needs Assessment study. 7 the entire route.Tiburon has indicated that,the Town is not able to accept relinquishment of the entire route within its jurisdiction at this time. There is also a small segment in unincorporated Marin County. As with other recommended relinquishments,this transfer to local control would have multiple benefits to both Tiburon and the State. it would allow the Town to be more responsive to community needs in their planning, improvement,and operation of that facility. It would result in cost savings for the local agency and the State by eliminating the need for encroachment permits and extensive coordination on improvement projects. It would also eliminate cost for ongoing maintenance, incidence response efforts, and tort liability for the State. JW N ME 3>� �e Downtown Tiburon Boulevard Photo: Agan Dep Specific Recommendations Agreements between the State and the Town of Tiburon should address the following considerations: • As this is the end of the route, system continuity must be maintained for the benefit of the traveling public.The Town would ensure that signage within its right-of-way provides directional information concerning access to and from SR 131 as well as access to and from the Tiburon Ferry Terminal providing ferry service into San Francisco. • Proposed legislation (AB 747, Levine)would require the Town of Tiburon to maintain the continuity of the route. • The Town would agree that any degree of closure of the facility,except for maintenance and incident management,would not completely inhibit use of the road by through traffic on SR 131. R District Coordination on Relinquishment Project Lead: Program/Project Management Project Functional Lead: Division of Design System Evaluation: Division of Transportation Planning& Local Assistance Community Liaison: Division of Programming Mapping: Division of Right-of-Way Project Manager: Betcy Joseph District System Planning Lead: Ina Gerhard District System Planning Evaluation: Ngozi Ezekwo Attachment « Attachment: Local Agency Relinquishment Request 9 Town of Tiburon•1505 Tiburon BouLaw d•Tburon,t~A 94920•P,415.435.7373 F.415.4351438•www Ltiburonxa.us May 3,2012 Mr. Bijan Sartipi District Director . . . . California Department of Transportation Em nett 111 Grand Ave. P.O. Box 23660 •• Oakland, CA 94623 Ri ns r SubJect: Relinquishment of End Portion of State Route!31—Tiburon Blvd. • . - t Dear Mr. Sartipi: ••• Ali' ks Last evening the Tiburon Town Council voted to express the Town's interest in v s. initiating the process to relinquish the eastern end-portion of State Route 131,from '' 3 Lyford Drive to Main Street. As a next step in the relinquishment process,we understand that Caltrans staff will MAR rrsn promptly initiate the preparation of a System Analysis(TSAE)and Project Scope Summary Report(PSSR)for review. ' 4 The Town will assist your staff in any way possible to expedite the process. We understand from our:conversation on February 22,2012,with Mr. Curt Davis, Supervision Transportation Planner, that the Town is not committed to complete the i relinquishment process N the Town determines along the way that it is not in its best Interests to do so. Therefore,this request is contingent upon the Town's right to withdraw from the relinquishment process at any time without cost or obligation to the Town. We have had a great working relationship with Caltrans on projects in our local community and look forward to working with Caltrans again through this process. Please let us know what the next steps are. Very truly yours, n` lu i r .4U Y Nicholas T. Nguyen, P.E. h ` Director of Public/Town Engineer R Cc: P.Curran Curt Davis,Caltrans Erik Aim,Caltrans Wingate Lew,Caltrans Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director,TAM 750 Undaro Street, Suite 200,San Rafael,CA 94801 ''' Project file 04 . 391-A1 1?U7-PMI 2/1/2017 Bill Text-AB-747 State Highway Route 131:relinquishment. LF.CrIS1,ATT VE INF0RMA'I,ION w Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites AS-747 State Highway Route 131:relinquishment, (2013-2014) --- SHARE THIS: Assembly Bill No.747 CHAPTER 43 I An act to amend Section 431 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to highways. L Approved by Governor June 23, 2014. Filed with Secretary of State June 23, 2014. 1 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST I AB 747, Levine. State Highway Route 131: relinquishment. Existing law gives the Department of Transportation full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system and establishes a process for adoption of a highway on an authorized route by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law also authorizes the commission to relinquish certain state highway segments to local agencies. This bill would authorize the commission to relinquish to the Town of Tiburon in Marin County a specified portion of State Highway Route 131,under certain conditions. Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Section 431 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read: 431.(a) Route 131 is from Route 101 to Tiburon. (b) Upon a determination by the commission that it is in the best interest of the state to do so, the commission may, upon terms and conditions approved by it, relinquish to the Town of Tiburon, the portion of Route 131 east of the intersection with Lyford Drive within the town limits of the Town of Tiburon, if the department and the town enter into an agreement providing for that relinquishment. The following conditions shall apply upon relinquishment: (1) The relinquishment shall become effective on the date following the county recorder's recordation of the relinquishment resolution containing the commission's approval of the terms and conditions of the relinquishment. (2)On and after the effective date of the relinquishment,the relinquished portion of Route 131 shall cease to be a state highway. (3) The portion of Route 131 relinquished under this subdivision shall be ineligible for future adoption under Section 81. (4) The Town of Tiburon shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portion of Route 131, including any traffic signal progression,to the extent applicable. j (5) For the portion of Route 131 relinquished under this subdivision, the Town of Tiburon shall install and maintain within its jurisdiction, signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 131 to the extent deemed I necessary by the department. I -_..---- E KTHIBIT NO. �[ https://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/biliTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB747 1/1 04-MRN-131-3,72/4.39 Project Number: 0414000147 EA: 17130 Agreement 04-2522 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Project Scope Summary Report (PSS.R) This Agreement, effective on -�-- is between the State of California, acting through its Department of ',msPc)hatiori, referred to as CALTRANS, and: Town of Tiburon, a body politic and municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to hereinafter as TOWN. RECITALS 1. PARTNERS are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement for improvements to the state highway system (SHS)per Government Code 65086.5. 2. TOWN desires that a project initiation document (PID)be developed for the relinquishment of State Route 131 from Lyford Drive to the end of the Route in Marin County within the SHS, referred to herein as,PROJECT. 3. PARTNERS acknowledge that this Agreement is only applicable for a Project Scope Summary Report(PSSR) PID. 4. TOWN requests CALTRANS to develop the PID and TOWN is willing to fund one hundred percent (100%)of the costs and fees of the PID and the costs to reimburse CALTRANS. 5. CALTRANS is the CEQA lead agency 6. CALTRANS is the NEPA lead agency. 7. TOWN is the CEQA responsible agency. 8. CALTRANS will develop, review and approve the PID as reimbursed work. 9. As a part of REIMBURSED WORK, CALTRANS will perform its QC/QAP process review for environmental documentation. 10. PARTNERS hereby set forth the terms, covenants,and conditions of this Agreement,under which they will complete the PTD. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 11. CALTRANS will prepare a PID for PROJECT at TOWN's sole cost and expense and at no cost to CALTRANS. EXHIBIT NO. Project Initiation Document(PID)Agreement 20121030 Page 1 of 7 Agreement 04-2522 12. CALTRANS will complete the work elements that are assigned to it on the SCOPE SUMMARY which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement by reference. Work elements marked with"N/A"on the SCOPE SUMMARY axe not included within this Agreement. Work elements are outlined in the Workplan Standards Guide far the Delivery of Capital Projects available at www.doi.ca.gov/hq/projmgmt/jzuidance.htm. v/hq/projmg_mt/jzuidance.htm. 13. CALTRANS has no obligation to perform work if funds to perform work are withheld or unavailable. INVOICE AND PAYMENT 14. TOWN agrees to pay CALTRANS, an amount not to exceed$108,000. 15. CALTRANS will draw from any CALTRANS administered state and/or federal funds that TOWN has committed to CALTRANS for this PROJECT. 16. The cost of any engineering support performed by CALTRAN S will be charged according to current law. 17. CALTRANS will invoice TOWN for a$20,000 initial deposit after execution of this Agreement and thirty (30)working days prior to the commencement of PROJECT expenditures. 18. Thereafter, CALTRANS will submit to TOWN monthly invoices for estimated monthly costs based on the prior month's expenditures. 19. After PARTNERS agree that all work is complete for the PROJECT, CALTRANS will submit a final accounting for all costs. Based on the final accounting, CALTRANS will refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the financial commitments of this Agreement. 20. If'TOWN has received Electronic Funds Transfer(EFT) certification from CALTR..NS then TOWN will use the EFT mechanism and follow all EFT procedures to pay all invoices issued from CALTRANS. 21. If CALTRANS reimburses TOWN for any costs later determined to be unallowable, TOWN will reimburse those funds. 22. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement,PARTNERS will pay invoices within thirty(30) calendar days of receipt of invoice. GENERAL CONDITIONS 23. Per Chapter 603, amending item 2660-001-0042 of Section 2.00 of the State Budget Act of 2012,the cost of any engineering services performed by CALTRANS towards any local Project Initiation Document(PID)Agreement 2012_10_30 :Page 2 of 7 Agreement 04-2522 government agency-sponsored PID project will only include direct costs. Indirect or overhead costs will not be applied during the development of the PID document. 24. The preparation of the environmental documentation, including the investigative studies and technical environmental reports, shall be performed in accordance with all State and Federal laws, regulations,policies,procedures,and standards current as of the date of performance including,but not limited to,the guidance provided in the Standard Environmental Reference available at www.dot.ca.gov/ser and if applicable, the guidance provided in the FHWA Environmental Guidebook available at www.11-iwa.dot.gov/hep/index.him 25. CALTRANS will be the CEQA Lead Agency and TOWN will be a CEQA Responsible Agency. CALTRANS will be the NEPA Lead Agency,if NEPA applies. CALTRANS will assess PROJECT impacts on the environment and will prepare the appropriate level of environmental documentation and necessary associated supporting investigative studies and technical environmental reports in order to meet the requirements of CEQA and if NEPA applies,NEPA. 26. If any PARTNER discovers unanticipated cultural,archaeological, paleontological, or other protected resources during WORK, all WORK in that area will stop and CALTRANS will notify all PARTNERS within.twenty-four(24) hours of discovery. WORK may only resume after a qualified professional has evaluated the nature and significance of the discovery and a plan is approved for its removal or protection. 27. PARTNERS will hold all administrative drafts and administrative final reports, studies, materials, and documentation relied upon,produced,created, or utilized for PROJECT in confidence to the extent permitted by law and, where applicable,the provisions of California Government Code section 6254.5(e)shall protect the confidentiality of such documents in the event that PARTNERS share documents with each other. PARTNERS will not distribute,release, or share said documents with anyone other than employees, agents, and consultants who require access to complete PROJECT without the written consent of the PART'�rER authorized to release them,unless required or authorized to do so by law. 28. If a PARTNER receives a public records request pertaining to WORK under this Agreement, that PARTNER will notify PARTNERS within five(5)working days of receipt and make PARTNERS aware of any disclosed public documents. PARTNERS will consult with each other prior to the release of any public documents related to PROJECT. 29. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found within the PROJECT limits, CALTRANS will notify TOWN. 30. TOWN, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within PROJECT limits and outside the existing SHS right of way. TOWN will undertake or cause to be undertaken HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HNl-1 with minimum impact to PROTECT schedule. 31. PARTNERS agree to consider alternatives to PROJECT scope and/or alignment,to the extent practicable,in an effort to avoid any known hazardous materials within the proposed PROJECT limits. Project Initiation Document(PID)Agreement 2012_1030 Page 3 of 7 Agreement 04-2522 32. CALTRANS' acquisition or acceptance of title to any property on which any HM-1 or HM-2 is found will proceed in accordance with CALTRANS' policy on such acquisition. 33. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the existing SHS right of way and will pay,or cause to be paid,all costs for HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to RM-1. CALTRANS will undertake, or cause to be undertaken,HM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES related to HM-1 with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule. 34. CALTRANS' obligations under this Agreement are subject to the appropriations of resources by the Legislature, the State Budget Act authority, and the allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission. 35. Neither TOWN nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS and/or its agents under or in connection with any work,authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS,to the extent permitted by law,will defend, indemnify, and save harmless TOWN and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought forth under,but'not limited to,tortious,contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS and/or its agents under this Agreement. 36. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage, or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by TOWN, its contractors, sub-contractors,and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon TOWN under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that TOWN, to the extent permitted by law,will defend, indemnify,and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits,or actions of every name,kind,and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual,inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by TOWN,its contractors, sub- contractors, and/or its agents under this Agreement. 37. This Agreement is intended to be PARTNERS' final expression and supersedes all prior oral understanding pertaining to PROJECT. 38. This Agreement will terminate one hundred eighty(180) days after PID is signed by PARTNERS or as mutually agreed by PARTNERS in writing. However, all indemnification articles will remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. DEFIMTIONS HM-1 —Hazardous material (including, but not limited to,hazardous waste)that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law whether it is disturbed by PROJECT or not. Project Initiution Document(PIU)Agreement 2012 0 30 Page 4 of 7 Agreement 04-2522 ISM-2--Hazardous material(including,but not limited to, hazardous waste)that may require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by PROJECT. HM MANAGEMENT AC'T'IVITIES—Management activities related to either HM-1 or HM-2 including,without limitation, any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations. PARTNER—Any individual signatory party to this Agreement. PARTNERS—The term that collectively references all of the signatory agencies to this Agreement. This term only describes the relationship between these agencies to work together to achieve a mutually beneficial goal. It is not used in the traditional legal sense in which one PARTNER's individual actions legally bind the other parties, QC/QAP (QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM)—Per NEPA assignment, Caltrans will review all environmental documents as described in the Jay Norvell Memos dated October 1,2012 (available at __..http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/memos.htm4LinkTarget 705.) This also includes the independent judgment analysis and determination under CEQA that the environmental documentation meets CEQA Statute and Guideline requirement. SCOPE SUMMARY—The attachment in which each PARTNER designates its responsibility for the completion of specific work elements as outlined by the Guide to Capital Project Delivery Workplan Stundards(previously known as WBS Guide) available at http://v1�v.dot.ca. og_v/hq/)roirn nt/guidance.htm. CONTACT INFORMATION The information provided below indicates the primary contact information for each PARTNER to this Agreement. PARTNERS will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes. Contact information changes do not require an amendment to this Agreement. The primary Agreement contact person for CALTRANS is: Wajahat Nyaz,Project Manager 111 Grand Avenue Oakland,CA 94623-0060 Office Phone: (510) 286-5119 The primary Agreement contact person for TOWN is: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works&Town Engineer 1505 Tiburon Blvd Tiburon, CA 94920 Office Phone: (415) 435-7388 Project Initiation Document(PID)Agreement 20121030 Page 5 of 7 Agreement 04-2522 SIGNATURES PARTNERS declare that: 1. Each PARTNER is an authorized legal entity under California state law. 2. Each PARTNER has the authority to enter into this Agreement. 3. The people signing this Agreement have the authority to do so on behalf of their public agencies. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TOWN OF TIBURON By: By: Helena(Lenka) Culik-Caro MargaretuA. Curran Deputy District Director, Design Town Manager, Town of Tiburon Certified as to funds: Attest: BY: By: KeA' Strough Diane Crane Licopi 11 Kisti KetBud get Manager Town Clerk, Town of Tiburon Approved as to form and procedure: By: ------ Ann R. Danforth Town Attorney Project Initiation Document(PID)Agreement 20121030 Page 6 of 7 I Agreement 04-2522 I SCOPE SUMMARY WORK 11FLEWNT 0.100.05.35 -Executed Cooperative A+ reement for PID process X _.... _ _ L _ 1 ..._... 0 100.10 Protect Managertient-PA&ED Component X _.._ _-_ ____ 1 150,05 05 Review of l xistini lie arts Studies and l�l,ipprtix X y ._. 1.150.05 15 Utility Search X 1.150.05 30 - Surveys and ' �s for PID X _a! . ..ti u, , - -- ..........._..... _.�_._.. { -- 1.150.15.05 - Ri 4,�ht of Way, Data Sheets ( X llc _1ew ._150.15.45 - TraffictC,ilRev�� Anal 5�s.,.. .. _. - -- X_� ___ ---. 1.150.15.50-Traffic Studies X 1.150.20.10- Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment X 1.150.20.25 - Initial BiologLStudX 1.150.20.30- Initial Records and Literature Search for Cultural Resources X - __ ----- 1.150.20.70 __-1.150.20.70 - Initial Native American Coordination X _.1.150.25.05 -Draft PIDX f-.1-50--.2-5.10 -Approved 1_Xcep ions To Design Standards X � � . 1 150 25.20 -PID Circulation,Review, and Approval ail X 1.160 10 65 Right of Way Relilic Uishment and Vacation Study/Investigation X 1.160.20.70 -Pavement 4t.r c.y !__Iaterials Recommendation X 1.160.30 -Environmental Sttid F�.�clt�c st X 1_.160.30.10 - Suv eys and � a iia,far Environmental Studies ------------- 1.160.40-NEPA ASSIGNMENT X 1 165.10-GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES X -- __ _ _ ____ ' 1 165.15 BIOLOGICAL STUDIES --- 1.1� 65.15 15 Resourceuy,.iic.y Permit Related Coordination X 1.165.20.05 - Archaeology a�al Suit e� X l _, 1.165.20.20 -Historical and Architectural Resource Assessment X 1 165 25.15 -_Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion„Determination X �T j 1 16S.2S.20-Environmental Qualltr- Control and Other Reviews I X ....._.._ —___....__._.._.. 1 165 180 15 Completed Environmental Document X T _. . . _ _...---------- 1. _ 1.165.180.15-Environmental Commitments Record X 1.165.80.20- ---- __. .. _� ---_- _�....._..._ ---__.__ .._ __ . , 1.195.45.05 - Excess Lands Inventory X 1.195.45.35 - CTC and CT Coordination X Project Initiation Document(PID)Agreement'012__10_-30 Page 7 of 7 RESOLUTION NO. 04-2014 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PROJECT SCOPE SUMMARY REPORT WHEREAS, Tiburon Boulevard is the main artery into and through the Town of Tiburon, but is owned and maintained by the State of California's Department of Transportation("State"); and WHEREAS, the Town is evaluating whether it should assume ownership of and responsibility for the section of Tiburon Boulevard between Lyford Drive and Main Street and to further that evaluation, has initiated the relinquishment process with the State; and WHEREAS,to proceed with this relinquishment process, the Town is required to enter into a Cooperation Agreement with the State to prepare a Project Scope Summary Report ("PSSR"),to be funded by Town at a cost of$108,000; and WHEREAS, the Cooperation Agreement does not obligate the Town to accept ownership of nor responsibility for any part of Tiburon Boulevard; and WHEREAS,on September 18, 2013, the Town Council authorize the expenditure of $108,000 for the preparation of the PSSR; and WHEREAS, the Town and the State have negotiated the Cooperation Agreement attached to this resolution as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference ("Cooperation Agreement"). NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows: 1. All the Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein. 2.The Town Council hereby approves the Agreement and authorizes the Town Manager to enter into and execute the Cooperation Agreement on behalf of the Town. The Town Manager is further authorized to implement the Cooperation Agreement and take all further actions and negotiate and execute all other documents which are necessary or appropriate to (a) carry out the Cooperation Agreement; and (b)obtain such other State approvals as are necessary to construct and maintain the Project. 3. The Town Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.. Tiburon Town Council.Resolution No, 04-2014 Adopted February 5, 2014 1 I i 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon this 56 day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, O'Donnell,Tollini NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ALICE FREDERICKS,MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST DIANE CRANE IACOPI,TOWN CLERK THIS IS -TRUE IE7CL Y Tlbuk TOW �K Tiburon Town Council,Resolution No. 04-2014 Adopted February 5, 2014 2 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting . r c 6 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 1,2017 r Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item:Al -3 r �.. STAFF c`L PO. To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Clerk Subject: Consider Changing Election Date from November of Odd-Numbered Years to J ne or November of Even-Numbered Years Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The California Voter Participation Rights Act (Exhibit 1), or SB 415, was signed into law on September 1, 2015 to address declining voter turnout in off-cycle (odd-year) federal, state and municipal elections. The Town currently holds municipal elections in November of odd- numbered years, a practice previously shared by 8 out of 11 cities in Marin County. Corte Madera recently switched their elections to even-years and San Anselmo is in the process of doing the same. Historically, the Town, like many others in Marin, held elections in April of even-numbered years. Following the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, many cities chose to consolidate elections with school districts to save on costs. In 1994, the Town of Tiburon changed its election date from April of even-numbered years to November of odd-numbered years with Ordinance No. 402 N.S. (Exhibit 2). The Town did this by shortening terms of seated councilors to get on track with odd-numbered year elections. SB 415 requires jurisdictions that hold local elections in odd-numbered years to consolidate their elections with statewide election dates (June or November of even-numbered years), if there was a significant decrease in voter turnout at the last odd-numbered year municipal election, compared to the voter turnout from previous statewide elections. A "significant decrease in voter turnout" is defined as at least 25 percent less than the average voter turnout of the four previous statewide elections. The figure below shows voter turnout data for the last four statewide elections and the most recent municipal election. November %of voter November %of voter (Even Year) turnout (Odd Year) turnout 2016 87.97% 2015 29.36% 2014 57.62% 2012 55.27% Avg(69.36)-29.36=40.0% 2010 76.58% Average: 69.36% As this data illustrates, Tiburon's voter turnout for the Town's most recent municipal election (29.36%) compared to the average statewide voter turnout (69.36%) shows a 40.0% difference. Given that figure is greater than the 25% threshold established by SB 415, it would appear the Town will be required to change its election date from November of odd-numbered years to June or November of even-numbered years. The Town must adopt a plan to make this change no later than January 1, 2018 and the Town must hold at least one consolidated election by 2022. SB 415 provides voters the authority to file a lawsuit to enforce the new law, and provides for attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Therefore, if the Town did not comply with the terms of SB 415, and a court determined that SB 415 did apply to the Town,the Town would be liable for attorneys' fees. Arguments in favor of moving election date: • Potentially higher voter turnout, as even-numbered year elections usually feature federal and state races • Having municipal elections on the same ballot as federal and state races may signify to voters that they are equally important • Too many elections can cause voter fatigue • Potential for cost savings Arguments in opposition to moving election date: • Too many choices on one ballot can cause voter fatigue • Municipal office holders appear at the end of the ballot and voters may pay less attention to lower ballot items • Candidates for municipal office may struggle to compete for attention with presidential, gubernatorial, congressional, state legislative and county-level races • Electing for municipal nonpartisan offices on a ballot alongside partisan races may cause confusion amongst the electorate Options for Compliance The Town currently holds staggered elections for the Town Council, which all have four-year terms. In 2017, three seats on the Council are up for election and two seats will be up for election in 2019. In order to comply with SB 415, the Council will need to consider increasing or decreasing term lengths, while keeping in mind that one consolidated (even-year) election must occur no later than 2022. Elections Code Section 10403.5(b) limits increases or decreases of terms of office to no more than 12 months. Staff requests the Council consider the following questions to guide them through the various compliance options: 1. Does the Council desire to change either their seated terms of office or the terms of office for future candidates? Council may opt to extend each of their current terms by one year. The 2017 and 2019 elections would be cancelled, and rescheduled to 2018 and 2020, respectively. The 2018 and 2020 candidates would each run for four year terms. This option ensures compliance as soon as 2018. Alternatively, Council may opt to change the terms of office for future candidates for both election cycles, beginning in either 2017 or 2019. Those candidates would run for three, four-and- a-half, or five year terms. The three and five year term options would result in November of even- numbered year elections, while the four-and-a-half year term option would result in June of even- numbered year elections. 2. Does the Council desire to change from November elections to June elections for municipal office? Council may choose to hold municipal elections in June of even-numbered years, rather than November. The figure below shows Tiburon voter turnout for June elections. June %of voter November %of voter Analysis (even year) turnout (even year) turnout 2016 63.44% 2016 87.67% 24.23%better turnout in November 2014 35.60% 2014 57.62% 22.02%better turnout in November 2012 47.59% 2012 55.27% 7.68% better turnout in November If Council opts to change municipal elections to June of even-numbered years, Council may extend their own seated terms by six months. The 2017 and 2019 elections would be cancelled, and rescheduled to June 2018 and June 2020, respectively. This option also ensures compliance as soon as 2018. Alternatively, Council may opt to change terms of future candidates for both election cycles. Candidates would run for four-and-a-half year terms, beginning in 2017. 3. Does the Council desire to either extend or shorten terms of office? If Council does not desire to change their current seated terms of office, Council should consider changing the term lengths for future candidates, the change beginning with either the 2017 or 2019 elections. The term change Council decides upon would occur only twice (once for each staggered cycle). For example, the 2017 and 2019 candidates could each run for 3-year terms, terminating in November 2020 and 2022, respectively. The 2020 and 2022 candidates would then resume regular 4-year terms. One Consolidated Election by 2022 It is important to note if Council decides to alter future candidates' terms of office, rather than their own, and does not desire to make any changes to the 2017 election, Tiburon's only option for compliance would be to elect for 3-year terms, beginning in the 2019 election. This option will ensure compliance with SB 415 by 2022. The four-and-a-half and five-year term options would not put the Town on track with state-consolidated elections until 2024. FINANCIAL IMPACT It is expected that the Town would save money by changing election dates from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years. However, the actual cost savings is unknown at this time as several variables that play into the cost of the election are not yet defined. Election costs vary based on how many items the Town has on the ballot and the total number of jurisdictions, school districts and special districts also on the ballot. When more jurisdictions are on the same ballot, the cost is spread amongst them. This bill will require other Marin jurisdictions, school districts and special districts to change their election dates to consolidate with statewide elections as well, but whether they will choose to share costs with the June or November ballots is unknown at this time. While the Marin County Elections Department does not currently anticipate increased administrative costs, the department will need to change their internal processes to accommodate an increased volume of contests and measures on fewer ballots. It is possible the Board of Supervisors will eventually authorize an increase in costs to municipalities to accommodate for these increased administrative costs. See below for election costs of most recent years: 2015: $12,471.13 2013: $0 2011: $0 2009: $10,014.94 RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive report and discuss options for compliance with SB 415. 2. Provide direction to staff on the following: a. Change Current Terms or Future Terms b. Continue November elections or switch to June elections c. Determine Term Lengths for One-Time Change 3. Adopt by motion a plan to change elections to comply with SB 415. Exhibits: 1. Senate Bill No. 415: California Voter Participation Rights Act, approved by Governor Brown on September 1, 2015 2. Ordinance No. 402 N.S.: An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon Adding Section 2-3.3 to the Tiburon Municipal Code Changing the Date of Municipal Elections 3. Compliance Options: Adjust Current Terms Matrix 4. Compliance Options: Adjust Future Terms Matrix Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk _ ______ i'igc 'o1 4 a AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL Senate Bill No.415 CHAPTER 235 An act to add Chapter 1.7(commencing with Section 14050)to Division 14 of the Elections Code,relating to elections. [Approved by Governor September 1,2015.Filed with Secretary of State September 1,2015.