Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TC Agenda Packet 2017-03-15
Transportation Authority of Morin 900 Fifth Avenue DATE: March 7,2017 Suite 100 San Rafael California 94901 TO: Town of Tiburon,Attn: Greg Chanis,Town Manager Phone: 415/226-0815 FROM: Dianne Steinhauser Fax: 415/226-0816 www.tam.ca.gov SUBJECT: TAM Presentation on Existing 1/2 cent Sales Tax for Transportation Belvedere James Campbell Dear Greg, Corte Madera The Transportation Authority of Marin would like the opportunity to brief your Town Diane Furst Council on the existing Measure A Transportation Sales Tax.TAM appreciates any input Fairfax from the council regarding renewing the tax. John Reed TAM would appreciate the opportunity to engage the Town of Tiburon in reviewing the Larkspur current sales tax for transportation,what revenue has been collected and what the tax has Dan Hilimer been spent on. TAM wants to address the needs being met by the sales tax as well as Mill Valley other fund sources,and what other transportation requirements have been identified. In Stephanie Moulton-Peters particular,TAM is seeking input regarding what transportation options the Town finds most valuable,that are supported now, and what unmet needs the Town has that requires Novato TAM's attention. Eric Lucan Ross I look forward to briefing your council and listening to their thoughts. P. Beach Kuhl Y,hink you, , San Anselmo Tom McInerney San Rafael r Gary Phillips Dianne Steinhauser,Executive Director Sausalito Transportation Authority of Marin Ray Withy Tiburon Alice Fredericks County of Marin Damon Connolly Katie Rice Kathrin Sears Dennis Rodoni Judy Arnold Making the Most of Marin County Transportation Dollars cc- / TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER MrlifornWednesday, s&ca_lled�t lar meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. March 1, 201 , 'n Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, ia. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Tollini PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Director of Community Development Anderson, Chief of Police Cronin, Planning Manager Watrous, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEES Chief of Police Cronin introduced two new town employees: Police Service Aide Bianca Wilmott and Police Officer John Gomez. He said Ms. Wilmott was a Marin County native who attended the Santa Rosa Police Academy and Officer Gomez was a native Texan who had served in the US Army for several years. He administered the Oath of Office, and gave each of them their badges. Officer Gomez was pinned by his wife. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. 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) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1-3, as written. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 1 Moved: Tollini, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Reappointments to Town Boards, Commissions — Consider reappointment of commissioners whose terms have expired (Town Clerk Stefani) Town Clerk Stefani gave the staff report. She reviewed the current vacancies on Town boards and commissions,and said four vacancies were created when four current board members'terms expired in February,2017. She said three of those incumbents would be seeking reappointment this evening: Mr. Chuck Clemons of the Building Code Appeals Board, Mr. Gordon Cousins of the Design Review Board and Mr. David Kulik of the Planning Commission. She also gave a brief update about several unscheduled vacancies on the Building Code Appeals Board,the Marin Commission on Aging,the Hilarita Board,and the Artist Laureate. She concluded her staff report. Mayor Fraser asked what the Town might do in addition to inform the public of these current vacancies. Town Manager Chanis suggested adding an advertisement in TibTalk. Councilmember Fredericks also suggested reaching out to Homeowners Associations. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. MOTION: To reappoint the following commissioners whose terms expired on February 28, 2017: David Kulik (Planning Commission); Gordon Cousins (Design Review Board), Chuck Clemons (Building Code Appeals Board); and to direct staff to continue to advertise to fill the remaining vacancies on Town Boards,Commissions and Committees. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Unanimous 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) Director of Public Works Barnes gave the staff report. He said CalTrans responded positively to initial discussions on Tiburon Boulevard relinquishment on the condition that the Town was seriously considering it and it would be at no cost to them.The Town then entered into a cooperative agreement with CalTrans to do a PSSR study,but later asked CalTrans to put the PSSR on hold until the passage of legislation in June 2014 and then again due to some hesitations about what the project might look like for the Town. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 2 Director Barnes showed a photo of the proposed boundary that has been under discussion with CalTrans—extending from just east of Lyford Drive to Main Street. The agreement with CalTrans stipulated that the Town would pay$108,000 for the PSSR.Thus far, $18,000 has been spent and the project is currently on hold. Council directed Staff to conduct a cost/benefit analysis for the Town. Consultants estimated this analysis would cost approximately $40,000 and informed staff that the Town would need to provide the costs and would need to provide some analysis for benefits. The benefits of this project have been difficult to quantify into dollars. Director Barnes said Staff is seeking direction from Council whether to keep this project on hold,as it has been since 2014, stop the project or ask CalTrans to restart the PSSR study. He concluded his staff report and invited questions from the Council. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the Town spent the $40,000 to do the cost/benefit analysis. Director Barnes confirmed that the Town did not spend that amount; only $18,000 for the PSSR. Councilmember Tollini referenced the estimated cost of maintaining the Boulevard($133,000);she asked if the Town was already paying a portion of that cost for maintenance. Director Barnes said the Town does not do maintenance for CalTrans,but he has called on them to do storm drain maintenance if there is a problem. Mayor Fraser noted that if the Town assumed ownership of the Boulevard, the Town would be responsible for storm drain maintenance. He asked if there was a way to discuss storm drain maintenance work with CalTrans, since particularly since the current downtown storm drain issues may be connected to maintenance work they are responsible for. Director Barnes said the current storm drain problems downtown have to do with rerouting lines on Beach Road. Councilmember Fredericks asked for confirmation that CalTrans is not necessarily responsible for fixing the Beach Road flooding issues. Director Barnes confirmed. He said the Town has studied how to address that problem, and the project would cost approximately $500,000. Councilmember Fredericks asked if those issues were related to storm surges or regular high tides. Barnes said a regular high (or king) tide could still cause flooding in that location. Mayor Fraser asked for confirmation that none of the storm drain issues on Tiburon Boulevard are the responsibility of CalTrans. Director Barnes confirmed. Mayor Fraser opened floor for public comment. There was none. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 3 Councilmember Fredericks said there would be no loss to putting the project on hold as there is no immediate project that would call for the Town to have control of the road. She said there was an added issue that part of the right-of-way is in use by private property owners. Vice Mayor O'Donnell gave a brief history of the project, and said the idea stemmed from discussions about what we could do to beautify the downtown.He said he was initially in support of the project,but his opinion has shifted. He said the downtown property owners intended to improve their properties too, but have not followed through. He agreed with Councilmember Fredericks, particularly in light of the necessary improvements that need to be made in response to rising tides. Councilmember Doyle agreed. He said he had hoped constructing the library roundabout, and changing the transition into our downtown,would prompt further improvements,but there does not seem to be much interest in moving forward by the property owners. He said this year's storms brought a very large volume of water into the downtown, and it would be a lot of work for us to maintain those areas if we were to assume ownership. Councilmember Tollini said she still likes the idea of assuming ownership of the Boulevard and revitalizing the downtown,but the Council does not have any defined projects yet. She said it makes sense to put it on hold at this time. Mayor Fraser agreed and asked if the Town can indefinitely put the relinquishment on hold without losing the ability to assume ownership at a later date. Director Barnes said there has been legislative action that states Tiburon Boulevard will become the Town's property when both parties agree to it, and that will not change without further legislative action.However,the Town also has a cooperative agreement with CalTrans to do the PSSR.He said the Town could either keep this agreement, or fold it and do another in the future. Councilmember Fredericks did not think CalTrans would block future action and said Town would not have to go back for another legislative action if Council were to opt to fold on this agreement. Town Manager Chanis said the "relinquishment manual" for CalTrans has changed since the agreement was made, and will likely change again. He said there is no downside to keeping the relinquishment on hold,but Council should be aware that the rules may change again by the time the Town is ready to pick this project up again. It is difficult to predict future hurdles at this time. Vice Mayor O'Donnell commented that perhaps this project will come up again when it is time to discuss the library expansion and the Tiburon Boulevard and Mar West intersection. MOTION: To put the PSSR on hold. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous AI-3. Senate Bill 415 Discussion/Direction — Receive informational report on SB 415 (Voter Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 4 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) Town Clerk Stefani gave the staff report. She said the California Voter Rights Participation Act will require municipalities with a significant decrease in voter turnout at their most recent odd-numbered year municipal election to consolidate municipal elections with statewide (even-numbered year) elections. She showed a figure outlining Tiburon's voter turnout in the 2015 election (29.36%) compared to average voter turnout in Tiburon even-numbered year elections. She said the differential of 40%does constitute a significant decrease in voter turnout, and will require the Town to change dates of its municipal election to even-numbered years. She said the only way to change election cycles to even years is to alter terms of office in some way. She gave an overview of the different options for compliance: ➢ Consolidate with June of even-numbered year elections, rather than November. ➢ Extend current Councilmembers terms of office by one year, cancelling the 2017 and 2019 elections and moving them to 2018 and 2020, respectively. ➢ Alter the terms of office of future candidates, causing those candidates to run for 3,4.5 or 5 year terms,beginning with either the 2017 or 2019 election,then to resume four-year terms in the following election cycles. She said there were deadlines to consider:the bill requires at least one even-numbered year election to occur by the year 2022. To ensure timely compliance, Council should consider the various timelines that go alongside each option, and possible limitations. Stefani also commented as many school and special districts have already left the November 2017 ballot in their own pursuit of statewide election consolidation, odd-numbered year elections will increase in cost beginning with the November 2017 election.Prior to the passage of this bill,election costs were approximately $1.75-$3.00 per registered voter, and are now expected to rise to at least $4.00-$6.00 per registered voter. She concluded her staff report. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. Andre Manzel asked why only one odd-numbered year data point was included in the voter turnout analysis. Town Clerk Stefani said the bill defines low voter turnout by comparing only a city's most recent odd-numbered year voter turnout to the average of the past four even-numbered year elections. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said Mr. Manzel made an interesting point because voter turnout is more likely to be low when there is an unopposed Council race. Town Manager Chanis said he suspected that was part of the bill's purpose: to ensure voters participate in unopposed elections. He also reiterated that while we are not reviewing data from Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 5 previous years,those data points cannot be used in the analysis required to determine if Tiburon has experienced a significant decrease in voter turnout. O'Donnell said voter turnout in Tiburon was higher when there was a contested election. He said people voted based on what they are interested in,and not necessarily on everything on the ballot.He felt that pushing the necessity to vote was questionable, and did not think this bill was beneficial to the affected municipalities and districts.He said people who want to vote should be able to vote,and those that do not want to vote,should not have to.He believes that local governments should handle local issues,and to involve local elections with national elections would be a mistake.He feared this consolidation was symbolic of movement toward creating a"power structure". Councilmember Tollini said she does not believe that the purpose of the bill was that nefarious,but suggested moving the elections to June to keep a bit of separation. O'Donnell said the most recent June election(the Presidential primary)did not have great results.He said there has been talk of moving the primary elections in California because, like in 2016, many Republican candidates had already left the ballot by the time California voted. He said Californians may essentially,have less of a say. He did not agree with putting local districts on a national stage. He commented on the possible unintended consequences of this law. He said the results will likely be highly-politicized districts and city councils. Councilmember Fredericks suggested future candidates refuse endorsements during their campaigns if they wish to attempt to remain more non-partisan. O'Donnell said the situation still may arise when a local candidate is asked about a politicized measure that may have nothing to do with local issues. Councilmember Fredericks thought that the Mayor and Council have a lot of control over"keeping local government local". Mayor Fraser asked if the Council was required to make a decision tonight. Town Clerk Stefani said the Council does not have to make a decision tonight,but said an ordinance should be adopted in April to ensure timely consideration before the Marin County Board of Supervisors if Council wishes to make any changes to the 2017 election. Councilmember Fredericks wished to comply with the bill by making the simplest change possible. O'Donnell said the Town should conduct the 2017 and 2019 elections.He said it would not be right to extend their current terms; they should serve the terms they were voted for. Councilmembers Tollini and Doyle agreed. Town Council Minutes #xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 6 Councilmember Fredericks agreed, and asked what their options were from this point. Town Clerk Stefani said to begin the change with the 2017 election, candidates may run for three, four-and-a-half or five year terms in the 2017 and 2019 elections. Mayor Fraser said he believed changing 2017 and 2019 elections to three year terms seemed to be the best solution. The rest of the Council agreed. MOTION: To comply with SB 415 by altering the terms of future candidates to run for three- year terms in the 2017 and 2019 elections, to then resume 4-year terms in the subsequent election cycles. Moved: Tollini, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Unanimous 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 Accessor Parcel No.: 060-105-92 Staff Report Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report and gave a brief history of the project. He said the Design Review Board approved Site Plan and Architectural Review for a new single-family dwelling at 77 East View Avenue on January 19, 2017. The appeal was filed by the owners of the property next door, at 81 East View Avenue. He noted that while the application was for a new single-family dwelling,the proposed changes were for modifications to an existing home. He said the changes proposed exceeded the demolition threshold and the application would be considered as a new home. Watrous said when the Design Review Board reviewed the application last year, several neighbors raised privacy and view concerns. The DRB shared those concerns,and felt the home was too large and wide, and requested better compliance with the hillside design guidelines. The applicant submitted revised plans over the course of two subsequent DRB meetings before approval in January for the construction of a new home with a floor area exception, and variances for lot coverage, reduced front setback and excess building height. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 7 He said the applicants filed an appeal with five grounds: a lack of compliance with the hillside design guidelines, view blockage, close proximity to the appellant's dwelling,privacy impacts and lack of findings required to approve an application with such requests. Planning Manager Watrous gave a brief overview of the grounds of the appeal, and Staff s analysis. He noted that Corinthian Island homes are very close together,so expectations for privacy should be moderated. He said Staff believes the Design Review Board appropriately applied the guiding principles for hillside design, and said the proposed home would not result in substantial view or privacy issues. He added that the Board recognized the difficulty in modernizing homes on Corinthian Island during their review. He concluded his staff report. He concluded his staff report and invited questions from Council. Mayor Fraser asked about the difference between a home that is "cut" into the hillside versus "stepped". Watrous said cutting is cutting into the grade, whereas stepping would be movement alongside the existing grade. Mayor Fraser inquired about the appellant's borrowed view. He asked if it was incorrect usage of that term to only apply it to vacant lots.Watrous said the term"borrowed view"applies to properties with both an existing undersized home and a vacant lot.He said one could reasonably assume these lots would be expanded upon. Councilmember Fredericks asked what parameters one might use to reasonably expect a large expansion of the home next door,particularly one that already had exceeded normal floor area ratios. Watrous said there are certain neighborhoods in Town, like Corinthian Island, where there are consistent development patterns of homes that exceed FAR, setbacks and heights. Appellant Presentation Riley Hurd, attorney for the appellants, Kenneth and Andrina Welter, called the proposed home "wildly non-conforming" and said there were serious impacts that needed a separate look. He said that this home is requesting several variances, and these deviations from the code should be a privilege, rather than a right. He showed a schematic of the impacts of the proposed home from the bedroom of the appellants,and said this home will affect the appellant's light, privacy and views. Of the design guidelines,he said one might refer to a view across a vacant lot a"borrowed view",but that is not the case here. He said the home is not stepped into the hillside as it should be. He said the major impacts are the applicant's refusals to pull back the upper level, and the upper level deck now looks into the appellant's master bedroom. He said his clients believe the applicant should build a home as large as he desires, but it should not be at their expense. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 8 He concluded his report and stated that the legally required findings to support these exceptions cannot be made.He invited architect Michael Rex to review possible solutions and alternatives to the design that has been proposed, such as a floor plan consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Michael Rex distributed several concept designs to the Council, and said these designs were proof that there were alternatives to the design the applicants have proposed.He pointed out that reducing the size of one set of interior stairs, and eliminating one powder room, would create a design that would alleviate many concerns. Councilmember Fredericks asked about any code restrictions for the interior stairs mentioned. Applicant Presentation Architect Michael Heckmann said the Design Review Board made the right ruling. He said he was confident this project is approvable and would be a good addition to the neighborhood. He said he has reviewed the drawings with great detail and made appropriate revisions to respond to the neighbors' concerns. He commented that the architect hired by the appellants may have drawn the "proof of concept" drawings at a misleading scale,and included an unsafe stairway to make everything fit into a smaller space. Of the variances requested,he said these requests are common in this neighborhood and every home nearby has similar variances, including the appellant's home. He said this lot is slightly larger than others nearby, and for that reason, the lot can accommodate more square footage. Mr.Heckmann said this neighborhood is dense and suburban,and the expectation that neighbors will not be able to see each other is unrealistic. He said the home he and his client have proposed has a modest living space, with a height commensurate with others in the neighborhood, and the Design Review Board believed it was appropriate distance away from the homes next door. He asked that the Council affirm the decision made by the Design Review Board. Councilmember Fredericks asked Mr. Heckmann why the alternative stairs were unacceptable. Mr. Heckmann said the stairs dropped too quickly and would not be reasonably included in a new home for safety reasons.Fredericks asked if there was a code-compliant way to build them.Heckmann said there may be, but it would still be unsafe. Fredericks asked about the loss of living space. Heckmann said there would be a loss of space with the proposed alternative. He said it would be a smaller floor area, a smaller and nonfunctional stairway. Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March -1, 2017 Page 9 Councilmember Doyle asked about the changes that had been made between the Design Review Board meetings,particularly why the home was expanded another four feet. Heckmann replied that the living space was reduced when they moved the garage and said the expansion was to capture the difference in living space that had been given up. He added that a view from the bedroom is not a critical view element, and should not be given the weight it has been given. Doyle asked what had changed after the Design Review Board's initial criticisms and comments. Heckmann said the resulting design was based on the comments of the Design Review Board, and the Board accepted the changes made as appropriate. Vice Mayor O'Donnell clarified that the changes made included moving the garage and reducing floor area. Heckmann said he and the applicant have done everything they can to maintain the appellant's privacy and light to their home. The applicant, Clinton Yee, agreed and said he had tried to work with the appellants to develop a compromise. Public Comment Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. The appellant's realtor said she represented the appellants when they purchased their current home. She said they gave up a lot for their view, and this development would reduce their property value. She said the applicant should agree to put the living space on the second level, like other homes nearby. She said the Town granting variances puts the community at risk because a person might not be able to reasonably expect what might happen next door; the guidelines exist for a reason. Vicki Sedaro,489 Washington Court, said the applicant was not a courteous neighbor to her during his previous construction project on her street. David Mittleman said the design standards have not been properly applied in this case. He argued that the design guidelines are clear that a buyer of a home next to a vacant lot can reasonably expect a home will be built there, but might not reasonably expect a neighbor's home expansion be permitted to infringe on their partial view. He said Tiburon residents value their partial views, and expect the Town will protect the view they purchased. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Hurd said the solution is simple: if the applicant desires to keep the square footage on the top of the home,they should have a one car garage.If the applicant wants a two-car garage,they should put their living area on the middle floor. He said that while their architect did draw the plans to scale, those drawings were only meant to be a proof of concept that changes can be made. Andrina Welter,appellant,expressed stress as a homeowner over the course of this process.She said Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 10 she and her husband trusted the Town of Tiburon to support the common idea amongst residents that their views would be protected and cherished. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Heckmann said their team had responded to the neighbor's requests and provided solutions to the issues they raised. He said the Design Review Board believed his team had compromised appropriately and provided a proper and balanced solution. He said this is about one minor view issue,and the bulk of the appellant's view would be preserved. He asked that the Council affirm the Design Review Board's decision. Council Discussion and Decision Councilmember Doyle said he prefers to give leeway to an existing home because it is already there and was bought for a specific reason.He said he does not see how this proposed home complies with the design guidelines, and does not like to give cars precedence over view. He believed the Design Review Board's initial criticisms were correct,and he did not see how substantial changes had been made.He said this home infringes on the neighbor's privacy,and it does not seem right to put a deck across from a neighbor's bedroom.He commended Mr.Heckmann's skill as an architect,and said he is confident he could develop an alternative-He said he would uphold the appeal. Councilmember Fredericks agreed. She felt conflicted about preserving a view from a bedroom,but was bothered by an open area that could accommodate lots of activity so close to a bedroom. She said design is supposed to help create community, and creating something that will cause neighbor conflict is not the best way to approach things. Vice Mayor O'Donnell agreed,but said view is still an important consideration in this case.He said he believes an opportunity for compromise exists, and expectations should be moderated. He said this home is not stepped back according to the hillside design guidelines, and the entire upper floor should be shrunk.He suggested eliminating the deck entirely,as decks in Tiburon are often not well utilized due to weather. For that reason,the privacy concern could be alleviated and perhaps room for a compromise to maintain space on the upper floor.He said he is confident Mr.Heckmann could develop a solution, and said he would vote to uphold the appeal. Councilmember Tollini agreed that changes cannot be made to an existing home,and there is more flexibility for the builder. She also believed there was more room for compromise, and agreed that the deck should not look into the bedroom window. Mayor Fraser thanked the appellants and the applicants for their presentations. He also acknowledged Mr. Heckmann's skill as an architect, but agreed with his colleagues. He said the home is not stepped back into the hillside according to the design guidelines, and commented that there are other ways to capture square footage. He said he would vote to uphold the appeal. MOTION: To grant the appeal, and direct staff to return at the next regular meeting with a Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 11 resolution memorializing that decision. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Fredericks made a short report on Senate Bill 375, which would require local jurisdictions to submit periodic reports on their progress toward building the regional housing number allocations,and if they did not,they would be required to pass a package that allowed multi- family dwellings with affordable units to be passed by ministerial action. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager Chanis reminded the Council of the upcoming Council-Staff Retreat to take place on Friday, March 3 at the Ranch. He said he had binders with documents relating to the retreat agenda items for the Council to take home with them this evening. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes#xx-2017 DRAFT March 1, 2017 Page 12 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 15, 2017 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: REPORTSTAFF To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 77 East View Avenue; Adoption of Resolution Granting an 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, VAR201 35 & FAE2016011; Assessor Parcel No. 060-105-92 Reviewed by: BACKGROUND At its meeting of March 1, 2017, the Town Council held a hearing on this item and directed Staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal. The draft resolution is attached as Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution granting the appeal. EXHIBIT 1. Draft resolution Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous,Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING AN APPEAL BY ADRINA AND KENNETH WELTER OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE 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, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 77 EAST VIEW AVENUE (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 060-105-92) WHEREAS, on October 20, 2016 the Design Review Board held a public hearing on a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (Files # DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011) filed by Clinton Yee for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front and side setbacks, excess lot coverage and excess building height, on property at 77 East View Avenue ("Project"); and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the property owners at 81 East View Avenue, Andrina and Kenneth Welter ("Appellants"), and neighboring residents at 75 East View Avenue raised concerns about the Project's 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 Appellants' home. The Board continued the application to the December 1, 2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2016 the Design Review Board held a public hearing to review revised plans for this Project. 