The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Agd Pkt 2011-08-23TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Slavitz ~a"ed the r gear meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda:`, July 20, 2011, i~1 Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Collins, Fraser, O'Donnell, Slavitz Fredericks Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Administrative Services-Bigall, Director of Community Development Anderson, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Chief Cronin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi Prior to the regular meeting, the Council met in closed session, beginning at 7:00 p.m., to discuss the following: CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Lowenberg v. Town of Tiburon ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY Mayor Slavitz said that no action was taken on the matter discussed in closed session. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PRESENTATIONS • Introduction of Tiburon Police Officer Justin Kurland • Presentation of Commendation to Police Office Rob Dehner DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 .xxxxxxx., 2011 Page 1 • Presentation of Resolution honoring Capt. David Hutton on his 30th anniversary of employment with the Town of Tiburon • Presentation by Jon Friedenberg, Chief Fund and Business Development Officer for Marin General Hospital Chief of Police Cronin introduced the newest member of the department, Justin Kurland, who he said was born and raised in Marin County and had graduated from UCSB, and the police academy in Santa Rosa. Chief Cronin said that Kurland had also served the town in the Police Explorer program over the last year. Next, Chief Cronin spoke of the bravery of Officer Dehner and stated that while police often made the news for shooting or killing people, more often than not, they saved lives, as had Officer Dehner. Fire Chief Richard Pearce concurred, and added his commendation on behalf of his department. Mayor Slavitz thanked Officer Dehner on behalf of the community and presented him with a commendation. Officer Dehner accepted the commendation, sating that he had relied on his training, and that any one of his colleagues would have acted in exactly the same fashion. Chief Cronin commended Capt. David Hutton on the occasion of his 30th anniversary of employment with the Town of Tiburon. Cronin said that Capt. Hutton had worked his way up through the department, and had done every job, including acting Chief of Police. He told the audience how helpful the captain had been when Chief Cronin took the reins of the department and that he was an invaluable partner to him. Mayor Slavitz read and presented the Town Council resolution to Captain Hutton. Hutton said that he could not have done his job without the support of his friends and family, the Town Council and staff, and of course, the Tiburon community. He commended the members of the Tiburon Police Department and said they were the finest that could be found anywhere, and that it was an honor to serve with them. Mr. Friedenberg gave a powerpoint presentation about the plans for seismic upgrades to the hospital pursuant to SB 1953. He explained how the improvements were necessary and would benefit the community by providing a structurally sound hospital during a disaster, as well as a state-of-the-art facility for the future. Friedenberg said that a bond measure was contemplated in 2013 to raise funds for this $500 million project. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of the July 6, 2011 regular meeting (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xvxxxx, 2011 Page 2 Vice Mayor Fraser submitted his revisions to the minutes. 2. Anniversary of Employment - Adopt resolution commending and congratulating Police Captain David Hutton on the occasion of his 30th anniversary of employment with the Town of Tiburon (Police Chief Cronin) 3. Police Department Commendation - Adopt resolution commending Office Rob A. Dehner on for exemplary service (Police Chief Cronin) 4. Smoking Ordinance - Adopt ordinance repealing Title VI, Chapter 28 (Smoking & Tobacco Regulations) and adopting a new Title VI, Chapter 28 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Director of Community Development Anderson) 5. GASB 54 - Approve Town Fund Balance Classification Policy pursuant to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54 (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) 6. Signature Authority - Adopt resolution authorizing signers on Bank of Marin Account (Director of Administrative Services Bigall) MOTION: To adopt the consent calendar, as amended. Moved: Collins, seconded by Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Fredericks ACTION ITEMS 1. Recreation Needs Assessment - Consideration and acceptance of report, "Tiburon Peninsula Summary of Findings: Recreation Needs and Existing Conditions Assessment" (Director of Community Development Anderson) Director of Community Development Anderson said that in June 2010, the Town retained The Sports Management Group (TSMG), a Berkeley-based consulting firm, to prepare a recreation needs and existing condition assessment for the Tiburon peninsula. He said the assessment was jointly funded by the Town of Tiburon and the City of Belvedere, and that a draft report was completed and circulated for public review in May 2011. Director Anderson said that the primary purposes of the assessment were to chronicle existing conditions with respect to peninsula recreation programs, facilities, and opportunities, and to evaluate the effectiveness of current programming and facilities in meeting the needs and desires of residents. A "gap analysis" was performed to assess the capacity of existing facilities to meet demand and determine whether gaps exist in service or capacity. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 =xxxxx, 2011 Page 3 To staffs knowledge, Anderson said this was the first effort to assess community-wide satisfaction with recreation programs and facilities on the peninsula on a comprehensive, scientific basis. To that end, a statistically valid and projectable telephone survey of 300 adult peninsula residents was conducted by sub-consultant Godbe Research in August 2010 in order to gather public opinion of the state of recreational services on the Tiburon peninsula. Anderson introduced the consultants who had prepared the report, Lauren Livingston and Brian Godbe. Ms. Livingston gave a powerpoint presentation and Mr. Godbe talked about methodology. Both took questions from the Council. Ms. Livingston said the survey results indicated that peninsula residents are generally quite satisfied with both recreational programming and facilities available to them. She said that there were no obvious "gaps" in recreational services identified by respondents. The closest any subject came to being identified as potentially deficient was "recreational opportunities for teens", but the data were inconclusive even on that topic, which is commonly identified as a deficient area in similar surveys for other communities. The survey results reinforced the need to preserve, at existing levels or better, after-school programs for children, and indicated that demand exists for additional facility space for certain types of programming. Ms. Livingston said that for the size of community, the Tiburon peninsula was rich in programs, both public and private. She said that the community demonstrated environmental stewardship and that the survey showed people wanted to maintain the open spaces. She also said they would be willing to "pay for play". She said that residents valued recreation, the Multi-Use Path, Open Space, parks and playgrounds, and that they had expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the programs offered by the Jt. Recreation Department, as well as its high level of service provided. She said that the deficiencies might be characterized as a dearth of public facilities, and limited space for sports. She said that a community with a population of 30,000 was about the point at which public facilities were developed for these purposes. She said that Tiburon peninsula residents valued outdoor play areas, outdoor sports fields, and facilities for after-school programs. She said an interest in having a community center was expressed. She said the Council would have to determine the specific components of a center that were important to the community, and assess its willingness to pay for such a facility. Ms. Livingston also said that the survey had determined that residents frequently used recreational facilities in nearby communities, and that such use between communities appeared seamless. She said in some instances, there was a lack of awareness of local programs. As a result, she recommended the addition of flexible space for Jt. Recreation programs, and for revenue enhancement. Ms. Livingston said that the trend in recreation was for programs for baby boomers and older adults, and that long-term planning should incorporate multi-generational design practices and integrate informational, art and social programs. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Godbe described the questions in and results of the telephone survey completed between August 16-20, 2010. He said that the survey was 15 minutes long and that 300 interviews had been completed. Godbe said that the telephone interviewers had probably called 10,000 numbers and had spoken with 1800 people overall. He said the survey showed a high satisfaction rating with the current recreational programming, as noted by Ms. Livingston. Councilmember Collins asked if teens had been interviewed in the survey. Mr. Godbe said that they were not, as it was not legal to interview persons under the age of 18 without parental consent. Ms. Livingston added that it was difficult to define teens and for many people that mean "tweens" between the ages of 12 and 14 and "pre-drivers". She also commented that parents often had a different idea of what kinds of programs should be available compared to the activities favored by the teens or "tweens" themselves. Mr. Godbe said that one way to get participation from teens is to conduct focus groups in schools or government classes. He also noted, however, that 30% of the population on the Tiburon peninsula was 60 years old or more. Councilmember O'Donnell asked the consultants whether the survey took into account the geography of the peninsula and whether the fact the population was spread out over many different areas and neighborhoods might be a hindrance. Mr. Godbe said that the survey represented the entire population, but that adding a geographical layer to the survey would have been costly and beyond the scope of work. Councilmember O'Donnell said that the fact that Tiburon did not have a high school also limited its ability to provide services and programs to teens. He said he thought that this was more of a regional issue. Vice Mayor Fraser asked whether newer technologies, like e-mail, were utilized in surveys to get a broader representation. Mr. Godbe said that e-mail-based surveys were still unproven as being random and representative as compared to telephone surveys, but were improving and might be viable within a few years Mayor Slavitz commented that the survey results did not seem to match the feedback from the it. Recreation Committee in its report to Council about the downturn in revenues from camps and the like. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. Jerry Riessen, it. Recreation committee member, also commented on the idea of an e-mail survey to reach a broader audience or targeted age group. He said that it. Recreation staff was in the process of obtaining this contact information through registration forms, and the like. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 5 Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. MOTION: To accept the report, as presented. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous ABSENT: Fredericks PUBLIC HEARING 1. 1895/1897 Mar West - Consideration of encroachment permit applications to construct private improvements on the Mar West public right,-of--way adjacent to private properties located at 1895 and 1897 Mar West (Department of Public Works; Department of Community Development) --Encroachment Permit Application Nos. 11-51 and 11-72 --Owners/Applicants: Brian and Joanne McCullough; David Barley --Assessor Parcel Nos. 059-121-10 and 11 Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen gave the report. He said the Town had received two encroachment permit applications requesting installation of private improvements on the Mar West Street public right-of-way adjacent to residential properties located at 1895 and 1897 Mar West Street. Nguyen said that one of the applications requests that a portion of a garage addition be constructed in the public right-of-way, and the second application requests the installation of a concrete staircase, retaining walls, and the replacement of a concrete pad for refuse can storage. Nguyen said that while the Public Works Director typically approves encroachment permits of a minor or temporary nature, Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code requires Town Council approval of any encroachment permit "entailing the construction of buildings, car decks, carports, garages or other long-term improvements of a substantial nature". He said that staff had concluded that both of these applications were beyond the scope of its authority and would require Town Council action if they are to be approved. The Director recommended that the Town Council consider 1) approval of the Barley Stairs application (EP 11-72), subject to the imposition of reasonable conditions by Town staff, and 2) approve the McCullough Garage application (EP 11-51), amended to eliminate the trellis and provide an open parking space in lieu of the proposed enclosed garage, subject to the imposition of reasonable conditions by Town staff. In his written report, Nguyen said that in both cases, the proposals represent "long-term encroachments of a substantial nature" and could have a substantial adverse effect on vehicular or pedestrian circulation or on public health and safety, particularly given the narrow rights-of- way that characterize the neighborhood. Therefore, any Town Council approval should be conditioned to include a recorded Memorandum of Encroachment to address revocability, maintenance and other issues, as well as other reasonable conditions to be imposed by Town staff. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 6 Mayor Slavitz asked about other buildings in the neighborhood that had garages built right up to the street. Director of Community Development Anderson said that the last application the Town had received to build a garage in the public right-of-way had been denied in 1998. He said that the examples [on Mar West] cited by Mayor Slavitz had been built in the 1980s or earlier, prior to adoption of more current Town regulations. He confirmed that the McCullough garage was already non-conforming. Mayor Collins asked about the application to build a garage on the right-of-way on Spanish Trail that had been denied. Anderson explained that the width of the roadway in that location was similar or less than Mar West Street. I Vice Mayor Fraser asked about the existing sidewalk and vegetation and who had the responsibility for maintenance. Director Nguyen said that in many cases, the property owners "take ownership" of the right-of- way and maintain it. Town Attorney Danforth clarified, noting that under the Town's sidewalk maintenance ordinance, the sidewalk is owned by the Town but it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain it. Mayor Slavitz asked what the purpose was for a public right-of-way. Town Attorney Danforth said that it had several uses, to maintain a buffer for the opening of car doors and the like, and for the ability to expand or maintain the street. Director Nguyen commented that in this location, there was not much useful space available [on the road right-of-way] for the public benefit. Mayor Slavitz asked why town staff recommended approval of the stairway application. Town Manager Curran replied that it was because one property was accessed via the other property and the stairway would allow more reasonable access over the right-of-way for people to get to their homes. But she warned of "privatization" of the right-of-way in the garage application; she said the Town's policy was clear that it was impermissible to build an enclosed structure in the public right-of-way. Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether it was common to have that much right-of-way [in the location of the McCullough garage]. Director Anderson said that it was not unusual to have a 50 feet of right-of-way for a public street, but noted that this subdivision dtated to the 1800's and its surveyors do not appear to have paid munch attention to how topography affected street layouts or property lines. Councilmember Collins asked Staff for an explanation of the 50 feet; he was told it was roughly 30 feet of right-of-way and 20 feet of roadway in this location. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 7 Architect Michael Heckmann, representing the McCulloughs, said that this application was the "final step" in the remodel project for his clients, and that it went further to resolve a number of issues in the neighborhood, such as lack of parking. Heckmann also said that the stairway would provide a safer, code-compliant way to access the two homes. He said the design was similar to a Raccoon Lane stairway already approved by the Building Department. Heckmann said that the design of the garage would be in character with the house, and proposed minimizing the height by using a "green" roof. As for the trellis, Mr. Heckmann said that he was not sure why staff recommended against approval and that all three affected property owners supported the project as presented. Vice Mayor Fraser asked where the occupants of 1893 and 1895 Mar West parked. Mr. Heckmann said that they parked on the street but that even parking parallel did not allow enough [legal] clearance on the roadway. The Vice Mayor asked if the proposed additional parking pad would take away one space on the street. Mr. Heckmann said that it would not, that there would still be parking for five cars and that the garage would "get two cars off the street." Councilmember Collins asked if one wall would be removed from the existing garage. Mr. Heckmann said that it would be, in order to widen the garage door to accommodate the turning radius into the driveway. Collins also asked about where the trash receptacles were located for the Barley residence. Mr. McCullough said that they had to bring them across his driveway, which was difficult when a car was parked there. Councilmember Collins asked if the second parking space could be pushed back farther off the street. Mr. Heckmann said that he was concerned about pushing back which might jeopardize the foundation of the house. He added that the garage was 18 feet off the pavement, while two other garages down the street were just one and three feet off the pavement. Town Manager Curran said that the Town was protective of its right-of-way and that the genesis of the Town's policy, adopted in 2010, had been due to illegal privatization of public rights-of- way. Curran said that while town staff supported the idea of off-street parking, it might be helpful to move off-street parking back and/or create a parking pad [which was allowed under Town policy]. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 8 She said that enclosed buildings were prohibited on town right-of-way and that the Town staff saw no way to allow it under existing policy. She also commented that it was important to think of the future public good in making its decision. Councilmember Collins asked whether creation of a parking pad on Mar West would necessitate the building of a retaining wall. Mr. Heckmann said that it would, and that it would probably have to reach a height of 11 feet in the back. Vice Mayor Fraser asked for the actual amount of setback required from the street in the Town's regulations, and asked whether a smaller garage could be contemplated, wherein the Town could allow a smaller encroachment, such as two feet, under the policy. Mr. Heckmann said that a 19- foot setback was required by the Town. Director Anderson said that a standard parking space is 8-1/2 by 18 feet. Heckmann added that it made no sense not to build it correctly. Mr. McCullough said that the current [old] garage was not useable because of its size. Architect Heckmann asked the Council to find some flexibility in its policy and to weigh the merits of the project, and special circumstances, such as topography and location, in its decision. He suggested that the public safety could be served under Section C-5, and that a long-term public benefit could be obtained under Section E-2. Mayor Slavitz said he thought the application, as presented, was in conflict with what was permissible in the policy. Mr. Heckmann said that the street parking in that location was not to legal standard now, and that the new garage and stairway would contribute to public safety through better access for property owners, visitors, and public safety personnel. Applicant Brian McCullough noted that there was a lot of property crime in that area, with three hit and run accidents, vehicles being "keyed"' and a bumper stolen. He said that he had made improvements to the area by removing acacia trees which impeded visibility, and added that the Town had not done anything to maintain the vegetation or address the slide problems. He noted that he alone was funding the project, including the stairs, for the benefit of his neighbors, as well as improving the aesthetics. He also commented that it was an overcrowded street for parking because many workers downtown parked there because it was "free" parking. Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. Town Attorney Danforth recommended that the Town Council apply its encroachment policy to this application. She stated that with all due respect to Mr. Heckmann, who has considerable experience in the community, he had "cherry picked" the parts of the policy to fit his argument. Danforth noted that section E-2 of the policy allowed encroachments only for the purposes listed under Section C. She noted that parking could be created in another fashion other than the one proposed by the applicant, and that it was not necessary to enclose the garage for public safety or DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xzxxxxx, 2011 Page 9 public benefit under Section E-2. She said that approving the permit, as presented, would result in unnecessary privatization of the right-of-way. Mayor Slavitz concurred, stating that he saw no way to make findings to create an exception under the Town's policy. Councilmember Collins asked if this applied to the other application (for the stairway), as well. Town Attorney Danforth said that the stairs could qualify for an encroachment permit under Section C-1, but that the trellis did not qualify. She added that the parking pad would be acceptable under the Town's policy. A Councilmember O'Donnell said that he disagreed with staff's recommendation. He said that in his [Hillhaven] neighborhood, it was a common occurrence for homeowners to make improvements in the public right-of-way. He noted that the McCulloughs had built a beautiful home and had taken great care in maintaining both their own, and the Town's, property. O'Donnell said that the creation of a parking pad on the street would be an eyesore in the neighborhood, and that the garage would be more consistent with the overall existing character. He said that he did not see the permit as a private taking, rather, a solution to a problem in a unique neighborhood (one of the oldest in the Town), where the property lines were not drawn nor streets built to modern standards or current needs. Councilmember O'Donnell said that he had to stop twice while driving down Mar West Street in that location in order to let a truck pass. He said that the permit would be a "common sense" approach and has the complete support of the neighbors. O'Donnell said that he would support approval of both the stair application, as well as the garage application. He also said he thought a gable on the garage would be aesthetically pleasing and would match the house. Councilmember Collins introduced the idea of modifying the Town's policy before voting for an approval. Town Attorney Danforth said that would be a prudent approach and one where the Council could use this application as a case in point. Collins also suggested that a separate "cut-out" for parking might be a requirement for approval in order to get a car (or its wheels) off the roadway. Director Anderson said that could be consistent with the Town's policy and a benefit to the general public. Vice Mayor Fraser said that he knew the street in question very well, having lived in that neighborhood. He said that street was unusual and the neighborhood was unique. He suggested that once in a while, the Council should go back and look at its codes and try to snake adjustments for all the right reasons. Fraser said that the applications constituted a well-put- together plan, and that he thought findings could be made that the improvements would also improve public safety in the area. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 10 The Vice Mayor also commented that from the look of it, one would never know that the existing garage was on a public right-of-way because of its setback; he said that permitting it would not constitute a precedent and that he would vote for its approval. However, Vice Mayor Fraser concurred that the approval should be "done properly" by considering changes to the policy. Mayor Slavitz said that he understood the sentiments of his colleagues but still thought that it appropriate to look at the findings and recommendations in the staff report. He said that he would vote for approval of the stairway improvements but not the garage, because the findings to approve it could not be made under the Town's policy. He., also pointed out that all four staff members present were unanimous in their opinion that allowing the garage was poor public policy and set a poor precedent. The Mayor said that while everyone says an approval would not set a precedent, voting for an exception in his experience did set a precedent and that before long, other applicants would want similar approvals. He noted that the applicants themselves discussed other garages in the neighborhood. He also said that he would be more sympathetic if there were no- other options. The options he saw were to carve out two parking spaces [parking pad], or building an open garage, like other residents had done on Solano Street. Councilmember O'Donnell said that the Town would probably allow the applicant to re-build the [enclosed] garage if there was a fire, and in any event, he said it was the job of the Council to review applications on a case-by-case basis. O'Donnell said that "Old Tiburon" is unique, and that the garage was set back so far already, one would never know if was on the right-of-way. He also stated that pushing the garage back would require removal of a "gorgeous tree". Vice Mayor Fraser reiterated his opinion that a parking pad was not a good solution. He said it would detract from the neighborhood, and that pushing the garage back even further might jeopardize the property. He said that the alternatives presented in the Council discussion were not good alternatives. Town Engineer Nguyen commented that it had been asserted but not demonstrated that the parking pad could not be pushed further back on the property, noting "anything can be done" in engineering to achieve a result. Councilmember Collins again discussed amending the policy; he said that he did not know about these kinds of situations at the time the policy was adopted. He said that bringing back an amended policy to Council would allow an analysis of what an appropriate exception might be. Applicant McCullough said that getting cars off the center line of the roadway to a legal level might be the exception to the policy. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 11 Mayor Slavitz noted that the majority of the Council wanted to find an exception in the policy in order for its consideration of the [garage] application. Council directed the Town Attorney to return to Council with recommendations for a modified policy. Item continued to either August 17 or September 7. TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Town Manager Curran said she had received a request from Battalion Chief Ed Lynch about the possibility of staging a scaled-down version of the Fireman's Ball at the September 23 Friday Nights on Main (FNOM). She said Lynch had requested permission for the music and event to go slightly later (until 10:30 or 11 p.m.) than the usual FNOM end time of 9 p.m. Council concurred with the request. Curran noted that there would be a report from the MCCMC Committee on Pension Reform at a Council meeting in September, led by Councilmember O'Donnell. Finally, the Town Manager reported that Town staff had obtained an estimate to remake the public sign at the Cove Shopping Center similar to the new sign at Blackie's Pasture. A brief discussion ensued about the sign at Blackie's and view blockage caused by another (Caltrans) street sign in the vicinity. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest - July 8, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest - July 15, 2011 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz adjourned the meeting at 10:33 p.m. JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 12 ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 xxxxxxx, 2011 Page 13 TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Slavitz c ffie re eeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesda , August 3, 2011, i Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Collins, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Slavitz PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Curran, Town Attorney Danforth, Director of Community Development Anderson, Planning Manager Watrous, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Nguyen, Police Chief Cronin, Town Clerk Crane Iacopi ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Town Council Minutes - Adopt minutes of the July 22 special meeting (Director of Community Development Anderson) 2. League of California Cities - Appoint delegate to represent Town of Tiburon at annual Business meeting of the League of California Cities (Town Clerk Crane Iacopi) MOTION: To approve Consent Calendar items, as written. Moved: Fraser, seconded Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 65 Reed Ranch Road Appeal - Consider appeal of Design Review Board approval of a site plan and architectural review for construction of additions to an existing single- family dwelling at 65 Reed Ranch Road (Planning Manager Watrous) - continued from July 6, 2011 DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 1 • James Parsons and Andrea Hong, Owners • Jeffrey Wong, Applicant • Dan Mihalovich, Appellant • Assessor Parcel Number 038-301-35 Planning Manager Watrous summarized the key elements of the written staff report. He said that on July 6, 2011, the Town Council held a public hearing on the appeal. At that time, he said the Council dismissed the appellant's concerns regarding privacy, grading and the changes to the walkway and driveway. However, Watrous stated it was the consensus of the Council that the proposed additions would look too massive when viewed from Reed Ranch Road and that the amount and/or area of the windows proposed for the additions were excessive. Mr. Watrous said the Council continued the application and directed the applicant to revise the project plans to address these remaining issues, and made the following specific suggestions on how to accomplish this: 1. Modify the garage roofline; 2. Move windows on the west side of the addition to the east side; 3. Eliminate the west-facing bedroom windows or move these windows to the front of the bedroom; 4. Eliminate the hallway windows; and 5. Design interior light fixtures to shine on the floors and stairs and not onto windows. The Planning Manager said that the applicants subsequently submitted revised project plans that include the following changes: 1. The roofline of the garage above the two easternmost spaces has been lowered by 8 inches. 2. The larger hallway windows on the west side of the building have been replaced with smaller windows. 3. The row of 8 small windows on the upper level guest bedroom facing the street has been replaced with 3 larger windows. In conclusion, Mr. Watrous said that the revised plans appear to be somewhat responsive to the Town Council's direction at the July 6, 2011 meeting. However, he said that no changes had been made to the windows on the west side of the upper level of the addition. He recommended that the Town Council take testimony on the revised project plans and indicate its intention to partially grant the appeal and make any further modifications to the project plans as deemed necessary. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 2 The applicant's architect, Jeff Wong, made a brief presentation, describing the adjustments that had been made to the project and the reasons for them. He said that during the Design Review process, the Board had instructed the applicants to integrate the new roof and existing roof, he said that it was important to look at how this was achieved. Mr. Wong said the garage roof had been lowered eight inches since the Council hearing on July 6, 2011. He said the new garage replaced a garage and an existing deck and that the only difference was the new deck. He showed an overlay drawing to illustrate the perspective. Mr. Wong also said that after the July 6 meeting, the applicants had removed five windows from the garage plans to address the Council's concerns. He said this reduced the overall glazing by 30% which he said was a third of the glazing that exists at appellants' residence at 67 Reed Ranch Road. Mayor Slavitz asked whether the windows were the ones the Council instructed the applicant to remove from the plans. Mr. Wong replied that they had reduced the number of windows from eight to three to address the Council's concerns. Councilmember Collins noted that there were no windows on the east side of the new garage and asked whether they might be removed from the west side, as well. Mr. Wong said that these windows represented a design element to break up the plane of the wall. Councilmember Collins asked why there were two pedestrian doors in the garage. Mr. Wong said that there was one on each side to allow a person to cut through the garage. Councilmember Collins asked why the garage was so high (in elevation). Mr. Wong said that it was a very important feature for overall proportionality, and that it "stepped back" the project as a whole. He said this was the direction given to the applicants through three Design Review Board hearings. He also noted that the garage had been lowered from 15 feet down to 14 feet, four inches. Vice Mayor Fraser said he agreed with the previous Council comments about the windows. Fraser also asked whether there was another option for ingress/egress for the garage. Mr. Wong said there was not because the sill height was barely below the required height. In response to a similar question from Councilmember Collins, he said that the bedrooms required an emergency exist, by Code. The appellant, Mr. Mihalovich, said that the staff report stated that the Council had "dismissed" some of his concerns at the July 6 hearing, and that this was not the case. Mihalovich said that the Council had directed the applicant to modify the garage roofline and to flatten it out to one story; he said this was not done in the new plans. He also said that Item Nos. 2-4 were ignored and that the condition placed on interior lighting (Item No. 5) was not enforceable. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xz -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 3 Mihalovich also said that there were issues with grading for the project. Mr. Mihalovich said that the current design continued to infringe on his privacy and was in violation of various subsections of Section 16-52.020 of the Zoning Ordinance: H-1, 2, 3 and H- 5; also H-8 (to minimize lighting). He noted that subsection I-1 said that the FAR of a project could be reduced in order to keep the character of the neighborhood. He asked the Council to consider this section to reduce the mass of the project, and to consider whether the revised plans were a legitimate solution to the Council's direction and the issues raised by the appellants. He asked the Council to please ensure that "our privacy is protected" as the applicants would pass less than nine yards from his house, if the project is approved. Applicant Jay Parsons gave a brief rebuttal. He reiterated the comment that his project had a third of the glass than Mr. Mihalovich's house which faced him. (While he was speaking, Mr. Wong passed out some photos of five houses in the neighborhood with similar frontage to the street, along with a petition of support.) Mr. Parsons said that most of the affected neighbors had chosen to remain neutral in this discussion, and that they (the applicants) had attempted to appease just one neighbor by spending significant time and money, going through five hearings, and with significant changes to their plans. He asked that the Council not require him to start over. Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. Councilmember O'Donnell commented that privacy did not seem to be an issue and that neighbors ultimately have to get used to changes in a neighborhood. He said that he did not have a problem with the glass [windows] on the west side of the garage, claiming that it should not be a "cave". O'Donnell said that the applicants had reduced the size and scale of the project and that he also supported their plans for landscape screening. O'Donnell said that the design was not his favorite and seemed to him to be a little bulky in the front; he also wondered about the necessity of a three-car garage. However, O'Donnell said that the property owner had a right to his choice of design and that it was in conformance with all of the Town's guidelines. Councilmember Fredericks said she was uncomfortable with the original design with its height and scale; however, she said that the issue of light pollution was easily handled [with the requirement of down-lighting in the hallway] and that the applicants' efforts to make changes were commendable. Vice Mayor Fraser said he, too, had concluded that privacy was not an issue, and that the plans to screen the project with landscaping were favorable. However, he continued to think that the number of windows was excessive, and that he, and the Council, had clearly asked for elimination of windows in the hallway. He said he was disappointed that this had not been done. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 4 Councilmember Collins also noted that the neighbor's [appellants'] windows which were impacted by the project were in their bedrooms and not the garage. He said that he could not support the west-side windows and that there were too many windows in the front of the project. Mayor Slavitz concurred with these comments; he asked whether the hallway and garage windows could be eliminated. Councilmember Fredericks said that the hallway might be dark without windows; she said that former Councilmember Berger said that there were fixtures that provided down-facing light, and that she would condition an approval on this and not the elimination of the windows. Mayor Slavitz said that he could support this if the number of windows in the garage was reduced. MOTION: To direct staff to return with a resolution of findings partially upholding the appeal, as described by Council, and with revised plans to eliminate the four west-facing windows on the lower level of the garage, and the two windows in the hall, and the additional down-lighting requirements. Moved: Collins, seconded Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous 2. Alta Robles Precise Development Plan - Consider actions related to the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan and prezoning applications for the eventual subdivision of 52.2 acres of land, currently developed with one single-family dwelling into 14 single- family residential lots; consider certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Planning Manager Watrous) • Irving and Varda Rabin, Owners and Applicants • Address: 3825 Paradise Drive • Assessor Parcel Numbers 039-021-13 and 039-301-01 In his staff report, Planning Manager Watrous summarized the key elements of the project which involves the eventual subdivision of the 52 acres into 14 single family parcels (consisting of one existing residence and 13 new residences to be constructed) and three open space parcels totaling 18.69 acres. Watrous described the environmental review process and said that the draft EIR had noted two significant and unavoidable impacts: 1) project noise from construction that would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity; and 2) that the project as proposed would cause a significant change in the visual quality of the site when viewed from the Middle Ridge Open Space. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 5 In addition, he said the draft EIR indicated that implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other anticipated future projects at build-out of the Tiburon peninsula, would result in the following unavoidable cumulative impacts: • Additional vehicle trips at the Tiburon Boulevard / Trestle Glen Boulevard intersection. • The addition of vehicle trips to U.S. Highway 101. • Construction noise. • Wildlife habitat and connectivity impacts. • Visual impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources Due to these unavoidable impacts, Mr. Watrous said that approval of the project or any of the "development alternatives" studied in the EIR would require that findings of overriding considerations to be made at the time of project approval. Mt. Watrous said that the Final EIR concluded that while the revised project (Alternative 4) would reduce the degree of certain impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the proposed project, such impacts would remain significant and in need of mitigation measures. The Alternative 4 project design would still result in significant unavoidable temporary construction noise impacts and visual impacts when viewed from the Town's Middle Ridge open space area. The updated studies are included in the Final EIR and did not result in any significant new information or the discovery of any previously unidentified significant environmental impacts. On January 26, 2011, Watrous said the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and adopted Resolution No. 2011-04 recommending certification of the Final EIR to the Town Council and also adopted a resolution recommending approval of prezoning for the SODA parcel. In its review of the merits of the project, first considered by the Planning Commission in January 26, 2011, the Planning Manager said that a majority of the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the Precise Development Plan with regard to consistency with ridgeline policies and neighborhood compatibility. He said it was noted that the modifications to the original project proposed by the applicant's Alternative 4 project design did not appear to make substantial changes to the development pattern of the project and did not materially improve ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility. At the April 13, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Watrous said that the applicant submitted a revised alternative project design (Alternative 5) as described in the staff report. He said that prior to this meeting Town staff had prepared and distributed a memo that provided additional information and analysis regarding the project's relationship to the two Significant Ridgelines located on the project site and additional comparative information on surrounding neighborhoods. He said the analysis was based upon a review of Alternative 4, prior to the applicant's submittal of Alternative 5. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 6 At the April 13, 2011 meeting, Watrous said the Commission used the checklist provided in the staff memo as a tool to snake recommendations about revisions to the project design, but also identified additional revisions that went even further toward increasing consistency with General Plan policies. Watrous said that during the Commission's deliberations, staff tallied the recommendations of individual Commissioners. The following revisions from the provided checklist were each recommended by a majority of the Commission for the reasons stated below: 1. Lots 8, 91 10 & 13 would be eliminated 2. The residential use areas for Lots 5 & 6 would be reduced in size 3. The maximum allowable floor area for Lots 5, 6 & 12 would be reduced. 4. The private open space on the northern portions of Lots 1, 2, 4 & 7, across the roadway from the residential use areas, would be incorporated into the Lot "A" private common open space. Planning Manager Watrous said that the Planning Commission unanimously directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the Alta Robles Precise Development Plan to the Town Council with the revisions noted above. On April 27, 2011, he said the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2011-10, recommending approval of the revised project to the Council. In conclusion, the Planning Manager said that the Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed the Alta Robles project for consistency with goals and principles of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. In particular, he said the Commission placed a very strong emphasis on General Plan policies related to ridgeline protection and neighborhood compatibility. He recommended that the Town Council take public testimony and consider certification of the Final EIR at the hearing tonight, then deliberate on the merits of the project and/or continue the item to a subsequent hearing. Mayor Slavitz opened the hearing to the applicant. Irving Rabin, applicant, said that he bought his initial 30-acre property 20 years ago. He said that he and his neighbor, Dr. Kilgore, whose 20-acre property he subsequently purchased, had jointly planned a 23-home development in 1993. He said they wanted a good development, since they both lived on the property, and from the beginning they envisioned homes that would be both architecturally stunning and have a low profile and impact on the land. He said that Alternative 5 was the culmination and pinnacle of these efforts, and that it represented an environmentally and architecturally superior plan in which over three-quarters of the property would remain in open space conservation, greater than the 50% town requirement. In addition, he said the proposal would allow the Tiburon Ridge Trail to be extended at the top of the property. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 7 Mr. Rabin said that most of the letters included with the staff report supported the project, and he said it was also supported by the close and contiguous neighbors, the Vogelheim, Burley, Maisel, Appleman, and Brown families, and on Paradise Drive, the Traeger, Kilgore, and Slater (Winter property) families. Mr. Rabin also asked for the Council's endorsement, stating that the project should be welcomed and heralded as a model project in Tiburon and beyond. Scott Hochstrasser, 25-year planning consultant, representing the applicant, stated that the Rabin family had been good stewards of the land and that their application represented the most comprehensive "green" plan in the County and Town of Tiburon. In his powerpoint presentation, Mr. Hochstrasser showed a site analysis which he said was one of the most comprehensive baseline maps ever created. He said this map helped guide his clients by showing the limited development potential of the project and that during the five-year application process, his client had voluntarily reduced the density of the project. He stated that even though the draft EIR had deemed the applicant's project superior, his client nevertheless. had met with staff and had subsequently drafted Alternative 4, which had become the current project application. He said that while there was a range of alternatives discussed in the EIR, the final EIR said that Alternative 4 was even more superior than other options considered. Mr. Hochstrasser said that it would be appropriate for the Town Council to adopt the Final EIR, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hochstrasser introduced Dr. Ken Kao to address the Planning Commission's concerns expressed during its deliberations on the merits of the project, as well as the latest iteration of the project, Alternative 5. Dr. Ken Kao explained the way the lots were clustered along the existing driveway and sub- clusters on the fire trails, thereby allowing 75% of the land to remain as open space. He said that most of the lots were around an acre (1.5 acres being the largest) and were set back from sensitive areas, including sensitive plant habitats. He also said that some of the houses were located in the trees to reduce the visual impacts and to address the concerns of the Seafirth Drive neighbors. He showed what they might look like from three visual perspectives. Dr. Kao said that the design strategies followed the Hillside Design Guidelines with a partial subterranean approach and low profiles. He said they would be energy efficient, with solar panels and vegetative roofs. Attorney Riley Hurd, representing the Rabin family, spoke in favor of Alternative 4 and described why the Planning Commission's recommendation was neither viable nor legally supported. He discussed three aspects of the project about which the Commission had raised concerns: ridgelines, neighborhood compatibility, and economics. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 8 Mr. Hurd said that the Town's General Plan Policy OSC-12 stated that all significant ridgelines should not be judged equally; that the ridgelines on this property were not only low profile, but that it was hard to determine exactly where they were, and therefore they warranted less protection. He said he had more fully delineated in his correspondence how the Alta Robles project complied with the Town's guidelines. With regard to neighborhood characteristics, Mr. Hurd agreed that the Alta Robles project would be incompatible with the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood, stating that Dr. Kao's designs were superior and intelligent and were not the large-scale "McMansions" found on Gilmartin and Acacia Drives. Finally, Mr. Hurd said that the project was a "deal" for the Town in its "value to visibility ratio" because in his analysis, larger homes represented greater tax revenue, while still being less visible. He said that the Planning Commission's recommended alternative would not pencil out and could not be built. He said that the infrastructure costs of the project were static and that the ridge trail could not be built under this scenario. Mr. Hurd said that the Planning Commission, while being a sophisticated group, had not gone through the required visual analysis needed for a project of this complexity. He said one commissioner has stated that the application was "too complex". He said instead, the Commission settled for simplistic modifications, which consisted of reducing the number of lots and the sizes of the homes. Mr. Hurd said there was no evidence that such modifications would result in a net benefit, and that cutting the project would punish the applicant who had shown sensitivity to the planning and environmental process and had been "self-editing" all along. He said the lack of data to support the Commission's recommendations would represent a gross disproportionate exaction from the applicant. He said that the Planning Commission's recommendations would allow use of less than 20% of the land and retain 80% as open space. He said this would not be legal. Mr. Hurd said that a Town Council approval of the applicant's project would ensure responsible development of the site, would "lock up" preservation of open space, as well as close a gap in the Tiburon Ridge Trail. In addition, the project would include the forward-thinking designs of Dr. Kao. Mr. Hurd concluded by stating that if the property was sold, the Town would not see this type of project again. Mr. Hurd responded to questions from Council. Councilmember Fredericks asked for electronic copies of the presentation materials. Mr. Hurd said that he would do so. Councilmember O'Donnell said that while everyone liked the home designs, he asked what assurances there were they would actually be designed that way, once the lots were sold. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #x -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 9 Town Attorney Danforth said that it was not common at this stage of the review process to mandate design; nevertheless, she said the conditions of approval could mandate general compliance with the applicant's architectural guideline and would guide review of future homes on the site by the Design Review Board. Councilmember O'Donnell asked whether the designs could be included in CC&R's for the project. For example, he said that without a "live roof', the home on Lot 12 would look completely different. Town Attorney Danforth said that Council could require this design feature and if the builder wanted to change it, he/she would have to come to Council for approval. Director of Community Development Anderson concurred, stating there were ways to incorporate the designs into the PDP to resemble what is ultimately approved by the Town Council. He also said there were also ways to incorporate a process for revisions into the CC&R's so that the Town could have control over and approve those revisions. Nevertheless, he said a certain amount of uncertainty remained in the question of whether these designs would be built, especially if many years elapsed before a lot was constructed upon. Councilmember Fredericks asked for clarification of a comment from the applicant's representative that the Town Council had "voted twice" to control [development of] the subject property. Director Anderson said that twice previously, some years ago, the Rabins had requested that the Town waive or defer annexation and allow the County of Marin to process development applications for the site. On both occasions, the Town Council indicated that it desired to process the development applications and annex the property to the Town. Councilmember Fredericks also asked whether the entire square footage of the proposed houses was stated on the plans, for instance, did a 7,000 square foot home include that portion of the square footage that was underground. Planning Manager Watrous said that he did not believe that the house sizes included garage square footage or the FAR underground. He said he would check, but that normally, subterranean area was not included in FAR numbers. Mr. Hurd commented that the numbers presented were gross numbers intended to include any basements. He did note that the applicant had not done an FAR analysis. Town Attorney Danforth added that because this is a PDP review, the Council could impose floor area maximums that included the subsurface areas. Vice Mayor Fraser asked what latitude existed for the Council in siting the houses around Ridgelines 5 and 6. Town Attorney Danforth said that the Council had a great deal of latitude; that it could make findings regarding the importance of on-site ridges and impose distance restrictions for consistency the General Plan. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 10 Councilmember Fredericks asked what kind of findings would support the home sites near the ridge. Town Attorney Danforth said for instance that the findings might find that the home sites were too near a significant ridge but allow them because of the benefits of the public trail as an overriding consideration. Councilmember O'Donnell said that the staff memo said that some of the ridgelines on the property did not meet the "significant ridge" criteria. Director of Community Development stated that he would not characterize the memo quite that way, but stated that the memo indicated that the ridgelines on the Rabin property were less prominent than some other significant ridgelines, such as that located on the Martha Company property, which was "in another league". Erin Tollini, Tiburon Planning Commissioner, described the Planning Commission's review. She said that many hours had been spent in discussion and research and that the Commission was "up to the task" of the application review and had made its conclusions accordingly. Ms. Tollini said that the statement that the maximum development potential of 20 sites that could be allowed on this 52-acre site was only valid if the property was a "blank slate". She said the Commission had concluded that the maximum density was lower based on the fact that the lot for the existing Rabin residence occupied a large portion of the proposed project and other environmental constraints of the site. She said that the density maximum in the General Plan was not a guaranteed number, and noted the EIR found 18 landslides on the property, serpentine grasslands, and other protected species would ultimately help determine the final number of sites allowed for the project. Ms. Tollini said that the principles of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance had been applied during the Planning Commission's review and the Commission's recommendation was not arbitrary. Mayor Slavitz asked for comment on Policy OSC-12. Ms. Tollini said that the applicant's photo simulation looked different than what was in the EIR and application. She said there were significant slopes and ridgelines on the property; also, an important feature was the ability to visually connect the open space areas of the project. Vice Mayor Fraser asked about the Planning Commission's comments on traffic impacts. Ms. Tollini said that the EIR described traffic at certain times of the day; she said that the entrance to the property needed more of a sightline for safety reasons; she said the Commission would like to have seen an independent traffic study to address the issue of traffic safety. Councilmember Fredericks asked why the Planning Commission recommended elimination of Lot 13, which was more than 100 feet from the ridgeline, rather than lowering the height and roofline of the proposed house. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 11 Ms. Tollini said that the Commission thought the trees that screen that lot would be removed to develop the Sorokko property, thereby making the home on that site much more visually prominent and "looming" over the ridge. Mayor Slavitz opened the hearing to the public. The following members of the public spoke: • Nona Dennis, Marin Conservation League (MCL), commended the Rabin family but said that a project "takes on a life of its own" and wouldebe developed over a long period of time, with no guarantees that it would look as it does on paper; that precedents were being set for home size and that the resource cost of large homes should be considered; also, that private open space does not guarantee continuity of species or viability; that a fully functioning open space was not "chopped up"; that views of the ridges would be impacted; that there would be cumulative impacts of traffic at Trestle Glen Boulevard and Highway 101. Dennis said that the MCL had been tracking the cumulative impacts of development on Paradise Drive for a long time; she urged the Council to make sure the benefits of the project off-set the impacts. • Eva Buxton, botanist, said the project had been designed without a botanical survey and that there was inadequate mapping of species; said the CEQA requires a lessening or avoidance of impacts on special species; that serpentine grasses were a special community and that the extensive grasslands on Lots 11 and 12 would be obliterated by landslide repair; said that the elimination or reduction of [house] size on Lots 11 and 12 would be results in a measurable benefit to the grasslands. • Ariel Rabin read a letter from Douglas Currens, who could not be present at the hearing. The letter said that the project represented a long and complex journey and that the Rabin family had brought forward an exemplary project which resulted in preservation of a ridgeline trail and 70% open space. He said that the home designs were commendable and could have been influenced by a ground-breaking book by Ian McHarg entitled "Design with Nature". He said the family was trying to leave a legacy and deserved approval for their vision for the property. He said that minor course corrections could be made. • Mordecai Winter, Peninsula Road, Belvedere, said his family owned the 27-acre Slater property. He spoke in support of the project and gave credit to the Rabin family; stated that 14 homes would have a minimal impact • Roberta Zucker, Pt. Tiburon, said that traffic would not really be a problem because it `let up' once you got to Trestle Glen; she commended the Rabins for their project and home designs and that it was desirable not to have more "Italianate Mansions"; said she was a walker and a hiker and appreciated the generous offer of the family to extend the Ridge Trail. • Mark Goldstein, Paradise Drive, said that he and many other property owners in the area would be affected by the development and said that the Planning Commission had done an admirable job in reducing the density to nine units; he warned of "bait and switch'' tactics in that the house designs were not guaranteed, as presented. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 12 The Mayor and staff had another discussion about the design features of the project. Director of Community Development Anderson said that the actual wording in the Planning Commission resolution said that the designs shown would "closely resemble" the approved designs and that the DRB was instructed to disallow changes except in very limited circumstances. He said that another proposed condition of approval required that the CC&R's incorporate relevant portions of the PDP, and that those sections of the CC&R's could not be modified without permission from the Town. Planning Manager Watrous commented that in some projegts, the direction given to the DRB was often more generic and simple where specificity was not as crucial to the application. He said, for instance, that the direction given by the Board for "craftsman style" homes in Vista Tiburon was clear enough to be effective for that PDP. Vice Mayor Fraser referenced a chart in Alternative 5 [the Fagade Vertical Surface Area Comparison table] and asked whether these numbers could be incorporated into the approval process. Planning Manager Watrous said that the calculations referenced by the Vice Mayor were provided by the applicant and were not calculations ever previously used by the Town; he said it might be difficult to apply this to the FAR calculations and limits normally used by the Town. Vice Mayor Fraser noted that a key component of the design of the homes as depicted was their subterranean nature, and that if that were to change, it would be a much different project. Planning Manager Watrous said that the subterranean design, living roof, elevations, and other design features could be incorporated into the approval. Mayor Slavitz commented on the 29-foot height which would be exposed on the front of some of the homes. Councilmember O'Donnell noted that in Lots 2, 3 and 4, the topography dropped off sharply and that the height was a necessary outcome. • Walter Sanford, Seafirth Place, downhill neighbor from the project, said that the sight lines and photos did not show his neighborhood and that there would be a visual impact on a lot of homes there; cautioned the Council to be aware of the danger of the proposed designs which he described as a "Trojan horse"; stated that if all the homes in future development of Paradise Drive were maximum height, it would be a problem. • David Joyner, Seafirth, said that the designs were nice but not enforceable; said that he hears traffic now and that the noise and impacts on Paradise Drive would exacerbated by earthwork, dust, and tree removal during construction; asked the Council to please help preserve the rural character of Paradise Drive in considering this and future developments. He added that the Planning Commission had been very thoughtful in its approach. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #.x -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 13 • Alex Gerson, Mateo Drive, resident since 1981, said that the Rabins were stewards of the land and that the Town Council had a difficult job to balance zoning and usage; stated that the Planning Commission should set a precedent to develop meaningful plans and make a showcase of Tiburon rather than just trying to cut a project; noted that Tiburon Vista and Turtle Rock had much more density than the proposed project. • Sandra Swanson, Seafirth, said that some of their homes looked straight at the project; warned the Council not to rely on future Design Review Boards to do the right thing; said that to develop this project 100,000 cubic yards of earth would be moved and that the natural habitat would be replaced by retaining walls, and swimming pools; said that development was not entitlement; suggested that Lots 9, 10 and 13 be eliminated, because they were most visible to the open space, also Lots 5 and 6; noted that the Tiburon General Plan (Tiburon 2020) goal was "to protect and preserve" Tiburon. • Randy Greenberg, Norman Way, said she appreciated the careful consideration being given to this application; that it was a "project, not a family," and that the supporters of the project were also landowners who wanted to develop their parcels. She said that four to five lots should be eliminated and that the existing lot took up 29% of the developable land; said that reliance on architecture should not be a factor because it would change; said that the houses located near species with special status should be eliminated, and that the size of the remaining homes should be reduced. • Jerry Riessen, Vistazo West, reminded the Council that open space is the most important value of this community; added that the General Plan couldn't be more specific as to the protection of ridgelines; said that Planning Commission did a good job in its review; said that applicant's financial risk was part of the process and should not be a concern of the Council; asked the Council to focus on its statement of overriding consideration and what it would say; said the General Plan allowed the Council "'tons of power to restrict" the project; said that the threat of losing the ridge trail was embarrassing. The applicant made some final comments prior to Mayor Slavitz closing the public hearing. Mr. Hurd said that 1) his client's designs were a crucial part of the project and were not a "bait and switch"; said that there were many legal ways to condition approval of the project based on those designs; 2) said his client would commit to those designs if Alternative 5 was approved; said that his client, too, also wanted compliance with the General"Plan, which allowed up to 20 units, but that the Planning Commission had used the General Plan to "cherry pick" and cut the 14 proposed units; 3) said that the issue of trees on Lot 13 was not relevant because the Sorokko project was downhill from Paradise Drive; 4) noted that this Council for years had relied on the principle of "borrowed views" and asked how much the opponents of the project were relying on these views; 5) said that no statement of overriding considerations was required in the Final EIR for ridgelines; finally, that the stated traffic and botany impacts were no different between the draft and final EIRs. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 14 Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. Councilmember Fredericks said that the EIR was complete but that it did raise issues that needed to be addressed. Councilmember Collins concurred and said that the process started in 2007 and suggested that it might be worthwhile to continue the discussion of the merits of the project to a future Council meeting. Council concurred with this recommendation. MOTION: To adopt the resolution certifying the FEIR. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous Town Attorney Danforth said that it might be worthwhile to begin the discussion of the merits of the project and give staff some direction for additional information it might require for the future hearing. Mayor Slavitz said that he would like to go back for another site visit and that he would like to hear more about the guidelines for the proposed designs. Vice Mayor Fraser concurred, stating he would like staff to come back with specific recommendations about how to codify the designs. Councilmember O'Donnell also concurred with these remarks. Councilmember Fredericks said that it was not up to the Council to re-design the project, but that she would like to get a sense of the secondary impacts of the project from earth movement, retaining walls, landslide repairs, and de-watering. She also said that she was amazed at the constraints on the project demonstrated by the applicant's map. Councilmember Collins said that he would like to see where the proposed homes and residential use areas sit in relation to the gdgelines. Mayor Slavitz said he would like clarification of the tree issue on Lot 13. Planning Manager Watrous clarified that the trees formed a "backdrop" to Lot 13, rather than screening that lot, but that the removal of the trees [approved as part of the Sorokko project] would make the proposed home more visible. Councilmember Collins said that he would like to see a large map showing the environmental constraints of the site, with the homes and lots superimposed. Mayor Slavitz said that full-size plans would be helpful. Councilmember O'Donnell said he would like to hear more from the applicant about the possibility of re-sizing the building envelope on Lot 8. Councilmember Fredericks said she was confused by information on whether or not retaining walls would be required on Paradise Drive. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 15 Director of Community Development Anderson said that east of the project entrance, the area had been identified in the EIR as one where line of sight improvements might be necessary in the form of a retaining wall and shave-back of the hillside. He said that the Planning Commission created a condition of approval, with which the applicant agreed, that a traffic speed study would be conducted immediately prior to project construction to determine whether the retaining wall was necessary to achieve safe sight-line distances. Mayor Slavitz asked if the Council had to decide on maximum heights for retaining walls. The Director said that all project retaining walls were listed in detail in the Final EIR. He said that most of the tall ones formed the rear wall of homes and would not be visible, and that there were few remaining visible retaining walls over 6 to 8 in height. Vice Mayor Fraser said he had heard that this project had a potential for building a temporary "construction" road across the ridges. Director Anderson said he had not heard anything to indicate this. MOTION: To continue the discussion of the merits of the project (Precise Development Plan) to the September 7, 2011 regular meeting. Moved: Collins, seconded Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous 3. Water Conservation Ordinance - Consider amendments to Title IV, Chapter 13E (Water Efficient Landscape) of the Tiburon Municipal Code to incorporate latest Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) regulations (Director of Community Development Anderson) - introduction and first reading o fordinance Director of Community Development gave the report. He said that in 2011, newly-adopted state regulations went into effect that imposed additional water-efficiency restrictions on permits issued by local agencies. In response, MMWD amended its water efficient landscape regulations in December 2010. The proposed Town ordinance would have the Town amend its current water efficient landscape regulations by adopting by reference the latest MMWD regulations. Councilmember O'Donnell asked if these new regulations would be consistent with Tiburon Fire District regulations. He cited an example of installing new landscaping pursuant to MMWD regulations, only to find out that Tiburon Fire District had more stringent regulations. Director Anderson said that this question had been raised with MMWD and that the water district and fire district were making a more concerted effort to coordinate their regulations. Mayor Slavitz opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. Mayor Slavitz closed the public hearing. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 16 MOTION: To read the ordinance by title only. Moved: Fraser, seconded Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous Mayor Slavitz read, "An ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon amending Title IV, Chapter 13E (Water Efficient Landscape) of the Municipal Code and adopting by reference Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Ordinance No. 421 regarding water conservation." MOTION: To pass first reading of the ordinance. Moved: Collins, seconded Fraser Vote: AYES: Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS None. TOWN MANAGER'S REPORT Town Manager Curran reported that Town staff had obtained a quote for a sign similar in design to the new sign at Blackie's Pasture; she said that it would be the same color and style, only a single sign instead of a double sign. Curran said the quote was $1,500 and asked for Council's consensus to use the Manager's discretionary fund since it was not a budgeted item. Council concurred. In response to a question from the Mayor about how these signs would fit into the overall planning for future Town signage, Curran said that they were constructed with this in mind, and that the top portion, for instance, could be removed if a different design theme was chosen down the road. Town Manager Curran said that a possible date of September 15 had been selected for the annual Homeowner's Association meeting. She also said the August 17 regular meeting was being cancelled due to the Mayor's absence. WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digest -July 22, 2011 • Town Council Weekly Digest -June 29, 2011 No discussion. DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 17 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Slavitz adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK DRAFT Town Council Minutes #xx -2011 August 3, 2011 Page 18 To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Attorney Town Council Meeting August 23, 2011 Agenda Item: C- Subject: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements for Filing a Protest of an Award of a Public Works Contract Reviewed By: BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The California Public Contracts Code requires the Town to award major public works contracts (i.e., any public works contract valued at $125,000 or more) to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder as determined by a competitive bidding process. A person that believes that a proposed award violates the Public Contracts Code can file a bid protest and if dissatisfied with the outcome, seek judicial relief. Bid protests tend to be more common in a poor economy. State law does not establish any deadlines or minimum procedures for bid protests, which means that a public agency can award a bid without knowing of a potential objection. To avoid this uncertainty, some public agencies have adopted bid protest procedures that require a protest to be filed shortly after the bids are opened. Staff has drafted a resolution that would establish minimum requirements for protesting a proposed Council award of a public works contract. The draft is based on a model resolution distributed at a recent League of California Cities seminar. If adopted, the resolution would require any protest be filed in writing within five business days following the opening of bids. Only persons that had actually submitted a bid for the project would be eligible to file a protest. The protest would have to include all bases for the protestor's objection to the proposed award and all supporting materials. This would give the Town the opportunity to fully evaluate the merits of the protest before the Council actually awards the project contract. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Move to approve a Resolution Establishing Minimum Requirements for Filing a Protest against an Award of a Public Works Contract Exhibits: Draft Resolution Prepared By: Ann R. Danforth, Town Attorney TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 1 RESOLUTION NO. -2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON ESTABLISHING MINIMUM REQUIRMENTS FOR PROTESTING AN AWARD OF A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT WHEREAS, the California Public Contract Code and the Town's Municipal Code require the Town to let large public works contracts by competitive bidding; and WHEREAS, any contract let in violation of said requirements is void; and WHEREAS, an unsuccessful bidder may challenge the award of a public works contract by filing a bid protest and if the protest is rejected, may file a further challenge in court; and WHEREAS, current law does not set any deadline for filing a bid protest, nor does it establish any requirements for the contents thereof; and WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to minimize any period of uncertainty regarding the validity of its public works contracts and establish minimum requirements for bid protests; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby establish the following requirements for any protest of the award of a public works contract as that term is defined in the Town Municipal Code. BID PROTEST PROCEDURE 1. Any bid protest must be in writing and received by the Town Director of Public Works at Tiburon Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, CA 94920 before 5:00 p.m. no later than five (5) working days following bid opening (the "Bid Protest Deadline") and must comply with the requirements set forth herein. 2. Only a bidder who has actually submitted a Bid Proposal is eligible to submit a bid protest against another bidder. Subcontractors are not eligible to submit bid protests. A bidder may not rely on the bid protest submitted by another bidder, but must timely pursue its own protest. 3. The bid protest must contain a complete statement of the basis for the protest and all supporting documentation. Material submitted after the Bid Protest Deadline will not be considered. The protest must refer to the specific portion or portions of the Contract Documents upon which the protest is based. The protest must include the name, C: (Documents and SettingsldcranelLocal Settings I Temporary Internet Files DLK28 Oid Protest Proc 8- 23-I1.doc address and telephone number of the person representing the protesting bidder if different from the protesting bidder. 4. A copy of the protest and all supporting documents must also be transmitted by fax or by e-mail, by or before the Bid Protest Deadline, to the protested bidder and any other bidder who has a reasonable prospect of receiving an award depending upon the outcome of the protest. 5. The protested bidder may submit a written response to the protest, provided the response is received by the Town Director of Public Words before 5:00 p.m., within two (2) working days after the Bid Protest Deadline or after receipt of the bid protest, whichever is sooner (the "Response Deadline"). The response must include all supporting documentation. Material submitted after the Response Deadline will not be considered. The response must include the name, address and telephone number of the person representing the protested bidder if different from the protested bidder. 6. The procedure and time limits set forth in this section are mandatory and are the bidder's sole and exclusive remedy in the event of bid protest. The bidder's failure to comply with these procedures shall constitute a waiver of any right to further pursue a bid protest, including filing a Government Code Claim or initiation of legal proceedings. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on August 23, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK C- Documents and Settings ldcrane lLocal Settings I Temporary Internet Files VLK28 Oid Protest Proc 8- 23-11.doc To: From: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Community Development Department Town Council Meeting August 23, 2011 Agenda Item: cc a Subject: 65 Reed Ranch Road: Adoption of Resolution Partially Granting Appeal of Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval for Construction of Additions to an Existing Single-Family Dwelling; James Parsons and Andrea Hong, Owners; Jeffrey Wong, Applicant; Dan Mihalovich, Appel~t; File #711011; Assessor's Parcel No. 038-301-35 Reviewed By: SUMMARY On August 3, 2011, the Town Council held a continued public hearing on an appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to approve a Site Plan and Architectural Review application to construct additions to an existing single-family dwelling on property located at 65 Reed Ranch Road. The Town Council voted (5-0) to direct staff to prepare a resolution partially granting the appeal while adding conditions of approval approving the revised project plans, eliminating certain windows and setting limitations on interior lighting within the addition. The draft resolution has been prepared and is attached. RECOMMENDATION That the Town Council adopt the draft resolution partially granting the appeal for the Site Plan and Architectural Review application for 65 Reed Ranch Road, with added conditions of approval. EXHIBITS Draft resolution Prepared By: Daniel M. Watrous, Planning Manager \shared\AdministrationJown Council\staff reports\201 1 \August 23 Drafts\65 Reed Ranch Road.appeal reso.report.doc TOWN OF TiBuROM PAGE 1 OF 1 RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PARTIALLY GRANTING AN APPEAL BY DAN MIHALOVICH OF THE APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 65 REED RANCH ROAD WHEREAS, on March 17, 2011, the Designt Review Board held a public hearing to consider the approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the construction of additions to an existing single-family dwelling (Town File #711011) for property located at 65 Reed Ranch Road, proposed by James Parsons and Andrea Hong ("Applicants"); and WHEREAS, at that hearing, the owner of the adjacent home to the west at 67 Reed Ranch Road (Appellant) raised objections to the proposed project regarding the proximity and visual mass and bulk of the proposed addition, along with potential noise and privacy impacts; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board shared many of these concerns, particularly regarding the visual mass of the building and its proximity to the home at 67 Reed Ranch Road. The Board was also concerned with the potential removal of vegetation along the western side of the property that would screen the addition from the neighboring residence. The application was continued with the Applicants directed to reduce the height of the addition, consider other less sensitive locations for the addition, and do more to properly attach the addition to the main building; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board heard the item again at its meeting on April 21, 2011. The Board reviewed the revised plans for the project, which replaced the proposed addition with a revised design that was moved to the east, away from 67 Reed Ranch Road. The existing detached garage at the northeast corner of the lot was to be demolished and replaced with a new two-story addition that would be 24 feet, 6 inches in height. The lower level of the addition would include an attached three-car garage and a workshop space to the rear. The upper floor of the addition would include a guest bedroom and a model train room. The Board heard additional public testimony from the neighboring property owners regarding the visual mass and bulk of the revised project design, along with potential noise and privacy impacts; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the consensus of the Design Review Board was that the project was generally responsive to the previously raised concerns. However, the Board still had issues with the overall height and visual mass of the proposed addition, particularly the "monitor" section above the upper floor addition, and the amount and/or pattern of windows. The application was again continued, with the applicants given direction to address these concerns; and Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2011 August 23, 2011 Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, the Design Review Board heard the item again at its meeting on May 19, 2011. The Board reviewed the revised plans for the project, which narrowed the monitor section of the proposed upper floor addition and reduced its height; reduced the number and area of the windows on the western side of the addition, facing the home at 67 Reed Ranch Road; modified the roof design of the upper floor to connect more seamlessly with the roofline of the existing house; and made minor changes to the overall dimensions of the proposed addition; and WHEREAS, after receiving public testimony, the Design Review Board concluded that the project revisions had adequately addressed the Board's previous concerns and was in conformance with the Guiding Principles of Site Plan and Architectural Review and with the Tiburon Hillside Design Guidelines. In order to ensure that the walkway leading to the front entry would be properly screened from the home at 67 Reed Ranch Road, the Board added two conditions of approval to the project that required that grading be minimized to preserve the existing trees along the western side of the property, and that two (2) 36-inch box native trees be planted to screen the top of the entry walkway. The Board voted (4-1), to conditionally approve the project, with the additional conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2011, Dan Mihalovich, the owner of the adjacent property at 67 Reed Ranch Road ("Appellant"), filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision, objecting to the visual mass and bulk and potential privacy impacts caused by the proposed addition and asserting that more information was needed regarding the grading, walkway and driveway changes of the project; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2011, the Town Council held a duly-noticed hearing on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the proposed project and the Design Review Board's review of the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the Town Council dismissed the appellant's concerns regarding privacy, grading and the changes to the walkway and driveway. However, it was the consensus of the Council that the proposed additions would look too massive when viewed from Reed Ranch Road and that the amount and/or area of the windows proposed for the additions were excessive. The application was continued, with the applicants given direction to address these remaining issues; and WHEREAS, the Town Council heard the item again at its meeting on August 3, 2011. The Council reviewed the revised plans for the project, which lowered the roofline of the garage above the two easternmost spaces by 8 inches; replaced the larger hallway windows on the west side of the building with smaller windows; and replaced the row of 8 small windows on the upper level guest bedroom facing the street with 3 larger windows; and Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2011 August 23, 2011 Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and reviewing all documents in the record, the Town Council determined that the proposed addition would not substantially impact the privacy from the Appellant's home and the house design was consistent with the pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood and with the principles of the Hillside Design Guidelines. However, the Town Council determined that additional modifications to the windows and interior lighting fixtures were necessary to avoid unwanted light and glare for the Appellant's home; and WHEREAS, the Town Council voted 5-0 to direct Staff to prepare a resolution partially granting the appeal and adding conditions of approval approving the revised plans and modifying the windows and interior lighting of the addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby partially grants the appeal of Dan Mihalovich. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council adds the following conditions of approval to those imposed by the Design Review Board: , 13. The revised project plans dated July 25, 2011, as modified by the conditions of approval below, are approved and supersede the plans approved by the Design Review Board. 14. The four (4) windows on the west side of the garage on the lower level shall be eliminated. 15. The two (2) lower level hallway windows closest to the garage shall be eliminated. 16. Interior light fixtures within the addition shall be designed to shine on the floor and/or stairs and not onto windows and mullions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the final and consolidated conditions of approval are attached as Exhibit "A" hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on August 23, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2011 August 23, 2011 Page 3 of 4 JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2011 August 23, 2011 Page 4 of 4 To: From Mayor and Members of the Town Council Department of Public Works Town Council Meeting August 23, 2011 Agenda Item: Subject: Recommendation To Approve Plans and Specifications For The Trestle Glen Blvd and Paradise Dr. - 2011 Street Improvement Project and Authorize the Solicitation for Bids ~i Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Plans and specifications have been prepared by CSG, our engineering consultants, for the resurfacing of Trestle Glen Blvd and Paradise Drive. The project is part of the adopted 2011-2012 capital improvement program in which funds were allocated for the engineering, construction management and construction of this project. The planned improvements include localized base repair, slurry seal, pavement grinding, asphalt overlay, re-striping, vegetation clearing and localized drainage repair. The plans and specifications have been reviewed by staff, and the project is now ready to advertise for public bid. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has preliminarily determined that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the project is for the maintenance and repair of existing facilities. FISCAL IMPACT The budget for fiscal year 2011-12 allocates $425,000 towards the engineering, inspection, and construction of this project. The current budget also allocates $215,000 for town-wide drainage improvements, which would be applied to the drainage improvement items in the project. The Engineer's Estimate for the just the construction element of the Base Bid and Alternate Bid is $451,000. There will be sufficient funds programmed in this fiscal year to complete the project. Funding is available from State Proposition 1B, Gas Tax, Traffic Congestion Relief, Measure A and Street Impact funds. TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1) Find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines 2) Move to approve the plans/specifications for the Trestle Glen Blvd and Paradise Dr. - 2011 Street Improvement Project, and 3) Move to authorize the solicitation of bids. Prepared By: Nicholas T. Nguyen, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Mayor and Members of the Town Council Office of the Town Clerk { Consideration of Resolution to Appoint Candidates In lieu of holding an election on November 8, 2011 Town Council Meeting August 23, 2011 Agenda Item: 4-T-1 As of the close of the nomination period on August 17, 2011, there were two candidates for the two Council seats in the November 8, 2011 Municipal Election. The persons nominated were Dick Collins and Frank Doyle. Section 10229 of the Elections Code allows one of the following courses of action to be taken by the Town Council: 1. Appoint to the office the person who has been nominated. 2. Appoint to the office any eligible voter if no one has been nominated. 3. Hold the election if either no one or only one person has been nominated. A notice of these facts was posted at Town Hall on August 17, 2011, as well as published in a newspaper of general circulation in the town on August 19, 2001, pursuant to Section 6061 of the Government Code. After the fifth day following the date of posting or publication, the Town Council can meet to either make the appointments or direct an election to be held. The persons appointed, if any, shall take office and serve exactly as if elected at a municipal election for the office. The appointees will be sworn in and commence their terms at the first regular Council meeting in December (December 7, 2011). If, by the 75th day before the municipal election (August 25, 2011), no person has been appointed to the offices pursuant to (1) or (2) above, the election shall be held. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: Consider adoption of a resolution appointing Dick Collins and Frank Doyle to the Town Council in lieu of holding an election. EXHIBIT • Resolution Prepared By: Diane Crane Iacopi, Town Clerk EXHIBIT RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THE OFFICES OF THIS TOWN THAT WERE TO BE ELECTED ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10229 of the Elections Code of the State of California, as of the close of the nomination period on August 17, 2011, there are not more candidates than offices to be elected and that Section 10229 of the Elections Code allows one of the following courses of action to be taken by the Town Council: 4. Appoint to the office the person who has been nominated. 5. Appoint to the office any eligible voter if no one has been nominated. 6. Hold the election if either no one or only one person has been nominated. WHEREAS, a notice was posted at Town Hall on August 17, 2011, and published in a newspaper of general circulation on August 19, 2011, pursuant to law. NOW THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DELCARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 10229 of the Elections Code of the State of California, the following action is being taken: (a) The following persons are being appointed to the offices to which they were nominated: NAME OFFICE TERM Dick Collins Town Council Member 4 Years (commencing 12/7/11) Frank Doyle Town Council Member 4 Years (commencing 12/7/11) SECTION '2. The election scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, is now cancelled. SECTION 3. The persons appointed shall qualify and take office and serve exactly as if elected at a municipal election for office. SECTION 4. The Town Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. c) 1. 1 n ;~11tiC i, x PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Tiburon Town Council on August 23, 2011. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ,`MAYOR ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK To: From: Subject: Reviewed By: TOWN OF TIBURON 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Mayor and Members of the Town Council Town Staff Town Council Meeting August 23, 2011 Agenda Item: A-/7 Z 1895 & 1897 Mar West Street: Consider Revisions to the Town's Encroachment Permit Policy (Resolution No. 16-2010) and Consider Encroachment Permit Application # 11-51; Brian and JoAnn McCullough, Owners and Applicants; Michael Heckmann, architect; Assessor Parcel Nos. 059-121-10 and I1 BACKGROUND The Town has received two encroachment permit applications asking to construct private improvements in the Mar West Street public right-of-way. The projects are adjacent to residential properties located at 1895 and 1897 Mar West Street. One application proposes (among other things) to construct a portion of a garage addition in the public right-of-way. The second application proposes to install a concrete staircase, retaining walls, and the replacement of a concrete pad for refuse can storage. Both applications required Town Council approval. The Town Council discussed this item at length at its meeting of July 20, 2011. Draft minutes of that meeting are located in Consent Calendar portion of this Town Council packet for reference. At that meeting, the Council expressed no objections or concerns about the second application's (i.e. Barley Staircase) general consistency with the Town's Encroachment Policy, adopted in Town Council Resolution No. 16-2010 ("Encroachment Policy). That application has subsequently received a conditional approval for design review and will be progressing through the encroachment permit process. Some redesign, including reducing the size of the proposed stairway, will be required to meet Public Works conditions. A majority of the Town Council also supported the garage application as well, but acknowledged that approving that project would violate the Encroachment Policy. Council directed staff to return with potential revisions to the Policy for Council consideration. The Council indicated that it would decide the encroachment application after making an appropriate policy change. POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO POLICY The Council adopted the current Encroachment Policy on March 17, 2010 to address a long-term problem: the proliferation of permanent encroachments that effectively convert Town property to private use. The Encroachment Policy imposed significant restrictions on such encroachments, TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 4 ,U L5 establishing narrow criteria for encroachment permit approval. The 1897 Mar West application does not meet the existing criteria. Town staff's draft revisions to the policy would widen the criteria to reflect the Council's July 10th consensus. As understood by staff, that consensus dictated the following: 1) The revisions should apply to the current application, but be narrowly focused to apply only to similar situations; 2) Authorized encroachments should produce a substantial and material public safety benefit by improving a substandard safety-related public street condition, creating or upgrading street parking to meet current st4ndards of acceptability, and minimizing the extent of encroachment of a structural addition. Unusual Circumstances: In reviewing the physical context and characteristics of the pending application, staff found little to distinguish it from numerous similar situations where a steep slope forms a part of the public right-of-way abutting private property. However, the existing building that encroaches onto the right-of-way is a highly unusual and limiting circumstance throughout nearly all of Tiburon. The proposed revision capitalizes on this rare occurrence by expanding Section CA of the Encroachment Policy Resolution to allow additions to such pre- existing structures under certain circumstances. At present, Section CA of the Encroachment Policy allows permits for permanent encroachments to maintain, repair or replace previously lawfully-installed encroachments. If amended, Section CA would also authorize additions to prior lawfully-installed encroachments where the Town found sufficient public benefit. Public Benefit: Council members favoring the project indicated that the project would improve the 1897 Mar West Street situation in that the substandard safety-related public street conditions of narrowness and limited sight distance are combined with existing on-street parking that is a substandard distance from the center line of the roadway. There is also an unusually deep (25') portion of unused Mar West Street right-of-way abutting the subject parcel. These circumstances create a situation where the project could materially improve the existing conditions. For instance, an improved parking "cut out" along the street could provide a material public safety benefit by increasing the distance of parked cars from the centerline of the roadway, enhancing sight distance, and reducing centerline-crossing maneuvers. These could be substantial and material public safety benefits if properly designed and implemented. The maximum garage encroachment of five feet into the 25 feet of unused right-of way could be found by the Town Council to be "minimized". The project would also create a new "guest" parking space on the driveway apron leading to the garage addition. If the Council decides to modify Section CA of the Encroachment Policy as described above, it should also amend Section D.1 to allow the relative privatization of public property that would be occupied by the permitted additions, which is impermissible under the current policy. A draft Resolution amending the current Encroachment Policy is attached as Exhibit 1. All proposed revisions are on pp. 2-3 of that exhibit, with proposed new text double-underlined. THE CURRENT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS As discussed above, the draft revisions are motivated by the Council's support of the proposed encroachments. However, achieving the expected benefits is not as straightforward as it might appear. The Public Works Director has evaluated the site to estimate the extent of work necessary to create improved street parking along the street frontage in the vicinity of the project. With the currently proposed Barley Staircase, there is only space for a one-car cut-out between the proposed staircase and the McCullough entryway and garage addition. To create the cut-out, it is estimated that a retaining wall as high as 11 feet must be constructed. If designed and built along with the Barley and McCullough proposed improvements, the cut-out could be better integrated and conceivably