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 415,Hueso.Voter participation. Existing law generally requires all state, county,municipal,district,and school district elections be held on an established election date. Existing law also establishes certain dates for statewide elections. Existing law requires any state, county, municipal, district, and school district election held on a statewide election date to be consolidated with a statewide election, except as provided. This bill, commencing January 1, 2018, would prohibit a political subdivision,as defined,from holding an election other than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a nonconcurrent date has previously resulted in voter turnout for a regularly scheduled election in that political subdivision being at least 25% less than the average voter turnout within the political subdivision for the previous 4 statewide general elections, except as specified. This bill would require a court to implement appropriate remedies upon a violation of this prohibition.The bill would authorize a voter who resides in a political subdivision where a violation is alleged to file an action in superior court to enforce this prohibition, and it would allow a prevailing plaintiff other than the state or political subdivision to collect a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation expenses,as provided. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 1.7 (commencing with Section 14050) is added to Division 14 of the Elections Code,to read: CHAPTER 1.7. VOTER PARTICIPATION 14050. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the California Voter Participation Rights Act. 14051. As used in this chapter: (a) "Political subdivision" means a geographic area of representation created for the provision of government services,including,but not limited 93 IHl]BIT NO. �-- Ch.235 —2— to, 2—to, a city, a school district, a community college district, or other district organized pursuant to state law. (b) "Significant decrease in voter turnout"means the voter turnout for a regularly scheduled election in a political subdivision is at least 25 percent less than the average voter turnout within that political subdivision for the previous four statewide general elections. (c) "Voter turnout" means the percentage of voters who are eligible to cast ballots within a given political subdivision who voted. 14052. (a) Except as provided in subdivision(b),apolitical subdivision shall not hold an election other than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a nonconcurrent date has previously resulted in a significant decrease in voter turnout. (b) A political subdivision may hold an election other than on a statewide election date if,by January 1,2018,the political subdivision has adopted a plan to consolidate a future election with a statewide election not later than the November 8,2022,statewide general election. 14053. Upon a finding of a violation of subdivision(a)of Section 14052, the court shall implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of concurrent election dates for future elections and the upgrade of voting equipment or systems to do so.In imposing remedies pursuant to this section, a court may also require a county board of supervisors to approve consolidation pursuant to Section 10402.5. 14054. In an action to enforce subdivision (a) of Section 14052, the court shall allow the prevailing plaintiff other than the state or political subdivision of the state, a reasonable attorney's fee consistent with the standards established in Serrano v. Priest(1977)20 CAM 25,48-49, and litigation expenses including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs.A prevailing defendant shall not recover any costs, unless the court finds the action to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. 14055. A voter who resides in a political subdivision where a violation of subdivision(a) of Section 14052 is alleged may file an action pursuant to that section in the superior court of the county in which the political subdivision is located. 14056. This chapter does not apply to special elections. 14057. This chapter shall become operative on January 1,2018. O 93 ORDINANCE NO. 402 N.S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADDING SECTION 2-3.3 TO THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE CHANgING THE DATE OF MUNICIPAL. ELECTIONS The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. A new Section 2-3.3 is hereby added to the Tiburon Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 2-3.3 Date of General Municipal lEElections (a) All general municipal elections for the Town of Tiburon shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd-numbered year as specified in California Elections Code Section 2602. (b) Town Councilmembers whose terms would normally expire in April of 1996, shall instead have their terms expire on the Tuesday following the general municipal election of November 1995. Town Councilmembers whose terms would normally expire in April of 1998, shall instead have their terms expire on the Tuesday following the general municipal election of November 1997. (c) If the Town of Tiburon's general municipal election is consolidated with school district or other elections, the consolidation shall be governed by Part 2.5 of Division 14 of the California Elections Code. If the county clerk is requested to conduct the general municipal election, Section 22003 of the California Elections Code shall be applicable. (d) Within 30 days after this ordinance becomes operative, the Town Clerk shall cause a notice to be mailed to all registered voters of the Town informing the voters of the change in the election date. The notice shall also inform the voters that as a result of the change in the election date, Councilmembers' terms in office shall be decreased. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection,clause,sentence,or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance,any section,subsection,sentence, 1 EXHIBIT NO. 2 clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or' phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE, This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36503.5 and become effective upon the approval of the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 2, 1994,and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 16, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thayer, Thompson, Friedman, Kuhn, Nygren NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None KAREN NYGREN OR ATTEST: ERESE M. HENNESSY, TOWVILERK 2 SB 415 Compliance Options: Scenarios to Adjust Current Terms SCENARIO 1: Councilors Increase Terms (1 year or 6 months) 2013 , 2014 205, 2016 2017: 2018* X019 20202p21 2022 June Nov ; June Nov ., June Nov une lNov June Nov June Nou June Nov lune; Nov June Nov Re ular 4 earterm 2017 Y Candidate (3) Current Term -Mayor Fraser,Vice Mayer C+`Donnell,rCouncilmember Fredericks ; + 1 year Next term ,4 years;ending in Nov'2022 �Current Tenni -Mayor eraser,Vice Mayor 0 Donnell, ouncilmember Fredericks- + �month :, Next term -4 years,;ending in June 2022' 2"015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2C?23 2024 June Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov _ June Nov June Nov June Nov June, Nov June Nov 2019 Regular 4 year term Current Term-Councilmembers Doyle,Tollini + 1 year Next term 4 years;terminating in Noir 2024: Candidate (2) Current Term-Councilmembers Doyle,Tollini +6 months Next term-4 years,terminating in June 2024 Process: Cancel 2017 Election for 3 Seats Hold 2018 Election for 3 Seats (4 Year Terms) Cancel 2019 Election for 2 Seats Hold 2020 Election for 2 Seats (4 Year Terms) SCENARIO 2: Councilors Decrease Terms (1 year) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2021, 2022 June Nov June; Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov June " Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov 2017 Regular 4 year term Candidate (3) Regular 4 Year term-3 Councilors Next Term-4 years,ending in Nov 20241 2015 1 2016207 2018* 2019.':,, 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 June Nov INov June Noy June I Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov 2019 Regular4 year term Candidate (2) Current Term-Councilmembers Doyle,Tollini Next Term-4 years„ending in Nov 2022 Process: Hold Regular 2017 Election (3 Seats) Cancel 2019 Election & Move to Nov 2018 Hold Nov 2018 Election for 2 Seats(4 Year Terms) Cancel 2021 Election & Move to Nov 2020 Hold Nov 2020 Election for 3 Seats (4 Year Terms) (EXHIBIT NO. 3 SB 415 Compliance Options: Scenarios to Adjust Future Terms SCENARIO 1: Change Future Candidate Terms Beginning with 2017 Election (3 Years, 4.5 Years, or 5 Years) X017 2018 2Q19 2020 202 2022 2D23 2024 Junev June Nov JuneNW' June Nov June, Nov . -- June Nov June;. , NoV ''� June Nov 2017 0 ar4 Year Term Candidate (3) 3 Year Term, ending in Nov 2020 4,$;Y.ear Terre,ending imJune 2020 5 Year Term=ending in Nov 2{J22 2037 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022023 2024 June Nov. June Nov June Nov : June Nov June Nov,' June Nov June Nov June Nov 2019 Regular 4 Year Term Candidate (2) 3 Year Term, ending in Nov 2022 4,5 Year Terre,ending in June,2024 5 Year Term,ending in in Nov 2024' SCENARIO 2: Change Future Candidate Terms Beginning with 2019 Election (3 Years) 2017, 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2017 June Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov June, Nov ' ' June Nov June Nov June Nov � Candidate (3) Regular 4year tem r 3 Year Term, ending in in Nov 2024 20V 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2019 June ! Nov June Nov June Nov . June Nov Jude Nov ° June NovJune; Nov June Nov Candidate (2) Regular4yearterrn 3 Year Term, ending in in Nov 2022 EXHIBIT No. �' TOWN OF TIBLJRON Town Council Meeting % .• March 1, 2017 : 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: T1 STAFF O . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 77 East View Avenue; Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling, with Variances for Reduced Front Setback, Excess Lot Coverage and Excess Building Height, and a Floor Area Exception; Clinton Yee, Owner; Andrina and Kenneth Welter, Appellants; File Nos. DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011; Assessor Parcel N 0660`-105-92 Reviewed by: PROJECT DATA Address: 77 East View Avenue Owner: Clinton Yee Applicant: Michael Heckmann (Architect) Appellants: Andrina and Kenneth Welter Subdivision: Map of Corinthian Island (1908) Assessor's Parcel: 060-105-92 File Numbers: DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011 Lot Size: 5,274 Square Feet Zoning: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) General Plan: MH (Medium High Density Residential) Flood Zone: X BACKGROUND On January 19, 2017, the Design Review Board approved a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of a new single-family dwelling at 77 East View Avenue on a steeply sloping substandard-sized lot on Corinthian Island, with variances for reduced front yard setback, excess lot coverage and excess building height and a floor area exception. The owners of the property at 81 East View Avenue (Andrina and Kenneth Welter), hereinafter referred to as the "appellants," filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision. The appeal is attached as Exhibit 1. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11 - OW11 C01.111c'd Mcctin" PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 77 East View Avenue. As more than 50% of the existing dwelling would be demolished as part of this project, the application is classified as the construction of a new single-family dwelling. The upper level of the house would include a living room, kitchen, dining room and powder room, along with a new two-car garage. The middle level would include a master bedroom suite, another bedroom and bathroom, and a laundry room and storage area. The lower level would include two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Decks would extend from the rear of the living room, master bedroom and one lower level bedroom. Seven skylights would be installed. The floor area of the house would increase from the current size of 1,546 square feet by 1,246 square feet to a total of 2,792 square feet (529%), which is greater than the 35% of lot area guideline for a lot of this size, which would equate to 1,746 square feet. A floor area exception is therefore requested. In addition, the following variances would be required for the proposed house: • The proposed house would extend to within 1 foot, 1 inch of the front property line, which would be less than the required 15-foot front setback in the R-1 zone. The current front setback is 5 feet, 6 inches. • The lot coverage of the site would increase by 915 square feet to 1,589 square feet (30.9%), which slightly exceeds the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. The current lot coverage on the site is 14.5%. • The height of the proposed house would be 37 feet, which exceeds the normal maximum of 30 feet in the R-1 zone. The current height of the home is 31 feet, 6 inches. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board first reviewed the application on October 20, 2016 (see minutes and staff report attached as Exhibits 2 & 3). The application at that time was for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, as less than 50% of the existing dwelling was proposed to be demolished as part of the project. The project would have increased the size of the house to 3,149 square feet (59.7%), with lot coverage of 1,536 square feet (29.1%). Variances were requested for excess lot coverage, reduced front setback (2 feet, 6 inches), reduced side setback (6 feet, 3 inches of the east (right) side property line) and excess building height (37 feet), along with a floor area exception. At the October 20, 2016 meeting, the appellants and neighboring residents at 75 East View Avenue raised concerns about view and privacy impacts from the proposed additions and the overall mass of the project. The Design Review Board shared these concerns, stating that the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 11 O\yn C OMICil MCC-lino; \Birch 1, 'C'l house was too large and too wide, and would have privacy impacts on the appellants' home. The Board continued the application to the December 1, 2016 meeting. The applicant submitted revised plans for the project. The width of the house was narrowed by 1 foot, 10 inches and complied with both side setbacks. The roof over the proposed garage was changed to a flat design. The upper level deck off the living room was shortened by 2 feet, 6 inches, and the railing was changed from a solid wood design to a glass railing. The total floor area of the house was reduced 242 square feet to a total of 2,942 square feet (55.8%), while the proposed lot coverage of the site remained unchanged. A revised project design was reviewed at the December 1, 2016 Design Review Board meeting (see minutes and staff report attached as Exhibits 4 & 5). At that meeting, the appellants and neighboring residents at 75 East View Avenue continued to raise concerns about the project design and also questioned the accuracy of the site survey. The Design Review Board determined that not enough had been done to reduce the size of the house and requested more articulation to the design and better compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. The Board continued the application to the January 19, 2017 meeting. Revised drawings were submitted on January 4, 2017. The north wall of the house was moved 2 feet further from the home at 81 East View Avenue, resulting in a side setback of 11 feet. The living room deck was eliminated, but the dining room deck was extended out 2 feet. The ceiling heights in the middle and lower levels were increased to 9'l". The exterior of the lower level was revised to a stone veneer finish and the color of the upper two floors would be a deeper earth tone. The modifications resulted in demolition of more than 50% of the existing structure, reclassifying the application as construction of a new single-family dwelling for zoning purposes. The floor area of the house was decreased to a total of 2,792 square feet (52.9%) and the lot coverage of the site was reduced to 1,589 square feet (30.9%). A floor area exception and lot coverage variance were still required, along with variances for reduced front setback and excess building height as described above. The revised project design was reviewed at the January 19, 2017 Design Review Board meeting (see minutes and staff report attached as Exhibits 6 & 7). At that meeting, the appellants expressed concerns about loss of privacy and view blockage issues stemming from the project. The Design Review Board determined that the revisions to the project design addressed the potential view issues, but the Board was divided on the design of the house. Boardmember Tollini supported the project design as presented, while Vice Chair Emberson and Boardmember Cousins concluded that the house would be too wide. The Board voted 2-1 (Tollini opposed) to conditionally approve the project, with an added condition of approval reducing the width of the upper level of the house by two feet by pulling it further away from the appellants' home. On January 30, 2017, the appellants filed a timely appeal of this decision. BASIS FOR THE APPEAL There are five (5) grounds upon which the appeal (Exhibit 1) is based: TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 11 hm n Coi_mciI MCCI ing March L 200 Ground #1: The design of the proposed house does not comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Staff Response: The appeal includes an illustration of a section drawing of the proposed house, shown below. TT r The appeal compares this section to the illustration of Hillside Design Guideline Goal 1, Principle 9, which encourages projects to "excavate underground or below grade rooms to dramatically reduce effective bulk, provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces." AI q yY��;��i:�p� Y?C C2L(' v \ U'FE i2 ial2si "> UHL1-5P-%0 J OeAr) ,PALE NC?T �aE.14YJ-GKAVF- K,=115 Mf ALLa\AIEt� L53-5YF;INN'T' ZONING (, Ca�l1i�'FNI NTS - a E zQmNa cope During the review of this application by the Design Review Board, there was discussion as to whether the proposed house design properly steps into the hillside in a manner consistent with the Guidelines. Goal 1, Principle 1 more effectively illustrates this principle, which encourages projects to "cut [the] building into [the] hillside to reduce effective bulk." TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 11 -mvn CP flail Mcctino �Ho YE6 AHO Fi%;Ht)AT;L e is FANG?-: — — --- — . f i., "'[, i - "E.C'.r'.."(� kms. ✓ S ' A' EA GMK wig ' {?Pia Ho �4"Gi/a�'k7� Ci-i���w'�JA.�`✓> i:sN��c.-'—i"'.."' The stepped nature and contrasting materials of the proposed house design are more fully illustrated by a three-dimensional rendering provided by the project architect, seen below. This design would also be consistent with several other principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines, including: • Goal 1, Principle 3, to "avoid large expanses of any material in a single plan. On downhill elevations, break up masses of[a] building with horizontal and vertical elements." TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11 1 n COLHIC11 ti1CCM-!,; Mark 11 I. 2017 1t ` , FbU4,,. O S I!, ,.1/,Ae 5 AAL " _.�-- � .. t 1 • Goal 1, Principle 8, to "use changes of material to `soften' large elevations of[a] building and blend [it] into [the] hillside." -; ti rV.00U--TSO " ' W[11 00M; , 4 L1 {N4r Staff believes that the project design is, on balance, consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines. The proposed house would step down the hillside, avoid large expanses on a single plane and would use different materials to soften its appearance. The small lot sizes, steep topography and dense development pattern on Corinthian Island, dating from 1908, create special challenges not normally encountered in Tiburon's more modern hillside subdivisions. Ground 42: The placement of all primary living space on the upper level would cause view blockage by the living room. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 11 (-OV"I](OLII:CII \1CCLI1n�, M,1rch 1,:201 Staff Response: The appellants submitted photographs (shown below) at the January 19, 2017 Design Review Board meeting showing the story poles for the proposed house from an unspecified window of their home. The story poles indicate that the proposed house would extend slightly beyond the footprint of the existing house and trees beyond into views toward San Francisco Bay. Staff would note that the photos purport to present a comparison of the story poles for the plans presented at the October 20, 2016 meeting and those presented at the January 19, 2017 meeting, but a comparison of the photos indicate that they were taken at slightly different angles and are not directly comparable. The Town Council is encouraged to view the story poles from the appellants' home to better understand the potential view impacts of this project. o F } \ , t g � A pg 4 A £ icy , _ ✓ \� " ii• 'i, x.. k�wr.��` u�a .vwa �� c OCTOBER, 2016 JANUARY,2017 At the January 19, 2017 meeting, the Design Review Board indicated that the project design would not result in substantial view impacts, characterizing the appellants' views across the subject property as borrowed views at the edge of a panoramic view. Goal 3, Principle 8 states that projects to "a view across a vacant lot is often considered to be a `borrowed' view, which is likely to be compromised by the eventual development of the vacant lot." Although the subject property is not a vacant lot, the Design Review Board determined that the undersized nature of the existing house on the site would mean that eventual upgrading or redevelopment of the site would likely involve portions of the lot that are not currently built upon. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 11 l0\;n Council Mcctin11 I�trch I. '_i i r V/ ti el_a. AW tW' "410s;v / ", VIEW PM L YDS C ?ti a 17Th __Melia K1, V t Goal 3, Principle 7 (E) states that "a wide panoramic view can accept more view blockage than the smaller slot view." t,Staff believes that upper level of the proposed house would extend only slightly into the far edge of an existing panoramic view from the appellants' home and would be consistent with the intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines for view protection. Ground #3: The house would be too close to the appellants' dwelling, creating a "canyon effect" and blocking light to their residence. Staff'Response: The minimum required side setback in the R-1 zone is 8 feet. The plans for the proposed house reviewed at the January 19, 2017 meeting indicate an 11-foot setback would be established for the side property line shared with the appellants. The Design Review Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the house be pulled back an additional two feet from that property line, resulting in a total 13-foot side setback from the appellants' lot. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11 My n (.guru i! \(retin� \larch I. 21011 The appellants' home is situated approximately 1 foot, 8 inches from the shared side property line. The appeal requests a 16-foot separation between the appellants' home and the proposed house. The 13-foot approved side setback, combined with the appellants' 1 foot, 8-inch setback, would result in a 14 foot, 8-inch separation between the two homes. Staff believes that pulling the proposed house even further from the side property line fails to recognize that the appellants purchased an existing home with a substandard setback and would place an inappropriate burden for separation between homes on the applicants. As noted in the discussion above on Ground 42, the proposed house would extend only slightly beyond the footprint of the existing house and trees beyond to the south. Therefore, the proposed house would have only a minimally-increased impact on light reaching the appellants' residence. Ground 44: The dining room deck would cause privacy impacts. Staff Response: The proposed dining room deck would be situated 41 feet, 6 inches from the side property line and over 43 feet from the appellants' dwelling. The deck would project out only 6 feet from the edge of the adjacent living room. The distance from this deck and its relatively small profile when viewed from the appellants' house would minimize any privacy impacts from the deck. Expectations for privacy on Corinthian Island must be moderated due to the topography and the dense development pattern. Ground #5: The required findings cannot be made for the requested application due to the impacts on the appellants' residence. Staff Response: The subject application is for Site Plan and Architectural Review, three variances and a floor area exception. The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance includes findings that need to be made to approve each of these different applications. In order to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application, Section 16-52.020 (H[2]) requires that the Town consider"the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions." As described in the staff responses above, the revised project design, as conditioned by the Design Review Board, would not appear to create substantial view,privacy or light and air impacts on the appellants' property. In order to approve a variance, the Design Review Board must make findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, including the finding that "the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity." As described in the staff responses above, the revised project design, as conditioned by the Design Review Board, would not appear to create substantial view or privacy impacts on the appellants' property. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 11 I OVv n CIM111cil \=lectin March L 20li In order to approve a floor area exception, Section 16-52.020 (I[4{afl) requires the Town must find that "the applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood." The Design Review Board determined that the revised house design presented at the January 19, 2017 meeting was generally compatible with the pattern of other homes in the vicinity, but was still too wide. The Board required that the width of the upper floor be reduced by 2 feet to address this concern. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested Site Plan and Architectural Review, variance and floor area exception application, as approved by the Board. CONCLUSION The Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in its review of this project. The proposed house design, as modified by the conditions of approval imposed by the Design Review Board, would not result in substantial view or privacy impacts on the appellants' residence. In approving the variances and the floor area exception, the Board recognized the peculiar difficulties associated with modernizing homes on the small steep lots of Corinthian Island. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing and take testimony on the appeal in accordance with the Town's adopted procedure (see attached Exhibit 8) and close the public hearing. 2. Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention to deny the appeal. 3. Direct Staff to return with an appropriate resolution for consideration of adoption at the next meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Notice of appeal 2. Design Review Board staff report dated October 20, 2016 3. Minutes of the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting 4. Design Review Board staff report dated December 1, 2016 5. Minutes of the December 1, 2016 Design Review Board meeting 6. Design Review Board staff report dated January 19, 2017 7. Minutes of the January 19, 2017 Design Review Board meeting 8. Appeal procedures 9. Application form and supplemental materials 10. Letter from Andrina and Ken Weller, dated September 19, 2016 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 11 I����n Cinnxil \IeerinT \larch l,?Ol 11. Illustrations submitted by Andrina and Ken Weller at the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting 12. Letter from Riley Hurd, dated November 4, 2016 13. Letter from ILS Associates, Inc., dated November 10, 2016 14. Letter from Andrina and Ken Weller, dated November 29, 2016 15. Letter from Riley Hurd, dated January 11, 2017 16. Letter from Riley Hurd, dated January 17, 2017 17. Letter from Jean Ludwick, dated January 19, 2017 18. Illustrations submitted by Andrina and Ken Weller at the January 19, 2017 Design Review Board meeting 19. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF 11 RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2017 TOWN CLi�K yr i u� RON NOTICE OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,CA 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 Svivw townoftiburon.or g APPELLANT(S) (Attach additional pages.if necessary) Name: Riley F Hurd III for Andrina and Kenneth Welter Mailing Address: 1101 5th Ave Suite 100 San Rafael CA 94901 Telephone: 415-453-9433 (Work) (Home) FAX and/or e-mail(optional): rhurd@rflawllp.com ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: DRB Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: January 19, 2017 Name of Applicant: Clinton Yee Type of Application or Decision: Site Plan and Architecture Review, Variances, FAR Exception GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) Plea-,P.Plea-,P. see atta h d letter. __ STAFF USE ONL Y BELOW THIS LING Last Day to File Appeal: Date Appeal Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No. Date of Appeal Hearing. NOTE: Current Filing Fee is$500 initial deposit for applicant and$300 flat fee for non-applicant S.IAdminisb•ationIFornisliVotice ofAppeal forni revised 3-9-2010.doc Revised March 2010 VifEwe k`.„S . , Ragghlanti 'is of i= .S LLP JAN 302017 L 4V� 'l .tf ' "T r I N San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 Riley F. Hurd III facsimile 415.453.8269 rhurd@rflawlip.com www.rflawllp.com January 30, 2017 Via E-Mail Only Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Appeal of DRB Decision- 77 Eastview Avenue (DR2016104) Dear Members of the Town Council: Our office represents Ken and Andrina Welter, the owners of 81 Eastview Avenue in Tiburon. This letter is submitted in conjunction with our appeal of the January 19, 2017, decision by the Design Review Board ("DRS") conditionally approving a large new house next door to the Welters at 77 Eastview Avenue. This appeal is not made lightly. Clients, and potential clients, regularly request that this office file appeals of DRB decisions. Nearly every time, that request is denied for two reasons: 1) the decision of the DRB is legally defensible, and/or 2) the Council gives great deference to the DRB. This is one of the very rare cases where we feel an appeal is warranted due to this project's objective failure to comply with the Zoning Code and Hillside Design Guidelines, and the severity of the resulting impacts on the home at 81 Eastview. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The proposed house fails to comply with the hillside design guidelines, which makes a home of this size significantly more impactful than a compliant design. 2. Trying to cram all of the primary living space on the upper level results in an east living room wall that impermissibly blocks views. 3. The house is too close to the home at 81 Eastview, thereby creating a canyon effect and severe light impact. 4. The deck off the dining room unnecessarily intrudes on privacy. 5. The required findings for the multiple variances cannot be made due to the impacts. EXHIBIT INTO. I �. 