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; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2017 the Design Review Board held a public hearing to review revised plans for this Project, which proposed demolition of more than 50% of the existing structure, reclassifying the application as construction of a new single-family dwelling for zoning purposes. The application also included variances for reduced front setback and excess building height. At that meeting, the Appellants expressed concerns about loss of privacy and view blockage issues stemming from the Project; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board determined that the revisions to the Project design addressed the potential view and privacy issues, and voted 2-1 to conditionally Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2017 03/15/2017 Page 1 of 3 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; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2017, the Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the project application consists of Files 4 DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011, on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. The official record for this Project application is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes, without limitation, the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearings, and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2017, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the Project and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and receiving all documents in the record, the Town Council disagreed with the conclusions of the Design Review Board regarding this Project, and granted the appeal. The Town Council determined that the Project would be inconsistent with the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1. Section 16-52.020 (H[2]) of the 'Tiburon "Zoning Ordinance states that in order to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application, the Town must 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." The Town Council determined that the project design would create substantial privacy, light and air impacts on the Appellants' property. The privacy of the Appellants' home would be significantly impacted by the proposed upper level deck, which would allow occupants using the primary living areas of the proposed dwelling to view into the Appellants' master bedroom. The upper floor of the house would be too large when viewed from the Appellant's home, resulting in excessive building mass in close proximity to their residence and potential light and air blockage to south-facing windows of their home. 2. Goal 1, Principles 1 & 9 of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, encourage projects to "cut [the] building into [the] hillside to reduce effective bulk" and to "excavate underground or below grade rooms to dramatically reduce effective bulk, provide energy efficient and Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2017 03/15/2017 Page 2 of 3 environmentally desirable spaces." The Town Council determined that the design of the proposed house did not adequately step into the steep hillside of the subject property and was not designed to reduce its effective bulk in accordance with these guidelines. 3. Section 16-52.030 (E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that findings must be made to approve a variance, 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." The Town Council determined that this finding cannot be made, as the Project design would create substantial privacy, light and air impacts which would be injurious to the Appellants' property. 4. Section 16-52.020 (I[4{a}]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that findings must be made to approve a floor area exception, including the finding 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 Town Council determined that this finding cannot be made, as the project design was more visually massive than other homes on Corinthian Island. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby grants the appeal of Andrina and Kenneth Welter of the Design Review Board's approval of the application (Files #DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011) for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback, excess lot coverage and excess building height and a floor area exception, on property located at 77 East View Avenue, and denies the application. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on March 15, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2017 03/15/2017 Page 3 of 3 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting G ` 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 15,2017 ` r Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item:CC 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 Vacancies on Town Boards, Commissions and Committees: Building Code Appeals Board Reviewed By: BACKGROUND As reported at the March 1, 2017 regular meeting, two additional vacancies were created on the Building Code Appeals Board when the terms of two board members expired at the end of February 2017 (Chuck Clemons and Rich Ostaggi). The Council voted unanimously to reappoint Mr. Chuck Clemons to another four-year term on the Building Code Appeals Board, commencing March 1, 2017. At the time of the meeting, Mr. Rich Ostaggi had not yet indicated whether he intended to seek reappointment. Mr. Ostaggi has now indicated he is willing to serve another term on the Building Code Appeals Board, but will likely step down before the full four-year term ends in 2021.No applications have been received. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council consider reappointment to the Building Code Appeals Board. 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 \6 s TOWN 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.org(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. EXHIBIT 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: richo@att.net Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 5:35 PM To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re: Building Code Appeals Board Reappointment Lea, As per our conversation, I am willing to be reappointed to the Building Code Appeals Board. I have plans to move out state in the summer of 2019, if this does not pose a problem, I'm willing to serve until then. Sincerely, Rich Ostaggi On Thursday, March 2, 2017 10:04 AM, Lea Stefani <Istefani cni.townoftiburon.org> wrote: Good morning Rich, Per our phone conversation, please confirm that you would like to be considered for reappointment to the Building Code Appeals Board for another 4-year term. Thanks! Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 Istefani@townoftiburon.org EXHIBIT NO. 2. @} TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting March 15, 2017 1505 Tiburon Boulevard x Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: CCA REPORTSTAFF To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Pro lamation in support of the Rotary Club Centennial in 2017 Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Town Staff was recently contacted by the local Tiburon Rotary Club president, Linda Emberson, requesting that the Town Council adopt a proclamation declaring 2017 as the year of commemoration for the Rotary Foundation in honor of its centennial anniversary of"doing good in the world". In 1905, Rotary International was formed, and the Rotary Foundation followed in 1917 as an endowment fund for Rotary"to do good in the world". Rotary International has grown into a worldwide leadership and service organization of more than 1.2 million business and professional people in more than 32,000 clubs in 168 countries. Members gather to enjoy fellowship and camaraderie, but, more importantly, they work together to complete humanitarian projects, encourage high standards in all vocations, support their communities and promote world understanding and peace in their home countries as well as internationally. Bay Area Rotary Clubs consist of nearly 2000 members, and the Town of Tiburon boasts its own chapter, celebrating its 40`x' anniversary this year. Local community projects supported by Rotary include the Peace Pole at the front of Town Hall,new landscaping at the Railroad &Ferry Depot Museum,helping the residents of the Hilarita create a new garden so they can grow their own produce and sending students from the community abroad for specialized study. Crews of volunteers have also been active on Tiburon's hillside, keeping the community beautiful by helping to pull out invasive plants. Tiburon's local Rotarians have also dedicated time and resources to international projects. Members have been active in Rotaplast hrternational, Ebola relief, as well as Rotary International's efforts to eradicate Polio. Tiburon Rotary has also worked on a global book exchange project, in which the program ships books to children in developing countries including the Philippines,Fiji, Gaza, Cambodia, South Africa and Liberia. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the proclamation in support of The Rotary Foundation Centennial Anniversary. Exhibit: Draft Proclamation Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk PROCLAMATION COMMEMORATING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROTARY FOUNDATION "Doing Good in the World" WHEREAS, Rotary International was formed in 1905 to provide important service to the community and in the world; and WHEREAS, The Rotary Foundation was created in 1917 by Rotary International's sixth president, Arch C. Klumph, as an endowment fund for Rotary "to do good in the world." WHEREAS, The Rotary Foundation has grown from an initial contribution of$26.50 to more than $4 billion in contributions that provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards, and to help build goodwill and peace in the world; and WHEREAS, The Rotary Foundation, in partnership with the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, and governments around the world, has dedicated efforts to eradicate Polio in the world through immunization, and has achieved a success rate of 99%; and WHEREAS, The Rotary Foundation has focused its efforts on sustainable programs in six areas: promoting peace; fighting disease; providing clean water; providing improved health care for mothers and children; supporting education; and growing local economies; and WHEREAS,The Rotary Foundation has provided more than $3.8 billion in grants to support these areas of focus; and WHEREAS, Rotary International is one of the world's largest nongovernmental service organizations with 1.2 million members in more than 200 countries; and WHEREAS, there are currently 42 Rotary Clubs serving the counties of Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo consisting of nearly 2000 members who raise funds and volunteer their time for Bong good in their local communities and around the world; and WHEREAS, The Rotary Foundation will celebrate its Centennial in January 2017; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT 2017 BE DECLARED AS THE YEAR OF COMMEMORATION FOR THE ROTARY FOUNDATION'S 100 YEARS OF DOING GOOD IN THE WORLD. JIM FRASER, Mayor TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 15, 2017 Agenda Item:Al - Tiburon, CA 94920 b STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Consider indicating continued support for the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic R ief Joint Powers Authority and Yellow Bus Challenge Program Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Town, along with the City of Belvedere (the City) and the Reed Union School District (RUSD), have worked cooperatively for the past several years to reduce school-related traffic congestion on Tiburon Boulevard through the development of the Yellow Bus Challenge Program (YBCP). This effort took an important step forward this Fiscal Year with the formation of the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA was formed by the Town, City and RUSD to: more efficiently manage the yellow bus program, seek ways to make the program financially sustainable, and explore opportunities to further reduce traffic congestion on the Tiburon Peninsula. The JPA instituted a number of changes to the YBCP in this school year including: • Contracting with Marin Transit to provide day to day operational oversight of the YBCP, particularly when the buses are on the road. • Creation of a part time contract `Program Manager' to assist in administering the YBCP and acting as a liaison with Marin Transit, parents and RUSD. • Introduction of a new web based platform for providing information on the program and purchasing of bus passes. • Development and introduction of a mobile `app' which allows users to see real time information on the location of buses on their routes. These efforts have resulted in a significant improvement in service over the prior year, with a recent survey of parents indicating that nearly 86% of the respondents were either very satisfied (48.2%) or somewhat satisfied (37.5%) with the service. This year, a total of 1352 one-way passes were sold, which means approximately 47% of RUSD students are utilizing the service. Planning is currently well underway for the upcoming 2017-2018 school year, with passes set to go on sale April 3, 2017. The JPA Board has set the price for one way passes at $295.00 per pass, which is a $20 per pass increase over the current year price. At this price, the program will again require a financial subsidy from both the Town and City to continue. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 TOW11 Council \-icetMng \9 arch 15,2017 As passes must go on sale prior to the time Council adopts an operating budget, we are asking Council to consider indicating continued support of the program and its intention to provide funding for the program in the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Budget. FINANCIAL IMPACT Exhibit 1 of the Staff Report shows the approved Fiscal Year 2017 JPA budget along with a preliminary draft budget for Fiscal Year 2018 totaling $709,020. Bus pass sales are estimated at $368,750, with contributions from other sources totaling $54,500. Based on these preliminary figures, this would leave a balance of$285,770 that will need to be provided by the Town and City. Based on the agreed upon 80/20 percent split, the City would be responsible for $57,154, leaving the Town responsible for $228,616. In the Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Town Operating Budget, the Council approved $260,000 to be used to support the YBCP, and actually expended $205,883. Due to the uncertainty of pass sales, we are asking Council to direct staff to include in the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Budget an appropriation in the amount of$240,000 to support the YBCP. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council: 1. Reaffirm the Town's support of the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief Joint Powers Authority 2. Direct staff to include, for Town Council consideration, an appropriation of$240,000 in the Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Town Operating Budget as the Town's contribution to the Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief Joint Power Authority. Exhibits: 1)Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief Joint Powers Authority-Approved Fiscal Year 2017 and Preliminary Fiscal Year 2018 Budgets. Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager Tiburon Peninsula Traffic Relief Joint Power Agency Exhibit 1 FY 2017 Final Budget - FY 2018 Preliminary Budget Final 2017 Preliminary R�uenue Budget 2018 Budget RUSD Bus Pass Sales 343,750 368,750 RUSD Contribution 15,000 15,000 Corte Madera Contribution 25,000 0 County Funding 37,000 37,000 Grant Funding(BCF&TPF) 15,950 0 Annual Appeal (Donations) 5,000 2,500 Subt6tai 441,700 423,250 Tiburon Contribution to Subsidy(80%of Deficit) 205,883 228,616 Belvedere Contribution to Subsidy(20%of Deficit) 51,471 57,154 Total Revenue $699,054 $709,020' < 1=XPENSES Bus Contract Cost 522,900 578,340 Contract Overrun 12,500 5,000 Contract Credit for Bus Storage 0 (8,400) Consulting to Develop Program 10,000 2,500 Operations Support Contract with Marin Transit 45,000 46,575 JPA Program Manager 30,000 30,000 Administrative Expenses 8,000 8,000 Vehicle Tracking System 16,893 5,434 Find My Bus App 16,500 3,571 Credit Card Processing Fees 10,261 10,500 JPA Liability Insurance 7,500 8,000 Legal expense 2,500 2,500 Miscellaneous 5,000 5,000 Bus Parking 12,000 12,000 Total Expensesl $699,054 $709,020' ` OWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting f 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 15,2017 rr Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: PH -1 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Clerk Subject: Amend Title 1, Chapter 2, Section 2-3.3 (Date of General Municipal Elections) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to Change the Date of General Municipal Elections from November of Odd-Numbered Years to November of E en-Numbered Years—Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The California Voter Rights Participation 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. SB 415 requires jurisdictions that hold local elections in odd-numbered years to consolidate their elections with statewide election dates, 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 this 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. i. 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. At the March 1, 2017 regular meeting of the Town Council, Council received an informational report on SB 415, including an outline of all options available for compliance and the corresponding timelines. Following discussion of several possible scenarios for compliance, Council adopted a plan to make a one-time alteration to future candidates' terms of office. The 2017 and 2019 candidates for municipal office will run for three-year terms, ending in November 2020 and November 2022, respectively. The November 2020 and November 2022 candidates will resume four-year terms. This option ensures compliance with SB 415 in 2020. SCENARIO 1: Change Future Candidate Terms Beginning with 2017 Election(3 Years,4,5 Years,or 5 Years) i' 2017 1 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 2023 2024 June Nov June Nov June Nov : June Nov +:June :'Nov s June Nov June Nov MJun. N.v 2017 Regular 4 Year Term Candidate(3) 3 Year Term,ending in Nov 2020 4.5 Year Term,ending In lune 2020 5YeaYTerm-ending inNw2022 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021' 2012 2023 2024 June Nov June Nov June Nov June Nov lune Nou June Nov June Nov June N 2019 Regular 4 Year Term Candidate(2) 3 Year Term,endina in Nov 2022 4.5 Year Term,ending in June 2024 5 Year Term,ending In in Nov 202'4 The Town Council directed Staff to return with an ordinance that moved the General Municipal Election to November of even-numbered years, with terms of office being reduced for the candidates of the 2017 and 2019 elections. The proposed ordinance will change the date of municipal elections to November of even- numbered years beginning in November 2020. The Town will conduct the November 2017 and 2019 elections, and Councilmembers elected will serve for three-year terms. The ordinance repeals and amends Title 1, Chapter 2, Section 2-3.3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Date of General Municipal Elections). After the ordinance is adopted, it will require approval by the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Within thirty days of the Board of Supervisors approval, the Town Clerk will mail a notice to all registered voters in Tiburon informing them of the change in election date and the decrease in candidate's terms affected by the ordinance. 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. ni (Ir>i 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 are also on the ballot. When more jurisdictions are on the same ballot, the cost is spread amongst them. This bill has prompted other Marin jurisdictions, school districts and special districts to consider changing their election dates as well, and several have already adopted plans to do so. Several of the school and special districts the Town has previously shared costs with on the November ballot have adopted plans to extend their current terms of office and cancel their November 2017 (and presumably 2019) elections. For this reason, the Marin County Elections Department has estimated a cost per voter increase in the cost of the election from $1.75-$3.00 per voter in previous years to $4.00-$6.00 per voter. This cost increase will begin with the November 2017 ballot and will affect the Town of Tiburon's November 2017 and November 2019 elections. The Department has also commented that this may be a low estimate. It is also noteworthy that the chosen scenario to comply with SB 415 will also require the Town to conduct back-to-back elections in 2019 and 2020. RECOMMENDATION Following a public hearing, staff recommends the Town Council: 1. Hold a public hearing and consider any testimony. 2. Move to read by title only and introduce the ordinance (Exhibit 2) amending Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Tiburon Municipal Code, waiving further reading. Hold a roll call vote for the introduction. The item would return for adoption at the next regular Town Council meeting. Exhibits: 1. Senate Bill No. 415: California Voter Participation Rights Act, approved by Governor Brown on September 1, 2015 2. Draft Ordinance: "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, California, Amending Title 1, Chapter 2, Section 2-3.3 of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code to Change the Date of General Municipal Elections from November of Odd-Numbered Years to November of Even-Numbered Years" Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk 1, �,�X T Caul i, I uf> J .i i.Il,T, 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 EXHIBIT 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 fixture 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 Cal.3d 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. N.S. (DRAFT) AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 1,CHAPTER 2,SECTION 2-3.3 OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE DATE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS FROM NOVEMBER OF ODD-NUMBERED YEARS TO NOVEMBER OF EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS WHEREAS, the Town's General Municipal Election is now scheduled for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd-numbered years; and WHEREAS, the Town has experienced a significant decrease in voter turnout in elections held in November of odd-numbered years when compared with voter turnout for elections held in November of even-numbered years, as defined by California Senate Bill 415 (2015); and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to comply with Senate Bill 415 by moving the Town's General Municipal Elections to November of even-numbered years; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code section 10403.5, the Town is permitted to increase or decrease the terms of Town Councilmembers by no more than twelve months; NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, California, does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 2-3.3 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby repealed in full and replaced with the following: 2-3.3 Date of general municipal elections (a) Date of General Municipal Elections. Beginning with the November 2020 election, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 1000(d), 1301, and 10403.5, General Municipal Elections shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. (b) Applicability of California Elections Code. When a municipal election is held in the Town of Tiburon, and the election is consolidated with another election, the provisions contained in Part 3 (commencing with Section 10400), Division 10 of the California Elections Code shall govern the consolidation, and, if the County Clerk requested to conduct the General Municipal Election, Section 10403 of the California Elections Code shall apply to that election. (c) Effect on Prospective Town Elected Officers. Following the operative date of this Ordinance, terms of office shall be affected as follows: (1) Those prospective Town Officers elected on November 7, 2017, whose four-year terms of office would have, prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, expired in November 2021, shall instead remain in office until the certification of the November 2020 election results. (2) Those prospective Town Officers elected on November 5, 2019, whose four-year terms of office would have, prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, expired in November 2023, shall instead remain in office until the certification of the November 2022 election results. EXHIBIT NO. If Page I of 2 Tiburon Town Council DRAFT Ordinance No.XX N.S. Effective 4--/2017 (3) Beginning in November 2020, Town Councilmembers will be elected for four-year terms. Three Councilmembers elected in 2020 will serve for four years and two Councilmembers elected in 2022 will serve for four years. This staggered election schedule will continue until modified by ordinance. Section 2. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Marin County, together with the request that the Board approve this Ordinance and provide the Town with notice of such approval. This Ordinance shall become operative upon such approval. Section 3. 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 or 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, 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 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a summary 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. Section 5. Notice to Voters in Change of Election Date. Within thirty days after the Ordinance codified in this section becomes operative, the Town Clerk will cause a notice to be mailed to all registered voters of the Town informing the voters of the change in the election date and its effect on Town Councilmember terms. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on 2017, and was adopted at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Page 2 of 2 Tiburon Town Council DRAFT Ordinance No.XX N.S. Effective--1--/2017 ` Town Council Meeting TOWN OF TIBURON g 1505 Tiburon Boulevard March 15, 2017 1 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: P� z STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 8 Rolling Hills Road: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of an Amending Parcel Map Removing a Building Envelope and a Height Restriction from a Lot in the RO-2 Zone; Michele Hughes, Owner and Applicant; ita Burgess and David Readerman, et al,Appellants; File No. 0TH R 016-001; Assessor Parcel No. 058-111-24 Reviewed by: BACKGROUND On January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission approved an application that would amend a 1971 parcel map to eliminate a building envelope and associated height limit from a vacant parcel located at 8 Rolling Hills Road in the RO-2 zone. The owners of eleven nearby properties, hereinafter referred to as the "appellants," filed a timely appeal of the Commission's decision. The appeal (with the complete list of appellants) is attached as Exhibit A. The applicant and prospective lot buyer submitted a written response to the appeal and it is attached as Exhibit B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A detailed description of the project and the staff analysis provided to the Planning Commission are contained in the Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit C. This report also contains all of the correspondence and late mail received prior to the Commission meeting. In brief, the applicant seeks the removal of a building envelope and a height restriction placed on a lot in the RO-2 zone by the Town's Planning Director during the parcel map approval that created the lot. Removal of these restrictions would leave the lot subject to current-day RO-2 zone regulations and site plan and architectural review requirements that apply to all lots in Tiburon. Town records indicate that the establishment of the building envelope for this lot was the result of contention over the design and construction of the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road, which sparked protests from the surrounding neighborhood and resulted in that project being declared a public nuisance by the Tiburon City Council in December 1970. A letter from the Planning Director at the time speaks of the exertion of"unwarranted pressure on staff and Council"by the neighborhood over the issue. Current staff concludes that the Planning Director imposed the building envelope and height limit restrictions in an attempt to uphold his interpretation of the TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 10 _Lm n C;ol,mc.il 1l'Etiitsy March 15,2.017 development policies of Tiburon while dealing with a politically charged and highly acrimonious neighborhood situation. The heightened level of concern over the development of 8 Rolling Hills Road also stemmed in part from the different procedures for reviewing construction of new homes in place at that time. In 1971, when the parcel map was approved, design review approval was not required for a new single family home in the RO-2 zone unless it exceeded two stories or 30 feet in height. Design review approval for all new single family homes was not required in Tiburon until 1973. In order to more quickly and fully understand the basis of the appeal and the staff responses, staff highly recommends that the Council reads Exhibit C before further reading this report. REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 25, 2017, received public testimony both in favor of and against the application, and voted 3-2 to approve the request to remove the parcel map restrictions. A majority of the Commission found the restrictions antiquated and the result of a lack (at that time) of sufficient zoning tools to address neighborhood concerns. Details of the hearing and the Commission's deliberations are set forth in the draft minutes attached as Exhibit D, and the Commission's Resolution is attached as Exhibit E. BASIS OF THE APPEAL The appeal sets forth numerous statements objecting to the Planning Commission's decision. Staff has excerpted these statements (shown in bold) from the appeal and attempted to respond to each (in italics) as set forth below. The crux of the appeal appears to be concern by neighboring property owners that absent the 1971 restrictions, the lot could be built with a residence that fails to sufficiently protect views and neighborhood character to the detriment of the neighborhood. #1: The Planning Commission decision undermines the unique character and quality of the neighborhood. Staff Response: Because there is no application for development before the Commission, this contention is premature. The Commission's decision perhaps increases the potential that a residential project could be approved that has these unwanted effects, in which case the Town's current regulations and processes should be applied in a manner such that these effects would be avoided. The Planning Commission's action conveys the intent of the building envelope and height restriction to the Design Review Board for its consideration during the review process for any proposed home. In the absence of an actual approved site layout and house design for the site, the contention stated above will remain premature. #2: The current building and height envelope restrictions of 8 Rolling Hills are relevant. Staff Response: The intended effects of the building envelope and height restrictions (view protection and neighborhood character) remain relevant. The level of confidence that these effects can be appropriately achieved through the Town's current site plan and architectural review process, rather than through the 1971 restrictions in combination with current Town requirements, is a key question before the Town Council on this appeal. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 10 T()w t7 ("oI,[ncit Mcct.inc; M a rc h 1`>,2 017 #3: The current Rolling Hills residents need and deserve the double protections of land development under both the 1971 stipulations and the oversights of the Tiburon Design Review Board—as the Town recognized the need for stronger guidelines and oversight when created in 1973. Staff Response: Same response as #2 above. #4: Every resident of Rolling Hills Road opposes the Amending Parcel Map request. The 8 Rolling Hills Road property lot remains controversial. Staff Response: Comment noted. #5: The creation of 8 Rolling Hills Road is the outcome of a lot-splitting deal between the Town and Noahs (original owners of 6 Rolling Hills Road). Staff Response: The word "deal"sometimes connotes a form of back-room agreement or impropriety. Current staff has.found no evidence to indicate anything other than a tentative map application being submitted in 1968 and approved by staff, which was the authorized procedure at the time. No conditions were attached to the approval. From the available records, the unusual imposition of the building envelope and height restrictions during the parcel map phase appears to be more of a unilateral action on the part of staff, acting in response to the community, rather than a mutual agreement between Tiburon and the subdivder. #6: The outcome of the January 25th decision and subsequent Tiburon Design Review immediately impacts the five adjoining neighbors at 4, 5, 25, 88 and 100 Rolling Hills Road. Staff Response: The decision to remove the building envelope and height restriction note from the parcel map potentially affects neighboring properties, depending on the actual house design eventually approved and built. Height, setbacks, neighborhood compatibility,privacy, visual bulk and mass, size and scale are among the many factors considered by the Design Review Board in its review process. Neighborhood input is encouraged and taken seriously. #7: Based on the 1973 town agreement between Mr. Noah (the subdivider and owner of 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road), owners of 65 and 75 Rolling Hills Road were granted rights regarding future construction of 8 Rolling Hills Road. The implications of the 8 Rolling Hills Road land and property development are even broader. It extends to the entire Rolling Hills Road neighborhood---and this is the crux of our united stance here. Staff Response: The 1973 agreement is not a Town document. The Town is not party to it and the Town has no role in its application or enforcement. The agreement is between private property owners and appears to give the owners of 65 and 75 Rolling Hills Road certain rights to review design drawings for any residence proposed at 8 Rolling Hills Road. The agreement appears to have sprung from a settlement of litigation between Mr. Noah and two of the property's Rolling Hills Road neighbors. The agreement is included as part of the Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit Q. The Rolling Hills Road neighborhood would have ample opportunity to participate in the design review process for any new home proposed on the site. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 10 Tcr vn C oi-incil N,-Ice'ting \.:l<arcl 7-5,201"', 98: With much debate, 6 Rolling Hills Road was approved as a legal conforming property. This approval had certain key conditions. Then Tiburon Planning Director Wayne Moody recommended in March 1971 that 8 Rolling Hills Road be subject to specific building envelope and height restrictions—for good reason. Staff Response: Staff is not aware of any non-conformity of lots associated with the subdivision that created 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road. The land area and width of each lot met subdivision standards then (as they would today). In March 1971, the Planning Director signed the parcel map as being in conformance with municipal ordinances in effect at the time, and the Town Engineer signed the map as being in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. The reasons behind the imposition of the building envelope and height restrictions are set forth in the 1971 letters from Mr. Moody and stemmed from extreme neighborhood concern and a lack of other tools available at the time with which to review a future home on the lot. #9: The exact building envelope and height restrictions were imposed as a condition of the lot split (aka the "creation of 8 Rolling Hills Road). These restrictions were well-founded: 1) The 35 degree downslope of both 6 and 8 Rolling Hills into the Tiburon scenic and open space easement; and 2) Possible obstructions to the views of Richardson Bay. Staff Response: Staff believes that the building envelope and height restrictions were imposed as a result of extraordinary neighborhood concern and in the absence (at that time) of any requirement for design review approval for a new residence (except under limited circumstances that could be easily avoided by the owner). The home would have simply required a building permit to construct. The restrictions were intended to address areas of concern that fall squarely into the realm of site plan and architectural review as that process exists today. #10: The Town recognized that loosening the restrictions would "destroy the dramatic open space and feeling that now exists". We all concur. The economic value to all Rolling Hills Road properties and the neighborhood is greatly enhanced by these open space sightlines. Staff Response: Staff believes this quote was taken (in modified form)from Mr. Moody's March 8, 1971 letter, in which he states ......the view to Richardson Bay from Rolling Hills Road should be preserved in order to help maintain the dramatic open feeling that now exists. " The Planning Commission's conclusion was that the Town's design review process now in place would adequately safeguard views of open space, and with the understanding that this is a legal lot upon which the owner has the right to construct a reasonably designed and sited home provided that it complies with applicable Town ordinances, regulations and design guidelines. In its approval, the Planning Commission stipulated that the Design Review Board be made aware of the history and specifics outlined in Mr. Moody's letters so that it could take these into proper account during its review and deliberations. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 10 Town n C:ormci M ccting 1,1�11(JflJJ,?077 911: This "up-sizing" effectively grants a larger land development and building construction envelope with a height limit of 30 feet (versus 10 feet before) and depth of 160 feet (versus 56 feet before). Staff Response: This statement points out one of the fundamental flaws associated with the imposition of traditional "zoning" tools (such as building envelopes and height restrictions) on the face of a parcel map, rather than through other accepted means. The Subdivision Map Act now prohibits the placement of such zoning devices on the face of a parcel map, and for good reason. The building envelope on the parcel map contains no explanation as to which structures it applies. The appellants'statement above would lead one to believe that the envelope limits all "land development and building construction" to the 56 foot deep building envelope shown on the parcel map. In the absence of any explanation on the parcel map as to the intent of the building envelope, this is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach. However, the building envelope on the parcel map could just as well have been meant to apply only to the main residence, with typical detached accessory buildings and structures (fences, sheds, gazebos,pool- houses, etc.) being allowed outside the building envelope and subject to a 15 foot height limit for accessory structures as set forth in the RO-2 zone. In 1971, building envelopes were a novel, un- tested, and ill-defined land use planning tool. Building envelopes established under current Tiburon zoning provide detailed written descriptions of what is allowed within them; the 1971 parcel map is silent on this critical detail. In addition, the front ten (10)feet of the building envelope extends into the lot's required thirty (30)foot front setback for the RO-2 zone, and the Town would need to grant a variance to allow home or garage construction within that portion of the envelope,possibly reducing the envelope's effective depth to a mere 46 feet. Regarding height, as noted in the Planning Commission staff report, the notion that the Town would approve a home with a tall, massive appearance from the street, or not require a home to "step down" from the hillside, avoid large expanses in a single plane, or require sufficient articulation on this sloping lot, while theoretically possible, seems highly unlikely. This is a vacant lot with no existing home to limit possibilities for incorporating these key features into a successful hillside home design. In reaching its decision, the Planning Commission expressed confidence in the Design Review Board to approve an appropriate site plan and design for any new home constructed on this vacant lot. #12: The 8 Rolling Hills property and building development process has been inverted here. The 8 Rolling Hills lot building envelope was up-sized without proving or demonstrating (with an attached proposed building envelope design) that the 1971 building envelope is too restrictive. Staff Response: The Planning Commission majority found that the building envelope restriction was antiquated and obsolete, originating from a unique situation that has not repeated over the past 45 years. The perpetuation of this strange set of restrictions, which resulted from a highly contentious situation at a time when there was a different land use regulatory framework in place, did not seem to the Commission a correct approach for home construction on a vacant lot today. The Planning Commission did not base its decision on whether the envelope and height limit were too restrictive, but rather that they are unnecessary and no longer appropriate under the regulatory framework in place now. Additionally, it did not seem fair to require a potential buyer of the lot expend the time and resources in designing an actual home that could be modeled with story poles,prior to even making a decision whether to purchase the lot or not. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 10 h 1w ti Colt Nlk-k'tIn'o March 1.5,20I7 #13: This action modifies at best and loosens at worst the protections from view blockage and neighborhood character stipulated in the 1971 lot split agreement. Staff Response: Removal of the parcel map restrictions would change the framework through which the view protection and neighborhood character issues would be addressed. As currently approved, they are addressed through an inflexible building envelope and height restrictions that may or may not contribute to producing a home design that is compatible with the neighborhood. The height restriction would ensure that the front portion of the envelope would not have more than a one-story appearance from the street. The most restrictive interpretation of the building envelope (lacking any guidance from the parcel map), is that all residential structures would need to be contained within this roughly 56'X 56'envelope. This may not be a realistic expectation for new home construction on a one-acre lot in Tiburon at this time. #14: This action---for the first time ever—extends the rear setbacks of 8 Rolling Hills Road to the limits of the Tiburon scenic and open space easement. Staff Response: The comment refers to the northwestern half of the lot being under a Town-held "scenic easement", also imposed at the time of the parcel map. This scenic easement constitutes approximately 245 feet of the lot's 490 foot depth from Rolling Hills Road. Under traditional RO-2 zoning, the rear setback would be measured at 25 feet from the scenic easement boundary, or approximately 130 feet beyond the lower end of the building envelope. However, the most restrictive interpretation of the building envelope would be that it limits all structures to within the envelope, such that any shed, cabana,pool house,fence or other structure would need to placed within the envelope. This is atypical of any other lot in the RO-2 zone, but given the lack of detail concerning the purpose of the building envelope as imposed on the parcel map, this is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach. #15: It"downstreams" all future site plan and architectural review solely to the Design Review Board. In effect,the Planning Commission has abrogated its critical role in land development on this very important, strategic sited lot. Staff Response: The Planning Commission does not play a role in residential construction on vacant lots in the RO-2 zone; this duty belongs to the Design Review Board, and on appeal, the Town Council. The Planning Commission likewise had no role in imposing the parcel map restrictions in 1971, as this was a staff-level decision. 416: It sets up potential building and property development density that is inconsistent with any existing properties on Rolling Hills Road. Staff Response: The Planning Commission's decision has no effect on residential density as that term is defined in Town regulations. See response to #17 below. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 10 _l(MM, M ccthv March 1 ,'1017 #17: The 3-2 vote enables "townhouse" proximity between both 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road. Case in point: The current 6 Rolling Hills Road patio deck overlaps onto and encroaches on the 8 Rolling Hills property. Staff Response: Staff believes that the density reference in #16 above relates to the potential proximity of homes at 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road. There are encroachments onto the vacant lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road by residential improvements at 6 Rolling Hills Road. These encroachments are existing conditions that will need to be addressed during the design review and building permit processes for any new residence at 8 Rolling Hills Road, in order to achieve conformance with zoning and building codes once 8 Rolling Hills is to be constructed upon. Neighbors are expressing concern that the distance between the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road and a potential residence at 8 Rolling Hills Road may result in an appearance uncharacteristic of the neighborhood. This is an issue frequently dealt with by the Design Review Board, which has the authority to adjust setbacks accordingly if found warranted. Both the building envelope and the RD-2 zone establish I5 foot minimum side setbacks on the lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road. #18: The 1971 agreement was based upon sound judgment concerning the uniqueness of the 8 Rolling Hills lot within the neighborhood. Staff Response: Current staff believes that the then-Planning Director was attempting to do his best under very challenging and difficult circumstances. Additional Considerations The appeal also contains a section entitled"Additional considerations not explicitly addressed." These are listed below with staff responses. #19: The Rolling Hills neighbors have invested millions of dollars upgrading their respective homes to the highest quality building standards. This has greatly added to both the economic value of Rolling Hills and the underlying tax base of Tiburon. Staff Response: Pride in neighborhoods and substantial investment in personal residences by homeowners is a cherished hallmark of Tiburon. The Rolling Hills Road neighborhood is a good example. #20: Amending the 8 Rolling Hills Road parcel reverses the framework upon which 6 Rolling Hills construction was allowed to proceed and effectively doubles down on a non- conforming property. Even by today's standards (Section 14-7.3), 8 Rolling Hills does not meet the minimum lot size standards for a property with a slope greater than 35%. Yet the Planning Commission negated the 1 acre test for a 35% slope lot. Staff Response: Construction of the home at 6 Rolling Hills Road occurred under building permits and inspections conducted in 1970 and prior to the parcel map approval. Staff is unclear in what respect the lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road could be considered non-conforming given that, at 1.0 acre in land area and 88 feet in lot width, it meets both the 1.0-acre minimum lot area and 50 foot width requirements under today's subdivision regulations. It appears to be a fully conforming lot. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 10 Town.Council Meeting March 15,2017 #21: This effectively removes an important safeguard for future land development and building construction---advancing this solely to the Design Review Board. We believe both safeguards are needed to protect the character and quality of Rolling Hills Road neighborhood. Staff Response: This appears to be the crux of the issue before the Town Council. A majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the building envelope and height limit restriction was no longer an appropriate or necessary safeguard given the Town's current requirements for site plan and architectural review for all structures. They were imposed by staff under extreme pressure in a contentious situation and within a regulatory framework that lacked effective zoning tools to address neighborhood concerns. Only a ministerial building permit would have been required for a home to be constructed at 8 Rolling Hills Road at that time. #22: The existing building envelope is adequate and suitable for development. There was an implication in the staff report and Planning Commission hearing that the lot restrictions were instituted in lieu of design review. However, in Planning Director Wayne Moody's letter dated March 1971, it is clear that the Town intended to impose the restrictions in addition to subjecting the property to design review. Staff Response: Staff agrees that it is,feasible to build a home within the confines of the building envelope and height restriction. However, as noted above, the building envelope is inconsistent with existing RO-2 zoning with regard to the front setback and lacks any guidance as to what structures (if any) may be allowed outside the building envelope. The building envelope is a "zoning" tool that was in this case awkwardly applied to a subdivision approval. State law no longer allows this conflation to occur on the face of subdivision maps. Then-Planning Director Moody was almost certainly aware that, under zoning regulations in effect at the time, design review could not be required for a residence in the RO-2 zone unless it exceeded 30 feet in height or two stories. While his March 1971 letter indicates his intention to require design review for any proposed residence at 8 Rolling Hills Road, he clearly did not do so prior to approving the parcel map, perhaps because he was advised that such an imposition was beyond his lawful discretion. It was not until 1973 that Tiburon would require design review for all new homes. #23: It is clear that the property at 6 Rolling Hills Road was not built as expected and possibly to code. Then Planning Director Wayne Moody felt obligated to honor a tentative approval of a lot split prior to construction of 6 Rolling Hills. Understanding the sensitive nature of this lot, the restrictions were put in place as a requirement for lot split approval. Staff Response: The construction quality of the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road is not at issue here. The tentative map for the lot split approval had been filed in 1968 and(according to Mr. Moody's letter) unconditionally approved at that time. Under extreme pressure, Mr. Moody took the unusual step of imposing(among other exactions) a building envelope and height restriction on a parcel map approval without any basis in the tentative map approval for doing so. In his letter, Mr. Moody cited sections of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance to justify the imposition, but it is important to note that the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance did not change during the time period between the tentative map approval and the parcel map approval. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 10 1 oml C:oian TowIt Cour Wil tileetirn„ Ma 15,201;' EXHIBITS A. Notice of appeal received February 6, 2017. B. Written response by applicant and prospective buyer dated March 1, 2017. C. Planning Commission staff report from the January 25, 2017 meeting. D. Planning Commission draft minutes of the January 25, 2017 meeting. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-02. Prepared By: Scott Anderson,Director of Community Development TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF 10 RE LIVED FEB - 6 2017 TOWN CLERK TOWNOFTIBURON TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF APPEAL Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon,Gt 94920 Phone 415-435-7373 wim.townofliburon.ori APPELLANT(S) (Anach additional pages if necessary) Name: Rita Burgess & David Readerman + attached sheet Mailing Address: 55 Rolling Hills Road Telephone: 415.203.3402 (Work) (Home) FAX and/or e-mail (optional). 415.435.7668 and rita_hurgess@yahoo,.com ACTION BEING APPEALED Review Authority Whose Decision is Being Appealed: Planning Commission Date of Action or Decision Being Appealed: January 25, 2017 Name of Applicant.: Michele Hughes-owner of 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road Type of Application or Decision: Remove existing building evelope from 8 Rolling Hills Road GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Attach additional pages if necessary) See attached STAFF USE ONLY BELOGI'THIS LINE Last Day to File Appeal: 2/6/017 Date Appeal Filed: D' 2031`�- Fee Paid: Receipt No..IQ25 3 Date of Appeal Hearing: NOTE: Current Filing Fee is $500 initial deposit for applicant and $30C EXHIBIT No. S.UdministratiortlForiiisliVotice of Appeal form revised 3-9-2010.doc {,, t v+ Appellants (Continued) 1. Linda Berg 1 Rolling Hills 2. Renata & George Lee 4 Rolling Hills 3. Alan Rappaport 5 & 25 Rolling Hills 4. Stephan & Emma Larsson 35 Rolling Hills 5. Scott & Karin Peters 45 Rolling Hills 6. James Tarantino 65 Rolling Hills 7. Matt & Samantha Chatham 75 Rolling Hills 8. James & Joann To 88 Rolling Hills 9. Bart &Amanda Stephens 100 Rolling Hills 10. Steve Yang & Rebecca Bunyasaranand 1 Stevens Court EXHIBIT A P. 0F I Rolling Hills Road Neighborhood Appeal of Tiburon Planning Commission Decision: January 25, 2017 We the residents of Rolling Hills Road (See Attachment listing all 11 ayyellants) —respectfully submit our appeal of the Januaiy 25, 2017 Tiburon Planning Commission 3-2 votes regarding: 8 Rolling Hills Road "Request for an Amending Parcel Map to Remove Certain Development Limitations". We the residents of Rolling Hills Road find the 3-2 vote to be improper and inconsistent with property and land development of Rolling Hills Road. The Planning Commission decision undermines the unique character and quality of neighborhood—where many of us have been life-long, full time residents. We believe that "yes"the current building and height envelope restrictions of 8 Rolling Hills are relevant. Further, the current Rolling Hills residents need and deserve the double protections of land development under both the 1971 stipulations and the oversights of the Tiburon Design Review Board—as the town recognized the need for stronger guidelines and oversight when created in 1973. Our case: 1. Every resident of Rolling Hills Road opposes this Amending Parcel Request. 2. The 8 Rolling Hills property lot remains controversial. The creation of 8 Rolling Hills is the outcome of a lot—splitting deal between the town and the Noah's (original owners of 6 Rolling Hills Road). 3. The outcome of your January 25"' decision and subsequent Tiburon Building Design Review immediately impacts the five adjoining neighbors: (i) 4 Rolling Hills: George &Renata Lee (ii) 5 Rolling Hills: Alan Rappaport (iii) 25 Rolling Hills: Alan Rappaport (iv) 88 Rolling Hills: James & Joann To (v) 100 Rolling Hills: Bart & Amanda Stephens Also - based upon the 1973 town agreement between Mr. Noah (the subdivider and owner of 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road) - owners of 65 and 75 Rolling Hills Road were granted rights regarding future construction of 8 Rolling Hills Road: (vi) 65 Rolling Hills: James Tarantino (vii) 75 Rolling Hills: Matt and Samantha Chatham The implications of the 8 Rolling Hills Road land and property development are even broader. It extends to the entire Rolling Hills Road neighborhood—and this is the crux of our united stance here. 4. With much debate, 6 Rolling Hills was approved as a legal—non confirming property. This approval had certain key conditions. Then Tiburon Planning Director Wayne Moody recommended in March 1971 that 8 Rolling Hills Road be subject to specific building envelope and height restrictions—for good reason. EXHIBIT A P. 0F i3 5. The exact building envelope and height restrictions were imposed as a condition of the lot split (aka `creation of 8 Rolling Hills Road"). 6. These restrictions were well founded: (i) The 35 degree downslope of both 6 and 8 Rolling Hills into the Tiburon scenic and open space easement. (ii) Possible obstructions to the views of Richardson Bay. 7. The town recognized that loosening these restrictions would "destroy the dramatic open space and feeling that now exists". We all concur. The economic value to all Rolling Hills Road properties and the neighborhood is greatly enhanced by these open space sightlines. Our issues with the Planning Commission January 25, 2017 Ruling: 1. This "up-sizing" effectively grants a larger land development and building construction envelope with a height limit of 30' (vs. 10 feet before) and depth of 160' (vs. 56 feet before). 2. The 8 Rolling Hills property and building development process has been inverted here. The 8 Rolling Hills lot building envelope was up-sized without proving or demonstrating (with an attached proposed building design) that the 1971 envelope is too restrictive. 3. This action modifies at best and loosens at worst the protections from view blockage and neighborhood character stipulated in the 1971 lot split agreement. 4. This action—for the first time ever- extends the rear setbacks of 8 Rolling Hills Road to the limits of the Tiburon scenic and open space easement. 5. It"down-streams" all future site plan and architectural design review solely to the Building Design Review Board. In effect, the Planning Commission has abrogated its critical role in Tiburon land development on this very important, strategic sited property lot. 6. It sets up potential building and property development density that is inconsistent with aM existing properties on Rolling Hills Road. 7. The 3-2 vote enables `town-house' proximity between both 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road. Case in point: The current 6 Rolling Hills patio deck overlaps onto and encroaches on the 8 Rolling Hills property. 8. The 1971 agreement was based upon sound judgment concerning the uniqueness of the 8 Rolling Hills lot within the neighborhood. Additional considerations not explicitly addressed: 1. The Rolling Hills neighbors have invested millions of dollars upgrading their respective homes to the highest quality building standards. This has greatly added to both the economic value of Rolling Hills and the underlying tax base of Tiburon. 2. Amending the 8 Rolling Hills Road parcel reverses the framework upon which 6 Rolling Hills Road construction was allowed to proceed and effectively `doubles down' on a non-conforming property. EXHIBIT A P. OF 3. It risks devaluing the economic value and residential uniqueness of Rolling Hills Road—the legal framework upon which we the property owners have relied in part to maintain and preserve the value of our homes. Additionally,we believe the City Council should consider these facts: 1. Even by today's standards, (Sect. 14-7.3) 8 Rolling Hills does not meet the minimum lot size standards for a property with a slope greater than 35%. 2. Yet the Planning Commission negated the 1 acre test for a 35% slope lot. 3. This effectively removes an important safeguard for fixture land development and building construction--advancing this solely to the Building Design Review Board. We believe both safeguards are needed to protect the character and quality of Rolling Hills Road neighborhood. 4. The existing building envelope is adequate and suitable for development. There was an implication in the staff report and planning commission hearing that the lot restrictions were instituted in lieu of design review. However in Planning Director Wayne Moody's letter dated March 1971, it is clear that the town intended to impose the restrictions in addition to subjecting the property to design review. 5. It is clear that the property at 6 Rolling Hills was not built as expected and possibly to code. Then Planning Director Wayne Moody felt obliged to honor a tentative approval of lot split prior to the construction of 6 Rolling Hills. Understanding the sensitive nature of this lot, the restrictions were put in place as a requirement for lot split approval. 6. As part of the Planning Commission Application, the applicant was required to furnish a certification letter from a licensed surveyor (Sect. 16-50.070 (D)). No such letter was ever provided. In conclusion: We the eleven appellants—the entire Rolling Hills Road neighborhood respectfully request that you honor our request and over-turn the 3-2 Tiburon Planning Commission vote of January 25, 2017 and leave unchanged the building envelope and restrictions currently in place. Thank you EXHIBIT A P. OF 13 February 5, 2017 Dear Planning Commissioners. I am writing to express my dismay over the removal of the building envelope and height restrictions, at 8 Rolling Hills Rd, which was stipulatgd in 1971 , for good reason. We moved to 1 Rolling Hills Rd. in May of 1969. We watched the construction of 6 Rolling Hills Rd well above street level and in contradiction to the plans presented. The law suit brought by Alan Littman and Herb Wenig was filed to protect the Rolling Hills Rd. community from yet anpther home built similar to that of# 6, it was then and is now not in keeping with the rest of the homes on the street. If this lot is sold and built 4pon it would be a major impediment to my already limited view. Please feel free to come and see this lot from my prospective. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Linda Berg 1 Rolling Hills Rd. Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT P. K) 0F C # ? ` 3LATE MAIL EI;` JAN 2 5 2017 (D5 h" January 24,2017 _-- Dear Planning Commissioners; Having reviewed the application and the story poles for 8 Rolling Hills Road,we are writing to oppose the amendment to the parcel map at this property. We believe that eliminating the existing building restrictions for this lot could change the look and feel of this neighborhood,as well as negatively effect the view protection from public kocations. The lot on 8 Rolling Hills Road offers beautiful views of Richardson Bay when coming down the street. Many dog owners and neighbors.from,the neighborhood are walking up and down Rolling Hills Road, enjoying the views from this street. Building a 30 ft high home on this lot would block these beautiful open views of Richardson Bay. Furthermore, allowing a new construction to be only 15-20 ft from the existing construction on 6 Rolling Hills Road would create a sense of one very large building rising up by the street, inconsistent with the feel of this neighborhood where homes are spread out on lots and gardens away from the street. Finally, Rolling Hips Road is a narrow street, and allowing a new construction to be built right up to the street and without a driveway can create a situation where cars are parked on the street outside the house.When this happens, potentially hazardous traffic situations are created due to decreased visibility, especially on a narrow street like this_ With all this in mind, keeping the 10 ft building height and the existing building envelope would minimize the impact of a structure at 8 Rolling Hills Road. We are hoping that the Planning Commission will leave the existing building envelope and height restrictions in place. Thank You for your consideration. Respectively, Emma and Stefan Larsson 35 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT P. T OF LATE MAIL JAN 2 5 2017 January 24,2017 Re: 8 Rolling Hills Road Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We oppose the requested amendment to 8 Rolling Hills Road,parcel map. After reviewing the story poles,application,and staff report,we believe the proposed modifications are out of character with our neighborhood. The proposed modifications would "condo-ize" our narrow street by allowing shoe-horned street-side density between 6/8 Rolling Hills Road that does not currently exist anywhere else on the street—and is totally inappropriate. Thank you and please call us if you have any questions. Best regards, Scott and Karin Peters JAN 2 5 2017 45 Rolling Hills Road (415)299-0462 EXHIBIT A P. OF JAN 2 2017 LATE MAIL # PH4 January 23, 2017— Dear Planning Commissioners: We are writing to oppose the amendment to the parcel map at 8 Rolling Hills Road. Upon reviewing the application, the story poles and the staff report, we feel that eliminating the 1971 building envelope and height restriction and allowing current setback and height limitations for RO-2 zoning further exacerbates the fact this would allow a design inconsistent with the neighborhood. It appears that 6 Rolling Hills Road was built at a zero lot setback at the front of the property and appr9ximately a 5-6' setback from the south side property line. If allowing a property to be built ilt at 8 Rolling Hills with the 15' required side setback, this would only provide 20 feet or less between the two, completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. We are concerned as well about eliminating the current building envelope and height requirement for this site as current standards would allow for a larger massing and height down the length of the property. Keeping the existing building envelope and 10' building height would minimize the impact of a structure at 8 Rolling Hills. Further, the property is so steep and densely vegetated that the rear story poles that would reflect the extent of the building mass requested by this amendment could not even be set. We value this habitat and watershed and the life that it supports. We all bought our properties on Rolling Hills Road because of the qualities of this neighborhood. The home at 6 Rolling Hills is already inconsistent with the neighborhood by having less than the setbacks required at the front and south side. Adding another structure so close to this property with greater massing and height would create a "townhouse development" feel quite uncharacteristic with our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Respectively, JAN 2 4 2017 Vil, R zi rQ it rgess and David Readerman 55 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBITA P. 1-1 OF Kyra O'Malley JAN 2 5 2017 From: James Tarantino <james.r.tarantino@gmail.com> -------- Sent: Wednesday,January 25, 2017 9:12 AM To: Kyra O'Malley `.ATE MAIL # P03 Subject: 8 Rolling Hills Road, Tiburon - hearing ----- Good morning Kyra, I wanted to have this included in tonight's hearing, January 25, 2017, for 8 Rolling Hills Road - Project #3 Can you kindly respond to let me know you received this...? Thanks January 25, 2017 Dear Planning Department, am writing to oppose the amendment to the parcel map at 8 Rolling Hills Road...the elimination of the building envelope and height restriction. concur with my neighbors; James To, Rita Burgess, David Readerman, and others that this proposed development is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Its design would conflict with the existing houses, and its height and limited setbacks would create a sense of displacement and unconformity consistent with the neighborhood...introducing a "townhouse" feel and design very uncharacteristic and unappealing. Also, being that the property is located on a sensitive lot with a very steep grade would only compromise the integrity of the hillside, its habitat and the vegetation and life that warrants its preservation. Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully, James Tarantino 65 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 i EXHIBIT A P. W OF l January 18, 2017 Dear Planning Commissioners: We oppose the elimination of the building envelope and height restriction at 8 Rolling Hills Road. This is a sensitive lot and building location with a history of neighborhood conflict that extends nearly 50 years (see attached Littman-Noah Agreement). Though many of the neighbors have since changed,the neighborhood's sensitivity to this parcel has not. Having reviewed the application and the story poles,we believe eliminating the height restriction could increase the bulk and massing, and are concerned a larger home on this site would be completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. Furthermore, eliminating the building envelope and restricting the rear setback to only 25-feet would allow a siting that encroaches on the oak woodlands habitat and watershed that we value and wish to preserve. 8 Rolling Hills is a narrow parcel with an extremely steep slope (>35%). Since we are in the midst of construction on an adjacent lot with similar topography,we fully understand the complexities and sensitivities developing on such a steep site. As such,we are confident a suitable home could be designed and built within the existing envelope at 8 Rolling Hills. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, &. ,-- 0 James &JoAnn To 88 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT P. r�, OF P 4-3 LATE _ __._. January 24, 2017 ," JAN 2 5 2017 Dear Planning Commissioners, We are writing to express our concern over the proposed removal of the building envelope and height restrictions currently in place at 8 Rolling Hills Road. The restrictions have been in place since the early 1970s. We purchased our home at 100 Rolling Hills from former Tiburon Mayor Alan Littman. The Littman agreement was put in place for good reason as the 8 Rolling Hills parcel is very steep and would present a host of problems if the restrictions were removed. Additionally, we are uncomfortable with the elimination of the building envelope and height restrictions in absence of a specific proposal or project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bart and Amanda Stephens 100 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 JAN 2 2D17 EXHIBIT A P. OF i Il E _ tt 7�f� { FEB 0 6 2017 'l , February 6, 2017 C;s PLA, Dear Planning Commissioners, - Along with all our neighbors, we submit our appeal of the January 25, 2017 Tiburon Planning Commission 3-2 votes regarding: 8 Rolling hills Road "Request for an Amending Parcel Map to Remove Certain Development Limitations. One of the reasons we purchased 75 Rolling Hills was because of the quality of the neighborhood. We feel that by eliminating the existing building restrictions at 8 Rolling Hills, it could drastically change the look and feel of the neighborhood, especially when considering the location of 6 Rolling Hills Road and the currently under construction home of 88 Rolling Hills Road. Additionally, with the lots slope/location, the strong opposition of all the neighbors and the litigious history. that surrounds this parcel, we think it's highly probable that if the Commissioner's continue to approve the removal of the lot limitations that many more issues could ensue during the Design Remove process. Based on the extensive feedback from the neighborhood, we would hope the Commissioners would agree. Further, it would seem that if such a precedent is to be set by the Commissioners without any tangible new building designs to consider, that it should be for a parcel that has a higher probability of not creating issues for the surrounding neighbors and potentially further exacerbating additional Town resources. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Sam and Matt Chatham 75 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT P. OF =�J LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND WALNUT CREEK A T T O R N E Y S March 1, 2017 f . is Town of Tiburon MAR Q 1 2017 Town Council �`,_ , 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants' Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Amended Parcel Map Application File No. OTHER2016001 Dear.Town Council: On behalf of Michele Hughes ("Respondent") and Joseph Lepera ("Interested Party"), this is in opposition-to Appellants'Appeal of Planning Commission approval filed on February 6, 2017. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Respondent has owned S Rolling Hills Road ("Subject Property")for over 40 years. She also owns the adjacent next door property — 6 Rolling Hills Road. Recently, Respondent discovered a building envelop restricting the Subject Property. On November 21, 2016, Respondent filed a Land Development Application to amend a parcel map to remove certain residential development restrictions (building envelope and height limit) at the Subject Property. On December 9, 2016, Dan Watrous, Planning Manager requested that Respondent provide a story pole plan showing poles at the approved heights and corners of the existing building envelope and at 30 foot heights at the setback lines for this lot for the RO-2 zone. The story poles were also required to be installed 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing. On January 9, 2017, Respondent's land surveyor, Michael Ford, provided Mr. Watrous with the requested story pole plan. On January 10, 2017, the Town of Tiburon sent a Notice of Public Meeting to all of the neighbors within 300'of the Subject Property, which scheduled a January 25, 2017 hearing for the purpose Joseph A. Lepera, Esq. 601 Montgomeru Street - Suite 665 San Fr �Xi iiJ✓�+ A S VAf { ti� a p LEPERA+ASSOC IATE S , PC A T T q R N E Y S ' March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants' Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 2 of evaluating Respondent's application. The Notice not only provided the date,time and location of.the hearing, but a detailed description of the Respondent's application.' Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the Town staff and Planning Commissioners visited the Subject Property and the surrounding vicinity to view the neighborhood and story poles. On January 25, 2017, the Commissioners approved Respondent's request to remove certain residential development restrictions (building envelope and height limit) at the Planning Commission hearing. A. Planning Commission Hearing and Decision of Commission At the January 25, 2017 hearing, the Planning Commission considered the following evidence prior to rendering its decision to approve Respondent's application: • Applicant Project Description • Letter from former Planning Director Wayne Moody dated March 8, 1971 • Letter from former Planning Director Wayne Moody dated April 16, 1971 • Recorded Parcel Map (April 28, 1971) showing building envelope and height limit • Story Pole Plan received January 10, 2017 • Vicinity Map • Staff Report prepared by Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development • Presentations by Staff, Appellants, Respondent and Interested Party • Letters from six(6) Appellants • Different Options Available to Planning Commission Respondent spoke briefly regarding her request to have her lot be treated the same as any other lot in Tiburon.Specifically, Respondent discussed the removal of the restrictions in order to have her lot subject to the standard setback and height limitations found in the RO-2 zone in which her lot is located. Scott Anderson presented a comprehensive Planning Division Staff report which included the background and original rationale for the restrictions nearly 46 years ago; a summary of the results from the staff visiting the site and surrounding vicinity in an effort to gauge possible view 1 A true and correct copy of Town of Tiburon Notice of Public Meeting is attached hereto as Exhibit A. LEPERA+ASSOC IATES , P_C A T T O R N E Y S March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants'Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 3 impacts to numerous homes; and finally, several Commissioners asked him questions regarding his report and findings. Mr. Anderson testified both orally and from his staff report regarding the following: • Design review approval for all new single family homes was not required in Tiburon until 1973. • The Town is not a party to a private Agreement and is under no obligation to enforce it. • The previous Planning Director, Wayne Moody, imposed the building envelope and height limit restrictions in a diligent albeit unusual attempt to uphold his interpretation of the development policies of Tiburon and had been limited in doing so by the lack of regulatory tools available to him at that time. • This parcel is the only RO-2 zoned lot in Tiburon that has a building envelope on it as opposed to fixed setbacks standard in that zone. • In the contemporary regulatory environment, RO-2 zoning district standards and the design review process would determine an appropriate location, height and design compatible with its lot and its surrounding development pattern and neighborhood character. • In his 30+years of experience, Mr.Anderson has never seen an amending a parcel map application as it is not something the Town has ever done and has never seen a parcel map of this nature with a building envelope placed on it. • State law currently prohibits these types of restrictions to be placed on parcel maps. • Mr. Anderson provided five options to the Planning Commission regarding Respondent's request to amend a parcel map to remove certain residential development restrictions. In addition to sending letters prior to the hearing,several Appellants also testified at the hearing as well. The Planning Commission considered all of the evidence presented which included but was not limited to a comprehensive staff report; a story pole plan; letters from Appellants; and presentations from the Town Staff,Appellants, Respondent and Interested Party. LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC A T T O R N E Y S March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants' Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 4 Following the testimony and consideration of written documentation,the Planning Commission voted as to whether or not to remove the restrictions and openly discussed their basis for their vote at the hearing. Commissioner Lou Weller voted to remove the restrictions. Commissioner Weller had served on the Design Review Board ("DRB") and explained that the restrictions were an outdated attempt at land use planning over 40 years ago, which have now been superseded. Any proposals would now be subject to a full design review pursuant to the DRB, which was established to make decisions as to what gets built. Commissioner Weller further explained that the rules creating the restrictions were obsolete and that there was no reason to continue with such restriction, which had been placed over 40 years ago, at a time when there was no DRB. Vice Chair John Corcoran voted to remove the restrictions.Vice Chair Corcoran had also served on the DRB and also took the position that the DRB would be responsible for reviewing the design proposals, that they would provide a fair hearing, and that they would also hear concerns from the neighbors and applicant regarding the design proposals. He also explained that the Planning Commission is not being asked to rule or decide on a specific proposal and that the project will go through the normal DRB process.Vice Chair Corcoran disagreed with a neighbor who said that removing the restrictions was giving the Applicant `carte blanche'. Chair Erica Williams voted to remove the restrictions. Chair Williams agreed with her fellow Commissioners who served on the DRB and understood that the matter would receive a full and fair hearing at the DRB, giving the public ample opportunity to weigh in on the appropriate mass and height of the proposal and provide their input. Chair Williams voted to remove the restrictions because they were part of a historical artifact that arose pursuant to a strange set of circumstances, which she did not want to perpetuate. Commissioner David Kulik declined to support the removal of the restrictions. Commissioner Kulik asked Mr. Anderson whether the Town Attorney opined on the prior litigation. Mr. Anderson responded that it was a private settlement between private parties and the Town had no role or obligation to comply with the settlement, stating that the Town will need to rely on its own processes, procedures and guidelines. Commissioner Kulik did not want to remove the restrictions without knowing what was going to be built at the Subject Property. LEPER/\+AS SOC I ATE S , P C A T T Q R N E Y 5 March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants'Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 5 Commissioner John Weiner declined to support the removal of the restrictions. Commissioner Weiner explained that he would apply the following criteria when evaluating a decision like this: (1)Whether the original considerations that lead to the development of the restrictions still make sense; (2) Input from neighbors; and (3) Absence of a specific proposal. Commissioner Weiner also wanted the new property owner to provide a proposal of what was going to be built. After a lengthy discussion and thorough analysis,which included considering the five (5) possible options presented by Mr. Anderson in his Staff Report, the Planning Commission approved Respondent's request to remove certain residential development restrictions(building envelope and height limit) and allow the lot to receive design review approval in accordance with current zoning standards and design review procedures. B. Appellants'Appeal to Town Council On February 6, 2017, Appellants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. Appellants claim that the Planning Commission decision was improper and inconsistent with property and land development of Rolling Hills. They further assert that the Planning Commission decision undermines the unique character and quality of the neighborhood. Further, Appellants argue that the "the current Rolling Hills residents need and deserve the double protections of land development under both the 1971 stipulations and the oversights of the Tiburon Design Review Board —as the town recognized the need for stronger guidelines and oversight when created in 1973. Additionally, Appellants state that "the town recognized that loosening these restrictions would destroy the dramatic open space and feeling that now exists. . . .The economic value to all Rolling Hills Road properties and the neighborhood is greatly enhanced by these open space sightlines." II. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR TOWN COUNCIL Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Resolution No. 17-2010, in order for Appellants to file an appeal, they must state either of the following: (a) The reasons why the decision is inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable regulations;or LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC ----A T T O R N E -" S -- March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents'Opposition to Appellants' Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 6 (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. 2 Ill. LEGAL ANALYSIS Appellants' appeal fails to state specifically why the Planning Commission's decision was inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code or other applicable provisions. Further, Appellants fail to state how the decision was an error or abuse of discretion.The evidence reflects that the Planning Commission's decision was not only consistent with the .current Tiburon Municipal Code, but was also supported by the evidence in the record and was not in error or abuse of discretion. A. Planning Commission's Decision was Consistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code The record demonstrates that the Planning Commission's decision was consistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code and other applicable regulations. As required by law, the Town of Tiburon notified all of the neighbors within 300 feet of the Subject Property of the date, time and location of the hearing, and also provided them with a detailed description of the Respondent's application. The Subject Property is exactly one (1) acre or 43,560 square feet. According to the Tiburon Municipal Code, specifically RO-2 zoning,the floor area ratio (FAR)guideline is 10 percent of the .property area plus 2,000 square feet (up to 600 square feet of garage may be included without being counted). As such, a 6,356 square feet single-family home including a 600 square feet garage could be built on the Subject Property in compliance with the Tiburon Municipal Code. Moreover, the minimum front yard setback is 30 feet; minimum side yard setback is 15 feet and Z A true and correct copy of Resolution No. 17-2010 dated March 17,2010 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. LEPER/1+ASSOC IATES , PC A T T O R N E " s March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants'Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 7 minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet and a height limit of 30 feet, which is also consistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code.3 Here, the evidence presented at the Planning Commission hearing confirms that the Planning Commission's decision is consistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code. Indeed, Respondent's property was the only lot in Tiburon within the RO-2 zone with a building envelope restriction. Further, while this restriction was placed on the property approximately 46 years ago, current California state law prohibits these types of restrictions on parcel maps. Appellants' claim to "need and deserve the double protections.of land development under both the 1971 stipulations and the oversights of the Tiburon Design Review Board" is misplaced because the"1971 stipulation is in conflict with the current state law and the Tiburon Design Review guidelines. Mr. Anderson testified that the building restrictions that were placed on Respondent's property nearly 46 years ago would be illegal today and accordingly, would not be permitted. He also stated that the previous Planning Director Wayne Moody's letter reflects the exertion of "unwarranted pressure on staff and Council" by the neighborhood at the time over the issue, which demonstrates that the building restrictions were improperly placed on the Subject Property. The record reflects that design review approval was not required for all new single-family homes in Tiburon until 1973 and this would clarify as to how such illegal and improper building restrictions were permitted upon the Subject Property. Mr. Anderson also stated that Respondent's parcel is the only RO-2 zoned lot in Tiburon that has a building envelope on it as opposed to fixed setbacks standard in that zone. Finally, in his 30+ years of experience with Tiburon, Mr.Anderson has never seen a.parcel map of this nature with a building envelope placed on it. Thus, to continue to allow the building restrictions on the Subject Property would have been a decision inconsistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code and other applicable regulations. Commissioner Weller explained that he voted to remove the restrictions because they were an outdated attempt at land use planning utilized over 40 years ago, which have now been superseded by the DRB. Having previously served on the DRB, Commissioner Weller noted that 3 A true and correct copy of Summary of Tiburon Zoning District Requirements dated 5/2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit C. LEPERI\+ASSOC IATES , PC A T T O R N E Y S March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants' Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 8 the rules creating the restrictions were obsolete and any current proposals would not be subject to a full design review pursuant to the DRB. Vice Chair Corcoran also previously served on the DRB and believed that the DRB was the appropriate forum for reviewing the design proposals that would allow for a fair hearing and an opportunity hear concerns from the neighbors and applicant regarding the design proposals. He reiterated that Mr. Moody did not have the tools (in 1971) when these restrictions were put in place. Vice Chair Corcoran also confirmed that the Planning Commission was not being asked to rule or decide on a specific proposal and that the project will go through the normal process and DRB. Although Commissioners Kulik and Vd'ellner did not support removing the restrictions, their concerns were primarily based on the fact that they did not have a proposal to review. But,their concerns were addressed by the other Commissioners. Specifically, it was confirmed that it is the role of the DRB,and not the Planning Commission,to review all proposals,designs,and plans. Indeed, two of the current Planning Commissioners (Weller and Corcoran) previously served on the DRB and they fully understood and explained the rationale as to why this issue should be addressed by the DRB and not the Planning Commission. The deliberations and discussions at the hearing demonstrate that the Planning Commission's decision was consistent with the Tiburon Municipal Code. Accordingly, the Appeal should be denied. B. Planning Commission's Decision is Supported by the Evidence in the Record and is Proper The Planning Commission's decision was not an abuse of discretion and was supported by the evidence in the record. Prior to rendering its decision,the Planning Commissioners not only personally visited the Subject Property and surrounding neighborhood, but they also reviewed the following evidence: Applicant Project Description; Letter from former Planning Director Wayne Moody dated March 8, 1971; Letter from former Planning Director Wayne Moody dated April 16, 1971; Recorded Parcel Map (April 28, 1971) showing building envelope and height limit; Story Pole Plan received January 10, 2017; Vicinity Map;Staff Report prepared by Scott Anderson; Presentations by Staff, LEPERA+ASSOC IATES , PC A T T Q R N E Y S March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants' Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 9 Appellants, Respondent and Interested Party; Letters from six (6) Appellants; and Different options available to Planning Commission. This list of extensive evidence reviewed by the Planning Commission and their discussion at the hearing regarding such evidence, as well as their visit to the Subject Property, clearly indicates that their decision was made with careful consideration and a thorough review of the evidence in the record.Appellants fail to specify whether there was an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission and faWto show that the Planning Commission's decision was unsupported by the evidence discussed above. Further, pursuant to Resolution No. 17-2010, the Town Council need only consider on appeal issues that that the appellant or other interested party raised 2Ej2r to the time''that the review authority whose decision is being appealed made its decision. As part of this appeal,Appellants included copies of eight(8) letters to the Planning Commission, six (6) of those letters were already provided to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing and were considered prior to them rendering its decision on January 25, 2017. It follows that the two (2) new letters included in this Appeal were sent to the Planning Commission after the hearing and should not be considered by the Town Council. More importantly, the letters do not provide any additional support for Appellants' appeal and merely express Appellants displeasure with the Planning Commission's decision. The letters, similar to the language contained in the Appeal, cite complaints and concerns that have no basis in the Tiburon Municipal Code, applicable regulations, or any other law. Thus, the Planning Commission's decision to remove the restrictions was adequately supported by the evidence in the record and is proper. LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC -------h T T Q R N E Y S March 1, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Respondents' Opposition to Appellants' Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 10 IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons and evidence presented,Appellants' appeal of the Planning Commission's January 25, 2017 decision should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Lepera +Associates, PC Joseph A. Lepera LEPE.RA+AS SO C I ATE S , PC ----------- ------ --------- A T T o_ R N F Y S EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT P. IC OF f TOWN OF TIBURON NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING 8 ROLLING HILLS ROAD REQUEST FOR AN AMENDING PARCEL MAP y } � Wednesday, January 25,2017 at 7:30 P.M. k Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard 4 Nil z r ; t Notice is hereby given that the Tiburon Planning Commission will consider an application fled by Michelle Hughes for an Amending Parcel Map to remove certain 'C i residential development restrictions (building envelope and height limit) on the vacant lot located at 8 Rolling Hills Road (adjacent to the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road)., k , The lots at 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road were created in 1971 by a parcel map (Lands of Noah& Wheary). The parcel map imposed a rectangular building envelope of ',,:,, ai dimensions 40 feet by 56 feet on the vacant lot now known as 8 Rolling Hills Road, : n beginning 10 feet back from the westerly right-of-way line of Rolling Hills Road. The z ' parcel map also imposed a height limit such that no portion of a residential structure 1 , within the building envelope would extend more than 10 feet vertically above the elevation of a monument marker located at the center of the 40-foot wide Rolling Hill s ,y' Road right-of-way. y The applicant is requesting amendment of the parcel map to remove these restrictions and have the lot subject to the standard setback and height limitations found in the RO-2 zone s s in which the lot is located. These limitations would include a 30 foot front setback, 15 foot side yard setbacks, and a height limit of 30 feet; all subject to.site plan and k, architectural review(design review) approval by the Town of Tiburon Design Review Board. A story pole plan has been submitted and story poles have been erected to depict the difference in setbacks and height limits between the existing building envelope and t. the standard zoning parameters that would apply in the event the 1971 building envelope >' and height limit restrictions are removed. ., z z�� The Marin County Assessor Parcel Number for the project site is 058-111-24. , v The application is available for public review at the Tiburon Community Development fTA Department,Tiburon Town Hall 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon CA. Office hours are Y p , Monday through Thursday, 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM. The staff report and attachments will be posted on the Town of Tiburon website as part of the Planning Commission agenda no y later than Friday, January 20, 2017. Questions regarding this application should be .,r.`; t ' directed to Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development, at(415)435-7392 or at =r sanderson@townoftiburon.org. \ The public meeting will be held in the Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. The Planning Commission will meet on Wednesday, January 25, fi 2017. The meeting will begin at 7:30 P.M. Public comment is welcome. `' EXHIBIT ) P. O OF 1( Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to AVERY® 51600 is Use Avery®Template 51600 j feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j 1 039-290-50 058-111-08 058-111-09 TIBURON,TOWN OF LEE GEORGE C/TR/& GARVEY REVOC TRUST 1998 * 4 ROLLING HILLS RD 2 ROLLING HILLS RD TIBURON,CA 94920 TIBURON,CA 94920 TIBURON,CA 94920 058-111-23 058-111-25 058-111-26 HUGHES MICHELE&JUSTIN TRUST YANG-BUNYASARANAND REVOC TRUST GALLAGHER SUSAN T/TR/ 6 ROLLING HILLS RD ETAL 965 PINE TREE LN TIBURON,CA 94920 1 STEVENS CT WINNETKA, IL 60093 TIBURON,CA 94920 058-111-27 058-111-28 058-121-26 CHANDLER MICHAEL L JR& TIBURON CITY MOON MICHAEL& 80 VALLEY VIEW CT CITY HALL 3 OWLSWOOD RD SAN MATEO,CA 944023641 TIBURON,CA 94920 TIBURON,CA 94920 058-121-32 058-132-22 058-132-23 MARIN 2015 TRUST ETAL RAPPAPORT ALLAN H IRREVOC TRUST 2005 LARSSON FAMILY 2014 TRUSTETAL 88 ROLLING HILLS RD 39 MAIN ST 35 ROLLING HILLS RD BELVEDERE TIBURON,CA 949201556 TIBURON,CA 949201501 BELVEDERE TIBURON,CA 949201501 058-132-24 058-132-31 058-132-33 PETERS SCOTT P& READERMAN DAVID B& TARANTINO JAMES 45 ROLLING HILLS RD S5 ROLLING HILLS RD 65 ROLLING HILLS RD BELVEDERE-TIBURON,CA 94920 TIBURON,CA 94920 TIBURON,CA 94920 058-132-34 058-132-47 058-141-03 CHATHAM 2011 FAMILY TRUST ETAL STEPHENS BART&AMANDA REVOC TRUST SKURMAN ANDREW&FRANCOISE J REVOC 75 ROLLING HILLS RD 125 STEWART DR TRUST ETAL BELVEDERE TIBURON,CA 949201501 TIBURON,CA 94920 3654 SACRAMENTO ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94118 058-141-06 058-141-19 058-141-20 HAZEN ANN E 2008 REVOC TRUST ETAL HANSEN CHRISTOPHER R& BERG BRUCE 0 TR& 20 SPRING LN 3 ROLLING HILLS RD 1 ROLLING HILLS RD TIBURON,CA 94920 BELVEDERE-TIBURON,CA 94920 TIBURON,CA 94920 058-141-21 HUGHES VACPRO INC 8 ROLLING HILLS RD 39 MAIN ST PARCEL MAP AMENDMENT 300' TIBURON,CA 94920 11/22/16 EXHIBIT P. OF ttiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez 5 la hachure afin de Utilisez leabarit AVERY®51600 Sensaroement de rdv6ler le rebord Pop-upmc g i ch1 LEPERA+ASSO.0 I ATE S , PC A, T-- -F. ORNEYS EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT -0) P. (q- OF 1.