less stark and massive. Another option would be to create a two-car cut-out, which is a more cost-efficient design since the earthwork is only marginally increased, if any, and the overall scale of the project would be no greater. However, it would more than likely require revising the Barley and McCullough plans to do so. Thus, while creating a cut-out would meet the criterion of public safety benefit, it is unlikely to be easily or inexpensively accomplished. REMAINING CONCERNS There is remaining concern on the part of Town staff as to the parking benefits purportedly gained by construction of the garage addition. The existing one-car garage is not currently used to park a vehicle, but instead serves as a storage, or possibly workshop, area. The owner stated at the July 20, 2011 meeting that the garage was not usable for parking because of its size. However, the proposed addition to the garage (see Sheet A2.1 of Exhibit 2) has exactly the same floor area as the existing garage, begging the question as to whether the enlarged structure would actually be used to park two vehicles or if the enlargement will simply allow one car to share the space with the existing storage area. It seems appropriate that if an existing encroachment is expanded for garage purposes that the structure be used for that purpose alone. If the proposed double garage is used for only one vehicle, and the additional curb cut for the new space removes one parking space from the street, there is no net gain of parking in the vicinity, although one car would be parked off the street rather than on it. It may be more appropriate to simply allow a modest increase in the size of the existing garage to allow it to be more suitable for parking, particularly if it is difficult to create or conclude there is a public safety benefit associated with this application. This seems feasible in that the owner has already indicated his intention to eliminate the wall between the existing garage and the addition. FUTURE STEPS If the Council decides to issue the requested encroachment permit for the proposed garage addition, the project would require design review approval and a variance from the Design Review Board for reducing the front yard setback to zero. The applicant would also need a building permit before beginning construction. Vov~ 1'r RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Hear and consider any public comment. 2. Consider adoption of revisions to the Encroachment Policy. 3. If appropriate, indicate conceptual approval of the McCullough Garage application (EP I I - 51), subject to a determination of conformance with the revised Policy, the imposition of reasonable conditions by Town staff, and securing of all necessary permits. EXHIBITS 1. Draft revisions to Town Council Resolution No. 16-2010 c' ,1 2. Letter from Dellie and Doug Woodring, dated August 1, 2011 3. Application drawings for the McCullough Garage project Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Director of Community Development Nicholas Nguyen, Director of Public Works Ann Danforth, Town Attorney S: WministrationlTown CouncibStaff Reports 12011 L4ugust 23 drafts Mar West Street Encroachment Permits report2doc RESOLUTION NO. XX-2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING RESOLUTION 16-2010 THAT ESTABLISHED A POLICY REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS PURSUANT TO TITLE V. CHAPTER 19 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, on March 16, 2010, the Town Council adopted Resolution 16-2010 establishing a policy regarding the issuance of encroachment permits pursuant to Title V, Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Town Council now desires to amend the policy; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held public meetings on this matter on July y 20, 2011 and August 23, 2011 and has heard and considered any public testimony and correspondence; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby declare Resolution 16-2010 to be superseded by this Resolution for purposes of prospective review and action on applications for encroachment permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby amend in its entirety the general policy with respect to encroachment permits issued pursuant to Title V, Chapter 19 (Encroachments) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, to read as follows: A. Definitions For the purposes of this Resolution, the meaning of words and phrases, including without limitation, Town streets, street right-of-ways, Town-owned land and other Town interests in real property (including easements), shall be as set forth or used in Title V, Chapter 19, of the Tiburon Municipal Code. B. General Provisions The Town shall have discretion to revoke any encroachment permit at any time. No encroachment permit shall grant any private property owner a permanent right to perform work in or use the area subject to the encroachment permit. The Town may, in its discretion, grant an encroachment permit allowing access from private property to the public right-of-way, provided that the Town shall condition any such encroachment permit as it deems appropriate to manage or enhance the public right-of-way. The Town is not responsible for the cost of altering, Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 EXHIBIT NO. modifying, or removing any such encroachment if it deems such alteration, modification, or removal is warranted. C. Allowable Purposes For the following purposes, and only if the Town finds that the encroachment will serve public safety or welfare, the Town may issue encroachment permits for work within, upon, or beneath Town streets, street right-of-ways, and other Town interests in real property (including easements). Said permits shall contain conditions that shall include, without limitation, revocation at the Town's discretion. 1. To allow access to private property for entry/egress purposes. 2. To allow applicants to install, build or replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters and curb cuts. 3. To allow applicants to install, maintain, or replace landscaping, within the parameters of this policy. 4. To allow applicants to maintain, repair or replace previously lawfully-installed encroachments. A structural addition to a lawfully-installed existing encroaching structure may be authorized when the Town finds all of the following: a) substantial and material public safety benefit will result; b) a substandard safety-related public street condition (such as inadequate width or sight distance) in the project's public street frontage will be made standard or significantly improved; c) publicly-available street parking will be created or upgraded to meet current standards of acceptability; and dl the physical extent of the new encroachment caused by the structural addition is minimized. 5. To accommodate required parking where the Town finds that (a) the applicant cannot feasibly locate such parking on private property; or (b) the public safety or welfare is better served by allowing such parking to encroach. 6. To allow applicants the opportunity to secure approval for existing encroachments that the applicant cannot prove were lawfully installed and that are consistent with this policy and Title V, Chapter 19 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 7. To allow applicants to drain their properties of storm water in a controlled fashion acceptable to the Town Engineer. 8. To allow utility companies to perform necessary work. 9. To allow Town contractors and/or service providers to perform authorized work. 10. To allow community groups to perform authorized work, either using volunteers or contractors. 11. To allow applicants to position a debris box or portable moving box for temporary construction, storage or moving purposes, where such placement will not unreasonably impede traffic circulation and pedestrian safety or otherwise be detrimental to public safety or welfare. 12. To allow a limited and controlled amount of equipment and material associated with permitted building construction activity. 13. To allow permitted special events with civic purpose and benefit. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 2 14. To allow applicants temporary relief from unusually severe topographic or other physical circumstances which create practical hardships to the creation of proper access to or improvement of private property in the absence of the encroachment. 15. To allow control of invasive or fire-prone plants, for fire prevention or other purposes of public benefit. D. Impermissible Purposes Encroachment permits for work within, upon, or beneath Town streets, street right-of-ways, and other Town interests in real property (including easements) should not be issued in the following instances: 1. Encroachments for the purpose of, or having the practical effect of, privatizing the affected area for the exclusive use or benefit of one or a limited number of individual owners in lieu of the general public, except as may be authorized for pre-existing lawful encroachments under Section C.4 above. 2. Encroachments that would block, impede, or discourage public use or access over an area determined by the Town Engineer to be appropriate and suitable for public use or access either at present or in the foreseeable future. 3. Encroachments that in the judgment of the Town Engineer are not necessary or appropriate to serve one of the allowable purposes listed in Section C above. E. Duration. Encroachment permits shall contain conditions of approval to restrict the duration of the encroachment to a reasonable time necessary to accomplish the purpose thereof. 1. Except where the Town grants the permit pursuant to Sections C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, C.6 or C.7, above, or as provided in E.2, the Town will allow only temporary encroachments. 2. Notwithstanding Section E.1, the Town shall have discretion to issue a permit for a long- term encroachment if it finds that the encroachment is necessary for public safety reasons or that the encroaching improvement will have a long-term public benefit commensurate with the private benefit to the permit holder. 3. The conditions of approval for any permit for a long-term encroachment shall include, without limitation, the following conditions of approval: a. By acceptance of the permit and construction of the improvement or performance of the work, the permittee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the Town harmless from any claims, losses, litigation or other liabilities that may arise from the permittee's performance of the work or construction and maintenance of said improvement. b. The permittee shall execute a Memorandum of Encroachment, or similar written agreement to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney, record it in the County of Marin's Recorder's Office and provide the Town Engineer with a conformed copy of the recorded Memorandum. If the subject project requires a building permit, the Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 4--12011 permittee must record the executed Memorandum of Encroachment before the Town issues said building permit. For all other projects, permittee must record the executed Memorandum of Encroachment before the permittee enters onto the Town's property to perform work pursuant to the encroachment permit. c. The Memorandum of Encroachment shall describe the improvement that is subject to the encroachment permit and shall contain the following advisory notice: The encroachment permit does not grant the owner of the encroaching improvement any permanent rights. The Town has discretion to revoke the encroachment permit at any time. In the event that the Town revokes the encroachment permit, the owner of the encroaching improvement must promptly remove the encroachment. The Town is not responsible for the cost of altering, modifying, or removing any such encroachment. E. Fee Waivers The Town Council hereby authorizes the Town Engineer to waive application and/or processing fees, in whole or in part, for certain encroachment permits in the circumstances listed below. 1. Where the applicant is a non-profit corporation or one or more citizens seeking permission to perform work for the benefit of the public, the Town Engineer may waive fees to an extent commensurate with the public benefit. 2. Where the applicant is a contractor performing work for the Town, the Town Engineer may waive the fee in its entirety. 3. When permits are deemed, at the discretion of the Town Engineer, in support of the public benefit. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on , 2011, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JEFF SLAVITZ, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CRANE IACOPI, TOWN CLERK S: IMministrationlTown CouncillStaffReportsl20l ]14ugust 23 draflsTncroachment Permit Policy amendments reso drafl.doc Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. XX-2011 --1--12011 5 Page 1 of 1 Peggy Curran From: Califdell@aol.com Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 8:17 AM To: Mayor, Jeff Slavitz; Vice Mayor, Jim Fraser; rctib2@gmail.com; askalicenow@usa.net; emmett@vikingord.comD Cc: Peggy Curran; Dan Watrous; Scott Anderson Subject: Encroachment Policy Dear Town Council members: It is disturbing to read that you are considering an exception to the town's Encroachment Policy. Certainly the policy has merit on many levels and was put into place for the protection of town rights of way. Re: the proposed enclosed/enlarged garage project on Mar West St. Today we walked Mar West St., passing the property under consideration. The street is narrow at that point. There is already a garage, even tho' the owner chooses to use it for storage instead of for a vehicle. Perhaps it's not wide enough for today's large cars. However, the garage situation existed when the owner bought the property and he knew of any drawbacks to using it. Our police and fire departments have done an excellent job educating us to GET READY to be prepared for a disaster/emergency. For safety issues alone, there should not be an enclosed structure at street level on town rights of way. Were the west(south?) side of Mar West St. slide/shift or crumble in the event of an earthquake, it would most likley end up in the condominium parking lot. Then it would be very questionable if ANY 4 wheeled vehicle, emergency or otherwise, could navigate that section of Mar West St. There is no doubt that if this one exception were granted, other requests would follow. We hope that you will consider potential safety issues for the whole neighborhood and will follow the advice of town staff. Dellie and Doug Woodring 1912 Mar West St. EXHIBIT NO.~ 8/17/2011