2- C`5� 1s Ragghianti I Frei e i La: S LLP Page 2 of 8 PROJECT HISTORY This Project's history at the DRB makes the ultimate approval decision even more difficult to understand and accept. Each time the project was heard, the DRB members sent a very clear message about the scope of the changes needed to obtain an approval. At the second to last hearing on December 1, 2016, some of these more general messages included that the project, "doesn't get close enough by a long shot," the changes were "unsubstantial," and the design, "looks like one huge house from downtown." After comments like these, it seemed clear that very significant edits would be needed from the applicant in order to gain approval. However, the applicant returned to the DRB's final hearing on January 19, 2017, with de minimis changes, yet the project was conditionally approved. The approval decision was impossible to reconcile with the comments of the DRB throughout the process. The DRB had given the following very specific direction to the applicant: • The project is"too close to 81," and needs, "16-feet between the two homes." • The project needs, "to excavate more, can find more space that way while being less impactful." • The "design guidelines require stepping," as well as, "more articulation and stepback," and this can be accomplished by placing, "more on lower level." • There was "not enough done to the width of the home," and the "east elevation is a monster." In response to these detailed DRB comments, the updated, and eventually approved, design had only 12.5 feet between the homes, proposed no more excavation than before, pushed the upper rear deck out much further, and articulated the east facade less by pushing out the living room on the top floor right into the viewshed from 81 Eastview. Other than removing a portion of an upper level deck, the changes were generally nonresponsive to the overall direction of the DRB. Besides seemingly ignoring the DRB, the changes also ignored the neighbor concerns that had been expressed to the applicant in many one-on-one meetings: 1) that the upper level of the home not intrude into views of raccoon straits or angel island, 2) that the home not be so close as to loom over the west windows at 81 Eastview, and 3) that there were privacy impacts caused by the rear deck. Ragghianti I F relta,S LLP Page 3 of 8 THE DRB DECISION At its final hearing, the DRS approved the resubmitted project with just one change: that only the top floor needed to be pulled 2-feet further away from the home at 81 Eastview. This provided approximately 14-feet of separation, for the top floor only, not the 16-feet previously directed for the whole home. None of the other issues previously expressed as serious concerns by the DRB were addressed. There was no further excavation of the home into the hillside, none of the requested articulation of the downhill side (this aspect actually got worse due to the living room being pushed out), and the east facade remained the same "monster" from the hearing before. How the project went from "not even close" to being approved with such nonresponsive changes is inexplicable, and the subject of this appeal. APPLICANT'S HISTORY Although an applicant's intentions for the use of a residence post-approval are not generally relevant, at some point the drivers for a project, and an applicant's history, cannot be ignored. It appears that an unrelenting quest for square footage, views, and amenities has resulted in a failure to compromise. This pattern of multiple hearings and death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to whittling down a project was the exact pattern the same applicant/architect duo exhibited during a recent flip project at 488 Washington Court in the Belveron part of town. This approach is a strain on the Town's resources, as well as the concerned neighbors' lives. Here, some level of conciliation is required in order to lessen the neighbor impacts in a manner that allows the required findings to be made. On this site, one does not get both cheap construction and maximum space, it's one or the other because of the constraints. If they want to dig, that space can be captured, but there is, of course, a cost to that approach. FOLLOW THE HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES A major tenet of the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines is that structures should step with the hillside to break up mass. The DRB reiterated this concept to the applicant multiple times, but the project still does not conform. While the proposed home is stepped on the uphill, or back, portion of the site, the east facade fails to take advantage of that stepping and is essentially a single plane. This failure to articulate the rear of the home in a relative amount to the front is now exacerbated by the extension of the upper level living room having moved even further east, thereby aligning the one level that was previously pulled back with the two levels below. EXHIBIT NO. I P, � Ragghianti (F,retta.S LLP Page 4 of 8 This is what a hillside home is supposed to do: Here is what this home does: a _� -- T i� . Noncompliance with the Guidelines seems to be driven by a "maximum sales price at the lowest construction cost" approach to the project. Trying to force all of the primary living space on the upper floor to capture better views exacerbates the nonconformity. The DRB noted these uses are better suited for the middle floor of the residence (like the Welters' house), where ample room exists for a reasonable floor pattern. By trying to cram it all on the top level to capture even more views, there is no articulation of the home, and, as will be discussed below, those same views are blocked from 81 Eastview. EXHIBIT NO. � D ,F RagghiantilFre ta..S LLP Page 5 of 8 FOCUS ON THE FINDINGS The proposed project is almost 40-feet tall, where 30 is allowed; is 70% over the FAR limit for the site; and exceeds the allowable lot coverage. These objective development standards are in place to prevent overdevelopment of sites and protect neighbors. Deviating from these specifications is a privilege, not a right, and, as clearly stated in the Town Code, such deviation is only permitted for projects that don't impact the light, views, and privacy of adjoining owners. This is not the case here. The legally required findings seemed to get lost in the DRB's review of this project, and were not the subject of extensive DRB discussion. The applicant seeks not only Site Plan and Architecture Review, but also three different variances for setbacks, height, and lot coverage, as well as a Floor Area Exception. Each of these comes with required findings. Site Plan and Architecture Review The granting of Site Plan and Architecture Review requires the consideration of, "the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions." For the reasons discussed below, a consideration of these factors suggests this project is unapprovable. Height Limit Code Section 16-30.050 - "Height limits and exceptions," notes that "height limits are important measures to protect privacy and views; to promote the adequate provision of sunlight, air, and visual safety; and to prevent the vertical overbuilding of properties." Nearly each of these protected categories is impacted by this project. The height of the home creates a canyon or "lightwell" effect that blocks critically needed light in various rooms at the Welter property. If the applicant wants to exceed the limit as proposed, the 16-feet of separation originally called for by the DRB is an absolute necessity. The applicant has the burden here of proving that the height variance, "will not be injurious to other property in the vicinity." (Section 16-52.030(E)(4).) As designed, that burden cannot be met here. (Please see the letters attached as Exhibit A.) Floor Area Code Section 16-52.020 (I)(4), "Floor Area Exception," states that residential construction in excess of the floor area guidelines may be granted only if, "the EXHIBIT NO.- I- -P, G 6)F l5 Ragghianti Frei.taS LLP Page 6 of 8 applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood." The size and scale of this proposed structure is not compatible with its surroundings. As originally noted by the DRS, "the house is too wide," the "east elevation is a monster," and it, "looks like one huge house from downtown." Shaving 2-feet off of one level does not meaningfully address these comments and the FAR exception findings therefore cannot be made. Keeping the legal requirements noted above in mind, we would ask that the Council consider the following impact, and decide whether this image represents a design that is "not injurious to other property in the vicinity," and is "compatible" with existing structures: 7eE �3� WM i � d i vJ m { :fie .......,�.�. .,-4.:.,...•;..:..!_... .,....._..�.yb.._, .«,.,.» The DRB apparently did not find that this impact violated the view provisions of the Code. This may have been influenced by the large tree on the applicant's property that has illegally been allowed to grow into this protected view. Nonetheless, we encourage the Councilmembers to visit the subject properties. However, not just the Guideline view provisions are in play here. This is the precise type of injury to property that prevents the height variance and FAR exception findings from being made. EXHIBIT NO. `7 til- (5 I;u Ragghianti IF reg taS LLP Page 7 of 8 RED HERRING ARGUMENTS The applicant's architect repeatedly suggested that the view shown above was a "shared view" over the applicant's property, and therefore not worthy of protection. It was also repeatedly stated that views to the south were not primary for this part of Eastview Avenue. Both of these assertions do not withstand scrutiny. There is no such thing as a "shared view" in the Town's Code, and this certainly doesn't appear to be a good example of sharing even if there were. While "borrowed views" are a recognized concept, that term only applies only to vacant lots and is specifically noted as a view, "which may reasonably be expected to change upon development of the lot." That is not the case here. In fact, this is the precise type of view a property owner would expect to be protected. In regards to whether views to the south are protected as "primary," and/or important, the Council is simply directed to the north and south elevations of the proposed home, as well as the proposed locations of the three levels of decks. The house is completely designed to capture views to the south, the very views attempting to be discounted from the Welter property. A majority of the windows face south, and the decks are all on the southern side of the rear of the house. The plans themselves demonstrate this is a protected view. Were the neighbor to the south of 77 Eastview to attempt to place a garage or other addition squarely within the view corridor of this expensive new spec house, that most certainly would not go unchallenged, nor would these same arguments likely be accepted. The applicant's architect also persistently brought up the fact that he felt the Welter residence did not comply with the Hillside Guidelines, and therefore this meant that a new house next door should not have to comply. The fact is, the Welter residence would probably not be approved today, was not built by the Welters, and is a valid constraint that must be respected by the applicant. Also, the Welter residence did not block views of the existing home to the north when it was built, as such views, unlike here, were already blocked by the home being remodeled. Interestingly, the Welter residence, like most on the street, does follow the pattern of placing the primary living space on the middle level given the constraints that come with trying to fit such a space up at the street. PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE An issue that arose throughout the DRB process was the true location of the boundary line between 77 and 81 Eastview. Unfortunately, the applicant did not inform the neighbors of this potential issue until about 6 months after getting a survey done. We r RagghlantllFreitaS LLP Page 8 of 8 have now obtained evidence that the survey used as the basis for the entire design of 77 Eastview is flawed. (See attached Exhibit B.) Admittedly, surveying in this part of Town is incredibly difficult due to a deficient original map, but best estimates place the true shared property line approximately 5.5' to the south of where it is shown on the plans approved by the DRB. While the property owners will have to figure this issue out, it is relevant to the decision at hand because the newly located line would actually place the proposed home 1/2' into the required 8' setback. This somewhat explains the continued looming nature of the project when viewed from the Welter residence. CONCLUSION We are at a loss for explaining the change in the DRB's position regarding the amount by which this project was out of compliance with the Town's Code. However, this is why the right of appeal exists: as a stopgap to catch, and remedy, a project that might slip through. Reasonable and feasible solutions do exist for this site. Nothing is more demonstrative of this fact than the process and outcome of the proposed new home on a blank lot only two doors up the street. The applicant there utilized excavation to achieve square footage while mitigating impact. It appears as if that is the solution needed here if the applicant wants to achieve their wish list of features. The required findings for this application cannot be made and the project should be denied and a full reset ordered by the Council. If the Council does feel changes can be made to this iteration that make it approvable, we would request the following as an absolute minimum: 1. At least 16-feet of separation between all levels of the two homes. 2. That the east living room wall be pulled back 4-feet to the west to where its story pole was originally sited in October. 3. That the upper level deck extend no further east than the pulled back location of the east living room wall. Thank you for your consideration of this difficult project. Very Truly Yours, Riley F. Hurd III EXHIBIT NO. � EXHIBIT A Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon CA 94920 Att: Design Review Board 10/10/16 CONCERNING: 77 EASTVIEW REMODEL I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the current application for the remodel and expansion of 77 Eastview. I represented the current homeowners at 81 Eastview when they purchased that home several years ago. The Welters are a wonderful young family that choose to raise their 2 kids in this community, and are committed to stay in a home they bought as their long term residence. They gave up the opportunity for a garden and nice outdoor playing space for their 2 kids for one reason only. They fell madly in love with the views and privacy of 81 Eastview. They made a huge sacrifice, and decided the challenges of living on a one way hilly street and the limited outdoor space was a trade they would be willing to do to enjoy their view. That view and privacy is now threated by the proposed project at 77 Eastview. The developer is looking to create a quick turnaround profit and is now a major obstacle and threat to a family that is hoping to live and raise their family in this home, while enjoying the views and privacy they purchased years ago. Not only would this severely affect their current lifestyle, this would create a huge financial burden on a young family that has made this home a huge portion of their financial wellbeing and future. As you may know, homes on Corinthian Island can take time to sell, and when they do, the views are the strongest selling feature and have a huge effect the sales price. Should the Welters lose their view and privacy, they would essentially also suffer a huge financial Loss, easily in the range of serval hundred thousand dollars. As a real estate professional in this community I would like to think and hope that we can respect homeowners views, privacy and properties and I respectfully ask the board to reconsider the current application and hinder a developer in creating such a huge loss for neighbors. I am certain there would be a way for the owners of 77 Eastview to remodel and expand without blocking the views in the living room and master bedroom of the Welters' home. The proposed deck should be revised as well. Kind Regards, Lotte Moore McGuire Real Estate Partner/Top Producer 1040 Redwood Hwy Frontage Road Mill Valley, CA 94941 To whom It may concern, My name is Tracy McLaughlin. I was the prior listing agent at 81 Eastview in Tiburon, which sold to the Welter family approximately three years ago. I was recently advised that there is a proposal for development of a 3,150 square foot residence next door, at number 77 Eastview. If approved, in my professional opinion, it would severely compromise the water and Angel Island views which are currently enjoyed from the neighboring home at 81 Eastview. If approved, the new bulk and mass of the addition would significantly alter the water views, and views of Angel Island which are an intrinsic part of the valuation of 81 Eastview. I was asked to write this letter as a matter of substantiating the potential loss in value of 81 Eastview should this neighboring home, as currently proposed, be approved. As you know, the density of the island, lack of parking, and need to drive one way around every time one comes and goes from their home/s, create inherent challenges for that particular neighborhood. The ONLY reason that people buy on Corinthian, despite these challenges, is for the views. If this project is allowed to be passed, it will severely limit the resale and future valuation of 81 Eastview as the views will be compromised. If you have any specific questions, feel free to call me on my cell at 415-699-6680. 1 am more than happy to meet with anyone to discuss in more detail or share quantitative data that will reflect the above referenced opinion on valuation. Warmly, Tracy McLaughlin I Luxury Property Specialist Pacific Union International- Christie's International Real Estate 23 Ross Common, Suite 3 / PO Box 1625, Ross, CA 94957 d. 415.464.8686 1 c. 415.699.6680 1 f. 415.464.9393 Tracy@MarinFineHomes.com DRE #01209397 EXHIBIT 6 E%H1BIT NO. I f; 13 0F 6- 1 I SURVEYOR'STA7BABC 2300ds fml auks) THIS MAP IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY MADE BY saan.ro.,..,�anrom:ssaos - - - - -- - -- I --I— -- ----,- --- -- - - ME OR UNDER MY DIRRECTION AND REPRESENTS A p 707S62t51047075027825 COMPILATION OF THE CONFLICTING SURVEYS OF ww Ichaegordim— RECORD AND NOT OF RECORD AFFECTING THE LANDS OF WELTER/RAMIREZ, 81 EAST VIEW AVE, TIBURON, boundary surreys I I CA APN 060-105-51. topographic mapping subdivision mapping THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXHIBIT IS TO DEMONSTRATE construction staking \ ' THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT SURVEY EVIDENCE OF aerial topography \ RECORD AND NOT OF RECORD TO CONCLUDE THAT a \ \ ' THE PRECISE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF THE g.i.s.base maps f SECTIONLOTS WITHIN THIS ISLAND O CANNOT BE DETERMINED WITH CERTAINTY. THE FIVE SURVEYS COMPARED ON THIS EXHIBIT, BY J FIVE DIFFERENT SURVEYORS, INDICATE THERE IS U) AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY IN THE LOCATIONS OF THE SUBJECT\ \ \ V ,� THE BASIS FOR ATHIS LADJACENT COMPARISONIS PARCELS. IS THE Q OF SURVEY FILED NOV. 4, 2016 IN BOOK 216 OF MAPS PAGE 128, MARIN COUNTY RECORDS. w Z < Lt! =a 72�� pQ� Q o >m Z Z�m LS zm O in SEET SHEET—2 SYMBOL LEGEND PREVIOUS RECORDED & UNRECORDED SURVEYS O J RECORD OF SURVEY 2016 MAPS 128 DATE .... _._... ._. ... _ 08 PLAT OF SURVEY 2 O.S. 48—A 1/27/16 RECORD OF SURVEY ---------- © RECORD OF SURVEY 9 O.S. 77 DRAWN 8Y: MSF FILED NOV. 4, 2016 AT THE MARIN COUNTY RECORDER OFFICE QD CORRECTED MAP OF CORINTHIAN CHECK BY: IN BOOK 2016 OF MAPS PAGE 128 ISLAND, 2 R.M. 106 MEF SCALE 1 = 50' ---- -- (D OJW UNRECORDED MAP OF LOTS 74 SCALE' & 75, JULY 1967 JOB 18149 1'-60' (MARIN COUNTY FREE LIBRARY) ,pg NUMBER POSITION CALCULATED FROM POINTS NOTED ON 03 9 O.S. 77 162960 �j DWG.FILE EXHIBIT IND® 2960—BNDY.DWG SHEET 1 of 2 i I �O 07 2300 helhardsdrivesWteJ 95x05 Marasa.c-f 707.5 p 701SGZ5517075421825 / vrww.mkhaeHordinc.cam �, oundaryc urveys j topographl mapping i subdlvislon mapping —40 eo nst—tion staking aerial topoomphY g.i.s.base maps Z Q V) Co _. jM __. � Mn N i v/ a > EXIST. RESIDENCEF� =Qoo FTI < M o xod � < cn cn ¢wo WzQQ fTl Zz0 y = Mo #81 EAST VIEW �a� >moZ z ---- z W a D APN 060- 105- 51 �` �zm < M MW -1 o LJ 4-0 w°° zo � —' DATE: 1/27/16 DRAWN BY: - MEF CHECKED BY: MEF ji SCALE: rffi1o' JOB NUMBER EXHIBIT NO. F162960 ILE DWG. LE SHEET 2960—BNDY 2 of 2 >' w TOWN OF TIBURON Design Review Board Meeting ° October 20, 2016 f t : 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: 2 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Planning Manager Watrous Subject: 77 East View Avenue; File Nos. DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011 ; Site Plan and Architecture Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling,with Variances for Reduced Front and Side Setbacks and Excess Building Height, and a Floor Area Exception Reviewed By: PROJECT DATA ADDRESS: 77 EAST VIEW AVENUE OWNER: CLINTON YEE APPLICANT: MICHAEL HECKMANN (ARCHITECT) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL: 060-105-92 FILE NUMBERS: DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011 LOT SIZE: 5,274 SQUARE FEET ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) FLOOD ZONE: X DATE COMPLETE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town Planning Division Staff has made a preliminary determination that this proposal would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as specified in Section 15303. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 77 East View Avenue. On the upper level, the existing great room would be expanded and converted into a living room, kitchen and dining room, along with a new two-car garage and a large deck to the rear. On the middle level, the existing living room, kitchen and dining room would be expanded and converted into a master bedroom suite, laundry room and storage, while also expanding another existing bedroom and adding a bathroom and a deck to the rear of the master bedroom. On the lower level, the TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT NO. 7, PAGE 1 OF 10 1"C'-i;n kc0cv, Gnanl \lcclin?; oc"ohcr 0.-Iolb existing master bedroom suite would be expanded and converted into two bedrooms and bathrooms, with a deck off one bedroom. Seven skylights would be installed. The lot coverage of the site would increase by 769 square feet to 1,536 square feet (29.1 which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. The floor area of the house would more than double, increasing from the current size of 1,546 square feet by 1,603 square feet to a total of 3,149 square feet (59.7%), which is greater than the 35.0% maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested. In addition, the following variances would be required for the proposed house: • The proposed house would extend to within 2 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which would be less than the 15 foot front setback required in the R-1 zone. • The proposed house would extend to within 6 feet, 3 inches of the east (right) side property line, which would be less than the 8 foot side setback required in the R-1 zone. • The height of the proposed house would be 37 feet, which is greater than the 30 foot maximum building height in the R-1 zone. A color and materials board has been submitted, and will be present at the meeting for the Board to review. The structure would be finished with off-white wood walls, with off-white and black trim. Grey asphalt shingle roofing would be installed. PROJECT SETTING AINA,(Wink of Ary �j T77 Eastview Avenue The subject property is steeply sloped, with frontage on East View Avenue above, and extends down to the portion of Alcatraz Avenue below leading to Ark Row. The site is visible from the Ark Row portion of Main Street below. TOWN OF TIBURON �yy gg ggam+�7 PAGE 2 OF 10 EXHIBA 1 d�O. C>c"iihc1-?0. l 1C. Corinthian Island is a neighborhood with very small, steeply sloped lots. The northern half of Corinthian Island lies within Tiburon, while the southern half lies within Belvedere. Due to the steep topography and small lot sizes, most, if not all, homes on Corinthian Island have either received variances or have nonconforming conditions related to setbacks, lot coverage, building height and floor area ratio. ANALYSIS Design Issues The homes on the Tiburon portion of Corinthian Island are generally small, ranging in size from 490 to 2,918 square feet. Only three homes in this area are larger than 2,500 square feet. The 3,149 square feet of floor area proposed as part of this application would make this the largest home in the immediate vicinity. Story poles have been erected for the proposed additions. The poles do not appear to indicate substantial view impacts for any homes uphill from the site, but would be most visible from the homes on either side at 75 & 81 East View Avenue. The residence at 75 East View Avenue to the west has a guest room and deck below a parking pad which has some views toward downtown Tiburon and hillsides that might be affected by the proposed additions. However, views from the primary living areas of the home which are lower on the site would not appear to be affected by the additions. The proposed additions feel very close to the home at 81 East View Avenue to the east of the site, but would not appear to affect primary views from this residence. Although the additions would comply with the required 8 foot side setback, the neighboring dwelling appears to be only about 2 feet from the side property line, resulting in a relatively narrow distance between the two buildings. The mass of the additions would most affect the windows closest to the street on both floors of the adjacent home and views to the west could be impacted for these windows, but other windows further to the rear appear to be situated beyond the line of the additions. The Design Review Board is encouraged to view the story poles from the homes at 75 & 81 East View Avenue. The proposed additions would substantially widen the existing home and would make the footprint of the house stretch across nearly the entire width of the lot. The additions would extend up to the west side setback and 1 foot, 9 inches into the east side setback. As noted above, the additions would make the house feel very close to the residence at 81 East View Avenue. In addition, stairways leading down the east side of the house would make the home feel even closer to the home at 75 East View Avenue. Due to these concerns and given the large proposed size of the house relative to other homes on Corinthian Island, Staff believes that the additions should at least be pulled back to comply with the east side setback and possibly pulled back from the west side setback to better separate the building from the home at 81 East View Avenue. Issues have been raised on other lots on Corinthian Island regarding the location of property lines, with different deeds and historical maps creating confusion over the actual property lines for individual lots. The neighboring property owners at 81 East View Avenue have raised questions about the accuracy of the property lines shown on the submitted plans and have requested that a survey be completed to determine the side property line between the two lots. A pin has been TOWN OF TIBURON2 PAGE 3 OF 10 C�cti�ber>l?;�lll6 recently installed in the street at the shared property line by the applicant's civil engineer. The Design Review Board should determine whether there is sufficient doubt over the accuracy of the submitted plans to require such a survey. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is generally not in conformance with the development standards for the R-1 zone, as variances are requested for reduced front and side setbacks and excess building height, along with a floor area exception. In order to grant the requested variances, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The subject property has a small size and steep topography by both the standards of Corinthian Island and of Tiburon as a whole. The strict application of the R-1 development standards would deprive the owners of this property of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity which have pulled homes into the front setback and exceed the maximum building height on such steep lots. However, the lot is approximately 68 feet wide in the area of the house, which exceeds the 40 foot minimum lot width required in the R-1 zone. There are no special circumstances applicable to this property that would make the strict application of the side setback requirement deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 2. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Numerous other properties on Corinthian Island have received variances for reduced setbacks and excess building height. 3. The strict application of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances.A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a Variance. The strict interpretation of the required front setback and maximum building height would result in a house that would be pushed further down the steep site and kept lower in a manner that would be inconsistent with the development pattern of other homes on Corinthian Island. The strict application of the required side setback would not substantially alter the design of the house and would not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship on the applicant. TOWN OF TIBURON _ . PAGE 4 OF 10 Dc�i��n 12e�ic�� Rnard \lcctin�; Octohcr )0, -)olb 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As noted above, the proposed project may create view impacts for the home at 81 East View Avenue. However, these view impacts would not appear to be the result of the requested reductions in front or side setbacks. Although the height of the additions could add to this concern, there are also portions of the proposed additions which would exceed the maximum building height that would not result in any impacts on neighboring homes. In order to grant the requested floor area exception, the Design Review Board must make the following findings as required by Section 16-52.020(I[4]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood. Many of the homes on Corinthian Island are visually prominent, similar to the design of the house with the proposed additions. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed structure is compatible with the physical characteristics of the site. The characteristics include, but are not limited to, shape and steepness of the lot, ease of access, and the presence of natural features worthy of retention, such as trees, rock outcroppings, stream courses and landforms. The overall design of the proposed additions would be considered to be generally compatible with the steep physical layout of the site and the limited lot size. As noted above, the additions would appear to be wider than necessary for the site and would make the house feel too close to the home at 81 East View Avenue. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances for reduced front setback and excess building height and floor area exception, but not for the side setback variance. Public Comment As of the date of this report, one letter has been received regarding the subject application from the owners of 81 East View Avenue. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board agrees with staff's conclusions, it is recommended that the application should be continued with direction to redesign the project to comply with the required side setback and address any other design concerns. If the Board can make the findings required to approve the requested side TOWN OF TIBURON _:,rH IBIT - o PAGE 5 OF 10 I`csisn F�e�iew l�i��uxl \Ici�tin� Octohc:r-'1.21116 setback variance, along with the other variances and exception, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Application and supplemental materials 3. Letter from Andrina and Ken Weller, dated September 19, 2016 4. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON Y-�T T 1 NO. � PAGE G OF 10 F. Cedric Barringer, owner and designer, said that the footprint and FAR of the design remained unchanged. He described changes to the building volume, roof height and windows. He reviewed the landscape plan and noted that a fast growing,thick screening hedge would be planted between the house and 10 Apollo Road along the entire property line. He stated that only the tops of the fixed windows would be visible above the hedge, but he agreed to grow the hedge higher if needed. He stated that this design would be less intrusive to the neighbors, respect the setbacks, and respect the privacy of all of his neighbors, and he believed that the house would add value to the neighborhood. There were no public comments. Boardmember Tollini said that the project initially started out too large and did not fit proportionally within the constraints of the lot and neighborhood and the second revision was a modest improvement. After visiting the site again, he believed that the third revision worked. He noted that there were no objections to the project, which demonstrated that the concerns were satisfied. He said that his only concern was the height of the east-facing glazing, but he noted that it would face into the center of the lot and be screened by landscaping. He felt that the architect did a great job responding to the directions of the Board, and he fully supported the project. Vice Chair Emberson stated that she also supported the project. She asked about relation of the deck height to the finished grade and Mr. Barringer said that the existing slab is 6 inches above the current grade, and after removing the deck the slab would be about 3 inches lower than the existing deck. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers. He said that the project was reasonable and his only concern was the height of the windows on the east side. He stated that the windows might have recessed lights that would be visible through the top windows. Boardmember Tollini said that the angle of the roof would not be severe enough for those lights to be seen directly. Chair Kricensky acknowledged that the lights might be far away. Vice Chair Emberson stated that the lights would not be too visible with the landscape screening. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Tollini)that the request for 8 Apollo Road is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Vote: 3-0. 2. 77 EAST VIEW AVENUE: File Nos. DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE201601 l; Clinton Yee, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front and side setbacks and excess building height, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicant proposes to construct 1,603 square feet additions to an existing three-story house, which would result in a floor area ratio of 59.7%, which is greater than the 35.0% maximum for a lot of this size. The front setback would be 2 feet, 6 inches in lieu of the minimum 15 feet. The east side setback would be 6 feet, 3 inches in lieu of the minimum 8 feet. The house would be 37 feet tall, in lieu of the maximum building height of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 060-105-92. EXHIBIT NO. 3- TIBURON D.R.B.MINUTES#17 10/20/16 2 The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 77 East View Avenue. On the upper level, the existing great room would be expanded and converted into a living room, kitchen and dining room, along with a new two-car garage and a large deck to the rear. On the middle level, the existing living room, kitchen and dining room would be expanded and converted into a master bedroom suite, laundry room and storage, while also expanding another existing bedroom and adding a bathroom and a deck to the rear of the master bedroom. On the lower level, the existing master bedroom suite would be expanded and converted into two bedrooms and bathrooms, with a deck off one bedroom. Seven skylights would be installed. The lot coverage of the site would increase by 769 square feet to 1,536 square feet (29.1%), which is less than the 30.0%maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. The floor area of the house would more than double, increasing from the current size of 1,546 square feet by 1,603 square feet to a total of 3,149 square feet (59.7%), which is greater than the 35.0% maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore requested. In addition, the following variances would be required for the proposed house: • The proposed house would extend to within 2 feet, 6 inches of the front property line, which would be less than the 15 foot front setback required in the R-1 zone. • The proposed house would extend to within 6 feet, 3 inches of the east (right) side property line, which would be less than the 8 foot side setback required in the R-1 zone. • The height of the proposed house would be 37 feet, which is greater than the 30 foot maximum building height in the R-1 zone. Michael Heckmann, architect, Described the project and said that they started with a design concept that was meant to be a clean, uncluttered, traditional style and would capture views toward Angel Island. He said that the project would not obstruct the views from neighboring homes. He believed that they have responded positively to any issues between neighbors. He said that there would be a sizable distance between the buildings, which would be a reasonable distance between houses on this street given the predominant development pattern in the vicinity. He stated that the neighbors' views that would be impacted are not from primary living spaces, but were views across a mostly vacant lot. He presented photographs of the various properties that are impacted and he stated that the critical views of all of these properties would be preserved. He noted the floor area ratios of many houses in the neighborhood are similar to what was proposed, with some lower and some higher. He said that he communicated with the owners of 81 and 75 East View Avenue, but only met with the Welters yesterday due to their travel schedule. He said that they were respectful of the neighbors and that their views and privacy would be preserved by this design. Vice Chair Emberson said that the location of the wood deck for the home at 81 East View Avenue is on the property and she felt that that raised questions about the location of the TIBURON D.R.B.MINUTES#17 EXHIBIT NO, .E 10/20/16 3 property line is. She asked to see a certified copy of the survey. Mr. Heckmann said that a boundary survey was recorded with the County, and he shared the content of what was filed. Boardmember Tollini asked if the topography was extracted from the survey. Mr. Heckmann said that all of the design was done with information from the survey and all of the boundary lines matched what was filed with the county. The public hearing was opened. Ken Welter said that they were not aware of any filing of the boundary survey with the county. He said that his home was built on the same footprint as it was originally constructed. He characterized the project design as a large mass, vertical, and plain. He said that the middle level of their house is their main living area which includes their kitchen, dining, and living room. He displayed photographs showing how much of the view would be blocked by the project from various rooms. He said that they were disputing the boundary on the survey and stated that the original boundary was respected for 50 years. He said that the landscaping is completely overgrown and they have not seen a proposal for landscaping other than removing trees. He felt that the house would be too large for the neighborhood. He said that the story poles did not appear to be accurate or detailed enough. IIe said that he spoke with Mr. Heckmann about moving the house toward the street to reduce impacts. Andrea Welter said that they have big concerns over the project, including losing views. She said that the house would double in size and add a garage and would look monstrous on the hillside. She said that they would like a home that did not feel like it was on top of theirs and more in keeping with the size of other homes in the area. She said that they would like to get another opinion from another surveyor and she was concerned that the project was basing the setback and including part of their floor area based on this other survey. Ulrik Binzer stated that they went through a similar situation with the house at 85 East View Avenue and he thought that it would be prudent to take some time now to explore issues regarding the survey. He stated that the house design seemed plain and would not terrace in accordance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. He suggested using the space closer to the road for expansion rather than pushing the house out into neighbors' views. David Sparks said that he purchased a home designed by a renowned architect, with multiple levels and it is relatively small. He said that it was very important to carefully consider the impact of anything to be built in the neighborhood that would destroy the area and compromise views. He felt that the existing home needed to be renovated, but these issues need to be addressed in a way that would respect and enhance the existing neighborhood. Mr. Heckmann stated that he believed that the house design was well articulated and would be a nice, straightforward home with traditional themes. He believed that that this would be a great asset to the neighborhood. He described discussions with the Welters regarding surveys and topographic maps. He stated that no view corridors have been recorded across this site and said that the views that would be blocked from the Welters' house were secondary rooms and they would preserve views from the primary rooms. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#17 4 10/20/16 EXHIBIT NO. � Vice Chair Emberson said she did not see a story pole that matched the main ridgeline and asked whether the story poles were correct. Mr. Heckmann said that they could add a story pole showing the ridge. He stated that several trees would be removed, which would help the neighbors' views. The public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Emberson pointed out that this would be the biggest house in the neighborhood on one of the largest lots, and that the other large lot has a 2,800 square foot house. She believed that the house would be too big for the lot and she is worried that the recorded map was different than the survey. She said that she could not possibly make an informed decision without knowing the property boundaries. She believed that the house would be too big for the lot, too big for the neighborhood, and she characterized the east elevation of the design as underwhelming. Boardmember Tollini agreed with Vice Chair Emberson. He stated that he visited the house at 75 East View Avenue. He said that the views that would be impacted for the home at 81 East View Avenue were primarily secondary views from bedrooms, but he felt that the project was too impactful. He said that the project felt too close to the home at 81 East View Avenue. He said that the western windows would resemble a light well. He stated that the house would be very wide and inconsistent with the pattern of development for the neighborhood of narrower homes. He said that additional floor area was requested to make the house wider and if more area was needed it should step down the hillside. He said that the privacy of the master bedroom at 81 East View Avenue would also be significantly impacted by the proposed deck and any deck at that level needed to be on the eastern side of the property. He said that it would be great if the neighbors could agree on the facts of the surveys. He said that this larger lot should not have such a disproportionately high floor area exception. Chair Kricensky agreed with the other Boardmembers. He stated that the structure had to be wide to avoid building down the hillside and blocking views, but because it would be so wide, it would appear massive. He did not believe that the Board would even consider encroaching on the setback with a lot this size. He said that there needed to be more breathing space between the homes. He said that the use of the deck would not be compatible with the neighbors' bedroom. He suggested moving the house back towards the road, but understood that engineering it might not be feasible. He suggested making the house narrower and giving the applicant time to talk with their neighbors and see their rooms. He said that there has to be some give and take, and the house could be expanded to some extent. Boardmember Tollini said that it was reasonable to expect some redevelopment of the property and some impacts, and he did not think there were borrowed views, but he felt that the proposed project was not close to being acceptable. ACTION: It was M/S (Tollini/Emberson)to continue the application for 77 East View Avenue to the December 1, 2016 meeting. Vote: 3-0. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#I7 EXHI TJ 10/20/16 _ 5 .�� TOWN OF TIBURON Design Review Board Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard December I, 2016 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: 1 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Community Development Department Subject: 77 East View Avenue; File Nos. DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011 ; Site Plan and Architecture Review for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling,with Variances for Reduced Front Setback and Excess Building Height, and a Floor Area Exception (Continued from October 20, 2016) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 77 East View Avenue. The application was first reviewed at the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, neighboring residents at 75 & 81 East View Avenue raised concerns about view and privacy impacts from the proposed additions and the overall mass of the project. The Design Review Board shared these concerns, stating that the house was too large and too wide, and would have privacy impacts on the home at 81 East View Avenue. The Board continued the application to the December 1, 2016 meeting. The applicant has submitted revised plans for the project. The width of the house would be narrowed by I foot, 10 inches and would now comply with both side setbacks. The roof over the proposed garage has been changed to a flat design. The upper level deck off the living room has been shortened by 2 feet, 6 inches, and the railing has been changed from a solid wood design to a glass railing. Additional screening landscaping has been proposed around the house, although this vegetation has not been reviewed by the Tiburon Fire Protection District for compliance with their vegetation management standards. Minor changes have been made to all three floors of the house. A total of 95 square feet has been removed from the upper level, 77 square feet from the middle level and 35 square feet from the lower level. The total floor area of the house has been reduced 242 square feet to a new proposed total of 2,942 square feet (55.8%), which is greater than the 35.0% maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore still requested. The lot coverage of the site would increase by 804 square feet to 1,536 square feet (29.1%), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Variances would still be required for reduced front setback and excess building height, as the proposed front setback and building height have not changed. The additions would now comply with the side setbacks and a variance is no longer required for reduced side setback. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHI IT N®. I JFPAGE 1 OF 6 lloit d \farm", Pcccll hci i._'016 ANALYSIS Design Issues The proposed changes to the project design appear to generally respond to the direction given by the Design Review Board at the October 20, 2016 meeting. The width of the house has been reduced, with the additions pulled out of both side setbacks and slightly further from both nearby homes, although the 1 foot, 10 inch reduction would be relatively modest. The smaller upper deck would somewhat lessen, but not eliminate, the potential privacy_impacts for the adjacent home, but the substitution of a glass guardrail would somewhat offset this effect. The flat roof over the garage would reduce the visual mass of the building when viewed from the street. The Design Review Board should view the revised story poles from the homes at 75 & 81 East View Avenue. The Board should then review the revised project design to determine if the changes made are sufficient to address the concerns raised at the previous meeting. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is generally not in conformance with the development standards for the R-1 zone, as variances are requested for reduced front setback and excess building height, along with a floor area exception. In the October 20, 2016 staff report, staff determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances for reduced front setback and excess building height and floor area exception, but not for the side setback variance. The side setback variance is no longer required. Public Comment As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application since the October 26, 2016 Design Review Board meeting. RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board wishes to approve the application, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Supplemental application materials 3. Design Review Board staff report dated October 20, 2016 4. Minutes of the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting 5. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous,Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON ` PAGE 2 OF 6 MINUTES #19 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 2016 The meeting was opened at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Kricensky. A. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Kricensky, Vice Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Cousins and Tollini Absent: None Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS -None C. STAFF BRIEFING Planning Manager Watrous stated that the item for 23 Mercury Avenue was continued to the January 19, 2017 meeting and that the item for 484 Washington Court item was also continued to the January 19, 2017 meeting, not the December 15, 2016 meeting. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Boardmember Chong recused himself from the following item. 1. 77 EAST VIEW AVENUE: File Nos. DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE201601 l; Clinton Yee, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front setback and excess building height, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicant proposes to construct 1,361 square feet of additions to an existing three-story house, which would result in a floor area ratio of 55.8%, which is greater than the 35.0% maximum for a lot of this size. The front setback would be 2 feet, 6 inches in lieu of the minimum 15 feet. The house would be 37 feet tall, in lieu of the maximum building height of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 060-105-92. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 77 East View Avenue. The application was first reviewed at the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, neighboring residents at 75 & 81 East View Avenue raised concerns about view and privacy impacts from the proposed additions and the overall mass of the project. The Design Review Board shared these concerns, stating that the house was too large and too wide, and would have privacy impacts on the home at 81 East View Avenue. The Board continued the application to the December 1, 2016 meeting. TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 EXHIBITNO. 12/1/16 1 The applicant has submitted revised plans for the project. The width of the house would be narrowed by 1 foot, 10 inches and would now comply with both side setbacks. The roof over the proposed garage has been changed to a flat design. The upper level deck off the living room has been shortened by 2 feet, 6 inches, and the railing has been changed from a solid wood design to a glass railing. Additional screening landscaping has been proposed around the house, although this vegetation has not been reviewed by the Tiburon Fire Protection District for compliance with their vegetation management standards. Minor changes have been made to all three floors of the house. A total of 95 square feet has been removed from the upper level, 77 square feet from the middle level and 35 square feet from the lower level. The total floor area of the house has been reduced 242 square feet to a new proposed total of 2,942 square feet (55.8°/x), which is greater than the 35.0% maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore still requested. The lot coverage of the site would increase by 804 square feet to 1,536 square feet (29.1%), which is less than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone. Variances would still be required for reduced front setback and excess building height, as the proposed front setback and building height have not changed. The additions would now comply with the side setbacks and a variance is no longer required for reduced side setback. Michael Heckmann, architect, detailed the revisions that were made based on comments from the neighbors and the DRB at the last meeting. He said that they revised the story poles and met with neighbors and after that meeting they adjusted the story poles a second time. He stated that he met with the Welters' attorney to review the final changes, and a list of those changes was provided to the DRB. Mr. Heckmann stated that the north garage wall was moved one foot to the south and the entire garage was shifted three feet toward the street. He said that the garage roof was changed and would now be a flat roof to open up as much as possible to the Welter property. He said that they reduced the width of the deck to only three feet so that it would not be useable for seating. He said that the main southeast dining deck was widened one foot to compensate for the loss of the living room deck size. He said that in order to create a terraced profile as recommended by the Hillside Design Guidelines, they shifted the middle bedroom toward the street, and the lower level closet and bedroom were set back. He said that their structural engineer reviewed the project and as a result they decided to offset the main stairs at the middle level, which reduced the height and eliminated the 18 foot wall and terraced the stairways. He said that the master bedroom below was also shifted toward the east to accommodate this new stairway. He stated that the south walls no longer require a setback variance and have been shifted away from the property line. He said that they indicated new landscaping on the plan showing vegetation on all three sides of the building. Mr. Heckmann stated that the Welters bought a house with panoramic views and the view across this property is only a small part of that view. He stated the portion of their view across the property is "borrowed" and can be expected to change due to development of the property. He said that their views that would be affected are not from primary living areas and the views of those rooms are not as critical. He stated that the Welter-house is three stories tall all the way to the street and view would only be affected from one room. He felt that the Welters should take some responsibility for protecting their privacy, and suggested that that can be done with window TIBURON D.R.B.MINUTES#I9 EXHIBIT NO. ]2/1/16 2 coverings. He stated that the Welter home is located six feet into the side setback and there is no evidence of an approved variance for this encroachment. He felt that they should acknowledge that the nonconforming building location is something they purchased with the house, and that that the current project should not suffer because of it. He stated that his client should be able to enjoy the same rights as other houses in the area. He stated that the Welter house has a floor area ratio of 66%. He stated that the survey is accurate and has been reviewed by the assessor recorder's office and he believed that anything to the contrary that was brought up by the Welters or their attorney had no basis. He stated that they modified the project extensively based on the Board's comments and those of the neighbors, and hoped that the Board will approve the project. Vice Chair Emberson asked Mr. Heckmann if he had a certified copy of the survey that is on file with the County. Mr. Heckmann handed her a copy of the survey with the certification stamp and said it was recorded with the County on November 7, 2016. Chair Kricensky asked for clarification of story poles for the living room and deck. Mr. Heckmann discussed the poles and noted that the story pole for the deck railing was set at the height of a privacy wall that is no longer part of the design. Boardmember Tollim asked if the plan reflected the measurements in the certified survey. Mr. Heckmann said that they created a perfect reproduction of the boundaries from that survey in the plans. The public hearing was opened. Chris Skelton, attorney for the Welters, said that they have engaged a surveyor to survey their property and expect this to be ready in January. He requested a continuance to the January 19, 2017 meeting to reconcile this difference. He stated that the applicant had agreed to have the story poles certified by a surveyor, but that did not happen. He said that the story poles did not line up and they felt that they did not have the information to make an informed decision. Andrina Welter said they live next door to the property and requested that the Board deny this application. She stated that the materials were inconsistent, that the applicant did not listen to the Board or the neighbors and the changes made to the plans were very small. She said that the home appeared to be larger and taller in certain areas according to the story poles. She felt that the house would be too big for the lot with no new articulation on the eastern elevation. She said that the building would be too close to their home and would create a light well effect. She said that there were no adjustments to the width of the house or to step it down the hillside, and the decks were made only two feet smaller. She displayed photos of the views of the story poles from their home, and noted that the poles were inaccurate and had risen. She believed that the floor area calculation was inaccurate and she displayed the numbers they calculated which were different from the numbers presented in the plans. She displayed photos showing the impact of the garage. She felt that the design had not changed enough and would still be extremely impactful. David Sparks said he lives on the other side of the proposed project. He felt that the project was really about equity. He stated that his home has many levels in order to adhere to the Hillside Design Guidelines and they asked for the same consideration with the current project. He believed TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 EXHIBIT NO. J 12/1/16 3 that if they proposed a similar structure as the proposed project it would be met with the same resistance. Iie said that they could accept the project if it adhered to the same principles as other homes in the neighborhood have done. Mr. Heckmann said that it was obvious that the neighbors' interest was only in delaying the project. He said that this is a larger property and should be allowed to be developed in an appropriate fashion. He felt that the encroachment of the Welter house into the setback should not limit what they are allowed to build on their property. He felt that the project should not be delayed for six weeks because the neighbors did not engage a surveyor until just now. He believed that the Board had everything needed to approve the project tonight. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Tollini said that although he could see both sides, his remarks from the prior meeting still stand. He did not believe that the proposed project was close to being acceptable. He said that the changes were insubstantial, although the flat roof on the garage was helpful. He said that the house would create a light well situation for the adjacent neighbor. He said that the deck immediately outside the bedroom window was still too close because a neighboring master suite has an expectation of privacy and the glass railing might exacerbate that. He acknowledged that the Welter home is a similar version of this property with nonconforming issues, which creates a valid constraint and is part of what makes this a challenging site. He thought that the project was still too impactful and not enough was done to the width of the home. He said that the east elevation was too massive compared to other homes on the hillside. Vice Chair Emberson said that her views were similar to those of Boardmember Tollini that not enough was done to reduce the size of the house. She said that the fact that the Welters' house did not comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines did not mean that this house did not have to as well. She said that she wanted to see more articulation, more stepping, and more done to break up the mass of the home. She said that she was not as concerned about the glass railings, but was concerned about the survey. She said that she would like to see the story poles certified because the poles were difficult to reconcile with the plans. She said that the house would look huge when viewed from below and would be very impactful and should be scaled back. She said that there enough issues with the boundaries that she would like to see the Welters' survey before making a decision. She also recommended scaling the house back instead of building it completely to the setbacks. She said that the house was not nearly close enough to being approvable. Boardmember Tollini commented that the deck and glass railing would affect the perceived privacy of the neighbor's master- suite, if not their actual privacy. Boardmember Cousins said that the existing house is very iconic and typical of Corinthian Island and he was disappointed to see it go, but it was more disappointing that what was being proposed would be so bland and large. He said that the project felt like more house than would be expected on a tight site. He said that he would like more articulation to the design to make it much more interesting and break up the mass of the building. He said that the house would be 50 feet wide and all of the bathrooms and the closet would have a window to the outside. He said that the house would be very close to the home at 81 East View Avenue and that the large lot allowed flexibility TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 EXHIBIT NO. �5 12/1/16 4 dealing with homes on neighboring lots. He believed that there should perhaps be 16 feet between the buildings, not 10 feet. Boardmember Tollini agreed with that comment. Chair Kricensky stated that the survey did not answer the question about whether the boundary line is in the right location in relation to the house. He said that there were discrepancies in the story poles and that the survey did not site the structure correctly on the lot. He agreed with the comments of Boardmember Tollini and Vice Chair Emberson and stated that since the lot is the largest in the neighborhood the house did not need to maximize its floor area. He said that it would be a start to step the house down the hillside, but he felt that more needed to be done to comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Boardmember Tollini contrasted the house design with the structure recently approved for 85 East View Avenue where the lower floors were excavated much further into the hillside. He said that he did not have an issue with the floor area ratio or lot coverage numbers, but felt that the percentages should decrease as the lot size increases. He suggested that the house appears larger because it would not be excavated enough into the hillside and could be made less impactful with more excavation. Vice Chair Emberson agreed. ACTION: It was M/S (Emberson/Cousins) to continue the application for 77 East View Avenue to the January 19, 2017 meeting. Vote: 4-0-1 (Chong recused). Boardmember Chong returned to the meeting. 2. 484 WASHINGTON COURT: File Nos. DR2016128/VAR2016041; Karla Rivera and Ernie Cervantes, Owners; Site Plan and Architecture Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess fence height. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,269 square feet, and its lot coverage would be 2,480 square feet (28.3%). A portion of a new fence would be 8 feet tall, which is greater than the maximum fence height of 6 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-251-28. CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15 2016 E. ACTION ITEMS 3. 