( RESOLUTION NO. 17-2010 A.RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ADOPTING AN AME NDE D POLICY FOR THE PROCESSING,SCHEDULING, RECONSIDERATION,AND STORY POLE REPRESI'NTATION 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,ineludirig,ResolutionsNos.2878 and 321.8 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.atid consolidate these policies regarding appeals;and WHEREAS;the Town Council has held a public meeting on this matter on;lvlarch 17;-1010 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and N THEREFORE,BE IT OSOLVED that Town Council Resoltifi N, :2878,Town Council Resolution No. 321$,,T wn C11 policy 2,002-0.1 are hereby superseded by this Resolution; h NOW,,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that he—,Town Cquncil of the Town of Tiburon'does hereby adopt the following general policy with respe -a processiirg, .scheduling,and.reconsideration of appeals and for stony pole�installation for appeals;. APPEAL PROCED, w 1, The Municipal Code sets forth instances when persons r0ay appeal-, decision by a xev ew authority, (e.g Town official,Design Review Board or PI-, Commission)to the Town Council: Any person making.such an appeal must file a eampleted Tawn;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 TownHall-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;. 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 thefling'fee(if any)will be ,refunded followingcompletion of the appeal process.Additional stafftime 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. EXHIBIT P. 0'0F d (b) If the appellant is not the applicant, then a fixed amount filing fee is required with no refund or additional billing required. 3. Iri the appeal form,the appellant shall state specifically either of the following (a)� T'he reasons why the decision is inconsistentwtth_the�Ti�uronI�!Iunicipal Codeor other app�iic�ble regulatigns,`ors r(bj fThe�appe�lant��other basis for�aclaiming,tha��the decrs�o,�n upas an�erroror abuse of . . ... ..... discretion,including, wlt�iout l�nr#atton�they c�laim�th�t�����sionis�no�,� rsup'ported�by<evidence_in the record;or a�s�-otherwis�'rrxprope tIf theya` ellant��s no thea licant the T awn Couz�c�l�ieed�only cozis de'oh a eal 4E ues�that that tho appellant oar othexrnterested pa y r se 'gyp o r tq the merthat the= ryiw aiithoritykrttiosedecsian is being agp�aediiadedec�sioi 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. (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 EXHIBIT P. I OF 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,prepam a,resoltition of decision,significant new information comes to light;which information was previously unknown or could not have been presented at the appeal hearing dueto circumstances beyond the.parties' control and not due to a lack of diligence;the Town Council may entertain a rnotogi toreconsider its direction to prepare a resolution of decision: Any such inotion to recons der.must 6e;znade prior to,adoption of the resolution of decision., and the motion must be rnacie by a,Councilmember who voted on the`,prevailing side it the vote sought to lie reconsidered. AnyCouncilinernber may second the motion. The Town Council may consider and vote onthe imtian.,to reconsider at that time;°and if the motion carries,the matter shall be plaeecl on a future agenda'for further notice and.h'caring. SCHEDULING.017A PPEA IS 1. The Town's policy is to schedule and hcar'appeaIs.ir an expeditious mangier. 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 appeat for a subsequent Town Couttcil,meetiii based on the complexity of the matter, availability of key Town staffinembers and Councilmembers; Agenda availability,or unusual circumstances: Town;staff will snake rt"s to establish the hearing date for the appeal within.1hree(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. 1 The Town Manager will grant requests for continuances lfroml the date established above in the event that All parties to the appeal agree in writing to=°.date specific for.the continuance and that date is deemed acceptable by the Town Manager. 3, Attendance ofarfies to an appeal at`tlie.hearing is desired,but not required. The Town Council will consider written comments or representation by others in lieti ofpersonal 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: EXHIBIT P. OF 1. A.story pole plan showing g the poles to be connected,including location and elevations of poles and connections, shall be submitted, reviewed,and accepted as adequate by Planning Division Staffrp for 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 simil4vand highly visible materials clearly discernable from a distance of at least three-hundred (3 00)feet in clear weather,to illustrate'the dimensions and configurations of the,proposed construction, 3. Story poles and connecting materials must`be. nstalled'at least ten'(10)days.prior 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:eontinuance of the public hearing date; 5. Story poles must be removed no'later than fourteen,(1,4).days after,the date of final decision by the Town Council.. AP PLICABLUTY This policy;while primarily written for use by the Town Council, is infiended to apply to tlie. extant practicable to. own decision-makm bodies,other,than the Town Council;which may hear appeals from time to time. Be advised that::cOrt type`s of appeals, such.as appeals of staff level design review application decisionsto the°Design Review Board,may have different deadlines for filing of the appeal than the=ten(X t3)calendar'days specified above, PASSED AND ADOPTED at areguI . mceti g ofthe Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on March 17,2010, by following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS Collins,Frase'r,.Freder cks&O'Donnell NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS 'None. ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Slavitz, -RICHARD COLLINS,MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IA.COPI, TOWN CLERK, P. OF EXHIBIT �� LEPERA+ASS 01C I AT ES , PC A T T 0 R N E Y 5 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT P. OF r SJMII�AfYOF TIBUR(7N ZQNII EM -N ,�WRAHMiVII 1IMUM MINIMI M 3 MINIM JM tlfN(MC1M MAXIIV(UM> FLUUK 1111AXI1�ILUM LOT FRONT SIDE REAR' LOTS: AREA BUILDING �� � �g ZUNI=z ry YARD YARD' CU1l� LIMIT HEIGHT ' z , R-1 10,000 15' 8'' 20%to 25' 30% see Sec. 30'main 16-21 sq. ft; 16-52.020(1) 15'access. R-1-B-A 10,000 201 6' 20%to 25' 30% see Sec. 30'main 16-21 sq. ft. 16-52.020(1) 15'access; R-1-B-2 10,00025' see Sec. 30'main 16-21 sq ft. 10' 20%to 25' 30% 16-52,020(1) 15'access. RO-1 40,000 30' 20' 200W,to 25' 1'51% see Sec. 30'main 16421 sq.ft. 16-52.020(1) 15'access: RO-2 20,000 301$' 20%to 25' 15°l see See. 30'main 1621 sq. ft= 16-52.020(1) 15'access. R-2 7,500 151 81 20%,to 25' 35% see Sec. 30'main 16-21 sq.ft.. 16-52.020(1) 15'access. =3 10,000 1"5' 8' 8: 30% O fO FAR 30'main 16-21 sq 15'access. RPD PDP PDP PDP PDP Pop see Sec. 30'main' 16-21 16-52.020(1) 15'access: RMP PDP PDP PDP' PDP PDP 0,30 FARC 30'main 16-21 15'access. RMP IAFlO TDP SPAR SPAR SPAR' SPAR SPAR Lesser of 16-23 38'or 3 "stories M None N/A NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A 1625 0 CUP 301 $` 10" 50%0 1:0 FAR 30' 1624 NC 10,000 CUP/SPAR, CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR 0:37 FAR 30'to 38's 16-22 sq. ft. NCIAHO 0.31 comm. Lesser of 10,000 CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR 16-23 sq ft (housing not 38'or 3 counted) stories 1/C 10,000 CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR CUPISPAR CUPISPAR 0,28 FAR 5 30'to 38's 16-22 sq. ft. P 10,000 CUP%SPAR CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR 50% 1.0 FAR 30' 16-26 sq.ft. P& R None CUP/SPAR. CUP/SPAR CUP/SPAR 10% 0.1 FAR 30'main 16-28 15'access. OS7 None NA NAA NA NA NA NA 16-27 Continued on reverse side EXHIBIT P. �CQOF � NPO 16-23 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Historic Protection Overla F 'Basefloor 16-23 NA NA. NA NA NA NA elevation. Flood regulated by Overlay flood zone Legend for Abbreviations and Notes Abbreviations PDP. = Established I by Precise Development Plan CIDP = Established by Conditional Use Permit SPAR = Estaplished by5ite-Plan and Architectural Review(Design Review) FAR = Flo'o' Ratio.(gross floor area':divided by lot area main Main Building (Building, Main) access. = Accessory B.uilcling:. Lot COV. = Lot:C.overage NA; = Not Applicable Notes This summary sheet is not a,part:of the adopted Tiburon Municipal Code. It was prepared by the Planning Division as a summary reference. `Please refer,to full text of Title IV, Chapter 16.(Zoning) of the Tiburon Munieipal Code fordetails:or contact the Tiburon Planning Division. 2Section numbers below each zone refer tp the Tiburon Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter'16 (Zoning). Floor Area Ratio Guidelines have been established for single family and two-family residences in most residential zones. The FAR Guidelines are set forth in Section 16-52.020(1) of Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code.. Generally, these.FAR Guidelines are as follows: ➢ 35% of'the property area�for lots less than 7,500 square feet in area (up to 600 square feet of` garage may be inofuded withotat`being�...punted): ➢ For properties between 7;5Q0 and 6Q,,0Q0 square feet;;the floor area ratio guideline is 10 percent of the property area plus 2,000.square feet(up.to.600 square feet of garage maybe included without being counted)., ➢ For lots greater than 60,-700 square feet, the floor area'ratio guideline is 8,000 square feef(up to 750 square feet of garage may be included without being counted). ➢ The floor area ratio guideline applies:only in residential zones. `t'Lower heights may be required through the.PDP, CUP,.or SPAR permit processes. 5Does not apply if'a transfer of intensity is approved pursuant to General Plan Policy DT-9 or if the building is reconstructed pursuant to General Plan Policy DT-6. SProperties with frontage on Tiburon Boulevard have a height limit of up to 38 feet; for all other' properties the height limit is 30.feet. 7 N new buildings or floorarea>:allowOdin OS zone. Existing buildings/FAR grandfathered, $Unless otherwise specified in a Precise Development:Plan oreequivalent permit. S:\Planning\ForrnslGuirent_Forms;Vonngsummarychart 2011doc, Rev.5/2013 EXHIBIT P. I( OF A TOWN OF TIBURON Planning Commission Meeting i 1505 Tiburon Boulevard January 25, 2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: PH-3 STAFF REPORT To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Subject: 8 Rolling Hills Road: Request for an Amending Parcel Map to Remove Certain Development Limitations (Building Envelope and Height Limit) from a Vacant Lot Located in the RO-2 Zone PROJECT DATA Project Name: 8 Rolling Hills Road Amending Parcel Map Address: 8 Rolling Hills Road Assessor's Parcel Number: 058-111-24 File Number: OTHER2016-001 General Plan: M (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: RO-2 (Single-Family Open) Owner & Applicant: Michele Hughes Flood Zone: X (Outside 500-year annual flood event) Date Complete: January 12, 2017 PROPOSAL The owner of a vacant lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road has applied for removal of certain development restrictions on the lot that were imposed at the time of the lot's creation via a parcel map recorded in 1971. :These.restrictions include a"building envelope" situated at the front of the lot near Rolling Hills Road and a height limit on residential construction located within the building envelope. The restrictions were imposed on the parcel map that created the lot and can only be removed by the recordation of an amending parcel map. Both lots have been owned by the current owner and resident of 6 Rolling Hills Road since the mid-1970's. The current owner is selling the vacant lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road at this time and is interested in having the restrictions removed to allow more flexibility in the design and location of a residence and for other reasons set forth in Exhibit 1. A key question for the Commission to consider is whether circumstances have changed such that the specific restrictions found on the parcel map no longer have relevance, or can be successfully replaced by the Town's current design review process or by alternate measures 6r conditions of a more contemporary nature for a vacant lot located in the RO-2 zone. EX IT NO. V , \ " to 1- TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 7 PlanningC:onrrn ss cm Mccting aMlary 25,2017 BACKGROUND As the restrictions were imposed nearly 46 years ago, staff performed extensive records research to find the original rationale for the restrictions. Staff discovered that the restrictions were imposed by Planning Director Wayne Moody for three purposes, as set forth in his letter dated March 8, 1971 (see Exhibit 2): 1. The view to Richardson Bay from Rolling Hills Road should be preserved in order to help maintain the dramatic open space feeling that now exists; 2. The view of the hillside and Richardson Bay from the homes across Rolling Hills Road should be preserved as much as is physically possible, yet allowing [sic] the prospective home on the lot to take a minimum [sic] advantage of the San Francisco view. 3. The view to Richardson Bay from the existing new home [6 Rolling Hills Road] on the property should also be preserved as much as possible. It is apparent from the late Planning Director's correspondence (see Exhibit 3) written shortly thereafter on April 16, 1971 (from his new position in the City of Laguna Beach) that the design and construction of the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road had been a source of contention with the surrounding neighborhood and that the project had been declared a public nuisance,by the Tiburon City Council [in December 1970]. The Planning Director's letter speaks of the exertion of"unwarranted pressure on staff and Council"by the neighborhood at the time over the issue. In any event, the parcel map was recorded on April 28, 1971 with the Planning Director's signature upon it, dated March 26, 1971 (see Exhibit 4). The parcel map clearly depicts a building envelope and height limit note, but current staff could find no documentation from any source that a condition requiring design review of a future residence on the vacant lot was imposed on the approval. Staff notes that design review approval was not required for a new single family home in the RO-2 zone in 1971 unless it exceeded two stories or 30 feet in height. Design review approval for all new single family homes was not required in Tiburon until 1973. The bitterness over the project site apparently lingered and led to a lawsuit between private parties and a 1973 Agreement between Mr. Noah (subdivder and owner of 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road) and the then-owners of properties at 65 and 75 Rolling Hills Road. The recorded Agreement states that it is binding on successors in interest to all parties, and generally gives the owners of 65 and 75 Rolling Hills Road the ability to object to future plans for a home on 8 Rolling Hills Road with respect to "the location, appearance, height, bulk, scale, design and general anesthetic [sic] architectural effect of the proposed structure". Any such objections were to be resolved by a team of three architects. The Town is not a party to this private Agreement and is under no obligation to enforce it. Not surprisingly, all three properties party to the Agreement are owned by successors in interest 43 years later. All current owners were mailed notices of the public hearing. Current staff concludes that the Planning Director imposed the building envelope and height limit restrictions in a diligent albeit unusual attempt to uphold his interpretation of the development policies of Tiburon while dealing with a politically charged and highly acrimonious neighborhood situation. He was limited in doing so by the lack of regulatory tools available to him at that time, particularly no requirement for design review for a future home on the vacant lot. Current staff concludes that he did the best he could with the tools at hand. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 7 EXHIBIT C P. OF Planning COMIniss cin M(ctin(y ,January 25,201- Whether these tools (building envelope and height restriction) constitute appropriate, optimal, or even necessary restrictions (especially for a lot located in the RO-2 zone)these many decades later is within the discretion of the Commission. To staff's knowledge, this is the only RO-2 zoned lot in Tiburon that has a building envelope on it as opposed to fixed setbacks standard in that zone. The Commission has at times in the past modified what it determines to be overly- restrictive or obsolete building envelopes created decades earlier when conditions surrounding a project site were much different, thus leaving the appropriate design and location issues for the sound judgment of the Design Review Board. However, each application of this nature reviewed by the Commission is decided on its unique history and circumstances. ANALYSIS The "paper changes"proposed by the amending parcel map would be straightforward enough: the building envelope and its associated height limit note would disappear from the face of the map. It is much more difficult to describe or quantify the potential changes in location, height, or design that the amended map would bring to a dwelling constructed at 8 Rolling Hills Road. In the contemporary regulatory environment, RO-2 zoning district standards and the design review process would determine an appropriate location, height and design compatible with its lot and its surrounding development pattern and neighborhood character. The front half-acre of the lot slopes fairly steadily downward from Rolling Hills Road at a slope in excess of 35 percent: The Town of Tiburon holds a scenic and open space easement over the rear(lower half-acre) of the lot. In order to provide some visual assistance, staff required the erection of story poles showing the building envelope limits and height limits established by the 1971 parcel map, as well as story poles showing the maximum height limit and front setback allowed by current RO-2 zoning. The story pole plan is attached as Exhibit 5. The two story poles nearest the street depict the horizontal and vertical limits of the existing building envelope, the vertical limit being 10 feet above a monument set in Rolling Hills Road. The two poles nearest the fore-mentioned poles depict the 30 foot front setback and 30 foot height limit that are currently standard in the RO-2 zone. The two poles farthest from the street depict the rear line of the existing building envelope and also depict a 30 foot height limit from grade, which approximates the height allowed by the building envelope at those points. Note the very sharp drop in elevation from the street and the continuing steep decline toward the rear of the lot. Poles showing the potential new rear yard setback were not erected due to dense vegetation and a nearly 160 foot horizontal distance and a 70 foot vertical foot drop from the rear of the current building envelope to the potentially new rear setback line. The 15 foot side setbacks required by the RO-2 zone match the side setbacks established by the building envelope. In addition to the narrowness of the lot and its steep slope, there are several factors that further complicate future construction of a dwelling unit at 8 Rolling Hills Road. These include: 1) Significant encroachment by improvements associated with the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road, including but not limited to portions of a deck and an extensive patio area. These encroachments create a narrow south side setback for the residence at 6 Rolling Hills, such that the 15 foot north side setback created by the building envelope on 8 Rolling Hills Road could TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 7 Planning Commission Mceting 1 IlMary 2.5,noir constitute the entire setback distance between buildings. This is an unusually small separation distance for the RO-2 zone but results from a long-existing as-built condition, as the home at 6 Rolling Hills Road dates from 1970. 2) The patio area is built over a driveway easement on 6 Rolling Hills Road that presumably benefits 8 Rolling Hills Road, thus acting to further complicate already difficult vehicular access to the vacant lot; 3) A diagonal sewer easement appurtenant to 6 Rolling Hills Road, which"clips off' a portion of an otherwise rectangular building envelope; and 4) A 30-foot front setback requirement from the near edge of the Rolling Hills Road right-of-way (per current zoning). In 1971, the front setback could be measured from the property line(the mid-point of the street right-of-way). That is no longer the case. The current building envelope and height limit, combined with the steep slope and the other factors,listed above, create a challenging exercise for even a talented architect. The dwelling at 6 Rolling Hills Road was approved with a front setback variance allowing its garage to be built right up to the street right-of-way line. It seems that removing the building envelope and height limit could provide more flexibility in the eventual design and location of a residence for this lot, but would also remove substantive restrictions that were specifically imposed for view protection from both public and private locations. The building envelope location appears to anticipate a house design similar to that at 6 Rolling Hills Road, where the garage is near the street and the home "steps down"the slope and increases in height as it does so. Staff agrees that this is the most likely general design and location for a new residence and garage on the vacant lot. Staff visited the site and surrounding vicinity in an attempt to gauge possible view impacts referenced in the 1971 correspondence as reasons for the imposition of the building envelope and height restriction. The absence of a specific home design and location by which to compare view impacts limited the information that could be gleaned from the site visit and without entry to the inside of numerous homes surrounding the project. Notices of the item were sent to property owners of the lots discussed below and the story poles were in place in a timely fashion. A summary of staff's preliminary observations with respect to view blockage follows: Views from Rolling Hills Road From the subject lot's frontage, views are currently impaired by a row of trees planted in front of both 6 Rolling Hills Road and the subject property. Staff believes that views of Richardson Bay and the hillsides beyond would be affected similarly by any home that would be approved by the Design Review Board using current Guiding Principles set forth in the zoning ordinance. Staff does not see a home or garage being approved on this lot that would have more than a single- story height appearance from street view. From Rolling Hills Road below the subject property, brief medium-range views of the hillside beyond (comprising the area below the top of Gilmartin Drive) could be blocked. These are not major public views and much of the view blockage could occur even with the current building envelope restrictions. Views from the Prospective Home at 8 Rolling Hills Road It appears that the further down the slope the home is built, the more significant long-range views could be lost. That said, it appears unavoidable to staff given characteristics of the lot and the principles applied during design review approvals that a home could not be located far down on E 4 TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 7 <)+ Plannincy Commission Mccting )aIlUary 25,2017 the lot. Staff also believes that views from the vacant lot have changed significantly over the past 46 years due primarily to maturing of trees in surrounding developments, especially to the south. Views from 6 Rolling Hills Road The applicant's residence appears to have the greatest potential view impact from the requested changes, but is also in the best position to minimize such impacts if they are of concern. There are limited window areas on the south-facing side of 6 Rolling Hills Road, but both these windows and deck and patio areas could lose views from construction of a residence on the vacant lot. Views from 25 Rolling Hills Road The home at 25 Rolling Hills Road is directly opposite the street from the subject lot. Views from this home are oriented to the west; the subject vacant lot is to the northwest and would be largely shielded from view by existing mature trees and other vegetation located on 25 Rolling Hills Road from major parts of that residence. Overall, it does not appear that a residence on 8 Rolling Road would cause significant new view blockage from the residence at 25 Rolling Hills Road. 88 Rolling Hills Road This residence is under construction and its driveway about the street frontage of 8 Rolling Hills Road. The home is oriented away from 8 Rolling Hill Road and it appears that views from areas other than the driveway would not be directly affected by a home at 8 Rolling Hills Road that would be constructed in a location accessible from the street. A future home could be visible from portions of the residence at 88 Rolling Hills Road. 100 Rolling Hills Road It appears that a residence at 8 Rolling Hills Road could be visible from certain windows at this home, but they are not the primary views from the home and the impacts appear minimal. 2 and 4 Rolling Hills Road The finished floor elevations of these homes appear to be approximately 240 feet and 257 feet respectively. A residence at 8 Rolling Hills Road could extend to an elevation of 266 feet at the front of the envelope and roughly 260 feet at the rear of the envelope. A new home could not achieve these elevations if pushed outside the existing building'envelope and lower down on the lot. 1, 4, and 9 Stevens Court These homes have finished floor elevations of roughly 210 feet and a new home on the vacant lot would likely be visible from these homes. Staff was unable to ascertain whether a home of 8 Rolling Hills Road could result in a substantive loss of primary views from these homes. This would best be ascertained by a complete set of story poles depicting an actual proposed house design as would be required through the design review process. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 7 V _ 7 11Lmnino Commission meeting January 25,2017 PUBLIC COMMENT As of the completion of this report, one letter (Exhibit 8), from the owners of 88 Rolling Hills Road, has been received regarding the application, stating opposition for the reasons specified therein. Staff anticipates that there will be additional neighborhood interest over this application and is curious to see if the view preservation issues identified in 1971 remain of serious concern given changed circumstances in the vicinity or if other issues have arisen during the intervening years that are of concern to current neighbors. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Town staff has preliminarily determined that the project is categorically exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines, and ministerially exempt per Sections 15022 and 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines and the Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines declaring parcel maps ministerially exempt from CEQA. OPTIONS The Planning Commission has several options. These include: 1. Denying the request and leaving the building envelope and height restrictions in place. 2. Approving the request as proposed and allowing the lot to receive design review approval in accordance with current zoning standards and design review procedures. 3. Approving the request subject to specific conditions or modifications, such as limiting how far down the hillside a home could be built, or requiring that any home appear as single story from the street in front of the lot. These would appear as notes on the recorded amending parcel map. 4. Partially approving the request by making modifications to the envelope and/or height limits but not removing them entirely. 5. Request additional information prior to making a decision on the application. Should the Commission look favorably on the application, a draft resolution of approval is attached as Exhibit 7. Any desired conditions could be added prior to adoption. Should the Commission decide to deny the application, it should direct staff to return at its next meeting with an appropriate resolution to that effect. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Ask any questions of staff. 2. Receive a presentation by the applicant or applicant's representatives. 3. Accept and consider all public comment on the item. 4. Consider the various options and move accordingly. EXHIBITS 1. Applicant Project Narrative received January 10, 2017. 2. Letter from Planning Director dated March 8, 1971. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 7 1� Hanning Comnussion Meeting anuaty 25,201i 3. Letter from Planning Director dated April 16, 1971. 4. Recorded Parcel Map (April 28, 1971) showing building envelope and height limit. 5. Story pole plan received January 10, 2017. 6. Vicinity Map. 7. Draft Resolution. 8. Letter from James & JoAnn To received January 18, 2017. Prepared By: Scott Anderson,Director of Community Development TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 7 Michele Hughes 6 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon,CA 94920 (808)639-0904 them ichelehughescompanVPgmail.com January 10, 2017 Dan Watrous Planning Manager 1 : . Town of Tiburon JAN 2011 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 ," 3.,..'.;:`----= ..._.__---`_--_s Re: 8 Rolling Hills Road Parcel Map Application File No. OTHER2016001 Dear Mr.Watrous: I wanted to confirm that you received the Story Pole Plan submitted yesterday to you by surveyor Michael E. Ford, PLS in preparation for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting scheduled for January 25, 2017 at 7:00 pm, Additionally, l wanted to share some additional thoughts with you regarding the above: 1. I have owned the Subject Property for over 40 years; 2. 1 have owned the adjacent property- 6 Rolling Hills Road for over 43 years; 3. I recently discovered a building envelope restricting the Subject Property; 4. The existing building envelope prevents the development of the Subject Property and renders the property unusable; S. The existing building envelope is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood; 6. The removal of the building envelope would make the Subject Property consistent with surrounding properties; 7. The removal of the building envelope would not negatively affect any of my neighbors. EXHIBIT P. OF LaLal P LV�. January 10, 2017 Dan Watrous Re: 8 Rolling Hills Road Page 2 8. No other properties within the surrounding neighborhood have this `building envelope' restriction; 9. The future dwelling would not interfere with views of any nearby homes along Rolling Hills Road; and 10.The future dwelling will comply with the Tiburon Municipal Code and Zoning Requirements. If you have any questions or need any additional information prior to the meeting,please do not hesitate to contact me at(808) 639-0904 or themichelehughescompanyOgmail.com. Thank you again in advance for your assistance. Very truly yours, Michele Hughes EXHIBIT P. I OF 3 CITY OF TIBURO ! 30 MAIN STREET ° T IBiJs2ON CALIFORNIA 9.9': RD P4arch 8, 1971 ?BAR 9 1971 i limii'da LAI Yx. Ralph Noah P.O. Box 131 Belvedere, %a. 9492U Re : File No. 66811 Hear Mr. Noah: Pursuant to our recent conversations regarding the possibility of a lot split of your property at 6 Rolling Hills Road, I am submitting the following opinions for your consideration: 1. Pkeference- is•made to my letter of October 14, 1970, wherein '-I cited possible reasons for denying the proposal.. Below I have outlined certain conditions of approval which I feel would help rectify the previous concerns. 