150 AVENIDA MIRAFLORES: File Nos. TREE201600I/TREE2016017; Edwin and Nancy Clock, Owners/Applicants/Appellants; Firuze Hariri, Applicant; Consider Adoption of Resolutions Denying Appeal of Planning staff approval of Tree Permit to permit the removal of one (1) Italian Stone Pine Tree and one (1) Cajeput tree, and appeal of Planning staff denial of Tree Permit to permit the after-the-fact planting of one (1) Italian Stone Pine Tree, one (1) Cajeput Tree, one (1) Cotoneaster Tree and one (1) Privet Tree; Assessor's Parcel Number: 039-111-09. Following a public hearing and discussion at its November 3, 2016 regular meeting, the Design Review Board directed to staff to prepare draft resolutions denying appeals of an approved tree permit (File No. TREE2016001) to permit the removal of one (1) Italian Stone Pine tree and one (1) Cajeput tree on Town of Tiburon right-of-way adjacent to property located at 150 Avenida Miraflores and a denied tree permit (File No. TREE2016017)to permit the after-the-fact planting TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#19 EXHIBIT NO. 12/1/16 5 TOWN OF TIBURON Design Review Board Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard January 19, 2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: 1 STAFF O . To: Members of the Design Review Board From: Community Development Department Subject: 77 East View Avenue; File Nos. DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR201603.5 & FAE2016011 ; Site Plan and Architecture Review for Construction of a New Single-Family Dwelling,with Variances for Reduced Front Setback, Excess Lot Coverage and Excess Building Height, and a Floor Area Exception (Continued from December 1, 2016) BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 77 East View Avenue. The application was first reviewed at the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, neighboring residents at 75 & 81 East View Avenue raised concerns about view and privacy impacts from the proposed additions and the overall mass of the project. The Design Review Board shared these concerns, stating that the house was too large and too wide, and would have privacy impacts on the home at 81 East View Avenue. The Board continued the application to the December 1, 2016 meeting. The applicant subsequently submitted revised plans for the project. The width of the house was narrowed by 1 foot, 10 inches to comply with both side setbacks. The roof over the proposed garage was changed to a flat design. The upper level deck off the living room was shortened by 2 feet, 6 inches, and the railing was changed from a solid wood design to a glass railing. Minor changes to all three floors of the house removed a total of 95 square feet from the upper level, 77 square feet from the middle level and 35 square feet from the lower level. The total floor area of the house was reduced 242 square feet to a total of 2,942 square feet (55.8%), which necessitated a floor area exception. The lot coverage of the site would have increased by 804 square feet to 1,536 square feet (29.1%). Variances were still required for reduced front setback and excess building height, as the proposed front setback and building height were unchanged. The additions complied with the side setbacks and a variance was no longer required for reduced side setback. The revised project design was reviewed at the December 1, 2016 Design Review Board meeting. At that meeting, neighboring residents at 75 & 81 East View Avenue again raised concerns about the project design and questions about the site survey. The Design Review Board determined that not enough had been done to reduce the size of the house and requested more articulation to the design and better compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. The Board continued the application to the January 19, 2017 meeting. EXHIBIT TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 8 tV�i;n Re icy\\ i>a rd \lming Revised plans have now been submitted for the project. The north wall of the house has been moved 2 feet further from the home at 81 East View Avenue, resulting in a side setback of 11 feet. The living room deck has been eliminated, but the dining room deck has been extended out 2 feet. The ceiling heights in the middle and lower levels have been increased to 9'1". The exterior of the lower level has been revised to a stone veneer finish and the color of the upper two floors would be a deeper earth tone. Seven (7) new skylights are now proposed. The modifications would now result in demolition of more than 50% of the existing structure; therefore, the application is now classified as construction of a new single-family dwelling. The total floor area of the house has been reduced an additional 150 square feet to a new proposed total of 2,792 square feet (52.9%), which is greater than the 35.0% maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore still requested. The lot coverage of the site would increase by 96 additional square feet to 1,632 square feet (30.9%), which is now greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone and necessitates a variance for excess lot coverage. Variances would still be required for reduced front setback and excess building height, as the proposed front setback and building height have not changed. ANALYSIS Design Issues The proposed changes to the project design appear to generally respond to the direction given by the Design Review Board at the December 1, 2016 meeting. The width and floor area of the house have been further reduced and the house would be placed further from the side property line facing 81 East View Avenue. The elimination of the living room deck would eliminate the potential privacy impacts for the adjacent home. The changes in building materials would help lessen the visual mass of the building. The Design Review Board should view the revised story poles from the homes at 75 & 81 East View Avenue. The Board should then review the revised project design to determine if the changes made are sufficient to address the concerns raised at the previous meeting. In response to questions about the location of property lines, the applicant has submitted a copy of the record of survey prepared by ILS Associates, Inc. A copy of the survey is attached. Zoning Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that it is generally not in conformance with the development standards for the R-I zone, as variances are requested for reduced front setback and excess building height, along with a floor area exception. In the October 20, 2016 staff report, staff determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variances for reduced front setback and excess building height and floor area exception, but not for the side setback variance. The side setback variance is no longer required. The findings for a lot coverage variance were not analyzed in the previous report. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 8 Dcsi(7n Roti C\\ 1'>oard \lccumn) January 19,2017 In order to grant the requested lot coverage variance, the Board must make all of the following findings required by Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of this Ordinance will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same or similar zones. The subject property has a small size and steep topography by both the standards of Corinthian Island and of Tiburon as a whole. The strict application of the R-1 lot coverage standards would deprive the owners of this property of development privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity which have homes that also exceed lot coverage requirements on similarly small and steep lots. 2. The Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same or substantially the same zone. Numerous other properties on Corinthian Island have received variances for excess lot coverage. 3. The strict application of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship. Self-created hardships may not be considered among the factors that might constitute special circumstances.A self-created hardship results from actions taken by present or prior owners of the property that consciously create the very difficulties or hardships claimed as the basis for an application for a Variance. The strict interpretation of the maximum lot coverage requirement would result in a house that does not step down the hill and would be pushed into a more vertical design that would be inconsistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines. The strict application of the maximum lot coverage requirement would not therefore result in a practical difficulty on the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity. As noted above, the revised project design would not appear to create substantial view or privacy impacts on other properties in the vicinity. From the evidence provided, Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings for the requested variance. Public Comment As of the date of this report, no letters have been received regarding the subject application since the December 1, 2016 Design Review Board meeting. TOWN OF TIBURON EX IBIT 1V a PAGE 3 OF 8 Dc,iar: Review lloa d \lccrin 7 RECOMMENDATION The Design Review Board should review this project with respect to Zoning Ordinance Sections 16-52.020 (H) (Guiding Principles) and determine that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as specified in Section 15303. If the Board wishes to approve the application, it is recommended that the attached conditions of approval be applied. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of approval 2. Supplemental application materials 3. Design Review Board staff report dated October 20, 2016 4. Design Review Board staff report dated December 1, 2016 5. Minutes of the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting 6. Minutes of the December 1, 2016 Design Review Board meeting 7. Letter from ILS Associates, Inc., dated November 10, 2016 8. Submitted plans Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous,Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 8 EXHIBITNO. Deign Rcv ieN� I,nard Mccnn�� 1a111,mr\ 19,? I, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 77 EAST VIEW AVENUE FILE 4 DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011 (AS AMENDED AT THE JANUARY 19, 2017 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING) 1. This approval shall be used within three (3) years of the approval date, and shall become null and void unless a building permit has been issued. 2. Construction shall conform with the application dated by the Town of Tiburon on August 4, 2016, or as amended by these conditions of approval. Any modifications to the plans of January 4, 2017 must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Project elements shown on construction drawings submitted to the Building Division for plan check shall be essentially identical to those project elements shown on drawings approved by the Design Review Board. The permit holder is responsible for clearly identifying on construction drawings any and all changes to project elements. Such changes must be clearly highlighted (with a"bubble" or"cloud") on the construction drawings. A list describing in detail all such changes shall be submitted and attached to the construction drawings, with a signature block to be signed by the Planning Division Staff member indicating whether these changes have been reviewed and are approved, or will require additional Design Review approval. All such changes that have not been explicitly approved by the Town are not"deemed approved" if not highlighted and listed on construction drawings. Construction of any such unapproved project elements is in violation of permit approvals and shall be subject to Stop Work Orders and removal. 4. The applicant must meet all requirements of other agencies prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 5. All exterior lighting fixtures other than those approved by the Design Review Board must be down-light-type fixtures. 6. All skylights shall be bronzed or tinted in a non-reflective manner (minimum 25%) and no lights shall be placed in the wells. 7. If this approval is challenged by a third party, the property owner/applicant will be responsible for defending against this challenge. The property owner/applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the Town of Tiburon harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitations, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. 8. A construction sign shall be posted on the site during construction of the project, in a location plainly visible to the public. The sign shall be 24" x 24" in size and shall be made TOWN OF TIBURON r W PAGE 5 OF 8 of durable, weather-resistant materials intended to survive the life of the construction period. The sign shall contain the following information:job street address; work hours allowed per Chapter 13 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; builder (company name, city, state, ZIP code); project manager (name and phone number); and emergency contact (name and phone number reachable at all times). The sign shall be posted at the commencement of work and shall remain posted until the contractor has vacated the site 9. A copy of the Planning Division's "Notice of Action" including the attached "Conditions of Approval" for this project shall be copied onto a plan sheet at the beginning of the plan set(s) submitted for building permits. 10. Prior to issuing a grading or building permit the applicant shall implement measures for site design, source control, run-off reduction and stormwater treatment as found in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual available at the Planning Division or online at the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) website at www.mestoppp.org. 11. All requirements of the Town Engineer shall be met, including, but not limited to, the following, which shall be noted on building plan check plans: a. The site must provide at least one Post Construction mitigation in accordance with E.12 of the Town's Municipal Stormwater Permit and the BASMAA Post-Construction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. Prior to building permit issuance complete the Project Data Form indicating which runoff reduction measure will be used and delineate the areas and locations of runoff reduction measures on a site plan. b. A detailed construction management plan shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance and shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. The maximum limit of road closures during construction shall be 18 days for the duration of the project in accordance with the amount specified in the preliminary construction management plan. C. An Encroachment Permit from DPW is required for any work within the Town's road right-of-way, including, but not limited to, utility trenching, installation of new utility connections, and modifications to the driveway apron. The plans shall clearly identify all proposed work in the right of way and an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained prior to conducting such work. If no work is proposed within the public right-of-way this comment may be disregarded. d. Prior to building permit issuance specify on the building permit plan set the total volume of displaced earth (cut and fill). e. Prior to building permit issuance an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted as part of the plan set. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE G OF 8 E HI IT NO. Dcl-i(-111Rcvi(°vy kolti-d \lccting Jana; r, I"), ()l f. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall complete the Construction Erosion and Sediment Control Applicant Package that can be found on the Town's website. g. Prior to building permit issuance provide a geotechnical report prepared by a licensed soils engineer. h. Plans, reports, calculations and other relevant project files shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department for impacts to the public right-of-way prior to building permit issuance. i. Prior to building permit final all damage to the streets that result from the subject construction activities shall be restored by applicant/developer. Inspections by the Public Works Department shall take place prior construction, during construction and prior to final to identify extent of restoration and to ensure its adequacy. 12. The final landscape and irrigation plans must comply with the current water efficient landscape requirements of MMWD. 13. The project shall comply with the requirements of the California Fire Code and the Tiburon Fire Protection District, including, but not limited to, the following: a. The structure shall have installed throughout an automatic fire sprinkler system. The system design, installation and final testing shall be approved by the District Fire Prevention Officer. CFC 903.2 b. Access shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. CFC 503.1.1 C. Approved smoke alarms shall be installed to provide protection to all sleeping areas. CFC 907.2.10 d. The vegetation on this parcel shall comply with the requirements of TFPD and the recommendations of Fire Safe Marin. This may require landscape stairs around the exterior of the structure. CFC 304.1.2 e. East View Avenue is an existing nonconforming street that is not wide enough to meet current Fire District standards. As the street is unlikely to be widened, an alternate means of protection shall be provided, subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshal. 14. The project shall comply with all requirements of Sanitary District No. 5. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 8 Pc;ign P Kiev, Iw.nd Mccli ins, Jan�.t;u, ly,2.(117 15. A construction staging plan shall be approved by the Building Official and Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit for this project. The staging plan shall include the following information: a. Staging areas and means of construction during the various stages of the projects. b. Indicate the impacts to the roadway. C. Specify which street frontages will be affected, if any, and whether traffic in Belvedere will be affected. If street frontages will be affected by construction activities, staging or parking,provide traffic control plans and the expected frequency of road closures. d. Expected project duration and preliminary construction schedule. e. Specify whether East View Avenue will be closed during the demolition and re- construction of the retaining wall and means of retaining the soil and street during construction. The maximum limit of road closures is 5 days for the duration of the project in accordance with the amount specified in the construction management plan. Road closures shall not conflict with garbage pickup days or street sweeping days. Work within the public right of way,including road closures, shall not be permitted on weekends. f. Specify the expected frequency and quantity of dump truck trips for the various stages of the project. g. Specify what heavy equipment will be utilized at the various stages of the projects and its expected location and duration of use. 16. The upper level shall be reduced in width by two feet (2') by pulling the house back on the north side of the building. TOWN OF TIBURON EXHIBIT�BI`s" O, ��, PAGE 8 OF 8 i.,_> lid �!% MINUTES #1 TIBURON DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2017 The meeting was opened at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chair Emberson. A. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Emberson, Boardmembers Chong, Cousins and Tollini Absent: Chair Kricensky Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner O'Malley and Minutes Clerk Rusting B. PUBLIC COMMENTS -None C. STAFF BRIEFING - None D. PUBLIC HEARINGS Boardmember Chong recused himself from the following item. 1. 77 EAST VIEW AVENUE: File Nos. DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011; Clinton Yee, Owner; Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with Variances for reduced front setback, excess lot coverage and excess building height, and a Floor Area Exception. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,792 square foot, three-story house, which would result in a floor area ratio of 52.9%, which is greater than the 35.0% maximum for a lot of this size. The front setback would be 2 feet, 6 inches in lieu of the minimum 15 feet. The lot coverage would be 1,632 square feet (30.9%), which is greater than the 30.0% maximum. The house would be 37 feet tall, in lieu of the maximum building height of 30 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 060-105-92. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of additions to an existing three-story single-family dwelling on property located at 77 East View Avenue. The application was first reviewed at the October 20, 2016 Design Review Board meeting and again at the December 1, 2016 Design Review Board meeting. At the most recent meeting, neighboring residents at 75 & 81 East View Avenue again raised concerns about the project design and questions about the site survey. The Design Review Board determined that not enough had been done to reduce the size of the house and requested more articulation to the design and better compliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines. The Board continued the application to the January 19, 2017 meeting. Revised plans have now been submitted for the project. The north wall of the house has been moved 2 feet further from the home at 81 East View Avenue, resulting in a side setback of 11 TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#1 EXHIBIT NO. "77 1/19/17 1 feet. The living room deck has been eliminated, but the dining room deck has been extended out 2 feet. The ceiling heights in the middle and lower levels have been increased to 9'1". The exterior of the lower level has been revised to a stone veneer finish and the color of the upper two floors would be a deeper earth tone. Seven (7) new skylights are now proposed. The modifications would now result in demolition of more than 50% of the existing structure; therefore, the application is now classified as construction of a new single-family dwelling. The total floor area of the house has been reduced an additional 150 square feet to a new proposed total of 2,792 square feet (52.9%), which is greater than the 35.0% maximum floor area permitted for a lot of this size. A floor area exception is therefore still requested. The lot coverage of the site would increase by 96 additional square feet to 1,632 square feet (30.9%), which is now greater than the 30.0% maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-1 zone and necessitates a variance for excess lot coverage. Variances would still be required for reduced front setback and excess building height, as the proposed front setback and building height have not changed. Michael Heckmann, architect, said that they provided landscaping for all three relevant elevations, a three-dimensional rendering and had made revisions based on the neighbor's comments and the issues raised by the Board. He stated that he met with the Welters' attorney and they reviewed a variety of elements. Mr. Heckmann stated that the room sizes would not be functional if the upper was reduced floor too much. He stated that the proposed balcony would be 140 square feet and situated far from the Welter residence, and would be about half of the size of the Welter's deck. He stated that in a residential neighborhood neighbors sometimes see each other and that is to be expected. He said that they eliminated the living room deck and pushed the east end of the living room toward the street. He thought that there was an excessive amount of focus on a sliver of a side water view across the property from the Welter home. He stated that removing overgrown trees on the east side of the property would improve the view from the Welters' home. He compared the project to the recent approval at 85 East View Avenue and the Welters' home, both of which are larger and taller than their proposal. Mr. Heckmann stated their project would now nestle into the buildable portion of the property and have generous setbacks. He said that they also propose to remove sizeable trees between the properties that would provide more access to year-round daylight than the Welters have had before. He stated that the majority of their development would be below grade and that the landscaping would help obscure most of the lower level. He stated that the project adhered to the Hillside Design Guidelines by stepping down the hill, which would provide visual interest and they also changed the exterior finishes to warmer earth tones. He said that there were no recent objections from the Welters or their attorney about the survey, and he believed that is no longer a consideration. He stated that the home at 81 East View Avenue does not comply with several guidelines, and yet the neighbors used those same issues to critique the current project. He suggested that the Welters need to be more willing to accept compromise. He stated that they modified the project to address the Welters' concerns while balancing their own need to maintain usable space in the rooms. The public hearing was opened. � TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#1 EXHIBIT NO. 1/19/17 2 Riley Hurd, representing the Welters, said that every time a problem was'addressed a new problem arose. He noted that a portion of the large upper deck was removed, but was replaced by moving the building out in that direction. He stated that originally they had a privacy issue, but now they have privacy and view issues. He stated that the view of Angel Island and Raccoon Straights are important and should be protected. He suggested that the living space should be put on the middle level if more room is needed for furniture. He felt that the design was too wide in both directions and they were attempting to cram too much into the nonconforming house. He said that his clients do not want to limit the amount of floor area, but it should not be done at their-expense. He did not feel that the changes were close to what was needed and have created additional issues, and that changes should only be allowed that do not affect air, light, and privacy. David Sparks said stated that his house is 1,700 square feet, has over five levels and many stairs, and he did not think that it would be approvable today. He stated that the upper level is already one story above his master bedroom and that his first level would be impacted by the second level. He suggested that it was important for the project to be consistent with the neighborhood. Jean Ludwick said she is a real estate broker and helped Clinton Yee purchase this property. She stated when they were in escrow the Welters disclosed that the stairs and garbage areas are on the neighbors' property. She did not think that it was right for them to prevent any part of a project that could affect them. She said that Mr. Yee purchased this property for the view and she believed that he should be allowed to move forward with this project. Mr. Heckmann noted that the privacy and view issues had been eliminated with the offset of the living room where the current structure exists toward the east. He said that the structure would not obliterate light and they would provide more light by removing trees. He felt that the floor area and lot coverage were appropriate compared to other houses in the neighborhood. He said that they made significant changes over the last several months and he hoped that the Board would approve the project. The public hearing was closed. Boardmember Cousins stated that the issue with the survey appeared to be resolved. He stated that the building needed to be designed with regard to the properties that surround it and placing the living area on the top floor was driving the shape of this house. He said that there would be more flexibility if that area was moved to the middle floor instead of the top floor. He felt that the house would still be fairly wide, although moving the garage further away was an improvement and the privacy issue was resolved by removing the deck. He suggested possibly having a different exterior treatment for the garage. He also stated that this was not a view issue since this is a borrowed view and the edge of a panoramic view, but more of a proximity issue. Boardmember Tollini stated that the living space on the main level was modest and the format of floors made sense for this house as the main level was the enhance for the home. He thought that cutting the upper level back 2 to 3 feet would be a major change to already small living areas. He recognized that there had been some give and take and although there would be some view loss, but the wall would now be further away and would mitigate the privacy issue caused by the deck. He said that staggering the design away from the Welter home lessened the privacy issues. He TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#1 EXHIBIT NO. 7 1/19/17 3 believed that a lot had been done cumulatively to adjust the design so that it was a fair compromise and a balance between impacts and practicality. He said that the house did not need to be formatted match other existing homes in the vicinity. He supported the project and believed that the changes were appropriate and fair. Vice Chair Emberson said she felt that the design was getting closer, but was still a fairly wide house. She disagreed that it would be a problem to walk down to the main living space and agreed with Boardmember Cousins that it would work to switch the levels and put the main living space on the middle level. She hoped that the house could be set back further- from the Welter house. Boardmember Cousins said that there would be no problem entering the home and going downstairs into the living space on the middle floor and that change could be designed attractively and would simplify the design. He said that there was a lot of underutilized space on the lower floors. He believed that the project could be better, but he was unsure whether the Board could ask for more changes. Vice Chair Emberson stated that it was a matter of how well the house fits in and relates to the other homes. She believes that moving the main living area down to the middle level would be an easy solution and would provide more space. Boardmember Tollini asked the other Boardmembers how much they would like to see the house reduced. Boardmember Cousins said he would like to make the house less wide and have 16 feet in between the houses, which would corresponds to reducing the width of the house an additional 2-3 feet. Planning Manager Watrous asked if the width reduction would be limited to the top floor or to all three floors. Boardmember Cousins suggested that the lower floors could be kept and only the upper- floor needed to be reduced. Vice Chair Emberson said that she would like a minimum reduction of two feet to move the garage further from the neighboring house, which would also have an effect on the amount of light. ACTION: It was M/S (Cousins/Emberson) that the request for 77 East View is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions of approval, and the additional condition of approval to reduce the width of the upper level of the house by 2 feet by pulling the house back on the north side of the building. Vote: 2- 1-1 (TolIin1 opposed, Chong recused). Boardmember Chong returned to the meeting. 2. 484 WASHINGTON COURT: File Nos. DR2016128 & VAR2016041; Karla Rivera and Ernie Cervantes, Owners; Site Plan and Architecture Review for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with a Variance for excess fence height. The floor area of the proposed house would be 2,269 square feet, and its lot coverage would be 2,480 square feet (28.3%). A portion of a new fence would be 8 feet tall, which is greater than the maximurn fence height of 6 feet. Assessor's Parcel No. 034-251-28. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling on property located at 484 Washington Court. An existing one-story TIBURON D.R.B. MINUTES#1 EXHIBIT NO. '7 ]/19/174 RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AMENDED POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING, SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION, AND STORY POLE REPRESENTATION OF APPEALS, AND SUPERSEDING EXISTING POLICIES WHEREAS, the Town receives and hears appeals from decisions of various commissions, boards and administrative officials from time to time, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted various policies over the years with respect to appeal procedures, scheduling, and reconsideration, including Resolutions Nos. 2878 and 3218 and Town Council Policy Nos. 95-01 and 2002-01; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is timely and appropriate to update and consolidate these policies regarding appeals; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on March 17, 2010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Council Resolution No. 2878, Town Council Resolution No. 3218, Town Council Policy 95-01, and Town Council Policy 2002-01 are hereby superseded by this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby adopt the following general policy with respect to processing, scheduling, and reconsideration of appeals and for story pole installation for appeals. APPEAL PROCEDURE I. The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons may appeal a decision by a review authority (e.g. Town official, Design Review Board or Planning Commission) to the Town Council. Any person making such an appeal must file a completed Town of Tiburon Notice of Appeal form, available on the Town's web site and at Town Hall, with the Town Clerk not more than ten (10) calendar days following the date of the decision being appealed. Shorter time frames for filing an appeal apply to certain types of permits. If the final day to appeal occurs on a day when Town Hall is closed for public business, the final day to appeal shall be extended to the next day at which Town Hall is open for public business. Appeals may not be revised or amended in writing after the appeal period filing date has passed. EXHIBIT NO. 2. The appellant must submit filing fees with the Notice of Appeal form. Filing fees are set forth in the Town's current adopted Fee Schedule. _ (a) If the applicant is the appellant, the remainder of the filing fee (if any) will be refunded following completion of the appeal process. Additional staff time or costs to process an applicant's appeal is the financial responsibility of the applicant and will be billed per the Town's current hourly rate schedule and/or at actual cost if outside consulting is required. (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. In the appeal form, the appellant shall state specifically either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations; or (b) The appellant's other basis for claiming that the decision was an error or abuse of discretion, including, without limitation, the claim that the decision is not supported by evidence in the record or is otherwise improper. If the appellant is not the applicant, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised prior to the time that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. 