2. Section 14-40 of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to driveway grades could be satisfied by the inclusion of a condition which would require a driveway easement to be created over the adjacent parcel. This would enable easy automobile flow across the lot to a garage and would alleviate the necessity of a variance. 3. Sections 14--42 and 14-63, relating to the character of other lots in the area, could be satisfied by the inclusion of a condition which would require design review for any structures. he design review procedure should be required for the follow- ing reasons : a) the view to Richardson Bay from Rolling Hills Road should be preserved in order to help maintain the dramatic open feeling that now exists. b) the view of the hillside and Richardson Bay from the homes across Rolling Hills Road should be preserved as much as is physically possible, yet allowing the prospective home on the lot to take a minimum advantage of the San Francisco view. E)".1-1IBIT YaYOP DENIS rtICS ° CoUnCilMen CARLISLE Dnxn, ANNE L. ELLI,NWOOD, 333RANWSLL FANNINC 9� EXHIBIT C, P. 100F �`. c) the view to Richardson Bay from the existing new home on the property should also be preserved as much as ; :._. possible. Section 14-42 (h), relating to the proportion of the lots, could be satisfied by a condition which would require dedica- tion of a scenic and pedestrian easement over at least the Lower half of the property. This would appear to fit in well with any future development either to the west or to the east of your property. This dedication could be in place of the s required in-l_ eu naris and recreation fees. dY_ ' ---= So Any submission for approval should include a proposal for a "building envelope" which envelopa- world show the horizontal and vertical limits for any structure to be placed on the site. This would become a condition of any approval. , I would consider the above conditions absolute minimum on any approval cif .a .lot split in this area. The City Council is in the process of approving revisions to the minor subdivision ordinance, which would require somewhat different submissions than have previously been re® _quired. These will probably be adopted on Monday night, March 8th, and I will send you a copy of them after they are adopted. I£ you have any further questions, please don' t hesitate to call. Sincerely,6U Planning Director �1 f f WM:hbf cc:Phil V. Scott Ray W. Foreaker, Jr. EXHIBIT C P. OF 3J µ ,, �' 1. 1. -.::: �✓`'-V ` ; U I lunru�'i " �• ;;� w O ����, 111 '''4ii ' 1. 11111/1/(IIE■1!1111 �. i� r, L ") �i, i ~" Ii '� ` U Plannin C 1!,111111„l1' i 1 1. 9 <<F .;f D ':RTMENTL : ,. "' .. - is O . 1. Apri i':' 1& 1971 (�9r Robert 'L KI ienert Assistant City Manager 863MJ n Street _ II Tiburon, Caitfiornia 1. Dear Bob In response to =your telephone Cali gn Tuesday," April 13,. 1 have tr,II, ed to d collect my `thoughts regard'ang the Noah LQt Spiit matter on RolI1ng, Hiiis I. <, Road ;! Let me reface m remarks ;b stresstn that fihe matter has been an; extremef P Y f ; Y , 9 �. Y difficult one for me to resolve; for 'two basic reasons I ) Staff had pre . viousl`y ygranted °46, uncondi lona`I tentative approval .approximately 2 years ago or more At that time, the Subdivision Ordlnanee apparently contained, no provision for expiration of tentative approvais_-nd, In my opinion, the ownershould be -legal`.ly entitled toTformalize that previous approval through II the Parcel `Map procedure,, 2) The immediate neighborhood has been eXtremely active in this matter as well as in the design and construction problems of the adjacent ,home,` and :has exerted' unwarranted pressure on=staff and III Council : II Nevertheless, 1 ;have <attempted to the best of my abality; to interpret and enforce the ,S.ubdtviston bitd nance, regardless of neighborhood pressurei and previous staff action .Note that the Planning Commission and Council have adopted, amendments tq the 0i d, ance,whi,ch; wtII alleviate any problems such as expi,ratton dates, `procedures andsu�m scion requirements. - �' ` So, to,the `point Several` months ago, about the time that the neighborhood 1 decided "to initiate abatement-'pr pdIngs. against Mr. Noah!s house at 6 Ro! ! ing HI lis Road=; 1: wrote .a letter to Mr. Noah indicating 'that, i . I were Posed the problem of ,;acting ,on `. 1 .. lot split application at that time, I would'.most- certainly deny i,t 1 based that decision on "several ordinance sections dealing with' access t,biilty,„lot sizes and lot cha.raeter. For the moment; the matter then died • It should be kept• in.mind that the city I. I. w-as also at that time negotiating with NIP ,RaiIroad in reference to condemna- tion proceedings, one of our major points being that NWP. coutd .not subdivide into long. narrowlots. I 111 I I 11 , . F' 11 EXHIBITLI- P. (_� OF ,J I ( - . .1. . I : 1 - - . - ,� - I . . %3 - I I _z)'HIBI _” " O. I- . I I I I � . :1. I �� I � � r I � .. I 1 .11 I :, � I Mr. Robert L. Kliene"rt =2- April 16, 1971 After Coupeil , in its infinite wisdom, "declared Mr: Noah!s house to be'`a public nuisance and Mr Noah then began to take corrective measures, dis- cusslons.."began 'taking place again regarding the proposed lot split.. I made severs( v'i s,i ts. to the site w 1 th and' w i thou- i Ir. ,Noah`, conferred w;i th the CityEngineer;'and Deputy City Rttorney, and serio.usiy ,cons idered ail aspects of previous :actions, the subdivision ordinance, various elements, of the ( , , ansef .oespaera neighborGenera I P fan program n hood; . including the existing Noah h`ouse.' 1 then wrote h1r. Noah; citing my previous concerns wish respect` to the subdivision ordinance, and .,..i`ndicating what <condttions ( would impose in order to rectify: those concerns'.: ( It should be noted that my fir t afitemptwith':Mr Noah was to have him:spl=i t: the 2- acre ;parcel into a top and a,--,, bottom lot, which would be`"more 'in keeping with the character of the' neighborhood This so i u h i on wou I d have `J. regu"i'red ga I n i ng legal , access through; property of others, which Mir""Noah reported w,as no possf'ble) ,! I do not: remember precisely which 'cdntltions I indicafed I would mpose " they;shod I;d be �i n the fife l ut genera I 1 y they were as fo I i ows: L. Provisions an :access easement across the lot 6 J o 6,R oiling Fii,ls Road, so that no variance`wouid be necessary to construct a garage r� i;n the. front xard setback, and so that the garage couid� be located I'ow on the site 2 -' f height restriction above:Roiling Hf i Is Road in order to preserve the view from across the street, from `Ro ling Hills Road, itseaf;" and from Mr Noah's house,' (I be I i eve I f i na( I y requ 1 red a I;0' oc' 12-' maximum fr® the:' lowest part of R&Hing NilIs f3oad) .- ._ 3. Dedication" of a°scenic easement across approximately the lower: half of the propertie (trees and creek bed) Detlication also; of a' Pedestrian easement i,n the creek area (This was done i"n order to promote ,a future pedestrian Pathway from Tiburan. Eioulevard to Round H1 1 1 'Road, 4. App Li eat i on of Ues gn;Review to guarantee 'the accomP_I i shment of the. above conditions': ` I hope this answers your questions := If any one. of the" above con ditions_ cannot be met, i wou l'd def i n i to l y deny the app l ca. on Sincerely, way,ne Moody P I ann,i ng Director WM:j r: EXHIBIT P.j,'30 F 3 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO A RECORDED PARCEL MAP (PM 5-90), INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF A BUILDING ENVELOPE AND A HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 058-111-24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. On April 28, 1971, a parcel map entitled"Lands of Noah and Wheary"was caused to be recorded by the Town of Tiburon in Marin County Records at Book 5, Page 90 of Parcel Maps. B. Said parcel map contained on its face a"building envelope" and an associated height restriction note imposed by the Town's Planning Director as part of the approval and pertaining to Parcel A, now commonly known as the vacant lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road. B. On November 21, 2016, the current owner of 8 Rolling Hills Road submitted an application to the Town of Tiburon requesting the removal of the building envelope and its associated height restriction note. Town of Tiburon staff, in consultation with the County of Marin, determined that an amending parcel map was the proper procedure to effectuate the requested removals. C. On January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered all comments and correspondence received at the hearing. D. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines, and ministerially exempt per Sections 15022 and 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines and the Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines declaring parcel maps ministerially exempt from CEQA. E. The Planning Commission finds that the removal of the building envelope and height restriction from the face of the map would not remove the protections from view blockage and neighborhood character that are now more fully addressed through the site plan and architectural review (design review)process now required by the Town of Tiburon for all new homes and would be consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies as implemented through the design review process. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION -4-42017 1 EXHIBIT P._ OF N- Iz•3'riII IT NO. F. The Planning Commission finds that the removal of the building envelope and height restriction would be consistent with applicable provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, including RO-2 zone regulations, and consistent with provisions of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the application(OTHER2016-001)to remove the building envelope and its associated height restriction note from the parcel map entitled "Lands of Noah and Wheary", filed for record on April 28, 1971 at Book 5,page 90 of Parcel Maps, Marin County Records. Said removal shall be implemented in a manner prescribed by law and acceptable to the County Surveyor of the County of Marin and the Marin County Recorder. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon on , 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NAYS: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ERICA WILLIAMS, CHAIR TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2017-DRAFT --/--/2017 2 EXHIBIT C P. '1'69 OF l ,Y January 18, 2017 11 JAN 1 8 2017 it Dear Planning Commissioners: We oppose the elimination of the building envelope and height restriction at 8 Rolling Hills Road. This is a sensitive lot and building location with a history of neighborhood conflict that extends nearly 50 years (see attached Littman-Noah Agreement). Though many of the neighbors have since changed,the neighborhood's sensitivity to this parcel has not. Having reviewed the application and the story poles,we believe eliminating the height restriction could increase the bulk and massing, and are concerned a larger home on this site would be completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. Furthermore, eliminating the building envelope and restricting the rear setback to only 25-feet would allow a siting that encroaches on the oak woodlands habitat and watershed that we value and wish to preserve. 8 Rolling Hills is a narrow parcel with an extremely steep slope (>35%). Since we are in the midst of construction on an adjacent lot with similar topography,we fully understand the complexities and sensitivities developing on such a steep site. As such,we are confident a suitable home could be designed and built within the existing envelope at 8 Rolling Hills. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, James &JoAnn To 88 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 M EXHIBIT P. OF Jq- �>TV-rte :_.L._ NO. First American Title DMICIAL RECO"S COUM OF MARIN __ r�+� WORM AT REQUEST Of When recorded return to: N�(;�4 fAG(•)3� $ALLEY, BIANCHI, HOSKINS & ROSENBERG BOA .. 1.010. 9 Street --.�._."...._ . ...... San Rafael, California 49901 . �!V !"„ . PAST M. f !V JAN2 1974 t 170 whu,bob of Wah C .G{5, l AGREEi+.Eh"T wo k 7'_t This agreement is made this 20thday of December ,��� 1973, by the undersigned parties. WHEREAS, Allan N. Littman and Caroline R. Littman, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Littman") are the owners of that certain parcel of improved real property located in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, particularly described in Exhibit 1 hereto; and WHEREAS, Herbert Wenig and Beverly Wenig, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Wenig") are owners of that certain parcel of improved real property located in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin; State of California, particularly described in Exhibit 2 hereto; and WHEREAS, Ralph C. Noah and Kathryn P. Noah, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "Noah") are the owners of that certain parcel of real property located in the City of. Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, particularly described in Exhibit 3 and depicted as Parcels A and B on i "Parcel Map", attached hereto as Exhibit 4; and WHFREAs, it is the desire and intention of all parties hereto to restrict the Lands described in Exhibits 3 and 4 hereto according to a common plan as to use and permissible buildings so that all of said land shall be benefited and each successive owner of all or a part of said land shall be bene- fited by the preservation of the value and character of said :and; - I NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises i I E of the parties hereto, each tr the others as convenanters and . covenantees, and expressly for the benefit of, and to bind their 4 ar JAN 1 8 201 , R h 7A First American Title L j EXHIBIT � P. <-�0OF First American Title OMCIAL MAWS COMM OF XMIN i successors in ir:terest, the said parties agree as follows: 1. Noah will make no further attempts to split parcels A or E reflected in "Parcel Map" attached as Exhibit 4. 2. Noah shall within thirty (30) days of the date of his execution of this agreement, weather permitting, remove the skylights from the residence located at 6 Rollinq Hills Road, Tiburon, California, and shall not thereafter replace said skylights. j 3. The chimney on the residence located at 6 Rolling Hills Road, Tiburon, California, shall be suitably encased in appropriate redwood. Ncah shall pay the first $500.00 of the expense of encasing the chimney, and the balance of said expense shall be borne by Littman and Wenig. The project of encasing the chimney shall be undertaken by Littman who shall retain the appropriate contractor and other i personnel. 4. No house, garage, carport or other structure or 4 any driveway may be built nor may any application for building nermit be made with respect to Parcel A reflected on Exhibit 4 attached hereto unless and until site plans and building plans have been first shown to Littman and Wenia and the following action or inaction,occurs. if either Littman or Wenig have any objection, they shall, within thirty (30) days of the submission of the plans to them, designate an architect who will, together with an architect designated by Noah and a third architect selected by both of the architects, promptly decide upon the merits of any objections which Littman or Weniu may have to the location, appearance, height, bulk, scale, design and general anesthetic -2- EXHIBIT P. I OF Y+ First American Title First American Title I OFFICIAL RZCOM)S COQN2Y OF KMIN j i i f i I , I architectural effect of the proposed structure. The architects shall have authority to reject or accept the objections in j I whole or in part and their decision by at least two out of three should be final and binding upon the parties to this agreement. If neither Littman nor Wenig make any objection within thirty 00) days after the submission of site plans j and building plans to them, they shall be deemed to have consented to the site plans and building plans so submitted. Said time limitation of thirty (30) days shall be extended. to sixty (60) days if Littman or Wenig are away from home when the plans Are submitted to them. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. RALPH c. NOAH N. L FATHRYN . NUM CAROLINE R. LITTW-,N i � est nsvrnr.y yam, State of California Count•.• of San Francisco On 28 December 1473 appeared before me Allan N. and Caroline N. Littman and Herbert and Beverly Wenig known to me to he the (notarial form) persons whose names are subscribed cc the within instrument. s -3- 3D27.54 ua.33f EXHIBIT P.X20F 31� First American Title First American Title - ------_ ---- ------------ - - •-� i f DvncuL INCIMM COffi!T4 OF wXIM i i - 9iltT6 OF CUMOSM& ol.........._..D.ee,erh.er.......... .... bq..................... _..........._......_..__...._..............._...__............... _. ....................s Nor<n P.Ur,i.e.d la.rbr.._...__......._..........._.........._.......0—,ol.._.........._.... Srer<aj Cdi/or.i..r<tidinF tbn.ie, duly..,.,d o.<d end rums,p<nn.elly epp<e.<d.........ftal Ah....C...... .T[lla,'x....azld.._........ MZ"_ Z FCathryn P. Noah _ .. RICHARDRfMit __....._............._.........._..........._...._.._.._..._................ !; hunrv.ro me ra br M<pe .zr.c..............r.6"6w re rb<WtAi.i.,"- 40f1AY PUALIC•CIl1f0Ak11 yh - r, MARIN COUNTY '•f nrur.e.d erb.naf<dr<d ro nr rr c.wmtr+a.[xo.•r",,...a.t.rin E IN WITNESS IMERF.OP f here hne..ra r<r n:y S..d eel.f M ny ofW4 reel ''.`•`�„" ,r'^'�a"�"a� i.rl:.............. Go.vy ol......__ �.IL. ..........._....tbe dq.ud y<n i.phi, rrrri/ea I ` �\ Non.,Pob,ic in and for thc............. -C-1,oF.._..MaE' i1,„_,.,,.,,.__.. crate of C.,ifomi.. uswro..wNAe"r-c.....ir My C_� it E, ;in.........W..3/.77W.31.77.................. i i 1 i i I .I I i i X54 FAQ s EXHIBIT P. OF First American Title First American Title OFFICIAL RECORDS COUNTY OF KARIN PARCEL ONE: LOT 19, as shown on that certain map entitled, "Rolling Hills Unit Two", filed in the office of the County Recorder. of Marin County on May 21, 1962 in Map Book 11, at page .16. i EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that certain portion thereof described an follows: I BEGINNING at a point in the Southeastern line of said Lot 19, being the point of intersection of the courses "North 46°40'30" East,. 158.829 feet and South 71104150" West 110.0 feet" as said courses are shown on the map hereinabove referred to; thence North 46°40130" East, 7.052 et; thence North 67"06'10" East 135.595 feet; to a point in the Southern line of Lot 19; thence along said Southern line, South 49°50'10" West, 34.001 feet and South 71°04'50" Wast, 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL TWO: - BEGINNING at a point in the Northeastern line of Lot 19, at the - point of intersection of the courses 'North 13104156" West 161.091 feet and South 71"04'50" West 143.23 feet", as said lot and course are shown on that certain map entitled, "Rolling Hills Unit Two", filed in the office of the County Recorder of Marin County on May 21, 1962 in Map Book 11 at page 16; thence North 67006110" East, 174.841 feet to a point in the Northern line of said Lot 19; thence along said Northern line.South 49°50'10" West 33.465 feet and South 71104'50" West 143.23 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL THREE: A non-exclusive easement for roadway and utility purposes as set forth in easements, "First" "Second", "Third" and "Fourth", in deed from Judge to Sims and Wheary, dated October 28, 1947 and recorded November 14, 1947 in Liber 570 of Official Records at page 39, Marin County Records. i EXHIBIT 1 B x2154 PAGE 33P) • EXHIBIT C P. First American Title First American Title DrFicIAL WORDS COUNIY OF ?SARIN N6606V r o I ! That certain real property situate in the County of Marin, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 0?1F: LOT 18, as shown on that certain map entitled, "Rollihp, Mill, Unit Two", filed in the office of the County .Recordur of Marin Co"nty on May 21, 1962 in Map Book 11, at pare 16. CXCCPTING TIEERFPRO.m. all that certain portion thereof described as follows; hr:CINNING at a point in the Southeastern lineof said Lot 18, being the point of intersection of the coursee "South 16" 15' West, 52,00 feet and South 71* 04' 50" West, GS.00 fret" as said cournes are shown on the map hereinabove referred to; thence North 160 15' Fist, 7.401 feet; thence North 670 06' LO" Fast, 93.136 feet, to a point in the Southern line of Lot 18; thence along, avid Southern line, South 490 50' 10" West 34.519 feet and South 71° 04' 50" West, 65.00 feet, to the point of beginning. PAP.CFL TWO: All that portion of Lot 19, as shown on that certain map entitled. "Rolling Mills, Unit Two", filed in the office of the County Recorder of Marin County on May 21, 1962 in Ma, Book 11, at page 16, described as follows: OEGIN'r1ING at a point in the Southeastern line of raid i.,ot 19, bin$ the point of intersection of the courses "Ilorth 'IGo 4n' 30" r-icct, 150.829 feet and South 71� 04' 50" Wast 110.0 feet" a. said courses :.ire-shown on the mol+ he.reinrhove referred to; thence North 4fi* It 30" Pant 7.052 feet; thence. north 670 06' 10" East. 1.75.595 feet to a ' point in the Southern lane of lot 19; thence alo;sly said Southern lire, South 490 SO' 10" West, 3+4.001 iget and South 71' 04' 50" West, 110.00 .feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL TI1P.i:E: A non-exclusive ea`t,!ment for roadway and utility werposes as set forth in eaFemP"ltn, 11`::C" :second"• "Thir,l" it,(.:it,(.: "I'ourth" in 4ieed fron Jndp,e to 'ii LL and Whcary, slated October 2H, l'347. .ind recorders November :4, 1347 is Liber S70 of Official Itecordu at pare 39, :sarin County Records. PARCEL Pei i! An easement and ri4.ht of way for roadway and utility Purposes over "Sluing, Lane", as ;;Posen upon "Nap of foiling recorded ,tune 1 1954 in Liber 8 of iiap:. at pas!e 11, as yet forth in de,! . iron !:grin Title - Cuaranty.Company, a corporation. to EuP.ene C. Wheary and Cynthia T. Wheary, his wife, dated October 8, 1956 and recorded October 10, 1956 u..HI$IT 2 BWK-154 -,,,,.337 `I R£COROCR3 kOTE I THIS DOCUMENT R£C£IY£D AS SHOWN r NOT CI.EAR0 REPRODUCidt C3 r EXHIBIT �✓ P. OF First American Title First American Title OFFICIAL DYZCKM C00"n OF %MRIN W64 cont t t Q in Hook 1065 at page 25 Official Aecords of Marin 0ounty. PARCEL FIVE: � 1 An easement over and alont>, a portion of Lot 11 or. such lot is shown upon "flap of Rolling Hills", recorded June 1, 1954 in Liber 0 of 9 llnps It page 11, as set forth in "Grant of Ennement", froe, 1redric •.� Inventment Company and Sims to Nheary dated August 3, 1956 recorded 3 August 6,1956 is Book 1048 page 481. 1 ?ARCEL SIX: , A nonexclustve ensement for driveway and utility purposes over the following described parcel of land. B;CC.F�i111ifG at a point in tho ilorLheastorn ollne of Lot 19, at the point i i of Intersection of the coursed "Horth 13 Ole' So" West 161.091 feet and 3oath 71° Olt' 50" Wast 110.73 Vect", as said lot and courne arc shown on U at oortnIn !leP entitled, "Ro]ling Bills Unit, Two", Mad in 0.1) of-Cice of the County I!oc•"rdfir oL' Fiarin County on 1•la�r 21 1962 in 11e j ISook 11 at pare lhi thonce 11orth 67' 06' 10" i usL, 1711. 541 feet to point in the florthern line or said Gnt 19; thence along aald Northe,n line South 4.9' 50' 10" Nest 73.465 fent and South 71 04 50 Wast 143.23 feet to the point of beginning. j 1 I i i I I I II 7 WCHIBIT 2 REC>IRO€6Y9 tlOTE % r»!s oocuaecV ar_ccIrEe +s SHO" a r54 w;.318 A (MG!CLEARLY RE9ROCUCIBLE) j EXHIBIT C, P. OF T First American Title First American Title oFF cxm, *XC.O VG COOWTY of KAR1N Ralph C. Noah Rolling Rills Road property parcel A Description: Beginning at a point on the centerline of a 40.0 foot roadway easement, which point bears North 420131 West 111.90 feet and South 47058' West 422.3 feet from the most Southerly corner of that certain tract of land described as Parcel one in Deed from Thomas B. Deffebach, et ux, to Marin Municipal Water District, dated March 8, 1927 and recorded April 6, 1927 in Book 115 at page 216, official Records of Marin County; running thence from said point of beginning along the centerline of said 40 foot i roadway easement North 47058' Bast 88.72 feet; thence leaving said centerline and running North 43044' West 204.78 feet; run- ring thence North 40054' West 310.32 feet to the Northwesterly line of that certain Parcel of land conveyed by Barbara Gauntlett to Cynthia T. Wheary by deed dated April 5, 1956 and recorded April 23, 1956 in Book 1022 at page 608 official Records of Marin county; running thence along said Northwesterly line South 340'8'• West 93.02 feet to the akwst Westerly corner of the aforementioned parcel of land; running thence along the sout:1westerly line of said Parcel south 42013' East 492.89 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over the existing roadway easement leading to the California State Highway. Subject to a sanitary sewer easement over, on or under a parcel of land 5 feet wide lying 2.5 feet on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at a point_ in the southwesterly line distant thereon North 42013' West e.0 feet from the Southwesterly corner of the above described parcel A; running thence North 22017' last 96.84 feet to a point in the Northeasterly line of said Parcel A. Also subject to the offer of dedication of an easement for the preservation Of scenic values to remain as cpea space, and an easement for a pedestrian walkway as recorded Karch 30, 1971 in Book 2448 at page 326 Marin County Recozds, Sheet 1 of 1 �ry(� EXHIBIT 3 9XA? 54 FA'�r• 39 EXHIBIT P. OF First American Title First American Title O"ICIA3. RW4"S COMM OF l4ARIN Ralph C. Noah Rolling Kills Road Property Parcel B Description: 3y Beginning at a point on the,centerlire of a 40.0 foot roadway i easement, which point bears North 42013' Wast 117.90 feet anti South 47058 West 353.58 feet from the most Southerly corner of j that certain tract of land described as Parcel One in Deed from 1 Thomas D. Deffebach, et ux, to Marin Municipal Water District, dated March 8, 1927 and recorded April 6, 1927 in Book 115 at 1 page 216, official Records of Marin County; running thence from ; said point of beginning along the centerline of said 40 foot s roadway easement North 47058' East 76.00 feet; thence leaving � 1 said centerline and running North 43044' West 204.78 feet; running thence North 36052150" West 336.03 feet to the Northwesterly line i of that certain Parcel of land conveyed by Barbara Gauntlett to Cynthia T. Wheary by deed gated April 5, 1956 and recorded April 23, 1956 in Book 1022 at page 608 Official Records of Marin County; running thence along said Northwesterly line South 34015' West 102.90 feet; thence leaving said line and running South 40054' Fast 310.32 feet; thence South 43044' East 204.78 feet to the point Of beginning. Together with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over ti-Le existing roadway easement leading to the California state Highway. Subject to a driveway easement over a parcel of land described as follows: Beginning at a point in tye southwesterly line distant q thereon ;north 43044' Wast 25.0 feet from the Southwesterly earner i of the above described Parcel 3; running thence South 47x58' Last 1 25.0 feet; thence south 85057140" west 32.48 feet to said South- westerly lire; thence along said line South 43044' East 20,0 feet to the point of beginning, Also Subject to the offer of dedication of ar. easementfor the preservation of scenic value:: to remzin as Open space, and an easemenc for a pedestrian walkway as recorded March 30, 1071 in Sack 2444 at page 326 XA2rin COunty RecOrds. Sheet 1 of 1 E3,itB[T 3 mA? 54 F+kivw EXHIBIT P. 19OF s First American Title y D � m m _ � SPgIM6 lAxf • L i 'QyAXN:xG CgCCIOq'S_Cf R,t!f:CatE R iy� )o ,.r.....o i Alii ,,t[_^,l.e u.r rr:t.r>.„•NV+kI 5! \ l PARCEL MAP f ��Til • LANOS 0£NOAH AND YMEARY ru __ _ - gfCOxp['! CAIf a00x2 o5 W6f60ea•,AxO Vix.IDM,5220c r:;,[L:i �1 - 4 ..ac;.. n .. �•[ J Ao 1Aacnr ro Aauxe xLLa sr�x.rro •H� ...e C�jr� �........f^o tl"h^9 ..r w•.�aAe ��[SSN e. JWAgRlN NUYC�nEa�SYEREO aii [Xa�xEfx EXHIBIT P. OF Kyra O'MalleyJAN 2 5 2017 From: James Tarantino <james.r.tarantino@gmail.com>` -�-= 1% Sent: Wednesday,January 25, 2017 9:12 AM P03To: Kyra O'Malley LATE IL Subject: 8 Rolling Hills Road, Tiburon - hearing Good morning Kyra, I wanted to have this included in tonight's hearing, January 25, 2017, for 8 Rolling Hills Road - Project #3 Can you kindly respond to let me know you received this...? Thanks January 25, 2017 Dear Planning Department, am writing to oppose the amendment to the parcel map at 8 Rolling Hills Road...the elimination of the building envelope and height restriction. I concur with my neighbors; James To, Rita Burgess, David Readerman, and others that this proposed development is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Its design would conflict with the existing houses, and its height and limited setbacks would create a sense of displacement and unconformity consistent with the neighborhood...introducing a "townhouse" feel and design very uncharacteristic and unappealing. Also, being that the property is located on a sensitive lot with a very steep grade would only compromise the integrity of the hillside, its habitat and the vegetation and life that warrants its preservation. Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully, James Tarantino 65 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 1 EXHIBIT P. OF 3i LATE MAIL P(4-3 JAra JAN2 5 2011 January 24, 2017 - =-- Lp— Dear Planning Commissioners, We are writing to express our concern over the proposed removal of the building envelope and height restrictions currently in place at 8 Rolling Hills Road. The restrictions have been in place since the early 1970s. We purchased our home at 100 Rolling Hills from former Tiburon Mayor Alan Littman. The Littman agreement was put in place for good reason as the 8 Rolling Hills parcel is very steep and would present a host of problems if the restrictions were removed. Additionally, we are uncomfortable with the elimination of the building envelope and height restrictions in absence of a specific proposal or project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Bart and Amanda Stephens 100 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 JAN 9 2011 EXHIBIT P.3I OF 3 LATE MAIL Ph ' JAN 2 5 2017 January 24, 2017 Re: 8 Rolling Hills Road Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We oppose the requested amendment to 8 Rolling Hills Road,parcel map. After reviewing the story poles,application,and staff report,we believe the proposed modifications are out of character with our neighborhood. The proposed modifications would "condo-ize" our narrow street by allowing shoe-horned street-side density between 6/8 Rolling Hills Road that does not currently exist anywhere else on the street—and is totally inappropriate. Thank you and please call us if you have any questions. Best regards, Scott and Karin Peters JAN 2 5 2017 45 Rolling Hills Road (415)299-0462 EXHIBIT C P.30F MAIL LATE ��- "`; JAN 2 5 2017 January 24,.2017 �` r-'____`� 1\1 January Dear Planning Commissioners: Hawing reviewed the application and the story poles for 8 doffing Hills Road,we are writing to oppose the amendment to the parol map at this property.We believe that eliminating the existing building restrictions for this lot could change the look and feel of this neighborhood,as well as negatively effect the view protection from public locations. The lot on 8 Rolling Hills load offers beautiful views of Richardson Bay when coming down the street. Many dog owners and neighbors from the neighborhood are walking up and down Rolling Hills Road, enjoying the views from this street. Building a 30 ft high home on this lot would block these beautiful open views of Richardson Bay. Furthermore, allowing a new construction to be only 15-20 ft from the existing construction on 6 Rolling Hills Road would create a sense of one very large building ruing up by the street, inconsistent with the feel of this neighborhood where homes are spread out on lets and gardens away from the street. Finally, dolling Hills Road is a marrow street, and allowing a new construction to be built right up to the street and without a driveway can create a situation where cars are parked on the street outside the house.When this happens,potentially hazardous traffic situations are created due to decreased visibility,especially on a narrow street like this. With all this in mind, keeping the 10 ft building height and the existing building envelope would minimize the impact of a structure at 8 dolling Hills Road.We are hoping that the Planning Commission will leave the existing building envelope and height restrictions in place. Thank You for your consideration. Respectively, Emma and Stefan Larsson 35 Rolling Hills Load Tiburon, CA 94820 EXHIBIT P. 33 OF 3 T JAN 2 2017 LATE MAIL # PHT� January 23, Dear Planning Commissioners: We are writing to oppose the amendment to the parcel map at 8 Rolling Hills Road. Upon reviewing the application, the story poles and the staff report, we feel that eliminating the 1971 building envelope and height restriction and allowing current setback and height limitations for RO-2 zoning further exacerbates the fact this would allow a design inconsistent with the neighborhood. It appears that 6 Rolling Hills Road was built at a zero lot setback at the front of the property and approximately a 5-6' setback from the south side property line. If allowing a property to be built at 8 Rolling Hills with the 15' required side setback, this would only provide 20 feet or less between the two, completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. We are concerned as well about eliminating the current building envelope and height requirement for this site as current standards would allow for a larger massing and height down the length of the property. Keeping the existing building envelope and 10' building height would minimize the impact of a structure at 8 Rolling Hills. Further, the property is so steep and densely vegetated that the rear story poles that would reflect the extent of the building mass requested by this amendment could not even be set. We value this habitat and watershed and the life that it supports. We all bought our properties on Rolling Hills Road because of the qualities of this neighborhood. The home at 6 Rolling Hills is already inconsistent with the neighborhood by having less than the setbacks required at the front and south side. Adding another structure so close to this property with greater massing and height would create a "townhouse development" feel quite uncharacteristic with our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Respectively, JAN 2 4 1017 Rit rgess and David Readerman 55 Rolling Hills Road Tiburon, CA 94920 EXHIBIT P.W OF 3. 8 ROLLING HILLS ROAD: Request for an Amending Parcel Map to remove certain development limitations (building envelope and height limit) from a vacant lot located in the RO-2 Zone; ; File #OTHER2016001; Michele Hughes, Owner; Assessor Parcel 058- 111-24 Director Anderson stated the owner of a vacant lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road has applied for removal of certain development restrictions on the lot that were imposed at the time of its creation by parcel map recorded in 1971. These restrictions include a"building envelope" situated at the front of the lot near Rolling Hills Road and a height limit on residential construction located within the building envelope. The current owner of 6 Rolling Hills Road has also been the owner of the vacant lot next door at 8 Rolling Hills Road since the 1970's, but was not the original subdivider or builder of the home. As the restrictions are nearly 46 years old, staff reviewed the files and tried to determine why such unusual provisions were placed on a subdivision lot. These sorts of restrictions can no longer be placed on the face of a parcel map under current State law, but at the time it was possible and was done in this case. The reasons identified for the imposition of these restrictions were to protect views that included the view to Richardson Bay from Rolling Hills Road,the view of the hillside and Richardson Bay from the homes across Rolling Hills Road, and the view to Richardson Bay from the existing home at 6 Rolling Hills Road. These were the Planning Director's rationale for imposing those restrictions at the time. Staff today looks at this and sees them as unusual, but given the tools available at the time [1971], such as lack of a design review requirement for new homes, etc., staff thinks the Director did the best job he could, given the nature of the situation at the time, which involved serious antipathy between neighbors. Whether these tools used are still appropriate, optimal or even necessary is something that is within the discretion of the Commission. To staff's knowledge, this is the only RO-2 lot in Tiburon that has a building envelope on it as opposed to the fixed setbacks and standard development parameters found in these types of single family zones today. He said the Planning Commission has at times in the past altered building envelopes that were found to be obsolete, or where the situation had changed in the vicinity and the conditions were such that the envelopes were no longer appropriate in their current alignment. The Commission has also allowed building envelopes to be changed and let the Design Review Board do the rest of the task of determining the appropriate design and location of the home. However, each application is reviewed on its unique history and circumstances, as they are all different. The"paper changes" proposed by the amending parcel map would be straightforward enough: the building envelope and its associated height limit note would disappear from the face of the map and the parcel would default to the RO-2 zone standards and the Town's current design review process. It is much more difficult to describe or quantify the potential changes in location, height, or design that the amended map would bring to a dwelling eventually constructed at 8 Rolling Hills Road. The Design Review Board has a great deal of latitude in what it considers acceptable when applying the Hillside Design Guidelines and the guiding principles of design review to a proposal for a new home. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January 25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 8 EXHIBIT NO. P I eJI In order to provide some visual assistance in the absence of an actual home design for the site, staff required the erection of story poles showing the building envelope limits and height limits established by the 1971 parcel map, as well as story poles showing the maximum height limit and front setback allowed by current RO-2 zoning. The height limit represents an absolute worst case scenario of 30 feet at any given point and this is most likely something that would never be approved by the Design Review Board, but in the absence of a specific house design, this was the best staff could do. Director Anderson said the lot is not easy to construct upon and it has some very challenging aspects, which are identified in the staff report as follows: 1. Significant encroachment by improvements associated with the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road, including but not limited to portions of a deck and an extensive patio area. 2. A driveway easement exists on 6 Rolling Hills Road that presumably benefits 8 Rolling Hills Road, thus acting to further complicate the already difficult vehicular access to the vacant lot; 3. A diagonal sewer easement appurtenant to 6 Rolling Hills Road, which"clips off' a portion of the otherwise rectangular building envelope; and 4. A 30-foot front setback requirement from the near edge of the Rolling Hills Road right-of- way (per current zoning). In 1971, the front setback could be measured from the property line (the mid-point of the street right-of-way), but that is no longer the case. Director Anderson noted that staff visited the site in an attempt to gauge possible view impacts and the written staff report summarizes those from various vantage points, but lacking access to individual homes and a set of story poles representing a real home design, staff could only very generally describe potential view impacts on homes. The Town has received several letters on this proposal from neighboring property owners; all of the letters are in opposition to the removal of the restrictions. The Commission has several options, which include: 1. Denying the request and leaving the building envelope and height restrictions in place. 2. Approving the request as proposed and allowing the lot to receive design review approval in accordance with current zoning standards and design review procedures. 3. Approving the request subject to specific conditions or modifications, such as limiting how far down the hillside a home could be built, or requiring that any home appear as single story from the street in front of the lot. These would appear as notes on the recorded amending parcel map. 4. Partially approving the request by making modifications to the envelope and/or height limit but not removing them entirely. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January 25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 9 EXHIBIT D P.<1_ OF f 5. Request additional information prior to making a decision on the application. Anderson stated that should the Commission look favorably on the application, a draft resolution of approval is contained with the report. Should the Commission decide to deny the application, it should direct staff to return at the next meeting with an appropriate resolution of denial. Staff's recommendation would be to receive a presentation by the applicant or her representatives, accept and consider all public comments on the item, consider the various options, and move accordingly. Commissioner Welner stated in the past when the Commission reviewed requests for this type of amendment, he recalled that in every case they have had a specific proposal in front of them as opposed to an abstract situation. He therefore asked how common or rare was it to have this kind of request for amending a parcel map be reviewed without a specific proposal. Director Anderson said in his 30 plus years of planning experience, he has never seen an amending parcel map application. To his knowledge, this is not an application type that the Town has seen before. Typically, what the Commission has seen in the past are requests for envelope amendments for lots located in a Planned Development zone, where all of the lots have building envelopes. Those envelopes are created when the subdivision is still raw land and the project architect does his or her best to lay out the envelopes by envisioning what construction might occur in the future. What often happens is that years later, there are one or two lots remaining in the development that have not been built upon, and the envelope that seemed to make sense back when the site was raw land now does not make sense based on the surrounding pattern of development. The envelope location may block views that could easily be avoided based on the layout of other homes in the vicinity. Alternatively, Anderson said there have been situations where building envelopes were created long ago when the Town first adopted Planned Development zones, and the practice was sometimes to draw the building envelope around the footprint of a pre-designed home. These envelopes tended to be small and inflexible, and the Planning Commission would look at the situation many years later and determine the envelope was not appropriate for modern times and vote to expand the envelope. Commissioner Kulik said he knows procedures were different in 1971. Given the cantankerous history of this project, and the fact that the resolution of that dispute was recorded on the title as a settlement agreement between parties, and is binding on successors in interest, he asked if the Town Attorney has opined on the matter in terms of what the Planning Commission is able to do. Director Anderson stated that the agreement being referenced was a settlement between private parties, and the Town has no role in it whatsoever. In terms of complying with the agreement, there is no obligation on the part of the Town to do so, and the Town would need to rely on its own processes, procedures and guidelines in reviewing and approving a home design. Chair Williams said she is not experienced in the design review process, but if the Commission were to remove the envelope and height restrictions, these are all things that can be addressed in TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 10 EXHIBIT P. _/� 0F the design review process. Her question is whether to keep these unusual restrictions in place, or allow this particular development of a future home to go through the normal Town process during which there could be height restrictions and other conditions imposed, and where relevant issues would be looked at carefully. Director Anderson stated this is how the design review process works. In an instance such as this, if the Commission was to decide to do away with the envelope and height restriction, within that action, the Commission might want to call out the issues that the Design Review Board should pay specific attention to as it goes through the process so these particular aspects would be carefully considered by the Board. Chair Williams asked if there was an applicant presentation. Michele Hughes said she has owned 6 Rolling Hills Road for 44 years and 8 Rolling Hills Road for about 40 years. She bought the property from the developer and subdivider and is the only owner and user-owner of the one residence and the two lots. She said she recently decided to sell the lot, which has been sitting in its vacant position for 40 years, and part of it has to do with personal reasons, as her husband passed away last year. She realizes there was some contentiousness amongst the parties before she was the owner but did not know there was an existing building envelope. She said it is very limiting and there is also a height restriction of 10 feet. She is the second largest lot on the street, has one acre or 43,560 feet and she feels she is dealing with an antiquated, limiting restriction that does not exist for anybody else. She said she was not asking for any special privileges but to be brought into conformance with what exists today elsewhere in the neighborhood. She believed the first Design Review Board was created in 1973 in Tiburon and there was none previously when the private settlement was agreed upon by neighbors. She did not think she was coming before the Commission to ask for anything special, but rather to be brought into conformance and to be consistent with what other neighbors would be provided if they were in the same position. Chair Williams opened the public hearing and called upon speakers. James To said he and his wife own 88 Rolling Hills Road, which is the lot adjacent to 8 Rolling Hills Road. He said Ms. Hughes has been a good neighbor to them during their construction and they also spoke with Joseph Lepera [the prospective buyer], and he hopes they understand their opposition to this proposal is not personal. Mr. To said he thinks eliminating this envelope would be an expansion of Ms. Hughes' existing property rights. When she purchased the property it was subject to the building envelope and there is a long history of why this envelope is in place. Asking the Commission and the neighborhood to increase the development potential and up-zone it without presenting something in front of neighbors to look at does not seem like it is the right path and it is a very sensitive site that will affect many neighbors. He said 7 of the 8 neighbors down the road from this property voiced opposition, and it seems the better route would be to present something in front of the Design Review Board that neighbors can all see before removing the restrictions. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE I I EXHIBIT P._q OF 1 Mr. To said he is building his home on a similarly sloped lot greater than 35%; they had a building envelope; got a 10 foot height variance to build there because they proposed something that was sensitive and had limited impact on the neighborhood; and it was unanimously approved. He said the neighborhood has proven to be reasonable and he thinks the better path to take would be to present something to the Design Review Board. The building envelope has restrictions but it is buildable. He understands that as the lot is being sold, the parties would want to remove those restrictions, but neighbors would want to see what is to be put there before deciding to eliminate all of the restrictions. Miles Berger, architect representing the owner of properties at 5 and 25 Rolling Hills Road, said neighborhood relations may have been cantankerous in the past, but the Commission can see the reasonableness of all of the parties and noted that Ms. Hughes invited him to her home. What the Commission is looking at is not the lot but a building envelope which could be the size of the property. He noted that his own house is one-story tall on the street as this envelope projects to be, and then it slopes down so it can be two or more stories on the downhill slope. His house is not 45 feet wide as this one can be, but his is 25 feet wide, yet they have a very spacious 2,000 square foot home and this home could be twice size that in this location, which would be easy to accomplish. Mr. Berger said this envelope was in place for a very long time. Mr. To, his clients, and other nearby property owners have relied on the fact that this is the agreement that was made and that is the size of the home that would be on this property. It is cleverly designed so it would be one- story tall at the street or a bit taller to hold a garage and this would be the ultimate height so it would control views of the water and of Mt. Tamalpais, so those living across the street could protect their Richardson Bay water views and the Mt. Tamalpais views, and this envelope would do that. If a future owner indicates they cannot work with this and would need to push out a bit or make adjustments, the Design Review Board can do that when there is a real design and its impact would be evaluated and the design would be controlled as far as all of the neighbors understand. Joseph Lepera identified himself as the potential purchaser of the property and stated the property will be a home for his family. He has read the letters submitted and they are all in agreement that they do not want mass and bulk. When these restrictions were being imposed, there was not a design review requirement in place. He brought up the design guidelines, and said they are hoping to design a house from the street that appears as one-story and steps down the hill so there is less mass and bulk. There are 10 principles in the guidelines and they want to be in conformance with them. He said he wants to be a good neighbor and will meet with each one. He asked that the Commission remove the obsolete restriction so they can apply and be heard by the Design Review Board. Rita Burgess said she and her husband have lived at 55 Rolling Hills Road since 1992. Her understanding of the project is that when 6 Rolling Hills Road's home was built there were design guidelines but no design review requirement to impose the guidelines. When the story poles went up, she was shocked at how close the two houses would be and it is uncharacteristic of the neighborhood because there would not be a 15 foot setback for each property because 6 Rolling Hills Road looks as if it is only five or six feet right now. The two homes would TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 12 EXHIBIT P. OF therefore only have about a 20 foot separation. Also, 6 Rolling Hills Road is built right up to the street because they were not required to meet the design review guidelines, which she believes started the contentious issues in 1973, because all of the other homes do meet those guidelines. Ms. Burgess said it is also her understanding that there is an open space easement on the back half of 6 and 8 Rolling Hills Road, which is held by the Town so this is not considered buildable space for the property. Therefore, her objections are the property line separation, the height that might be allowed, and the fact there are no home designs proposed at this time. There being no one else desiring to speak, Chair Williams closed the public comment period and returned discussion to the Commission. Commissioner Kulik said he sensed there is, and has been, general peace in the neighborhood for a number of years, but the situation could get litigious and less pleasant if the Commission is not careful in how this goes. An agreement has been on the title of the property for 40 years and he thinks in situations where homeowners buy properties, diligence is required. To act as though this agreement does not exist, even though it is not in the Town's purview, may not be a good approach. He appreciates the antiquated nature of how this looks to certain people involved but also, that ownership changes can happen and a new owner might want a radically different house design than the current owner. The restrictions on titles and properties endure. He thinks Mr. Lepera seems very reasonable and wants to work with neighbors, which is fantastic, but things change, people move,properties get sold and one thing he would caution is that if this came to pass, the property that might get hurt the most is 6 Rolling Hills Road, because of the nature of the story poles. When he drove by, he saw there could be a tremendous amount of visual, privacy and light damage to 6 Rolling Hills Road by building to the extreme at 8 Rolling Hills Road. He thinks the Commission would do a great disservice to everyone involved if they completely removed the restrictions without any consideration of what could potentially go there. As was mentioned earlier, the unusualness of amending restrictions on a lot without knowing exactly what might go there is atypical, and if he were to make a request, he would like to see some kind of concrete proposal that would be much more tangible and debatable than something in the abstract, as the Commission currently has before it. Commissioner Weller said he could see there would be disagreement amongst the Commissioners on this item. He sees that there was an attempt over 40 years ago to create land use planning in the absence of any other way of doing it, and that those approaches have been superseded. He has served on the Design Review Board and he knows how serious the Board members take their role. Mr. Anderson has told the Commission that any proposal to construct improvements on this parcel would be subject to full design review and he supports the idea that if the Commission approves this application, that the Commission give guidance to the Design Review Board about concerns of neighbors. To him,this is where in modern land use planning the issues of what gets built on this lot should occur. The Design Review Board has been established to make all such decisions, and it is not what the Planning Commission does. Having sat on both, there is a distinction between the two. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January 25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 13 EXHIBIT h P. OF To him, this is an obsolete set of rules and is a unique situation. The Commission's current way of dealing with improvements and proposals that affect neighbors is to have them go to the Design Review Board, which would be the case here, and he sees no reason to preserve something that was negotiated in the absence of an alternative 40 years ago to accommodate a contentious situation. Fortunately, none of the people contending at that time are here now, and he concurs with Commissioner Kulik and he congratulated the apparent willingness of those that are here to be reasonable and work together. He thinks the buyer of the property will learn very quickly if he has not already that the Design Review Board is very, very aware of the concerns of neighbors on issues like views, traffic, parking, etc., and he has every confidence that will be the case in this situation. He sees no reason for the Planning Commission to perpetuate a land use regulatory regime established over 40 years ago that no longer is applicable, and he would support accepting the removal of those restrictions with the direction to the Design Review Board to consider the view, parking, and any other issues in the normal course of their review of this development. Commissioner Welner said he is eager to hear what remaining Commissioners think. His inclination is not to remove the existing envelope because to him, it is akin to the requests the Commission occasionally receives to modify specific plans that were developed decades ago. He has a set of criteria which he typically applies to those kinds of decisions. The first criterion is whether the original considerations that led to the development of the restrictions still make sense, and as seen in the staff report, there were three purposes set forth in 1971 for the restrictions, which have to do with maintaining the feel of the neighborhood, maintaining views of other homes, and allowing the parcel to have its use preserved as much as possible. He thinks all of those criteria remain valid and he does not think the character of the neighborhood, despite the passage of time, has changed dramatically from the time this agreement was first reached. The second criterion has to do with input from neighbors. Typically, when a restriction like this is put in place more often in the context of a specific plan, sometimes the Commission receives requests to make changes and very few comments and concerns are received from neighbors. When that happens, it is a signal to him that the original considerations that went into the design of the restriction may no longer be in play. Here they have criteria that were identified for the imposition of the restriction that still appear to be valid and neighbors appearing who are articulating the same concerns that were around in the 1970's when this arrangement was first made. The final criterion, which he has never had to raise before, is the absence of a specific proposal. He thinks there is a way to resolve this over time. He thinks if the new property owner were to provide a specific proposal, then depending on what that proposal entails, the envelope could be removed in order to allow a reasonable proposal to be built on the site. He said he was also sympathetic to what Commissioner Weller says about the role of the Planning Commission versus the Design Review Board; however, in this case, the Commission is actually being asked to take an affirmative action eliminating a restriction that is already in place, and he is not prepared to take such an action given the items he has mentioned and the lack of a specific proposal at this time. Therefore, he would not support, under these circumstances, eliminating the building envelope. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January 25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 14 EXHIBIT 1) P. TOF Vice Chair Corcoran said he thinks this is one of the more difficult issues the Planning Commission has seen during his tenure, and he could agree with both sides. He served on the Design Review Board and this is more of a Board issue that should be heard by them. All comments have been very helpful. In thinking over the criteria articulated by Commissioner Welner for lifting a restriction, he was leaning more towards lifting the restriction here because the Town did not have the tools it does today when the restrictions were put in place, and the Town staff did its best at the time. He noted that the Commission was not being asked to make any decision on a specific proposal, as this will go through the normal process with the Design Review Board under a fair hearing and much of this will be completely moot. It may be an academic argument because what ultimately might get approved by the Design Review Board might be substantially the same no matter what the Commission decides tonight. Nevertheless, having been on the Design Review Board and having confidence with their decisions and their role, and hearing all concerns from neighbors and the applicant, he thinks there will be ample opportunity for neighborhood input. One neighbor indicated that he thought it was giving them carte blanche, with which he disagreed, as there are many layers when getting something approved by the Town and it is not easy. Chair Williams agreed that the issue'is difficult and she was waffling a bit in her own mind. She was deferential to fellow Commissioners who have served on the Design Review Board, and understood that something like this would get a full and fair hearing with ample opportunity for the public to weigh in on what is appropriate for the neighborhood in terms of mass, height and other issues. She looked at the site and found it is very sensitive and appreciates why all of the neighbors are concerned. The view is very special and unique, and it is a difficult site to build on. She recognized Vice Chair Corcoran's point that it might be a completely academic issue, and she would not be surprised if the existing building envelope and height restriction is ultimately very similar to what will exist at the end of the day after the design review process. She believed that the comments have been very informative and enlightening, but she would be inclined to remove the restrictions because she thinks they are historical artifacts in a way. It makes much more sense to have this go through the process as any other home in Tiburon would, with input from neighbors and a real sensitivity for the area and what fits for the neighborhood, and these can be fully addressed during the design review process. The Design Review Board would take into account the neighborhood input that is the original rationale for the restrictions on the map and there would be a specific proposal in that case. Therefore, all things Commissioner Weiner was concerned about would be adequately addressed in the design review process. She did not think that to perpetuate this strange set of circumstances that came out of contention when there was a completely different system in place was the right decision. She would be inclined, along with Commissioners Weller and Corcoran, to lift the restrictions for the reasons stated. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January 25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 1\5 EXHIBIT ) P. OF 1 Commissioner Welner said in light of Chair Williams' comments, if he cannot convince the Commission to maintain the envelope, he suggested that the resolution specifically call out those three criteria that are listed by the former Planning Director as the basis for imposing the envelope and urge the Design Review Board to take those into consideration. He thinks it would be important to call it out so they are familiar with the history of the site. Commissioner Weller said this is consistent with what he believes is appropriate. He referred to the proposed resolution and said there are a number of findings. He thinks Finding E of the resolution sums it up well by stating, "Protections from view blockage and neighborhood character that are now more fully addressed through the site plan and architectural review (design review)process now required by the Town of Tiburon for all new homes.....". He would go further in the approval and add something to the general effect that, "The Planning Commission directs the Design Review Board to consider the original rationale for the now- removed restrictions in its consideration of any proposed improvements." Chair Williams stated the rationale is set forth on page 2 of the staff report. She said the resolution [in the packet] is one approving the amendments, and she moved to adopt it. ACTION: M/S (Williams/Weller) to adopt the resolution approving the request as proposed with the modifications to the resolution as suggested by Commissioner Weller. Motion carried 3-2 (Kulik and Welner opposed). Director Anderson announced that there is a 10-day appeal period for any interested party. ACTION ITEM 2. Planning Commission Minutes—Meeting of December 13, 2016 ACTION: M/S (Weller/Corcoran) to approve the Minutes of December 13, 2016, as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1(Kulik abstained). ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. ERICA WILLIAMS, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION January 25,2017 MINUTES NO. 1071 DRAFT PAGE 16 EXHIBIT P. OF RESOLUTION NO. 2017-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO A RECORDED PARCEL MAP (PM 5-90), INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF A BUILDING ENVELOPE AND A HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON STRUCTURES WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 058-111-24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does resolve as follows: Section 1. Findings. A. On April 28, 1971, a parcel map entitled "Lands of Noah and Wheary"was caused to be recorded by the Town of Tiburon in Marin County Records at Book 5, Page 90 of Parcel Maps. B. Said parcel map contained on its face a"building envelope" and an associated height restriction note imposed by the Town's Planning Director as part of the approval and pertaining to Parcel A, now commonly known as the vacant lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road. B. On November 21, 2016, the current owner of 8 Rolling Hills Road submitted an application to the Town of Tiburon requesting the removal of the building envelope and its associated height restriction note. Town of Tiburon staff, in consultation with the County9of Marin, determined that an amending parcel map was the proper procedure to effectuate the requested removals. C. On January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on the subject application and considered all comments and correspondence received at the hearing. D. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from further review under the California Enviromnental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction) of the CEQA Guidelines, and ministerially exempt per Sections 15022 and 15268 of the CEQA Guidelines and the Town of Tiburon Environmental Review Guidelines declaring parcel maps ministerially exempt from CEQA. E. The Planning Commission finds that the removal of the building envelope and height restriction from the face of the map would not remove the protections from view blockage and neighborhood character that are now more fully addressed through the site plan and architectural review(design review)process now required by the Town of Tiburon for all new homes and would be consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies as implemented through the design review process. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2017-02 01/25/2017 1 EXHIBIT'NO® P_ uk j F. The Planning Commission finds that the removal of the building envelope and height restriction would be consistent with applicable provisions of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance, including RO-2 zone regulations, and consistent with provisions of the Tiburon Subdivision Ordinance. Section 2. Approval. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon does hereby approve the application(OTHER2016-001) to remove the building envelope and its associated height restriction note from the parcel map entitled "Lands of Noah and Wheary", filed for record on April 28, 1971 at Book 5, page 90 of Parcel Maps, Marin County Records. Said removal shall be implemented in a manner prescribed by law and acceptable to the County Surveyor of the County of Marin and the Marin County Recorder. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs the Design Review Board and/or Town staff to carefully consider the original rationale for the now-removed restrictions during review of any applications for site plan and architectural review associated with the lot, said rationale being set forth in Planning Commission staff report dated 1/25/2017 and the letter dated March 8, 1971 from Planning Director Wayne Moody(Exhibit 2 to said staff report). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon on January 25, 2017, by the following vote: 8 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corcoran, Weller, Williams NAYS: COMMISSIONERS: Kulik, Welner ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None r' ERICA WILLIAMS, CHAIR ATTEST: TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2017-02 01/25/2017 2 UN/T'/A HpVIS/ON G[PORriON OF NYJUNr T/BU2o, UN/T/ AEs. /i-sy /04 `O �%J N 32�0t'W M.M. W.D, �4.0 Q b //A Ot O ` Q � R N4Z'/3"W 208.7/ //7.90 ,v4z'/3'w4 v SEER/N6 LANE +/0 9 .9/(CA G) mo PARCEL C dti g5 d As/DE74)IzO' zo I tUv Z.99 AC. 1'091ZD O L � QI \H t<NOs OF warm I R I PLANNING DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATE �' /su OP 370 I CERTIFY THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION COMPLIES WITH w THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE TIBURON CITY CODE. ' Y O�1 I g 2 II SIGNED -4-W' . RASOFA[kSId/7) 4 ZN4NG DIR DATE H 4 h E4NO3 OF V dE.R rr ; UI N m /634 .R 70S I 3 ? aHo. N36'S2"So'W 336.03 RI —LEGEND— IF STANDARD STREET MONUMENT SET IRON PIPE AND PIN WITH TAG R.E.SSBI to SET E'XE' REDWOOD HUD m scENTc AND�l1\ l P A RQ E L 8 DR.VEWAV EI3EN . I /O AC. TO SG.See•.<n a N40°54 W iM V1� b MON B z Y.A 3/O 32 'N43'44�W 204.,74 " /D"� ' OPEN sPAce` �1 BASIS OF BEARING ARING OF 2 47-OWN BETWEEN Y A W EASEMENT�'1 E 5'SERF FAZE. I ROLLING HILLS SHOW ON CORDED EMTs [! 0 0"d DIE 374 1 \ SEWER EASE IDI\ RI A Rl UNIT TWO SHOWN DM R[CORO[D WF OF N / A PAR EL A T°G[TESERVFO m\\-. , LD Ac. Eur<01ND \ '0 I M.0. 11-19 ROLLING HILLS OMIT TWO GNVELOIE'— \\\q y I /4 /S Yu BOOK N PASS If N4Z°/3 W 492.49CAG C.) `�-MON.A j \\ <ANOS OF WINN ELMAN JO• NOTE:PARCEL q \ THE Su/LD/N6 ENVELOPE NE/6NT ` SHALL NOT EXCEED /0.0 FEET 1 ABOVE 7NE STREET ELEVAT/0V AT MONUMENT A PARCEL MAP /a 8 6 y LANDS OF NOAH AND WHEARY , AJRVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE CITY ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE RECORDERS CERTIFICATE BOOK=26/0R PAGE 640 S 641 AND PTN. BOOR K=OR PACE 606 -9/ A /L •'S MAP WAS PREPARED BY Y!011 UNDER YY DIRECTION AND WAS COMPILED THIS NEP HAS BEEN EXAMINED THIS-(_DAY OF /'1apTl FILED TNID DAT OF 14 P_RI ADJACENT TO ROLLING HILLS UNIT TWO ROY RECORD DATA (ANO IB BABES UPON A FIELD SURVEY)IN CONFORMANCE FOR CONFORMANCE WITH TN EOUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11 175 OF THE AI IN BOON Of BOOK 11 OF MAPS AT PAGE IB IITP THE REOUIIIEYCNTS OF THE SUBDIVISION YAP AR AT THE REQUEST OF SUBDIVISION YAP ACT. p �AT PAGE TIOURON,MARIN COUNTY,CALIFORNIA /'G-L:Z/ G.A/ANl IN�A' •1971 I NCREBT CERTIFY SIGNED f R �S� SERIAL NO IM Pit K FEC t— HAT ALL PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE !TATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES CITY 996INEER AT THE NEUUEST OF Q/,/ J.WARREN MUTE-REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER -Al'[' BEEN COMPLIED WITH. � awf, I SIGNED AND DEALS I [DSRA•Aa SIGNED -d/AT_ G.�AG0AF/N/ MARCH 1971 SOA{ r' I•.an' R.C.E. NO. COUNT RECORDER BY DEPUTY RECOIIO[ EXHIBIT P. ILI-0F 3Lf rX-HISIT NO, LING 4 SCEN/C AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENT L, w N 30 FT. HIGH STORY POLES (' ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE EASEMENT NOT SET. DENSE :e BRUSH AND TREE CANOPY . RCEd MAPS 90 CL A PCL B 8 ROLLING HILLS RD I 6 ROLLING HILLS RD AP 058-111-24 APN 058-111f-23 STORY POLE +30 FT.ABOVE� EXIST. GRADE ( y fj 56.4'' i rT-- ' — * ' — i EXIS77NG 15' 15' BUILD/NG ENI/ELOPE to STORY POLE AT PROPOSED co �� 30' B.S.L. (TYP) 'n Zgfi k10> 36, M NT E o PROPOSED 30 FT. B.S.L. 25 'EP5 FROM ROAD AND UTILITY R/WI.. ' S ROLLING HILLS RD. �0�256 40' ROAD AND UTIL/TY R/W s AERIAL IMAGE AND CONTOURS LINES I� `- o mDERIVED FROM ONLINE INFORMATION `({` j-CC� PROVIDED BY MARINMAP.ORG ill JAN 1 0 2017 I PLAN�'iING Jwi:;!���N I N W D D EXHIBIT MAP md Fn BUILDING ENVELOPE to STORY POLES tos W 8 ROLLINGS HILLS RD. TIBURON, CA a m o ' � APN 058-111 -24 3 g Marin Map VICINITY MAP NO, 'Ito i ` r �__tl 8 it R farl Potill'J.fllejT4pron II _ f Legend ❑ Condominium Common Area 71 t L 1 --' c ❑ Mobile Home Pad city Community y i l .. r "•' ---� i r ?+1 rte' r ❑ Marin County Legal Boundary fI. ❑ Other Bay Area County _ r------J �, I i ~+' I ❑ Ocean and Bay Address �r _ S 1, ,-- ED Parcel Secured r�'y Tburo I ".� o + � (d `Tal'3 NHDFlowline t=; -'x e ��� \�xc�`HIIIRd ArtificialPath \ — CanalDitch t _ Coastline Connector K'C _ Pipeline g Ff 11. !I� �� *7� t '.,y /. StreamRiver NHD Line DamWeir Nonearthen Shore Reef _ — Sounding Datum Line z - - Vti — Tunnel 161 Ilii .y ?-�. 10,d ,d` f . . �6 C ...t• MSC. 1 t'V`� r�� j _ - I 1-' ,I L:z r, 1: 3,476 NBelvedere i Notes 579.3 0 289.65 579.3 Feet This ma Is a user generated static output from an Internet ma EXHIBIT G P. I� OF 3 P 9 P Aping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Califomia_III_FIPS_0403_Feet accurate, current,or otherwise reliable. ©Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION IIB'IT NA RE- T)JH tgR, 14 C The ��d. H�� �� �� � � � • - - �� ����east`=8 Livel_ Spirit` Cif Para: Mcg l e 3� By ANN MIZEL especially at her.children's schools. Son Nickolaas Just.about every weekend a real stunner can be McConnell-Nichols, 9, sees a lot of his mom at Be] seen walking briskly from the,pier by the Caprice .. Aire School where she works on the yearbook Restaurant to Blackie's Pasture and back. "I don't ,;. :° watch my diet and I love chocolate and ice cream," staff, drives on field trips and works on varioufundraisers: admitted part-time model and Tiburon resident, Daughter Natasha McConnell-h{ichols, 18 an Pamela McConnell, 43. "But I do walk and dance >. �f even taller.(S 11 ) by three inches than her mom, as much as I can stay in shape." M<. was a June '93 graduate of Katherine Branson McConnell, a single mother of two who.also School and has seen her mother in action, too. works part-time as a legal assistant and word pro- ' cessor, was one of 17 selected from 200 Marin McConnell has worked tirelessly for Branson as a Independent Journal readers to model for Spring docent, a fundraiser for the Concourse d'Elegance, Fashion '93. and as secretary for the Catch-All shop which ben- McConnell, who belongs to the Models of Marin efts the school's Scholarship Fund. Guild, does some modeling for LYZ in Kentfield, b, Natasha was one of the student models at a and is kept bus modeling at Jell Roll in The Vil- fashion show for the Branson PTA organized by p y g y ' <. McConnell. Athletic (soccer is her thing), Natasha lage. She has been seen by locals strutting her has taken dance from Ruth Langridge and finds it stuff for charity at St. Hilary's School and the Co- rinthian Yacht Club. « fun doing a little modeling herself."I'd like to model to earn money while I'm going to college (the A Chicago native and one of 12 children, Mc- University of Colorado)," Natasha said. Connell calls herself"the gypsy of my family."She Hard-working—at Longs Drugs and now at the home' at 16 for the Bay Area as a repre left New Morning Cafe and II Fornaio in Tiburon— left of the Ecumenical.Institute in Chicago. Natasha finds the stock market fascinating and Religion still plays an important part in Mc- " may major in business. Of late, she has sworn oh Connell's life, and she is very involved in the Cen- TV and has become a voracious reader. ter for Global Spirituality_in Tiburon. "I also get = �, y Natasha works with youngsters_ at the lots of inner strength from Mt. Tam's "sleeping r; �;. 3v >> Belvedere Community Center, and this year will lady," McConnell said, "I feel veryspiritual in her P volunteer for the second summer at the Corte presence.,, � � M " adera Recreation Department. She expects to ,w Somehow, McConnell Ends time to reach out to Pam McConnell and her daughter Natasha,stand`M earn an undergraduate degree like her mom, but the community and gives her all to volunteer work, ing. Photo:Diane Smith Plans to go to graduate school as well. Both Nataass to and Pamela McConnell believe in setting realistic goals.and not letting,anything get in the way, and in turning negatives into positives. While blessed.with physical beauty, these two elegant women both lead lives in which inner beauty reigns'supreme. THE UNIVER.SITY OF HAWAII TO WHOM THESE LETTERS SHALL COME GREETINGS . THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FACULTY HAVE CONFERRED ON PAMELA MC CONNELL THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT WITH ALL THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND HONORS THEREUNTO APPERTAINING. GIVEN AT HONOLULU, HAWAII THIS NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY, . NINETEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FOUR. I �4s1� o '§�;��CH ELLOR,&MANOA C) CHAIRMAN OF THE.BOARD OF REGENTS `t��. : _ P1 PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY d i prn. az a F.'• _ • Nom`)^.a u`�tljiY 1 fl �� S• rPv.: fB� f � -"`sal 3 � �. �: �', 5 hti, •Y, � yt�l1��"� xq Y y t tly, r 4 ys. l'> zZfi Yn�a-i 141�;zF i � ��cp•' �'i v tz �f OMr1 s Violence Against Women — A Harsh Reality Violence and abuse affect girl and women from all kinds of backgrounds every day. Sometimes, women are attacked by strangers, but most often they are hurt by people who are close to them. Violence and abuse can cause terrible physical and emotional pain. As per our current situation, the women don't thrive for equal opportunity in all sectors. The predominant essential fact is security and violence free life. The physical and mental health impacts are very common in our society. Like under-nutrition, unwanted pregnancy, miscarriage, gynecological problems, sexually transmitted infections, social isolation, poor self-esteem, low perceived quality of life, depression, and suicidal tendencies. Yet women are not silent victims. Although a large number of women do accept violence as part of their lot in life or put up with it for the sake of their children or because they perceive no alternative, many seek support. All too often, they are rebuffed and silenced by the government, communities, and even their families — as India and the world have seen repeatedly in recent days. For centuries, Indian religious texts, social norms, and customs have perpetuated unequal relationships between men and women. These attitudes are changing — as illustrated by the surge of discontent and anger in response to violence against women across the country — but change is not happening widely enough. w5 r. �> THE BRANSON SCHOOL 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O Box 887 Boss,California 94957 415/454-3612 Fax 415/4.54-2535 _1920_ Office of Admissions February 18, 1994 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Pam Me Connell Ms. McConnell, mother of Natasha graduating last June, was an active parent of The Branson School. She served on a number of Parent Association Committees, was active in our "Catch- All Shop", and I best knew her as an Admissions Docent. The docents are a group of parents, who volunteer to help the admissions office hosting and touring an enormous number of visiting parents throughout the school year. Pam was one of our most charming, reliable, generous, and friendly welcomers. Visitors responded warmly to her and were grateful for her thoughtful manner of acquainting them with our school. It is a pleasure to write this note as I have many good memories of both Pamela and her lovely daughter, Natasha. If I may be of further help, please feel welcome to call me. Sincerely, R. Lee Carlson Director of Admissions RLC:gy University of Hawaii at Manna College of Tropical Agriculture Assistant Dean for Human Resources Development Miller Hall .110 •2515 Campus Road •Honolulu, Hawaii 98822 . •, . . , . .. ,, . , .Cable.Address: UNIHAW .;Jul ..15, 1974' Miss' Pamela McConnell 980 .Amana Street PH 8 Honolulu, Hawaii. 96814 Dear Pamela: We congratulate you on your academic record this past semester ' which placed you on the Dean',s List. This is a reflection of high motivation and diligence in, connection with your studies at the University. The faculty and administration. of the'-Division of Human Resources . Development..wish to' -share.with•you. our.pride and pleasure in your performance. . Aloha, ..•(Mrs.) Hazel V. Kraemer , r 'Assistant Dean HVK:tn cc: Advisor ::_._ � :.1: !i!;�i�!ij!:�:�:i::::�;;i I.1 ;I:��':. d i. �� ..1.-,�....-I.�I I I. � .I:1;I.I I I... - i,.: : i I . .:,.I i.:%,,...�... ......:....�. I..1.... .I .�.,,.�'.:1.�,:I,,.i�I p �..;.,::I. . . ,. ;., .I I..�.'-,i I. :.I I,-; .: ., .- 1. ,- b�f-- ��° ` 11 , I.. - . :,!:i I I�'��:::. :.in ," -� I - .n I- t- . ..'.-. i. M. .1.1 I -.I I. ;�-'.� ,:...;1.'%: :I .I-, . -..............�..",.-:1—- � -444444 � I M =off — "-- � 11 y-: 11 p p y: pg q p ,.y y gg il �� rz � � t � � f ,yy'09P �' ' j per. ,�W yy' �T� le: ?� �"�^ �^& �j p p� ��`p 8 e '67�f I4d` , �'d9+; xKa $�� 1 4�M A4a7` :Sib TS*:�d L +k.k :'`} �+.: 1-11 ., vyy�. i I. t. I'll J: z� � flat - � 901 �1. , ��� � . � �; � � 44 "t � � � g � � � � 1. �� 3 .' f R � a na _I. . 1. 4IF - � In �� � z � Y : , I. 1. -d.. 1. '.''r,�."*"'-, '.',I" I�!;;!:�.",.,-. ,. ,' '71�imt� M17 I . n�.z -'...�iw IR, �hd;�'�"�'."-.�I� :�'. . t". . ` �� � F, �eI71 Vol � � 1 i .1T, � �3.7 I111T�` d ? ,i4 A, �� i €, f a y ti t �• t x �,�.t��`�"Q"��^�'t-r.,x ��; �M•..7�y�s�"�-s-�'-`ya.7.��`"�em-� " r ;�� 4`� �r��'i�'`��g��'y� �"•° �"_ „ r� r >v� �, � x.„;;, s,�S'�i,C ,a�,. �� ,�.: ���`�;..�. �,w,-� .�� ;,. �•�s„�- -sem r �. ) � s' {� 43 x� r�+4 "F ,/ r Y .., �; *'�`. :.1'�'�'.X'�"���. ”-ass "'. .�..,7. �' .-`.'i`;`.a) •s�, .�.r?a.;.: � :;; ". ? r r 3,%.5 ..c?�'s�"Pr-{�.-�} 17:.. �r `„.. �t .�.�.,�S 1wxzs� '� w �. •k. .,,,•.: � .. 2„,._,� ....._ '�'s`-f �.�". ' ..�Y r .� z` .: �, -. v�.. n=�. o,. Crs����. 1 u. '�.aJ`'��. ., •" ii�y .�..,3.as »=`�`� _� <;. �.,.. �. ._ ..ti3;�� . Z:.r � z.?}§ -t-,, jr -�.s>v c�lr ..1"ti .h. �: 4 -*����p•..x, i. c. w � ."��i r?'�.. �,�''�...�a^ .�.�:, vzr Vis' ,-. > >^., t Vis. 1 �+�. ,3 ''cz'� t��..sh�.,a r,a�"��,�,. � �i"k s r.»-• :, �� 3:,�. .. .� �"�ar a:,�sY ;3k?�.,s',: s. >x�y a „� .c�x. ��,� Y�. �� „,�; Y.. .w cs'��3��zf��` :"��5�� ,:� �` :u 3 �,: .r; � ,4• s ��.:�t�:,. z„ � �., �s x •> �.��-s t�,. � ".. �! � ,s. 3f" 3.-�Z � $ -f '� �€� � .�-,., r > �, t�:r.�� �����c��'.-''a*r� _..:�,-� a ..:�<.,n �`£,,.:+a,.. �r w-:x�,wa .r�`«.c� �.:•z a�,.t� .�r1�= c `2':� } .baa° -.+, '- � �,: �2`..4�;�n.r f i' �;. ^s �� ��- n. •,t a j..:.�"- ��: r`s-. :�t�, was .:>N'� S� ,tr t �}. � � .aY'-. .,.�'f.�„` � .°r, o. .��' r ''"�J>1 � `r:•, m" z's x- � e,7 f": y ��� x. �a �;-�3fY:�� ti.. � + r�`�:; k.c'?n� -".a t' 4` s{.:: `♦ E y '� t., '� �,xs{ "s t� -rff 9���wt .�� 1;..fL U ,r vim:; f °i es ( dr 'r `1 ?-�,•-�" YS � µ < t «� ter. f i « x.' Y t , i gee , f n w _ "-s`�`� : * .. - �„«,� 's„`�`,'-,, « �..".� �r:r; ,, S�,i�J} �v.� rz,..�Y.,� st��sJ•r' b; i i. tl �n I" E M �a r s „ t ^ t SUR i WIN Y' a S w a ^ e ..fi. r. € ow,.. WE ..mss;.. ti," �,., ..::,. ... ) ,.:::., .,., ,.. ..,. , o. kz ks. ., ,-.. '•:'�^ .:. :, ,. ✓..._. .. .....✓ r. ..„ ':u r .... ., , ... ,. ,.,. :..,b..� .... 59.E.,. :,,: , ti �a ,- < , "3 ,::: ,; moi. .. .....- yY,...3.. -,. } �:.. , v-gin Y•`'�,` ".., , :�..5 : . j ✓ ty F .✓`,nSa' ,=W, ;� ;.,ate i <4� .fit,= AM t j ti Ir x :r �,� •b ,ill� ,��, dt, r r r ` a r RVI p . , v i t 1 } Olt ,.. .. ass... , . 00dco" amelamcconnelldOI I I r , w , e LATE MAIL Lea Stefani # C�-2- From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday;March 15, 2017 10:53 AM To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council) MAR 1 5 2011 Cc: Lea Stefani; Benjamin Stock; Scott Anderson; Greg Chanis Subject: FW: 77 Eastview Resolution edits Late mail for 77 East View Avenue. From: Michael Heckmann [mailto:heckmannarchitect5c!earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 10:39 AM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Clinton Yee Subject: RE: 77 Eastview Resolution edits Dan, I have very detailed notes of the town council's comments. Certainly, there were comments specific to the privacy issue you note item #1 and also regarding the profile of the building that would require more terracing such that lower floors would be more outset from the building that compliments the property slope. I must request that items 3 and 4 be struck from the resolution. The council made NO comments specifically against:the variances affecting light and air. All structures in this neighborhood require variances to allow a residence of reasonable, functional size and relationship to the street....case in point being the recent approval of 85 Eastview. Variances are a standard expectation of development in this area. Also, there were NO cornments that this project was more massive than other homes in the neighborhood......case in point being 81 Eastview and 100 Eastview and I can site more examples frorr7 area photographs. Please modify the sections noted. Regards Michael From: Dan Watrous [mailto:dwatrous@townoftiburon.org] Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:09 PM To: Michael Heckmann<hecl<mannarchitects@earthIink.net> Subject: RE: 77 Eastview Resolution edits Michael, Here's the Town draft version of the resolution. I would suggest that you or your client should be there, particularly if Riley is there to request changes to the resolution. Dan From: Michael Heckmann [mailto:heckmannarchitects@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:40 PM To: Dan Watrous Cc: Clinton Yee Subject: RE: 77 Eastview Resolution edits Thanks Dan. I haven't seen the resolution WITHOUT the Hurd overreaching revision, so please send it by email. 1 If: I need to attend meeting, I could be there to be sure no 01'HFIR onerous demands are incorporated. Regards, Michael From: Dan VVatrnus Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2O174:OUPK8 To: Michael Heckmann Subject: FW: 77 EestvievvResolution edits Late mail for77East View Avenue. From: Riley Hurd [ l Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:59 PM To: DanVVatrous Subject: 77EastviewResolution edits Dan, Thank you for your continued work on this project. In reviewing the proposed appeal resolution we noticed there was no specific mention of the view issue, which seemed to play a significant role in the Council's decision. Multiple Councilmembers explicitly referenced the view blockage. Some of the quotes were: * "| donot like giving precedence tocars over views.Sosomeone isgoing tolose aview because someone wants toput two cars upthere." * "The vievvinthis case isquite animportant e|ernent." * "VViththe current configuration you would lose the view ofthe historical Civil War Hospital onAngel |dand." Based on the above, we would like to request that the appeal resolution specifically reference the view issue so there is no confusion in the future.Attached is a version of the resolution with a proposed added finding regarding view that we hope can be integrated. Can you please let us know if this is possible and also share our request with the Council.Thanks again. Riley F. Hund U|, Esq. RAGGH|ANT| I FRE|TASLLP ll0l5th Avenue,Suite 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 Tel:4l5.4S3.9433ext. 126 Fax:415.453.8269 Email: Website: 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 inerror,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 State Compensation Insurance Fund v. VVP8, Inc. (1999) 70Cal.App. 4th 644.) |fyou have received this communication inerror, please contact the sender at: >. Thank you. 2 Lea Stefani LAi E MAIL #("-P' From: Dan Watrous Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 1:13 PM �, Q To: alITC (Tiburon Town Council) Cc: Lea Stefani Subject: FW:77 Eastview Resolution edits NA R Attachments: 77_East_View_Avenue_Appeal_Resolution_ RFH.docx Late mail for 77 East View Avenue. From: Riley Hurd [mailto:rhurd cbrflawllp.com] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:59 PM To: Dan Watrous Subject: 77 Eastview Resolution edits Dan, Thank you for your continued work on this project. In reviewing the proposed appeal resolution we noticed there was no specific mention of the view issue,which seemed to play a significant role in the Council's decision. Multiple Councilmembers explicitly referenced the view blockage.Some of the quotes were: • "I do not like giving precedence to cars over views.So someone is going to lose a view because someone wants to put two cars up there." • "The view in this case is quite an important element." • The the current configuration you would lose the view of the historical Civil War Hospital on Angel Island." Based on the above,we would like to request that the appeal resolution specifically reference the view issue so there is no confusion in the future.Attached is a version of the resolution with a proposed added finding regarding view that we hope can be integrated. Can you please let us know if this is possible and also share our request with the Council.Thanks again. 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 State Compensation Insurance Fund v.WPS, Inc. (1999)70 Cal.App.4th 644.) If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender at: rhurd@rflawllp.cam<mailto:rhurd�rflawllp.com>. Thank you. 1 RESOLUTION NO.(Draft)-2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON GRANTING AN APPEAL BY ""z--DRINAANDRINA AND KENNETH WELTER OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE 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, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 77 EAST VIEW AVENUE (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 060-105-92) WHEREAS, on October 20,2016 the Design Review Board held a public hearing on a Site Plan and Architectural Review application (Files# DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR201603 5 &FAE2016011) filed by Clinton Yee for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front and side setbacks, excess lot coverage and excess building height, on property at 77 East View Avenue ("Project"); and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the property owners at 81 East View Avenue, Andrina and Kenneth Welter ("Appellants"), and neighboring residents at 75 East View Avenue raised concerns about the Project's 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 Appellants' home. The Board continued the application to the December 1,2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, on December 1,2016 the Design Review Board held a public hearing to review revised plans for this Project. 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; and WHEREAS, on January 19,2017 the Design Review Board held a public hearing to review revised plans for this Project, which proposed demolition of more than 50%of the existing structure, reclassifying the application as construction of a new single-family dwelling for zoning purposes. The application also included variances for reduced front setback and excess building height. At that meeting, the Appellants expressed concerns about Joss of privacy and view blockage issues stemming from the Project; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board determined that the revisions to the Project design addressed the potential view and privacy issues, and voted 2-1 to conditionally Town Council Resolution No.(Draft)-2017 03/15/2017 Page 1 of 3 r NO 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; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2017, the Appellants filed a timely appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the project application consists of Files 4 DR2016104, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011, on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. The official record for this Project application is hereby incorporated and made part of this resolution. The record includes, without limitation, the Staff Reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the.public hearings, and WHEREAS, on March 1,2017, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the Project and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and receiving all documents in the record, the Town Council disagreed with the conclusions of the Design Review Board regarding this Project, and granted the appeal. The Town Council determined that the Project would be inconsistent with the guiding principles for Site Plan and Architectural Review, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and other relevant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1. Section 16-52.020(H[2]) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that in order to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application, the Town must 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." The Town Council determined that the project design would create substantial privacy, light and air impacts on the Appellants' property. The privacy of the Appellants' home would be significantly impacted by the proposed upper level deck, which would allow occupants using the primary living areas of the proposed dwelling to view into the Appellants' master bedroom. The upper floor of the house would be too large when viewed from the Appellant's home, resulting in excessive building mass in close proximity to their residence and potential light and air blockage to south-facing windows of their home. 2. Goal 1,Principles 1 &9 of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines, encourage projects to "cut [the] building into [the]hillside to reduce effective bulk" and to "excavate underground or below grade rooms to dramatically reduce effective bulk, provide energy efficient and Town Council Resolution No.(Draft)-2017 03/15/2017 Page 2 of 3 environmentally desirable spaces." The Town Council determined that the design of the proposed house did not adequately step into the steep hillside of the subject property and was not designed to reduce its effective bulk in accordance with these guidelines. 3. Goal 3,Principle 1,of the"Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines requires Formatted:Numbered+Level:2+ projects to"preserve existing views as much as possible,"and"locate all Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+ new dwellings so they interfere minimally with adjacent buildings."Goal 3. Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.82"+ Principle 7 of the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines notes that view Indent at: 1.31" blockage of"Angel Island is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known landmarks."The Town Council determined that the encroachment of the upper level of the proposed house into the southern viewshed from the living room and master bedroom of the Appellants' home violated these Policies. 3-.4. Section 16-52.030(E) of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states that - Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+ findings must be made to approve a variance, including the finding Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:4+ that "the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.82°+ welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity." The Town Indent at: 1.31" Council determined that this finding cannot be made, as the Project design would create substantial privacy, light and air impacts which would be injurious to the Appellants' property. 4:5. Section 16-52.020(1[4{a)])of the Tiburon Zoning Ordinance states ------ Formatted:Numbered+Level:l+ that findings must be made to approve a floor area exception, Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:4+ including the finding that"the applicant has demonstrated that the Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 0.82°+ visual size and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the Indent at: 1.31° predominant pattern established by existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood." The Town Council determined that this finding cannot be made,as the project design was more visually massive than other homes on Corinthian Island. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby grants the appeal of Andrina and Kenneth Welter of the Design Review Board's approval of the application (Files # DR20161 04, VAR2016033, VAR2016034, VAR2016035 & FAE2016011) for Site Plan and Architectural Review approval for construction of a new single-family dwelling, with variances for reduced front yard setback, excess lot coverage and excess building height and a floor area exception, on property located at 77 East View Avenue, and denies the application. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on March 15,2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Town Council Resolution No.(Draft)-2017 03/15/2017 Page 3 of 3 JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No.(Draft)-2017 03/15/2017 Page 4 of 3