4. The appellant must state all grounds on which the appeal is based in the Notice of Appeal form filed with the Town Clerk. Neither Town staff nor the Town Council need address grounds introduced at a later time that were not raised in the Notice of Appeal form. 5. The procedure for presentation of the appeal at the Town Council meeting is as described below. In cases where the applicant is the appellant, paragraphs (c) and (f) below would not apply. (a) Town Staff may make a brief(approximately 10 minute)presentation of the matter and then respond to Town Council questions. (b) Appellant and/or appellant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Appellant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. (c) Applicant and/or applicant's representative(s) may make a presentation of no more than twenty (20) minutes and then respond to Town Council questions. Applicant may divide up the twenty (20) minutes between various speakers or have only one speaker, provided that the time limit is observed. Time devoted to responding to Town Council questions shall not be included as part of the twenty (20) minute time limit. �- .7 C-F<., (d) Any interested member of the public may speak on the item for no more than three (3) minutes. A speaker representing multiple persons (e.g., homeowner's association, advocacy group or official organization, etc.) may speak on the item for no more than five (5) minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. (e) Appellant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. (f) Applicant is entitled to an up to three (3) minute rebuttal, if desired, of any comments previously made at the hearing. 7. The testimony portion of the appeal hearing is closed and the Town Council will begin deliberations on the appeal. There will be no more applicant, appellant, or public testimony accepted unless requested by the Town Council. 8. If, following deliberation, the Town Council is prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it will direct Town staff to return with a draft resolution setting forth the decision, and the findings upon which it is based, for consideration at a future Town Council meeting. The decision of the Town Council is not final until the resolution is adopted. Alternatively, if the Town Council is not prepared to make a decision on the appeal, it may: (a) Continue the appeal to a future date; (b) Remand the item to the review authority from which it was appealed for further hearing, review and action, with a specific description of the outstanding and unresolved issues and appropriate direction thereon; or (c) Refer the item to another review authority for its review and recommendations prior to further Town Council consideration. 9. Following a final decision by the Town Council, Town staff will promptly mail a Notice of Decision to the applicant and appellant. RECONSIDERATION If, after the Town Council has voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of decision, significant new information comes to light, which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing due to circumstances beyond the parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence, the Town Council may entertain a motion to reconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision. Any such motion to reconsider must be made prior to adoption of the resolution of decision, and the motion must be made by a Councilmember who voted on the prevailing side in the vote sought to be reconsidered. Any Councilmember may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote on the motion to reconsider at that time, and if the motion carries, the matter shall be placed on a future agenda for further notice and hearing. EXHIBIT NOe SCHEDULING OFAPPEALS 1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hear appeals in an expeditious manner. Appeals will generally be heard at the first regular Town Council meeting that is at least fifteen (15) days after close of the appeal period. At the sole discretion of the Town Manager, the Town may schedule the appeal for a subsequent Town Council meeting based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staff members and Councilmembers, agenda availability, or unusual circumstances. Town staff will make reasonable efforts to establish the hearing date for the appeal within three (3) working days of the close of the appeal period. The Town Clerk, in coordination with appropriate Town staff, will promptly advise all parties to the appeal of the selected hearing date. 2. The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances from the date established above in the event that all parties to the appeal agree in writing to a date specific for the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3. Attendance of parties to an appeal at the hearing is desired, but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieu of personal appearance. STORYPOLES For appeals where story poles were erected for review of the original decision being appealed, a story pole representation shall be required for the Town Council's appeal review process, as follows: 1. A story pole plan showing the poles to be connected, including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed, and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staff pr or to installation of the poles and connections. 2. Critical story poles, as determined by Staff, must be connected by means of ribbons, caution tape, rope or other similar and highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three-hundred (300) feet in clear weather, to illustrate the dimensions and configurations of the proposed construction. 3. Story poles and connecting materials must be installed at least ten (10) dqyprior to the date of the appeal hearing before the Town Council. 4. Failure to install the poles and materials in a timely manner may result in continuance of the public hearing date. 5. Story poles must be removed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of final decision by the Town Council. EXHIBIT NO. APPLICABILITY This policy, while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is intended to apply to the extent practicable to Town decision-making bodies, other than the Town Council, which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that certain types of appeals, such as appeals of staff- level design review application decisions to the Design Review Board,-may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the ten (10) calendar days specified above. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks & O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Slavitz RICHARD COLLINS, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT NO. �' 5_C S y, IrAUG� � X016 i{ y TOWN OF TIBURON ^r LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ON TYPE OF APPLICATION o Conditional Use Permit X Design Review (DRB) o Tentative Subdivision Map o Precise Development Plan o Design Review (Staff Level) o Final Subdivision Map o Secondary Dwelling Unit Variance(s)_ :5 o Parcel Map o Zoning Text Amendment kVloor Area Exception o Lot Line Adjustment o Rezoning or Prezoning o idelands Permit o Condominium Use Pen-nit o General Plan Amendment o Sign Permit o Seasonal Rental Unit Permit o Temporary Use Permit o Tree Permit o Other APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: `I1 9,'k5Ty'EW PROPERTY SIZE: 5���' S•� PARCEL NUMBER:.. 040-- _ o q 1- ZONING: PROPERTY OWNER:...._-_.__G1.•1K*r0t4 MAILING ADDRESS:____ _J.O. Z O V *V5&141 5k,tl r GlScd (�^ 14.151; PHONE/FAX NUMBER:_ 9'16' 81'y• L410 - E-MAIL: c lin4onbv+ erg 3rmat •cowl APPLICANT (Other than Property Owner): MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE/FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL: ARCHITECT/ 1 ►-t .tr i- _ c1�t11 t``tal N MAILING ADDRESS: ..* _ (GSD "t„6t��41'�►,i, Gtr ��°l�o - PHONE/FAX NUMBER:tt15.435' '%• Ce E-MAIL: aw►arc '� 5(�ear Wtl►rtic.r +046• '1 -1 Cl' Please indicate with an asterisk (*)persons to whom Town correspondence should be sent. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (attach separate sheetifneeded): 1'-"01)S - IK!C, A041110 ste, -tv A, 'tJ• `.'�Fa'( StNG� A h [q EXHIBIT N0. I, the undersigned owner (or authorized agent) of the property herein described, hereby make application for approval of the plans submitted and made a part of this application in accordance with the provisions of the Town Municipal Code, and I hereby certify that the information given is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the requested approval is for my benefit (or that of my principal). Therefore, if the Town grants the approval, with or without conditions, and that action is challenged by a third party, I will be responsible for defending against this challenge, with the defense counsel subject to the Town's approval. I therefore agree to accept this responsibility for defense at the request of the Town and also agree to defend, indemnify and hold the Town harmless from any costs, claims or liabilities arising from the approval, including, without limitation, any award of attorney's fees that might result from the third party challenge. Signature:* Date: The property involving this permit request may be subject to deed restrictions called Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which may restrict the property's use and development. These deed restrictions are private agreements and are NOT enforced by the Town of Tiburon. Consequently, development standards specified in such restrictions are NOT considered by the Town when granting permits. You are advised to determine if the property is subject to deed restrictions and, if so, contact the appropriate homeowners ass ciation and Adjacent neighbors about your project prior to proceeding with construction. Following this pr cc re ill ' i 'ze the potential for disagreement among neighbors and possible litigation. Signature:* Date: *If other than owner, must have an authorization letter from the owner or evidence of de facto control of the property or premises for purposes of filing this application NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65945,applicants may request to receive notice from the Town of Tiburon of any general (non-parcel-specific),proposals to adopt or amend the General Plan,Zoning Ordinance,Specific Plans,or an ordinance affecting building or grading permits. If you wish to receive such notice, then you may make a written request to the Director of Community Development to be included on a mailing list for such purposes, and must specify which types of proposals you wish to receive notice upon. The written request must also specify the length of time you wish to receive such notices (s), and you must provide to the Town a supply of stamped, self-addressed envelopes to facilitate notification. Applicants shall be responsible for maintaining the supply of such envelopes to the Town for the duration of the time period requested for receiving such notices. (� (� The notice will also provide the status of the proposal and the date of any public hearings thereon which ha e n set. "Tfle" XII determine whether a proposal is reasonably related to your pending application, and send the notice on tha sis. otice shall b updated at least every six weeks unless there is no change to the contents of the notice that would reason y a y4r4p204&on Requests should be mailed to: Town of Tiburon PLAN,'=' ;..^ Community Development Department _ Planning Division 1505 Tiburon Boulevard n�,��y ✓Z Tiburon,CA 94920 3Z� V" J (415)435-7390(Tel) (415)435-2438(Fax) VAPL 1(o ®� �vFvw.townoftiburon.or� 4.so (-20 DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 2` UA 633 DEPARTMENTAL:PROCESSING INFORMATION Application No.: `� GP Designation: Fee Deposit - 'l Date Received. b/.41%.— ( Received By:`C,Qa Receipt#: Date Deemed Corrpletz: Ito BY-�' Acting Body; Action: ®t �� Date: Conditions of Approval or Comments: Resolution or Ordinance EXHIBIT NO. 2 DESIGN REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM Please fill in the information requested below(attach separate sheet as needed): 1. Briefly describe the proposed project: P+-:Ho b SW AA -+ Abprnolsis -tv A 2. Lot area in square feet (Section 16-100.020(L)): 521 q- 33� 3. Square footage of Landscape Area: p [ 4. Proposed use of site (example: single familyresidential, commercial, etc.): � 0 4 2016 Existing 511 +x- t'#11- S 1 bIE WTZ IPLANNINIG Proposed 5. Describe any changes to parking areas including number of parking spaces,turnaround or maneuvering areas. 15.x45- LLC4 2- X11 MC-I'- WING1 S ACIF-sLAC- b TO BE:COMPLETEp BY APPLICANT STAFF USE ONLY ITEM EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITLO.N PROPOSED CAL J PER ZONE" AND/OR ALTERATION CU.LATED Yards (Setbacks from property line)( (Section 16-100.020(Y)* Front Rear 4- ft. Right Side I'y•15 ft. — (Z?. ft. ft. ft. ft. Left Side (7•�'I ft. ' °�.�7 ft. �'9� '2 ft. ft. ft. Maximum Height (Section 16-30.050)" (`C7 ''ft. ft. 431'0 ft, ft ft. Lot Coverage �y (Section 16-30.120(B))* sq.ft. p sq.ft I� sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. Lot Coverage asI Percent of Lot Area �� % ` % �'�'( % % � Gross Floor Area i rv4c. IG O 314 f,R`� (Section 16-100.020(F))* sq.ft. 6 sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. *Section numbers refer to specific provisions or definitions in the Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16 (Zoning) DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION-MA.IOR ADDITIO REV 6/2012 EXHIt�IT'1® O. q Lt 1��110s 81 11��11 t`..dd� � Z)F- 1 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division (415)-435-7390 www.d.tibumn.ca.us APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A Variance is a form of regulatory relief available when a strict or literal application of zoning development standards would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships for an applicant. These difficulties and/or hardships must be caused by physical conditions on, or in the immediate vicinity of, a site. Please refer to Section 16.52.030 of Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code for additional information regarding Variances. WHAT VARIANCE(S) ARE YOU REQUESTING? This Magnitude Zoning Existing Application Of Variance Condition Requirement Condition Proposes Requested I Front Setback Rear Setback Left Side Setback Right Side Setback ©` 020•Oe G•�.� �•,1�t Lot Coverage Height O� /�,$•G� /J�,.'1 .�1 Parcel Area Per Dwelling Unit Usable Open Space Parking Expansion of Nonconformity Other (Please describe): APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TOWN OF TIBURON REV 03/2016 D 0 V a 1 AUG 0 b 2016 D PLLANNINIG .'."t.IISION EXHIBIT NO. r y ar- ;e ;AUG'1I 5 2016 D PLANNIN8 DIVISION RE: 77 East View Ave. Finding s 'to support Front Setback Variance 15 Aug 16 1.' The;property is a steeply sloping downslope lot with the edge of slope beginning,"at the street edge. The only functional access must be at this edge of slope which is typical of most of the existing residences'on this side of the street: 2. Most residences in this vicinity are also located very close to the front property,line with very little setback: 3. Locating the structure beyond the front setback would push the structure to a precipitous-and very;difficult to build position 'on the,'5property.. This would .also cause the structure to be oddly and impracticably narrow since the'property. . depth is quite narrow. 4. Shifting',the,structure east to respect the front setback wouldplace the structure and interior spaces such-that they would impact,theprivacy and , views,of,the two adjacent residences. 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CX. Tel 415:435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 heckmannarchitects.@earthlink.net www.heckmannarchitects.com L� d U L, AUG 1 5 2016 PLANNING'biVISION RE: 77,East View Ave. -Finding s t� o support Right Side Yard Variance 15 Aug 16 1,',The functional size of interior elements needs'the increased building width and;sideyard.encroachment which is impacted by the small: ' r r)ertv size. Th@ neighbor residence on the,right.side.also has';a. 10 foot easement along A property line which when combined"with fhe proposed t--3" building setback allows. the separationof the two structures to be, 16'-3'. This is commensurate to providing the two 8' setback.s required by the zoning ordinance. 2. Many other residences in this vicinity encroach on the sid.eyard setback. The residen'c'e at 81� 'Eastview appears to be;about 2 feet from the property line.at the right side instead of the.,8 feet required. 31 :Pushing back the proposed addition on the"right sideto respect the,setback, would seriously-disrupt the practicalayout of the;in'terio'r-elements. This additional. 1'-9" reduction.to this section of the proposed'structure is also gUite'unnecessary since the proposed 16'-3" separation of.'thetwo structures respects the intent of the zoning ordinance. 4.- There are no public impacts of this encroachment since'the 16'-3" structure separation still allows the openness and view. outlook for the public that is.' intended by the zoning ordinance. Also, no adjacent'properties are negatively impacted by this minor encroachment of:the proposed structure " into the-setback. EXHI IT Int®. 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel 415_.435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 heckmannarchitects@earthlink.r�et www:heckman narch itects.com S d .l� d _ u l AUG 1 5 2016 PLANNING DIVISION RE:'77.East View Ave: Jndin' to,o support Height Variance 15 Aug 16 1. The steeply,sloping nature,of theexisting property contributes to the need for encroachment of the roof of"any practical building depth and roof shape that is compatible to the design character 2.- !M any residences in this.vicinity'on `similar steep terrain extend up beyond;the Neigh# restriction. 3 If the'structure respected the height limit; the,resOtting size'and shape of the roof would be ,oddly configured and incompatible with the architectural style that Js appropriate for thecontext of this property 4. No adjacent residences have,view impacts or imposing mass issues by the proposed roof height. The public has .no clearview,of the.roofencroachment from the street frontage.,The public view.from the streets below will be of.a St ructure that is the appropriate scale cornpared to the adjacent homes. S EXHIBIT 1680 Tiburon Boulevard,:Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 7 �l Tel 415.435.2446 Fax 415.435.,2875 heckmannarchitectsCearthlink.net www.heckmannarchitects.com s AUG 1 5 2016 PLANNING DIVISION RE: 77--East View Ave andin�_support Floor Area Exception 5 Aug 16 1. The scale and massing of the proposed residence rs_quite $imilar;to the adjacent residences on this street. The,structuee'will also be complimentary to the surrounding homes on this hillside, 2. The vertical shape of the proposed structure'and its limited depth from the street is compatible.to the general shape,and teepness of the existing" property, EXHIBIT NO. "Suite 7 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, . ,Tibor t on, CA, 94920r Tel 415.435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 heckmannarchitects(earthIink:net, www.heckmanharchiteds.com Ex ibit Marin Assessor Records: Scuare Footage 49 Eastview Ave , 1,122 53 Eastview Ave 2,918 59 Eastview Ave' N i 1,419 69 Eastview Ave L 1,386 71 Eastview Ave . 2,434 3e.S I 73 Eastview Ave O 2,869 / 74 Eastview Ave L 1,163 spJ 75 Eastview Ave , -.' - 17 sal0 1,752 76 Eastview Ave -- 2,249 g 9 iml 78 Eastview Ave 1,11 , 80 Eastview Ave ! 2,018 kj 81 Eastview Ave (o "-jQ j 2,553 l% 82 Eastview Ave i 1,869 83 Eastview Ave .aj 6 • I,C? ' l— *2.0.j 2,723 84 Eastview Ave 2,510 85 Eastview Ave (Vacant Lot) [°j® - 61wAL 87 Eastview Ave 588 . iCal EXHIBIT NO. of t q j r UK- y1 l g 1 P y Y N � Z G ! ' � g '.`""`�!�.w.='- E #'mad .�(•( i4��g -',l �+ �,`�"°"�� � ��^��} k � ncFr J �a r 1 1 3 v rem AW ��-Y' qg -t f,; ,�a rw FW. H z + AN :-' -°3Tiv S` sa'y's:+&` �•^ b £ Al �rx 4f �Y ` gyp 'r '} 9 ' Ar } { } t ywp MW XV t �2'.c §' � .d •& a air �.,., ;r ht ol • x r Y+ a y 3's P y4 # e } F3 a s t 4 ' •. �'- � � Wiz, �as � �a-x� '� a�£ `� � a �� � �•� � ����'�. ' s i � f -� if •t� 3a. 4� r�i• 1� kss}�s,r L3 YX t Y 9 S t s T ,r �5EN� c`�� M Ila a � s it � t "t1 a 1.d1 a r 1 � x r r St Af � _�• � .. - i �t; 6 r 7 r 77 NOV r? s" .77. Eastview Ave — List ofRevisions 1. . Garage=Replace gable roof with flat roof and lower plate line by foot, remove about a foot of north side,of garage;shift garage 3 feet toward the:street. 2a. Upper Level 7Abandon concept of privacy wall.at north end of deck 2b. .Upper Level:-Reduce width,of living room deck projection from 6'-5"to 4'-01.' 2c. Upper Level-7-Increase dining room deck projection from 9'-10"to 10'-10" 3., Middle Lvl-,Shift'Bath,1. feet toward.the street 4. _Middle Lvl-Retain roof of Bedroom 3 outside of Bedroom 1 5. .:MiddleLvl-Extend Master Bedroom by 2'-0"to the east 6 ` Middle Lvl-New location for stair down.to Lower Level offset to the east 7. Lower Lvl- Extend wall of Bedroom 2 suite by 2'70"to the east 8.' .,Lower Lvl,-New-location for stair up to Middle Level offset to the east 9. Lo}wer.lvl Uphill retaining walls shift so,that theydefine the west wall,of the habitable spaces 10. 'Site plan.-O'mit landing at the top.,of railroad tie steps at north side of house 11. All levels Pull back south wall at stair so NO setback encroachment: J . 12 Add landscaping to site plan' EMIT 1680 Tiburon Boulevard . Suite Seven . Tiburon, CA 94920, Tel "415.435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 he.ckmannarchitects@earthlink.net www.heckmannarchitects.com 77 EASTVI EW AVE Synopsis of changes since previous DRB meeting 22 Dec 16 1. The exterior north wall of all three floors have been shifted 2 additional feet to the south. This change forces us to abandon the remodel status of the project since we cannot retain several critical, existing walls. This also increases the standard side yard setback of 8 feet to 11 feet. The total clearance to the residence at 81 Eastview varies from 13 to 14 feet. 2. The exterior east deck of the living room has been eliminated. The east wall of the living room has been shifted 2 feet to the east to compensate for the loss of living space due to the shift of the garage. 3. The eastern end of the corner, shared dining/living deck is extended out 2 feet since the east, living room deck is eliminated. 4. All the interior rooms of the middle and lower levels have been reduced to minimal widths to allow the 2 foot overall reduction in building width. 5. The floor to ceiling heights in the middle and lower levels have been increased to 9' — 1". 6. In order to reduce the visual scale of the structure, the lower level is now clad in a stone veneer and the color of the upper two floors will be a deeper earth tone. 7. The building is now staggered in plan exposing the narrowest profile to the north and then gradually increasing to the south. In addition, the lower floors are set out to provide a terraced, vertical profile so the building now terraces down the hillside to compliment the slope of the hill. This stepped profile in plan and section provides a visual texture and articulated fagade to avoid the boxy shape of other existing, neighborhood homes. 8. The reference drawing prepared by our professional surveyor is now titled "Boundary and Topographic Survey" to reflect its thorough content and references the survey now recorded at the County of Marin assessor's office. 1680 Tiburon Boulevard, Suite 7 Tiburon, CA 94920 Tel 415. 435.2446 Fax 415.435.2875 heckmannarchitects@earthlink.net EXHIBIT NO. www.heckmannarchitects.com 14T o I p �' l (N)COM SfTION ,/ Y t J M C9 a' \ SHINGLE ROOFING \ . a---------- O ---------- I � i N)FIBER CEMENT LAP I SIDING,PAINTED,TYP. E Y DINING \ (M WOOD&GLASS F(OO RAILING,TYP. ET T.O. PLATE 5 r z r Vie+ OUTLINE OF(E) RESIDENCE (N)WOOD&GLASS z Z \\ / HALL R RAILING,TYP. o \// \ I OD OD u) I W T.O. PLATE \ / „a c - -- I - (N)WOOD&GLASS BED I --I RAILING,TVP. i A v '—,� CRA PA - (N)D.G.PATH FL r \ , \\• \\ \\ \\ PROPOSED BUILDING SITE SECTION 1_ Vtc Iro 096 ' EXHIBIT NO, - s ° MOT- <f }TEAM-A A R WZ - � ` 12 F 8u TAW W. S 4 &n z� •st"��F' '�3a4n3 ��1� - � - z� r' .' xr '� w. ��..x G+���.k?� �' � 410.ON r $� t� „moi��.�fi�� r t �• �{�� t ���:. Rllll� 0, i, :. .����� t�b�x5� �� :. 3" '3`'fi-S4'i�' � �'�`t-' • 8t 'j r -.<r �P jc�y i v• �'s sot r K . t Cray 3 `- - ,.s•,`�z' J x 'ppl', @ 6 +5` ' _. k.- r� �+ • i r aM4}aa ( �����$������� r�, r�fi � :. r �.,�iyi�r�f �'��` � � y. �. � :far' }Y�{�Y�� k�rn�f �`���di&�3 �a .1 �°�'i� fr�.�4 z. ,_•�. z mill 5 ' rtl�t� M i{.ysr,�} � r.a s # r i ',{ �,�e �fFi°` �� der 'a •x z& WON �3 N- 3bfr a S�sr �'edl���Cr���rl��d., �� 6 ' l � ffpN �'m rr � bks f� 1 .££.� ,� pg� � ' 1 ��.���-^�4 f Ft' = g J ILE _ }78n }} St •F� �� \�'�SS £fir�V e a _ww & F X Wk t �F can I � '� .�"'`'4> t- xf rs' .: 36°� -.f•9' ���5` ,"�'^w,np,�y x x '"r a 3f r k,• `k `"�.��,. +MY , a �i7if ky��ME, xC'` t zm v z4f, two Mai t"e a may K" allow ..'YC ,t �. �r i ♦ ,cu'�a � r'`: X ?� r ,�� f ' ,S i i I�lzr,� sit!it .� :• r � r r �A11M, e . }`r .S�'t$t NN� AMg "No fvn My— If , p w xr . s ig k qj t. rte c�`.t0,1 t � j"3Eay tIF ��a ,t trim IS UP 23rgd�'A n vy r 1_ ss�P f<� Y 2 r"Tin � e > .s® yj ^fin a +kk. ?l j1 SYS' J } ; e.• s k 4 `e AW— nst tt ar,s5 5 of `3 y } _ xx 51'k 4titw `r ' - fa 4x' _F5" f.' + ,Jk: r; s•. g3stk+ „�y»r.- �i ter'".,t alp+',` ��n_ w w F 1 `f; F,7 Mi 3 r. -C 4': r i � /* Ile 13XIIii3[T NO. 9� IR aF (`� September 19, 2016 Andrina& Ken Welter IN 81 Eastview Ave 0 Tiburon, CA 94920 SEP :DIVISION Dear Tiburon Planning Department &The Design Review Board: PLANNIN We are writing in regards to the application for review at 77 Eastview Ave, Tiburon. Our family resides next door at 81 Eastview Ave. We have reviewed a copy of the plans and we have serious concerns over the property lines noted in the topographic map. The topographic map displays 77 Eastview Ave property lines on top of where our property currently resides. Michael Heckmann has based all of their setbacks, (8 Ft) from what they"believe" to be their property. Less than 2-3 ft away from our home and on top of current structures connected to our house. After initially reviewing the plans we contacted the previous owner of our property, Jeff Kaiser. Jeff went through the design review process for our home. He stated that this was an impossibility as our remodel was built on the same footprint of the original structure, and they relied on the existing markers during planning and construction. The site map for our property and all of the plans match the numbers and coordinates on our title insurance, deed and the Marin County assessors map. There have been lot line issues on Eastview Ave, recently between the properties at 85 and 87 Eastview Ave. It is our understanding, that dispute was due to the title insurance referencing different maps. And more importantly, an exception to the deed of 85 Eastview Ave, noting an overlapping land area deeded to 87 Eastview Ave. We have reviewed the deed for our property at 81 Eastview Ave and the deed for 77 Eastview Ave and both properties note the 1906 map. There is not an exception referring to either property. We have sent several emails to Michael Heckmann requesting a true copy of their survey for review. We have yet to hear back in reference to the survey. Currently all that is available for review is the topographic map, which after consulting with a surveyor is not an accurate portrayal of property lines. We are not certain a true boundary survey was performed. We would like to review their survey with an educated surveyor and determine if this is a true boundary. Can you please reach out to Michael Heckmann and request a copy of their survey for us all to review? Our main concern is that until this is resolved, it is impossible to accurately review the plans for 77 Eastview Ave. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please keep us up to date on the progress of this application. Sincerely, Andrina& Ken Welter EXHIBIT NO. r Rrl"JO (4-1 UG --/�O Middle Level - Southern windows all align ,r z L IT NO. Middle Level - Main Living - Eastern window view obstruction y .EXHIBIT NO. C �, 2 () w. r M r t, Middle Level - Main Living - Western window view/light obstruction. EXHIBIT • ��, k s{9 s h !� � } i z v � 'a �� �3 i� wee i �� t� ,� � ���i � � oy � #s� ��� : � �������"Y���� �tw r ts�t� ��,� Pvt n �'�.r � ��� �'�����r ��. a� <s �� � � W � �� "� 1 ��° �+" ;r�°,iiy � p � ,t' e u h'*S°�r� �� a R• �, �r .�?'� `�'�5"� �' � � r �ysa�.S b�`�"Zsti "*�"^ ,;,� M�r�'$ eft n � 4 t YF :rx�` � �,:,. � ��� 7 �� ,., . ,,. �" .,, x ,� fi i+^* .'� �. � .. w,.,��*tom' � �� M _ _ ,,tk h 3� "tma?sce � �.�. _ ; �: �_ I" Upper level - Master - Eastern window view obstruction 6 � � C .4 1 .✓' b� S+ F `r { v a Y•� t EXHIBIT Nth® � � Upper Level - Bedroom 2 - Western window view and sunlight commpletely blocked. Window directly above western main living window. EXHIBIT NO. F, � i • i • • • • • • • • • • T t r r Sri_" e rat fg lx� m � F i f� < SAM rti m J 4 f •� z M. LowerLevel -Bedroom 3 Eastern Window - Room 3 a. : EXHIBIT NO. Setback Variance - There is a boundary dispute. Our home has had the same historical footprint since originally built in 1969, title insurance, Deed, accessors map and GIS Map all match our current footprint. We need to engage a surveyor familiar with the Corinthian Island area to perform our own survey. Nonetheless the proposed plan is far too large, close and blocks major views and sunlight. p; r N; 'Y EXHIBIT NO. � [ ?" q 01= 11 Landscaping Concerns: Picture of 77 Eastview Ave from Arc Row. Plans for 77 Eastview does not mention cleanup of the hillside. Home has not been maintained and trees continue to block views we and our neighbors purchased. . a EXHIBIT NO. � - 77 Eastview proposal too large relative to neighborhood, particularly including garage and decks and hillside storage - 77 Eastview vertical bulk and mass proposal damage light, view and privacy - Proposed setback not appropriate based on existing footprint and well as long established lot lines as well as damage to light and views - Story poles need to be more accurate and show all roof lines, ridges and over- hangs - Received survey last evening and contacted our surveyor today. EXHIBIT 1 Ell Ragghianti lr itaS LLP Attorneys at Law 1101 5'h Avenue, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 Riley F. Hurd III facsimile 415.453.8269 rhurd@rflawilp.com www.rflawllp.com November 4, 2016 Via E-Mail Only Iry Schwartz ILS Associates, Inc. 79 Galli Drive, Suite A Novato, CA 94949 Re: Boundary and survey issues between 81 and 77 Eastview Ave, Tiburon Dear Mr. Schwartz: Our office represents the owners of 81 Eastview Ave. in Tiburon. This letter is concerning your recent Record of Survey for the Lands of Clinton Yee (77 Eastview Ave). Specifically, we are writing to provide you with information you may not have been aware of at the time of your survey. We also feel certain professional deviations were made in the production of the survey and we want to bring these to your attention. Source Documentation The Survey for the Lands of Clinton Yee references "DN 2016-012810" as the source document for the description of the property owned. DN 2016-012810 is the deed by which Mr. Yee took ownership of the property, and contains a legal description identifying Lots 76, 77, and 78, "as the same are shown on that certain map entitled 'Corrected Map of Corinthian Island,' filed January 7, 1908 in Volume 2 of Maps at Page 106. However, the survey proceeds to instead be based on surveys found at 2 OS 48a and 9 OS 77 (Old Surveys). Using the Old Surveys instead of the corrected Map is very problematic. Mr. Yee did not take title to his property by reference to the Old Surveys, but instead by reference to the 1908 Map. Accordingly, to properly survey the land to which he took ownership, and also to comply with the standards of the Land Surveyors Act, the Map needs to be used as the basis, not the Old Surveys. This is a rather critical distinction, as the Old Surveys vary in significant ways from the Map. EXHIBIT NO. 14 P. 1 a7 ,7 EV RagghiantilFreitaS LLP Page 2 of 3 Some of the major deviations are as follows: • The Eastview Avenue right of way is shown as 20' wide on the Map, but only 15' wide on the Old Surveys. • Lot 87 simply vanishes on the Old Surveys, while it clearly exists on the Map. • Lot 71.5 drastically changes shape on the Old Surveys as compared to the Map. • As the notes on the 1970 survey indicate, the Main Street frontages of lots 74-77 are significantly different than the original map. Based on the above, it would appear that the Record of Survey for the Lands of Clinton Yee attempts to survey Lots 76, 77, and 78 as said lots are shown on the Old Surveys, when what should be surveyed is what Mr. Yee actually owns, which is Lots 76, 77, and 78 as the same are shown on the Corrected Map of Corinthian Island. Other Surveys and Information Attached as Exhibit A please find the Site Plan for the construction of the home at 81 Eastview. As you can see, the house is located 6-feet off the property line shared with 77 Eastview. As noted, this Site Plan was based on a survey. Since my clients have owned their home, they have explicitly agreed with the previous owner of 77 Eastview that this is the shared property line. The currently existing garbage enclosure was built based on this agreement and costs and usage shared accordingly. Attached as Exhibit B, please find a 1967 survey performed by Oglesby. This survey matches the lines found on the above-referenced Site Plan, and nails and tags referenced in this survey were actually found and referenced in the 1970 Lockton survey referenced above. This competing information is required to be referenced, and attempts at reconciliation made, in the subject Record of Survey for the Lands of Clinton Yee. We would also point out that your survey notes, for a rather major basis point, that you found 1/2" re-bar and the remains of a yellow cap in Eastview Ave. near the southern corner of lot 78, and you make reference to the 1970 survey for this point. However, as noted by the 1970 survey, a set tag was placed here, not re-bar. This import of this difference is rather major. V- 2, EXHIBIT NO. V- e 2 (7 7 R.agghianti Freitas LLP Page 3 of 3 Conclusion The fact that the Corrected Map of Corinthian Island did not have adequate side line references creates an issue in this part of town. However, this is the document by which nearly all of the lots on Eastview are described (we are aware of only one parcel being transferred by reference to the survey instead of the map). This uncertainty causes risk and disclosure issues for Mr. Yee and others. For example, if the true line is as shown in Exhibits A and B, Mr. Yee may be about to build a new home in a required setback, or even over the line. Also, this is a major disclosure issue that must be told to any potential buyer. Pursuant to the Land Surveyors Act, the competing information contained herein must be reconciled, or at least addressed, in the current draft of your survey. We think it is critical that the lots shown on the Corrected Map of Corinthian Island be overlaid upon your survey to understand the differences. As noted above, the boundary shown in Exhibits A and B has long been agreed upon by previous owners. Accordingly, please let us know your thoughts on this letter, the exhibits, and the merits of an agreed upon boundary being formally memorialized. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, Riley F. Hurd III CC: Clinton Yee Michael Heckman Dan Watrous EXHIBIT NO. C C-) EXHIBIT A EXHIBITNO. Iz- �f 6�7 IR MOM its si IJ� l yay7,3 [ys'�!'#fl` 1"zi 1•c r`r�-st'*"� \ �. _ i'� 3��j y'- ,r•i Cf 72 'a��j � �' -Al �jry f c '!1 76 Jr�'`.,rKwns'-?.` iv/d/ U \ a t 1• f ,• x.� >r' E4w�✓"F .✓'},� Pt .( � ' �J J;J� JO P' .t\� i ,g4; � o ma_ Pc,rkr 4 1 _ o 92 1 mom 1 + I a� , ma EMU RM /R. �c e kqx•: y�•.'(v mom.f l C v - U tVi'c V ' 70_. !d �Il - -..� �-. /F. ._, -7 ) g5a�y ' tY�;vr'�`r.- ,� `s,; �?• �* .. �9 }' Y_o' 73 >z5 7..•. /"Y ,_.f �r1r;' tJ0/7� y�w�,t,`�' Ml'� "T S t !J E N E r o tz M GZ . DO .N J A \V.,15 '¢ 3 r I Lo�S 74 7SEXHIBIT i GORINT`FIIAN ISolNQ TIbJp0N 'CgL) F , a tk Lt ' y E T I E .N N.0.. D R..O.L I N I N -- 5 7 El�r�r;-,Fe! Des..lcr,_a s II0 FSE"LVCdE(?E S:7 SAN PKAEL CALIF buf ,. ., .,�..�.. ....... Y a.:�r v�� _ 7z�...._,.s,. x'a�'�'> �°� �i=�'"ww'. :?R��>Y.?tkt3.N.der'S?���:�rx�r�.e.-•aasca'aR3cz;r.�, ,.. .�1..:3 �� cam---��. U- i 1 j -SIrT Hub -S>-T(+Ae sex Ralb f i r :•,.:. �.,;..:.:�:.5;.-._. ..........: .,.,- .:..._�a,.�.-r�;�•�-7.r>.� .... - kr.,ew...,�c-.?.-�vr.,»..a.a•.°:, _..,..- • ter._". ......r--�-3-a-'�,.y>..-4Ra'�^� 1 ( ` ,_ o X) !j ell EXHIBITNO. 2- C C REV ISIOINSU21 0P DAT 2TtcK,,l T N SCALP OGLESBY, JACOBS & WICKHAM - CIVIL ENGINEERS FIEC.D BOOK *iO^ �?50SOK 1414 - FOURTH STREET SAN RAFAEL. CALIFORNIA N . LS ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING February 7, 2017 � �� Dan Watrous Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon CA 94920 Re: Record of Survey @ 77 East View Ave., Tiburon Our File No. 9066 Dear Dan, The purpose of this letter is to present a response to a letter from Riley F. Hurd III of Ragghianti/Freitas LLP law firm to the Town Council, Town of Tiburon, Re: Appeal of DRB Decision-77 Eastview Avenue (DR2016104) dated January 30, 2017, a copy of which was received by us on February 1, 2017. Specifically, we are responding to the portion of the appeal entitled"PROPERTY LINE DISPUTE" ON Pages 7 and 8 and the referenced"EXHIBIT B"prepared by Michael Ford Land Surveying. After careful review of this material we find no reason to alter the boundary resolution as presented on our two sheet Record of Survey we prepared for the Lands of Clinton Yee that was approved by the County Surveyor and filed with the Marin County Recorder on November 4, 2016 in Book 2016 of Maps at Page 128. We would also like to refer to our letter to Riley F. Hurd III dated November 10, 2016 giving detailed responses to his inquiries regarding this boundary resolution. Copies of said Record of Survey and said letter are attached. What we have determined from the material provided in this appeal is that while we agree there are at least five different possible variations of the boundaries as shown on Michael Ford's exhibit, as he has stated on Sheet 1 of 2, and that his analysis does reveal an"ambiguity and uncertainty in the locations of the subject parcel and adjacent parcels" we do not see any indication of a decision by him about the true location of the boundary lines or that a Record of Survey is being prepared by Michael Ford Land Surveying. On the other hand, however, we have made careful decisions within the rules of boundary control/legal principles, utilized the best available evidence and all of the other factors that determine a resolved boundary. The detailed results of our resolution are shown on EXHIBIT NO. P, t 01:::�-7 79 GALLI DRIVE, SUITE A NOVATO, CA 94949-5717 (415) 883-9200 FAX (415) 883-2763 our filed map, reinforced in our November 10 letter and permanently monumented by our set corners on the ground. Please contact us if you need any additional information. Sincerely, rving L. wartz, CE 9�X- W 2 Attachments Cc: Clinton Yee Michael Heckmann EXHIBImeg-+NO. r ILS ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING 2016 R5 028 ' NOTES 131 . 'L ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET ANO DECIMALS THEREOF. 2'ALL REFERENCES ARE FROM 41AR/N COUNTY RECORDS. 1 BASIS OF BEARINGS eL(EafRe ' - Sl;-44'59'E B£TNE£N A FOUND 1/2'REBAR W//LIED/BLE 2790FOIV REAWNS.OF A PLAS77C CAP AND A BRASS NAIL/BRASS �L TAC STAMPED RE•5123'A MEASURED DISTANCE APART st, OF 186.26 FEET.BEAR/NC IS AS CALCULATED FROM THAT „t} CERTAIN RECORD OF SUR4£Y FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 9 OF SURVEYS AT PACE 77 CSV OCTOBER 27,1970 LN y VIE OFFICE OF THE MAR/N COUNTY RECORDER. sr. REFERENCES " 0 RECORD OF SURVEY/9 OS 77 _ 0 SURWY OF PART OF CORNIH/AN ISLAND/2BDE DERf SITE ® RECORD OF SURWY12006 RS 069 Q CORRECTED MAP OF CORTN7H/AN/SLAND/2 RM 106 VION,YM ®.CUV7OV Y££DED/DN 2016-012810. ...... •® COUNTY OF MAR/N DEED/188 OR 99 Mrs .SURVEYOR'S SWEMNT COUNTY SURV£MR°S STATEMENT .THIS MAP CORRE07LY REPRESENI5 A SURVEY MADE BY ME THIS MAP HAS BEEN EXAMINED/N ACCORDANCE W7H OR UNDER MYOIRWAVIV/N CLSVFORMAkCE W7H.THE SECTION 8766 CR'THE PRCS�ESS/ONAL LANG SVR4£YOR'S ACT, RE01/IR£M£N75 OF THE PROFESS/ONAL LAND•SURVEYORS ACT A, � AT E E0UE5T aF IX/T >tE T MARCH 2016 7Td/S_V OA OF"'OftvAkX( 2016 ,.`�.Ait♦ �OfESSIq M'— � .. / L.S ARTZ ITC Q�OUIs'14 SIGNED.RICHARD SWWITCH COUNTY SURYEHAP aw C 18221 fit/.Mo 7621 r 'may SYDRPUTY •F�FCJ1`� RECORDER'S STA IWFNT . RLED THIS. DAY OF&muae2 2016 AI ?-•.31 AM IN BOOK 7,01(, OF 41APS A7 PACE • AT 1HE REQUEST OF ILS ASSOCTAI£S INC AND RIE DEPARTMENT a-PUBLIC)URKS g SERIAL N0, FEE.•*C SZ•o0 SICNE@ t(2.�L...•p N Beal Sar- CDUNrr RECORDER � siclv£v.• : OL. R. � � DEvurY RECORD OF SURVEY OF THE DNNDS 2016-012[810 N YEE Town of Tiburon MARIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA i IIS ASSOCIATES, INC.D CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING 01 17- � ?/. . 79 GALLI DRIVE )I1E A NOVATO•CA 9,4949 5717 (415)8 A.P.N.,060-105-92 JOB NO.9066 NOVEMBER 2016 1 OF Sv2veyop COPY 5 EXHIBIT Ido a,-_[�__ F 2 � � 2ooP, RS t28 NOTES I.ALL D/STANCESAR,/N FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF LEGEND 2 ALL REFEREIJCES ARE FROM MAW COUN7Y RECC4POS. ••• �1,M• �•�'' Sg�� O SfT 3/9.1RON P/P£B YELLOW CAP fM80SSED ?tC£1822!'(UNLESS NOIFD 01HERN15f) BASIS OF BEARINGS 0 FOUSITND S RBRASSTAC TASK BCE 1B22T o FOUND 5URV£t'MONUMENT AS N07ED T ¢ O FIX/ND 2'BRASS O/SC STAMPED'PLS 4402' S1744:59-,F 8MMV A_FCUND 1/2'RESAR W1 V-01": �/ \ REMAINS OF A PLAS17C CAP AND A BRASS NAIL/BRASS je,6d ➢. I // >v \ V /N MONUMINT HELLQT TAG STAMPED'RE 5123'A MEASURED DISTANCE APART � �• o ' 0 1\t� \ 1 -- 80UNDARY UNE-5!/B✓fCT PRGi�ER7Y A W /N RECORD BOF SURVEY ACED FOR RECORD IN/ p'd' �BOOK 80UNOARY UNE-ADJGMERS CE 9 OF SURVEYS AT PA77 ON 007WER 17 1970/N 4. CENIERUNE .THE OFFICE OF 79E MARN COUNTY RECGRL7ER. �/ _ \\ \ \\ - '"' y �• _ 1 \\y7 \ _ - _ - - SURVEY LI UNE C/ p5 a /� gTRR��a+) �-a.���� 5 ` \\ 1'1 P� \ �\ 1�$ OLD LOT LINE 7tiN(THIS 5E ;� ; Lor 0 0 \ S\D L 1 D6 0w (139.10'Q) RECORD DA M DIfFERS FROM MEASURED PER AS F F1 /.A4.op�W Nb 'i�� wi'"\ t�7 y� \m .\\ 06 201 h \ .�\ ' 8 (C)CALCU[A7F0 DATA . i'Nq„F• 4N.. (M)MEASURED 1v �� "\ FWD FOUNO ,p d WjC \m\ \\ \ \\ 1 8N BRASS NAIL ��p0�,�9E09�LC NJ�M}t17 � \\ .N{�2+a9 _ \\ \ 83 \\ \\\ \\ NT NA/LOSSmr NOT TTAG3TAMPEO AS NOTED N F'l•yl 4� �i�)l\gt6�P �'\ \\ j1�1�N \\ \\ \\ l \\ RB R£BAR d t• \\/\ 8 \ YC YELLOW CAP,STAMPED AS N07ED cc NCORNST ig P/ i l'Ol �3 \\ R�t•�i 8 '�\ \ \\ \ \8 - \ \\ 4,F ON DOCUMEN�M8M? i ry5a e9 \ • C2 \ 106 \ t$i \g \ ' /. OR \ APN UNKNOW O ORIGIN NUMBER .. } 1 µ79i \ 4 \�g�' A\ - $. ®�• UC UNKNOWN OH/CN BS \ Ndtn �8 ,.\a \ `F \ 991 �) J •rio�'i AC ASPHALT RECORDS 1E • j0�%'1Y' \ 1\ /\ \ DS •,,., 2 Z% Vµ<001 �t'C' N•�LY �`gsr• RR RAILROAD $PIKE s 541 ( C,Y 8 / ,�\©l RRS' RA/1ROAD SP/K£ 5' Y �b. ., SAW SEAROVED FOR VO7MNG FOUND 8 ONRA¶5 SURVE. F M MAG NAIL "�w'9 05 Fl TM 5 N t9 \ }pz \ ,�_ \ 'g \ r LOT SNDWN 2i} / BW BRASS yVR6 Ek \iso \ n. \ �0 T�• � OD �- 1 11 .. \ CURR�Nor h gS � \ J\4 s);$ $ �� 9\05 !-'N X115 200 0 W. 84w� 90 O'3'\ \ \ �Nv_zev9�---•-- r,so. . F a (ulvlr©'t es91s_ arae•, nss,' rBr+�®lo$�./ 0O D ��/ \ z \ \ �Tlk yez°r- a�r EAST IEW AVENUE � maaF k?k 9 b Ya8Y RECORDS&RPJ ��fio p) — BAss aF B£ARNcs c w R ��- �PN7 \\ 7,061 1\ A�,/zNef+LYRcwau)— -—--. — s,r r,aaa?r()0— ;k $g �/ I1 \ @ ®) F Ac OX/RxD AxvnavJ eaac MI Rv er ———__ —— / Dp2 P $\ \\ ,N 4FiYn�y67ygY1`'O4 16.N'� (szTm:fst 4267'0) Tec / 2 a`ac0 \^ y CI't�°� t tx i� \6N 4t1 \\ REFERENCES O RECORD OF SURVEY/9 os 77 bb .. 0 -t ANOF 0S 4BA�PARTOFCORNIH/AN 'a 5. \\ Vim\. GRAPHIC.SCALE ® WIRECM9 OFN48A/2000R5O09 \\ RECORD OF SURVEY ® CORREC7ED MAP OF CONW)HiAMISLAND/1 RM los OF TIIE LANDS OF CLINTON YEE Q CUN7ON YEEDEEO/DN 2016-012810 1557 (M FEET). - DN2016-012810- ® COUNTY CF MARIN DEED/188:M.99' \ t>�a-m ,L Town of Tiburon \ / MARIN COUNTY CALIFORNIA v ILS ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING F 79 CAW DRIVE.SUITE A NOVATO,CA 94949-5717 (415)903-9200 FAX(415)M-2761 ' - A.PA 060-105-92 .,JOB ND„9066 NOVEMBER 2016 SHEET 2 OF fSugVEYOR Copy EXHIBIT NO. r• ILS ASSOCIATES, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING November 10, 2016 Riley F. Hurd III Ragghianti/Freitas LLP 1101 5`"Ave., Suite 100 San Rafael CA 94901 Re: Record of Survey @ 77 East View Ave., Tiburon Our File No. 9066 Dear Mr. Hurd, The purpose of this letter is to present a response to your letter dated November 4, 2016, received by us on November 7, 2016 regarding"Boundary and survey issues between 81 and 77 East View Ave.,Tiburon". For your information the Record of Survey we prepared for the Lands of Clinton Yee was approved by the County Surveyor and filed with the County Recorder on November 4, 2016 in Book 2016 of Maps at Page 128. A scan of our Surveyor Copy of the recorded map is included as an attachment. The following information presents analysis of the specific points of your letter beginning with Source Documentation. It is a correct observation that the vesting deed DN 201-6- 012810 as identified on our survey identifies Lots 76, 77 and 78 (also portion of Lot 87) as shown on 2 RM 106, `Corrected Map of Corinthian Island' filed Jan. 7, 1908. However, in 1924 Willard Bradley, CE,filed a"Plat of Survey of Part of Corinthian Island"in Book 2 of Surveys (OS) at Page 48A which re-surveyed and monumented every corner of Lots 71.5 through 91 of the original 2 RM 106. The typical reason why an area is resurveyed is because of problems with the older map, in this case 2 RM 106 which if examined is very roughly drawn showing distances to the whole foot and dubious or entirely missing bearings. Also it is a common practice in surveying in Marin County to hold the newest survey of an area which was specifically commissioned and filed to correct old problems. Itis a point of fact that any survey done on these lots mentioned above has used the information from 2 OS 48A,not 2 RM 106,including the legal description for the deed from Corinthian Island Company to the County of Marin per 188 OR 99 recorded December 23, 1929. This deed which transferred the portions of the lots to the northeast specifically refers to Lots of 2 OS 48A and the dimensions as shown thereon. Also,the EXHIBIT NO. P• ; 79 GALLI DRIVE, SUITE A NOVATO, CA 94949-5717 (415)883-9200 FAX (415)883-2763 Record of Survey prepared by Lockton and filed in 1970 in Book 9 OS Page 77 holds the newer lot configurations from 2 OS 48A and deed 188 OR 99 for the exceptions. This map by Lockton is the one we decided to focus on because it was the most current survey with survey monumentation that came the closest to the Lands of Clinton Yee including monuments establishing the southeasterly line. Continuing to respond to specific points of concern from your letter starting on Page 2 referring to "major deviations": -The right of way width of East View Avenue does appear differently on different maps. The original 2 RM 106 shows 20' as do some more resent maps, some show 15', some show"R/W VARIES" and some show both sides but do not show any dimension. Our record of survey is not definitive but shows "15' R/W BY RECORDS &R2"where R2 is 2 OS 48A. We do show a perpendicular tie to a found brass tag on the opposite side of the street measuring 16.74' which is closer to 15'.than 20'. -Lot 87 as shown on 2 RM 106 does vanish on 2 OS 48A and becomes part of Lots 78- 82. We speculate the reason that occurred is because the legal descriptions for the three properties that abut Lot 87 all include that adjacent portion of Lot 87, so in effect that lot no longer exists as a separate lot. -The dimensions of Lot 71.5 are drastically different on 2 OS 48A vs. 2 RM 106 but so are most of the dimensions of all the other lots as well. -Main Street frontages of Lots 74-77 as shown on the 1970 Lockton survey match exactly the dimensions from 2 OS 48A survey which supercede those from 2 RM 106. Referring to that portion of your letter "Other Surveys and Information": -The Exhibit A Site Plan from Rolin Engineers & Designers does show a 6' setback to the subject house but does not show a definitive location of the boundary lines based on survey monuments. You seem to be assuming Exhibit A follows the location of boundary lines on Exhibit B,but the note on Exhibit A references a drawing by Engineering Field Services from Feb. 1969 which is not provided. At any rate we would like to point out that the property line dimensions on both of these Exhibits follow the record dimensions of 2 OS 48A and the dimensions as established by our Record of Survey with only slight variations. -The Exhibit B survey by Oglesby, Jacobs and Wickham is indeed holding the"Tag 2654" at corner of Lot 75/76 which is George P. Colson, a principal of above mentioned firm. The corner of Lot 74/75 appears to be a"SET NAIL+TAG IN PAVE."Although the note is not completely legible as is the dimension along that property line. This would make sense since RE 9626 is George E. Wickham. We were not aware that this unrecorded survey(Exhibit B) existed when we prepared our map but, as you point out, these tags are shown as reference points on the Lockton survey. He found them and did not hold them for the lot corners on his survey and since we are retracing and holding his EXHIBIT INTO. 13 ILS ASSOCIATES, INC. -- CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING o survey they will not change the location of our resolved boundary lines. Furthermore it is unclear from either of these Exhibits A or B what evidence was held to place the lots in these locations. -The found 1/2"rebar and yellow cap remains were accepted by us as representing what is shown as a"SET TAG" on 9 OS 77. Even though the number is gone from the top of the cap,there is no doubt that this was set by a surveyor as the lower remains of a plastic cap still wrapped around the rebar indicate. There are two possible explanations for this occurrence: 1) It is common for a different type of monument to be set in the field and not changed on the map. It is possible that when they set this point they decided that a rebar driven into the pavement with a cap was more permanent than a nail and brass tag. That holds especially true if the asphalt is somewhat soft and crumbly which is the case here. 2) In survey terminology a"tag" can refer to a stamped plastic cap as well as a stamped brass tag. Without specifically calling out this distinction on the description a"SET TAG"could be either one. In response to your comment, we did show the record dimensions, and even the old Lot 87 line shaded back, from 2 RM 106,the Corrected Map of Corinthian Island on our Record of Survey,proving that this information was addressed. We believe,based on our field survey and review of recorded documents,that our Record of Survey is a correct interpretation of all the documented evidence currently available. If we had been aware of some prior agreed upon boundary and presented with documented evidence of it, we may have considered showing it on our Record of Survey. Please contact us if you need any additional information. Sincerely, Irvin . Schwartz, CE ASO Cc: Clinton Yee Michael Heckmann EXHIBIT NO. 13 I LS ASSOCIATES, INC. P, !- - CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING #Jm--* November 29, 2016 LATE Tiburon Design Review Board _ 1505 Tiburon Boulevard .n - Tiburon, CA 94920 . ' NOV 2 9 2015 ' Re: 77 Eastview Avenue (DR2016104) pp [��,����\Jr •; a' Vit"r.,l,�(`p P Dear Boardmembers: My wife and I live at 81 East View Avenue. Our home is directly adjacent to the property at 77 East View. We are writing to express our continued serious concern about the project, as well as the process. While we fully support the concept of an updated and/or new home next door, it should not be at the expense of our air, light, privacy, and views for the sole benefit of another. This project was first heard on October 20, 2016, when both the Board and the public identified specific concerns, and gave direct guidance on what changes were necessary in order for the Board to support the application. Unfortunately, the rushed revisions grossly fail to respond to these concerns. It strikes us as disrespectful of the process, especially the valuable time and effort of Boardmembers, staff, and neighbors, to return with a project that essentially fails to address any of the major issues. Simply stated, the proposal before you is insincere and undeserving of your review in its current form. Furthermore, it appears that the materials are either inaccurate or internally inconsistent, making it unclear what design is actually proposed. For these reasons, and other reasons outlined in our letter, we request that the Design Review Board deny the application. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The applicant flatly ignored the specific guidance presented by the Board when rushing to submit substantially the same project. 2. Nearly every recommendation we offered the applicant as part of our outreach efforts to pursue a creative solution and mitigate certain unacceptable impacts were ignored. 3. The application materials contain significant inconsistencies and inaccuracies, including floor area calculation, denial of view impacts, dimensions, heights and other features. 4. The project's variance findings are inaccurate and disingenuous. 1of8 5. There remains an unreconciled dispute regarding the property boundary between 81 and 77 East View. ANALYSIS 1. Board Guidance. The "revised" design ignores a majority of the significant concerns raised by the Board during the October hearing. The following comments are listed as they appear in the approved minutes: A. Vice Chair Emberson believed that the house zvould be too big for the lot, other large lots have 2,800 SF. a) The staff report identifies that the project has been reduced 242 SF. Adding together the identified reductions per floor called out on the first page of the staff report suggests only a reduction of 207 SF. It is unclear how much the square footage shrunk, but in either case, it's nowhere near enough given the impacts. b) On the other hand, it appears that the square footage actually grew in some areas that are not identified in the plans or staff report. For example, the former crawl space on the second floor has been expanded for a new storage area, totaling approximately 180 SF. This newly created square footage is surprisingly omitted from the floor area calculation. We fear that the house may have actually grown since the October hearing, despite representations by the applicant and staff report to the contrary. B. Boardmember Tollini felt that the project ?vas too impactful. He felt the project zoas too close to our home. a) Almost comically, but not quite given how serious this is for our home, the applicant narrowed the norther portion of the project (shifted south) by 10 inches. Such a negligible modification is visually imperceptible and unresponsive to the overall impacts identified by all the Boardmembers at the October hearing. C. Boardmember Tollini stated the house ?vould be very zvide and inconsistent with the pattern of development for the neighborhood of narrozver homes...if more area zvas needed it should step down the hillside. a) The width of the house is approximately 50 feet, not including roof eaves. This is only approximately 2 feet narrower than previously proposed. Given the consistent and emphatic guidance from the Board, we expected more from the applicant, and significant further reduction is needed to meet the guidance of the Code. EXHIBIT NO. D. Boardmember Tollini and Chair Kricensky felt that the privacy of our master bedroom zvould be significantly impacted by the proposed upper deck. a) The applicant's response was to narrow the deck by 2 feet and convert the railing material from solid to transparent glass. Just because the BBQ is no longer shown on their plans adjacent to our bedroom does not change the substance of the privacy concerns raised by the Board at the prior hearing. This is not an appropriate area for a deck. E. Boardmember Tollini said that the proposed project zvas not close to being acceptable. a) The modifications implemented by the applicant represent a level of changes that would be expected from a project that very narrowly missed the mark for majority approval. Considering a shared sentiment by all Boardmembers that the project was not close, the level of revisions is woefully inadequate. 2. Our Recommendations My wife and I are not architects, however, the Board requested at the last meeting that we meet with the applicant in attempts to find common ground between impacts of any potential project with the obvious interest of the owner to redevelop the property. We exhaustively evaluated the plans and came up with a laundry list of items for the applicant to consider in response to our concerns about solar access, views, privacy, intensification of use in setback areas, property lines, and other issues. It appears that none of our suggestions were implemented, which reiterates our statement about the applicant wasting everyone's time in trying to push through his over-development project. We share an abbreviated list of some of the revisions and concerns that we conveyed to the applicant: • Remove the garage in favor of a car deck - greatly reduces the massing and benefits solar access. • Remove the living room deck in favor of only the dining room deck - this was articulated before discovering the one-foot expansion of the dining room deck. • Provide additional relief from the northern property line to reduce the canyon effect along the common property. • Investigate lowering finished floors by increasing slope down to driveway. • Consider introducing stair(s) at entry to further lower finish floor of upper level. 3 of 8 EXHIBIT Nn • Consider rotating program goals with living on top and entertaining on middle floor since the entertaining square footage was articulated as a significant program goal that may not be compatible with a reduced upper floor. • Consider alternative layout/floor plan for nearly 400 square feet area allocated between bedroom/bathroom 1 and the "storage area" on the mid-level to remove the storage and enable setback relief from the northern elevation. • Clarify use of the mid-level storage room, which appears to be excluded from the floor area calculation. • Clarify condition of the failing retaining wall below the residence; it will likely require replacement, so can it serve as a foundation wall to support an expanded lower floor to accommodate the upper story square footage lost from potential setback reductions. This approach would directly reflect the stepping with slope concept found in the hillside development guidelines and mirror the guidance originally provided by the Board. • We expressed concern about the viability and functional utility of the existing foundation. The existing foundations appear to be a justification for the elevations and siting of certain improvements, yet the foundations are unlikely reusable. • Remove the site retaining wall and graded walkway area previously located between.our two properties since it created as safety hazard by allowing access into our son's bedroom window on the lower floor. • Prepare a landscape plan demonstrating the planting selection that will not include trees susceptible to rapid future growth that may compromise views even further than the potential project. • Provide a story pole certification by a licensed engineer or surveyor, which the applicant expressly agreed to do. 3. Internal inconsistency. This project is clearly governed by haste, which is reflected by the inaccuracies and internal inconsistencies in the plans. To understand this rush, it is important to observe some of the recent history. The original submittal materials unrealistically contemplated starting construction by mid-December. It is amazing to consider that the applicant believed he would be able to do the significant grading work on the nearly 70% slope hillside during the winter months. The applicant demanded the earliest available hearing date (i.e. December 1) 4 of 8 EXHIBIT NO. �—I following a critical first attempt at their design on October 20t11. The Applicant managed to submit the meager revisions on or about November 18th. When asked to share a copy of the submitted plans, the applicant's architect acknowledged that he "believed that part of a lower level offset to the east and terraced out from the middle level is not quite right." It was shocking to learn that the architect was so rushed by his client to get the plans submitted to the Town that he didn't even have an opportunity to perform quality control with a thorough review. It also seems like it would be very tough for staff to meaningfully evaluate the changes and prepare a comprehensive staff report based on these changes. Again, this rush by the applicant is reflected in the submittal set. For example: • The topographic map is missing a contour along the northern boundary - there are 4 lines between 270 and 280 elevations. It reiterates some of the underlying concerns about accuracy of information. • A1.0 o Floor area calculations in proposed floor plans differs from A2.0's floor plans and floor area calculation without explanation. • A1.1: o If 150' of hose drag is the requirement from Fire, what is the purpose of the stairs along the northern property that extend nearly 20 feet past the 143 foot hose length callout? It appears to be the stairway to nowhere and invites unnecessary privacy/security concerns through intensification of use in that area with potential foot traffic. • A2.0: o Why are there skylights in the garage? It suggests an alternative purpose for the garage area. o The story pole plan is not accurate (e.g. pole 18 height) and the story poles constructed continue to be misleading and unverified. o The dimensions measured on the drawings appear in certain places to be calculated from the inside wall, whereas the code requires that floor area be calculated by measuring to the exterior face of the wall. This is best exemplified with the mid-level and lower level floor plans that measure from inside face of the western retaining wall, thereby excluding nearly 50 SF from the overall calculation on each floor. o There is concern that the floor area representations are inaccurate; a rough layperson calculation of the mid-level reveals approximately 1,530 SF compared to the 1,203 suggested beneath the floor plan on A2.0. Without 5 of 8 FXHIBIT NO. I q a floor area diagram demonstrating how the calculation is prepared, it is beyond the ability of the public to ascertain the truth and unnecessarily hard for the Board to verify the information. For example, it is believed that the applicant is not counting the floor area identified as "storage" on the mid-level since it has a ceiling height specifically identified as 611". (See "Floor Area, Gross" definition under TMC section 16-100). This is curious because there is no apparent step up in the finished floor or step down in the finished floor above, so it is unclear how an additional foot is being squeezed from this ceiling height. More importantly, this claimed internal height is an absurd interpretation of the Code and completely unrealistic that a future builder will actually subscribe to the claimed internal heights by shaving an inch off seven foot lumber. o There is internal inconsistency with the floor plans suggesting 8 foot ceiling height and the elevation showing 81" heights. o The site section depicts the existing retaining wall below the house, but does not identify its failing condition or any proposed modification/replacement. From downslope, it appears to be a significant retaining wall that warrants design review consideration as part of the overall design for property improvements. Conditions of approval in staff report are internally inconsistent: condition 11(b) provides for 18 days of road closures whereas condition 15(e) provides a maximum of 5 days for road closures. This is a material difference, especially for the neighborhood potentially impacted by the construction. 4. Variance Findings The variance findings prepared by the applicant and incorporated into the staff report are disingenuous and/or inaccurate. The applicant has not submitted any new information to support the variances since August 15. If inclined to grant any variances or exceptions from conventional development standards, we simply request that the Board make them genuine, and that the variances not be granted at great expense to our property. A. Front setback a) It is suggested that complying with the setback would locate the building envelope in a very difficult to build position on the steeply sloping lot. The lot is consistently approximately 70% slope, so no building envelope EXHIBIT NO. 6of8 location will be more or less difficult to build on. As an additional reference point, the entire application appears premised on developing off the existing foundations. b) It is suggested that compliance with setback requirements would cause the structure to be oddly and impracticably narrow since the property depth is narrow. The proposed project is approximately 35 feet deep (east-west) on a lot that is approximately 75 feet deep. There is nothing on its face that is odd or impracticable about these dimensions. B. Roof height a) It is suggested that no adjacent residence has view impacts or imposing mass issues by the proposed roof height. This statement is not true. The roof heights, in particular the garage feature, are dramatically impactful through imposition of monumental massing. C. Floor Area Exception a) We have no idea what is meant by "the vertical shape of the proposed structure and its limited depth from the street is compatible to the general shape and steepness of the existing property." We look forward to learning how this statement aids in justifying such a disproportionately large and impactful home in the neighborhood. Our understanding is that the Tiburon Code states that a variance should not be granted when it would be "injurious to other property in the vicinity." That's exactly what is happening here. We strongly request that the members of the Board come to our home and see how the size, height, placement, and design of this project affects our living spaces. This round of story poles actually looks worse that the first iteration. We will bring some photos to the hearing, but hope that you can see and feel these impacts in person. 5. Boundary Dispute. We met with the applicant and were presented with the record of survey from their surveyor. An over simplification of the issue is that their survey is based on an older survey from the south, which the applicant's surveyor then extends northward in mapping his own boundary (see our attorney's letter included as Exhibit A). This technique is used despite the fact that the applicant took title to his property by 7 of 8 EXHIBIT NO. �q__ reference to a subdivision map, not an old survey. Extrapolating this technique to our property at 81 Eastview and beyond, while at the same time applying the known property frontages that were part of our purchase, suggests that we own to the middle of our neighbors garage at 83 East View. As much as we would like to claim a third parking space along this narrow neighborhood street, it is an absurd result that is wholly inconsistent with the historic development in the area. Following the hearing in October, we contacted a number of surveyors to commission our own survey. Unfortunately, due to the holidays, our survey is expected to be available the first week of January. We look forward to sharing this information with the Board and the applicant as soon as it is available. We feel there is a strong likelihood that a survey analyzing the actual title documents of the respective properties will have a difference in the magnitude of nearly 6 feet, which could greatly impact the minimum setbacks of the new home. We appreciate your continued consideration of this sensitive issue and respectfully request that you continue your final decision pending further clarification of the matter from our surveyor. CONCLUSION This project is being rushed through the process. It comes at the expense of meaningful engagement with neighbors, burdening staff with last minute processing and turnaround, unresponsive and inaccurate materials for Boardmembers to consider, and generally wasting everyone's time. Until such a time as the applicant presents a project that substantially conforms to the hillside development standards and design guidelines, including reduction in height, bulk and mass to reflect the development pattern for the neighborhood, please deny this application. Sincerely, Ken and Andrina Welter 81 East View 8 of 8 EXHIBIT NO. � - -�-�- �j .% . MAIL # Dan Watrous From: Riley Hurd [rhurd@rflawllp.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:16 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: 77 Eastview JAN 1 1 2017 L)? Dan, . i\d", ,:x I-) `. We have just seen the new plans for this project. I find them to be incredibly nonresponsive to the direction given by the DRB, as well as to the concerns of the neighbors. I will be writing you a comprehensive letter, but that will be after your staff report goes out.Accordingly, the high-level concerns at this point are: 1. The house is still much too close to 81,thereby creating a canyon effect and severe light impact.The DRB called for a minimum of 16 feet of separation between the homes,this iteration has only 12.5 feet at the closest point. This impact is devastating in regards to access to light and prevents the FAR exception and other findings from being made. 2. The living room has actually been pushed even further east, making this now a view claim in addition to a privacy claim from the Welter master bedroom.This move is the exact opposite of responsiveness,and actually exacerbates the problem complained above.We have clear photo evidence that this wall has been moved at least 3 feet east throughout this process.The wall should go no further east than where it was sited in October. 3. The deck off the dining room has also been pushed even further east, exacerbating the privacy claim.This move is also the opposite of responsive.This deck should extend no further than where the living room wall was sited in October. 4. Contrary to claims,the house in no way complies with the hillside design guidelines. Each level should be moved closer to the street by a relative amount such that the east facade can truly step down the hill, as shown in the Guidelines. 5. The sham storage room remains with the removable ceiling that can easily be turned into FAR. My clients don't care about the size,they care about the impact.The house is too big in this design because of the resulting impacts. Perhaps a different design could get the same square footage without the impact. For example,trying to get all the primary living space on the upper floor appears to be driving the problem here. The incremental and de minimis changes between each meeting are starting to feel like death by a thousand cuts,and don't seem to respect the time of the DRB or the concerned neighbors. Unless major changes can be made at the upcoming meeting, it appears a denial and reset is what is needed here.Thank you. Riley F. Hurd III, Esq. RAGGHIANTI I FREITAS LLP 11015th Avenue,Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel:415.453.9433 ext. 126 Fax: 415.453.8269 Email: rhurd@rflawllp.com Website: http://www.rflawllp.com/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication and any accompanying documents are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you receive this transmission in error,you are advised that any disclosure, copying, distributing, or the taking of any action in reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. Moreover, any such inadvertent disclosure shall not compromise or waive the attorney client privileges as to this communication or otherwise. (See 1 EXHIBIT NO.-W'- RagghiantilFrei as LLP Attorneys at Law 1101 511 Avenue, Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 telephone 415.453.9433 Riley F. Hurd III facsimile 415.453..8269 rhurd@rflawlip.com www.rflawllp.com January 17, 2017, Via E-Mail Only Tiburon Design Review Board 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 77 Eastview Avenue (DR2016104) Dear Members of the Design Review Board: Our office continues to represent Ken and Andrina Welter, the owners of 81 Eastview Ave. in Tiburon, regarding the new house proposed next door at 77 Eastview Avenue. This letter is submitted in advance of the Board's third hearing regarding this project. Unfortunately, the revised plans, and the process that led to them, elicit a strong sense of deja vu. Like last time, the project revisions are not meaningfully responsive to the direction of the DRB or the concerns of the neighbors. Also like last time, reasonable project changes were requested of the applicant in order to gain neighbor support, and those requests were rebuffed in their entirety. Unless major changes can be made at the upcoming meeting, it appears a denial and reset is what will be required for the applicant to implement the changes needed to make this an approvable project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The house is still much too close to the home at 81 Eastview, thereby creating a canyon effect and severe light impact. 2. The living room has actually been pushed even further east, and now impacts views in addition to privacy from the Welter master bedroom. The east living room wall should extend no further than where the story pole was originally sited in October. 3. The deck off the dining room has also been pushed even further east, exacerbating the privacy impact. This deck should extend no further than where the east living room wall story pole was sited in October. 4. The house fails to comply with the hillside design guidelines, which makes a home of this size significantly more impactful than alternative designs that would include the same amount of square footage. EXHIBIT NO. Ragghianti lFreitas LLP Page 2 of 5 Project History Each time this project has been heard by the DRB, the members have sent a very clear message about the scope of the changes needed to obtain an approval. At the December 1, 2016, hearing, some of these more general messages included that the project, "doesn't get close enough by a long shot," the changes were "unsubstantial," and the design, "looks like one huge house from downtown." After comments like these, one would expect significant edits from the applicant, but that has not occurred. Besides the general comments about the scope of the project, the DRB gave rather specific direction as well. This direction included the following: • The project is "too close to 81," and needs, "16-feet between the two homes." • The project needs, "to excavate more, can find more space that way while being less impactful." • The "design guidelines require stepping," as well as, "more articulation and stepback," and this can be accomplished by placing, "more on lower level." • There was "not enough done to the width of the home," and the "east elevation is a monster." The Welters supplemented the direction of the DRB by informing the applicant that their primary concerns continued to be: 1) the upper level of the home not intruding into their views of raccoon straits or angel island, 2) the home not being so close as to loom over their west windows, and 3) privacy impacts caused by the rear deck. Is response to the detailed DRB and neighbor comments above, the new design only has 12.5 feet between the homes, proposes no more excavation than before, pushes the upper rear deck out much further, and actually articulates the east facade less by pushing out the living room on the top floor right into the Welters' area of concern. This perplexing response does not seem to be that of an applicant seeking to gain an approval. Although an applicant's intentions for the use of a residence post-approval are not generally relevant to DRB decisions, at some point the drivers for a project, and an applicant's history, cannot be ignored. It appears that an unrelenting quest for square footage, views, and amenities is also resulting in an unrelenting failure to compromise. This pattern of multiple hearings and death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to whittling ExHI IT NO.�. RagghiantilFreitaS LLP Page 3 of 5 down a project was the exact pattern the same applicant/architect duo exhibited during the 488 Washington Court flip project in the Belveron part of town. This approach is a strain on the Town's resources, as well as the concerned neighbors' lives. At some point in the process, an applicant should lose the privilege of returning and instead simply be denied until such time as a compliant project is proposed. We are at that point here. Town Code During a lengthy review process, it can be helpful to go back to basics and review the findings that must be made in order to approve a particular project. Here, the applicant seeks not only Site Plan and Architecture Review, but also three different variances for setbacks and height, as well as a Floor Area Exception. When a project seeks to deviate in so many ways from the development standards, the threshold for approval is much higher. The granting of Site Plan and Architecture Review requires the consideration of, "the location of proposed improvements on the site in relation to the location of improvements on adjoining sites, with particular attention to view considerations, privacy, location of noise-generating exterior mechanical equipment, adequacy of light and air, and topographic or other constraints on development imposed by particular site conditions. For the reasons discussed below, a consideration of these factors suggest this project is unapprovable. Code Section 16-30.050 - "Height limits and exceptions," notes that "height limits are important measures to protect privacy and views; to promote the adequate provision of sunlight, air, and visual safety; and to prevent the. vertical overbuilding of properties." Nearly each of these protected categories is impacted by this project. The height of the home creates a canyon or "lightwell" effect that blocks critically needed light in various rooms at the Welter property. If the applicant wants to exceed the limit as proposed, the 16-feet of separation called for by the DRB is an absolute necessity. The applicant has the burden here of proving that the height variance, "will not be injurious to other property in the vicinity. (Section 16-52.030(E)(4).) As designed, that burden cannot be met due. Code Section 16-52.020 (1)(4), "Floor Area Exception," states that residential construction in excess of the floor area guidelines may be granted only if, "the applicant has demonstrated that the visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood." The size and scale of this proposed structure is not compatible with its surroundings. As noted by the DRB at the last hearing, "the house is too wide," the "east elevation is a monster, and it, "looks like one huge house from downtown." EXHIBIT NO. 3 op s Ragghi anti Freitas LLP Page 4 of 5 Nothing meaningful has been done to address these comments and the FAR exception findings therefore cannot be made. It is important to note for the Board's analysis of these impacts that the story poles on site do not tell the whole story. Specifically, and as shown by the applicant's own story pole plan, the poles do not represent the extent of the roof eaves, only the corner of the interior structure. Accordingly, the impact is significantly more in each direction then as seen on site. This is particularly concerning for the extent of the east elevation, which is the one that blocks the Welters' view. Hillside Design Guidelines A major tenet of the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines is that structures should step with the hillside to break up mass. The DRB has reiterated this concept to the applicant multiple times, but the project still does not conform. While the proposed home is stepped on the uphill, or back, portion of the site, the east facade fails to take advantage of that stepping and is essentially a single plane. This failure to articulate the rear of the home in a relative amount to the front is now exacerbated by extending the upper level living room even further east, thereby further aligning the one level that was previously pulled back with the two levels below. This failure to articulate now results in a violation of the view section of the Guidelines as well, which requires that new projects not obscure landmarks or needlessly intrude on protected view corridors. Noncompliance with the Guidelines seems to be driven by the maximum sales price at the lowest construction price approach to the project. Trying to force all of the primary living space on the upper floor to capture better views appears to be driving the nonconformity. Perhaps these uses are better suited for the middle floor of the residence (like the Welters' house), in conjunction with additional excavation. Perhaps foregoing an enclosed 2-car garage, like a majority of the properties on the island do, is also required. In any event, the current design does not comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines, which prevents the approval findings from being made. Conclusion A refrain from the applicant throughout this process has been that the proposed home seeks to emulate certain design elements of the Welter home, and therefore the variances and design flaws should somehow be accepted. As noted by the DRB, the Welter residence would probably not be approved today, was not built by the Welters, and is a valid constraint that must be respected by the applicant. EXHIBIT ATO® (� P 4b �. - RagghiantiIFrei taS LLP Page 5 of 5 Reasonable and feasible solutions do exist for this site. Nothing is more demonstrative of this fact than the process and outcome of the proposed new home on a blank lot only two doors up the street. The applicant there utilized excavation to achieve square footage while mitigating impact. It appears as if that is the solution needed here if the applicant continues to refuse to make responsive changes and still wants to achieve their wish list of features. As submitted, the required findings for this application cannot be made and the project should be denied and a full reset ordered by the DRB. If the Board does feel on-the-fly changes can be made at the hearing to render the project approvable, we would request the following as an absolute minimum: 1. 16-feet of separation between the two homes. 2. That the east living room wall be pulled back to where its story pole was originally sited in October. 3. That the upper level deck extend no further east than the pulled back location of the east living room wall. Thank you for your continued consideration of this difficult project. Very Truly Yours, �. 9. Riley F. Hurd III CC: Clients Dan Watrous Jean Ludwick Broker Associate 350 Bon Air Center#199 ZEPHYR Greenbrae,CA 94904 REAL ESTATE Janurary 19, 2017 Tiburon Design Review Board LATS MAIL # J000 1595 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: 77 Eastview Avenue (DR2016104) Dear Boardmembers am writing this letter in reference to the above design review for 77 Eastview Avenue. I am the real estate broker who represented Clinton Yee in the purchase of the 77 Eastview Avenue and have attended the design review meetings since October. I have represented Clinton Yee in three transactions and have been so impressed with his cooperation, integrity and consideration of anyone involved in the process and see it again with transaction. During the escrow for 77 Eastview, it was disclosed that the neighbors at 81 Eastview acknowledged the possibility that a portion of their stairs may be on 77 Eastview. He also confirmed that the garbage enclosure on 77 Eastview was paid for by both the Welters and the seller of 77 Eastview for shared use and that there was no written shared use agreement. The seller of 77 Eastview acknowledged both. (attached). Clinton accepted the disclosure and acknowledgement. There was some property line discrepancies further down Eastview which were disclosed during the escrow as well. Clinton engaged ILS Associates to survey the property. The survey is both registered and recorded. He has contracted Michael Heckman, a well respected architect in Tiburon since 1998 to design the improved home. Michael has made several revisions to accommodate the neighbors and the design board over the last four months. The FAR requested for 77 Eastview is quite in line with properties along Eastview and considerably less than 81 Eastview. EXHIBIT NO.- 17 �. ( t� ct Marin Telephone Facsimile Website 350 Bon Air Center,Suite 100,Greenbrae,California 94904 415.496.2600 415.461.1997 ZephyrRE.corn This house will be a positive improvement for the street, blend in with existing homes and be of excellent quality. Also, a two car garage is quite favorable for Eastview due to the lack of parking along the street. Clinton bought 77 Eastview for the view;the property did not pass the Town of Tiburon resale inspection. He has been more than accommodating to the Welters and their demand to have no change to their space. hope that you will evaluate and approve the plans as proposed so that Clinton can move forward. Sincerely, r an Ludwick 415 690 8003 jean@jeanludwick.com EXHIBIT NO- t. ?. op L r)nnnRlnn Fmrolnno IF)-RI RFA RIIf`..QF A9.d3FQ.AAA R.Al—PP9Fn7AA DocuSign Envelope ID:3BD9B663-BOC3-4417-821A-90£ 988E54 " C A L I F 0 R N I A ASSOCIATION ADDENDUM OF R E A L T'O R S 1'' (C•A,R.Form ADM,Revlsad 12116) No, 1 The following terms and aoriditlons are hereby incorporated in and made a part of the: []Purchase Agreement, []Residentlal Lease or Month-to-Month Rental Agreement, []Transfer Disclosure Statement (Note:An amendment to the TDS may give the Buyer a right to rescind), [ Other Agent Visual fns ectlon Disclosure AVID dated on property known as 7Z Eas vlew Tib ro Ca,94920 in which Clinton Yee Is referred to as ("Buyeffrenant") and —- Thomas MoLggn Is referred to as ("Seller/Landlord"). David Ford the net hb r at 85 Eastview has made certain assertions regarding the legal descri tion of 77 Eastvlew,stated in the attached email from him to me dated Lanus 12 201e.His serve oral oma a sfm lar ggsgaloLls ygrbally,l contact +DId R2public Title Com ane to advise.i received the response,attached below,from811 R In ,Ad r�sory Title Officer Suver ac n wled es rete! t of this disclosure with attachments.Bu ermav CoLltARt Llr, R Ines LoUny clarification regarding his statement, Kenneth Walter the neighbor at 81 Eastview commented on and acknowledges,fhepossl4nvf his stairs maZ be on the Seller'sprojoertv,He also confirmed that the garbage en los re w s lgeLd f r b and the Seller for shared u a and Mgt herg is no written shared use agreement.Seller has acknowledged both S! nature: Dat D vld m Is i n e rs The foregoing terms and Conditions are hereby agreed to,and the undersigned acknowledge receipt of a copy oflhis document. Date 2/18/2016 Date 2/18/2016 1 2:22:48 PM PT Docu6igned by: ; Suyerfrenant 614 Seiler/Landlord tMaS ��lbV Clln# n ee Th " 40F... 62MC7C42eM4EE... Buyer/Tenant Seller/Landlord 0 1088-2015,California Association of REALTORS&Inc,United States copyright law(Title 17 U.S.Code)forbids the unauthorized distribution,display and reproduction of this form,or any portion thereof,by photocopy machine or any other means,Including facsimile or computerized formals. THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSO(C.A.R.).NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OR ACCURACY OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION.A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS THE PERSON QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS._IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE,CONSULTAN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL. This form is made available to real estate professionals through an agreement with or purchase from the California Association of REALTORS&It Is not intended to Identify the user as a REALTORO.REALTORO is a registered collective membership mark which may be used only by members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® who subscribe to Its Code of Ethics. Published and Distributed by: N REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVtC£S,INC. w a substdiary of the California Association of REAL TORSO .* 525 South Virgil Avenue,Los Angeles,California 90020 Reviewed by Date rau"u r QROnNMIy ADM REVISED 12115(PAGE 1 OF 1) ADDENDUM(ADM PAGE IOFI Alain Plnet Reoltors,lat Ne lcn Ave Corta Andes,CA 94923 Phone:dl5.308-5126 Fax Alorpm/Yee David Jampohky Produced with zlpForm®by zipl ogix 18070 Fifteen Mile Road,Fraser,Michigan 48026 xmn6.ziBi onix com Prnnowty Arlrlracc• r f'4 ',� s 1.p t i2 CJ 2,A a0 >iZ—, ,Date: DocuSign Envelope ID:8DF8187E-ED96-47A5-8123- EB16D4 B. Are-you(:Seller) aware of any signif#ca,..defects/malfunctions in any of.the following?-EV as 0o. If yes,check-appropriate space(s) below. . ❑ Interior Walls' El Ceilings lf"a�ors q Exterior Walls C Insulation O Roof(s) ❑Windows O Doors DFoundation ❑Slab(s) ElDriveways ❑Sidewalks C Wails/Fences [I Electrical Systems C Plumbing/Sewers/Septics ❑Other Structural Components (Describe: If any of the above is checked,explain.(Attach additional sheets if necessary.): _ `Installation of a listed appliance,device,or amenity is not a precondition of sale or transfer of the dwelling.The carbon monoxide device, garage door opener, or child-resistant pool barrier may not be in compliance with the safety standards relating to, respectively, carbon monoxide device standards of Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 13260) of Part 2 of Division 12 of, automatic reversing device standards of Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 19890) of Part 3 of Division 13 of, or the pool safety standards of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 115920)of Chapter 5 of Part 10 of Division 104 of,the Health and Safety Code.Window security bars may not have quick-release mechanisms in compliance with the 1995 edition of the California Building Standards Code.Section 1101.4 of the Civil Code requires all single-family residences built on or before January 1, 1994, to be equipped with water-conserving plumbing fixtures after January 1, 2017. Additionally, on and after January 1, 2014, a single-family residence built on or before January 1, 1994,that is altered or improved is required to be equipped with water-conserving plumbing fixtures as a condition of final approval.Fixtures in this dwelling may not comply with section 1101.4 of the Civil Code. C.Are you(Seller)aware of any of the following: 1. Substances, materials, or products which may be an environmental hazard such as, but not limited to,asbestos, formaldehyde, radon gas, lead-based paint, mold,fuel or chemical storage tanks, and contaminated soil or water on the subject property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . ..r1.Yes o 2. Features of the property shared in common with adjoining landowners, such as walls,fences, and driveways, whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the subject property . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ..G1"S'es 0 No 3. Any encroachments, easements or similar matters that may affect your interest in the subject property . . . . . . . . .G Yes [iiNo 4. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs made without necessary permits . . . . . ..O Yes Ne.No 5. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs not in compliance with building codes . . ..❑Yes F,�'No 6. Fill(compacted or otherwise)on the property or any portion thereof. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .. . . . .D Yes li?'No 7. Any settling from any cause, or slippage, sliding, or other soil problems . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .❑Yes i_YNo 8. Flooding, drainage or grading problems . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... . . . . . .❑Yes IW- No 9. Major damage to the property or any of the structures from fire, earthquake,floods, or landslides ... . . . . . . . . . .❑Yes L+eNo 10. Any zoning violations, nonconforming uses, violations of"setback" requirements .... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . C Yes V- No 11. Neighborhood noise problems or other nuisances . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .G Yes YNo 12. CC&R's or other deed restrictions or obligations . . . . . . . . . . : L Yes . . .. .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .. 13. Homeowners'Association which has any authority over the subject property . . . ... .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .❑Yes ]?No 14. Any"common area" (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas co-owned in undivided interest with others) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .❑Yes LteNo 15. Any notices of abatement or citations against the property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .F. Yes ✓No 16. Any lawsuits by or against the Seller threatening to or affecting this real property,including any lawsuits alleging a defect or deficiency in this real property or"common areas"(facilities such as pools,tennis courts,walkways, or other areas co-owned in undivided interest with others) . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .❑Yes 54go If he answer to any of these is yes,explain.(Attach additional sheets if necessary.): c+ ;Q C3(t�t us 0 Ck2 r3 dLtea (x©ice• �1. D. 1. The Seller certifies that the property,as of the close of escrow,will be in compliance with Section 13113.8 of the Health and Safety Code by having operable smoke detector(s)which are approved,listed,and installed in accordance with the State Fire Marshal's regulations and applicable local standards. 2. The Seller certifies that the property,as of the close of escrow,will be in compliance with Section 19211 of the Health and Safety Code by having the water heater tank(s) braced, anchored, or strapped in place in accordance with applicable law. Seller certifies `the information herein is true and correct to the best of the Seller's knowledge as of the date signed by the Seller. C�Buyer's Initials EXHIBIT NO. 1-7 ( }( 1 Copyright @ 1991-2011,CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OI-REALTORS.INC. �` TDS REVISED 11/11 (PAGE 2 OF 3) Reviewed by Date EQUAL ROUSING MASTER COPY OPPORTUNITY REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT(TDS PAGE 2 OF 3) i i ILI 1 ds--�, 10 17, < r�:� ,ir;�"r y -�:���,j"��•.`.."riz.�^". ,.� �' °�� ,4::Wi;^ ��. j� 1 ,.r�, 4 i � �` tq. C�������� j aE 1 n F a• • Y z �i �I �Lh i'14 n 3 i -.►�,c...> iia..a�a.0 c..�.m�:,en I �i i iw�ss I _ >r. X/l FF MA H i i ,XHIBIT NO. EAST ELEVATIOt4—'-'� 04 PROPOSED 2 OT-- Page 2 of 2 LATE MAIL February 23, 2017 .. Mn The Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: 77 Eastview Appeal. To Whom It May Concern: My name is David Jampolsky. I was the listing agent for 77 Eastview. During that time, I enjoyed many conversations with the Welters about a wide range of topics. At the top of the list was their love of their home, their neighbors, the community, and the incredible views they so cherished. They were very sad to lose the previous owner as a neighbor. Through mutual respect, cooperation and compromise, they had become good friends and excellent neighbors. Throughout the marketing process, the Welters were always very friendly and open. They were understandably apprehensive and at the same time excited about who would be their new neighbor. They appeared very sincere in their desire to welcome whomever purchased the home and, in the event it resulted in a project, confident that reason and compromise would prevail and create a win, win, for all. In any event, there was trust in the process and that the Town of Tiburon would protect what they cherished most, their privacy and views. The Welter's are very active and highly regarded members of the San Francisco Yacht Club and the community at large. They are such a wonderful family with beautiful children and we feel blessed to call them friends. One would hope that this family would be spared the hardship and heartache of being put through a process that they feel has not protected them or the value of their home. Sincerely, David David Jampolsky 415-308-5126 Coldwell Banker 1660 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 949 bre: 00948289 www.iampoiskyrealestate.com March 1, 2017 WL # MAR LNE M Pit David Sparks 75 Eastview Avenue Tiburon, CA 94920 Lea Stefani Town Clerk Town of Tiburon Via: e-mail Istefaiii(z townof�tibLiron,g_�g Dear Ms. Stefani: I own the property adjacent to the proposed project at 77 Eastview Avenue. I planned to attend this evening's meeting to discuss Mr. Yee's expansive construction project but I was called away unexpectedly and therefore would greatly appreciate it if you would forward this letter to the appropriate members of the town council. I think it is extremely important to emphasize that the residents of Corinthian Island are very much in favor of any efforts to improve the neighborhood. Many existing homes are in desperate need of repair, including the property purchased by Mr. Yee. Of equal importance is ensuring that such efforts do not negatively impact existing properties and the views, light exposure and privacy enjoyed by residents of the island. Mr. Yee has unfortunately designed a projeet that will impair the existing light, privacy and views that currently exist on Corinthian Island. As a developer,presumably focused on the maximum return possible, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Yee seeks to avoid excavating the property at 77 Eastview as would be required to comply with the long-standing guidelines for hillside development. As a result, if Mr. Yee's project is allowed to proceed unaltered I,and other contiguous neighbors,would be negatively impacted by both the size and placement of the proposed structured. Simply stated,the proposed house does not comply with the guidelines for hillside development. If the square footage had been more thoughtfully laid-out, if Mr. Yee were willing to excavate, if the home's design utilized a greater portion of the lower half of the lot many of the negative consequences would be mitigated. To date,Mr. Yee has refused to make any of the foregoing modifications. Even the most preliminary design changes proposed by Michael Rex would yield exponential returns. The issue I ask the council to carefully consider this evening is the precedent such unchecked development represents. Again,no one seeks to stifle positive development but our existing regulations are in place to protect against efforts such as this. My home adheres strictly to the development guidelines and I therefore do not feel asking Mr. Yee to design a home that does the same is a burdensome request. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, i David parks